“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!