This document provides a history of mass housing in India in 4 phases: 1) 1950-1960s: After independence, the government took responsibility for housing and launched schemes for different income groups due to large-scale urban migration. 2) Early 1970s-mid 1980s: The government realized it could not provide housing for all and focused schemes on lower income groups, encouraging other sections to be self-reliant with some support. 3) Mid 1980s-early 2000s: Neoliberal policies were adopted and the government's role shifted to facilitator rather than direct provider, with private sector expected to play a larger role. 4) Early 2000s onwards: The fourth phase discusses continuing

1. THE MASS HOUSING
SIDDHI SURENDRA
PATIL
17028
VISHWANIKETAN COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE

2. AN ARCHITECTURE THAT ACCOMODATES THE VARIETY OF INCOME GROUPS
RATHER THAN SINGLE UNIT AND ITS THEREFORE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IN WHICH
INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES FIND THEIR LIVING SPACES EITHER IN MULTIPLE
DWELLINGS OR SINGLE UNITS PRODUCED IN QUANTITY AND ALSO PROVIDING AN
ENVIRONMENT FOR HABITAT.MASS HOUSING IS DEFINED PRIMARILY BY QUANTITY
AND IT ACQUIRES ITS SPATIAL QUALITY THROUGH GROUPING. THIS TYPE OF
DWELLING HOUSES LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WITH VARYING DEGREES OF
HOUSING QUALITY. WITHIN IT THE HOUSING UNITS ARE CLOSELY GROUPED,
ACCORDING TO RULES OF HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL ASSEMBLAGE, GENERATING
SPACES WITH PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CHARACTER IN WHICH CERTAIN
SOCIAL PRACTICES OF HOUSING UNFOLD.
INTRODUCTION

3. HISTORY
PROVIDING A GLOBAL APPROACH TO THE HISTORY OF MODERNIST MASS-HOUSING
PRODUCTION, THIS ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY COMBINES WITH THE BROADER
SOCIAL, POLITICAL, CULTURAL ASPECTS OF MASS HOUSING – PARTICULARLY THE
'MASS' POLITICS OF POWER AND STATE-BUILDING THROUGHOUT THE 20TH
CENTURY.
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILT FORM, IDEOLOGY, AND POLITICAL
INTERVENTION, IT SHOWS HOW MASS HOUSING NOT ONLY REFLECTED THE
TRANSNATIONAL IDEALS OF THE MODERNIST PROJECT, BUT ALSO BECAME A
CENTRAL LEGITIMIZING PILLAR OF NATION-STATES WORLDWIDE.
THE SPREAD OF MASS HOUSING TO A 'HUNDRED YEARS WAR' OF SUCCESSIVE
CAMPAIGNS AND RETREATS, IT TRACES THE HISTORY AROUND THE GLOBE FROM
EUROPE VIA THE USA, SOVIET UNION AND A NETWORK OF INTERNATIONAL
OUTPOSTS, TO ITS ULTIMATE, OPTIMISTIC RESURGENCE IN CHINA AND THE EAST.

4. HISTORY
MID 19TH-CENTURY INNOVATORS AND EXPERIMENTS
LATE 19TH- EARLY 20TH CENTURY IDEOLOGIES: PUBLIC HOUSING AND ARM'S
LENGTH BUILDING
THE DUAL MARKET: WORKING-CLASS TENEMENTS AND MIDDLE-CLASS
APARTMENTS IN NORTH AMERICA
HOUSING AND COLONIALISM: BUILDING FOR RULERS OR THE RULED
THE UPSURGE IN EMERGENCIES: 1905-19142.
SYSTEMATISATION AND INDIVIDUALISM: THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN MASS
HOUSING WORLD WAR I: WAR SOCIALISM AND RENT CONTROL
THE HARE AND THE TORTOISE: MUNICIPAL HOUSING IN 'RED VIENNA' AND
BRITAIN CONTINENTAL PERMUTATIONS IN THE 1920S TOTALITARIAN HOUSING
VISIONS IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
DEMOCRATIC HOUSING SYSTEMS OF THE 1930S IN TERWAR LATIN AMERICA AND
THE COLONIES
WORLD WAR II – THE GLOBALISATION OF EMERGENCY
PART A: MID 19TH-CENTURY TO 1945 - THE GATHERING STORM
1. PRE-1914: THE LONG MOBILISATION
2. 1914-1945 THE MATURING OF MASS HOUSING IN THE AGE OF EMERGENCIES

5. RED SCARES, RACE SCARES – THE BRIEF HEYDAY AND LONG RETREAT OF US PUBLIC HOUSING
NEW YORK CITY – THE MONUMENTAL EXCEPTION LOCAL TRAJECTORIES OF RENEWAL AND DECLINE
CANADA: GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND THE REVIVAL OF RENTING
'BIG DADDY' AND MASS HOUSING IN METRO TORONTO NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA
HIGH FLATS AND SLUM RECLAMATION IN VICTORIA AND NEW SOUTH WALES
CENTRAL AND MUNICIPAL
POSTWAR HOUSING DESIGN IN ENGLAND
SLUM CLEARANCE, PLANNING AND THE 'LAND-TRAP'
FINANCING AND ORGANISING HIGH FLATS IN THE 'SIXTIES
LONDON AND THE ENGLISH CITIES
SCOTLAND: THE LEGACY OF 'RED CLYDESIDE'
ISLAND DIVERSITY: IRELAND AND THE CHANNEL ISLANDS
PART B: 1945-1989 - THE 'THREE WORLDS' OF POSTWAR MASS HOUSING
3. POSTWAR MASS HOUSING: AFTER FIRST WORLD, SECOND WORLD, THIRD WORLD INTERNATIONAL
MODERNISM ARISED: FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL
4. HOUSING BY AUTHORITY – POST-WAR STATE INTERVENTIONS IN THE 'ANGLOSPHERE'
5.COUNCIL POWERS: POSTWAR PUBLIC HOUSING IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND

6. 1945-55 – A HESITANT REVIVAL
SCIC, SCET AND THE ÉTAT PLANIFICATEUR
'LE HARD FRENCH': THE HOUSING LEGACY OF PERRET
1955-75: 'GRANDS ENSEMBLES' AND THE INDUSTRIALISATION OF NATIONAL GRANDEUR
SOCIALIST SKYSCRAPERS VERSUS CATHOLIC COTTAGES: POSTWAR HOUSING IN BELGIUM
THE NETHERLANDS: PLANNED HOUSING AND 'POLDER POLITICS'
STANDARDISATION AND GALERIJBOUW: POSTWAR DUTCH HOUSING DESIGN
TENURE-NEUTRAL BUILDING IN SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRIA
WEST GERMANY: THE HOUSING OF SOZIALE MARKTWIRTSCHAFT
BUILDING THE 'FOLKHEM' – HOUSING AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN SWEDEN
DENMARK: MODERNISATION THROUGH QUIET QUALITY
FINLAND, NORWAY AND ICELAND – MASS HOUSING FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
6. FRANCE: THE TRENTE GLORIEUSES OF MASS HOUSING
7. THE LOW COUNTRIES – PILLARS OF MODERN MASS HOUSING
8.STABILITY AND CONTINUITY: WEST GERMANY AND THE ALPINE COUNTRIES
9. THE NORDIC COUNTRIES

7. THE PROGRESSIVE SOUTH: POSTWAR HOUSING IN ITALY AND MALTA
INA-CASA: THE CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC HOUSING VISION
1960S-70S 'COMPREHENSIVE' PLANNING IN ITALY
THE CONSERVATIVE SOUTH: POSTWAR HOUSING IN SPAIN, PORTUGAL, GREECE AND TURKEY
'QUICKLY, CHEAPLY AND WELL' – SOVIET HOUSING UNDER KHRUSHCHEV AND BREZHNEV
THE CURATE'S EGG – NATIONAL AND LOCAL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN THE POSTWAR SOVIET UNION
CENTRAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR INITIATIVES
MONUMENTALITY AND SPACE IN POSTWAR SOVIET HOUSING
SNIP AND DSK – STANDARDISATION AND INDUSTRIALISATION
TAMING THE COLOSSUS: TOWARDS 'COMPLEXITY' AND 'FLEXIBILITY'
A BROTHERLY MOSAIC – REGIONALIST HOUSING IN THE USSR
TASHKENT – MODEL SOVIET CITY
SOVIET HOUSING IN THE PERESTROIKA YEARS
10. SOUTHERN EUROPE – SOCIAL HOUSING FOR KINSHIP SOCIETIES
11. THE USSR: DEVELOPED SOCIALISM AND EXTENSIVE URBANISM

8. THE SATELLITE BLOC: FROM DISSIDENCE TO DECOMPOSITION
THE DIVERSITY OF SOCIALIST STANDARDISATION
SOCIALIST OUTLIERS: EUROPEAN DIVERGENCES FROM THE SOVIET MODEL
THE 'ONGOING REVOLUTION' – SELF-MANAGEMENT AND MONUMENTALITY IN YUGOSLAVIA
NOVI BEOGRAD – EPICENTRE OF DECENTRALISM
LATE SOCIALIST CLUSTER-DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE YUGOSLAV REPUBLICS
DANWEI: FRAGMENTATION AND AUSTERITY IN CHINESE SOCIALIST HOUSING
FROM THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD TO THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION: AUSTERITY AND ANARCHY
'SOVIET' ASIA: MONGOLIA AND NORTH VIETNAM
BUILDING AT 'PYONGYANG SPEED': HOUSING IN JUCHE KOREA
MASS HOUSING AND THE POLITICS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, 1945-1964
HOUSING AS SOCIAL SECURITY: PRE-1964 BRAZIL
1960S COLD-WAR HOUSING POLITICS IN LATIN AMERICA
12. A QUARRELSOME FAMILY: THE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST STATES
13. SOCIALIST EASTERN ASIA: MASS HOUSING AND THE SINO-SOVIET SPLIT
14. LATIN AMERICA – CHAMELEON CONTINENT

9. THE MIDDLE EAST: DECOLONISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
ISRAEL: CREATING A 'NEW GEOGRAPHY' THROUGH PUBLIC HOUSING
INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA: BUILDING ON COLONIAL BUREAUCRACY
CAPITAL COLONIES: POST-INDEPENDENCE DELHI
BOMBAY/MUMBAI AND MHADA: PRESSURE-COOKER BUILDING
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: COLONIALISM'S LAST STAND 'PROGRESSIVE' HOUSING DECOLONISATION IN
FRANCOPHONE AFRICA
DIVIDE AND RULE SEGREGATION AND MASS HOUSING IN 'BRITISH' AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: SEGREGATED HOUSING IN A SIEGE SOCIETY
TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE – POSTWAR HOUSING IN JAPAN
'HOUSING GANGNAM-STYLE': SOUTH KOREA'S TANJI REVOLUTION
HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE – A STUDY IN SIBLING RIVALRY
SHEK KIP MEI AND BUKIT HO SWEE: FROM RESETTLEMENT TO HOME-OWNERSHIP
RACE TO THE TOP: HDB AND HKHA ARCHITECTURE
15. ECHOES OF EMPIRE – POSTWAR HOUSING IN THE MIDDLE EAST, SOUTH ASIA AND AFRICA
16. FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST WORLD: MASS HOUSING IN CAPITALIST EASTERN ASIA
HOUSING THE 'ASIAN TIGERS'

10. THE AFTERMATH: MASS HOUSING AT BAY IN THE FORMER FIRST AND SECOND WORLDS RESIDUAL MASS
HOUSING IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH
DEVELOPMENTAL EASTERN ASIA INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
BUILDING FOR THE 'MASS LINE': SOCIAL HOUSING IN 21ST-CENTURY CHINA
PART C: 1989 TO THE PRESENT - RETRENCHMENT AND RENEWAL
17. RESILIENCE AND RENEWAL: MASS HOUSING INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
18. RACE TO THE TOP: THE NEW ASIAN DEVELOPMENT ALISMTOKI AND AKP TURKEY

11. HISTORY (IN INDIAN CONTEXT)
PHASE I (1950-60S)
AFTER ITS INDEPENDENCE, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WAS FACING A HUGE
HOUSING CHALLENGE, ESPECIALLY IN URBAN AREAS, DUE TO LARGE SCALE
MIGRATION AFTER THE PARTITION OF COUNTRY. SO IN THESE EARLY YEARS, THE
GOVERNMENT TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVISION OF HOUSING,
DECLARING THAT PRIVATE SECTOR HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IT
SUFFICIENTLY. THIS RESULTED IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BRINGING OUT
VARIOUS SCHEMES FOR DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF SOCIETY IN ITS EARLY
YEARS.THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RESOLVED TO TAKE A LEAD IN URBAN SECTOR
HOUSING, AND BROUGHT OUT SCHEMES LIKE SUBSIDISED HOUSING SCHEME FOR
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (1952), LOW INCOME GROUP HOUSING SCHEME (1954),
MIDDLE INCOME GROUP HOUSING SCHEME (1959) AND SLUM CLEARANCE AND
IMPROVEMENT SCHEME (1956) ETC.

12. PHASE II (EARLY 1970S – MID 1980S)
AFTER VARIOUS EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIRST PHASE, THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY
REALISED IN THE SECOND PHASE THAT IT CANNOT PROVIDE HOUSING TO ALL, AS IT
ENVISAGED EARLIER. THIS REALISATION WAS QUITE VISIBLE IN THE DROP OF
NUMBER OF HOUSING RELATED SCHEMES FLOATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
SECTIONS OTHER THAN POOR OR SOCIALLY BACKWARD. DURING THIS PERIOD,
GOVERNMENT HOUSING SCHEMES WERE ESPECIALLY FOCUSED ON LOWER
SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY. OTHER SECTIONS WERE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE UP
HOUSING ACTIVITIES AS SELF-PROVISIONING ACTIVITY WITH LIMITED SUPPORT
FROM THE GOVERNMENT.THE GOVERNMENT STARTED FOCUSSING ON LOW COST
SCHEMES LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEME OF URBAN SLUMS (1972)
AND SITES AND SERVICES SCHEME (1980) TO TACKLE THE PROBLEM OF SLUM
PROLIFERATION.

13. PHASE III (MID 1980S – EARLY 2000S)
IT WAS DURING THIS PHASE THAT NEOLIBERAL POLICIES HAD STARTED MAKING
THEIR WAYS INTO INDIA. THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF LIBERALIZING
THE ECONOMY, WHICH WAS ALSO VISIBLE IN ITS HOUSING POLICIES. ITS HOUSING
POLICIES HAD STARTED TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTING GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AS A
PROVIDER OF HOUSING IN THE COUNTRY AND PUSHED IT TO TAKE UP THE ROLE OF
A FACILITATOR IN THIS SECTOR. THE SEVENTH PLAN ADVISED THE GOVERNMENT
THAT “ GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN THE FIELD OF URBAN HOUSING HAS PER FORCE TO
BE PROMOTIONAL. THE MAJOR EFFORT WILL HAVE TO COME FROM THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, GOVERNMENT’S ROLE WILL HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE
IMPROVEMENT OF SLUMS, DIRECT PROVISION OF HOUSING TO THE WEAKER
SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY AND ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT OF HOUSING
FINANCE INSTITUTIONS…” EVEN THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF SLUM IMPROVEMENT
AND WEAKER SECTION HOUSING WERE BEING TRIED TO BE PUSHED TOWARDS
LOWER TIERS OF GOVERNMENTS.

14. PHASE IV (EARLY 2000S ONWARDS)
PHASE IV IS, BY AND LARGE, A CONTINUATION OF THE NEOLIBERAL TENDENCIES OF
PHASE III, BUT ON A LARGER SCALE. BY NOW, THE GOVERNMENT HAD
COMFORTABLY PLACED ITSELF IN THE ROLE OF FACILITATOR OF HOUSING
ACTIVITIES. FINALLY, IT ALSO DECLARED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE KIND OF
MONETARY CAPACITIES TO FUND THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
ACTIVITIES IN THE COUNTRY AS MUCH A S REQUIRED. HENCE IT STARTED LOOKING
FOR WAYS TO ATTRACT PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN THIS SECTOR.THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S SCHEMES IN THIS PHASE, WHICH WERE FOCUSED ONLY
ON WEAKER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY (VALMIKI AMBEDKAR AWAS YOJNA IN 2001,
WHICH WAS LATER MERGED WITH BSUP UNDER JNNURM IN 2005 AND THEN IN RAJIV
AWAS YOJNA IN 2013) ARE ADVOCATED TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP (PPP) BASIS.

15. OBJECTIVES
1.FAMILY INTERACTION.
2.GROUP INTERACTION.
3.THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.
4.WATER, WASTE, ENERGY.
5.MICRO-CLIMATE.
6.FINANCE MANAGEMENT.

18. 1.HOUSES
STARTING FROM THE SINGULAR AND ABSTRACT TYPOLOGICAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE, THE FIRST CATEGORY IS DRIVEN BY MULTIPLYING, JOINING OR OVERLAPPING
MULTIPLE UNITS. THE CONFIGURATIONS GENERATED BY THOSE OPERATIONS ARE EITHER
CLASSICAL ATTACHED OR ROW HOUSES, EITHER CONTEMPORARY TYPES OF FOLDED ROW OR
STACKED HOUSES.
THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT IS USUALLY RELATED TO THE TERRAIN, BENEFITING OF A COURT OR A
TERRACE AND OF DIRECT INDIVIDUAL OR PAIRED ACCESS FROM THE GROUND LEVEL. THIS
CATEGORY MAKES THE TRANSITION FROM INDIVIDUAL HOUSING TO COLLECTIVE HOUSING OF A
HIGHER DEGREE OF DENSITY.
The typological categories vary according to composition principles based on the
housing unit, on size and by the way in which the building relates

19. 2.BLOCKS
THE SECOND TYPOLOGY REPRESENTS A QUANTITATIVE INCREASE IN SIZE, IN NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND SCALE COMPARED TO THE “HOUSE” TYPOLOGY. THE BLOCK HEIGHT IS
MODERATE, USUALLY RANGING BETWEEN 3 AND 5 LEVELS; THIS HEIGHT IS TRADITIONALLY
JUSTIFIED BY THE NUMBER OF LEVELS CONVENIENT FOR WALKING. ITS RELATIVE LOW
CONFIGURATION, ITS FLEXIBLE FOOTPRINT ON THE GROUND AND ITS SCALE ALLOW THE OBJECT
TO ENROLL ORGANICALLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT.THE BLOCK CAN BE FREESTANDING ON THE PLOT,
IT CAN HAVE FREE SIDES OR IT CAN CONTINUE AN EXISTING BUILDING BY CLEAVING ONTO A
PARTY WALL.

20. 3 . C I T Y B L O C K S
T H E C I T Y B L O C K I S A N U R B A N B U I L D I N G F L A N K E D O N A L L S I D E S B Y S T R E E T S I N R E L A T I O N T O
T H E U R B A N F A B R I C . I T S S C A L E I S D I R E C T L Y R E L A T E D T O T H E S C A L E O F T H E C I T Y . T H E C I T Y
B L O C K G E N E R A L L Y I N V O L V E S A L A R G E S P A T I A L D I V E R S I T Y A N D A R E L A T I V E L Y H I G H P R I V A C Y
D E G R E E . I T C A N H A V E T H E S A M E H E I G H T A S T H E B L O C K T Y P O L O G Y O R H I G H E R , D E P E N D I N G
O N T H E C O N T E X T . B U I L D I N G S R A N G I N G B E T W C O E E N 4 T O 7 L E V E L S A R E I D E A L I N T E R M S O F
E N E R G Y F O O T P R I N T , W H I C H I S L O W E R T H A N T H A T O F T A L L E R B U I L D I N G S .

21. 4 . H I G H R I S E B U I L D I N G S
H I G H - R I S E B U I L D I N G S T H E H I G H - R I S E T Y P E , A L S O K N O W N A S T O W E R B L O C K , I S R E P R E S E N T E D
B Y T A L L B U I L D I N G S W I T H M U L T I P L E L E V E L S . T H E R E I S N O U N I V E R S A L D E F I N I T I O N F O R T H E
N U M B E R O F L E V E L S T H A T D E T E R M I N E S A B U I L D I N G T O G A I N T H I S S T A T U S ; T H I S H E I G H T I S
V A R I A B L E A C C O R D I N G T O D I F F E R E N T G E O G R A P H I C A R E A S . T H I S T Y P O L O G Y I S J U S T I F I E D B Y
E C O N O M I C C O N S I D E R A T I O N S , N O T O N L Y I N R E L A T I O N T O C O N S T R U C T I O N C O S T S , B U T A L S O
I N R E L A T I O N T O U R B A N I N F R A S T R U C T U R E A N D L A N D R E S O U R C E S . T H E I R I M P A C T O N T H E
N E I G H B O R I N G U R B A N T I S S U E I S H I G H A N D T H E M A I N D I S A D V A N T A G E S A R E E X C E S S I V E
S H A D I N G A N D E N E R G Y C O N S U M P T I O N . T H E S T A C K E D U N I T S B L O C K I S T H E M O S T I N T E R E S T I N G
T Y P E F R O M M Y P O I N T O F V I E W , B E I N G A B L E T O G E N E R A T E S P A T I A L Q U A L I T Y A N D D I V E R S I T Y .
I T D E R I V E S F R O M A D D I T I V E P R O C E S S E S O F S M A L L S C A L E U N I T S O R O V E R L A P P E D U N E V E N
F L O O R S .

22. TODAY MASS HOUSING HAS BECOME SYNONYMOUS WITH LOW COST HOUSING AND THE ENTIRE NATIONAL EFFORT IN THIS
FIELD HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO PRODUCING A CHEAPER HOUSE. YET THE NUMBERS INVOLVED ARE OF SUCH MAGNITUDE THAT
ANY AMOUNT OF COST REDUCTION EXERCISES CANNOT PROVIDE THE SOLUTION FOR HOUSING EVERYBODY.
TRADITIONALLY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BUILT HIS OWN HOUSE HAS BEEN INTRICATELY INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE PROCESS.
THIS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR HIS IDENTITY TO BE ESTABLISHED IN HIS ENVIRONMENT. TODAY THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT HAS
TAKEN AWAY THIS CLOSE TIE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE CREATION OF HIS OWN ENVIRONMENT.
LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ARE “DESIGNED FOR” BY CENTRALISED AGENCIES
THE PROVISION OF MORE AND BETTER HOUSING TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLDS
THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES IF NEW DEVELOPMENT IS WELL DESIGNED AND COMPLEMENTS EXISTING
HOUSING;
THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEVELOPMENT BRINGS IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE;
LONGER TERM IMPROVEMENTS IN AFFORDABILITY ACROSS THE HOUSING MARKET
ADDITIONAL SPENDING AND INVESTMENT IN LOCAL SHOPS AND SERVICE
ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE LOCAL AREA
PRESSURE ON LOCAL SERVICES;
PRESSURE ON INFRASTRUCTURE, CAUSING CONGESTION, POLLUTION, AND ROAD SAFETY ISSUES;
EFFECTS OF MASS HOUSING

23. T H A N K Y O U