3. Understanding shelter as a process

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 explains how the approach to architecture in disaster situations has evolved. Instead of working from a single perspective, architects and planners now collaborate with communities to develop solutions that everyone agrees on. Michael Lyons and his colleagues have highlighted different methods for involving people in the rebuilding process, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, along with real-life examples to illustrate their points.

Imagine a school project where instead of one student dictating what the group should do, every member contributes their ideas. This collaborative environment often leads to better solutions because it incorporates diverse viewpoints, much like how disaster recovery should involve the voices of the affected communities.

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 has 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 a time-taking process.

This chunk highlights specific case studies, such as those involving the South Indian fishermen federation, where community members were actively involved in all stages of the reconstruction process. The approach is defined as 'bottom-up', meaning that input from the community drives decisions from the start (documentation) to the end (actual construction). Despite taking longer, this method ensures that the buildings meet the community's needs and preferences.

Think of planning a family reunion. If everyone shares their ideas about food, activities, and location, the reunion will likely be enjoyable for all. However, if one person makes all the decisions without consulting others, the end result might not please everyone, mirroring the need for community engagement in building processes.

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

This chunk discusses the shift in housing construction paradigms, where the focus has moved from vulnerable self-built homes to safer options built by contractors, alongside an emphasis on 'owner-driven' models. This means that homeowners have more control and involvement in the building of their homes, which helps cater to their individual needs and strengthens ownership. The text suggests looking at scaling this model up efficiently.

Consider a home renovation process. If homeowners choose to manage the project themselves (owner-driven), they can tailor requirements to their preferences, like selecting paint colors or countertops. In contrast, if they hire a contractor to handle everything (contractor-driven), they may lose some personal touch and customization, illustrating the balance of involvement in housing.

Also, there are issues of land tenure and ownership, where people who have lost houses in disasters may not receive full tenure from aid agencies, while those without homes now have opportunities to purchase land.

This chunk addresses the complexities surrounding land tenure and ownership in post-disaster recovery. Sometimes, aid agencies may not provide full ownership rights to people whose homes were destroyed, leading to inequities. Conversely, those who previously lacked housing might find themselves in a better position to secure land, creating discrepancies in post-disaster support which need to be addressed for fair recovery.

Imagine a game where some players start with houses (land tenure) and others do not. If the resource distribution during the game isn't fair, some players can gain new houses while others lose their homes without a chance to regain stable ground. This highlights the need for equitable solutions in post-disaster recovery.

In short summary Ian Davis reflects. Shelter must be considered as a process but not as an object, calling for more culturally sensitive approaches to home making or remaking in the aftermath of disasters.

In conclusion, this chunk emphasizes that shelter should be viewed as an ongoing process based on cultural understanding rather than just a physical object. Ian Davis' reflections urge for more culturally sensitive methods in rebuilding homes after disasters to accommodate the unique customs and identities of affected communities.

Consider crafting a traditional dish. If a recipe merely lists ingredients without considering cultural preferences and variations, the dish may not resonate with those who eat it. Similarly, without cultural awareness, rebuilding after a disaster can lead to structures that don’t feel like 'home' to the people they’re meant to serve.

--