Housing

1. ARTISTVILLAGE,
BELAPUR
CHARLES CORREA'S INCREMENTAL HOUSING

2. • Project Data:
• Year of construction: 1986
• Architect: Charles Correa
• Developer: CIDCO
• Land Area: 5.4 hectares
• Built up Area: 33000 sq mt (approx.)
• Number of Dwelling Units: 550 (approx.)
• Density: 100units/hectare (500
people/hectare)
• Height: Ground+1 storey
• FSI (Floor Space Index) consumed: 0.5 to 0.6

4. OBJECTIVES
 The project had one overriding
principle: each unit would
have its own individual site to
allow for expansion.
 The scheme catered to a wide
range of income groups, from
the lowest with
 budgets of Rs.20,000, to
middle income groups (unit
costs Rs.30-50,000), up to
upper income
 levels with unit cost around
Rs.1,80,000.

5. • A Low-cost incremental housing typology
for artisan, was done by Ar. Charles Correa.
• Located 1km away from the city centre of
New Bombay and spread across six hectares
of land.
•
• A model depicting immemorial pattern of
India life with having connection to the new
modern structure.
• Belapur is situated at the foot of brown
valley, separated from a small river.

6.  Correa has reflected an
architectural expression by
introducing incrementality to
each housing block.
 He allowed the user to build
according to their perceived
needs, and increment when
capital is available.
 The plot sizes for each were
rationed from 50 to 100 sq.mt, as
to avoid the sarcastic communal
differences of equity.
 According to Indian climate and
even keeping the territorial
privacy, ‘Open-to-the-sky space’ is
essential to each family.
 So as Correa has designed each
house with a private yard, which
incorporates lavatory block.
Furthermore, these blocks are
paired to reduce the service runs.

7. • Correa made a cluster of seven houses, where in between
there is a central courtyard of 8 x 8m.
• Moreover, Correa clubbed three clusters of seven houses
together and made a bigger courtyard of 12m x 12m.
• Incrementing this model, generates the courtyard of 20 x
20m, increasing interaction and participation within the
user group.
• Correa’s ethics are linked to socio-economic ideals.
• He denies the use of prefabricated construction.
• Avoiding the inefficient centralised production, Correa
promotes the resources of craftsmanship and the
involvement of every individual in home creation.
• Resulting, the structures of Belapur housing are simply
the armatures on which the individual resident can model
the dwelling with their own lifestyle

8. PRINCIPLES:
 Incrementality
 identity
 pluralism
 income generation
 equity
 open-to-sky space
 CHARACTERISTICS:
 Planning:
 hierarchy
 cluster arrangement
 private 'open to sky space’
 toilet blocks
 shared courtyard(communal space)
 informal character to roads
 Architecture:
 pitched roof
 Other:
 interactive space green

9. THE
MODULES
 Project demonstrates how high density
housing (500 people per hectare) can be
achieved in a low-rise typology, while
including (open to sky spaces) and services,
like schools, that the community requires
 Overriding principle is to give each unit its
own site to allow for expansion
(Incrementality)
 The footprint of each plan varies little in
size (from 45 sq. m to 70 sq. m), maintaining
equity (fairness) in the community
 The village was produced with the idea that
the residents were going to alter it in many
ways, making it truly their own, therefore
homes are freestanding, so residents can
add on to them as their families grow; and
differently priced plans appeal to a wide
variety of income levels.

13. MATERIALSAND
CONSTRUCTION
1.TECHNOLOGY: external wall of brick; roof structure covered with wooden
shingles
2. MATERIALS: Brick, plaster of white colour colourful wooden fixtures, outdoor
paving stone blocks
3. Individual houses rely on simple floor plans and building methods, enabling local
masons and craftspeople to construct them
4.The village was produced with the idea that the residents were going to alter it in
many ways, making it truly their own, therefore homes are freestanding, so
residents can add on to them as their families grow; and differently priced plans
appeal to a wide variety of income levels.

15. THECURRENT
SCENARIO
 Many of the original buildings are
demolished and now replaced with
much bigger concrete houses by the
aspiring middle classes.
 Yet the courtyards and the
hierarchy of community spaces
remains intact: it is a strong piece of
city-making that has lasted beyond
the individual dwellings.
 Some of the original houses still
standing, but most of them look
different.
 The trees had grown up and
shrouded the whole complex in
shade in growth.
 There was a range of housing there.
Upon an informal count, it was
found that roughly one third of the
original homes had been torn down
and completely rebuilt.

16. SERVICES
WATER SUPPLY-
•There is no UGT for the project.
• Each building has its own over head tank either syntex or R.C.C
• Separate UGT for some bungalows.
•WTP at sector-1.
•Timings of water-2 to 3hrs morning and evening.
DRAINAGE-
• Storm water is drained into the main rivulet (nallah).
• No separate STP.
• Chaotic drainage system.
• Filled with water During monsoon or else dry rest of the year.
•Waste water is directly drained into municipal sewer.
ELECTRICITY-
• Chaotic electric connection .
• Substation and meter room located in condominium
• No gas pipe lines
• No rain water harvesting project.

17. DESIGN
ACHIEVEMENTS
1.The feel of the space still intact
2. Ample amount of open and green spaces provided
3.The complex allowed people to modify the houses,
something that is never allowed in the type of mass housing.
4. Clusters help build a local community feeling
5. Allowed enhanced interactions which was the essence of a
village.
6.The green spaces and playground are maintained by the
NMMC

18. DRAWBACKS
MOST OF THE HOUSES
HAVE BEEN
REMODELLED OR
DESTROYED AND
REBUILT AS SOME
INHABITANTS SAID THEY
WERE VERY IMPRACTICAL
(EG. TOILETS OUTSIDE
THE HOUSE).
THE CONCRETE HOUSES
AROSE AS A RESULT OF
THE CHANGING
ASPIRATIONS OF THE
RESIDENTS.
PROPER SPACES WERE
NOT PROVIDED WHICH IS
ONE OF THE MAJOR
REASONS WHY THE
ARTISANS SOLD THEIR
HOUSES.
ALSO, 20 YEARS AGO THE
TRANSPORT FACILITIES
WERE NOT FULLY
DEVELOPED WHICH WAS
ANOTHER REASON.
DUE TO LACK OF
COMMERCIAL SPACES,
THE HOUSES FACING THE
STREETS TRANSFORMED
INTO SHOPS, WHICH
WERE ILLEGAL.
NO PROPER PROVISIONS
WERE MADE FOR
PARKING, WHICH
RESULTED IN
ENCROACHMENT OF
OPEN SPACES DUE TO
PARKING.
CULTURAL CENTRE MADE
FOR THE ARTISTS TO
EXHIBIT THEIR WORKS
REMAINED UNUSED.

19. CONCLUSION
1.This housing project offers the quality of life of a village
with the sophistication of a city
2. Each cluster permits the emergence of a local community
feeling, while integrating each house to the whole settlement
each house to the whole settlement at different levels.The
hierarchy itself is very organic.
3.The complex allowed people to modify their houses freely,
whether with a paintbrush or mortar- something that is
NEVER allowed in the types of mass housing devastating the
urban and psychological landscape of cities around the world.

20. THANK YOU