DENSITY STUDY OF LOW AND LOWER MIDDLE
INCOME SETTLEMENTS IN KARACHI

By
Arif Hasan
Asiya Sadiq
Suneela Ahmed

(Revised Draft, 19 August 2009)

We have some technical problem reproducing the whole paper.

It can be downloaded HERE in Word format 127KB

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a growing trend in Asian cities to demolish low income informal settlements and relocate their residents in six to eight storey apartment blocks. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that i) low income groups (other than white-collar workers and some of the better-off among the poor) are unhappy with the high-rise solutions for sociological reasons; ii) the units are expensive to maintain and instalments for lease or ownership are more often than not unaffordable for the poor residents; iii) residents cannot carry out any informal businesses in the apartments (apart from activities such as giving tuitions or running beauty parlours); and iv) the residents become poorer and some of them destitute. As a result, the majority of them sell their “possession” informally (if they can) at throw away prices and move back as renters to informal settlements in the city centre. The city governments and their planners argue that high-rise apartment living is necessary for it provides higher densities, better social and environmental conditions and enhances the image of the city as a “world class” or “global” city.   

This study was initiated to test the thesis that the same or considerably higher densities as prescribed by the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) bylaws can be achieved by building houses on small plots as opposed to apartments, without compromising on social and physical environment related concerns and to see if there are any social and economic benefits in providing plots or houses rather than apartments. 

2. METHODOLOGY

The study was initiated by International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) UK in association with Arif Hasan. To begin with interviews with residents of six randomly chosen low and lower middle income settlements and apartment complexes were carried out at meetings within the settlements. Usually a crowd of six to seven persons gathered to give their opinion about their experiences of living in the settlements or apartment complexes and about their preferences. What emerged from these interviews was that the majority of residents had a preference for “homes” rather than apartments. Comments from residents of apartment complexes were critical of the choice they have made. One resident said “this is not a home – it is a coffin”. A woman resident complained “there is no neighbourhood feeling. You cannot watch your children play without coming down yourself and this is not always possible so children misbehave and get involved in bad things”. Another complaint was that there was no privacy in apartment living and as such “it promoted promiscuity in adolescents and this led to conflicts between families”. A senior resident said “a house has to grow with time. An apartment cannot grow so either grand parents must go or the children must go. If neither can afford to go then you die of congestion and suffocation.” On the other hand, the case study of an apartment block which forms part of the research shows that a majority of people living in the apartment block had no such concerns and were happy with the choice they had made. Some residents said that the apartments provided security and that they were the only option that they could afford since the developers whom they purchased it from provided loans. However, there was general agreement that apartment complexes were badly maintained; garbage was not lifted; and there were serious plumbing related problems. Residents also pointed out that it was difficult to carry out economic activity in the apartments and this denied them access to badly needed funds for survival. It is important to note that the complaint regarding promiscuity and privacy has also been made by residents of exceptionally high density informally planned settlements which consist of individual houses.

The complaints of plot owners in low income settlements were different. In the newer settlements they were related to the bad state of infrastructure. In the older settlements they were related to congestion and lack of open space. Except for part of an inner city “slum” sociological related issues did not surface and nor did the issue of being able to use home as a place of economic activity.   

After the interviews and the documenting of a few houses, Arif Hasan felt that the study should be linked to an academic institution or a NGO working on housing so that it can be used for teaching and/or advocacy purposes. It was also felt that the study was really an exploration into a yet unstudied subject in Karachi and would require a considerable amount of research work and documentation if workable alternatives acceptable to local government and developers, to the apartment solution, were to be developed. On the basis of these considerations, the professors managing the Urban Research and Design Cell (URDC) at the Department of Architecture and Planning, NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi were contacted and after negotiations the URDC became a part of the team. The Cell is engaged in research on urban development issues for Karachi. This research feeds into the teaching of architecture and planning and also into advocacy with government organisations.

 

ACHR feels the findings of this study are very significant especially for our vision that cities should be for PEOPLE.
ACHR will commission 3 more such studies for Bangkok, Kathmandu and Manila. The Bangkok study is now in progress,

We will publish results and discussion soon.

December 2009

 

You can read a related paper:

The World Class City Concept and its Repercussions on Urban Planning for Cities in the Asia Pacific Region
Sept 2009 here