Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Utopia

Utopian cities have always been man's dream. I am glad that many people out there share the dream, though I personally prefer living in an Inclusive City rather than a Utopian one. I find the idea (as advertised in newsprint) of “Utopia+ City+ structure+ neighbourhood +module+ away from the city yet approachable" very self contradictory. My reasons and fears as to why this may lead to myopic or even a dystopic caricature of the term utopia in terms of design responses are as follows.

1- The idea of Utopia: In mythology and history, Utopia has always been a space/ concept which has a high degree of resonance with physical, spiritual and natural elements. These elements occurred in such a mystical combination that mankind found it/ finds it nearly impossible to mimic the same BALANCE that these places acquired over time, much like a patina on bronze. As a word, BALANCE has been neglected in the design of our spaces, atleast in recent times. I feel the inclusion of this word will make a difference to the approach to the topic. BALANCE will dictate "how much"...and this "how much" will be a question between man and land, building and nature, today and tomorrow etc. This is perhaps the reason why architecture like Paolo Soleri's earth displacing ideas of architecture and ecology (Arcology) or Peter Cook and Archigram's Floating City have never taken off, while Ancient Greek Society or Rama’s mythical rule in India is referred to as Utopian.


2. The progression and the boundary: Contrary to the typological module repeated endlessly across a site or landscape and thereby generating a pithy organic urban form, the City-neighbourhood-structure-module as a vital understanding (large to small) allows itself to be better regulated since there is a Masterplan that governs how development can be organic at the smallest level and yet bind with a overall idea. The trick of blurring boundaries using natural units rather than buildings can perhaps be the crux in preserving regional / urban identities( e.g. Auroville- where a form of utopian-cosmic ideals has influenced even the smallest of buildings and revived neglected land by allowing forests to be regenerated first before architecture and therefore the city settings come into operation while acting as 'boundaries'). And yet, such ideas face problems such as lack of committed focus, funding, corruption of ideals over time; factors which cannot be predicted or over-anticipated. How does one prevent the larger idea from being corrupted ?


3- Architecture and urbanity as modules: As an addendum to the above point, whether ideological or physical, the notion of modularity and replication tends to disrespect sites, places and even cultures. An example of this module-based approach is the Metabolist architecture of the '70's perhaps epitomised by Kenzo Tange's work. In such approaches, nothing remains of the "original" land. You would agree that under its skin, Metabolist architecture aspired to utopia. The “Blobtecture” of today is no different, thanks to surface distending softwares.


4- The segregated city: The Corbusian city (famously generated by his theory of the Une Ville Contemporaine, or the city of a million inhabitants), mechanically segregates the city, an idea that Rob Krier has famously decried in his City Vs Anti City diagram (ref. Spiro Kostof, The City Assembled). Rob Krier's observation that the ideal city is a mix, an organic growth generated by needs, stands in direct contrast to the Corbusian model of the Architect-Planner telling the city what it will be. While the medieval city allowed civic spaces, congregation, and leisure to be ingrained, the modern city assigns "zones" for it, under the pretext of organization. Cars calibrate distances. and road widths.
5- The Place Vs The Palimpsest: Memorable architecture and a memorable city are both characterized by change, where the city and the building acquires a patina over time and its vibe is what is generated by its users. The present imagery of all our new towns and cities is that of a fixed unchanging composition. The idea of negating the existing city fabric and allowing Development to go and establish the idea of Utopia someplace else, also advocates the notion that the city as existing cannot be improved or be made more inclusive, and that going someplace else by leapfrogging existing constraints is the solution, rather than turning those constraints into potentials.A city like Bombay with an Urbanization history dating back to 9th Century BC and prior is being dreamt of as a new Shanghai. Why cannot Bombay be Bombay and thereby its ethos dictate its city form, culture and therefore housing as one example of its many parts (my apologies for the pun on Amos Rapaport). Why should a city in the Western ghats be a copy of a European town in spirit as well as form and not something indigenous in root yet aspirational in expression? While most of the ongoing and proposed developments touting themselves as Utopia do not point out such formative thoughts, I feel it can be a vital cue to leading design solutions into the realm of Utopia.

5- The Tactile City: I am at a personal loss to understand whether a Utopian City can be sustained purely on tactile terms such as lush lawns, state-of-the-art finishes and the like. Ironically, the hi-gloss renderings appear colder rather than having warmth considering the amount of glazing and steel that goes into the building elevations. What about the intangible (like the need for solitude...where does one go find solitude in a city? Is a lush lawn or a golf course then the only expression?). I feel by using such tactility as a qualifier, there is a worrisome encouragement of a design process which will overdose on computer wizardry to create lighting conditions and ethereal settings like a beautiful Gurudutt film but miss out on its soul . The soulful
Geeta Dutt rendition Waqt ne kiya kya haseen sitam (Kagaz ke Phool) seems eerily prophetic when transposed in meaning and situation).
To end, "...maybe it is not so much that it is The Game that is short, maybe it is that the field that one is playing on, is just too damn big!" (Triple H, WWE Athlete)

No comments:

Post a Comment