Keywords

1 Introduction

The population of the world has increased rapidly in the last few decades. Countries like China and India have contributed significantly to it. Recent projections from the World Cities Report 2020 (UN-Habitat 2020) indicate that less developed regions such as South Asia, East Asia, and Africa will provide 96% of urban growth, which will be equal to 35% of the global population growth in urban areas between 2018 and 2050. Especially in East and South Asia, the proportion of the population will continue to grow along with the scale and the number of cities (Lerch 2017). Most sustainable urban theories propose increasing the density of development (Lehmann 2016). To house the ever-growing population and increase urban density, high-rise housing has been advocated as a compact, effective, and sustainable solution (Ali and Al-Kodmany 2012). Several advantages, like higher energy efficiency, lesser resource consumption, better accessibility, more profit to developers, privacy, views, and noiselessness, are associated with high-rise housing (Nguyen et al. 2020). As a result, mass high-rise housing has become a widely accepted phenomenon in developing nations like India (Patel 2017).

With all the aforementioned benefits, high-rise housing is still debatable due to its liveability issues (Ram and Needham 2016). Such issues include ruining social relations, lack of safety and security, and mental and physical health problems (Gifford 2007). However, these developments have received several criticisms, especially concerning the socio-spatial quality of the living environment. For example, New Towns in Tehran have been found to be marked by a poor quality of life for residents (Ziari 2006). More recently, evidence from Pakistan points to the incompatibility of new developments with contextual issues such as local culture and social and economic realities (Soomro and Soomro 2018). Also, according to the Global Livability Index 2022, Vienna is the most livable, Mumbai is ranked at 117th position, and Chennai and Ahmedabad are in the 142nd and 146th positions, respectively. The liveability issues have been believed to be a key reason for the decline of high-rise housing in developed nations (Fullagar et al. 2013). However, gated high-rise housing is still being constructed massively in developing nations like India. Thus, it is part of major research around the world with contrasting conclusions. But there is a limitation of such studies in the Indian context making such research an urgent need (Muhuri and Basu 2021). In view of these shortcomings found in the Indian context, the present study based in Ahmedabad seeks to understand the liveability condition of high-rise housing from the viewpoint of residents. The results help find methods to resolve existing problems and improve guidance and criteria for planning and designing high-rise housing projects in the future to construct more livable high-rise housing.

2 Literature Review

Liveability essentially refers to the ability of an environment (built or unbuilt) to offer comfortable living (Martino et al. 2021). Since the concept of liveability involves immediate and tangible conditions and interventions, the concept is challenging to define and assess. Several factors have been associated with it in research, including life quality, safety, health, accessibility to services, cost of living, comfort, air quality, transportation, mobility, living standards, and social involvement (Howley 2010). Furthermore, some researchers have linked, associated, and further refined the concept of liveability with sustainability (sustainable development) (Litman 2011; Lowe et al. 2013). In consideration of this, Litman (2011) noted that liveability is a subsection of sustainability impacts that directly affect people in a community, such as economic development, affordability, public health, social equity, and pollution exposure. It has also been linked to sustainability (sustainable development) as a concept.

The concept of liveability has evolved into a significant domain of theory and practice for architects, urban planners, developers, and policymakers. Often liveability is confused with sustainability (Howley 2010). However, liveability is user-centered, while sustainability focuses on ecology, economy, and equity (Medayese et al. 2021), as shown in Fig. 12.1. Liveability is the contextual and subjective evaluation of the user environment integrating the opinions of multiple users (Liang et al. 2020). It covers several aspects of the existing environment based on the user’s experiences and perceptions. Depending on the focus of studies, previous research demonstrated a wide range of attributes for measuring or achieving liveability and sustainability. Table 12.1 lists livable housing attributes based on various studies.

Fig. 12.1
A diagram of a rhombus highlights the concept of livability and its conflict with gentrification and equity, conflict with the economy in green management, and conflict with ecology in the green crisis. Livability encompasses the user-centered conception. Sustainability encompasses collective goals.

Liveability versus sustainability

Full size image
Table 12.1 Liveability attributes from literature (Lukumanab et al. 2017)
Full size table

A myriad of issues concerning liveability aspects is faced by the gated mass high-rise housing projects that numerous studies have earmarked as under (Wagner and Caves 2012; Harrell et al. 2014; Ruth and Franklin 2014):

  • Structural issues concerning poor quality materials used in the construction industry.

  • Design issues concerning the layout of the floor plans like inadequate spaces, lack of proper lighting and ventilation, and low or negligible community spaces.

  • Issues in the site location of the high-rise, like high density and traffic issues on access roads.

  • Social issues like crime or insecurity in the built areas and the anti-social behavior of the residents.

  • Financial issues, which may impact the affordability of the buyers.

  • Management issues, which may arise due to insufficient resources.

  • Legal issues which are due to loopholes in the legal system and dishonest behavior by a few stakeholders in the construction industry.

  • The wider social–economic problem of increasing inequality dues to the formation of gated communities and contrasting slum populations.

3 Methodology

Gated mass high-rise housing projects are being constructed in India at a very fast pace. It has become the foremost housing form and has greatly changed urban settings and lifestyles. However, research on the liveability performance of these housing projects is limited. To address the identified research gap, the current study aims to explore the liveability potential of gated mass high-rise housing in the Indian context. The key objectives of the research are as follows:

  • To analyze the growth and evolution of gated mass high-rise housings in the Indian context.

  • To investigate the role of such projects in developing the living habits and housing preferences of the inhabitants.

  • To document the features of such projects and examine the actual usage conditions.

  • To evaluate the liveability potential for the residents in such projects and derive recommendations for the improvement of current and development of future projects.

The research shall be conducted by the case study approach. Among the upcoming megacities, Ahmedabad has been selected for conducting the research. The outcomes shall help develop an inhabitants-oriented liveability framework for gated mass high-rise housing projects focusing on its planning and design. By proposing recommendations to augment the liveability conditions of the existing and future such projects, it shall assist the planners, architects, and policymakers in achieving sustainable development.

A multiple-case study with a mixed-method approach is adopted for the current research. It includes historical inquiry, qualitative study, and quantitative surveys. The multiple-case studies are selected in Ahmedabad city. Historical inquiry helps to understand the growth and evolution of gated mass high-rise housing and reveals the past’s influence on the present and future. Moreover, the physical, socio-cultural, economic, and political context of the region can subtly influence the residents’ preferences and the overall environment. India’s long history, diversified cultural and climatic context, and the emergence of a vast middle-income group population in the last few decades have resulted in unique characteristics of high-rise housing development. Thus, it becomes crucial to conduct a historical inquiry. Also, the case studies are selected in a single city (Ahmedabad) to have minimum contextual differences.

The qualitative study includes site investigations, observations, and interviews and helps reveal the residents’ use and perception of liveability in such projects. The findings from the qualitative study help to establish the base to analyze the quantitative surveys. The quantitative surveys assist in understanding the importance and satisfaction of the overall housing environment and liveability at the three spatial levels—apartment (dwelling), apartment building, and housing society. Here, the single house unit is termed a ‘dwelling’, an individual high-rise containing many houses is termed a ‘building’, and the gated community as a compound of many high-rise structures is termed a ‘society’. The importance and satisfaction are measured in two dimensions—physical and psycho-social. Overall, there are 35 indicators divided into two dimensions and three spatial levels. Table 12.2 shows the various indicators for physical and psycho-social dimensions of the three spatial levels identified from the literature.

Table 12.2 List of indicators (Balsas 2004; Li et al. 2012; Leby and Hashim 2010; Liu 2017)
Full size table

The quantitative surveys are based on the responses recorded from a designed questionnaire on the importance and satisfaction levels of the selected indicators by the Importance–Satisfaction Analysis. The method helps in the prioritization of the components and thus can, in turn, help in defining focus areas and efficient resource allocation. The application of the Importance–Satisfaction Model is based on the Importance–Performance Analysis (Phadermrod et al. 2019). Performance has been replaced by satisfaction since satisfaction has become the primary measure of liveability. Importance–Satisfaction Analysis (ISA) is a low-cost, easily understood way to organize information and provide intuitively appealing strategies to set priorities for potential change (Boley et al. 2017). In the current research, the ISA technique represents the scaled importance and satisfaction of each component on two grid axes for comparison.

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Historical Inquiry

The housing development in India has been through enormous transformations down the line owing to its long history and diversified cultural and climatic context. These transformations portray the reforms and developments of society. Dating back to the Indus Valley civilization, identical houses made with timber, stone, and mud bricks, one to three-storied structures, and courtyards were typical in India. In the passage of time, different dynasties ruled the country, and their architectural styles defined the housing development in the country. Even the influence of European powers like the British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese can be seen as distinct typologies and patterns in the various parts of the country. In the recent past, post-independence, a steep rise in migration and change in the settlement patterns of the urban areas was observed. To accommodate the influx of masses in the cities, a number of government housing schemes came up catering to economically weaker sections, low-income groups, and middle-income groups. With new industries and technologies, the concept of townships also started developing in the country. However, the major revolution took place in the early 1990s with the liberalization of the economy, the private sector entered the real estate market, and the idea of gated high-rise housing developments started gaining momentum. With that, the size of the houses started getting smaller, while the number of stories of high-rise housing and the cost of living started increasing.

Generally, buildings between 23 and 150 m are termed high-rises in India. Gated mass high-rise housing developments refer to the group of dwellings having controlled access. These exclusive developments are designed for enhanced security and exclusive amenities. The high-rise buildings having multiple dwellings may have similar or different-sized apartments. Many such additional services of these gated communities come at a substantial cost and thus are out of the reach of the urban poor and lower-middle class. Still, it is a popular trend in Indian cities, and it is projected that by the year 2027, there will be around 24 million households living in such communities with investments worth USD 500 billion. Though the gated developments are highly preferred by the urban rich and upper-middle class, they do impact the cities adversely. Such gated mass housing high-rise developments are exactly opposite to the desired inclusive cities. They make the inequalities of the cities more pronounced and impact the city’s overall mobility. Not only at the city level but several issues at the individual level also occur due to these developments. Isolated living, lost connection with the ground, lesser social and physical activities, and mental barriers due to exclusive spaces are impacting the physical and mental well-being of the inhabitants.

Like most of the old cities of the world, the city of Ahmedabad has developed and grown on the riverbanks of Sabarmati. The eastern side of the river has a walled city with a 500-year-old history, while the western side is where the newer developments took place. The city, being the financial capital of the state of Gujarat, has also been an industrial hub. Search for newer industrial locations in the south and southwestern of the city has led to the development of new housing around those locations outside the walled city. A lot of housing development for the high-income and upper-middle-income groups took place in the western part of the city due to the availability of land and the setting up of several educational and other institutions. This westward growth of housing was earlier dominated by individual bungalow typology. However, with the unavailability and high land prices, the housing sector started getting in the form of high-rise developments. These gated mass high-rise housing developments, mainly catering to the high-income and upper-middle-income groups, have led to phenomenal real estate development in the western edge of the city. Improved road connectivity and commercial development have furthered this growth. Even the changes in the Development Control Regulations of incentivizing affordable housing have helped in this growth. However, the issues of social exclusion and impacts on the individuals’ well-being are raising concerns in these city regions. Keeping all these observations at hand, the qualitative and quantitative study of liveability in these communities are studied further.

4.2 Qualitative Study

The qualitative study included three main approaches site investigations, observations, and interviews. The gated mass high-rise housing developments in the western region of the city, mainly Bopal, Satellite, Thaltej, Shilaj, and Shela, were studied. At the urban neighborhood level, it is observed that the intensity of development was higher for the newer developments. That leads to varied levels of service provision and better accessibility of public transportation to a larger mass of people. However, it aggravated the liveability issues like traffic congestion, noise pollution, and cleanliness. At the housing society level, it is noticed that there is a lack of facilities for activities for children and the elderly as per their population density. Generally, a lack of high-quality planning, sensitivity toward context, and efficient community management strategies is found.

For the apartment building, it is seen that the environmental quality decreased with the increase in the density of construction. Unified building form and design are constructed to save on construction costs and to establish a strong community image; however, it also leads to monotony. The apartment or dwelling unit’s size and layout varied as per the desired luxury and comfort. Also, the features like natural lighting and ventilation differ by apartment units in various gated developments. Shortage or absence of extra spaces like balconies or storage is observed throughout. With the broad understanding gained by the qualitative study, in-depth quantitative surveys are conducted next.

4.3 Quantitative Surveys

As discussed earlier, quantitative surveys are conducted through an online questionnaire by the Importance–Satisfaction Analysis, along with residents’ demographical data and the general features of their housing. A total of 226 responses were recorded from the survey. To determine the internal reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted at various subscales and for importance and satisfaction levels separately. The results are shown in Table 12.3, and a good to excellent degree of reliability is observed.

Table 12.3 Reliability test—Cronbach’s alpha values
Full size table

A five-point Likert scale was adopted to obtain the responses from the residents. The residents rated each indicator ranging from one to five in terms of their importance and satisfaction levels. The rating ranged from 5 to 1 for importance as ‘extremely important’, ‘very important’, ‘important’, ‘somewhat important’, and ‘not important at all’, respectively. For satisfaction, the 5 to 1 rating meant ‘extremely satisfied’, ‘very satisfied’, ‘satisfied’, ‘somewhat satisfied’, to ‘not at all satisfied’, respectively.

The demographical characteristics analyzed in this study are as follows (Fig. 12.2):

Fig. 12.2
4 pie charts. a, there is a high preference for 3 B H K apartment types. B, the distribution of females is notably high, accounting for 54%. C, a high percentage of people aged between 18 and 40, constituting 81%, and d, households with three members are prevalent, with 35%.

Demographics and housing features of the respondents

Full size image

  • Gender: Among the total respondents, the female population (122) was slightly higher than the males (104).

  • Age: A majority of the population belonged to the age group of 18–40, as 183 respondents were from that age group. Forty-three respondents were from the age group of 41–60, while no respondent was 60+.

  • Education level: 122 respondents had done post-graduation or higher, 87 were graduates, and 17 respondents finished high school only.

  • Household Size: Among the 226 respondents, eight respondents had only one member, 44 had two members, 78 had three members, 61 had four members, and 35 had more than five members in the household.

Annual family income was also asked in the survey, but many respondents did not feel comfortable disclosing that.

The general features of housing that were analyzed in the study are as follows:

  • Type of flat: Among the 226 respondents, eight lived in 1 BHK, 26 lived in 2 BHK, 157 lived in 3 BHK, and 35 lived in 4 or more BHK.

  • Number of floors: Among the 226 respondents, 61 lived in an apartment building with 1–5 floors, nine lived in an apartment building with 6–9 floors, and 156 lived in an apartment building with more than ten floors.

  • Number of flats: Among the 226 respondents, 191 had four flats on each floor, while the rest had more than four flats.

  • Number of lifts: Among the 226 respondents, 61 had only one lift, 113 had two lifts in each apartment building, 43 had three lifts, and nine respondents had four lifts.

  • Occupancy role: Among the 226 responses, 96 were apartment owners, while 130 lived as tenants.

  • Tenure of living: Among the 226 respondents, 122 were living in the current apartment for less than a year, 19 were living for around a year, 16 for two to three years, 17 for four to five years, and 52 for more than five years.

The mean value of overall satisfaction with the residential environment was found to be 3.42 on a five-point scale. The mean value of importance for apartment (dwelling) level varies from 4.27 (Safety) to 3.38 (Sound Insulation), while the satisfaction level varies from 4.04 (Natural lighting) to 2.50 (Storage Space) (Tabe 12.4). In the case of apartment building, importance varies from 4.46 (Fire and earthquake safety) to 2.92 (Height), while the satisfaction level varies from 3.50 (Lifts) to 2.85 (Barrier-free design/Ramps) (Table 12.5). For the housing society, importance varies from 4.42 (Parking) to 3.62 (Density/Number of buildings or towers), while the satisfaction level varies from 3.35 (Security) to 2.81 (Barrier-free design/Ramps) (Table 12.6).

Table 12.4 Importance and Satisfaction levels at apartment (dwelling) scale
Full size table
Table 12.5 Importance and Satisfaction levels at apartment building scale
Full size table
Table 12.6 Importance and Satisfaction levels at housing society scale
Full size table

The relative values of importance and satisfaction are plotted, and the crosshair was plotted on the mean of the means of the importance and satisfaction levels of each indicator for the three scales. Indicators are obtained in the four quadrants—concentrate here, keep up the good work, low priority, and possible overkill.

A scatterplot plots importance versus satisfaction for dwelling. Safety, natural lighting, ventilation, comfort, and privacy fall under the keep up the good work category ranging between 3.75 and 4.75 and 4 and 4.25. Construction quality and storage space are in the concentration area.
A scatterplot depicts the importance and satisfaction of an apartment building. Keep up the good work including security and safety, the concentration area encompasses waste management, possible overkill refers to house height and density, and low priority includes barrier-free ramps.
A scatter chart plots the importance and satisfaction at the housing society level. Security, maintenance and management, sense of community, and parking fall under the keep up the good work category, concentrate areas include roads and children's play areas.

5 Conclusion and a Way Forward

The respondents for the survey came from a mix of demographics and housing features. With the importance and satisfaction analysis, it is found that at individual apartment or dwelling level, construction quality, storage space, house layout or plan, and cost parameter need to be concentrated on. At the apartment building level, waste management, management of common facilities, and fire and earthquake safety must be prioritized first. At the housing society level, roads and children’s play areas must first be improved. Safety, ventilation, comfort, privacy, and natural lighting have been highlighted as good work in high-rise housing at the dwelling level. At the apartment building scale, security and lifts have been appreciated. At the housing society level, parking, security, maintenance and management, and a sense of community have been praised.

Overall, it has been realized that gated mass high-rise developments are a viable and practical option among the various housing typologies (Table 12.7). However, special care must be given to planning them comprehensively with user-friendly design and high-quality construction. Further, the development should be carefully maintained and professionally managed to ensure a liveable environment for its inhabitants. Particular emphasis should be given to making these developments inclusive yet safe. The key point to be considered while planning more such projects is how such gated communities can be integrated at the neighborhood scale and eventually at the city scale. Then only these developments can be truly liveable. It is high time that the gated communities be looked beyond their physical borders. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to function as vibrant and multifunctional quality urban spaces and enhance the well-being of the whole neighborhood.

Table 12.7 Priorities for improving liveability potential
Full size table