Cities, citizens/ people and infrastructure

What seem to be the considerations when cities or community living are planned by a group of people and/or experts?

In the light of corona virus and the dependence of people (as consumers/customers/stake holders) on service providers, infrastructure and other communities, following observations can be made:

The march towards automation and the over reliance on its performance to control city infrastructure needs to be seen with caution. There are advantages to any kind of technology and there are concerns to rely on it too. There are voices in our world that will try to bulldoze any kind of a vision that is an alternative to automation and there are voices in the world that believe that life or the idea of existence can be enjoyed despite automation.  

With the changing pace of life and the increasing presence of automation in all walks of life, we may not be giving sufficient time to think about the effects of automation on our socio-cultural and existential realities. This is disturbing. It is better to take a historical view of the society to realize that automation has been around ‘just yesterday’ and things were going on pretty normal beforehand. The question to be revisited is – what does automation do to our thinking?

I visualize automation as having an effect of an autonomous system where ‘we’ become mere plug-ins to keep it operating. Our realities don’t seem to exist or have no validity if they don’t fit in the algorithm of the automated program. We become consumers of experiences created or governed by automation (or experienced formed by the birth of interaction with automation). It is a highly individualized existence that has got nothing to do with the ‘other’ (person or object or phenomenon) and our realities are virtual. WE don’t feel the need to meet anybody, we don’t have community driven spaces or shared spaces whose needs stem from real time interactions. That’s why questions of “public parks”, or “need of a dining area” or anything that is a shared space are voiced in developed nations. Questions regarding relationship of self to other to community to nation are also voiced or debated. We see isolated, self contained, air conditioned giant blocks of built forms accommodating some functions in any kind of a maze of circulation patterns (malls, shopping centres, offices, universities) just scattered along the deadening grid iron pattern of planning in the city. Distribution of ‘services’ of all kinds to these blocks are equally governed by power intensive automated systems and what becomes of ‘us’ are just some resources that consume the output of this gigantic system. Any irregularity is quickly ironed out to fit into the system and the efficiency of the system continues to accelerate to the extent that the touch with time and space (as components of existence) is lost forever in our minds. The Matrix.

One may realize in such a setup the importance (or relevance) of the need for clear hierarchy of spaces – formal or informal; transitional spaces; multiuse spaces.

This brings to focus again – how is the quality of architecture achieved? Is quality to be linked with socially intensive or shared priorities, cultural responses, local constraints of techniques of construction processes and the climate? Does this definition create a more humane architecture, more intimate experiences, more connect with people, more clarity of hierarchical structures, more incidences of spontaneous interactions and more breathable spaces? Thus, quality should not be equated to just visual delight. Delight in itself consists of involvement of self with the community and the understanding of dependent phenomena to bring about good architecture.

Above understanding of space and time - at least for developing economies is required to be touched upon a number of times. In an academic environment therefore, can such a process of imagination of spaces be encouraged in the students? When one sees a campus plan drawn by the student – can we see or visualize the “intent” of designing the campus plan – either towards automation OR towards humane architecture? Can we make students realize the organization of spaces reflects or results in a social-cultural response?

Can design be seen as a realization of fundamental values of existence? We have a crucial role to play in our studios – not for any confirmation or to prove any point, but for the discovery of understanding of good architecture.