How Studio Lotus Rethinks Architecture Through the Lens of Culture and Craft

In 2002, Ambrish Arora, Ankur Choksi, and Sidhartha Talwar established the architecture firm Studio Lotus in New Delhi. Its founding goal was to approach spatial design with conscious attention to detail, hyperlocal labor and materials, cultural context, and innovation. Over the past 23 years, the world has seen this unique alchemy unfold in a collection of awe-inspiring hotels, homes, offices, boutiques, and more, including the restoration of Raas Hotel in Jodhpur, the redevelopment of Lakshmi Mills in Coimbatore, the government building Krushi Bhawan in Bhubaneswar, and the Godrej Headquarters offices in Mumbai.

Regardless of scope, scale, or intent, each project blends context-driven design elements with traditional craftsmanship, innovation-led approaches, cultural narratives, and modern design sensibilities. What is important to the culture and the community of those living and working in these spaces informs its build—from landscape design that aids in cooling the grounds to building materials sourced from the ground that show the shades of local soil. 

For example, the Lakshmi Mills project reimagined one of India’s oldest yarn companies into a multi-use hub, keeping its industrial shell and existing roof system; the Godrej Headquarters redefined what a corporate office space can feel like with biophilic design principles; and Krushi Bhawan’s terracotta façade was inspired by Odisha’s traditional art forms, handmade by 60 artisans. For the latter, Studio Lotus also presented a sustainable design solution to an air conditioning challenge, which encouraged both future buildings and government policies to look closer at cooling in different ways. 

From the outside, many of Studio Lotus’s projects catch attention for organic colors and shapes, aligning with the cultural fabric of the city. But inside, solutions, structure, and boundary-pushing principles facilitate ease, accessibility, and responsible upkeep. Whitewall spoke with its principals—Ambrish Arora, Ankur Choksi, Asha Sairam, and Harsh Vardhan—about creating timeless and transformative architecture 

Ambrish Arora and Ankur Choksi Explore Local and Sustainable Design

WHITEWALL: Over the past 23 years, Studio Lotus has remained committed to a hyper-local sense of building, bringing in local resources—from materials and techniques to labor. What was your thought on founding an architectural studio that focused its approach on local resources?

AMBRISH AROROA: Early in the practice, it was more circumstantial. As a fledgling practice, we had projects with very small budgets and very tight timelines. And India was—and it still is—a country that builds using the hand. One of the natural directions we took was to celebrate what we had around us. It was a local-to-hyper-local level at the early stages, where we were doing more interior design projects. They were small, and we looked around us for both material and skill that was easily available. It was also then cost-effective. 

At that stage, there were almost two philosophical streams. One was indigenous and “ethnic.” It paid homage to our roots. It wore the clothes, it wore the garb of tradition. It was almost from a place of nostalgia—in the past, celebrating the past. And then there was this breakaway idea of modernism and postmodernism. It took from the Western, the first world idea of that paradigm. What we saw was the opportunity to embrace the ideology of modernism, the frugality of it, the simplicity of it, but do it using materials and processes that are traditional and local.

It almost came about as a series of projects that over the course of several years began to define the way we would begin to look at the built form. As the practice scaled up, it was an ideology that we found very rewarding—not only in just the outcome, but what it created for the artisans and the people who were building. It gave them a new way to look at their skill, and it gave the material a new expression. The impact it had on local culture was interesting because people began to rediscover their own material, and the skills they were used to, in a different light. Those conversations began to inform a lot of the processes we choose to continue to develop and discover. India is like 20 countries in one, and materials, processes, and crafts and skills are so diverse that even for us as Indians, it’s a constant process of discovery. That continues to excite us and informs our ongoing pursuit of this idea.

ANKUR CHOKSI: One of the key things, which is still a big challenge in India, is also the act of actually getting something constructed. It’s very disorganized. The whole environment in which construction happens—the various tenants of that and the way people are scared to do it—a lot of hand-holding needs to be done. A lot of deep engagement with the act of how it will get translated. That was also something that has drawn us into this process in a very different way. From basic crafts to more traditional crafts—usually only interpreted as they have been for many ages—we had the opportunity to reinterpret and use these craft in a different way. What is relatively different about the way construction and buildings are expressed, and the way we are looking at it, is this whole idea of handcraft and integration of building with the skill of the hand and the mind coming together. 

WW: How does this shape your idea of what sustainability is, beyond re-using reliable materials and cutting down on energy?  

AA: We are looking at sustainability from the lenses of the environment, social and cultural sustainability. This for us is critical in the context of a country like India, where buildings, language, food, celebration, and even clothing are all intrinsically related. People’s sense of identity is intrinsically linked to how they live, how they build. That’s something that we feel the idea of sustainability that’s only looking at environmental concerns does not address. That differentiates the lens, aside from energy, water, circularity, material, and carbon footprint concerns. No practice can afford to ignore the essential tenets of carbon and circularity, but these are aspects that I feel become increasingly relevant for a country such as ours. 

The second aspect of social sustainability for us gets addressed through the process of making. We look at the role of the community in the act of building, wherever possible. And to that degree, craft, in the Indian context, is not a precious commodity. Craft is the sure act of making by the hand. That is considered craft. Design and architecture is a hallowed profession, especially in our country. 

Something we look at quite carefully is the act of building, and if it’s accessible. It’s not just whether or not the building is accessible. It’s the process of building that’s accessible. It’s something that is not very high-tech. It’s not something that puts out of reach a process that went into the making of. Then, it’s easy to adopt for the larger social fabric. A lot of our approach, say for instance on energy, is first based on principles. It’s passive. It’s not active technology. We try to keep our costs of intervention very low, even in relatively high-end projects, so that we can demonstrate methods and means of keeping our sustainability parameters very high. In most cases, we are able to achieve what in the West would be lead platinum parameters and beyond. We achieve this by means that are really simple, low-tech, and passive. Each project has its own unique set of conditions, but what stays common is this idea of frugality. How do we do more with less?  

That has been an intrinsic part of our philosophy as people. You’ll see people recycling, reusing, and replacing. Traditionally, there’s been a culture of reuse—and no use and throw away. That’s been intrinsic to us and that stays fundamental to our process. And we’re celebrating whatever is regional. Building in the cultural and the social kind of aspect, even in projects that are very aspirational and, luxury or bespoke. In India, more or less everything is bespoke.

“What I hope for is a shift in the consciousness of society.”

-AMBRISH AROROA

ASHA SAIRAM: Some of it is also referential to how construction used to happen historically. Measures that Amrish was referring to are passive, but they’re also low-tech, referencing old technology. You’d see them used in forts, palaces, and historic buildings in India, but then there are ways and means by which they can be adapted to modern construction that keeps it relevant and yields the same results. People are able to live in these spaces, even in the peak of summer and winter very comfortably without air conditioning and those kinds of interventions at scale. We think of how we can use that to reduce our overall footprint and energy consumption.

AA: At no stage do we reject technology, but it’s about integrating that, and speaking to that continuum. Take the past to the future and find new ways of addressing and embracing this change. 

WW: Have you gotten feedback from locals about this kind of work? Reimagining your culture in this way?

AA: Yes, what’s been interesting is the feedback we’ve gotten from the citizens. We get a lot of comments. What people love about these projects is that they feel that the city has a building that presents a modern identity for their culture. Otherwise, the visual for modernity that has been set is set by these hyper-minimal steel and glass structures, which somehow don’t speak to the identity of the region. What we’re trying to do is create a bridge, a continuum of history and the future. And it continues to instill in people a sense of being rooted while looking forward. A lot of our work now tends to mediate that space. 

WW: We’re living in the age of the climate crisis. Of what importance is this topic of sustainable building to Studio Lotus’s projects? To its overall mission?

AA: It’s fundamental. Are we able to push the envelope in each project? Definitely not. We have the pressures of a commercial studio, constantly mediating the pressures of a project, the pressures of delivery. But it’s paramount. It’s significant in every single conversation when we start a project. It’s significant in helping us set benchmarks with clients, in pushing the clients to re-look at the briefs. To test with them whether they would be open to contribute to this vision. Aligning and enrolling them in this process of collective responsibility, setting parameters for what the future will look like. We look at it from a local lens. We are very aware of global movements, but we believe that we have a very unique set of parameters that need special care and special attention. And we do spend a lot of time looking inward at local context—at what will work for the population here and society here.

Beyond Trends Toward Timeless and Ethical Design

WW: What do you hope that the future of architecture at large will look like?

AA: We don’t need to build anymore. [Laughs.] We’ve already built so many things. Fundamentally, that’s a very big question. Architecture is a manifestation of the state of society—as is art, as is fashion. Architecture will always be an outcome of the state of humanity, and the way we think and the way we are being. For architecture to shift, there needs to be a shift in consciousness. We are all interconnected, but I think that’s still more of an intellectual idea. I don’t think, experientially, we feel it. I don’t want to get controversial, but there are parts of the world where people live a certain way, and it bothers us intellectually, but we don’t experience that interconnection. 

We won’t begin to experientially recognize that we are all interconnected—and recognize that the past, present, and future are interconnected; that the way we are living today is a result of what we did yesterday and how that will continue—until we take responsibility, think, and become conscious of each decision we make, whether it’s at a personal level or professional level. That’s one of the things we talk about in the studio. You cannot build responsible buildings if you don’t live a responsible life. It’s all intrinsically linked. What I hope for is a shift in the consciousness of society. We’re beginning to see that with younger people—they are a lot more sensitive to the impact of the way we live has on society than were previous generations. One hope is to see the continued understanding of this deepen. When that moment comes, I feel we will begin to see the impact of that. It’s down to simple questions, like, “How much space do we need to live? How much space do we need to work? How much is enough?”

“You cannot build responsible buildings if you don’t live a responsible life.”

-AMBRISH AROROA

AS: A lot of it is cultural. The choices that we all choose to live by. This idea that in India, we talk about mending and repairing something versus using it and throwing it out. For us in the studio, we drink filtered water in glass bottles. This isn’t necessarily something we’re insisting that everyone practice, it’s something that’s sort of cultural to us. You choose to drink water this way rather than generate more waste. You’d choose to mend your shoes at the local cobbler rather than throw them out and buy a new pair. You would choose to repair the hole in your shirt or jacket. It’s an ecosystem that already exists. 

When we’re speaking about the future, I imagine a degree of empathy—in terms of empathy for the user, empathy for the client, for the person who is building. Empathy for the planet, in terms of the choices that you’re making. In India, yes it’s disorganized, and you can resolve things through drawings and on the computer, but eventually, it goes to the site and the people who are reading your drawings sometimes they misread them. Now, as a professional—an architect or interior designer—do you want your vision to be perfect? In which case, you would be well within your rights to say, “Let’s redo this because it’s not been done correctly.” But then there’s the cost, time, and the material that goes into redoing something like that is also a question that we grapple with, saying, “Is it worth it? Is the vision so important that we can’t take this flaw and weave it into what we are designing?” That’s a part of the story of the process of construction. These are the choices that govern a lot of our conversations internally—and they lead to different outcomes. Sometimes because of these circumstances, we don’t always know what the final outcome is going to be.

WW: You’re building timeless buildings and straying away from trends. How do you think about that when approaching something new? 

AS: We’re thinking about design that is timeless because we’re not just building for today, we’re building for decades to come. We want whatever we’re building today to remain relevant to people now and in the future. Even though over the years the purpose of what we build might change—we may design it for one function today and it may evolve to become something else that we cannot foresee—we want to build something that remains timeless and ages beautifully. That informs the materials that we choose and the techniques that we use—ensuring that they remain easy to maintain while allowing each of them to tell a story of the time when it was built, the people who worked on it, and the region that it came from. Those are things that resonate across a lot of our projects. 

And because India is such a microcosm of many different subcultures, I also feel like there is still so much room for exploration to be able to create more interesting, hyper-localized expressions for design. You see a lot of it happening already in product and in fashion, but it would be really interesting to also how that translates to space. To see what it looks like to have that happening at scale for cultures and communities. To be able to celebrate what is inherent to them. Every person who visits that space walks away learning something, taking something away, and appreciating something about that particular geography. Those are the things that I would strive for. 

AA: Socially, what I’m excited about is the death of starchitecture. [Laughs.] I think it had its time and place, and that’s also led us to where we are today. You see a move away from that; sensitive practices that are not caught up with their own identity, self-glorification, and self-quantification. That’s really exciting. A lot of practices are very democratic and it’s about a collective voice. This idea of participatory design of finding collective voices, networks, and new ways of working. That to me is very exciting.