Is Mumbai better than London or New York? The numbers disagree 

Article Summary 

• Mumbai has around 1.58 sq m of public open space per person, compared with 26.4 sq m in New York and 31.68 sq m in London, according to data cited by the Mumbai Architects Collective. 

• The city is simultaneously facing proposals to convert existing public open spaces into convention and exhibition facilities, including the Neville D’Souza football ground in Bandra.  

• Mumbai’s problem is therefore less about how cleverly it uses scarce land and more about whether it is protecting enough of that land for public life in the first place. 

• The contradiction becomes sharper when the BMC has an ₹80,952.56 crore budget and Mumbai already has major private convention infrastructure such as Jio World Centre.  

There are many things Mumbai can reasonably claim to do better than New York or London. Its resilience, density, public transport culture, street economy, and ability to squeeze extraordinary economic activity into an extraordinarily constrained geography are legitimate achievements. 

Public open space is considerably harder to defend. 

At an Indian Express Idea Exchange, BMC Commissioner Ashwini Bhide said Mumbai was better than New York and London when the discussion turned to the city’s shortage of open spaces. The remark has since triggered predictable outrage online.  

Strip away the social-media noise, however, and the more useful question is simple: what does the data actually say? 

The numbers don’t lie 

According to figures cited by the Mumbai Architects Collective, Mumbai has just 1.58 square metres of public open space per person. London has 31.68 square metres, while New York has 26.4 square metres. That means London has roughly 20 times as much public open space per resident as Mumbai, while New York has nearly 17 times as much. 

The exact comparison needs some caution because cities define and measure “open space” differently. Density, municipal boundaries, accessibility, and what gets counted as public recreational land can all change the numbers. But those qualifications do not erase a gap of this magnitude. 

If anything, Mumbai’s density makes the shortfall more serious. High density can be an urban virtue when it is accompanied by efficient public transport, walkability, mixed-use neighbourhoods, and abundant public spaces. Density without breathing room eventually becomes congestion. 

And Mumbai is already showing the symptoms. Just recently, Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari was delayed by nearly an hour after getting caught in Mumbai traffic. He used the experience to argue for newer approaches to infrastructure and traffic management, to no one’s surprise. 

Then there is the uncomfortable question of what Mumbai does with the little public land it still possesses. In June, the BMC approved a proposal to change the reservation of Bandra’s Neville D’Souza football ground to make way for an exhibition and convention centre. Residents, footballers, planners, and civic groups have opposed the move. This comes some years after the SC rebuked officials over tree cutting in Aarey Colony for the metro. 

Space, the final frontier 

This matters because the argument is increasingly becoming circular. Mumbai is short of open space, yet portions of that scarce land continue to face proposals for construction-intensive uses. 

The Mahalaxmi Racecourse presents another complicated example. The BMC’s broader redevelopment plan envisages substantial new public green space, but it also includes an underground sports facility and convention centre. Urban planners have raised concerns about access and the eventual character of the space.  

There is also a legitimate question about whether Mumbai needs another major convention facility when the Jio World Convention Centre in BKC already offers two convention halls, three exhibition halls, and capacity for thousands of delegates.  

Critics have described some of the land decisions as not being in the public interest. That allegation should be investigated where evidence exists, rather than casually stated as fact. But the underlying governance question is entirely legitimate: when public land is scarce, who gets to decide what it is worth? 

The BMC certainly has the financial muscle to make better choices. Its 2026-27 budget is ₹80,952.56 crore, with capital expenditure of ₹48,164 crore. Mumbai therefore does not have a shortage of money alone. It has a shortage of land, planning discipline, and perhaps most importantly, civic ambition and vision. 

The commissioner may be right that Mumbai has learnt to do more with less. But when London has roughly 20 times the public open space per resident, and New York nearly 17 times, calling Mumbai “better” requires considerably more than clever utilisation or sound bytes. It requires evidence.