Perception of Architecture

This thought was in my mind probably since I landed in Vancouver – in August 2012. It is only now that it has taken a shape and that I would like to give it some definite form of expression.

Can architecture or arrangement of spaces bring about social cohesion or interaction? The ‘interaction’ term is so loosely used by architects themselves that probably even they don’t know what they mean when they say it – something like swallowing food without chewing it. I remember the days in my college and even when I was working as a professional architect in Pune that ‘interaction’ among people and the ‘feeling of community’ was conceptually explained to happen by default by suitable arrangement of spaces that promoted this wonderful phenomenon. The classic case of a courtyard was audibly and visually played out again and again by myself and my colleagues to the point that it started to sound more like a given. The critical thinking that is actually required to question the fundamental relation of the arrangement of space and the kind of social behaviour it generates hardly took place.Not even once have I encountered such a basic (but very important question) of what makes certain spaces socially alive and what makes others so dead? Is it in the hands of the designers, as we so deterministically claim, to decide the level to which people should interact so as to generate a good, harmonious, peaceful, healthy feeling of community? 

For those interested in knowing the correct answer to this question, I will highly recommend designers to read a book called ‘People and Buildings’ edited by Robert Gutman – and especially the article of ‘Social Theory on Architectural Design’ by Maurice Boady in the same book.

The following is what I have to propose:

‘People’ and their relations with one another in a given common space are the two most influential factors that determine the individual’s relation to that space. Consider any space in your life – from home to office and you will recollect memories about activities and people with whom you responded. You don’t remember space as such, you remember what you did with the people in the given space. And that has got nothing to do with the spatial arrangement. How people choose to interact with another and thereby form relations is a matter that is not governed by architectural spaces. You may choose to ignore a person although the individual maybe at an arm’s length from you or you may take all the efforts to meet a person although the individual maybe staying in another city. By ‘interacting’, I mean to say that you are doing some kind of activity which is meaningful to you and the other person at the same time in the given space – that may be talking together, studying together, playing, singing, cooking, shouting, yelling, crying, laughing – all these actions and emotions you share with a person as you spend time with him/her together in some place. The sharing of actions or emotions creates certain memories or ‘value’ or ‘meaning’ to the space – you are creating the meaning. It is you who is defining the meaning of the space, which I argue, is dependent on people with whom you share the space. This interaction, if it happens naturally, the creation of meaning to a space happens naturally. And if it doesn’t happen, then neither can anything external planning agency can force it to happen. For example a balcony doesn’t feel like a balcony if there’s no person sitting on it.

The second important factor to be noted that mere physical presence of people in a given space doesn’t help to create any community feeling. If people meaningfully communicate with each other, only then we seem to be engaged with space. A hundred people in a given space not talking to each other is as worse as not having a human soul nearby. This I have experienced in public transport buses and on metrorails – spaces of rapid transit. To travel in a bus packed with people with pin drop silence is a kind of an experience that you cannot imagine in India but something which seems to be a common phenomenon in Vancouver. You won’t be able to understand what it feels like in such a place and how terrible it feels, I must add. You won’t understand the feeling that gets generated because of this and how that feeling affects your perception of space around you. The relation with space is not shared with anyone else – since there aren’t anyone around to share or nobody seems to be interested to have a dialog, if at all.  The contact with people is fleeting and superfluous and therefore the memory of people and of space is fleeting as well. The relation is primarily defined between you and space, alone. The character of space thus felt, is ‘individualized’ (and not about ‘community’).

I feel that the problem is not with architecture – it is with the lifestyle, the conception of individual’s identity and relating the consumerism attitude to space.

In this background it is easy to see why spaces in India look so alive. And in hindsight I realize why the master architects spoke so passionately about chowks, mohallas, pols and pergolas and the sun. The emphasis is on people. Perception of space is heavily influenced by how people interact with you within the space. Again, the romanticised talk of extensive interaction in Chaals or near the wells or public toilets misses the crucial point. The well or the public toilet or the common passage along the courtyard house is not the initiator of animated dialog. In India, any space can come alive because of the sheer volume of activity generated by the presence of people. In India, it is impossible not to stay engaged or remain uninvolved with people and by extension – with space. You give a courtyard or you don’t give – won’t make much difference. The space will be kicking with life one way or the other.

I restate the point that our strongest relations with space are formed through people and not by space in itself. If there are no people, space remains at a very abstract level of experience – devoid of richness.

So, critically, I feel designers should drop their default habit of deterministic relation of the courtyard with promoting healthy interaction or feeling of community. For a start, understand what makes people come together. What are the cultural meanings of public spaces in India? What is so important about the cricket grounds, the temple, the fort, the spectacle of festivals? How does the dependence of online media hinder our ability to communicate with people and space? These are the questions, designers need to be involved with, so their responses may lead to promised outputs of interactions and feeling of community.