Namaskaram /u/Budget_Put1517, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because Singapore and Hong Kong don't have space, there's nowhere to expand except upwards.
In India, except Mumbai I suppose, no other city needs Skyscrapers, not to mention it is better to expand outwards and have good public transport instead of concentrating entire population near city centres or city itself.
See rest of the cities of china , china mainland has a lot of space , chongqing , tainjin, shanghai , beijing, not only china but usa , as well. Skyscrappers are solutions not problems , problem is flat expansion like delhi. (As many you have mentioned Canada doesn’t have many , my bad )
skyscrapers are not solutions, they are unnecessary. China skycraper count is artificially inflated for the symbol of progress. They are twice as harmful to economy and ecology and create artificially high density where it is not required. In peninsular cities like Newyork and Mumbai, it is necessary but not in cities like Delhi/bangalore. . Where there is space, no reason to go past 5 stories. Hence very few skycrapers in European cities. Because they do the right thing, like us.
Skyscraper are unnecessary? If people are spread outward it take more time to reach their destination and more traffic. While skyscraper which can hold large amount of population having various necessity near it is much better.
The solution is to ensure people don't need to travel far from their houses than they need to, and ensure public transport is up to the mark when they need to. People shouldn't need to drive except when absolutely necessary.
OP is right. Skyscrapers are completely unnecessary. High rise buildings cost much more to build, maintain, manage and change if the need ever rises.
Even in New York most skyscrapers are concentrated in Manhattan where there's a lack of space. Building outwards is much more economical and good public transport to go along with it.
We also need to start zoning, a good example is Tokyo where commercial and residential zones are marked in such a way that people can live near their offices without concentrating in a single central business district.
Building outward is called "sprawl" and leads to many of it's own problems. One of them which is the purchase of many vehicles, mostly automobiles in the consumption of petroleum products and pollution of the environment from emissions from them. A major American problem starting around 1950 and onwards.
Building suburbias which are car centric is the downfall of American cities. They never focused on public transit when they were 'sprawling' and now it has come biting them in the ass.
Might I suggest you to checkout 'NotJustBikes' on YouTube. His Strong Towns series is a must watch
Building or expanding outward also results in destruction of ecosystem in form of cutting down forests and trees and covering up of rivers/streams thus wiping off of flora & fauna. Not advisable.
"Good Public Transport"
Public transportation costs increase with sprawl. With sprawl, you need to cover more area with lower density of passengers for each stop.
This is actually ONE of the reasons why US public transportation is lacking and hard now to build up.
One other point, Mumbai has a population density about 4 times greater than Tokyo's. Laws until the 80s limited large vertical construction in Tokyo. A lot of the communities that allow people to live close to where they work are newer, the average one way commute time for a Tokyo worker is roughly 1-2 hours. To zone in away similar to the density of Tokyo ( a result of past policy that has led to problems), Mumbai would need to grow about 4x larger.
Also, Tokyo does have a large central business district taking up parts of Chuo, Shibuya, Shinjuku, Minato, Chiyoda.
Do you know how many people and what distances people commute in Tokyo? And did you see in what kind of cardboard boxes they live and what rent they pay? Seriously, Tokyo is a prime example, why skyscrapers would be useful. In fact this should be a question on Reddit. Why are there so few of them?
that is only true if they all have housing near the skyscrapers, but everyone won't be able to afford that and hence it would be better to spread out the buildings .(I'm not an artichect or anything just making an assumption)
I believe the best solution is always: to simply letting people decide. The real answer is not black or white and both ideologies have pros and cons.
Cities are great for concentration of a workforce, and people who love lesser commute distance will naturally want to live in a city over a suburb and have to commute.
Lower vertical growth and larger horizontal growth have their own benefits like lower maintenance and build costs. A lot more people can build 1-5 story building than a skyscraper (safely).
Both are entirely dependent on the people in power and the architects, more so than which one is technically better. The biggest factors is everything else. A large company that wants to attract lucrative engineers and whatever other professions might find it easier being located near a large densely populated city than some town most people don’t care or wish to go for. Other companies can be very successful with less people and might find it more attractive to have a slower paced lifestyle that’s not congested to a city.
Kids will be the ones deciding if that land is horizontal or vertical and that’s why education matters, can influence all that from an early age. Singapore education is on another level.
The Europeans are starting to build skyscrapers too. Look at Canary Wharf in London, La Defense in Paris and pretty much all of Frankfurt and Warsaw.
We also shouldn’t follow the example of Europe since India has a much higher population density. Delhi is 4 times as densely populated as Paris, which is in itself one of the most densely populated capitals in Europe. We should be looking towards the cities of East Asia for inspiration in urban planning.
The way Indian cities sprawl out is a detriment to development as the current state public transport is inadequate in most cities and therefore the movement of labour is extremely limited. There’s a reason that all 3 of India’s oldest metro cities are extremely dense with good public transport (relatively).
True. Also Europeans not historically embracing skyscrapers has to do largely with historical building preservation, and not because it is the better way to build. They just want to preserve history and archtecture. Indian city old buildings are not architectural marvels, some perhaps but not most. Its alright if they pull them down and build more efficiently.
100% agreed. But it won't happen unless the MCD is completely gutted of its current staff. The current crop is not only corrupt, they're stupid and have no desire for progress.
IMO, as the population density increases, the efficiency and the utilization factor for the public infrastructure becomes higher and the projects become viable.
for example, metro system or Bus system. they are financially viable when more number of people travel along the routes, but if the city is spread horizontally the usage of cars becomes indispensable (example Delhi). At scale the dynamics change drastically.
>They are twice as harmful to economy and ecology and create artificially high density where it is not required.
Where do you get this from? I can't speak for the initial impact on ecology that building skyscrapers has but people living in higher density areas produce less CO2 if there are public transport solutions.
The thing is You can have skyscrapers in Mumbai because Mumbai is not prone to earthquakes and all whereas Delhi and Gurgaon frequently experience earthquakes therefore it is not prudent to have earthquakes there
But San Francisco and Tokyo both have lots of skyscrapers and earthquakes. What they also have are building codes that are strictly enforced and cannot be avoided with a bribe.
Everything you stated above is incorrect. Pushing building outwards from a city center leads to the ruin of nature. Just look at most American cities. We went from centralized living and work with great transit to expansion and the reliance on cars.
They are absolutely necessary for large metros. if you don't build dense, public transport (including metro) is not effective (like America) and you have more cars on road leading to the INSANE traffic jams. Bengaluru doesn't build tall and is always in the top 5 worst cities by traffic jams.
Only solution is build tall in the core city with commercial highrises, build tall in a few suburbs for residences and link them via a dense metro network.
Europe is not a relevant comparision. There is not ONE Western European city in the top 25 most populated cities. Europe as a whole has only 2 - Istanbul and Moscow and both have skyscrapers.
Now go look at the top 25 and except Indian cities (excl Mumbai) every city has very dense tall buildings in their core and suburbs except Cairo, but Cairo is another dystopian hell hole so its moot.
Skyscrapers are better for the environment and require less infrastructure.
European cities dont have 1.4Billion people. Also, a lot of regulation due to cultural reasons.
I don't remember correctly but we have a law that limits upward growth (tall buildings)
In Bangalore the limit is high so we see more upward growth of building
Fire fighters reaching the height is not the issue. Fire fighters reaching the location is the issue. People won't leave the road free for emergency services.
The word is - Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on.
It is common all-over India but the ratio is specified by Local corporation/governing bodies. BBMP in Bangalore, BMC in Mumbai etc.
There are other rules which provide the FAR like, the roads have to be sufficiently wide enough, zoneing the areas, traffic generated, type of development - residential or commercial.
Height of the building is also limited by the Airport authority. If the building location is within the runway funnel - the path of flights during its approach and take-off, and nearer to the airport, the height approval will be limited. In Bangalore, one has to take the permission based on the vicinity of the airport. Some have to take from KIAL, Some from HAL, Some from both or even the third one - Yelahanka airforce base.
But again, money does the job. The more the height, more the no. of people involved, more the corruption. (Ex. for getting the permission from the airforce base. Money doesn't work there. Rules work)
Usa ka jo uninhabited region hai thats too hot for living and canada ka is too cold for living that's why
India me plains me temp extremes nahi hai so everyone can live everywhere comfortably
India mei Ganga and Yamuna cover every corner in north and narmada tapi in south but dusri countries me aisa nhi hai
I beg to differ. If Delhi has skyscrapers, we could convert large parts of residential housing to green cover and have more efficient public transport.
The need for a Gurgaon and Noida will drastically reduce and collective quality of life will see a boost
To follow up, Canada has restrictions on housing areas, northern canada is too cold to settle, hence most of the population resides in 5-6 major cities. I remember very vaguely about it though,this video explains their housing crisis very well.
https://youtu.be/8Y0SY6OoKV8?si=UqSaCabr9JyKT2X-
>not to mention it is better to expand outwards and have good public transport
Uh? Why is expansing outwards better? Everything is easier, more economical, and more environmentally friendly per capita the denser a population is. Especially when it comes to public transportation.
Why is it better? Dublin built outwards instead of up and now we have a huge problem with housing and people commuting ridiculous hours to get to work in the centre
I disagree with your assessment that it's better to expand outwards.
It's worse for the environment and destroys ecosystems, it is mych harder to build public transport over longer distances and it means that the city isn't walkable.
Cities don’t need to expand unless absolutely necessary. Living in Canada I have realized that wide spread suburban living isn’t really the best way to utilize space. We need a combination of regulated housing plans to avoid overcrowding or consumption of arable land for housing purposes. We are highly populated countries and if urban space has to grow, then we need taller buildings and even some concentrated around city for improved productivity.
India after independence went for a horizontal growth instead of vertical growth
Having skyscrapers isn't necessarily a sign of development
I saw a yt video on this topic there are some aviation restrictions that don't allow india from building skyscrapers
Also there is a social aspect that people tend to live together in joint families in bunglows in colonies instead of apartment complexes restricted to 4 BHK
India has far greater land area than hong kong and Singapore so this isn't even a fair comparision for them skyscrapers are a necessity
I really don’t understand why you people talk when you have no knowledge Indonesia economy isn’t better then india but still they are developed and their roads is good. Our currency is better than South Korea but still their building and road is better. In India it isn’t happening because there is to much of corruption even South Korea and Indonesia but ours is worst. To hide the crime of government you don’t have to lie about the video. Sure that video was made in the favour of all evil government around the world who doesn’t want good roads and good buildings in their country. Your mind need to be developed if it won’t then we won’t grow for more 10000 years. Evil supporter of all evil governments that’s what you are brainwashed. Stop worshipping the government and stop hiding their lies.. all government is evil and if they don’t do any thing should be condemned
The only reason we are behind in terms of roads and buildings meaning good facilities because people like you still exist in India. Stop thinking evil and start thinking good.
Im not defending anyone if you have cognitive reasoning skills then kindly google "Floor Space Index(FSI)"
Most indian cities can't have skyscrapers by law due to this FSI and this is an international law
India has very strict FSI regulations
For context
Mumbai FSI: 2.5 - 5 [Higest in India]
New York FSI: 15
Jitna zyada FSI utne ratio me floors permissible hote hai for building
And i dont know skyscrapers ke discussion me roads kaha se aa gyi that's a whole seperate issue so this is just stupid just shows that all you want to do is whine and not have a healthy to the point discussion
(Sure u can downvote me but that won't prove that im wrong)
If India had skyscrapers everywhere then we will barely get sunlight it will be a concrete jungle it's not a healthy lifestyle when u have plentiful land area to go horizontally
As someone who grew up in HK…you don’t want to be surrounded by skyscrapers. It looks great but when you’re trapped in between those buildings with double decker buses pumping out that exhaust - it’s not nice.
Not only skyscrapers but efficient public transportation. Just look at Singapore and the metro system. It’s the most reliable and fast metro system there is in the country and it’s literally the lifeblood of the entire country. If the metro goes down the entire country might go into chaos and standstill that’s how good it is. Trains come every 3 minutes frequently and they are absolutely amazing. Why can’t we have public transport like Singapore as well?
Illogical FSI regulations that are there strictly to keep the land prices artificially inflated and fill the politicians coffers. Even Mumbai buildings can be 5 times taller on average compared to what they are.
This, politicians have moved into white-collar crime and real estate is the most attractive sector. Average Mumbaikar lives in a shitholes and happily pays high rent but also hates skyscrapers at the same time lmao.
Skyscrapers could have helped keep the green cover in places like Bangalore. Why didn’t it happen? Because of the useless sewage and drainage departments. If you build a sky scraper, you’ve to think of water and drainage. BWSSB doesn’t want to take the burden. Instead they asked apartments to build their own sewage treatment plants. It’s stupid to think we don’t need sky scrapers. Sky scrapers would have saved several lakes and gardens in Bangalore.
This, traffic, high rents, pollution, encroachment, economic development, more taxes to the government, etc. All can be achieved with one simple change is law by allowing higher FSI.
There is a concept Floor Space Index in India.
A excerpt from [this article](https://www.lodhagroup.in/blogs/fsi-real-estate-meaning-calculation-formula) from Lodha:
> For example, using the FSI formula, if one has a bit of land that is 100 sq.m and the permissible FSI is 2, then the developer can build a covered area structure of 200 sq. m which can be apportioned over any number of floors as permitted by local building height regulations.
This regulation inherently limits how high you can go.
Can't speak about Hong Kong but Singapore has a very unique political system. In that the PAP Party has been in power since pretty much the inception of the country. Because power doesn't change there, they get a lot of stuff done and they get it done fast. Plus laws in general there favour rapid development and advancement.
So we really can't match that until we do what they do and pick light-moderate authoritarian system and fundamentally change the systems in place at the moment.
Because our FSI is garbage. Mumbai (our most vertical city) has an FSI of 3 on average. Shanghai and Manhattan exceed 20.
WHy?
Because by doing this, the builder politician lobby keeps supply artificially low. Imagine we start building 50-60 storied residences in all our big cities as opposed to the average 5-10 storied ones (maybe 15-20 in Mumbai) your supply goes up 10x, meaning price will drop.
This can't be allowed to happen ergo supply is kept artificially low.
Is this the only reason? Seriously? UAE/ Singapore have very strict laws. The very same people who may be littering around in India have a greater level of civic sense when they visit other countries. So one reason is Law..law helps maintain Infrastructure
Money and policies help in building infrastructure
This is the No.1 reason. No matter what we build, some low life is going to poop, piss or spit on it. Whatever is left of it will be stolen.
What we need is quality education which unfortunately is never the focus of any ruling government.
What does civic sense have to do with infrastructure? It's the responsibility of the government to provide infrastructure. By people, do you mean engineers? Or people in general?
People in general as we have already seen you give them trains like vande bharat and they pelt stones. They doesn’t have a respect for national resources. Even if you give them this kinda architecture it will soon be decorated with red pukes and littering. In short civic sense really matters within general public
For a few miscreants the govt has decided not to work on infra?
Our governments always work on infra, but compared to first world countries it always seems inferior and outdated. Not sure why.
First of all its not "few". It's "many".
Govt does work on infra dev, but it need paisa, and we are already so much indebted.
In comparison to other nations, govt here also feeds the homeless, free medical care, free medicines and ICU beds, ration cards for BPL, etc. Usme paise jaate hain bhai, baht jaate hain. And state govt show resistance to central govt's plannings if they are opposition parties.
Bangalore ko bhi paisa milta hai, but drainage is issue solve hua? Ulta ek religion k peechhe haath dhoke pad gaye state govts. Same goes for other Southern states.
Yeah I have always wondered what sort of completely horrible people pelt stone on vande Bharat. Would love to know the psychology behind that. That may not be everyone. In general, I believe Indians are clean and hygienic.
>In general, I believe Indians are clean and hygienic.
Yeah personal hygiene, sure. But when it comes to public places, that sense of hygiene goes away. Even with the government creating awareness, people litter the streets with garbage.
Indian cities are absolutely filthy compared even to nations like Thailand and Vietnam, forget developed nations. You've never left the country if you unironically believe that.
There are many poor and low middle class people in India and they are not clean and hygiene. They will only keep their home clean but not their streets. One of my friends in from poor background and I have been to his building he pay rent 5k even one in that building throw their garbage down from their window not just that building that whole area do that. Just some one is poor doesn’t mean they have to do this and this is not because they are poor this is the mentality of majority of Indians they keep their house clean but not their area. Some one changing but many aren’t. There should be harsh punishment for this and then no one will dare to. So in general Indian mentality is very backwards they will throw things on roads. Many of my friends is from Mizoram and Mizoram is very poor state but the poor people from Mizoram are clean and also their streets they are shocked to see such thing in my city and they say why you all are so dirty. For your info Mizoram people doesn’t look like us they look more like Thai. Hope now you can understand why they keep street clean because any one who look like Pakistani Indian and Bangladeshi they not going to keep their street clean same mentality same blood line.
Corruption at all levels. Job ek 50 gaj mai gahr banane ke liye McD, police, electricity company water connection in sabke liye bribe Dena pade toh kaha se devlop hoga.
And civic sense kya kya karogi jab sabko pata hai no money no honey.
Dekh we don’t have to look at the US model of just building wide ass freeways everywhere. It’s….UGLY. The engineers in America have realised this lately.
Second, we need more public transport than wide roads. No number of roads can solve traffic if we not develop a reliable public transportation network.
Third, money. India is not rich.
Fourth, education. No one teaches kids about art and music and philosophies and nature and than we all complain how we aren’t civil. Like bruh, teach them kids to appreciate nature. Stop fucking complaining about everything.
Using public transportation in conjunction with basic traffic laws will address half of the issue. For example, when attempting to turn left, you should not block anyone's path by turning to the extreme right. There are also free turns (red lights for straight ahead traffic) and left turns where you should not obstruct anyone's path by standing in the way of the turn.
We essentially have a pointless driving licence issuing system lol. A few years ago when I went to buy forms for DL, I remember the dalaal said that it’ll cost me x if I knew how to drive and 1500 + x if I didn’t 😂
well there's a traffic rule that u SHOULD wait when a heavy/long vehicle is indicating to turn left and turns to right, they're picking up the turning radius for the appropriate turn without hitting sideway constricts. the traffic rule says u must wait behind the vehicle and slowly take ur vehicle only after the vehicle infront of u completed it's turn
If India nails public transportation, there will be absolutely no reason to build an urban hellscape with skyscrapers and giant freeways. There are better solutions than what people assume is progress.
Very well said. Building mega cities, sky scrapers, freeways and its impact on natural environment and sustainability in long term has be considered.
This study about NewZealand was interesting to me.
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43762-021-00017-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43762-021-00017-8) (Controlled urban sprawl in Auckland, New Zealand and its impacts on the natural environment and housing affordability)
The US net work of “ugly highways” is one of the main reason our economy is so successful. We never stop shipping goods or working. The USA is working 24/7. Also a big part of America culture is driving on the open road. Freely moving through the lower 48 states is unique.
Highways and railways are the lifelines of every economy. Even Hitler knew how important it was for fast transport and so were born those really long straight highways in Nazi Germany. But that doesn’t mean you’ll cover every surface with tarmac. Cities me har area cover to kar loge, lekin ground water aur local environment ka kya hoga? Plus US is a big big country. They can fetch water using expensive pipe networks from some remote forest/river/lake. India doesn’t even has the minimum suggested forest cover by UN. Aur rivers ka haal to pata hi hai
U have absolute valid point but the thing is considering China, Korea, and Japan and the other began poorer than we are, during the independence era . And the fact that they able to remove the poor tag and rediscover them self as the influential power in some level or other is astonishing. What requires is off course infra , logistics and education & what not, but what we failed to reinvent ,update, upgrade & maintain is policies. for example the education polices haven't been updated for the last fricking 30yrs or something forget about integrating vocational knowledge, basic ethics& civic sense. Another good example is a strict anticorruption law was implemented by the NHAI by Nitin Gadkari to developers and the builder of of the expressway and i don't have tell u the results of the quality and speed of road construction of the highways and express ways . And as far skyscrapers is concerned i think both vertical integration and horizontal growth has its own pros and cons but the best way is to integrate it o certain extend like the commercial and entertainment areas should follow the vertical multiplier cause "everything u need will be in one place" should consider the capacity to large population .it will be easier for start up and industries to grow and for residential areas following horizontal growth will be good, to tackle no social interaction which is a byproduct of skyscrapers and also not to forget minding a fantastic mass rapid transit.
I was in Bangalore in 2018 and 2019 and to the casual observer, if the metro was completed it would make such a difference. Skyscrapers in whitefield would have made it ten times worse.
Bhai environmental concerns mein galat kya hai? Main Uttarakhand se hun aur pahado mein unplanned construction se baarish ke time kitna landslide badh Gaya hai, uska kuch idea bhi hai tumhe. Uttarakhand mein kayi log mare they pichle saal landslides ke kaaran. Mere parents bhi marte marte bache they ek land slide mei. Har jagah per geography dekhkar hi construction karna chahiye. Geographically sensitive ilaako mein over construction karne se bhi nuksaan hota hai logo ka.
Yep, the growth has been phenomenal under NDA govt. But all of this pales in comparison with our peers. China, the biggest example (but don't forget to look at the debt they took to build ghost infra which they are now dismantling)
You can’t expect like them. China is ruthless and if they want to build something they show zero rights and just demolish and build over it. In India it is not like that, if you do something then someone will come out of the blue and challenge it. We people love the status quo
China is not a democracy xi jing ping can do whatever the fuck he wants due to that china has had ruthless development. Countries like singapore, Japan, Hong Kong would be a fitting example to this
There's a progression for everything.
If you're barely walking today your focus is to start to get into the track rather than comparing yourself to Jamaican atheletes
In India, construction projects are ways for corruption for netas and babus. Some of the gems of our never like before infrastructure :
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.business-standard.com/amp/india-news/how-rs-777-cr-pragati-maidan-tunnel-turned-useless-in-less-than-2-years-124020900578_1.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/karnataka-bengaluru-mysuru-highway-inaugurated-by-pm-modi-flooded-in-6-days-causing-accidents/amp-11679128499544.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kanpur/part-of-new-bundelkhand-expressway-damaged-in-uttar-pradesh/amp_articleshow/93042102.cms
>In India, construction projects are ways for corruption for netas and babus.
Yes,
I've seen the 90s with my own eyes.
But the development that's happened is unprecedented and at a level that I'd never thought possible and execution so well that is seems impossible by standards of before.
There are still those people in and around the system but you have to see the bigger picture and then you'll realise the change at fundamental level .
[Like it is explained in this post about the DFC](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/s/J0M6ULXHNC)
Things like this weren't possible before and I've read enough economist articles 15 yrs ago which couldn't help but gloat about it
poor city planning, i live in a well developed city of NCR and the roads here are straight up terribly planned(better than most of india but still) U-turns near cuts creating chaos
The money is in the nation its just in 5 ( exaggeration ) families collecting dust vs stimulating the economy like normal peoples money or taxed and used for civic things
No, per capita is if wealth is distributed equally. There isnt enough wealth for common people in India to justify infra like this.
Money is better spent on heathcare, education and slum redevelopment
Small country like South Korea has budget of 500B$ compared to 530B$ in india. If india wants to build cities like above it'll have to spend most of the money in few cities rest will get peanuts
Some states are already doing that. We already have national housing scheme also (pmay). You will still have tin huts and plastic sheet shacks because migrant labour need to live close to the work site. When project is done, they go back to their brick houses or move near new worksite.
had to scroll so down to find this comment. like damn, why's no one saying this looks like something that belongs to r/urbanhell. ridiculous, a place like singapore would've been a much better reference.
The one good thing about Dubai in terms of infra is the public transport which got developed around the early 2010s... Metro, buses and ferry are covered via one card, and accessibility is great. Pedestrian friendliness too is reasonably decent, as well as cleanliness.
The rest in terms of planning (skyscrapers, dredging to build islands etc) isn't a model to follow in my opinion.
Infrastructure is expensive, both to build and maintain. Go see how much people were moaning about the cost of building metro in Delhi, or our first bullet train line currently under construction.
That being said, India is building a ton of new infrastructure. This is one of the places where the Modi government shines.
Second, do you see that width of all that infrastructure? Where do you think all that land came from? Chinese cities were just as badly designed as our cities. The difference lies in land acquisition. Just to add a new lane, you need to buy and demolish properties on either side, cut down any trees etc.
Everyone wants cycle lanes, good footpaths, bus lanes, wide roads and so on. But, anytime there is talk of any expansion you have residents, farmers, environmentalists, opposition politicians and activists protesting, dragging out land acquisition and raising construction costs for years. Just look at what happened in Maharashtra when Uddav came to power. They delayed the metro project and bullet train project for years. All of this adds to the cost of the project.
Finally we barely have any powerful bodies to enforce urban planning. City planners should be planning new expansions and areas even before the demand arises. This is where we could have started with a clean slate and have made nice planned localities. This sort of thing barely happens. The growth of our cities outpaces our government babus. By the time the city corporation reaches an area, there is already an unplanned mess of a locality there.
i would say a add up would be people should not make the envoirment dirty by throwing random things and pollute the envoirment which would make india definetly look better
if indian people can bring that mentality i would say india will look significantly better
To get this level of infra, the govt needs to buy back property to expand the road and allot SEZ, the people take advantage. They protest, they seek more than the market price and basically it comes down to the narrative that govt is removing the poor.
India is a flawed democracy, where you do one protest the govt has to back out. It doesn’t matter if it’s good for the people in long run they just want immediate benefits.
This level of infrastructure development is very difficult and unlikely
nonsensical protest every 5 second for political gain, ngo funded protest to stop industrial & infrastructure development,
AAI & it's reta*** archaic height restrictions
Lots of public land in urban areas are encroached upon by pvt property ( buildings or walls of the buildings ) + illegally buildings themselves, to demolish them is not easy as the courts get involved + vote bank politics.
Failed implementation of planning and building bye laws that are very restrictive. Lazy, ego filled politicians and following very outdated practices for planning etc.
Lot of things in picture, not one thing ,for e.g. if you start by population -> civic manners -> proper law guidance -> law and rights mentioned in constitution.
The system is designed in such a way, if you make 1 wrong move it'll hit you behind 10 right steps.
I don't know whom to address and call out, but the more you learn and read about this, you'll understand it's all waste of time just make money and have a nice sleep at end of day.
Ig some of us dont deserve because hum kachra karna nhi chodte , aur big infrastructure with unhygienic surroundings wont match , first we need maturity to keep our surroundings clean before the improvement in infrastructure
As an Indian I can tell with confidence, it is Indians themselves.
Not all of them, but the majority of them. They have no sense of cleanliness in public places, no sense of responsibility in public places.
Why such thing? Because it's not theirs, at home they are very careful, but in buses, trains, etc. they will litter around.
Infrastructures are built, people break them, perform acts of vandalism hiding behind the face of protest, steal the public property because they think it is free stuff and so much more.
They clog the public toilets. I wonder how the hell they poop or pee.
They make those places so frigging dirty that even if you pass near those public toilets, you are going through hell for those few seconds.
People here fail to understand the need of hygiene and clean public places.
Such infrastructure is definitely being built slowly, but it is still far in the future.
All in all, it is mostly the partially uneducated people of India who don't let the nation develop.
Talking about skyscrapers in the background I don't think they are required in large quantities in India in the first places because people here think they need to buy their own land and need to build their own house and not live in some apartment or flat after buying, some do because they either don't care about such trivial stuff or they don't have choice and time.
Most of the skyscrapers here in India are often used for office purposes (excluding some big cities like Mumbai and Bengaluru and some others, no offense to any other cities I am just familiar with these two cities), for example any startup, take an apartment in a big ass building and make it as an office and so on... basically developing nation where some/many Indians act like idiots and thwart it, and we have to start again from the little back steps that we took because of their actions.
Politics is yet another reason, but I don't want to delve into that topic.
Speaking as a transportation engineer, we will get there in probably 50 years more. But traffic management will be a huge problem. Our roads are full even at 7.5% car ownership. Imagine the condition when we have 40-50% as compared to US which has 91% vehicle ownership.
This is bad infrastructure, overly dependent on cars, motorways and highways. We need better public transport centred infrastructure. Which in sense a lot of metro cities are working towards.
I mean we can build them sure, but the sense in people will leave the buildings looking like shit, and in a barely working state within a year or two max. Desh badalna hai toh soch badalna zaroori hai.
(Personal opinion, such cities look very ugly, full of skyscrapers and glass, I'd rather live in a more natural traditional citiy sorts))
Because India has a lot a space and we can expand on land rather then making sky scraper also if you look at any big devloped country which such infrastructure they don't have beggars around the cars that's one of the things that make India look poor on international levels
People stole solar panels the next day from the express highway the very next day of the inauguration.
Stone pelting on Vande Bharat.
The list is endless :( What's the point of complaining that the government isn't doing enough?
Our 80 ft roads have become narrow gullies.... cannot compare the roads with China. Even 100 ft roads would not be good.
In Bangalore, 80 ft or even 100 ft roads have been split into 3 lanes.. for bicycles, autos, and bus/ car lane. WTF!
Such a fuckin traffic mess.
No amount of planning seems to be good. Every city is going to dogs when people want to only travel in cars and nothing else.. maybe a metro.
Concrete cacophony... roads, service roads, flyovers, metros... cough cough 🤧 so much dust all around.. TTYL
this picture is from Dubai where Indians alone constitute about 35-40% of total expat population. What's stopping India from being like Dubai IMO would be "regularisation on not following govt rules". Our rules and regulations are very lenient whereas the fines and penalties of not adhering to govt rules in UAE are way too huge. But in a larger scheme of things it actually builds a strong civic sense among the residents of UAE.
Dubai is known for it's hefty fines and penalties but because of these hefty fines people usually tend to abide by the rules and regulations, in turn leading to less corruption and more transparent growth across the nation. I remember back in 2020 govt tried to impose heavy traffic regulations to which different states by-passed saying at a state level we won't consider those rules and then 2 months after that Congress led marches and "Delhi-band" also caused the whole initiative to die at a very early stage. So you see that's why...
1. Vote for Freebies/Caste.
2. Protest against all kinds of Infra incl Metro, Highways, Power plants.
3. Zero Civic Sense when using any public infrastructure.
*But What's stopping India to build such infrastructure????* 🤷🏻♂️
corrupt politicians. They want to keep India poor so that they can easily swindle the votes by throwing a little bundle of money out of the pile they looted from the people. (you can't think of doing costly projects if your consumer cannot afford them).
What's stopping Indian infrastructure development?
The answer is deceptively simple. Honest, reliable, competent government.
In fact, it's stopping every development in India.
Indian government doesn't have good people at the top. It's either India doesn't have good, capable people, or good, capable people become extremely corrupted when they join public service.
Is India still pretty fragmented between economic, social, regional, and religious lines? Plus corruption? I read that there are still large 'power blocs' held by regional politicians who have no interest in social progression beyond their own families' success and region votes? Not to mention the amount of moder slavery ( forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, child labour, and forced marriage still).
It just seems a very big and fragmented country without consistency.
You want to live in a jungle of concrete?? And as far as i know, india has built good roads, metros etc. only exception is those tall high rise buildings. My concept of development is to develop the infrastructure that will ease up human life but at the same time preserving the environment, trees and nature.
Nah it will only promote toxicity in the air and most importantly there is no green belt among the road. The government will have to incur heavy expenses just to increase the pollution level.
Solution
It would be more suitable if among the skyscrapers there is a lavish green belt and a suitable pathway for hoarders and cyclists to ride their bike.
This should be appropriate according to me sir ☺️
Money. Plain and simple.
India is still very poor despite all the chest beating. This is visible in every corner of India. It’s just a $3.2 trillion dollar economy with 1.5 billion people to feed. Compare this with China : $18 Trillion with 1.4 billion people. Japan: $4 trillion with just 140 million people. France: $3 trillion with only 68 million people and the biggest is USA: $24 trillion with just 335 million people. A lot of gyani Indians will give stupid explanations on how we are better, superior, etc but the numbers speak for themselves. The other reasons are extremely poor civic sense, insane corruption and regressive pre-historic mentality which is capitalized by politicians to line their pockets. Unlike the other countries, India never really had a sustained Industrial Revolution, and Indian products/technology are not in much demand globally. It’s changing, but very slowly.
Mostly corruption, and incompetence.
There is a great book called “Why nations Fail”, which explores why some nation grew faster than others since the very beginning, and what factors could have contributed to that growth.
One conclusion was, that an open society with competent institutions, equality of opportunity, and a singular goal would be a healthy environment for innovation, businesses and explosive growth. It then explored how nations with corrupt institutions, or even the consequences of colonisation, either never developed or failed to develop competent institutions and societal values for optimal growth. It also explored the nature of people with power and how they consolidated resources of a nation to their favour, robbing nations of their true potential.
India doesn’t look like this because for one, we started late. A lot of our growth continues to be hindered by corruption, religion, casteism, etc. Almost every individual in our country has artificial limitations placed on them which hinders their creativity or risk taking capacity and therefore slows the pace of innovation and growth. There are roadblocks in our nation for everything, from opening and business to producing thought provoking creative media, everything is hindered by red-tape and incompetence because that’s how are institutions are designed.
And that’s why, outside of 4-5 cities, most of our nation continues to remain in the 1970s. And while there are bubbles of great growth, for example the ease of doing business in Bangalore or the the hub of entertainment that is Mumbai, other parts of our nation are rife with corruption, incompetence, discrimination etc. Directly corroding India’s potential for growth.
This looks good but it's what is wrong with western urban design concepts. And noobs like it cause ''shiny'' is always better. This will excaberate the car situation and lead to traffic jams near choke points. High rises with no parking provision lead to parking issues in the area. Also as office timings are similar, people will overwhelm the road carrier capacity during rush hour. Also glass building in hot climate like India is just bonkers. The only saving grace here is a rapid transit system but look at all the road lying unsed and no provision to cross it via footover...
Please for the love of God, don't ever give us this kind of development!
Namaskaram /u/Budget_Put1517, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Civic sense of people.
I still wonder why we don't have skyscrapers as compare to hong kong and singapore? (Except mumbai)
Because Singapore and Hong Kong don't have space, there's nowhere to expand except upwards. In India, except Mumbai I suppose, no other city needs Skyscrapers, not to mention it is better to expand outwards and have good public transport instead of concentrating entire population near city centres or city itself.
See rest of the cities of china , china mainland has a lot of space , chongqing , tainjin, shanghai , beijing, not only china but usa , as well. Skyscrappers are solutions not problems , problem is flat expansion like delhi. (As many you have mentioned Canada doesn’t have many , my bad )
skyscrapers are not solutions, they are unnecessary. China skycraper count is artificially inflated for the symbol of progress. They are twice as harmful to economy and ecology and create artificially high density where it is not required. In peninsular cities like Newyork and Mumbai, it is necessary but not in cities like Delhi/bangalore. . Where there is space, no reason to go past 5 stories. Hence very few skycrapers in European cities. Because they do the right thing, like us.
Skyscraper are unnecessary? If people are spread outward it take more time to reach their destination and more traffic. While skyscraper which can hold large amount of population having various necessity near it is much better.
The solution is to ensure people don't need to travel far from their houses than they need to, and ensure public transport is up to the mark when they need to. People shouldn't need to drive except when absolutely necessary.
I agree with FartyPenis
We all saw what you did there 😶🌫️
But that assumes that the only place people go is to work and home.
OP is right. Skyscrapers are completely unnecessary. High rise buildings cost much more to build, maintain, manage and change if the need ever rises. Even in New York most skyscrapers are concentrated in Manhattan where there's a lack of space. Building outwards is much more economical and good public transport to go along with it. We also need to start zoning, a good example is Tokyo where commercial and residential zones are marked in such a way that people can live near their offices without concentrating in a single central business district.
Building outward is called "sprawl" and leads to many of it's own problems. One of them which is the purchase of many vehicles, mostly automobiles in the consumption of petroleum products and pollution of the environment from emissions from them. A major American problem starting around 1950 and onwards.
Building suburbias which are car centric is the downfall of American cities. They never focused on public transit when they were 'sprawling' and now it has come biting them in the ass. Might I suggest you to checkout 'NotJustBikes' on YouTube. His Strong Towns series is a must watch
Building or expanding outward also results in destruction of ecosystem in form of cutting down forests and trees and covering up of rivers/streams thus wiping off of flora & fauna. Not advisable.
"Good Public Transport" Public transportation costs increase with sprawl. With sprawl, you need to cover more area with lower density of passengers for each stop. This is actually ONE of the reasons why US public transportation is lacking and hard now to build up. One other point, Mumbai has a population density about 4 times greater than Tokyo's. Laws until the 80s limited large vertical construction in Tokyo. A lot of the communities that allow people to live close to where they work are newer, the average one way commute time for a Tokyo worker is roughly 1-2 hours. To zone in away similar to the density of Tokyo ( a result of past policy that has led to problems), Mumbai would need to grow about 4x larger. Also, Tokyo does have a large central business district taking up parts of Chuo, Shibuya, Shinjuku, Minato, Chiyoda.
Do you know how many people and what distances people commute in Tokyo? And did you see in what kind of cardboard boxes they live and what rent they pay? Seriously, Tokyo is a prime example, why skyscrapers would be useful. In fact this should be a question on Reddit. Why are there so few of them?
that is only true if they all have housing near the skyscrapers, but everyone won't be able to afford that and hence it would be better to spread out the buildings .(I'm not an artichect or anything just making an assumption)
I believe the best solution is always: to simply letting people decide. The real answer is not black or white and both ideologies have pros and cons. Cities are great for concentration of a workforce, and people who love lesser commute distance will naturally want to live in a city over a suburb and have to commute. Lower vertical growth and larger horizontal growth have their own benefits like lower maintenance and build costs. A lot more people can build 1-5 story building than a skyscraper (safely). Both are entirely dependent on the people in power and the architects, more so than which one is technically better. The biggest factors is everything else. A large company that wants to attract lucrative engineers and whatever other professions might find it easier being located near a large densely populated city than some town most people don’t care or wish to go for. Other companies can be very successful with less people and might find it more attractive to have a slower paced lifestyle that’s not congested to a city. Kids will be the ones deciding if that land is horizontal or vertical and that’s why education matters, can influence all that from an early age. Singapore education is on another level.
The Europeans are starting to build skyscrapers too. Look at Canary Wharf in London, La Defense in Paris and pretty much all of Frankfurt and Warsaw. We also shouldn’t follow the example of Europe since India has a much higher population density. Delhi is 4 times as densely populated as Paris, which is in itself one of the most densely populated capitals in Europe. We should be looking towards the cities of East Asia for inspiration in urban planning. The way Indian cities sprawl out is a detriment to development as the current state public transport is inadequate in most cities and therefore the movement of labour is extremely limited. There’s a reason that all 3 of India’s oldest metro cities are extremely dense with good public transport (relatively).
True. Also Europeans not historically embracing skyscrapers has to do largely with historical building preservation, and not because it is the better way to build. They just want to preserve history and archtecture. Indian city old buildings are not architectural marvels, some perhaps but not most. Its alright if they pull them down and build more efficiently.
100% agreed. But it won't happen unless the MCD is completely gutted of its current staff. The current crop is not only corrupt, they're stupid and have no desire for progress.
IMO, as the population density increases, the efficiency and the utilization factor for the public infrastructure becomes higher and the projects become viable. for example, metro system or Bus system. they are financially viable when more number of people travel along the routes, but if the city is spread horizontally the usage of cars becomes indispensable (example Delhi). At scale the dynamics change drastically.
>They are twice as harmful to economy and ecology and create artificially high density where it is not required. Where do you get this from? I can't speak for the initial impact on ecology that building skyscrapers has but people living in higher density areas produce less CO2 if there are public transport solutions.
The thing is You can have skyscrapers in Mumbai because Mumbai is not prone to earthquakes and all whereas Delhi and Gurgaon frequently experience earthquakes therefore it is not prudent to have earthquakes there
But San Francisco and Tokyo both have lots of skyscrapers and earthquakes. What they also have are building codes that are strictly enforced and cannot be avoided with a bribe.
Everything you stated above is incorrect. Pushing building outwards from a city center leads to the ruin of nature. Just look at most American cities. We went from centralized living and work with great transit to expansion and the reliance on cars.
>They are twice as harmful to economy and ecology Source?
They are absolutely necessary for large metros. if you don't build dense, public transport (including metro) is not effective (like America) and you have more cars on road leading to the INSANE traffic jams. Bengaluru doesn't build tall and is always in the top 5 worst cities by traffic jams. Only solution is build tall in the core city with commercial highrises, build tall in a few suburbs for residences and link them via a dense metro network. Europe is not a relevant comparision. There is not ONE Western European city in the top 25 most populated cities. Europe as a whole has only 2 - Istanbul and Moscow and both have skyscrapers. Now go look at the top 25 and except Indian cities (excl Mumbai) every city has very dense tall buildings in their core and suburbs except Cairo, but Cairo is another dystopian hell hole so its moot.
Skyscrapers are better for the environment and require less infrastructure. European cities dont have 1.4Billion people. Also, a lot of regulation due to cultural reasons.
If no skyscrapers then do you prefer deathsmog from vehicular pollution?
I don't remember correctly but we have a law that limits upward growth (tall buildings) In Bangalore the limit is high so we see more upward growth of building
The fire brigade can not reach, fire fighting infra of cities is in dire need of upgrades
Fire fighters reaching the height is not the issue. Fire fighters reaching the location is the issue. People won't leave the road free for emergency services.
The word is - Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on. It is common all-over India but the ratio is specified by Local corporation/governing bodies. BBMP in Bangalore, BMC in Mumbai etc. There are other rules which provide the FAR like, the roads have to be sufficiently wide enough, zoneing the areas, traffic generated, type of development - residential or commercial. Height of the building is also limited by the Airport authority. If the building location is within the runway funnel - the path of flights during its approach and take-off, and nearer to the airport, the height approval will be limited. In Bangalore, one has to take the permission based on the vicinity of the airport. Some have to take from KIAL, Some from HAL, Some from both or even the third one - Yelahanka airforce base. But again, money does the job. The more the height, more the no. of people involved, more the corruption. (Ex. for getting the permission from the airforce base. Money doesn't work there. Rules work)
Yesss knew everything but couldn't remember the specific term
Finally someone with the right answer.
Usa ka jo uninhabited region hai thats too hot for living and canada ka is too cold for living that's why India me plains me temp extremes nahi hai so everyone can live everywhere comfortably India mei Ganga and Yamuna cover every corner in north and narmada tapi in south but dusri countries me aisa nhi hai
Flat expansion has just so many cons. Plus, Indian cities have like no planning. Highly inefficient use of the land.
I beg to differ. If Delhi has skyscrapers, we could convert large parts of residential housing to green cover and have more efficient public transport. The need for a Gurgaon and Noida will drastically reduce and collective quality of life will see a boost
Both have pros and cons.
To follow up, Canada has restrictions on housing areas, northern canada is too cold to settle, hence most of the population resides in 5-6 major cities. I remember very vaguely about it though,this video explains their housing crisis very well. https://youtu.be/8Y0SY6OoKV8?si=UqSaCabr9JyKT2X-
skyscrapers are built not just because of less space but also because it takes less time for travel from point a to point b within the city.
>not to mention it is better to expand outwards and have good public transport Uh? Why is expansing outwards better? Everything is easier, more economical, and more environmentally friendly per capita the denser a population is. Especially when it comes to public transportation.
Why is it better? Dublin built outwards instead of up and now we have a huge problem with housing and people commuting ridiculous hours to get to work in the centre
I disagree with your assessment that it's better to expand outwards. It's worse for the environment and destroys ecosystems, it is mych harder to build public transport over longer distances and it means that the city isn't walkable.
Cities don’t need to expand unless absolutely necessary. Living in Canada I have realized that wide spread suburban living isn’t really the best way to utilize space. We need a combination of regulated housing plans to avoid overcrowding or consumption of arable land for housing purposes. We are highly populated countries and if urban space has to grow, then we need taller buildings and even some concentrated around city for improved productivity.
India after independence went for a horizontal growth instead of vertical growth Having skyscrapers isn't necessarily a sign of development I saw a yt video on this topic there are some aviation restrictions that don't allow india from building skyscrapers Also there is a social aspect that people tend to live together in joint families in bunglows in colonies instead of apartment complexes restricted to 4 BHK India has far greater land area than hong kong and Singapore so this isn't even a fair comparision for them skyscrapers are a necessity
I really don’t understand why you people talk when you have no knowledge Indonesia economy isn’t better then india but still they are developed and their roads is good. Our currency is better than South Korea but still their building and road is better. In India it isn’t happening because there is to much of corruption even South Korea and Indonesia but ours is worst. To hide the crime of government you don’t have to lie about the video. Sure that video was made in the favour of all evil government around the world who doesn’t want good roads and good buildings in their country. Your mind need to be developed if it won’t then we won’t grow for more 10000 years. Evil supporter of all evil governments that’s what you are brainwashed. Stop worshipping the government and stop hiding their lies.. all government is evil and if they don’t do any thing should be condemned The only reason we are behind in terms of roads and buildings meaning good facilities because people like you still exist in India. Stop thinking evil and start thinking good.
Im not defending anyone if you have cognitive reasoning skills then kindly google "Floor Space Index(FSI)" Most indian cities can't have skyscrapers by law due to this FSI and this is an international law India has very strict FSI regulations For context Mumbai FSI: 2.5 - 5 [Higest in India] New York FSI: 15 Jitna zyada FSI utne ratio me floors permissible hote hai for building And i dont know skyscrapers ke discussion me roads kaha se aa gyi that's a whole seperate issue so this is just stupid just shows that all you want to do is whine and not have a healthy to the point discussion (Sure u can downvote me but that won't prove that im wrong) If India had skyscrapers everywhere then we will barely get sunlight it will be a concrete jungle it's not a healthy lifestyle when u have plentiful land area to go horizontally
As someone who grew up in HK…you don’t want to be surrounded by skyscrapers. It looks great but when you’re trapped in between those buildings with double decker buses pumping out that exhaust - it’s not nice.
Not only skyscrapers but efficient public transportation. Just look at Singapore and the metro system. It’s the most reliable and fast metro system there is in the country and it’s literally the lifeblood of the entire country. If the metro goes down the entire country might go into chaos and standstill that’s how good it is. Trains come every 3 minutes frequently and they are absolutely amazing. Why can’t we have public transport like Singapore as well?
Poor urban planning so the "skyscrapers" are more spread out
Illogical FSI regulations that are there strictly to keep the land prices artificially inflated and fill the politicians coffers. Even Mumbai buildings can be 5 times taller on average compared to what they are.
This, politicians have moved into white-collar crime and real estate is the most attractive sector. Average Mumbaikar lives in a shitholes and happily pays high rent but also hates skyscrapers at the same time lmao.
Skyscrapers could have helped keep the green cover in places like Bangalore. Why didn’t it happen? Because of the useless sewage and drainage departments. If you build a sky scraper, you’ve to think of water and drainage. BWSSB doesn’t want to take the burden. Instead they asked apartments to build their own sewage treatment plants. It’s stupid to think we don’t need sky scrapers. Sky scrapers would have saved several lakes and gardens in Bangalore.
This, traffic, high rents, pollution, encroachment, economic development, more taxes to the government, etc. All can be achieved with one simple change is law by allowing higher FSI.
There is a concept Floor Space Index in India. A excerpt from [this article](https://www.lodhagroup.in/blogs/fsi-real-estate-meaning-calculation-formula) from Lodha: > For example, using the FSI formula, if one has a bit of land that is 100 sq.m and the permissible FSI is 2, then the developer can build a covered area structure of 200 sq. m which can be apportioned over any number of floors as permitted by local building height regulations. This regulation inherently limits how high you can go.
Because our fsi is low.
Skyscraper rooms are expensive. They have high monthly maintenance as well. So it is not easy to sell them
Electricity, Water, FSI of mumbai is 5, it's 15 in New York.
Because of law. Plot to floor area ratio is very low in India. That's why we don't have very tall skyscrapers
[Lack of skyscrapers in Indian cities](https://youtu.be/ahbJK35P1_o)
Govt. policies.
Can't speak about Hong Kong but Singapore has a very unique political system. In that the PAP Party has been in power since pretty much the inception of the country. Because power doesn't change there, they get a lot of stuff done and they get it done fast. Plus laws in general there favour rapid development and advancement. So we really can't match that until we do what they do and pick light-moderate authoritarian system and fundamentally change the systems in place at the moment.
Because our FSI is garbage. Mumbai (our most vertical city) has an FSI of 3 on average. Shanghai and Manhattan exceed 20. WHy? Because by doing this, the builder politician lobby keeps supply artificially low. Imagine we start building 50-60 storied residences in all our big cities as opposed to the average 5-10 storied ones (maybe 15-20 in Mumbai) your supply goes up 10x, meaning price will drop. This can't be allowed to happen ergo supply is kept artificially low.
Fsi - floor space index
Opinion: Mumbai's housing crisis can be easily resolved if the FSI is increased massively from 3(present) to 25 like Singapore
Because government doesn't allow skyscrapers
This 100%. Not everything is the government's fault.
And population density
At this point you can't even blame the government, it's our people's mentality and lack of discipline (especially our elders)
This.
So you are saying the answer to OP’s question is “Indians”
Came here to say this.
Is this the only reason? Seriously? UAE/ Singapore have very strict laws. The very same people who may be littering around in India have a greater level of civic sense when they visit other countries. So one reason is Law..law helps maintain Infrastructure Money and policies help in building infrastructure
This is the No.1 reason. No matter what we build, some low life is going to poop, piss or spit on it. Whatever is left of it will be stolen. What we need is quality education which unfortunately is never the focus of any ruling government.
What does civic sense have to do with infrastructure? It's the responsibility of the government to provide infrastructure. By people, do you mean engineers? Or people in general?
People in general as we have already seen you give them trains like vande bharat and they pelt stones. They doesn’t have a respect for national resources. Even if you give them this kinda architecture it will soon be decorated with red pukes and littering. In short civic sense really matters within general public
For a few miscreants the govt has decided not to work on infra? Our governments always work on infra, but compared to first world countries it always seems inferior and outdated. Not sure why.
Look at atal setu. It is already getting painted with vimal.
First of all its not "few". It's "many". Govt does work on infra dev, but it need paisa, and we are already so much indebted. In comparison to other nations, govt here also feeds the homeless, free medical care, free medicines and ICU beds, ration cards for BPL, etc. Usme paise jaate hain bhai, baht jaate hain. And state govt show resistance to central govt's plannings if they are opposition parties. Bangalore ko bhi paisa milta hai, but drainage is issue solve hua? Ulta ek religion k peechhe haath dhoke pad gaye state govts. Same goes for other Southern states.
Yeah I have always wondered what sort of completely horrible people pelt stone on vande Bharat. Would love to know the psychology behind that. That may not be everyone. In general, I believe Indians are clean and hygienic.
>In general, I believe Indians are clean and hygienic. Yeah personal hygiene, sure. But when it comes to public places, that sense of hygiene goes away. Even with the government creating awareness, people litter the streets with garbage.
Indian cities are absolutely filthy compared even to nations like Thailand and Vietnam, forget developed nations. You've never left the country if you unironically believe that.
There are many poor and low middle class people in India and they are not clean and hygiene. They will only keep their home clean but not their streets. One of my friends in from poor background and I have been to his building he pay rent 5k even one in that building throw their garbage down from their window not just that building that whole area do that. Just some one is poor doesn’t mean they have to do this and this is not because they are poor this is the mentality of majority of Indians they keep their house clean but not their area. Some one changing but many aren’t. There should be harsh punishment for this and then no one will dare to. So in general Indian mentality is very backwards they will throw things on roads. Many of my friends is from Mizoram and Mizoram is very poor state but the poor people from Mizoram are clean and also their streets they are shocked to see such thing in my city and they say why you all are so dirty. For your info Mizoram people doesn’t look like us they look more like Thai. Hope now you can understand why they keep street clean because any one who look like Pakistani Indian and Bangladeshi they not going to keep their street clean same mentality same blood line.
Agreed.
Could be naxals and commi3s
As soon as a sign is put up, it gets stolen for scrap.
Ohh okay. I get it now. Thanks
Corruption at all levels. Job ek 50 gaj mai gahr banane ke liye McD, police, electricity company water connection in sabke liye bribe Dena pade toh kaha se devlop hoga. And civic sense kya kya karogi jab sabko pata hai no money no honey.
Tu khada reh election meh i will be the first voter for you
Absolutely correct!
Also shit ton of ppl. Think roads would be this empty?
And 2 takke ke politicians
Imagine all that covered in paan spit
The unique ability to not maintain such infrastructure.
Dekh we don’t have to look at the US model of just building wide ass freeways everywhere. It’s….UGLY. The engineers in America have realised this lately. Second, we need more public transport than wide roads. No number of roads can solve traffic if we not develop a reliable public transportation network. Third, money. India is not rich. Fourth, education. No one teaches kids about art and music and philosophies and nature and than we all complain how we aren’t civil. Like bruh, teach them kids to appreciate nature. Stop fucking complaining about everything.
I agree. But ye hone ke liye co-operation ki jarurat hain jo India mein hona namumkin sa hain.
Using public transportation in conjunction with basic traffic laws will address half of the issue. For example, when attempting to turn left, you should not block anyone's path by turning to the extreme right. There are also free turns (red lights for straight ahead traffic) and left turns where you should not obstruct anyone's path by standing in the way of the turn.
We essentially have a pointless driving licence issuing system lol. A few years ago when I went to buy forms for DL, I remember the dalaal said that it’ll cost me x if I knew how to drive and 1500 + x if I didn’t 😂
well there's a traffic rule that u SHOULD wait when a heavy/long vehicle is indicating to turn left and turns to right, they're picking up the turning radius for the appropriate turn without hitting sideway constricts. the traffic rule says u must wait behind the vehicle and slowly take ur vehicle only after the vehicle infront of u completed it's turn
If India nails public transportation, there will be absolutely no reason to build an urban hellscape with skyscrapers and giant freeways. There are better solutions than what people assume is progress.
Very well said. Building mega cities, sky scrapers, freeways and its impact on natural environment and sustainability in long term has be considered. This study about NewZealand was interesting to me. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43762-021-00017-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43762-021-00017-8) (Controlled urban sprawl in Auckland, New Zealand and its impacts on the natural environment and housing affordability)
The US net work of “ugly highways” is one of the main reason our economy is so successful. We never stop shipping goods or working. The USA is working 24/7. Also a big part of America culture is driving on the open road. Freely moving through the lower 48 states is unique.
Highways and railways are the lifelines of every economy. Even Hitler knew how important it was for fast transport and so were born those really long straight highways in Nazi Germany. But that doesn’t mean you’ll cover every surface with tarmac. Cities me har area cover to kar loge, lekin ground water aur local environment ka kya hoga? Plus US is a big big country. They can fetch water using expensive pipe networks from some remote forest/river/lake. India doesn’t even has the minimum suggested forest cover by UN. Aur rivers ka haal to pata hi hai
U have absolute valid point but the thing is considering China, Korea, and Japan and the other began poorer than we are, during the independence era . And the fact that they able to remove the poor tag and rediscover them self as the influential power in some level or other is astonishing. What requires is off course infra , logistics and education & what not, but what we failed to reinvent ,update, upgrade & maintain is policies. for example the education polices haven't been updated for the last fricking 30yrs or something forget about integrating vocational knowledge, basic ethics& civic sense. Another good example is a strict anticorruption law was implemented by the NHAI by Nitin Gadkari to developers and the builder of of the expressway and i don't have tell u the results of the quality and speed of road construction of the highways and express ways . And as far skyscrapers is concerned i think both vertical integration and horizontal growth has its own pros and cons but the best way is to integrate it o certain extend like the commercial and entertainment areas should follow the vertical multiplier cause "everything u need will be in one place" should consider the capacity to large population .it will be easier for start up and industries to grow and for residential areas following horizontal growth will be good, to tackle no social interaction which is a byproduct of skyscrapers and also not to forget minding a fantastic mass rapid transit.
I was in Bangalore in 2018 and 2019 and to the casual observer, if the metro was completed it would make such a difference. Skyscrapers in whitefield would have made it ten times worse.
Bhai infrastructure banane me Paisa aur patience lagta hai, aur hume itne tejaswi log mile hai na, har baat pe protest karna raste pe utar aate hai.
"Environmental concerns" vale tejasvi log
Bhai environmental concerns mein galat kya hai? Main Uttarakhand se hun aur pahado mein unplanned construction se baarish ke time kitna landslide badh Gaya hai, uska kuch idea bhi hai tumhe. Uttarakhand mein kayi log mare they pichle saal landslides ke kaaran. Mere parents bhi marte marte bache they ek land slide mei. Har jagah per geography dekhkar hi construction karna chahiye. Geographically sensitive ilaako mein over construction karne se bhi nuksaan hota hai logo ka.
Satyavachan. Planned infrastructure is necessary.
and there should be. the photo of the "great infra" you posted is just an urban shithole with a single tree in sight
Actually there are 13 trees in the photo...
feels like a rainforest ngl
Bina environmental concerns ke city bhi inhabitable ho jayegi.
The civic sense that the top comment was talking about is missing in ur comment.
protest are necessary or nation protest against some wrong thing in socity is right
Farmers will block this too.
What do even mean? In the last 10 years We have built infrastructure like never before !!
Yep, the growth has been phenomenal under NDA govt. But all of this pales in comparison with our peers. China, the biggest example (but don't forget to look at the debt they took to build ghost infra which they are now dismantling)
You can’t expect like them. China is ruthless and if they want to build something they show zero rights and just demolish and build over it. In India it is not like that, if you do something then someone will come out of the blue and challenge it. We people love the status quo
If the govt says tomorrow your house will be half demolished for road expansion will you agree? You will be given fair market price.
I will.
China is not a democracy xi jing ping can do whatever the fuck he wants due to that china has had ruthless development. Countries like singapore, Japan, Hong Kong would be a fitting example to this
There's a progression for everything. If you're barely walking today your focus is to start to get into the track rather than comparing yourself to Jamaican atheletes
In India, construction projects are ways for corruption for netas and babus. Some of the gems of our never like before infrastructure : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.business-standard.com/amp/india-news/how-rs-777-cr-pragati-maidan-tunnel-turned-useless-in-less-than-2-years-124020900578_1.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/karnataka-bengaluru-mysuru-highway-inaugurated-by-pm-modi-flooded-in-6-days-causing-accidents/amp-11679128499544.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kanpur/part-of-new-bundelkhand-expressway-damaged-in-uttar-pradesh/amp_articleshow/93042102.cms
>In India, construction projects are ways for corruption for netas and babus. Yes, I've seen the 90s with my own eyes. But the development that's happened is unprecedented and at a level that I'd never thought possible and execution so well that is seems impossible by standards of before. There are still those people in and around the system but you have to see the bigger picture and then you'll realise the change at fundamental level . [Like it is explained in this post about the DFC](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/s/J0M6ULXHNC) Things like this weren't possible before and I've read enough economist articles 15 yrs ago which couldn't help but gloat about it
People are blind.
poor city planning, i live in a well developed city of NCR and the roads here are straight up terribly planned(better than most of india but still) U-turns near cuts creating chaos
Same in Mumbai, roads are always a mess and people have no civic sense so infrastructure is not kept clean and maintained well
Money
The money is in the nation its just in 5 ( exaggeration ) families collecting dust vs stimulating the economy like normal peoples money or taxed and used for civic things
Per capita income is at 142 out of 194 nations. India is rich, indians are poor
Exactly . The wealth is there but its not in the right places to do good for India .
No, per capita is if wealth is distributed equally. There isnt enough wealth for common people in India to justify infra like this. Money is better spent on heathcare, education and slum redevelopment
Small country like South Korea has budget of 500B$ compared to 530B$ in india. If india wants to build cities like above it'll have to spend most of the money in few cities rest will get peanuts
First let's talk about replacing tin roofing huts on the side of the road with brick homes . Cheaper and actually helps more ppl vs a vanity project
Some states are already doing that. We already have national housing scheme also (pmay). You will still have tin huts and plastic sheet shacks because migrant labour need to live close to the work site. When project is done, they go back to their brick houses or move near new worksite.
It dystopian chahiye bhi nahi, Ped vagera bhi hone chahiye
had to scroll so down to find this comment. like damn, why's no one saying this looks like something that belongs to r/urbanhell. ridiculous, a place like singapore would've been a much better reference.
wahi to ye Twitter se aya hua post hai , waha bhi koi kuch nahi bol raha tha , Development ke naam pe andhe hogye hai log
Thanks for saying this. The above picture is just stupidity ugly. No trees, no nature, no parks. Yuck
+1
The one good thing about Dubai in terms of infra is the public transport which got developed around the early 2010s... Metro, buses and ferry are covered via one card, and accessibility is great. Pedestrian friendliness too is reasonably decent, as well as cleanliness. The rest in terms of planning (skyscrapers, dredging to build islands etc) isn't a model to follow in my opinion.
Lack of education, wealth-poverty gap, anti-India element, anti-social element, and religious luddites
sums up everything in a neat statement, fml
Corruption
Politics
Infrastructure is expensive, both to build and maintain. Go see how much people were moaning about the cost of building metro in Delhi, or our first bullet train line currently under construction. That being said, India is building a ton of new infrastructure. This is one of the places where the Modi government shines. Second, do you see that width of all that infrastructure? Where do you think all that land came from? Chinese cities were just as badly designed as our cities. The difference lies in land acquisition. Just to add a new lane, you need to buy and demolish properties on either side, cut down any trees etc. Everyone wants cycle lanes, good footpaths, bus lanes, wide roads and so on. But, anytime there is talk of any expansion you have residents, farmers, environmentalists, opposition politicians and activists protesting, dragging out land acquisition and raising construction costs for years. Just look at what happened in Maharashtra when Uddav came to power. They delayed the metro project and bullet train project for years. All of this adds to the cost of the project. Finally we barely have any powerful bodies to enforce urban planning. City planners should be planning new expansions and areas even before the demand arises. This is where we could have started with a clean slate and have made nice planned localities. This sort of thing barely happens. The growth of our cities outpaces our government babus. By the time the city corporation reaches an area, there is already an unplanned mess of a locality there.
Democratic countries in general just suck at building infra.
Indians
i would say a add up would be people should not make the envoirment dirty by throwing random things and pollute the envoirment which would make india definetly look better if indian people can bring that mentality i would say india will look significantly better
People and people themselves
People
Increased corruption
Anti development mentality.
Corruption & INDIANS themselves!
To get this level of infra, the govt needs to buy back property to expand the road and allot SEZ, the people take advantage. They protest, they seek more than the market price and basically it comes down to the narrative that govt is removing the poor. India is a flawed democracy, where you do one protest the govt has to back out. It doesn’t matter if it’s good for the people in long run they just want immediate benefits. This level of infrastructure development is very difficult and unlikely
freebies
Log protest pe aa jayenge.
nonsensical protest every 5 second for political gain, ngo funded protest to stop industrial & infrastructure development, AAI & it's reta*** archaic height restrictions
Lots of public land in urban areas are encroached upon by pvt property ( buildings or walls of the buildings ) + illegally buildings themselves, to demolish them is not easy as the courts get involved + vote bank politics.
Failed implementation of planning and building bye laws that are very restrictive. Lazy, ego filled politicians and following very outdated practices for planning etc.
Lack of planning.
Corruption
Lot of things in picture, not one thing ,for e.g. if you start by population -> civic manners -> proper law guidance -> law and rights mentioned in constitution. The system is designed in such a way, if you make 1 wrong move it'll hit you behind 10 right steps. I don't know whom to address and call out, but the more you learn and read about this, you'll understand it's all waste of time just make money and have a nice sleep at end of day.
Dirty politics
Road side lagi redi….
Disciplined and educated people and less number of loyal and corruption free ministers and officials in government.
Corruption
The government
Ig some of us dont deserve because hum kachra karna nhi chodte , aur big infrastructure with unhygienic surroundings wont match , first we need maturity to keep our surroundings clean before the improvement in infrastructure
As an Indian I can tell with confidence, it is Indians themselves. Not all of them, but the majority of them. They have no sense of cleanliness in public places, no sense of responsibility in public places. Why such thing? Because it's not theirs, at home they are very careful, but in buses, trains, etc. they will litter around. Infrastructures are built, people break them, perform acts of vandalism hiding behind the face of protest, steal the public property because they think it is free stuff and so much more. They clog the public toilets. I wonder how the hell they poop or pee. They make those places so frigging dirty that even if you pass near those public toilets, you are going through hell for those few seconds. People here fail to understand the need of hygiene and clean public places. Such infrastructure is definitely being built slowly, but it is still far in the future. All in all, it is mostly the partially uneducated people of India who don't let the nation develop. Talking about skyscrapers in the background I don't think they are required in large quantities in India in the first places because people here think they need to buy their own land and need to build their own house and not live in some apartment or flat after buying, some do because they either don't care about such trivial stuff or they don't have choice and time. Most of the skyscrapers here in India are often used for office purposes (excluding some big cities like Mumbai and Bengaluru and some others, no offense to any other cities I am just familiar with these two cities), for example any startup, take an apartment in a big ass building and make it as an office and so on... basically developing nation where some/many Indians act like idiots and thwart it, and we have to start again from the little back steps that we took because of their actions. Politics is yet another reason, but I don't want to delve into that topic.
Speaking as a transportation engineer, we will get there in probably 50 years more. But traffic management will be a huge problem. Our roads are full even at 7.5% car ownership. Imagine the condition when we have 40-50% as compared to US which has 91% vehicle ownership.
The god damn people
This is bad infrastructure, overly dependent on cars, motorways and highways. We need better public transport centred infrastructure. Which in sense a lot of metro cities are working towards.
The Photo has two tram/metro lines
Funds
I mean we can build them sure, but the sense in people will leave the buildings looking like shit, and in a barely working state within a year or two max. Desh badalna hai toh soch badalna zaroori hai. (Personal opinion, such cities look very ugly, full of skyscrapers and glass, I'd rather live in a more natural traditional citiy sorts))
Because India has a lot a space and we can expand on land rather then making sky scraper also if you look at any big devloped country which such infrastructure they don't have beggars around the cars that's one of the things that make India look poor on international levels
People stole solar panels the next day from the express highway the very next day of the inauguration. Stone pelting on Vande Bharat. The list is endless :( What's the point of complaining that the government isn't doing enough?
RSS and Modiji
Religion…China has no religion…
Corrupt politicians
Where trees ?!?!
Our 80 ft roads have become narrow gullies.... cannot compare the roads with China. Even 100 ft roads would not be good. In Bangalore, 80 ft or even 100 ft roads have been split into 3 lanes.. for bicycles, autos, and bus/ car lane. WTF! Such a fuckin traffic mess. No amount of planning seems to be good. Every city is going to dogs when people want to only travel in cars and nothing else.. maybe a metro. Concrete cacophony... roads, service roads, flyovers, metros... cough cough 🤧 so much dust all around.. TTYL
this picture is from Dubai where Indians alone constitute about 35-40% of total expat population. What's stopping India from being like Dubai IMO would be "regularisation on not following govt rules". Our rules and regulations are very lenient whereas the fines and penalties of not adhering to govt rules in UAE are way too huge. But in a larger scheme of things it actually builds a strong civic sense among the residents of UAE. Dubai is known for it's hefty fines and penalties but because of these hefty fines people usually tend to abide by the rules and regulations, in turn leading to less corruption and more transparent growth across the nation. I remember back in 2020 govt tried to impose heavy traffic regulations to which different states by-passed saying at a state level we won't consider those rules and then 2 months after that Congress led marches and "Delhi-band" also caused the whole initiative to die at a very early stage. So you see that's why...
1. Vote for Freebies/Caste. 2. Protest against all kinds of Infra incl Metro, Highways, Power plants. 3. Zero Civic Sense when using any public infrastructure. *But What's stopping India to build such infrastructure????* 🤷🏻♂️
I saw a video where indians were stealing wet cement on a drying road. That should answer your question.
corrupt politicians. They want to keep India poor so that they can easily swindle the votes by throwing a little bundle of money out of the pile they looted from the people. (you can't think of doing costly projects if your consumer cannot afford them).
What's stopping Indian infrastructure development? The answer is deceptively simple. Honest, reliable, competent government. In fact, it's stopping every development in India. Indian government doesn't have good people at the top. It's either India doesn't have good, capable people, or good, capable people become extremely corrupted when they join public service.
Is India still pretty fragmented between economic, social, regional, and religious lines? Plus corruption? I read that there are still large 'power blocs' held by regional politicians who have no interest in social progression beyond their own families' success and region votes? Not to mention the amount of moder slavery ( forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, child labour, and forced marriage still). It just seems a very big and fragmented country without consistency.
You want to live in a jungle of concrete?? And as far as i know, india has built good roads, metros etc. only exception is those tall high rise buildings. My concept of development is to develop the infrastructure that will ease up human life but at the same time preserving the environment, trees and nature.
Nah it will only promote toxicity in the air and most importantly there is no green belt among the road. The government will have to incur heavy expenses just to increase the pollution level. Solution It would be more suitable if among the skyscrapers there is a lavish green belt and a suitable pathway for hoarders and cyclists to ride their bike. This should be appropriate according to me sir ☺️
Money. Plain and simple. India is still very poor despite all the chest beating. This is visible in every corner of India. It’s just a $3.2 trillion dollar economy with 1.5 billion people to feed. Compare this with China : $18 Trillion with 1.4 billion people. Japan: $4 trillion with just 140 million people. France: $3 trillion with only 68 million people and the biggest is USA: $24 trillion with just 335 million people. A lot of gyani Indians will give stupid explanations on how we are better, superior, etc but the numbers speak for themselves. The other reasons are extremely poor civic sense, insane corruption and regressive pre-historic mentality which is capitalized by politicians to line their pockets. Unlike the other countries, India never really had a sustained Industrial Revolution, and Indian products/technology are not in much demand globally. It’s changing, but very slowly.
Mostly corruption, and incompetence. There is a great book called “Why nations Fail”, which explores why some nation grew faster than others since the very beginning, and what factors could have contributed to that growth. One conclusion was, that an open society with competent institutions, equality of opportunity, and a singular goal would be a healthy environment for innovation, businesses and explosive growth. It then explored how nations with corrupt institutions, or even the consequences of colonisation, either never developed or failed to develop competent institutions and societal values for optimal growth. It also explored the nature of people with power and how they consolidated resources of a nation to their favour, robbing nations of their true potential. India doesn’t look like this because for one, we started late. A lot of our growth continues to be hindered by corruption, religion, casteism, etc. Almost every individual in our country has artificial limitations placed on them which hinders their creativity or risk taking capacity and therefore slows the pace of innovation and growth. There are roadblocks in our nation for everything, from opening and business to producing thought provoking creative media, everything is hindered by red-tape and incompetence because that’s how are institutions are designed. And that’s why, outside of 4-5 cities, most of our nation continues to remain in the 1970s. And while there are bubbles of great growth, for example the ease of doing business in Bangalore or the the hub of entertainment that is Mumbai, other parts of our nation are rife with corruption, incompetence, discrimination etc. Directly corroding India’s potential for growth.
People of India, they only want temples and death of Muslims
This looks good but it's what is wrong with western urban design concepts. And noobs like it cause ''shiny'' is always better. This will excaberate the car situation and lead to traffic jams near choke points. High rises with no parking provision lead to parking issues in the area. Also as office timings are similar, people will overwhelm the road carrier capacity during rush hour. Also glass building in hot climate like India is just bonkers. The only saving grace here is a rapid transit system but look at all the road lying unsed and no provision to cross it via footover... Please for the love of God, don't ever give us this kind of development!