Housing typologies have been engaging the attention of architects, planners and the agencies involved in planning and construction of housing. Different typologies have been evolved and debated in terms of their limitations and positivity. Attempt has been made in the text to compare, contrast and evaluate two typopgies of houssing which remain most favoured with the house builders- Platted development/ Flatted development. Looking at the entire context, it appears that despite limitations, Flatted Development offers the best option for creating mass housing, economizing cost of construction; optimization of land utilization; promoting community centric housing; creating safe neighborhoods; promoting innovations and using state of art technologies; making cities compact and reducing cost of services; promoting large-scale rain water harvesting; promoting inhouse reuse/recycle of waste; reducing water /energy consumption; making community net- zero water/ net-zero energy; creating culture of urban agriculture and minimizing inter-city travel and traffic. Flatted development is known for social, economic, environmental and physical advantages besides making cities clean and green. It is also known to create win-win situation for both individuals, communities, city, state and nation. However, the positivity of flatted development will largely depend upon the innovative options used/adopted for planning, designing, construction and management of such housing.

1. Housing Typologies---
Difference Between Plotted Development (PD) and Flatted Development (FD)
* Jit Kumar Gupta
mail- jit.kumar1944@gmail.com
Housing, because of its magnitude and quantity, remains the major and important
component of any city. Occupying largest proportion of urban land, housing is also
known to be the definer of the personality of the city. Urban housing comes in number
of variants and typologies. However, these variants can be divided into two broad
categories. These categories are generally defined as plotted development and flatted
development. There is a third variant, which is a mix of plotted and flatted development.
These categories have their own advantages, disadvantages, limitations and implications.
Debate has been going on to understand the implications of these typologies in terms of
physical, social, economic and environmental contexts including cost-effectiveness and
utilization of land. Accordingly, attempt has been made to understand the context of these
broad typologies in the parlance of planning, designing, construction, economy, cost-
effectiveness, operational efficiency, utilization of land, creating housing stock, pattern of
development, land ownership etc., as detailed below.
PD- stands for Plotted Development; FD- Flatted Development.
i. Pattern of Development
PD- Involves development based on and comprising of number of plots having variable
size- both smaller and larger size
FD- Involves development based on plot having much larger area as compared to plotted
development
ii. Pattern of Land Ownership
PD- Land generally owned individually or jointly in the name of few family/friends to
promote individual housing
FD- Land held in joint ownership of all stakeholders comprising of all the flat owners
on the plot.
iii. Pattern of development- Height
PD- Low rise-- going generally up to 3/4 stories
FD- High rise --generally going 4 or more stories.
iv. Land Utilisation

2. PD- Low level of land utilisation -with larger area going under roads, opens spaces and
community facilities
FD- High land utilisation--with smaller area going under roads, opens spaces and
community facilities
v. Population/Housing Density
PD—Low density and low population-- due to individual ownership, depending on size of
plots carved. Smaller the size of plots, higher will be the density and population.
Population also depends upon individual capacity, resources or willingness to construct
entire or part of building
FD- High density-- due to joint ownership, depending upon combined resources and
combined effort of all stakeholders to provide dwelling to all land owners, developed to
full capacity using full density and floor area ratio.
vi. Open Spaces
PD- Small in area - Open spaces available within plots and held in private ownership with
use limited to only by the owners- Increases need for provision of large common open
spaces at the neighbourhood/sub-sector/sector level for the community.
FD- Large in area- jointly held in ownership to be used widely for the benefit of all the
residents. Help reduce making provision of large open spaces at the sector level.
vii. Cost of Construction
PD- Generally high—due to independent construction and being low rise buildings
FD- Generally low-- due to multiple and repetitive design of dwelling units and sharing of
the foundation, walls and open spaces etc
viii. Social Sustainability
PD- Low social sustainability-- due to lower social interaction promote by individual living
FD- High social sustainability-- due to higher social interaction based on community living
ix. Safety and Security
PD—Low order of safety and security - due to individual living
FD- High degree of safety and security--due to community living
x. Pattern of Living
PD- Promotes individual living leading to anonymity and exclusion
FD- Promotes community living leading to higher social interaction
xi. Design of Unit

3. PD- More flexibility in design--due to single unit and limited ownership- bases on owners
choice.
FD- Low design flexibility --due to multiple units and joint ownership leading to repetitive
nature of design of dwelling units- based on common consensus.
xii. Cost of Maintenance of Services
PD- Higher cost-- due to individual maintenance. Expensive considering life-cycle cost of
building.
FD- Low maintenance cost- due to collective maintenance done by society created by the
flat owners. Monthly maintenance charges paid by each flat owner. Cost- effective
considering life –cycle cost
xiii. Creation of Housing Stock
PD- Low capacity to create housing stock- due to non-construction on plot in one go
leading to lower land utilisation
FD- High housing stock- due to construction of all flats in one go – leading to higher land
utilization
xiv. Affordable Housing
PD- Makes cost of housing high and unaffordable-- due to land cost and cost of
construction--. Inefficient method to create large affordable housing stock
FD- Makes housing cost-effective and affordable-- due to shared land cost and lower cost
of construction, best method to create large housing stock
xv. Sustainability
PD- Low sustainability-due to large dependence on common facilities and services
provided at the neighbourhood level.
FD- High sustainability- due to provision of common facilities and basic services as part
of group housing
xvi. Technologies
PD- Offers limited options for using state of art construction technologies and minimising
cost
FD- Offers large options for using state of art construction technologies to promote cost
and material efficiency
xvii. Green & Energy Efficient Buildings
PD- Offers limited effective /efficient and cost-effective options-- for promoting energy
efficiency, rain water harvesting, ground water recharging and solid waste management

4. FD- Offers large effective/efficient and cost-effective options--for promoting energy
efficiency, rain water harvesting, ground water recharging and solid waste management-
based on community living.
xviii Ground Coverage
PD- Ground coverage generally higher-- as compared to flatted development
Ground coverage and FAR varies and gets lower with increase in plot area.
Number of development units and population density not defined for plotted development
FD- Ground coverage generally low as compared to plotted development
Ground coverage and FAR donot change even with increase/decrease in plot area.
Development largely governed by pre-defined density, floor area ratio, height, ground
coverage and size of dwelling units.
xix Parking Norms
PD- Parking norms are generally not defined for plotted development.
FD- Parking norms are clearly and precisely defined--for flatted development, depending
on the size and category/number of dwelling units
xx Rate of Return
PD-- Offers better internal rate of return for developers/owners due to higher demand
from investors, clear land ownership and faster disposal. Popular in small and medium
towns.
FD - Offers comparatively lower internal rate of return for developers/owners – generally
due to lower demand from investors, no defined title to land and slow disposal. Most
popular in large size/metro cities, where land prices are high.
xxi Completion of Project
PD— Faster Completion of projects as compared to build up flats
FD—Takes large time for completion of project- due to scale of project and large numbers
of houses to be constructed and problem of co-ordination and co-operation among
members of society
xxii Risk
PD—Lower risk- due to quick approval and faster disposal, with low risk due to minimum
construction involved and faster exit from project
FD— High risk- due to multiple approvals and slow disposal, with higher risk due to large
scale construction involved and slow exit from project.

5. xxii Affordability
PD— Plots are more affordable and cater to wider segments of society by offering
numerous options to buyers due to varying sizes of plots
FD— Flats generally become unaffordable and offer limited options to buyers due to their
built up nature , predefined design and area.
xxiii Acceptability
PD— Plots are always acceptable and liked by buyers even in adverse market conditions
due to human psyche of owning land. Plots are universally accepted both in large and
small towns.
FD—Flats have low level of acceptability particularly in the adverse market conditions.
Flats have least acceptability in small towns and are generally favoured inthe large towns.
xxiv Developer’s Preference
PD- Plotted development --has always been preferred by developers having large chunk
of land and resources-- due to early exit and making large profit with minimal effort
FD—- Flatted development-- has generally been preferred by small developers having
smaller chunk of land with limited resources .
xxv Land Cost
PD- Low land cost in majority of cases promotes plotted development with large plot area.
Plot size and Land Cost are negatively correlated with plot size going small with increase
in land prices..
FD- High land cost discourages plotted development but leverages flatted development.
Land Cost and building footprints are negatively co-related with flat size reducing with
increase in land prices.
xxvi Housing Stock
PD- Plotted development –worst and most inefficient option for creating large housing
stock
FD—- Flatted development—best and most cost-effective option to create large housing
stock at most affordable price
xxvii Living
PD- Plotted development –best option for individual based/ family living for young
people
FD—- Flatted development—best option for living in case of individuals, working/old age
couples etc.
xxviii Safety

6. PD- Plotted development –low level of safety and security
FD- Flatted development-- High level of safety and security
xxxix Self- sufficiency
PD- Plotted development –less self-sufficiency-high dependence on neighbourhood level
facilitiesi
FD- Flatted development—More self-sufficiency- due to provision of common facilities-
parks, shops, community spaces, crèche, school etc. within the society complex
Looking at the entire context, it appears that despite limitations, Flatted Development
offers the best option for creating mass housing, economizing cost of construction;
optimization of land utilization; promoting community centric housing; creating safe
neighborhoods; promoting innovations and using state of art technologies; making cities
compact and reducing cost of services; promoting large-scale rain water harvesting;
promoting inhouse reuse/recycle of waste; reducing water /energy consumption; making
community net- zero water/ net-zero energy; creating culture of urban agriculture and
minimizing inter-city travel and traffic. Flatted development is known for social, economic,
environmental and physical advantages besides making cities clean and green. It is also
known to create win-win situation for both individuals, communities, city, state and nation.
However, the positivity of flatted development will largely depend upon the innovative
options used/adopted for planning, designing, construction and management of such
housing.