Case Study of Low-cost housing comparing Tara Housing and Belapur Housing For Architectural Design assignment done by a student of BMSSA

1. Case Study
Low cost housing
Yamini
1BQ16AT117

2. CHARLES CORREA and his principles
▪ INCREMENTAL HOUSING: He believed in improving the present slums into urban districts
gradually, rather than demolishing and rebuilding.
▪ IDENTITY: He focused on preserving the architectural identity; may it be through form or using
elements of a particular architecture style. Example: neoclassical, gothic etc.
▪ PLURALISM: He designed buildings that were used by a wide variety of public; people of different
caste, religion, rich or poor. He wanted all of them to livewith harmony despite their differences.
▪ INCOMEGENERATION: What can be better if you can get a home which also helps in income
generation? One such example is the Belapur housing where space was provided for keeping the
buffaloes.
▪ LOCAL VERNACULAR: Buildings which are responsive to the climate of place and needs of
people.
▪ OPENTO SKY: He believed that the sky is a blessing and it makes you closer to gods and heaven,
which is reflected in his designs with open-to-sky concept. Also, it can be used to store goat, buffaloes
etc. which has been the culture of India since long.

3. TARA APARTMENTS, Delhi.
• The concept forTara Apartments came about in the 1950s and 60s, when there was a pressing need for
retired senior Government officials to find affordable housing options for themselves in Delhi.
• Many had been displaced during the 1947 partition of India and had no home of their own in Delhi, post
retirement.
• Some had actively taken part in India’s freedom struggle and had dedicated their lives to serving the nation.
• CharlesCorrea was the Architect who assigned for the task of designing housing for middle income group
of people.
• 1975-1978
Introduction

4. ▪ Site: 3.5 acres
▪ Program: Social housing with
160 units

5. Master plan

6. • The main concept inTara housing group projectis a creativevernaculartypology interm of arranging and piling the singular
flat into united blocks.
• By separating with the outside world and providing an interiorgarden,the building preserves well the privatelifeof
familieswithin.
• More than that, just pedestrians are allowed go inside thehousing groupand theparkinglotisin thebackof the building.
• In term of a social housing group, the projecttakes big advantages fromnatural resources like lighting and ventilation and all
families are equally shared these features.
• Indian sense is illustrated in the use of concrete bands, panels of exposed bricks, portals, overhangs and shape edges.
CONCEPT
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION
• The dwelling units are arranged similar to that of row houses.
• Of which the central street is developed as multifunctional landscape spine serving as a majorcirculation area, community
space, children'splay area and visual green affecting the micro-climate.
• The two longitudinal parallel decks are surroundedby open space on one side and enclosed by visual green on the other.
• The spaces are segregated with respect to various activities andorganized in response to the built form .

7. ORIENTATION AND MICROCLIMATE
• The N-Sorientation of the narrowbuilt-up provides thermal comfortto the users in central communityspace and also
provides winter sun to the individual terraces and central spine.
• The major openings of the units are oriented SEand NW.
• Hence, most of the DUs receive SEsun and the rest only NW sun with veryfew DUs getting both.
• Majorityof the private open spaces on the SEget optimum sun in the morningand afternoon during winters.
• While evening sun is absent in these areas duringsummers.
• In contrarythe rest of the private spaces do not get afternoon winter sun.
• This shows marked difference in the usability of these two open spaces.

8. • The project is located along GuruRavidas MargStreetwhich leads to
two big residential areas in the Northand the South.
• It is in the suburbof middle-class.
• Therefore, it creates a harmonious and balance volume with the
existing fabric due to limited height and the form of the building.
• More than that, the projectalso plays an importantpart in linking
these other buildings with the adjacent park.
• The building turnsits back on the street to preventnoise, dust from
the high flow vehicles.
• Being staked as a row, central garden, big overhangsand sharp
edges, all give these buildings a sense of Indian characteristic under
hot sun, full of light without suffering from high temperature.

9. Main entrances Pedestrian pathways Porosity andGreen space

10. • The duplex units are accessedeitherat groundfloororsecond
floorlevels by outdoor staircases.
• There are two kinds of flat:
1. the two-bedroomflats with 84square meters (3 meters wide, 6
meters high with two floors and 15 meters long,
2. the three-bedroomflats with 130 square meters and have the
shape of L, there are justonly 16 three-bedroomflats were built.
• Each unit is pro-videdan open terrace which is protected by a
pergola and big overhangs.
• Two sides of the project are connected by staircases.
• The concept of building allows people to access directly to the
interior garden.
• More than that, everyone also has their own open-to-skyterraces
with full filled shadow.
• Bytaking advantages of sun, wind directions and open spaces,
hence lighting access andventilation to each dwelling are
maximized.
2 bedroom units
3 bedroom units

11. Section
Natural ventilation

12. • The dwellingsare grouped into some small
and medium blocks.
• Some blocksare assembled only by two-
bedroom flat,some are combined between
two-bedroom type and three-bedroom
type.
• It createsthe diversity ofform but still
maintainsthe logic of dwellings functions.
• However, there are just 16 three-bedroom
flats so that it is not sufficient for families
which have more than 4 members.
Two bedroom unit
• The complexisformed due to the
combination between pairsof
accommodation units.
• The second floor which is larger than the
ground one with a big overhang that rises
further approximately6meters gives the
mixture between shadowand light.
• More than that,the duplex above is also
push back hence front of the belowone is
protected too.
• In that way, the whole central garden isfull
filled with shadow.
Ground floor
Second floor
Section
Two bedroom
unit

13. In the shape of “L”, this type seems to be difficult to
attach in the middle of a clusterand all of them are
located in the outer-most.
Ground floor
Second floor
Type A
Type B
Three bedroom unit

14. BELAPUR HOUSING, Navi Mumbai.
• 1983-1986
• CLIMATE: Tropical
• OBJECT: residential neighborhood surrounded by driveways and located in a border area
between the built-up fabric of the city to the south and the wide hills that open to the
north. In the central area it is crossed by a stream.
• DENSITY: houses for 550 families distributed on about six hectares of land.
• ORIENTATION: developed mainly along the north-south axis.
• ACCOMMODATIONCOMPOSITION: 5 different types are developed, all fenced,
independent and comprising indoor spaces (real house), covered spaces (verandas) and
outdoor spaces (private courtyard or terraces).
• CONSTRUCTIONTECHNOLOGY: perimeter walls in brick; roof with wooden structure
covered with tiles.
• MATERIALS USED: bricks, white colored plaster, colored wooden window frames,
external paving in stone blocks.

15. Area – 14.8 Acres

16. • 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.
• 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.
• 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
₹20,000,Middle income groups ₹30,000-50,000and Upper
income ₹180,000.

17. 1. Private courtyard
2. Small courtyard common to 7 houses
3. Courtyard common to 21 houses
4. Public space with the presence of
services
5. Overlap of all the spaces
Hierarchy of the
spaces/courtyards
1
2
3
4
5

18. Private Residence
Services
Private courtyard
Access
COMMONCOURTYARD STUDY

19. IndoorSpaces
OpenSpaces
CoveredSpaces
Area of possible expansions
Access
FutureExpansions
1 Kitchen
2 Room
3 Services
4 PrivateCourtyard
5 Veranda
Type A

20. OpenSpaces
CoveredSpaces
Area of possible
expansions
1 Kitchen
2 Room
3 Services
4 PrivateCourtyard
5 Veranda
Access
IndoorSpaces
Type B

21. OpenSpaces
CoveredSpaces Area of possible expansions
1 Kitchen
2 Room
3 Services
4 PrivateCourtyard
5 Veranda
Access
IndoorSpaces
Type C

22. Type D OpenSpaces
CoveredSpaces Area of possible expansions
1 Kitchen
2 Room
3 Services
4 PrivateCourtyard
5 Veranda
6 Balcony
Access
IndoorSpaces

23. Type E
Area of possible expansions
OpenSpaces
1 Kitchen
2 Room
3 Services
4 PrivateCourtyard
5 Veranda
6 Balcony
Access
CoveredSpaces
IndoorSpaces

24. INFERENCE
TARA HOUSING
▪ For retired people and MIG
▪ Clear bifurcationbetweenpedestrianandvehicular movement.
▪ Separated public andprivate spaceswrt the site as well as the
units.
▪ Circulation withinthe units arequite different since it a duplex
house system.
▪ Private spaces (kitchen andbedroom)facedthe internal
courtyard.
▪ Public spaces like living facedthe external courtyard.
▪ No proper light andventilationfor theservices because they
were situated in the middle.
BELAPUR HOUSING
 For EWS
▪ Private courtyard for evert unit.
 Commoncourtyardfor a cluster.
 All the spaces faces courtyard.
 Services were opento sky towardsthe courtyard.
 Space wasprovidedforfuture modificationand the userswere feel to
redecorate the space.