Thanks entirely to my late brother Trilochan Chhaya, a brilliant architect himself, we grew up with a particular familiarity with names such as Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, Alvar Alto and Balkrishna Doshi and their remarkable buildings. I feel a particular affinity to and understanding of great architecture because of my brother.
So when I read about the kerfuffle over the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad’s (IIMA) decision to demolish 14 dormitories designed by Kahn I pay serious attention. I am very familiar with this Kahn-designed IIMA complex and note with some disquiet the planned demolition of the dorms.
I have just read an exchange between Prem Chandavarkar, a Bengaluru-based architect, and the IIMA director, Professor Errol D’Souza. The exchange is an example of how a serious debate should be about any subject of consequence. Of course, Prof. D’Souza’s reply to Chandavarkar’s exhaustive objection to the planned demolition is rather short on substantive arguments but the fact that he has chosen to engage is commendable.
D’Souza writes to Chandavarkar that he is “in consonance with your view that what Louis Kahn built was for all humankind and we are custodians of that work.” He adds, “That in itself makes it very important that we approach any decision in regard to the buildings slowly, after taking into account whatever inputs we can muster, and as hesitatingly as possible,” D’Souza writes.
In that context, the IIMA director points out that keeping that approach in mind the institute has chosen to restore some of the dorms, “especially where they align with the signature Vikram Sarabhai Library and the Louis Kahn Plaza.” At the same time though he seems to imply that the other buildings are not necessarily safe. “That they are in such a dilapidated state despite attempts to maintain them in such short span of time speaks for the material used and the sparse attention to the structure’s capability to withstand an earthquake in a seismic zone,” he says.
He makes a distinction between the problem faced by the dorms and the library.
What jumped out at me from his letter is this comment by D’Souza: “I would hesitate to call a set of buildings that are just about half a century old heritage.”
That is an interesting point to discuss. Does a building or a piece of work become “heritage” only on achieving a certain vintage? I don’t think that should be the overarching standard, if any at all. Heritage may have age in it but it is mainly about the quality of the work and its larger cultural significance that together add up to heritage.
Coming back to whether the 14 IIMA dorms should be demolished or restored, I am reminded of some of my conversations with the inhabitants of Ahmedabad’s old quarter known as Pols. There are several buildings in Pols which are very old even if with the vestigial reminders of their once grand and glorious origins. They are known as havelis and there is always a great deal of enthusiasm among those who live outside Pols to preserve them as heritage. However, those who live in those buildings often dismiss such ideas saying they may seem like heritage from outside for those who don’t have to live in them but they are anything but for those who live in them.
The IIMA dorms are part of a great Kahn legacy and everything should be done to restore them to bring them up to the current code and seismic requirements. If that is genuinely not possible—and that’s a big if given that other similar structures on the campus have been found to be fine—then as a last resort they should be demolished. Reading some literature on it I am not sure if that last resort has been reached.
