- One, he had a clear idea of his clients and their needs. To him, they did not exist as social and economic categories; they were not high income groups or tribals, but people with names and personalities. He once said that he could recall the names of all those for whom he had built houses.
- Two, no one has the right to waste money, materials and energy in a country like India.
- Three, people have the "inherent and inherited ability" to know what good architecture is. Architects, he felt, could and should learn from ordinary people.
- Four, design has to be organic; it has to be transferred from the field to the drawing table and not the other way. He wrote that, "good or bad design, or good or bad taste has little to do with colour, or form, or texture, or costliness — but that has only to do with honesty and truth in the choice of materials and the method of using them".
His concepts of architecture and design were not utilitarian; he only reiterated that utility and aesthetics can comfortably coexist. There is a fundamental critique of the way knowledge is currently understood, acquired, valued and practised in Baker's work. He did not respect the hierarchies implicit in the use of modern knowledge. He acknowledged traditional wisdom and was constantly learning and adapting it in his work practices. The divide between thought and manual labour was for him a false one. He designed his buildings in such a way that they would "fit in with the local styles and not be an offence to the eyes of the people". The housing projects Baker undertook for the poor were in sharp contrast to the government housing projects. His homes were lived in whereas the sarkari concrete huts ended up being used as cattle sheds and storehouses.