Recently the Maharashtra State Government withdrew
tax cuts and FSI sops for “eco-friendly buildings”. The government is in
the process of developing a “Green Building Code”. The code will have mandatory
and voluntary reforms. This I think is a good step in the direction of
sustainability. In fact, many Western countries have this kind of code already
inculcated in their code; for example the Tile 24 Energy Code in California, to
which all the projects have to adhere to. In Pune, the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation adopted
the GRIHA guidelines in their Building bye-laws and require all new
construction to follow those guidelines to obtain approval.
To me, though, “Sustainable Architecture” is a tautology. I strongly feel
that a building is not “Architecture” if it is not “Sustainable”. In the last few
years we have seen abundant misuse of the terms “Green”, “Sustainable” and “Eco-friendly”,
with developers, builders, product manufacturers using it as a marketing
gimmick or “greenwashing”.
An architect, while designing a building, not only has a responsibility towards
the client, society and the profession, but also towards the environment.
Making environment sustainability for buildings a norm,
rather than an exception is a positive step towards saving our cities and
ourselves. By incorporating this into the system it will encourage more
architects, builders and contractors to do the right thing, and bring about an
awareness in the general public.
The bottom line is that we have passed the point where we
can afford to treat “environmental sustainability” as an add-on tag (that
developers can profit from). Many will contest that this will have an adverse
impact on the overall development. But isn’t it more prudent, as a society to
build wisely than to build widely?
Comments