2016 On Site Review Report by Nondita Correa Mehrotra 4405.BAN

Friendship Centre Gaibandha, Bangladesh

Architect Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury/URBANA

Client Friendship NGO

Design 2008-2010

Completed 2011

Friendship Centre Gaibandha, Bangladesh

I. Introduction

The Friendship Centre is a training facility for a non-governmental organisation in the flatlands of rural, northern Bangladesh, near the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River. Friendship has done transformative work in the region and the people who are trained here live in the floodplains of the river, on land that floods almost annually, and on sandbars that are destroyed every time the river is in spate.

To build on this site with a conventional building, (earth-fill, foundations and raising the building by 2.4 metres, the level necessary to prevent flooding) would have required three-quarters of the budget. The architect, Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury, chose then to build directly on the low land and protect the entire site with an embankment which could be built and maintained for much less.

In response to financial constraints, Chowdhury articulates an architecture of the essential – the basic and fundamental are at the core of this design process and at the centre of the lives of the people the building serves. So within the extreme limitations of means there is a search for what he describes as the “luxury of light and shadows, of the economy and generosity of small spaces, and the joy of movement and discovery”.

II. Contextual Information

A. Brief historical background

Bangladesh is geographically situated in the delta of the Ganges-Brahmaputra river system and though there are hilly topographies within the territory, a majority of the country is in the deltaic basin. To understand the quantity of fresh water in this landscape, here are some astounding figures – one-fifth to one-third of the entire surface area of Bangladesh is covered in water during the monsoon (June – September), and often half of the country is underwater during floods1. There are 58 rivers and over 1.3 million ponds. The relationship of land to water is continuously negotiated, both in nature and in man-made interventions, which is something that becomes very apparent when you are there, especially in the rural terrain.

The people of this region, in the flood plains of the mighty Brahmaputra-Jamuna River, are extremely poor as there isn’t much economic sustenance in the vicinity. They exist with the knowledge that with every monsoon the ravages of the river could destroy their lives, yet they stay only because the alluvial soil is rich with fresh silt deposits. They live on chars (sandbars or riverine islands), too poor to have access to a boat, and isolated from the world except when the river is shallow enough that they can wade across. The NGO Friendship has worked with them since its inception, initially to give them healthcare, with the help of a floating hospital.

Friendship was founded in 2002 by Runa Khan, who is the Executive Director. Recognising that the broader goal of enabling these communities to improve their living conditions and gain control over their lives requires more than healthcare support alone, Friendship has progressively built its distinctive integrated

1 Analytic Framework for the Planning of Integrated Water Resources Management, Centre for Environmental and Geographic Information Services, Dec 2003.

1 community-development model, which includes: health; nutrition; education; disaster management; infrastructure development; good governance; and sustainable economic development2.

I visited two of their sites, one on a char, where all structures could be dismantled – traditionally made of bamboo and thatch, but now also of corrugated galvanised-iron sheets. Friendship had provided them boats, started a school, and with funding had helped them raise cattle and goats. In the fields they grew corn. The organisation had started a small centre with looms, and was teaching the women (apparently unusual in this community) to weave. The health centre was a small examination room and a group of women sat in a circle outside, participating in a session on personal hygiene. The young woman leading the group was trained by Friendship at the Centre. I later learnt that the char will have to be evacuated before this coming monsoon as it had shown signs of cracking, and will be destroyed by the river.

The second site was the floating hospital, a converted riverboat with operating theatres, an ER, etc. There were post-operation facilities on the riverbank, again built with materials that are easily dismantled. The hospital was staffed by local people except for two doctors – a surgeon and anaesthetist, and two nurses who had come for two weeks from France. After two weeks, different doctors would come in, and the boat would move downstream to provide healthcare to another group of villages.

B. Local architectural character

The local architecture is very simple – the temporary structures built of bamboo, thatch and galvanised-iron sheets. More permanent structures are built on raised mounds of earth, on the edge of low-lying paddy fields. These are homes in brick masonry, plastered and lime-washed. There were a few shops, some temporary, some permanent, lining at times both sides of the road. No other structures exist – the lack of government buildings or any other infrastructure was surprising.

Kashef Chowdhury says that some of the inspiration for the building came from the Buddhist monasteries in the area, and the exposed brickwork, stark character and quadrilateral layout are clearly the architectural influence.

The most prominent building material in Bangladesh, in fact in all of Bengal, is terracotta. Crafts are often in terracotta, as the clay in the delta is exceptional. Also, there is very little stone available in the region, and so all construction of low-rise structures is in brick, usually loadbearing, or reinforced-concrete frame with brick infill. There are thousands of brick kilns dotted across the country, as this is a large part of the informal economy.

C. Climatic conditions

Situated just north of the Tropic of Cancer, Gaibandha is hot and humid for most of the year, with the average temperature around 25.2°C. The temperatures are highest in August, at 28.6°C, and lowest in January, with an average temperature of 18.2°C, which gives the average temperatures a variance of 10.4°C annually. The monsoon is long – again almost five months of the year, from May/June through September, with average annual rainfall around 208 cm.

2 From Friendship’s mission statement, handout.

2 D. Site and surroundings

The site, like its surroundings, was a paddy field. It is slightly lower than the road, and is part of a landscape that continues in all directions – lush green, studded with small sheds and low-cost structures.

E. Topography

The land is flat, with small ponds, trenches and culverts to drain or hold the large amounts of water in the clayey soil.

III. Programme

A. History of the inception of the project

Friendship realised that they needed a Training Centre to train their staff. Initially their work was in the same geographic region, but as they expanded they needed to provide accommodation for the trainees for the duration of the workshops.

B. How were the architects and specialists chosen?

Chowdhury had worked with Friendship on a few earlier projects – mainly soil engineering and designing bunds around villages on chars, to prevent soil erosion. They had worked together on the design and implementation, and found that to get the additional soil for the bund they needed to make a small pond. This was given to the villagers to set up hatcheries for fish farming.

Friendship went back to Chowdhury when they decided to build a Training Centre, and he in turn put together a team of consultants.

C. General Program Objectives

The client, Friendship, is an NGO that works with those people who live in the remote char’, or sandbars/ islands in the river. They had an idea for a Training Centre for classes or meetings, or as a facility they could rent out as an income generator. Architect Kashef Chowdhury says, “We wanted to take this idea further and truly create a centre, around which the activities of this wonderful organisation would revolve, but that could also serve as a place which brings people together. In this way the architecture needed to be simple and bare: a response to the economy of the region, and with a quality of calmness and serenity that echoes the nature of its riverine landscape setting.” 3

The programme initially was very sketchy and they had no written statement, but Chowdhury had previously done preliminary designs for another training centre so with Runa Khan, the Executive Director, they developed the preliminary brief. And then, after a number of discussions, they finalised the programme that was adhered to and got built.

Friendship at that time was a much smaller organisation, and Khan received feedback on the future needs from her field operations – from people like Md. Rifiquzzaman Pollob. He pointed out certain additional

3 Interview in UnCube, The Luxury of Light and Shadows, 7 February 2013.

3 needs, such as classrooms that could have the option to be combined to become one, the dining hall that could have two spaces for times when two sets of training or conferences were going on, and two “flats” for longer-term researchers or trainers with families, etc.

It was Chowdhury’s idea to have the training pavilions, and other such pavilions – for reception, dining, etc. as this helped organise the space and allow for cross-ventilation. Chowdhury says that Khan was very open to new ideas for the programme and listened to his suggestions, but would get field operations to corroborate them.

Therefore, it was a process of interaction and feedback to advance the programme, which took more than six months to develop and fine tune.

IV. Description

A. Building data

This is what was built, after considering requirements, site and funding:

01. Training Facilities • 1 Reception 71.5 m2 • 2 Offices 31.8 m2 • 1 Library 14.3 m2 • 5 Training Rooms 328.4 m2 • 2 Training Pavilions 38.1 m2 • 2 Breakout Pavilions 43.9 m2 • 1 Mosque 32.7 m2 • 1 Tea Shop 6.1 m2 • 3 Toilets 23.4 m2

02. Accommodation Facilities • 12 Rooms (Men) 158.5 m2 • 7 Rooms (Women) 101.1 m2 • 2 Apartments 74.8 m2 • 3 Staff Quarters 48.3 m2 • 1 Dining 136.8 m2 • 1 Kitchen and Pantry 22.8 m2 • 1 Housekeeping Services + Store 22.8 m2

Total Built Area 1’155.3 m2

Circulation, Courtyards, etc. 1’866.4 m2 Water Treatment plant 11.8 m2 Generator and Guard Room 19.8 m2

TOTAL BUILT AREA 3’053.3 m2

4 B. Evolution of design concepts

Response to Physical Constraints

The low-lying land was the most challenging physical constraint as it meant raising the structure by 2.4 metres, which was not possible within the budget. The solution was building an earthen bund around the plinth and then descending in to building via two entrance stairs at opposite ends.

This set up a vocabulary of a walled town – of the peripheral bund, with the spaces looking inward and organised around a series of courtyards.

Response to User Requirements

The architect had to find a design solution to build within the budgetary constraints. It meant stretching the budget to the maximum, building in flexibility to design for future growth, and structuring the programme accordingly.

Purely Formal Aspects

The building is cruciform in plan, with circulation lengthwise down the centre, connecting the two exterior stairs, and the two parts of the programme bisecting the site in the other direction – the training “Ka” block and accommodation “Kha” block. Between the two blocks are large tanks to collect rainwater.

The “Ka” block contains the reception pavilion, offices, library, training/conference rooms and pavilions, a prayer space and a small “cha-shop”. The “Kha” block, connected by three archways, is for more private functions and houses the dormitories, the dining pavilion and staff and family quarters.

The programme is organised around a series of pavilions, courtyards and reflecting pools creating a simple, clear vocabulary. Exposed, unplastered brick walls, create what Kazi Khaleed Ashraf refers to as “a rich genealogy, from Piranesi’s architectural imagination,” while echoing the ruins of Mahasthan, a Buddhist monastery from the 3rd-century BC, located 60 kms away.

Landscaping

The landscaping is in two plains – at grade, brick paving in all the circulation areas, and reflecting pools and green courtyards; and at roof level – earthen rooftops with green cover which act as insulators, and absorb rainwater.

C. Structure, materials, technology

Structural systems

The structure is loadbearing brick masonry with reinforced concrete at times due to it being a seismic zone.

Materials

• Loadbearing brick walls: The brick, used in the paving, steps, plinth, benches, half-walls and loadbearing walls are locally made in a kiln 3.5 km away from the site.

5 The bricks were sorted for size, shape and colour by the site engineers, and only 300 bricks were kept out of every 1,000 produced at the kiln. Even out of the 300, those that were aesthetically inferior were used in the foundations and other unseen parts of the building; so only the highest-quality bricks arevisible. This was another way they could keep the costs down and yet have a beautiful exposed brick finish.

• Rendering and finishes: Terracotta brick: Paving, steps, plinth, benches, half-walls, loadbearing walls In-situ reinforced concrete: Reinforced concrete frame Kota stone4: Flooring in cafeteria, bedrooms, bathrooms Mahogany wood, local: Frames and shutters for doors and windows Glass: Windows Mesh: In window frames, to keep out mosquitos Brass: Hardware

Construction technology

The technology used is appropriate for the environment and the local conditions. It is labour-intensive and uses skill sets available locally. The exposed brick was well executed.

Due to a cash flow problem, the construction management which was undertaken by Urbana’s engineers had to figure out exactly how much work would be done each day, and make lists of all materials that needed to be bought on that day. This took a lot of coordination and management.

Much of the labour was unskilled, from the nearby villages where the NGO works.

Building services, site utilities

The building services are basic due to the low-cost nature of the project: • Water – well water, treated by reverse osmosis. • Electricity, with back-up generator. • Kerosene for cooking meals. • Ceiling fans for cooling, and cross-ventilation in all rooms. • Air-conditioning (as split units) in a handful of the bedrooms and the two apartments, which has been added two years ago as an option for when the Training Centre is rented out to other organisations.

D. Origin of

Technology • Traditional brick masonry used in a modernist idiom. • Frugal means, appropriate for the budget and community.

Materials • Locally sourced materials.

Labour force • Local construction labour.

4 Kota stone is a bluish-grey, fine-grained variety of limestone, quarried at Kota district, Rajasthan, India.

6 Professionals • Client: Runa Khan, Executive Director, Friendship • Architect: Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury – Dhaka-based architect, established the practice URBANA in partnership in 1995, and from 2004 has continued as the principal of the firm. • Structural Engineer: Matiur Rahman • Construction Management from URBANA: Albab Yafez Fatmi, Sharijad Hasan • Supervising Engineer: Ahsanul Haque Ratan, Amrul Hasan • Site Engineer: Nahidur Rahman

V. Construction Schedule and Costs

A. History of project design and implementation

• May 2008: Commission • May 2008 – December 2010: Design (3 iterations due to high cost estimates) • December 2010 – December 2011: Construction • December 2011: Occupancy

B. Total Costs

Total cost of construction: 60’000’000 BDT (671’200 EUR) Exchange rate: 90.00 Bangladeshi Taka = 1.00 Euro

C. Comparative costs

Total cost of construction: 60’000’000 BDT / 3’053.3 m2 built-up area 19’651 BDT (219.80 EUR) per m2

D. Qualitative analysis of costs

Compared to India, a similarly finished building would be almost the same – about 220 EUR/m2.

E. Maintenance Costs

There was just normal wear and tear the first year or two when the soil was settling, but other than that nothing major. According to Runa Khan, “We are very careful with maintenance for all our projects. I do not like even simple things not being maintained and this is actually quite easy. I think one of the main point is that – local people can maintain it without new knowledge or training and this is very important for projects which are not under your eyes all the time! This is a big advantage with the Friendship Centre.”

Maintenance Costs per annum: in BDT in Euro • Repair & Maintenance 427’613.00৳ 4’804.64 € • Bank Charge 320.71৳ 3.60 € • Contingency 32’070.98৳ 360.35 €

Total: 460’004.68৳ 5’168.59 €

7 G. Ongoing Costs and “life performance” of building

Friendship is able to rent out the Training Centre to other organizations when required, thereby offsetting running costs.

Running Costs per annum: in BDT in Euro Salary (3 guards, 2 cleaners, 1 gardener) 583’700.00৳ 6’558.43 € Operational Cost (cleaning, washing, consumables, etc.) 755’794.00৳ 8’492.07 € Utility 82’800.00৳ 930.34 € Communication 8’400.00৳ 94.38 € Bank Charge 1’073.02৳ 12.06 € Contingency 107’302.05৳ 1’205.64 €

Total: 1’539’069.07৳ 17’292.91 €

VI. Technical Assessment

A. Functional assessment

Louis Kahn, whose work Chowdhury admires, talked of an “architecture of the land”. This is what the building is, it is so monolithic – a seamless continuity of material, simple, direct. It clearly feels that it is of the land. And Chowdhury says that in Bengal, land is referred to as “Ma”, or mother, and that there is a deep connection between the land and its people.

This rootedness of the building is so strong; so clear a move that everything else seems to fall in to place. The successful use of brick is very much part of this strength, of what is an architecture of the essential. The basic and fundamental are at the core of this design process, and at the centre of the lives of the people the building serves.

The building is organised and functions with a clarity, yet there is a looseness, a casualness, which allows the plan to breathe. The movement around the reflecting pools, through the courtyards, is effortless. Spaces flow. easily But it is the light that is captivating. Is it because all the light is coming from above? There is no horizontal light because of the bund wall, so in essence the entire building is top-lit. Somehow this connection, between an architecture of the land, and the light coming down from above, makes for a very elemental building; a building of and for the people.

B. Climatic performance

There are three clear, decisive ways in which the building works well in this hot, humid climate:

• Cross-ventilation is taken advantage of right through the building – from the layout of the rooms and courtyards, to the detailing of the doors and windows, the building is kept cool with passive airflow.

• Exposed brick masonry construction is breathable, thereby acting as a good insulator, yet allowing porous bricks to dry out after the dampness of the monsoon.

• The building is at grade, but because of the 2.4 metres high bund it has many of the climatic advantages of being a subterranean structure.

8 C. Response to treatment of water and rainfall

• The treatment of water, and the imminent danger of flooding in the monsoon, is one of the most critical components of the design. Building on this site, in the flatlands of the river delta, essentially requires the building to be raised to a level above the floodline, which in this case would be 2.4 metres high. The earthen bund around the building, along the periphery of the site, prevents the floodwater from penetrating any further.

• For the rainwater that falls within the footprint of the building, there are two large, deep tanks, which are located between the two programmatic sections of the building – between the training and the accommodation facilities. These tanks are connected to the third tank on the adjoining site, which was purchased by Friendship more recently as a large holding pond for additional rainwater, but also used as a hatchery for fresh-water fish farming. These three tanks, with the additional reflecting pools, apparently take into consideration large safety margins. The system has been designed by Thai hydraulic/mechanical engineers who have worked in similar conditions before.

• Also, the sewerage system and septic tanks have been clearly isolated from the drainage system (with respect to invert levels, etc.) so as to not contaminate the water table.

D. Environmental response

The use of natural materials, locally sourced, is environmentally sensitive and in keeping with the ethos of the building.

E. Choice of materials, level of technology

The choice of materials and the technology selected for the project is very appropriate. The technology used is suitable for the environment and the local conditions. It is labour intensive and uses skill sets available locally.

F. Response to, and planning for, emergency situations

The three emergency situations the building needs to respond to are: • Earthquakes – due to it being in a seismic zone. Each room has a clear egress out in to courtyards, with few or no corridors. • Fire – egress is through the courtyards and then via one of two stairs, over the earthen bund. • Water management – at times of flooding there are holding tanks and pumps. But even if the electricity fails, the tanks have adequate capacity.

G. Ageing and maintenance problems

The selection of “timeless” materials was well-considered and there should not be a problem with ageing or maintenance, except that exposed brick over time, especially in a humid climate, tends to discolour. Of course, exposed brick is both an aesthetic and economic decision, and though there is a cost saving now, at a later stage it may be necessary to paint or plaster the walls.

9 H. Design features

On arriving at the Friendship Centre I felt a sudden peace and calm. The building is understated; it searches for a simple truth. It responds to restraints – an architecture of the essential.

Chowdhury has spoken of the influence of the 3rd-century Buddhist Monastery, but I feel the sense was deeper. It was what Kahn referred to as Volume Zero – “My purpose is to read Volume Zero, which has yet not been written. That’s a kind of strange mind which causes one to look for this kind of thing. From such a realisation, one thinks of the emergence of a mind. The first feeling is that of beauty. Not the beautiful, just beauty. It is the aura of the perfect harmony.”5

That is what the building achieves – not the beautiful, just beauty.

I. Impact of the project on the site

Situated on 0.80 hectares (two acres), the complex is designed to blend in with the natural environment. The entire roof is green, allowing the structure to visually connect seamlessly to the paddy fields around.

J. Durability and long-time viability of the project

The building is well constructed, and we see no reason why it shouldn’t last without any major problems for many years.

K. Interior design finishing

The interior finishes are simple and resilient, and relate well to the users.

VII. Users

A. Description of those who use or benefit from the project

When I was visiting, there was a training session in progress – young women sitting in a group in one of the pavilions, traditionally dressed but with black briefcases in front of them, each participating in the discussion empowered to change.

The Centre has a wing of rooms for women and one for men, and they come here for training sessions – anywhere from a night to a week. Friendship has developed a comprehensive programme for health and information to the remote river-based communities of northern and southern Bangladesh, and this building is a training centre for them.

5 Louis I. Kahn, What Will Be Has Always Been: The Words of Louis I. Kahn, ed. Richard Saul Wurman (New York: Access Press/Rizzoli, 1986), p.151. From a speech by Kahn at Aspen, CO, June 19, 1972.

10 B. Response to project by clients, users, community, etc.

What do architectural professionals and the cultured “intelligentsia” think about the project?

Kashef Chowdhury presented the project at a South Asian architectural conference in Mumbai in March 2016 that I attended, and it was extremely well received. The project has also been extensively covered by the world architectural press, and in particular articles by critics Kazi Khaleed Ashraf, William Curtis and Kenneth Frampton. Frampton’s essay is to appear in a monograph on the building that will be released in September 2016, but both Curtis and Ashraf are highly complimentary.

What is the popular reaction to the project?

Apart from a few from the architectural community who have gone to see the building (a 45 minute flight from Dhaka, followed by a 2½-hour drive) most people who have experienced the Training Centre are the users. Md. Rifiquzzaman Pollob, (Manager – Field Operations, Friendship) who was there for the two days I visited, says that the users – from villagers to trainees to managers – like the building. It is simple, clean and spatially clearly organised, and that they respond very positively to the place. The courtyards and circulation verandahs are spaces they can relate to. Above all, the brick is “welcoming and comfortable”.

Runa Khan, Executive Director, Friendship, realises that the accessibility of the building makes the programme – of being a training centre for her organisation that helps the rural poor, much easier. “A building lives with its usage also, doesn’t it? I think the Friendship Centre gets more beautiful because it impacts so many lives and brings so much dignity to those who had forgotten to hope”. That’s quite moving – to be reminded that architecture can give dignity to those who had forgotten to hope.

What do neighbours and those in the immediate vicinity think about the project?

There are few neighbours in the vicinity – small sheds, etc. – but from walking around one realised that people were very respectful of the building and yet find it easily accessible. Runa Khan told me that a year after they started construction, when the building was almost completed, the man she had bought the land from came and asked her why she had been in such a hurry to purchase his property, when clearly she hadn’t done anything with the land. When she showed him the building, he was amazed. The entire project sits so easily in the landscape that it doesn’t seem like 3’000 m2 of built area. This may be the best compliment in such a verdant landscape – one where you don’t imagine a building even exists!

VIII. Persons Involved

In italics are people I met/spoke to:

The client: • Friendship, Executive Director: Runa Khan • Friendship, Manager – Field operations: Md. Rifiquzzaman Pollob

11 Design team: • Architect: Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury • Firm: URBANA • Design team: Anup Kumar Basak, Sharif Jahir Hossain • Structural designer: Matiur Rahman • Engineering in-charge: SM Hafizur Rahman • Plumbing design: Phansak Thew, Jongsak Kuntonsurakan • Electrical design: Zafar Ahmed

Construction management from URBANA: Albab Yafez Fatmi, Sharijad Hasan • Supervising engineer: Ahsanul Haque Ratan, Amrul Hasan • Site engineer: Nahidur Rahman

IX. Bibliography

A. Papers/Publications

• Kenneth Frampton, Rob Wilson, Helene Binet, The Friendship Centre, 128 pages, hardcover, Park Books, Zurich: Release date: September 15, 2016

B. Media Reports

• Kazi Khaleed Ashraf, Friendship Centre by Urbana, Bangladesh, Architectural Review,. Nov 2012. See: http://www.architectural-review.com/friendship-centre-by-urbana-bangladesh/8638711.article

• The Luxury of Light and Shadows, Interview with Kashef Mahboob Chowdury, UnCube, Feb. 2013. See: http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/8435505

• Looking back, thinking ahead. Interview with Chowdury, Indian Architect + Builder, Feb. 2013. See: http://issuu.com/iab_archives/docs/iab_feb_2013

• Friendship Centre by Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury/URBANA, Dezeen, Aug. 2013. See: http://www. dezeen.com/2013/08/21/friendship-centre-by-kashef-mahboob-chowdhuryurbana/

• Friendship Centre / Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury/URBANA, Archdaily, Sept. 2013. See: http://www. archdaily.com/423706/

• Friendship Center by Kashef Mahboob Chowdhury in Bangladesh, Arquitectura Viva, Sept. 2013. See: http://www.arquitecturaviva.com/en/Info/News/Details/5042

• Friendship Centre, Phaidon Atlas. See: http://phaidonatlas.com/building/friendship-centre/77982

List of Books and Catalogues about the practice, URBANA

• Suneet Paul, ed., Modernity and The Strata of the Past – Profile: Kashef Chowdhury, Architecture+Design, Aug. 2015

12 • Catherine Slessor, ed., Kashef Chowdhury/URBANA, Architectural Review Special Monograph, London: Architectural Review, 2013

• Maanasi Hattangadi, Ruturaj Parikh, asst. eds., Indian Architect & Builder, 2013

• Catherine Slessor, ed., Emerging Architecture Issue, Architectural Review, 2012 • Philip Jodidio, ed., Architecture Now! 8, Cologne: Taschen, 2012)

• Kubus oder Kuppel: Moscheen Perspektiven einer Bauaufgabe, Tübingen: Wasmuth, 2012.

• Mohsen Mostafavi, ed., Implicate & Explicate, Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Baden: Lars Müller Publishers, 2011

• Architecture Asia, 2, April 2010

• Cristiana Paredes Benítez, ed., FAITH Spiritual Architecture, Barcelona: Loft Publications, 2009

• Architecture+Design, July 2009

• Thio Lay Hoon, ed., D+A Design & Architecture, No. 45, 2008

• Rashid Taqui, ed., Architecture Plus 20, Architecture of a New World, Dubai: Architecture Plus, 2008

• Ziaul Karim, ed., Jamini, The New Architecture, Dhaka: Abul Khair, 2008

• Arun Purie, ed., Design Today, 2008

• Tong Chin Thing, asst. ed., Space, Architecture+Design+Living, Malaysia: MICA, 2008

• Atlas of Contemporary World Architecture (Phaidon 2004)

• Minimalism, Loft Publications, 2004

• Asian Interior Design, Loft Publications, 2004

• Möbel!, 2004

• Architecture Asia, No. 2 / June 2002

• Architecture Asia, No. 4 / Dec. 2002-March 2003

Nondita Correa Mehrotra May 2016

13

!(

!(

¯

Gaibandha !.

BANGLADESH

India

!( Dhaka

Myanmar

BAY OF BENGAL

!( Isometric view

Section

Site plan showing the greens. The inspiration for the building came from the Buddhist monasteries in the area, and the exposed brickwork, stark character and quadrilateral layout, are clearly the architectural influence.

The Friendship Centre is a training facility for a non-government organization in the flatlands of rural, northern Bangladesh, near the Brahma-Jamuna River. To prevent flooding, the Friendship Centre is built directly on the low land and the entire site is protected with an embankment which could be built and maintained for much less.

The green cover of the earthen rooftops act as insulators, and absorbs rainwater. The access to the building from the earthen bundh is organised via two entrance stairs at opposite ends. The programme is then organised around a series of pavilions, courtyards and reflecting pools.

The ‘Ka’ Block contains the reception pavilion, offices, library, training/conference rooms and pavilions, a prayer space and a small ‘cha-shop’. Cross-ventilation is taken advantage of right through the building – from the layout of the rooms and courtyards, to the detailing of the doors and windows, the building is kept cool with passive airflow.

Between the two blocks are large tanks to collect rainwater. The ‘Kha’ Block, connected by three arch- ways, is for more private functions and houses the dormitories, the dining pavilion and staff and family quarters.