How “How Much Will We Get?” Becomes “Will We Get Back?”
When redevelopment is first discussed in a society, the conversation usually begins with one question:
“How much extra area will we get?”
It feels natural. It feels practical.
But this question often sets the direction of the entire process—and not always in the right way.
1. The First Question Every Society Asks
In the early stage, most members focus on:
- additional carpet area
- corpus amount
- comparison with nearby projects
Very quickly, redevelopment starts getting defined in terms of what the society will gain.
2. What This Question Really Reflects
When societies ask “how much will we get,” the thinking is often influenced by:
- comparison with other societies
- expectation of maximum benefit
- perception of potential gain
At this stage, the conversation is driven more by expectation than by understanding.
3. What Gets Ignored at This Stage
While focus remains on gain, one critical question is not asked:
Will we get back what we already have?
Societies do not yet consider:
- execution risks
- developer capability
- project feasibility
- long-term security
The foundation of the decision remains unexamined.
4. How Decisions Start Getting Distorted
Once “how much” becomes the focus, discussions begin to shift:
- increasing expectations for carpet area
- comparisons with self-development scenarios
- assumptions based on resale value
- questions like “why can’t a developer just build a high-rise?”
At this stage:
- expectations become optimistic
- assumptions replace analysis
- pressure builds on decision-makers
The discussion moves away from feasibility.
5. The Turning Point
The shift does not happen immediately.
It happens later—when reality becomes visible.
This usually occurs when:
- a strong developer is not secured
- the project slows down or gets stuck
- demolition happens but execution becomes uncertain
At this point, the question changes:
From “How much will we get?” to “Will we get back?”
At this stage, correction becomes difficult and options become limited.
6. What Triggers This Shift
This transition is not sudden—it is the result of earlier gaps:
- starting without proper preparation
- setting expectations without feasibility clarity
- engaging without structured evaluation
In many cases, societies move forward with a local builder mindset instead of a structured approach.
7. The Real Fear That Emerges
At this stage, the focus is no longer on gain.
It becomes uncertainty.
Members begin to ask:
- Where will we stay?
- Will rent be paid regularly?
- Will the project be completed?
The emotional shift is clear—from expectation to concern.
8. Where Societies Go Wrong
The biggest mistake societies make is:
Not asking what is feasible first—and directly asking what they will get.
This reverses the correct sequence of decision-making.
Feasibility should define expectations—not the other way around.
9. What Should Be Asked First
Before asking “how much,” societies must ask:
What is the best possible development that can be built on our property?
This requires understanding:
- true project potential
- regulatory framework
- practical feasibility
Only then can expectations be realistic and decisions stable.
Core Insight
In redevelopment, focusing only on what you will get can make you lose what you already have.
Self-Check
- Are we discussing benefits before understanding feasibility?
- Are our expectations based on facts or comparisons?
- Do we clearly know what is possible on our property?
If not, the process may already be moving in the wrong direction.
Conclusion
Redevelopment should not be driven by expectations alone.
It should be guided by clarity, feasibility, and structured understanding.
Read Next: