The Housing Unit- role & assumptions.

-The basis of the Unit

Modern planning processes assume the Family as a basis for deriving the housing unit- a blanket assumption that has resulted into residential areas derived of repetition of the resultant Housing unit. In urban situations, along with the variables of the size of the ‘ family’, are coupled other versions of the Housing requirements- the Single person unit, requirements for the Elderly, shared accommodation for affordability, and so on. The percentage requirements that these other versions make on the Housing stock seems, even without statistical information, substantial- examples being numerous. Non- cognisance of these requirements loads them on to a un-appropirate Housing typology, within which transformations seek to answer the situations ( Houses being shared for affordability, rooms wihen houses being rented, Etc.,)

While many of these requirements demand the development of other housing Types, on a zonal development basis, & therefore a revision of the Planning assumptions, the exigencies of Affordability ( & therefore the capacity to hold Housing space), Family sizes& Requirements demand variety & choice in size, location 7 specifications of the available Housing stock.

-Economic Categorisation

The existing planning programme also adopts variations in size & specifications to create Housing stock for various affodabilities, This, applied to a family unit type, is expected to create economic ( & therefore ‘class’) categorisations- namely H.I.G, L.I.G, & E.W.S.

The assumption fails in appreciating the role of LOCATION, and its various attributes of land prices, civic amenities available, gentrification etc., , in creating Urban parts defined by economic class- issues that can be addressed on a master plan level only. A gross overlooking of the locational aspect  in area level development, in the urban economic ( & Social) structure, along with application of Housing types based on economic categorisation has, unarguably, failed to address the housing demands of economic classes. A host of examples show urban forces 7 transformations resulting in gentrification processes completely dislocating the non viable economic class from its designated housing ( usually L.I.G. & E.W.S. from well located areas). If the vice- versa as true is not so apparent, the reason lies in the short supply & non- availability of options of the housing stock for the M.I.G & H.I.G. designated class, alone.

Housing requirements based on affordability of distinct economic classes cannot be answered on a basis of size & specifications of space allotment-  it requires their development on a locational basis. Area level development within contextualised locations can effectively address to socially compatible economic classes alone.