urban rural metamorphosis

1. THE AMBIVALENCE OF BELONGING: THE
IMPACT OF “URBAN RURAL
METAMORPHOSIS” CASE BASED STUDY
OF CHENNAI CITY
F A C U L T Y O F A R C H I T E C T U R E
Dr. M.G.R EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARCHITECTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
VISTARA
PAPER ID: THE PLACE 238
18.07.19
PRESENTED BY
AR. MOOKAMBIKA BA

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
•ACADEMIC WRITING_MOOC in SWAYAM
• MOOKAMBIKA BA
• 355ea9e3ea7d11e98ed4c3997fd5dbd9

7. Introduction
• Historically the development of cities may be characterised by three major stages, first,
the pre-industrial cities that were dominated by the economic power of land owners and
the activities of merchants and craftsmen, secondly, the industrial cities characterised by
increasing specialisation and increase in production in manufacturing industry, thirdly,
the post-industrial cities that have emerged from the shift from industry to services and
a knowledge base economy. At this juncture this article is an attempt to explore the
dynamics in developing cities using examination of the multiple migrations as the new
condition for urban metamorphosis. However, in most instances, the planning strategies
of urban cities resulted in a conflation of the urban–rural interface into a more complex
urban condition, marked by heterogeneity and fragmentation. The article illustrates this
through an empirical approach in the Indian city of Chennai, where socio-spatial
transformations of neighbourhoods on its periphery are affected by multiple migrations.
In outlining the metamorphosis, the study is concentrated on the pros and cons of
migration and thereby its effect on the urban growth of the city.
• Key Words: multiple migrations, urban rural metamorphosis, urban-sprawl-Chennai

8. URBAN POPULATION
• . According to United Nations Projections, the World's urban
population will grow from 2.86 billion in 2000 to 4.98 billion by 2030
and the World's annual urban growth rate is projected as 1.8 per cent
in contrast to the rural growth rate of 0.1 per cent.

9. MIGRANTS CONTRIBUTION
• Chennai is the most densely populated city in Tamil Nadu, with a
density of 26,553 people per square kilometers and has the third
largest expatriate population in the country behind Mumbai and
Delhi, estimated at almost 90,000. Most residents of Chennai are
Tamils. 62% of migrants to the city were from other parts of the state,
34% were from other parts of India, and 4% were from outside of
India.

11. URBANISATION IN INDIA
• In a formerly rural economy country like India, because of the need to
decrease the number of persons dependent on agriculture and to
improve productivity in rural areas, urbanisation is viewed as a
prerequisite of growth. The urban population in India has grown from
25.7 million in 1901 to 286.1 million in 2001. After Independence in
1947, the rate of growth of urban population increased from 2.64
percent in 1951 to 3.88 percent in 1981 and thereafter declined to
2.77 in 2001; but the share of urban population to the total
population of the country constantly increased from 10.9 percent in
1901 to 15.92 percent in 1951, and thereafter to 27.81 per cent in
2001.

13. URBANISATION IN TAMILNADU
• Tamilnadu has emerged as the third largest economy in India. Cities exist
and grow because of economies of urban agglomeration associated with
industrial and trade activities. In the recent past, liberalisation, rapidly
growing IT sector, an educated, hardworking and disciplined work force etc,
accelerating economic development also contributed to the growth of
urban areas in Tamilnadu. The extent of the State is 130,058 sq.km. of
which the urban area accounts for 12,525 sq.km. Tamilnadu is the most
urbanised state in India. It is one of the few states in India with hierarchy
of urban areas dispersed fairly uniformly through-out the State. Its urban
population has grown from 12.46 million in 1971 to 27.48 million in 2001.
Its percentage share of urban population to total population stood always
much above the national average.

17. CHENNAI RANKING
• Chennai has an estimated population of 4.9 million, with an area that
has grown from 176 square kilometers to 426 square kilometers after
a 2011 expansion. The urban agglomeration, which includes the city
and suburbs, has a population estimated at 9 million. This makes it
the 4th most populous metropolitan area in India and the 31st largest
urban area in the world.

18. SPATIAL GROWTH PATTERN OF CHENNAI

19. Arrival of passengers by the 92 intercity trains is estimated to be 1.125 lakhs per
day. Similarly arrival of passengers in inter city buses (2028 arrivals) is estimated
to be about 83,000 per day. These main arrivals of passengers to CMA accounts
to 1.955 lakhs. In addition, there are people who commute every day for work,
education, business and others from the adjoining and nearby districts and
return home in the evening. These daily commuters estimated to be 20,000.
Hence the people arriving in CMA through trains, buses and air is estimated to
be about 2.25 lakhs and an equal number of persons may be departing from the
metropolitan area. This floating population should also be taken into account in
planning for infrastructure development in CMA appropriately.
FLOATING POPULATION

20. URBAN RURAL PUSH PULL FACTORS
Push factors-rural
• Lack of investments in the
government in rural areas
• More employment in cities
• Lack of services
• Lack of their own lands
• Effect of disasters is more
Pull factors - Urban
• Government invests more in
cities
• Attractive
• Effect of disasters is less
• Unemployment is a myth
• Better housing

21. MIGRATION
• The cosmopolitan nature of Chennai is a result of its attractiveness to
migrant groups from all over India. Migrants came not only predominantly
from the surrounding Tamil and Telugu speaking areas, but also from
southern and northern India. These migrant groups from other states have
made their distinctive mark on the patterns of residential and social
organisations within this Chennai Metropolis.
• Chennai is a city of migrants like any other metropolitan city in India.
According to 2011 Census, migrants to Chennai City from other parts of
Tamil Nadu State constitute 74.5 %, and the table below shows a
downward trend in the migration to the City from 37.24% in 1961 to
21.57% in 2001. Migrants from other parts of India constitute 23.8% and
the remaining 1.71 % of the migrants is from other countries.

25. 1. High rates of poverty
2. Un educated and unemployment
3. Poor structural quality of housing and infirm housing structure
4. Poor ventilation
5. Overcrowding and insecure residential status.
6. Low social – economic status of its residents
7. Faulty alignment of streets
8. Inadequate lighting
9. Density of safe drinking water
10. Water logging during rains
11. Absence of toilet
12. Facilities and non- availability of basic physical and social services.

26. • Migrants with about 1-5 years of stay in Chennai account for 55.3per
cent while between 6 and 10 years of stay in the city account for
almost a third (33.1 per cent) of them.
• Thus about 88 per cent of the migrants have had a stay of anywhere
between 1 and 10 years in the city, with the rest of them(nearly 12
per cent) having had a stay of more than 10 years.
• Migrants with a longest stay in Chennai have been in the city for more
than 30 years (less than1.0 per cent).

29. Inference
• Unregulated migration has caused overcrowding
• Development of slums and squatters
• Unfavourable sex ratio
• Shortage of skilled resources in rural area
• Agents of social change/evolution of composite culture
• Social vaccum..sense of dejection
• More stress on women in rural areas
• Exerts pressure on existing infrastructure
• Over exploitation of natural resources
• Illiterate people had six times greater risk of slipping into depression…

31. • References
• Amano, M. (1983): "On the Harris-Todaro Model with Intersectoral Migration of Labour," Economica : 311-323.
• Arellano, J. P. (1981): "Do More Jobs in the Modern Sector Increase Urban Unemployment?” Journal of Development
Economics, 8: 241-247.
• Banerjee, B. (1981): "Rural-Urban Migration and Family Ties: an Analysis of Family Considerations in Migration Behaviour in
India", Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, November: 321-355.
• Barlett,W. (1983): "On the Dynamic Instability of Induced-Migration Unemployment in a Dual Economy," Journal of
Development Economics, 13, pp.85-96.
• http://censusindia.gov.in/Data_Products/Data_Highlights/Data_Highlights_link/data_highlights_D1D2D3.pdf
• Collier, P. and D., Lal (1984): "Why Poor People get Rich Kenya: 1960-1979", World Development, vol. 12, N°10:1007-1018.
• Cornwell, K. and Inder, B. (2004) Migration and Unemployment in South Africa: When Motivation Surpasses the Theory.
Australia; Monash University.
• Day, R. H., S. Dasgupta , S. K. Datta and J. B. Nugent (1987) "Instability in Rural Urban Migration," Economic Journal, 97 : 940-950.
• Fields, G. S. (1975): "Rural-Urban Migration, Urban Unemployment and Underemployment, and Job-Search Activity in LDCs,"
Journal of Development Economics, 2 (2): 165-187.
• Funatsu, H. (1988): "A Note on the Stability of the Harris-Todaro Model with Capital Mobility," Economica, 55 (217): 119-121.
• Mohtadi, H. (1989):"Migration and Job Search in a Dualistic Economy: A Todaro-Stigler Synthesis", Economics Letters, 29:
373-378.
• The Journal of Developing Areas, 20, April: 339-356 (1) (PDF) Examining Rural Migrants Job Searching: A Case Study on Chennai
Koyambedu Daily Market. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330934078_Examining_Rural_Migrants_Job_Searching_A_Case_Study_on_Chennai_Ko
yambedu_Daily_Market [accessed Jul 18 2019].
• Mahendra K.Premi, 1987”Pattterns and process of migration”, Allied Publishers Pvt.Ltd.: 1987,Pg.No.258 -259 & Pg.283.
• K.Nagaraj, 1987 “Urbanization in Tamilnadu,Karnataka & Andhra Pradesh, A Comparative prime for 1961-1981 Pg.No.348.
• Censes of India 2011,2001.

32. • The Life and Times of Migrant Workers in ChennaiJ.Jeyaranjan Institute of Development Alternatives, Chennai
• http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf
• A Study on Characteristics (Socio-Economic) Of Migrants InChennai City K.Vinayakam,S.P.SekarIOSR Journal Of Humanities
And Social Science (JHSS) ISSN: 2279-0837, ISBN: 2279-0845. Volume 6, Issue 3 (Jan. - Feb. 2013), PP 28-31
• Chapter 3 Strengthened city, marginalised peri-urban villages: stakeholder dialogues for inclusive urbanisation in Chennai,
India S. Janakarajan, John Butterworth, Patrick Moriarty and Charles Batchelor
• CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS OF CHENNAi
CITYhttps://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/24086/10/10_chapter5.pdf

33. Thank you