Knowing fully well that development can neither be denied nor avoided, the unasked and unanswered question in my head after ISOLA Delhi is this:
"Would Instant cities and their quick(er) ecologies (social, environmental, cultural) be just as undesirable, if the whole phenomenon is diverted towards wastelands? Can such phenomenon be catalysts in wasteland revival and rejuvenation?" Is it a negotiable strategy or a myopic bargain?"
My focus of wastelands here excludes steep slopes, salt pans, waterlogged areas and coastal inland ecotones- which for reasons best known to powers that be- are classified as 'wasteland'. The last three areas are known habitats of varied flora and fauna-even migratory and luckily for us there are enthusiasts fighting to save these vestiges. The first one is just too hazardous in the long run.
Leaving aside the other myriads, three typologies are worthy of focus in my opinion- barren stony land, ravines, highly alkaline/sodic sites- amount to a ball-parked 3 % of the Indian landmass based on Wasteland surveys and studies. We are the 7th biggest landmass in the world- which means that the ball-parked 3% translates into a few thousand sq. kms (approx 85,000 sq km, if my guess is any good) . These landscapes can be healed and re-instated as human habitat if Instant cities are programmed by Law to crop up only on such sites. Auroville, in this sense alone, is a good example worthy of emulation on this count.India as a country has a fairly robust legal system- if it decides to get into the act.
This saves the whole nonsense of buying agricultural land robbing people of the only trade they know, covertly converting the land into non-agricultural (NA) lands and thrusting 'development' onto it. I challenge all the politicians, developers, corrupt ministers,bureaucrats, and myopic architects with their ubiquitious blob-tecture, to do this shift of stance.
It is a potential win-win situation.
1- This way, atleast the next 5 generations of Indians will eat food grown on the agricultural lands on subcontinent and wouldn't have to depend on genetically modified stuff from China.
2- Green Architecture -or whatever goes in its name these days- will truly emerge as a holistic response to the localized condition- since no two wastelands are same. (Ofcourse no two sites are the same either, but then if everyone shared this view, the earth would still be having 1920's emissions levels today and Hafeez wouldn't have been pioneering cloning of Greece of Rome). In ravines, the urbanism will be focussed on geting water, in rocky areas- on retaining water and in affected soils- protecting water. Water is necessary for a city to perpetuate. If you dont believe me, ask a certain Mr. J.M. Akbar of Fathepur Sikri.
3- Community cleaving wide roads and expressways will serve their true calling- connecting satellite communities.The city will have lesser chaos atleast in terms of negotiating differential road design speeds, and arterial roads will hopefully function as arteries and not choked arteries.
4- Regionalism will kick in big time- and buildings will acquire a regional flavour- albeit ultra modern. A building in Jaipur will stop resembling one in Gurgaon. No one will use the same design for 15 sites, but will be forced to use the wisdom gleaned. No more will a client in Siliguri aspire to a Mumbai based architect's signature on his landscape.
OR
All instant cities will look the same- which will spare their parent city the ignominy of nesting a south-facing curtain-glazed building cheek-by-jowl with a well thought-out elegant Victorian structure.
Either way- it is a win.
5- Hurrah for technology again eitherways w.r.t. pt # 4 above. Architecture and cities will drive technology (manmade intelligence in buildings versus automated intelligence) and not vice-versa, at least for the pioneer projects.
OR- High-tech and gadget driven cities will spring up in the new landscape, leaving the traditional/ vernacular buildings and settlements as admirable vignettes for posterity.Great for Restoration enthusiasts, sociologists and anthropologists.
A foreign student intern at Daily News and Analysis (DNA) has written in yesterday's paper- "you are a big country- so why can't you spread yourself out just that little bit and give space for all". Space for all -I translate as space for Cadillacs, Cafe Coffee Day and cows.
It is really not that difficult. My comments are not a stroke of genius either. It is simple common sense.
As Pink Floyd sang
" Hello Hello! Is there anybody out there
Just nod if you can hear me..."
Hi ganesh
ReplyDeleteI see your thoughts have come a long way since the time you were not allowed to put them to the panel in Delhi.
I guess I agree with you on most of what you have said (except that I don’t share your faith in regionalism architecture – concrete has outwitted – outstripped – “out-economised” regionalism a long time back)
You happily remind me of my own thesis that, at one level, attacked the idea that land in Ratnagiri was mostly considered barren
Anyways - im writing here to harp again on the bit I said about being careful about what we call wasteland. I see that you have consider that. But of the three land types you mentioned - I want to draw attention to “ravines” and “barren stony land”
One of the most important lessons that prof. bhagwat managed to drill into me was about the great magic that earth possesses.
For barren rocky – refer to prof . bhagwat’s “timba” project has legendary status within CEPT landscape. In a span of fifteen years or so he converted a basalt stone quarry site into a thick forest
And as for ravines – there is one (maybe two) thesis in CEPT that literally describe a working method for ravine saving (ironically one of the most important requisites is – no interference! )
But what I was hoping to do to your question ever since delhi was tweak it a bit with the help of a premise and then throw it into the realm of Mr. Shishir Rawal’s question a couple of hours earlier at the same convention .
My personal view(and im not sure if im right ) is that –
“any ecological region, anywhere – if not in a state of climax vegetation – is in a state of progressive degradation – and will not recover without stewardship – in which sense any ecological region may be called a potential wasteland”
Now, in the case that we accept this as a basis of discussion, then your arguments suddenly get upgraded to a larger level of application. And its basically an age old ideology.
That “instant cities” have to have an added, inbuilt, stewardship responsibilities for the region- system that they are in. (I say region system to describe agrarian system, industrial system and natural ecosystem separately). If all lands are potentially wastelands – then everywhere an instant city will have to begin with a scientific description of the place that they are in.
The best offshoot of this might be that cities would once again be thought of as a crown jewel in a (scientifically) beautiful setting.
Regards
jun
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI do know about the iconic Timba, and the fact that it remains a niche project. What it illustrates in my opinion is this: The land having been ravaged of all that it could offer, was found to be useless. Had the client(s) found more to extract, they would have. That a new possibility of a forest and thus healing and restoration (to an extent) was accepted, is proof that the human mind could not fathom 'creation' from land, and only 'extraction'. So basically Timba became 'landscape' because it offer nothing as 'development'. Just like landscape concerns arise last in most projects we landscape architects are consulted for, and if nothing can be done- we are required to plant vines. I do wish more Timba's happened and instead of being niche projects actually become the generator of city form. It is fascinating to imagine human habitat in and around Timba in the same zonation as one would see in a biosphere reserve.
Another iconic project that i recall is the Eden project- by Nicholas Grimshaw, where a chalk mine underwent a re-imagination.
So, when i say 'wasteland and cities' in the same sentence, I do see it as awe-inspiring opportunity of a kind- a nervous system-if into which blood (read flora fauna)is pumped, can become the sustaining factor for Cities which have the same complexity like that of the human body. Thus even if it is of the Corbusian kind, the human body-city metaphor suddenly has scope for real pulsation and not just zigzag green carpets or mobius strips.
Dr Raval's point of view - with a slight shift of stance- has been echoed by an author, Jeremy Rifkin, who describes such processes as entropic- a direct co-relation- and correction of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, and how it governs almost everything that happens with man.
Regionalism with concrete is possible. One just needs to start blending judiciously the two worlds and come up with a brave new appropriate world. Just that we as architects do not question enough, or question aloud. However the regionalism i refer more to is the 'sense of place' that is killed by the ubiquity of Alucobond and Curtain glazing that go and in hand with 'blobtecture'.
Regional architecture and the work of Frei otto stem from a certain appreciation of strength of material and 'form finding'. If the form is a honey comb- there is a very good human-need responsive basis for it. The cluster patterns of community dwellings are not the same in Ahmedabad, Patan, Jaisalmer and Bikaner though they all classify as 'Haveli'. The socio-cultural ethos of the place and the need for security generated these variations of a single archetype-a point worthy of study. You would agree on that.
As Dylan wrote:
"The answer my friend...is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind..."
It's always a pleasure to have you writing in. Do continue. :)