03 Approach to Architecture of India: Traditionalizing Modernity or modernizing traditions

03

Approach to Architecture of India: Traditionalizing modernity or modernizing traditions

The words “Traditional” and “modern” are believed to be in complete opposition to each other almost in every aspect. But are they? We often refer “Traditional” as local, historical, steeped in community, cultural, static, technologically crude and vernacular. On the other hand, we refer “Modernism” as technologically advanced, de-cultured, dynamic, competitive, sustainable, green, profitable, international, development, luxury and rejecting traditions.

A conversation with any person, who has experienced India as a tourist will reveal that how India is steeped in community, tradition, values and culture. The decoration, the spirit, the freshness, the colors and the comfortable chaos here, makes you experience what it really means to be a part of a dynamic community. This is because the architecture and the character of our towns and cities are part of our inherited culture. But a conversation with the country’s natives will reveal about how the cities and towns have been affected by rapid urbanization and globalization. How we have been moving forward opposing all what we have been able to build over the many decades.

The most common examples of how far we have come are the shopping malls. From the traditional markets to these bigger complexes and one stop shop market, we have definitely come way too far. From the busy, narrow and colorful streets to the air conditioned and fully packed buildings. From the local, handmade, original and unique products to the new sustainable, branded and industrial products! But even with the rapid proliferation of such complexes, the experience of shopping in a traditional market is unparalleled. Because this is what we have been known for- “the thriving community” which sets the base for all others that comes with it- the culture, traditions and the architecture.

Another appalling fashion in architecture is the widespread fashion for apartment blocks that are layered and almost similar to one another. These mass housing are the new ways of standard and comfortable living with all sorts of activities planned inside the closed built environment. This

started majorly due to the increase in population and high demands of standards of living. With the help of technology and using industrially produced and standardized materials, these takes lesser time to get constructed. But the major concern here being the community engagement. Of course! They might have community center and gathering spaces. But with the height of buildings reaching more than twenty-five floors, the communication and engagement is more likely to happen between buildings rather than people. To add on it, today’s cultural hubs, sports and shopping complexes are the so-called social interaction spaces of yesteryears.

We must not forget that the built environment of any community is considered to be its regional architecture, which is significant in marking its originality and differentiation. But this is less likely to be seen in the trend of following the western culture. And the problem lies in this that we are actually not competing with the west but ourselves. Traditions not only enhance social inclusion but also citizen’s quality of life.

But shouldn’t architecture represent the way we live now rather than the way we lived a hundred years ago? And is traditional architecture fulfilling in terms of changing demands, increased level of human comfort and high standards of living?

As technology advances and life’s demand becomes more complicated, the priorities in the design of a building will definitely be altered. Now inhabitants look for increased level of comfort in their houses and high standards of living. Also there lies unavoidable challenge for higher energy efficiency required in this generation. With the need to include machines such as air conditioners, water coolers replacing the natural cooling options; these are equally responsible for the alterations in buildings.

So we see that the things we do either by considering traditional or modern, are ultimately for the people and society. Now the debate is also about; where traditional architecture has always been fulfilling in communicating well with the surroundings and people, not all but many examples of modern architecture has failed to do so.

So, what do we do then?

Amongst this fight between modern vs traditional what we must not forget is that there exists a boundary between them. This boundary is both fluid and rigid, thus making it a complex relationship. So it is more about who perceives what.

The cases that we discussed are more of rigid boundaries between the two. Both are holding onto terms which are more in opposition to each other. That is, Traditional being more Culture specific, static and technologically crude whereas modern being more internationally acceptable, competitive and rejecting traditions.

Now this is where we need to traditionalize modernity and modernize traditions, making the boundary more fluid rather than being rigid. Thus, we need to focus on community driven, culture sensitive, sustainable, energy efficient and dynamic architecture.

Change is definitely constant. But any change that is more of a sudden is difficult to accept. In the race to become “internationally acceptable”, we must not forget our roots. Any building that feels like it does not belongs to that place, becomes the ultimate villain to the people in and around. A sudden change leads to the lack of belongingness of a place. It automatically leads to a de-cultured society and eventually dissociates people. Unplanned developments that disregards local beliefs, culture and values tends to creates socio-economic imbalance. In this rapid pace of our nowadays, professional and personal life, we always feel the need to be anchored to our origins. And invest our lives with something meaningful and stable. It would be a strange thing otherwise for a man to search for his culture in his own country.

Architecture serves as a tool for communication of what we possess. Therefore, architecture which is “actually” and “literally” for the betterment of people and society in all aspects is good architecture. There remain examples of the invasive methods of architecture that opposed the past and evolved parallel to the culture or history of the existing constructions. A revival of traditional methods and tradition that goes hand in hand with new technologies and new materials is the need of the millennium. What is needed is an architectural perspective in which valuable traditional knowledge and beliefs are integrated with equally valuable modern knowledge.

There have been pioneers as well who have worked or are working in the same direction. Laurie Baker, Chitra Vishwanath, Eugene Pandala, Yatin Pandya, Benny Kuriakose to name a few in creating a new legacy of Indian Architecture history.

A human life has two duality of history: One is Individual history (i.e. with oneself, family and education) and the other is collective history (i.e. with the society and culture). Both are equally important in terms of existence of a being. This philosophy must not be forgotten in architecture as well.