The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism / Gwendolyn Wright / 1991

Wright argues that urban design was strategically used as a tool to make colonialism more tolerable for colonized and more popular among colonizers. Analyzing three cities in French colonized North Africa: Indochina, Madagascar, and Morocco, she argues that urban culture was used in political endeavor.

She argues that the French modernized certain sections of the city like public health, industries,  and supported certain other aspects (like building and maintaining opulent palaces for Sultans) so that the traditional values are preserved.

Main argument: French used the colonies as laboratories where they could experiment urban planning strategies that could be eventually implemented in the metropole: Paris, Lyon etc. They saw the colonies as tabula rasa. As administrators were seeking to maintain colonies without having to use military, they used architects, urban planners, geographers etc to introduce urban planning measures in the colonies. Through this they hoped that the colonized people would become loyal and appreciative of the French, and the French planners could test planning methods.

Contradictory methods were suggested in doing this. The early 19 century method called "assimilation" which was more heavy handed and hegemonic. French planners introduced standardized buildings, simplified geometric forms, and the city was imagined as a unified whole rather than as haphazard organic growth. French predominance in language, laws, and military dominance by destroying indigenous cities. As this process came under attack, primarily for moral reaons in the early 20th century, a  second process called "association", that tried to respect indigenous traditions and architecture, and aimed to maintain a balance between modernization and preservation was introduced -- "laboratory for colonial life and conservatory for oriental life".

Morocco: Herbert Luatey - association - dual city - preserving the indigenous city with mosques and winding streets, and constructing an outer neighborhood for colonial officials. There was a no-construction zone between the two settlements - "sanitary corridor". The French quarters had large roads, sanitation, zoning guidelines but used Moroccan motifs in design and used to indigenous climatological design solutions. Habous districts were newly created as harmonious districts to accommodate growing population. These provided some facilities that old Arab cities lacked like sanitation and thoroughfares, but were still inherently Moroccan in cultural form. This became the western setting for tourism.

Indochina (Vietnam): Here too they wanted to strike a balance between modernization and preserving local architecture and culture. But the architects and planners only had superficial knowledge of the cultural differences. Herbard outlined a zoning plan that restricted uses for different districts in the city. But here the restriction and segregation was not not based on military dominance but relied on modern industry, financial development, cultural tolerance.

Madagascar: This island had resisted colonization for 100 years by refusing to built inland roads. But French abolished slavery, and forcibly put former slaves who migrated to cities to build roads. Seeing the success of Morocco and Indochina they wanted to follow a balanced model without disturbing local traditions unnecessarily. But since malaria and plague were major concerns they built wide roads outside the native city - cordon sanitaire - to segregate the population. But this separation did not help prevent mosquitoes, and the next governor general implemented standardized building with concrete, and uniform buildings were built for both Madagascar workers and French officials in place of old indigenous buildings.

Comments: Local voice is lost as Wright only narrates the story of French colonial urbanism and politics using references from French architects and planners. Were the lessons learnt in the colonies used in the metropole? What was the fate of these colonial designs post the nations' independence? How did the dual city model affect the natives' lives?

The International Style/ Hitchcock and Johnson/ 1932

"Architecture is always a set of actual monuments, not a vague corpus of theory".

The 18th century was a time of revival, chief among which were styles of Classical Revival and Medieval Revival. But the stylistic confusion of combining the styles of revivalism with the new methods and technologies of construction was the

In the 19th century, the revival styles came to be used as decorative elements with no relation to interior space and function. The style of 'Eclecticism' created more chaos. The authors argue that one of the primary reasons that some architects revolted in the 20th century to these styles was that "eclecticism' had broken away from the disciplines of classical architecture, and was simply imitating them. They write that it is possible to imitate the essence of past styles, but imitating their surfaces is problematic.

In this context, they argue, a new style was born -- that which resembled Gothic in terms of structure, and resembled the classical in terms of handling problems.

International Style: Not international in the sense that buildings built in different countries look similar. Neither is it so prescriptive that works of different architects are indistinguishable. This has become distinguishable as a style only after different architects in different countries have carried out similar experiments which share characteristics.
Three characteristics:
conception of architecture as volume and not mass
regularity vs axial symmetry
Proscribing decorative ornamentation

Chapter 2:
The need to break away from existing architectural traditions:
1. availability of new building technologies
2. development of architectural design regardless of limitations

Beginnign of 19th century architects began to move away from revival styles. But stylistic integration did not happen until after world war. Although Industrial architecture of Germany, Berlage at Amsterdam, use of ferroconcrete at paris had initiated principles of International style independently before war.

But it was in America that the International style came into fruition. Walter Gropius, JJ Oud, Mies Van Rohe, Le Corbusier can be considered to be the primary figures of International style. 

All That is Solid Melts into Air/ Marshall Berman/ 1982

Marshall Berman's book is a critique of postmodernism. He urges the readers to reconsider the history of modernity which will enrich our present and may even guide us into the future. In his introduction 'Modernity- yesterday, today, tomorrow' he briefly traces the different experiences of modernity in 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and argues that our ancestors experience with modernity has been much richer.

He begins with this childhood home in Bronx that was demolished to build highway under the orders of Robert Moses. He writes that since highways symbolized modernity, the people opposing the construction (as they were loosing their homes from the demolition) were made to feel guilty, as if they were opposing modernity.

Modernity: Historical experience. Experience of men and women in modern environments.
Modernization: Social processes that bring a maelstrom (industrialization, scientific progress etc) into being, and keep it in a perpetual state of being. People being both subjects and objects on modernization.
Modernism: The visions and values that modernization brings, and gives people the power to be changed and change the world they live in modernism.

History of Modernity
1st Phase: 16th to 18th century : people don’t know what hit them. Beginning to grapple with new ideas.
2nd phase: French revolution – 1790 – end of 19th century – revolutionary ideas, upheavals in social and political lives. 

19th century: People can understand what it means to live in modernity. Ideas of modernism and modernization emerge. People are living in two worlds simultaneously.
3rd Phase: 20th century: expands to the entire world. Modernity breaks down society into fragments – people loose touch with their roots.

He critiques post-modernists as being too quick to reduce modernism into a closed monolith that is incapable of being shaped by modern men anymore. He critiques postmodernism as leading towards a nihilistic point of view, and sucking the optimism of modernism. He critiques Foucault and his postmodernist theories for behaving as if everything in the society is new, and modern man does not have any freedom in shaping his/her own world. Berman suggests that postmodernist ideas are "simply iterations of the constant intellectual evolution of modernity itself, that in seeking to destroy the modernist ideas that preceded them they have in fact become simply the newest destructive forces that are inherent in the modern cycle of destruction and rebirth."

Berman argues that by examining our contemporary society (Today) through the visions and lens of (Yesterday), 19th century modernists will encourage us to create the modernisms of 21st century (Tomorrow). He argues modernisms of the past can help us connect the world and brings together people who are going through the processes of modernization together.

He engages with Goethe's Faust, Marx's Communist Manifesto, Baudelaire's essays on modernity, and Dostoevsky's and Gogol's digresses about Crystal Palace to introduce the vitality and dynamism inherent in early modernist writers.

Interrogating Difference: Postcolonial Perspectives in Architecture and Urbanism / Jyoti Hosagrahar / 2012

Hosagrahar in her survey article on the Postcolonial thought interrogates changing perspectives on architecture and urbanism in the colonized world. Her arguing of intellectual decolonization is reminiscent of Chatterjee's challenging question -- should even the thoughts of the colonial world remain colonized forever? She introduces the emergence of postcolonial thought as a rebellion to "dominance of universalizing paradigms and simplistic categorizations in conventional scholarship in architecture and urbanism focused on Western Europe and North America. Simply, it is thinking about the "relationship  between a dominant power and its subjects under colonialism."

The essay begins with a discussion of key ideas and concepts in postcolonial theory and the influence of decades of postcolonial critiques on architecture and urbanism.
Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of Earth" (1961) that critiqued French colonization of Algeria, denounced psychopathology of colonialism and forewarned about the violence in the aftermath of independence struggles. It inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for decades
Edward Said's "Orientalism" (1978) was a literary analysis of the creation of the 'Orient', and discussed learned Orientalists who disdained indigenous scholars and bestowed authority to historical texts by European scholars. Said showed that identity was culturally constructed and paved way for architectural historians to study buildings and the urban fabric as cultural documents that could reveal hidden biases.
Foucalt's seminal works on Power, Knowledge, and Culture presented the networks of power that could dominate without the assertion of physical force, and led to new ways of postcolonial thinking where architecture was seen as tool of power.
The Subaltern Group started in 1980's and spearheaded by Ranajit Guha, Gyan Pandey, Partha Chaterjee, Gayatri Spivak opened a new window to colonial history by proposing that history should be seen from below. They argued that the non-elites (peasants in India) were the agents who had brought radical socio-economic changes in the colonies, and the experiences of these marginalized people opens a new window to national history. Hosagrahar suggests that the works of Subaltern group has influenced Architetcure and Urbanism in two ways: One, by legitimizing the history from margins, and second, by recognizing the power of even non-elites in controlling and shaping the built environment.
She also discusses the commentaries of Henry Louis Gates and Kwame Appaiah's on black culture and African-ness, Hosgargar argues, that brought an awareness of the subjectivities in aesthetic appreciation based on race.
Finally, key works of Homi Bhabha, Arjun Appadurai, and Dipesh Chakrabarty have been instrumental in introducing the hybridity between the east- west, modern- traditional, and have provided complex readings of modernity and globalization. Dipesh. C. in Provincializing Europe (2007) presents an idea of Europe, not as the center of humankind and its scholarship, but as a "mythical site of the original modern."

Postcolonial theory, Hosagrahar writes, "has informed thinking about buildings and urban space as symbolic cultural landscapes that are historically constituted, culturally constructed, political artifacts whose forms are dynamic and meanings constantly negotiated."

The second part traces the historiography of postcolonial architecture and urbanism which contests the european architectural canon as the 'original' history of architecture. As Gwen Wright's book on French Urbanism and Thomas Metcalf's work on Imperial India demonstrate, even seemingly antagonistic projects of architecture in the colony were only built to promote tourism and garner public support (French Algeria), or as a symbolic representation of power that articulated the cultural difference (India). Further, Anthony King's Bungalow and Hosagrahar's work on 19th century Delhi showcase the making of a new 'hybrid culture' that is neither the colonizer's nor from the colony. 

Citing the early works on architectural history which precluded non-western architecture from the canon, she calls for a change in the teaching of history in European and American universities  to include indigenous architecture as a part of the larger canon. 

The third section discusses the creation of national identity through architecture. Hosagrahar identifies three ways in which architecture is used for nation building: One, by rejecting everything that was western and getting inspiration from the traditional-vernacular architecture of the region (Turkey), second, to embrace modernity by having European architects design new capitals (Chandigarh, Dhaka), and third, where changing nationalist agendas results in a diverse range of architecture and hence constructing a diverse national identity. After a brief discussion on who decides what to preserve as cultural identity through architecture, and the effects of globalization on postcolonial thought, the final section presents four elements that are crucial in postcolonial designing in the margins - in-depth knowledge of the site, regional emphasis, being socially responsible and sustainable.

In conclusion, Hosagrahar argues that postcolonial thought has a transformative effect on architecture and urbanism by challenging the paradigms if modernism which are accepted to be universal, second, they urge architectural historians to think of the various alternative narratives to the traditional historical canon of architecture and alert us about the marginalized vernacular histories from the colonies.

Beyond Postcolonialism: New directions for the history of non-western architecture / Kathleen James Chakraborty/ 2013

Kathleen James Chakraborty's comparative literature study calls attention to new scholarship on non-western modernism. While the first part is a historiographic survey of scholarship on colonial and post colonial architecture from the non-western countries, the second part prescribes what new directions this emerging scholarship can lead into.

She traces the historiography of colonial and postcolonial architecture, beginning with the 1980's books on Indian colonial architecture which worked with the lens of postmodern classicism and the writings of Said, Hobsbawm, and Foucault, to turn of the century "Berkeley School" of non-western studies. She outlines the changing trajectory of postmodern/postcolonial studies as they changed from stylistic study of buildings to the scale of cities and the changing place of buildings in it (influenced by Stuart Hall and Henry Lefebvre). She writes that in 1980's when scholarship on African and Asian colonial architecture first emerged, there was tension in the literature because the relationship of architecture to power had been undeniable shown by Said and Foucault. (Metcalf's 1989 book on IndoSaracenic architecture showed the style as a tool to solidify political power rather than as being respectful of indigenous traditions). In tracing the emergence of scholarship on colonial architecture she identifies the early graduate seminars taught by Renata Holod, Bozdogan, and Anthony King as pioneering which was later bolstered by the emergence of a 'Berkeley School' which was spearheaded by Norma Evenson and Spiro Kostof. At Berkeley, modern non-western architecture occupied center stage as Paul Rabinow and Gwen Wright authored important books on French Urbanism. Supported by its faculty - Nezar Alsayyad, Dell Upton, and Kathleen Chakraborty herself, a string of monographs on 19th-20th century urbanism in non-western world was published by students. The work of those trained at Berkeley, Chakraborty writes, "focussed not on issues of architectural style or its relation to identity but instead on space and the social processes through which it was constituted." She argues that even as the relationship between modernism and social progress is debatable, it is certain that iconic examples of modern architecture has been widely distributed around the world and their study marks the new direction for postmodern studies in architecture.

Four topics that Chakraborty identifies as the most promising in this new direction are 1)the study of  the architecture of empire 2) recognizing the periphery as the place where innovations are occurring 3) analyzing architecture as the locus of cultural memory, and 4) studying the ways in which immigrants are changing the fabric of the western world. The study of architecture in Empire and its colonies is important to understand the question of exporting of modernity, and the questions of who wanted modernity and why. She argues that it also helps in the dissolution of the presumption that all new ideas come from Europe or European architects. Study of migration of both people and ideas is necessary to uncover the ideas and perspectives that have been taken to western countries by European architects working in the 'other world' (Corbusier's inspiration from Mughal palace pavilion and Lois Kahn's philosophy on bricks). Chakraborty suggests that 'memory studies' is one of the most rapidly growing areas of enquiry in humanities. The role of buildings and cities in shaping the ways we understand the past, and how the buildings' own changing role can reflect the changes in the society are key questions.

In concluding James-Chakroborty asks several questions which remain unanswered in the realm of architectural history, and whose answers can change our understanding of cities in colonial and postcolonial times.
"New knowledge about the people who commissioned, designed, constructed, inhabited and viewed colonial and postcolonial buildings has implications for the humanities and the social sciences as a whole, as it overturns preconceptions by no means unique to architectural historians. What does it mean if some of the most potent symbols of modernization created during the twentieth century sunk deeper roots in Calcutta and Cairo than in the suburbs of Chicago and even possibly Copenhagen? Who was the modern movement really for and why? Did it more effectively express the aspirations of working class Europeans for political empowerment or middle class Indians and Egyptians for economic progress? Was it above all the purview of a small cluster of immensely talented designers intensely aware of what each other were doing or is it the property as well of relatively unskilled labor and of housewives? And is it a living tradition, or is it time for it to be consigned to history as the tree of architecture gains a new crown in response to different concerns, such as sustainability."

Architecture, Power, and National Identity/ Lawrence Vale/ 1992

This book, through several case studies, seeks to explore how architecture has been used by national
regimes to express political power, and how the urban built environment has been manipulated to promote a version of identity that would benefit the government in power. Divided in two parts, this book discusses the various agencies influencing the creation of new 'capitals' and the design of new 'capitols'.

Chapter 1 introduces the terms 'capitol' and 'capital', where capital refers to the city housing the government, and capitol refers to the building housing the government. Vale identifies four ways in which buildings 'mean' - denotation (through meanings), exemplification (drama), metaphorically, and through mediated reference. He provides a historic overview of the development and design of modern capitals, and identifies three types of modern capitals:  

a)Evolved capitals  like London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin which have been in continuous use much before becoming the center of power for national administrations. Here, the political capitols are treated as equals with non-government and public institutions.  These capital do not have one single center of architectural focus, but are poly-vocal. At different stages in history, the various ruling regimes have architecturally imprinted the city to signify their power.

b)Evolved capitals 'renewed' like Rome, Moscow, Athens are cities that have been serving as capitals for several centuries, and whose architecture and urban fabric has been renewed time and again to suit the changing needs of subsequent regimes. As power changed from royal families to papal state, from imperialism to democracy, and to socialist and communist regimes, the city's architecture was continually redefined by adding capitols, memorials, and congregational  spaces which helped in spatially and physically anchoring their political ideologies.

c) Designed Capitals are cities that have been clearly designated as a capital. They are either carried forward from a colonial past (Delhi) or designed afresh to suit the image of a newly formed nation-state (Brasilia).

Chapter 2 discusses the role of capital city and capitol buildings in construction of national identity. While the first chapter introduced the terminology and gave a historical overview of the evolution of capital cities, the second chapter focusses specifically on 'postcolonial capitals' and their importance in nation building. For this Vale begins by surveying the academic landscape of 'nations' and 'nationalism'. Quoting postmodern scholars like Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson, Vale suggests Nationalism to be a modern invention. National identity, he says, was born out of a necessity to have a shared cultural, linguistic lineage among the residents of a newly independent nations who found it easier to identify themselves by who they are not, rather than who they are. Vale proposes that even as capitals and capitols are supposed to be representative of a national distinctness, they often represent the culture and power of only the dominant group within a plural society. This group usually is the ruling political power, and becomes especially problematic if the central division of the nation-state is on religious lines. Then, national identity proposed through capitol buildings can be thought of as 'constructed identity'. He identifies three types of identity projected through the construction of capitol complexes:
a) Subnational identity: In postcolonial nations construction of new capitals becomes a mere demonstration of power and a search for legitimacy by a new regime in power. Ex:Brasilia
b) Personal identity: The personality and influences of the designer or the political sponsor overshadows the showcasing of national identity, especially when a non-native architect is imported to design the new capital Ex:Chandigarh
c) Supranational identity: When architecture (often ostentatious) is used by a self-interested political bureaucracy to symbolize the modern aspirations of a new country and its emerging economic development. 

Chapter 3 discusses four capitals which were designed for union, imperialism, and independence. Vale describes them to be representative of early forms of nationalism. While DC was one of the first capitals to be designed by a union, the colonial capitals were European inspired to served the interests of an overseas empire. 

1. Washington DC was the first postcolonial modern capital. Vale traces the history of DC as one of early capitals designed based on French gardens and town plans and Italian renaissance design by Pierre Charles L'Enfant to today's touristy DC which is a 20th century product. He notes the role of the Capitol building as a symbol of unity from its standing as a locus of power.
2. Canberra: In Australian capital Canberra there were debates over an appropriate symbol for democracy, and the relevance of a master plan that spoke an aristocratic and imperial language.
3. New Delhi: Designed as an Imperial capital, the master plan of New Delhi was the physical manifestation of race, rank, and socioeconomic status prevalent in the Indian society. The colonized and the colonizers had distinctly demarcated spaces in the capital.
4. Ankara: Unlike Imperial Delhi which had a history that pre-dated arrival of British, Ankara was chosen over Constantinople (Istanbul) which had a history of over 1500 years. It was symbolically moving away from European ties of Constantinople and centuries of Ottoman rule to a new Turkish republic. 

Chapter 4 provides an in-depth analysis of two post-war 'modern' capitals - Chandigarh and Brasilia where architecture and urbanism was used to symbolize modernism and national identity of new nations.
1. Chandigarh: Vale is largely sympathetic towards Corbusier and admires his efforts on designing a modern Indian capital which is also evocative of India. He marks the architectural convergence of Corbusier's ideas with that of Lutyens, and notes that by detaching Capitol complex from the city Corbusier represented the supremacy of the executive.
2. Brasilia: The capital was moved inland to the geographic center from the port city of Rio De Janeiro to symbolically claim the newly acquired vast expanse of land. Even as the masterplan of the new capital was said to be influenced by the cross of the catholic church, scholars like Holston argue that this was only done to hide the more radical aspects of the city's design. Unlike in Chandigarh where class segregation was consciously pursued in residential design, Brasilia aimed to break the divide by building all residential units alike. But it only ignited riots amongst the residents. The central capitol complex was not designed by bureaucrats, Vale writes, but for them. 

Chapter 5 discusses three capitals (Islamabad, Abuja, Dodoma) that were designed after 1960's and were significantly influenced by the masterplan of Chandigarh and Brasilia. Here, the ideas of the prior capitals were reconsidered and improved upon. Post-war capitals have not only imported western architecture but also western democratic ideologies. 

Chapters 6 to 9 discusses four capitals built after 1980's : Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Bangladesh. Vale brings out the strengths and failures of each of the capitols, and ends every discussion on a hopeful note that the building that is currently unsuited for the people may in future shed its negative connotations and become naturalized in its setting.  

1. The architecture of Papua New Guinea's (PNG) capitol complex was said to be inspired from various aspects of traditional village life of the region. The architecture was drawn from vernacular roof forms, the aesthetics came from ritual objects, and urban form was taken from village men's houses etc. But in all this the political struggle was embedded. The vernacular structure was found only in some parts of the region, which had been traditionally seen as the dominating class, and hence the architecture of capitol complex was accused of favoring one set of people over others. The ritual objects and art pieces were taken out of context and presented as secular indigenous objects which was seen as disrespectful. Vale argues at PNG both subnational and supranational identity were being constructed by the collaboration and cross-pollination of various groups' identities.  

2. Sri Lankan island parliament designed by native architect Geoffery Bawa differs from the previous case studies by embracing indigenous architectural traditions and a  multitude of references from different ethnicities. But being in a country that is plagued by ethnic conflicts and civil war it came to be seen as representative of the unchallenged Sinhalese power on the Island. 

3. Kuwait's National Assembly complex was designed by John Utzon and was inspired by local Arab tents in the the marshlands, but the symbolism was lost in abstraction.

4. Dhaka's National Assembly building designed by Lois Kahn appears to be the most severe failure of all the capitols studies in the book. Being influenced much more by the architect's ideologies than the government's the building appears to a  army stronghold rather than a house of democracy. Kahn's over utilization of the elements of Mosque provoked strong reactions from the 11 million Hindus in the region. 

Chapter 10 brings together all of the case studies where Vale offers a prescriptive conclusion for designing capitals and capitols. He presents three ways to approach the design of a  capitol complex that would symbolize both national identity and the power. a) he argues that capitol complexes should move beyond politics where the designer should consciously steer away from the political intentions of its sponsor. b)Vale questions if it would be possible for one building to be a microcosm of an entire society, and if so who should be the judge of its accuracy. He offers that since it is impossible to have a microcosm the symbolism of the national building is significant and hence must be carefully designed. c) Vale argues that since Capitol complexes end up being instruments of political power, and they cannot be representative of an entire society, the buildings should be designed to reflect an idealized form of governance and intergroup relations in the country. Here again he wonders who would have the power to decide what an ideal representation should be.
Vale concludes his prescription of a 'good capitol' with the thought that even as Capitol complexes have not been ideal buildings and have favored one group, regime, political institution, or even a designer over the interests of the common public, they showcase the the hierarchy of power structure in the country. He writes, "Regimes build capitol complexes chiefly to serve personal, subnational, and supranational interests rather than to advance national identity; designers cannot mold political

change; and governments still find it necessary to demonstrate their power through aesthetic exaggeration." 

Chandigarh's Le Corbusier: The Struggle for Modernity in Postcolonial India/ Vikramaditya Prakash/ 2002

Chapter 1: With Nehru's vision for Chandigarh different from Corbusier's vision, was there a east-west dialectic playing out in the city's design? While for Nehru, the city had to be a symbol of modernism, and reflect the modern aspirations of a newly emerging industrial nation, Corbusier imagined a modern city that was nostalgic for India's poverty and primitivism.

Chapter 2 discusses the element of modernity in the masterplan of the city from its conception to its final form. Where was the design imported from and who were the actors?
 In Postcolonial India, are the terms 'modern' and 'Indian' mutually exclusive? Is Chandigarh perceived as an 'un-Indian' city because it was designed to be modern and by a western architect?Prakash traces the initial idea for Chandigarh, beginning with Fletcher's strong call for a 'Garden City' model, and PL Verma's stronger opposition for it. Verma's opposition ensured that Chandigarh would be a designed as a more typical city but would preserve Ebenezer Howard's 'Garden City' ideas. Albert Mayer, an american town-planner working in Uttar Pradesh was appointed to materialize the garden city idea. Mayer's design promised a city "strongly Indian in feel and function, as well as modern. With Mayer's partner's premature death, Verma approached English husband-wife architects Fry and Drew who in turn referred him to Le Corbusier. Corbusier was initially appointed only to 'advise and actively assist' in construction of Mayer's plans, but he gradually took charge and demanded to re-design the city to reflect his ideology. A 'Capitol' head was put in place, and arterial roads were designed to connect various 'Sectors'. Prakash argues that Corbusier did not design Chandigarh based on Lutyens' New Delhi, even though he admired it.

Chapter 3 discusses the design of the Capitol Complex. By delving into the religious influences in Corbusier's life, it aims to show a human side of a "fallen hero who failed in deliverance". Prakash examines the Biblical and philosophical influences in Corbusier's painting of the Capitol Door, and his idea of rural-utopia.

Chapter 4 offers an in-depth (psycho)analysis of Corbusier's sketches of the high court and the assembly building. He argues that the scale of these buildings seem vast and limitless to human scale because Corbusier measured them against the backdrop of Himalayas. Prakash (through Fruedian principles) analyzes that his design of the assembly building as reminiscent of an Indian bull indicates his eagerness for the villagers to understand his buildings (as he fascinated with noble savages).
[Thankfully, the author ends this chapter with "it is impossible for me to verify whether Le Corbusier ever meant all that I have understood his buildings to be." But sadly, he also adds, "Nonetheless, it would be disingenuous to deny that one always writes, and designs, with the hope of verification."]

Chapter 5 discusses the history of symbolism of Corbusier's 'open hand' icon that was adopted by the city of Chandigarh almost 30 years since its proposal. Prakash does a survey of several of Corbusier's 'Hand' paintings and argues that the inspiration for Chandigarh's open hand came from the monument in memory of the left-wing mayor of Villejuif in France in 1938. Prakash divides the analysis in three parts - He describes the first wave of open hand designs to be Corbusier's personal thoughts and obsessions, with the figure the second wave to reflect India's position as a non-aligned nation during the war.  By the time of the third wave (the time when the open hand was installed in Chandigarh) its meaning entangled with Corbusian ideas and Nehruvian politics was largely forgotten. "The open to give, open to receive"  hand is today only graphically remembered as a symbol of Chandigarh.