Talk:List of tallest buildings in Navi Mumbai: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ridiculously inaccurate. Every building above 150m in the list is not a skyscrapers but listed with heights which only god knows where they came from. Satyam Imperial heights is 126m, Cloud 36 x 3 Towers is also below 150m. Literally everything above 150m in the list IS NOT 150m. I will proceed to change this by moving in buildings from the Mumbai Article here and replace and add buildings above 150m. Every Entry has inaccurate heights, citations etc. If someone wants to add a building, Link the RERA and specify the document where the height is given or can link the Environmental clearance documents or from a reputable source such as CTBUH, Emporis or SkyscrapersPage WITH their heights mentioned in it. This is the new standard. Ahahahaa (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have now been made. Every buildings should follow the format in which buildings over 150m are formatted. I will make changes with time for each building. Ahahahaa (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be another dedicated page for List of tallest buildings in Panvel. However, this Navi Mumbai page includes several Panvel buildings as well.

Option 1: Delete the Panvel page and move all the Panvel buildings into this Navi Mumbai page.

Option 2: Move the Panvel buildings from this page into the dedicated Panvel page

Please share your opinions on the above two options (or any third option you may have). Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is better to delete the panvel page Ahahahaa (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree with Option 1, to delete the Panvel page. Nearly all of the Panvel buildings are in Khargar, and these are all listed under the Navi Mumbai page as well. Moreover, Panvel seems to be part of Navi Mumbai for all census-related considerations. So it would make sense to list the Panvel buildings within the Navi Mumbai page (most are already listed within the Navi Mumbai page, by the way).

Also tagging @Joy goel for their views on this discussion. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawarijoshi I agree, go ahead and delete the List of tallest buildings in Panvel page but if possible could this Navi Mumbai page have all buildings above 100m rather than just 150m, Navi Mumbai has so many buildings above 100m if possible please include them here. Joy goel (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy goel Absolutely. I am okay with 100m+ buildings being listed on this page. Sawarijoshi (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is best we stick to just skyscrapers. The pace of highrise growth is wayy too much to keep track of and the city already has 100s of highrises. Keeping track and finding the ones under the radar will be a monumental task Ahahahaa (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, There has to be RERA citing or citation from a specific source. None of the building had them so i removed them. It is quite inaccurate too. There is no source for Sai World city towers are 150m, Sai Miracle being 160m, and same for Arihant Amodini and G square. Also it is better to separate highrises and skyscrapers and make a separate table for highrises over 100m and not throw them in the skyscrapers part. There are many buildings in the U/C section too that are cancelled, or have completion dates of 2017 and none of the new towers added have a RERA citing. Just a citations to the project but nothing for the height. It has to be like the entries i did where there is an image of its RERA height. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]