![BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
”Architecture requires collaboration, and most importantly it is susceptible to the quality of this collaboration. It is
difficult to think of another peaceful activity that draws on so many diverse contributions and expectations. It involves
commercial forces and social vision; it must deal with the wishes of institutions and corporations and the needs and desires
of individuals.Whether we articulate it or not, every major construction is an amazing testament to our ability to join
forces and make something on behalf of others. [...] Good architecture doesn’t happen naturally, it requires a conspiracy of
circumstances and participants.While architects can provide ideas and visions, the relevance of these ideas depends on a
meaningful engagement with the society they presume to serve.
While good architecture has always involved an attitude of resistance, to the elements and to the forces of chaos and even
resistance to norms and prevailing tastes, this attitude shouldn’t become, as it has so often, the justification for isolation
and rhetoric. In fact the predicament of the architect is at best one of critical compliance. They are both antagonists and
service providers.” David Chipperfield, Common Ground
It is compelling to consider the inherent promise of the unbuilt project, especially competition proposals.The
ones usually celebrated as visionary being those produced either as individual speculations or early project
proposals yet to begin their journey to realization.These projects, usually symbolized by a provocative first sketch,
a representation of a singular vision, are often upheld as the purest expression of architectural ambition.They
are seen as ‘unadulterated’ visions of what could be, revealing an architect’s position with regards to the abstract
nature of a commission and holding more value than the proposals which have had to engage with the clients, the
site, and other contingencies over time.They promise newness - unencumbered by these shackles, free to imagine
provocative new ways of inhabitation.
It is my opinion though that in fact it is the shared and negotiated vision, coming as the result of finding
consensus, managing budgets, and spending an adequate amount of time in conversation and contemplation,
that is of greater value than the pristine, unmediated projections of so many competition schemes and
hypothetical propositions. Like Chipperfield says, one is hoping to engage in this ‘conspiracy of circumstance
and participants’. We must move away from the seductive notion of the creation of architecture as a form of
immaculate conception and celebrate it as the result of negotiation and ‘reflection in action’. A form of shared
authorship and the outcome of a ‘scenius’.The provocation is the start of this conversation and not, in my mind, an
end in itself. I am a lot more interested in its afterlife.
In 2005 a group of senior career bureaucrats and city intellectuals came together to set up the Bangalore
International Centre.They modeled it on the India International Centre in Delhi, as a place for informed discussion,
public discourse and cultural engagement. Housed for the first 14 years of its existence within the Sanjay Mohe
designedTERI offices, the Centre held a variety of public events, many in their small 80 seat auditorium, the
crowds often spilling out onto the lawns and streets outside. At the core of its mandate was the idea that these
events hosted by the BIC would be free for all and not just for its members. Membership was seen more as a token
contribution to allow the Centre to pursue its egalitarian and democratic mission.
In 2012, the Centre invited proposals in an open competition for a new facility they were planning to build on a
half acre civic amenity site in Domlur, in the eastern part of the city.The site had been allotted to the BIC and the
building was going to be built using funds raised through private donations.This unusual idea, of a public, open
institution built with the help of private contributions, and managed by the membership in the interest of the
larger community is the foundational principle of this project.
We won the competition and our proposal, a dramatic assembly of the mixed-use program, articulated to respond
to its small scale residential context and the neighboring park was received with much acclaim and some derision.
An astute BIC member, in a letter written to the Building Committee, observed that modern architecture (or the
Starship Enterprise, as he called it) had crash landed in Domlur.
This response may have been because of the particular massing strategy used on the competition scheme. A
floating mass cantilevered (out by some 16m!) over a wide amphitheater and a two storey plinth, expressed in
iconic fashion the public agenda of the BIC.This open verandah above the tree line from where one surveyed the
city and onto which the city projected its aspirations had incredible rhetorical flourish, capturing both the heroic
ambitions of the BIC and its open, transparent and public mission.
Soon though, this heroism gave away to pragmatic considerations, including the ever increasing requirement for
‘enclosed’ rentable space odour from the adjoining storm water drain and mosquitoes. While preparing the permit
drawings we realised that BIC’s actual site holding was smaller (narrower) than the competition site.This was a
major setback. Given the new dimensions, we couldn’t accommodate the auditorium in the width left after the
setbacks required for a four storey building.The scheme lost a floor to reduce setbacks, and that wonderful central
idea, a symbol of the institution, was sacrificed.
We proposed encasing the building in a frame - to retain the scale of our earlier iterations and began moving
towards the idea of finding a series of shared spaces contained within this frame - the idea of a rich public realm
within the building. And then sometime in 2015 we developed a slightly modified scheme, shifting the main entry
to one end of the plan creating in effect a long promenade within the building, connecting the different program
components.This fundamental change in the circulation strategy meant that now on each floor the distinct rooms
were part of this articulated, and generous public space - a society of rooms, as Louis Kahn would call it - with
places of prospect and refuge.
The public life of the building, rather than being isolated on one level as it was in our competition scheme,
became the core organising principal of this new scheme. Rather than merely a rhetorical idea it now was a lived,
experienced condition - with adjacencies and connections.
BIC finally opened its doors in February, 2019, dramatically different from the competition scheme. Friends
often commiserate when they see the finished building, remembering the dramatic formal expression of our
competition scheme and its powerful invocation of public space. But we enjoy this expression of an architecture of
collaboration, negotiation and shared ideals.
I would like to submit BIC as a valid precedent for the constructive coming together of many people and the
benefits of a long period of gestation.The facility has become an active cultural hub in the city, appropriated in
wonderful ways by the BIC and the larger community.There is a sense that the building is a real representation of
shared ideals and authorship.
Like Chipperfield says, our work as architects involves both a critical resistance - looking at our commissions as the
search for deep structure and enduring meaning; but also accommodation, listening intently and assimilating the
particular exigencies of a commission. Our work finds essential meaning in the coming together of many people
and in this shared authorship lies its greatest value. It ‘is an amazing testament to our ability to join forces and
make something on behalf of others’. An act of profound empathy.
The provocation of the unsullied and pristine unbuilt work, reveals to us that which is obfuscated in the hustle of
our everyday engagement with the world. But it must be brought to confront this everyday world for we must
search for resonance, for deep structure. In finding common ground we give life and meaning to what we do as
architects. I am interested in this afterlife - in giving expression to our time, our place and our culture. And these are
not defined by solitary voices.
July 2012
1
January 2013
2
October 2014
3
January 2015
4
May 2016
5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/qepmo5f1rhkmbnchiwv9-signature-881c887a47ed1d9f5d60867b66566634a48ac828704348c539adb823df5b8212-poli-210604043235/75/Bic-hundredhands-1-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Bic hundredhands
- 1. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE ”Architecturerequires collaboration, and most importantly it is susceptible to the quality of this collaboration. It is difficult to think of another peaceful activity that draws on so many diverse contributions and expectations. It involves commercial forces and social vision; it must deal with the wishes of institutions and corporations and the needs and desires of individuals.Whether we articulate it or not, every major construction is an amazing testament to our ability to join forces and make something on behalf of others. [...] Good architecture doesn’t happen naturally, it requires a conspiracy of circumstances and participants.While architects can provide ideas and visions, the relevance of these ideas depends on a meaningful engagement with the society they presume to serve. While good architecture has always involved an attitude of resistance, to the elements and to the forces of chaos and even resistance to norms and prevailing tastes, this attitude shouldn’t become, as it has so often, the justification for isolation and rhetoric. In fact the predicament of the architect is at best one of critical compliance. They are both antagonists and service providers.” David Chipperfield, Common Ground It is compelling to consider the inherent promise of the unbuilt project, especially competition proposals.The ones usually celebrated as visionary being those produced either as individual speculations or early project proposals yet to begin their journey to realization.These projects, usually symbolized by a provocative first sketch, a representation of a singular vision, are often upheld as the purest expression of architectural ambition.They are seen as ‘unadulterated’ visions of what could be, revealing an architect’s position with regards to the abstract nature of a commission and holding more value than the proposals which have had to engage with the clients, the site, and other contingencies over time.They promise newness - unencumbered by these shackles, free to imagine provocative new ways of inhabitation. It is my opinion though that in fact it is the shared and negotiated vision, coming as the result of finding consensus, managing budgets, and spending an adequate amount of time in conversation and contemplation, that is of greater value than the pristine, unmediated projections of so many competition schemes and hypothetical propositions. Like Chipperfield says, one is hoping to engage in this ‘conspiracy of circumstance and participants’. We must move away from the seductive notion of the creation of architecture as a form of immaculate conception and celebrate it as the result of negotiation and ‘reflection in action’. A form of shared authorship and the outcome of a ‘scenius’.The provocation is the start of this conversation and not, in my mind, an end in itself. I am a lot more interested in its afterlife. In 2005 a group of senior career bureaucrats and city intellectuals came together to set up the Bangalore International Centre.They modeled it on the India International Centre in Delhi, as a place for informed discussion, public discourse and cultural engagement. Housed for the first 14 years of its existence within the Sanjay Mohe designedTERI offices, the Centre held a variety of public events, many in their small 80 seat auditorium, the crowds often spilling out onto the lawns and streets outside. At the core of its mandate was the idea that these events hosted by the BIC would be free for all and not just for its members. Membership was seen more as a token contribution to allow the Centre to pursue its egalitarian and democratic mission. In 2012, the Centre invited proposals in an open competition for a new facility they were planning to build on a half acre civic amenity site in Domlur, in the eastern part of the city.The site had been allotted to the BIC and the building was going to be built using funds raised through private donations.This unusual idea, of a public, open institution built with the help of private contributions, and managed by the membership in the interest of the larger community is the foundational principle of this project. We won the competition and our proposal, a dramatic assembly of the mixed-use program, articulated to respond to its small scale residential context and the neighboring park was received with much acclaim and some derision. An astute BIC member, in a letter written to the Building Committee, observed that modern architecture (or the Starship Enterprise, as he called it) had crash landed in Domlur. This response may have been because of the particular massing strategy used on the competition scheme. A floating mass cantilevered (out by some 16m!) over a wide amphitheater and a two storey plinth, expressed in iconic fashion the public agenda of the BIC.This open verandah above the tree line from where one surveyed the city and onto which the city projected its aspirations had incredible rhetorical flourish, capturing both the heroic ambitions of the BIC and its open, transparent and public mission. Soon though, this heroism gave away to pragmatic considerations, including the ever increasing requirement for ‘enclosed’ rentable space odour from the adjoining storm water drain and mosquitoes. While preparing the permit drawings we realised that BIC’s actual site holding was smaller (narrower) than the competition site.This was a major setback. Given the new dimensions, we couldn’t accommodate the auditorium in the width left after the setbacks required for a four storey building.The scheme lost a floor to reduce setbacks, and that wonderful central idea, a symbol of the institution, was sacrificed. We proposed encasing the building in a frame - to retain the scale of our earlier iterations and began moving towards the idea of finding a series of shared spaces contained within this frame - the idea of a rich public realm within the building. And then sometime in 2015 we developed a slightly modified scheme, shifting the main entry to one end of the plan creating in effect a long promenade within the building, connecting the different program components.This fundamental change in the circulation strategy meant that now on each floor the distinct rooms were part of this articulated, and generous public space - a society of rooms, as Louis Kahn would call it - with places of prospect and refuge. The public life of the building, rather than being isolated on one level as it was in our competition scheme, became the core organising principal of this new scheme. Rather than merely a rhetorical idea it now was a lived, experienced condition - with adjacencies and connections. BIC finally opened its doors in February, 2019, dramatically different from the competition scheme. Friends often commiserate when they see the finished building, remembering the dramatic formal expression of our competition scheme and its powerful invocation of public space. But we enjoy this expression of an architecture of collaboration, negotiation and shared ideals. I would like to submit BIC as a valid precedent for the constructive coming together of many people and the benefits of a long period of gestation.The facility has become an active cultural hub in the city, appropriated in wonderful ways by the BIC and the larger community.There is a sense that the building is a real representation of shared ideals and authorship. Like Chipperfield says, our work as architects involves both a critical resistance - looking at our commissions as the search for deep structure and enduring meaning; but also accommodation, listening intently and assimilating the particular exigencies of a commission. Our work finds essential meaning in the coming together of many people and in this shared authorship lies its greatest value. It ‘is an amazing testament to our ability to join forces and make something on behalf of others’. An act of profound empathy. The provocation of the unsullied and pristine unbuilt work, reveals to us that which is obfuscated in the hustle of our everyday engagement with the world. But it must be brought to confront this everyday world for we must search for resonance, for deep structure. In finding common ground we give life and meaning to what we do as architects. I am interested in this afterlife - in giving expression to our time, our place and our culture. And these are not defined by solitary voices. July 2012 1 January 2013 2 October 2014 3 January 2015 4 May 2016 5
- 2. SITE PLAN 1 MunicipalPark 2 Storm water drain 3 Low rise residential 4 Tensile roof 5 Solar roof SECTION A (east-west) 1 Basement (parking & services) 2 Drop-off 3 Lobby/Pre-function 4 Restaurant 5 Seminar Room 6 Gallery 7 Board Room 8 Roof-top & Amphitheatre 0 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 THE FRAME PLATFORMS
- 3. FIRST FLOOR 1 Lobby/ Pre-Function 2 Seminar Room 3 Service/Storage 4 Pantry 5 Restrooms 6 Auditorium 7 Terrace 8 Lobby below SECTION B (north-south) 1 Basement (parking & services) 2 Lobby/Pre-function 3 Auditorium 4 Gallery 5 Roof-top & Amphitheatre 0 5 2 GROUND FLOOR 1 Security Cabin 2 Drop-off 3 Lobby/Pre-Function 4Water 5 Restaurant 6 Patio 7 Bar 8 Kitchen 9 Pantry 10 Electrical room 11 Restrooms 12 Auditorium 13 Green Rooms 6 Admin Office 7 Director’s Office 8 Library 9 Terrace 10 Restrooms SECOND FLOOR 1 Gallery 2 Boardroom 3 Guest Suite 4 Pantry 5 Service/Storage 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- 4. Variations on aframe. Program components seen loosely organised within an overarching metal frame in earlier options with entry into the building in the middle.The last sketch shows the frame now in concrete and the entry at the south eastern end. 0 5 2 TERRACE 1 Amphitheatre 2 Bar 3 Restrooms 4 Service/Storage 5 A/C Equipment 6 Solar Roof above 7 Tensile Roof above A Early option.The various program components were stacked up on three floors around a small central lobby space.This assembly had carved onto the side of it a large public stair leading directly to the uses on the southern side of the lobby.This then was enclosed in a uniform metal frame which was selectively enclosed and gave us both the formality and presence of a public building and the informality and intimacy of small private gatherings. B By shifting the main entrance to the south east corner, the heart of the scheme became large meandering public spaces connecting all the program components strewn across three floors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Illustrative eastern elevation showing layers one encounters across this section A B
- 5. This early sketchshows the ground floor lobby used in multiple ways: for discussions and presentations, story telling and performances, art installations, pre-function areas for events in the auditorium, etc. By creating the primary entry to the building on the extreme corner of the plan (south-east), this large swath of com- mon space opens up connecting the restaurant, auditorium, restrooms, pantry, lifts and access to gardens. Since the building has opened in February, 2019, we have already seen these spaces on the ground and first floors accommodate a textile exhibition, multi-faith ceremonies, art workshops, installations, etc.Though situated on a tight site this generous internal volume suggests a much larger facility and is capable of handling large groups of people.The intercon- nected nature of these public spaces also gives one the sense of being part of a larger commu- nity. CIRCULATION & PROGRAM 1 Facade and enclosure 2 Restaurant 3 Auditorium 4 Seminar rooms 5 Gallery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 Board room 7 Library 8 Roof-top & amphitheatre 9 Solar roof 3 3 First floor looking north. Volumes and ‘objects’ (brick wall, oculus, stair and bamboo lanterns) as counterpoints to structure. 1 Lobby - looking north.The cascading section all the way up to the sky. 2 Ground floor looking south. Pantry and loosely defined public space. 1 2 3
- 6.
- 7. 1 - 7The BIC sits in a low-rise residential neigh- borhood with a large public park on the south.The primary access is from this side too and the long elevation of the building is always seen obliquely from this end. A concrete frame runs along this eastern facade ordering the various program com- ponents within and establishing a vertical datum in contrast to the varying scales and character of the neighboring residential buildings. 8 Northeast corner of the building. 9The richly articulated brick wall seemingly float- ing over the entry to the restaurant.This east west section is a series of layers of different materials, scale and porosity. 10 The wide opening on the south brings in pre- vailing breezes across a water body and through the cascading north south section. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 8
- 8. 1 - 7The BIC sits in a low-rise residential neigh- borhood with a large public park on the south.The primary access is from this side too and the long elevation of the building is always seen obliquely from this end. A concrete frame runs along this eastern facade ordering the various program com- ponents within and establishing a vertical datum in contrast to the varying scales and character of the neighboring residential buildings. 8 Northeast corner of the building. 9The richly articulated brick wall seemingly float- ing over the entry to the restaurant.This east west section is a series of layers of different materials, scale and porosity. 10 The wide opening on the south brings in pre- vailing breezes across a water body and through the cascading north south section.
- 9. The single surfacematerial (plywood) shell provides many acoustic advantages, allowing this space to serve as an effective multi-purpose auditorium.The angular and multi-fac- eted inner shell creates variably spaced air gaps throughout the auditorium, resulting in excellent absorption across all frequencies. It solves a common issue in auditorium designs where a fixed air gap from a simple rectangular box results in excess absorption at particular frequencies. Using perforation on the inner wooden shell allows acoustic absorption to remain hidden. Varying the perforation allows mid and high frequency energy to be reflected and carried through- out the room, while allowing low frequency energy to still pass through the shell and be absorbed.This might result in a slightly higher reverberation time compared to the aver- age auditorium, but the main benefit of this design is the ability for un-amplified sound to carry through the space.The image on the right shows the level of detail in the design, with the different colours on the 3d model representing varying amounts of perforation in the wooden panels. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 7 10 1 Walkway to the terrace along the east. 2 Amphitheatre and terrace. 3 & 7 Visual connections across the floors 4 The Oculus 5 Contrast as an ordering device. 6 First floor looking south. Volumes and ‘objects’ (brick wall, oculus and stair) as counterpoints to structure. 8 First floor looking south. Visual connection across the double lobby to the municipal park beyond. 9 & 10 The BIC auditorium is a natural sound box which can accommodate 185 people and an ensemble performance on its large sprung floor stage.