 this one pocket here and the another pocket here, which are together about 9 percent of that 1000 hectares for the purposes of commercial in the sense which can be sold to raise resources for development. Because I think the idea that land can never be used for this kind of purposes is no good. There are many examples which show that a very small proportion of land when used for raising resources can help you develop a much bigger area. You know Bandra Kurla itself is an example. The real high price Bandra Kurla land is only 120 hectares and that can service large amount of infrastructure. There is a project going on in Ahmedabad which is the Sabarmati Riverfront development and their merits are apart. It is using only 5 percent for commercial purposes to finance entire development of Sabarmati Riverfront. So, location at the vantage locations if exploited cleverly can generate lot of resources. So, the whole new argument which is coming up is monetizing public lands is a one of the important ways of raising funds for urban development. So, it captures all those things and the land uses. The fraction is your wisdom your full you will squander everything, but the notion that public land is not something which should never be used commercially. That is not in fact it ends up being wasted if you do not use it cleverly. These are some of the examples of what has been done elsewhere. So, making specific provisions of land uses is important. It cannot be left as loosely defined no development so on. Land in RA colony is owned by government and therefore government can decide when and how to use it. So, it is not throwing RA to developers which has been of course a criticism and institutional and open use is the main notion of this plan. That is 61 percent of the land is still maintained as green and green in a hard coded green not as no development so on and 9 percent use for commercial purposes and 9 or 10 percent use for institutional uses. And when and how to use it is really by way of seizing opportunity. It is not to be done tomorrow for malls. Malls themselves are closing down. So, that may not be a wise thing to do. So, this is what RA is about and this is an example of river water and development. How that is in the up again come. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But unless sound, proposals are put forward, that will not change. There is some hope then that if you have a wisely understood proposal put in the public room, then things might change. Only one way that I would say maybe goes into other area that you are talking about. In general, the love for trees is found missing, if I may say so. Even when you talk about food parks, only beyond 27 meter, you talk about tree as part of the food park. Otherwise, food parks are not having trees for smaller ones. And in the process, in general, whatever loss of trees that have happened, there is no concept of recovering from that. See, what I have seen that you have a food park little less than 2 meter wide and you put a tree on that. Neither the tree survived nor the food park. So, you have to be careful in terms of doing that. But things are happening that way. The food parks are reduced, the trees are still there outside the food park. So, it doesn't serve the purpose of pioneering the carriage wheel. Nor does it serve the purpose of having at least a minimum food park. Because trees are still sanding out. So, there are issues on that. And I won't claim that DP has tried to sort those kinds of issues. What about slum areas? They are not touched by DP. They are just a little bit under. Slum areas are identified. And they have been put in these zones where the RCCR is there. And they have redeveloped it according to the existing policies with some amount of change. It has been promised. So, there are no specific proposals. Because there has been already a policy which has been in place for the last 20 years. And which essentially depends upon a promise of free house to some where else. So, we didn't want to disturb that thing. And therefore, what we have tried to do is change the incentive patterns for doing those kind of things. And also, made these slum development regulations on par with the rest of it. So, these slum buildings, they had lot of conversations. It was a storage buildings can be built at 3 meter apart and those kind of things. We have removed all that. But we are not shouting on the rooftop for that. Because that has its own implications. But quietly, it has been brought on par with the rest of the population. What about the slum population? I don't know how well it did. But the slum population has not been completely there. But the MNIC is 14 million population for the next 20 years. Will it not include slum population? No. Parameters like MNIC is currently there. They have come. They have come. Yes, that's right. I think what had happened when the existing land needs server was done, there were people who were criticizing that slums have not been surveyed. By land they mean every hut not being marked. Now, that was impossible. If you are doing 450 square kilometers city planning, you can't be doing individual hut and all that. That is being separately done also. That's why the metro is concerned. Is there a station also there? We have presumed that there is a station. That is where that power shall be. Because the problem is that if you don't have a station in the area, then that area becomes inaccessible because you have to cross GVLR. That's true. The assumption is that along with the thing that there could be some kind of array from my place, I have to go on the restructure highway and then enter. I'm not going to the array, what you call the colony, the playground and whatnot. While I cannot go from GVLR, we're close by into that area. No, by car. That is where the road network has also been indicated, how it will be made accessible. It is also assumed that the car shed will also have a convenient station. That base is that the development has to be supported. If you can use it as a bare problem. I think there is a second stage of planning. Everything has to be done with those details faster. I must take that. That is why I'm saying this is a broad brush plan. It has to be followed by a more detailed plan. And particularly in case of array, it's a question of seizing opportunities when they come. And you coordinate with them. We are not saying do it tomorrow. See, look at the things, how the opportunities come, whether you really need to make government land available in order to get that things in a competitive fashion. There is a very important... This presentation contains the evolution of FSI because I think FSI of Mumbai has to be seen in its evolutionary trajectory. It can't be seen what has been proposed now, because otherwise you will miss the thing. That is why most of these discussions that, oh now you are saying from 3.5 to 8 etc. But that 3.5 was already available. Currently building activity in suburbs is happening at 3 to 4 FSI. So that has to be understood and why that the case is. What is the existing FSI? Existing in the sense consumed FSI, what the city has consumed. Estimation of required built up area by 2034. And then calculating what is the mean FSI. So for that you need what is going to be the plot area available for building FSI. And then how that mean FSI could vary, because you can't have a flat FSI in the city. No city is flat in terms of accessibility. Some plots are facing wider road 60 feet, some are not, some are on the corner, some are on the midway, some are on the gully, some are close to railway stations. And all these accessibility patterns should decide what is the intensity of development that you are allowing in that. And if you don't do that and have a flat FSI, that means you are under utilizing the city. So the FSI pattern has to vary. And I think Mumbai is perhaps the only city which attempts to show that we have a flat FSI, 1 and 1.3. No other city, not even Chennai has flat FSI. Ahmedabad now varies its FSI from 1.8 to 5.7. Leave aside others, you know, all other cities have a much varying FSI. But even in Indian cities that is not the case. So how should that, taking that mean FSI, how should it vary against that mean? So that will be one next step. Then we have proposed a four tier structure for that FSI. FSI is not available just like that. It's in four layers. Link issue is of TDR and also of incentives which are granted for slums and safe building redevelopment. And if we do all this, what are the likely outcomes in terms of what happens to the city? In 1967, for the first time in 64 actually, by way of draft regulation, FSI was introduced in Mumbai. Prior to that there was no FSI at the concept. Building activities were governed by the ground coverage and the number of stories. So if you see typical development of that like Hindu colony and Parsi colony, one third ground coverage pre-storage. So that gave one FSI. That was the common practice. But in 1967, when the plan was approved, the first formal development plan, then Nariman Point had 4.5, that is Air India and around that. Corporate residential development had 3.5. Colaba Marine Drive, Ballard Estate had 2.45 which was closer to what was already there. If you calculate, Ballard Estate of course had higher than 2.45. But Marine Drive and Colaba areas planned layouts of Colaba area had about 2.45. Karbadevi, Girgaon, Manvi in contrast, they had already consumed the FSI of the order of 4 to 5. Because 4 plot was virtually covered and they had 4 to 5 storage buildings. So it accommodated much higher FSI. But the prescribed FSI was only 1.66. And for Malabar in Varally, Bader, Sion, etc. the FSI prescribed was 1.33. In a way you will find that when the consumed FSI 1 in this area, it allowed one more storage to be added. That is why it became 1.33 FSI. 0.33 ground coverage pre-storage already built. You add one more storage, it became 1.33. This is again Mumbai speciality. Because no other city defines FSI as in 0.33 etc. They are much rounded numbers. And the entire suburbs has one FSI. Now what general impression is one is a good FSI and it should not be exceeded. What was good about one FSI of that plan was that along with one FSI it had a much wider area which was allowed for residential growth. And if you were to calculate what population it could have contained at those densities. Because in those days a common housing unit was one bedroom, 400, 450 square feet house. That was how most of Mumbai was built in that decade, 60s and early 70s. So, what could have accommodated one crore population? So, for the real estate market it provided that space that though the population by 81 would not have exceeded one crore, it provided a physical space which could have in theory accommodated one crore population. Now this is the point which is being missed when people presume that one FSI is what given and that is should not be exceeded. So, what to have in 1991? 1.33 flat FSI in the island city and in suburbs one FSI. What happened in 1991 is that as compared to the old residential land that was available in the previous land that land shrunk. Because no development zones were introduced which were earlier not there and the CRZ also along with that removed lot of development from lot of land from development possibility. Those of you who are familiar with say Andheri west Andheri stopped at Dhake colony. All that has happened towards Warsaw is on the land which would not have been developed after 1991 because it was all coastal wetland or Charcoop development is entirely on coastal wetland which was done in 82 the reclamation started in 82 had it to be done after 1991 it would not have been possible. So, all such lands went out of development. So, the land shrunk FSI remained what it was population grew. What was the idea that when you want to ask right of it. FSI is a ratio of total floor space to plot area. So, if you have a 100 square meter plot and FSI is one that means you can build 100 square meters on that plot. Suppose you cover only 50 percent of the plot area by your plan. Then you can build a two storage building. So, you have one FSI. It is a ratio of. Now, why did planners insisted on lowering FSI and not increasing one FSI? I think the presumption was that by controlling FSI you can control population and density both. Once you control density from the city scale you control population also both have proved to be mixed. That is not how things happen. So, what it really resulted that the population of 1991 plan the assumed population of 1991 plan up to 2001 for a 20 years period is going to be 9.8 million. That was the assumption on which the previous plan was based. The actual population of 2001 of Mumbai was 11.9 million. So, population itself has had grown beyond that. So, as compared to that population and not just the population grew but the incomes also income and economy also grew faster. From mid 80s to almost 2000 Mumbai had a much faster economic growth. And housing finance also improved. 1987 National Housing Bank was established and it created the considerable ease of accessing housing finance at least those of those people who had formal jobs. Even if you live aside the informal jobs. The generations prior to that they depended upon father's provident fund or father-in-law dowry for buying a house. That was the way in which how housing was financed. From mid-85 with HDFC, NHB all the banks coming into housing finance the ease of housing finance improved. Now you find young people entering the job market immediately the housing finance agencies are after them to borrow money for house. So, that have changed a lot. So, the houses that are built are much bigger. If you recall what was built in 60s and 70s as compared to what is being built in last. Now it has again becoming smaller because of the real crunch in terms of prices. But plans became bigger at one stage in Mumbai you could not have found a one-bedroom apartment. All advertisements were two, three, three and a half bedrooms etc. So, the houses became bigger. What it resulted in is the scarcity of development rights in the market. So, what FSI created was the scarcity of development rights in the market and if you squeeze the supply side prices are bound to go up. Now people are not ready to accept that but I do not know why. And if you ease the there are two things which happen. Where the police power is very strong the prices go up. Where the police power is weak the prices go up and the smuggling also starts. And that is exactly what has happened in case of FSI in Mumbai. So, sometimes whether I do not know whether I should repeat that. But many times I compare the FSI regime of Mumbai with prohibitions. If you have very strong prohibitions then you have bootlegged. But if you relax that you can manage it better. That is the story on FSI. So, that is why in this plan we have called a need for paradigm shift on FSI. So, FSI is not a tool of contentment of growth and density. It is the first thing which should be understood. If you do not understood and that is what happened in last 20 years. You could neither contain growth nor density, but supply side intervention increases prices. And not just prices, but it increases scope for end seeking malpractices and all those things that come with that. And therefore in Mumbai you had cases where a 350 square feet flat was shown. We made into a 1500 square feet flat because two car parking spaces were shown very close to the flat. And car parking spaces are free of it. Those sort of things or flower beds, these were very common things which the developers use. Flower beds, lily ponds, they are not meant to be. You cannot have a flower pot and lily pond as the fifth story unless you are going to use it for something else. So, we are saying in the new paradigm, you must define the FSI regime in such a fashion that at any given time and at any given location there should be adequate scope for building activity to take place. It should not be exhausted fully because if you exhaust it then all those kind of problems begin to happen. FSI again was because it was so tightly controlled it became an entitlement. So, everybody said that you have put one FSI so I must be allowed to consume one FSI. Even if your plot is very small you will say I must consume full FSI and in the process what you did that I may be allowed not to provide the open spaces which are required around the building. And DMC was very happy because they could condone that open space by asking for money. Not under over etc. Now, if you turn these kind of concession into a physical measure it has a serious implication because the amount that DMC collects from these kind condonation it is substantial. So, there is no incentive for rationalizing regulation. So, if you convert your regulations into physical instrument the incentive for rationalizing regulation goes up. So, what I am saying here is that FSI should not be treated as an entitlement. FSI is indicative it is shown there if your plot is good and adequate to consume that you can consume otherwise you cannot consume you need to consume lower FSI. The implication of that is that if there is a real urge to consume full FSI people will bring their land together and then they can consume that FSI with proper open spaces around using scarcity of development rights for achieving policy objective that is again what government did. So, you create scarcity first by your regulation and then use scarcity and attendant high prices for your so called social and developmental objective. Now, how did they do it? They said if somebody is ready to build free houses for some dwellers and rain control tenants you will get incentive FSI you will get more FSI. If you want to build ITITES you will get double the FSI even in the no development and there have been such developments where too far from the railway station or any of the development there are two FSI ITITES building you want to build schools you will get double the FSI you want to build 5 star hotels because they are necessary to promote tourism you will get 5 FSI if you are ready to shift the buffalo stable you will get extra FSI if you want to build parking you will get extra FSI so this is a strange logic you first create scarcity then use scarcity and the prices to promote these sort of things all this is not desirable so we have retained the incentive FSI only for slum redevelopment and the redevelopment of sex building the tenant building all other incentives have been removed in the new regulations you won't find any of these kind of things which are linked to FSI and a simplified definition of FSI has been used the law defines FSI in very simple terms all the covered areas on all floors divided by plots that is FSI very easy to understand there is no problem but if you read today's regulations you will not understand anything because there is a long list of activities which are not counted in FSI now if you have this from a governance perspective this is an open field foreign city and they were architect I am pained as an architect never practiced as architecture but there were architects in Mumbai who were specializing in this so where officially 2.7 FSI is possible they will get you 6, 8, 9 FSI this is a scatter diagram showing FSI on X axis density on the Y axis and each of those dots are the 150 planning sector Mumbai was divided into 150 planning sector which shows that the prescribed FSI or consumed FSI has nothing much to do with density because FSI and size of the dwelling units together define density where now you see very tall buildings going up they are not necessarily very high density slums are probably higher density than those kind of buildings I have used this it is not a very refined economic analysis but I think it makes sense in terms of graphically explaining how you should decide FSI in an economic sense and not in the planners thou shalt do kind of presumption this is the Y axis shows prices X axis shows built up area and in Mumbai since land is not very flexible it is essentially FSI which cannot cannot be increased demand curve where the demand increases as the prices go down and the supply curve where supply increases as the prices go up this is the equilibrium market equilibrium and if we assume that this is what was the situation in 67 that this is where the market was operating the FSI land composite representing on the Y axis was the 67 situation that it was to the right of the equilibrium so it did not create any distortion in the market market never wanted to go up to that line immediately it was happy with the remaining on this Q 1 T 1 combination what happened by 91 then the plan the next plan was approved the demand has gone up for the reasons I was explaining the increase in income ease of housing finance etc. the demand curve moved so what could have happened is that the market could have built Q 2 as P 2 prices but we did not allow that to happen we said no you cannot go beyond this green line I am using green more deliberately you did not allow the green line to be exceeded in fact we moved it leftward because CRZ had eaten away into land and FSI was also suppressed naturally prices prices went to P 3 people feel that increasing FSI is in favor of developers actually developers need not be very unhappy to just calculate the area of this the area of this rectangle it may not be very different as compared to this rectangle in fact instead of doing Q 2 they can now do Q 3 but still get more or less similar revenues of course you need much finer analysis what are the elasticity of those curves etc. but leaving apart that may not be very this supply line also includes in itself the cost of transaction which is because of very complex regulation leaving aside possibilities for end seeking etc. but very complex regulations time consuming if we manage to move the supplier curve downwards you get a still better output you can get Q 4 at P 4 prices in case then where should the FSI line be drawn we do not know what Q 4 is first of all this is all very conceptual no numbers can be attached there is no data available if you are attempting to do evidence based planning it is impossible in Mumbai and I think that could be one of the academic or research challenges how do you turn city planning into an evidence because traditionally planning is axiomatic it has been guided by visionaries of old days like Abhinazar Howard or Lakha Bhujia or those kind of things so what is to be done is very axiomatic and the government of India guidelines as UDPR which says that you must provide 10 to 12 square meters per person as open space to do that you will have to vacate Mumbai because you cannot provide that kind of open space so I think the line has to be drawn something like blue where you might allow Q 4 P 4 to operate and not necessarily go right up to the blue line lot of criticism is appearing because of not understanding the purpose of defining this people are saying that when we say that this plot will be 8 FSI as if we are saying that you must build it everything we are saying if you want and your plot and other circumstances are conducive to that then you can go up to 8 FSI or we are saying that when you have a 6.5 FSI doesn't mean tomorrow everybody is going to go to 6 FSI even if you recall the 1 FSI in Mumbai was prescribed till 70's almost early 80's not all plots had consumed 1 FSI there were many bungalows in khar and such areas which were still at lower some of them are still there not consumed 1 FSI so it's not that everything sort of jumps into that but it is important that you create that framework for the market to operate competitive if you create scarcity market will react in a different fashion you said that we talk about earlier FSI was with lot of exemptions you generally capitalized the present system that has been proposed does it have a similar no exemptions we have gone back to the definition of the law all covered areas all are occupied covered means covered means covered means all areas like basically where this can be used in a different fashion because if you use pergola type of covering over a parking space that becomes uncovered so is the covered definition quite acoustic covered the law hasn't also defined covered so covered means part of the parking is exempted from FSI that can be used by applicants to increase the order to go at shade not only shade but also FSI and then cover the pergola so no strings were done so when you are saying that A is the maximum FSI and it's inclusive of everything that means A today's it's about 70% 8 is equivalent to 5.6 of 2017 so how can we estimate one of the days of trying to define the rule is to estimate what Mumbai would need by 2034 in terms of total building and but it's this so we have done our guess to say how that would be done with some rationale so step 1 is to assess space demand, step 2 is estimating the net total area available in Mumbai and calculating the net result now this is the housing situation of Mumbai the first column shows the decides of households arranged according to rising income and then you will find that nearly 40% of the population has 4 square meters or less per capita housing space and only 10 20% have more than 21 square meters per capita and the average in 9 square meters if you look at what is the current consumption for housing space there are 139 planning sectors which have residential population out of 150 and where you find that 15 out of 139 planning sectors have 3 square meters per person as the per capita space another 52 have only 6 square meters as the per capita space and the average is 9 so that is parents now for each of these roles which shows the current situation what would be the floor space requirement in 2000 building so what we have tried to do there are 6 of these so we have implicit 6 profiles of per capita space so the first profile which is perhaps dominated by slum builders as of now or the child whether they will have 14 square meters per person as the average size and it will sort of increase to 50 so each of those 6 roles will have these averages in terms of roles and then if you calculate the average which will come to about 27 square meters per capita now many people have said oh what if you want to create some heaven on Mumbai from 9 to 27 now 9 to 27 is not saying that 27 has to be built or some people have asked is there an engineering capacity to build so much of floors space if it is not there it will not be built then we will not say that it must be built but this is told that new life and knowing that things will be on the left hand side of the building and will not be crossing the building so if we do that logic and also add some floor space for work area that is industry offices commercial activities etc the total that will be required is about 440 square kilometers now when we said that 27 square meters per capita how does it look like in the other cities Hong Kong has 30 but Hong Kong is known to be very dense it is in very small apartments Singapore is 23 Shanghai 25 Asparic to go to 34 and once they say asparic they do by different means but that is the kind of thing that city is trying to do Seoul has 20 and Manhattan of course has 25 so saying 27 may be optimistic but it is not totally optimal what is the net plot area that you may have on which buildings can be built the total area is 458 square kilometers and you have only 140 square kilometers on which you can build a building rest of the area goes in national parks public parking there is like roads, transport some of the defense establishment so what you may have is only 140 square kilometers now this raises an interesting if you want 1 square meter to be added per person has open space and 14 billion population you need 14 square kilometers of that and that has to be carved out of this one property where they are already existing building and existing population so how to create that additional open space policy you will have to demolish build it, resecure people and then create ones Mumbai has the bill to do that but they have not proposed because I don't think that is a feasible proposition now if you want to accommodate 440 square kilometers of built up area 140 square kilometers of land that you need and there is 3 acres so as I was raising that question how, what profile should we adopt so that we get free or near about that so we have used 3 things, what is the existing exercise which is already consumed because you can't specify a lower exercise like we have done earlier where 4 and 5 exercise about 3 where 4, 4, 6, 6 then we have added all kinds of exception so we can't really do that we need a cushion for the activities to go on accessibility to public transit that has been given a much higher priority in terms of where exercise could be done and we have then so the control papers are part of if you see the island city has 1.3 the Malabar is particularly at 1.3 and 4 and above in the congested area these are very high exercise Malabar has particularly above 4 and it works at 0.9 so we used these kind of maps I think I will read it from right to left what is the existing exercise which is already consumed this is the proximity to employment location you have said that we don't have the data of the existing buildup area this was done this was done rather crudely during the existing landing survey what was done was the building footprints were taken from the satellite imagery and sample blocks were examined in terms of heights and then the bulk was calculated so what is examined, what is non-exampled those fine calculations could be done so this is where we have calculated the bulk of it so the first was the existing consumed location second was the proximity to employment location so you have more you have here what are the middle area and the seats and here the fine space and the active working area and of course smaller employment so proximity to employment location was one criterion then you have the DOD zones particularly the transit station more and with the hierarchy where you have two or three lines intersecting that node has a higher priority or higher rating and accordingly with structure also the transit buffer along the loop also not just like this along the loop also and that has given some this is what we call the logic map some weightages etc. and then you have the weightage going from 0 to 50 in time which was then translated into the logic map so FSI varied from 2 to 8 but what was the what was the proportion of those FSI I think that has to be seen that this very light area not easily accessible etc. was given the lowest two FSI and that accounted for 5% of the total area so next is 3.5 FSI which is largely in the suburbs this darker yellow shade which is all over the suburb that accounts for 58% of the project total project then 5 FSI is 32% and this is this shape which is largely in this area where the existing FSI is on a high scale and also along the transit in all these suburb areas and 6.5 accounts for 4.5% of the of the plot area and that is this slightly darker color which is at the nose and 8 FSI which is only on 0.46% of the plot area which is at the other that is how this FSI profile has been now if you calculate that it goes up to not just 3 but it goes up to 4 if you do really average because of this existing because of the requirement of describing FSI more than what I have already been seeing that pushes up to now whether this is likely to be realized in the next 20 years there are a lot of absent parts for example if you go to Kullaw Road where a lot of new development has occurred at 2.5 FSI or 2.7 which was previously that is not going to be going for demolition and reconstruction to be in 6.5 FSI if there are very small tiny plots around that station and they don't want to ever commit and they want to remain as they are because they are running their own businesses it won't go to it so the fear that plan is telling everybody look this is your FSI and you must consume it tomorrow that is not a thing it is still creating only a framework within which if things happen they can go up to that such FSI as possible now this graphical shows now that 4 layers that is another in a way 8 FSI what this graph shows is the 4 layers of FSI now if you are in 8 FSI zone up to 2.5 FSI you don't have to pay anything if you want to get additional 2.5 then you have to pay at the rate of 70% of ready-ready rate and you are familiar with ready-ready rate then 0.5 you have to obtain through period and additional 2.5 you have to buy 100% of ready-ready then you can go to it similar in the case means 6.5 5.5 and this is the case most prevalent as proposed in suburbs this is 2 FSI without any chat 0.5 pay rate 75% 0.5 period and 0.5 period 100% now how does it differ from the current situation currently in suburbs you are allowed 1 FSI at the base you can bring in additional 1 as TDR you have to purchase it in the market and then you can take additional 0.7 what is called as FSI and for that you have to pay 60-80% of ready-ready rate now as compared to this we are saying 3.5 so 2.7 was permitted but within that some of the areas were not counted like staircase, lifts, lobbies were not counted so that 2.7 was almost equivalent to over 3 may not be exactly 3.5 over 3 and out of that only 1 was available without payment now we are saying you can get 3.5 but out of that 2 you can get without any payment we say without any payment payment to the tax not that the premium these layers are all the lower layer is without any premium the other layers come with a financial tax either as premium or as purchased now this is showing things in terms of module so 0.8 is only 0.46% of plot area 0.45% of plot area 0.6.5 32% for 5% and 58% for 3.5 so the range between 3.5 and 5 really covers 80% of 80% of plot no I will talk to that so what are the mitigating measures against excessive FSI one hit of course the requirement of amalgamated plots on small plots you cannot consume minimum loads load bits have been prescribed for each of these FSI unless that load bits is after effort you will not be able to do that that is your question the way TDR was structured in the previous plan was that TDR was 1 to 1 so irrespective of where the TDR originates where you use if the ratio is same 1 to 1 you generate 1 square meter in phalaba and you transfer it to bangra or khak 1 remains 1 irrespective of the condition in prices the idea was that the TDR must flow from high value areas to low value areas and not other parameters so therefore the condition was that TDR cannot be used in the island city it has to be only used in suburbs and in the northern way direction assuming that northern direction means low value but that was a very gross general analysis people used that but they transferred the TDR from bangul to khak that is northern but not western and the TDR still moved from low value areas to high value areas so here what we have done we have related to the land value of course in those days these regular practices were not established and stabilized there was no good way of adjusting it so now what we are saying that if you are transferring from high value to low value you will get an add-on suppose you are transferring 1 square meter from a thousand value area to 500 value area your 1 will become 2 and if you are doing reverse your 1 will become half so that is how it is and there is no directional limitation so it can go any way it can still be used but the quantum will change in the reverse proportion of the land prices now in case of again and this is link one this is the incentives if you are granted so if you are building 100 square meters from slum areas you could get 100 square meters per say or 133 per say irrespective of in which location you are operating similarly for the case with says build so if you are building for the tenants then whatever you are building for tenants you could get 50 to 80 percent of that as it is to be desired on the same plot irrespective of what the total efficiency is so we are trying to change that also and this is some strange problem has been arrived that when we get silent very important but what it is saying is that the incentive must vary with the relative property prices to the land price and the construction cost so if you are in a zone where the high property prices are there then you will get less incentive but if you are doing it in the low property price zone then you will get higher incentive and common formula will apply for both slum and incentive so say for example you are in 61 percent of the rehabilitation floor space as incentive but if you are in which is the high value then you will get and if you are doing it in which is way out in the you will get 86 percent incentive as against in you will get 66 percent now I will create that this scale is not so distinct machine but that has also become a very contextual issue because people are lose to 100 and 130 people they are brought down to 86 of course they are agitating which are of course then we have also provided for so-called inclusionary housing so if your product is more than 12,000 square meter then you have to provide 10 percent of the base FSI if you are in 2.5 zone then you have to provide 0.25 FSI extra in the form of smaller units and those units have to be handled over 3 of course 2 units that is 10 percent 20 percent right 20 percent with one FSI we have made 10 percent of the base FSI so in terms of physical quantum it is slightly higher and we brought size and also we brought down to 2000 instead of 4,000 so if all these things are done what is the expectation the FSI will become a tool for managing physical development and not a way of achieving all types of objectives all over the place like right from popular resettlement to slump well as resettlement everything may not be covered for FSI you would find that now government as in this government budget also they have increased the pricing for its parking so government is also trying to extract not just BMC government also looks at BMC in real estate as in the New York region this was despite 74th and all other governments in the province at least more number of parking stations were constructed that I am citing our plan has not proposed that parking will be a different they are not presenting that they will not distort the market the the restrictions which are 20 year restrictions the restrictions are such that it will still allow the market and when I say market it is not the suppliers market for the market there is the other side of consumers also the consumers do not remark the market will not supply so both market with the sense unfortunately whenever the ancient market people think that this fellow is working for the builders that is not the case market is not only supplier side there is a consumer side also of the market so a well functioning market means both the suppliers and the consumers are having a freedom to decide what they wish to do so FSI incentive will be used in a limited scale for slum rehabilitation and sales planning this itself is a contentious issue in a way the government is promising 80% or 70% of people's population free houses not by spending public money but by burdening the cost on the business this is financially unsustainable prohibition but it has stayed politically so strong and so entrenched that we did not want to use DP as a way of pinching into tax we have said whatever the noises that we are hearing they would have become louder and some of these things should really help in ease of growing business and reducing the injunction cost but I think that would be a thought click DNC is a very complex organization and not so easy to use to take enough time I have one question it is well known that builders try to get permission for 4-5 today they always try to get the build one or two extra floors so that they can work money by selling flat so here considering the flat I mean the house prices are actually 4-5 times more than the construction cost why do you think the builders will not go to whatever the allowable limit of FSI and that we create in my opinion like a lot of burdens and a lot of various things including existing infrastructure like sewerage water, transportation and everything I think to put it very crudely floor space does not breed population operation needs floor space if the mobile population has not been growing in the last 30 years it has grown from 11.9 to 12.4 even 14 some of the developers are saying 14 is an overestimate it may not grow to 14 that is the case how much more floor space will it consume developers are also not foods and the consumers are also not foods they will be operating in the market you have seen that lot of office spaces are lying empty in movement and no buyer I really don't know but then why that is the situation I think it is a game of the market and why mobile is considered so expensive because regulations have added to prices dilute the whole let's say to be if you don't allow market to operate prices will go up and smuggling smuggling of floor space will also happen if you tightly control gold what will happen the prices will go up and the smuggling of gold will also happen I will give you an exception to the general trust of commerce you get from these public meetings based upon my understanding from your presentation on how the FSI was carefully and thoughtfully analysed from the historical perspective and the rational basis that you just explained how it was distributed to the economy which it grew I think it makes a million sense to take it and perhaps the people who have understood have not quite understood how FSI extra FSI in a portion and how it has to meet certain conditions before it can be applied perhaps they are misinformed or they are fully informed by what the plan shows but based upon the presentation that you made ideas in great plan in terms of the FSI part are not commenting on the rest of the plan but certainly from your presentation I can see that there is a lot of good analysis part of the analysis historically in other words that's not into creating a justification for extra FSI whether it's around targe or areas get lower extra FSI and what is happening in reality already interesting areas are beyond the current FSI limit of 1.33 so I have to commend you for a very thoughtful and very insightful analysis based upon which you made the recommendations for the FSI again commenting on just FSI portion of the plan I know we have a lot of discussion going on about how some other things may have happened in the 15 languages part but this is very good you do this sir I accept my point was that because Mumbai has become expensive the new population has moved to Navi Mumbai and maybe it has also stopped some population from migrating inside Mumbai so the high reality prices might have become a barrier for new people to come in but when reality prices go down as is proposed by increasing FSI then the demand also increases since regulations have allowed the supply to increase population growth rate will increase in Mumbai and the 8 FSI limit will be met some day or later if it is allowed on paper or 8 or whatever 3.54 the prices prices will get motivated but not to the extent that the shift which is now occurring because the shift is occurring on account of prices as well as dispersal of employment new Bombay offers many employment opportunities the whole Toronto industrial build is getting converted into office areas and other concentrated employment so people are moving on account of those things also so the region as a whole I think if you put it in that context then one has to analyze the housing market on a regional scale unfortunately it was not within this mandate but the plans then have to be prepared for the entire housing market and this plan has alluded to that that increasing FSI is not the only thing you have to increase the supply of land also and the increasing land supply in Mumbai is rather difficult because of the geography and it can be done only by extending and investing into public transit because without public transit you cannot really increase Mumbai's land supply that will be a different approach and story which has to be done on a regional scale since the beginning there is no relationship between density and FSI so with this allocation of FSI with distribution of FSI do you think we get the desired density distribution also or if there is not a decision distribution see the things can happen in a variety of ways say for example the 6.5 FSI case 8 is only exceptional 0.5 FSI you take 6.5 FSI locations which is at the intersection of two transit problems now whether that development occurs in the form of 2.5 FSI with every car ownership whether you have smaller apartments more like studio apartments where people don't need good open spaces and schools and all those things then you will get a higher population but how the market will operate is not so predictable that is where the emphasis on monitoring and valuations you need to track these things otherwise if you wait for 20 years if logically speaking should the geological foundation its structures the condition of an actual if not we play an important part in the FSI rotation I think we can answer that not such a major problem because I think like New York we have a very good base point that is one part besides that I think we can still go for with piles and combinations not such a major one of the issues about DCR can technology not be used better as being used in a few cities in fact to get the DCR to give information as a dynamic information so what is the utilization of the built up area and therefore the infrastructure and that should in turn determine whether premium FSI should be allowed or not because if you already utilized the infrastructure beyond certain limits and that with DIS it is now easily available as data it should be and there is no such thinking about using technology to really control the result at least from what I have seen see there is much there is such widespread value of infrastructure that should be developed into infrastructure then you will have to go over the existing both also but your point is valid in a way that you will have to go at one stage at this stage you have not done that but at one stage impact assessment like the environment do the environmental impact assessment and the impact assessment on in terms of infrastructure you will have to be brought in but as of now we have a tradition at the time 20 years that is why every 5 years one has to look at it so if you watch the games a little more closely then you would venture to do such a thing but I thought DT is kind of an isolated activity where you can see but beyond all this DT has been put together itself I think we have exceeded half an hour we have exceeded the time by more than half an hour and people are still interested in asking serious questions shows the amount of interest that is in this process I think it is also a feature of the democratization of these processes we have more than 25,000 people pointing out various kinds of changes and suggestions and modifications for the DT so the evolution of the process and the decision making for these kinds of issues so I know that Mr. Phatak has been invited dozens and not scores of places to give these talks and we thank you very much that in spite of having done this so many times he still has the patience to listen to us and answer all these questions in a very detailed and manual way the details he went into in terms of explaining the development plan the technical features as well as explaining it in lay terms as an academic institution I think we had certain kinds of auditors in organizing this talk and I am very happy that he has to form both of these one is in terms of an evidence based planning which is where I think we can contribute and the second is in terms of explaining the larger logic behind the DT because while we may accept some of the intentions behind the criticisms we find that number one evidence is lacking number two the larger logic of the development plan is not always understood so I think as critics and as people who want to see a better Mumbai we can think of ways in which we can contribute both of these kinds of research and contribution to the design of the development plan so on behalf of IIT and all of us here thank you very much Mr. President