Around Town

High stakes

The city’s high-rise committee must cope with real-estate politics
mumbais high rise, skyscrapers, Marathon NextGen Era, palais royale,

From the window of his tenth-floor home in Worli, Justice SS Parkar has a perfect view of the kind of buildings he authorises every month – and the landscape in which they’re coming up. Slums and auto workshops lie directly below his window, while the Bandra-Worli sealink is a speck in the distance. The vista is framed by the Marathon NextGen Era building on one side and the 74- storey Palais Royale on the other, still under construction. “Its lights are on all night so we have to close the curtains,” Parkar said.

The retired high court judge heads what is perhaps the most embattled government panel in the city – the committee in charge of scrutinising and clearing plans for buildings over 70 metres high. Not so tough for a group of technical experts and experienced municipal officials you might think – except this is Mumbai where nothing is as contested as space. The committee was formed in 2004 to ensure that the new tall buildings were structurally and environmentally sound. It has been reconstituted twice, the second time last September after one of its members, structural engineer Shailesh Mahimtura, was arrested for allegedly taking a bribe from a builder.

The shadow of another, larger scandal is ever-present: the allegations about legal violations and improper flat allotments in the 31- storey Adarsh Housing Society in Colaba. Adarsh was cleared by the high-rise committee, but developers later added extra floors. The revision was allegedly approved by the then municipal commissioner with- out being referred back to the committee. As a consequence, the panel no longer accepts proposals where development rights have not been finalised.

Similarly, because of Mahimtura, the committee undertakes all its site visits as a team, takes decisions only when all members are present and doesn’t include any practising architects or engineers. The purpose of the panel, Parkar noted, “was to create the impression that high-rise constructions are cleared by a committee of independent members uninfluenced by builders or the municipality.”

Apart from Parkar, the panel comprises the chief fire officer, the chief engineer of the municipality’s development plan department, the head of IIT’s civil engineering department, the head of Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute’s structural engineering department and the head of Mumbai’s National Environment Engineering Research Institute. In February, the panel finalised draft guidelines that, among many other things, required builders to produce studies on everything from indoor air pollution and traffic to sewage and energy use. They are also supposed to produce locality maps that mark out parks and heritage buildings, justify the use of energy-consuming glass facades and draft disaster man- agement plans for the hundreds of residents that occupy the enormous new towers.

The rigour of the new guidelines and the slow pace of clearance have not gone down well with developers. Though 179 proposals have been passed since 2004, 14 by the new committee, more than a hundred are pending. In May, the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, a builders’ association, asked the chief minister to disband the committee change the definition of high- rises to exclude buildings below 150 metres (50 floors).

But the pressures on the panel started well before – through news reports on permissions being delayed by vacationing members (only one member was away for a week, Parkar said) and even an anonymous letter that alleged corruption, disparaged IIT professors and suggested adding professionals to the panel. “Won’t they have a vested interest in their own projects?” asked Parkar.

Some of the delay is because the environment and other impact studies are shoddy and often need to be redone, said Rakesh Kumar, NEERI’s mumbai head and panel member. “There are discrepancies between presentations and reports, even between the same facts in two chapters of a report,” he said.

Still, the committee has only rejected one proposal so far, a project in Bhendi Bazaar. But they have asked builders to change window designs to improve ventilation, expand parking for visitors and, in the case of a commercial building in Bandra-Kurla Complex, commit to lighting a cricket pitch cast into shadow by the structure. Shadow analysis is important, panel members said, because of the impact a very tall building has on light and air around it. “Everybody must have some sunlight for some hours of the day,” said Parkar.
 

Tall order
New York architect Jay Berman talks about grappling with vastu and Indian kitchens in designing an icon for Mumbai.

At 117 storeys, the proposed World One tower in the former Shreeniwas Mills, Lower Parel, is intended to be the world’s tallest residential building. It is part of Lodha Place, a 16- acre layout of residences, offices, shops and gardens designed by New York based Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, the company behind the Bank of China tower in Hong Kong. Excerpts from an interview:

How would you compare designing a building in Mumbai and in New York?
[Mumbai’s] contained energy and its huge potential are an inspiration about what cities can be. In this sense, Mumbai has many parallels with New York in terms of its cosmopolitanism, energy, lack of sentimentality and position as a world centre of culture and commerce. There are also geographic similarities: long and narrow, surrounded by water, with colonial cores at their southern tips. And, if one looks to New York’s physical and cultural history, there are further similarities in terms of poverty, the reciprocal roles of private and public sector protagonists, corruption and reform campaigns, and efforts to “redevelop” whole areas of the city. Mumbai is undergoing its massive transformation right now and it is a huge responsibility to be a small part of it. [For Lodha Place] we have focused on how a large private development can become a part of the city in the most inclusive sense.

Are there particular constraints that shaped your approach?
There are circumstances that are unique to Mumbai. You have to respond to the density of buildings and the density of population. There are places in the US where you might worry how many people would come to the place, a café, say. In Mumbai, you don’t have to worry – if you build it, they will come. Most high-rise residential buildings here, what we’ve seen in the past two years, are low-rise building typologies extended upwards. In that sense, World One is a typological shift in apartment building in Mumbai.

What kind of cultural factors did you have to take into account?
Ideas about vastu, about family and extended family and relationships with service have been important. If you were to go to a New York apartment, you would find the kitchen also being used as a social space, and that was how it was in some of our early designs. But we found the kitchen is still seen here as a service space. The other thing that’s important is climate and the role of indoors and outdoors. Very tall build- ings in most places rarely have the kind of outdoor space, the terraces and cross-ventilation that people in Mumbai demand and expect.

Are the expectations of local clients and international architects different?
Generally, international architects are brought in because clients want modern, international, world class standards. The architect often comes hoping to find in the locality something that makes that project special to them. I feel like we are striking a good balance between those tensions – to both reflect the aspirational [desires of the client] and in terms of materials or design also reflect the local.

By Vaishnavi Chandrashekhar on July 21 2011 6.30pm

Post your opinion now

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.