Two windows, two doors, toilet, kitchen... deconstructing housing schemes for the poor

The  final product of the Slum Resettlement project at Lazar Road in East Bangalore

Whenever you hear of the inauguration (or the building) of a housing set-up for the underprivileged and marginalised, it seems like the implementation of an 'inclusive' policy on the ground. Is it?
In most cases not. The sight of these reconstruction efforts only makes you wonder- were these people better off before such an intervention? Also, you cant but think that one could have done better (much, much better) in terms of design, construction.... and most importantly as an urban intervention.
Let us take the example of a resettlement project for a small scale slum colony in East (now more North) Bangalore. Consisting mainly of squatters, settled earlier as construction workers working on nearby projects, this colony of sorts had grown over the years to a strip that leaked on two sides of the nearby road. Soon enough, functions like a small church, and a few shops that catered to the local community and to passers-by sprung up.
The hutments were predominantly temporary structures, not very dissimilar from scores of such self erected structures that house nearly 30% of this city's population (or any other big city in this country for that matter). These structures were modest, just about an adults length in both length and breadth. Roofs covered with blue plastic sheets, or, canvas; ram-shackle masonry walls, just high enough to keep rain splash and pests at bay; cloth flaps for doors in some cases; you get the picture. There were the more fortunate ones who had built themselves slightly more 'pucca' (hardier structures) with Tin/GI corrugated roofing sheets, and full masonry walls, windows, doors et al. All the structures served mainly as shelter from the weather and as shelter to retire in after an exhausting work day. Most of the activities were carried out in the open; from washing clothes to preparatory activities for food, washing utensils, and other daily household chores. Bathing was out in the open, children defecated out in the open, the nearby railway edge (and embankment) served as an outdoor toilet for this community and passers-by. Women, conducted themselves in the privacy of the early hours of the day. There was no proper drainage or sewerage system in place and during the rains, conditions of living would get worse.
This slum is commonly known as the Desyeshanagar slum and has been a recipient of a JNNURM fund for rehabilitation... read housing for the slum dwellers. Some dailies in Bangalore had written, a while ago, of an 'unenviable'; existence of these Lazar Road slum dwellers and the delayed resettlement as promised to them by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (KSCB). Now, after a few years of waiting, four storey apartments have come up, painted white. These RCC framed structures with concrete block masonry walls come with living quarters and toilets for each family. The walls are plastered and there are windows and doors to all units. While there are issues of the allotments versus the original 112 odd families who called this slum home, I would like to focus on the homes that have been made.

The activities are still on the outside...

I am not sure that the beneficiaries are much better off than when they were living in their temporary tenements. Yes, these slum dwellers now have a 'pucca' home, but has the quality of their lives improved? One could remain satisfied by justifying the very fact that they now have shelter, toilets and sewerage, but is that all? Let's take a look at the built.

• Being four storey structures, there are three blocks, crowding on this not so wide a plot. That being the case, the gaps between these blocks are too narrow, with barely any light in the access stairs/corridors and the rooms that face this, even during the brightest of days. Each unit has two 3' x 4' windows provided for light, but effectively only one provides any amount of light due to the stacking of blocks. One gets a feeling of being boxed in as a result. This prompts the inhabitants to remain outdoors during the day, and through the evenings... similar to their earlier lifestyle. Perhaps it also has to do with their way of life.. They surely are a more social group.

The railway embankment continues to be a drying yard
for the rehoused residents

• As there has been no provision for these activities indoors, and also due to the dingy conditions, many activities like washing & drying of clothes, cleaning utensils, etc are still conducted outside. Once again there could be social reasons to the same and the new buildings have not catered to this.
• The buildings are merely products of a mathematical approach to design. In fact they are replicas of similar slum resettlement housing that is being carried out elsewhere in the city. These structures are just that, buildings without an iota of sensitivity.

Without a doubt one thing that has improved is the fact that they now have been provided some element of basic facilities like toilets with piping for water, and electricity. But, how have these buildings contributed in a general betterment of their lives? Could it have been any better with an in-situ upgradation initiative (as against such rehousing), with improved structures in place of their previous hutments, better drainage, proper paving where needed, service yards for washing clothes, access to clean drinking water, better power infrastructure, etc? The new buildings that have been provided are mere shells that do not seem to consider the dwellers or their social requirements as important and it shows in the design.
The primary objective of housing for slum inhabitants and the poor is about inclusion, about giving them a good respectable place as citizens of the city. If it was only an aspect of sanitation and providing facilities, then why couldn't one have considered what I have suggested in the above paragraph. Dignity of life does not seem to be a part of any rehousing scheme for the poor. They don't seem to have any right to aesthetics! Matchbox type tenements reflect a general apathy of the so called powers that be.

The stacking of blocks... too close for comfort, and light!

Of course, sustainability does not seem to figure in any of these developments. How do we act on a degree of far term thinking in what their access to utilities would be? The building systems and materials leave a lot to be desired. Even the current mandatory inclusion of Rainwater harvesting infrastructure has not been provided.

As we sign off from this case study, let us reflect on our attitudes towards these citizens of our cities and ask ourselves do the poor only need houses, not homes?

The city be damned! Passing the law by!

The great building bulge!

The city of Bangalore like many, many other cities and towns seem to be developing in spite of our bye-laws, shaping themselves arbitrarily, and in no reflection of any vision document or master plan. Land use zonation is violated as if it were our birthright, and mutation corridors seem to mean almost every other main, arterial or internal road. Setback, height and FAR stipulations seem to exist only as a guide, not as a stringent rule. Our cities be damned!

Just what exactly are Bye-laws for? If they don't translate to regulating urban form, usage, zonal differentiation, etc, then are they effective? It is pitiable that when you go down any street of Bangalore (I am guessing this applies to most other Indian cities and towns) something seems awfully wrong. A scant disregard for the written law is evident, but there seems to be no regard for the impacts of development on the neighbourhood, let alone the city.
All seem to participate in this desecration of the law (or Master Plan vision). While private forces reek mayhem by plonking far more built on land than envisaged, the law men (both administrators and keepers) reap the financial spillage that froths from this greed to grab. Govt institutions themselves seem to care less for the master planning vision document, by covering valley areas, occupying dry (or made to dry) tank beds  and providing transportation infrastructure at whatever cost (inefficient flyovers which still need traffic signals, vanishing pedestrian zones, flyovers that peek into your bedrooms, mowing down trees everywhere to justify easing traffic burdens),... the list is endless.They even are devising ways to absolve themselves of their fundamental responsibility by formulating government orders to regularise illegal construction. The measly fines instead of deterring anyone, might just seem like encouragement from the state!

The law is ambiguous when it comes to small plots. When it is impossible
to exercise the full FAR, why offer it? 

The bye-laws by themselves are a force to be reckoned with. They don't state things clearly, let alone make it easy to follow. For example, there is a 11.5 metre height vs setback relation. Below 11.5 metres, the setbacks are a percentage of your site depth and width, above 11.5 metres, it suddenly jumps to a minimum of 5 metres, increasing proportionately with the height of the building. When read along with FAR permissible for the same site, it is impossible to make a healthy building which utilises full FAR and confirms to these height and setback rules. The belief that real estate is wealth spurs people to maximise the built vs land ratio (not to be confused with FAR) even if it means a total violation of the laws and basic design health.  For example, floor to ceiling heights seem to be getting lower and lower.
There are many more such hard to understand elements of the building bye-laws. For example, the FAR permissible for smaller sites is ridiculous in high development zones by simply being unachievable.... unless you break (or bend) the law. Each stipulation of the set of bye-laws that apply to a particular site don't seem to work in tandem. Clearly, one would have at least expected a more precise set of limits, instead of vague guidelines that one cant relate to.A city's Master Plan should have also spelt out the vision for built form and how neighbourhoods are meant to cope with change into the future, but falls incredibly short limiting itself to a numbers game.with no context. What element of these bye-laws is specific to the city they were designed for? Building bye laws be damned!

This has been this way for a few decades now, and has lead to both a general apathy to the law, and some far reaching impacts on the ground... eventually borne by you and I. There are various fall-outs of these building bloats.

1. Parking requirements are never met and therefore leak onto the roads. 
2. Lower floors and interiors of building almost never get adequate light. 
3. There is a greater energy demand for the same planned area.
4. Can water be far behind? Great stress on water demand.
5. Greater wastes from one site.... wet and dry.
6. More building materials per site... meaning greater CO2 emissions per planned area.
7. Wide spread building activity (illegal) leading to greater dust pollution.

I am sure you can think of a few more, specially if you consider cultural, and economic criteria, but you get the gist. But does anyone seem to care? What amazes me is that in the last couple of years alone we seem to have added far more visible building mass within our city limits, most of it far in excess of any element of the building bye-laws that apply, but the govt officials don't seem to notice. I would imagine that entire teams of demolition crews with dozers, trucks would be working round the clock to keep all this in check, and in time the economics of violation would start self-regulating. But alas, nothing! There doesn't seem to be an easily accessible report or set of statistics available on violations in Bangalore. If you search you will only come up with uninterested statements like 'half of Bangalore' and '90% of buildings in Bangalore' as having violations. Governance be damned!

I am sure that many of these violators get professional help. An ever-ready club of architects, engineers and contractors at their service. Espousing every devious mean to extract that extra square foot, listing examples of how they and others have gotten away with more, and incentivising the entrepreneur with rock-bottom fees and quotations. Professional ethics be damned!

It is said  that one can tell a lot about people and their culture by looking at their cities. I would say that the first to be deciphered would be its architecture and therefore the city's architects. What is evident that the  architecture is random and perhaps driven by poor quality architects or perhaps not architects at all. But how else do you get your plans sanctioned? Architects. The bunch of them seem to have lost (or given away) their souls. A reading of the current scenario shows aspirations no doubt, but in what direction, with what vision? As a profession, it seems like we don't believe in the bye-laws, let alone such design ideals. Architecture and Architects be damned!
Yes, it is true that our clients make most of the law-breaking decisions in the search for that extra golden square foot of built space, but what has been the role of us architects to check this. We have been meek by-standers, equally culpable in these gross violations, by our participation. Of course we have heard those lines from the fraternity stating 'what else can one do', and 'if you don't go play along then you can never play', and so on. Really? Is that how much faith we put in ourselves, and the profession?

I am sure that the 'powers that be' can see all this, anyone can. They MUST have a plan. They must! Some understanding that the future will be brighter, that we will somehow climb out of this cesspool of professional debauchery and unscrupulous meddling with urban form... (all for professional gain). Our prayers and wishes (apologies somehow don't seem adequate) go out to the grandchildren of our cities!

What sets us apart? Clues to what makes communities sustainable- Spaces

This post marks the second of a series with one common theme..... highlighting the areas of living that set us apart from the way/s we lived in the past (and in some traditional/rural settlements that still persist), and which also mark us as unsustainable communities.Here is the second.

Spaces and communities

Who doesn't like, appreciate or even want a palatial bungalow? What is there not to like.... unless you are thinking of the maintenance costs and other costs of residing in a place like this. Space by itself has become a statement of class. Take a look around... the various peddlers of real estate scream out at you dishing out the larger living rooms, the larger bedrooms, and even larger dining tables.... all for a similar sized family unit. Even the specifications are near similar... the difference however, is the price. Nowadays, there seem to no bounds to what one 'wants' as space, expect perhaps the depth of our pockets.
There are some odd outcomes though..... if one buys into a builder development, then the volumes seem to have shrunk. Wonder why? Floor-to-Ceiling heights now hover at a near universal range, between 9.5 feet to 10 feet. What is ironical, is that this remains nearly the same no matter which city, or, geography we live in. This reduction in space (also reflected in the thinness of walls, is due to the builder maximising on achievable floor area. Most individuals building their own homes would do the same mainly because of costs.... be it due to the direct costs of extra material or due to the paucity of space.
How does space matter? A larger volume would mean more air to warm or cool. Too much or too little space could mean 'thermal discomfort'. Ever wondered why volumes of human habitation shrunk in extremely cold regions.... a lower volume meant lesser air to heat up, and lesser surface area exposed to the outside. More significantly, the heights of these spaces were always kept low.... to prevent any heated air to rise above. In humid regions, the spaces would not be bound, and would allow the free movement of air bringing comfort to the inhabitants. Along the same lines, higher ceilings were common in hot-dry conditions. To further aid this, courtyards were integrated to create a kind of thermo-siphon, venting out the stale hot air from the adjoining spaces, which in turn drew in fresh cooler air from the outer faces. In some cases, Jaalis (delicate stone carved screens) were provided on these outer surfaces, which absorbed the heat from the incoming air. Semi-covered and open spaces played as important a role as covered rooms. Verandahs provided shade in hot regions, and performed open to the breeze spaces in humid regions. Open terraces were rest areas in the hot nights of the northern plains.

Through history, the larger consumers were always the wealthy and ruling classes, and the masses lived in far humbler accommodations shaped by what their need and the hand-me-down knowledge systems. Uncannily, the building forms and methods were also sensible architectural outcomes for each specific geography.
Forget palaces, forts, tombs and temples for a bit, but when one thinks of traditional settlements space and form seem to vary from one region to another. What is starkly different when one compares much of these vernacular forms to present day times is how things were never over-sized. Perhaps the reason is obvious. More space meant more material to provide for an envelope, to provide for finishes and for other aspects of insulation, etc.It also made sense that there was a lot of manual labour involved in the movement of material, and therefore restricting the quantities needed made sense. I am guessing that was one of the prime reasons why material was not moved from very far (surely energy of travel did not figure beyond a monetary sense). Nonetheless, there are lessons here for the these times. In some ways, it is still evident today, in areas which are poorly connected by roads.... a boon if you ask me.
Space also has a clear impact in terms of Aural quality, light quality,and even affect our psychology (I am not referring to any Vaastu/Feng Shui psycho babble)... Many of us know the feeling of claustrophobia in small tight spaces. However, each of these have to be seen in conjunction with other aspects of other finishes. For example, the density, geometry and smoothness quality of the surfaces have an impact on the reflective quality of a space; the size, direction and nature of opening has an impact on light and air movement.... and therefore inside temperature. Shapes of any enclosure may also mean an interesting impact on you both financially and psychology. We already know that more surface area, the higher exposure to the environment... therefore more heat gain or loss, and more surface exposed to rain. The larger the space, the heavier the structure..... therefore greater the anchorage or sizing of foundation.

I did an interesting exercise once (thanks to a great teacher I had the opportunity to work with); I compared two spaces with the same area, one a square and the other a rectangle.... I found that the square space would less to build than the rectangular space, assuming they were built using the same methods and systems. Why? The answer is pretty simple really (once again, not some un-understandable explanation of energy lines and directions, which once cant get). The square has a smaller perimeter than the rectangle... and therefore the total wall area (keeping the height the same) would also amount to less. Extend this to less openings required, etc. Less materials per square foot, and so lower costs. This also meant that the square space was less exposed to the elements, and therefore gained and lost much less heat (if oriented similarly), meaning lesser internal temperature changes, providing for a more comfortable internal environment. You can see how space could also affect health.
I am not advocating a standard usage of square shapes as a result, but only emphasising the need to understand the impacts a space could have on us. From a sustainability point of view, traditional buildings had the advantage of having evolved an architecture with region specific forms and hence a more appropriate building vocabulary. Isn't it time we reconnected once again?

Survive in Style- a slogan for Sustainable living

Gluttony by Alex Falco

"Survive in Style".... don't write this slogan off too soon. The slogan can surely be bettered, but focus on the essence. This slogan has been put forth with some thought and much deliberation on what a sustainable world could be like. Over consumption, greed, mass production, clones, all seem to represent the world we live in today (at least most of us). This is no more just some Hollywood take on the 'big, bad world of tomorrow'. Any course correction or advice that may be required today to ensure that we don't slip into such a dismal abyss seems to scream 'HALT', or, 'SLOW DOWN' to arrest the rate at which we are gorging on our environment. When one ponders the ideal pace of development (or living) that could be sustainable, nothing seems more convincing than one where we take only what we need... in other words enough to survive.

'To survive' does bring images of a rudimentary existence devoid of any character. Many an argument on thriving vs 'merely' existing have been made, which demonstrate a great discomfort to change this 'business as usual' scenario. But, to survive does not mean merely existing. I feel that this is the ideal condition for human expression in the form of art and craft. It is an innate human desire to attribute oneself with higher standards of order and beauty. When applied this art/craft takes on different expressions, based on geography, natural resources, community, socio-economic forces, etc.... therefore the word 'style'.

Interestingly, when you check for synonyms for 'survive' in a thesaurus, you get- 'stay alive', 'live on', 'continue to exist', 'endure', 'subsist'..... seems to me a lot like 'to sustain oneself perennially', or, 'being sustainable'. The connotations indicate to me the wisdom of living in a manner that one meets their needs in order to see a continuity of a species.
Similarly, when one checks for 'style' you get- 'method', 'way', 'technique', 'chic', 'elegance', 'flair', 'grace', 'design', 'shape', 'comfort', 'luxury', 'grandeur'.... and so on.

Consider what it could mean from the perspective of architecture and buildings. Firstly, we would create spaces that we need, and do away with wasteful space. This could also mean less materials per square foot. In other words, a much more efficient usage of space and materials. This would free up otherwise poorly spent finances for more crucial things like infrastructure for water, for energy, and surely for better crafted components. So, more specs and better quality for the same. We have innumerable examples to show us that less need not be boring, or conversely, we also know that more does not always mean better. An architecture which is based on a 'stylish survivalism' (could not resist throwing that in), would purposefully look for a higher craft element, with better workmanship, without overdrawing from our natural resources and therefore leaving more for all. You can see that a world that does not import from far off places, would surely encourage more local solutions, creating a far more diverse and colourful planet.

A slogan like 'survival with style' (and its variants) can also be transformed into a guide or set of rules that can define the degree of environmental impact an individual, a group, a community and an institution can have. Importantly, once adopted and applied in full spirit, it influences attitudes towards various aspects of living. This collective attitude is the single most important influencer when it comes to how we treat this planet. From the simple choice of buying biscuits or veggies in a plastic wrap from a supermarket, to, why we absolutely have to apply a metal-glass face to our buildings, to larger concerns of the kinds of businesses and therefore economies (or, vice-versa) we encourage... 'stylish survival' will at the minimum ensure a reduced pace of destruction of the environment.... and just maybe, even produce a glimmer of a sustainable future.

House 3: Friends of Camphill- India, Bangalore

Proposed House 3 at 'Friends of Camphill'

A residential facility for persons with special needs, Friends of Camphill India, FoCI- is an institution that believes in providing its differently-abled residents a home like environment for leading a life of dignity and freedom. House 3 at Friends of Camphill India, FoCI was meant to be an addition to their existing campus at Bannerghatta Road which contained two houses and a central training cum workshop unit. The folks at FoCI knew fairly well what they wanted. The 'house parents' - the Aradhyas, set the tone for what was to come. After a rather interesting first meeting with them- during which they told us a little about the philosophy of 'social therapy' , their approach to community living with the special residents, initial impressions on what they hoped House 3 would come to be- we hit the drawing board to begin ideating on House 3. We felt a strong need to understand the special needs of these residents and therefore we began to read up literature and case studies on similar homes around the world.

What they wanted House 3 to be: A housing unit for about six residents complete with accommodation for the house parents (the people in charge of the running the house), co-workers (the ones that assisted the house parents), guests (family of the residents visiting them) along with the requisite ancillary facilities. The Aradhyas desired House 3 to be a secure, practical, simple, beautiful, durable and environmentally sensitive development.

What we began by doing:

The North East corner of the camphill site, where we chose to locate House 3

Identify the best location to site the new House 3 based on an analysis of the site: We found the site to be a green haven- comfortably remote and removed from the din of the city. We did not want to change this special quality of tranquility and peace that the campus already had. We therefore began by carefully examining the site, analysing its potentials and threats in terms of- topography, site drainage, climatic factors, vegetation & trees, water features, circulation and relation between existing buildings and many more such factors that would influence the ultimate siting of House 3. The site sloped from the south down towards the north west. The northern edge of the site was used for waste water treatment through a system of linear planted beds and sedimentation tanks. The north west corner- being the lowest portion of the site had a large well which was used for recharging ground water- from run-off storm water and the treated waste water- this in effect was the soaking zone of the site. We therefore had to restrict how close we could build to this soaking zone, keeping intact the water treatment beds on the north. It was concluded that House 3 be ideally located nearer to the North-Western portion of the site making it easily accessible to the existing road and creating least disturbance to the existing land form and vegetation.

Analysis of terrain, physical connects, no-go zones, etc.

Identify the strengths of the existing units and their functional organisation: Since we saw merit in the way the existing two houses functioned, we thought it prudent to identify aspects of design that were working favourably in the existing two homes. For eg: The sequence of spaces starting from the forecourt (in which the residents assembled during celebrations)-to verandah (the public private interface)- enclosed living (where the residents gathered daily for various activities)- semi covered court and finally the living quarters we thought served well in the functioning of the house.

The public entry court to House 3. On either side are the private courts.

Evolve a new organisation diagram: The location so chosen for House 3 did not allow for the inward looking square plan as of the previous two houses- thus in an attempt to conserve as many trees at site and adapt better to the topography there- we began to evolve a more open plan form that would be better suited.

Design intentions/ What we wanted House 3 to be: We wanted to carry forth the elements of design that we found working well in the older developments while creating a new building type specific for the current need. The residents who were to occupy House 3, we were told, were going to be either the elderly residents or those requiring additional physical care- perhaps wheel chair bound individuals too. We therefore felt the need to give them a sense of private space within the collective while providing for a multi-sensory experience throughout the home- making for an interesting world within a world. It was required to establish secure connections with the outdoors for these special residents and also create living spaces which would be safe for them and easy to monitor by their care givers.

Within one of the private internal courts

We also wanted to provide the residents with the option to personalize internal spaces by allowing for varying storage configurations. A variety of common and private gathering spaces for residents- both indoor and outdoor were also being planned.

What House 3 is: Simplicity of structure being a driver, we generated a grid that would accommodate the bed and storage units and included a seating alcove within each living unit. Building in this modularity ensured there would be flexibility in use as the occupants of these spaces, as we had seen in the existing two homes, liked to make their portion of the room that little bit more special- some created photo walls while others decorated niches.

The basic module flexible to combine into a larger space, and
of internal organisation.

What evolved thus was an open L shaped plan with two wings- one for the male and another for the female residents. At the intersection of these two wings were designed common facilities and the main entrance and at their free ends were bundled the toilet, bath and laundry spaces. The lower floor was to accommodate facilities for the residents and house parents while that of the co-workers (the support staff) and the guests (visiting families of the residents) were placed on the upper floor for the convenience of its users. The external edges of the two wings were treated differently owing to their orientation- the Northern wing had seating alcoves with windows facing due North, while that on the West was more carefully treated to keep out the harsh west sun and allow light mainly through the north and south sides with smaller openings for venting at an upper level on the west wall.

The Ground floor plan. The red space is the central dining and
prayer space. The floor above is similar, but for a clothes drying terrace

The central living area was conceived as a large volume multi activity space- accommodating configurations for daily dining, prayers, occasional meetings and gatherings of all the residents. Although the clients gave us the option of building closer to the well as they were open to the idea of relocating it; we decided to distance the building from the well on the north west corner- keeping intact the water recharge and soaking that naturally occurred there. This space, being central to House 3, allowed users to step out on to decks that over looked the north west corner affording glimpses of the setting sun.

The upper level, providing interaction spaces, seating zones, and
an engaging area away from the ground.

The built: The structure of House 3 was envisioned to have load bearing rammed earth walls with vaulted intermediate floors. The sloping roof was to be in lightweight ferrocement channels- a decision we took although the existing buildings on site had Mangalore tiled pitched roofs as the latter was, according to us, a higher embodied energy material. We were told in the first design review meeting that the general textures of this place could not be fragmented or appear to be so- as this the residents would find disturbing- so we replaced our prior recommendation of a Terrazzo floor with that of homogenous pigmented oxide floor. Rough stone for the toilets and a randomly patterned stone flooring for external courts was suggested. The walls were to be finished in lime and plaster rendered with natural lime and painted, where necessary, with non- toxic paints. All the joinery of House 3 was to be in reclaimed timber.
Working on the House 3 at FoCI was an enriching experience that gave us an up-close insight, albeit briefly, of the many complexities that people with multiple disabilities had to grapple with and the phenomenal courage, commitment and discipline that was required to keep a home such as this going. Design wise- it made us more committed to being sensitive to user requirements as they were so unique here and needed to be dealt with great care. We attempted in House3 to develop a built environment that not only responded well to its immediate context but also functionally satisfied the special needs of its users.

(PS: For more images of House 3- click here)

Colour and building traditions

Sometimes you look at a building and you have no idea why a particular colour or colour scheme was used.

What is the significance of colour choices for your building? Does colour define you? Does it slot you as belonging to a certain community? When you look at traditional architecture, specifically when you go back in time, colour seemed to occupy a very important place in both breathing life into the architecture and in assisting in one identifying the building that belonged to a particular region, or, a particular people... sometime pin-pointing the particular sub-group or family.

Colours also seemed to have a deeper significance... for example door frames and thresholds were painted a specific colour.... maybe with an intention to sanctify the entry. A quasi religious significance was given to the colours used and as a result, other colours that were reflective of a community found place on the built. At the least, the built became an extension of the people, or, a mark of the people inhabiting them.

Like many other aspects of building traditions, we seem to have lost our bearings a bit on the role and irrelevance of colour in our buildings. Like the forms imported (sorry, influencing) our architecture seem to have shed any connects with the traditions of colour and built form. Today's buildings seem to follow a borrowed identity and design philosophy, not one that has come about as a process of gradual change due to factors influencing culture, politics and people. We seem to have been shocked into this new identity, resulting in an amnesia of sorts when it comes to referencing our traditions and built heritage.

Maybe how history has been written has contributed to this. Our appreciation of our architectural remnants and ruins are primarily done in their present form, and not from a knowledge of what was. It is almost as if we are referencing only the skeletal remains, without understanding the flesh, skin and personality. When one designs a courtyard, the starting point is an empty court, which remains empty during the design process. How does that court change due to people? When we populate these spaces, and breathe life into its occupants, then it is but natural for that to reflect on the personality of the place itself.

Today, modern architectural principles still influence us (in this part of the world), to limit the colour to be an honest extension of the colour of the material used. So wood looks like wood, and brick has to look like brick and so on. While one can relate that, what happens to colour as colour itself?

This is not as much a case for the use of colour, but us to develop an understanding of its relevance as a part of the built.

Perplexed about a lack of imagination...

I have always fretted and fumed about this, but two things triggered this impulse to write about this. One was the inauguration of the 2010 Commonwealth games at Delhi, and the other was an article by Suhel Seth in the TOI (writing for Lavassa Cities).
The former example was resplendent with imitations of what others had done, and the usual repetitive themes of pan-Indian culture. The latter waxes eloquent on the sheer lack of imagination amongst architects and designers.
Do we really suffer from a lack of imagination? How? or rather, Why?? In a country that needs over 256 million colours to paint it and a land of innumerable stories we suffer from a interesting themes to paint and stories to tell!!! Our airports, our stadia, our shopping complexes, our offices, the homes we build, our parks, our streets, all are examples of rip-offs from the shiny west.
What drives us emulate imported models without questioning their appropriateness? Clients? The big bad market? Or, is it simply an easy alternative to what we perceive as reinventing the wheel?
What if:

• Bangalore resurfaces as the city of tanks, valleys and hillocks?
• there hot-dry regions had courtyard homes with pedestrian streets?
• informal market places became integrated to add texture to our cities?
• Spaces and corridors for rituals, festivals and celebration were given their rightful urban space?
• Maidans and playgrounds (not 'hands-off' and fenced landscaped parks) were an imperative?
• glass gave way to screens, jaalis and verandahs that performed the same job of reducing dust, letting light in and also formed thermal controls?
• building blocks varied from district to district... depending on soil, stone and other raw material?
• craft of the region found space in all buildings?
• what if pavements got bigger and roads narrower..... (have to think this one through).?
• what if orchards, and mini forests dotted our city-scapes?
• what if agriculture was part of urbanity?

I am sure you can add much more to this list.
Without a doubt there is a great deal of national pride in who we are, but the expression that we lend to our architecture does not compliment that position. I would not want to sermonise anyone on how we can dream of architectural expressions, forms, types, etc for the various regions and sub regions of this country, and would only hope that we find our ways to do our bit.

Seeking the language (reasons) for an appropriate architecture

In the context of finding that all elusive architecture that belongs, while it addresses both regional needs and global aspirations, we often find the built around us are compromises.

Village House fore court near Nurthyang, Meghalaya

The new found Green rush has thrown up various building solutions to achieve a version of buildings that are responsible to the environment. But are they? Just glance back at the past 50 years or so, and we see a transformation of our urban scape. Roll back another 50 and the differences are glaring. As a parallel exercise, venture out about  50 km from wherever you are in the city and you start seeing examples of a building tradition that seem vestiges of a past in the context of this rapidly changing urban form. Should we construe that the past, which continues to exist even today in subdued forms are passe, and not relevant?
Apply the same filters of assessing their environmental impact from today's green building perspective on them, and we find that they occupy a category that is difficult to emulate.... in other words, as green as it gets. On an other thread look at urban developments across the country and across the world and all this new architecture seems related... country cousins aspiring to follow a trend.
So why do we continue with this inertia of propagating this borrowed architectural model? While it is not hard to see that they do reflect a growing global community, it is difficult to trace a path of transformation, a rationalised process of closure of (or change from) what was, on to the emergence of a new urbanity. Any acceptable change, is a process of evaluating the reasons for change, adopting new ideas that satisfy the reasons for change and discarding those that don't apply, in the process effecting a familiar (understandable) transformation.
Let us look at some of the traits/requirements of the traditional buildings that occupy one of the sub regions of India.
Let's start with the obvious one, climate-  At a macro level, India demands a tropical architecture (with regional variations and exceptions).... an architecture that is designed to keep the insides of the building cooler... not letting heat creep in. However, there are various sub requirements of doing the same....

• keeping the insides cooler, but in a region of high humidity
• keeping the insides cooler, but in a high rainfall area
• keeping the insides cooler, but in a dry and arid area
• keeping the insides cooler, but tackling a saline and corrosive air
• keeping the insides cooler, but managing a high glare factor.

Surely, the solutions and the resulting architecture would vary for each of these situations.

New Wood construction house at Malkota, HP

Add another trait layer, natural resources-  the western ghats (Kerala, coastal Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra have laterite rich reserves, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have rich granite reserves, Andhra has limestone and a variety of slates, Rajasthan has innumerable sandstones and marbles, the north-east is an explosion of a bamboo, cane and other grasses, Most of the Central and Gangetic India has quartzite, sandstones, Himalayan architecture is a mixture of adobe, slate, and wood. Bricks made all across India, were traditionally of different sizes, shapes and hues... reflecting the soils of the various regions. Carpentry skills vary where timber use was prevalent. True, there was a difference between Institutional and the vernacular.... but the vernacular was even more rooted. The vernacular sees employment of the most local and prevalent of skills that are associated to the natural resources of the region, a building system that is rapidly renewable, and materials for construction that can be carted from nearby. The building methods were kept simple and used no polluting energies... only human, or animal.

We see ourselves stepping into another trait, culture and building traditions-  In traditional buildings, we see people and culture entwined with the architecture. We see the work of artisans and crafts persons, and not merely contractors. Wonder why? There connect between the crafts person, his craft and the region from which he hailed was umbilical in nature. Every region's buildings reflected a stamp left by the craft persons who worked on it, that was unique. Such craft also reflected a connect with both the natural resources strengths and the climatic attributes of the region. For example, the stone jaali work of Rajasthan and the hot-dry central northern plains, play the dual role of both providing privacy to women inhabitants and cooling hot air as it swept through these stone screens. The Internal courtyard reflected the private usage of an inner-outdoor space and also ventilated the stale air from the rooms surrounding it.The tiny earthen and wood habitations of the Himalayas reflected both the outdoor culture of it's people, and also kept the inner spaces warm at night. The densely packed urban conglomerations of the northern plains indicate the need for shade in the streets. Similarly, the loosely stacked homes in coastal Tamil Nadu demonstrate the need for air to circulate freely to tackle high humidity.

We see that all these aspects of climate, natural resource strengths, cultural needs and building traditions result in a multitude of architectural styles and sub-styles uniquely linked with the sub regions of this country. So what about the architecture of today? More and more, we are accepting trends, dimensions, expression and material thrown up by a global community, rather than seeking a honest (honourable) transformation (connect) vis-a-vis our building heritage. Why? Maybe in this age of quick-fix solutions, when we continue to seek for that elusive language of architecture that would be deemed appropriate, we actually seek reasons to belong...be a part of this emerging global village... uninterested in the consequences of this change.

Where do we start if we were to design an architecture that is appropriate to place and time (place representing natural resources, skill sets and culture, and time representing the changing cultures and new aspirations)? We could start by asking questions like these:

• What building material groups would I choose to ensure that the building gains less heat? (Doesn't a predominantly glass facade defeat the basic premise of that choice?)
• What building form would I employ that addresses other climatic attributes of the sub-region like humidity, rain, etc?
• How were current uses of the building addressed by traditional counterparts, and are they relevant today from a socio-cultural point of view?
• Which natural resources are available for me to employ sustainably, or more honestly, with lesser environmental damage? For example, excessive laterite mining for construction in the western ghats is today an environmental issue..... so what would be the alternative?
• Do I have a responsibility towards current livelihoods linked to building traditions? How do I employ those valuable skills?
• How would I balance the issue of glare and the desire of a more social people, without compromising on heat gain?
• Traditional vernacular architecture occupied a minimal resource/skill footprint, and a near zero carbon footprint.... Since a large ecological footprint is undesirable (within this 'climate of change'), then how small a footprint can I make?
• .... and more!

What is more dangerous when exaggerated? Global aspirations negating tradition and the associated identity, or, negotiated change. Choose wisely.