It came to my attention that one of the main challenges being faced by developers in India is the availability of green raw materials, is this true? Also, can you list the top 10 green building developers in India?

Advice provided by: Yusuf Turab, InHabit and Buildscape

Databases of Green Buildings in India:

You can also use databases of green building projects to find their developers.

The Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) has listed all the IGBC certified green buildings on their website.

ADaRSH, Association for Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats has listed all the buildings that have been certified through the GRIHA rating system.

I hope this helps!

I am a student doing final year architecture in India, I am interested in practising sustainable architecture. i would like to know about the details of the extra cost incurred and the payback period for residential projects. is there any minimum built-up area so that the sustainability can be practised in residential level?

Advice provided by: Yusuf Turab, InHabit and Buildscape

First of all, congratulations on making the smart decision of pursuing green architecture. I think that this term is more accurate than “sustainable architecture”. A building requires a great deal of materials and processes to meet its most basic function, which is human comfort. No building can truly be sustainable unless we go back to the Stone Age.

The idea of green building is to limit the impact on the environment without compromising human comfort. Green building aims to achieve more with less, which is what makes this sector so interesting. I have been consulting for just over a year now and it is very satisfying to see that some of our ideas make a meaningful difference.

The Growth of Green Building

I recently received the following statistics from a World Green Building Council mailer. It says, "In 2003, only 24% of construction firms worldwide were significantly involved with green building. In 2013, 94% of the firms are expected to be significantly involved with green building; more than half of the firms will be largely or exclusively dedicated to green building”.

While this is great for the sector, it also means that there will be increased competition, copying, green washing and lack of differentiation in projects. Therefore, one’s success in the industry will depend on how one can differentiate him or herself and the pace at which he or she innovates.

The report has many other interesting statistics that indicate trends in the green building sector. For the convenience of readers, I have made the report available here for download under “Statistics on Green Buildings”.

Costs and Payback Period of Green Buildings

Since this question is asked often, most green building professionals will simply state that most green buildings have an added cost of 5% - 15% (compared to a conventional building) and that the payback period is usually 3 - 5 years.

While this is true in many cases, I personally believe the cost of going green is relative and cannot be accurately quantified. I know developers and building owners who always use high performance building design and materials, efficient lighting and HVAC, wastewater treatment, rain water harvesting, waste management and other green building materials and techniques. They simply believe that it’s common sense to build that way. For such builders, the cost of going green is minimal or nonexistent, since they would have spent this additional amount anyway.

That being said, many developers do not automatically incorporate green building strategies. The following list indicates some of the features and building practices that might require an investment that is significantly greater than those for conventional buildings practices in India:

Advice provided by: Yusuf Turab, InHabit and Buildscape

You raise some fair points and they have been raised a few times before. The issues you have raised are related mainly to politics, culture and economics of a place and its people.

Firstly, you have to appreciate the fact that LEED or for that matter none of the Green building rating systems are perfect. They have never claimed to be and will probably never become in the future either. But they are the best we have got and I believe every project does have to go beyond rating systems to truly deliver value to stakeholders and protect the environment along the way. This is already happening in many projects in India where promoters have brought in the concept of Green living within plain old LEED certified Green buildings. I recently wrote a blog on what I believe is the true difference between the term Green and the term Environmentally friendly. You can read it by following the link here.

Coming to your point about restricting the space based on the expected number of full time occupants; this is already happening as building is an expensive exercise and no one wants to build more that what they need.

In some cases it is always better to build a little bit extra as it is almost impossible to predict exactly how many people will use the building and how the building will be used 10-15-30 years down the line. Many have tried and failed miserably. A promoter is always required to plan for the future and it is also better for the occupants if a building can absorb changes without any additional construction.

Secondly, it is not the job of a rating system like LEED to teach one moral ethics or tell how much one should build, this should be done by the government planning authority when any plan is sent for approval. LEED was never designed to teach people how to live more responsibly, how to consume smartly or how to make a positive impact on the environment on a daily basis. Such things require high levels of awareness and a massive cultural change and do not happen overnight. The purpose of LEED is to inform the building owners, users, occupants and other stakeholders that the building has been built in an environmentally conscious manner and has taken account of their health, comfort and well-being.

The point about over consumption in the US is a separate issue. Over the last century the US economy has been built around consumption using cheap credit and this model has been tremendously successful in economic terms. The world is a little different now and this is changing slowly with people consuming more responsibly. The change is going to take a few decades and the emissions in the US will eventually come down to at least the European levels.

Your point about restricted and unrestricted LEED might require more deliberation. But at this point I do not see why a customer would want to buy space in a restricted LEED building over an unrestricted LEED building especially when they might be priced exactly the same. The more important change LEED needs right now is of combining its rating systems. USGBC needs to consider making it mandatory for all LEED New Construction buildings to go in for a LEED EBOM rating after every 5 - 7 years of occupancy. If buildings do not comply they should lose their LEED NC rating all together. Maybe there could be other incentive attached like paying only half for the LEED EBOM certification. This will ensure that a building remains green throughout its life and the promoters do not keep bragging about their building's green credentials well after it is all the technology within it is completely outdated.

Let me know what you think.

What is Sustainable Architecture?

In his enormously successful book Design with Nature, published in 1969, Ian McHarg argues that:

"If one accepts the simple proposition that nature is the arena of life and that a modicum of knowledge of her process is indispensable for survival and rather more for existence, health and delight, it is amazing that how many apparently difficult problems present a ready solution".

The key to architectural sustainability is to work with, rather than against, nature; to sensitively exploit and simultaneously avoid damaging natural systems. Architectural sustainability mirrors the view that it is necessary to position human activities as a non-damaging part of the ongoing ecological landscape, with a belief that 'nature knows best'.

Any green building architect should identify places with intrinsic suitability for agriculture, forestry, recreation and urbanization. Designing with nature at a building level is about recognizing sun paths, breezes, shade trees and rock formations that can be used to create something that people can inhabit comfortably, while recognizing that natural features such as trees, animal tracks, habitats and natural drainage systems must be 'protected'.

For example, if one were to choose a device with high shading coefficient in the summer and a low shading coefficient in the winter, a vine may be used in place of a mechanical system. The vine shades the building when (and only when) it is needed, and the building provides a home for the vine. Thus both the building and the 'component' of nature are sustainable. By adding rainwater collection, reed beds for sewage and perhaps wind or solar power for electrical energy, the building can be independent of imported service and exported waste, keeping its environmental footprint within the footprint of the site. The final archetypal visual image is one of an isolated, self-sufficient building dominated by its surrounding landscape.

Green Building in India

It goes without saying that the version of architecture that I described above is rarely practised in India, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The latest market-driven surge in green building has had some success at bridging the gap between current building practices and true sustainability.

As stated in some of my previous articles, India is now the second largest market for green buildings. This trend is completely market driven and has been achieved with very little government support.

While this sounds fantastic, there is an urgent need in India to extend the technological understanding of sustainable architecture and to incorporate socio-cultural aspects in its production. The need emerges from the fact that Indian architects have failed to recognize the significance of the social dimension in facilitating the sustainable development.

One challenge to India’s acceptance of sustainable architecture is the gap between technology and economic status. On one end, sophisticated technology-based solutions have been developed to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, but they require a high initial investment that very few can afford. On the other end, affordable, low-cost technologies, such as mud architecture, are already available; however, these do not fit in with the aspirations of the upwardly mobile urban population. Affordable technology-based solutions are thus seen as the only means of addressing environmental degradation.

India and Energy Efficiency:

In India, environmental agendas and green buildings are often based on the precedents of developed countries. The 2004 draft for the National Environmental Policy of India received heavy criticism for this reason.

The issue of energy efficiency is more relevant for developed countries where one-third of the total energy is utilized for heating or cooling of buildings. When energy efficiency is used as the main criterion for green buildings in India, several critical issues tend to be ignored. For example, the issues of water and sanitation are more critical than energy efficiency in India. Studies indicate that at current rates of population growth and consumption of water per capita, there will be a shortage of drinking water in Indian urban centres within the next decade.

That being said, the western model of sustainability works very well and has measurable benefits. However, economically speaking, I am not entirely convinced it is the best solution for India. Instead, I believe that we need home-grown solutions that propagate self-sufficiency and contemporary regionalism while maintaining decentralized approach to sustainability.

My personal view is that the debate on sustainable architecture cannot be restricted to quantitative environmental sustainability. It is essential that relationship between social, economic and environmental sustainability should become a critical consideration for the design of India’s built environment. There is little sense in spending millions on the best technology to create the greenest of green buildings if very few Indians can associate with them and even fewer can afford.

Deepika Mathur of the University of Melbourne has rightly pointed out that:

"By limiting itself to sustainability that is dependent on technology for solutions, sustainable architecture in India fails to incorporate the critical dimension of social and cultural sustainability without which it may not work in the Indian context. To be environmentally sustainable, architecture would need to also register the social, political, economical and cultural context of India and offer solutions that are sensitive to its particularities. This precludes universal technological solutions in the form of models of environmental sustainability derived directly from the West".

Good Luck!

Lets take the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as an example. TNEB charges a varying tariff which means that the more electricity you use, the more you have to pay per KWH or 1 unit of electricity. For the sake of this blog, lets assume you use 1000 units at your home, say in a month. This will cost you Rs 3690 and after subtracting the subsidy which is Rs 1350 (I know! ridiculous) the net tariff comes down to Rs 2340. That is 2 rupees and 35 paise per unit of electricity. With a domestic tariff as low as this why should I not operate my air conditioner 16 hours a day?(I did not say 24 because there is no power for 8 hours anyway). Why should I not keep all my appliances on standby when not in use? Why should I go through the pain of educating my 7 year old nephew the importance of energy conservation?

The only answer to these questions is "because it is the right thing to do". Well, I don't expect you to buy that.

Why do we need a subsidy when we cannot even generate enough electricity to cater to even our most basic needs? Or why can't the government simply double the tariff to Rs 5/unit or even more during the peak consumption hours (say about six hours a day)? Or if that is an administrative hassle then why not a blanket increase in all power tariff? Would this not be the most practical way of conveying to the people that there is a problem and we are doing our best to address it in the short term. So you can carry on operating your air conditioners for as long as you want and carry on wasting as much electricity as you want, but you are going to have to pay for it.

Money talks and it is a no brainer to assume that consumption during peak hours will drop sharply. It might even drop to the levels that we need not resort to any load shedding at all. This will also bring in additional revenue to the department which can be used to fund future renewable energy projects. More importantly, this will also be the best way to educate people on the importance of using energy more efficiently. This will get people to think about energy, talk about energy and they will start finding ways to save energy. People will start employing energy auditors to survey their homes, they will invest in retro-fitting their homes to ensure maximum efficiency, they will only buy the most energy efficient appliances and actually care to use them more smartly, they will start replacing their incandescent lights with LEDs, they will plug every gap that allows conditioned air to escape, they will install the best ventilation systems, they will start creating roof gardens, they will get their roofs insulated, they will get their windows double glazed, they will start investing in renewable energy, they will insist on only investing in green buildings, the possibilities are endless.

Even if only half the above statements come true this will still create thousands of Green Collar jobs. Sustainability will not just be a word that green consultants use to show-off their vocabulary, it will actually be a sector in business. Our architects will start designing smarter and greener homes. Consultants like InHabit and Buildscape will research more and more ways to offer energy savings to its customers. Again the possibilities are endless.

The Arguments

Will this not increase the price of goods and commodities?

No. There is no need to make any changes to the tariff structure of commercial establishments and who says the above recommendations need to be permanent. It only needs to be a desperate measure. The TNEB commercial tariff work out to Rs 6/unit for 1000 units consumed which seems appropriate considering the current circumstances. Being an owner of a commercial establishment myself, I can say that I would prefer paying a little more than to run my diesel generator which inflates my cost of energy to Rs 12 / unit (these are my own calculations and can vary for different machines). If you factor in the cost of the generator, the carbon emissions caused, the potential health problems that can be caused by the burning of diesel and the subsequent loss of productivity the cost can be unjustifiable for a business.

What if this causes electoral losses in the next elections?

If the current scenario continues the leadership is going to change hands in any case. An immediate solution even if unpopular can reverse fortunes in the long run. And there is no point in subsidising power when there is no power to supply anyway.

What about the poor people?

That calls for another story. Just for the sake of it I am going to call this story "Looking at the glass half empty":

Let's flash forward ten years and lets hypothetically assume that India's economy has grown to slightly more advanced levels and the government has somehow managed to provide access to electricity to every single citizen of the country. In spite of this there are still 300 million poor people in the country because just as in the past the rich and the middle class have reaped all the benefits of economic growth. There is still acute power shortage because of increasing demand.

Now lets ask all those 300 million poor people what would they like. Would they prefer 8 hour power cuts or would they rather prefer paying double the tariff for 6 hours. Again, it is a no brainer that 299.99 million people would say they would prefer paying the premium and use electricity as conservatively as possible.

Let's hope common sense prevails. Only a sustainable present will create a better future. Green is here to stay and the future looks very green to us. The air feels clean and the grass looks green and Coimbatore is Ooty again. Only this time it is not the Poor Man's Ooty because we will all be rich, won't we?

Article by: Yusuf Turab

Most amenities are just tools used by promoters to make a development look attractive to home buyers as these aspects of a development are visible and can be felt. But the real good qualities of any residential development lie in the bits not visible to us and require a little probing and prodding on the home buyer’s part. Here is a list of questions a home buyer should really be asking and these should be the areas of primary focus when buying a home:

Due to the constant demand supply gap, India is likely to remain a severely energy deficient country in the foreseeable future. When screening potential realtors, ask them how much they know about home energy performance and other environmental issues that matter to you. You can tell a lot just by taking a careful look around. Take a gander at the windows, and check if they're single or double-paned, and at the doors, to see if you feel a draft coming through around the edges. Never buy homes that are not fully day-lit or have too much direct sunlight coming into the home (in warm climates). Insist on energy efficiency measures like appropriate shading, cool roofs, high performance glazing, efficient lighting, controls etc. Power outages are here to stay and it is always better to have a home that can be comfortable without too much dependence on electrical appliances.

Have an understanding of the equipment on offer; inefficient lifts, pumps, motors, sewage treatment and RO plants are irreversible maintenance costs that hurt in the long run. It might even be worth bringing an energy expert to analyse these for you before making an investment.

Most parts of our country are inevitably heading towards a major water crisis in the coming decade. It is only wise to insulate oneself form this oncoming crisis. Hence, one should never invest in a project that does not have a proper water management plan and seems unlikely to be prepared for drought situations. Check if the project is harvesting the maximum rainwater possible and is treating all its waste water on-site. Stored rainwater and treated wastewater can easily be reused for landscaping, flushing and external uses. The project must have installed water efficient low flow fixtures in bathrooms and kitchen. Water and energy are intrinsically linked so saving water saves energy as well. These measures can take care of up to 70% of your water needs leaving you to only worry about 30% in case of a sustained drought.

Does the home ensure a healthy indoor environment?

On average Indians spend more than 80% of their time indoors and the quality of the indoor environment has a huge bearing on our health, well-being and productivity. Never invest in a home that does not have enough fresh air ventilation and cross ventilation. Insist on fully operable windows and check if the window area is at least 13%-15% of the floor area. Look for exhaust systems in bathrooms and kitchen. Get a list of all the paints, varnishes and adhesives to be used in your home and ensure that these chemicals are eco-friendly and free of toxic Volatile Organic Compounds. These chemicals may off gas for as long as five years and when coupled with poor ventilation, it causes the sick building syndrome. Never make compromises here as problems related to indoor environmental quality are very expensive to fix.

How do I operate the house?

It never ceases to amaze me that a new house doesn't come with an owner's manual. You wouldn't expect a new car to come without guidance how to operate and maintain it; shouldn't we expect the same with something we're spending ten or twenty times as much money on? This owner's manual should explain in English, such issues as how to operate and maintain heating and cooling equipment, the importance of cleaning out gutters, what homeowners' need to know about the various comfort features of a home, the names of products and materials used in constructing the house, and how to inspect for termites or other problems. A homeowner's manual is also a great place to aggregate all the information that comes with appliances, cooling equipment, and any other systems in the house.

One of the best and perhaps the least technically challenging method of judging a home is to check if the project has been certified GREEN. Today any developer has the option of getting their project certified GREEN from the Indian Green Building Council or The Energy Resources Institute. These certifications come with varying slabs which inform a home buyer how energy & water efficient the home really is. These certifications also require the project to have sustainable site planning, enhanced indoor environmental quality, use of non toxic environmentally friendly materials and onsite waste management. All these aspects are well documented and can be made available to the home buyers to ease the painful process of choosing the best home.

There is nothing to say that a project that does not have a certificate is not high performance, the fact is that there are many uncertified developments that take a stronger approach towards environmental performance than certified one's but who is to check this? It the duty of developers and promoters to help home buyers lead a comfortable, affordable and hassle free lifestyle. Any project must enable and encourage its residents to live in an environmentally responsible manner. It is the duty of the home buyers to buy responsibly, put in a little extra effort gathering project information and demand highest performance achievable within a budget.