Piecing up the paradox by Ruju Joshi

Piecing up the Paradox Kamla Mills, Mumbai Ruju Joshi | UD4516

UR3003 : Urban Planning and Regulations | Intent > Manifestation > Design Guided by - Prasanth Narayanan, Tulika Nabar, K Gokul Kalaimathi Bachelor of Urban Design | Monsoon 2020, Faculty of Planning, CEPT University

content chrono matrix and city profile problematising the city introducing the paradox vision and analysis strategies and concept plan free design structure plan free design regulations urban conditions comparision matrix

part of group work*

chrono matrix and city profile

CHAL

बम्बई/BOMBAY

20’s

40’s

50’s

1812-2021

The city of Mumbai also famously called the “maximum city” has undergone a series of socio spatial transformations for the past 200 years, which were dictated by the interest and objectives of powerful institutions coupled with the constant influx of people in the city in search of employment. The famous skyline of Mumbai that we see today is a product of several acts and policies implemented from the 1800s where the city was dotted over by fishing villages to 1900s where post independence we see the city emerge as a strong financial capital and the implementation of land use policies to decongest the island City. The matrix is an attempt to understand the nitigrities of the acts and policies and its impact that has transformed the city of Mumbai from a fishing village to today a global city with world class infrastructure.

18 54

18 12 First Land Reclamation

18 84

First mill was set up in Tardeo

Historical context

BHMA was established Now known as MCGM

First Railway line started (CST)

1821

1841

1861

60’s

70’s 19 64 First DP proposed

19 48 Rent Control Act

19 Start of 39 World War 2

19 Start of 14 World War 1

18 96 Plague

19 45

End of world war 2 RMMS was formed

First proposal to shift mills out of Mumbai city

18 88 Bombay Municipal Corporation was formed

18 98

19 08

Bombay Registration Improvement Act Trust (BIT)

1881

1901

19 18

19 20

End of World Bombay Development Act War 1

1921

19 47

Independence Bombay Industrial ACt

19 42

Land reclamation for Nariman Point

Mumbai airport built

19 76

90’s

2000’s

19 CRZ Notification issued 91 Second DP sanctioned

ULCRA adopted

The act was implemented to amend and

The DP concentrates on constant population

The aim was to make equitable land

The DP focuses mainly on suburban

consolidate the law relating to the control

increase and heavy traffic loads along with the

available to the state for development

development and in situ urban land renewal

concentration of Industrial and commercial

of housing. A cap limit was set beyond

methods. A constant notion of decentralisation

rents

and

repairs

certain

premises.This act helped the tenants have

employment and the residential population in

which if the land owner had land,it had

more power than their owners. But the

small areas. Government introduced FSI in the

to be handed over to the government.It

act failed in its execution creating a huge

city and promoted suburban development with

bred a parallel system of corruption and

housing shortage in the city.

a motive for decongestion.

and de congestion was brought up. TDR and

led to high land prices and a lack of

19 Regional 96 Plan

India’s New Economic Policy Cess buildings were defined

ARD were introduced to develop land in the city

19 Environment 86 Protection Act

affordable housing.

and capped the FSI of the island city to 1.33 to increase suburban development. Mill land

Concept of TDR introduced

redevelopment policy introduced under DCR

2010’s

2020’s

19 Slum 20 Redevelopment 97 Act 07 ULCRA

The RP was aligned with the new

government used the land had

economic policy to make Mumbai a

obtained under ULCRA to be used for

global city and an economic

the development of high end

center.Abolishment of bulk land

infrastructure projects. The Central

acquisition act and ammendments to

government incentivised the repeal by

the rent control- promoting in situ

proving funding for various urban

growth. Decentralisation of the

development projects under JNNURM.

economy and promoting a poly

58.

Cotton Textile Control order Mayer-Modak Master Plan

19 40

80’s

20 11 CRZ Ammended

nucleated structure of growth was emphasised on.

Mumbai Traffic ImprovementMega Project

19 50

19 51

Constituition was written

First five year plan

1941

19 54

19 56

19 57

19 60

19 66

19 67

19 68

Mumbai Town Planning Act

Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act

Mumbai city limits extended

Maharashtra was formed Bombay became the capital

Formation of Shiv Sena MRTP Act

First DP was sanctioned

Formation Repair and CIDCO was Reconof NTC formed struction Act

1951

19 69

19 70

1961

19 71

19 75

19 77

19 80

19 82

19 87

19 92

19 93

Slum Areas Act Const. of Navi Mumbai starts

MMRDA formed

Ammendment in DCR of 73

DP for Navi Mumbai was implemented

Mill workers strike - closure of majority of the mills

Model Rent Control Legislation

Trans Harbour Line became functional

Maharashtra Vacant Land Act

FSI was fixed to 1.33

Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

BKC planned

1971

ULCRA exemptions for mill lands

20 02

Dharavi redevlopment project by MHADA

Ammendment Dharavi in DCR 58 for redevlopmilll land ment project Redevlopby MHADA ment

20 04

20 09

20 05

20 06

JNNRUM was launched

Supreme Court restored the ammendment of DCR 58

Floods

Worli Sea Link

2001

20 12

20 14

20 15

Concept of compensatory fungible FSI introduced

Metro and Monorail inaugrated

DP 2018-34 Regional was scrapped Plan 2016-2036 was sanctioned

20 18

2011 2007

ULCRA 1999

Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act

1956

Growth of Bombay

20 01

1991

1976 Bombay Rent Control Act

1948

19 99 Trans Harbour Line became functional

Bombay Riots

1981

Policies, Acts and Regulations

19 95

Development plan

1964

administrative boundaries and geographical context

Mill Land Redevelopment Scheme

1991 Repairs and Reconstruction Act

1969

2005

Integration into MHADA Act

>1,00,000 1,00,000- 50,000 50,000-40,000 40,000-30,000 30,000-20,000 20,000-10,000 <10,000

The graph traces the growth of the city’s population from 1881. The city’s growth has been shown in phases wherein as the number of population started increasing in Mumbai, the city’s boundary got stretched far uptil north. Post which the city and various other small scale agglomerations were clubbed together to form a greater region which is today governed by the Mumbai metropolitan authority

population 16,86,107

Demography

population 29,66,902

population 41,52,056

population 59,70,575

population 82,43,805

population 99,25,851

population 1,19,781,450

population 1,24,42,373

slum population 12%

slum population 16.07%

slum population 44.6%

slum population 45.40%

slum population 48.60%

slum population 41.90%

1,80,00,000 1,40,00,000

Greater Mumbai

1,20,00,000 1,00,00,000

0.7 0.6

Suburbs

0.5

80,00,000 60,00,000

The city saw a great influx of people, as a resultant of various economic and social changes. The migrant population came and resided in mumbai in search of employment and job opportunities, which led to the city’s sudden population growth post independence. The population graph has been categorised into 4 parts wherein one can trace the island City, metropolitan region, slum population and the greater mumbai population alongside it’s projected ranges. The comparison throws light on how the city’s population grew erratically and how various acts and

0.4

Slums

0.3

40,00,000

Island

20,00,000

0.2

Population

0.1 absolute

percentage

Impacts and Responses Impacts on the land and housing markets as corollaries to the various acts and urban planning policies implemented in Bombay through the post independence period

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR (?)ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Fake floor space scarcity

Slums relocated but not developed

As we trace the city’s socio spatial history along the course of the past 200 years, the collage is a representative timeline of the events that shaped the city. Few of them, which have had the most impact and effect on the city’s population and form have been highlighted and there impacts have been shown alongside.

Artificial floor space scarcity by restricting fsi

The Mumbai’s municipality created an artificial shortage of floor space by restricting FSI to exceptionally low levels.

Regional Plan Sanctioned

Land Price Hike Naturally, the market price for floor space jumped to extremely high levels.

FSI released Citing market failure, givernment released fsi slowly against TDR.

Suburbanisation

Mumbai’96:The municipality then called this price increase a market failure, and then slowly released some FSI against TDR at the highly inflated price.

west

Second DP ( 2.5

Cess

building SRA

ntive) FSI ince

Polynucleated development

1/3rd land of mill lands will be public lands

FOR

ULCRA

Bulk land acquisition by government

R E N T

FOR

Please, i have nowhere to go

A compiled photo-montage of Bombay highlighting the impacts of urban planning regulation through photographs taken in the considered time period

90 % rented buildings

Please increase the rent or maintain my building

T ACT

REN 8 : OL 194 NTR CO

due to policy loopholes land acquired was much less than estimated

CBDs

CBDS demand for transit infrastructure

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR (?)ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING Liberalisation

We dont do that here!

R E N T No profit to maintain the builldings

east connectivity

10% of population

FSI

FOR

what other option than slums?

City limits extended

R E N T

You have to leave, i have a higher paying tenant.

Regional Plan

26.5 % rented buildings

Evolution of Built Form 1856-1920

1923 2003-2004

1856-1920

pre 1881

post 1999

2011-2020

pre 1881 1898

The city which originally started out as a small fishing village today is a global city that houses one of the most expensive housing models in the country. The built form timeline is an attempt to understand how these acts and policies coupled with the growing population have affected the city’s form.

Urban Planning and Regulations - Intent, Manifestation Design

1856-1920

1950-1960

1970-1980

Monsoon

B.UD 2020

Problematising the city

Intoducing the Paradox

Vision and Analysis

Strategies and Concept Plan

In this part of the manifesto we attempt to question certain existing infrastructural systems and patterns in the city of Mumbai.

Here, we discuss the dissociative image of the city with various set of infrastructural models that portray the paradoxical nature of the same.

In this part of the manifesto we propose the idea of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;city as a single infrastructureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; suppoerted by detailed analysis of both the city and site.

Here we present strategies and a conceptual plan of the site in accordance to our analysis and vision for the site.

Problematising the city

Indian cities that are often stylised as kinetic, consuming, maximum and vibrant that fuse physical and visual contradictions on a landscape of incredible diversity. They are acknowledged for its socio - cultural values and the environment that they create to offer numerous opportunities for various activities to be performed in the public realm. Indian cities have been inherently compared to the western cities. Mumbai, also known as Bombay is the financial and commercial capital of India. Over the course of the past 200 years, Mumbai’s socio spatial planning has been subject to various acts and policies that have shaped the city’s skyline today. The city has been often associated with names like “world class city” providing great infrastructure and services. With rapid urbanisation and globalisation, the city’s infrastructure has been consistently equated against its economic outputs.

problematising the city

EXPECTATIONS

REALITY

need | idea of equality | economy / infrastructure / density management

economy / infrastructure / density management | idea of equality | need

problematising the city

piecing up the paradox

Idea of Equality?

Needs vs Aspirations

Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a dissociative image that constantly oscillates between the needs of the people against the aspirations of the decision makers. Wherein, the actual needs of what the people expect of the city are neglected and equated against the paradigm of global infrastructure. These infrastructure projects are exclusive in nature and are mainly transit orientated and economically driven. The constant rift between needs and aspirations has created a paradox within the city and the idea of equity has been disregarded, religiously. 12

problematising the city

piecing up the paradox

What is this paradigm of

â&#x20AC;&#x153;City infrastructure are structures and services that act as a basis for the economy and quality of life of a cityâ&#x20AC;?

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE?

problematising the city

piecing up the paradox

What Mumbai Offers?

problematising the city

piecing up the paradox

Introducing the Paradox

The paradoxical nature of the city can be viewed through various housing, business and transport models. Infrastructure operates at two scales, one being at the city level and other being at the neighbourhood level. At city level necessarily we look at infrastructure projects like Local Trains, which cater to the needs of the city whereas at the neighbourhood level we concentrate more upon connectivity that feeds on the larger systems and also is an infrastructural system within itself. With this as our backdrop, there are several neighbourhoods that contribute to the paradoxical nature of the city, one of them being, Kamla mills. Kamla mills is located in Lower parel area of Mumbai. The site land was originally mill land composed of 130 mills. It was torn down over the years, as a result of globalisation. The redevelopment began in 2001 with the DCR 58 being amended.

Kamla mills

introducing the paradox

piecing up the paradox

Residential Paradox City Mumbai houses one of the most exorbitant residential communities alongside the largest slum in Asia. 42% of the total population of the city lives in slums.

Site The mills were a major employment generator also creating a need for developing affordable housing on site. The site could have been developed catering to these housing and economic needs of the people instead it was majorly purchased by Lodha groups converting it into an upscale residential community catering to an exclusive population today.

Social - Commercial Paradox City There are upscale commercial malls against most vibrant informal markets thriving in the heart of the city.

Site The upmarket development has caused social segregation as only a set number of people are allowed to access major parts of the site. There is a significant absence of green open spaces and inclusive public recreational spaces which has created a social paradox on site.

Social - Recreational Paradox City The cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s iconic marine drive is well kept and maintained as it is in the eye of one of the most exorbitant neighbourhoods, which is also a reflection of the visionaire of the city. Against Juhu chowpatty that is being neglected in spite of being a prominent public attraction.

Site The residential parts of the site house few recreational open spaces. Yet, they are very exclusive in nature and are not accessible to all. The site today is a prominent entertainment node at city level with high end restaurants and pubs that are open to only a certain class of people.

Transportational Paradox City The Mumbai suburban rail which is known for its highest ridership can be viewed against Bandra-Worli sea link which is an exclusive transit infrastructure that caters to only 1% of the total population.

Site The Elphinstone Flyover cutting through the neighbourhood acts as a strong connection for high speed mobility but acts as a strong division in its surroundings. The elite nature and characteristics of the site alongside the presence of gated communities have disconnected the site from its neighbourhood and made it exclusive.

Ecological Paradox City In view of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; over the period of time, ecological aspects have been conveniently ignored. For example, the Sanjay Gandhi National park is a reserved park alongside the Eastern coastal road that will only lead to more ecological disasters in the city.

Site Ecological condition of the site has been disregarded multiple times, as majority of the land is owned by private developers who believe in utilising every piece of land for maximising their profits. Major part of the site consists of Private exclusive open spaces despite of mumbai being in constant crunch of Inclusive public / green open spaces.

A constant notion of overlooking the existing logics or system and developing something that falls under the intransigent definition of physical development has been followed. This â&#x20AC;&#x153;planned infrastructureâ&#x20AC;? seems to have lost sight of its effect on its genuine users, as well as its capacity to act as a multiplier of social equity. Thus, it becomes imperative for us to review the development and redefine these rigid connotations of infrastructure in our cities.

How can we piece up

THE PARADOX?

introducing the paradox

piecing up the paradox

Vision and Analysis

City as a Single Infrastructure

vision and analysis

We propose to view infrastructure as an integrated system wherein it caters to the basic needs of all irrespective of their differences. Residential Infrastructure: Housing that caters to the needs of the people i.e. well-lit, ventilated, adequate water and sanitation facilities, with revised standards for per person built/open spaces. Cities function as a cohesive system composed of different sets of infrastructure such as social, cultural, economical, political, residential, ecological and transport. Each of these have interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships. Thus, lack or excess of any one set of infrastructure largely affects or disrupts the entire network. Providing basic necessities such as housing, water, sanitation, education open-green spaces and better connectivity are few set parameters against which we weigh the qualitative aspects of livelihood. Current paradoxical situation is a result of many such systems which fail to strike a balance between what is required and what is being offered.

Commercial Infrastructure: Socially inclusive multi-functional spaces that allow multiple stakeholders to engage. Transportational Infrastructure: Equal and proportionate distribution of modes of Transport. Streets that cater equally to pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic and encourage social encounters and interactions by accommodating multiple users. Ecological Infrastructure: Development that supports Blue - Green infrastructure. Legal Infrastructure: Policy making should be developed understanding the ground realities and the needs of the people, backed with factual data. These policies should be accommodating and inclusive as a strategic imperative. There should be a strategic balance between top down and bottom approaches that harness the potential of the space. Social Infrastructure: Developing inclusive open spaces that breaks the barrier of exclusivity and builds a sense of community.

vision and analysis

piecing up the paradox

Residential

The highlighted buildings above represent high end residential buildings alongside public housing on the site.

Kamla Mills Infrastructure

residential land use

N NTS

vision and analysis

Lodha groups : One floor of the building is subdivided into four houses, each having a carpet area of 200 sq. m. along with 2 car parking spaces and additional ammenities.

Lodha groups : The high rise buildings are constructed in line with the climatic conditions of the city providing well lit and ventilated housing units.

Century Mills Public Housing Colony : Each floor of the housing colony is subdivided into eight houses having a carpet area of 23 sq. m. with no additional ammenities or common open space.

Century Mills Public Housing Colony : Need of affordable housing to accomodate people has led to the development of housing societies neglecting the basic climatic conditions and sanitation facilities.

vision and analysis

Commercial

Transportational

Tamasha Smaash

The highlighted buildings are few recreational attractor points of the site which act as a strong entertainment nodes at city level.

The diagram shows major vehicular connections on site along with few public transit stops which shows the existing larger NS connectivity to the city. The site lacks EW connectivity as majority of the land falls under private ownership.

ROW - 32m

ROW - 14m ROW - 24m

ROW - 10 m

ROW - 20m

ROW - 14m

Commercial Land Use

Major Vehicular Connections

N NTS

vision and analysis

N NTS

piecing up the paradox

Ecological

Legal

The diagram shows the various buildings that have been built on the catchment areas generated by the natural contours of the site, reflects the irresponsibility towards the ecology. 46

vision and analysis

The site land was originally mill land composed of 130 mills. It was further redeveloped into a high end exclusive neighbourhood as a response to the DCR 58 ammendment of 2001. 47

piecing up the paradox

Social

The section depicts the presence of high compund walls alongside residential as well as commercial infrastructure, creating a notion of exclusivity on site.

The highlighted diagram shows high compound walls present on site, blocking physical and visual connections of inside and outside which makes the site exclusive and socially segregated.

Parking Exclusive open space

The map shows two different kinds of open spaces present on site, one being a parking lot and another being an exclusive open space.

N NTS

vision and analysis

piecing up paradox

VISION The site severely lacks connectivity and is inaccessible as most of the area falls under private ownership. The upmarket development has caused social segregation as only a set number of people are allowed to access major parts of the site. There is a significant absence of green open spaces and inclusive public recreational spaces. Thus, our vision for the site is to break the conception of exclusivity. The idea is to make it more ‘public friendly’ such that it integrates the site’s subservient infrastructural needs with the existing ones to create a holistic environment as a response to the current paradoxical nature of the city as a whole.

vision and analysis

piecing up the paradox

Strategies and Concept Plan

Form based building codes - Urban Design Guidelines imagining city as a single infrastructure PPP (Public Private Partnership) model - Increase inclusivity and invite multiple stakeholders holders by providing more transitional (in-between) spaces Extended Public Spaces (Mix use spillover spaces) around the proposed entertainment nodes Break the stereotypical high end notion of the site by creating Equitable Spaces (by making it more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;public-friendlyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) Catchment areas to be developed as open/ green spaces as a response to the natural contours of the site

Strategies

Efficient and well connected street network that caters to all and also provides larger city level connectivity by incorporating the public transit stops and open spaces Enhancing last mile connectivity and promoting people orientated street design Walkable blocks Streets supporting the idea of blue-green infrastructure Environmentally sustainable building designs with basic necessity provisions Visually porous boundaries

strategies and concept plan

piecing up the paradox

Per person Built and open

Built form

Terrace farming

Climate Responsive

Climatically Responsive

Building setbacks Provisions for terrace farming

Terrace farming

Per person Built and Adequate share of per person built open and open spaces

Rain water harversting and Grey water reuse

Climatically Responsive strategies and concept plan

Building setbacks

Guidelines for increasing visual accessibility by creating a porous facade â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;eyes on streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Frontages and opening

Suitable street width to Building height

Street to building ratio

ratio

piecing up the paradox

Climatically Responsive 32.10*&./.-(&.-*,()))

#$*+*)('&&%$#"!

Guildlines for building heights and set

*&+,-(.)/$

Building setbacks backs

Visually porous boundaries

!012$34&&-56+4&

Through and through building access for a more porous and accessible neighbourhood

Transport and Accessibility

Frontages and opening Efficient NSEW connectivity

!012$34&&-56+4& 58

Walkable block sizes (100 - 250 m) * (100 - 250 m)

2)/7)8/-$8/457 strategies and concept plan

!"#$%&'

Guidelines to prevent on street parking

piecing up the paradox

!"#$%&'()

*&+,-(.)/$ Universal Accessibility

!012$34&&-56+4&

!"#$%&'() Guidelines for Non Motorised Transport

Streets supporting Blue - Green Infrastructure

*&+,-(.)/$ Public Private Partnership Model

)))(,*-.&(-./.&*01.23

strategies and concept plan

piecing up the paradox

Transitional Spaces

Commercial + Commercial Residential+ Residential

Residential+ Residential

Residential - Residential

Commercial + Commercial

Commercial - commercial / Recreational

strategies and concept plan

Recreational - Recreational / Commercial

piecing up the paradox

Concept Plan

Catchments

strategies and concept plan

Major Vehicular Connectivity and Public Transit Nodes

N NTS

piecing up the paradox

Entertainment Node

Commercial Use

Residential Use

Internal Street Connectivity

NTS

strategies and concept plan

N NTS

piecing up the paradox

N NTS

strategies and concept plan

piecing up the paradox

free design structure plan

free design regulations

urban conditions

comparision matrix

this part depicts the free design masterplan that is developed based on previous city and site level studies of various infrastructural aspects

this part focuses on the private realm of the site and demonstrates regulations for built form and open spaces

six different urban conditions are chosen from the site to compare and analyse impacts of free design and constraint design set of regulations

the comparative analysis in this part depicts learnings from the studio with certain observations, non-negotiable and a possible approach for the given conditions

free design structure plan

structure plan free design

the structure plan is developed based on the concept plan and strategies - primary streets follow site contours - secondary streets divide the site into walkable blocks internal streets create loops such that they can Nbe used as one way street if necessary to prioritise NMT over automobileland use distribution and plot division is based on certain guidelines on minimum habitable space per dwelling unit, minimum buildable space, per person open space requirements and surrounding / existing land use on site [mentioned in free design regulations]

free design regulations

regulations free design

Private realm and Open space Co-ordinated built-form

Existing

Proposed

General

Residential R1 1 DU size 50 sq.m.

60 - 40 built open ratio on building footprint ground - achieve minimum

493 people per sq km ~ 155 people on site Floating population of ~12000-15000 people per day

10 times more for static population ~ 1500-1600 people Floating population of ~20000 people per day

R2 1 DU size 100 sq.m.

R3 1 DU size 150 sq.m.

Commercial

C1 R1, R2, R3, I1, I2, office C1, C2 commercial

References C2 retail commercial

maximum single building footprint - 1600 sq.m.

Used for parkings or not used at all Based on street width and building/ plot use

used for public use/ transitional spaces between two buildings (side/ back setbacks) or buildings and street (front/ back setbacks)

Minimum 3m of setback from all sides of the building for provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection

Acc. to MOHUA guidelines minimum buildable plot area is 800sqm

Minimum additional 1m-3m of additional setback on at least one edge of the built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 / 18m street

additional setback on the ground is not required if the total plot area is less than 800 sq.m. building frontages

Based on street width and building/ plot use

privately owned and restricted entry

based on eyes on street concept and climate privately owned Building facades responsive hence restricted maximising visibility chance encounter possibilities

used for public use

refer setbacks

more visibility for interactive edges

Minimum 50% of the building surface should be open for maximum on street visibility

Acc. To ICC guidelines Minimum liveable space - 11 sq. m. For at least one habitable room then 6.5 sq. m. For other rooms

Acc. to MOHUA guidelines minimum DU (dwelling unit) size - 30-50 sq.m.

exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for any plot minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sq.m.

distance between two plot entries maximum 40m

setbacks

Mix use

follow the building follow the building follow the building follow the building follow the building follow the building line and avoid line and avoid line and avoid line and no line and no line and no compound walls compound walls compound walls compound walls compound walls compound walls

regulations free design Co-ordinated built-form

Existing

Proposed

Based on abutting street and Only podiums building use

FSI and built density distribution

Based on minimum plot area, setbacks, building use and abutting street

0.4 - 0.6 (island FSI -1.33)

refer building heights

land use

based on street hierarchy and overall distribution considering form based development

Private and exclusive residential and commercial dominant

Mix use neighbourhood

building use

Based on overall land use

Private and exclusive residential and commercial dominant

Mix use neighbourhood

uneven distribution - high more end high rise homogeneous buildings built environment overpowering the surrounding areas

building height

Residential

Mix use

Commercial

References

Allowed up until maximum 50% of the additional setback left on the immediate floor below - no projections allowed in the minimum 3m setbacks left on the ground floor

building projections

Based on minimum plot area, setbacks, building use and abutting street

General

Creating vertical distribution of ground floor for different uses and common use create a mix use neighbourhood

ground floor for common use

Podiums

Maximum height based on 1:2 street widths to building height ratio - minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street

exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for any plot minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sq.m.

cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor, cap 500 sq.m. if the buildable plot is 800 sq.m. or less

regulations free design Co-ordinated built-form

parking

setbacks at upper levels

Open Spaces

Based on land use and abutting street use

Existing

Proposed

on street or on initial floors of the building

Parallel parking provisions with parklets on street for temporary parking Highly regulated controlled with on street parkings heavy charges and the rest incorporated in Provision for the built parking for public use does not apply for less than 800 sq m of building use space

Based on minimum plot area, setbacks, building use and abutting street

For all buildings and streets

vehicular access around the built form so central spaces only streets as can open spaces, lack be used as of usable open pedestrian spaces friendly open spaces private / semi public / public

General

Residential

Mix use

Commercial

Provision of public parking space at least one floor of the built form

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification

minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after 9m of building height to create podium typology in order to maintain human scale sky view factor

All public spaces in conjunction with the street and built form

all Open spaces on the ground open to public pedestrian access and PPP model at intervals to create interactive spaces between buildings

no parking spaces up until minimum of 3 floors - to create interactive edge conditions for maximising chance encounters in the built form when abutting 6/12/18m streets

References

3m of compulsory setback on the ground floor to be used for public space on street

achieve at least 40% open space on ground

individual plot

For independent development of buildings

multiple plots

For mix use/ larger/ merged developments

Average plot size - 60*40 m Plot length and/ width 40-150 m

extended open spaces for commercial and entertainment uses on site

Acc. to WHO guidelines - per person open space - 9 sq.m.

Access to healthy environment, and sanitation

a continuous pedestrian connection through series of open spaces and built forms on site

regulations free design Co-ordinated built-form Plot division

Existing Based on minimum liveable space requirements

Proposed Overall 50 - 50 open to built ratio

General

Residential

Mix use

Commercial

References

transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection realm intersection

typical plot development_residential free design

43m

12m street

60%

43m 43m

12m street 12m street

60% 60%

40% 40% 40%

65m

12m street

65m 65m

12m street 12m street plot use : residential plot use : residential plot use : residential

minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to be achieved on ground minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to be achieved on ground be achieved on ground maximum single building footprint - 1600 sqm exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for maximum single building footprint 1600 sqm any plot - minimum singlefootprint building --footprint area should be 800 sqm maximum single building 1600 sqm exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for any plot - minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sqm any plot - minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sqm

15m 15m 15m Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built to form for smooth public and private Minimum 3m of setback provisions create semi public buffer/ realm intersection Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection realm intersection

minimum distance of 15m to be maintained between building footprints on a single plot if more than one minimum distance of 15m to be maintained between building footprints minimum distance of 15m to be maintained between building footprints on a single plot if more than one on a single plot if more than one

typical plot development_residential free design

Maximum height based on 1:2 street widths to building height ratio 1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side, if abutting a Maximum height Maximum height based based on on 1:2 1:2 street street widths widths to to building building height height ratio ratio -12/18m street 1:2 1:2 ratio ratio to to be be followed followed from from the the narrowest narrowest street street side, side, if if abutting abutting aa 12/18m street 12/18m street

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification on at least one edge of the building minimum minimum additional additional setbacks setbacks of of 1.5m 1.5m on on upper upper floors floors for for further further densification densification on on at at least least one one edge edge of of the the building building

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification on at least one edge of the building minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification on at least one edge of the building minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification on at least one edge of the building

building height cap - 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor, - 500 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor if building height cap - 800 sq.m.area of maximum area per floor, the plot is less thanbuilt 800up sq.m. - 500 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor if

Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection realm intersection

typical plot development_commercial/ mix use free design

50m 50m 12m street 12m street

102m 102m 18m street 18m street

plot use :

plot use : commercial/ mix use commercial/ mix use plot use : commercial/ mix use

Minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the Minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the

built formon starting from the narrowest the plot If Minimum additional 1m-3m of setback at least one edge abutting of the streets builtof form starting from built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 /18m street the narrowest abuttingabutting streetsa 12 of/18m thestreet plot If abutting a 12 /18m street

60% 60%

40% 40%

Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection Minimum 3m of setback provisions to create semi public buffer/ transitional spaces around the built form for smooth public and private intersectionto create semi public buffer/ transitional setbackrealm provisions

Minimum 3m of spaces around the built form for smooth public and private realm intersection

minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to be

minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to be achieved on ground be achieved ground achieved on on ground

maximum single building footprint - 1600 sqm maximum single building footprint - 1600 sqm exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for any plot maximum single building footprint - 1600 exception* - if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for any plot sqm - minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sqm - minimum building footprint area should be 800between sqm exception* - if thesingle buildable footprint area falls 1600-2400

sqm for any plot - minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sqm

minimum 60 : 40 built open ratio to

typical plot development_commercial/ mix usebe achieved on ground free design maximum single building footprint - 1600 sqm

minimum -distance of 15m to be maintained between building footprints onany a single exception* if the buildable footprint area falls between 1600-2400 sqm for plot plot if more than one - minimum single building footprint area should be 800 sqm

15m

podiums

minimum distance of to be between building footprints on a single plot if more than minimum distance of15m 15m tomaintained be maintained between building footprints on one a single plot if more than one

podiums

minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after achieving 9m of building height to create podium typology in order to maintain human scale sky view factor minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after achieving 9m of building height to create podium typology in order to maintain human scale sky view factor

minimum additional of 1.5m on upper floorsfor for further minimum additional setbacks ofsetbacks 1.5m on upper floors further densification on at least one densification on at least one edge of the building minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m upper floors for further edge ofon the building densification on at least one edge of the building

possible multiple plot development/ ownership configurations free design

urban conditions

structure plan

free design

constraint design

2 3

4 5

Legend

Residential

Commercial

Mix use

Open spaces

33% - MHADA/ mill workers’ housing

Considered mill lands

27% - public open space

Block size - 100 to 250 m

40% - private ownership

Plot Size Length: 50 to 140m Width: 50 to 100m

Block size - 100 to 250m

Plot Size Length: 50 to 140m Width: 50 to 100m

Urban Conditions

UC 1 - residential + residential + mix use +12m street +6m street

UC 1 - residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + residential [private ownership] +12m street +6m street

UC 2 - residential + residential + mix use + open space [public use] +12m street + 6m street

UC 2 - residential [private ownership] + residential [private ownership] + residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + open space [public use] +12m street + 6m street

UC 3 - mix use +mix use + mix use +18m street +18m street

UC 3 - commercial [private ownership] +commercial [private ownership] + open space [public use] +22m street +22m street

UC 4 - residential + mix use + open space [public use] + 18m street

UC 4 - commercial [private ownership] + residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + open space [public use] + 22m street

UC 5 - commercial + commercial + residential + 18m street

UC 5 - residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + residential [MHADA/ mill workers’ housing] + residential [private ownership] + 22m street

UC 6 - commercial + commercial + open space [public use] + 12m street

UC 6 - commercial [private ownership] + commercial [private ownership] + open space [public use] + 12m street

massing model for considered mill redevelopment plots free design

massing model for considered mill redevelopment plots constraint design

urban condition 01

free design

constraint design

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

parameters Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

regulations

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m.

minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

2 6m

maximum distance between two plot entraonces - 40m

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space] building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0

12m

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification and maximising sky view factor cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor

LOS [Layout Open Space] minimum area - 125 sq.m. i) for plots measuring 1001 sq. m to 2500 sq. m. - 15 % of Plot Area ii) for plots measuring from 2501 sq. m to 10,000 sq. m - 20 % of Plot area iii) for plots above 10,000 sq. m = 25 % of Plot Area

12m 6m

minimum 3m of setback from all sides of the building

75m

60m

45m

minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 /18m street

upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more

minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after 9m of building height 27m

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

Minimum 50% of the building surface should be transparent for maximum on street visibility

21m

side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 3.6 m for a residential building Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building

urban condition 01

free design

constraint design

1 land use : residential

plot area - 3652.69 sq.m.

built footprint - 2191.61 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1461.08 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 642.99 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 165.66 sq.m. [4.2%] side and rear - 477.33 sq.m. [13.4%]

4 land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 818.09 sq.m. [22.4%]

building height - 42m [14 floors] 60m [20 floors]

additional open space - 495.40 sq.m. [+13.5%] total built - 49563.94 sq.m.

plot area - 16052.78 sq.m.

built footprint - 7650 sq.m. [47.66%] required LOS - 4013.19 sq.m. [25%] provided LOS on ground 8402.78 sq.m. [52.3%]

setbacks - 1819.46 sq.m. [11.3%] FOS - 397.86 sq.m. [2.5%] side and rear - 1421.60 sq.m. [8.8%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 6583.32 sq.m. [41%] required recreational space 1284.22 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 84141 sq.m.

urban condition 01

free design

constraint design

2 land use : residential

plot area - 3571.90 sq.m.

5 land use : residential [private ownership]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 800 sq.m. [22.4%]

built footprint - 2143.14 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1428.76 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 60m [20 floors]

setbacks - 636.88 sq.m. [17.8%] FOS - 162 sq.m. [4.5%] side and rear - 474.89 sq.m. [13.3%]

additional open space - 469 sq.m. [+13.1%] total built - 58911.62 sq.m.

plot area - 3571.90 sq.m.

built footprint - 900 sq.m. [25.2%] required LOS - 714.38 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 2671.90 sq.m. [74.8%]

setbacks - 898.45 sq.m. [25.1%] FOS - 304.08 sq.m. [8.5%] side and rear - 594.37 sq.m. [16.7%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 1773.45 sq.m. [49.7%]

building height - 24m [8 floors]

total built - 8999 sq.m.

urban condition 01

free design

constraint design

3 land use : mix

plot area - 6017.50 sq.m.

6 land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 1442.29 sq.m. [24%]

plot area - 6017.50 sq.m.

built footprint - 3610.50 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 2407 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 75m [25 floors]

built footprint - 3411.53 sq.m. [56.7%] required LOS - 1203.50 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 2605.97 sq.m. [43.3%]

setbacks - 964.71 sq.m. [16%] FOS - 569.99 sq.m. [9.5%] side and rear - 394.72 sq.m. [6.5%]

additional open space - 1927 sq.m. [+32%] total built - 91811.90 sq.m.

setbacks - 1237.49 sq.m. [20.6%] FOS - 407.84 sq.m. [6.8%] side and rear - 829.65 sq.m. [13.8%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 1368.48 sq.m. [22.7%] required recreational space 481.4 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 21m [7 floors]

total built - 27342.08 sq.m.

urban condition 01

observations

free design

- no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters - setbacks and margins are used as semi public / public spaces / extended spaces of the built which provides smooth transition spaces from public to private space [PPP model] - form based building codes give flexibility to built quality built-open spaces - street to building ineraction becomes more humane - street design gives equal importance to both automobiles and people - encourages use of non motarised transport - human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- compund walls seclude the private and public realm and breaks the visual and physical connection - setbacks and margins remain dead or mainly cater as parking spaces on the private part and as for the public space on street, provided footpath dimensions do not suffice the need and they’re also not welcoming / inviting for pedestrians - the FSI helps in controlling the building height, yet the regulations for mill workers’ housing creat unhealthy living conditions - street to building ineraction becomes negligible - street design is more of automobile driven - insufficiant infrastructure for non motarised transport - human scale is maintained, however it creates poor living conditions

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

urban condition 02

free design

constraint design

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

parameters Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

regulations

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m.

minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

7 6m

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space] 11

12m

building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification and maximising sky view factor

cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor minimum 3m of setback from all sides of the building

84m

12m

minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 /18m street

upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing

75m

60m

45m

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after 9m of building height Minimum 50% of the building surface should be transparent for maximum on street visibility per person green/ open space 9 sq.m.

A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more

24m 21m

side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 3.6 m for a residential building Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building

urban condition 02

free design

constraint design

7 land use : residential

plot area - 3571.90 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 800 sq.m. [22.4%]

built footprint - 2143.14 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1428.76 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 60m [20 floors]

setbacks - 636.88 sq.m. [17.8%] FOS - 162 sq.m. [4.5%] side and rear - 474.89 sq.m. [13.3%]

additional open space - 469 sq.m. [+13.1%] total built - 58911.62 sq.m.

land use : residential [private ownership]

plot area - 3571.90 sq.m.

built footprint - 900 sq.m. [25.2%] required LOS - 714.38 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 2671.90 sq.m. [74.8%]

setbacks - 898.45 sq.m. [25.1%] FOS - 304.08 sq.m. [8.5%] side and rear - 594.37 sq.m. [16.7%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 1773.45 sq.m. [49.7%]

building height - 24m [8 floors]

total built - 8999 sq.m.

urban condition 02

free design

constraint design

8 land use : residential

plot area - 3770.34 sq.m.

built footprint - 2262.20 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1508.14 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 661.88 sq.m. [17.5%] FOS - 171 sq.m. [4.5%] side and rear - 490.88 sq.m. [13%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 846.26 sq.m. [22.4%]

building height - 84m [28 floors]

additional open space - 495.40 sq.m. [+13.5%] total built - 70728.82 sq.m.

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 3770.34 sq.m.

built footprint - 1910.65 sq.m. [50.7%] required LOS - 754.07 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 1859.69 sq.m. [49.3%]

setbacks - 997.5 sq.m. [26.4%] FOS - 342 sq.m. [9%] side and rear - 655.54 sq.m. [17.4%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 862.15 sq.m. [22.9%] additional open space 916.16 sq.m. [+24.3%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 12615.06 sq.m.

urban condition 02

free design 10 land

constraint design

use : mix

plot area - 6017.50 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 1442.29 sq.m. [24%]

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 6017.50 sq.m.

built footprint - 3610.50 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 2407 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 75m [25 floors]

built footprint - 3411.53 sq.m. [56.7%] required LOS - 1203.50 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 2605.97 sq.m. [43.3%]

setbacks - 964.71 sq.m. [16%] FOS - 569.99 sq.m. [9.5%] side and rear - 394.72 sq.m. [6.5%]

additional open space - 1927 sq.m. [+32%] total built - 91811.90 sq.m.

setbacks - 1237.49 sq.m. [20.6%] FOS - 407.84 sq.m. [6.8%] side and rear - 829.65 sq.m. [13.8%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 1368.48 sq.m. [22.7%] required recreational space 481.4 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 21m [7 floors]

total built - 27342.08 sq.m.

urban condition 02

observations

free design

- no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters, spaces between buildings can be used for different time based activities and can be open to city - setbacks and margins are used as semi public / public spaces / extended spaces of the built which provides smooth transition spaces from public to private [PPP model] - large plot areas give opportunities for larger building footprints which gives multiple options to maximise on possibilities of emerging built forms - podium typology gives opportunity to create interactive edges - human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS

- compund walls act as strong barriers for visual and physical connection to the street

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- added FSI gives opportunities to build high rise public housing schemes with poor interactive spaces on ground

- insufficient in-between spaces of the buildings create unhealthy living conditions

- street to building ineraction becomes negligible - in between spaces are insufficient for large scale gatherings and does not provide opportunities for interactive / inviting semi public space - human scale is maintained, however it creates poor living conditions

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

urban condition 03

free design

constraint design

regulations

parameters

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m. minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

regulations FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification and maximising sky view factor

22m

18m

cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space]

22m

18m

building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0

22m

18m 123m

96m

84m

60m

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 3.6 m for a residential 15m building 6m Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building 24m

urban condition 03

free design 15 land

constraint design

use : mix

plot area - 3415.19 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 0 sq.m. [0%]

built footprint - 2098.68 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1316.51 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 108m [36 floors]

setbacks - 1316.51 sq.m. [40%] FOS - 334 sq.m. [9.8%] side and rear - 982.51 sq.m. [30.2%]

additional open space - 1262.11 sq.m. [+37%] total built - 80977.98 sq.m.

land use : open space [for public use]

plot area - 3770.34 sq.m.

urban condition 03

free design 16 land

constraint design

use : mix

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 5335 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 3556.67 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 1488.76 sq.m. [16.7%] FOS - 814.56 sq.m. [9.1%] side and rear - 674.2 sq.m. [7.6%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 2067.91 sq.m. [23.2%]

building height - 111m [37 floors] 123m [41 floors] 87m [29 floors]

additional open space - 2647.26 sq.m. [+29.8%] total built - 182237.02 sq.m.

land use : commercial [private ownership]

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 4365.17 sq.m. [49%] required LOS - 1778.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 1859.69 sq.m. [50.9%]

setbacks - 1567.85 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 572.67 sq.m. [6.4%] side and rear - 995.18 sq.m. [11.2%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 2958.65 sq.m. [33.3%] additional open space 1430.96 sq.m. [+16%]

building height - 15m [5 floors]

additional open space - 2647.26 sq.m. [+29.8%] total built - 32114.61 sq.m.

urban condition 03 free design 17 land

use : mix

urban condition 03 constraint design 20

land use : commercial [private ownership]

plot area - 13029.87 sq.m. built footprint - 6515.23 sq.m. [50%] LOS - 6514.64 sq.m. [50%] total built - 214467.32 sq.m. LOS other than setbacks on ground 3662.19 sq.m. [28.1%] additional open space - 4094.23 sq.m. [+31.4%]

plot area - 13029.87 sq.m. built footprint - 5943.55 sq.m. [45.6%] required LOS on ground floor 3257.47 sq.m. [25%] provided LOS on ground 7086.32 sq.m. [54.4%] LOS other than setbacks on ground 4832.61 sq.m. [37%]

building height - 108m [36 floors] 96m [32 floors] 120m [40 floors]

building height - 24m [8 floors] total built - 37459.40 sq.m. setbacks - 2253.71 sq.m. [17.3%] FOS - 575 sq.m. [4.4%] side and rear - 1678.71 sq.m. [12.9%] additional open space - 3102.18 sq.m. [+23.8%]

setbacks - 2853.54 sq.m. [21.9%] FOS - 1981.49 sq.m. [15.2%] side and rear - 872.05 sq.m. [6.7%]

urban condition 03

observations

free design

- no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters - setbacks and margins are used as semi public / public spaces / extended spaces of the built which provides smooth transition spaces [PPP model] - form based building codes give flexibility in building quality built-open spaces - street to building ineraction becomes more humane and provides quality spaces that can benefit both public and private realm - pedestrian oriented street design gives equal importance to both automobiles and people - encourages use of non motarised transport - human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- compound walls act as the dividing factor and create a visual block from the street - setbacks and margins are used mainly as parking or for private use of the respective plot use which restricts the pedestrian flow - podium typology can be used to maximise the interaction on ground, in the absence of compound walls it can act as one of the important factors - street to building ineraction is negligible - streets are more automobile oriented - lacks pedestrian friendly infrastructure - human scale is somehow achieved yet, it creates secluded, fragmented, underutilised and exclusive spaces

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

urban condition 04

free design

constraint design

regulations

parameters

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m. minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

regulations FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space]

18m

22m

21 12m

12m

23 12m

12m

18m 120m

96m

84m

60m

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

22m

building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0 LOS [Layout Open Space] minimum area - 125 sq.m. i) for plots measuring 1001 sq. m to 2500 sq. m. - 15 % of Plot Area ii) for plots measuring from 2501 sq. m to 10,000 sq. m - 20 % of Plot area iii) for plots above 10,000 sq. m = 25 % of Plot Area upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more 27m 15m 6m

side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building

urban condition 04 free design 21 land

use : mix

urban condition 04 constraint design 24

land use : commercial [private ownership]

building height - 108m [36 floors] 96m [32 floors] 120m [40 floors]

setbacks - 2853.54 sq.m. [21.9%] FOS - 1981.49 sq.m. [15.2%] side and rear - 872.05 sq.m. [6.7%]

urban condition 04

free design 23

free design

land use : residential

plot area - 4414.63 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 995.36 sq.m. [22.5%]

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 4414.63 sq.m.

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 1451.95 sq.m. [32.9%] required recreational space 353.17 sq.m. [8%]

built footprint - 2648.78 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1765.85 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 78m [26 floors] 96m [32 floors]

built footprint - 1800 sq.m. [40.8%] required LOS - 882.93 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 2614.63 sq.m. [59.2%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

setbacks - 722.64 sq.m. [16%] FOS - 166.81 sq.m. [3.8%] side and rear - 555.83 sq.m. [12.2%]

additional open space - 1010.33 sq.m. [+22.9%] total built - 86513.96 sq.m.

setbacks - 1162.68 sq.m. [37.7%] FOS - 852.38 sq.m. [19.3%] side and rear - 810.38 sq.m. [18.4%]

total built - 19797.88 sq.m.

urban condition 04

observations

free design

- commercial and mix use buildings with built to line typology provides a smooth transition between public and private ralms - no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters - form based building codes give flexibility to built quality built-open spaces - street to building ineraction becomes more humane - street design gives equal importance to both automobiles and people

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- compund walls break the public and private realm connection - setbacks and margins remain dead or mainly cater as parking spaces on the private part and as for the public space on street, provided footpath dimensions do not suffice the need and they’re also not welcoming / inviting for pedestrians - the FSI helps in controlling the building height, yet the regulations for mill workers’ housing creat unhealthy living conditions - exclusive private open spaces are created

- encourages use of non motarised transport

- street design is more of automobile driven

- human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

- insufficiant infrastructure for non motarised transport - human scale is maintained, however it offers poor living conditions

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

urban condition 05

free design

constraint design

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

18m

parameters Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

regulations

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m. 12m

22m

minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space]

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street

30 29

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification and maximising sky view factor

18m

12m

building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0

12m

cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor minimum 3m of setback from all sides of the building

22m 12m

minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 /18m street 66m 60m

45m

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing

A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more

24m

side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 3.6 m for a residential building Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building

urban condition 05

free design 27

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 2158.18 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 325.82 sq.m. [15%]

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 1294.91 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 863.27 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 66m [22 floors]

built footprint - 4365.17 sq.m. [49%] required LOS - 1778.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 4526.50 sq.m. [51%]

setbacks - 527.16 sq.m. [24%] FOS - 108.94 sq.m. [5%] side and rear - 418.22 sq.m. [19%]

additional open space - 498.05 sq.m. [+22%] total built - 23859.75 sq.m.

setbacks - 1567.85 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 572.67 sq.m. [6%] side and rear - 995.18 sq.m. [11.6%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 2958.67 sq.m. [33.3%] required recreational space 711.33 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 46268.51 sq.m.

urban condition 05

free design 28

constraint design

land use : residential

plot area - 1439.64 sq.m.

built footprint - 863.78 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 575.86 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 394.44 sq.m. [27%] FOS - 232.22 sq.m. [15.7%] side and rear - 162.22 sq.m. [11.3%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 154.71 sq.m. [10.7%]

building height - 42m [14 floors]

additional open space - 65.05 sq.m. [+4.5%] total built - 14952.25 sq.m.

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 4365.17 sq.m. [49%] required LOS - 1778.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 4526.50 sq.m. [51%]

setbacks - 1567.85 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 572.67 sq.m. [6%] side and rear - 995.18 sq.m. [11.6%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 2958.67 sq.m. [33.3%] required recreational space 711.33 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 46268.51 sq.m.

urban condition 05

free design 29

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 2102.16 sq.m.

built footprint - 1261.30 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 840.86 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 405.37 sq.m. [19.3%] FOS - 125.78 sq.m. [6%] side and rear - 279.59 sq.m. [13.3%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 377.46 sq.m. [17.9%]

building height - 39m [13 floors]

additional open space - 456.81 sq.m. [+21.7%] total built - 16644.12 sq.m.

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 4365.17 sq.m. [49%] required LOS - 1778.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 4526.50 sq.m. [51%]

setbacks - 1567.85 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 572.67 sq.m. [6%] side and rear - 995.18 sq.m. [11.6%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 2958.67 sq.m. [33.3%] required recreational space 711.33 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 46268.51 sq.m.

urban condition 05

free design 30

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 2267.68 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 409.37 sq.m. [18%]

land use : residential [MHADA/ mill workers housing]

plot area - 8891.67 sq.m.

built footprint - 1360.61 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 907.07 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 60m [20 floors]

built footprint - 4365.17 sq.m. [49%] required LOS - 1778.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 4526.50 sq.m. [51%]

setbacks - 570.24 sq.m. [25%] FOS - 181.64 sq.m. [8%] side and rear - 388.60 sq.m. [17%]

additional open space - 456.21 sq.m. [+20%] total built - 21413.83 sq.m.

setbacks - 1567.85 sq.m. [17.6%] FOS - 572.67 sq.m. [6%] side and rear - 995.18 sq.m. [11.6%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 2958.67 sq.m. [33.3%] required recreational space 711.33 sq.m. [8%]

building height - 27m [9 floors]

total built - 46268.51 sq.m.

urban condition 05

observations

free design

- no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters, spaces between buildings can be used for different time based activities and can be open to city - internal streets are provided with chicanes such thhat it reduces the tension and speed of the vehicular traffic and additional margin space can be used as shared streets by pedestrians - commercial / mix use buildings abutting the 6m streets can also use the additional space as their extended semi public open space for smoother transition between public and private domain

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- in case of gated mass housing, the internal streets disappear and the compound walls make it exclusive, hence the visual and physical access is blocked - insufficient in-between spaces of the buildings create unhealthy living conditions and discourages through movements of vehicles and pedestrians - added FSI gives opportunities to build high rise public housing schemes, however, with poor interactive spaces on ground - street to building ineraction becomes negligible

- podium typology gives opportunity to create interactive edges

- in between spaces are insufficient for large scale gatherings and does not provide opportunities for interactive / inviting semi public space

- human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

- human scale is maintained, however it creates poor living conditions

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

urban condition 06

free design

constraint design

parameters Flexibility in built form built footprint building height built volume LOS

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins additional open space

regulations

minimum built vs open ratio to be achieved on ground - 60-40%

FSI zonal [basic] for island city - 1.33 maximum permissible - 2.0 MHADA/ mill workers housing [inclusing basic zonal FSI] - 4.0

maximum single building footprint 1600 sq.m. 12m

minimum distance between two built forms - 15m

34 12m

minimum additional setbacks of 1.5m on upper floors for further densification and maximising sky view factor

building Height 1.5 * road width + FOS [Front Open Space]

12m

1:2 ratio to be followed from the narrowest street side if abutting a 12/18m street

building type height of the building minimum road width required (m) High rise - above 32m upto 70m - 9.0 high rise - above 70m upto 120m 12.0 high rise - above 120m - 18.0

38 12m

cap 800 sq.m. of maximum built up area per floor

minimum 3m of setback from all sides of the building minimum additional 1m-3m of setback on at least one edge of the built form starting from the narrowest abutting streets of the plot If abutting a 12 /18m street

upto 8% of additional recreational space for MHADA/ mill workers housing

75m

60m

45m

Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

minimum setback of 3m from all sides of the building after 9m of building height

A podium may be permitted in plot admeasuring 1500 sq.m. or more

Minimum 50% of the building surface should be transparent for maximum on street visibility per person green/ open space 9 sq.m.

side and rear setbacks and margins Minimum being 3.6 m for a residential building Minimum being 4.5 m for a commercial building

urban condition 06

free design 32

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 3266.68 sq.m.

built footprint - 1960.01 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1306.67 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 600.83 sq.m. [18%] FOS - 300.42 sq.m. [9%] side and rear - 300.42 sq.m. [9%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 578.21 sq.m. [17.7%]

building height - 75m [25 floors]

additional open space - 1215.61 sq.m. [+37.2%] total built - 50046.90 sq.m.

land use : commercial [private ownership]

plot area - 3266.68 sq.m.

built footprint - 2527.03 sq.m. [77.4%] required LOS - 653.33 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 739.65 sq.m. [22.6%]

setbacks - 739.65 sq.m. [22.6%] FOS - 0 sq.m. [0%] side and rear - 739.65 sq.m. [22.6%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 0 sq.m. [0%]

building height - 6m [2 floors]

total built - 7581.09 sq.m.

urban condition 06

free design 34

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 2960.30 sq.m.

built footprint - 1776.18 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1184.82 sq.m. [40%]

setbacks - 566.01 sq.m. [19%] FOS - 162 sq.m. [5.4%] side and rear - 404.01 sq.m. [13.6%]

LOS other than setbacks on ground 576.02 sq.m. [19.4%]

building height - 72m [24 floors]

additional open space - 897.56 sq.m. [+30.3%] total built - 34364.24 sq.m.

land use : commercial [private ownership]

plot area - 2960.30 sq.m.

built footprint - 2026.88 sq.m. [68.5%] required LOS - 592.06 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 933.42 sq.m. [31.5%]

setbacks - 663.42 sq.m. [22.4%] FOS - 0 sq.m. [0%] side and rear - 663.42 sq.m. [22.4%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 270 sq.m. [9.1%]

building height - 6m [2 floors]

total built - 6080.63 sq.m.

urban condition 06

free design 35

constraint design

land use : commercial

plot area - 2731.74 sq.m.

LOS other than setbacks on ground 566.71 sq.m. [20.7%]

land use : commercial [private ownership]

plot area - 2731.74 sq.m.

built footprint - 1639.04 sq.m. [60%] LOS - 1092.70 sq.m. [40%]

building height - 72m [24 floors]

built footprint - 1870.39 sq.m. [68.5%] required LOS - 546.35 sq.m. [20%] provided LOS on ground 861.35 sq.m. [31.5%]

setbacks - 542.87 sq.m. [19.8%] FOS - 110.74 sq.m. [3.7%] side and rear - 432.13 sq.m. [16.1%]

additional open space - 865.29 sq.m. [+31.7%] total built - 37984.85 sq.m.

setbacks - 652.7 sq.m. [23.9%] FOS - 0 sq.m. [0%] side and rear - 652.7 sq.m. [23.9%]

provided LOS other than setbacks on ground - 208.65 sq.m. [7.6%]

building height - 6m [2 floors]

total built - 7481.55 sq.m.

urban condition 06

observations

free design

- city level public open spaces like parks and plazas without prominent physical boundary walls can create more inclusive and welcoming edge with the street - no compund walls encourage ‘built to line’ typology which maximises possibilities of chance encounters, spaces between buildings can be used for different time based activities and can be open to city - setbacks and margins are used as semi public / public spaces / extended spaces of the built which provides smooth transition spaces from public to private [PPP model] - podium typology gives opportunity to create interactive edges, spaces in front of the commercial/ mix use buildings can be used as semi public spillover spaces to create more interactive edge with the street - human scale and sky view factor is maximised, despite of high rise buildings

constraint design

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

- city level public open spaces with compound walls create clear demarcations even within the public domain which discourages the direct visual or physical access and ends up creating dead edges with the street - compounded commercial buildings create more exclusive private spaces with insufficient space on the street for public domain - FSI helps in controlling the building height - footpaths and public open spaces abutting high compound walls create dead edges and negligible interaction on street - poor and insufficient street infrastructure discourages people to walk - human scale is maintained, however it creates poor living conditions

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint built volume building height LOS Transition space FOS side and rear setbacks and margins

comparision matrix

matrix parameters

urban condition 01 free design constraint design

urban condition 02 free design constraint design

urban condition 03 free design constraint design

urban condition 04 free design constraint design

urban condition 05 free design constraint design

urban condition 06 free design constraint design

land use

residential mix

residential [mill workers’ housing] residential [private ownership]

residential mix public open space

residential [mill workers’ housing] residential [private ownership] public open space

mix

commercial [private ownership] public open space

mix residential public open space

commercial [private ownership] residential [mill workers’ housing] public open space

residential commercial

residential [mill workers’ housing]

commercial public open space

commercial [private ownership] public open space

abutting street widths

12m 6m

18m

22m

18m

22m 12m

18m 12m 6m

22m 12m 6m

12m 6m

ﬂexibility in built form built footprint

60%

25 - 57%

60%

24 - 57%

60%

45 - 50%

50 - 60%

40 - 46%

60%

49%

60%

68 - 78%

built volume [sq.m.]

49,000 - 92,000

8,500 - 27,500

58,000 - 92,000

8,500 - 27,500

80,500 - 2,15,000

32,000 - 37,500

86,500 - 2,15,000

19,500 - 37,500

14,500 - 24,000

46,000

34,000 - 50,000

6,000 - 7,500

building height 42m - 75m

21m - 27m

60m - 84m

21m - 27m

87m - 123m

15m - 24m

78m - 120m

24m - 27m

39m - 66m

27m

72m - 75m

LOS

40%

52 - 75%

40%

43 - 75%

40%

50 - 55%

40 - 50%

54 - 59%

40%

51%

40%

22 - 32%

AOS

13 - 32%

24%

30 - 37%

16 - 24%

22 - 32%

23.8%

4.5 - 22%

30 - 37%

FOS

4 - 10%

2 - 9%

4 - 10%

6 - 9%

9 - 15%

4 - 6%

3.5 - 15%

4 - 19%

5 - 16%

3 - 9%

side and rear setbacks

6 - 14%

8 - 17%

6 - 13%

13 - 17%

6 - 30%

11 - 24%

6 - 12%

12 - 18.5%

11 - 19%

11 - 12%

9 - 16%

22 - 24%

Transition space

observations

margins of the plot play important role

in between spaces of the buildings create liveable/ unhealthy spaces

restrictions on built footprint can also be an important guiding factor for built volume and height

form based codes with height restrictions provide multiple opportunities for multiple built form explorations

non negotiables

form based codes with height restrictions can provide opportunities for multiple built form explorations

mix use can work as an efficient building typology, it can eventually create inclusive neighbourhoods in between spaces of the built forms and plots of the commercial plot can be at least open to pedestrians and boundaries can be visually porous for visual access

vertical distribution of land use in mix use building typology can be used to create compact yet efficient neighbourhoods re-imagining the plot boundaries can invite more people to the streets by prividing interactive/ extended spaces on ground

in between spaces of the built forms and plots of the commercial plot can be at least open to pedestrians and boundaries can be visually porous for visual access smaller plots and respective abutting streets restrict the overall height of the built form

human scale should be given utmost importance despite of all other factors considered to achieve maximum built volume

maximising sky view factor with rising densification and high rise buildings

re-imagining the plot boundaries can invite more people to the streets by prividing interactive/ extended spaces on ground

city level public open spaces shall be integrated with the abutting streets and land uses such that it creates welcoming edges

the quest of achieving maximum built volume rises the need of resources in the overall plan

equal importance to front, rear and side margins

certain setbacks at upper level should be provided as open to sky semi private open spaces in respective built form for shared use

mix use shall be considered as an option for development

verticle use distribution shall be an option alongside individual plot use distribution

no significant difference shall be considered in mill workers’ housing that compromises on the quality of the living spaces

walkable blocks and plots shall be created

no significant difference shall be considered in mill workers’ housing that compromises on the quality of the living space

introduction of smooth semi-public transition space between public and private realm instead of strict boundary walls on ground floor to maximise street to building interactions sufficient provision of in-between spaces between buildings within the plot such that the building gets sufficient light and ventilation throughout the day

sufficient in between spaces should be provided between buildings to create a quality environment, in some cases it shall be open to the city, can also be time based

at least one city level open space shall be present in walkable distance from any particular plot

adequate amount of plot area shall be given for quality built open spaces to be built, for mill workers’ housing at least one city level open space shall be present in walkable distance from any particular plot

re-imagining the plot boundaries can invite more people to the streets by prividing interactive/ extended spaces on ground in between spaces of the built forms and plots of the commercial plot can be at least open to pedestrians and boundaries can be visually porous for visual access city level public open spaces shall be integrated with the abutting streets and land uses such that it creates mix use shall be considered as an option for development verticle use distribution shall be an option alongside individual plot use distribution commercial spaces should avoid boundary walls or at least provide visual accessibility at least one city level open space shall be present in walkable distance from any particular plot

comparision

front, rear and side margins should be imagined as interactive transition spaces and shall be given equal importance

sufficient provision of n-between spaces of the buildings shall be taken into consideration

open to built ratio and provision of minimum per person open and built spaes should also consider access to healthy environment with quality spaces as one of the guiding factors

provisional regulations should also consider introduction of additional open spaces at different levels such that it enhances the quality of the living environment

podium typologies should be created to have more interactive and dynamic street edges with mix use

Approach Regulations play a major role in city building process. It is a powerful tool to shape and sharpen the crux of the city. Importantly, there are number of aspects at play when it comes to building a ‘healthy neighbourhood’ or a ‘people centric neighbourhood’ or a ‘liveable neighbourhood’. All these aspects have their respective bars and boundaries set to be achieved. However, the actual life thrives within these boundaries. Seems like it is taken quite literally that these boundaries have started segregating and piecing up the cities which has eventually created secluded, classified and exclusive neighbourhoods. Current paradoxical situation is a result of many such systems which fail to strike a balance between what is required and what is being offered. A constant notion of overlooking the existing logics or system and developing something that falls under the intransigent definition of physical development has been followed. Currently, it is more like a problem solving approach wherein each aspect of the city development is observed and addressed through separate set of regulations in isolation. Densification and growth of the city shall be addressed more holistically which doesn’t only provide basic infrastructure needs and services but also enhances the quality of the living environment. Certain aspects such as the built form, street edges, open spaces, inbetween spaces shall be looked at altogether and the regulations unlike in current situation, shall talk more about creating more inviting and interactive spaces than just creating individualistic buildings. It should focus more on the in between spaces, interactive street edges and smooth transition spaces between the public and private realm. The notion of exclusivity and divide shall be addressed through a cohesive approach which also encourages to build more dynamic and interactive spaces and edges, both on ground and vertically. So as to start with, the best approach to piece up the paradox is by putting the pieces together!