T
his research is dedicated to all my mentors that have guided me throughout my academic years and beyond. I am but an amalgamation of all the knowledge, ideas and wisdom imparted to me by my mentors over the years and to them I am eternally grateful. The motivation for this topic arose while I was interning at Vo Trong Nghia Architects in Vietnam and at Toyo Ito Architects and associates in Japan, both of which left a lasting impression on me as a student of architecture and outlined the power, architecture has in shaping lives and building communities. To both these offices I shall be indebted for their invaluable exposure and wisdom. This research would not have been possible without the support and discourse of my guide, Pinkish Shah who helped me pursue my idea to its full potential. His relentless efforts, suggestions and references have been crucial in building the argument for this research and to him I am truly grateful. Lastly, I would like to thank all the faculty members of Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of architecture for their support and help.
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY I, Dev Desai, declare that the ideas represented in this research are solely mine. I have adequately referenced all images and words wherever relevant to build my argument. I am well aware of the implications of Plagiarism and shall be held liable to disciplinary action if found to have engaged in any unethical practice. Copyright under Government of India D.N : 6239/2020-CO/L
Dev Desai
This Research introduces the outcome urbanisation has had on communities, lives and identities in the city. The ubiquitous and identical housing form in Cities across Asia have come to mimic western ideologies losing touch with a rich cultural heritage and communal way of life. In this regard, the research aims to derive values in housing from Urban villages and reinforce the notion of democratic architecture through decentralised means of production and construction.
CONTENTS 1.
Introduction
12
2.
Ubiquitous and Identical Urban Architecture
18
3.
Housing values in Urban Villages
32
INTRODUCTION
U
rbanization has radicalised the way of living for a majority of the world’s population and it is projected that nearly two-thirds of all people will call cities their home by 2050 ( UN-DESA ). While the earliest instances of Urban migration can be largely traced to the more developed countries of Europe and North America on the backbone of industrialization, looking forward, it is expected that nearly ninety percent of urban increase will be accounted for in Asia and Africa. Throughout history, cities have been centers of culture, religion, learning and economics, emblematic of a heterogeneous society in a consolidated environment. Yet urban dwelling architecture which has come to be, is largely homogeneous, ignorant of the multitudes of cultural diversities and individual identities. Cities in Asia however were never the concrete rubber-stamped jungles they are today. Hidden in plain sight under the mirage of a western pretext of quality living, lie the remnants of what influenced the fabric of Asian cities for prior centuries. Urban
villages characterised by its small scale, informal and light architecture, from the Gaothans and Koliwadas of Mumbai to the Hutongs of Beijing, and from the Minkas of Tokyo to the Kampongs of Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur, they form intense coherent communities where strong individual identities are expressed. Since these urban villages are the domain of the poor, change comes easily, affording flexibility and differentiation. As urban populations grew, land at its centre became scarce ensued by the expansion of cities into urban agglomerations and increasing commute times for citizens. Driven by demographics and economics, real estate forces have caused gentrified locales in the city fracturing the very integration it ought to celebrate. The pertinent question is how the architecture of dwellings in the urban domain will respond to its dwellers, the community and values of the society in the decades to come to tackle the challenges of urban living and understand the heterogeneity of its inhabitants.
12
An ubiquitous and homogeneous housing block in the urban context disregards the multitudes of identities that dwell in the city. Gentrified locales increase commute times, fracturing spaces of live from places of work.
13
The urban context forms a very important ecosystem which emerges out of a relation between livelihoods, mobility and housing. A careful understanding and balance between these factors stimulate an equitable and affordable city within which communities can thrive. In this regard it is also essential to understand the 21st century way of life.
Urbanisation has detached the urban from nature making the city into a forest of concrete and glass blocks where spaces of recreation are limited to formal establishments which tend to be exclusive and gentrified or is restricted within the confines of the dwelling.
14
Can we learn from urban villages in the values they assimilate? This approach could enable dwellings that are dynamic and flexible, individualized and personal yet coherent and immersed in the community. Dwellings where cultural values dictate dwelling form rather than predetermined notions of quality living. Spaces which blur the thresholds of work, play, and live. Can a new method of developing the cities of the now and the future, based on individual expression and identity be realised? Can these habitats be developed in an evolutionary manner as historic urban villages did? Such a manner of development would require a framework and a set of parameters to enable the democratic process of dwelling form exploration while ensuring the provision of building services and structural stability. What technologies would be needed to realise a workable architectural model that creates a three dimensional community that supports individual freedom in design, flexibility in function and differentiation of form? Will these frameworks be determined by institutions of power or will they be moulded by the citizens and dwellers? Can a participatory model of decision making influence communities in the urban context? This research strives to delve into answering these questions. Rather than shy away from density, affordability and homogeneity, we face them head on with the values of the past in the context of newer technologies to build the future. 15
UBIQUITOUS AND IDENTICAL URBAN ARCHITECTURE This chapter questions if there is a difference between residential zones of different Asian cities. 2.1
The story of F.A.R
2.2
Homogeneity of Urban Form
2.3
(A Reflection of 9 Asian cities)
The way Forward
F.A.R AND THE HOMOGENEITY OF URBAN FORM.
I
n a globalising economy, architecture and urban design have become prominent tools in circulating and amassing capital. Amidst the late 20th Century and with the advent of industrialisation in newly liberated and developing Asian countries, Rural-Urban migration saw a large demand for urban housing leading to a housing crisis. The Neo-liberal policies towards housing provisions of this period led to property led regeneration where the role of housing which had existed for centuries prior to this point shifted from a physical manifestation of ones identity to a commodified need for shelter. To understand how architecture in the urban context evolved into the form it expresses today, it is important to trace the history of the world’s first mega-city and the birthplace of Floor Area Ratio ; New York City in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During this period, the city became the centre for Commerce, Industry and Communication. Demographically, the city witnessed mass rural- urban migration and by the 1930s,
it had surpassed the 10 million mark, the infrastructure of which could not satisfy the demands for housing among other needs. The apathy of the state to quench the housing deficit gave rise to neo-liberal policies, enticing private developers to fill the gap. Lured by profits, tall buildings of the city showed absolute disregard for the spatial quality of public spaces and streets transforming them into dark, depressing alleys. To ameliorate the existing situation, zoning ordinances of 1916 sought to control building size by regulating height and setbacks with the aim of preventing buildings from obstructing too much sunlight and ventilation at the ground. Regulating and defining frameworks for individual plots of every borough in the city was an un-viable option and a revision of the ordinance in 1961 introduced the concept of Floor Area ration (F.A.R) which has become synonymous with most development globally ever since.
18
1961
The reality of today’s (2020s) architecture has devalorised Mies Van der Rohe’s famous dictum ‘ Form follows function’ to ‘Form follows F.A.R.’. Vertical stacking of repetitive plans to squeeze every bit of Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) have created economies of scale and crippled architecture in the urban domain. We no longer build a house or make a home, we instead buy it. Anything otherwise is the exception to the norm that is so blatantly accepted as the ideal manner of living. Is this as good as it gets?
Home as a commodified asset & the dweller plays the role of a consumer.
1916
Consumerism in housing is closely linked to neo-liberalism that has come to dominate urban sprawl, characterised by the transformation of the role of the dweller from a producer of dwelling form to that of a consumer of commodity. Dwellings in the urban context fail to respond to the multitudes of identities and desires that abound the city, shaping and sculpting the heterogeneous character of its demographic. It is crucial to understand that, just as every individual differs from others in his/ her identity, every community differs in values, every region in its climate, and every country in its resources. If this is to be considered true, then;
Home as an existential need for shelter in the city.
1900 Home as an extension of identity in a coherent community.
What is the difference between a housing block in Manila and Singapore or between that of Beijing and Seoul? Between a Housing block in Mumbai, Bangkok, Tokyo and Shanghai? Is there a difference?
19
MANILA Philippines Urban Sprawl rank: 14 Urban Population : 13.5 M Density (per sq. km) : 41,515 Source: Manila Development Authority
20
MUMBAI India Urban Sprawl rank : 02 Urban Population : 20 M Density (per sq. km) :28,508 Source: Press information bureau, Government of India (GoI)
21
SINGAPORE Urban Sprawl rank : 66 Urban Population : 5.8 M Density (per sq. km) : 8,175 Source: Statistics Singapore
22
BEIJING China Urban Sprawl rank: 11 Urban Population : 23 M Density (per sq. km) :26,731 Source: Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics.
23
SEOUL S.
Korea
Urban Sprawl rank : 31 Urban Population : 10 M Density (per sq. km) :16,075 Source: Seoul Metropolitan Government
24
SHANGHAI China Urban Sprawl rank : 18 Urban Population : 26.3 M Density (per sq. km) : 3,854 Source: National Bureau of Statistics.
25
TOKYO Japan Urban Sprawl rank : 01 Urban Population : 37.5 M Density (per sq. km) : 6,224 Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government
26
BANGKOK Thailand Urban Sprawl rank: 40 Urban Population : 10.4 M Density (per sq. km) :5,300 Source: United Nations Thailand
27
HONG KONG S.A.R Urban Population : 7.45 M Density (per sq. km) : 6,735 Maximum density : 57,250 (Kwun Tong District)
Source: Statistics department of H.K
28
Developing countries in Asia are in a state of infrastructure flux where on one side is the rich cultural heritage of community living and on the other side is the western notion of modern living. Sociologists suggest that in all hierarchical societies, the relatively vulnerable aspire to the symbols of wealth and power of those who are assumed to be superior. Values and identical reproduction of glass skyscrapers is one such example. In this process, societies relinquish their cultural identity and values becoming inauthentic by losing self esteem.
choice we make defines us and shapes our identity. To each of us urban dwellers, the city we envision for ourselves is both particular and incomplete. The cumulative, yet collective expression of our manifold value, desires and interests constitutes the promise of urban life. A singular vision, a singular value, or a singular idea may produce dungeons and Disneyland, not cities. Urban villages which have existed for centuries tend to respect the multiplicity of cultures, identities and desire largely through its informal, dynamic and flexible approach, responding to its inhabitants by allowing for creative expression of form and celebrating a coherent way of community living. Homes evolve rather than being determined, common spaces are shared rather than being privatized, and community decisions are participatory in nature rather than authorized. Democratic architecture where emphasis is on the process rather than the outcome.
However Cultural identities and values are not etched in stone, but rather are fluid and reshape themselves over time and across generations. One will only subscribe to the past and its associated values if he/she feels it is relevant to them in the present. It is axiomatic that, as identities metamorphose in a globalized world, so do the desires that stem for them. Humans are entities whose identities depend essentially on the various relations in which they stand to the real world. To understand the essence of being, we take the help of Jean Paul Satre’s theory of ‘existentialism’ which states that “existence precedes essence” . It is only by existing and acting a certain way do we give meaning to our lives. According to Sartre, each
Can values in urban villages transcend time to determine a framework that enables democratic expression of identities by dwellers? Can these frameworks allow for an inclusive community?
29
HOUSING VALUES IN URBAN VILLAGES This chapter exemplifies the Kampungs of Malaysia and the Koliwada settlements of Mumbai to determine housing values that transcend time and place. 3.1
Kampung Baru (Kuala Lumpur)
3.2
Worli Koliwada (Mumbai)
3.3
Housing Values
T
he future of Asian cities will be increasingly determined by continued patterns of urbanisation and the ongoing growth of urban village typologies. As the rate of urbanisation accelerated in the post independence era of the 20th century, it sprouted new village-like settlements which, along with the native and traditional urban villages, contrasted the western dominated urban forms in their spatial quality and socio-cultural response. The three underlying elements which are crucial in understanding the notion of urban villages are the underlying socio-spatial patterns of native and traditional villages, the unity of the prevailing sociocultural order and the fusion of traditional and formal realms of governance. Often deemed unsuitable for “properly planned� urban development, these urban villages offer insight into a way of living that has prevailed for centuries, emphasising on the coherence of communities, diversity in demographics and the freedom of expression in form and dynamics in spatial quality. The economic boom of most Asian cities
in the late 20th century resulted in a diverse melting pot of culture, identity and diaspora within its urban demographics, yet the architecture of the urban dwelling has emerged to be largely homogeneous. The ubiquitous housing block which was conceived on the notion of a nuclear family is no longer the only module to be designed for. New lifestyles in the 21st century have given rise to diverse combinations and methods of living. Housing blocks in this regard need to be more granular and the methods of design and construction more fluid. This chapter seeks answers from urban villages to synthesise values which are relevant and timeless in their approach to determine a new way of imagining architecture in the urban domain. From traditional Malay houses in Kampung Baru of Kuala Lumpur to the stilt houses in the peri-urban areas of Phnom Penh to the Perankan town-houses of Singapore or the traditional fishing villages of Mumbai, we look at the unique history in their growth and the values they imbibe in their ways of living.
32
KAMPUNG BARU Kuala Lumpur
K
ampung Baru is an urban village located in the central part of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and came into existence in 1899 as an area reserved for Malay ethnic group engaged in agriculture. Over time, urban growth resulted in the settlement losing its agricultural value morphing into an exclusive Malay housing district. The demographics of Kampung Baru today is an eclectic mix of diverse identities, occupations and desires. Houses reflect the lifestyle of the times based on ethnic, cultural and economic backgrounds and evolving into different styles by adopting new changes in trends, styles and technology. Traditional Malay houses have also made independent development on this front adopting newer methods of building and the amalgamation of traditional indigenous housing styles with the flow of times. In its response to tropical humid climate, traditional Malay houses are lifted from the ground, have steep roofs and perforations in the walls to maximize ventilation. While the attributes of Malay housing are similar, they differ greatly in the form they take, the quality of internal spaces and the intricacy of the patterns and decorations of their motifs.
Source: www.maplandia.com
KAMPUNG BARU
KLCC TWIN TOWERS
Kampung Baru emphasises on the expression of dweller identity enabling a dynamic approach to design, sustainability in its response and with a mix of work, live and play units, eases the access to amenities.
1.0 KM
33
KAMPUNG BARU Kuala Lumpur GENERAL Location Development Legal status
Kuala Lumpur 1899 Legal
LANDUSE DATA Total Plot Area Built up Area Floor Area Ratio No. of residences Residential (%) Commercial (%) Amenities (%)
902,450 sq.m 803,180 sq.m 0.89 809 57.58% (809) 37.80% (533) 04.83% (68)
Current status
Under Threat
Thriving communities exhibit INDIVIDUALITY. They allow for DIFFERENTIATION through the freedom of expression of one’s living space. Rooted in CULTURE of a diverse DEMOGRAPHIC, they pay heed to the multitudes of IDENTITIES and VALUES that shape DESIRE within the community.
34
PANJANG The typology is characterised by a long gable roof form having a simple structure which is easy to extend affording variations and extensions.
PERAK The typology is characterised by a Gambrel roof influenced from colonial Dutch houses. It utilizes Zinc and other materials to support the roof.
LIMA The typology is characterised by hipped roof with a big ridge at the top and hip valleys in all directions influenced by colonial British and Dutch house forms.
LIMAS The typology is characterised by a pyramidal roof but is rarely found on Malay homes. It is a feature of small Malay mosques called Sarau.
Source : Author
35
Morphology of the Panjang typology produces multiple iterations with regards to its fenestrations, decorations and structure. Drawing from British and Dutch influences, the architecture is emblematic of dweller preferences and desires.
A Perak roof typology has evolved to utilize ornamental wooden brackets representing the cultural and ethnic preferences of its dwellers. The intricacy of the carvings are emblematic of socio economic status.
36
A traditional Malay Panjang roof dwelling is charaterized by its use of bamboo and timber for the structure, the posts of which are sumounted on stone pedestals. The walls are perforated by the use of rattan and the roof is tiled.
Source : Author
37
I
ndividuality is our badge, community is our anchor. Over decades, Kuala Lumpur’s historic Kampung Baru dwellings have come to exhibit strong socio cultural identities, economic statuses and desires of its inhabitants through its built form. Individual expression of identity is a fundamental aspect of dwellings which transcends time. While variations in colour, material, external finishes and decorations in the dwellings of Kampung Baru are emblematic of a strong notion of individuality in the community, the variations in the size and scale of dwellings along with the amalgamation of different styles is indicative of a dynamic and incremental growth pattern in the community. It is hence essential for communities to not only encourage individuality but to be dynamic and responsive to the needs and desires of its inhabitants, flexible in form and informal in its approach. As Kampung Baru dwellings have exemplified, architecture must be sustainable in its response to the climate and its choice of material.
INDIVIDUALITY Communities are INDIVIDUAL. They allow for DIFFERENTIATION through the freedom of expression of one’s living space. Rooted in CULTURE of a diverse DEMOGRAPHIC, they pay heed to the multitudes of IDENTITIES and VALUES that shape DESIRE within the community.
DYNAMISM Communities are DYNAMIC. They are RESPONSIVE to the changing needs and desires of its inhabitants, FLEXIBLE in dwelling form and INFORMAL in its approach.
COMFORT Communities must be COMFORTABLE. They must provide inclusive access to SOCIAL and INFRASTRUCTURAL AMENITIES. HUMAN SCALED settlements tend to pay heed to the dweller over economics and enable a coherent community.
SUSTAINABILITY Communities must be SUSTAINABLE. They must respond to climate change by the EFFICIENT and OPTIMAL use of resources. PRUDENT in its notions and responsive in its actions. 38
WORLI KOLIWADA Mumbai
W
orli Koliwada is one of several urban settlements that house the aboriginal fishing community of Mumbai called Kolis. A close knit community native to Rajasthan, Gujrat and Maharashtra, the Kolis today are limited to only certain pockets such as Navsari and Valsad in southern Gujrat and north-western Maharashtra, especially Mumbai. The word Koliwada which essentially means ‘A house open to the sea’ is characterised by the amalgamation of their work-live typologies along the coast of Mumbai from where they practice their trade. The Kolis place great emphasis on the notion of community manifested through shared activities and spaces. From large verandas to bolster social interactions to the shared activities of fish drying and the scores of Koli women lined in a fish market, the Koli community is the epitome of a coherent way of living and the Koliwada, its spatial embodiment.
Source: Getty Images
The informality of the Koliwada, affords it a freedom where the trinity between livelihoods, access or mobility and dwellings coincide. The resultant is a dense settlement which is intense in the way it expresses vibrancy by bringing a diverse demographic together to create equitable communities with strong sociocultural bonds. The rich cultural heritage of Koliwadas and Gaothans shed light on core values of virtuous living.
WORLI KOLIWADA
0.5 KM
39
WORLI KOLIWADA Mumbai
GENERAL Location Development Legal status
Mumbai 17th Century Protected
LANDUSE DATA Total Plot Area Built up Area Floor Area Ratio No. of residences
265,850 sq.m 255,200 sq.m 0.96 2000
Current status
Protected but livelihoods u n d e r threat.
Settlements thrive when value is given to the notion of community living. Communities are INCLUSIVE. They are EQUITABLE spaces characterised by shared ways of living which are ENGAGING and stimulating to a DIVERSE group of individuals.
40
DOORS Despite similar d w e l l i n g typologies, variations are observed in door ornamentation and materials, indicative of dweller preferences in a coherent community.
WINDOWS Windows are often mounted with Cast Iron grills, the motifs on which are indicative of the dweller’s sociocultural values and r e l i g i o u s faith.
INTERIORS Akin to formal urban housing typologies, true expression of dweller identity is expressed through their modifications of the interior space despite a rigid external form.
Source : Author
41
THE KOLI HOUSE Every Koli house comprises an Oti (Verandah) reserved for weaving, repairing nets and social interactions, a Chool (Kitchen), Vathan (Room) and a Devghar (worship room). The Chool and Devghar may be shared between houses bolstering communal bonds while at the same time each house is unique in its modifications and ornamentation. Most Kolis are adherents of Hinduism from which motifs and ornamentations draw inspiration. Faith, occupation, tradition and language bind the community together.
42
K
COMMUNITY
oliwadas along the coastal regions of Mumbai have always placed the notion of community at the forefront. Characterised by common spaces and shared amenities, they have evolved to form dense settlements along the waterfront, the vibrancy and intensity of which is manifested through festivities and tradition.
Communities are INCLUSIVE. They are EQUITABLE spaces characterised by shared ways of living which are ENGAGING and stimulating to a DIVERSE group of individuals.
Although dwelling are identical in spatial configuration and form, the morphology of the Koliwadas and Gaothans is undergoing a transformation from within, towards a more decentralised and democratic dwelling form. Amidst changing times and the context of the 21st century, newer generation Kolis have adopted modified ways of living blending the old with the new. In more recent dwellings of Worli Koliwada, this phenomenon is expressed in full glory as Art Deco styled doors blend with religious motif window grills, modifications in spatial and programmatic configurations have manifested in hybrid and authentic forms. Communities must evolve, spatially and in time to be relevant to the present without losing the values that have guided them for centuries.
DENSITY Communities are DENSE. They are INTENSE in the way they express VIBRANCY by bringing a diverse demographic together. Sparsely dense settlements are more individual whereas super dense ones are claustrophobic. Density must be BALANCED with HUMAN SCALE and COMFORT to strengthen a community.
EVOLUTIONARY Communities evolve. They are OPTIMIZED yet free to GROW or shrink to keep up with the fluctuations in demand. Dwellings are INCREMENTAL and the community is EVOLUTIONARY.
AFFORDABILITY Communities must be AFFORDABLE. In order to make them more INCLUSIVE, built form must be INCREMENTAL to enable a DIVERSE section of the society access to housing. 43
I
n conclusion, Urban Village COMMUNITIES are coherent spaces that heed the INDIVIDUALITY of its inhabitants to determine their dwellings DYNAMICALLY over time. These communities are DENSE yet COMFORTABLE spaces that grow in an EVOLUTIONARY manner. They strive for inclusivity by being diverse and AFFORDABLE and respect their context by adopting a SUSTAINABLE approach.
As the world marches towards urbanisation in an ever more globalized world, it befalls upon architects, citizens and the state to imbibe the values that determine the architecture of tomorrow. If urban villages have taught us anything is their resilience and endurance in coping adversity to build a thriving community. Dwellings are spaces that encompass lives. Mould and shape personalities and to which deep rooted memories are tethered. Spaces in which we seek solace and stop to think and finally start to experience. The notion of what constitutes a home is hence, at the nucleus of what makes us, us. It is a concept so fundamental to human existence, that it transcends time and boundary. The first building ever constructed was a dwelling, with its dweller as the chief architect, yet nearly 30 millenniums later, it is a freedom restricted to only a very few.
determine the dwelling for multitudes of identities that call cities home, but to provide the broad framework to enable dwellers to sculpt their own. Values discussed on preceding pages have guided the growth and existence of communities for centuries and usher the frameworks to enable participatory architecture in the context of urban complicities. Apart from determining these frameworks, it is also crucial to illustrate how these can be deployed to bridge the gap between wisdom and its physical manifestation. Can the process of designing a dwelling by its dwellers be as engaging and dynamic as playing Mine craft? Can the act of Participation of various stakeholders be as user friendly as a Whatsapp Group conversation? and can the process of construction be as easy and enjoyable as playing and assembling LEGO?
As architects it befalls upon us to not 44
Source : Author
45