Pages

Monday, March 29, 2010

The Echoing Ruins..







Some several thousand years ago there once thrived a civilization in the Indus Valley. Located in what's now Pakistan and western India, it was the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. The Indus Valley Civilization, as it is called, covered an area the size of Western Europe. It was the largest of the four ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China. However, of all these civilizations the least is known about the Indus Valley people. This is because the Indus script has not yet been deciphered. There are many remnants of the script on pottery vessels, seals, and amulets, but without a "Rosetta Stone" linguists and archaeologists have been unable to decipher it.

They have then had to rely upon the surviving cultural materials to give them insight into the life of the Harappan's. Harappan's are the name given to any of the ancient people belonging to the Indus Valley civilization. This article will be focusing mainly on the two largest cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, and what has been discovered there.












The discovery of the Indus Valley civilization was first recorded in the 1800's by the British. The first recorded note was by a British army deserter, James Lewis, who was posing as an American engineer in 1826. He noticed the presence of mounded ruins at a small town in Punjab called Harappa. Because Harappa was the first city found; sometimes any of the sites are called the Harappan civilization.
Alexander Cunningham, who headed the Archaeological Survey of India, visited this site in 1853 and 1856 while looking for the cities that had been visited by Chinese pilgrims in the Buddhist period. The presence of an ancient city was confirmed in the following 50 years, but no one had any idea of its age or importance. By 1872 heavy brick robbing had virtually destroyed the upper layers of the site. The stolen bricks were used to build houses and particularly to build a railway bed that the British were constructing. Alexander Cunningham made a few small excavations at the site and reported some discoveries of ancient pottery, some stone tools, and a stone seal. Cunningham published his finds and it generated some increased interest by scholars.

Although, Harappa was undoubtedly occupied previously, it was between 2600-1900 B.C. that it reached its height of economic expansion and urban growth. Radio carbon dating, along with the comparison of artifacts and pottery has determined this date for the establishment of Harappa and other Indus Harappa. During this time a great increase in craft technology, trade, and urban expansion was experienced. For the first time in the history of the region, there was evidence for many people of different classes and occupations living together. Between 2800-2600 B.C. called the Kot Diji period, Harappa grew into a thriving economic center. It expanded into a substantial sized town, covering the area of several large shopping malls. Harappa, along with the other Indus Valley cities, had a level of architectural planning that was unparralled in the ancient world. The city was laid out in a grid-like pattern with the orientation of streets and buildings according to the cardinal directions. To facilitate the access to other neighborhoods and to segregate private and public areas, the city and streets were particularly organized. The city had many drinking water wells, and a highly sophisticated system of waste removal. All Harappan houses were equipped with latrines, bathing houses, and sewage drains which emptied into larger mains and eventually deposited the fertile sludge on surrounding agricultural fields. It has been surprising to archaeologists that the site layouts and artifact styles throughout the Indus region are very similar. It has been concluded these indicate that there was uniform economic and social structure within these cities.

Other indicators of this are that the bricks used to build at these Indus cities are all uniform in size. It would seem that a standard brick size was developed and used throughout the Indus cities. Besides similar brick size standard weights are seen to have been used throughout the region as well. The weights that have been recovered have shown a remarkable accuracy. They follow a binary decimal system: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, up to 12,800 units, where one unit weighs approximately 0.85 grams. Some of the weights are so tiny that they could have been used by jewelers to measure precious metals.

Ever since the discovery of Harappa, archaeologists have been trying to identify the rulers of this city. What has been found is very surprising because it isn't like the general pattern followed by other early urban societies. It appears that the Harappan and other Indus rulers governed their cities through the control of trade and religion, not by military might. It is an interesting aspect of Harappa as well as the other Indus cities that in the entire body of Indus art and sculpture there are no monuments erected to glorify, and no depictions of warfare or conquered enemies. It is speculated that the rulers might have been wealthy merchants, or powerful landlords or spiritual leaders. Whoever these rulers were it has been determined that they showed their power and status through the use of seals and fine jewelry.
Seals are one of the most commonly found objects in Harappan cities. They are decorated with animal motifs such as elephants, water buffalo, tigers, and most commonly unicorns. Some of these seals are inscribed with figures that are prototypes to later Hindu religious figures, some of which are seen today.

This is an interesting point because of the accepted notion of an Aryan invasion. If Aryan's had invaded the Indus Valley, conquered the people, and imposed their own culture and religion on them, as the theory goes, it would seem unlikely that there would a continuation of similar religious practices up to the present. There is evidence throughout Indian history to indicate that Shiva worship has continued for thousands of years without disruption.
The Aryan's were supposed to have destroyed many of the ancient cities right around 1500 B.C., and this would account for the decline of the Indus civilization. However the continuity of religious practices makes this unlikely, and other more probable explanations for the decline of the Harappan civilization have been proposed in recent years; such as climate shifts which caused great droughts around 2200 B.C., and forced the abandonment of the Indus cities and pushed a migration westward. Recent findings have shown that the Sumerian empire declined sharply at this time due to a climate shift that caused major droughts for several centuries. The Harappans being so close to Sumer, would in all probability have been affected by this harsh shift in climate.

Many of the seals also are inscribed with short pieces of the Indus script. These seals were used in order to show the power of the rulers. Each seal had a name or title on it, as well as an animal motif that is believed to represent what sort of office or clan the owner belonged to. The seals of the ancient Harappan's were probably used in much the same way they are today, to sign letters or for commercial transactions. The use of these seals declined when the civilization declined.





The ruling elite controlled vast trade networks with Central Asia, and Oman, importing raw materials to urban workshops. There is even evidence of trade with Mesopotamia, for Harappan seals and jewelry have been found there. Harappa, along with other Indus cities, established their economic base on agriculture produce and livestock, supplemented by the production of and trade of commodities and craft items. Raw materials such as carnelian, steatite, and lapis lazuli were imported for craft use. In exchange for these goods, such things as livestock, grains, honey and clarified butter may have been given. However, the only remains are those of beads, ivory objects and other finery. What is known about the Harappan's is that they were very skilled artisans, making beautiful objects out of bronze, gold, silver, terracotta, glazed ceramic, and semiprecious stones. The most exquisite objects were often the tiniest. Many of the Indus art objects are small, displaying and requiring great craftsmanship.

After 700 years the Harappan cities began to decline. Although certain aspects of the elite’s culture, seals with motifs and pottery with Indus script on it, disappeared, the Indus culture was not lost. It is seen that in the cities that sprung up in the Ganga and Yamuna river valleys between 600-300 B.C., that many of their cultural aspects can be traced to the earlier Indus culture. The technologies, artistic symbols, architectural styles, and aspects of the social organization in the cities of this time had all originated in the Indus cities. This is another fact that points to the idea that the Aryan invasion did not happen. The Indus cities may have declined, for various reasons, but their culture continued on in the form of technology, artistic and religious symbols, and city planning. Usually, when a people conquer another they bring with them new ideas and social structures.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Hanging Gardens, Babylon.




Hanging Gardens'(600 BC) was built by King Nebuchadnezzar. According to one story, to please his Persian Wife, who was homesick for the hills and woodlands of her native country, he built this garden.


The garden occupied 275 mt.X183 mt. and was situated nearEuphratesRiver, in the greatpalace ofNebuchadnezzar, 96 km. south of present city of Baghdad. According to Diodrus of Sicily,they were an annexe to the palace, a series of terraces supported by arcades to the height of the city wall from the bank of Euphrates. The arcades were constructed with bricks and bitumen.




The walls were about 6-7 m thk. with passages between them about 3mt. wide. The terraced gardens planted with flowers and trees, with beautiful fountains were 25m - 100 m above the ground. Water was stored in the resevoir on the top andsupplied through pipes to the gardens. The Greeks described them as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Who are we designing for…….



We often fail to realize how various stakeholders lay claims to a design, obviously each one from their specific perspective. How does each stakeholder define the success of a project? How are the needs of stakeholders balanced with issue of context, site and language? These are primary episodes :-
In the second part of the series on people centric design, we look at how various stakeholders in the project define project success differently. The article also deals with how we need to address the concerns of responsive design by focusing on client, user and society and not taking any of these stakeholders of a building lightly. It means handling their needs and the overall context while juggling with various aesthetics constructs.
As in the diagram, the various parameters that make buildings people friendly in both the short and long run are interlinked and are subsets of sustainability parameter. This is simply to preserve what we have, even while moving forward we need to build with care to the cultural context and the environment. We can ask ourselves questions about the relevant concepts to the project and make our assumptions based on the answers. Then we get closer to what seems the best way to design sensibly.

Parameters of responsive design.
When it comes to individual projects these assumptions are harder to pin down because context is in the formation of responsive design. So sustainable design changes constantly, as do the design assumptions and criteria for success of a project.
These parameters vary in importance depending on project’s particular needs. The other factors that influence people centric design are typology and the particular group of stakeholders. So, only a broad analysis is possible and it leads to some generalizations.
Typology : Civic/ public architecture, liabilities, courts, transport terminals etc.
Stakeholder : Owner – government, staff, visitor, society.
Criteria for success : Functionability, spaces that are safe and community – friendly,
Convenient, cost, image and flexibility.
Typology - Institutions, schools, religious buildings etc.
Stakeholders – Students, teachers, staff, worshippers, users, society.
Criteria for success - Functionability, flexibility, spaces, promoting health, cost, image.
Typology - Offices.
Stakeholders – Clients, staff, visitors.
Criteria for success – Functionability, image, spaces, conducive for work, cost, flexibility.
Typology – Residential
Stakeholders – Owners/ Clients, family, occupants/ tenants.
Criteria for success – Funtionability, cost, image, homliness.
After making responsible assumptions, architects have to get on with the real business, the two distinct functions of design and project management. While designing, architects often realize the interconnections of these factors when a set of drawings change due to change in one of these concepts and this has a snowballing effect on the assumptions. What architects can miss is that it is wasteful to see these assumptions as separate entities when we can perceive their interconnections. There is also an interconnection between what various stakeholders need and aspire to a project. The architect must be able to understand how these parameters and requirements can intersect and priorities various assumptions.
This relationship between different design assumptions is what makes a design successful in the eyes of all stakeholders. By isolating each factor into a specialization, the concept of interconnection becomes a project management issue rather than the very basis of design. In this scenario, responsive concepts do not permit to the rest of the team but dissipate across various specialized sub consultants. Architects then control progress of the project and details for constructions, bids, etc., but the design concept and assumptions lose their conceptual strength by becoming completely lopsided or fragmenting the original vision and the project takes on exaggerated proportions. For instance, ‘external green design’ when viewed in a local context that has neither the material nor the techniques to support very advanced technology will result in materials and labor being brought in from far away. This is neither sustainable nor economical. Specialization while recognizing the technical complexities of a large multi – dimensional project make architects lose perspective as to what the occupants and clients would find comfortable.
Super specialization has also led to standardizing layouts and details. While all this serve to deliver faster constructions, we need to appreciate that standardization with unsound or incompatible assumptions spread irresponsible and unresponsive design. It is impractical not to have standardization in most architectural practices. But building a standard blocks library in CAD becomes problematic while the variations in the projects, the needs of occupants and change in context are realized; not to mention the costs of rework and schedule overruns either in final design phase, or worse, in the construction phase. The standard library has to extend itself to reflect responsive design. The information these blocks carry can be expanded to include information on anthrometics, energy consumptions, etc. this allow whole team to appreciate the need to focus on people.
Personal interest and effort has led some architects to overcome these glazing omissions.
But by and large, practicing architects devote significant time to construction details, architectural standards and building codes and much time to user needs. The architectural standards and building codes and not much time to user needs. The architectural standards are generally from the U.S. and they are context specific, so why does an architect practicing right across the world use them? More often than not the answer is convenience (due to pressures of cost and time). This situation exists also because of relatively low priority assigned to human needs and comforts.
We have to realize the interdependence of stake holder aspirations and people centric design assumptions. Practices specializing in particular aspects of architecture can thrive but designers need not always be holistic where all human factors in design are addressed.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Infosys Global Education Centre, Mysore






The creative inspiration for the Infosys Global Education Centre came from the fundamental spirit and ambition of the institution itself. The very size, scale and magnitude of the institution’s ambition, conception and foundational principles are reflected in its grand and powerful architecture.



The institution is set in the sprawling 350 acre campus in Mysore which is Infosy’s education and training hub. The Centre has the capacity to train over a whopping 10,000 people at any given time. It is, in essence, a inception center to thousands of Infosians who come from a diverse set of nationalities and cultural background. So the architecture was selected to encourage the values of strength, determination and accomplishment that the organization signifies.




The architectural language for the GEC building was derived from the appreciation of the classical tradition in architecture and arts. Classical style is the culmination of the highest refinement of construction and it has stood the test of time.
Classical buildings are still an architectural style that is the most embraced and revered style in the world. The architecture with its structure, composition, proportion and detail inspires admiration and respect. Classical style also speaks of stability, longevity and strength; all of the qualities that we believe are the foundational principles of the institution.


A large central courtyard formed by curvilinear building wings marks the approach to the central triple height entrance porch. In terms of aesthetic, the entrance porch is flanked by six Doric columns with a pediment which are raised by high plinth. These Denticular Doric order of the main columns have been designed and built with the principles as applied in Doric orders of Vignola. It stands 56 feet in height and 7 feet diameter. There are 86 smaller Doric columns on the whole façade, each measuring 38 feet height and 4 feet diameter. These are set above a solid ground floor base. The most stunning feature of the building is the dome that holds the structure together. This central dome is 65 feet in diameter and its pinnacle reaches the height of 195 feet.


The qualitative aspect that is pronounced by classical forms allows transitions of experiential spaces required for this institution. The entrance porch leads on to two central spaces - one being circular and other being an elliptical naturally lit space.
The 2- storey structure is set on a sloping site and includes two lower ground areas which is connected to neighboring blocks. The third floor houses the magnificent library around the elliptical skylight. An impressive large meeting hall underneath the dome accommodates around 40 people and with a separate waiting lobby accessible from library level.


The lower ground level includes the concept centre and all around is the online classrooms, examinations halls, and other management and administration rooms. The facility boasts of 98 classrooms that can accommodate 100 people and 3 larger halls which can hold up to 200 people. There are 37 faculty cabins in each wing with a total of 270 in the entire centre. The library measures 40,000 square feet and is surrounded by terraces. This elliptical shaped library overlooks the ground floor lobby. The library is lit from external sides by large windows facing the terraces. The food court has a capacity of 1550 people indoors and 250 outdoor seating. The grand central circular staircase is 12 feet wide connects the various floor levels. Its stair court is a triple height space architecturally treated with columns and arches with cast iron railing at intervals.