Building Green: Environmental Architects and the Struggle for Sustainability in Mumbai Page 11
This endures, despite Auroville’s reputation in other areas as something of a relic of mid-twentieth century countercultural utopian idealism.
The city maintains a close connection to the Sri Aurobindo ashram, and its
foundation in the spiritual philosophy of Sri Aurobindo suggests the kind of hybrid attributes to which Dr. Ravishankar had gestured on opening day. In fact, what
Ravishankar might call Auroville’s “spiritual focus” is a complex product of a historical movement associated with the ashram in nearby Pondicherry. Housing roughly
two thousand people, the city was founded in 1968 by the followers of Sri Aurobindo and Mira Richard (known more commonly as the Mother); the latter had called
upon devotees to create Auroville in a guise that would allow it to become, as its explanatory literature espouses and its residents repeat, “the city the earth needs.”
I shall engage this mission more ful y in a later chapter, but for the moment let us return to a curricular experience of learning the definition of “good design.”
Our instructor for the Green Home Technologies session introduced herself by
only her first name, Suhasini—a practice consistent with all of the instructors who led our varied courses and workshops. Trained at the Delhi School of Planning
and Architecture, Suhasini is a partner in the Auroville design and planning firm
AB Consultants. She is also an Auroville resident, or “Aurovillian.” Her welcoming
52 Ecology in Practice
remarks framed Auroville as a generative place “where architects can try things
out, experiment, and research. ”10
Suhasini opened her lecture by suggesting that the aspiration to practice envi-
ronmental design generates a tremendous sense of pressure. A commitment to
it seems to imply the need to take on many different goals simultaneously, she
explained, and to meet them all in every project. Suhasini cautioned against this, assuring us instead that “it is not necessary to do everything all the time everywhere,” adding, “there are certain technologies that are only sustainable in particular circumstances.” She offered an example: an architect designs a water recycling mechanism for a building located on a site with a high water table. “This is total y unsustainable, even though it sounds great to say the building recycles its own
water,” she said. Following this logic, her guidelines for “good” design emphasized that it is sometimes counterintuitive. Rather than trying to maximize the number
and types of environmental interventions in a single design, she said, “consider
the context and do more with less. If you are doing these things careful y, you’re on your way to good design.”
Suhasini then outlined a clear map of principles for good, or as she continued to
call it, “green” design. The first element was “minimize everything.” “Everything”
encompassed needs, design interventions, and special engineering techniques.
“Try not to add to the problem, but rather, be the solution through your interven-
tion.” Second, “work in terms of multiplicity of function.” Here, guidance centered on maximizing the possible utility of a given space in order to avoid “the unsustainability that comes from the lack of intensive use.” Third, “design for all aspects of climate.” Suhasini linked this to a concept of “biological harmony” that signals minimal “stress” to occupants inside a built structure.
The next point followed: “design for durability and longevity.” Avoid creating
excess construction waste, since this is usual y dumped in ways that are harmful
to the environment. As an instructive example she cited a nearby bird sanctu-
ary that doubled as a clandestine repository for construction debris. “The prob-
lems that follow this dumping will be with us for decades to come,” she cautioned.
Astonishing quantities of PVC and steel lie in heaps across the sanctuary territory,
“plus the materials themselves are lost to us. We can’t use them once they’ve been dumped.” The desirable alternative is to select materials that use base resources
efficiently, and “one way to do this is to choose materials not because they are
the easiest to procure or the most familiar to use.” To justify this as good design, Suhasini invoked the past, noting that, “pre-independence, materials were procured from a 25–50 kilometer radius; notice that to look at pre-independence
buildings is to see sustainable design staring back at you.” Noting that different products have different energy inputs and pol ution effects during their own production process (the idea of embodied energy), she advised the group to consider
the toxicity of new materials and to seize any opportunities to recycle. “We would not be where we are without cement,” but its high carbon unit cost makes it one of
www.ebook3000.com
Ecology in Practice 53
the most pol uting industries. “Beware,” she cautioned, “of materials that don’t age, show stress, or need maintenance!”
Suhasini continued to offer more precise ideas of “green” design by describing
her own style of professional practice. Begin by valuing the ability to cooperate, she said; “the days of the master architect and his minions are lost; none of us
wants to be a lab rat anymore. Therefore team playing is essential!” Invoking the
past once again, she continued:
Very often what architects have become is service providers. But historical y we are not this. We were people who made changes. We have become the last guys in the
pipeline, not influencing clients and users as we should. Remember that architecture is a profession that is more than a service. We have a say, and we have to be responsible for it. We need to be there as projects are being formulated . . . (and use our) position of tremendous influence. 11
The lecture concluded with a reflection on what the architect can hope to achieve
in practice:
We are not so delusional as to say we will achieve sustainability. We have to design in a way that enhances sustainability. Do this with appropriate built forms, materials that are local, harmony with climate, and the goal of capturing and reusing available resources. Avoid producing hazardous waste. Avoid all waste. Aim to enhance
sustainability.12
With that, we were left with a buoyed sense of the agentive capacity of environ-
mental architects—on an individual basis and as active participants in cooperative units. Suhasini’s elaboration of good design concluded precisely at the point of our potential, one we may have lost sight of in the present, but which, according to her invocation of the past, had strong and inspiring precedent. It seemed unimportant to our group to discuss the structural parameters in which she worked, or the
peculiar economic and bureaucratic apparatus that facilitated and oversaw archi-
tecture and development in Auroville. The agentive potential Suhasini invoked
suggested that all good design can transcend the confines of specific social structures. Obstacles or perceived limits, in this formulation, were no match for good
design in practice.
• • •
Back in the Prabha Devi classroom, the broader definition of good design always
suspended at least partly in the sociality of its making, RSIEA students move from courses that define the biophysical principles of ecology to those intended to convey a “toolbox” of strategies, technologies, and metrics to supplement their craft. In the new version of the curriculum, the main courses in this cluster are Sustainable Building Design Principles, Sustainable Building Materials, and Thermal Comfort
and Passive Design.
54 Ecology in Practice
Figure 4. A team of RSIEA students prepare a topographical map of
the Pali field stu
dy site. Photo by the author.
Sustainable Building Design Principles is organized according to the formal
themes listed below; these reinforce previous courses in which ecology was defined and notions of balance, harmony, interconnection, and homeostasis are associated
with sustainability. The themes supplement this notion of the relationship between ecology and sustainability by introducing a history of the international, Western, and Global Southern environmental movements of the twentieth century. The
course includes exercises in thinking across scales and contexts, as well as the idea of carrying capacity for habitats. 13 The final thematic cluster of the course introduces quantitative approaches to assessing relative building efficiency and the ways these are aggregated to form various international indices of sustainability. The
curriculum lists these themes:
1. Understanding the term sustainability: sustainable development an overview
of report of Brundtland commission formerly the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), Earth Charter and other summits
by United Nations. Brief history of sustainability from agrarian communities
largely dependent on their environment, western Industrial Revolution tapping
vast growth potential, advances in various fields, environmental movement
and energy crisis in 20th century, to increasing global awareness—greenhouse
effect, etc. in the 21st century, global treaties & action plans.
2. Sustainability principles and concepts- scale and context: over many scales of time and space: environmental, human, cultural, social, technological social & economic organization.
3. Total carrying capacity of Planet Earth; extent of biological and human activity or part of it. consumption-population, technology, resources: destruction of
www.ebook3000.com
Ecology in Practice 55
biophysical resources & Earth’s ecosystem, environmental impact, complex
ways in which resources are being used; renewable resources; resource manage-
ment in economic sectors, manufacturing industry, work organizations etc.
Attempts to express impact mathematical y.
4. Measurement: measurements used as the quantitative basis, metrics used
for measurement of sustainability, indicators-benchmarks-audits-indexes,
accounting-assessment and appraisal-measures of reporting sustainability-
environmental sustainability index and environmental performance index.14
The experience of classroom sessions and lectures affords another window on the
making of good design expertise at RSIEA. In Dr. Doddaswamy Ravishankar’s
winter 2010 course Design Principles, he opened one typical lecture by asking
students to brainstorm how the term “green” applies to building materials. 15 “What does it mean?” he asked, poised at the blackboard with a piece of chalk in hand.
“Low consumption!” said one student. “Conserve energy,” offered another. A third
added, “biodiversity.” Lines filled the blackboard: recyclability/biodegradability of a material; less embodied energy; low emissions/low waste generation; non-toxic.
Pausing the exercise, Ravishankar asked students, “Now, how would you orga-
nize these into a green materials protocol? If we have to make this list into something we can use to choose the right materials for green building design, how
would we do it?” The students stared back, some seeming to reflect, while others
were simply puzzled. After a few moments of silence, Ravishankar suggested a
parallel list of questions to guide materials choices:
I would organize it according to a set of questions: what are the exclusions? Meaning, are there thresholds or laws about the material you’re considering? And then, what are client’s preferences; do they desire a more energy efficient building? What about the benchmarks for all the building inputs and outputs . . . how much water consumption are we talking about, for example, and how does this material relate to our goals? Now, how about the management system? Is there some way that a materials
manufacturer maintains consistency, like through a monitoring system or certifica-
tion? What about disclosure—how transparent is the story of how this material is
made? Then you want to ask about the material’s compliance with environmental
and social expectations . . .16
The instructor then identified a host of international organizations and their
websites; each, he said, offered useful examples of how to organize a materials
protocol. Mapping the world as he composed his list, he encouraged students to
study the APO Tokyo Eco-products Directory. Here they could explore how the
organization mapped the life cycles of various building materials. He pointed to
the German Wuppertal Institute for its database of embodied energy in common
building materials. Coming to the case of India, Ravishankar emphasized the
absence of an Indian standard for, or even clear definition of, biodegradability.
“Here, you run into formal definition problems every time you consider a green
56 Ecology in Practice
building criterion,” he said; “when it comes to India, try to get beyond the criteria and use your common sense.”
Building on the materials protocols to which he had referred, Ravishankar
introduced the idea of the Sustainability Assessment of Technology, or SAT. These
protocols, developed by the International Environment Technology Center of the
United Nations Environment Programme, are often considered the most integra-
tive because they incorporate environmental, social, and economic measures of
performance and acceptability.17,18 Claiming a term from green capitalism and marketing, he called these criteria the “triple bottom line. ”19 As an example, he raised the idea of “local” materials sourcing, noting that this suggests environmental benefits, but it also might connect to social and economic capacity-building at that same scale. “Beware, though,” he cautioned; “never interpret the SAT as a matter of scoring. Use it to remember that linking materials or technologies to social well being is always important.”
The world map of examples continued. Ravishankar introduced the international
Environmental Products Declaration system administered from Stockholm, and
encouraged students to visit the website of the American Institute of Architects,
as it had just held an important exhibition on embodied energy in building mate-
rials.20 The list of transnational protocols continued to grow. The International Environmental Technology Center of the UNEP offered a useful consolidated fact
sheet on materials, while the national materials rating systems in Germany and
Austria had “some of the best rating systems.” As the class period came to an end, the blackboard was scribbled with lists of websites, international protocols, and examples from elsewhere, and the promise that by the end of the semester students would develop their own grasp of the menu of materials available to them, and a wide
range of approaches to assessing the relative sustainability of each. Most impor-
tantly, they would be able to develop their own guidelines, appropriate to the Indian case, particularly drawing from, as Ravishankar stated, their “common sense.”
In addition to familiarizing us with a vast array of considerations when it came
to building materials choices, the protocols exercise had the effect of conceptual y reconnecting our aspirations to practice environmental architecture with a wider
transnational community of institutions and their associated metrics. Charting
the many tendrils of a global movement called environmental architecture—he
re,
by mapping the contours of its protocols—only reaffirmed the importance of good
design expertise on the global scale. With the Indian context as our anchor, we
were nevertheless guided across the global landscape of guidelines that shaped
good design expertise beyond our sphere of practice. Here was another dimension
of the hybrid knowledge form being forged in the social experience of training:
our expertise was affirmed at multiple scales, and the need for it was as global as it was “Indian.”
Just after this lecture, my hand sore from scribbling protocols lists in my note-
book, I moved along with the students to the next course, Thermal Comfort and
www.ebook3000.com
Ecology in Practice 57
Passive Design. Shirish Deshpande, our lecturer, greeted us and launched directly
into a deceivingly simple question. “Which is greener,” he asked, “GRIHA or
LEED?” These two metrics for assessing the relative sustainability of a given built structure automatical y posed an Indian protocol against one that circulates international y, and as such, is sometimes regarded as a global standard. 21
Deshpande paused, and then began his response. “Any code that is pushing
toward a new baseline—that is continual y pushing the envelope, so to speak, is
good.” Again, the case of India became the exclusion: he cautioned that LEED
requirements are based on very specific models that often depend on data and prod-
uct availability not immediately applicable to India. “These are standards developed in the U.S., so natural y they are not always appropriate for India,” he said.
But the question had opened another point, to which Deshpande devoted much
of the remainder of the class session. “You know,” he began, “It’s better not to look at the credit systems only; look at the intent, and start with your design. What do you want to achieve?” Environmental architects must follow a conscious design process, he explained, not just proceed according to scoring from a list of points or credits.
“But Sir,” a student replied, “even if the client is not asking for a green building, we can design it in this way.” Yes, was the reply; this is good design. “If you forget about the credits and just think about good design you will automatical y have a good