HOW MUMBAI SHOULD DEAL WITH NEW FSI POLICY

I contend with a statement that the crumbling infrastructure of Indian cities makes them increasingly unliveable and the government has not taken sufficient steps to redesign the cities according to the forecasted population and the effect of FSI on the densities (IndiaWaterPortal, 2018). Mumbai is one of the 21 cities in India that has published the status of its major projects but the details of work done are still questionable. Due to this, the ability of the ULBs is adversely affected to raise funds through municipal bonds. Lack of funds has hampered the immediate requirement of expansion of infrastructure and thus increasing population is being seen as a threat to the city. Evidently it becomes the need of the hour to dig deeply into the ways in which the ULBs of MMRDA intend to implement the new FSI policy on the ground without the funding and transparency of work from the urban and regional development authority.

I strongly agree with Alain Bertaud in his paper “Mumbai FSI conundrum” that there is a demand for high, compact buildings for the cities with topography that restricts their expansion. This is why cities located on islands – for instance, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore – are well known for their skyscrapers which are the need for the progress of the city (Bertaud). Up-gradation of infrastructure should be flexible enough to respond to the needs of the city if FSI regulations are altered. Every city is at different levels of urban and economic development which in turn affects the lifestyle of an individual. The average consumption of floor space by the residents of different cities is unlike which is further translated in their policy and regulations including FSI. Shirish Patel in his article Use and abuse of FSI doesn’t believe in irrationally comparing FSI of the cities like Mumbai (FSI 1.33) and Manhattan (FSI 15) (Patel, 2013). Crowding appears as a well-articulated rational approach to compare headcounts in a locality and thus real comparison at the same scale. The urge to blindly follow foreign sets of regulations and policies without understanding underlying reasons has emerged as a curse for aspiring cities of India. Why do we still commit the same mistake repeatedly even after knowing that the level of development and living styles are poles apart?

It is now evident from the case studies and references in the Indian context that the increase in population density due to FSI is a myth and there has to be an up-gradation of infrastructure with the up-gradation of FSI. With the above-stated content and need to find a probable solution for holistic development, I have tried to put forward some suggestions and considerations on how Mumbai should deal with its new FSI policy which is a joint initiative of MMRDA+MCGM.

Page 2

Being a peninsular city, Mumbai is locked by the three sides by its topography also with the past policies like Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation act and Rent Control Act the first step is to open up the lands which are frozen and thus are not in the formal land market.

Secondly, the development of cities with the right policy and management like the gradual up-gradation of infrastructure, grow becomes manifold constantly improving their livability. So with the analysis of draft development plan 2034 of Mumbai I contend to state that the plans for higher densities should include peripheral nodes which emphasize on nodal development that create specific changes to the density gradients with managing land uses and supplying infrastructure is also higher in emerging urban nodes that managed the phased growth and a balanced housing and jobs. Seeing the up-gradation of FSI in Mumbai DP 2034 i.e. raising from existing base FSI 0.55 to 1.5 and highest FSI 4 to 8 so proposed ranging from 2-8 FSI with base, premium A, TDR, and Premium B also, the change in land used character from Residential corridors to Residential-commercial zone and commercial with Commercial-Residential zone with industries along with it they are acting like a liberal approach which eventually decided by the market. The TOD corridors are being designated on the zoning map here is the question is Will allowing more FSI to attract the population or the up-gradation of infrastructure with up-gradation of FSI is a solution?

So in my opinion the TOD corridors with high FSI should incorporate the up-gradation of infrastructure of road transportation elevated as well as underground connecting with first and last-mile connectivity in TOD zone which connects to the suburban areas with good infrastructure and connectivity with management of commercial development or job opportunities for the people of suburban so that the they stay near the residing area which eventually less the mobility and stress on urban infrastructure considering the ratio or scale of no. of employment around TOZ like Delhi have tried to incorporate the population providing the transport network elevated and also underground which lowers the less of urban infrastructure on road with up gradating the FSI gradually. Also in policy level there should be a distribution of growth centers so in my contend in Mumbai there should be a poly-centric policy rather than a mono-centric like CBD ( Nariman Point) by doing this the stress level on infrastructure and growth can be envisioned in a balanced manner ( (Shrgaokar, 2013).

The DP of Mumbai 2034 doesn’t talk about the housing sector which is the biggest problem of Mumbai so there should be some incentives to the developers for making the affordable housing that should be enacted in the policy level like FSI of heritage can be used as TDR on other plots in favor of developers so that they can regularize some percentage of EWS in the new development. The inclusive and mixed-income group and diversity around the TOZ zone allows the FSI to consume which makes the zoning diverse with nodal development and polycentric growth. Thus, FSI is not the sole player in the

Page 3

development of any city. Blaming FSI for increasing density and affecting the development of any city negatively is totally absurd. If a correct judgment is made keeping in mind the other aspects of urban development and livability, the peculiar cases like Mumbai won’t occur as a failure of planning.