1

School of Planning
and Architecture
New Delhi

DYNAMIC ARCHITECTURE FOR INDIA

How can dynamic buildings contribute to Indian architecture?

By

JRIBH SHANDILYA
A/2703/2014

Supervised by

GAURAV SHARMA (Guide)

ARPITA DAYAL (Co-ordinator)

13th November 2017

 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere gratitude to my guide, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, for guiding me throughout the
course of my dissertation and helping me with this unconventional topic.

Thanks to my studio co-ordinator, Prof. Arpita Dayal, for the direction and drive
provided throughout the semester.

Special thanks to my parents for their faith in me, filling me with courage and
confidence.

Warm regards to my friends for their persistent companionship.

Lastly, thanks to all the people who helped me with this topic.
 3

CONTENTS

1. a start
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope of the study
1.4 Limitations
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Abstract
2. dynamic architecture
2.1 What is dynamic architecture?
2.1.1 An introduction to dynamic architecture
2.1.2 Types of dynamic buildings
2.2 Dynamic buildings
2.2.1 Need for low-tech
2.2.2 Dynamic buildings in India
2.3 Case studies
2.3.1 Primary case study
2.3.2 Secondary case studies
2.3.3 Preliminary findings
2.4 Conclusion
2.5 References
2.6 Table of figures
 4

How can dynamic buildings contribute to Indian architecture?

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Architecture is probably the most experimented upon of all sciences worldwide, still
there’s no proof of us even going in the right direction. There’s no right or wrong, and
all we can rely upon are our architectural instincts. This is an age of reason and
logic, as opposed to about a hundred years ago, when you could build structures
having more than half of their elements dedicated to pure beautification. Such is not
the case anymore; things are only done if they seem beneficial, especially in
architecture. Elements without purpose are considered prodigal and excessive. It
may be a matter of debate if we have come in the right direction regarding the issue,
but it sure seems logical. We have successfully expelled those elements from our
architecture which seemed any less useful to us. Buildings of today are free of any
“useless” ornamentation, statues or epigraphs, while not more than two hundred
years ago, they would have been seen as bland and inexpressive blocks. In this age
of pragmatism, one thing can be concluded without doubt: Change is the only way
forward. Our architecture has successfully(?) evolved itself and undergone various
modifications to suit a world of 7.5 billion people (and counting). But unsurprisingly
enough, the need for the next big change is already here, one which needs to be
adopted as quickly as possible.

Dynamic architecture is a term not just for buildings, but everything making life
possible. Nature proves that life is a dynamic phenomenon, and can only be
supported by other dynamic phenomena. Nothing is still in the natural world around
us, everything moves or grows, and variations happen both outside and inside a
body. The universe is constantly expanding, new changes constantly taking place in
its every corner. And the past 13 billion years have proved that the principle is quite
successful. Thus, arises the big question: Why are our buildings such resource
hungry immobile blocks in space? It may seem like a thing of the future, but we
surely have to start sometime, and the sooner the better. The following dissertation
focusses on a much-narrowed prospect of dynamic architecture, primarily
highlighting how dynamic architecture can help buildings in India be more
sustainable, user friendly and interactive, while being affordable at the same time.
 5

1.2 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this dissertation is to focus on movable architecture for India. This
includes features like movable facades or rotating floors. The research mainly talks
about innovative solutions which can make Indian buildings dynamic, while still being
cost efficient and accessible to all.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

Dynamic architecture is a vast field with a huge list of sub-topics.

 To avoid ambiguity, the word ‘dynamic’ for this dissertation is clearly used to
described any architectural feature capable of self-change, be it either
externally, internally or as a whole.
 The buildings studied are contemporary, as the field of dynamic architecture is
a relatively new concept.
 ‘Low-tech’ must not be confused with ‘low-cost’. Features discussed in this
dissertation boast easy installation, accessibility and technological
independence. Although affordability mostly follows, there’s no guarantee.

1.4 LIMITATIONS

The dissertation has to be completed in a specific time frame, in accordance to the

student academic schedule. Although a wide range of information has been covered,
some information had to be left out due to word limit and other constraints. Dynamic
architecture is a very wide topic, and covering all of it is a monstrous task. Thus, the
study had to be narrowed down to only low tech dynamic architecture, just for India.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

A thorough study of all the available literature on dynamic architecture was done.
This led to the formulation of the following research question-

How can dynamic buildings contribute to Indian architecture?

 6

The dissertation contains three main topics.

 The first part explains the term ‘dynamic’, telling what dynamic architecture is,
and discusses its various sub-heads. It also discusses various types of
dynamic buildings, along with features that make a building dynamic.
 The second part deals with dynamic architecture in the Indian context. It
explains how dynamic architecture can be a boon to the Indian buildings, and
can, to some extent, aim at making them better. It explains why the features
have to be low-tech, if the context is that of a developing country like India.
 The third part contains the case studies of some buildings incorporating
dynamic elements. The first is a primary case study of Parikrama, a restaurant
in New Delhi, which has been visited and studied by the compiler. The next
portion contains some secondary case studies of buildings outside Delhi.
These case studies have been discussed upon and useful information has
been extracted out of them. Various buildings have been referenced to, both
in India and abroad. The works of Matharoo Associates of Ahmedabad have
been looked into detail, as they most closely represent what this dissertation
aims to achieve.

The last chapter aims at drawing conclusions from the case studies and attempts
to answer the research question.

1.6 ABSTRACT

This study focusses on the increasing use of movable elements in today’s buildings,
such as changeable facades, or sliding walls. It emphasises on how sustainability is
the only way forward. Topics which might seem vague and distant right now, such as
use and throw buildings, or the ones which can change their shape, size or position
according to the need of the hour would also be covered. This study envisions a
future in which we give back to the earth more than what we are taking from it,
especially through better construction techniques, and buildings which rather than
taking up green spaces and eating away natural and artificial resources, would help
the new generations in reverting the damage already done by humanity.

Keywords: Low-tech, Dynamic, Movable

 7

2 Dynamic architecture

2.1 What is dynamic architecture?

2.1.1 An introduction to dynamic architecture

A simple definition of dynamic architecture is one capable of self-change.

Architecture has always been more of an experimentation, and there seldom are any
rights or wrongs. Peter Cook (1970) describes how architecture of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries was so less ambiguous than that of today, as there were a
set rules to follow, conditions just had to be assumed. Globalisation was not a thing,
and there were no international styles. Regional architecture provided the necessary
directives for form and ornamentation of a building. But such is not the case at
present. Cook (1970, p.11) further asserts that ‘a fascinating shift in recent years is
the rise of ‘boffin’- designer at the expense of the ‘artist’-designer.’ Inclination of
architecture towards sciences is more of a thing nowadays than ever. And what this
means is eradication of any elements in a building which might be deemed any less
useful. This leads to an age of modern architecture with little or no ornamentation.
And this change did not come on itself, but was a result of experimentation and
changes in the traditional techniques and rules of architecture already being
followed, by some revolutionary architects.

Antonio Sant’Elia (cited in Cook 1970) put together some sketches of a Futurist City
in his Citta Nuova in 1914. He clearly demonstrates the use of lightweight building
materials for making structures that are expendable according to their use and the
time of construction. Although, for quite a few decades after his death, his work was
considered to be too picturesque, the scholars soon realised its importance. The
idea of expendable buildings still seems like a distant one, more than a century later.
But it’s not impossible. A structure at present, is used for not more than fifty years.
After that, either the building no longer remains cost effective, or its architecture is
simply deemed as unfashionable. And it is demolished. This not only results in
wastage of resources, but also creation of non-disposable wastes, also leading to
environmental pollution. The question which arises is, why can’t the buildings
constructed be such that they can change and evolve themselves according to the
changing needs of their users? This would certainly lead to less space wastage, not
counting the innumerable labour hours and materials wasted in making it. Or, the
 8

building can be expendable, as mentioned above. It is possible only if the materials

used in its making are biodegradable or completely reusable. Sant’Elia was
described as:

As a socialist concerned with revolutionary escape from traditions and

conventions, he was able to combine a particular exciting expressionism with

predictions of a new lifestyle which would be affected by lightweight

structures, expendable buildings and much else that is now current in

environmental thinking (Cook 1970, p.16).

This shows how every architectural movement starts with experimentation and
someone who is willing to do it, to break the traditional well-defined parameters and
to help the architecture to evolve. Nature proves that evolution is the only way
forward. Not only for species, but for their habitats. The next step can be achieved
only if we examine organics along with the technology for creation of our buildings
(Cook 1970).

Dynamic architecture, when taken in a more literal fashion, also refers to buildings
which can move themselves or their parts to suit the changing needs. Revolving
floors in residential buildings is one such concept, where individual floors can change
their position, resulting in a new view along with changed sun exposure during
various parts of the day (Randl 2008). Rotation is a phenomenon that probably
started with the wheel, and soon helped us overcome our physical limitations. A
building with rotating floors can effectively change its shape and elevation, and can
even be made to follow the sun during the hot days, or vice versa. There would be
no discrimination in views a certain room offers, as each room would get all the
views throughout the day. The uses are described as:

The form or orientation of these designs can respond to the time and day,

position of the sun, cloud cover, and existence of wind and precipitation.

Movement in kinetic designs can also be initiated manually based on the

 9

weather, the occupants’ activities, their desire for greater privacy or

openness, or pure whim (Randl 2008, p.12).

Rotating structures have been made throughout history, including some Roman
structures, auditoriums, hotels and prisons. They have even been used in treatment
centres. French architect M. Eugene Pettit (cited in Randl 2008) consulted with
physician Lucien Pellegrin and designed a “heliotropic house” at the Exposition de
l’Habitation in Paris. They were convinced that the sun was the cure of most
diseases. Light would get inside through large fenestrations on the cross shaped
plan. To manage the incoming daylight in the rooms:

The house was set on a turntable with a ground-level ball-bearing raceway. It

could be rotated to follow the sun by moving a lever once an hour in order to

cause the house to turn a few inches (Randl 2008, p.57).

The house was said to be well expensive, but could well repay the cost if one could
afford it. A room following the sun would get its light and energy throughout the day.
This is not only beneficial for patients in a treatment centre, but also for normal
people, as it is said to bring cheerfulness and reduce depression.

Like rotation, translation, either horizontal, vertical or diagonal, can also be a great
way of making a structural form dynamic. A great example of this is the Sliding
House in Suffolk, UK. It consists of a building and a 28 meters long path around it,
which houses an enclosure. The enclosure can move along the path laterally and
can ‘cover or uncover different buildings, the house, garage or the annex’ (Kolarevic
2015, p.18).

Figure 1. Picture of the Sliding House

by DRMM
 10

Along with having rotating floors, a building can also have its individual elements
capable of movement and change, according to the need of the hour. In this
dissertation, we’ll be examining the elements which have been traditionally stationary
in common buildings, and not the ones which have always been transposing or
rotating, such as doors, windows or lifts. A space which can configure and change
itself according to the users, and architecture which is self-adjusting (Kolarevic 2015)
can eradicate the need for new buildings and spaces for different purposes, as one
structure can fulfil multiple needs.

James Graham Ballard (1971) gave the idea of a psychotropic house in one of his
short stories, The Thousand Dreams of Stellavista. The house was sensitive to the
moods and needs of its occupants, and could change its shape and behave like a
living organism. It was made of a mixture of plaster and latex called “plastex”, and
consisted of “senso-cells” distributed over it. They helped the house become “alive”
as it was occupied. Similar was a concept of a “walking city”, given by Ron Herron
(cited in Kolarevic 2015) which proposed cities to be giant movable robots that could
shift places according to the needs and resources. Although these concepts arose
more than fifty years ago, their implementation still seems to be a thing of distant
future. Maybe we’ll take quite a lot of time in achieving these goals, there have been
many attempts lately, especially in Dubai, the city of the future, the architecture of
which will be covered later.

The façade plays a major role in protecting the building from the harsh environment,
and a dynamic one would prove to be even more effective, especially in areas with
harsh climates. One great example is the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris. It is
described by Kolarevic (2015, p.13) as ‘the first significant, large-scale building to
have an adaptive, responsive façade’. It consists of a mechanically controlled façade
and one can change the size of its openings according to the weather and
requirements. This results in huge energy savings, and instead of blocking out the
sun’s energy, it can be properly channelled. Mechanical and double skinned facades
have been in use for quite some time, and they’re proving to be more cost efficient in
the longer run, despite of their expensive installation cost.
 11

2.1.2 TYPES OF DYNAMIC BUILDINGS

Kolarevic (2015) categorises flexible architecture as adaptable, transformable,

movable and interactive. Adaptive buildings would include structures that can
change themselves according to the environment they are in to favour their users.
This architecture can always be relied upon for a long-time period. A typical person
has to move homes throughout his life; from a conventional house to an assisted
one, and finally a nursing home as health declines. Kolarevic (2015, p. 57) describes
the experience to be ‘traumatic and debilitating’. Thus, there have been communities
designed by Dutch architect Frans van der Werf (1993) such as Rijnwaarden te
Tolkamer, in the Netherlands which can adapt and can change according to the
changing needs of the users. This increases the time for which a user can stay in a
building. This not only saves resources by not rendering buildings unusable after a
short period of time, it also saves the user from a sense of loss when they’re forced
to leave their homes. This is made possible by incorporating dynamically changing
interior spaces, which can change their relative sizes once more space is required
for wheelchairs or other equipment.

Transformable structures were explained by Asefi (2006, p. 85) as ‘a distinct class of

structures that can change their geometry and shape when required’. A great
example of this would be the London 2012 Olympic Basketball arena designed by
Wilkinson Eyre Architects, which was made for the purpose of serving two separate
sport events, namely basketball and handball. The transformation is described as:

The 115 by 90 m stadium was made from a componentized modular steel

frame, and contained temporary raked seating for 12,000 spectators. Part-

way through the games the layout was changed over a 22-hour period from

the basketball competition to the handball competition with a new floor laid

and 2,000 seats removed (Kolarevic 2015, p. 59).

 12

Figure 2. London 2012 Olympic

Basketball Arena

The building was also dynamic in other ways. Its 35-metre-high façade was cladded
in a PVC skin, which acted as a screen for a light show at night. Moreover, more
than two-thirds of the materials used for its making were reusable, once the games
were closed.

Then come the movable buildings. A building which can move, namely ‘roll, rotate or
fly’ (Kolarevic 2015, p. 60) comes under movable architecture. This would prove
especially useful in areas with expeditionary or military requirements. Although a
movable building might seem impossible, we are already using movable architecture
on a daily basis, though at a small scale. Some examples might be tents, mining
camps, food trucks, etc.

And at last, interactive buildings are described by Kolarevic (2015) as the ones which
can react and respond to commands uniquely. This might seem closely related to
artificial intelligence. A building which can provide various options for the users to
choose from, and change according to that would be termed as an interactive
building. One of the given factors with modern technology is that it should be able to
interact with its users. And building technologies are lagging behind other
competitors such as automobile, entertainment and commerce industries. An
example of a present day interactive building would be the Media-TIC building in
Barcelona, Spain. The building is equipped with 300 sensors in the interiors, which
enable it to control the performances of various services according to the occupant
load. However, it’s the external skin of the building which can be described as truly
innovative. South facing facades are equipped with ethylene tetrafluoro-ethylene
(ETFE) cushions which provide the building with dynamic and effective sun shading.
Their working is described in detail as:
 13

The southwest façade uses vertical cushioned panels, which contain a

nitrogen and oil mixture that temporarily coalesces into a “cloud.” The south-

east façade has triangular cushions with three inflatable chambers. Two of the

layers have a reverse design pattern which are brought together to provide

full shading when the inflation is actuated (Kolarevic 2015, p. 62).

Figure 3. Picture showing the ETFE

façade of the Media-TIC building,
Barcelona.

A building can’t be made without its fundamental building blocks; thus, we cannot
ignore the materials used. If a building has to be dynamic, the materials have to
perform the same role too. And nowadays, computation has changed the way we
used design. New tools not only help in evaluating seemingly impossible structures,
they also have given rise to a new age of materials, more advanced, strong, durable
and cheap. Stronger materials with much lesser carbon footprints are slowly being
adopted in modern architecture. Scientists of various fields like nanotechnology and
synthetic biology have developed materials which can ‘change shape or properties,
or even compute’ (Kolarevic 2015, p. 213), along with the emergence of concepts
like DNA origami, which roughly translates to technology capable of self-replication.
This leads us to materials which apparently can self-assemble too, once the reaction
is initiated, which can even be done by shaking the mixture. This is described as
biomolecular self-assembly. These inventions are undoubtedly difficult to manifest
right away, being expensive and unconventional. But they are very helpful for the
architecture of tomorrow, and are no less than a ‘revolution that argues for smart
materiality, novel ways to interact with physical products and dynamically responsive
systems for our highly energetic environment’ (Kolarevic 2015, p. 228).
 14

One of the major challenges with most of these modern smart materials is their
fabrication and assembly. Hand assembly takes a lot of time, and is not reliable for
mass production of materials on a consumer scale. Especially when we talk about
dynamic architecture, materials which can self-transform themselves into meaningful
structures can really be a game changer. For such materials, we would require two
basic pieces of information; one, the required geometric constraints of the result, or
simply put as how our building should look like. Second, we require the material to
have a specified amount of potential energy on its own, which can be used for its
self-transformation. This led to the emergence of a concept known as 4-D printing.
Kolarevic (2015) explains about the technology in detail. It utilizes printers capable of
producing multiple material results, thus achieving the required product with
precisely accurate amounts of constituent materials. For making self-transformable
materials, two printers are used. One uses a static and rigid material for providing
the geometric code. It is a black material, and contains information about the
geometric constraints and structure. The second printer uses an active material
which swells 1.5 times once in contact with water. Thus, with both of them combined,
we have the information as well as energy, to synthesize compounds capable of self-
transformation. Though this currently is still developing technology, researchers have
achieved materials like strands capable of transforming themselves into letters, or
even surfaces capable of converting themselves into cubes, all on their own.

Dynamic architecture is already all around us, in places we might not even have
discovered yet. This doesn’t only refer to the artificial structures. Natural architecture
is probably the best example we can follow to build habitats for ourselves which are
long lasting and sustainable. Although imitating nature can be difficult, mainly
because it has had billions of years to perfect its design, we still can learn quite a lot
from our creator. Mazzoleni (2013, p. 19) described nature’s systems to be ‘dynamic,
in flux, in constant transformation and subject to the laws of physics’. Kolarevic
(2015, p. 230) describes it as ‘bio-robotic architecture’. It is an architecture that can
not only interact and transform, it has the ability to adapt to change and evolve itself.
Biomimetic architecture can be a huge leap, and for the time being, we can use
robotics to fill the gap in spaces we can’t. Similarly, there’s also an emerging
concept of bio-cybernetics. It aims at intermingling cybernetics and biology for
enhanced results. An example of biomimetic architecture has been developed by a
 15

German firm, Sauerbruch and is called breathing skin. It is described as ‘a

responsive building envelope system that, as its name suggests, that breathes like
the skin of some organisms, adapting to its immediate environment to act more
efficiently’ (Kolarevic 2015, p. 232). It is applied to KfW tower in Frankfurt, and
consists of ventilators which are sensor-controlled ventilators on the outer skin.
These can open and close according to the time of the day, outside temperature and
the wind direction. This creates a ring of positive pressure around the building. That
air is drawn into offices through floor vents and windows along an inner façade that
workers control; it is then exhausted into the building core. This eliminates the need
for artificial heating or cooling throughout the year, and creates ample opportunities
for natural ventilation. When the weather is extreme, and the need for artificial
heating or cooling is necessary, the pressure systems don’t interfere and let all
equipment run independently. Another great example of biomimetic architecture can
be the SMRF (Special Moment Resisting Frame) as explained by Kolarevic (2015, p.
232) as ‘a custom building frame modelled on the human femur bone. Like the bones
in the human skeleton, each column and beam is designed precisely according to its
specific load condition and its own bending moment diagram’. Structures like these
would not only reduce material costs, but also eliminate old-school architecture of
rows or columns, with a lot more efficiency.

The next step towards creating architecture which resembles nature even more is to
give our structures the ability to grow and develop just like real organisms. Buildings
can increase their size and add new elements according to the changing needs of
their users. Self-growing materials can also heal themselves when a part of them
has been destroyed. This eliminates the need for maintenance, and defines the true
meaning of sustainability. Countless resources are spent every year for buildings to
keep them new and protect them from corrosion. Self-healing capability can also
protect buildings from hazards like fire, as a building can recover as quickly as it’s
being destroyed. Such an ability can save millions of lives lost to such hazards.
Although not much, but this field has been explored by some researchers, and one
of those projects has been described as:

‘The project uses the process of bone remodelling as applied to an

architectural building skin. In particular, the cells will rebuild the structure to
 16

adapt to the load it carries; a bone can change its physical shape after a

fracture that heals out of position, so that the load is adequately supported.

The pattern is essentially inherited like overall body shape whereby living cells

in bone are constantly breaking the bone down in little areas and rebuilding it.

Such a process of continuous turnover dynamically ensures the mechanical

integrity of the skeleton over time’ (Kolarevic 2015, p. 239)

 17

2.2 Dynamic buildings

2.2.1 Need for low-tech

Dynamic elements need not be ultra-expensive every time. There can sometimes be
simple solutions which may be even cheaper than the original proposal itself. One
great example of this is the traditional Japanese house which is described as ‘house
of screens’ (Starkey, 2004, p. 3). This is made possible by using lightweight furniture
and sliding partitions called fusuma, which can be adjusted to achieve dynamic sizes
for any given internal space. An adaptation of this in the modern architecture is the
open plan, which is used mostly in offices. The internal layout is not decided by any
fixed walls, and just by the position of furniture and some removable partition walls,
which enables the creation of various dynamic multi-purpose spaces. Similarly,
simple inventions like wheels and hinges can be used in providing cheap solutions.
One such example is Naked House in Kawagoe, Japan which is described as:

Designed by Shigeru Ban and completed in 2000, it features four movable

rooms on wheels inside a large, shed-like space. The 6 square metre rooms

are open on two sides and can be located anywhere within the large interior

space or even moved outside; they could be also joined to form larger spaces

if needed (Kolarevic 2015, p.23).

While designing dynamic and kinetic buildings, one has to keep in mind the users.
The technology, apart from being efficient, should also be scalable, affordable and
practically easy to install. Kolarevic (2015, p.23) associates the notions of
adaptability and flexibility to The Modernist Open Plan, by giving an example of
Gerrit Rietveld’s Schroder House, built in 1924. The house features an upper floor
which acts as an adaptive large space that can be left open or subdivided using
sliding or revolving partitions, and can be converted into four different rooms, that is,
three bedrooms and a living room. A similar example has been given of Steven
Holl’s apartment complex. Built in 1991 in Fukuoka, Japan, the apartment:

relied on hinged wall partitions to create adaptive apartment units in which

spaces could change daily or on a larger time scale as the family size

changes (Kolarevic 2015, p.23).

 18

Wheels, hinges, pulleys and their simple combinations can sometimes help create
wonderfully efficient and affordable dynamic buildings. What’s to be kept in mind is
that modern technology becomes obsolete quite quickly, and once it does,
maintenance becomes the largest of issues. One way of solving this problem is
described as:

Using technologies which are already obsolete, but could be deployed in an

innovative way. The dimension of time is rather critical for the designers of

adaptive, responsive, interactive building systems of tomorrow – not only

conceptually, but also operationally, at the most pragmatic, tectonic level

(Kolarevic 2015, p.24).

Another reason described by Kolarevic (2015, p.25) to adopt low-tech solutions

whenever possible is the ‘user-override’. A highly automated, adaptive and
responsive system might not live long if it has to be serviced more than often by its
annoyed users. In such a case, an easily replaceable and low-maintenance system
would more than suffice.

In all the hustle and bustle of expensive new technology, we shouldn’t forget how
cheap solutions can sometimes work even better, when implemented in the right
manner. Architecture is much more than fixed boundaries, internal or external. Ed
van Hinte (2003) hinted architects to be designers of dynamic changing spaces
rather than creators of fixed three-dimensional objects. A building can be responsibly
designed to work efficiently and use less resources, without the need to blindly follow
all the latest technologies and trends, working for the people who are using it. While
adopting new technology is never discouraged, we should be warned that:

We shouldn’t be blinded by the technologies of the day and should not lose

sight of the qualitative performative aspects of the project and whether they

could be better served by no-tech or low-tech solutions. There is also the

ever-present danger of creating “gimmicky” architecture that very quickly

becomes boring (Kolarevic, 2015 p.25)

 19

What has to be remembered is the primary goal of starting this topic in the first place,
which was, making buildings that are adaptive, responsive and can interact with the
user and the environment effectively. Kolarevic (2015, p.27) explains that the key
challenge is designing architecture that ‘avoids boredom and retains a high degree
of novelty’. Another major point is that the change which the building brings about,
should be desirable, predictable and can be easily anticipated by the user. If not,
then there should be a way for users to at least preview those changes before
execution. They should be able to choose what feature they want to execute, and
should have a freedom to choose according to their will, needs and the
circumstances. One should be warned that:

Sometimes a simple and hence ostensibly dumb building is smarter than a

technologically dominated living and working machine over which the user

has lost control (Ed Van Hinte, 2003, p.24).

Moe (2011) explains how most architects directly relate progress to adoption of new
technologies. Mostly it is done to distinguish themselves in the competitive market.
This leads to adoption of technology with ‘misplaced enthusiasm’ (Moe 2011),
believing progress to be linear, while in reality it is something very unstable and
unpredictable, being dependant on the design to a large extent. The progress can be
attained even by adoption of a lower form of technology, if it is more efficient and
effective than its predecessor. This paradigm has been explained as:

Neither stubbornly reactionary nor blindly optimistic, this lower-technology,

higher-performance approach is an intelligent mongrel of both the archaic and

the contemporary, and it can improve the performance of our design practices

and buildings (Moe 2011).

 20

2.2.2 Dynamic buildings in India

When a developing country such as India is taken into account, words like
affordability and easy implementation automatically follow, especially if one wants
their design to be used by as many people as possible. It’s not impossible to design
complex and high-tech dynamic buildings in India, but certainly some questions
would follow. Whom are they for? Can they withstand the extreme Indian climates
without requiring timely maintenance? Can a common Indian ever think of affording
such systems? When we are talking of India, we have to talk of low-tech. This leads
to various other factors, namely- scalability, adaptability, future-proofing, easy
maintenance and of course, cheapness.

A major source for inspiration can be found in history. Mughal buildings show us how
simple pragmatic approach to solving problems can yield great results.

Ahmedabad based Matharoo Associates are a firm which designs low cost dynamic
buildings, mostly for India. Their NET house was designed as a weekend retreat,
and includes dynamic elements like movable mosquito nets for the façade, and
folding glass panels. The design was inspired from a mosquito net. The cabinet is
the heart of the house, as it opens up as a kitchen, and further as a mini living room,
containing all the furniture, the television and the dining areas. It further opens up as
a washroom, and as an insect repellent too, containing a source of a UV light.

Another building by Matharoo is the house with balls. It is a house devoid of

foundation, as it is half sunk inside the ground. It contains movable concrete strips as
façade, which are connected to concrete balls used as counterweights. The balls
move up and down into a lotus pond, moving the façade strips to create dramatic
inflow of light and wind inside the house. The construction cost of the building was
only Rs. 8 lakhs.

There is a house with moving landscape, designed by Matharoo. It contains movable

stone walls covering the glass façade. Also, there are spinning stone walls, which
can control the inflow of light with the touch of a button. Along with this, Matharoo
have also designed a curtain door, which contains forty sections of teakwood, hinged
and joined to each other. Instead of opening like a normal door, it unfolds itself like a
curtain.
 21

2.3 Case Studies

2.3.1 Primary case study

Parikrama Restaurant, New Delhi

Project- Restaurant
Location- Antariksh Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi

Parikrama means to go around something. As does this restaurant, which is

located at a height of 240 feet above the ground. It is located on top of the
Antariksh Bhawan building in Connaught Place, New Delhi. There is a separate
lift to reach Parikrama. The restaurant is divided in two floors, one with dining and
the other with bar and lounges.

In technical terms, Parikrama has a rotating floor plate, which is the only dynamic
element, while everything else is fixed. As the floor rotates, it provides the user
with a panoramic view of Delhi. It completes a full rotation in about 90 minutes.
The outer edge of the floor plate moves with a speed of about 1 mm/second while
the inner edge moves at about 0.65 mm/second. There is a central stationary
core which also houses the reception, offices and the kitchen. The total floor plate
is 20 meters wide, with the central stationary part being 13 meters wide. This
leaves a 3.5 meters seating area on either side.

Figure 4. Plan of the Parikrama

restaurant
 22

Figure 5. Section of the Parikrama

restaurant

Critical review of Parikrama-

While the concept of a revolving restaurant is an innovative one and has many
advantages, it does not come without shortcomings. This review aims at pointing
out some of these shortcomings of the building, along with its positive points
which make it special.

On the positive side, the building offers uninterrupted views of the Delhi skyline,
letting the occupant glance at almost all of the major monuments. This helps
create a unique dining experience.

But there are various points which let it down. Firstly, the building is very
inefficient in terms of fire safety. As there is only one lift, and possibly no external
fire staircase, any hazard can turn into a calamity in no time. As a matter of fact,
one such incident happened in 2017, when an electrical short circuit led to a fire.
Luckily no one was hurt.

Secondly, the idea of a rotating floor might seem exciting at first, but it quickly
becomes monotonous and boring, seeing the amount of capital and labour
 23

invested in creation of such a concept. There is a lot of power consumption in

rotating the floor plate, and changing views are all it has to offer.

Revolving restaurants are evolving throughout the world, and each one has some
unique qualities. Hopefully, in coming times, these buildings would prove to be
more useful and sustainable than what they are today.
 24

2.3.2 Secondary case studies

2.3.2.1 House with balls

Architect- Matharoo Associates

Project- Aquarium shop
Location- Ahmedabad, India
Completion year- 2004
Cost of Project- Rs 8 lakhs

House with balls was designed in Ahmedabad for owner of an aquarium shop,
containing four large tanks for breeding fishes. It also doubles as a weekend
retreat.
The building has a long and narrow main room, and a dynamic façade on both
sides. The façade consists of concrete shutters, connected to concrete balls
over pulleys. As the balls move up and down, the shutters close and open
respectively. On one side, the balls are over a garden, and on the other side
they are above a lily pond, completely getting submerged as the shutters
open. The house doesn’t need a foundation as it is half sunken. This also
keeps the house relatively cooler during summers. Along with having the
façade as a dynamic element, it also contains an observatory which can
double up as a living room.
The house is an amazing example of low-tech and low-cost architecture, be it
using pressed GI sheets for making doors and windows or making handles
and locks using bent rods. The 125-mm thick concrete walls of the house also
act as retention walls for the fish tanks.
The sunlight coming through the fish tanks lightens up the entire lobby.
 25

Figure 6. Sections and

elevations of the House with
Balls by Matharoo Associates

Figure 7. Plan and sections of

the House with Balls by
Matharoo Associates

Figure 8. Front elevation of the

House with Balls by Matharoo
Associates
 26

2.3.2.2 NET House

Architect- Matharoo Associates

Project- House
Location- Ahmedabad, India
Completion year- 2010
Area- 12M X 12M

The NET House is inspired from mosquito nets, or ‘machhardaanis’, which the
architect claims he used during his early days, describing them as a safe
haven. These provided ample ventilation, while serving as a protection from
insects. It consists of a 12x12 meter column less space, with a monolithic 90-
ton concrete slab on top suspended by a steel framework. The external
façade consists of movable nets and glass panels. All these layers provide
desired degrees of privacy, shelter and exposure to nature, enabling the
space to be transformed at will according to the weather, from completely
accessible and open to the outside, to fully closed and dark inside.

Apart from façade, the house has a two-meter-high central cabinet which acts
as its heart. This dynamic element opens up as a kitchen and a mini living
room. It even contains two private washrooms inside. All the furniture required
for these spaces are provided by the cabinet itself. Even the plumbing and
drainage of the washrooms are housed in it. It further lights up as an insect
repellent.
 27

Figure 9. Section of NET House

by Matharoo Associates

Figure 10. Plan of the NET House

by Matharoo Associates

Figure 11. Cabinet in the NET

House

Figure 12. NET House by

Matharoo Associates
 28

2.3.3 Preliminary findings

All three buildings show incorporation of dynamic elements in one way or another.

The first one, that is, Parikrama restaurant, shows how a building need not have
fixed views and orientation, and can change itself accordingly to suit its users, and
provide them with a unique dining experience.

The House with Balls shows how simple pulley systems and cheap concrete
counterweights can be used to build kinetic façade systems.

The third one, that is, the NET House, uses a material as simple as a mosquito net,
to create a complex array of screens on the façade.

Thus, it can be safely assumed that there is no need of multi-million-dollar

technology, foreign expertise and imported materials to create dynamic buildings.
Practical and a holistic approach is all it takes to create such buildings, many of
which might even surpass their expensive counterparts in terms of efficiency and
sustainability.

2.4 CONCLUSION

How can dynamic buildings contribute to Indian architecture?

The dissertation covers many possible ways of incorporating dynamic architectural

elements into Indian buildings. Various principles like transformability, adaptability
and self-awareness have been discussed, along with multiple references and
examples of buildings or their concepts.

Many buildings were studied upon, which housed these properties of dynamic
architecture. There were buildings which rotated, moved or translated. All of those
buildings reflected innovation and a logical thinking from the architect.

At this stage, what can confidently be said is that we don’t always require expensive
technology and skilled foreign labour to make our buildings dynamic. Sometimes, a
 29

bit of common sense and sensible use of available resources is all it takes to make
something out of nothing.

Dynamic architecture, or as many call it, flexible architecture, should be the goal of
the twenty first century. The planet we are striving on isn’t equipped with enough
resources to keep us going lest we change our ways and methods. And the biggest
change we can make would be to our habitats, our buildings. Our houses have to be
self-aware, transformable, adaptable, and not just sit there as resource and energy
hungry hogs occupying space. We’re capable of building much more than that. And
now is the time we start looking sideways, towards the greatest architect we can
ever learn from- nature.

2.5 REFERENCES

 Acharya, L. 2013, ‘Flexible architecture for the dynamic societies’, viewed on

27 April 2017, < http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/5462/thesis.pdf>
 Asefi, M. 2006, Transformable and kinetic architectural structures, VDM
Verlag
 Ballard, J. 1971, Vermilion Stands, Caroll and Graff
 Bharatkumar, A. 2013, ‘Flexible architecture’, 5 August, viewed on 27 April
2017, < https://issuu.com/ashbk/docs/dissertation-flexible_architecture>
 Cook, P. 1970, Experimental architecture, Universe books, New York
 Hinte, E. 2003, Smart Architecture, 010 Publishers
 Kolarevic, B. 2015, Building dynamics: exploring architecture of change,
Routledge
 Mazzoleni, I. 2013, Architecture follows nature, CRC Press
 Moe, K. 2011, ‘Do More with Less: Lower Tech, Higher Performance’,
Architect Magazine, 3 January, viewed 13 October 2017,
<http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/do-more-with-less-lower-tech-
higher-performance_o>
 Randl, C. 2008, Revolving architecture, Princeton Architectural Press
 Starkey, J. 2004, ‘House of screens’, viewed on 13 November 2017,
https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08272004-
072425/unrestricted/book.pdf
 30

2.6 TABLE OF FIGURES

 Figure 1 Sliding house……………………………………………………………9

 Figure 2 London Olympic basketball arena……………………………………12
 Figure 3 Media TIC building……………………………………………………..13
 Figure 4 Parikrama plan………………………………………………………….21
 Figure 5 Parikrama section………………………………………………………22
 Figure 6 House with balls section……………………………………………….24
 Figure 7 House with balls plan…………………………………………………..24
 Figure 8 House with balls elevation……………………………………………..24
 Figure 9 NET house section……………………………………………………..26
 Figure 10 NET house plan……………………………………………………….26
 Figure 11 NET house cabinet……………………………………………………26
 Figure 12 NET house……………………………………………………………..26