Is house part of one’s pretension? Or is it the pretensions that shapes a house?


There is a famous saying by sir winston churchill, “ we shape buildings, there after buildings shape us”. This we have felt is quite true, as its always a mutual process on what we are and what space we occupy. This idea of house becoming a strong identity of pretension, is more in a consumer state like kerala, where in an agricultural society like tamil nadu or in predominant industrial societies, there are less importance given for the image of a house.
For such societies houses are a little more than a shelter while the co existing environment is more important than the image. We can also come across different communities who value the idea of co existence, and hence continue living together in-heriting the houses from their past generation.
In a pragmatic society, where there more primary economic opportunities, there are less importance given to the image or the idea of identity. The idea of an image of the house will be secondary to ones thoughts on his familes education, food and social existence. Such societies will have a very predictable economic growth. In a society where secondary and tertiary economies are more prominent, where there are multiple chances of sudden influx of wealth, people see imageability as a main tool to establish their sudden importance in the society. With a predominent number of NRIs and the influx of foreign investment in last three decades, kerala has been witnessing this specific situation of creating houses for displaying ego and power, and hence there are large fissures which have developed in the coherence of the society. Houses should have been a social decision while its been taken as a very personal agenda in such societies.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Earth , a philosophy in the making

My journey in architecture ..

How does a house influence its neighborhood?