Many of us involved in the design and making of objects and environments for human consumption and occupation have often wondered about what kind of a planet we would be living on today - if the trajectory of ‘growth’ and ‘development’ had not been driven by industrialization and the worldview of the Western world.
Instead of controlling and conquering nature in all its forms – would we have lived more symbiotically with it, like all the rest of the species?
Instead of focusing on efficiency, mass production and saving time – would we have celebrated individuality and the very act of doing and crafting things? Instead of inventing molecules, specialized materials and mechanisms, narrow in their purpose and detrimental after use – would we have looked at discovery in nature and growing such holistic and eco-synchronous elements in their efficacy and life-cycle?
Such questions are surely not very far-fetched and utopian for those who have been fortunate to be part of such a civilizational legacy. While they appear to belong to some very contemporary handbook on sustainability, inclusivity, biomimicry and ESG / SDG goals – actually, it is very easy to relate to them and see their demonstrations of how indigenous cultures have survived and flourished for centuries.
It is well-established that systems and strategies employed in the design, construction and operations of our traditional built environment have always been sustainable, energy-efficient and eco-friendly.
Civilizations such as ours have always been doing this – in a very organic and socio-culturally inclusive and embedded manner. One did not need any rules, mandates or certifications to be sustainable – our understanding of ourselves was never really different from our surroundings, our society and our planet.
Yet, we seem to have lost that somewhere along the way – and now are we coming back to ‘sustainability’ as defined by the industrialized Western worldview.
As designers, builders and makers, we are innately compelled to evaluate our creations. Therefore, we constantly seek ways and means of ranking and rating them. Most of these evaluation systems are products of the industrial revolution and subscribe to a limited perspective.
However, the reality of our globalized and technology-driven world demands that built environments across the world adhere to such evaluation criteria. Therefore, we see a plethora of green building certification systems being used in architecture, interior design and urban development. They are standardized and widely accepted methods of understanding and documenting the ‘greenness’ of a built environment.
Very often, one finds that proponents of both these green approaches (vernacular vs modern, technology-driven, certifiable) are at loggerheads with each other.
This does not necessarily have to be the case.
There is an attempt to bridge this gap by looking at some examples of traditional materials, methods, techniques and strategies through the lens of modern green building certification systems.
One looks at different buildings, methods of construction, approaches to building and occupation of spaces and demonstrates how our indigenous knowledge systems were far more holistic, sustainable and inclusive – and yet would have also performed very well when evaluated by modern green building rating systems.
Here are some examples:
Projects get credit for ‘Reducing Development Footprint’ – which means sustainable buildings and towns should not spread out and consume land (and expand infrastructure). This is exactly what the Western world did with its urban planning for centuries. Therefore, we have the curse of automobiles, highways, fossil fuels, pollution, etc. Compare that to the compact, dense and mixed-use areas in the ‘old city’ or ‘walled’ city core of any Indian city. This also contributes immensely to social inclusivity, well-being and richness of life (something not even covered by several rating systems).
Similarly, contemporary projects would get credits for ‘Daylight in regularly occupied indoor areas’ and ‘Access to Views’ – both of which are beautifully integrated and celebrated in our traditional architecture and interior elements like courtyards, verandahs, jaali (perforated screen), jharokha (projecting, enclosed balcony), etc.
There are several points earned if the paints, polishes and adhesives used in our buildings have low VOC. (volatile organic compounds). How about our traditional materials and finishes that are all made of natural materials, sourced locally, installed by local craftsmen and have zero VOC, let alone be harmful? Many of them were even edible!
Across all important aspects of ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ buildings like water conservation, energy efficiency, passive cooling and heating, indoor environmental quality, health and well-being, social equity, etc. – each of our traditional buildings would score handsomely and surely be eligible for a Gold or Platinum rating today. Some would go beyond the innovations and holistic design and operational concerns that they demonstrate.
One hopes that such examples of comparing contemporary systems and techniques with indigenous knowledge systems can be used as a way to demonstrate and create awareness about the richness of thought, process and collaborative/eco-synchronous approach towards life and everything that we built around us.
Instead of subjecting ourselves and our civilization to the limited worldview and norms of others, let us look to enrich ourselves from our own history and traditions.
Of course, everyone across the world has created some very beautiful and valuable inventions, and we must be respectful of them and utilize them as best we can. But that should never become a restricting barrier to value something that we ourselves have always had and can now share with the rest of the world - at a time when it is desperately needed.
