Indian Urban Planning: Limits to Economic Growth and Inclusion

Prof. Smita Srinivas, Columbia University Urban Planning and Technological Change Lab (TCLab)

Champaka Rajagopal, Principal, Planning and DesignGroupe SCE (India)

Roundtable on Inclusive CitiesJan 7-8 2011

New Delhi

Limits to growth and inclusion• Urban Economic and Industrial challengesexternalities interfering in way industries advance, lack of worker-work-site amenities, mobility constraints from home to worksite and of home as worksite, agglomeration challenges for knowledge and tech investments.

• Industrial employment, land, housing, and mobility challengesindustrial land planned without worker housing/transport/services; land “for growth uses” conflicts with environmental goals and other uses.

• Inclusive Industrial growth cannot occur without long-term planning for technological capabilities, employment, and land issues.

No nodal or other agency oversees the coordination between the goals for strategic economic urban, regional, and sector plans. Sectors advance neither efficiently nor equitably.

'Inclusion' and 'exclusion' go hand in hand. There are serious industrial, technological, employment and environmental problems with our current development model.

Recent changes for urban work

• NREGA• JNNURM

• Supreme court judgments/conflicts

• NCEUS/Social security for informal workers

• Affordable housing: – BSUP under JNNURM has many

complications. – Premium land currently occupied by the

migrant-urban poor in Mumbai, is landlocked [Phatak et al, 2011].

• Employment guarantee

• Urban fiscal devolution, and public infrastructure

• Right to work vs. right to urban space to work:

No provisions for externalities of activities related to production/ trade and for expansion of small and medium units in urbanized areas. Permissible uses often indicated as homogenous.

• Comprehensive social protections and minima• New counting/census informality statistics• New counting of informal workers

• Information New land and housing rules, financing, products, participation

Master Plan / Comprehensive Development Plan

CENTRE

Five year Plans – socio economic in

nature

STATE

Spatial Plans

District Plans –

non Spatial

LOCAL

No spatial plans Responsible only

for implementation

Superceded by the State

74th CAA

STATE

Districts

Taluka / Tehsil / Sub District

Spation + Socio

economic development of the

areaDPC

LOCAL

Spatial Plans by the Corporations and

the Municipal Councils.

Wards

Area Sabhas

Consolidation MPC or DPC

JNNURM

CENTRE

National Steering Group

Mission Directorate

Central Sanctioning & Monitoring

Committee

SLSC

SNA

ULBs / Parastatal

Administrative Section Urban

Local Body

TAG

STATE

LOCAL

Outsourced to private sector

Policy and Vision Participatory Mapped and environmentally regulated Development

SLSC State Level Steering Committee

SNA State Nodal Agency

TAG

Urban Local BodyULB

District Planning Committee

MPC Metropolitan Planning Committee

CENTRE

Five year Plans – socio economic in

nature

State and PlanningInstitutions and Plans at the three tiers

Source: Mohan, 2010, Groupe SCE India

Inclusive Cities

Holistic Planning Approach

Constitution of DPCs Village and Municipal level plans to be outlined

at PRI and ULB level respectively covering the functions devolved to them

Participatory planning

Constitution of Ward Committees Constitution of Area Sabhas

Accountability & transparency

Use of Right to Information Act (RTI Act, 2005) Use of internet, e-governance

Capacity Building

Encouraging partnership between CSOs and Local Govt. (mainly for rural areas)

Monitoring and evaluation

Tracking outcomes instead of outlays and expenditures

The 11th Five year plan calls for a need to restructure the role of Govt. by suggesting that scarce public resources best be channelized towards social sectors rather than sectors where private sectors operating under competitive market can deliver.Source: An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan- Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth, Planning Commission, Govt. of India

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH and INCLUSION: All models skirt ULBs and devolution

EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL ZONES FROM THE DECENTRALIZATION AGENDA

• GREEN FIELD SITES: The Yamuna Expressway Region, NCR

• BROWN FIELD SITES: Bhiwadi, NCR• REGIONS AND CITIES: Bangalore Metropolitan

Region• HOUSING FOR THE POOR: BSUP Project,

Panaji, Goa

State and PlanningLaws and NormsFreight CorridorsThe Delhi- Mumbai Industrial Corridor: Excluded from the decentralization agenda and municipalization has a financial outlay of USD 90 billion, covers a length of length of 1483 KMs , nine Mega Industrial zones of about 200-250 sq. km., high speed freight line, three ports, and six air ports; a six-lane intersection-free expressway .

Located amidst agricultural lands and in environmentally sensitive areas. Example: Gujarat

State and PlanningLaws and NormsGrowth and land use versus other uses

Areas designated as ‘industrial’ in master plans are auctioned/ sold by industrial development authorities to private builders for residential/ entertainment uses.

YEIDA PLAN

Source: Public display of the Master Plan for YEA Region, YEIDA

Demographic analyses do not consider detail sector based employment scenarios for manufacturing and services. IT sector and retail ‘success’ seeps into all neighbourhoods, brings own externalities. Street vendors displaced. No innovative mixed use for low-income sellers.

Master planning does not account for housing for migrant labor.

Sub-standard construction workers one room tenement, shared unit, in Bhiwadi, NCR.

Residential area allocated: 21.6% and industrial areas 29% of the total land within the jurisdiction.

Development regulations promote gated multi-storied apartment units.

Policy and Schemes State and PlanningEmployment, Risk, and the city

State and PlanningLaws and NormsConflicts: Judicial and Enforcement wings

State’s different efforts segment the city– Regional and state government agencies– Central agencies– Urban Planning and development

bodies:

Developable

Settlements

State and PlanningLaws and Norms

Lands identified as environmentally sensitive in Structure Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Region notified for industrial use by industrial development authorities, here the KIADB.

Growth and land use versus other uses

Existing Land Use: 2003 Proposed Land Use: RMP 2015

Peenya Industrial Area and its vicinities: Mixed Land UsePermissible land uses: Main land use category: RAncillary land use category: C3, I-2,T2 and U4 Ancillary land use is permissible up to 30% of the total built up area

Parking: Buildings with a floor area not exceeding 100sqm are exempted from providing car parking. However, equivalent parking fee shall be levied as determined by the authority from time to time.

Externalities of mixed use zone, for example increased parking, not incorporated in the zonal regulations.

State and PlanningLaws and NormsGrowth and land use versus other uses

T. P. Scheme, Ahmedabad; Source: AUDA

Nation-city dysfunction: No relationship between 5 year Plans, economic growth projections and actual urban/regional industrial growth.

City-neighbourhood dysfunction: Master plans at scales of 1:50,000 and 1: 5000 for analyses as the only tool for planning and implementation does not capture change on the ground

Institutional dysfunction: Town planning scheme: The only planning tool for micro-level planning in the town & country planning acts woefully out of date and inadequate. Implementation of the TPS requires institutional restructuring in most ULBs, thereby a deterrent.

• Micro-needs of industry and workers impossible to spatially and physically embed in cities.

• Indian master plans have no micro-level analog for implementation, and no mechanisms in town and country planning acts.

State and PlanningLaws and NormsInadequate tools for implementation

State and PlanningLaws and NormsInadequate institutions and tools for implementation

Coordinated Planning Scheme (CPS)

Designated on lands occupied by industries under decline

- A tool for facilitating urban renewal and large scale infrastructure through coordinated land pooling

- The CPS Scheme was adapted by the development authority as a tool to reserve land for future acquisition by the development authority.

PEENYA: OLD SUCCESS STORYBut now: absence of a planning tool/ legal and institutional framework for coordinated micro-level planning.

Fragmented development across industrial and residential at the micro level.

No strategic view of optimizing skills, existing SMEs, training facilities, or expansion of private firms.

Municipal councils skirt ULBs and Development Authorities for subdivision and building permits

KIADB and BDA do not coordinate regarding subdivision regulations creating fragmented discontinuous urban areas.

State and PlanningLaws and NormsInadequate tools for implementation

No contiguity between Peenya industrial layout and adjoining residential layouts.

Infrastructure has not been integrated in the design of the layout.Eg: Logistics zone, truck parking, warehousing

Industrial area built upon environmentally sensitive area

Building on lake beds and watersheds causes flooding, health hazards- disease, decline in land price and neglect towards infrastructure.

Existing Land Use 2003 and RMP2015, Electronic City and Bommanahalli, Bangalore

Bangalore

Policy and Schemes State and Planning

Flooding 2005, Bangalore, Bommanahallihttp://www.hindu.com/2008/10/26/stories/2008102650140100.htm

Employment, Risk, and the city

Ground Reality

Zonal Regulations and building byelaws do not address the real demand for work spaces and mixed use in areas occupied by informal industrial sites such as Pete, Yeshwantpur etc, in Bangalore. These areas become semi-autonomous zones and skirt regulations through tenuous negotiations with power groups to meet their occupational land needs.

State and PlanningLaws and NormsPartial and selective implementationInformal industrial zones

Plot size: 9 sqmSetback: NoneGround coverage: 100 %Building height: G+4

Floor Area Ratio: 0.75

60% Ground Coverage

Plot size: 36 sqmSetback: 1m all aroundGround coverage: 60 %Building height: G+1 or 2

Ground reality

Regulation

REGULATIONS

ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES KEEN MONITORING THROUGH A ULB WITH CAPACITY.

FLEXIBLE MIXED USE ZONING DOES NOT ANTICIPATE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, PARKING, POLLUTION, SOLID WASTE AND HENCE

NO PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ZRREGARDLESS OF RIGID OR FLEXIBLE REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION IS SELECTIVE

State and PlanningLaws and NormsPartial and selective implementation

Migrant workers, Panaji, a city of 80,000

Tin shed houses, 80% of households no water connections, 93% with no toilet facilities of their own.

• BSUP Scheme used for resettlement of migrant workers

• Land designated outside Panaji jurisdiction on low lying flood prone area for the under-privileged

• Project approved by the Centre within 5 days of commencement of the task

• But beneficiary list un-definable due to vote bank politics, Project shelved, Site now being converted to affordable sector housing under PPP with mall as commercial use.

Policy and Schemes State and PlanningMigrant workers, BSUP Scheme housing

Mumbai has introduced affordable rental housing for the migrant laborers. A more desirable model that accommodates mobility of labor and spatial allocation

S. Korea

N. Korea

Tokyo:Urban-centered social investment-led industrial strategy

• Urban and regional Development– Neighbourhood-tied industrial investment coordination strategy for externalities– Social investments in healthcare, education and training, housing and transport– Social protections integrate corporate welfare and small and micro businesses

under health and welfare programs– Industrial and environmental strategies brought together under Tokyo Govt.– Industrial city act, Technopolis Urban rejuvenation program– Private finance initiative, park projects, Downtown (PFI) program in public

investments– Revitalisation Act, Minkatsu Act investment projects ((the use of the private sector

for public work)• Manufacturing production, Development of new technologies, from heavy to

knowledge- linked to environment, medical and incentive and to information welfare, nanotechnology and information technology

• Public investment, Physical infrastructure for R&D infrastructure, transport

• Source: Fujita (2003)

TAMA project:A model project of Industrial Cluster Program

• TAMA:– Technology Advanced Metropolitan Area• TAMA Association:– Intermediary organization between universities andfirms, and among firms in TAMA established in 1998

• Geographical location:– Southwestern part of Saitama Prefecture,– Tama district: of Tokyo Metropolis and– Central part of Kanagawa Prefecture.

Tokyo:Urban-centered social investment-led industrial strategy

Capacity building• Indian labour economists ignore urban and spatial context, physical planners have

little employment and industry focus and national economic plans and policies have little urban relationship. Sector plans and policies rarely have ULBs discussed.

• The municipal corporations and parastatals have no trained economic development planners to embed economic and industrial plans. Engineers dominate these decisions, and management consulting firms with little urban industrial experience dominate national priorities with little institutional analysis. E.g. Bangalore BDA vested with the responsibility to prepare the master plan for a city of 7 million population had 3 urban planners in its TP division [Mohan and Rajagopal, 2010] and none qualified to address long-term economic and social issues.

• In contrast, cities such as Tokyo, Frankfurt, Singapore or New York have far more integrated industrial and economic growth plans, urban and neighbourhood institutions for community participation and sector expansion, urban and regional plans for significant infrastructure and capability building for industries that helps, not hinders citizens. Urban economic and industrial restructuring is overseen by agencies with trained staff and significant consulting expertise by experts. This is over and above basic facilities for citizens such as water and sanitation, pavements, and safe roads.

Limits to growth and inclusion• Urban Economic and Industrial challengesexternalities interfering in way industries advance, lack of worker-work-site amenities, mobility constraints from home to worksite and of home as worksite, agglomeration challenges for knowledge and tech investments.

• Industrial employment, land, housing, and mobility challengesindustrial land planned without worker housing/transport/services; land “for growth uses” conflicts with environmental goals and other uses.

• Inclusive Industrial growth cannot occur without long-term planning for technological capabilities, employment, and land issues.

No nodal or other agency oversees the coordination between the goals for strategic economic urban, regional, and sector plans. Sectors advance neither efficiently nor equitably.

'Inclusion' and 'exclusion' go hand in hand. There are serious industrial, technological, employment and environmental problems with our current development model.

Thank you