Page 38 and above, depending upon location. This is to be compared to the Rs 8 lakhs and above found in new formal subdivisions adhering to the GDCR in more distant areas.

This vernacular housing, as can be seen in Figure IV.8c constitutes a pleasant, if modest living environment, and is in no sense, a squalid slum. Land use surveys have shown that the great majority of the population of Ahmedabad (about 80%) is currently living in settlements that use land in way that differs significantly from the minimum standards established by law. Figures IV.8a and b show drawings of actual developments following patterns very common in Ahmedabad based on Google Earth images. Figure IV.9a is a layout proposal for a new development following the current GDCR to build affordable housing. Table IV.4 shows some of the key indicators for the three types of development.

**Table IV. 4 Key Indicators for Vernacular and** **<u>GDCR housing</u>**

||Vernacular Narol Naroda Rd.|GDCR Model|Modified<br>GDCR|
|---|---|---|---|
|Persons per Hectare|1958|1991|4200|
|Average Living Space per<br>Person|7.7 m2|5.2 m2|5.2 m2|
|Ratio of Vernacular to Others<br>Living space perperson||1.49|1.49|
|Ground Coverage|75%|45%|55%|

Table IV. 4 shows that one of the important cost drivers in the GCDR is the low maximum ground coverage in relation to vernacular neighborhoods. Units adhering to the GCDR are not necessarily larger, however. Units may actually be smaller in lower end formal developments than in vernacular homes. Also it is worth noting that low ground coverage limits in the land use regulations do NOT necessarily reduce the density of persons per hectare. Density is roughly the same between the GDCR model and the vernacular developments we compare. **Broadly speaking, this means that for the same density, residents of vernacular neighborhoods can get roughly 50 percent more housing space using the same piece of land. The essential difference between these two is in ground coverage not density** .

The modified model in the last column of Table IV.4 shows the limitations of marginal changes to the regulations while staying within the same basic development type—four story walk ups with low ground coverage. As shown in Table IV.5, this approach seeks to economize on land by reducing parking and space between buildings while respecting setback rules for front and side margins, and marginally increasing plot coverage. This alternative model may still be acceptable to lower income households that don’t own cars, and can reduce unit costs substantially by building more units per hectare, as Table IV.6 shows—especially in well located neighborhoods where land costs are high<sup>25</sup> . However, keeping plot coverage low comes at the cost of higher density, which may be a concern.

The most important lesson from these examples is, however, that the multiple requirements for parking, setbacks, and limits on ground coverage have made low-cost, low rise vernacular housing illegal—thus eliminating the option to substitute costly open areas for a larger living

> 24 1 lakh is Rs. 100,000 or roughly US$2000 at prevailing exchange rates at the time of writing.

> 25 The example used here was based on a land cost for a relatively low-cost land parcel distant from the city center. However as shown in the table, when land prices are higher, the impact of the regulations on cost are greater—as are the overall costs of the home. With the current rapid rise in land prices, homes designed and built to sell for 4 lakhs would now have a price closer to 8-10 lakhs, so the goal of a 4 lakh home is rapidly becoming infeasible.