Commentary | Ankush Chandran, Colonial Legacies in Contemporary Asian Urbanism: The Role of the Architect-Planner
Asia stands as a crucible of profound economic and physical growth in recent decades. This expansive region is not only experiencing rapid social transformation but also undergoing significant changes in its urban landscapes. Nations such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and others within this diverse geographical region reflect unique historical narratives and developmental trajectories.
The economic dynamism of Asia is increasingly diverting global attention and resources away from North America and Western Europe. While these western regions grapple with stagnating growth rates, Asia emerges as a beacon of exponential economic expansion. This shift positions Asia at the forefront of global discourse, viewed by scholars, economists, planners, and architects as the epicenter of the next phase of globalization and transformation.
Yet, underneath this swift progress is an intricate web of challenges. The narrative of globalization, while fostering impressive quantitative growth, also exacerbates issues that defy simple explanations rooted in global capitalism. These include financially-driven segregation, the consolidation of power among economic elites, and the resurgence of social unrest marked by nationalist, ethnic, religious, and cultural tensions. These complexities underscore the distinct historical and contextual rationales shaping Asia's societal fabric.
Central to this narrative is Asia's shared colonial legacy, an undeniable aspect shaping the region's contemporary identity. Many urban centers in South and Southeast Asia have evolved directly from colonial processes, leaving an indelible imprint on their spatial and social structures. Post-colonial societies, navigating diverse paths of social growth, continually grapple with this historical inheritance—sometimes embracing, sometimes rejecting their colonial past.
The essay explores a triadic framework to articulate changes in urban form through the roles of key actors involved — the state, the society and the intermediaries. While the state actor represents the ruling entities, encompassing the state's evolving agendas, instruments of power, and control mechanisms, society refers to the general masses governed by the ruling entities, whose aspirations and needs shift over time. The third actor, the intermediaries, are the entities that bridge the gap between the ruling powers and the populace, facilitating and enforcing the visions imposed by the authorities. The intermediaries are of particular interest as the architect-planner belongs to this category.
The following sections seek to analyze how local and global forces have influenced the changing priorities of Asian nation-states. Additionally, they aim to delineate the historical context that has shaped contemporary urban forms in Asian centers, with a particular emphasis on the current state of the architect-planner profession.
Colonial practices of spatial planning (early fragmentation and regimentation)
The state, or the collective institution of power, in colonial times, can be understood to be a largely exploitative entity. One that followed principles of assembly and segregation for the cause of effective control, exercise of power over the region and exploitation of resources. Society, largely, had little agency over the physical form of the lived environment or the aspirations of the nation state in general. The colonial administration imposed strict control over urban planning and development, often sidelining the needs and desires of the local population. This control extended to significant areas such as land acquisition, where large tracts were repurposed for colonial economic interests like plantations, railways, and infrastructure projects. This led to the displacement of indigenous communities and the restructuring of local economies to serve colonial interests.
Despite this lack of agency, there was a pervasive anti-colonial sentiment among the Indian populace. This sentiment was driven by various factors, including the economic exploitation, cultural imposition, and political subjugation experienced under colonial rule. Movements such as the struggle for Swaraj (self-rule) led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi in India exemplified this widespread resistance. Gandhi’s vision of Swaraj emphasized not only political independence but also economic self-reliance and social reform, which resonated deeply with the masses who were disillusioned by the colonial exploitation.
The friction between the rulers and subjects trickled down to an inability to enforce colonial ideals — of space and governance. In such a social order, the colonial state rulers (the British in particular) found it pragmatic to nurture an intermediate class of people, native in ethnicity and customs, but sympathetic to colonial values and aspirations, to act as the enablers of colonial interests in a foreign land (as famously envisioned by Lord Macaulay). Thus, was created, a powerful class of native service-providers with allegiances to colonial values. A clear example of the fragmented social structure perpetuated by the colonial state. A crucial note must be made here that the ‘architect-planner’ was a manifestation of this enabler class.
The architect-planner aimed to implement spatial hierarchies and segregation in these regions, under the supervision of the colonial state they were associated with. Such urban forms were evident in many cities across the region—Bombay, Dhaka, Saigon, and Shanghai—where the design of space was driven by the primary motive of segregation and the exercise of power. The creation of space, directed by the architect-planner, was deeply rooted in values of segregation. Conversely, any space that developed organically outside this supervision displayed a markedly different morphology, later referred to as the vernacular. This was particularly visible in urban centers like Mumbai (formerly Bombay), where the clear demarcation between the native town and the white town underscored this reality. White Town in colonial Bombay, located primarily in the Fort area, was the hub of European settlements, featuring British administrative offices, military establishments, and residences of European merchants and officials. Characterized by European architectural styles, such as bungalows with large compounds and extensive verandas, it was designed to suit the lifestyle of its European inhabitants. The well-planned region with broad streets and significant structures stood in stark contrast to the Native Town. Native Town encompassed areas outside the Fort, including Byculla, Mazgaon, Kamathipura, Kalbadevi, Khetwadi, Mandvi, Bombay Central, and Masjid. This densely populated and less planned part of the city, marked by narrow, bustling streets with markets and bazaars, saw increased segregation along racial and class lines after the 1803 fire. Its traditional architectural style featured smaller houses used for both residential and commercial purposes.
It is important to note that under this colonial distribution of power, not only was segregation and concentration evident in the urban geographies of the cities, but also in the class structure of society. The intermediate class became more and more powerful and amassed great influence on the trajectory of the nation. The influence of architects and planners in colonial Asian centers grew significantly due to their pivotal roles in shaping the built environment, reflecting and reinforcing the colonial distribution of power. These professionals, both expatriate and native, were instrumental in implementing urban policies that emphasized segregation and concentration, which in turn influenced the social and class structures of these societies. Colonial powers established educational institutions and professional training programs in architecture and urban planning within their colonies, such as the Architecture school at Sir J.J. School of Art, established in 1913, which later became the Sir J.J. School of Architecture under the University of Bombay. Similarly, the University of Hong Kong's Department of Architecture was established in 1950, making it one of the prominent institutions for architectural education in Asia.Additionally, many native architects and planners were sent to Europe for higher education, studying at renowned institutions like the Architectural Association in London and the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, where they learned Western architectural styles and urban planning principles to later implement in their home countries.
These native architects and planners often gained experience across multiple colonial centers, allowing them to bring diverse influences and ideas back home. For instance, Indian architect Habib Rahman worked in various cities under British rule before significantly contributing to post-independence Indian architecture. The colonial administrative structures facilitated the exchange of professionals across different colonies, evident in the careers of expatriate architects like Edwin Lutyens, who designed significant buildings in New Delhi and influenced urban planning in other British colonies. Architects and planners played crucial roles in implementing colonial policies of segregation and concentration. In British India, the city of New Delhi was designed with distinct areas for Europeans and Indians, reinforcing social hierarchies. Similarly, zoning laws and building regulations in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore created distinct districts for commercial, residential, and administrative purposes, often segregating communities by race and class.
The influence of these colonial-era policies persisted post-independence, as many newly independent nations retained the urban forms and regulations established during colonial rule, perpetuating the class structures and segregation initially implemented by colonial authorities.
Decolonization and inheritance
Following decolonization, Asian cities no longer served the interests of foreign colonial powers. Instead, they began to embody the vision of independent nation-states, united by the concept of a sovereign identity. Despite variations in governance systems across these regions, from democracies and pseudo-democracies to authoritarian regimes, a common inheritance from the colonial era was the entrenched class structure. Segregation and discrimination, which previously centered around caste or colonial dominion, evolved into distinctions based on class and wealth.
In the immediate aftermath of colonial rule, the reinterpretation of social order coincided with the rise of global modernity. As these societies sought to legitimize their new post-colonial identities, modernity emerged as a promising pathway. Many Asian nations, eager to distance themselves from their colonial pasts, embraced modernist ideals. This adoption of modernity was seen as a way to neutralize colonial legacies, promoting bourgeois values perceived as egalitarian and progressive.
Architect-planners, forming part of the intermediate class, found themselves at a crossroads in this new social landscape. Traditionally, their role involved mediating between colonial 'clients' and the general populace. This legacy placed them in an uncomfortable position post-independence. Given the training and values instilled in architectural and planning institutions, many architect-planners naturally internalized colonial values and chose to align themselves with the modern state. This alignment continued the fragmented production of urban spaces, where explicit colonial motives of control and segregation were replaced by a purported search for efficiency.
The morphological evolution of post-colonial cities in Asia often retained the spatial hierarchies and segregation patterns of their colonial predecessors. Racial hierarchies morphed into class or religious divisions, maintaining a form of segregation. For instance, in Kuala Lumpur, urban planning continued to reflect colonial-era divisions with areas like Bukit Bintang emerging as commercial hubs for the affluent, while Kampung Baru remained a predominantly Malay enclave. Similarly, in Mumbai, the spatial divide between the wealthy South Mumbai and the working-class suburbs perpetuated colonial segregation patterns. In Dhaka, the development of Gulshan and Banani as elite residential areas contrasted sharply with the overcrowded older parts of the city, reminiscent of colonial spatial hierarchies.
This persistence of colonial-era spatial hierarchies underscores how deeply embedded these structures were, even as nations sought to forge new identities. The continued segregation by class or religion in these urban landscapes highlights the complex legacy of colonialism and the challenges faced in fully transcending it.
Global Capital and its influences
Globalization and the opening of global markets marked a crucial stage in the development of the Asian nation-state, fundamentally altering its trajectory. The collective identity of national citizens began to shift, making way for a global citizen with significance on a trans-regional level.
The state, traditionally embodying power through democratic or pseudo-democratic nation-states, saw its authority increasingly challenged by global capital forces. These forces determined the flow of global capital and the hierarchy of global financial centers. Consequently, the state, which once represented regional aspirations, was compelled to prioritize market needs over those of its populace to remain relevant in the new global order. This shift often led to the nation-state losing its significance as the primary entity of allegiance, being replaced by global capital collectives that controlled the redistribution of power. In response, many Asian nation-states began to reflect on their relevance and the identity of their masses. This led to nationalistic strategies aimed at reconstructing and authenticating their identities to justify current social and cultural directions.
Society itself became fragmented, aspiring to be both global and local simultaneously. On one hand, contemporary society sought to adopt global values and achieve measurable success as defined by capitalist metrics, striving to make a mark in the global order. On the other hand, there was a concurrent yearning to embrace nationalist, ethnic, religious, or cultural identities. This duality mirrored the fissure within the nation-state and its evolving role.
Architect-planners, historically intermediaries, found themselves realigning their allegiances. Previously driven by the nation-state, they now catered to global capital forces, producing spaces that aligned with global competitiveness rather than the needs of the masses. The growth trajectory of urban centers like Mumbai, Shanghai, and Singapore exemplifies this shift, with urban forms designed to attract global capital rather than sustain local populations. This presents a significant challenge for the profession of architecture and urban planning today.
Reflecting on Practice
Globalization and the market purport to create an environment of fair competition and equal participation in the world order. However, the fragmented spaces emerging in Asian urban centers starkly contradict this claim. The narrative developed here reveals a critical issue within the legacy of the architect-planner: the inherited notion of allegiance to a "client," real or imagined, whose needs dictate the production of space. Historically, this client has ranged from colonial powers to post-colonial nation-states and now, global capital forces. This inherited allegiance brings with it entrenched ideas of space and hierarchical entitlements, posing a significant challenge for the profession.
In light of these shortcomings, contemporary architect-planners must reconsider their true purpose. The production of space should break free from the demands of global market forces—the quest for globally attractive cities—and instead, genuinely reflect the aspirations of local populations. The traditional role of the architect-planner as an intermediary, service provider, and enabler for a client entity needs rethinking to foster more organic and participatory urban development.
Practicing architects and urban designers in post-colonial cities must consciously move beyond the colonial city forms, which often emphasized segregation, regimentation, and centralization of power, and adopt more regionally appropriate urban strategies. A key aspect of this shift involves embracing and celebrating the vernacular and the regional diversity of Asian cities. For instance, instead of replicating master plans that, in singular grand acts, promote high-rise, gated communities and exclusionary spaces, planners should prioritize mixed-use neighborhoods, fostering community engagement and promoting social equity. The concept of “incremental urbanism,” where urban development occurs gradually, involving residents in the process, has proven successful in regions like South Asia and Southeast Asia. This approach, seen in projects such as Incremental Housing in Peru or various self-built housing strategies across India, engages communities and allows organic growth over time. Public spaces need to be designed with sensitivity to local social and cultural contexts. Open, shaded public spaces that encourage informal interactions—such as the maidan (public ground) in Indian cities—serve as more appropriate public realms than European-style plazas or squares, which often do not resonate with the local community’s use of space or with regional climatic realities.
Additionally, architectural practice must focus on developing typologies more suited to our socio-political and climatic context, rather than importing forms and solutions from the Anglo-Saxon world or the Global North. For instance, the standardized typology of the British colonial bungalow, while deeply entrenched in post-colonial urban forms, is often not suited to the complex socio-economic realities of Asian cities. Instead, we can draw inspiration from regional and vernacular building traditions, which naturally address local climatic and cultural needs.
An example of this rethinking can be seen in the work of Charles Correa, who reinterpreted the typology of Christian worship spaces in a tropical context. In the Salvacao Church in Mumbai, Correa departed from the traditional Gothic or Romanesque designs prevalent in Europe and instead designed a church that is open, with large verandas and courtyards that respond to the tropical climate while still maintaining the spiritual gravitas of the space. Typical architectural gestures seen in European churches are foregone for truly regional and contextual architectural forms.
Further, there needs to be a reconsideration of the idea of the BHK (Bedroom, Hall, Kitchen) apartment layout, which has become the default housing unit in many Asian cities. This typology, borrowed from Western models of residential development, often does not cater to the multi-generational living arrangements common in many Asian societies. In contrast, traditional courtyard houses, like the pol houses of Ahmedabad or the haveli typology of northern India, offer flexible living spaces that can accommodate extended families while fostering social interaction.
However, one of the most persistent challenges that continue to shape the production of space in Asian cities is the pedagogy of architecture and urban planning. The education systems in many Asian institutions are still deeply rooted in colonial values and influenced heavily by the architectural paradigms of the Global North. Many architectural and urban planning schools continue to follow Eurocentric models, both in terms of curriculum and design philosophy. For example, the design studios in many architecture schools across India, Bangladesh, and Southeast Asia often prioritize modernist or international styles, with little emphasis on vernacular, climate-responsive, or socially rooted approaches.
A notable example of this is the continued reverence for Le Corbusier's work in cities like Chandigarh, where the rigid, modernist planning principles ignore the regional and cultural nuances of Indian society. Similarly, the standardization of urban planning theories taught in Asian institutions often revolves around the work of Western theorists like Ebenezer Howard or Daniel Burnham, whose utopian visions do not necessarily align with the needs of rapidly urbanizing and densely populated cities in Asia. It may be noted that Daniel Burnham's emphasis on grand avenues and monumental civic spaces, as exemplified in his Plan of Chicago, often prioritizes aesthetics and order over organic urban growth, which is at odds with the fluid and informal nature of many Asian cities.
There is a growing need to redefine architectural pedagogy to encourage students and future professionals to engage with regional contexts, histories, and climates. A growing number of institutions have made strides in integrating traditional knowledge systems and vernacular approaches into the curriculum. By focusing on how local architecture responds to climate and social needs—such as the mud architecture of Gujarat or the bamboo structures in Southeast Asia—students are better prepared to design in ways that align with their socio-political and environmental contexts.
By evolving architectural and urban design practices toward these regionally relevant forms, and by redefining the pedagogy that informs future architects, we can develop urban environments that are more inclusive, resilient, and responsive to the actual needs of society. This shift towards a more inclusive and participatory model of urban planning is crucial for fostering more cohesive and equitable urban environments in post-colonial cities.
Ankush Chandran is an architect, urban designer and faculty member at the Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture & Environmental Studies, Mumbai.
To cite this essay, please use the bibliographic entry suggested below:
Ankush Chandran, “Colonial Legacies in Contemporary Asian Urbanism: The Role of the Architect-Planner,” criticalasianstudies.org Commentary Board, June 22, 2025; https://doi.org/10.52698/ZBFT4759.