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.

Lessons learnt for building design from the experience of driving

How many of us have had this experience? Park the car out in the sun and return after a couple of hours.... and we reel back due to the excessive heat within.

To counter this, we do two things:

• One, we park the car in the shade
• Two, we roll down a couple of windows of the car down a crack

In both cases, we have a great level of comfort that is achieved, at least when we compare this to the very first experience. Now let us look at both these changes to the situation closely.

The first instance, where the car was parked in the shade benefited due to the reduction of direct incident radiation. Nothing else changed, only the external environment was modified by introducing an obstruction to the direct sunlight.

The second instance, where the car was parked with the windows slightly down benefited due to the hotter air being vented out from the upper portions of the car, where this internal air is hottest. Nothing here was changed, only the body of the car was made to breathe.

Cut to how a building works for a bit. The body of the car can be compared to the building shell- the walls, the roof, the windows, etc. The windows of the car are akin to the openings on a building- windows, ventilators, clear storeys, etc. How the skin of the car works in affecting the internal thermal environment is comparable to that of the building shell.

If we consider how this shell works in keeping the car thermally comfortable, we find that in most instances it seems to fail, as in the example given above. The point that I am making is that the entire shell of the car (the insulation included) that was meant to manage the gain of heat (in hotter climates) and the subsequent loss of coolth (yes, it is a word in the HVAC industry)  from internal air-conditioning, was inadequate in doing so. I wonder (humour me for a bit), if we had designed cars with a secondary shade providing shell (forget the aerodynamics for a bit), perhaps with perforations (kind of like a jaali), which would perform like a self venting system of sorts, would we have reduced the insulation that the car would have ordinarily needed? Could such a cutting off of direct heat radiation also have lead to a reduced usage of air-conditioning?
Let us now apply the same logic to how a building is designed. Current practises take into consideration local climatic conditions and then design the building shell with materials (or composites) with the desired u-values to ensure an appropriate thermal flow balance. Like in the case of the car, this extra insulation of the building can be reduced by first starting with a modelling method that adopts aspects of shading and venting on a shell with conventional specs. In hotter climates (like most areas in the plains of India) where it is all about keeping the heat out, this would apply greatly.
A double shell  for instance could also be designed to provide extra strength.... a greater base level of air-exchanges would also ensure better internal air quality.... and eventually, a building so designed would end up spending less on air-conditioning costs.
Similarly, other thermal comfort influencers like humidity, can also be addressed by drawing on such parallels/inspiration. Ever wondered why when it is uncomfortably humid, and you are driving, you feel much better, by just rolling the windows down? The breeze helps remove the perspiration, and one starts feeling better. Now, in the building context, when it is humid, all one has to do, is to induce such an air movement. It is not necessary to jump straight to air-conditioning.
Many of us hasten to switch on the AC in the car and do so primarily because we cant stand the dust and pollution of our cities. A similar scenario of dust is played out in buildings, and somehow and air-conditioned environment is always seen as the universal solution. When all we needed was a dust screen! We know that plants perform that role and so do artificial louvres and 'jaalis'. Incorporating such measures would surely address dust control but don't you think that it could also add some vitality to otherwise banal façades?
So, what say we take one hard look at the experience of driving and how we deal with thermal comfort...again?

Tenets of Sustainable Living

Perhaps we need a sustainability version !!

If we had to define what would constitute the basic principles when it comes to reducing your ecological footprint what would they be?. Here is one version:

• Consume less
• Power
• Water
• Building/construction materials- go simple tech as against high-tech
• Consumer goods
• Consume local
• Eat local produce
• Build using local materials and skills
• Generate less waste.... Re-use and recycle
• Build using old or discarded materials... apply clean tech
• Compost and share with neighbours
• Choose what you buy.... things that wont contribute to the waste you produce
• Throw away less
• Occupy less space
• Do you really need all that extra built area?
• Do you really need that big a car?
• Go independent... as far as possible
• Build as much with what you have
• Be self sufficient in your harvesting water and generation of energy (as long as it makes sense in terms of the Life-cycle)
• Manage what little waste that you generate
• Travel less and travel green
• Use your car/two-wheeler less frequently
• Use a bus instead of your car/bike.
• Use a cycle for the short distances
• And if you can walk... go for it.
• Work as a community
• Share resources
• Share travel resources
• Assist in solving each other's problems
• Get others to live sustainability, it is your responsibility too
• Give back
• Recharge the ground water
• Share power that you generate
• Plant as many trees as you possibly can
• Take only what you need... probably the most important since it is this very appetite that has gotten us into this environmental glut