Table of Contents:

• Background Note
• Programme Schedule 
• The Problem Statement 
• Proceedings of the Working Group Sessions 
• The Collective Statement 
• Recommendations 
• Postscript 
• Acknowledgements 

Background Note

Architecture has been characterised as the 'grandmother of the arts'. The buildings we inhabit and the monuments we create are perhaps the most permanent examples of our culture.

In India we have a legacy of some of the finest examples of architecture and human settlement design spread ove a very long span of time. To complement the great public monuments, there is the rich and varied expression of the dwellings and public places of the ordinary folk, organically evolved out of the extraordinary eviromental diversity of the sub-continent. This diversity is apparent physically - from the high mountains, to huge river basins, to the great Thar desert, to extensive coastal plains, to the highlands of the Deccan, to the lush rain forests of the North-East, and to the off-shore island groups of the Andaman and Nicobar as well as Lakshadweep. The geographic diversity is cterminus with a cultural plurality which has produces a wealth of indigeneous building types. This is an important part of our cultural heritage and a great resource for understanding the symbols of our collectivity, which are a critical source of inspiration to generate our built envirnoment.

Today, with almost a hundred architectural schools in this country training a new generation of professionals to direct the future of our built environment, it is surprising to note the pedagogic content and course material in these schools. The architectural programme is derived in a large measure from experience of the industrial enterprise of the 19th and early 20th century. What has been neglected is the essential relationship between materials and energy, which gives raise to life-sustaining configurations realised through technologies appropriate to the amelioration of the human condition. this is resulting in an unfortunate poverty of ideas and inspiration which is reflected in the ugliness of contemporary architecture and the chaos of our cities. The proise of a better life in the next century is therefore in danger of being denied.

It is proposed to hold a symposium on "new directions of architectural education -- the necesity of a cultural paraddigm responsive to the majority". The symposium would bring together architects, teachers and researchers in arts and culture from different parts of the country and one or two researchers in architectural education from abroad to discus and formulate new approaches based on a cultural paradigm. The symposium is proposed to be held in New Delhi from 3rd to 5th April, 1999. Sponsorship is being sought initially from ICCR, the British Council and HUDCO.

MN Ashish Ganju, New Delhi. March 1999

Programme Schedule

Working Group Session, 3rd - 4th April, 1999 Venue: Human Settlement Management Institute, HUDCO House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saturday, 3rd April, 1999 09:00 AM   Registration 09:30 AM   Introduction to the Symposium and Formulation of Working Groups 11:30 AM   Working Group Session  I on "The Learning Universe" 14:30 PM   Working Group Session II on "The Learning Universe" 15:45 PM   Working Group Session  I on "Instruments" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, 4th April, 1999 09:30 AM   Working Group Session II on "Instruments" 11:30 AM   Working Group Session  I on "Certification" 14:00 PM   Working Group Session II on "Certification" 15:45 PM   Summing up of Working Group Sessions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Open Session, 5th April, 1999 (Monday) Venue: Sammelan Kaksh, HUDCO Bhawan, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi road, New Delhi - 110 003 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09:30 AM   Opening Remarks 10:00 AM   Presentation of Wroking Group Findings 11:30 AM  Discussion 12:30 PM   Closing Address by CMD, HUDCO and Vote of Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Symposium was held at Human Settlements Management Institute (HSMI), Lodhi Road from 3-5 April 1999. It was supported by The British Council (BCA), Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), Department of Urban Development, Uk, (DTUDP) and Department for International Development (DFID). It was organised by GREHA, a voluntary organisation of professionals working in the field of Architecture and Environmental Design and HSMI, the research and training division of Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO).

The Problem Statement

The first note on this subject put forward in a general way the background leading to the concern about architectural education.

We are to discuss the issue in two days, with the hope that we can arrive at a statement of intent which can be presented to the professional community as well as lay public. In order to focus the discussions and to keep within the time frame available, some of us have been meeting and thinking together regarding the essential issues which describe our concerns. it is proposed that the subject be divided into three parts :-

1. The learning universe - which would help us define ourselves as teachers / students and describe the educational consciousness,

2. Instruments - dealing with teaching methods and materials

3. Certification - to understand standards, forms of governance, and the objectives of validation

1. The Learning Universe

There is an ancient belief that the phenomenal universe is duplicated within each human body. This may help us in locating the source of knowledge, and consequently mapping a route to reach this source. Going to the source may enable us to identify the subject or object of the educational enterprise and give us clues to its nature.

It has been said that the educational enterprise is grounded on faith – the teacher many not have the answer, but a teacher will never knowingly mislead a student. Thus the essential bond between student and teacher is sealed by this faith and gives raise to the values which create and sustain the educational enterprise.

In the recent past we have been subjected to an exponential increase in the quantity of information we deal with. Just as the printed word and the on-line image floods our senses, so our capacity for tolerance and human judgement is put to test.

How can we evolve an architectural consciousness which allows us to learn from our experience of everyday world, transform this into knowledge and the ability to recognise wisdom?

Perhaps the essential characteristic which helps in this transformation is integrity – of mind and body as well as of material and spiritual aspects of our existence. At the end of the twentieth century we inhabit a world of materialist science and technology which seems to deny those abiding spiritual values which have been the foundation of all enduring civilisations.

Architecture has always been concerned with civilisational values. Can we outline an educational strategy which places these values at the centre?

2. Instruments

The architectural consciousness needs to be defined to give us an understanding of the methods and materials appropriate to and educational strategy for the next this millennium. In the last two centuries the industrial revolution which originated in Europe gave raise to social and economic systems which could not be shared by a majority of the world's population. The ancient societies and the indigenous people of the planet have been driven into an ecological cul-de-sac which threatens their survival. Industrial values increasingly replace vernacular values. Town and cities have attracted more and more people, and now for the first time in human history a majority of the world's population is living in urban areas. Yet a country like India, which contains one-fifth of the world's population, is still predominantly rural, with two thirds of its population living in villages and rural settlements. Habitat design needs to address these imbalances in a decisive manner.

What are the skills with which an architect today needs to be equipped?

What is the nature of the architectural school?

How does the overpowering reality of the information revolution and consequent global connectivity affect the form of the architectural classroom?

Surely the perception of the architects' role in society needs to evolve much further to fulfill the aspirations of a new generation. In India the professionally trained architect is being increasingly distanced from the variety of crafts and indigenous techniques which form the staple repertory of the majority of the artisans in the building trade.

How can architectural training create a bridge between specialised theoretical knowledge and essential building practice?

How can this training address the problems of the marginalised sections of society – the rural and urban poor – who constitute a significant majority in our country?

3. Certification

The setting of standards for architectural education is the task abstraction which forms the essential feedback for monitoring the our educational strategy, we wish to formulate.

Statutory authorities which have the authority mandate to regulate professional conduct are generally charged with certifying standards for educational proficiency. These bodies are finding their mandate becoming less relevant as the pace of technological and social change has been increasing.

What is the basis of power and authority for a regulatory body in today's globalised context?

Can professional expertise be equated with priestly ordinance as was done sometime in the past, or do we try and make the profession accountable to the general public in a more transparent and day-to-day manner?

Who validates excellence and professional relevance?

Is there a model of governance for the architectural profession which would encourage excellence?

In a country like India there is also the question of very large numbers wanting professional training. As the numbers of architectural schools increase – in the last 15 years almost over 50 architecture schools have started in India – the problems of funding, infrastructure requirements and availability of teachers becomes a crucial determinant of the quality of education that can be provided. In an uncertain economic situation it may be appropriate to find a system whereby the test of professional excellence is determined by the local community who is directly affected by the architects work on the ground.

Perhaps there is enough awareness among ordinary people today about global standards, and the best judge of architectural relevance may no longer be teachers but students.

Can we design a strategy whereby the object of architectural education would become the transformation of each student into a teacher?

Proceedings of Working Group Sessions

Presentations:

The Learning Universe: [ on new page ] Sashikala Ananth: The Place of Tradition in Design Sensibility [ on new page ] Himanshu Chhaya: Architectural Education in Holistic Framework Instruments: [ on new page ] Akhtar Chauhan: Humanise Architectural Education for the 21st Century [ on new page ] Nicholas Weaver: The Atelier Principle in Teaching [ on new page ] Shireesh Deshpande: Teaching Design through Learning Experience [ on new page ] Rohit Gulati and Mansi Jasuja: The New School of GREHA   Certification: [ on new page ] Charanjit Shah: Architectural Education in the Next Millennium

Day 1, Monday, April 3, 1999

After an initial round of introduction, the members discussed the programme for the meeting. M.N. Ashish Ganju [MNAG] drew the attention of the group to the problem statement circulated to the group prior to the symposium. The problem statement discussed the issue of architectural education in three partes: firstly, 'the learning universe', attempting to help professionals define themselves as teachers and students and describe the educational consciousness; secondly, 'instruments' which dealt with teaching methods and materials; and finally, 'certification' which raised the issues of standards, forms of governance and the objectives of validation.

MNAG stressed that the problem statement represented a collective view of GREHA and was born out of several meetings held on the subject.

Paul Simpson [PS], who was the moderator of the first session, expressed the opinion that the base paper had raised some very valid issues for discussion and drew te attention of the group to Akhtar Chauhan's [AC] paper, which dealt comprehensively with many of the issues.

Nicholas Weaver [NW] opined that what the significant issues were should be arrived at from the first session of 'the learning universe'.

Shireesh Deshpande [SD], in his opening remarks accorded a special welcome to the two participants from the United Kingdom, Paul Simpson and Nicholas Weaver. Describing architecture as a mirror of the aspirations of our society, he referred to the tendency to talk of grassroots and not of ground realities. He expressed the hope that the deliberations of the symposium would contribute effectively towards addressing some of these issues.

With a general consensus on the structure of the programme to be followed, PS concluded the first session of the symposium.

The post-tea session was chaired by SD. Two theme presentations were made – one by Sashikala Ananth [SA] and the other by HD Chhaya [HDC]. [SA] made a very powerful presentation. She began by explaining that she had spent the better part of her life studying the traditional building sciences and invited every one to become a part of this effort to demystify the understanding of tradition. She referred to yoga and ayurveda and vaastu as the anchors of Indian logic. She presented a description of the vaastu purushamandala and stressed that here work was based on three major premises, namely the integration of traditional and contemporary selves, reassessing traditional wisdom and applying it in new context, and commitment to human processes. She illustrated the presence of a strung rhythm in traditional architecture both with the use of temple plans as well as domestic architecture. She also illustrated the modular nature of planing, both for buildings as well as sculpture. Mentioning that the Shastras had ascribed several qualities to good professionals, she presented a triad of pre-requisite for a professional – a philosophy/belief system, integrity of self and accountability to systems/people.

She raised the soul-searching question – 'Can we as designers hold a belief in the living nature of an environment?' Finally, she presented a listing of subjects in the architecture curriculum and suggested areas where changes could be introduced.

[HDC] made detailed presentation describing a means of incorporating vedic wisdom in architectural design. He described consciousness as a three-way relationship between mind, space and time and talked of the importance of the process. He presented a graphic representation of various forces, which work on the 'I'. he presented a very detailed chart of how these subjects could be included in the architectural syllabi.

In the post-lunch session [AC] made a comprehensive presentation. He raised the issue of a proper identity for architects and the need for understanding the society we live in as well as the society we desire. He pointed out that human and social issues are neglected in the present curriculum which is restricted to manipulating functions in physical dimensions, resulting in inhuman buildings and settlements. He pointed out that rural settlements and related issues are dealt with only in a very peripheral manner. Describing the present framework of architectural curriculum as extremely loose, he called for the development of an academic programme which would develop the students ability to learn and experience architecture in a variety of ways. He talked of the need for an enlightened educational policy with an enlarged perspective. He stressed the need to encourage new institutions, promote research, and made a call for a 'humane' architecture – appropriate to context, environment-friendly, culturally relevant, and giving priority to the poor/underprivileged sector. He concluded with an appeal to 'humanize the process of architectural education'.

[SD] intervened to draw the attention of the group to similar recommendations prepared during the workshop on architectural education at Nagpur and the series of workshops initiated by the Council of Architecture and Indian Institute of Architects. He also called for a revision of criteria for admission in order to open architecture to students of home science, commerce and humanities as well. He also made the point that the entire community of teachers needed to be 'overhauled' with more stress on quality rather than qualification.

A.G.K. Menon [AGKM] intervened to support the idea of doing away with physics, chemistry and mathematics as a criterion for admission to architecture courses. [HDC] emphasized the need for criteria to evaluate teachers, and raised the issue of adequate support – moral and financial, to be provided to the academic community.

A debate on the duration of the course was raised and several alternatives were given, such as, four years plus one-year training, three-year diploma and five-year degree, etc.

The second presentation after-lunch was by Rohit Gulati and Mansi Jasuja, recent graduates from the TVB School of Habitat Studies. They described in brief the curriculum followed in their school and illustrated it by means of student projects. The curriculum is organised to focus on habitat/settlement issues – organically evolved settlements in the first year, planned settlements in the second year and spontaneous settlements in the third year. They described the first year exercise of students building full-scale enclosures as extremely rewarding. They also described the explorations through various forms of arts, paintings, sculptures, etc., as very exciting. In the second year, they described the process by which the class worked together to re-model a part of the planned settlement of daryaganj, and the learning experience derived from the same. They described as very informative and rewarding the study trip to Arunachal Pradesh undertaken as part of the related studies programme. In conclusion they described the struggle in trying to translate too much of ideology and thought into practice, and expressed the opinion that theory should not suppress ideals.

[AGKM] raised the question of whether architecture should be student centred or teacher centred.

[MNAG] clarified that at the TVB School education after third year is yet to be formalised. It is expected that after third year students are sufficiently skilled to know how they want to deal with architecture, and expect the freedom to explore their own thoughts, fears and intentions while developing the confidence to build their own philosophy.

After tea the session was moderated by Charanjit Shah [CSH]. He gave a general introduction and listed some subjects which ought to find a rightful place in the architectural curriculum, as for instance building and planning for rural areas, management skills, disaster management, cost effective and environment friendly building materials, international standards of construction and project management, office management etc.

[SD] spoke of his long experience and his ideas about teaching design. He described the setting up of design problems and stressed the need for a creative exercise to precede every design studio in order to introduce a stimulus of exploration. He talked of a flexible design syllabus and described the process of design as having three parts:- a core of design practice, a body of technical skills, and an understanding of humanities. He stressed that the process of learning is more important than the end-product. He also gave a brief break-up of the curriculum, with subjects to be taught in each year as well as the skills required from the teacher for each. He ended with the maxim 'make them think and they will learn, for nothing is taught unless it is learnt'.

[AGKM] opined that the present system dehumanizes the problem and this called for a new aesthetics. He also expressed the opinion that a pragmatic end to a design was not necessary.

[SA] questioned the need for any layout procedure and described design as a “simplifying procedure”

Ramu Katakam [RK] expressed the opinion that the present five-year course in architecture has not succeeded in its objectives over the past 70-80 years, and therefore a new process was required. Quoting the example of designing a living room in a house, he elaborated the form of a living room doe not exist in India and therefore whatever is designed is living specific.

Raoul Rewal [RR] described architecture as a fantastic programme.
The meeting broke for the day with Ashok B Lall [ABL] making a request for all to reflect over the day's discussion.

Day 2, Sunday, April 4, 1999

The first session was moderated by [CSH] and continues with the theme of 'Instruments' – teaching methods and materials. [NW] made the theme presentation focussing on the 'Atelier Principle in teaching'. He began with the screening of a video film describing the experience of teachers and students with the method. The Atelier way, also called the unit system, is characterized by studio work where the students work on open-ended questions. It was born out of a recognition of situations which arose as a consequence of teachers now knowing exactly what to do. This method could be applied to any subject. The Atelier Principle is based on an interpretation of education as having two parts: knowledge and application. In this system, the educational aim is to induce the student to 'think like an architect'. He also presented a definition of architecture:

Architecture is approached as a complex problem-solving activity within a defined field. The ability of 'thinking like an architect' can only be learnt through experience; that is, learning to solve problems through the experience of solving problems. It is not for the teacher to tell the student everything, as if knowledge went from one head into another and was then tested. The essential task in teaching consists of organising the situation so that students will have necessary experiences. A good design project is one that asks fruitful questions to which each student offers their own answer, questions which develop this 'thinking like an architect'.

The presentation generated a lot of interested and several questions were raised. [ABL] wanted a clarification on inter-staff arrangement as well as staff interaction. He also wanted clarifications on how the two parts of the diagram namely, application and knowledge dynamically relate to each other. [SD] sought clarification on the use of computers.

There followed a detailed discussion on the system of 'tutors' and their relationship with each other and the students and also a brief comparison of the system presented with the American system. [MNAG] intervened to opine that education is about learning and not about exercising authority. He spoke about finding the truth, which is available to all.

In the second presentation [PS] described the method of teaching followed at the Mackintosh School of Architecture at Glasgow. The school follows a more conventional system but the basic principle is still:- posing a problem, explaining its parameters and arriving at solutions through exclusion of options. Each year of study has a clearly defined syllabus. Most of the time is spent in the studio. He described some special features, such as the vertical project conducted once or twice a year, ranging from one day to one week, where the same subject/design problem is setup for he whole school. He briefly outlined the subjects conversed every year. He illustrated the presentation with slides showing students work, especially of the first year, which he coordinates. A special feature of learning in the first year was the study of indigenous building types from across the world. The idea being to build on existing knowledge to develop a new way of thinking. Students are required to begin with making models, followed by making drawings of these and then an analysis. To reinforce intuitive understanding of structures, special exercises have been developed which use the human body (of the students themselves) to demonstrate fundamental structural principles. In the vacations [PS] organised building projects for students to work with their hands, on the ground and build full scale. These are rapid exercises starting with design and completed by creating space.

[AGKM] observed that the interesting thing about both the methods presented was the space for self-reflexive exchange, which was not happening in India.

[PS] also clarified that a high value was attached to drawing skills, but thinking skills were given equal weight.

[SA] observed that there was a very subtle shift from teaching to evoking experience and exploring architecture, a method that needs to be explored in India. She observed that Indian academics make excellent theoreticians but tend to stifle the evocation of experience.

[NW] moderated the post-tea session on certification with a theme presentation by [CSH]. [CSH] listed several areas where interventions were needed to improve the organizational setup and the award of professional degrees. He put forward the concept of architectural studies which could control quality by monitoring, research and development (training of trainers), education programmes and study material.

After lunch the discussion centred on formulating the recommendations of the symposium to be put forward to the larger group in the special session of Monday, April 5. the members present decided to constitute a small drafting committee to sum-up the deliberations of two days and prepare a note highlighting the conclusions. All interested members were invited to assist and join the group. The drafting committee was anchored by [AC] and [MNAG], with the active participation of [SD, PS, NW and SA].

The deliberation of the Symposium focussed on the three themes of the problem statement, and was concluded by a summing up where the participants presented a collective statement of the essential concerns.

The Collective Statement

1. Architecture is a discipline which is concerned with defining and realising a harmonious relationship between human habitation and the environment.

2. A reservoir of knowledge evolved over a long past which offers a great range of principles and techniques must be used as a resource to inspire and guide us.

3. Technological advances of the recent past require that educational structures and teaching methods be made omore open in scope and deeper in content.

4. The focus of architectural education should include the rural areas where the majority of population lives.

5. The vast numbers of economically and socially disadvantages people should be another important focus of architectural education.

6. The sustainability of natural resources and the importance of sound ecological practices which promote a harmonious balance in the environment should be all determinant of the educational strategy.

7. The internet and the consequent global connectivity offers the possibility of a new community consciousness which should be utilised.

8. To encourage growth of knowledge and appropriate skills within the architectural profession, the educational system requires to be made more democratic, ensuring operational autonomy to each educational institution, and making community involvement a feature of professional accountability.

9. The design studio is distinctive ad essential feature of architectural education. This has to form the core of academic framework.

10. Theoretical studies need to be fully integrated with project work in the design studio.

11. The extensive repertory of crafts and indigenous building techniques should be an important source of learning by first hand experience on the site.

12. Examination systems need to be devised which reflect the unique character of the studio based learning strategy.

In order to realise these objectives, there is an urgent need to clarify the operations of the regulatory bodies.

These bodies include the Council of Architecture, the All India Council of Technical Education, the State councils of Technical Education and the Universities which affiliate colleges of architecture. For effective action the area of responsibility of each body needs to be defined.

The following are the levels of responsibility:- Architectural College, State Government, Central Government, international Institutions – and the actions appropriate at each level.

Architectural College

1. each college to identify the goals and objectives of its academic programme without waiting for anyone to deliver this from the top.
2. Each college to identify its approach to the issues – human, social, environmental, philosophical – in its own context.
3. Each college to evolve an academic programme incorporating this approach in design studios, theoretical lectures and workshops.
4. Each college to prepare a research programme to support the main academic programme.
5. Each college to develop an examination system appropriate to its academic programme

State Government

1. To prepare a programme of development of architectural, habitat and environmental education.
2. To facilitate academic restructuring and improvement through financial aid and all round co-operation.
3. To encourage research institutions, faculty development and professional development programmes.
4. To provide moderators for college examinations as identified by each college.

Central Government

1. To prepare a national plan for architectural habitat and environmental studies at undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels in formal and non-formal streams.
2. To ope up architectural admissions to arts, science and commerce streams in formal and informal sectors.
3. Admissions to architectural colleges to be made on an equitable basis.
4. To promote colleges as autonomous centres of excellence in public and pvt. Sector.
5. To allocate more resources for architectural education and to revise fee every year in relation to the cost index.
6. To encourage research through grants, scholarships and awards.

International Institutions

1. To facilitate co-operation amongst institutions at national, regional and local levels through faculty and student exchange.
2. To publish relevant literature at affordable prices promoting a more appropriate approach to architecture, habitat and environment.
3. Provide fiscal resources to support national, regional and local restructuring in the field of built environment at an affordable rate of interest.

Day 3, Monday, April 5, 1999

The final session of the symposium was started with the tabling of the summing up statement prepared by the participants at the end of the two days of working sessions. The statement was read out and a discussion followed. There was an endorsement of the collective vision contained in the summing up statement and a series of recommendations emerged, highlighting the concerns already stated.

Recommendations

1. The identity of the architect to be recognised as being distinct and not to be confused with allied professions such as engineering and other technical disciplines.

2. An increased social awareness necessary for the practice of architecture in our developing world becomes a precondition to the delineation of roles and definition of norms for the architectural profession.

3. The Council of Architecture to take up the task of clarifying the autonomy of the architectural profession and to delink itself from AICTE.

4. The Architects Act of 1972 to form the basis for developing rules for conduct of the profession and for architectural education.

5. The present requirement of affiliation of architecture schools to universities be reexamined in the light of the necessary autonomy of the architectural profession.

6. Studio based learning practices be recognised as the essence of architectural education, and an examination system appropriate to such practices be put into place as early as possible. The core of such practices being the concept of peer group evaluation.

7. A special effort has to be made to train teachers of architecture .this is an urgent necessity considering that over 100 architecture schools are in operation in India and most of these schools function with hardly any teachers.

8. There is an urgent need to produce appropriate teaching material, which would be of relevance to the regional schools of architecture. Such material to include software specially developed for global connectivity through the internet.

9. A small working groups to be established immediately to go into the issues and make proposals for the autonomy of architectural profession, evolve standards of evaluation specific to architectural education, propose guidelines for training of teachers of architecture as well as the production of appropriate teaching material, and to suggest ways of raising finance for these activities. State Governments, Central Governments, International Institutions as well as private sector institutions to be included in these efforts.

Postscript

GREHA wishes to act as a platform for promoting dialogue between students and teachers of architecture who are looking for alternative viable methods of architectural education. We invite students and teachers of all educational institutes to bring to our forum their ideas regarding our endeavour.
“Greha” is a non-profit organisation registered with the Registrar of Societies, Government of India. It started as an informal forum for discussion of issues affecting the architectural community in the early 1980s and was formally registered on 12th May, 1986.
The main objectives of the society are:

1. To establish and run Schools/Colleges to impart Architectural Education.
2. To establish and maintain centres for research in the field of Design, Architecture, Environmental Planning and Technology.
3. To setup libraries or museums and collect books, publications, literatures, models, designs, drawings and other information.
4. To print and publish Books, Journals, Paper and such other materials to help disseminate knowledge and impart education.
5. To organise and conduct conferences, seminars, lectures, tours, demonstrations, exhibitions and other programmes to impart knowledge.
6. To cooperate and collaborate with other similar institutions, whose activities fall withing the objects of the society.

The founder members of the society are B.B.Chaudhri, Sheba Chhachhi, M.N.Ashish Ganju, R. Katakam, A.B.Lall, A.G.K. Menon and K.L. Nadir.
The Society has taken initiatives in the areas of Design Education, Conservation and Urban Planning. It was also responsible for setting up the TVB School of Habitat Studies, New Delhi, in 1990. Members of GREHA formed the core faculty with M.N.Ashish Ganju as the founding director. The society has been revitalised in 1998 with the inclusion of several new members.

GREHA
Registered under the Societies Act XXI of 1860, number 16677 of 1986

Acknowledgements

The symposium was the result of the coordinated efforts of various individuals and institutions who are concerned about the education being imparted to the students of architecture and its effects on the future of architecture in India.

• Shri V Suresh, CMD HUDCO, enthusiastically supported the symposium and sponsored the national experts who came from different parts of the country.
• Smt Sushma Bahl, Mangger Arts & Culture of the British Council, sponsored the travel of Paul Simpson fro the Mackintosh School of Architecture, Glasgow.
• Shri Himachal Som, DG ICCR, ensured gracious hospitality for Paul Simpson's stay in India
• The Department for International Development of the British Government, on the initiative of HSMI made possible the travel of Nicholas Weaver from the University of East London. DTUDP also co-sponsored the symposium.
• Dr Kulwant Singh, ED HSMI of HUDCO was the untiring driving force who hosted the symposium in the HSMI premises with logisctical support provided by his team led by Gayatri Rajesh.
• The GREHA team comprised of M.N.Ashish Ganju, Jogi Panghaal, Taniya Amiraj, Mansi Jasuja, Rohit Gulati, Vidya Tikku, Seema Aggarwal, and several other members who participated in the discussions which led to the formulation of the problem statement.