Jai always posts designs but never pictures of the projects under development. I think he lives in the "suburbs" (part of the city but north of Mahim) and can't get down to the sites very often.

Those renderings above are all of the old FXFOWLE design. According to a press release issued by Hyatt, the new building (DB Tower) will be 125 floors and designed by Norman Foster.

Possible design - posted by IndiansUnite on SSC

Oh damn! That thing is pretty slick!

jeez! thats amazing! though this one really needs to be moved to proposals......

:previous: I thought I mentioned about this thread being in the proposal sub-forum.

I'm not in India, hence can't get to the sites at all :)


Anyway, some more renderings, starting with a slightly larger version of what was originally posted:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6840/image3mg.jpg

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7...nmumbai001.jpg


Also, I was curious to see just how tall this tower compared to the current tallest u/c (but topped off) buildings in Mumbai: the Imperial Towers. They're going to look downright dinky when construction of all of Mumbai's other towers catch up in 2-3 years...

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/348/90940879.png

The buildings are to correct scale: with the foreground twin 260m to India Tower's 700m


Thanks to all the dataminers in the SSC India forum for the info

whats the spire, like 1/2 of the total height? Wouldn't totally be a bad design for nyc or chicago, but is there honestly only two other buildings going up in the city besides this above 100 feet? Modern architecture just keeps getting uglier with less and less thought behind it. Especially with that other Hyatt Park tower going up. Oh no, as long as its eco friendly it doesn't matter what it looks like. It just gives me the chills what these developing cities are going to look like in 10 years.

There are well over twenty supertall (300+m) projects that have been approved in the last three months alone by the Mumbai Area Development Board. Most new launched capital projects are minimum 60 stories tall. Just because I don't have the time to post all of Mumbai's approved and u/c buildings hardly means they don't exist. :rolleyes:

The (highly litigious) anti-skyscrpaer nimby culture in Mumbai is a well entrenched and highly vocal, though now, thankfully, increasingly sidelined, interest group. After the publicity fiasco with Ambani's vertical home, all developers have gone completely silent. There are over fifty 50+ story buildings in various states of site prep and construction in Central Mumbai right now, though you wouldn't know it from the complete lack of publicity that developers aim for.



Anyway latest 'leaked' roof height is 550 m, spire height at 700+m. But final height hasn't been decided/released. Its a project that can easily be scaled vertically in height.

ya i would agree modern architecture and its architects seem to be running out of ideas and lately have been proposing garbage. no offence but just look at many of the towers in Dubai's marina project...just horrible....

Roof height is 550m, so the spire is still large, but not that large. This is the Park Hyatt tower, BTW. That stack of cubes is the old design.

oh okay so you thought i wasn't exaggerating... great... but thanx for the update, so now its a stack of unidentifiable objects instead of cubes. :tup:

I mean no offense here; but India does not deserve this in its newer design.
Would I be out of order (as it were) to suggest that the Foster model is being scrutinized but for of its location geographically? I suspect so.

Why American and European developers aren't smashing down Lord Foster's front door to snatch a totally choice design such as this eludes me just as much. And how, if I may respectfully inquire, is this new render a stack of unidentifiable objects? This lovely thing positively *shrieks* symmetry, unlike the previous rendition...and, as long as we're dropping names, Koolhaus's outrage planned for Jersey City. IMO, *ordered*, yet soothingly abstract geometry is precisely where the beauty of this design makes the whole a FTW deal, *location aside*. Which leads me...

...to my point about India: It has been suggested in this thread that Mumbai is having problems harnessing enough electric power simply to keep up. This is one salient point among many that can be legitimately broached in argument against foisting ultra-modernity upon a hodgepodge of traditions that still seem to languish in the Industrial Revolution era.

IMO Mumbai is simply trying too hard to be like Dubai and Shanghai (rhyme + apropos analogy = :haha: ). Designing supertalls, however subjectively pleasing or nauseating, ought not to be the measure of how any mega-city awash in technological bounty stakes its claim on the global stage. Nor should it be any sort of indicator of how a still-underdeveloped country's culture and society reconciles their ancient, storied past with their legitimate struggles to conform to the 21st Century.

Long Story Short: Amazing render...completely wrong location for many honest reasons.

The new render is a stack of unidentifiable objects how? well, because the building (if you even want to call it that) is an unidentifiable object placed on top of another one and another one and another one. Not sure how you don't see that. And yes, unfortunately every supertall completed or planned nowadays, especially this one, is an ego trip of some third world country attempting to stake a claim on the global stage.

The negative reception of this building has almost nothing to do with the location. It's just ugly, and that's the end of it.

And may I respectfully project to you, dear sir, that you are the epitome of the collapse of modern architecture as we know it. you think that new ideas, as bad as they are, can replace aesthetics, and likely take favor in foreign starchitects who care more about their style and brand than producing good, contextual architecture. Having a well designed, livable city is a way more important feature of architecture than this international pissing contest, this absolutely disgraceful and pathetic excuse for innovation and cohesiveness. These supposed "world renowned architects," namely Lord Foster, are some of the most middling, mediocre designers on the planet, and to support this, this brand-over-aesthetics style of modern architecture is not "innovative" or "revolutionary," but detrimentive and absolutely sickening.

You are all but lost if it seriously "eludes" you as to why american and european developers aren't knocking down Foster's door. He is awful. Almost all of his designs are visually unappealing and unharmonious, and have zero cohesiveness with surrounding buildings and environments. Unlike these wannabe cities, nyc or london or chicago or la or philly or houston don't care about height. they care about aesthetically pleasing, contextual, cohesive architecture, which is why they are and always will be 10 times better cities, from their history to their culture to their skyscrapers than ones from southeast asia, india, and the emirates.

Give me a break.

cool dubai watch out this is going to get ugly it will be looking so immense if it is boxy all the way to the top

I very much appreciate respect your observations in this regard. My way of viewing it was to take each shape/mass/whatever as if it were a tier of a large wedding cake and then to extrapolate each element to the whole form. My particular view of each segment was a symmetric, complex geometric shape that's forced to change dimension as the bulk of the structure decreases skyward. To my eye, it seems that the task of maintaining each individual element's symmetry was faithfully executed.

In no way was I, or am I now actively attempting to convert you or any other Foster critic out there in cyberspace to subscribe to, or even appreciate my chosen method of evaluation.

Again, you're most welcome to your assessments. Indeed, I've seen some of Foster's other proposals., the dreaded "2002 Kissing Siamese WTC Proposal", for example.
To foist upon a then still-nervous and outraged public a replacement for two collapsed iconic monoliths...one that itself looked ready to implode like a house of cards...was IMO an unwise PR strategy. The structure's overwhelmingness alone was perhaps a misguided attempt to fill a gaping wound in national pride with something grander than what had stood there before. Hindsight = 20/20.

Believe you me, if I had joined this forum at the time that monstrosity was unleashed for the first time, you would never have heard the end of it from me.

To which I respond thus: Look at the new WTC Master Plan, *especially* in regards to Foster's IMO *awesome* 200 Greenwich tower. Infinitely more important than whether it jibes or not with the structures within its own planned environment is the $64 Million Question:

Does it come off as a slap in the jowls of Lower Manhattans venerable Art Deco beauties?

My answer? 200 G looks nothing like an ultra-slick, self-congratulatory homage to a man whom you seem determined to to present as utterly clueless in dealing with the people and politics that permeate the city he's building it in.

That said, let me try to bring the same logic to bear on other approved/UC projects in the Big Apple: Gehry's Beekman, De Potzamparc's Carnegie 57, and especially Nouveau's Tower Verre. And this is to say nothing of Chicago, which, to my grave disappointment BTW, inexcusably dropped the ball with Calatrava's Spire...and quite a few others impertinent to this thread.

In all the above instances, what I see as the relevant question is this: Is the "(st)architect" succeeding in generating a visually elegant focal point that at the same time creates a potential landmark and...to your point... makes the town it's in a better place to live and do business? . I for one humbly submit that in all these cases, as with 200 Greenwich (as well as 150, 175 and Freedom Tower), the answer seems to be a resounding "Yes". You say otherwise; and that's truly fine by me.

I believe that "Starchitects", for all the bad press they've received in some of these forums, have, *greatly* sublimated their egos and dumbed down their original plans to cater to the shocking banality of many Western metropolises, whose vocal NIMBY-based hyperconservative bitching creates a general social atmosphere that keeps skylines that truly deserve to stand out from doing just that. But maybe eight times out of ten--or nnine if you're lucky--whatever compromises do materialize can--depending on opinion, of course--make for quite an interesting architectural "curveball" without being overbearing or chintzy.

You're 100% right in your off-the-bat assertion...and I think you've reiterated the basic point that I was trying to make in the first place...albeit from your bluntly sincere POV.

Both figurative and literal blueprints and the essential services needed to make them come alive have to be firmly established to at least assure any municipality's long-term viability. Obviously. Without these, mammoth structures like the one discussed in this thread---subjectively beautiful, ugly or otherwise---are not only extravagant but totally useless.

I mean, look at that ugly POS they cancelled and are trying to resume construction with in North Korea. Hell, I've seen night-time pics of the earth from space showing lit urban areas. North Korea is literally pitch dark...and they wanna build a gargantuan hotel there? Talk about out-of-place.....

Read again the examples I cited about the things happening now in NYC. IMO what you cite as Foster's "middling mediocrity" is the result of firmly entrenched voices in planning boards and even in the City Council who use "open space", "landmarking" and other buzzwords as sorry excuses to preserve a maddening status quo. The hardcore-schizophrenic McSam condos that emerge like weeds are casually accepted; yet something as bold and AFAIC situationally apropos as Tower Verre near the Museum of Modern Art is pissed on by self-anointed "urban experts" who *lie* unabashedly and resort to frivolous litigation just to make their retarded points that much more annoying.

With all due respect, 200 Greenwich is a good enough reason for me to feel that way. But again, that's me. I'll throw in the Index in Dubai, the Bow in Calgary, Torre Caja in Madrid and Aldar Central Market in AbuDhabi for good measure. In fact, AbuDhabi, Stockholm and Duissen, Germany have proposals from this man to modernize and upgrade whole sections of town. He'll have a dick of a time with Stockhom, tho. The NIMBYs there crouch in wait for his presence as I speak, hoping to close in for the metaphorical kill.

Here you compelled me to check his website for renderings et al. I will grant you the point that the term "hit-or-miss" is applicable here, although for both of us it's a subjective one: what constitutes hit or miss? I gave you what I thought were definite hits an answer I gave a couple of quotes back. As a rule, any developer should expect a proposal of his in one country/city vs. another to be either noodled around with intensively or simply greenlighted.

To the point of this exact thread, this Tower in India will be given carte blanche without revision, most likely to placate the alleged demand for tourist venues and the anticipated income produced therefrom. I just think that the whole thing--regardless of architectural merit or perceived lack thereof-- just isn't right for its overall milieu.

First of all, I hope we can agree that the skyscraper was born in Chicago and raised to strapping maturity in New York...one can even say that the nearly century-old rivalry between the two is just like a marriage made in Heaven itself. Thru the years, the other US cities you mentioned, and others in especially recent years (Miami, Atlanta, Bellevue WA) have carried the torch, sometimes allowing a handful of the *starchitects* we've namedropped to showcase their unrestrained capabilities, at least in the drawing-board phase if nothing else. Alas, it seems, though, that American urban tastes don't yet seem to be 100% prepared to swallow that kind of pill whole.

And for the record: I do think that *many* American cities are indeed interested in height...almost to the point of fanaticism. I'm almost afraid to find out how many SSP posters who live in substantially middle-sized US cities stand at the ready to bust a Snoopy Happy Dance over the news of an approved 600-footer straight out of the International Style/Corporate Modernism Crackerbox Factory. And I don't think I'm exaggerating...at all.

It's just that in some places like L.A. (skyscraper-unfriendly geology) and Miami and Phoenix (FAA-imposed height restrictions), the race to the sky is oftentimes slowed down to a crawl. BTW, Did you know that a legally non-enforceable "gentleman's agreement" made sure that what would become Philadelphia's now-second tallest wouldn't be a reality until...you guessed it... 1987???(!!!)

In the end, you and I simply have an honest disagreement in a matter that can be distilled to one burning question...especially in terms of the proposal in this thread: How is visually stimulating, yet *economically viable* urban (read: skyscraper) art defined, especially in regards to project location? However, I think we can both agree that urban culture and its many possible visual expressions cannot be separated...but by the same token, payment of attention needs to happen as to how achieve stylistic balance and real-life practicality in furtherance of the goals being set.

Simply put: IMHO this proposal or one like it would score bigger in any Western metro area of one's choosing than, say, in any second-tier Asian city in a geographical swathe from Tel Aviv to Shanghai that would wish it in their proverbial back yard.

Clearly a shot across the bow of the Burj. Too bad they're not going straight for the gold with this one. Mumbai is far worthier than Dubai of such an honor.

Hey, if you dont like it, that's fine. Feel free to express your views on the matter. But to suppose EVERYONE else SHOULDN'T like it, then you are trying to be some sort of egomaniac.
Give me an even bigger break!
I think it's an awesome looking skyscraper, and I look forward to seeing it in the Mumbai skyline some day, possibly in person.
Trying to explain to us why this proposal sucks is an excercise in futility, because there are LOTS of people who disagree with you. Thats life...

Another render of the India Tower
http://a.imageshack.us/img72/7748/in...nmumbai001.jpg

Mumbai forumer Coolguyz of ssc shows the site of India Tower
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4545/31973fe66c.jpg

Here is it's map location - http://www.google.com/maps?q=18.9503...21060&z=17&t=h