One size doesn't fit all

It is a pretty obvious truth that the smaller the building, the less the environmental damage.

But there is no formula for size. Which is why, finding the right green size is an interesting and important challenge, says Himanshu Burte

Building sustainably is simpler than it often appears — and that’s what we have set out to say in this series. Nothing is simpler to control than the size of a building or facility. And it’s a pretty obvious truth that the smaller the building, the less the environmental damage it is likely to cause. In fact, the point is so obvious that it should not have to be made at all. But, as it happens, small is not yet beautiful. The bigger home, city and skyscraper (and yes, the bigger car) clutter not just the horizon, but also our immediate environment.

Reducing ecological impact
It is important to use low-energy materials and building techniques. The choice of material is crucial. The fossil fuel energy (from coal or oil) used to make one kilogramme of steel is 24 times that consumed to make the same weight of timber ready for building. A lot of energy can be saved by favouring brick over concrete or steel. Even so, a 15,000 sqft bachelor pad can hardly be thought sustainable, even if built in a very low-energy material like mud. The energy saved in material will be lost again in the quantity that’s needed for the building. So size does matter for energy (and rupee) costs.

Indirect eco-impact
It’s not just a question of energy. Buildings impact the environment in many different ways, directly and indirectly. The size of a building affects all of these.

Carbon dioxide and climate change
Any use of electricity (largely coal-based in India) involves carbon dioxide emissions. Since a lot of electricity is consumed in manufacturing most building materials, a bigger building involves bigger CO2 emissions on account of more bricks, cement, steel, wood, metals, plastics, paints… the list is long. And some of these emissions recur every few years because of the necessary repairing, re-plastering, re-painting and re-polishing work.

Loss of topsoil
Sometimes we understand abstract concepts like energy and emissions better than, say, the land we stand upon. Because we buy and sell land as a commodity, we find it difficult to see its ecological or social value. The top layer of the soil (a few inches deep) is called topsoil. It is precious and takes thousands of years to form. It is also the first direct casualty of construction.

Space, but no land
As cities expand, more and more agricultural land is being built upon in India today. Software parks are welcome, of course, but only code grows there, not wheat or rice. And arable land is a small fraction of the quarter of the globe that is free from water. A bigger building, brings us a little closer to the problem of having luxurious spaces to live in but no land to grow food on.

Direct eco-impact
A bigger building, of course, leaves an even bigger hole in faraway lands (often home to the poorest of people) because of all the mining and quarrying it causes to happen. The web of ecological damage these ‘holes’ can cause is extensive and difficult to map. However, it is easier to imagine other indirect eco-costs.

More infrastructure
Many buildings together form neighbourhoods and cities that need to be serviced with infrastructure. The more space a building footprint occupies for the same number of people it houses, the longer the road that connects all buildings. The longer the road, the longer all the pipes and cables that go to each building, which means more material (and energy) consumed in road building, water supply and sewerage pipes as well as telephone, electricity and Internet cables. No wonder many planners consider the typical American suburb (with large, free-standing homes at driving distances from all amenities) an important reason for the fact that America’s carbon emissions are 20 times that of India.

Keeping the balance
Of course, small cannot be turned into a religion, and building small may not always be the answer.

Map economies of scale
For instance, in an RCC (reinforced cement concrete) building the foundation size broadly remains the same whether a building has one storey or three (or even more, sometimes). Thus, a stand-alone single-storey house may well prove less sustainable than a multi-storey apartment block (especially if it is less than ground-plus-two or-three storeys high). More such economies of scale can be found for bigger buildings, and indeed for cities.

The importance of design

 

An efficiently designed smaller space may work better than a larger but inefficiently planned space. It would also cost less and be easier to maintain. 
 

Question needs, question lifestyle habits (do you need a bedroom, or simply a private space with a bed?). 
 

Size spaces optimally, and don’t waste space on corridors and lobbies. 
 

Innovation helps. For instance, in a farmhouse, one can do away entirely with a typical living room and simply expand a verandah space for the same purpose. That saves on masonry, plastering and paint for the walls that are avoided in the verandah. 
 

Design spaces that can perform different functions at different times. 

Calling big’s bluff
Big is not necessarily beautiful, and small is not always a punishment. Sure, a spacious living room is a pleasure — but a smaller living room opening to a terrace might be even better. A large kitchen, meanwhile, often means kilometers of avoidable walking between sink, stove and refrigerator. But there is no formula for size, of course. Which is why arriving at the right, green size is an interesting and important challenge.