Number Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 It used to be India’s urban showpiece. Today, its sceptre and crown have fallen down and, in a phase of cynical destruction masquerading as “developmentâ€, Mumbai has become a metaphor for urban blight. Consider these statistics. Rubbish could be its Mount Vesuvius. Some 7,000 metric tonnes of refuse is spewed out each day. Dumping grounds are choked, yet there is no government-mandated separation or recycling. Around 7.5 million commuters cram themselves into local trains every day and the fledgling metro and monorail are unlikely to make a perceptible difference in the near future. There are 700,000 cars on the road and the authorities indirectly encourage private vehicle ownership by adding flyovers and expressways, instead of building or speeding up mass rapid transit systems. Private vehicle numbers have grown by 57% in the past eight years, compared with a 23% increase in public buses. Toxic nitric oxide and nitrogen oxide levels stand at 252 microgrammes per cubic metre (mcg/m3) more than three times the safe limit of 80 mcg/m3. Protests against sound pollution fall on deaf ears. There’s less than 0.03 acres of open space per 1,000 people. The global norm is four; London has a profligate 12. There are 12.7 million people jammed into the 480 sq km that comprise today’s Greater Mumbai, that’s 20,680 people per sq km. We are the world’s eighth most-populated city – and dying to prove it. As a consequence, every sixth Mumbaikar lives in a slum. The premium on land was exacerbated by the Rent Control Act of 1947, which wasn’t amended till 1999. Too little, too late. Real estate prices are unreal. It’s cheaper to buy a flat in Manhattan than in Malabar Hill, and you can be sure that shoddy materials will shortchange you in Mumbai. Considering that housing is the city’s biggest shortfall, it’s ironic that unbridled construction is indisputably its biggest problem. Many villains have been blamed for Mumbai’s descent into urban hell, from mafia dons to impoverished migrants, but for the past three decades the main culprit is the “politician-builder nexusâ€. In 2005, the entire city was held hostage for three days. On 26 July, suburban Mumbai was lashed by 668 mm of rain in just 12 hours. Unwarned commuters and children in school buses were left high, but not dry, as roads and railway tracks disappeared. Slums and BMWs went under the deluge without discernment for their economic standing. It may have been the country’s financial capital, but in the photographs that followed, swaggering Mumbai didn’t look much different from a monsoon-marooned Bihar village. For this humbling disaster, the finger pointed at that same culprit: the developer and his facilitator, the politician. There was nowhere for the rainwater to go. For decades the concrete army had been allowed to commandeer all open spaces, and illegal encroachments had done the rest. Public parks, verdant hills, salt-pans, school compounds, private garden plots, beaches, mangroves – nothing was spared. The built environment in Mumbai had increased fourfold since 1925 – and at its fastest rate over the past 30 years – all at the cost of green cover and wetlands. The 2005 deluge brought to light the little-known fact that Mumbai had a river. The Mithi had been reduced to little more than a turgid drain, bubbling with the putrefactions of one of Asia’s largest slums, Dharavi. Why blame its desperate inhabitants when the authorities had built an airport runway and much of the swanky new business district of the Bandra Kurla complex over it? The traumatising flood was a flash-point. Citizens rose against all the civic atrocities heaped upon them. Why must they suffer such acute and chronic brutalising when Mumbai was the biggest contributor to the national economy? It accounts for 33% of income-tax, 20% of central excise collections, 6.16% of GDP (the largest single contribution in India), 25% of industrial output, 40% of foreign trade and 70% of capital transactions. Activists demanded it should be administered separately under a chief executive-like head, instead of politicians who siphoned off its wealth to their rural constituencies. The municipal commissioner should be answerable to the elected corporate leaders not, illogically, to the state chief minister. But all this sound and fury receded with the flood waters, and it was soon business as usual. The unequal war between profiteering and civic wisdom was in unabashed evidence some 20 years before this great flood. An eagerly anticipated shot in the arm turned into a wound that still festers. The cotton mills, on which Mumbai’s original fame and fortunes were built, had been killed off by the prolonged strike of 1982 (and chronic neglect by their owners). After nearly a decade of legal wrangling, especially over the laid-off workers’ dues, it was decided to redevelop the defunct land – an eye-popping 600 acres in prime south and central Bombay. Recreational spaces, public housing and private enterprise were each to get a one-third share of the total area. The twenty-seven storey personal residence of Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani is named after a Antilia, a mythical island in the Atlantic. It has three helicopter pads, underground parking for 160 cars and requires some 600 staff to run. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/nov/24/mumbai-verge-imploding-polluted-megacity What do people think is the problem with Mumbai ? Excessive capitalistic milking or just the blind eye by govt/BMC for the growing need of infrastructure development of the city ? If former, I think we might create a lot of haywire cities like this in next 10 years.
vvvslaxman Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 I do not think Mumbai has come to this overnight. Been the same years back. In an over populated country like India, each state needs atleast 2 major cities to handle urbanization. Otherwise all these major metros will be bombarded by exponentially increasing pouplation to a point where the city will become unlivable
gslv Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Go to any big city. No public infra. Ppl are buying cars like crazy. I know a few families who have >2 cars . Public transport are *****y at best . Bus loads ppl like cattle. No space to breathe.
Kalia_Test Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Agree with the 2 responses above. This is the problem not just of Mumbai but all major cities in India. No point highlighting Mumbai only. Every major city in India has similar problems. We need more cities. The major problem is that everyone wants to migrate to Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and other cities for economic reasons. We need to create options for people. I will take example of AP ( now divided but nevertheless). Vijayawada is a major town on banks of river Krishna with rich cultural heritage and Visakhapatnam is the major port city in East India. Their population is a miniscule fraction of Hyderabad. Still people prefer to migrate to Hyderabad compared to them. We need to develop these towns to ensure our megacities don't explode/implode. There is no pride in being most populous city in world/country/state when our infrastructure is inadequate.
Crookbond Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 The problem is all over India but in Mumbai it is exaggerated and at it's tipping point is what the article is trying to say.
vvvslaxman Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 The problem is all over India but in Mumbai it is exaggerated and at it's tipping point is what the article is trying to say. True. The difference between say Mumbai and Chennai is for Chennai it all happened in the space of last 10 or 12 years. It was completely different 12 years back.. Now it has become unrecognizable. Chennai's area In 2011 the area of chennai was increased from 176 sq Km to 426 sq Km. Population almost doubled. Lot of changes have taken place in the last 10 years or so. I am not sure about Mumbai. Mumbai was a busy , crowded, expensive city even in the 80s. Chennai on the other hand was a perfectly livable, cheap city until early 2000s. Now things have changed dramatically. How much more these cities can absorb is the question. There is a small matter of environmental impacts. They cut down so many trees to accommodate ever swelling population. Bangalore was another perfect cosmopolitan city to live 10 or 15 years back with great weather. Nowadays it is unable to handle the traffic despite having public transportation system. Apart from Delhi other cities are not well designed cities. INfact we only have a handful of well planned cities in India. When the population was managable these things should have been one. Doing after feeling the impact is always going to leave you doing the catch up job.
G_B_ Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 no point comparing mumbai to other major metros. will explain in detail later.
Book_Worm Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Unless we do something about the population(stabilize) i am afraid all the cities in india will be on the verge of tipping point.
Crookbond Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 True. The difference between say Mumbai and Chennai is for Chennai it all happened in the space of last 10 or 12 years. It was completely different 12 years back.. Now it has become unrecognizable. Chennai's area In 2011 the area of chennai was increased from 176 sq Km to 426 sq Km. Population almost doubled. Lot of changes have taken place in the last 10 years or so. I am not sure about Mumbai. Mumbai was a busy , crowded, expensive city even in the 80s. Chennai on the other hand was a perfectly livable, cheap city until early 2000s. Now things have changed dramatically. How much more these cities can absorb is the question. There is a small matter of environmental impacts. They cut down so many trees to accommodate ever swelling population. Bangalore was another perfect cosmopolitan city to live 10 or 15 years back with great weather. Nowadays it is unable to handle the traffic despite having public transportation system. Apart from Delhi other cities are not well designed cities. INfact we only have a handful of well planned cities in India. When the population was managable these things should have been one. Doing after feeling the impact is always going to leave you doing the catch up job. In case of Mumbai, the area never increases - anything past Borivali/Mulund checknaka is NOT Mumbai and will never be.
G_B_ Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 ^ exactly mumbai is an island. In addition the distance from borivali on the west and mulund on the east to the top of coloba is about 45km. Thiss longitudinal layout is extremely poor. In retrospect BKC should always have been the center of mumbai which was about 25km from all sides of the city proper.
G_B_ Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 and as far as development goes, there is no point blaming the BMC they are charged with maintaining. MMDRA is the agency which has been just too slow. I wont even blame them. they pushed hard for the metro but it was held up in legal PILs filed by the residents. What mumbai needs in addition to flyovers is a metro underground providing east west connectivity. Bandra needs to be connected to kurla which needs to be connected to Vashi
achilles Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 We're a dirty country, we're dirty people. We refuse to improve. Nothing will change. As Indians, we are an absolute disgrace. What a selfish bunch of sh*twits we are.
Austin 3:!6 Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 We're a dirty country, we're dirty people. We refuse to improve. Nothing will change. As Indians, we are an absolute disgrace. What a selfish bunch of sh*twits we are. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
achilles Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Sometimes I feel happy for you guys who left this country. Atleast you dont have to deal with all this.
Austin 3:!6 Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Sometimes I feel happy for you guys who left this country. Atleast you dont have to deal with all this. Not sure about Mumbai but Bangalore is an awesome city to live :nice:
Crookbond Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 and as far as development goes' date=' [b']there is no point blaming the BMC they are charged with maintaining. MMDRA is the agency which has been just too slow. I wont even blame them. they pushed hard for the metro but it was held up in legal PILs filed by the residents. What mumbai needs in addition to flyovers is a metro underground providing east west connectivity. Bandra needs to be connected to kurla which needs to be connected to Vashi How is the maintenance coming along?
Straight Drive Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 I have traveled lot of Indian cities outside Mumbai for work. Chennai seemed to be at least 15 years behind Mumbai in infrastructure. Gujarat airport is worse than even Churchgate railway station. Just outside Hyderabad airport and it looked like a village. Kolkotta too looked way behind Mumbai in infrastructure. Mangalore also seemed like a city with lesser infrastructure and less developed in many aspects. I would rather want other cities to develop. All the other cities are at least a decade behind Mumbai imo. No wonder not many can afford buying a house in Mumbai as they prefer buying a lot more floor space in other cities and at much lower the cost to property in Mumbai. I wish i was living in other city because i would never have to pay such huge amount per square feet as compared to what is available in other parts of India. That and less pollution due to less vehicles are the only benefits of staying out of Mumbai. Also, that it still remains the financial capital of India is for some genuine reason.
fineleg Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 We're a dirty country' date=' we're dirty people. We refuse to improve. Nothing will change. As Indians, we are an absolute disgrace. What a selfish bunch of sh*twits we are. achilles, Do you realize that narrow-mindedness starts with ourselves first? Look at your posts in ICF (I am not saying this with malice, just look at it objectively). With the amount of name-calling (such as azz-lickrs etc) and hate you show towards south indians (even if its cricket based) - with such parochial attitude, how would India improve man? Unless there is broad minded thinking, will the situations even begin to improve?
vvvslaxman Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I have traveled lot of Indian cities outside Mumbai for work. Chennai seemed to be at least 15 years behind Mumbai in infrastructure. Gujarat airport is worse than even Churchgate railway station. Just outside Hyderabad airport and it looked like a village. Kolkotta too looked way behind Mumbai in infrastructure. Mangalore also seemed like a city with lesser infrastructure and less developed in many aspects. I would rather want other cities to develop. All the other cities are at least a decade behind Mumbai imo. No wonder not many can afford buying a house in Mumbai as they prefer buying a lot more floor space in other cities and at much lower the cost to property in Mumbai. I wish i was living in other city because i would never have to pay such huge amount per square feet as compared to what is available in other parts of India. That and less pollution due to less vehicles are the only benefits of staying out of Mumbai. Also' date=' that it still remains the financial capital of India is for some genuine reason.[/quote'] Biggest draw back of Mumbai is the social divide which is not the same with other cities. 54% of Mumbai population lives in slums. Where as only 18 and 10 percentages of slum people live in chennai and Bangalore respectively.
Recommended Posts