Every building has components that are fixed and static and components that are movable in response to the changing weather conditions as well as needs and requirements of the people occupying it. Responsive environments refer to living and working environments that offer the opportunity to people occupying the space to change the space and the functions whenever required as per their needs. Within any living space there is a hierarchy of control of static as well as movable components. For example in a house, the static elements will be the walls, tiles, roof, staircase, sinks, and kitchen platform and plumbing fixtures in toilets. As against this the movable elements will be the doors, windows, curtains, light fixtures, ceiling fans, air conditioning, music system, taps and furniture where the user has got an opportunity to control as per one’s needs in the requirement to temporarily alter the function of the space, change the feel of the space or control the comfort conditions of the house. The role of the designer traditionally has been to imagine a house as a static entity where the user interprets the space on his own based on his or her requirements by making need based changes in the space by modulating movable components. Here the ability to modulate is limited to the possible changes that can be done within the existing framework of static living environment. In the current context, responsiveness is equated to sensor based or software based user experience design where the internal environmental conditions or services such as water, electricity etc can be controlled through either manual or remote application of technology.
Can design move beyond this technology oriented approach? Can the designer play a more prolonged role beyond handling over the project to the client?
Can living environments be designed to become more emergent, based on systemic research based interpretation of data of the various users while using the spaces?
These questions could not have very simple answers as multiple type of people interact differently with their living spaces based on their culture , ethnicity, social backgrounds, affordability etc. Thus one standard policy or design of a component fitting for all may not be the correct answer. There may be two approaches played by the designer
A) The designer continues to engage with the space with the inhabitants post occupancy
OR
B) There are multiple components that are flexible and are designed uniquely based on the needs of the users which offer enough opportunity for multiple and responsive use of living spaces.
Just to take an example, The current scenario of pandemic and lockdowns pushed may people within the four walls of their homes. ‘Work from Home’ or ‘Study from home’ are two such scenarios building up that will affect design of homes. The natural simplistic reaction by developers is to offer additional square feet area in projects instead of offering more ‘Responsive spaces’ within the same smaller spaces. This led to larger home sizes that become more un affordable in most of the larger cities. The recent –‘India Residential Overview – Oct to Dec 2021’ report by ‘Square yards’ puts forth the reality that there were 50 % to 70% people who searched for buying and renting homes respectively that are lower than 1000 square feet or those homes with an affordable category between 30 lakhs to 70 lakhs. Where as the demand for larger homes between 3 BHK to 4 BHK was lower than 20% in most larger cities.
The lesson here is that complex problems of adaptability cannot be solved by just providing additional spaces. Designing ‘Responsive living environments’ that offer customized and changeable spaces to users may be the answer to these complex questions.
Hrishikesh Ashtekar
Architect & Urban designer
