Our cities are a concrete jungle – a term that is thrown around without much thought given to the

solutions, or to the double entendre that follows this superficial complaint. The concrete boom was
bound to take over the world the way it has due to its convenient production and business. Our
buildings seem to have been taken over by concrete and other solid material that hinders our view and
tells us there is no other way a building could be perceived to stand. But, in the words of Junya Ishigami,
what other kinds of architecture could be possible if we would stop defining and categorizing it?
Architecture as air, as a non solid entity that defies gravity and sight, in a way that it fulfils its purpose
but seeks to not impose itself on the environment, tries to be as transparent as possible to allow natural
elements directly into our lives. Peter Cook put it rather humorously as he described a cityscape, “Block,
block, block, bigger block, bigger block, bigger block, block, block, block!”

Our cities are dying. It is not long before the construction densities overwhelm the greener areas, with a
consumerist population exceeding day by day, everyone worries about the future. Will we be doomed to
live in a group of concrete boxes until this impending end? Concrete, a material which many experts
mock due to its problems, is what we are surrounded by. Shallow appreciation of styles such as
brutalism has led to our attempts at green construction a failure, and so I propose to create an
architecture that exists and continues to grow, but does not dominate over the people. An architecture
that blends into the context so easily that it does not threaten to eat up a person’s share of the sky.

Perhaps invisible architecture is the culmination of all styles of architecture, from experimenting with
grand scales like the pyramids to human scales like Gothic cathedrals to the more minimalistic and
somehow natural approaches of Le Corbusier, our architecture has slowly evolved like everything else
has in this century – it is starting to become more digital. We can conceive entire projects on the
computer, using software hitherto unavailable. We can create contrasts to existing structures and
confidently call it art, and despite all the criticism that deconstructivism and high tec has received, it is
the architecture that gave rise to a certain renaissance of its own – why should we stay in the straight
boundaries set by our ancestors? And for the purpose of my narrative, why should we stick to those
obvious surfaces, too? We can defy all architecture and create something new, challenge the ideas that
came before to create an architectural axial age that shapes the architecture of tomorrow.

Invisible architecture challenges perspective – is it possible to be the architect of something that might
not exist visually? Pallasma argues that our architecture develops from an ocular centric view, a view
that has turned architects into nihilistic narcissists. He argues, using various examples and quoting many
architects and artists, that our world was not this way before. We have given a superiority to our sense
of vision, not realizing that our other senses are just as important and need to be looked after the same
way. It could be time to go backwards and learn how to reduce this ocular capitalism, to create
architecture that goes beyond this superficial sense. In an increasingly narcissistic world, maybe it is
better to diminish the use of one for a balanced appreciation of aesthetics and art.

This is a concept that has found recent attention. The concept to create more open spaces and let the
environment feel more breathable. Today’s cities feel very claustrophobic and not very nature friendly –
the superficial attempts at bringing green spots into the built area is superficial only and makes no major
difference to the overall atmosphere. There are too many buildings, and humans were not created to
live in such an artificial environment. Architects can cater to this problem and make sure what they build
does not have adverse effects on the human psyche – maybe this is one of the reasons why humankind
is more depressed than it has ever been and wishes to escape to the mountains. To areas that promise
peace and a way to run away from the concrete harshness and illuminated sting of the city.

There is a beauty in less is more – Mies Van Der Rohe might have meant it in a more modern movement
definition, but there is more to learn from the maxim. It is possible to create more feeling out of an
absence of matter, it is possible to help people by learning to back down. Perhaps this is what the artist
Edoardo Tresoldi was aiming for when he tried to create functional architecture that brought in the
natural scape of the area.

Invisible architecture is not completely invisible, for obvious reasons. It is an attempt at lightening the
heaviness that blocks of concrete and brick leave on the surface and the cityscape. I want people to be
able to breathe even when they are surrounded by a towering plazas and shopping malls. I believe it is
possible to create structures that function just as well the ones we already have, maybe even better, but
play a lighter role around us. That is what architecture should be like – everyday architecture should
learn to blend in with the natural environment as opposed to fighting for which gets to reach the sky
and block out the most blue.

There is a concept known as the “Art of Absent Matter”, by an artist Edoardo Tresoldi. He creates his
pieces, massive in scale, with wire, letting the eye wander through the spaces and to the background
that peeps through the mesh. His infamous basilica is a life sized model and stands to tell the tale of
something that goes beyond the solidity that we seem to require in every day life. For a people who like
to take things ‘on faith’ a lot of the time, we seem to cannot grasp the concept of this absence in our
physical lives. Before the separation of ‘mythos’ and ‘logos’, this was not an issue. Where the first axial
age helped us jump ahead from ancient mythologies, our new axial age must address our newer
problems – are we truly as fluid as we like to believe? Do these challenges move us in the way we think
they should? Are we as open as we are on social media?