Heritage Structures - Preservation versus Practicality

Heritage Structures - Preservation versus Practicality

“To know nothing of what happened before you is to forever remain a child.” – Cicero. “Heritage Structures” means a structure possessing architectural, aesthetic, historic or cultural values which is declared as heritage by a Competent Authority in whose jurisdiction such building is situated. A point worth discussing would be whether heritage structures have precedence over modern needs? The comparison between preservation of heritage structure with practicality, many times has been a question for the developing nations. Is it really necessary to ‘maintain’ these structures which could have been used otherwise for some practical purposes like construction of schools or some important aspects related to developing?

Preservation -

1. These structures exist not merely as a historic structure built years ago but also as a landmark for the nation.

2. Historic buildings are reminiscence of past of a nation's cultural, ethical and social evolution with time. If we don’t preserve the heritage structures, we're not replacing the past but destroying its existence in the nation for today and ever.

3. Tourism, said to be the world’s largest industry thrives on this reminiscence of past. Preservation can work wonders as this reminiscence play an important role in attracting the tourists and fetching a huge amount of revenue to the government. E.g. Taj Mahal.

4. By many deep researches on historic buildings, we can easily explore people’s philosophy and psychology in that period of time. The good practices followed in earlier times are known to us through studying these buildings. For e.g. in the monsoon period Buddhist monks lived in caves. How the small caves hosted such a large number of monks comfortably is a phenomenon to study as it would enrich urban planning.

5. The existing French architecture in Pondicherry and the Portuguese architecture in Goa are evidence of the different cultures persisting in different places ruled under different kingdoms and its impact on people living there even today.

6. Heritage Structures help define culture; and culture binds people together and solidifies unity. Thus historic buildings are not only symbols of a culture, but to some extent, therein lies nation’s unity. Thus tearing down the historic buildings, which amounts to breaking down one’s nation’s unique culture actually is not as simple as tearing down an old building.

7. It is an important part of transmission of culture over generations.

Practicality

1. “A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people.” - Mahatma Gandhi. Thus one can preserve one’s culture even if one has to compromise on heritage structures.

2. Urban areas are under enormous pressure to industrialize, maximize their economic potential, accommodate the migration, etc. So importance must be given to serve contemporary needs as present and future planning is important for survival.

3. Wherever a utilitarian need for new buildings arises, this need should take precedence over our interest in preserving historical buildings as a record of our past. There is a serious space crunch seen all over the world.

4. Apart from space issues, other aspect is the high investment in maintaining the structures. That money can be redirected for the socio-economic developments especially in the developing nations.

5. The frailty of these structures is seriously exposed during earthquakes and floods. The huge structures can damage adjacent modern buildings due to its fragility. There is also lack of fire resistance.

6. In some areas these are located near or above mineral resources, thus making mining difficult. However not mining will reduce the pace of development.

7. As land is becoming valuable, practically speaking, an attractive price for the structure will tempt owners to demolish the structure.

The current housing policies aimed at rebuilding the Mumbai city threaten the distinct visual character of the city, by aiming to replace it with a skyline of homogenous high-rises. Thus while determining whether to raze an older building; one should of course consider the community’s views and also gravity of the utilitarian needs. For example, if an additional hospital is needed to adequately serve the health-care needs, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old structure that stands in the way. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, appending to an older building might serve just as well. Of course, an expensive renovation might not be worthwhile if no amount of renovation would meet the need. An older building uniquely representing a bygone era or aesthetic and architectural value of the building or which served as the home of a significant historical figure or as the location of an important historical event, should gain precedence over the practical needs of the community.

In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, weighting the community’s practical needs against the building’s historic and aesthetic value.