Building Sustainable and Livable Asian Cities Learnings from

Abstract

Abstract—Asia has been urbanizing rapidly, highly inequitably
and unsustainably over the last decades. Moving from 0.3 billion
urban dwellers in 1950s to 2.1 billion in 2015 and projected to
reach 3.3 billion by 2050, the region is also hosting over 2/3 of the
world’s 880 million slum dwellers. At the same time, Asia is the
world’s most climate change vulnerable continent and its cities are
both major victims and contributors to this vulnerability. Indeed,
Asian cities consume up to 80% of total energy supplied in the
region and generate 75% of the region’s carbon emissions while
they are yet to meet infrastructure needs of their citizens.
Buildings account for over 1/3 of the global energy demand and
are essentially built with conventional building materials such as
concrete, steel, glass, aluminum and brick, which have a very high
embodied energy. The manufacturing of today’s conventional
materials alone represents 25% of the current global energy
demand and 20% of global CO2 emissions. There is a need to build
fast to meet the housing need, however moving fast in the wrong
direction can only address these needs in a very short run and at the
expense of liveability, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately,
economic competitiveness.
In this context, Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) are
a potential break-through that could lead Asian cities towards
building sustainably. The present knowledge piece looks at
selected examples of building with stabilized earth in Indian cities,
combined with passive design techniques and circular economy
principles. It demonstrates that such a combined approach
decreases embodied energy while increasing affordability,
liveability and social cohesion. It examines features that enabled
such constructions, assesses their positive impact and benefits, and
looks into elements that are required to upscale the experience.

Keywords—Building Construction, Compressed Stabilized
Earth Blocks, Embodied Energy, Sustainability.

Full text

 Abstract—Asia has been urbanizing rapidly, highly inequitably
and unsustainably over the last decades. Moving from 0.3 billion
urban dwellers in 1950s to 2.1 billion in 2015 and projected to
reach 3.3 billion by 2050, the region is also hosting over 2/3 of the
world’s 880 million slum dwellers. At the same time, Asia is the
world’s most climate change vulnerable continent and its cities are
both major victims and contributors to this vulnerability. Indeed,
Asian cities consume up to 80% of total energy supplied in the
region and generate 75% of the region’s carbon emissions while
they are yet to meet infrastructure needs of their citizens.
Buildings account for over 1/3 of the global energy demand and
are essentially built with conventional building materials such as
concrete, steel, glass, aluminum and brick, which have a very high
embodied energy. The manufacturing of today’s conventional
materials alone represents 25% of the current global energy
demand and 20% of global CO2 emissions. There is a need to build
fast to meet the housing need, however moving fast in the wrong
direction can only address these needs in a very short run and at the
expense of liveability, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately,
economic competitiveness.
In this context, Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) are
a potential break-through that could lead Asian cities towards
building sustainably. The present knowledge piece looks at
selected examples of building with stabilized earth in Indian cities,
combined with passive design techniques and circular economy
principles. It demonstrates that such a combined approach
decreases embodied energy while increasing affordability,
liveability and social cohesion. It examines features that enabled
such constructions, assesses their positive impact and benefits, and
looks into elements that are required to upscale the experience.
Keywords—Building Construction, Compressed Stabilized
Earth Blocks, Embodied Energy, Sustainability.
I. INTRODUCTION
ndia reflects the twin Asian issues of having pressing
urban infrastructure needs but also following an
unsustainable way of building cities. While 80% of
buildings are built with conventional concrete, cement, brick
and steel materials, selected urban practitioners and
researchers have been trying to identify more sustainable,
local context tailored alternatives (Meiar Project).
Stabilized earthen constructions are one such an
alternative, which has emerged from a combination of
vernacular practices with new technologies and processes.
The Indian Institute of Science, Centre for Sustainable
Technologies [1] and the Auroville Earth Institute [1] have
been working on earthen construction techniques and their
possible upscaling with the advent of new technologies
since the 1970s and 1980s respectively. Earth has been a
widespread building material for centuries. Initially, it was
Vaishali Sharma is with the Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation, PO
110067 New Delhi, India (phone: +91 9740534476; e-mail:
ar.sharma.vaishali@gmail.com)
used as a plain mud-to-straw mix to produce sun-dried
adobe bricks, which had low strength and durability. Later,
the process evolved into fired clay bricks, massively
produced in the kiln. From mid-20th century, Compressed
Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) entered the construction
scene. These are manufactured mixing a moist and sandy
soil parts stabilized by adding cement up to 3 to 10% of the
total mix, and compressed into blocks using a manual or a
motorized press. First experimented with in Colombia
(1950s), the new construction material penetrated Africa
(1960s and 1970s) as well as Australia and the United States
(1980s). India entered the process in the late 1970s and
has been gradually upscaling the technique over the last
decade.
The three selected examples showcase this gradual
upscaling and highlight how this alternative building
material, combined with passive design techniques and
principles of circular economy, creates not only
sustainable but also highly livable and local context
sensitive buildings.
II. SUCCESSFUL UTILIZATION OF CSEB IN URBAN
CONSTRUCTIONS
A. Institutional Building: World Headquarter of
Development Alternatives, New Delhi
Development Alternatives (DA) is a global sustainable
development social enterprise founded in 1983.
Headquartered in New Delhi, the institution’s mission is to
accompany transformative and inclusive change towards
environmental sustainability [2], [5].
The first DA building was built in 1988 on a large 3,316
square meter land adjacent to the Sanjay Van, the biggest
urban forest of Delhi. Mud was used as the main
construction material, which was the cheapest available
material at the time [5], and walls were made of non-
stabilized compressed earth blocks. By 2000s, these started
wearing out and the organization grew along with the need
to host more people in its premises. DA hence decided to
make a new building, however preserving the spirit and the
vision of the original building to the greatest extent possible.
Principal architect Ashok B. Lall, who by then had designed
a number of renowned sustainable institutional buildings
such as The Indian Institute for Health Management
Research in Jaipur and Headquarters for Transport
Corporation of India in Gurgaon, was selected to design the
new building.
The new building was completed in November 2008, has
a total of 5 storeys and hosts over 340 employees [5].
Vaishali Sharma
Building Sustainable and Livable Asian Cities:
Learnings from Compressed Stabilized Earth
Blocks (CSEB) Constructions in India
I
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
763

Fig. 1 (a)DA old building (left); (b)DA new building (right)
1. Building Materials
The initial building’s non-stabilised earth blocks were
crushed and mixed to make CSEB, which is anticipated to
generate an at least 5 times longer lifespan compared to
using non-stabilized earth. Fly-ash from a local power
plant was utilised to make cement stabilized fly-ash lime
gypsum blocks. Both of these contributed to making 90%
of the interior and exterior walls of the building. This
form of making external walls is sustainable because it
replaces conventional walling of burnt clay bricks or
concrete blocks, both of which are highly energy
intensive [2]. Similarly, minimising the use of glass with
aluminium frames and introducing more timber for
doors and windows is a sustainable solution.
Some of the rooms’ ceilings were designed as shallow
masonry domes held by reinforced concrete frames [2].
Ferrocement vaults span the office spaces, carrying 4 cm
thick sandstone slabs, here too avoiding building
materials heavy in embodied energy used in standard
reinforced cement concrete (RCC) construction. These
methods of constructing floors save nearly 20% of steel
consumption compared to a standard RCC slab
construction. Most materials were locally sourced to reduce
processing energy.
2. Passive Design
The building hosts a spacious courtyard, bringing in a
very traditional element of the Indian architecture that
provides natural cooling and serves as a public space,
strategically placed to provide glimpses of the Sanjay Van
forest and hence connecting this public space with the
natural environment. Baoli, or a stepwell, is also a very
traditional North Indian feature, essential in hot and arid
climates. Baolis played a multi-functional role of rainwater
harvesting, replenishing aquifers, providing not only water
but also cooled public spaces to communities. The baoli
constructed in the new DA building collects rainwater and
should become a public space to be accessed from the
library to be built. The building’s fenestration and open
areas are organized in such a way that they maximize
natural light and connect to soothing views of nature [5].
3. Circular Economy
The new building utilizes crushed materials from the
old building, industrial waste (fly-ash) as well as waste
polystyrene in the wall cavities for insulation to reduce the
use of virgin materials in the building.
All rainwater falling on the site is used to recharge ground
water. All wastewater is treated on site in an aerobic-
anaerobic digestion tank, periodically charged with special
bacteria. This water is filtered and reused for flushing toilets
and for watering plants by a drip irrigation system that
delivers water in small quantities at the roots [5].
4. Quality of Life
The overall design of the building reflects the vision of
Development Alternatives, which is to build a ‘world where
every citizen can live a secure, healthy and fulfilling life, in
harmony with nature’ [2]. In alignment with this vision, the
DA building provides an inspiring built environment to
regular users and visitors featuring numerous open spaces
that provide natural cooling and green views harnessing on
the presence of the forest, creating comfort through the use
of building materials close to nature.
The building was entirely built by skilled craftsmen,
many of whom were groomed in traditional craftsmen
families exposed to industrialized processes that allowed the
new generation to remain competitive in the changing
economy. These skilled professionals added significant
sustainability and aesthetic value to the building, bringing in
a large variety of materials and details: exposed patterned
brick work, stone and woodwork or terracotta jaalis with
tiny mirror insets. All these provide an aesthetic richness
reminiscent of the fine old buildings of North India.
B. Residential Complex: T-ZED, Bangalore
Biodiversity Conservation India Limited (BCIL) was
founded in 1995. The real estate developer focusses on
building sustainable units for upper middle-class resident
groups. In the past 20 years, BCIL created over 2,000 homes
in Bangalore, Chennai and Coorg. The T-Zed complex was
designed for a specific group of Indian clients, for most
returning back from abroad, and looking for a home that
connects to their sustainability values. The T-Zed residential
complex was completed in 2008 by Principal Architect
Sanjay Prakash, Studio for Habitat Futures (former
Sanjay Prakash and Associates) [10]. SHiFt promotes
energy efficient architecture and sustainable constructions.
The T-Zed complex hosts a 5-storey building of nearly 100
apartments and fifteen independent villas. The 100
apartments building is the focus of this study to demonstrate
that stabilized earth walls are possible in low to medium-rise
buildings when brought together with a frame made with
today’s conventional materials, a combination that reduces
their overall usage while meeting density needs.
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
764

Fig. 2 (a) T-Zed Hallway (b) T Zed Gateway (c) T Zed Porch (c) T
Zed Garden (d) T Zed Exterior Facade
1. Building Materials
CSEB and gypsum plastered internal walls reduced the
usually required quantify of cement while natural stone
floors replaced conventionally used industrial tiles. Slabs
were originally proposed to be in granite over RCC beams,
which was not retained. Sandstone slabs, transported from
Rajasthan, were however used to make window overhangs
instead of RCC.
2. Passive Design
A number of features facilitate penetration of the day light
while limiting heat in indoor spaces, hence reducing the use
of air conditioning. All apartments face North or South,
rooftop gardens provide additional roof insulation and
the overall shading, colour and orientation of various
surfaces contribute to the purpose.
3. Circular Economy
A 4 million liters’ rainwater harvesting tank is installed in
the premises. An electro-mechanical sewage treatment
plant processes waste-water within the complex. This water
is looped to feed the sky gardens on the rooftop.
Similarly, organic kitchen waste is set to be processed.
4. Quality of life
Ample green spaces with eco-friendly and indigenous
plants ensure that residents have access to a pleasant leisure
space: each unit comes with a 15 sqm private rooftop garden
space and 8000 m2 of open unpaved public space is shared
between over 500 residents.
C. Residential Neighbourhood: Malhar, Bangalore
Good Earth was founded in 1991 by a group of 9
individuals passionate about sustainable buildings. Initially
an NGO, it later evolved into to a consultancy cum
contractor and real estate group. Over the past 18 years,
Good Earth has worked in close partnership with Principal
Architect Jayakumar Sonam (Jayakumar & Associates) to
design and build environmentally sensitive and people
centered architecture across India.
Over the past 5 years, Good Earth constructed multiple
earthen buildings demonstrating that these can be
mainstreamed in relatively dense low-rise urban areas.
In particular, the Malhar residential neighbourhood is an
exemplary intervention combining 6 residential clusters
around shared public spaces (6th cluster is in the making)
South-West of Bangalore, at an 18 km distance from the city
center.
The neighbourhood combines clusters catering for a variety
of housing needs and budgets. Malhar Patterns and Malhar
Resonance are individual town houses. Malhar Mosaic hosts
two storey buildings and Malhar Terraces offers multi-
storey buildings with affordable apartments. The latter is of
a particular interest as it opens the door to an alternative
way of envisioning affordable and highly livable middle-
class housing in India. It hosts over 2,000 residents on a
4,046 sqm territory. Public spaces constitute 46% of the
total land area, which is much higher than business-as-usual
(BAU) affordable housing clusters’ examples [6].
villas. The 100 apartments building is the focus of this study
to demonstrate that stabilized earth walls are possible in low
to medium-rise buildings when brought together with a
frame made with today’s conventional materials, a
combination that reduces their overall usage while meeting
density needs.
Fig. 3 (a) Malhar Landscape (b) Malhar Exterior Facadae (c)
Malhar Complex
1. Building Materials
Malhar Terraces combines two 5 storey buildings, which
required concrete foundations and an RCC frame. Walls are
entirely built with CSEB made on-site from subsoil
excavated from the basement. Cavity skin wall external
walls are made of hollow terracotta blocks to serve as an
additional thermal insulation and to minimize maintenance.
2. Passive Design
Malhar Terraces features an intricate form inspired from
terrace gardens on hill slopes. Such a form brings a number
of benefits in the context: terrace gardens cool the
buildings’ interiors and all apartments get direct access to
day light. Ventilation is maximized with air flow through
corridors, bay windows and verandas as well as staggering
on alternate floors. An Atrium, or courtyard, plays the role
of a cooled down open-air shared space. A waterbody
located within the Atrium adds an evaporative cooling effect
[6].
3. Circular Economy
Rainwater is collected from all roofs, filtered and stored in
an underground sump tank that supplies water to all
apartments. Rainwater excess is used to recharge
ground water through dedicated recharge wells.
Wastewater is treated on-site through a decentralized waste
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
765

water treatment system (DEWATS) and used for flushing
and gardening.
4. Quality of life
Malhar neighborhood represents an inspiring example of a
people centered design incorporating the following
features:
o Pedestrianization and soft mobility,
o Ample public spaces, most of which include
landscaped gardens,
o Revived local biodiversity,
o Human scale and aesthetically diverse
architecture, with a broad spectrum of textures,
colors and patterns.
Malhar Terraces is designed to be comfortable, inclusive
and affordable. Over 20 different flat plans cater for a wide
scale of budgets while all residents have access to the same
public spaces [6].
III. IMPACT
A local context tailored construction approach that
encompasses local context tailored passive design, building
materials and circular economy principles delivers
significant environmental, quality of life and economic
benefits over the lifecycle of a building. Projects too rarely
monitor indicators and make estimates of gains compared to
BAU scenarios. A fair amount of quantitative and
qualitative data-based evidence nevertheless showcases
those benefits.
A. Environmental benefits
This reflect in parameters such as embodied energy,
related CO2 emissions, lifespan of a building, sustainable
use of natural resources and circular economy. Operational
energy optimization has been deliberately left out of the
present study so that full focus can be given to the
underestimated topic of embodied energy.
1) Embodied energy and related CO2 emissions need to
be considered throughout the building’s lifecycle,
starting from resource extraction and manufacturing of
building materials to transporting them to the site, on-
site construction, maintenance, demolition and disposal
of waste. The table below gives a comparative look at
these stages based on available reports and data.
TABLE I
COMPARISION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CSEB BUILDING MATERIALS
Step
Conventional Materials
CSEB
Manufacturing
The IEA assessed that manufacturing of conventional building
materials represents 20% of the global energy demand and
25% of global CO2 emissions.
Equipment to produce CSEB consists in manual or motorized
tools ranging from village to semi industry scale, which require a
very limited energy input.
Transportation
Conventional materials are rarely made on-site and involve
transportation that may extend to hundreds of kilometers.
The very subsoil excavated to make foundations can often be
used to make CSEB. In Bangalore, nearly 90% of the city’s
surface contains subsoil suitable to make CSEB. This means a
potentially significant CO2 emissions reduction if CSEB is
mainstreamed where subsoil quality allows for it.
Maintenance
Concrete and glass walls may look appealing anew, however
their look degrades faster compared to vernacular materials
such as stone or CSEB. Maintenance of high-rise concrete and
glass buildings is heavy in cost.
Well-designed CSEB houses can withstand, with a minimum of
maintenance, heavy rains, snowfall or frost without being
damaged.
Lifespan
The average life span of a reinforced concrete and glass
curtain wall is half of a traditionally built masonry and wood
wall: 60 years versus 120 years [3].
Embodied energy saving techniques such as hollow cement
walls reduce the amount of energy consumed, however their
durability is very low in comparison with CSEB.
CSEB tend to have a competitive lifespan compared to their
analogues. For example, Malhar Terraces buildings are estimated
to have a 75 to 100 years lifespan.
Reuse/Disposal
Recycling of conventional construction and demolition (C&D)
waste is yet a nascent field in India while the country annually
produces 15 million tons of it [7]. Better processes and
regulations need to be put in place to tackle the issue.
Few cases of CSEB reuse have been researched as of writing.
There is however a strong potential to do so by two means:
1. Dismantle and reuse CSEB. This requires specific mortar,
e.g. lime.
2. Crush blocks and make new blocks.
Potentially, one would want to consider reusing these materials
on-site or close to the site.
In other words, replacing today’s conventional building
materials with CSEB comes to reducing energy
consumption at each step of the cycle which, in turn,
translates into avoided CO2 emissions. The T-Zed project
made an estimate of avoided embodied energy consumption
and related CO2 emissions compared to a BAU scenario,
and came to the figures of nearly 74,000 GJ of avoided
energy consumption and over 20,500 tons of CO2 emissions:
TABLE II
EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES OF T-ZED PROJECT
Sustainability features related to building materials
Avoided energy consumption (GJ)
Avoided CO2 emissions (T)
Soil stabilized blocks (3 to 7% cement, granite dust and a little water)
instead of BAU materials
2,796
777.3
Dry masonry instead of concrete for basement retaining walls
24,944
6,934
10cm thin internal concrete walls instead of thicker conventional brick of
concrete block partition walls
32,700
9,090
No hard-impermeable roads on the campus
13,497
3,752
Total
73,937
20,553.3
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
766

2) Sustainable use of natural resources and circular
economy
o A nearly circular water cycle within a
designated area can significantly reduce the
pressure on water resources. India is one of the
most water stressed countries in the world and 21
major Indian cities are likely to run out of ground
water by 2020 [9]. Adapting such an approach has
become a matter of survival.
o Similarly, India annually generates 62 million tons
of solid waste, out of which nearly 30 tons are
dumped and only 10 tons are treated [13]. It has
hence become imperative to both reduce and reuse
generated waste. In this respect, the construction
sector can greatly help with interventions such as
those adopted by the case studies above.
B. Economic benefits
This is related to the cost of CSEB and circular economy
measures can broadly be considered under two categories:
capital cost and lifecycle cost. No comprehensive
comparative study has been encountered on either for the
purpose of this research, however on-the-field experience of
interviewed urban practitioners provides the following
information:
1) Capital cost of a wall made with CSEB is overall
comparable to the capital cost of fired bricks. It may
fluctuate from slightly cheaper to 5-7% higher.
Generally, a more qualified work force is required to
make CSEB and is a component driving this
fluctuation. Overall, the key of making capital cost
competitive is to make a balanced choice for each
component of the building. For example, the DA
building’s usage of recycled plastic inside concrete
walls to reduce the quantity of cement was comparable
in terms of cost, however brought in an environmental
benefit. On the other hand, avoiding concrete
foundations was not considered as being financially
justified.
2) Lifecycle cost is assessed to be much lower compared
to BAU constructions. For example, fired brick of a
quality compared to a CSEB could cost double. Hence,
a comparative capital cost hides the durability, strength
and built quality advantages of CSEB. Circular
economy measures are highly competitive in terms of a
lifecycle cost since they require a limited financial input
past the initial investment, e.g. in the case of water
supply coming from rainwater harvesting and on-site
wastewater recycling and reuse.
C. Quality of life related benefits
This is hard to quantify, but are as prominent as
environmental and economic benefits in qualitative terms. A
local context tailored and sustainable construction process
most often brings along human scale buildings, green areas,
better shaded and ventilated community spaces, a sense of
common purpose through a joint effort of saving natural
resources and an overall sense of belonging. For example,
the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of
a 9 m2 of green areas per person in an urban context and
most Indian cities are several times below this standard,
particularly in areas occupied by affordable housing. In this
respect, examples such as Malhar Terraces are critical to set
a benchmark of an affordable liveability.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENABLERS
In the 3 selected case studies, a number of enabling
parameters are common and can be looked at in major
categories: committed professionals, supportive
beneficiaries and supportive ecosystem.
A. Committed professionals
Stabilized earthen constructions are essentially led by a
community of architects widely recognized for their
sustainability approaches. In addition to architects who
designed the projects quoted above, one may mention
Auroville Earth Institute, Biome (Chitra Vishwanath),
Dustudio (Dharmesh Jadeja) or Revathy Kamath, among
others. The following enabling features are common to all of
them:
1) Knowledge: In addition to a thorough mastery of
today’s conventional construction materials, these
practitioners have an equally strong hold of vernacular
materials and of innovation and opportunities new
technologies and processes can bring to find alternative
ways of building. This knowledge, collected over
decades of successful practice and constantly updated,
puts them in a position to identify sustainable
alternatives where others would go with a BAU
approach.
2) Personal commitment/ Sense of a mission: This
knowledge is driven by a strong personal sense of a
mission. These professionals see themselves as gate-
keepers of sustainable urban development and it is not
uncommon for them to decline projects that don’t match
their vision.
3) Local context tailored approach to projects: No
project is a replication of another project, but the local
context is thoroughly observed, analyzed and harnessed
upon. This includes not only parameters such as
geography, topography, hydrology and climatology, but
also social and cultural context. This very approach
enables the professionals to determine local context
specific passive design features, appropriate building
materials and building techniques involving local skills.
4) Optimal mix of designs and materials: The prevailing
approach it to select the most appropriate design and
materials that simultaneously address the needs of
sustainability, cost, construction time and livability. In
this approach, both conventional and vernacular or
innovative materials come together in an optimal mix
that works best in each specific local context. For
example, concrete foundations may be opted for in a 4-
5 storeys building (T-Zed building) but stone
foundations may be used for a 2-storey building
(Malhar Mosaic), the overall use of concrete being
minimized as much as appropriate in both cases. Such
an approach is much more enabling in terms of its
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
767

potential upscaling than a purist approach wanting to
utilise non-conventional materials only. As Ashok B.
Lall shared in an interview, every material is a gift
provided that we use it for its optimal purpose.
5) Ability to share knowledge with the
beneficiary/client: The professional is hence is a
position to effectively share knowledge with the
beneficiary incorporating parameters of their concern
such as cost and time of the construction, which ends up
bringing them on board.
B. Beneficiary/building owner’s support to sustainability
Any building project requires support of its future owner
to be implemented. In the selected cases, both temporary
owners, or real estate developers, and ultimate owners,
demonstrate personal sensitivity to sustainability.
Development Alternatives is a very good illustration: the
organization’s very mandate is to enhance eco-friendly built
environments by creating ‘models to generate sustainable
livelihoods in large numbers’ [7]. In the case of the T-Zed
complex, the developer – Biodiversity Conservation India
Limited (BCIL) – caters to a specific category of clients,
such as Indian nationals who studied and worked abroad in
prestigious places, and come back to settle in India. Their
requirements go beyond cost and comfort and they want
their home to reflect their values.
Particularly interesting is the example of Good Earth: in
this case, the architectural studio Jayakumar & Associates
and the real-estate company Good Earth gradually
developed an integrated process of working together. The
two entities team up for all stages of the work from ideation
to construction, jointly developing construction
methodologies, and critically review the project at its every
stage. A close engagement with the client/beneficiary is
critical to better understand their aspirations and needs as
well as to gain their trust and support for sustainable
techniques and approaches.
This integrated process allows ideas generated in the studio
to be directly implemented. This helps overcome a very
common obstacle of a gap between the knowledge and
vision of sustainability architects and a vision of
conventional real estate developers, who may consider
alternative ways of building too risky and time consuming.
The Malhar neighbourhood demonstrates a very important
point that could trigger a shift: buildings and
neighbourhoods built in a sustainable, local context tailored
and people centered manner at a reasonable cost are in high
demand.
Finally, stakeholder engagement in a form of engaging
discussions, workshops and continuous interactive processes
throughout the project further allows to harmonize the
supply and the demand.
C. Enabling supporting ecosystem in place
Stabilized earthen construction remains a niche approach
and requires specific skills. Although these may not be
complex to gain, training requires time, which may delay the
construction process compared to a conventional building.
To address this matter, most of renowned Indian
practitioners working with earth have over years developed
an ecosystem around them.
For example, Biome (Chitra Vishwanath) gives outmost
importance to training its architects on its construction
techniques and constantly update them with new learnings.
Biome architects can hence in turn train masons and other
building professionals involved into a construction project.
In Bangalore, Biome retains the skilled workforce by
engaging thus trained professionals into projects on a
constant basis. This allows the professionals to retain skills
which otherwise are not demanded in the conventional
building model. When Biome implements projects outside
of Bangalore, its architects transmit techniques developed
by Biome while learning from local techniques and
incorporating them when relevant to best tailor the project to
its local context.
Ashok B. Lall Architects and Good Earth have a wider
ecosystem of skilled masons and craftsmen that covers
different regions of India. This ecosystem has been
established through continuous associations, training and
ability to learn from and valorize local craftsmen skills.
By providing regular work opportunities to this ecosystem,
the architects are in a position to provide a fair and
competitive remuneration to the engaged professionals
while at the same time to also control the capital cost and
time of the construction process, essential to the client.
V. SCALABILITY AND LESSONS LEARNED
Enabling factors discussed above are limited to a very niche
community, which makes the promising alternative
construction style a stand-alone approach rather than a
mainstreamed and widely recognized approach, which hence
hardly impacts the overall urban fabric. Now that the
technical viability has been demonstrated, it is critical to
reflect upon how to move forward and enable upscaling.
In this respect, three major directions need to be looked at:
disseminating knowledge and skills, mainstreaming tested
sustainable approaches into policies and regulations, and
researching on new break-throughs.
A. Disseminate proven knowledge and skills
Knowledge that enabled the selected case studies is two-
fold: a fact-based understanding of the critical importance of
building sustainably and a solid technical knowledge of how
to do so. Such a knowledge generates tangible outcomes, but
is as of today a prerogative of only a few. A number of
leading Indian architectural institutions acknowledge that
insufficient knowledge is dispensed on viability of
vernacular materials and their possible upscaling with
industrialized processes. As a result, few architects are
equipped to deal with stabilized earthen constructions
confidently.
Similarly, craftsmen’ skills are insufficiently valued and
promoted. Selected craftsmen generate businesses
opportunities for themselves through using industrialized
processes and upscaling their work without losing
uniqueness of their outputs. Overall however, limited
demand leads to limited supply, which in turn makes any
new entry into the market very slow.
Finally, most home owners and real estate developers lack
confidence in alternative approaches. Massively raising
awareness among them will help prepare both the demand
and the supply sides for a shift.
Public, educational and development sectors could hence
jointly facilitate knowledge dissemination and skills
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
768

development across stakeholders to enable a much broader
and faster market formation for stabilized earthen
constructions.
B. Adopt design and building regulations to the
sustainability imperative
India’s National Building Code is neither an enabler nor
a disabler to the use of earthen constructions since it neither
prohibits nor explicitly considers them. A number of Indian
architects using earth materials hence take other countries’
building codes as a guideline. Such an approach works for
stand-alone cases, but upscaling and mainstreaming of
earthen constructions in particular and of alternative
sustainable ways of building cities in general requires a
regulatory support.
The example of operational energy efficiency in buildings
showcases well this critical role of regulations. By today,
operational energy efficiency has largely penetrated national
building regulations in most countries, including developing
Asian countries. Looking at successive steps that enabled
this penetration allows us to make parallels and
recommendations related to embodied energy efficiency in
the construction sector:
1) The process needs to be initiated with a systematic
monitoring on embodied energy consumed throughout
the construction process. As of today, this practice
doesn’t exist. In the considered case studies, only the T-
Zed project made rough estimates of potential savings,
that too without the help of a rigorous methodology;
2) A systematic monitoring will lead to a much better
quantification of benefits related to alternative ways of
building and will create a pool of evidence required to
establish embodied energy benchmarks and formulate
policies and regulations;
3) Policies and regulations could emulate the path of
operational energy efficiency and renewable energy,
where minimal standards or incentivizing cross-
subsidized tariffs were gradually introduced to trigger a
market formation. To take the example of solar energy,
feed-in-tariffs and/or regulations making it compulsory
for utilities to buy a fixed amount of electricity from
renewable energy sources accelerated the formation of
the solar energy market, following which the price of
the solar equipment decreased substantially with the
increased demand.
The policy making process needs to start with an
international acknowledgement of the fact that the Paris
Agreement won’t be met unless the construction sector is
radically transformed.
C. Facilitate R&D on alternative options and collect
evidence building data
While earthen materials are among the most well tested
low in embodied energy materials, their potential to build
faster and higher needs to be further researched upon. More
research is equally required on less explored sustainable
materials and their potential upscaling through new
technologies, on how to more systematically reuse waste in
construction and on urban development models that better
support sustainable construction.
For example, a high-density low-rise urban development
model would not only help enable earth-based constructions
but also generate a number of valuable co-benefits. A 3 to 4
storeys building can be made earthquake safe with a
minimal use of steel and concrete hence reducing embodied
energy. In addition, such a building optimizes operational
energy and the solar rooftop potential, favors affordability,
shared public spaces and generates comfort of a human scale
urban fabric [8]. In other words, mainstreaming sustainable
building materials needs to go along with a strategic
reflection upon what kinds of urban fabric are today most
aligned with citizens’ aspirations and with sustainability
imperatives.
VI. CONCLUSION
A recent study poll by Nielson group found that Asian
consumers are the most willing to pay more for sustainable
products and services [11]. There is hence a valuable
potential to harness upon when coming to building Asian
cities in an alternative sustainable manner. In the case of
CSEB, the very subsoil excavated for foundations is often
suitable as a raw material. This means that a revolution
could be made in the way we make buildings, in which a
good amount of raw material is available on-site itself.
Other entry points to building sustainably, such as exploring
the potential of massive wood constructions or the potential
of modular and 3-D ways of building adapted to a local
context, are promising and need to be explored urgently.
The international development community, public
authorities, urban practitioners and other key stakeholders
such as businesses, academia and civil society, need to come
together and dedicatedly work on it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The following professionals made this work possible by
sharing valuable information and insights with the author:
Ashok B. Lall, Principal Architect, Ashok B. Lall Architects
Chitra Vishwanath, Principal Architect Biome
Sanjay Prakash, Principal Architect, Studio for Habitat
Futures (SHiFt)
Jayakumar Soman, Principal Architect, Jayakumar &
Associates.
A sincere thanks to each of them to enable the study to take
its present shape and for the continued support.
REFERENCES
[1] https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/159348/adbi-
infrastructure-seamless-asia.pdf
[2] AEA. (n.d.). http://www.earth-auroville.com.
[3] Development Alternatives. (2011). Retrieved from
https://www.devalt.org/Aboutus.aspx
[4] Donnelly, B. (2015, September 6). The life expectancy of buildings.
Retrieved from https://brandondonnelly.com/2015/09/06/the-life-
expectancy-of-buildings/
[5] Hawthorn, U. (2012). Earthen Construction: Building with
Compressed Earth Blocks. Retrieved from http://buildipedia.com/aec-
pros/featured-architecture/compressed-earth-blocks-earthen-
construction-brings-building-back-to-the-fundamentals
[6] Holcim Foundation. (2008). Office Building in India. Zurich: Holcim
Foundation.
[7] HUDCO - Design Awards 2018. (n.d.). Manlhar Terraces for Good
earth. Retrieved from http://goodearth.org.in/
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
769

[8] JNTUH. (2015). Proceedings: Workshop On Construction &
Demolition Waste Recycling (CDWR). Hyderabad.
[9] Lall, A. B. (n.d.).
[10] Niti Aayog. (2018). Composite Water Management Index. Niti
Aayog. Retrieved from
https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/2018-05-
18-Water-Index-Report_vS8-compressed.pdf
[11] SHiFT. (2019). Retrieved from https://shift.org.in/home.php
[12] World Economic Forum. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/sustainability-is-now-
mission-critical-for-businesses-heres-
why?fbclid=IwAR1e2Ez3JRlKu1Qh8ExYh4155YOW3BNUqn6TRJ
2sBzEU6sEUqwlecc4Q_SA.
[13] ZED. (2015). T-Zed Buildings. Bangalore. Retrieved from zed.in/the-
zed-way/
Miami USA Mar 12-13, 2020, Part V
770