Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tata Building $7,800 Apartments in Mumbai

Posted by kdawson on Sat May 09, 2009 01:27 PM
from the piece-of-the-rock dept.
theodp writes "What do you do for an encore after you've shown the world it's possible to build a $2,000 car? Ratan Tata, head of India's giant Tata conglomerate, now plans to build, 30 miles outside of Mumbai, 1,200 tiny apartments that will sell for $7,800 to $13,400 each. Sure, they're small (floor plans), but keep in mind that you can pay a quarter of a million bucks for a 250-sq.-ft. studio in the East Village. Time reports that Tata has had to beef up security to handle the rush of buyers who want to plunk down their $200 deposits (yes, that's two hundred dollars!). Who would've thought you could make IKEA homes look pricey?" The Businessweek.com article says that the apartments are aimed at someone making $6,000 to $10,000 per year (Time says $5,000). In Mumbai, a call center operator with 10 to 20 years of experience barely qualifies at $6,400 annually. 70% of the country's 1.2 billion people live on 1/20 as much.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: World's Cheapest Car Goes On Sale In India 571 comments
Frankie70 writes "The Tata Nano — the car that caught the world's imagination as the cheapest ever — will finally be rolled out commercially on Monday in Mumbai in a mega event organised by Tata Motors. Ben Oliver, contributing editor, Car Magazine, London test drove the car in December, 08. These were his first impressions. This was his verdict: 'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater. It won't compete on dynamics or quality with European or Japanese city cars, but it doesn't have to. What Tata has achieved at an unprecedented price is astonishing, although we'd guess it will cost Indian consumers closer to £1700 when it finally goes on sale, six months late, in March 2009.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Tata cars have proven themselves to be unsafe for driving (no protection, and the car frame is too thin)

    i wouldn't be surprised if these buildings couldn't survive 45 mph winds
    • by jez9999 (618189) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:34PM (#27890103) Homepage Journal

      Don't worry, though; you should be OK in one. It's India, so you're much more likely to hit a pedestrian than another car.

      • by Ian Alexander (997430) on Saturday May 09 2009, @04:17PM (#27891371)
        Dude, have you ever been to India? You're likely to hit ANYTHING in a city. Cars, people on foot, people bicycles, rickshaws (human-powered and automotive),and Shiva forbid a cow wanders into the road at the wrong moment.

        Indian traffic is a good example of anarchy in practice.
        • by sanman2 (928866) on Saturday May 09 2009, @05:31PM (#27891975)
          Tata is NOT saving costs by compromising on materials. So how are they saving costs? They're going in for cheaper land that's farther out from the city, and they're paying below market price for it, because they're offering the landholders an amortized profit-sharing across many years. They're then organizing a large number of builders to create entire communities from scratch, including hospitals, schools, marketplaces, and a variety of amenities where there were none before. They're building entire townships, and not just some homes. This is obviously a very capital-intensive approach. Call it the Las Vegas strategy: buying land in the middle of nowhere at low cost, and then building an entire self-supporting community there.
            • Not Ghetto (Score:4, Informative)

              by sanman2 (928866) on Saturday May 09 2009, @05:51PM (#27892115)
              In India, people who earn $5000/yr are not ghetto, they're lower-income lower middle class. They're not on welfare (there is no welfare), they're employed.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by FiloEleven (602040)

                    Yes, God forbid I ask a question of someone who appears knowledgeable and interested in a related topic, also giving a chance to some other interested party to respond. Nope, I should take whatever pre-packaged info already exists provided I tweak the query enough to get something relevant.

                    I prefer my information to be organic, thank you very much.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by CAIMLAS (41445)

              You must know nothing about India if you think a place with pipes (never mind running water, we're just talking drainage), four solid walls, a roof and a floor is anything short of "middle class".

              Maybe in 40, 50 years the places would be considered slums/projects, if India continues to improve at the rate it has been. But from the looks of things, they should serve as suitable housing until they're ready for replacement. And if they leave room between the buildings/complexes, and don't make the complexes to

    • by jadavis (473492) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:35PM (#27890111)

      unsafe

      As safe or safer than a motorcycle or bicycle. The word "unsafe" is thrown around all the time without regard for alternatives and real-life trade-offs.

        • by MikeFM (12491) on Saturday May 09 2009, @03:24PM (#27890853) Homepage Journal

          Have you seen how they build the average home? A normal priced home in my area is around $300k and if you see how they build them I don't see how these cheap structures could be much worse and remain standing.

          You get a bunch of idiots with little understanding of physics haphazardly building from poorly conceived plans using the cheapest building materials they can find. If something isn't right then band-aid it so it'll pass inspection and don't worry that two months later it'll go to hell. So long as these cheap apartments follow international building code at least as well as the local schmucks then I doubt it could be any worse.

          I'd think a micro apartment could be great for people that commute. A local place to take a nap or shower or stay over in bad weather. I'd consider buying one if they had them locally. A plac

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by atamido (1020905)

            So long as these cheap apartments follow international building code

            I had no idea, but there apparently is an international building code. Granted, it's not law in many places, but it is interesting still.

          • by Firethorn (177587) on Saturday May 09 2009, @04:41PM (#27891577) Homepage Journal

            Have you seen how they build the average home? A normal priced home in my area is around $300k and if you see how they build them I don't see how these cheap structures could be much worse and remain standing.

            Do you have any idea of the markup they have(had) on those homes? Are you thinking of a prebubble-burst price?

            How much is tied up in impact fees, taxes, other miscellaneous hardware, not to mention the land?

            What's the square footage of these homes? A 4k square foot monster? 2k 3 bedroom with a huge kitchen?

            People don't NEED* that much space. In poorer areas, that 2k square foot house would be a multifamily structure. India is still poorer.

            So everything costs less - labor, materials, land, etc... And the resources required for a 'McMansion' - a cheaply constructed large house, can instead be used to build smaller homes much better.

            These are likely to be cheap and small though - but still better than what the renters/buyers would otherwise have.

            Like with the Tata car - you have to realize that even though the car isn't safe compared to other cars, the market for the most part consists of those that would otherwise be riding mopeds/motorcycles, which aren't safer than the car, especially when you consider the things they do with it - like the pictures where they have seven people on the same bike at the same time, or are carrying a huge load of ducks or firewood.

            Risk management and resource usage wise, the Tata is a good choice.

            *I will admit that it can be nice

    • by slashkitty (21637) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:36PM (#27890115) Homepage
      You mean unsafe for crashing. Just like every motorbike out there.
      • by MouseR (3264) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:43PM (#27890175) Homepage

        Actually you have more chance to survice a motorcycle crash than being rolled up in a tin can.

        That aside, security standards aren't the same around the world and there are far less chance fo these tin cars to smash against a big SUV in india.

        As for the apartments, they beat the slums by a long shot.

    • Tata cars have proven themselves to be unsafe for driving (no protection, and the car frame is too thin)

      i wouldn't be surprised if these buildings couldn't survive 45 mph winds

      Never mind the call center workers who also provide the same abysmally low service.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:40PM (#27890583)

      safe is the biggest marketing scam in western society. SUVs were born to market safe vehicles for hockey moms, desire for safety got Bush re-elected.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Alex Belits (437) *

          People are just slowly producing larger and larger scams, so at any time one of the current scams is guaranteed to be the biggest evar.

  • We don't want another Cortlandt Homes incident.

  • by scubamage (727538) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:42PM (#27890171)
    For a second I read that as Dubai and was trying to fish out my credit card. Mumbai I could care less about.
  • by Kohath (38547) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:45PM (#27890201)

    The median price of a house in Detroit is $7500 [walletpop.com]. Floorplans vary, but they are larger than these apartments. Home prices are relative.

    I'm sure people are happy to buy a nice place in Mumbai, so the market supports higher prices. No one wants to live in a corrupt one-party third-world conflict zone like Detroit.

    • by dunkelfalke (91624) <dunkelfalke.speznas@de> on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:54PM (#27890253) Homepage

      if the houses there all look like the one in the picture then i'd rather take a tata flat.

    • I sometimes wonder if it would be cheaper to buy a house in Detroit and just have it moved to somewhere else. I know doing that is crazy expensive, but come on, a house for 7500$?

      • ... just not the crap house shown in the page you linked to.

        Bleh!

        • by Kohath (38547)

          It's the median price. That means half of the houses are cheaper than $7500 and the other half are more expensive. There will be plenty of variety.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Unordained (262962)

      The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December [2008] was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

      Their site doesn't make data public (some spreadsheets are available to registered agents,) so I can't tell if that was a really odd month (very few sales?) Checking Century 21 listings under $25k for Detroit shows very few entries for under $10k, making the likelihood of a median of $7500 rather low, even under their less-than-stellar market conditions. Maybe the county records can clarify, but I'm done fact-checking. I'll agree their housing is cheap though; and I'm in Oklahoma, so that's saying somethin

    • by oldhack (1037484) on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:18PM (#27890411)
      We'll throw in the crackhouse on the left ABSOLUTELY FREE!
  • by n00btastic (1489741) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:47PM (#27890213)
    This is one the the wisest investments Tata has ever made, and will fill an important niche in Indian urban living.

    The economic difference between the rich and the poor is so vast, that if you are making 10k+ a year you are very rich by a normal villager's perspective...the problem is unless you are living in a rural area, there are not many places for you to live unless you want to live other than the slums or in a wealthy neighborhood.

    Of course this is just a generalization, but if you ever go to India, and truly experience it outside of the MNC bubble, you will see why something like this is needed.

    -n00b
    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:46PM (#27890617) Homepage

      The funny thing is, it seems like there's not really a comparable alternative in some Western countries.

      Tata is pitching their homes at about 1.5 times their target market's annual income. Relatively speaking, it looks like that would place these at about £35,000 in the UK. In comparison, the Ikea homes were placed at a minimum of three times the income of the target market, and more like 5 or 6 times in many cases.

    • . . . Ratan Tata will soon be known as the William Levitt of India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt [wikipedia.org]. Maybe he thought up that idea during his Harvard days.

      He is making money for himself, but he seems to be doing a lot of good for people, as well.

      The world could do with a couple more of him.

      I looked at the floor plans, and thought that it would be a great place to buy for vacations.

      But, alas, the 3-D animation was slashdotted. So other Slashdotters seem to be thinking the same thing. And I

  • if it's for purchase with no monthly rent (excluding HOA fees), then it's a condo.

    but yea, considering the various disasters that have happened in India in regards to shotty construction and buildings collapsing... I'm afraid that those would live in them might as well as say "Ta ta" to life.

  • by calc (1463) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:54PM (#27890251)

    These apartments are extremely tiny at only 283 - 465 sq ft and for $7,800 - $13,400 that isn't really that cheap as it is around $28-29 per sq ft. The condo I own in Houston only cost me $43 per sq ft and they are now going for much cheaper than that after the economy meltdown.

  • by mbone (558574) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:55PM (#27890271)

    70% of the country's 1.2 billion people live on 1/20 as much.

    True, but not relevant.

    This is aimed at the middle class in India, which numbers 50 - 100 million now and is expected to grow rapidly [4hoteliers.com] :

    India's middle class is expected to swell almost 12-fold from its size of 50 million people to over 583 million - some 41% of the population.

    Let's see, 10 million homes for $ 10K each is $ 100 billion USD - a market worth going after.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's right a country with 1.2 billion has no domestic consumption/economy. They were all American jobs.

  • ever been to india? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by panthroman (1415081) on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:04PM (#27890327) Homepage

    Sorry to sound snooty, but that's my gut reaction to the "this is unsafe!" comments. Unsafe by American/European standards, probably. Unsafe compared to Indian options? Ha.

    Some photos of life in Delhi (a bit less "European" than Mumbai), including the inside of a couple homes, here [blogspot.com]. (Disclosure: that's a link to my old travel blog.)

    We should praise improvement, not demand perfection.

    • by uglyduckling (103926) <(uglyduckling) (at) (flashmail.com)> on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:12PM (#27890361) Homepage
      Two friends of mine spent their first year of marriage in a student apartment in London. This apartment was even smaller - the dining area was raised by about 60cm, and the double bed was stored underneath the dining area on rollers. The end of the bed stuck out into the living area and formed a sofa. In the evening you pulled on the 'sofa' and the whole bed, linen and pillows etc., rolled out into the living area to sleep in.
  • Hey, I can still mount my 62-inch LCD TV on the ceiling above the bed, right? Turn it off and it doubles as a mirror, eh?

  • by maillemaker (924053) on Saturday May 09 2009, @02:14PM (#27890375)

    I'm confused by the terminology. Around here (southern USA) an apartment is something you rent. A Condominium is like an apartment in that it is on managed grounds but you can "buy" them. I say "buy" in quotes because the concept of buying half of a building attached to someone else's half does not sound like anything I would want to buy.

    Anyway, what are they talking about?

    • by mattack2 (1165421) on Saturday May 09 2009, @03:19PM (#27890831)

      Should have put this in my first reply. I know that I have seen 'apartment' used as something you buy in NY-based sitcoms (e.g. "Seinfeld").

      Also, the first paragraph on Wikipedia's entry says that it can be either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment):
      An apartment is a self-contained housing unit that occupies only part of a building. Apartments may be owned (by an owner/occupier) or rented (by tenants).

    • by doktor-hladnjak (650513) on Saturday May 09 2009, @03:43PM (#27891051)
      From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

      A condominium, or condo, is the form of housing tenure and other real property where a specified part of a piece of real estate (usually of an apartment house) is individually owned while use of and access to common facilities in the piece such as hallways, heating system, elevators, exterior areas is executed under legal rights associated with the individual ownership and controlled by the association of owners that jointly represent ownership of the whole piece. Colloquially, the term is often used to refer to the unit itself in place of the word "apartment". A condominium may be simply defined as an "apartment" that the tenant "owns" as opposed to rents.

      The difference between a condominium and an apartment is purely legal: there is no way to know a condo from an apartment simply by looking at or visiting the building. What defines a condominium is the form of ownership. The same building developed as a condominium (and sold as individual units to different owners) could actually be built someplace else as an apartment building (the developers would retain onwnership and rent individual units to different tenants).

      "Condo" really refers to the legal arrangement, although it has taken on a meaning of "apartment that you own" in recent years. Condominium laws didn't even come into effect in the US until the 60s really. In cities with older dense urban housing stock, older apartment buildings are still often owned through a cooperative [wikipedia.org] instead.

  • Tiny? (Score:4, Funny)

    by lixee (863589) on Saturday May 09 2009, @04:10PM (#27891301)
    Tiny? They're bigger than my place, you insensitive clod! Ah...the joys of grad school...
    • Anonymous Coward: kdawson sucks, he needs to be fired.
      kdawson: I don't care!
      Anonymous Coward: from a canon, into the sun.
      kdawson: (gulp!)

    • by twidarkling (1537077) on Saturday May 09 2009, @01:57PM (#27890289)

      I dunno. The ability to build mass housing for cheap is rather interesting. Why not take the plans, modify them slightly, and then have low-cost housing in North America? Habitats for Humanity would probably do quite well in this situation. There's more than just tech nerds out there, remember. There's also social sciences nerds.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rssrss (686344)

        "Why not take the plans, modify them slightly, and then have low-cost housing in North America?"

        I take you have never been involved in the zoning approval process for a low income housing project in the US. If you had been you would learn how much hysteria can be generated by the thought that the value of a middle class American's house could be dented by the presence of a less expensive alternative.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hplus (1310833)
          Unfortunately, that attitude is what creates many of the problems of LI housing. If a small (relatively) number of subsidized housing units are incorporated into each individual location, things are just peachy. However, when you attempt to put a large amount of subsidized housing in one location (the projects) then all of the stereotypical problems arise. Since this is what cause the stereotypes, not the properly done ones, fewer communities are willing to accept subsidized housing, and large amounts of
    • Unfortunately, employed workers in the West (the US at least) have been creating shoddy, overpriced products that no one wants for some time now:

      Giant cars that get horrid gas mileage; doctors and prescription drugs that routinely cause more harm than good; tiny, uninsulated, overcrowded apartments that cost more than houses; buggy, barely-functional software; industries that are less energy-efficient than those in developing countries; financial services that border on fraud.

      And that's not even including any of the horrid government "services" which employ nearly half of everyone and no one has any say in even purchasing: prisons for substance abusers; welfare for immigrants; jack-booted thugs who murder Americans; spooks who spy on us; soldiers who waste trillions of dollars making us less secure; and of course generous hand-outs for banks and wealthy corporations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Ever lived in a shipping container? I've worked out of one, converted into a temporary work space. They're hotter than hell in the summer (think solar heated oven) and bad in the winter too.

      Note that I'm intentionally ignoring the pretty pictures in the linked to page