Role of the Architect

One of the favourite myths sustained by the architectural profession is that the Architect is the leader of the team, and the decision-maker for all. This lofty status is based on the CIAM manifestos, and we teach this to all generations of students of architecture as some kind of eternal truth. It is only when a young architect armed with this knowledge starts his own practice, the process of de-learning begins with the shattering of this myth.

Still, an architect may be able to use some of his creativity and sensitivity in designing for an individual client, but when it comes to the urban landscape and the status of the cities we live in, the influence of architects is virtually nil. Indian cities are growing chaotically, almost on a free for all kind of basis, and even the historic cores of most of the cities, which once represented the architectural heritage and urban  character of the old towns, are getting destroyed and being replaced by a hotchpotch of styles without any regard to the context. There is very little that the architectural profession has been able to do about all this in the last sixty years of independence.

I once attended a Regional Convention of the Indian Institute of Architects at Nagpur, in which the theme was whether the Architect was the leader of the Team or just a co-ordinator of all the consultants involved in the execution of the project. The irony was that Mr. B. G. Shirke was the Key-Note-Speaker. Mr. Shrike is well known for his views on architects & architecture, and the least one can say about him is that he is a human being like the rest of us and may be forgiven for his aberrations.

It was easy to predict the outcome of the deliberations in this scenario, and my apprehensions were proved correct when a resolution was drafted to the effect that the Architect should see his role as a co-ordinator in the team of consultants instead of a leader. I was carried away, and talked aggressively against the resolution. Everybody was taken in by surprise by this move, and the resolution was amended.

Looking back, I now think I acted in haste. In the first place, it was a resolution drafted in a conference of architects, and stood very little chance of being implemented anywhere. We do not even remember what resolutions we passed at the last National Convention, leave alone the question of trying to implement any one of them. We have acquired the habit of talking all these problems at our conventions, casually, and forgetting them immediately afterwards. So why bother?

The question is not whether society takes us seriously, but whether we take our role seriously enough. When my old friend Ar. Dilip Sarda became the Chairman of Aurangabad Centre of the Indian Institute of Architects, we were all in great spirits and decided to host an international convention of architects at Aurangabad. As Aurangabad boasts of two World Heritage sites of Ajanta & Ellora, Heritage Conservation was obviously the main agenda of the convention. But the conservation scenario in those days (1996) did not involve any architects, nor was anybody aware of the architect’s role in conservation of heritage. So we put that up as one of the issues when we drafted the document for publication about the convention.

When we were discussing this, a local architect remarked that after having practised at Aurangabad for about 10 years, he had never thought of any contextual relevance in his work, nor has seen any other architect consciously referring to the local historical context in his work. When we are oblivious to so strong an influence of history, living day in and day out in a historic city, we may as well absolve all others who are indifferent to this background.

What I would like to relate here is my experience in the establishing the role of architect in conservation in Aurangabad. It is known (I have purposely not used the term well-known) that Aurangabad has a very old water supply pipeline developed by Malik Amber. The pipes are made out of burnt clay & the system worked on the principle of siphon. Called Nahre-Ambari, the system works well even today, i.e. after 300 years. It is now being exploited for agriculture, wherever it passes through a field, there is no caretaker. The INTACH Centre of Aurangabad had been after the authorities for quite some time to declare it as a national monument. As sensitive professionals we sided with INTACH and tried to make an issue about it. But when we discussed this problem with the authorities, they were surprised at our concern for this and could not understand where do we, the architects, come in.

This is not an isolated case. Aurangabad has many areas of historical significance, and the historical character of these areas is worth conserving. Once, after enough persuasion by INTACH, the IIA Aurangabad Centre decided that we should do something about the historical past of Aurangabad. We framed a proposal on the lines of the Heritage Precincts formed by Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and sought a meeting with AMC officials for implementation. In the meeting, it came out that everybody was concerned about history, but nobody wanted to add on to the existing bye-laws.

Moreover, the officials failed to understand why we were asking for more bye-laws, when the usual complaint of architects was against all the existing bye-laws. So we had to explain that as Architects, we too are concerned about the future of the City & preservation of its past. This was news to them.

Not that there are no other problems. The Municipal Corporation talks all the time about making the city beautiful without thinking of how this is going to be achieved. And for whom we are making it beautiful, anyway? If we are talking about the tourist, we should think of the obvious. The first things a tourist notices about a city are the status and quality of its roads & buildings (the streetscape), public spaces & conveniences, transportation and so on. The beautification of traffic islands is something the tourist may appreciate if it is really worth looking at, but it can never be on his main agenda.

The design of Roads at Aurangabad leaves a lot to be desired. There are no footpaths, no provision for the pedestrians at the traffic signals, which means everybody has to walk on the road. The roads are not fully developed, which creates bottlenecks all over the major roads, and instead of streamlining the traffic, the traffic signals act as traffic jams.

Then of course there are the traffic islands.

Once we (Architects Association of Aurangabad) were asked to design some of the traffic islands, but very few architects came forward to design them as the project cost was small and so the fees. Some of the designs that came up were rejected by the Corporation, and those that were accepted, were not paid for.

Then in a sudden inspiration, the Corporation decided to hand over the job in a turn-key fashion to all those who came forward, first with sponsorships and later at the cost the Corporation. We raised objections but unfortunately, we had no hold in the Corporation when to came to any decision making.

All this resulted in utter chaos. The traffic islands have now become eyesores in the city. Not only that, most are against the norms for traffic islands. This sad state of affairs is now sought be corrected by the Corporation, by breaking up the old construction, and renovating all at additional cost to the public. This is a public issue, one that we should be taking up, but the recognition of our role here will depend entirely on how much noise we can make.

There are many more issues about the city, its tourist potential and the contribution we can make as professionals. But unless we act as a pressure-group, and make our presence felt, we will be leading nowhere. The leadership of the movement and of the city is not gifted to any profession. We will have to work hard to get it. It is only thus we can establish our role as the lead professionals.