Management Development Program

Eco-friendly Construction
Practices
Feb 11, 2005

Anjali & Kiran Kalamdani

‘K I M A Y A’
Three Frames of Reference

♦ 1. Shodhgram at
Gadchiroli a tribal
village project by Dr.
Abhay and Rani Bang
Sevagram at Wardha

♦ 2. A vision for the twenty first century village by

Mahatma Gandhi which wonderfully balances
ECOLOGY, ECONOMY & SOCIAL JUSTICE !
Hundertwasser Haus - Vienna

♦ 3. Tree tenants, window

rights and salvaged relics
used to enrich urban living
in urban public housing.
HEAVIER ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
OF THE URBAN SETTLEMENT

TRIBAL RURAL URBAN

QUICK ASSESSMENT USING THE WEB
FOR 3 INSTITUTIONS
♦ The web was used to get a quick feedback on the building practices
employed by the firm in the recent past. Three medium sized
buildings with similar uses and sizes were compared to demonstrate
the efficacy of the TOOL.
♦ The judgement of the partners was used to give rankings of bad,
average, good, and excellent to the various sustainability indicators.
♦ Climate responsiveness of a building, which was not considered at
all during the workshop, was introduced, as it was considered a
prime factor in assessing sustainability.
♦ Non availability of data for ecological indicators was seen as a
problem. The judgement of the partners here was used to give values
to the indicators.
INFLUENCE OF LOCATION
Factors
affected by
location of
site in Urban
Area:
•Land Cost,
availability NICMAR
and SAWAB
buildability MVM
(FSI)
•Returns on
Investment
•Material and
labour
Transport
Cost
GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL
USING 11 INDICATORS

♦ Total Built
Area:
1938.02 sq.m
♦ Cost Rs
87,93,548/-
(Rs. 421.69/
sft)
♦ Building
Technology
used: RCC
frame, Brick
infill walls
SCHOOL FOR
MAHARASHTRA
VIDYA MANDAL
 MVM SCHOOL,
LAW COLLEGE ROAD, PUNE

Client’s participation in the

project was encouraged

External Facade
Main Concerns: An easy to
use and visually stimulating
building for the user age- Façade of internal
group at a reasonable cost. courtyard
Conventional
R.C.C. frame with
burnt brick
masonary infill
panels.
GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL
USING 11 INDICATORS

♦ Total Built
Area: 16,400
sft
♦ Cost Rs
32,80,000/-
(Rs. 200/ sft)
♦ Main
Building
Technology
used:
Ferrocrete/
Concrete
blocks/
Brick

NICMAR CAMPUS AT
BALEWADI
NICMAR is characterised by a low-rise campus developed over a period of three
years. It encouraged experiments with cost-effective and ecologically sustainable
building techniques. The campus is an outdoor museum of NINE different building
techniques.
 USE OF COST-EFFECTIVE
TECHNIQUES AT NICMAR

Hostel Block for 40 students Jali using concrete

blocks in the Canteen

Various classrooms
have unique roof forms
resulting from different
building techniques
GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL
USING 11 INDICATORS

♦ Total Built
Area: 33,000
sft.
♦ Cost Rs.
75,00,000/-
(Rs. 225/ sft)
♦ Main
Building
Technology
used: Steel
Portals/
Rat-trap
brickwork
SAWAB PUBLIC SCHOOL
NAIGAON village, PUNE DIST.
SAWAB PUBLIC SCHOOL

A Residential School for Mr. Shaikh Jaweed

Sarfraz at Naigaon, Near Prayagdham, Uruli
Kanchan, Pune, has had a number of
teething problems, despite good intentions.
USE OF COST EFFECTIVE
TECHNIQUES AT SAWAB PUBLIC
SCHOOL
Doors and
Window Local craft
made using skills were
recycled used in
pine wood. brickwork

Clay tiles on
recycled pine
battens/purlins on
steel Portal Frame,
with Rat Trap bond
Brickwork
A COMPARISON OF THE 3 CASES

MVM NICMAR SAWAAB

•CONVENTIONAL BUILDING TECHNIQUES

RESULT IN LARGER ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS
•IMBALANCES IN VARIOUS FACTORS ARE
EASILY READABLE IN GRAPHICAL
PRESENTATION
 Building : Saraswati Complex at Hadapsar
most This
common building
Higher --> non Sustainable
E1 5 5.14 Energy Consumed Calculated in 'Energy_calculator'
E2 5 3.55 Waste generator Calculated in 'Waste Calculator'
E3 9 9.82 Water Management Calculated in 'Water man Calc'
E4 7 8.33 renewable Energy Calculated in 'Renewable Calc'
E5 9 9.69 Green Cover Calculated in 'Green Cover Calc'
F1 4 5.02 Net Investment Calculated in 'Financial Calc'
F2 8 7.24 Operation and Maintena Calculated in 'Financial Calc'
F3 6.5 6.17 return on investment Calculated in 'Financial Calc'
F4 5 5.05 Debt Equity ratio Calculated in 'Financial Calc'
S1 5 4.18 Employment GenerateCalculated in 'Employment Calc'
S2 3 5.05 User response Calculated in 'Response Calc'
S3 3.5 4.17 Recognition and awar Calculated in 'Recognition Calc'
S4 6 5.91 Labour Welfare Calculated in 'welfare Calc'
S5 4.5 4.96 Cost of Degradation Calculated in 'Degradation Calc'
S6 4 3.25 Appropriate Technolo Calculated in 'Technology Calc'
87.54 total marks scored Higher --> non Sustainable
84.50 most common practice
150 max marks
 Sustainability Chart

E1
10.00
S6 E2
9.82
S5 5
5.14 9E3
5
4.96 4
3.25 3.55
4.5
S4 7 E4
8.33
6
5.91

3.5
4.17 0.00
S3 9E5
9.69
3 4 5.02
5.05
4.18
S2 5 F1
5
5.05
7.24
6.17
6.5 8
S1 F2
F4 F3

WorkSheet: Chart Maker

The Building Footprint most common practice
 Eco friendly
material in
interiors –
Recycled Pine

Museum of Land
Records
Department of Survey
and Settlement
Govt. of Maharashtra
Savitribai Phule Memorial for PMC at Bhavani Peth
Use of
Calcium
Silicate
Brickwork,
steel windows
and Basalt
stone plinths
Use of Calcium
Silicate
Brickwork, steel
windows at
Moraya Gosavi
Samadhi
Chinchwad
Eco friendly furniture using recycled pine for a resurgent
Auto Industrial Unit
PRACTICAL EVALUATION TOOL
SOME INDICATORS TOWARDS A
COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
♦ Sustainability of a building is a subjective virtue that cannot be
assessed precisely due to lack of sufficient data and agreement on
sustainability standards and benchmarks.
♦ Assigning index values to each of the indicator can be used to evolve
a measuring system for the sustainability of a building. This will
minimize the subjectivity inherent in the human angle if not
completely eliminate it.
♦ A guiding body should be formed that would authorise the valuers
for Sustainable Building Practice and constantly refine the tools.
♦ Differences of building type, project size, region and frame of
reference will demand varied weightages on different indicators.
PRACTICAL EVALUATION TOOL
SOME INDICATORS TOWARDS A
COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
♦ A database of such evaluations over a period of time will
help the guiding institution to authoritatively promote,
guide and compare SUSTAINABLE BUILDING
PRACTICES.
♦ Construction Financing Institutions, Planning Authorities
and Institutes of Professionals could be asked to insist on
evaluations and lend finance, give permissions or
credibility/subsidies based on evaluations.
STAKEHOLDERS OF THE
PROPOSED COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE
♦ CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
♦ BLDG. MATERIAL MFG. INDUSTRY
♦ GOVT. AND ITS REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY
♦ INSTITUTIONS WORKING IN THESE AREAS
♦ CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES
♦ ASSESSORS: Professionals with min 10 years of
experience in relevant areas of environment,
construction, social work.
Our structures are far away
from those of the birds and
the bees. Let us try and
understand how they build
with nature …………