Jungle is massive!

Its funny how much changes in so little time. I stumbled across something I’d written over a year ago. A piece on architecture, for an application I had sent.

It read

What impresses me most about architecture is its ability to transcend its physical limits and enter every aspect of human life. It is a medium and a tool that can speak to the masses better than any other. Work that recognizes this potential, and exploits its ability to effect and affect change in society, is true architecture.

I would probably never write something like that now, for various reasons which we wont get into, but in essence, I realized, it still holds true.

Architecture in its broad sense is, and has always been, so much more that the built form. Through the ages, it spoke of times, of people, of lives and learning, of new beginnings. Each age left behind an architecture that spoke of its legacy, lessons learnt and obstacles overcome.

Which brings me to a debate, that’s had much time, energy, web space and what not, dedicated to it for a while now.

Sometime in early 2006, Chennai city witnessed the opening of a new mall. The Citi Centre at Radhakrishnan Salai. They called in French Renaissance, Greek “Style” and talked of a “Dubai experience” right here in Chennai.

The architectural community, for the most part, (at least the ones more vocal about it) were outraged. Everyone hated it. (even if hate wasn’t an appropriate logical judgment) Everyone who dint, wanted to hate it. Everyone who ever set eyes on it made it a point to gag and be dramatic and throw rocks at it and come tell everyone who dint hear of it, of the monstrosity.

I personally, hated it. It wasn’t French or Renaissance. It was anything but beautiful. It was an insult to the Renaissance, of a period of so much learning, to merely stylistically imitate vague visuals of the time and use it with reckless abandon.

There are Greek pediments in weird proportions against Asian paint blue, opposite a hideous rose window, by a winding wood staircase, all serving no purpose but to adorn some pointless wall stretching up 3 storeys.

Spatially, it offered no unique experience. It is a box, with a large atrium, having cheap plastic coconut trees to represent, I dunno, Hawaii? And some ridiculous Victorian style iron balustrades vying for attention against the marble ones.

All in all it’s an eclectic, over the top mess , that has no architectural worth, save for its weight in concrete.

However, as self obsessed as us architects like to be, we failed to see that the rest of the city, was absolutely loving the new addition to their already chaotic city scape. My mom thought it “beautiful”. Most of my friends from non-architectural(yes we’re a cult) circles thought it great. There was buzzing everywhere about “that awesome new place near the marina”.

But the real point of this post isn’t for me to rant about my disgust at the architecture and the violation of everything it stands for, or the way people perceived it. It is to question what, we, as architects have a responsibility to. If, at the end of the day, the people, varied as their sensibilities are, on average received it with open arms, is the fact that it merely cashed in on a very human tendency to be wowed by flashy visuals and monumental scale really wrong? This sort of architecture may never speak of its own time or ever influence the generations to come. It may never serve for anything more than an example of our cross cultural ties with multinationals. But if the users and public are more than satisfied by what they feel is a “dubai experience”,(although I don’t see why that’s important), isn’t the architect then, successful in his endeavor?

Jes jes. ;)