Bad effects are from the heritage point of view that first and foremost, grade III listed heritage buildings should be excluded from redevelopment under rule 33(7) and 33(9). Due to this rule being applied indiscriminately across all so called 'old' buildings, irrespective of their heritage value, they are going ahead and pulling down good buildings too.
Localized poor condition in some parts of a heritage building are being shown in surveys as completely bad so that they can pull down the entire building, sell the old wood, material, etc. as well as consume higher FSI. It is a complete racket.
Developers support the modification to the rule as they get more FSI under the modified rule. The proposed cluster redevelopment scheme proposes an FSI of 4 or even higher, so they keep loading the city with new development with minimum open spaces, etc.
The modification has several harmful long term impacts for the city and people such as load to existing infrastructure of the city, worsening the quality of life, promoting poor construction, promoting a new haphazard and thoughtless architectural and urban design language that will alter Mumbai's character.
One of the most basic points against the modification is to question why FREE housing or accommodation of any kind should be given to tenants / occupants of space in the city. Why should a person occupying a tenement of 220 sqft or less get 300 or 400 sq. ft. and what happens to the Rent Control Act?
The modification is driven by vote bank politics and not by any desire to improve the condition of the city. It is a fact that there are more tenants than landlords in the island city; hence the politicians want to appease the greater number of people. It is also a fact that the politicians are themselves builders and developers in Mumbai, and hence have modified the law to suit them.
If you study the density and pattern of development of an area such as C-Ward (that is proposed to be redeveloped using the cluster redevelopment model), then you can see the existing architectural, social and cultural grain of the area, that is finely woven due to its low-rise and dense pattern of redevelopment.
This pattern of building will be replaced by the even more dense (due to additional loading of FSI) high-rise pattern of building, that will completely alter the fabric of the old city.
Much of the suburbs of Mumbai are largely characterless and homogeneous due to the building byelaws that allow this kind of thoughtless redevelopment. Infrastructure in the suburbs is already inadequate to cope with the population that is living there. The modifications to DC Rule 33(7) and 33(9) will similarly overload the existing infrastructure of the island city, leading to a reduced quality of life for all who stay or use this space.
Blanket solutions and rules are not applicable in a city like Mumbai. Different areas require different solutions.
What is required is:
- a rational survey of the existing building stock to be done, to identify poor buildings,
- amend or abolish the rent control act that has distorted the value of land and housing in the island city,
- apply sensitive and sensible (vs. lucrative) solutions to the existing problem being faced
- give incentives to people who want to repair their buildings skillfully
- allow reconstruction more through owners rather than builders
- Remove free redevelopment and offers for free housing - those who can afford to stay here should stay, rest should move northwards etc.
0 comments:
Post a Comment