Doubling or quadrupling Mumbai’s FSI will only increase its massive street crowding
Indian cities have evolved over centuries, and in general do not have the grand layouts and leafy avenues of many of their more recent western counterparts. New Delhi is an exception, but then its layout is a western imposition and has nothing to do with the way old Delhi developed, or indeed any other city in India barring a few more recent exceptions.
Building codes
In every city, buildings are meant to conform to a set of building codes — informal earlier, now formalised. These codes are complex: buildings have to observe a minimum required front open space, possibly side and rear open spaces as well, with plinths often mandated to cover no more than a specified fraction of the plot area. The maximum number of floors is also often specified.
A post-World War II innovation from America introduced a new form of building control. This is called FSI (Floor Space Index) in India and FAR (Floor Area Ratio) everywhere else in the world. It is the ratio of built-up area of all floors on the plot to the area of the plot itself. The FSI regulation is welcomed by architects. They like the freedom to reduce the footprint of the building and increase the number of floors, while still observing the FSI rule which sets the total built-up area allowable on each particular plot. But from the authorities’ point of view, the FSI specified has to be carefully managed to ensure that the extent of built-up floor space permitted in a locality does not exceed that locality’s infrastructure capacity, in regard to water supply and sewerage of course but, more importantly, in regard to transport and crowding on the streets.
The World Bank has been relentlessly complaining that Indian cities are not optimally using their land. They particularly pick Mumbai to make this case and point out that the city’s irrational building rules impede good economic use of real estate. Alain Bertaud, in particular, a consultant to the World Bank, is vehement that FSI levels in Mumbai are too low and need to be immediately and drastically increased. Once this happens, it will become a model for the rest of the country. To underline its argument, the World Bank presents a bald comparison of FSI across international cities, which is both meaningless and misleading. It is like comparing individuals’ weights without considering their heights or the societies they live in. The policy recommendations that emerge can be both dangerous and damaging for the city.
Table 1 has the FSI values for one of the most crowded residential localities in Manhattan, Community District 8, known as the Upper East Side, compared with Mumbai’s C Ward, one of Mumbai’s densest areas:
On the strength of comparisons like this, Mumbai’s FSI has been portrayed as undesirably low and pushed up to 4, which is the current upper limit, except in the case of hotels, educational institutions, hospitals and the like where the limit can be much higher.
Indoor crowding
But there is a major factor missing in this World Bank’s comparison of FSI. This is that cities are at different levels of economic development, inhabited with individuals occupying, on average, different extents of floor space. Living is simply more crowded in some places, and less crowded in others. Table 2 is a comparison of what we might call indoor crowding.
It highlights staggering differences: Manhattan, at 64 sq.m per person, has six times more residential floor space than someone in Mumbai’s C Ward, and Manhattan has over five times as much floor space per job. With such extravagant use, no wonder Manhattan needs a much larger FSI.
Buildable area
A second factor that is missing in comparing cities is the extent of buildable area: in other words, the proportion of buildable plots to street area. FSI applies only to buildable plots. In Manhattan’s CD-5 the Plot Factor (plot area / street area) is 1.7, which means 37 per cent of the area is under roads and only 65 per cent is available for construction (65/37 = 1.7). In Mumbai’s C Ward, the area under roads is less and the area available for construction is higher — 71 per cent buildable, 29 per cent streets (making for a Plot Factor of 2.4).
What must be factored into any debate on FSI is street crowding. This is an important index which gives an idea of how many occupants live within a given street area. It is the product of the number of residents per unit of floor area, the Plot Factor and FSI. Despite the higher FSI in Manhattan’s CD-8 (three times that of Mumbai’s C Ward), the street crowding is only 2,190 persons per hectare, whereas Mumbai’s C ward even with its lower FSI has 4,690 persons per hectare:
Mumbai’s C Ward already has its streets more than twice as crowded as Manhattan’s Upper East Side (see Table 3). Any doubling or quadrupling of FSI in Mumbai’s C Ward, as is being currently debated under prodding by the World Bank, will only double or quadruple its already massive street crowding to levels so far not seen anywhere in the world.
We have recently witnessed this in a small way in Mumbai’s suburbs. In October 1997, there was a sudden relaxation and FSI could be increased from 1 to 2 in the western suburbs, using Transferable Development Rights. Everyone experienced the sudden increase in traffic volumes, a new and infuriating congestion arising from a doubling of traffic which could not be explained by the slow rise in car ownership, and was much more closely related to the increase in building volumes.
The World Bank’s comparison of international FSI values is thus simplistic in the extreme and seriously misleading, because it ignores the other equally relevant parameters of indoor crowding and Plot Factor. Pressing for a major upward revision of FSI without a corresponding improvement in infrastructure, particularly transport to deal with crowding, is logically indefensible. It promises something it cannot deliver, an improvement in the quality of life. For the poor, and the vast majority of citizens, it will result in a worsening of living conditions, particularly travelling conditions. But worst of all, it is a red herring. It distracts us from the central problem, which is that adding to the city’s land area by establishing new transport arteries is being invariably and unaccountably delayed. There is also a deliberate companion policy of withholding land from the market by one means or another. How to keep land in short supply is thus the name of the game, by which fortunes can be made in short order, and never mind what happens to Mumbai or its citizens.
(Shirish B. Patel is a civil engineer by training and an Urban Planner by accident, experience and inclination. He was one of the three original authors of the idea of New Bombay, and for its first five years was in charge of planning, design and execution for the new city.)
Keywords: Mumbai, open space, Floor Space Index, Floor Area Ratio, urban planning
Why is everyone in power of any kind - from plot-level and up - hanging out their tongue for real-estate money?
And many of those 'activists' opposing the Narmada and other projects are still ignorant about this issue.
It makes sense to build vertically but it probably would not decrease population density as more people pour in the city. Environment can benefit if good regulations are implemented...finally, considering the complexities of remodeling an existing city and our track record, it's improbable that public transport and traffic-related issues would be addressed by just by increasing the FSI. Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me!
If India wants to become a developed country and an economic power, it has to address its infrastructure. Infrastructure means roads, water supply, energy supply, hospitals, schools, open spaces like parks, play grounds, swimming pools, even golf courses. It means that a lot of space has to be allocated for public purpose. In Mumbai, how can such a thing be achieved? It hardly has any public spaces. Roads do not have footpaths (or sidewalks in US) that are wide enough for the population. In short, it is too congested. The issue is not Mumbai per se. It is the lack of infrastructure in other parts of the country. Transport, communication infrastructures are supposed to allow business to be transacted from far away. But, when there are 12 hour power cuts, and unreliable communication infrastructure, how can a serious player choose a Tier-2 city instead of a metro. Our country should focus on getting people out of its cities by an equitable infrastructure development.
Naveen's point is well taken. An excellent public transport as well as all other basics of
water, sewage, waste disposal, health clinics, schools, fine arts facilities and green spaces
such as the central park in New York will enhance the urban living and actually can cut down
congestion. FSI applied wisely together with safety requirements concerning fire, flood
protection as well as energy efficiency can create affordable housing for the millions who live
and work in a mega city. What is needed is an overarching vision instead of leaving matters
in the hands of vested interests of land and building speculators and political expediency.
Article was very informative regarding the parameters which are involved while checking a city's FSI.
Writer mentioned about higher FSI in Manhattan compared to Mumbai, I would like to add here that Mumbai has 4,690 persons living per hectare compared to 2,190 per hectare in Manhattan, Moreover Mumbai has plot factor of 2.4 with only 29 percent area available as a road against 37 percent available in Manhattan, which makes an obvious outcome about Mumbai streets being more crowded than its competitor mentioned here.
The author's last point regarding deliberate short-supply of land is the
most important point. It should have been the first point.
The article makes a clear argument about per capita street space to
FSI. I also wanted to point out that based on the development control
regulations in many cities like Chennai, Surat etc, small plots are
not able to achieve the allowable FSI itself. Besides higher FSI as
rightly pointed out will not only expose the lack of public
infrastructure but also become prone to urban catastrophe like floods,
water issues..
All along the public transport corridors the city governments have
already given provision for higher FSI to feed the transport network
without considering the excess electrical and civic infrastructure
loads...
By constructing higher you might still not get trully affordable
houses becaus e as you go higher the construction cost increases.
This article makes a strange argument. So we should take over farms after farms and expand willy nilly in all directions? Just look at what has happened to Bangalore. How many more roads and increased infrastructure do you need then? What about the distances travelled using fuel? In fact, if you develop cities upwards and leave the surrondings alone, we retain the greenery and farmlands and forest surrounding it. The number of people moving to cities only increasing, better to keep the cities taller and forests and farms surrounding it intact. Build excellent public transit within the city so we dont have to worry about traffic jams. In fact, things being in close proximity, will reduce time wasted in transit.
I truly agree with Mr. Patel in his analysis on the implications of increasing the FSI. I thank him for enabling us to understand the true impact of taking decisions on regulation of FSI in cities like Mumbai or any other city of India. However, if we really need to grow as a economy and keep up the pace to meet the demands of the ever-increasing population, there is a need of FSI regulation. But such decisions should be taken only after ensuring adequate infrastructure support. The decision makers should keep in mind the circumstances that would prevail 50 years from now to plan strategically on the infrastructure and implement those plans efficiently. There should be a robust private-public partnership for the development with appropriate deadlines the violations of which should call for a heavy penalty.
There is a need to do balancing act by identifying multiple ownerships,occupancy of built up spaces and parameters like these to be able to understand the real picture to quantify the fact that imbalance of occupant load of builtup spaces is happening in indian cities.This is impacting the infrastructure availability leading to urban issues widely discussed. With infractructure capacities reaching of saturation limits in our cities occupant load balancing is the only way to over come the situation , which calls for intervention at masterplan level with land use changes.
Most of the Indian cities developed in an informal manner without proper planning and control. Recently the Indian cities and towns have witnessed tremendous growth in population and area.Now all the cities/towns have formalized set of building codes and regulators. But much of the construction activities(i.e. residential and commercial) continue to be in violation of rules, regulations and building codes. One of the reasons cited is the low floor space (FSI). When a cities population grows, the additional population to an extent can be accommodated in the existing residential areas, which require vertical development. That is, allowing multi storied
residential units. It requires relaxation in the existing FSI limit, i.e. hiking the total built up area allowable on each particular plot. The Municipal authories/ city planning and controlling authorities , however, have to augment infrastructural facilities before raising the FSI limit.
High rise residences will deteriorate intellect and humane traits in future generations.
The current adults were brought up in villages and low rise residences with plenty of space and interaction with society. They moved into sky scrapers only in later part of their life.
The children growing up in sky scrapers, whose world is limited to school, television, computer and restaurants will not be able to create and nurture another generation.
High FSI/FAR or High density population makes good business for builders and corporates. Builders can unlock the real estate value and businesses get more revenue at low operating cost.
But for the issues we face in Indian society, low FSI/FAR is critical for many reason. A few are children's need for space, public transportation, disaster management, policing, crime levels, maintaining traditions and celebrations, natural resources, waste management, migration to cities etc.
In my humble opinion, the writer has put the cart before the horse. The higher density per built up area in Mumbai, as pointed out by the writer, is not a cause but the effect of chronic low FSI restriction in Mumbai. A low FSI would mean low built up area and hence a higher density. Hence, a higher density should not be pointed out as a factor for FSI planning in this case.
However, I do agree that FSI is very closely coupled with the road, water, sewage and electricity infrastructure and hence FSI restrictions should be planned keeping that in mind.
Lack of adequate transportation planning is not an excuse to not allow
higher FSI. Manhattan has excellent public transport and sewerage
facilities. FSI in Mumbai should be increased and in a commensurate
manner, so should taxes on that, so that it can fund public
infrastructure. Our so called "public intellectuals" and "urban
planners" are stuck in the license-raj. Outdated thinking.
This relentless construction spree would only hasten the detrioration
of the city. Skyscrapeprs everywhere with the liberalisation of FSI,
lack of civic facilities and decline in police levels. All the
happenings show one sure possibility. The sinking of the city. We do
not seem to be bothered about nthe future ggenerations and the city.
Monsoon failing ahs already aggravated the woes of the city. The
unholy alliance between minsitersp-plliticains-civil servants to the
builders lobby should end. This was openly pointed out by a very
senior civil servant sn IAS-who retired a dozen years bsck.
Traffic is definitely an issue in Bombay, but real estate prices are an even bigger problem. The lack of land and tight building restrictions have resulted in such a skewed income-to-house price ratio, most people including those in the middle class are finding it impossible to afford a house. Ofcourse, rotten governance adds to the problem but higher FSI will atleast hopefully allow for a raft of new affordable houses to come onto the market. In an ideal world we would improve surrounding infrastructure before increasing FSI, but this is India. Lets try to tackle one problem at a time. The concept of "it might cause another problem" does not justify stopping a sensible reform from going forward.
Valid point. In India, we often ignore the crowding factor in esclating building heights. Gurgaon is much more chaotic than Delhi because of population pressure. There is tremendous need to revisit our building code to make our cities spacious and aesthetically appealing.
good analysis.Well written article.Thanks Shirish B. Patel
Brilliant write-up. I for one was misguided, and used to think
increasing FSI would solve problems such as affordable homes for
everyone. Thanks for the article, now I clearly see that horizontal
development is more important than just constructing skyscrapers.
Please Email the Editor