Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:54:26 +0000

2 Comments »

1. I nearly went to Chandigarh once, but missed the opportunity, so my comment is based only on reading: I do not understand how it can be seen as regional design. The view I am familiar with is that it is a European City which happens to have been built in India (1) the urban form is ‘wide open’, unlike the the traditional density of Indian cities (2) the architectural style is unlike anything else in India (3) the transport system was based on hydrocarbon power – not human and animal power, which still predominate in Indian cities. I do however agree with Nehru that it can “reflect the new nation’s modern, progressive outlook”. The buildings in the photographs are sculpturally beautiful and, unlike so much arid zone architecture, have well-shaded windows to keep out heat and glare.

   Comment by Tom Turner — March 12, 2010 @ 5:49 am

2. I have not visited Chandigarh either – it would definitely be on my iternary on any visit to India. The notion of ‘regional design’ derives not from referencing the architecture and culture of the region, but rather from the approach taken by the designer to consider regional factors (including climate) within his design. Did he do this well?

   On a blog by someone who had visited Chandigarh described his visit in contrast to the surrounding environment as “like walking into a cultural coma.” He also notes of the building that the pool is dry and is now “just filled with dead animals and rubbish.”

   So without visiting myself, I am not sure what to make of this.

   Comment by Christine — March 12, 2010 @ 6:00 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website