Kirtee Shah
Practicing Architect
Hon. Director, Ahmedabad Study Action Group (ASAG)
President, Habitat Forum (INHAF)
This article is not for the Indian architect alone. We all share the
same problems. Issues are the same whether it is India or Pakistan or
Bangladesh or Srilanka. In the context of the peculiarities of our
societies, ecological crisis and globalization, the rethink that the
article talks about is inescapable. The professional may survive but
will be under perpetual threat of extinction and till it happens will
operate in the fringes and margins.
In Trichy recently on work, the local chapter of the Institute of
Architects invited me to address the group and meet with its members.
The town, approaching a million people mark, has over hundred practicing
architects. While discussing state of the architectural practice in a
small town in general and Trichy in particular, a senior local
architect’s comments on the architect’s role generated a passionate
debate. He observed that he felt a fringe player, a marginal actor, in
his own building projects, as his contribution remained confined mainly
to a non-tangible area of `aesthetics’ and ‘beauty’, while other
specialists offered hard core services– such as structural engineering,
plumbing, electrification, air-conditioning, costing, etc—that the
clients valued more. He added that the architects had become ‘light
weight’ having handed over everything except the ‘aesthetics’ to others,
and consequently did not enjoy as much confidence and respect of the
client.
The introspective architect was probably a bit too honest, a bit too
harsh in his judgment on himself and a bit too critical of his
professional contribution. He did not account for the space planning,
co-ordination and other services an architect provides in a building
project, as also the architect’s leader- of – the team – status. No
architect ever thinks that he or she is light weight and hardly anyone
carries the burden of ‘content’ inadequacy or ‘substance’ lightness. It
is also true that unlike the small town client mindset that the
architect friend referred to, majority clients in the metro cities have a
much charitable view on the role and contribution of their architects.
However, with the unprecedented real estate boom and increasingly
prominent role that the architects are called upon to play in the
changing skyline of the globalizing Indian cities, there is a real need
to look at the profession and the professional practice somewhat
objectively. In order to get the balance correct, it is also necessary
to see the architectural practice in the context of fast deteriorating
quality of built environment and deplorable housing and living
conditions of the less fortunate ones in these same cities. Though the
architects never consider villages to be a part of their ‘work
constituency’, to put the matter in perspective, it is helpful to see
the architects and their work in the context of rural habitat, the built
environment in the villages, where a majority of the country’s thousand
million plus people still live and work and , believe it or not, would
stand to benefit if some of the architects’ skills, know-how and
technology are available in preserving and improving quality of physical
environment.
In analyzing the profession the first set of questions is on the
clients: for whom the architects are working—or not working. For whose
benefit, to meet whose needs, are they using their skills, knowledge and
expertise? Which segment of the Indian society they are reaching their
services? Certainly not the villagers, as hardly any architect practices
in a village. That eliminates 75 percent of the people and their
building needs from the work sphere of the architects. How many and who
are practicing in small and medium sized towns which, despite a growth
momentum, are growing chaotically and haphazardly and where the
“clients” and the “projects’ exist, with capacity and willingness to
pay, but are not getting the professional’s services? Very few.
Architects are concentrated in big cities. And who are their clients
there? Not the lower middle class, also not many in the middle-middle
class. Their clients are the rich, businessmen, industrialists and
public and private institution builders: mostly the upper crust of the
society. And in today’s times the builders, the real-estate developers
as well. As a class, the upper echelon are about one or two percent of
the society; what about others? Aren’t they building? Aren’t they
investing? Don’t they need services of an architect, a designer?
Wouldn’t an architect’s skill and expertise, if available to them, make a
difference to what they are building on their own or using
para-professionals? Why aren’t they seeking a professional architect’s
services? Why aren’t the professionals reaching their skills and
services to them? Leave aside the ‘social good’ or addressing their
unmet needs, don’t they constitute a ‘market’? Aren’t they potential
clients and a business opportunity? Isn’t meeting their needs, within
limited space and resources; can architects/ designers not delve into a
professional and a design challenge, a creative opportunity? With the
over-crowding of architects that big cities are witnessing, subsequent
competition for jobs and projects and resultant survival struggle, why
aren’t they seeking new pastures? Why are they not exploring
un-chartered territories? What is preventing this from happening? Why
are they not entrepreneurial in that sense? If that happens, more
architects will have more work, newer challenges and better, bigger
opportunities. Equally important, smaller people, less affluent and
resourced people, would get the services they need and deserve. It will
be a win-win situation for all.
Why is that not happening? Has it something to do with the mindset of
the architects, definition of what constitutes ‘architecture’, his/her
perceived role as an architect, their education and training? What is
that prevents a professional architect from engaging in and contributing
to the larger, ‘popular’ world of built environment? Is it selectivity,
exclusivity, a misplaced notion of ‘professionalism’, professional ego,
stats concerns, or elitism’ of which the architects are often
criticized? The main questions are: why are there no architects for not
so rich? Why are there no village architects, architects for rural
India? Why don’t we have architects specializing in repair, upgrading,
retrofitting, rural habitat and disaster reconstruction? Aren’t these
services required, isn’t there a market for it? Equally important, why
are those few, exceptional ones, who work in villages, in slums and for
the poor, looked down upon? Why are they seen as an inferior race, a
lesser god’s children? If this is reflected on, the chance is that an
unexplored world could open up.
The second set of observations and questions relate to an extremely
narrow client base the architect’s service and the limited work universe
they operate in. It would be a revelation, if not a shock, to many that
out of all ‘formal’ buildings that get built in India not more than
six to seven percent are designed by the trained, professional
architects. They need to ask why, rather than canvassing for legislation
that only the ‘qualified’ that only a ‘member’ of the professional
association should be permitted to practice as an architect. How does
the remaining construct their buildings? Why are they not using their
services? Is that the architects are not available, not accessible? Is
that their services are expensive and buildings costly? Is that their
services, skills and whatever else they can offer are not relevant for
them, don’t fit into their plans and budgets? Or is that the other set
of service providers–the non-architects, non-qualified, non-members of
the practicing architects’ association- more accessible, more client
friendly and more relevant? Is health care service without doctors,
legal service without lawyers, accounting service without accountants
and primary education without teachers conceivable, proper? The
marginalized role of the professional architect in the on-going
construction activity deserves some thought and reflection. In a larger
societal context, the quality of overall built environment, not only an
isolated building design should be the concern of the architect. And in a
narrow business sense, a less equipped and qualified competitor taking
away a large volume of potential business, should be their business
concern too.
That brings the third point. And that is: is that a major issue that a
professional architect’s operational universe is so highly restricted
and that his/her services reach to only a select few? In India,
architecture without architects is a glaring, an undeniable reality. The
figure quoted earlier, the 94 to 6 division of work, is a reality. Take
housing for instance. Roughly speaking, in big cities, out of ten
houses that get constructed, just one is by the public sector, two are
by the private sector and the remaining seven are by the slum-dwellers
and/or by other non-formal builders/suppliers. In rural India, the
entire existing housing stock and a substantial part of the newly
built housing is by the people– by ordinary, common people. By a thumb
rule, out of the housing stock of some 180 million units in the country,
more than 70 percent is through the “people process”, what the Latin
Americans call “social production of housing”—no architects, no
engineers, no real estate developers, no HUDCO, no HDFC and no building
bye-laws.
Can this trend be changed? Can this equation be altered? This
‘people’s movement’ in settlements development; do they not deserve
greater recognition, facilitation and more creative response? Should we
not take a more constructive, accommodative and positive view of this
people process? Should we not recognize these bare-foot architects?
Should we not see them as different kind of professionals? Would it not
be proper to recognize their role and give them a space to operate? And
would that not be a service to the community to organize skill upgrading
for them, their capacity building? HUDCO’s Building Center initiative,
though proper in conception, is only a limited and feeble response to
that need. Diverting a portion of the public investment that goes into
training formal architects- and civil engineers – in skill upgrading
of these `bare-foot `architects’ will go a long way in improving their
performance and thereby quality of the built environment they create .
Let me now turn inwards, from a wider societal– and somewhat
nebulous– concern of meeting unmet needs of the non-clients to how
architects service their chosen clients, the clients they already have,
to the working of the professional practice on the ground. Here too, a
good way to dig in, without hurting feelings and disturbing
sensitivities, is to ask questions. Isn’t it true that the practicing
architects understand little– and care even less– for the external
environmental factors, such as climate, energy, water, etc., while
designing buildings? Aren’t they victims of external– mostly
western–influences and practitioners of unsuited, inappropriate
‘stylization’? Isn’t a ‘curtain wall’ and full glass façade in a blazing
sun and an over-working air-conditioning system to cool it, an insult
to the local climate and the energy crisis? Isn’t it true that most
architects are not cost conscious in their design solutions; that,
generally speaking, cost consciousness is looked down upon as a concern
of the inferior, the struggler among the architects? In some ways,
aren’t the architects alien in their own environment, in their own place
and in understanding and responding to the demands of climate, energy
and resource crisis, social complexities, life style choices and rich
traditional practices in building construction? Aren’t the architects’
stylistic preferences, their `isms’ over-riding functional needs of
their clients? An established and renowned architect once told me that
the clients were ‘incidental’. Put crudely- and fellow architects may
kindly excuse my saying this– aren’t architects taking their clients
for a ride— partly through ignorance, partly through arrogance, partly
through alienation, partly through design and partly through default?
While examining the profession and the professionals it is essential
to recognize the influences that make and shape them. Does not the
architectural education we impart and learn, carry a hangover of the
colonial past? Aren’t our systems and institutions still burdened and
influenced by the British systems and institutions? Isn’t our planning
education and practice under big influence of the past? How much has
really changed? How much has been indigenization? Earlier, a ‘foreign’
tag had premium, the foreigner and the foreign trained architect carried
weight, called the shots. Has that weight lessened or reduced? Has that
mindset, mentality changed? How much is local, indigenous in our
architectural and planning education incorporated? Aren’t architects
still looking westwards for ideas, inspiration, examples and masters? In
a globalizing world there is nothing wrong in looking westwards—or to
Singapore, China and Malaysia– for inspiration or ideas or technology.
What is crucial, however; is to be firmly rooted to ones own land and
environment to avoid being swept away; having a reference frame to make
correct judgment. It is also a well-appreciated wisdom that those
solutions and ideas—the ‘foreign’ ones– are not the most relevant, not
the most workable in solving our local problems and meeting our local
needs.
Not much is said –and done- about another aspect of the operating
environment, which is highly restrictive and constraining but for that
to change; the architects are doing nothing or precious little. The
reference is to the regulatory framework that includes building byelaws
and regulations, building permit system and the compliance mechanisms,
put in place and operated by the local bodies and/or the city
development authorities. The way they are, they seem to have been
designed to kill design, creativity and innovation. The stipulations and
provisions are kept deliberately vague. Interpretation varies from
officer to officer, desk to desk, time to time. Arbitrariness is the
order of the day. And corruption is rampant. The system stinks. Yet, one
sees little pubic articulation of concern and little joint action with
other stakeholders, on part of the architects’ community, to protest, to
fight wrong, to mobilize opinion, to present alternatives, and to
work for and influence change. Subservience and accommodation to the
system’s irrationality and tyranny, and acceptance of its creativity
killing power, is simply amazing. And it is beyond doubt that the
architects are the most qualified- and most equipped — to bring it to
the notice of the bye-law framers and the administrators that making
supportive, positive, facilitating and enabling by-laws and building
regulations costs nothing in money terms–that it only demands some
imagination and openness to learning– but they go a long way in making
our cities beautiful, their sky-line exciting and the urban form
richer—something the administrators admire so much in foreign cities,
the western cities, but do nothing to promote and ensure here. The
architects are the principal stakeholders in this matter. They and their
associations need to take position on this issue and organize efforts
to bring about the needed change. If this does not change, the
architects and their creativity are the principal losers besides, of
course, the cities and even towns.
The agenda for institutional reform is much wider- and deeper- than
rationalizing and improving building byelaws and regulatory framework.
The architects need to muster courage and stand with conviction against
unethical practices and corruption. Shortly after the earthquake in
Gujarat in 2001, the Home Minister of the State publicly confessed that a
majority of the buildings built in Ahmedabad in the previous decade —a
staggering 90 percent, according to him– were either illegal or
unauthorized or violated building codes or norms in some form or the
other. The reference was primarily to the builder promoted construction.
The earthquake also exposed large scale irresponsible practices loaded
against public safety. If architects raise their voice against such
practices—public and private– chance is that they would be probably
heard. Even if results do not materialize instantly, the process will
build a new solidarity, a fresh togetherness, a new awareness on part of
the authorities of their public accountability and a new identity for
the architects among their present and potential clients.
Identifying systemic deficiencies and bringing about institutional
change demand a committed leadership with a vision. What kind of
leadership does the profession has? Who are the leaders and what are
they doing? I have never understood this matter sufficiently but I am
told that the star architects are the leaders of the profession. The
professional associations also play the leadership role. Do they? What
and who are they leading? What initiatives? What sharing? What
mobilization? Which issues are championed? What remedies, options and
strategies are suggested? A leader must lead, give, inspire, set
example, even sacrifice. Whom are they inspiring? What are they giving?
Is the word `sacrifice’ heard anywhere at that level? Is not the public
good versus private interest the most obvious feature of the leadership
issue?
This seemingly critical and what could so easily be seen as
‘negative’ portrayal of the profession is not out of negativity or
frustration or anything of that sort. It is also not an outsider’s view
based on ignorance, prejudice or ideological baggage. It is an
‘insider’s view, based on experience and born out of a concern that the
architects, as a community, as professionals, as privileged citizens
could do much more, serve many more and contribute so much more
meaningfully. This stems from an understanding that given the
attitudinal and orientational changes, they could be leaders in making
our cities and settlements better places to live and work.
Architecture is a noble profession. In the hands of its conscientious
practitioners it is a medium to serve the people and also the
environment. It combines both art and science. Culture and technology
are its pillars. It is a vehicle to translate ideas and dreams into
reality. It embraces both: reality and vision, creativity and
practicality. It has been there from the dawn of the civilization and
will always be there. However, the way it is perceived and practiced, it
needs to move from monuments to people, from magazine pages to
practical life, from the elite to the common people and, in a way, from
top to bottom, from a pedestal to the ground. That would take nothing
from its halo, its mystique and its nobility. It will only be richer.
Architecture as a subject, as an art form, as Shashtra, is too big
and ancient to be treated casually. But the architecture profession, as
perceive and practiced now, certainly needs a rethink, a paradigm shift.
The multiple crisis—energy, water, space, resources, ecology and
governance—, new technologies, changing social equations and emerging
realities in the globalizing cities make it imperative that the
building professionals re-educate — both de-learning and re-learning are
called for—and reequip themselves. And a degree of
de-professionalization of the conventional professional, in terms of
attitudinal shift, client choices and priorities, is a necessary part of
the change.
