DELINEATION OF AHMEDABAD METROPOLITAN REGION Center for Environmental

DELINEATION OF AHMEDABAD METROPOLITAN REGION Center for Environmental Planning & Technology (CEPT) By: Prof Utpal Sharma

The Concept and The Objectives “…Compact City Model espouses high density mixed use development within a restrictive geographic area enhanced by public transport…” (Jenks et al 1996; Williams et al 2000) Today it prevails in most planning and city management policies in Europe, USA and Australia. In USA it’s called TODs or Neotraditional Towns promoted through Smart Growth movement. Perceived Objectives are: (Jenks et al. , 1996; Williams et al. , 2000) Saving Agricultural Land: Efficient Sustainable Transportation: • By reducing sprawl, • High Densities support land in the countryside efficient public is preserved transport • Land in urban areas • Mixed Use helps can be recycled for Access; inducing development. shorter trips • People walk/cycle with Better Quality Of Life: • Social Compactness and Mixed Uses tends greater Social Cohesion and Cultural Development • Equitable forms offer Better Access. Benefits by Economies of Agglomeration: • Access to infrastructure served cost-effectively per capita • Further higher densities extend sufficient support to local 2 services and businesses.

Cities on the Move Following database from a set of 278 million plus population cities, explains the dynamics of cities. Top 20 Urban Areas Top 20 Urban Areas ranked by 2005 Land ranked by Density ranked by CAGR (%) (p/sq. km. ) Area (sq. km. ) Beihai 10. 58 Hong Kong 29, 432 11, 26 Ghaziabad 5. 20 29, 161 Sana'a New York 4 Coimbatore 5. 00 26, 527 Surat Tokyo/Yokohama 7, 835 Meerut 4. 99 Mumbai 26, 355 Chicago 5, 952 Kabul 4. 74 26, 012 Lagos Zibo 5, 938 Chittagong 4. 44 25, 949 Faridabad Los Angeles 5, 812 Chongqing 4. 44 23, 316 Dar es Boston 5, 501 Rajkot 22, 740 Salaam Atlanta 5, 083 Indore 4. 39 22, 526 Chittagong Cali 4, 978 Jabalpur 4. 29 22, 143 Toluca Nagoya 4, 662 Khulna 4. 25 Nagpur 21, 773 Philadelphia 4, 661 Dubai 4. 03 21, 624 Luanda Zaozhuang 4, 550 Dhaka 3. 96 21, 577 Nasik Moscow 3, 885 Kanpur 3. 90 21, 057 Kinshasa Dallas/Fort Worth 3, 644 Ahmedabad 3. 89 Allahabad 21, 022 Xian 3, 550 Nairobi 3. 87 20, 545 Dhaka Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto 3, 497 Lucknow 3. 79 20, 074 Patna Houston 3, 355 Patna 3. 72 Nashik 20, 048 Detroit 3, 267 Rajkot 3. 63 19, 879 Jaipur Jakarta 3, 108 Varanasi 3. 60 19, 795 Gujranwala Beijing 3, 043 Vijayawada 3. 49 www. world-gazetteer. com, New www. demographia. com, UITP 2001 Report, www. eia. doe. gov/emeu/iea, www. alain. York 3, 043 3 2005 Population Tokyo/Yokohama 35, 530, 000 New York 19, 712, 000 Seoul/Incheon 19, 500, 000 Jakarta 18, 200, 000 Mexico City 18, 100, 000 São Paulo 17, 800, 000 Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto 17, 250, 000 Mumbai 17, 078, 039 Metro Manila 16, 750, 000 Cairo 15, 750, 000 Delhi 15, 250, 000 Moscow 14, 000 Los Angeles 13, 829, 000 Shanghai 13, 600, 000 Kolkata 13, 217, 000 Buenos Aires 12, 740, 000 Beijing 11, 250, 000 Shenzhen 11, 000 Rio de Janeiro 10, 900, 000 Istanbul 10, 500, 000 (Source: bertaud. com, FTANT Database & FHWA Highway Statistics 2005, Asian Cities Database by ITPD, WRI/EMBARQ & CAI-Asia 2005, Jn. NURM CDPs, ITPS Public Transport for Sustainable Mobility in Asian Cities, DTRS: Australian Trends to 2020

CAGR (%) Vs Density (p/Ha) 5. 20 Surat Predominant Developing Economies Faridabad 4. 20 Dhaka Patna Delhi Pune CAGR (%) 3. 20 Riyadh Dakar Wuhan Jakarta Asansol Medan 2. 20 Bandung Palembang Bangalore Ludhiana Agra Rajkot India Hyderabad Curitiba Surabaya Wulumqi Ho Chi Minh Amritsar Ahmedabad Lucknow Bhopal Kanpur Nagpur Jabalpur Allahabad Meerut Mumbai Kolkata Bogota Tel Aviv Chennai Kochi Manila Cairo Tunis Nanchang Cape Town Nanjing Chengdu Vienna. Bangkok Tehran 1. 20 Singapore Buenos Aires Santiago Guadalajara Rio de Janeiro Seoul Paris Mexico L. America China Hong Kong EU Sapporo Riyadh Tokyo Munich Beijing Warsaw Athens 0. 20 Madrid 41. 5676959619952 Osaka London Manchester 30 80 Busan 37. 34756097 Shanghai Barcelona Shenyang Tianjin Taipei 130 180 Taegu 230 280 330 Density (p/Ha) • CAGR is high for recent developing cities particularly smaller cities of Developing Economies 4 of the World particularly Asian cities with Density Directly Correlated to CAGR by 0. 36.

Riyadh San Francisco Denver Singapore Philadelphia San Diego Houston 0. 072 Detroit San Jose Calgary Baltimore Washington DC Dallas Chicago Toronto Portland Miami Sacramento Phoenix Vancouver New York Los Angeles Brussels Per Cap. Petrol Consumption (bpd) Vs Density (p/Ha) Per Cap. Petroleum Consumption (bpd) 0. 054 Predominant Developed Economies N. America Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Busan Sapporo Tel Aviv Osaka Madrid Stockholm Athens 0. 036 Copenhagen Vienna Barcelona Frankfurt Paris Munich Hamburg Berlin London Marseille Essen Manchester Milan Rome Australia Seoul Hong Kong Taegu Taipei Tehran Kuala Lumpur Guadalajara Riyadh Mexico 0. 018 Bangkok Warsaw Santiago Budapest Buenos Aires Rio de Janeiro Curitiba Johannesberg Cape Town Tunis Chengdu Cairo Lucknow Nagpur Shanghai Nanjing Bogota Wulumqi Dakar Bandung Medan Palembang Nanchang Kanpur Allahabad Beijing Shenyang Surat Tianjin. Kolkata Manila. Chennai Amritsar Patna 11. 1 Jabalpur Mumbai Hyderabad Guangzhou Surabaya Delhi Asansol Hanoi Jakarta Agra Faridabad Ludhiana Pune Wuhan Kochi Bhopal Ahmedabad Dhaka Rajkot Meerut 0. 000 Harare Ho Chi Minh Bangalore Europe S. America 11. 0 61. 0 111. 0 161. 0 211. 0 261. 0 311. 0 Asia -0. 018 Density (p/Ha) • Per Capita Petroleum Consumption high for sprawled or rich cities of Developed Economies 5 of the World particularly American, European and Middle East Asian cities, Inversely

Public Transport Share (%) Vs Density (p/Ha) 1. 00 0. 90 Curitiba Public Transport Share (%) 0. 80 0. 60 Rio de Janeiro Manila Kochi Mexico Guadalajara Paris Osaka Tokyo 0. 50 Bangkok Busan Warsaw Tunis Madrid Jakarta Guangzhou London 0. 40 Mumbai Kolkata Moscow Dakar 0. 70 Hong Kong Predominant Dense or Land Constrained Economies Seoul Singapore Chennai Taegu Faridabad Bangalore Bogota Santiago Delhi Cairo Hyderabad Tehran Surabaya Pune Barcelona Cape Town Buenos Aires Berlin 0. 30 Shanghai Munich Beijing Vienna Sapporo Wuhan Tel Aviv 0. 20 33. 5570469798658 60. 97560973 30 80 130 87. 39837398 102. 97619047619 53. 8742690058475 Taipei Bandung Bhopal Ahmedabad Dhaka 180 Density (%) 40. 2329749103943 128. 398967741936 36. 3306085376927 80. 9222399150743 81. 9672131147541 89. 4134477825465 90. 3338343558282 91. 6114790286976 100. 477083333333 132. 450331125828 140. 7904 Jabalpur 230 196. 765166666667 200. 736144578313 205. 452461538462 210. 221228070175 215. 766690140844 Nagpur Rajkot 280 • Public Transport seems efficient in cities with high intensity or land management/market 7 compulsion with Inverse Correlation to Per Capita Petroleum Share by -0. 35 330

Mexico Transport Infrastructure Johannesbur g Density Gradient London Urban Morphology Bangalore Modal Share Kolkata Berlin 8

Significance of Urban Density, Sprawl and Landuse • Modern city growth patterns are increasingly land-intensive. • Average urban densities have declined for past two centuries. • As transportation continues to improve, the tendency is for cities to use up more and more land person. • This process of Urban Sprawl, largely in noncontiguous transitional zones between countryside and city, is increasingly being referred to as “peri-urbanization”. 9

GUJARAT AHMEDABAD URBANISATION TREND GUJARAT 3 RD MOST URBANISED STATE 38 % URBAN POPULATION INCREASING TO 50 % BY 2021. 60 % OF URBAN POPULATION CONCENTRATED IN THE PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR OF MEHSANA – AHMEDABAD- VALSAD INCREASING TO 72 % BY 2021. AHMEDABAD ACCOUNTS FOR 52 % OF STATE’S GDP AND 35 % OF SECONDARY AND TERTIARY PRODUCTION. CRITICAL ISSUES : STRUCTURED AND GUIDED CONSOLIDATION OF THE URBAN CORRIDORS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY AND ECONOMICAALY SUSTAINBALE MANNER

Greater Ahmedabad 60 Lakh People, 500 Sq. Km 2011 1 Crore People, 800 - 900 Sq. Km 2035

CYBERABAD : REGIONAL CONTEXT A R C H I T E C T S A N D P L A N N E R S

URBANISATION MODEL HYDERABAD : MULTIPLE NUCLEI ( TRI CITY CONCEPT )

Mumbai : Bandra-Kurla Complex, KALYAN International Finance and Trade Centre THANE IFBC, BKC BELAPUR SOUTH MUMBAI

AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2001 COMPOSITE POPULATION : 48 LACS WORKERS : 17 LACS Industries : 4 Lacs Commerce: 12 Lacs AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2021 COMPOSITE POPULATION : 94 LACS WORKERS : 32 LACS Industries : 7 Lacs Commerce: 25 Lacs ADDITIONAL POPULATION BY 2021 : 46 LACS ADDITIONAL JOBS BY 2021 : 15 LACS ASSUMING 35 % POPLTN & JOBS CONTAINED IN ECOPOLIS +NATURE CITY POPULATION IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY : 16 LACS ECOPOLIS : 10 + LACS NATURE CITY : 5 + LACS JOBS IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY : 5. 4 LACS ECOPOLIS : 3. 7 LACS NATURE CITY : 1. 7 LACS

SITE CONTEXT : AUDA GUDA DP ECOPOLIS- NATURE CITY LARGELY FALL WITHIN GUDA PRESENT ZONES WITHIN ECOPOLIS : • Agriculture • Commercial • Residential

ECOPOLIS LANDUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

Ahmedabad Urban Land Use Simulation 20112021 Ahmedabad Existing 2001 No. Land Use 1 Area (Ha. ) % Ahmedabad 2011 BAU BUA FSI util. ** No. Land Use (Ha) Residential llage 3. 27% 0. 44 584. 64 748. 64 2. 65% 0. 70 524. 05 3 Industrial 3780. 83 9. 27% 0. 62 2345. 50 4 Public & Semi public 2585. 67 6. 34% 0. 21 549. 42 n 5388. 76 13. 22% Roads and railways 2669. 67 6. 55% 1461. 97 3. 59% 402. 71 4 Industrial 3579. 50 12. 69% 0. 55 1953. 60 5 AMC Plots 467. 18 1. 66% 0. 50 233. 59 6 Open / Vacant Land 4514. 36 16. 00% Open 5 Space/Gardens/Recreatio 6 Yard Burial Ground / 86. 54 0. 31% Roads/Railway land 2204. 65 7. 82% Water bodies 4475. 55 15. 87% 28210. 00 100. 00 Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011 AD Area * No. Land Use % Part I, Vol. 2 (Ha. ) ** Delphi Technique 11176. 10 39. 62% 1 Residential Water bodies (including 7 rivers) TOTAL 9916. 79 % Land Use 2011 Proposed Ahmedabad Compact City Gross FSI util. ** util. = BUA 0. 35 (Ha) 0. 80 8968. 69 I, Vol. 2 No. Delphi Technique Land Use ** 1 Residential 2 Area (Ha. ) 0. 34 util. = % BUA FSI util. ** (Ha) 11486. 0 1. 18 5 Commercial 2655. 12 9. 41% 1. 12 2986. 20 3 Industrial 1310. 92 4. 65% 1. 75 2294. 11 4 Public & Semi public 3277. 30 11. 62% 1. 00 3186. 04 al 5260. 32 18. 65% Roads and railways 5260. 32 18. 65% 8. 38% 0. 83 1953. 17 3 Industrial 1402. 18 4. 97% 1. 41 1974. 70 2 4 Public & Semi public 3393. 52 12. 03% 0. 63 2150. 62 Open 4231. 50 15. 00% Open Space/Gardens/Recreatio 5 n rivers) % 33. 65% 2364. 70 Water bodies (including 40770. 58 13671. 7 9491. 82 Commercial 7 100. 00 Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011 AD Part Gross FSI Proposed Ahmedabad Compact City Land Use 2021 * 2 Roads and railways 7 1334. 98 0. 40 6 0. 43 Commercial 3. 60% 5 57. 76% 2 1014. 55 TOTAL 23548. 70 6802. 84 Public/Semi Public 9 Residential 0. 61 3 8 (Ha) 39. 42% Commercial Grave BUA FSI util. ** 11119. 03 2 7 (Ha. ) % 10192. 1 1 General/Gamtal/Vi Area 4687. 80 16. 62% 954. 20 3. 38% 6 Space/Gardens/Recreation Water bodies (including 19