High & Mighty: Why Some Cities Are Known For Their Skyscrapers

Among many other things, cities are also defined by their skyscrapers, or the lack of them. While New York, Singapore, and Hong Kong are well-known for their skyscrapers, London, Berlin, and Paris are not.

• Hong Kong has 126 skyscrapers, which are taller than 600 ft
• New York City has 101 skyscrapers, which are at least 600-ft tall
• Singapore has about 25 skyscrapers of similar heights
• San Francisco, a city with an area of 121 sq km, has 51 skyscrapers, which are 400 ft or taller
• UK capital London and French capital Paris have only eight buildings each that are 600 ft or taller. (London may soon have its tallest skyscraper which has 73 storeys, workspace for 10,000 people and a public viewing gallery and restaurant on the top.)
• German capital Berlin has only one building taller than 600 ft. (Berlin also houses the Berliner Fernsehturm tower which is 1,207-ft tall.)

One often wonders why skyscrapers emerge in some cities and not in others though these cities are comparably prosperous. Former World Bank researcher Alain Bertaud has long pointed out that cities with major water barriers are well-known for their skyscrapers, while cities without such constraints are not. When there are major water barriers, land is scarce. This prompts people to build additional floor space. In other words, when horizontal growth is not possible, buildings grow vertically. Government regulations are made in such a way that they encourage such this vertical growth.

Maximum utilisation?

While India's financial capital Mumbai has 19 skyscrapers that are over 600 ft, this masks the fact that most buildings in Mumbai's central city are low rises. A close look at the Maximum City would show it is in dire need of a vertical growth.

Consider this:

• Mumbai has major water barriers, and is densely populated. In fact, Mumbai's water barriers are more severe than that of other major cities. Bertaud estimates that within a 25-km radius within Mumbai's CBD, 66 per cent of the area is covered by water, while in Jakarta, it is 22 per cent, and in Seoul, it is five per cent.

• Within a 25-km radius from the CBD, the land available in Mumbai is 212 sq km. In Seoul, it is 360 sq km for Seoul and 1,438 sq km for Jakarta. Large tracts of land in Mumbai's central city also remain idle or underutilised.

• Property rights in the city are not secure even in areas closer to the central city, and near expensive business districts, like the Bandra- Kurla Complex.

However…

• Nearly one-third of the buildings in Mumbai's central city have an FSI lower than four. The variance between the highest FSI in Mumbai's central areas and suburbs is the lowest among major cities.

• FSI in much of the central city is 1.33, while in London's CBD, it is 5.5. In Singapore's CBD, it is 25, in New York's CBD, it is 15, in San Francisco's CBD, it is 9 and in Hong Kong's CBD, it is 15.

• Laws like Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (UCLA) and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Act constrain the supply of land further though UCLA was repealed years ago.

This shows that despite a great demand for floor space and presence of real estate developers willing to do so, regulations curb Mumbai's vertical growth. When the Mumbai Draft Development Plan is up for scrutiny, the best the city can do is to learn from major cities are the well-known for their skyscrapers.