Downstream Development - Extracts from (1) Projects & Programme (2) Mahaweli Statistical. Handbook 2022, Study by Moore & Chambers etc

Basic Information At a Glance - 1985-2022

From the Mahaweli Statistical Handbook, 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extract from Projects and Programme, Ministry of Mahaweli Development 1981

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

ASA2015 Paper Template

Designing sustainable settlements in the context of mega projects: lessons learnt from the Mahaweli Architectural Unit, Sri Lanka (1983-1989) Nirodha K M Dissanayake, Katharine Bartsch and Peter Scriver University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia nirodha.dissanayake, katharine.bartsch, peter.scriver@adelaide.edu.au

 Excerpt

3. Mahaweli Architectural Unit (MAU): an architectural venture in MDP Resettlement in the sparsely populated DZ, based on irrigation projects, began in the latter part of the British colonial regime (1815-1948). These endeavours carried a cultural significance—restoration of the ‘lost’ glory of the DZ—which was vigorously promoted after Independence (1948). 

The MDP continued to champion this significance and it was aligned with the increasingly popular nationalist vision whereby the DZ was celebrated as the home for a ‘Sinhala’ civilization which thrived for over a millennia before the 12th Century due to the advanced cascade irrigation systems which relied primarily on the Mahaweli River (Hennayake, 2006, Moore, 1996, 325-356; 108-110, Sorenson, 1996, 70-73). This ‘colonization’ of the DZ, then, was state-sponsored through agricultural, irrigation and land policies (Sanderatne, 2004, 196-207).

 The MDP, the culmination of these projects, was convened in 1963. Like mega-projects worldwide, the MDP was funded by western capital and operated with western expertise (Gunatillake, 1999, 196). In the process of implementing the AMP (1977), the formation of the MAU (1982), by a ‘ministerial decision’ under the umbrella of the MASL (1980), was a timely intervention which enabled the new town construction (with appropriate expertise) to match the engineering works (Plesner, 2010, 376). Moreover, this unit comprising primarily architects was a response to the recommendation of the TAMS report to align the settlements with the “human side of planning” (TAMS, 1980, 25). As Perera argues, the planning approach of the pre-MAU planning body was engineering-dominated and relied extensively on physical data without adequate consideration of the socio-cultural conditions and the ways these could be addressed through architecture and urban design (Perera, 2016). Plesner, an influential figure in post-colonial Sri Lankan architectural practice, who “co-developed a hybrid architecture (with Geoffrey Bawa),” referred to as a “critical vernacular” style by Perera, was appointed as the Consultant Architect, while Perera was appointed as the Chief Architect-Planner of the MAU (2010, 159). This combination of local and foreign expertise was a complementary strength (Perera, 2010, 158-160).

 The buildings designed by the MAU differed significantly from the pre-MAU designs. The MAU employed a large number of small scale village contractors and purchased equipment locally in order to strengthen the local economy, as well as to give them ownership through participation (Plesner, 1986, 86). In keeping with this sense of agency, the design of buildings in the vernacular style was compatible with the technical skills of local carpenters and builders. Given these considerations, the MAU aimed to develop simple and rational low-cost buildings and self-help housing types. Rammed earth techniques were developed to a technically satisfactory state and applied to the design of schools and health centres, as well as houses, with the intent to establish better building practices for towns to develop on their own, one of the key dimensions of sustainable settlements (Figure 2). Figure 2: Examples of MAU building designs: administrative building, shop-house and model low-cost core house for farmers (source: Plesner, 1986, 86-87) and the MAU design for the Dehiattakandiya Township. (source: MASL archives)

 The vernacular language, nurtured by both the Portuguese and the Dutch, and which mitigated the Sri Lankan hot and humid tropical climate, is prominent not only in these Mahaweli towns, but it is an important trend in the Sri Lankan built environment, embraced in particular, by wealthy, educated, elite 194 N.K.M. Dissanayake, K. Bartsch and P. Scriver families. Mahaweli buildings expressed the traditional ‘spirit of the place’ and they were arranged around internal courtyards as in the case of the ancient mansions; they are further characterised by pitched roofs with low eaves providing cool shade; colonnades covering wide, deep, open verandas, as in buildings in southern Sri Lanka where colonial influences were prominent; long vistas, as in Buddhist Temples; trellis windows, enabling cross-ventilation whilst affording privacy and security as in the Moorish houses in Colombo and useful and beautiful details including integrated sleeping and seating platforms evident in old traders’ houses in Jaffna (Plesner, 2010, 195-197).

 The MAU designed and built mainly two types of town buildings, shop-houses and administrative buildings. These “linear system of buildings”, concentrated along streets and squares are open on two sides to allow cross-ventilation in response to mitigate the hot-humid conditions (Rajapakse, 2007, 228). They could be adapted with new ceilings, windows or special equipment, and connected to nearby buildings with a covered walkway (Plesner, 1986, 86). Shops were built with an upper floor for living or storing goods. This “shop house typology … built wall to wall” along the main road is a very common element in rural Sri Lankan towns (Rajapakse, 2007, 227). Perera claims, the MAU just built the shells, allowing the owners to customise their interior (2010, 164), and in particular, the provision of sidewalks was intended to create opportunities for individual expression whilst breaking the monotony that might result from repeated building types (Perera, 2010, 166). Rajapakse rightly observes that the “covered walkway in the shop house is a key element in tying the buildings within a common theme” (2007, 229).

 

The MAU built 12 new towns between 1983 and 1989. The MAU work encompassed a vast scale from territorial considerations through to small buildings within the townships (Rajapakse, 2007, 222). The scope of the MAU included, planning new towns and settlements, design and construction of individual buildings, environmental planning and landscaping (Plesner, 86; Jayewardene, 34). Plesner envisioned the Mahaweli towns as recreations of “traditional qualities in new circumstances”, solving the typical problems such as “traffic, parking, shanty development and unknown future growth” (Plesner, 2010, 384). The MAU employed a “people centred” design approach, to generate an “adaptable plan” or a “loose-fit design”, to construct “good towns” that were intended to respond positively to the climate and the culture. The towns are characterised by a “by-pass concept”, and incorporated “Sri Lankan sensibilities” such as “compact and mixed-use cores”. There are plenty of open public spaces. A unique identity was achieved through the “vernacular style” buildings, which used local materials and expertise, and a simple colour code (Perera, 2010, 160-166), thus giving them their special ‘Mahaweli Town’ characteristics. They responded to the natural environment through the protection of existing trees and the planting of new trees, with the intent to furnish the towns with ‘character’ and to provide ‘shade’. The towns were created for the present rather than for the future and were expected to provide a framework for future development. (Perera, 2010, 168). The MAU’s towns were planned (Figure 2), unlike typical Sri Lankan towns, and they employed a vernacular architectural language, unlike the pre-MAU towns. In doing so, the design of the Mahaweli new towns precipitated a new paradigm of regional planning and urban design in Sri Lanka.

 Study by M. P. Moore and R. Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies October 1980

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---'-------------

CONTRACTORS INVOLVED IN DOWNSTREAM DEVELOPMENT

(Siriwardena, S.S.A.L. 1989.
From planned intervention to negotiated development: the struggle of bureaucrats, farmers and traders in the Mahaweli scheme in Sri Lanka, Dissertation Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.)

1. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Australia Construction and upgrading of 134 kilometres of roadway in Systems B & C
2. Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy-Stration (TAMS) of USA
Environmental assessment study and plan of action in System B & C
3. Vianini Italy
Contractor The R.B. Transbasin Channel, Minipe
4. Hazama Gumi Toda & C. ITOH of Japan (Joint Venture) Contractor - R.B. Transbasin, Channel No.2 Ratkinda
5. Nippon Koel Jec & Chue Koihatsu, Corporation Japan Consultants (Moragaha Kanda Feasibility Report)
6. NEDECO - The Netherlands Consultants - (Implementation Strategy of the Accelerated Mahaweli Programme)
7. SOIL Mechanics Ltd. of UK Consultants (Special Geological Survey)
8. Zachny - Diltinghara USA (Construction of Left Bank Main Canal)
9. Louis Berger International Inc. USA

--------------------------------