Messy Messrs.

A testament to our care for our environs or the law.

We are neck deep in s#@t! Well nearly and we seem to be getting there fast.
Some months ago we in the city of Bangalore saw an announcement for city scale waste management, the setting up of segregation units, composting facilities, waste to energy programmes, and a deadline to segregate waste at source to all residents of this city. This deadline was preceded by some softer cajoling by the city's municipal body.

One might think of this as an enlightened move, but the truth was far more grotesque. The city has been struggling with its burgeoning waste problem and has been resorting to some haphazard dumping of the city's garbage in a few locations around the city. No, no scientifically constructed landfill. Just great piles of insensitively piled garbage. In a relatively short period this has caused immense health problems to the residents of villages around these dumping sites. The rest as they say is history- the villagers protested, garbage piled up around the city, the municipality resorted to some strong arm tactics (yes, police support to dump garbage!!), the villagers remained firm in their agitation against the dumping. The situation remains unresolved.
Enough and more has been written about this, but I do remember one instance about 8 years ago, in the October of 2005. Back then this city had no denoted landfill site. The municipality, through its garbage contractors, used to lease land out from farmers and dump our waste on these lands. Bangalore had seen some record and incessant rains that year, and sure enough much of this garbage started rotting and created quite a stink. Many people wouldn't remember this, but the farmers had protested then too. All of the municipality's garbage truck fleet, some 400 of them, had nowhere to go and were parked in various parts of the city. This incident was one of the reasons that we even have landfills today.

Missing Aim, or, Aimless Mess?

As it stands the population of some 8.4 plus million dish out something to the tune of 250 to 500 gms of domestic waste per person per day (not counting for the large waste generation on account of commercial establishments and industry). A large amount of waste can also be attributed to individuals outside their homes.... at work, on the way to somewhere, on a day (or night out) with family and/or friends. The domestic waste alone amounts to some 840,000 kilos, or, 840 tonnes of waste per day..... if we consider a low number of 100 gms of domestic waste per capita. The actual figure is more likely twice that (we don't have monitored figures to corroborate this at any level)! The figure is much higher when you add that generated beyond our homes. A figure doing the rounds puts this between 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes!!

One can imagine what a nightmare it would be to collect this mammoth volume of waste on a daily basis to ensure that the city remains clean and disease free. At about 6 cubic metres of waste collected per garbage truck, that would work out to some 500 trucks on our roads. The waste would have to be collected by each polluter (individual, family, or, establishment) and the trucks would have to work like clockwork to manage this efficiently. Sadly, that is not the case.

At an elementary level WE are responsible for the failure of this system. We litter like we care a hoot! Even when we dispose off the waste from our homes, we aim for the community bin, instead of ensuring that it is placed responsibly for the collection agencies to handle it from that point on. Our roads, drains, footpaths, open grounds, and empty sites therefore face the brunt of our apathy.

The fact is that it is really easy to do our bit to reduce this burden on our municipality. The majority of our waste we dump at homes, is kitchen waste, mostly uncooked! This constitutes over 80% of the weight of all our waste we produce at home. The remaining is mainly paper, plastics, aluminium foils, and tetra-paks. There are the occasional batteries, sanitary napkins, etc.that form the more difficult waste products to handle.

A 3-tiered home composter (Khamba) by the 'Daily Dump'

The kitchen waste is the easiest to tackle, and there are simple solutions available now from
organisations like 'Daily Dump', both for the independent home and multi-dwelling communities. By adopting one of these systems, we immediately reduce the
burden of our municipalities greatly. They would not have to handle waste that is rotting, smelly and attracts pests. What's more all this organic waste produces harmful (and inflammable) gases like methane as they decompose in the landfills, apart from contributing to the acidic leachates that seep into the sub-soil. When waste remains unsegregated as it leaves our homes, it makes the lives of the safai karamcharis (or cleaning staff) far more difficult. A whole lot of this waste is recyclable, re-usable and easy to break down, and segregation at the point of waste generation helps this immensely.

There is a positive side to this. Several initiatives have been undertaken across the country, and specifically in Bangalore. Individual apartment complexes have started following the municipal guidelines for waste segregation and yet others have also tied up with recyclers to take away their paper and plastic waste. It makes sense to do this as a group as volume trade is important for recyclers. Vermi-composting initiatives, for those with space, are being given a hard look and followed successfully. 
What can help a lot is being conscious of what and how you make your purchases. This involves ensuring that you carry shopping bags with you to ensure that shop keepers and super markets don't dish out plastic bags to you. It involves making responsible choices when it comes to buying goods that are packed in layers of aluminium and plastic wrapping. It involves adopting alternatives to packaged products itself.... opting for fresh juices as against tetra-pak containers; finding decent bakeries to source fresh baked products that aren't sealed in waste generating packaging; encouraging your home delivery agencies to take back their containers and carry bags, the possibilities are endless. Remember, our decisions can ensure that we curb the waste generated right at source.

When we embark to clean up this mess and our respective acts, we ought to keep in mind the adage- what goes around, comes around.  You wouldn't want to leave behind a big stinking mess as your greatest legacy!

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?

Kicking up Dust - Linking construction activity to health

A walk in the (dusty) clouds.... Where? Our fast growing cities!

It is high time that we give importance to health issues due to construction activities. The responsibility of professionals associated with the construction industry goes beyond the merits of the end product. The general well being of those who live and work within and beyond 'the site' HAS to be our responsibility. Look around you and all you see is apathy. Work being carried out with no concern for the fall outs.

Dust pollution has gone up visibly in our rapidly developing cities, and this is taking its toll on it's inhabitants. While it puts construction personnel at the highest risk, it is an increasing factor for the rise of respiratory diseases in our cities. A statistic by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board puts construction generated dust pollution at about 14% of the contributing factors for Suspended Particulate Matter in the air. In the construction industry the most prevalent of these diseases are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma and silicosis. However, chronic fungal infections (carried on dust), interstitial lung disease, silicosis which increases the risk of Tuberculosis, and even carcinoma have been stated as possible fall-outs of dust related health issues. This can be verified by a simple Internet search.  It is appalling that it has not yet become a topic of public debate.
The major contributors of dust are bad practices at construction sites, callousness of workers, unprotected storage of construction material & debris, shoddy maintenance and incomplete works. Movement of vehicles to and from  construction sites, and those carrying construction material and debris, without adequate checks like watering down at points of egress, cause further dust pollution. Transporting materials without proper covering  spreads dust way beyond the peripheries of the construction sites. If we identify these points of origin, we should be able to put in place checks to curb dust pollution.
A quick perusal of the Karnataka Pollution Control Board's website (could apply to other cities as well) shows a stark picture. For a city this large, only 6 points have any recurring statistics at all! This is hardly enough to draw a clear picture of the the extent of air pollution across the city, let alone construction related dust pollution. There seems to be no monitoring being carried out near major arteries where large scale construction projects are underway (metro, underpasses, flyovers, road widening/laying, etc). What we need is a more wide-spread and dynamic data gathering and sharing process of air pollution levels which can be monitored closely. This would also also enable the linking of pollution levels with specific activities, which can then be a support for taking action. While there are clear benchmarks for acceptable levels of emissions from DG sets for example, there don't seem to be any clear norms for what ambient dust levels should be for construction sites in specific. Broader SPM (Suspended Particulate Matter) and RSPM (Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter) figures are available, but none for points of origin (like construction sites) where concentration levels are much higher.
From roads to building sites, we see construction debris strewn about and a haze of dust. This haze does not restrict itself to the site and is spread by air movements to cover a wider area. This is evident in the browning of plants, and parked vehicles around the site, often beyond visible distance. While it is shocking to see construction workers working without protective gear, what is greater concern is the scale to which this problem has grown. 

Construction dust affects all of us in more than one way:

• Most importantly, it affects general health, leading to a slew of respiratory disorders, eye/throat irritation, etc.
• It causes damage to property
• It leads to environmental deterioration... air and water pollution
• It creates a poor quality of life and workplace... both basic needs of citizens

It is very surprising to see that precious little has been done to reduce this growing problem.The 'Polluter Pays' model has been discussed ad-nauseum in various fora, but dust pollution due to construction is limited to only a single point stipulation to exercise control in the bye-laws and earns one credits in one of two green certification for buildings in the country. Nearly all construction sites are devoid of even signage warning against the generation of dust, or, the wearing of adequate masks. A simple search on the 'AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981', (or its amendment) does not have the word construction or the word dust in it! Surprising. Here are a couple of definitions that caught my eye:

• "air pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance 1(including noise) present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living  creatures or plants  or property or environment;  
• "air pollution" means the presence in the atmosphere of any air pollutant;  

Doesn't dust qualify as an air pollutant? And wouldn't construction be seen as a major contributor of dust pollution? On a single page document on the KSPCB website, termed as 'Measures to combat Air Pollution in Bangalore city' there is no mention of construction dust. Their entire pre-occupation is with types of combustion fuels. I think Pollution Control Board/s have to wake up and take notice of construction dust as a major contributor to respiratory diseases.

Here is what we think ought to be done:

1. Draw out a policy on construction related dust pollution. 
2. Make dust pollution a statutory offence. It does amount to serious negligence on the part of the executing agencies.
3. Clearly spell out the guidelines to be followed strictly at EVERY construction site and in ALL construction activities.(This is not that difficult. There are very clear processes, and measures that can be followed to ensure compliance. Of course this involves extra effort and a wee bit more money, but the gains are more than significant.)
4. Educate the public of their rights and their right to complain. Make grievance addressal a fast-track forum.
5. Have a working monitoring mechanism with greater powers with local bodies and not merely some centralised body.

It would be important to note here that our cities reflect us. To a great degree, our cities are in the state they are because of how little importance we place on excesses like dust. The lesser we complain, the less we take steps to demand basic health standards, the more dust is going to get kicked up.

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!

Why does sustainable building make sense to a developer?

One can't be blamed by reacting like this...."What? Developers going green?? Not a chance!". Unfortunately, the general reputation of  the developer lot is to blame for this.
The proposition of developers going sustainable does seem a bit of a stretch, what with the soaring prices of land, and with a volatile market putting a pressure on sales. One tends to believe that developers would not risk sales to attain even a tinge of green. or, let alone going the sustainable way..
Before I launch any further on this let us look (once again) at Sustainability. Sustainability is about defining the thresholds within which if one acts the ability of future generations to live life as we do, does not get compromised in anyway. Sustainability is about responsible consumption and becomes important as we consume more and more as a population. Buildings consume a lot of resources in their making, while contributing to about 39% of the worlds GHG emissions (Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2008 Buildings Energy Data Book.), and therefore it is imperative that they are built responsibly.
Sustainability is also about being resource efficient, and that any developer gets.We have no option but to be responsible for our actions and the environment. Great strides are being made in areas of pollution free technologies and energy consumption in buildings. While there is minimal focus on the building systems, this accounts for the majority of the CO2 emissions during the entire lifecycle of the building. This is bound to be the next focus. Self-sustaining habitats that strive towards occupying a zero ecological footprint are the future.

So, why do developers need to change the way they build? Let us try and populate a list.

• Sustainable development ensures that business secure their long term success through triple bottom line practices which address the environment, social needs and business growth 
• The world is rapidly rising to the need for sustainable green practices in all spheres of activity from businesses to transportation to construction. 
• Sensible and sustainable design and construction are the emerging paradigms and it is desirable for developers to lead the way and be at the head of such a transition. 
• Sustainable construction enables a developer to broaden their scope of building materials and systems. All this at comparable and sometimes lower costs than the conventional
• By adopting sustainable building methodologies, a developer insulates himself to a great degree from the vagaries of the marketplace. Since materials and skills are inherently local, global turmoil would not have an adverse impact on development works.

Another way of addressing the choice of going sustainable is to look at the impacts of 'Business as Usual', as captured in the left half of the graphic above. The graphic on the right shows the balance of environment and social aspects along with business interests, which is a more comprehensive model. Unsustainable development burdens resources, the business and makes for stressed lifestyles down the line. A sustainable model on the other had adopts a policy of 'making do with as little as possible', without impacting it's survival into the future. On the bright side, there exists within most professional and seasoned developer groups a keen sense that in satisfying the needs of the customer lies repeat investments, recommendations and so on. I believe in this we already have the foundations for transforming into a sustainable business. 

What impact does Sustainability have on the developer's brand?

• It will earn the developer the status of a green organisation, a must going into the future. 
• Communicates to the market the environmental responsibilities of the developer.
• Assures the market that the product has been designed with them in mind… in terms of environmental health, family health, etc 
• Carries the message that the development would secure the users more water, would consume lesser power, and would also pollute the environment less

In employing environmentally sensitive and sustainable design/building technologies, one is actually securing the future of the customer. The reality of a sustainable approach is that one is also addressing health and lifestyle aspects of the customer today. By adopting a sustainable mandate one is addressing the client base's running costs, access to essential resources, internal living health and also providing a rich built environment for overall development.Securing the future of the customer (which means you also address their environment) means that you secure your business' longevity.

So developer, what are you waiting for?

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.

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.

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

This post marks the beginning 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.
It is quite remarkable that factors that brand us as unsustainable, are perhaps more due to circumstances, living in these times, rather than one of a dearth of choices that can keep us from self destructing. I hope to cover, with some help from others here at IGH, a few cross sections to illustrate what sets us apart, and perhaps throw up some answers in the process. What makes us so dependent on those many supply chains of water, energy, food, etc that any sudden break in any of these result in a literal collapse of our world?.
This series shall cover some of these aspects/themes by looking at them through specific topics.Here is the first.
Water and communities

A kund in Himachal Pradesh

A quick glance at water in today's context. Let us start by looking at the water infrastructure- piped water to our homes from neighbourhood level water utilities, which are supplied by central treatment facilities, which in turn are fed by riverine systems. Cut to the past, say over a 100 odd years, and we find that none of this applied, to the extent that we did not even draw our water directly from rivers (or lakes for that matter). Even in the most dense of cities, Old Delhi, Old Ahmedabad, Old Bangalore, Old Benaras, historical towns of Tamil Nadu, hill towns and villages across the country, coastal settlements... all drew their water from the ground. What's even more interesting, is that this held true even if they were right next to a river or stream!! The forms may have varied, but the common fact that all these instances had local solutions.
Let us move on the next level of differences, how we deal with water conduits and bodies- concreted and tarred surfaces, concrete lined drains, reclamation of low-lying areas and ponds, and a plethora of other measures to drain out any rainwater to prevent 'flooding' and reduce diseases like 'malaria'. Cut to the past, and we have earthen and other permeable pathways, ponds to hold water, percolating swales and enough bio-matter that would help retain surface moisture and also helped prevent erosion.
Take a look at our current lifestyles- everyone has access to water indulgent luxuries from bathtubs to rain showers.... we even bathe our modes of transportation. Such a luxury simply did not (or, could not) exist. We are transfixed on the appearance of water in our bathrooms, lobbies and garden landscapes, instead of considering efficient usage. Consumption today, needs some serious introspection. We have moved on from consuming what we need to thoughtlessly catering to our whims. We can start by monitoring, and progress quickly to an equilibrium stage between what we sow and what we reap (so to speak).
Then are the hidden water aspects. Also known as virtual water, this is understood best as the total water that goes into anything, be it a product, a crop, an activity. For example, a cup of coffee is said to take about 40 litres of water to make!! Similarly, cereal, processed goods, clothes, the construction of buildings, roads, etc. all consume a significant amount of water. You could find tonnes about this on the net.... just try and make an estimate of your water footprint, and you will be astonished!! In the past, keeping the circles of dependency small, and the substitution of high energy industry with craft and some rather ingenious zero energy technologies, meant that their water footprint was much smaller. Surely, there are some lessons here.
The benefits of the earlier water equation are compelling. For starters, it was significantly lower in in energy consumption, both in building this water infrastructure and its operation. Traditional and historic water systems did not mean the release of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, or, toxins into the ground.... today it does. In those traditional/historic instances, all controls were with the community and users. At the least that meant that one knew why we did not have water on a particular day, and one could prepare for that. Today, to simply inform the masses of issues related to water supply is a challenge, one which is also phenomenally resource consuming..

A Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant

The decentralised set-up also meant that growth of populations did not mean adding stress to, and therefore, an upgrade of the water infrastructure. Importantly, the past system meant constant recharge, and lower consumption, assuring more water for all. Currently, each of our 50 plus 1 million population cities, rely on individual sources of water!! Imagine the burden on those systems. What is our strategy to replenish those sources??? None exists. In these traditional alternatives the costs were significantly lower, and there was no need for extensive treatment at both the distribution and consumption ends. Today, we dump tonnes of chemicals (chlorine) to control germs, to curb suspended particles, and even to control odour. What's more, every home either has or is eyeing an RO like filtration system... one which spews out a minimum of 2 litres of extremely turbid water to give you 1 litre of filtered water.Where do you think this RO reject is heading? Down your drains into our ground water aquifers, or, dumped into the riverine systems from where we source our water in the first place!!

In the world of today, we have ignored our connect with the sources of water. Rivers are too distant to comprehend, so what do know about what it takes to source this water... laying the infrastructure, pumping costs, treatment, etc. We have ignored the health ground water table, considering what we can get from this unseen 'golden goose' (figuratively speaking) as spoils of existence. It is only now that we have begun to rediscover rainwater harvesting and recharge, something which happened by default in the past, and something that many of us are adopting only to comply to government law. But to be truly sustainable, we have to break these bondages of dependency on external inputs for water. It is also a fact that we are born into these times, and therefore find it difficult to understand such a (lesser known) past. That is the extent of our dependency and modern day conditioning. About time we break those shackles and take control!

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.