Download pdf - Tropical Variants of Sustainable Archit

8/18/2019 Tropical Variants of Sustainable Archit

1/47

The SAGE Handbook

of Architectural TheoryTropical Variants of Sustainable

Architecture: A Postcolonial Perspective

Contributors: C. Greig Crysler & Stephen Cairns & Hilde HeynenPrint Pub. Date: 2012Online Pub. Date: May 31, 2012Print ISBN: 9781412946131Online ISBN: 9781446201756DOI: 10.4135/9781446201756Print pages: 602-625

This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the paginationof the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.


2/47

National University Singapore

Copyright ©2013 SAGE knowledge

Page 2 of 47 The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory:Tropical Variants of Sustainable Architecture: A

Postcolonial PerspectiveSAGE knowledge

10.4135/9781446201756.n36

[p. 602 ↓ ]

Chapter 34: Tropical Variants ofSustainable Architecture: A PostcolonialPerspective

Jiat-Hwee Chang

In recent years, architectural discourses have been increasingly dominated by issuespertaining to sustainability. The wide acceptance of these discourses of sustainablearchitecture has led some critics to fear that they will become the new hegemonicknowledge – setting agendas and silencing other critical positions – in architecturaleducation and practice (Jarzombek 1999). In response, some scholars argue thatsustainable architecture can be understood pluralistically as situated socio-culturalpractices, each with its own history, geography, and politics (Guy and Moore 2008).Despite this emphasis on the varieties of approaches, most studies of sustainablearchitecture, unlike scholarship in environmental politics and history, have largely been

confined to the Euro-American contexts. Although exemplars from the ‘developing’countries are sometimes included to give the impression of a global discourse, thesestudies tend to be silent on the variegated, historical and contested nature of the

sustainability debate in the ‘developing’ countries.1 Instead, the inclusion of exemplarsfrom ‘developing’ countries serves to demonstrate that sustainable architecture is anew monolithic global entity – one without history and differentiated only in terms oftechnoscientific configurations responding to ‘natural’ variations, such as climate andecology, but entirely unaffected by socio-political forces.

I propose to contribute to the pluralistic understanding of sustainable architecture by

examining a few particular variants of it – permutations of tropical architecture in relationto the social, cultural and political conditions of the postcolonial contexts. By tropicalarchitecture, I refer to the architectural discourses and practices that appear to give

http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/hdbk_architectheory/fn1n36.xmlhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


3/47





primacy to tropical nature, mostly in terms of climatic and environmental conditions, as

the prime determinant of architectural form. Tropical architecture could be regarded asa variant of sustainable architecture as there are many similarities between the currentdiscourses of sustainable architecture and the prior discourses of tropical architecturein terms of their shared emphasis on minimizing resource usage and waste production,their common concern for social and cultural issues of a locality, and their associationwith the diverse issues of [p. 603 ↓ ] socio-economic development. Moreover, tropicalarchitecture has recently been recast as sustainable architecture (Lauber et al. 2005).

As has been convincingly argued elsewhere, the practices of sustainable architectureare better understood through narratives that attend to the particularities of a place

and its socio-historical contingencies than through abstract models or best practicelists (Moore 2007), this chapter draws primarily from a situated study of architectureand discourses on sustainability in South and Southeast Asia, particularly Singapore,Malaysia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The architecture and discourses to be examinedcentred around the discourses and practices of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture(AKAA) in these countries in the past two decades or so. Although primarily concernedwith architectural excellence and socio-cultural development in Muslim societies aroundthe world, AKAA activities have nonetheless wielded considerable influences over thetrajectories that the discourses and practices of tropical sustainable architecture inSouth and Southeast Asia took (Chang 2007). Not only were the key protagonists of

tropical sustainable architecture, such as Geoffrey Bawa and Ken Yeang, involved inAKAA's activities, its transnational network also enabled the coalescence of discretediscourses and practices from different nation-states into larger unitary regional ones.Moreover, AKAA's focus on the Islamic and non-Western world highlights the tensionsbehind North–South and East–West socio-cultural inequalities and differences, keyaspects of the sustainability concept often ignored in Euro-American discourses onsustainable architecture.

There are three main sections in this chapter, each representing a particular recentstrand of tropical architecture, each with its own theories of sustainability, politicsof development and entanglements with prior colonial history. In the first section, Iexamine recent tropical sustainable architecture in relation to the notions of ecologicalmodernization and green developmentalism, and I show how it is in many ways anextension of the post-World-War-II development regime and the modern tropical

http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


4/47





architecture created then. In the second section, I examine neo-traditional tropical

architecture as an alternative path of development in relation to the perceived failureof the post-World-War-II development regime and the rejection of modern tropicalarchitecture produced under that regime. I look at how the traditional is imbued with theecological. I will also review criticisms of this ‘invention’ of tradition, especially its elitismand its reproduction of colonial notions of tropicality. In the final section, I examine theself-help tropical architecture of squatter settlements in Indonesia in relation to howthey address the social dimensions of sustainability, and I also examine them in relationto the governmental rationality of the global neoliberal regime in capacity building andproducing self-reliant subjects.

I. Green Developmentalism, EcologicalModernization, and Tropical SustainableArchitecture

If one looks at the tenth award cycle, 2005–2007, of the AKAA, the winners fromSingapore and Malaysia – the Moulmein Rise Residential Tower designed by WOHAArchitects and University of Technology Petronas designed by Foster and Partners –give the impression that sustainable architecture in the tropics is merely an extension ofthat elsewhere, differentiated only by climatic variations. Both projects are not untypicalof recent large-scale sustainable architecture elsewhere; the Moulmein Rise ResidentialTower is a high-rise condominium development targeted at the high-end housing marketsegment while the University of Technology Petronas is a new university establishedby Malaysia's state petroleum company to help the nation produce technologists andengineers to drive the nation's economy forward.

[p. 604 ↓ ]

The Moulmein Rise Residential Tower was primarily lauded by the jury for addressing

‘the challenges of the tropical climates’ by successfully adopting passive coolingstrategies for the high-rise residential typology, while the University of TechnologyPetronas was applauded for its ‘contemporary reinterpretation of the classic metaphor



5/47





for tropical architecture – an umbrella that offers protection from the sun and rain’(AKAA

2007). These two projects appear to continue the trend started by Menara Mesiniaga,a project designed by Hamzah and Yeang, which was an AKAA winner of the sixthaward cycle in 1995. Menara Mesiniga is an office tower designed as a ‘showcasebuilding’ for the agent of IBM in Malaysia. The standard office tower typology wasreinterpreted through the incorporation of bioclimatic architectural features, such asthe spiralling terraced garden balconies, sun-shading devices, and naturally ventilated

spaces (Menara Mesiniaga 1995).2 Seen in the larger context of the Singapore andMalaysia governments' recent initiatives in encouraging sustainable architecture throughthe funding of research in green technologies, building high profile energy efficientbuildings, and the use of sustainable building assessment methods, these AKAAprojects appeared to be in line with these initiatives (Chang 2005; Yap 2007). They areexemplary components of Singapore and Malaysia's larger environmental movement,perhaps following the well-trodden paths taken in certain Euro-American societies,towards what Michael Bess (2003) describes as the global ‘light-green society.’

Underlying the light-green society and these projects are the characteristics of whathas been described as ecological modernization (Barry 2005). Unlike the radicalenvironmental politics of the 1970s, ecological modernization does not reject thebasic tenets of capitalist modernization. Those who embrace ecological modernizationseek more and better modernization. They share the modernization programme's

fundamental faith in science and technology, and they believe in technological fixesfor environmental problems. Ecological modernization typically entails programmesthat establish and fund research infrastructure to re-engineer or to produce bettertechnological systems in order to, for example, utilize energy more efficiently or toexploit renewable energies. In architecture, that could mean that energy profligateInternational Style modern buildings should be modified with green gadgets, such asphotovoltaic cells, efficient air-conditioning systems and ‘intelligent’ lighting systems,to reduce energy consumption and their ecological footprints. It could mean embracingalternative or even seemingly radical design philosophies and methodologies, suchas biomimicry, ecological design and whole system engineering, to rethink standard

building typologies like the ubiquitous hermetically sealed air-conditioned office tower,and re-engineer their energy management systems (see for example McDonough andBraungart 2002).



6/47





Ecological modernization typically works hand in hand with green capitalism and

green developmentalism (McAfee 1999). Green capitalism purportedly transformsthe old regime of capitalist development, which dominated and destroyed nature,and reconciles the former opposition between economic growth and environmentalprotection. One of the basic assumptions is that environmental problems could berectified by market solutions based on neo-classical economics promoted by the globalhegemonic regime of neoliberalism. Green capitalism entails the use of market-basedinstruments to evaluate and value nature with the implication that in order for nature tobe protected, it must first be demonstrated as a ‘resource’ or a ‘natural capital’. Hence,for example, the protection of a tropical rainforest from logging and deforestation, andthe conservation of its biodiversity could only happen if it is financed by the sale of

access to eco-tourism sites in the rainforest, or the granting of rights of bio-prospectingin the rainforest to multinational pharmaceutical companies (Escobar 2004). [p. 605 ↓ ]In a related manner, sustainable architecture and green design have in recent yearsgained widespread acceptance among diverse large corporations because investmentsin sustainable architecture and green design are often rationalized economicallyin terms of an increase in workforce satisfaction and the concomitant increase inproductivity, cost savings through reduced energy consumption, or increase in symboliccapital to boost the company's green credentials and increase green consumerism.

Because ecological modernization works hand in hand with green capitalism and

its attendant green consumerism, it does not require structural changes to be madeto the economy. Existing consumption patterns remain largely unchanged, withperhaps the exception of the increasing commodification of nature, and the existingmeasures of development remain unquestioned. Although ecological modernizationand green developmentalism have been equated with the hegemony of the sustainabledevelopment paradigm, as outlined in the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) andfurther articulated in Agenda 21 (following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit) (Carruthurs2005), one of the three Es of the Brundtland Report – equity, ecology, economy –is ignored in the discourses and practices of ecological modernization and greendevelopmentalism (Campbell 1996). Equity, or distributional justice, the key principleof sustainable development that seeks to address uneven development and unequaldistribution of wealth and resources between the northern (temperate) and southern



7/47





(tropical) hemispheres, and the resultant North–South development conflict, is simply

not addressed.

Post-War Development andTechnoscientific Power-Knowledge

When the AKAA jury referred to tropical architecture in their citation of the University ofTechnolgy Petronas, they drew upon the discourses and practices of modern tropicalarchitecture produced in the post-World-War-II era of decolonization under another

development regime. Those schemes were devised either by international agenciesprimarily under the aegis of the United States or the various imperial French and Britishagencies. In the context of the decolonizing British Empire, modern tropical architecturewas mostly built by British or British-trained architects, including key figures such asMaxwell Fry, Jane Drew and James Cubitt (Crinson 2003; Fry and Drew 1964; Le Roux2003). Modern tropical architecture was mainly built as part of the social developmentprogrammes in the colonies funded by the Colonial Development and Welfare Act(CD&W) first passed in 1940, in the forms of schools, hospitals, mass housing and otherwelfare facilities (Atkinson 1953; Stockdale et al. 1948). Although post-war developmentin general and CD&W programmes in particular are in some ways different from the

later green developmentalism under the global neoliberal regime described earlier,there are quite a few significant similarities.

Just as green developmentalism in the guise of sustainable development wasformulated to address uneven development and poverty in the global South inthe 1980s, the CD&W was devised to compensate for years of neglect in socialdevelopment and widespread poverty in many of the British tropical possessions inthe late 1930s. It was primarily aimed at quelling anti-colonial sentiments and other‘disturbances’ linked to the socio-economic problems in many parts of the Britishtropical possessions, and it was also in response to criticisms, both in the metropoleand in the colonies, of exploitative colonialism (Cooper and Packard 1997). Not only

were the problems similar, the practices employed in addressing the problems werealso analogous. Many scholars argue that the different post-war development practices,be they in agriculture, health, education or housing, employed a particular way of



8/47





problematizing that linked the diagnoses with specific prescriptions, and anticipated

certain [p. 606 ↓ ] techniques required to solve the problem. Such an approach of‘rendering technical’ in which socio-political problems were turned into technical oneshas the effect of depoliticizing social problems (Li 2007). For example, despite theinitial recognition that post-war colonial housing problems were part of the largerstructural problems of poverty, the Colonial Office framed the housing problem asa strictly specialized technical problem of building cheaper and ‘better’ (in terms ofmeeting comfort and sanitary standards) housing (Chang 2010a). In doing so, thelarger structural conditions of poverty for most of the colonial native populationsand their inability to afford better housing were suppressed. In a related way, greendevelopmentalism framed the question of sustainability strictly in terms of neo-classical

economics and technological change while largely ignoring the underlying questions ofdistributional justice and socio-economic relations.

Central to rendering a problem technical was a corresponding body of technoscientificknowledge, which as scholars in science and technology studies have noted, isproduced by a technoscientific infrastructure of research and educational institutions,experts and other trained personnel, normative practices and standardized instruments(Latour 1987). In the case of modern tropical architecture, it was supported byconferences (The Natal Regional Research Committee 1957; Foyle 1953), educationalinstitutions such as the Department of Tropical Architecture established at the

Architectural Association (Wakely 1983), and an international network of buildingresearch stations coordinated by the Colonial Liaison Unit of the Building ResearchStation in Garston, England (Atkinson 1952; Lea 1971). Technoscientific knowledgewas privileged because the prevailing ideology of post-war development programmes,as exemplified by American president Harry Truman's Point Four Program, was afundamental faith in the transformative power of science and technology, especially interms of how the application of technoscientific knowledge would enable developmentand provide for welfare (Escobar 1995; Sachs 1992). Green developmentalism andecological modernization that underlay tropical sustainable architecture also share thisfaith in technoscience. In fact, tropical sustainable architecture often draws directly onthe technoscientific knowledge created earlier. Similar strategies of passive cooling andeven common parti diagrams and architectural language were often adopted, althoughtheir uses are now enhanced by more advanced technologies. Likewise, the building



9/47





research institutions may have evolved but they still play key roles in producing the

technoscientific knowledge in tropical sustainable architecture.

Following scholars who criticized the discourses and practices of post-war developmentfor reducing a complex life-world into abstract technical knowledge, it could be arguedthat the technoscientific practices of modern tropical architecture have the similar effectof dissolving the historical, social, cultural and political differences between the differenttropical colonies into the common denominator of climate. Moreover, modern tropicalarchitecture facilitated the replacement of embodied knowledge of place with abstracttechnical knowledge of climatic conditions and thermal comfort conditions, thus enablingthe knowledge of ‘place’ from a distance through meteorological data and thermal

comfort charts (Chang 2010a). To be sure, the point here is not to present a (false)dichotomy between, what James Scott conceptualizes as, the localized, quotidian andembodied knowledge (or metis) and the codified, standardized and technical knowledge(or episteme) (Scott 1998, 309–341). Rather, the point here is to attend to the creationof a modern power-knowledge regime through, what Bruno Latour (1987, 215–257)calls ‘network building’ and to foreground its effects. In the case of modern tropicalarchitecture, network building entailed the arduous work of collecting and analyzingstandardized climatic data of different localities at certain ‘centres of calculation’. [p. 607

↓ ] These localities were then grouped into climatic zones and the climatic data wereabstracted into graphical design aids such as sun-path diagrams and prevailing wind

charts. Together with thermal comfort standards and the use of instruments like theheliodon, which could simulate the positions of the sun and thus test the effectivenessof sun-shading devices in different localities at different times of a year, these processesallowed an architect based in, say, London to ‘know’ different localities in the tropicsand propose design for them without having to visit these localities or be personallyacquainted with them. As such, modern tropical architecture could be understood asa power-knowledge configuration, in that the accumulation of knowledge of the tropicswas also the accrual of power, specifically the power to act on these places from adistance.

The new technoscientific power-knowledge on modern tropical architecture, along withneo-colonial capitalist development, also contributed to the creation of new buildingnorms in the decolonizing developing countries, in terms of modern building standards,specifications, materials, components and construction methods. Certain commentators



10/47





noted that, not only did these new norms displace traditional constructional crafts

and materials, they also created a dependency on imported construction materials,components and expertise from the industrialized countries in the tropical colonies(Jayewardene 1986; 1988). In view of these, some post-development scholars suggestthat post-war development schemes like the CD&W and, in extension, the introductionof modern tropical architecture, were part of a new hegemonic regime of power-knowledge to contain and manage the decolonizing/developing world economically andculturally (Escobar 1995; Sachs 1992). This reliance on imported expertise, buildingmaterials and building components appears to continue into tropical sustainablearchitecture given the continued technological gap and inequalities in distributionof resources between the countries in the tropical south and those in the industrial

north. It should, however, be noted that modern tropical architecture and the attendantprocesses of technicalization did not necessarily lead to neo-colonial dominanceand dependency. In some cases, local postcolonial architects were able to produceinfluential built exemplars in modern tropical architecture through local improvizationsand innovations (e.g. Tay 2001c). Furthermore, in and of themselves, technicalizationprocesses and the production of immutable mobiles were not the sole monopoly ofBritain and other developed countries. Although disadvantaged socio-economically,developing countries could potentially still develop the technical infrastructure andproduce the technoscientific knowledge themselves.

Postcolonial ContestationGiven that tropical sustainable architecture has been interpreted by some as anextension of the neo-colonial power-knowledge regime that contributed to theunderdevelopment of postcolonial nations in the tropics, does it mean then that anypostcolonial subject pursuing tropical sustainable architecture is suffering from whata postcolonial critic called ‘epistemic conquest’ (Chatterjee 2001 [1986]) in whichthe power-knowledge regime of development paralyses him? There are two mainproblems with this reading. Firstly, it assumes that the structure of power-knowledge

is so overbearingly powerful that the postcolonial architect in the tropics could not butbe a ‘“bearer” of structure’ (Bourdieu et al. 1991). Secondly, it assumes that all thepostcolonial nations are a homogeneous entity, similarly caught up in a postcolonial



11/47





mire of poverty and dependency. But as Foucault (1980, 98) notes, ‘[p]ower must

be analyzed as something which circulates … It is never localized here or there,never in anybody's hands’. In fact Foucauldian theory emphasizes that ‘power isonly power when addressed to individuals who are free to act [p. 608 ↓ ] in oneway or another’ (Gordon 1991, 5). Thus, in spite of their powerful technoscientificconfigurations, the neo-colonial power-knowledge on modern tropical architecturewas appropriated and interrogated by post-colonial subjects. Technical expertisecould be acquired by postcolonial subjects; furthermore, technoscientific knowledgecirculated it could be infused with socio-cultural meanings and re-politicized. In thecontext of Singapore and Malaysia, which, unlike many other developing countries inthe tropics, were not impoverished by neo-colonial capitalist development but enjoyed

rapid economic growth in the past few decades during the Asia economic ‘miracle’, thepursuit of tropical sustainable architecture has to be situated and perhaps understooddifferently.

In the context of 1980s Singapore and Malaysia, more than a decade beforesustainability was being incorporated into the state's agendas, Singapore architectTay Kheng Soon and Malaysia architect Ken Yeang undertook pioneering work ontropical architecture and urbanism (Chang 2010b; Tay 1989; Yeang 1987). Tay andYeang's works then were both related to some of key issues and debates raised atan AKAA seminar on architecture and identity held at Kuala Lumpur in 1983 (Powell

1983). It was in a context of booming Asia economies and prevailing Asia PacificCentury boosterism that both Tay and Yeang, along with other architects in theregion, sought to articulate their visions of the ‘tropical city’ as a regional architecturalidentity, in what Abidin Kusno (2000, 201) describes as ‘a cultural restructuring of latecapitalist development’. Both Tay and Yeang proposed designs that do not really differarchitecturally from the ecological modernization paradigm described earlier. Greenfeatures such as sun-shading devices, rain-water collectors, and photovoltaic cellswere incorporated into the designs. Bio-mimetic design strategies, such as the loweringof the ambient temperature of the city environs through simulating the micro-climaticconditions of the tropical rainforest, were also an intrinsic part of the designs. However,they were not simply designs using technoscientific discourse in the service of greendevelopmental-ism or green capitalism. Rather, they were also eco-social visions that

reject both the Malaysia government's ‘visible politics’,3 i.e. their imposition of ethnic-



12/47





based architectural identity through the use of ethnic symbols on new buildings, and the

crass commercialism of architectural postmodernism that was then sweeping throughSoutheast Asia. Tay (1989), in particular, sought inspiration ‘from the environmentitself, which is specific to time and place … as a generator of form and expression andto create a sense of cohesive identity which transcends ethnicity and culture’. Tay isacutely aware of the historical role that colonial cities in the tropics played in the globaldivision of labour during the age of imperialism. Tay (2001b, 268) describes the eco-social inequality as such:

Looked at from an ecological perspective, colonialism's exploitationof tropical resources in effect transferred the surplus value of crops

produced by solar infusion in a flow northwards of commodities inexchange for cheap manufactured goods at prices preferential to theNorth and disadvantageous to the South. Colonial economy was, ineffect, a systemic appropriation of solar energy, which acted as a pumpin service of the northern economies during their industrial revolution.

Tay sees this eco-social inequality lingering into the postcolonial present in the form of ahierarchical global network of cities and economies. According to Tay, the top-tier citiesin the northern hemisphere control not only the economic production, but also havean hegemony over the intellectual and artistic production of the tropical cities in thesouthern hemisphere. Tay's vision of the ‘tropical city’ represents a way out of this neo-colonial dependency by creating an urban environment that is conducive to innovationand provides the conditions of possibilities for people in the tropics to overcome thenorthern hegemony. If anything, this example perhaps illustrates that technoscientificknowledge and practices of tropical architecture [p. 609 ↓ ] that reinforce neo-colonialdependency in one socio-political context could be appropriated and deployed inanother context, and re-imagined as an emancipatory identity that purportedly frees thepostcolonial subject ‘from the political and taste-dictates of [his] masters’ (Tay 2001a).



13/47





II. Development Alternatives, the Inventionof Tradition, and Neo-Traditional TropicalArchitecture

Besides the works mentioned earlier, there is another group of AKAA-winning projectsthat arguably represent a much more influential form of sustainable architecture inSoutheast Asia. This group includes: the Tanjong Jara Beach Hotel in Terengganu,Malaysia, designed by the Hawaiian architectural firm of Wimberley, Whisenand,

Allison, Tong and Goo, and awarded in 1983 during the second three-year cycle; theDatai Resort in Langkawi, Malaysia, designed by Kerry Hill Architects and awardedin 2001 during the eighth cycle; and the Salinger Residence in Selangor, Malaysia,designed by CSL Associates and awarded in 1998 during the seventh cycle. TanjongJara Beach Hotel was hailed by the jury for reviving local traditional crafts and forproducing ‘an architecture that is in keeping with traditional values and aesthetics,and of an excellence that matches the best surviving examples’. (Cantacuzino 1985,141). Datai Resort and Salinger Residence were similarly celebrated for their use oflocal materials, crafts and reinterpretation of traditional built form (AKAA 2001) anduncovering the ‘deeper meanings of a vernacular architectural tradition’ (AKAA 1998).

In other words, this group of projects is unified by their neo-traditionalism, i.e. theiradaptation of traditional building practices and built forms of Malaysia, at the verytime when these traditions were disappearing. The neo-traditional architecture is alsoaligned with ecological approaches to building. Their building features, such as thedeep overhanging roof and the porous wall, are said to facilitate passive cooling throughsun-shading and natural ventilation. The timber used in the Salinger Residence was

justified as a local renewable resource with low embodied energy (Alamuddin 1998).The designers of both the Datai and the Tanjong Jara Beach Hotel approached theirecologically sensitive sites, i.e. the tropical rainforest and the beachfront breedingground of a rare breed of leather-back turtles respectively, in ways that minimized thedisturbances to the fragile ecosystems (Cantacuzino 1985; Mehrotra 2001).

When compared to the AKAA-winning projects discussed in the previous section onecological modernization, the difference in built form and construction techniques



14/47





could not be more marked – low-rise pitched roof buildings in contrast with mid-

to-high-rise flat roof buildings, the use of timber and stone instead of concrete andsteel, and the (selective) reliance on pre-industrial low technology ways of buildingagainst the use of industrial cutting-edge high technology. Underlying the differencesin built form and building practices are said to be fundamental differences in ideologyand outlook. In contrast to the faith in modern science and technology central tothe ecological modernization paradigm, this group of buildings appears to rejectthe technocentric approach and seek a return to pre-modern traditional practices.One of the key impetuses behind this impulse to return to tradition arose from thedisillusionment with post-war development and modernization programmes, which weresaid to promise the postcolonial developing world emancipation from economic poverty

and social backwardness, but instead produced economic dependency and culturaldemise (Rahnema and Bawtree 1997).

Criticisms of development and modernization are an integral part of the discoursesthat AKAA produced. For example, in an AKAA seminar on regionalism held in Dhaka,Bangladesh, the prominent Indian writer [p. 610 ↓ ] and art critic Mulk Raj Anand (1985,41) captured the overall sentiment when he remarked poignantly: ‘We were gifted withthe word liberty, but were made slaves’. Criticisms were largely targeted at InternationalStyle modern architecture and how the importation of its foreign building norms andexpertise into the developing countries since the post-war years repressed indigenous

building traditions (Mumtaz 1985). Criticisms were also directed at how the technicalpractices of International Style modern architecture purportedly brought about homogenization and the destruction of local socio-cultural diversities. Undoubtedly alsoinfluenced by the scholarship on traditional architecture which first emerged in the1960s (see for example Oliver 1969; Rudofsky 1964) and became widely disseminatedand prominent by the 1980s, many of these critics found the panacea for all the evils ofmodernization, development and International Style modern architecture in traditionalbuildings and traditional building practices, and became their advocates. Instead ofthe dependence on foreign capital, building expertise and building materials requiredin the production of International Style modern architecture, these advocates sawtraditional buildings as promoting self-reliance because of their utilization of localknowledge, local labour and locally available materials. In place of the abrupt breakwith the past that modernization and development programmes brought about, these



15/47





advocates believed that the return to tradition meant socio-cultural continuity with the

past. In contrast to the purported conditions of homogenization and placelessnessbrought about by International Style modern architecture, these advocates felt thatthe revival of traditional building would contribute to the construction of regional andplace-based identity (Powell 1985). Set against the energy and resource profligacyof the International Style modern architecture and the domination of nature by man inthe industrial West, the traditional architecture supposedly evoked an ecological pre-industrial past in which the built and the natural environments were in harmony.

The discourse of AKAA both reflected the larger sympathies towards traditionalarchitecture while also playing the active role of shaping those sympathies by

‘championing indigenous architecture’ (Serageldin 1989b, 26). This is evident whenone examines the list of AKAA winners, in which approximately half of the ninety-twowinners (until 2007) are either heritage conservation projects or projects related to the

reinterpretation and continuation of traditional building typologies, crafts, and materials.4

In addition, two of the three recipients of prestigious AKAA Chairman's award,presented to an individual architect in recognition of his lifetime achievement, wereexponents of ‘neo-traditional’ architecture – Hassan Fathy (in 1980) and Geoffrey Bawa(in 2001). The extent of AKAA's reverence for tradition was such that it was accused byone of its jurors of having ‘a romantic bias towards traditionalism, historicism and thevernacular’ (Pamir 1989, 75).

In the context of tropical architecture in Southeast Asia, Bawa's work is said to beespecially significant. Bawa's work was considered to have influenced many architectsin what one writer called ‘Monsoon Asia’, specifically Singapore, Malaysia andIndonesia, especially in the design of luxurious neo-traditional houses and resorts forthe super-rich (Robson 2007). His work at the Batujimbar Estate in Bali for Australianartist Donald Friend is an important precedent that established a particular modelof luxurious tropical ‘Balinese Resort’ that is purportedly sensitive to the culturaland ecological contexts of a place (Goad 2000). This model of luxurious tropicalresort, although initially produced by the confluence of tourism, transnational capital,

international artists and architects in Bali, subsequently proliferated transnationallybeyond the confines of Bali and even Southeast Asia and became what a criticdescribed as a ‘non-specific Asian style’ (Sudjic 2000). Two of the aforementioned



16/47





AKAA winners, Tanjong Jara [p. 611 ↓ ] Beach Hotel and especially the Datai Resort,

represent the exemplars of this new model of resorts. The other winner, the SalingerResidence, is exemplary of the luxury neo-traditional houses that were influenced by the‘Balinese resorts’.

Postcolonial Traditional Elitism

Tradition is of course not a timeless, eternal entity ‘out there’ or from the past to berecovered by some historical actors (Al Sayyad 2004). Rather, there is no traditionthat pre-exists its social, cultural, political and economic construction or ‘invention’.

Thus, it is perhaps pertinent for one to ask who is mobilizing what kind of tradition inservice of what kind of visions and agendas? Recent studies have shown that theproduction of neo-traditional architecture in different parts of the developing worldwas intimately connected with social, cultural and political elitism (see for exampleMitchell 2002, 179–205). Many of the key producers of neo-traditional architecture indifferent parts of developing world, such as Hassan Fathy and Geoffrey Bawa, werefrom the land-owning class. For these cosmopolitan professionally trained architects,their selective interpretations of the traditional architecture tended towards romanticidealization, made possible through their aloofness from the actual living traditionsof the peasants. These supposed that ‘architecture without architects’ in fact had to

be anointed through the cultural authority of the elite architect. Besides that, theseinterpretations of traditional architecture frequently draw from prior colonial construction.Historians of colonial societies argue that European scholars sought to study, classifyand order the traditions and customs in these societies as these knowledges helpto legitimize the colonizers' power and rule over the colonial societies (Metcalf 2002[1989]). As such, many of the ‘traditional’ architectural forms that we often take forgranted are in fact recent colonial ‘inventions’. In the context of Sri Lanka, it is arguedthat Bawa's neo-traditional architecture reproduces the colonial gaze and the associatedvalue system (Pieris 2007). Moreover, as mentioned, these neo-traditional architecturesare often luxury houses and resorts, produced for an elite clientele that comes from the

same privileged socio-economic stratum as the architects, i.e. those who could affordto share the cultural distinction as the architects themselves; not the poor or even themiddle class. These neo-traditional architectures tended to rely heavily on a labour-



17/47





intensive craft-based construction process, which was premised upon the availability of

pools of cheap labour. Given that the return of tradition was often attributed to the failureof the modernization and development to liberate the developing world from poverty andbackwardness, the elitism associated with neo-traditional architecture is paradoxicaland its exploitation of the poorer class is, to say the least, ironic.

Landscape and Tropicality

The history of the bungalow could be instructive for understanding of neo-traditionaltropical architecture. Not only were there spatial similarities between neo-traditional

tropical architecture and the Anglo-Indian bungalow in terms of features such as theverandah, large and lofty rooms, and large landscaped compound; neo-traditionaltropical architecture is also akin to bungalows in British seaside resorts, in that theyare both purpose-built holiday dwellings linked to the (post) colonial world economy. Asthe aforementioned building features of a bungalow contribute to a cool, shady interiorenvironment and a picturesque landscape, neo-traditional tropical architecture wasoften considered by its advocates and other architecture connoisseurs to be in harmonywith the tropical ‘nature’. However, Anthony D. King (1995 [1984]) points out that thebuilt form of the bungalow was inextricably connected to the colonial capitalist economy.For, example [p. 612 ↓ ] the plantation bungalow, one of the most common forms of

bungalow, was an intrinsic part of the colonial tropical mode of production, i.e. thatof the plantation system supplying raw material for industrial production in temperateEurope and America. Environmental historians argue that each mode of productionalso entails a specific mode of resource use (Gadgil and Guha 1992). In the case ofthe plantation in the tropics, it entails the conversion of ‘useless’, i.e. unproductive inthe capitalist sense, ‘virgin’ tropical rainforest into plantations. In the early twentiethcentury, pestilential tropical nature, teeming with millions of parasites and pathogensthat threatened the health of the white man and the plantation labourers, had to betransformed into a safe, romanticized Edenic tropical landscape through the pioneeringanti-malarial and rural sanitary work by heroic figures such as Malcolm Watson and

Ronald Ross (Watson 1915). From this perspective, far from being in harmony withsome primal tropical nature, tropical architecture was in fact part of the resultantlandscape produced through the colonial capital's transformation of tropical nature.



18/47





The colonial plantation bungalow in the tropics was also linked to the bungalow

in the British seaside resorts in the nineteenth century through the colonial worldeconomy, which facilitated not only the metropole's extraction of economic surplusesfrom the colonies but also the circulation and exchange of people, commoditiesand, especially in this case, building types. King notes that one of the effects of theaccumulation of surplus capital through the colonial world economy, and the attendantsocial segmentation and spatial differentiation, in Victorian Britain was the production ofnew spaces of consumption and recreation. In addition, the use of the sea, specificallythe breathing of its air and bathing in its water, with curative powers in the nineteenthcentury medical discourse and the romantic idealization of the Anglo-Indian bungalow inthe travel literature of nineteenth century Britain helped to bring about the emergence of

the seaside resort with its holiday bungalows (King 1995 [1984]). With the emergenceof the seaside resorts, uneconomic stretches of the cliffs and beaches on the Britishcoastline were converted into valuable real estate. Similar forces could be said to beat work in the neo-traditional resorts. With the rapid growth of international tourism inSoutheast Asia from the 1960s onwards and the pursuit of tourism development bythe Malaysian government in the economically less developed parts of the country inthe 1970s and 1980s, resorts such as the Datai and Tanjong Jara were built in areaswith pristine but ‘unproductive’ nature, such as the tropical rainforest in the case ofthe former and sandy beaches in the latter. At these resorts, the pristine nature wasincorporated into the neo-traditional architecture and staged as part of the tourists'

experience there. Unlike the earlier colonial moment, when pristine nature was of littlevalue under the agricultural economy, the experience of pristine nature is key to value-creation in, what some business school gurus describe as, the ‘experience economy’ ofthe tourist resorts (Pine and Gilmore 1999).

Such a commodification of tropical nature draws on prior colonial constructions.Along the line of Saidian orientalism, scholars of colonial environmentalism arguethat the colonial tropical landscape could be understood as an imaginative geographyconstructed as an alterity against the perceived normality of the temperate lands.It represented a way of seeing the tropics that entangled nature with socio-politicalnotions such as race, civilization and gender, rendering tropical nature variously as theexotic, Edenic, pestilential or backward other (Anderson 2006; Arnold 1996; Stepan2001). Not only did the imaginative geography shape the material landscape at different



19/47





levels – from how tropical ‘natural’ landscape was moulded in the creation of gardens

and plantations, to how architectural urban types such as bungalow, hill station and‘garden city’ were planned in the tropics – these scholars also [p. 613 ↓ ] argue thatthe discursive construction of categories such as the Orient and the tropics in colonialknowledge helped to produce socio-political norms and shape subjectivities thatunderwrote the power structure of colonial rule.

III. Grassroot Development, KampungImprovement, and Self-Help Tropical

ArchitectureThe final group of AKAA-winning projects to be examined represents the only projectsin this chapter that attempted to address the social equity dimension of sustainabilityignored by the previous two strands of tropical architecture. They are the KampungImprovement Program (KIP) in Jakarta awarded in 1980 during the first three-yearcycle, Kampung Kebalen Improvement in Surabaya awarded in 1986 during the thirdcycle, and Kampung Kali Cho-de in Yogyakarta awarded in 1992 during the fifthcycle. These Indonesian projects, though fairly varied, do share quite a few similarcharacteristics. These projects dealt with not the elite socio-economic minority but theimpoverished masses of the society and they sought to address the most rudimentaryissues of housing these people. The KIP in Jakarta is an initiative that was first startedin 1969 to improve the city's kampungs, which were the overcrowded and insanitarysquatter settlements occupied by a large portion of Jakarta's population that could notafford better housing. These kampung dwellers built their own houses out of cheaplocal and cast-off building materials. As these houses squat on undeveloped land, theytypically did not have proper electricity and water supplies, and sewerage systems.As a result, these kampung dwellers had to rely on polluted sources for water, andthe problems with rubbish disposal and drainage led to frequent flooding during therainy seasons and, consequently, major health problems (Holod and Rastorfer 1983).Kampung Kebalen was an exemplar for the KIP in Surabaya, which was also initiated in1969 to deal with largely the same problems as those in the case of Jakarta (Serageldin1989a; Silas 1992). In the case of Kampung Kali Cho-de, it was about helping a group



20/47





of people who were not only very poor and disadvantaged but also stigmatized. This

group of people, many of whom were ex-criminals or prostitutes, was consideredsampah masyarakat or ‘the dregs and outcasts of society’. They lived in ‘miserable huts’made of cartons and plastic sheets, which disintegrated each time there was a heavyrain, erected on a site that was literally a refuse dump by the bank of the Cho-de river(Al-Radi and Moore 1992; Mangunwijaya 1992).

Unlike the neo-traditional tropical architecture, the environmental problems in thesesquatter settlements were not about the preservation of some pristine external naturethrough the use of certain exalted traditions; neither was it like the tropical sustainablearchitecture in which concerns were focused on energy and environmental resource

profligacy that have to be reined in and modified. Instead, with limited funds fromthe local governments and international development institutions such as the WorldBank, the improvements proposed for these squatter settlements were basic, aimed atimproving fundamental environmental, and the attendant social, problems. The KIPs inJakarta and Kebalen sought to address the problems of access, sanitation, health andcertain aspects of social improvement. They entailed what is called a ‘site and service’approach in which basic site infrastructure such as water supply, electricity supply,sewerage, drainage, roads and pavements were provided or improved. Furthermore,washing and toilet facilities, clinics and schools were also added.

The case of Kampung Kali Cho-de, however, was more complex. While the KIPs inJakarta and Surabaya were sanctioned by the Indonesian state as part of a nationaldevelopment strategy, the inhabitants of Kampung Kali Cho-de were considered suchundesirable members of the society that their wretched [p. 614 ↓ ] existence at thesite might not even be tolerated by the authorities and they faced the likelihood ofeviction. The strategy adopted by Y.B. Mangunwijaya, a Catholic priest-architect-social activist (Lindsay 1999), and Willi Prasetya, the social chief of the area, was toorganize the inhabitants into a cooperative community to improve themselves and theirbuilt environment, so as to demonstrate that they were improvable subjects and thusworthy members of the society who deserved the state's recognition. With funds drawnfrom donations by the local newspapers, Mangunwijaya himself and his friends, thesite was improved and the provisional huts were converted into permanent buildings.Unlike the KIPs, the focus was not on building services and site utilities; it was insteadplaced on creating an appealing appearance and making a good impression. The



21/47





community was organized to keep the kampung compound and the adjoining river-

bank clean and tidy. With the help of art student volunteers, the inhabitants painted theirdwellings in colourful patterns. The transformation of the kampung from a ramshackleplot into an orderly, well-maintained and appealing place helped it gain the localauthorities' acceptance. From the initial fear of being evicted, Kampung Kali Cho-de was‘benevolently tolerated’ by the authorities after its improvement and subsequently it waseven informally recognized by being permitted to be connected to the city's electricitysystem (Mangunwijaya 1992).

Another characteristic that unifies the different projects is their reliance on not onlythe professional architects, contractors and other usual members of the construction

industry, but on the participation of the kampung inhabitants themselves and the help ofvolunteers and social activists from nongovernmental organizations. Even though bothKIPs were initiated by state agencies and adopted more or less top-down approaches todesign decision-making, they sought help from non-governmental organizations and thedesign process frequently involved consulting the kampung inhabitants. For example,the Kampung Kebalen project enlisted the help of the professors and students from thelocal university's faculty of architecture to survey the site and conduct other preparatoryplanning work. These consultants emphasized that the kampung inhabitants wereconsulted and involved in their design and planning process (Serageldin 1989a).Similarly, in the Jakarta KIP, the kampung headmen and inhabitants were, to varying

degrees, consulted in the planning process, and organized in the maintenance ofthe amenities built. As noted earlier, this sense of community participation and self-improvement was the most important aspect behind the strategy for the inhabitants ofKampung Kali Cho-de to gain acceptance by the local government and their officials.

Behind these projects was an important shift in the attitude towards squatter settlementsand the urban poor who built and lived in them. Kampung improvement in Indonesiahas a long history that could be traced to the Dutch colonial practices at the turn ofthe twentieth century. KIP was used by the Dutch colonial government as a politicalstrategy of pacification, and these colonial practices of managing the native populationno doubt shaped postcolonial kampung improvement practices (Kusno 2000, 120–143). However, the recognition bestowed upon KIP by transnational organizationssuch as AKAA, the funding of KIP by international development agencies such asthe World Bank and the subsequent development of the KIP into, what a World Bank



22/47





representative considered as, the ‘best and richest model’ (Darrundono and Tirtamadja

2000, 2–3) in the 1990s that others were emulating should be understood in relation tothe influential international theories and practices of self-help housing drawn primarilyfrom the Latin American exemplars. John Turner's seminal Housing by People (1976)and the first Habitat conference in Vancouver in 1976, marked this important shifttowards recognizing the ability of the poor and the value of the self-help housing theybuilt (Berner and Phillips 2005). These ideas were also accepted [p. 615 ↓ ] by theWorld Bank and incorporated into its loan assistance programme for urban projects inthe developing countries at around the same time. Indonesia's post-independence KIPsstarted receiving World Bank loan assistance from 1976 onwards.

Behind this shift was a group of advocates who regarded the informal self-help housingas being better suited to local conditions and needs than the modern housing providedby either the state or the formal market. Rather than seeing the urban poor whoengaged in self-help housing as a group of ignorant and marginalized people trappedin a ‘culture of poverty’, the advocates regarded them as resourceful individuals.They pushed for the recognition and the legalization of self-help housing and squattersettlements, along with their informal economic activities (De Soto 1989). They arguedthat the state should not demolish the squatter settlements; instead, it should facilitateand encourage the growth and improvement of the squatter settlements throughschemes such as the provision of ‘sites and services’ and through providing security

of tenure and financial aid. Like the other variants of tropical architectures discussedearlier, the shift of attitude towards self-help housing could also be attributed to theperceived failure of standard modernization and urbanization programmes, particularlythe urban renewal, slum clearance and public housing programmes in the developingcountries during the post-World-War-II decades. However, unlike the cases of tropicalsustainable architecture and neo-traditional tropical architecture, there was no need forbetter modernization, nor was there a need to return to past traditions; the advocates forself-help housing saw the solution in recognizing what was already there – the squattersettlements and development from below.

Self-help housing initiatives received a further boost with the emergence of the globalneoliberalism regime in the 1980s. The neoliberal institutions and policymakers see self-help housing as the only feasible solution to developing countries' housing problems(Davis 2006). Encouraging and facilitating self-help housing is not just a cost efficient



23/47





way of dealing with the severe housing problems and a justification for the fiscal

austerity measures and the withdrawal of state housing subsidies that frequentlyaccompanied the neoliberal economic restructuring in these developing countries. Itis also a new technology of government that entails specific practices of identifyingthe targets to be governed, i.e. the urban poor, directing their conduct by supposedlyempowering and optimizing their capacities for improvement, and thus producing self-reliant subjects (Dean 1999; Foucault 1991). As the consultants for Kampung Kebalenput it, the KIP was organized in a manner that would ‘stimulate the community in thepriority setting of the project components, upgrade their own private domain, andcomplement the result of the KIP in a process in order to enhance… their own lifestyle’ (AKAA 1986). Through an economy of means, in financial outlay, in the extent of

construction, and also in terms of minimum intervention and exertion of power from theconsultants and the government, the dwellers of squatter settlements would purportedlybecome self-reliant, entrepreneurial subjects. Moreover, these kampung dwellerswere deemed to be producing climatically responsive ‘tropical architecture’. One ofthe technical reviewers noted that the upgrades by the kampung dwellers enhancedthe natural lighting and the ventilation in their houses and improved the microclimatein the kampung through their planting of trees, flowers and shrubs (AKAA 1986).The climatically-responsive architecture was seen as another demonstration of theingenuity of the urban poor, of their ability to use limited resources in both an efficientand effective manner.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I review three different broad categories in the postcolonial tropical [p.616 ↓ ] variants of sustainable architecture. I draw from a range of interdisciplinaryscholarship to critique these variants of sustainable architecture. I started the chapter byarguing that each of three broad categories represents a specific configuration of theoryof sustainability, politics of development and entanglements with prior colonial history. Iwill conclude by looking at the commonalities between the three categories, sieving out

and summarizing four key themes and related theoretical insights.The first theme is the need to historicize ideas and practices of sustainability. It hasbeen noted that environmentalism, of which sustainability is a part, tended to be



24/47





presented as something relatively new and thus without much of a history. As a result,

much of the contemporary scholarship on environmentalism has been silent on howcertain ideas in environmentalism have been part of longer and deeper historical andideological debates. This inattention to the history of environmental ideas and practicesis even more unfortunate in the case of the post-colonial nation-states. As scholarsin post-colonial studies note, colonial knowledge and practices, and the attendantrelations of power and difference, not only linger on after the formal end of colonialismbut are continually being reactivated in the contemporary world. In my study of tropicalsustainable architecture, I show that it draws significantly on the mid-twentieth-centuryknowledge and practices of colonial development and modern tropical architecture.Furthermore, in my review of neo-traditional tropical architecture, I argue that, in

turning away from the modernization and development doctrine, the advocates of neo-traditional architecture returned to not so much a vaunted pre-modern tradition as to acolonial invented tradition and the colonial notions of tropicality.

The second theme concerns power-knowledge. Foucault (1995 [1977], 27) notes that‘power and knowledge directly imply one another, that there is no power relation withoutthe correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does notpresuppose and constitute at the same time power relations’. The same could be saidfor the different knowledge of sustainable architecture. This is not simply innocuousknowledge as suggested by the anodyne phrase. Rather, the knowledge of sustainable

architecture has been mobilized to augment different configurations of power relations.As my review of modern tropical architecture shows, the apparently objective andvalue-free technoscientific knowledge on climatic design was used to facilitate actionat a distance and thus enabled the creation of ‘centres of calculation’. Moreover, thepractices of ‘rendering technical’ which produced the technoscientific knowledge notonly reduced controversial social, cultural and political problems into abstract technicalquestions, they also led to larger structural conditions behind the problems to beglossed over. In my review of neo-traditional tropical architecture, I mention how itrelied on previous colonial knowledge of the natives' traditions and customs that wereused to legitimize colonial rule. Power-knowledge is also linked to the technologies ofgovernment under the regime of neoliberalism. As I note in my review of the KIPs inIndonesia, knowledge of the urban poor made their conduct amenable to intervention.It is, however, important to note that the very concept of power-knowledge implies



25/47





that any knowledge is itself is a field of contestation. As I argue in the case of tropical

architecture in Singapore and Malaysia during the 1980s, the technicalized colonialknowledge in tropical architecture was appropriated by post-colonial architects and re-invested with socio-cultural meanings.

Hybridity forms the third theme. This conception of hybridity comes, not from post-colonial studies but, from Bruno Latour's argument that distinct categories andespecially dichotomies, such as humans versus non-humans and nature versus socialas produced by the modern work of purification, fail to account for the complex reality(Latour 1993). Latour proposes that the artificial [p. 617 ↓ ] distinctions should bediscarded and they should instead be understood as hybrid assemblies that gather and

interconnect heterogeneous elements through networks and translations. Extendingsuch a view, I argue that sustainability should be treated as a hybrid assembly thathas to be understood in terms of how the three Es of economy, ecology and equityare interconnected. My critique of the three different broad categories of tropicalarchitecture, especially the first two, lies also in how each category operates throughprivileging a particular narrow dimension of sustainability and isolating it from the otherdimensions of the hybrid assembly of sustainability.

The fourth and final theme is on local – global interactions. I argue at the beginning ofthe chapter that any understanding of sustainability has to depend on local specificities.I also note that the local and global do not form a dichotomy. Rather, the localand global are linked in a complex network. The historical moments of the variousvariants of sustainable architecture in the tropics should be understood in the variouslarger global context, from the colonial world system in the nineteenth and earlytwentieth century, to the post-World-War-II regime of international development andmodernization in the mid-twentieth century, to finally the neoliberal globalization fromthe late twentieth century onwards. Further complicating these is the regional discourseof AKAA, a unique model of transnational Islamic network. Thus, while I insist onsituating this chapter in relation to local specificities, I am sure these particular variantsof sustainable architecture that I study have wider resonances beyond the South andSoutheast Asian contexts.



26/47





Notes1 For discussions on the differences between the environmentalism in the ‘developed’and ‘developing’ countries, see, for example Greenough and Tsing (2003); Guha andMartâinez Alier (1998).

2 The bioclimatic approach was first advocated by the Olgyay brothers in the 1960sand Yeang has been further refining the approach for high rise buildings since the early1980s, see Olgyay and Olgyay (1963); Powell (1989).

3 Sibel Bozdog#an's term in another context. She was describing how the Turkish stateused architectural design as symbols of official nationalism (Bozdog#an 2001).

4 A large proportion of the rest of the projects are public housing and infrastructurerelated projects, including self-help housing improvement and the renowned GrameenBank Housing Programme. Only a very small number of projects awarded could beconsidered ‘modern’, at least aesthetically. For a recent overview of the projectsawarded under AKAA, see Özkan (2001).

[p. 618 ↓ ]

Section 7 BibliographyAbley Ian (2001). ‘Introduction’ , in Ian Abley, ed. and James Heartfield (eds) SustainingArchitecture in the Anti-Machine Age . London: Wiley-Academy, pp. 6–21.

Adams David ‘Rudolf Steiner's first goetheanum as an illustration of organicfunctionalism’ , Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians vol. 51 : pp. 182–204.(1992). http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/990714

Aitken Donald W. ‘The solar hemicycle revisited: It's still showing the way’ , WisconsinAcademic Review vol. 39 ( no. 1): pp. 33. (1992).

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/990714http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/990714http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


27/47





AKAA (1986). ‘AKAA Kampung Kebalen Improvement Project Architects’ Record' ,

http://www.archnet.org, accessed December 15, 2007.

AKAA (1998). ‘Technical Review Summary of Salinger Residence’ , http:// www.archnet.org, accessed December 27, 2008.

AKAA (2001). ‘Statement of the award master jury’ , in K. Frampton, ed. , C. Correa, ed.and D. Robson (eds) Modernity and Community . London: Thames & Hudson.

AKAA (2007). Aga Khan Award for Architecture: The Tenth Cycle Award, 2005–2007 ,http://www.akdn.org/agency/aktc_akaa.html , accessed December 14, 2007.

Alexander Christopher (1979). The Timeless Way of Building . New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Alexander Christopher, Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns,Buildings , Construction . New York: Oxford University Press.

Alamuddin Hana (1998). ‘AKAA 1998 Technical Review Summary of Salinger Residence’ ,http://www.archnet.org, accessed December 27, 2008.

Al-Radi Selma and Charles Moore (1992). ‘Kampung Kali Cho-de’ , in J. Steele (ed.)Architecture for a Changing World . London: Academy Editions.

AlSayyad Nezar (ed.) (2004). The End of Tradition? London: Routledge.

Anand Mulk Raj (1985). ‘Background’ , in R. Powell (ed.) Regionalism in Architecture .Singapore: Concept Media.

Anderson Warwick (2006). Colonial Pathologies . Durham: Duke University Press.

Arnold David (1996). The Problem of Nature . Oxford: Blackwell.

Southcliffe Ashton Thomas (1948). ‘The Industrial Revolution 1760–1830’ . Retrieved fromOnline Edition http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77198080 on 24 April 2011.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77198080http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77198080http://www.archnet.org/http://www.akdn.org/agency/aktc_akaa.htmlhttp://www.archnet.org/http://www.archnet.org/http://www.archnet.org/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


28/47





Atkinson George Anthony ‘The work of the colonial liaison building officer and building in the

tropics’ , The Quarterly Journal of the Institute of Architects of Malaya vol. 2 ( no. 1): pp.35–43. (1952).

Atkinson George Anthony ‘British architects in the tropics’ , Architectural Association Journalvol. 69 : pp. 7–21. (1953).

Audacity (2009). Audacity website , http://www.audacity.org, accessed December 30,2009.

Barry John (2005). ‘Ecological modernisation’ , in J.S. Dryzek, ed. and D. Schlosberg(eds) Debating the Earth . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beck Ulrich (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity . London: Sage.

Berner Erhard and Benedict Phillips ‘Left to their own devices?’ , Community DevelopmentJournal vol. 40 ( no. 1): pp. 17–29. (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi003

Bess Michael (2003). The Light-Green Society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bevan Richard ‘The carbon casino’ , Architectural Design vol. 79 ( no. 5): pp. 50–55.(2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ad.949

Bookchin Murray (1982). The Ecology of Freedom, The Emergence and Dissolution ofHierarchy . Edinburgh: AK Press.

Bourdieu Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Jean-Claude Passeron (1991). The Craft ofSociology . Translated by R. Nice, ed. . New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Bozdog?an Sibel (2001). Modernism and Nation Building . Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Bramwell Anna (1989). Ecology in the 20th century: A History . New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Braun Bruce and Noel Castree (2001). ‘Preface’ , in Noel Castree, ed. and Bruce Braun (eds)Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics . Oxford: Blackwell, pp. xi-xiv.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ad.949http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi003http://www.audacity.org/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


29/47





Brown Judith (ed.) (2008). Mahatma Gandhi . The Essential Writings . Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Buchanan Peter (2003). Ten Shades of Green, Architecture and the Natural World . NewYork: Architecture League of New York.

Burchell Graham, ed. , Colin Gordon, ed. and Peter Miller (eds) (1991). The FoucaultEffect . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Butti Ken and John Perlin (1980). A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture andTechnology . Palo Alto: Cheshire Books.

Campbell Scott ‘Green cities, growing cities, just cities?’ , Journal of theAmerican Planning Association vol. 62 ( no. 3): pp. 296–312. (1996). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696

Cantacuzino Sherban (1985). ‘Tanjong Jara Beach Hotel and Rantau Abang Visitor Centre’ ,in S. Cantacuzino (ed.) Architecture in Continuity . New York: Aperture.

Carlisle N. and Bush B. (2009). ‘Closing the planning gap: moving to renewablecommunities’ in Peter Droege (ed.) 100% Renewable Energy Autonomy in Action . UKand USA: Earthscan.

Carruthurs David (2005). ‘From opposition to orthodoxy’ , in J.S. Dryzek, ed. and D.Schlosberg (eds) Debating the Earth . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castells Manuel (2000). The Rise of the Network Society . Oxford: Blackwell.

Castree Noel (2005). Nature . London: Routledge.

Chang Jiat-Hwee (2005). ‘Green (re)visions’ , Singapore Architect 228.

Chang Jiat-Hwee ‘“Natural” traditions’ , Explorations vol. 7 ( no. 1): pp. 1–22. (2007).

Chang Jiat-Hwee (2010a). ‘Building a (Post)colonial techno scientific network’ , inDuanfang. Lu (ed.) Third World Modernism . London: Routledge, pp. 211–235.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


30/47





Chang Jiat-Hwee ‘Deviating discourse’ Journal of Architectural Education vol. 63 ( no. 2):

pp. 153–158. (2010b). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2010.01079.x

Charlick Pamela and Natasha Nicholson (2001). ‘Ecological frequencies and hybrid natures’ ,in Ian Abley, ed. and James Heartfield (eds) Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-MachineAge . London: Wiley-Academy, pp. 64–71.

Chatterjee Partha (2001 ‘1986’). Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World . Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Choay Françoise (1997). The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture andUrbanism . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Christianson Gale E. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming .Vancouver: Greystone Books.

Clark David (1996). Urban World/Global City . London and New York: Sage.

Cooper Frederick and Randall M. Packard (1997). ‘Introduction’ , in F. Cooper, ed. and R.M.Packard (eds) International Development and the Social Sciences . Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Crinson Mark (2003). Modern Architecture and the End of Empire . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Darrundono Danang A., ed. and Baron A. Tirtamadja (eds) (2000). KampungImprovement Program III . Jakarta: The Provincial Government of Jakarta and WorldBank.

Davis Mike (1992). City of Quartz . London: Vintage.

Davis Mike (1999). Ecology of Fear . London: Vintage.

Davis Mike (2006). Planet of Slums . London: Verso.

De Rosa Agostino (2007). James Turrell: Geometrie di luce . Roden Crater Project . Milan:Electa.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2010.01079.xhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


31/47





De Soto Hernando (1989). The Other Path . Translated by J. Abbott, ed. . New York:

Harper and Row.

Dean Mitchell (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society . London:Sage.

Diamond Jared (2005). Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed . London:Penguin Books.

Djalali Amir and Piet Vollaard ‘The complex history of sustainability’ , Volume vol. 18 : pp.33–41. (2008).

Doxiadis Konstantinos A. and J.G. Papaioannou (1974). Ecumenopolis: The Inevitable City ofthe Future . Athens: Athens Center of Ekistics.

Dramstad Wenche E., James D. Olson and Richard T. Forman (1996). Landscape EcologyPrinciples in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning . Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Droege Peter (2006). Renewable City – A Comprehensive Guide to an Urban Revolution .New York: Wiley.

Edwards Brian Guest edited issue on green architecture , Architectural Design vol. 71 ( no.4): pp. 4–93. (2001).

Edwards Brian and Paul Hyett (2001). Rough Guide to Sustainability . London: RIBAPublications.

Engels Frederich (1935 ‘1872’). The Housing Question . New York: InternationalPublishers.

Escobar Arturo (1995). Encountering Development . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Escobar Arturo (2004). ‘Constructing nature’ , in R. Peet, ed. and M. Watts (eds) LiberationEcologies . London: Routledge.



32/47





Farmer John (1996). Green Shift: Towards a Green Sensibility in Architecture . Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fathy Hasan (1973). Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt . Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Fishman Robert (1982). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, FrankLloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Florida Richard (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: and How It's Transforming Work,Leisure, Community and Everyday Life . New York: Basic Books.

Foster John Bellamy (2000). Marx's Ecology, Materialism and Nature . New York: MonthlyReview Press.

Foucault Michel (1980). ‘Two lectures’ , in C. Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge . New York:Pantheon Books, pp. 78–108.

Foucault Michel (1991). ‘Governmentality’ , in M. Foucault, ed. , G. Burchell, ed. , C.Gordon, ed. and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect . Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, pp. 87–104.

Foucault Michel (1995 ‘1977’). Discipline and Punish . Translated by A. Sheridan, ed. .New York: Vintage Books.

Foyle Arthur (ed.) (1953). Conference on Tropical Architecture 1953 . London:University College London.

Frampton Kenneth ‘Technoscience and environmental culture: a provisional critique’ ,Journal of Architectural Education vol. 54 ( no. 3): pp. 123–129. (2001). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632433

Friedmann John and Robert Wulff (1976). The Urban Transition: Comparative Studies of

Newly Industrializing Societies . London: Edward Arnold.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632433http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632433http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632433http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


33/47





Fry Maxwell and Jane Drew (1964). Tropical Architecture in the Dry and Humid Zones .

London: Batsford.

Future Cities (2010). ‘Review: Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europeand North America’ , Future Cities Project website, http://www.futurecities.org.uk ,accessed January 17, 2010.

Gadgil Madhav and Ramachandra Guha (1992). This Fissured Land . Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Geller Howard (2002). Energy Revolution: Policies for a Sustainable Future . Washington,DC: Island Press.

Giddens Anthony (2009). The Politics of Climate Change . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giedion Sigfried (1948). Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to AnonymousHistory . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gissen David (ed.) (2003). Big and Green: Toward Sustainable Architecture in the 21stCentury . New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Goad Philip (2000). Architecture Bali . Sydney: Pesaro Publishing.

Gordon Colin (1991). ‘Governmental rationality: an introduction’ , in M. Foucault, ed. ,G. Burchell, ed. , C. Gordon, ed. and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect . Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–52.

Greenough Paul R., ed. , and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, eds. (2003). Nature in theGlobal South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia . Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Guha Ramachandra and Juan Martâinez Alier (1998). Varieties of Environmentalism . Delhi:Oxford University Press.

http://www.futurecities.org.uk/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


34/47





Guy Simon and Graham Farmer ‘Re-interpreting sustainable architecture: the place of

technology’ , Journal of Architectural Education vol. 54 ( no. 3): pp. 140–148. (2001).http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632451

Guy Simon, ed. and Steven A. Moore (eds) (2005). Sustainable Architectures: Culturesand Natures in Europe and North America . New York: Spon.

Guy Simon and Steven A. Moore ‘Sustainable architecture and the pluralist imagination’ ,Journal of Architectural Education vol. 60 ( no. 4): pp. 15–23. (2008). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00104.x

Haeckel Ernst (1899–1904). Kunstformen de Natur: 100 Illustrationstafeln mitbeschreibenden Text . Leipzig: Verlag des Bibliographischen Instituts.

Hagan Susannah (2001). Taking Shape: A New Contract Between Architecture andNature . Oxford: Architectural Press.