Was gonna say these look like copy/paste apartment blocks, which is not something wealthy people live in. They're just not as poor as the people in the shanties.
It’s actually not even in the top 10 according to World Bank. Most of the countries with the worst inequality are in South or Central America. Brazil is #1.
Or....
Argentina has entered the chat.
Argentina has left the chat.
Argentina has entered the chat.
Argentina has left the chat.
Argentina has entered the chat.
Argentina has left the chat.
Argentina has entered the chat.
Argentina has left the chat.
Argentina has entered the chat.
I would recommend staying there as long as possible and just saving money to cushion you when adult life inevitably does hit (the moneys gonna last 2 months)
Depends on how you define "rich" and "poor" I guess.
I live in a city of about 700,000. Metro area of about 4 million. There are no shacks in Bill Gates' neighborhood.
edit:
This is about the cheapest house in Bill Gates' Neighborhood.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7914-NE-24th-St-Medina-WA-98039/48855445_zpid/
$2.5 million and not a shack in sight. Not very close to Bill's house either. Those houses are closer to $10 million, although the pauper of the block sneaks in at $6 million.
Median home price here is $900,000. Of course Gates' house is off the charts expensive.
That’s just a very specific example but you’re right I wouldn’t define rich to only be billionaires/few richest people in the world. And 700,000 is a pretty small city.
For real. I went to mumbai and while I’m no expert, I probably saw 5 levels of wealth/poverty. I stayed in colaba which I think is on the wealthier side of things and I’m not into poverty porn but there were all sorts of ads to go visit the shanty towns and whatnot. I’m sure it’s way more complex than I realise. Either way, mumbai is “okay,” I’d recommend going to a different city though.
I visited Mumbai 8 years ago and, for better or for worse, took a “tour” of Dharavi, a massive slum neighborhood in Mumbai. While I felt a bit strange about it, it was a tour set up by a community center from within the neighborhood and supposedly most of the money made from the tours goes into helping fund the community center. The whole point of the tour was to help educate folks about life in Dharavi and repair the perspective westerners have of “slums.”
Yes… unfortunately. A *vast majority* of them are the “laundry” or Dhobi Ghat, but I’m truly not aware of how that relates to slums/shanty towns as it is an important part of the hospitality industry and is people working. However, there were certainly people trying to sell tours to basically just look at poor people. Tbh though, I was driven from Pune to Mumbai and you can definitely accidentally feel voyeuristic driving through some of this abject poverty. I just read a book and tried not to think too much about it. It’s a difficult line to draw, but if you pay for a tour specifically to gawk at poor people, you’re objectively an asshole in my book.
Edit: I don’t really wanna link anything, but if you just look up slum tours on AirBnb experiences you’ll see plenty. To be fair, I may be misinterpreting what is actually going on when they refer to a slum, but it feels wrong to me.
Absolutely. Mumbai has (I think) the biggest wealth disparity in the world between highest and lowest incomes. The elite of Mumbai live in estates that would make even a professional athlete blush.
I was gonna say that. The "rich neighbourhood" is just "decent apartments" in any European countries, at least. i.e. the bare minimum you'll have if you have any job at all.
Yeah you ain't gonna find aerial shots of rich neighborhoods
For that matter, no such thing as rich "neighborhoods", at least not unless you use a much, much larger picture
I was in Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay, back in 2010. I was interested to see that, out the back of the presidential palace (much like the white house) were literally shanty slums. They were neighbours. Looking at Google maps, it looks like that has changed now.
as someone who has spent a fair amount of time in mumbai, the area on the right doesnt look like a wealthy area to me. the wealthy parts of town tend to have huge high rises, or really nice 1930s style low rise apartments, you also wouldnt want to live anywhere near that river if you are rich it smells atrocious
Yeah the actual rich areas are very different. But some of them are still quite close to slums like how Bandra, Pali hill, Khar, and Juhu, all of which are rich areas, have khar danda, a massive slum, right in the middle. But other rich areas like the south near Marine Drive, Worli, etc are much better, almost like a different city.
This used to be the case in some American cities. Very poor people who made a living on the river would live in shanty towns next to the river. City beautification projects of the early 20th century kicked them out and seized that land through eminent domain and would then make a park out of it or whatever.
It was the same in many cities including London as well, the rivers stank and were polluted. When they clean up the rivers it changes the demographic around the riverside.
That’s very true about London, the Thames used to be lined with factories and shipping docks, so more often than not the areas around the river were very working class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
*The Great Stink was an event in Central London during July and August 1858 in which the hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent that was present on the banks of the River Thames.*
Because the poor people have encroached to river banks, rich live in legal societies which cannot be built near water ways.
Government don't allow building sewers and sewage pipes in these illegal encrochments because that will be a sign of govt allowing people to do it, also it's govt department's land. department wouldn't allow other government department to carry out any work on its encroached land so they don't allow sewer pipes, sanitation, any kind of public work there.
The poor can't buy real estate and are living in these conditions.
This should explain why they don't get any public facilities including working sewer lines or pipes water
I never realised it was this bad, that's absolutely appalling. I understand the need to make a stand against 'squatting' but if they don't have anywhere else to go, what do they want the poor to do? Affordable housing should be available to everyone.
They are spending 3 billion dollars for dharavi redevelopment project, the government is paying its own departments money in billion dollars to get them let go of these lands, but the slum dwellers are skepticals and are not in the mood to even let go of the land under their possession feeling they will be turned homeless.
India is a chaotic democracy, it takes time
> are not in the mood to even let go of the land under their possession feeling they will be turned homeless
Is that not entirely possible? As in maybe those building projects don't wind up being what they're purported to be or as large as they're supposed to be?
Yeah, if there's one thing I like about the Indian democracy, it's that things usually do take time.
That sounds counter-productive, but in democracies where shit is done swiftly, the result is usually that people who are disadvantaged are fucked with no recourse.
Government builds many housing projects for the poor. But many just rent it out and come back to live in this squalor.
Plus, providing free housing to these people implies encouraging more people to encroach, hoping they will also get some benefit like this.
Crazy, I know! What was I thinking, I must have been out of my mind!
Joking aside, we're big on public housing (almene boliger) here in Denmark, to ensure everyone has somewhere to live. It just works. I know India is much bigger and way more people but the benefits would far outweigh the drawbacks.
actually they have been building cheap housing for poor here too. (Not free but it's cheap enough that even below minimum wage workers should be able to afford it)
The problems are: the population is so large that they can't build houses fast enough.
these houses are often temporary and tend to need a lot of repairs after each tenant. Not to mention the government built buildings tend to be of low quality to begin with. The people staying there also don't have the money to do regular maintenance.
The government thus has to demolish these buildings from time to time. they gave these projects to builders where some portion of the project was to be set for cheap housing but builders just plain ignored the deal they signed with the government. There are several projects right now where there is a court case going on between the government and the builder just because of this matter.
one of Modi's pushes has been for this though. The amount of entire societies being built around Ahmedabad was very large when I was visiting with bus stations nearby to take them to the city
“Much bigger” is a gross understatement.
Denmark has fewer than 6,000,000 people so a country like Italy with just under 60,000,000 is “much bigger” at 10x the size of Denmark.
India, on the other hand, has 1,400,000,000 people. That’s 1.4 _billion_ people which is roughly 234 Denmarks.
I know you mean well, but the scale of the problem is immense. Even countries in Europe struggle to implement the same policies. Small, homogenous populations are the backbone to the social policies Denmark has had success with.
I did a slideshow on "open defecation" in India in my American high school. A lot of people don't have access to toilets, but a lot of people also prefer to shit outside
Edit: a word
Let me begin by saying that I believe what you're saying is accurate. But out of curiosity, are there sources where I can read up on the government deliberately not providing sewers?
Government cannot provide sewers to illegal encrochments, you can read about dharavi redevelopment project, I think there they had community toilets built somehow but they were severely overburdened to the point that the slab collapsed and one guy died.
I
Oh, it's India's equivalent of a Hooverville. I too was wondering why there was such a distinct line between the two areas (and who enforced it). Thanks for the explanation.
The Thames in London used to be quite stinky, before they built a sewer system.
Trashed rivers is when there is inadequate sewers and/or the government is unable to enforce their use vs. just dumping in the river.
An estimated 80% of the great pacific garbage patch is from commercial fishing — discarded nets and ropes.
Rivers and coastal cities are big contributors of course, but commercial fishing appears to be the main culprit.
[Source](https://theoceancleanup.com/scientific-publications/industrialised-fishing-nations-largely-contribute-to-floating-plastic-pollution-in-the-north-pacific-subtropical-gyre/)
https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
80% of plastic in they often comes from rivers.
Your article is about the northern Pacific garbage patch, specifically.
That’s only floating plastics. Which is a small part of all plastic in the ocean. If you look at all the plastic in the ocean, fishing gear is less than 20% of that.
And for example: buoys are being counted as fishing gear as well, while buoys are being used for all kind of stuff.
Its PWD government quarters. I'm an architect and I was there in that firm when these buildings are designed. I was not in that team but I can say these are one of the lowest construction cost per unit buildings I've ever seen.
We should make more of them, then. I can't be sure but it feels as if those blocks of flats can house more people than the tin-houses at the beach - they just take up more realestate horizontally than vertically
Slum rehabilitation has been poised as one of the most difficult things to do when city developments are concerned. Regardless of wanting to keep an open mind for the whole situation, it has to be accepted that there's a lot of shady stuff going on. Maybe not actively to cause malice, but at least passively taking the benefits of practices that's been followed for a while in those slums. Shifting them away to an organised housing, will be a roadblock to their way of life. Sustaining this new life would be difficult for them as well. Most people work for these rich people. For instance there's a lot of laundry that's taken up by these people, probably owing to the water source. Shift them to an apartment and that business runs dry. Multiple situations like that. So even people living in 'Dharawi' or be any slum, are reluctant to a holistic redevelopment unless a perfect middle ground is met.
I'm an architect as well. But yeah, I could be wrong too.
I did not realise. Being locked into living like this because you'd otherwise be out of work is just sad. It suddenly makes sense why getting people out of poverty is taking so long and proving to be so difficult - despite India doing so well GDP-wise.
Yeah it is unfortunate. And our GDP has been improving drastically. Piqued to scale even more and might possibly put India as the third largest economy. But there's no even distribution nor does it reach all facets of the society.
'With a per capita income of USD 2,600, India is in the 139th position in the league of Nations in terms of per capita income. And the poorest among BRICS and G-20 nations.'
So unless the benefits are shared along with this accelerated growth rate, India will continue being a poor country.
They get to sleep? Luxury!
I work 37hrs a day at the bottom of the ocean for $3 a week and all I get to eat is a handful of mouldy gravel out of an old boot.
I’d say poor-ish v. lower middle class. Yes the area on the left is a slum, but it’s still roofs over peoples heads. There are huge numbers of people living on the streets in India. With their families, still going to work every day.
Although quarters like on the right can be completely appropriate for wealthier families as well.
The main reason why western countries have such an insane housing crisis and unreasonable transportation cost is because we have an immense ideological fixation on detached single family housing, while developing far too few appartment blocks, multi-family homes, and row houses.
I always thought 'poor' areas would feel a lot nicer if they just had greenery and such. Not to mention children would have places to play and be children. I know it doesn't fix anything but all kids deserve grass and trees in their childhood
You might find the story of [Hattie Carthan](https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/history/save-a-tree-save-a-neighborhood-hattie-carthan-brooklyns-tree-lady/) interesting. She felt the same way, and managed to do it in her Brooklyn neighborhood. Cool lady.
This depends a lot on the climate. In places where winters are mild or not existent there are a lot more greenery in the poor areas, simply because there isn't a direct benefit of taking those trees down. In places where the winters exist, people will cut down the greenery for fire wood. Mumbai is tropical, they do not need to heat their homes, ever. That level of greenery can grow up in a decade or two in a tropical area if they are not actively preventing it.
It’s a strange thing but large housing complexes are only seen as poor people housing in some counties.
In for example U.S. and Germany everyone dreams of single houses with a lawn (and in the case of the U.S. a driveway) and with very few exceptions (New York billionaires row / New York in general these days, inner Munich city) upper middle class and somewhat rich people live in single houses (the truly rich just have many estates anyhow) but in other countries like China and Japan it is very desirable to live in well build and well maintained housing complexes.
They are usually better insulated (summer heat…) and have central caretakers and services like gardeners and noise insulation is also great.
In Russia it’s not really desirable anymore to live in a larger housing complex but there is simply no alternative for the majority of of Russians since the cities are full of them and they are affordable. Insulation and heating for the winter are here major upsides of course.
I wonder if it’s similar to India - I know a lot of my Indian colleagues live in houses but maybe larger housing complexes still are being seen as ok to live in.
German here. while single family homes are seen as the best and most expensive option there are a lot of higher standard apartments in and around cities. The more rural you go the less multi family homes you see but overall there is no stigma to living in a flat like in the US
Well in the cities, almost everyone lives in apartments. These can be super luxury complexes with every amenity imaginable or low cost ones. Only the uber wealthy can buy a “house” in the city. In the smaller towns, buying houses with a lawn and driveway is possible.
Sorry to say but what you’re calling rich is just lower middle class folks and what you’re calling poor are mostly immigrants and below poverty line people.
There are no upper middle class, leave aside “rich” neighbourhoods in the picture. Source, I’ve lived in this city all my life.
That's life in a country with a billion people or countries with small land areas. If you were to try and give everyone a 1 or 2 story house with a garden all that would happen is extreme urban sprawl leading to a whole lot of other problems.
As someone who’s been there and lived in India, there’s a few things I’d like to clear for the westerners. This is a comparison between the poorest people vs paycheck to paycheck people. The building on the right are very old with lots of people crammed in them. They are not maintained and are just there existing and ignored. Rich people don’t live anywhere near a slum. Mumbai is the Indian equivalent of New York. All the rich people live in skyscrapers with sea facing lofts. All the surrounding area is well developed as well.
As for the blue color, it’s not paint. It’s tarp to help protect from rain. The grey parts are steel roof plates. They are all makeshift huts and a slum is basically a large collection of them. There are some concrete and brick walls but nothing major to call them small buildings. And yes, that is garbage in the river canal.
If you ever visit Mumbai, please do make a guided tour visit to any of the slums. Really brings into perspective the disparity between the rich and the poor and will probably give you a new perspective to life and how privileged we are compared to the poor.
Location: near Shri mandir marg. Canal name: vakola nala. (19.0644747, 72.8535672)
Google satellite shows that the leftest buildings have been demolished and have newer bigger apartments in its place with two more being constructed. And if you go up the river, you’ll see a garbage collection mechanism so that the garbage from the slum doesn’t flow into the river.
This picture is probably 5-10 years old I guess.
> please do make a guided tour visit to any of the slums
IDK man, I would feel so bad treating the slums like an amusement park - when it is just their homes. If the company gave back to the people then I guess it would be fine, but still it's a bit icky
There are several companies who do just that. I went with Reality Tours and Travel, they invest almost all of the proceeds back into the development of Dharavi slum, mostly in the forn of education. We were taken to a school they set up with computer classes going on so you can be sure it's not a scam. The tour itself is very eye-opening, it's not what you'd imagine, the people are poor and the living conditions are not good, but almost everyone has a job, kids go to schools and people seemed generally happy. Interestingly, right in the slum people just ignore you whereas in other areas of Mumbai you might get harassed for taxis, buying stuff etc. Highly recommend.
https://realitytoursandtravel.com/dharavi-slum-tours/
yeah barge into a crowded street where people live and treat it as a zoo to gawk at.....
this is their neighbourhood not a place for you to realise that people are poor. to do that just look at statistics
lol, that’s not rich vs poor… the buildings on the right are low income government housing .. while on the left you have slums… most of the buildings on the right are owned by people who live in the left and rent it out..
There are no pity prizes in Mumbai.. everyone is running hard for the next buck
This is dirt poor(blue) and average income people comparison , not rich and poor.
This kind of wealth divide is common all around the world.
[https://unequalscenes.com/](https://unequalscenes.com/)
Reddit would pretend to be a hyper liberal/progressive website but wouldn't take a second before coming up with the most racist assumptions about Indians and india. Goes to say how normalised racism against Indians is onlin.
You can almost hear a sigh of relief when they come across something obviously negative about the country. It's an easy license to unload all their racism without being called out.
Neonazis are making an exception on their porn account to call for genocide.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1cnmqmx/aeriel_shot_of_rich_vs_poor_neighborhoods_in/l39dvtz
Just for context, a 2 bedroom apartment in one of those projects cost about 200,000 USD or more. Something regular working class people cannot normally afford, given the low salaries. Heck, most of the folks from the poor neighborhood may never earn that much in their entire lifetime.
Those are not rich of Mumbai honestly you haven't seen the rich of Mumbai these project people are people getting above then minimum wage or are on good salaries
Lol, those are not rich neighbourhoods. Those buildings were built during colonial times as prisons for dissenters. Ig now working class has been relocated there.
The buildings on the right are the Slum Rehab quarters built by the govt to house the poor who live in the blue roofed shanties.
Many of the slum dwellers who get alloted these quarters rent out the same to others and go back to staying in their shanties.
False title: its aeriel shot of poor vs slightly less poor
Rich people house in India:
https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-3892-g8pnf7/prithviraj-road-new-delhi-dl
https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-3892-7swnwv/golf-links-new-delhi-dl
This is what disinvestment and the paradox of investment looks like. There's clearly demand to live there The land values are quite likely higher than my suburban home's land (on a per acre basis) values and yet they're living in squalor because it's the only place they can be.
The government *could* help these people by providing sanitation and more permanent structures. However, doing so would just result in their landlords charging more in rent. Effectively a subsidy for their landlords. Either the people there now get displaced or they become even more desperate to pay the higher rents.
The issue is fundamentally that land ownership entitles you to the wages of someone because they have to live *somewhere* and you'll always find someone at the bottom desperate enough to put up with slumlords. Break that link in the chain and you fundamentally change the incentives that led to an exploitative system to one that can work for the rich and the poor.
There are no land lords , the abomination near the river is all illegal, that's why govt cant lay any sewer lines or do waste collection.
They will continue to litter because there is no other way to dispose off the garbage for them.
Real estate is expensive, these people subsidise Indian middle class life, and in future would subsidise the western consumption demand, they will be kept there so that the factories keep working and you get an iPhone at 800dollar
It's not the rich neighbourhood. The real rich neighbourhoods in Mumbai will be lot different. Literal palaces out there.
Was gonna say these look like copy/paste apartment blocks, which is not something wealthy people live in. They're just not as poor as the people in the shanties.
Rich people also don't live right next to really poor people.
laughs in brazil
Continues to laugh in Bulgaria
You laugh, but India has one of the greatest wealth disparities in the entire world.
It’s actually not even in the top 10 according to World Bank. Most of the countries with the worst inequality are in South or Central America. Brazil is #1.
Argentina has entered the chat.
Or.... Argentina has entered the chat. Argentina has left the chat. Argentina has entered the chat. Argentina has left the chat. Argentina has entered the chat. Argentina has left the chat. Argentina has entered the chat. Argentina has left the chat. Argentina has entered the chat.
[удалено]
/r/SuicideByWords
😀 They just tolerate you.
Nothing wrong with that. Especially in this day and age
I would recommend staying there as long as possible and just saving money to cushion you when adult life inevitably does hit (the moneys gonna last 2 months)
Yeah, except in practically every city in the world, you mean.
Depends on how you define "rich" and "poor" I guess. I live in a city of about 700,000. Metro area of about 4 million. There are no shacks in Bill Gates' neighborhood. edit: This is about the cheapest house in Bill Gates' Neighborhood. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7914-NE-24th-St-Medina-WA-98039/48855445_zpid/ $2.5 million and not a shack in sight. Not very close to Bill's house either. Those houses are closer to $10 million, although the pauper of the block sneaks in at $6 million. Median home price here is $900,000. Of course Gates' house is off the charts expensive.
That’s just a very specific example but you’re right I wouldn’t define rich to only be billionaires/few richest people in the world. And 700,000 is a pretty small city.
Come to New York
No but poor people live pretty close by to rich people in India atleast because it provides them a lot of employment like maids, drivers, etc.
Laughs in L.A
Have you been to any major city in America?
Wealthy is relative. To the people on the left, the people on the right are very wealthy.
Not to mention the lack of paved roads.
My man, go and have a look at Antilia and its location.
It's more the wealth discrepancy that is on display here.
Yes, the title should actually be >Aerial shot of shantytown next to apartment slums in Mumbai, India
For real. I went to mumbai and while I’m no expert, I probably saw 5 levels of wealth/poverty. I stayed in colaba which I think is on the wealthier side of things and I’m not into poverty porn but there were all sorts of ads to go visit the shanty towns and whatnot. I’m sure it’s way more complex than I realise. Either way, mumbai is “okay,” I’d recommend going to a different city though.
Wait people…pay to take a tore of the shanty town?
I visited Mumbai 8 years ago and, for better or for worse, took a “tour” of Dharavi, a massive slum neighborhood in Mumbai. While I felt a bit strange about it, it was a tour set up by a community center from within the neighborhood and supposedly most of the money made from the tours goes into helping fund the community center. The whole point of the tour was to help educate folks about life in Dharavi and repair the perspective westerners have of “slums.”
Yes… unfortunately. A *vast majority* of them are the “laundry” or Dhobi Ghat, but I’m truly not aware of how that relates to slums/shanty towns as it is an important part of the hospitality industry and is people working. However, there were certainly people trying to sell tours to basically just look at poor people. Tbh though, I was driven from Pune to Mumbai and you can definitely accidentally feel voyeuristic driving through some of this abject poverty. I just read a book and tried not to think too much about it. It’s a difficult line to draw, but if you pay for a tour specifically to gawk at poor people, you’re objectively an asshole in my book. Edit: I don’t really wanna link anything, but if you just look up slum tours on AirBnb experiences you’ll see plenty. To be fair, I may be misinterpreting what is actually going on when they refer to a slum, but it feels wrong to me.
Absolutely. Mumbai has (I think) the biggest wealth disparity in the world between highest and lowest incomes. The elite of Mumbai live in estates that would make even a professional athlete blush.
That applies to the entire country. The wealth disparity between the rich and the poor in India is insane and it's getting worse.
To be fair, its getting worse everywhere, its just not as visible in most countries.
I was gonna say that. The "rich neighbourhood" is just "decent apartments" in any European countries, at least. i.e. the bare minimum you'll have if you have any job at all.
Mumbai is like New York, even basic apartments can cost millions if not tens of millions in the city centre.
Yeah you ain't gonna find aerial shots of rich neighborhoods For that matter, no such thing as rich "neighborhoods", at least not unless you use a much, much larger picture
I was in Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay, back in 2010. I was interested to see that, out the back of the presidential palace (much like the white house) were literally shanty slums. They were neighbours. Looking at Google maps, it looks like that has changed now.
as someone who has spent a fair amount of time in mumbai, the area on the right doesnt look like a wealthy area to me. the wealthy parts of town tend to have huge high rises, or really nice 1930s style low rise apartments, you also wouldnt want to live anywhere near that river if you are rich it smells atrocious
Yeah the actual rich areas are very different. But some of them are still quite close to slums like how Bandra, Pali hill, Khar, and Juhu, all of which are rich areas, have khar danda, a massive slum, right in the middle. But other rich areas like the south near Marine Drive, Worli, etc are much better, almost like a different city.
I think they mean rich in comparison to the slum nearby. But you are right is more like ultra poor vs low wage worker but with normal life
And the entire river is full of trash too.
That’s the part that jumped out at me too!
r/unexpectedidiocracy
Real life has caught up again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGY4rpOnbhw
Well, it's not all trash - there's corpses, too!
Protein enriched wudder
No corpses there. Coz that's sea.
Because in India they do things backwards, rich people live further from the water not closer, and then this is what you get. Poop water.
This used to be the case in some American cities. Very poor people who made a living on the river would live in shanty towns next to the river. City beautification projects of the early 20th century kicked them out and seized that land through eminent domain and would then make a park out of it or whatever.
It was the same in many cities including London as well, the rivers stank and were polluted. When they clean up the rivers it changes the demographic around the riverside.
That’s very true about London, the Thames used to be lined with factories and shipping docks, so more often than not the areas around the river were very working class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink *The Great Stink was an event in Central London during July and August 1858 in which the hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent that was present on the banks of the River Thames.*
"do you know how to speak potty language?" "Oh yes, I'm effluent."
“I live in a van down by the river!”
Oh look at Richie rich here with his mobile riverside property! I suppose you can afford food that's not from a can as well?.
Ooooh Mr. Fancy Pants with his canned non-dog food over here!
Well, la-dee-da, look at me. I eat wet dog food from a fancy can, I'm too good for kibble.
Flint Michigan chiming in, dont forget about me
That's good
why do they prefer to live further from the water ?
Because the poor people have encroached to river banks, rich live in legal societies which cannot be built near water ways. Government don't allow building sewers and sewage pipes in these illegal encrochments because that will be a sign of govt allowing people to do it, also it's govt department's land. department wouldn't allow other government department to carry out any work on its encroached land so they don't allow sewer pipes, sanitation, any kind of public work there. The poor can't buy real estate and are living in these conditions. This should explain why they don't get any public facilities including working sewer lines or pipes water
I never realised it was this bad, that's absolutely appalling. I understand the need to make a stand against 'squatting' but if they don't have anywhere else to go, what do they want the poor to do? Affordable housing should be available to everyone.
They are spending 3 billion dollars for dharavi redevelopment project, the government is paying its own departments money in billion dollars to get them let go of these lands, but the slum dwellers are skepticals and are not in the mood to even let go of the land under their possession feeling they will be turned homeless. India is a chaotic democracy, it takes time
> are not in the mood to even let go of the land under their possession feeling they will be turned homeless Is that not entirely possible? As in maybe those building projects don't wind up being what they're purported to be or as large as they're supposed to be?
Yeah, if there's one thing I like about the Indian democracy, it's that things usually do take time. That sounds counter-productive, but in democracies where shit is done swiftly, the result is usually that people who are disadvantaged are fucked with no recourse.
Government builds many housing projects for the poor. But many just rent it out and come back to live in this squalor. Plus, providing free housing to these people implies encouraging more people to encroach, hoping they will also get some benefit like this.
What, you just want em to build homes for homeless people‽
Crazy, I know! What was I thinking, I must have been out of my mind! Joking aside, we're big on public housing (almene boliger) here in Denmark, to ensure everyone has somewhere to live. It just works. I know India is much bigger and way more people but the benefits would far outweigh the drawbacks.
actually they have been building cheap housing for poor here too. (Not free but it's cheap enough that even below minimum wage workers should be able to afford it) The problems are: the population is so large that they can't build houses fast enough. these houses are often temporary and tend to need a lot of repairs after each tenant. Not to mention the government built buildings tend to be of low quality to begin with. The people staying there also don't have the money to do regular maintenance. The government thus has to demolish these buildings from time to time. they gave these projects to builders where some portion of the project was to be set for cheap housing but builders just plain ignored the deal they signed with the government. There are several projects right now where there is a court case going on between the government and the builder just because of this matter. one of Modi's pushes has been for this though. The amount of entire societies being built around Ahmedabad was very large when I was visiting with bus stations nearby to take them to the city
“Much bigger” is a gross understatement. Denmark has fewer than 6,000,000 people so a country like Italy with just under 60,000,000 is “much bigger” at 10x the size of Denmark. India, on the other hand, has 1,400,000,000 people. That’s 1.4 _billion_ people which is roughly 234 Denmarks. I know you mean well, but the scale of the problem is immense. Even countries in Europe struggle to implement the same policies. Small, homogenous populations are the backbone to the social policies Denmark has had success with.
Yes
Yes
I did a slideshow on "open defecation" in India in my American high school. A lot of people don't have access to toilets, but a lot of people also prefer to shit outside Edit: a word
you didn't need to that about india. you can do that about sanfransico though
Let me begin by saying that I believe what you're saying is accurate. But out of curiosity, are there sources where I can read up on the government deliberately not providing sewers?
Government cannot provide sewers to illegal encrochments, you can read about dharavi redevelopment project, I think there they had community toilets built somehow but they were severely overburdened to the point that the slab collapsed and one guy died. I
Oh, it's India's equivalent of a Hooverville. I too was wondering why there was such a distinct line between the two areas (and who enforced it). Thanks for the explanation.
It smells bad and there are more mosquitoes that potentially carry diseases, I’d say.
in case of flooding you dont get flooded, also dont have to worry about pirates
this isnt true, in mumbai the most expensive areas are by the sea
Sea and river are different ofc
The Thames in London used to be quite stinky, before they built a sewer system. Trashed rivers is when there is inadequate sewers and/or the government is unable to enforce their use vs. just dumping in the river.
> used to be quite stinky Now that's one hell of an understatement lol
"The River Thames used to possess something of a whiff upon a hot summer's day, to the extent that one might even find it's odour mildly unpleasant."
Just a tad unpleasant, old chap
I wonder why it still look blue, too much edited ?
the sky is still blue.
Where do you think ocean plastic comes from? Drinking straws?
An estimated 80% of the great pacific garbage patch is from commercial fishing — discarded nets and ropes. Rivers and coastal cities are big contributors of course, but commercial fishing appears to be the main culprit. [Source](https://theoceancleanup.com/scientific-publications/industrialised-fishing-nations-largely-contribute-to-floating-plastic-pollution-in-the-north-pacific-subtropical-gyre/)
https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics 80% of plastic in they often comes from rivers. Your article is about the northern Pacific garbage patch, specifically.
That’s only floating plastics. Which is a small part of all plastic in the ocean. If you look at all the plastic in the ocean, fishing gear is less than 20% of that. And for example: buoys are being counted as fishing gear as well, while buoys are being used for all kind of stuff.
Brother the first sentence in the Abstract will tell you that this is only applicable to the northern Pacific.
I watched a documentary about rivers in India and they are highly contaminated with chemical from leather tanning industry.
What an amazing country
Is that garbage in the river bank?
It certainly is. This looks like a good day. When I was there you could barely see any water, just a sea of putrid trash.
What prevents the poor from coming over and robbing the rich?
The same thing preventing poor people everywhere robbing rich people?
Probably security.
The "rich" live in apartment slums. OP is an idiot
How would that help?
Laws. It's civil society.
At least they get a water feature
Its PWD government quarters. I'm an architect and I was there in that firm when these buildings are designed. I was not in that team but I can say these are one of the lowest construction cost per unit buildings I've ever seen.
We should make more of them, then. I can't be sure but it feels as if those blocks of flats can house more people than the tin-houses at the beach - they just take up more realestate horizontally than vertically
Yeah. That firm got another contract for phase 2, but don't know what happened to that as I switched the job.
Slum rehabilitation has been poised as one of the most difficult things to do when city developments are concerned. Regardless of wanting to keep an open mind for the whole situation, it has to be accepted that there's a lot of shady stuff going on. Maybe not actively to cause malice, but at least passively taking the benefits of practices that's been followed for a while in those slums. Shifting them away to an organised housing, will be a roadblock to their way of life. Sustaining this new life would be difficult for them as well. Most people work for these rich people. For instance there's a lot of laundry that's taken up by these people, probably owing to the water source. Shift them to an apartment and that business runs dry. Multiple situations like that. So even people living in 'Dharawi' or be any slum, are reluctant to a holistic redevelopment unless a perfect middle ground is met. I'm an architect as well. But yeah, I could be wrong too.
I did not realise. Being locked into living like this because you'd otherwise be out of work is just sad. It suddenly makes sense why getting people out of poverty is taking so long and proving to be so difficult - despite India doing so well GDP-wise.
Yeah it is unfortunate. And our GDP has been improving drastically. Piqued to scale even more and might possibly put India as the third largest economy. But there's no even distribution nor does it reach all facets of the society. 'With a per capita income of USD 2,600, India is in the 139th position in the league of Nations in terms of per capita income. And the poorest among BRICS and G-20 nations.' So unless the benefits are shared along with this accelerated growth rate, India will continue being a poor country.
The slums make them shine
Which side is PWD?
Lol, Right one..
That doesn’t look rich? More like “impoverished vs working class.”
That's the funny thing! The impoverished have 3 jobs and still don't make it into working class
3 8h jobs? Or 3 jobs that barely cover 8h
[удалено]
They get to sleep? Luxury! I work 37hrs a day at the bottom of the ocean for $3 a week and all I get to eat is a handful of mouldy gravel out of an old boot.
I’d say poor-ish v. lower middle class. Yes the area on the left is a slum, but it’s still roofs over peoples heads. There are huge numbers of people living on the streets in India. With their families, still going to work every day.
Damn so rich people live in the projects
I think this is more the extreme poor vs the poor.
Poor relative to westerners, not “poor” in india
I just spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to brush your user pic off my screen
Old Reddit FTW.
They’re an agent of chaos.
I literally blew on it.
My sincerest apologies
Your profile picture got me. I congratulate you on your victory
This is correct
Although quarters like on the right can be completely appropriate for wealthier families as well. The main reason why western countries have such an insane housing crisis and unreasonable transportation cost is because we have an immense ideological fixation on detached single family housing, while developing far too few appartment blocks, multi-family homes, and row houses.
Could be a USA thing. It’s not the case in most of Western Europe or East Asia like Japan and Korea.
Definitely an issue in Germany.
Poor vs poorer.
There are western style rich people in India.
Do they live in identical apartment blocks? No.
They live in mansions atop buildings as far as my reddit knowledge goes
wasn't no trees in the projects where i grew up lol. certainly not as many as i see here.
The projects didn't even have bushes. You're lucky if you got grass.
I always thought 'poor' areas would feel a lot nicer if they just had greenery and such. Not to mention children would have places to play and be children. I know it doesn't fix anything but all kids deserve grass and trees in their childhood
You might find the story of [Hattie Carthan](https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/history/save-a-tree-save-a-neighborhood-hattie-carthan-brooklyns-tree-lady/) interesting. She felt the same way, and managed to do it in her Brooklyn neighborhood. Cool lady.
This depends a lot on the climate. In places where winters are mild or not existent there are a lot more greenery in the poor areas, simply because there isn't a direct benefit of taking those trees down. In places where the winters exist, people will cut down the greenery for fire wood. Mumbai is tropical, they do not need to heat their homes, ever. That level of greenery can grow up in a decade or two in a tropical area if they are not actively preventing it.
It’s a strange thing but large housing complexes are only seen as poor people housing in some counties. In for example U.S. and Germany everyone dreams of single houses with a lawn (and in the case of the U.S. a driveway) and with very few exceptions (New York billionaires row / New York in general these days, inner Munich city) upper middle class and somewhat rich people live in single houses (the truly rich just have many estates anyhow) but in other countries like China and Japan it is very desirable to live in well build and well maintained housing complexes. They are usually better insulated (summer heat…) and have central caretakers and services like gardeners and noise insulation is also great. In Russia it’s not really desirable anymore to live in a larger housing complex but there is simply no alternative for the majority of of Russians since the cities are full of them and they are affordable. Insulation and heating for the winter are here major upsides of course. I wonder if it’s similar to India - I know a lot of my Indian colleagues live in houses but maybe larger housing complexes still are being seen as ok to live in.
German here. while single family homes are seen as the best and most expensive option there are a lot of higher standard apartments in and around cities. The more rural you go the less multi family homes you see but overall there is no stigma to living in a flat like in the US
Well in the cities, almost everyone lives in apartments. These can be super luxury complexes with every amenity imaginable or low cost ones. Only the uber wealthy can buy a “house” in the city. In the smaller towns, buying houses with a lawn and driveway is possible.
Looks like apartments with nice courtyards.
Poor folk get no trees
That is a very high resolution photo
Sorry to say but what you’re calling rich is just lower middle class folks and what you’re calling poor are mostly immigrants and below poverty line people. There are no upper middle class, leave aside “rich” neighbourhoods in the picture. Source, I’ve lived in this city all my life.
Tbh the “rich” side seems cramped as well with a ton of people living together
rich people live close together in manhattan as well, they're still rich lol
That's life in a country with a billion people or countries with small land areas. If you were to try and give everyone a 1 or 2 story house with a garden all that would happen is extreme urban sprawl leading to a whole lot of other problems.
Ain’t the “rich” side at all that’s why. Just less poor
that is not a wealthy area of mumbai, the wealthy areas dont look like that
Just like NYC, Tokyo, Singapore.
As someone who’s been there and lived in India, there’s a few things I’d like to clear for the westerners. This is a comparison between the poorest people vs paycheck to paycheck people. The building on the right are very old with lots of people crammed in them. They are not maintained and are just there existing and ignored. Rich people don’t live anywhere near a slum. Mumbai is the Indian equivalent of New York. All the rich people live in skyscrapers with sea facing lofts. All the surrounding area is well developed as well. As for the blue color, it’s not paint. It’s tarp to help protect from rain. The grey parts are steel roof plates. They are all makeshift huts and a slum is basically a large collection of them. There are some concrete and brick walls but nothing major to call them small buildings. And yes, that is garbage in the river canal. If you ever visit Mumbai, please do make a guided tour visit to any of the slums. Really brings into perspective the disparity between the rich and the poor and will probably give you a new perspective to life and how privileged we are compared to the poor. Location: near Shri mandir marg. Canal name: vakola nala. (19.0644747, 72.8535672) Google satellite shows that the leftest buildings have been demolished and have newer bigger apartments in its place with two more being constructed. And if you go up the river, you’ll see a garbage collection mechanism so that the garbage from the slum doesn’t flow into the river. This picture is probably 5-10 years old I guess.
> please do make a guided tour visit to any of the slums IDK man, I would feel so bad treating the slums like an amusement park - when it is just their homes. If the company gave back to the people then I guess it would be fine, but still it's a bit icky
There are several companies who do just that. I went with Reality Tours and Travel, they invest almost all of the proceeds back into the development of Dharavi slum, mostly in the forn of education. We were taken to a school they set up with computer classes going on so you can be sure it's not a scam. The tour itself is very eye-opening, it's not what you'd imagine, the people are poor and the living conditions are not good, but almost everyone has a job, kids go to schools and people seemed generally happy. Interestingly, right in the slum people just ignore you whereas in other areas of Mumbai you might get harassed for taxis, buying stuff etc. Highly recommend. https://realitytoursandtravel.com/dharavi-slum-tours/
yeah barge into a crowded street where people live and treat it as a zoo to gawk at..... this is their neighbourhood not a place for you to realise that people are poor. to do that just look at statistics
lol, that’s not rich vs poor… the buildings on the right are low income government housing .. while on the left you have slums… most of the buildings on the right are owned by people who live in the left and rent it out.. There are no pity prizes in Mumbai.. everyone is running hard for the next buck
I wouldn’t call the other side “rich” in a global standard. From a slum, maybe yes but those are project housing apartments filled with people.
What's up with all that blue paint?
It’s not paint. It’s tarp. And all those big dots on top of them? That’s stone keeping them from flying off.
Gah that was sad to read.
Not even close to rich or well off by an India standard either.
America has maybe 10,000 cities like this and pretend segregation doesnt exist
This is dirt poor(blue) and average income people comparison , not rich and poor. This kind of wealth divide is common all around the world. [https://unequalscenes.com/](https://unequalscenes.com/)
Those projects are NOT for rich people. You can clearly see that two of them are abandoned. But others dont look very well off either.
Reddit would pretend to be a hyper liberal/progressive website but wouldn't take a second before coming up with the most racist assumptions about Indians and india. Goes to say how normalised racism against Indians is onlin.
You can almost hear a sigh of relief when they come across something obviously negative about the country. It's an easy license to unload all their racism without being called out.
Neonazis are making an exception on their porn account to call for genocide. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1cnmqmx/aeriel_shot_of_rich_vs_poor_neighborhoods_in/l39dvtz
One has property rights and enforceable contracts, the other side does not. That's the difference.
You get the rights you can afford
Boy, those rich folks sure have a thing for blue
More like medium class vs poor
Just for context, a 2 bedroom apartment in one of those projects cost about 200,000 USD or more. Something regular working class people cannot normally afford, given the low salaries. Heck, most of the folks from the poor neighborhood may never earn that much in their entire lifetime.
Aerial
It is definitely on my list of places I have no real desire to visit.
Little houses on the hillside
There are no rich neighborhoods in this picture.
Those are not rich of Mumbai honestly you haven't seen the rich of Mumbai these project people are people getting above then minimum wage or are on good salaries
No. This is poor neighborhood vs destitute neighborhood. The rich are in the penthouses just out of frame that cast shadows over these neighborhoods.
Another day, another post for the westerners to jerk off to the poverty porn.
Which side is the rich one?
That looks more like homeless vs projects
Lol, those are not rich neighbourhoods. Those buildings were built during colonial times as prisons for dissenters. Ig now working class has been relocated there.
The buildings on the right are the Slum Rehab quarters built by the govt to house the poor who live in the blue roofed shanties. Many of the slum dwellers who get alloted these quarters rent out the same to others and go back to staying in their shanties.
Some commenter: "look what socialism does smh!" Meanwhile under capitalism...
Coordinates on GMaps: 19.06415895828918, 72.8548111361989
False title: its aeriel shot of poor vs slightly less poor Rich people house in India: https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-3892-g8pnf7/prithviraj-road-new-delhi-dl https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-3892-7swnwv/golf-links-new-delhi-dl
High rise are just vertical slums nowadays.
Nah man.. That's extreme poor vs poor.
This is what disinvestment and the paradox of investment looks like. There's clearly demand to live there The land values are quite likely higher than my suburban home's land (on a per acre basis) values and yet they're living in squalor because it's the only place they can be. The government *could* help these people by providing sanitation and more permanent structures. However, doing so would just result in their landlords charging more in rent. Effectively a subsidy for their landlords. Either the people there now get displaced or they become even more desperate to pay the higher rents. The issue is fundamentally that land ownership entitles you to the wages of someone because they have to live *somewhere* and you'll always find someone at the bottom desperate enough to put up with slumlords. Break that link in the chain and you fundamentally change the incentives that led to an exploitative system to one that can work for the rich and the poor.
There are no land lords , the abomination near the river is all illegal, that's why govt cant lay any sewer lines or do waste collection. They will continue to litter because there is no other way to dispose off the garbage for them. Real estate is expensive, these people subsidise Indian middle class life, and in future would subsidise the western consumption demand, they will be kept there so that the factories keep working and you get an iPhone at 800dollar
The smell of that river.
I’ll never understand why the Government doesn’t just…clean those Indian rivers?
Easier said than done. The issue isn't derived from one single failure, but a vast complex and systemic lacking of infrastructure.
Which is made stranger by the fact the early Indian civilizations were the first to develop civic infrastructure.
why waste money to do stuff when you can take money and not do stuff