An article I read in SF Gate, led me to think about innovations in disaster relief shelters and their actual practical usability within the context of culture, politics and economy.
How does theoretical architectural innovation in diasater relief shelter fit in with the realities of the situation, with political will, and above all, peoples need? Architects, engineers and designers have spent years bent over their drawing boards trying to come up with the most ideal solution for providing shelters for a people left homeless in a diaster (natural or unnatural). But somehow the results don't justify the hours and years spent by a people considered the most creative.
"As many experts on emergency housing have pointed out, temporary post-disaster communities often put down roots and stick around. From the shantytowns of Rio de Janeiro to Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, decent temporary structures often end up functioning as woefully inadequate permanent dwellings that sometimes shelter residents not for months or even a few years but for generations."
If people will be living in these shelters for a long time, why not build them right in the first place?
"What these innovators can't really address is people's overriding desire to be close to loved ones and in a familiar community."
"... even after the 1906 quake, when more than 250,000 people were displaced, disaster housing amounted to only 6,000 two-room houses built in parks around the city. Because they were reasonably well-built and they ended up being transported to building sites around the city, some of these shacks still survive as a testament to a great moment in disaster-relief housing. But the fact is, they served only a small fraction of those displaced by the quake: The vast majority of people moved in with family or friends, rented new apartments, moved elsewhere."
Famous architects like Daniel Libeskind, Shigeru Ban to Nader Khalili have claimed to have designed the ideal way to build disaster relief shelters. But it seems, that is just not enough. When the UN tried to implement Khalili's prototype in rebuilding a village after the Gujarat earthquake, the project got stalled because the State of California demanded an exhorbitant sum in royalties.
So what is "Disaster Housing" actually? Is it tents without toilets? Is it mud houses that require paying heavy sums in royalty for replicating? It is a wild idea in an architect's sketch book? Is it a friend's or relative's house? Is it plastic or cardboard boxes or beer can rooms? In that sense, aren't all the slums in the urban developing world disaster relief shelters?
Isn't "temporary housing" a relative term, as is the term "permanent housing"?
Read the article at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/09/30/carollloyd.DTL
How does theoretical architectural innovation in diasater relief shelter fit in with the realities of the situation, with political will, and above all, peoples need? Architects, engineers and designers have spent years bent over their drawing boards trying to come up with the most ideal solution for providing shelters for a people left homeless in a diaster (natural or unnatural). But somehow the results don't justify the hours and years spent by a people considered the most creative.
"As many experts on emergency housing have pointed out, temporary post-disaster communities often put down roots and stick around. From the shantytowns of Rio de Janeiro to Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, decent temporary structures often end up functioning as woefully inadequate permanent dwellings that sometimes shelter residents not for months or even a few years but for generations."
If people will be living in these shelters for a long time, why not build them right in the first place?
"What these innovators can't really address is people's overriding desire to be close to loved ones and in a familiar community."
"... even after the 1906 quake, when more than 250,000 people were displaced, disaster housing amounted to only 6,000 two-room houses built in parks around the city. Because they were reasonably well-built and they ended up being transported to building sites around the city, some of these shacks still survive as a testament to a great moment in disaster-relief housing. But the fact is, they served only a small fraction of those displaced by the quake: The vast majority of people moved in with family or friends, rented new apartments, moved elsewhere."
Famous architects like Daniel Libeskind, Shigeru Ban to Nader Khalili have claimed to have designed the ideal way to build disaster relief shelters. But it seems, that is just not enough. When the UN tried to implement Khalili's prototype in rebuilding a village after the Gujarat earthquake, the project got stalled because the State of California demanded an exhorbitant sum in royalties.
So what is "Disaster Housing" actually? Is it tents without toilets? Is it mud houses that require paying heavy sums in royalty for replicating? It is a wild idea in an architect's sketch book? Is it a friend's or relative's house? Is it plastic or cardboard boxes or beer can rooms? In that sense, aren't all the slums in the urban developing world disaster relief shelters?
Isn't "temporary housing" a relative term, as is the term "permanent housing"?
Read the article at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/09/30/carollloyd.DTL
Comments