Air Con’s Big Con: Why We Built Glass Houses in Bengaluru

Mendel perpetually feels like January. Not metaphorically. Temperature-wise. My office is a cosy corner building next to a park in garden city, Bengaluru, India. Mendel is a meeting room. So are Hippocrates, Watson, and Freud. Inside each of them, we are paying electricity bills to maintain a disagreement with Bengaluru’s climate.

The building and the city appear to have fundamentally different opinions about what constitutes a comfortable afternoon. The city is winning. Outside, people walk beneath trees. Vendors sell fruit. Benches fill up in the shade. Inside, we are manufacturing winter.

It seems reasonable to ask: how did this become normal? And is this a sustainable adaptation to a warming world — or an increasing divide between the haves and the have nots?

Corporations enjoy borrowing credibility from dead people. It is the same instinct that produces framed mission statements, sustainability pledges, and photographs of employees planting saplings once a year. Reality remains largely unaffected, but the branding improves considerably.

You sit in Mendel for thirty minutes and start looking for a jacket. Then the meeting ends. You step outside for a walk. Bengaluru in the afternoon. The trees around the park are old enough to mind their own business. People are walking. Somebody is eating a mango they bought from a cart. The air is warm, not hostile. Just present. Nobody outside appears to be suffering from an acute shortage of air conditioning. Ten minutes later you are back inside Hippocrates. Winter again. Nobody says: interesting, we seem to have built a building that spends large amounts of energy protecting us from conditions that become perfectly pleasant the moment we leave it.

The transition has become invisible. That is usually how strange things survive. Not because they make sense. Because they become familiar. Once a habit stops feeling like a choice, it starts looking like reality.

The building I work in belongs to a species of architecture that can now be found almost anywhere on earth. Glass. Steel. Climate-controlled certainty. If you squint slightly, the office parks of Bengaluru, Dubai, Singapore, Johannesburg and Houston begin to resemble one another. They are all trying very hard to be nowhere in particular. Which is odd.

Because weather is one of the most location-specific things there is.

A building in Bengaluru receives different sunlight than a building in Chicago. Different rain. Different humidity. Different wind. Different assumptions about how people move through a day. Yet modern architecture often behaves as though geography is an administrative detail. I found myself wondering how this happened. Which is how I ended up reading about Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

Not intentionally. Nobody wakes up on a Monday and decides they need a German modernist in their life. Yet there I was. The thing about Mies is that he wasn’t trying to build a global template. He was trying to solve a problem.

He built the Farnsworth House, a glass box in rural Illinois, for a woman who wanted a weekend retreat. A house where privacy was a philosophical position rather than an architectural feature. His principle was simple: less is more. Architecture had spent centuries accumulating decoration like sediment. Mies wanted to blast it clean.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The important thing, though, is not that he built glass boxes. It is that he built them somewhere that made sense. What fascinated me was not the form. It was the specificity. Mies was responding to a particular landscape, a particular climate, a particular set of conditions. The mistake came later. What travelled around the world was not the reasoning. It was the image. And images travel much more easily than ideas.

By the 1970s and 80s, the Miesian curtain wall had become the default language of corporate ambition on every continent. Not because architects understood what Mies was doing, but because the glass tower was cheap to fabricate, fast to assemble, and required no thinking about place. You did not need to know your site. You did not need to understand your latitude. You just needed a steel frame, a glass supplier, and a client who wanted to fit the modern trend.

In a tropical climate, that glass wall behaves less like a wall and more like a greenhouse. Sunlight enters. Heat accumulates. Then industrial air-conditioning arrived to undo the consequences. The electricity bill is the building confessing its own mistake, month after month, without ever acknowledging it. Developers will point to solar-control glass, low-e coatings and high-performance glazing. They are not wrong. They are merely solving a problem that did not need to exist. Because this was never really about math. Here is what makes this particularly striking in India.

We had already solved the problem. Repeatedly. In traditional designs such as the images below:

The jails of filtered light and move air simultaneously. South Indian agraharams oriented for cross-ventilation. The stepwells of western India created entire underground microclimates. Indo-Saracenic civic buildings with deep verandahs, thick masonry walls and high ceilings to negotiate with heat rather than fight it.

Different centuries. Different regions. Different politics. The same underlying principle: pay attention to where you are, and build accordingly.

Charles Correa understood this inheritance too. He spent a career arguing that Indian architecture should emerge from Indian conditions. Courtyards. Shade. Open-to-sky spaces. His buildings breathed. He was celebrated. But he was not widely copied. Because copying Correa requires thinking about where you are. Copying Mies requires only a contractor and a glass supplier.

When India liberalised its economy in 1991, the glass office park became shorthand for progress. You were a serious company if your building looked as though it belonged in Frankfurt or Houston. The curtain wall said: we are open, we are global, we are not beholden to the logic of the street outside. The street outside, in Bengaluru, is warm, not hostile. Just present. But the aspiration was not to fit into that street. It was to signal distance from it.

The prestige hierarchy never fully left. It shed its pith helmet, put on a glass façade, and started charging per square foot. The old colonial architecture, whatever its politics, was negotiating with the subcontinent it occupied. The new version is not negotiating with anything. It is asserting. Then running the AC at full blast to sustain the assertion.

The funny thing is that the office park keeps offering counterarguments. The gardeners arrive before everyone else. By seven in the morning they are already watering things. By ten, the benches beneath the rain trees have acquired occupants. By lunch, every patch of shade is occupied. Security guards. Delivery riders. People pretending to take phone calls. Software engineers escaping meetings. The occupations vary. The behaviour does not. Nobody voluntarily stands in direct sunlight. Nobody voluntarily gathers beside a glass wall. Left entirely to themselves, people keep choosing the architecture provided by trees.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Which feels appropriate for a city that earned the name ‘Garden City’ long before it earned the name ‘India’s Silicon Valley’. Bengaluru’s original competitive advantage was not software. It was weather. People moved here because evenings required neither courage nor air-conditioning. The city grew beneath a canopy. Lakes moderated temperature. Tree-lined roads created their own microclimates. Entire neighbourhoods were planned around the assumption that shade was infrastructure.

The trees were not decoration. They were the cooling system. Somewhere along the way we forgot this. Or perhaps we remembered and decided that imported certainty looked more impressive. The trees, meanwhile, have continued performing their duties without taking it personally.

“Trees were not decoration. They were the cooling system. Somewhere along the way we forgot this.”

Mies was solving a specific problem in a specific place. We took his design, moved it to the equator, and called it aspiration. Then we built glass boxes that heat up in the sun, cooled them with industrial air-conditioning, and placed them beside parks full of trees already doing the cooling for free.

The AC is running throughout the building right now. The trees continue to work without a facilities budget. Tomorrow morning I will walk back into Mendel for another meeting. I will probably wish I had brought a jacket. Outside, the trees are fine. Somewhere, a mango is being eaten.

We have constructed an elaborate, expensive, carbon-intensive simulation of a climate we do not live in, inside a city that never asked for it. And we gave it a Grade A rating.

The strange thing is that this story is not really about architecture. It is about what happens when an adaptation becomes an aesthetic. Mies was responding to a place. We copied the response and forgot the place. That mistake turns up everywhere: in cities, in institutions, in technologies, and sometimes even in the stories we tell ourselves. The solutions that last remain in conversation with the conditions around them. Everything else eventually finds itself spending enormous amounts of energy maintaining a disagreement with reality.

Press enter or click to view image in full size