Narayana Murthy Debate: What Building Structures May Have To Do With Innovation

When we think of creativity, bricks, mortar or mortgage-backed securities rarely cross our minds. But, building structures and the instruments of finance are as much a product of creativity as the pinnacles of artistic achievement. Buildings are also a major driving force behind human ingenuity.

Universities consume expensive real estate. But, India's best institutions that attract bright minds across the country have arguably not been not able to fuel creativity by building structures. N. R. Narayana Murthy, Chairman Emeritus of Infosys, recently remarked that India did not produce a single invention of global significance in the past 60 years. Even if this is an exaggeration, the facts are interesting to consider. The contribution of Indian universities and institutions to human progress may pale in comparison to that of the best universities in the West, if a detailed assessment is carried out.

Why? Creativity would not flourish without buildings and institutions that support it. But, just by building structures, people can not be inspired to be creative.

Geniuses are not reared in college classrooms. The amenities and lectures that universities provide often have little effect on creative men and women. Creative men and women seek unusual experiences, opportunities for creative expression and tolerance for human heterogeneity. Creativity flourishes when homes, institutions, markets and the spatial structure of cities reflect these preferences. Creativity demands that buildings, infrastructure and amenities of such nature evolve organically.

The New York City and Silicon Valley produce ideas that change the world because many creative people live in close proximity to each other. Great art and science is often produced in cities because dense urban spaces allow such close proximity between members of the creative class. Cities are also unusually tolerant of weirdos.

Narayana Murthy thinks that though students at IISc (Indian Institute Of Science) are equals of their western counterparts in intellect and energy, they do not accomplish much when they enter the real world in India. But, close proximity between intelligent, energetic people is not enough. Creators are risk-takers. Creativity requires an atmosphere where talent is celebrated while personal excesses and mistakes are tolerated. Asian cities and institutions produce far less Nobel laureates and creators even when they have tall buildings and smart people because cultures that punish risk-takers and eccentrics undermine creativity too.

Murthy thinks that a great instance of team work is a symphony in which the accomplished musicians work in harmony under the conductor. But, how can building structures in India promote co-ordination without punishing innovation?

As Malcom Gladwell observed, in offices, often the cubicles and interior offices for support staff and lower management are around the core while the offices for senior managers are around the edges. But, far more people would be in their orbit if the top management or the public areas were at the center of the building. Greater flow of communication is essential for creativity.

The office layouts of some of the best R&D labs in the United States insulate scientists and engineers. The oddballs are out of the sight of clients, customers and the managers who climbed the corporate ladder in the most linear fashion. Creativity requires proximity, but there need not be too much of it among the breathtakingly creative and the rest.

Such structures and layouts are rarely the result of top-down design. They emerge when firms, institutions and cities restructure themselves to create space for its most creative members.

Tolerance towards the “strange” is important in architectural design too. As the saying goes, "In the Italian countryside, no two homes look the same". Most of them are unspeakably ugly. But, without such continuous experimentation and tolerance for mistakes, Italian design would not have been what it is today. 

In Indian cities, high density building is essential for proximity because diverse, creative men are chosen from a large pool. It is true that innovation thrives in Silicon Valley despite low density. But, this is because Silicon Valley engineers are deeply networked, and always learning from each other. In cities like New York, most startups are in mixed-use, mid-rise buildings. This does not mean that density is irrelevant either. Manhattan is second only to Silicon Valley in attracting startups funded by venture capitalists.

Innovators are often of limited means, and tend to live in cheaper, ancient parts of a city. They often cannot afford high rise buildings. But, high-rise buildings are expensive only because they are often built around the central city. In areas father from the central city, the floor area ratio (FAR) is lower. But, if the FAR rises in suburbs, high rises would become cheaper than the ancient, old buildings that artists live in today.

Many artists are of limited means too. Without highly affordable homes, art would not flourish in urban areas. High building density furthers greater interaction between the creative class, curtailing the unpleasantness such interactions lead to, like congested living spaces, high residential property prices and diseases. India's large cities have high density of population, but the density of building is low. They do not curtail the unpleasantness that population density causes.

For the creative class, time is very valuable. High density building reduces commuting time and encourages walking. The creative class loves walking. Walking raises performance on cognitive tasks.

Creativity requires building, but countries cannot build their way into creativity. Creativity requires high density building, but people with overflowing creativity rarely work in the densest of buildings. Creativity requires proximity, but much of what we call genius is the ability to work in isolation. Exquisite design is the antithesis of ugly, but aesthetics wouldn't flourish in societies that do not tolerate ugly buildings. To design institutions and offices, we need such a nuanced understanding of the people who inhabit them.