This article written by Sabu Francis appeared in the Economic Times, India - ET Realty Section, September 9, 2005. There was a small error in the original article: Pruitt-Igoe was demolished on March 16, 1972 and not on March 12

It is said that modern architecture died on March 16, 1972 at a place called Pruitt-Igoe in St.Louis, USA.

A large housing complex comprising of thirty three eleven storeyed buildings were dynamited because the design simply did not respond to the needs of the occupants. The demolition left everyone puzzled: Minoru Yamasaki, the architect had won the commission after a fair competition and nobody in their wildest dreams could predict the way it finally turned out. The demolition was a sad, voluntary decision taken by the Pruitt-Igoe authorities

Pruitt-Igoe was supposed to bring post-modern humility to architecture. Architects all over the world were expected to go into deep meditation and introspection. But if we look around, was the introspection deep enough? Indeed, was it ever done?

In 2001 another famous Minoru project; the World Trade Centre was also tragically demolished due to a wanton act of terrorism. Some would say that the architect had no play in that matter, and of course Minoru cannot be blamed at all for that event. But probably there is still a way architects could help

After the Pruitt-Igoe fiasco; many behavioural scientists, psychologists, sociologists along with architects determinedly got down on the floor and examined the question in detail. Much literature was systematically developed for predicting how people would behave in environments. Behaviour can be defined as a response to a stimulus. If a mosquitoe stings us, our hand would lift up almost involuntarily and attempt to swat it. That activity is a "behaviour". We are continually bombarded by forces from the environment to stimulate us: Climate, sound, light, smell and even other people and their associated symbols bring out various behaviours from the people responding to those forces in that environment. Architects have to design environments so that good behaviour is promoted and bad behaviour is demoted. And they have to do that for all the occupants of that designed environment.

Hitherto the Pruitt-Igoe event, architects took a polarized position: Some believed in "architectural determinism" where they were convinced that what they predicted their architecture would do when they were designing it; that is exactly what would actually happen. Many modern architects (Yes, Minoru was not the only one with such a predisposition) tended to be determinists.

Some others believed in "architectural non-determinism" where they were so fatalistic that they were convinced that irrespective of what they may have designed, the quality of architecture is something way beyond their control. They thought, it was something else that determined whether an architectural environment was successful or not (E.g. Vastu, government policies, etc.). Pruitt-Igoe should have convinced architects that there is actually a continuum between these two opposite positions, and the architect must seek a point on that continuum specific to the problem being solved

This issue can be seen not only in residential projects, but in all of architecture. Today, when I look at the kind of commercial spaces that are coming up all over Mumbai; it seems to me that the lessons of Pruitt-Igoe have often been forgotten. I do not want to decry such architecture for their aesthetics. I personally do not believe that their liberal use of materials such as reflective glass and aluminum/stainless-steel cladding adds to its beauty. But that is a subjective point and so I can stand corrected. However, I do notice a serious lack of understanding of the set of behavioural parameters that need to be considered; especially for commercial projects

An environment, as per the E-B specialist (E-B= Environment Behaviour) is a staging area for various actors who play various roles assigned to them by society. This can be best explained by visualizing an experience in a typical shopping mall. There are many "user roles" at work there: Look at that elderly couple gingerly walking on the highly-polished marble, the glare of the lights reflecting from many surfaces hurting their old eyes and the reverberating din hurting their ears. Look at the small child who is bewildered by all the noise and excitement, crying inconsolably. Look at that bunch of college kids on a spending spree, laughing and joking about something they saw in a shop window.

The architect needs to be sensitive to the behavioural needs of each such "user role" Each role imposes many demands on the kind of spaces, the physical props present in the space, built-quality, light, climatic conditions and even other environmental factors such as aural. They all need to be carefully manipulated so that good behaviour and well-being can prevail.

Often designs ends up being a compromise. Many architects tend to think that designing in this complex world is a fait-accompli and so they simply drop all their worries and run riot with the design. They go and get drunk (metaphorically speaking) on the subjective aspects of design; discarding reason and logic. But it need not be the case. A sensitive architect can cater to seemingly contradictory requirements and still come up with what is now known as a plural design -- A design that has multiple qualities all built into the same space. The Canadian architect; Arthur Erickson, was one such person who comes to my mind now.

In a shopping mall designed using E-B parameters, it should be possible for the bewildered child to get reassured and cry a bit less; the excited teenagers could find more of beauty and splendour as demanded by their hormones; the old couple can rest awhile in a corner soaking in the atmosphere without being pushed out by the harsh glare of the lights and the nasty reverberation. And so on and so forth

I hope I am not being too moralistic in this article. Nowadays, a lot of attention seem to be given to the effects of nature's wraths (the recent floods in Mumbai) and problems of old age and beaureaucracy in a developing country (the various building collapses that happened over the last few days). But if we forget the design lessons learnt after Pruitt-Igoe, we may actually do much more harm

• Add new comment