Iconic To Ironic: Quiet Undermining Of City’s Living Heritage

In recent weeks, Mumbai’s civic and state authorities have made headlines with a sweeping new proposal – Regulation 33 (27), a move ostensibly aimed at promoting “iconic architecture” in the city.

Heralded as a bid to redefine the skyline and open more spaces to the public, the proposal sounds progressive. On paper, it invites citizen feedback, promises world-class design and nods to global benchmarks. However, beneath the rhetoric of inclusion lies an unsettling reality as the policy raises a more fundamental question. What is truly iconic?

To qualify as “iconic”, a building must open 40% of its premises to the public through a fee-based system. Implicit in this is the exclusion of privately-owned residential structures, many of which form the backbone of what conservationists call “living heritage”. These are not defunct relics or sealed monuments. They are stilloccupied, actively maintained, architecturally significant structures that embody Mumbai’s cultural fabric. By disqualifying them, 33 (27) sidesteps what makes Mumbai unique: heritage not as spectacle, but as lived experience.

The ambiguity in the criteria terms like “unique aesthetic” and “distinctive theme” is especially incongruent with Mumbai’s architectural DNA. This is a city whose heritage has never conformed to a singular visual style. Its identity has always been cosmopolitan layered, plural and improvisational, reflecting a confluence of histories rather than a curated narrative combined with a six-member scrutiny committee. The fact that the panel includes business personalities and global architects, but not necessarily those embedded in the city’s historic pulse, sets a dangerous precedent.

Take, for instance, the work of Atul Kumar and the Art Deco Mumbai Trust. This citizen-led initiative has meticulously documented and advocated for the city's Art Deco precincts culminating in the area’s UNESCO World Heritage tag. In fact, 2025 marks 100 years of Art Deco in Mumbai – a poignant milestone that should be celebrated with protection, not dilution. Their goal has never been to ticket or commodify these neighbourhoods but to preserve their legacy as living, breathing ecosystems. Regulation 33 (27), in contrast, seems designed for “destination architecture” focusing on glitzy structures with observation decks and retail lobbies. It doesn't lay emphasis on residential buildings where generations have quietly lived and stewarded history.

Or consider Sans Souci on Nepean Sea Road, the former residence of David Sassoon, whose philanthropic footprint helped shape the very public infrastructure Mumbai now prizes. He donated the land on which the Byculla Zoo and the Bhau Daji Lad Museum stand today. The Masina Hospital was once his private residence. Not to forget the Sassoon Docks and the David Sassoon Library, both enduring civic institutions that continue to serve the city. Structures like these speak not just of architectural merit, but of intertwined social and historical significance. They are already iconic not because they charge for entry, but because they stand as physical evidence of the city’s plural, cosmopolitan legacy.

As global cities pivot toward inclusive, citizen-centric planning, Mumbai appears to be leaning into a tourist-centric model of urban branding. Public access is being conflated with ticketed entry. Iconic status is being reduced to commercial viability. The city does need more un-ticketed gardens and public spaces, more design ambition and more civic pride. However, it must not come at the cost of its authentic heritage, especially not through policies that obscure more than they reveal.

This is not just a planning debate. It’s a philosophical one. Should Mumbai’s future be sculpted by transient aesthetics and global capital or by the communities and cultures that have sustained its soul? If Regulation 33 (27) is to proceed, it must do so with far greater transparency, robust limitations on FSI and a respect for what already defines the city’s identity.

Citizen voices like Atul Kumar’s have preserved this city not through premiums, but through persistence. Let’s not conflate iconography with spectacle. Mumbai’s true landmarks have never needed tickets or taglines, they have endured through memory, meaning and quiet custodianship. If we are to define what is iconic, let it be with care, cultural continuity and collective conscience at its core.

Ankieta Kothari is a promoter at Pantheion Real Estate, driving forward a vision of sophisticated, sustainable and usercentric urban development.

Published on: Friday, June 27, 2025, 07:56 AM IST