I read this article some time back. Cities for Living explains what is important in architecture. What should a good building design consist of? What does one mean by a harmonious building?
The author is a bit biased towards the conservatism form of architecture, which mostly consists of columns, arcs, with relatively little glass. Yet, I tend to agree with some of these opinions.
He states clearly that the soul of a city lies in two factors; people and buildings; and I tend to agree with that. One cannot create a home without a family. In the same way cities; their culture, their life, their blood cannot be created without people. Its the people who breathe life into a city, give it it’s distinctive feature, it’s moods and it’s colours.
One residue of people is buildings. People create buildings; they decide how it should look according to their individual tastes, their sense of harmony, culture, tradition and their livelihood. Thus, no two buildings are alike. Each column has a story to tell, each roof has something interesting to share.
However, this tradition of building to suit the people is fast disappearing. Wherever you turn, the normal and staid rectangular glass buildings with a million storeys and gazillion lights and rooms are what you see. One can argue that these buildings signify the aspirations of the people in that city. And I am OK with that if this kind of architecture is synonymous with a particular place and people: it becomes architecture then.
But that is not the case at present. These types of functional buildings are everywhere, from Paris, to Rome to Milan to New York to Mumbai, Chennai, Jakarta, Singapore….you name it, and there you will find glass face buildings with lots of storeys and even more lights. It just juts out, there is no blend with nature, the culture of the people residing in that place; it’s too functional. And this is especially true of fast growing Asian nations.
I agree that the aim of most of Asia is to get its people out of the poverty line; give them some form of quality of life. That aim is undisputable and should be given the highest priority. But do spare a thought for culture. I am sure we can find a way of achieving that without forgoing on the beauty of our buildings and their architecture. I am sure we can have office spaces while maintaining some uniqueness in our city landscape. I am sure we can achieve this.
If only we try
Ahamkar 