The characteristics of buildings in different regions and contexts will be different. In Bhutan the red band around a building declares it as sacred. The pagoda roof over roof in Kathmandu valley creates a local identity. The community tanks of Kolkata are the focus of neighborhoods. The tanks of Tamil Nadu are more formal and defined.
Perhaps the attitudes, the components and the elements are all intermingled. But a young architect must take their sketchbook and document their environment. They must see how light is employed; how shades of colors are used; how textures in floors are laid out; how echoes and reverberations of sounds are handled; how alignments, landmarks and axes generate sequences of modulated experiences.
Each school of architecture should run a workshop, sending students into towns, villages and hamlets to document attitudes, components and elements which define a regional architectural language. These should be looked at critically to assess their validity and relevance to contemporary needs, functions and lifestyles. Analogies between traditional and contemporary materials and technologies can be conjectured. Possibilities and potentials for applying local concepts to new designs must be debated. Findings should be listed. New prototypes should be attempted, based on old plan concepts and spatial arrangements.
Gharanas of Architecture
We have in Hindustani Music the concept of gharanas, and in philosophy we have ‘schools of thought.’ We need ‘schools of thought’ and gharanas in architecture too. In ancient regions one can see unique schools of thought emerging. The history of architecture in a given place is a narrative of the culture of the people who have lived there. The changes in style mirror the society which has evolved in that place. The buildings are landmarks along the journey of history that give meaning to a context. We can have clear attitudes toward nature, materials and proportion. We can have unique components to create support, span and enclosure. We can have special motifs for shading stairs, floors, seats and connections. We can have our own elements and unique ways to employ them. These will evolve as the functions, technology and the culture of a place evolve.
A wonderful challenge calls upon young architects to expose the meaning and reality of architecture in their local contexts. They will discover the identity of their own culture and begin to enrich and mature that identity. They will find meaning in their work and purpose in their lives. I challenge you, young architects of India. Make your own language and your own style.
(Keynote address to the Karnataka State Convention of the Indian Institute of Architects in February 2006)
Letter
Architecture as a Social Tool
Hypothesis
Historically architecture has addressed itself to the problems of a very small class of citizens. Though the social and economic context in which we work has changed, we are still burdened with an ethos of the past. Architecture has, by and large, been the expression of the interests of a small class of clients – an expression of enlightenment, progress and power. Even the contention that architecture should be functional has been a point of debate in this rarefied atmosphere.
It is important for the next generation of architects to consider my hypothesis that architecture can be a social tool, a tool for change, a tool which expresses new social relationships.
By focusing on the common man we not only resolve his needs but we express his new importance and motivate a reconsideration of priorities. By focusing on communities rather than individuals, architects express the meaning of mutual cooperation and collective social security. Architecture can revive respect for local resources, techniques and capacities. It can reflect a dignity in the culture of small and poor communities who have been humiliated through mass media, by high technology, large systems and a feeling that the important events are controlled in another context. Architecture represents one of the most visible, expressive tools for invention and change.
If architecture as a profession is to play its essential role as a social tool we must be clear about:
our GOALS;
our APPROACH;
our STYLE;
what is NEW;
our STRATEGIES; and
our relations with PEOPLE and POLITICS.
The following paper attempts to discuss these issues.
Goals for the Profession
In international circles today we hear of basic human needs. Habitat and environment institutions and leading thinkers have outlined a list of goods and services which are needed by each and every human being. What are these? Food, clothing, shelter, skills, awareness of health and hygiene, access to social and economic services, and participation in local governance. In India we have talked about a Minimum Needs Programme which focused on rural housing, clean drinking water, access roads, village electrification and the like. While this emphasis initiated a discussion on the tangible benefits of development that can be realized by the common man, it was only a beginning. The emphasis of architecture and planning did not change. Town planning continued its quest for the Garden City and macro-planners projected the needs of industry for basic inputs. Architects designed their urban monuments. But where were the individual, the rural laborer, the hutment dweller, the poor, in this highly segmented, sectionalized planning process? It is clear that the common man was neglected and in fact there is evidence that this position, vis-à-vis basic human needs, deteriorated over the period of India’s early development strategies.
Our planning has failed because it has not grasped and focused on the issues correctly. On the one hand we have in town planning tried to create principles out of middle class western ideals. Neatness, cleanliness and orderly façades have been the mirage which physical planners have chased. Our economists have looked at the structure of western industrial economies, at the inputs and products needed to build an industrial state, and have tried to use these models as a ‘cookbook’ for filling in the missing parts. Realizing the failure of the dream of importing heavy technology, the scientific community has tried to pull their fingers out of the fire with terms like ‘appropriate technology’ and ‘intermediate technology,’ hoping to keep their place in the questionable system of development they proposed in the 1950s and -60s. Why have we failed? The question haunts us! As we approach our goal as a ‘high technology nation’, we realize that technology does not reach those who need it the most.
We have failed because we have not taken the bull by the horns. We must declare that basic human needs are in fact the basic human rights. We must be clear that these basic human rights are our top priority and that all professions must be held responsible for delivering the goods. Let us make it clear at this point that when we talk of human rights we do not refer to elusive concepts of freedom, or a philosophy of justice. Let us be clear that we refer to nutrition, clothing and shelter; to the right to be trained to participate in the economy and to subsequently participate in society; that there is a specific ‘basket of goods and services’ to which everyone has a right, of which shelter, sanitation and hygiene are crucial. These, then, are the goals which we in a new profession must support.
Approach
The above immediately changes the emphasis of architecture away from the urban, the monumental and the stylish, calling for an entirely new way of looking at architectural education. It re-focuses on:
An architecture that works at the micro level, that is the level at which communities or interests aggregate themselves. It could take the traditional village as a social unit or the watershed as a geo-economic unit. But it must be a small enough unit in which target populations and coverage can be analyzed and specified. It must also be small enough for a need-based ‘identity of common interests’ to emerge, yet large enough to support a basic management function. This unit, perhaps an entire village, should be considered the HOUSE of the community. As a community sharing a HOUSE a common set of services
must be designed and shared.
An architecture that is cross-sectional and integrated. Architecture must be holistic in embracing the total environment. The use of the word ‘habitat’ in this broader sense is important. It means that activities must be aggregated around the function and the user, not disaggregated into the technical specialties of the ‘suppliers’. Processes should be designed which enhance the community. The community should not be approached piecemeal through roads, shelter, water, health education (i.e., ‘departmentally’ through the PWD, Housing Board, Irrigation).
An architecture that directly involves the people. This means the creation of institutions at the micro level that have decision making and management capacities. It means that ideas must emerge from the people and that the paradigm ‘government decides, people support’ must be reversed to ‘people decide, government supports.’ Giveaway planning, which emerges before elections and then quietly dies away to be replaced by paternalistic voluntary work, must end. Architects should provide the ‘idea tools’ by which each village can prepare its own environmental action plans.
An architecture that builds on local resources and capabilities and fulfills basic needs for shelter, amenities and services.
Above all, architecture and planning that creates a base line of guaranteed consumption on the basis ‘to each according to his need; from each according to his abilities’.
Style of Working
Accordingly, as architects we must accept a new style of working. The age of the individualistic master builder is over. The age of the commercial architect sitting in his office is over. The age of the specialists doling out advice on forays into the field is over. The new style must include:
Working in teams to discuss problems and find solutions, building on each other’s strengths and cancel out each other’s weaknesses.
Bringing forth multi-disciplinary skills and abilities and using the social sciences as an analytic base.
Keeping in contact with and learning from the people through field work. Moving in the villages, moving with the people and learning from them is an essential technique of the new professional style that must emerge.
Taking a scientific stance with regard to understanding the structure of the areas within which we work.
Developing, on the one hand, tools to document consumption levels, the impact of different inputs, production systems, local materials and techniques, and distribution systems; and on the other hand avoiding the pseudo-science of hypothesis formation, survey design, survey test, sample and control group – all neatly juggled from the comfort of an urban office and administered by inexperienced graduates in the field. We will only understand the nature and the character of problems through case studies, group interviews and area histories. These are the tools through which we can identify and define the stresses that threaten people and their contexts. Problems can only then be stated as questions to be answered. Sample surveys can then follow to tell us the size and extent of the problems, but let us be clear that surveys cannot identify problems or the issues of actors in the system. The field is our great laboratory and we must use it and learn from it.
I would take a similar stance on
highly quantitative approaches which draw broad conclusions from faulty secondary data.
the design and testing of new architectural processes which result in ALTERNATIVES for society.
It is our role and duty to show in concrete terms the alternatives and the choice system. We must state clearly, step by step, methods which incorporate the elements noted above in the new profession. Finally, the new style demands a selfless immersion into the problems of the poor. A discipline of doing, seeking results and re-learning must emerge.
The New Architecture
Such a new style of work and a new approach must define the New Architecture. And the shift from the old architecture to this New Architecture is a cause of conflict and tension because:
it indicates a restructuring of the gains of development; it means redistribution of the benefits of production;
it undercuts the role of commercial architects and technocrats who plan in a top-down manner;
it negates the importance of the old school academics, their abstract techniques and the institutions they have built around these effete methods; it also negates the importance of their internally ‘consistent’ models;
it directly confronts the hold of feudal forces over the masses of the rural population because it initiates self sufficiency;
it confronts the comfortable lifestyle of the urban elite crypto-leftists who favor the starvation of the poor as a catalyst of their intellectualized, self-centered, utopian future;
it challenges the established system of production relations, placing decision making in the hands of the people, and guarantees them the right to consume at specified standards.
The six factors indicated above collectively represent vested interests opposed to the New Architecture and, given their individual and collective power, it should not surprise us that the New Architecture faces opposition from many quarters.
But the New Architecture will succeed. Why? It will succeed because:
it is in the interest of the mass of the population and it is a majority interest;
the collective vested interests noted above are in mutual conflict and they will work at odds with each other;
there are progressive elements that persist through society in all walks of life and as individuals they will do their duty to ensure that the New Architecture endures;
it is essential.
Strategies for the New Architecture
What are the strategies for the emergence of this New Architecture?
Institutions must be built around it. These will not receive funding from traditional sources, so they will have to support themselves and depend on progressive individuals for support. They will have to play a frontline role in facing the attack of vested interests.
A new profession of architects must emerge in which the basic goals and techniques of the New Architecture take priority over specialized disciplines and in which individual ambitions are curbed.
The New Architecture must grow from within existing systems and architects must work to create issue-oriented alternatives around which constructive political debate can emerge. By staying aloof from the system one becomes an uninformed and isolated critic. Architects should not become a burden on society and should not become a privileged class of dependents as academics have done. Only by acting within the system will architects learn and play a role in change. This does not necessarily imply that they will work only in government jobs, though that is clearly an option. Additionally they may:
Work as ‘barefoot architects’ for communities through voluntary agencies. This would be the ideal way for young architects to begin their careers. Agencies like the Ahmedabad Study Action Group (ASAG); VIKAS (Ahmedabad) and UNNAYAN (Kolkata) present us examples of such initiatives.
Work in an action oriented institution where their contact in the field would be intact and where they can work on ‘live projects.’ The Centre for Development Studies and Activities (CDSA), Pune, is an example of such an institution.
Teach other young architects.
Work as independent authors, consultants or freelance researchers.
Work with a relevant development agency, such as a financial institution or a development authority.
Whichever of these paths an architect chooses to take, he must be aware of his own careerist tendencies. He must put his goals and ethics above mere opportunities and position. He must convince his fellow workers of the validity of his approach and style.
The new architect must act as an agent of change. He must study problems, design new programs and pro
mote these tools for change. This will involve ceaseless effort.
People, Politics and Architecture
Needs and resources emerge from the people, solutions emerge with the professionals’ assistance, and the power to change emerges from the politicians. These three essential actors in any change model should have a common set of interests or goals if that model is to deliver on its promise. The present crisis in architecture and planning – in fact in our nation’s development – emerges from the conflict of interests between these three groups. The traditional architect is isolated from the people and aligned with an array of interests of special groups. The goal of town planning will coincide with the needs of a very privileged group of house owners and land investors, elite groups concerned about the appearance of the city, or the needs of industrial houses for whom an ‘efficient’ city is important. Our macro-planners are aligned with the needs of basic industries for the supply of essential inputs such as diesel, cement, steel, electricity and railway wagons. In turn, these interest groups have their own political connections in the exercise of power in decision making towards common ends.
It is necessary that the New Architecture be clear about its goal and that it builds its ties around a common, systematic presentation of interests with politicians who share the same goals and objectives. As a new profession we must profess specific goals and our ethics must be built around an adherence to those goals. We must understand that our profession has two basic components:
Letters To A Young Architect Page 8
