Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward

INDIAN HOUSING FEDERATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
ALL
Challenges, Opportunities, and Way Forward
INDIAN
HOUSING
FEDERATION

DEVELOPER - LED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This Research was initiated by the Indian Housing Federation (IHF) with the generous
support of the Tata Trust. The original mandate was to ‘rate’ affordable housing projects in
India. As a first step, we approached several developers who have been working in this
space. However, initial conversations with the developer community brought in the
realization that not many were willing to be rated and rightly so. IHF is a fledgling set-up
and there are other more sought after credible ratings tools and organizations in the market.
Yet, in the same conversations, we found allies who were keen to contribute to a knowledge
platform around affordable housing. Why did we choose to focus on the developer- led
housing projects? Since 1993, both internationally and nationally there has been an increased
emphasis on roping in the private sector to deliver on affordable housing. The premise is
that the state has failed in delivering this basic need and right. Since then there has been
much cacophony around developer-led affordable housing projects and the ability of this
stakeholder to bridge the ever-increasing demand-supply gap. This study analyses eight
developer-led affordable housing projects in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, and Ghaziabad
(NCR) with the objective of unpacking the hype and enthusiasm associated with these
projects. We attempt to understand the efficacy (or not) of this model by analyzing the
projects along various dimensions. However, as in all studies, there are limitations to this
one too. A significant one is ascertaining whether the houses built by these developers are,
in effect, occupied by the EWS and the LIG. Wehad to rely pretty much on the data provided
by the developers. Furthermore, given the complexities of defining/understanding
affordability, this task was even more daunting.
This report has been possible owing to the hard work and support of several individuals.
We are thankful to all the developer s and their team members, namely, DBS communities
from Ahmedabad, Vastushodh and Playtor from Pune, Garg Group from Ghaziabad (NCR)
and Olympeo from Mumbai, for providing unstinted support and cooperation throughout
the process of this documentation and for the trust reposed in us. We are also thankful to
Housing finance institution like MHFC and HFFC and to all those community members in
various locations who provided insightful peeks into their experiences. Lastly, we would
like to extend a big thanks to the IHF internal team. To Sayali and Vishad for their
passionate engagement with the field in all the cities, to Vaishali and Meghna for quickly
aligning with the analysis and the report production task, to Mani for his intellectual and
practical insights that undoubtedly facilitated a larger understanding of the housing space
and to Anjali for spearheading the research and documentation, and for actively engaging

3
with the stakeholders through the entire process.
We would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to TATA TRUST for their generous
support through the course of research and analysis.
Team IHF 31st August, 2017
INDIAN
HOUSING
FEDERATION

4
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures:........................................................................................................................................ 6
List of Tables: ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Glossary: ................................................................................................................................................. 7
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 10
2. CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................... 11
3. IHF GENESIS AND PHILOSOPHY ........................................................................................... 12
4. THE STUDY RATIONALE, RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION .................................... 13
5. METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 15
6. EMERGING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES .............................................................................. 16
A. Geographical Appropriateness: Connectivity through Public Transport .................................. 18
B. Design Appropriateness andQuality of Construction ............................................................... 19
C. Access to Basic Services, Facilities and Thereby the Quality of Life....................................... 19
D. Knowledge of and Access to Housing Finance ........................................................................ 20
7. SURVEYED PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 22
1. DBS Communities .................................................................................................................... 23
1. Location and Background:.................................................................................................... 24
2. Targeted Customers, Demand and Supply: .......................................................................... 27
3. Connectivity to Work/Employment Centers: ....................................................................... 28
4. Access to Basic Services: ..................................................................................................... 28
5. Design and Construction:...................................................................................................... 28
6. Access to Social Infrastructure:............................................................................................ 30
7. Access to Housing Finance Institutions:............................................................................... 30
8. Post Occupancy Operations and Maintenance:..................................................................... 31
9. Social Marketing:.................................................................................................................. 31
2. VASTUSHODH ....................................................................................................................... 32
2. Targeted Customers, Demand and Supply:........................................................................... 34
3. Connectivity to Work/ Employment Centers:....................................................................... 35
4. Access to Basic Services:...................................................................................................... 35
5. Design and Construction....................................................................................................... 36
6. Access to Social Infrastructure: ............................................................................................ 36
3. GARG GROUP......................................................................................................................... 37

5
4. PLAYTOR................................................................................................................................ 43
5. OLYMPEO ............................................................................................................................... 47
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................... 50
1. Location and Background......................................................................................................... 51
2. Targeted Customers, Demand and Supply................................................................................ 51
3. Connectivity to Work/Employment Centers............................................................................. 52
4. Access to Basic Services........................................................................................................... 54
5. Design and Construction........................................................................................................... 54
6. Access to Social Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 55
7. Access to Housing Finance Institutions.................................................................................... 55
8. Post Occupancy Operations and Maintenance.......................................................................... 55
9. Social Marketing Strategy......................................................................................................... 56
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 56
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 58

6
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Project and Developer Location............................................................................................ 15
Figure 2: Timeline of DBS Communities Projects ............................................................................... 23
Figure 3: Umang Lambha ..................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Umang Narol 1&2................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 5: Umang Vatva......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Location Map of Umang Lambha, Umang Narol 1& 2, Umang Vatva ................................ 26
Figure 7: Floor Layout of 1RK and 1BHK Block ................................................................................ 29
Figure 8: Type 2 Layout, Umang Lambha............................................................................................ 29
Figure 9: Type 1 Layout, Umang Lambha............................................................................................ 29
Figure 10: Timeline of Vastushodh Anandgram Projects..................................................................... 32
Figure 11: Locations of Anandgram Wakhari and Anandgram Yavat ................................................. 33
Figure 12: Yavat Block with self-occupied houses............................................................................... 36
Figure 13: Yavat Block with rented houses.......................................................................................... 36
Figure 14: Timeline of Garg group affordable housing projects .......................................................... 38
Figure 15: Location Map of Dinesh Nagar; Major Nodes in Regional Context................................... 38
Figure 16: Dinesh Nagar....................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 17: Dinesh Nagar....................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 18: 1BHK Unit Plan .................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 19: Location of Playtor Rajgurunagar ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 20: 1BHK Layout Plan .............................................................................................................. 46
Figure 21: Location map of Olympeo Riverside................................................................................... 48
Figure 22: Regional Connectivity of project site.................................................................................. 48
Figure 23: Customer Profile – Vastushodh........................................................................................... 51
Figure 24: Customer Profile - DBS Communities................................................................................ 51
Figure 25: Customer Profile - Garg Group ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 26: Customer Profile – Playtor.................................................................................................. 52
Figure 27: Customer Profile – Olympeo............................................................................................... 52
Figure 28: Nearest Bus Station ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 29: Nearest Employment Centre................................................................................................ 53
Figure 30: Nearest Railway Station ...................................................................................................... 53
Figure 31: Access to nearest Urban Centre........................................................................................... 53
Figure 32: Access to Basic Services ..................................................................................................... 54
Figure 33: Housing Continuum ............................................................................................................ 57
List of Tables:
Table 1: Affordable housing shortage, TG – 12 study.......................................................................... 16
Table 2: Affordable housing shortage as per income group, TG – 12 study ........................................ 16
Table 3:Comparative Analysis of Affordable Housing Definitions...................................................... 17
Table 4: Umang Lambha, Buyer’s profile ............................................................................................ 27
Table 5: Umang Narol 1&2, Buyer’s profile ........................................................................................ 27

7
Table 6: Umang Vatva, Buyer’s profile................................................................................................ 27
Table 7: End user financing specifications of DBS affordable housing projects.................................. 31
Table 8: Anandgram Yavat: Buyers Profile.......................................................................................... 34
Table 9: Anandgram Wakhri: Buyers Profile ....................................................................................... 34
Table 10: Dinesh Nagar - Buyers Profile.............................................................................................. 39
Table 11: SBI Old and New Parameter Scores..................................................................................... 42
Table 12: Rajgurunagar - Buyers Profile.............................................................................................. 45
Table 13: Riverside - Buyers Profile..................................................................................................... 49
Glossary:
1. AH Affordable Housing
2. AMC Ahmedabad Municipal corporation
3. AMTS Ahmedabad Mass Transit System
4. ASHRAM Academy for Sustainable Habitat Research and Management
5. BHK Bedroom, Hall, Kitchen
6. BoP Bottom of Pyramid
7. BRTS Bus Rapid Transit System
8. CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
9. DBS Design, Built and Serve
10. EWS Economically weaker section
11. FF First Floor
12. GF Ground Floor
13. GOI Government of India
14. HFFC Home First Finance Company
15. HFI Housing Finance Institutions
16. HVCM Hybrid Value Chain Model
17. IHF Indian Housing Federation
18. LIG Lower Income Group
19. MHFC Micro Housing Finance Corporation Ltd
20. MHUPA Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
21. MIG Middle Income Group
22. PMAY Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
23. PMRDA Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority
24. PNB Punjab National Bank
25. RBI Reserve Bank of India
26. RWA Residents Welfare Association
27. SEZ Socio – Economic Zone
28. TG Technical Group

8

9

10
1. INTRODUCTION
“…….future national competitiveness and economic success will depend on the
comparative efficiency of cities. Because housing is where jobs go to sleep at night, the
quantity, quality, availability and affordability of housing become a key component
in national economic competitiveness”.
- Rakesh Mohan,
Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India1
In the new millennium, India’s urban population is increasing at a faster rate than its total
population. As per the 2011 census, 31.16 % of India’s total population is urban as against the
recorded 27.81% in 2001. Furthermore, in the decade 2001-2011 the urban population grew at
a CAGR of 2.8%. This is significant as for the first time since India’s independence; the
absolute increase in population was more in urban areas than in rural areas. More critically, it
is estimated that approximately 600 million people are expected to make urban India their
home by 2031, a whopping 59% growth over 2011.
This transition from a rural to an increasingly urban economy has serious implications on the
quality of life that cities offer or are likely to offer. This transition is likely to increase the
demand for infrastructure and housing and, cities need to emerge as willing and capable
receptacles to the massive numbers.
This research focuses on the challenges of and opportunities for affordable housing (AH) in
the context of the rapid urbanization that the country is facing. While urbanization often
connotes negative images: congested cities battling with ever increasing infrastructure woes,
inadequate open spaces and mounting housing shortages to name a few, it is also one of the
biggest drivers of efficient and sufficient housing and related services and infrastructure
provision. The Technical Group on Housing shortage (TG-12) estimates urban housing
shortage in India at 18.78 million units (2007-12) with 99% of this shortage manifesting at the
bottom of the pyramid i.e. the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Group
(LIG) population. That housing is recognized as a basic need then renders the provision of
affordable housing an emerging imperative that requires immediate attention. For both national
and state governments, affordable housing is a policy and programmatic focus. This is
evidenced by the central government's focus on affordable housing through its recently
launched Prime Ministers Awas Yojna (PMAY) that seeks active participation from the state
1
“The growing crisis of affordable housing in MENA” (2012) available at http://www.affordablehousinginstitute. org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/The-Growing-Crisis-of-Affordable-Housing-inthe-MENA- by-EY- and-AHI.pdf.

11
and local governments in its implementation. That in the 2017 budget, affordable housing has
been granted an infrastructure status only re-enforces the policy focus of the state. This status,
it is believed will benefit the sector as developers can now access preferential and lower
borrowing rates from banks. The PMAY aims to address the affordable housing shortfall
through four verticals: in-situ slum rehabilitation (using land as a resource), provision of new
housing through public-private partnerships, creating new housing through a credit-linked
subsidy scheme, and encouraging beneficiary led individual housing. It is perceived (as was
gathered during various interviews/conversations conducted as part of this research), as a
“game changer……it has the potential to provide a fillip to the on-going public, private and
public-private efforts in the sector.” While it is too early to assess the impact of the PMAY, nor
is it the objective and theme of this study, it is hoped that this effort, will provide some critical
insights to stakeholders involved in the AH sector on the way forward.
2. CONTEXT
In 1993, the World Bank published a report “Housing: Enabling Markets to Work” whereby
the Bank encouraged “governments to play an enabling role: to move away from producing,
financing, and maintaining housing, and toward improving housing market efficiency and the
housing conditions of the poor”2
. Consequently, several national governments across the
developing world turned to markets to deliver affordable housing, India being no exception.
This contrasts with the state-led affordable housing projects mainly undertaken by the state
housing boards in the 1970s and the 80’s. Yet, despite the last decade witnessing the initiation
and completion of several developer-led affordable housing projects across the country, the
demand for affordable housing continues unabated. Indian Housing Federation (IHF)
recognizes the criticality of bridging the gap between the supply of and the demand for
affordable housing, reiterating that in the absence of a sector- specific intervention targeting
the challenges of the affordable housing sector, the woes of unplanned urbanization are likely
to aggravate. Thus, it re-iterates that affordable housing is an emerging policy and is action
imperative.
IHF’s engagement in the field in the last seven years has validated several challenges that this
sector faces. On the supply side: availability of land in the ‘right’ location and at ‘affordable’
prices, connectivity of affordable housing projects with major employment centers, appropriate
and sensitively designed houses that match the complexity of demand are challenges that are
2
World Bank, 1993, p.7

12
well articulated and discussed both in academia as well as practice and policy circles. Similarly,
on the demand side: lack of housing options, limited income and minimal or no access to home
finance compounded by the lack of secure tenure have also been debated extensively. More
importantly, a major takeaway is that while a lot is happening in the field, both at the policy
and the action level, the impact of these interventions is yet to make a dent in the larger issues
that plague the sector. While many stakeholders – governments (state housing boards and
housing departments), developers, investors, housing finance institutions, banks, communities,
community sector organizations and other non-governmental organizations - are involved in
making affordable housing a reality, all these are working, in other words, there is no unified
approach to delivering housing that is affordable to the EWS and the LIG. IHF’s positioning as
a platform that brings together/leverages the experience of each of these stakeholders to create
networks nurturing /facilitating collective action is premised on this learning. To do so, IHF
aims to create a stakeholder platform. The current documentation of selective affordable
housing projects as described in the next section is envisaged to feed into this process of
creating a robust stakeholder platform.
3. IHF GENESIS AND PHILOSOPHY
The Indian Housing Federation is a non-profit that aims to enable access to affordable housing
for customers from the low-income segment. It plans to do this through methods like real-
time market aggregation, dissemination of sector-relevant information, engagement with all
stakeholders and a rating system. The affordable housing sector faces huge challenges, two of
which are pertinent to the work of IHF. First, there is a common perception that affordable
housing or low-cost housing means low-quality housing - quality visibly in terms of the built
environment - and by extension in the living standards and facilities that such projects and
programs offer to the poor and the marginalized. IHF believes that low-cost housing should
not imply low-quality housing. It aims to push for quality in affordable housing through its
Rating System3
that, on one hand, allows low-income customers to make informed decisions
on the homes that they wish to purchase and, on the other, incentivizes developers to adhere
to certain norms that ensure quality in the project. While this is currently work in progress,
as an immediate step, IHF would like to document some of the projects and experiences that
3
IHF is working with multiple stakeholders to create a rating system specifically designed for affordable, low-cost housing
projects. The Ratings tool is voluntary and can be sought by developers for rating their affordable housing projects sold at
current market rates. The tool is being designed to finding the most appropriate solutions that balance quality and affordability.
This implies optimization of spaces, designs, materials, technologies, natural ventilation and lighting while taking into
consideration the customers financial limitations and requirements. As a process, it is designed to be initiated at the
preconstruction stage and one that lasts over time of the project involving multiple stakeholders.

13
already exist in this space as detailed out in the rest of this report. Second, so far, there is little
awareness of the needs of the customers and no standards which encompass technical
requirements, environmental sustainability, effective budget handling, and integration of
community voices in what is admittedly being designed for consumption by these
communities. Toaddress this gap IHF has been working in the sector through its Hybrid Value
Chain Entrepreneur (HVCE) model that seeks to pool the skills and knowledge existing
amongst the various stakeholders to co-develop, plan and deliver housing units for lower
income people. IHF has worked and is currently working with the HVCE model across cities
of Pune, Guwahati, Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Nagpur primarily with the objective of
understanding the market from the supply side. HVCE’s are primarily responsible for
assessing the housing demand in low-income communities, primarily through need-based
surveys (using a mobile device and a data collection tech tool). This data helps them to
understand the socio-economic status, current housing situation as well as the family’s
housing aspiration. This allows the HVCE to analyze and ascertain the types of interventions
(new house or home enhancements) that household/communities are looking for. Once this
is ascertained, the HVCEs collaborate with developers; facilitate financial linkages while also
bringing in construction technology tools and designers. In several cities mentioned earlier,
the HVCEs are now operational to housing ecosystems in their own towns/cities by making
them more inclusive to a variety of stakeholders.
4. THE STUDY RATIONALE, RESEARCH AND
DOCUMENTATION
While evolving the rating system and stakeholder platform, as an immediate step, the current
study investigates and documents eight developer-led housing projects across Pune and
Mumbai in Maharashtra, Ahmedabad in Gujarat and Ghaziabad, UP in the National Capital
Region. The objective of this study and documentation is two-pronged. First and the primary
one is to start informing the sector and the affordable housing space positively through a
nuanced understanding of the experiences of these builders and developers in the AH space
while also ascertaining the ‘success’ of these projects from the end-user perspective. A
secondary objective is to start informing the rating tool to make it both relevant and robust. In
moving towards the primary objective, eight projects (Refer Figure 1) have been studied and
profiled to showcase developer-led interventions in the affordable housing space while also
providing critical insights into what is working and what still seems to be a distant objective.
While the provision of houses relies on myriad stakeholders, in this documentation we chose
to focus on the developer, the housing finance institution, communities and community

14
representatives (wherever applicable). The focus on developer- led projects is premised on the
fact that in the past few years, private players have increasingly begun to realize the untapped
opportunities that the affordable housing market offers. There is an increasing
acknowledgment amongst developers that while many of them approached the affordable
housing market as an experiment, they would like to continue to engage with this market given
the potential it offers. This trend emerges critical given that the public-sector involvement in
providing housing for the EWS and LIG sections has only declined in the 1990s and right
through the new millennia.
4
This documentation is work in progress. The current effort constitutes part one of a two-part
series whereby, part two is envisaged to focus on some of the current and past state-led
affordable housing projects as well as other emerging models that can neither be classified as
state-led nor developer-led. While all stakeholders involved in the affordable housing space are
the consumers of this information, as mentioned earlier, the primary objective of this
documentation is to inform the rating tool as well as initiate the stakeholder platform. From
this perspective, the documentation of the projects pivots around certain core parameters: i)
location and site background; ii) intended or targeted customers; housing supply and demand;
iii) connectivity to work / employment centers; iv) access to basic services such as water,
sanitation and solid waste management, recreation / open spaces that the project offers;
v) design and construction; vi) access to social infrastructures like education and health;
vii) access to housing finance institutions; viii) post occupancy operations and maintenance
and xi) social marketing strategy. These nine parameters constitute a framework for
understanding / assessing the selected projects.
4
However, recent field visits revealed that in many states, the state-led affordable housing projects are on the increase.

15
5. METHOD
The documentation relies extensively on primary and secondary research. The former involves
field visits that encompassed discussions, interviews and focused group discussions with some
of the key stakeholders. These include the developers, housing finance institutions,
communities (wherever the housing projects are occupied), community sector organizations
and investors. The main objective is to understand the successes as well as the pain points of
the projects. The discussions, engagements as well as interviews pivoted around the quality of
the built environment as well as access to basic services like public transport, water supply,
sanitation, solid waste management and social infrastructures like health and education. The
Source: IHF
Figure 1: Project and Developer Location
Source: Indian Housing Federation

16
secondary research drew upon from the websites of the various developers, brochures, journal
articles and other forms of documentation / evaluation that has been undertaken in this sector.
6. EMERGING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Before outlining the various projects, the experience thereon and IHFs major findings, it is
important to outline a review of the secondary literature on Affordable Housing and the several
issues faced by the sector that it throws up. The Report of the TG-12 on housing shortage in
urban India pegs 18.78 million households that require pucca homes/ congestion free
accommodation. Unpacking this number across socio-economic categories shows that the
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) accounts for 56.18% whereas the low-income Group
(LIG) accounts for another 39.44% (Refer Table 1). Thus, 95% of the shortfall is for those
households that are earning between less than 15,000 (MHUPA, Task Force on Promoting
Affordable Housing, 2012). An added observation is that of the 18.78 million, approximately 15
million (80%) are living in households that are congested. While the TG-12 says that this
80% require new houses, it may be worthwhile considering improvements in these 15 million
houses, thus making these livable. Yet, current housing supply, especially through the private
sector, is largely consumed by the middle and higher income strata of the society. In other
words, a primary challenge is a mismatch between the nature of demand and supply.
Table 1: Affordable housing shortage, TG – 12 study, (in millions)
Type Shortage
Households living in non – serviceable
Kutcha houses
0.99
Households living in obsolescent houses 2.27
Households living in congested houses
requiring new houses
14.99
Households in homeless condition 0.53
Total 18.78
Source: http://www.nbo.nic.in/Images/PDF/urban-housing-shortage.pdf
Table 2: Affordable housing shortage as per income group, TG – 12 study
Source: http://www.nbo.nic.in/Images/PDF/urban-housing-shortage.pdf
Category Distribution of Housing Shortage among different
Economic Categories as on 2012
In millions In percentage
EWS 10.55 56.18
LIG 7.41 39.44
MIG & above 0.82 4.38
Total 18.78 100.00

17
Related to this mismatch is a blurred understanding of what constitutes affordability. In the
past, there have been several attempts to define housing affordability. In 2008 MHUPA
defined affordability based on unit size, unit cost and EMI spending capacity for LIG and
MIG. This was further revised in 2011 when LIG was split into EWS and LIG (Refer Table
3). At about the same time, a study by KPMG (2011) also defined affordability along the same
dimensions as MHUPA. In addition, KPMG defined the income categories for the EWS, LIG
and the MIG. Households having an annual income till INR 1,50,000 were considered EWS
whereas between INR 1,50,000 to 3,00,000 were considered as LIG. Another study by JLL &
REIS 5
in 2012 expanded the definition of affordable housing to include the minimum volume
of habitation, provision of basic amenities, cost as well as the location of the house. More
recently the GoI as represented by the MHUPA announced the PMAY that focuses on housing
delivery in urban areas. The PMAY also defines affordability based on unit size, unit price, and
household income. However, it makes a quantum leap in the latter. As per the PMAY, EWS is
understood as those households that have an annual income less than or equal to INR 3,00,000
while LIG is understood as income between INR 3,00,000 to 6,00,000 (Refer Table 3)6
. The
PMAY also advocates a larger unit size.
Table 3:Comparative Analysis of Affordable Housing Definitions
Source Unit Size (Sqft)
Carpet area
Unit Cost Income
(Lakh)
EMI / Rent
MHUPA,
2008
EWS: 300-600
MIG: < 1200
Not exceeding
four times the
household
gross annual
income
Not exceeding 30 – 40% of
gross monthly income of buyer
MHUPA,
2011
EWS: 269
LIG: 517
MIG: 861
30 – 40% of gross monthly
income of buyer
KPMG
2011
EWS: up to 300
LIG: 300-600
MIG: 600-1200
EWS: 1.5
LIG: 1.5 - 3
MIG: 3 -10
30 – 40% of gross monthly
income of buyer
For MIG - House prices to annual
income ratio less than 5.1x
Task Force
2012
EWS: 226-291
LIG: 301-430
MIG: 441-646
EWS: 1
LIG: 2
PMAY,
2015
EWS: 323
LIG: 646
EWS: 3
LIG: 3-6
5
JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle India) & REIS (Real estate intelligence services): while all other definitions have considered income
level, area and affordabilityofthebuyer,JLLand REIShaveaddedfewmorefactorstothedefinitionasfollows:theminimumvolume
of habitation, provision of basic amenities, the cost of the house and location of the house. For more detail see the report (JLL, On.
Point; Affordable Housing in India, Pg.14).
6
Income Criteria revisions are based on various factors like: growth in per capita income, minimum wages for non-agriculture
workers, monthly per capita expenditure, NHB residential price index, consumer price index, consumer food price index, etc.

18
Source: (JLL, On. Point; Affordable Housing in India, Pg.14), (MHUPA, Task Force on Promoting Affordable Housing,
2012), (MHUPA, PMAY- HFA, Mar - 2016)
A provision within the PMAY which is perhaps not exercised is that ‘states can define their
own household income.’ This provision assumes critical significance in a country as diverse
as India where universal definitions are difficult to evolve and apply. Without exercising this
provision, what constitutes affordability continues to be an open question. Furthermore, if the
quantum leaps that the PMAY advocates are realistic, the question which then assumes
significance is whether, at these enhanced income criteria, affordability for the EWS and the
LIG is likely to improve.
This is a complex question and perhaps with no straightforward answers. What is clear is that
defining affordability continues to be a challenge especially in a country as vast and diverse as
India. Eventually, the idea of affordability will be seen thriving when somewhere near the 95%
(as per the TG-12) – the deprived population affirms that ‘I can afford, I have the disposal
income to own my house now’ in India. Furthermore, affordability is indirectly impacted by
a host of criteria including access to, availability of social infrastructures like health and
education, access to basic services like water supply, sanitation, and power, and easy access to
employment centers through public transportation. These criteria and the attendant challenges
are discussed below:
A. Geographical Appropriateness: Connectivity through Public Transport
Affordability is closely linked to the location of the housing unit. As most of the EWS and the
LIG are employed in the informal sector, a hike on their expenditure due to increase in
transportation costs when housing units are located farther away from their stay undoubtedly
would have a serious impact on their disposable income. In addition, the rise in travel time
would affect their work hours and thus, their income. In fact, often enough the resettlement of
the poor has ended up creating more problems than solving them7
. As per the leapfrogging
phenomenon of real estate market; prohibitively high land prices within the city do not allow
for housing at affordable rates. Thus, affordable homes are possible only at far- flung locations
where land parcels are available at appropriate price points for such developments. Rendering
any project affordable or delivering houses at affordable rates is therefore directly proportional
to the cost of land and indirectly to the distance from the city. The distance varies from city to
city. For instance, “Mumbai and NCR have affordable housing projects located 65 – 75 km
away from the city center. On the other hand, Ahmedabad and Kolkata provide better
7
CSE, 2014

19
proximity, with projects located at 15 – 20 km from the city center. While, Bangalore, Pune
and Chennai also have projects at distances of 25 – 30 km from the city center”8
. Though cheap
land parcels far away from the city center lead to lower priced houses, there is a high possibility
that these developments lack the adequate social and physical infrastructure. Public Transport
network planning becomes difficult to operate and unnecessary extension of urban
infrastructure further results into longer commuting trips.
B. Design Appropriateness andQuality of Construction
Apart from economic factors, different sociocultural and geographic contexts, local climate,
local building material, and construction techniques impact the cost of housing units. The
design process for each region thus needs to achieve a subtle balance between adhering to
network-wide requirements and the flexibility to tailor these requirements to beneficiary needs.
In India, the size of the housing unit is directly linked to affordability but this is likely to differ
in different cities9
. In addition, JLLs study articulates that there is a lack of clarity in building
bye-laws and there are several overlapping guidelines for real estate development.
Understanding customer requirements and shelter habits are critical to designing
appropriately which, in turn, impacts affordability. While this is challenging in the case of
large-scale projects it is not impossible. Allowing flexibility in design (for instance initially
allowing a merging of space by keeping the flexibility of building a partition wall later) or
making several options and putting it out in front of customers during counseling can be a
starting point. It is critical that we ensure “the products created are user focused”10
. Yet, often
the quality of construction as also design inputs take a back seat. Low-cost housing is
synonymous with low-quality dwelling. Thus, affordable housing is often equated with small
sized single room unit with the poor quality of design (light, ventilation, usable area,
construction material and technology).
C. Access to Basic Services, Facilities and Thereby the Quality of Life
Provision of the basic amenities like adequate water supply, sanitation, and power to the
dwelling unit is crucial. Equally critical is the provision ofefficient community spaces andother
amenities that contribute to livability. These include primary schools and healthcare facilities
either within the project or in the neighborhood, community centers and adequate retail outlets
that supply the day-to-day requirements of the inhabitants. While the provision of these
amenities inside the project boundary can add to the cost of units, (if the project is located at a
8
JLL, On. Point; Affordable Housing in India, Pg.14
9
CSE, 2014
10
Karim., 2011

20
large distance from the city center) these are critical to ensuring a decent quality of life.
D. Knowledge of and Access to Housing Finance
There is a strong link between poverty and lack of access to basic financial services such as
savings accounts and loans. Opening a bank account requires several documents and a
minimum balance. Both these are problems for the poor. Plus, unavailability of required formal
documents of identification, address, and income deprives them of availing housing loans.
Hence, the EWS and perhaps the lower LIG are excluded from the formal banking/ financial
systems. By extension, their access to housing finance is limited, which pushes them to rely on
less-efficient and potentially exorbitant sources of credit, such as local money lenders. Even
before the launch of PMAY many housing finance institutions like MHFC, HFFC and specific
products like Asha Homes (Axis bank), REACH (HDFC) home loans were serving the EWS
and the LIG segments. With the launch of the PMAY, there has been a further impetus to the
HFI’s with several new housing finance companies (HFCs) focusing on financing affordable
houses with their loan products. Furthermore, fiscal policies that include interest rate subsidy,
tax allowances, and funding through micro-finance institutions are incentives to developers to
explore the affordable housing segments. Yet, information asymmetries whereby the EWS and
LIG do not have access to housing loan schemes continues to be a challenge.
A related challenge that makes affordability even more complex is the post occupancy
maintenance and upkeep. While not being a big task for the MIG and the HIG segments, once
possession is complete and the houses are occupied, maintenance of common areas, basic
services and amenities constitutes both cost and responsibility, becomes a greater challenge in
the lower income group societies. With the exit of the developer, this emerges tough to manage
for various socio – economic reasons. Thus, affordability is not a direct function of unit cost,
income, rent and the size of the house. It is impacted directly and indirectly by the geographical
connectivity that the project offers to the employment center through public transit corridors,
design parameters, quality of construction, access to basic services, like water, sanitation, and
power, social infrastructure like health and school facilities, access to housing finance, and
post-occupancy maintenance and upkeep mechanisms that have been instituted. In other
words, affordability is a complex amalgam of all these factors. As an illustration, transportation
cost is argued to be second in expenditure after housing. Many move to suburban locations
because of lower housing costs, but any gains they make are quickly erased or exceeded by
transportation costs. However, for those who live in transit- rich locations, 32% remains the

21
cost of housing, but transportation can be as low as 9%.11
. Preserving and building affordable
housing near transit corridors would enable households to save money on both transportation
and housing expenditures and can work towards making the corridor more affordable12
.
11
AH+SC, n.d
12
Desmuke, 2013

22
7. SURVEYED PROJECTS

23
Figure 2: Timeline of DBS Communities Projects
Source: Primary Survey
1. DBS Communities
Design Build and Serve (DBS) Communities is an Ahmedabad based housing developer who
has been working in the affordable space since 2009. DBS aims to establish an efficient, viable,
and transparent system for large-scale mass production of houses that are affordable and
financed through savings and credit systems accessible to the lower income segments of the
population. DBS’s decision to work towards supporting affordable housing projects for the
poorest of the poor was inspired by C.K. Prahlad’s claim that the economically poor are a large
market in emerging economies and their needs could be met through innovative business
models based on low-profit margins and high volume.
With the aim of targeting people in the LIG and EWS categories, DBS initiated its first
affordable housing project in May, 2010. Consequently, it launched 8 more projects across
Gujarat, although some of them also targeted upper LIG and lower MIG groups. Constructed
houses are in the price range of 4 – 22 Lakhs thus offering the intended end users a variety of
financial options. The successful occupation of 95% houses of their first affordable housing
project by the targeted user segment triggered a concerted effort from DBS communities to
step fully into this sector.
The next section provides an overview of 3 DBS affordable housing projects:
1. Umang Lambha (Ahmedabad)
2. Umang Narol Phase 1&2 (Ahmedabad)
3. Umang Vatva

24
1.Location and Background:
A. Umang Lambha:
Located in the Southern zone of the AMC, Umang Lambha derives its name from ‘Lambha’, a
census town in Daskaroi taluka which is now a part of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
The site is located off NH8 that connects Ahmedabad to Vadodara. It is located 11.7 km from
Ahmedabad city and is connected to it via the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS). The closest
AMTS stop is 1.2km from the site which is connected to the BRTS at Narol bus stop (3.3 km)
which in turn is linked to the primary railway station of the city (Kalupur Station – 12.4 km).
Vatva, one of the oldest and largest industrial estates of Gujarat is the closest employment
center and is located approximately 6 -7 km from the site.
Currently all houses in Umang Lambha are occupied, although the profile of the
families/households occupying them is ambiguous. A large percentage of the original buyers
have rented out the apartments to people who work in industrial areas located in the vicinity.
DBS has initiated various surveys and studies to understand the profile of the people, the findings
of which are available in Ms. Sharadbala Joshi’s report “Social Impact of DBS Affordable
Housing in Ahmedabad”.
Through the course of implementation of the Umang Lambha project DBS understood the need
for a community based organization that could create awareness on affordable housing and help
potential buyers overcome financial and legal hurdles. It was through this understanding that a
long-term partnership was developed with Saath.
Saath is a non-governmental organization that was founded in 1989 and is currently based out of
Ahmedabad. The organization works closely with the socially marginalized sector to enhance
Figure 3: Umang Lambha
Source: IHF

25
access to various services including livelihoods, health, education and skill development.
The felt need for an active housing facilitation unit that would serve as a single window platform
for educating potential home buyers on supply, finances and other community living requirements
created Griha Pravesh. Griha Pravesh is a social entrepreneurship program of Saath and DBS
Affordable Home Strategy Limited. Its main objective is to facilitate the provision of affordable
homes to those who are unable to access housing through the formal market.
B. Umang Narol Phase 1&2:
DBS Umang Narol is located in the south zone of Ahmedabad district in Narolgam which has
been recently incorporated into the AMC jurisdiction. The project is located close to the
previously constructed Umang Lambha. It is connected to Ahmedabad via the NH8 and other
arterial roads. The closest AMTS stop is located 1.2 km from the site while the closest BRTS
stop is 2.3 km away.
The project was launched in March 2011 and possession was handed over in August 2013.
Currently all the 885 units are occupied, although ambiguity over economic backgrounds of
occupants remains.
The major design variation from the earlier project are:
1. Provision of ground level parking
2. Inclusion of clubhouse and play area
Saath emerged as a significant partner for DBS in the Umang Narol Phase 1&2 project as
community interface was handled by them. The project was executed as a joint venture with
RJD Buildcon providing the land.
Figure 4: Umang Narol 1&2
Source: IHF

26
C. Umang Vatva:
Like the previous DBS projects, Umang Vatva is also located in the AMC jurisdiction. There
are 502 units in the project, and the possession has started taking place quite recently although
the project had been launched in 2014. Partners for the project include Saath as the community
interface and Arvind Mills as land provider in the joint venture.
Figure 5: Umang Vatva
Source: IHF
Figure 6: Location Map of Umang Lambha, Umang Narol 1& 2, Umang Vatva
Source: Google Maps

27
2.Targeted Customers, Demand and Supply:
The target audience of DBS communities is the low-income segment of society. This is evident
from the aspect that the constructed houses are sold at a price starting from 3.3 lakhs in 2010
and 5.5 lakhs in 2014. Although the projects are in close vicinity of each other, various external
factors such as land price and inflation in construction costs contributed to the significant
increase in base price. The increasing height of the constructed structures is a result of this cost
inflation. The first project has a few houses of the 2BHK type in addition to 1BHK and 1RK
whereas the subsequent projects consist only of the latter two typologies.
Table 4: Umang Lambha, Buyer’s profile
UNIT
TYPE
UNIT SIZE PRICE
RANGE
NUMBER OF
UNITS
BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS*13
LIG** MIG***
1RK 306 - 324 3.3 - 4.68 281 253 (90%) 28 (10%)
1BHK 486 - 585 5.4 - 7.6 485 291 (60%) 194 (40%)
2BHK 667 7.4 - 8.06 43 43 (100%)
Total 809 544 (67%) 265 (33%)
Note: 50% homes across all income categories are self-occupied. (Source: DBS)
Table 5: Umang Narol 1&2, Buyer’s profile
UNIT
TYPE
UNIT SIZE PRICE
RANGE
NUMBER OF
UNITS
BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS* LIG ** MIG***
1RK 306 - 324 3.99 - 5.4 360 216 (60%) 144 (40%)
1BHK 486 6.61 - 8.23 525 315 (60%) 210 (40%)
Total 885 531 (60%) 354 (40%)
Table 6: Umang Vatva, Buyer’s profile14
UNIT
TYPE
UNIT SIZE PRICE
RANGE
NUMBER OF
UNITS
BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS* LIG ** MIG***
1RK 360 Approx. 4.99-5.90 168 143 (85 %) 25 (15 %)
1BHK 504 - 585
Approx.
6.99-9.49 332 33 (10 %) 282 (85 %) 17 (5 %)
Total 500 176 (35.2%) 307 (61.4%) 17 (3.4%)
Although the numbers show that majority of houses are being bought by customers from the
intended end user segment, the real question regarding the economical background of occupants
13
* For this study, EWS households are defined as households having an annual income up to INR 3 Lakhs (<INR 25,000 /month)
** LIG households are defined as households having an annual income between INR 3 Lakhs and INR 6 Lakhs (>INR 25,000 and <INR
50,000/month)
*** MIG households are defined as households having an annual income between INR 6 Lakhs and INR 12 Lakhs (>INR 50,000 and
<INR 1,00,000/month)

28
remains. Many of the houses are rented out by the owners to people who work in the vicinity.
The rental character of affordable housing communities has large scale implications on the post
occupancy maintenance of the structures and common spaces.
3.Connectivity to Work/Employment Centers:
Vatva industrial area of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation is the closest
employment center. It was observed through primary surveys that majority of the people staying
in the documented DBS communities work in Vatva. The projects are well connected to the
city through bus routes. AMTS bus stops are in the radius of 1-1.5 km of the sites, which are in
turn connected to the BRTS bus stops which are around 4-4.5 km from the sites. The BRTS
also links the project sites to the Kalupur railway station which is about11-12 km from the sites.
However, last mile connectivity between the AMTS bus stop and the project sites are quite
poor, resulting in most people resorting to private modes of transports.
4.Access to Basic Services:
Currently, none of the three DBS projects are connected to the municipal water networks,
although there is a possibility of Umang Vatva being connected to it soon. Borewells have
been dug within the premises to provide water in all three sites, hence dependency on
ground water is very high. There are also no water saving mechanisms installed in any of
the DBS communities. Umang Lambha currently uses a drain well for sanitation whereas
Narol phase 1&2 and Vatva use the AMC gutter line. Residential societies are responsible
for garbage disposal, and a sum of Rs. 30 is collected in Lambha and a sum of Rs. 50 in
Narol for the same. In both the projects a person has been appointed for door to door
collection and the waste is collected by an AMC truck daily. However, there are no in-
house disposal mechanisms for the disposal of waste. The residential society in Vatva has
not been setup yet.
5.Design and Construction:
Umang Lambha is spread across 3.62 acres and a total of 792 apartments have been constructed
across 10 blocks. The blocks are a combination of G+3,4 and 5 structures. Umang Narol is
spread over 3.4 acres and comprises of 885 houses in 8 blocks (G+5) and Umang Vatva is
spread over a mere 1.47 acres and constructed blocks are at a height of G+7 levels, with
dedicated parking space on the ground floor.
At the most, some projects have provided “an open space of derelict land that would have been
left out to comply with development control and building regulations” (Shah and Srivastava,
2016,85). There has been a significant and focused increase in the open space /public amenities

29
and other facilities like play area has increased in the later projects. These are nearly absent in
Lambha.
Although the Lambha project has a few 2BHK units too, we shall analyze layouts of 1RKs and
1BHKs as the price points of 2BHKs do not fit into the financial capability of the targeted end
user segment.
Figure 8: Type 1 Layout, Umang Lambha
Source: http://dbscommunities.com/
Figure 9: Type 2 Layout, Umang Lambha
Figure 7: Floor Layout of 1RK Block

30
As can be observed through the layout plans of the houses, lighting and ventilation of all
rooms have been given priority in the design. Service ducts have been provided to facilitate
this in apartments where ventilation is otherwise compromised due to spatial constraints.
Minimum floor area of 25 sq.m has been provided in every house. Lifts have been provided
as blocks are 6-8 floors high.
Floor plans have been designed as combinations of 1RKs and 1BHKs to increase options for
end users on every floor. However, as mentioned earlier, 2 BHKs have also been constructed
in the project, but in a separate block. This reduces the societal integration between
occupants of the smaller houses (mainly EWS and LIG) and those of the larger houses
(mainly MIG). Floor plans of Umang Narol 1&2 and Umang Vatva are similar to Umang
Lambha hence have not been discussed in detail.
6.Access to Social Infrastructure:
All the three documented projects fall within the AMC zone and are well connected to the public
transport system. Primary and secondaryschools are present in the vicinityof all three projects hence
residents do not face major issues regarding access to schools. There are no colleges (for higher
education) in the area hence children must travel to the city for the same. Health centers are also not
present within the immediate vicinity of the project, but the public transport system facilitates
connectivity to the city for the same. Provisions for the services have not been created within the
housing societies as operations and maintenance would be a complicated issue for both the
developers and the residential association. However, the lack of last mile connectivityto the sites are
a subject of concern for current and potential residents.
7.Access to Housing Finance Institutions:
MHFC and HFFC were the leading institutions to finance this project. Some of the other financial
institutions involved in end user financing for the DBS projects included Muthoot Housing Finance,
GRUH Finance and Shubham Housing Finance.
The target segment for the constructed houses were in the income range of less than Rs. 25,000 per
month. Most of the potential clients are self-employed in the informal sector, hence do not possess
any Income Tax Return documents. Their income is in the form of cash, and most of them do not
have bank accounts. However, the micro housing finance institutes evaluate customers on the basis
of their repayment capacity rather than the formal documents they possess. The processing takes a
minimum of 5 days in cases where there are no complications in the approval. The following table
provides detailed information on the ticket size and loan types that have been given out to DBS
customers:

31
Table 7: End user financing specifications of DBS affordable housing projects
S. No Project No: of
loans
Avg.
tenure
EMI Rate of
Interest
Min.
ticket size
Max.
ticket size
1 Narol 815 15 years Rs.8000 13% 1 Lakh 8 Lakhs
2 Lambha 725 20 years Rs.6000 13% 1 Lakh 7 Lakhs
3 Vatva 450 15 years Rs.7000 12% 1 Lakh 8 Lakhs
Source: DBS Communities
8.Post Occupancy Operations and Maintenance:
Once the project is complete and houses are sold and occupied, maintenance of common
facilities like lifts, bore-wells, sewerage tanks, open spaces, lighting and all other shared or
common facilities requires resources (time and money) as well as hand-holding, especially with
the EWS and the LIG sectors. A well-functioning cohesive and stable community that assumes
ownership of the premises is critical.
While 2-4 residential societies have been formed in Lambha, the community is visibly suffering
from post-occupancy maintenance. Based on this experience, hand holding for the 3 societies
activated in Narol were conducted. Communities have not yet been set up in Vatva hence
maintenance is currently being handled by the developers.
DBS has closely worked with Saath (through its Griha Pravesh program) to set up and hand
hold the societies in Narol. The difference in the maintenance at Lambha and Narol is clearly
visible hence DBS intends to continue working with Griha Pravesh as the community interface
for all further projects.
9.Social Marketing:
The innovative strategy that DBS used for marketing of its projects was to partner with Griha
Pravesh as Griha Pravesh had a better understanding of community requirements. They decided
to engage in a “social marketing strategy” wherein people within a 5km radius of the project
site were invited to the location on the day of the launch. Transport to the site and lunch was
arranged by the developer. The program included magic shows and puppet shows to encourage
people to visit the site. 4 sample houses were showcased at the fair along with a walk-through
model for potential customers to experience the society. Dedicated counselling areas had also
been set up to address any concerns and queries. In addition to this a booking area had also been
set up that provided information on eligibility, rates of interest and repayment modalities. 20
HFI’s had set up office in this space and some even provided the customers with a provisional

32
letter of approval. The launch witnessed 1500 bookings and about 50,000 visitors. Due to lack
of internal capacity, Griha Pravesh worked with multiple local NGOs to promote the program.
The total cost of the outreach program was about 2% of project cost. The program was the
outcome of an understanding by the developer that promotion through internet property portals
would not work in the case of EWS and LIG communities.
2. VASTUSHODH
Inspired, by the ideal that the benefits of economic development should also be shared by the
underprivileged and vulnerable sections of society, and that development must take place in an
environmentally, socially and financially sustainable manner, Vastushodh, a Pune-based
developer entered the housing delivery space in 2000. Through its two flagship brands:
Anandgram and Urbangram, Vastushodh aims to service the housing requirements of both the
lower (EWS and LIG) and middle-income segments (upper LIG and MIG).
This study focuses on the Anandgram category as Anandgram homes are aimed at servicing
the housing requirements of EWS and LIG groups. Homes delivered through Anandgram
projects are typically priced between INR 5 and 20 Lakhs15
. Vastushodh has delivered over
1250 Anandgram homes while 3500 units in this category are under various stages of
development. Most Anandgram projects are in the outskirts of Pune, approximately 25-45 km
from the city center.
15
Urbangram homes are priced between INR 15-30 lakhs.
Figure 10: Timeline of Vastushodh Anandgram Projects
Source: Primary Survey, IHF

33
1. Location and Background:
A. Anandgram Yavat:
Located on the Eastern side of Pune municipal corporation area, Anandgram Yavat derives its
name from “Yavat”, a small town in Daund Taluka. It is regulated by the Yavat Gram
Panchayat. Yavat homes are located off the NH 9, Pune – Solapur highway and is 46 km from
the Pune city center. Kedagaon (12 km away) serves as the nearest center that offers amenities
such as hospitals medical stores, schools, petrol stations, temples, banking facilities etc. It also
offers railway connectivity with the Kedagaon railway station located 15 km away. The nearest
bus station is located at Uruli Kanchan, 16 km from the site. The project is over six years old
and is fully occupied by all income categories.
A. Anandgram Wakhri
The second Anandgram project is located in Wakhri which is approximately 8 km from Yavat
and 4 km from Kedagaon (Refer Figure 11). The closest bus stop is at Uruli Kachan village
(2.4 km away) and Kedagaon is the nearest railway station and (5 km away). Wakhari is also
close to Purandhar where the new Pune International Airport has been proposed. Currently,
residents of Wakhari use passenger trains to commute to Pune and rely either on private two
wheelers or shared autos to reach the railway station. Wakhari Anandgram caters to small
families and workers from MIDC factories which are located on the outskirts of Pune.
Although the project was launched in 2013, 60 housing units are yet to be built and sold.
Figure 11: Locations of Anandgram Wakhari and Anandgram Yavat
Source: Google Maps, Edited by: IHF

34
2. Targeted Customers, Demand and Supply:
Although the target segment for Vastushodh’s Anandgram houses are the EWS and LIG categories,
it caters to higher income categories too. Only 29% of the total units in Yavat are priced below
INR 6,00,000. Another 29% are priced between INR 7,50,000 -10,00,000 and the remaining 42%
are priced above INR 10,00,000. In Wakhari amere10%(30)ofthetotal units (300)arepricedbelow
INR 900,000. 90% of the units are priced above INR 11,50,000. Also, the starting sale price for
homesinWakhari(2013)isINR8,80,000whichissignificantly higher than Yavat homes (launched
in 2010) which were sold at sub INR 6,00,000.
A current assessment of the community profile in Yavat shows that the proportion of owners
and tenants is almost equal. Site visits revealed that most housing units in Wakhari are yet to
be occupied. Houses lie vacant as connectivity is an issue and possession is still under process.
Table 8 and 9 provide an overview of the communities/customers who have occupied Yavat and
Wakhari homes.16
Table 8: Anandgram Yavat: Buyers Profile
UNIT
TYPE
UNIT SIZE PRICE RANGE
(LAKHS)
NUMBER OF UNITS BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS*17
LIG ** MIG***
1RK 312 5.69 180 108 (60%) 54 (30%) 18 (10%)
1BHK 415 - 539 7.57 - 9.83 180 54 (30%) 90 (50%) 36 (20%)
2BHK 685 - 739 12.50 - 13.48 262 26 (10%) 104 (40%) 132 (50%)
Total 622 188 (30%) 248 (40%) 186 (30%)
Source: Vastushodh
Table 9: Anandgram Wakhri: Buyers Profile
UNIT
TYPE
(LAKHS)
NUMBER OF UNITS BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS* LIG ** MIG***
1RK 364, 369,
382
8.4 – 8.8 30 22 (73%) 5 (17%) 3 (10%)
1BHK 485 - 539 11.5 – 12.4 120 35 (29.2%) 56 (46.6%) 29 (24.2%)
16
Developer was also approached on the details regarding self-occupied and rented houses. While this data is available for
Yavat homes, there is a data gap for Wakhri as the developer is yet to sell 60 units. Possession and hand over is on-going and
those who have taken possession are yet to occupy the apartments.
17
50,000/month)

35
2BHK 646 - 749 15.2 – 17.1 150 10 (7%) 60 (40%) 80 (53%)
Total 300 67 (22.33%) 121 (40.33%) 112 (37.33%)
Source: Vastushodh
As can be observed, families occupying Anandgram homes belong to various income
categories. In Yavat homes, there are more EWS and LIG residents than MIG and a
considerable number of homes are self-occupied. However, in Wakhri, 112 (approximately
38%) of the total 300 houses that have been handed over are from the MIG category, 121 (40%)
are from LIG and a mere 67 (22%) are occupied by the EWS category. Thus, EWS and LIG
constitute only 62% of the total households in Wakhari whereas in Yavat 70% of the homes are
occupied by people from these two categories.
3. Connectivity to Work/ Employment Centers:
Hadapsar is the closest industrial (hence employment center) area for both Yavat and Wakhri.
Some residents also travel to Pune for work. Currently public transport connectivity is an
issue for both project sites. This could be one of the reasons as to why homeowners seem
reluctant to occupy houses in Wakhari. It was understood through conversations with the
developer and site engineers that regular trains were to provide connectivity between Wakhari
- Pune and Wakahri - Lonavala from October 15, 2016. However, this service has not been
provided as of yet. The Pune outer ring road is located 1 km from Wakhari and a 3-lane highway has
also been proposed. The developer is hopeful that the proposed transport services would help in
increasing the value of the project.
4. Access to Basic Services:
A. Anandgram Yavat
The borewell pump in the 1RK block had broken down hence water was being manually drawn.
This resulted in women from upper floors washing clothes and utensils in the central space as
water was not being pumped to the overhead tank. The lack of ownership in maintenance of the
blocks with smaller units was one of the major issues observed at Yavat. This is quite evident
as the predominantly self-occupied opposite wing (that consisted of 1 & 2 BHKs) was better
maintained than the 1RK block. Yavat also has a sewerage treatment plant within the site and
solid waste is managed by the resident welfare societies.
B. Anandgram Wakhri
It was observed that water supply, sewerage as well as solid waste management facilities are
yet to be fully operationalized. A sewerage treatment plant is currently being constructed at
Wakhari, and solid waste is being managed by the developer as residential welfare societies
have not been formed yet. As it has not been fully occupied yet a lot of services are still yet to

36
be put in place hence very less data has been gathered from Wakhari for the study.
5. Design and Construction
Yavat homes are spread across 10 acres with 622 homes of which 360 are 1RK and 1BHK
whereas the remaining 262 are 2 BHK. Wakhari consists of 300 1RK, 1 BHK and 2 BHK units
in 20 blocks constructed as G+3 spread over 6.5 acres.
Houses in Yavat are organized as G+2 and have been planned around a centralopenspace.The
central space is designed to act as a socializing space for residents and a play area for children
has also been included. However, maintenance of these spaces still remains a challenge. It was
observed that one block had a particularly poorly maintained play area. Through conversations
with residents it was understood that the block predominantly consisted of 1RKs (with a few
2BHKs) and most of these apartments had been rented out. Tenants had no stake in
maintenance, and owners argued that income from these apartments were too less to be able to
contribute towards maintenance.
The 1 & 2 BHK wing of Yavat homes had an additional “Visawa Katte” that had been designed
as part of the open space and it was being used by residents to socialize. Houses in Wakhari are
organized on two sides of a central space that is used by the community for socializing.
However, this space is not being maintained well and hence lies in a shabby condition.
6. Access to Social Infrastructure:
Schools, hospitals, banks and medical stores are easily available in Yavat hence basic amenities are
not an issue to the residents although last mile connectivity is a challenge. Most residents at
Anandgram Yavat own private vehicles (mostly 2 wheelers).
Wakhari is currently not well developed hence access to social facilities remains a challenge.
Facilities are expected to develop by the time possession of all flats in Wakhari are complete.
Figure 13: Yavat Block with rented houses
Figure 12: Yavat Block with self-occupied houses

37
7. Access to Housing Finance Institutions:
Finance for the project was handled by MHFC, HFFC, HDFC and ICICI, although the former
two have been more active. Vastushodh has also actively sought the help of MHFC and HFFC
to develop relationships with target end user communities. Houses are priced approximately
between INR 5,00,000 to 14,00,000 in Yavat and are currently priced between INR 8,50,000
to 17,00,000 in Wakhari.
8. Post Occupancy Operations and Maintenance:
Maintenance in all Vastushodh projects is handled by the developer until all housing units
are completed and handed over. Formation of the resident’s welfare association (RWA) is also
initiated by Vastushodh. Once possession begins and occupants move in the RWA becomes
responsible for all maintenance. In Yavat Vastushodh has set-up one society in every block,
whereas in Wakhari this process is ongoing. However, Vastushodhisnot engagedwith anyNGOs
for hand holding of end user customers at any stage of the project.
9. Social Marketing:
Vastushodh’s marketing strategy does not specifically target the intended EWS and LIG end
users, and is based on newspaper advertisements and hoardings.
However, a grand function is organized for the customers during handing over of the homes.
The key is symbolically handed over to families, followed by an evening of cultural
entertainment. The program is conducted in Pune, and is an opportunity for the developer to
share progress of the company with customers. The program has been running successfully for
three years now.
3. GARG GROUP
Garg Group is a diversified company founded in Ghaziabad in 1957. The company has been
involved in real estate market with multiple registered entities. Land Craft Developers Pvt.
Ltd.18
is one of the primary real estate development concerns of the company. While Land Craft
focuses on MIG and HIG segments, Platina Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, a sister company of Garg
Group entered the affordable housing market with its pilot project ‘Dinesh Nagar’ launched in
18
Land Craft company is the real estate vertical of the Group working since 2006 for higher income group. Golf Links (A Golf
centric township), River Heights (Group Housing project) and The Center Court are some of its previous projects catering
exclusively to the HIG segment. Although, more recentlyunder theSamajwadi Awas Yojnaofthe Government ofUttar Pradesh,
Land Craft Developers has launched two affordable housing projects: LandCraft Metro Homes located on the main NH-58,
Ghaziabad and New Saket located in Meerut (ref Figure 7). ‘Both these projects are offering housing units between INR
15,00,000 – 30,00,000’. (source: http://landcraftmetrohomes.com/)

38
November 2010 to serve the base of the pyramid. Garg group observed that there is an opportunity
in the affordable housing sector because not many developers were constructing for this income
segment. Additionally, they believe that profits can be made through affordable housing
projects too. Their first project (Dinesh Nagar) was a part of their Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) plan, hence profits were not a major concern.
The site is located on the North-eastern side of Ghaziabad city near Pilkhuwa town in Hapur
district close to Delhi– Hapur road (Refer Figure 15). The project falls under the purview of
HPDA - Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority. Spread over 18 acres of land, it delivers houses
in two phases. While the 900 units of phase I are sold out, Phase II (along with a commercial
complex) is currently under construction. Geographically,the site is 11km from Hapur city in
UttarPradesh,26km from Ghaziabad and53 kmfrom New Delhi. The site is connected by state
transport buses and the nearest bus stop at Modinagar is 2 km away. The railway line connecting
Pilkhuwa to Ghaziabad is 2.5 km from the site. Also, the Vaishali Metro station is at 38 km and the
New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport is around 60 – 75 km away from the site.
Figure 15: Location Map of Dinesh Nagar; Major Nodes in Regional Context
Source: http://www.dineshnagar.com/location-map.php
Figure 14: Timeline of Garg group affordable housing projects
Source: http://www.dineshnagar.com/about-group.php

39
Garg group entered the affordable housing market with the Dinesh Nagar project. In six years
(2010-16) Dinesh Nagar homes have been occupied by people from various income groups,
predominantly EWS and LIG. With its success, Garg Group has launched two more projects
under the Land Craft banner (Refer Figure 14). Most residents of Dinesh Nagar were from the
formal sector, with stable jobs and are employed in the nearby sugar mills, engineering
colleges, and other manufacturing units around Hapur and Pilkhuwa. From retirees to newly-
weds and mid-career professionals, the place has attracted a diverse population with mostly
Hindu (and some Christian) families.
Approximately 53% of the buyers are from the EWS category, 22% from LIG and the remaining
25% from MIG. Hence it can be observed that most occupants of Phase I of Dinesh Nagar
belong to the EWS and LIG categories.
Table 10: Dinesh Nagar - Buyers Profile
UNIT
TYPE
UNIT SIZE PRICE
RANGE
(LAKHS)
N U M B E R
OF UNITS
SOLD UNIT BUYER’S PROFILE
EWS*19
LIG ** MIG***
1BHK 445 – 505 7.52 – 9.50 1292 1149 689 (60%) 287 (25%) 173 (15%)
2BHK 654 – 712 Up to 11L 72 48 28 (58%) 12 (25%) 8 (17%)
3BHK 950 – 975 Up to 16L 32 17 10 (59%) 4 (23%) 3 (18%)
Total 1396 1214 727 (60%) 303 (25%) 184 (15%)
Source: Garg Group
19
50,000/month)
Figure 16: Dinesh Nagar
Figure 17: Dinesh Nagar

40
The Delhi – Harpur road connects Dinesh Nagar to Ghaziabad. Buses and trains are available
at a distance of 2-2.5km from the site, hence public transportation is an issue for residents,
especially with the lack of last mile connectivity. Frequency of state transport buses is very
low, but increases from Pilakhuwa. The industrial areas in the vicinity include a Mother Dairy
factory. warehouses, fabrication industries, manufacturing units (small to medium) and
furniture factories. Although the largest employment center is in Ghaziabad, many residents
also work at factories and industries in Noida. These major nodes are more than an hour away
from the project site (by private vehicle).
Currently ground water is being tapped for potable supply, and this creates issues during dry
months. Construction of the rainwater harvesting system has not been completed, hence is not
operational yet. Power backup has not been supplied and frequent outages are an issue for
residents. In terms of basic amenities, the area has not been sufficiently serviced as there are
complaints about lack of street lights on the main road that connects the site to Pilkhuwa.
Although the developer had plans to incorporate schools, play areas and sports facilities within
the campus, none of these have been implemented yet. A commercial complex comprising of
shops and office spaces is currently under construction.
The project claims to have 18 parks and gardens that serve as play areas and more for the
resident children. However, these open spaces are relatively small and may not be able to
adequately serve the families that reside in the two or three buildings that surround one space.
5. Design and Construction:
In total, the project offers 1396 units built in 46 blocks designed as G+3. These are 1, 2 and 3
BHK apartments (Refer Table 9) available at Dinesh Nagar and it also has 132 residential plots
which are yet to be developed. Overall, approximately, 42%of the total project area is being used
forhousing.
As can be observed in Figure 18, the design of the 1BHK unit has been done by optimizing the
available floor space. The bedroom and kitchen are well ventilated. The bathroom and toilet
have been provided separately and ventilation for these have been provided through a duct. A
balcony has also been provided for residents to dry clothes in. Since the Type B and C plans do
not vary significantly from the Type A only one plan has been shown and discussed here.

41
Figure 18: 1BHK Unit Plan
Source: http://www.dineshnagar.com/1-bhk-A.php
The absence of a commercial complex has led to the residents establishing shops in various
spaces within the residential units. This has been approved by the developer for now but will
change once the commercial complex gets built. The commercial space has been planned as a
single building with 31 shops. While the school within the campus is yet to be constructed,

42
there are multiple schools and higher education facilities within the Hapur-Pilkhuwa region20
.
The same holds true for the health and related medical facilities although last mile connectivity
is an issue.
Finance for the project was handled by SBI, PNB, BOB, HFFC and Shubham Housing Finance.
The houses are priced between INR 8,10,000 – 16,00,000.
SBI played a major role in providing housing loans to the targeted segment for the Dinesh
Nagar project. A special camp was conducted in July 2011 for extending loans to more than
50 applicants who intended to buy houses in Dinesh Nagar. Although SBI has certain scoring
parameters to screen applicants for loan feasibility, the parameters were tweaked to suit
customers from the bottom of the pyramid. As highlighted in Table 10, parameters 6, 7, 8 and
12 were completely removed as these were found to be irrelevant for lower income segments.
Similarly, parameters like relationship with the bank were given a lower weightage, while
income stability, repayment tenure, mode of payment and loan to value ratio were given more
priority to enable more end users to procure housing loans. Additionally, this framework was
made flexible by granting power to branch managers who could evaluate the applications on
a case to case basis. The idea was to make the framework more subjective while reducing the
importance of scoring norms. This initiative was taken up by the developer who then roped
in SBI proactively to innovate on its evaluation framework. Consequently, SBI was the main
housing finance partner for Dinesh Nagar with 65% of the total loans from Dinesh Nagar being
sanctioned through SBI.
Table 11: SBI Old and New Parameter Scores
Sr. No Parameters Score of the Parameter
Old New
1 Age 6 12
2 Relationship with Bank 7 3
3 Employer Term 9 10
4 Stability of Income 6 10
5 Repayment Tenure 7 9
6 Net Worth vs Loan Amount 6 Removed
7 EMI / Monthly Income 9 Removed
8 Other Expenses / Monthly Income 6 Removed
9 Income + Number of Documents 16 16
10 Mode of Payment 9 10
20
Arwachin International school is at walking distance from the site

43
11 Loan to Value 14 15
12 Builder Tie – Up 5 Removed
13 Difference between Extra / Annual Income 15
Source: Garg Group
The project is currently being maintained by workers on contracts assigned by Garg group.
Residents are charged a maintenance fee of INR 380 per month. The developer plans to hand
over maintenance of Dinesh Nagar to the RWA once construction is completed and all houses
are handed over.
The marketing team at Garg Group consciously targeted the workforce in the employment
hubs. Workers from the factories and warehouses in the vicinity were targeted and events were
conducted at the Ram Leela ground, school grounds, mills and factories to market the project.
However, it was understood through field surveys that a large number of home owners at Dinesh
Nagar are looking at reselling their houses but this has not been much of a success as lack of
basic services and public transport connectivity are major issues.
4. PLAYTOR
Playtor is a Pune based affordable housing developer that has been operating since 2014 to
create child-centric communities in the outskirts of major metropolitan cities of India. Playtor
Child Spaces is a joint venture conceived between Sangam Realty; a Pune-based construction
firm, and Brick Eagle; an equity firm based in Mumbai. Playtor’s decision to work in the
affordable housing space was inspired by the huge demandfor homes in this segment along
with a slowdown in the higher segments real estate market in Pune. Playtor launched its pilot
‘Rajgurunagar’ in 2014 in a small town near Pune named Rajgurunagar. Currently, Playtor has
four more projects and all cater to the lower income segment. These are in Chakan Annex,
Chakan MIDC, Ranjangaon, and Paud, in the outskirts of Pune.
Rajgurunagar is a census town located in the north side of Pune city in Khed taluka.
Rajgurunagar comes under the jurisdiction of the Pune Metropolitan Regional Development
Authority (PMRDA)21
. Geographically, Rajgurunagar homes are located on the
21
The Government of Maharashtra set-up the PMRDA in 2015. The development authority is responsible for planning and
regulating development in the metropolitan region which includes Maval and Pune city, Bhor, Daund, Shirur, Mulshi and
Khed taluka of Pune district. PMRDA comprises of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad municipal corporations and Talegaon

44
Bhimashankar – Shirur State Highway 54. The Khed SEZ is located approximately 12.4 km
and Chakan MIDC is located 23.6 km from the project site (Refer Figure 18). The project site
has no direct railway connectivity. While there is a proposal for a new railway station (budget
was approved in 2011-12), there has been no significant progress on operationalizing the same.
The closest railway station is Pune Junction 47 km away. However, there are several buses
connecting Rajgurunagar to Pune and it takes about 1.5 hours to reach the city. The Pune -
Nashik Highway is approximately 2.7 km away.
The average first home buyers are from the Pimpri-Chinchwad area (34 km away from the site) with
a few from Pune city,although the developers believethat those from Pune are largelyinvestors. Also,
a significantnumberofNRIs basedin Dubai havepurchased homes in Playtorprojects and will likely
be a part of the social fabric.
Dabhade, Lonavla, Alandi municipal councils along with about 100 villages spread across the district.
Figure 19: Location of Playtor Rajgurunagar
Source: http://www.playtor.in/projects/rajgurunagar/location-map.html

45
Table 12: Rajgurunagar - Buyers Profile
UNIT
TYPE
(Lakhs)
NUMBER OF
UNITS
SELF - OCCUPIED
EWS*22
LIG ** MIG***
1BHK 363 10 (12.6 Now) 360 113 (25%) 180 (40%) 157 (35%)
2BHK 507 11.5 (16.5 Now) 90
Total 450 113 (25%) 180 (40%) 157 (35%)
Source: Playtor
The above table shows; the targeted customers are not exclusively from the EWS and LIG
segments. In fact, only 25% of the total 450 units are occupied by the EWS category. The rest
are occupied by LIG (40%) and MIG (35%).
The main employment centers are located at Pimpri- Chinchwad (34 km away from the site),
Sambhajinagar (31 km away) and Pune (46 km away). These can be accessed through the Pune
– Nashik Highway. The upcoming Kalyani Khed City SEZ (approximately 15 km) and Chakan
– Talegaon growth corridor will potentially serve as new employment nodes. Developers
predict that the maturation of these potential employment corridors will impact the occupancy
of Rajgurunagar homes.
Primary water supply is from the Gram Panchayat and secondary water supply is from a bore
well. Due to the neighboring Bhima river and canal, Rajgurunagar has plenty of available
ground water. Chas Kamam Dam (21 km away) is also a potential source of water. Amenities
like the sewage treatment plant have not been provided yet and will only be functional closer
to the date of occupation. However, for occupied flats, a temporary septic tank has been
provided.
5. Design and Construction:
In addition to the basic requirements of a bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom/toilet,
it can be observed that a deck has been provided for residents. Toilets and bathrooms have been
seperated, as required by most low income users. The kitchen, bathroom and toilet have been
well ventilated. It must also be noted that the furnishing shown in Figure 20 is only for the
purpose of advertisement and all apartments are sold as unfurnished.
22
50,000/month)

46
Figure 20: 1BHK Layout Plan
http://www.playtor.in/projects/rajgurunagar/plans.html
Rajgurunagar is a developed town hence amenities like schools, colleges and hospitals are
easily accessible. Last mile connectivity remains an issue for accessibility of the amenities.
Apart from this, the developer proposes to have a tree house, gazebo anda commercial complex
within the site. However, the problems of maintenance of the aforementioned facilities remains
visible.
End user financing for the project was handled by MHFC, HFFC, HDFC, ICICI, AXIS, TATA
Capital and PNB.
As construction is still ongoing for a few blocks and will only complete by the end of 2017, a
plan has not yet been strategized for operations and maintenance of Rajgurunagar post
occupancy.
Playtor has not adopted any specific marketing technique for the targeted end user segment, nor
has it partnered with any CSO for the purpose of hand holding for potential end users.

47
5. OLYMPEO
Olympeo Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is a Mumbai-based real estate developer that has been
working since 2014 in the development of large integrated townships with facilities for active
and healthy living. Olympeo Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd has a range of projects across various
stages of planning and execution – from tenements, apartments to luxury bungalows and row
houses. In addition, the company offers comprehensive real estate management and
maintenance solutions to its customers. Olympeo has launched its first affordable housing
project ‘Olympeo Riverside’ in 2014, for LIG, MIG and HIG customer’s in Neral.
Located on the eastern side of Mumbai in Neral town of Karjat taluka, the project is named
‘Riverside’ as it has been built along the banks of river Ulhas. The site falls within the
jurisdiction of MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority) near the
foothills of Matheran. It is connected to Mumbai CST through Shelu station which is at a
walkable distance from the site. An upcoming railway line shall connect Karjat to Panvel too.
The site is connected to Mumbai and Pune via NH4 and theMumbai- Pune highway, while a 4-
lane road connects Karjat and Badlapur (Refer Figure 19). The Karjat – Murbad road is 1.4 km
away from the project site and the upcoming Navi Mumbai International Airport is located 17
km from the site.

48
Riverside homes have 1RK and 1BHK homes that are priced between INR 13,50,000 –
21,00,000. This pricing is relatively high when compared to other affordable housing projects.
So far around 361 units have been sold and handed over. The buyers are people with formal and
secure jobs who are currently living in rented accommodations in the outskirts of Mumbai (in and
around Thane) but would like to upgrade quality of their living space. Additionally, people from
the far west suburbs of Mumbai such as Vasai, Virar etc have also purchased homes. Out of the
361 houses that have been sold, approximately 40 have been purchased by property investors.
Since the project is still in its initial stages with only 361 homes sold, it is perhaps too early to
understand the community profile. Of the units sold, 84% of the total houses have been bought
by the EWS and LIG categories. Only 16% units have been bought by the MIG.
Figure 21: Location map of Olympeo Riverside
Source: Olympeo
Figure 22: Regional Connectivity of project site
Source: Olympeo

Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward

Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward

Similar to Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Affordable Housing For All: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward