ABSTRACT | Contrary to popular opinion, contemporary methods of historic preservation can be damaging to a city’s socio-cultural wellbeing. The institution of preservation, which should be understood as embodying ideologies of power, can narrow the terrain for identity formation and produce irreparable losses in vernacular culture. This occurs when preservation practices are used as a mechanism to reinforce a singular sense of place. In doing so, these actions create and perpetuate tensions over urban identity and the dynamic nature of a city. In this article, I build my argument around a single case in point, a relatively limited set of governmentally-preserved spaces in Kolkata , India, which I investigate through the theoretical lens of social scientist and cultural geographer, Doreen Massey who argues that “place” (as that which we preserve) 1) is not static; 2) does not have boundaries; 3) has no single unique identity; and, for all these reasons, 4) has a specificity that is continually produced and reproduced. In answer to the question of how we might improve architecture and urban design through a human-centered approach, I argue that there must be a paradigm shift in the field of preservation away from fossilizing exclusionary built heritages and towards recognizing and engaging with the socio-cultural dynamics that define the community within which these buildings sit. My work calls scholars and practitioners to question the fundamental values and established orthodoxy that is embodied in technical and abstract historic preservation principles and to look beyond technique and material sciences to further understand social impact.
Introduction
The conscious cities movement asks us to consider how, despite the contemporary complexities of the urban, we can work towards making a positive impact on people’s lives through the field of design. Much of the work that is being done grapples with the concept of what we build next but, might we consider how to achieve this same impact by engaging with what is already built? Are there ways for us to create healthier, more inclusive, and democratic built environments by reevaluating what is already around us (and has been for years)? In the following article, I will guide you to reconsider our methods of facilitating environments that are aware and responsive to community needs: not through what we build but rather what we save (or what we don’t), and how. To begin, instead of contextualizing these questions within the “West” (as many scholarly conversations continue to do), I would like us to consider an “Eastern” city that, although historically subsumed in the Western orbit, is struggling in its relatively newly independent status to navigate the conflict between celebrating history and embracing modernity: Kolkata.