MAHALAXMI | Lodha Bellissimo | 222 m | 53 fl x 2| T/O - Page 6

India101 · June 11th, 2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombayPG

I went to the Lodha Bellisimo site a couple of days ago. They claim that possession of tower A & B will be given by the end of this year for people to start work on their apartments.

Looks like an excellent project!

Welcome to SSC. So your in Mumbai? If you could get and photos of the projects across Mumbai that would be great

. And welcome again.

***IndiansUnite*** · June 12th, 2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhim100

The height of the building is 252m yet it has just 50 floors. It does not make sense. We can see from the pic that each floors are not exceptionally high nor it has any parking structure underneath which might have caused it to be 252m with just 50 floors. Something is wrong.

252 m is incorrect. It's 648 feet (198 meters) tall according to Lodha's website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombay Boy

i dont get the windowless sides as well.

It reminds me of the UN building in NY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by castlerock

There are two towers coming up? When did I miss that?

He meant wings. There are 3 wings in the building.

dhim100 · June 12th, 2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndiansUnite

252 m is incorrect. It's 648 feet (198 meters) tall according to Lodha's website.

Thanks man. I knew 252m can't be right. Does anyone know why the thread says 252m (25% higher than the actual height)?

India101 · June 12th, 2009, 07:19 AM

Because that is what most sources were saying.

BombayPG · June 12th, 2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by India101

Welcome to SSC. So your in Mumbai? If you could get and photos of the projects across Mumbai that would be great

. And welcome again.

Thanks

.

I don't live in Bombay but go there often. Didn't have my camera with me this time but will make sure to click some pictures next time I go there!

***Suncity*** · June 16th, 2009, 02:38 AM

Older pic compared to one posted by IU earlier

photo cc rights Alexandarpf

India101 · June 16th, 2009, 07:26 AM

Pitty the heights only 198m. So Mumbais second tallest is Orchid Enclave with 210m. Lets hope that heigts accurate.

pratyushics · June 16th, 2009, 03:32 PM

I have read in many sites that the building is 198 m but the antenna would make it 252m

bhargavsura · June 16th, 2009, 06:56 PM

Do you know what that even means?

It means that the antenna would be 54 m tall. Don't you think it would be absurd for a 54 m tall antenna? It would mean the antenna would be around 18 floors tall.

dhim100 · June 16th, 2009, 07:26 PM

or in other words the antenna would be 20% of the total height (if you consider it to be 252m). Is that possible?

I don't see any antenna in the rendering. I see some tiny pole up on the roof top (in the rendering) but I don't think that would be 54m tall.

I think 252m has to be an inflated number by some inflated guy.

zenith_suv · June 16th, 2009, 07:38 PM

so the 252 mt should be removed from the thread title if there is no official confirmation and if it may vary by as much as 50 mt from thread estimate

dhim100 · June 16th, 2009, 07:55 PM

Yeah I tossed that question on June 11th here but didn't get any response.

pratyushics · June 16th, 2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhargavsura

Do you know what that even means?

It means that the antenna would be 54 m tall. Don't you think it would be absurd for a 54 m tall antenna? It would mean the antenna would be around 18 floors tall.

I know it's wierd...but that's what some sites say.....

***IndiansUnite*** · June 17th, 2009, 01:50 AM

^ which sites?

June 2 - Bellissimo side view
Copyright Amit Kumar

***IndiansUnite*** · June 17th, 2009, 01:57 AM

not the best of images, but here's another view

June 14
Copyright Kshitij Shah

***Suncity*** · June 17th, 2009, 02:48 AM

Blurry but cool

India101 · June 20th, 2009, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndiansUnite

252 m is incorrect. It's 648 feet (198 meters) tall according to Lodha's website.

It also say its stands on 73 feet high stilts. So it should make it over 200m

India101 · June 20th, 2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndiansUnite

June 2 - Bellissimo side view
Copyright Amit Kumar

Whats that u/c on the right?

***IndiansUnite*** · June 20th, 2009, 08:45 AM

The shangri-la hotel

yashchauhan · June 20th, 2009, 08:58 AM

If lodha was twisted 90 degrees then it wud hav been sea facing and hav added greatly to the area's skyline!

June 16th, 2009, 07:38 PM	#111
zenith_suv Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,871 Likes (Received): 2	so the 252 mt should be removed from the thread title if there is no official confirmation and if it may vary by as much as 50 mt from thread estimate Last edited by zenith_suv; June 16th, 2009 at 09:18 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

June 12th, 2009, 07:19 AM	#104
India101 . Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sydney ~ Mumbai Posts: 9,638 Likes (Received): 437	Because that is what most sources were saying.

June 16th, 2009, 02:38 AM	#106
*Suncity* By the ocean Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 24,076 Likes (Received): 509	Older pic compared to one posted by IU earlier photo cc rights Alexandarpf

June 16th, 2009, 07:26 AM	#107
India101 . Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sydney ~ Mumbai Posts: 9,638 Likes (Received): 437	Pitty the heights only 198m. So Mumbais second tallest is Orchid Enclave with 210m. Lets hope that heigts accurate.

June 16th, 2009, 03:32 PM	#108
pratyushics Praty123 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: mumbai/madrid/seattle Posts: 90 Likes (Received): 0	I have read in many sites that the building is 198 m but the antenna would make it 252m

June 16th, 2009, 06:56 PM	#109
bhargavsura Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,468	Do you know what that even means? It means that the antenna would be 54 m tall. Don't you think it would be absurd for a 54 m tall antenna? It would mean the antenna would be around 18 floors tall.

June 16th, 2009, 07:26 PM	#110
dhim100 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Francisco Posts: 805 Likes (Received): 0	or in other words the antenna would be 20% of the total height (if you consider it to be 252m). Is that possible? I don't see any antenna in the rendering. I see some tiny pole up on the roof top (in the rendering) but I don't think that would be 54m tall. I think 252m has to be an inflated number by some inflated guy.

June 16th, 2009, 07:55 PM	#112
dhim100 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Francisco Posts: 805 Likes (Received): 0	Yeah I tossed that question on June 11th here but didn't get any response.

June 17th, 2009, 01:50 AM	#114
*IndiansUnite* -> Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Hanooz Dilli dur ast Posts: 10,469	^ which sites? June 2 - Bellissimo side view Copyright Amit Kumar

June 17th, 2009, 01:57 AM	#115
*IndiansUnite* -> Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Hanooz Dilli dur ast Posts: 10,469	not the best of images, but here's another view June 14 Copyright Kshitij Shah

June 17th, 2009, 02:48 AM	#116
*Suncity* By the ocean Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 24,076 Likes (Received): 509	Blurry but cool

June 20th, 2009, 08:45 AM	#119
*IndiansUnite* -> Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Hanooz Dilli dur ast Posts: 10,469	The shangri-la hotel

June 20th, 2009, 08:58 AM	#120
yashchauhan BANNED Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Lucknow Posts: 862 Likes (Received): 0	If lodha was twisted 90 degrees then it wud hav been sea facing and hav added greatly to the area's skyline!