It was high monsoon season. Rain-dodging families, teenagers and the elderly were in search of a retreat: a place to gather, stroll and dig into their lunch tiffins away from the oppressive heat and humidity. As India’s leading builder of enclosed shopping malls, Mumbai granted refuge to its citizens in the form of air-conditioned glass and steel retail oases. Plagued by high vacancy and low purchasing rates, Mumbai’s new breed of shopping malls had become a neighborhood stomping ground for a city with a serious dearth of open public space and a mean appetite for public spectacle.

In 2008, I spent eight weeks in Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune visiting over 20 newly built shopping malls. Beyond witnessing global brands competing to cozy up to the emerging middle class and developers enacting neoliberal hallucinations to become Shanghai, I was interested in seeing how people used malls for everyday purposes other than shopping. Particularly in Mumbai, a city of 18 million residents with less than one square meter per person of open public space, were shopping malls a remedy for overcrowding? Were the malls becoming a second “nature,” an indoor city of clean air, benches and space to stroll?

In this photo essay of shopping malls – between 90,000 to 1.2 million square feet in size and one to eight years in age – I try to capture moments of non-consumption, in which people are appropriating the resources of retail to enhance their quality of life and have a little fun. I noticed how culture was constantly winning over consumption. Despite aggressive visual branding and explicit inducements to pursue shopping fantasies, reality ruled the mall. People were using malls to go for walks, meet up with lovers, or shrug off their slippers and settle in for a nap. In addition to reclining on the benches and ledges of mall entrances and atria, friends catching up or checking their phones would occupy the displays of living rooms and televisions. Rather than remain vigilant of shoplifters, security guards were poised at the bottom and top of escalators: ushering up and off giddy grown-ups venturing on their first rides on mechanical stairs. And to affordably enjoy the ambiance of the food court, large families or groups of friends would purchase a single soda or piece of pizza to earn them the right to a table, and then fill the rest of the meal with food from their own set of tiffins.

Overall, the building’s amenities were themselves the objects of entertainment and exploration. Indian consumers were happy to dip their toes in the waters of Western retail, testing the temperature of what new shopping environments had to offer, without committing to major purchases. In his analysis of the boom in shopping mall construction, Raju Bist confirms that the majority of mall goers are spectators not shoppers: ‘Some of the visitors are serious shoppers, attracted by the convenience of buying a wide variety of goods under one roof at economical prices. But most are partaking of new experiences – gawking at luxury goods, cooling off in air-conditioned comfort and enjoying an ambiance seen only in Hollywood movies up until now’ (2004). Some shopping malls counteracted this practice by instating strict admittance policies, granting entrance only to shoppers who could show a credit card or a mobile phone to security as a way of proving their status as potential consumers. Although these polices were scraped after customer complaints, there remains a tension between mall owners eager to turn a profit and a public more interested in riding the escalators. If Indian consumers are willing to spend time, but not money at shopping malls, can there be a balance struck between public space and private gains? And if not, and malls continue to provide the public with vital open, recreational space they crave, could the city step in to subsidize overhead costs? Perhaps a private-public partnership is what’s in store next monsoon season.

See more photos from shopping malls in Bangalore and Mumbai here.

Sources:

Bist R. (2004). ‘The great Indian mall boom,’ Asia Times.

Thirani N. (2012). ‘India’s Real Estate Developers Predict New Construction Boom,’ The New York Times, December 11.

Increasing FSI will also curb the highly volatile TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) market which is presently controlled by few developers. At present, only projects in the island city enjoy an FSI of 1.33. In the suburbs, it is 1; for additional FSI, developers have to buy TDR, mostly sold at a premium. There has been a 100% rise in property prices in Mumbai in recent years, primarily because of the high cost of TDR. If a builder buys TDR at Rs 5,000 per sq ft, he will have to add another Rs 5,000 per sq ft towards the cost of land and construction. This forces him to sell flats at Rs 12,000 per sq ft even in a distant suburb. Once there is a decision to increase FSI, there would be less dependency of TDRs to develop housing projects in Mumbai

However, many activists and policy makers caution that increasing FSI will only worsen the quality of life in Mumbai due to crumbling infrastructure. They opined if FSI is higher in the other developed or developing economies, it is because the cities in those economies possess superior infrastructure, including better public transport and open spaces. In my opinion with higher FSI there should be better development plans for quality infrastructure to handle increasing FSI.

With burgeoning population Mumbai not only needs luxury housing but also low-income, middle –income and affordable housing solutions and one way to do that is to make better use of the existing land with a higher FSI. Yet, while increasing FSI is a welcome approach but it should be done in such a way that it adds to the quality of life of a people in Mumbai. The state must look at improving the city’s infrastructure so that Mumbai can rank as one of the best cities in the world.

This post is part of the “Great FSI Debate “. What’s your view? Submit your opinion to info@theurbanvision.com along with a bio & pic.

photo credit: rajkumar1220

This Shanghai fascination has been around for a while. We have heard the same FAR argument for Mumbai some years back, which drew some very interesting responses from urbanists. The PGA (Public Ground Area), BUA (Built-up Area per capita) and the Net/Gross Density were some of the factors used to analyse the interrelationships between urban densities and the quality of life (See Shirish B Patel). But the major factor emerging in the case of Delhi, as correctly pointed out by many architects and planners, are the urban infrastructure services like power, water, transportation and the likes. While all these factors are important decision making factors on the vertical growth question, there is one other perspective which might help make more sense of what the city is currently and what is best for it to become what it has to.

Consider this illustration by Alain Bertaud.

The City-Form Perspective

Delhi currently has a population of around 18.2 Million spread over an area of 700/SqKm at a density of 25, 940 people/SqKm. While our city of fascination, Shanghai has a density of 30,315 people/SqKm which it achieves with an FAR of 13 as compared to 1.2 in Delhi.

In 2021, Delhi is expected to have a population of 22 Million spread over an area of 980SqKm at a density of 22,500/SqKm. This area would be comparable to that of London which has a density of 6,240 people/SqKm!

If seen from the perspective of an existing city form, and city-form alone, the status of Delhi isn’t anywhere remotely comparable to that of Shanghai (though in terms of urban density it is). Delhi’s city-form seems to be more on par with that of London, Berlin or New York (though not in terms of urban densities). If one is able to follow my line of facts, what we see here is a mismatch between a city-form and an urban density. And any decision on the growth of such a situation has to first accept this essential condition because ‘a city’s spatial structure significantly reduces its range of development options.’

A high-density low-rise built-up situation cannot accommodate a uniform FAR increase. It will only densify the city beyond any acceptable limit of health, freedom or opportunity. High Density in small area is good. Low density in small area is acceptable. High Density in large area is not. Low Density is large area is bad.

If the argument is for increasing the housing stock, then any planner living with the current times would agree that the aim should be to increase the housing options and not just the FAR. The problem with such government ‘decrees’ is that, they ultimately tend to be executed in letter than in spirit. If one were really serious about the growth of Delhi, then there are many more sensible solutions than simply increasing the FAR.

What the city needs is a better quality of life, a range of housing options, an efficient public transportation, a sustainable and environment friendly network of urban services, and of course sincere governance. Excepting the last aspect, i believe the solution to all lies in design and technology. My focus here is to demonstrate how design can offer solutions which the government is seeking in regulation alone.

The idea of “Blending Density” represents a critical counterpoint to the FAR syndrome. Since it advocates for a heterogeneous distribution of buildings on a lot or block basis, it replaces the homogeneity of FAR-based development with a calculated massing diversity that responds to and evolves from the desired character of its physical context. For instance, when aiming to ‘revive old commercial areas’ a uniform increase of FAR for the existing sub-parcels within a block would result in expected chaos. While the same target FAR, if it is achieved through an intelligent redistribution of the sub-parcels through consensus will result not only in an efficient use of land but also tuned to a more desirable urban form. This sort of redevelopment model also gives opportunities to the urban services which have never had a chance of upgradation due to implementation obstacles, which in turn makes them an obstacle to ‘growth’.

Indeed we have had a start (gone bad ultimately) in Hyderabad which does not specify an FAR, but just the maximum heights of buildings. This seems to be a far better regulation methodology than the conventional FAR application because it offers more control of the city-form. If such a regulation policy were supported by context based lot-by-lot design of neighbourhoods responding to their physical, historic and cultural context we would have had a far better Hyderabad than we have now. But somehow a design intent just doesn’t find a place in regulation and planning policies in Indian cities.

Urban Design is a very powerful tool which can give a manageable control over urban densities through form-based regulation, at the same time ensuring that the city gets what it needs at the time when it needs it. Simple land-use zoning has shown us that it can take decades for a city to understand that it is going in the wrong direction, while an urban design approach enables leaders to take informed decisions on the growth of a city.  In the words of Alain Bertaud, ‘the choice therefore is not whether the FAR should be brought in line with other large cities of the world, but how much and where should the FAR be increased and what other measures should be taken to support this increase.’  Indian cities cannot be regulated by letter anymore, they need to be regulated by context based form. Our cities today need a lot more than just zoning and regulation, they need design.

photo credit: ana_ge

The solutions need to address the average resident and not only the richest. This is not a compromise as successful cities around the world also are the lowest in economic disparity- it takes a cross-section of society from the service-class to investors to make a city successful and attractive. The solutions are clear and they need to considered in an integrated manner:

a.       Increase FSI: Low FSI is artificially pumping real-estate cost and increasing density. Mumbai lacks quality space and this is exacerbated by its shabby state of buildings. As a result, Mumbai commands one of the highest prices in the world, marginalizing most residents. Low FSI is artificially increasing density and simultaneously forcing the city to sprawl outwards- draining investment, talent, life, culture, diversity and affordability out of the city.

b.      Create more public space, including streets: Streets and open spaces- the public realm- is where city life plays out, where commerce happens, and where the personality of a city is established. Public space is a matter of quality of life, livability and commerce. Streets are not only arteries of movement but places to live, work and play. All this can be created in collaboration with private sector with the help of incentives.

c.       Increase land area: Satellite cities and towns should be strategically added (what happened to Navi-Mumbai?), which are connected by transit and designed as self-sufficient centers with mixed-uses.

d.      Move those Masses: The benefits of large cities are lost if people cannot move easily from one part to another- such large cities can end up as insulated small towns stuck to each other (even now you almost need a visa to go to Town). A connected city will allow movement of skill and capital, energizing its various neighbourhoods and centers. Transportation solutions need to be efficient, comprehensive, and affordable. Land limitation in Mumbai dictates that a major component of the transportation equation will be an expanded train/ subway network. Roads are important as they carry a cross-section of modes including pedestrians, cyclists, autos, taxis, trucks and buses (cars are not an important part of the solution). Bottle necks should be minimized (its amazing how Khar subway bottleneck holds Bandra at ransom) and east-west connectivity improved.

e. House those Masses: 60% of Mumbai lives in informal housing- also carelessly branded as slums. Most times these houses are made with as much love, effort and taste- and house residents who hard-earn a living with as much a zest for life. The residents include domestic workers, auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers, shopkeepers, policemen and school kids and these areas host commercial activities from recycling to retail to light-industry. This informal housing is responsible for supporting Mumbai’s quality of life. It is a failure on the state’s part to not be able to house this resident majority. Legalizing settlements will reduce squatting and take pressure off the public realm. Living in one-story houses, however small, is a luxury in Mumbai and puts pressure on land. Slum redevelopment is a move in the right direction. Rather than treated as ghettos, new settlements/ redevelopments should be integrated into the community. Many current initiatives are oversimplified as providing 220 sf in the sky. Housing needs to be designed and provided in a manner that responds to the current advanced living patterns in these settlements- like shared kitchens, mothers overseeing kids playing on the streets while working, optimally sized streets and open spaces which are “watched” by houses, and flexible commercial spaces.

This post is part of the “Great FSI Debate “. What’s your view? Submit your opinion to info@theurbanvision.com along with a bio & pic.

Floor Space Index is a tool for optimum ‘land consumption’ and ‘building density’. There is an on-going discussion about vertical cities and increasing FSI three or four times in India cities, which are primarily cities ‘ground level cities’ till now. To do judicious and optimum use of land in the present day ‘constraint’ situations is understandable, but to view it in isolation and thereby just one and only solution for solving the urban problems of our cities is problematic.

The FSI debate fails to address some core issues such as density of people versus the density of built. By increasing FSI, for certain there is increase in the density of people, extra pressure on the infrastructure that now has to accommodate this new density, resultant loss of ‘greens’ – if the high densification is not managed properly and to add to the pool of issues- comes the very poor urban governance and management in Indian cities as of now.

Greater FSI is a point of discussion not just in Mumbai, but also in Delhi and Gurgaon. Delhi with its new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is at least in its plan first addressing the issue of infrastructure and thereby based on a good quality infrastructure that has the ability to absorb or soak more ‘density of people’ is debating the idea of increased FSI. But in case of cities like Gurgaon, which have failed in providing basic infrastructure, utilities, necessary lung spaces etc. to talk about FSI as a quick fix solution is neither feasible nor sustainable. Increasing FSI without addressing the issues of infrastructure and urban management will only result in a very poor ‘Quality of life’.

Discussion therefore should be around ‘Quality of life’ rather than jumping at one solution of FSI that can never ever work in isolation with its other urban players- so to speak – namely infrastructure, public and green spaces and a very good urban governance and management system.

This post is part of the “Great FSI Debate “. What’s your view? Submit your opinion to info@theurbanvision.com along with a bio & pic.

photo credit: ana_ge

The reason for the skewed population distribution and its consequent burden on existing
urban infrastructures is caused by lack of investment in the smaller towns. As we know
that there is considerably large population living in rural areas, the development of smaller
towns that are closer to these habitats would allow for a more balanced economic growth.
Generally, there has been a bias within urban studies against small towns, where the idea of
the ‘urban’ has always been seen to be ideally manifested in the big city. Large investments
in big cities have often been justified as they are perceived to be ‘engines’ of development
and growth. Even in cultural terms, the big city has always been glorified, as a space where
conditions of modernity come together to develop art and a more sophisticated form of
living. Yet, many scholars of cities still glamorize big cities and tend to influence the shape
of imaging urban futures. While in reality, not only are smaller towns more manageable,
they also have a more intimate relationship with their surrounding regions and more often
than not, these contiguities are what sustains their economies. A country such as India with
a significantly high rural population would do well to shift the focus of urban investments
to these smaller townships. With new communication and transport technologies, there is no
reason to believe that those spaces cannot also become important centres of art, culture and
commerce and help us transform our notions of emerging India.

photo credit: Unlisted Sightings

Live Highlights from the Indian budget for the urban infrastructure sector.

Vinayak Bharne is the Director of Design at Moule & Polyzoides in Los Angeles, one of the founding firms of the New Urbanism movement; and a joint faculty of urbanism and planning at the Sol Price School of Public Policy and the School of Architecture at the University of Southern California.

We conversed with him about his new book “The Emerging Asian City: Concomitant Urbanities & Urbanisms” (Routledge, 2012)

How would you describe your new book “The Emerging Asian City: Concomitant Urbanities & Urbanisms”?

The book is actually a collection of 24 essays by multidisciplinary scholars – planners, anthropologists, architects, academics, practitioners – that tries to capture a broad, all-encompassing phenomenological view of urban Asia today. It provokes a discussion on the sheer breadth and diversity of places, forces, processes, patterns, histories, legacies and destinies shaping Asian cities, and their complex and subtle inter-relationships.  It rereads Asia not as a series of different regions or identities – which is one way of reading it – but as a series of confluences – social, political, cultural – that intertwine all these identities: Colonialism; the assimilation of democracy; informal urbanisms; sudden cities; the embrace of Modernism – these are phenomena scattered throughout Asia in space and time, even though their specific guises may be different. Further, regions across Asia themselves have intertwined historic relationships with each other– the Persian influence in India, the spread of Buddhism from India to China to Japan etc. So this book argues for stepping back from the reductive attitude to oversimplify Asia and chop it into pieces, and appreciate it as a series of far more nuanced and enmeshed urban conditions that need to be read on their own terms.

How does the book capture the urbanization phenomenon happening in Asian Cities?

The book sees urban Asia as an evolving mosaic of myriad landscapes – some ancient palimpsests, others brand new; some rapidly changing, others relatively stagnant; some vast, others concentrated; similar landscapes appearing at different times in different places, some even suggest a cyclic emergence. To embrace this complexity, the book purposefully avoids a place-based or chronological structure, and is conversely framed on three contingent broad lenses:  Traditions, Tensions, and Transformations.

Traditions offers critical counter narratives to the modernity of Asian cities. The resilience of indigenous urbanisms, dilemmas of conservation around historic cores and monuments, grass-roots efforts and populist forces are all highlighted as contemporary pan-Asian phenomena that cannot be ignored.

Tensions reflects on the legacies of the original collisions and infusions of Western and Asian urbanisms. Colonialism and early Modernism are gauged as parallel phenomena grappling with an East-West dialectic whether by contention or will. Have these seemingly hegemonic places been assimilated, critiqued, or rejected by the generations that have followed?

Transformations  gleans into Asia’s new post-industrial and globalizing identities, weighing their intentions and aspirations against their price and promise. Are they little more than colossal Towers of Babel destined for catastrophe and collapse, or conscientious visions and experiments towards social, economic and cultural progress?

This tripartite framing creates a broad framework to examine urban Asia, enabling the identification of common themes, concerns, overlaps as well as contrasts that exist in different places at different times.

How are the Asian cities different from each other? What’s driving this difference?

There are obvious historical and cultural differences. But the one that intrigues me the most is how different Asian cities have reacted differently to many of the same forces that have shaped them. For instance, after independence from colonial powers, several Asian cities, at almost the same time went on a rampage of nation building. And brand new cities were built as emblems of their latent desires. But six decades later, Chandigarh is different, as is Islamabad, and Tehran. Why? This is what the book tries to discuss. Likewise rapid urbanization has been a cyclic phenomenon in Asia – Japan in the 70s, Hong Kong in the 80s, Kuala Lumpur in the 90’s and now Shanghai and Shenzhen. But are there different paradigms in these evolutions? This is what the book tries to trace. And somewhere in all this is also the important recognition that different Asian cities continuing to grow and emerge through different processes of administration and governance – Mumbai is being sustained by a certain socio-political engine that is different from Beijing, which is different in turn from Tehran or Riyadh in the ways in which urban development is regulated as well as empowered.  The point is that we cannot use generic, or for that matter, convenient Western lenses to understand the complexity of Asian cities. They each need to be taken seriously on their own terms.

How do you see Asian cities to be different from Western ones?

As some of the oldest cities in the world – far older than European and American ones – many Asian cities have become Janus-like constructs. Janus was the Roman God with two faces – one old and looking to the past; the other young and looking to the future. Where Asian cities become so intriguing is in this tension to hold on to seemingly anachronistic patterns on the on hand, but never stop aspiring to model themselves after the perceived image of a superior West, on the other. Further, as the book points out, Asian cities are grappling with forces that are intrinsically different from Western ones: The legacies of colonialism, the syndrome of megaprojects as a coming to terms with this turbulent past, the aftershocks of a rapid and sudden modernity – stark polarizations between rich and poor, legal and illegal etc. And then, Asian cities are phenomenologically urbanizing at a pace, and in patterns that the Western world has never conceived of – think of Hong Kong as a hyper Manhattan without a city grid. Or that Dubai grew in four decades from 58,000 to 1.5 million natives with an additional 5.1 million annual visitors. Or that the Bird’s Nest Stadium in Shanghai was allowed to break ground 8 months after it was commissioned (an environmental impact review alone would have taken more than twice as long in the United States.) Or that Tokyo’s cost of living is more than 50% higher than New York while the amount of private space per capita 66% lower; parks constitute merely 5% of its land surface in comparison to 30% in London.

But if you think about it, Asian cities are also going through the same problems of urbanization as Western ones: the debacles of single use zoning, FSI regulations, bureaucratic planning, autopian dominance, etc. So while we look at differences, we should also be looking at parallels. Why should Asian cities not aspire to a great public realm? Why should they not aspire to regulating responsible urban form? If Asia cities can emulate the worst examples of Western planning, they can also learn and apply the most progressive ones currently in place in West.

What is the role of informality in the Asian context?

Urban informality is a vast and diverse topic, and informal places of various kinds have been integral parts of all cities since their beginning of civilization. They have always sustained the formal city, because they help do things you and I don’t like to do. But in many Asian cities, the reason the informal sector has become such a big issue, is because of their overwhelming  numbers, and therein, their direct contradiction to the Euro-American model of what a city ought to be. The more pressing question is not what their role is – because we know of their resilience, adaptability and uncanny entrepreneurship. The question is: what place we are going to give them in this current wave of Asian urbanization?

The book provides several reflections on this very difficult question. There is an essay on anonymous wayside shrines of India, that are on the one hand illegal encroachments on the public realm, and on the other, nodes of hope for millions of under-served who simply want a stake in the city. Where does one draw the line between the two? There is another essay on the traditional aquatic settlements and floating markets of Thailand, that are being resurrected from decline, but largely and only as co-opted tourist magnets. There is another chapter on how informal ethnic tribal settlements in Mongolia are being displaced by new development that however sensitive can never hope to substitute the indigene. And then there is a chapter that critiques the narrow attitudes to places such a Dharavi, where vernacular informal habitats, that have become thriving alternative economies in their own right, are being mercilessly reshaped by neo-liberal policies in the name of globalization.

The challenge here for us architects and planners is to facilitate bridging the divide between social responsibility and artistic experimentation. Truly global “Asian” cities will only stand on the foundations of equity, diversity and justice.

Where will the current trends in Asian and particularly Indian Cities lead us in terms of Environmental Sustainability & Inclusive Development?

I think the best way to be sustainable is to change four-wheel cities into two-leg cities. As long as cars dominate pedestrian life, we have a problem.  India not-so-long-ago produced a paltry 20,000 cars annually; now, it sells that many in less than a week. But its rising living standards and increasing middle-class numbers cannot hide the groaning poverty of well over a third of the billion-plus people. So we have a long road ahead to negotiate between aspirations on the one hand, and inclusivity and sustainability on the other.

But I was reading the other day that India is collaborating with the Swedish government to use biogas for its fleet of public buses in New Delhi. It will make Delhi the first city in India to use two clean fuels, CNG and biogas for its public transport. I was reading that Chandigarh’s green cover has increased to 38.5 percent in 2009 from 35.7 percent in 2006; that from 1991 to 2007, while nearly 17,000 trees were cut down in this city, over 21 lakh trees were planted. This is fantastic. This is something every Indian city should try and emulate.

Recently, Asia has also seen built-from-scratch urban models, dominated by narratives of sustainability, pedestrian dominance, and non-utopian planning. Putrajaya, Malaysia’s 11,300-acre built-from-scratch “environment-friendly” administrative capital was developed to both alleviate Kuala Lumpur’s congestion as well as become a new-nationalistic manifestation. The American anti-sprawl movement – New Urbanism – and its pedestrian-friendly street-block networks are evident in new towns such as Lavasa in India and Dos Rios in the Philippines. The 700-hectare new city of Masdar in Abu Dhabi’s has been designed to supposedly achieve Carbon Neutrality. The efficacy of such models will be revealed in time, but they do represent refreshing counterpoints to Asia’s nihilistic urban trends of the recent past. More importantly, however, all such progressive efforts need to become precedents that can be replicated easily – and by mainstream developers. This means that municipalities will have to create progressive planning conduits that will enable these ideas to happen easily, and by right. If projects like these remain one-off exceptions, they are not contributing to anything – no matter how great they are.

What are the big challenges ahead for Asian Cities especially the ones in India?

One of the most gripping ones is how to bridge the social injustice gap between the have and have-nots – the lack of adequate shelter, basic infrastructure, clean drinking water etc. It is clear that franchised planning has failed to make a difference here. It is alternative practices, by non-government organizations and activists that have met with uncanny and amazing success. These practices and tactics need to be highlighted, recognized, and brought in mainstream dialogues on city-making. There is no question about it.

But an equally gripping and parallel challenge is to counteract the rampant sprawl and rapacious capitalism that is destroying metropolitan landscapes across India: parking problems; fly-overs; mass clearance of traditional fabric; the erasure of rural and agrarian landscapes. These issues cannot be resolved by sparks of bottom-up tactics. We need waves of long-term visionary planning that can only happen from top-down. We need coordinated planning, where every investment – transit, development, infrastructure, regulation – are synergized with each other as interdependent economic development opportunities. Curitiba and Bogota are doing this. We need clear alternatives to FSI-based zoning to be introduced and more importantly followed up on. Several cities in the United States have already reversed conventional zoning in effective ways.  How to accomplish this in India is a question that needs equally urgent attention. The time is now!