The recent invitation extended by the Andhra Pradesh government to a leading Telugu film director to participate in the city building process of its new capital Amaravati may be seen as a pointer to the former’s anxious search for a spectacular city that in its appearance and makeup will reflect the rich history and culture of the state. While its benign intentions may not be suspect, and involving artistes, writers, historians or social scientists in the process is much needed and welcome, the trajectory of the government’s current thinking seemingly blurs the distinction between fantastic imagery and architecture. ... In what perhaps was a glimmer of promise, the state’s Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) had earlier this year invited master architects and Padmashri recipient Balakrishna Doshi, Fumihiko Maki from Japan and Richard Rogers from the UK, both winners of the prestigious Pritzker Prize, considered architecture’s Nobel, to participate in an invite-only international competition to develop a master plan for the proposed 900-acre capitol complex precinct and conceptual designs for prestigious structures like the assembly, high court, secretariat and other mission buildings. ... The jury adjudged Maki’s proposals in the first position and has reportedly presented a detailed technical report to CRDA. All proposals were later made public. But this is now history and seems ever so.

...

The Andhra Pradesh government’s recent decision to call for fresh tenders all over again to appoint a new master architect and not engage Maki and his associates is a matter for review. The move reflects some trepidation in the government’s decision-making processes and may convey an image of the government having relegated due processes. This, in turn, is likely to dent its credibility amongst the professional fraternity, particularly thwarting the prospect of gaining from the expertise of all the master architects who participated in the competition and others of their ilk. It is not clear what technical reasons or predicaments otherwise would have pushed the government to take such a decision. The selection of a new master architect notwithstanding, it would immensely benefit the process and would only be pertinent for the government to make the jury’s report on the international competition entries public, highlighting all the technical merits and demerits of the winning proposal and those submitted by other master architects so as to learn from them, avoid circuitous processes and potential pitfalls, if any.

While certain aspects of Maki’s conceptual proposals (the appearance of the assembly building in particular) did receive public criticism, it is not clear if the state government did solicit improvements in design from the master architect for further evaluation and if the latter responded well. After all, even the designs of an ordinary residence go through much iteration to suit the needs of their owners. This would perhaps have helped in setting a healthy precedent in upholding the integrity of institutional procedures, critical to soliciting long-term good will, confidence and support from many quarters, as also in culling maximum gain from the merits of the shortlisted proposal.

The government could still invite all the master architects and the eminent jury who participated in the international competition process to form a capitol complex advisory or may still choose to forge a unique collaborative engagement amongst them to set high benchmarks in the quality of design and construction of important civic structures right at inception. It could still floated a design ideas competition with inclusive prequalification norms for other mission buildings with these master architects and other eminent experts from our country as jury. While these options may not be exhaustive or the most appropriate, and while it is the prerogative of the state government to call off any tender or to float new ones, given the magnitude, significance and serious technical nature of the work, it will be prudent for the government to build an inclusive model of working with these master architects over a sustained duration and benefit best from their precious expertise instead of losing them. Their rich experience may also be utilised to solicit opinions regarding urban development of the state. The idea is to make the most of some of the leading and best minds in the industry.

Endeavours like capital-city building must be guided by robust and ethically well-grounded institutional processes which are inclusive and make the best of masterly expertise rather than those of exclusion and elimination, transcending dry contractual procedures and norms. While there can be a broad master plan for the precinct that can be agreed upon, which in itself must be deemed to be dynamic and open to modifications and improvements, the complexity of urban issues at hand and the challenges they pose demand collaborative work rendering the idea of a selecting a single architect and a frozen master plan or design almost archaic. Such an approach will only enable the state to benefit from the rich diversity of contemporary ideas in city building pitched against a framework of common design guidelines.