Life of FSI: Case of Mumbai and Manhattan
For the sake of building controls, FSI – Floor Space Index, was introduced to ensure the space provided for every individual in relation to the infrastructure capacities. This FSI is different in different cities. Based on the socio-political, economic growth and cultural significance of the city the densities and the form of the urban space are identified. More the opportunity – more the density, more the density – more the movement, more the movement – more the efficiency and this efficiency will define the functional pattern of the city. The spatial character of various cities is different from each other. The virtual comparison of various cities does not apply in deciding the FSI of a city. The World Bank addresses the Indian Cities as a lack of optimal use of land. Here, the World Bank particularly compares Mumbai city to the Manhattan city densities. In the case of Manhattan (Floor Space – 55sqm/capita) the FSI is completely independent of the city Mumbai (Floor Space – 5sqm/capita) based on its usage and society. The FSI insisted by Alan Bertaud, is not applied equally to all the cities. It is really important to distinguish few factors on deciding the FSI of a city, one would be the economic development of a city, where various income levels of individuals would occupy different floor space called Indoor Crowding.
Another factor is the buildable area, that is the plot factor, which deals with the area of the plot resting on a street, this leading to the final factor of street crowding, where it deals with the number of people living in street and the amount of crowd in the street. Here, when we compare the street area of the cities like Manhattan and Mumbai, it is observed that the proportion of the total land area is almost similar to the total land area of the city Manhattan. The work areas are 13.6% in Manhattan and 24.3% in Mumbai, whereas the drastic difference was observed in the land for the amenities and open spaces of Manhattan as 27.6% and Mumbai as 6.7%. This comparison gives us a clear picture of what the cities structure is like and how would the FSI actually differs. It does not emphasise on retaining the same FSI regime of the city Mumbai. It only highlights the need for actually providing better floor spaces rather than increasing the indoor and street crowding than compromising on urban life. Improving the quality of life and providing better infrastructure are the important aspects related to deciding on the FSI of a city.
If we look into details of each factor and their relationship, it is observed to be – (SC = IC x FSI x PF).
Firstly the street crowding, where it highlights the importance of the individuals residing in a locality at a certain distance, the usage of the street at different timings and the amount of usage by various categories of people have to be identified. The space allocation for parking and arterial traffic has to be excluded while calculating the street area. The street crowding is different in different localities as there is a thin line of the difference between the transitional public and private spaces that are adjoined to the street crowding factor. So this transitional space crowding should be different from the street crowding. This is lower in Mumbai compared to Manhattan, even though it takes off a large amount of crowd through underground railways.
Whereas the indoor crowding of Mumbai is much higher compared to Manhattan. In Mumbai, the horizontal growth gets higher with the status of the locality. The poorer the locality the larger its plot density. Looking at all these parameters, if we try to see the sudden increase of Mumbai FSI to 4, which was given to the Dharavi, there would be no change in the indoor crowding or the plot area, we would definitely see a drastic change in the street crowding.
The article involves two interesting questions, one looking into the development sites be it the greenfield or brownfield, there can be a certain level of indoor and street crowding that could come up along with any choice of the plot density, the FSI remains unchanged, the livelihood of the locality differs to a larger extent which is not focused on improving the urban environment. The other question is what happens with the sudden rise in the locality. If we try to understand that with an increase in FSI, the number of families staying would not decrease rather would increase allowing the indoor crowding and street crowding.
The other way round, few of the families would improve their accommodation and get larger FSI where few would not afford to take the new FSI and move to extra floor area or just continue to stay the way they are. So on practical grounds, we would observe both the cases taking part in the same locality creating a mess. This mess is, in other words, called crowding has to be regulated through desired norms that would address each and every issue that occurs due to crowding and its components.
On a final note, as Mr. Shirish Patel has explained the consequences of raised FSI of two major cities, it has to be noted that raising FSI or going vertical is not the only option to deal with the urban complexities. The rental value of low-cost housing of the slums in Mumbai, is one major issue to be addressed, as here is where we find the rental values are so low that the tenants are considerably more profited to the landlords. If we see the inclusionary housing for the poor along with the bungalows and finally free housing for the poor in need.
All these major four factors put together if we try to interlink them with each other and could come up with efficient proposals of providing spaces and adding land to actually benefit the Mumbai localities which ultimately or directly connects to the crowding and congestion problems as a growing and improving public transit zone with released spaces for new developments.
The major aim of the regulatory policy is to control the spread of Mumbai by freezing new development, economic growth, and the provision of basic infrastructure. The constant improvement in the basic infrastructure actually helps in the growth of the cities. However, in the case of Mumbai, it is a bit complicated. This is because of the scarcity of land. Even in this space constraints, a larger chunk of land is occupied by the slums which prove the complexities of the urban space.
As of the less availability of land, very high real estate prices joined with low consumption of floor space lead to the very little amount of supply of developable land with free property rights. Mumbai even started Tradable Development Rights (TDR), where it talks about the exchange of FSI.
In some cities, with the increase in the development of infrastructure, the CBD increases with a decrease in population density. The FSI increases in terms of progressive increase time. This progressive FSI deals with two factors, one where this increases FSI leads to consumption of more floor space and others are restrained to the spatial expansion decreasing the population and transportation. Because of this in Mumbai, the value of FSI has risen up to an extent where the Government had tapped the value of the private real estate.
As a result, land-use efficiency has been crushed leading to inefficient use of land with respect to property rights. With this most of the cities in India are suffering from the scarcity of efficient land resources for a particular use. The TDR increase of FSI and exchange is not new in Mumbai has been exceptional leading to rice increase blaming to be the market failure. Poor households do not benefit through this where the high-income group housing would keep increasing its floor space reducing the density and destructing the compact efficiency of the urban form. As rent control restricts redevelopment. On the major argument of restricting FSI in Mumbai, is the lack of basic infrastructure which could not afford higher densities. The major body of infrastructure which is underdeveloped is the road system which makes it difficult to quickly access to the urban extent.
So it is to be understood that providing higher FSI does not resolve the space constraints of the city rather leaving behind the other combined factors that have to be given a greater focus.
There can be few alternatives to the scenario of increasing FSI –
· Retaining the FSI,
· Increase in FSI in the municipal limits,
Both the cases, it still limits the scope of balancing the basic need of the urban environment. as the density of a city increases only if new land developments occur. The city’s average density has nothing to do with the FSI, as the increase in floor space does not necessarily mean inviting new residents and also by providing greater FSI with the infrastructure compatibility is also observed. This new FSI is not compatible with the densities and their basic need for the amenities.
So in this case, it is likely observed that the increase in FSI has to rest until the basic infrastructure need is identified and available to the proposing presumed FSI. The infrastructure should be fitted to the larger areas of the planned and transparent phase of FSI.
The immutable FSI and immutable infrastructure results in contraction of the low-income groups by inviting new housing joint as Sidewalks.
Hence, the relation between the density and the developmental needs with support infrastructure has to be understood carefully. Meeting the present needs and releasing space creating new land resources would actually help out the present scenario rather than thinking of the haphazard increase in FSI and then regulation them through policies and norms and later trying to transfer the FSI for a small-time benefit which would lead nowhere.