Mumbaikars Object To BMC's New Iconic Buildings Policy, Alleging It Is Exclusionary, Commercialised And Centrally Controlled

Mumbai: Mumbaikars have objected to the new proposed regulation in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)’s iconic buildings policy alleging that it is built on an aesthetic of spectacle, a logic of commercialisation, and a structure of centralised control.

The proposed regulation has been alleged to be exclusionary towards Mumbai’s known heritage buildings and the lack of a mechanism to regulate the policy’s impact of overwhelming the surrounding.

On June 24, BMC invited suggestions and objections from Mumbaikars on a new regulation 33(27) to the iconic building policy that aims to shape the city’s skyline. BMC claimed that once implemented, the policy will regulate and encourage the development of structures with distinctive architectural styles, aimed at reinforcing Mumbai’s global image as a city with unique and diverse architecture.

While Mumbaikars have acknowledged the ambition of the policy, they have claimed that the policy warrants serious reconsideration. In an online petition marked to the chief engineer of the development plan (DP) department, an anonymous citizens’ group with the name ‘Save Mumbai’s Iconic Buildings’ has raised significant concerns relating to equity, heritage, governance, and sustainability claiming that it warrants serious reconsideration.

The petition, launched on Friday, alleged that the proposed policy defines iconic as exclusionary and biased towards commercial spectacle. It highlighted that the requirement of minimum 40% of the building to be open to the public for a fee, disqualifies the city’s vast stock of residential heritage buildings, including the chawls of Girgaon, the bungalows of Gamdevi and the art deco apartments of Marine Drive.

It also raised concerns against the encouragement of commercialised access alleging that it will turn public engagement into a paid experience, deepening social exclusion.

“These are structures that define the everyday life and cultural identity of the city. They are iconic not because they contain cafes or galleries, but because they are repositories of memory, community, and architectural lineage. By privileging fee-based access and high-visibility aesthetics, the policy effectively erases living heritage from our urban imagination,” read the petition.

The letter alleged that the governance framework of the policy is deeply inadequate, elaborating that the scrutiny committee lacks defined membership criteria, transparency mechanisms or a process of public accountability. It suggested the framework like Mumbai’s heritage committee, which includes civil society experts, architects, and historians

It also added that along with reshaping the city’s skyline, the policy also needs a mechanism to regulate its impact. It suggested that Mumbai urgently requires a New York-like skyline review process that evaluates how proposed structures affect sightlines, scale, and heritage precincts. It also raised concerns about applying the same rule to the entire city and bypassing of the wards in the decision-making process.

“It is a critical fact that this policy, like many others before it, continues to treat Mumbai as a monolith, applying the same rules to vastly different neighbourhoods. The new proposed regulation imposes a uniform citywide framework, ignoring the fact that decentralised planning is essential to a city as diverse and layered as ours. Planning must be devolved to the ward or precinct level, allowing for area-specific review and genuine citizen participation. Without decentralisation, heritage will always be at the mercy of distant, disconnected authorities."

Urging the civic body to withdraw the draft, the petition alleged that the policy is environmentally unsound as it promotes illuminated facades and high-rise construction with no requirement for environmental review or sustainability standards.

Mumbai News: BMC’s ₹20-Crore 'Aspirational Toilets' Project In Heritage Areas Under Probe After MLA Ameet Satam's Complaint

It added that these iconic buildings risk generating increased heat, carbon emissions, and pressure on coastal microclimates while there is no mention of tree protection, energy efficiency, or carbon offset.