Will Higher FAR Be A Burden On Infrastructure In Nagpur

Maharashtra government's urban development department has decided to raise floor area ratio in Nagpur. (FAR is the ratio of the area of a building to the area of the plot on which the building stands. By raising FARs, urban local authorities allow real estate developers to build taller buildings, or to build more floor space. For example, a three-storey building that occupies the whole plot is permissible, if the FAR is 3.) The urban development department has also decided to lower parking space requirements, allowing real estate developers more freedom. But many argue that this will have a negative impact on the quality of life and development in the city. They think that raising floor area ratios in Nagpur will increase the stress on infrastructure, leading to road congestion.  Is this true?

It is actually true that if there are more people, the burden on public infrastructure will be higher. If more people live in central areas of the city, road congestion and air pollution will be greater too, if they travel in cars. It is plausible that population density will rise if developers are allowed to build tall buildings, though need not necessarily happen. But there is no reason to assume that infrastructural growth should remain stagnant, while the population grows.

The urban development department wants to raise floor area ratios to allow Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) to raise funds. NMC and NIT are facing a shortage of funds. So, if urban local bodies can get access to more funds by raising floor area ratios, why is it difficult to improve the infrastructure, allowing the city to handle the rising population and traffic congestion?

This is not to deny that raising FARs to allow urban local bodies to raise funds is problematic. In Indian cities, FARs are sometimes raised not to meet the growing demand for housing and office space, but for raising the revenues of municipal corporations. But, if FARs are raised primarily for this purpose, these are likely to be raised in areas where the infrastructure is in a poor condition. In areas where infrastructure is in a poor condition, population density is not likely to be very high. FARs should ideally be raised to allow the supply of residential and office space to rise enough meet the demand. Raising FARs in areas where infrastructure is poor and population density is low will defeat the purpose.

Nevertheless, there is no reason why urban local bodies cannot upgrade infrastructure. Infrastructure is not static. Just as residential and commercial development happens in a locality, infrastructure can improve, too. Often residential and commercial development outpace infrastructural growth because the growth of the private sector tends to outpace the growth of the public sector.

Even though it is possible that taller buildings will increase crowding and road congestion in roads, this will certainly reduce the crowding inside buildings. For example, crowding inside buildings will be greater when everyone crams together into a single floor, as against the same number of people spread throughout a building of 10 floors. So, it is not clear that raising FARs will increase crowding in all senses. Moreover, it is not clear that population density will rise if FARs are raised. In Mumbai, for example, the highest density is in areas like Kamathipura where buildings are uniformly low rise. Buildings are much taller in all developed countries of the world. But this has not led to greater crowding even though some of these cities are very dense, too. So, imagined disasters are not a reason to prevent FARs from rising in Indian cities.