Nihala Mohammed
As part of the webinar talk series, Webinar-3 was conducted by Peggy Nepram, a sociologist, urban planner, and managing partner of the Habitat design studio and Ar. Kiranjith Sivavalsan (associate professor, stream head-theory, KCoA) on the topic ‘Modernist city planning’.
Peggy Nepram begins with an introduction to the city of Brasilia and about the pioneers involved in its design and creation. Brasilia is an egalitarian utopia that was designed by Oscar Niemeyer in 1960. The location of the site was chosen based on economic reasons to cut transportation costs of goods and commute. Brasilia is located in the federal district of Brazil. The city is now one of the fourth largest cities in Brazil. Brasilia also happens to be the only twentieth-century built city that was given a designation by UNESCO as one of the world heritage sites.
Viewing the master plan, Peggy points out that the city’s design divides it into numbered blocks as well as sectors for specified activities (the hotel sector, banking sector, embassy sector, and other sectors). The city also has a unique status in Brazil as it is an administrative division rather than a legal municipality like other cities in Brazil. And since Brasilia was built and designed on an explicit set of ideas forth by the modernist planning theory. It brought the ‘strange’ into the city premises hoping for a transformation in the society. One such instance in design is the blurring of the basic distinction between the public and private spaces. The green spaces around the state building imposed a different urban order creating a constriction to utilize the space for leisure and recreation. The responses expected were not ‘the user’ responses achieved.
Largely, the city displays a political aspiration, rigidness in space, and social structure. In another interpretation, this can also be perceived as a step closer for people to be up close with democracy. This design secluded a section of the community or certain classes of people through socio-economic status such as owning an automobile that requires a certain level of economic stability which was unaffordable by the low-income group of the society. Eventually, this paved the way for the favelas or satellite towns on the outskirts of Brasilia. The white, modern architecture created strong segregation between the different classes whilst allowing the elite to settle in effortlessly.
From this analysis of modern planning in this city, it is evident that the city of Brasilia has decontextualized the site. Hence, the consideration of the context of the site and the ability to accommodate consequential responses that may occur during the full function of the city. The growth of a city must be allowed to be on organic terms through user interaction and user accessibility to various sectors and services with minimal hindrance.
When referring Brasilia to the Chandigarh city, a certain velocity of smooth functioning is visible. The city of Chandigarh is internationally known since it was designed by the modernist architect, Le Corbusier in the post-independence period. This was a time when prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to fulfill the vision of bringing India closer to modernism through development in infrastructure as well as by other means of growth. The city was to accommodate people from different parts of India and other regional countries that were fleeing from conflict. Looking for a place to settle down in Le Corbusier’s design, the city was divided into various sectors with different services similar to the design of Brasilia. Through time, people began to experience hindrances and difficulties to access spaces, eventually, the sectors evolved to fit the needs of the users of the space. Now Chandigarh is a flourishing city with a better functioning system of services through the development and addressing the needs of the people.
In the city of Brasilia, resilience is constituted by design. As mentioned earlier by Peggy Nepram, the green spaces are inaccessible from different sectors other than by vehicular access. Similarly, the morality, mentality, social fabric, and reasons to cohabit are out of sync due to the disintegration of functionality and productivity of spaces to cohabit in harmony. In another statement pointed out by Peggy Nepram, she states that no two places are alike. For example, Ernakulam and Malappuram or even Kochi and Perinthalmanna. The structure of city growth and social fabric are visibly different. Standardizing architecture will result in a very rigid spatial character and experience.
In conclusion, she states that Brasilia has created more equations than providing solutions. It is more considerate to be mindful of the people, characteristics, and context when designing a new solution to solve the equations. It is the integration over alienation that matters when planning.
