Hiranandani...

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.