The Taj palace Hotel in Mumbai is an iconic and historically relevant structure, considered a masterpiece of Indo Saracenic Architecture which carries with itself an albeit unconfirmed and possibly mythical legend.
According to the story, the hotel’s architecture consultant William Chambers, had originally designed the entrance to face Mumbai’s waterfront shoreline. However, due to communication or construction errors during his on-site absence, the building was reversed and the facade ended up facing away from the sea. Upon his return Chambers was allegedly so distraught that he committed suicide.
However the story has several loopholes, for one, the original architect of The Taj was Sitaram Khanderao Vaidya, who died before the building was finished, as a result of which Chambers took over and retained nearly all of Vaidhya’s original features, making it highly unlikely that it was him who designed the entrance, furthermore there is no evidence that either Chambers or Vaidya committed suicide. Therefore it is highly likely that the orientation was planned deliberately due to practical and cultural considerations of the time.
And yet this tale despite the questions on its credibility, persistently spreads and grows as a local lore because it is an indication on how good planning and strategy can get washed up in face of circumstances.
Which reminds me of a very apt quote by Helmuth von Moltke, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
While Moltke was referring to battle strategies, we don’t need to look far to see how true this is in every aspect of our lives. Whether we’re dealing with our personal lives or professional projects, unexpected challenges always arise.
In architecture, this reality is particularly evident. And yet, despite my relatively short time in the field, I have noticed a strong reluctance to accept the inevitable: that every plan, no matter how meticulously designed, will need to evolve once it’s put into action. There is often a stubborn belief that a design, once created, is untouchable, beyond revision, and impervious to change.
But change is something to be embraced. It’s an opportunity for growth, a chance to learn and adapt as the project progresses. Holding on to the idea that a single solution is the ultimate one can hinder creativity and innovation.
In the past, I would have staunchly defended this view as fact. In fact, I would have presented countless “shoulds” and “coulds” to justify it. However, over the past year, thanks to conversations with friends and people who I would consider mentors—experts in various fields have guided me, thanks to whom—I’ve come to see that speculation isn’t the same as resolution.
Change, however, should be embraced. It is through adaptation that we grow, improve, and learn. The belief that a single solution is the “perfect” one can stifle progress. When I first entered the field, I too clung to the idea that every plan should be flawless from the start. But after meaningful conversations with mentors and peers—ranging from architects to an anthropology professor in Brazil—I realized that it’s not about idealizing a perfect scenario but about focusing on improving what already exists. One professor taught me to take a patient, step-by-step approach to effect change, while a fellow architect from Germany encouraged me to balance my romantic ideals with a grounding in facts and multiple perspectives.
These insights have been instrumental in reshaping my approach to architecture. It’s not about achieving perfection from the get-go—it’s about recognizing the value in evolution and continuous learning.
There are countless others who have guided me in my journey and continue to do so, all of your insight is precious.
You may or may not agree with me based on your own experiences, and I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
See you soon!
P.S. From your perspective, what are some other blind spots architects might have? I’m eager to hear your insights.
