Building Centres in India

The contribution of building centresto low-cost housing in India

STUDY OF INDIAN BUILDING CENTRES DESCRIBINGFACTORS LEADING TO THEIR SUCCESS, WORKINGMETHODS AND REASONS FOR REPLICATION

Kiran Keswani

120 Flensburger Burse, 24943 Flensburg, Germany

The author argues that the government’s role could change from being the providerto becoming a facilitator. Progress in the Building Centre Programme in India hasbeen slow and a three pronged policy is advocated – examining archaic rules,disseminating technical information, and training in updated technologies whilstcontinuing with those technologies that are cost-effective.

D’apres l’auteur, le gouvernement pourrait passer du role de prestataire a celui de catalyseur.L’avancement du programme de ‘Centres de construction’ en Inde a marque certains retards. Onpreconise, pour en accelerer la mise en oeuvre, une action sur trois fronts – l’analyse critique deregles archaiques, la diffusion d’informations techniques, la formation aux technologies recentes –ainsi que la preservation des techniques s’etant revelees les plus rentables.

Keywords: building centres, low-cost housing, role of government, India

Introduction

An analysis of the housing situation in India involvesprimarily a study of housing for the poor, of whichthere are two kinds – the urban poor and the ruralpoor.

Can the poor in India ever hope for a house? Howcan the government ever forward aid to such largenumbers of homeless and for how long? Who willpay? There could be free housing for the poor orsubsidized housing. But, if we are trying to build somany free and subsidized houses, the cost per housemust not be high. And, therefore, can houses costless, can they be affordable?

What do governments in other countries do tohouse the poor? Is ‘providing’ housing to the poor theonly solution? Can the government facilitate income-generating activities to increase the earning capacityof its people? Can it facilitate the building of housesthrough easier building norms, through new, innova-tive, low-cost building materials, through supportingresearch on indigenous building methods?

Perhaps, the housing needs of every developingcountry are different. The scale of the housingproblem may vary, the expectations of the peoplemay differ, their priorities may not be the same. Therecannot be one answer to ‘better housing’, because insome countries, like India, it is more the question

‘Can I ever have a house?’ instead of ‘Can I get abetter house?’ Some people literally may need only aroof over their heads. Should we offer them a four-sided, concrete box instead?

Can they not be allowed to decide for themselveshow much they need, what they can afford, and whatthey can do without, until better times? Can wepromise them better times through better employ-ment opportunities? Can we remove obstacles fromthe path they take, to obtain the shelter that they musthave?

In 1991, urban housing shortages were found to be9.6 million units. The government policies havechanged over the years from slum clearance to slumupgrading to slum redevelopment. Subsidies and loanschemes have failed to make a signi�cant impact onthe housing situation. It is being increasingly felt bygovernmental agencies and non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs) that technological diffusion may beone of the solutions to the housing problem.

Technological diffusion seeks to reduce the cost ofdwelling units to the minimum so that it matches theaffordability of the people in the low-income group. Itachieves this by developing and disseminating morecost-effective, technological alternatives for buildinghouses. In India, technological diffusion is taking placethrough building centres.

The concept of building centres in India, is less than

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1 1997

0961-3218 1997 E&FN Spon

ten years old. These training-cum-production buildingcentres are targeted to help improve the housingsituation for the poor. The building centre in Indiadesigns building components that are cost-effectiveand that preferably use local materials. It undertakesthe design and implementation of housing projects forthe low-income groups. Innovative building materialsproduced at the centres are used with indigenousbuilding technologies in the execution of these pro-jects. On-site training programmes help provide thenecessary skilled labour for the projects. Thus, thebuilding centres achieve affordable housing for thepoor and at the same time, increase the income-generating capacity of the artisans.

The �rst such centre was started in Quilon in theState of Kerala by the District Collector on 28th August1986. Based on the success of this centre, also calledthe Nirmithi Kendra, the Ministry of Urban Develop-ment and HUDCO (Housing and Urban DevelopmentAuthority) decided to start a model building centre inDelhi at Nizamuddin and subsequently establish anetwork of centres all over the country.

In 1988, the Nizamuddin building centre was estab-lished in Delhi with �nancial support from HUDCOand the Ministry of Urban Development. To date,HUDCO has helped and encouraged the setting up ofmany more building centres in the various states inIndia.

These centres have proved already to be a success-ful strategy in some parts of the country. In otherareas, the centres were established with the samefervour, but the growth pattern is relatively poor. Inspite of this, HUDCO continues to sponsor morecentres.

This paper will try to study some of these buildingcentres, to know which centres have been moresuccessful, what were the factors leading to theirsuccess, what are their working methods so that thesemay be replicated. It will be useful also, to see thebuilding centres in relation with each other, to see ifthey work in isolation or sometimes also with oneanother. Before the government provides �nance formore such centres an analysis will maybe help guidesome of their decisions. A study of earlier centrescould help make new and better proposals forbuilding centres in the future.

There are two kinds of building centre. There arethose set up by NGOs, who make applications toHUDCO for loans and set up a building centre in theirrespective areas. Alongside the building centressupported by the government, there are also thecentres established by private entrepreneurs.

Both these kinds of centres have served theirpurpose for being outlets for technological innova-tions and skill upgrading. Some of them are nowrethinking the roles they can play in the housingsector. As grass-root institutions, being in closeproximity to the people and with a deeper under-standing of the factors that may help or hinder thehousing process, they are able to de�ne what thegovernment can or cannot do to facilitate housingdelivery in the country.

The author also looks at the generation of newideas with respect to the wider policy context andstudies if these will in fact be acceptable to thegovernment and what will be the implications of suchguidelines if they come into effect. If building centres

all over India identify such measures that would relatemost appropriately to their local conditions, will thegovernment be able to incorporate these in their ownplanning strategies to make the approach to thehousing problem as realistic as possible?

The research question

How do building centres contribute to low-cost housing in India?Housing in India has been unaffordable for the poor.Building centres hope to contribute to making housingmore affordable. Are there reasons to call the BuildingCentre Programme, a successful programme? Thiswill be the subject of this research.

The primary objective of the Building CentreProgramme is to make possible houses that peoplecan afford. No amount of subsidies can solve theproblem of housing delivery in a country where theper capita income is as low as it is in India, wherealmost half the population in some cities live in theslums, where the growth of the economy of thecountry is not going to be high enough for timelysolutions to the shelter issue, where people mustcontinue to live on the pavements because they worktirelessly through the day only to be able to affordfood.

This paper looks at one of the constraints thatcomes in the way of the poor obtaining their house,which is its price. It is always too high. The buildingcentres are offering innovative building componentsand techniques that make houses less expensive.

The approach for this studyHow do these building centres achieve a low price? Isit really a low price, i.e. are these ‘appropriatetechnologies’ cost-effective? Or, do the houses thatcost little to build become expensive to maintain? Canthey be liveable houses or can this housing providean environment that the people can identify with? Arethese innovative technologies accessible to the poor?

The investigation for this paper has included visitsto three of the most active building centres in India –the Nizamuddin building centre in Delhi, NirmithiKendra in Kerala and Anangpur building centre inHaryana. It has observed the functioning of thecentres, to measure, to record and to interpret, themeaning of their efforts. It was also considerednecessary to study the housing situations in otherdeveloping countries where similar centres are inexistence. This part of the study must be limited tothe literature available on this subject and to docu-mentary �lms on these issues.

The paper will study the role of building centres inthe housing delivery system in India. The buildingcentres contribute to it through technological innova-tions (in the form of improvised building componentsusing local materials, and cost-effective method-ologies of building demonstrated in the housingprojects implemented by the building centres them-selves), skill upgrading and policy formulation. Thestudy will be divided into two parts.

It will �rst undertake a study of three buildingcentres: (i) Nizamuddin building centre, Delhi; (ii)

BUILDING CENTRE CONTRIBUTION TO LOW-COST HOUSING IN INDIA 51

Nirmithi Kendra, Kerala; and (iii) Anangpur buildingcentre, Haryana.

These case-studies were selected because thesecentres seemed more successful than the others. Thestudy de�nes their philosophy, their approach, thestrategies used in resolving housing issues, thecontext in which they functioned and the �nancialaspects of the schemes undertaken by the centres. Ofthese, Nirmithi Kendra in Kerala was the �rst buildingcentre started in India in 1986. On the basis of thesuccess of this centre, the Government of Indiainitiated a National Building Centre Programmethrough the Housing and Urban DevelopmentCorporation (HUDCO) and the Nizamuddin buildingcentre was set up in Delhi. The Anangpur buildingcentre was set up by a private entrepreneur inHaryana without �nancial support from HUDCO.

The paper will also look at the role of entrepreneurialgrass-root institutions in housing policy.

The relevant factors

An analysis of these building centres in India high-lights a few relevant factors. There are the govern-ment-sponsored building centres that are managedby non-governmental organizations and the privatebuilding centres that entrepreneurs have developedinto viable enterprises offering viable housing.

The building centres work with indigenous materi-als and alternative technologies. It is to be seen ifthese technologies are really cost-effective. They alsohave skill upgrading and information disseminationprogrammes. This ensures that there will be acontinuity of skills and ideas, that there will be techno-logical diffusion; what one has discovered, more willbene�t from; where one has made mistakes, otherswill not repeat; where one has failed, others willinspire.

The underlying assumptions

The assumptions underlying this study are:

· non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can makevaluable contributions to the building centre pro-gramme;· indigenous technologies can be more cost-effec-tive than the present building techniques that followwestern standards;· policy suggestions by grass-root institutions mayhelp the housing delivery system at a broader level.

Some of the building centres in India

The Ministry of Urban Development and HUDCO haddecided to launch a national programme of setting upa network of building centres all over the country forpromoting innovative cost-effective technologies andtraining artisans. Most importantly, they would offeraffordable housing solutions.

These building centres were expected to be auton-

omous societies under the managerial control of acombination of public institutions and professionals.Due to an inherent resistance to change from themunicipal authorities, the programme took consider-able time to pick up and received mixed responsesfrom the various states. Often, it was not just the stateagencies who were hesitant to adopt the new technol-ogies but also professionals and contractors.

The Government of the State of Kerala took adecision to set up building centres in all the districtheadquarters. Sites were identi�ed for this purpose.The area of the site was required to be 1.5–2.0 acres.Today, there are 14 such centres in Kerala. Theiractivities are co-ordinated by a state level NirmithiKendra (building centre).

The Government of India exempted levy of exciseduty on various building components produced at thebuilding centres up to November 1991. This acted asa major incentive to the building centres.

HUDCO initiated a dialogue with DDA (DelhiDevelopment Authority) – Slum Wing, to collaboratein setting up a building centre in Delhi in order toimprove its own perceptions and to create a model,where visitors from various states in India could getinspired. The Slum Wing made land available in SaraiKaley Khan, Nizamuddin. The Nizamuddin buildingcentre was developed on this site. A society wasregistered with representatives from HUDCO, DDA,the Ministry, CBRI (Central Building and ResearchInstitute) and the School of Architecture and Planning.Anil Laul, who had been involved in developing andpromoting innovative technologies, was placed incharge of the centre and designated Chief Consultant,Building Centre Programme, HUDCO.

Nizamuddin building centre (NBC), DelhiThe philosophyWhy are we not able to satisfy the basic housingrequirements of the landless? Perhaps because thereis nothing ‘basic’ about ‘basic housing’. A de�nitemisnomer, the term seems to negate all that isimaginative, relegating the priorities of the needy tothose of municipal authorities, reducing lifestyles tostatistics and an idealized set of criteria.

Any success in providing appropriate, low-costsolutions for the shelter problems of the urban poorhas been questionable, any solution seems to denyconventional planning orthodoxy.

A new set of pragmatic and responsive settlementstandards must evolve. Studies of slum settlementsseem to indicate an apparent inversion of valueswhere space often takes precedence over perma-nence. This seems especially true of the publicspaces in slum areas, which are characterized bytheir richness and diversity.

However, most sites and services projects minimizethese circulation spaces, making them rudimentaryand inadequate, and inhibiting the dwellers’ socialand spatial lifestyles.

The building centre hopes to propagate the use ofinnovative building technologies that are low-cost andwhich could be the grammar for a new architecturallanguage that can lead to a more humane environ-ment.

The Slum Wing, Delhi Development Authorityentrusted to the building centre in Nizamuddin, a

52 KESWANI

number of slum redevelopment projects on a turnkeybasis, many of which have already been completed.

The centre hopes that when housing schemes areimplemented in the future by the government or byother agencies, they will also develop settlementpatterns that are more suitable to the lifestyles of thecommunities they are built for. The Nizamuddinbuilding centre believes that it is not enough if thepoor are given a minimum built-up area. It isimportant that this is more than just a unit comprisingwalls and a roof. Thus, providing the right kind ofspaces is more important than providing permanentstructures that do not adapt suitably to the needs ofthe inhabitants.

Often, Slum Rehabilitation Schemes have not in-cluded in their programming the impact of therelocation of the slum on the income-generatingactivities of the slum-dwellers. Therefore, it is essentialthat efforts be made towards designing better settle-ment patterns to accommodate and even improvefurther the possibilities for income-generation. Thelayout of the roads within the settlement should beinformal and in tune with the earlier character of theslums and also responsive to the gradual growth ofthe community. Provisions may be made at therelevant road junctions, turnings and cul-de-sacs toincorporate small, public squares for open marketactivities.

The Nizamuddin building centre states that studiesof slum settlements has indicated that ‘space oftentakes precedence over permanence’. This impliesthat the nature of the existing spaces in the earliersettlements must be studied to be replicated in thenew design, i.e. whether the spaces utilized for theslum-dweller’s enterprise are enclosed, semi-enclosed, or open. Does the enterprise �ourishspeci�cally in only one or the other kind of space?

For instance, if there is a diamond-cutting industry,as in the town of Surat in Gujarat, it requires naturallight conditions and workspaces are necessarily semi-enclosed (verandahs) which have ample daylight toallow accuracy in diamond-cutting. Or, as in the caseof Dharavi, the large slum area in Bombay, many ofthe inhabitants of the slum are part of the leatherindustry that is thriving in the slum settlement. Thetanneries obviously cannot utilize indoor residentialspaces as work areas.

Any new housing scheme must identify the differentkinds of spaces that may be needed in the newsettlement. If an open space is being utilized forincome-generating activities, then, is this open space,a private open space/a public open space? Is it thestreet or the verandah or an inner room? Accordingly,in the new layout, external public spaces may bedesigned to be extensions to the houses, if required.

The approachAt the Nizamuddin building centre, traditional technol-ogy harnesses natural materials (like stone and mud)and waste products (such as using �yash to makebricks). Local artisans hone their skills to match thechanging times and circumstances.

The centre has designed and produced varioustypes of building blocks in mud and in concrete withattractive fascia in stone, brick-bats etc. It hasdesigned funicular shells, octa-geodule roo�ngsystems in various materials, the thermocole core

reinforced cement concrete (RCC) panel, egg-cratepanels, space frame, improvised beams, columns andfoundation systems, doors, �ooring and other buildingcomponents. The centre has also developed andimplemented interlocking cluster planning layouts forhousing projects, to improve land utilization and socialresponsibility.

The NBC recruits the construction worker in thecity, who is the artisan and returns him to his localbackground as the habitat worker. He returns to helpsolve the local housing problems with appropriatelow-cost building technologies and to teach otherswhat he has been taught for better employment,income generation and better housing.

The strategies supporting technologicalinnovationFor better construction with appropriate low-costtechnology, the NBC suggests that a housing schemeshould try to:

· reduce land saleability to a minimum throughcluster planning;

· reduce density and contain future growth perhectare;

· reduce development costs to the bare minimum;· remove material judiciously to increase the

strength of structural elements;· utilize elements in compression (as in traditional

construction that used building techniques such asarches and vaults which give rise to compressiveforces) instead of in tension.

The basic aim behind the various schemes of thebuilding centre is ‘to use less material to achieve thesame, if not better results’.

Cost reductionThe centre tries to achieve cost reductions through itsinnovativeness in design of building components andbuilding techniques. Costs are affected by the designof a component or technique, but also depend on thespeci�cations (i.e. the material mixes varied to suitrequirements) and on the availability of the rawmaterials at a particular time. However, the priceswould then vary only if there is a change in the marketrates of raw materials like cement and steel.

The recommended building systems try to reducethe input of expensive materials. They try to increaseinstead the labour input, since labour is abundant andcheap in India. Overall, the systems suggested by theNBC achieve an approximate saving of 25%.

The common sense approach to architectureThe certi�ed professional often does a great deal ofharm to other people, by assuming that he knowsmore than the ‘uneducated’ by virtue of his schooling.All that second- and third-hand information andintellectual exercising does for him, however, is toreduce his ability to listen and learn about situationssigni�cantly different from his own social and economicexperience {1}.

Governmental agencies had in the past, developedhousing programmes for the low-income groups inthe urban centres. These usually took the form ofidentical, row-houses or identical, detached unitswhich were repeated over the given land allocation. Intheir hasty attempts to provide shelter to the home-


less, the voluntary organizations and the governmenthad sacri�ced the human need of identity to beexpressed in the architectural and interior designs ofhouses.

The easy and quick solutions had created an alienenvironment for the people. It was felt that if cost-effective solutions were adopted for housing theurban poor, the people would even begin to makedemands for this appropriate indigenous technology.It would be a low-cost architecture with inherentaesthetics that bore a relationship to traditional forms,to climate, to culture as well as to modern day-to-dayneeds.

Functioning of the Nizamuddin building centre asHUDCO’s national centreThe centre implemented a number of projects forSlum Wing, DDA and also other organizations. Theseprojects were Paryog Vihar, Bhartiyam Gram, nightshelters, pay and use toilets, etc.

It has also assisted HUDCO in promoting buildingcentres in other places. In order to motivate localauthorities to set up similar building centres it tookthe responsibility to execute projects outside Delhi. Itbuilt 32 houses in Faridabad and trained local arti-sans. It assisted in building transit accommodation for500 families in Jammu for migrants from Srinagarthereby activating the building centre in Jammu. InTechnology Park, linked to the Gas Victims Housing inBhopal, it built a cluster to propagate their technolo-gies.

Apart from training professionals and artisans formeeting its own requirements, the NBC has beentraining of�cials of HUDCO and professionals andartisans of other building centres to give impetus tothe Building Centres Programme. Young architectsrecruited for appointment as Development Of�cers inManipur and Sikkim and masons for these statesunderwent training here. Similarly, there have alsobeen engineers and masons from the Goa BuildingCentre who trained at NBC.

A large number of visitors including union and stateministers, chairmen, chief executives, engineers andarchitects of state authorities, practising architects andengineers, private developers as well as home own-ers, frequently visit the Nizamuddin building centre.The NBC also organizes various exhibitions on behalfof HUDCO not only in Delhi but also outside, inLucknow, Gwalior, etc.

Thus, the building centre at Nizamuddin has beenfunctioning as the research, training and developmentalcentre of HUDCO at the national level.

Nirmithi Kendra, KeralaThe philosophyThe work of the Nirmithi Kendra is based on theefforts of Laurie Baker, the architect who has beenoffering cost-effective housing solutions to the peopleof Kerala for the last two decades. The work of thisbuilding centre can be characterized, as noted byAnita Katyal (in the Times of India, August 1990):

Laurie Baker’s work has amply demonstrated that housesshould be designed and built for people with names andnot for categories labelled ignominously as EWS, LIG and

HIG (Economically Weaker Section, Low-Income Group andHigh-Income Group).

The approachThe Nirmithi Kendra at Quilon in Kerala often supple-ments the efforts of organizations such as COSTFORD(Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Develop-ment) which is a non-pro�t voluntary organization thattrains masons, artisans, carpenters, architects andengineers in low-cost constructions practices andtransfers them to the �eld through its housingprojects.

Their projects provide simple layouts, economicalhouse designs, use of locally available materialresources and indigenous construction techniqueswhich reduce material costs and are labour-intensive.

Urban–rural continuumToday, Kerala presents a pattern of human settlementsquite distinct from the rest of the country. Over thepast years, the large cities in Kerala experiencedconsiderable growth resulting in a signi�cant increasein land values.

The money earned in the Gulf states by the largenumber of workers who moved there during the oilboom, further fostered this growth. The investors,however, soon found the high land values unaccepta-ble and started investing along the highways wherefairly developed rural settlements were already exist-ing.

This has led to a signi�cant upgrading of the ruralsettlements along the highways which have assumednumerous urban characteristics. Kerala now presentsan urban–rural continuum where large urban centresare linked together in settlements along highwayswhich combine urban characteristics with an essen-tially rural economy. This pattern of development hasled to a signi�cant dispersal of populations andreduction of pressure on the congested cities {2}.

However, the houses produced during this periodsought to imitate western trends. Concrete was usedpredominantly instead of the less expensive, localmaterials and constructions were mainly multi-storeyed. Multi-storeyed housing was less suitable tothe life-styles of the people here and therefore,perhaps not the most appropriate system to beutilized in this region.

The strategyTwo housing colonies developed in Trichur at Laloorand Nallankara are good examples of the strategiesproposed by COSTFORD and the Nirmithi Kendratowards solving the housing crisis in Kerala.

Baker construction systems are propagated throughthe Nirmithi Kendras. Examples of numerous jali(brick lattice) designs are to be seen at the NirmithiKendra in Trichur which show that a verandah jali maysometimes suf�ce to lend individuality to a house. Italso demonstrates the versality in designs of brickcompound walls with reinforced cement concrete(RCC) coping and various kinds of gate posts. Innova-tions such as patch-pointing, brick jali, cowdung and�y-ash �ooring, brick corbelling, etc have beenincorporated in the housing projects. Sometimes,these centres develop products such as the hollowconcrete block, funicular shells, etc.

54 KESWANI

Needless to say, this has to be done with a certainamount of trial and error, based on the availability ofonly theoretical guidelines to suit Indian social andphysical conditions. Often, the buildings do not needseparate and costly ‘good �nishing’, since the materi-als used for structural purposes are put together torender aesthetics that are more natural and pleasingthan marble cladding or walnut polish can everprovide.

Design and executionThe process of design and that of execution on-siteoverlap to a great degree at Laloor and Nallankara asin most of Baker’s other works in the �eld of housing.No elaborate drawings exist for either of theseprojects. Most of the construction is based onsketches (and not on pre-determined, elaboratedesigns) made by Laurie Baker who prefers to alsoallow for innovations on-site by the labourers. The staffmembers of Nirmithi Kendra and COSTFORD super-vise the on-site development and improvise as andwhen necessary.

Some of the architects who worked here had earlierparticipated in Laurie Baker’s other projects andhence were themselves skilled artisans in brickwork.Some of the labourers who helped build these twocolonies had received training at the Nirmithi Kendrain Quilon.

The � nancial outlayThere are different funding programmes at the statelevel for the implementation of such housing projects:

· DST program (Department of Science and Technol-ogy): This consists of ten training programmes formasons in order to create an awareness of cost-effective and innovative technology. Three houses arebuilt during each training programme and standthereafter as demonstration houses. This scheme hasbeen implemented in Trichur, Palghat and Allepey.Thirty houses have thus been erected for the low-income group; the bene�ciaries having been selectedby the DST.· Laloor housing programme: This programme pro-vided 31 houses; 18 of which were �nanced through aloan scheme by the Government of Kerala State andbuilt with the help of COSTFORD and Nirmithi Kendrabetween June 1987 and June 1988. Each of these 18houses has been built at an approximate cost of Rs8 000.· HUDCO programme: This involves the constructionof 250 houses in the Trichur District at the cost of Rs12 000 per house. Selection of bene�ciaries is madeby the District Collectorate, Trichur.

Anangpur building centreThe approachThe Anangpur building centre carries out buildingmaterials research, develops cost-effective technolo-gies of building, provides on-site training for masons,architects and engineers participating in any of itsprojects and prepares documentation of its work forfurther disemmination. It implements housing projectsfor the low-income group as with institutional build-ings using its cost-effective techniques. It employs aself-sustainable work methodology.

The building systems being developed and intro-duced into projects are seen by the Anangpur build-ing centre not as ‘innovations’ but as the ‘acceptedsystems’ of the past. It considers RCC constructions,amongst the systems in use today, as an innovativesystem that has still to prove its worth, to stand the testof time. It considers what are referred to as conven-tional systems as the actual unconventional systems ofconstruction. The traditional systems are the conven-tional systems and they are time-tested. So, theAnangpur building centre resurrects the basic, com-mon-sensical application of materials instead of usingthe currently used systems that go against thebehaviour of materials.

Information disseminationThe centre considered that an information dissemina-tion system was also necessary to support the techno-logical diffusion. Subsequently, the Habitat TechnologyNetwork was introduced at the Nizamuddin buildingcentre. This network is now being operated by theAnangpur building centre in Haryana.

The aim of the Habitat Technology Network is toprovide commonly sought after information and dataon alternative building techniques in a comprehensiveand easy to understand manner. The TechnologyNetwork makes efforts to reach out to people throughthe medium of audio-visual video presentations. It ismeant for a wide viewership comprising of architects,builders or developers and people interested inknowing more about cost-effective construction sys-tems. It helps owners make the correct decisionsabout the building system that suits their needs best,gives architects the information they require aboutavailability of material, structural strength, ease ofconstruction and the time factor. It is also the trainingmanual for the mason. Labourers can learn how toadapt their skills in using the new techniques.

At the building centres, innovation and constructionis a continuous process. Over a period of time, severaldemonstration projects have been undertaken, both atactual user site locations, and in the campus of thebuilding centres itself. Technological innovation is agradual process and the new, emerging trends inalternative techniques are conveyed to the users andbuilders through the Habitat Technology Network.

The centre decided to use the audio-visualapproach. The experience of the Nizamuddin buildingcentre showed that to learn more about a buildingsystem, there is no real substitute to watching actualconstruction. No amount of written material or stillpictures can make up for not being there when astructure comes up. Being at a demonstration projectsite is not always possible for everyone.

The Habitat News Network aims to capsule theprocess of weeks and sometimes months of actualconstruction into short demonstration sequenceswhich are regularly �lmed at each important stage ofconstruction.

The role of building centres intechnological innovations for housingThere is usually a tendency to identify low costbuilding methods with some building blocks, roo�ngpanels, etc and enquire how much saving in cost persquare foot will result. This is a highly restrictive andunrealistic way of evaluating low-cost methods. There


are a variety of factors which affect building costs andunless these are concurrently dealt with, substantialsavings cannot materialize. For example, using low-cost blocks with wasteful use of land and highconstruction overheads may ultimately prove expen-sive.

What should be the criteria for calling a particularbuilding method low-cost? Often, low-cost is identi�edwith low performance and rejected by home builders.It is important that in spite of the low cost, theperformance should be as per the requirements ofthe building codes. Further, the evaluation should beon the basis of the performance required from aparticular structure and on the individual’s needs. Forexample, a poor family may not mind a smallrecurring maintenance cost if the initial cost of thehouse is low.

In recent years, in India, the cost of labour hasincreased but the increase in the cost of materials hasbeen even higher. The cost of labour, thus, continuesto be much less than the building material costs.Therefore, in India, any building method whichreduces the use of material, especially cement, steeland bricks, even if it is more demanding on labour,will result in overall savings. Some of the innovationsdeveloped at the building centres, in walling materials,roo�ng systems, �nishes, shuttering and the use ofmud will therefore be described.

Walling materialsOn account of the poor quality of the bricks beingproduced in the county, it has become necessary toplaster and paint brickwork, further increasing thecost of construction of walls.

The introduction of modular bricks based onunscienti�c data has added to the problem. TheIndian classical bricks were no more than 2–21

2 inchesthick facilitating the proper baking of the core of thebrick. The British had introduced the 9 x 41/2 x 3"bricks during their colonial rule in India. Their usecontinues to this day although they are unsuitable.Rejecting traditional wisdom and misinterpreting theconcept of modular coordination, the Central BuildingResearch Institute (CBRI) introduced the 8 x 4 x 4"(20 x 20 x 10 cm) bricks which are found to be incon-venient for manufacture and handling.

The compressive strength of the walling materialshas to relate to the bearing capacity of the soil onwhich the structure rests. On this basis, the compres-sive strength of 70 kg per cm2 required for burnt claybricks is too high. It seems to have been prescribedsince bricks with this strength have a well-baked,non-absorptive surface. On the other hand, thecompressive strength of dry, unbaked mud bricks is25–30 kg per cm2 which is adequate for mostconstructions but drops when the bricks are wet.

But, the surface of these unbaked mud bricks iswater absorptive and prone to pitting. The stabilizedand compacted mud block technology tried toimprove both the strength of the block and the qualityof its surface. Steel pins introduced into the conven-tional mud block machine create holes in the block,further compressing the mud and increasing itsdensity. Also, drying the inside and the outside of theblock is thus possible with less fuel consumption.Cement dusting after molding helps the surface resistrain. These blocks provide good insulation and the

high density makes half-brick wall, loadbearing con-struction possible.

For walling blocks, a hard surface and a soft corewith the minimum crushing strength seems to be asuitable option. In Wardha, a group of young profes-sionals evolved a burnt clay fascia tile which could belocked into an ordinary adobe mud block. Concur-rently, the Nizamuddin building centre developed arange of lean concrete and mud blocks with attractivepermanent �nish fascia in different shades and differ-ent grades of stone, slate, burnt clay, etc.

The building centre has found these blocks to becost-effective, easy to make in hand moulds or block-making machines by semi-skilled labour. They alsohave a greater variety of applications.

At the Nirmithi Kendra at Quilon, rubble �llerblocks or stone masonry blocks are produced usingrubble and cement mortar. These blocks which canalso be used as foundations save up to 15–20% ascompared to conventional brick masonry.

Laurie Baker uses the rat trap bond in the masonrywork to save on the quantity of bricks used. Also,window openings use brick arches instead ofconcrete lintels and often timber window shutters canbe eliminated altogether by the use of brick jalis. Abrick jali is a lattice or screen made by leavingregular gaps within the brickwork. It has beenincreasingly used by the building centres, especiallyin Kerala, to reduce the costs of thick walls by insteadbuilding cavity walls using the rat trap bond.

Roo� ng systemsEvolving low-cost methods in roo�ng is much morecomplex. Traditional roo�ng in tiles, slate, etc requiredtimber sub-structure and ceiling. Timber has nowbecome scarce and expensive.

With the advent of reinforced cement concrete,RCC is now largely used because of its durability andease of handling of the material. RCC is best used intension structures. These, however, need more steeland cement than compression structures. Further,they need more quality control. Poor quality of cementor an inadequate cover over the steel can lead tocorrosion of the steel and the failure of the structure.

The other systems for roofs and intermediate �oorswere largely compression structures like domes,vaults and jack-arches. Such compression structuresrequire less material, have considerable strength butthe shuttering is dif�cult and expensive. If the pro-blems of shuttering and the possible leakage at jointscan be resolved, compression structures can bedeveloped as the most appropriate low-cost roo�ngsystems.

The recent solutions developed by the buildingcentres, to overcome these problems of shutteringhave been the geodesic domes and the funicularshells. These reduce the shuttering required andtherefore bring down costs of construction.

At the Nizamuddin building centre, the funicularroo�ng system is widely used. It is found to bestructurally sound, cost-effective and easy toconstruct. The funicular shell is light in weight anddoes not require centering. It uses 25% of steel ascompared to that used for ordinary concrete. It is agood alternative to RCC beam and slab constructionfor small to medium spans. A single funicular shell canspan a grid ranging from 0.8–3.0 m without inter-

56 KESWANI

mediate supports. With intermediate beams, the totalspan possible is adequate for most residential build-ings. The economy is achieved by reducing theamount of steel, cement and shuttering timber in theconstruction by using prefabricated, reusable, �bre-glass moulds. De-moulding is done within 24 hours.Various patterns can be created whilst laying thebricks/stone chips, eliminating the need to plaster theroof from the inside.

The Nirmithi Kendra at Quilon advocates the use offerrocement rafters and tiled roo�ng as opposed tothe expensive timber support structure for roo�ng.The percentage in cost saving by using ferrocementrafters and tiles is 17.5% when compared to timberrafters. Ferrocement rafters protect forest wealth. Theyhave a longer durability and therefore the mainte-nance or replacement is not a frequent burden on theuser.

FinishesNowadays, in the cities, there is a trend to makebuildings in one material, bricks or concrete, and�nish them in other materials through plastering orcladding. This increases costs substantially. Poorquality of bricks and brickmasonry has compelledhome builders to plaster and paint walls resulting inhigh building as well as maintenance costs.

Houses can do without �nishes if the brick masonryitself is used innovatively. In some housing projectsexecuted in Kerala by the Nirmithi Kendra, patch-pointing was used in plastering to avoid the extraexpense of providing �nishes to the walls.

ShutteringFor RCC and other kinds of building systems, shutter-ing becomes an expensive component. It also resultsin considerable wastage of timber which is a scarceenvironmental resource. In addition, the timber shut-tering often creates a surface which is of unevennature and has to be plastered.

Fibre glass moulds developed by the buildingcentres are now being used in some housing projects,instead of the conventional timber shuttering. Theirinitial cost is found to be higher but they can be useda large number of times and therefore are highly costeffective.

These �bre-glass moulds result in surfaces whichcan be left exposed; unpainted or painted withoutplaster. If shuttering contractors are promoted whowould have an inventory of standardized shuttering in�bre glass (or another appropriate material) to hirethese out to home builders this would further reduceoverall costs of shuttering for a given housing project.

MudHome builders, except those who have been tradition-ally living in mud houses, are usually reluctant to buildin mud. Recently, environmentally conscious groups inIndia and abroad, have taken to building in mud evenin the cities. But, by and large, people hesitate to usemud structurally.

The building centres realize that mud can be put tosecondary uses like internal plasters. In India, we stillhave a large number of traditional artisans and house-wives who can provide excellent �nishes, a variety oftextures and colours in mud. Protected by a coat offevicol or even rice water, they can remain fresh and

attractive for several years. The market prices of paintand other �nishing material are much higher than thisimprovised, indigenous method of �nish that usesmainly mud with rice water or with a little extraexpense can be combined with fevicol to makedurable surfaces.

Attractive built-in furniture, otherwise an expensiveitem in wood, can also be made in mud. There aredesign inputs of a different kind but an expensivematerial such as wood can now be replaced withmud.

Mud ‘phuska’ for thermal protection and waterproo�ng of RCC roofs is already widely used in someparts of India. The building centres are now propagat-ing the use of this lesser-known technique for thermalprotection and water proo�ng.

The role of building centres in skillupgradingDeveloping formal training programmes for artisansin the construction industry is not an easy task. Thelevel of education amongst these people is verylow and the number of people involved are very high.A decentralized, informal skills developmentprogramme with on-the-job training would be per-haps most appropriate.

The �rst training-cum-production centre in thebuilding trade was established in Quilon in the Stateof Kerala. Artisans were trained in fabricating varioustypes of walling blocks, roo�ng panels, etc whichwere used extensively in urban and rural housingprogrammes.

The small contractorWhile the training of building artisans through anetwork of building centres is vital for improving thequality of construction, building artisans cannot workin isolation. After training at the building centres, theymay or may not be able to put this training to useunless encouraged.

Most home owners get their construction work donethrough small contractors who mobilize skilled andunskilled workers and execute jobs on a labourcontract. The skilled artisans can become such smallcontractors with entrepreneurial capabilities.

It would, therefore, be necessary for the buildingcentres to also organize training programmes forsmall contractors in which apart from improved build-ing skills, management issues are taught. They canlearn more about interpretation of architectural draw-ings, preparing estimates of small jobs, accounting,labour laws, etc. The small contractors thus trainedwould play a crucial role in promoting affordablehousing.

Habitat polytechBetween the two levels, of professional architects andengineers, and the building artisans are the �eldsupervisory personnel. These may be junior engi-neers, community development workers, etc. Thesefunctionaries play a crucial role in motivating, guidingand assisting the communities in improving theirliving and economic conditions.

The training requirements of these intermediaryworkers also needs to be attended to. The juniorengineers may need to know more about communitydevelopment issues and the community development


workers may need to understand basic technicalissues. In other words, both need broader knowledgeand understanding of habitat issues and the appro-priate attitude for resolving these issues.

In Delhi, a habitat polytech has been establishedjointly by the Slum Wing of the DDA and HUDCO fortraining supervisory personnel. It also provides train-ing for non-governmental social workers.

It may be necessary to set up such habitatpolytechs in every state which could also function asthe apex institution for coordinating the work of thevarious building centres in the state.

Employment and environmentalimplicationsIt is hoped that the Building Centre Programme willalso have wide employment and environmentalimplications.

The effects of building centres on employmentgenerationThe development of shelter can perhaps be used alsoas a tool for employment generation. An informalconstruction skills development programme with on-the-job training is one of the objectives of the BuildingCentre Programme. It does not require separatefunding from the government. It can be a self-sustain-ing industry.

Maybe, the people from the low-income groups forwhom the houses are being built can be trained(women also), in fabricating various types of wallingblocks, roo�ng panels, etc which will be usedextensively to construct their own settlements, and willallow them in the future to market such products ortechniques learnt to outside buyers/developers.

If a placement cell is established to link the newentrants in the construction industry with the labourmarket, it will assist the individuals who may want totake this opportunity to generate further income.

Loans may be given to new artisans to start small-scale building materials manufacturing units/co-operatives of their own that develop innovative, cost-effective building components, using indigenousmaterials.

Expensive or high technology components oftenused in public institution projects could be replacedby products of small-scale industries. For example,large brick manholes could be replaced by small,preformed earthenware chambers. Thus, a marketcan be created for some of the building elements thatcan be designed and manufactured by the trainees ofthe building centres.

Most home-owners in a city get their constructionwork done through small contractors who mobilizeskilled and unskilled workers and execute jobs on alabour contract. The artisans can become such smallcontractors if they also have entrepreneurial capabil-ities and this perhaps requires governmental supportin terms of additional training in management skills tothe artisans.

To strengthen income-generating activities, a studyof the market may be made to identify sources ofproducts and the �nancial relations among producersand merchants to �ll the gaps in supply and list thepotential products required. The entrepreneurs canthen have marketing assistance provided.

A revolving fund may be set up for giving short-

term loans for raw materials, machinery and estab-lishment. Loaning facilities may be offered for theenterprises using the solidarity group mechanism and�exibility procedures.

It might be useful to check how regulations can berelaxed for the bene�t of these informal sectorenterprises. These could be building byelaws pertain-ing to commercial premises.

In order to develop appropriate opportunities,especially for those within the low-income group orthose that are part of a slum settlement that is beingrelocated, it may be good to conduct a survey ofemployment seekers, their occupational backgrounds,skill levels, educational levels and the percentage ofmale and female seekers of income-generating activ-ities.

These measures could thus help improve theeconomic base of the people, especially in the low-income groups.

The environmental implicationsIn India, timber is a depleting natural resource. Itneeds to be conserved. Alternative building materialsneed to be found to replace the extensive use oftimber. Timber has been used in the past mainly forroo�ng purposes and also for making doors andwindows.

The building centre has designed new roo�ngsystems that either reduce the use of timber to aminimum or replace its use altogether. Doors andwindows are being designed with cement and coco-nut �bre. Also, ferrocement is being used to makelighter and less expensive doors. RCC frames arebeing manufactured for doors and windows. Theseare cheaper on a mass scale than timber frames. Theyare more durable and better suited for use in wetareas. They are both �re-resistant and termite-proof.

The building centres can also become nodal pointsfor dissemination of ef�cient timber handling prac-tices. It is estimated that 30–40% of the timber is lostdue to outmoded timber handling practices in thecountry. The bulk of this wastage takes place duringthe operations in the forests. The saw mills operatingin various cities and small towns use saws withdefectively designed teeth which leads to substantialwastage of valuable timber. Improved saws and toolsusing appropriate steel and tooth angles for differenttypes of timber work have been developed by thebuilding centres {3}.

Bricks are being made using �y-ash, which isreleased as a waste-product in power stations. Thepresent generation of �y-ash in India is more than 40million tonnes per annum. This �y-ash can be used tomake a number of building products such as clay �y-ash bricks, stabilized mud �y-ash bricks, calciumsilicate bricks, cellular concrete, etc. A large amount(20–50%) of the �y-ash, depending upon the qualityof the soil, can be mixed with it to produce burnt clay�y-ash bricks by conventional or mechanized pro-cesses.

Compacted mud �y-ash blocks stabilized with lime,cement or other chemicals can be produced. Thecalcium silicate brick is a variety of the commonlyknown sand-lime brick using �y-ash in place of quartzsand. Light weight aerated concrete or cellular con-crete can be manufactured by a process involving

58 KESWANI

mixing of �y-ash, quick lime or cement and gypsum{4}.

The environmental problem of excessive quantitiesof �y-ash being released at power stations can beturned to productive uses as stated above. There areseveral units in India, other than the building centresthemselves, who have contributed to the developmentof building products using �y-ash. Through the build-ing centres, these �y-ash bricks can �nd wideracceptance.

The building centres can propagate the use ofenergy-ef�cient practices in the design of humansettlements. They can market or fabricate themselvessolar devices, bio-gas plants, smokeless chulahs(stoves), etc and encourage home owners to usethem. They could also provide maintenance supportfor these devices. For further technical or �nancialassistance, the building centres could contact theDepartment of Non-Conventional Energy Sources(DNES) or the Indian Renewable Energy DevelopmentAgency (IREDA) {3}.

Further observationsAt the Nirmithi Kendra in Kerala, often minor designdecisions are made by the labourers as the workproceeds, like �ooring patterns, entrance details, orsize and proportions of window openings, which arebased on the varying orientations of each house. Anoverall site layout outlines land allocation per houseand gives a rough indication of the location of eachhouse on its respective property. There is one sketchplan and one sketch section prepared for each house.The labourers receive detailed verbal instructionsbefore the start of a project and right through itscompletion. It is a traditional way of house-building,where, very little is pre-planned but much of it is site-speci�c.

The Nizamuddin building centre works towardsprogress in cost-effective technology and developshouses that use basic engineering principles basedon common sense rather than trying to providedesigns for building systems that are only aestheti-cally pleasing or that try to imitate foreign systems.The experimentation, the architect’s enthusiasticapproach to the structure, is infectious. It ingressesinto the attitude of the workers who are now eager tothink and contribute ideas. The architect, the engi-neer, the artist and the craftsman thus work in unisontowards an economics where people matter.

The Bharatiya Gram Project was one of the initialhousing schemes undertaken by the Nizamuddinbuilding centre for design and execution. In thisproject, one of the innovations of the centre, the redmud PVC tiles were being produced on a large scalefor the �rst time. Initially, these were not of therequired quality. There was further experimentationon-site and �nally the appropriate tiles could beproduced. However, the cost of the project increased.There was no provision for such additional expensesand delays occurred in the execution of this impor-tant, time-bound project.

The building centres were therefore asked totemporarily operate under the Public Works Depart-ment norms or else be closed down. It is felt that, if atthis juncture, the contingency funds had been pro-vided to the Nizamuddin building centre, they wouldhave adequately covered the extra costs incurred in

the project and corrective measures would have beentaken. Instead, the building centre concept was seenas a futile exercise and put aside. So, a perfectly goodprogramme of building centres, which was created todesign and implement appropriate technologieswhich were not being practised by the local PublicWorks Departments, today stands subservient to thevery institutions that it was supposed to provide analternative for.

Publications of HUDCO and BMTPC often carrieddocumentation of technologies and planning systemsdesigned by the Nizamuddin building centre. Thesewere sometimes incorrectly featured in the publica-tions leading to inef�ciences when they were repli-cated by other centres.

Any new concept, when being experimented with,in this case, the Building Centre Programme, oftenneeds to be given suf�cient time and adequatesupport by the government, to grow into a viablesystem. According to the Anangpur building centre,inadequacies appearing during the evolutionarystages of the programme, and the continuing inef�-ciencies in the housing delivery system in India, couldperhaps be overcome with changes in some of thegovernment policies.

The role of entrepreneurial grass-rootinstitutions in housing policy

An inadequate housing delivery system has resultedin a large proliferation of slums in the city. In additionto the problems of the poor, there are also theproblems of the unemployed educated, the destituteand senior citizens. Though the government is spend-ing vast sums of money on various programmes forthese groups of people, the requirement for houses isgrowing at a faster pace than they can cope with.

Constrained by their own resources, this segment ofthe population encroaches upon public land orresides in low rental areas which may be devoid ofamenities. The failure of the municipal authorities andthe government housing agencies to serve the pooradequately leads to resentment among them andeventually to a breaking down of law and order.

The government increases investments in urbanareas. But this leads again to migration, resulting inmore high density unliveable pockets within the city.There are always new planning strategies. Thegovernment continues to propose either slum clear-ance or rehabilitation into subsidized, standardized,unliveable, unaffordable housing units. Planners, ad-ministrators, economists, sociologists and architectsattempt to grapple with the situation, but it is acomplicated problem. To understand it completely,the attitude towards development must be broader.

Some non-governmental organizations are workingtowards facilitating houses through the developmentof building centres. They have made some valuablecontributions. There have been constraints in theimplementation of technologies and housing schemesproposed by the building centres also. They work in arestrictive environment controlled by policies thatneed to be redesigned to suit the changing times andthe changing needs. What are the policy changes theysuggest?


Outlined below are some of the recommendationsbrought forth in an interview with Anil Laul, architectand director, Anangpur building centre, Haryana.

· Their homes have been shifted but not theireconomic dependence on the city . . .

Merely moving slum dwellers to the outskirts of thecity does not resolve the issue. They are still econom-ically dependent on the city. This makes them returnto the city, perhaps to another area of the city, tocreate yet another slum. If you move them out, theywill come back. And, if the transport network is alsopoor, it is dif�cult for them to commute daily to work,to the city.

In case the rehabilitation site is on the outskirts ofthe city, a good transportation network becomesimportant. It must be possible for a dweller to get aloan from a bank which must be established in thisarea, to buy and run a bus. This bus serves the slumdweller and the city. Thus, a bus service is estab-lished, where instead of the city feeding the slum, it isthe slum feeding the city. Here, the government onlyplays a facilitator role by making the roads but thebusiness role is played by the people themselves.

The bank also begins to support other smalleconomic activities within the slum which maybeconsidered a part of the village. A villager or a slumdweller works more than 12 hours a day. He is notable to support his large family with a salary earnedout of eight hours of work. So, he works eight hoursfor his employer and returns home to work anothereight hours in domestic cottage industry, e.g. a shoe-lace industry or a woman may manufacture foodproducts at home as an income-generating activity.

· Introducing the differential rate of interest . . .

A differential rate of interest could be introduced inthe credit systems offered by �nancial institutions,such as HUDCO for the low-income groups. Forexample, a man belonging to the economically weakersection (EWS) decides that he needs to build a housethat will cost Rs 30 000. His income is Rs 750 permonth. This man takes a loan of Rs 30 000 to build hishouse. He is asked to pay Rs 250 a month so that hecan pay back the loan in ten years. For ten years, heis paying only Rs 250. If he is earning Rs 750 now, tenyears later, he will be earning Rs 7 500, but stillpaying Rs 250. So, instead, it is suggested that he becharged in the �rst year, only Rs 100, the next year Rs120, the year after Rs 150 and when he is earning Rs7 500, he can be charged upto Rs 750 a month. Thismakes it easier for him to cope with the repayment ofloan, especially in the initial years.

· Planning cannot be centralised or standardised . . .

Centralization of planning policies and strategies, ofmanagement and of maintenance slows down theimplementation process. More appropriate buildingbyelaws, zoning laws, house designs, infrastructuresystems need to be incorporated. Some of thedrawbacks in the present approach are the strictadherence to age-old British standards for alldevelopments, irrevelant setbacks, total segregation ofthe home from the workplace, plotted and multi-storeyed schemes and infrastructural networks atprohibitive costs. The local topography, materials,technologies and skills must be considered. Projects

planned must have functional, economic and politicalfeasibility. Emphasis should be shifted from mereclearance and rehabilitation to that of sustainableimprovement in the physical, �scal and socio-economic spheres.

· Allowing user participation . . .

The dweller is seldom offered choices in the kind ofhouse he needs or can afford. In India, most govern-ment housing schemes are four-�oor monotonousboxes. While this may seem to be a good plan for thefuture, it is impractical. Such a construction requireslarger capital. The buyer does not have enoughmoney to pay for this kind of house all at one time.And often, a person requiring 70 m2. is either forcedto buy 140 m2 under the pretext of ‘foresight’ or justremain shelterless. This unaffordability leads toencroachment. The money that could have been usedfor pro�table ventures is blocked in the future, whilstthe present is left to degenerate.

If the users participate in the process of planning, itwould be clear what their current needs are, whatthey can afford in the present situation and what theywill need and afford in the future. The government canprepare the master plan, but residents’ associationsshould be formed which approve the plans within thevarious development zones. At the housing project atBhumiheen camp in Delhi, every 200 families wereasked to form a residents association, which was aregistered body. The Delhi Development Authoritywas to only authorize land use but the local planningand responsibility of maintenance of the infrastructurewas handed over to the residents associations. Thus, adecentralized and user-oriented approach wouldmean management through cooperatives or neigh-bourhood societies. The cooperatives formed by thepeople would be empowered to make decisions.

· Improving the cost-recovery mechanism for infra-structure development . . .

In the present system, property tax is payable afterevaluation by the assessing of�cer, with suspectcommunication between the payee and the assessor.Vast sums of money are exchanged resulting inmisappropriations. On the one hand, the incumbenthas no say in the civic amenities being offered to him;on the other hand, the government is left with havingto provide mammoth infrastructural facilities with thelimited �nances that intermediary of�cers leavebehind in the of�cial treasury.

At the national level, infrastructure upgrading orproviding new infrastructure cannot be sustained ongrants alone. Also, grants foster dependency insteadof initiating the development, by the people, fromtheir own resources and efforts. Therefore, the con-cepts of ‘affordability’ and ‘cost recovery’ must beintroduced.

In the case of development of middle-incomegroups, the formation of co-operative societies shouldbe encouraged, so that: (i) they can take up theresponsibility of maintenance of the existing infra-structure services; (ii) they can help enumerate thenature and scale of new infrastructure servicesrequired; (iii) repayment may be assigned to theseco-operative societies rather than to individuals.

In the case of development for low-income groups,especially within slum settlements, community groups

60 KESWANI

may be formed so that: (i) awareness campaigns maybe conducted through such groups to convey theimportance of good infrastructure services for goodhealth conditions. This can help improve cost-recov-ery; (ii) the regular, monthly repayments usuallyproposed are often not suitable to the elastic andsporadic income patterns of the urban poor. A�exible repayment system can be introduced i.e.each community group must commit to the repaymentperiod most suitable to them and abide by it.

To make the project ‘affordable’ to the low-incomegroups, services such as community taps and publiclatrines may be adopted in preference to individualservices.

· Instead of encouraging mega-centres, a greaternumber of smaller business districts may be plannedfor . . .

Commercial mega-centres have the trappings ofunaffordable land. They often have poorer land-usepatterns and lower densities too. We must look for ananswer not merely for the slum dwellers but perhapsendeavour to redesign our cities as a whole, and ourenvironment. We need maybe to unlearn certainfundamental wrongs that seem to have become a partof our colonial upbringing.

In a metropolitan area, population density increasesand so does the traf�c on the roads. The roads aremade wider to decrease the congestion. So, there ismore area allocated to roads in the land use. There isalso more area allocated to parking. With the increasein the quantum of traf�c generation and more landunder utilization for cars, the density per acredecreases.

In this mega-centre, all the traf�c wants to come outat the same time. So then, you have a �y-over. Next,you have a clover-leaf �y-over. Then, you have somuch more parking. Then, you have a heat pull-down.Therefore, you have air-conditioning. Therefore, youhave energy going down. Instead, if there were moreand more smaller business districts, after of�ce hours,the traf�c would disperse immediately, it dilutes indifferent directions. The workplace is closer to homeand it is a more ef�cient system.

· The training programmes must be sustainable . . .

When training is offered, it is not always takenseriously. At the Nizamuddin building centre, projectswere undertaken and on-site training was given. Thecentre did not take any grants from the government torun training programmes. It was always on-site train-ing for real projects. When a building centre does notdepend on the government money, it is independentand operates on a self-sustaining basis. The Nizamud-din building centre did 41

2 crore rupees (1 crore 10million) worth of demonstration projects. The peoplewho were trained here started work on their own afterthe completion of the NBC’s projects. There arearchitects working for the Awas Vikas Sansthan. TheCommissioner of the Housing Board of Rajasthantrained here when he was a superintendent engineer.At the lower level, some of the masons who trainedhere have become small contractors. During theBhartiyagram housing project, the Nizamuddin build-ing centre gave training to 1 200 people. So, the on-site training programme is perhaps a sustainablesystem.

· Planning strategies for low-income housing pro-jects need to change. It helps if the building regula-tions enforced by municipal authorities are changedappropriately to suit the changing needs . . .

If the building byelaws allow it, the concept of ‘clusterplanning’ can be adopted for the design of low-income housing schemes. The need to adopt this newmethod of planning arises, in order to discourageencroachment of areas within the new settlements. Ifan individual is being given land at a subsidized rateby the government through one of its schemes for‘housing for low-income group’, then he must not beallowed to make a business proposition out of it asoften happens in the existing government-sponsoredhousing projects.

In cluster planning, the layout consists of clusters ofhouses, grouped together to have common openspaces and interlocked in such a way that encroach-ment is minimized. There is cross-ventilation for everyhouse, and the shared open space remains under thecontrol of the families that are grouped in the cluster.This eliminates illegal construction on mandatoryopen spaces within the lots.

The dwelling unit is designed as a one-roomtenement. If the owner decides to build an additionalroom, he can expand vertically. Because he can onlymake the staircase from inside the house, he cannotmake the new room a rentable proposition.

Dwelling units are grouped around the centralizedopen space. This space acts as an extension to thesemi-enclosed verandah, as play areas for thechildren and as gathering space for the families. Inthe past, housing layouts organized in geometriclinear patterns have created monotonous physicalenvironments with a substantial percentage of the landwasted in circulation and negative spaces. They alsodo not create good neighbourhoods.

About twelve to twenty households form a clusterwith two to three interlocked courts and commonfacilities of wcs, baths and wash areas. About twohundred households form a cooperative. A neighbour-hood is a functional grouping of 4–5000 households.A neighbourhood includes commercial activities, pub-lic institutions and educational institutions.

The dense, low-rise, built-form comprising of nar-row streets and shaded courts created by clusterplanning responds well to the warm climate in India.In spite of most of the activities being conducted inthe open, various levels of privacy are ensuredthrough diagonal entry points and staggered courts.The pre-court area and the court also aid gendersegregation, as desired in some communities.

A slum resettlement project executed by the Niza-muddin building centre at Delhi’s Prayog Vihardemonstrated the bene�ts of the cluster planningapproach. The system was adopted for a site andservices programme at Rohini to house 1100 riotvictims from mixed income group levels. The dwellerswere to be given 18 m2 plots, built up to plinth level,and individual toilets and baths, but they wereexpected to share a courtyard of 51 m2 with fourother dwellers, making it a cluster of �ve dwellingunits.

The rehabilitation scheme at Bhumiheen camp torehabilitate slum dwellers achieved a density of ashigh as 625 dwelling units per hectare. Here, the


number of dwelling units on the �rst �oor wasincreased by bridging the gap between two clustersover narrower roads within the site. The interestingstreet pro�le with alternate shaded and unshadedareas is also in keeping with the traditional Indian builtform.

The cluster planning approach reinforces the tradi-tional, interdependent lifestyle with its multiple useand mixed activity pattern. The �exibility accommo-dates changes and growth in economic and socialactivities. As opposed to the usual segregation ofvarious socio-economic groups (strictly high/middle/low income groups, and economically weaker sec-tions) and activities (strictly residential, commercial,industrial, etc), cluster planning generates a homo-genous neighbourhood.

It also discourages land trading. The selling orpurchasing is through the co-operative. Since neigh-bouring units belong to different clusters, consolida-tion of properties by speculators is dif�cult and thusautomatic checks on buying and selling are intro-duced in the system.

There are also economic bene�ts of the clusterplanning system. The dwelling units use commonwalls and foundations. Energy consumption is less,due to shaded walls. The street length is reduced andtherefore also the lighting requirement. The closeproximity of units leads to a reduction in the cost ofinfrastructural development and maintenance. Thecluster layout reduces the amount of road network,and therefore also the cost of maintenance. Theconventional back-to-back housing scheme results ina road after every two houses and often unnecessarybacklanes.

· Introducing the performance-based contract . . .

The government should develop a framework forperformance-based contracts for the implementationof housing schemes. All work should be grantedunder performance-based contracts with a mainte-nance clause of ten to twenty years. Quality perform-ance would be ensured as shoddy workmanshipwould mean extra labour at escalated prices thefollowing year. The long period of ten to twenty yearswill make certain that developers will deliver goodworkmanship.

This system will include the establishment of ‘trustaccounts’ from which money deposited cannot bewithdrawn by either the developer or the consumeruntil the speci�c ful�llment of the contract. Thesecould also be applicable to government agenciesinvolved in housing and infrastructural development.

· The government’s role should change from soleprovider to facilitator . . .

Better results may be achieved if the role of thegovernment changes from being the provider tobecoming a facilitator. Its functions may include givingland tenure, generating �nance, making external�nance accessible and rationalizing land laws. As afacilitator, the government could also coordinate con-struction contracts, making them performance-based,destandardize bye-laws and make them more people-oriented. Through decentralization, powers and func-tions hitherto resting with the government could betransferred to the district and block levels and �nally

to the co-operatives, empowering them with taxcollection and self-management.

Conclusions

People usually expect evaluation to be able to showclearly whether success has been achieved, but it isoften hard to show clear evidence of success. In fact,it is often easier to show failure. One of the reasonswhy it is dif�cult to show success or failure is thatsuccess or failure can mean different things to differ-ent people {5}.

The building centres may be considered a successbecause as more and more houses are being built bythe building centres:

1. the occupants like the new, unconventionalhomes. The building centres receive requests fromprospective house builders who are seriously inter-ested in using the materials and techniques evolved atthe building centres;2. the systems and materials used in these struc-tures have performed under the stressful conditionsthey have been subjected to;3. these homes have been built at low costs.

However, it is not only a matter of affordability. Thesystem must be self-sustainable, the technologies thatare developed must generate employment within thezones that the materials are taken from or the zonesthat the technologies are incorporated in.

Although there are reasons to consider the BuildingCentre Programme successful, the progress is ratherslow. Several building centres have been establishedall over the country, but not all the centres havedeveloped enough to achieve all the objectives laidout for building centres. Some people continue tothink that the government must give more subsidies tosolve the housing problem. This would only incapaci-tate the people. The governement continues toimpose heavy duties on the building materials, likeexcise, sales tax, octroi, etc. Sometimes, the dutiesand levies on the materials are more than the cost ofproduction. If the levies are reduced, the system willbecome more affordable.

The housing needs of every country are different. InIndia, the housing needs of every state are differentand the housing needs of every zone are different.How do we make a system wherein people can afforda house?

All building centres being set up need not have thesame ‘low-cost technology’ as their mandate. Some ofthe nodal building centres can specialize in investigat-ing the local laws and policies. Some can be involvedin the documentation of the experimental systems andthe propagation of these and others can train man-power for implementation of projects.

In the future, the building centre policy may be athree-pronged policy including:

· the examination of rules that might be archaic.There are rules that are 60–70 years old that are stillbeing followed. They have only been amended. Thereis an ‘amendment’ to an amendment but there is notso much change of the rule itself;· the dissemination of information;

62 KESWANI

· the training of manpower in the updated technolo-gies.

The building centre policy cannot be a singularpolicy of improvisation of building components only.Government policies could be re-examined at thenodal levels for further propagation. The moresuccessful building centres could contribute a 2%development fund from their turnover, to the nodalcentre which could then undertake policy planning.The housing policies may emerge from within theBuilding Centre Programme, learning from the failureof some building centres and the success of otherbuilding centres.

In the past, a number of low-cost building technol-ogies have been developed by building researchinstitutions and professional organizations working inthe �eld. However, few have achieved widespreadacceptance. One of the reasons for this was that it wasattempted to extend these technologies through cen-tral government and state government organizations.These organizations are bound by rigid proceduresand rules and are slow in adopting new methods.Also, the contractors through whom most governmentworks are executed, resist new technologies oftencharging higher fees for unfamiliar technologies to beincorporated in the construction works {3}.

Following the inconsistency in the working of theNizamuddin building centre, the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment had set up the Paranjpae Committee tosuggest a strategy for improving the functioning of theBuilding Centre Programme. This Committee sug-gested that the building centres execute their projectson the basis of turnkey and performance contracts, asan interim measure until the �nal modalities ofcontracting policies were worked out by HUDCO andthe BMTPC (Building Materials and Technology Pro-motion Council). The Paranjpae Committee hadadditionally recommended 2% towards contingencyfund for failure of any of the new technologiesattempted by the building centre. The 2% contin-gency fund could be useful for research and develop-ment and also for effective propagation oftechnologies.

Low-cost methods must also be devised for watersupply and sanitation in human settlements. Thetechnologies involved in low-cost pit sanitation sys-tems are simple but efforts must be made to trainartisans in their construction and also to createawareness amongst the users. The building centrescan play an important role in training artisans forfabricating components for these systems and inconstructing and maintaining them for home owners.The building centres can also undertake the manage-ment of pay-and-use facilities to be put up in smalltowns. They can market water pumps, stock spareparts and train artisans in their maintenance. Non-governmental organizations like Sulabh Internationalcan provide valuable support to the building centresin this programme {3}.

One �nds that the building centres do offer appro-priate technologies that are cost-effective. This isachieved by studying the performance criteria of thebuilding component and also by a change in thedelivery system. Further, the change of deliverysystem requires policy intervention.

A building component such as the Tara-crete tile

developed and manufactured by Development Alter-natives consumes more cement than asbestos sheets.But, because it is being made at the site itself, there isno excise, no octroi, no provident fund, no gratuity tothe workers, no interest on the capital employed in theindustry, no marketing or wholesale and retail redis-tribution costs. It is a delivery directly from entrepre-neur to the end-user. So, although the tile uses morecement, it is still more cost-effective. The cost of theasbestos sheet is Rs 12 per ft2 and the tile is Rs 5 perft2. Thus, it is not necessarily a reduction of materialthat reduces costs but also the change in the deliverymechanism.

In the housing projects in Kerala, Laurie Bakerachieves cost-effectiveness through the use of the rat-trap bond in brick masonry. In using a rat-trap bond,the labour component goes up, but the materialcomponent goes down. The quality of the house getsbetter. If one is building a 10 x 10 ft room using brickmasonry in the rat-trap bond, one would need a 2’6’’overhang. So, the roof required is at least 15 x 15 ft. Inorder to build a 100 ft2 house, one must build a 225 ft2

roof. It should be more expensive. But, in fact, it is not.That is primarily because the performance of the

material has been changed, i.e. excess concrete hasbeen eliminated in the roof design. Therefore, thematerial is conserved and can be utilized to provide alarger area of roof for the desired overhang. Secondly,the delivery mechanism has been changed. There isno tendering for the project. Within the Public WorksDepartment (PWD) system, there are the �xed over-heads of the PWD which vary between 15–17%. Thecontractor has an additional 10–15% margin but healso keeps a 10% cushion (as speed money) toenable him to get his bills sanctioned, etc. If thisdelivery sytem of contracting with the governmentsystem is eliminated, a saving of 35% may beachieved. The government-sponsored building cen-tres are mostly dovetailed into the Public WorksDepartments in various districts. This means that theyfollow similar procedures of delivery as the PWD.

It is here that the private building centres also differfrom the government-sponsored building centres. Forinstance, the 100-bed hospital project at Kotah wasdeveloped by the Anangpur building centre at Rs 220per ft2. In this project, the delivery system differedfrom the usual. The workmen cut their own stone,studied the possibility of using phospho-gypsumwhich is an industrial waste product and available inthe vicinity in abundance. They made the buildingblocks themselves, fabricated almost every buildingcomponent, whether a window or a door. There wasno intermediate contracting system.

In the projects implemented under a contract, themain contractor gives the project to a sub-contractorwho further gives it to a labour contractor. So, it ispro�t over 15%, over 15%, over 15%. The PWD normsare used with the excuse of transparency throughtendering, but they lead to an expensive constructionsystem. The PWD building centres using such normsare gradually closing down.

It is to be seen if there will be more private buildingcentres in the years to come. It is felt that a certainamount of freedom for the entrepreneur in the func-tioning of his building centre (if funded by HUDCO)and also faith in his decision-making as regards theworking of the centre will encourage more individuals


to set up building centres. Today, some prospectiveentrepreneurs hesitate to approach HUDCO for sup-port because HUDCO insists among certain otherparameters, that there be 1.5 acres of land availablefor the setting up of the building centre. The individualthus almost writes off property worth more than theloan or the assistance that the government may giveand in addition, he must cope with the bureaucracyoverruling his decisions in the functioning of thebuilding centre.

If the individual is committed enough, he can take aloan from any commercial institution to set up thecentre. HUDCO’s grant-in-aid is a small amount andthe rest is loan with interest to be paid on it. Also, theamount of paperwork that HUDCO demands as aperiodic requirement and the mandatory, continuousdocumentation are often discouraging factors.

The objective of most evaluations is to see whatprogress a programme has made towards reaching itsobjectives. Sometimes the programme objectivesstated at the beginning may change over a period oftime, as they ‘evolve’ in response to changing condi-tions, and to a clearer understanding of the problems{5}. The Anangpur building centre started its workwith the same objective as the other building centres,that of developing low-cost building techniques. How-ever, within a few years its understanding of thehousing problem in the country is leading them toalso look at the existing planning regulations, thepolicies of the government as regards funding hous-ing schemes for the poor, etc. It is now also one oftheir objectives to evaluate the conditions under whichthe innovative building techniques strive to seek anoutlet.

The recommendations on government policies forhousing made by them are important. The policiesare:

· developments in housing must be accompaniedby adequate employment opportunities for the low-income groups, especially those included in rehabili-tation programmes;· loans made available by HUDCO and other �nan-cial institutions need to use a more �exible mode ofrepayment;· projects that have participation from the peoplethemselves are more successful;· in order to provide adequate infrastructure to thelarge and ever-increasing population in India, thecost-recovery mechanisms need to be improved;· decentralization of planning policies, of manage-ment and of maintenance will help achieve thesegoals. This might mean fewer mega-centres andgreater numbers of smaller business districts;· as building centres strive to make houses moreaffordable, they need to offer training programmesthat are self-sustainable and create a system ofhousing delivery that is locally viable;· cluster planning as a planning tool for low-income,

middle-income and high-income groups. It hasworked very well in some projects and the control itcan achieve on encroachment could perhaps bemade an accepted norm as it is used in more andmore housing schemes;· performance-based contracts to replace the reg-ular contracting system of item-based or turn-keycontracts. This would mean that the contractor neces-sarily meets with the performance criteria within thegiven budget;· the government’s role could change from beingsole provider to facilitator.

The dramatic gesture (of the government) of pro-viding a large new housing plant (or a large networkof building centres) may divert attention from theneed for fundamental housing policy changes andreforms, particularly when answers are vague to suchquestions as who shall be housed? On what land?With what services and infrastructure? And with whatforms of credit and �nancing? {6}. The housing of low-income people requires low-cost, resource-conser-ving appropriate technology coupled with consider-able changes in institutional relationships in societythat can enable low-income people to gain access tohousing resources such as land, �nance, publicutilities and social services {7}.

In India, the implementing organizations that havebeen more successful than others in the �eld of low-cost housing, are the non-governmental organizationsand also some private entrepreneurs. Perhaps, therole of the government, in the present times, shouldinclude designing strategies and formulating policiesin close association with these grass-root institutions.Effective responses to affordable and adequate hous-ing in India may result from better cooperation be-tween government and non-government institutions.

References

1. Turner, J.F.C. (1972) The re-education of a professional.In: Freedom To Build, J.F.C. Turner and R. Fichter (eds)Macmillan.

2. Sharma S.K. (1988) Human settlement patterns andrelevant technology, Journal of the Indian Institute ofArchitects.

3. HUDCO (1987) Building Centres.4. HUDCO Fly ash for building products – state of the art

in India.5. Feuerstein, M.-T. (1986) Partners in Evaluation: Evaluating

development and community programmes with partici-pants, (Macmillan Education Ltd.)

6. Terner, I.D. (1972) Technology and autonomy In Free-dom To Build, J.F.C.Turner and R. Fichter (eds), Macmil-lan.

7. Pama, R.P., Angel, S. and De Goede, J.H. (1977) Low-income housing – Technology and Policy, InternationalConference, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.

64 KESWANI

Building Centres in India

Documents

Transcript of Building Centres in India