Loading
Loading
A conversation with Neelesh Kumar of 23 Degrees Design Shift and Mitul Desai of Studio ii
In the 19th century, Viollet-le-Duc developed a bold thesis on adaptive restoration that proposed returning monuments to idealized, complete states that may never have historically existed. He suggested using scientific evidence such as photographs and archaeological evidence. Completely contradictory to this, John Ruskin, a theorist, firmly opposed restoration, arguing that it was a hypocritical way of destroying a building. Embodying the romantic theories of the 19th century, he advocated for an archaeological approach and respect for the original building, no matter its ruined state.
Decades later, the skeletons of the arguments remain the same. While there’s an acceptance that heritage and innovation work together, there’s a debate on how much of the past should inform the future.
On one end of the spectrum is an argument that architecture should preserve memory before creating novelty. It’s meant to carry stories, craftsmanship, cultural identity, political history, and a collective memory of inhabitants. Every demolished or radically altered building or structure erases an irreplaceable chapter of that place’s identity.
"I feel heritage should have a greater influence on contemporary architecture. Everything that was done earlier was done for a reason, while today, we do a lot of things for visual appeal…If we are not able to understand heritage and respond to it, then the next generation will forget what our culture is or where we came from,” shares Neelesh Kumar, the co-founder of 23 Degrees Design Shift. "
Furthermore, it’s argued that historic buildings preserve skills and techniques that contemporary construction often cannot replicate. And those techniques often reflect local climate, religion, customs and materials. Traditional Indian architecture evolved because it responded to monsoons, heat, social structures, and regional craftsmanship.
"I feel craftsmanship is very important. The whole skill of building a wall itself has been lost over time. We are no longer able to build a proper wall the way it once was, and we are losing that craftsmanship. I think we should work towards preserving it as much as possible,” comments Neelesh. “The structural understanding was far more advanced at that time, and we're still trying to understand it. Heritage is a knowledge bank."
On the other side of the coin were advocates for innovation as a philosophy. They argued that architecture should solve tomorrow’s problems, not just preserve yesterday’s answers. The core philosophy was that every generation has different challenges, and the current one was climate change, urban density, housing shortages, technology, and even changing work culture. They argued that buildings designed centuries ago can’t always address today’s needs, and so architecture should evolve with society.
"I think innovation is essential to do anything, not just architecture… We are trying to innovate within the set boundaries of the urban context that we work in... how can we innovate spaces... because the parameters of economy, the site, speed of construction, the materials available, all of it is so tight,” shares Mitul Desai of Studio ii, an award-winning architecture and design firm based in Surat, Gujarat."
Another strong piece of argument the side offers is that every era deserves its own architecture. If Gothic architects copied Roman temples or if Modernists copied Victorian buildings, architecture would never evolve. Innovation lets each generation express its own values as architecture becomes a cultural timestamp.
"There's no day zero to these buildings... you can never restore it to its original glory because you don't know what that original was... the only thing that you're left with is what you know now and what you can do now," comments Mitul. “You don't want to live in the nostalgia of the past where it becomes uncomfortable for modern day"
While the extremes of the argument battled back in the 19th century, Camillo Boito proposed a harmonious middle, where the historical values of the monuments would be respected while preserving their distinctive character.
While the argument between heritage and innovation hasn’t died down, even in the 21st century, Boito’s argument stands as an agreed-upon middle ground between the two sides. Today’s architects and designers don’t pick between heritage and innovation; instead, they ask how innovation can happen without erasing heritage.
"I guess innovation and heritage... are to be used together... heritage is about knowledge. So we have put all this knowledge together, and using this knowledge only we are able to innovate something else," claims Neelesh. "Earlier also, whatever the innovations were, maybe those were innovations at that particular time... and later it has become heritage to us."
Rather than seeing restoration as either preserving the past untouched or replacing it with something new, Mitul believes it occupies a careful middle ground: “You want to restore it with the current understanding, not necessarily current materials... it falls in between restoration and new construction. It can never be both or fully both. You don't want to restore a 500-year-old building with cement. You would still want to see how we can procure lime and how you can still kind of revive the technique of how it was built then.”
In many ways, Neelesh Kumar and Mitul Desai arrive at the same conclusion from opposite directions. One sees heritage as a knowledge bank that must be carried forward, while the other argues that restoration must respond to the realities of the present without losing sight of the past.
Perhaps the question has always been about understanding the space where heritage and innovation interface. Every architectural landmark we preserve today was once an innovation that challenged the conventions of its own time. Likewise, every contemporary intervention will eventually become part of the historical continuum it now responds to. Heritage and innovation, then, are not opposing forces but successive chapters in the same story.