What to preserve

To preserve or not to preserve: that is the question in Mumbai?

Of late there is a large hue and cry in the media, mainly among a section of elite journo, to protest the redevelopment of Crawford Market in Mumbai. The sprawling building of the market got its name from the then Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, Arthur Crawford, and was built in the 1860s. It is said that the markets were the best designed in Asia at that time. It is situated very near to CST, and is counted among the famous heritage structures in the area. The market may be the best architectural design of the gone time, but the fact that it is still operating on a currently inefficient layout, and is located on prime land, makes it a target of the redevelopment wave. Today, authorities want to redevelop the land, and build multi storey market complexes in its place, with a FSI (Floor Space Index) of 4.0. Conservation activists demand no one to touch the buildings, as long as they begin to resemble ruined Coliseum, I guess.

The initial decision to redevelop the building was rather controversial. It allowed the redeveloper to demolish existing structures measuring around 17,000 sq m out of the 22,471 sq m market and with the new FSI of 4, the new area available would be around 65,000 sq m. [ExpressIndia] But one Shailesh Gandhi investigated and did some estimation after obtaining information through RTI. He concludes that the proposed redevelopment would mean that the tenants and developers would make Rs 770 Crores and public losses from this project is around Rs 500 Crore.[Case] That is because of the unfair or lacklustre bids selection process.

According to the new proposal under consideration, only three colourful fountains will go. Quoting the Express India:

But as part of the proposed re-development, the fountains, which are not part of the main heritage wings, will have to go along with some other small articles of heritage value like the cast iron pillars and gas lamps.

The conservation activists are not allowing even to touch the buildings. So the question arises: Should we Indians of 21st century remain prisoners of the fancy of the British, and preserve their hobbies and crafts at the cost of our interests and convenience? And for how long?

I believe the markets should be redeveloped even at the cost of the present building. Because:

The markets and buildings don't affect the daily life of the people of Mumbai.

The markets are not related to any sentimental, religious, or social aspects of the junta, this sole fact should guide what to conserve and what not to.

There may be greater malaise behind the demand to conserve the markets. May be there are vested interests for some builders, or competition among them.

Redevelopment, with a high FSI of 4 will accommodate a lot more traders, and the vertical development will help remove the congestion from the area. Imagine, the new space available would be 65,000 sq m, while the existing one is around 22,500 sq m only!

The three fountains and some other articles can't be of enough historical value, to justify cancelling the project.

What concerns me is that the controversies regarding the integrity of the plan, and the fair process in selecting the right developer. There is a need to ensure that the redevelopment is done properly, with an eye of the public interest. And BMC has the resources to ensure that.

Ref: A walk through the old Crawford market, Abha Narain Lambah (Conservation Architect), HT, 24 Sep 07, Heritage committee defers decision on Crawford Market , Crawford market makeover still on , Crawford Market – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Heritage lovers frown at Crawford Market redevelopment plan