Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Belapur Incremental housing - A case study

60 893 vues

Publié le

This modular housing based in Belapur, New Mumbai, is designed by Ar. Charles Correa. This project, which was constructed in the 1980s, stands as a perfect example of affordable and high density housing, which is the need of the hour.

Publié dans : Design

Belapur Incremental housing - A case study

  2. 2. "Making housing is like a bird building its nest. You start with a basic house, but you have to let people change it to their own needs.“ - Charles Correa
  3. 3. G O O G L E M A P L O C A T I O N
  5. 5. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION  Belapur incremental housing project - a proposal for mass affordable housing in New Bombay (Navi Mumbai), which demonstrated how high densities could be achieved with low-rise courtyard homes, built with simple materials at a human scale. Based on clusters of between seven and 12 pairs of houses arranged around communal courtyards, the buildings did not share party walls – allowing each family to extend and adapt their own house independently. 550 families were planned for in a 6-acre area limitation.
  6. 6. PLANNING SPACES  The project is generated by a hierarchy of spaces. The first is the private courtyard of single dwelling used as a space for outdoor activities during most of the year.  Subsequently, seven units are grouped to form a small courtyard town of about 8m x 8m. Living area Services Private courtyard Access roads
  7. 7. PLANNING SPACES  Three of these groups form a module of twenty-one homes that describes the collective space of the next scale (approximately 12m x 12m). 3 X 1 X 7 1 X 7
  8. 8. 3 X 3 X 1 X 7 SITE MAP
  9. 9. PLANNING SPACES  Correa discussed housing and the importance of people to be involved in determining its design and use.  Additionally, he also emphasized incremental housing as a centerpiece to any solution that was proposed for a place like Dharavi  The footprint of each plan varies little in size (from 45 sq. m to 70 sq. m), maintaining equity (fairness) in the community  Scheme caters wide range from the lowest budgets of Rs 20000, Middle income groups Rs 30000-50000 and Upper income Rs 180000.
  11. 11. TYPE A TYPE B
  12. 12. The 7-house unit Service line indication
  13. 13. MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION  TECHNOLOGY: external walls of brick; roof structure covered with wooden shingles.  MATERIALS: brick, plaster of white color, colorful wooden fixtures, outdoor paving stone blocks.  Individual houses rely on simple floor plans and building methods, enabling local masons and craftspeople to construct them.  The village was produced with the idea that the residents were going to alter it in many ways, making it truly their own, therefore homes are freestanding, so residents can add on to them as their families grow; and differently priced plans appeal to a wide variety of income levels.
  14. 14. THE CURRENT SCENARIO  Many of the original buildings are demolished and now replaced with much bigger concrete houses by the aspiring middle classes.  Yet the courtyards and the hierarchy of community spaces remains intact: it is a strong piece of city-making that has lasted beyond the individual dwellings.  Some of the original houses still standing, but most of them look different. The trees had grown up and shrouded the whole complex in shade in growth. There was a range of housing there. Upon an informal count, it was found that roughly one third of the original homes had been torn down and completely rebuilt.
  15. 15. ON THE STREETS
  16. 16. The recently constructed RCC bungalows
  17. 17. The dilapidated structures which date back to the 1970s
  18. 18. One of the few original buildings
  19. 19. A Type-A house
  20. 20. Unmaintained central courtyard space
  21. 21. Multi-storey construction as opposed to the original architectural grammar
  22. 22. Parks and garden spaces
  23. 23. The central nallah
  24. 24. Courtyard spaces
  25. 25. Freedom of Modification
  26. 26. Low cost housing, high-end transport!
  27. 27. THE SHORTCOMINGS  On speaking to some of the residents, there were some drawbacks that were brought to light –  One resident we talked to complained that no provisions were made for the common spaces in the center of each cluster of houses. No one was in charge of maintaining them. These spaces do not fall under any jurisdiction; not private nor public.  Most of the houses have been remodeled or destroyed and rebuilt as some inhabitants said they were impractical (”What was the architect thinking when he put toilets outside the house?”). Some clusters of houses became “model” mini-gated-communities while others became mini-slums.  The concrete houses arose as a result of the changing aspirations of the residents. They no longer wanted a ‘village’ or a rural backdrop. Modern materials and technologies have thus been employed to a great extent.
  28. 28. CONCLUSION  This housing project offers the quality of life of a village with the sophistication of a city.  Each cluster permits the emergence of a local community feeling, while integrating each house to the whole settlement at different levels. The hierarchy itself is very organic.  The complex allowed people to modify their houses freely, whether with a paintbrush or mortar - something that is NEVER allowed in the type of mass housing devastating the urban and psychological landscape of cities around the world.
  29. 29. “ ” "It is really worth a visit. Don’t go to see Charles Correa’s architectural skills or you will be disappointed. Go instead to see what a genius urban designer can do when he thinks beyond design." AIROOTS.ORG THANK YOU RASIKA DONGARE PRANAY BHAVSAR JAYANT GYANI RITHIKA RAVISHANKAR AISHWARYA HATKAR RAMA SHIRWALKAR ROSHANI TAMKHADE