Talk:Antilia (building)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trustworthiness & Accuracy[edit]

This article seems really over-glorified. The basic math doesn't add up at all. Someone wanted to flash around big numbers, but was too lazy to use a calculator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.226.148 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates[edit]

Co-ordinates are approximately 18.96786,72.809905 -- in Google images http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=&daddr=18.967561,72.80976&mra=mi&mrsp=0&sz=18&sll=18.96786,72.809905&sspn=0.00347,0.004168&ie=UTF8&ll=18.967708,72.809771&spn=0.00347,0.004168&t=h&z=18&om=0 is it the hole on the west side of the street or the building under construction on the east? Langhorner (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Added a reference and removed tag questioning notability -- this structure has been widely covered in the media as the world's most expensive residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langhorner (talk • contribs) 12 December 2008

forbes recently covered the building. Though it would be nice if many of the facts about the building could be referenced. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The world's tallest building (160 floor Burj Dubai) cost $1.5 billion. So why the hell will this cost $2 billion? New York Times reported that it cost $50-70 million. That's about 2 billion Rupees, not dollars!!! [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.160.60 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers are confused by the difference between cost and value, and they are using a very questionable extrapolation of value. Economic value is what someone is prepared to pay for a thing and it's unlikely anyone is going to actually offer $1bn for this. Subsolar (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, it probably is the most expensive residence in India, and probably one of the most luxurious in the world. So I'd vote keep. Subsolar (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the world's most expensive private residence, not building. Also, I would like to add that Buckingham Palace is not generally viewed as a private residence, so I propose changing it to the world's most expensive private residence - see here. This is the same source - The Daily Mail - yet it is contradictory. I suggest finding a different source. Awesomeshreyo (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation[edit]

This "valued at $1Bn" is, to put it politely, not verifiable. The SMH article says, with no attribution, "Mumbai's growing property prices means Antilia is now estimated to be worth 15 times more - about $1 billion." Estimated by whom?

It seems to me an acceptable source for a building's value is documentation of: an actual sale price; a declined offer (setting a minimum value); or perhaps an opinion by an accredited valuer. A journalist saying "worth a billion dollars" doesn't mean anything. Subsolar (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people keep trying to restore $1 billion as the cost. There is no RS mentioned here that says that was the cost. I guess the idea of a billion-dollar house is very romantic and it may be disappointing to remove it, but wikipedia is not a tabloid. Subsolar (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the news coverage published $2 billion home, that why people keep reverting edits KuwarOnline Talk 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss, don't just revert.
Let's have a look at the media coverage. The media coverage is mostly reprinting other articles, so there are many fewer than it would at first seem.
  • Forbes does seem to be an original article and says "a 27-story skyscraper in downtown Mumbai with a cost nearing $2 billion, says Thomas Johnson, director of marketing at Hirsch Bedner Associates." Most of the articles quoting the $1bn price are apparently plagiarizing, rewritten from or based upon the Forbes article.
  • aavaas says it is "no where near the $1billion people are now valuing their property at."
  • NYT quotes a Reliance spokesman saying it will be $50-70m.
  • SMH says "while the home cost about $77 million to build, Mumbai's growing property prices means Antilia is now estimated to be worth 15 times more - about $1 billion."
I think that the most reliable source is the Reliance spokesman quoted by the NYT. It's possible that he was lying on the NYT is misquoting him, but to me that is less likely than that there are Chinese whispers between the huge number of media stories excited about the big round number.
Thomas Johnson was not the architect for this project.
I think it is likely that the SMH explanation is correct, and the $1bn number is an extrapolation based on current land values. That's not the actual cost. The SMH pretty much admits that "$2bn" makes a good headline but isn't actually true.
It may well now be fairly valued at $1bn, but until we actually see someone offer $1bn we should be skeptical of that number.
I don't care how much or how little Mr Ambani spent on his house. I'm not trying to take a world record away from India. I just don't want WP to reproduce errors as mindlessly as the mass media and the rest of the internet does. Subsolar (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its just that you trying to prove that its not billion dollar home, your literally ignoring the other source which you even removed from article ref1, ref2, ref3 etc. No offence friend but you actually ignoring the source like forbes and other reliable sources. I think what we can do, is that add another section which can be called "Criticism" etc, where you can put this kind of thoughts like other article normally contains that kind of sections. So please discuss on talk page before removing quality sources , other wise is considered WP:Vandalism but I assume it was in good faith, so lets discuss before doing change to article KuwarOnline Talk 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring any sources, I'm just trying to work out which of them is the most reliable. Many of them are crap.
  • The first item you cite, cnngo is a summary of a story from the Times of India which is itself just quoting from the Forbes web site. There is no new reliable information.
  • The second, most-expensive.net is just some random blog, which is not a reliable source. This ought to go: WP:NOTLINK.
  • The third, rediff says "$2bn say reports" - that's great, which reports? It sounds a lot like they also read the Forbes story but aren't crediting it.
So, overall, it seems there is one actually reliable channel quoting a representative of the owner's organization saying $50-70m, and a huge number of unreliable sources echoing the questionable $1bn number from Forbes. Show me a reliable source unambiguously quoting someone in a position to know the cost of the project.
We need a bit of a sanity check here too: if it did cost $2bn, it would be vastly more expensive than other hyper-luxury constructions of similar size: as the sources discuss, Bill Gates' house is enormous and luxurious and only(!) ~$50m to construct and now valued at $147m. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don't think we need a specific "Criticism" section; if there was one it should be about external criticism of the project. (I'm sure there is lots of "omg how can he spend so much money when people are starving" but that's not particularly notable.) I'm basically happy with the current "Cost" section which says "Reliance said $50-70million but some people think it might be $1-2b".
Regards, Subsolar (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted it from the introduction - the number one billion seems to be nonsense Plehn (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have overlooked WP:Truth and WP:Verifiability. Your opinion that the Forbes Magazine article is not a WP:RS is just your WP:Opinion and is either WP:OR or WP:Synth. Deleting the statement is just plain wrong. It should be cited in the article and put into perspective; not eliminated entirely. You are Bowdlerizing historical fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

indiatoday link[edit]

This link [2] was commonly used, but is not stable - it points to a different story now, and I can't find the one originally referenced. Subsolar (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

controversy section[edit]

can we see if there are any critics who note how the most expensive private residence in the world is walking distance to one of the poorest neighborhoods in the world? --T1980 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the media articles already cited do point out the contrast. I don't think adding a section deploring or defending the way Mr Ambani chooses to spend his money would be really encyclopedic. The criticism needs to be notable in its own right, I think. Subsolar (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antilia (building). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Antilia or Antilla?[edit]

The title of the article is Antilia, and that name appears in one other place, in the second paragraph of the intro; everywhere else in the body of the article—including the boldfaced first word—it's called Antilla. Whichever spelling is wrong should be corrected. —8.47.96.133 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judgemental statement[edit]

A sentence quoting Mark Magnier of Los Angeles Times stated: "Few Indians are proud of the ostentatious house, while most see it as "shameful in a nation where many children go hungry"."

First it is not exactly what what Mark Magnier stated. Secondly it implies that it is unethical for specifically Indians to enjoy luxuries. Many children go hungry even in the richest nations. There are large populations of poor in USA or UAE, for example.

Los Angeles has "more people in poverty than any big city in America" [1]. I have not seen judging of those who live in Malibu Colony Beach or Beverly Hills Gateway.

In the past I remember having seen commentators from advanced countries commenting on why a poor nation like India does not deserve democracy. Malaiya (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don’t think it’s “being judgmental”. Wikipedia provides a neutral point of view. If there is a credible source claiming “few Indians are proud…” then there is no reason to not included it. Just because this isn’t included on, for example, US articles has no bearing. If you can find reliable sources that state “few Americans are proud of…” then please include it in those appropriate articles.
However, on the substance of your argument, I think, if you want to draw comparisons, an important distinction can be made when comparing the US, or other countries, and India. India accepts international aid from, for example, the US to aid its “poor”. The US is not recipient of international aid for the same purpose. I think criticism of ostentatious wealth in a country that receives international aid for poverty is warranted and balanced. Jo Jc JoTalk💬Edits📝 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Los Angeles still has more people in poverty than any big city in America, Census says

There have been articles questioning it's use as a residence.[edit]

I remember reading that the Antilia Tower is actually an entertainment center rather than a residence and that the family lives on Carmichael Road. I have been told that Connaught is a street of more traditional mansions from the Georgian era.RichardBond (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you read that? I did not understand the point about Connaught Street. How is it related to this article? Jay (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antilia_(building)&oldid=1204894615"