Mumbai Shows Slowest Horizontal Growth Among Major Indian Cities; Vertical Expansion Dominates

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region's urban imprint—the area covered by its buildings—grew at the slowest rate among eight major Indian urban agglomerations in the country over the last 30 years, indicating that the city is accommodating its growing population more through vertical expansion in taller buildings compared to other cities.

Research Methodology and Findings

The findings are part of the recent study, 'Cities in Motion – Tracing 30 Years of Urban Expansion in Key Indian Cities’, a study by Square Yards, a real estate platform, which examined India’s urbanisation landscape to analyse and compare the growth patterns of built-up areas within its major cities. The study used Landsat images from 1995 to 2025 and Global Human Settlement Layer data to estimate land use and built-up areas.

The study found that the urban built-up footprint area doubled during the period, reaching a total of 4,308 sq km in the top eight cities, with an addition of 2,136 sq km. Pune's built-up area increased faster than its population—332% from 86 sq km in 1995 to 373 sq km in 2025, while its population grew 152%. The National Capital Region's population increased by 186% while the built-up area increased by 71%, from 567 sq km to 967 sq km. In comparison, Mumbai's population grew 56% between 1995 and 2025 while its urban area increased more slowly, at 43% to 588 sq km.

Reasons Behind Mumbai’s Vertical Growth

Renuka Kulkarni, the head of research (real estate) and media collaboration at Square Yards, said that Mumbai's growth is mostly vertical for two major reasons. "The sea locks in the city, and the boom in redevelopment of old buildings is contributing to upward growth. Even in Mumbai's suburbs, most buildings are multi-storey," said Kulkarni. "Delhi, Bengaluru, and other cities are growing outward, but for Mumbai, except for some areas, most growth is upward."

Debate Over Vertical vs. Horizontal Growth

Many urban planners favour vertical growth of cities, as this involves more efficient use of land. On the other hand, horizontally growing urban areas take up more land. However, there is no consensus on this observation. Neera Adarkar, architect and urbanist, said that there is no question of what is better for cities—horizontal or vertical growth. "It all depends on urban planning; does everyone have enough open space? High density and high-rise for poor people; high-rise but low density for rich people: that is discrimination," said Adarkar.

Challenges of Vertical Expansion

Mumbai's vertical growth is a compromise, said architect and urban planner Shashi Prabhu. "Mumbai is growing skywards because the municipal corporation has allowed a higher Floor Space Index (the ratio of a plot's size to the area of the building constructed on it)," said Prabhu. "But nobody has thought about water supply, waste disposal, and the complete infrastructure. The growth is being managed so far, but it can collapse. There is a limit to vertical growth. Growing more vertically also means you need more hospitals, more schools, and other amenities."

Population Density Myths

Rohit Majumdar, urbanist and architect who teaches at the School of Environment and Architecture, said that it was a misnomer that high-rise buildings mean higher population density. "Architects have compared Ballard Estate, a low-rise business district, and Nariman Point, a high-rise area, and found that both have similar densities," said Majumdar.

Concerns About High-Density Localities

"Higher density is better, but towards what end? Do you want to turn localities into Vashi Naka, Mankhurd?", asked Majumdar, referring to a high-density resettlement colony for slum dwellers in M (East) municipal ward, which is reported to have a higher incidence of tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases.