This article introspects
regarding the question – how is ‘space’ related to ‘sustainability’? A revisit
to the term of ‘sustainability’ is required, since it is understood from
diverse angles.
Sustainability is mostly
understood in the West (or advanced Nations) as a response that must address
the issue of judicious use of energy for constructing, maintaining and
recycling building activity (at whatever cost it seems feasible). The
methodological parameters to accomplish this task is expressed in terms of
‘green’ building ratings (certified by LEEDS or equivalent organizations),
however much needs to be critiqued about the methods of execution of such
‘green’ buildings, such as the lifestyle choices and the
consideration of acute economic challenges which do not seem to surface when
discussing on ‘green’ buildings. Other ways in which sustainability is
understood in Developing Nations is by the concept of ‘locality’ – emphasis on
local ways of perceiving the built environment, responding to the local
topography (and climate), and optimizing local skills and resources. The origin
on the emphasis of the ‘local’ stems from primordial issues of safety, security
and responding to severe economic constraints. In a very fundamental way,
crudely speaking, being poor necessitates a sustainable response to create a
built environment.
Despite having ‘less’ of
everything, how can one accomplish the task of creating a space for enclosure?
And what characteristic does this space exhibit, in terms of architectonics and
the ways in which people live? How does sustainability become a part of one’s
consciousness and results in creation of a particular built environment? What
are the characteristics of a sustainable thinking and what does this kind of
thinking involve for the designer? This is the central question I wish to
introspect. Let me be honest by saying that the article is intended to throw
questions, and not answers. Sometimes asking the ‘right’ questions is perhaps more
important than trying to give answers in least amount of time. This has come
from personal observations, reading, synthesizing. I am stating what I feel to
be “proper”. Let us discuss some parameters that reflect sustainable approach
and thought processes:
The idea of space footprint per person
– The available foot print of space that a person has access to, is directly
proportional to economic power the person can exercise. In other words,
economic challenges necessitates extensive “sharing” of spaces for diverse
purposes. From this, comes the aspect of multi functional spaces or
multipurpose spaces. The same space is simultaneously used by different people
for a particular activity. And the same space is used for different purposes by
same or different people in different times of the day. In general, spaces are
not exclusive to an individual or an activity. The more the overlap of
functions in a given space and more the density of people in a given space, the
lesser the ownership of that space enjoyed exclusively by an individual and the
collective utility of space increases. Thus, the “usability” of space increases
in relation to the density of people and to the number of purposes a space is
used throughout the day, but at the cost of lesser ownership of space per
person. The more a space is used for different functions by more people, the
building energy required for making, maintaining and recycling is distributed
among people. Thus, can we say, that (number of spatial functions within that
space X occupancy time X density of people in that space = increased usability
of space = less ownership of space per person)? Therefore, the highest sustainable
space cannot be exclusively owned by an individual for a longer period of time OR
needs to be shared for various functions and among large sections of people and
for longer durations. Can we analyze spaces around us in this way? Can we come
to some conclusions regarding categories of spaces, the activities that take
place, the times in which they get used and the number of people having access
to such spaces? With this lens, can we come to some understanding regarding which
spaces seem sustainable because of constant use by large sections of people and
how costs get distributed because of such use? Think of courtyards, streets,
maidans and think of theatres, shopping malls, pubs, residence, shops, ghats
along river belts, railway stations, airport terminals…..can the above equation
be tested? And from this perspective, can we come to an understanding about the
intensity of sustainability of spaces in Indian subcontinent v/s the West? Can
we grade sustainable intensity of spaces across geography of the Indian
subcontinent and across time? This opens up another dimension of lifestyle and
that is the notion of privacy.
The idea of privacy and how it is related
to sustainability - From above equation, it may be clear, that less
ownership of space means less control of such space for exclusive enjoyment of
an individual. Conversely, we can say, that more exclusive use of space by a
limited number of people and for very limited functions and for limited amount
of time makes a space more privatized. However, the energy required to
conceive, build and maintain such private spaces is to be dealt by only few
individuals and can’t get distributed among larger sections of people. In other
words, private spaces are less sustainable as they are owned by only selected
individuals at the cost of other sections of people. In terms of thought, it
means, exercising the notion of privacy results in lesser degree of sustainable
use of the space. The more the quantum of space generated for private use
(proportion of three dimensional space owned by an individual) the sustainable
quotient decreases. This should prompt us to think about how much space is
sufficient to the individual’s needs? How much is enough? Can situations in
India and the West be compared in this manner? Can we come to understand the
impact of privacy on the demands of space footprint exercised per person and
the cumulative quantum of built environment + infrastructural support it
generates? Can we categorize built environments within India in such ways? Can
we understand how huge populations continue to live in limited amount of spaces
in some regions of India whereas huge spaces are arrogantly used by a handful
of people in other sections of India? If we seem to discuss the infrastructural
footprint of a person ( in terms of quantity of water, electricity and other
services) required for better lifestyle of an individual, can we also not
discuss the optimum scale of space footprint required per person for
sustainable creation of built environment of cities and Nations? This aspect
requires constant questioning of what seems necessary for survival and what can
be discarded because it seems ‘extra’ baggage. Can we live with limited means?
Can we own less space and share more? Can we do a rough mathematics regarding
the total quantum of built space used in a particular Nation divided by the
population density? Can this give us an answer regarding the space footprints
owned by different Nations and its repercussions on costs and sustainability?
Can this also throw light on the ways people develop cultures and how they seem
to behave with one another? Can this make us realize that a decision regarding
ownership has a relation on the sustainable aspects of the environment? Thus we
need to question the idea of what is the optimum space footprint that a person
can have in order to satisfy his/ her needs and which can lead to a sustainable
habitat?
Idea of constructing a sustainable space
– This has been spoken about in various platforms of publishing. Since it is
related to sustainability, I think it is worth mentioning. Space conceived by
people as a response to their needs, built by people themselves using local
techniques of construction and skill sets and material resources achieve a
higher degree of sustainability. This brings back the focus on being ‘local’ or
‘grounded’ in conceiving design solutions. If you sit in a different continent
and conceive spaces in an air conditioned environment by means of universal
transfer of automated and standardized technological expertise, it is quite
obvious that the spaces at the desired location do not necessarily become
sustainable in terms of a contextual response. The word ‘context’ also includes
energy needed to sustain a built environment and the means to achieve the same
(which means people, local skills and resources). Therefore, standardized
solutions rubber stamped across the globe, I believe, express some kind of lack
of social commitment on the part of the designer. Can we now see the blunder of
the built environment as was conceived only as a function of commercial
enterprise? Can we relate this phenomenon to the aspect of the feeling of
‘placelessness’, where everything seems to look the same? So, sustainability is
necessarily a localized phenomenon. One needs to reinvent oneself while
responding to a new place in order to be truthful to the values of sustainability.
The idea of Sustainability as a holistic (or
integrated) process of designing - It
may be quite clear, that a sustainable approach necessarily prompts us to
consider the parameters of climate and ecology, topography, culture, social
aspirations, materials and technology. At the heart is the intention to
consider and respond to above factors with the necessary, minimal and
fundamental intervention required. This is a difficult process of designing,
but it is not impossible. The process begs us to consider what is important to
be done, what seems more, what can one do away with, what seems unnecessary,
what seems “proper”, irrespective of what you and I think as individuals. It
begs us to consider and accommodate the past, present and future. If done sincerely,
this process can take us beyond our individual self and consider the entire
Creation as something we are related to and have a duty to respond and
acknowledge properly. Such a process and the resultant outlook towards design
necessitates inclusiveness and interconnections of various systems that
contribute into making of a space. In this process, although ‘you’ and ‘I’ as
consultants are different, the broader aim seems to do the ‘right’ thing which
is appropriate for the situation (situation is always bigger than ‘us’).
The above
approach goes opposite to the ‘compartmentalization’, ‘super-specialization’
and ‘exclusiveness’ expressed by many consultants in their respective fields in
today’s globalized world. The compartmentalization may be necessary as more and
more bits of information (or data of the project) need to be dissected and
legal boundaries are needed to be defined regarding which consultant takes what
responsibility to ensure efficient management of the project. However, what we
achieve in this compartmentalized approach is just effective ‘collaboration’, and
not necessarily a good critical discussion on what ought to be done
fundamentally for a given project. In this scenario, no one really knows (and
perhaps no one cares to know) how the entire picture seems to fit in. I am
interested in creating a perfect tail, you are interested in creating a perfect
toe, the third person concentrates on the hair, the fourth on hands, but what
are we creating as a whole? Is the project only a sum total of perfectly
designed separate parts or is the project a response of understanding and
defining the interrelationships of parts so as to form the whole? This is
important to be understood, since separately well designed parts may not
generate a sustainable solution (and may even end up getting over designed). In
the professional need to safeguard one’s professional and legal interests, do
we end up in a compromised solution responding to a sustainable society? Thus,
as individuals, we need to start shedding our immediate self interests and try
to respond to a larger framework of life.
The idea of Sustainability as an aspect of
Time – If a comprehensive solution seems to be a requirement to generate
sustainable response, I believe it is imperative that we “slow down” to make
sense of disparate/ fractured/ contradictory signals we keep on getting and how
we choose to digest or dissolve and seek reinterpretations of situations around
us. This is, I believe, the crux of issue – to understand ourselves and the
‘time’ required to gain this knowledge about us, people, culture, society,
climate and ecology. It must be accepted by each one of us that we operate in
different frequencies and the path of sustainability is not different from the
path of self discovery. In sustainability, we talk of tangible reflections such
as “shedding” extra materials, or extra design or extra man power or extra costs
or extra energy. Have we ever considered that the process of shedding something
extra leads one to shed the internal baggage of social construct? Have we
realized that when we shed the superfluous, we are uncovering the superficial
layers of our own social biases or constructs? And in order to make this
possible, we need to observe our own selves and be critical and compassionate
to our self? The act of shedding is a process of revealing – it can’t be done
by force. The act of shedding is a painful process, because it hurts our egos
and pretenses. Can we be truthful along this path of shedding? Can we realize
the comfort zones our minds create so we don’t get hurt? Can we realize that
the same comfort zones however, jeopardize the cause of sustenance? Are we
ready to face the ultimate shedding of our own intellect (and consecutive
distinctions and social constructs) so to reveal the path of truthfulness? To
realize on what course we are supposed to tread, to decide the course of action
and to face our own ‘fears’ along the way – it takes time. Sustenance is about
slowing down and not accelerating. It is to counter the opposite force of
‘development’ (or ‘grand’ or ‘massiveness’ or ‘global’ or whatever demands
quick and gigantic solutions). Are we willing to realize that sustainability is
something that is going to challenge our own ideas of existence and which will
force us to deal with our own fears?
Summarily, I
think, being sustainable means to think beyond oneself and beyond the interests
of the client, or the project. It also means to nurture appropriate values and
to educate the client regarding those values - even at the cost of losing the
project or our fees. Sometimes, the best sustainable decision is NOT to propose
anything at all, if the situation says so! Fundamentally, as an act of
designing, it means to de-clutter our minds from loads of information and
realize what lies beneath all the layers of our concerns as people. One must
keep on asking oneself – how much is sufficient? How least can an intervention
be done? What is basic? What seems ‘right’? What seems ‘truthful’? If one
persists in exploring these questions through design responses, the spaces will
no doubt be sustainable.
