tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043138489010794057.post331074301303672138..comments2024-03-27T15:57:09.192+05:30Comments on Urbanomics: The Mumbai DP - vertical development and population density are not the same!Urbanomicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16956198290294771298noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043138489010794057.post-1018805558077333232018-05-05T15:59:49.303+05:302018-05-05T15:59:49.303+05:30Thanks Ray for pointing that out. Yes Manila is mi...Thanks Ray for pointing that out. Yes Manila is missing in the graph.Urbanomicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16956198290294771298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043138489010794057.post-8598839737612307602018-05-05T15:58:41.413+05:302018-05-05T15:58:41.413+05:30Anon, thanks for the comment. I understand why the...Anon, thanks for the comment. I understand why the LOGIC of this makes your brain hurt. It used to hurt mine too before I DID this! My practical experience of doing exactly this in two big cities for six years - re-development of very dense but one-floor slums through vertical redevelopment - convinces me that, unless you go really up (a near impossible thing to do with poor people estates in a place like Mumbai, unlike the massive Chicago public housing schemes), you cannot squeeze out more people in that same land footprint. The percapita space availability now is that small. <br /><br />Even in non-slums, given the density today, maybe you can squeeze a bit more people per land footprint, but not by much.<br /><br />We are not at all talking about the really poshest areas (which are small proportion) and where renewal mediated by zoning policy as a tool may not have that much impact.<br /><br />Just to get a sense pls see the map in <br /><br />https://geographyeducation.org/articles/comparing-urban-footprints/<br /><br />There is only so many people that you can squeeze into that tiny land!Urbanomicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16956198290294771298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043138489010794057.post-77004093283660553052018-05-05T13:52:14.726+05:302018-05-05T13:52:14.726+05:30Manila is the most dense city in the world, not in...Manila is the most dense city in the world, not in the graphic, also very vertical (skyscrapers) and the roads are terrible, meaning you are limited unless you want to commute for several hours to the walking distance from your residence.Ray Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134761834999705305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043138489010794057.post-50151931943851051102018-05-05T03:22:24.851+05:302018-05-05T03:22:24.851+05:30"vertical development is not going to increas..."vertical development is not going to increase the density significantly. In fact density could even fall. For, as height increases, the average size of each dwelling unit built upwards is likely to be much larger than the currently existing tiny single-storied and semi-permanent units that are a feature of the slums. To this extent, unless we go significantly upwards, the increased unit size is more likely to cause gentrification and, to thereby cause a decline in density. So, there is a logical likelihood that a small increase in FSI could actually tip over to a gentrification equilibrium which lowers density and makes housing less affordable for the less well-off. "<br /><br />The logic here makes my brain hurt, it's so innacurate imo. I don't know where to begin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com