We are introduced to the science, or rather the art, of planning through theories like the garden city movement and the city beautiful movement. With such rigidly regulated neighbourhoods, we get accustomed to perceiving them in a manner that is an almost sterile and engineered version of what we see today.
My introduction to the concept of density, in a more rooted sense, came with my experience at City Collab [1]; we were asked to explore the dynamics of cities around the world today. It started with many amateur questions that soon developed into an enthusiasm to soak in more. We found ourselves breaking away from the binaries that differentiate the so-called good and bad.
It is common to encounter ambiguous definitions from perceived ideas of density. While there is no universal guide to define density, it can’t be understood through independently categorised silos — be it FAR/FSI, population density, number of dwelling units or per capita space consumption. It is, specifically, defined through the relationship that they have with each other. [2] We will see how this very interaction of the indicators, when taken in tandem with people’s demands, presents for the cities of Mumbai and Brasilia.
Starting with Mumbai — a city that has attracted people exponentially. Here is a city where the population density outweighs the built density conspicuously. In his paper elucidating the FSI conundrum of Mumbai, Alain Bertaud makes no hesitation in addressing the current urban policy as “Malthusian” [3]. It is spiralling towards deterioration in response to the rigid policies and the floor space restriction. While we can romanticize the architecture of yesteryear Bombay, we can’t turn a blind eye to Mumbai as it is today. With an average floor space consumption of 4.5 sq.m per person, Mumbaikars are experiencing a shortage of supply of land as well as floor space. When job seekers come here in tens and thousands, what is the rationale for controlling the built density?
“Proponents of high FSI often cite the case of other cities like New York, Chicago and Singapore, all of which have 12 to 15 times more FSI than that of Mumbai. However, none of these countries are saddled with the crushing densities of Mumbai that already has its infrastructure straining at its leash” Shirish Patel[4]
No doubt that this concern stems from right intentions, but wouldn’t a hand-in-hand growth of infrastructure with the city density only benefit us? With the ongoing rebuttal on Mumbai’s development, one can’t help but think if there is a “correct” way of addressing densities?
To explore this thought, let’s look at Brasilia, a city designed by Lucio Costa with a target population of 50,00,000. However, with time the aesthetic design didn’t match the migrants’ demand, who would, in turn, determine the economic development of the city. Similar to world cities like Mumbai and New York, their job opportunities were concentrated in the city core. Yet, the “planned” state pushed the people to the outskirts and into informal settlements. This is the case of a city that was not prescient of its own people — their needs or aspirations. Urbanists have, over the years, sought solutions for Brasilia. In his paper “Brasilia spatial structure: Between the Cult of Design and Markets”, Alain Bertaud posits the importance of responding to the city’s current centre of gravity, [5] in lieu of the ideology-driven plan.
In contrast to the common belief, we can’t design a city out of its misery. Instead, the success lies in adapting our policies and requirements to ground realities. Cities like New York, which shares a similar story as Mumbai has made it possible with increasing FSI over time. Likewise, Shenzhen, the Asian counterpart of Brasilia was able to transform from a village due to its timely transit growth.
However, you might think with the global pandemic pushing people back to their hometowns and into remote working conditions, how will the city survive? More so, who will churn the needs of a city? Are all hopes lost?
“Cities are about exchanging ideas. The proximity of people to other people sparks ideas in a way that is impossible in remote areas”
[6] Edward Glaeser at ULI Netherlands’ Annual Conference
References (that I am grateful for)
[1] City Collab
[2] The Density Atlas
[3] Mumbai FAR/FSI conundrum (Research paper)
[4] Mumbai Floor Space Index: Moving up leaves problems aground
[5] Brasilia spatial structure: Between the Cult of Design and Markets (Research paper)
[6] Making Room for Newcomers: Density and the Draw of Urbanization
