A little over a year ago, I posted here an article I wrote for the Washington Post, House in a Slum? You Can't Afford It.
In it, I had this sentence: "Because housing is so expensive, about two-thirds of Mumbai's population live in slums or on the streets."
As you will see, several comments on that post questioned this assertion. In turn, to support it, I quoted various figures I had access to.
The World Bank has just published its World Development Report 2009. While releasing the report, Indermit Gill, an economist at the Bank, said: "Estimates indicate that 54 per cent of Mumbai's 16 million people now live in slums, and another quarter in degraded apartments."
That's something like three of every four, or about 12 million altogether, of the city's residents.
This raises plenty of questions, of which I will ask here just one. Given this reality, given the severe shortage of housing implicit in this, why demolish slum housing?
Your thoughts welcome.