By Suraj Nandrekar
Goa is finally waking up to a problem that has been staring it in the face for years. Traditional Goan houses are disappearing, one demolition at a time, replaced by concrete structures that may be bigger and newer but rarely carry the character of the homes they replace.
The decision by the Town and Country Planning Board to restrict redevelopment of properties containing pre-1961 traditional houses is therefore significant. But it also raises an equally important question: is this move a boon for Goa’s heritage or could it become a bane for property owners and rural development?
Under the new directive, plots of 500 square metres or more containing pre-1961 traditional houses and located outside Outline Development Plan areas will face a Floor Area Ratio cap of 40 per cent. More importantly, structural demolition of the identified traditional houses will not be permitted.
On paper, this appears to be a strong intervention at a time when Goa’s architectural identity is rapidly changing.
A traditional Goan house is not simply a private building. It is part of the landscape. The laterite walls, traditional balconies, red tiled roofs, wooden doors, verandahs and relationship with the surrounding fields and village roads tell the story of Goa in a way that modern apartment blocks cannot.
Once demolished, such architecture cannot be recreated authentically. A replica may look similar, but it will never carry the history of the original house.
So protecting these structures is certainly important.
But preservation cannot mean freezing every property in time.
The government must recognise that these houses are privately owned. Many are old, expensive to maintain and increasingly difficult to repair. In some cases, younger generations may not live in them or may not have the financial resources to restore them. There are also houses that may have serious structural problems.
What happens to such owners?
If the government says these houses cannot be demolished, it must also answer whether it is prepared to help owners preserve them. Heritage protection without financial or technical support could turn into an unfair burden on ordinary property owners.
The 40 per cent FAR restriction also needs careful examination. Development controls may protect the surrounding character, but they can also affect the economic value of a property. A landowner who has legally acquired a large plot may suddenly find that development potential is significantly restricted because an old house stands on it.
That is where the government must strike a balance.
Goa cannot protect heritage by simply telling owners what they cannot do. It must create incentives for what they can do.
There should be a clear mechanism for identifying genuine pre-1961 traditional houses. There must also be transparent criteria for determining their heritage value. Not every old structure is necessarily architecturally significant, and not every property should automatically face identical restrictions.
The government could consider incentives for restoration, property tax concessions, technical assistance, heritage grants and controlled adaptive reuse. Traditional homes could be encouraged to function as homestays, cultural spaces, boutique establishments or family residences, subject to appropriate regulations.
That would turn heritage from a burden into an asset.
The other danger is selective enforcement. Goa has seen enough examples of regulations being strict on paper and flexible in practice. If this policy is to succeed, there must be consistency. The rules must apply equally, regardless of who owns the property.
The larger question is what kind of Goa we want to leave behind.
Development is inevitable. But development does not have to mean demolition. Goa needs roads, homes, businesses and modern infrastructure. At the same time, it needs its villages, houses, courtyards and streetscapes that distinguish it from every other rapidly urbanising destination.
The TCP Board has taken the first step. The real test begins now.
If the policy protects genuine heritage while allowing owners reasonable and regulated development, it could become a turning point.
If it merely imposes restrictions without support, clarity and fairness, it could create resentment and encourage people to find ways around the rules.
The question is not whether Goa should choose heritage over development. The question is whether Goa can finally learn to protect its heritage while developing responsibly.
That will determine whether the pre-1961 protection becomes a boon for Goa or another bane of poorly balanced planning.
