Why do some places achieve great feats of architecture, while others routinely opt for merely functional structures? The economist in me is instinctively unsatisfied at a claim that America lacks great architecture because they have poor taste. Taste-based explanations are a cop-out. Instead, how about the following five angles:
- Surplus
- To go beyond merely functional structures requires resources to spare. At low levels of income, people are likely to merely try to get some land and brick and stone together. In these things, we have nonlinear Engel curves. Pratapgarh looks picayune because Shivaji lacked surplus.
- The desire to make a statement and to impress
- Ozymandius wanted to make a point: He wanted ye Mighty to look at his works and despair. I have often felt this was one of the motivations for the structures on Raisina Hill or the Taj Mahal.
- Arms races
- There may also be an element of an arms race in these things. Perhaps the chaps who built the Qutub Minar (1193-1368) in Delhi set off an arms race, where each new potentate who came along was keen to outdo the achievement of the predecessor. I used to think that the Taj Mahal (1632-1648) was so perfect, that it could not be matched, and thus it put an end to this arms race.
But then I saw the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore (1671-1673), and I had to revise my opinion. We are used to thinking of Aurangzeb as a bit of an ayatollah, but in the Badshahi Mosque, there is genuine beauty, and more than a hint of rivalry with the Taj Mahal. And that same arms race may have mattered all the way into the 20th century: perhaps if Delhi/Agra/Lahore had not been strewn with majestic structures, the British would have approached Raisina Hill (1912-1931) differently.
In similar fashion, perhaps the great cathedral building of the European continent had an element of an arms race, where each team was keen to outdo all that had come before.
As in biology, it is hard to predict where an arms race will erupt, but one can argue that if and when some quantum fluctuations set off an arms race, then it can lead to great flourishes of architecture. - Transparency
- You only need to impress someone when there is asymmetric information, where that someone does not know how great you are. Shah Jahan needed to build big because the targets of his attention did not know the GDP of his dominion and his tax/GDP ratio. In this age of Forbes league tables, Mukesh Ambani does not need to build a fabulous structure for you to know he's the richest guy in India. A merely functional house suffices; a great feat of architecture is not undertaken.
- Accountability
- The incremental expense of going from a merely functional structure to a great feat of architecture is generally hard to justify. Hence, one might expect to see more interesting architecture from autocratic places+periods, where decision makers wield discretionary power with weak checks and balances. As an example, I think that Britain had the greatest empire, but the architecture of the European continent is superior: this may have to do with the early flowering of democracy in the UK.
- Surplus.
- China's GDP has grown fabulously and has generated this surplus. Perhaps India's new buildings will match up to China's within 10-15 years, when India's GDP matches the present Chinese GDP. But the other four elements of the reasoning go against such a prognosis.
- The desire to make a statement and to impress.
- The lack of legitimacy of the Chinese State implies that there is a greater desire to impress.
- Arms races.
- Has there been a competitive element in China's construction, where each person running a project is out to prove he's better than those that came before? And in India, perhaps one or more powerful people could set off an arms race. Gujarat's GIFT project could represent a first salvo of that.
- Transparency.
- The greater transparency in India reduces the urge for architecture.
- Accountability.
- The greater accountability in India reduces the outlook for great feats.
