Interview with Prof. Dr. Vibhuti Sachdev: Education Post

Architecture is more than just designing buildings; it is about shaping societies, preserving heritage, and ensuring sustainable urban development. As the world faces rapid urbanization, climate change, and evolving technological advancements, the role of architects has expanded beyond traditional boundaries. Today, architectural education must evolve to prepare students not just to design but to think critically, engage with communities, and create meaningful, lasting impacts on the built environment.
In this insightful conversation with Prof Dr Vibhuti Sachdev, Dean and Director, GITAM School of Architecture, Vishakhapatnam and an esteemed architect, educator, and thought leader talks with Education Post's Prabhav Anand, to explore the challenges and opportunities in architectural education. Dr. Sachdev discusses the growing need for interdisciplinary learning, emphasizing how architecture intersects with urban planning, environmental sciences, sociology, and even psychology. She highlights the importance of heritage conservation, stressing that history should be seen as an asset rather than a liability in modern urban development.

Addressing gender inclusivity, Dr. Sachdev sheds light on the challenges women face in leadership roles within architecture and advocates for a more inclusive, diverse professional landscape. She also emphasizes the critical role of professors of practice in bridging the gap between academia and industry, ensuring that students gain real-world exposure. Furthermore, she underscores the urgent need for policy reforms in education—encouraging students to engage with municipal bodies, focus on regenerative design, and rethink what true development means.

Q. Architectural education is evolving rapidly, with changing pedagogies and technological interventions. What, in your opinion, are the biggest gaps in how architecture is currently taught in India?

I think the biggest gap in architectural education in India is that we’re not fully addressing our own needs and context. We tend to follow global technological advancements without adapting them to our local conditions.

Take air conditioning, for example. We’ve created this artificial bubble where we’re essentially living in refrigerators. But if we paid more attention to our diverse climate and needs, we could develop many more passive design solutions that are not just energy-efficient but also healthier for us. This lack of contextual thinking is a major issue.

This, of course, impacts how we teach architecture. The market plays a huge role in shaping education because we often teach what’s in demand. But I strongly believe education should be ahead of the industry—after all, our students are the architects of the future. Their focus should be on what’s coming next, not just what’s trending now.

To bridge this gap, we need to invest more in research and take a more thoughtful approach to our own architectural needs. We should be a little more “selfish” in a good way—thinking about our land, our climate, and our unique challenges rather than just borrowing solutions that were designed for completely different contexts. If we do that, we’ll not only improve architectural education but also create more sustainable and meaningful architecture in India.

Q. The rise of AI and ML is transforming various disciplines, including design and architecture. Do you see these technologies as a threat to traditional architectural practice, or do they present new opportunities?

Oh, I don’t think technology is ever a threat. It all depends on how we use it—whether we make it work for us or let it dictate how we function. That’s in our hands. I see technology as an opportunity rather than a challenge. It has transformed lives, made processes faster, and enabled us to achieve much more than ever before.

The impact of technology, especially in a country like ours, is massive. It has broken down barriers and made access to information easier than ever. But what’s important is that we keep asking ourselves: Why are we using this technology? If we stay mindful of its purpose, we can ensure that we don’t lose the things we truly value as a society.

For instance, just because Kindle exists doesn’t mean we all have to give up physical books. Many of us still prefer the feel of paper in our hands. Similarly, AI might suggest certain design choices or patterns, but we should have the ability to push back and say, “No, that’s not me. That’s not the direction I want to take.”

This is where resistance to blind technological adoption becomes crucial. AI and algorithms will keep throwing suggestions at us, predicting our preferences, and trying to define us. But we need to engage critically, challenge its assumptions, and essentially "teach" the technology. That’s the real need of the hour—understanding AI, questioning it, and making it work in a way that aligns with our values and vision.

Q. Many architects argue that AI-generated designs lack human intuition and cultural sensitivity. How should architectural education address this concern while embracing the benefits of AI?

The thing about AI is that we don’t really know how it’s going to evolve. We’ve created this technology, but unlike earlier innovations—where we could predict how a camera would function or what a computer could do—AI is different. We can’t fully anticipate how it will generate solutions or how it will develop over time.

Things are changing incredibly fast. In the past, when we used Google, we would type a question, get multiple answers, and decide which one made the most sense. Now, AI is giving a single answer and saying, “This is the answer.” Not only that, but it’s also starting to dictate what questions should be asked in the first place. That’s why we need to stay sharp and not lose sight of the original questions we set out to explore.

The key is to teach AI as quickly as possible because it will learn from us. While it’s self-learning and generative, we still have a role in shaping its evolution. It’s exciting, no doubt, but also overwhelming. The speed at which AI is advancing is mind-blowing, and whether we can keep up with it is something only time will tell.

Right now, there are two extremes in the debate. Some believe AI will eventually surpass human capabilities in design, while others argue that AI lacks emotional depth, cultural sensitivity, and intuition. But here’s the thing—AI will learn these aspects, and in some cases, it might even do a better job than us. It could eliminate certain biases and assumptions that humans naturally carry.

So rather than resisting it, architectural education needs to focus on guiding AI’s learning in the right direction—teaching it cultural context, human values, and the nuances of design that go beyond just data and algorithms. The goal should be to use AI as a tool to enhance creativity, not replace it.

Q. Architecture has long been rooted in human-centric design and sustainability. With rapid urbanization, how can academia play a stronger role in shaping environmentally responsible architects?

First, I think we need to question the rapidity of urbanization itself. Do we always need to develop at such a fast pace? Should every city start looking the same? Increasingly, when we travel, we get this sense of déjà vu—cities are losing their unique character, blending into one another.

As Gandhiji said, “Speed is not of the utmost importance; it’s the road you’re traveling that matters.” What’s the point of moving fast if we’re heading in the wrong direction? Some of the towns and cities that urbanized more slowly have retained more character, a richer urban landscape, and a deeper connection to their environment. So perhaps, instead of rushing, we should consciously decide what pace of development is actually beneficial.

Now, what can architectural education do? Here’s a thought—what if each architecture school took an active role in shaping the city it is located in? Imagine if every student worked on real, tangible projects within their city rather than just hypothetical designs. These students, aged 18 to 23, are at the peak of their creative and intellectual energy. They’re not just students; they’re citizens, they can vote, they have a voice. Why not give them the chance to directly contribute to the spaces around them?

If every architecture school in the country engaged with its city’s real-world challenges, we’d have 350+ institutions actively influencing urban environments in meaningful ways. That’s an incredible untapped resource for positive change.

Universities could lead this movement with a spirit of seva bhav—a sense of service to the community. If higher education institutions start engaging deeply with their cities, it could transform urban development. It’s an approach that doesn’t just teach students—it empowers them to be the change their environment needs.

Q. There is an ongoing debate about whether architectural education should focus more on theoretical foundations or practical, hands-on training. Where do you stand on this, and how can institutions strike the right balance?

That’s an important question—but I actually think it’s framed incorrectly. There’s often this idea that theory and practice are in opposition, but that’s not true at all. It’s not an either-or situation—it’s always both. No practice exists without theory.

Think about it—whenever you do anything, you instinctively ask yourself: What am I doing? Why am I doing it? How am I doing it? These fundamental questions form the basis of theory. Theory isn’t some abstract concept floating separately from real-world application—it’s embedded in everything we do.

The real issue, I believe, is that sometimes we teach theory without showing students how to apply it. That’s where the disconnect happens. If students don’t see a direct link between what they’re learning and its practical implications, they might dismiss it as irrelevant or unnecessary.

So, instead of seeing theory and practice as separate, we should focus on applied theory—consciously bridging the gap in the way we teach. Every theoretical concept should be tied to its real-world application. When students understand why they are learning something and how it translates into architectural practice, that’s when education truly becomes meaningful.

Q. In recent years, we have seen a shift towards interdisciplinary learning. How important is it for architecture students to engage with fields like urban planning, environmental sciences, and computational design?

Oh, absolutely—it’s crucial! But, you know, architecture has always been interdisciplinary. That’s why it’s often called the mother of all arts. It naturally weaves together so many different fields—technology, sociology, history, geography, environmental sciences, even law and psychology. There’s hardly a discipline that doesn’t connect with architecture in some way.

That’s also why architects tend to dabble in so many things. You can’t design in isolation—you need at least a basic understanding of these other fields to make informed decisions. Every choice in architecture has ripple effects—it impacts the environment, society, and even the economy. So, you have to think holistically.

In fact, I’d go as far as saying that architectural education isn’t just about training professionals—it’s about shaping sensitive, creative, and aware human beings. If everyone had some exposure to architectural thinking, we’d probably have a more empathetic, well-rounded society!

At its core, architecture is about connecting dots—and the more dots you can see, the better your design solutions will be. So yes, interdisciplinary learning isn’t just important—it’s fundamental to the way architecture works.

Q. India has a rich architectural heritage, yet modern urban development often overlooks historical and regional influences. How can educational institutions instill a stronger sense of heritage conservation in young architects?

Yes, this is something that really worries me—it’s a huge concern. If you look at Europe, even in highly urban, cosmopolitan cities like London, the footprint of the past is very much intact. You’ll find 200-year-old houses still being lived in, historic buildings repurposed into banks, cafes, galleries—you name it. But in India, we struggle to do the same. And that’s heartbreaking.

I think the real issue is mindset. Developers often see history as a liability rather than an asset, and that needs to change. We need to start looking at conservation as sustainable development, not as an obstacle. If you preserve the past, you’re actually practicing sustainability at its core.

And, honestly, these are very Indian values. Our traditional ways of living were deeply rooted in conservation—whether it was minimizing food waste in old kitchens, carefully using materials, or respecting the natural world. These values were built into our culture. But today, unless conservation is given economic value, it doesn’t take off.

That’s where education comes in. If we can teach young architects that heritage isn’t just about nostalgia—it’s about sustainability, economy, and cultural identity—then maybe we can shift the way development happens. Right now, too many people see an old haveli or a historic palace as something to demolish and replace with a high-rise. And that’s a real tragedy.

Q. There is a growing movement advocating for more women in architecture and design leadership. From your experience, what systemic changes are needed to make the field more inclusive?

That’s a really good and timely question. We celebrate Women’s Day, we talk about gender equality, but in reality, we still have very few women in architecture—especially in leadership roles.

Women bring something very unique to the table. And I’m not saying all women or that all men are the same—there are good and bad professionals in every field. But if we talk about what women, as a whole, contribute, there are distinct feminine qualities—nurturing, inclusivity, the ability to multitask, and a different pace of thinking. Women tend to carry people along with them, whether in families or professional spaces. We are the Ashtabhuji—like Durga, juggling multiple responsibilities at once!

But the real issue is value and visibility. Women’s voices often don’t carry the same weight in male-dominated spaces. In board meetings, for instance, I’ve often found myself being the only woman in the room. And sometimes, I hesitate—because the conversation is all about numbers, budgets, and development, and I wonder if bringing up mental well-being, or the impact of design on children or the elderly, would seem irrelevant. But I still push forward, because being heard is the first step toward change.

And inclusivity isn’t just about gender—it’s about everyone who is marginalized. We need to create spaces where not just women, but also people with disabilities, children, and other underrepresented groups have a voice. The reality is, we live in a society where men still dominate leadership positions, and much of women's contributions go unrecognized. That has to change—through policy, representation, and most importantly, shifting the mindset that women’s perspectives are valuable, and not just an afterthought.

Q. How has the role of a Pop Professor of Practice influenced the growth of entrepreneurship in our country, and in what ways can it support upcoming entrepreneurs in this industry?

I think in architectural education, it is crucial to have people who have real-world experience—architects who have actually built projects, worked on-site, and faced the challenges of execution. This is because architectural education today is not just a casual pursuit—it’s a full-time profession.

Faculty members are under immense pressure to publish research, manage administrative responsibilities, and handle institutional commitments. These tasks are so time-consuming that it becomes nearly impossible to balance them with an active architectural practice. So, expecting full-time faculty to also practice at a high level is very difficult.

That’s why having Professors of Practice—architects who are full-time practitioners but also engaged in education—is incredibly valuable. They bridge the gap between academia and industry, bringing real-world knowledge into the classroom. I personally see myself as an architect in education, rather than just an academic, and I strongly believe practicing professionals should have a more formal role in teaching.

At GSA, we are actively looking at bringing practicing architects into our teaching framework. This model not only makes education more relevant but also fosters entrepreneurship, as students learn directly from those who have navigated the industry’s challenges. It’s a very positive and necessary development.

Q. Looking at the future of higher education in architecture, what are the key reforms you believe should be implemented at a policy level to better equip students for the challenges of the next few decades?

One of the most critical reforms should be teaching students how to generate work, rather than just finding jobs. Architecture is not a job-oriented profession in the conventional sense. Instead of waiting for opportunities, students must be encouraged to actively engage with urban issues—identifying problems in cities, proposing solutions, and working closely with municipal corporations and district authorities.

There’s often a hesitation among students—this belief that politicians or city officials won’t listen to them. But that’s changing. We are now encouraging students to directly interact with civic bodies like the GVMC (Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation) and other municipal authorities, where they can intern, contribute, and make a difference. This real-world engagement fosters employability and societal relevance—two crucial aspects of architectural education. Students must believe that they can go out and change the world.

Another important shift needed in our education system is our approach to design. As we discussed earlier about inclusivity and diversity, we must rethink what constitutes development. Building high-rises isn’t always the answer. Architecture should embrace regenerative design, which means sometimes architecture is about removing an element rather than adding one. Concepts like redevelopment, resilience, and sustainability should be central to our education system.

Lastly, the experience gap is a real issue in the industry. Companies demand experience, but fresh graduates struggle to get their foot in the door because they haven’t been given practical exposure. This is where internships, live projects, and industry collaborations must become an integral part of the curriculum. By ensuring students graduate with hands-on experience, we can bridge this gap and truly prepare them for the challenges ahead.