2.2. Normalization and delivery of 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.

This chunk discusses the transition in the architecture field, particularly in disaster contexts, from a focus on individual ideas (singular vision) to collaborative ones (shared vision). This change is part of a framework known as 'build back better', which aims to not only reconstruct but also improve communities after disasters by incorporating people’s input in the process. Various participatory approaches have been recognized for their successes, allowing communities to be involved in the decision-making and design processes.

Imagine a community coming together after a natural disaster. Instead of one architect or planner deciding how to rebuild homes, the community holds meetings, gathers ideas, and prioritizes their needs in the design. This process is like planning a big family trip: everyone suggests activities they want and compromises are made, leading to an enjoyable experience for all.

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.

This chunk highlights the importance of centering community experiences in the housing reconstruction process. An example provided is the approach taken by the Fishermen Federation in South India, which emphasizes a bottom-up method. This means community members are actively involved from planning to execution, ensuring the housing meets their actual needs. While this method takes time due to extensive consultations, it leads to greater community satisfaction and relevancy.

Think about how you might choose to remodel your home. Instead of a contractor making decisions without your input, you spend time discussing options, preferences, and needs. This may take longer than just going with a pre-set plan, but ideally, the result is a home that truly reflects your tastes and lifestyle.

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. But the people who are not having houses who have a little money but now they could able to afford the land and then they have a tenure so there is always the discrepancies occur in the tenure and the ownership aspect.

This chunk addresses the complexities surrounding land ownership after disasters. Often, people who lost their homes may discover that they are not granted full ownership or tenure rights by aid agencies, leading to confusion and unfairness. Meanwhile, individuals without homes but who have some financial means may obtain land, creating a disparity in who is considered deserving or eligible for help.

Imagine two neighbors: one lost their house in a fire, while the other did not own a home but recently saved up to buy land. After the fire, the first neighbor hopes to get help to rebuild but finds they don't have complete rights to the new home on the land provided. It highlights how the system can sometimes create inequality rather than support those in greatest need.

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. So which means it is more to do with the religious aspects.

This chunk explains how individuals often personalize their living spaces in response to cultural needs and deficiencies. For example, some homes may adapt spaces for religious practices, such as turning a toilet into a worship area due to a lack of designated religious space. This reflects how people's needs extend beyond the physical shelter itself to encompass spiritual and cultural identities.

Consider how in a shared apartment, roommates might convert a common area for their collective use into a cozy spot for group activities or gatherings. Just as spaces adapt to better suit personal needs and preferences, housing changes can also reflect deeper cultural and spiritual needs after a disaster.

Normality and a normality of disasters: relief agencies normally they rarely pay attention to the way in which housing is delivered. 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.

This chunk discusses the oversights of relief agencies regarding housing in disaster recovery. Many agencies mistakenly believe that developing countries lack experience in low-cost housing solutions or financial mechanisms, underestimating the capabilities of local communities and informal sectors which have developed their own strategies and methods for addressing housing needs.

Think about a school assuming that a group of students from a certain background can't excel in science, ignoring that many have created their own experiments and explorations at home or in their communities. Just as it’s essential to recognize students' abilities, agencies should appreciate the existing local knowledge in recovery efforts.

So if you look at the schematic understanding of what we have discussed that Boano and William Hunter have come framed in a nice conceptual diagram where there is a reconstruction phase, how it is programmed with different forces. One is a discourse, where the disasters the reconstructions and the usual development process work on.

This chunk introduces a conceptual framework illustrating the reconstruction phase after disasters. This framework, developed by Boano and Hunter, shows that reconstruction is influenced by multiple forces including social discourse and development processes. Understanding these forces helps illuminate the complexities involved in rebuilding and moving beyond the immediate crisis.

Think of making a pizza: you need different ingredients (like flour, water, and toppings) that interact with one another to create the final product. In disaster recovery, various forces—social, economic, and political—combine to shape how communities rebuild effectively.

So that is where in short summary 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.

This chunk summarizes Ian Davis's perspective that housing should be viewed as an ongoing process rather than just a physical structure. Acknowledging this perspective encourages understanding and respect for the cultural practices of communities, fostering approaches that are culturally sensitive and considerate of individual needs in the post-disaster context.

Similar to how we might view education not merely as receiving information in school, but as a lifelong journey of learning and adaptation, housing should also be seen as a continuous process where individuals and communities express themselves and evolve their living environments over time.

--