OK...so he's worked hard and bought himself a flat in Mumbai. Fine...and dandy.
But this is gorgeous? Come on....don't blow smoke up our a$$e$!
This is mediocre, at best. Journalists at Rediff are incredibly asinine. Poor comprehension skills -- of course, when you pay peanuts, you get m0nk3ys for journalists.
Re: Re: What a joke
by S M on Aug 22, 2014 01:33 PM
Please understand, No one is talking about the price of the flats, it might be worth 100 crores for all we know. We are objecting to it being called gorgeous, spacious etc in the article which they are obviously not.
Re: Re: Re: What a joke
by Pat Thakur on Aug 22, 2014 05:23 PM
You know rediff's basic character (frivolous n gossipy), right? So you're a fool if you expect anything else from them.
Re: Re: What a joke
by Setu Madhavan on Aug 23, 2014 04:57 PM
Bihari, stop referring to people from people from North East India and Gorkhalis as Ch0w min. They are much better people than you and your ilk will ever be.
Re: i love chinese
by Nice Thinker on Aug 23, 2014 04:13 PM
What makes you think that he is Chinese? No wonder my globe trotting friend once said, "India is the most racist country in the world".
Re: Re: 1300 sq ft
by Setu Madhavan on Aug 23, 2014 05:04 PM
There was an article about the prices of slums in Dharavi. It is not less than those paid for flats in mumbai! Infact it is near impossible to buy slums in Dharavi as no one is selling one due to very high rate of appreciation. Which in turn is further sky rocketing the prices as builders are paying hand over fist for tracts of land in Dharavi.
However, regardless of the prices, these cannot be called spacious.
So the original poster is right, the house of this singer Chang can also not be considered spacious just because it costs so much. The higher price paid does not make a small flat large. It will remain 1300 sq ft even if its prices goes up 5 times or 20 times. The laws of physics will not change to automatically expand the area of the house to keep up with rising prices.
Re: 1300 sq ft
by Rishant Sachdeva on Aug 21, 2014 08:33 PM
The thing is that Mumbai (600 sqkm) is less than 1/2 the area of Delhi (1484 sqkm) but has a higher population. Infact Mumbai and Chennai combined are as big as Pune. So naturally house sizes are smaller than most other cities in India. New York and London have even smaller apartments. There are even 90 sqft apartments in New York! It is not the size of the place which matters. In many cities in India, you can get a 2000 sqft house on rent for 5-6000. That is only because of low population and low employment. Mumbai has smaller homes because of large demand. If size was a priority then there would have been no demand. Housing quality is one of the weaker points of Mumbai. But there are a lot of other factors which make up for that.
Re: Re: 1300 sq ft
by S M on Aug 22, 2014 01:24 PM
Thats is what I said, houses in Mumbai are smaller, thats all but some dumbfwucks dont understand english
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1300 sq ft
by Setu Madhavan on Aug 23, 2014 05:07 PM
Thats true. Delhiites are extremely jealous about Mumbai. Mumbaikars just dont care about Delhi.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1300 sq ft
by S M on Aug 26, 2014 05:18 PM
Lol! who cares abt mumbai, it doesnt even exist for us but 1300 is 1300 sq ft whether in Mumbai or delhi or timbuktoo