1.1. Shared Vision in Architecture Profession

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.

This chunk discusses the shift from a singular approach to a more collaborative or shared vision in architecture, particularly in disaster contexts. 'Shared vision' refers to multiple stakeholders—like architects, community members, and aid agencies—working together towards common goals. The 'build back better' concept emphasizes not just repairing buildings but improving living conditions and community resilience through participation.

Consider a community rebuilding after a natural disaster. Instead of one architect designing a new neighborhood alone, they invite residents to express their needs and ideas. This collaborative effort ensures that homes reflect the community’s culture and values, much like a team working together to build a complex Lego set, where each person contributes a unique piece.

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.

This section highlights the implementation of a bottom-up approach, where the communities involved are central to the architecture process. Benny Kuriakose’s work demonstrates that involving local societies, like fishermen federations, helps ensure that the final designs meet the actual needs and preferences of those who will use them. This method contrasts with a top-down approach, where decisions are made by authorities without community input.

Imagine a school building project where teachers and students are asked for their input. If they suggest features like open spaces for play and collaboration zones, the final building better serves their educational needs. This collaboration is similar to how towns often ask citizens for their input on new parks or public spaces.

Bernstein and Sushma Iyengar, they talked about how the paradigms from the housing construction in India have shifted from the vulnerable self-built housing to the safe contractor-driven and they also emphasize on the owner-driven prologue approaches.

This segment outlines the evolving paradigms of housing construction in India. Previously, self-built homes were common, particularly among vulnerable populations. Now, there's a shift towards contractor-driven housing, emphasizing safety and professional involvement, as well as a trend towards owner-driven methods where homeowners are more involved than before. This reflects a broader accessing of resources and skills among the populations.

Think of this like the evolution of cooking at home. Initially, many families prepared meals from scratch using whatever they had. Now, many people opt for meal kits or chefs showcasing safer methods and recipes, where families can still select ingredients but enjoy convenience and extra safety tips.

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.

This chunk examines problems related to land ownership and tenure post-disaster. Often, people who had homes before may receive aid but lose clarity or full rights to the land due to new policies or regulations set by aid agencies. This discrepancy creates issues for those affected by disasters who may struggle to assert their rights or rebuild effectively.

Imagine having a ticket to a concert but finding out after the event that even though you got in, you don't really have the right to sit in your usual spot anymore. Just like that, disaster survivors might find themselves unsure about who actually owns their rebuilt homes or lands.

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.

The final chunk emphasizes that housing should be viewed not just as structures (objects) but as ongoing processes. Cultural sensitivity is essential during reconstruction. This means understanding the community's values, traditions, and daily living to ensure suitable shelter designs that fulfill their emotional and social needs after disasters.

Think of making a dish from your family’s recipe. If you ignore your family's traditions—like using certain spices or preparing it in a specific way—it won’t just taste different; it won't feel like home. This is similar to how constructing homes should reflect the cultural identity and practices of a community.

--