High tech architecture : the good and the bad

“There are no rules of architecture for a castle in the clouds” – Gilbert K Chesterton

The sarcasm in the quotation wouldn’t have caught my interest had we not been studying about some of the most incredible buildings of our times. A breed of buildings, collectively referred to as ‘High-technology’ architecture seem to be the norm of contemporary times, and seem to be solely dedicated to dazzling the spectators with their sheer size and randomness of placement of elements. While a majority are positively awe-struck, I myself had never felt this appalled at the success and reverence of a class of buildings that seemed so confused, received. Flouting all rules, ignoring all pragmatism, these buildings seemed more like a statement of the architect’s ego more than buildings constructed to meet their desired purpose.

The feeling invokes a déjà vu of being in one of those modern art galleries, where everybody around you is thrilled by the talent of the artist while you couldn’t possibly figure out the big deal about an unrelated mass of objects stacked randomly without any purpose or direction.  It is true, just like this art, these buildings too, do stand out. But if we were to reason this ethically, an artist was to spend the same amount of colours and canvas on any painting he wished to amuse himself and his audience with. An architect, on the other hand, would spend such a much bigger chunk of money on his stubborn-ness to build his fantasy, that it becomes an unforgivable felony.

Innately programmed to despise the lot of buildings that serve more of the passers-by, than the occupants who actually commissioned the project, I seemed to have developed a mental block against any glass and steel over-the-top construction. Any Landesbank, any Lloyds, any Pompidou would go down in my mind as another building with use of materials having probably the highest embodied energies and lowest thermal and acoustic performances,  which would conclusively make them the worst choice of materials for a building of that magnitude. In no way though, was there any lesser appreciation in my mind for the brilliance in construction technologies that the likes of Foster , Kiplicky and Rogers had achieved. Only the social perspective always over-ruled.

If the argument is about creating identity, we have enough examples to prove that identity is not directly proportional to the use of glass and metal in a building. For who can forget the creations of FL Wright, Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier , where each creation was remarkably different from its brothers and most importantly, served the purpose best!

As it is true with any new initiative, the high-tech architecture has received more than its fair share of criticism. A majority of the architect community had been pointing fingers at the arrogance and inexplicable ambition of the high-tech architects. Something, which I for one, believe, to have brought about a positive change in this form of architecture. The same architects have begun to work in the direction of sustainable design with the application of their technical geniuses.

The transition could also be credited to the emergence of auditor companies in the field of energy efficient design. The LEED or the DGNB or the other vernacular derivatives of the same, have, more or less made it mandatory for companies to achieve high standards of energy efficiency in their buildings. As important as it was, 10 years ago, for firms to make their headquarters stand out, in search of an identity, it is the same expectation today with the strife for the highest energy rating.

Everything, eventually, is driven by the market forces. Attaining a platinum rating in the LEED auditing is presently, more than just a badge. It is a matter to be flaunted in annual reports over the years, and an extra token to be added in the CSR and environment initiatives, and the rule of thumb is : every company needs it! No wonder, a flashy glass cube reaching 50 floors fails to suffice the expectation of the client companies. The new definition of high-tech has now become:  buildings with extra-ordinary technologies to save energy, along with the obvious expectation of over-the-top aesthetics.

By this definition now, it is a win-win situation for everyone. Who now, would have a problem with the Empire State building in Manhattan, the Swiss Re in London or the Parkview Green building in Beijing?  These are buildings which possess the suave, sophisticated demeanour of a high-profile commercial headquarters, without the questionable tinge of corporate greed and use of capital that in some people’s eyes, might have as well been set on fire instead! These are buildings that satisfy the architects’ ambition to be eccentric and esoteric, and as is every architect’s dream : to be remembered by their creations, years after their time. These are buildings that leave the owners smiling all the way, for all the money they are going to save over the many years of their operations. These are the buildings that create a professional climate where every employee looks forward to working, for all its comforts and additional savings. If there is any conclusion to make, it is, that there aren’t as many favourable arrangements in the world, benefitting all parties, as there is the further development of this form of architecture, and that it is here to stay for long and for good!