Architecture deserved to be at the centre of the recent inauguration of the Parliament building. In many ways, the event was about the value of design and the ability of Indian architects to build enduring structures on time. The new Parliament building calls for public attention to the growing reputation, enhanced competence, and potential of the architecture profession in India. Even the contestations around the project are about the public consequences of the profession.
However, architecture cannot serve and flourish further only if it is utilised in occasional public buildings or in more monumental projects. As the profession’s history shows, architecture can extensively attend to the people’s growing needs. Harnessing this potential will depend substantially on state investment in design.
A brief history
Over the last 100 years, the endeavour of a small group of trained architects with a few educational institutions has grown significantly. This is a result of serving public interests as much as private ones. Pre-independence, the challenge and urgency was to distinguish and define architectural services from other close professional claimants. Architects such as G.B. Mhatre in Mumbai and L.M. Chitale in Chennai demonstrated what the young profession could offer by building commendable structures from petrol stations, stadiums, and banks. Nation-building and extensive state support in independent India demanded the construction of many projects: new towns, industrial centres, housing and infrastructure. Architecture then efficiently filled everyday needs while simultaneously enabling the nation to function. Away from the overrated architectural axis of Delhi, Mumbai, and Ahmedabad, architects such as Chatterjee and Polk in Kolkata, J. C. Alexander in Thiruvananthapuram, and Chandavarakar and Thacker in Bengaluru made a case for good design to regional clients and state. Post-Emergency witnessed the urge to return to roots, producing gold and dross. If Uttam Jain’s University buildings in Jodhpur were inspiring, Charles Correa’s Jaipur museum was disappointing. The profession overgrew this problematic phase.
If the mainstream practice embraced concrete and cities, many architects, supported by able community leaders, explored alternative paths. They showed the relevance of using local materials, working with communities, housing the poor, and pursuing environmentally conscious practices. Cooperative refugee housing in Faridabad, rural institutions by architects trained under Laurie Baker, craft-based building rejuvenation by Parul Zaveri and Nimish Patel, and low-cost techniques mainstreamed by Revathi Kamath heralded sustainable practices.
Over the last two decades, a variety of practices has emerged, with about 70% spearheaded by young talents. Firms are geographically better spread, and architects are beginning to serve smaller towns. Buildings are speculative, critical, and, at the same time, pragmatic. A small but stunning brick vault school library in Kopargaon, near Shirdi; shelters built with care for elephants in Jaipur; the empathetic Ashwinikumar crematorium in Surat; village sports amenities in Adisaptagram in West Bengal, and other meaningful works are showing how good design in public service can enliven a place and enrich communities. Unfettered, many young Indian architects continue designing socially relevant buildings.
These accomplishments have raised expectations. However, how much more they can serve depends on bridging the gaps within the profession and, equally importantly, how well the profession’s potential is harnessed in the public realm.
At the professional end, vanity projects abound. Servicing the unreasonable demands of the markets and the profession’s complicity in it raises doubts about the architects’ interests. Gender disparity within the profession questions the lack of sensitivity. Widening gaps between low academic standards and increasing professional and industry expectations raise concerns about the skills.
The short-term goal
Architecture does not require radical inventions to correct and enhance its capabilities. In an essay in The New Yorker, surgeon-writer Atul Gawande points out that failures occur in professions that face uncertainties and complexities; however, what distinguishes a great profession from a mediocre one is not which one fails less but how quickly the profession rescues itself. A greater commitment is needed to design meaningful buildings, reinforce ethical orientation, make practice more inclusive, and upgrade competencies to build environmentally sensitive buildings and meet the challenges of technological disruption.
While these are within the profession’s reach, what remains external to it is capitalising on the potential, particularly in public projects. Design’s role in enhancing the quality of life and contribution to the economy is best realised in collective projects. Through its Design 2025 Masterplan, Singapore envisions using design as a key tool to strengthen the economy. Closer home, it is encouraging to see the Kerala government trying to create a ‘design-based ecosystem’ to build and preserve public assets.
While such ambitious plans could be a long-term goal, in the short term, the state could invest in the design and use of quality professional services by improving its procurement processes, creating credible selection methods, and lowering entry barriers for young talent to grow.
A. Srivathsan is a professor at CEPT University.Views are personal
