ZANKHANA GAJJAR

M.Arch (Sustainable Architecture), B.Arch, D.A.A.

DIRECTORY
01
07
Centre for Environmental Awareness, Surat, Gujarat. (B.Arch :Thesis)
A short research paper on House form, culture and gender. (M.Arch)
09
16
Design studio Housing at Shiv Ranjani cross road, Ahmedabad. (M.Arch)
18
Embodied energy of a building - Gandhi Smarak Sangrahlaya. (M.Arch)
22
Regional responsive studio- Dahod, Gujarat. (M.Arch)
25
A short research on Save paper as an initiative Why and How. (M.Arch)
An inquiry of green building rating system (GRIHA)-its potential to address
issues of sustainability. (M.Arch Thesis)
29
Internship (M.Arch)
B.Arch Thesis - 2011
Centre for environmental awareness - Surat.

THE NEED
TO
PROTECT

ENVIRONMENT
CAN BE
IGNORED
ONLY

AT OUR
PERIL
WHAT ARE ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES?


POLLUTION
LAND DEGRADATION
ENERGY
INTENSIVE FARMING
MINING
NUCLEAR ISSUES
OZONE DEPLETION
OVER POPULATION
RESOURCE DEPLETION
URBAN SPRAWL
CLIMATE CHANGE
E- WASTES
WILDLIFE EXTINTION
DROUGHTS
RADIATION
FLORA-FAUNA
Project brief
The center for environmental awareness will play its role in
the nationwide effort to increase awareness by developing
educational programmes and materials for children. The
primary objective is to improve public awareness and
understanding of the environment with a view to promoting
the conservation and sustainable use of nature and natural
resources, leading to a better environment and thus a better
life.

Objectives
Knowledge and sensitizing people about the environment and environmental challenges.
Attitude concern for the environment and help to maintain environmental quality.
Utilizing various educational approaches to teach and learn about & from the environment.
Encourage various organizations, mass media, etc. for promoting awareness among local people.
Promoting conservation of nature and its resources.
Key target groups:
Students, local communities, senior citizens, private company employs, government officers, ngos,
construction technocrats etc.

Ankleshwar/
Bharuch
More of industrial zones
Navsari /
vapi
More of developing urban zones
Surat
Development
1. Choose an issue
2. Define a problem for
that issue
5. Take action
3. Search
for
solutions
4. Evaluate
options
01
Site : Near Anuvrat Dwar, new city light, surat
Area: 13,000 mt2
Immediate context surrounding the site:
Veer narmad south gujarat university
Sardar vallabhbhai national institute of technology
Goenka international school
Proposed brts terminal
Science centre
Most developing urban zone new city light area, vesu
Built un built surrounding the site
Land use surrounding the site
Built to green surrounding the site
Local context surrounding the site Residential Commercial Canal
Education institute Public purpose
Conceptual
Conceptual idea was to design a space which more then
becoming a building becomes a self exhibit example for
various sustainable strategies.
Attempt to maximize passive strategies for cooling and
comfort, reducing the dependency on active devices.
02
FLOOR PLAN AT : +0.50mts.
03
FLOOR PLAN AT : +3.50mts.
04
FLOOR PLAN AT : +7.00mts.
05
SECTIONAL DETAILS.
06
ABSTRACT

Since the evolution of mankind, for his survival man had not only to resist climates, but also had to protect himself against wild animals and had
to overcome difficulties in the day to day life. Thus man started living in groups which later formed as a community. With the further evolution
each community has acquired its own culture, character, life-style, tradition, social structure. Based on that every community has their own
typology of house. This typology of the house may vary according to the time but the basic built form remains the same like- hierarchy of space,
articulation, notion of privacy, intermediate spaces, etc.
Narrowing it down, India embraces more diversity of culture than any other similar landmass in the world. In India, the historical tradition left
behind in terms of culture specific built environment has a very rich and diverse record. In traditional Indian society, one is not alone, but a part
of a community. Buildings are not built in isolation, but in groups leading to a total environment of spaces and culture unified as a whole. It was
as act of the people inhabiting the settlement, and every single inhabitant held a secure and meaningful position in the group or settlement he
belonged to. The spatial organisation of houses as well as settlements evolved in their own ways, differing from one group to another group,
even if they are located nearby geographically. Expressing that every culture or community has its own expressive system, and the physical
environment is said to be a mirror of culture.
Thus, the chief aim of the study is to understand the change in space and its use within the house as per individual community.

M.Arch Research
A short research paper on House form, culture and gender. (A case of Bohra, Parsi And Hindu Culture)

07
CONCLUSION NOTE :
08
M.Arch Studio
Design studio Housing at Ahmedabad

INTRODUCTION:
As a result of the rapid growth of the Indian cities, the shelter problem in urban areas have remarkably increased in scale and severity, it is the
reason for which the idea of proposing a housing on a site at the prime location (JAY SHEFALI, SHIV RANJINI CROSS ROAD) in Ahmedabad came
up. This idea was backed up by our density study in various typology of houses Such as: High-rise, walk-up, Pol, Bungalow, Row-house. Along
with the Issues to be addressed as a housing project, the site had a very challenging context which needed more attention.
09
STRATEGIES FOLLOWED ARE AS FOLLOWS:




Modular housing by attaching or detaching a space from a basic L module.
An Organization of pol to have a better community connection and climate control and typology of high-rise in order meet the density required.
No compound walls to mark a strict boundary or enclosure, allowing people to connect beyond the site too and a better sense of entry to the site.
Even site an attempt to
have community spaces in Parcels rather then one big.
Restricted vehicular movement.
Encouraging pedestrian and bicycle movement.
Attempt to keep the site shaded as much as possible.
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLITY
SOCIAL
PHYSICAL ESSENTIALS
FUNCTIONAL
SCIENCE
Community
Circulation
Parking
Landscape
Neighborhood


Services
Structure
Materials
Technology

Parking
Structure
Circulation
Services
Water and Waste

Energy
Climate
Water and Waste
3 BHK Units
2 BHK Units
1 BHK Units
STUDIO Units
Private Terrace
Common Terrace
Density in Pol
Houses per hectare
Density attempted in
Site
Defining entry points

Community space within site
Vehicular movement
Car 2 wheeler
bicycle Parking
Primary Pedestrian axis
Secondary Pedestrian axis
Meeting points/ Chowk

Vertical Movement core

Wet service Core

ISSUES IDENTIFIED ARE AS FOLLOWS:
In comparison to the existing one, Large Density to be addressed.
site forms an island, having around 30 mts wide road with a fly-over and BRTS on North -
West and a 4 mts wide road on North-East
side. Both the roads been found catering heavy traffic so creating a pause to enter the site
becomes difficult.
It again has a five storey high commercial block on the whole length of south side, radiating
heat constantly.
site does not have any water supply connection from the corporation.
Site been forming a sunken Island, it becomes difficult to design an extroward housing
which gives an identity.
10
Type Units/ Hct. People/
Hct.
High-rise 260 1304
Chawl 250 1250
Site 200 860
Walk-up 219 752
Pol house 126 630
Tenement 104 520
Row house 44 220
Bungalow 12 120
Type Nos. in 1
Unit
Total
3BHK 04 (120mt.sq.) 10
2BHK 08 (90mt.sq.) 80
1BHK 04 (60mt.sq.) 40
Studi0 01 (30mt. sq.) 10
Site Area 10,418 mt sq.
Built up 4000 mt.sq. ( 38.39%)
Pedestrian 1450 mt sq. (14%)
Parking and
vehicular
movement
3000 mt sq. (28%)
Community
space
1180 mt sq. (12%)
PROPOSED SITE DETAILS
DENSITY COMPARISON
SITE LOCATION, SHIV RANJNI
CROSS ROAD, AHMEDABAD
9 mts wide road
BRTS Lane
9 mts wide road
BRTS Lane
Commercial Building
Residential Zone (High Rises)
(Mix use-High Rises)
SITE LAYOUT.
11
Residential Zone (High Rises)
VIEW OF THE PEDESTRIAN STREET
DETAIL SITE LAYOUT.
12
CALCULATION OF
RAINWATER
HARVESTING FOR 1
UNIT:
(only for portable use
considering 10 lpd)

No. of people in one unit:
74











Total Portable water
required per day: 74
persons x 10 lpd = 740
liters per day.

(Considering 240 nos of
dry day)
Total water required
would be 240 x 740 =
1,77,600 liters

The total water that
could be harvested for
one unit is:
Roof top area = 360
mt.sq.
Water harvest= RA x RF x
coeff. = 360 x 700 x 0.8
= 2,01,600 liters.

So, volume of tank
required to store this
water= 200 mt3. (10 x 5 x
4 mts.)
TYPE
NOS IN 1
UNIT
PERSON
IN1 UNIT
3 BHK 04 20
2 BHK 08 40
1 BHK 04 12
STUDIO 01 02
SECTION-AA
SECTIONAL VIEWS SECTIONAL VIEWS
VIEW FROM THE 9 MTS WIDE ROAD BELOW THE FLY OVER
13
GROUND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN
THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
Ground floor
First floor
Second floor
LAYERS OF FLOOR PLATE
Third floor
Fourth floor
14
SIXTH FLOOR PLAN SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN
VIEWS OF A UNIT BUILDING.
Fifth floor
Sixth floor
Seventh floor
Service room
15
The study was to calculate embodied energy of individual materials and eventually calculate the
total embodied energy of the building with reference to following measure drawings done, where
my focused material was Timber

M.Arch Research
Embodied energy of a building - Gandhi Smarak Sangrahlaya.

Louvered windows
and Paneled doors
Roofing members like
Battens, Rafter,
Panels.
APPROX. QUANTITY OF WOOD USED IN ASHRAM BUILDING:
Assumed wood teak (sag) as it was available in abundance then from valsad @ rate of 300 Rs/cu.ft.

OPENINGS:
Door: Size- 2.10 m x 1.80m x 0.075m x 8 nos. = 2.268m3 (3m3 apprx.)
Window: size- 2.10m x 1.80m x 0.05m x 38 nos. = 7.18m3 (8m3 apprx.)
Additional- 1m3 for frames.
Timber used in openings : 12m3

ROOF:
Purlin: (H) Spacing- 30cm C/C , Size- 0.10m x 0.75m = 0.137m3
(V) Spacing- 30cm C/C , Size- 0.10m x 0.75m = 0.19035m3
H + V = 0.327 m3
0.327 x 4 sides= 1.309m3 in one roof.
Rafter: size- 0.20m x 0.10m = 0.154m3 x 4 sides = 0.616m3 in one roof.
Total wood used in one roof: Purlin total + rafter total = 1.92m3
(2m3 apprx.)
Timber used in roof : 2m3 x 56 nos. = 112m3

PANELS BELOW ROOF:
4.56m2 x 4 sides = 0.456m3 x 56 nos. = 25m3
Timber used in roof paneling: 25m3



TOTAL TIMBER USED IN ENTIRE BUILDING : 149M3
16
DEPENDING ON THE FIELD STUDY AND LITERATURE REVIEW FOLLOWING WOULD BE THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF
TIMBER USED IN GANDHI ASHRAM:

TRANSPORTATION:
24 hours of duration and consumption of 35 to 200 litres of diesel depending on distance.
1m
3
consumes = 11.11 litres of diesel
35.31 cu.ft = 11.11 litres of diesel
1 cu.ft = 0.31 litres
1 litre = 0.96 kg
0.31 litre = 0.29 kg.
1 kg diesel = 44800 kJ
0.29 kg = 13332.48 kJ = 13.33 MJ
Therefore - 1 cu.ft = 13.33 MJ.

SEASONING:
No Kiln seasoning done for timber in ashram building. Possibility of natural seasoning.

SAWING:
carbon release would be 15 Kg/M3 x 149M3 = 2235Kg
carbon stored would be 250 Kg/M3 x 149M3 = 37250Kg
manpower of apprx. 6000 hours would have been used @ 0.8cu.ft /hour/labor.
10 horse power of machine is used.
1 horsepower/hour = 2.684 mj so, 10 horsepower/hour = 26.84 mj
Now per day wood sawn is 70 to 80 cu.ft.
Therefore for 1cu.ft, If used for 4-6 hours a day, Then = 2.22 mj

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMED IN TRANSPORTATION, SEASONING AND SAWING = 15.55 MJ / CU.FT X 35.31 = 549.07 MJ/ CU.MT

THEREFORE:

TOTAL EMBODIED ENERGY OF TIMBER USED IN GANDHI SMARAK SANGHRALAYA = 549.07 X 149= 81,811.50 MJ/CU.MT
*(Excluding human energy and the water used in growing and seasoning of timber.)




17
Present activities on the site are: Kids play area, only a part of the park is
been used and maintained where families in the evening do come, mostly
activated due to the food hawkers on the road edge in the evening, apart
from kids the interest of other people from the site is losing up.
The piece of land needs to be addressed in order to add some
meaning/value to it, rather than allowing it to be a loiter place for random
people during noon time and a part of it been used as play area for kids.

M.Arch Studio
Regional responsive studio- Dahod, Gujarat.

Originally the site was a part of peripheral pathway on the edge of Chab talab. With the proposal of lake front development, a park called chote
sarkar vatika was developed along with creating a water body within the park by constructing a bund. This resulted into a stagnant unused water
body where then hyacinth started covering up the water.
Even the lake water is been polluted due to some illegal discharge of grey and black water into it. Hyacinth has also started covering the lake water
for the same reasons. There exists a well with quite high water level, which is been locked up as nobody prefers to use. This site is the only available
open land as park at present to the users nearby from the old city area.

18
VISION: Allow a scope for communities to be a part of it, by Demonstrating at 1:1 scale treating lake water, treating grey and black water, rain
water harvesting and its use, growing vegetables out of the treated waste.

SITE LAYOUT.
19
VISION: An Open air space more of a designed park as an architectural expression rather than then hard-core built form, which is a more user
friendly space for the local users of Dahod. The space generates source of income, a space that sustains on its own, which produce and re-use its
own requirements and by doing that also spreads awareness informally.
Multiple use of the built spaces.

EXISTING DETAILS OF INTERVENTION AREA. FLOOR PLAN OF INTERVENTION AREA.
20
Reused
country
tiles.
Reused timber
battens
@15cm c/c
Mud flooring
Split bamboo
Hollow mud bricks
0.20 x 0.20 x 0.50 mt.
0.20 x 0.20 x 0.20
Reused
timber batten
ramp
Semi covered
space by trellis
R.c.c. pile
footing
Central
beam
Side beam
Clear ground space
Truss from
reused
timber
Country tiles above the timber frame,
wooden steps forming the access to the
built and trellis forming the semi covered
space.
Re used
timber frame from
the old houses, to support the roofing
material above
Adobe bricks wall
on the extreme shorter
length and the intermediate walls as a
combination of hollow and solid adobe
bricks to reduce the weight.
DETAIL WALL SECTION AND 3D VIEWS FOR
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Mud flooring of all
locally available material: mud , hay
and dry cow dung
Reusing timber from
the old houses to form a base
for the mud flooring above.
Adobe blocks
forming a grid or
frame to better support
the timer battens and mud
flooring above it.
Central
Support with a
lime concrete pile
footing to assure stability
and minimum disturbance of
fertile topsoil. Further stabilise with the ties
beams above ground level resulting into a
floating like structure from ground level.

21
M.Arch Research
A short research on Save paper as an initiative Why and How.

EVERY YEAR 16 MILLION HECTARES OF FOREST COVER COMES UNDER THE AXE. OUT OF WHICH OVER 5 MILLION HECTARES OF FOREST TREES
VANISH FOR PRODUCING PAPER, A MAJOR PORTION OF WHICH IS CONSUMED FOR PRINTING, RESULTING INTO 31% OF OUR TOTAL WASTE
STREAM.
1 tree = helps in removal of one metric ton (1000 Kg.) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year.
1 tree = produces around 173 reams of paper.
1 REAM OF PAPER = 12 POUNDS (5.4 KG) OF CARBON DIOXIDE NOT REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.
Now, The world average paper consumption per person = 123 pounds (55.35 Kg.)
Out of that almost 30% (16 Kg) is used in printing documents
And on average a person uses around 7 reams of printing paper each year.

THEREFORE; EMITTING 37.8 KG OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN ATMOSPHERE (ONLY BY PRINTING PAPERS).

Carbon dioxide is emitted during
logging and transportation due
to use of petrochemical.
Carbon dioxide is emitted
offsite through fuel used to
generate electricity.
The cooking process here results in
emission of variety of hazardous air
pollutants. Carbon dioxide is also
emitted onsite due to use of natural
gas, propane, coal or fuel oil.
Heavy use of water. Carbon dioxide is emitted both
on and off site. Use of bleach includes chlorine and
various other hazardous chemicals.
The most energy intensive
process. Natural gas used in
drying. Electricity used in
mechanical process.
Collecting, transporting and
segregating the waste paper
involves carbon emission.
Heavy use of water. Carbon
dioxide is emitted both on
and off site.
22
OTHER INITIATIVES WORLDWIDE





SMALLER FONT = BIGGER FORESTS
With font size 11 if number of
pages are 39 and with minus
1 font size number of papers
can be reduced to 32.

SAVE AS WWF = SAVE A TREE
A WWF Document can contain
as many pages as one can get
from one tree. So with just on
WWF, one can save an entire
tree.
FOLD MORE = SAVE MORE
That every extra fold that you
will make will require a smaller
size of envelope, saving half
the paper and a whole lot of
trees.
BE GREEN, KEEP IT ON SCREEN
PAPERLESS INVITES
AN INITIATIVE BY IRCTC.
THEY SAY: Doing this will save 3 lakh A4 size papers everyday
and the printer ink used to print those 3 lakhs e-tickets.
Not only this change will save lakhs of rupees but also will
help in reducing the amount of deforestation done to
produce paper.
FACTS BASED ON RESEARCH CALCULATIONS:

TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAINS RUNNING DAILY = AROUND 2800 (*WHICH HAS RESERVATION QUOTA)
SUCH TRAINS HAVE 4 GENERAL COACHES, 1 PANTRY CAR (*NOT CONSIDERED IN CALCULATION)
12 RESV. COACHES: SLEEPER : 7 TO 9 NOS. ( 72 SEATS)
A.C. : 3 TO 5 NOS. (63 SEATS)
Therefore number of people in one train with reservation: 828 + 5% = 870 nos.
(*considered for calculation of e-ticket)
Now out of 870 people 90% book online and out of that 20% of people carry prints (A4)
So nos. of people who book online = 783
Nos. of people who travel without print = 626
Nos. of people who carry print out = 157




Therefore,
nos. of people who book online = 783 X 2800 =21,92,400
Nos. of people who travel without print = 626 X2800 = 17,52,800
Nos. of people who carry print out = 157 x 2800 = 4,39,600
NOW, JUST BY NOT PRINTING TICKETS ONE DAY WE SAVE 17,52,800 NOS. OF A4, THAT IS
3,505 REAMS OF PAPER.





THEREFORE:
ANNUALLY WE ALLOW = 18,927 KG OR 18.92 METRIC TONS TO CO2 TO BE REMOVED FROM
ATOMSPHERE AND WE SAVE = (3505/173) X 365 = 7400 TREES



As per base study:
Manufacturing 1 ream of paper = 12 pounds (5.4 kg) of carbon dioxide not removed from
the atmosphere annually.
One tree produces = 173 reams of paper
23

FACTS BASED ON RESEARCH CALCULATIONS AT CEPT UNIVERSITY PRINTING SHOP:

PAPER
Nos of a4 paper used per month = 10,000 nos.
THERFORE: Amount of papers per day= 327 nos.







ELECTRICITY
1 comp. For 12 hours @ of 160 watt per hour = 160 watt x 12 =
1920 watt/day
1 printing machine for 8 hours @ 1.5 Kw per hour = 1500 x 8 =
12000 watt/day
1 fan for 12 hours @ 15 watt per hour = 15 x 12 = 180 watt/day
1 tube light for 12 hours @ 40 watt per hour = 40 x 12 = 480
watt/day
1 AC for 6 Hours @ 1.5 Kw per hour = 1500 x 8 = 9000 watt/day

THEREFORE: Amount of electricity used: 23580 watt/day or 23.58
Kw/day or
Now 1Kwh = 4gms of co2 emission.

In a day carbon emission = 23.58 x 4= 94.32 gms of co2/day

THUS: FOR 1 A4 = 94.32/327 = 0.28 GRAM OF CO2 EMISSION
INK
1 Kg of dry toner allows 10,000 A4 black and white print.
So, For 1A4 = 0.0001 Kg (0.1 gm) of ink.

THEREFORE: ink used per day = 327 X 0.0001 =0.0327 Kg/day

Now manufacture of 1000kg (1metric tone) of toner = 16000kg
(16metric tone) of Co2.
Therefore 1Kg of dry tonner = 16 Kg of Co2

THEREFORE: amount of co2 per day = 0.0327 x 16 = 0.5232 Kg




THUS, FOR 1 A4 (0.5232 / 327) = 0.0016 KG (1.6 GMS) OF CO2
(BECAUSE IT USES 0.0001KG OF TONER)
TRANSPORTATION:
The ream of paper comes from old city area ( 8 to 10kms from
CEPT) through tempo.
The amount of fuel used = 0.77liters @ of 13km/ltr.
Now 1 ltr. of diesel emits 2.7kg of co2. so 0.77 litre = 2.07 kg of co2
Now a turn of tempo delivers 50 reams of paper = 50 x 500 =
25000 A4.
THEREFORE: 25000A4 = 2.07kg of co2 emission

THUS: FOR TRANSPORTATION OF 1 A4 = 0.082GM OF CO2
EMISSION.
HUMAN ENERGY:
considering 2 people @ 10 kilojoules/minute.
If 2 people work for 10 to 12 hours, then energy required per person will
be = 10 x 60 x 10= 600 kilojoules/day/person.
THEREFORE:

WHEN YOU PRINT 1A4 IN BLACK AND WHITE YOU CONTRIBUTE
1.962 GRAMS OF CO2 IN ENVIRONMENT.
*(Excluding human energy and the emission during paper manufacture.)




24
The concept of building sustainably has been evolved before more than 3 decades, but the construction, operation, and demolition of buildings in
last decade have increasingly been recognized as a concern for its ecological impacts and have given way to concepts of energy conscious, eco-
friendly, energy efficient, zero energy buildings. With increase in population, tremendous growth has been noticed in construction industry across
the globe, resulting in pressure and irreversible damage to global ecology which has an adverse impact on the quality of present and future life.
Hence there is urgency for the construction industry to seek Sustainable solutions. In present days, the most sustainable solution been observed
and adopted by majority of practitioners is a Rated Green Building, which mainly aims to reduce the environmental impact, by focusing on
elements like; siting, energy, water, materials, indoor environmental quality, operations and maintenance optimization, waste and toxic reduction
and health. This has resulted to an interchanged use of terms green and sustainable though there are fundamental differences between them.

This study in its first half attempts, to understand the Present scenario of environmental crisis and resource crunch, need for
sustainable approach, understand issues in sustainability and identify a framework of sustainability in built form, ways of achieving sustainability,
difference between a green rated building and a sustainable building.
In other half, the study attempts to understand evolution of rating systems, its limits and benefits, systems and processes to be in
place, and also GRIHA, as a rating tool in India.
With whole of above mentioned understanding it then, as a conclusion, attempts to find barriers and potentials of GRIHA Rating
System to address issues of Sustainability in holistic manner, as a significant need for future generation.

KEYWORDS:
Sustainability, Aspects of Sustainability, Sustainability in built form, Green Buildings, Green Building Rating Systems, Potentials.

M.Arch THESIS - 2013
An inquiry of green building rating system (GRIHA) - its potential to address issues of sustainability.

ABSTRACT:
25
ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABILITY IN ARCHITECTURE.
Ecological
Longevity, Atmosphere, resource (Re-use, Reduce, Re-cycle), Energy
(embodied and operational), Durability, Life cycle design, ecosystems,
construction materials, site and land use.
It is about maintaining Resilience and robustness of biological and
physical systems. (Mohan Munasinghe)
Financial
Equity, Longevity, Flexibility, Technology, Organizational, Durability,
resource economy, Re-use, Reduce, Re-cycle, operational energy.
Maximizing income while maintaining a constant or increasing stock of
capital. (Mohan Munasinghe)
Cultural
Technology, Interface, Aesthetic, inspiration from forgotten tradition,
Humane design, context, community.
The character of a place is affected by built environment as well as by
how people act within this environment. (Sassi)
Social
Equity, needs, Humane design, comfort, pleasure, Healthy
environment, immediate physical environment, social implications,
community.
The focus has to be on the needs and desires of users. (Sassi)
FRAMEWORK
26
R
a
t
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m

Criteria number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
A
s
p
e
c
t
s

C
u
l
t
u
r
e
Interface --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Inspiration from tradition --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Humane design --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
S
o
c
i
a
l

Equity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Humane design --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Immediate physical context --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Social Implementation --- --- ---
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l

Durability and longevity --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Equity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Flexibility --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Organizational --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Resource economy --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Operational energy and
maintenance
--- --- --- ---
Technology --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

Atmosphere --- --- --- ---
Construction Material --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Durability --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Eco system and Bio-
diversity
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Energy --- --- --- --- --- ---
Life cycle design --- --- --- --- ---
Longevity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Resource efficiency --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Site and land use --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
27
Figure explaining Potential to link rating system and issues of Sustainability.
Understood from the study is that; there are potentials to link the Green building rating system (GRIHA) to other aspects of Sustainability for an
holistic approach. But social and cultural aspects being non-quantifiable and also due to lack of awareness amongst people are being a barrier.
Such crucial issues can be a mandatory part of rating system and if required they can be rated as good, average or bad. The rating system can still
account for financial viability of project, effects on local economy, local sourcing, global sourcing, value for money, affordability, life-cycle after
investment, risk managements, etc.
When it comes to Sustainability, there are no set rules, and the Present day rating systems focuses and assigns points only for technologies that,
when used properly, can reduce a buildings environmental footprint for its materials, reduce the amount of energy and water it should consume.
The major reason being such strategies are all quantifiable and has set strategies to achieve the target. The approach to social and cultural
aspects being debatable and non-quantifiable is been considered little crucial, but still there is an urgency to address them for a holistic approach
to sustainability in Indian context.




For holistic Approach
Major focus of rating
system

Needs consideration
Can be rated as:
Good, Average, Bad.
R
a
t
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m

Tangible
(Quantifiable)
Environmental
Ecological
Depends either on
Set strategies or
innovations
Intangible
(Non-Quantifiable)
Social
Cultural
Depends on the
designers
understanding,
sensitivity and
response
CONCLUSION NOTE :
28
M.Arch Internship
29
30