How (NOT) to protect the city’s heritage

The workings of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) are shrouded in mystery. But what is quite clear is that the speed at which it works is better suited to the era in which the buildings it is meant to protect were constructed. And in the process of grinding slowly, its wheels are letting several opportunities slip. Given the pace of its working, it is open to question as to whether the HCC seriously intends protecting any heritage structure.

Take the listing of heritage buildings, for instance. Despite the presence of a list put together by INTACH (Oops! Who or what is that?), and a subsequent list put together by the Padmanabhan Committee, the HCC is once again in the process of listing buildings. The modus operandi of this exercise and the people involved in the process are top secrets. It is exactly three years (judgement was on April 29, 2010) since the Hon’ble High Court of Madras mandated the formation of the HCC. And at the end of this period, all that the HCC has to show is a first list of 70 buildings and a promise of a second list ‘quite soon’. Even the first list has not been made public (State secret, you see) and we only have vague rumours of the buildings that have made it to that list. It would be relevant to pause and ponder over the fact that the Padmanabhan Committee list and INTACH’s list had 400 and more buildings enumerated.

And what after the first and second lists are finalised in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture and when the moment is ripe, to quote from a British sitcom when lampooned that country’s bureaucracy? The HCC proposes to write to the owners. The last time these people heard from the HCC was three years ago when, following the directives of the Court, the HCC wrote to the owners of all the properties/precincts listed as per the Padmanabhan Committee. They were restrained from demolishing or making any changes to their premises. Now, it is learnt, the owners of the buildings featuring in the HCC’s first list will be invited for public consultations. What of the owners of the remaining buildings? They will, it is presumed, sit tight and continue to wait for further instructions even as the structures in their possession gradually wither away. Some, of course, are bound to rejoice, as the status quo helps those who are not interested in preserving their heritage structures.

That is not the end of the story. Those who own buildings featuring in the first list will be categorically told that they cannot expect any support from the Government for protecting their heritage. This is expected to be done at the owners’ expense. If they cannot afford to do so, then what?

Will the HCC, at least, help with technical advice on what can be done? No, because that is not perceived to be its mandate. Peopled as it is by members who are all from the Government and its aided institutions, there is complete conformity to the rulebook and a certain rigid adherence to procedures that makes the very formation of the HCC a self-defeating exercise. If at the end of three years all that there is to show is a measly list of 70 buildings yet to be made public, when are we likely to see any constructive action that will result in some positive protection of our heritage? Are we hoping for too much?

Further, a judgement of the Court called for the HCC to assess the buildings identified in the Padmanabhan Committee Report and advise on how these are to be conserved and made places of tourist importance. What of that mandate?

Mistaking reconstruction for restoration

Where the Bible Society Building stood

A new wind is sweeping around the heritage buildings of the city, at least around some of them. Unfortunately, it is an ill-wind. Several heritage property owners have embarked on plans of either complete or partial reconstruction of their buildings. Those in charge of giving permission for such activities are mistakenly giving in, on the assurance that the new structure will be “exactly as the old structure was”. There is nothing more misleading than this. For, a new building or even a partial reconstruction using modern material is not heritage conservation under any circumstance.

Memorial Hall, Park Town

Take, for instance, the historic Bible Society building in the Memorial Hall premises. Despite its being included in the Padmanabhan Committee Report, thereby bringing it under the purview of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) of the CMDA, this structure was demolished. This was done on the grounds that approval for demolition had been given before the High Court of Madras ruled that the buildings listed in the Padmanabhan Committee Report had to be protected. That the demolition was done immediately after the ruling is another matter altogether that we will not go into.

Served with a fait accompli, the CMDA had to permit a new building with the Bible Society promising to give it a “heritage look”. When the plans came up for approval by the HCC it was found that the new structure was several stories higher than the old one and also completely dwarfed Memorial Hall. For once the HCC asserted itself and decreed that the number of floors had to be reduced so that Memorial Hall could be seen. This was accepted and adhered to. The building is now complete, with everyone congratulating themselves on having preserved heritage. The new structure, it must be admitted, has a few arched windows. If that is heritage preservation, then so be it.

Internationally, heritage conservation follows certain norms. Firstly, the attempts are always to preserve what is still standing. Therefore, demolition is a strict no-no. In which case the old Bible Society building must have never been pulled down. Secondly, in case partial reconstruction is to be done, care is taken that existing material is the first choice. If that is not possible, new material is sourced from exactly the same places from where the original was procured. This was, for instance, done in the case of Senate House renovation, where chunam and not cement concrete was used. Thirdly, any reconstruction is done keeping the heritage grading of the building in mind. Structures of utmost importance cannot be altered in any way. Those of less importance can have permissible changes. We now leave it to you to decide as to how the Bible Society building can be construed as heritage preservation/renovation/restoration.

Now that a precedent has been established, several others have begun jumping on this bandwagon. St Ebba’s School (also in the Padmanabhan Committee Report) has in the name of restoration removed the entire roof and is replacing it with reinforced cement concrete. That this is being done without any conservation architect on board can be a reasonable assumption. And if one has been involved, then that person has not been faithful to the spirit of restoration. The two building materials, chunam that was traditionally used on the walls, and cement that is now being used, are not known to bond together and considerable problems are predicted for the future. The YMIA, it is reliably learnt, is mulling over demolition and construction of a new Gokhale Hall, “on the same design, inclusive of dome.” Several churches, temples and educational institutions have either done this or are contemplating to do it.

Which brings us to what is a recurring theme in several of our editorials. What exactly is the HCC doing? Why is it not being proactive in advising heritage property owners on what can be done? It is now merely an approving authority that sits in judgement over demolition plans. It is high time it set itself a broader agenda with vision, and one that includes a Heritage Act for the State. Failing that, we are bound to lose our heritage to misguided restoration efforts while the Establishment keeps patting itself on its back.

A crawl to list heritage sites

Historic Beach House, on its way out?

The CMDA and its Heritage Conservation Committee have finally spoken on heritage. Three years after the HCC was set up for the purpose of going into the list of 400-and-odd buildings that were ordered by the High Court of Madras to be listed under heritage status, it has announced that it is finalising a list of 70 buildings that may merit consideration for protection. Conservation and preservation are a long way off, as this list is now to go through a long process of public debate and may undergo changes. It is all too little and too late.

There have been listings of heritage buildings in Madras, going back to the 1990s. INTACH, a body that is now, it would appear, persona non grata with the Government, had compiled the first listing and had submitted it with detailed documents to the Government. This was duly filed after vague promises. Much water has since then flown down the Cooum and the latest list was the one put together by the Justice Padmanabhan Committee in connection with large outdoor hoardings and had around 460 buildings. That list was the enumeration that Justice Prabha Sridevan used in her landmark judgement concerning Bharat Insurance Building as a consequence of which the HCC was formed. The Committee was given the mandate to go through the list, decide on whether gradings suggested by the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were acceptable to it and then offer guidelines for protecting the buildings.

However, the HCC had for reasons best known to itself set about making another list. At the end of three years, it has now decided that 70 buildings may be worthy of protection. As to the methodology used for the enumeration and what the considerations were for including a building in the list, the HCC is silent. The contents of the list are yet to be made public but it is understood that it comprises around 42 public buildings. This in a city that as per independent lists has more than 400 heritage structures!

The story does not end here for heritage structures. The CMDA plans to follow a time-consuming process of public consultation during which it plans to invite the owners of the buildings and explain the heritage value of the structures in their possession. It will record their assent/objections, if any, and then forward its recommendations to the State Government, which will then notify the final list of buildings as having heritage status. Given the way things have moved on heritage thus far, all this is likely to take forever. And, above all, there is not even a mention of a Heritage Act, the creation of which was one of the mandates for the HCC.

If you are to go by newspaper reports, the Government does not plan to extend any financial help to owners of heritage properties for conservation and restoration. The onus is entirely on the property owners and they will be forbidden to demolish the buildings or modify them in any way. Then there follows a line which states that the Government will have a fund for heritage buildings and extend it to owners who cannot afford to maintain their premises. These are steps that are hardly likely to enthuse any heritage property owner to maintain the structure in his/her possession. The HCC needs to come out with positive ways in which people can maintain heritage and that is not being done.

Peopled as it is by Government representatives, the HCC is not functioning in any way close to bodies of a similar nature in other countries. Private owners of heritage properties need to be roped in and made to participate in its working. That will transform it from a rule-bound slow-moving body into a more dynamic one. Given the way heritage buildings are being demolished or allowed to fall apart owing to plain neglect, it is unlikely that any of them will be left standing by the time the last steps to a notification are taken.

Why this stealth and secrecy in heritage conservation?

The word Masonic is perhaps what best describes our State Government’s policy as far as heritage conservation and preservation are concerned. Beyond making a few public noises and claiming to be doing everything for conservation and restoration, there is very little action forthcoming. And what there is, is veiled under such secrecy as to be completely opaque to the public at large.

Take for instance the much-touted Heritage Conservation Commission that was to be appointed and for which a Bill was introduced – and passed – in the Legislative Assembly in June. Ever since then, there is uncertainty as to what precisely has happened. The Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture, had in a speech in August claimed that the Bill had been passed by the Assembly and was awaiting Governor’s assent. But after that, there has been no news on it. Indeed, the Bill does not even figure in the list of legislations as provided in the Government web site.

Meanwhile, it is reliably learnt that there is considerable jockeying for the post of Chairman of the Heritage Conservation Commission. What is certain is that it will be populated mainly by Government representatives. Five Secretaries of the Government those in charge of Tourism and Culture, Urban Housing and Development, Archaeology and Museums, Finance and the PWD – are a certainty, it is understood.

While the Government is taking its own time over this Bill/Law/Commission, buildings that are crying out for attention are weakening by the day.

The next great exercise in secrecy is the functioning of the already existing Heritage Conservation Committee, which was formulated by the CMDA as a result of the Justice Padmanabhan Committee report and the Justice Prabha Sridevan judgement in the Gokhale Hall and Bharat Insurance Buildings cases. Ever since INTACH was removed from the Committee post the P Orr & Sons case, there are no independent members on it. And even when INTACH was in it, there was not much progress, the Committee being invariably satisfied with recording demolitions that had happened and willing to consider proposals for demolition if the Government was so inclined. Now a newspaper report has it that the Committee claims to have received 24 proposals from various owners of heritage buildings and it has given its suggestions. Considering that Committee’s jurisdiction is over the buildings listed in the Justice Padmanabhan Committee and most of those buildings are Government-owned, it would be reasonable to assume that the recommendations concerning them would be made public. But, no, complete silence is the order of the day.

The third is the Metro Rail’s study on the impact of its drilling and tunnel-boring work on heritage buildings in the vicinity of its work. Already, cracks in the LIC Building and the fall of a minaret atop the Law College building have been attributed by some to the ongoing Metro work. Metro Rail, of course, has denied these and has also claimed that it has commissioned a study by experts on the potential fall-out of its work. That report has been given to Metro Rail, but it is in no hurry to make the findings public. Meanwhile, work is continuing regardless. So when is this report to see the light of day? If the study has indeed cleared Metro Rail work on the grounds of terms of safety, what is there to fear? Why don’t we have transparency?

The last pertains to several heritage buildings that are in various stages of renovation, all sponsored by the Government. The VP Hall and Ripon Building are cases where work is ongoing. The Museum is said to be receiving funds for the renovation of the Irwin-designed National Gallery. Structures such as Victoria Hostel are awaiting plans for restoration. Chepauk Palace awaits tenders for its restoration, terms of which, incidentally, are none too clear. How long will these buildings have to wait?

It is high time the Government realises that it has a responsibility to its people to preserve the city’s heritage. And unless it wakes up to this, we are not likely to see much of it left.

Government offers hope for Heritage Act

The State Government has announced that it is planning to bring in two laws on the heritage protection front, one specifically covering Mamallapuram, which is a recognised World Heritage Site, and the other covering heritage and cultural properties across the State. This is a good development as far as intent is concerned. Much, of course, will depend on how this will translate into reality. This is not the first time that the State has raised hopes of legislation for protecting heritage, only to pass over to what it felt are more pressing issues. Those promises were made as far back as 1999 and, again, in 2002, and then even more recently when Heritage Regulations/Acts were drafted or reviewed.

The latest announcement has it that a Heritage Commission Act is on the anvil which will constitute a body that can advise the State Government on preparing a classification of heritage buildings into various grades. It will also advise local authorities on the developmental rights of such heritage properties. What the Government appears to have overlooked are two aspects:

1. That such a body already exists – namely the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) constituted by the CMDA in response to the High Court’s judgement in 2010 in the case concerning the demolition of Bharat Insurance Building. That the Committee, comprised largely by bureaucrats, became a handmaiden of the CMDA is another matter altogether. The State Government will do well not to repeat this mistake and when creating the Heritage Commission it should make it like the Urban Arts Commission of Delhi, a body with independent powers.

2. That the exercise of grading and listing heritage buildings has been done at least a couple of times. The first time was when draft Heritage Regulations/Acts were drawn up by the Town and Country Planning Department teaming with INTACH in 1999 and then by the CMDA and INTACH in 2002. The second time was when the Justice Padmanabhan Committee was put together by the High Court in connection with a case on outdoor hoardings. The report of that Committee, of which INTACH was also a member, formed the basis of the 2010 judgement referred to above which resulted in the formation of the HCC.

Even before that, INTACH had drawn up its own list for the City’s municipal limits. What needs now to be looked at is a fine tuning of these lists into one comprehensive list and then identifying heritage buildings in Greater Chennai and elsewhere in the State.

The decision to include the entire State within the ambit of the proposed Heritage Commission is commendable. So far, the heritage movement has been fairly dormant in most towns of the State, resulting in large-scale desecration and wrecking of heritage sites which are not protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. It is imperative that the legislation constituting the Commission is passed at the earliest. What is even more important is that the Commission should work quickly in getting its list of heritage sites together and ensuring that the list is notified with the passage of a Heritage Act. Only then can we have some legal protection for heritage buildings and sites.

Readers of Madras Musings need hardly be reminded that the draft of a Heritage Act, at least for the city of Madras, was completed as far back as 1999 and had it been adopted then we would not be a city minus buildings such as Gandhi Illam, Capper House, the erstwhile Madras Club building on Express Estates, and Government House. Chepauk Palace may not have been consumed by fire. And Bharat Insurance Building would not be facing an uncertain future. However, with Queen Mary’s College being threatened in 2003, the draft regulations were quietly forgotten. Since then there have been attempts at revival in fits and starts but nothing concrete has emerged. All this despite the fact that there is a groundswell of public opinion in favour of a Heritage Act. What is needed is quick action.

Why should Namakkal Kavignar Maligai be restored?

It is only in this, our land that such things can happen. When a Rs. 1800 crore spanking new Secretariat building is languishing and may turn into a hospital at any moment, the Government is choosing to renovate a monstrosity set in a heritage precinct, on the basis that it needs a suitable structure to function from. And what is even more questionable is the way various Government agencies and departments have bent over backwards to ensure that the idea passed muster.

Namakkal Kavignar Maligai is the ten-storeyed office block that sticks out like a sore thumb from the middle of Fort St George, which is a precinct that in any light ought to be a World Heritage Site. This structure, built in the best PWD tradition in the 1970s to house Government’s departments, was one of the egregious sights of the city. And even allowing for the fact that those were less heritage-conscious days, it was a building that should have never been constructed in the Fort. What is worse is that two notified structures were denotified and demolished to make way for the building. One among those that were done away with was probably the home of the earliest church built in the city.

Poorly designed and executed, the building was shoddily maintained and within 15 years of its construction it needed major repairs. A few years ago it was given a further facelift by way of a new façade, which for some reason was interpreted to be Chola in inspiration. This apparently is now the basis on which the Archaeological Survey of India and the Heritage Conservation Committee of the CMDA have given their approval for its restoration.

The building, it is understood, has been labelled as an example of early modern construction in the city and, therefore, worthy of preservation. And this has been blessed by the ASI and the HCC, neither of which, it is necessary to point out, has any jurisdiction over the building. If the ASI had gone by the rule book, such a building could have never been allowed to be built inside the Fort and if the HCC did not behave like a handmaiden of the CMDA, it ought to know that this building is not a heritage structure by any yardstick.

As a consequence of this quick approval process, Rs. 28 crore is to be spent on the building. And this while a complete heritage precinct, almost four centuries old, is crying for restoration – we allude to Fort St George. If the Government was strapped for space it ought to have moved its departments to the new Secretariat.

In this connection, it should be pointed out that the Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), Chennai Chapter, has observed that the building had no place in the heritage precinct that the Fort is and, therefore, ought to be demolished at once as it completely dwarfs the most important structure of the State – the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. It is also reliably learnt that this view of INTACH has not won it friends in the Government. But, then, not everybody wins friends easily.

More threats to heritage from Metrorail

The travails of the Bharat Insurance (formerly Kardyl) Building do not seem to end. After a half-done demolition, the High Court of Madras ordered its preservation. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by the LIC, the owner of the premises. It is now reliably learnt that the Metrorail is eyeing a part of the precinct, though not the building proper, for some of its super structures. What is emerging is a rather murky story of collusion between various concerned Government agencies and departments, even as the fate of the premises remains sub judice.

Work on the Anna Salai stretch of the Metrorail has begun. And the fate of the various heritage structures en route is a matter of intense speculation. On the one hand, there is pressure to go ahead with the Metro’s plans, all in the name of providing a viable public transport system. On the other hand, this is being interpreted to mean that the Metro must have its way irrespective of what is likely to be its impact or, at least, that is what the powers that be appear to believe. And the curious instance of the Bharat Insurance Building is a case in point.

It is understood that Metrorail has requested for and is close to getting a part of the compound space in which Bharat Insurance Building is located. The matter has been referred to the Heritage Conservation Committee which, it is understood, has chosen to interpret that the garden space of the property cannot be deemed a part of heritage value and so can be made over to Metrorail. This flies in the face of the internationally accepted principle that the space surrounding a heritage building automatically becomes a heritage precinct, which needs to be protected if the structure is to be presented as an integral whole.

Moreover, the space currently in question is not exactly empty. It has outhouses of the main building proper and one or two of these are still tenanted. These occupants, who have stubbornly refused to vacate, no matter what the blandishments of the owners, have, it is understood, been served with an ultimatum to vacate. The reason given for this is that Metrorail work will soon commence in the precinct and so the owners cannot be held responsible for any damage suffered by the tenants.

What is surprising is that all this has taken place even when the question of what is to be done to the building is pending with the Supreme Court. Surely Metrorail, the LIC and the CMDA are aware of the consequences of contempt of court? Then how is it that matters have proceeded with such alacrity and with such a complete lack of transparency? What is also worthy of comment is the complete volte-face of the HCC. In one of its early meetings with the Metrorail, it had, it is reliably learnt, documented that no intrusion into Bharat Insurance Building premises was allowable. Now it has chosen to change its stance based on an interpretation of what exactly constitutes a premises! Such are the inscrutable ways of Government.

The same principle has been applied to P Orr & Sons. It is understood that the HCC has given the go-ahead for acquiring a part of the rear buildings of this heritage structure on the ground that “the backside” is not to be taken into account for heritage considerations. This was also the logic that was applied to the take-over of the Lawrence Asylum Press to the rear of the Poompuhar property. Soon, it appears, Anna Salai that was Mount Road will have a series of cardboard heritage facades, all denuded of their bulk which lend them character. This is nothing but a sham in the name of heritage conservation.

But when a Heritage Conservation Committee is almost entirely populated by bureaucrats and representatives of organisations with governmental links, and considers its agenda to be not that of preservation but one of permitting to demolish, what else is to be expected?

One year of the Heritage Conservation Committee

The Heritage Conservation Committee appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu following a specific directive of the High Court of Madras, completed one year in July 2011. The Committee has recently been very much in the news, following its successful representation to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited regarding the alignment of railway lines and stations that are planned to be in close proximity to heritage buildings in the city. That is definitely a positive development but the general working of the Committee has left much to be desired. This may be the right moment to critically evaluate its functioning.

When the High Court passed its judgement, it had on hand a list of a little over 400 heritage buildings. This was a list prepared for an entirely different matter, a case involving outdoor hoardings and was put together mainly for the purpose of enumerating structures that ought not to be hidden behind hoardings. It therefore largely listed heritage structures on arterial roads and did not look at buildings that are in side streets. But it was still a list nevertheless and when the High Court ordered that a Heritage Conservation Committee ought to be formed, it also added that the listed buildings had to come under the Committee’s purview.

The Committee when formed largely comprised government bureaucrats who toed the official line. It took its own time to send out letters to the owners of the listed properties. It is reliably learnt that several owners of heritage properties never received the letter. The Committee is yet to visit most of the heritage sites that were listed. It is therefore not in touch with what is happening in most cases.

Taking advantage of the delay in communications, some owners went ahead and demolished their buildings. The Government was the biggest culprit for in its hurry to build the new (and now unwanted) Assembly, it merrily destroyed five listed buildings, with no explanations being asked. Others were not so lucky. It is reliably learnt that the Church of South India, which demolished the Bible Society Building on Memorial Hall Road, has been asked to come up with plans to build a structure that is aligned to what was done away with. But the old structure is no longer there nevertheless. That some action has been taken is small satisfaction. A bigger success was in getting those in charge of St Teresa’s Church to give up ideas of demolition. No action was however taken in the case of the Anderson’s Church on NSC Bose Road, where extensive ‘renovation’ work was undertaken in the interior, without any competent authority overseeing the effort.

The one and only communication that the Committee ever sent out was vague in the extreme. Beyond stating that the owner could not demolish or alter the structure, the letter did not have anything constructive as to what could be done with the buildings. This tied the hands of the owners and lack of maintenance efforts has ensured that at least two heritage structures – the GPO on Rajaji Salai and the Madrasa-E-Azam on Mount Road have partially collapsed. To what purpose is any action now on the matter when the damage is done? Added to this is the sheer apathy of other Government departments. It is now understood that the Committee is sitting in judgement over whether the historic Mint on the eponymous street needs to be demolished. The Government it is believed, is all for it.

It is in the light of the rather lacklustre performance that the successful representation to Metro Rail appears a major breakthrough. The Committee has managed to get the Metro Rail to prepare revised drawings and plans for its stations at locations near the Law College, Higginbothams and a couple of other places. It is significant however that none of these revised designs have been made public and we have only the Committee’s word for it.

Taken over all, the performance of the Committee is below par. But as we still have a significant bit of heritage left in the city, any improvement by the Committee in its functioning will go a long way in saving what has survived thus far.