Right now, refurbished structures are being developed. For the new development of 454 buildings in the city possessed by the Maharashtra Residential Area Development Authority (Mhada) & BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) that are currently old, dilapidated, and in a very dangerous condition, the state urban development department has constructed a new clause 33(24) inside the Development Control as well as Promotion Regulations, 2034.
These buildings were originally abandoned and were redeveloped in the late 1980s as part of the PM’s Grant Project. They currently require urgent maintenance.
These buildings, according to Shiv Sena MLA Ajay Choudhary of the Shivadi assembly constituency, are dispersed throughout south Mumbai, from Colaba to Sion and Mahim. “There are 388 Mhada-owned structures and 65 BMC-owned ones… Because of their poor condition, the structures occasionally experience slab collapses, peeling plaster, and monsoon leaks. As there is no policy, I brought up the subject of their reconstruction in the statehouse in 2016,” said Choudhari, referring to the years it took the government to ultimately issue a statement and solicit concerns and recommendations.
According to Milind Changani, a consultant to the real estate sector, as BMC and Mhada owned these shuttered structures, they were renovated using the standard 1.33 FSI (floor space index) of the time. This time, the government created a plan called 33(24) that permits property companies to execute the reconstruction. The incentive FSI is provided for these projects, however, “does not make beginning viable,” he said.
The 454 structures were no longer considered to be properties following rehabilitation, according to architect Sandip Isore. “There is no program for the buildings to be redeveloped anew, and the occupants of these structures are financially strapped and unable to restore them on their own. As a result, the administration has created this clause,” he stated. More concurred that the incentive provided by FSI for the 33(24) reconstruction is insufficient to draw in private developers.
“Sections like 33(7) for the rehabilitation of old and damaged structures offer bonus FSI of 75%-80%, 33(9) for the rehabilitation of clusters offers 90%-110%, and 33(10) for the rehabilitation of slums is similar. The incentive FSI in the case of 33(24) is 45% for the restoration of a single site and increases to 75% for the rehabilitation of six plots combined, the official stated.
Choudhari claimed he had written to the state government requesting an increase in the FSI incentive since without it, the programme would just exist on paper.
