Issues in providing Affordable Housing for Urban Poor

Rising Construction Costs

Costing of affordable housing is primarily driven by the cost of construction. Unlike luxurious residential projects, where the costing is heavily guided by the cost of land. Cost of construction in the past decade has gone up to 80% (Rekhy and Raheja 2012). With ascending material costs and labor costs, private developers alone may not be able to deliver affordable housing to the market.

Cost Heads 2010 2011 change (%) Cement (cost per bag)

200 270 35%

Labour (cost per day)

250 325 30%

Table.1. Construction Costs Over Decades. (Source - Achieving Sustainable Growth in Reality, KPMG–CREDAI, 2011)

Financing constraints for Low - Income groups

Financing Constraints for Low-Income Groups-the households falling under LIG and EWS category find it difficult to secure formal housing finance due to the current financing mechanism in the country that is tilted towards servicing the MIG & above segments (KPMG-CREDAI 2011). Low-income groups whose income may vary with crop seasons, or is below the threshold to ensure repayment are not financially served by the commercial banks or any other traditional means of housing finance.

Main Initiatives

• 1952: Subsidized Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker

Sections • 1954: Low Income Housing Scheme • 1956: Subsidized Housing Scheme for Plantation Workers • 1956: Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme • 1959: Middle Income Group (MIG) Housing Scheme • 1959: Rental Housing for State Government Employees • 1959: Village Housing Projects Scheme • 1959: Land Acquisition and Development Scheme • 1961: Rent Control Act • 1970: Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) established • 1971: Provision of House Sites of Houseless Workers in Rural Areas • 1972: Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums • 1977: Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) established • 1980: Sites and Services Scheme • 1981: Scheme of Urban Low-Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers • 1985: Indira Awas Yojana • 1986: Urban Basic Services Scheme (UBS) • 1987: National Housing Bank (NHB) established • 1990: Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) replaces NBO • 1990: Night Shelter Scheme for Pavement Dwellers • 1990: Nehru Rozgar Yojana’s Scheme of Housing and Shelter Upgradation (SHASHU) • 1990-01: Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP) • 1996: National Slum Development Program (NSDP) • 1998: 2 Million Housing Program • 2001: Vahniki Ambedkar Aawas Yojana • 2005: JNNURM • 2007: National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (NUHHP) • 2010: Rajiv Avas Yojna (RAY) • 2010: Basie Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) • 2015: Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) • 2015: Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) (Hingorani 2017)

Limitations

• A purely subsidy-driven approach was a strain on the treasury. • Due to the lack of funds and poor implementation the rate of

construction lagged demand.

• Due to insuffi cient resettlement of evictees, there was a net destruction of housing stock. • Housing provided by the government were often un-aff ordable or

locationally unsuitable to the benefi ciaries.

• A large portion of homes were pocketed by MIG/HIGs. • Most states failed to accumulate proper land for the urban poor. • No community participation in project design or execution. • Acceptance of private, illegal, but aff ordable, well-located housing

grew among the benefi ciaries.

• The main benefi ciaries of public housing expenditure were the government employees. Despite eff orts towards incorporation, programs remained uneven. • Limited progress on assembling land for the poor. • Community participation was limited, particularly under JNNURM and

PMAY. (Hingorani 2017) Both quantitative and qualitative parameters of residential unit accounts for the quality of housing like their immediate context, and the needs of the benefi ciaries. The quantitative parameters of housing quality refer primarily to objective structural, material, social and economic constituents of housing products or outcomes that can be measured and that result from the performance of the housing sector. Factors such as the ‘comfort’ or ‘quality of life’ that are aff orded by diff erent dwelling types, lifestyles, and the preferences and expectations of the inhabitants are perceived as the qualitative parameters on housing.

Spatial Organization and Open spaces

De-centralized network of green spaces does not remain maintained

which results in dead spaces. Fig.7. Decentralized and Dead Open Spaces in Site Layout. (Source - Author)

Ventilation and Lighting

Many government houses lack in proper ventilation of the housing blocks which results in dead and dark passages.

Fig.9. Diagrams showcasing well-lit and dark areas in units. (Source - Author) With minimum or small windows, the individual houses themselves lack proper lighting and ventilation.

Social and Physical Fabric

Due to the lack of maintenance and dead façade the dwellings are often considered as untidy and creates negative perspective of the community.

Conclusion:

The success of these policies depends on three key outcomes:

1� Ensuring decent quality of housing:

For the beneficiaries to actually move into the housing the quality of housing is extremely important. Demand of such schemes is to create quality housing at low cost which poses a challenge for developers. Major issues in these low-quality houses are water leakages, improper sanitation etc. While medium quality fulfills basic needs still lacks in providing proper daylighting and ventilation. As the quality of the housing decides the acceptance rate, creating poor quality housing leads to inefficient outcomes for the scheme. Resulting in abandonment of housing and beneficiaries returning to live in slums.

2� Ensuring identification of beneficiaries:

There are a large number of houses in India that are allocated based on a random draw. This means that the beneficiaries cannot have any say in where their houses are located. There will eventually be a time when, for a lack of livelihood opportunities, the beneficiaries will be forced to move out of the house and live on the streets. While allocating a house, it is imperative that an analysis of the earning opportunities that can be found in the nearby area be performed.