IIMA launches redesigned website with new logo, to rebuild buildings | Latest India News


The Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) has launched a revamped website with a new logo and announced the reconstruction of parts of the old campus, citing the safety of residents on campus and the expansion of the infrastructure as part of its growth plans.

The decisions had been suspended following a huge outcry, in particular over the demolition of buildings designed by the famous American architect Louis Kahn to rebuild them. Forty-five faculty members protested the new logo. IIMA students and alumni have also launched an online petition against the new logo.

“…the institute felt the need to redesign the IIMA website and renew its visual identity, represented by its logo. The new website embodies the IIMA brand philosophy of “Simple, Bold and Global”. After consulting and incorporating feedback from relevant stakeholders, the refresh of the logo has also been completed,” the institute said, citing IIMA’s Board of Governors (BoG).

BoG said the logo aims to convey a more lively and dynamic brand identity while maintaining elements of the existing one.

The new logo retains the Sanskrit words “Vidya Viniyogadvikasa [development through the distribution or application of knowledge]” whose withdrawal of it sparked an uproar earlier.

The previous logo with the “tree of life” motif was inspired by a carved stone latticework grille of the 16th century Sidi Saiyyed Mosque in Ahmedabad. The logo was finalized in 1964, three years after the institute was established. The Sanskrit part was added in 1967.

HT first reported on March 31 about the institute’s plans to change the logo and the criticism it faced, particularly from faculty members.

IIMA said the institute is proud of its background and rich heritage, including iconic architecture. He said they were essential to its growth into a leading world-class institution. The institute said some of the buildings suffered structural damage and deterioration and became uninhabitable, posing a safety concern for residents.

“The deterioration of the structures was first raised at a building committee meeting in July 1982. More importantly, the council reviewed all relevant reports, particularly those undertaken in the last year. This included meetings and presentations by two groups of experts who were commissioned to assess the conditions and structural state of the buildings and who visited the campus to conduct a first-hand study,” he said. .

The institute said that after careful consideration, a process will be initiated for the reconstruction of the faculty blocks, the classroom complex and the outlying dormitories 16 to 18 with, the same exterior facade, an earthquake-resistant structure and a non-major renovation of the interior. space to improve its functionality according to user needs.

The dormitories will be remodeled in accordance with Kahn’s vision and with the functional needs of campus residents in mind. “The safety of our staff is our primary responsibility, and with this in mind, the Board felt it was necessary to address this issue rather than opting for temporary solutions such as rollbacks, which had been attempted. but were not as effective.”

He said the board consulted with industry experts and discussed the issue for months before making the decision about rebuilding parts of the old campus. “All reports indicate that most of the structural elements have an insignificant remaining life, and therefore restoration will be technically impractical and inefficient despite [the] investment of time, effort and funds.

On January 1, 2021, the institute withdrew an expression of interest posted a month earlier inviting architects and designers to submit plans to demolish Kahn-designed campus dormitories and replace them with new structures.

Architects, historians and scholars have urged the institute to abandon plans to demolish the structures. In a letter dated January 1, 2021, BoG Chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla and other members said they “are sensitive to comments from some stakeholders who disagree with this approach.”


Comments are closed.