BUILDING CONSTRUCTION RULES—
SEARCH FOR AN ACCOUNTABLE, SUSTAINABLE,
AND PARTICIPATORY ENVIRONMENT
Mahbubur Rahman
Professor, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
54100 Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur
Abstract
Building activities within the metropolitan area of Dhaka are regulated by the
Building Construction Rules (BCR), formulated by the RAJUK (Capital Development
Authority) as bylaws of the East Bengal Building Construction Act 1952. This is
followed in other urban areas of the country under various planning and
development authorities and municipalities, often in a modified version. Despite
being rudimentary and indifferent to environmental sustainability, users’ safety or
accountability of concerned parties, lax enforcement of the building rules was
blamed for the uncontrolled construction spree and occasional fatalities.
BCR 2006 was prepared in the above context, and for the first time, through
stakeholders’ participation. It deviated from prior rules by including accountability,
sustainability and participation in its objectives, and viewed construction rights in
the light of community well-being. However, its implementation faced resistance
from various vested quarters from the beginning; politicians and bureaucrats
influenced its implementation to serve their own interest. The current BCR 2008,
supposedly based on the 2006 version, has drifted far from its original intent and
objective, and is actually detrimental to greater interests. The paper highlights the
intent of the BCR 2006 and compares it with BCR 2008. It also reviews different
aspects of implementation, and makes recommendations.
THE BACKGROUND
The Building Construction Act 1952 empowered RAJUK (the Capital Development
Authority) to regulate all construction activities within the Dhaka Metropolitan Area
with the help of Building Construction Rules (BCR), instead of a Planning Rule. The
Rules started in 1955 with only 5 lines of instruction on the backside of the application
form. Gradually newer requirements were set- 1 page in 1970, 3 pages in 1984, and 12
pages in 1996. Non-professional bureaucrats mostly framed these Rules, viewing a
building only within its plot boundaries, using no tool other than setbacks. Later, height
limits based on road width, and few other requirements were introduced. The arbitrary
requirements were not thoroughly researched in relation to developing a desired
physical and climatic environment.
Coupled with weak implementation, such inconsiderate rules could neither
control unplanned growth and violations, nor give any direction towards the planned
development of a burgeoning city. They cultivated corruption, deteriorated the
environment, enticed illegal construction, destroyed neighborhood harmony, wasted
space and resources, and endangered lives. The urge for an appropriate and modern
rule increased in the backdrop of some building accidents in the 1990s. The authority, though alarmed, could not overcome red tape and mindset to enact new rules
and improve enforcement. RAJUK prepared a set of contradictory and technically
flawed rules in 2002 by borrowing from several sources that disregarded the wider
perspective. Hence this so called ‘High-rise Building Rule’ was rejected by the
building professionals, environmental activists and other civic bodies. Eventually, the
onus to prepare a set of proper Building Rules that is acceptable and beneficial to all
fell on the Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB).
The IAB members, few with good foreign experience, along with various
stakeholders, worked through lot of opposition and negotiations for over a year within
the time and resource constraints. Among the others, an environmental activist groupBangladesh Environment Movement (BAPA) and the Real-Estate and Housing
Association of Bangladesh (REHAB) were prominent. Among the IAB-members
involved, some were also planners. At some stages, RAJUK officials too were
involved. After several reviews, a gazette notification of the new Rule was made on 12
April 2006, which thus became mandatory for all concerned.
However, this was not made operative until February 2007 while the 1996 Rule
(R96) continued to be used. In the confusing situation with two parallel rules, vested
quarters took advantage of the older rule that was supposed to be abandoned due to
shortcomings mentioned above. However, there were 150 mostly typographical or
grammatical mistakes identified in the 2006 Rules (R06). Moreover, some of the provisions were in conflict with those in other rules and the Bangladesh National Building
Code (BNBC) that was made mandatory in November, 2006. Thus two more major
revisions of R06 were adopted subsequently as the 2007 and 2008 Rules respectively.
THE UNIQUENESS OF NEW RULES
The R06 is unique in the following sense:
1. Defined objectives;
2. Responds to the demand for an appropriate and modern rule by various
concerned bodies in the aftermath of building disasters;
3. Participation by professional societies and civic bodies in a consultative and
participatory process to write the rules;
4. Consideration of greater total benefits of a neighborhood, rather than remaining confined by considerations of each individual plot and owner’s interest;
5. Introduction of several tools for public benefits, including the use of Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) and Maximum Ground Coverage, abolishing the concept
of building height and controlling the building size by FAR;
6. Introducing incentives to encourage a desirable environment;
7. Engagement of right professionals in design and supervision;
8. Introduction of development permit and occupancy certificate.
Goals and Objectives:
The inherent vision of R06 was to have a set of rules that would lead Dhaka- a
mega-city of 14 million people, towards bringing a sustainable development in the
new millennium. It had the following main objectives:
i) to improve procedure and enforce monitoring,
ii) to improve building safety and efficiency,
iii) to improve the urban environment, and
iv) to increase accountability and participation.
The paper will discuss how these objectives were set to achieve.
Procedural Improvement:
R06 introduced the provisions for Development Permit (DP) and Occupancy
Certificate (OC). In conjunction with the need for obtaining Land Use Clearance and
Building Permit in the older Rules, this split the procedure for obtaining permission,
execution and occupation of the built structure into four parts to improve enforcement
and compliance and enhance monitoring. For example DP, which was mandatory for
certain large and complex projects, protects an applicant from outright rejection or from
requiring major modification in an advance stage of design. It could be used to separate
development right from title as in developed countries, and control speculation.
Supervision by qualified personnel was mandatory as OC is to be accompanied by
Completion Report (CR). The construction has to be inspected and certified by the
authorized officers too. This ensures quality and safety, and adherence to approved
drawings. The provision for obtaining and renewing OC ensures that minor changes
during construction are endorsed through 'As-Built Drawing', and no drastic change of
use or design is made to the building either during or after construction.
In R96, obtaining 'No Objection' from 11 government agencies was a time
consuming process. One Window Cell (OWC), consisting representatives of mainly
service providing 19 government agencies and professional bodies, sitting twice a
month to scrutiny DPs, was proposed to overcome this.
Another improvement was the provision for incentives to bring desirable
development. For example, exemption of balcony or parking area from FAR calculations was aimed at encouraging the provisions. Incentives were also admissible for
giving up of land for road widening and car turning, making thick outside wall,
providing loft, re-cycling rainwater, using solar power, etc.
The provision for a high-powered independent Urban Development Committee to
arbitrate in appeal cases, monitor compliance, and provide visionary directions, was a
revolutionary addition to make the procedure transparent and accountable. Moreover
forming and empowering committees such as: Heritage Committee, Traffic Committee,
etc. were proposed that would not only give special attention to these important aspects
of urban development, but will also bring proper administration.
Definitions and specifications, often explained in sketches, charts, application
forms, list of required supporting documents etc. gave a greater clarity to the R06
relative to prior rules. The R06 specified time limit for executing certain function at
each level of the procedure, and consequences on the authority for failure to monitor
properly. These should remove ambiguity and hence delay, harassment and corruption.
Figure 1: Different ways of utilizing same FAR value.
Figure 2: Resultant forms of old rules (left) and new rules (right).
Safety and Efficiency:
R06 could enhance the safety, comfort, hygiene and efficiency factors in buildings
multi-fold in various ways. It specified many essential elements of a building, primarily
from the 1993 BNBC, that are now mandatory. The technical and spatial specifications
related to materials, service and space standards and technology in such areas as
basement, electro-mechanical, fire escape, parking, ramp, kitchen, toilet, stair, machine
room, etc. Engagement of right professionals in every stage of design and execution,
including supervision and issuance of CR, increased the prospect of the building being
safe, efficient, structurally and functionally sound, and aesthetically pleasant.
So-far-neglected fire standards have been dealt with in adequate details. This was
made imperative by the prospect that buildings would be taller now and tere is a lax in
fire safety practice and awareness. Along with rationalizing and elaborating, incentives
were offered for providing extra facilities. R06 also guided land sub-division and
consolidation, and specified internal parking regulations, more courts, light and
ventilation as well. Minimum common amenities in multi-family residences was also
identified and made mandatory. R06 for the first time considered the cause of the
physically challenged people and introduced certain basic minimum standards and
provisions especially in all public buildings. This is integrated in order to ensure
universal accessibility; more requirements could be enforced when people become
accustomed to the practice.
Environmental Improvement:
R06 utilized various planning and design tools to bring about a sustainable
development. For example, it ensured the provision of unpaved (reduced footprint)
uncovered areas in a plot to allow adequate distance between buildings, and rainwater
percolation elevating ground water table and reducing the inundation problem, and help
to control shadow length on neighbor. Cost and energy effective passive cooling techniques could be adopted to increase natural ventilation and reduce energy consumption.
The cool sink could be used to reduce noise and dust by creating greeneries. These in
turn would reduce environmental damage brought by hard surfaces, tree removal,
grading, destruction of nature, overbuilding, etc.
Incentives provided for using elements like balcony, pergola, porous boundary,
cavity wall, lofts, canopy, fins, etc. and proper materials and technology will contribute
to the development of environ-friendly comfortable, cost-effective and sustainable
design and exciting forms. Building envelopes would be more creatively integrated
with outdoor landscape; irregular perimeter could maintain better privacy. Provisions
were kept for more open areas in educational buildings, and children play area,
community hall and prayer spaces in multi-family buildings, etc.
Figure 3: Manipulation of FAR to create more open surroundings.
Desired character of each area could be better preserved through stricter
enforcement of use type and zoning (from Detail Area Plan). Mandatory widening of
roads less than 20' wide and construction of footpath (by the landowner) would
improve both vehicular and pedestrian movements.
R06 validated uses like clinic, groceries, etc. of limited sizes within residential
areas, contingent upon adequate and required utilities and no negative environmental
effect. This was expected to reduce developments detrimental to residential areas.
Also, so-far-the-most-elaborate conservation related suggestions and rules for special
consideration in the vicinity of heritage structure would maintain architectural and
environmental harmony, and make common people aware of the value of heritage
structures, deterring the destruction of such cultural heritage.
Accountability and Participation:
The R06 was drafted by the professional societies with stakeholders’ participation
by bringing public-private cooperation in formulating rules. Also, for the first time, it
took into consideration the impact of a building on the neighborhood and the city
beyond its boundaries making it citizen-responsive and contemporary. Community’s
say in the process was recognized as a building locale is considered owned by it. Many
social benefits would accrue as an outcome of this extended realm.
Various provisions of the R06 ensured both direct and indirect participation of
professionals, bound by the Code of Ethics of respective societies, and the community.
These included rules related to compliance, 'As Built Drawing', professional involvement, supervision, appeal system, universal access, social equity, various committees,
inbuilt mechanism to stop violation, etc. It recognized the need for public display of
drawings of projects that may affect a neighborhood greatly in order to hear the opinion
of those in the locality or the city, and allowing access to such materials by anybody on
request. These were aimed at bringing transparency and accountability, and ensuring
peoples participation.
Figure 4: Development in Singapore and Dhaka applying FAR.
In the process of preparing R06, R07 and R08, steps were taken to plug loopholes
through procedural modification and detailing, often with the help of RAJUK officials.
Responsibility was defined, terms were definite, and procedure was elaborate in order
to avoid ambiguity, abuse and scope for corruption. Introduction of right technical and
spatial specifications, defined procedure, guidelines for land development, provision for
amenities, universal access and equity, and observance of BNBC were aimed at
bringing accountability in the approval and execution stages.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AS A GUIDING TOOL
FAR is a modern and effective tool used in many developed and developing
countries to bring about a desirable growth in the urban areas. As the relationship
between the amount of permitted floor area and the area of the plot, it estimates
number of users and therefore amount of utility and amenity required in an area.
Thus FAR for an area is determined on the basis of the bearing capacity of the area in
terms of existing and projected service and infrastructure facilities, traffic generation
and road capacity, desired use and density, grain and three-dimensional form, use
type, etc. Thereafter, FAR for an area is translated at individual plot levels in terms of
road width, plot size and occupancy type. This is done both to maintain the desired
form and density in an area based on sustainable capacity, and also to encourage or
discourage certain type of development in certain areas.
The future development in a plot is going to affect the neighborhood by way of
increasing population, and adding demand on its service and utility capacities, amount
of traffic or garbage generated, need for social amenities and institutions, shadow and
air path, etc. Thus amount of allowable built up area should be decided in a neighborhood scale, not only in terms of a plot only. FAR caters to the idea that since price of a
plot is determined by characteristics created and valued by a community, the community should also have a say in its utility. Therefore, unused FAR should be available to a
neighboring plot which can buy (trading development right) and make best use of the
FAR available for the area.
Though the use of FAR as a tool to bring about and control desirable change in
the built environment was known to enlightened professionals, it was not used since
mainly non-professionals formulated the rules. Since FAR considerations discussed
above were not incorporated into the DAP, the formulating team undertook several
short studies with hypothetical site and road width situations of every possible
attributes and uses, form and mass, utility and amenity, compared the current
situation with ideal ones, and then came up with its recommendations. A common
premise in their exercise was that the current amount of square feet allowed on a
particular plot was in excess of their sustainable capacity for service, traffic and
amenities, with detrimental effects on the environment and the neighborhood.
Setting FAR proportional to the plot size in conjunction with increasing
mandatory open area and set back will improve both environmental and physical
surroundings. In order to ensure desirable changes, both incentives and deterrents
need to be used. Comparative advantages and disadvantages of such density mix are
discussed below.
Environmental Benefits
As building cannot be built by observing only the set back, these would be offset
more from the boundary walls and from each other, more open areas would allow
passage of environmental verdure necessary for hygienic and comfortable living. Green
areas should have multiple benefits like increasing humidity and absorbing noise and
dust, and cool sink allowing the use of passive techniques. These will reduce artificial
energy consumption and running cost of a building. Increased rainwater percolation
would help reduce inundation from rain, and reverse the ground water level recession.
More open areas would indirectly contribute in reducing or stopping the other detrimental environment practices, improving the environmental quality. There would be
more scope to play with natural lights in design, and maintain privacy through manipulation of building masses, distance, trees, balconies, fins etc.
Social Benefits
Fallouts of social benefits in the physical environment would be robust. As in
many cities, large open areas would encourage more social activities by people of all
age groups with the creation of play lot, park bench, grass, court, etc. Available open
areas, especially where plots are consolidated, could be planned to create pedestrian
web for jogging, pedaling, or just idle sitting. With greeneries, amenities, services,
and appropriate street furniture, such surroundings should allow interaction that shall
ensure social security through enhanced vigilance. More greenery, hygiene, sanitation and amenities would create a balanced nature. Moreover, through strict enforcement of zoning, the character of an area would be maintained.
While the older unimaginative rules gave rise to concrete boxes occupying as
much of plot area as possible, R06 would provide other ways to maximize areas. Since
the footprint would be reduced with no or little reduction in amount of buildable area,
buildings would be more slender and hence aesthetically better proportioned. Higher
buildings will have a scope for variation in using allowable floor areas, elevation,
elements etc. in absence of usual height restriction.
REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION
One Window Cell (OWC)
Introduction of one stop service for larger projects that required clearance from
several government organizations, and thus prospect of reducing harassment,
corruption and time in the approval process, was an important reason for REHAB to
support formulation and implementation of R06. Ironically, this could not overcome
opposition from vested interest and ceased to be implemented.
From the onset, the OWC was attended by lower level staff of member
organizations who were neither conversant with the process nor empowered to give
decision of the pertinent body. Some of the organizations like Civil Aviation (CAA),
Fire, and Environment were reluctant to cooperate. Fire and Environment departments had their own rules and regulations that they wanted aspirant builders to
follow outside of the OWC process. Such duality created the scope for exerting
undue authority, indulging in corruption and delaying the approval process, which
these bodies were reluctant to relinquish.
It also needed some adjustments of conflicting definitions and provisions among
laws and rules of these bodies. For example while R06 raised the lower limit of highrise buildings to 11 floors to make it more realistic and reflective of current technical
capabilities in the country, Fire Department wanted to stick to their definition of 7+
floors based on the capacity of fire fighting ladder in 1993! It was reluctant to exempt
generally un-harmful use type, for example simple residences. Attempts to overcome
these problems through inter-ministerial coordination were futile.
Different organizations have different requirements of the format for submission
as per their own rules and practices; attempts to evolve a uniform format failed due to
non-cooperation and rigid stand by each of these bodies. Taller buildings required a
height clearance from the CAA based on air funnel. This information, if it were
available to public, would have helped to smooth the building design and approval
process. But, these attempts were also blocked due to the same reasons cited above.
Urban Development Committee:
Similar to OWC, success of the Urban Development Committee (UDC), formed
to guide city’s development, provide visionary directives, and dispense appeals, was
marred. Often representation of relevant body was made by lower level representatives who lacked the authority and wisdom of the chief executive. Since it was
supposed to be an exclusive policy making body overseeing RAJUK’s activities,
attendance by many non-members also created problems.
According to the Rules, UDC was supposed to be chaired by the Secretary of
Housing and Public Works. Yet the State Minister often attended the meetings. After
the completion of the first cycle of the committee, some people with known affiliation to the ruling party were included. Recently a talk about bringing an MP as the
Chair is rife which only vindicates the growing importance and authority of the UDC
and intention of the government to influence decisions; this is evident in other areas
of urban development and planning too.
Due to such pressure from powerful and vested groups, UDC has seldom been
able to take bold decisions or exercise certain functions. It showed some boldness and
responsibility in disposing off some appeal cases made by owners of illegal buildings.
However, in most cases there were no follow up or execution. Moreover, the UDC
often assumed a policing attitude— an absurd proposition in given situation. For
example, the UDC-members taking upon themselves to personally detect violations.
The UDC set up subcommittees with UDC-members and co-opted members who
were mostly recognized experts in their own fields, to study and make recommenddations on certain issues. Since the members worked voluntarily, such exercises often
took more time than anticipated, and yet were not thorough and raised more questions.
Examples are review of FAR, zoning and height restriction, organizational structure of
RAJUK, heritage list, housing requirements and programs, or even those that reviewed
R06 and R07.
During such time that UDC existed (since 16.11.06), there have been several
changes in the position of its Chair (Secretary, Works) and Secretary (Chairman,
RAJUK). Moreover, though at the onset, the committee decided to sit on 3rd
Thursday of every month, soon meetings became infrequent, often delayed by over 8
months (e.g. in 2009). This has greatly affected performance and contribution of
UDC and its various subcommittees, and continuation of activities.
Floor Area Ratio
Compared to most cities of the world, FAR indices in Dhaka were much higher
and followed a progressive pattern with increasing plot size in order to encourage land
consolidation. The controversy regarding the amount of available floor areas as compared to older rules was always based on misinformed assumptions and ill motives.
Three comparative studies undertaken at different times dispelled the repeated claims
by vested quarters that buildings on small plots under the new rules would be ‘losing’ a
substantial amount of floor area as compared to those under the older rule. This put in
question the basic premise that a new rule was necessitated because the older one was
causing more harm to urban development. In deed under the new rule about 25% more
area would be available for most conditions if all incentives were availed. Full benefits
of the new design would be evident only in a real project depending on the ingenuity
and creativity of the designer, and his ability to exploit all the incentives and exemptions provided in the rules.
Yet the subcommittees, despite consisting of senior academics, failed to understand the crux of the issue— creating eco-friendly aesthetic design. Though the initial
setting up of the matrix was based on several studies, the so called ‘small adjustments’
suggested by the subcommittee(s) took the matrix in simple arithmetic terms in
progressive order. While preparing the BCRs, it was expected and reiterated that DAP
(Detail Area Plan) as a part of the 1995 Dhaka Structure Plan will specify proper
zoning and density and recommend an appropriate FAR accordingly for each area that
could be integrated into the BCRs. Unfortunately this was not done, and the consultants
expressed their inability and unwillingness to undertake the required study.
While the initial FAR considered the height and density to be achieved, CAA’s
height restriction often inhibited the full utilization of available floor area; observation of maximum ground coverage was waived in these areas. Height was restricted
in RAJUK planned residential areas on the pretext of spurious request by people of
the locality including diplomats. Despite showing lack of understanding and appreciation of the objectives of the new rules, such modifications of the rules show
patronization of rich and powerful groups. According to the rules, such exceptions
are only admissible to the low-income groups.
Heritage Preservation
Though elaborate conservation related provisions in R06 were curtailed in R08,
the UDC with the help of a subcommittee could prepare a list of 93 buildings and
areas within its area of jurisdiction. Published in the government gazette on 23.6.08
and 21.10.09, this included 28 structures already listed by the Archaeology Department. However, done without any thorough study or documentation, this gave rise to
some controversies. Merit of certain obscure structures to be on the list or other
deserving ones not being there have been questioned. Similarly owners of some
private properties objected to being listed without consultation. Empowering the
Building Code Authority, municipalities, RAJUK and the Dept. of Archaeology to
list buildings is creating confusion.
Due to the new found awareness of architectural heritage, this was discussed in the
UDC several times, once in the presence of the Works Minister. At least six cases
concerning specific buildings, e.g. the Jagannath University Library, Arch Bishop’s
House, House in BK Das Lane, Madhur Canteen, Musa Khan’s Mosque, and St.
Gregory School were discussed in UDC and certain positive decisions including
transferring development right were taken; however, these had mixed outcomes.
Capacity Building
Both the original report (first draft) and the subcommittee on RAUK’s organogram later formed by the UDC strongly recommended to enhance the capacity of
RAJUK officials, specially the technical personnel, in terms of checking, enforcing and
monitoring the provisions of the Rules, and increase their number substantially. While
several hundred building professionals work in the development permit department in
a developing world’s city of similar or even smaller size like Jakarta, Bangkok, New
Delhi, or KL, that within RAJUK is only a few whose competency, sincerity and
integrity are not beyond question.
Unfortunately a large part of the RAJUK officials’ minds are set by the R96 based
on setback and height restrictions. Thus due to their reluctance and lack of training and
manpower, new provisions that were instituted to make the process more accountable
and meeting other objectives too were mostly not enforced. For example, there has
been no strict adherence to the requirements of supervision, as-built drawing, completion report, occupancy certificate, etc. There have been attempts to interpret the current
Rules in terms of R96 or compare them with a motive to establish that as better!
Despite attempts to improve the situation by bringing in technical personnel on
deputation from other government organizations, but situation did not improve.
Housing Program
A subcommittee was formed to prepare a “Comprehensive Housing Program for
the Dhaka City” as per the directives of the Chief Adviser to the Caretaker Government
with particular attention to the needs of the poor and low-income groups. However, the
report submitted in August 2008 by an urban studies centre not approved by the
subcommittee neither addressed the problem comprehensively, nor laid down any
program. The issue of sustainability in the use of scarce land, energy and natural amenities, and the responsiveness to the dwellers' way of life, transport and employment,
were not addressed.
The report proposed to build 109,200 units for squatters on vacant government
land and in existing squatter areas in 2008-13 in the first phase, 310,800 units for
slum-dwellers in new housing areas within the metropolitan area, and 1,100,000 units
for the middle income group by renewing old housing areas, RAJUK-developed
housing areas and in new satellite towns. It also proposed to construct 80,000 units
for the upper income group in the existing housing areas, and real estate development
and holiday homes in fringe areas. These ignored that housing is not a number, but a
'process' through which this is produced, delivered, and acquired, involving various
stakeholders, services, infrastructure, amenities, etc.
Analyses, assessment and projection did not consider a scenario shaped by
decentralization, economic resurgence, industry relocation, strategic transport plan,
restriction on using agricultural land, better environmental awareness, increased
enforcement of law, etc. The problem was over-simplified to inability of the government to provide residential units; instead of looking for and addressing the cause, it
tried to heal only the symptoms. The report did not include any strategy that would
enable it to achieve an ‘enabler’ role through a system setting rules and control,
providing incentives, infrastructure and finance, encouraging cooperation and participation of the cooperatives and the NGOs, etc.
As 30% of the housing is delivered by the formal non-government sector and
60% by the informal sector, their problems and needs required to be identified and
addressed. Conventional wisdom made solution(s) to the housing problem impotent.
It needs fundamental change in attitude and unconventional innovative methods that
in a land-hungry poor country can provide suitable housing to all within affordable
means. It is impossible for the government alone to meet the needs. The problem
should be seen in the context of overall settlement, environment, economy, transport,
income generation, education, health, governance and security— the whole gamut of
national development and citizens' welfare.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The BCRs instituted since 2006 (R06, R07 and R08) brought several new measures in
order to ensure an environ-friendly responsible and accountable modern city. In last
four years the new rules have faced many impediments of human, legal and technical
types in its implementation. Currently another revision of it is being undertaken. A set
of recommendations is given below in order to overcome these problems.
a. run advocacy (awareness and motivation) programs for those involved with
the building construction process, including the professionals;
b. build both hard (personnel) and soft (knowledge) capacity of RAJUK;
c. decentralize and expedite approval process and introduce 1-stop service;
d. simplify the rules, both the language and details;
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
synchronize the provisions of BNBC, BCR, DAP, etc.;
eliminate discrepancies among BCR, Fire Code, Environment Law, etc.;
eliminate those provisions already covered by the BNBC;
update and extend the scope of the BNBC;
simplify/reduce the requirements;
plug the holes that are exploited by both officials and builders (owners);
make vehicular requirements more realistic, eliminate related incentives;
eliminate the incentives, or integrate them within FAR calculation;
introduce vetting by professional societies;
revise both the FAR and Ground Cover indices, in most cases downward;
strengthen and regularize UDC;
enforce and observe all provisions (e.g. supervision, occupancy) fully;
make regular inspection and monitoring mandatory; consider outsourcing;
engage the professionals and other stakeholders in any future revisions; and
improve the image; reorient activities of RAJUK as a planning management
and development control agency, reduce construction/development activities.
Conclusion
The new rule was prepared over a considerable period with the involvement of the
major stakeholders for the collective benefit of the Dhaka inhabitants. As some of its
provisions were new and radical to the professionals, officials and laymen alike, it was
apprehended that some time will take for all concerned quarter becoming conversant
with the idea and its details, and the rules become appreciated and part of the general
building practice. Enforcement would be easier once the benefits of the Rules become
evident through its direct and indirect effects on the environment and the surroundings.
By combining planning and design tools, the new rule provided building design
guidance without being too repressive. Since design is a creative exercise and every
plot and design is different, the goal should be not to limit the ingenuity and creativity
of a designer but to make sure he fulfils his obligation to make a sustainable, safe and
comfortable building that can only be used for the right purposes and have positive
impact on the neighborhood. However, like in such other rules in most of the urban
areas of the world, this should have been a planning rule, while building details should
have been guided by the Building Code and competent designers.
The mindset of RAJUK, the ill equipped and ill prepared implementing agency,
was a hindrance to the proper understanding and full enforcement of the provisions; this
opened scope for corruption. All intentional or unintentional mistakes in the provisions,
including typos, demeaning the basic objectives, should be corrected considering their
effects on the environment and the building profession and above all public safety and
collective benefit. It has to be understood that the BCR is not the cure for all ills in the
urban area; how much it will be effective depends on level of adherence to it, and full
implementation of others like the DAP, BNBC, etc.