Corbusier’s Modern Architecture Cult destroyed the Vibrant City Life!
02 August 2015 8:32 AM | No Comments
SK Das : The dichotomy of Gurgaon
02 August 2015 8:25 AM | No Comments
Malls are a nightmare for a city!
02 August 2015 8:18 AM | No Comments
SK Das : The Shared City!
02 August 2015 7:57 AM | No Comments
Surendra Hiranandani: Why malls are signs of a failed City!
30 July 2015 6:54 AM | No Comments
Placemaking as a winning Real-estate development Strategy:
30 July 2015 4:21 AM | No Comments
Learning from New York: Leaders Study Program 2013
30 July 2015 3:13 AM | No Comments
A report on Maximizing Mumbai’s parks : Karishma Makeshwar & Rishi Aggarwal
26 July 2015 6:00 AM | No Comments
Architecture autocentric development Big Ideas for 2012 cities city City Planning Design climate change density eco cities energy energy efficient buildings Environment FSI Debate governance green buildings green cities Heritage icts jnnurm livable city Mobility Modernism mumbai oil pedestrian cluture policy Portland public spaces regulation slums Sustainability sustainable urbanism Transit transport urban design Urbanism Urbanization urban planning urban policy urban vision vision walkability walkable walking yul2012
- Angela Brady PPRIBA
Photo Blog : Leader Study Program : London 2014
- Jigar Pankhania
“Reimagining Mumbai’s Public Spaces: Civic Hackathon”
“Reimagining Mumbai’s Public Spaces: Civic Hackathon”
- Anuradha Kelkar
“Reimagining Mumbai’s Public Spaces: Civic Hackathon”
- Rajiv Mishra
Leaders Study Program , NYC 2013: Manifesto , Photos ,Presentations & Reports
- Nidia Fiechter
- Meta Bambas
Why Mumbai Needs a Strategic Urban Design/ Ecological Master Plan
- Josefa Gunto
Revival of Historic cores of Cities
- Corbusier’s Modern Architecture Cult destroyed the Vibrant City Life!
The Urban Vision : Capture the BIG Picture
Name: Shashi Bhooshan
Bio: Dr. Bhooshan’s architecture has received critical acclaim; He has some eight awards and prizes at national level and a nomination for Aga Khan International award. He was a consultant to UN at Nagoya and was associated with Human settlement studies of the International Institute of Environment and Development, London. His works are widely published nationally and internationally. He has written on development planning, human settlements, housing and architecture and is the author and editor of five books on human settlement policies in Asia besides numerous papers and articles.
Posts by Shashi Bhooshan:
Are we losing control over our architecture, technology and sense of identity? Or are we developing ourselves to be masters of a postmodern global culture? Are we slowly succumbing to the pressures of an economic and cultural globalization or are we developing skills to inflect the global juggernaut to our ends?
This essay is an attempt to evaluate the current scenario of trends and changes taking place in architecture and construction industry and technology in India largely as a result of the on-going globalization of its economy. The hypothesis here is that technological changes are never neutral and is prompted not so much by economic compulsions alone, but more by external influences and cultural incursions of a global phenomenon. This I believe is first manifested in developing taste cultures and style in the name of superiority of a mythical ‘world class’ and creation of a sign system and myth supposed to be denoting world class and progress. It will be argued that by its very nature, the process, at least in the short run – I think, a fairly long short run even if that be so, will heighten the dichotomies with in the industry and social consumption of architecture as the cost of construction will be rising without commensurate increase in the affordability of large proportion of people. As a cultural phenomenon, if this will create a postmodern society, a la USA, or will it create social tensions in India is something which requires investigation and debate. For the purposes of this paper, we will restrict the arguments only to the building industry.
Globalization means increasing movement of capital, ideas, technology men, products, services across the globe not deterred by the boundaries. It is being legitimized as a phenomenon offering greatest common goods and is being promoted as to have no alternative. Of course no proof is offered. It is like myths; it is a myth; which have its own rational; a modern myth at that.
Globalisation’s legitimization is like that of modernism. Modernism developed challenging the growth of global capitalism, legitimizing itself on the brave new world of science and rational thinking. Capitalism absorbed it and modernism lost its legitimizing power. The failure of modernism is largely due to its failure of its promises; the unlimited progress which will finally eliminate poverty. It did not happen. The globalisation has a similar professed aim, but has been more practical as not to claim any possibility of economic equality or even a reducing inequality. However, it tries to level cultural differences in consumption preferences as much as possible. That perhaps is not an intention but inevitable part of the process.
There may be many routes and agents of globalization, Bretton woods institutions, IMF, World Bank, WTO etc. The goal of the process is same. Triumph of the global capital. Integration of all markets. Finally hegemonic control by transnational corporations, beyond the control of governments and countries. And even political processes. Attempting to level cultural differences and pluralism, much the same way as attempted unsuccessfully by modernism and international style in architecture.
The building industry in India has been a curious mixture having characteristics of agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. It had been largely informal, and partly formal, offering easy entry for small entrepreneurs and high absorption of unskilled labour. It has high urban and metropolitan concentration .It has also been slow to change, clumsy, partially advanced, having most shrewd and enterprising people, very competitive and even speculative. It is also one of forerunner signs of economic growth – perhaps dubiously so. Its multiplier effect on the economy is among the highest, perhaps. In India govt. spending has been a prime mover of construction in its formal sector. That is changing drastically though.
Building industry as we know has three realms or segments.
1. Sustenance / organic construction – primitive/ traditional/ informally produced/ user involved/ construction as a process largely in rural areas and small towns and also lower sections of metros and cities. Slums. Low income housing. Basically need based.
2. Quasi professional- / professional / Hybrid This segment includes small time builders and contractors operating in small towns and unorganized small project segment of metropolitan cities. At the moment , it is by far the largest segment. There is relative autonomy in this segment today.
3. Professional / Formal/ organized/ industry. This segment is basically profit motivated builder financier related. This segment picks up changes fast. Partly trying to be world class/ global. Capitalist
This segment has developers/ builders, contractors/bui;ders, professionals, semi organized labour, skilled or unskilled.
Building Industry represents a wide spectrum ; land and real estate development. urban development; Infrastructure, roads, rail, airports etc. housing, house building, commercial development,. We are concerned here more with building sector which constitute architecture.
It represents among other things the cultural adaptation of building technology for social and personal space programming. Architecture is cultural expression and expresses social values and ethos. It is a way of putting spaces together and building according to means. It is also a representation of social symbols of status and vanity and power. Architecture have never been dissociated from elite and powerful and the rich. But as cultural text, and as a symbol of status and also because the buildings are needed for human activities, architecture has high influence on the development of our attitudes towards built environment and also as to how cities and towns evolve. Though it is never a one-way influence.
Cultural symbolism of architecture is unfortunately connected to materials, size and myths of the society. It is influenced today more by values for foreign goods and ideas, for fashions and trends, consumerism and the market. Far from satisfying a need for shelter, as built environment, architecture is becoming more of a commodity for conspicuous consumption announcing social class. Different classes have different built environments; houses, markets, hospitals, shops, schools, etc. Objects of consumption have been always objects for conspicuous consumption.
Indian economy has been evolving from a spread out agrarian to an urban and metropolitan centered one. This process has been throwing up challenging pattern of excessively concentrated urbanization. With advent of service sector domination as a result of global influence and IT, this process has further strengthened. IT could have been footloose and need not be tied by physical spatial ties for movement of goods, but it has concentrated more and more in metro centers. It is not the compulsions of the industry or even the lack of basic infrastructure like roads, and power that made IT sector to be concentrated on metro regions, but the social compulsions of the human capital manning the industry to be in places of consumer excitement and perhaps the need for higher social infrastructure, technological interface and connectivity that made it so. One can certainly expect this process to continue with more vigour with the globalization and more integration of the economies globally. More so with higher proportions of transnationals arriving here.
Impact on technology and architecture
This process of globalization, and the resulting service sector centred urbanization which evolves unabatedly is leading to a systemic changes in the industry and architecture as part of the evolving conundrum of social and cultural hiatus. Architecture and technology plays a significant role.
The process of commodification of culture and heritage is the forerunner. No heritage or cultural artefact will be preserved or continue to evolve unless they fit in the global economics or can be globally sold. That itself pre-empts any lasting preservation of a local tradition or heritage, except as a curious museum piece. Cultural artefacts, which include architecture, have meaning per se only in a place context. If projected on a global scale it can survive only as a commodity. That is what is happening to architecture. It is becoming a commodity at local individual building level and at the global cultural artefact level as well. At the local level it is connected with the creation and consumption of spaces for individuals and groups and status symbols for classes and at the global level creating cultural values and therefore economic values as well for certain materials and styles of dubious global class.
Defining an obfuscating “World Class” of architecture and building ( what is it?) as being done today is difficult task. Yet it is being talked about as a goal. World class in manufacturing goods actually means fitting industrial processes and products into global standards set by developed countries especially the EU and US. Its professed purpose is to create competence to sell at global markets. Similar conditions could apply to service sectors as well. But what it means to architecture and environment? The question has muddled answer because built environment is always meant for local consumption and not for exports. Therefore it s consumption is [predetermined by local taste culture. World class in architecture and building in practical terms is a projection of manufacturing and service norms to a cultural practice. It could mean precision of joints, low tolerance, and finer finishes and therefore lesser dependence on human skill, more and more mechanization and automation. This is opposed to the aesthetic value for the handcrafted products which has a different levels and value system for finishes and geometry. Creation of an aesthetic value for the” world class”, which has been slowly developing over a century or more, is a precondition. The process leads to less and less dependence on labour and time-consuming construction techniques. Technology evolved for labour scarce economies/ capital-intensive construction similar to making of a product and to be marketed.. This suits the formal segment of industry which has higher capitalist mode of production What values inform the aesthetics of “global architecture” . in India except the acceptance of superiority of mass production by machine or the implied superiority of the cultural context of a developed country where from architectural and technological values today originate?
The process is exacerbated by few other things that happens simultaneously. From process to product: Impersonalisation of the process and product is the one. Changing the value of architecture and buildings is influenced more and more by extraneous factors and not intrinsic factors. This is already so. But will heighten further. For example: Value of construction especially of buildings, like other products are not always determined by the cost of production. It is invariably linked to the site and place because the products of construction industry are tied to a place or site. Use value of a constructed building would be more or less same everywhere but the exchange value depends largely on other factors. The place land value, the control systems of the industry, the mythical values of vanity, fear, concerns of status and safety etc. and land values determine the FAR and later the FAR determines the land value in a vicious cycle. All this controlled by real estate market forces and advertisements and marketing promotions, which promise and inflate values on certain aspects of status and vanity.
More and more global capital would move into the building industry. Construction then would be more professionally managed introducing international controls like ISO and other agencies so as to safeguard and institutionalize corporate and professional interests. With 100 % FDI participation in real estate work hungry firms from abroad are sure to get in in a large scale. This would also require smaller construction and design firms getting eliminated from certain segments. Construction projects are becoming bigger and bigger and with global competition possible with GATS the level playing field gets eliminated for a large number of intermediate and smaller firms and companies. They have to become subsidiaries or ancillaries and will have to be subservient to the international capital. Arrival of the global capital brings its own preferences and tastes in architecture brought in by international consultants and accepted by the supporters of ‘mythical world class’.
Higher professionalization in more and more specializations tends to make construction cost increasing with management and service cost spiralling in formal sectors. The free movement of materials, ideas and persons also makes cost attaining global levels slowly and surely. This will make economic and social sense only if the income levels of the majority will match that. That is doubtful as all pundits agree that it will take a long time for growth to disseminate. Initially it may exacerbate the existing hiatus.
However the economy of India cannot be changing in short run to make this scenario possible through out the political and economic space. At least three levels are possible to coexist for a long time.
1. Global tech level:
This level will dominate large projects which are on the increase and metropolitan real estate. The major players will be the MNCs and large Indian companies in the formal sector and also by local companies, and firms aspiring to compete in the global market or the local space of the global market adapt the technological and material preferences. This segment has to be part of a global system of patronage, network and therefore adapt what is perceived and promoted as good internationally without looking into the repercussions on the local society or economy and more so the cultural traits and the architecture.
Creation of a new elite class of individuals, firms with the impact of glitz and glitter changes the technological and architectural programs and representations. First in the builder commercial industrial segment and later in housing segments as well through real estate marketing.
Promotion of a universal building culture opposed to the evolution of plural and culturally different practices. Design development and architecture of this will continue to be controlled from global centers which will produce cultural artifacts for dissemination worldwide through media and pulp and sop. This happens through the metropolitan centers. The myths and icons of new brave world scrounging the elite surface. Aestheticisation without connection to deep structure of culture, like the language we use, will be of surface twists or outright aping.
2. intermediate level
Alternatively, the localized labour intensive informal market will continue in segments which cannot afford to be part of the international or organized formal segment. This segment with its innovativeness and improvisation drastically changing the expected industry standards and blatant violations of property rights and legal and safety standards will thrive on the gullies besides highways of globalization. As it already does. Cheap improvisations of structural glazing and aluminium cladding are already in place. This segment will spatially coexist with the first one patronized by smaller and intermediate size projects. But as already seen its architecture is also influenced by the high tech level.
3. The Folk level:
At the lower level, the traditional folk techniques that will have to continue to exist for the marginalized majority. The totally informal sector which is not going to vanish. This will still continue in rural areas, smaller towns or in housing segments of the lower and middle classes in the metropolitan suburbia as well.
On can lament about this loss of traditional building practices and skills and impersonlising architecture and commodification or one can just shrug the shoulders about the inevitable. One can try to resist and chose to operate in the bare foot economy at level 3 . Or one can resist the juggernaut by trying to inflect it to local conditions at level one. A kind of making the global forces mend ways for local issues. The loss of identities is beginning to kindle nostalgia and therefore the clamour for heritage and conservation. But heritage conservation efforts are also today based on economics; the idea of commerce and profits. It is also ironically a product of international tourism. Heritage is USP. Replicating form without regard for the process or inherent quality of material used. Kolapuri Chappals in plastics.
Organizationally for the profession of design, globalization and higher international integration is likely to change at various levels. As the trend is projects are getting bigger and bigger and the design is no more a personalized single person dominated affair. It is going to be more of teamwork across related professions. The kind of design structure we have been used are changing. If one opts out of this design corporate approach, one has to be content with smaller works at the second or third level of architectural scenarios.
The question is whether it will be possible to integrate all the levels or will they work on different wavelengths.
We are arriving at post modern condition in parts with out even fully going through a developed modern condition. Dichotomous condition has been with us. The hiatus further gets manifested in the architectural and building scene. Shoulkd we be bothered about it? Should we not?
Who was Laurie baker?
It is difficult to put him in the category of just an architect as
most people do. Neither had he lived like just an architect. He was admired by people of
many walks of life. But still architectural fraternity claimed him as one among them
though many did not know him enough or his ideas enough. What makes Baker an
important phenomenon of recent Kerala? It is not the fact that he started work as a
missionary and did everything in that zeal, not even that he touched many lives and
influenced the opinions of policy makers and ordinary people, nor that he could create
dream houses for many who could not even dream; all that is known and written about by
media. His significance is that he was an agent of change in architecture at a turning point
in Kerala. But still I feel that he was most misunderstood architect.
History will remember Baker for making a generation of architects of Kerala think of
their past in whatever little way and make them understand the relevance of building
materials as well as appreciate the texture and aesthetics of ordinary materials. It is more
significant to note that modern architecture came to Kerala too late, or may be it is true to
say, it never came. All we have seen before the 60s were the insipid PWD stuff and the
occasional works of Bombay or Madras architects. And Baker created some thing new in
this vacuum. Though with the single minded idea of cost reduction. That was first
ridiculed and then accepted and then was eulogized and even worshipped and followed.
His kind of architecture was slowly kept aside today or if followed, done so only in form,
like Gandhian ideas are today. Yet Baker will remain a turning point in Kerala’s
architectural history; the history of modern Kerala and Indian architecture.
To eulogize is to forget the real content and keep only the form. Baker’s also might
follow the same pattern. The ideas will get corrupted if not already by the followers who
may not understand the spirit of enquiry Baker started with in architecture.
Baker’s architecture is largely misunderstood. People have used his ideas to suite their
ends. Some followed his brickwork and some his tracing of tile roof shapes in concrete,
some his jallis and some his cost cutting measures and a few followed him to make
ecological sense of his works, which, in my opinion, was the most sustainable of his
Baker’s architecture is read erroneously and simplistically as “Kerala style”. I think it
was not that simple. The so called “Kerala style” is itself a questionable notion. (this is
not a place to write about it). But the irony is that by labeling it that way, the critics and
followers in Kerala as well as outside have belittled the importance of his work. His
works, – homes or institutions or religious buildings-, had an idiosyncratic stamp typical
of his and were molded by the firm belief in Gandhian frugalism and the conscious
attempt at eliminating the unnecessary, may be of cost cutting. To do so it was inevitable
to build climatically suited structures and use skills locally available. When this was a
philosophy, it was inevitable to result in an architecture that we now know as that of
Baker’s. But we took it as vernacular and labeled as an adaptation of “Kerala style”. He
never claimed so.
Baker did question the logic of plastered makeup as an unnecessary paste on unlike
anybody before in Kerala. He bared his walls of beautiful brick works or stone masonry
and made us admire the beauty of materials. None did that in Kerala before except
Architect Chisholm and his ilk in the 19c or early 20c. He used plans and sequence of
spaces, which were contemporary and modern (least the way Kerala planned
traditionally). He used openings and windows which were simplified modern. None of
these could be called Kerala Style. His jallis were neither an adaptation of the past. Baker
rejected past’s follies and adapted relevant and significant ones from anywhere
But true, he made tiled roof and sloped concrete roofs resembling the roofs of traditional
Kerala as well as some wood joinery details, railings, etc. more like the “post modernist”
way, yet very ingeniously and beautifully. And to that extend he was using an easily
recognizable architectural vocabulary and signifying certain accepted meanings of forms.
He was thus rebelling against the accepted principles of modern architecture as well. I
think, that to him was just a way to get more latent ideas of architecture, – of lower cost
and frugal living and ecological building – acceptable to people, more like the way
Mahatma Gandhi clothed his ideas in simple mass appeal. Baker’s architecture will be
and is significant beyond these scenographic formalisms. At the techtonic level and in
technological innovation and spatial creativity, his architecture was universal, modern
and had the significant spirit of adventure and objectivity. Modern scientific spirit of
enquiry was the basis of his architecture. And it happened at a significant point in
Kerala’s architectural and political history.
Let us remember not to reduce this significance of Baker to that of a mere technician
(even if a masterly one) or just a low cost architect. Let us not disgrace his masterly
adaptations with cheap imitations as seen in Kerala’s recent scenography of questionable
and insipid adaptation of sloping roofs. A serious study of Baker’s architecture is
required. I hope some one will do it. May be that only a European will be destined to do
Baker was admittedly a Gandhian in ideas and yet like Gandhi he is understood more
superficially and because of his eminence, would be followed more in form than in real
spirit and content of ideas.
Here is the link to the original article: