In many posts we have seen members drag Purva as an example to show how bad a builder can be. Is it justified? Is Purva really evil or victim of bad judgement?

Let us see some data and I'll let forummers judge for themselves. I'm going to take two projects from this builder for this anlysis:
-Swanlake, Padur
-Cosmo city, Pudupakkam


Swanlake was marketed under Puravankara brand name while Cosmo city was marketed under Provident housing brand name, a budget housing offshoot of Purva.

Swanlake was launched in 2007 for 3400-3800 psf

(source: http://www.mybangaloreproperty.com/blogs/india-real-estate-blog/archive/2007/04/11/puravankara-group-s-chennai-project.aspx).

Cosmo city was soft launched in 2009 for 1600 psf.

From location point of view, both projects were separated by just a few KMs.

Here is the current status as of Dec'12:

Completed phases:

Purva projects in Chennai - 10k sqft completed and sold.
Provident projects in Chennai - 1.09 million sq ft completed and sold

Ongoing projects/phases:

Purva projects : 1.51 m sqft in sold out of total 5.82m (includes all ongoing Purva projects)
Provident : 0.78 million sqft sold out of total 1.14 million sqft.

(Source: Page 17 of http://www.puravankara.com/investors/pdfdocs/Presentation-PuravankaraGroup.pdf)

Despite of starting 2 yrs later than Swanlake, Cosmo city managed to deliver or complete 1 million sq ft while only 10,000 sq ft was completed for all other Purva projects.

Sales are also more for Cosmo city. Why did Purva end up in this situation?

IMO, the timing of launch was wrong. Swanlake was launched when prices were at peak and Purva had difficulty in bringing down prices post financial crisis. On one hand existing customers were demanding refund of excess amount and on the other hand, cost overruns have to be managed.

While on the other hand, Cosmo city was priced perfect for that location and for that period.

What could have Purva done?

Pricing of Swanlake was not justified for 2008-09 conditions.
They could have brought down prices, refunded to existing customers (DLF & XS Real did this if I'm not wrong). However, I doubt if they had financial leverage to do that.
They should have avoid CMDA approval issues, it seriously dented their reputation.
Read more
Reply
36 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • What about Windmere.

    It was a total mess up of timelines.
    CommentQuote
  • Request to fellow members, especially aggressive ones or aggrieved customers, don't pick up fight with me. I just wanted to have a healthy discussion as I see Purva name being dragged in almost every thread.

    It is British tradition to give an accused a fair trial. Modern India is heavily influenced by this rich 250 yr old tradition. I'm just providing a platform for healthy discussion. Post your views in sensible and constructive manners. Avoid emotional outbursts.

    @K11,

    As I've mentioned in my post, Purva must definitely work on 3 things:
    -Launching after approval.
    -Preserving investment of existing customers when slashing prices.
    -Financial prudence to avoid ending up in situation wherein they have to offer hefty discounts midway.
    CommentQuote
  • Not sure why your are getting ticked off over nothing.

    Why don't you include Windmere. It is their lagest project in Chennai, probably largest among the projects from Blore based builders.
    It was lauched in 2006 and prob the most delayed project in the city.

    Provident is their low end housing division. Of course they will have sell more.
    Look at Sheltrex, they will outsell anything and everybody, they will do 10X of provident. The comparison is not fair bet reg apts and low end ones.
    CommentQuote
  • I didn't get ticked off by your post, I suddenly realized people might start picking fight with me, so felt need for disclaimer.

    Sheltrex won't sell for sure. Cosmo city still had advantage of being close to Siruseri IT park and 1 KM away from bus route. Sheltrex is in middle of nowhere. Please show me some data to indicate Sheltrex is doing hot.

    I didn't include Windermere because Swanlake and Cosmo city were is same locality and micro market. Windermere vs Cosmo city is not an a-to-a comparison.

    Even Swanlake vs Cosmo city is not a-to-a , but closest possible ones to compare.

    BTW, Purva Windermere was launched in 2008. Not sure about 2006, maybe pre-pre-pre launch like Hiranandani Urbania :). No one can beat Hira of course, they are charging 40% as booking amount for Urbania.
    CommentQuote
  • For what its worth - I hear from the market that Purva has been on a brand/image building spree for past 18-20 odd months and its still continuing - standard stuff around reliability, quality, trust worthy etc.
    CommentQuote
  • Since I have invested in Windermere, I can share my experience with Purva till now. Windermere project was launched in 2008 at great price with no approvals what so ever. It was one of the many projects pre-launched at this time from builders else where. Some projects pre-launched at this time were success stories and others flop. I am not sure how many ppl entered Windermere project at this stage. If one has entered at this stage, one should be aware of the risk involved. Purva could not get the approvals. They have to completely redesign the project layout and project was stalled for 3 years. I am not sure whether customers who entered this stage were paid any compensation at all or given any other option or allowed to leave without losing much. Like any other builder, I have heard good and bad stories about Purva from my friends in Bangalore. They screwed up their projects launched in 2007-08 both in Chennai and Bangalore. Like any other builder, it was easy for them to blame it on financial crisis.
    I entered this project (CMDA approved) Phase 1 in June 2011 at 3300/sqft. At this price, I felt there is lot of value given the specification and amenities provided. So far it has been a positive experience with Purva and they are ready to listen to customers. I feel they are trying hard to re-build their lost reputation in Chennai. May be this is one of the reasons they sold at discount price when local builders next door with no amenities and lower specs were selling at higher price. So far, progress is quite reasonable (slightly behind schedule) but on track. This is just my personal opinion. Current price is 4400/sqft inline with other builders in the area. Now they have something on ground to show to the perspective buyers.

    All said, unfortunately we are at the mercy of these builder once booked. Unless some sort of RE bill is passed to keep a check on the builders, we will hear more horror stories.
    CommentQuote
  • Launching without approval is a big mistake. I hope all builders avoid this in future.
    CommentQuote
  • @L4L: Comparing Cosmo City and Swan Lake is like comparing Nano and Land Rover just because they are both owned by Tata. After all, it's for a reason that Cosmo City wasn't sold in the name of Purva. They haven't held to their promise in two of their major projects - enough for us to conclude that they are worthless scums. Whether they got their timing wrong or whatever else wrong is for their overpaid executives to worry about. What's the point of this exercise?! If this discussion or debate is going to conclude that it was a honest error of judgement, or some other decent sounding legal term, are you going to recommend a Purva project to any of the forumers, friends/relatives, or for your own investment? Purva has proved beyond doubt, over a period of five years, nothing less, that they are worthless scums you cant trust your investment with. As far as this forum is concerned nothing else matters. It will be to the builders delight if this forum alters it course from educating buyers to condoning developers.

    PS: As a customer, I it's unwise to rely on information sourced through company reports.
    PS2: I'm cool, even though the post may sound otherwise. Just that I don't find any merit in this debate, and it's out of place in this forum.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by murugesh
    @L4L: Comparing Cosmo City and Swan Lake is like comparing Nano and Land Rover just because they are both owned by Tata.

    Why not? There are no major procedural difference between developing budget housing and regular housing. Still have to go through same process of land procurement, regulatory body approvals, project management team, labor and raw materials. Only difference is in the quality of materials used, architecture and amenities provided.

    There was a segment on budget housing in NDTV property show, the host asked developers why they are not showing keen interest in this segment when there is huge demand for it. Developers said construction cost differences between budget housing and regular housing is very low and there is no incentive in it.


    After all, it's for a reason that Cosmo City wasn't sold in the name of Purva. They haven't held to their promise in two of their major projects - enough for us to conclude that they are worthless scums. Whether they got their timing wrong or whatever else wrong is for their overpaid executives to worry about. What's the point of this exercise?! If this discussion or debate is going to conclude that it was a honest error of judgement, or some other decent sounding legal term, are you going to recommend a Purva project to any of the forumers, friends/relatives, or for your own investment?

    What is wrong in having a discussion like this? Is it a Taboo to ask views on Puravankara? Why should there be a conclusion? This need not be a pattimandram, it can be a Neeya Naana style discussion. We are just exploring various point of views. There are no preconditions that only positive aspects of Purva should be discussed.


    Purva has proved beyond doubt, over a period of five years, nothing less, that they are worthless scums you cant trust your investment with. As far as this forum is concerned nothing else matters. It will be to the builders delight if this forum alters it course from educating buyers to condoning developers.

    PS: As a customer, I it's unwise to rely on information sourced through company reports.

    Are you suggesting builders may lie in their report? Quiet possible. But one characteristic of "lie" is that it is not self sustaining. You need to keep telling more lies to support the first lie. The moment someone spots an inconsistency, everything will fall apart.

    When a builder decide to publish sales figure every quarter, he must stick to his commitment irrespective of whether sales is low or high. He can't avoid publishing when sales are low. During Q2 reporting, Sobha's Chennai sales was abysmal, but they still published it. Fellow forum members like K11 and others tore Sobha apart and said the project is an utter flop. So it is not always rosy picture being reported.

    When I see any builder revising pricing, I would like to know if there is any basis for it. I check company reports, if report suggest improvement in sales, then I'll know price rise is justified. If report suggest sales are stagnating, it is a red flag. It means builder is running short of funds and is revising price to mop up more fund.

    Also details like revenue and sq ft area sold will give indication of whether builder is offering discount to other buyers. Reports also help us spot emerging trends, hot localities and buyer preferences. I trust and prefer builders who regularly publish their sales details. Some information is better than no information
    .

    PS2: I'm cool, even though the post may sound otherwise. Just that I don't find any merit in this debate, and it's out of place in this forum.


    Reply in bold, don't mistake it as a bold reply :)
    CommentQuote
  • Those who cannot complete projects on time must be avoided at all costs, especially if they are premium builders (charging premium). Because they charge premium for this and if they fail, then they are no better than ordinary builder from nowhere. I really do not trust such builders who come with all these big tags....let them quote higher after finishing the project. Before that you can speculate all kind of things.
    CommentQuote
  • Another teaser ad in Hindu, this time by Purva. Not sure if it is for new launch.
    Attachments:
    CommentQuote
  • Following are locations and list of Purva's complete/ongoing/upcoming projects:
    Attachments:
    CommentQuote
  • Called them to check what is in store. They said that by June 1st, they will announce certain scheme which was never announced in the Indian RE Industry and will be fabulous and fantastic one . Let us see
    CommentQuote
  • Contacted them, it seems they are launching next phase in Windermere for around 4800 on June 1st, but not willing to reveal anymore details. Lets wait and see.
    CommentQuote
  • So this seems to be the offer. This is for all the Purva projects.

    1) No Pre-EMI
    2) No Booking amt
    3) No Floor Rise Charges
    4) No Home Loan - Processing fee
    CommentQuote