The traditional way of doing redevelopment. The onus of this approach lies completely on the Developer appointed by the Society. The Developer constructs and hands over new flats to the society members free of cost with some additional benefits. For doing this, the Developer utilizes the balance plot potential by constructing and selling additional flats and shops as per approval from M.C.G.M. This has been the most widely used approach in Redevelopment.

For Developer led Redevelopment, the housing society is required to

  • Appoint Project Management Consultant/ Architect

  • Prepare a Tender with their help

  • Advertise in two leading news papers inviting sealed tenders from Developers

  • Form a Redevelopment Committee to shortlist at least three Developers on merits

  • Place the comparative data before the SPGM for final selection

  • Inform the selected Developer accordingly and request for terms in writing

  • Offer letter to the society

Advantages

  • Hands-off approach for the Society

  • Construction expertise, process know-how, liaison network and funds management done by the developer

  • Benefits available from the developer with least intervention from the society members

Disadvantages

  • Lower extra space and corpus compared to other approaches

  • Inappropriate rent allotment

  • Higher probability of it getting stalled if the project gets into any tangle

  • Authority in the developer’s hands to change the plans, the designs and also development standards

  • Lack of transparency in the process leading to higher risk for the society

  • Inappropriate commitments leading to later fall back on various aspects like completion deadlines, rent payment, extra space or corpus

* Lately, because of the inconsistencies in some of the Developer’s initial agreements and the actual working, projects got stalled and society members were left midway without any direction. This has led to high level of mistrust in this approach and pushed Societies to look out for alternatives.