Neighbourhood transformations outpace policy, bypass urban planning

Urban planners have consistently failed to acknowledge and accommodate the reality of informality as the dominant mode of urbanisation. Much has been written on urban planning being a colonial construct, one that has replicated and expanded the colonial processes of exclusion and social separation. This is visible in our cities—in the land use allocations and the resultant spatial segregation—referred to by several scholars as spatial apartheid.

In particular, this is visible in the habitats and housing typologies. Housing for the urban poor falls far short of demand, and housing itself is far more than mere shelter—it embodies socio-political and economic needs and aspirations across income groups, more so for the urban poor. In many ways then, provisioning for adequate affordable housing constitutes pathways to social justice and, in the more recent past, environmental justice. 

The consistent focus on affordable housing as a policy priority is reflected in numerous programmes of the government, including the PMAY. A persisting challenge is the mismatch between demand and supply. Even as our cities struggle with this mismatch, there is another, less visible story unfolding across Indian cities – Bengaluru being no exception.

This is the story of neighbourhood transformations, one that is responding to a different kind of ‘affordability’. Neighbourhood transformation is linked to the transitioning social and economic fabric. Referred to varyingly as ‘urban renewal’, ‘urban regeneration’ or ‘urban transformation’, this is a phase that most cities go through as they expand, grow and mature; it is far more complex than the housing and housing markets. 

In Bengaluru, the transformation of neighbourhoods is visible as individual houses on smaller plots (ranging between 1,200 sq ft and 2,400 sq ft) are giving way to ‘small’ multi-storeyed apartments. Initially housing individual homes – at best two families – these plots abutting typical neighbourhood roads of 6 Mt to 9 Mt now often house 8-10 families. Many of these are beyond the permissible floor area ratio, built edge-to-edge with little parking space. Notably, the supporting public infrastructure is not geared for the present-day occupation, which is sometimes as high as 10 times the original. The basic infrastructure pipelines and parking spaces, as well as something as critical as fire safety provisions, are not adequate to support the built density. 

Globalisation and liberalisation ushered in rapid urbanisation, escalating land prices, the restructuring (and decline) of the manufacturing sector, and the growth of the service sector coupled with an enhanced purchasing power. Cumulatively, these are driving neighbourhood transitions occurring as a reaction more dominantly to escalating land prices and market demands for housing of various shades and hues. Prima facie, the housing typologies are defying the logic of framing housing and habitat designs as a problem solely for and of the urban poor. Rather, the transformations evidence a response to a diverse demand for housing typologies across diverse stakeholders – in different phases of their lifetimes looking to access a multitude of housing typologies. The result is densification, income diversity and choices which housing policies have failed to acknowledge, let alone address. 

This is happening across the city—whether in middle- to high-income neighbourhoods in the core of the city or middle- to lower-income communities on its peripheries. The small plot owner in the city is perhaps a developer today, an active agent of speculative urbanism. These agents invest in small plots and develop a range of housing typologies—consumed as rental housing in the immediate. Once the land prices escalate, the realty exchanges hands. In effect, these transformations are servicing an (in)visible demand — for diverse housing typologies — linked to income segments that fall on the continuum between affordable and luxury housing. 

These transformations are not necessarily bad, except that these are occurring largely outside the State apparatus and, more importantly, the gaze of the State. It is outside the framework of the zoning regulations and the building bye-laws. Official data does not reflect these transformations. In a recent research on building plan sanctions in Bengaluru, 38,733 data points sanctioned between 2010 and 2022 in two categories – buildings in the four floors and above category and those below four floors-- were considered. These were analysed along their spatial and non-spatial attributes to understand the built-growth expansion and densification in Bengaluru. The insights were alarming: overall, only 5% of the total buildings sanctioned are four floors and above, with only one zone in East Bengaluru leading, where approximately 18% of the sanctioned plans are in the high-rise category. 

Neighbourhood transformations, while desirable, require steering to prioritise public good over private gain – essential to achieve an enhanced quality of life for all. The current trajectory – with little or no regulation – can potentially create dysfunctional neighbourhoods with a weak mix, social exclusion, overcrowding and spillover effects. These are already visible in pervasive on-street parking – a major contributor to the infamous Bengaluru traffic snarls. These insidious transformations call for a critical enquiry that can potentially plug into housing policies and the currently missing local area planning guidelines.

(The writer is an urban planning consultant and partner at a design studio)