PDA

View Full Version : The 60-storey house for just one family



pianoman11686
June 1st, 2007, 05:29 PM
The 60-storey house for just one family

Last updated at 19:32pm on 1st June 2007

This 60-storey house is for just one family.

India's richest man, Mukesh Ambani, is planning a palace in the heart of Mumbai with helipad, health club, hanging gardens and six floors of car parking.

His wife, mother and three children will live there with him, looked after by 600 live-in staff.

Construction has already started on what will eventually be a 175m tower and planners are aiming to complete it in September 2008.

Earlier this year, Forbes rated Mr Ambani as the richest resident Indian with a net worth of US$20.1 billion.

He came 14th in Forbes' 2007 worldwide rankings.

Currently he is chairman of petroleum major Reliance Industries Ltd, India's largest private sector company.

The building, already worth £500 million, could start a rush on skyscrapers.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/mukeshLL_468s787.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459208&in_page_id=1770

Punzie
June 1st, 2007, 06:49 PM
Reminding y'all Americans that 500 million =
$991 million U.S. dollars.:)

BrooklynRider
June 1st, 2007, 10:33 PM
Looks like a Gene Kaufman creation. Hideous!

ablarc
June 3rd, 2007, 11:42 AM
There are plenty of poor folks in India he could benefit instead of spending it so obscenely on himself.

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Height of arrogance.

pianoman11686
June 3rd, 2007, 12:33 PM
Nice pun^.

No, really: isn't the most expensive private residence built to date cost somewhere around $150 million? Why the sudden jump?

ablarc
June 3rd, 2007, 12:39 PM
No, really: isn't the most expensive private residence built to date cost somewhere around $150 million?
How much did Versailes cost?

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2007, 12:42 PM
I guess you have to use the price tag for an office building as a comparison.

But even that might not be valid.

How does someone building a 60 floor home furnish it? Will it have dozens of bathrooms with gold fixtures?

pianoman11686
June 3rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
How much did Versailes cost?

I wouldn't count the residences of political rulers as private residences. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

I was talking about this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2832627&page=1

ablarc
June 3rd, 2007, 02:04 PM
I wouldn't count the residences of political rulers as private residences.
"L'etat, c'est moi." --Louis XIV, builder of Versailles.

Derek2k3
June 3rd, 2007, 02:08 PM
It doesn't have 60 floors, it's just equivalent to a 60 story building. IMO, better 60 stories up in the city than 60 acres out in the woods.

ablarc
June 3rd, 2007, 02:22 PM
^ Yeah ... but a sixty-acre house ?

Derek2k3
June 3rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
Well the site of the house. You know the mansions of the American rich, with their golf courses and acres of manicured lawns. Just as disgusting and over time probably just as environmentally destructive as this.

pianoman11686
June 3rd, 2007, 02:45 PM
Gotta love the arrogance of the Sun King. But still, I wouldn't dream of comparing something like Versailles - or any other chateau, castle, or palace - to a home built by one of today's rich. The difference between using the public's money and your own.

I think the most apt comparisons come from the Gilded Age mansions of two American businessmen - Hearst's Castle and Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate. It's been estimated the former cost $4.7 million to build; around $10 million for the latter. They both originally covered tens of thousands of acres, and were the height of opulence (and technological sophistication) at their time. Even with inflation, I doubt either of them would come close to $1 billion in today's dollars.

ablarc
June 3rd, 2007, 03:46 PM
Even with inflation, I doubt either of them would come close to $1 billion in today's dollars.
Oh, I dunno ... especially if you included the artwork and furnishings.

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2007, 04:39 PM
Well the site of the house. You know the mansions of the American rich, with their golf courses and acres of manicured lawns. Just as disgusting and over time probably just as environmentally destructive as this.


I think the most apt comparisons come from the Gilded Age mansions of two American businessmen - Hearst's Castle and Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate. It's been estimated the former cost $4.7 million to build; around $10 million for the latter. They both originally covered tens of thousands of acres, and were the height of opulence (and technological sophistication) at their time. Even with inflation, I doubt either of them would come close to $1 billion in today's dollars.
Interesting comparison: Vertical vs sprawling ostentatious display.

The latter may be chosen to hide the manor house, not flaunt it to the general public. The very expensive classic cars of the 30s went out of favor during the Depression, not because the rich couldn't afford them, but to avoid riling the less fortunate.

A 60 storey building may by comparison seem more environmentally friendly, but we can't deny that many of today's parks and wilderness areas were once huge estates.

Much of the 46,000 acre Harriman State Park was a gift from the 30,000 acre family estate.

The NY Botanical Garden came from the estate of Pierre Lorillard. Since they were more interested in horseback riding than lawns, they never cleared the trees, so we now have one of the oldest forest stands in New York.