We should understand why FSI matters. And why it matters differently to different people. The increase applies to all- affluent, tenements, slums – but the outcome in each case is different.......Shirish B Patel

 

 

THE GOVERNMENT is like a child with a new toy-FSI (Floor Space Index)-and despite the fact that this par ticular toy has been around and has been played with for quite a while, the joy of fiddling with it still does not seem to have abated. This may be because the child still has not figured out how it works. And what has certainly not been understood is that some toys can be dangerous. Not always for the person playing, but certainly for innocent neighbours.

We should start by understanding why FSI matters. And why it matters differently to different people. The increase applies to all-affluent, middle-class, tenements, slums – but the outcome in each case will be different. To define it, FSI is quite simply the ratio of built-up floor space on a plot compared to the area of the plot. So the higher the FSI the more floor space you can build on a particular plot. A plot owner or a developer will always welcome higher FSI because he gets that much more floor space to sell. He always stands to gain from more FSI.

But what of the final owner of a flat who may either gain or lose? He will gain if the extra built-up space comes to him and his family to occupy. He will lose if the extra space goes to other families with whom he now has to share the same compound, the same footpath and street space, the same neighbourhood park and the same neighbourhood school. In that case he suffers from more crowding, in particular the crowding that takes up more parking space and adds yet more cars to the traffic on the streets.

So if higher FSI brings many more families into a locality all the existing residents in a built-up locality would lose out. Of course, the damage to them would disappear if amenities were upgraded in consonance with the higher FSI: that is, if the area now had more schools, more playgrounds and more street space than before to take care of all the added families. But that, as we know, is extremely difficult to bring about, to the point where the need for this concomitant increase in amenities is conveniently dropped from one's thinking. Everyone "adjusts" in the famous Mumbaikar way That is, we . accept more discomfort and worsened living conditions so that some people can reap more profits.

But if the increase in FSI means more space for the families already living in a locality, that is certainly welcome. With these families paying for the extra FSI, and thus for the extra space they now enjoy, the city earns revenue. In such a case, where the extra FSI is being paid for, and no new occupants are added, there is in fact no reason why FSI should be limited in any way We should be flexible . in allowing the rich more Floor Space but only if they pay the city for it, and provided they are not adding more numbers to the population in the locality.

But there is one serious caveat: they should only be allowed to add floor space for themselves on condition that they also add floor space for all the domestic servants and service providers, the chauffeurs and lift men and security guards, who look after all the floor space they occupy . And, of course, because this adds more population to the locality, what has first to be augmented is the infrastructure of road and footpath space, open areas, schools and med ical facilities,water supply and so on. So, what this means is that if FSI is to be added in an area the first and necessary step is to augment the in- frastructure. Then, as a condition to allowing people more FSI, a scheme must be devised that adds more low- income housing to the locality. And only then can more FSI be allowed to those wanting it. Now all this cannot obviously be done on a blanket, across-the-city kind of basis. It has to be done locality by locality, with area by area changes in FSI, depending on where you have been able to satisfy the pre-conditions. This is something the Government has long abandoned, in favour of centralised rulemaking.

We must understand why this has happened. Over the years successive Governments have systematically dismantled urban planning in the city, because it fetters their freedom to do what they like with the city The . biggest and generally most disastrous change has happened in the suburbs, and the consequences are only too visible. The urban layouts there were prepared assuming an FSI of 1. The road widths, parks and playgrounds, and pro visions for school plots and other amenities were all made with the assumption that the FSI on the buildable plots would be 1. This FSI would have resulted in a certain living in of fami number lies each lo cality. The amenities provided were adequate for that number. Then the FSI was altered by Government effectively to 2. This was done by giving Transferable De velopment Rights (TDR) for a variety of causes, including free housing of slum dwellers. With an FSI of 2, sub urbs which were functioning per fectly well till then under FSI 1 suddenly found themselves burdened with twice the number of families than lived there earlier-it was not existing families moving into double their earlier floor space, which would not have mattered, but new families in the locality that doubled the crowding. The traffic jams we now see are a direct consequence of that. More than increased car ownership, it is the failure to increase road and footpath space and improve public transport that have driven up the congestion.

So bump up the FSI by all means, but do it systematically locality by locality, after checking that the supporting infrastructure is in place, and after providing housing in the same locality for service providers. And even when the FSI is allowed to go up this cannot be an arbitrary decision. There has to be a check on the numbers of people being added to the locality and make pay for the extra FSI they consume.

URL: http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/artMailDisp.aspx?article=25_03_2008_015_008&typ=1&pub=264