Architects question government ‘foreign’ design

City-based professionals question the rationale behind state officials’ hankering for global architecture firms

The state’s fancy for designer government buildings, including the expansion plans of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), should have made the city architects happy. The the government’s inclination towards global architecture firms have left them fuming instead.

‘It’s a designer dream for CST’, published in DNA on Thursday, September 6, 2007, chronicled the government’s decision to ask Central Railway to host a global design competition for the CST-Carnac Bunder expansion plans. Feeling left out, angry architects in city are asking the tough question: Who will shell out the money to get the designs in place?

Architect Hafeez Contractor, who was assigned by Tata Economic Consultancy Services (TECS) to undertake a feasibility plan for Carnac Bunder for Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation (MRVC), told DNA, “We did the layout plan for costing of the entire project. After we submitted the report, MRVC asked us for a detailed design. We asked for a  certain fee in return, but never got it. So we opted out of the project,” he said.

Contractor questioned the rationale of state officials hankering for global architecture firms. “We have enough talent here. If the government pays proper fees, things would improve,” he said.

PC Sehgal, managing director, MRVC said, “Contractor has submitted the financial feasibility report, which has to be approved by the Railway Board.” Asked about the global design competition, he added, “The New Delhi railway station project had a global design competition. We will decide whether to have a similar one for CST after we monitoring the Delhi model’s success.”

Sanjay Ubale, secretary, special projects, agreed that it was time for the government to change its approach. “We have to be more professional if we want top architects to work for us. There is no point in discussing quality and aesthetics, if we are not willing to pay fees for good design,” he said.

Architects like Anant Gadgil explained a contrasting trend — growing number of Indian architects are going global despite many being shoddily by the government. “There should be a law for recognising talent. Global design competitions could be held for big projects like CST. But too many of such competitions would undermine local talent,” he added.

Conservation architect Harshad Bhatia pointed out that global firms were eyeing markets in India and China. “Local architects are getting a raw deal as the Council of Architecture (CoA) does not represent their case strongly. We don’t have iconic buildings in Mumbai because the government just focuses on the functional aspect instead of stressing on image-building exercise,” he said.

Bhatia hoped that foreign firms would be asked to register with CoA and partner with local firms. “Global firms are good for signature brand buildings, but for long term, we need to respect the Indian talent, which is far superior in content,” he said.