What struck me as I moved the narrow streets of Florence & Pisa that the towns looked exactly the way they were built a few hundred years ago. I recollect the comment by P. G. Wodehouse describing 'Market Blandings', a fictional village. "Sometime in the early 16th century", Wodehouse writes, "the master mason took down his tools, and said to his mates-'this is Market Blandings', and no one has touched it since." I was wondering whether this was a true state of affairs anywhere, as I have never been to England, and know for a fact that this can not happen in India, but Pisa & Florence have lived up the comment literally.
What is most heartening is that the planners in Italy have not tried to remodel these places on the lines of some hypothetical development norms, the way we try to do in India. When I was a part of the Planning Committee at Aurangabad, the planners told me that the exercise would involve planning amenities for the old city too, based on the population, and also a traffic & transportation planning based on current requirements. The exercise therefore involved earmarking places for schools, hospitals & so on in the already crowded city, and widening of streets in the old city to allow more traffic. The resultant plan paved the way for destruction of the old city - both in form & spirit.
In contrast, the Italian historic cities have tried to accommodate the present day requirements without compromising on the historic character. The streets in Florence are not wide, hence they have devised a network of one-way streets, instead of widening the existing roads. The towns now attract a large amount of tourist traffic, and the earlier houses are converted into hotels. I actually lived in such re-modelled houses in both Pisa & Florence. The conversion was done tastefully, modern amenities like electrification & plumbing was added, all without disturbing the original fabric of the building. If ever there was a demonstration of how you treat your heritage buildings, this was it.
We keep on saying that India has the greatest living heritage, but in practice, hardly any of that sentiment is visible. We need to imbibe some of the spirit of the Italains to do justice to our own heritage at home.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Italy Trip
It was only when I stood in the Piazza of St. Peters that I was reminded of the fact that I was a third world architect, experiencing for the first time the huge scale of architecture of the western civilisation.
Indian architecture, in contrast, tries to bring down the scale, by subdividing the large spaces in small chunks, and detailing them on a still smaller scale. The huge forecourt of Tajmahal, just to quote an example, is sub-divided into four quarters, and then again with the small strip of water running through, with a hard edge and flower beds alonside, it brings down the space to a humane level. So the overall effect is a series of small spaces joined together in a large space, but the hugeness of the larger space is broken by multiple visual elements.
The detailing of the building follows the same pattern. The entire edifice is subdivided in multiple frames, and each frame is again divided by the intricate carved patterns.
In contrast, the scale of St. Peters is intimidating, and unbroken save the huge obelisk in the middle and the two fountains on the side, all of which does not break the space, but enhances the feeling of hugeness of the piazza.
In the structure too, the columns rise to a great height, without any treatment (not even the volutes) and enhance the feeling of hugeness. The decorative motifs are reserved for the base and the capital only, and here again, the base has only the plain mouldings, which is the only treatment at human level, while the capitals are treated with intricate carving, but they are far too distant from the eye level, and even if they reduce the impact of hugeness, and make the assembly seem lightweight, already the distance has its impact, enchancing the feeling of scale.
Standing in the forcourt of St. Peters, I could understand the impact it had on Le Corbusier, and its re-incarnation as the fourecourt of the Chandigad Capital Complex. No wonder then, that there have been umpteen attempts by the Indian architectural fraternity to give it a meaning by subdividing the scale of this court to bring it to a humane level, on the lines of indian monuments - while the monumental scale of such spaces has fascinated western architects and it re-surfaces in its various avtars - be it the Salk Institute or IIM Ahmedabad.
Indian architecture, in contrast, tries to bring down the scale, by subdividing the large spaces in small chunks, and detailing them on a still smaller scale. The huge forecourt of Tajmahal, just to quote an example, is sub-divided into four quarters, and then again with the small strip of water running through, with a hard edge and flower beds alonside, it brings down the space to a humane level. So the overall effect is a series of small spaces joined together in a large space, but the hugeness of the larger space is broken by multiple visual elements.
The detailing of the building follows the same pattern. The entire edifice is subdivided in multiple frames, and each frame is again divided by the intricate carved patterns.
In contrast, the scale of St. Peters is intimidating, and unbroken save the huge obelisk in the middle and the two fountains on the side, all of which does not break the space, but enhances the feeling of hugeness of the piazza.
In the structure too, the columns rise to a great height, without any treatment (not even the volutes) and enhance the feeling of hugeness. The decorative motifs are reserved for the base and the capital only, and here again, the base has only the plain mouldings, which is the only treatment at human level, while the capitals are treated with intricate carving, but they are far too distant from the eye level, and even if they reduce the impact of hugeness, and make the assembly seem lightweight, already the distance has its impact, enchancing the feeling of scale.
Standing in the forcourt of St. Peters, I could understand the impact it had on Le Corbusier, and its re-incarnation as the fourecourt of the Chandigad Capital Complex. No wonder then, that there have been umpteen attempts by the Indian architectural fraternity to give it a meaning by subdividing the scale of this court to bring it to a humane level, on the lines of indian monuments - while the monumental scale of such spaces has fascinated western architects and it re-surfaces in its various avtars - be it the Salk Institute or IIM Ahmedabad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)