Why India Doesn’t Build Skyscrapers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- This little-known rule is stunting India's skyline.
See how digital collaboration tools enable skyscraper construction - bit.ly/3NIO9UH
Full Story here - theb1m.com/vid...
This video contains paid promotion for Bluebeam. Download Bluebeam's free eBook on digital collaboration for construction - bit.ly/3NIO9UH
Additional footage and imagery courtesy of Mihir Patilhande, CNA, and The Dronalist.
Listen to The World's Best Construction Podcast by The B1M
Apple - apple.co/3OssZsH
Spotify - spoti.fi/3om1NkB
Amazon Music - amzn.to/3znmBP4
View this video and more at - www.TheB1M.com/
Follow us on Twitter - / theb1m
Like us on Facebook - / theb1m
Follow us on TikTok - / theb1m
Follow us on LinkedIn - / the-b1m-ltd
Follow us on Instagram - / theb1m
Go Behind The B1M. Click "JOIN" here - bit.ly/2Ru3M6O
The B1M Merch store - theb1m.creator...
#construction #architecture #skyscrapers
We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules - www.theb1m.com/...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Video@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2022 The B1M Limited
India does build skyscrapers. It's just they're all in the Emirates.
@@Sathish_12 he is talking about Indian workers and engineers.
That's funny
sheesh 💀💀
Bangladesh as well
Lol...all the labours ran away from India ...but still they manage to build small huts by low skilled personz
You forgot to mention the dreaded Airports Authority of India. They impose strict height restrictions across many cities like in Mumbai and Gandhinagar. Mumbai had many skyscrapers above 300m underconstruction (around 15-20) but the AAI stalled these projects and the skyscrapers ended up being only around 220-280m like the World One Tower which was initially meant to be 410m. Conversely, Hyderabad is a city with currently no FSI restrictions and so many skyscrapers (around 200m) are currently underconstruction. Delhi and Bengaluru still have extremely strict FSI though. Dont be under the impression that no skyscrapers are being built in India though. Mumbai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad and to a lesser extent Kolkata, are all having skyscraper construction booms
Yes, they're the biggest enemies of skyscraper
that's good for hyderabad but why does this city has no fsi why the exception ?
Correct
Exactly world towers 442m , threesixty west 360 360m, india tower 700m,
All below 280m or end up like india tower canceled
@@saitushar6508 airport is far from the main city
Cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Banglore, Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram and Visakhapatnam have potential to build more and more skyscrapers. Mumbai's high population density needs more sky scrapers like New York, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo
You forgot Noida and gurgao
@@Shrekkkk72 I think they can be built in South Bangalore away from HAL.
@@advocatevinaypandey1922 that's just delhi, noida and gurgaon is just delhi
@@XenithForPm are you illiterate, i mean a kid also know that it is NCR (National capital region) they(gov) made it to remove the crowd not to acquire land Noida belongs to up all it's tax collection is send to Lucknow to distribute in proper schemes and work and same with gurgaon too which is the part of haryana
Noida does have India's second tallest building though (Supernova Spira). It stands at a whopping 300 meters! @@XenithForPm
As Indonesia, I'm also confused why there aren't many skyscrapers in India when it's good for a high population 🙃
An update here by an Indian, even though we don't have a lot of skyscrapers, it is starting to rise now people are starting to live in apartments owning a flat ik it's very sad we don't have a lot of them 😞😢
It has more space not like Indonesia
Skyscrapers are not good for high population
@@goncalodias6402 Then do you have any better alternative to it?
@@aiswaryabersan7983 Indonesia land area is about 2/3 of India while the population is about 1/5. And also similar economy level, so....
I always wondered as an Indian why does our country have an extreme lack of skyscrapers! Now I know, thanks for the video
Your space program is amazing though - so don't think India is without world prestige :D
@@JohnnyWednesday thanks man.
Soon India's private rocket is going to launch by Skyroot Aerospace 🤗
Because India is a dirty poor country. Look at your gdp per capita
@@JohnnyWednesday Didn't knew it was known outside India.
@@Sarah-lk8ye Are you from India too?
Leaving out Airports Authority of India's cock-blocking any attempt from a builder to go beyond 300 meters in Mumbai is a big omission on B1M's part.
FSIs are the biggest reason. Indian cities have the worst FSI - floor space index regulations in the world
FSI is a universal issue. Like a city without an airport would still have no skyscrapers with this FSI
No, it has very little to do with it. Almost all major cities have airports, and these restrict the height of towers. But India is unique.
With how hot it gets in India, it's probably a good thing they don't have a lot of skyscrapers because they would take a ton of energy to cool when certain cities in India getting over 100° F (37° C). On top of that the power outages would be a nightmare.
@@carstarsarstenstesenn The amount you pay for higher rents due to low FSIs can easily be used to pay for air conditioning.
See Dubai.
“second highest GDP on the continent”…
Japan: left the chat
Japan: left the continent
i think he meant by ppp
Gdp per Capita
India still in poverty
With 1.5 billion people even flexing the 2nd spot is cringe worthy 🤣🖕🤡
Hmm@@robertmitchell8630
This was really interesting and informative. I am an Indian but I never realised how few sky scrappers we have. I just hope we keep growing as a country and are able to solve this problem in the coming years.
This is not a problem. Not building skyscrapers is not a problem holy shit.
skycrapers doesn't reflect development, indians shouldn't fall for these traps
@@reubennelson4086 B1M loves skycrapers but they should also tell about the bad side of it
@@reubennelson4086 in 2100 india will lose their jugle because your country always built horizontal
@@reubennelson4086 It is a problem, horizontal development has been devastating for the environment.
I don't know about other cities but at least in Kolkata, there were some skyscrapers projects scrapped due to height regulations imposed by Airport Authority in India , especially because the area in which skyscrapers were about to be built in Newtown - Rajarhat area which is pretty close to the airport. Of course, there are multiple factors.
Obviously you're not gonna build next to the airport. NYC has 3 airports and very tall buildings
You don't have other places to build...Why only near Airport..?
@@Ok....- Its because the land space far from the airport is already crowded.....also the new part of the city is closer to the airport because again land space was available........
@@Ok....- because that's the only place where some worthwhile economic activity occurs in Kolkata aka the Detroit of India
Indian cities have the worst FSI - floor space index regulations in the world
4:55 📍Shillong has a rule that restricts building more than 3 stories for residential and 5 stories for commercial keeping in mind the location being earthquake prone zone.
Japan has skyscrapers. Its possible to build earthquake proof skyscrapers
@@prabuddhaghosh7022 Fun fact Mumbai has more skyscrappers than Tokyo by a large margin.
@@prabuddhaghosh7022 shillong and Japan are considerably different on the basis of terrain.
@@death_parade it a hill station it's not like Japan it's mostly plains
@@daff...odils29 I was comparing Mumbai and Tokyo, not Shillong and Japan.
For example, Hyderabad is expanding horizontally that too dramatically increased over last few years . many Hyderbadis love to stay in Individual houses.
That's going to destroy their environment.
@@AndrewManook it is not because the environment is already destroyed over there.
@@AndrewManook You think urban sprawl is good for the environment?
@@sohankopparapu5206 That's literally what I'm saying, horizontal expansion is the worth form of urban sprawl.
@@AndrewManook OK , mike tython. You don't like skyscrapers neither regular homes. What's the plan then?
Even while building my residential house, we had to pay a fine for going a little over the prescribed height limit. So in short, the height regulations here are strict.
How much fine?
@@itsmanasK sorry for late reply, i don't remember exactly because it was back in 2014
Is your residential house a skyscraper?
@@thefreemonk6938 even residential houses have guidelines
Which city or town my dear ?
something you forgot to mention was that Mumbai's Municipal Corporation gives concessions to builders on the FSI limit if the builder does something for them in return say for example the builder provides public parking in the complex the Municipality would allow the builder to build higher.
Another thing is that Mumbai's airport is smack in the middle of the city even if builders wanted to build higher they cant because the Airport Authority interferes and lowers the heights of buildings. for eg. they stopped the contruction of a 320m building called palais royale and made them reduce floors similarly they did not give clearance to another builder who wanted to build a 400m residential tower (the same tower now stands at 290m)
I was expecting totally different ending to "something for them in return".
@@prathneo 😭
True
@@ineed2ventnow then u have to compare size of othe cities with mumbai...
Mumbai is smaller than any city with similar population.
@@nikhilreddypaladugu621 why does navi mumbai not have skyscrapers then ? their upcoming airport is a few km's south the city and nowhere close to the main city center
It's strange how you frame not having skyscrapers as being behind as a country.
obsession with "skylines"
For India it is totally strange for not having skyscrapers. I live here and I can tell you cities keep expanding outwards and that has a terrible impact on pollution, more fuel usage, worse work life balance, income inequality, etc. Never underestimate how a tiny forced restriction can have much more adverse ripple effects in people's lives.
@@ItsMeChillTyme those problems can be fixed without skyscrapers. A bunch of 5 story apartments would be better and more affordable than any rich high rise condo.
They dont do shit for new york for example.
That's because it is. Skyscrapers allow people to concentrate in an area, so that businesses get a great range of potential workers. They are a driver of growth.
@@Chasipants You are so ignorant of the scale of population here, it is unbelieveable. Load up New Delhi on street view (not old delhi which is just Delhi) and all you see it 5+ storied apartments stacked up and the population is still dense. The rich just move into larger and more luxurious apartments with more services. Now this sprawl has gobbled up 3 cities with it. I'm all with the whole skycrappers sentiment but this isn't some hyper developed scandinavian nation we're talking about.
I know this is a pro-skyscaper channel, but they're really not necessary half the time. I also don't think EVERYWHERE has got to have them, and the days of skyscraper mania is thankfully behind us. I think it's a good thing India doesn't have as many
As a indian I hate living in high-rise building living in colony though small house owned by you is good 😊😊
Fully agree. These high rise buildings look so depressing. Can't even imagine living in one of these.
Meanwhile Indian politicians: Ignore poverty and basic infrastructure development, let's build the world's tallest statues.
let's just ignore the new cities, dozens of expressways, highways, tunnels, bridges and waterways built recently
Bruh it has its own significance. And cmon pls don't ignore infra development under Nitin Gadkari...
You seem to be from the other side of the political spectrum. If pretend to be asleep I cannot help it. Infrastructure jitna 8 years mein bana utna tumhara Kongress 80 years mein nahin bana sakta. Even basic infra, like toilets and drinking water. Just open your eyes and see the kind of drinking water projects that are going on, roads, etc. Do not trash it. It was a good move. That tallest statue has built a whole tourist ecosystem around it. Just go to Gujarat and see how many people are directly or indirectly employed by it and will continue do so for many many decades. But from a narrow mindset you wont be able to see that.
@@ineed2ventnow what they have done in 10 years??
Let's explain it more clearly.
Bcoz leftist-socialist combo with license raj jeopardize the growth for almost 70 yes but now its late but however infra has started growing for last 10 yrs. Of course it will take more effort and time.
Bear in mind, building tall skyscrapers is not equal to modernization or better living standards, improvement of satisfaction of people living in the area is the true goal of modernization, it's not simply defined by the heights of buildings.
exactly
i don't think indians will follow the east asian style of growth
people here don't like living in buildings unless they have no other option
@@shukracharya_ What do they live in if not buildings? Caves?
@@LutraLovegood lol india hae one of tye highest land ownership rates in the world
higher percentage of indians have their own houses then even American or brits
@@shukracharya_
Exactly.. indians deserve clay houses.. and tuktuks and low income..
@@LutraLovegood you ever heard of a house?
Spot on ! FSI is the rule in India that limits size of buildings. Bigger builders use FSI from low cost region to make high-rise in areas with better returns even in same city.
I can't accept skyscrapers as residential buildings. They are extremely expensive to maintain and the majority of residents will be dependent on operating lifts to lead their lives. Such a form calls for a continuous, dependable income stream that can pay for building maintenance. Commercial buildings as skyscrapers make sense. Residential skyscrapers will either have to cater to a very niche, rich market or last only 20-25 years before breaking down. Unless we want publicly owned and operated residential skyscrapers, which has its own set of problems.
Many Countries are regretting building skyscrapers. They built it for show off.
India is doing right
although i agree with most of these but living in a 2nd tier we do not experience powercuts that often at all since past 5 years..
Even in rural areas of bihar that is considered to be the backward state in india,
we get around 20 and more hours of electricity
@@hke.4475 You are from Pakistan, abdul.
@@hke.4475 Which district of Bihar? Can you tell us?
@@hke.4475 lol wahi rehna , dusri states mai aaker gandagi mat failana ..!
@@manik6621 The guy is a por-kistani
Vani Herlekar is right: Population Density =/= Crowding. Providing more rooms can make more space for people. That's why, here in the USA, the American Community Survey measures them differently: density is people per square mile, but crowding is people per room.
Sky is literally free real estate
@@TheRishijoesanu the cost is the safely build them
@@TheAmericanCatholic The cost of not having skyscrapers is high rents
She misses out one part. The state of Maharashtra actually does not want growth in Mumbai. Reason being the higher you earn, you find Mumbai too shitty and just take your wealth and leave. This results in potential businesses moving to other states, especially neighboring Gujarat. In fact, there have been several methods to deindustrialize Mumbai. One has been to penalize industries which try to setup offices inside Mumbai. This has sort of led offices to move to Navi/New Mumbai. However, this has not been enough and Maharashtra has been promoting industries in Pune etc to decouple the dependency on Mumbai.
Fun fact a top hat was also called a skyscraper.
Skyscraper is just ment to say anything thin and tall so it can be a hat a house or a horse yes I said it a horse.
It's better to build small building on larger land areas than tall buildings on small land areas . When too many people live in less areas like in Mumbai, there are traffic jams.
Mumbai has some amazing skyscrapers. I'm going there this December. Excited to take some photos.
Nice to see another video about India. It's interesting to see how these old regulations are changing, and hopefully for the better. Perhaps in a few years there will be more skyscrapers which allow more green space. Combined with more rapid transit, I hope for a reduction in the air pollution that is a problem in many of these cities.
If the green space is off limits to the public though, than i'd prefer it just stay as housing
no people will not swich to building
people here have preference to buy a plot and build houses then live in tall buildings
@@shukracharya_ in foreign countries poor people live in apartments. In india rich people live in apartments
@@M3ganwillslay only upper middle class
but everyone has preference for a house instead of apartments
the ones living in tall buildings have no other choice
and mostly importantly we have so much flad lands at cheaper rates
why would i live in an in a building when i can live in a comfortable single story house?
@@M3ganwillslay and don't forget india have one of the highest house and land ownership rates in the world
literally everyone has land
Skyscrapers don’t create optimum density.
Beautiful cities have a 6 story height restriction: think Barcelona or Amsterdam. And these cities are DENSE - Paris packs 21000 people per km2 (Mumbai is marginally higher although they build above 6 stories).
And Paris’ density is evenly distributed - optimum.
Skyscrapers result in density spikes which amplify congestion. M
Then why can Hong Kong or Singapore manage high density? Also, it’s about units per floor. A skyscraper with just 4 flats per floor will have a much lower density than a Soviet block. The congestion from skyscrapers can be mitigated by building more public transit and restricting cars from road’s around.
@@dex6316 That's just reconfirming how useless it is to pump heaps of money into tall slender skyscrapers. They barely increase density unless built very close to each other à la Hong Kong compared to bigger blockier mid-rises. Just a decadent dick-measuring contest. Paris has an extremely dense center which is liveable and allows functions to mix on the ground. Vertically functions will never mix to the same degree despite some recent efforts. This isolates people high into the air and in their cars, removing all the random encounters that make a community. We're still repeating often disproven modernist dogma, just with a slightly more capitalist touch.
Yup, and tackling a 1.5 billion population with skyscrapers (that require steel), they would need 1000x the skyscrapers of China. This channel got it backwards, other countries are in desperate need of medium density.
I do not believe in the concept of skyscrapers. Cities which have no skycrapers are more prettier, more managed and more livelier.
@@badmintonscroll Maybe this is true in Europe, but in India most cities are dirty and overcrowded. A skyscraper would let you breathe uncontaminated air, at least
India may not have a skyscrapers but the landscape is changing. The city where I live, PCMC(Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation) was just a small industrial town when I was born 20 years ago. Today, the city has 3 zones planned specifically for IT parks and PCMC is not even a major city in India. It's a satellite city to Pune, also known as Oxford of the East, and which has the second largest IT park in India after Bangalore.
It's crazy how much things have changed in just 20 years.
Hyderabad, also in India, has a FSI of 9-14. And is definitely seeing a skyscraper boom. Also, after Mumbai, the city with the largest number of skyscrapers in India is Kolkata.
I'm not a fan of skyscraper districts. The skyline becomes cluttered and the streets and parks are claustrophobic. The infrastructure of such areas is also overwhelmed. Better to decentralise business districts.
Singapore is one city that is doing mixed cities the right way.. you should check out their master plan
Exactly!
@@roryp7730 still its a car centric city and plus many corporate goes there
Imo i think islamic and European town gets the town or city design right, they do have modern city but those failed to beat the traditional beauty at tourism
@@fbyi2940 how is singapore a car centric city? btw eastern asia has the best urban design, much better than europe
I like the landscape cities
Indians are very down to earth
You mean Very racist
If i was not a DJ, next best profession i would have loved studying and working in would have been city planning. Absolutely love videos on cities and development. Keep up the good work nice video.
Go Ahmedabad, Gujarat! You'll be amazed to see the booming Multi-Storey Building scene there. FSI and FAR is a pain for developers around the planet, but more so in India. India needs to relax its building bye laws majorily so more developers can build as per rules and taller as well, rather than having to use back channels and all sorts of one-off agreements between builder and development authorities.
Wish some of that would spread south to Surat as well...
yup PRIME MINISTER OF GUJARAT has done a lot...for GUJARAT
@@sid2372 choke on burnol monke
Ahmedabad has skyscrapers m
@@sid2372 ya he gives free money to everyone in gujarat. Come to gujarat you can also get 500 700 crores free😜
Brazil has somewhat similar restrictions. We don't face infrastructure shortages like India, but we do have restrictions on height and FSI. For instance, Greater Rio de Janeiro has around 13 million people, but very few buildings with more than 30 stories. Even on plots of land around suburban trains, subway lines or major highways, we have restricted building codes. This forces people outwards and to the slums.
Sir India doesn't have problem of infra as it built more highways than even china and US in last 5 yrs under PM Modi and even more than expressways built in last 75 yrs but westerners don't come to India and show that
Brazil was rich back in days and reached its peak and could build the infrastructure it enjoys now, not on the level of countries such as USA, Canada or EU but good in certain ways but india has a long way to go and just recently it has begun its infrastructure boom
@@melroyreus3417 yes I do agree with you that India's infrastructure boom just began from 2016....but the speed is mind blowing.... In terms of highway... Railway... India is growing... So does it's gdp.... I bet in 2030 India's gdp would be around 8 to 9 trillion dollars and it has to do nothing with skyscrapers
@@lovemsoni1844 US and other developed countries tend to have less infras proj such as those you have mentioned bec they tend to focus on renovations and upgrades rather than building new ones. Some of their highways are in-fact being decommissioned to make way for more parks and spaces. China has even implemented new policy on building skycrappers to limit it.
India right now is doing what it should have been done long time ago. Infras proj for the people since it is heavily populated and poised to become the most populated country in the world. Indians should have been demanding better public service and infras projects to their govt instead of waiting for them to act. And glad to see that their govt is finally doing something. And it is better than doing nothing at all when it comes to infras projects.
Brazil have oil so they can build whatever they want
Watching this while living on the 66th floor in South Mumbai, gotta invite B1M over someday.
Lodha The Park?
@@finaLee69 All I see is the racecourse, ocean and the world most expensive residential tower of a billionaire. But can’t expect much from a Chinese shill, still eating bats?
@@finaLee69 World's largest slum is In Africa. Also Dharavi is an Area which is both Industrial as well as Residential. Dharavi Produces an output of 1 Billion USD yet it's called a Slum.
@@finaLee69 guess ur still lurking in the dark ages!🙄
@@maisakurajima9194 1 billion for that much people is less output.
I don't know about power shortage issue...I'm a Maharashtrian from Nashik, WFH since 2003 (ITES), and even in the hot summer months, I haven't witnessed any power cuts. It was an issue maybe around 2008-09 somthing but not anymore (still do have power cuts for 15-20 months and that happens rarely.
Even I'm from Nashik, but saying you haven't witnessed ANY power cut is completely false.
I live on Gangapur Road, one of the posh localities of Nashik, but the power goes off at least twice in a week. Yes it's for 2-3 minutes only, but the thing is it does.
It also goes off in the summer on several Saturdays when they have scheduled maintenance of wires.
It also goes off in the monsoon when there are heavy rains, and sometimes it takes 8-10 hrs for them to fix it when there are heavy thunderstorms. The biggest problem in India is that we don't have underground cables, so any fluctuation in the weather causes power shut down!!
May be because that's a big city and it happens with poor people who lives in villages coz I face power cut every day during summer that too sometimes for 2-4 hours and also everytime it rains sone time for whole night the electricity is gone and guess what my own state produce electricity
Now I know why Indians need to travel a lot further to get to work! Also, the trains are jam-packed and the streets are extremely congested...Similar issues the Los Angeles have... because the current resident are always against increasing the FSI and the city continue to expand outward!!
Skyscrapers are NOT symbol of development look at European countries.
FSI restrictions limits the illegal conversion of farmland into residential land . If the piece of land has FSI restrictions then it is approved by authorities and safe to buy .
Skyscrapers are only for rich while low rise building accommodates all classes.
Even with the low FSI mumbai still has 200,000 + unsold inventory of apartment units. Middle classes simply cannot afford them .
Also majority of wealth of indians is in the form of independent land and house so limited FSI restrictions can benefit them as it increases the land prices.
I live in small city of population below 100,000 and here you can build upto 3 times of Land and I think that's more than enough.
Indians generally like to live on lower floors or low rise building bcoz its super convenient.
Yeah but india isn’t developed
If you build more residential space the housing becomes cheaper.
Dude just speaking,
Averagely the skyline of a city talks a lot about the economy of a certain region,
Many European cities have dedicated regions only where you can build sky scrapers,
Canary lane of UK, La Defans of France to name a few
@@joydeepsarkar3033 yes
Bullsh1t ,do you assume the skyscrapers only for residential,the place where I live 80% of them are Hotel and Officce. Just few of them are residential I.e Flat/condo. Skyscrapers nowadays are symbolic as a rich, if you go to Singapore and see all the modern skyscrapers you know the place are super rich but they are,go to Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta still has the same impression,but when you go to Mumbai the vibe about super rich place aren’t appears,why? The place aren’t like new ,just few of the skyscrapers are brand new . Frankly speaking Mumbai aren’t first class city.. Mumbai is a capital financial of India ,India is fast growing economy,but the present doesn’t seem so. There are something off.
The main reason is the great AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
There are many buildings which are have some different and amazing structure like namste tower but
The aai stopped this because of too much height 🌝
All reason like water and electricity are not big issue atleast now
But good things is many Skyscraper is under construction i only know ant Mumbai there are more than 250 Skyscrapers which are aproved by aai
No the biggest reason is FSI. Indian cities have the worst FSI - floor space index regulations in the world
@@TheRishijoesanu hmm vo bi ha
@@TheRishijoesanu main reason is godrej and other charitable trust and there is no tax on them that's why there is high price in indian cities of land we need wealth tax on them. Watch videos of Right to recall group on wealth tax and godrej.
@@sharadjain2463 How is Godrej raising the rents. The reason for high rents in Mumbai is well established in urban economics literature, it's high FSI/FAR regulations as the video says. India has a lot of people but with limited purchasing power. Sky is literally free real estate
@@namankulshrestha5373 Not vo bhi hain. That's the primary and the biggest reason.
About Mumbai, you're right - but only partially. FSI in Mumbai is very closely tied to FSI premiums and TDR (transferable development rights), which are just different ways to buy additional FSI. Through premiums, builders can simply buy extra FSI from the gov, and through TDR, builders can undertake social development, like give up some reserved land for a public service or build cheap housing for slum dwellers, to get more FSI that they can use in another project. So tldr, base FSI is not final FSI. This does, however, increase the cost of high FSI which leads to more expensive/large housing built in tall buildings, defeating the goal of more/affordable housing.
As an Indian, I prefer this European-style façade of our cities, Skyscrapers are a disgusting 21st-century tool to show off your development without any actual development. All we need are clean roads, footpaths, and good infrastructure to look good. Skyscrapers are merely a cheap way to look developed.
This!💯💯💯
Yes slums are authentic !
@@fwefhwe4232 I'm not implying that slums are good, I'm implying that skyscrapers are not necessary for our cities, They are fine the way they are. We simply need to improve slums, roads and infrastructure.
And also Dharavi slum has an economy of 1 billion dollars so you might want to take back your statement.
1 your FSI point
2 most people don't like to live in high rise
3 AAI ( airport authority of India)
The govt can’t afford to build high rise showpiece buildings bcz the money is distributed for freebies in india but for development in cheen..
@@-bigChungusVerified building are never built by government like china. Everything here is private .
@@santhoshv3028
Everything in cheen is owned by the communist party.. so they can decide where to build and they don’t need to appease the mass by freebie policies.. india 🇮🇳 is land of politics.. where will development come from?!
@@-bigChungusVerified that's what I said. Government can't build anything here easily like china.
@@santhoshv3028
If Indian leaders had the whillpowrt they could have been better than America..
The Northern part of India is very prone to earthquakes that's why the government has very strict regulations specially in the Northern part like delhi
Not more than Japan
@@kor2597 i know but that's how indian government take precautions and i don't support it. Accommodating this huge population we need the concrete jungle
Nah not the right reason
The real reason is Indian govt and it’s citizens don’t have a vision to show their country as a superpower economy.. that’s why they are still $2500 per capita..
Skyscraper are economic disaster
I find cities very interesting. I enjoy watching this channel sometimes :) very informative and accurate facts. Keep up the good work :)
What accurate facts? Entire video is full of lies. Tell this m0r0n to open the wiki for tallest buildings in Mumbai.
I like that Indian cities are organically grown and does not have sky scrapers. A lot of skyscrapers fail and it leads to competitions among builders.
I was wondering: why dont they paint white lines on the road, so you'd have seperate line which gives more structure. The roads seem wide enough for multiple lanes
We are still lower income country.
Probably painted when new but just never maintained
I don't think you know the memes, they use every square inch of space possible, the traffic is crazy. Only on some roads they actually follow the painted lanes. To this point I still can't understand why India's infactracture can't look normal. Why the roads are always so dirty and break easily, the highways have people walking everywhere.
Because it is not of most importance.
Average income is $2 a day...
it also has to do with culture
most of the people i know don't want to live in tall buildings because it's depressing
and people tend to prefer owning the land plots more than living in a depressing building
Yeah, I would rather get a large plot than living so close to other people. It’s better for privacy.
nah
@@VMRDY yeah but people like me have other reasons like fear of heights and fear of buliding collapsing 😹😹
@@hiiiiir what if earthquake of big magnitude shake the building all? 🙄 privacy is also a main issue for me especially in nights. 😋 neighbors will stare at you if you bring any girl and bingo, you'll be boycott from that society.
@@rohitsharma66 Ask Japan, their skyscrapers are doing fine despite very regular earthquakes.
Almost 300+ skyscrapers are under construction in Mumbai and it's highest in the world under construction in a particular city
Let India alone. Keep it as it is. It’s exotic.
Btw, in Jakarta the FSI for residential zone averaged at only 1.2 before this year lol, with 89% of its land zoned for FSI of 0-2. In fact, I'd argue that Jakarta metro area is more sprawling than any Indian city metro area. The only reason why Jakarta built several relatively tall highrises is because big developers are able to pay the FSI compensation (there's no limit as long as you have the money!) to maximize their parcels. Spaced apart skyscrapers with huge parking lots alongside single family homes are common sights in Jakarta. Not really a great use of land, I'd say. I prefer the European way of building mostly midrises but evenly spreading it across the city instead of clustering high rises only in downtown.
That said, a recent regulation change has raised the average designated FSI for residential zone throughout the city to 3.6, with areas near transit stops drastically raised to the FSI of 7 (within ~1 mile radius) and 11 (within a half mile radius). This allows smaller developers to build mid to high rises without having to pay lots of money for FSI compensation.
@Zaydan Naufal tapi nyatanya emang gitu kkop itu bisa di atasi dengan bayar pake uang 💰
@Zaydan Naufal All great points, especially about the archaic land law and public housing. Honestly major land law reform should have been done years ago lol.
Now that I think about it, Yogyakarta is similar to Bali in that the heights of urban buildings there are roughly the same throughout the metro area but it's mostly low density. IMO Sumatran cities are the closest you could have to Europan cities in terms of building forms (not necessarily the function tho). I feel like Medan with its shophouses-lined downtown and grid street pattern has the potential to be more walkable than say, Surabaya where the skyscrapers are clustered in random areas and are built next to low density landed houses. Even smaller cities like Selatpanjang has a pretty dense downtown lined with shophouses. Definitely more walkable than a suburb development with the same population in Jabodetabek.
Re: parking lots, it's definitely not in the level of North America but Jakarta CBD still has more than I'd expected for a downtown tbh (even when compared to more walkable American downtowns). I lived in Portland, OR and Boston, MA for several years and there are essentially no surface parking in their downtowns except curb parking along narrow streets. It's definitely not the case in Jakarta CBD, where surface parking lot (illegal or not) still exist. Parking scarcity is a good thing, because it will deter people from actually driving into the downtown and causing traffic jam. Of course, this will only work if there are viable alternatives to driving or more affordable housing in or near the downtown.
makanya ibu kota di pindah, karna Jakarta dari awal konsepnya ngawur bahkan dari era Soekarno mau di pindah tapi keburu lengser sampe akhirnya cuma Jokowi yg berani pindahin ibu kota.
gw cuma berharap di Nusantara penataannya lebih tertata rapi, dan harus di bangun banyak gedung apartemen tinggi biar orang2 tinggal di situ, biar gak ada tempat yg ada padat penduduk.
@Zaydan Naufal iya gw tau tapi dengan banyaknya gedung apartemen tinggi bisa menampung banyak orang tinggal di sana dari pada gak ada tempat terus orang2 bangun pemukiman sembarangan malah jadi tempat padat penduduk lagi gak beda jauh sama Jakarta.
kalo untuk perumahan mending dikit aja meminimalisir penggunaan lahan yg berlebihan biar lebih banyak lahan terbuka buat resapan air.
Istana Presiden aneh dari mana ? gw malah suka desainnya, justru kalo Istananya udah jadi sesuai desainnya itu bakal jadi bangunan ikonik, toh filososinya desainnya bagus dari bentuk Garuda terus di samping ada 3 pilar keatas mirip rumah adat padang, desain ini belum pernah di pake di seluruh dunia ini bisa ini jadi gebrakan dan jadi simbol bangunan ikonik.
@Zaydan Naufal di mana2 yg namanya bangunan gak ada yg ramah lingkungan, lu bangun rumah itu aja udah rusak lingkungan karna rumah lu tutupin tanah buat resap air.
apapun selama ini gw selalu dukung rencana Nusantara ini, semuanya pasti udah di pikirin dulu dari segi aspek dan penataannya.
justru ngapain bangun gedung sedang kalo bisa sekalian gedung tinggi ? toh gedung tinggi bisa memaksimalkan lahan.
yakin Nusantara gak bakal sepadat Jakarta ? ini baru awal kita harus antisipasi jangan sampe mengulangi kesalahan kayak di Jakarta.
Nusantara ini untuk permanen jangka panjang karna Kalimantan ini tempat yg strategis tepat di tengah2 Indonesia, kalo mau pindah ibu kota lagi kedepannya minimal harus 100 tahun lagi gak bisa asal2an.
There is a huge cultural reason, and that is people want to own their own land for the house. Because Indians generally think 60-70 years into the future for their kids and grandkids and whether the property will survive that timeline
This is true.
He said in the starting that India have low power supply. But for his Knowledge I want to say that Indian mega giant powerplant are running at 60 percent of total their total capacity. Problems comes in distribution not in generating electricity.
Hi, The photo at 0:24 isn't from India, It's in Myanmar.
As far as I have seen in every country the area which have tallest skyscrapers they are called downtown area where housing price is so high where middle class or lower cannot afford it. In India like country where middle class and lower population are the majority ones, there building skyscrapers are unaffordable ones. Only if skyscrapers can be made affordable for Indian general population then only it makes sense to build those.
Prices are high for skyscrapers in our country precisely because there aren’t enough of them. The ones that do get built therefore are built to cater to the rich otherwise the builder’s ROI would be low.
So how did chinaa become capable of doing it??
Ans : hard work and hard work
@@-bigChungusVerified And a real estate bubble in which 60% of their economy is tied to the housing market.
@@mvalthegamer2450
Even America faces crisis every now and then and India faces a lot of economic crises more often than America 🇺🇸 or cheen 🇨🇳..
heard of south bombay, connaught place in delhi and MG road in bangalore?
yep those are skyscraper-filled downtowns in india
Indian cities does build a large number of skyscrapers but almost all of them are residential. Even the 300 mtrs ones in mumbai are residential skyscrapers. Indian cities don't invest money on building showpiece skyscrapers like gulf cities or Chinese cities.
Instead Indian cities invest huge number of money on building metrorail and suburban rail because that's the most demanded infrastructure in Indian cities and not showpiece skyscrapers.
For example cities like Jakarta or
Ho chi min have far more skyscrapers than Delhi. But delhi has a far far far bigger metro rail system than those cities.(close to 400 kms). Indian authorities are currently mostly focusing on rapid transit networks in our cities and their focus on skyscrapers is almost nil.
are you trying to suggest that India has better metro system than China? 🥴
You know monorail is a failure ryt?
@@LaowaiDaveJCP no. But definitely bigger than most Asian countries. Except maybe china, Japan ,SK
@@infinix2003 monorail is failure not metro rail
@@indicraft1775yeah that's what i said.
Indians generally want to own both land and the home
With Indias traffic problems.... imagine how bad it'd be if FSI was higher!
Actually sprawling roads made for cars increase traffic problem even more.
There is MANY countries that don't build skyscrapers only in limited places because of aestethics and health
Sky is free real estate and India is a poor country. India needs skyscrapers
Tall skyscrapers usually have luxury residences, not affordable housing. I dont think building taller is a solution to a housing shortage. Mainly access to better housing relies on good financing and controlling construction costs.
That is true. But I still don't see why you would want to limit hight. It forces up the prices, limits progress and encourages sprawl. Unless you wana go the communist way of building alot of cheap identical buildings where demand are low and hope it will fix future needs less restrictions are the way to go in a capitalist society.
Well not like poor people can afford big lands
@@P4hko For India even that's a good Idea, Atleast we can get rid of our conjusted and unplanned cities.
Well thats typically true in most places, its totally possible to build affordable housing in sky scrapers as well, see many cities in China.
@@nickskier1 China is an infrastructure FRAUD.
If Mumbai is concerned about the increase of population density they could restrict the number of dwellings in a plot, rather than floor area. Restricting floor area just means cramming as many houses as possible in a small space. But restricting dwellings means you get bigger dwellings that are more expensive to buy. Not saying ethically that's the ideal, but it would allow development without adding strain to the infrastructure network.
Mumbai is full of different cultures and political background people, so complexities.. As studied says more than half of towers are vacant, therefore, it's better make office spaces residential tower are just investments and no affordable housing possible as of high rise- land prices are skyrocketing and slums or people living there couldnt afford to shift in it.
It’s hard to control how many people get to live in a place!
India needs a Hukou system
Really the population density issue is less due to tall buildings and more due to slums built in encroached land which the government doesn't have control over.
Ask Airport Authority of INDIA, they doesn’t give permission to build taller then a certain limit cause airports in India are randomly constructed wherever the land was available.
It does not depend on wealth . India has that. But building a sky scraper needs lot more things to fall in place. There are tectonic and earthquake vulnerable zones , thats why we have height restrictions . And honestly in India , the upper floors of many sky scrapers are less preferred . So i guess builders are not interested
Simple reason is people lose absolute ownership of land which they think is paramount. Even celebrities prefer a mansion instead of buying a floor or penthouse as liquidity value of apartments is very less compared to actual land
What's the point of getting ownership of a piece of land 50 km away from the main city? After you moved to the city from a smaller town 700 km away just because you wanted to be close to the economic opportunities? You squander away your life commuting.
I live in Mexico City, and I have never seen a plot of land lose value over time. You better own your space.
It is a paramount. They are smart.
Bangalore has my favorite Indian skyline. It doesn't have many skyscrapers. Most of it's buildings are in the range of 100 to 130 metres in height. But unlike Mumbai, most aren't residential. Most are commercial, leading to glass buildings, giving a better image. Overall, a small but pretty skyline.
You find glass towers appealing?
@@Game_Hero they are much better to look at than some simple ugly residential concrete tower
@@bush.nawaz.t8385 They are also more energy-intensive to heat/cool and maintain. You can definitely have well-designed concrete skyscrapers - see the Empire State Building.
Not really true? Where are the commercial skyscrapers in Bangalore apart from the handful in and around UB city?
It's mostly just residential tall buildings and offices are tech parks with 10 storey buildings in most of the city.
I think you confused Gachibowli in Hyderabad with Bangalore. Except UB city bengaluru got none like you've mentioned
Nobody in India wants to live in dark , emotionless high rise skyscrapers.....everybody love to have open spaces with lawn and green surroundings in india...
I'm from Chicagoland and I love how our skyline and buldings are always used as stock image for "city" and "skyscrapers". Chicago is an amazing city.
Indeed
I admire Chicago's skyline much more than Manhattan or even Dubai. It's just so iconic.
Lol...
isn't Chicago the crime capital of the US, of course it has much competition
Where
Putting it, from the begining, as if Skyscrapers were a positive for their cities was a weird start.
They are a positive.
I think achieving 95+% literacy, increasing GDP per capita, reducing poverty and controlling population is important than building sky scrapers.
In india not even one city is doing it right. Its like urban planning does not exist in india.
Similar thing happens to Brazil. Skyscrapers only in a beach resort near Argentina. Apart from that, even megacities have quite modest high-rises (although in the thousands, which makes for quite an impressive skyline anyway)
The difference is that in Brazil the actual demand for housing and office space is relatively low
@@FOLIPE well, the demand for anything anywhere will be "relatively low" compared to India. Even when it's a giant country with a giant economy, like Brazil
In patna bihar most of building are 4-5 floor roods are wide because of higher FSI. We really need to increase our FSI of city for widder road and cheaper housing remember AAI ( airport authority of India ) like authority also exists in hongkong and Singapore and they also have a high density of skyscrapers which means only near by area should not build sky scrapers . In Europe paris , frankfurt Moscow , London and Istanbul have a lot sky scrapers while having lower population density compared to Indian .
Patna has higher FSI?
@@samindr5703 yes patna ka FSI 3.5 hai
Correction, those cities do not really have that many skyscrapers. Europe generally builds very less skyscrapers, might look like a lot coz they are 20-30 concentrated in just one location. This channel has a video on it i think.
@@kracks9852 uh , european cities have it means they have it .
We have something vary similiar in Brasil, which is called "use coefficient of land". At least in my city and neighbors cities this FSI is around 3 to 5, depends to the regions of the city.
As the city expand horizontally many neighboring areas also get developed
so true...
That's an important point, hardly anyone says it.
Tbh I'm not a huge fan of skyscrapers because the houses/building around it don't get continuous airflow and sunlight and this matters alot.
One crucial thing you missed out is the height of building depends a lot on the width of road around that land in India. More width = more height.
Manhattan has some incredibly narrow streets and incredibly tall buildings...
@@prasad530 Manhattan also smells worse than Calcutta.
We don't want to build artificial GDP numbers like China. Also one problem within Mumbai is AAI (Aviation Authority India) Not allowing skyscrapers above 300 meter.
China doesn't have artificial GDP numbers. That's not how GDP works
China has artificial GDP Numbers. What are you high on? Zee TV or Republic TV 😂
@@sanchitkumar6945 Is the western media also like Zee Tv? Are you pro-China?
When there is a nice and quick metro line to work / school, then nobody would even think of moving to the city centre.
So the main problem is the lack of sophisticated public transport.
We must build more skyscrapers in India.
While the bureaucratic restrictions should be called out, reviewed and challenged, there is enough compelling evidence to suggest that skyscrapers don’t nearly offer the value as they are purported to do. Where they offer more density, they take away community, change access to sunlight, require significantly more material to construct, and entirely alter the spaces in between them. So if pure density from a housing standpoint is the outcome, yes they’re great. But what low-rise cities offer in community onground outweighs densely packed towers.
We can take urban planning lessons from cities like Barcelona and Paris. Their recent shifts in thinking about cities, roads and how a community should function are moving more towards cleaner, greener cities with less cars while maintaining a limit on the height of buildings.
Indians only talk big..
but on ground they don’t show much progress..
Yes you are right. I am in Germany since 2 years. And i haven't seen any building taller than 8 floors.. Thats too is my university building 😂.. The normal people live in houses from Lord of the rings 😂
In South Asia, trust me there is too much sunlight 🙏
@@sneckotheveggieavenger9380
So is in Singapore Thailand Vietnam Malaysia Indonesia
The idea is to spread development and economic activity rather that everyone living at a single place and overcrowding and narrowing the area where economic activity is. This is to make sure the rural India is not forgotten and kept connected with the progress. As an indian I like this approach because india lives in its villages.
But it creates lots of traffic and pollution.
That clearly doesn't happen. Mumbai is a case in point. Economic activity is concentrated in a few places and people have to commute for hours back and forth to access these places. A very small percentage of Mumbaikars live where they work.
Yeah I have the same opinion . I'm glad somebody else also thinks like me . I was like i'm the only one
@@KindellArmstrong manageable
@@hiiiiir Greenpeace South Asia's Analysis from 2021 ranks Mumbai as the fifth most polluted in the world - with the highest fatalities (25,000) attributable to air pollution - and Delhi as the most contaminated megacity in India.Oct 23, 2022
I stay in USA where there enormous amount of free land, good infrastructureand sky scraper , still the cost of living is extremely high here . So I doubt if building skyscrapers would help to reduce the cost of living in India.
I am not a fan of Skyscrapers... but I think for denser cities it's necessary.
Europe and Japan enjoy their extreme density without going ridiculously high.
@@cheshirster They don't have big populations, especially europe, also Japan is pretty high and they would have gone higher if not for earthquakes.
@@cheshirsterEurope's population density only exists because how of how old their cities are. When people designed Paris, it wasn't with two lane roads for cars in mind. So the city is chock full of narrow one ways, hence the ratio of built up area to road area is very high. But when people do urban planning now, nobody's gonna create a city made purely of narrow one ways. And if you take the Paris model and lay it over a city with post-car road design, the density will decrease substantially.
Building higher will not necessarily solve the housing crisis. Look at New York, for example; home to hundreds of skyscrapers and still the average working class can only dream of renting a home in Manhattan. In India, building higher will only strain the existing resources and infrastructure. The high wind speeds on the higher floors mean that the windows cannot be kept open. So to beat the heat an air conditioner is required. Then where a smaller building will probably have 20-25 houses, a taller one will have 75-100 houses on the same plot of land. So, more peak-hour traffic, more water and electricity drawn, and more sewage discharged per unit area. This would require massive infrastructural upgrades. Though most big buildings have a sewage treatment plant and a dedicated transformer for electricity, they go for their own ground water supply for residents and the massive useless lawns and ornamental plants. Due to this groundwater levels have greatly receded and there are many big apartment complexes, especially in Bangalore, that rely on external water supply through tankers, year-round. Skyscrapers are not a symbol of development but an environmental disaster.
I think the idea is to reduce the housing costs, which doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of people will be able to afford it but it still would impact the overall affordability. Also in case of New York, imagine the extent of the housing crisis if there were less overall floor space or if the number of skycrapers were in double digits. My point is building higher would not necessarily "solve" the housing crisis but it would definitely make a positive impact. However I do agree with your other points related to overall congestion in the city.
Mumbai has airport at city center that is why it cannot build skyscrapers in Mumbai
They are ahead of the game. To many cities build skyscrapers that sit empty or half full at best.
Indian FSI system is most outdated rule of building construction Without giving more Fsi to build higher buildings, Indian town's, villages and Cities will only spread and they have destroyed all nature area's around the town's 😢. Animals have not much places left because of spreading town's in India. Hope Indian government wake up fast.
1:20 is the problem. Skyscraper is definitely NOT a symbol of wealth, power and growth.
It is indeed a symbol of wealth,, power and growth as opportunities centralise at a specific sense area
Skyscrapers are expensive- it's definitely a symbol of wealth and technology
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 it is not and they are not expensive. Infact they are cheap when you consider that so many houses are stacked up together.
@@henrytudor8537 By expensive I meant cost of construction - it's very expensive to build a proper 90 storey building because per square cost goes up as you move higher.
Or else every city would have build it.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 it becomes higher but per square space overall, it still does not make skyscrapers more expensive.
Britain killed 4 million Indians in Bengal in 1943 by imposing a famine
Another thing is more upward you go more maintenance cost increases and Indians check cost of maintenance first before buying an apartment, thats why half of the high-rise towers in Mumbai and in satellite towns around city were unsold and developers dont take risk of building skyscrapers because of loss they face.
With the Navi Mumbai airport coming soon and the extensive Metro connectivity, Mumbai will soon start to redevelop chawls/old buildings upwards.
Already plans are in place to Change the face of Dharavi all together.
Even without all that Mumbai already has the 5th largest number of skyscrapers in the world. It will overtake Dubai and New York to become 3rd largest in world within few years given the number of skyscrapers now under construction in all three cities.
How do European cities compare when it comes to FSI? I'd imagine it would be very low except for maybe London or Frankfurt.
Paris and London both allow high-rise buildings in certain areas - but away from their historic centres.
i lived in frankfurt, germany for some years. it is very upsetting that only the super rich elite can lend or buy some apartments in the high rise buildings, there is class segregation. the high rise places are owned by banks or investment companies and super rich. the once wonderful city areas which were full of lively neighbourhoods and historical buildings were destructed to build high rise apartments and they became ghost towns when they build the high rises there and the central station is not far away, which means street criminals have taken over power and sex industry grew fast, just like the drug industry there. you can not walk there safely even in daylight.
the high rise is coslty to maintain, it is bad for children who have no ability to go out and play, mothers can not look out for their kids from windows, the anonymous neighbours do not help, there is no community sense, crimes will not be reported, not even a police will be called etc.
european cities have learned from the negativ sides of high rise skyscrapers build in other countries and limit to build those in europe. even china banned building high rise because they had to make their own experience how costly and uneffective they are.
India is not building many skyscrapers but there are tons of 20-25 floors buildings are coming up and I'm not complaining.
Sky is literally free real estate
India 🇮🇳 doesn’t want to become developed.. that’s why india is still living in clay houses and running tuktuks
There's an India beyond Mumbai.
I didn't knew that Skyscrapers were considered an indicator of development. However, there r many European cities that don't have skyscrapers & yet r one of the most advanced.
They are a sign of third world country - like development.
Not the developed countries development.
Sure, India has a big economy, but it's expected for a country with such a large population. But breaking down the unit economics, it's GDP per capita is ranked bottom half of all nations at $1,900-$2,500 (depending on who you ask) and that's inline with a lot of the poorer African nations. Combined with huge wealth disparities, you have a populace who simply can't afford newly developed, high-density, high-rise dwellings, or enough of these people that you can rapidly change the city landscape in ways similar to New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong etc.
To be fair, on a household basis it's more in line with middle income countries especially when you look at PPP. The largest share of households earn below 5000$, but an almost equal share earn between 5-10,000$, and around 30% earn more than that.
Exactly
@@NoMustang273 Fair point, but even with that metric it's exactly what you said it is: a middle income country nonetheless. Just my point that one can't expect its skyline to be representative of other high income or highly concentrated wealth areas.
true but india is 2nd cheapest place to live in world u can understand it by in eu or us one burger cost 10$ avg in india it cost 1$ or less or in india u can feed whole your family for month in just 50$ so this is also matters u can afford a flat in skyscraper depend on which are u are living even if u earn 2k$ a month
@@jfprizzy That's true. I expect it'll change in the long term, especially in housing similar to China. I think part of the blame also lies in the fact that most of India's growth comes from services and physical infrastructure itself has only recently gotten attention contributing to the lack of available housing.
But in India there are currently 58 buildings with a height of 200m or more!! And currently Mumbai has 251+ skyscrapers (150m or more) under construction! And most importantly India loves High rise buildings instead of skyscrapers...
150m is nothing compared to other countries.
That’s the whole point of the video
Yeah exactly, low rise is better for overall population, not 800m sky scrappers
@@emp437 we don't wanna compete others in terms of height of skyscrapers. And Yes currently we r far behind in terms of many things but remember skyscraper is just a vertical attraction and nothing else! And if m wrong then European countries are much poorer than India.. and one more thing 150m is also considered as a skyscraper, lessened height- buildings are called high rise buildings. And in terms of the number of skyscrapers India is currently at 5/6th spot after china, US, Hong Kong, UAE and Japan.
@@AS_41 yeah sure India is so rich they can't even feed themselves
@@DieDie illiterate spotted!🤮🤢
We indians need to understand and make horizontal growth. This will make India's development fast
I’ve lived in 2 and visited 4 European countries. I can safely say that Mumbai has more high rises than all of those 6 cities combined 😂.
Dublin, Barcelona, Paris, Hamburg, Madrid, Berlin.
It doesn't matter even if Mumbai has more skyscrapers than entire Europe. Europe has it's own beauty that can't be compared to skyscrapers. Mumbai need better public transport and road infrastructure not fascinating skyscrapers
@@dhirajganeshkar551 true bhai , Mumbai needs better roads, log bahot tax dete hai .
@Secular Doge 😆😆ye badhiya tha guru
@Secular Doge bohot!
Without skyscrapers cities looks ugly.
Not rlly. Think about Venice, or Athens
I live in Thane, a suburban city of Mumbai and go to my uni every day around 30km away. By public transport it takes about 45mins. The uni has its own railway station. The system's THAT good. But really REALLY overburdened. Just to give some insight, 2.4 BILLION passengers were ferried just by the Suburban Railway of Mumbai in the past year. That's 8 million a day. Official figures. By 2025, 14 metro lines totalling about 300km will be ready not to mention the many many new e-buses being bought like crazy under FAME scheme, so that'll change a few things hopefully.
2.4 billion? There are only 1.5 billion people in India. A billion equals to 100 crores!!!
@@llawliet8969 8 million people use it everyday. 8 million × 300 working days = 2.4 billion passengers in a year.
Delhi has to grow skyscrapers. At the very least, it needs to have hundreds of 40-50 story buildings. This amount of urban sprawl cannot be tolerated.
They need toilets.... not skyscrapers..... building washrooms should be priority, human rights first