As the world gets more and more urbanised, with more than 70 per cent of global GDP from cities, and with cities growing fast primarily because they are the engines of national economies, there is a clear message that it is time that we in India paid sufficient attention to how our cities are evolving. UN Habitat’s latest “State of the World’s Cities Report” says that by the middle of this century, it is expected that out of every ten people on the planet, seven will be living in urban areas. An urban governance system which is not sufficiently empowered, that allows continuing gaps in basic infrastructure coverage and delivery, and which lets slums proliferate because there is no well-defined housing strategy, has complicated the process of steady, balanced urban development. So has the multiplicity of authorities in India’s cities, and their strong dependence on state governments for finances, as well as the weak master planning process, leading to an absence of an overall vision and strategy for a city’s development. The existence of an entirely different governance regime and scheme of things in the rural areas that immediately adjoin cities has led to further complications.
One of the key factors governing how a city grows and expands is the policy regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR), also known as Floor Space Index (FSI). Quite often, it is the state governments which guide and determine the development control norms and often it has been seen that select variations are approved at the state level — sometimes seeming to be influenced by considerations external to the overall city planning process. What role do density norms or stated requirements in this regard play in shaping the city’s scheme of things? An answer can be gathered from the Bangalore example, where it is said if the present density regulations are corrected, the city’s radius could be 8 km rather than the present 12 km. In Singapore densities vary as per location, planned use and availability of infrastructure.
The point being made is that as the process of urbanisation spreads, there is a need to proactively guide the process at a larger level. After the first National Urbanisation Commission of the 1980s, India has not had another such commission to look at the complexity of issues involved and to suggest appropriate strategies for different parts of the country. Though urban development is a subject mandated to the states, any effort to provide direction by the Central government significantly influences the process, as can be seen from the reforms initiative and support for infrastructure development provided through the seven years of JNNURM. Land is a critical factor in the development of cities today, and in the absence of policies defining property rights and land values, the limited urban land available cannot play a balancing role in a city’s overall development. There are a large number of other key issues which need to be adequately handled through strategies and policies — such as making the master plan process less rigid, ensuring integration of land use and transport planning, matching land use and infrastructure, ensuring environmental sustainability and so on. For these the states would need to state their strategies and subsequently guide the process of implementation.
Though there is no national initiative now to try and give shape to future urbanisation strategies, the Twelfth Five-Year Plan identifies affordable housing; sustainable livelihoods and enterprise; universal access to water and sanitation; quality and affordable public transport; a clean and healthy environment; strengthening local governance systems; integrating planning organisations and provisions; building capacity across all levels; financially empowering urban local bodies; and promoting innovation in urban management as key initiatives of India’s urban future.
Rajasthan, Karnataka and Kerala are three states which have taken the initiative to seriously address the issue of strategy for urbanisation. Rajasthan set up a state commission on urbanisation in 2011 to examine the state of urbanisation, to review the status of various policies, to identify priority action areas and also to evolve and recommend a policy framework. The Karnataka strategy is to go in for a framework for guiding the urban development of the state and help create cities which are economically productive, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. It talks of focussed strategies like developing cities taking into account their differing strengths; shifting the traditional focus on master plans to a spatial approach; reforming the urban land markets to make them more efficient; developing suitable programmes to reduce and ultimately eliminate urban poverty; strengthening of infrastructure in five key areas of direct relevance to city residents; and strengthening democratic urban governance.
Kerala has gone about this process in a very systematic manner and prepared a state urbanisation report with the urban vision of revitalised urban areas of compact urban form, distributed in a balanced and orderly manner in the entire state, which would complement the rural hinterland and act as engines of development. The recommendation is to have three categories of urban areas: urban clusters/urban corridors, isolated higher-order urban areas and small urban areas. Three zones are proposed within an urban area: core urban, intermediary urban and peri-urban. The strategy for development of the core area is remoulding to a compact urban form, with high-intensity development supported with necessary infrastructure. A planned, comparatively low-intensity development is the general strategy suggested for the intermediary urban area. Intensive residential activity, high plotted development and high-rise buildings are suggested for this area. Low intensity is proposed in the peri-urban area. New developments which need large tracts of land are to be located in these areas. Controlled organic growth within the peri-urban area may be the objective. The possibility of a buffer zone between the peri urban and rural area is recommended to be explored.
What needs to be done to achieve this is that the urban profile must be part of the general strategy for the comprehensive development of the state — in fact, the urban profile must be made an integral part of the component of regulated spatial structure of the state, defined through a state perspective plan. Existing large land parcels should be conserved for future development. How to enhance density, which is low in core urban areas — ranging between 6,000 and 7,500 persons per square km — is also an issue to be addressed.
Also Read
There have been varying discussions about the way in which our large cities have developed. Some are high-density. Most have huge transportation problems. Economically weaker sections find it difficult to find proper housing. Almost all our cities have poor basic infrastructure and service delivery. Poor sanitation and lack of basic facilities hampers their progress. These are just some of the fundamental issues substantially confronting our cities and towns. Few states have strategised the various factors, stated above, that need to be taken into account to have balanced city development and proceed with urbanisation. It is time to look at all these fundamentals from a national perspective with recommended strategies for states keeping in view their current trends and projected requirements. It is time to have another national urbanisation committee.
The author is a former Secretary of Urban Development, Government of India