See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275964695

housing in india: reinterpreting habrakens theories in the indian context

Research · May 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1629.3286

CITATIONS READS
0 1,081

1 author:

Vishwanath Kashikar
CEPT University
8 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design assessment of affordable housing projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vishwanath Kashikar on 08 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

HOUSING IN INDIA:
Reinterpreting Habraken’s theories in the Indian context

Mass housing in India, like elsewhere in the world, is often criticized for producing sterile environments that are
insensitive to local culture and climate. An alternative to mass housing in Europe was provided by John
Habraken in his theory of ‘Supports’ and its subsequent development in his later work. However, these theories
are not directly applicable in India due to fundamental differences in the prevailing context. This paper
interprets Habraken’s theory of ‘The Structure of the Ordinary’ to propose modifications in the theory of
‘Supports’ to suit the Indian context. This proposal is based on case studies of housing designs in Europe and
India. The outline of a process of designing large scale housing in India that takes cognizance of local
conditions is postulated through this analysis of housing designs along with the modifications in the theory.
Further in-depth study in this direction can lead to an alternative design methodology to mass housing in India.

Introduction
Mass housing is a commonly used but often misinterpreted term. Mass housing refers to a specific
process of designing aimed at constructed large quantities of houses as a single project. Many
conditions like massive destruction of homes due to natural and manmade calamities, or process of
rapid urbanization lead to chronic housing shortages. To tackle such emergency situations large scale
construction of houses, neighborhoods, or even towns are undertaken. This process of large scale
housing involves the design of a house as a prototype and its subsequent repetition to achieve the
desired numbers. The prototype is different from the ‘type’ or the ‘archetype’. Most vernacular houses
are based on a ‘type’. This is a guiding principle that sets rules of spatial organization and
construction. Adhering to a ‘type’ results in similar houses- a typology. The houses built by mass
housing are identical rather than similar. This crucial difference gives rise to many advantages as well
as criticisms.

The universality of mass housing as a process is primarily due to conventional notions of economy.
Constructing many units as a single project and constructing identical units result in savings of time
and money. This is generally true for all industrially produced objects. However, a house is more than
just a commodity. The value of a house cannot be judged solely on the basis of initial costs; recurring
maintenance costs and more importantly user satisfaction need to be accounted for in calculating
economy of housing. Mass housing persists despite wide spread criticism due to the absence of viable
alternatives. This is apparent today in large developing countries due to increasing demands of
housing.

Mass housing in India: the problem stated

India has predominantly been a rural economy though it is undergoing a process of rapid urbanization.
The percentage of urban population has risen from 17% in 1951 to 28% in 2001.1 Although this
growth rate does not seem spectacular, the large population of India implies that over 285 million
people live in cities today. Population of larger cities like Mumbai and Calcutta are 16.3 million and
13.2 million respectively.2 It is estimated that over a thousand people are added to the population of
Mumbai every day. This highlights the constant need for housing in India. The chronic housing
shortage leads to sporadic bursts of mass housing schemes that forever try to catch up with increasing
demands. Similar trends exist, albeit at a smaller scale, in all cities throughout India.

The state of Gujarat lies in the western part of India. Gujarat is a developed state in comparison to
most states in India, due to the presence of heavy industries and extensive maritime trade. The
population of Gujarat in 2001 was 50.6 million, of which 19 million reside in cities. Ahmedabad is the
largest city in Gujarat with a population of 4.5 million. The city has an old central core which has been
continuously inhabited since the 15th century. This central core comprises of the royal precinct, the
jami masjid, and the residential quarters inside the fort wall. The houses are arranged in clusters
forming neighborhoods known as ‘pols’. ‘Pols’ have single entry points which can be protected during
times of danger by closing the entry gates. The houses are parallel shared wall load bearing
constructions with narrow frontage and large depth, and are two to four floors high with sloping roofs
and small internal courtyards. This traditional house form provides respite from the extreme
temperatures of Ahmedabad which vary from a maximum of 47 C during summer days to a minimum
of 7 C during winter nights. During the British rule from the 18th to the 20th century, a new centre
 2

was established in the form of a cantonment area on the northern side of the old town outside its fort
walls. The houses built here were of a different typology. The bungalows as they are referred to are
free standing houses surrounded by gardens on all sides. The houses have internal courtyards and a
front porch, with load bearing walls and sloping roofs.

The third typology was introduced by the Gujarat Housing Board (GHB), an undertaking of the state
government. GHB was conceived in 1960 to address the housing shortage in the state with special
focus on housing in cities. Since its inception, the housing board has constructed over seventy
thousand houses in Ahmedabad. These, along with the equally prolific private housing schemes,
occupy a large part of the western half of the city. The housing board categorizes houses into four
types based on monthly income-

Economically weaker section (EWS) - less than Rs. 2500

Lower income group (LIG) - Rs. 2501 to Rs. 5500
Middle income group (MIG) - Rs. 5501 to Rs. 10000
Higher income group (HIG) - above Rs. 100003

CASE STUDY 1 (plate 2)

Project name: Chitrakoot apartments, Panchwati apartments, Neelkamal apartments, Gokul
apartments4
Developer: GHB
Client: private ownership
Contractor: Public Works Department (PWD)
No. of units: 1152
Unit size: 62 sq.mts.
Type: 3 storey walk up apartments
Structure: Load bearing brick walls, concrete floors
Completion: 1985

All unit types and block designs are identical and laid out in a ‘swastika’ pattern forming four identical
public spaces for community use. This development is bounded on all sides by similar large housing
projects of similar kind. The whole locality is inhabited by around 20000 people sharing similar
apartment types and open spaces. These units are identified by numbers (all other features including
colours being the same) and visitors invariably get lost in the maze of housing. The common
complaints of residents are small room sizes, poor climactic response, unusable public spaces and
distance from public amenities.5
The intentions of the housing board have been good, in wanting to solve the shortage of housing due
to the rapid urbanization process. Coupled with attractive loan schemes, all these houses have been
sold, usually through a ballot process. However, this is not an indicator of the success of the project; it
only shows the urgent need for housing in Indian cities. These large scale projects more commonly
known as mass housing schemes are often criticized for not taking into account existing ground
conditions like user needs, local climate etc. Such criticisms are not limited to India. A similar chronic
shortage led to the wide spread use of mass housing in Europe especially after the two World Wars.

Mass housing in Netherlands

In order to reduce the massive housing shortage (.3 million houses) Ir. J. Van der Waerden, the
director of Amsterdam’s building and housing inspection department, proposed a radical solution of
standardizing and centralizing housing construction. This included one common layout design using
standardized components. The only variation offered in his solution was in the grouping of the housing
blocks, and their size and relation with one another. It was not shocking to see an engineer’s solution
to housing as a production of standard houses, and this was severely criticized by many. However,
Berlage rose to the defense of Van der Waerden citing the extraordinary circumstances as a reason for
validating such extreme measures. However he admitted that there was resistance from the users; he
said ‘The workers see in the dreadful monotony of endless rows of identical houses and bungalows an
assault upon their personality, upon their freedom, upon their humanity; this kind of housing turns one
into a herd-animal, a serf, a dependent.’(Berlage cited Habraken: 1972, p. 2) This debate took place as
far back as 1918. What followed in Netherlands was a phase of rapid urbanization characterized by
 3

large housing developments in cities like Amsterdam. These new housing schemes were guided by the
housing act of 1901 which specified room layouts, sizes, fenestration requirements, structural strength
etc. This combined with the fact that the whole process was centralized and hence controlled by few
architects and large building companies, resulted in large urban housing blocks of identical design.
These neighborhoods were constructed at a rapid pace after the Second World War. In the late 1950’s
these mass housing projects started being criticized by sociologists as well as architects for being
insensitive to the users and their lifestyles.(Bosma: 2000)

However, there was no consensus on the vexed issue of the merits of mass housing. Bureaucrats with
the support of a few engineers were intent on solving the housing crisis and believed that
standardization was the answer to efficient, cheap and speedy construction. Simultaneously, influential
architects like Le Corbusier were heralding the new age and viewed the house as a machine to live in.6
Ernst May remonstrated that ‘millions of people in the civilized countries all demand precisely the
same thing of their houses (one kitchen and two or three rooms); nevertheless, the elementary task of
housing is solved and solved again, a thousand times over.’ (Bosma: 2000, p.25) On the other hand,
sociologists like D.C. Van der Poel wrote that ‘the occupant of mass housing is the “unknown tenant”,
into whose needs and desires clients have little or no insight…’ (Bosma: 2000, p.44) Users were
increasingly criticizing their housing environments as being dull, oppressive and insensitive to their
needs.

Two distinct problems of mass housing are apparent from this study. The first problem is the identical
unit design that fails to address the diversity of user requirements. There is a mismatch between the
unit design and the user needs. The second problem is the scale of such developments. Due to the
perceived economy in numbers, large projects evolve using one or few unit types. The resultant
buildings and neighborhood space is monotonous and variously referred to as barracks, pigeon holes,
industrial sheds etc.

John Habraken and the theory of ‘Supports’

It is in this context that Habraken wrote ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’ which was first
published as ‘De Dragers en de Mensen’ in 1962. The author identifies two main objectives- to
highlight the problems of mass housing and to propose an alternative method. Mass housing is a
process used to construct a large number of houses as a single project. Mass housing is a means to an
end, the end being the act of dwelling. Understanding this distinction is very important for Habraken.
Since housing for many people is seen as a single problem, it is understandable that the solution
sought is also singular in nature. Mass housing as a working method attempts to search for an ideal
prototype that can solve the problem of housing. Housing is seen as a product rather than a process. It
is this quest for the universal solution that has the potential to be endlessly applied, that results in the
alienation of the user. The problem is not building in large quantities; the problem is in applying one
solution to the problem. Seen in this context, it becomes clear that industrialization and standardization
are not the cause of sterile environments. Any large scale building activity with a short time frame will
invariably make use of some form of standardization as a process. It is the manner in which mass
housing uses the machine while removing the human that causes the problem. Wherever the human
acts, there is a mark of the person which is imprinted on the object. Uniformity in mass housing is ‘not
due to the action of the machine, but due to the non-action of man.’ (Habraken: 1962, p.21) Habraken
proposes to use standardization for individual choice by abandoning the idea of mass housing, by
standardizing the process rather than the product. He does not criticize mass housing for producing
sterile housing neighborhoods; this he believes can be solved by better design (Habraken: 1962, p.12).
Mass housing fails to see the act of dwelling as a process of individual choice. People seek to stamp
their uniqueness on the environment around them, at the same time adhering to guidelines of common
conduct. Whereas mass housing can present people with varied layout types, they still create a product
which has to be unquestionably accepted by the user. Mass housing transforms the personal act of
dwelling into the collective process of consuming.

The aim of the theory is to accommodate changing user needs in housing design. These user needs
cannot be predicted accurately by the designer. Hence, the theory attempts to provide for the
unforeseen rather than trying to predict it. This is why, for Habraken, housing is a process and not a
product. The logical next step is separating the common static requirements from the unpredictable
 4

user needs. The common requirements are named the ‘support systems’ and the individual needs are
called the ‘infill’. ‘A support structure is a construction which allows the provision of dwellings which
can be built, altered, and taken down, independently of the others.’ (Habraken: 1972, p.59) At first
glance support structures seem to resemble frame structure/skeleton systems. Habraken clears this
misconception by highlighting the differences. The skeleton system is one project conceived and
designed as a whole. The frame is incomplete without the infill. In contrast, a support structure is a
complete project. It consists of structure (columns, slabs), services (piping, cabling) and circulation
(stairs, passages). Walls demarcating boundaries of houses may or may not form part of the support
structure. A support structure is analogous to a multistory car park where houses are cars. The car park
allows a car to occupy an allotted space for a given duration in time and is subsequently replaced by
another car. Two or more parking lots may also be combined to park a larger vehicle. Support
structures can thus be designed without knowing the user, it can allow for various housing layouts as
long as they follow certain guidelines set up by the support system. Support structures can thus be
simple, yet strong and long lasting like bridges and canals. (ill.1) Infill systems on the other hand can
be built using any material and form. The simplicity of the support structure ensures that it will not
become obsolete for a long time. Infill systems, like gadgets, can be replaced at will.

The focus of the theory is to find solutions for multi-storey housing. Traditionally, dwellings were
constructed on individual plots of land. Even though multi-storey buildings existed, they were not
occupied by multiple houses. The ‘supports’ theory proposes a solution to independently build houses
on top of each other. This is achieved by changing the role of industrialization in housing. Mass
housing uses mass production to create identical units; both elements and spaces are identical.
‘Supports’ theory advocates mass production of elements but stresses on variations in their
configuration. By separating support structure from infill construction and by seeing housing as a
system rather than a product, Habraken is able to use industrialization to formulate a kit of standard
parts to achieve varied end products. The end products in themselves are not crucial to the design
process. Hence, infill systems are not discussed in this theory. The assumption is that once support
systems are in place, infill can be constructed using any material or space configuration as long as they
are rational.7 The theory of supports essentially creates ground in the skies, allowing for units to be
constructed as independent individual houses unencumbered by what happens above and below.8 This
is quite similar to the ‘plan obus’ for Algiers by Le Corbusier where he envisioned two floor spaces
with infrastructure, in a gargantuan structure many miles long.(ill.2) Individuals are then free to
choose from options suggested by architects of the support structure or self designed options. They are
equally free to appoint architects to design a unit layout using any system.

SAR and the system of ‘Variations’

In the 1960’s an influential group of architects came together to discuss the future of housing in
Netherlands. The concerns of this group were the diminishing role of architects in the design of mass
housing, coupled with the increasing influence of large construction companies. They also discussed
the increasing dissatisfaction of users with the housing environment. As a result of these meetings a
non profit organization, the Foundation for Architectural Research (SAR) was formulated in 1964.
SAR was funded by various architectural offices and the Dutch Association of Architects (BNA) and
its research team was headed by John Habraken. The objective of the research was to work with latest
innovations in the building industry and come up with a workable methodology to incorporate the
theory of supports in housing design. In the forthcoming years SAR published many papers
articulating the application of the supports theory in design. The book ‘Variations: a systemic design
of supports’ was the result of this study. Since most of the publications of SAR were aimed at
architectural offices, stress was laid on drawings rather than text.

Though the theory envisaged a separation between the design of supports and infill, in practice there
were many connections. The ideal support system is not one which gives infinite possibilities of unit
layouts. Layout possibilities should be limited and easily recognizable to allow for designing by user
without professional help. Simultaneously, restrictions need to be placed on the possible location of
service spaces to minimize the cost of building. The design of supports, hence, requires a study of
possible layouts that it can accommodate. In ‘Variations’ this is studied in three parts- individual
space/function layouts, organization/configuration of various spaces, and dimensional coordination
between support structures and infill systems. The individual space-function studies are not intended
 5

to arrive at ideal or common room dimensions. Instead it aims at finding a size and proportion range
for each function. This is then utilized for the study of organization of space and location of individual
functions. Working from the two fixed points of the source of light and the vertical services stack, a
system of zones is proposed. (ill.3) This allows the study of probable locations of functions without
fixing finite possibilities. Four basic zones are identified. They are outside (O), inside and adjacent to
outer face (α), inside but not adjacent to outer face (β) and internal access ways (γ). The transition
between any two zones is characterized by a margin which in itself is a space rather than a line.
Margins are named according to the zones they abut- Oα, αβ and βγ. The actual design of the unit
layout is left to the user. However, a system of coordination is required as the infill is constructed out
of prefabricated panels. A tartan grid of 30 cm (20+10) is proposed to fix the location of panels and
the distance between support elements. This dimension was arrived at in consultation with
manufacturers of prefabricated systems. The 30 cm consists of one band of 10 cm for the thickness of
the panels and the remaining 10 cm for the space. Center to center distances are thus in multiples of 30
cm, and clear distances in multiples of 20 cm.

The zoning system is also the precursor to Habraken’s urban tissue analysis. By creating a zone for the
façade of the building, (Oα) the theory acknowledges the possibility of variations and articulation of
an individual unit on the collective façade. A further elaboration of this could solve the second
problem concerning mass housing- the monotony at the neighborhood scale. Most housing designs
built according to the theory of supports fail to grasp this aspect of zones.

CASE STUDY 2 (plate 3, plate 4)

Project name: Montereau
Type: public housing
Architect: Luc and Xavier Arsene Henri
Location: ZUP, Sarville near Paris
Unit area: 82 sq.mts.
No. of units: 6600
Structure: composite structure- concrete load bearing walls and steel columns
Completion: 1970

Project name: Orminge

Type: public housing
Client: HSG
Architect: John Curman and Ulf Gillberg
Location: Suburbs of Stockholm
Unit area: 70-90 sq.mts.
Structure- concrete walls
Completion- 1967

These projects are based on the theory of supports/infill. The supports consist of cast-in-situ concrete
load bearing walls and steel columns. Services run through vertical stacks in Montereau and through a
service wall in Orminge. The infill panels are prefabricated panels of standard sizes. The design of the
façade is part of the infill in Montereau and part of the support system in Orminge. In both cases, users
are free to design unit layouts and often choose layouts that were not envisaged by the designers.

The variations in design are not evident at the neighborhood level in both cases. To a casual observer,
the 9 storey urban blocks of Montereau or the repetitive houses of Orminge might appear like
conventional mass housing. Although the façade compositions at Montereau vary, the location of the
façade is fixed and it makes no impact on the perception of the building as a singularly designed
block. This is true of many support/infill designs. The public housing of Hong Kong is an example
where flexibility afforded in the internal layouts is not perceived at the urban scale. The design of the
support structure becomes critical to address this problem at the neighborhood level.

Housing designs based on the ‘Supports’ theory are often rightly criticized for being expensive in
comparison to conventional projects of mass housing. The justification is provided in the long term
benefit for the housing stock. Many housing schemes have become obsolete due to changes in housing
standards and requirements, and have been torn down before recovery of all costs. Support systems, on
 6

the other hand, allow for change and can hence prove economical in the long term. A more
fundamental counter argument is posed by Habraken to question the idea of economy. He argues that
we need to think of efficiency before economy. Citing examples of electricity and the telephone9 he
states that if ‘support’ structures result in better housing environments than mass housing systems,
then we should persist with the former despite higher costs.

Flexibility in the Indian context

Theoretically, the open endedness of the ‘Supports’ theory allows for its application in diverse
contexts like that of India. However, it is important to note that there are significant differences in the
Indian context which have a decisive bearing on the theory. Many obvious differences exist in climate,
culture, religion, and economy. Our concern is restricted to highlighting the differences that affect the
process of housing design and construction rather than those that have an impact on the end product-
the design of the unit layout.
The use of prefabrication techniques in housing construction is virtually non-existent.10
Industrialization in the construction industry is limited to production of raw materials (cement, steel
etc.) and at most to the making of some building elements (window frames, fittings etc.). This is not
due to lack of infrastructure; it is rather due to the availability of cheap skilled labor. Due to its large
population, it seems probable that prefabrication systems will not be economically viable unless they
are available at much cheaper rates. Meanwhile traditional forms of construction like plastered brick
walls continue to remain the standard for internal partitions. This raises the question- why mass
housing as a system persists in India? Standardization in housing is efficient in India not because of
economy of prefabricated elements but due to the ease in management systems while dealing with
mass construction using identical elements. Repetition of units simplifies the design, tender,
procurement of material, construction management and supervision processes.

The second key difference is specific in nature but has great effect on the final form of housing. All
spaces in a residence have to ventilate to the outside space according to Indian bye laws. Ventilation
through courtyards is permitted with certain specification on minimum dimensions. This means that
there are no ‘β’ zones as suggested in the applications of the ‘Supports’ theory11.(ill.3) Consequently
only single zone depth houses are possible unless the ‘γ’ zone (the access way) is a ventilated space.
As a result, housing blocks are usually square plan types or thin elongated plan types with central
circulation cores to allow for maximum periphery area to a given built up area. This creates problems
in hot arid regions of India. Due to extremely hot summers it makes sense to have the least peripheral
area to minimize solar heat gain through radiation. This is at loggerheads with the requirements of
ventilation.

CASE STUDY 3 (plate 5, plate 6)

Project: Udayan
Type: joint venture- public and private housing
Developer: Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd.
Client: individual ownership
Architect: B.V.Doshi and Mandala Design Services
Location: Calcutta
Built up area: 186000 sq.mts.
Unit size: 45-700 sq.mts.
Completion: 2003

This project has not been intentionally designed on the basis of ‘Supports’ theory, though there are
many similarities to the theory as well as departures due to its Indian context. The supports systems in
this building consist of concrete frame structure, vertical circulation cores and strategically located
service ducts. The ground floor is used for parking and intermediate terraces are used as public areas.
The infill structure consists of conventional plastered brick partition walls and is hence practically
inflexible. All units were designed and constructed as a single project by the architects and hence one
could argue that it does not follow the guidelines laid out by the theory of supports. However, the
design of the support system is based on a study of various possible layouts. All 26 variations of infill
layouts have been constructed. They vary from small 1 bedroom studio apartments to large 5 bedroom
duplex houses. Theoretically any one of these units can be demolished, altered and rebuilt without
 7

affecting the other units. Units can also be combined to form larger houses. There are various reasons
for constructing the infill along with the support structure. Since prefabricated partitioning systems are
costlier than conventional methods of construction, the units would eventually have to be constructed
using conventional methods thereby reducing the flexibility of the layout. Larger scale of wet
construction implies greater cost benefits as compared to cost benefits of large scale prefabrication
construction. It thus makes economic sense to construct all units as one project.

The myth that large scale repetition has cost benefits can be challenged by citing this project. The
project is a commercial venture and hence maximizes the permissible built area. However, it shows
that large numbers do not necessarily imply identical and monotonous building blocks of huge scales.
The terracing towards the central area and use of color, break the scale of these buildings and provide
an alternative to the standard cuboidnal building typology of housing blocks. This addresses one of the
problems of mass housing- that of monotony. By repeating the same block design for all nine blocks
after creating complex variations in one block, it also emphasizes the ease of management as the
primary reason for repetition of blocks in large projects.12

The internal flexibility of the unit depends on many factors. Though changes occur largely due to user
needs, some control is also exercised by the community. In this case, the cooperative housing society
formed by the residents might be averse to any changes in the units. Distribution of authority
eventually determines the power wielded by various players. As much as partition walls do not inhibit
the user from making changes, the presence of prefabricated partitions does not imply that changes
will necessarily occur. The next study shows how flexible systems can also be perceived as
conventional houses.

CASE STUDY 4 (plate 7)

Project: Next 21 housing
Type: private housing
Developer: Osaka Gas Corporation
Clients: Osaka Gas Corporation
Architects: next 21 planning team
No. of units: 18
Location: Osaka
Completion: 1993

This experimental housing project attempts to address problems and realities of urban life in the
present situation. This includes ideas on sustainable habitats, reviewing urban lifestyles, and processes
of green building. The project also employs open building systems to allow for greater flexibility. The
services of the support structure run under false ceilings and raised floors giving greater flexibility
compared to standard vertical stacks. The 18 units were designed by 13 architects who had great
degree of freedom in designing the unit. Each house is like an independent house built on a plot of
land. Subsequent to its construction, only one unit has been torn down and rebuilt to test the efficiency
of the support system. These houses are works of individual architects. The system allows for the
design of each unit as a professional residential project. These houses are less likely to change due to
higher investment in the original house even though the infill partitions are prefabricated. Thus,
flexibility of the system cannot be measured by the frequency of change.

Developments in Mass Housing

Many changes have been proposed to Mass Housing in the face of strong criticism especially from the
‘Supports’ group. Sincere attempts have been made by proponents of mass housing to understand the
needs of the user, and to incorporate the same in mass housing projects. These include extensive
surveys to map user initiated changes in existing housing, and questionnaires circulated for user input
in an attempt to gauge existing trends. Although these methods predict prevalent trends, they do not
establish a one to one correspondence with the intended user. At best they are able to predict the
general needs of the average user; usually a non-existent ideal family. User input in mass housing is
best exemplified in the Byker Wall project.
 8

CASE STUDY 5 (plate 8)

Project name: Byker wall
Developer: Newcastle planning committee
Client: private ownership
Architect: Ralph Erskine and associates
Location: Newcastle upon tyne
No. of units: 2317
Completion: 1981

When Ralph Erskine was asked to propose a redevelopment scheme for the neighborhood in
Newcastle, he conducted an extensive survey of the area which included interviews with the
prospective house owners.13 He also set up an office on site with an open door policy to encourage
contact between the architect and the client. The architect’s intentions were to incorporate the
suggestions made by these people at the design stage rather than designing individualized houses for
each client. Technically this is a mass housing project. The key difference is that the architects knew
the clients at the design stage allowing them to design according to specific inputs. The success of the
project, not only in terms of architectural recognition but more importantly in user satisfaction and
pride, opens up new directions for mass housing. However, in most large housing projects the end
users are not identifiable and hence mass housing cannot cater to the individual user. The other
development in mass housing is more recent. It involves viewing housing as a commodity rather than
a product. If there is sufficient housing stock available with different sizes and layouts, users could
select one that best suits them. This would be like buying any other product from a supermarket. This
assumes an excess supply, which is not ideal for the investor as it implies long term investment
without immediate gains. This problem is heightened in developing countries where demand is greater
than supply. It is not possible to have excess housing stock in India.14 This forces us to return to the
idea of the unknown user and find means of tackling this problem.

An alternative approach: John Turner and the ‘Sites and Services’ project
John Turner worked extensively in the developing countries of South America, with specific focus on
low cost, long term, immigrant housing in the cities. He studied informal squatter settlements and
government provided low cost housing schemes. Squatter settlements usually occur near sources of
income and are hence spread out in different pockets in large cities. However, resettlement
programmes usually relocate them on the outer fringes of the city. This is inevitable as land value is
much higher in city centers than in the suburbs. His research pointed out that government provided
houses of so call higher standard (brick and concrete houses) were costlier to maintain and entailed
higher commuting expenses. Comparatively, squatters built with available material (salvaged tin
sheets, bamboo poles) were easier to maintain and upgrade. Turner concluded that the best way to
solve the housing problem is to not build houses. He advocated spending the money on making
resources (land, jobs, loans) available to people and letting them build over time. The debate still
exists between ‘providers’ who insist on building houses and ‘supporters’ who insist on not building
houses. Expert opinion is slowly shifting towards the idea of ‘supporters’ in the recent past.

CASE STUDY 6 (plate 9)

Project name: Aranya township
Developer: Indore development authority
Owners: private ownership
Architects: Vastu shilp foundation, BV Doshi
No. of plots: 6500
Completion: 1982
Location: Indore

As the name suggests, the ‘Sites and Services’ project provides users with a plot of land and
infrastructural facilities. The infrastructure facilities include paved/unpaved streets, water supply and
sewer connections, electrical and other cable supplies, and other civic amenities like street lighting and
garbage disposal. In some instances like in Aranya, the basic sanitary core is also constructed by the
provider. This includes a toilet, a bath area and a cooking shelf. The construction of the rest of the
house is left to individual owners. They have to follow guidelines laid down by existing building bye
 9

laws to ensure health and safety. There are many advantages in this system. For the provider, a ‘Sites
and Services’ project costs considerably less as compared to conventional housing schemes. This
ensures that available resources can cater to a larger number of beneficiaries. The user benefits in
having to pay less for the basic facilities for living. They are then free to build according to their
resources and can consolidate and enlarge their houses over time. The resultant urban environment is
not monotonous as each house is built individually, giving unique character to the neighborhood.

The ‘Sites and Services’ project is essentially similar to the ‘Supports’ project. Both provide basic
facilities and allow the user to design the unit layout. They emphasize processes rather than products.
The main difference is that ‘Sites and Services’ projects are not multi storey ventures. This increases
the level of freedom that can be afforded by the support. The external shell and the floors need not
form part of the support structure in the ‘Sites and Services’ project. As this is determined by the user,
the units can vary vastly in size and shape. This allows for user control in the growth of the unit. This
is possibly the biggest limitation of the ‘Supports’ theory. The variation of unit size in the ‘Supports’
theory is only possible by combining two units into one or by creating different unit sizes as part of the
original design. Flexibility in infill incorporates replacement but does not permit growth. The only
solution for growth that is offered is also not viable. It is proposed that larger slabs can be constructed
with additional service stacks. These can serve as terrace spaces initially and users can convert them to
rooms at a future date. There are two fundamental problems with this solution. It implies that the user
has to pay for the extra support system irrespective of whether one decides to extend ones unit. The
user has to pay for the additional construction, implying that he can afford this. This is not possible in
developing countries were incremental housing is tied to financial resources. The second flaw is that it
assumes the exact location of the final size of the unit. This does not allow for user decision on the
extent of growth. At the heart of the ‘Support’ theory is the idea that the acts of the user are
unforeseeable and hence the design should provide for this unforeseen aspect. By establishing the
boundary of the unit, the support structure does not cater to indeterminate growth in the unit size.

Combining ‘Supports’ and growth

Previous research (Rybczyski: 1981, Oxman: 1984)on incorporating unforeseen growth in ‘Supports’
structures have focused on single storey constructions or provision of partial support systems in the
initial stage. The following example illustrates partial use of the ‘Supports’ theory with a provision for
future expansion.

CASE STUDY 7 (plate 10, plate 11)

Project name: post earthquake housing at Vavania village
Developer: TATA group
Owners: private ownership
Architects: Neelkanth Chhaya
Location: Vavania village, Rajkot district.
No. of units: approx 900
Unit area: 16-32 sq.mts.
Completion: 2004

The design of this project has been shaped by unique circumstances. The earthquake of January 26th
2001 caused widespread destruction and subsequently spawned a massive aid and relief package. In
this case aid was limited to Rs. 50000 ($1150) per family. The government also specified that all new
houses had to be earthquake resistant. This translated to a possible built up area of 12 sq.mts.; highly
inadequate as a complete house. Not all houses in the village were destroyed. So it was decided to
build new houses on existing plots of land. This resulted in approximately 500 building sites15, a
logistical nightmare. On the positive side, it was possible to establish individual contact with each user
allowing for user inputs in design. This was not a multistory scheme and hence afforded a larger
degree of freedom in the design of the support structure. The final design process was a combination
of ‘Supports’, ‘Sites and Services’, and user input processes. It was clear from the onset that the design
would have to take into account future growth. A survey of existing housing layouts was carried out to
study the local use of space. Based on this survey a few standard units were designed and discussed
with the users. Eventually a kit of parts (floors, walls, fixtures) was designed with individual costing.
Users were then given the choice of contributing material (salvaged rubble for foundations, existing
 10

doors and windows), labor (unskilled labor for curing of walls and slabs), and additional funds. After
discussion with the architect a unique layout for each individual was designed. Provisions were made
in the prototypes for future expansion and extra loads. The unit provided to the users was conceived as
a core element (like in the sites and services project) rather than a complete house. Customized
construction drawings were prepared for each unit by modifying the basic prototypes. The
standardization of prototypes allowed for estimations of cost, time and materials allowing for
centralized process by a single contractor. Within one year of its construction, the houses have been
transformed beyond recognition. In many cases the additions are larger than the original unit. In some
cases construction began immediately after the owners took possession of the house. The process of
construction employed by the users demonstrates the constraints that result in this process. The first
act of construction usually was the demarcation of ground by clearing it and defining its boundaries
with dried shrubs. The next stage involved construction of a simple shelter using tin or thatch roofs
supported on tree trunks. This was followed by dry brick wall construction and mud plastering of
floors. The final stage was the plastering of walls and conversion of the roof to a tiled or concrete
structure. Users also repainted their houses in different colours and added decorative elements to give
character to the house.

In dealing with the Indian context it becomes apparent that combining ‘Supports’ theory with
provision for growth is not only necessary in some cases, it also aids in solving both the problems
identified in mass housing- the monotony of the block and the flexibility of the unit. Designing for
growth in multistory housing is tied to the shaping of the urban neighborhood. By extending user
control to the next level, that is by letting users decide the size of the layout and hence the extent of the
façade location, it might be possible to apply a modified theory of ‘Supports’ in the Indian context. To
understand growth as a process of change and its relation to the ‘Supports’ theory, an analysis of
Habraken’s subsequent theory of ‘The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built
Environment’ is required.

The Structure of the Ordinary

‘The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment’ is a logical progression
from ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’. According to Habraken ‘… the support/infill idea
made us examine the environment as shaped by acts of transformation… what could be learned about
environmental structure from observing change?’ (Habraken: 1998, p.xvii) This book can be summed
up as a study of this environmental structure by observing change. The emphasis is not on why
changes occur (the sociologist’s fascination) but how it manifests and what it implies. He strives to
unravel this understanding of the everyday ordinary urban environment at three levels of increasing
complexity- the spatial, the territorial, and the cultural. Even though the supports theory acknowledges
the complexity of user needs (space, culture, economy and lifestyle) and hence the idea of the
unforeseen, the solution is sought in a system which allows for the unforeseen to occur without having
to actually engage with it. It is this unforeseen that becomes the focus of this latter study. Here, change
is seen intrinsic to the environment and hence the built environment is studied as an organism rather
than an artifact. The actual built form is not important (as it is transient and bound to change), the
processes of the players that result in transformation is key to understanding housing. The system of
the built environment consists of the structure and the configuration. The structure sets rules of the
game establishing the relationship between various objects, whereas the configuration allows for
variants to manifest according to the rules of the structure. A system thus emphasizes the process that
is dynamic whereas a pattern (referring to Alexander) is a function of the product and is hence static.

There is continual stress on the dynamic nature of the built environment. Some statements like ‘for
designers and planners, use is typically set a-priori but in reality, user in neither static nor passive’
(Habraken:1998, p.8) or ‘the ability of form to carry multiple meanings and to serve more than one
purpose is, of course, a good thing. Multiplicity is what built environment is all about.’ (Habraken:
1998, p.64) stress this dynamic nature. He further states that ‘We are so conditioned to label every
room by function, in conversations and floor plans alike, that it has become difficult to understand that
people instinctively settle built space. Yet inhabitation remains fundamentally territorial, not
functional.’ (Habraken: 1998, p.132) and ‘historically, spaces in vernacular house types rarely
assumed function names: mezzanine, hall, attic, cellar, stoop, and porch do not describe functions.
 11

Actions and functions in the building were linked not to specific rooms or spaces as much as to
specific attributes or configurations present…’ (Habraken: 1998, p.134)

In the context of large scale housing in India, this aspect of the theory can provide new insights into
the phenomenon of growth. Firstly, growth can be seen as a continuous and inevitable process of
urban development as an organism and hence designs should allow for growth rather than trying to
design it. The recognition that functions assigned to a space are based on the configuration of spaces
rather than their individual characteristics, allows for different functions to be assigned to the same
space (as long as they meet certain criteria of relation to other spaces). In the process of growth, this
allows for original function-space correlations to be changed, resulting in greater flexibility. This
understanding is opposed to the earlier theory of supports and variations (the flexibility of support
systems and study of ideal dimensions for spaces with specific functions) which highlighted the need
to reconstruct rooms to accommodate change in functions and neglected the aspect of inhabitation and
use of space in different ways.

CASE STUDY 8 (plate 12, plate 13)

Project name: Chitrakoot apartments, Panchwati apartments, Neelkamal apartments, Gokul
apartments [after user designed changes]
Developer: GHB
Client: private ownership
Contractor: private
No. of units: approx. 300
Unit size: 62-145 sq.mts.
Type: 3 storey walk up apartments
Structure: concrete frame structure
Completion: continuing

The transformation of this housing neighborhood provides us with an in-depth understanding of the
built environment as an active organism. The original building was not designed to accommodate
growth. This is obvious from its external load bearing walls. However, increasing user requirements
coupled with financial stability have resulted in additions to existing houses ranging from small
balconies to doubling and sometimes tripling of the original unit area. The second important
observation is the claiming of public territory and its conversion to private space by paving and
enclosing of inter-building space. In the support-infill system provision for growth necessitates
construction of supports in the initial stage and only the infill construction is carried out by the user at
a later stage. This is due to the relative ease of erecting prefabricated infill panels and the difficulty in
constructing on site support structures. The absence of this division in the Indian context due to
unviable costs of prefabricated elements implies that the infills as well as the support construction use
the same on site wet construction systems. Thus, for housing designs to provide for growth it is not
necessary to construct additional support structures during the initial stage. Indeed, additions
constructed at Sola road include concrete columns, brick walls and even toilets with new service
shafts. As change in individual needs and resources might differ over time, not all homes are modified.
The effect of this at the neighborhood level is an unforeseen variation in the previously identical
public space. User input and control is present not only at the level of the individual unit, but at the
level of the building as well. This is not possible in support-infill in the context of developed
countries. However, there are two important aspects that cannot be overlooked from this case study.
Additions to existing units are not inevitable, they are contingent on user needs. Some parts of this
neighborhood still exist in their original monotonous form. Hence, probability of additions is not a
license for designing identical units. Variations in the original design, as in the case of Udayan, are
also required. Second, additions at upper levels of 3 storey structures are possible without additions at
lower levels by constructing double height columns. This would not be possible with most high rise
housing structures.16 To tackle growth in high rise housing structures, a new method would be
required. Alternatively, we could advocate high density low rise urban housing.
 12

Conclusions
From ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’ to ‘The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control
in the Built Environment’, Habraken’s theory evolves from attempting to provide a workable solution
to the housing problem, to understanding the true structure of housing in all its complexity. It is also a
movement from the specific (design methodology for European housing) to the general (identifying
forces that shape housing environments). Housing in India faces challenges that are different from the
ones faced by Europe throughout its history. In order to provide workable alternatives to mass housing
in India, we need to interpret Habraken’s broader theory of ‘The Structure of the Ordinary’ and
consequently modify the theory of ‘Supports’. This modification takes into account two fundamental
differences- the absence of industrialization process in the construction industry, and the process of the
growing home due to a developing economy. A third modification is further required- the
disassociation of the function-space relationship and its recasting in a function-spatial configuration
relation. This is beyond the scope of this paper as it entails an in-depth study of the relation between
space and its use.

Endnotes

1
All statistics on India, Gujarat and Ahmedabad are taken from http://udd.gujarat.gov.in accessed on 27-03-05
unless stated otherwise.
2
Statistics on city populations vary widely due to different interpretations on suburban areas and satellite towns.
3
All figures are with effect from 20-03-1999. $1 ~ Rs.43 (March 2005)
4
Henceforth referred to as Sola road housing
5
This data was collected as part of an undergraduate thesis on housing at Ahmedabad.
6
The machine aesthetic of Le Corbusier and the modernists are wrongly associated with large repetitive
megastructures. The modernists looked to the machine as a source of artistic inspiration. They were fascinated
by the ‘clean and crisp’ lines, the logic of putting things together, and the importance of each part as a necessary
component of the whole. This has no direct relation to either large scales or mass production.
7
By rational I mean that they take into account health and hygiene- light, ventilation, waste disposal, material
properties etc.
8
It is interesting to note that such an idea of creating ground in the sky comes from a nation which creates
ground below sea level.
9
Both systems were very costly due to high initial investmens in cabling works. However, due to the benefits
they provided, they continued to exist even though they were economically unviable. Today both are cheap and
we cannot think of a world without them.
10
Prefabrication systems are common in the interior layouts of offices. Although they are costlier than
conventional systems, the paucity of space and the frequency of change, coupled with corporate (as opposed to
private) funding result in the use of prefabrication systems for partitions in offices.
11
Spaces like toilets, kitchens and even study rooms can ventilate through mechanical ducts in many parts of
Europe. This has a widespread impact on the overall dimension of the housing block.
12
The internal flat distribution in all blocks are not the same. Blocks built in the latter phase are modified to
increase the number of preferred layouts. The block profile is however the same, though variations occur in color
and first floor podium design.
13
The proposal envisaged demolition of existing houses and relocation of residents in the same area in newly
built housing. It was hence possible to contact all intended users of this housing scheme.
14
Lots of vacant houses can be found in Indian cities. This is not due to excess stock; they are individual
instances of bad designs or maintainence, unsuitable locality, overpricing etc.
15
Few areas were completely destroyed and hence some houses were relocated in new sites and were built in
larger clusters.
16
Although minor additions are made in high rise housing like in Hong Kong, these are restricted to small
additions for utilities or as balconies and take the form of caged cantilever structures.
 13

References
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1999. Supports: an alternative to mass housing. 2nd ed. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Urban international press.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1998. The Structure of the ordinary: form and control in the built environment.
TEICHER, J., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
HABRAKEN, N.J. et.al., 1976. Variations: the systematic design of supports. Cambridge, MA:
Laboratory of Architecture and Planning at MIT.

Extended bibliography
ATLAS, N.E. AND OZSOY, A., 1998. Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user
satisfaction for quality housing. Building and environment, 33 (5), 315-323.
BEISI, J., 2004. An introduction to open building as a teaching manifesto. Open house international,
29 (1), 5-13.
BEISI, J., 2004. Operable infill in housing renovation: a practice in urban density. Open house
international, 29 (2), 72-82.
BEISI, J., 1998. Component strategies for adaptable housing in China. Open house international, 23
(1), 4-11.
BENJAMIN, S., 1985. India: Formal V Informal housing. Architectural review, 0178 (1062), 32-36.
BHATTACHARYA, A. AND WILKINSON, N., 1995. Problems of shelter in Bombay- some
solutions. Open house international, 20 (2), 23-27.
BOSMA, K., et al, 2000. Housing for the millions: John Habraken and the SAR (1960-2000).
Rotterdam: NAi publishers.
CAMINOS, H. et al, 1969. Urban dwelling environments; an elementary survey of settlements for the
study of design determinants. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
CHASE, D.S., 2001. Evolutive housing in the suburb: An achievable alternative. Thesis (M.Arch).
University of Calgary.
DASGUPTA, A.S., 1990. Negotiating for growth and change: a study of user initiated transformation
of public sector housing. Open house international, 15 (4), 34-40.
FRIEDMAN, A. AND PAPAMARKAKI, K., 1989. Design for users’ interventions in apartments:
case studies in Athens, Greece. Open house international, 14 (4), 3-12.
FRIEDMAN, A., 2002. The adaptable house: designing homes for change. New York, London:
McGraw- hill.
GREGER, O. AND STEINBERG, F., 1988. Transformations of formal housing. Open House
International, 13 (3), 23-35.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 2003. The fine grained large project. Open house international, 28 (2), 6-8.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 2002. The use of levels. Open house international, 27 (2), 9-20.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 2001. Infill systems: a new industry. Open house international, 26 (3), 5-8.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1999. Shared forms and the role of designers. Open house international, 24 (4),
13-20.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1998. Structure of the ordinary: form and control in the built environment.
TEICHER, J., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1997. Forms of understanding: thematic knowledge and the modernist legacy. In:
POLLAK, M., The education of the architect: historiography, urbanism and the growth of
architectural knowledge: essays presented to Stanford Anderson on his sixty-second birthday.
Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 267-293.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1988. Type as a social agreement. In: Biannual Asian congress of architects.
Seoul.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1987. The control of complexity. Places, 4(2), 3-15.
HABRAKEN, J., 1985. Reconciling variety and efficiency in large scale projects. In: SEVCENKO,
M.B., Large housing projects: design, technology and logistics. Cambridge, MA: Aga khan
programme for Islamic architecture. 46-53.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1985. Three R’s for housing. Open house international, 10(4), 57-59.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1985. Lives of systems. Open house international, 10(4), 49-56.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1985. Signs of Territory. Open house international, 10(2), 4-14.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1983. The general from the local. Open house international, 8(2), 6-12.
HABRAKEN, N.J. et.al., 1976. Variations: the systematic design of supports. Cambridge, MA:
Laboratory of Architecture and Planning at MIT.
 14

HABRAKEN, N.J., 1974. Du regne de la quantite a l’orde de la quantite?. L’architecture

d’aujourd’hui. ? (174), 64-76.
HABRAKEN, N.J., 1972. Supports: an alternative to mass housing. Newcastle upon Tyne: Urban
international press.
HAMDI, N., 1996. Housing alternatives: lessons from experience. In ZAHLAN, A.B., The
reconstruction of Palestine: issues, options, policies and strategies. New York: Kegan paul
international.
HAMDI, N., 1991. Housing without houses: participation, flexibility, enablement. New York: Van
nostrand reinhold.
KASHIKAR, V., 2000. Sense of Belonging: the character of community space. Thesis (Dip.Arch).
CEPT, Ahmedabad.
KENDALL, S. AND TEICHER, J., 2000. Residential open building. London: Spon.
KENDALL, S. ed., 1998. CIB TG 26 Open Building Implementation : CIB proceedings, Open
Building Workshop and Symposium, National Building Museum, Washington, D.C., USA, November
3-5, 1997. Rotterdam: International council for building research studies and documentation.
KENDALL, S., 1997. Open building. Open house international, 22 (2), 5-12.
KENDALL, S., 1993. Open building for housing. Progressive Architecture, 74 (11), 95-98.
KENDALL, S., 1990. Shell/Infill: a technical study of a new strategy for '2 x 4' housing. Open house
international, 15 (1), 13-19.
KENDALL, S., 1987. Notes on ‘open systems’ in building technology. Building and environment, 22
(2), 93-100.
KENDALL, S., 1986. The Netherlands: distinguishing ‘supports’ and infill. Architecture (AIA), 75
(10), 90-94.
KENDALL, S., 1986. Who’s in charge of housing innovation? Vernacular construction technologies
distribute control widely. Architecture (AIA), 75 (10), 87-90.
KENDALL, S., 1984. Teaching with tissues: observations of reflections. Open house international, 9
(4), 15-22.
KENDALL, S., 1976. The idea of structures of agreements, housing and resettlement in the
Philippines. Open house international. (2), 34-47.
KOZLOWSKI, R.., 1990. The adaptable apartment: A search for design methods and criteria. Thesis
(M.Arch). University of Toronto.
LAWRENCE, R.J., 1993. The appearance of form: a review essay. Open house international, 18 (3),
3-8.
LIU, J.K.C., 1980. Housing transformations: a study of family life and built form in Taiwan. Thesis
(PhD). University of California, Berkeley.
MAHTAB-UZ-ZAMAN Q.M. AND LAU, S.S.Y., 2002. Difficulties in achieving open building in the
mass housing in Hong Kong and implication of user participation. Architectural science review, 45,
175-181.
MEHTA, M. AND MEHTA, D., 1990. Spatio-temporal patterns of settlement evolution processes: A
comparative study of two low-income communities. Open house international, 15 (4), 69-73.
MOHARRAM, L.A., 1980. A method for evaluating the flexibility of floor plans in multi-story
housing. Thesis (PhD). University of Pennsylvania.
OXMAN, R. AND CARMON, N., 1989. Open house international, 14 (1), 15-20.
OXMAN, R.M., 1984. To grow a house. Open house international, 9 (1), 24-36.
OXMAN, R.M., 1978. Flexibility in supports: an analysis of the effect of selected physical design
variables upon the flexibility of support type housing systems. Thesis (D.Sc). Israel Institute of
Technology.
PANTELOPOULOS, M.D., 1997. Learning from the wartime home. Open house international, 22 (4),
16-19.
PAUNIKAR, A., 1983. Performance constraints of housing prefabricators in India: 3 case studies.
Thesis (Arch. Dr.). University of Michigan.
PAWLEY, M., 1972. The need for a revolutionary myth. Architectural Design, 2 (1972), 73-80.
RABENECK, A. et al, 1974. Housing, flexibility, adaptability? Architectural design, (2), 76-91.
RABENECK, A. et al, 1973. Housing, flexibility? Architectural design, (11), 698-727.
RYBCZYSKI, W. et al, 1981. Sites, services and supports. Open house international, 6 (2), 19-30.
SALAMA, R., 1998. Understanding public housing transformations in Egypt. Open house
international, 23 (1), 32-39.
 15

SHIFERAW, D., 1998. Self-initiated transformations of public-provided dwellings in Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia. Cities, 15 (6), 437-448.
THIJSSEN, A. AND ESIN, N., 1990. “The ortakoy support”: study project on housing based on the
concept of supports and detachable units. Open house international, 15 (2, 3), 51-55.
TIPPLE, G.A. et al, 1985. The transformation of workers’ city, Helwan: multi-storey extensions
observed. Open House International, 10 (3), 25-38.
TURNER, J.F.C. Ed, 1983. Special issue, design and housing in developing countries. Open house
international, 8 (4), 3-44.
TURNER, J.F.C. Ed, 1983. Special issue, architecture for developing countries. Architectural
education, (2), 5-115.
TURNER, J.F.C., 1979. Housing in three dimensions. Open house, 4 (2), 19-29.
TURNER, J.F.C., 1979. Mass housing and user participation. Built Environment, 5 (2), 91-98.
TURNER, J.F.C., 1976. Housing by people: towards autonomy in building environments. London:
Marion boyars.
TURNER, J.F.C. AND FICHTER, R. Ed, 1972. Freedom to build; dweller control of the housing
process. New York: Macmillan.
WASSERMAN, J., 1981. The SAR system: an American overview. Open house international, 6 (1),
54-55.

Case study resources and illustration credits

Sola Road housing:
All drawings and photographs from-
KASHIKAR, V., 2000. Sense of Belonging: the character of community space. Thesis (Dip.Arch).
CEPT, Ahmedabad.

Montereau & Orminge:

All photographs from; all drawings redrawn from-
RABENECK, A. et al, 1973. Housing, flexibility? Architectural design, (11), 698-727.
Other Resources-
RABENECK, A. et al, 1974. Housing, flexibility, adaptability? Architectural design, (2), 76-91.
PERIANEZ. M., 1993. L’habitat evolutif: du mythe aux realites… Available from
http://www.urbanisme.equipement.gouv.fr/cdu/datas/docs/ouvr12/sommaire.htm#sommaire [accessed
on 23rd March, 2005]

Udayan:
All drawings redrawn from original drawings provided by Mandala Design Services.
All photographs by Sohan Nilkanth.
Other resources-
PANDYA, Y. et.al., 1999. Apartment Planning. Architecture & Design,16 (5), 52-55.

Next 21:
All drawings from-
KENDALL, S. AND TEICHER, J., 2000. Residential open building. London: Spon.
All photographs from-
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE HKU, 1992. Next 21: Osaka gas experimental housing.
Available from http://www.arch.hku.hk/~cmhui/japan/next21/next21-index.html [accessed on 15th
February, 2005]
Other resources-
NEXT 21, 2001. Next 21. Available from http://www.osaka-sumou.net/next21/ [accessed on 3rd April,
2005]
 16

Byker Wall:
All drawings from-
COLLYMORE, P., 1982. The architecture of Ralph Erskine. London; Granada.
All images from-
MATS, E., 1990. Ralph Erskine, Architect. Stockholm: Byggforlaget.
ERSKINE, R., 1977. the byker wall. 47 (11/12) 837-841.

Aranya Township:
All Drawings from-
DOSHI, B.V., 1998. Aranya Township, Indore. Mimar 28(June, 1998) 24-29.
All photographs from-
PANDYA, Y. et.al., 1995-?. Aranya Community Housing. Aga Khan Award for Architecture.
http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=1124 [accessed on 4th April, 2005]

Vavania housing:
Original layout drawings redrawn from drawings provided by Neelkanth Chhaya architects.
Study of transformations redrawn from Bhushan, S. done for the office of Neelkanth Chhaya.
Photographs provided by Neelkanth Chhaya architects.

Illustration credits:
FRAMPTON, K., 1992. Modern architecture: a critical history. London: Thames & Hudson, p.181.
BOSMA, K., et al, 2000. Housing for the millions: John Habraken and the SAR (1960-2000).
Rotterdam: NAi publishers, p.93.

View publication stats