Real Estate

[Residential differentiation and newer re]

A question that arises from the detailed comparison of the dimensions of residential differentiation is: do the households in different locations emerge as distinct types? We can think so, with respect to households located in the urban and within the fringe areas, and also those in the absolute possession of the natives and immigrants.

An average urban household is comparatively better in terms of income, occupation, and also in the relatively higher proportion of males and females that are part of the salaried group. The Builders in Kerala mostly target this section to sell off their apartments, villas and other built-up spaces. Such households live in spacious houses, consume more space and also more rooms per person. It is invariably a household with more housing facilities, when compared to their counterparts living in the fringe areas.

Actually it is a household run by a relatively young head at the time of settling in the present location and who is comparatively well qualified with access to higher education facilities. In sharp contrast, an average household in the fringe area owned more land and less space in the house. It had a higher family size, possessed more extended households, generated low income, and had a relatively low proportion of salaried workers and female workers in the salaried group.

However, a typical immigrant is better placed in terms of income and employment opportunities, when compared to the natives in each district. An average immigrant in the urban area is in a better position in terms of income and the basic facilities enjoyed in his house. But a comparison of the characteristics of the households located in the urban and fringe areas yields no evidence to support the conventional view that higher income households tend to relocate farther from the center to enjoy more land and space per house.

Though there is a difference in the ownership of land among the natives and the immigrants, this difference among the immigrants between the various locations is rather marginal. Therefore, it is not the higher consumption of land that tempted the households to relocate in the fringe area, rather it is the savings due to the low land price that tempted them to relocate in the fringe areas.