Mass housing: Massing the houses or housing masses

It is a popular misconception that high-rise apartments are the outcome of higher density demands. As long as the floor-space index (FSI) is controlled at around 1.5 or 2 (which it the FSI allowed in Mumbai), even three- or four-storey buildings can achieve the same density quite effectively.

For example, the traditional residential precincts in Ahmedabad, the Pols, have up to 2.7 FSI with only three or four floors; ten-storey apartments in newer peripheries have an FSI of 1.5 to 1.8, legally speaking. Also, we ignore to challenge of land that is wasted and what should not be compromised in defining living environments.

A study of downtown areas of Los Angeles, USA, revealed that nearly 60 per cent of the land was essentially devoted to cars, in terms of roads, parking garages, right of way etc. Should people be given priority or the machines?

We can well make optimum use of these spaces and offer the better part of land to housing. It is only a mental block to think that high-rises are the only answer for a living environment in megacities.

High-rises may well form a personal choice, but they are not a compulsion. Having chosen to build high-rises, we need to be aware of the inherent limitations and constraints. We need to compare these with the virtues of low-rise living and include latter in the designs of high-rise housing to render it more humane.

The low-rise builform makes for a humane living environment; with its relation to the ground and the outdoors, it naturally interfaces with the street through activity spillovers, thereby providing a much-needed platform for better neighbourly interaction and a sense of belonging. Remaining within the cone of vision, these neighbourhoods have a better feel of mutual bonding.

Vertical segregation is more severe than horizontal distancing in this regard. For example, in a high-rise apartment, you tend to bond better with the unit across in another building in the line of sight than with someone a few inches away on the upper floor - completely out of sight.

Studies in New York revealed that because of the sense of indifference perpetuated by the high-rise builform, the crime rate on higher floors of taller residential buildings was significantly higher, nearly double, that of the lower three floors. On account of the visual proximity of the street, the lower floors are policed better and rendered safer against crime and vandalism.

Children and the elderly are most affected in high-rise apartments because of the constrained mobility; the indoor confinement affects their psychology as well as growth.
Low-rises are less at risk against earthquakes, fires and cyclones. It is also economical because of the reduced structural demands and lesser dependence on mechanised services.

Energy consumption in multi-storey buildings with elevators is nearly 60 kW per sq m per person per year, which is one and a half times that in low-rise residences.

The most creative solution in recent times has been that of row houses.

A low-rise attached built form, a row house is a fusion of a traditional Pol house and bungalow, adapting the positives of both and transforming them according to the changed needs and aspirations of contemporary times.

A row house, like a bungalow, offers ownership rights over the plot/land, flexibility of growth and expansion, private open spaces in the front and back, and freedom of expression for personalisation and identity.

At the same time, like contiguous Pol houses, it makes effective use of land, has reduced solar exposure/heat gain, and has community spirit with collectively shared facilities and infrastructure. Their higher density and marketability make them popular with even commercial development agencies.

In an unfortunate incentive artificially injected by municipal authorities in the 1980s, high-rise buildings were offered 50 per cent extra FSI if they were greater than four storeys high; this led builders to construct higher, thus changing the skyline, neighbourly interaction and quality of life forever.

Can we rethink our direction for newer developments? Can we build committees rather than construct units? Can we include outdoor space as an integral component of homes? Can we build to stay rather than sell?

With a visionary development framework, participatory decision-making mechanisms, responsible professional and conscientious development patrons, we can surely rebuild our city, taking it back to its humane, environmentally sensitive, socio-culturally responsive and contextually unique living environment.