‘Charles Correa’s buildings talked about the possibility of change’

I first met him as an architect in Mumbai; I was back from working with Le Corbusier in France and he from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), US. As an architect, activist, friend, socially concerned person, and a lover of arts, music, films and trains, I had discussions with him on all subjects. His return from the US and mine from France in the ’60s shaped our discussions. Searching for identity and finding appropriate solutions for the other half, the city structure, development of quality of life, in the larger context, became a common thread in our discussions.

[related-post]

Our work continued to grow in planning and in developing architecture’s boundaries and communicating them to the profession. Charles’ contribution to the field is immense: Navi Mumbai wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t participated in the initial conceptualisation team along with Shirish Patel and Pravina Mehta, as is his work in housing in relation to climate and lifestyle.

Our concerns were with institutional buildings. Charles was involved with larger public buildings like the Vidhan Sabha, Bharat Bhavan in Bhopal, the museum at Gandhi Ashram and similar large-scale projects. He recently did a couple of projects abroad, in Portugal where he went for his treatment. I would consider these as his mature buildings, especially the one at MIT’s Brain and Cognitive Sciences Centre in Boston, which I like.

[Read: The legacy of Charles Correa]

Charles was outspoken, frank, extremely sharp, articulate and a great conversationalist. He had a vision and knew how to put his point across, articulate it and create a pictorial vision as if he was a film director. He was also a last-minute man but would never miss anything. He was a great party man and always enjoyed throwing parties. An artist type, he enjoyed the friendship of people like·Tyeb Mehta and Shyam Benegal. Meeting him meant having a good time, and enjoying the day. When it came to work, he was very fast and also a bit impatient. However, with students and professionals, he was a very dynamic speaker and critic.

[Read: Architects remember Charles Correa: ‘An institution by himself’]

It was during one of our discussions that he decided to start his own practice. As individuals, we were different. The expressions we used in work were different, however the destination was the same. He was a great admirer of Le Corbusier and his philosophy, and was also influenced by Mahatma Gandhi. His buildings always talked about scale and the possibility of change and there would be a sense of imagery to them — it was as if one was watching a movie. Summarising Charles’ work, I would say that using common elements like craft, folk art, tantric philosophy and geometry came easy to him. When I look at his buildings, I feel I am seeing a new world.

He was extremely sensitive to his context and his sense of form was always appropriate. Experimentation was a major feature of his architecture, and he had no hesitation in using technology and various tools to create the right ambience. At the Cicade De Goa hotel, Bharat Bhavan, and Jawahar Kala Kendra in Jaipur, he has used many such techniques that are contemporary and new; through “reinterpretation” — to give them a contemporary meaning. However, recently he was very upset with the way the Sabarmati Ashram was being maintained. He felt that it needed better upkeep and if they were modifying it, he should be consulted.

The Kanchanjunga Apartment tower in Mumbai, which he made in the ’70s, is the only landmark in Mumbai and the best building in my view which is still standing. The iconic travelling exhibition on Indian architecture, “Vistara: The Architecture of India” that he curated in the ’80s, based on the evolution of Indian architecture, ending with Chandigarh, was a remarkable contribution that nobody talks about.

Right from his childhood, Correa was fascinated with trains, especially toy trains. This was second only to his love for movie-making, which he did in his first year at MIT as a student. His design was very simple and direct, but he would create an enigma or a surprise in the way he would juxtapose spaces, light, courtyard and varied volumes. As an artist, he had the ability to suggest in simple terms how life can be lived or rejoiced at an urban scale or at a city scale.

At a personal level, we discussed our work together and criticised constructively and “grew together”. In the ’70s, we had almost formed a partnership, but somehow we were too busy on both sides. There were all kinds of rumours of rivalry in the profession about us, but we were colleagues and contemporaries first. In a recent film made on me, there is a brief introduction by him. With his death, I have lost a very close family member, professional colleague, friend and someone who challenged our thinking and way of working.

As told to Lakshmi Ajay