ARCHITECTURE OF SPA (VIJAYAWADA) BUILDING

The building of institutional architecture has long been obsession of state since independence and the legacy continues till date.  Since then we have witnessed the architecture that are abstemiously struggling to bring about pan-Indian architecture of earlier phase to contemporary global architecture in recent times. The architecture that oscillated from decadence of Indian architectural wisdom to eclecticism of formal annexation in recent times, and both tendencies depict the enthusiasm to embrace the architecture that is contemporary enough, yet has embededness. The degree of experiments are perhaps have similar intensity as well as both the virtues brings about similar paradox, i:e how the idea of intellectual modernity challenging every day, “the rootedness social conditions” making conflicting reality to be perceived as being progressive at the same time vehemently bringing out the experiences away from colonial production.

The recently designed and constructed institute building for SPA Vijayawada demonstrates, on one side the similar conditions and traits that are historically developed yet moves away from genesis of architectural vocabulary that has been seen as forced template of post-independence architecture for the state. The architecture of the building has Corbusien idioms in many ways, yet explores it formal interpretation by re-reading/organizing the program. The four layers that are stacked with impounded formal implosion, exploring architecture of non-program, embodying the experiential dimensions that are often missing in the contemporary institutional architecture. The architecture of the building also depicts some of those brutal tendencies, clearly reflecting the formative circumstances of post-independence experiments with the institutions.

The architecture of the SPA’s definitely opens up the discourse on renewed ethics on cherished functionalist notion on one side while challenging the doctrine that comes as pre-determined aesthetics of global architecture. The buildings also bring the subtle transition of modern ethos of earlier first generation experiments by third generation of architects.

The building is still in its formative years in terms of its use and yet to be seen the role of such spaces,  web of program and non program in coming years which are apparently adding the value to the architecture.

Photo Credit: Manoj Parmar Architects

LUCKNOW: CULTURE, PLACE, BRANDING & ACTIVITISM

The recently published book titled “Lucknow: Culture, Place, Branding & Activitism” is a scholastic urban research work on contemporary urban transformation of Indian Second Tier cities. This especially brings about the urban discourse on second tier city subject whose genesis are embedded into the historic layers and are currently witnessing the rapid transformation. It builds interesting conversation on culture and heritage aspects of typical second tier Indian city with Lucknow as an example.  The book has seven sections largely focusing on the reasons for the need of such literature work on Indian cities, the transformation through new imagination in tandem with neo-liberal economy and governance, the quality of urban life, place and urban experience within historic inner cores, culminating into the place making process in contemporary time through cultural activism. The book brings about the concerns on account of diverse and often conflicting imagination, subjecting second tier cities into an object of global representation through symbols, images & formation of urban design policy and practice. It further builds the argument that the global conversation in social and cultural terms produces contestation of strange character, which is unsympathetic to the pattern of evolution of Indian historic cities.

The trend is not limited to Indian cities; rather the urban spatial and cultural transformation is witness in global south, almost replicating the archetypical characters of emerging pattern. In author term, attempting to describe the phenomena as “sociologically, globalization is understood as compassing all the processes by which people are incorporated into one singular, global society by compression of time and space” showing the concern towards the dichotomy of “what is lived has moved away into representation” which amounting to the spectacles for mass consumption and consolidation of capitalist production through post-fordist mode of production, engaging simultaneous places and people as production place for branding.

The book has valuable account of wealth of theoretical research, their contextualization and emerging questions that are deeply embedded in understanding of urbanism of Indian historic cities. This book is a must read for urban researcher, urban design & conservation professionals and students.

ARCHITECTURAL THESIS: Practice of Academics or Academics of Practice

Studio @ KRVIA

Last several decades one could see the altered responsibilities of architecture towards itself, cities, environment and other interdisciplinary dimensions. This has perhaps resulted into need of re-examination of the academics in contemporary times. Within the academics it is important to understand the role and scope of the architectural thesis (design desertion) as a culmination towards making of an Architect. The architectural thesis is expected to demonstrate the fully evolved architectural knowledge system, demonstrated in the form of research ideas and project demonstration. Along with that, it is also assumed that the architectural question would have expanded into interdisciplinary examinations as compare to limited architectonic inquiry in earlier formative years. It is also imagined that such fundamental understanding would give away the traditional forms of problem-solving to social, political, cultural, and / or disciplinary critique within the act of research and design.

If one maps the trajectory of architectural thesis over past few decades, it would explain that it had only attempted to articulate the basic issues as being only problem solving method as an architectural inquiry and demonstration.  It has unable to articulate the disjunction and discord that it has created in such process, especially in understanding the complexity of layers as an architectural question and nature of architectural inquiry as interdisciplinary value system in architectural thesis. The architectural thesis begins with the idea of the understanding of two terms, the design research and the architectural research.

This two terms are often confused as being one or similar but they are different because design research is close ended derives its momentum from data and information, tending towards demonstration and the architectural research is open ended flourishes on knowledge system and tending towards discipline based inquiry and critique. But one should not confused that there are two methods to carry out thesis rather they are dependent on each other so that inquiries can be set towards either from design research to architectural research or vice versa, tending towards conclusive end of design & demonstrates.

Traditionally we have built two myths that architecture is about of either “architecture as a profession” or “architecture as a discipline” and we generally try to separate it out conveniently and every act that enables academics is a product of this mythical compartment.

The Demonstration of design Knowledge (Project) specific to the program, naïve contextual issues is generally seen as the domain of profession. While the reading of socio/ cultural/ economic, political and environmental discourses as knowledge inquiry or methodology for seeking gap within the architectural knowledge that would question the traditional forms of production of architecture, is the key to set disciplinarian domain. However the idea is to operate in simultaneity and seek for cumulative understanding of profession and discipline coming together, i:e. thinking of a production of architecture knowledge by questioning the disciplinarian boundaries and looking at various modes in which the architectural issues could be articulated and demonstrated through investigation (relevance) of site context and program addressing the architectural issues

When you say architectural research, it’s a fairly open ended form of inquiry and experimentation because you want to engage with a variety of forces and build some new knowledge. They are not necessarily conclusive in nature; they may or may not result into a building. But on the other hand a design thesis research is basically is the way you engage and integrate the idea of profession by addressing the functionalities and technicalities and what is more important is the way you try to be canonical or limit the architectural question and improvise what is already established. This enables the emergence of discord between the canonical structure of knowledge and formal annexation of the building and its relationship with architecture.

It is usually understood that the one addresses the problem will, in turn resolve that problem or the conduct of program is architecture. This is very limiting and conclusive without expanding the architectural question. 

But if one has to turn around the process, and begin the inquiry with area of interest with architectural specificity, it would allow interdisciplinary references from multiple sources. This enables the architectural inquiry as a system (Architecture is a sub set of various other disciplines and study of set of principles across the discipline to allow organization of architectural knowledge and method). This method engages the accumulation of architectural information and larger value system. Hence, this is actually building for the next stage where one begins to conceptualize architecture; one begins to look at architecture in a broader context 

At this stage the architectural system begins to draw the idea of pattern, the forces that influence architecture. It aids the conceptualization process and development of broad ideas specific to sites (place, culture).

One can also begin with the area of your interest that you have in architecture. This method allows beginning with the accumulation of work of similar area of interest, almost like an autonomous researcher. The word autonomous means you are an individual, you are a research scholar and you are interested in a particular aspect of architecture which is not really predefined. Then we come to the second stage where we see architecture as a discursive means there is a kind of disciplinarian kind of engagement in looking at architectural inquiry and conceptualization of architecture with relationship to the site. Now this is where your site comes into the picture. This is the second phase where your site comes. And the third is where you try to put it together and the kind of formal expression, manifestation.

However this is not as linear as it appears to be. One could really swap this process. You can look at architecture as a discursive, as a beginning point. You might think let me just try to examine disciplines. Let me try to understand the relationship of architecture with something that is really important. But architecture remains at the center. So someone might have interest in sociological understanding or an anthropological understanding to begin with but then one needs to articulate the specific knowledge that informs architecture. Now when you reverse this question you are obliged to take up a case study. In this case you need to study what has already been done, what kind of architecture has already been produced, what is the literature that has been produced. The case studies are the prime support for your architectural thesis. Hence one can’t just claim that as a researcher one is re-imagining. The re-imagining cannot supersede one idea of inquiry and discussion and discourse. The re-imagining comes when one is really taking this process in a way which it systematically evolves kind of inquiry that are bridging the gap of earlier research.

This is more about generating a discussion looking at the thesis process and it also kinds of brings in the idea of the way in which we understand method and methodology. We sometimes assume that it a research question. Sometimes we assume that we have done research but actually we have only collected the data. You have not yet established the larger value system attached to the data. This point where the dis-junction is and we need to equip ourselves to handle the emergence of dis-junction. 

THINKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

The recent annual lecture series at KRVIA titled as “Discourse on Technology” concluded with the talk by keynote speaker Prof. Dhruv Raina. The keynote address was able to dissect through various pre-assumed concepts and framework on technology that most of the architectural institutes conveniently have been working around with. The technology needed much required impetus in terms of its embedded conditions, which in turn would blur the regimented boundaries. The keynote address not only able to meet the expectation of the theme but also allowed newer means of conceptualization.

The Keynote brings about some of the fundamental issues related to self and constructed understanding of technology. He began with idea of narrative that is being re-constructed through intellectual scaffolding, about science and technology, and they require analyzing, or needs re-examining the  philosophical pre-supposition in theories. The distinction between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology were articulated and described as follows:

philosophy of science is Meta theory that dissects or examines the nature of theory (realm and not domain) while philosophy of technology is complex as it has certain embedded condition of social life and requires further investigation.

The similar preoccupation with intellectual scaffolding that we have constructed about  the notion of high science, high technology and low technology. The fact that technical skills required for routine problems in rural setting would mean sociological domain of technology which cannot be categorized simply be a low tech. The Science has produces certain understanding of human activities with technology, similar to farmer would have knowledge about nature of soil is also an expert knowledge.

In early 1970 there has been debate about conceptual and interdisciplinary tools for new questions about nature of technology, and science that would allow revisit the older question. The questions were to think about problematic issues within intellectual scaffolding of myth. He argued further that thinking about technology is thinking about self. It starts with concrete problems; it’s about self and society. Concept of societies is different in various contexts. The solution in terms of technological responses is conception of self and society.

Relationship in narrative of technology and its philosophical premises that we construct has embedded the condition of life of technology. He enumerated the four narratives that have been created sets of opposite myths about technology which were un-critical myths and are polarized in nature.

i)                    Two myths about technology that is myth of autonomy “logic of technology is within technology” and other is myth of neutrality “technology is neutral and value free”. Within which he explains the Social determinist where the technology embodies social interest and values. (Marxism). We need to engage with limited nature of social conditions to evolve with appropriate technology. While technological determinism brings the realm of autonomy and creates value free adaptation.

ii)                   Divide between traditional techniques and modern technology. The traditional techniques is pre-modern and modern technology came about with industrial revolution with idea of new regime of production (techniques plus production plus social organization) technology travels many temporalities, betrays many culture and creates its own appropriateness.

iii)                 The discussion of Anti - Technologist and Pro-Technologist is within the domain of political thinking of society construct and Cultural appropriation of technology, how it has reshaped the society and naturalized itself. Technology of evolution is realigned with cultural trajectories. Technology is naturalized in some case (domesticated or cultural appropriation of technology) or in some case brings about social discontent of technology.

iv)                 Technology of obsolescence vs technology of novelty. Obsolesce is about theory of modernization and not technology per se. Technology is outdated and novelty is necessity is clearly the mythical distinction of tradition and modernity. The word obsolescence is embedded within modernity. The older technology contains means and ideas and they don’t die at any point, some idea can be re-drawn for new imagination. They are re-born in new form.

All the narrative needs interrogation, each narrative evokes particular relation of technology and society. We interrogate each of such relations so that it possibly opens up new window of trajectories and technological innovation.

KRVIA MASTERS: LOCAL AREA PLAN: 2018

SEMESTER III STUDIO 

(URBAN DESIGN + URBAN CONSERVATION)

The new paradigm called for planning practice to be “bottom up” and “people centred”, and not relies on economists, engineers and statisticians alone. The significance of anthropologists, sociologists, scholars of cultural studies and grassroots activists who were closer to people were brought within the folds of this new planning discourse. Institutionally, it called for a shift from state to non - state actors like community based organizations (CBOs) private voluntary organizations that were efficient, equitable, flexible and accountable.

The semester III studio organizes around the background knowledge and expertise gained through the previous studio works on mapping, representing, urban history, urban housing, urban landscaping and urban transportation

The studio intends to explore the concept of Communicative Action and what it would mean in the context of creating local area plans within local governments in consultation with local agencies. The idea of Communicative Action, as Jurgen Habermas describes it, is an important type of social action, in which the actors in society seek to reach common understanding and take coordinated actions by reasoned argument, consensus and cooperation rather than strategic action, strictly in pursuit of their own goals (Habermas, 1984, p.86).

The studio sites for the LAP studio were Mumbai GAOTHANS (Indigenous Urban Villages) within Municipal Corporations located within the city. The context of the city opens up the possibility of engaging with a different set of community groups who have unique set of relationship with the history of the city, its evolution and transformation. 

The studio working has been extremely challenging due to the diverse stake holders and aging focused group coupled with real estate pressure. The studio worked on the different scenarios and strategies to revive, restore and rejuvenate the majority of Gaothans within the flexible parameter of augmentation of infrastructure and amenities, heritage guidelines, re-adaptive framework. The policy guidelines and TDR structure makes the studio project in the most complex decision structure. The operative intervention models are limited but the studio enabled the learning process of such complex dynamics of heritage and real estate.

KRVIA BRIDGE STUDIO IX: HALL OF NATION | NEW DELHI

QUESTION OF BRIDGE STUDIO

The bridge studio is a space where the intellectual formalisation of practice begins to configure with the academic space or academic space begins to interact with practice domain. The practice domain is generally perceived as other side of academics with handful information of practical imperatives & awareness towards making of architecture that resonates its purpose & market that sterilises academics.  However practice in the context of bridge studio is imagine to be an act of design & construction of building that is deemed to be an academic exercise. 

If one looks other way around, only if, practice that reaches out to academics to experiment with the particular aspects of architecture that resonates the act of conflict, deemed unresolved. It is that precise conflict and unresolved condition finds academic space as laboratory for experimentation, where unresolved conflict can emerge in all tones of fresh imaginations, complex reality engages with comprehensible manifestation, architecture that traverse beyond time and tragic views.

QUESTION OF MODERN

The modern word is often limited in its definition when we talk within academics or general conversation as being departure from or repudiation of accepted norms. However the modern also brings about the question on philosophy on which shatters the boundary of orthodoxy and making the modern phenomena more transient and fleeting (continuously & simultaneously emerging). Even though the word modern & heritage are contradictory in terms, it brings about values that shaped thought and philosophy. Architecture of any given time is a product of thought to context. The knowledge reacting to the situation within which the encapsulated boundary of modern transverses and becomes history of ideas. It is this precise conflict that studio attempted to address, to deconstruct the implicit meaning of word modern and seek various possible reaction and manifestation.