Planning for high density in low-income Informal settlements

Introduction

Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, faces immense pressure from rapid urbanization, with over 60% of its population living in informal settlements (katchi abadis). These areas are marked by extreme density, inadequate infrastructure, and insecure tenure, yet they house the city’s essential workforce. This document examines four case studies—Orangi Town, Korangi, Lyari, and Baldia—to explore how planning can address high-density low-income settlements while improving living conditions.

Key Themes

1. Informal Density as a Reality: Unlike planned high-rises, informal settlements organically grow vertically and horizontally, often without state support.

2. Community-Led Upgrading: Residents frequently self-organize to provide services like water, sewage, and roads.

3. Policy Gaps: Government interventions often fail to align with grassroots needs, exacerbating inequities.

Case Study 1: Orangi Town – The Power of Self-Help

Context: Asia’s largest katchi abadi, home to ~2.5 million, developed incrementally over decades.

Lessons:

• Orangi Pilot Project (OPP): A pioneering NGO effort supported residents to build their own sewer systems. Households pooled resources, reducing costs by 80% compared to government projects.

• Scalability: The model succeeded because it respected local knowledge and finances. However, city-wide replication stalled due to lack of institutional support.

• Limits of Informality: While OPP improved sanitation, tenure insecurity and overcrowding persisted, highlighting the need for holistic planning.

Takeaway: Community-driven solutions work but require state partnership to scale.

Case Study 2: Korangi – Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up

Context: A 1960s resettlement zone for displaced migrants, later densified informal settlements.

Lessons:

• Failed Master Plans: Planners initially imposed grid layouts, but residents adapted spaces to their needs (e.g., converting courtyards into rental units).

• Neglect of Density: Services like water and schools lagged behind population growth, forcing DIY solutions.

• Hybrid Models: Later projects incorporated input from CBOs (Community-Based Organizations), showing better outcomes.

Takeaway: Rigid planning ignores organic growth; flexibility is key.

Case Study 3: Lyari – Historic Density and Conflict

Context: One of Karachi’s oldest settlements, with a mix of historic homes and informal expansions.

Lessons:

• Cultural Resilience: Narrow streets and shared courtyards fostered social cohesion but hindered emergency access.

• Violence and Displacement: Political conflicts led to uneven development, with some areas receiving upgrades while others were neglected.

• Heritage vs. Modernization: Balancing historic preservation with infrastructure needs remains contentious.

Takeaway: Planning must address socio-political dynamics, not just physical space.

Case Study 4: Baldia – Industrial Pressures

Context: Adjacent to industrial zones, with severe environmental hazards.

Lessons:

• Pollution and Health: Factories and dense housing created toxic living conditions (e.g., asthma, water contamination).

• Land Grabbing: Industrial encroachment pushed residents into ever-smaller plots.

• Advocacy Wins: Community protests secured some relocation programs, but enforcement was weak.

Takeaway: Economic priorities often override livability; zoning must protect residents.

Cross-Cutting Insights

1. Density ≠ Problem: High density is sustainable if paired with services (e.g., transit, clinics).

2. Tenure Security: Lack of land titles discourages investment in housing upgrades.

3. Incremental Upgrading: Small, phased improvements (e.g., OPP’s sewers) outperform bulldoze-and-rebuild approaches.

4. Data Gaps: City planners lack accurate maps or population data for informal areas.

Recommendations

1. Participatory Planning: Engage communities in design (e.g., via CBOs).

2. Pro-Density Policies: Allow mixed-use zoning and incremental vertical growth.

3. Infrastructure Parity: Extend water, electricity, and sewage networks to informal areas.

4. Land Reform: Simplify tenure regularization to incentivize upgrades.

Conclusion

Karachi’s informal settlements are not failures but adaptations to systemic exclusion. The case studies show that solutions exist when communities lead and governments listen. The path forward requires ditching outdated master plans for flexible, inclusive approaches that treat density as an asset—not a problem.

Final Thought: As cities globally grapple with inequality, Karachi’s lessons resonate: planning with people, not for them, is the only way to build equitable urban futures.

Also Read: Rapid Housing Development in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Lessons for the Dutch Randstad