Which building of the world can be considered the most beautiful building of modern architecture?

Most beautiful modern buildings in the world

Everyone has their favourite but this is one of mine, Wisma 46 BNI building in Jakarta, Indonesia.

It looks great from every angle and I was lucky enough to have access to the roof during construction on a site visit in 1997.

,Always reminded me of a fountain pen which I guess is where the architect got his inspiration.

Cool skyscrapers

Original question: Why doesnt India have cool skyscrapers like the USA, Dubai, Singapore, China, etc.

?,Who says we dont? We most certainly do.

Following are a few from Mumbai:,World One,2.

Palais Royale,3.

Three Sixty West,4.

Lodha Bellismo,5.

Namaste Tower,These are all over 250 meters high (atleast 60 to 70 floors),These are just from Mumbai, and the last one is still in development phase.

,However, I understand your plight.

What you want to say is why dont we have structures to show our wealth? This answer might not be liked by people.

It is because we dont.

We are still a largely poor country.

A lot of people find it difficult to feed themselves twice a day.

Although that is changing, we are yet to reach a point where we can say, its ok to spend a lot on lavish lifestyles.

Our basic infrastructure is atleast 50 years old, which we find hard to maintain because of lack of funds, and like it or not, we just want to hold government responsible for that, without accepting that we have any role to play in it.

,Now, the second part of question that you have will be: How can the rich countries afford it then? Well, the answer is what they have is a lot of blood money (which we dont).

A lot of nations profited in the medieval era from slavery, trade and pillaging the locals.

We dont have that on our hands (thankfully).

,Well, you can contribute in development of your nation by taking up a job, doing it faithfully, paying your taxes on time, and most importantly voting to form a government that helps in the development of nation rather than playing petty politics.

Modern skyscrapers

It depends on a few factors:,The geographical location.

By unit rate of construction, Skyscrapers are likely cheaper to build in China and very expensive to build in say Ethiopia, due to additional cost and time for care and shipment of building materials, while there are numerous factories in China.

,The terrain or the land where it is built.

If it is built on solid rock on accessible flat terrain, its likely cheaper than building on ground layers of clay and sand, or on hilly terain.

,The actual height Of the building.

Anything above 152m can be called a skyscraper.

The 800m Burj Khalifa in Dubai likely cost more than those around between 152m and 400m.

,The technology employed.

Does it use some high technology fau00e7ade system that emits water vapor to cool itself in the dessert? Does it have other green features like zero fossil fuel consumption?,The types of materials used.

Does it use an opulent amount of gold to clad its lobby? Does it use a lot of marble that was imported from a quarry in Italy instead of a quarry in China? Does it use an insane amount of glass which needs the highest specification to cut down on solar gain?,The cost of the Land.

On top of the cost of the skyscraper, there are permits and authorities to clear.

This will determine if a development charge will be imposed as the skyscraper will likely profit from sales and lease of the additional floor area.

There are those areas which are tax free to encourage such development.

,The possible problems that ensue.

The new skyscraper may resolution in the loss of sunlight to something or someone, the blackout of telecommunications signal, or become a huge solar reflector.

There may be such issues that can only be settled through sone payment of sorts.

There may also be a new set of congestion and traffic problems if these were not resolved at planning stage.

,I apologize for not being able to give you an absolute figure on it.

But the following is a method you can probably get your answer for an average skyscraper in your hometown.

,Find out the cost of the building you think can be called average in your hometown.


,Find out the floor area Of this building.

X sqm.

,Calculate the floor area your new skyscraper will have.

Y sqm.

,The cost to construct the same area would be (Y/X)*A.

,Multiply by a factor B for every increase in height in the range: Sayu2026.


15m by 2; 60m by 4; 100m by 8; 200m by 16; 300m by 32; 400m by 64; 500m by 128; 800 by 256.

So, about (Y/X)*A*B.

,Multiply by other factors for variation.

Add 5% to 20% for green and environmentally friendly building.

,Add additional factors where appropriate.

,This is of course only an estimation, and shall not be used professionally and legally.

One shall always hire a proper building professional for such quotation to get any cost figures.

Famous skyscrapers

It is very easy to verify that urban legend.

Simply go to the buildings and go up the elevator, plenty of people are working there.

,To answer your question, most of the time, those buildings house the offices of financial institutions or other kinds of services.

The cost per mu00b2 is very high in downtown core areas, such that many kinds of commercial activity would not happen there, like engineering, design, or research and development (which require lots of space).

But financial institutions do not require much space beyond mere office space.

Also, close proximity of so many commercial and financial institutions spurs increased commercial activity, hence why it is desirable to pay more for close proximity.

,Finally, a central location provides name recognition and market confidence, hence why many financial institutions frequently compete against one another over the size and height of their skyscrapers.

In Montreal the bulk of skyscrapers were built by banks or life insurance buildings (Place Ville Marie, Sun Life Building, CIBC Tower, Complexe Desjardins), same with Toronto (First Canadian Place, Scotia Plaza, Brookfield Place (Toronto), Toronto-Dominion Centre).

Often times a skyscraper may also be commissioned for use by financial institutions but not owned by financial institutions, as is the case of the Montreal Tour de la Bourse which houses the stock market (and many institutions that deal with the stock market) but is not owned by the stock market.

,Canary Wharf in London is another notable high-rise development that is overwhelmingly used for financial institutions that eventually lead the whole area into becoming a financial hub competing directly with the City of London.

The same goes for the La Du00e9fense area in Paris.

,In addition, there would be many residential skyscrapers, where there is a strong desirability to live as high as possible to have the least encumbered view to the outside, and status, notably in places like Vancouver.

Skyscrapers in India

The main reason for absence of tall buildings is poor town engineering in Indian cities.

Tall buildings have many many advantages, which improves quality of life of citizens, and also helps in improving economy of the town.

Following are the advantages.


,Commercial aspects: Tall buildings mean very little land is used for residence and much more land can be spared for other life supporting amenities like bigger roads, forests, gardens, schools, metros, rails, parking, other infrastructure.


,Analogy : u201cA city with tall buildings vs city with tiny housesu201d can be compared with u201c Ahouse with cupboards and wardrobes and a house withoutu201d.

Naturally a house without cubboards will have space scarcity, congestion, mismanagement, etc etc.

that is how Indian cities are.


,Life Quality aspects : A tall city can have lots of gardens, play grounds, swimming pools, recreational areas, spacious schools (right now we hardly have schools with proper playgrounds and other infra that requires space),We need not drive daily 20 kms to go to such areas.

Our kids can go to schools, which can be at walk able distance; no auto, no bus required to go to school; result : quality added to life.


,Life Quality aspects : A tall city can be much smaller as little land is used for residence.

This means work places come closer.

A person now travelling 30 km to reach office will have to travel say 5 km?.


,Life Quality aspects: Much bigger roads will deliver fast vehicle transport and save time.

People in cities are wasting 3-4 hrs per work day of their entire life just to reach office and home.

This equates to 15 years life wasted in travelling.

Bigger and better roads indirectly add this quality time to your life.


,Life Quality aspects: Tall buildings also make lots of space available for other infra lines like drainage, pipeline, gas lines, telephone and data lines.

You will never need to dig a road for all this work, as you can have separate space for this.

,Cities in countries like USA, Canada, Europe have much less population density than us.

But they chose to use land wise.

Their cities use less land for residence and more for all other purpose.

They have a scientific approach to use land.

Our cities use land more for residence, other uses are given little consideration; hence our life quality remains poor, inspite of earning money.

,Hope our administration and government will realize that,-,Land is not least required for residence ever since multi store buildings are being made.

,-,Land is supposed to be used for all other amenities listed above; so that our lives become time efficient, fuel efficient and quality efficient.

,Dinesh Desai

Skyscrapers Monkey Wrench

Well lets look at technological advancements for that early of a time period.

We look and the hest we can acredit the existence of any such building structures was probably 2 stories tall and if by chance there was a group anywhere upon the planet we could saybit was possible to get a third story of a free standing type building.

,Now let us give graciously that somehow they were able to get this u201ctower to say five stories tall.

This is where engineering and other much later advancements in technology is to come into play.

And such means were not even invented or found for thousands of years.

At 5 stories gravity and plumb and structural reinforcement and all sorts of math come into play.

,If even one person fails at any one point of such a build in theor area the whole thing would collapse and never really get off the ground.

,If you want to count the word u201cskyscraperu201d so loosely that itcan account for anything built that was just a few stories tall u2026 then sure.


maybe you could consider such.

,But then again, these people had absolutely none of this technology, or means to build anything so large.

They had not the tools or math or knowledge to even attempt such a feat.

,At best instead of trying to excuse there being any plausible excuse for such a thing at that early of a time in historicity.

Why not take at factual historicity we already do have and can prove.

Like there already being multitude of languages both written and oral forms that existed.

,While this has nothing to do with the tower building itself.


it does throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the story says how and how it stopped.

This in turns discredits the likelihood of the story bearing any truth.

,But the fact of physics alone discredits the likelihood of this story.

As without moden day architecture advancements like using steal and other means of anchoring a structure from below ground multiple levels or stories so one can build to the massive stories we can achiebe todayu2026using the advancements we have access to.


To build a multiple many stories tall structure that reached any significant height would of needed a base that was many square miles in area.

The shear weight of such would of been massive and would eventually collapse in upon itself or tip over.

,Just a little of a basic education in physics and use of logic would show this type of build as a feat is impossible.