Regulating space

At a mall in Bangalore. Parking space is at a premium with malls coming up all over the metros.-G.R.N. SOMASHEKAR

The touchstone of any regulation in retail will be to see whether it fairly arbitrates the interests of all sections of people or not.

The India Retail Report 2007, published by India Retail Forum and Images F&R Research in January, states that about 100 million square feet (one square metre is 10.76 sq ft) of shopping centre space will be added to the Indian metros by 2007-08. This would convert, as the report suggests, to a shop-fit space of 100 hypermarkets, 500 department stores and 2,000 supermarkets. The consequent increase in building footprint sizes, changes in trip characteristics and impact on the environment will substantially alter the cityscape. But in spite of such dramatic unfolding of changes, there is so far no indication that urban planning and legislation are factoring them in.

This silence is conspicuous when it is juxtaposed with what is happening with informal retail trading. Hawking and street vending as commercial activities are perceived to impact seriously the functioning of a city and new rules were proposed, as early as 1983, to regulate them. In 2002, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee recommended to Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vijai Kapoor that the metropolis be divided into three zones, green, amber and red. Green zones would give free access to hawkers or street vendors, amber would be a fee-based access zone, and in red zones hawking would be prohibited.

Cities the world over have gone through similar retail bursts and have understood its impact. In particular, much care and attention have been paid to regulate large format retailing. Building rules are framed to regulate - not necessarily to restrict - the location of large-format retail trade, based on their levels and kinds of impact. Three major concerns are embedded in regulatory rules. One, the negative impact these large-format retailing units have on already thriving city centres, commercial areas and markets. Two, the environmental impact they have in terms of parking, traffic and waste. Three, the kind of urbanism these stores promote and their role in the death of a vibrant street life.

A sample of regulations the world over would illustrate this. In many European towns, regional plans showing the boundaries of retail development are drawn with limits on the total gross floor space allowed for retail in mind. They also spell the maximum sizes for shops. In many cities shop sizes are regulated on the basis of population sizes and access to public transport, as in the case of the Netherlands.

There are many instances where large stores are kept outside the city and far removed from traditional markets. In Japan, amendments are being proposed to the large-scale retail store location law in order to revitalise city centres and support the smaller retailers in them. Hypermarkets are not allowed within 3.5 km of housing estates or city centres in Malaysia. Indonesia prohibits hypermarkets within 500 metres of traditional markets. And large stores of more than 40,000 sq ft should be at least two and a half kilometres from traditional markets.

In many American cities, strict zoning laws regulate the location of large stores; they are usually permitted in the suburbs rather than in city centres. Large stores are considered to create considerable impact and are usually subjected to a public inquiry, a mandatory environmental impact assessment, irrespective of their location.

Zoning laws and building rules that regulate retail trade are not out of place; nor are they planning gone overboard. The usual objection to regulations on retail trade is that instead of limiting to planning consideration, urban planning is stepping into areas of economic regulation. Time and again, when such contestations have come to court (Adrian Hernandez vs City of Hanford, Supreme Court of California, 2007), it has been made clear that regulating economic competition is an intended effect of a zoning action and is an acceptable practice. The courts have found that regulations are acceptable since they strive to achieve the public purpose of controlled growth and localised commercial development. Their role to discourage anti-competitive private purpose has also been legally recognised.

Though appearing to be utilitarian in their language, regulations are founded on the political principle of reinforcing the city as a place of public living. Economic activities happen in real spaces of a city. Ideally, access to space should be equal to all and remain frictionless, but it is never so. The person or institution with capital has the initiative and possible control of space. Urban planning is expected to realise this distortion and step in to arbitrate the various demands for space. Ever since the relation between the three constituents of a city - state, market and the public - has altered in favour of the market, this objective is increasingly becoming difficult to achieve.

The lives and livelihoods of a large section of small traders have become a major concern with rising real estate prices, prohibition on hawking and the informal sector in cities, and economies of scale favouring large retail players. The wilful ignoration of the fast-changing dynamics in retail trade, combined with antiquated legislation in India, is a cause of perpetuating the geography of difference in cities.

Most Indian town planning laws enacted in the early 20th century were last updated in the 1970s. The existing development control rules of the metros make no distinction between different types of retail trade even while dramatic changes are fast occurring in the nature of retailing.

At the moment, Indian large-format retail, which includes hypermarkets, superstores and malls, does not follow international store sizes. According to OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) standards, 500 sq m to 2,000 sq m would constitute a supermarket, 2,000 sq m to 5,000 sq m a superstore, and above 5,000 sq m a hypermarket. Large stores in the United States range from 180,000 sq ft to 250,000 sq ft and, when put together with the parking area for a thousand cars, they occupy about 10 acres (one acre is 0.4 hectare).

Instead of large boxes, what we see in Indian cities is the proliferation of medium-size chain stores, which penetrate the city and densely populate the cityscape. Not that there is a complete rethinking about large-format retailing, but the relatively lower level of car ownership and the difficulties to obtain large parcels of land within cities have pushed this model. As in the case of Reliance Fresh stalls in Chennai, the shops are medium-sized so that they can comfortably occupy the same street where traditional vegetable markets are also located. Here, the size-based regulation may not work but distinction between chain stores and stand-alone stores will.

Organisations such as the Confederation of Indian Industry have been demanding that the real estate market be regulated and zoning laws modified to favour organised trade. Even lack of regulation, in spite of vast global experience with large-format retail, is to be construed as a favour dispensed. In contrast, the claims of street vendors and hawkers are ignored and anti-hawking policies are embedded in city laws. Town planning principles and rules recognise only rights vested by property ownership and not other forms of claims to a city. As a result, organised retail alone faces the danger of being considered as service providers while hawkers and other vendors who can only lay claim to the city would be further marginalised.

To political theorist Hanna Pitkin, democracy is not a simple procedural norm but a substantive content. If so, one way to measure how democratic a city is is by reviewing the inclusiveness of its planning practices. The touchstone of any regulation in retail will be to see whether it fairly arbitrates the interests of all sections of people or not.