Home > Journals & Media > Journals > Auroville Today > May 2005

Current issue

Archive copies

Auroville Adventure

May 2005

The making of Creativity

- by Carel

The ideals and problems of an award-winning collective housing

project

In 1997 a severe housing shortage forced the Entry Group to close'

Auroville, refusing to entertain new applicants. People came together
to find solutions. Many expressed the need for affordable housing in
a collective environment. Since the early days of Auroville, when the
Aspiration and Matrimandir Camp communities had been built, no
other large-scale collective housing project with a community focus
had come up. One solution proffered was a housing project called
Endurance' proposed by architect Anupama. It would have shared
common resources and alternative approaches to energy supply and
water and wastewater management. But after a year of dialogue, and
for all kinds of reasons, this project did not get built, she explains.
At around the same time I had been given a research fellowship
from the Indian Vastu-Shilpa Foundation to do a study on an ideal
urban eco-community. A lot of eco stuff had been happening in
Auroville but on an individual scale. I wanted to find out if it would be
possible to mainstream these models through building a housing
prototype for urban areas. In this research I was guided by
Chamanlal Gupta, the renewable energy expert from the Sri
Aurobindo Ashram. He stimulated me to not only do research, but
also make sure that my work would be tested on site and be
monitored for a period of five years, so that we could develop
standards. My research work resulted in a paper: Urban Eco
community: Design and Analysis for Sustainability. It contains
theoretical

standards for anyone designing in similar climatic

conditions as Auroville. For example, there are calculations about

how many square metres of roof are needed in order to flush toilets
with harvested rainwater without tapping into the groundwater. But I
still needed to test these theoretical standards on site'.

The genesis of Creativity

Soon afterwards a design competition was floated by the Housing

Group for a collective housing project. Initially the project holders

aimed at a sprawling development, but soon became convinced that
such land use was not sustainable and instead opted for a high
density design. Kolam, Anupama's architect unit, was one of those
invited to submit a proposal. Based on its experience with the
Endurance project, it presented an innovative low-cost prototype
Mangalam',

collective housing
project

with

spaces

for

common facilities
to

accommodate

approximately
360 residents on
an area of about
2.17

hectares.

Creativity' would be the name of the first of its six clusters.

The Housing and the Planning Groups accepted Kolam's proposal and
a site was allocated. Kolam was appointed as architect, Endurance
was the model, and Auronirmatha became contractor. Though the
Housing

Group

was

the

de-facto

client,

the

project

was

actually

undertaken

by Gillian and Kathy

and

later

Jocelyn,

Shyama and Jrgen.

Gillian recollects how,
in the early days, she
was

fired

by

the

project's ideals. More

than

anything

else,

the fact that so many

strong women decided to participate in the project gave me the inner
conviction that it had Mother's blessings. It was a true shakti project
the project holders and the architects were all female.

Ideals of Creativity
Unlike other collective housing projects, the project holders also
sought to map out the sociological, economic and environmental
objectives of Creativity. It was to become a social research
endeavour and a dynamic experiment in sustainable urban living for
a

culturally-diverse

group

of

approximately

50

Aurovilians,

Newcomers and guests, with an emphasis on shared common

facilities such as kitchen and recreational areas. The project aimed
at a healthy mix of singles, couples and families, and a Residents'
Charter was drawn up and signed by all future residents as a tool for
alignment around the values of no personal ownership of spaces,

sharing and contribution. It prescribed, amongst other things, that

all residents, regardless of personal preference and private facilities,
should take up work for the community. As an experiment in
sustainable urban living, Creativity aimed at being a demonstration
site for eco-technologies for urban projects. The community would
use alternative forms of energy such as solar power, harvest
rainwater for toilet flushing and use water from the wastewater
treatment plant for gardening. Eco-friendly building materials were to
be used. More than 50% of the area was to be green with a kitchen
garden to grow organic food for consumption within the community.
As the need for this project arose at a time when Auroville was facing
an acute shortage of housing, the project holders also planned to
give special consideration to those Aurovilians who did not have the
financial means to build a house. They realised that those without
funds tended to find themselves grouped together in cheap-quality'
housing,

which

was

widely

felt

to

be

undesirable.

Serious

consideration was given as to whether the Housing Service could

allocate spaces in the new project according to need, and not as per
an individual's financial input. In other words, would it be feasible
that individuals make donations to the project as a whole instead of
to their private apartment? If so, the project could offer a positive
alternative to the trend of individually-funded private housing. But
even if this could be realised, it was obvious that the total costs,
estimated at 1.5 crores [at the time US $ 325,000] would make
fundraising necessary. It was agreed that neither the project holders
nor the architect would charge a fee for their services and that Kolam
would only bill for part-maintenance of the site architect, Sonali. The
entire project was based on much idealism.

The project takes off

The planning of the project started in June 1999. Attempts were
made to document every stage of the development of Creativity:
each planning session, meeting, issue, and setback were to be
recorded. On August 15th 2001, the first brick was laid in a
ceremony attended by Dr. Chamanlal Gupta and the then Chairman

of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation, Dr. Kireet Joshi.

At the beginning, the construction work proceeded so well that both
architect and contractor optimistically predicted that the project
would be completed within a year. However, that was not to be. One
of the main reasons was that basic agreements about the roles and
responsibilities of the architect, the contractor and the project
holders were not made.
The project holders started to work with the architect and injected
ideas and changed concepts that were felt to be inadequate. They
substantially redesigned the internal layout: apartment designs and
sizes of rooms were altered, staircases were re-located, heights of
ceilings

were

increased

and

terraces

were

created

for

each

apartment. They did not touch the external lay-out of the Creativity
cluster and its housing blocks as they had agreed in the beginning
that this would remain solely the architect's responsibility. This
degree of involvement by the project holders, however, was not
always to the liking of the architect and gradually differences of
opinion led to estrangement. The architect complained that the
project holders had neither the architectural knowledge nor technical
expertise to tackle large-scale constructions. There was an increased
interference with our work, original concepts were questioned and
designs were changed after the project had taken off. Project holders
became architects and residents expressed their desires for their own
tailor-made apartments. That took an increasing amount of time and
design-energy and we got very discouraged. If they would have let
us built what we had designed, the project would have been much
cheaper. says Anupama. Also the lack of harmony between the
project holders and residents themselves made our work difficult.
The project holders in turn were dissatisfied that some of their
changes, which were discussed and agreed on before the final plans
were made, were not being implemented if they did not meet with
the approval of the architect, that they were never given copies of
the complete working drawings, and that the working drawings that
were given were often incomplete and not really understood by
them. The architects complained that as the project holders lacked
technical experience they were made to prepare many versions of
working drawings of every changing idea and that the project holders
stopped the construction at times as they couldn't arrive at a
decision unanimously. This all led to months of delay and bitter
exchanges, and added to the project's costs, observes Gillian.
Gradually, the pace of the project slowed down. We observed that
working drawings were also not being provided in time to the
contractor. He started to pull workers off the Creativity project to
work on other projects of the same architect to the extent that we
found that he was over-extending himself. Ultimately Anupama
withdrew from the direct interaction with project holders after a
gradual breakdown of the relationship with them. Her place was
taken by Sonali who, however, in the opinion of the project holders,
lacked sufficient experience. During her 4-months' maternity leave, a

student draftsman took over the site supervision temporarily.

Project Financing
The fundraising proved a major challenge, in particular as about a
third of the intended residents lacked personal means. A seeddonation from an anonymous donor of Rs 50 lakhs [US $ 108,000]
had launched the project. With the consent of all involved, this
money was used for the common infrastructure, and not to sponsor
housing for those without means. Says Gillian: We asked the
prospective residents to be committed to live in an intentional
community and offer whatever finances they could. The ideal was
you give what you can regardless of the spaces you are going to
occupy so that those without means can be sponsored. But this
proved to be unrealistic. Ultimately, the donation to be made for each
apartment was calculated on a square metre basis, and those without
sufficient means were asked to arrange for a loan with Auroville's
Financial Service, resulting in stress and personal hardships. A few
people were subsidized, not by the project, but by a special fund of
Auroville. The mood had changed from very off the ground' to very
on the ground'.
Added to this was that the estimates submitted were based on an
unrealistic time schedule of one year, whereas in reality it took three
and half years, creating added expenses. The estimates also did not
include the infrastructure costs, as the project holders and architect
planned to seek funding for the rain water harvesting and the solar
energy systems. This funding, however, never materialised. The
project holders later blamed themselves for being naive and
inexperienced, relying on the expertise of the architect and expecting
a professional approach which would have included the complete
infrastructure costs within the estimates. Nevertheless, the project
was always adequately supported financially and construction never
needed to be halted due to lack of funds.

The residents
Meanwhile,

the

residents

waited

and

endured

the

seemingly

interminable delays. They were, as per the original ideals, a healthy

mix of different nationalities', though not of all age groups. We
noticed, a bit to our amazement, that younger people did not want to
live here, says Gillian. The average age is over 40; most people are
over 50 years old. There is one family, one single parent with
children, two couples and the rest are singles. But it is a very
integrated group. They are facing the problems together and are
committed to make Creativity work. Their goodwill and endurance to
put up with a two and half years longer waiting than anticipated and
meeting the substantial cost increases neither the architect nor the
contractor took financial responsibility for mistakes or delays can
only be commended.

Architect of the Year Award

Judging Creativity from an aesthetic point of view, the consensus is
that it is attractive and inviting. It is perhaps small wonder that, in
April 2005, the jury for the prestigious Indian Architects of the Year
Award conferred a Commendation for Group Housing 2003 to
Anupama for the Creativity project. It cited the experimental
technical, social and environmental aspects of this housing project,
and

the

quality

of

life

which

it

provides

an

interactive

neighbourhood where each living space has the maximum possible

greenery and open spaces. Says Anu: The prize really should go to
Sonali. Without her dedication and commitment we would not have
materialised this project. Both are proud to have been associated
with the project, the problems notwithstanding. For the residents of
Creativity, the prize is an acknowledgment that their collective hard
work has paid off, even if they have to find solutions to live with the
results of some of the design failures.

Design flaws
In fact, unique to Auroville, the residents of Creativity have written to

the Auroville Planning and Development Council that building

permission for Citadines, the second cluster of Mangalam, should be
refused until the problems experienced by Creativity have been
properly addressed. We have made an objective evaluation of this
project, both in terms of the building process and design errors,
says Gillian, so that the mistakes of Creativity are not repeated in
Citadines. Asked about the design flaws of the project, Gillian
mentions as major issues the noise pollution and the roof design.
From the beginning there were doubts if the lay-out of the housing
blocks in a semi-circle wouldn't create sound pollution. The architect
replied that a certain amount of noise has to be accepted, and that
full noise-control can only be obtained by closing all windows and airconditioning the rooms. At the time we consulted a sound specialist,
and though his opinion
on

the

design

was

negative, we let the

issue rest in view of
our agreement not to
touch the external layout.

We

made

the

mistake not to insist

on

proper

evaluation

sound

of

the

structures. But as we
feared,

the

semi-

circular shape of the

structure

indeed

creates

sound

vortexes. What we did

not realise was that
two design elements
would

escalate

the

noise problem. One is

that

the

large

roof

overhangs reflect sound so that those in the upper floors hear

everything that is being said below. The other is that the elevated
walkways are not connected to the apartments but are detached
from the wall at a distance of over a metre. The idea was to increase
air circulation but it funnels sound from the ground floor to the top
floor. It also causes rain to fall on the windows. The community has
solved the noise problem from audio or video devices by prescribing
earphones. But conversations can still be overheard.
The other failure is the roof design. It was intended to be a cool,
insulated and energy-efficient roof, a model of solar passive
architecture, but it was not properly researched. When the design
was finally completed nearly a year into the construction, the costs
were double the original estimate. We rejected the design, and
insisted on a different roof. The roof is now built with hollow burnt
clay units, using a minimum of steel. However, the roof heats up
during the day and radiates the heat back at night. Painting the roof
white has reduced the heat. But it added to the costs. Anupama,

disagrees. We think that the roof design was a success as the

radiation is still far less than if we had built a conventional concrete
roof. Another concept that did not work was the collective singles,'
eight private rooms with shared bathrooms and kitchenettes. Says
Gillian, When the first floor was finished we realised that there were
no takers for this idea and we changed the second floor into two
separate apartments. Other mistakes are that access to some
apartments is through the kitchenette or that entrance doors face
bathroom doors.

Lessons learned
Asked what lessons have been learned, Anupama retorts Not to
work anymore with a group client. We will henceforth only deal with
one person who represents the group. And if the group disagrees
amongst themselves, we'll
wait till they have reached
consensus.

Secondly,

the

parameters on who decides

what

will

need

to

be

clarified. Nowhere in the

world

does

future

resident have anything to

say

about

aspects

of

construction
a

collective

housing project. In most

places, he or she can only
express a preference about
the finishing details of his
or

her

apartment.

So

perhaps I would propose a

scheme with 6 or 7 options
for

finishing.

experiences

of

The

Creativity

are now the basis for the design of Citadines. In Citadines there are
three or four project holders, each with a different task. But we only
deal with one person. The idea is to provide fully-furnished flats,
which will be allocated once they have been finished. And contrary to
the Creativity project, we want to make sure that here all designs are
ready before the first spade goes into the ground. We don't want to
start before every detail is ready and the funding is fully secured.
Looking back, the architects feel that Creativity has managed to
achieve many technical aims, though on the social level much was
left to be desired.
For the project holders too, the design and building experience of
Creativity should not be repeated. Says Gillian: Housing in Auroville
is collective property, and Auroville must make sure that collective
housing has the best standard possible. In future, a project like this
must be assessed by a group of independent specialists to prevent

mistakes and ensure that the project costs are realistic. The mistakes
of Creativity must be lessons for future collective housing projects.
After all, Auroville is about infusing consciousness into matter.
Gillian concludes We all failed in that we are supposed to be doing a
collective karma yoga here, which implies that we should not be
attached to the results of our work, that we should be doing it with
dedication and surrender. But it has been a hard path for all of us to
tread.
See also: "Planning Creativity"
Creativity fact sheet
Beginning of construction: August 2001
Expected date of completion: Autumn 2005
Work pending: doors and windows multi purpose room, courtyard
landscaping.
No. of apartments: 13 single units, 6 units for couples without
children, 2 family units, 5 single rooms with shared facilities,
2 guest rooms for singles, 3 guest rooms for couples.
Collective spaces: Kitchen, dining, multi-purpose room, atelier,
office, laundry, motorbike parking, storeroom.
No of permanent inhabitants: 38
Nationality of inhabitants: Indian, German, Dutch, Italian, French,
Australian, Colombian, Canadian, Spanish, English, American.
Average age of inhabitants: 50 years
Waste water treatment system: Root zone type, treated water is
used for irrigation.
Total built-up area: 1715 sq.m.
Total costs: Rs 1.79 crores
Cost

per

square

metre

including

collective

infrastructure: Rs 10,500
Architect: Kolam
Contractor: Auronirmatha

Home > Journals & Media > Journals > Auroville Today > May 2005
Current issue | Archive copies | Auroville Adventure
Auroville Universal Township

[email protected]

spaces

and