Why do most people take the word 'critical' so literally? Why does 'being critical' involve finding only negative aspects of something? As if pointing out faults can make one seem more intellectual. And most of the time, this 'being critical' ends up being 'i hate this, it's so banal/terrible/horrible...' which are all just better words for 'yuck'. And i always thought being critical meant understanding a whole system for what it is, thoroughly. An understanding of something on a more fundamental or basic level.
Which takes me to a very pertinent issue: Why do most architects hate Hafeez Contractor's contribution to architecture? Why do words like 'ugly', 'disgusting' (more synonyms of yuck) seem to attempt to describe his work in a word. Although i belonged to this bunch once upon a time, i can safely say it's more important to understand why Hafeez's work or the 'Hafeez aesthetic' is so popular before decrying it. If it has started a spate of buidings that look the same, it must have something in it to be copied. i have to mention i'm not taking sides here... or maybe i am, but it really doesn't matter because as someone said, maybe we need to understand what Hafeez does before saying how good or bad his work is.
When Hiranandani starts off constructing buildings, they do two radically different things from other builders of their time.
One: They ensure a high quality of construction, something which most people who bought houses in the 1980's can relate to. And even as a prospective househunter now, what is very apparent is the high level of finishing that they achieve for seemingly the same construction cost.
Two: They may be the first private developers who buy a large tract of land and develop it through and through: not just planning roads and plots (like Lokhandwala) or building stereotype residential buildings (like the Rahejas) but they attempt at creating a new lifestyle visible not just in the names of their roads (they're called Avenues and Boulevards! wonder why the American dream becomes the Indian dream) and street furniture (wooden benches and fancy lamp posts.. in our weather).
Now this may be an arbitrary (doubt this..) decision, but it lets a post-1991 middle class associate with a very western idea of sub-urbanity, what with paved roads and hedges and all... now the only thing missing from the picture-perfect image are the little houses set back in a yard with a picket fence. What instead has happened are these 20 storey towers which totally destroy the scale that the master plan sets out for itself. But the buildings make up in the loss of scale with even more opulent ideas of living, with a large lobby, exquisite finishing etc. where the interior actually sets the standard for a upper middle class residential building. The exterior is an arbitrary skin for a building that's quite malformed and out of scale. (i mean what formal or aesthetic lanuguage has been followed for a tympanum that hides a hexagonal water tank?). But these rarely matter for someone who's house hunting who's first priority is a good layout which allows a certain desirable level of privacy, a house that does not leak and a living room that doesnt allow the visitor to look into the bedroom. The buildings end up looking oddly proportioned and out of scale on the outside completely, but maybe that not the lens we need to look through for these buildings. Also for all the claims of post-modernism, they seem to be misplaced totally considering that neither are the elements interpreted differently from the source nor are they referring to any significant vernacular histories. Maybe the only thing it caters to is the love of the ornate and the baroque that is seemingly so characteristic of the new middle class.
Unfortunately, it is the skin of the building that stands for what initially made this kind of architecture popular. It seems the Hafeez facade has become the representative of the object itself. As of now, when i see the same elevational elements popping out on all corners of Mumbai, i wonder if a minimalist facade in the early days of Hiranandani Powai would have resulted in similar buildings all over Mumbai.
This is not to say that apart from the facade nothing is wrong with this kind of construction. The whole of Powai Hiranandani has been built in the most ecologically insensitive manner, with hills being cut up for landscaping (how ironic!) and a lot of under the table deals to change land uses, reservations etc. One only has to talk to the residents of surrounding areas to know what the 40 -storey tall towers have done to the water supply and electric supply in the area. In Powai exists a gaothan, which has been severely damaged culturally as well as spatially by the new construction. The whole complex is a drain on resources, a lot of the resources spent on creating this sense of opulence, with spotlighting on all night for all the commercial buildings and sprinklers working to create that ever green hedge. And the whole process now repeats itself in a more ecologically sensitive Ghodbunder Road area.
What i find a little worrisome is how the whole process of building as started by this involves gated communities living as a parallel city within the larger fabric. Also, the model seems to be the American suburbia with all its inherent problems not just socially but on smaller scales too (Think American Beauty).
It also worries me when Hafeez comes on a news channel and says we need more FSI without considering what it will do to the city. The complex he designed is itself an example of what high FSI can do to a neighbourhood.
DISCLAIMER:
The point of this post was not to praise or decry Hafeez Contractor or Hiranandani Constructions, but attempt at a neutral understanding of his work. My resources have not been any big books or some people but just observations as a wannabe architect and opinions as a househunter. If you have misunderstood any of my intentions, then i warn you now not to post any comment, otherwise all hell shall break loose. Thank you.
Hehehe.
30.1.07
28.1.07
KBC Tritiya...
After wondering for days what makes KBC 3 more comfortable to watch than its predecessors, comes a quote from one of the producers of the show that sums it up: People tend to relate to AB from a kneeling position, while they're more open armed with SRK.
So maybe the 'This one's not as classy' remark finally found an explanation.
So maybe the 'This one's not as classy' remark finally found an explanation.
19.1.07
Redevelopment...
We had a discussion in Theory of Design class the other day about something completely off the syllabus, but something really interesting atleast to me. The professor (sounds so weird to call the guy who takes the class, but still...) was wondering if any of us were even asking the question whether the kind of re-development we're doing in Dharavi with our 40 different projects was really the kind needed. For the uninitiated, the college, the Design Cell and the 4th year studio is working on a plan (the "people's alternative" as every presentation calls it) for the redevelopment of Dharavi in opposition to a plan made by a developer. And ironically, the guy who asks this question is also the guy who's heading the Design Cell in this project.
The point is that every time we think of slum redevelopment, we see it simply as providing a building with a certain number of floors that house a certain number of slum families, the overall emphasis being on providing a larger house with a toilet and bathroom. As one of my classmates was kind enough to point out 'We're giving them closed services which is a boon for them'. All the buildings look like any building housing the middle class. Which is natural, since we are all from a closeted middle class background with all the darkness in life stowed away from us and nothing makes us feel more safer and secure than 'cleaning up' some messy parts of the city. And it blends in with one of the objectives of the studio which is to find a way to improve the quality of life of the residents of Dharavi.
However what i find amiss in all our projects (im not excluding myself here too) are objectives 2 and 3 of the studio: Retaining existing community patterns; and Retaining existing economic activity.
Let me start with objective 3: Retaining existing economic activity. Dharavi is a hotbed of indutrial activity and it was surprising to see that happening in a place constantly referred to as a black hole. Although the label on your jeans says Levi's or you feel comfy that your shirt is from Globus, we've seen both being manufactured in one of the close to 1,00,000 tenements in the area. Unfortunately, a lot of this industrial activity is illegal, like tanning of leather. A lot of the industries operate while flouting many of the ineffective labour laws. People work in a tenement from 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening when residents of the tenement come home from their workplace in another part of the clum. In effect, the industry in the area works only because the slum is invisible to the powers that be. As one leather exporter who works out of a tenement mentioned, it is impossible for him to run a business outside of Dharavi, with a particular number of holidays, limited shifts, strikes, labour laws etc. This guy makes enough profits and contributes so much of it as tax to the Government, a fact he mentions very proudly. He hires enough employees to have trouble with a union and deal with a holiday for every time a national leader decides to die. His export clients include Versace and Gucci, none of whom care where their product comes from.
The fact that most redevelopment schemes miss out on is the legal status of these industries. Most of them dwell and succeed in the darkness, the ostracisation of the slum from society, the unwillingness of the law to eneter such a space. Legality by providing a tenement or an industrial gala would be suicide. No one knows exactly how many people live in these slums, but every one agrees most work within Dharavi itself. How many industries can be shut down and how many jobs can be lost before we realise we cannot retain existing economic activity with a gentrified redevelopment scheme?
Objective #2: Existing community patterns. i do not need to tell anybody that there is a difference in a 7-storey building housing a community and a slum sprawl housing the same. The relationship that develops on a horizontal plane cannot be replicated on a vertical one. So where does the question of providing existing community patterns to remain occur? Herding one community into one building does not mean one has managed to retain community patterns.
If someone has read the argument on objective #3 and wonders if it is unfair to the 'legitimate' businesses in the city, i would say i agree with that. But the point here is to question the objectives themselves and not come up with newer ones. If concern about legitimate businesses is an objective then there can be another post about that. Similarly if the objective is to free up land for the city then redevelopment is probably a good way of achieving it.
i feel that objectives 2&3 are extremely crucial and volatile. Any kind of ambitious plan to redevelop would invariably lead to a corruption of these objectives. In such a case maybe objective #1 should be the only objective that allows some kind of intervention, some kind of intervention that achieves an upgradation of the standard of living but with minimal scarring on the fabric of the slum. Something that allows the slum to retain its character as that part of the city that fell through the cracks. i am not romanticising the slum here, but merely making a point that every city needs its "black hole", just like every human being has some bad habits. If the concern is for the inhabitants of the black hole, then an insert that addresses JUST that concern is absolutely crucial. Trying to eliminate the darkness in a city would simply supplant the darkness. If redevelopment does occur, most of these industries and the people will move to the fringes of the city, until gentrification catches up with that too, and then another black hole and then another....
i may not be aware of a clear solution, but some examples N.P. quoted and some studies and experiments carried out in Brazil and Indonesia may provide the answer. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/sponsor/ActionPlan.pdf has an interesting charter spelling out some of these things. Maybe this argument will take me nowhere as passing 4th year Design becomes more important than standing up for what i think. But i hope this brings out a better discussion than the one in TOD class, which finally ended up discussing 'Let's just throw out these wretched people who've taken our land and live on our taxes.'
That's all.
The point is that every time we think of slum redevelopment, we see it simply as providing a building with a certain number of floors that house a certain number of slum families, the overall emphasis being on providing a larger house with a toilet and bathroom. As one of my classmates was kind enough to point out 'We're giving them closed services which is a boon for them'. All the buildings look like any building housing the middle class. Which is natural, since we are all from a closeted middle class background with all the darkness in life stowed away from us and nothing makes us feel more safer and secure than 'cleaning up' some messy parts of the city. And it blends in with one of the objectives of the studio which is to find a way to improve the quality of life of the residents of Dharavi.
However what i find amiss in all our projects (im not excluding myself here too) are objectives 2 and 3 of the studio: Retaining existing community patterns; and Retaining existing economic activity.
Let me start with objective 3: Retaining existing economic activity. Dharavi is a hotbed of indutrial activity and it was surprising to see that happening in a place constantly referred to as a black hole. Although the label on your jeans says Levi's or you feel comfy that your shirt is from Globus, we've seen both being manufactured in one of the close to 1,00,000 tenements in the area. Unfortunately, a lot of this industrial activity is illegal, like tanning of leather. A lot of the industries operate while flouting many of the ineffective labour laws. People work in a tenement from 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening when residents of the tenement come home from their workplace in another part of the clum. In effect, the industry in the area works only because the slum is invisible to the powers that be. As one leather exporter who works out of a tenement mentioned, it is impossible for him to run a business outside of Dharavi, with a particular number of holidays, limited shifts, strikes, labour laws etc. This guy makes enough profits and contributes so much of it as tax to the Government, a fact he mentions very proudly. He hires enough employees to have trouble with a union and deal with a holiday for every time a national leader decides to die. His export clients include Versace and Gucci, none of whom care where their product comes from.
The fact that most redevelopment schemes miss out on is the legal status of these industries. Most of them dwell and succeed in the darkness, the ostracisation of the slum from society, the unwillingness of the law to eneter such a space. Legality by providing a tenement or an industrial gala would be suicide. No one knows exactly how many people live in these slums, but every one agrees most work within Dharavi itself. How many industries can be shut down and how many jobs can be lost before we realise we cannot retain existing economic activity with a gentrified redevelopment scheme?
Objective #2: Existing community patterns. i do not need to tell anybody that there is a difference in a 7-storey building housing a community and a slum sprawl housing the same. The relationship that develops on a horizontal plane cannot be replicated on a vertical one. So where does the question of providing existing community patterns to remain occur? Herding one community into one building does not mean one has managed to retain community patterns.
If someone has read the argument on objective #3 and wonders if it is unfair to the 'legitimate' businesses in the city, i would say i agree with that. But the point here is to question the objectives themselves and not come up with newer ones. If concern about legitimate businesses is an objective then there can be another post about that. Similarly if the objective is to free up land for the city then redevelopment is probably a good way of achieving it.
i feel that objectives 2&3 are extremely crucial and volatile. Any kind of ambitious plan to redevelop would invariably lead to a corruption of these objectives. In such a case maybe objective #1 should be the only objective that allows some kind of intervention, some kind of intervention that achieves an upgradation of the standard of living but with minimal scarring on the fabric of the slum. Something that allows the slum to retain its character as that part of the city that fell through the cracks. i am not romanticising the slum here, but merely making a point that every city needs its "black hole", just like every human being has some bad habits. If the concern is for the inhabitants of the black hole, then an insert that addresses JUST that concern is absolutely crucial. Trying to eliminate the darkness in a city would simply supplant the darkness. If redevelopment does occur, most of these industries and the people will move to the fringes of the city, until gentrification catches up with that too, and then another black hole and then another....
i may not be aware of a clear solution, but some examples N.P. quoted and some studies and experiments carried out in Brazil and Indonesia may provide the answer. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/sponsor/ActionPlan.pdf has an interesting charter spelling out some of these things. Maybe this argument will take me nowhere as passing 4th year Design becomes more important than standing up for what i think. But i hope this brings out a better discussion than the one in TOD class, which finally ended up discussing 'Let's just throw out these wretched people who've taken our land and live on our taxes.'
That's all.
11.1.07
Web 2.0...
Time magazine recently came up with their annual 'Person of the Year' issue and it voted 'YOU' as The Person. (The Man is what i was aiming for, but political correctness has drowned me in its whirlpool...) What for? For making sure that a more interactive internet works and prospers. And so today i decided i will make a contribution to Web 2.0 (that's what the "democratic internet" is called) and write another blog post ABOUT NOTHING. And visit Wikipedia and check out their article about HALF LIFE 2. Or ibnlive.com and vote on some crappy survey asking 'Who is better - Amitabh or Shahrukh?' Or simply go to Google Earth and find out that Mumbai is better detailed after the construction industry was opened up to foreign builders.
Web 2.0 is the dawn of the democratic internet. An internet that makes sure that every person who uses it leaves his/her mark behind on it. And the only mark i can seem to leave behind are useless comments on some useless issue or join a orkut community 'I Hate Himesh Reshammiya'.
Person of the Year!! Congratulations!!!
Web 2.0 is the dawn of the democratic internet. An internet that makes sure that every person who uses it leaves his/her mark behind on it. And the only mark i can seem to leave behind are useless comments on some useless issue or join a orkut community 'I Hate Himesh Reshammiya'.
Person of the Year!! Congratulations!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)