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.