Inclusive Housing

Page 1

2

Issue Specific Housing


2.1

Inclusive Housing


Inclusiveness can be better defined by first defining exclusiveness.

exclude 1. To prevent from entering; keep

out; bar 2.To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject. 3. To put out; expel.

exclusive 1. Excluding or tending to exclude.

2. Not allowing something else;

incompatible. 3. Not divided or shared with others. 4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole. 5. Complete; undivided. 6. Not including specified extremes or limits, but only area between them.

7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation. 8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive.


Exclusive Housing is housing which is

inclusive to only one (or some) particular social or economic groups. It thus excludes everyone else not belonging to these groups.

In today‘s scenario the criteria is generally the spending power, though there are many cases of housing being exclusive to a particular class or religion, for example, Jain only buildings in Mumbai. There have also rare instances of extraordinarily exclusive housing, such as vegetarian-only in Soami Ngar, New Delhi.

Most current housing is geared towards exclusivity. Amrapali SkyBungalows (bottom right) offer private lifts and separate staff and guest lifts. Unitech (bottom left) has a range of ‘luxury’ homes to choose from.


inclusive

1.including (almost) everything within its scope 2.including the extremes as well as the area between inclusiveness (uncountable) 1. The property of being inclusive.

inclusivity

1.the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.


There are different

interpretations of inclusivity.

Household structure

• Including future residents in the entire design process • Including different groups of people:

Sexual orientation Level of education Age

Economic status and occupation

1. Including all social groups: socially inclusive, but not necessarily economically 2. Including all economic groups: economically inclusive, but not necessarily socially 3. What we term super-inclusivity, or including all different social and economic groups In the western context inclusivity has generally come to mean inclusion of the aged and the disabled, while in most of the developing world it implies economic, religious and cultural integration.

Cultural, religious or ethnic differences

The level of inclusivity can be measured by: 1. The physical proximity between different groups 2. The level of social interaction between the different social or economic groups


Inclusive Housing

is thus housing which is

not exclusive to any particular social or economic group. Inclusive housing does not try to equalize everyone and bring them to the same socio-economic level, but rather accepts and respects their differences. Super-inclusive housing would include all groups of people, whether of different economic strata, religious beliefs, sex, familial and household structure, jobs or professions, disabilities, age, or even sexual preference.


Leading from the different Interpretations of inclusivity, there are also different interpretations of inclusive housing:

Socially inclusive, economically inclusive or both? This report shall focus on economic inclusivity, which the designer can somewhat ensure. The level of Spatial Integration The proximity between different economic groups can range from adjacent apartments on the same floor or adjacent plots to nearby sectors or zones exclusive to one income level.

The level of Social Interaction There is debate regarding the extent of social interaction required. Some sources consider the existence of a ‗community‘ paramount (and so only living next door is not inclusive), while others say that just spatial proximity is sufficient. One might claim that spatial proximity would automatically result in social interaction, but present examples of apartment buildings leave this open to argument. Inter-inclusivity and Intra-inclusivity Another interpretation of inclusive housing is to integrate the surrounding site conditions and residents with the designed housing.


Historical Overview - Global Western The sense and extent of social stratification was never too strong. However racial and economic segregation have been the major problems.

Islamic Religiously speaking, Islamic society has no social/caste distinction. However, islamic cities have a strong sense of neighbourhood, often gated. These are based on lineage – Tribals, Sayyids and the artisans/farmers.

Indian Due to the caste system, as well as the diverse range of cultures and religions, Indian cities and housing have been socially exclusive, but economically codependent, hence inclusive.

Citadel

Market place

Roman Insula , an apartment house having an area of 73sqm, located in occupationally divided sectors.

Kshatriya/ Brahmin

Vaishya

Plan of a Vedic village – division based on caste and occupation Figure ground – Istanbul Tight, organic neighborhoods, with cul-de-sacs


Today’s Exclusive City FIRST WORLD and developed cities Suburbanization and commute heavily dependent on transport infrastructure and an extensive public transit system.

Poorer

Richer

Poorer Richer Richer

Affluent CBD [city center]

Affluent CBD [city center]

HIG housing

HIG housing

HIG and MIG housing (commute to CBD) LIG and EWS housing (commute to CBD)

MIG, LIG and EWS housing (commute to CBD) MIG and HIG suburbs (commute to CBD)


Today’s Exclusive City THIRD WORLD cities are considerably different.

There is constant migration into the city and also pressure on the LIG and EWS groups within the city to move out to the periphery due to gentrification. The financial worth of the land is measured in terms of distance from CBD, and thus rising land costs, rents and taxes force people out. Even the new housing they find on the outskirts is generally less affordable and still lower in quality than the original settlements inside because of increased demand for housing and inadequate supply.

These peripheral settlements are also not well connected to the inside- there is lack of adequate infrastructure and transport linkages. New migrants and those who can not afford housing on the outskirts, but who still need to work in or near the city centre, congregate in slum or squatter settlements closer to places of work.

slums

Affluent CBD [city center] HIG and MIG

Affluent CBD [city center]

Affluent CBD [city center]

HIG and MIG

HIG and MIG

LIG and EWS

LIG and EWS

LIG and EWS


Inequity in the Indian City

The population of today’s Indian cities is a microcosm of the nation as a whole — a rich mix of communities, cultures, professions, and income classes from the most deprived sections of society to a middle-class majority. Some 75 percent of urban citizens are in the bottom income segments, earning an average of 80 rupees a day.

Source India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth McKinsey Global Institute, 2010


Why do we need more affordable housing ?

Affordable housing is a particularly critical concern for low-income groups: in the absence of a viable model that caters to their needs, India will see the continued proliferation of slums across the country.

There is urgent need for provision of affordable urban housing across all income groups.

Source India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth McKinsey Global Institute, 2010

Approximately 42.8 million people or about 15.2 percent of India’s urban population live in slum settlements. According to the Census of India, 35 percent of urban households live in single room dwelling units and 68 percent of such households have four members or more. Approximately 81 million persons or 25.7 percent of the total urban population are below the official poverty line.

Source: Report of the Government of India High Level Task Force on Affordable Housing For All, 2008

The Eleventh Five Year Plan estimates the urban housing shortage of 24.7 million units, with 99 percent of this shortage pertaining to the economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower income groups (LIG).

Affordable housing for low-income groups is an important consideration in most cities. Planning mandates in the United Kingdom have generated 20 to 25 percent of all affordable units built

over the last decade. South Africa provides free land for houses for its poorest income groups. Singapore provides public housing for more than 80 percent of its population through a dedicated Housing Development Board, using land monetization and interest- rate subsidies to make affordability work.


The Case for a More Inclusive City THUS 1. There will always be different economic groups within the city. All of these need adequate, affordable housing. 2. These groups are equally dependent on each other: the rich on the poor for services and goods, and the poor on the rich for livelihood. 3. Large pockets of poorer areas leads to the creation of ghettos, increase in crime and other social issues, and the poverty cycle. 4. Such areas also generally remain ignored and underdeveloped in terms of city services and infrastructure. 5. When these different groups live closer together, the commuting time, expense and effort gets reduced. 6. The pressure on transport infrastructure also gets reduced.


The Elusive, Inclusive City As such, some basic characteristics of a more inclusive city –a prerequisite for inclusive housing- are:

1. Higher density, especially around the city centres. 2. A land use pattern which is more mixed, that is, where the place of work and residence are closer together.

As such, inclusive cities can ―mitigate the strains and maximize the opportunities‖ of urban living.

3. Better public transit and transport infrastructure, which can support those who still need to commute for work. Quoted from India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth McKinsey Global Institute, 2010


The Elusive, Inclusive City

Source: Mumbai FSI/FAR conundrum The perfect storm: the four factors restricting the construction of new floor space in Mumbai Alain Bertaud, 2004

This establishes the need for a more mixed land use/development plan where the place of work is closer to the place of residence, and consequently there is lesser pressure on public transit. Here we are mostly talking about the One of the main reasons EWS, LIG and MIG for the sprawl-leading-togroups. Most HIG workers slums-leading-to-sprawl already live close to their cycle is the low FSI or FAR workplaces, or can easily limits, which mean that the afford to commute from their residence to their built up area is spread over a larger region and work place. that the density of people living in close range of the A more inclusive city, CBD is very less. with people of different economic levels and This situation automatically occupations living closer implies that people have together in generally to travel further away from higher densities, would their home for work. This thus result in the also puts a huge amount increased proximity of of pressure on the already service providers inadequate city-scale (workers) and service transport system. consumers (work place).


The Elusive, Inclusive City

What we want: a completely inclusive mesh of the rich and the poor.

But: there are CBDs and central commercial areas

These areas and their surroundings should be high density.

To resolve this issue, we need to zoom in to

the neighbourhood or local level. But: owing to market forces, these area become populated by mostly the rich.


Inclusivity on the local level Inclusivity needs to be achieved on the local level amongst HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS neighbourhoods. Employment and Commute Having these different residential areas close-by reduces commuting time to employment destination and market areas, and thus expense and effort for all economic groups. Infrastructure and development for all Achieving inclusivity on the local level, that is, having neighbourhoods comprising of different economic backgrounds next to each other ensures that development benefits are equally distributed and shared by all communities and not accrued to only one.


Inclusivity on the local level Buffer Spaces When different economic groups live close together, the characteristic and design of the buffer space or neutral zone separating them become of paramount importance. These spaces, both ‗no –man‘s land‘ and so ‗everyone‘s land‘ should be areas where all economic groups can interact. Examples are: •Parks and green spaces, which offer equal recreational opportunities for all economic groups •Markets and commercial areas, which also directly offer employment to LIG and EWS groups •Shared facilities like places of worship, hospitals, etc. •Transport nodes like metro stations, roads and paths


market

Bus depot Malviya Nagar

Press Enclave Rd.

Hauz Rani Saket

Spatial proximity

Inclusivity on the local level

Shivalik

Jal Board open Police station Metro

Hauz Rani and Saket

The importance of buffer spaces can be understood by considering the case of Hauz Rani in South Delhi. Early1980s | DDA appropriated historical Hauz land | Saket Sports Complex | Mid-development stage, constituted large fields without any barriers | Saket and Hauz Rani residents moved | Children from both areas played football every evening | 1990 interim sports complex was razed

Social interaction

Other examples

Yusuf Sarai and Green Park:

market, services, daily goods, availability of household help, Proximity, commute and expense


Affordability

Inclusive Complexes Large housing complexes can be inclusive not only with their surroundings, but also within themselves. Here‘s how…

Social Interaction and/or dependency Groups of people to want to live in such close proximity if there is a desire for social engagement and shared community spaces (such a mix of housing is possible with variation in plot or apartment size) or if both groups are dependent on each other, usually through some economic activity (separate buildings but in the same complex/vicinity)

A housing complex can only be considered inclusive if atleast some of its units are affordable by a range of economic groups. • • • • • •

Cross Subsidy Loan/Credit assistance Variation in unit/plot size ‘Self help’ model ‘Site + Services’ model Low rise High Density development

Affordability on the face of it is one thing. The unit should be affordable in the long term as well. In short, housing will only be inclusive if the poor see it as a long term investment. • Incremental Development:

o Additive Housing o Flexible spaces


Aranya Community Housing Indore, India

Source: Aga Khan Award for architecture, Aranya Community housing www.akdn.org/architecture


Architect Vaastu Shilpa Foundation (B.V. Doshi, Ahmedabad)

No. of Dwellings Population 6500 Plots (6 sectors)

60,000 (EWS-65%; LIG-11%; MIG-14%; HIG-9%)

Client Indore Development Authority Year 1989

Economic zoning •HIG groups have been placed near the highway •MIG groups are near the arterial road •EWS and LIG are in the middle

Type Site + Services (Plotted Housing) Site Area 85 sqkm (8.5 HA) Ground 58% Residential Coverage 6.73% Commercial 23.5% Road space 8.15% Open spaces


Social engagement and dependency • ‘Spine and cluster’ settlement: There is a main

arterial road which is a very important economic stimulus, for vendors etc. which binds the colony together. Also, clusters tend to provide middle spaces which are a great for community activities.

Most houses have the ‘otta’ (outdoor platform) in front, which becomes a place for social interaction and enlivens the street.

There are commercial establishments within the complex too, which are also a source of employment for the poorer residents. This forms a certain dependency between the groups.


Affordability • Only services

(connections + core) have been

provided on site. The actual building is left upto the buyer, for more flexibility in terms of budgets and materials. Doshi built some houses just as guidelines which may or may not be followed for future development.

• Low rise high density development model has been adopted with tallest buildings being commercial centers at the ends of the spine, which are 5 storeys high. • Cross subsidy has been provided for EWS and LIG groups by selling HIG plots on market value and auctioning the land for commercial purposes. • A variety of plot sizes have been provided, from 35.32 sqm for EWS to 613.94 sqm for HIG


Incremental Development • The architect designed a large number of combinations for the dwellings

(80 prototypes)

• Extremely diverse • The possibility of vertical expansion and peripheral additions was kept in mind


Linkages, Connectivity and Hierarchy Hierarchy of Open Spaces

Vehicular Road Network

Major commercial centers/ nodes



Artists‘ Colony Belapur, India ―One is an example, two is a pattern!‖

Sources: • www.urbz.net •The new landscape by Charles Correa


No. of Dwellings Population Architect Charles Correa

5500 Plots

25000 (500 per HA)

Client Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Year 1983-86

Economic zoning •Large and small plots in a mixed, cluster style housing •Incremental model so that people expand their dwellings as incomes increase

Type Incremental (Plotted Housing) Site Area 55 HA (100 plots/HA) Ground Approx. 50% Coverage


Affordability • Cost cutting in terms of materials used. Also, toilets have been kept detached to reduce plumbing costs • Slight variation in plot size from45 to 75 sq mt

Social Interaction • Fractal based courtyard clusters, which promote social gatherings • Pedestrian only zone, which encourages children to play and people to mingle • Heirarchy of open spaces from small to large

Incremental • Incremental modules have been adopted so that people can expand their dwellings in the same site with increase in family size and/or income. • Basic additions prescribed by architect – easily replicable by local mistri.



What doesn’t…

What works…

•No common walls, less conflicts – respect for private property, with provision of public space • Pedestrian zones and courtyard typology promote community interaction •Additive development manual ensures that the architectural character remains same, but diversity exists

•Does not look like a designed intervention as it is very organic, almost dilapidated today • Toilets are detached from the house to save plumbing costs

The fact that it is termed ‗Artist‘s colony‘ means that it has been typecast that way, and most residents would belong to creative fields, which takes away from the diversity.


Inclusive cluster housing; trying something new‌

J-K Block Housing Source: Delhi and livability – Dissertation by Ananta Ganjoo

Dilshad Garden, Delhi, India


Architect Ram Sharma Client Delhi Development Authority Year 1975-80 (?)

Economic zoning •HIG housing on ground floor, MIG in the middle, LIG on top •Staggered apartments for variation in built-up area for each section

Type Low rise High Density Cluster Group Housing

Site Area ? Ground ? Coverage


Affordability • Cost variation by staggering apartments and reducing sizes • Hierarchy of economic groups from ground floor upwards, automatically decreases prices of the higher apartments.

Social Interaction/Dependancy • Neighborhood parks provide the oppurtunity for interaction

Encroachments are a big issue with this housing


What works…

•Hierarchy of apartments in terms of variation and prices • Ample light and ventilation due to staggering

What doesn’t…

• The uneasiness between people from the different groups, due to such close proximity • Encroachment of balconies/ terraces as built-up area is not favorable, as this is not supposed to be an incremental model.

Due to inherent social stigmas as well as a massive difference in lifestyles, the proximity of lower income groups with higher income ones works better when a certain distance is maintained.


Woodwords Redevelopment Vancouver, Canada High-rise inclusivity; A social experiment

Source: www.woodwardsdistrict.com


Architect Gregory Henriquez Partners Client Government of British Columbia Year 2010

No. of Dwellings 536 market housing units+ 10 units for people with physical Disabilities + 200 non-market housing units + 75 family Occupancy + 125 single occupancy

Economic zoning •Variety of apartment sizes in the same building and floor • Flats subsidized for the poor in close vicinity as well as in the same building

Type Redevelopment – High Rise Built up 11 HA Area Ground ? Coverage


Affordability • Subsidy for poorer populations

Social Interaction/ Dependency • Tying up the economic zones with common facilities like markets, gyms etc. • Extremely close proximity – aimed at promoting social interaction across groups


What works…

• The intention of alleviating poverty and crime from poor pockets of the city through ‗positive gentrification‘ • Tying up the economic zones with common facilities like markets, gyms etc. could work well

What doesn’t…

•A social experiment, which could backfire. • Such close proximity between economically diverse groups might actually harbour hostility

It has been seen earlier how it is not only the rich who might feel uncomfortable living in an economically diverse neighborhood, but also the poor who feel threatened, and prefer their ghettos. Also, inclusivity demands a lifestyle change. Hence, it is important to avoid potential conflicts, and not force such drastic changes.


Government Mandates In a bid to increase the available These dwelling units are then handed over affordable housing stock for the urban to the government which sells or allots them poor, the government mandates that all to eligible low income beneficiaries. private group housing should incorporate a minimum percentage of EWS or community service personnel or LIG category housing. The United Kingdom has also used planning mandates, termed Section 106, since 1981 which require all new housing developments of more than 25 units to build a pre-agreed number of affordable units. While the proportion of affordable units built is projectspecific, 15 to 25 percent on average fall into the affordable category.

Source India‘s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth McKinsey Global Institute, 2010


Government Mandates According to the Report of the High Level Task Force on Affordable Housing For All, 2008:

Affordable Housing for EWS/LIG categories: A unit with a carpet area most likely between 300 and 600 sq ft, with (i) the cost not exceeding four times the household gross annual income (ii) EMI/rent not exceeding 30 percent of the household's gross monthly income.

Affordable Housing for MIG categories: A unit with a carpet area not exceeding 1,200 sq ft, with (i) the cost not exceeding five times the household gross annual income (ii) EMI/rent not exceeding 40 percent of the household's gross monthly income.

Defining EWS and LIG Housing

According to the Guidelines For Affordable Housing In Partnership, Government of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, JNNURM Mission Directorate:

• Dwelling units should be a mix of EWS/LIG/MIG categories with the maximum size of a dwelling unit being at 1200 square feet super area, with at least 25% of them for EWS of about 300 square feet. In terms of carpet area, the minimum carpet area for EWS category shall be 25 square metres and maximum carpet area for MIG category shall be 80 square metres. • The sale price of dwelling units should have an upper ceiling in terms of Rupees per square metre of carpet area. The price ceiling would be settled in consultation with the States/UTs for different classes of cities.

According to the Masterplan Delhi 2021: • New housing for the urban poor should be in the form of one or two room units. • The developers of group housing shall ensure that minimum 15% of FAR or 35% of the dwelling units, whichever is more, are constructed for CommunityService Personnel / EWS and lower income category.

We argue that affordable housing should provide for a range of size options catering to the needs of households of different sizes and incomes, rather than being limited to a single size. This is especially important when considering the fact that it is the poorer families which generally have larger households.


Developed by Digvijay Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd 2007

Doon Trafalgar Dehradun, Uttaranchal Housing complex with EWS reservation.

• Physical proximity between MIG and EWS housing at least results in added interaction.

Site Area: 3.5 hectares

• The design makes no attempt to create a sense of community between the 2 groups.

Building Structure: G+4

• Even advertisements do not promote the EWS part.

Number of Dwellings: 128 (MIG) + certain %age EWS (as per state laws) Social Structure: 2 stark groups- MIG and EWS

• Many private developments‘ EWS housing is sub-standard.

Source: http://doonhousing.com/doon_trafalgar

• Part of the EWS/LIG dwelling units are sometimes wrongfully sold off as servants quarters to the MIG or HIG buyers.


Pros

• Inclusive housing = inclusive cities • Boosts localized economies • Encourages social development

Limitations

So, is inclusive housing

feasible? Is it desirable?

• A community is based on trust and shared interests, which inherently makes it exclusive to a group. • Inclusivity is easier to achieve over smaller ‗bandwidths‘ • The feasibility of inclusive housing depends on the scale on which it is achieved- the city, the neighborhood, the zonal or the complex level. • It mustn‘t be forced and should avoid potential conflicts

Cons

• Safety issues, petty crimes may crop up due to the differences between co-residents • Possibility of a split community - as living together inclusively, at the end of the day, is the individual‘s choice.


3.2 A 3.2 B 3.2 C 3.2 D 3.2 E

14 | Inclusive Housing 2.1

3.2 F

Parameters

Aranya

Artist‘s Colony

Auroville

Doon Trafalgar

Location

Indore, India

(Belapur) Navimumbai, India

(Pondicherry) Tamil Nadu, India

Dehradun, India

Architect(s)

Vastu-Shilpa Foundation, B.V. Doshi

Charles Correa

Roger Ander

Gairola Developers

Strategy for inclusivity

Incremental + sites and services development

Incremental + Social interaction

Semi - Urban scale (belief bound)

Housing complex with EWS reservation (employment based inclusivity)

Site Area

85 HA

55 HA (with a density of 100 dwellings per HA)

2000 HA (projected) Currently, 650 under Auro trust

~15HA

Ground Coverage

65%

Approx. 50% (in terms of plotted area out of total site area)

Approx. 25%

-

No. of Dwellings

6500 Plots

Approx. 5500 Plots

767

150 (MIG) + certain %age EWS (as per laws)

Population

60000

Approx. 500 people per HA i.e. ~25000 people

2300 (planned for 50000)

-

Social Structure

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Economic diversity

Mixed (large diversity)

Spread over a small bandwidth

Mixed

2 stark groups: MIG and EWS

Pros

• Affordable and socially inclusive • Buzzing with economic activity along spine • Flexible planning, hence a long term investment which can absorb increase in population

• No common walls, less conflicts – respect for private property, with provision of public space • Pedestrian zones and courtyard typology promote community interaction • Additive development manual ensures that the architectural character remains same, but diversity exists •Plots size variation ensures a slight mix in occupants (financially)

• Community living, in its true sense • Rich subsidize the poor willingly. This automatically makes the community more inclusive

• Physical proximity between MIG and EWS housing atleast results in added interaction.

Cons

• A ‗Sites + services‘ project , hence only basic core is designed • No building laws enforced, hence it does not look designed.

• Does not look like a designed intervention as it is very organic, almost dilapidated today

• A cult of sorts, which is exclusive to non believers • No private ownership at all, everything is community owned and works on the system of charity

• The design makes no attempt to create a sense of community between the 2 groups. • Even advertisements do not promote the EWS part

Analysis + Inference

• This example comes very close to achieving social as well as economic inclusivity. Almost 2 decades after its construction, there still exist a mix of groups who reside there and are very happy.

• The fact that it is termed ‗Artist‘s colony‘ means that it has been typecast that way, and most residents would belong to creative fields, which takes away from the diversity.

• The community is still very small, despite its 50 years of existence. • Despite its open policy, most of the people who get drawn to it tend to belong to a similar occupational or economical background

• Most such projects today make the EWS housing in a cheap way. • A lot of this housing is wrongfully sold off as servants quarters to the MIG or HIG buyers. This doesn‘t solve the housing situation for the displaced urban poor and also, the ‗inclusivity‘ of such complexes is questionable, as one party works for the other


Singapore Public Housing

Woodwords Redevelopment

Location

Singapore

Vancouver, Canada

Architect(s)

Housing and Development Board (HBD)

Strategy for inclusivity

Variation in sizes (affordability)

3.2 A 3.2 B

Variation in size (affordability) + Subsidy

3.2 C

Built up Area= 1.1 million square foot

3.2 D

Site Area

-

Ground Coverage

-

-

No. of Dwellings

85% of housing in Singapore is a public sector investment

536 market housing units+ 10 units for people with physical Disabilities + 200 non-market housing units =75 family occupancy + 125 single occupancy

Population

-

-

Social Structure

Mixed (citizenship condition)

Mixed

Economic diversity

Mixed (LIG to HIG)

Mixed

Pros

• Strict laws allow people from a particular income group to buy housing proportional to that income. For instance, An LIG household will get a single bedroom flat or higher, whereas an MIG household has to buy a minimum 2-3 bedroom flat, and not a single bedroom one.

• The intention of alleviating poverty and crime from poor pockets of the city through ‗positive gentrification‘ • Tying up the economic zones with common facilities like markets, gyms etc.

Cons

• High density high rise towers tend to be less community oriented, even if they are in a diverse complex. •This housing is only sold to citizens of Singapore, which makes it nationally exclusive.

• A social experiment, which could backfire.

Analysis + Inference

• Housing is provided for people regardless of their economic stature, and quality of construction does not differ. The only difference is the dwelling size, which in a way, reduces societal prejudices

• It has been seen earlier how it is not only the rich who might feel uncomfortable living in an economically diverse neighborhood, but also the poor who feel threatened, and prefer their ghettos. •Also, inclusivity demands a lifestyle change.Hence, it is important to avoid potential conflicts, and not force such drastic changes.

3.2 E 3.2 F

15 | Inclusive Housing 2.1

Parameters


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.