Housing Crisis

Does Mumbai really need 11 lakh more houses?

The state’s plans to build more houses in the city is just a sophisticated land-grab scheme.

It is striking how policy debates on housing devolve very quickly into what can be called the numbers game. The notion of scarcity shapes the assumptions and the approach to the question of housing. This notion is very useful – developers need it, the state can exploit it and architects and designers love it. Numerous seminars and conferences are organised to address this problem of affordable housing which seems to be aimed at understanding not what housing is or what inhabitants need, but to figure out how to make intractable urban dwellers accept the sort of housing that the state-enabled private enterprise can profitably produce.

Let us indulge for the moment in this numbers game.

Is there a shortage of housing in Mumbai? How does one estimate it? How many houses does the city need to build in the next 10 or 20 years? Just recently, the Maharashtra state housing minister announced that the state government will build 11 lakh houses in Mumbai – 5.5 lakh in the next 5 years. This beats the Maharashtra draft housing policy target of 7.9 lakh houses for Mumbai.

Arbitrary estimate

A rational approach to housing policy would require understanding the nature of existing housing, and ways to address present and future demand. However, both of these housing targets were announced without any comprehensive study of the types, locations, occupancy and availability of existing housing in the city. For house builders, existing housing is irrelevant. What is important is what can be exploited, what can be pulled down, and how much can be built.

To estimate Mumbai’s current housing shortage, we could adopt the methodology used by the Kundu Committee set up by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in 2009 to estimate the housing shortage in India. According to the committee, the housing shortage must be computed as a sum of:

(1) the excess of households (or families) over the existing housing stock (available units);

(2) the number of households residing in obsolescent or non-serviceable units termed “unacceptable dwelling units” and,

(3) those households residing in overcrowded or congested housing understood as “unacceptable physical and social conditions.”

According to the 2011 census, Mumbai has 26,65,481 households (or 12.44 million persons), including homeless households. Existing housing stock in the city consists of housing for residential or mixed use (26,56,920 units) and vacant houses (4,79,842 units). Total housing stock, therefore, amounts to 31,36,762 units. The census reports that out of 26 lakh families, 8,561 households are homeless. Based on this we can compute step (1) above: (total households in the city including homeless) – (existing housing stock). This comes to -462,720 units.

The census reports that of all the housing units, 37,995 units are dilapidated and 22,889 units are non-serviceable. This means that 60,884 units in the city can be considered “unacceptable” stock, defined by (2) above.

Finally, the census reports that 2,04,337 or 7.7% households in the city have no exclusive room of their own. In addition, 2,06,123 or 7.7% married couples do not have a room of their own. This is what the Kundu Committee terms “unacceptable physical or social conditions” due to overcrowding and congestion. Also, 4,10,460 families live in such conditions, and therefore require new housing, as defined by (3) above.

Unaffordable housing

Adding (1), (2) and (3), we can compute the total current housing shortage for Mumbai, which is precisely 63 housing units. This is the current (2011) shortage. Obviously, this has little to do with the quantity and kind of residential space, or how it is distributed. All housing that is built in the city beyond this number can be considered for the future needs of the city, either due to natural growth of its population or due to migration.

To estimate future demand, we could then use the population projection presented in Mumbai’s draft Development Plan, which estimated a population of 13,949,712 persons in 2034. The projection also suggests that average household sizes will reduce from 4.8 to 4.0 persons in 2034. This gives us 8,21,947 additional households, or a demand for 8,22,010 houses (adding the 63 units calculated above) by 2034. But what sort of houses are these? This is where the numbers game becomes most interesting.

The Kundu Committee concluded that 95% of the new housing demand (nationwide) is for Economically Weaker Sections and Low Income Groups with house sizes ranging from 269 to 600 square feet. Even our quick calculation above shows that almost all, if not most of, the new housing demand is for the urban poor. But despite these realities, the draft Maharashtra Housing Policy envisions only 56.8% units for the Economically Weaker Sections and Low Income Groups in Mumbai. It plans 29.2% Middle Income Group and 13.9% High Income Group houses. Already, as business reports indicate, tens of thousands of such flats lie unsold as they are unaffordable for most buyers. Indiscriminate construction of houses will worsen, not reduce the problem it attempts to address, and what follows explains why this is so.

Public to private property

Housing policy is focused almost entirely on production of floor area and number of units disregarding the highly differentiated nature of housing conditions and needs in the city. As a consequence, they are based on development potential of urban land, and it is not surprising that despite the city having 4.79 lakh vacant houses, it has become customary to announce more house building.

And where are these houses to be built? Almost all these units are to be built on lands currently occupied by self-built settlements or slums, cessed properties (residential buildings constructed before 1960) Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority layouts, and older public housing layouts. These happen to be neighborhoods with some of the highest residential densities in the city. And this is the only affordable housing that the city has successfully produced for a majority of its inhabitants. It is this existing affordable housing, almost entirely on public land, that the draft policy plans to replace, by rehabilitating existing dwellers into high-rise rehabilitation blocks.

Land released in the process will be used to build houses for Middle Income and High Income Groups. Thousands of “ineligible” dwellers will be excluded. Thousands of new speculative vacant houses will be built. The city may not produce accessible homes to all its dwellers, but it will definitely convert the remaining public land into private property. This then is the true purpose of the building spree: creation of private property markets (often with state coercion) in urban land and housing.

City for the rich

Another purpose is to optimise the development potential of land. This is assessed not on the basis of how intensively land is used or how many people it serves, but its market value. Therefore, a squatter settlement that provides homes and work to a thousand families may be assessed as “inefficient and sub-optimal” but the same strip with a hundred luxury condominiums makes its use “efficient and optimal.” Based on this logic, the only way affordable housing can be created is by finding land that is of low commercial value that is often away from the city, or to build with insane densities (dividing up the cost of land between many families).

Inevitably, the poor have a right to the city only insofar as they agree to remain hidden, packed close together or far away from it. It is this logic that determines who can live where and how – as the Situationist Raoul Vanegiem once remarked, “you don’t live somewhere in the city, you live somewhere in the hierarchy.”

Take for instance the proposed redevelopment of the Bombay Development Department chawls. Built in the early 1920s for working people, 15,238 families live on 35 hectares in Worli, Naigaon, and MN Joshi Marg. With a 435 households a hectare, this is already very high-density housing. But according to recommendations of the public-private think-tank Mumbai Transformation Support Unit, due to the low rents and high land values of the locality “the current use of land cannot be termed efficient and optimum.” The state government plans to redevelop these with incentive Floor Space Index to build additional apartments. Obviously, no great concern for the existing dwellers animates the redevelopment scheme. At 4 FSI, what is at stake is more than 8 lakh square meters of residential area that will be produced for sale. Public land used optimally, after all, yields massive private gain.

Instead, if housing was understood by the city as a public good, a logical approach would be to protect and improve all the existing affordable housing in the city. Self-built housing would be regulated and upgraded, rent control laws would be modernised and strengthened, public housing would be improved and expanded, privately provided housing would be better regulated, and vacant and luxury housing would be progressively taxed. But since it is imagined as a commodity, public largesse will have to be bestowed on private enterprise to keep them interested to produce unaffordable houses on the one hand, and warehouses on the other.

Hussain Indorewala is an urban researcher with the Collective for Spatial Alternatives and an assistant professor at the Kamla Raheja Vidynidhi Institute of Architecture in Mumbai.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Uninterrupted power supply during natural disasters can be a reality

The right material can protect electricity poles from getting damaged even during natural disasters.

According to a UN report, natural disasters in the last decade have occurred almost twice as often compared to two decades ago, with Asia being the hardest hit. The report reveals that the number of such events had gone up 14% annually between 2005 and 2015 compared to the period 1995-2014. Such findings have driven countries like UK and USA to accelerate their resilience building measures. ‘Resilience’ implies preparedness and having a robust coping mechanism to deal with the damage wrought by hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other violent natural events. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) has even launched a campaign called Making Cities Resilient which suggests, among other things, increasing the resilience of infrastructure for crucial services including electrical power, transport, healthcare and telecommunications.

India’s vulnerability to natural disasters

The UN report lists India as third among the countries hit by the highest number of weather related disasters in the past decade. The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in its Annual Disaster Review for 2014 also listed India among the five countries most frequently hit by natural disasters.

According to the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project, almost 5,700 kilometers of India’s 7,500 kilometers of coastline are highly vulnerable to the impact of tropical cyclones and related meteorological hazards. Research by Verisk Maplecroft also shows that 82% of the population in India are exposed to natural hazards, compared with 50% of the population in China.

What is also disturbing is the increased vulnerability of populous Indian cities to the effects of these natural disasters, caused by growing population density, haphazard construction activities and inadequate preparedness. The recent Mumbai floods which crippled the city in August 2017, for example, were exacerbated by the city’s out-of-date drainage system and unbridled construction over the city’s natural nullahs, which otherwise could have effectively drained excess water. A report on World Disasters by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), lists Mumbai among the 10 most vulnerable cities in terms of floods and earthquakes. A survey shows that, on an average, 21 Indian cities scored between 2.5 to 4 points out of 10 on governance parameters that measure preparedness for disasters.

Regions like the North East in India are particularly susceptible to natural disturbances like earthquakes, floods and landslides. According to the National Flood Commission, Assam, for example, accounts for 9.4% of the total flood prone area in the country. The commission estimated that due to floods, Assam suffered a loss of Rs, 3,100 crores in the past five decades. The whole of Brahmaputra Valley in Assam is in fact considered one of the most hazard prone regions in the country, with more than 40% of its land (3.2 million hectares) being susceptible to flood damage.

All these point to the need for resilience building measures, particularly to protect crucial infrastructure like electrical power – one of the first casualties during a natural disaster. For example, when Hurricane Sandy struck the US East Coast in 2012, about 2,427 utility poles were toppled or broken, reportedly shutting off power to more than 8.5 million households. Back home, when Cyclone Wardah hit Chennai in December 2015, power supply was disrupted in the city and its neighbouring districts of Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur. Reports said thousands of concrete poles just collapsed and reportedly 32,000 poles had to be replaced in the three districts. Government officials were even quoted as saying that the estimated loss from uprooted poles alone was about Rs 65 crore. Inability of electricity poles (also called utility poles) to withstand strong winds contributes significantly to the disruption of power supply during such natural occurrences.

So how can critical infrastructure like electricity poles be saved during a disaster like a cyclone? One way could be to use better-suited material.

Ensuring power supply during natural contingencies

When typhoon Rammasun hit Guangdong in China, more than 70,000 concrete and metal poles collapsed. Earlier, in the aftermath of the massive Chuetsu earthquake in Japan in 2004, about 3,400 utility poles supporting communication cables were broken or toppled.

A post-event assessment revealed that many of the damaged poles were concrete. Concrete poles are comparatively difficult to repair or replace because of their weight and dependence on heavy machinery to install them. Besides, concrete has low tensile strength and often requires the use of materials like steel for reinforcement. When moisture seeps in through cracks in the concrete, the steel reinforcement rusts leading to further deterioration of the concrete pole.

There have been other instances of concrete and metal poles being completely destroyed by natural forces. In tornadoes that ripped through Florida in the late 90s for example, even 100-foot spun concrete transmission poles tested to withstand 250 mph winds, toppled. Ice storms such as the 1998 North American Ice Storm caused over a 1,000 steel towers to collapse under the accumulated weight of the ice. Some of these incidents led to the continued use of wood as a preferred material for utility poles. But environmental concerns emerged due to the use of certain chemicals for treatment of the wooden poles. Additionally, wooden poles are also vulnerable to natural disasters - in the earlier mentioned ice storm, over 30,000 wooden poles were found to have collapsed in addition to the steel ones. In the last few years, research has been conducted into the use of various other materials for utility poles even as wood, steel and concrete remained popular choices. But while all of them have their advantages, they also come with distinct disadvantages.

Concrete, for example, is strong, fire resistant and termite/rot proof, but has as previously mentioned, other disadvantages. Galvanized steel offers similar advantages as concrete, while also being lighter. However, it is also expensive, energy intensive to make, and hazardous since it conducts electricity. Wood, traditionally a popular material for utility poles, is also prone to decay and termite attacks, besides having low resistance to fire when unprotected.

All these factors have led to the development of new materials such as fibre reinforced polymer (FRP), which have proved to offer durability even during high intensity typhoons. For example, in the Rammasun typhoon mentioned earlier, a group of FRP utility poles were found to stand firm even when exposed to strong winds. These poles are made of a special kind of high-strength, high-flexibility polyurethane (PU) composite material called ‘Elastolit®’ developed by BASF. The poles have a strength that is easily 10 times greater than their weight and are only 250 kg, making them easy to transport and install them virtually anywhere. They are more durable and resilient than concrete poles, can withstand severe weather conditions and can also be optimized for specific conditions.

As in the case of Guangdong in China, replacing concrete poles with these FRP poles in areas facing high exposure to natural disasters in India has the potential to reduce the disruption caused to power supply during such events. To know more about BASF’s initiatives in this regard, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.