Locating Modernity

As an architect and fellow taxpayer, I was quite disappointed at the proposal put forward by the Ministry of Megapolis on the aesthetic outcome of the Port City project.

The article states (Sunday Times 03-12-2017), "The Ministry has decided that within the common area of the Port City, buildings will be designed in the architectural style of the Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Kandyan eras."

The first question that comes to a rational mind is why Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa or Kandy...why not Yapahuwa or Kotte? 

The absurdity of such a decision is amplified when one thinks of the entire gamut of the history from a contemporary point of view.

Did we go to war with LTTE riding elephants just as King Dutugemunu did against King Elara?

How many of you drove tirikkale to work today? Do we still use thawalama (caravan) to transport goods?

Does this mean we are going to use pandam instead of electric bulbs? And I guess this means no telephone or internet inside the building either?

Just like transportation, food, medicine, science and technology; architecture and urban design has moved on and improved in leaps and bound since the days of Kings and Queens.

Megaoplis is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Sri Lanka to step in to modernity, to develop our own indigenous models and ultimately showcase our modern sensibilities and creativity.

But alas, someone has made an executive decision to spend public tax money in copying relics from the past!

If that is the case, why send 'professionals' to study precedents in foreign lands (which themselves are bad enough examples) when the decision is already made about the outcome.

Shouldn't we send them to Anauradhapura, Polonnanruwa or Kandy and save public money on foreign jaunts?

On one hand, the Ministry of Megapolis aided by UDA has been demolishing buildings with heritage value throughout Colombo and on the other hand they want re-create a gloried past in the middle of Colombo in what can be seen as a misguided attempt to frame a national identity that has no validity in contemporary Sri Lankan society.

Furthermore, what will happen in the private areas of the Port City (which believe exceed the common areas) - do we have different 'styles of architecture' in these areas - if so, we'll end up in a really messy mash up of buildings and styles - just as the Sinhala saying goes "ela harakai, mee harakai wage" (mismatch between dairy cow and the buffalo)

The crux of the problem as I see it, is that the real stake holders have been marginalised by the decision making process.

Aesthetic and Design decisions have been made based on the whims and fancies of some bureaucrat (s).

There are plenty of competent architects and urban designers in Sri Lanka, who are keen and ready to contribute to developing home-grown models of modernity, but they have been sidelined and ignored by the extremely politicised procurement process- the debacle of the new defense headquarters in Battaramulla is a case in point.

If we are to progress as a nation, the culture of innovation should be pervasive throughout society including in our thinking, education, architecture and design. There's no point in sending satellites or Google balloons to orbit while at the same time mindlessly copying architectural styles from a glorified  

feudal past.

Japan is a good example where the culture of innovation thrives. A country with a long and rich tradition and history, but relentless in its pursuit for modernity and innovation whether it is in the latest communication technology or architecture, while still rooted deeply in its culture and history.

Coming back to Sri Lanka, the artists and architects of Polonnaruwa era made their own mark rather than copying Anuradhapura (yes they certainly may have been influenced). Hence the difference in built forms, architecture and art during the two periods.

When we were studying at the University of Moratuwa, we measured and documented numerous ancient temples and buildings throughout Sri Lanka, we learnt about the unique features and appreciated them for their creativity. But our lecturers to their utmost credit never asked us to copy those 'styles' when designing buildings. Just as a bow and arrow, they served a particular purpose in a particular time.

As the governing body, Sri Lanka Institute of Architects (SLIA) should take a more proactive role in the decision-making process and to cultivate the culture of innovation - for example it should be mandatory for all public buildings above certain size or cost to be awarded through design competitions, rather than through political and/or personal connections. Competitions increase transparency, allows more stakeholder participation and arguably produces better outcomes.

I kindly request Minister Patali Ranawaka to look in to this matter and involve suitably qualified and educated people in the decision-making process, otherwise I can see yet another lost opportunity in the making.

As Kumartunga Munidasa once prophetically claimed,”Aluth Aluth De Nothanana Jathiya Lowa Nonagi" - Those who don't innovate are doomed to remain in backwaters forever.

A Concerned Architect Citizen