NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/Rahul Mehrotra

'To make conservation work we must first find a contemporary engine to drive the process'

Architect Rahul Mehrotra is today one of the foremost campaigners for the preservation of urban heritage. His efforts for Mumbai have drawn nationwide attention and today, as the Kala Ghoda Arts festival is in progress, it is widely recognised that he has successfully transformed what was once an esoteric environmental campaign into a full-fledged people's movement. "People respond when they realise that something belongs to them," he explained to Pritish Nandy in an interview. Excerpts: How did you first get interested in heritage architecture and its preservation? It is not the kind of work many architects are involved in.

Having trained in architecture I did a master's in urban design. This is actually an interesting specialisation because it attempts to bridge the gap between architecture and planning. Planning has become otherwise very abstract and two-dimensional. It is all about abstract land users on a plan whereas architecture is totally site-specific. It does not connect to anything. Urban design tries to bridge that, to establish connections.

When I came back to Bombay, I realised that architects were despairing that this is a horrible city to build in. You could not communicate with the planners, which made it almost impossible to build in the city.

Why don't architects ask for an urban arts council as they have in Delhi?

They have an urban arts council there but it is very superficial. It eventually boils down to deciding whether there should be dholpur stone or sandstone on the façade. That is not the real issue. The real issue is much deeper than that. It is the basic urban form; how buildings are organised; how a street is made. It is about the dynamics and the chemistries you set up in cities. All that is not being discussed. Nor even addressed.

In Delhi, you mean?

Yes. Whereas I discovered that in Bombay there were the stirrings of a conservation movement. There were citizens who were beginning to get concerned about issues that mattered. Their efforts, however, were only building-specific. They were listing old buildings and trying to decide which ones ought to be preserved. That is when I got actively engaged.

What did you do first?

I tried to impress upon them that to have a successful conservation movement we would have to first look at the very idea of urban conservation. Conservation of buildings can come later.

We began by trying to get the entire Fort area declared a conservation zone. We lobbied hard with the government through the institute I work with, the Urban Design and Research Institute, proposing the idea of creating conservation precincts. The Bombay Environment Action Group joined us to get the precincts demarcated in 1995. Yet, till 1998, nothing actually happened. The whole exercise was purely academic.

That's when I realised that to make conservation work we must first find a contemporary engine to drive the process. So instead of describing it as the Flora Fountain precinct, which meant nothing to nobody, we decided to call it a banking district. This woke up the banks. They said: Let's think how we can improve this area where we are.

Similarly here, in the Kala Ghoda area, which the government calls the museum precinct, no one was excited about doing anything till we renamed it the art district. Now every little gallery here feels that it can contribute to the effort.

How do you convince people to join the effort and put out money and sponsorships?

Most of what I do is advocacy effort. Working with people in the area, talking to them, convincing them to get together and form associations which can then take off on their own.

Why do we always hear people saying, Don't go near that building! It's a heritage building. They won't let you do anything with it! They would rather it collapsed than allow someone to repair it or put it in proper condition.

People have no idea about how supportive the heritage legislation actually is. It allows enormous incentives. It is also a disincentive for anyone in, say, the Fort area to tear their building down because each of the buildings there consumes an FCI of 4 whereas the present FCI is 1.33! So you can never get so much space if you are foolish enough to pull your building down. There are actually many, many misinterpretations of the legislation, that is the problem. Secondly, there has been a lot of ambiguity in our whole planning process. There has been no serious attempt by architects and planners to communicate with the community in which they live and work.

If you make a clear plan of action and articulate it and make an attempt to seriously communicate it, people respond instantaneously. After all, it is a win-win situation. It is in everyone's benefit. The problem lies with us. With architects, planners, urban designers, engineers, who are supposed to play an advocacy role. We have failed to show people how a building, a space or an area can be effectively re-used.

How do you intend to teach people this, to convince them that conservation works to their advantage?

By persuading them to take responsibility. The moment we were able to convince the bankers in Flora Fountain that this was their district, they immediately responded. The same for the art galleries in the museum precinct. People respond when they realise that something belongs to them.

Are the municipal authorities responsive? Or do they just shuffle papers and delay action?

So far my experience with them has been very good. They have always responded promptly. The only problem is that we are a very suspicious people. Whenever I ask someone for something relating to their area, I can see the look in their eyes. I know they are asking themselves: What has this guy got in it for himself?

Doesn't the culture of a city like Mumbai conflict with what you are doing? People here are so fiercely independent in spirit that they all want to do their own thing in their own space. In such an environment how can you design creativity co-ordinates that match preservation objectives? How can you stop architects from trying to upstage each other?

You have hit it on the head, Pritish! The key lies in breaking the city down into manageable units where you minimise conflict of interests. For instance, the art district has 25 galleries, the banking district has 36 banks. These are not large numbers and therefore they can work together and achieve things together. When you have large numbers, everything goes haywire. Nothing can be effectively managed. No one cares. That is why the secret lies in creating smaller, more manageable administrative units. Otherwise, everyone's background is so different, you can never come to a consensus.

How did you think of this arts festival?

The association in the arts district decided that one way of bringing attention to the area and raising funds for conservation was to create a festival. For a fortnight every year. It is a way of demonstrating three things.

One: to mould people's perception that this is an arts district. Two: to synergise the existing activities. For instance, last year's festival had 54 events. Thirty of them were happening in any case. The festival provided them a common platform. Three: to create for the city an infrastructure that could host eventually not just a city arts festival but a national one, perhaps even an international one. We are getting permissions to pedestrianise Rampart Row, use the parking lot to screen films that are open to the public. We are actually animating the public realm, you could say, and that is what will make a difference in the long run.

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview