ARCHITECT AND SOCIETY
Anil Chotmarada
Architecture can be the strongest art form manifesting the aspirations of a group of people provided the people form a part of the design process. It is also the art form closest to the people, both in terms of direct utility and the continuous context of experience. All the senses are perpetually assailed by the environmental situation affecting not only the day to day behavior of the users but also the long term inputs which effect the growth of the society. The health and well being of a social organization is to a very large extent dependent upon its physical environment. Under these circumstances it is imperative that careful consideration be made of the important role played by the Architect in upholding the desired norms and shaping the future of society through a properly planned and designed total environment.
Environment in its connotative and denotative semiology represents not only the visible physical facets but also the abstract elements. The physical, however, being the tangible and therefore the more evident and apparent is quoted and cited more often tending to be expressed as the real cause producing all the social effects, when in reality it is the abstract implications of the built-up environment that really effect the life of people. There is no doubt in the physical form but the moot point which must always be borne, with clarity, is, that hidden behind the physical are the intangible qualities of spatial implications which are the main effecting factors in the cause-effect of environment on the social standing of the group of the people. It is, then, to these abstractions that we must address ourselves to understand and appreciate the role of architecture in society.
The basic purpose of architecture is to serve man to generate for him an environment conducive for the work for which it has been designed. Man, as we are aware, is a social creature who works in unison with many others of his species for performing most tasks. The two facts seen together verily suggest that architectural obligations go beyond the individual to the society or the group of users or occupants for whom the space is being organized. An analogy of the Man-Society relationship can be drawn in the built-up environment at a glance – no organized space stands in isolation, each space has its identity tied to its neighbor both in visuals and in function. Housing, recreation, commercial spaces can not existing in isolation. These are intricately woven one with the other and need each other for survival as their basic purpose is to serve an interconnected set of functions the entire are required for existence.
In its true context architecture cannot be separated from the social milieu in which it exists. Without a deep social context architecture can only be a meaningless art form. While there is no doubt that visuals and form should be of serious concern for architects but equally important is need to delve into complexity, meaning, context and transition. Need to appreciate social, proportion, line, plane and mass is an s important today as it was for the architect of yesteryears but today’s complex social urban environs call for the additional study of social behavior systems to produce meaningful solutions for problems related to our built-up manmade environment. Efficient use of material, effective site usage, economical structures and appropriate landscape would not be of much use of there are no user satisfaction, community harmony and social stability generated by the spaces organized by the architect.
The commonality of thought prevailing in a group of people is what needs to be identified before any efforts are made to undertake any design work for a user group. The abstract components of the needs of the users must be understood by intensive studies of behavioral patterns. These could be in the form of analysis of the existing pattern of spatial usage, environmental cognition, awareness and preferences. Analysis of user needs with respect to community activities and social living are crucial for the success of any architectural exercises. In the design process, participatory design in the form of consultations and pre-construction presentations and user evaluation methods need to be incorporated. Post occupancy evaluation is an equally important area for studying the mistakes committed for aspects omitted in the proposal. These in their totality and sincere implementation could make an architectural exercise effective in the real sense of comfort and meaning.
Matters pertaining to social issues and artistic endeavors have a very amorphous bottom line. The red or black is not evident at the end of the financial year but takes a much longer time to be evident. Architecture being an outcome produced from an amalgam of social pressures and artistic acumen cannot be measured in terms of the bottom line values if it is to be meaningful. The physical tangibility of the end product of an architectural exercise and the large amount of monetary imputes do suggest that the financial implications of the project be studied in detail, but it is neither meaningful nor justified if human needs and their fulfillment are seen only as figures of a balance sheet.
Developing countries with their meager resources are especially susceptible to this misdirected notion where all projects are based on the cost factor rather than the need factor. Accepting the fact that economics is a major factor influencing the building trade, the people and their needs must be given due weight-age and spatial solutions be envisaged in the light of social and community needs of the users.
In a situation of scarce resources it is true that the architect does not have too much say in spatial delineation or spatial division. Nevertheless the failing social fabric, increased crime statistics and hostile living conditions are partly because of the unsympathetic physical environment. Lack of organized community spaces both at the formal and the informal or incidental level in the name of cost is the reason for this malaise. Urban living has some un-built complexities – long commuting time, tense working conditions and the like. Architecture has a possibility of resolving some of these problems; if not in their entirety at least it can reduce the tediousness of the task by providing appropriate spaces and the right kind of environment. It becomes the obligation of the architect to cater to these needs of the users of the environs designed by him. It is true that architecture may not be able to be provide a remedy for all the social malaise; it certainly can act as an agent in directing the society on a healthier path.
As the custodian of an extremely important natural resource, the architect plays a crucial though invisible role in society. The product of his mind affects not only the mundane behavior of users but has deep rooted long term implication. In turn, he is obliged to ascertain that he provides for his users the kind of space which enhances community interaction and a healthy social atmosphere instead of being concerned only about the client’s financial interests or the bottom line of the project. It would be his duty to direct his efforts towards building an effective community life and generate social interaction through effective spatial configurations by penetrating into the user needs beyond the physical immediate spatial requirements of the individual and the family to the spatial needs of the society and community.
Barring the limited time spent at actual work all other human activity patterns relate to some form of social interaction. Immediately outside the private domain the social domain starts, in which activities pertaining to social behavior are performed. The act of informal community interaction – stopping to greet a neighbor outside the apartment or on the street corner, share a gossip while shopping, spending the afternoon with the neighbors just outside the house with an eye on the playing children brings a greater sense of community harmony and social well being than the formal and well organized community gatherings of a large number of people.
In search for getting a more meaningful return from the built-[up space the architect needs to keep the fore-mentioned spaces in mind. Even if a slightly larger island in the shopping aisle may not yield high rental but its return in terms of user satisfaction will be much greater.
Providing effective spaces organized for such functions is an important obligation of any well meaning architect. If architects start believing that spaces which enhance sociability in a spatial organization are ‘functional’ spaces, architecture would be make a considerable contribution to a healthy better society.
Anil Chotmarada is a Faculty & Director in Gateway College of Architecture & Design, Sonipat-131001, India.