Can architecture redefine the concept of building bye-laws?

We are accustomed to the fact that in the present-day urban context, building byelaws (or the Development Control Regulations) define the architectural form in its entirety. These regulations are so exhaustive that architects at times complain that they effectively suppress the free expression of architectural design.

But the reality is quite the opposite. It was the creative ideas of many architects, coupled with their empathy for the building occupants that led to the format and content of the development control regulations as we see them today. We also need to understand, that what these regulations stipulate is a minimum set of requirements for a habitable space, and as architects, we can actually provide a much better quality of space, exceed the minimum standards and norms, and provide a much more conducive environment for the occupants of a building than what is envisaged in the regulations.

The control of development in an urban area is a fairly recent phenomenon, brought in by the idea of planned development of the city. For quite some time, design of buildings was not regulated by the authorities, except for stipulating that the building should be built exclusively on one's own land, and should not encroach on a public amenity, access or the neighboring properties. The present-day regulations in India for construction of a building in a village reflect these preliminary controls.

In 19th century New York, the large influx of immigrant population led to largescale development of tenement houses, built by unscrupulous developers without any basic amenities. The first tenement bylaws in New York were enacted in 1867, in response to the highly unhygienic and claustrophobic environment in and around these tenements. These byelaws insisted on outward-facing windows in every room, an open courtyard, proper ventilation systems, indoor toilets, and fire safeguards. The Tenement House Acts continued to evolve, as later amendments stipulated interior plumbing and a courtyard for garbage removal. A similar legislation in London in 1905 stipulated at least one bathroom in every new building. In India, after independence, the various state governments enacted legislation for planned development of the cities, which necessitated a control on all the development in our cities.

The regulations were meant to provide minimum standards for building design, to provide their occupants with a safe and hygienic built environment and encourage the provision of better amenities for the occupants by providing various incentives like exemption from FAR for amenities like the terraces and balconies etc. In fact, everywhere in the world, the city authorities have responded positively for each new feature or design idea by an architect, which improves the quality of life of people in the city.

In New York, the regulations stipulated a setback for tall buildings after a certain height, which made the top of many skyscrapers into a pyramidal shape. In the design of Seagram building, Mies van de Rohe chose to leave a large set-back from the ground level itself and designed a rectangular shaped office building instead of this tapering shape at top. This offset at the street level was designed by Mies as a public plaza, and he added two waterbodies in this plaza, which improved its appeal as a public place, and became immensely popular.

Impressed by the idea of a private space made open and accessible to the city, the New York City regulations in 1961 provided incentives for builders and developers in the form of additional FAR, if the street level of a project was made accessible as public place. Many buildings in Manhattan have taken advantage of this, resulting in a pleasant walking experience in an otherwise car-dominated high-rise development of the Manhattan area.

In India, when Charles Correa designed Kanchenjunga in Mumbai, he introduced a concept of a double height terrace and the authorities agreed to exempt the space from the FAR, on the lines of exemptions to balconies and cupboards, as an additional amenity for the occupants. Eventually, this led to the amendment in the byelaws to exempt all such double height terraces from FAR.

The provisions of FAR and FAR exemptions have acquired enormous importance in the urban scenario today, when the construction industry is dominated by the builders and developers, but the original purpose of the regulations has not changed. As architects, if we are sincere and provide a design solution which improves the quality of space in individual buildings and the quality of life in the city, the regulations will definitely follow.

When Architects decide the place to build

What come first- the building or the site? Modern architecture is based on the tenet that a building must be designed with due regard to its location- its physical context, the climate and culture of the place. It would seem therefore, that the building would follow the site. However, this tenet was virtually absent in the classical architecture, where the design of the building was based on the idea of a monument, and the site was adjusted according to the vision of the architect regarding the building and its setting. The greatest example of this is the design of the tomb of Sher Shah Suri in Sasaram, Bihar, which stands in an artificial lake which is part of the architectural design for the project. Instead of trying to create a building according to the site, the site itself was defined by the architectural design for the project.

In fact, all Mughal tombs in India follow the same pattern. The building and its setting would be defined first, demarcating the boundaries of the project. When all the land belonged to the client (The King in this case) the choice of marking the boundary of the site can definitely rest with the architect. 

An architect in the present day can exercise this kind of choice only when the site is sufficiently large to make alternate locations for the building possible, though the client may have his own preferences for placing the building in the given site. When Edger Kaufmann appointed F. L Wright to build a weekend retreat in the Allegheny Mountains, he pointed out to a waterfall on his property, and explained to Wright his vision of a house with a view of the falls. However, Wright decided otherwise, and made the waterfall a part of the house by placing it directly on the waterfall. The decision made the otherwise simple structure into a national monument now, a tribute to the genius of F. L. Wright.

Kauffman House (Falling Waters) by F. L. Wright.

(Photo by lachrimae72 - https://pixabay.com/photos/house-in-nature-house-falling-water-2110133/, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=88743190)

In case of Cidade de Goa, a hotel located on the Vainguinim beach in Goa, the problem was that the local planning regulations insisted on keeping the access to the beach open for the public. However, the hotel management wanted to create a sense of exclusivity for the hotel guests. The problem was solved by Charles Correa, in selecting the site in which the beach curves inwards and the hotel building encircles the beach. Though the sides are open, allowing public access to the beach, for the hotel guests, the space facing the sea feels like it is exclusive to them.

Google Photo: Site of Cidade De Goa Hotel with the beach curving inwards.

In case of the new Parliament Building for Shri Lanka, the site was already decided as the island where the palace of the King Vikramabahu III's powerful Minister Nissaka Alakesvara had been situated, but the Architect, Geoffrey Bawa, modified the site itself into a predetermined shape by selectively flooding the lake around the island. In this context, it follows the idea of classical setting like the tomb of Sher Shah Suri in Sasaram, Bihar which is placed in an artificial lake, as mentioned above.

Google Photo: Shri Lanka Parliament Building with modified edges of the original island.

All these examples demonstrate that even today, given a choice, Architectural design can include the selection and configuration of the design of the site itself, on the lines of the classical architecture. 

Birth of Style-03

Of all the development of styles in the Christian architecture, Renaissance Architecture stands out for its dissociation from the entire architectural development that preceded it. From the early Christian architecture to the Gothic Architecture, this development encompassed a period almost a millennium. However, the Renaissance architecture discarded this tradition in favor of the classical architecture of the Greek & Roman period.

Though the history and development of renaissance architecture is very well documented, and the amount of information now available on the topic is overwhelming, there is hardly any discussion on why the renaissance architects and their patrons rejected the style of Christian architecture that was developed over a period of a thousand years and looked for inspiration in an architectural style which was based on the idol worshipping culture of Greek and Roman period.

The explanation of this seemingly puzzling phenomenon is actually quite simple. Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a civilization, as the architectural monuments reflect the best a particular civilization has to offer in terms of architectural creativity, development of technology and the wealth of resources for construction. In the entire history of architecture, the rulers everywhere have appropriated form and design concepts from the architecture of the earlier civilizations. Mughals in India borrowed heavily from the exquisite stone masonry details of the Rajput architecture, which the British rulers followed later in their design of New Delhi.

As Manfredo Tafuri has said, architectural styles do not follow one another in some teleological scheme, as the presence of in our midst of architectural monuments from all the earlier civilizations makes all architectural forms simultaneously relevant to the present day. This makes all the past architecture an extensive vocabulary of architectural forms, from which a designer can borrow and work on for his current work, irrespective of the relevance of the actual function of a historical building, which inspired the form. That is why the form of a Greek or Roman Temple can be adopted for a Church, and an obelisk from the Egyptian architecture can inspire the form of Washington monument.

But why should the architects and their patrons in the renaissance period go back to the classical architecture, instead of the more relevant tradition of Chirstian architecture? The answer lies in the interpretation of the earlier Christian era as dark ages, by the historians in the renaissance period. This era, marked by domination of the Church on almost every aspect of life was seen as repressive and harsh, and the architects and their patrons did not wish to be associated with any symbols of this period in their design.

Interestingly, the very flexibility the pointed arch gave to Gothic architecture, was banished in the renaissance period as barbaric and without discipline. The term Gothic has been derived from the word Goth, the name of the barbaric tribe which raided Rome and was responsible for the ruin of many Roman monuments.

Renaissance architects and their patron wanted to create a fresh start, and the discovery of classical texts in this period, including many treatises on architecture, helped in their attempts. The entire development of Christian architecture was based on Renaissance architecture is very disciplined and ornate, and 

Birth of a Style-04 Politics and Architecture

It is a well-known fact that politics influences everything that happens in a society, and architecture is no exception. This could well be the subject of an entire book.

In the context of a new style, it is the socio-political context that decides the nature of the building, its character and its outward appearance. Architecture is a deliberate act and not entirely dependent on circumstantial factors. The overall form & scale of a structure depends on factors like resources & technology, but architecture cannot happen unless somebody is willing to pay for it, and thus right from the beginning of the human civilization architecture has always depended on the vision of its patrons.

It is therefore no wonder that the Bauhaus came under attack after Hitler came to power with a vision to reinstate the glorious traditions of Germany in the Third Reich. The architecture promoted by Bauhaus, with its pure-geometry and spartan look ran contrary to this vision. In exactly the same way, Stalin was highly critical of the Constructivist architecture, which was similar to the Bauhaus architecture in its external appearance. To the uninitiated, both the Bauhaus & Constructivist architecture seem like composed of simple rectangular blocks, but both of these movements rejected the classical, ornamental styles of architecture in favor of a kind of architecture that was concerned with the well-being of the people occupying the spaces and functional in its character. In classical architecture, the outward appearance of the buildings was based on the vision of its patrons, the kings and religious establishment, to impress the populace with its grandeur and decorative facades. This was not on the agenda of both of these movements.

It is ironical that Bauhaus came under attack in Germany as an effect of communist propaganda to dilute and vilify the German traditions, while Constructivism was branded as an effect of capitalist propaganda designed to demean the communist revolution.

Which proves that all dictators think alike, whatever the color of their politics. Public Architecture emerges as the collective will of the people, but this is determined by those actually wielding the power on behalf of them. To people in general & to the so-called representatives of the people (who are the de-facto dictators of today) it is the symbolism that decides the issue, not the functional aspects. This is an unfortunate but true state of affairs of public architecture.

Birth of a style-02

As I have mentioned in my previous blog, it is not the technology, religious beliefs, climate or resources that generate a new style. They are important, no doubt, but as facilitators - the background for a building to designed and built in any specific style. But what creates a new style is an idea - imagination of a creative genius-which may get converted into a poem, a piece of literature, and thence into a painting or sculpture or architecture.

The Gothic Cathedral came into existence as an extension of belief in the greatness of the Church as the house of God. It was not an architect, but a clergyman, Abbot Suger, who came up with the idea of a church with a huge interior space full of light, when he was doing the renovation of the Basilica of Saint-Denis. This is how Gothic Architecture came into being.

It so happened that the pointed arch with its vertical character and a certain freedom in the spans was found most suitable this purpose. It is possible to control the height for a pointed arch for a reasonable variation in spans and its vertical character can create an impact of a large volume of space in the interior, without enlarging the actual area of the Church.

Secondly, to make the Church full of light, the window area had to be enlarged. The flying buttresses came in useful to transfer the load of the roof directly to ground. Already in the Romanesque style the rib & panel construction of roof had separated the frame & the panel. The Gothic Architects extended this principle to the walls. The columns (like the ribs in the roof) could stand independently and did not need a wall for support. And thus, the walls absolved of their role of supporting the structure could be made of glass - fulfilling the design objective of a large transparent surface to fill the interior with light.

But interestingly enough, the walls of Gothic Cathedral did not give a view to the outside. They contained large stained-glass portraits which provided a mosaic of colored light in the interior -illuminating & mystifying it at the same time.

A concept of a place full of light originated in the harsh, cold climate of northern Europe, where the cold interiors of earlier Romanesque churches with very small windows had a depressing quality. The large amount of light through the stained-glass windows had the effect of uplifting the spirit of the devotees. The predominantly cold climate also dictated that these windows be fixed (not openable), but there was also another aspect of the stained-glass paintings, which may have been incidental, but it greatly enhanced the quality of space as a place of worship.

This is to do with the concentration of the mind of a devotee in the place designed for meditation. Tropical places of worship exclude the external light and view, to achieve dark and cool interior spaces. Temples progressively reduce the amount of light, so much so that when you reach the innermost sanctum where the deity is placed, the place is virtually dark except for a small oil lamp, and a comfortable feeling of coolness. Mosques enclose the exterior, protecting the devotee from the hot winds of the desert, and the only light is coming from the central open court, which is cool in the night. In the day, the prayers are conducted in the dark, windowless hall facing the direction of the prayer.

Both places help the devotee to concentrate on his prayer as there is no external distraction. But if you have windows at eye level, giving a view of the outside, the light coming in from these windows and view result in distraction. The highly acclaimed 'Lotus Temple' in New Delhi fails exactly on this count-you cannot concentrate in the interior hall because of all the light coming in at normal eye level.

The light coming in from a height above, on the other hand, eliminates the distraction and floods the interior with light, which has a mysterious, soothing quality. The Gothic stained-glass windows serve this purpose beautifully. And moreover, the paintings deal in religious subject - accentuating the religious purpose of the place. It is exactly for this reason that the temples are full of sculptures and mosque walls have religious texts inlaid or painted on them.

I used to wonder why the great painters of the day like Michelangelo would spend their efforts in painting the ceilings when it is well-nigh impossible to think that people in a Church would have to bend their heads to look at them - not a very comfortable position to admire a painting. It may have been also due to lack of a clean vertical background in a colonnaded place, but I prefer to think that it is an extension of the thought process detailed above. Once inside a Church, all that you see is a religious text or painting. You may or may not be looking directly at any specific painting - but you know instinctively that they have a religious theme.

The thought process thus precedes any new style in architecture. And even in the Middle Ages-where new thoughts (outside the official religious beliefs) were virtually banned, even within the limited scope of thinking, it is the creative thoughts which led to the birth of a new style.

Birth of a style-01

How do we explain the birth of a style in architecture? If you refer to treatises like 'History of Architecture by Sir Banister Fletcher' you will find everything about the style-its architectural character, religious & political background, influences of climate and culture, resources available & so on. What you will not find there is the reason - how and why did it come into being?

Consider for example, the pointed arch. It was well known to the Romanesque builders but was not used by them. Not only that, after centuries of Gothic architecture with the pointed arch, the renaissance builders went back to the semicircular arch again.

There is more to the matter than the explanation regarding climate, resources and the development of technology at that time would provide. These factors do exist in giving the final shape to architecture, but the actual design is a matter of conscious choice.

Take the matter of technology first. The Romans had perfected the barrel vault, but it was a bulky affair, and in a span of a thousand years somebody was bound to come up with the idea of ribs & panels, which was a great technological innovation. But it does speak a lot of the intellectual capacity of the one who thought about it - this is not something that the Church could order. The nature of innovation also suggests that it was a freemason who would put his efforts and simplify the construction - the architectural character of the building does not change, whether you have a cross-barrel vault or a rib & panel construction.

The second aspect of the matter is the development of geometry. All the construction in Middle Ages was (using the current nomenclature) prefabricated. Each & every stone to be used in construction had to be dressed on the ground and then placed in position. This meant you must be able to do complete shop drawings, using the knowledge of geometry that you had, and then only you would be able to do the job right. No wonder the freemasons were considered exalted professionals - with knowledge of both geometry & construction.

The complexity of the Romanesque construction, even with the simple semi-circular arch is astonishing. In the groin vaults, the diagonal with a larger span would make the diagonal arch higher than the arches on the sides. This problem was solved by various guilds in their own ways and provided a regional distinction. This would mean that after a certain detail was improvised & mastered - the entire region would follow the practice.

The cardinal directions for the church - (west frontage with the altar on the east end) are features carried across style. This was in keeping with the historical traditions which had a fascination for sun and its movement across the sky. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but every day there is a slight change in the trajectory of sun across the sky. So, when a new church was planned, the west orientation was based on sunset direction for a specific day - the birthday of the Saint to whom the church was dedicated was the obvious choice.

Converting the plan to a Latin cross was not a functional issue - it was more a symbolic gesture. The basic plan of the church as a place of assembly had no use for the transepts, and they were converted into additional chapels later. That in fact would explain why there are many examples of later period where the transepts were deleted to have one single large nave as a place of assembly.

All this, however, can explain the detailing of the churches, but not how a new style emerges, when there is no change in the function of the building. A new style is based on a new concept for the place, and a fresh approach to design. This is not a collective decision, nor an issue of solving a problem by using a different method of construction, but a creative idea leading to changes in the form.

Monuments

Architecture outlives its creators and transcends many generations and civilizations. The continued presence of historical buildings in our lives creates a dichotomy - a relic reflecting the past sedentary lifestyle of its occupants, dominating a vibrating and chaotic urban space today. Do we celebrate the architecture of the past as a heritage having only tourism potential or do we analyze them for the impact of the built form and the quality of architectural space and seek guidelines for architectural design today?

As Manfredo Tafuri postulated, architectural design and form do not follow a linear pattern, where every new movement replaces the old. It is more of circular pattern where the old forms reappear and merge with the new forms, leading to new configurations and new meanings for each new generation of human society.

It was a similar analysis of the monuments at Ellora by Ajay Kulkarni, a talented young architect and an old friend from Aurangabad, in his presentation at the National Convention of Architects at Nagpur, that came under attack by a disgruntled spectator, who was disturbed in his sleep by a lecture on history he thought was irrelevant.

Of course, saner voices in the auditorium prevailed and the protester had to leave. Apart from being a good-natured person, Ajay is also nonchalant and continued with his presentation. His work is outstanding, and that naturally commands respect, irrespective of whether you do or do not like the logic or the lessons from history he has incorporated in his design.

That brings back the issue of how history is taught at the schools of architecture. Unless we are able to establish its link to the present-day architecture, history would become a tiresome subject indeed. It would then be a boring list of monuments and the kings who made them (with a bit of religious, political and such other background thrown in). No wonder people resent this, and many generations of students have crossed over to the fourth-year architecture with a sigh of relief that they no longer have anything to do with history.

What Ajay was talking about is the history as it exists today for us. We grow up with this backdrop of history surrounding us all over (particularly in India), and it is part of our subconscious. The monuments speak to us (to use the jargon from Ajay's speech), and if you are sensitive enough, you may be able to decipher the language.

All architecture is deliberate - with a sense of purpose. So, when Ajay talked about creating a monument for a freedom fighter - it was not words alone, but a whole imagery of how that person lived and worked, his value system and the force behind his acts of patriotism - and how do we interpret all this in the present context becomes the starting point of architectural design. The attire of the freedom fighter becomes a symbol that can be carried on to the building designed for him and to establish the act of patriotism as a monumental act, it needs to be represented by a monumental structure.

So, it is not the historical monuments per se but their interpretation in the present day, which becomes the issue for architectural design. It is this lesson of history that we need to present as teachers.