Introduction

As a subject in architectural schools, I am aware that history ranks somewhere below the theory of structures in popularity, and considered the dullest of the subjects ever, dealing with things from the dead past.

Thirty years ago, when I started teaching history as a subject in architecture, the first question I had in mind was not how history should be taught but why it should be taught at all - what is its relevance to the present-day architectural education?

According to Italian Architect and Historian Manfredo Tafuri, 'architectural history does not follow a teleological scheme in which one language succeeds another in a linear sequence. Instead, it is a continuous struggle played out on critical, theoretical and ideological levels as well as through the multiple constraints placed on practice. Since this struggle continues in the present, architectural history is not a dead academic subject, but an open arena for debate'.

Architectural history is not buried in the books but is ever present in the form of buildings existing side by side with the current development in most of our cities today. They create a sense of place, and many a times dominate the urban scene by their presence. Hence all the attributes of the historical buildings: concept of space & place-making, impressions of scale, grandeur, choice of form and detailing become part of the vocabulary of architecture even today. The choices open for architectural design in this context for any new project, become an open area for debate, as remarked by Tafuri.

The stories of great architects who have successfully dealt with these issues are interesting in themselves, but they also serve as guidelines for architectural design today. This, in fact, is the reason for this blog in the first place.