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

net/publication/239543874

Development Planning or Development Control - The Changing Focus of Master

Plan of Mumbai

Article · December 2006

CITATIONS READS

11 685

1 author:

Ramakrishna Nallathiga
National Institute of Construction Management and Research
272 PUBLICATIONS 631 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramakrishna Nallathiga on 30 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 I T P I
ITPI JOURNAL
3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35 JOURNAL
www.itpi.org.in

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL -

THE CHANGING FOCUS OF MASTER PLAN OF MUMBAI

RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA
Programme Manager, Bombay First (Bombay City Policy Research Foundation), Mumbai

ABSTRACT
Master plans are the traditional instruments used by urban local governments in India for anticipating urban development and making
provisions for the same in terms of land use allocation, development regulations and civic amenities provision. However, they have
not been able to produce satisfactory outputs due to several reasons. This paper describes the shortcomings of master plan in the
Indian context first as found in literature; subsequently, it explains the experience of development plans in Mumbai. It finally lays
down how the urban planning needs to change the course through complementary exercises like city development plans, akin to the
way economic planning focus changed from central planning to decentralized planning.

1. INTRODUCTION necessary facilities are in place when the

Town planning was a characteristic of the Indian
civilization more than 2000 years ago under
various kingdoms. However, much of it was more
of a concerted effort of specific kingdoms
prevalent at those point of times in the past rather
than an outcome of documented and
institutionalized procedures. The modern town
planning is different in this aspect and its basis is in
democratic principles of representative
government that came to vogue in a civilized
society based on institutionalized systems. Much
of the current town planning system in India, like
several other countries, owes its origins to the
British town planning system, although the
features and functioning of it are very different
from the British system. In particular, the British
Town Planning System is rather democratic,
participatory, decentralized and uses legal and
economic principles in the design of its practice
(Cullingworth and Nadin, 2001).
India continued with a town planning system
whose legislation was framed by the British by
adapting it to the requirements of the Indian cities
and this was primarily done through the town and
country planning acts of various States. These
acts have mandated the development of Master
Plans for the development of cities conceivable in
the next 20 or 25 years. The Master Plans, or
Development Plans, featured the land use plan
present and proposed – and development control
restrictions. In many states, this involves
estimation of future population, socio-economic
conditions and their infrastructural needs and
preparation of plans for ensuring that the
development takes place. The plans were
supposed to make proposals / schemes for the
provision of various facilities and ensure that the
basic amenities / services are in place; in that
process, they were also to guide the urban
development through spatial strategy and
planning policy.
It has been found that the plans, over time, began
to become too much rigid, conservative, and ad-
hoc, leaving the urbanization and urban planning
processes at peril. India’s level of urbanization has
touched just about less than 30 per cent by the
year 2001 (Census of India, 2001), which is much
less than the urbanization levels of more than 50
per cent in most Western countries. It has also
been argued that the inter-state and inter-city
population migration has been on decline over
time and the movement of people is becoming
narrowly confining to the respective areas (Kundu,
2006). While this phenomenon is difficult to
reason, one of them could be the increasing cost
of living in cities, which the poor are increasingly
finding difficult to bear. Land and / or housing is
an important aspect of living in cities and whose
costs are rising at a great pace; yet, much of the
planning is pre-occupied with development
controls rather than development planning,
making the cost of living rise.
We will discuss in this paper that this shift in the
plan focus itself can be detrimental to the city
development and to its ability to support the future
population – those coming from the cities
themselves and the migrants. We discuss first
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35
the restrictions of master planning approach in
India, in general, and then make some specific
observations from the case study of Mumbai’s
development plans.
2. MASTER PLANNING AND ITS
EXPERIENCE IN INDIA
Master planning aims at improving the urban
environment, as the efficiency of urban
settlements largely depends upon how well they
are planned, how economically they are developed
and how efficiently they are managed? Master
plans attempt to address it through allocating
space for various uses, amenities, socio-economic
groups and conservation-worthy units. In short,
Master Plan is a design for the physical, social, and
economic development of the city, and also to
improve the quality of life as well. The functions of
the Master Plan / Development plan are as follows
(Tiwari, 2002):
• To guide development of a city is an orderly
manner so as to improve the quality of life of
the people;
• Organize and co-ordinate the complex
relationships between urban land uses;
• Chart a course for growth and change, be
responsive to change and maintain its validity
over time and space, and be subject to
continual review;
• Direct the physical development of the city in
relation to its social and economic
characteristics based on comprehensive
surveys and studies on the present status and
the future growth prospects; and
• Provide a resource mobilization plan for the
proposed development works.
The Master Plans in India have primarily confined
to the aspects of land use and development
control and there is a widely held view that the
Master planning methods adopted over last few
decades in India have not produced satisfactory
physical environment and have not been effective
in the outputs as well as outcomes (Tiwari, 2002).
The master plan, which was perceived to be a
process rather than a conclusive statement,
provides guidelines for the physical development
of the city and guides people in locating their
investments in the city. It should also provide a
29
structure for infrastructure development so that
the businesses can chose to locate conveniently
to reap the benefits of location and the households
can chose such that it maximizes their quality of
life. However, guidance to infrastructure is
sometimes ignored, especially in the context of
transport and other basic amenities e.g., sewerage,
roads and solid waste management. The fact that
transport is a key determinant of land use and
“leads” development is sometimes ignored and
development controls are placed without thinking
about their economic and spatial implications.
Therefore, it appears that the shortcomings of
Master Plan approach are in design, conceptual
issues and procedures rather than in applied
context. Meshram (2006a) identifies the following
shortcomings of Master planning approach in
metropolitan cities:
• Weak database and Non-availability of Base
Maps: The upto date and reliable information
/ data required for the preparation of
Development plan is not readily available and
the data collecting agencies do not undertake
city level data gathering, resulting in the
formulation of proposals based on axiomatic
considerations. Also, the scales of maps
prepared by the Survey of India are not
appropriate for Master Plan.
• Population Projections: The Master Plans are
generally prepared for a period of 20-25 years
with population projections, but such long
projections are faced with the risk of over or
under projection and so do the land
mobilization task.
• Time Consuming Process: Data collection and
compilation on various aspects is a time
consuming process and quite often
necessitate field surveys. Moreover, plan
approval process is itself a source of delay as
the approval comes only after a considerable
time from higher authorities.
• Lack of co-ordination between agencies:
Several cities have para-statal bodies,
neighboring urban authorities and special
purpose vehicles apart from the urban
development authority of concerned city and
the co-ordination between these agencies is
complex and fraught with risks of coordination
failures.
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35
• Ineffective Public Participation: The effective
involvement of citizen in plan preparation and
implementation is often missing and public
consultation is a last point in the plan making.
• Lack of monitoring mechanism: There is an
absence of effective monitoring mechanism
due to inadequate institutional arrangements
and inadequately trained and qualified
manpower, which leads to huge divergence
between plan proposals and actual
development on ground.
• Rigid Process of Modification / Revisions: Any
modifications to the original plan are difficult,
however, minor they are, and require the
procedures of calling objections and
suggestions by a competent authority.
• Lopsided Plan Implementation: Large number
of investment proposals does not come in line
with provisions of Master Plan. It is important
to understand that while the economic forces
guide the city development they are also the
outcome of investment pattern. Any
mismatch between investment pattern and
plan priorities lead to chaos and lopsided
development on ground.
• Absence of national and regional goals and
priorities: Master Plans seldom take note of
regional and national development goals
leading to mismatch between those priorities
and that of the master plan.
• Mismatch of Growth projections and Societal
needs: The demographic and economic
changes are difficult to catch with projections
made 20-25 years ago.
• Neglect of Development of Urban Fringe:
Master Plans tend to focus on the central areas
with few proposals in the periphery, leading
to its neglect.
Besides the common shortcomings cited above,
Master Plans have the deficiencies of lack of
strategic focus, the inability to think ‘urban future’
or ‘vision’, the inability to understand other
implications of plan proposals and policies. One
important shortcoming of lack of strategic focus
arises because of wrongly placed priorities and
inadequate assessment of economic changes.
Also, Master Plans lack consistent, well-formulated
goals – they become more concerned about
providing better quality of life to the citizens at
30
the cost of increasing cost of living. Plan policies
articulated through land use, zoning and
development controls are often contentious areas
wherein decisions are taken without making a
proper assessment of their implications. Yet, from
time to time, especially at the time of disasters,
accusations are made that the comprehensive
Master Plan has not been prepared for the city
e.g. Dossall (2005)1. Such obsession tends to
put greater expectations on what Master Plan can
or should deliver in the calamitous circumstances,
whereas they were not really intended to be
‘disaster management plans’. But, they certainly
lead to the development of concerted action that
can be broadly spelt out in Master Plan, and
Bombay’s development planning has its roots to
the notorious plague in the early 19th century. It
is therefore imperative to take a stock of Mumbai’s
development before the development planning
started after India’s independence.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF MUMBAI CITY
BEFORE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Mumbai, earlier known as Bombay, was once a
congregation of seven tiny islands mostly lived in
by fishermen and farmers as shown in Fig. 1
(Mehrotra and Dwivedi, 1995). It is a scarcely
known area that grew at snails pace until Vaso-
Fig. 1 Mumbai’s Islands
Mahim
Creek
Mahim
Parel
Worli Mazagaon
Great Breich
Malabar
Hills
Bombay
Old woman's
Island
Colaba
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35

da-gama, the Portuguese colonist, set his foot in
1453 in a bid to discover New Land. The
Portuguese rulers slowly explored India and
acquired Mumbai by 1600, when the British were
settling in Calcutta and Surat. In 1661, Mumbai
was given to Prince Charles of Britain as a marriage
gift in his marriage with Princess Catherine of
Portugal (Chandrasekhar, 2005). The East India
Company noticed the hidden potential of Mumbai
in the form of a natural harbor and took a lease of
it in 1668. Thereafter, Mumbai became their
gateway to prosperity with the trade becoming
more efficient. Trade incentive and security
attracted people from the mainland and continues
so even in the modern era.
The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) Act was
enacted in 1888 giving rise to Local Self
Government. This was the first attempt to regulate
the functioning of the City in a planned manner.

Fig. 2 Mumbai in the year 1954

31
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35
The notorious plague of 1896 led to a quarter of
the population deserting Mumbai; as the city faced
commercial extinction in order to improve hygienic
conditions BMC was compelled to provide proper
drainage, clean water and planned reclamation
(Chandrasekhar, 2005). Towards this Mumbai City
Improvement Trust was established in 1898. This
was the first attempt to deal with the evils of
unplanned development of the City. From the
beginning of the 20th Century, the City has been
a destination of migration and coped with
development pressures.
The Bombay Town Planning Act was enacted in
1915. Under the obligatory provisions of this Act,
various Town Planning schemes were framed by
the BMC in the suburbs. After independence, there
was heavy influx to the city but the infrastructural
facilities of the past considerably helped the growth
of industries, business and trade. The first major
effort of urban planning was the Modak Meyor
Master Plan of 1948, which laid down overall
growth of Mumbai as the overall objective. As the
city became congested, its limits were first
extended in 1950 to cover the area of near
suburbs. Later, in 1957 it was extended to farther
suburbs to the north. The Mumbai Town Planning
Act of 1954, which replaced the earlier Act of 1915,
made it obligatory for local authorities to prepare
the Development Plans for the areas administered
by them within the stipulated period in addition to
the preparation of the Town Planning Schemes.
This act was later replaced by a modified Act
named Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966, which covered the enactment’s keeping
in view the regional aspects of its development ad
growth. This paved way to the First Development
Plan of 1964.
Its very interesting to note that in the past history
of Mumbai the plans that were able to address
the growth needs of the city very well, except
during the time period of plague epidemic, but at
the same time they were catering to the needs of
trade and commerce and economic growth.
Much of the planning confined to what is known
as island city now (see Fig. 2). It will be interesting
to note, later, that the development planning of
Mumbai – both policy and practice – focused much
on development control and on improving the
quality of life of existing population without much
attention to the economic changes, population
32
growth and inevitable immigration. The lack of
concern for these basic issues, the impact of these
policies on ground and the implementation failure
are the major shortcomings of development
planning in the post-independence era, which we
will discuss later.
4. REVIEW OF MUMBAI’S PLANNING
EXPERIENCE
It needs to be remembered that the physical
development blue prints laid down by English
colonial traders supported the city growth well in
the coming years. However, the post-
independence era of planning in Mumbai is a stark
contrast to the growth reinforcing approach of
colonial planning.
4.1 First Development Plan of Mumbai
The first development plan of Mumbai was initially
planned for the period of 1964 to 1977 but
extended to the period of 1964-1981. It primarily
concentrated on (i) providing various amenities
in line with a land use plan, (ii) shifting the
development to the near suburbs; (iii) restricting
the operations of industries, trade and population
concentration on the island city. This plan met
with some inevitable failures such as failure to
comply with time lines, failure to expand / improve
the existing infrastructure, failure to develop
amenities proposed in the plan. These are
attributed to the slow pace of planning without a
realistic assessment of ground situation and there
was no budget or strategy to acquire land for the
development of amenities. The plan made no
attempts to foster industrial or economic growth,
but aimed only to ‘decongest’ the city in all respects
– population density, trade and commerce activity,
industrialization and housing. The wholesale
markets, port activity, manufacturing industries
and bulk material handling were shifted to suburbs.
Yet, the city continued to grow – both in terms of
economic activity and population – as industries,
particularly textiles, were increasingly becoming
concentrated and reaping agglomeration benefits.
During this period, the proposal for building a
satellite city for Mumbai – New Mumbai on the
mainland – took shape and it was ultimately realized
after almost a decade long city building. The
success story has been well described by Shaw
(2004). However, the process of this itself is
complex and did not yield success until the land
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35

value has risen more than a decade later in the
early 1990s.
4.2 Second Development Plan of Mumbai
The Second development plan was a revised
development plan prepared for the period of 1981-
2001 initially and it was sanctioned in parts between
1991 and 1993, the last being in 1993. But it is
reported to have been extended to the period of
1991 - 2013 now, once again exposing the
inordinate delays in the making of plan proposals
and getting the approvals. The plan proposals
appeared to be more realistic with ground situation
when compared to the first development plan but
it has several shortcomings.
• First, the plan made provisions for residential
land use and housing for a population of 9.87
million by 2001, whereas the population level
in 1991 itself was 9.9 million in 1991 and it
reached 11.9 million by 2001, leaving a
backlog population of 2 million to be
accommodated. Even with this low level of
growth (1.85 per cent per annum), the
population by the end of plan period (2013)
can be expected to be around 14 million and
the backlog will rise to 4 million. With the rise
in residential population, the commercial space
requirements would also have risen, giving rise
to a short fall in allocation to commercial use
as well.
• Second, the plan continued to place emphasis
on ‘decongestion’ policy towards land use and
proposed to develop industrial and office hubs
in the suburbs, wherein the infrastructure is
woefully inadequate as enough provisions
were not made for laying down infrastructure
for future growth in the earlier plan. However,
it came out with some innovative methods of
dealing with the land acquisition and amenity
development faced in the previous plan. The
use of ‘Accommodation Reservations’ and
‘Transfer of Development Rights’ have been
effectively deployed to ensure a quick release

Box: The Impact of Density Regulation on Land Market in Mumbai

Density regulations came into fore through the development control regulations in 1964, which prescribed a uniform density of
development, as a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 1.33,1.0 and 0.75, across three different parts of Mumbai – the (inner or island)
city, the suburbs and the extended suburbs – respectively. The density regulations have imposed artificial scarcities in the
available built space, and, thereby, impacted on the land markets of Mumbai, and also affecting the status of housing in the city.
However, besides density regulation, other forms of government intervention e.g., Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) and Rent
Control Act (RCA), also influence the operation of land and housing markets. The whole gamut of regulations in place makes it
difficult to isolate the impacts caused by density regulation alone. It is nearly impossible to identify specific impacts and ascribe
them to density regulation. Yet, the impacts of density regulation can be understood and distinguished as price and non-price
impacts.
Price Impacts
A multi-variate analysis shows that density regulation had significant influence across the city as well over continuous time period
(Nallathiga, 2005). The results indicate that the marginal propensity of density regulation on land prices is very high in Central
Business District, whereas that was not the case in the suburbs. The density regulation accounted for almost 40% of the land
prices, which is relatively very high.
Non-price Impacts
The non-price impacts of density regulation are essentially those impacts that can be observed on the spatial scale of the city
as well as across agents on city space. This analysis was one using informal interviews held with a few knowledgeable
individuals.
Spatial Impacts
Density regulations appear to have had a pervasive effect on the spatial organization of the city. As the city population began
to grow over time, the concentration has been shifting away towards suburbs and beyond. This expansion has resulted in not
only the sub-urban sprawl but also led to crammed condition of housing in suburbs, which is reflected in the greater share of slum
population as well as the coexistence of slums and squatter settlements alongside skyscrapers. Town cramming could have been
partly exacerbated by density controls constraining the supply of housing by restricting the development on land. Another
spatial impact of density control, resulting from high land prices, particularly those in CBD, is ‘gentrification’ – in which the poor
or low income groups are displaced by rich or high income groups by renovation of property. Since the property effect has been
prevalent in the markets, partly on account of restrictions on development, the poor or low income groups are driven out to
suburbs and beyond. This is also reflected in the share of slum population in the city and suburbs – with the latter holding lion’s
share.
Behavioral Impacts
The behavioral impacts might be two fold: development of speculative as well as rent seeking tendencies among the agents on
city space. Speculative tendency has particularly been the characteristic of real estate markets in Mumbai. Density controls
might have fuelled the rise of speculation by artificially reducing the intensity of development and encouraging the withholding
of land and housing units in anticipation of higher prices.
Source: Author, cited in India Infrastructure Report 2006

33
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35
of land and amenity development. Yet, the
plan has not been able to achieve the targets
of amenities provision even by these methods
as the costs of the amenities were on the rise
when the value of TDR was on fall (Nallathiga,
forthcoming).
• Third, the plan came out with much restrictive
development control regulations than those
in the past that placed uniformly low
development densities across the city – a Floor
Space Index (FSI) of 1.33 in the city, 1.0 in
the suburbs and 0.5 beyond suburbs. The
costs of such regulation came to the fore in
the form of very high property prices reducing
housing options for the middle class even,
leaving aside poor and low income sections
(Phatak, 2003; Nallathiga, 2003) and even led
to structural and behavioral changes (see
Box). It led to the conflict between economic
interests and planning interests as witnessed
in the episode of textile mill land
redevelopment / sale recently. As the
pervasive effect of such restrictions began to
grip urban land, relaxations were subsequently
made to uses like heritage buildings, to slum
rehabilitation schemes and to redevelopment
of old buildings built prior to 1940. Among
them, the relaxation to slum rehabilitation
scheme became controversial due to its
exclusive dependence on land price and this
led to the criticism of creating scarcities in land
and housing first and then addressing them
through relaxation.
4.3 Planning in a New Economic Era
The Master plans or development plans of Mumbai
serve as good examples of the shortcomings the
planning can have in spite of the innovative
approaches like TDR and accommodation
reservations. This is because of some structural
inadequacies of plans, choice of wrong policies
e.g., development control and decongestion, the
changing economic environment, changing
demographic pattern. In a globalized world, the
competitiveness of a city in attracting the
investments is critically dependent upon the
factors relating to the growth prospects, access
to capital and knowledge, and availability of good
infrastructure facilities (Rondinelli et al, 1998).
Whereas the first factor is more related to the
city’s capacity to adapt to the changing economic
structure and the second factor has more links
34
with its institutional base, the third factor is a critical
element that is highly dependent upon the
creation of good infrastructure through
deployment of public resources, planning and
management. A city, which fares poorly in terms
of both the provision of essential services and a
good quality of life, will certainly not be in a position
to attract investments and businesses will not
favor locating in such cities.
It becomes imperative, therefore, for the cities to
perform well on both the above parameters in
order to remain competitive in attracting
investments (Harris, 2002). This is more so in the
era of globalization wherein domestic economies
thrive by producing and selling goods and services
in a competitive global market. What this means
is that the cities not only have to compete with
national peers but also with international peers in
the regional blocks as well as the globe in the
production of goods and services for which all
factors need to contribute in an efficient manner
(Scott, 2001). It is in this context that the city
development vision and a strategy for
implementing it become important, as emphasized
in this paper. The importance of having such
development vision and strategy in making the
city competitive and livable has also been
demonstrated by the undertaking of such plans
by several cities. Johannesburg, for example, has
prepared a development vision plan ‘iGoli’ to
transform the city in terms of service delivery and
economic growth through a city development
strategy identifying various initiatives in the short,
medium and long run (Joburg, 2002).
5. THE WAY FORWARD
Master plans or Development plans have been the
origins of change in the urban environment – both
physical and socio-economic – in India for the past
several decades. This traditional planning
approach in the form of master plans is turning
out to be frustrating because of the unrealistic
plans, long time taken for their preparation and
approval, ill adequately or inadequately thought
or planned proposals etc. These features of plans
and plan making together with implementation
hurdles are forcing the exploration of alternative
methods. In the liberalized era and globalized
world, the planning processes have to serve the
economic and social objectives of the society
through creation of a growth enabling physical
environment. This changing context itself calls
 Ramakrishna Nallathiga / ITPI Journal 3 : 4 (2006) 28 - 35
for identifying alternative approaches and
strengthening existing planning mechanisms and
institutions. The latter has been discussed to some
extent in the decentralization of development
planning to local level under the Constitution (74th
Amendment) Act, together with the responsibility
of resource and financial management, but the
former requires new approaches that complement
the traditional planning.
The step towards ‘city development plan’ under
the Union Government’s programme of Jawaharlal
Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) might be
a good beginning towards it. The JNNURM is a
partnership approach with sharing of funding the
city development by Central, State and local
governments of 63 major cities in India and it has
the prerequisites of reform plan and city
development plan from the cities (Government
of India, 2006). The reform plan needs to spell
out the reform actions to improve the urban
governance and give a boost to urban
infrastructure development. The city
development plan provides a ‘development vision’
with details of actions, time frame and finances /
investment plan. It also gives an opportunity to
study and prepare the physical profile, economic
profile, financial profile, infrastructure profile and
social profile and therefore can be interfaced with
Master Plans (Meshram, 2006b). Moreover, such
level of detailing provides an opportunity to lay
down city development strategies and take
corrective steps so that they can complement
the Master Plan as well as do purgative action.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Mumbai is one of the vibrant and historical city in
India with the past glory of urbs prima of India.
However, as development planning did not pay
much attention to growth supporting
environment and the master plans have several
shortcomings as found in other Indian cities it
began to lose on providing better environment,
physical and socio-economic, and began to lose
in terms of investment destination. Moreover, the
cost of such wrong placed policies is very high –
particularly on the urban land and housing, making
the cost of living and doing business costly and
hurting the local enterprises, and thereby, shifting
the plan outcomes into a different direction with
respect to economic organization. Therefore, the
focus of master planning approach has to shift
from ‘development restricting’ approach towards
35
View publication stats
‘development enabling’ approach and it requires
a reform in the current approach and focus of
Master Plans.
REFERENCES
Chandrasekhar (2005) Mumbai before Development Plan,
<www.accommodationtimes.com/freesection> (Retrieved on
July 26, 2006)
Cullingworth, B. J. and V. Nadin (2001) Town and Country
Planning in the UK, Routledge, London.
Dossal, M. (2005) A Master Plan for the City: Looking at the
Past, Economic and Political Weekly, September 3, 2005, pp
3897-3900.
Government of India (2006) Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal
Mission, Government of India <http://urbanindia.nic.in/
mud_final_site/programs/urbandevelopment/nurm.html>
Harris, N. (2002) Cities as Economic Development Tools,
Comparative Urban Studies Project Policy Brief, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.
Joburg (2002) iGoli: City Development Plan of Johannesburg,
Presentation made by the team of Joburg initiative and the
World Bank representatives to the Bombay First on May 17,
2004.
Kundu, A. (2006) Trends and Patterns of Urbanization and
their Economic Implications, India Infrastructure Report 2006,
3i Network Group and IDFC, Mumbai
Mehrotra, R. and Dwivedi, S. (1995) Bombay: The Cities Within,
India Book House, Mumbai.
Meshram, D. (2006a) ‘Master Planning Approach: Constraints
and Prospects’, in, P.S.N. Rao (Ed.) Urban Governance and
Management: Indian Initiatives, Kanishka Publishers and IIPA,
New Delhi, pp 108-124.
Meshram, D. (2006b) Interface between city development plans
and Master plans, ITPI Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 1-9.
Nallathiga, R. (forthcoming) Utilizing transferable development
rights into city development: a case of Mumbai, Paper submitted
to Nagarlok.
Nallathiga, R. (2005) Regulatory impacts on land and housing
markets in Mumbai, Nagarlok, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, pp 50-65.
Nallathiga, R. (2004) The impacts of density regulation on cities
and markets; evidence from Mumbai, International Journal of
Regulation and Governance, Volume 5, No. 1, pp 13-39.
Nallathiga, R. (2003) The impacts of density controls on cities
and markets: the case of Mumbai, Paper presented in the 47th
World Congress of the International Federation of Housing
and Planning on Cities and markets: shifts in urban development
held on October 5-8, 2003 at Vienna.
Phatak, V. K. (2003) The Use of Floor Space Index in the
Development of Land and Housing Markets in Mumbai, The
City, Vol. 4, pp. 6-9.
Rondinelli, D. A., Johnson J. H. and J. D. Kasarda (1998) The
Changing Forces of Economic Development: Globalization and
City Competitiveness in the 21st Century, Cityscape: A Journal
of Policy Development and Research Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 71-105.
Scott, A. J. (2001) Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory and
Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shah, A. (2004), The Making of Navi Mumbai, Orient Longman
Publishers, New Delhi.
Tiwari, D. P. (2002) Challenges in Urban Planning for Local
Bodies in India, <http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/
urban/urban00037pf.htm> (Retrieved on August 20, 2006).