According to the standard of the list (the height of the 62nd place is 350m), the only place in India that can make the list is Mumbai's skyscraper No.1.. The early planning height of this building was 50 1.33m, but it was not approved by the Airport Authority of India. In 20 15, the design height of the project had to be reduced to 453.29 meters. As a result, it was not completed until 20 18, only 285 meters high. It is reported that the new height of the property may not be approved by the Indian airport, and the situation is very embarrassing.
Apart from World No.1, Lokhandwala Minerva, the second tallest building in India, is only 325 meters away from the list.
Hong Kong, China
As we all know, the population of India is on a par with that of China, which ranks first in the world. In 2065.438+09, the total population was 65.438+32.4 million, and it is expected to surpass China and become the world's most populous country in a few years. This figure may seem normal to China people, but for India, the land to support such a large population is only 2.98 million square kilometers, which is less than 3 1% of that of China.
It stands to reason that the contradiction between man and land in India should be three times that in China, but why is there no skyscraper in China, even in the fourth and fifth tier cities, while the population in India is almost the same?
In fact, India not only has no super skyscrapers in the world, but even ordinary high-rise buildings are very rare. Except Mumbai, there are almost no high-rise buildings in four major cities in India, including Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai. If carefully analyzed, it is not difficult to find that there are actually two reasons for the lack of high-rise buildings in India: the contradiction between man and land is weaker than that in China, and the degree of development is also weaker than that in China.
In fact, most people have some misunderstandings about the contradiction between man and land in India. Although the total land area of India is only one third of that of China, it is mostly flat plains and low-altitude plateaus, with few mountains and desert Gobi, and even few hills. On the other hand, most parts of China are difficult to use, with 33% of mountains, 26% of plateaus, 13% of desert Gobi, and only 10% of hills and 12% of plains. If China adopts the villa architecture style of one household, then the second and third tier cities in the plain area will be as big as Shanghai, and the mountainous cities will pile up the mountainous plains.
Therefore, although China has a vast territory, the actual arable land area is only 957,000 square kilometers, while that of India is 6,543,800+6,000 square kilometers. According to the current ratio of cultivated land to population in China (957,000 square kilometers/65.438+390 million people), India needs to carry 2.32 billion people to meet the current population pressure in China.
In addition, in terms of development, India is also weaker than China. In 20 17, China's total economic output was 12.2 trillion US dollars, while Indian's was only 2.4 trillion US dollars, less than 20% of China's. In terms of urbanization rate, in 20 17, the urbanization rate in China was 58%, while that in India was only 32%, equivalent to about 36% in China in 2000.
In other words, India's rural population is too large to support the development of urbanization. In addition, India's economy is relatively weak, per capita GDP is low, polarization is serious, urban slums can be seen everywhere, the poor can't afford houses, and the rich often disdain to live in high-rise buildings, so there is no market for developing high-rise buildings in India.
The above two reasons are that there are not as many high-rise buildings in India as in China. But this is only temporary. I believe that with the continuous development and progress of India, the road that China is taking now will also be the road that India will take in the future.