2Issue

Specific

Housing

Inclusive

Housing

2.1

exclude

1. To prevent from entering; keep out; bar

2.To prevent from being included,

considered, or accepted; reject.

3. To put out; expel.

exclusive

1. Excluding or tending to exclude.

2. Not allowing something else;

incompatible.

3. Not divided or shared with others.

4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole.

5. Complete; undivided.

6. Not including specified extremes or limits, but only

area between them.

7. Excluding some or most, as from

membership or participation.

8. Catering to a wealthy clientele;

expensive.

Inclusiveness can be

better defined by

first defining

exclusiveness.

In today‘s scenario the criteria is generally the spending power, though

there are many cases of housing being exclusive to a particular class or

religion, for example, Jain only buildings in Mumbai. There have also rare

instances of extraordinarily exclusive housing, such as vegetarian-only in

Soami Ngar, New Delhi.

Most current housing is

geared towards exclusivity.

Amrapali SkyBungalows (bottom right)

offer private lifts and separate staff

and guest lifts. Unitech (bottom left)

has a range of ‘luxury’ homes to

choose from.

Exclusive Housing is housing which is

inclusive to only one (or some) particular social or economic groups.

It thus excludes everyone else not belonging to these groups.

inclusive

1.including (almost) everything within its scope

2.including the extremes as well as the area between

inclusiveness (uncountable)

1. The property of being inclusive.

inclusivity1.the fact or policy of not excluding members or

participants on the grounds of gender, race,

class, sexuality, disability, etc.

There are different

interpretations of inclusivity.

• Including future residents in the entire design process

• Including different groups of people:

1. Including all social groups: socially inclusive, but not

necessarily economically

2. Including all economic groups: economically inclusive, but

not necessarily socially

3. What we term super-inclusivity, or including all different social and economic groups

Economic

status and

occupation

Household

structure

Cultural,

religious or

ethnic

differences

Level of

education

Age

Sexual

orientation

The level of inclusivity can be

measured by:

1. The physical proximity

between different groups

2. The level of social interaction

between the different social

or economic groups

In the western context inclusivity has generally come

to mean inclusion of the aged and the disabled,

while in most of the developing world it implies

economic, religious and cultural integration.

Inclusive Housing is thus housing which is

not exclusive to any particular social or economic group.

Inclusive housing does not try to equalize everyone

and bring them to the same socio-economic level, but

rather accepts and respects their differences.

Super-inclusive housing would include all groups of

people, whether of different economic strata, religious

beliefs, sex, familial and household structure, jobs or

professions, disabilities, age, or even sexual preference.

Socially inclusive, economically inclusive or both?This report shall focus on economic inclusivity, which

the designer can somewhat ensure.

The level of Spatial IntegrationThe proximity between different economic groups

can range from adjacent apartments on the same

floor or adjacent plots to nearby sectors or zones

exclusive to one income level.

The level of Social InteractionThere is debate regarding the extent of social

interaction required. Some sources consider the

existence of a ‗community‘ paramount (and so only

living next door is not inclusive), while others say that

just spatial proximity is sufficient. One might claim that

spatial proximity would automatically result in social

interaction, but present examples of apartment

buildings leave this open to argument.

Inter-inclusivity and Intra-inclusivityAnother interpretation of inclusive housing is to

integrate the surrounding site conditions and residents

with the designed housing.

Leading from the different

Interpretations of inclusivity,

there are also

different interpretations

of inclusive housing:

Historical Overview - Global

Western

The sense and extent of

social stratification was

never too strong. However

racial and economic

segregation have been the

major problems.

Islamic

Religiously speaking, Islamic

society has no social/caste

distinction. However, islamic

cities have a strong sense

of neighbourhood, often

gated. These are based on

lineage – Tribals, Sayyids

and the artisans/farmers.

Indian

Due to the caste system, as

well as the diverse range of

cultures and religions,

Indian cities and housing

have been socially

exclusive, but economically

codependent, hence

inclusive.

Plan of a Vedic village – division based on caste and occupation

CitadelKshatriya/

Brahmin

VaishyaMarket

place

Figure ground – Istanbul

Tight, organic neighborhoods, with cul-de-sacs

Roman Insula

, an apartment house having an area of 73sqm, located in occupationally

divided sectors.

Today’s Exclusive City

FIRST WORLD and developed cities

Suburbanization and commuteheavily dependent on transport infrastructure

and an extensive public transit system.

Poorer

Affluent CBD[city center]

HIG housing

HIG and MIG housing (commute to CBD)

Richer

LIG and EWS housing

(commute to CBD)

Richer

Affluent CBD[city center]

HIG housing

MIG, LIG and EWS housing (commute to CBD)

Poorer

MIG and HIG suburbs (commute to CBD)

Richer

THIRD WORLD cities are considerably different.

There is constant migration into the city and also pressure on the LIG and EWS groups within the city to

move out to the periphery due to gentrification.

The financial worth of the land is measured in terms of

distance from CBD, and thus rising land costs, rents

and taxes force people out. Even the new housing they

find on the outskirts is generally less affordable and still lower in quality than the original settlements inside

because of increased demand for housing and

inadequate supply.

These peripheral settlements are also not well

connected to the inside- there is lack of adequate

infrastructure and transport linkages.

New migrants and those who can not afford

housing on the outskirts, but who still need to work in or near the city centre, congregate in slum or

squatter settlements closer to places of work.

Today’s Exclusive City

LIG and EWS

Affluent CBD[city center]

HIG and MIG

LIG and EWS

Affluent CBD[city center]

HIG and MIG

LIG and EWS

Affluent CBD[city center]

HIG and MIG

slums

The population of today’s Indian cities is a microcosm of the nation as a whole — a

rich mix of communities, cultures, professions, and income classes from the most

deprived sections of society to a middle-class majority.

Some 75 percent of urban citizens are in the bottom income segments, earning an

average of 80 rupees a day.

Source

India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth

McKinsey Global Institute, 2010

Inequity

in the

Indian City

There is urgent need for provision of affordable

urban housing across all

income groups.

Affordable housing for low-income groups is an

important consideration in most cities.

Planning mandates in the United Kingdom have

generated 20 to 25 percent of all affordable units built

over the last decade. South Africa provides free land for

houses for its poorest income groups. Singapore

provides public housing for more than 80 percent of its

population through a dedicated Housing Development

Board, using land monetization and interest- rate

subsidies to make affordability work.

Affordable housing is a particularly critical concern for

low-income groups: in the absence of a viable model

that caters to their needs, India will see the continued

proliferation of slums across the country.

Why do we need more affordable housing ?

Source

India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive

Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth

McKinsey Global Institute, 2010

Approximately 42.8 million people or about 15.2 percent of India’s urban populationlive in slum settlements. According to the Census of India, 35 percent of urban

households live in single room dwelling units and 68 percent of such households have

four members or more. Approximately 81 million persons or 25.7 percent of the total

urban population are below the official poverty line.

The Eleventh Five Year Plan estimates the urban housing shortage of 24.7 million units,

with 99 percent of this shortage pertaining to the economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower income groups (LIG).

Source:

Report of the

Government of India

High Level Task Force

on Affordable Housing

For All, 2008

THUS

1. There will always be different economic groups within the city.

All of these need adequate, affordable housing.

2. These groups are equally dependent on each other:

the rich on the poor for services and goods,

and the poor on the rich for livelihood.

3. Large pockets of poorer areas leads to the creation of ghettos,

increase in crime and other social issues, and the poverty cycle.

4. Such areas also generally remain ignored and underdeveloped in

terms of city services and infrastructure.

5. When these different groups live closer together, the commuting

time, expense and effort gets reduced.

6. The pressure on transport infrastructure also gets reduced.

The Case for a More Inclusive City

The Elusive,Inclusive City

1. Higher density, especially around the

city centres.

2. A land use pattern which is more

mixed, that is, where the place of

work and residence are closer

together.

3. Better public transit and transport

infrastructure, which can support

those who still need to commute for

work.

As such, some basic

characteristics of a

more inclusive city

–a prerequisite for

inclusive housing- are:

As such, inclusive

cities can ―mitigate

the strains and

maximize the

opportunities‖ of

urban living.

Quoted from

India‘s Urban Awakening:

Building Inclusive Cities,

Sustaining Economic Growth

McKinsey Global Institute,

2010

One of the main reasons

for the sprawl-leading-to-

slums-leading-to-sprawl

cycle is the low FSI or FAR

limits, which mean that the

built up area is spread over a larger region and

that the density of people

living in close range of the CBD is very less.

This situation automatically

implies that people have to travel further away from

their home for work. This

also puts a huge amount

of pressure on the already

inadequate city-scale transport system.

This establishes the need

for a more mixed land

use/development plan where the place of work

is closer to the place of

residence, and

consequently there is

lesser pressure on public transit. Here we are

mostly talking about the

EWS, LIG and MIG

groups. Most HIG workers

already live close to their

workplaces, or can easily

afford to commute from

their residence to their

work place.

A more inclusive city,

with people of different

economic levels and

occupations living closer

together in generally higher densities, would

thus result in the

increased proximity of

service providers

(workers) and service consumers (work place).

Source: Mumbai FSI/FAR conundrumThe perfect storm: the four factors restricting the construction of new floor space in MumbaiAlain Bertaud, 2004

The Elusive,Inclusive City

What we want: a

completely inclusive mesh of the rich and the

poor.

But: owing to market

forces, these area

become populated by

mostly the rich.

But: there are CBDs and

central commercial areas

These areas and their

surroundings should be

high density. To resolve this issue,

we need to zoom in to

the neighbourhood

or local level.

The Elusive,Inclusive City

Inclusivity needs to be achieved on the

local level amongst HIG, MIG, LIG and

EWS neighbourhoods.

Employment and CommuteHaving these different residential areas

close-by reduces commuting time to

employment destination and market

areas, and thus expense and effort for all

economic groups.

Infrastructure and development for allAchieving inclusivity on the local level, that is, having neighbourhoods

comprising of different economic

backgrounds next to each other ensures

that development benefits are equally

distributed and shared by all communities

and not accrued to only one.

Inclusivity on the local level

Buffer SpacesWhen different economic groups live close

together, the characteristic and design of the

buffer space or neutral zone separating them become of paramount importance.

These spaces, both ‗no –man‘s land‘ and so

‗everyone‘s land‘ should be areas where all

economic groups can interact. Examples are:

•Parks and green spaces, which offer equal

recreational opportunities for all economic

groups

•Markets and commercial areas, which also

directly offer employment to LIG and EWS

groups

•Shared facilities like places of worship,

hospitals, etc.

•Transport nodes like metro stations, roads and paths

Inclusivity on the local level

Hauz Rani and SaketThe importance of buffer spaces can be

understood by considering the case of Hauz

Rani in South Delhi.

Early1980s | DDA appropriated historical Hauz

land | Saket Sports Complex | Mid-development

stage, constituted large fields without any barriers

| Saket and Hauz Rani residents moved | Children

from both areas played football every evening |

1990 interim sports complex was razed

Inclusivity on the local level

Malviya Nagar

Hauz Rani

Sa

ke

t

Shivalik

Bus depot

open

Metro

market

Pre

ss E

nc

lave

Rd

.

Police station

Jal Board

Sp

atia

l p

rox

imity

Social interaction Other examples

Yusuf Sarai and Green Park: market, services, daily goods,

availability of household help,

Proximity, commute and expense

Inclusive

ComplexesLarge housing complexes can be inclusive

not only with their surroundings, but also

within themselves. Here‘s how…

Groups of people to want to live in such

close proximity if there is a desire for social

engagement and shared community

spaces (such a mix of housing is possible

with variation in plot or apartment size) or

if both groups are dependent on each

other, usually through some economic

activity (separate buildings but in the

same complex/vicinity)

Social Interaction

and/or dependency

Affordability

A housing complex can only be

considered inclusive if atleast some of its

units are affordable by a range of

economic groups.

• Cross Subsidy

• Loan/Credit assistance

• Variation in unit/plot size

• ‘Self help’ model

• ‘Site + Services’ model

• Low rise High Density development

Affordability on the face of it is one thing.

The unit should be affordable in the long

term as well. In short, housing will only be

inclusive if the poor see it as a long term

investment.

• Incremental Development:

o Additive Housing

o Flexible spaces

Aranya

Community

HousingIndore, India

Source: Aga Khan Award for architecture, Aranya Community housing

www.akdn.org/architecture

Architect Vaastu Shilpa

Foundation

(B.V. Doshi,

Ahmedabad)

Client Indore Development

Authority

Year 1989

Type Site + Services

(Plotted Housing)

Site Area 85 sqkm (8.5 HA)

Ground

Coverage

58% Residential6.73% Commercial

23.5% Road space

8.15% Open spaces

Economic zoning

•HIG groups

have been

placed near

the highway

•MIG groups

are near the

arterial road

•EWS and LIG

are in the

middle

No. of Dwellings

6500 Plots (6 sectors)

Population60,000

(EWS-65%; LIG-11%; MIG-14%; HIG-9%)

• ‘Spine and cluster’ settlement: There is a main

arterial road which is a very important economic

stimulus, for vendors etc. which binds the colony

together. Also, clusters tend to provide middle

spaces which are a great for community activities.

• Most houses have the ‘otta’ (outdoor platform) in

front, which becomes a place for social

interaction and enlivens the street.

• There are commercial establishments within the

complex too, which are also a source of

employment for the poorer residents. This forms a

certain dependency between the groups.

Social engagement and dependency

• Only services

(connections + core) have been

provided on site. The actual building is

left upto the buyer, for more flexibility in

terms of budgets and materials. Doshi

built some houses just as guidelines

which may or may not be followed for

future development.

• Low rise high density development

model has been adopted with tallest

buildings being commercial centers at

the ends of the spine, which are 5

storeys high.

• Cross subsidy has been provided

for EWS and LIG groups by selling HIG

plots on market value and auctioning

the land for commercial purposes.

• A variety of plot sizes have been

provided, from 35.32 sqm for EWS to

613.94 sqm for HIG

Affordability

• The architect designed a large number of

combinations for the dwellings

(80 prototypes)

•Extremely diverse

• The possibility of vertical expansion and

peripheral additions was kept in mind

Incremental Development

Linkages, Connectivity and Hierarchy

Hierarchy of Open Spaces

Vehicular Road Network

Major

commercial

centers/

nodes

Sources:

• www.urbz.net

•The new landscape by Charles Correa

Artists‘ ColonyBelapur, India

―One is an example, two is a pattern!‖

Architect Charles Correa

Client Navi Mumbai

Municipal

Corporation

Year 1983-86

Type Incremental

(Plotted Housing)

Site Area 55 HA (100 plots/HA)

Ground

Coverage

Approx. 50%

Economic zoning

•Large and

small plots in

a mixed,

cluster style

housing

•Incremental

model so that

people

expand their

dwellings as

incomes

increase

No. of Dwellings

5500 Plots

Population25000

(500 per HA)

Affordability

• Cost cutting in terms of materials used.

Also, toilets have been kept detached to

reduce plumbing costs

• Slight variation in plot size from45 to 75 sq mt

• Incremental modules have been

adopted so that people can expand

their dwellings in the same site with

increase in family size and/or

income.

• Basic additions prescribed by

architect – easily replicable by local

mistri.

Incremental

Social Interaction

• Fractal based

courtyard clusters,

which promote social

gatherings

• Pedestrian only zone,

which encourages

children to play and

people to mingle

• Heirarchy of open spaces from small to

large

What works…•No common walls, less

conflicts – respect for

private property, with

provision of public space• Pedestrian zones and

courtyard typology

promote community

interaction•Additive development

manual ensures that the

architectural character

remains same, but diversity

exists

What doesn’t…•Does not look like a

designed intervention

as it is very organic,

almost dilapidated

today• Toilets are detached

from the house to save

plumbing costs

The fact that it is termed ‗Artist‘s

colony‘ means that it has been

typecast that way, and most

residents would belong to

creative fields, which takes away

from the diversity.

J-K Block HousingDilshad Garden, Delhi, IndiaSource: Delhi and livability – Dissertation by Ananta Ganjoo

Inclusive cluster housing;

trying something new…

Architect Ram Sharma

Client Delhi Development

Authority

Year 1975-80 (?)

Type Low rise High Density

Cluster Group

Housing

Site Area ?

Ground

Coverage

?

Economic zoning

•HIG housing

on ground

floor, MIG in

the middle,

LIG on top

•Staggered

apartments

for variation in

built-up area

for each

section

Affordability

• Cost variation by staggering apartments and

reducing sizes

• Hierarchy of economic groups from ground floor

upwards, automatically decreases prices of the

higher apartments.

Social Interaction/Dependancy

• Neighborhood parks provide the

oppurtunity for interaction

Encroachments are a big

issue with this housing

What works…•Hierarchy of apartments in

terms of variation and

prices• Ample light and

ventilation due to

staggering

What doesn’t…• The uneasiness between people

from the different groups, due to

such close proximity

• Encroachment of balconies/

terraces as built-up area is not

favorable, as this is not supposed

to be an incremental model.

Due to inherent social stigmas as

well as a massive difference in

lifestyles, the proximity of lower

income groups with higher income

ones works better when a certain

distance is maintained.

Woodwords RedevelopmentVancouver, Canada

Source: www.woodwardsdistrict.com

High-rise inclusivity;

A social experiment

Architect Gregory Henriquez

Partners

Client Government of British

Columbia

Year 2010

Type Redevelopment –

High Rise

Built up

Area

11 HA

Ground

Coverage

?

No. of

Dwellings

536 market housing

units+

10 units for people

with physical

Disabilities +

200 non-market

housing units +

75 family

Occupancy +

125 single

occupancy

Economic zoning

•Variety of

apartment sizes in

the same building

and floor

• Flats subsidized for

the poor in close

vicinity as well as in

the same building

Affordability

• Subsidy for poorer populations

Social Interaction/ Dependency

• Tying up the economic zones with common

facilities like markets, gyms etc.

• Extremely close proximity – aimed at

promoting social interaction across groups

What doesn’t…•A social experiment, which could

backfire.

• Such close proximity between

economically diverse groups

might actually harbour hostility

What works…• The intention of alleviating poverty

and crime from poor pockets of the

city through ‗positive gentrification‘

• Tying up the economic zones with

common facilities like markets, gyms

etc. could work well

It has been seen earlier how it is not

only the rich who might feel

uncomfortable living in an

economically diverse

neighborhood, but also the poor

who feel threatened, and prefer

their ghettos.

Also, inclusivity demands a lifestyle

change. Hence, it is important

to avoid potential conflicts, and

not force such drastic changes.

Government Mandates

These dwelling units are then handed over

to the government which sells or allots them

to eligible low income beneficiaries.

The United Kingdom has also

used planning mandates,

termed Section 106, since 1981

which require all new housing

developments of more than 25 units to build a pre-agreed

number of affordable units.

While the proportion of

affordable units built is project-

specific, 15 to 25 percent on

average fall into the affordable

category.

Source

India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive

Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth

McKinsey Global Institute, 2010

In a bid to increase the available

affordable housing stock for the urban

poor, the government mandates that all

private group housing should incorporate a

minimum percentage of EWS or community service personnel or LIG category housing.

According to the Report of the High

Level Task Force on Affordable Housing

For All, 2008:

Affordable Housing for EWS/LIG

categories:

A unit with a carpet area most likely

between 300 and 600 sq ft, with

(i) the cost not exceeding four

times the household gross

annual income

(ii) EMI/rent not exceeding 30

percent of the household's

gross monthly income.

Affordable Housing for MIGcategories:

A unit with a carpet area not

exceeding 1,200 sq ft, with

(i) the cost not exceeding five

times the household gross

annual income

(ii) EMI/rent not exceeding 40

percent of the household's gross

monthly income.

According to the Guidelines For

Affordable Housing In Partnership,

Government of India, Ministry of Housing

& Urban Poverty Alleviation, JNNURM

Mission Directorate:

• Dwelling units should be a mix of

EWS/LIG/MIG categories with the

maximum size of a dwelling unit being at 1200 square feet super

area, with at least 25% of them for

EWS of about 300 square feet. In

terms of carpet area, the minimum

carpet area for EWS category shall

be 25 square metres and

maximum carpet area for MIGcategory shall be 80 square

metres.

• The sale price of dwelling units

should have an upper ceiling in

terms of Rupees per square metre

of carpet area. The price ceiling

would be settled in consultation

with the States/UTs for different

classes of cities.

According to the Masterplan Delhi 2021:

• New housing for the urban poor

should be in the form of one or two

room units.

• The developers of group housing

shall ensure that minimum 15% of

FAR or 35% of the dwelling units,

whichever is more, are

constructed for Community-

Service Personnel / EWS and lower

income category.

We argue that affordable

housing should provide for a

range of size options catering to

the needs of households of

different sizes and incomes,

rather than being limited to a

single size.

This is especially important when

considering the fact that it is the

poorer families which generally

have larger households.

Defining

EWS and LIG HousingGovernment Mandates

Doon Trafalgar

Dehradun, Uttaranchal

Developed by

Digvijay Real Estate

Developers Pvt Ltd

2007

Housing complex with EWS

reservation.

Site Area: 3.5 hectares

Building Structure:G+4

Number of Dwellings:128 (MIG) + certain %age

EWS (as per state laws)

Social Structure: 2 stark groups- MIG and EWS

• Physical proximity between MIG and EWS housing at least

results in added interaction.

• The design makes no attempt to create a sense of

community between the 2 groups.

• Even advertisements do not promote the EWS part.

• Many private developments‘ EWS

housing is sub-standard.

• Part of the EWS/LIG dwelling units are

sometimes wrongfully sold off as servants quarters to the MIG or HIG

buyers.

Source:

http://doonhousing.com/doon_trafalgar

Cons• Safety issues, petty crimes may

crop up due to the differences

between co-residents

• Possibility of a split community - as

living together inclusively, at the end

of the day, is the individual‘s choice.

Pros• Inclusive housing = inclusive cities

• Boosts localized economies

• Encourages social development

So, is inclusive

housing

feasible?Is it desirable?

• A community is based on trust and shared interests, which

inherently makes it exclusive to a group.

• Inclusivity is easier to achieve over smaller ‗bandwidths‘

• The feasibility of inclusive housing depends on the scale

on which it is achieved- the city, the neighborhood, the

zonal or the complex level.

• It mustn‘t be forced and should avoid potential

conflicts

Limitations

Parameters Aranya Artist‘s Colony Auroville Doon Trafalgar

Location Indore, India (Belapur) Navimumbai, India (Pondicherry) Tamil Nadu, India Dehradun, India

Architect(s) Vastu-Shilpa Foundation, B.V. Doshi Charles Correa Roger Ander Gairola Developers

Strategy for inclusivity Incremental + sites and services

development

Incremental + Social interaction Semi - Urban scale

(belief bound)

Housing complex with EWS reservation

(employment based inclusivity)

Site Area 85 HA 55 HA (with a density of 100 dwellings per HA)

2000 HA (projected)Currently, 650 under Auro trust

~15HA

Ground Coverage 65% Approx. 50%(in terms of plotted area out of total site area)

Approx. 25% -

No. of Dwellings 6500 Plots Approx. 5500 Plots 767 150 (MIG) + certain %age EWS (as per laws)

Population 60000 Approx. 500 people per HA i.e. ~25000 people

2300(planned for 50000)

-

Social Structure Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed

Economic diversity Mixed (large diversity) Spread over a small bandwidth Mixed 2 stark groups: MIG and EWS

Pros • Affordable and socially inclusive• Buzzing with economic activity along spine• Flexible planning, hence a long

term investment which can absorb increase in population

• No common walls, less conflicts –respect for private property, with provision of public space• Pedestrian zones and courtyard

typology promote community interaction• Additive development manual ensures that the architectural character remains same, but diversity exists•Plots size variation ensures a slight mix in occupants (financially)

• Community living, in its true sense• Rich subsidize the poor willingly. This automatically makes the community more inclusive

• Physical proximity between MIG and EWS housing atleast results in added interaction.

Cons • A ‗Sites + services‘ project , hence only basic core is designed• No building laws enforced, hence it does not look designed.

• Does not look like a designed intervention as it is very organic, almost dilapidated today

• A cult of sorts, which is exclusive to non believers• No private ownership at all, everything is community owned and works on the system of charity

• The design makes no attempt to create a sense of community between the 2 groups.• Even advertisements do not promote the EWS part

Analysis + Inference • This example comes very close to achieving social as well as economic inclusivity. Almost 2 decades after its construction, there still exist a mix of groups who reside there and are very happy.

• The fact that it is termed ‗Artist‘s colony‘ means that it has been typecast that way, and most residents would belong to creative fields, which takes away from the diversity.

• The community is still very small, despite its 50 years of existence. • Despite its open policy, most of the people who get drawn to it tend to belong to a similar occupational or economical background

• Most such projects today make the EWS housing in a cheap way.• A lot of this housing is wrongfully sold off as servants quarters to the MIG or HIG buyers. This doesn‘t solve the housing situation for the displaced urban poor and also, the ‗inclusivity‘ of such complexes is questionable, as one party works for the other

3.2

A

3.2

B

3.2

D

3.2

C

3.2

E

3.2

F

14 |

In

clu

siv

e H

ou

sin

g 2

.1

Parameters Singapore Public

Housing

Woodwords

Redevelopment

Location Singapore Vancouver, Canada

Architect(s) Housing and Development Board (HBD)

Strategy for inclusivity Variation in sizes (affordability) Variation in size (affordability) + Subsidy

Site Area - Built up Area= 1.1 million square foot

Ground Coverage - -

No. of Dwellings 85% of housing in Singapore is a public sector investment

536 market housing units+ 10units for people with physical Disabilities + 200 non-market housing units =75 family occupancy + 125 single occupancy

Population - -

Social Structure Mixed (citizenship condition) Mixed

Economic diversity Mixed (LIG to HIG) Mixed

Pros • Strict laws allow people from a particular income group to buy housing proportional to that income. For instance, An LIG household will get a single bedroom flat or higher, whereas an MIG household has to buy a minimum 2-3 bedroom flat, and not a single bedroom one.

• The intention of alleviating poverty and crime from poor pockets of the city through ‗positive gentrification‘• Tying up the economic zones with common facilities like markets, gyms etc.

Cons • High density high rise towers tend to be less community oriented, even if they are in a diverse complex. •This housing is only sold to citizens of Singapore, which makes it nationally exclusive.

• A social experiment, which could backfire.

Analysis + Inference • Housing is provided for people regardless of their economic stature, and quality of construction does not differ. The only difference is the dwelling size, which in a way, reduces societal prejudices

• It has been seen earlier how it is not only the rich who might feel uncomfortable living in an economically diverse neighborhood, but also the poor who feel threatened, and prefer their ghettos. •Also, inclusivity demands a lifestyle change.Hence, it is important to avoid potential conflicts, and not force such

drastic changes.

3.2

A

3.2

B

3.2

D

3.2

C

3.2

E

3.2

F

15

| In

clu

siv

e H

ou

sin

g 2

.1