The term Private Public Partnerships (PPP) in India is a dirty one. While partnerships present an opportunity for stakeholder collaboration that generate value by pooling of complementary expertise and resources, the practice in India has meant subcontracting of tasks and strategy by public sector to the private sector with little accountability or responsibilities on outcomes. The only driver of the partnership has been project finance and profits. This has been especially true in housing or slum redevelopment schemes from Dharavi in Mumbai to Katputali colony in Delhi driven by PPPs between city governments and large private developers. Maximizing the value of land while delivering maximum number of low-income housing are contradictory and misleading national policy objectives with fatal social outcomes.
A relatively new urban planning tool is now evaluating how to identify key transit-nodes for focused transit-oriented development (ToD). The success of the policy will rely on the careful design and crafting of private-public partnerships (PPP). ToD also presents a opportunity into designing progressive well structured PPP models that are truly win-win and have a lasting impact on the livability in cities.
One of the challenges facing The Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning and Engineering) Centre (UTTIPEC) , the agency tasked with defining the ToD policy within Delhi Development Authority, is to design its transit-oriented development (TOD) such that it will promote inclusive and sustainable neighborhood transformation and not lead to gentrification. In a TOD area, once property values increase it tends to push out affordable housing stock or convert rental stock into ownership for sale to higher income groups. The Equitable Development Toolkit discusses about how the extension of the Red Line of Boston’s subway system to Somerville, Massachusetts, in 1985 and the TOD around the Davis Square stop, for example, dramatically changed this working-class community. Housing costs soared, and new condos are being built or converted from former rentals at a rapid rate: since 2000, 1,394 condominium units have been placed on the market, some of them topping $1 million.
Ensuring pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that are inclusive and equitable, mixed-use and mixed-income is the core of TOD. Equally important is revitalizing neighborhoods through program design and policy incentives that are economically and financially attractive for all stakeholders—government, large and local businesses, private developers, and local residents.
One of the pilot sites identified to test the TOD model in Delhi is the Karkarduma metro station. Here lies an opportunity to influence programming of a government-owned site. The only low-income housing stock is in the form of illegal unauthorized colonies or slums. The residential areas are already overcrowded and the metro is used intensively for long trips. The current land use of the area does not allow local businesses to flourish formally.
What type of private-public partnerships should we consider to achieve this? What should be the process of engaging the community and residents? How could we create non-profit associations that can steer and facilitate these interactions?
One partnership has already been formed—an interdisciplinary working group that is brainstorming strategies for the Karkarduma pilot. Under the coordination of UTTIPEC, it brings together urban planners, transport and energy professionals, decentralized infrastructure providers, community development institutions, socio-economic researchers and real estate and financial professionals to put their heads and hearts together and define norms and a process that will create a livable city for all.
Blog post image
Comments
Bharat Singh replied on Permalink
Affordable housing and TOD may not work in the Indian context
Here is one big glitch in looking to meld the two policies together. Most urban poor in India try and live where they work. Either they work in formal spaces close by, or run their informal business where they live. Hence, as you mentioned, most TOD is designed on the premise of travelling longer distances to/from work. While that really works for the (upper) middle class, it would be difficult to formalize/take away/restrict space used by slum dwellers and not impact their livelyhood. The policy may provide them with cheap housing, but they may have to move due to loss of employment in the vicinity. Whatever policy is developed, it has to account for the cost of both housing and transportation to be successful.
Rakhi replied on Permalink
TOD and Affordable Housing
Hi Bharat, Thanks for the comment and interest in the TOD discussion.
The pilot project mentioned in the post is trying to achieve exactly what you highlight is important- that low income households has have opportunity to live/work in a TOD zone. The current draft of the TOD policy in Delhi demarcates a certain minimum % for 25-40sqm homes for rentals for low income families. The challenge for the developer is the opportunity cost of creating social housing stock in prime TOD pockets. In case the landowner is government it should be a no brainer since it achieves its public objectives.
Lastly TOD is as much about better connectivity through rapid-transit as it is about designing pedestrian friendly, mixed-income and mixed use neighbourhoods. Thus the informal settlements (urban villages, authorised colonies etc) across the city should be better integrated with transit corridors.
Bharat Singh replied on Permalink
TOD & Affordable Housing
Hi Rakhi,
I agree that Delhi's TOD should be looking to better connect informal settlements to transit systems (both public & NMT). Since the first effort is in building a TOD is in Karkardooma, which is both more or less vacant and is owned by the govt., we may not see a displacement per say, but it would be interesting to figure out where, and what profession, the affordable housing residents would go to work. Also, it would be interesting to see how the market forces will impact the affordable units - will we see a black market for those or not.
mehrarakhi replied on Permalink
Retaining the affordable housing stock
Hi Bharat,
I won't be so sure about government projects having less displacement (!) it really depends on the project vision/design and the checks and balances in place. If we leave it to the market forces in a highly skewed property market as we have in India, we're asking for more trouble. The DDA subsidised flats intended for poorer families (bought by middle and high income) are existing examples of failed social housing projects. The problem is that we cannot enforce compliance with heavy-handed monitoring. Our philosophy is to use community and design strategies (tactics) that incentivise a certain behaviour. For e.g smaller units for rent (not own), they can have shared bathrooms and no parking spots. It is less likely that a middle income family will want to buy or rent such units. In addition community principles are integral- cooperatives facilitated by NGOs would lead to self-selection/screening. These program design tactics may not be fool proof but it may prevent some degree of speculation into the affordable housing stock.
Bharat Singh replied on Permalink
Re: RETAINING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
Hi Rakhi. Since google earth shows the karkardooma site as vacant, i assumed that there would be little displacement, and not that the govt doesn't displace people. That said your ideas are quite innovative to build affordable units without parking and/or shared bathrooms. I remember see a private rental like that in an urban village near gazipur (del-ghaziabad border) and was surprised to see it well kept. The other issue would be designing the units to be the right social scale - low rise and clustered around a multi-purpose space. Developers may want to stick such units in a mid-rise/high rise to maximise land value ( some bad examples next to kaushambi high rises in ghaziabad). Unfortunatly, i didn't see much in the TOD guidelines that UTTIPEC published ( the TOD guidelines may not be the best place for affordable building by-laws). Ultimately, reforming the rental laws is the best solution to change the market, but we don't seem to have the political leadership to see beyond the next election cycle
mehrarakhi replied on Permalink
Political leadership
Hi Bharat- couldn't agree more.. we need a political leader with the right vision on inclusiveness! On the other practical issues, affordable housing bye-laws etc need to be consistent across laws.. Master Plans/Building code etc (including rental laws) etc. You're right about the positioning of the laws. The Transit Oriented Development Policy is a new policy and thus a small opportunity to get a foot in the door, prove something successful on ground and thus influence other policies that seem to be written in stone. On the appropriate social scale- we've been arguing for low-rise high density models that allow for community cohesiveness and are better environmentally for Delhi's climate. Although this would require some tweeks to the MP on ground coverage and street widths. Back to the leadership issue on who should take this on ( reference - The Hindu Article titled: Castle in the Air"). We need more freedom and flexibility to experiment in India and there seems to be no appetite for it in the bureaucracy :(
Bharat replied on Permalink
Re: Political Leadership
I think the the 'implement 73rd/74th amendment' phrase has been echoed for some time in India, so I need not add more to it. But on the aspect of City leadership, I think the american concept of City manager could help Indian cities get better management. It may not work in Delhi per se (due to the unique central/state/city admin jurisdictions), but other Indian cities could be reorganized to create a City manager position. The Position could be an IAS position at par of the DM. This could potentially provide that focused leadership that Indian cities so desperately need. Here is a management framework diagram I had worked out for a DMIC project that elaborates on the concept. I think the JNNURM could be used to implement it, like they did with other reform requirements and CDPs as basis for funding projects. See goo.gl/bzHPP
Bharat Singh replied on Permalink
Re: Building Standards
PS: Yes, I did read the Hindu article. It hits the nail right on the head. It also highlights the urgent need to revamp building standards for affordable housing.
Add new comment