Abstract:
Dhaka the capital city of Bangladesh is the centre of all socio-economic and administrative activities. The urbanization rate of Dhaka City has turned it to one of the fastest growing mega cities of the world. This huge population creates severe pressure on various urban sectors among which housing is one of the most important one. Housing backlog along with its skewed structure excludes the low income portion of the society to have access in the housing market. Here, comes the question of government role for housing provision to the low income group. In Bangladesh government usually provide housing through sites and services scheme. Serviced plot at subsidized rate is provided to the people irrespective of income group. But the global practice of housing provision through site and services scheme is intended towards the low income group only. Again, past experience from other countries reveals that, the process may help the overall housing stock but not to the low income group. This is because; the cost involved in the scheme results in serviced plot which is beyond the reach of the intended low income group. In spite of that, these unsuccessful projects are replicated in our country without any evaluation. So, this study intends to explore the extent of housing provision to the low income group through sites and services scheme and their impact in residential development of those intended beneficiary group. Uttara Model Town has been selected as the study area as the project initiated with the commitment to provide housing to the low income group to a certain degree. The study investigates the beneficiary group from the project through the study of socio-economic profile of the first hand allottees and finds the minimal share of low income group (13%) in housing provision. The study also examines whether the low income group could be retained on those plots. It was found that plot transfer tendency is common to all income groups. A portion of low income group retained the plot but a major share is still vacant (61%). But the rest of the plots’ development does not express that they are low income house with 5 to 10 thousand square ft. building.
So, the study reveals that this sort of public effort of housing provision does not actually benefit the poor rather it widens the social disparity. These findings will help to reconsider the current government policy for housing provision to the disadvantaged low income group and search for new policy and tools for solving housing provision to the low income group.
