#amita kanekar

[infantisimo]

"Thus, the new hostile designs would not cause surprise among those they are targeting, nor, definitely, anger among the educated. The latter never question why some people need to take shelter in the open; we just accept the situation as normal and natural, that the poor deserve no better, and that public facilities are ours alone. When the society is itself hostile to the weakest, hostile architecture seems – not monstrous – but the perfect solution.

India is not likely to see such protests, nor even such a great psychological impact. Because we hardly have any concept of really public spaces anyway, and never had. There were no public spaces, open to all, till the Europeans arrived. The nationalists like to blame European rule for all India’s problems, but it was under their rule that the growing cities were provided the first designed public open spaces, and also the consciousness that these are important for public health. But the Indian governments that have followed have been uncomfortable with such things. Because caste society doesn’t believe in equal access to anything. Hierarchy is the norm here, and public spaces don’t go well with hierarchy. Thus, even pavements (which are used by all, but more by the poor) are seen as a waste here. And Bombay, India’s richest city, which ranks very low in per capita public open space among the world’s cities, and whose streets are full of people sleeping rough in the dead of the night, figures in lists of the world’s most hostile architecture.

The public that is considered worthy of having public facilities here is just the so-called ‘middle class’, which cannot afford the private recreation spaces of the super-elites, but is not much less elite itself, belonging as it does to the top 10-15% of the population in wealth and privilege. That’s why bus stops will have pipes as seating, but not airports – the ‘public’ in the two kinds of public transport is different. That’s also why public open spaces in Indian cities are so few, with none at all in villages – they are aimed at just this 10-15%. And it is this urban educated ‘middle class’ which demands that public spaces charge for entry, and unashamedly asserts that only this will keep unwanted/dirty/rowdy people out."