Urban Planning in Mumbai- Tumultuous Past and Uncertain Future

Vidyadhar PhatakPresented at the Sustainable Urbanization Planning Workshop

26th March 2019

Context for Urban Planning

Urban Planning has to be considered in the Context defined by• Institutions and Governance, and

• Land

Urban Planning also has to be seen in its evolving trajectory• Colonial / Pre Independence period

• Post independence till Economic reforms (1991)

• Post 1991 i.e. post liberalisation

Pre-Independence• 1896 - Plague epidemic

• 1898 - Bombay Improvement Trust (BIT), though Bombay Municipal Corporation existed since 188

• 1915 - Town Planning Act enabling Town Planning Schemes

• 1925/33 - BIT merged with BMC

• Bombay Development Department BDD

• 1945 – Bombay City and Suburbs Post War Development Committee –sub-committees Town Planning, Housing, Traffic & Railways

• 1948 - Modak Mayer Plan

Post Independence till 1991

• 1954 - Town Planning Act, making Development Plan mandatory

• 1958 – Barve Study Group

• 1964 - First statutory Development Plan of Greater Bombay prepared

Development Plan 1964(a) Mumbai worthy capital of Maharashtra, port of international fame,

commercial and industrial centre and cherished home for teeming millions

(b) reorganize city into self-contained neighbourhoods

(c) density of 250 to 600 persons per acre in the City and 150 to 250 persons per acre in the Suburbs

(d) decentralise industry and discourage commercial establishments in the City

(e) adequate housing for growing population and comprehensive slum clearance

(f) provide sites for schools, playgrounds, hospitals, markets etc. and for statutory undertakings

(g) improve the road network

(h) open space standard of 1 acre per 1000 population in the City by developing foreshore land for recreational use and higher standards in the Suburbs

(i) development control that will ensure standards of density, floor space, lighting and ventilation etc.

Post Independence till 1991 cont.

• 1965 - Gadgil Committee for Planning of Bombay and Pune Regions

• 1966 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act enabling designating Regions and Regional Planning Boards and New Town Development Authorities

• 1970 - Draft Regional Plan was published and CIDCO as NTDA was established

Regional Plan 1973• Supporting inter regional dispersal of

industries to reduce immigration• Promoting growth of Navi Mumbai and other

growth centres by restricting growth of industries and offices in Mumbai, as decentralized growth would be cost effective, • Bulk land acquisition is the only option

available for controlling speculation and recouping land value gains for financing infrastructure improvements; and• Urban growth be physically confined to well

defined areas based on the desirable densities and population distribution. (prevent sprawl.)

Development Plan of New Bombay, 1973 • reduce growth rate of population in Greater Bombay by

creating an attractive city across the harbour which will:

• Absorb immigrants who would otherwise come to Bombay

• Attract some of Bombay’s present population

• support state-wide location policies which will lead eventually to an efficient and rational distribution of industries over the State, and to a balanced development of urban centres in the hinterland

• provide physical and social services which raise living standards and reduce disparities in the amenities available to different sections of population

• provide an environment, which permits the citizens of the new city to live fuller and richer lives – free of physical and social tensions

• provide training and all possible facilities to the existing local population in the project area, to enable them to adapt to the new urban setting and to participate fully and actively in the economic and social life of the new city

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976

• Through ULCAR Government attempted to nationalize the surplus vacant land.

• Various exemptions were offered to incentivize affordable housing

• Outcomes are not visible

• Act was finally repealed in 2008 after its repeal in 1999 by Government of India

Development Plan of Greater Bombay 1991• Development Plan sanctioned in 1967 was due for revision

in 1977• The draft DP published in mid- 80s was finally sanctioned

during 1991-1994• Draft Plan was reviewed by a Committee headed by a former

Chief Secretary• Plan was finalized by a Committee under the then seating Chief

Secretary

• Plan adopted restrictive FSI as an instrument of controlling congestion flat FSI of 1.33 and 1

• The plan recognised the problems of compulsory acquisition of land

• It converted the areas designated for Public Housing into High Density Housing

• Introduced TDR as an alternative to monetary compensation in case of compulsory acquisition of land

Regional Plan 1996-2011• facilitate and promote economic growth of the region taking

into account its role in the process of national development

• improve quality of life particularly of the poor and the deprived

• minimize the impact of negative externalities - particularly the adverse environmental impacts – that may occur in the process of economic growth

• improve the efficiency of existing methods of resource mobilization, adopt innovative methods of resource mobilization and facilitate, attract and guide private investment in the desired direction

• promote effective citizen participation in the process of development through decentralization of institutions

Land use plan alone cannot achieve these objectives. ‘policies, programmes, procedures and projects will have to be evaluated with reference to these objectives on a continuing basis This will require a drastic change in the metropolitan planning – moving away from the land use planning to truly comprehensive development planning’

Game of FSI – from Physical to Fiscal

• On one hand the restrictive FSI and CRZ reduced the development rights available in the market

• On the other hand, rising incomes from 80s and ease of access to housing finance increased the demand for development rights

• This created scarcity of development rights that resulted in rise in prices of development rights

• Instead of rationalizing FSI regime Government opted for using restrictive FSI as a policy instrument for a wide range of activities.

Game of FSI – from Physical to Fiscal

• In 1997 based on the recommendations of a Committee headed by a Civil Servant, incentive FSI was offered for redevelopment of Slums

• In 1999, the incentive FSI was offered for redevelopment of chawls.

• Apart from these objectives of inclusive growth, incentive FSI is now being used for

• Encouraging schools and hospitals

• Promoting star category hotels

• Offices for IT/ITES

• Supplying public parking places

• Relocating buffalo stables; and

• Plain fund raising (for state and MCGM)

• Nationalizing urban land through ULC did not work but nationalizing Development Rights is being subtly attempted.

Recent PlansSome non-statutory plans

2003 Vision Document McKinesy Bombay First

2005 MMR Business Plan

2005 Percy Mistry Plan for making Mumbai an International Finance Centre

2010 MMR Concept Plan

Statutory Plans

• Draft Development Plan of Greater Mumbai 2015 (EDDP)

• Development Plan of Greater Mumbai (RDDP)

• Draft Regional Plan 2016-2036

Projects dominate

• Plans remain as instrument of controlling building activities and not as instrument of ensuring ‘development’

• Sectoral Projects - transport - dominate the scene. The mantra of ‘land use transport integration’ is not followed.

• Land use plan may refuse to respond to transport projects (RDDP)

• System of translating plans into investment does not exist. Comprehensive plans fail to trigger investments

• Champions pursue projects in mission mode and ensure investments

• Planning do not systematically respond to projects

Lack of Monitoring and Evaluation• Plans have axiomatic objectives couched in similar language

• There is also a belief that spatial plans will achieve these objectives, irrespective of the evolving context

• Characteristically, therefore, all plans lack Monitoring and Evaluation

• Some obvious indicators are not monitored:• GDP of Greater Mumbai is measured but not of MMR, composition of GDP is

not disclosed

• Data on employment by location is not available

• Household income or consumption distribution is not known

• Annual statistics of use wise floor space constructed and dwelling units constructed is not compiled

• Consequently planning is not ‘evidence based’.

Uncertain Future of Urban Planning• Would incidence of TB in SRA buildings trigger redevelopment and a new

institution?

• Would scope of planning shrink to mere controlling of building construction?• Would game of FSI continue, with promise of free houses to 70% Mumbai’s population

• Would ad hoc Committees decide plans?

• Would championed projects continue to dominate investment scene?

• Would there be clarity in institutional roles?• What will be the roles of state government, Metropolitan Planning Committee,

MMRDA?

• Would ad-hoc Committees continue? Empowered Committee, Heritage Committee, High-Rise Committee, and would some more be added?

• Would planning ever become ‘Evidence Based’? Would data systems including Big Data be deployed for this purpose?

Thank you