HMT Township | Aquila Heights | 32fl x 3 | 105m | U/C

[India101]

The third tower is rising quickly

March 2011
Copyright Tata Housing


Polaris & Vega


Polaris


Vega


Atria


Atria

[India101]

Club House

[s.yogendra]

updates September 2011

Aquila Heights


Atria




http://www.tatahousing.in/aquilaheights/index.php

[s.yogendra]

Club House Polaris view



Club House





Polaris Vega


Polaris





Vega


http://www.tatahousing.in/aquilaheights/index.php

[rmvdweller]

So what's going on with this thing? Last I heard (around one year back), Tata was sick of this since it wasn't able to get enough units sold fast enough, and was trying to sell off the unfinished development to some other builder to complete. Any idea of the current status? How many flats have they managed to sell?

[gentem]

I think it is uneconomical to make high rises above 20 floors. You can have one tower of 30 floors for helicopter landing while other towers 20 floors enough. Above 5 floors you have enough elevation for view and wind, higher floors you can see farther, but farther things look too small so no use since u dont use a binocular daily

[India101]

Atria rose pretty fast, for Indian standards at least. And the other towers look good.

[uno.piyush]

Originally Posted by gentem

I think it is uneconomical to make high rises above 20 floors. You can have one tower of 30 floors for helicopter landing while other towers 20 floors enough. Above 5 floors you have enough elevation for view and wind, higher floors you can see farther, but farther things look too small so no use since u dont use a binocular daily

Uneconomical !!

What bout FSI consumption then ? The more thou build .. the more thou sell .. the more thou you sell .. the more happy thou art ..

The concept of TDR itself promotes building more ... Over and above the allowable Buit up area, builders buy TDR to build even more !

In fact from an urban planning perspective, in the long run, high rises and self contained townships are the forerunners..

[gentem]

Originally Posted by uno.piyush

Uneconomical !!

What bout FSI consumption then ? The more thou build .. the more thou sell .. the more thou you sell .. the more happy thou art ..

The concept of TDR itself promotes building more ... Over and above the allowable Buit up area, builders buy TDR to build even more !

In fact from an urban planning perspective, in the long run, high rises and self contained townships are the forerunners..

I meant instead of 3 towers of 32 floors each, build 6 towers of 16 floor each. Fsi remains same though open space reduced. In this 2 cases the latter becomes more economical per flat. A civil engineer will know better.

I think instead of giving terrace to top floor penthouse guy better make it accessible to all people..

By the by self contained townships are easier said than done. Looks good only on paper

[World8115]

The building looks cool

[engineer.akash]

Originally Posted by gentem

I think it is uneconomical to make high rises above 20 floors. You can have one tower of 30 floors for helicopter landing while other towers 20 floors enough. Above 5 floors you have enough elevation for view and wind, higher floors you can see farther, but farther things look too small so no use since u dont use a binocular daily

You are an engineer?

[Indian Sun]

Originally Posted by gentem

I think it is uneconomical to make high rises above 20 floors. You can have one tower of 30 floors for helicopter landing while other towers 20 floors enough. Above 5 floors you have enough elevation for view and wind, higher floors you can see farther, but farther things look too small so no use since u dont use a binocular daily

Thanks, you made my day.

[gentem]

most objective analysis..

Originally Posted by gentem

I meant instead of 3 towers of 32 floors each, build 6 towers of 16 floor each. Fsi remains same though open space reduced. In this 2 cases the latter becomes more economical per flat. A civil engineer will know better.

nobody answering my query

[uno.piyush]

Originally Posted by gentem

most objective analysis..



nobody answering my query

Come on ..

Where do you build 6 towers ? On land right ?

Acquiring more land is cheaper or building more floors (If FSI permits) ?

Unless you want to build upon 95% of the land and make the project a slum.

Going high allows more open space and possibility of doing more common amenties which in turn enhance the quality of lifestyle of its residents..

[rmvdweller]

Originally Posted by gentem

most objective analysis..



nobody answering my query

You need more land if you want to build more towers. Three towers of 32 floors will require less land than six towers of 16 floors. That much is clear.

And then, there are regulations and norms governing open spaces around highrises. There is a maximum height you can go to for each size of plot. You can't buy a 30X40 site and build 20 floors! So, open spaces are also important.

[uno.piyush]

Originally Posted by rmvdweller

You need more land if you want to build more towers. Three towers of 32 floors will require less land than six towers of 16 floors. That much is clear.

And then, there are regulations and norms governing open spaces around highrises. There is a maximum height you can go to for each size of plot. You can't buy a 30X40 site and build 20 floors! So, open spaces are also important.

Just to add ..

height and FSI depend on plot size and width of the road on which the plot is located.

Bigger the plot and wider the road .. more you can build and higher you can go (Unless you have height restriction in that area i.e. Proximity to airport etc .)

[gentem]

Im talking about big enough land parcels, not 30x40. Going too tall is expensive to make it earth quake proof, helipads etc. So shorter buildings more are better. Both the examples FSI remains same. very high rises are economical only in CBD of a city

[uno.piyush]

Originally Posted by gentem

Im talking about big enough land parcels, not 30x40. Going too tall is expensive to make it earth quake proof, helipads etc. So shorter buildings more are better. Both the examples FSI remains same. very high rises are economical only in CBD of a city

Assuming the land parcel to be huge and not in CBD .... Agreed ..

Classic Example of this - DLF Bannerghatta Road, Prestige Shantiniketan ..etc

Rock bottom construction costs and selling price

[gentem]

and take this, they could constructed single tower of 96 floors acquila heights, that would have been more uneconomical though open space would have been more. So i think inflection point is around 20 floor towers which are in very high number in bangalore

[jinka sreekanth]

update from website