Architect as God

Architects as creators have always loftily equated themselves to God, none more so than the legendary Le Corbusier. It is interesting that he was the only one amongst the large fraternity of architects who used a pseudo name. It seems to be consistent with his nature as an artist, who tried to express his impressions of the world through his art, be it painting, sculpture or architecture.

Le Corbusier was the single-most important theoretician of the modern movement who held very strong, though a bit eccentric views and had very lofty ideals about architecture and architects.

As the story goes, when the roof of the High-Court building developed cracks, Corbusier’s response was typical. “If God had designed this roof, what we would have done? We would have had the cracks filled. That is what we do now.”

A monument to modern architecture that defied all norms of practice.

Of all the monuments to modern architecture, one building stands out that defied all norms of good architectural practice but still went on to become a monument and is now a place for exhibitions showcasing modern architecture. The description of the entire set of events in the design and construction of this house actually reads like a manual on 'how not to provide architectural services'

Consider the facts. Initially, when the client met the architect, she had bought land for a weekend retreat and wanted to have a house built there for about $8,000 to $10,000.00 The architect convinced her that it was not possible, and a more realistic figure would be around $40,000.00. Still the house ultimately cost around $74,0000.00 including the architectural fees and services.

The site of the house was in the flood plains, but somehow the architect missed the point. The house used to get flooded every time when the water level rose requiring extensive repairs every time this happened. The house had also other major flaws like leaking roofs, a poorly ventilated fireplace, and swarms of mosquitoes.

After completion of the house, the owner refused to pay the architect, who sued her for recovery of his fees. The owner countersued the architect for deficient services but lost the case. Ultimately, the issue was settled by the owner agreeing to pay the architect about 20% of his balance fees. 

The entire house was enclosed by glass walls, but the architect used single pane glass construction, leading to inadequate temperature control. The glass walls gave the house very little privacy and the owner, who described her experience of living in the house as a caged animal, finally installed blinds and shrubs.

The owner eventually sold the house to a second owner, who was fascinated by the architect's work and paid more than $100,000.00 for the house and spent another $500,000.00 for its renovation. Unfortunately, there was another flood after this renovation, and the second owner had to spend additional $250,000.00 on repairs after the flood. Eventually he sold the house to National Trust for Historic Preservation, who manages it now.

Farnsworth House by Mies Van Der Rohe: Photo by Victor Grigas - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42288793

This is the 'Glass House', designed by Mies van de Rohe for Dr. Edit Farnsworth. It is now considered a masterpiece of the minimalist style of modern architecture despite all its flaws. It represents the concept of architectural design as a design of space, which is defined and articulated by the elements of construction like the floor plate and the roof supported by a slender frame of columns with glass walls. The house defies the traditional concept of architectural form and relies for its effect on the perception of space as felt by the occupant, by use of a glass enclosure that visually merges the interior space with the nature outdoors.

The idea of a retreat is essentially to experience first-hand the tranquility of the natural surroundings to calm and refresh your mind, and Mies's design has therefore inspired many generations of architects in their design of retreats. This goes to show that creative inputs are far more important in architectural design than the issues of construction, which, after all, are repairable. However, this principle is applicable only to outstanding architectural masterpieces, not to be followed in everyday architectural practice.

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. 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 the historical building which inspired the form. That is why the form of a Greek or Roman Temple was adopted for a Church, and an obelisk from the Egyptian architecture inspired 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 inhuman, and the architects and their patrons did not wish to be associated with any symbols of this period in their design.

Interestingly, the pointed arch, which gave flexibility in terms of span and height in 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.

Another interesting fact is that earlier Christian architecture was carried out by the freemasons, hence the development of the styles was based on traditional building techniques, which changed from place to place, while the overall from of church remained almost identical. The renaissance architecture is dominated by the first generation of architects, who were painters and sculptors, and wanted to conceptualize the project before construction, hence it was based on ideas and not methods of construction. 

The discovery of classical texts in this period, including many treatises on architecture, gave the fresh start the renaissance architects and their patrons needed. The renaissance architecture, by its re-introduction of the semicircular arch, is based on strict regulation of the spans and ornate in nature. Its rejection of the stained-glass windows gave rise to large opaque wall surfaces in the interior of the church, which the renaissance architects, who were essentially artists, converted into beautiful paintings. Whereas the gothic ceilings are full of intricate configurations of ribs, the renaissance architects chose the semi-circular vault for the ceiling as a backdrop for their paintings.

The influence of renaissance architecture on the neo-classical architecture of the 18th and 19th century, goes on to show that in spite of the great development of building materials and technology, no new style of architecture can emerge unless there is a change in the concepts of architectural design. A new style of architecture needs a fresh set of ideas and concepts about the design, and it can come into reality if these ideas and concepts are accepted by their patrons and the society at large.

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 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.