Cities, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.

331–345, 2001
Pergamon  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S0264-2751(01)00026-9 All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0264-2751/01 $ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Urban Management
Concepts, Principles, Techniques and Education
B. K. Chakrabarty*
A-10 Qutab Enclave (Phase-I), Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016, India

The paper outlines the limitations of conventional practice for resource-efficient and equitable
solutions of urban problems in the context of urban dynamics and uncertainties, and the need
for an integrated management approach. It presents a concept of integrated urban management
based on management theory and a systems approach, and argues that many principles of
traditional management – such as the principles of productivity, social responsiveness and
flexibility – are equally applicable to urban management in order to overcome these limitations.
Similarly, many techniques of traditional management – such as management science, oper-
ations research (OR) and computer-aided design (CAD) – are also applicable in urban manage-
ment at various system levels, in order to achieve efficiency and equity in the urbanization
and development process. Computer-aided techniques for analysis and optimization of urban
built form, and for optimal design and drafting in urban development, incorporating OR, are
presented as urban planning and management tools to improve productivity and equity in
urban operations. Basic features of the software CAUB and HudCAD, and their application,
are illustrated with examples. The need for education in urban management, to facilitate appli-
cation of such principles and management techniques and to solve urban problems in a
resource-efficient manner while fulfilling the needs of multiple-stakeholders, is stressed.  2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Urban management, Systems approach, Productivity, Social responsiveness, Management techniques

Introduction flexibility principles could help overcome such limi-

Urbanization is the most dominant phenomenon in all
developing countries. Studies show that urbanization
and the economic development status of a country are
intimately linked (World Bank, 1990, 1991; Smith,
1975; Cheema, 1993). However, urbanization tends to
accentuate a number of problems, such as inadequate
housing and urban services (water, sanitation, trans-
port and so on), spiraling land prices and construction
costs, proliferation of slums, pollution and deterio-
ration of the urban environment. Urban professionals
can make significant improvement to the urban
environment by adopting an integrated management
approach, in order to resolve the conflicting interests
of multiple-stakeholders and achieve equity, while
keeping in view urban dynamics and uncertainties.
The paper highlights the limitations of conventional
practice in achieving efficiency and equity, and how
an integrated management approach incorporating
*Tel.: +91 011-696-3927; e-mail: bibhuti@mantraonline.com
tations. It presents a concept of integrated urban man-
agement, based on management theory, which incor-
porates five managerial functions, ie planning,
organizing, staffing, leading and controlling (Koontz
and Weihrich, 1990; Koontz and O’Donnel, 1976). It
is argued that many principles of traditional manage-
ment, such as the principles of productivity, social
responsiveness and flexibility, are equally applicable
in urban management, and in this context urban plan-
ning should be viewed as one of the five urban mana-
gerial functions to achieve the goals resource-
efficiently and with equity. In traditional manage-
ment, operations research and computer-aided design
(CAD) are important techniques to improve pro-
ductivity (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990; Koontz and
O’Donnel, 1976). Such traditional computer-aided
management techniques, if oriented to urban oper-
ations, could be equally useful in urban management
to improve productivity. The paper presents the sali-
ent features of two examples of software, one for
computer-aided analysis of urban built form to facili-

331
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
tate application of flexibility principles, and the other
incorporating both operations research (OR) and
CAD. Utility of the software CAUB and HudCAD,
as urban planning and management tools, is illustrated
with example problems. The need for urban manage-
ment education as a subject (for base disciplines
working in the urban sector) and as a distinct disci-
pline (to produce professional urban managers) is
stressed, to help application of an integrated urban
management approach using modern management
techniques, to solve urban problems efficiently and
equitably.
Conventional practice – limitations and need
for an integrated management approach
In urban operations, multiple actors representing vari-
ous urban organizations and coming from a number of
disciplines (urban planning, architecture, engineering,
geography, sociology, economics, finance and so on),
have to work together at each system level. To solve
urban problems efficiently, it is imperative to inte-
grate activities at each system level. In conventional
practice, planners attempt to integrate key urban prob-
lem dimensions in their plans. Usually, they have little
role in other managerial functions (organizing,
staffing, leading and controlling). Urban adminis-
trators are rarely imparted the intimate knowledge of
urban issues, their complexities and interactions and
of the modern systems management techniques, tools
and information technology, to enable them to take
an integrated urban management approach. Similarly,
each discipline working in the urban sector tends to
look at the urban problems only from its own angle.
As a result, an integrated management approach is
rather difficult in practice, as we illustrate below.
Urban planning, development control, efficiency and
equity in urbanization
One of the objectives of urban planning and develop-
ment controls is to take care of deficiencies in the
market, in terms of making allowances for exter-
nalities, making adequate provision for open space
and for future demand and so on, as individuals may
not be the best judges of their own welfare because
of inadequate knowledge (Harvey, 1987; Smith,
1975). An urban planner/administrator adopts a pre-
scriptive principle of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a
development control measure (Harvey, 1987; Hoch,
1969; GOM, 1991). The principle of FAR could be
expressed in terms of basic variables such as: Built
Unit Space (BUS), ie the space per built unit in an
urban development project; Building Rise (BR, ie
number of floors), and the Semi-Public Open space
(SPO) per Built Unit (BU), as follows:
BUS∗BR
FAR = . (1)
BUS + BR∗SPO
332
The relationship between FAR and Built Unit Density
(BUD, ie number of BUs per unit area), and between
FAR and Ground Coverage Ratio (GCR) could be
expressed as follows:
FAR
BUD = (2)
BUS
FAR
GCR = (3)
BR
The above expressions can be used for any type of
urban development, ie residential, office and commer-
cial development, and for any size of the
planning/development area. In conventional practice,
urban planners limit FAR, frequently without estab-
lishing the scientific relationships between variables,
as above. We may take, as an example, a limiting
FAR=1 specified by a local government, and a
medium rise walk-up residential development (say
BR=4) with BUS of 60 m2 chosen by a low-income
community. A density of about 167 BUs per hectare
is achieved, and to comply with the above limiting
value of FAR, the community will have to provide
open space (SPO) of 45 m2 per BU (75% of the BUS,
giving a GCR of only 25%) which is much higher
than the standard (usually 15–20 m2 per BU, as speci-
fied by the Bureau of Indian Standards for such types
of development). This may increase the cost per BU
beyond affordability, adversely affecting the welfare
principle on which this limiting value of FAR is
specified. If an open space standard of 20 m2 per BU
is adopted, a higher value of FAR=1.71 will have to
be allowed, achieving a higher density of 286 BUs
per hectare, thereby reducing the incidence of land
cost per BU and improving the affordability. As a
policy, there should be no objection to such flexibility
in planning regulations, as the open space standard
has been fulfilled and the low-income households
may give more priority to the built-space per dwell-
ing-unit (BUS) with a reasonable open space. If a
low-rise of BR=2 is imposed, as is conventional prac-
tice (NCU, 1988), it can be shown, using the CAUB
software discussed later, that to achieve the same den-
sity (ie 286 BU/hectare), open space will be reduced
to only 5 m2 per BU, giving a very high Ground
Coverage Ratio of 85.5%, in turn making it an infeas-
ible and unacceptable solution. Thus, in this case,
adoption of a conventional approach, leading to rigid
development control regulation in isolation, may cre-
ate inequity instead of achieving the welfare objec-
tive. The above example highlights the need to adopt
an integrated urban management approach (covering
all managerial functions as per management theory)
in all operations to solve problems efficiently and
equitably in the context of urban dynamics and uncer-
tainties.
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
Management theory and a concept of
integrated urban management
Theory defines management as the process of design-
ing and maintaining an environment in which individ-
uals, working together in groups, efficiently
accomplish selected aims (Koontz and Weihrich,
1990; Koontz and O’Donnel, 1976). In all sectors of
society, people form groups to accomplish aims that
they could not achieve as individuals, which is equ-
ally applicable in the urban sector where individuals
have to work together in departments or on projects,
while urban organizations must also integrate their
activities. This is a much more difficult task than
managing a business, and requires a separate body of
knowledge. Just as management knowledge is gener-
ally organized around the five essential managerial
functions – planning, organizing, staffing, leading and
controlling – this is equally applicable in urban man-
agement. The systems approach is an accepted prac-
tice in management, enabling managers to see the
critical variables and constraints and their interaction
with one another at each system level, ie manager’s
organization, department, section and so on (Koontz
and O’Donnel, 1976). Such an approach forces man-
agers to be constantly aware that one single element,
phenomenon, or problem should not be treated with-
out regard for its interacting consequences with other
elements. By adopting a systems approach, all the five
urban management functions can be integrated at vari-
ous system levels, while linking an urban organization
with its environment, and with the urban sector as a
whole, to achieve missions and objectives. The task
of urban managers is to transform the external inputs
(money, people, skills and so on), into outputs (urban
services, profits, satisfaction, integration of the goals
of various stakeholders in the urban organization, and
so on) in an effective and efficient manner. Since
urban operations involve a vast number of interacting
elements at each level, a systems approach is equally
applicable in urban management for coordination of
efforts at each level, so that individual and organiza-
tional objectives becomes translated into social attain-
ment in, say, improved urban services and improved
quality of life for all.
In the above context, the external systems environ-
ment and constraints, including the given macro and
micro policy constraints, should be accepted as given
conditions not amenable to change, while taking
decisions at a point of time, until more effective poli-
cies are evolved (Chakrabarty 1993, 1998). The new
policies should evolve based on parallel and continu-
ous processes of policy performance analysis, forming
part of the urban management process, establishing
linkages with the urban management functions at an
appropriate system level and at the appropriate time,
using Information Technology (IT). Accordingly,
results in the area of concern have to be achieved
within the given conditions and using the available
resources at each system level, discharging efficiently
all the five urban management functions by using
various tools and management techniques
(Chakrabarty, 1997a,b). The conceptual structure of
integrated urban management on the above lines is
shown in Fig. 1.
Applicability of traditional management
principles in urban management: policy
implications
A scientific approach requires not only concepts but
also principles and techniques. In traditional manage-
ment, there are a number of principles and techniques
to efficiently accomplish selected aims. Many of these
are equally applicable in urban management, provided
appropriate policy exists to apply such principles and
techniques in various urban operations.
Planning function in urban management –
principles of flexibility
In the context of management, planning involves sel-
ecting aims and the actions to achieve them, requiring
rational decision-making. Cities are “engines for
economic growth” (particularly in the context of a
developing country) and, places for people to live and
work. Urban planners prepare plans with the aim of
making a city a viable and desirable place in which to
live and work, while achieving equity and efficiency.
Urban planning (including land-use planning at
“urban spatial unit” level) should be seen as part of
the “planning function” of urban management,
incorporating the other four urban managerial func-
tions mentioned above. It is necessary to compare
plans with results, and to take corrective actions in
order to achieve results, thus making planning and
control functions inseparable. There are similar link-
ages between the other urban managerial functions.
It is desirable that urban planning should
accomplish a physical planning structure matching
with the economic base structure and the consequent
demographic structure. However, urban dynamics,
uncertainties and conflicting interests make it difficult
to achieve such a match. This is one of the reasons
for urban problems such as the proliferation of slums,
frequent illegal construction, and land-use change,
mostly by informal entrepreneurs creating workplaces
and jobs in violation of statutory city master plans
and planning regulations. In India, the per capita land
resource is one of the lowest in the world, and dwin-
dling fast from 1.42 in 1901 to only 0.32 hectare in
2000, but, city-master-plans generally continue to pre-
scribe a density range of about 60–600 persons per
hectare, while density in some city-slums is as high
as 5000–10,000 persons per hectare, which is iniqui-
tous. In conventional practice, emphasis is placed on
periodic demolition of informal industries, work-
places and habitats, resulting in the loss of jobs and
shelter for millions of people, and to a huge waste of
individual and collective resources in a country that
333
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
Figure 1 Conceptual Structure of Integrated Urban Management
has nearly one third of its population living below the
poverty line (Chakrabarty, 2000). It is imperative to
modify conventional practice to avoid such urban
planning and management failures, adversely affect-
ing the interests of people and creating an urban crisis.
The principles of flexibility and navigational
change, providing for plan review from time to time,
and redrawing them if required, is an accepted plan-
ning practice in traditional management to cope with
uncertainties. It is also suggested that, because of too
numerous pay-off matrices and uncertainties in the
urbanization and development process, an incremental
planning approach with flexibility should be adopted
for guiding the development of cities, providing for
constant feedback about the response of the urban
334
system, and for changing again and again the rules
(such as zoning, provision of infrastructure and so
on). Continuous planning with flexibility and short
range forecasting for land use in selected areas are
also suggested to cope with the size and complexity
of growth of cities (Branch, 1970). Moreover, there
can be large variations in the efficiency indicators of
urban built form. These cannot be ignored by citizens,
builders, or other stakeholders who would like to
maximize productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to
convince citizens, using computer aided techniques
and IT for transparency, that the planning regulations
do not require any change to achieve their above
objectives, and thus, minimize their violations. The
urban problems mentioned above also highlight the
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
need to apply such approaches in a dynamic city
instead of the frequently static master planning
approach, discussed below.
The availability of PCs with graphic capability, and
the rapid development of IT (including GIS), makes
it easier now to apply such “flexibility principles” for
timely corrective actions, with transparency and infor-
med participation of multiple-stakeholders. Such an
approach will preempt urban problems at the nascent
stage before they get out of control. However, this
will require a shift in policy, particularly in
developing countries subjected to rapid economic and
demographic change, from the conventional practice
of treating City Master Plans as rigid legal documents,
and instead, viewing them as a “live” Development
Plan that is responsive to people’s needs, and subject
to “navigational change” (including changes of land-
use and planning regulations if needed, thus avoiding
freezing the evolving options for 20 long years, the
usual Master Plan period). Substantial urban research
is necessary by all concerned, to develop techniques
to facilitate application of such management prin-
ciples in various urban operations, using IT, OR, and
computer aided planning and design. The author is
carrying out research to develop such techniques. The
software CAUB and HudCAD, developed as urban
planning and management tools, are presented below
as examples.
Principle of social responsiveness
Urban problems have a significant social and environ-
mental dimension, requiring application of the “prin-
ciple of social responsiveness” in urban management.
This means “the ability of a corporation to relate its
operations and policies to the social environment in
ways that are mutually beneficial to the company and
to society”. This is receiving increased attention even
in conventional business operations, due to the inter-
dependencies of the many groups in our society. Such
interdependencies are more crucial in respect of urban
organizations, as urban development is a joint public-
private enterprise, where decisions about the use of
resources are made in the market place and by
governments (at various levels), in an interactive way.
Therefore, there is need for a policy to apply the prin-
ciple of social responsiveness in the operation of
urban organizations, to indicate that they are discharg-
ing their social responsibilities. The concept of a
social audit, defined as “a commitment to systematic
assessment of and reporting on some meaningful,
definable domain of the company’s activities that
have social impact”, is also applied in traditional man-
agement (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990). Social respon-
siveness in urban operations implies actions and urban
enterprise responses to achieve the social goals in the
urban sector, and to solve urban problems. Therefore,
to help evaluate social performance of urban organi-
zation, the concept of “social audit” should also be
applied in their operations.
A policy commitment to the application of the prin-
ciples of social responsiveness and social auditing in
urban operations may discourage additional govern-
ment regulations and interventions, giving greater
freedom and flexibility in decision making, bettering
efficiency of urban organizations and achieving
organized cooperation between such organizations,
thus improving performance of the urban sector as a
whole. Urban research is necessary to develop com-
puter aided techniques, to facilitate application of
such principles in various urban operations, and help
develop more effective urban policies based on sys-
tematic assessment and evaluation (including social
cost benefit analysis).
Principle of productivity
Productivity, defined as an input–output ratio, is the
essence of management in any sector, and implies
effectiveness and efficiency in individual and organi-
zational performance. Effectiveness is the achieve-
ment of objectives, while efficiency is the achieve-
ment of ends with the least amount of resources.
Although frequently inadequate, huge amounts of
resources are committed by urban professionals, to
achieve selected aims. Society would expect that
urban professionals engaged in transforming the
inputs into outputs, ensured efficiency and effective-
ness of utilization of resources in their activities. The
“principle of productivity” can be applied in different
urban operations, including urban development pro-
jects, and at different levels of an urban organization.
For example, productivity can be improved by
increasing outputs (say, the number of built units and
the area of saleable built space/plot spaces produced)
with the same inputs (say, capital investment, land,
materials, labour); decreasing inputs (say, capital
investment, land, materials, and labour) while main-
taining the same outputs (say, the number of built
units and the area of saleable built space/plot spaces
produced), or increasing outputs and decreasing
inputs to change the above ratio favourably. Since
resources are always inadequate compared to need, a
policy commitment to the application of the principle
of productivity in various urban operations is impera-
tive if urban problems are to be solved. There are
many techniques in traditional management to
improve productivity, which are equally applicable in
urban management – but only if such policy exists.
Utility of traditional management techniques
to improve productivity and social
responsiveness
To facilitate traditional management, many tech-
niques are used – OR, management science, and CAD
are all employed in planning and managing operations
to improve productivity (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990).
Through use of such techniques, planning and control
have been given more rigorous treatment by clear-cut
goals, development of measures of effectiveness in
335
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
achieving goals and by emphasizing the logical physi-
cal representation of a problem in the form of math-
ematical models, enhancing the capability of man-
agers to develop quantified answers to many
problems. Many of the above techniques, including
computer aided analysis and optimizing urban devel-
opment models, can be used in urban planning and
management for more effectiveness, to help decide
appropriate urban strategies and to manage the
dynamic and incremental process of urban develop-
ment with flexibility (see Chakrabarty 1993, 1998).
The author is carrying out research towards this effort.
The salient features of two software developments are
presented below: CAUB for computer aided analysis
and application of flexibility principles in urban built
form, and HudCAD, incorporating both OR and com-
puter aided design and drafting (CADD) to improve
productivity in urban development projects.
A technique for analysis/optimization of
urban built form to facilitate flexibility
The city has different elements, which include build-
ings and open spaces in various mixes. It is an
expression of the underlying economic, socio-cul-
tural, and environmental necessities. Inadequate infra-
structure, resource constraints and the dynamics of
land prices make it imperative to apply flexibility
principles in regulation. Software titled CAUB
(Computer-Aided Analysis of Urban Built form) has
been developed to facilitate analysis and optimization.
It uses expressions (1)–(3) above and solves a non-
linear programming optimization model, with 10 iter-
ation models and 20 input choices (extendable), per-
mitting analysis of numerous options (with partici-
pation of multiple-stakeholders), which is rarely
possible in conventional practice. CAUB (in user-fri-
endly C++ Language) links planning regulations (eg
FAR, density, ground coverage ratio) with various
elements related to open space and construction cost.
CAUB permits the following:
1. Determine the interaction between selected
elements
2. Carry out ‘sensitivity-analysis’, selecting appropri-
ate sets of independent/dependent design variables
and the ‘iteration choice’, and develop an insight
into their interrelationship including cost
3. Select desired value(s) of built form element(s)
based on sensitivity analysis
4. Determine optimal design (eg optimum FAR) in a
site-specific manner
5. Find the least cost per built unit for a given plinth
area, or, the maximum plinth area within given cost
constraints, depending on the planning regu-
lations chosen
6. Determine planning regulations and project para-
meters, responsive to people’s needs (in a site spe-
cific manner).
336
Building rise and density
Using the iterations 1, 2 and 3 of CAUB, and taking
the BR as an independent design variable (IDV), the
sensitivity of density (ie Built Unit Density – a ratio)
to the BR is determined for the three cases, treating
any two of the remaining variables FAR, BUS and
SPO as independent (Task 2 above). As an illus-
tration, the results of a typical run of the model is
shown (where BUS and SPO are taken as IDVs):
Iteration MODEL Chosen:
Sensitivity MODEL (Physical only) – Model-1
Independent Design Variables (IDV):
Building-Rise (BR), Open-Space (SPO) and
Built-Unit-Space (BUS)
Dependent Design Variables (DDV):
FAR, Ground-Coverage-Ratio (GCR) and DEN-
SITY
INPUT Parameter-Values Chosen in the present
Case, are:
Building-Rise (BR) = 8.00
Open-Space (SPO) = 25.00 m2/BU
Built-Unit-Space (BUS) = 110.00 m2/BU
Iteration-choice = 1 Input-choice = 2
OUTPUT Parameter-Values given are:
Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) = 2.84
Ground-Coverage-Ratio (GCR) = 0.355
DENSITY, ie built unit density density (BUD)
= 258.1 BU/Hectare.
In the above case the input BR is 8 (ie number of
floors) giving a DENSITY of 258.1 built units per
hectare as the output. The model is re-run, by chang-
ing the value of BR from 1 to 10, while keeping the
values of BUS and SPO constant at 110.00 m2 per
built unit and 25.00 m2 per built unit as above. Simi-
larly, Models 2 and 3 are run with a corresponding
set of independent/dependent variables and changing
the value of BR as above. Accordingly, the sensitivity
of density to the BR is shown in Fig. 2. This indicates
that out of the three possible cases (the fourth case is
the same as case 1 with changed value of BUS =50
m2/BU and SPO=15 m2/BU), in the first two cases,
the lower the building rise, the lower the density. In
the third case, where FAR=1.5 and BUS=110 m2/BU
are taken as independent variables, the density is con-
stant for the values chosen. This mathematical result
is quite contrary to the generalized prescription of
Low Rise/High Density (LRHD) built form in con-
ventional practice (NCU, 1988). A scientific optimiz-
ation study using non-linear programming will indi-
cate that a low-rise tends to decrease BUD, increase
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
Figure 2 Sensitivity of density by the building rise
land consumption per BU, decrease open space per
BU, increase ground coverage ratio, and increase cost
per BU, as shown later with example problems.
Optimizing urban built-form
Soaring land price and construction costs makes it a
struggle to get adequate living space (ie plinth area
or BUS) with desired open-space (SPO) and environ-
mental standards. Using CAUB it is possible to
optimize and derive the optimum FAR for a specific
case depending on land price and construction costs
so as to minimize the cost per dwelling unit (or to
maximize the plinth area within a given affordable
cost), for a desired plinth area and open space stan-
dard. Taking the cost of construction (including land
components) as the criterion, with desired values of
BUS and SPO as the constraints, and the land price
and construction costs in the market also as the given
conditions (constraints beyond control and change
with time in a site-specific case), leads to the follow-
ing expression for the optimal FAR:
Optimum Floor Area Ratio = (c3/c1)∗ (4)
冋 (2∗k + √k⫺1)∗(c1∗a1 + c3∗a2)
c3∗a2∗(4∗k⫺1) + (c1∗a2⫺c3∗a2)∗(2∗k⫺√k)
⫺1 册 construction costs, such a fixed value of FAR soon
where,
c1 =cost coefficient related to building construc-
tion cost per unit of plinth area (monetary
units/m2)
c2 =cost coefficient related to the building-rise,
in the cost per unit of plinth area (monetary
units/m2)
c3 =cost coefficient related to the land price per
unit of land area (monetary units/m2)
a1 =desired built-unit space in m2 per built-unit
a2 =desired semi-public open space in m2 per
built-unit
k c2∗c3∗a21
= .
(c1∗a1 + c3∗a2)2
Fig. 3 showing the typical variation in Building-
Unit-Cost (BUC) with change in FAR (adopting land
price of 10000 MU/m2, BUS=110 m2/BU, SPO=20
m2/BU), indicates that the BUC at FAR=0.85
(minimum feasible FAR, for the value of BUS and
SPO chosen above) is about 2.13 times the minimum
BUC (without any reduction in plinth area and open
space per unit) occurring at optimum FAR of 4.018,
given by CAUB (Task 4, using Model 9). Thus, due
to the planning regulations (ie value of FAR specified
by a Planning Authority) there is very large increase
in cost per BU, even though specified open space (a
basic objective of such regulations) is achieved even
at the optimum FAR, minimizing the cost per building
unit. Many planning regulations specify a FAR of 0.5
to 1.0 for residential zones, irrespective of the dynam-
ics of the land market and construction costs (GOM,
1991). Because of a large escalation in land price and
becomes outdated, considerably reducing the built-
unit-space, which the users can construct at a cost
affordable by them. This may be one of the reasons
of frequent violations of such development control
rules (as built unit space is a high priority for many
people). Since large variations, as above, cannot be
ignored, it is imperative for urban professionals to
apply flexibility principles with transparency, thus
enabling more effective discharge of their ethical
responsibility to achieve efficiency and equity in
urban operations, with full participation of the mul-
tiple stakeholders.
Density is an important indicator of land allocation
and optimization in urban-built-form. Low density
tends to make a city’s transportation facilities unecon-
omic and may reduce property values (Hoch, 1969;
337
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
Figure 3 Variation in cost per ‘Building Unit’ with change in ‘FAR’ (Constant ‘Plinth-area’ & ‘Open-Space’ per ‘Unit’)
Payne, 1997). Thus, a policy of low FAR/low density
urban development and a mass transit system may be
self-contradictory, if an optimal urban built form is
the objective. Thus, the very prescription of low
FAR/low density development for an improved urban
environment – precluding the provision of a mass
transit system in a city due to economic consider-
ations, consequently making the city more dependent
on the pollution-increasing automobile – may be the
cause for increased pollution and consequent deterio-
ration in the urban environment. If a country has a
very low per capita land resource, it may again pre-
clude any extravagant use of land in the urbanization
process. It is necessary to carry out research to
develop optimal urban built forms, resolving such
conflicting viewpoints while adopting a systems
approach, as part of integrated urban planning and
management.
Transfer of development rights and social
responsiveness
Operations of private urban organizations, including
private developers, will be primarily concerned with
productivity and profitability. But, their operations
338
also need to be evaluated in terms of their social
responsiveness, particularly because of interdepen-
dencies discussed earlier, and, since private develop-
ment is facilitated by the publicly provided
infrastructure/services, and by the public policy on
land-use decisions, tax and so on. For example, the
success of many urban policies such as: transfer of
development rights (eg permitting a higher FAR, as
being tried in some cities in India facing very high
land prices) to private builders to achieve the social
objective of promoting housing for low-income
households, depends both on their productivity and
social responsiveness, indicated by correlating their
project-linked operations with the above social objec-
tive achievement. Application of CAUB (using Model
7) for computer-aided analysis at a project level (Task
6) covering 1 hectare in the present case, is illus-
trated below:
Summary of “CAUB” Results in the Present
Case are:
Iteration Model Chosen:
Interaction/Sensitivity Model (Model-7, to find
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
the cost per Built Unit and Physical Parameters
of Urban Built Form)
Design Variables (Independent and Dependent
Variables):
FAR, Built Unit Space (BUS), Open Space
(SPO), Density (BUD), Building-Rise (BR),
Ground Coverage Ratio (GCR), Land Price
(LP), Base Plinth Area Rate (PAR) and Built
Unit Cost (BUC) – in different type of develop-
ments
INPUT (Independent Variables) Parameter
Values chosen are:
AR = 10000.00 m2 BUS = 120.0 m2/BU
SPO = 36.0 m2/BU LP = 10000.0 M/m2
PAR = 6000.0 M/m2 FAR = 1.25
EFAR = 2.50 SBR = 4 SPAR = 4500.0 M/m2
SR = 0.80 SBUS = 50.0 m2
SSPO = 15.0 m2 Iteration-choice = 7
Input-choice = 17 M = Monetary Units
(ie Dollars, Rupees etc)
OUTPUT (Dependent Variables) Parameter Values
given are:
BUC = 1,716,000 M EBUC = 1,380,000 M
BR = 2 EBR = 10 GCR = 0.625
EGCR = 0.250 SGCR = 0.455
BUD = 104.2 BU/Hectare
EBUD = 208.3 BU/Hectare SFAR = 1.82
NC = 160.00 NS = 82.00
SV = 336,000 M SBUC = 522,500 M
CAR = 7723.58 m2 SAR = 2276.42 m2
SBUD = 363.6 BU/Hectare
here,
AR =Project Area proposed to be covered by the
Transfer of Development-Rights, ie enhanced
FAR
FAR =Original Floor Area Ratio permissible under
the planning-regulations
EFAR =Enhanced Development Rights, ie Floor
Area Ratio, proposed to be allowed to the
builder to achieve the social objective of pro-
moting housing for low-income households
LP =Unit Market Price of land covered by the
project
PAR =Cost per unit of plinth area of the commer-
cial built units
SPAR =Cost per unit of plinth area of the supported
built units for low-income households
BUC =Built Unit Cost, ie the Cost per Built Unit
(commercial) with Original FAR
EBUC =Reduced Cost per Built-Unit (commercial)
with Enhanced FAR
SV =Cost saving per Built-Unit (commercial)
with Enhanced FAR
SR =Cost saving ratio utilized for supporting the
built units for low-income households
SBUC =Cost per Built-Unit (supported) for the low-
income households
CAR =Area covered by the commercial built units
SAR =Area covered by the supported built units
for the low-income households
NC =Number of commercial built units(here resi-
dential built units disposed on commercial
basis)
NS =Number of supported built units(here resi-
dential built units for the low-income house-
holds, made available by the Builder
in lieu of enhanced development-rights, ie
enhanced FAR)
BUS, SPO are built space and open space per built
unit (commercial) respectively, remaining unchanged.
BR, GCR and BUD are the original building rise,
ground coverage ratio and built unit density respect-
ively, for the commercial built units, and EBR, EGCR
and EBUD are the same parameters with enhanced
development rights, ie Floor Area Ratio. SBUS,
SSPO, SBR, SGCR, SFAR and SBUD are built space,
open space, building rise, ground coverage ratio, floor
area ratio and built unit density respectively, for the
supported built units. In the above example, a builder
is permitted to utilize only 80% (SR=0.8) of the cost
saved per commercial built unit (with BUS=120.0
m2/BU) with enhanced FAR allowed by the Urban
Planning Authority, for providing housing for low-
income households (with SBUS =50.0 m2/BU). The
above package adopting a land planning area of 1 hec-
tare, permits construction of 160 commercial built
units, supporting construction of 82 built units for
low-income households. The value of SR and other
parameters of the package can be changed and iter-
ation cycles repeated with participation of multiple-
stakeholders, to decide a package acceptable to all
stakeholders thus enhancing social responsiveness.
An operations research and computer aided
design technique to improve productivity in
urban development
The computer aided technique presented above is
more for policy analysis and urban planning
decisions, and does not incorporate the specific physi-
cal design of urban layout plans and building-designs.
As discussed earlier, in the context of urban develop-
ment projects, productivity can be improved by
increasing the area of built space with the same capi-
tal investment, which are very much linked with the
specific physical designs of such development. More-
over, physical designs should also form part of the
planning function in urban management, and any
design has to be expressed in the form of dimensioned
drawing, which is the most important medium of
urban planning and design. Therefore, it is desirable
to develop models for physical designs using OR and
339
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
CAD techniques to improve productivity, which is
outlined below.
Models for optimal design in urban development
Productivity is further improved using optimizing
models for optimal design. The author has developed
a number of optimizing Urban Development Models,
which can be used as universal tools for integrated
urban management in any country. Details of such
universal optimizing urban development models
(including data input and the method of solution of
such non-linear programming problems) are available
elsewhere (Chakrabarty 1993, 1998). The models
stress the efficient and effective use of resources at
the urban project level, thus enhancing both pro-
ductivity and social responsiveness to help solve
urban problems efficiently, and improving organiza-
tional performance, including profitability. There are
two types of optimizing models:
1. Least-Cost Optimizing Models (LCO), which can
be used to obtain the least-cost design of the urban
development system, for a given minimum built-
unit space.
2. Most-Benefit Optimizing Models (MBO), which
can be used to obtain the maximum built unit space
design of the urban development system for a
given investment. As proceeds of a real estate sale
are generally proportionate to the built-space,
which is maximized by an MBO model, it can also
be called a “Maximum Profit Model” for devel-
opers and builders in the urban sector.
The above optimizing models are now being extended
to cover various types of urban development and
being converted into Computer Aided Design and
Drafting (CADD) software for urban planning and
management.
Computer-aided optimal design and drafting in
urban development-software
Development of MICROCADD has revolutionized
the fields of design, engineering and drafting leading
to substantial improvement in productivity (Goetch,
1990). MICROCADD or PC-CADD is a more pro-
ductive approach to design and drafting than manual
techniques, because of:
1. Faster production of design and data creation
2. Faster data manipulation (including graphic data),
taking little time in correcting and revising designs
and documentation of those designs
3. Faster, more convenient data storage
4. Faster data output including graphic output
5. Instant linkage and conversion of optimal design
in numerical terms into a graphic output, thus facil-
itating application of optimization techniques for
resource efficiency
It is shown that there can be large variations of even
three to four times in the cost-effectiveness and other
340
design efficiency indicators of an urban development,
and numerous physical design solutions have to be
evaluated to find the most cost-effective design sol-
ution (Chakrabarty, 1993). This makes it difficult to
achieve the most cost-effective solution by the con-
ventional time consuming methods. Moreover, in the
conventional process an urban planner or manager can
obtain the value of relevant quantitative design
efficiency indicators only after preparing the drawing
and cost estimates. Using the optimizing models, the
design process is reversed, where the architect, engin-
eer, planner or urban manager is the full controller of
quantitative design efficiency indicators of the urban
development system he or she is designing, and the
design in numerical terms fulfilling these require-
ments is given as output by the model. Thus, using
such a tool, any specified built-unit density, built unit
space and open space standard, cost per built-unit
(and so on) can be achieved, provided these are feas-
ible for the given design conditions, adopting an
appropriate optimizing model typology.
In this approach, the design process can be carried
out in two stages: first the “concept design pattern
stage”, where arrangements of spaces are concep-
tualized, and second the “optimizing stage”, where the
optimal dimensions are determined to maximize or
minimize the objective function within the given con-
straints and design conditions. Thus, using this urban
planning and management tool, concept design pat-
terns could be optimized to find the difference in the
cost-effectiveness between different concept design
patterns (for example, deciding the built form such as
low rise, medium rise or high rise urban
development), thus helping the selection of designs to
maximize resource productivity with equity.
Any design has to be expressed in the form of
dimensioned drawing, as drawing is the most
important medium of urban planning and design.
Therefore, it is essential that the optimal designs, in
numerical terms, given as output by the optimizing
models, should be instantly converted into drawing to
be meaningful to the users, and thus, increase their
utility. This can be done in the form of software,
incorporating the optimizing models covering various
types of urban development, not only to help instant
numerical solution of the relevant non-linear pro-
gramming optimizing models, but also, to convert
instantly these numerical solutions into (working)
drawings. Applying cost-engineering principles, the
software should also be able to derive the cost
coefficients/unit cost data input for the optimizing
models, using any time-specific, site-specific and
country-specific basic cost data on labour, materials
and so on. This will make it a universal urban plan-
ning and management tool to achieve both efficiency
and equity in the urban development and operations
process.
Presently, the area of architectural design and
drafting/engineering construction ranks relatively low
in MICROCADD systems by application. It is desir-
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
able that architects, engineers, urban planners, urban
managers and builders, working in the field of urban
development, encourage use of MICROCADD sys-
tems to maximize productivity (giving due attention
to social responsiveness discussed earlier) in their
operations, thus, increasing their professional contri-
bution to society. This will also improve profitability
as well as competitiveness of their organizations in
the market. Use of such planning and management
techniques can increase with the development of more
and more sophisticated software for optimal design,
decision support systems and data base management.
To help this process, the universal software package
for computer aided optimal design and drafting, in
various types of urban development, is being
developed as urban planning and management tool.
HudCAD is being developed in modular form, using
both C++ Language (mostly for solving non-linear
programming optimizing models, including pro-
cessing and generating input data for the models for
a site-specific case) and the LISP Language (mostly
for generating graphic outputs). This can be used with
any site-specific data in any country, to obtain
instantly the output optimal design both in terms of
numerical parameters and in graphic form.
HudCAD integrates all the three elements, ie cost,
design optimization and drawing, by incorporating
both OR and Computer Aided Design Drafting
(CADD) in a combined platform covering architec-
tural, physical planning, and engineering components.
Thus, HudCAD can be used as an integrative tool (to
overcome the limitations of conventional practice dis-
cussed earlier) by urban professionals (ie architects,
civil engineers, planners in particular) to obtain the
design in graphic form (Instant Dimensioned
Drawing), achieving either the least cost, or, the most
beneficial building design layout system. The
software is being developed using the optimizing
models mentioned above. Presently HudCAD has a
few modules incorporating both OR and CADD in a
combined platform to achieve the least cost or most
beneficial design, linking site-specific data; modules
are under development to enlarge its scope as univer-
sal optimal design and drawing software.
Application of the software
The application of the Software “HudCAD” is illus-
trated using its Module-I as an example, which covers
the optimal design of residential built-unit patterns
included in the Group-I of the Module. Each module
incorporates two sessions, ie “Optimizing Iteration
Session” and the “Drawing Session”. In this example,
a Most-Benefit Optimizing Model (MBO Model) is
used to give the Maximize Built Unit Space and the
Optimal Floor Area Ratio, subject to the constraints
of building rise (ie number of floors), number of built
units per floor, the open space per built unit, and the
maximum investment or affordable cost per built unit.
Optimal design is an iterative process. This process
starts with the selection of the initial input set, and
each input set is the given design condition within
which the design is optimized. The software gives the
optimal design in numerical terms instantly on selec-
tion of an input set. The current solution can be
inspected for acceptability in a given context, and the
cycle of iteration can be repeated with different sets
of input options until the output optimal design sol-
ution is acceptable. Once the numerical solution given
as output by the “Optimizing Iteration Session” is
acceptable, this session can be closed and the “Draw-
ing Session” can be started to obtain the soft or hard
copy of the optimal physical design. Again, the soft
copy of the current optimal design can be inspected
and the cycle of iteration repeated until the most cost-
effective optimal design (which is also acceptable to
the multiple stakeholders) is available, and hard copy
print out can be obtained.
In this dialogue process all the stakeholders, such
as: the user citizens, architect, engineer, urban plan-
ner, urban manager and so on, can participate to give
inputs and contribute so as to obtain a most acceptable
and optimal physical design of an urban development
in a site-specific context, availing the opportunities
and respecting the constraints beyond control at that
decision level. Participation of urban local bodies
(building /planning regulation authorities) and the real
estate developers/builders in such a dialogue process,
using such scientific tools, may lead to more realistic
development control regulations, more efficiency and
improved social responsiveness in the urban sector.
In such a tool, there should be a wide selection of
input set options, covering the concerns of the above
interest groups, so as to have a meaningful dialogue
process.
Accordingly, in the above software module, 16
input set options are incorporated, where “BR” is
building rise, LP is land price, and the “BUC”, “SPO”
and “NR” are affordable cost/investment, semi-public
open space and number of rooms per built-unit
respectively. These can be enlarged/modified as per
the requirement/priority of the concerned interest
group. The built unit design coefficients are mostly
related to the conceptual design and the relative pro-
portion of different built unit components decided by
an architect. The cost coefficients are related to cost
of labour/materials and the specification chosen for
foundation, wall, floor and roof of the built unit. The
software can derive these coefficients based on site-
specific unit cost data on labour and materials and the
respective specification chosen, or an engineer
chooses specific values. The values of these input
parameters can be chosen in an interactive way while
selecting an appropriate input set option in the iter-
ation process. The software derives the optimizing
model constants based on such input and solves the
non-linear programming models using these derived
values. Some input data could also be pre-set in the
computer for initialization of the iteration process.
The numerical results of a typical “Optimizing Iter-
ation Session” of Module 1 (related to multi-family
341
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
residential built units) of the software “HudCAD”, is
shown below as an illustration (full details in Appen-
dix A).
Some input parameter values for this case (as
shown above) are BUC=300,000 monetary units/BU,
land price (LP)=5000 monetary units per m2, Open
space (SPO) =30 m2/BU, and Building Rise (BR)=2.
The software gives as output the maximum possible
BUS as 28.76 m2 only, permitting only two rooms,
and therefore NR=2 is given as input under Input Set
option-12. In this case, the optimal FAR is only 0.648,
and the built unit Density (BUD) and the Ground
Coverage Ratio (GCR) which can be achieved in any
layout are 225.327 BU/hectare and 0.324, respect-
ively. The numerical solution given by this optimizing
iteration session is taken as input for starting the
drawing session of the software, and the correspond-
ing graphic output, ie optimal physical design drawing
obtained through this session is shown as Design 1
in Fig. 4. As the BUS is very low, another cycle of
iteration is started with the input SPO=15 m2/BU and
BR=4, keeping all other parameters unchanged,
except that the number of rooms is increased to
NR=3, and the design coefficients are also corre-
spondingly changed. The numerical results of this
cycle are shown in Appendix, and the corresponding
graphic output obtained through this cycle of drawing
is shown as Design 2 in Fig. 4.
It may be seen that, in this case there is increase
of BUS by 2.5 times to 72.319 m2 (output), even
though land price (LP) and cost per BU (input) are
kept unchanged compared to the earlier case (Design
1 in Fig. 4), with corresponding increases in pro-
ductivity (input–output ratio) and profitability of such
urban development projects. There is increase of FAR
by 3.37 times to 2.186, of BUD by 1.34 times to 302.3
BU/hectare, and of GCR by 1.69 times to 0. 547. If
SPO=25 m2/BU and BR=5 are given as input, keeping
other parameters unchanged, the software will show
that the GCR can be brought down to the same level
as design 1 (ie 0.324) with increase of BUS by 2.1
times to 60.32 m2 (output). Such designs can be dis-
played (as both Design 1 and 2 are displayed in Fig.
4) for comparative analysis with transparency and
informed decision making with participation.
The above results show a very large variation in
the BUS and other efficiency indicators, even due to
interaction of only three variables, ie land price, BR
and SPO. As the number of variables and their inter-
actions are too numerous in reality (for example, if
there are 10 variables and each variable can take three
alternative values, it will give 103 cases to be
evaluated), conventional methods rarely permit con-
sideration of all such interactions to help derive an
optimal solution in a given context. This may be one
of the reasons for frequent generalized prescriptions
(which are sometime self-contradictory such as: low-
rise/high-density development), which does not lead
to efficiency and equity, as each case has to be exam-
ined in a given context to determine optimality. How-
342
ever, using a computer-aided optimal design method,
such as “HudCAD”, it is possible to consider all such
interactions and derive the optimal solution in a given
context, as shown. Using this software, the sensitivity
of BUS (or the cost in case of LCO models) to the
variation of each variable (such as BUC, LP, BR,
SPO and so on), could also be instantly ascertained
(with real solutions, as each case represents a physical
design which can be instantly drawn), instead of fre-
quent erroneous assumption of a linear relationship
between these variables, adversely affecting the
efficiency of the development process. It may be
noted that such techniques do not relieve an
architect/engineer/urban planner/urban manager from
making a decision, and only aids this decision making
process by giving the quantitative perspective of a
decision problem, which can be combined with the
qualitative perspective obtained from personal experi-
ence, common sense and intuition. Note that even
such qualitative perspectives could be indirectly
quantified in terms of the “value scale” (a quantitative
measure), which may be adopted in a problem situ-
ation by all stakeholders.
In this technique, instead of prior preparation of
drawings and time-consuming estimates to know the
cost per BU, the desired cost itself (BUC) is given
as input, and the software gives the physical design,
maximizing the BUS within this cost per BU, in the
time taken for a few keystrokes. Time thus saved
could be used for more creative activities, such as
preparing concept design patterns, refining the
designs by giving different input sets and carrying out
scientific sensitivity analysis for more informed
decision making in the planning and design process.
In view of the above problems, including very large
variations in efficiency indicators and the advantage
of time saving, it is imperative to use such tools, to
ensure efficiency and equity in the urban development
process. Presently, the physical designs given as out-
put are in the form of line drawings. The software is
being further developed to give working drawings as
output, to make it even more useful.
Urban management education and research
In spite of limitations of the conventional approaches,
urban management is not yet recognized as a distinct
discipline supported by a full length and holistic
course of education that recognizes the need to pro-
duce professional urban managers. As a result, at
present no urban professional group is equipped to
discharge efficiently all the five urban managerial
functions. Consequently, integrated urban manage-
ment is rarely achieved by conventional practice. A
holistic approach is imperative if cities become
“engines for economic growth”, operating on the
“growth pays its own way philosophy” (Grigg, 1997),
instead of the current practice of depending mostly on
government budgetary support for urban operations,
particularly in developing countries where urbaniz-
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty

Figure 4 Comparative optimal built-unit design drawings instantly given as output by ‘HudCAD’ depending on the input design decisions of the designers

343
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
ation is still in the initial stage. No doubt, this is one
of the reasons for our deteriorating urban environment
and many serious urban problems, inefficiencies and
inequities, including proliferation of slums. Such lack
of integrated urban management is also one of the
factors causing acute urban fiscal crisis, even though
attempts are made to apply business management
techniques to local government operations, with help
of loaned business executives from the private sector,
to reduce fiscal stress (Kramer, 1983; NIUA, 1993).
The author undertook the development of courses
for an MBA-Urban Services course with “Pro-
ductivity, Social Responsiveness and Systems
Approach” as the core (Chakrabarty, 1997a,b). It is
desirable that such urban management education
should be introduced in all developing countries, and
simultaneously, urban research should be carried out
to develop tools and techniques. Organizations like
the World Bank may consider technical assistance to
support such research and holistic urban management
education, producing professional urban managers,
promoting the application of an integrated urban man-
agement approach, and, thus, helping to improve
efficiency and equity in the urban development pro-
cess funded by them. This will facilitate the much-
needed urban sector reforms in various countries, in
consonance with the ongoing economic and financial
reforms and globalization of economies, and has
attained an added urgency in view of the urban fiscal
crisis, particularly in developing countries. It is sug-
gested that “Urban Management” and “Computer-
Aided Planning and Design” should be included as
subjects in the educational curriculum of architecture,
urban planning and civil engineering, to equip such
urban professionals for more effective discharge of
their ethical responsibility to achieve efficiency and
equity, as they commit huge but scarce resources
while carrying out various urban operations. Edu-
cational institutions may consider familiarizing stu-
dents in the use and further research and development
of techniques as presented above, inculcating in them
a scientific mode of inquiry to the interactions of
numerous variables to help achieve efficiency and
equity in urban development.
Conclusion
At the millennium, the world crossed a demographic
milestone – for the first time, the urban population
exceeds the rural population (United Nations, 1992).
Urbanization is an inevitable process along with the
economic development of a country, but it tends to
accentuate a number of problems because of limi-
tations of conventional practice and the absence of
integrated urban management. Urban development is
a joint public–private enterprise where decisions
about the use of resources are made by the market
place and by governments (at various levels) in an
interactive way. Managing is essential in all such
organized cooperation and at different levels of an
344
organization to ensure efficient use of resources in
achieving the selected aims. However, an integrated
urban management approach is very rare in the urban
sector, causing many inefficiencies and inequities,
some of which are highlighted above. To facilitate
application of such integrated approach, a holistic
urban management education program (MBA – Urban
Services course) has been prepared with productivity,
social responsiveness and a systems approach as the
core (Chakrabarty, 1997a,b). It is desirable that such
urban management education should be introduced in
all developing countries, so that an integrated urban
management approach becomes common. It is also
desirable that “Urban Management” and “Computer-
Aided Planning and Design” should be included as
subjects of study in the educational curriculum of
architecture, urban planning and civil engineering.
This will equip such urban professionals to make sig-
nificant contributions when solving urban problems.
Acknowledgements
The motivation for this research is the illuminating
discussion on the application of Management Science
to Urban Issues, with Professor C. Eastman at Carne-
gie–Mellon University, in connection with a USAID
funded research project. This is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
Appendix A. Inputs and outputs related to
Fig. 4.
INPUT planning design decisions in the current case
are as follows.
Some planning/design parameter values chosen:
BUC = 300,000 LP = 5000
SPO = 30m2/Built - Unit BR = 2 NR = 2
Some built unit physical design coefficients chosen:
0.080 0.150 0.230 0.070 1.100
0.120 0.050 0.400 0.100 0.150
Some Built Unit Cost Coefficients chosen:
1076 837 737
OUTPUT Optimal parameter values given by Hud-
CAD:
Optimal Geometrical Programming Weights:
w11 = 1.17883 w12 = 0.56505
w21 = 0.92272 w31 = 0.17883
w44 = 1.17883 w53 = 0.25611
w54 = 1.74389 w51 = w52 = 0.17883
 Urban management: B K Chakrabarty
Optimal Dimensions of the Built-Unit Components
(meter):
lbr = 2.522 wbr = 2.420 llr = 2.961 wlr = 3.250
lk = 2.522 wk = 2.074 lbt = 1.776 wbt = 0.968
lwc = 1.184 wwc = 0.968 lsc = 3.838 wsc = 2.074
ssf = 0.877 owl = 1.383 wo = 0.691 blw = 1.138
Other optimal output values given by the software:
Maximum possible Built-Unit space given by
model=28.760 m2
Gross Plinth Area rate (including land
price)=10431.132 MU/m2
Optimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) given by
model=0.648
INPUT Planning Design decisions in the current
case are:
Some planning design parameter values chosen:
BUC = 300,000 LP = 5000
SPO = 15m2/Built - Unit BR = 4 NR = 3
Some built unit physical design coefficients chosen:
0.010 0.100 0.240 0.060 1.100
0.160 0.060 0.400 0.120 0.180
Some built unit cost coefficients chosen:
1076 837 737
OUTPUT Optimal parameter values given by Hud-
CAD:
Optimal Geometrical Programming Weights:
w11 = 0.38758 w12 = 0.46715
w21 = 0.79262 w31 = 0.16273
w41 = 0.38758 w53 = 0.37011
w54 = 0.85473 w51 = w52 = 0.16273
Optimal dimensions of the built unit components
(in meters):
lbr = 4.414 wbr = 3.166 llr = 4.782 wlr = 4.854
lk = 4.414 wk = 3.799 lbt = 2.869 wbt = 2.110
lwc = 1.913 wwc = 1.266 lsc = 4.966 wsc = 2.110
ssf = 0.184 owl = 2.532 wo = 1.266 blw = 2.266
Other optimal output values given by the software:
Maximum possible built unit space given by
model=72.319 m2.
Gross Plinth Area Rate (including land
price)=4148.282 MU/m2
Optimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)=2.186.
References
Branch, M C (1970) Delusions and diffusions of city planning in
the United States. Management Science 16(12).
Chakrabarty, B K (1993) National shelter strategy – a model-based
approach. Habitat International 17(3).
Chakrabarty, B K (1997a) Urban management – a course design
for education as a distinct discipline. Spatio-Economic Develop-
ment Record 4(1).
Chakrabarty, B K (1997b) Report on the programme design for
education in urban management. A consultancy study sponsored
by HUDCO, New Delhi.
Chakrabarty, B K (1998) Urban management and optimizing urban
development models. Habitat International 22(4).
Chakrabarty, B K (2000) Urban management – need for an inte-
grated approach. The Statesman October 2, New Delhi.
Cheema, G S (Ed.) (1993) Urban Management: Policies and Inno-
vations in Developing Countries. Praeger, Westport.
Grigg, N S (1997) Systemic analysis of urban water supply and
growth management. Journal of Urban Planning and Develop-
ment 123(2).
Goetch, D L (1990) MicroCADD: Computer-Aided Design and
Drafting on Microcomputers. Prentice-Hall of India, New
Delhi.
GOM (Government of Maharastra) (1991) Urban Development
Department. Development Control Regulations for Greater
Bombay. Bombay.
Harvey, J (1987) Urban Land Economics. Macmillan Education,
London.
Hoch, I (1969) The three-dimensional city: contained urban space.
In The Quality of Urban Environment, S P Harvey (Ed.).
Resources for The Future Inc., Washington, DC.
Koontz, H and Weihrich, H (1990) Essentials of Management.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Koontz, H and O’Donnel, C (1976) Management – A System and
Contingency Analysis of Managerial Functions. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Kramer, P M (1983) Crisis in Urban Public Finance – A Case
Study of Thirty-eight Cities. Praeger, New York.
NCU (1988) Report of the National Commission on Urbanisation
Vol. II. Government of India Press, New Delhi.
NIUA (1993) Handbook of Urban Statistics. National Institute of
Urban Affairs (NIUA), New Delhi.
Payne, G (1997) Urban Land Tenure and Property Rights in
Developing Countries. IT Publications, London.
Smith, W F (1975) Urban Development – The Process and The
Problems. University of California Press, Berkeley.
United Nations (1992) World Population Trends. Population
Division, United Nations, New York.
World Bank (1990) World Development Reports. World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank (1991) World Development Reports. World Bank,
Washington, DC.
345