1.3. Bottom-up approaches in housing

We are living in a generation where the architecture profession in the disaster context has moved from a singular vision to a shared vision. In the first version of build back better where Michael Lyons and other authors have demonstrated the various participatory approaches have been successful and obviously they also bought the pros and cons of each approaches and bringing various case examples.

The architecture profession has evolved in the face of disasters. Rather than relying on a single, top-down vision to rebuild, professionals now embrace a collective, participatory approach. This change emphasizes collaboration, where communities and stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. Michael Lyons and others highlight the successes and challenges of these participatory methods, underlining the importance of learning from various case studies to address different needs effectively.

Imagine a community deciding how to rebuild a local park after a flood. Instead of just a city planner coming up with a design, the city gathers input from local residents, children, and businesses to understand what features they need most—like playgrounds or picnic areas. This way, the park serves the community better and reflects their collective wishes.

Like, most of them they are talking about putting people in the centre, like we can see in some of the examples where the south Indian fishermen federation societies, Benny Kuriakose. Where he have implemented a bottom-up approach of completion from the documentation to the design to the erection process and the one to one consultation process has been its a time taking process.

Benny Kuriakose's efforts showcase the effectiveness of bottom-up approaches by involving local communities throughout the housing process—from planning to construction. This model prioritizes the needs and preferences of the people who will ultimately live in the homes, making it a more tailored solution. Although this method may take more time due to its consultative nature, the outcome is more aligned with the community's requirements and values.

Consider a school project where students can choose what topic to work on and how to present it. If they are involved in planning their own project, they are likely to be more invested and create better work. Similarly, when communities participate in the housing design, they are more likely to feel ownership and satisfaction with the final results.

Also there are issues of land tenure and ownership, the people who are having houses before and but who have lost their houses in the disaster maybe when the aid agency support they may not give the tenure full tenure.

In disaster recovery scenarios, land tenure and ownership become complex issues. Individuals who previously owned homes that were damaged or destroyed may not receive full ownership rights again due to aid agency policies. This can lead to inequities, where those without homes but some money can now afford land and gain secure tenure, while former homeowners are left uncertain about their status.

Think of it like a shared family inheritance after the death of a parent. Some family members who had a house and lost it might not receive the inheritance they expected due to disputes or changes in law, while other family members who never had property might find themselves unexpectedly receiving land or assets. It's a complicated situation that affects people differently based on their prior circumstances.

You can see the responses what the aid agencies have given, and what people have developed. There is always a personalization is a natural response to the cultural deficiencies whether it is a kitchen, whether it is a religious, what you can see is a toilet has been converted as a worship place.

Post-disaster, individuals often reconfigure spaces to meet personal and cultural needs. This customization reflects community values and necessities. Personalization ensures that living spaces feel like home in the aftermath of displacement or loss. For example, a simple toilet may be transformed into a spiritual space, showing how people adapt their environment to express their culture and individuality.

After moving into a new house, many people will instantly start rearranging furniture or placing family photos around. This is their way of making a new space feel like home. Similarly, when people rebuild after disasters, they might incorporate elements that reflect their identities, like setting up altars or special areas that connect them to their traditions and beliefs.

Often assuming that developing countries have no experience in low-cost social housing schemes, no finance mechanisms, nor they do sometimes possess a profoundly rich and established informal sector.

Relief and aid agencies often approach developing countries with a biased belief that they lack knowledge and resources for effective housing solutions. However, many communities in these countries have robust informal sectors capable of self-organizing low-cost housing solutions. Ignoring this experience can lead to ineffective aid strategies that overlook valuable local knowledge and practices.

Imagine a community garden where neighbors come together to grow vegetables without any formal organization. If an outsider arrives and insists on using their complex methods and rules, they might disrupt the successful system already in place. Communities in developing countries often have their own well-functioning systems that can be overlooked by external agencies unaware of local practices.

Ian Davis reflects. Shelter must be considered as a process but not as an object, and this whole set of cases and examples which we are facing in our daily observations it opens a call for more culturally sensitive approaches to home making or remaking in the aftermath of disasters.

Ian Davis emphasizes that shelter should be viewed not just as a physical structure, but as a dynamic process that includes cultural and social elements. This perspective encourages architects and planners to consider the context and practices of communities rather than merely providing physical replacements. A culturally sensitive approach takes into account the community's values and traditions, facilitating more meaningful rebuilding efforts post-disaster.

Think of building a sandcastle. The castle itself is not just a pile of sand; it's the process of creating it, the design decisions made, and the enjoyment shared among friends that make it memorable. Similarly, constructing homes after disasters should incorporate the community's involvement and cultural significance to create living spaces that resonate more deeply with those who inhabit them.

--