Where is our contribution? Why is it limited? Why must it not be so?
“How do you work with the city where architecture does not transcend being primarily viewed as a built environment?” – Mahesh Radhakrishnan
The pluralistic expression that India belongs to does not secure an abiding place in the projects that architects can traditionally deal with in practice. The praxis of reflection has been adopted by few and the role of the architect role is primarily invested in prescribed design approaches: in the ubiquitous weekend house, the compact suburban site, an occasional large-scale institute, the mall and the office…
“Are architects aware of the constituencies they should be working for and are they aware of how limited a segment of that public they are actually working for? These are the kind of questions that come to my mind. It would be great if this reflection on The Merit List helps articulate such questions and challenges and threw them back at the profession.” – Prem Chandavarkar
Within the framework of a built environment operating beyond and in the absence of a collective agenda as the architectural fraternity, where does our contribution lie?
What may be important to seek out is the voice that is missing. Before we examine this, it is important to also seek enquiry into what preempts the course we follow. Vital to the investigation and conversation is the issue of patronage.
Can architecture really play a reformist’s role?