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

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

3

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
.
!

BA N GL A DE S H
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.