The rapid pace of urbanisation in India has translated into an increased demand for housing facilities and related infrastructure. With an urban housing shortage already reaching 18.78 million units, cities today are ill-equipped to cater to the current or future demands. 96% of this pertains to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Lower Income Groups (LIG). With an upsurge in cost of land and construction (building materials and labour), affordable housing has become a distant dream for the EWS and LIG.

Lack of cost-effective housing is one of India’s most pressing developmental problems as clearly identified and being attempted to be addressed by missions such as Smart Cities, AMRUT etc. It needs a solution that bridges the gap between the demand and supply of housing to ensure that the supply is at an affordable price whilst maintaining the quality of construction. The idea is that no individual is left homeless. Thus, the first step towards tackling the housing shortage and achieving the goal of Housing for All by 2022 is an urban housing policy at the state level such that it reflects social, economic, physical, cultural and emotional needs of the family to live with dignity, comfort and security and be accepted as an honourable member of the neighbourhood and society at large.

An ongoing research study at Development Alternatives is developing a policy road map for urban affordable housing in 5 states across the country (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Assam, Sikkim and West Bengal). This article highlights some of the key points that states need to keep in mind while developing their policies.

Creating an enabling environment for providing affordable housing for all and integrated habitat development requires involving and building synergies among multiple stakeholders such as citizens, corporators, urban local bodies (ULBs), state government agencies and service providers. The traditional roles of these stakeholders also need to be examined critically in light of the lessons from previous social housing schemes and programmes. The policy needs to promote the state and the administering Urban Local Bodies as facilitators to the process of habitat development beyond just implementers of schemes.

At its core, the policy needs to adopt a citizen centric view that places the citizen at the centre of the planning and construction process. With a view to ensure equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices; it should support citizens’ usufruct rights to land, transitioning from the concept of land ownership by the customer to the idea of shelter ownership. It needs to keep upfront the economic, physical and social comforts of the citizen as an end user. Given local context, a provision of units with carpet area in the range of 30-60 sq.m. area for a family of 4-5 is advocated. Additionally, it needs to include livelihood considerations such as space for home based workers, vendor carts, etc. especially for the LIGs.

Moving away from the term beneficiary to end user, the policy needs to bring more dignity to the citizen and encourage a market driven perspective amongst the service providers. Finally, the policy has to strive for increased participation of the private sector and non-government agencies, accelerating the flow of housing finance and promotion of environment friendly, cost effective and alternate technologies.

A policy that aims at transformative habitat development at the outset needs to encourage alignment of proposed policy interventions with sustainability by developing environment friendly technologies, promotion of community participation and ensuring a coherent service delivery mechanism.

Sustainability as a driving principle of the policy lends focus to issues of resource scarcity and responds to challenges of intergenerational equity by reducing rate of physical resource depletion and raising resource productivity while reducing the negative impacts on the environment. Planning at the regional level in resonance with the overall strategy for the economy, spatial development extents, transportation and affordable housing is important for urban areas to make informed trade-offs on their use of scarce resources.

Inclusiveness and access embodied by the belief of ‘leave no one behind’ guides implementation to ensure that the goal of Housing for All is met. Integration between housing, basic amenities, livelihood and community infrastructure and natural resources will promote access; thus promoting a better standard of living and reducing vulnerability. It also advocates the inclusion of end users in all stages of planning and management and making the service orientation sustainable and demand driven thus ensuring quality housing in attractive neighbourhoods.

Appropriate design considers cultural, geo-climatic and environmental concerns of housing and habitat design so interventions are functionally useful, culturally acceptable, durable, safe, healthy and sustainable for the user and the community. It necessitates flexibility in design intervention, technology choices and their implementation through community based processes and flexibility in accessing financial resources. It further promotes the concept of multifunctional systems composed of decentralised sub-systems at each intervention level tailored to meet the specific needs of home-owners at that level.

Given the vast regional variability across the country and even among states, there is a need to develop ‘best-fit’ combinations from probable solutions.

Habitat Development and Ownership

The development can follow various models ranging from:

• Multi-family apartment housing includes housing structures designed for several different families in separate housing units living independently of each other.

• Integrated township is a self-sustained urban development model with the necessary infrastructure for education, health care, shopping, etc. and offers connectivity to the rest of the city.

• Mixed land-use development typically comprises of a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or recreational areas.

• Mixed income housing is a large scale housing provision catering to different income groups clustered together.

• Welfare housing i.e. permanent or transit shelters with suitable living conditions for the destitute, orphans, senior citizens, widows and any other citizens without a regular source of income.

• Rental or transit housing for migrant population complete with the necessary social and physical infrastructure on a temporary basis.

• Rent to own housing model with an initial allotment of the unit on a leased basis for a fixed number of years which on completion of 100% payment will be handed over to buyer by de-hypothecation.

• Purchase model where the end user will own the housing from the beginning.

• Land owned by central, state and local government agencies with development rights transferred to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).

• Land owned by private agencies - individuals or organisations acquired for construction of public infrastructure and facilities or make provisions to devote part of the land for affordable housing and compensating the developer in the form of transfer of development rights or increased Floor Space Index (FSI).

• Land owned by private agencies and pooled for future development through land readjustment by assembly of small rural or urban land parcels into a large land parcel, services and returned to owners at cost.

• Cross subsidy provided by states in the form of viability gap funding

• Debt to the project development agency on commercial terms

• Land monetisation of land assets

• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for financing ‘visible’ infrastructure facilities

Back to Contents