Housing in India is a predominantly household activity based on inherited knowledge of design and construction methods.  It has, however, evolved over time from the basic need for shelter to more complex demands of changing lifestyles and expression.

Change in building practice occurred from either local developments in Vastukala or, as was often the case, through trans-cultural exchange.  While our builders upgraded their skills, tools and technology in everyday work, palaces, temples and other public building were constructed under the patronage the rich.  This class of people was in  a position to command material and skilled manpower from different cultural groups.  Their propensity to do so resulted in an infusion of diverse building practices with the more dominating features of each taking root in our land.  The dynamics of such a cultural exchange led to the percolation of techniques imbibed from one culture down into the housing patterns of another.

Up until the last century these housing patterns were largely sustainable. 
They were:
1. Affordable; even the poor could build a mud and thatch hut that was acceptable in standard;
2. Environmentally benign; the quantity of natural resources used was relatively small, they were renewable and construction processes were not destructive or polluting;
3. Equitable; the act of building did not place one set of people at an advantage with respect to another;
4. Endogenous; these patterns grew from within the melting pot of Indian society and its sub-cultures.

In architectural terms housing was not only organic in evolution but functionally efficient, resource conserving, climatically sound and contextually relevant as well.

Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the ingenious response of our builders to their context.  Vernacular architecture, which is a much misused appropriation for awkwardly borrowing from the folk culture, was in reality an outcome of using available resources and responding to the microclimate. Jaisalmer in the hot-dry climate belt, is a typical example of individual houses as well as the entire town being an extension of the living patterns of the people.  The streets are actually designed to offer protection against the harsh desert winds and are so oriented that they are almost always shaded.

The advent of modernity brought with it a number of changes over the 20th century.  One that must be recognised a the outset of our analysis of recognised at the outset of our analysis of present trends, was the gradual increase in people’s aspirations and improvement in standard of living.  We cannot deny that Indian society is better sheltered now than it was one hundred years age.  There has however been a heavy price that we have had to pay for this progress.  Cultural priorities have shifted to the extent that we are now living in times of misdirected socio-political change.  Unbridled desire, mindless competition and artificially set standards have affected building practices to an extent that they threaten the sustainability of housing patterns.  The adverse impact of macro-economic factors such as a booming population, depleting natural resources and disincentives to innovation and production have only helped us fall to the dismal state of shelter we have today.    A new process of building houses has emerged and been internalised by society.  This process is not rooted in culture, our people, their requirements and the context in which they build but relies more on large economies of scale, mass production, mass consumption of building materials, and even houses.  We seen to forget that people to do not consume houses, they interact with local builders to create them.

Today, faced with the challenging task of bridging the housing gap of over 30 million households, the government, its numerous housing agencies and private builders are not designing strategies based on the needs of a culture that must regain a measure of its vitality.  Integrating concerns of sustainability means that housing will have to be reviewed in totality as a process.  This requires time and an investment in building capacity of the people that our habitat managers are not willing to make because it does not result in the fulfilment of targets for tangible products within the administrative life span of a particular set of politicians or bureaucrats.

What results is a faceless architecture alienated from the people it is designed  for.  Type designs proliferate as they ensure a quick mode of delivery.  These buildings are the result of a centralised delivery system and lack variety required for sustainability.  They are also a training ground for local masons and set standards, technologically and socially, for everyone to follow, breeding monoculture.

The present trend towards more ‘pucca’ construction resulting in an increased dependence on industrial materials which are more energy intensive.  This, in the context of rising costs of fuel and electricity is clearly not sustainable.  Further, with the saturating supply of conventional materials there is immense pressure of the environment.  We now need a shift towards housing that is economical, endogenous, equitable and environmentally sound.

While in the past this was possible, because of limited qualitative and quantitative demand it is challenge to today’s practitioners.  Historically most of the rural buildings had a high component of their construction process based entirely in the village through local employment and local material use.  This may not be possible anymore.  In fact there is now a dire need to augment the supply of building materials within the existing development and environmental constraints.  This needs alternative responses that can be operationalised through rural building economies.

The Development Alternatives micro-concrete roofing tile programme, where such a strategy was adopted, has shown significant results.  Within a year of implementation 35 new production centres have been established 18 of which are entrepreneurial.  These enterprises fulfil a supply gap which exited between the low cost thatch roofs and high cost reinforced cement concrete slab.  Private entrepreneurs, offer roof at Rs. 10/sqft.  To put the impact of such enterprises in perspective, it is interesting to note that 5 enterprises in the UP-MP belt have installed over 4,20,000 tiles : which is approximately 35,000 sqm of roofing translating to 1800 dwelling units within a year.  Each of these units has generated profits ranging from 25-75,000/annum, employing 6 persons directly.

What also needs to be highlighted in terms of a successful delivery mechanism for improved shelter is that the entrepreneurs have drawn about Rs. 35,00,000/- from the rural economy.  People have actually paid for better roofs and hence exercised their choice.  At the rate at which roofs have been delivered (almost 150 per month) it would have taken a government department about five years to achieve the target, in addition to the fact that the houses would have to be “handed out”.

DA only acts as a marketing and service centre, selling equipment, giving technical know-how and facilitating the process.  A barrier often encountered in the delivery of sustainable housing technology is the lack of such institutional support.

While the above is an example of how an enabling mechanism can catalyse the absorption of a technology into the lives of people, there is the opposite case of earthquake rehabilitation in Latur where houses are being built in a donor-beneficiary mode and technology is being imposed.  Not only is the design of the new settlements alien to the existing cultural pattern, grid planning has replaced the organic settlement pattern of existing villages, the entire aspect of climate, topography and local traditions has been ignored.

Questioning this approach, a cluster based design was introduced by Laurie  Baker and supported by DA.  In Malkondji village at Latur, DA has designed one such cluster pattern for EFICOR, the implementing agency.  From the outset people’s participation in the process was recognised as being paramount and the beneficiaries involved through village Samiti meetings.

The broad concept took into consideration the caste based division of the old village, while at the same time ensuring that no caste was marginalised.  Access to facilitate like roads, water supply, public buildings were well distributed.  Another consideration in the construction was cost.  To ensure that a majority of the monetary input remained within the village system, local masons and labour were employed for construction and concrete block manufacture.  The fear psychosis associated with stone masonry was removed through using it, even if sparingly, in foundations.  At the same time masons were educated on the reasons for failure of the walls.  New techniques like filler slab roofing, where some amount of concrete may be saved, have been propagated.  Besides ensuring the balanced use of resources in construction, the thermal comfort levels inside the house was an important criteria.  A green belt has been planned all through the clusters to further improve the micro-climate and increase the scope for community level activities.  The cluster layout also ensured efficient physical planning by introducing a hierarchy of spaces : Large community space, smaller cluster space and then the individual courtyards.  This also resulted in a hierarchy of roads and lanes scaled to the requirement of the village.

What emerges from our experience is that with the low level of technical efficiency existing in rural areas, any technology will have to be simple and reliable, besides being efficient  and economical.  Further, to be successful, any exercise such as this cannot ignore local lifestyles : cultural, physical and socio-economic.  Investment of the people in decision making with respect to site and design, their confidence in their ability to manage the houses and facilities provided, and the aspect of health and economics are also extremely important.

Each solution will be locale specific, based on local needs and resources and beneficial to the local economy.  Once the local economy has been activated, a self-regulatory process will begin and the external agency will then only be a ‘catalyst for change’ leaving housing, as it should have been to the ‘local builders’, who understand their own cultural needs better.  This alone can be the basis for sustainable housing patters.