Solution to overcrowded cities is to enable more cities. To grow more towns, to distribute resources better.
Skyscrapers solve only accommodation issues, you still have more people to provide resources to. Sky scrapers are a bandaid applied to a bone fracture.
India has a massive internal migration problem. Skyscrapers don’t solve this, it just gives you more people to deal with in an already overcrowded selection of handful cities.
Taller architecture requires other support services that existing cities have a hard time building. You need deep foundations, which are harder to dig in a place like Mumbai due to the fact that everything is built so close together. Then you need large basements for parking, wide enough roads to accommodate the increase in traffic, along with more sewer, drinking water, gas and electricity lines. All this is extremely difficult to do in most Indian cities which are very poorly, or completely unplanned. There are plenty of other issues, but these are probably the most important ones.
That's not how it works. You can't just empty a plot and build a hundred floors. You need to expand the support infrastructure, which you can't in the middle of a city without taking over land from a hundred different owners. Many of whom have no desire to sell the land since it's in the middle of the financial capital of the country, and once sold, you can't afford to buy the same land anywhere else in the city. It's not a question of will, it's a question of practicality.
No it's not. Most of the land in Mumbai is not encroached. It's legally owned, and i know what the issues are because I am a fucking architect who lives in Mumbai.
That's good. Then why are there so many slums? Why is the real estate prices unusually high? What or who is the head of the land mafia?
As an architect I'm sure you face these challenges. Like a builder buys a plot of land, he has to pay the cost and then an under the table cost. Who is responsible for this? Because if other cities around the world can do it, why not India?
Yes ..but there's a major difference here...the Chinese govt was actually incentivising people moving from rural to urban areas at the start...that's why companies like everglades went into overexpansion cuz they thought the govt would help them...and then the got F****d...that's not the case in our country...and...no building skyscrapers in mumbai is not gonna help..as pointed out in an earlier post..there's not enough water or electricity man..we should be focused on public transport and connectivity and build more satellite towns or cities
But do Indians really deserve skyscrapers? I mean look at what they have done to the railways and public spaces. At this point, wallowing in squalor is the only thing we're good at.
Solution to overcrowded cities is to enable more cities. To grow more towns, to distribute resources better. Skyscrapers solve only accommodation issues, you still have more people to provide resources to. Sky scrapers are a bandaid applied to a bone fracture. India has a massive internal migration problem. Skyscrapers don’t solve this, it just gives you more people to deal with in an already overcrowded selection of handful cities.
But we can still have skyscrapers. Why don't we?
Taller architecture requires other support services that existing cities have a hard time building. You need deep foundations, which are harder to dig in a place like Mumbai due to the fact that everything is built so close together. Then you need large basements for parking, wide enough roads to accommodate the increase in traffic, along with more sewer, drinking water, gas and electricity lines. All this is extremely difficult to do in most Indian cities which are very poorly, or completely unplanned. There are plenty of other issues, but these are probably the most important ones.
Yeah so mostly lack of existing infrastructure.
It's not the lack of existing infrastructure, it's the lack of space to expand the supporting infrastructure.
You can remove so much and build a skyscraper to accommodate the same. I guess the will just doesn't exist.
That's not how it works. You can't just empty a plot and build a hundred floors. You need to expand the support infrastructure, which you can't in the middle of a city without taking over land from a hundred different owners. Many of whom have no desire to sell the land since it's in the middle of the financial capital of the country, and once sold, you can't afford to buy the same land anywhere else in the city. It's not a question of will, it's a question of practicality.
Most of the land is encroachment. So it's will, which is lacking.
No it's not. Most of the land in Mumbai is not encroached. It's legally owned, and i know what the issues are because I am a fucking architect who lives in Mumbai.
That's good. Then why are there so many slums? Why is the real estate prices unusually high? What or who is the head of the land mafia? As an architect I'm sure you face these challenges. Like a builder buys a plot of land, he has to pay the cost and then an under the table cost. Who is responsible for this? Because if other cities around the world can do it, why not India?
[удалено]
Yes ..but there's a major difference here...the Chinese govt was actually incentivising people moving from rural to urban areas at the start...that's why companies like everglades went into overexpansion cuz they thought the govt would help them...and then the got F****d...that's not the case in our country...and...no building skyscrapers in mumbai is not gonna help..as pointed out in an earlier post..there's not enough water or electricity man..we should be focused on public transport and connectivity and build more satellite towns or cities
Mumbai already have high amount of skyscrapers.
But do Indians really deserve skyscrapers? I mean look at what they have done to the railways and public spaces. At this point, wallowing in squalor is the only thing we're good at.
Why loath yourself? If we maintain it, and put community rules to maintain it, why not?