LEON! my lady friend? er! don't see the connection here!
 
Lines should be drawn between planning and architecture, but how? I heard a formulat that said planning deals with frameworks, architecture with design! (this was Gita Dewan Verma), and some more, i can't say this is valid > exception:architecture deals in frameworks as well, and there do exist successful urbanisms with-architects and without-planners -- got suggestions?
 
Autonomy is not lost be becoming a part of larger institutions, there always are contentions and frameworks, some quite stimulating. SPA and CEPT oppose sweat shop architecture on paper, yes, but everybody is. The two seem to have lost their 'autonomy', if there ever was, SPA is certainly paralysed and this reflects on the calibre of the people at the institute. I am sure you know this better than me (i just know a little i hear here-and-there), what are structurally the issues at SPA?
 
Bunker Roy debacle, the Architexturez position is on the website -- we feel all concerned finally appealed to the Aga Khan Awards (tm) enterprise, including Neehar Raina. And by causing the 'debacle', Raina actually endorsed the importance of the MIT (tm) based organisation. Remember, he wanted 'in',...he wanted his share of Aga Khan (tm) bestowed glory. Bunker, Neehar; tweeldum, twildee -- all on the same side of the fence, agree to have a fight. Architexturez would have gladly jumped into the fray if there was a voice of dissent or will to question the authority of an United States based trademark organisation. Bunker's statements, we published some criticism because somebody voulenteered to look into that part. Neehar's stuff, we find equally interesting, will host petition should somebody think it worth it. Personally, I find the architect's motivations rather more interesting, unlike Mr. Roy's this is quite an insideous disease.
 
 
Himanshu Parikh, i don't get the context. can you elaborate? I suppose you mean the Indore project.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:56 PM
Subject: [in-enaction] HAbitat and Professionalism

Actually my apologies about the old foggies!!

I do agree with Anand's lady friend when she asked for the lines to be brawn between planning and architecture.

It is necessary in defineing the profession and professionalism... The point that I was trying to make by SPA and CEPT is that they are the only two colleges which oppose the sweat shop architecture.. By them becoming part of an larger institution the autonomy will be lost..

I am asking for answers which I believe should be answered... What happened to the Bunker Roy debacle? Was anyone brought to task.. if not who else is protecting the culprit.. is it the old foggies?? I am also led to belive that Himanshu Parekh is a civil engineer? IS that professional.???

Accountability is an issue for credibility...

Leon

 



 

>From: "Prem Chandavarkar"
>Reply-To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website: Council of Architecture
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:18:40 +0530
>
>Old foggies!!!??? - I am beginning to really feel my age.
>
>OK lets stop this (I agree rather voluminous) discourse and listen to what
>the young uns have to say.  I would love to have that as a starting point.
>
>If the current trends bother you what is the first step you would like to
>take?
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of leon morenas
>   Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:49 PM
>   To: [email protected]
>   Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website: Council of Architecture
>
>
>   I am getting a little lost with so much discourse happening.. Was ther a
>recent rumour/ titbit about the AICTE removing the accreditation powers of
>the CoA.
>   Besides I did get the stats from one mail that the CoA has young
>architects to the tune of 50%
>
>   I wonder if this is relevant but with the present state of affairs and the
>Gats happening.. where do this sizable chunk stand? I am also inclined to
>belive that SPA and CEPT are on the verge of closure? I believe that the age
>of the Sweat shops is at hand because the present trend shows most young
>professionals end up cheap labour in the offices of the biggies?
>
>   Why are we talking about the CoA here.. we have the MCD chief asking for
>USAid to do out bnuilding Bylaws and guidelines for us and the CoA does not
>even whimper?
>
>   I and the opinion of a few of the young uns believe that like the old
>foggies need to go and digress on some one else's turf and not allow this
>rot to infiltrate the profession further (if we do have one stil left)
>
>   But to harp on Professionals.. Look at the ITPI and their
>representatives... we have the director of the SPA heading it who has a CBI
>enquiry on him and the institution.. why should he be asked to represent.
>
>   I believe the older generation has to give us an answer for this rot that
>has set in.. the institutions like CoA, ITPI, SPA, HUDCO, DDA, HSMI...
>
>   So pardon my scepticism when I read the voluminous dialogue.. anbd am not
>convinced...
>
>   Young Professional
>
>
>
>   >From: "Prem Chandavarkar"
>
>   >Reply-To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>   >To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>   >Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website: Council of Architecture
>   >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:55:03 +0530
>   >
>   >Anand,
>   >To respond to a few key points:
>   >
>   > >
>   > > one, demand significant amandments in the CoA and IIA structures
>   > > another,
>   >
>   >Do you really want to take this on?
>   >
>   > > demand newer types of institutions and legislative frameworks,
>   > > which is quite stimulating.
>   > >
>   >
>   >Not clear on what you mean here - need more specific info.
>   >
>   >
>   > >
>   > > I am thinking about masters level courses and PhD programmes in
>   > > Architectural Education (M.Ed. in Architecture) and Design Informatics
>   > > (M.Tech Architecture), will gladly confuse research with education (or
>   > > education-as-research) and theory and design.
>   > >
>   >
>   >These are all spaces which require some degree of formalisation in terms
>of
>   >official structures - university recognition etc. Is there not a
>potential
>   >in informal spaces which do not require formalisation and only seek to
>churn
>   >up ideas.
>   >
>   > >
>   > > I am arguing the "alternative spaces" already exist (see above, the
>   > > deviations between architectural practice as observed and the CoA/IIA
>   > > nomenclatures), one just needs to occupy them and then wait for
>challenges
>   > > from the institutional stakeholders (who tend to negatively defend
>their
>   > > territories)
>   > >
>   >I agree - what specific suggestions do you have here.
>   >
>   > >
>   > > immediately contiguous, how do you imagine the professionals
>articulating
>   > > their stakes in architectural education? architecture-teaching isn't
>all
>   > > that it could be, it seems to me, because the employers aren't
>demanding
>   > > much.
>   > >
>   >I often get into arguments on this. As an architect who has academic
>   >interests and is also a partner in a 45 person practice I feel I am in a
>   >position to evaluate the interests of both sides. I have long argued
>   >against the vocationalisation of education with an overwhelming focus on
>   >skill development. The argument made is that students have to be usable
>by
>   >practices. As a practising architect, I feel it is just the opposite. I
>   >can cover to a certain extent for gaps in skills, but it is very
>difficult
>   >for me to cover for gaps in the ability to think independently,
>critically
>   >and with rigour. Therefore, my ability to use my staff to leverage my own
>   >time is seriously limited. However I find that very few practicing
>   >architects are willing to take such a view, and cling firmly to the view
>   >that vocationalising education is the 'practical' thing to do. The key is
>   >how you seek to differentiate yourself. If you wish to differentiate
>   >yourself in terms of design quality then you need a well-educated staff.
>   >But most Indian architects only attempt differentiation in terms of
>personal
>   >(and political) negotiation, price, and to a certain (but lesser) extent
>in
>   >terms of efficiency. Therefore, they only perceive a need for staff with
>   >easily definable vocational skills. To me this is a dangerous attitude
>for
>   >it does not work towards true differentiation and pushes architectural
>   >practice towards a commodity status. I find it difficult to push people
>out
>   >of this blinkered attitude - so I do not see much change in education
>coming
>   >from employers. I feel that a greater opportunity is to create
>alternative
>   >spaces for students - particularly those who are in the first half of the
>   >programme (as those in fourth and final year often begin to acquire the
>   >blinkers of convention).
>   >
>   >_______________________________________________
>   >in-enaction mailing list
>   >[email protected]
>   >http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>   MSN Hotmail now on your Mobile phone. Click here.
>_______________________________________________
>in-enaction mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction



Discover India. Celebrate her diversity. Come, fall in love!


_______________________________________________
in-enaction mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction