MY ARCHITECTURE – A RANT
A majority of architects the world over, and especially in India, have this idea that they know more than the rest. They know more than the client, the policymakers, the specialists, and more than the end-users themselves. We believe that as generalists, we have a more accurate understanding of issues at hand than everybody else. We pretend as if architecture is the solution to all problems – be it homelessness, or societal evils.
Reputed architects who have won all the prestigious awards there are, speak and write eloquently about architecture; about the beauty and passion that it evokes, about the power of spaces, volumes, and so on, which is listened to, and read eagerly almost exclusively by other architects. But how true and applicable is it to the general population?
Any successful architect in India caters only to the top 0.1, or 0.01% of the population. The number of architects in the country is low enough for all the reputed ones to be able to design residences and luxury apartments worth much more than what an entire family in the bottom 50% earn in their lifetime.
Every day, on my way home from work, I see a smorgasbord of inequality on the streets I pass through. These range from families sleeping on pavements, beggars with injuries, children selling roses and cheap toys, and a plethora of heart-wrenching scenes which show the disparity within the population. Nothing shows that we still have a long way to go than the visual of a street beggar child trying to sell a Chinese made plastic toy to another child in the back seat of a Mercedes car.
Architects have a God complex when it comes to judging the impact of their designs. We tend to believe that regardless of the nature of evil, a built form should be able to provide a solution. In most cases of practical implementation, we fail to make any noticeable dent, in the rest we make matters worse. In a classic case of survivorship bias, the few cases that do make a noticeable impact, thanks mostly due to other circumstances at play, are showcased as an example of the wonders architecture can have on society. This has led to architects slowly moving away from designing for the users, to designing for other architects. An emphasis on using the best western methods, the self-congratulatory assessments, and the lack of follow-up on the projects over the long term have led to the almost complete absence of meaningful architecture, and the complete lack of self-awareness.
Upon looking at the impact of homelessness on the streets, as a product of the Indian architecture myself, my initial thoughts were to provide a system of social housing for the homeless in the city. This of course brings up a few crucial points such as corruption, land availability, identifying and correctly providing to the target community, debate on the use of public funds to provide valuable real estate to others, and so on that immediately negate the idea of social housing in an Indian context, at least that of providing free housing or lodging for the homeless – which is the only solution that would be of any meaningful help. The move into subsidized housing might help the set of people in the economic strata above whom we would want to help, but the targeted audience themselves will see no benefit arising from this project.
At this point, it is necessary to start looking at architecture as merely a vehicle to translate the word of policy into brick and stone. Architecture by itself is an antipyretic pill for a severe fever. It might alleviate the symptoms of the disease, but it does not cure the disease. We need something more powerful for that, and that is the rule of law. Policymakers, and policy framework are not looked at very closely, or offered inputs to by practicing architects. This is a cyclical problem where architects are not approached, so they don’t give their inputs, so they are not approached, so they don’t…
Architects criticize the policies quite vocally in air-conditioned auditoria and niche print and digital media after the policies have been approved and implementation has begun; which are again consumed almost exclusively by other architects. This feedback loop reiterates the notion that architects know more than the rest, and that western architecture and urban design theory can be easily retrofitted to an Indian context with relative ease.
As one of the members of the architecture community in the country, I believe that it is time for us to first, accept the limitations of architecture; and second, to recognize the failures and hypocrisy of the architectural community who design for the top 1%, but claim to know what is right for the 99%. Policymaking should be encouraged by the governing architecture bodies, and students must be made to study and read realistic and local successes in the implementation of policy through architecture, instead of being encouraged to solve societal evils through a building.
End rant.
K.A.S.T
Sai Tejas 