Wednesday, December 25, 2019


To me,
It looked like a government school
Or a graveyard,
I couldn't make up my mind which,
They seemed like the same to me
Both had bodies,
In one they were still alive!

I was moved,
To memories of devastating earthquakes
Where children 
Were trained, carefully, to take 
shelter under their desks, 
and so Died
A horrible death, for an education
Of little meaning!

The simplest task 
To save their lives was taught wrong!
All the song
And dance around alphabets and numbers come to naught.

This sudden thought, 
came flooding back!
I can hear 
In my head the dull tune
 of their Learing by rote,
(It sticks in my throat)
The repeating of meaningless words
To quote,
As if the repeating would suddenly change
The fate of from where it is they came!
Another quake is all it will take
To take their future in its wake.

To me,
It looks like graveyard, they call it school
I suppose they know, they make the rule

24 December 2019

*this piece was born as i recalled the haunting description of the many deaths of school children in the last earthquake of Afghanistan, a few years ago, while i was on a plane to Delhi on the 20th night, in the air, with a twitter feed that informed me of another earthquake of 6.3 in the region which also carried a mention of Delhi. I was mid air when i scrolled through my phone and saw this update. It was a eerie feeling, and the in ability to get information broke me into a sweat. 

It was written while travelling to Lucknow, on the 24th.

A few months ago, while in Uttarakhand, i had walked into a lonely, and desolate government school campus and wondered what the children might be learning here, and what was the education they were getting preparing them for. 

This poem is fictitious, but asks both those questions.

On a more serious note i am appalled that the signboard outside of this school opposite the Saket metro station, it is quite clear why i hope.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 20, 2019

The Problem with Our Stars - II ( Or Architectural Journalism in the Information Age)

So much of how we look at design is based how we have taught architecture, and also how a legacy of celebrating certain ideas, personalities and design “trends” have shaped our own acceptance, understanding and stance on what might be considered good architecture. The fundamental basis of marking judgments usually relies and is formed by this at a rather early stage of our lives as we become part of world of design. 

Our first instances of design and appreciation come from names and personalities and critical acclaim attached to those names and projects. 

While good design is usually the ability to arrive at clear and manifest expressions of purpose and experience that more often than not is the result of many year (or instances)of practice. 

This many years invariably translates into a reputation, a certain sense of celebrity, that then overtakes the discernment and appreciation of well designed ideas and slowly turns into a celebration of entity that implies directly good design (whether it is perceivable of not). 

In the age when books and the cost to write them, to print them and the need for a captive audience necessitated the need of a certain degree of repute and personality to ensure a successful publishing, but that age is past. 

In the age of digital media (4g, Instagram and online publishing through blogs etc) and a much wider platform and faster speed of putting data out and also the opportunities that the many digital platforms offer to generate conversation, I find it problematic, that Good design still seems to be the domain of the celebrated Design professional. 

So what’s stopping us? Is it that there is little good design happening? 

Or is it that the conversation around design is rarely the conversation about design but more the conversation around the designer and why this or that represents good design in a wider body maybe (but surely reputation) of good design. 

So when I see internet and social media based Architectural journalism / curation and content creation that does little more than merely replicate the printed mediums. 

The lack of need of infrastructure, and the freedom and independence that the digital platforms afford seem to have little consequence on the conversation and content. And most surprisingly has had little contribution to the discovery of outliers and design that is actually testing/ stretching / breaking new ground.

Is there need for it? Yes, is there scope for it, given the minimal content available and the sheer volume of work being carried out, and the scale and geography of the subcontinent? Put simply, the scope is immense. 

Will it be economically viable? Yes. 
That’s a no brainer! 

So then why aren’t we seeing more of this?

Most models online even seem to rely on An older process of delivery, where architects and designers are asked to send in “material”, that includes self celebratory write ups and documentation on their work, this process models itself closely on the footsteps of the dead or dying “masters”, with a acceptable level of design. These look more like advertorials! 

I have been guilty of this. But as practices desperate to get heard, and eager to get our message out in the cloud of noise that is design journalism, you can forgive the practices!

But why isn’t there more frontier journalism,and more exploratory? And why isn’t there a uproar for this kind of material. Why don’t we see your journalists/ architects/ writer setting out armed with smartphones and 4g, with blogs and Instagram ablaze! 

Why isn’t there a loud clamor in the design circles calling for this kind of content?

And can it be a collaborative model? A network or people willing to share, converse and actually have a meaningful Architectural discussion that goes beyond the names! 

Of course everyone wants to name-dropped after a certain point in time.

After years of teaching at a few design schools, and having the good fortune of spending 6 years at Undergrad at SPA New Delhi, I think the answer is how we are introduced to Design and Architecture, where the case study seems to be central to the establishing precedents  of good design. But never seems to stop there! And it becomes a debilitating exercise of name dropping and reputation. 

But you can call content curated, if you will, but you cannot call it journalism if all you are doing is featuring contributions from the architects themselves without the slightest attempt at generating discourse!

But if we want discourse, we have got to be ready for a little criticism! (And if there is one thing I have learnt from the few wine-filled dinners (that I have started to avoid) and fewer meaningful talks and discussions I have attended in these past many years – Architects don’t seem to like criticism! Much of our architecture is pattern book stuff (High modernism when modernism is long since dead) or Stylistic interpretation like post-modern, (when we didn’t even have a modern) and form fantasizing. Not to say there isn’t grounded architecture that is geographically / culturally rooted and socially relevant – but those architects are not among our stars. And sadly, there’s little being done to add them to the constellations of our sky!

Monday, April 01, 2019

Of Architecture, Museums, Oversimplifications and the Taj

I am tired of hearing that the Taj Mahal is fantastic architecture 
it so follows that if people can appreciate the Taj, they can and must have good Architectural taste. 

I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty much what was being expressed.

That’s like saying I must know good food because I follow Gordon Ramsay on Instagram! But I turn up my nose at the local Aloo-Tikky joint. (Or I watch Masterchef Australia!)

And, no, a tomb made by an emperor to remember a dead wife in an exercise of monumental excesses, arguably the most intricately and ornately decorated still would not be my benchmark for good (let alone great) architecture in the subcontinent. 

To me it is an object in the landscape. 

Like a icon, a flag, a post, appreciated and viewed singularly for its place in the distance in a landspace, as an place to be photographed before.

A marvel of construction, proportion and shape, and craft, definitely but architecture?

Also the common discussions around the Taj, rarely, if ever, go to the Char-bagh, or the Masjid and its mirrored Aaram Ghar, or how it fits in a larger landscape or urban precinct, those I have heard only in the confines of architectural conversation between very lettered conservationist, and architects.

No one I know thinks of the Taj beyond its celebrated imagery, its marvel of an Object-in-a-Landscape and the phenomenal pictures it lends itself to from every angle, like a finely crafted curiosity, that attracts travellers from all continents to marvel at its perfection. It is a wondrous tourist attraction, surely, but is it architecture? We could argue that.

Does it fit the Vitruvian Ideal? Commodity, Firmness? Delight? Or the 10 markings of architecture? How does it address climate? Or shelter?

Does it belong on that bank of the river? Or is it contrived, Kind of like the Guggenheim at Bilbao? And the word is divided on Ghery’s Bilbao( i’m being polite when I say divided, but we will leave it there) 

But that isn’t why I started out on this.

As the epitome of the Mughal Tomb, does it automatically become great architecture?  And even if it does (although i’d argue it doesn’t) does an ability to appreciate the Taj, an easily acquired (sometimes considered a default human birth condition even) automatically translate into an ability to appreciate and recognise good architecture elsewhere?

Or is that some sort of oversimplification?

Or more, condescension?

I’m tired of the logic of this - the ability of recognition and appreciation of established and over exposed examples of classical architecture(and I write architecture to address all the examples we may come across) being touted as a demonstration of an ability to appreciate architecture in all its complexity in its much less tourist-loved and academia obsessed vernacular and contemporary models that populate the places and spaces of our everyday lives. 

So why am I raising this?

So there has been talk about a museum of architecture for a while now and i’m wondering how we or anyone will go about deciding what is good architecture and what merits inclusion and what doesn’t. 

(And please don’t throw the “buildings designed by eminent architect” criteria at this, if it weren’t for the name, there isn’t much to most of theose buildings in most cases.)

The Architectural press and the glossy journals do an awfully bad job of this, with an absolute lack of any kind of critical investigation, where firm invariable contribute both written and visual material and articles are more like author monologues of “design” celebration, even when there is little design and less to celebrate about it.

So how else? 

The contention that if you can appreciate the Taj you can appreciate good architecture is, well less talked about, the better. And even then i’d argue that the Humayun’s Tomb complex is possibly higher in Architectural value as well as in its opportunities for learning and demonstration of Architectural thinking and purpose than its Agra Cousin, that is more an exercise in aesthetic brilliance than anything else. 

But to me it doesn’t end there, to a culture and a consciousness that views life as cyclical and regenerative, a tomb being the bench mark for architecture for the living is somewhat ironical

If you said temple? Would I have the same Discussion? And if you are going to bring up Khajuraho? My response is an emphatic YES!  And for possibly the same reasons!

So lets not bother to revisit the argument.

Much of our appreciation and acknowledgement of our own architecture comes from the volumes of Fletcher and Tadgel, who did a wonderful job of documenting our historical monuments, but seem to have been driven by a collectors view, of cataloging, classifying etc these structures with a Art Object view on them. While the documentation is exhaustive, it speaks little of culture, tradition, life, landscape (but being dead monuments mostly, you cant fault that), almost a taxonomists delight, those, but do very little for an understanding of architecture as frame for human life.

And nothing for the humbler cousins, the vernacular of the varied geographies that make up the subcontinent and have nurtured life for innumerable generations but have been skipped by schools and architectural historians in the their ever westward looking view (barring for a token study somewhere in the earlier years of architecture school)

Also, most of us at architecture school are taught to appreciate buildings as architecture because a certain name is attached to them.

So how would you appreciate a good example of Kumaoni House?

Or wait,

Would you appreciate a good example of Kumaoni House if you raved about the Taj Mahal? Or would you Rave about a Matharoo Building because you find the Lakhmana Temple in Khajuraho the finest example of temple architecture?

I think not,

The world’s rife with oversimplifications, but as an architect, oversimplification of architecture I’m not very good with!

P.S. i thought i'd post a picture of the Taj, but sadly i don't have one of my own, but im sure the internet will flood you with a million pictures of it in less than 0.08 seconds, as for the Kumaoni House, please visit Kumaon!

Monday, February 11, 2019

74 And Counting!

The NCR, National Capital Region boasts of an Institute of National Importance that is also a Deemed University, The SPA, with Departments of Urban Design, Transport Planning, Industrial Design, Architecture and a lot more, the NCR also has 4 other schools of Architecture and Planning, to add to this fray the Delhi State has School of Social Design at Ambedkar University Delhi, and still we get to see this.

74 foot over-bridges and a skywalk is an appalling waste of public funds to arrive at this conclusion. What is the point of all these institutes if the PWD and the MCD have bureaucrats and engineers with little vision, and even less common sense making decisions. It would cost the government nothing, to put exercises for improving the public realm to these institutions and ask for their well considered opinion and design solutions. 

Opportunities to make positive change are lost over and over again in this shortsighted vision of development that seems to ail every aspect of our development work.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 30, 2019


Rusted Side Panels and Door of Electrical Switch Box in DDA Park Mehrauli

You see it on the Pavement. You see it on the Delhi Metro Stations, on the walls and floors of your housing complex, in the classrooms of the schools you attend or teach in. You see it on the road, in the public toilets, in the local markets.

There is a good chance you see it at home too.

The faulty drawer in the kitchen that wont shut, or the bent window frame that lets in a small cust of cold winter air every-now-and-again.

Or the flaking and slowly disappearing plaster and paint of the new IIT hostels on the ring road!

You see it everywhere!

More correctly, we see the absence of it.

One would imagine, that buildings, and public facilities are designed to be permanent, and lifelong. Of course that is a fallacy.

Materials have life cycles, and like everything else, mam-made or otherwise, experience wear and tear, from use and weather, they undergo stresses and strains, sometimes even damage.

To design a building, without expecting as much is foolhardy, and to commission projects and not expect to have to maintain them- or to put it more directly - to expect not to have incur expences on account of periodic maintenance is a rather self defeating idea as well as guarantee for raking up large expenses on account of repair, and replacement that might far outweigh the costs of periodic upkeep, not to mention the ease and comfort of having a working, long term system in place and functional at all times.

One might argue that the private individual, who sometimes very unwisely sink all their available resources and more into affording housing/ or cars or whatever else they fancy, might be strapped for funds when maintenance is concerned.

But I fail to see how public projects, and infrastructure could be effected by this?

Or is maintenance just some thing we never plan for! If that is the case it is a huge issue? Do planners and designers actually think about this? Wear and Tear, that maintenance is a real concern and a means to achieve both frugality and economy, and a great degree of environmental and material responsibility.

Is it policy failure? or is it apathy? or are funds being siphoned off? One does wonder?

Its almost everywhere and No one seems to mind!

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Transport Killed Urbanism (Pretty much!)

The Rapid Metro - Golf Course Road

The idea that the means for getting people, or should we say workforces, from places of their unusefulness ( read, rest, family life, personal engagement and development) to places of employment has been for over half a century the primary preoccupation of city planning and infrastructure design.

In our own backyard we see the first signs of it in Chandigarh – lines drawn across a dusty plane as fastest and straightest connection between two points for transport of people using  autonomous motor-vehicles – what we call cars today! For ease of navigation and efficiency, the lines are straight, and a right-angle grid spreads across a predetermined area, establishing its primary structure. Everything else, though beautifully extolled and celebrated in post event rationalisations, could as easily be argued as simply an unavoidable aftermath.

The motorized private transport has been the engine of modern urbanism, providing access, and freedom, and of course aspiration. The image of the big, modern city was never without cars, flyovers, and even personal flying transport. But in a century of this kind of transport being around it has not really made the city any better.

And mass, rapid transport, has only added to that woe.

The issue, one begins to see, is not in the nature of the vehicle, but in the myopia and shortsightedness of the visions that have been driving their inclusion in urbanism. And of course the fact that the city, once again  has turned into an engine of economy and not a place of Culture, Art and Life as it was hoped and theorised.

You only have to drive/ walk around Delhi and Gurgaon, and the manner in which Transport oriented infrastructure has mauled and fractured the urban experience cannot be hidden by any amount of beautification or insertion of novelty. The absence of Pedestrian facilities at the massive flyovers at AIIMS intersection,  or the completely callous placing of  Metro Pillars, squarely on pavements ( that are meant to be used by the very same people, the metro is provided for), or the huge messes of over-and underpasses for motor-vehicles that are designed without a thought that citizens walk too. That the experience of walking should not have to be one of traversing an obstacle course laced with death-traps, seems to be the least of the concerns of the designers and policy makers that pen these decision from their Out-look Towers, and air-conditioned chauffeured sedans. 

At this point is might be also pertinent to remind ourselves of that ridiculous idea of Transport Oriented Development, TOD for short, that has been, ( or was) touted as the future of Delhi by the very capable DDA. That discussion we shall save for another day.

Nelson Mandela Marg - New Delhi

Much of the notion of the city relies on the car as aspiration, and that you haven’t arrived, or made it until, you can afford one.

I remember tweeting, once – The affordable (cheap) motorcar has been used to sell us (really) bad urbanism. I wonder if you would agree?

Every other day the city sprouts another marvel( or monster) of public work, destroying whatever is left of the Urban Public space, and it doesn’t help that there is this perception that the public space of the city is unsafe.

It was not always unsafe, that’s what the urban-designers, city-planners and policy makers have made it. Bit-by-bit, cutting it up, destroying any kind of legibility, de-humanising its scale, and completely neglecting the needs of citizens that live outside of gated safe-houses and controlled private enclaves.

It makes more sense to do this for two primary reasons – you can control people better, and the way more important one – privately help public space requires you to spend money, both to access it and once within to receive service. Neither of these were possible in the democratic space of the city.

Pedestrian Overbridge - Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila

Present day urbanism thrives on the aspiration of Privately held Space (that is carefully kept in short supply), controlled and limited access – a visit to Gurgaon especially along the high value Golf-course road would make this quite apparent. You can see the same in varying degrees all across the NCR.

The Notion that better transport infrastructure will make a better city, or give you a better Quality of life, of even raise your standard of living, seems to be falling apart quite rapidly!

But you would see that if you walked on the streets, and if  you had your feet on the ground! And if you were not looking at the world from the back seat of your luxury car with rose tinted glasses!

A Raod-side Baber's stall - Gurgaon

Post Script - The city as I see it now is a little zoo designed to keep you working, so you can make the money to buy the things that you never needed, that large corporations want to sell you after which, so you can get drunk on overpriced alcohol in safe havens on a weekend before you can go back to work on Monday! Its so much easier than making a city where you could go for walks, talk on the streets and meet people, and generally enjoy a beautiful urban experience. But then that wouldn’t make anyone any money!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?