Mistry Architects (A) · 2017-12-14 · Mistry Architects (A) 609-044 3 architects each year, only 40,000 architects were registered with the Council of Architecturec to serve a population

_______ ProfessoIndia Recases arillustrat Copyrig545-7685digitized

A M Y C

R O B E R

M O N A

Mi

Thwas inbreakfaovertu

Wand cresettthe tsuof thehis cloin hisquesti

Shprojeccoast and thMistryrecom

Fothatchenvirothe arappro(RCCsmall and ti

a SOS Cprovideaccesse

_______________

or Amy C. Edmondesearch Center Exere developed solelions of effective or

ght © 2009, 2010, 205, write Harvard Bud, photocopied, or

. E D M O N D S O N

T G . E C C L E S

S I N H A

istry Ar

he 2004 tsunamn Pondicherry fast. It was juurned the other

hen child weco-founding pling survivorunami, under

e tsunami whose associatess mind was “ions about wh

harukh Mistryct was partic(Exhibit 2), e

he Indian govy Architects

mmending the

or the tsunamhed roofs, conment in therchitects presoached Sharu) slab insteadparcel of lan

ime—build an

Children’s Villaged long-term car

ed November 27,_______________

dson, Senior Lecturecutive Director Aly as the basis for ineffective manage

011 President and Fusiness School Pubotherwise reprodu

rchitect

mi was a very pon the East C

ust then that tr vehicles that w

elfare organizpartner of Mirs of the 2004 rgoing cancer

hen he, his wis were among

“Why not mehy he had com

y had designecularly challeneach with 100vernment pros agreed to e builders tha

mi villages, Shcreating hame area, as welsented the mukh and his ad of a thatched, but, if Mistnother floor o

ges, based in Innre to orphans and, 2008.

_______________

rer Robert G. EcclesAnjali Raina for her

class discussion. ement.

Fellows of Harvardblishing, Boston, Muced, posted, or tran

ts (A)

personal experCoast. We hadthe tsunami cawere there, the

—

zation SOS–Kistry Architectsunami, Mis

r surgery, he ife (Mistry Arg the few wh?” Being askme so close to

ed eight SOS nging. SOS c

0 to 200 homeovided the lan

be the desat SOS hired a

arukh and himlet-like clus

ll as the villagmodels to the

associate arched roof. Theytry Architectson top, addin

sbruck, Austria, d children aroun

________________

s, and India Researr insights and ResCases are not inte

d College. To order MA 02163, or go to w

nsmitted without t

rience. It happe decided to moame in. It lifttrees came cra

— Sharukh Mis

Kinderdorf Intcts, on Januarstry felt he harecalled askinrchitects’ co-fho survived wed to design

o death but ha

villages for ccalled for foues, to be compnd and infrastsigners. The

and overseein

is team of arcsters of hougers’ communvillagers. Fo

hitects and ay explained ths gave them a

ng a thatched

was an internatind the world beg

_______________

rch Center Researchearch Coordinatorended to serve as

copies or request pwww.hbsp.harvardhe permission of H

ened on my birove to a slightted up the carashing down anstry, Co-Foun

ternationala cry 8, 2005, toad come full cng himself, “Wfounding partwhile thousan

the tsunami ad been saved

children in Inur tsunami vipleted withintructure such

ey also provng design imp

hitects designuses that refnal lifestyle. A

ollowing a roasked for a fhat the gover

a flat roof, theroof at that ti

ional non-governginning in 1949. h

_______________

her Mona Sinha prer Rachna Chawla f

endorsements, so

permission to reprod.edu/educators. THarvard Business Sc

rthday—Decemtly higher platrs, pushed thend we saw the fnding Partner

called Sharuko ask him to dcircle. Just a fWhy me?” Yetner Renu Mi

nds lost their villages seem

d (Exhibit 1).

ndia since 198illages on Ind

n a year. SOS as roads, elec

vided designplementation.

ned single stoflected the nAfter SOS appound of applaflat reinforcedrnment had o

ey could later—ime. The RCC

nmental child wehttp://www.SOS

9-609-R E V : A P R I L 1 5

________________

epared this case. Thfor exhibit assistanources of primary

oduce materials, cahis publication machool.

mber 26. Our fteau at 8:00 a.m into the thfish all around

r, Mistry Arch

kh Mistry, arcdesign villagfew months bet, in the afteristry), and solives, the que

med to answ

88, but the tsudia’s Southeafunded the hctricity, and wn consultanc

ory structuresnatural and proved the deause, the villd cement cononly given th—at their own

C slabs they so

elfare organizatiS-childrensvillag

-0445 , 2 0 1 1

______

hanks to nce. HBS

data, or

all 1-800-ay not be

family m. for

hickets, d. hitects

chitect es for before rmath me of estion er his

unami astern

houses water. cy by

s with built

esign, lagers ncrete hem a n cost ought

on that ges.org,

Purchased by: firas jassim [email protected] on February 12, 2014

609-044 Mistry Architects (A)

2

would increase the project cost by 10% to 15%, requiring fresh approvals from SOS and its donor agencies.

The villagers’ request put Sharukh and Renu Mistry in a bind. As designers, they had adopted greenb principles well before green became fashionable in India. Although using environmentally and resource friendly designs presented an additional challenge to meeting the needs of the multiple constituencies in a construction project, Mistry Architects had remained committed to it. The Mistrys and their design team believed that the future of design lay in architects’ ability to meet sustainability objectives, and the thatched roof design was consistent with this belief. The flat slab roof, however, was neither cost-effective nor congruent with the designers’ objectives of environmental sustainability and pleasing aesthetics. At the same time, Mistry Architects was also known for its client focus. Sharukh described his internal struggle: “If I am not sensitive enough to listen to the villagers’ needs, then I have no business designing for them.” He wondered whose needs the design should emphasize—the residents, SOS, or the environment?

Industry Context

In 2008, the $70 billion Indian construction industry comprised: real estate (residential, corporate, and commercial buildings); infrastructure building such as roads and railways; and industrial construction such as oil and gas refineries and textile plants.1 (See Exhibit 3 for India’s macroeconomic indicators.) Only $16.9 billion of sales revenue was accounted for by the “organized sector,” which contributed 8.53% to India’s GDP.2 The “unorganized sector” was composed of unlisted or private sector companies that did not publicly report financial details. A large part of the construction industry was based on black money transactions—unaccounted money on which no one paid taxes to the government.3 In 2007, experts estimated that the overall industry (organized and unorganized) would grow to $243 billion and account for 16.98% of GDP by 2012.4 India’s growing middle class fueled demand in all sectors, including housing and retail.5 In particular, analysts projected that the real estate industry would grow from $16 billion in 2005 to $60 billion by 2010,6 driven by a booming economy, foreign direct investment, and favorable demographics. (As Exhibit 4 shows, the average age of homeowners in 2006 was 32; it had been 45 a decade earlier.) Experts also projected that commercial office space requirements would grow. Industry estimates for 2010 were 150 million square feet for the information technology sector and 220 million square feet for the organized retail sector.7 An industry report by Business Monitor International highlighted some weaknesses in the Indian construction industry, such as the lack of a structured regulatory/policy framework, poorly defined operating and financing regulations, a large number of unorganized/unofficial players, and a shortage of skilled manpower. The report identified a housing shortage of 23 million—90% of that figure fell in the low-cost housing segment (in a country where 50 million people lived in urban slums).8

Sharukh Mistry believed that the current Indian architecture market was somewhat similar to that in the United States between 1960 and 1980. Small and medium-sized architecture firms were generalists—”jacks-of-all-trades”—while large firms typically specialized in certain types of construction such as resorts or hospitals. Although 140 schools of architecture produced 4,000

b Green building involved creating structures and using processes that were environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle—from selecting a site to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction. Green building is also known as sustainable building. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/ pubs/about.htm#1, accessed December 1, 2008.


Mistry Architects (A) 609-044

3

architects each year, only 40,000 architects were registered with the Council of Architecturec to serve a population of over one billion people. By contrast 160,000 architects9 served a population of about 306 million in the United States.10 In India, new design opportunities, such as the construction of shopping malls, had attracted foreign architecture firms to India.11 These firms could only practice in India either by receiving government permission for specific projects or by collaborating with Indian architects. A perceived shortage of architects provided opportunities for non-architects (e.g., masons and civil engineers), and companies routinely substituted non-architect advice for architect advice. Such practices reduced architects’ economic and social status as professionals.12 Countering these forces, the Architects Act of 1972d required architects to adhere to standards of education, and standards of practice for practicing architects, but it did not cover non-architects who entered the field.13

Environmentally-conscious buildings constituted a recent trend in India. The trend began in earnest in the United Kingdom in 1990 with the founding of the United Kingdom Green Building Council. By 2007, 73,125 green buildings had been registered by the Council’s Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM)e rating system.14 The United Kingdom’s $200 billion construction industry accounted for 10% of that nation’s GDP. In the United States, the green movement included the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)f—set up in 1993—which boasted 17,676 members. The USGBC established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)g rating system, trained 62,189 LEED-accredited professionals, and certified 15,609 projects that formed a green footprint of 259.2 million square feet.15 The green building industry in the United States, which accounted for $12 billion,16 was an increasingly significant part of the $1.12 trillion U.S. construction industry.17 Industry experts projected that it would reach $96 billion to $140 billion by 2013.18 The USGBC had 10 national councils and helped groups in 16 countries, including India, to set up their own global building councils.19 In India, the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC),h established in March 2000, had 464 members. IGBC had licensed and adapted the USGBC’s LEED rating system and certified 34 projects (see Exhibit 5). The supply of environmentally friendly building materials and the number of trained professionals in this new field of expertise, including architects, civil engineers, and builders, had increased, but it still could not meet the current demand for green buildings.20 Based on the increase in green footprint in

c The Council of Architecture was established by the Government of India in 1972. It regulated the education and practice of the profession in India, maintained the register of architects, and recommended fees that architectural firms could charge. http://www.coa.gov.in/, accessed January 5, 2009.

d The practice of the profession of an architect was governed by the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations Act of 1989 (as amended in 2003), which dealt with professional ethics and etiquette, conditions of engagement and scale of charges, architectural competition guidelines, etc. http://www.coa.gov.in/home/home.htm, accessed December 6, 2008.

e Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) was designed to help construction professionals understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of the developments they designed and built. http://www.breeam.org, accessed January 5, 2009.

f The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) was a nonprofit, membership organization that consisted of corporations, builders, universities, government agencies, and other non-profit organizations, with a vision of a sustainable built environment. http://www.usgbc.org, accessed December 28, 2008.

g The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a third party certification program for green buildings, developed in 1998 by the U.S. Green Building Council. It encompasses more than 14,000 projects in 50 states and 30 countries, covering 1.062 billion square feet (99 km²) of development area. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19, accessed January 5, 2009.

h The Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) comprised companies, the Indian government, and agencies such as architects, product manufacturers, and institutions. It was set up as a joint initiative of a State Government (Andhra Pradesh), an industry body (Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)), and a corporate conglomerate (House of Godrej). http://www.igbc.in/ site/igbc/index.jsp, accessed November 26, 2008.



4

India from 20,000 square feet in 2003 to 70 million square feet in 2008,21 the IGBC envisaged 1,000 LEED certified buildings per year, one billion square feet of green buildings, and a $4 billion market by 2012.22 (See Appendix for details.)

Mistry Architects

Mistry Architects was a mid-sized architectural firm established in 1981 by the husband/wife team of Sharukh and Renu Mistry, who had graduated from architectural college in India in 1974 and 1971 respectively. In 1976, the couple moved to Iran to work with the National Iranian Oil Company, where they were asked to design British-style homes with sloping roofs and insulation. In the arid Iranian climate, such homes required extensive air-conditioning. Precluded from drawing on age-old local architectural traditions and techniques that worked in this climate, the Mistrys found that their appreciation for regional customization intensified. They returned to Bengaluru (then known as Bangalore), India, to establish a new practice, facing resource scarcity that was in stark contrast to Iran’s resource abundance.

Sharukh, described by Renu as a “master story-teller,” recounted the firm’s first project—the couple’s home in Bengaluru—while Renu filled in critical details. A small plot with a tree in the center had to accommodate two families—their own and Renu’s parents. The design comprised two homes around a central open courtyard, to create both privacy and togetherness (see Exhibit 6). A tight budget coupled with a nation-wide shortage of cement led the Mistrys to experiment with a traditional lime mortar mix used in rural houses. After several collapsed walls, they finally mastered the use of lime in modern design.

Their early success in innovating with traditional materials in non-traditional uses inspired their commitment to natural resources and local craftsmanship. These traits became central to the firm’s design signature. The challenges that followed provided even greater lessons. At one point during construction, they came to realize that, seemingly, whatever one of them built, the other would tear down and re-build. From this observation came their realization that creative professionals have different viewpoints and that users of the same building may have different preferences. Sharukh concluded, “The building of our home taught us to live and let live. The design process can allow space for different ideas and differing needs.” This inclusive approach later helped them expand their house to accommodate two biological and three adopted children, Sharukh Mistry’s mother, and, more recently, a son-in-law.

The Mistrys’ early experiences in Iran and in building their own home in India set the tone for their later firm. In Sharukh’s words, “I see architecture as a seamless whole—a lot of what I think or experience all comes back to me in my work and vice versa.” In its roughly 500 projects by 2009, Mistry Architects sought to achieve what Sharukh called the “triple bottom line of people, profit, and planet.” Its open, team-oriented culture spurred creative thought. The project mix earned the firm a “reasonable”23 profit that was shared among the employees. And, increasingly, the Mistrys adopted the “green mantra” of “re-use, recycle, and reduce.” Juggling the needs of man, material, and the planet spurred innovation.

The Office

A “no-doors” office design encouraged intentional and unintentional exchanges of ideas (see Exhibit 7). Sharukh described the office as “a space bustling with happy faces, where we work together, eat together, share ideas and food.” The office itself was built around a large rock and an old tree, which provided a natural canopy to the open terrace that was used as a meeting space and lunch area. A free, communal meal was served every day, and all employees (sometimes even clients)



5

washed their own dishes.i Sharukh described a typical day in the office: “It all starts with breakfast…some roll in, some roll out, each one has his or her own routine.” The walls had a bare cement look interspersed with open bricks. The roof on the terrace was built with re-used materials such as old tiles and glass panes. The tables and doors were fitted with old knobs, discarded clamps, and an old concrete trowel.24 The work environment nurtured creativity in a profession where, as Renu pointed out, “the other aspects of architecture such as site, budget, locale, client’s needs, and materials,” could overwhelm the creative drive. Incorporating sustainability presented additional design challenges for the firm.

In 2005, the firm comprised 41 people: 32 designers (Sharukh, Renu, architects, draftspeople, and surveyors) and nine administrative employees. Nearly 50% of the employees were female, and the average age was 28. Designers stayed with the firm, on average, between three and four years. After that, they typically left, with the Mistrys’ blessings, mostly to set up their own practices or sometimes to work with other firms.

Sharukh and Renu, who shared many ideals and principles, decided early on that, in the interest of their marriage and clients, they should manage separate projects. This enabled the firm to accommodate and leverage their divergent styles. Sharukh explained, “Renu approaches a problem in a fairly structured manner while I approach the same issues in an intuitive manner, waiting for triggers to get me going, such as something a client has said or something about the site.” Their practice could take on “big-picture” projects that fit Sharukh’s style, as well as the smaller, highly resource-constrained projects that Renu preferred. The firm gained a reputation for being “green” designers and Sharukh was regularly called upon to represent the voice of the design community at industry forums, such as India’s annual Green Building Congress.25

Like other architecture firms in India and around the world, Mistry Architects provided design as well as consulting services to supervise the execution of their design. They had a diversified portfolio with annual revenues of $800,000 in 2008 (see Exhibit 8). Approximately 90% of their business involved residential projects, while the balance comprised projects in the commercial, corporate, and socially-relevant realms. The residential projects included small, low-budget homes, lavish mansions, apartment complexes, and interiors. Their corporate projects ranged from offices to corporate campuses and commercial space. Socially-relevant projects included old-age homes and children’s villages commissioned by non-profit organizations. Their focus on residences rather than commercial projects was driven by the joy they experienced in learning about the personalities of a home’s users, despite the lower profits. Most Mistry projects were in Bengaluru, some in other cities of southern India, and a few in Mumbai and Delhi; many won critical acclaim (see Exhibit 9).

Sharukh believed that one reason that clients were drawn to Mistry Architects was because the firm had “a strong team of stellar artists” beyond the Mistrys. These were the associate architects who could execute and implement projects independently. Sharukh attributed this to the firm’s unique approach to recruitment, development, and compensation.

Recruitment, Development, and Compensation

Mistry Architects attracted applications from architecture students who wanted internships. Capable trainees who fit into the organizational culture could then be hired as junior architects. The firm was structured as a network of teams, rather than a hierarchical pyramid (see Exhibit 10). Depending on the type of project and the partners’ workloads, either Sharukh or Renu would be a part of each team. They were involved in every project even though they had empowered the

i Culturally, washing your own plate in India was not very common in an office.



6

associate architects to make key project and team-related decisions, including hiring, for their respective teams. An associate architect explained, “It is like running my own firm within a larger firm because I meet my own clients, hire my own team members, balance the number of projects my team handles, and manage my own cash flows.” Under the supervision of associate architects, junior architects and trainees worked on all the tasks involved in an architectural practice, including designing, drafting, managing finances, meeting clients, and supervising construction. This general development process differed from typical architectural firms where new recruits spent their formative years on drafting work and site visits, only progressing over time to functions such as design and managing relationships with clients and other consultants such as builders, engineers, and landscape architects. Few were involved in managing finances. Another associate architect appreciated what he learned at Mistry Architects, noting:

Although I came with the intention of starting my own practice after two years, I have been here for five years and anytime I think of leaving, a new and challenging project comes up that makes me stay. In fact, now we are getting larger projects where we interact and coordinate with several consultants and manage bigger teams, so I don’t feel like I am missing anything that my friends are experiencing in larger firms.

For some associates, the desire to leave Mistry Architects to start their own practice was a natural extension of the holistic grooming they received at the firm. A former associate who set up his own firm explained, “[Mistry Architects] created a lot of ambitions in me . . . . I wanted to do something where I can also have my own character as an architect and put my seal on some of the buildings. As an architect, everybody has different philosophies.” Sharukh and Renu did not perceive these off-shoot firms as competitors because they felt that there was “more than enough work to go around.” Renu explained the “abundance” mentality: “If my son/daughter is doing well, I will encourage them to do their own thing. It’s the same with my associates. We train them up to a point and allow their creativity to flow and allow them to assert their independence; otherwise, how will they grow?”

Recruitment at Mistry Architects involved considering not just professional ability but also whether the trainee would be happy working at the firm because, as one associate architect put it, “enjoyment is important here.” Renu Mistry described her husband’s “joyful” personality as the drive behind their bi-annual company holidays, an event where all employees and their families “let their hair down responsibly.”26 The employees enjoyed the empowerment, collegial atmosphere, and easy access to Sharukh and Renu. Word-of-mouth provided Mistry Architects with access to a stream of talented students.

The firm’s compensation structure operated on profit sharing; monthly payouts, rather than salaries, created a sense of ownership. The partners received a percent of each team’s earnings and associate architects were responsible for their juniors’ pay. Renu noted, “They quickly learn to keep a balance” between small and large projects. The small projects were referred to internally as “bread” because they had shorter completion times, with lower revenues but faster receipt. The large projects were called “butter” and took more time to complete but had larger revenues that came in over a longer time period. The firm had a common pool for covering the running cost of the office, and each team divided the rest of the profit it made among the team members (including whichever partner was part of that team) according to a pre-determined percentage based on team members’ experience in the firm. Compensation was structured such that an associate could earn as much as Sharukh after 17 years at the firm. Sharukh explained:

We share whatever we receive—good or bad—in a simple way. This has been successful but we also had some problems, so we keep changing the process around. For example, in 2000 the percent system was applied to the common pool for the administrative and maintenance staff until in one month an administrative staff member made more than a design associate.



7

We quickly went back to fixed salaries for them. We also realized that a percent system works well if the person has been in the office for some time. So now we give trainees the choice of opting for either a fixed salary or profit-sharing.... Most of them choose salaries initially and then opt for a percentage. Since all of this was done democratically after much deliberation, it did not cause major problems. Everybody understood that “fairness” was the objective. Since there were no other firms following this system, this experimentation enjoyed overall support.

Revenue

Sharukh believed that the real estate industry encountered cyclical downturns every five or six years, and Mistry Architects used a mix of projects to help alleviate the effects. Small projects (mostly residential) tended to sustain the firm during economic downturns. Revenue was based on the project size and category of project (see Exhibit 11). The time spent on residential projects for individuals was higher than that for an apartment building or a corporate project because residences involved understanding the needs of multiple users within the same household.

At monthly meetings, the design teams, along with Sharukh and Renu, discussed their current and future projects. Mistry Architects did not experience acrimony over the allocation of new projects or the re-allocation of existing projects across teams. Rather, team members described a mutual give and take at these meetings. Sharukh noted, however, that tensions did emerge over balancing a portfolio of work in the office at any one time: “We get more excited about some of our smaller projects and return on investment is totally forgotten. Then after some time, we realize that this is what has caused a dip in our teams’ earnings. With experiences such as these, our teams learn how to balance their mix of projects.” The teams vied to work on socially-relevant projects despite lower revenues, and each team took the opportunity to work on such projects alongside other projects.

The Design Process

Project Acquisition and Assignment

New projects generally came from repeat customers or client referrals. The firm assigned new projects to a team based on its current project load, usually without a complete understanding of the size and scope of the work. An associate architect clarified, “You do not know how much a project is going to cost and how much work is involved until the person assigned to the job spends time with the client to understand his or her needs and starts doing the design. At times, if the assigned person’s workload is high, then the job may get reassigned to another team.” Such reassignments happened early in a project and were not considered disruptive.

Mistry Architects remained a small and intimate firm, due both to the two founders’ desire to maintain a close-knit family atmosphere and to their reluctance to have what Sharukh called “wine and cheese parties” for attracting clients. Renu reflected, “Neither Sharukh nor I are very good at soliciting work. I think a lot of people come to us because they see our work and like it…so in that sense they are like-minded.” The firm’s philosophy was not to refuse any projects. Renu explained, “Everyone should be able to afford an architect.”

The firm allowed associate architects to decide if they wanted to take on a given new project. Capacity constraints could be addressed by hiring new trainees. If none of the associates were interested in a given project, the Mistrys referred the client to ex-associates who had set up their own firms.



8

Projects

One of the key distinguishing features of the firm’s design process was to “go in blank” at the start of a project. Sharukh explained:

Going in blank is being humble enough to not let prior experiences bias our judgment. It is going in without any preconditions of what our design should be and wants to be. At Mistry, we believe that every site has its story and most are millennia old. We also go in with respect and humility. In fact, we go empty-handed and empty-headed…to see if we can receive. That’s when site, sight, and insight become important.

This philosophy achieved a dual objective. The first objective, as Sharukh explained, was to be able to “listen to the site in order to look at the materials at the site with a hawk’s eye for identifying the traditional building materials that the local community used for building.” This keen evaluation of the natural and built environment around the site helped them leverage the lay (natural contours) of the land, natural light, wind flows, water channels, natural materials, and foliage for meeting their sustainability objectives. In all of their projects, Mistry Architects designed in ways that reduced the need for artificial cooling and heating, minimized creation of waste, and conserved water. Sharukh and Renu went beyond what was required by law, and their choices sometimes cost more initially than conventional ones. Some might have questioned the value of this personal evangelizing in the absence of laws to support green design principles.27

The second objective of “going in blank” was to be able to “listen to their clients” without being judgmental. As author Daniel Pink put it, “Empathy is an essential part of design, because good designers put themselves in the mind of whoever is going to experience the product or service they are designing.”28 In accord with this, Sharukh believed that a large part of the success of Mistry Architects emanated from this sensibility to the end-user, which encouraged clients to share their values and lifestyles with the designers.

“Going in blank” applied to both large and small projects despite differing complexities and requirements. One very small project was a 2,000 square foot, three-bedroom homej in Bengaluru, built for less than $22,500 (compared to $500,000, the average cost of a high-end home). Mistry’s creative use of traditional materials, such as hollow concrete blocks for walls, clay tiles for flooring, and thatch for the roof, as well as tight execution (weekly monitoring of costs), resulted in an award-winning, modestly-priced home. At the other end of the spectrum, the firm faced a creative challenge to build a huge 30,000 square foot mansionk for a family of five such that it would have no superfluous space. Additionally, a Vaastu Shastral expert told Mistry to cut down a Pipalm tree on the site, because only places of worship should have such a tree. Instead, Mistry Architects built a prayer room around the tree, both saving the tree and satisfying the Vaastu principle. One associate architect explained, “You have to look at it quite differently; you cannot take the persona of one into the other, especially when you don’t live that lifestyle.”

j A weekend home for Ashish and Munira Sen in Bengaluru.

k A residential project, Shivpriya, in Delhi.

l The word Vaastu implied “vasa,” an act of inhabitation or dwelling, and Shastra, science. It was an ancient Indian science of inhabitation that defines proper construction and assembly of structures by ensuring the harmony of natural forces of earth, space, air, fire, and water. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Speaking_Tree/Divining_truth_beyond_the_Vaastu_Shastra/ articleshow/3805936.cms, accessed December 22, 2008.

m Pipal, a variant of the Banyan Fig, was revered as one of India’s holy trees.



9

On all of its projects, Mistry Architects had to manage the needs of multiple constituencies in a construction project. For example, the firm took on a project for a multi-story apartment buildingn on the condition that it could save a 100-year-old rain tree on the plot. The team described the creative excitement of building a specified number of apartments with cantilevered balconies to avoid cutting down the tree. “The structural engineers had nightmares,” recalled one team member, “but the design created panoramic views for each flat owner.” To work within a tight budget and with the limited ground space imposed by the tree, the team moved the desired swimming pool to the roof, installed glass railings and created a jogging track out of the required regulatory setback.

Mistry Architect had one LEED-certified project—a $26 million exhibition facility for the Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers’ Association. The size of the project required multiple vendors and designers working together. To overcome the problem of a lack of water and electricity in the area, Mistry Architects used solar panels, rain water harvesting, and a host of other “green” measures. They directed a stream running through the land into an aquifer and used it to seed the bore wells on the plot.o The firm’s biggest challenge was to build a roof of sufficient span to allow maximum use of natural light. They constructed the halls at three levels, following the lay of the land instead of trying to flatten the land. This allowed skylights on the side-walls at each point where the level of the building decreased by a few feet. Additionally, the architects conducted research on appropriate roof designs. The final roofing solution came from a flash of insight when, in frustration, a young designer clasped his hands at the meeting table—and the shape of his hands became the prototype for a prefabricated roof style. The engineering firm with which they worked (the largest in India) had never before worked on such a large-spanning complicated structure (see Exhibit 12).

Financial challenges extended the completion of another project, a theater called Ranga Shankara, for 11 years. In this project, Mistry Architects shifted the client’s initial emphasis by prioritizing the space and the performers’ experience over that of the audience. They believed that by creating an ambience that enhanced the performance of the artists, the audience would be drawn in. Sharukh Mistry declared, “Ranga Shankara is a testament to creative design and the bonds of friendship. The design process was so engaging that while, commercially, nobody in their right mind should have joined in, somehow the vendors, contractors, artists and designers believed that they would get the funds, and they all stood together in support.”

Increasingly over the years, the Mistrys espoused green values to their clients to convince them to take a long- rather than short-term view in evaluating the cost effectiveness of going “green.” One notable example was the Wiprop Corporate Office in Bengaluru. Sharukh and his team convinced the client to double the built area on the plot and used the extra space to add comprehensive wastewater management, sewage treatment, solar energy systems, and an underground parking area naturally lit by skylights. The Wipro Corporate Office exemplified “green” architecture with gardens, water courts, and natural light that refreshed the spirit and encouraged creative thinking. Sharukh reflected that this project satisfied his desire to “leave a lighter footprint on the earth.”

Another corporate office project started with demolishing a defunct 110-year-old brick factory on the site.q Rather than simply destroy and remove the past, the team worked with the existing structure to create an ecologically sensitive, 37,800 square foot building with state of the art technology by combining traditional building methods with the existing materials from the factory.

n Brigade Builders’ apartment project, Shivpriya, in Bengaluru.

o Tubewells dug into the ground for drawing water.

p Wipro is a leading global software services provider based in India. http://www.wipro.com, accessed January 14, 2009.

q Manipal House, of the Pai Group (1991).



10

One especially challenging project was an Air Force-commissioned bar for personnel. This project had a total budget of only $5,000, including architectural fees, and featured an odd, narrow 650 square foot plot. The client, an Air Force Commander, initially wanted expensive granite floors, which would greatly stretch the budget and reduce the already meager architectural fee. A junior architect came across the Air Force scrap yard and suggested that the firm reuse and recycle the material there. Airplane wings became the bar, spent missiles became barstools, used cluster bomb shells were converted into lighting devices, fuel tank lights hung over the counter, and airline seats became comfortable recliners. When money ran out, the painters used discarded boxing gloves with sponge pads attached to the ends and literally boxed the paint onto the walls, creating an attractive stippled effect. The result was an ambience tailored to match the clientele while still reducing new material, and reusing and recycling old scrap. Although initially resistant—concerned that they had been cheated because their debris was being used—the clients embraced the approach when they saw the final outcome, complete with a walkway made from runway lights. Renu noted, “Conservation does not always mean preservation; it can be a new form from an old fabric.” She continued, “Basically we had fun, but we also recycled waste. The smaller the job, the more challenging it is because of the constraints. That is when creativity comes into its own.” The story had a fitting end because the project won three awards and the prize money was higher than the fees.

SOS-Kinderdorf International

The SOS organization, founded in Austria by Hermann Gmeiner in 1949, built villages for orphaned children in Europe (Austria, France, and Germany) throughout the 1950s. Funded by corporate and individual donors, SOS expanded into Latin America and Asia in the 1960s. In 1963, Gmeiner met with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, and Indira Gandhi, a future prime minister, and soon built the first SOS villages in India. SOS’s central philosophy was “a home for every child.” SOS villages typically included 10 to 15 homes; 8 to 10 orphaned children, usually under 10 years old, lived in each home. A single “mother”—a widowed, divorced, or never married woman—headed each home. SOS prioritized education, then career, and then marriage for the children in its villages. The organization provided financial support until the children were 24 years old, but the orphanages were planned to create life-long relationships, allowing the children to visit at every significant life event. After retiring, the “mothers” were looked after in the villages or by their children. SOS also started primary, secondary, and nursing schools near some of the SOS villages to serve the community.

Gmeiner’s concept was a departure from the institutional approach of building large orphanages, which, as SOS–Kinderdorf Asia Deputy Secretary General Siddharth Kaul noted, were like “fortresses or prisons, focused on physical rather than emotional security.” SOS wanted buildings designed on a child’s scale that contained something that belonged to each child. During their time with the SOS family, children maintained their own identities in terms of family name, customs, and diet (e.g., remaining vegetarian). Gmeiner’s family-centered child care concept was based on the belief that the family is fundamentally the same across countries and included a mother, a house, siblings, and a village.

Mistry Architects built its first village for SOS in Bengaluru in 1988. Sharukh’s design converted an unused, barren, stone quarry into a green sanctuary with a lake full of wildlife and fish. Stone from the site was used to build the walls. This stone heated the house in the winter and cooled it in the summer, did not crack or allow seepage, and imparted a sense of security to the residents. Building the houses in clusters gave residents a feeling of community. Mistry used creepers to create natural and cost-effective canopies over walkways. The initial designs gave each child some privacy,



11

but they were later adapted to allow the mother to keep each child in sight. Papajir, as Sharukh called J.N. Kaul, the Honorary President of SOS Kinderdorf–Asia and father of the group’s secretary general, pointed out that the village homes were lived in by a family of 10 children and a mother; designing for the mother’s convenience was thus critical.

Several challenges came together in the SOS village projects. The largest arose from the task of dealing with limited resources and difficult sites, while still meeting the needs of traumatized and disadvantaged children and caregivers. Yet these projects were also emotionally satisfying for the teams that worked on them. Sharukh remarked, “Regardless of how big or small the projects we do, building the SOS villages is very close to our heart.” Indeed, Sharukh and Renu’s decision to adopt three children was influenced by their association with SOS.

In every SOS village, Mistry Architects used low-cost, local materials and local craftsmanship; the design motifs represented the art from the region, successfully blending the village into the surroundings in which it was situated. Sharukh noted, “We always design the SOS villages with pride, never with pity.” The villages were often outside the municipal limits, with limited access to water and electricity. To address this, Sharukh and his team focused on water conservation, solar panels, and sewage treatment. They also used green design principles to leverage natural light and air.

The Tsunami Villages

On December 26, 2004, an immense undersea earthquake triggered a tsunami that struck nations across Asia and Africa. Along the southeastern coastline of India, 12,000 people lost their lives.29 As aid trickled in, the Indian government and several international agencies announced reconstruction packages.30 The Indian government granted SOS-Kinderdorf permission to build four villages to serve tsunami-hit villagers. The villages had to house between 100 and 200 families and be completed within a year. The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the villages had to be 500 meters away from the high tide mark. The state government owned the land and had to complete administrative formalities before handing it over to SOS.

SOS trusted Sharukh Mistry to take on the project at a nominal fee. Given their past relationship, Kaul said, “Sharukh was my obvious choice. I don’t have to tell Sharukh anything. I can close my eyes and say ‘Let’s go do this.’ He knows what I want. I know he knows what I want and we can do this together.” Sharukh was relieved that he had four tsunami villages to design since it meant that seven of the more experienced associate architects, of the 10 that worked at the firm at the time, would have the opportunity to work on either an SOS village or a tsunami village. Sharukh was part of all teams working on the tsunami and SOS villages. In the months that followed, Mistry Architects leveraged the relationships they had built over the years to find builders who would share their passion and be committed to the project despite severe financial constraints and tight deadlines.

At one of the village sites, Kolachal, they soon realized that the land they received from the government was marshy. The associate architect assigned to that village described it: “When we started getting into the technical details we found that, just to do these simple structures, we had to use pile foundations, which are really long foundations going 15 meters down to the hard soil.” Consultations with technical experts at the Indian Institute of Technologys revealed that additional

r Literal: Father in Hindi. Often used for an elder as a form of respect.

s The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) is a premier engineering school in India. http://www.iitm.ac.in/, accessed December 5, 2008.



12

expenses for filling the land were too high for either the government or SOS to bear. This left Mistry Architects with three villages in Murthypudukuppam, Pudupettai, and Nagapattinam, and one dejected associate architect who had neither an SOS nor a tsunami village to work on that year.

Mistry Architects envisaged a romantic hamlet tucked away amid the coconut trees. Using materials like bamboo, Palmyra logs, coconut, and thatch would add value from both design and sustainability perspectives. Mistry created two design options, adhering to government guidelines: a double-story structure with a tiled roof and a single-story structure with a thatched roof. SOS approved the latter design (see Exhibit 13). SOS and Mistry Architects would provide the houses, while the government would furnish infrastructure such as roads, water, sanitation, and electricity. Sharukh’s team recommended many “green” initiatives, including solar-powered lights, grey-water recycling,t and use of eco-friendly materials.

Mistry Architects used a participatory process to design the villages, as they did for all their projects, although neither SOS nor the government required them to do so. The designers visited the villages regularly, spending time with the village heads to discuss building-related concerns. During one such visit, just before construction began, the villagers requested a flat, reinforced cement concrete (RCC) roof instead of the thatched sloping roof design that SOS had approved. According to one associate architect on the tsunami project, “Thatched roofs were the traditional material used for construction in that area, and the hamlet kind of structures blended in with the natural and built environment in that area.” The designs provided for polycarbonate corrugated sheets under the thatch, which increased the roof’s durability and posed less potential for damage than an RCC roof in case of natural calamity. However, the villagers believed that the concrete roofs were more durable than the thatched roof design. Also, in a country where the poor typically lived in thatched houses while the more affluent lived in concrete or puccau houses, the RCC roofs represented an improvement to the villagers’ present lifestyle. However, the RCC roof was not congruent with the design team’s aesthetic and sustainability objectives and was more expensive. Yet, Mistry Architects empathized with the villagers’ needs and wanted to do everything possible to satisfy the end-user. The conflict stemmed from their deep-rooted commitment to both their clients and the environment.

Facing the Design Decision

As Sharukh drove back with his associates from one of the tsunami villages—at Pudupettai—after presenting the designs to representatives of all three villages, he recognized that the conflict within them reflected much more than just a decision about a roofing solution. Many such seemingly innocuous lifestyle decisions had contributed to the environmental crisis. He always tried to influence his clients and peers toward green designs, telling them that “the essence of development is where you are the change you want to see.” Yet how could he ignore the villagers’ needs?

As he mulled over the decision, he recalled his wife’s insights into the complexities of a participatory decision-making process that involved multiple constituencies:

It is not necessary that the client accepts everything that we have suggested and very often we have had to make compromises to accommodate their needs, even though we may not have believed that this was the best thing for the project. But they are going to use the place

t Grey-water is the wastewater from the shower, bath, spa, hand basins, laundry tub, washing machine, dishwasher, and kitchen sink. If treated appropriately, grey-water can be used in toilets and washing machines, saving between 50,000 and 100,000 liters of drinking water a year. http://www.deus.nsw.gov.au/Water/Greywater/greywater.asp#TopOfPage, accessed December 24, 2008.

u “Pucca” in Hindi means permanent.



13

and they are going to live there; it is their home. If we accept the client as an important part of the team, we have to accommodate the client’s needs, aspirations and dreams. We cannot have our own way all the time. This is teamwork and a team project. Everyone has certain needs and you have to compromise—give a little, take a little. You never really get your way with everything completely. That is what life is all about.

The team had one week to decide. In the aftermath of the tsunami, the Indian government was under pressure to show concrete action and hence it was pushing to begin construction. Would the team, with Sharukh’s approval, agree to put its stamp on a design that did not meet its aesthetic and sustainability standards? Creating a new design for the roof and getting fresh approvals from SOS and their donors would take time, which Sharukh wasn’t sure he had.



14

Exhibit 1 A Letter

Source: Company documents.



15

Exhibit 2 Map of India: The Tsunami Village Locations

Source: Adapted from the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ maps/.

Pudupettai

Nagapattinam

Kolachal

Muthypudukuppam



16

Exhibit 3 Macro Indicators

Indicator India Demographic Indicators Population 2001 (in millions) 1028.7 Population density (persons per sq. km.) 325 Annual population growth rate (1991–2001) 1.97 % Rural 2001 72.2 % Rural 1991 74.3 Social Indicators Literacy 2001 (%) 64.8 Male literacy 2001 (%) 75.3 Female literacy 2001 (%) 53.7 Literacy 1991 (%) 52.2 Economic Indicators Per capita income 2006–2007 ($) 581 % of population below poverty line 1999–2000 26.1 % of population below poverty line 2006–2007 19.3 % of households with radio ownership 2001 34.8 % of households with TV ownership 2001 31.3 % of households with electricity connections 2005–2006 67.9 % of households with access to drinking water 2001 77.9 Road length/sq. km. of area (as of March 31, 2002) 747

Source: Compiled by casewriters from Census of India 2001; www.indiastat.com; Economic Survey 2007–2008; Department of Road Transport and Highways; National Portal of India; Nation.



17

Exhibit 4 Real Estate Sales Revenue 2002–2008 (Organized Sector)a ($ billion)

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 Housing 0.63 0.74 0.69 1.14 1.55 1.63 Commercial/Corporate 0.45 0.70 0.79 1.40 2.84 3.20

Total 1.08 1.44 1.48 2.55 4.39 4.83

Source: Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy, accessed January 2009.

aData unavailable for unorganized sector and some private companies.


609-

044

-18-

Exh

ibit

5L

EE

D R

ated

Pro

ject

s in

Indi

a

Sr.

No.

P

roje

ct

Cit

yT

ype

Bu

ilt-

in A

rea

(Sq

. Ft.)

Rat

ing

Arc

hit

ects

200

3:

1 C

II-G

odre

j Gre

en B

usin

ess

Cen

tre

Hyd

erab

ad

Cor

pora

te

20,0

00

Pla

tinum

K

aran

Gro

ver

& A

ssoc

iate

s

2004

:

2 IT

C G

reen

Cen

tre

Gur

gaon

C

orpo

rate

17

0,00

0 P

latin

um

Raj

ende

r K

umar

Ass

ocia

tes

3 W

ipro

Tec

hnol

ogie

s G

urga

on

Cor

pora

te

175,

000

Pla

tinum

D

esig

n &

Dev

elop

men

t

4 G

rund

fos

Pum

ps In

dia

Pvt

Ltd

C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

50,0

00

Gol

d V

.V. A

rchi

tect

s P

vt L

td

2005

:

5 N

EG

Mic

on In

dia

Pvt

Ltd

C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

20,0

00

Gol

d V

.V. A

rchi

tect

s P

vt L

td

6 T

echn

opol

is

Kol

kata

C

orpo

rate

65

0,00

0 G

old

Aga

rwal

& A

garw

al

7 La

rsen

& T

oubr

o Lt

d: E

ngin

eerin

g D

esig

n &

Res

earc

h C

tr

Che

nnai

C

orpo

rate

81

,000

S

ilver

La

rsen

& T

oubr

o Li

mite

d

8 O

lym

pia

Tec

hnol

ogy

Par

k C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

1,20

0,00

0 G

old

RS

P A

rchi

tect

s, P

lann

ers

and

Eng

inee

rs

9 H

irana

ndan

i BG

Bui

ldin

g M

umba

i C

orpo

rate

12

0,00

0 P

latin

um

Haf

eez

Con

trac

tor

10

Insp

ecto

r G

ener

al o

f Pol

ice

Offi

ce C

ompl

ex

Ben

galu

ru

Gov

t. of

fice

29,0

00

Gol

d K

embh

avi A

rchi

tect

ure

Fou

ndat

ion

2006

:

11

Hyd

erab

ad In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

& M

anag

emen

t H

yder

abad

In

stitu

tiona

l 78

,000

S

ilver

In

ertia

12

AB

N A

MR

O C

entr

al E

nter

pris

e S

ervi

ces

Pvt

Ltd

C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

80,0

00

Gol

d C

S D

esig

ns P

vt L

td

13

Spe

ctra

l Ser

vice

s C

onsu

ltant

s P

vt L

td

Noi

da

Cor

pora

te

15,0

00

Pla

tinum

A

BR

D A

rchi

tect

s

14

ET

L B

PO

Par

k C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

1,20

0,00

0 G

old

Osc

ar C

once

ssao

Inte

rnat

iona

l

15

Wor

ld B

ank

Bui

ldin

g C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

136,

000

Silv

er

En3

Con

sulti

ng

16

Ran

e In

stitu

te fo

r E

mpl

oyee

Dev

elop

men

t C

henn

ai

Inst

itutio

nal

16,5

00

Silv

er

En3

Con

sulti

ng

17

Wip

ro

Koc

hi

Cor

pora

te

100,

000

Gol

d G

hosh

Bos

e &

Ass

ocia

tes

18

AB

N A

mro

Ban

k A

hmed

abad

C

orpo

rate

80

,000

P

latin

um

Kar

an G

rove

r &

Ass

ocia

tes

19

Hon

g K

ong

& S

hang

hai B

anki

ng C

orpo

ratio

n B

ank

Hyd

erab

ad

Cor

pora

te

200,

000

Silv

er

In-h

ouse

20

Har

yana

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent A

utho

rity

Sec

unde

raba

d C

orpo

rate

20

,000

C

ertif

ied

In

nova

tive

Gro

up

21

K R

ahej

a C

orp

M

umba

i C

orpo

rate

48

,869

G

old

K R

ahej

a C

orpo

ratio

n

22

Inte

rfac

eFLO

R

Ban

galo

re

Cor

pora

te

4,26

5 G

old

DW

P In

teric

s P

vt L

td

23

Ene

rcon

Indi

a P

vt L

td

Mum

bai

Cor

pora

te

57,6

67

Gol

d D

SP

Des

ign

Ass

ocia

tes

Pvt

Ltd

24

Mic

roso

ft H

yder

abad

C

orpo

rate

60

0,00

0 G

old

RS

P A

rchi

tect

s

25

RM

Z M

illen

ia B

usin

ess

Par

k C

henn

ai

Cor

pora

te

2,60

0,00

0 G

old

RS

P A

rchi

tect

s

26

Indi

an M

achi

ne T

ool M

anuf

actu

rers

Ass

ocia

tion

Ben

galu

ru

Cor

pora

te

400,

000

Cer

tifie

d M

istr

y A

rchi

tect

s

27

Hyd

erab

ad In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

t H

yder

abad

In

stitu

tiona

l 1,

200,

000

Silv

er

Inte

grat

ed D

esig

n A

ssoc

iate

s

28

TE

CC

I Inf

o P

ark

Che

nnai

C

orpo

rate

60

0,00

0 S

ilver

T

eam

3 (

Sin

gapo

re)

Sour

ce:

Info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

to c

asew

rite

rs b

y In

dia

n G

reen

Bui

ldin

g C

ounc

il.



19

Exhibit 6 The Mistry Home


Exhibit 7 Offices overlooking the Terrace


Sharukh’s office Administrative office



20

Exhibit 8 Mistry Architects portfolio

Projects by Category 1981–1990 1991–2000 2001–2008 Residences

Individual or private homes 145 210 108 Apartments 5 5 2

Interiors 10 20 15 Corporate 5 5 2Commercial 5 5 6Socially Relevant 5 5 7 Total 175 250 140 Avg. Monthly Firm Revenue ($) 14,000 25,000 70,000


Exhibit 9 Awards

Source: Company website.

YEAR AWARD/CATEGORY PROJECT

1999Journal Indian Institute of Architecture Award : Excellence in Architecture in Residential Category

Cottage (Yercaud)

2000 Architect of the Year Award: Low Cost Housing Landscaping Rehabilitation Category Ganjam Mantapa (Bengaluru )

2001Journal Indian Institute of Architecture Award : Excellence in Architecture in Interiors Category

Air Force Officer's Mess, Aircraft Systems and Design Establishment

2002Stona (5th International Granites and Stone Fair): First Runner-up for Innovative use of Stone in Architecture

Best Practices

2002Architecture and Designing Spectrum Foundation: Habitat Award for Single Residence Category

Club Cabana Home (Bengaluru)

2003Architecture & Designing Spectrum Paints: Commendation Award for Habitats in Single Residence Category

575, Mistry Home (Bengaluru)

2004 Architect of the Year Award: Private Residential Category Retreat at Alibagh

2005Architecture and Designing Spectrum Foundation: Habitat Award for Single Residence Category

Residence for Mrs & Mr. Sen (Bengaluru)

2005Architecture and Designing Spectrum Foundation: Special Mention in Design and Development of Institution / Office

Rangashankara: A Theatre (Bengaluru)

2006 MK Awards (South Zone): Winner for Hospitality CategoryRestaurant - Little Italy (Hyderabad)

2007 Architect of the Year Award: Commendation for Excellence in use of Construction Material ITC Park (Bengaluru)

2008 Indian Institute of Interior Design: Lifetime Achievement Award Renu Mistry2008 Construction World Architect Awards (Mumbai): Ind ia’s Top 10 Architects Mistry Architects



21

Exhibit 10 Organization Structure


Sharukh/Renu

Associate Architect

(1) Associate Architect

(2)

Associate Architect

(3)

Associate Architect

(4)

Associate Architect

(5) Associate Architect

(6)

Associate Architect

(7)

Associate Architect

(8)

Associate Architect

(9)

Associate Architect

(10)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (2)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (2)

Jr. Architect (1)

Jr. Architect (2)

Jr. Architect (2)

Trainee

Trainee



22

Exhibit 11 Project Mix


Land size Average Project Time (Design + Construction)

Average Design Time Project Cost Professional

Fees

Individual homes 1200 sq.ft to 3-4 acres. 21 months 5 months $24,000-100,000 10-12%

Apartments 1 acre or more 18 months 2 months $ 600,000 and above 10-12%

Corporate 5 acres and above* 15 months 3 months $600,000 and above 2.5-3.5 %

Commercial 4500 sq. ft. and above 15 months 2 months $600,000 and above 10-12%

Socially Relevant 30,000 sq. ft. 15 months 3 months Fixed fee structure 2.50%

Interiors 1500 - 50,000 sq. ft 3 months - 1 year 20 days to 2 months $10,000-$50,000 15%

* The largest corporate project was the 40 acre Indian Machine Tools Manufacturer’s Association's Exhibition Hall



23

Exhibit 12 Inspiration for the IMTMA Exhibition Hall Roof


Exhibit 13 Models for Two Proposed Designs for Tsunami Village




24

Appendix

The Green Movement in India

Traditional Indian culture centered on the worship of the five elements of nature—air, water, fire (energy), earth, and sky. Over the years this had taken the form of religious beliefs such as the idea that the “Pipal tree”v cannot be cut, the kitchen should face south-east, and the prayer room must face north-east. Such religious beliefs had been overshadowed over the last century by the Western model of development.31 Calling for a return to India’s rich heritage of green design based on Vaastu Shastra, Valmiki Naik, a civil engineer who was engaged in developing new business in India for his U.S.-based design firm, explained: “Vaastu Shastra involves harmonizing the design and placement of interior objects (similar to Feng Shui) as well as consideration of structure, site, and planetary congruence. This resulted in sustainable architecture and development as evidenced in India’s historical architectural relics.” Adopting most green principles of design, whether dictated by Vaastu or otherwise, such as positioning of rooms in a house or installing solar panels, came at a higher economic cost. With 19% of the population being below the poverty line, those green design principles that were economical or impelled by constraints such as lack of infrastructure were more likely to be adopted by the general populace. For example, as one Mistry Architect ex-employee explained, “If there is no electricity for large parts of the day in villages, people are forced to use clay pots for cooling water. Similarly, re-selling of paper and other recyclable scrap is common in India because it is a source of income for the poor, rather than because of education or awareness, as is the case in the U.S.”

In general, green buildings consumed 40% to 50% less energy and 20% to 30% less water, at an incremental cost of 5% to 8%, which was repaid in three to five years.32 Green initiatives included the use of non-toxic, recycled, and environmentally-friendly materials, the efficient use and recycling of water, minimal disturbance to the landscape, use of renewable energy (such as daylight or solar panels), and maintaining indoor air quality for health, safety, comfort, and productivity.33 With increasing awareness and supply of green building materials, the appearance and project time to construct green buildings had become comparable to non-green buildings. Though the incremental cost of green buildings remained higher, the operating cost over the life cycle of the building was estimated to be 80% to 85% that of non-green buildings.34

The green movement grew worldwide as a means to mitigate growing constraints on environmental resources. In India, buildings consumed 20% of the total electricity generated.35 A report “Green Economics,” published by real estate services company Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj, revealed that real estate was one of the prime contributors to global warming due to the emission of greenhouse gases.36 The Indian construction industry comprised 300,000 players, but it was a highly fragmented market with about 100 large- or medium-sized players.37 Leading players in the construction industry, responding to the worldwide call for sustainability, had initiated interest in sustainability issues. With the establishment of the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) in 2000, the number of LEED trained professionals in India grew from 10 to approximately 2,500 by 200838; the goal was to have 5,000 such professionals by 2010.39 Construction industry leaders called for increased education of consumers, government, and industry about the benefits and long-term reduction in operating costs of green designs that made use of local materials and replenishable natural resources.40,41

v Pipal tree is a variant of the Banyan Fig, which is considered sacred by followers of religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. http://www.indianetzone.com/6/pipal.htm, accessed December 6, 2008.



25

Endnotes

1 http://www.indianconstructionindustry.com/, accessed November 22, 2008.

2 Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy, www.cmie.com, accessed January 14, 2009.

3 Gayatri Ramanathan, “Buying homes: there are still some shades of grey,” Live Mint, October 5, 2007, http://www.livemint.com/2007/10/04235602/Buying-homes-there-are-still.html?pg=1, accessed January 18, 2009.

4 India Infrastructure Report Q1 2008, Business Monitor International, November 2007.

5 Overview of the Construction Industry in India, Indo-Italian Chamber of Commerce, April 2008, http://www.centroesteroveneto.com/pdf/Osservatorio%20Mercati/India/Ricerche%20di%20Mercato/Construction%20Sector.pdf, accessed November 22, 2008.

6 Kavitha Srinivasa, “Growth Pangs: Too Many Firms, Not Too Many Architects Around,” Live Mint, March 25, 2006, http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/29234305/Growth-pangs-too-many-firms.html, accessed November 21, 2008.

7 http://www.indianconstructionindustry.com/


9 United States Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm, accessed January 19, 2008.

10 http://www.census.gov/

11 Neelam Raaj, “Foreign Architects Eyeing to Cash in on India’s Realty,” Economic Times, June 15, 2008. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Markets/Real_Estate/Realty_Trends/Foreign_architects_eyeing_to_cash_in_on_Indias_realty/rssarticleshow/msid-3131438,curpg-3.cms , accessed November 21, 2008.

12 “Lack of Professional Architects Causes Dismay and Concern,” News Post India, November 3, 2007, http://newspostindia.com/report-21754, accessed December 19, 2008.

13 Neelam Raaj, “Foreign Architects Eyeing to Cash in on India’s Realty,” Economic Times, June 15, 2008, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Markets/Real_Estate/Realty_Trends/Foreign_architects_eyeing_to_cash_in_on_Indias_realty/rssarticleshow/msid-3131438,curpg-3.cms , accessed November 21, 2008.

14 “World Green Building Council Report,” Annual Meeting of UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, April 2007, https://www.bmi.gob.sv/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BMI_HTMLS/BMI_ HTMLS_PULSO_CONSTRUCCION/WGBC.PDF, accessed December 10, 2008.

15 http://www.usgbc.org, accessed December 10, 2008.

16 “Green Buildings in North America: Opportunities and Challenges, Commission for Environmental Cooperation,” http://www.cec.org/files/PDF//GB_Report_EN.pdf, accessed December 10, 2008.

17 http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/RealEstateConstruction/RealEstateConstructionStatistics/ tabid/278/Default.aspx.

18 http://www.examiner.com/p264150~Green_Building_Could_Triple_by_2013__Says_McGraw_Hill_ Construction.html, accessed December 10, 2008.

19 “LEED rating is a tool for buildings to reduce their impact on the land,” October 8, 2008, http://greenitindia.com/category/green-interview/, accessed January 5, 2009.

20 “Talent Shortage may Stunt Greenbuilding Movement’s Growth,” Indian Realty News, May 15, 2008, http://www.indianrealtynews.com/real-estate-india/talent-shortage-may-stunt-greenbuilding-movement-growth.html, accessed December 19, 2008.



26

21 Green Buildings in India: Emerging Business Opportunities (February 2008),” http://www.igbc.in/site/ mmbase/attachments/48228/Green_Buildings_in_India_-_Emerging_Business_Opportunities(2).pdf;jsessionid =A3E808401B45180BC5AF447D8FB4FD22, accessed December 6, 2008.

22 “Economy-Green Buildings to Change India’s Skyline by 2010,” Financial Express, December 9, 2008, http://www.financialexpress.com/news/green-buildings-to-change-indias-skyline-by-2010/395895/, accessed December 28, 2008.

23 Company website.

24 Debojyoti Ghosh and Shivani Mody, “Use WASTE to build your Interiors,” Times of India, October 4, 2008.

25 http://www.greenbusinesscentre.org/site/events/eventitem.jsp?eventid=4825&event=dd.

26 Company website.

27 Michael Specter, “Big Foot,” The New Yorker, February 25, 2008, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/ 2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter, accessed December 4, 2008.

28 Daniel Pink, The Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005), 162.

29 “Asia Toll Touches 68,000; 12,000 dead in India,” Times of India, December 29, 2004, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/974230.cms, accessed December 7, 2008.

30 “$756-m aid for Tsunami Rebuilding,” Times of India, April 30, 2005, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ articleshow/1093681.cms, accessed December 3, 2008.

31 Rajendra Pachauri, India Today, October 6, 2008, pp. 124–128.

32 Green Building Movement in India: Catalysts and Course, http://www.igbc.in/site/mmbase/ attachments/43054/Green_Building_Movement_in_India_-_Catalysts_and_Course.pdf, accessed November 29, 2008.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Naomi Canton, “City Housing Turns Over a New Leaf,” Hindustan Times, October 6, 2008.

36 Ibid.


38 Green Building Movement in India: Catalysts and Course, http://www.igbc.in/site/mmbase/ attachments/43054/Green_Building_Movement_in_India_-_Catalysts_and_Course.pdf, accessed November 29, 2008.

39 Buildings in India: Emerging Business Opportunities (February 2008),” http://www.igbc.in/site/ mmbase/attachments/48228/Green_Buildings_in_India_-_Emerging_Business_Opportunities(2).pdf;jsessionid=A3E808401B45180BC5AF447D8FB4FD22, accessed December 6, 2008.

40 Conference Proceedings, Green Building Congress held by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) in September 2008, Mumbai, India.

41 Conference Proceedings, India Economic Summit, held in November 2008, Delhi, India, http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/Events/2008/IndiaEconomicSummit2008/index.htm, accessed December 7, 2008.


Documents

Mistry Architects (A) · 2017-12-14 · Mistry Architects (A) 609-044 3 architects each year, only 40,000 architects were registered with the Council of Architecturec to serve a population