Seeking an alternate world- Making sense of going green with respect to the modern day development paradigm

Times they are a changing. Boy, can you feel it or what? Never before in modern, post industrial times has the common man been so aware of changes in rainfall, temperature, freak weather... the list is endless. Every other day, we read about new records being toppled in the these very categories. Climate and weather occupy more and more space in our newspapers alongside burgeoning development, pollution, and infrastructure woes. The mood is sombre and sometimes on edge, predicting various doomsday scenarios. There are calls for action, change, and even questioning the very way of life that we have grown so used to.

Within this environment of climate change and demands to reduce emissions of green house gases our nations are preoccupied with pushing up growth indices in order to convince themselves, and others who they hope to attract investments from, that we are doing fine. If anything at all, the 2007-09 recession years have shown us that current models of development and modern day economics have serious flaws. This model implies that nations have to keep ticking to stay above. In other words, this means that we have to keep selling, keep consuming, keep producing, keep extracting, keep mining,.. to project a healthy rate of growth. Sales have to be better than before to ensure that a business is afloat, no matter if the consumer needs it or not. This has lead to a world of misinformation, exaggeration and titillation.We buy because we dread the fall-outs of not doing so, we buy because we feel that we are being benefited, we buy because we feel we are doing well and we also buy because we don't want to feel left out. Along the way we have grown to believe in these globally disseminated messages of size, gloss and finesse. Modern day economics have meant that we have lost, or are rapidly losing, any connects with the way we lived earlier. With that is the disappearance of traditional knowledge systems of carrying capacity- how much to take, when to take, how to give back and so on. What all this means is the struggle to resurrect ourselves from the graves of climate change is arduous. The important question is 'how can we maintain both modern day growth economies, and do less harm to the environment simultaneously?'

20th Century Economics necessitates increased consumption. Today's green initiatives are overwhelmingly about clean energy. While this is essential, you cannot forget other aspects of sustainability. The old adage, 'too much of anything isn't good...' is perfect to describe the situation. For the building industry to do well, it necessitates more building (whether we need it or not); the building materials sector too needs to keep doing better that they did last year to retain value in the market; this only means more raw materials needed and so on. The same applies to the Automobile, Fishing, FMCG, Textiles, and essentially every fathomable industry. We have already out-consumed natures bounty in many ways. Entire oceans of fish are vanishing, various ores and minerals have been 'mined' dry, forests have been denuded....it gets clear where this is headed. The growth based valuation of modern day economics is sending us over the precipice.

So how do we see any credible green initiative in today's context? Essentially, it is about painting a picture of an alternate world. To borrow the slogan of the World Social Forum- "Another World is Possible".Are the answers all there? Gosh no! Each initiative is about exploring possibilities and building on promising ones. We need to stop looking for overarching solutions for current day problems, and rather find what is most appropriate to us in our respective regions. Some solutions may cross borders, yet many more would be specific and limited. As professionals, serious about seeking out alternate models of development, we need to  recognise what our roles are in the prevailing economy. We are either catalysts of change, slowing down the processes of decline, or, are charting new courses development wise. There are always the nay-sayers who would label such thinking as regressive, but they act as if there exists no other possibility.

What is important are the choices that we make. We need to constantly ask ourselves questions like, 'is this good for me in the long run?', or better yet 'Is this sustainable?' before we act on our choices. It is a tough one no doubt. This 'recent past' in the context of human history is also 'the memory of our times'. The challenge is unlearning the trappings of our lifetimes and seeking connects with the past and possible futures that would ensure long term sustainability. We have begun to get connected like never before... it is important we stay the course.

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!

Ecotourism: A Tale of Two Bandipurs

A familiar sight at Bandipur, Karnataka.

Talk to anyone in Bangalore about Bandipur (or Nagarhole) and they immediately think of a quick weekend getaway close to home. These biospheres which are home to wild elephants, tigers, and a host of other animals have been a major tourist draw over the years. There are organizations who offer accommodation, jungle safaris, and packaged tours to vacationers under the banner of Ecotourism. However, as explained in my previous blog on this subject, Ecotourism is not merely ‘a walk-in-the-park’ and a plain old-fashioned holiday in a nature preserve does not qualify as one. The term has been manipulated to such an extent that even the media refers to this category as Ecotourism, and government bodies that have been mandated to study and put in place meaningful Ecotourism programmes are merely developing resorts and pandering to the interests of businesses that are in the fray only for the moolah. As a refresher, here is how Ecotourism is defined: ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’ (The International Ecotourism Society, 1990).
Though there is much talk in Karnataka about serious Ecotourism initiatives the track record is too thin to ascribe any measure of success to them. The local community needs to be an equal partner in the venture so that there is economic growth and social upliftment: but locals are normally handed out paltry sums as sustenance monies instead of structured programs that will benefit them in the long run. The tourists too need to be educated on ‘responsible tourism’ and their role is to aid and abet the program. However, tourists frequently and unknowingly do the obverse- take the case Tiger-centric Tourism: While looking for tiger sightings from elephant mounts or jeeps, visitors often tip the mahouts or jeep drivers if an actual sighting is made. This encourages ‘tiger-chases’ which is exactly the opposite of what is warranted! It is rare to find tourists who absorb what nature has to offer in ‘passive’ ways: enjoying peaceful forests walks, listening to the forest sounds, and taking in the sightings as and when they come.

Check Bandipur, Tanahun, Nepal on facebook. 

Now let’s talk about another Bandipur- a tiny Nepali (Magar) village. While this is not exactly a similar comparison of likes, this town is a better example of how a proper Ecotourism initiative should evolve; wherein while driving an ecologically sensitive programme it also promotes responsible tourism and integrates livelihoods of the local community.
Bandipur village in Nepal faced a situation when the highway linking these Kathmandu and Pokhra was built it lost its importance and many of the village-folk moved away to the towns in search of better opportunities. This highway was built in the Marsyangdi Valley, leaving Bandipur isolated on the higher reaches of the mountain. The tradesmen were also forced to move to a town called Dumre; some even to the Terai region, leaving Bandipur a semi ‘ghost-town’. There was public unrest in the area during Nepal’s date with Democracy and many of the buildings (Newari style of Architecture) were damaged. The remaining residents were concerned that something needed to be done fast to save the village from veritable oblivion.

Check Bandipur, Tanahun, Nepal on fecebook.

There were two things going for the village: its elevated location with spectacular views of the Himalayas (Dhaulagiri, Annapurna, Manaslu, Ganesh, Langtang Himal), and the multi-ethnicity of the village-folk - Bahuns, Chettris, Newars, Damais, Kamis, Sarkis, Kasais, Magars and Gurungs were all part of the village’s long history. These people were skilled in handicrafts, art, pottery etc. which were unique and could be used to attract tourists. The Himalayan vistas were surely alluring but the dusty village did not have any infrastructure that would welcome the world traveller. An Ecotourism programme was set up – as a first step vehicles were banned entry into the village so that pollution would be controlled and the mountain-air would remain crisp and refreshing, and therefore, more attractive to visitors. Initially, this idea seemed ludicrous, but a few years hence the idea is an unmitigated success. Now Bandipur is a tourists ‘insider tip’ and no one, neither the inhabitants nor the tourists, want the vehicles back in town! Sale of handicrafts and other products is ensuring lucrative commerce; and the houses that were damaged are being restored to their original glory- which in turn is serving to protect the Nepali heritage. Success leads to betterment: Oranges are being grown in the countryside by a plucky few, and a silk farm has come up on the outskirts of Bandipur!
I could not but help observing the contrasts in the initiatives taken up in two towns that share the same name. Juliet said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." I beg to differ with Juliet, and Shakespeare, on this one! Here places (Bandipur) and programmes (Ecotourism) with the same name do not smell as sweet.

To Bangalore, With Love

The power of surveys!

Should we be proud that Bangalore is the “undisputed Elvis of South Asian mega cities.......”(‘Hip Bangalore is third most favourite in 2012’, The Times of India, Bangalore, December 07, 2011)? This epithet has been attached to the yoke of Bangalore by none other than the reliable and ubiquitous Lonely Planet. Not satiated with coining such a moniker Lonely Planet has come up with a few more gems alluding to the parameters based upon which, I suppose, a city’s ‘favourite’ quotient is decided: ‘perpetually drunk on good life’; ‘best brews’; ‘scrummiest cuisines’; ‘liveliest arts and music scene’; ‘hippest population’. It also claims that “Bengaluru’s new high speed Metro network now ensures that your favourite watering hole is easier to reach than ever”. Whew! Or rather, Glug!

Now, most of us travellers have relied upon a portly copy of a Lonely Planet to guide us in our sojourns far and near. But the glibness with which they are mouthing niceties about Namma Bengaluru makes me begin to wonder about the seriousness of their research. Or is it the case of a high spirited (all-puns intended) junior factotum, high on a barrel of beer, with air-guitar in hand, and a metro pass sticking out his (I am presuming this fictitious reporter to be male) back-pocket, annotating and indexing facts in a whirlwind whistle-stop tour of the city, all in a traipse of 4 kilometres of metro-track!

Exactly a week ago, another piece, titled, “Bangalore; best Indian city to live in: Survey” (The Times of India, Bangalore, November 30, 2011) anointed Bangalore as an Indian prima donna in terms of standard of living. This survey, by HR consulting major, Mercer, was not too kind to Bangalore when stacked against the rest of the cities around the world. Bangalore breasted the tape at 141 out of a total of 221 cities! In fact all our metros were packed sardine-like in a narrow band of ten places: New Delhi (143), Mumbai (144), and Kolkata (151). In terms of safety though, the Indian metros fared marginally better.

The findings of two pieces of research exerts tremendous pressure on us citizens (or should I say, Netizens) of Bangalore. The world’s third most favourite city, just after London and Muscat, and just ahead of Hong Kong and Stockholm, indeed would dilate our telangiectasias with joyous pride and bring a proverbial lump to our collective jugular. Now, had it not been for that Mercer survey, we could have wallowed in sun-drenched bacchanalia, much akin to a beach resort during Lent! But alas, the arbiters of Bangalore’s position on the world-map select trifling attributes of mensuration to capture the soul of a city. The validity of facile surveys also needs to be questioned: the effort and money that goes into generating a global ranking, seriously, could be better used to capture a drop of water for the parched throats of Bedouins in sub-Saharan geographies!

But continuing on a lighter vein: how do we reconcile to hiccupping polarities of gradation when it is thrust upon us by the pleasant side of corporate posturing? What gift-wrapped largesse Lonely Planet distributed in a bout of not-so-lonely camaraderie was ripped open, a week earlier (sadly), by the pen-knife of the Mercer-siders! Well, as Indians we certainly know how to gambol with such extremes: take the good with the bad, the high with low, and keep a gilded hope for the future – damn! We have to beat the Muscat-rats next time! And as for London: how do purveyors of a divide-and-rule colonizing dictat upon the unsuspecting third world continue to brighten the skies of a gloomy and rainy city!

Cuba at the crossroads

I read in the newspaper a few days ago (4th Nov 2011) that Raul Castro has allowed Cubans to buy and sell property. It perked my attention and on reading a bit further, I thought.... wow.... what a wasted opportunity.
It is being hailed, specially in the neighbouring US, as a lifting of state control on the economy, but somehow I cant stop thinking of the fantastic opportunity that Raul had to create history. This does not mean that I am in anyway sympathising with a fascist regime, or, that I not empathising with the beleaguered Cuban economy that is going through the motions. I am simply bringing a third world perspective.... let us not replicate the mistakes of the so called developed world. Such tales of sorrow resonate all across this country of ours.
Quite obviously, this reaction of mine is a displaced point of view, not knowing the true ground realities, but it begs some scenarios of what if....!
Cuba has some wonderful examples of a strong sustainable and flourishing organic agriculture, and to boot they have a resilient community that is still rich and celebrates the unique culture that is uniquely Cuban. In its communist foundations, Cuba stands for an equitable society. All ingredients for creating a sustainable planning model. So has Raul lost this very opportunity to create such a model?

Let us see some of the areas that could have been explored:

1. Property price variation based on weightage given to select criteria (as given in the consequent points). Indices of growth/appreciation would also be according to these factors. Difference in taxation also according to these criteria.
2. Property price control based on work-home commute corridors and distance of property from major/ potential mass rapid transit system hubs. The further away one stays from these corridors it would be fair to assume that stress on urban infrastructure to cater to these residents would higher. Therefore, the closer one is to work-home commute corridors, the greater the value of the property. The further you live from these commute corridors, the higher the taxation. 
3. Property control based on access to urban infrastructure like water, waste treatment, power etc. 
4. Valuation of asset on property and not property itself..... therefore gain from merely sitting on land will be discouraged. 
5. Tax sops to properties that do the following. The more independent they are, they more sops they get.:
• Those who grow their own food, 
• Those who provide for their own power
• Those who provide for their own water
• Those who manage their own waste
• Those who build sustainably

Of course, this applies to all states and not just Cuba, but I felt that their history gave an advantage to institute such measures.
There could be more to this list.....My reason to explore such alternatives is to see if that would lead to a more sustainable urban model. One that does not see urbanity spiral into a monster that chews into the countryside, one that does not create riches merely due to a speculative land market and so on. Also, such a wishlist need not find translation onto the ground in one Haussmann-ish move, but could be baby steps towards this.
Those like Raul sit on the crossroads of history, and like Frost suggested, could enter its chapters by taking the road less travelled.

Harbingers of Sustainability

A gem by Scott Adams

We have been dabbling a bit in sustainability for a few years now. We hope to help clients (three categories that are discussed here are: individual homeowners, corporate houses and developers) design and build structures that are meaningful, healthy, less wasteful on resources, and have a low carbon footprint. But alas! All three categories of potential customers have views on sustainability that are either uninformed, or myopic, at best. This makes for a difficult permeation of the sustainability trickle that is no doubt imperative to bring about a small revolution in the built environment (read Real Estate) in India. 

Though I speak in jest and list only typical situations, there are quite a few who are fairly knowledgeable, and they should be rightfully anointed as ‘harbingers of sustainability’ for bringing about the change desperately required in the building industry.

Individual Homeowners:
Perhaps the most receptive group amongst all three, they are nonetheless all at sea about the concept of sustainability. While one or two individuals delve into the subject of ‘green’ with an overarching thesaurus and a digital microscope in hand, most are in a state of ‘little-knowledge-is-not-so-dangerous-a-thing’. They see-saw between the subjects of design, building materials, water and energy independence, cost of construction, aesthetics, and built-up area without any holistic approach, and seem to want the best of all at the cheapest price. Many of them feel that gleaning the internet or reading a few articles will turn them into an architect, contractor, materials expert, energy expert, and sustainability guru, all rolled into one, overnight! While a few will trawl through trash to find waste that can be converted to a building material (for a wall or door), they are rarely willing to sully their hands in the mire of understanding required to build the right home for themselves while keeping the local and environmental aspects in the balance. And finally, while some of them do not mind forking out megabucks when buying from a ‘known’ developer, they seem to tighten their purse-strings to their detriment when they deal with an architect or contractor. The result is either a house-that-jack-built or severe delays in construction which eventually inflates the cost of construction anyway.

Corporate Houses:
This group’s story is a story of two protagonists. One is the CEO, or head honcho by whatever name, who inevitably has a vision about everything his organization does. The other comes with the non-flattering title of ‘Facilities Manager (FM)’. Even honchos who have disedified the Bangalore skyline with bizarre steel-and-glass monstrosities have a perspective on sustainability. They appear in unending articles on eco-sensitivity just because they are corporate captains of IT, pharmaceuticals, mining, media, fashion technology, or any industry for that matter. The fact is that some of these leaders are so devoid of sensitivity to the environment, and people as well, that they usually lump their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities under the awkward stewardship of the HR department! Now if have got your message somehow past the CEO you have to contend with the FM. Unfortunately, the FMs in many corporates are not a professional lot. The FMs I have met all have at least three of these four attributes:

a) They are complete yes-men to their CEO
b) They want an idea for free so that they can get it done from their contractor
c) They have usually failed at all other jobs in the corporate hierarchy
d) They are taking a cut from every vendor that enters the premises

Again, the outcome is institutional structures that are eyesores, as well as resource insensitive. Of course, there are exceptions, but who is to find them amongst the thick haystack of corporate greed and incompetence.

Developers:
Easily the most despised lot, not only amongst the three listed here, but also amongst all business categories listed in India. Developers, the chieftains of the real estate industry, are a motley crew of desperadoes from all walks of life. They span a wide gamut from being front-men of politicians; criminals, even; to foreign returned technocrats, and from village rustics to architects who have abandoned their almost Hippocratic ideals to the lure of the lucre. One tawdry developer in Bangalore, after hearing a presentation, said, “You see, I am a businessman,” in a tone that refused to acknowledge that the others present in the room (architects, consultants, contractors, and suppliers) were also businessmen. For some reason, all developers feel that they are the only ones who should be raking in the moolah while their technical partners should be happy to fork out ideas and advice at a fractional cost! While expecting developers to forefront the cause of sustainability is not inappropriate; the developers themselves will only incorporate any aspect of sustainability so long as it is on paper only, or is decreed by law, or is a minor cost element, which if adopted, can be touted with blaring bugles in the next ad campaign.

The result, friends, is again, buildings that are shoddy and unhealthy, flout all sorts of building codes, and bring disrepute to many aspects of sustainability. And, as for tom-tomming the cause of sustainability, for now, let’s keep piping plaintive little notes and hope that the strains reach a crescendo sometime in our lifetime!

Trapped in the commonplace

A drain being laid by the municipal authority in Bangalore.
Notice that the bottom level of the drain is the same as the road.

In my opinion this term seems to both define and limit us folks in the subcontinent.

When you look at developmental works being undertaken by govt agencies in your city what do you see? Beyond the obvious addition of flyovers, underpasses, pavements, roads, medians don't you see shoddy work? For that matter, most construction (including private ones) that dots the urban landscape is sub-standard. When you confront this it triggers the usual blame game insinuating everything from a poor workforce, substandard materials, poor compensation for work done and so on.
The government is a reflection of the people governed.... and by state of our public works our appreciation of what is 'good design' is poor at the best. Look at our development body and municipality driven initiatives, our parks are fenced off with a sad meshing painted green; public walls are rendered in the most atrocious paintings that are meant to reflect 'our culture'; pathways which cater to pedestrians are made like mini check dams, making them impossible to get onto by the elderly or the physically disabled. Or for that matter, what is considered permissible urban interventions by the authorities; billboards cluttered along roads, shrouding skylines; parks are made but with boards denying almost any kind of use apart from staring at the greens; traffic signage and lights placed awkwardly where one cant see them, or, altogether missing. One could go on..The important point to note though is there is minimal resistance by US the users of this infrastructure to all this.

A painting on a Bangalore city wall... as apart of a
cultural initiative by the city municipal body
Image source: images.worthview.com 

Where does the problem lie? Of course it takes a lot to create such a deep infliction, but could it be more to do with US than THEM or THAT? What exactly do I mean by that? By now most of us are familiar with the famous 'chaltha hai', or 'will do' attitude of us Indians. We seem to accept almost anything that is dished out at us. Move beyond the built environment and we see the quiet acceptance of everything from the kind of governance, education, television content, cinema, medical care, quality of commercial products, and so on. Perhaps it is this 'live and let live' kind of 'dharma' that we follow which allows all kinds of mediocrity to thrive along with rare examples of brilliance. This has also lead to a social culture that seems to depict a breakdown of society... you see this in our civic sense; love thy neighbour has been hit out of the park. Rules are almost meant to be broken... traffic, pedestrian, building violations, encroachments.... this is what we have become.
But there is change. We miss it because of the din of the commonplace, it engulfs us. There is a change in some sectors like telecommunication, computers, automobiles, apparel, footwear, etc, and that is in turn resulting in lightning speed changes in other industries like advertising, sales and marketing.
To see if this is a sign of better times to come, let us examine it.
What has driven this change? Predominantly the triggers have been external commercial forces tapping into a vast market pool, post the liberalisation efforts in the late 80s and 90s. This has had a domino effect in spawning a glut of entrepreneurial ventures across the nation. This includes the birth or growth of numerous design houses.

Hoardings mar the very facade that lends a character to the city

Has this change been good? From a sustainable perspective, I think not. Some direct impacts have been pollution and a gorging into our natural resources. While a plethora of opportunities seem to await our nation's youth, it has also created wider chasms between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. From a design perspective, while there have been some truly innovative indigenous examples, the bulk of design from all fields have been imitations (both good and poor) and are touted as a global/contemporary trends. More local design innovation is desperately needed. From a built environment perspective, our cities and towns are rapidly transforming themselves in this global mould encouraged by the political-commercial shouts of Shanghai-ing or Singapore-ing this place or that. Technologies have changed, but the same does not reflect in how we execute work. Take for example the laying of underground cables along city roads; 'trenchless' machines have now been in use for over a decade, but the mess created, the closing up, etc have not changed.  'Pre-cast' kerbs and medians are now more in use, but the design and eventual laying is still harsh and pedestrian unfriendly. Power systems have changed and billing privatised, but power lines are drawn in much the same haphazard manner.
Will such change lead to an eventual rising above this rut? In my opinion, there has been a greater myopia with this change.  Consumerism has lead to a hoarding mentality with no sensitivity for sustainability. Real estate is an investment because of land value and not because of the quality of product, therefore people buy anything that is sold as long as the location is fine! For sure, consumer awareness will lead to an improved product quality, but driven more by sales rather than by consumer pressure. To add to our woes, better quality products are priced higher, which means that there will always be a market for shoddy lower priced products. In the real estate industry though, one can carry on regardless with shoddy products as long as the promoter has the right land, the proverbial golden goose!
What then is our ticket out of this mediocrity? There is no quick fix solution and the process of change is bound to be challenging and long. But a strong will to see a marked improvement and proudly set a renewed subcontinent standard is necessary. If I absolutely should take a shot at some possible ways out, then my bet would be to set a vision/road-map of where we want to be as a first step, where every individual would see themselves as an integral part of nation building. Today, such a all-encompassing vision does not exist.... only in such a context can smaller vision statements/action plans for industry, growth, technology, education, and so on can thrive. The next step would be to try and change attitudes of a nation starting with the setting in place effective mediums of education (to address the development of civic responsibilities to skill sets). We need to be able to set benchmarks for ourselves and have an opinion of good acceptable work, driving a change in our outlook. Only then can we begin to hold ourselves and others accountable.  Finally, instilling a keen sense of purpose in organisations, supported by a zero tolerance for poor standards at all levels. The more we allow mediocrity to flourish, the lesser are our chances that we will ever redeem ourselves. A high expectation from designers, products, governments, etc..... this should traverse all spectra.  I am aware that all or any of this is a tough ask and may span generations to achieve this, but try we should... all of us. 

Adding thought to action

"Stock Market Fear and Greed," by Paul Zanetti.

In the realm of investments and savings there are many choices we make today. For most of us middle class folks it is all about saving for the future (insurance), owning a home and hearth, buying the car that is slightly beyond our budget, making sure that our children get a proper education, a healthcare budget, and keeping something aside for the rainy day. In earlier times this kind of a savings plan may have been touted as prudence personified, and banks and other institutions goaded us into believing that good things come to people who reinvest all what they earn with them or through them.

The fact is all these investment methodologies are based on two things only! Fear and Greed! We go through life thinking that we have to have all these things at the minimum to provide well for the family and ourselves. In a world that has become an individual free-for-all with avarice predetermining all our endeavours, our understanding of who we are and what our purpose is has become murkier than ever before. The gulf between ‘battle-for-survival’ for many and ‘battle-for surviving-well’ for the rest of us has widened to such a magnitude that it has robbed us of our feelings like empathy, respect, consideration for others, and the like. We have abjectly surrendered to the machinations of the business world which thrive on exploiting our two biggest weaknesses; to reiterate, fear and greed. We are perpetually running around trying to earn more and more throughout our lifespan in the hope that money is the only palliative we will need against all ills and illnesses (catering to fear). We all agree that we need all or some of these things in some measure but can we not stop when we reach a certain point in our quests in achieving each of these things (denying greed).

In today’s world this kind of consumption orientation is having disastrous consequences for ourselves as well as the planet we live. In a bid to consume more – buy a bigger house, car, or insurance policy – we cast an inverted eye on the ramifications of our actions. Do we need a ‘bigger or better anything’ should be at least thought through. Buying a bigger home could be problematic when you are old; a car as an investment is a losing proposition all the time (high on fuel, maintenance, taxes, and insurance costs, and is a rapidly depreciating asset to boot!); eating out or eating more too often will beget ill health; hoarding multiple properties only gives you sleepless nights (high taxes, tenant issues, maintenance costs, interest on borrowed capital, etc. etc.); saving for your children’s higher education means that you expect them to be invalids who can’t fend for themselves after a certain age!

We know a lot of people are trying to change this but we call such people activists, saints, sadhus, tree-huggers, pretenders, and so on, and sweep them far away from the dustbowl of our guilt. Anybody trying to do something good about almost anything is seen with a cynical and ignorant eye. Waking up to where the world is headed (socially, politically, environmentally, and commercially) is not something to be shunned with a cursory shrug. All these aspects have a great bearing on who we are and where we are heading and should be part of the decision making process for our every action. So the next time you make an investment think through a few things apart from appreciation of the investment (property), ROI (any investment), and diesel vs. petrol (car). Our simple (or simplistic) calculations are not enough for us to understand the ramifications of our actions; the world suffers a lot when we get it wrong, and it is within the realms of our responsibility to at least evaluate all options in greater perspective.

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.

Green Homes to remind you of the 'Old Bangalore'

Bangalore, the garden city of recent yesteryears, has been transformed into a metropolis that attracts a quarter of a million people every year. The growth that was fuelled by the IT boom around Bangalore has become a scourge to living amongst convivial greens. The retirement paradise of remnant sahibs, the Anglos, military officers, and railway baboos has become a cluttered city of undefined character. The steady stream of movers into the city has put immense pressure on the city’s infrastructure and amenities like abundant water supply, clean air and the ‘sound of silence’ in the shade of 500 year old trees, is evanescent.

Image- skyscrapercity.com

Colonial and other terracotta clad bungalows have been torn down and replaced by apartment blocks and shopping malls. Land prices have escalated so much that people are happy to forsake their garden paradise for the sheen that bucks could add to their lifestyle. No consideration has been evinced for the resources of the city, or its past promise of languorous afternoons and walks down tree-lined boulevards. On the pretext of globalization, the city’s people have huddled themselves into a myriad of cubbyholes, all the while pining for Bangalore’s past resplendence as a retirement post among serene environs.
In the last few years, of course, the scenario is changing. Reports of receding glaciers, the thinning ozone layer and the human impact on global climatology, not to forget the CII IGBC promoted green building certification, have woken people out of their slumber of indifference and apathy. People are adopting ‘green’ practices, albeit a few only, almost as penitence for the sins committed against Mother Nature over the last few centuries. But penance alone will not bring about Grace; new ways of living have to be contemplated to make the planet a worthwhile commentator of our times to the next generation.

Bangalore developers who built with impunity are now trying to add a soft touch to their footprint. Eco-friendly housing, waste management, rainwater harvesting, recycling, energy conservation and indoor air quality are terms that are being bandied about as the new mantras to exorcising the past and ushering in an effulgent future for the residents. The denizens are becoming wiser and are demanding adherence to norms; are becoming active and questioning the reason behind every trend. One day, soon enough, the citizens will have realized that they don’t need to be cornered into a pigeon holed high-rise, or brook the shoddiness of a tardy developer.
Building or buying a green home, even if the plot sizes are relatively smaller, or a tad further out of town, makes eminent, and imminent, sense. Such a green home could bring home the essence of the old Bangalore (in spirit if not in form) while doing one’s bit to reduce our ecological footprint. While some of the green concepts are easy to comprehend and implement, there are many aspects which require professional expertise. Greening, besides requiring huge doses of common sense, draws its inspiration from science and technology, social systems and practices, local artisan-ship, heritage architectural concepts and designs, and more importantly, its intent is harnessed on a strong edifice of ethics, morality and prudence. There is an increase in the number of professionals and organizations who now offer consulting services on the elements of green construction and this could be well our chance to make a grab for retiring in serenity in the fractured bosom of Bangalore.

A candid peek at the Environment Day Celebrations

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Was both elated and appalled to see the Environment Day Celebrations! While it is great to see that many organizations are taking a verdurous leap into matters ‘green’, it is abysmal to see them touting their brands as eco-friendly from the front pages of our ubiquitous green newspaper! The newsprint professes to be recycled but is tinted green to add colour to the proceedings.
Shampoos in plastic bottles, a shoe sole with a huge transportation footprint on their acquired recycled rubber, real estate developers shrouding concrete under green canopies, computers and laptops and data-centers all reducing the heat they generate, have all trucked up the path of the green bandwagon. A television channel was running a protracted fundraiser, and both companies and individuals bared their economic chests for Saving Private Gaia!
At the rate at which the Environment (Day) turned verdant, our quandary will be centred around assigning it another colour by the end of this decade itself! But who’s complaining? We cannot blame the heavy polluters from trying to alleviate some of their guilt by adopting a measure or two of the potion of deliverance, nor can we admonish the newbie fresh-com (read new company) from ‘green-washing’ their dirty linen in public!
So what does the common man do? Wear the green badge proudly on one’s chest and be labelled a Mr. Psycho Pants, or shroud oneself in ignorance and be branded an anachronistic bum-chum! There’s nowhere to run, but many places to hide. Join the CSR department of a corporation and try planting a tree, shake a fig leaf at all the acerbic activists, become a rating agency to monitor both sides of the Kyoto protocol, or simply annihilate your-self on a road made from recycled plastic!

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.

Of cursive writing and philosophers…..

While at a recent event around town- I got to see the works of a bunch of …….people. For a change, what I saw was very different from the altars that I pray at and it was after a very long time that I was sitting down to listen to what (according to me are) the 'lesser Gods' had to say.

A lot of their work- and it was quite some bit, with more than eight odd people presenting- seemed like cursive writing, very beautifully written words. Most of these people seemed to have as work, exotically written alphabets with near perfect strokes slanting in the right directions.

My complaint, however, was that when one strung these pretty alphabets together- they didn’t seem to do much beyond forming a well-put-together happy song for kids. Some even bordered on being chirpy clap-along merry little nursery rhymes, but not more. It did not seem to me like they pushed or challenged any existing known paradigm….. and why, you may ask, is that so important !? Well, it is almost the subject matter of another entry- at another time perhaps.

A countable few among those speakers, I thought, sounded like philosophers who unfortunately dint seem to get the attention they deserved.

One of them particularly stood out. His courage to try something new was truly commendable. Sadly, he had a poor handwriting which made his work appear to be a scribbling. It was extremely hard to decipher and this I thought reduced that unsatisfactorily small subscriber base- further. From the murmurs I heard around me in the audience, I knew that what had appeared as an end result had done absolutely no justice to his struggles of experimentation. What I liked was the fact that this philosopher, who had a lot of sensible things to say but no cursive writing to boot, had at least 'tried'.

It brings me back to a discussion we were having around the studio a while ago, an excerpt follows: (Harsha stated it)

'I feel though that this debate about what is ‘good’ architecture as compared to kitsch (read glitzy facades and lots of glass and chrome surfaces) is a bit beyond architecture. One needs to address what people are aspiring for, what they want to be seen as, and so on. After all, architects don’t make projects; clients do (at lease most often). One thing I saw in some one like Anil Laul was that identity, and the ‘good architecture’ can wait; the environment, or more importantly, sustainability needed to be addressed first. Not that I prescribe to this view entirely, but I ask myself- what is more precious to me…. a world where all architecture (or most of it) is pretty and interesting, or, a world where the environmental balance is not tilted. The logic of the latter is over whelming- a pretty world wouldn’t survive for long if it turned its back on the environment.

Having said that, I believe that there is enough room for creating an interesting world with an ecological balance'

In conclusion, one wishes that philosophers wrote more legibly and cursive writers with greater thought.