Land Costs and Urban Peripheries: The Real Bottleneck for Affordable Housing

Affordable housing has been in the nexus of social justice, urban planning and economic growth in India. It is not actually building houses but making sure that everyone has access to a secure and dignified housing that will allow social mobility and economic involvement. Nevertheless, even with decades of plans and policies, such as Indira Awas Yojana to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), the housing shortage in India, especially in a city, is a thorn in the flesh.

The cost of land is one of the factors that has dominated this crisis. As much as the talk on the increase in construction cost, materials and labour take headlines, the real problem is that the city land itself has become unaffordable expensive, limiting what and where can be constructed cheaply.

Land is not a homogenous commodity, it is a geographical resource whose value relies on the place, infrastructure, accessibility and regulatory allowances. The value of land in the Indian cities has been increasing at a rate which is much higher than the rate of growth of income and inflation in the last 20 years. This has made it almost impossible to construct really affordable housing in or around urban centres unless heavily subsidized or plots of land are provided by government.

The developers must go further out-of-town to the outskirts of metropolitan areas where land is less expensive but the infrastructure is inadequate, transport connections are poor, and societal facilities are few. The implications of this spatial disparity between the place where affordable housing is constructed and where jobs exist on the participation and sustainability of the cities are far-reaching.

The outcome is a paradox: the cities of India are simply expanding, and the poor people are becoming even more marginalized. Peripheral housing is potentially cheaper to construct, but due to the location, the defeat of affordability is likely when it comes to transport costs, commute time, and the loss of social capital. The difficulty, however, is not merely to build more housing, but affordable housing where it is needed, where it is needed in such distances to the urban centre as to give access to the livelihoods and services.

The Rising cost of Urban Land.

The value of urban land in India has been dramatic within the past twenty years. A confluence of speedy urbanization, speculative development, and short supply of serviced land has stipulated a rise in land prices in most major metropolitan regions more rapidly than the price of construction or even the demand of housing itself. In most Tier 1 cities, the area is 30-60 percent of the overall cost of a residential unit, whereas in a city centre, it may be more than 70 percent. Even with such proportions, the cost of affordable housing is not financially viable except when the land is offered at concessional rates or subsidized by the government.

This tendency cannot be attributed to the market forces only but also to structural and policy one. The availability of developable land is limited due to old land-use plans, property records and very long procedures of acquiring or converting the land. Urban land ceiling laws that had been repealed in most states left behind them a legacy of disjointed holdings and incoherent titles.

Also, the speculative investors who expect future development and development typically ensure that the land is not utilized, thereby increasing scarcity and prices. Land is not a construction material or a source of labour, unlike either of them; the limited supply of urban areas in desirable areas means that growth of demand directly converts to price increase.

Financialization is another aspect of land price inflation. The real estate has grown to become an investment good and not a consumption good. The urban land is frequently a store of value to institutional investors, private equity funds and high net worth individuals who further disconnect prices with the affordability point of end-users. Even government prices such as circle rates are way below the market reality and this allows speculative gains and shadow deals that make land acquisition non transparent and expensive.

The state has also lost its grip in the control of land supply. Government lands that are large in size such as railway, defense, and municipal lands are either not utilized properly or are not utilized at all due to bureaucracy. In the meantime, urban local bodies do not have the financial resources to make or maintain land towards housing.

In the absence of an aggressive land policy, the market is run in the environment of scarcity, which favors the speculators and punishes the developers as well as the low-income households. The consequence of this is that the affordability problem gets structural: although the cost of construction may be low and the subsidies increased, the bottom price of land remains to destabilize financial feasibility.

Infrastructural asymmetries are also expressed in the cost of land. The locations close to transit lines, workplaces, or facilities that are accessible to the citizens naturally attract a higher price. The difference in distribution of infrastructure leads to the formation of islands of affordability, as the only areas that are accessible to affordable projects are the periphery and the poorly connected areas. This spatial distortion will continue unless urban planning is performed by incorporating land and transport policy. Increasing prices of land are therefore a kind of gatekeeper, who decides who will live where and who will not fall into the urban mainstream.

The Peripheralization of Affordable Housing

With increasing prices of land in the inner city areas, developers are bound to flock to the outskirts of the city where the land and its acquisition are much more affordable. This is what is termed as the peripheralization which has turned out to be the spatial trend of affordable housing in India. New belts of cheap projects are now emerging tens of kilometers out of central business districts- in the outskirts of Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Bengaluru, and Chennai often in areas that were a few years ago agricultural or semi-rural.

On the surface, this appears to be a logical market reaction to the situation: when the land is pricey in the center, go to the periphery. Peripheralization has very serious social, economic and environmental repercussions. Lower-income residents are isolated because the affordable housing is constructed far away from the urban employment centers, and they do not have access to schools and healthcare.

The commutes may go over two hours per way, which is not very productive or good in life. The cost of transport is taking an increasing percentage of household income, cancelling the nominal savings of the reduced rent or EMIs. Therefore, what seems convenient on paper does not seem convenient in actuality where the daily cost of mobility is factored in.

Peripheral housing is also a burden to urban infrastructure. Power, water, sewage, and roads should be extended around the outside, which frequently outpaces the ability of local authorities to plan and fund such expansion. The development of the patchwork after this is discontinuous, under-serviced and not linked, which leads to urban sprawl but not urbanity. These areas are rarely served in an efficient manner by the public transport systems and this means that people have to use their own cars or informal transportation, contributing to the traffic jams and the emissions. The cheap housing is a compromise on housing and accessibility.

Besides, the social segregation is entrenched in peripheralization. Urban integration is hampered when the enclave of low-income households is remote. Schools, hospitals and civic facilities are left behind; informal settlements can tend to proliferate around such developments as workers move in search of construction work, or service work. The spatial distance between the rich and the poor is then increased with time and the periphery is connoted to the exclusion.

Looking at planning, overdependence on peripheral land defeats sustainable urban form. Mixed-use development that is small and located close to transit corridors, i.e., what urbanists call trans-it-oriented development (TOD) is more efficient, equitable, and environmentally friendly. But TOD can only be coordinated during the initial phase between housing, land-use and transit investment that few Indian cities have accomplished. The current trend of housing and infrastructure development, cities have become stuck in inefficient spatial arrangements, which are costly to redevelop..

Policy Frameworks and the Politics of Land

The land is political in nature. The more profound power structures in society are reflected in decisions of who holds power over it, how it is appreciated and the beneficiaries of its development. The land politics in India has had a significant influence on the housing scenario. Rules that are pertaining to land acquisition, conversion, and development rights are convoluted, overlapping and inconsistent within states. These layers of controls not only increase the transaction costs, but also provide good platforms of rent-seeking and litigation, which increase prices and slow down projects.

At the policy level, governments over time have realized that affordable housing is pegged on the supply of land, but the policy has been slow. Mechanisms to deliver serviced land, Smart Cities Mission, PMAY (Urban) and AMRUT all have recognized the necessity of the existence of serviced land. The policy of land pooling and readjustment (implemented in such states as Delhi and Gujarat) has its prospects, yet there are challenges in the coordination process, problems with compensation, and infrastructure financing. The land banks, which are a common phenomenon in such countries as Singapore or South Korea, have not been widely developed in India because of the fiscal and institutional restrictions.

Political economy is also a contributor to the high land prices. The political pressures in urban areas and the interests of real-estates and of electoral considerations help to influence the urban expansion decisions. Zoning of land-use or norms of Floor Space Index (FSI) may yield huge windfall profits to chosen landowners, which encourage non-use holding speculation. In the meantime, the absence of a publicly available land registry makes the valuation opaque and market information unbalanced. Approvals also require huge premiums and this contributes another layer of cost to the end price of housing.

Any effort by the central and state governments to reform land markets has not gone anywhere due to the clashing interests between the urban local governments who want revenue defamed through land conversion, developers who are pressing to ease the norms, and citizens who want transparency and equity in land conversion. Efforts such as the Model Tenancy Act and computerization of land records are progressive but fail to address the actual issue of the lack of land within urban centers. The absence of a coordinated national urban land management framework makes the policies in a patchy mode.

Speculation, Infrastructure, and Uneven Development

Probably the most pernicious reason behind the increase of the land cost is speculative investment. The investors would buy peri-urban land in anticipation of an increment in the urban growth or infrastructure development, and would keep the land idle awaiting the development. The infrastructure announcements such as new highways, metro lines, and industrial corridors are instantly converted into land speculations and this forces the prices up before the construction has commenced. This creates a vicious circle: speculation leads to price inflation, further speculation is justified as a consequence; this displaces the end-users and developers of projects with accessible land; it makes their projects self-perpetuating.

Spatial inequality is brought by infrastructure itself. Regions that enjoy good connectivity in terms of metro lines, arterial roads, or airports experience a geometrical growth in the presence of land value, and other areas fail to grow. This imbalanced distribution of infrastructures leads to an unbalanced pattern of urban growth: developers pursue land along high-price paths, disregarding other potentially useful locations. The housing becomes unaffordable driving even cheaper housing much further away to form a patchyquet of gated enclaves and disjointed low-income neighborhoods.

Municipal finance is also bent by speculative processes. The urban local bodies have no incentive to keep a check on land price inflation because they rely greatly on property-oriented revenues (stamp duty, conversion fees and development charges). In other situations, a municipality will intentionally re-zone an area or a given infrastructure development that increases property value, not focusing on affordability but focusing on quick fiscal payoff. Local finances are pegged to market fluctuations instead of actively planned because of this reliance on land-based revenue.

Additionally, speculation creates ineffectiveness. Unproductive land is wasted potential- it does not provide any shelter, it does not create any work place and it increases the scarcity. The artificial reduction of the supply of developable plots reduces the availability of the supply of the land; this is caused by the vast tracts of peri-urban land being put under legal or speculative hold, which exacerbates the price pressures. In the meantime, infrastructure tailored to speculative development is either not being used or is not of the right type to meet the actual housing requirements.

To solve this, the governments need to embrace land value capture systems, which is a tool that will recover some section of the unearned returns on the government investment to serve the purposes of the citizens. This may be in form of betterment levies, infrastructure impact fees or transferable development rights which promote development in desirable areas. Speculation can be checked and maximum benefit to the populace attained by setting infrastructure investment to flow in line with inclusive housing objectives.

Conclusion

Affordable housing in India is a subject of debate that may refer to the finance, subsidies, and construction technology. But as this discussion shows, something still more fundamental is limiting; the price, the location, and the government of land. Not only is the feasibility of housing projects determined by land costs, but also the geography of opportunity itself. When the territory in urban areas is made unavailable to them, the poor are pushed to the periphery and the city is discontinued into the privileges and peripheries of the city.

Such a structural bottleneck cannot be solved in terms of a piecemeal intervention or temporary subsidies. It requires a paradigm shift in the way cities plan, appreciate and distribute land. This should be aimed at re-integrating housing and infrastructure, employment, and services-to rebuild proximity as a measure of affordability. The policymakers should consider land as a resource held in common whose value when augmented by collective investment should ultimately be held in common.

The urban development in the future must not be counted in terms of houses constructed but in the ways of the inclusiveness of the houses location. The cities should be built on equitable and sustainable land management, redevelopment, and inclusionary zoning to restore affordability to the city core. Otherwise, India is facing the danger of building a terrain of peripheries - interminable housing, interminable growth without connectivity.

Affordable housing is not merely a matter of shelter, but also a matter of justice. It is based on land, both literally and figuratively. The rebalancing of politics and economics of urban land will make the dream of housing everybody a mere dream until it is actualized in the far-off.

Also Read: Urban Housing Policy In Ethiopia