Starchitects before Starchitecture
Annesley Farren
Contemporary Indian architecture is a synthesis not an isolate. This article considers the amalgam of architecture and context by examining the contrasting approaches of two influential architects, Le Corbusier and Charles Correa. Le Corbusier is viewed as the archetypal ‘starchitect’, whose universal principles sometimes clashed with local contexts, while Correa is noted for his context-sensitive approach to modernism. Their contributions to modernism and modernity are considered through a comparison of their philosophies, projects, and legacies.
Following India’s independence from Britain in 1947, there arose a desire to revive and redefine Indian architecture, which had been suppressed under colonialism. There was a shift to reintroduce traditional religion, ritual, and practice back into a forward-looking yet historically grounded architecture. However, Indian architectural ideology at this time was caught between Western modernism and maintaining the simplicity of Indian village architecture. Jawaharlal Nehru, independent India’s first Prime Minister, believed a society which ceases to change ceases to go ahead becomes weak. A part of this change, India joined the modernist movement. To introduce Western architecture into India, modern architects were invited and given creative liberty on large-scale projects throughout the country.
After his rise in fame by the mid-twentieth century, Le Corbusier was summoned. His main project in India was the urbanisation of the city of Chandigarh, a city which became a blueprint of modern grid-based urban planning and how to build in the International Style on the subcontinent. He designed the Capitol Complex, which included housing and the major institutional buildings of the State: the High Court, Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, and the Governor’s Residence, which was never built.
A range of housing, intended for a spectrum of incomes, was designed in large multi-storey blocks based in Le Corbusier’s radical thinking about what may comprise modern living in India. The proposals were stark, rectilinear geometries and plain façades broken only by sun-screening devices like deep overhangs and recesses, perforated screens, and open verandahs. He believed order to be the root of modernism and viewed housing as a machine in which to live, with each element serving a specific purpose. His designs were simple, efficient, and expressive of their purpose.
In designing Chandigarh, Le Corbusier did not attempt to incorporate local resources. Instead, he imported Western materials and technologies to produce functionalist buildings, constructed primarily from reinforced concrete, steel, and glass. None of these materials were readily available in India at the time, a then largely pre-industrialised nation where cheap manual labour was readily available. The ‘master’ architects were invited to India for the purpose of giving younger architects the opportunity to observe and learn the design process of modernism, so they could implement what they learned. Chandigarh was unsuccessful in the sense that Indian architects could not imitate these buildings without access to the same expensive and unavailable resources the masters required. Le Corbusier failed to demonstrate how to utilise local resources such as stone, bricks, wood, and lime to create a modern vernacular more suited to Indian climatic conditions.
Le Corbusier’s work faced criticism for its perceived arrogance and lack of contextual sensitivity. His designs for Chandigarh, for example, were condemned for their lack of association with Indian cultural values and building traditions. Chandigarh replaced twenty-four villages. The new city was named after one of these existing villages, with its temple dedicated to the goddess, Chandi, remaining on the outskirts. Le Corbusier received flak, as this temple was not integrated into the general master plan or architecture of the city.
Chandigarh was criticised for its extreme and austere modernism, in stark contrast to the traditional Indian village styles. The plan to create an entirely modern environment amid India’s poverty and its culture deeply rooted in place was unrealistic. The city’s design and architecture failed to reflect and speak to the country’s culture and lifestyle, yet was a statement to the world of how modernism could be implanted on landscapes which wanted or did not want such impositions.
Rather than drawing inspiration from the Indian village, with houses grouped around a central communal space, housing complexes were built in large modern blocks, with no connection to the outdoors, save a small balcony. This inhibited social interaction and the ability to foster community, instead isolating residents, minimising opportunity to interact with neighbours, and creating an environment foreign to Indians.
Traditional Indian houses are built incorporating specific climatic design features. In humid areas, light and airy construction promotes air circulation; in arid areas, the hot wind and sun are blocked with heavy construction and minimal openings in the thick outer walls. Instead of incorporating these features developed to best suit their climate, Le Corbusier designed structures with minimal openings, which inhibited sufficient air circulation and created uncomfortable living conditions. The thin, flat concrete surfaces were not functional in either the overwhelming summer heat or the intense winds and rain of the monsoon season. Instead of creating a space suited to the Indian’s lifestyle and climate, Le Corbusier created his own idea of a perfectly ordered urban paradise, hence attracting criticism for the lack of awareness of the needs of the physical context.
Fame, narcissism, an idea of the social self, and the need to belong provide insight into how designers might design anything. Some claim that it was the narcissism associated with increased appeal of visibility and status to which Le Corbusier was drawn. The desire for fame can stem from various motives, such as recognition, wealth, and having the ability to help others. Le Corbusier may have started with good intentions. In Chandigarh, however, these were clouded after his rise to fame. An explicit perception of superiority over others and is often linked to anti-social tendencies. Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh prioritised a desire for privacy and isolation in social housing, not those elements more typical of Indian village life.
Enthusiasm for the International Style was already waning by the time Chandigarh’s key monuments were nearing completion in the late 1950s. The conventional architectural practices of India shifted away from Corbusian ideals, beginning with architects working directly under him. One of these ambitious architects, Charles Correa, aimed to fuse Le Corbusier’s modernist Western architecture with his own Indian ideals: climatological principles, cultural ideals, and sculptural details of traditional buildings. K.T. Ravindran describes this as ‘stylistic reductionism’, where iconic architectural features of Le Corbusier are “reflected in the deep exposed concrete fins or awkwardly curved sunshades, or by the more adept to mere proportions of apertures."
Correa was among a group of aspiring young architects sent to the United States, where they were exposed to the progressive imagery and techniques of the emerging International Style. Upon his return to India, Correa had developed a deep understanding of modernist functionality and simplicity, as well as the importance of design’s relevance to the physiological and cultural environment of its context. Combining this with his knowledge of India’s culture and building traditions, he began experimenting to create a modernist-inspired design more suited to Indian contexts than the hyper-rational suggestions of Le Corbusier. The term ‘critical regionalism’ was created in academic parlance in the 1980s, although the concept and practice existed well before. It refers to an architectural approach in which both the physical and socio-cultural context are considered and applied to shape the design, evading the homogeneity and lack of contextual tailoring apparent in, among other styles, modern architecture. However, Correa didn’t blindly use vernacular features, but instead considered the region’s building traditions, extracting only the essence of these traditions, rather than literal references.
Charles Correa believed modern architecture should be implemented for its universal progressive qualities. Still, he posited value should also be placed on the geographical context of buildings, with emphasis on topography, climate, light, culture, and the possible influence of local architectural styles. Correa countered the homogeneity of modernist architecture through the incorporation of traditional Indian features, overcoming the dominance of Le Corbusier’s design approach by tailoring designs to contexts, ensuring functionality and sensitivity to local conditions.
Critical regionalist architectural projects are those which involve context-specific architecture, historical knowledge, climate responsiveness, and the employment of local materials, landscaping, and social and cultural appropriateness. Correa’s Gandhi Memorial Museum considers each of these categories. He used locally sourced and readily available materials: bricks, stone, wood, louvered windows, and handmade terracotta roof tiles. The museum’s fundamental form expresses characteristics of Gandhi’s philosophy: it is human scale, unpretentious, and modest. Its layout incorporates the essence of Indian village huts, with its clustered spaces and peaked roofline. Its pavilions, courtyards, and pools create a calming effect, a quality that Gandhi lived and advocated throughout his life. Correa took a similar approach in his other museums, never creating visually repetitive designs, but drawing inspiration from vernacular architecture.
Le Corbusier advocated universal modernism. He believed that his modern architectural principles were universally applicable, irrespective of any project’s cultural, social, or environmental context. His view of houses as machines for living focused on efficiency and functionality, foregoing ornamentation and adornment, instead favouring clean lines, minimalism, and the use of concrete, steel, and glass.
Correa, on the other hand, was recognised for his context-sensitive design approach, fusing modernist principles with local considerations. Unlike Le Corbusier, his focus was on understanding and responding to the context of each project, prioritising the user’s experience. In his projects, Correa successfully integrated traditional Indian architectural elements with modernist principles, creating designs which were both innovative and rooted in local traditions to make people feel at home in their environment.
Le Corbusier had a significant but controversial impact on both social and cultural contexts. His apparent arrogance and arguably unwarranted confidence in his universal approach sometimes led to designs that clashed with the local environment or the needs of users. His design for Chandigarh demonstrates this through its endeavors to create a modern city, prioritising functionality and efficiency. The rigid layout and extensive use of concrete ignored the local climate and cultural practices. The capitol complex is visually and physically distanced from the city in an attempt to create an air of dignity and exclusivity, preserving its serenity. Overlooking realities, the city was built for cars that most of its residents couldn’t yet afford. His emphasis on privacy and isolation in social housing designs conflicted with the communal living practices typical in Indian culture, thus alienating residents.
Correa’s impact was less pervasive. However, his approach was still profound in India, where his designs were celebrated for their cultural sensitivity and user-centered approach. His housing projects, such as the Tara Group Housing complex, emphasised community living and social interaction, which was much more culturally appropriate than Le Corbusier’s designs. Correa’s public buildings, like the Gandhi Memorial Museum, successfully considered the context, celebrating Indian culture through subtle references to traditional architectural elements, creating a space that was both innovative and culturally resonant. His use of local materials in his design was more sustainable and allowed him to use traditional passive cooling techniques adapted from techniques of his predecessors.
Le Corbusier portrayed himself as someone deeply concerned with improving people’s living conditions, but the truth is more complex. His design of high-rise towers, obsession with control, uniformity, and artificial order, seen in the form of segregated societies, are more symbolic of totalitarian rule. Due to his reputation, he was given many design opportunities globally, in which he chose to disregard all local contexts to conform to his totalitarian approach to urban design principles. His formerly revered policies led to the isolation and marginalisation of certain groups, the creation of an unsustainable car-dependent society, and a shift away from the organic feel of traditional cities, causing repercussions that are still evident today.
Chandigarh reflects the shortcomings of Le Corbusier’s principles. Despite only being crafted 70 years ago, the city is in a state of disrepair. Its strict socioeconomic hierarchy, collapsing infrastructure, and space shortages are all results of Le Corbusier’s flawed planning guidelines. The entire city lacks architectural variation, following Le Corbusier’s preferred pseudo-Fascist, minimalistic, and simple concrete-clad style. There is no architectural variation in Chandigarh whatsoever, since everything follows Le Corbusier’s preferred pseudo-Fascist minimalistic and simple concrete-clad style. The entire city features an unoriginal form of centrally controlled development and has row upon row of identical city blocks. Today, in spite of the fact that it sports the nation’s highest income per capita, Chandigarh, despite only being crafted 70 years ago, is in a state of disrepair. Its strict socioeconomic hierarchy, collapsing infrastructure, space shortages, all results of Le Corbusier’s planning guidelines have prompted the local chief minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda, to suggest the government to vacate the city. To him, Chandigarh and its layout “are completely unethical,” and “one should not copy it.” There has been speculation as to whether Chandigarh will and should exist in the future, due to its design flaws which lead to the exclusion of communities, stratification of social classes, and neglect the traditional charm of Indian vernacular. His lack of contextual consideration is remembered as a cautionary tale, with many of his buildings having a lasting negative effect.
While Correa’s physical work primarily centered on India, his legacy extends globally. He advocated for critical regionalism, balancing modernism with local culture and environmental considerations. His design approach focused predominantly on the user experience, encouraging a more human-centric approach to design. His use of local materials and focus on sustainability is also part of his legacy, showing the next generation of Indian architects how to incorporate local materials and techniques into the design to create passive cooling strategies. This has left a lasting impact on the field of sustainable architecture globally.
Le Corbusier and Charles Correa had two contrasting approaches to modern architecture. Le Corbusier’s universal modernism, and its focus on functionality and efficiency, did not always integrate with its local context, leading to perceived arrogance and criticisms of his lack of cultural sensitivity. In contrast, Correa, although less famous, achieved greater success with his contextual focus, leading to him being celebrated for responsiveness to local needs and conditions.
Le Corbusier’s influence on the International Style continues to influence cities globally, though architects have learned to emphasise consideration of context. Correa’s contributions to critical regionalism and sustainable design offer a more culturally sensitive approach to architecture. Together, they highlight the diverse possibilities of modernism and the importance of balancing universal principles with local contexts.