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.

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.

Monuments & the Vernacular

I remember debating the monumental character of Le Corbusier's work and its impact on modern architecture in India, when I first visited Ahmedabad with my fellow architects from Aurangabad. But when I visited Ahmedabad again with my students, after a gap of 22 years, I could discern something totally different - the influence of the Indian vernacular traditions on the design by Le Corbusier in all of his work in India, while he was in the process of creating new monuments for modern India.

When discussing the aspects of a 'Monuments' with the students, I used to list the physical characteristics of the Monuments as setting, elevation, scale, symmetry, use of durable materials, cutting edge technology (relevant to the time period) & ornamentation based on the cultural background. The quality of space in and around the monument is the combined effect of all these factors.

It was easy to identify most of these factors in the Mill Owners Association building, as the building is set off at a good distance away from the main access, the entrance is directly on the first floor, approached through a large ramp, exposed concrete is used (conceived as the most durable material at the time), and if you can call huge cantilevers & curved roofs in concrete as cutting edge technology of the time, it is all there, striking you as the main feature of the built form.

Ornamentation is conspicuously missing, but that goes with the philosophy of modern architecture as postulated from Adolf Loos to Walter Gropius. What you find instead is the conversion of the mundane elements like the handrail of the ramp converted into an art object, and the security window at first floor has a cantilevered concrete slab projection like a stone block projecting out in a temple.

All these elements notwithstanding, what strikes you primarily is the complete absence of walls on both the front and rear ends of the building, with a series of huge fins in the front and a series of cantilevered slabs in the rear to demarcate the edge of the building. In the rear, this is enhanced by a small gap between the edge of the building and the huge projecting chajjas.

It is interesting to note that most of the foreign architects who have worked in India have tried to make their buildings compatible to the Indian climate unlike many irresponsible Indian architects who borrowed wholesale the glass-box form of architecture vogue in the European and American cities, without any thought to its fate in the Indian climate.

It is probable that if you visit India from abroad, the first thing that strikes you when you get down at the airport is the harsh tropical climate, with realization that is impossible to design any building in India in the way you would do in a temperate climate, and then you would try to find the most appropriate design responses to this climate.

In the Mill Owners Association building, therefore, what you see is the reflection of the Indian vernacular, which is basically a minimal shelter, with proper protection from sun, and a provision of walls where strictly required. The climate is user friendly, and you can enjoy the breeze, you need not enclose the building at all. The building has a view of Sabarmati River on the rear, and all that you need is just an opening to enjoy the view. A small informal space is provided here like a platform around a tree, and you do not need any other piece of furniture.

In the lobbies too, the seats are made from concrete, and are as stark as the temple platforms, the only possible difference is the ornamentation. All this is a direct reflection of the minimalist approach of the Indian vernacular. The ambience is that of a place of contemplation, a simple, uncluttered space, very much like the traditional house Gandhiji lived in on the banks of Sabarmati.

Corbusier's design of the building is thus more in line with Gandhiji's concept of trusteeship, wherein the Owners of the Mills would be acting as trustees of public money and are expected to live a spartan life and lead the society by their own example. However, all thorough my visit I kept wondering about the expectations of the present members of the Mill Owners association and whether they match the Gandhian philosophy as reflected in the image of Corbusier's building.

The current image of Ahmadabad is a direct reflection of the aspirations of the elite class with McDonald outlets, Malls & Multiplexes with a large glass & aluminum expanse - a typical Indian version of an American downtown area. We have come a long way from the spirit of the Gandhian philosophy, and all that Corbusier's design stands for is a part of history we may not like to remember now.

It is not surprising therefore, that there were proposals to pull down the building in favor of a fully air-conditioned glass-enclosed skyscraper, but it seems saner voices have prevailed and the building is now listed as a World Heritage Site, as an outstanding contribution by Le Corbusier to the modern movement.

It may be that UNESCO's designation as a World heritage site may help in its preservation in future, but I would always remember it as a monument that followed the vernacular.

A Winning Entry Resurrected from Trash

A great many of global architectural icons of today are results of architectural competitions. St. Peters Cathedral at Rome, the greatest monument in Christianity is one such example. Of course, all competitions are not alike. Some competitions ended up with no clear winner. In the competition held for the League of Nations Headquarters at Geneva the jury was unable to reach a verdict and selected five leading entries. Ultimately, the five architects who had submitted these entries were asked to collaborate and come up with a final design.

There is nothing outstanding about the final design, and the 'Palace of Nations' as it is called now, seems to be a part of the Neo-classical architecture in vogue at the time. In fact, the entry submitted by Le Corbusier, which was rejected because the jury did not favor its modern look, is more fondly remembered in the architectural circles now.

Another competition, held for the Chicago Tribune headquarters in Chicago, is also remembered for the seemingly outlandish entry submitted by Adolf loos, where the entire building takes the form of a giant classical column, and another by Walter Gropius, with the Bauhaus philosophy of unadorned rectilinear office block. The winning entry by John Mead Howells and Raymond M. Hood is an eclectic design, adorning the skyscraper with elements borrowed from the classical tradition, and is considered a success. The building is now a part of the famous riverside townscape in Chicago.

The story of the famous Sydney Opera House is slightly different. The jury had rejected a great many entries and were unable to come up with the final decision. It was only when one of the judges, Eero Saarinen, who arrived late, decided to re-examine the rejected proposals. John Utzon's entry was thus resurrected from trash and awarded the first prize.

Utzon's design was inspired by natural shapes, but the free-flowing curves of the shell roof were initially found to be unbuildable, and Utzon had to re-do the working drawings to follow a clear spherical geometry for all the shells.

The project also encountered many problems in its execution and overshot both its budget and completion date. Originally estimated to be completed by 1963 at a cost of $ 7.2 million, the project was finally completed in 1973 (ten years late) at cost of $ 102 millions (more than 14 times the original budget).

And that was not the only controversy. Utzon was criticized for the escalating cost of the project well before its completion as well as his choice of plywood as the material for the shell roof and Utzon resigned in protest. The project was completed by Peter Hall, an Australian architect. It seems Utzon resented having to resign and did not attend the inauguration of the Opera House at the hands of Queen Elizabeth II, who did not mention the name of any architect at the opening ceremony.

Aesthetics overriding Function

The visual qualities of an architectural design have always had popular appeal. All through the history, architects have borrowed heavily from the classical tradition in order to replicate its visual appeal. All this is quite acceptable in case one is designing a building type that was part of the classical tradition like a church, as the function of the building remains unchanged. But when someone tries to design a corporate building in the classical tradition, there are bound to be problems with the functional aspects of design.

This is what happened when an architect tried to design of a bank building based on Parthenon. This was the Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank (now part of the Philadelphia Museum of Art) in Philadelphia, designed by architects McKim, Mead & White in the early 20th century. The building was explicitly modeled on the Parthenon style, featuring a massive, open, columned banking hall (or "cella") on the ground floor to maintain classical purity.

The manager of the bank wanted to have his cabin and partitions for the staff on the main floor, but the architect refused to subdivide this space with modern partitions, believing it would violate the aesthetic integrity of the classical design. The owner sided with the architect's vision to maintain the monumental, open-floor "temple" aesthetic. As a result of this refusal to disturb the open hall, the bank manager was reportedly forced to have his office in the basement.

The second story is about La Scala, an Opera House in Milan, Italy, which was designed by Giuseppe Piermarini. After it was opened in 1778, people found out that there were a number of seats in this theatre which had no view of the stage. When the architect was asked about the flaw, he argued that in an opera theatre it is impossible to plan for everyone to have a look at the stage and some people will have to be content by listening to the music alone. Though the acoustic design of the place was good, this kind of reply by an architect would be unimaginable today.

It was buildings like this which led to the modern insistence on function, and the reason for F. L. Wright to specify 'Form follows function' or for Le Corbusier to define 'house as a machine to live in'

A fountain that challenged Apple

There was once a Levi's store in the Union Square of downtown San Franscisco which is now replaced by a large Apple store. The Levi's store had a famous bronze folk art fountain behind it, named Ruth Asawa Fountain after its creator, and the Levi's store had a triangular plan form, reducing its width in the rear, and thus providing a good setting for this fountain.

When Apple submitted its plans for its new retail store in place of the Levis Stores, it was considered as a welcome change. San Franciso’s Mayor Lee described the new Apple Store as “quite simply incredible” and that he could think of “no better location for the world’s most stunning Apple Store than right here in Union Square”.

But then people realized that this new proposal would eliminate the fountain, there was a huge public outcry. The mayor retracted his statement and admitted that he didn’t realize that the plans called for the elimination of the Ruth Asawa fountain.

The reason for this turnabout lies in the history of the fountain. It is designed by Ruth Asawa, a Japanese American sculptor, who was the driving force behind the creation of the San Francisco School of the Arts, which was renamed recently as the Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts in tribute to her.

The fountain was Installed in 1973 and was made of baker’s clay and cast in bronze. According to Asawa herself, “The fountain depicts San Francisco, and approximately 250 friends and school children helped in its making by contributing self-portraits, cars, buildings, and various San Francisco landmarks.” The fountain was part of the public memory in SF for 40 years now.

Apple’s proposal therefore evoked strong resentment. Moreover, the initial proposal for the building was a characterless box of metal and glass that contributed nothing unique to the local landscape and had no identity except the Apple symbol in the center of the huge glass façade on Post Street.

San Francisco Chronicle urban design critic John King pointed out the absurdity of “a company renowned for design innovation hiring one of the world’s most acclaimed architecture firms, only to unload a box that would look at home in Anymall, U.S.A.”

But this is not the only issue: in trying to reflect the corporate brand identity we tend to convert architecture itself into a product, relinquishing its primary role in place-making in an urban setting. As a respondent on the article in arch.daily commented, ‘the world would be better off without the generic chain stores of drive throughs, gas stations, shopping malls etc. that plague our cities.’

Fortunately, in this particular case, Apple bowed to the will of the people, and made a revised proposal, which incorporated the fountain, but reduced the size of the open plaza, as the apple building is rectangular and covers a part of the earlier triangular plaza.

This gesture could not have come at a more appropriate time - Ruth Asawa died on 5^th August, 2013. So, it became some kind of tribute to her. The news item in SFGate starts with the line - ‘Ruth Asawa fans can rest easy - the artist's beloved bronze fountain near Union Square is staying pretty much right where it is.’

The design of the building, however, has not changed, it remains a tall, taut cube of glass and steel, except for a large 'window' in the center of the East wall, which continues over the roof, becoming a skylight. Both these changes – retention of the fountain & the opening up of the east façade have been generally appreciated. And here the matter rests. As it happens, the last item on the SFGate online news is an announcement of the Public Memorial service for Ruth Asawa.

Monstrosities that became Icons

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. One would think that this does not apply to public perception of what constitutes a beautiful building, but there is a gradual shifting of public opinion when a building with seemingly bizarre aesthetics becomes part of an urban scene. A structure described as monstrous may eventually be described as path-breaking and iconoclastic after its continued presence and familiarity on the urban scene.

The most famous of such examples is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. It was built as an entrance gateway for the International Exposition in 1889, to mark the centenary of the French Revolution. The exposition committee selected Gustav Eiffel's design from as many as a hundred proposals.

However, when people found out about the proposal, there was an outcry. A few artists and intellectuals derided the tower as 'a monstrosity that would disfigure the Paris landscape'. The opposition subsided when it was revealed that the structure was temporary and would be eventually dismantled.

But when the tower became a major tourist attraction, plans for dismantling were shelved, and it has now become an icon of Paris, so much so that you cannot now think of Paris without the Eiffel Tower.

The story of another icon in Paris, the Pompidou Centre, is not much different. The building, designed by Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano, who were two young architects in their thirties, is the first major example of an "inside-out" building. The reason for the name is that with its structural system, mechanical systems, and circulation are all exposed on the exterior of the building. With introduction of color coding for the various services, the building had a shocking, bizarre appearance, and evoked reactions similar to the Eiffel Tower, when it was inaugurated.

An article in Le Figaro declared: "Paris has its own monster, just like the one in Loch Ness." National Geographic described the reaction to the design as "love at second sight." However, two decades later, the New York Times noted that the design of the Centre "turned the architecture world upside down" and that "Mr. Rogers earned a reputation as a high-tech iconoclast.

Today it is widely regarded as an artwork in its own merit. When Richard Rogers was awarded the prestigious Pritzker Prize in 2007, the jury commented that the Pompidou Centre "revolutionized museums, transforming what had once been elite monuments into popular places of social and cultural exchange, woven into the heart of the city."

Both the examples go to show that our ideas of aesthetics are based on what we are accustomed to believing as beautiful. Great architecture shatters such beliefs and establishes its own definition of aesthetics, becoming iconic in its own right.

Does Context Matter?

Does Context Matter?

Architects consider themselves as creative professionals and take great pride in the visual quality of their creations – the only part of architectural design that the rest of the world understands. Unfortunately, this has resulted in identifying architecture only with its visual form, at the cost of all the other finer aspects of design. In most of the cities today, there seems to be some kind of competition amongst architects in trying to make their designs strikingly in contrast to their contexts, without a second thought as to the effect this would have on the overall urban landscape.

The more outrageous the form, the more the project gets talked about. I recollect a photograph of Hongkong documenting the resultant chaos, in a presentation by Jimmy Lim, with his typical dry comment about how you need to shout in order to be heard in a scenario where the background noise is too loud.

On the other hand, if conformity to the context becomes institutionalized in the form of guidelines or regulations, they tilt the scale to the other extreme, putting a virtual stop to all creative interpretations of the context. The urban design guidelines for Chandigad are a case in point. The interpretation of the context of Chandigad is frozen in a set of regulations so rigid that they have effectively killed all creativity and made the city monotonous in character.

The correct response to any physical context must lie somewhere in between these two extremes, though not always in a manner directly apparent. Sometimes the new project itself may redefine the context. The Sydney Opera House, which has become an icon of Sydney now, was built over a site which had an existing structure with heritage value. Conservationists may now have an academic debate over the virtue of promoting current iconic architecture by demolishing the heritage of the past, but there are no clear-cut solutions.

Indians in general have scant regard for the historic setting which most of our old cities have, but there are exceptions too. First, we had the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act and then the Mumbai Heritage Precinct Regulations as also the regulations for protection of French Quarter in Pondicherry. Interestingly, all these areas boast of architecture built by our colonial rulers in their heyday, and we seem to have a complex love-hate relationship with our colonial past.

So, when Charles Correa designed the LIC Building in Connaught Place, New Delhi, people derided it as they felt that the huge concrete and glass tower would deface the heritage quality of the place. Little is known about the original design by Correa in which he sought to integrate the huge plaza at the ground level as an extension of Connaught Place, making it directly accessible from the street. This never materialized simply because like our old colonial masters; our current rulers also treat the common people of the city as an undesirable element. It was much later, in the design of the city center for Kolkata, that Correa would actually realize the creation of a truly accessible public place for the city.

What Correa was trying to do was to reflect the ambience of Connaught Place as a democratic public place; but excluding the visual character of Lutyens Delhi. The problem with such an approach is that it is a bit too difficult to understand on paper and hence may get caught up in the regulations about conformity to context. It is actually surprising that the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, cleared the proposal. It is doubtful if such a proposal by any other architect would have been cleared under any of the heritage guidelines mentioned above.

It is now said that ‘the context of Connaught Place begins with the new LIC building’, and we must give credit to Correa for redefining the context of Connaught Place, in spite of the fact that his original scheme was not fully executed.

Public places in an urban setting are what makes a city memorable for generations. Architects, as creative professionals, need to be sensitive to this intangible aspect of our public spaces.

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.