Suggestions by Ar. Kirtee Shah to Mr. Errol D’Souza (Director, IIM Ahmedabad) and Anil Gupta (Senior Faculty, IIM Ahmedabad) on the IIM Ahmedabad Dorm and the campus matter. Kirtee Shah works with Ahmedabad Study Action Group (ASAG), Habitat Forum (Inhaf) and KSA Design Planning Services.

Post 1

Dear Shri Errol D’Souza,

1. Your sensitive long letter to IIMA alumni and the decision to scrap 14 of the 18 dorms at the IIMA campus and rebuild them in sync with the architecture language and culture of the campus has evoked understandably diverse responses. As you rightly say, it is a tough call. Demolishing a part of the famous campus whose building has become its signature and visual symbol; hurting sentiments of thousands of alumni who now form the leaders of the corporate, business, management and consultancy firms across the world, who have been inspired by the sheer beauty, elegance and aura of the imposing yet human scale brick edifice and are nostalgic about its arches and plaza and spaces; not being in a position to respect the voice of the world community of architecture historians and authors who will be slighted by the tinkering with a monument created by one of the world’s most celebrated architect, and not being able to honour the sentiments and sense of history of the community of architects who are devastated by the harm that is being caused to the architecture glory of Ahmedabad can never be an easy decision. You carry burden of the history and an unpleasant task of dishonouring opinion of the influential world community of the design elite. Despite being sensitive, considerate, alive and responsive to all this, the very fact that you and other decision makers have been compelled to make the hard decision means lack of real options. You say that the international and the national expert have been consulted to repair, conserve, preserve, retrofit and strengthen the damaged portions of the buildings; that a big budget was set aside, and that many efforts have been made to restore health of the structures. Nothing has practically worked. And that leaves no real option as “concrete and slabs falling from the roofs with damaging consequences for the lives of the residents” and “multiple problems in the existing structures that made it “unliveable”….. You fear safety of the users and have concluded their non -liveability. Nothing could be worse for a public building in use. And this one is special, famous and iconic. It is not an easy position to be in for you.
2. Let me get you a bit in the comfort zone, however tacit and unconvincing, with respect to the iconic status and the heritage character of the IIMA building and your compulsions to disturb the ‘architectural rhythm and harmony’ and ‘historical context’ to rebuild a part of the campus. Just see the manner in which the Central Vista in the capital city New Delhi is being reorganised, redesigned and reconstructed. And you will agree that it has a greater heritage value in the sense that it is a people’s and the country’s heritage with much longer and deeper history, memory and sentiments woven into it. The issue is not whether it is right or wrong. The matter is that if there is a rationale, argument, need and compulsion to alter, change, redesign and reconstruct, your reasons look compelling. You are almost option-less. And you say you have examined all possibilities.
3. The reason why I am writing this is not so much whether you should demolish and rebuild or not. It is not to question your decision though I am an architect and studied building form and function and C.V.s of great architects, both international and local. My confidence in IIMA’s decision making stems from the fact that the country’s best brains are running the institution and the future leaders of the country’s business and economy are being trained there. To top it all, the powerful and influential alumni are the real stakeholders. They are all sensitive, responsive and responsible. There is no reason to believe that they will not make the right decision taking all aspects and views in consideration.
4. The letter intends asking you, IIMA management and whoever involved and responsible, on behalf of the public, to examine why the institution in this predicament now is, why are the buildings in such state of distress, just 50/60 years after they were constructed? Why in such a small period do they require major repair, big budget for restoration and even demolition? And these questions are relevant as all involved are big names whichever way one sees it—big institution, big clients, big architect, big local support team, big money, big contractors, big consultants and prestigious building.
5. Though it is not customary to ask questions of big , famous and world renowned architects, planners and designers with all due respect, in all humility and reverence intact , let me ask a few questions : Why are the buildings in such a state just in 5/6 decades? (Mud Bhungas in Kutchh stand well and longer, we learnt). Did you know that the exposed brick walls in this part of the world have problems both due to salt oozing, climate and rain lashing? IIMA director’s letter says that the bricks used were of inferior quality. Why were the inferior quality bricks used? Was it a budget constraint or non-availability of good bricks? (Sorry for asking such a naïve question on the budget; asking questions on the budget to celebrated architects is blasphemy). If it was known that the bricks were inferior why they were not protected? If the design and the form consideration did not permit plastering (quite legitimate) what other precautions to protect the walls and thereby protect the buildings were taken, as the walls are load bearing structures? Exposed brick walls, because of reasons stated earlier, need protecting through design features. If the form consideration did not permit that (legitimate) what other steps were taken, suggested for exposed wall protection? You did not know Ahmedabad’s climate features and the whether character but you had local assistants and advisors. What was their role and advice in the matter? Did anyone ever ask a contractor or a mason or other experienced engineers, all children of the lesser God in the business, how could this matter be fixed? The director’s letter mentions damage due to the earthquake and big cracks in the walls. Earthquake resistant design is mandatory and could protect the structure both from collapse and damage. Was this considered and provided for in the design?
6. The other set of questions are on the building maintenance—both minor and short term and major and long term, especially as IIMA could neither have finance problem nor lack of institutional arrangement to address the matter. This type of degradation and decay in buildings is normally a long process and one would believe that proper maintenance even if does not avert the problem altogether certainly could delay it. The questions are mainly to the management of the institute. Have the building maintenance manual been prepared and provided by the architect to the institute? Is that being followed, especially as vulnerability is inbuilt in the design in form of exposed brick construction?
7. I will not be surprised if you are surprised that I am asking such mundane questions of an iconic building, of a great architect and a renowned institution. Far too long in the name of fame celebrity professionals have escaped accountability. Public loss has been pushed under the carpet because big names are involved. Buildings have malfunctioned or underperformed or had to be abandoned or replaced. Cities have suffered inconveniences and endured losses for long. Unsuspecting citizens have suffered even more. Asking these questions is not irreverence or disrespect or denial of their contribution. Greatness as suggesting achievement is not to be discounted. All that is great, fine. .This is seeking professional accountability. Times are changing. For good or bad small farmers are questioning pubic policies and wisdom of the authority. Public good cannot be at the mercy of unquestioning reverence.
8. While some are distressed that Ahmedabad is on the brink of losing a masterpiece –and a master piece it is. I loved the building too—I write this to suggest that you set up an inquiry, in an appropriate form, to learn what happened, who did what, and why a public building of such repute, investment and use is in such distress so early. You teach through case studies. Let this one be of your own. We all know that IIMA has the money and can find money to rebuild it. But what money can replace is no substitute for an all-important public accountability. The city and the country needs mechanisms of public scrutiny for such projects and investments. It is not running down anyone or anything. It is understanding, learning, improving, reforming and changing: systems, ways of working and, of course, public accountability.
9. If you were to do this believe me it will open up a Pandora’s Box which needs opening up. Not only here but in other cities and places as well. And it will go some way in establishing the accountability principle. Ahmedabad’s loss will be a gain for other cities and places.

Warm Regards
Kirtee

---

Post 2

Dear Errolbhai,

A few points in brief. You must be under much work pressure and it is not proper to draw your attention away from the core job.

1. With the concerned people writing open letters and articles, interviews and opinions in the media and the social media comments and observations all over, it is incorrect on my part to seek your consent in sharing my letter publically. That is unfair to you this way or that. The matter is in public domain and my note to you is also in the same vein and the same spirit. Kindly let me withdraw that request.
2. One more suggestion for your consideration. It is unlikely that you have not thought about it or that someone has not proposed it. For all I know it could be in the pipeline. Yet let me say for whatever it is worth.
3. Launch an International Ideas Competition seeking ideas, plans, suggestions, proposals, approaches, technologies, etc. that gives IIMA workable, viable an implementable ideas in response to the problems that the Dormitories face and which is compelling IIMA to take an unpleasant and unpopular decision to dismantle those buildings and replace them with new ones that would hurt the sanctity of the iconic character of the campus.
   • A competition of ideas to restore the buildings to acceptable health.
   • An ideas competition only, seeking workable and practical solutions. The main condition/ brief is that it should help IIMA avoid dismantling the distressed and damaged dorms that have turned unliveable and risky structures..
   • Make the competition global. The “solution” universe should widen as much as possible.
   • Keep it open for all—not only for the architects. Also for engineers, bulders, Chhote tekedars, masons, field NGOs. Do not insist on formal professional qualification. Facilitate entry and participation of the non-conventional and even informal actors. For all you know they may have answers.
   • Make it two to three month affair—from launch to submission to assessment to decision making.
   • The ‘outreach’ challenge will be formidable. Will need to be inclusive and a bit non-conventional.
4. This will delay search for new consultants, tendering and related process by that period—2 to 3 months—and may adversely affect new courses, enrolment plans and related plans arrangements. But it would greatly facilitate decision making. IIMA would have explored all avenues in search of workable solutions.
5. The competition idea will hopefully convert all kind of stakeholders—there are genuine worries and concerns-- into solution seekers because you are inviting them to participate and contribute. They will be the foot soldiers contributing to what they want happen and be done.
6. I have enclosed here a brochure of the competition we ran last year. Not because it is something unusual. But because competition of the kind I am suggesting is not the universe you are familiar with. That competition was called “Open Ideas National Competition to Improve Liveability of Small Houses”. It was open for all—not only architects and students. .The design brief was some 30 pages in order to reach the “idea” properly to those working on it. They were asked not to design new project or houses but take over an existing project, public or private, and redesign it. Submission included modification in building bye laws so that the ideas become implementable. Submission also included two case studies of solutions that common people have designed and incorporated in their houses that improved liveability. The idea was to reach out to non-formal solution providers
7. Prof Anil Gupta will tell you they are many.
8. I will be happy to meet you to discuss this if you see some possibility.

Warm regards
Kirtee

---

Post 3

Dear Anilbhai

I am glad you like the idea of the competition in search of ideas and solution for the Dorms at IIMA campus.

The reason I have kept you in the loop in my communication on the subject is that, of course, I know you. But more because you are an experienced and an innovatively thinking insider of IIMA. I have read your views on the matter—and the monastery imagery is especially apt and touching—but even if I did not see your comments one could imagine where you would be considering your history of engagement and career graph. Honey Bee and Shrishti were conceived and flourished in the campus buildings and environment.

I am glad you liked my suggestion for a global competition in search for ideas and solutions that may avoid unpleasant, unpopular and expensive demolition and rebuilding. I am aware that a formal institution, that too a world leader in the modern management practice, with the institution management consisting of business leaders, and alumni heading corporate and big industry and business , my suggestion to explore with the non- entities and non-formal players is unlikely to be viewed sympathetically or go far. Also, that my pushing the case of the small time and unknown masons and chhote tekedars will surprise and probably annoy the big time consultants and advisors.

But my point is simple. If the allopathy is not working at least try homeopathy and Ayurveda before leaving the patient to die. No big risk is involved. For all one knows in such matters where the formal system does not deliver there is no harm in looking to the margins, on the side, to the unexplored, especially as this matter is no rocket science. Finally it is the leaking roof, cracking walls, disintegrating bricks, falling concrete and opening joints.

And my earlier point is that the professionals, international and local, and others including consultants, engineers and contracting agencies in charge of and responsible for the building should be asked questions on the buildings’ performance and condition. They were appointed to build an academic building not a leaking and falling apart monument. And which monument and iconic building crumbles in 50-60 years?

That is a hard say—and I am sorry saying it-- because internationally and nationally famous, respected and decorated architects and professionals designed and oversaw implementation of this project. However, it is questionable if the consideration of image, name and status and personal affinity and reverence should cloud one's response to such matters and issues. Their being big and famous enhances their responsibility and accountability. They obviously had the required financial, technical and human resources and skills at their disposal -- and I would guess ear of the powerful and resourceful clients-- to see that the building had the required resilience and the strength to live a legitimate long life span. They were building not just a building but creating something to set an example, to inspire, to lead a movement, to make a statement, so to speak, that creative education needed a special ambiance and soothing and elevating environment. They obviously did that. And therefore it is painful to see these problems cropping up and a situation arising where just in half a century the managers of the campus, in owe of its iconic stature, are compelled to consider demolishing a part of it, which most believe will seriously damage its monumental character. Is not it correct to ask why are they in the centre—and ‘we’, the concerned on the margins —in this predicament?

I understand from the Director, in response to my question on the maintenance of the buildings, that the Maintenance Manual, both short term and minor and long term and major, was either not made or not followed. That, if correct, for an international professional agency and a prestigious project appears a shocking lapse, especially as vulnerability to the weather and climatic factors were inbuilt in the structures.

I have suggested to IIMA Director to get this matter studied and examined properly. In fact the suggestion is for a public inquiry. It is not so much to apportion blame or to damage reputations or question greatness. Nothing of the sort. All ages and all professions need their icons and Gurus. It is a human psychological need. The inquiry is to get the facts, plug the holes in the system and to learn so that we do not face such “tragedies” again, as someone concerned commented. Ahmedabad, other cities and the country is yet to build many institutions of learning and other public use.

While on the subject of the legacy, monuments, dilapidation, restoration and responsibility for care let me share with you a suggestion we—Birwa and I-- made to the prime minister and the chief minister of Gujarat a few months ago when the crumbling residence of poet Kalapi, in his native place Lathi, came to public notice through a newspaper report. We suggested facilitating creation of an institutional mechanism to look after, not necessarily great building- wise but what we called “community affinity” monuments. The suggestion is to put the onus of caring on the locals with the required support arrangements. IIMA is obviously not in that category. But the public concern on display is remarkable and must be harnessed for future good.

I am an architect and it is not unlikely that my stance on this matter will be seen as an unbecoming of an architect. Therefore let me share with you a paragraph from my keynote address at the launch of the Laurie Baker Centenary Year in Trivandrum a few years ago. I quote:

“Architecture is a noble profession. In the hands of its conscientious practitioners, it is a medium to serve the people and also the environment. “Service” is the word. It combines both art and science. Culture and technology are its pillars. It is a vehicle to translate ideas and dreams into reality. It embraces both: reality and vision, creativity and practicality. It has been there from the dawn of the civilization and will always be there. However, the way it is perceived and practiced, it needs to move from the monuments to people; from the magazine pages to practical lives; from the elite to the common people;, from top to bottom and from the pedestal to the ground. That would take nothing away from its hallow, its mystique and its nobility. It will only be richer.”

Warm Regards
Kirtee