In recent weeks, Mumbai’s civic and state authorities have made headlines with a sweeping new proposal – Regulation 33 (27), a move ostensibly aimed at promoting “iconic architecture” in the city.

Heralded as a bid to redefine the skyline and open more spaces to the public, the proposal sounds progressive. On paper, it invites citizen feedback, promises world-class design and nods to global benchmarks. However, beneath the rhetoric of inclusion lies an unsettling reality as the policy raises a more fundamental question. What is truly iconic?

To qualify as “iconic”, a building must open 40% of its premises to the public through a fee-based system. Implicit in this is the exclusion of privately-owned residential structures, many of which form the backbone of what conservationists call “living heritage”. These are not defunct relics or sealed monuments. They are stilloccupied, actively maintained, architecturally significant structures that embody Mumbai’s cultural fabric. By disqualifying them, 33 (27) sidesteps what makes Mumbai unique: heritage not as spectacle, but as lived experience.

The ambiguity in the........

© Free Press Journal