Organizer: COMOS India in collaboration with Faculty of Architecture, Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknowand Contact information –email: rtu.gulati@gmail.com; phone: +91- 9839025946.
Presentator: Ar. NishantUpadhyay.
Participants: 100 (The students, heritage professionals and budding architects across the globe.)
COMOS India, in collaboration with Faculty of Architecture, Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow organised a webinar on 13th April 2020 at 3:00-4:00 PM IST. The topic of the webinar was ‘Good Practices for Conservation of Monuments and Sites’ by conservation professional Ar. Nishant Upadhyay.The seminar was part of a proposed three daylong workshop for the students of M.Arch. II Sem at Faculty of Architecture. Due to the ongoing corona pandemic, Ar. Nishant Upadhyay was requested to conduct a webinar as the studio exercise is in process. The webinar was a great success participated by 100 people, which could have been more if the online platform would have allowed. The participants included the students, heritage professionals and budding architects across the globe.
Starting the session, Prof.Ritu Gulati from AKTU introduced the author Ar. NishantUpadhyay. He is an alumnus of Faculty of Architecture, AKTU, Lucknow. He has been trained as a conservation architect in RLICC, KU Leuven, Belgium as a recipient of the Erasmus Mundus EXPERT Scholarship, where presently he is a PhD candidate. He is founder architect of DHARATAL a design studio with a specialization in vernacular architecture and historical landscapes. At present, he works as a heritage consultant for state governments of India and UNESCO Dhaka Office.
The webinar addressed the ICOMOS and UNESCO guidelines for the conservation of built heritage through interesting national and international case studies which respected the guidelines, and beautifully addressed to the respective site context. Mr Upadhyay started the session discussing the need to address the needs of the contemporary society as well as to understand the take of the authorities, which generally function under immense pressure. He discussed the need for conservation beyond material and made a wholistic approach relating the tangible and the intangible. He discussed the importance of traditional wisdom, which sometimes also manifest itself into tangible, e.g., the Vaastu principles guiding the design of a habitat. The surroundings (unbuilt) or landscape is also an integral part of the built and should not be isolated.
Introducing the Venice Charter 1964, he highlighted the article 9, discerning that the process of restoration “must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp”. Article 10, underlining the “efficacy of scientific data and experience” while using a technique for conservation. Article 11, stating to respect the historicity of the heritage “with possible contributions of all periods”. Article 12, guiding to the harmonious rebuilding of the missing parts, distinguishable from the original. Article 13, that additions “should not distract from the interesting parts of the building” citingan example of a chapel in Hasselt, which beautifully integrated the new ramp without intervening much into the original site.
He highlighted the importance of the Burra Charter 1999, which included the aspect of the cultural landscape and not just the built heritage. Further, he discussed the role of UNESCO in protecting the heritage, especially the World Heritage Sites. He elucidated the importance of local and regional heritage, and that not every heritage needs to be a World Heritage to be saved.
Referring to the Image of the City by Kevin Lynch, he highlighted the importance of node, landmark, path, edge and district. He showed the examples of Orchha, India,explaining the neglect on the part of heritage during new interventions. He gave an example of Bruges to show that we should also think to conserve beyond facadism. Citing the example of a new highway-restaurant in Haryana, he described the blind copy of alien elements placed without context. Referring to more such examples with either blindly copied the elements he showed a hotel which includes ‘Heritage’ in its name and tries to imitate distant architecture. The railway station of Khajuraho is also shown next to the famed Khajuraho temple, imitating the elements of Orissan temple architecture.
Further to the discussion, he discussed the projects appropriately responding to the context showing examples of Olivetti showroom in Venice designed by Carlo Scarpa and Neues Museum in Berlin by David Chipperfield, who not only responded to the historical context but also incorporated universal accessibility measures with minimal intervention.
An example of a church in the Netherlands is shown, which was converted to a library as a clever use of the space which has ample natural light through the openings below roof. He explained the example of a chapel in Ghent, which was converted to a restaurant creating interest in the interior through installation and not changing the original setting altogether.
Castello Rivoli is shown as an example of new intervention yet in a thoughtful way. Here the architect retained the geometry of the building but introduced new materials when the craftmanship of original material was challenging to achieve. Furthering the discussion, he cited examples of a new intervention in a museum in Antwerp, a port building in Hamburg and interventions in Ghent World Heritage Site; leaving the audience to decide how much intervention is agreeable.
In the concluding part of the presentation, a few case studies were included to show different approaches to conservation and new intervention. Reichstag Dome, Berlin by Norman Foster Architects is shown as a brilliant example of increasing public participation by a simple strategy to introduce a dome above the assembly. Brigittines Chapel and extension, Brussels by Studio Andrea Bruno is shown as respecting the context without imitating the past. C-Mine in Genk by 51N4E architects is shown as an example of adaptive reuse of industrial heritage. Tate Modern, London by Herzog and De Meuron Architects, another industrial building is shown as an example of an extension to a historic building. Arsenale and Giardini, where the La Biennale di Venezia is getting organised since 1895, is shown as an example of using the context intelligently. A new Interpretation Centre, in a historical garden ‘Pateriya ka Bagh’ in Rajnagar near Khajuraho by DHARATAL, is shown as an example of how the historical landscape can guide the new buildings. Being the architect of the project, he provided a stepwell as staircase referring to the context of baoli or stepwell in the historical gardens of Rajnagar. A jharokha has been used in the interpretation centre, which retains the soul of the historical jharokha in a kothi, yet using modern material.
Concluding the presentation, he advocated the need for an immediate action to study and reuse the potential of industrial heritage, that India has in plenty. Citing the example of a flour mill and a recently collapsed doorway of an old Imambara in Lucknow, he suggested taking measures to study and safeguard the heritages in Lucknow. He also answered the queries of the audience after the session. Prof. Ritu Gulati concluded the session with a thank you note.
