EVALUATION OF ‘DESIGN AND USE

OF OPEN SPACES IN LOW COST

HOUSING’

A Case of Ahmedabad
Comparison Between JnNURM & PMAY

DATA AND TECHNOLOGY IN

EVALUATION

Study by
Devashree Roychowdhury
Architect - City Planner
Visiting Faculty
Founder & Director, CTW India
Eval Fest 2020
 Background

Poverty Alleviation - Focus of development

Slum upgradation schemes and Policies

Urban poor well-being: ensuring adequate

open spaces

Importance of open spaces: QOL aspects

Existing housing policies for urban poor:

Design of common open spaces largely
ignored
Research Problem

Ahmedabad, 5th largest city and 7th largest

metropolitan in India,
Population: 5.5 million (2011); 8 million (2020)
Area: 464 km. sq.
Density: 12,005 people per sq. km (census, 2011); 9900
people per sq. km (world population review, 2020)
Research Problem

Slum Population in Ahmedabad: 9,06,000

16.7 % of the total population (Census, 2011)
Slum Population in Ahmedabad: 2,50,000
(world population review, 2020)
Research Problem

Ahmedabad: India’s first ‘World Heritage City’

• Vision of Ahmedabad 2030:
World class - Global city; World’s most Liveable city

• Big Development Projects:

Sabarmati River front Development Project
Positive Aspects

• Large Scale Displacements of Urban Poor:

Negative Repercussions
Research Problem

On Relocated Sites
Common Open Spaces, not used and maintained
properly; most of them abused and covered with
garbage (as observed by researchers in the field)

C.O.S in Existing Slum Site C.O.S in Relocated Site

Need to research:
• Why the common spaces are not being used
• Factors responsible for the use and non-use of these
spaces
 Conceptual Framework

Urban Poor Other Stakeholders

(Social, Cultural and (Planners, Government
Economic Characteristics) & NGO’s)
• Age Opinion • Urban Poverty
• Gender • Slum Upgradation
• Occupation Programmes
• Religion • Low Income Housing
• Caste

Perception & Opinion

Preference

Common Open Space

• Location, size & shape
• Use
• Accessibility
• Ownership
• Maintenance
• Time & Frequency of Usage
Conceptual Framework
 Research Objectives & Questions

Main Objective
The main objective of the study is to determine how policies
and designs for common open spaces in low income
communities (slum settlement sites and relocated sites) could
be made more sensitive to resident’s needs

Sub Objective 1: To identify factors that affect Urban Poor’s perception

and preference of common open spaces (C.O.S) in the relocated sites in
Ahmedabad

1. Use of C.O.S ?
2. Factors that influence the use of C.O.S?
3. Factors that influence non-use behavior of C.O.S?
4. Factors that influence the choice of C.O.S?

Sub Objective 2: To identify factors that affect Urban Poor’s perception

and preference of C.O.S in the existing slum sites in Ahmedabad

1. Use C.O.S ?
2. Factors that influence the use of C.O.S?
3. Factors that influence non-use behavior of C.O.S?
4. Factors that influence the choice of C.O.S?
 Research Objectives & Questions

Sub Objective 3: To identify the reasons that initiate problems and

conflict over using C.O.S’s in the relocated and existing slum sites in
Ahmedabad

1. Level of access to C.O.S by different users?

2. C.O.S owned?
3. C.O.S maintained?
4. Average time spent by the users in the C.O.S?

Sub Objective 4: To understand how stakeholders comprehend the

perception and preferences of the Urban Poor in developing planning
guidelines for their housing w.r.t design of C.O.S’s

1. Present guidelines for design of C.O.S for Urban Poor in the

existing schemes for their relocations?
2. Gaps in the existing guidelines with respect to the perception and
preferences of Urban Poor?
3. Difference in the perception of type and quality of existing C.O.S
between Urban Poor and other stakeholders?
4. Level of involvement of the users of the C.O.S in its design and
planning?
 Research Design
Phase 1
Concept Development

Literature • Urban Open Spaces: Types and

Review Forms
• Role of Open Spaces
• Urban Poor and Open Space
• Urban Poverty in Ahmedabad
• Existing Policies and Schemes for
Urban Poor in India and Outside
• Participatory GIS and Mapping
Research Research Objectives
Problem Conceptual Framework
& Questions

Phase 2
Field Work
Case Study Selection:
Secondary Data Collection:
• Existing Slum Sites Relevant Reports and Maps
• Slum Relocated Sites

Primary Data Collection: Urban Primary Data Collection: Planners,

Poor Government Officials and NGOs
• Semi – structured interviews • Semi – structured interviews
• Focus Group Discussions
• Sketch Mapping
Phase 3
Data Analysis Primary Data Analysis:
Secondary Data Analysis: • Information Extraction from
Interviews
• Analysis using Google Earth and
• Geo-coding visual data
Satellite Images
• Statistical Analysis
•
Phase 4
Communication of Results
Development of Perception Maps Results and Discussions

Policy Recommendations for

Slum Relocations w.r.t. Common
Open Spaces
 Literature Review
Open Spaces

Role Benefits Abuse Types

• Social Interaction • Social • Misuse • Domestic –
• Community • Environmental • Exploitation Neighborhood –
Development • Health • No Maintenance Civic
• Sustainable • Economic • Vandalism • Hard – Soft
Development • Control of one user Landscape
• Element of Aesthetic group over another • Public – Semipublic -
• Enhance Architecture Private
of the city
• Add to QOL
• Educational Role

The City of Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad and Urban Poor

• History of Ahmedabad: Cotton Textile Mills
• Unemployment and Booming of Informal Sector
• Informal Sector Activities
• Differentiation on the basis of income, life style and work type
• Typical Settlement Pattern
• Concept of Social Disarticulation

Housing Schemes and Policies for Urban Poor w.r.t the design of
C.O.S’s
• Central Initiatives: BSUP, RAY IHSDP, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
• State Initiatives: Mukhyamantri Gruh Yojana

Housing Projects by Architects for Urban Poor

• Aranya low cost housing, Indore
• Belapur housing, Mumbai
• CIDCO housing, New Mumbai
 JNNURM
Mission Statement
• The aim is to encourage reforms and fast track planned
development of identified cities. Focus is to be on efficiency in
urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms,
community participation, and accountability of ULBs/
Parastatal agencies towards citizens.

Objectives of the Mission

• Integrated development of infrastructure services in cities
Linkages between asset-creation and asset-management
Ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies in urban
infrastructural services
• Planned development of identified cities including peri-
urban areas, outgrowths and urban corridors leading to
dispersed urbanization
• Scale-up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities
with emphasis on universal access to the urban poor
• Special focus on urban renewal programme for the old city
areas to reduce congestion; and
• Provision of basic services to the urban poor including
security of tenure at affordable prices, improved housing,
water supply and sanitation, and ensuring delivery of
other existing universal services of the government for
education, health and social security.
 PMAY
Features

• Security of Tenure
• Women Empowerment
• Better Quality of Life for
Urban Poor
• All-weather Housing Units
with Water, Kitchen,
Electricity, and Toilet
• Adequate Physical and
Social Infrastructure
• Securing Relevant SDGs.

Source: pmay-urban.gov.in
 Comparison of PMAY and JNNURM

Housing for All by 2022 – PMAY Urban

Objectives
• Slum rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers with participation of
private developers using land as a resource
• Promotion of Affordable Housing for weaker section through
credit linked subsidy
• Affordable Housing in Partnership with Public & Private sectors
• Subsidy for beneficiary-led individual house construction
/enhancement
Research Methodology
Slum Locations, Ahmedabad
 Basic Observation & FGD’s
Relocated Sites: Comparative Matrix
Balol Nagar Vatva 1-2-3
Name Jay Mahadev Nagar Ushabhao Sadhbhavna Vasant Gajendra
(Sample Resettlement Thakhre Nagar Garkar Nagar
Site) Nagar
Key Map

Existing Slum Sites: Comparative Matrix

Lakhudi Shankar Bhuvan
Name Lakhudi Lavadni Na Chappra Shankar Bhuvan
Key Map

Blocks, Religion, Communities, Project type, shape, size, accessibility,

use of C.O.S’s, landscaping, prevalent issues and other

Focus Group Discussions

Site Comparison

Sabarmati River

Municipal Limit

Site before Relocation

(Some of it still remains,
named as ‘Existing Slum
Site’)
City Center

Site after Relocation

named as ‘Relocated
Site’
Site Analysis
 Social Amenities

Place of Worship, Muslim Primary Health Centre (P.H.C)

Place of Worship, Hindu Underground Tank

Legend
Common Open Space
(C.O.S)
Parking Space
C.O.S + Parking
Underground Watertank Common Open Space
Primary Health Centre (P.H.C) +
Community Centre
Building Unit (G+3)
Percolation Well
5.2 21.8 104.3
Meters
0 11.9 49.95
 Usage and Non-Usage
Usage of Common Open Spaces
100%
Respondents in Percentage

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Existing Relocated
Yes 86% 64%
No 14% 36%

Usage of Common Open Spaces

Activity Type of Respondents

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Celebrati Liveliho
Gamblin Cattle
Playing Sitting Meeting Chatting ng od Sleeping Storage
g Keeping
Festivals Related
Existing 10 14 19 23 28 14 4 3 8 13
Relocated 9 9 7 9 7 4 5 0 0 0

Reasons for non-usage of C.O.S

Number of Respondents

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Distance
Work Water
Not Clean Unsafe Fights to Less Space
Load Logging
workplace
Slum Site 7 14 5 3 2 1 33
Relocated Site 18 9 16 5 11 15 0
 Needs, Likes and Dislikes

Requirements in the C.O.S

Need Type of the Respondents

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Proper
Playgrou Street Cleanlin Parking Bird
Garden Safety Drainag Benches Trees
nd Lights ess Space Feeder
e
Slum Site 14 21 7 17 8 7 1 12 0 0
Relocated Site 6 11 37 25 50 21 7 3 20 2

Relocated Existing
Most Liked w.r.t C.O.S Most Liked w.r.t C.O.S
1. Spacious 1. Familiar Area and People

3 Dislikes 3 Dislikes
1. Garbage Dumping 1. Less space
2. Water Logging 2. Mosquitoes
3. Unsafe 3. Water Logging
 Activity Pattern: Day Time
Relocated Site
Day Time: 1:56pm

Vegetable Seller Children Playing near tank

Legend
Children Playing
Celebrating Festivals (Only Festive Season)
Teenager Females Sitting/Chatting
Women Sitting/Chatting
Shop Keepers/Hawkers
Men Gambling/Playing Cards
Teenager Males Sitting/Chatting
5.2 21.8 104.3
Meters
0 11.9 49.95

Existing Site
Day Time Activity Pattern
3:32pm

Legend
Storage
Children Playing
Teenager Males Sitting/Chatting
Celebrating Festivals
Teenager Females Sitting/Chatting
Women Sitting/Chatting
Shop Keepers/Hawkers
Men Gambling/Playing Cards
Cattle Keeping
Families living (left relocated sites)
 Activity Pattern: Night Time
Relocated Site
Night Time: 8:56pm

Legend
Children Playing
Teenager Females Sitting/Chatting
Women Sitting/Chatting
Shop Keepers/Hawkers
Men Gambling/Playing Cards
Teenager Males Sitting/Chatting
5.2 21.8 104.3
Meters
0 11.9 49.95

Existing Site Activity Pattern

Night Time
8:32pm

Legend
Storage
Children Playing
Teenager Males Sitting/Chatting
Celebrating Festivals (seasonal)
Teenager Females Sitting/Chatting
Women Sitting/Chatting
Shop Keepers/Hawkers
Men Gambling/Playing Cards
Cattle Keeping
Families living (left relocated sites)
 Occupation & Distance to workplace
Occupation Vs. Usage of C.O.S's
60%
50%
Percentage of people

40%
30% Same occupation 60%
20%
Changed occupation 40%
10%
0%
1.5 to 3 less than 0.5 0
Usage of Common Open Spaces in hours
 Caste and Religion
Many different castes and communities: Pathan, Sheikh, Malik, Miya, Marwadi,
Sindhi, Parmar, Pandit, Thakore, Ansari, Mansuri, Qureshi, Saiyyad, Harijan,
Gupta, Vaghri, Dattandi, Sharma, Pandit, Bhaiya, Thakore, Rabari.

Mixed settlement pattern effects:

Initiating joint ventures became
difficult, formation of self-help
groups were not initiated and no
more associations were visible.

This factor directly influenced the

usage of common open spaces as
the interaction between people
became limited.

Religion
90%
Respondents in Percentage

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Slum Site Relocated Site
Hindu 80% 64%
Muslim 20% 36%
 Design Considerations
Sun and Shade

9:32am 3:32pm 8:32pm

9:56am 12:56pm 8:56pm

• Hierarchy of open spaces

• Landscaping (Benches, Trees, hard and soft landscapes)
• Linkage between social amenities (P.H.C & Primary School) and C.O.S Design
• Security (Street lights)
• Conditions/ Maintenance (Paving)
PMAY - Kathwada, Ahmedabad
VSG, Ahmedabad LIG-MIG (MGY)
VSG, Ahmedabad LIG-MIG (MGY)
Gokuldham, Ahmedabad EWS – (MGY)
 Stakeholders: Opinion Intersection
NGO:
Government:
Relocation should be carried out using more
Relocation was the only possibility
sensitive ways
Academia:
In-situ Slum Upgradation is a better Slum Relocations Dwellers:
option Relocation caused many other problems

Government:
Choice of location was given but not floor
choice but adjustments were done later
Academia:
Not sensitively allocated; community
living, livelihood and education affected
Government:
Important for them that is why enough
open spaces provided to them at the
relocated sites; maintenance is their
responsibility
Academia:
Adaptive reuse through the lifecycle of the
day; should be well planned and integrated
with social amenities
Government:
Ample open spaces provided; no problem
with the design; dwellers need to maintain
it properly; design should limit the scope of Design of C.O.S’s
encroachment
Academia:
The design should be able to facilitate
interaction within people; different types of
spaces should be created depending upon
users need
Government:
The dwellers are not able to manage the Problems faced
site well.
in using C.O.S’s
Academia:
Poor management of open spaces; G+3
new way of living hence usage of open
spaces not feasible for everyone
NGO:
Process of HH Allocation not proper - lot
of tension within dwellers because of the
Household mix in the communities on the relocated sites
Allocation
Dwellers:
‘We are thrown out of the city’. No
employment for many, no savings due to
heavy commuting costs to the work place, no
time for other activities
Common NGO:
Play an important role as it might be linked
Open Spaces
to their livelihoods; should be well designed
for Urban
Poor Dwellers:
C.O.S’s not in use because of the poor
conditions; water logging and garbage
dumping
NGO:
Abundant open spaces provided but not put
to good use; design not appropriate according
to their lifestyle
for Urban Poor
Dwellers: Need some shaded places on the
site; more paved open spaces or green spaces
with landscaping elements like trees and
playground for children; garbage free, dry
and safe spaces
NGO:
No sense of ownership of the common areas
due to resentment
by the dwellers
Dwellers:
C.O.S’s not in use because of the water tank
overflowing issues and garbage dumping
 Conclusion

Literature findings and observations at the site

• Housing policies and schemes
• Housing projects by architects

General observations, FGD’s, HH Interviews &

Activity Pattern
• Usage dependent not only on physical design
but social aspects
• Existing: lack of space
• Relocated: safety and cleanliness
• Maintenance and Ownership
• Fragmented social fabric: Caste & Religion
• Activity Pattern: Needs of different user
groups
• Distance to workplace & Occupation
• Design of C.O.S’s

Stakeholders
• Distinctive ideas
 Recommendations

Development of schemes
• Dialogue between the stakeholders
• Participatory approach
• Holistic research of the user group
• Slum upgradation 1st priority

Scheme Implementation
• Phase wise implementation
• Enough buffer time
• Awareness programmes and training sessions
• HH allocation participatory
• RWA formations

Design Parameters of C.O.S’s

• Shaded areas
• Landscaping
• Orientation of C.O.S’s
• Site development
• Safety
• Different size and shapes of spaces: hierarchy
 Supporting Slides
Definitions

Value: Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor

Urban Poor: The World Bank (2011) defines Urban Poor as people living with
many deprivations and facing daily challenges like limited access to
employment opportunities and income, inadequate and insecure housing and
services, violent and unhealthy environments, little or no social protection
mechanisms, and limited access to adequate health and education
opportunities.

Slum: A compact area of at least 300 population or about 60-70 households

of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with
inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water
facilities. (Census, 2011)

Open Space: Open spaces in neighborhoods are defined as ‘any unbuilt land
within the boundary or designated envelope of a neighborhood which
provides, or has the potential to provide, environmental, social and economic
benefits to communities, whether direct or indirect’. (Campbell, 2001)

Common Open Space:

C.O.S in the relocated site is defined as open spaces in the newly constructed
low income housing for the slum dwellers known as Basic Services for Urban
Poor (BSUP) Sites in Ahmedabad wherein the space is allotted as a part of the
housing with common properties like community hall, child centre and water
tanks but the space is abused and not being used in most of the sites.

C.O.S in the existing slum sites is defined as open spaces jointly used in the
slum areas of Ahmedabad by the slum dwellers which were not designed but
naturally formed with the course of time. Though these spaces lacked other
common infrastructure like community hall or child centre but it acted as a zone
for interaction and carrying out multiple activities.
Thank You