ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO MASS HOUSING IN INDIA

KEY WORDS
Adaptive, Participatory, Open-building, Flexible, Industrialisation

CRITICAL INQUIRY
India like many other countries is facing the issue of the housing crisis due to overpopulation and the
migration of people to urban areas has worsened the situation. This crisis has led to the
development of various housing schemes to catch up with the increasing demands that use
repetition as a method to fulfil the demand, creating large urban housing blocks of identical design
with little flexibility. Bureaucrats who disregard the involvement of users in the process govern the
various attempts made; the user has to compromise and illegal expansions finally destroying the
initial idea causing failure of the scheme.

AIM
The project aims to provide an alternative solution to the problem of housing by providing an
adaptive, flexible and rapid construction housing that involves users in the process of decision-
making.

THEORITICAL BEARINGS
Pre dominantly mass housing in India has largely been construction of large numbers of identical
housing units. Current methods of Mass housing are labour intensive and time taking and allow only
a limited degree of freedom. Mass customization is common in industries, but it is yet to find its
widespread adaptation in the field of architecture.

In 1972 N.J. Habraken proposed the theory of Supports and infill in the book called ‘ Supports, an
alternative to mass housing. In this book he proposed to divide a house into two different spheres
which he called ‘support’ and ‘infills’. The support sphere contains the more permanent features of
the building while the infill refers to the parts of the houses that depends on the user and mainly
consisted the interiors. John Habraken founded a research group called SAR (Stiching Architecten
Research i.e. Foundation For Architecture Research) that further developed and promoted the idea
of ‘Open Building’, which inspired many Architects. ‘The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control
in the Built Environment’ is a logical progression from ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’.
This book can be summed up as a study of this environmental structure by observing change. The
emphasis is not on why changes occur (the sociologist’s fascination) but how it manifests and what it
implies. However, the theories of Habraken cannot be directly implemented in India for various
reasons.

From ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’ to ‘The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control
in the Built Environment’, Habraken’s theory evolves from attempting to provide a workable solution
to the housing problem, to understanding the true structure of housing in all its complexity. It is also
a movement from the specific (design methodology for European housing) to the general (identifying
forces that shape housing environments). Housing in India faces challenges that are different from
the ones faced by Europe throughout its history. In order to provide workable alternatives to mass
housing in India, we need to interpret Habraken’s broader theory of ‘The Structure of the Ordinary’
and consequently modify the theory of ‘Supports’. This modification takes into account two
fundamental differences- the absence of industrialization process in the construction industry, and
the process of the growing home due to a developing economy.1

Although Habraken’s theories cannot be directly implemented in, Indian context but I still find a lot
of relevance of the theory to find a solution for housing problems in India. My design solution would
try overcoming the shortcomings in the theories of Habraken and finding a relevant solution for the
Indian society.

OBJECTIVES
1. To find the shortcomings of the theory of ‘Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing’ and
their relevance in the Indian context.
2. Proposing alternative solutions to the shortcoming in the theory.
3. Additional interventions to find a relevant solution for housing.

SITE/PROGRAM
Site is yet to be finalized and I am still researching on it. However, I have narrowed down my search
to these three cities.

1. Mumbai is the second largest Metro city in the nation and has a daily influx of more than
thousand individuals daily and houses the world’s largest slum, hence it faces a major
housing crisis.
2. Surat is the fastest growing city of India (according to a global economic research report)
and hence the city would provide a good opportunity to exercise my design for future.
3. Ahmedabad is also amongst the fast growing cities in India and the development of new
Central business district, addition of metro and proposed bullet train connectivity with
Mumbai will encourage a large population influx in the city. Additionally I know this city
more than any other will help me to do a deeper research in the context.

Although the program of the project is going to be, site specific. (The housing proposal will be from
100-150 units of varied sizes).

CASE STUDY
1. THE PLUG-IN CITY / PETER COOK, ARCHIGRAM
Between 1960 and 1974 Archigram created over 900 drawings, among them the plan for the “Plug-in
City” by Peter Cook. This provocative project suggests a hypothetical fantasy city, containing
modular residential units that “plug in” to a central infrastructural mega machine. The Plug-in City is
in fact not a city, but a constantly evolving megastructure that incorporates residences,
transportation and other essential services--all movable by giant cranes. Persistent precedents and
concerns of modernism lay at the heart of Plug-In City’s theoretical impulse, not limited to the
concept of collective living, integration of transportation and the accommodation of rapid change in
the urban environment.

1
Kashikar, Vishwanath. (2015). housing in india: reinterpreting habrakens theories in the indian
context. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1629.3286.
 The Plug-In City / Peter Cook, Archigram

2. THE MOLENVLIET PROJECT

Molenvliet project, Papendrecht, near Rotterdam, Frans van der Werf, architect. 1974

The project is set up as an urban tissue in which buildings form courtyards from where access to
houses is given. Because users have designed house units, no two floor plans are alike.

3. NEXT 21
Architect: Yositika UTIDA, Shu-Koh-Sha Architectural and Urban Design Studio , 1994

NEXT 21 located in Osaka, Japan is an experimental multi-family housing project demonstrating new
concepts of multi-family housing units that incorporates sustainable design methods and advanced
technologies expected to be used in the near future. The design of this building was conceived with
a hypothesis that the highly individualized lifestyle is expected in the new century, and addresses
issues relating to high-density urban housing and resource conservation in building. In contrast to
conventional cookie cutter design, NEXT 21 experiments a new collective housing that accommodate
the preferences and lifestyle of individual occupants. At the same time, it aims at showcasing an
environmentally friendly building incorporating various energy and resource conserving design
strategies and building systems. As a way of achieving these goals, the concept of two-stage housing
was adopted, and design and construction of building infrastructure and individual housing units
were carried out in two stages.

4. PRIMARY CASE STUDY

The primary case study would be dependent on the site. The aim would be study the existing
typology of housing in the area for contextual reference.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Niemeijer, R. A., De Vries, B., & Beetz, J. (2010). Designing with constraints-Towards mass
customization in the housing industry. In conference; 10th International Conference on
Design & Decision Support Systems; 2010-07-19; 2010-07-22. Eindhoven University of
Technology, Department of Architecture, Building, and Planning.
2. Habraken, N. J., Valkenburg, B., & Teicher, J. (1999). Supports: an alternative to mass
housing.
3. Priemus, H. (2015). Support-Infill Revisited: The increasing say of occupants. In Proceedings
of the Future of Open Building Conference. ETH Zürich.
4. Van Gassel, F. (2003). Experiences with the Design and Production of an Industrial, Flexible,
and Demountable (IFD) Building System. NIST special publication SP, 167-172.
5. Kashikar, Vishwanath. (2015). housing in india: reinterpreting habrakens theories in the
indian context. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1629.3286.
6. Van der Werf, F., & Froyen, H. P. (1980). Molenvliet-Wilgendonk: Experimental Housing
Project. Beyond the Modern Movement, The Harvard Architecture Review, 1.
7. Kim, J., Brouwer, R., & Kearney, J. (1993). NEXT 21: A prototype multi-family housing
complex. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, College of Architecture and Urban
Planning.
8. Sadler, S. (2005). Archigram: architecture without architecture. Mit Press.