Laws are rules and regulations that govern a particular country or society to function in a way. Bylaws, on the other hand, are a set of rules used by a company, organization, or body to govern its action. The former is on a macro level, and the latter is on a micro. When put in place, building rules and regulations create discipline and equality for all and avoid confusion. It applies to all.
Today, in construction and infrastructure, which are currently at an all-time high, laws are more important than ever to exercise control and strictness. It makes sure the activities take place within the right frame. But are rules and regulations taking the field of architecture in an unexpected direction? A direction it should not be heading in? The answer is pending and uncertain for now, but the question puts light on the banes on bylaws that might be hurting the profession.
Every time a structure comes up, it is made to and has to follow the laws put in place for it to be brought up in a particular manner. It’s like striking a hammer when the iron is hot, which molds the structure slightly, expectedly. The bylaws indeed emphasize on the safety of the users and ensure that safety is the primary motive. But this is where the problem starts to creep in. It imperceptibly sets roots. When made to work under terms and conditions, even before the process starts, the intent of design changes and the freedom to look at things from a fresh perspective takes a back seat. Be it any building typology, the rules define how things will function even before designing sets in motion.
Architecture is a specialization that is synonymous with inventiveness and originality. If not kept in control, there are chances that designers can go on to design anything of their wishes, and even lead to things going haywire by overexploitation of resources. That is where rules keep things in check. But, bylaws are leading to the generation of almost identical prototypes and creation of dense foliage of duplicates, or rather boredom. The privilege of using ideas to their maximum potential is not possible.
The focus has shifted to optimizing the given floor space index and planning more programs. Commercialization is driving the mindsets, and the direction is unruly. The primary issue we face is not comprehending population density, ignoring the future, not letting designs find solutions to existing problems, etc. Be it a hundred humans per square kilometer or a thousand; the rules remain the same even though the dynamics differ. These minute details are not being deciphered, and the design is just a spectator.
In times of higher urban growth, the need for housing is soaring too. Not everybody has the prerogative to have access to better living standards. This need is being translated into an economic attitude, and rules are bent to churn out fortunes from it. In all this, architecture’s role to refine conditions, provide fruitful compositions, and let architects improve the functioning scenario, only sees the light of day seldom. The trajectory is becoming apparent. Of course, rules are made to keep things in check, but it is mass-producing templates of the same wavelength. The idea of novelty ceases, and we are made to accept default options.
Architecture needs to be given a chance to concoct ingenuine curatives. Instead of devising a typical set of rules and creating a territory for architects to play in, a change should be brought about wherein two options are created. The first is a rule-followed option, and the second is an architect’s intuitive response to a problem wherein all aspects, from user safety to respecting the climate and resources and all rules, are well considered by letting the design act as a catalyst and add impetus. Of course, the second alternative sounds like a vague idea, but it can be a start in the direction it should have always been heading in, in the first place. It might be a long shot, but the sound should make one pause and think.
Whether bylaws and building rules and regulations are taking architecture in a direction it shouldn’t be heading into, is a very tricky but honest query. Are the rules ruling over, or are they sincerely guiding architecture on a good course? This is a burning question. But whatever it is, we surely know what needs to be modified. Architecture means to plan and construct buildings. But it does not say to construct buildings with the same meaning. Does it? In the present day, where we are tired of seeing the same, what’s wrong with changing the existing by making interventions? After all, history does repeat itself, and just like that, we might as well give rise to a civilisation of our thoughts.
References:
- Sahu, A. and A. (2020). Examining the importance of bylaws and copyright in the architectural profession. [online] The Daily Guardian. Available at: https://thedailyguardian.com/examining-the-importance-of-bylaws-and-copyright-in-the-architectural-profession/#:~:text=Bye%20Laws%2C%20Building%20Standards%20and%20Considerations%20in%20the [Accessed 4 Dec. 2022].
- SDM Architects. (n.d.). Does Mumbai need more FSI or less? | What is FSI? [online] Available at: https://www.sdmarchitects.com/does-mumbai-need-more-fsi-or-less.html.