‘Most people won’t even notice the changes to the Central Vista’

Bimal Patel, over these last few years, has emerged as one of the most important men in the country. And, if you’re asking, ‘Bimal, who?’ then it’s just the kind of reaction that will please the Ahmedabad-based architect and urban planner no end. Like most of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trusted people, the 60-year-old Patel, assiduously cultivates a low profile. Though, it could also be because the humongous projects he helms, each running into thousands of crores, are creating enough big noise and controversy.From the reimagining of Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker’s Central Vista that includes an expanded Parliament to the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor in Modi’s home constituency to the modernisation of the Gandhi Ashram at Sabarmati in Ahmedabad — Bimal Patel and his company HCP Design Planning and Management Pvt Ltd are the executors. medium86360445Patel, who trained at Ahmedabad and at the University of California, Berkeley, in architecture and urban planning cuts a neat, compactly-built figure, and when he does speak in public, as in this rare interview, he is articulate and responsive to the rising criticism against him.If all bold architecture needs central reserves of funds and an imaginative client as Charles Correa once said, then Bimal Patel has both. Following two decisive mandates, Narendra Modi is determined to leave his impression on the country, overwriting the Nehruvian idea of India with his own new idea of the country, as all these grand projects suggest. In this interview, Bimal Patel talks about why heritage cannot become a paralysing factor. He speaks on the politics of architecture and the kind of client Prime Minister Modi is. But most importantly — for the first time — he dials down on Central Vista, saying that contrary to criticism, the changes on the Central Vista are so subtle that most people would not even notice them.Listen to the complete podcast hereHere are some edited excerpts.Can you give us a sense of how you see the linkages between architecture, heritage and urban planning?I am both a qualified architect and an urban planner and designer and my work has stretched across these areas. I'm interested in all of it. So I design buildings such as the new campus at IIM, Ahmedabad, I do public realm projects like the Sabarmati riverfront in Ahmedabad, or sometimes even statutory planning, which is actually sort of the development plan of Ahmedabad — I've worked at all these scales. Whenever one is working with an existing city, then issues of heritage always come up because you are planning change in brownfield areas. And obviously, then, the issue of what constitutes heritage and how we should deal with heritage becomes important. medium86360474The issue of heritage is often used to red flag some of the things you wish to do. Is it your view that sometimes it's an encumbrance in what you might see as development?I tend not to think of it that way. There are some people who recognise the need for change and know that certain change will require certain older things to give way and even certain memorable, important places to make space for new developments. There are other people who don’t want to pay that cost so much that they are paralysed, unable to envisage any change. I sit somewhere (in the middle). As an urban designer, I'm certainly not a person who is paralysed by my concern for heritage issues. At the same time, I don't think I am a person who disregards heritage. I'm, in that sense, quite concerned that we must have continuity with the past and unless we have some continuity with the past, we will never be able to have a meaningful future. medium86360483With regards to the Central Vista project, you have said, and I quote: ”There is radical change, but certainly not something that breaks from the past.” In fact you go on to say that you want to use architecture to strengthen Lutyens’s original ideas. Could you explain what you mean by that? If I were to say it again, I would perhaps tone down the radical change a bit. There is change, but it's not radical. In fact it builds on what Lutyens originally envisaged. I don't know how familiar you are with the plan of the Central Vista but all of the original Lutyens buildings are absolutely spectacular. In fact, if anything, we are making the Lutyens-Baker (Herbert) buildings more central, and restoring them. All the new additions are being done on the existing street network and the plots that Lutyens carved out. So it's not even as if we're changing the basic geometry of the place. The place of pride will still be (given to) the Lutyens buildings and the public space in the middle follows the plan that Lutyens originally laid out. The buildings we are building on the site, while they will be of a considerable bulk and considerable size, they are muted, and do nothing to draw attention away from the natural focus of that space, which is the Rashtrapati Bhavan, and north and south blocks and India Gate on the other side. It’s likely that many people won't even notice what has changed.mediumReally?! That's, that's quite..… Quite a statement? Yes. We have done a sample stretch on the public space, and by that I mean, Rajpath, and the garden flanking both sides and I've had the privilege of taking a lot of people there. Many people who come with very hostile and critical opinions of us to begin with, when they come here and see this — and I must have taken thirty or forty people on one-on-one trips — they say, ‘What's the problem?’ There is no change there, all the change there is, is actually to improve the usability of the space rather than make any change to its aesthetic quality. Lutyens viewed this place as a processional route, he didn't think of it as a big public garden. And it wasn't designed to be used as a big public garden by large numbers of people. So that's what we're doing — we’re perhaps making it more usable as a public space by adding facilities — pathways, walkways, better landscaping, lighting that would improve it, facilities like toilets, etc. medium86360491There have been concerns about the use of common areas. You’re saying they will remain open for the public at large? That goes without saying. In fact, where there is a little bit of change in the Lutyens plan is that we are actually making it a little bit bigger. There’s a portion where we are pulling back the plots the way they are, so that the space physically becomes bigger. Lutyens had these two axes, Rajpath and Janpath. And Janpath, he thought, was the people's way, but it has never developed as the people’s way. The way it has developed over the years, it’s got a whole assembly of buildings and really got no character, while Rajpath remained Rajpath, so, in some ways, what we are doing is turning Rajpath into the new Janpath. It’s becoming a more accessible public space.So how did the confusion (about the plans) arise? The original brief on the Central Vista, as per the urban development ministry was to “create new iconic structures that shall be a legacy for the next 100-150 years, the very least to represent the values and aspirations of a New India — good governance, efficiency, transparency, accountability, equity, and is rooted in the Indian cultural and social milieu.” Now that's a radical, daunting order. Is that where the confusion about the Central Vista arose? Perhaps, perhaps… Many people have asked me, ‘What's this new idea of India that this place is projecting?’ I've said to them, if there's anything that this project will signify, it is that India now is able to, willing to, determined to tackle the many complex sort of problems that face it. In this place (Central Vista) for example, there were lots of things that had to be added if it was to be a good space, office space for the government, etc. This project will say, listen, we are not going to let things be, we are going to create all the facilities that we need for this place to work. medium86360509Second, it's going to say, we care a lot about heritage, but we're not going to be paralysed by those concerns. It’s also going to say, we care a lot for the environment, but once again, our environmental concerns are not going to paralyse us, we are going to have to take the steps that are necessary. So sort of moving out of that paralysis mode into a more thoughtful sort of mode of engagement with the problems that we have. Whatever we need to make the lives of ordinary Indians better, we are going to do, that's what this project will signify. I think (if) anyone were to look at all the features of it, which most of the people who have views on it don't do carefully, then you will see that the heritage is protected, environmental issues are addressed. It is meant for ordinary people, people who go to parks, etc. not the rich people who have their own gardens. It’s for the ordinary office-goer, not just for the top classes of the administration. We must have good, well-functioning, efficient offices for everybody. So it's that vision, that this project should eventually signify once it's done. You mentioned that people keep asking you about this new idea of India. There are also constant comparisons being made: What Lutyens was to the British, what Corbusier was to Prime Minister Nehru, what you are now to Prime Minister Modi. What is your aesthetic about this new idea of India? Listen, one of the most important things that this project is doing, for example, is changing the iconography of power in that space. When the colonial powers asked Lutyens to design the capital complex, what the people in charge wanted was to create a space that exemplified the Raj ruling over the people of India. What did they do architecturally? They found a spot on the hill, flattened it out, and they put the most important building, the viceroy’s house, and the two office buildings on top, sort of bastions of government sitting on top of a hill. And they created a big processional route that you have to go up as supplicants right up to the government on top of the hill. Though they were built like that the architecture was actually done in a way that Indians could read it and understand it. medium86360780Well, post-independence we did pretty much make it our own. Yes, the architecture used a lot of elements that Indians could relate with. Therefore, as soon as the Raj ended, we sort of appropriated this whole complex. Rashtrapati Bhavan is in the viceroy’s house, and we have the biggest ministries, the most important ministries on the hill, but we've never really changed the iconography of power. This was still the bastion of government sitting atop the hill, sort of looking down. It was, well, our government, but our government doing more or less, in the same way as the British were. What we are doing here, and that this present prime minister has sort of mandated is that all the government facilities are going to come in the area on the planes, so to say, including the prime minister's office. And these magnificent buildings, which were the symbol of the government on top of the hill, are going to become museums. So they’re going to become places for culture. So today, people walk up the hill and have to gape at these mysterious goings on inside these buildings. They were instruments of intimidation that you got intimidated by. Now you're going to be able to walk up with your kids, go into these buildings, to the museums, where you will be able to enjoy our culture. Now, this is a complete reversal. You're putting the people on top, and you’re putting the government below in a sense. And so without changing anything, just by changing the use of the building, the iconography of power has been changed. I think this is the most magnificent move, that hopefully, if all of it goes through, is the most important thing that will come out of this project. That it changes the whole way in which we represent governmental power.In an interview you said about your work, ‘I am from Ahmedabad where the clients are very demanding.’ From the projects you're undertaking — one also gets a sort of peek into the mind of Prime Minister Modi. Though of course it’s via the government but what kind of a client is the prime minister? As in, what is his ask of you?He’s like many demanding Ahmedabad clients. They want you to be highly professional. They want you to do your job, they want you to essentially solve the problems that are set in front of you. For example, Parliament is an incredibly complex facility with multiple users, multiple needs, the important thing they want is that it should all function well. And they may say, please listen to what all of my people need. So, you know, the question (they ask) might be: Who have you asked? Have you asked the people who serve the chai in Parliament? What will they need? Have you asked the people who run the medical facilities, don’t just go and speak with the Speaker, speak with everybody and find out what they need and ensure that you've solved those problems. So that's a kind of common demand. I think a lot of Ahmedabad people understand this. They want office buildings, they want factories, they want institutional buildings. They want it done efficiently. They will also say, listen, let's not spend too much money on this, okay? We're Amdavadis after all. And listen, (laughing) by jove, you’ve got to finish it in time!So they're like any good demanding clients. I don’t think good architecture is possible without good, demanding clients. The opportunity that you get in Ahmedabad, or a client, even one as important as the prime minister, is that they will listen. If you say, this is your problem, and this is how I believe we can best solve it, they will listen. They do, unlike the belief that many of these big clients in Ahmedabad have, the big mill owners of the day… They are not just telling you what to do. They're interested in you professionally doing a good job, and I'd say, that remains consistent throughout.Since we are talking about the Amdavadi client, the mill owners of the past — Ahmedabad in that sense was also one of the first indigenously developed modern cities. Corbusier was invited to design here and even otherwise it has a rich tradition of architecture. How has the city helped develop your aesthetic? What have been the big influences?When you say city, for me as an urban planner that has very special significance. Ahmedabad has certainly got great examples of modern architecture and very important practices of modern architecture here. I wouldn't necessarily say that for city planning, for urban design, because across the country we had no real modernisation of urban planning and urban design approaches, we tend to continue with what was there earlier. So Ahmedabad is like the rest in that. Except for the last twenty or twenty-five years, Ahmedabad has taken a lead in urban design. For example, the riverfront project (which Bimal Patel himself designed), and many, many other such projects that are modernising the city as a whole. I am very much a product of that early phase of Ahmedabad’s modernisation. medium86360549In the years just after independence, Ahmedabad had this great spirit. It was the center of the independence movement, right. And there were many people here, who had played an extremely active role in the Independence struggle and for them, transformation of society and modernisation of society was absolutely important. Part of the objective of achieving freedom was to also transform India later on. And there were many people like this setting up great new institutions like IIM, NID. We had Vikram Sarabhai setting up India's space program. I mean, Ahmedabad was bubbling with these initiatives of transforming society. I grew up in the ‘60s in Ahmedabad and this was the spirit. An attitude that said we have many problems but we are slowly going to tackle them. We are not going to let tradition rule everything, but we are going to transform things and change them. So, I very much come from that tradition. At the same time, I’m also aware that we were not able to deepen this sufficiently, sometimes things that we did not speak to a lot of Indians.Can you elaborate on that? Let me give you a very simple example of the two capital complexes that were built in the last century — one is Chandigarh and the other one is Lutyens’s Delhi. Lutyens’s architecture, Indians could relate with because it took many things from the Indian vocabulary and created a not very abstract Spartan austere language. Corbusier never cared about that. Strangely, you know, I mean, he was part of independent India, but here was a period where a capital complex was built without any regard to whether ordinary Indians related to it or not. And as a consequence it has never found a place in the heart of India as Lutyens’s buildings have. Strangely they are from the Raj period, these are from the free period, but it’s a sort of strange inversion here. And in that, there is an important lesson. If we are not going to be able to take everybody along, and if our architecture is not going to be able to be relatable, there is not much point doing it. In that sense, I am a bit modified. There are contexts in which I feel I do a completely modern building. IIM, for example, abstract to the core, and anyone who likes abstract, austere modern architecture would perhaps warm to that. Many others wouldn't. But there are places where a slightly different vocabulary is necessary. I don't take my modernism all the way there. Because you're undertaking these huge projects which have major emotional resonance with people you've also been criticised. I am sure you’re aware of the jibe: One nation, one architect that’s directed at you. I will quote Ram Guha talking in the context of the Sabarmati Ashram modernisation plan where he says: “When a regime known for its aesthetic barbarism, and its worship of monumentalism uses the word ‘world class’ in connection with the Sabarmati Ashram, it sends shivers down the spine.” How would you respond to this kind of sharp criticism?(Long pause) I think Ram Guha doesn't know what’s proposed for the Gandhi Ashram, otherwise he would probably think differently. I have nothing to say about his sort of overall comment about the government, etc. I think there's not much point responding to that sort of stuff. But I think if he were to see the way in which the landscape for the central vista along Rajpath is done, or if he were to actually understand what was being done at Gandhi Ashram, he’d perhaps say something different, at least I like to think that he’d say something different.As I just said, people respond to architecture very emotionally, that’s the first response of the lay person — would you say that in the cases of these big projects that you are undertaking on behalf of the government, there is not enough dialogue? In the case of the Central Vista, say there’s been a lot of suspicion, opacity, people not knowing. Do you think this could have been better dealt with?One can never say no to this sort of question. How can I deny that if one were to engage more perhaps you could have a different outcome? But we must also keep in mind that we live in very polarised times. While I do believe that an accountable government must try and be as transparent as possible, I’m not naive to believe that even if it were transparent people would actually read it. I’ve very often seen that while many honest, good faith critics, once they see the facts, they will change their views, but I also know that there are many people who will never let the facts come in the way of a good theory they have. It’s also a time at which there is a sort of a paradigm shift underway from a certain older way of thinking to a new way of thinking and it's bound to be fraught with such polarisation. So if one wants to work in the public realm, then one has to understand that this goes with the territory. And if you cannot handle that I would say then this is not the best work to do for you, as an architect or an urban planner.mediumMy engagement with public projects goes back well over two decades now. I was determined to work in the public realm. I always thought that as an architect it’s no use doing boutique projects for the upper crust of India, which is what a lot of Indian architecture is all about. It’s all about tiny boutique projects done extremely well. But they serve the upper crust, and nobody else. So if I really wanted to improve Ahmedabad, I had to have a focus on the lives of ordinary people. So a public space is a really important thing. I mean people like, I am part of the upper crust, and people like me have our gardens, but for ninety-nine per cent of the population there is no garden or private garden to go to, so we must create public spaces. So I’ve been engaged in these projects since the early ‘90s. I even did a PhD in urban planning and urban design, because I was not satisfied with just the kind of education available in architectural schools.So this (criticism) is not new. The scale is certainly much bigger and one never really gets used to it. But I am listening to what people say acutely for anything that might help improve the project. I'm not not listening. I am able to shrug off the things that I know are coming either because of malice sometimes, or because of a lack of understanding of the facts, or just sometimes because of politics of some sort. medium86360792While on the subject of working in Indian cities, what’s the big challenge at say the project in the Kashi Vishwanath corridor? Banaras is the way it is, with its small alleyways that’s part of the charm — Banaras ki galiya — and then you come in and clear them out to create space that brings its own problems.People say, ‘Oh, my God this is going to change the soul of Kashi!’ Banaras is so large and this project is only 40,000 meters square area. So first of all, it’s not such a large area that is being transformed to have a different spatial quality. I agree with you, it doesn’t have the spatial quality of the gullies, but these are two gullies out of probably hundreds of gullies. But these two gullies, the space between the two gullies that used to lead up to the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir has been cleared, and a different sort of architecture has been created. The place needs it because it gets visited by vast numbers of pilgrims and tourists. The first person who proposed that something be done about this, that shouldn't our temples have some spaciousness and cleanliness around, was none other than Mahatma Gandhi. If you read his Banaras Hindu University speech in 1916... He had been the previous evening to the temple and he says, ‘Listen, if this is the way our temples are going to be, if this is the kind of squalor and filth within which they are going to be set, how are we going to become a respectable nation?’ So you should read that speech. It’s very instructive. That was 1916. It took 100 years before something ever got done about this. Yes, we must respect, I'm not saying that you take away all the gullies, all the hundreds of gullies. But once in a while, when the situation demands it, you must not be paralysed by the fear of transforming a place because transformations sometimes are essential and these might be surgical, these have to be done sensitively. Now, the opposite is the Central Vista. We’ve preserved every bit of the structure and pay hundred per cent respect to the heritage in that area. Nothing is being transformed in its basic structure.Even with the Parliament, you’re keeping the facade intact?Not really keeping the facade, but what I am saying is that the two buildings will sit next to each other and must have some harmony. Why we don’t want to mimic that facade is because that's stone construction, etc. that’s of a different sort. We’ll have dry cladding, it’s a different sort of construction. But they must be harmonised. I mean if they're not siblings or identical twins at least they must look like cousins. It’s height, bulk, shape, the size of the stone that we use is similar so that they could sit easily well next to each other.Listen to the complete podcast here