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.