well there is always room for corruption and exploitation but there is some theoretic merit to this scheme...the truth is that slums spread out, not up, and in areas of dense populations like Bombay, taking the slums "upward" would free up much needed land.

My question here is that are people going to want to live so close in proximity to this lower income housing

sounds like mostly a win-win situation, but i wonder about the quality of these lower-cost high-rise buildings for the slum dwellers. even in buildings touted as "luxury high-rises" developers have been known to cut costs and use cheaper materials and unsafe building practices on the sly.

It's not really new -- I've seen it done in Madras 20 years ago, though by the government and not private builders. At that time most of the former slum dwellers promptly sold their new apartments and moved to new slums. But I hear the slum dwellers in Bombay are really not as poor these days and so maybe they will stay and use the apartments.

Regarding the previous comment on whether rich and poor will live in proximity, everyone in urban India is used to it already. In fact the lower income housing provides a supply of domestic help (maids, etc.)

I don't see this working. The family that is employeed by my family in Mumbai was "resettled" (farther than they were) into decent "chawls" but they sold them and went to a different slum. The need for the actual fluid cash and money they can make of it is far greater for these people than actual housing. They've already lived in a slum so they don't particularly care about going back to it.

Another important point....thought the slum dwellers do get to decide if they want the highrise or not, are they allowed to have any role in the design of the building? Can they have any say in what they want in there? Let us say they are promised an apartment of some 350 sq feet (I would guess that would be typical), with one living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. That's fine. But what about common areas? Can they also create a first floor where there are small shops? Do they get to decide if they can opt for a large common room? After all, slums in Mumbai teem with enterprise. There are shops and businesses in every corner. There often are some spaces reserved for community events (ganapathi or govinda or eid or something else). Can the slum residents ask the builders to include that in their plans?

There have been so many debates over this, it will be interesting to see what is the final resolution (if any).

Dharavi, also known as the largest slum in Asia, was built on marshlands by migrants (mostly from the south)who have really made that one of the most valuable properties in Mumbai. Dharavi now boasts of 90% employment rate in addition to some of the best leather and sweets manafacturers in that region.

The real reason for wanting to re-develop that land is location. Dharavi is located in central Mumbai and due to all the traffic problems and Mumbai's growth north and east-- its a prime location. When apartments are given away to people for free, there still is a major knowledge gap on both sides in terms of what this "gift" means. I do know that people living in the slums are not well informed about the bills for electricity, water, and other services they have to pay for. Additionally, as mentioned in the article, the vertical growth of communities doesn't do much for human social needs.

The major problem I have with it is that they are giving it away for free. It decreases the value of it for every party involved. Thats why people put it up for rent and go and live in slums themselves. You need to have people contribute something, any portion of their income (which is hopefully less than what they pay for the rent of the slum-- yes, people pay rent at some slums) to get people to buy in to the value of property ownership.

That's just Dharavi. Other slums are ridden with problems of health (mostly related to water availability), alcoholism, domestic violence, and basic poverty. The reason people live in slums is because its too expensive to rent in Mumbai (and other major cities). People come to the cities to get work-- you may not have a place to live, but you will get a job in Mumbai. People come to the cities to work because there are no opportunities for education, jobs, and basic needs in the villages. So the real question is, when will the government really come through with their promise for roti, kapra, aur makan for those living in rural India? Only then will we see the problem of slums and slum dwellers improving.

The above "brown" post is me. I don't know why I put my name in as brown--perhaps because I am brown?

Sorry!

It is a good program. Slums made after 1995 are excluded from these benefits. If someone sells their flat and moves to another slum, they are SOL. The basic fact is, better accomodations are being provided without much Government intervention, it is really a win-win. Capitalism at work, Babus, please stay away from this.

But now there is a new method, where private developers are resettling slum dwellers into tower apartments they build and give away for free to residents. In exchange, they get to develop the remainder of the land any way they wan

In my opinion this is definitely not a solution. This has been tried in the past in Bombay and most people either start to rent these apartment to others and find a new slum to live in or sell them altogether.

I work in the social services sector here in New York and we see many problems with the free housing approach. For example, a long time homeless woman was finally given a one bedroom apartment on the east side. A few weeks later her case worker found her on the streets again and asked her why she was living on the street. Her response was that there was a devil living in the oven. This was a clear case in which homelessness is not the only issue that was plaguing her.

Given that we are talking about Bombay, I feel that there is no such follow up or even assessment before these apartments are handed out. As many other commenters have pointed out - education and rehabilitation of the slum population is as important (if not more) than just putting a roof over their head.

The major problem I have with it is that they are giving it away for free. It decreases the value of it for every party involved. Thats why people put it up for rent and go and live in slums themselves.

Very important point by brown/Meenakshi. I highlighted what actually is likely to happen. Effective land ownerships law enforcement must go hand in hand with such a scheme. That means that slums cant be put up anywhere someone feels like.

In old socialist time in India, the courts almost always ruled against the property owner in eviction cases. That is the reason that the older generation is still wary of renting out property.

Property law is a key issue for a market based economy.

As always, most criticisms of this scheme amount to the old "this isn't going to solve the basic problem" argument. No one scheme can correct all the imbalances that manifest themselves as urban slums. There are too many underlying problems - lack of education, opportunities, social equality, etc. etc. This scheme does nothing about providing a legal alternative to the vast underground economy that pervades the slums.

That said, this is a perfectly good scheme. There will be perverse exploitations of the scheme to be sure, but the idea itself is better than anything else.

If someone sells their flat and moves to another slum, they are SOL.

Right. The arguments saying that this "won't work" because residents will just take the money and run are missing the point. They are assuming that slum clearance is taking place primarily for the benefit of the slum residents. That's untrue, whether you're talking about private developers or the government. Nobody cares about the slum dwellers -- if the government really cared it wouldn't try clearing slums with bulldozers. No matter who's actually clearing the slum, the point is to snap up the land. It's really quite elegant from a developer's standpoint -- he clears the slum and makes money pumping a whole lot of housing into formerly underutilized land. The slum dwellers can then sell if they want, allowing higher-paying tenants to move in (and increasing the land value even more). Slum dwellers who move end up going to another slum and possibly repeating the whole process, enriching themselves at the same time.

My prediction is that if this gets off the ground you'll hear indignant squawks from various wealthy people upset over how those Lucky Ducky slum-dwellers just get everything for free. At which point the capitalists will start calling for government regulation of this idea.

I think its a fair idea on paper ,, but somebody is eventually going to be stiffed! My bets are on the very 'poor" who will get sub-standard housing in tall buildings or the environment.. (salt marshes).
The rest will make a killing . This is afterall Mumbai Meri jaan!

People come to the cities to work because there are no opportunities for education, jobs, and basic needs in the villages.

This is an interesting idea. I'd like to read the whole article before I pass judgment, but it's interesting just the same.

I haven't gotten a chance to read the article, but this seems very analagous to the theories behind public housing projects in the United States. History has shown us that was a failed experiment. I am skeptical but am willing to be convinced.

PBGinNYC,

This was a clear case in which homelessness is not the only issue that was plaguing her.

What is your point? That mental health is a major issue in Dharavi?
Let us not compare NY with Mumbai. Dharavi is unique in its good and bad. It will need a unique solution.

Neale:

I think PBGinNYC means that there are mutiple issues when it comes to housing, resettlement and the poor. While mental health might not be the issue highlighted in Dharavi-- but there are a host of other problems that can be substituted for it.

Can there really be such a thing as a business-friendly approach to slum resettlement that is also fair to the lower middle class and working class people who currently live in Mumbai’s slums?

this sounds approximately identical to what became of the Chicago housing projects. I'm not sure if they were developed to pull poor people off the land, but since they were housing projects that required management, the city went ahead and neglected to manage them properly and let the physical conditions in those neighborhoods deteriorate to a nihilistic low. I worry whether the landlords or whoever is responsible for building maintenance will actually take care of these places.

Also, I think crowded highrises are not necessarily the fairest solution insofar as they're not necessarily representative of ideal living conditions. I wonder if certain aspects of slum dwelling will actually get worse with the highrises.

I know the parallel between Chicago and Bombay isn't exact, but it's the first thing I think of when I think of highrise + slum.

Meenakshi,
PBGinNYC is talking about a world of destitution. Which is not what this post was about. And i wanted to avert that.

Dharavi, on the other hand, is vibrant,working, world. When we say that people choose to live in slums, it for a host of very valid reasons. For example, the water pressure in Bombay does not reach the top floors of most buildings. And as far as I can guess, the folks in Dharavi have figured out a much more reliable way to get their two buckets than trudging up flights of stairs. Also, in Dharavi your front porch, if you must, is the gully. You keep your front proch clean, the street stays clean. In a tall building people will be tossing out stuff into the compound. Of course, there is health and pollution and sewage issues and crime in Dharavi - but the private living spaces have evolved. Along with an unmatched tolerance for living and letting live. THis is what has to be preserved with any resettlement. I hope this vertical one factors this in.

Well -- there are some big differences. One of the major issues that let Chicago's housing get as bad as it did was the fact that it was almost entirely built on neighborhoods that were already segregated. When integrated housing was proposed, it caused riots and opposition. Since these would largely be black projects rather than just poor projects, there was no incentive among the politically powerful white population of the city to fund anything more than they absolutely had to. This was exacerbated by the fact that the crackdowns on civil rights/resistance leaders in Chicago under the guise of "fighting gangs" in the 60s/70s neatly robbed most of these communities of their strongest leaders. On top of that, you had all the economic dependency issues that American welfare fostered, leaving an easily exploited population for the concurrent crack and AIDS epidemics, two terrible pieces of historical bad luck.

My impression is that Mumbai's slums aren't split along those lines (eg: it's not a "Muslim" slum or a "low-caste" slum, it's just a bunch of poor people). Also, as owners of their housing, the residents of these properties will have a stake in their operation -- if they want to sell, they have to keep the thing in working shape. CHA residents were always just renters, and their options were to stay put no matter what the city did or to leave and live on the street. These developments won't have a captive population of renters who must passively depend on the government for essential services (clean water, maintenance, police), but rather a mobile population that's able to leave if things get bad.

Finally, unlike Chicago in the 1950s, there will always be another slum waiting to open up if things get bad enough, or if there's profit to be made in leaving.

I wonder how many slum dwellers are going to go along with this. I am afraid that many slum dwellers might object to big business moving into their land. Slum dwellers tend to be very skeptical(and rightly so) of land developers, and very protective of their land. I am not certain that slum dwellers are going to agree to be relocated somewhere while their land is being developed

My impression is that Mumbai's slums aren't split along those lines (eg: it's not a "Muslim" slum or a "low-caste" slum, it's just a bunch of poor people).

Generally speaking, all of Bombay is segregated along religious and linguistic lines. Dharavi might be a kind of a mixed bag, though, because it's just so large, and is bordered by industrial districts (Kurla, Sion, Chembur, etc) . The differrence between 1950's Chicago and 2000's Bombay is that there is no push by the goverment to integrate differrent communities

Actually, there used to be a lot more communal harmony in Dharavi than there is nowadays. After the riots in 1993 and the various bombings, the communities have become more disparate. Some of the slums are defined by the religions that are most common there and there is definitely a distinction between who resides where.

Also, a big thing no one is mentioning is that how many of these slum dwellers run businesses in and out of their homes (or in the slums closeby). What has "big business" promised for those slum dwellers who are re-located out of home as well as livelihood? You can't have your PCO or paan shop on the 15th floor of an apartment building...

Also, a big thing no one is mentioning is that how many of these slum dwellers run businesses in and out of their homes (or in the slums closeby). What has "big business" promised for those slum dwellers who are re-located out of home as well as livelihood? You can't have your PCO or paan shop on the 15th floor of an apartment building...

Yup, According to this book, many shop-owners have use their lingusitic capabilities to position their shop effectively and more than half of slum dwellers never go out of the slum. I think redeveloping the whole area will trash the local economy. I hope they can rebuild the area without trashing the healthy cottage industry

I am afraid that many slum dwellers might object to big business moving into their land. Slum dwellers tend to be very skeptical(and rightly so) of land developers, and very protective of their land.

How is it 'their' land? Aren't they essentially just squatting there, basically occupying it? I don't think they own it, do they? I think the real-estate laws in India, so skewed against land-owners and landlords, etc. really are terrible, as someone already mentioned. I also agree with the people who mention that the only permanent fix to these problems is to energize the economy of rural India so people don't need to migrate to big cities for work. And DEFINITELY the quality of these proposed low-income units will be ABYSMAL. Mental health may not be an issue in Indian slums right now, since they are somewhat vibrant, and very social, but would probably become a big problem under this new scenario. AS far as upkeep, hopefully the (former) slum-dwellers will form functioning 'societies' for the maintainance of their property and its grounds.

I think all the naysayars are out again. The slum dwellers have illegally occupied the land, getting a free flat is the best deal of their life. If the sell or rent the flat out, the next slum they make will not be covered by this scheme, only slums before 1995 are covered. There will be some people who will find loopholes and double-dip, but that should not stop this scheme. There is no single solution to this problem, however, this scheme is in the right direction. The 'Babus' only need to ensure that undue advantage is not taken by the slum dwellers, otherwise they should let the market take it's course. This scheme will die very quickly if real-estate prices drop in mumbai.

I am afraid that many slum dwellers might object to big business moving into their land. Slum dwellers tend to be very skeptical(and rightly so) of land developers, and very protective of their land.

How is it 'their' land? Aren't they essentially just squatting there, basically occupying it?

I should have said "they are protective of the land that they perceive to be theirs". Technically, yes, it's not their land. It's either goverment land or private land.

Many slum-dwellers have actually bought the houses from other people. Our "bai" used to live in a slum, and she had bought an additional house in the slum as an investment, and was renting it out. She even sold both the houses before she retired ar her native place

::Our "bai" used to live in a slum, and she had bought an additional house in the slum as an investment, and was renting it out. She even sold both the houses before she retired ar her native place.

So true!!! I guess your bai and my bai had the same micro-financial planner!:-)

this is really interesting- does anyone know if there is more information out there about this other than what's in the article? how comprehensive is this solution? i think the statistic is that 50-60% of people in bombay live in slums- it's hard to imagine that free luxury housing is available for all those folks. i think some other people have raised the general point in the comments- but what role have the slum dwellers themselves played in this? without a community movement built from the ground up, i have a hard time seeing this as a sustainable solution. what buy in does the slum dweller community have? and what about the folks who have more pressing needs than housing- food/nutrition, health care, education- they would justifiably sell as other people have commented, what then?

very 'poor" who will get sub-standard housing in tall buildings or the environment.. (salt marshes).
Compared to what? the mansions that they've been "lawfully" living on for so long?

Also, I think crowded highrises are not necessarily the fairest solution insofar as they're not necessarily representative of ideal living conditions. I wonder if certain aspects of slum dwelling will actually get worse with the highrises.

Lets remember that these are slums we're talking about, not Hamptons. I've seen Dharavi, most ppl live in what looks like a decent size tin box(complete with electricity and water supply). Ideal living condition is not what they're used to.

I am afraid that many slum dwellers might object to big business moving into their land.

Slums dwellers are living in no mans land(including theirs). Mostly these places are govenment land that's being missused. Some parties even encourage this so they get more votes. You want real solution to the slum issue, the answer is to strictly enforce the laws that are already in the books. But till then, the schemes such as these are just a good compromise.

I wonder if the city government is taking into account zoning laws in order to ensure proper city planning. It seems like all the land on which slums that agree to the plan sit, will be used to construct high rise apartment buildings. Also, will the developers be bargaining with the slum dwellers for the price of the land or with the city government? If the slum dwellers have somehow got legal rights to the land, I think that the developers could get by paying less than the market price for the land. The government should be the one that should be deciding the price and what gets constructed on the land.

Read 'Shantaram' by Gregory Roberts for a true/fictional version of how slum people live...

Much of the "Vision Mumbai" plan has been declared pro-rich, pro-privatisation and pro-builder

I guess it really will be the new Shanghai, then.

getting a free flat is the best deal of their life.

Yeah, I guess it is! When I go to Bombay next Christmas on holiday I think I might swap my paid accomodation for life in a slum! Will you join me Jain Man...gosh I wish I was as lucky as 'the other half', that 50-60% who live in the no-bills Hilton that is life below the poverty line.

I'm not saying I have the perfect solution to the overcrowding/housing problem, but proclaiming that life in the slums is the best thing that ever happened to someone is just highlighting the fact that thanks to rampant corruption, an overly privatised economy and political manipulation of the 'poor' vote, the rest of some people's lives are just so totally shit in comparison that a piece of corrugated iron is IT.

"Read 'Shantaram' by Gregory Roberts for a true/fictional version of how slum people live..."

How little man needs to not just survive but actually build a life. I would like my 14-year old to have a gap year before college to go and volunteer among the poor in India. My niece just did a summer with an NGO that is taking care of battered women in Delhi. I have no idea what she learned, if anything, but becoming sensitized to an unfortunate life she would, hopefully, never lead herself is education enough.

Interesting.
Yeti- regarding the comparison to Chicago and Mumbai I agree that it isn't a close comparison because of the external racism/redlining etc. that was happening out side of the 'projects'. However the book cited in post # 27 seems to me to indicate that people are confined to certain roles/employment etc based on language (religion).

In the UK there is a 'right to buy' Introduced by the Thatcher govt. that has let public housing residents buy their property- which some commenter's proposed above. This wasn't an option in Cabrini and some other developments- but the physical structure might have warranted that. Its interesting that people who believe the 'voucher program' via miraculous market forces will force public schools to perform don't really propose this as a solution for the housing market. Whats the deference? Sincere question-- Manju? holler back. How many baristas/ stock boys can Starbucks/Whole foods etc employ in the new upmarket areas that replaced the old Cabrini. I’m arguing that education/employment opportunities are the key.

Neil you made a salient point about conservative racial theory what I’d like to learn more about is how this plays out in view of the shanty towns in India. I've down volunteer work in Cabrini- and I know that some re-education has to be done FUBU because of some warped values,& mindsets. But from my armchair investigations (of the Desi side) I don’t see how the poor/ghetto dweller with benefit of his/her centuries old culture and genetic gift of a work ethic work ethic etc. is fundamentally different from one on the west side.

I don’t see how the poor/ghetto dweller with benefit of his/her centuries old culture

I think we underestimate the loss of culture that is taking place in India amongst poor people as well as rural people. We assume that since they are not part of the overtly-westernised, English-speaking elite, they must somehow be sticking to their roots and their traditions. But from my observations that is false...all you need to do is go to a few villages and see how different (not always for the better) young people are from their grandparents. Or how different young slum-dwellers are from older ones. India's rapid changes are affecting all young people, to various degrees. I'm not saying that there still isn't a lot of desi culture left, but just pointing out that cultural loss, rootlessness, lack of identity, are problems that can (and do) afflict anyone. Yes, COMPARATIVELY they may have a better sense of who they are and where they come from than people in America, or even the upper classes in India. But don't assume that just because someone is poor, undereducated, and speaks an Indian language, that he must be firmly rooted in his culture...he may not be.

On a slightly related topic, does anyone have Anand Giridharadas's email address? Its not listed at the bottom of this nor does a quick google search turn up anything. I had his email from a former life, but obviously he has moved on...

Its interesting that people who believe the 'voucher program' via miraculous market forces will force public schools to perform don't really propose this as a solution for the housing market.

This is basically the idea behind Section 8 housing isn't it?

This is unequivocally a great idea. It seems like the most humane way possible of removing the slum dwellers from the illegally occupied land. Possibly, though, it might make more sense to simply buy out the slum dwellers since most of them would rather have the cash. Ironically, that might be perceived as less humane.

This is unequivocally a great idea.

I think it's unequivocally agreat idea...in theory. However, I think it remains to be seen whether there is some sort of catch. An earlier comment mentioned that right now many slum dwellers get amenities such as electricity by illegally tapping into power lines. By concentrating them in these towers, the plan is making it likely that most of their activities will now be above board. Who knows what will happen when they start having to pay for basic amenities without increased income?

It's anecdotal, but notice that in the article, a male former slum dweller complained, while female former slum dwellers seemed happier. The added privacy and safety of having your own bathroom and room seem a bigger benefit to women than men, so perhaps this is not surprising.

On net, the policy sounds like a sensible development agreement (I'm sure certain details could be optimized) - but a city like Mumbai requires the vertical density that high rise development provides if it has any hope of housing its ever growing population.

I wonder how it will be in 50 years, though; high-rise public housing was considered a miracle in the US in the 50's, and is decried as a disaster today since it helps create a dense, self-reinforcing culture of poverty. On the flip side, the density of India forces the wealthy and and slum dwellers to be next door - which may mitigate the ghettoization problem seen in the US, France, and elsewhere.

Good point PG. Female slum dwellers have to go out in the fields to use the bathroom between the hours of 2-5am. This is not only unsafe but really inconvenient.Men can be seen squatting near the tracks at all hours of the day.

I agree that the value added of privacy for women is a necessary one. But the 'scheme' still doesn't say much for loss of livelihood for the rehabilitated slum dwellers.

This maybe easier in an area like Dharavi. But what of the worst slums (some of which are literally built in a garbage dumps)? Maybe I missed it, but how will they decide which area gets rehabilitated? There are slums all over Mumbai.

They tried this in Brazil, and it didn't work for a number of reasons. As others have mentioned, unless you address issues of income redistribution, livelihood, poverty, etc., people are not likely to move. Also, I think there's an assumption that slum-dwellers want to move to places like apartments without also taking into account that some of these slum properties have been in people's families for generations. I'm not saying people want to stay in slums, but there is a history there, also. There is also a much different feeling between owning a room and owning a piece of land (I know that slum-ownership is almost always by definition squatting, but there is still a sense of land-claim).

But back to Brazil... much of why this didn't work was because the government could not continue to subsidize public housing over time, but also because the city was zoned in a way which required some kind of access to a car/transit in order to commute to work, etc. Additionally, as the area developed and gentrified, former slum-dwellers could no longer afford the local cost of living and ended up moving to the fringes of the cities where they could access public transit and afford their basic needs (e.g. food)... and of course set up new slums.

It's a tricky issue, and I think first and foremost people should start asking slum communities what they want. How can people who have never lived in slums and who have never been economically at-risk understand what that experience is like or how to develop all-encompassing policies for it? Perhaps what we think are the key issues for slum dwellers are not what those same groups would identify as their most salient concerns. On the subject of toilets, a great example of another failed slum-improvement project was a push to build public toilets, etc., in north Indian slums about 10 years ago for many of the same reasons (make the slum look better, give people pride in their area, provide a safe place for women to use the toilet - toilets were identified as one of the key concerns of the slum improvement project). The improvement project did not work either, largely because people could not afford to buy into the project (it required a cost-share payment), and because the sanitation system was not built to allow for the lower take-up rate, which resulted in sewage backing up into people's homes and streets.

But don't assume that just because someone is poor, undereducated, and speaks an Indian language, that he must be firmly rooted in his culture...he may not be.

Agreed. I have been teaching in a Bombay public school through an NGO for the last 2 months in which 90% of the children live in slums. Yet I can see how globalization is affecting these children and making them different from their parents. All of them want to finish school, learn English and move to "Amrika", however unfeasible that may sound given the poor quality of BMC schools. Thanks to television (most slumdwellers have cable) they are quite well-informed about the world compared to their parents' generation - so much that even one of the weakest students in my class, only 9 years old, described in great detail the events of 9/11, which he learned from the Discovery Channel.

This is basically the idea behind Section 8 housing isn't it?

yep! the very one- but you don't hear cool caring conservative slogans like "no child left behind" attached to it.

I think this is perfect and represents how India is moving from a socialist based economy to a capitalist based economy. Granted I do not know the tax structure in mumbai (do they even have property taxes), I do know that rich people spend money, which spurs the economy and it trickles down from there. As far as the slum dwellers are concerned, let them move somewhere else. Eventually like in all major cities, the poor are marginalized to the outskirts of the cities and must face greater commute times as well as lower standards of living.

The challenge for the politicians will be incorporating low-cost housing, i.e. slums, near high-rises so that the owners in the high-rises are not peeved when they cannot find workers such as maids, drivers, tailors etc.. to cater to their lifestyles.

I grew up in a working-class housing co-op("colony" in Mumbai parlance) neighbourhood and my parents still live there. Located in suburban Mumbai, it was literally built over a swamp and was considered an outlying area forever.

However, in the last 5-6 years the area has seen some crazy-ass development. It all started with the building with this HUGE call center about 4 years ago. Then there were shopping malls, high-end stores and now, an American-style hypermarket. Lots of multinationals seem to have found this spacious marsh and are building offices here.

These, along with the announcement that the upcoming Mumbai metro system has a line literally with a stop in front of our apartment, has set the property prices in our area skyrocketing. Builders all over have lain eyes on our old (30+ yrs) colonies and trying to buy the residents out. Some, like my parents, want to stay on in the new 'towers', but are afraid of getting swindled by these powerful builders.

It will be interesting to see how this game plays out in this area in the next few years.

Some, like my parents, want to stay on in the new 'towers', but are afraid of getting swindled by these powerful builders.

----------------------------------

Your parents will probably get a new flat without any cost to them. Their old 20 lakh place is replaced by their new 30 lakh place. I don't know how they get 'swindled'. Maybe because they could not get a 40 lakh flat to replace their 20 lakh flat? Get out of the socialist mindset, all builders are not swindlers. Get out of the mindset of 'squeezing' everything out of anyone who is under your thumb. The new generation of capitalists in Mumbai are fast moving and progressive, your parents window of opportunity will not last for ever.

Get out of the socialist mindset, all builders are not swindlers.

In the Indian context, most probably are. But since technophobicgeek's parents are educated, they should be able to get a decent deal. No matter what, it's the builders who are going to the bank, but that just has to be accepted.

In the Indian context, most probably are. But since technophobicgeek's parents are educated, they should be able to get a decent deal. No matter what, it's the builders who are going to the bank, but that just has to be accepted.

------------------------------------------

Builders take massive risk, the payoff can quickly turn into a nightmare if the market turns. Big risk = big reward.

You still have a deep socialist mindset, reinforced by media and movies.

Here's a great piece from public radio's "The World" about Bombay's slums: http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/6780

It covers the things discussed on this thread and more, including the problem of resettlement, the danger of creating high-rise/vertical slums (including a "consultant" on slum-resettlement who seems to know what he's talking about), and the successful efforts by slum dwellers (including Magsasay-winner Jockin Arputham -- hadn't heard of him before) to organize themselves into an effective political block and make themselves heard.

...thanks to rampant corruption, an overly privatised economy and political manipulation of the 'poor' vote, the rest of some people's lives are just so totally shit in comparison that a piece of corrugated iron is IT.

An overly privatised economy? India? Tash, please don't get so worked up by all that anti-globalisation rhetoric.

On a side note, the views of some commentators here about upper caste, middle class or rich Indians are quite interesting, given that everyone spends so much time fighting stereotypes here.

im a student studying this situation, and i think this feedback is really interesting. its quite cool seeing different people with different arguments about the subject. everyone has their own perspective which is really informative.
anyways, i think the slum dwellers should be asked about their concerns... i dont think the builders should just do whatever they feel like with the high rises. its the least they can do since these people are driving the slum dwellers out of their homes... out of where they are comfortable and familiar.

I am intrested to know whatever happened to this idea??? or plan !!! its been already 2 years this was posted

I THING WE MUST THINK ABOUT THIS TOPIG DEEPLY