In a world where architecture often leans toward spectacle and excess, Ashok B Lall has long championed an approach that is both deeply rooted in sustainability and social responsibility. Since the 1980s, when sustainability was not yet a buzzword, Lall has advocated for climate-conscious, resource-efficient architecture that aligns with both environmental imperatives and human needs. His work, ranging from educational initiatives to landmark sustainable projects like the Butterflies Resilience Centre, showcases a commitment to integrating passive cooling, circular economy principles, and low-carbon materials into the very fabric of urban development.
Lall's perspective on sustainability extends beyond materials and design—it is a holistic vision that includes policy, education, and the evolving role of architects in shaping the built environment that mitigates climate change while adapting to it. In this candid conversation, he reflects on his four-decade long journey, the advancements and challenges in sustainable architecture, and the urgent need for systemic change in India's urban planning.
His vision calls for a future where architecture harmonizes with the environment, embraces simplicity, and serves society at large.
Q&A with Ashok B Lall:
Q. When you started your practice in the 1980s, sustainability was not as mainstream as it is today. How did you navigate and advocate for environmentally responsible architecture in an era when it was not a primary focus?
A. Environmentally conscious and climatically responsive architecture was already recognized in India by the 1980s—especially when buildings served essential purposes rather than being driven by fashion and symbolic imagery. When you develop an aesthetic and spatial experience based on sustainability principles, architecture remains enjoyable while also being responsible. Sustainability, then, is not a compromise but an added dimension to good design.
Q. What role has technology played in transforming sustainable architectural practices from the 1980s to now?
A. The concept of ‘technology’ in sustainable construction often refers to advanced materials, automation, and computational tools aimed at enhancing efficiency. The push for energy efficiency has led to innovations in low-carbon materials and construction systems, yet simple buildings made from natural materials—designed for comfort rather than absolute environmental control—are inherently more sustainable than energy-intensive steel-and-glass structures. While simulation tools and performance measurement systems have become powerful aids for architects and engineers, their integration into design processes remains limited. Designers must work with clients from the outset to minimize energy demand and material intensity, rather than relying on high-tech solutions as an afterthought.
Q. You believe in “an environmentally aware lifestyle of simple comforts.” How does this philosophy influence the aesthetic and functional decisions in your building designs?
A. Consider a simple equation: Human need / technology < environmental capacity. Our needs and desires should not exceed what the environment can sustain. Unfortunately, sustainable construction often assumes human needs are fixed, focusing solely on technological solutions. However, when we simplify our requirements—choosing modest homes without air conditioning over high-rise luxury hotels—the environmental impact is inherently reduced. Our practice prioritizes low-cost, need-minimized projects without sacrificing comfort and functionality.
Q. The Butterflies Resilience Centre in Delhi exemplifies how architecture can support social causes. How do you make space for such social endeavors within your professional commitments?
A. Whenever an individual or an NGO engaged in genuine work approaches us, we find ways to support them—often covering only our expenses or reducing our fees. Larger, funded projects sustain us financially, allowing us to dedicate time to such meaningful initiatives.
Q. The Butterflies Resilience Centre incorporated reused materials like old doors and windows. What are your insights on integrating circular economy principles into mainstream architectural practices?
A. Circularity in architecture has three key dimensions: reusing components from demolished buildings, utilizing waste-based materials to reduce virgin material extraction, and designing buildings that can be easily dismantled and repurposed. The first is simpler in low-cost buildings where a recycling market exists. However, meeting growing construction demand solely through reuse is challenging. A more comprehensive shift toward circular principles requires systemic changes in materials sourcing, construction methods, and policy support.
Q. Could you share more about the EU-funded web-based teaching package for low-energy architecture and its impact on architectural education?
A. This initiative, led by Fergus Nicol, aimed to create a global online resource explaining the physics of climate-responsive architecture. It provided accessible knowledge on designing for thermal and visual comfort while conserving energy. Though this was developed some time ago, the proliferation of online learning resources today builds on these foundational principles.
Q. As a former convener of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Workgroup on Energy, how do you see the intersection of policy-making and sustainable design evolving in India?
A. During my tenure, we proposed integrating energy efficiency reports into building approval processes. However, policy implementation has been slow. For true progress, sustainable design must become a regulatory norm rather than an optional feature.
Q. Given your expertise, what systemic changes do you believe are necessary to make sustainable, low-energy architecture a norm across India's urban centers?
A. Passive cooling strategies should be mandated in building codes. Public awareness must grow so that consumers demand climate-conscious design from architects and developers. Urban planning regulations should minimize heat island effects, optimize solar access, and promote low-carbon materials. These steps are crucial if we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint.
Q. How have advancements in building materials influenced your design choices over the decades, particularly in creating low-carbon and resource-efficient buildings?
A. Walling materials have seen significant innovation—compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEB), autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), and fly-ash blocks are now commonly used. However, there is a pressing need for further development in biomass-based products like structural timber and bamboo.
Q. How have architectural education curricula evolved since your early teaching roles in the 1990s? Do you think students today are equipped to tackle modern challenges like climate change and urbanization?
A. Climate-responsive design has been taught in architecture schools since the 1970s, but it was often disconnected from core design thinking. The rise of ‘green building’ trends and rating systems in the 1990s brought sustainability into mainstream discussions, yet architecture increasingly became about spectacle rather than function. Only recently, with the urgency of climate change, has sustainable design regained prominence in education. However, deeper integration into core design methodologies is still needed.
Q. In your view, how has the definition of ‘sustainable architecture’ evolved, and how has this shaped your design philosophy?
A. The major shift came with recognizing that the built environment significantly contributes to climate change. Sustainability is no longer just about reducing resource consumption—it must actively restore ecological balance while supporting human well-being. The true challenge lies in shaping rapidly growing cities of the Global South, ensuring they are both resilient and regenerative. All professions involved in urban development, including economists, must focus on serving the many rather than profiting the few.
Tall order!
x
