See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254088522

Analyzing urban layouts – can high density be achieved with good living
conditions?

Article in Environment and Urbanization · October 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0956247811418737

CITATIONS READS

10 179

1 author:

Shirish Patel
Shirish Patel & Associates
10 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Affordable Housing needs Affordable Transit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shirish Patel on 09 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analyzing urban layouts – can high
density be achieved with good
living conditions?

SHIRISH B PATEL

Shirish B Patel is a civil ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to present a new form of chart, which
engineer with a deep clarifies the inter-relationships between six fundamental urban design parameters
interest in urban affairs.
that affect the quality and character of any urban layout. These parameters are:
He was one of the three
original authors who built-up area per capita; public ground area per capita (which includes streets and
suggested the New Bombay parks); plot factor (the ratio of land area given over to private development to
project (1965). When it land area available for public use, including that needed for circulation and area
was taken up, he was available for sport, recreation and public amenities (schools, hospitals, public
put in charge of planning, toilets); floor space index (ratio of built-up area to buildable plot area); net density
design and implementation
(1970), a post from which
(population divided by the sum of all buildable plot areas); and gross density
he resigned five years later (population divided by total area). Mapping these six parameters in a chart shows
because he felt that the the complicated trade-offs between one desirable feature and another, including
project did not have the combinations that show that higher densities do not necessarily mean small
political support needed accommodation and inadequate public space – but they do mean high-rise, and
to carry it through as
there are severe limits on how high densities can go. The paper also plots diagrams
envisioned. He is currently
engaged in setting up that show the values of these parameters for existing localities in New York,
the Indian Institute for Mumbai (including Dharavi) and Delhi. These diagrams are examples. With more
Human Settlements in data and more diagrams we might reach a better understanding of what particular
Bangalore (www.iihs.co.in), values or combinations of values for these parameters we should aim for when
a university devoted to designing a new development or modifying an old one. We might also understand
urban practice. This will
the values or combinations of values that we should avoid.
be a new profession that
draws on a wide range of
disciplines (including the KEYWORDS compact city / density / Dharavi / Manhattan / public space
law, economics, sociology,
engineering, architecture
and management) to equip
its graduates with the skills I. INTRODUCTION
needed to work on issues
related to policy, planning, “High density, low-rise” has long been romanticized to express what was
design, implementation and thought of as an ideal solution for urban layouts. High density means
governance for settlements
of all sizes, keeping in
more compact cities and therefore more easily managed transport. Low-
mind problems of equity, rise lays claim to various sociological merits deriving from living closer
sustainability and growth. to the ground: easier monitoring of children’s outdoor play; possibly
more interaction with one’s neighbours; and no lifts, which means no
Address: Nanda Deep, 2-A
Carmichael Road, Mumbai maintenance costs and no attendant power consumption.
400 026, India; e-mail: But the expression is incomplete. It should really be: “high density,
[email protected] low-rise, small accommodation”. It is a triangular relationship, and
Acknowledgement: We if you want to change one of the parameters you have to accept that
are grateful to the Urban one of the other two (or both) must also change. If you want larger
Design Research Institute, accommodation, you must either have lower densities or make buildings
Mumbai for all their help
with the charts.
taller. You cannot say “high density, low-rise” without also muttering
“small accommodation”.
Environment & Urbanization Copyright © 2011 International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 583
Vol 23(2): 583–595. DOI: 10.1177/0956247811418737 www.sagepublications.com
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 23 No 2 October 2011

The purpose of this paper is to present a new form of chart, which

will clarify the inter-relationships between the various fundamental
parameters in the design of an urban layout. Hopefully, it will improve
our understanding of how urban layouts work and of the complicated
trade-offs between one desirable feature and another. But there is a further
possibility, which is that on the chart we can plot diagrams that show
the values corresponding to existing localities that we are familiar with
in different cities of the world. There are some localities we admire and
some we don’t. Perhaps a comparison of these diagrams on the chart will
lead us to the values of various parameters that we should aim for and the
values, or combinations of values, that we should avoid.

II. DEFINITIONS

We begin with a definition of these fundamental parameters. They can

apply to small pockets (say 20 hectares or less), to intermediate size areas,
or to larger areas (say 200 hectares or more), which we might call localities.
Note that the most desirable value for each of our parameters may vary
according to the size of the area to which it is applied. In this paper we
restrict ourselves to the larger areas, large enough to hold all desirable
social amenities within comfortable walking distance.
Manhattan’s community districts (CDs) are typically 424 hectares
(CD5, the Times Square–Broadway business district) and 313 hectares
(CD8, the Upper East Side, predominantly residential). Wards in Mumbai
Island city range in size from 214 hectares (C Ward) to 1,220 hectares
(F-North). We can sub-divide a large ward like this into smaller areas
of about 200 hectares each (that is, two square kilometres). These are
localities that are small enough so that as we walk around we can see
and feel their distinguishing character, yet large enough to throw up
meaningful averages for comparative analysis.
The key parameters are as follows:
• Built-up area per capita (BUA): this is the built floor area in the
locality. We need to distinguish between residential floor areas and
residential population (residential BUA), and commercial floor areas
and the number of jobs there (commercial BUA). For our analysis
here, we have used average BUA.
• Public ground area per capita (PGA): this is all the open-to-sky
area in the locality that is accessible to the public. It includes streets
(carriageways and footpaths) and parks, but not private gardens or
school playgrounds that are not open to the general public.
• Plot factor (PF): this is the ratio of land area given over to private
development to land area available for public use.
The land for public use is divided between the area needed for
circulation, both pedestrian and vehicular; the area that is open and
available for recreation and sports (parks and playgrounds); and the
land needed for public amenities (schools, hospitals, public toilets).
Land for private development is for residential, commercial,
industrial or mixed use, and is where private owners are allowed to build.
• Floor space index (FSI): generally known around the world as floor
area ratio (FAR), but called FSI in Mumbai. This is the ratio of built-up
floor area on a plot to the area of the plot.

584
CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

• Net density (ND): this is the population of the area divided by the
sum of all buildable plot areas.
• Gross density (GD): this is the population of the area divided by
the total area, which is the sum of the private buildable areas plus
the public land area (mostly not buildable, in the form of streets and
parks, but some is buildable, e.g. for hospitals and schools).
Annexe 1 gives the formulae that govern the inter-relationships
between the six parameters listed above.

III. THE CHART

We start by wanting to plot built-up area per capita against FSI. We find
that the scale of the FSI axis (the Y-axis) depends on the plot factor. So we
decide that the Y-axis may be vertical or may be inclined depending on
the plot factor (Figure 1).
Note that the FSI axis may be anywhere between one extreme (the
vertical, normally the positive Y-axis) and the other extreme (the leftward
horizontal, normally the negative X-axis). The scale we use for FSI follows
the circular arcs shown above, with their centre at the origin.
We now extend the graph into the lower third and fourth quadrants
(Figure 2).
The third quadrant is a plot of FSI against net densities, which fall on
what is normally the negative Y-axis; and the fourth quadrant is a plot of
net densities against gross densities, which are aligned with the positive
X-axis.
We also add colours to suggest our preferences regarding built-up
areas. Green is the most desirable, progressing through yellow and orange
to red, which is the least desirable. We suggest on the chart that between
20 and 30 square metres/capita is the ideal – note that this is a personal
choice and may vary according to the individual or according to the
society in which he lives. The lower value of 10–20 square metres/capita
is less desirable, and coloured yellow. Less than 10 square metres/capita is
coloured red and considered undesirable; similarly, more than 30 square
metres/capita becomes less and less desirable as it is increasingly wasteful
of resources.
To put these numbers into context, we note that the residential BUA
varies from a low of 5.8 square metres/capita in a place like the island city of
Mumbai to 55.5 square metres/capita in the Upper East Side (Community

FIGURE 1

585
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 23 No 2 October 2011

FIGURE 2

District 8 – CD8) of Manhattan, New York. In the predominantly business

Community District CD 5 of Manhattan (which includes Times Square
and Broadway), where the daytime job population is 20 times the night
time residential population, the BUA is 33.7 square metres/job capita and
67.3 square metres/residential capita.
Above these colours for BUA is a spray of diagonal lines representing
different values of PGA, ranging from 2–20 square metres/capita. To
appreciate the significance of these numbers, we need to look at localities
with which we are familiar.
In the Upper East Side (CD8) of Manhattan, a predominantly
residential district, at night road area per resident is 7.46 square metres and
open space per capita is 3.34 square metres. So the total PGA, excluding
schools and hospitals, is 10.8 square metres/capita. In Mumbai’s island
city, the average road space per capita is 6.4 square metres/capita and the
open space averages 0.9 square metres/per capita – although in several
wards, the open space is 0.1 square metres/capita. When comparing
figures, we should also remember that Manhattan’s CD8 is served by an
underground railway system that carries the bulk of the commuting load.
In Figure 3, we colour the PGA values from green (most desirable)
through yellow and orange to red (least desirable). Again, the values we
choose are a matter of personal choice. We have set the most desirable
PGA at 8–12 square metres/capita. Less than three is most undesirable. So
too is anything above 20 because that would probably be open space that
lies derelict and unused, with all the attendant ills that that implies (but
we should verify this with real world examples).
In Figure 4, in the second quadrant, we have another set of inclined
lines. These represent the Y-axis of FSI to be used for different values of
the plot factor (PF). To arrive at the FSI for any locality, we begin with the
value of BUA, move vertically upwards until we reach the locality’s PGA,

586
CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

then move horizontally leftwards until we reach its PF. From that point
on, we follow the arc of constant FSI down to the horizontal axis.
There are two sets of preferred colours possible in the second quadrant.
We have preferred values of PF, which call for radial colouring, as well as
preferred values of FSI, which require annular colouring.
We colour the radial PF=1.5 green (a matter of personal choice) and
the neighbouring values of PF=1 and PF=2 both yellow. We colour the
587
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 23 No 2 October 2011

FIGURE 5

annular rings green for an FSI between 1 and 1.5, grading to red for values
above four (again a matter of personal or societal choice).
We can now complete the chart (Figure 5). In the third quadrant, we
have the relationship between FSI and net density, varying according to
the built-up area. We colour the BUA radials with the same colours we
used in quadrant 1. In the fourth quadrant, we see that the relationship
between net density and gross density varies according to the plot factor,
as we would expect. Here also, we colour the radials with the same colours
we used in quadrant 2.
We are now ready to plot real world localities onto the chart (Figure 6).

IV. DIAGRAMS FOR PARTICULAR LOCALITIES

Charkop is a development in the northwest corner of Greater Mumbai,

dating from the 1980s, when it was started as a World Bank-funded sites-
and-services project. The low-income plinths with a “wet-point” (water
supply and sewage connections) were arranged around courtyards with
groups of about 33 houses, forming a cooperative society. House costs
were cross-subsidized by selling plots to the better-off on which they 1. World Bank (1985), Staff
could build multi-storeyed buildings. Thus there was a mix of income Appraisal Report, India: Bombay
groups sharing the same schools and public parks. The whole scheme is in Urban Development Project
– Annexe 2, Urban and Water
many ways a model of how housing should be provided to the lower- and Supply Division, South Asia
middle-income groups in the city. Projects Department, World
The total area of the Charkop development is about 147 hectares.(1) The Bank, Washington DC,
first line in drawing the Charkop diagram on our chart is the one starting January 4, page 67.

at BUA = 7.14 square metres/capita,(2) rising vertically to meet the value of 2. Data from personal
communication with Dilip V
PGA at 4.73 square metres/capita. Here it turns left and runs horizontally Shekdar, principal designer for
until it meets the plot factor of 1.54. The FSI at this point is almost one. the Charkop project, now with
We follow the arc down to the horizontal axis, and then vertically down CIDCO, Navi Mumbai.

588
 CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

FIGURE 6

to the same BUA of 7.14, where we turn horizontally and run to the net
density axis, where the reading is 1,400 persons/hectare. Continuing
horizontally to our plot factor of 1.54, we turn up at this point to run
vertically up to the X-axis, where we see that the reading for gross density
is 835 persons/hectare.
Now let us look at the diagram for C Ward in Central Mumbai. This is
among the most colourful and densely crowded localities in the city. We
move from a BUA of 8.79 square metres/capita, through a PGA of 2.19, to
a plot factor of 2.1 and an FSI of 1.91, to a net density of 2,174 persons/
hectare and a gross density of 1,473 persons/hectare.
Comparing C Ward and Charkop, we see that while the BUA is not
very different (8.79 and 7.14, respectively), the really significant difference
is in PGA, down from 4.73 in Charkop to less than half that, 2.19, in C
Ward. Consequently, C Ward has no open spaces and streets that are far
too narrow. The locality is much less comfortable outside the home than
Charkop. The plot factor is higher in C Ward (2.1 compared to Charkop’s
1.54) but despite that, the FSI is significantly higher at 1.91 compared to
Charkop’s, which is just under one.
The chart also shows the diagram for Lajpatnagar in New Delhi,
with a much higher BUA and PGA than either Charkop or C Ward, but
correspondingly much lower densities.
Now let us look at some international comparisons. Since we are
looking particularly at very high density localities, we chose the Upper
3. Data from personal
communication with Shampa
East Side (CD8) in Manhattan and the Times Square–Broadway business
Chanda, Director of Citywide district (CD5).(3) In CD8, commercial floor space is about 42 per cent of
Planning, Department of the residential floor space. In CD5, commercial floor space is 10 times
Housing Preservation and residential floor space. These two districts, one predominantly residential
Development’s (HPD), Planning
and Pipeline Development and the other predominantly commercial, are probably both extreme
Division, New York City. examples of high density, high-rise living (Figure 7).

589
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 23 No 2 October 2011

FIGURE 7

CD8 has a BUA of 55.5 square metres/capita, more than nine times
the value for C Ward. The PGA is a crowded but comfortable 7.46 square
metres/capita, because the underground railway takes care of the major
travel demand. We have a plot factor of 1.174 for both CD5 and CD8. The
FSI for CD8 is 4.4, and 13.5 – off the chart to the left – for CD5. For the
residential district of CD8 the net density, at around 785 persons/hectare,
is a little over one-third that of C Ward’s, at 2,174; and CD8’s gross density
is 423 persons/hectare, a little over one-quarter of C Ward’s, at 1,473. But
the business district CD5’s net and gross densities, at 3,982 and 2,142
persons/hectare, respectively, exceed, as far as one knows, anything seen
anywhere in the world for localities with an area greater than 200 hectares.
Note that in computing these net and gross densities, we have
taken the residential and commercial areas as both being fully occupied
simultaneously, except in the case of Manhattan. In practice, of course,
during the day, residential occupancies are reduced by the numbers in the
workforce, and at night, there will be no workers in the area. So actual
net and gross densities will always be slightly lower than the numbers
suggested here. The worst-case diagrams shown above may not be very
different for predominantly residential or predominantly commercial
localities, but for mixed use locations a more refined analysis is clearly
called for, with separate diagrams for day and night occupancies.
Finally, we come to plans for the redevelopment of Dharavi,(4) a 4. Data from personal
thriving township of probably 75,000 families in a prime location in communication from Anirudh
Paul, Director, Kamala
Mumbai. The driving force behind the redevelopment is not what is in Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of
the best interests of the local residents but, rather, it is to make money Architecture and Environment,
from the value of the land on which the settlement stands, and this has Mumbai.
been explicitly so declared by the city government. The plan is to convert
Dharavi, at present a shanty town, into multi-storeyed buildings, with
sufficient accommodation for existing residents, at no cost to themselves,
and with an additional surplus for sale to new residents, whose purchasing
power will finance the entire project and also provide handsome profits to
be shared by the government and the developer. Rules for redevelopment
590
CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

FIGURE 8

have been framed accordingly. Figure 8 shows the result in terms of our
six parameters. Admittedly this is drawn from the plans for a small part of
the development, about 30 hectares, but all neighbouring developments
are similar, and the values we have used here are most likely valid for the
entire 144 hectares of Dharavi that are to be redeveloped.
We begin with a BUA of 7.36, not very different from Charkop’s 7.14,
and Charkop has a layout we admire. But we then move off the chart
into a PGA of 0.96 (compared to C Ward’s 2.19 and Charkop’s 4.73). With
a plot factor of 1.58 and an FSI of 4.85, we eventually get net and gross
densities of 6,593 and 4,037 persons/hectare, respectively, almost double
those of Manhattan’s CD5 – and let us not forget that Dharavi, unlike
Manhattan, has no underground railway.
The values shown in the diagrams above are summarized for
convenience in Table 1. But note that looking at these numbers doesn’t
help much in designing new layouts. For that, it is best to see what kind
of diagram shows up on the chart for each layout, how altering one
parameter affects another, and how the diagram compares with other
diagrams of localities that we know we like.

V. CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING

CONDITIONS?

This question is important because high densities imply a more compact

development, and so less commuting time. That is an important item
in the basket of factors that make up the quality of urban life. For the
moment, we need not go into the power consumption comparisons
between more vertical and more horizontal living.
591
592
TA B L E 1
Localities compared

City district Area of the Built-up Public Public Plot factor Floor space Net density Gross
locality (ha) area/capita ground area/ ground area/ (private land index (built (population/ density
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N

(m2) capita road capita open area /public area / plot sum of plot (population/
space (m2) space (m2) land area) area) areas) total area)

Undesirable Values apply Less than 10 Less than 3 Less than 3 More than 3
Ideal to large self- 20–30 8–12 1–2 1–1.5
Wasteful contained 40+
localities
Mumbai Island city 6,882 5.8 6.4 0.9 1.21 970 479 (night)
(daytime) 607 (daytime)
Manhattan CD5 (day) 259 34/job 1.73 0.42 1.174 13.5 3,982 2,142
67/residential
423
Upper East Side CD8 313 55.5 7.46 3.34 1.174 4.4 785
(night)
835
Charkop, Mumbai 147 7.14 4.73 1.54 1 1,400
1,473
C Ward, Mumbai 214 8.79 2.19 2.1 1.91 2,174
599
Lajpatnagar, Delhi 143 18.3 6.5 1.57 1.8 980
4,037
Dharavi Sector 4, 144 7.36 0.96 1.58 4.85 6,593
Mumbai
Vol 23 No 2 October 2011
CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

FIGURE 9

In terms of our six parameters, all concerned with the local

environment, let us first agree on what we mean by good living conditions.
If we mean a comfortable BUA, say 30 square metres per capita, and if
we mean a comfortable PGA, say 12 square metres per capita, then the
horizontal line in quadrant 1 is fairly low. Extend it to the left into
quadrant 2 and it intersects the radial lines of PF = 1.5, PF = 1 and PF
= 0.67 at three different points on the horizontal, at higher and higher
levels of FSI. (These three plot factors are equivalent to 60 per cent, 50
per cent and 40 per cent, respectively, of the total land area to be set
aside for plots for construction.) Follow the relevant arcs down to the
horizontal and drop lines vertically down to the radial in quadrant 3,
which represents BUA = 30. At these intersection points, turning right
to meet the net density vertical axis, we get net densities of 555 and 833
and 1,250 persons/hectare, respectively. Continuing into quadrant 4, and
intersecting the inclined lines that correspond to the three different PFs,
we turn up vertically to meet the gross density axis at values of 333 and
417 and 500 persons/gross hectare. The FSIs for the three cases are 1.67,
2.5 and 3.75, respectively. So really, if we want good living conditions,
we cannot go much beyond 500 persons per gross hectare. And notice, in
particular, that if we want the higher densities we have to have a smaller
plot factor – buildable plots should be less than half of the total area. And
the buildings on these limited plots will of course be taller.
To carry the argument to its extreme, if we were to have a plot factor
of only 0.2, implying that only one-sixth of the total area was buildable
plots, our net density would be 4,166 persons/hectare but the gross density
would not change much, to 694 persons/hectare and the FSI would be
12.5 – in other words, very tall buildings scattered about in an otherwise
open landscape. So the pursuit of high density, if it is to be in the context
of good living conditions, is a perilous journey into unexplored terrain.

593
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 23 No 2 October 2011

VI. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented a form of chart that links six key parameters,
which between them characterize an urban layout in quite a comprehensive
manner. The diagrams, above all, relate to large localities of 150 hectares
or more, which should be more or less self-contained with regard to all
amenities. But such diagrams could be drawn equally well for smaller
pockets, say 20 hectares or so, and the permitted values of the six different
parameters in that smaller range could well be more extreme, without
loss of quality, provided the surrounding areas take care of amenity
deficiencies in these smaller pockets. We will probably need different
charts and different sets of diagrams for different size ranges, to choose the
correct size range for the pocket or locality we want to examine. The point
is, from the appearance of the diagram on the selected chart, we should be
able to make out what kind of pocket or locality this is likely to be.
Each locality that we are familiar with around the world can be
represented as a diagram on this chart. We can then identify those
localities that we like and those that we find unsatisfactory in one way
or another. A study of these may lead us to a preferred range of values for
each of the parameters, which we should try to achieve in any new layout
or in any redevelopment of an existing layout, keeping in mind the size
of the layout we are working with.
Of course, the choice of defining parameters for a locality has to
be in the context of the society in which the layout is set: its values,
preferences and wealth. Also in the context of access to, and sufficiency
of, the transport systems that serve the locality, both overground and
underground.

ANNEXE 1: FORMULAE FOR THE RELATIONSHIPS SHOWN ON

THE CHART

Note: These formulae completely represent the relationships shown in

the chart. The mathematics is simple but it is hard to understand from the
formulae exactly how our six variables are interlocked and interdependent.
The chart, on the other hand, presents the same relationships graphically
and makes it easier to perceive how altering one variable affects another.
1. Plot Ratio PR = Buildable Plot Area / Total Land Area; other variables
are as defined in the paper.
2. PF = PR / (1 – PR); and consequently PR = PF / (1 + PF)
3. GD = (1 – PR) * 10,000 / PGA
4. ND = GD / PR = 10,000 / (PGA * PF) = FSI * 10,000 / BUA

ANNEXE 2: INFERENCES FROM THE CHART (FOR THOSE WHO

PREFER STATEMENTS TO GRAPHS)

From quadrants 1 and 2 (notice that the left axis is not vertical but
inclined according to the plot factor, so really these two quadrants have
to be read as one):
1. For any given plot factor (that is, any given layout), as the built-up
area per capita increases, FSI also increases.

594
 CAN HIGH DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WITH GOOD LIVING CONDITIONS?

2. For a given layout, and a given built-up area per capita, as the FSI goes
up, the public ground area per capita goes down.
3. For a given built-up area per capita, and a given public ground area
per capita, the lower the plot factor the higher the FSI.
4. For the same layout, and the same PGA per capita, higher built-up
area per capita demands a higher FSI.
From quadrant 3:
1. Low-rise, high density means small accommodation.
2. High-rise does not necessarily mean high density. If you have large
accommodation you can have high-rise, low density development.
But for the same size accommodation, low-rise will mean even lower
densities.
3. For any particular size of accommodation, densities go up in
proportion to the number of floors, provided the total footprint area
is unchanged.
From quadrant 4:
(Note that for any given population in an urban area, lower gross densities
imply greater urban sprawl, and also imply more spacious living.)
1. The higher the plot factor, the higher the gross density in relation to
any given net density.
2. For any given plot factor, net and gross densities increase or decrease
in proportion to each other.

REFERENCE

World Bank (1985), Staff Appraisal Report, India: Bombay Department, World Bank, Washington DC,
Urban Development Project – Annexe 2, Urban January 4, 92 pages.
and Water Supply Division, South Asia Projects

595

View publication stats