JOURNALISM TROPHY – INSPIRIT’22 – SOA-RIT JASMINDER KAUR AND THEJASWINI V
A historic building or a monument is subjective to each individual. The way one perceives the building and the emotions which lay behind it is different in every way to another person. Historic building has a story behind it, which depicts the legacy of the said building, it’s construction, architecture and so forth. What happens to the building or the monument if it was constructed in a different material or techniques? Would it still hold the same importance and the story behind it?
It is important when we consider a heritage example of the building as well particularly based on its location and timeline. The aura of the building when it was constructed during that particular time is incomparable to any other timeline of a historic building. Not only it is significant to the local people but what made it happen and how it happened is also significant. It displays the story behind it, be it visually or emotionally and that cannot be played with.
Now-a-days people prefer things which are comparatively convenient to us all. We prefer the modern and state-of-the-art techniques. But we don’t realize what we are losing in its stead. In olden days, people were emotionally connected to the building. Be it a private space or public space. The use of local material was not the only aspect considered while designing. The religion and culture was the main factor which played into those days and is considered as a heritage to-day. As we move further into the timeline the essence of a building with respect to its heritage and culture is almost on the verge of losing. What we don’t really look into is how the nativity of a building and its culture is getting away from us. When the tourist visits any of the said building, there is only the feeling of stimulation and astound. It is nowhere near the feelings which a local community will have for that building. The connection or affection perhaps the locals have towards their heritage is not the same as the city-men or tourists. Not only the building acts as their socio hub, it also encourages the growth around that place. Be it a city-wise growth or income-wise. When we consider the span of a heritage building, it is comparatively greater than conventional buildings we have in these times. It retains the given heritage and the culture of that space. And in time, the growth eventually increases.
If we consider an example of stepwell of Adalaj in Gujarat, it is carved five stories deep. It has a significant story and a reason behind its construction and carries a legacy within itself which is noteworthy even today. The engraves ware carved to the precision by the craftsmen and the materials like stone were also local which has sustained itself even today. The same stepwell if was to be reused, and the materials used were to be changed, say exposed concrete or structural glass, it would not tell us the same story. There would be a substantial stop to the legacy behind the stepwell and would not be the same.
To protect a historic building all we want to do is to reuse it for other purposes. But in the process we fail to recognize the “tell/story” behind the building and make it adaptable to to-days condition. Is it really worth it at the end to change the heritage behind the historic building and to lose its essence. Reusing the building without changing its core and respecting its value is what we should concentrate on. To conserve any historic building without making it lose its legacy behind the building.