Category Archives: concepts
The overall design of a bamboo structure is not complex, we only need to shed ourpre-conceived notion.
When we see a great work of architecture, it is worthwhile to wonder how such unique construction, style and the building method itself evolved. Typically, we attribute it all to the new generation of qualified engineers, builders and architects. In contrast to these, we also see how the traditional knowledge transmits from generation to generation, possibly improvising the idea each time.
The new visitor facility along the sea beach of Puri town in Orissa is a case in point. A Nagaland-style structure is being built there by Naga craftsmen, with Naga bamboo. The super-structure recently got completed, showcasing how it is built, an ideal time to understand building with bamboo.
Critical thought has been given to the foundation, made in concrete to withstand beach conditions with the bamboo culms embedded into the well ring mass concrete. This also gives the necessary rigidity at the foundation level to reduce the swaying of the structure in wind.
Bamboo is used for all columns, beams, floor joints, diagonal ties, bracket supports and lintels. If single units suffice for a support or beam its fine, but the hall being large single bamboos lack the required strength and load carrying capacity. So, all structural elements are in composites, i.e. multiple bamboos tied together without touching each other, but with one bamboo space in between. Small bamboo pieces are used as spacers.
Cross members are inserted into the gap between bamboos such that column and beam start to act like a single load bearing entity. Diagonal ties are very important in bamboo buildings, which help in creating equilibrium between the horizontal and vertical members, also avoiding sideward swing. Wooden members can be joined at the same alignment, but bamboos cannot. They need to overlap each other and tied together.
Multiple bamboos in one joint is a visual delight, but care should be taken to maintain the alignments, besides proper load carrying junction between any two. Since the location of members shift, so too can the centre lines of plan grid itself. To avoid it, columns are maintained in the same position, with beam members slightly to the left or right of the column bamboos.
Traditionally, thinly split bamboo peels, reeds, jute and such others were used to tie the members, but nowadays long nuts and bolts are becoming common. These bolts need to be cut and threaded to the required length, with rust proof coatings. While drilling the hole for the bolt, bamboo should not get split. It is observed that nut and bolt system may go loose in case of vibration due to heavy footfall, widened hole size or bamboo with more sap content than prescribed. Incidentally, Naga bamboo with thicker outer shell is less vulnerable to this problem.
The overall design of a bamboo structure is not as difficult as people talk about, but are very basic in nature. We only need to shed our pre-conceived notions about bamboo.
It was ideal housing material for long but had lost favour in recent times. However, bamboo is slowly making its mark again.
When an ecologically appropriate material finds less users, it is time to think. What makes the modern, energy guzzling material ride over the ecologically sensitive one? Equally well, if that material regains its popularity, it is also time to think. What brings about the green sense again?
Bamboo could be an apt example to this trend. Actually a grass, it consumes less primary energy than wood; assimilates more carbon dioxide for photosynthesis than trees, ensuring faster sequestering of carbon; reduces soil erosion due to its thick root formation; and produces more bio-mass per hectare than many other plants with its rapid growth.
An easy to transport material with surface tensile strength higher than steel, bamboo is best among the light weight construction options, where speed of execution is required. It sways with flexibility, hence does not break against fast wind; it is not a rigid construction, hence does not collapse during earthquakes; it grows very fast, hence becomes a rapidly renewable resource; and the culm can be used all through its thicker lower parts, thinner upper parts and the sliced surface.
Majority of construction techniques require externally erected scaffolding systems for holding the materials and workers, with larger buildings demanding cranes.
Building with bamboo needs all these minimally, with expert workers using the built part itself as the support. Even though construction happens part by part, once completed the building appears singular and interconnected.
Yet, the execution does not lead to a monolithic construction, which is in favour today. The concrete, ferro-cement and modern organic forms appear monolithic in their final version.
Even the simple brick wall houses we do have a dozen RCC columns with walls plastered and painted to hide the individual masonry units, though they drain the money and strain nature. Bamboo architecture is neither monolithic nor hidden, which is actually its strength, not a weakness.
Bamboo has been best suited for thatch roof, country pan tiles, slates and stones, which can be comfortably fixed despite the slight unevenness of the canes. As roofing materials gave way for interlocking and overlapping tiles like Mangalore tile which demand perfect levels, bamboo lost favour. Coupled with the increasing popularity of RCC roof, bamboo slowly got relegated to the back benches.
In the past, housekeeping and maintenance was part of living in the house. Today people expect that the building be maintenance free, a pre-condition which rules out too many eco-friendly materials and construction types. Bamboo too is a victim to this trend, which cannot be cleaned all around, polished frequently or left exposed to sun and rain once built. As skilled labourers dwindled, popularity of bamboo also waned.
Promoting the cause
But slowly but steadily, bamboo is again in the reckoning. Internationally, books on bamboo are increasing and the one by Gernot Minke proves the value of the material so simply and directly. Vaibhav Kale, Sanjay Prakash, Neelam Manjunath, Uravu group, Sanjeev Karpe, Saajan and many more have been promoting it in their own ways. Bamboo has a future again.
We demolish old buildings even when they are in good condition for the sake of bigger and better structures. But is this justified?
What’s the talk of the town in the lighting sector now? It is replacing old bulbs with LED fixtures in existing buildings. Thanks to government schemes, millions of tube lights, CFLs and incandescent bulbs have been replaced, to save electricity, which is a laudable project.
So too, we have been replacing millions of cell phones, laptops, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners and other gadgets to keep pace with technological upgradation. What about buying a new vehicle every five years? Not a bad idea because maintenance costs go up after few years of driving and anyway there are buyers for used cars. Exchange offers are very attractive, and we feel good about the increased speed, storage and comforts.
Contrastingly, if we think of the past, how often the tube light got changed; house landline phone replaced; new wall clock bought; ceiling fan disposed or any such other household item was exchanged, we realise a major shift in our lifestyle – a lifestyle which embraces products in the name of advantages. Do we compare electricity saved with embodied energy to nature and monetary cost to individual to check if the replacement was judicious?
Thoughtless replacement is not ecologically advantageous on all occasions. We rarely bother about where the disposed item goes and whether it gets responsibly recycled without leftover waste.
Even if we care, what about the additional production we are supporting by buying a new product? What about the resources it is consuming, waste it generates, fossil fuel for transportation and marketing energy?
The tragedy is that we are replacing products while they are still functional with many more years of working life left; unlike in the past when the new entered only when the old became dysfunctional and exited.
Majority of us use fairly recent mobile phones today, which could be the third or sixth one since we purchased our first mobile, say a decade ago. It is a financial burden, but we justify it saying we can afford the cost. The old ones could perform, but we justify claiming the need for updating.
Old buildings are still good, but we demolish them seeking a bigger and better building. But can we justify the ecological cost of replacing, a burden not directly on us, but on the Earth? Can the money we have that buys a new phone solve the problem of the disposed old one? With our own body, do we try to extend our working life as we age or simply stop functioning, letting the new and young take over?
Replacing is required, but not unless the utility of the old product is over. Green living does not revolve around switching over to the latest, every time a new product introduction happens. It revolves around utilising what we have fully, until the end of its functional life.
Many building components from foundation to final finish can be built by using soil-based ideas.
The last week has been a week of messages in WhatsApp and elsewhere, claiming the highest recorded temperature for any inhabited parts of Earth has touched 60 degree C in Kuwait. We may not get any officially verified version of this possible rumour; it could be a fact or a figment of imagination and could even be a prank message just to amuse us.
Official records claim highest recorded temperatures to be above 56 degrees, as such this figure further moving up is not an impossibility considering the damage and distress we are causing to nature. However, imagining such high temperatures is a frightening proposition. So, what are we doing about it?
Many nations and institutions are addressing climate crisis; yet at the global scale they are yet to make a noticeable dent. If so, should we wait for something to happen through these major players or do our bit individually?
One area to work upon is simply to minimise the use of steel and cement.
Though considered as a boon to the construction industry, these two materials contribute much to resource consumption, energy demands, waste generation and heat production. The indoor and outdoor temperatures around their production plants are virtually uninhabitable.
Most owners and builders cannot imagine building without cement today. RCC is inevitable today, so as a part of it cement too. Yet, should the whole building – foundation, column, walls, lintels, chajjas, beams, stairs, roofs, plastering, waterproofing – be with cement and concrete? At least where possible, can they be with non-cement based material?
Many soil-based options can replace cement fully or in parts during building construction. Soil lends itself to adobe block, rammed earth, stabilised mud block, table moulded or wire cut bricks, jaali units, hollow clay block, clay filler and hourdi roof blocks, Mangalore tiles, water proofing tiles, flooring tile and many such other products.
Unbelievable but true, majority of building components from foundation to final finish can be built by using these soil-based ideas. Brick foundations are possible; jaali blocks make reinforced columns; hollow clay blocks are apt for walls and lintels; mud walls are a proven idea; tiles make attractive chajjas; RCC would have minimal steel and cement in filler roofs; hourdis can create both flat and curved roofs; arch panel and jack arches need only precast beams and clay flooring is among the best for the foot.
This listing may appear like pitching the opposites for a competition. Our media is full of discussions on herbal vs chemical shampoos; traditional vs modern dresses; local vs continental cuisine; made in India vs imported goods and many such others. Likewise, soil vs cement may sound like being part of these debates. However, the intention is not to place them as opposites, but be able to observe the appropriate and make a studied choice.
Today we need to choose not only with a concern for today, but equally with a concern for tomorrow.
Air conditioning and refrigeration have direct link to climate crisis and are considered as enemies.
For millions of years, humans have survived the extremities of nature without conditioning the air. If so, can’t we survive the present climate change without air conditioners? Theoretically yes, but attitudinally difficult, for it’s no more air conditioning that is the challenge, it is the human conditioning.
Air conditioning and refrigeration have direct link to climate crisis and are considered among the enemies of nature. A few decades ago, AC was installed where it was inevitable, but today it is projected as a necessity, which is a myth driven by the consumerist market.
Human settlements across the globe have shown that we can manage with 4 or 40 degree Celsius temperature with minor adjustments in food and clothing, two major means of adapting ourselves to the changing weather. Different civilisations have discovered many other means, including shifting working hours; summer and winter indoor spaces; orientation-based wall thickness; and varied window detailing.
In many ways, human adaptation to weather was akin to those of slumbering animals or leave shedding plants, learning from the animal and survival instincts we all possess. Given this natural phenomenon, it is more important that we adapt to room temperatures and not install air conditioners to force the room to adapt to us.
If millions of Indians are living without AC, it should be possible for the minority few of us also to live so. If we deny this possibility, we get into a trap where the combination of physiological and mental states will ensure we justify the AC. Even if an ecologically aware mind denies it, the body will demand it. The reverse where the mind demanding it even if body could adjust is also true.
The real challenge of summer is not to cool our body with cold rooms and even colder drinks, which only increase the variation between body and atmospheric temperatures. We need to reduce this variation by consuming warmer drinks and keeping the indoor air humid. After all, we cannot air condition the whole city, but can condition the body to adapt.
In case AC is already a habit, we can try modulating indoor humidity, air velocity and room temperatures to minimise damage to environment. Instead of 22 degree of dry cold, 28 degree with increased humidity may be better. If outside temperature is around 40 degrees, indoors at 28-35 could still be fine. Individually, we cannot switch off hotel or office AC, but can avoid the coldest parts, totally avoiding AC elsewhere.
The perils of modern lifestyle are yet to dawn on us. The few who talk about climate in kitty parties are yet to walk the talk. One simple way of doing the walk is to minimise or live without air conditioners.
It is used everywhere injudiciously, in the name of comfort, increasing resource consumption and waste production.
Human society has strange habits. When a great idea comes along, we may resist it until the idea wins us over or the idea itself dies. Strangely, when a disastrous product is introduced, even while knowing the harm it is causing, we blindly fall in love with it and promote it.
Look at the mineral water sold in plastic bottles, condemned by subject experts on all fronts like debatable water purity, challenges of waste disposal, and avoidable resource consumption, besides the use-and-throw culture. Yet, these bottles rule us today.
Another equally questionable part of modern civilisation is air conditioned spaces in homes, cars, offices, shops and virtually everywhere. Hyped as one among the greatest innovations of our times, the harm it has done and continuing to do is buried deep, so hardly anyone speaks against it, so everyone seeks it.
This is not to question the very technology of air conditioning, very beneficial at many places from operation theatres in hospitals to large public halls, which cannot be naturally lit and ventilated.
Technology of refrigeration has enabled newer avenues, be it in preservation or in food for space travel. The problem starts when air conditioning is employed not only where necessity beckons, but everywhere injudiciously, in the name of comfort.
All that air conditioning does is to throwing the indoor heat out, warming up the outdoors. Long hours of working under A.C. in offices reduces our body capacity to withstand heat, as such when we come out, we seek cool air in the car and home too, cumulatively leading to the proliferation of air conditioned indoors. The more we do it, the more will be urban heat islands which has no solution today.
Global warming is directly blamed on greenhouse gas emissions, which increase with increased use of any refrigeration system because of their dependency on CFC, HFC and such others. Though improved coolants have been introduced, harming of the ozone layer continues. Heating and cooling have been listed among the major consumers of electricity in developed nations and India is catching up. Electricity seldom comes from clean sources like solar or hydropower. As such, A.C. is an indirect cause for the depletion of non-renewable resources burnt to produce power.
Not all air conditioners are maintained well periodically. In case of any leakage, there will be the release of chemicals which harm the ozone layer, besides reducing the cooling power of the unit. Technological advances are creating rapid obsoleteness causing large wastages to the manufactured units with high embodied energy. Thus, air conditioning directly impacts resource consumption and waste production. Listing how air conditioning makes no green sense can go on, but it is time we introspect our habits and change them.
Air conditioning may keep us cool, but it further increases global warming.
People with low economic status tend to think that the wealthy are healthier; and they see that the rich people stay in air conditioned spaces in homes, offices, cars and shops, while they are toiling in uncomfortable ambiences.
As such, the myth spreads hat living in artificial environments is better than living with natural conditions.
Modern construction technology can provide air conditioning to any kind of space.
With the AC costs coming down every season and claims about green buildings adopting more efficient systems like radiant cooling, evaporative cooling and such others besides the conventional HVAC systems, building owners do not feel guilty for installing air conditioning.
However, are all the people living inside such artificial environments happy and healthy? Contrary to what the economically poor may dream, reports suggest otherwise. Living without fresh air, day light and nature is today proven to be very unhealthy.
Many indoor spaces do not have adequate fresh air inlet and air change as required, leading to what is called Sick Building Syndrome. Lack of ventilation can also lead to a feel of suffocation, partly due to increased ambient indoor heat, creating a sense of dryness.
The AC can take away internal humidity at such fast rate, too many people feel dehydrated inside, with dried lips and skin.
In places with short summer spells of a few weeks, like in Bengaluru, it is not worth fixing air conditioners for the short duration, letting it lie idle rest of the year.
When we get out of an AC space, the temperature difference between inside and outside causes what is called thermal shock. It can affect the body immune system.
Despite all these, we continue to live with conditioned air, rather than the natural. However, the indoor cool comes at a cost, further increasing the heat island effect and directly promoting greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, air conditioning may keep us cool, but it further increases global warming.
There are simple ways to go about it, and air conditioners are not necessary.
In hot climatic zones like Rajasthan, people used to sleep on terraces. Even in places like Delhi, one can see many low income and middle class people sleeping outdoors, on pathways or verandahs. In slightly more humid regions like Kerala or Kolkata, traditional homes have perforated windows and doors with louvres which are kept open at night.
The principle behind these and more of such practices is simple – the night temperature is always much lower than the daytime in summer months. If we can ensure that the benefits of lower temperature are exploited, one can ensure a good night’s sleep. Our body works much on a comparative basis, where the reduced night temperature itself provides the relief we need, after exposure to a daylong heat. The emerging practice of sleeping at 22 degrees chilled air and then face the next day’s wrath at 40 degrees is neither healthy nor inevitable.
The accompanying picture is an apt example to show how we can manage indoor comforts through managing air. We need three kinds of air, first being cross ventilation, achieved through windows in differently oriented windward walls. Secondly, we need body-level breeze made possible by the ceiling fan. The third one, displacement ventilation, is the most important for indoor thermal comfort. It displaces the hot indoor air – air warmed up by solar heat gain on ceilings, heat conducted through the walls, heat dissipated by human bodies inside and any mechanical instruments – through roof-level openings and lets in cooler outside air.
Typically, most indoor spaces today do not have voids at ceiling level, hence the warmer indoor air gets stuck inside the room. In the picture too, the wall just below the roof has no ventilator, the idea cancelled due to provision of air conditioner, though elsewhere in the same building there are displacement ventilators. In the process, this particular room gets heated up during the summer months, so the AC steps in, while the whole year it stays nearly idle.
During the summer months, the real challenge is not to cool the indoor air, an idea which leads to installing an air conditioner, which is an energy guzzling, unsustainable and cost escalating practice. Simply throwing out hot air and letting in the cooler air from outside can make a notable difference in reducing indoor heat, though it may not be as effective as an air conditioner.
Among the temporary arrangements, turning the table fan towards the window is the simplest. After keeping a few windows open, turn on the fan with its face outside. It works like displacement ventilation cooling the indoors in a short time. Unlike the roof-level voids which work at a height, here the warmer air at body level gets thrown out. The ceiling fan can compliment the air circulation.
The case of the fan may be a makeshift solution for few
When we build with cultural sensibility, our buildings embody ecological sensitivity as well, by default.
It is surprising to realise how every one of us, in our own way, is directly or indirectly involved with getting buildings done during our lifetime. It is one activity that most of us cannot escape, which at macro scale may mean commissioning a project or at micro level, just advising a friend about a design option.
In the implementation team we have innumerable architects, engineers, builders, consultants, suppliers, site team and such others, involved in the building construction industry. Our annual output in terms of built-up areas, spread across villages and all towns, is beyond calculation.
It is equally surprising to realise how most of us do not think much before we act. Most of our design and construction are based on a routine practice, endlessly repeated with minor variations therein. Naturally, deep thinking on design parameters like culture and climate are a rarity, resulting in the same faceless buildings being erected across India. While we have large number of practising professionals, paradoxically we appear to have a small number of thinking professionals, which could be the reason behind many non-descript buildings.
This is where thinking architects like A.G. Krishna Menon and K.T. Ravindran become important. Both have a pan-India perspective about how we are approaching designs today and the imminent need to be context specific in our design interventions.
These two senior architects may not be listed as eco-architects of today, possibly ignored by the younger generation.
However, through their selective designs, public talks, academic involvement, explorative seminars and freelance publications, they have inspired a large number of professionals, paving the way for thinking about architecture.
Ravindran’s emphasis on the vernacular and Menon’s observations of the traditional settlements highlight the importance of culture-specific designs. Incidentally, when we build with cultural sensibility, our buildings embody ecological sensitivity as well, by default. These architects with their analytical mind will not summarily dismiss modern architecture, but would suggest ways to blend tradition with modernity. Modern designs can also have green sense, be local and be sustainable.
To that end, one needs to study the design options, their implications and finally choose the most appropriate.
Learning from history
History is too often brushed aside as a matter of past, but architects like Menon and Ravindran, show how we can learn from history. After all, historic buildings have been green buildings not only in India, but everywhere. What we can learn from them and apply in designs today can make our future generations safer.
This process of learning cannot be complete if we study buildings in isolation; we also need to look at how buildings come together creating urban design, heritage zones and religious cities. Such rich contexts have created a lifestyle which in turn has created the contexts. Thus by recreating each other, context and culture have stayed true to a region – its geology, geography, flora, fauna and climate. By their thought process, these architects have proved that to achieve a green future, we need to iteratively study all facets of house, neighbourhood, city, culture, climate and of course living itself.
Many of their designs are based on theories and in turn, they have evolved theories based on designs. Where theory and design inform each other without contradicting positions, there we can find the path to eco-friendly possibilities.
Disciplined design expressions by Shankar Kanade complement non-formal sculpturesque forms and surfaces by K. Jaisim in their eco-friendly architecture.
Design challenges do not lie in walking an established path, but in charting it in the first place amidst opposition by mainstream ideas. The greatness of Shankar Kanade and Navanath Kanade of Shilpa Sindoor and K. Jaisim of Fountainhead, both with firms located in South Bengaluru, lies in charting such new paths.
By 1970s and early 80s many architects had proven the benefits of practical and aesthetic designs, hence the city had carved a niche for good buildings, be they houses, industries or institutions. Going beyond mere functionality, Shankar Kanade brought the spirit of architectonic thoughts from Ahmedabad, ably joined by his younger brother Navanath who returned from the U.S. Jaisim, being influenced by philosopher Ayn Rand, followed exploratory architecture from a perspective very different from the others.
They started building with bricks, stone, hollow clay blocks and such other natural materials left exposed, without plastering or painting them. Thus the walls too became expressive, within which the voids like windows, ventilators and perforated jaali openings were carefully located to get the desired air and light.
Introducing skylights to bring in daylight, in a variety of forms and locations, became a hallmark of their architecture. They both realised that we need indoor air and light without creating glare or heat.
These professionals were not blindly following western architecture, but were creating a new approach by rooting it in the elements and forces of nature.
For a commoner, works of Kanades and Jaisim may appear different, but theoretically they have many comparisons. Their personal innovation creates the variety and their deep respect for the context creates the commonalties between them. Disciplined design expressions and grammar by Shankar compliments non-formal sculpturesque forms and surfaces by Jaisim in their architecture being what is called as eco-friendly today.
Too often we have heard the rhetoric that traditional Indian architecture has always been green and sustainable. While it is true, even the works of many modern architects have been so too, which do not warrant air conditioners, mass concreting, glass facades or aluminium-coated panels as elevation cladding. Kanades and Jaisim are undebatable examples. What the two firms did in the 80s paved the way for 90s when scores of younger firms in Bengaluru focused on eco-friendly buildings.