Who Hates A Taller Mumbai?

In Mumbai, India's financial capital, population density is much above the world average. Such high densities are also responsible for making urban areas highly productive. However, to be as productive as a city can be, infrastructure and housing should rise to manage the high density levels. Much of Indian cities' failure can be attributed to their inability to build enough infrastructure and housing in the right place, at the right time.

Coming back to Mumbai, the overriding motive of urban planning in the city has been lowering density in central areas. The purpose that this served was to force nearly half the city's population to live in slums like Dharavi.

The Dharavi example

The Dharavi redevelopment project recently received the final stamp of approval. The regulated floor area ratio (FAR) for the area will be raised to 4. FAR is the ratio of the floor area constructed to the area of the plot on which the building stands. For example, if the FAR is 2, a 2,000-square-foot building can be constructed on a 1,000-sq-ft plot. If the FAR is 3, a 3,000-sq-ft building can be constructed on a 1,000-sq-ft plot, and so on. Typically, Mumbai's central areas have an FAR of 1.33. This means that Dharavi will soon have an FAR thrice as much as most of South Mumbai.

The redevelopment project is expected to involve the construction of 1,80,000 houses. Of these, 40,000 units will be sold in the open market, 55,000 units will be used to rehabilitate existing residents, and 13,000 units will be sold in the affordable segment. According to the redevelopment plan, Dharavi will soon have the necessary infrastructure. Even though it is not clear how redevelopment is likely to take place, the Maharashtra Housing and Urban Development Authority has shortlisted 16 real estate developers for the largest such project in the state.

What does this imply?

The government and urban planners already know that a higher FAR can allow developers to build additional flats on a plot, and give them away for free. Otherwise, developers will not be willing to give away tens of thousands of flats for free in some slum areas. So, it stands to reason that if the FAR is raised throughout Mumbai, housing will become far more affordable. In other words, urban planners and politicians already know how harmful building height restrictions are; it is the political consensus that is lacking.

On the other hand, raising the FAR in Dharavi has its downsides, too. When FAR is 4 in Dharavi and 1.33 in much of South Mumbai, this may lead to diversion of resources and floor space from central areas of the city to the slum. The point is not that FAR in Dharavi should not be raised; raising FAR in Dharavi should be part of a well-integrated plan to raise FAR across Mumbai.

However, it is not clear that the government recognises that it is impossible to rehabilitate slum dwellers without raising the FAR. The truth is that there are always very simple, but politically unpalatable solutions to much of the problems that our cities face. For example, take the view that cities should grow vertically to build greater floor space and more open spaces. As private citizens, we find this way too obvious. So, people build two-storeyed or three-storeyed houses in areas where land is scarce, to have more space within their houses – and elsewhere. As private citizens, even urban planners know that land is scarce, and that they should make the best of what they have. But as policy analysts they think there is something sinister about skyscrapers.

Why do people hate a taller Mumbai?

Obstruction of view: A possible reason is that if buildings are homogenously tall in a certain neighbourhood, an unusually tall building is likely to obstruct the view of people living in surrounding buildings. However, this does not mean that the government should stipulate high FAR in a certain neighbourhood and low in others. When the demand for floor space is high in a certain part of Mumbai, say, Malabar Hills, people are more likely to build taller buildings. As the incentive to build tall buildings will be high, uniformity will be achieved without any government intervention. Similarly, when the demand is low, buildings are likely to be uniformly short. Former World Bank researcher Alain Bertaud says: “Planners should be neutral on densities. There is no reason to encourage low densities and no more reason to encourage high densities. High densities happen because of demand. High-rise buildings are not necessarily equivalent to high densities. The densities in many Mumbai slums are much higher than in Malabar Hills.”

Environmental concerns: Tall buildings may have adverse environmental impact, say, in areas where there are coconut groves. However, Bertaud and other urban planners have repeatedly pointed out that this is not true of Mumbai. In the city, strict FSI regulations seem to have such motivations in no other place than the suburb of Gorai, where the residential FAR is 0.5. As Mumbai was built on a peninsula, the opposition to a high FAR is lower than in other cities. People prefer to live in upper floors in such cities. 

Infrastructure constraints: To support higher FSI levels, a city like Mumbai needs better infrastructure. So, this is an argument to improve Mumbai's infrastructure and not to prevent higher FSI. Economist Sanjeev Sanyal says: “They oppose high FAR on the assumption that Mumbai is too crowded. But they assume that new infrastructure cannot be built.” The truth is that if FSI is not raised, developers will have to occupy valuable farm land, or land in the periphery. The opposition to raising FAR and occupying valuable farm land often coexist among people. “But they do not see the contradiction.”

The fact is that no major city in the world has such stringent regulations. Such cities have managed high densities exceptionally well. To prove that Mumbai is a sole exception where such policies will not work, people who oppose taller buildings need better arguments.