From Opportunity to Obstacle: Mumbai’s Mirage?

It’s also important to examine how urban planning regulations have contributed to exacerbating these inefficiencies. Particularly, Mumbai’s outdated zoning laws and poorly enforced Floor Space Index (FSI) policies. FSI, which determines the maximum permissible built-up area on a plot by calculating the ratio between total floor area and land size, plays a critical role in shaping urban density, infrastructure planning, and property valuation. Yet in Mumbai, weak enforcement and arbitrary revisions of FSI limits have enabled overbuilt luxury projects in select pockets, while affordable housing remains constrained by restrictive thresholds elsewhere. Historically, Mumbai restricted the FSI to 1.33, limiting the amount of floor area developers could construct relative to the plot size. Recent amendments have increased FSI to 3 for residential plots and 5 for commercial plots, but these higher allowances apply only along major thoroughfares. Since nearly half of Mumbai’s roads are only about 9.2 to 13.4 meters wide, most buildings in these areas are granted lower FSI allowances. This results in significant underutilisation of land across the city. Additionally, while developers lobby for higher FSI allowances and expedited Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) clearances, their commitment to building affordable housing and completing those quotas remains inconsistent. Industries have pushed the government to increase their incentives, like Transferable Development Rights (TDR), a mechanism that allows landowners to transfer their developmental rights from one area to another area where development is permitted, and relaxed clearance norms, because supply needs to be boosted, yet, the projects that are prioritized are the mid to high-end societies, where the profit-margins are better.

​​

Local regulations that dictate how land can be used within specific areas.

​

As it stands for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) model, have fared little better. Critics say the scheme tilts toward developer profits, not residents’ well-being. It was reported that over 500 SRA projects have failed to commence since 2005, affecting more than one lakh slum dwellers (The Times of India, 2020). Many projects are stalled due to ongoing land disputes that question ownership. This issue becomes complicated when the areas occupied by the slums are reserved for amenities or fall under the Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) which need to strictly follow a set of regulations given by the government to protect and manage coastal areas, balancing development with environmental conservation. However, those who are re-housed often end up in cramped, poorly lit flats with scant ventilation, trading one set of sub-standard conditions for another. The ongoing Dharavi Redevelopment Project, although far from unproblematic, offers a contrasting model, attempting to integrate housing with transit, healthcare and livelihoods. With an approximate budget of INR 90,000 crores, the plan includes several modes of transport around the area, schools, hospitals, and commercial zones, aiming to re-house over a million people. While the concerns about eligibility and displacement remain, the aim of the project highlights what an inclusive approach to slum upgradation can look like. 

Pictured: Unkown Illustration via pinterest

The Maharashtra government has also launched several initiatives aimed at addressing affordability and inclusivity. The most prominent is the MHADA housing scheme, which offers subsidised houses, through a lottery system for the economically weaker sections, low-income groups and middle-income groups, across Mumbai. In 2025, the state revealed its new policy, Majhe Ghar, Majha Adhikar (My house, My right), with an investment of around INR 70,000 to construct over 35 lakh houses by 2030, prioritizing slum rehabilitation, rental housing and housing for women, senior citizens, and industrial workers. This policy also recommends a government land bank to streamline affordable housing development and through an updated IT system, establishing greater transparency. These schemes do mark a step forward and show that Mumbai is trying to do better, however their success will depend entirely on steps taken further and implementation methods. 

​

In contrast, cities like Vienna and Singapore have taken a more proactive approach to housing by implementing strong public housing initiatives. These efforts have helped stabilise real estate prices and keep housing affordable. For example, Vienna’s social housing model includes over 200,000 public housing units, making up around 60% of the city’s total housing stock. Rent prices are based on tenants' income, with typical rents for an 80 square meters flat ranging from 500 to 600 euros, and as low as 250 euros for long-term residents. A key takeaway is their commitment to building mixed-income, municipally owned housing across the city and not just the urban centres. Singapore's public housing policy, primarily managed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), focuses on providing affordable housing to its citizens. They are able to provide quality houses to Singapore’s population largely because the government owns and manages most of the land. This centralised control allows for co-ordinated urban planning, bulk construction as well as price regulation, which ensures that housing remains affordable across income groups. These cities have established that there are ways in which development can take place while also valuing the people who make that development sustainable. While Mumbai still lacks the scale of public land ownership or regulatory centralisation found in these cities, the core principle of housing affordability achieved through sustained state intervention, can be adopted while planning infrastructure around the city. 

​

Houses or flats provided by the government at low rents for people who have low incomes.

​

Property prices keep climbing, yet the actual value being offered to middle-class newcomers is hard to gauge. While new infrastructure and ongoing urbanisation have contributed to rising property values, the rate of these increases appears disproportionately high compared to the tangible benefits received by the average middle-income resident. This trend challenges the assumption that escalating prices signify genuine progress., It highlights the need to reassess current urban development priorities. Mumbai’s real estate trajectory over the past decade reveals a growing disconnect between soaring property prices and the city’s socio-economic landscape. The combination of rising housing costs and stagnant wage growth has made homeownership increasingly unattainable for the middle class. This gap between cost and value is further widened by the nature of supply being created in the market. Private developers are incentivised to build ultra-luxury and luxury property, focusing on high margins, and affordable housing remains constantly under-supplied due to low incentive and limited regulatory enforcement. Despite schemes and policies that aid people, the lack of incentives and mandatory quotas for affordable housing implies that the market will continue to cater to speculative capital rather than actual housing needs. 

​

If this pattern continues unchecked, Mumbai risks evolving into a city accessible only to the wealthy, questioning its long-standing title of ‘City of Dreams’. Once a place where migrants, workers, entrepreneurs alike could build a life, it now moves towards a place defined by exclusion. Reclaiming Mumbai, calls for strong, co-ordinated action across sectors. This includes implementing stronger rental regulations such as the Model Tenancy Act, 2021 to protect tenants from arbitrary hikes and broker exploitations. This act introduces written tenancy agreements, caps security deposits, and establishes Rent Authorities to resolve disputes swiftly. It also requires forcing the mixed - income housing mandates in all new developments that benefit from public incentives or FSI relaxations. At structural levels, reforms such as the public land bank, proposed in the Maharashtra Housing Policy, 2025, offer a chance to re-plan land use centred around equity and inclusion. Currently, the way Mumbai is headed, without such systemic shifts in the way land and housing is managed, the housing market will simply deepen inequality further and weaken the city’s social fabric, eroding the very spirit that made the Mumbai city a home for all. 

​

​