Sthapatheeyam
Felicitation to the Architects
completing 25 years of Professional Service in Kerala

Keynote Address By

Kirtee Shah
November 6 2004
Cochin

Let me first congratulate the architects who are honoured this evening. A few of them I have known for some time, but most others I am meeting for the first time.   Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.   You richly deserve this felicitation.

This honour is very special, as it comes from the peer group.   25 years of professional work in architecture is not a short time.   However, as many do it longer, I think the organizers are being thoughtful in choosing this time span, this phase in their career graph, as some of the architects felicitated today have many years to go yet.    This recognition by the peer group and the honour by a reputed magazine will contribute to recharging their batteries; help combat mid-course crisis, if any; overcome mid-year fatigue, and induce them to take a fresh guard for a renewed plunge into their creative pursuits.    This event, I believe, will energize, motivate and enthuse them for the journey ahead.

Kirtee Shah

President, Habitat Forum (INHAF)

Hon. Director, Ahmedabad Study Action Group (ASAG)

Chairman, KSA Design Planning Services Pvt. Ltd.

Whatever they are in their life and wherever they are in their professional career, they fully deserve this honour.   They have worked hard for it, struggled, given and contributed.   I would like all of you, in this hall, to join me in giving them a big hand, a standing ovation.   To tell them that we are proud of them, that we value their contribution to the society, and that we wish them many more years of creative work and useful service.   We wish them good health, better opportunities and more creative energy for a richer and enduring contribution.

You are fortunate that you belong to this place or have chosen to be here - as Kerala is a beautiful place, the God's own country.   Its charm, its landscape and its gentle people fascinate us all.    It has so much to offer: backwaters and beaches; Ayurveda and Yoga; Kathakali and Mohiniyattam; martial arts, hills, spices and boat races; sanctuaries, temples and churches.   And fascinating architecture ranging from the Padmanabhapuram palace to a village hut.  

Kerala has made its notable contribution to the science of architecture, both secular and religious. The Tantrasamuchaya, Vastuvidya, Manushyalaya-Chandrika and Silparatna are well-known treatises on the subject. The Manushyalaya Chandrika is a work devoted to domestic architecture. The traditional Kerala house is a quadrangular building called Nalukettu constructed strictly in accordance with the principles of Tachu Shastra (Science of Architecture).   Pre-historic vestiges, influence of Buddhism, Vedic and Brahminical influence, temple architecture, traditional domestic architecture, Jewish monuments, Islamic architecture, church architecture, Indo-European style in secular architecture, modern and even post modern architecture of Kerala have a distinct place in the rich pantheon of Indian architecture.

How has this history and heritage shaped the modern architecture practice in general and your work in particular is something that I would like to hear from you, because though not many may articulate it, a rich history and a tradition of this kind could also be a burden of a sort, even a liability in the mundane world of `market' driven architectural practice.   Following it, in the modern day context, could be difficult and neglecting it could be construed as illiteracy, arrogance or ignorance- not very flattering adjectives for a sensitive and a concerned architect!  

Download this article as a MS WORD document

   HERE

Whereas that is for you to say and also a matter for debate, from whatever little I know, the '80s and the '90s generation of architects of Kerala--and, to some extent, India - were singularly fortunate in having a Guru in Mr. Laurie Baker, if you allow me to use that much abused and maligned phrase in a case where it is the most appropriate.   In a manner of speaking, Mr. Baker is to the local architecture what Mahatma Gandhi was to India's freedom struggle.   Both lead to liberation, both believed in simplicity, both drew their strategies from the culture and tradition of the place, both had a vision of the society they served, and both had implicit faith in the people and their wisdom.   Mr. Baker is a true leader in the field, which has hardly produced a leader of merit. His contribution and inspiration is not in form of technology or style alone. It is in the form of change of mindset, in the philosophy of work, and in the attitude to architectural design, practice and problem solving. He has made architecture belong to the place-- to the soil, to culture, to tradition and, most importantly, to the local people. And that is no small contribution in a country where architecture, in the hands of foreign trained and influenced architects, is losing its roots and where alienation--alienation from the people, from the roots, tradition, culture, climate and soil - is the order of the day.   And, in a way, it is a paradox, as Mr. Baker is a foreigner.

Mr. Baker believed in cost reduction, not a fashionable thing among the modern day architects. He gave a new respectability to local materials--especially brick and clay tile. His architecture merged with the surrounding landscape, rather than standing out. It is not in competition with the nature but in harmony with it. Working with fellow professionals, he improved and popularized technologies: be that rattrap bond or filler slab, which saved material, reduced cost and created a new aesthetics. He challenged conventional engineering design, practice and wisdom by using 9" and 4.5" thick brick walls as load bearing structures for the buildings taller than a single storey. And, most importantly, he gave a new status to the traditional construction artisans, especially the masons, by working with them in inventing and popularizing alternative construction methods. He professed that we--the architects--could learn from the artisans, the mason and the carpenter--. Something we had not heard or thought before. The most lasting contribution of Mr. Baker is his attitude to architectural design and practice. He sought to simplify and demystify it. He made people---the common people-- relate with it. If you see it this way, you would find my comparison with Mahatma Gandhi not very odd or misplaced.

All great architects--Master Architects-- have followers. Each generation produces Masters and legions of their followers. So has Mr. Laurie Baker, though, I think, he would not like the tag of a `Master'. His humility, attitude and his brand of professionalism won't make him comfortable with that title. He is too simple and unpretentious for that.   His followers, however, are different, unlike the other followers of the `Great Masters', both foreign and local. They don't imitate style, they imbibe spirit.   It is this `spiritual' following and the following in `spirit' that makes Mr. Baker's followers command respect and set trends. I won't be surprised if they surpass their Guru in achievements. I get that impression when I talk to Shankar, Jaigopal or Chandradutta or see work of Habitat Technology Group or Inspiration or Costford. I have seen Habitat Technology Group's work and contribution in earthquake reconstruction in Gujarat. It has set new standards there. I am working with Shankar and his team in Dhaka, Bangladesh. They are not only constructing a campus, they are making Bangladesh experience a new technology, which even the likes of Dr. Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, consider relevant for their country. These individuals and organizations are not followers of Mr. Baker, they are his spiritual heirs. They are carriers of a message, not duplicator of style. They are more than `alternative' practice-ners'.   They are leading a silent yet most relevant movement.

It is much more. Ideas grow here. Take roots. Spread. Prosper. It is a receptive place. And that is because I think its people are very special. Laurie Bakers thrive here. . Technological innovations happen here. Large-scale experiments succeed here. The only Building Centers of HUDCO, which have something to show for them, are in Kerala. It is very fortunate that you belong to this place or have chosen to settle here. It is no wonder that you have contributed and achieved so much. Besides your skills, hard work and creativity, it is also a big plus that you are in a congenial environment, in a supportive and inspiring place that is Kerala.

This certainly is a time for celebration, marking a critical point in your life's journey and in your career path. Equally important, this is also a time for reflection, introspection and stock taking - especially for the relatively younger ones among the awardees, and the younger generation of architects and related professionals being addressed by this function directly or indirectly, as they have much to do yet. Whereas it is time for personal and private introspection on the highs and lows of professional career, and why and how of success, failure, achievement and contribution, this is also a time for collective reflection on what public good, beyond private gain and recognition, your works and careers have caused and delivered. Architectural practice is mainly private service, whether the client is an individual or a corporate or a corporation, and whether the project is an individual house or a public institution. Yet, it has a social component, yet it belongs to the `public' domain. And that is because the buildings we design, make our cities and settlements. Though small, they are part of big. Though individual, they shape the collective.   How you see your work, how you approach your profession, how you perceive your role, and how you deliver your products and services, have the larger public interest, the social good, woven into it. Kerala is perhaps the only state where the other way of doing it, the `alternative architectural practice', has a size and an impact potential, beyond tokenism and `experimental' action of other places. That is why Kerala is a proper place and this function is a proper venue for some collective reflection, for some soul searching, on the context and nature of architectural practice in India. It is in the spirit of reflection and introspection that I have constructed my presentation this evening. My keynote address is a series of questions to the practicing architects, fellow professionals and us. And they are asked in all sincerity to induce questioning and reflection, and with a hope that on this very special occasion we would also initiate a lasting, an honest debate on the nature of architectural practice in the region and the country.

Before starting let me introduce-- rather re introduce--myself and let me clarify that I am talking here as a practicing architect, with sizeable projects in different parts of the country. This clarification is necessary as I have two identities--one as an NGO, a non-governmental organization, a development worker and the other as an architect. The trouble is that those who know me as an NGO worker hardly know that I am a practicing architect too. And my architect friends and colleagues think that though I dabble in building design and planning projects, my major interest and involvement is in 'development'. I am somewhat fortunate to have done both, in almost equal measure, and have found the two different spheres of work mutually complimentary and strengthening. Yes, my architectural work is influenced by my development experience. And my development thinking and work is influenced by my architectural training and practice. Today, among the architects and in an event felicitating senior architects, I am here as an architect. More importantly, speaking as an architect. It is an insider talking, not an outsider.

Coming back to the presentation:   my first questions are on our clients. Who are they? Whom are we working for? To whom are we providing our services? For whose benefits, to meet whose needs, are we using our skills, knowledge and expertise? Which segment of the Indian society we are reaching out to with our services and expertise? Certainly not the villagers- as hardly any architect practice in villages. That eliminates 75% of the people and their needs from the work sphere of architects. How many and who are practicing in small and medium sized towns, which despite a growth momentum, are growing chaotically and haphazardly, where what we call clients and projects exist, with a capacity to pay, but are not getting the services? Very few. We are concentrated in big cities. Who are our clients there? Not the slum dwellers, which constitute between 30 to 50% of a big city population. Not the lower middle class. Not many in the middle-middle class. Our clients are the rich, businessmen, industrialists, and public and private institution builders: mostly the upper crust of the society. Now also the builders. As a class, the upper 1% to 2% of the society. And as a client base, probably 5% of those who theoretically need an architect's services. Why are the other 95% of this country's people not our clients?   Aren't they building? Aren't they investing? Don't they need services of an architect, a designer?   Wouldn't your skill, your expertise, if available to them, make a difference to what they are building, on their own, or through para professionals? Why aren't they seeking your services? Why aren't you reaching your skills and services to them? Forget about the social good, social service or meeting their needs, don't they constitute a market? Aren't they your potential clients? Aren't they a business opportunity? Isn't meeting their needs, within their limited space and resources a design challenge, a professional opportunity? With the over-crowding of the architects that the big cities are witnessing, subsequent competition for jobs and projects, and resultant survival struggle, why aren't we seeking new pastures? Why are we not exploring unchartered territories? What is preventing this from happening? Why are we not entrepreneurial in that sense? If that happens, more architects will have more work, new professional challenges and better, bigger opportunities. Equally important, smaller people, less affluent and resourced people, would get the services they need and deserve. It will be a win-win situation for all.

Why is that not happening? Has it something to do with our mindset? Definition of what is architecture? Our perceived role as an architect? Our education, training? What is that prevents an architect from contributing to the larger, `popular' world of built environment? Is it selectivity? A misplaced notion of professionalism? Ego? Social status? An `eliticism' of which the architects are often criticized? The main question is: why are there no architects for the poor? Why are there no village architects, architects for the rural India? Why don't we have architects specializing in repair, upgradation, retrofitting and in disaster reconstruction? More importantly, why are those who work in the villages and for the poor, looked down upon? Why are they an inferior race, a lesser God's children?

Try and answer these questions. You will find a new world opening up.

My second set of observations and questions relate to an extremely limited client base and work universe architects operate in. It will be a revelation- if not a shock- to most architects present here that not more than 6% to 8% of the total buildings that get built in India, get designed by the architects. We need to ask why, rather than canvassing for and pursuing a legislation that only the `qualified', that only a member of the professional association, should be permitted to practice as an architect. Why are not the other 92% using your services? Is that you are not available, not accessible? Is that your service expensive and your buildings costly? Is that your services, skills and whatever else you can offer is not relevant to them, don't fit into their needs? Or is that the others, the non-architects, non-qualified, non-members of the practicing architects' guild, more accessible, more clients friendly and more relevant? Is the scenario comparable to the health care service without doctors, legal service without lawyers, accounting services without chartered accountants and educational service without teachers and the professors? Is that conceivable? Proper? The minority role of the trained architect, the practicing architect, deserves some thought and reflection. In a larger societal context, the quality of overall built environment should be our concern. In a narrow, business sense, the volume of work and a highly successful competitor who is taking away a large portion of our potential business, should be our concern too.

That brings me to the third point. And that is:   should we, the society as a whole, fight this reality or adjust to and accommodate it? In India, architecture without architects, is a glaring, an undeniable reality. The figure quoted earlier, the 94% -6% division of work, share of business, is a reality. Take housing for instance. Roughly speaking, in urban India, out of 10 houses that get constructed, just one is by the public sector, two are by the private sector, and the remaining seven are by the slum-dwellers and/or other non-formal operators. In rural Indian, the entire existing housing stock and a great majority of the newly created housing stock is by the people, common people. By a thumb rule, out of the housing stock of some 180 million units, more than 70% is what I call through a "people process"--no architects, no engineers, no real estate developers, no HDFC, no HUDCO, no building bye-laws and no building permission.

Can we stop this process? Can we fight it? Can we illegalize it? It is a surging wave, a movement. You can't put a hand to it. You can't stop it.

Therefore, should we not take a more constructive, more accommodative, more positive view of it? Should we not recognize these bare-foot architects? Should we not see them as professionals? Would it not be proper to recognize their role? And would that not be a service to organize skill upgrading for them, their capacity building? HUDCO's Building Centre, though proper in conception, is only a feeble, non-functioning, non-covering response to that need. A fraction of the investment that we make in training formal architects- and civil engineers - in skill upgrading of these operators will go a long way in improving the overall quality of the built environment.

Let me now turn inwards, from a larger and somewhat nebulous universe of meeting the unmet needs of the non-clients, to how we are servicing the clients we already have, to the reality of how we are practicing. Here too, a good way of digging in, without hurting feelings and disturbing sensitivities, is to ask questions. Isn't it true that we, the practicing architects, understand little and care even less, for the external environmental factors, such as the climate, while designing buildings? Aren't we the victims of external- mostly the western - influence and practice-ners of unsuited, inappropriate stylization? Aren't the curtain walls and full glass façade in a blazing sun and an over-working air-conditioning system to cool it, an insult to the climate and our energy crisis? Isn't it true that most of us, in our design solutions, are not cost conscious? That, generally speaking, cost consciousness is looked down upon as the concern of the inferior, the struggler among us? In some ways, aren't we alien in our own environment, from our own place; in understanding of the climate, social reality, life style choices, and rather rich traditional practices in building construction? Aren't our stylistic preferences, our `isms', over-riding the functional needs of our clients? Put crudely- and kindly excuse me for saying this-- aren't the architects taking their clients for a ride? - Partly through ignorance, partly through arrogance, partly through alienation, partly through design and partly through default?

You may not agree with this. You might be an exception. May be your friends and colleagues are an exception too. But think objectively, think without prejudice. You will find that what I am saying has some substance in it.

Tell me also whether given the background and the operating environment, is it really possible to do justice to the needs and expectations, both real and perceived, of our immediate clients, the paying clients, and the demands of the environment, the cities and the settlements, who are affected and get shaped by what we do and how we do it? Take for instance, the education system that trains and prepares us for our work. Isn't it alienating from the roots, culture, tradition and local systems? Isn't it true that a son of    a mason or a carpenter, when he completes school education, even if he does not know what he would do or become, he certainly knows what he would not become--the mason or carpenter. The school education is the vehicle that takes him away from his family skill, tradition and his roots.

Does not the architectural education we impart and learn, carry a hangover of the colonial past? Aren't our systems and institutions yet heavily burdened and influenced by the British systems and institutions? Isn't our planning education and practice under big influence of the past? How much has really changed? How much has been the indigenization? Earlier, the 'foreign' had premium. The foreigner and the foreign trained architect carried weight, called the shots. Has that weight lessened or reduced? Has that mindset, mentality changed? How much is local, indigenous in our architectural and planning education? Aren't we still looking westwards for ideas, inspiration, examples and masters? In a globalizing word, there is nothing wrong in looking westwards for inspiration or ideas or technology.   What is critical, however, is to be firmly rooted to avoid being swept away, having a reference frame to make correct judgment. It is also a well-appreciated wisdom that those solutions and ideas--the 'foreign' ones-- are not the most relevant, not the most workable in solving our local problems and meeting our local needs.

Let me now turn to another aspect of the operating environment, which is badly restrictive and constraining but to change which the architects are doing nothing or precious little. My reference is to the building byelaws, zoning regulations and the building permit system. The way they are, they seem to have been designed to kill design, creativity and innovation. The stipulations, the byelaws, are kept deliberately vague. Interpretation varies from officer to officer, desk to desk, time to time. Arbitrariness is the order of the day. And corruption is rampant. The system stinks. Yet, one sees little protest, little joint-action, on part of the architects' community, to influence change, to work on alternatives. Subservience and accommodation of the system's irrationality and tyranny, and acceptance of its creativity killing power, is simply amazing. We need to bring it to the notice of the bye-laws framers and administrators that making supportive, positive, facilitating and enabling by-laws and building regulations cost nothing in money terms, they only demand some imagination and openness to learning, but they go a long way in making our cities beautiful, their sky-line exciting and our urban form richer---something they so much admire in foreign cities, western cities, but do nothing to promote and ensure here. The architects are the principal stakeholders in this matter. They and their associations need to take position on this issue and organize efforts to bring about the needed changes. If this does not change, you and your creativity are the principal losers besides the cities and settlements.

The agenda for institutional reform is much wider- and deeper- than improving building byelaws and the regulatory framework. The architects need to muster courage and stand with convictions against unethical practices and corruption. Shortly after the earthquake in Gujarat in 2001, the Home Minister of the state publicly confessed that 90% of the buildings built in Ahmedabad, in the past 15 years, were illegal or unauthorized in some form or the other. He was refereeing mainly to builder promoted construction. The earthquake also exposed large scale irresponsible practices loaded against public safety. Water conservation is not something to run away from, but to be actively encouraged and participated in. Technological innovations are not something to be resisted, but encouraged. The architects need to collaborate and work with other related professionals and civil society to prevent degeneration of Urban Development Authorities into glorified real estate developers.   The cities, the recognized engines of economic growth, demand a newer understanding of their governance needs in the globalization context. And sustainability is the most important idea of the 21 st century.

Identifying systemic problems and bringing about institutional change demand a committed leadership with a vision. What kind of leadership does the profession has?   Who are the leaders and what are they doing? I have never understood this matter sufficiently but I am told that the star architects are the leaders of the profession. Are they? What are they leading? Whom are they leading? What initiatives? What sharing? What mobilization? What are the issues? What remedies, options, strategies are suggested? A leader must lead, give, inspire, set example, even sacrifice. Whom are they inspiring? What are they giving? Is the word `sacrifice' heard anywhere at that level?

I am sorry I have not been applauding and that I have chosen to be critical and have focused mainly on what could be seen as negatives. That, believe me, is not out of negativity or anger or frustration or anything of that sort. It is out of concern--- deep concern--- that we, as a community, that we as professionals, that we as privileged citizens could do much more, serve many more and contribute much more. We could be the leaders in making our cities and settlements better places to live and work.

Architecture is a noble profession. In the hands of its conscienceous practiceners it is a medium to serve the people and also the environment. It combines both art and science. Culture and technology are its pillars. It is a vehicle to translate ideas and dreams into reality. It embraces both: reality and vision, creativity and practicality. It has been there from the dawn of the civilization and will always be there. However, the way we perceive and practice it, it also needs to move from monuments to people, from magazine pages to practical life, from the elite to the common and, in a way, from top to bottom, from a pedestal to the ground. That, believe me, would take nothing from its hallow, its mystique, its nobility. It will only be richer.

Architecture as a subject, as an art form, as a shashtra, is too big and ancient for me to comment on. But the architecture profession, as we perceive and practice it, certainly needs a rethink, a paradigm shift. I hope that those who are honoured and those who are honoring them will work together to bring about that shift. Believe me, we need it. And the people, our clients, deserve it.

Thanks

Kirtee Shah

Cochin

6 November 2004