Contemporary architecture practice is defined by complex networks and multiple teams of specialists who often find means to ‘collaborate’ on a project. The idea of collaboration has transcended from being an idea of coming together of diverse minds to an idea where one often co-authors a project assimilating multiple and diverse roles. In this edition of Polemics, we discuss the term ‘design-thinking’ as a tool and a method; as a strategy for production of work and a framework for projects to be realised critically analysing the significance of the multilayered work-processes contemporary studios are involved with.
[IN]SIDE (IN): What does ‘Design Thinking’ mean to you? How do you see the term in context of your practice?
Arjun Doshi (AD): I think conceptualisation of a design starts the moment you have visited the site for the first time. On your way back, you are imagining all sorts of possibilities in your mind, looking at what is already built as you pass through an old street or a town where there are beautifully designed old structures that were once conceived in the simplest of materials available locally. Some of these buildings maybe crumbling down and you get to see a beautiful cross-section of the original structure. These are the kind of observations that sometimes lay the foundation of the thought process going forward. While there is a dialogue between stakeholders to diversify the process of thinking, there is also an intuitive thinking approach which helps especially when you are time-bound to deliver on a project. The strategy is to act first then reflect and in this process, you try and reinforce it.
Amritha Ballal (AB): Design thinking as we understand it speaks of collaborative solution-finding, prototyping, testing, representation and feedback loops. Similarly our training as architects emphasises creative, collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to problem solving. There is a stress on connecting the dots, often redefining the problem statement itself as the project evolves. In Architecture, these may not always be framed as a stepwise method but are often part of a dynamic, non-linear and exploratory process to arrive at a design solution.
Manisha & Shantanu (M & S): We believe ‘design thinking’ is about generating a more perceptual and humane understanding into the process. The brief and solution translates into more than just an intuitive or rational response to a given set of requirements. A process of inquiry with a given set of challenges and how they could be innovatively addressed is adopted. Subsequently, one arrives at an idea that is unique to the brief. It is through ‘design thinking’ that one can integrate the specificities of varied stakeholders – each responding to the challenges, both individually and collectively.
What we are witnessing now are boundaries where creative processes are becoming more fluid; converging both micro and macro scales across various design disciplines. For us, working on a design proposal primarily involves introspecting on the design brief to evolve a framework for its manifestation.
Shantanu Poredi and Manisha Agarwal
[IN]: How important is critical review and feedback for your work? How do you seek and incorporate ideas from collaborators?
[AD]: Over the course of our practice we have realised that critics play a significant role in strengthening/ shaping our work. There are times when a critic truly risks something in the discovery of something new. However, the most important critics/collaborators are our own team which comprises of all the craftspeople, site labourers, interns, and many a times, even our material suppliers. These are the people who understand the building more than anyone else as they can visualise the actual built mass and the space within. Collaboration always helps with articulation of a fresh approach in contrast to what is already being conceived.
[AB]: Critical review is very important. They are needed both during the process and post-project handover – which becomes the initial input for the process of the next project and so on. Project teams are multidisciplinary in nature – designer, construction manager, engineer, contractor, services consultant, artist and often collaborators from social science, ecology, communication design etc. We have presentations during the design process open to everyone in the studio, and connect with peers for feedback as well.
One feedback blind spot is of the end user- usually in the case of housing, the family that will eventually use the space is not represented, or in a school the students etc. So, as a process we are trying to incorporate ways to include these perspectives, through diverse teams, audits for gender- or child-friendly spaces or reviews through participatory stakeholder workshops etc. Finally, our research work really contributes to the critical review of the larger context of practise. This is the space where we can ask questions and create insights which built projects might not allow, for example issues of homelessness or industrial contamination.
We have experienced that these conversations which might begin outside of ‘projects’ gradually contribute to expanding the ambition and imagination of conventional projects.
Amritha Ballal
[M+S]: We believe any framework or pedagogy that can bridge the gap between the technological and tectonic structures of the past, present and the expected future can help weave a narrative which has certain timelessness. If design thinking can facilitate in making the design process more participatory; it can break out from the narrow lanes of the project being a vision of just one individual. A human centric thought process that responds to social, cultural and psychological aspects is as important as the spatial and physical aspects of design. In this manner, every solution can be unique with respect to the context and specificities of the users. With technological advancements in communication and software in the post-modern era these different creative professionals have started to converge and ignite into collaborations. The result of this convergence is evident in the nature of complex projects being delivered in the current scenario.
[IN]: As we see more and more practices creating ideas that are open-source and malleable, how do you see the complex issue of authorship of design in collaborative and cross-disciplinary environments?
[AD]: Authorship will always be in question as in olden times it was the greatness of the master mason, the owner who puts in the money, or the architect who conceives the design and defines the complete process of the built form. Any form of collaboration requires some form of flexibility whether it is in terms of drawings, working style or process. In a classic example of Doshi’s Hussain Ni Gufa, the complete project was realised on site with one joint idea between Professor Doshi and M F Hussain. But without the expertise of structural engineer V D Joshi, and the beautiful workmanship of ferrocement and china mosaic, the structure would have been incomplete.
[AB]: Authorship is a learning curve. Authorship in design highlights the input of the mind, yet architecture involves a profound authorship of hands – of people who build, and we have not yet figured out how to actually put that across beyond cursory acknowledgement. Space Matters was consciously not named after the founding partners, and we try our best to credit collaborators, photographers, teams, etc. and we are learning how to do it better. It is good to also see with firms like Studio Lotus, where second generation or new sets of people are representing the practice and it is no longer strongly associated with the founding partners only, rather it is more of a collective. There is another aspect of authorship in architecture, I would like to touch upon in relation to other design or engineering fields – especially products, graphic design etc.
[M+S]: Authorship of design can also be collaborative. Our belief is that each one’s way of addressing an issue comes together to inform direction and possible solution/s which as an individual they might not have had. In our practice, we have had multiple collaborations with architects and professionals from different disciplines. In some cases, the roles are defined but in most cases, the intent emerges from intense discussions on possibilities through design. Even execution of a project eventually becomes a collaborative work with combined authorship.
[IN]: What is the aspect of your work you value the most? What, according to you, are the critical parameters of success in a project?
[AD]: When we set up our studio, we did not have much design work so we started out as contractors where we mastered our execution and workmanship skills. This helped later when we began executing projects designed by us. This also changed the way we looked at a building on the drawing board. In the beginning, our drawings were more practical. It is much simpler to coordinate on a site which is being executed by a contractor. Slowly this evolved into a complete design-build process, which we have come to value a lot. There are many different kinds of design practices today – some speak of volume and spaces while several others speak of style and experience.
A great building always speaks of the site and of its geographical location. In my view, a project achieves great success when it speaks of the way the light behaves in-between spaces and the way wind blows through the building. This I believe creates an experience that is truly timeless. Probably this is what a successful project is composed of.
Arjun Doshi
[AB]: Success has multiple aspects. The satisfaction of the end users and the clients is one. The client can be a patron, collaborator or a constraint towards being generous to the needs of the end user. To manage that balance is one big success. With every project, you understand the brief and have an interpretive ambition out of it which could translate into material, programme, approach – which is your ambition as a practice beyond meeting client needs. To achieve that through a long roller-coaster course that almost all projects take, is another aspect of success.
While the outcomes are the focus, one area of greater success would be the process itself – that it is collaborative, nurturing and fun. That the stress of excelling in outcomes does not bleed the joy of creating (or vice versa). It is very important for us to ask what the project contributes to the context and what it takes away – architecture is very resource intensive and while being empathetic to the larger causes of society, it is closely aligned to power and money. With climate crisis and stark inequity, these questions are urgent and the space for satisfactory answers is shrinking if one continues with business as usual. As we complete fifteen years and look at the next decade, success will largely depend on how we innovate to answer these questions.
[M+S]: A project is as successful as the critical questions it raises and addresses for the future. Introspecting, questioning and deepening the needs and aspirations specified in the brief from initial intuitive ideas to tactile built outcomes, forms an important part in the larger discourse of the design practice. One key parameter for determining the success of a project is how the users take over the defined spaces of the building; using it in a multitude of undefined ways charting their own unique experiences. The intangible experiences and memories that people associate to a defined space of a project enriches the intent of the designer. It is quite rewarding to see people develop their unique individual relationships with a space which adds on to the imagination of the building’s architecture as a public discourse⊗
MO-OF/ MOBILE OFFICES is a design practice set up in 2001 in Mumbai which focuses on architectural, urban and interior design. The studio is led by two principal architects – Shantanu Poredi and Manisha Agarwal. Their interest in architecture and design stems from the debate on the evolving cities and the potential it offers a designer. The primary issues that the practice engages with are social, cultural, environmental sustainability – these issues usher explorations that transform building types and typologies. The practice has been informed by pedagogy and academic research through a multidisciplinary approach to design. Ideas are tested through the various competitions the practice engages with at all levels. This has led to an opportunity for realizing some of the largest projects of the practice.
ARJUN DOSHI and Neha Doshi set up Studio Acrobat as a multidisciplinary design practice in May 2017. As a practice they are invested in constant experimentation with structure, material and detailing. With an aim to create architecture that holds the place and people key, they draw a lot of their expression from the context. A revival of traditional techniques of construction and finishing fused with contemporary design expressions is a significant part of their process. They believe that commitment to the process over the end-product creates opportunity for a design to evolve.
AMRITHA BALLAL is an architect and urban planner, and founding partner at Space Matters along with Moulshri Joshi and Suditya Sinha. She has taught at the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi and is the co-editor of the international publication ‘Bhopal 2011-Landscapes of Memory’ which explores themes of spatial memory through the case of the Union Carbide tragedy site in Bhopal. ‘Space Matters’ is both a commitment and a critique. They believe in creating space anew to affect change while analysing change through a spatial lens. This is the reason that the practice combines built and ‘unbuilt’ work, moving away deliberately from patenting a style.
