[Urbanstudy] (theaccomodatingcity) Capital and architecture/urbanism

Tue Sep 6 22:32:44 CDT 2016

you've put me on the spot, Prem. 

I agree, we cannot shun capitalism unless we head off to Auroville or some remote earth ship or hippe type location in Arizona, but honestly, can you really escape capitalism anywhere on this planet. I suspect the role of civil society in addition to that of the state and capital is overlooked (simply a variant on your take on human rights infusion). In a networked world such as ours, if we can topple autocratic governments, there has to be a way to make the middle voice stronger. I think by returning to the binary of state and capital to define and shape our living environments we short circuit the 3rd voice of the people who inhabit our cities. I think we as citizens need to strengthen this voice, to take the edge off capitals media power and the state's political rhetoric.

Let me think about it some more. But I think my thoughts are still rather underdeveloped and tinged a little with hope rather than a critique of the present.

Rambling thoughts again

Yashdeep Srivastava 
49, Undoolya Road
East Side NT 0870
Australia

h: +61 8 8953 1631
w: +61 8 8959 6171
m: +61 433 549 546

Subject: Re: [Urbanstudy] (theaccomodatingcity) Capital and architecture/urbanism
From: prem.cnt at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:32:08 +0530
CC: hburte at gmail.com; theaccomodatingcity at googlegroups.com; urbanstudygroup at sarai.net
To: yashdeeps at hotmail.com

Dear Yash,Thanks for your comment.  Curiously, in another exchange related to a blog post of mine <https://premckar.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/urbanisation-in-india-some-critical-issues/> Himanshu had critiqued it by saying I had ignored capitalism, the elephant in the room.  This was my response to that comment:
True Himanshu. But there is a limit to what could be covered in one essay (which had already turned out longer than intended), so that is a whole different research project. Some reading I am doing on this: “Conscious Capitalism” by John Mackey and Raj Sisodia; “Post-Capitalism” by Paul Mason. Also reading up a bit on emergence and complexity theory, as the current brand of neoliberal capitalism is usually justified saying a self-organising system is more efficient than a centrally controlled system, which is true but does not validate the assumption that neoliberalism is the best form for a self-organising economy. At the end of the day, not sure if I have the expertise to construct a thorough critique of capitalism.
Would be interested in your take on capital, and the stand that architects and urban designers must take on it (have changed the subject line in this mail thread as it is going in a different direction from the original topic)
My take is not a rejection of capitalism (for that would be unrealistic) but for its modification and restraint through a doctrine of human rights articulated at the level of the city - I make brief reference to this issue of human rights in my blog post.  For this, we need to redefine the role of state intervention, whereas a large part of the current problem is the belief that the state should retreat and leave more and more to markets.  But as I have noted, I do not feel I have the full expertise for a thorough critique on this subject (although it is something that I seek to learn more on).
Regards,Prem

On 07-Sep-2016, at 8:01 AM, yash srivastava <yashdeeps at hotmail.com> wrote:I haven't lived or practiced architecture in India for a long time. I have not written books or articles and speak as a lay architect not really initiated into the life and works of French social theorists. I have neither read Himanshu's book nor Prem's article. I have followed your exchange with great interest and enjoyed it enormously.

However, regarding architecture and autonomy I am somewhat intrigued that the discussion has steered clear of the links between architectural/architect's autonomy and capital. So much of architecture and its practitioners are hand maidens to global capital. I agree with your comment that architecture can and does become a self-referential game, but I am less sure that the game is based on something deeper and more structural like capital. Developers are often the conduit for that capital and many of us architects are really merely it's foot soldiers. The inhabitants 'buy' access to a broader discourse, an image, a dream and so on. I feel inhabitants exercise autonomy on a much smaller scale and occasionally on a very grand scale like Dharavi. But Dharavi is free of big capital, developers and architects.

Himanshu - I agree with you and Lefebvre too - an evolving system of social and spatial relations - however we need to qualify who the actors really are. Although you refer to the abstract perceived and conceived spaces I think lived space is the more interesting. I have read this long back, but Lefebvre has also made reference to hyperspace - space of airports, shopping malls and the like (excuse my laziness). These spaces are a manifestation of global capital and architects are the midwives who help to deliver these projects. To believe that architects are the mothers of these projects I believe would be a fallacy in humble view.

In short I sense that architecture and architects are not autonomous enough especially in a neoliberal world. Corbusier operated in another world when it came to Chandigarh, he was a very autonomous architect encouraged and empowered by Nehru who was perhaps our most autonomous PM -and it shows!

Please pardon my random thoughts, lack of erudition and inelegant prose. I hope to be able to read your fine writing someday soon. Apologies too if I am totally off the topic :) 

Yashdeep Srivastava 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup_mail.sarai.net/attachments/20160907/3126dcbc/attachment.html>