Tickled by the Rambutan

The rambutan (as seen in the Ooty veggie market)

In continuance to the homage made to the Mangosteen a few weeks ago, another exotic fruit to catch my fancy was the Rambutan. It is also called Ramboostan in the local markets. It is reddish (when ripe) in colour and looks very much like a lychee. The only major difference is that the outer skin is very hairy; in Malay ‘rambut’ means hair. On the inside it is a fleshy pearl coloured pod with a single seed; and is sweet-sour to the taste. There is a website: www.rambutan.com which offers information on the genus (Nephelium Lappaceum), and how to go about the proper process of eating it!

The Rambutan trees are medium sized evergreens and are a non-climacteric variety, i.e. they ripen only when on the tree. In fact the fruits taste better and survive longer when sold complete with the fruits still on the cut branches. Indigenous to the Malay Archipelago, Indonesia and the Philippines it also grows in Sri Lanka, Burma, India and Thailand. The Rambutan does not seem to have done as well as the Mangosteen in terms of captivating the taste buds of Queen Victoria; and the explorers and horticulturists of her time. Without much support from the west its trade has been very limited, though the fruit has reached Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Australia for cultivation purposes. It seems that traders in the south-east Asian region have given it a major economic push and it succeeds well in these parts.

In India the Rambutan is mostly grown in the Travancore region in southern Kerala. It was brought their by people who had earlier migrated from there to Singapore and Malaysia but who still retained ties to the land. Places where active cultivation thrives are Maramon, Kozhencherry, Ayroor, Ranny, Konni and Mallappally. There is good demand for them in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and prices per kilo are in the Rs. 150-200 range. No wonder that Kerala is just the place for it because the trees grow best within 10 – 15 degrees of the equator at a height of around 1600 ft. MSL. This, of course, just like the Mangosteen, puts paid to my desire to grow them in an orchard within our project in the Nilgiris. I believe Rambutan jams and jellies are heavenly; but, I guess, much like the popular movie title, Heaven Can Wait!

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.