MUMBAI, July 25 -- Mumbai's proposed 'iconic buildings' policy, which seeks to bring in fresh structures along Mumbai's skyline, has set alarm bells ringing for many residents, artists, architects and conservationists. With the policy tight-lipped on what exactly counts as 'iconic', they fear that it may end up destroying the already-present iconic neighbourhoods of the city. On Thursday, the last day to submit feedback, over 2,200 persons signed a letter objecting to the policy, which was sent to the BMC. The letter that began it all was written by Shireen Gandhy, director of the art gallery Chemould Prescott Road and whipped up into a petition on change.org by NCP spokesperson Anish Gawande last Friday. HT wrote about the petition on Sunday, which has gathered more steam since and been signed by artists Atul Dodiya, Anuj Dodiya, Sudhir Patwardhan, actors Ratna Pathak Shah, Anahita Uberoi, Chitra Palekar and Dolly Thakore, architect Samira Rathod, criminal lawyer Satish Maneshinde and housing rights activist Vidula Warawdekar among others. "What made me sign the petition is a simple inclination towards preserving what is already good rather than vying for what is coming up, much of which is often driven by a profit motive," said Patwardhan whose canvases have very often featured Bombay. Filmmaker Onir, a signatory to the letter, echoed this idea. "When I travel abroad, I see how much love and care is taken care of the heritage of those countries, and I can only think of how we don't do enough for what we already have," he said. "Many of our heritage buildings are falling apart, but this policy seeks to bring in high-rises in a city that has already reached capacity." The policy seeks to bring in a new provision-Regulation 33(27)-to encourage iconic buildings, described as any with "unique or distinctive characteristics" by offering 50% higher FSI or more. Only five such buildings will be approved each year, the judge being a panel headed by the BMC's municipal commissioner and other renown members from visual and architectural fields and the state government. But this vagueness is what has made many bristle. "The policy may not be explicitly saying what we're thinking," said Patwardhan, "but the way Mumbai is progressing in its development, by the destruction of the old to favour the new and tall is not a good indication of things. It must not continue this way." The letter submitted to the BMC too had these concerns, wondering who would be regulating the policy and ensuring "that new buildings complement and do not overwhelm their surroundings". It forewarned, "Without this, the 'iconic' label may become a licence for vertical excess, even in sensitive areas such as Marine Drive and Fort, where visual harmony is integral to identity." Artist Brinda Miller shared this concern. "No harm should come to the heritage buildings in South Mumbai, and I signed the petition to avoid the risk of that. Mumbai is the second capital of Art Deco buildings in the world after Miami. The suburbs could get better, but this part of town is already the best." The letter also brings up the environmental degradation hastened by high-rises, which the policy encourages with doles of additional FSI. "The policy promotes illuminated facades and high-rise construction with no requirement for environmental review or sustainability standards," says the letter. "These 'iconic' buildings risk generating increased heat, carbon emissions and pressure on coastal microclimates. There is no mention of tree protection, energy efficiency or carbon offset-yet, these are central to any future-facing policy in a climate-vulnerable city like Mumbai."...