Mumbai: Almost a month after the BMC invited suggestions and objections to a proposed amendment in the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034—aimed at introducing a new policy under Regulation 33(27) for the development of ‘Iconic Buildings’—the Fort Heritage Conservation Association has written to the BMC, calling the definition of iconic buildings itself ‘vague’.The proposed policy defines ‘Iconic Buildings or Spaces’ as structures that possess unique or distinctive characteristics such as size, shape, aesthetics, look, concept, theme, urban design, architectural design, or structural elements.“What is iconic to a select group of people might not be considered iconic to everyone. ‘Iconic’ is defined in vague and subjective terms, opening the door to arbitrary or purely commercial interpretations. Iconicity should be redefined based on urban contribution, cultural context, sustainability, and public value, not just shape or scale,” stated a letter by the Fort Heritage Conservation Association to the Chief Engineer (Development Plan).The letter is backed by a working group comprising key South Mumbai associations, including the OVAL Trust, Oval Cooperage Residents’ Association (OCRA), Art Deco Mumbai Trust (ADMT), Urban Design Research Institute (UDRI), Kala Ghoda Association (KGA), and the Nariman Point Churchgate Citizens Association (NPCCA).The BMC’s plans are for the city to boast of iconic buildings like global cities have, namely The Gherkin skyscraper in London, Tornado Tower—a high-rise office skyscraper in the city of Doha, Qatar, and Dubai’s iconic skyscraper—Burj Khalifa.Meanwhile, the association’s letter also states that the regulation prioritises visual and formal uniqueness (shape, size, aesthetics, look) but is silent on contextual integration, cultural relevance, or urban coherence.“Only the architectural and aesthetic features do not make a building ‘iconic’; it also comes from its cultural, historical, and symbolic meaning, which must be documented and reflected in the design of the iconic building,” states the letter, also pointing towards there being a lack of clarity on the scale and open space allocation. “There is no mention of the scale of the proposals/built-up area and the green spaces percentage. Without this, it is difficult to understand the density, intensity of use, or infrastructure load the proposal may generate. This must be evaluated, and the regulation must reflect the necessary details.”
