Dawn of the Modern Society - The Industrial Revolution

Alvin Toffler, in his monumental work, 'The Third Wave' has postulated has there have been only three major transformations in the 50,000 years of human history. The first major transformation was in the neolithic era, in about 10,000 BC, when the human society invented agriculture and society changed from groups of wandering hunter-gatherers to settlers, which was the starting point of architecture. The second change occurred almost 12,000 years afterwards, in about 1750 AD, which was the starting phase of the Industrial Revolution. The third change is happening right now, all around us, triggered by the revolution in computing, which started about 1960 AD, with the advent of personal computers.

It is significant that out of the many epoch-making events in human history, Toffler picked only these three events as they are the only events which dramatically altered the entire set of relationships in the human society. Transformation from the hunter-gatherer phase to agriculture did not only made available a stable supply of food, it led to a distinct hierarchy of in the society with the protectors of stability, the Kings, noblemen and the military at top, landowners, businessmen and professionals in the middle and the craftsmen, agricultural workers and slaves at the bottom of the social pyramid.

As the human society became stable, the settlements started dotting the landscape, initially as groups of houses huddled together to form villages in the center of farmlands, some of them grew into cities as the centers of power and marketplaces. The individual houses eventually became important identities of the social and economic status of the owner, starting from the humble huts of the slaves and farmers to the large houses of landlords and businessmen culminating in the large-scale monumental palaces of the lords and kings. Dominated by the feudal lords and kings, this era came to be called as the Feudal Era.

Religion as a unifying theme for all human settlements, was institutionalized in the feudal era. Prior to this era, religious sentiments and themes have been there since the inception of the human civilization, but prior to the feudal era, religion was restricted to distinct groups, and its manifestation was limited to the rites and rituals of a specific settlement or group of people in a specific geographical area. The feudal era slowly brought together a consolidation of power, leading to large nation-states like the Roman empire, which many a times transcended geographical regions, a multitude of cultural groups with multiple languages and religious practices. Along with the political power, spread of a unified religion thus became imperative for the political stability of the nation-state.   

Architecture in the Feudal Era
Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a society as it incorporates the multitude of facets of the society in which it originates. Architecture needs resources to build, so it follows that those who provide these resources would decide the scope and nature of the construction. In the feudal society, the entire resources of the land were concentrated in the hands of the lords and the kings, so they were the decision makers, and the obvious building types were the palaces and the religious places.

Divine Sanction
In fact the religious places at times acquired more status than the palaces, but that was solely due to the fact that the authority of the lords was based on the idea of divine sanction, i. e., the idea that their position in society was ordained by the God. It was important for the feudal lords to perpetrate this belief, as the stability of their rule was dependent on universal acceptance of this myth. It is no wonder, therefore, that all the resources of the state were utilized to build the religious places, and the best of the materials and technology was employed in the construction of these buildings.

Creation of Monuments
The idea was to create monuments as a symbol of divine power and the same principles followed the construction of palaces. If we look at the treatises on architecture in this era, the emphasis is on scale and proportion, symmetry and order, grandeur and aesthetics. As architecture was seen as a monument, visual characteristics of buildings acquired the highest value, irrespective of the fact that the basic tenets prescribed by Vitruvius are Firmatis, Utilitas and Venustatis (Durability, Utility and Beauty).

Buildings for Education and Leisure
The feudal society in Europe also supported the construction of other kinds of buildings, like educational institutions and recreational places like theaters. But these were solely for the use of the lords and their families and not for the common public. The designs of these buildings therefore followed the same norms as for the palaces and the churches, and the detailing and ornamentation of these structures is also on the same lines.

Industrial Revolution-Transition in Economy
Industrial revolution marked a transition in that it changed this socio-political order totally and irrevocably. Though it started as change in the manufacturing processes by use of machines instead human or animal labour, it ended up re-structuring the entire economical order in the society. The large-scale manufacturing made capitalists richer than the erstwhile lords, and the societal relationships changed from being based on birth to one based on the wealth. In one way this was a welcome change, as it gave the new industrialists an opportunity to climb the social ladder and be a part of the social elite.

Background
Of course, this was not a sudden transformation as might be suggested by the word 'revolution'. A series of events preceded and facilitated this transformation. European traders sought new trade routes by sea after the loss of Constantinople (Istanbul) leading to many voyages all over the world, and new discoveries and establishment of colonies. This increased the knowledge base of the society in various fields and also enlarged the scope of international trade. Many European nations established their colonies in the underdeveloped areas of the world, which had huge natural resources which could be exploited for the large-scale manufacturing processes.

Intellectual Traditions
Parallel to these events, in Europe, the intellectual tradition of renaissance continued with development in physics, chemistry and mathematics and many other fields. All this culminated in the dramatic change in the process of manufacturing and invention of new products like steel, cement, plate glass, gas lighting and paper. The first three made major changes in building construction and technology, gas lighting made night-life possible for the city and large-scale production of paper made printing cheaper and made publication of newspapers possible.

Effects on society-Mass urbanisation
The industries which provided employment opportunities to a large section of people were all concentrated in the cities, resulting in a large movement of people from rural areas to urban centres, making villages deserted and the towns overcrowded, with the large immigrant population living in makeshift and unhygienic settlements.

Harsh Living Conditions
The working conditions in the industries were also harsh. Workers were exposed to injury without any safety provisions, child labor was used as it was cheaper, and the long working hours made the life of all workers miserable. Though the industrial workers were better off than the farm workers in terms of sustained wages and livelihood, it does not follow that the industrial revolution brought in overall rise in living standards of the entire society immediately. The condition of the working class in the first phase of industrialization was no better than the slums in Indian cities today. People lived in crude makeshift shanties, grouped together with narrow alleyways. The density of population was very high, but there were no sanitary facilities, and diseases spread through contaminated water supply.

Survival at the cost of privacy
The only thing these places were free of was the famines, as the cities gave employment to everyone, but people died due to diseases spreading through the cramped living and working conditions.  the cramped urban settlements in the city took away the privacy and personal dignity of rural life. However, the cities also gave opportunities for education and healthcare- facilities lacking sorely in the rural areas and made survival and better future attainable.

Distinction based on wealth
The industrial revolution did not bring about equality in the society, but its major contribution is that it changed the basis of inequality in the society. Feudal society made the birth as the major distinction which was impossible to change, while industrial society made wealth as the basis, which made it possible for people to change their class. Of course, it was still a long way for the universal acceptance of the equality amongst all human beings, but at least it made the status based on birth redundant.

Social theories
Capitalism and Communism
There were many intellectuals who welcomed the industrial revolution for its practical use of scientific applications and innovations. They argued that industrialization made the lot of the common man better, as really was the case in its later phases, and made a case for Capitalism, with the welfare state as an ideal form of social structure. The industrial society is based on the market, and gives opportunity of growth and prosperity to every individual in the society, irrespective of race, religion or social position. Capitalism, they argued, was responsible for the liberation of the mankind from the rigid social structure of the feudal period, and thus should be welcomed for its positive role in the society.

Marx, who promulgated the theory of ‘Communism’ accepted that Capitalism was an improvement over the feudal society, but disagreed with the premise that industrialization was beneficial to the entire society. The major problem, he argued, was not with industrialization but with its resultant polarization of society into the rich moneyed class who owned the means of production on one hand and the much larger section of population who were workers on the other.

The Capitalist society, he argued, was neither just, nor it gave equality to all, as the workers were entirely as the mercy of the industrialists, and though they were responsible for creation of the wealth, received only a minor share of the profits. Marx postulated that the inherent contrast in the lifestyle of these two classes, brought about by exploitation of the working class by the capitalists, will bring about a revolution, and the society shall eventually progress towards socialism and communism – an ideal version of society according to Marx, based on equality of all mankind. The premise of equality of mankind in Socialism and Communism, had a major influence on the theories of architectural design of this period.

Romanticism
A vastly different view of the industrial revolution and its effects of society led to theories of romanticism. The disruption of the social fabric due to the industrial revolution was seen as a social evil by many thinkers, calling for a ‘back to nature’ philosophy. The proponents of this movement named ‘Romanticism’ were poets and writers like William Wordsworth, John Keats, Byron and Shelley.

The movement criticized the industrial society, called the large factories and their machinery "monstrous" in comparison with the traditional methods of work which was considered closer to "nature" and natural processes, and stressed the importance of ‘nature’ in art and language, in contrast to  machines and factories.

This movement glorified the rural traditions and culture, and the unspoiled & serene landscape of the rural settlements, and praised the virtues of traditional crafts. The Arts & crafts movement in architecture, which stressed the importance of traditional arts & craft, owes its origin to this Romanticism movement in literature.

Summary
The industrial revolution was responsible for dramatic change not only in the manufacturing of goods, but in the entire social structure, in making wealth the center of power, instead of birth. It was also responsible for the large-scale urbanization, leading to the problems of unhygienic and cramped human settlements and led to a debate on planned urban settlements. But most importantly, it shifted the focus of architecture from monuments to buildings of everyday use. Eventually this led to new theories of architecture and made creation of conducive environment for the end user as the main purpose of architectural design. Though the industrial revolution is also responsible for invention of new materials like cement, steel glass and cement, it was not the materials but the change in the focus of architectural design that made modern architecture possible, and changed the face of the human settlements.

Does Context Matter?

Does Context Matter?

Architects consider themselves as creative professionals, and take great pride in the visual quality of the built form 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 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. The developer is happy as a building in news gets more buyers and more rate, the architect is happy to be in the limelight, may even get awards, and if the city becomes more chaotic, neither the architect nor the developer have to live or work there anyway; what we really preserve are the photographs on the day of the inauguration. 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.

Of course, saner voices too prevail sometimes, calling for confirmity to the context and providing a sense of belonging to the context, but when they become institutionalised in the form of guidelines or regulations, they tilt the scale to the other extreme, refusing to accept any variation in the theme, putting a virtual stop to all creative intepretations of the context. It is no wonder that architects resent this. The urban design guidelines for Chandigad is a case in point. The interpretation of the context of Chandigad is frozen in a set of regaulations 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. When the Eiffel Tower was being built, there was a lot of opposition to this ‘monstrous’ building, and it subsided only when it was clarified that this was a temperory structure anyway, and would be eventually dismantled and shipped away. But its continued presense has redefined the context, and has equated it with the image of the city, so much so that you can not think of Paris now without the Eiffel Tower.

And there are many more examples all over the world. 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 conclusions or 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 and the regulations for protection of French Quarter in Pondicherry. But these are very typical and interesting exceptions. Perhaps we have some kind of awe still left over about our colonial rulers, and the remnants of western classical architecture which they have left here as legacy of that rule.

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; a proposal that was rejected by the authorities, brought up in the British tradition of treating the common people of the city as an undesirable element that the building and its occupants need to be protected against by a high compound wall and an entrance gate with armed security personnel. It was much later, in the design of the city centre for Kolkota, that Correa would actually realise 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; without following any of its architectural styles, which are british versions of the renaissance architecture in India, like the rest of the 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 confirmity to context. Delhi Urban Arts Commission, had it based its approving process on the basis of Chandigad regulations, would never have cleared Correa’s proposal. Correa, being a much acclaimed and respected architect, has been credited with the statement ‘the context of Connaught Place begins with the new LIC building’, though I am not sure whether he himself said this or any one his ardent admirers. However, I agree totally with the sentiment, and I think we must give him credit for now redefining the context of Connaught Place, in spite of the fact that his original scheme was not fully executed.

But in general, we are not much bothered about all these issues, most of the them are debated only in academic circles. Contrary to this, the journalists of the first world are quite active about this as I have remarked earlier. A case in point is the shifting of Apple Flagship retail store in San Francisco. Apple Inc., an American multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, is the world's second-largest information technology company by revenue and the world's third-largest mobile phone maker. Fortune magazine has named Apple the most admired company in the world. Naturally, people in California are proud of its achievements.

Apple recently submitted plans for its new retail store in the Union Square in place of the Levis Stores that now occupies the site. Initially everybody thought it would be a welcome addition to the place. 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 when people realized that Apple, and the store’s architect Norman Foster had not accounted for the famous bronze folk art fountain existing in the site, it became a point of public contention. 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. It is seven feet high and a focal point of a triangular-shaped public square behind the Levis outlet. 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 is part of the public memory in SF for 40 years now. Apple’s proposal therefore evoked strong resentment. Not only that, the initial proposal for the building is a characterless box of metal and glass that contributes nothing unique to the local landscape, and has no identity except the Apple symbol in the centre of the huge glass façade on Post street, while the façade on Stokton street is a dead wall with a similar symbol. The Glass façade of the building faces Post street on South, and would be exposed to direct solar radiation for most of the day, a design feature that shows utter disregard to the climate of the region.

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.”

About the dead wall of the building on the east side facing the Stokton Street, another critic sarcastically commented that perhaps “Apple envisions that side of the building to be livened up occasionally with lines of consumers around the corner waiting to buy new iPhones”, revoking memories of the long queues of Apple-crazy Americans at all Apple stores at the launch of almost every new Apple product.

However, the news item from arch.daily.com also mentioned that ‘..not every Apple store design is as disquieting as this one. Their store in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC, for example, is fairly well-integrated into the existing style and framework of the street while still maintaining its trademark sleek and modern style.’ This was rebutted by a respondent claiming that Apple had no option in the Georgetown site, and can not be given credit for respecting the context there. Indeed, the Georgetown area in Washington DC has a very strong historical character, like many other parts of Washington DC, and has Conservation Guidelines in place. So the San Fracisco example is what Apple can do, left to itself, while the Georgetown Apple store seems to be something that Apple was forced to do, not what it would have been willing to do on its own.

This in fact is true of all the multinational companies and their views on architectural design at large: they would go at any length to promote a brand and its image and would like to create a standardised architecture that would be identified with the image of the company rather than the urban context in which it is situated. It seems that they are afraid of losing their corporate identity if their flagship projects integrate into the existing streetscape instead of outshining every other building by their forms and structures.

But this is not the only issue: in trying to reflect the corporate brand identity we tend to convert architecture itself into a product, reliquinshing its primary role in place-making in an urban setting. Architectural intervention in any existing context goes beyond merely confirming to the heritage regulations. It is not the treatment of façade or such other features of the existing buildings around that matter in the long run, but the sensitivity to the needs of people and enhancing the quality of public place in an urban setting. This is what gives the place a unique identity and which tends to get destroyed by the imposition of brand images. 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 (the existing Levis building is triangular) and covers a part of the existing triangular plaza. This gesture could not have come at a more appropriate time - Ruth Asawa died on 5^th August. 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, its remains a tall, taut cube of glass and steel from Post Street (South side). The only difference is that instead of being walled off by steel panels on the Stokton street, the design includes an 8-foot-wide glass "window" in the centre of the East wall, which continues over the roof, becoming a skylight. Both these changes – retention of the fountain & the opening up of the Stokton street façade have been appreciated by the Mayor, as Christine Falvey, Lee's director of communications has been quoted in the news. 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.

Public memory, so it is said, is short. A former head of KGB would never have become a democratically elected President in Russia otherwise. But it seems that when public places in an urban setting have been retained in collective public memory for more than a generation, the sentiments attached to them do not fade. Architects, as creative professionals, need to be sensitive to this intangible aspect of our public spaces.

Neo-classicism

Neo-classicism & Eclecticism - Architecture as status symbol

Architecture before the industrial revolution was essentially architecture of the establishment, be it the king & lords or the religious institutions. These patrons of architecture had huge resources at their disposal, and the agenda for architecture was to create monuments befitting the status of the establishment.

So it follows that a major part of architecture of this period is either the palaces or places of worship. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy but the farmers were at the lowest level of the social pyramid and had no means to make any spectacular construction. It was the elite section of the society that collected taxes on agriculture, the landlords and the king, the so called idle rich, that had superfluous wealth which they used to build monuments.

Influence of Religion

Religion encompasses all the sections of the society, and it would seem that the religious structures would reflect the aspirations of the masses, but this was not the case for religious architecture. It was actually built with the support of the ruling elite as it was in their owninterests to do so. When the Roman Emperor Constantine realized that majority of people under his rule had turned Christians, he embraced Christianity himself in order to prevent possible revolts against his rule.In fact it was Emperor Constantine who built Hagia Sophia, the biggest byzantinian church, using all the resources he had as an Emperor. Rulers everywhere in the world were willing to support religious activities, including financial support to the religious establishment & building of religious structures. In turn the religious institutions granted sanctity to the ruler, by performing the coronation ceremony of every new king (symbolizing divine sanction) and thereby making his rule seem legitimate in the eyes of the people.

In the Egyptian culture, where the king was also the head of the religion, the tombs of the Egyptian Kings were symbols of power of both the state & the religion. It was not a question of how large a structure one would need as a memorial, it was basically an issue of how great & imposing monument could be built to commemorate the might of these institutions.The pyramidsdefy all norms in terms of functional suitability or the ratio of carpet area to built-up area. Greek & Roman temples fared better in this aspect, but that was not relevant anyway. What mattered was the visual quality of the structure, and hence the importance in the classical architecture on use ofnoble materials, scale and form, balance, rhythm and proportions, and ornamentation.

The later periods saw the bifurcation of the state & the religion, but both the institutions continued to build in the same fashion. Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a civilization. A permanent reminder of the might of the establishment, it is a tool to showcase the best a society can offer in terms of material wealth, its technological advancement and cultural finesse.

Industrial Economy

What the industrial revolution fundamentally changed was the very nature of power in the society. It was during this period that for the first time in human history that the divine right of the kings to rule was questioned, and United States America became the first republican state of modern history, a state managed by people themselves democratically.The French Revolution also tried to end the institution of monarchy and was nearly successful, though it gave rise to a new emperor in Napoleon. Many other states in Europe, though monarchial in their constitution, had slowly moved towards the democratic rule. In England the House of Commons became more important and though the British monarchy continued, the de-facto rule of the state was in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

Naturally, the agenda for the state changed to the welfare of the people, and though the construction of new palaces did not end immediately with the industrial era, these had to be built with personal resources as the state support for construction of these kind of structures was not forthcoming anymore. 

The state support and funding was now directed towards institutions for the general public – education, health, and utilities like public transportation. As industries were now becoming the major source of employment for the people, development of infrastructure for the industries and trades became a priority for the state.

Change of focus for architecture

Hence architecture now had to cater to the new kinds of buildings that this changed focus of state required – public institutional buildings like government offices, hospitals, schools & colleges, Town halls, libraries, museums, railway stations and so on. The industries were anothergroup of patrons for architecture, and they required trading halls, markets, industrial sheds & godowns.

None of these building types had any historical parallels, and no standards for design. The issue before the architects was either to provide a new theory of architectural design for these new structures or to follow the classical renaissance architecture, modifying it to some extent to accommodate the new function of the building.

Problem of precedent

The first option was not only difficult as a new theory of design would need originality of thought, but its fate also would be uncertain because there was no guarantee that it would be accepted by the client & the society. The second option – following the classical building style - was easier and preferred by both the architects and their patrons alike, and was followed to a large extent for almost all the public buildings of the period.

It would seem strange that the symbols of the bygone powers would be embraced by the new democratically elected leaders of the state, but these leaders were also in search of new status symbols through architecture and thought it befitting to borrow from the classical traditions.

This apparently strange phenomena is not without its precedents. The St. Peters, the most important symbolic building for Christianity has borrowed its architecture from the idol-worshiping cultures of the Greek & Romans, and the grand obelisk in the centre of its large piazza is borrowed from the Egyptian culture. It was simply a quest for providing the most impressive form in architecture, based on its visual quality, the origin of the form or its earlier religious, social & cultural association was irrelevant.

Revival of the classical tradition

Thus the state sponsored architecture saw a revival of classical tradition all over the new democratic republic of the United State of America. The White House and the House of Representatives are both based on renaissance architecture, the Washington memorial is a replica of the Egyptian obelisk, and the façade of the Lincoln Memorial is a copy of Parthenon without the pediment. A powerful image for the democratic rule was sought using the classical renaissance architecture for the new national capital,  as it was associated with power and the cultural supremacy of the earlier feudal societies.

The Washington example was the model not only for other state capitols and government buildings in the United States of America, it became the architectural style for the new rich class of industrialists all over Europe & America, who were also obsessed with the idea of creating symbols of their newly acquired power through architecture. So the same architectural style was followed for the buildings of everyday use like banks & financial institutions, public libraries, museums and even theatres: what mattered was the visual quality of architecture, not the actual function of the building.

Neo-classicism

So large-scale was this phenomenon, that eventually historians gave it a title – neo-classicism. The buildings further got divided in two sub-categories – historicism & eclecticism. The difference is in these two styles was based on the extent to which the classical tradition was followed. Historicism would mean that the new construction would be based on some specific classical example (like Parthenon) and from the outside would look like a Greek temple or a Cathedral, but would be housing a bank headquarters inside.

Naturally, there arose a lot of issues with this kind of compromise. One often quoted example is that of a bank building, designed on the basis of Parthenon, where the architect refused to make any subdivisions in the ground floor,thereby cancelling out the demand for a partitioned cabin for the bank manager, stating that such partition would spoil the classical beauty of its architecture. The Owner of the Bank sided with the architect and the manager had to be content with a cabin in the basement.

Cathedral as prototype

Fortunately, the examples chosen were mainly cathedrals, which had good height, spacious outlay, and lot of light befitting its original purpose of religious assembly, and this was actually quite appropriate for majority of the public buildings of the period.The most popular among the classical examples was the Parthenon, with its huge colonnade and triangular pediment, which served as the entrance lobby for the new age public buildings. The main floor was raised high to create a huge flight of steps, and the subfloor was used to house most of the services required by the new functionof the buildinglike toilets &locker rooms and so on.

For a majority of public buildings, with large floor area and a few floors (typically two to three floors), the palaces were also a good model. The renaissance palace with organization of services on the ground floor, large reception halls on first floor and private rooms & bedrooms on the third floor, worked very well for such structures. Even here, the Parthenon frontage was used extensively for the entrance porch.

The capping feature of many of these buildings was the high dome of St. Peters with its lantern lighting, and has been used right from the House of Congress in Washington DC to many of the state capital buildings. The materials of construction and the technology however, was modern and this created certain issues for design. For example, when the roof was flat reinforced concrete slab, the pediment was out of question. The original Greek version was designed for a sloping timber roof, resulting in the front gable end. So we have here variations on theme, like elimination of the pediment in the Lincoln memorial at Washington, or creating a pediment for the front porch only, while the remaining portion of the building rose high with a flat roof and cornice.

Problems with high-rise buildings

The problem arose when the buildings had to be built for more than two or three stories. Here the classical precedent was of no use directly. Most of the classical structures were only Ground Floor structures, though this is not directly apparent due to their great heights (St. Peters, for example, is 452’ high, though it has only one functional floor), and such a pattern was impossible to follow in a skyscraper. The main problem was the height to width ratio of the building, which would never match the historical examples.

While the proposal submitted by Adolf Loos in the Chicago Tribune competition, where the skyscraper takes the form one single classical column may seem like parody of the attempt to build a sky-scraper in the classical tradition, a practical solution to this problem was found – by using specific elements from the classical building, and selectively applying them to the building elevation, while the overall form of the building had no relation to the classical tradition.

This compromise of combining the classical elements with the modern forms had two advantages. It enabled the designing of the building for its function without bothering about the classical precedent, while thevisual effect was classical as most of the elements in its elevation were borrowed from the classical traditions. It satisfied the seemingly contradictory requirements of a modern building with functional design but a classical appearance, but needed a good designer to compose all the varied classical elements in the elevation in a harmonious manner like the winning entry by Raymond Hood for the Chicago tribune building.

Called ‘eclecticism’, this style of design was followed by many others as a valid architectural design solution, and became immensely popular. The lower floors of a large skyscraper thus would have the Greek Temple Frontage, all with the large Doric/Ionic/Corinthian column arcades, creating a public entry with a large flight of steps leading directly to the first floor, while the upper levels of the building would have renaissance palace windows with repetition of the pediments. Multiple combinations of colonnades and windows appeared, including the topping of domes & so on.

It must be clarified here that the architects of all these buildings were equally concerned about the functional issues of design. Most of these buildings were designed with due consideration to the function and organization of the building, the structural system and services. The fact that the building should function well for its current function was not lost on the Owners and the architects alike. The classical model was followed only for its visual appeal.

Problem of relevance

The problem was that this solution came with a cost of duplicity. Concrete & steel was used to create an appearance of stone, and the size of columns & many other parts of the elevation (the column base, pediments & so on) was too huge and not really inappropriate as both these materials had much larger structural capability which not really used. Most of the structural organization, at least in the elevation of the building, was false. But by far the most relevant issue for the architects was – how can a feudal or religious building become a model for an office building or hospital which had no thematic connection with these feudal structures with a different societal structure, different materials and building technology and a much different lifestyle of the users?

A solution to this pertinent question was sought to be answered by many theoreticians of the era, whose theories we shall discuss in the next chapter.

Monuments & the Vernacular

With a group of students, I visited Ahmadabad in the last week, and was in the celebrated Mill Owners association building again after a gap of about 22 years. I had been to Ahmadabad in 1987, along with a group of Aurangabad architects, and I remember visiting most of the notable buildings in the city, debating all the while the merits & demerits of architectural form and spaces and thematic issues in architecture.

Le Corbusier's work in India had always been a subject of debate amongst us, and the consensus was that he provided modern India with a series of new monuments, paving the way for a new understanding of architectural design. But when I was in the premises again, I could spell out the distinct influence of the vernacular more than that of the monuments in this project.

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 total effect of all these factors.

It was easy to discern 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, and you would not expect it anyway. What you find instead is the conversion of the mundane elements like the hand rail 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 absense 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 demarkate 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 my considered opinion that most of the foreign architets who worked in India, had complete understanding of the climatic issues in architectural design, and tried to make their designs compatible to the Indian climate, unlike the irresponsible indian architects who copied the glass-box-form of popular european & american architecture without bothering about the climatic differences.

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 in the rear side, 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 diference 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. Whether Corbusier did this deliberately or was influenced by the european minimalist tradition is a debatable issue.

After the visit I went to meet Mr. Abhinav Shukla, Secretary General of the Mill Owners Association, to convey my thanks for allowing us to visit the building & the premises without a prior appointment. He is a good natured person and insisted that we write our comments in the visitors book about the building and its future. I promised him I would write a blog instead, and kept wondering about the expectations of the present ruling elite & 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 & aluminium expanse-a typical indian version of an american downtown area.

All this is in direct contrast to the stark character of Corbusier's building which is more in line with Gandhiji's philosophy of simple living. Gandhiji put a concept of trustee-ship, 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.

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. I would not be surprised if there is a demand in future for pulling down the building in favour of a fully air-conditioned glass-enclosed skyscraper, with plush interiors (with so called cutting edge design). But we need to conserve this building in its present state as a monument to the Gandhian philosophy, to retain some sense of purpose in this globalised maddening world of today.

Monuments

It was Ajay Kulkarni, a talented young architect and an old friend from Aurangabad, who opened up the issue of connection between history and present day architecture with his presentation at the National Convention of the Indian Institute of Architects. This was held at Nagpur on 6th November 2009, and about 800 architects from all over India attended. On this count alone this was a successful event indeed.

Ajay started his presentation with a review of the historical monuments, and a funny thing happened. Ajay is passionate about everything he does, and his voice may have been raised a bit above the ordinary at some point. A delegate, who was dozing comfortably in the air-conditioned auditorium, suddenly woke up with this, and found himself listening to a history lecture which he resented and registered his protest.

Of course there were many in the auditorium who were impressed with Ajay's oratory and content, and tried to hush down the protester. Ajay is also a good natured person and 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 history behind the design.

What Ajay did, in effect, was to explain the process behind his design. Very few architects are capable of doing this, in fact most of the other architects who presented their projects in the same convention were content in describing their work (and showing plenty of visuals), but did not give any reasons about why it was designed that way. May be they thought it was obvious, but it takes a lot of understanding of history to articulate and present the entire process of design.

That brings back the issue of how history is taught and learnt 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, and the impressions of form and the quality of architectural spaces the monuments have created. 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.

Ancients were definitely more serious about architecture, and went about the business of construction of every monument as if it was the last piece of work they would produce in their lifetime. Architecture is always a culmination of all that you are capable of creating - it is not something that you do casually. 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. So 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. And this is definitely depends on your understanding of history - not as counts of stone or technology but as reminders of the quality of design and architectural space. It is this lesson of history that we need to present as teachers.

Birth of a style-02

Coming back to the birth of a style, it is not the technology or the religious background or any such factors that generate a new style. They are important, no doubt, but as facilitators-the background needed for a style to be created & sustained. 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 Bishop, who came up with the idea of a church with huge interior space full of light-and the Gothic architecture followed this thread of imagination.


Hence, it is not the pointed arch which made Gothic Architecture-it so happened that the pointed arch-with its vertical character-was found most suitable for creating the effect of a huge interior space with its three storeyed nave-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 coloured light in the interior-illuminating & mystifying it at the same time. As a third world architect, I look on this as a generic issue, related to the harsh, cold climate of the place, where for six months in a year(because of the snow), there is nothing to look at through the window. But it may also have been done with a purpose.


In the tropical places of worship you try to shun the harsh outdoor light & heat by closing the temple with thick walls & thick roof, allowing very little light in the interior which is both very dark & cool. Once in the interior of the temple, you are physically comfortable, but have no view of the outside-making for better concentration on the worship of the deity. And in case of Mosques-though there is no deity-the exterior is closed for view and inside of the mosque all that you see is the Quibla and the other worshippers.


It is very important for a place of worship to create a feeling of secluded space. This can not be achieved if the light and view is available at the human height-upto 2.00 m. from floor level. The highly acclaimed 'Lotus Temple' in New Delhi fails exactly on this count-you can not concentrate in the interior hall because of all the light coming in at low level.


The best source of light in a place like this is above the human eye level of 1.50 M. But if you place the source of light much higher-eliminating the view of the outside except the sky-as would happen in a Mosque-you obtain the best of the result architecturally speaking.


The Gothic stained glass windows serve this purpose beautifully. And moreover, the paintings deal in religious subject-emphasising the religious connotation of the place. It is exactly for this reason that the temples are full of sculptures and Mosques with all the writings from religious texts. Once inside-the interior seeks to enhance the effect of the place.


I used to wonder why the great painters of the day like Michelangelo would spent 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, everywhere you can see-all that you see is a religious text or painting. So 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.

Effect of Politics on Architecture

One of my students, Amit Tandon, has selected this topic for his dissertation and has asked for my comments on the topic. In one way, politics influences everything that happens in a society, and architecture is essentially a political activity. This could well be the subject of an entire book.

When discussing the birth of a style, I had said that architecture is a deliberate act and can not emerge out of circumstantial factors alone. It is true that the form & extent of architecture depends on factors like resources & technology, but architecture can not happen unless somebody is willing to pay for it, and thus right from the beginning of the human civilisation architecture has always depended on the vision of its patrons.

And we need not go back to the construction of pyramids to prove this. Take the case of Bauhaus. It was founded in 1919 by Walter Gropius with the idea of synthesising all creative arts including architecture. The idea was to create art which could be mass-produced, to bring it within reach of the common man. It celebrated this emanicipation of mankind, made possible by the mass production of the industrial age. It tried to steer away from the neo-classical art forms and tried to create a new vocabulary of aesthetics. To the uninitiated the Bauhaus buildings now look as simple rectangular blocks, but they herald a revolution in architecture.

At about the same time, thousands of miles away, in Russia, a similar revolution in architecture was happening. The architects of post-revolution Russian state wanted to break away from the tradition of Tsarist past with its feudal connotations. Tsarist architecture of Russia borrowed heavily from the european renaissance, trying to match its grandeur, scale, use of rich materials and craftsmanship, signifying architecture for the king in which the common man had no place.

Thus 'Constructivism' movement owes its origin to the idea, that in the post revolutionary Russia, architecture was meant to be for the common people, and was picturised as a simple straightforward & honest in its expression. The idea thus was to portray the form defined only by the construction technology, without any embellishment, and use of the modern materials & technology like concrete, steel & glass in place of the classical stone walls & the ornamentation. It is worthwhile to remember here that the final outcome of architectural form is heavily dependant on the materials & method of construction. Once you replace the stone wall with a steel frame and glass, you end up with a form that has no connection with the historical precedents. (It is true that this is a matter of choice, as you may as well copy the classical features in a new materials, but that would go against the principle of honesty).

Looking back after about 100 years now, we can see that modern architecture has acquired many of its attributes from these movements, but political leaders in both the countries thought this kind of architecture unacceptable (to put it mildly) and put a stop to it. Both the movements died because the patrons rejected the idea.

Hitler had come to power in Germany, riding on the wave of German nationalism, and he & his henchmen found nothing that belonged to Germany in Bauhaus. The architeture of Bauhaus was devoid of any symbolism that connected it to the German spirit as seen by Hitler and his dream of the Third reich. Bauhaus architecture was branded as a communist plot to demean the cultural tradition of Germany, and the school had to close down.

When Hitler made plans to rebuild Germany, he brought in Albert Speer, who designed buildings in the neo-classical tradition of renaissance. Chauvanism had won the day.

On this background it would seem strange that constructivism would be disliked in Russia. After all, Russian revolution stood against the Tsarist tradition & values. But here too, when Stalin came to power, a renovation of the Russian tradition was sought. Dictators all over the world relish the pomp & ceremony and the renaissance palaces with their large plazas & towering structures with ornmentation appealed more to Stalin than the simplistic constructivist architecturre, which was viewed as a fascist plot to subvert the communist revolution & its ideals.

Which proves that all dictators think alike, whatever the colour of their politics. Architecture emerges as the collective will of the people but this is determined by those actually weilding the power on behalf of the people. 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 which is an unfortunate but true state of affairs in public architecture of today.