44 years of Architects Act

Education perspective…

It is 44 years today since the Architects Act was enacted by the Parliament on 1st September 1972. I was just wondering how much purpose the Act has served. 
Less than 1% of all the buildings getting built in India are designed by Architects. The society is not sure what role an architect can play to improve its environment and life. Many educated people confuse between Architect and Architecture. In short, we are yet to arrive on scene for a common man.
After explosion 0f Schools of Architecture in India over last 10 years, now a better number of students passing out of higher secondary school identify architecture a one of the career options. Still fewer opt for it. And small minority amongst those who actually join the course know as they join, what Architects do.
Very few education administrators and decision makers know difference between an Architect and a Civil engineer. No need to say still fewer know the difference between architecture and civil engineering education.
In many institutions of higher education ‘Architecture’ is merely a department in the college of engineering or a small board of studies under faculty of engineering.

We still have long way to go!!

Some thoughts on Trans Maharashtra Expressway…

Some thoughts on Trans Maharashtra Expressway…

Hon. Chief Minister has promised a Trans Maharashtra Expressway to Connect South-Western Maharashtra with Vidarbh region. Surely it is a dream project that will facilitate fast movement of goods and people across the region. We have in last couple of decades built number of highways and also augmented a few. However, Maharashtra roads have never reached the standards maintained in other states, forget the world standards. Take example of NH4 or now AH47 that connects Mumbai with Bangalore. As soon as one crosses from Maharashtra into Karnataka the difference is visible. There is difference in quality of road surface, curbing, facilities, geometry and what not. It is hard to believe that this is part of same highway that one is traveling on from Pune.

I have a wish list for designers of Trans Maharashtra Expressway:

1.       The road shall originate near Banda, the southernmost part of Maharashtra and end near Kopela or Ankisa in Gadchiroli district with a branch also reaching Manibeli in Khandesh region.

2.       It should not enter any town or city and shall run keeping minimum distance of 30-35 kms from edge of any town, city or settlement.

3.       There should be grade-separated interchanges with links connecting the large town from nearest passing point.

4.       Wherever the road has no option but to pass near or through the settlement the road must be elevated or sunk to segregate the fast moving vehicular traffic.

5.       Entire road (right of way) shall be fenced with electric fence to stop cattle, stray animals and also human beings from entering the right of way in unauthorized manner.

6.       Access to link roads as well as above referred facilities shall be strictly through service roads only.

7.       No toll booths shall be located on main expressway but they shall be located on entry/exit links.

8.       There should be a stopping bay with washrooms at interval of 5 kms; a fuel pump with convenience shop, café with washrooms, emergency medical van, control/monitoring room with police beat-box and small parking at interval of 30 kms and full-fledged large parking, fuel pump, service facility, grocery shop, restaurants, Clinic, etc. at interval of 90 kms.

9.       At all locations where the slope or grade exceeds 1:40 additional lanes for heavy vehicles shall be provided to help them negotiate the slope without causing hindrance to light vehicles.

10.   The entire expressway shall be designed for average speed of 130 kms per hour for all types of vehicles.

11.   Minimum width of median shall be 7.5 meters and minimum right of way for the road shall be 60 meters, ideally 100 meters.

12.   There should be 4 lanes in each direction of width 4 meters each and shoulder/ refuse area shall be 10 meters wide.

13.   All bridges shall have footpath (not meant for pedestrians) on either side of carriageway of minimum width of 1.5 meters, beyond minimum shoulder of 1.5 meters.

14.   Entire road shall be under surveillance of cameras and speed detecting cameras located at every 5 kms distance, near midpoint between two stopping bays, and also at all vulnerable locations.

15.   Entire road shall be lined with tall growing trees to cut down speed of wind and also to provide shade where possible, while ensuring visibility of minimum 300 meters in both directions.

I hope this wish list will be duly considered while designing the road and related infrastructure.

Readers may please contribute.

EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING IN INDIA

Few days ago for while going through some references regarding Architecture education, I once again referred to the Article of Prof. Jaimini Mehta¹ and Speech of Prof. Christopher Benninger², deliberating respectively about past and future of Architecture education in India. Both raised in my mind many questions about the way Architecture education has shaped over past century and also the relation of Architecture profession and Engineering discipline, particularly as it has emerged in the modern India. Thinking over it for a while gave rise to an assumption that I am trying to put here as a kind of hypothesis.

Although Architecture as profession was in practice in India for ages, in the comparatively recent past the community looked at it as a craft (Kala) rather than a branch of knowledge (Vidya). As a result, it was passed on from generation to generation as a skill set with craftsmanship as its backbone and little knowledge about why and how that was particularly evident in the ancient texts and treatises such as Samarangan Sutradhar, Mayamata, etc. As the population grew and the power (political and economic) of Indian kings and dynasties diminished during 19^th century, the Architecture profession akin to the way it is practiced now had its beginning during British Raj.

However, the British rulers never wanted to start Architecture education in India. Architecture is direct and most effective expression of power and culture. Architecture is patron based art. Unlike other arts, Architecture needs patron first before the architect can perform. As such, historically almost all significant projects of Architecture were regally commissioned. Sometimes, it was religion rather than the king, as in case of Vatican. Many a times the edifice in making was related to religion (Temple, church, etc.) As a result, the Architecture so produced strongly reflected power and culture of the patron. It had its effect in making a lasting impression on the community. Many a times such architecture, when secular in nature, shaped the emerging building typology and also the social behavior.

For this very reason the British always wanted their own Architects who through their works could project British culture and supremacy. They inaugurated the course at Sir J. J. College of Art, Mumbai to train architectural assistants to assist the British Architects. All the major projects in Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and New Delhi were assigned to British Architects. In those times it took long to travel from Britain to India by sea and it was not possible for the architects to frequently visit India. A few architects settled here but many relied on trained draftsmen and assistants to take care of minor day to day decisions required on site. Sir J. J. College of Architecture served as a training base that produced assistants who understood the language of drawings and faithfully able to produce details required on site. Although, some Architects, particularly Claude Batley, were sympathetic to requirements of Indian society, climate and architectural tradition, the base of most of the architectural works remained European in terms of basic form and its arrangement. Indian motifs and craft were only superficially used. The training laid emphasis on Art and Craft of construction.

Till India became independent no full-fledged architecture course was started in India. Just around the dawn of independence, new schools emerged at Delhi, Vadodara, Kolkata and little later in Pune. Till such time, if any Indian wanted to study Architecture, after due training at Mumbai, he had to go to UK and appear for RIBA examination. The whole process was time consuming, expensive and beyond reach of most of the aspirants. Architecture education hence was reserved for few affluent people.

On the other hand, to fulfill the dreams of British rulers and Architects they required platoons of Engineers. For this reason they established engineering colleges, particularly to train civil engineers who could supervise the architectural projects. Due to presence of these courses good number of civil engineers got trained and also started serving the common man and community in general, as builders of the buildings that were required to be built and also as designers in absence of Architects. Immediately after independence with change in rule, British Architects were not wanted by the rulers and Indian Architects were simply not there at all. That led to a vacuum in terms of architectural service providers. Being closest to Architects, Civil Engineers who were available in abundance and also working as builders for petty works, moved in to fill the vacuum. All the positions that were actually required to be occupied by architects were occupied by engineers as temporary measure. Till today these posts remain to be occupied by engineers.

This has also led to another dilemma in the field of planning. World over, planning in part of architecture and the training courses in planning are often extension to architecture schools. Although multidisciplinary in nature planning is considered as part and parcel of umbrella discipline of Architecture. In India, due to the absence of architects during initial years, planning was looked at as training course for engineers (and few architects) in service of public works departments and local authorities who required planners to create ‘Master plans’ for towns and cities.

There is very well defined distinction in the training of Architects and Engineers. The Engineering approach is basically of ‘Problem solving’ nature, believing in Universal solution. Architecture approach on other had is ‘Context based’ and therefore local rather than universal, taking into account local climate, culture, materials, aesthetic beliefs and community practices. In absence of such grounding in basic training, engineers planners failed to deliver the proposals that could really lead to improvement in the overall functioning and lifestyle of community.

The educationist, decision makers in government and the community in general must realize and take steps to correct this situation soon as possible.

Reference:

Mehta, Jaimini. Architectural Education in India, an Overview. Vadodara, India, 2006.

Benninger Christopher. Future of Architecture Education, Ahmedabad 2012