I am surprised and intrigued. In an unhurried ease and calm, the IIM Ahmedabad (IIMA) Governing Council blatantly takes unilateral decisions on demolishing the Architectural and cultural heritage of Ahmedabad and the leading management institutes of India. They remain unopposed under the guise of being autonomous. I am surprised it is not a subject of national debate why the Government of Gujarat and the Government of India, the architecture society of India, the alumni and the faculty and the intelligentsia -the protectors of societal heritage remain silent on this murderous intent of the institute known for its management education. Changing the logo is one thing ( though I do not prescribe to the restored modified logo), but playing around with the heritage structure demolition is entirely different.
The IIMA authorities it seemed in 2020, decided to replace most of the original historic fabric of IIMA and to risk irreversible alterations, including the demolition of several structures and construction of new multi-stories blocks that would adversely impact the unique hierarchical spatial order, visual harmony and innovation construction for which the IIMA campus is valued and known the world over. And now propose to rebuild public-facing dorms 16-18, the Louis Khan Plaza and the faculty and the classrooms of the old campus with the same old exterior façade to create a seismically safe structure, and non-major renovation of the internal space to improve its functionality to suit the needs of the user!. But breakdown dorms 1-14 for what is being called a growth-led design and efficient space utilisation.
The ex-Director of the institute Errol D’Souza, in fact, tried to hide behind the changes and questioned the heritage association. He says, “Over time, it has become difficult to identify the structure with the original creativity that was manifested in the building associated with the architect ( Louis Khan ) and his associates. A definitive blinkered view”.
BROADER STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP
Now, this can be seen as an ineffective blabbering of alumni who lived in and loved the inspiring architecture that pushed you to do a bit more. A minor stakeholder who is paranoid of change of status, a block into the lofty expansion plan of IIMA. Who does not understand that things must evolve with time? The aspirations of the new students at the campus desire and deserve better facilities. That the Louis Khan ideological integration of the Student and faculty residential complex with the seat of education, the classrooms, faculty rooms, the library and the magnificent plaza, the nerve centre of activities, and the spaces created for interaction, community creation, and teamwork including the famed academic meetings and discussion in non-academic spaces is no longer holds good when the students and the education process are more digitalised.
The Institute does not realise the importance of affinity and community building among the batches and through the unique dorm culture. They fail to recognise that these are the de-facto identity of the alumni. And the biggest strength of the institute comes from lifelong alumni support and network despite no central functional alumni association. Then how the alumni can question this judgement?
IIMA MYOPIC VIEW WITH AUTONOMOUS OWNERSHIP.
This myopic view considers the so-called legacy heritage structure association and reflection only with IIMA because it was created for it and is part of it. It fails to see a more significant association and integral impact, which cries for it to be recognised as the city, the state, and the national heritage. A space where the Government must intervene.
The IIMA heritage architecture that the Governing Council has decided to demolish is a reference taught in major architecture courses in India and Abroad. This makes the whole architectural society and stakeholders an extended impact group. What the alumni and the architectural bodies ask for is simple, a more conservation-sensitive approach to development, legal heritage protection for the IIMA campus, and maintenance of historically significant buildings.
The institute fails to recognise and support the competent professionals it has helped ingrain the best of management practices. Many of them, being civil engineers or closely associated with the builder’s community, could help them with proper analysis, problem analysis, alternate solutions and picking a solution that is the best for all the stakeholders. Is that not what the institute has been teaching all this while?
In fact, this issue before the institute or heritage structure vs space for growth is ripe for a nationwide case study analysis across platforms. That is really a fantasy. Not something one can expect from an institute that teaches transparency in management decisions but refuses to make public the reports on structural viability and restoration.
IIMA MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The institute management has repeatedly raised a few concerns with the old campus and the need to reconstruct instead of restoration- which according to them, is not viable. Concerns like – providing a safe environment for the users (Faculty and students), meeting the current living and learning standards ( AC, attached baths, new working realities), and Shortage of land for future expansion seem genuine in isolation. Added to this is the question of use value, taking into account perceptions of obsolescence and risk to life and property, the economics of conservation, restoration vs Longevity of restored properties vs the new design and construction.
The only problem that needs to be resolved is whether it can keep the heritage architectural design and ethos intact. And the answer most likely will be YES. It can be unless the people in power have already made up their minds for a new contemporary concretisation of the institute.
There are more questions than answers, but the feeling and intent are the same, at least with stakeholders other than the Governing Council and the automounts IIMA. We all want to protect the heritage and the legacy of the IIMA architecture incorporating the new aspiration and desires of the students and the faculty, including the so-called facilities like Air Conditioners!
Heritage-led development for IIM Ahmedabad
So, it was interesting to attend the International Webinar, ‘Future for the Modern Past – Heritage-led development for IIM Ahmedabad’. It addressed three major sessions. ‘Working Towards a Value-Based Approach -Assessing the Cultural Significance of IIMA’, ‘Managing Louis Khan’s Legacy’ and ‘Promoting, Protecting, Conserving 20 C Heritage’.
Kiran Joshi-Architect, Academic, Author, Heritage Advocate; India session on day 1 was the most eye-opening and focussed one for me. It questions if the heritage is exclusively assigned to the campus built under Louis Khan or if it should include the entire old campus where other architects like Annat Raje and Doshi have expanded, keeping the architectural fabric of IIMA intact.
It was Amit Srivastava, Director, Centre of Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture (CAMEA) based at the University of Adelaide, Australia, who focussed on the impact of IIMA architecture in the city and trade. His original research on the IIMA architectural project explored the challenge of material encounters, authorship, and historiography in architecture. He pointed out the association and important role played by NID (National School of Design) Ahmedabad representatives and the impact of state division into Gujarat and Maharashtra. Thus raising a question of who is the rightful owner of the legacy and why it is a heritage of impact that must be protected and, in this case, restored.
To quote Amit Srivastava and again point out the broader association, he quotes Ned Kaufmann and Paul Rappoport (2013). Then he implies that IIMA and its narrative are linked to Ahmedabad’s building culture. And it makes ample sense.
‘Intangible heritage is both physical and associational. Paying attention to the narratives expressed through people’s customs, stories, and memories can give invaluable insights into the psychological bonds that people form with these places and that, with time, comes to define their heritage value.’ Ned Kaufmann and Paul Rappoport (2013)
NETNET. IIMA AND THE HERITAGE
I believe the heritage architectural structure of the old campus IIMA cannot be considered the sole property of the autonomous IIMA. It has a broader perspective and impact. And this is a subject that the city, State Government, and Central Government must consider. It has cultural as well as educational importance and hence a wider stakeholder. It requires a conservation-sensitive approach and a solution that is in the stakeholders’ best interest. And the best includes keeping the heritage feel, ethos and design structure intact. The decision can not be a simple restore or demolish.
You will find solutions if there is love and passion for the structure. It is hard to think that no one can develop better brick that looks the same, the concrete that is better suited and reimagines the interior space. If the people from IIMA attended the webinar on day -II, they would have realised and seen the CASE STUDIES of restoring Doon School, Dehradun, School Of Architecture, Ahmedabad, Sanatorium “Zonnestraal” and The Christo Obrero conservation plan. Help may be available from the National School of Design and School of Architecture, the alumni and the architects interested in restoring such a prestigious heritage structure. Net Net- these restoration project reinforces the belief that proper heritage architecture restoration and renovation is possible with a focussed conservation sensitive approach. However, things could be different if the people in power have already decided to demolish and reconstruct rather than restore and renovate.
………………………………………………………………………………
ADDON
The webinar was organised by ICOMOS- India’s National Scientific Committee of 20th Century Heritage ( NSC-20) in collaboration with ICOMOS- India’s Emerging professionals working Group ( EPWG) & West Zone, ICOMOS India. Along with Institutional partner USM’s Kamla Raheja Vidhyanidhi Institute for Architecture & Environmental Studies ( KRVIA), Mumbai. As Alumni representation in this primarily architectural webinar was provided by Meenakshi Nath ( My batchmate from 1987 IIMA) and Rashmi Bansal (1993 batch IIMA), who both have been at the forefront of the alumni, push for the restoration of heritage architecture instead of concretisation in the name of future needs for growth.
I have primarily taken my notes from the first technical session. Interested parties and stakeholders ( a shout-out to IIMA management) can watch the Day 1 and 2 proceedings here.
People interested may read the ex-directors 33-page note titled Conception, Creation & Corporeality A Tract on the Louis Kahn Designed Buildings at IIM Ahmedabad. Where the ex-director painfully prepares the case for no restoration and new construction to the extent of implying that there is no original heritage structure at the old campus.
BLOG/022/2023 To connect, send an email, join on Twitter S_kotnala or subscribe to the weekly update.
