Last weekend, driving through South Bombay after dinner, one of my friends pointed out the 27-story personal tower of Mukesh Ambani. He noted that the tower's amenities included several floors serving as car showrooms, and a massive ice skating rink serving as another floor. I think I may have muttered something then about "wasteful" or "insensitive," but what I meant to say was "Boss-status!" and then pretend I'm shooting a basketball, the international sign for "ballin'."
"The contrast between the popping champagne corks inside and the filth outside is striking. Again, the simple economics of incentives explains why. Many of the wealthy diners who frequent these establishments pull right up to the entrance, and so don't need to worry about the filth outside," writes Rupa Subramanya, referring to upscale restaurants in midtown Mumbai located in shoddy neighborhoods.
Basically, Subramanya contends that Mumbai's rich have no emotional stake in their neighborhoods, since it doesn't cost much to hire a 24/7 driver and roll through the fecal-filled streets in a tinted-window Escalade, sipping mineral water and breathing circulated air imported from the Himalayas. She argues that the Indian aristocrats take care of the public services that matter to them -- electricity, for instance -- and as long as the infrastructural absurdities of the outside world don't impede on their personal space, they feel no civic duty to demand improvements. Even if their "personal space" happens to be a 27-story mega-apartment.
Fair enough -- but I still don't think the article gets to the core of why Mumbai's wealthy don't demand infrastructural and design improvements to their neighborhoods at large. As Subramanya herself points out, in places like the U.S., there is a clear relationship between real estate quality and the quality of the surrounding sidewalks, parks, public schools, etc. If you were to build a mansion in the middle of the Bronx, for instance, you'd of course be hard-pressed to make a profit, because the poor quality of the surrounding houses and public services directly affects the value of the house. Expensive houses are in expensive neighborhoods, ipso facto.
In India, I would be very curious to see how "neighborhood quality" affects house valuation. The wealthy are of course "clustered" here as in other places -- it's not like you'll find a personal showroom in the middle of Dharavi. But still, if I built a 27-story tower for myself, I'd want to make damn sure my neighborhood is pristine, classy and ideally not near any shanty-towns. I don't know if it's a lack of civic duty, or if its just impossible to distance yourself from the poverty here, but I'd certainly like to find out.
On that note, any Indian billionaires want to hang out this weekend?
 |
| Because if there's one thing this country appreciates, it's tasteful moderation. |
Of course, this is Mumbai, so right outside the tower there were decaying storefronts and a few beggars wandering around. Even in the relatively posh South Bombay, I took the little trappings of destitution to be par for the course.
I was thus happy to see a fairly thoughtful breakdown of why India's nicest neighborhoods are, like, not really that nice in the Wall Street Journal today. Hint: It's not because the rich aren't rich enough.
"The contrast between the popping champagne corks inside and the filth outside is striking. Again, the simple economics of incentives explains why. Many of the wealthy diners who frequent these establishments pull right up to the entrance, and so don't need to worry about the filth outside," writes Rupa Subramanya, referring to upscale restaurants in midtown Mumbai located in shoddy neighborhoods.
Basically, Subramanya contends that Mumbai's rich have no emotional stake in their neighborhoods, since it doesn't cost much to hire a 24/7 driver and roll through the fecal-filled streets in a tinted-window Escalade, sipping mineral water and breathing circulated air imported from the Himalayas. She argues that the Indian aristocrats take care of the public services that matter to them -- electricity, for instance -- and as long as the infrastructural absurdities of the outside world don't impede on their personal space, they feel no civic duty to demand improvements. Even if their "personal space" happens to be a 27-story mega-apartment.
Fair enough -- but I still don't think the article gets to the core of why Mumbai's wealthy don't demand infrastructural and design improvements to their neighborhoods at large. As Subramanya herself points out, in places like the U.S., there is a clear relationship between real estate quality and the quality of the surrounding sidewalks, parks, public schools, etc. If you were to build a mansion in the middle of the Bronx, for instance, you'd of course be hard-pressed to make a profit, because the poor quality of the surrounding houses and public services directly affects the value of the house. Expensive houses are in expensive neighborhoods, ipso facto.
In India, I would be very curious to see how "neighborhood quality" affects house valuation. The wealthy are of course "clustered" here as in other places -- it's not like you'll find a personal showroom in the middle of Dharavi. But still, if I built a 27-story tower for myself, I'd want to make damn sure my neighborhood is pristine, classy and ideally not near any shanty-towns. I don't know if it's a lack of civic duty, or if its just impossible to distance yourself from the poverty here, but I'd certainly like to find out.
On that note, any Indian billionaires want to hang out this weekend?
