There is often a camparison of architecture with cars , and mobiles today in terms of the finished product  that one desires. We have also started using industrial paints like duco in the interiors,it is nothing but an attempt to satisfy a mental starvation to have a possesion of anything tangible that looks familiar to such models like a bmw or an       i- phone with  these aluminium bodies , which are orignally industrial products and are used in high tech buildings ,

The problem happens when such similar comparison  starts to happen in the making of an industrial product and architecture as well . A car can grow to a certain extent in terms of size but it largely satisfies a practical problem of transporting “x” from point a to b in an experiencial journey. Hence a bmw made in germany or any other part of the world  will not vary from each other for three reasons

  • The context remains the same which is to be able to drive on a road and the property of roads are similar across the world
  • Brand name – one does not question the cost of indivisual ingridients to the total cost of construction of a bmw or even an i phone.but we are happy to pay for the name
  • Mass production – with multiple buyers for the name it is a profitable business, as millions of buyers have a common liking for a product they want to “live with”

On the other hand in architecture

  1. Context – every building or space making for dwelling comes with inumerous variables in terms of place , culture, memories, available material, economics, bye laws etc , as it has to stand in the context of a built environment. Hence it offers innovation at every stage,
  2. Brand name – remains for architects who pick up a style and try and retrofit the same for every context , names like frank o gehry , zaha hadid are few to name. Though they get commisions for their name but are also expected to repeat there style from the clients. But a purist would not repeat his design , for him anything in nature is not alike , there are replications of similar character but not exactitude , take for example flowers, trees human beings , no two individual will look alike abut similar.
  3. Mass production – the only need of the same was duringthe industrial revolution , when because of destruction there was a need of housing for the masses , so le corbusier took the case of a ship or a train wagon and mass produced housing schemes  like united d habitation in berlin, paris and one more. They all look alike similar in character , just like an  i phone, although it was an immense requirement but the result was a disaster, most of the housing schemes went bare and people stopped living in them , some of the schemes had to be demolished ( refer city of gorbals and pruit igoe case).the reason for demolishing was the lack of gathering spaces , community spaces, connection to the ground etc .the fact remains that possessions like a bmw and an i phone are good to live with but architecture is meant to live in , hence it is not a language/ status  alone but a machine to live in .( also refer to the meaning of house as a machine to live in , where the indivisual parts have a very strong interaction with each other to make a  big  machine,  similarly in  a house the interaction is not only physical but also

Hence there is always a need to amend a design 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s