Make cities taller

Govt’s move on higher FSI makes ample sense

Hardeep Puri, minister of state for housing and urban affairs, has taken a wise decision to set up a committee to look at a higher floor space index (FSI), to make our cities taller. Currently, Indian cities are stuck with an FSI not exceeding 1.5, but most big cities of the world allow much higher FSI. For example, in 1984, Shanghai had only 3.65 sq m of space per person. Through liberal use of FSI, despite increase in population since 1984, the city increased the available space to 34 sq m per person. In contrast, in 2009, Mumbai on average had just 4.50 sq m of space per person. There are several upsides to vertical growth of cities. For one, going vertical drops the cost of real estate because the share of land cost in real estate comes down. Moreover, greater density facilitates mass transport that is much more viable and affordable. This, in turn, reduces the massive dependence on personal cars that are effectively choking roads across most cities in India. Mass transport dominates Manhattan and other large cities that have gone up rather than flat (like Los Angeles, which as a consequence is more dependent on cars).

India’s cities need this desperately as with each passing year the stress on them is increasing — there are now 53 cities with populations of over 1 million. The cities routinely face a shortage of basic amenities such as water, housing and sanitation. Moreover, the urban commute has become such a hazard in bigger cities such as Delhi and Mumbai that it is reflecting on falling standards of public health. A big part of the problem is the way India cities have grown. Thanks to a low FSI, which measures the floor-space in a building as a proportion of the area of the plot on which the building stands, most of the cities have grown horizontally. This has put onerous demands on the amount of land that cities had to gobble up to accommodate the teeming millions.

Of course, going vertical is not enough. India also needs associated reform — like getting rid of the building setback rule, which constricts the plinth area and, therefore, the built-up area. The fact is none of the leading Western cities — be it Berlin, Paris, London or New York — has such setback rules; buildings there start at the edge of the sidewalk or pavement, and not after a setback. There are two caveats here: first, denser cities need more infrastructure — more sewers, more electricity sub-stations, more water pipes, or bigger capacity ones. And, of course, mass transport systems. This infrastructure should first be laid before allowing greater height for buildings, or there will be chaos. Among other things, the shift from personal to mass transport will not happen.

Second, height beyond a point is not more efficient, especially for residential areas. Renowned architect and urban planner, Charles Correa, who made the point on setback, had worked out some maths on this. The greatest height should be in the business districts, but even here, Correa had argued that the density of Nariman Point was actually no more than in Ballard Estate, and the latter was far more attractive, being to human scale, greener and more people-friendly.