किन छ भूकम्पीय जोखिम नेपालमा

किन छ भूकम्पीय जोखिम नेपालमा ?
BY:- सुमन पनेरू (066/BAE/240)


अग्लो घर बनाएर अरूको होचा घरलाई खिज्याउनुमा गर्व गर्ने सामन्ती संस्कृति छ हाम्रोमा । अग्लो घर स्वतः भूकम्पीय जोखिममा रहन्छ । लगानी बढ्ने डरमा पनि मान्छेले भूकम्प प्रतिरोधात्मक घर बनाएका छैनन् । त्यसको परिणाम घातक हुने निश्चित छ ।


पछिल्लोपटक जापानमा गएको भूकम्प र त्यसका परिणाम मिडियाबाट थाहा पाएपछि पहिले-पहिले जस्तै धेरै ठाउँमा प्रतिक्रियात्मक चर्चा सुन्न पाइएको छ । 'भूकम्पले फलानो सहरमा यति मर्लान् उति मर्लान् । यसो होला, उसो होला' आदि । भूपि शेरचनको 'यो हल्लै हल्लाको देश हो' कविताको सान्दर्भिकता नेपालमा आज पनि उत्तिकै छ । कहिल्यै कसैले पूर्वानुमान गर्न नसक्ने भूकम्पबारे, अनेक ज्योतिष र बाबाको हवाला दिँदै वेलावेला फलानो दिन र समयमा भूकम्प आउँदै छ भन्ने हल्ला पनि सुनिने गर्छ । जे भए पनि आखिर भूकम्प एक प्राकृतिक प्रतिक्रिया हो जुन कुनै न कुनै समयमा आउने निश्चित छ । जापानमा भूकम्प र सुनामीले विध्वंश मच्चाएकै समयमा र त्यसपछि पनि क्रमशः रसुवा र कास्कीमा १०, ११ र १२ मार्चमा ४.५ रेक्टर स्केल हाराहारीको भूकम्प आएको रेकर्ड राष्ट्रिय भूकम्प केन्द्रले देखाएको छ । यसको अर्थ हो भूकम्प आई नै रहेको छ । फरक यत्ति हो, कहिले कम रेक्टर स्केलको भूकम्प आउँछ त कहिले धेरै रेक्टर स्केलको । उल्लेख्य कुरो के छ भने भूकम्पको मापनमा एक रेक्टर स्केल मात्रै बढी हुँदा पनि यसको असर सयौँगुणा बढ्ने हुन्छ ।

सबैले जानेकै कुरो हो, अव्यवस्थित र पूर्वयोजनाविना बनाइएका आवास, सडक तथा अन्य भौतिक संरचनाका कारण नेपाल भूकम्पीय उच्च जोखिममा छ । जापानमा ११ मार्चमा गएको भूकम्पको मापन करिब ८.९ रेक्टर स्केलको हाराहारीमा गरिएको छ जब कि नौ दशमलव एक रेक्टर स्केलको भूकम्प, जुन इन्डोनेसियाको सुमात्रा टापुमा २००४ मा गएको थियो, त्यसलाई इतिहासमा अहिलेसम्मकै ठूलो भूकम्प मानिएको छ । यति विशाल भूकम्प एसिया महादेशमै गएको छ । अनि हामी ती देशनिकट छौँ र भूकम्पविद्ले पनि बारम्बार नेपालमा भूकम्पको उच्च जोखिम भएको बताइरहेका छन् । भूकम्पबाट बच्न पूर्वतयारीका सबै योजनासहित बसेको जापानजस्तो राष्ट्रले समेत अहिलेको भूकम्प, सुनामी र त्यसले गरेको विनाशबाट मुक्ति पाउन अझै धेरै वर्ष कुर्नुपर्ने जस्तो देखिन्छ भने हाम्रो जस्तो देशमा भूकम्पपछिको हालत के होला ? सहजै अनुमान गर्न सकिन्छ । नेपाल भूकम्पको उच्च जोखिममा पर्नाका कारणलाई निम्नानुसार केलाउन सकिन्छ ः

भूकम्प प्रतिरोधात्मक क्षमताका भवन निर्माणमा चासो नदिनु ः मान्छेलाई घर बनाउन पाए भो । भोलि भूकम्पलगायतका प्राकृतिक प्रकोप आउँदा घरमा आफू र आफ्नो परिवार कसरी सुरक्षित हुन सकिन्छ भन्ने कुरो घर बनाउनुपुर्व कमैले सोचेका छन् । अग्लो घर बनाएर अरूको होचा घरलाई खिज्याउनुमा गर्व गर्ने सामन्ती संस्कृति छ हाम्रोमा । अग्लो घर स्वतः भूकम्पीय जोखिममा रहन्छ । लगानी बढ्ने डरमा पनि मान्छेले भूकम्प प्रतिरोधात्मक घर बनाएका छैनन् । त्यसको परिणाम घातक हुने निश्चित छ ।

सहरको 'मास्टर प्लान' नहुनु ः 'मास्टर प्लान' विना निर्माण गरिएका हाम्रा सहरमा खुला ठाउँको अभाव छ । हचुवाका भरमा पुल, सडक र ढलको निर्माण भएको छ । काठमाडौं उपत्यका मन्दिरहरूको सहरबाट अब कंक्रिटको जंगलमा रूपान्तरित भएको छ । जनसंख्याको अनुपातमा हस्पिटल, खानेपानी र विद्युत्को वितरण सम्भव भएको छैन । फराकिला सडक तथा खुला ठाउँ नहुँदा भूकम्प आयो भने भाग्ने ठाउँ त परै जाओस् उद्धारका लागि सडकमार्गबाट एम्बुलेन्स, डोजर, दमकल र सुरक्षाकर्मीका गाडी हिँड्ने ठाउँ पनि छैन उपत्यकामा ।

अनुगमन नहुनु र कडाइसाथ आचारसंहिता लागू नहुनु ः नगरपालिकामा भवन निर्माण गर्दा स्वीकृति लिनुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ । तर, भवन निर्माण आचारसंहिता कडाइसाथ लागू हुन नसक्दा तथा स्वीकृत भवनहरूको अनुगमन नहुँदा तथा अनुमन गर्ने निकायमा दक्ष जनशक्तिको अभाव हुँदा कमजोर संरचना बनेका छन् ।

विनापूर्वाधार गगनचुम्बी भवनको निर्माण ः विकसित मुलुकको नक्कल गर्दै नेपालमा अहिले गगनचुम्बी भवन निर्माणको होड चलेको छ । तर, के ती भवन सुरक्षित छन् ? उपत्यकाको हकमा सरकारी निकायसँग तीन तलासम्मको भवनमा मात्र आगो निभाउन सक्ने क्षमताका सीमित दमकल भएका अवस्थामा त्यस्ता अग्ला भवनमा आगलागी भइहाले कसरी उद्धार गर्ने ?

पहाड र अग्ला स्थान काटेर तथा खोँच भरेर घर बनाइनु ः पछिल्ला केही वर्षमा 'रियल स्टेट' तथा 'हाउजिङ' को भाउ बढ्नाले जहाँसुकै पनि प्लटिङ हुने काम भयो । अग्ला स्थान खारेर तथा गहिरा खोँच र खाल्डो भरेर घडेरी बनाउने काम भयो । फिलिङ -माटो अथवा ढुंगा भरेर सम्याइएको स्थान) मा जग बनाउँदा त्यसले घर असन्तुलित बन्न जान्छ र सानोतिनो कम्पनले पनि ढल्ने सम्भावना रहन्छ ।

पुराना भवनलाई विस्थापन अथवा पुनर्निर्माण नगरिनु ः उपत्यकाको असन, इन्द्रचोक, पाटनजस्ता पुराना र ऐतिहासिक सहरका पुराना संरचना वर्षौँदेखि यथावत् छन् । सांस्कृतिक र परम्परागत महत्त्व भए पनि भूकम्प आइहालेमा ती भवनले थेग्न सक्दैनन् । भूकम्प आएमा तिनै पुराना संरचनाका कारण धेरै मानवीय क्षति हुन सक्छ ।

कंक्रिटलाई मात्र निर्माण सामग्री ठान्नु ः मात्रै आधा शतकअघिसम्म ढुंगा, माटो र काठपातमा आधारित नेपालको निर्माण जगत अहिले कंक्रिटमा आएर जकडिएको छ । हामीले सिमेन्ट, रड, बालुवा, रोडा र इँटालाई मात्रै निर्माण सामग्रीका रूपमा बुझेका छौँ, जुन पूर्णतः गलत हो । स्थानीय रूपमै उपलब्ध र खतरारहित सामग्रीको प्रयोग गरेर पनि भवनलगायतका संरचना बन्न सक्छन् । जस्तो कि काठ, बाँस, खर, माटो, ढुंगा आदिको प्रयोगबाट पनि अति सुन्दर र अत्याधुनिक भवन बनाउन सकिन्छ ।

भूकम्पपछिको अवस्थाबारे पूर्वतयारी नहुनु ः हामीलाई भूकम्प नआइदियोस् भन्ने मात्रै छ । तर, हामीले आफ्नै निवास र कार्यालयमा त्यसको पूर्वतयारी गरेका छैनौँ । भूकम्प गइसकेपछि पेट्रोल बगेर तथा ग्यासका सिलिन्डर विस्फोट भएर अथवा पाइप फुटेर भवनमा आगो लाग्ने सम्भावना हुन्छ । यदि मोबाइल, रेडियो तथा पूर्ण चार्ज गरिएका इमर्जेन्सी लाइट तथा पानीका बलिया बोतल साथमै हुने हो भने भूकम्पपछिको अवस्थामा बाँच्न सहज हुन्छ भन्ने कुराको ज्ञान सबैलाई छैन ।

निचोडमा के भन्न सकिन्छ भने भूकम्प अकाट्य प्राकृतिक प्रकोप हो जसको पूर्वनिदान छैन । भूकम्पका परिणामलाई न्यूनीकरण मात्रै गर्न सकिने हो । यसका लागि संरचना बनाउँदा ध्यान दिनुका साथै पूर्वतयारी अवस्थामा रहनुपर्ने कुरा महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्छ । यसका लागि कडाइसाथ भवन निर्माण आचारसंहिता लागू गर्ने, जनतामा भूकम्पीय चेतना र जागरण फैलाउने र उद्धार तथा व्यवस्थापनको पूर्वतयारी गरिनु आवश्यक छ।

Published in Naya Patrika on 2068/01/28

if you like this article you can contact to him by E-MAIL

The Role of Design in Business

The frequent question asked of the design community is of its value to business. The query itself makes little sense. Quite simply, the role of designers has always been to translate and communicate the value of a business idea to consumers. The best designers can do far more—they can help companies connect and establish a dialogue with consumers, thus enabling firms to innovate more efficiently.

The challenge for most corporations today is about how to innovate while mitigating risk. For consumers, choices are made by balancing the need for evolution with the force of habit. Designers are trained to understand how people think and how to make things. For this reason, there are four basic areas in which design has an important role to play in value creation:

Understanding the Consumer

Entrepreneurs and large companies alike invest heavily in understanding their consumers. Consumers themselves often give detailed suggestions about how to improve various offerings. Still, most products that perform as promised are rejected in the marketplace. So designers must not only synthesize functionality and aesthetics, they must understand a consumer's thought process and emotions in order to motivate behavior change.

Risk Mitigation

How many times have companies pronounced that an innovation failed because it was "ahead of its time"? How often does corporate risk aversion result in lackluster offerings that are ultimately taken off the market? Design is a process of synthesizing insights into a tangible offering in a way that addresses the goals of the company and the desires of consumers. Many of the firms that can perform at this level were early in bringing design into their cultures.

Boosting Marketing and Branding

Take a look at any list of the top global brands—including the one published by Bloomberg BusinessWeek. It's no accident that many of the world's top brands are also design leaders. Design is a fundamental part of creating an image and experience of luxury, exclusivity, and tribal belonging. And yet the consumers who purchase these items often select them because they see a little bit of themselves (or who they would like to be) on the shelf. That's great design. The 80% of new products that fail each year show that marketing and promotions can boost the impact of a good concept, but they can rarely compensate for a poor one.

Sustainability

Design will also be a fundamental part of one of the next great challenges to touch every industry. How can the need to consume be balanced with the need to be good stewards of the planet? How can brands retain their image and deliver a superior experience while reducing parts, waste, and carbon footprint. These are business challenges where design has an important role. If the solutions are not aspirational and adopted by large numbers, the potential benefit to the planet is limited.

To say that design is an important part of business success does not mean that all corporate efforts to incorporate design represent money well spent. But that's true of all business functions. The debate about the value of design is healthy and signals a need for more frequent and thoughtful dialogue. In our view, there is far more in common between design and business than may be readily apparent. Great designers, like visionary business leaders, create value by exploring without limitation through the psyche and psychology of consumers. They assemble teams of individuals who see the world through different eyes and explore what should be as opposed to what is. They show discipline in doing more with less. By combining forces, we can create new business opportunities and the pathways to manifest consumer needs, emotions, and aspirations. By so doing, we generate revenue and sustainable growth for business.

Why Design Matters?

Good business outcomes treat design as a holistic process that pulls in savvy marketing and research, as well as smart ideas, says IDEO's Diego Rodriguez

Good design does not always equal good business. But good business outcomes—especially when the goal is to create new sources of value in the world—are most often achieved through a well-structured design process that is more holistic and inclusive than the notion of good design.

All of the energy fed into the debate about the value of good design to the world of commerce would be better spent building ways to make holistic design a routine activity in business—and society. Here are three ways to get us there:

Stop Treating Design as A Noun

When we talk about it as such, the world stops listening and starts wondering which color the designers are going to pick for the drapes. Unfortunately, good design has come to stand for something akin to "style," largely a relativistic judgment of aesthetics and semiotics informed by a constantly shifting zeitgeist. I'm as much a fan and consumer of aesthetically pleasing things as the next guy, but I fear that much of what passes for good design is actually a class of shallow luxury goods aimed at a specific set of market demographics and psychographics. And these goods don't represent the creation of lasting value in the world: In the parlance of soul group Tower of Power, what is hip today quickly becomes passé.

Instead, we would all be better off treating design as a verb, a process, a way of approaching challenges which designers and nondesigners alike can learn to use to create positive change in the world. Throughout history design as a verb, also known these days as design Thinking, has created things of enormous value to humanity. The Bill of Rights, the Aravind Eye Care System, Medecins Sans Frontières, and the Marshall Plan will never show up in a Design Within Reach catalog. And yet each of these amazing achievements of humanity was designed.

Rethink the Relationship between Design and Market Success

Success in the marketplace is a complex endeavor which requires methods of creation that go beyond the limited scope of good design. Apple (AAPL), a company justifiably known for its design, must be applauded for the way it lets its designers and engineers design things to the hilt. But how Apple has created and captured shocking amounts of market value in the music (iTunes + iPod) and telecommunication (iPhone) industries is due as much to skillful systems engineering and infrastructure development as it is to compelling aesthetics. Success has many parents, and good design is only one of them. For every success like the iPod, there are scores of beautiful market offerings that failed because no one bothered to think about how to manufacture, deliver, sell, support, and retire them in ways that met people's needs. Since market success depends on the complex interaction of so many variables, it is silly—even naive—to try to pin it all back to just good design.

Use Business Constraints as Inspiration

Potential market value creation should be treated as a generative part of the design process, not as a post-rationalized output with suspect causality. At any given time, a team using design thinking should be able to give a sense of how strong a business they are creating. Let's take the essay about the U.K's National Health Service that prompted this Bloomberg/ BusinessWeek special report. Before blowing cash on a logo redesign, a team using design thinking would quickly test the relationship between brand recognition and the ability of the service to help individuals reach healthy outcomes. They would run a series of quick experiments to generate evidence, and only then embark on a full rebranding initiative—if that turned out to be the way to create the most value from scarce resources.

This approach fundamentally shifts the dialog away from a reactive posture of "how much value did design create?" to an expansive notion of "how much value can we create?" as well as "how might we maximize the odds of that potential value coming to fruition?" This systemic view of the creative challenge is the signature characteristic of design thinking. When we use design thinking to balance desirability, feasibility, and viability, we unlock the measures of value creation so desperately sought after by the world of good design. Impact in the world becomes the focus of designing.

Whether or not you call yourself a designer, when you work to relate people's needs to broader webs of individual, social, and economic factors, and pour your energy into creating better outcomes via an evidence-driven process, you're using design thinking to increase your odds of success in the world. That sounds like good business to me.

Rodriguez is a partner at the design and innovation firm IDEO. He is also a professor at Stanford's d.school, where he teaches classes about business design and entrepreneurship. His blog metacool has a passionate following among people who spend their lives trying to make a dent in the universe.

Source: businessweek

Five Beliefs that Inhibit Good Design

The growing interest in design notwithstanding, many businesses cling to misbegotten ideals that hinder it, says consultant Deepa Prahalad

here are plentiful examples today of companies using design to create value for consumers and shareholders. Despite the growing interest in design across industries, there are also persistent misconceptions that keep many business leaders from realizing its potential in their organizations. Here are the most common ones:

1. Quality is more important than design in my business. Quality is important in every business and always will be. However, quality is the price of entry in many industries and it's rarely enough to win market share and loyal consumers.

There's a persistent belief in a trade-off between style and substance. In reality, design is a way of conveying quality. Data suggest that companies gain the luxury to focus on design when they have mastered quality, distribution, and understand their markets well enough to create a relevant offering. Google, Coca Cola, HP, Procter & Gamble—are just a few examples of firms that are high design and high performance.

What's true in the lives of individuals applies to companies as well—when you're exhausted, overwhelmed or confused about what to do next, you never look your best. Consumers look at a dirty store, picked-over merchandise and bad service and come to the same conclusions. Good design is like putting on a suit for an interview—it shows the other person that you care about the relationship.

2. It is more important for me to offer a great price than a great design. Some great designs and brands do cost more, but there is no absolute correlation between price and design. Great design exists at all price points. Some of the best-known examples are companies such as Target, IKEA and LEGO that offer goods in a budget-conscious segment. The pattern continues with the Top 20 global brands, which include luxury retailers but also accessible goods and services like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Google and Gillette.

More importantly, some of the most innovative designs today were created with affordability and scarcity in mind. The Tata Nano, the award-winning portable ECG machine from GE and One Laptop per Child were just a few notable efforts that challenged assumptions about price-performance relationships and generated design buzz. The push for sustainability across industries is likely to amplify this trend.

3. I would like to have a great design, but I have to launch on time. Design by definition must include execution. Focusing on design forces an organization to test ideas, synthesize feedback, and generate new concepts at a rapid pace. Historically, designers were brought in at the end of the launch process—and creating concepts under intense pressure is still the norm.

Look at the many of the companies that are strongly associated with design today. Apple, P&G, Target, Amazon, LEGO and others expand their portfolios and launch products more frequently than their peers. Design efforts don't slow down product launches. Indecision does. A widely shared set of decision criteria around design can make the process more efficient.

4. Design and aesthetics are too subjective—I need data to make decisions. Although great design speaks to a consumer's needs and emotions, there is no single aesthetic that companies must drive toward. Consistency between the brand values and the physical design is what creates a superior consumer experience. BMW, Honda and Hyundai have deep consumer loyalty with very different looks and features. Moreover, design priorities are based in actual data. Consumer testing and feedback can be achieved at low cost today with the internet and social media.

5. I will create the product or service; I trust the advertising experts to tell the story. The worlds of brand, advertising and design are rapidly converging. Well-crafted marketing and branding can boost the impact of a great design, but unless the message is reinforced by real-world experience, the effect is usually temporary.

In the best cases, the design itself can become the advertisement. Some familiar success stories—Dyson, FlipCam, the iPod, Method—illustrate this point beautifully. These designs fuel demand and propel brand loyalty. It's no accident that great companies often have great ad campaigns and use social media effectively—they are leveraging the same deep understanding of the consumer.

Business leaders don't need to go to design school to bring great design into their companies. They need to remember bring their own core skills—listening to consumers, asking questions, and openness to new ideas—into the design process. Design doesn't work in a vacuum—it's the alignment with the right business model and service that creates a compelling consumer experience. Getting to great design requires looking at consumers, not competing products, more thoughtfully.

Copyright © 2010 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. Harvard Business Publishing is an affiliate of Harvard Business School.

What Good Does Design Do For Business?

About the author:

Thomas Lockwood is founding partner of Lockwood Resource, an international recruiting firm specializing in design and innovation leadership, and past president of DMI, the Design Management Institute. He is one of the few people in the world with a PhD in design management, and is recognized as a thought leader in integrating design and innovation into business and building great design organizations.

• twitter.com/thomslockwood

Here Thomas Lockwood proposes the Design Mix, a set of principles that define how design adds value to business.

Have you noticed how similar some products are becoming? A Tesla and a Lotus, that’s an easy one. But I’m talking about the similarities between seemingly disparate objects, like an Audi car and Oakley sunglasses, a 3M stapler and an Alessi teapot, or a Starbucks café and your bank lobby. Consumers love cool design, and, in case you haven’t heard, companies are catching on. Investing in the design process can be a sustainable business advantage, because it tends to lead to five things: creative collaboration, innovation, differentiation, simplification, and customer experience.

There is nothing like using the sensibilities of design to unpack wicked problems.

For starters, designers tend to collaborate with each other, other disciplines, and users to generate new ideas, explore alternatives, and create new stuff (products, websites, brands, stores, etc.). The process of design thinking, co-creation, and design as creative collaboration can help companies move beyond their norms and create new markets. Companies like Intuit and Four Seasons have changed their corporate culture and how they compete with other market players by encouraging such collaborative processes. Intuit created a Design for Delight process, or D4D, which they use for problem solving and has led to launching new mobile products and services quickly, based on employee involvement and nurturing a design-thinking culture.

This cross-pollination can be the path to innovation. Design helps bring innovation--whether in tech or customer-service--to market. Just take away the design part of any innovative idea and see what you’re left with. What would a Dyson Airblade hand-dryer be without its unique usability?

In addition to being a collaborative path toward innovation, design is a way to differentiate a brand’s products from its competitors'. This goes beyond logo, graphic design, and branding to enabling user and customer experiences that cannot be easily copied. HP has done so using their “D3” matrix of design value in their printer design strategy. And when P&G wanted to gain preference in the generic mop category, it asked Continuum Innovation to look into mopping. Continuum developed a waterless solution--the Swiffer--now a branded product asset and nearly a billion-dollar business.

We live in an experience economy, and design is key to creating meaningful customer experiences. Case in point: Philips Lighting wants to sell more light bulbs, but the products have developed to the point where differentiation is hard to achieve, so they’ve beefed up the retail experience by connecting with Engine Service Design to create new software and a service platform that helps their retailers manage their lighting and media assets across their stores. The simple light bulb became differentiated through service design and the retailer experience.

Lastly, design simplifies. We live in complexity, and there is nothing like using the sensibilities of design to unpack wicked problems. The data-storage company StorageTek used to have completely different parts for each of their different servers and data-storage product lines, mostly due to legacy issues and business unit independence. The design department created a common platform strategy using shared components--just as Toyota Highlanders and Sienna minivans share the same chassis platform. The move not only saved StorageTek millions of dollars in just a few years but was the environmentally responsible thing to do. Design simplifies and should enable reuse and ecological solutions.

It is time for the professional design community to promote the demonstrable value of design, as described above. In 1953, Neil Borden, the president of the American Marketing Association, helped define the value of marketing by coining the term “Marketing Mix,” which subsequently led to the famous 4 Ps of marketing (product, price, place, and promotion). In 2011, as the past president of the Design Management Institute, I propose that collaborate, innovate, differentiate, simplify, and customer experience become the Design Mix. Let’s talk in terms of real business value, because design is now gaining a seat at the table, and the last thing any c-suite needs is another empty suit.

WHAT IS VASTU SHASTRA?

About the author:

Akshay Kumar Navlakha

Chief Consultant at Angel Vastu Consultants, Pune

Since ages, our ancestors have discovered many ways to enhance our lifestyle in one or the other way. We have always tried to utilize the infinite energy from nature. Even cosmic energies have been a source of our betterment. We provide Premium Vastu Consultancy & an ethnic Vastu Kit promoting better living through Vastu.

What is Vastushastra / Vastu ?

Vastu is the ancient Indian Architecture. It consist the methods, concepts, rules and modus operandi of Architecture given by various sages and erudites many thousand years ago.

What does Vastushastra do in one's life?

Vastu is like an energizer for a human being. We receive energies from nature in various forms. Vastu is a tool, which monitors the energies received by nature by means of infrastructural phenomenon.

Where did this Vastu come from?

Vastu is not a yesterday's affair. The rules of Vastushashra are depicted right from RigVeda, the first & most important amongst Vedas. Not only this, Vastushastra further developed as a separate entity of knowledge passing through various Puranas, Upanishadas and many other ancient texts. Many erudite sages like Varahamihir, Maya, King Bhoj of Ujjain etc. have written separate texts on Vastu. Mayamatam, Samarangan Sutradhar, Vasturaj Vallabh, Vishvakarma Prakash etc. are great texts of Vastu.

How dose it work?

Vastushashra is technique to identify and utilize various energy patterns for the betterment of human kind. It is not only a mythological entity but a very scientific way to develop the energies within us. In Vastu, the prime focus is given on the lands and buildings occupied by human being. Cosmic energy, five elements (Panchamahabhuta), Magnetism, Solar energy, Gravitational force etc. Are the main sources of Vastu considerations. The structures created with Vastushshra not only confer you prosperous and peaceful life, but also makes you 'Live Better'. The Vastu enhancement can change your lives in a wonderful manner. Your personal potential, economic strength & social status will highly be increased. Enter in to a new life enhanced with more energy, affluence, more peace of mind and more satisfaction.

DE-GROWTH IN ARCHITECTURE

DE-GROWTH IN ARCHITECTURE : AN ARCHITECTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

What is De-growth?

We have been talking of sustainable and ecological approach to everything in life, architecture included. Over a period of few decades of patronizing and following it, more and more people are understanding its shallowness. There is a clear writing on the wall that the approach is faulty and improper. It is time that we go a step ahead and think fundamental. The answer can be found in De-Growth.

De-growth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. Material accumulation will no longer hold a prime position in the population’s cultural imaginary. The primacy of efficiency will be substituted by a focus on sufficiency, and innovation will no longer focus on technology for technology’s sake but will concentrate on new social and technical arrangements that will enable us to live convivially and frugally.

De-growth proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption, a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems. It is a call for a radical break from traditional growth- based models of society, no matter if these models are "left" or "right", to invent new ways of living together in a true democracy, respectful of the values of equality and freedom, based on sharing and cooperation, and with sufficiently moderate consumption so as to be sustainable. Some of the de-growth ideas have been part of philosophical debates for centuries.

The word “Décroissance” (french for degrowth) appeared for the first time in the seventies in different French publications (Amar, 1976; Gorz, 1977; Georgescu-Roegen, 1979) in the follow- up of the club of Rome report (‘The limits to growth’). However Décroissance became an activist slogan in France from 2001, in Italy from 2004 (Decrescita), in Catalonia (Spain) from 2006 (Decreixement and Decrecimiento). The English term ‘Degrowth’ gets accepted at the first de-growth conference in Paris in 2008, which also marks the initiation of de-growth as academic research area and international civil society debate. Few international conferences in Paris(2008), Barcelona(2010), Montreal(2012) and recently Venice(2012) have extolled and explored the idea of De-growth.

De-growth can be understood more clearly if the following points are understood;

• This is not an economic depression, nor a recession, but a decline in the importance of the economy itself in our lives and our societies.

•This is not the decline of GDP, but the end of GDP and all other quantitative measures used as indicators of well being.

•This is not a decline in population size, but a questioning of humanity's self-destructive lifestyle.

•This is not a step backwards, but an invitation to step aside, out of the race in pursuit of excessiveness.

•This is not nostalgia for some golden age, but an unprecedented project to invent creative ways of living together.

•This is not de-growth imposed by the depletion of the biosphere's resources, but a voluntary de-growth, to live better here and now, preserving the conditions necessary for the long-term survival of humanity.

•This is not an end in itself, but a necessary step in the search for models depicting free societies, liberated from the dogma of growth.

•This is not a project of voluntary deprivation and impoverishment, but an attempt to find a "better life", based on simplicity, restraint, and sharing.

•This is not "sustainable development", but a rejection of capitalism, no matter if it is "green" or "socially just", and no matter if it has State-run or private enterprises. This is not eco-fascism, but a call for a democratic revolution to end our productivist- consumerist model of society.

•This is not voluntary simplicity, but a revolutionary political project that implies the adoption of the principles of voluntary simplicity on the individual level. This is not is not an "anti-modern" movement, but a "neo-modern" movement, based on respect for the values of freedom and equality.

De-growth has a multi disciplinary approach and shall be implemented holistically. Fields like agriculture, environmental justice, environmental conflicts and defense neo-rurals, critical consumption, international cooperation, solidarity economy, local currencies, exchange markets, feminism, eco-villages, alternative mobility (bicycles), urban gardens, non-violence and pacifism, anti-advertisement, preventive and alternative medicine, architecture, infrastructure like open pit mines, highways, airports, thermic or nuclear plants, cement factories, incinerators, transport, cities, tourism and various other sectors of production.

Architecture and allied fields are a major contribution to growth and resultant ills facing our world and eco-system today. In fact the measure of growth in most part of the world is architecture. In this senseless and mindless growth of our civilisation and collective imagination of unlimited growth, architecture is a major-visual and factual contributor. Unfortunately architecture of today reflects the un-stoppable and un-satiated material needs of today’s man, is in reality far away from what man is. It does not reflect and address the very fundamental relationship of man and nature, of his climate & context, man’s culture, social and economical needs.

Sustainable architectural development does not bring into question the quest for continuous growth; it is a limitless quest bringing humanity to its doom. Sustainability is, at best a reformist project that fundamentally seeks to organize our world to make it last – pollute less, so that we can pollute for longer !!!

It is a notion that involves a culture of growth ("development"), and thus can be easily embraced by all those who don't want our world to change. It is an idea that diverts too many good intentions from the drastic actions that are required by the urgency of the situation. It is time the idea of sustainability and sustainable architecture and its approach change. It is time that we embrace the fundamental concept of De-growth.

The NATCON 2012 at Raipur shall discuss and ponder upon this very important issue for the future of our planet- “DE-GROWTH IN ARCHITECTURE”.

Content borrowed from: www.iiachhattisgarh.org/NATCON1.htm

Solar panels or green roofs? Why pick one when you can use both?

Modern-day cityscapes and cramped urban layouts make it difficult for people to adopt most of the commonly recommended 'green' measures, such as switching to renewable forms of energy and lowering their carbon footprint with the help of green cover. Realistically, very few of us can boast of expansive gardens, lush lawns, or even free land to devote to renewable energy-generation units, such as windmills or solar panels.

To counter this, experts literally approached the solution from the top-by way of green roofs. Also known as roof gardens, green roofs comprise flower beds, lawns, shrubs and even trees, and are very useful in improving the 'green quotient' of the habitats they top.

Greener roofs, cleaner environments

Green roofs do not just add to the aesthetics of the edifice, but also bring with them numerous 'green' benefits, such as managing and controlling run-offs after heavy rains, bringing down the internal temperature within the structure and even extending the life of the roofing materials underneath the roof gardens by protecting them against the direct impact of the elements.

Further, green roofs are also useful in reducing the urban heat island effect, which occurs when hard surfaces in the urban landscape trap heat during the day, and release it back into the atmosphere at night. The urban heat island effect is very harmful to the environment, as it increases the need for air-conditioning and other energy-intensive cooling mechanisms.

The constant cycle of evaporation and transpiration that occurs in a roof garden helps to regulate and lower the air temperature, while the relatively cooler surface of the roof minimises the amount of daytime heat that is absorbed.

Merging solar gains

The benefits of solar energy are many, and have been extensively documented, time and again. Most people, however, believe that solar installations and green roofs must be mutually exclusive, since, with such limited space, it seems inconceivable that the functioning of one of these two does not interfere with that of the other.

And yet, the truth is that green roofs go much beyond simply 'not interfering' with solar panels-in fact, they even go on to enhance the efficiency of these panels by up to 16 percent, by cooling the ambient temperature around them. Further, by reducing the energy required for heating and cooling, these roofs reduce the workload on the solar energy system.

Several rooftop garden-solar array formats have been launched by manufacturers in recent times, which strategically position the arrays and green cover so as to allow the plants ample sunlight and also boost the performance of the solar panels. These are catching on as a popular, relatively inexpensive and aesthetic way of adding that 'touch of green' to modern, urban lives.

What are the most influential factors in measuring the functional efficiency of the building plans?

The efficiency of the plan is measured as-

1. For utility buildings -

Minimum circulation area. Lower the percentage of circulation area higher is the efficiency. It can be expressed in ratio of Total Carpet area: circulation area like corridors, passages etc. (Balconies, verandas and lounge etc etc if meant for particular use should be included in Usable areas, or other wise in circulation area. A space though meant for an activity but if surrounded by other spaces having movement through the space, it ceases to be activity area and so practically becomes circulation area, and so should be included in circulation area. All spaces should be defined in any one category and then the ratio should be found to determine the efficiency.

2. For building having movement as main function (Viz. Shopping Centers, Museums, Art galleries etc.)

The rational percentage should be achieved. The area should not named as circulation or link areas but as MOVEMENT AREA. It is usable area. The efficiency of such plans is to be measured by provision of the movement area per person at peak hours. For its optimization the movement area per person at peak hours (No of hours? Can peak hours be staggered?) and movement area per person at approximately Zero Hrs. should be compared. A proportionate average (Depending upon duration of Peak and Zero Hours) should be taken up for optimization.. In general 4 Sq. Meter per person at peak hours can be taken up as efficiency factor and so should be corrected against zero hours @ 1 Sq. m. per person. So as optimum efficiency value for Building with Movement as main function can be taken up as (assuming Peak Hours as 4 hrs per day) 2.5 to 3.0 sq. m. per person. Of course this cannot be generalized and should be decided logically specific to situation and location.

3. For institutional buildings

Availability of optimum usable space and linkage based on the interlink between them decides the efficiency. Draw the interrelation diagram. Lesser the crossing between the lines of interrelation more is the efficiency. In physical plan measure the total length of the lines interlinking various activity spaces. Lesser the total length more is the efficiency.

In General efficiency of plan can also be measured by ratio between available carpet area in functionally usable spaces and total plinth area (Or floor area on each floor). Higher the ratio more is the efficiency.

I hope this is enough though some more considerations can be put forth. If you like it and would like to know more, put your questions in the comment box along with your details.

"India: Green Buildings & Carbon Credits"

"India: Green Buildings & Carbon Credits"

By Mayank Batra

Along with the social incentives of a cleaner environment and positive public relations, the biggest incentive for green buildings will be to make big bucks through carbon credits.

"A donkey, with a carrot drooping in front of it and its master whipping it from behind, is the illustration used by CEO of dcarbon8 for the green buildings situation in the world." The whip symbolizes regulations and the carrot symbolizes market incentives.

At a global level, it is believed that transformation in the green buildings market will be brought through incentives rather than regulations. Along with the social incentives of a cleaner environment and positive public relations, the biggest incentive for green buildings will be to make big bucks through carbon credits.

Go Green (Green Buildings)

Green buildings in India have increased from 20,000 square feet area in 2004 to 275 million square feet in 2009. In total, there are 315 buildings that are registered as green buildings in India. The Indian market has witnessed more investments for commercial buildings to go green. These buildings include IT parks, hospitals, airports, and educational institutions.

The total number of green buildings in India is expected to be more than 2,000 by 2012. An average investment for a green building is around $10.7 million, and the total investment in green buildings is expected to be around $42.6 billion by 2012.

Interest benefits on loan by banks for green projects, more incentives and regulations are likely to push the acceptance of green buildings in India. Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) is introducing an energy performance index for the rating of buildings. The parameter for ratings will be energy consumption in kilo watt per hour per square meter per year. Ratings will vary for different climatic conditions. BEE is also making it illegal to sell any electric appliance without energy star marks by January 7, 2010.

The market potential for green building materials is estimated to be about $40 billion by 2012.

The cost of green buildings is 3 to 8 percent more than a conventional building, but the cost recovery is high and breakeven can be achieved in a period of three to five years. Reduction in operational costs is very high and benefits are enormous from breakeven.

Some of the commercial green buildings in the country are Sapient, Accenture, Nokia Siemens Network, Pearson, ITC Building, Wipro Campus, Patni Campus in Gurgaon, Green Boulevard, knowledge Boulevard at Noida and Hiranandani BG Building, K. Raheja group, and Enercon India Pvt Ltd Kalpataru building in Mumbai. Chennai also has a good number of green buildings.

The end users are willing to pay more for green buildings. A greener flat has become a high-class symbol. Tenants are ready to pay more, due to low operational costs and societal values.

Garner Greenbacks (Carbon Credits)

Carbon credits earnings have become a big incentive for companies or countries to emit less carbon. Low carbon emitting businesses exchange, buy, or sell carbon credits in international markets at the prevailing market price.

The Kyoto Protocol covers six greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, per-fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, which can earn carbon credits. One tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent of the other five gases makes one Certified Emission Reduction (CER).

India has the second highest carbon credit transacted volumes in the world. The country has generated around 30 million carbon credits, and approximately 140 million are in pipeline. Eight hundred and fifty Green projects with a huge investment of Rs. 650,000 million are in pipeline. According to Prime Minister's Council, the revenue from 200 projects is estimated to be Rs. 97 billion till 2012.

Energy-efficiency projects from industries contribute to a major portion of the registered green projects. Around 225 Indian projects in the fields of biomass, cogeneration, hydropower, and wind power with a potential of 225 million CERs have been registered.

Indian carbon offsets are very sensitive to the fluctuation of prices. With China and Vietnam offering CERs at lower, more fixed prices, the threat of India getting outpriced intensify. Project rejection rate is high for India. Even after getting the approval from government, around 50 percent of the cases get rejected from the CDM executive board.

MCX is the exchange dealing with carbon trading in India. It provides price signals for carbon delivery in the next five years. The exchange is only for Indians and Indian companies. People who have bought or sold carbon will have to give or take delivery in the month of December, because that is the time to meet the norms in Europe. Spot, Plain Forward, and Forward with advanced payment are three types of deal structure followed for carbon trading.

Offsets adhering to standards contribute to the positive mindset of buyers. A number of standards exist for carbon offsets, including the VCS, Green-e, and the Gold Standard. In India, two green building rating systems are followed, LEED by IGBC and GRIHA by TERI. LEED is famous among the ratings, and the credits earned through LEED ratings can be traded in the carbon market.

Big sellers in the Indian market are Public Sector Units (PSUs) such as the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), Indian Oil Company (IOC), Railways, and private sector companies such as the Reliance group and the Tata Group. Different tax is levied in different states for CDM.

Carbon Credits through Green Buildings…How?

Buildings are a major source of CO2 emissions, and contribute around one-third of the same. With an increase in the number of green buildings, there is an expected rise in the opportunities for carbon credits, offsets, and profits offered by these buildings.

The use of solar water heating systems, glass panels to allow natural light inside the building, rainwater harvesting, environment-friendly building materials and specifications, waste minimization, maximizing energy use in buildings, water conservation and efficient measures, and energy-efficient equipment can the help real estate developers and owners earn a good amount of carbon credits.

A single project does not account to a considerable number of emission reductions, which makes it difficult for the real estate developers to register and earn profits. The following options are available for real estate developers to trade carbon profits.

Technopolis, India's first green building in information technology, is helping the developers earn up to €1 35,000 per year. SBI is seeking advice on the usage of energy-efficient devices in its buildings. SBI also wants to improve its bottom-line by revenue through carbon credits. In the hotel industry, orchid group of hotels at Mumbai and New Delhi are referred as green hotels. ITC Sonar registered 1886 tonnes of CERs at the time of inauguration and was verified by UNFCCC to be eligible for carbon trading and it earned the hotel revenue of RS. 1.47 million. Currently, with modification, the hotel is expecting a saving of about Rs. 8.3 million per year through the project. Olympia Technology Park in Chennai is earning immensely from carbon trading. Common wealth games will help organizers earn revenues by sale of carbon credits.

Down the Road

In order to make the bottom line more attractive through carbon trading, the Indian real estate developers are likely to shift toward green buildings. Benefits such as low interest rates, low operational cost, and higher rental value are expected to drive this market.

More number of innovations is expected in the voluntary markets. Newer models will be developed to accommodate the carbon credits earned by green buildings. Major activities to go green are taking place in Indian metros. This trend is expected to continue, due to the growth in energy consumption and changing lifestyle. A major shift will be witnessed, with the real estate developers moving toward rural areas. Land availability and abundant natural resources will push the real estate developers to start greener building projects in rural areas and earn carbon credits.

The green building offsets are expected to gain more importance in the future. CII-IGBC has come up with a Rs. 4 billion green fund to support the development of green buildings. Steps are being taken to include green buildings into the federal cap-and-trade system. California has adopted standards that require benchmarking and disclosure of energy consumption in commercial buildings. Other developed countries will adopt similar standards. The global carbon demand will increase the carbon offset prices. More global standards are expected to be set, in order to eliminate problems such as double counting (for example, utility companies and real estate developers asking for credits for reduction in electricity usage). More transparency in procedures will build confidence in the market. Many new financial instruments will be derived for making profits. Some countries might up with bilateral carbon trade agreements. Real estate developers will see their active counterparts improving bottom-line and are expected to go green.

Revisiting the Architectural Thesis: Five Myths

Five Myths in thesis

Recently, the architectural schools adjudicated their most venerated student endeavor—the architectural thesis. Having served many juries at Universities in America during the past week—as well as participating in the restless and emotionally charged faculty conversations that followed—I would like to offer some brief advice for future thesis students. There are many assumptions students have about the thesis, many of which are misguided (I know from experience as a former student), so I offer my suggestions in the service of dispelling particular myths.

The myth of linear process: One day's effort does not seamlessly and flawlessly lead to the next; nor is a project like a documentary film that you record throughout its development and play back in the order in which events transpired. Similarly, research does not occur exclusively in the beginning, and design does not occur only at the end. Both forms of investigation are important throughout the process, and you must constantly revisit the premise of the work as well as its physical effects during every step of development.

The myth of complexity: Don't burden design with richness; find richness through design. Many thesis projects try to conquer the world with ambitious ideas, complex programs, and conflicted sites. None of these aspirations is inherently bad, but a thesis should not merely serve as the design solution for complex circumstances. Architecture is often the result of simple, elegant ideas of sufficient intellectual depth and rich possibilities and interpretations readily emerge as a result.

The myth of the singular, synthetic solution: A thesis does not have to produce a single result. Some of the most compelling projects I have seen offer several potential manifestations at multiple stages of the work. In these cases, the jury is inclined to evaluate the student's thinking process rather than one developed proposal. (I would add that a thesis does not have to have a single author, but may be designed by multiple students working collaboratively.)

The myth of total originality: Innovation is welcomed, but it must be contextualized. Analyze precedents throughout your process, and include them in your final presentation. There are few things more unnerving to jurors than a design that lacks reference to architectural precedents, especially significant and obvious ones. Even if your design departs radically from precedent, adequate references can reinforce your proposal by providing relevant information. Also, be sure to cite your references visibly and adequately.

The myth of playing it safe: A thesis should be about bold experimentation and risk-taking. Polite projects that seek to offend the fewest number of people waste everyone's time. An architectural thesis should make a contribution to the discipline of architecture, and conventional or lackluster strategies won't cut it. Of course, radical approaches are not sufficient without a means to measure them. You must demonstrate an ability to evaluate your decisions and define their implications.

I witnessed some great work presented at thesis reviews recently, much of which demonstrated a depth of artistic and technical skill and covered the walls with compelling imagery. However, I have also seen projects whose authors would have benefitted from avoiding the thesis myths listed above. To recent graduates and future thesis students alike, I offer this humble advice so that in your future efforts you may proceed wisely, and be bold.

copied from........... 

About the Author:Minnesota-based architect and author Blaine Brownell, AIA, is a self-defined materials researcher and sustainable building adviser. His "Product of the Week" emails and three volumes of Transmaterial (2006, 2008, 2010) provide designers with a steady flow of inspiration—a 21st-century Grammar of Ornament. Blaine has practiced architecture in Japan and the U.S. and has been published in more than 40 design, business, and science publications. The recipient of a Fulbright fellowship for 2006–07, he researched contemporary Japanese material innovations at the Tokyo University of Science. He currently teaches architecture and co-directs the M.S. in Sustainable Design program at the University of Minnesota. His book Matter in the Floating Worldwas published by Princeton Architectural Press in 2011.