Page 82 - HUDCO-DA 21
P. 82

Architectural significance


          The building is a modest office  building not too ornate  but does
          have Renaissance Revivalist accents; the rusticated masonry on the
          ground floor in the arcade area makes it prominent. The 4th floor had
          corbelled brackets with a string course on which was the parapet.
          When the floor was added the corbels were left and the string course
          ledge was removed. The rear side is brick construction plastered with
          simple double-height mouldings around the openings. The  building
          borrows the details and respects the new buildings across the road
          and ensures physical and visual continuity on the eastern side too.
          Construction Technology                                                        Fig. 11 North-West (Front) Elevation


          The building has  load-bearing  external  walls.  The North  and  West
          are in stone whereas the other two are in brick and plastered over.
          Internally, it has steel columns that support the steel beams (I and H
          shape) which take the load of jack arch slabs cast in concrete over
          it. The main staircase is in wood. The partitions were done in single
          brick with half-timber construction in it.
          Past interventions


          Major  intervention  that  happened in the early  1950’s  was the
          addition of the top floor. The partitions were done in single brick with       Fig. 12 Typical Floor Plan
          half-timber  construction. New load-bearing  brick walls  on  all  sides
          resting on the stone parapet with RCC sill and lintel level continuous
          beams on which the wooden trusses with lightweight trafford pattern
          asbestos sheets rested.
          Other  repairs were complete  replastering  of  the  rear  and south
          façade in which the original cornice details were lost. The 3rd and
          4th floor toilet slabs were recast a few decades ago using I sections
          and stone slabs. These were probably done in the 1980’s/90’s. The
          individual users/tenants  refurbished their shops and offices suiting
          their tastes and not keeping in mind the overall building character.

                                                                                         Fig. 13 Roof Plan



              CONSERVING THE UNLOVED HERITAGE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT ERA OF MUMBAI – CASE
                              STUDY: COMMISSARIAT BUILDING, DR. D.N.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI

          64
   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87