Writing samples Vaishnavi Gondane 2016-2021
01.
UTOPIAS VIEWED THROUGH T H E L E N S O F S O C I A L C U LT U R E Extraxt interpretation : W [Fourier] ( Page 622 )
~~Fourier, ...in his last years, ... wanted to found a phalanstery that would be inhabited exclusively by children aged three to fourteen, of which he aimed to assemble 12,000; but his appeal went unheeded and the project was never realized. In his writings he left a detailed plan, which specifically describes how the children must be raised so as to further the idea of association. From the moment a child begins to walk, an attempt must be made to identify its tastes and passions, and, by this means, to discover its vocation. Children who show a liking for life in the street, who make a racket and refuse to learn neatness and cleanliness, are placed by Fourier in small bands which have charge of the more unpleasant tasks of the association. On the other side there are children in whom the taste for elegance and luxury is inborn; these again Fourier arranges in a group, so that by their presence on the scene the phalanx will not be lacking in luxury.... The children are to become ... great artists of song. Every phalanx, Fourier says, will have 700 to 300 actors, musicians, and dancers, and the poorest canton in the Alps or the Pyrenees will have an opera company at least as good as the Grand Opera of Paris, if not much better. In order to foster the general sense for harmony, Fourier would have the children already singing duets and trios in the nursery." Sigmund Englander, Geschichte der franzosischen Arbeiter-Associationen (Hamburg, 1864), vol. 1, pp. 242-243. [W2,I]
Keywords : Utopia, development, Paris, Industrial revolution
Charles Fourier, a French philosopher, was one of the founders of Utopian socialism. He proposed a system called Fourierism which was the system of people for the organization of society into self-sufficient co-operatives. This theory was for an association where a temporary group of people organized for a joint purpose. Fourier started beholding this term unidirectionally. His approach towards modernism and industrialization, for that matter, was romanticized. He re-constructed the society based on communal associations of producers known as Phalanges. Phalanges were the cooperative agricultural communities bearing responsibility for the social welfare of the individual. He never adapted his theory of association to an industrial setting and that was the main setback in his theory. Given that Europe experienced an industrial revolution between 1740 to 1820, the social structure of Paris changed significantly as a result of this transformation. He played an important role in imagining the new phase of Paris. He was afflicted by the monotony and the “ugliness” of the cities all over Europe and hence he proposed a model “new type of city”. The 18th century was the time when High fashion and new restaurants started emerging. However, His design was suited for an agrarian horticultural society which was prevalent in Paris but it wasn’t the only society that exists in Paris. He wanted long arcades of the city center to be used for the residences of Phalanstery. Unfortunately, his ideas were never realized. Fourier was a very harmonious and utopian socialist, he proposed another model wherein these phalansteries could be used as development centers for children. He seemed to be trying very hard to bring the concept of phalanstery back to reality with the idea of association. He was afflicted by the monotony and the “ugliness” of the cities all over Europe and hence he proposed a model “new type of city”.
How associations can be formed through children. How this mere “development” was an attempt to teach the workers the lifestyle of a Parisian in some sense. Art, music, dance, creativity, and all of those sorts. He envisioned Paris as a very playful and joyous dome. He believed that this model would bridge the gap between bourgeois and workers. I suppose it is smart in a way because if two conflicting societies exist on one ground, one of them always has to cave. He looked at two extremes and went with one extreme rather than balancing those extremes. All socialist ideals advocated for a utopian society were based on equality, sharing strong moral values, and balance. Yet, utopian socialism and Marxism believe in the use of different means to achieve a common goal. Utopian socialism specific, I believe, was dominated by strong moral values, hope for a better harmonious future, faith, and happiness. They believed in societies and secularism together. Another cultural critic, a western Marxism, Walter Benjamin was fascinated with arcades that created a Parisian street life. The street life that Fourier imagined to be in phalanstery. He rather saw the arcade as a city within Paris which is what Fourier is always doing. Benjamin saw an arcade as a place to sell because of the effects of industrialization. He saw it as an architectural marvel made of Iron and glass as a primary building material and also creating a space for flaneurs, who were considered as acute observers of industrializing Paris. It stood as an assertion of capitalism and rising industrialization at that time. Fourier’s idea of Phalanstery was similar to the idea of Arcade. He saw these Phalansteries as a modern space for the society that creates human comfort. With the same architectural elements, he imagined these courtyards as a series of arcades which became a pause for conversation areas in the associations. If I have to say, Arcade was a commercial utopia whereas Phalanstery was a sociocultural utopia. Both of them are utopia, an ambitious imagination of a city to create space mainly for flaneurs, to narrow the gap between the bourgeois and the flaneurs, to aid to the detrimental industrialization in the 18th century. Who’s vision came true?
02.
DOES MUMBAI’S SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CIVIC BODY A L LO W T H E O P E N S PAC E S TO W O R K A S I T I S S U P P O S E D TO ?
Map of Mumbai Open spaces
Independent critic article : Vaishnavi Gondane | 2018
“The importance of architecture as a trigger to physical, physiological and psychological wellbeing is nowadays becoming a topic of significant concern.” Says Dr. Srgio Altomont, an architect and assistant professor at Nottingham University. The open space can change a city – making it a more vibrant and connected place to live. Citizens need to respite from the urban lifestyle of congestion to a place where they can relax, rejuvenate and depart from the chaos. Open spaces have now become a necessity and not a luxury. The ratio of open space per thousand residents in globally-aspiration Mumbai is 0.03 acres as against the ideal ratio of open spaces in 4 acres per 1000 person. What does it mean for a city’s occupants when there are not any open green spaces? As the city expands, its open spaces are shrinking. The democratic space that ensures accountability and enables dispute is also shrinking. Over the years, open spaces became ‘leftovers’ or residual spaces after construction potential has been exploited. As a result, designs that redefine the concept of open
space must go beyond gardens and recreational grounds to include our cities’ large and diverse natural assets, such as rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, exhausted quarries, mangroves, wetlands, beaches, and seafronts. Plans to build non-barricaded, non-exclusive, nonelitist venues that are open to all citizens and do not charge admission. Plans that ensure open spaces are not only available but also geographically and culturally integral to neighborhoods and participatory community life, allowing residents to feel connected to their surroundings while also benefiting from the city’s geographic advantages. Plans that redefine land use and development, placing people and community life at the center of planning — not merely real estate and construction potential because community and people are what form the society and the city. In places like Dongri, Kalbadevi, Bhuleshwar the lack of public open spaces is very prominent. The shops and houses are touching one another without any buffer or to say breathing spaces. There are very few gardens and places for younger youth to play. The reason for the lack of open spaces is probably the never-ending migration of people from all over India to Mumbai.
People are now being forced to relocate to Thane and other locations and commute to Mumbai for work daily because Thane has more open places than Mumbai. There’s a need to prepare development plans with open spaces expansion being the basis of planning for Mumbai because of worsening conditions of urban life. Deteriorating quality of life, growth of the informal sector, degradation and deprivation of open spaces, destruction of the environment, and the abuse of the ecological assets including water bodies have rendered our cities into a regrettable state.”There will be no compromise in the open spaces in Mumbai’’ says the CM Devendra Fadnavis. Though let’s assume that this problem of shrinking of open spaces doesn’t exist but about the people? What about the community spaces? What about a shared sense of civic belonging? According to research on open spaces, 664 acres, or 30 Oval Maidans, of the 3,780 acres of public open space accessible in the city is designated for gymkhanas or exclusive clubs for the affluent. A total of 17.5% of the city’s open spaces are out of bounds for ordinary Mumbaikars and are exclusively accessed by selected people. The Observation research foundation report(ORF) was released by the CM which focuses on the availability of open spaces, accessibility, civic body’s budget, and a slew of measures for improvement of open spaces in the city. The report defines open areas as promenades, gyms, and clubs, parks and gardens, playgrounds, recreational grounds, beaches and swimming pools. The report says that there is a need to form an apex multistakeholder committee, with citizens as its members, that will actively participate in the development of spaces. To include citizens’ suggestions in the report, the research team carried out a residents’ survey. Of the 713 respondents, 670 wanted a ban on the use of open spaces for religious or political functions, while 383 said they needed a makeover. Each open area is designed with the sole purpose of bringing the communities together, but this is never possible because of the entry fees which are not affordable for a certain class and community. Setting a fee for accessing a public space fundamentally counter the principle of public-ness and has segregated the space based on class. According to urban planners and
designers, not letting the “undesirables” enter the open area will keep the park clean and maintained, but is that true? Most of the open spaces are now used for demonstrating political drama, civic campaigns, and religious “processions”. These events happen almost every day, the point of having open spaces is to have breathing spaces and not the former. The research of Shilpa Ranade and her teams shows that parks, maidans, and seafronts are the spaces where many people felt uncomfortable in using these spaces. Mostly because of its bad maintenance and policed stringently. According to urban planners and designers, these open spaces are not designed for the “undesirables” which include the poor, barely acknowledged lower caste, the typecast Muslims, the “immoral” couples, The “outsider “ bhaiyas, the ignored elderly, and the invisible differently-abled. Women from the lower caste go to these parks on the weekends and whereas men hang out near and around the park therefore on these days the presence of workingclass people marks the space as highly undesirable for the residents especially women. Even when there are open places, they are usually created for the “desirables.” We call it Unity in Diversity, but this is a highly diverse city, so I’m going to ask it again. DO THE OPEN SPACES WORK AS THEY SHOULD IN MUMBAI’S SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CIVIC BODY?
References: “Rectifying Failure: Imagining the New City and the Power to Create It.” Building Green: Environmental Architects and the Struggle for Sustainability in Mumbai, by Anne Rademacher, 1st ed., University of California Press, Oakland, California, 2018, pp. 65–90. JSTOR, www. jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt2204r4v.8. Accessed 29 July 2021. “Open spaces in Indian cities must be viewed as essential community resources, not a luxury” Radhika Oberoi October 28, 2017 https://www.firstpost.com/living/open-spaces-in-indian-cities-mustbe-viewed-as-essential-community-resources-not-a-luxury-4179841. html “Open Mumbai: Re-Envisioning Open Spaces” The Nature of Cities https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/openmumbai-re-envisioning-city-and-its-open-spaces/171156/
03.
B U I LT E N V I R O N M E N T NEOBUDDHISTS
OF
Critical writing submission : HarvardX Tangible things Publishing excerpt from Bridging Identities- Spatial Identities of Neo-Buddhists
Deekshabhoomi stands as a symbol for the revival of Buddhism in India. It was a place where Ambedkar embraced Buddhism in 1956, as a way to abandon Hinduism and all the caste struggles. Hence it stands as a memorial as well as a place of transformation of thoughts and actions. It gave birth to many other Neo- Buddhist places in Nagpur and the country. Neo-Buddhism is a religious as well as a socio-political movement among Dalits in India which was started by B. R. Ambedkar. It radically re-interpreted Buddhism and created a new school of Buddhism called Navayana. The movement has sought to be a socially and politically engaged form of Buddhism. The entire complex gives various platforms to study and Buddhist and Ambedkarite Philosophies and express themselves as Neo-Buddhist. People from all over the world gather here every year on key festive days like Dussehra, Dr. Ambedkar’s birth anniversary, death anniversary, and Buddha Purnima to witness the celebration of mass conversion that occurred several decades ago. During these celebratory days, around 300-400 pandals are set up. They not only give the resources, but they also sell Buddhist art and books. There’s a religious conversion going on here. The venue is frequently used for political debates.
The monument’s history dates back to 1956 when Dr. Ambedkar utilized this area to embrace Buddhism. To establish this faith in India, a temple with a tiny monastery was established. This new religion, on the other hand, was like a break for the Dalits. Dalits were regarded as outcasts and were not permitted to visit the city center, parks, or temples. They were given work and jobs filled with filth and dirt. They were deprived of education, basic amenities, and even a sense of community. Ambedkar found Buddhism spiritually satisfying as it preached love and compassion for all. Moreover, it was in affirmation with principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity that guided him throughout his life. About half a million Ambedkarites followed in his footsteps and changed their religion (Paridhi Sehgal 2020). I attempted to evaluate the intangible qualities of the monuments in Nagpur to understand how Neo-Buddhism differs from traditional Buddhism. After speaking with various Neo-Buddhists, it became apparent that these traditional Buddhist rites have been reinterpreted by Neo-Buddhists in a way that reflects their identity and empowers them in society. One of the main reasons why the Vihara of Deekahsbhoomi was constructed to look like Sanchi stupa is because of this. Deekshabhoomi is
centrally positioned in a residential neighborhood, and the stupa’s shape has become an assertion throughout the Indian subcontinent during festive days. Roads are being blocked so that people from all over the world can observe the conversion ceremony every year.
When one verbalizes about built spaces that are inclusive, as well as for the Neo-Buddhists, there’s a nature of the program that’s quite obvious. A memorial, or a learning space that ultimately aims to empower and uplift the Neo-Buddhist community. It’s not the obviousness of the option that is concerning, it is the engagement of the community. It is the interaction and constant negotiation of the community with the city and the urban public. What difference has it made to the Neo-Buddhists? Buddhists have followed a pattern to be an “exclusive” community that wants to declare and announce their place in Indian society. But is the exclusiveness of the monument empowering the Neo-Buddhists? What kind
Map of Deekshabhoomi
of “empowerment” has it obtained? How well these monuments have been realized by the urban public? Does it put forth the doctrines and revelation of the religion “Buddhism” and Neo-Buddhists? The city, which is the scale of the urban public, is where Buddhism interacts with different communities through certain activities. The vihara, which is the scale of a community, takes various forms and shapes throughout the year to cater to the community. And lastly, the home, which is the living space of an individual. Through this final project, I’m attempting to grasp the physical essence of a built environment by examining the various stakeholders involved, as well as the construction materials and techniques. I attempted to break down space’s use based on its history and administration to critically assess the structure.