Finger-pointing will not help Gateway: Mehta
Mumbai: For the last two years, the Gateway of India precinct re d e v e l o p – ment project has been in the headlines with rival heritage groups locking horns over it. The two main contenders were the Urban Development Research Institute (UDRI) which has eminent architect Charles Correa and heritage activist Sharada Dwivedi on its board and INTACH, headed in Mumbai by Tasneem Mehta.
Last year, the task force set up by the state government comprising eminent citizens of Mumbai approved the plan drawn up by INTACH. On January 10, (Colaba locals fear Gateway makeover, page 7) TOI reported that the Rs 4.5-crore plan had not yet been made public and there were reservations about issues like parking and traffic flow.
The Colaba Tourist Welfare Association (CTDA) represented by Remu Jhaveri has been the most vocal. Tasneem Mehta wrote to The Times of India on the charges:
Its time the controversy over the Gateway of India precinct redevelopment ended. Unfortunately the narrow interests of a small group are sabotaging the larger interests of the city.
It is important to ask whether the Colaba Tourist District Association that is objecting to the INTACH plan is in the true sense of such associations an unbiased group interested in the improvement of the neighbourhood or is it a front for the Urban Development Research Institute which is a group of architects interested in capturing the Gateway redevelopment project. I ask this question because when the association was set up I lived down the road from the Taj Hotel and immediately wrote to Remu Jhaveri, the chairman of the association, saying INTACH would be keen to be a part of the association and would be happy to work with them and share our research on the Gateway precinct with them. I got a oneline response and I quote: As and when we require your help, we will contact you. Our request to be allowed to become a member was therefore rejected.
Subsequently, once the task force approved the INTACH plan we invited several members of this group to participate in discussions so that we could address their concerns. All such efforts were in vain. No one ever came to the meetings. And the next day some press article would appear denouncing our plan.
Our original plan, which was approved by the state government task force, was completely altered by the heritage committee. It is important to note here that members of the Urban Development Research Institute, including its executive director, are on the heritage committee.
The heritage committee asked us to make several alterations to the plan, and one of these was that the parking be eliminated in view of the fact that a 1,000-car underground parking would be ready around the same time that the Gateway Plaza redevelopment was completed. Access to the car park will be at the Regal junction and at the Kala Ghoda junction. So the concern over parking has been addressed.
INTACH has consistently worked over the last 10 years towards improving the heritage and cultural environment of the city.
We have received the highest commendation for our work from Unesco. We are keen to work with all those who committed to the same objectives.
If the CTDA is genuinely interested in improving the environment let them engage in a constructive dialogue with us rather then vitiating the environment through denouncements in the press.