Thanks Deponti.. I agree, although I've helped draft regulations that do exactly this, and similar regulations are quickly becoming standard across the country.
It's not clear what the motivation for these regulations is, since nobody other than private owners of the (larger, more visible) structures seems to actually stand to benefit. No owner of a tiny century-old house with a leaking roof wants to keep it that way for our viewing. And most of those non-residential structures are not libraries or museums but offices, hotels or private clubs, now benefiting from property tax rebates and higher rents. Built heritage is identity, image-of-the-city, commons. But it's hard to measure all this unless the building is actually in use as a market or a place of worship. There is also a car windshield view aspect to heritage appreciation: if I admire a beautiful structure, I may have the education, resources and leisure to do so. The perception of heritage buildings as beautiful objects that create context, rather than as being products of their context is used by tourism, too. Pattadakal, for example, is not only ticketed, but repeated attempts to remove and resettle the adjoining village (which is probably older than the temples themselves) have been made over the last decade because it is considered a displeasing generator of sewage. The "redevelopment" of Bhubaneswar's old town under the Smart City scheme includes the relocation of some centuries-old mathas, simply because they are not pretty. I would love to see some sort of value capture mechanism to skim the notional value off heritage buildings and distribute it better. On Mon 6 May, 2019, 3:38 PM Deepa Mohan, <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you should get the reaction to this from the owners of an erstwhile > hertiage building (eg, Cash Pharmacy on St Mark's/Residency Road in > Bangalore). > > My daughter, an architect now, was 10 when, after a visit to Delhi, she > remarked that in that city, the dead had far better accommodation than the > living. > > And I would also ask Pooja to respond to this! > > Deepa. > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:41 PM Thejaswi Udupa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:43 PM Alok Prasanna Kumar < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Here's some flame-bait that's been rattling around in my head for a > while > > > now: > > > > > > Laws that protect "heritage buildings" owned by non-public entities > (any > > > form of private property) in cities are a bane on equitable urban > > > development, entrench privilege and prevent social-mobility. They are a > > > form of expropriation of private property by the state without > > > compensation. > > > > > > > > > > > My current employers in Chennai would love this viewpoint. > > >
