1.2. Economic Feasibility and Incremental Changes

And also, this is a kind of partial upgrade with reclaimed materials they have the developed with the kind of whatever, they have able to procure from the past site or with their feasibilities, they have made some modifications to their shelters. And within a month 53% of the house owners have started to upgrade their shelters and this is very quick, within a month if this kind of change is 53%.

In this chunk, we learn about the quick upgrades made by house owners to their shelters using reclaimed materials. Within just one month, 53% of these owners began enhancing their homes, indicating a strong motivation and need for improved living conditions. These modifications might include using materials that were previously available, showcasing resourcefulness among the homeowners.

Imagine a community that experiences a disaster where many homes are damaged. Residents find ways to use old wood, metal, and plastic from their damaged houses to build makeshift upgrades. Just like how these residents quickly took action to improve their shelters, think of how one might quickly add a coat of paint or repair a fence in their yard to enhance their living space.

The priorities were first doors, second walls and the third is windows, so the ventilation aspect. And some beneficiaries bought their own timber for walls, doors and windows as we have seen in this complete set is in a timber. For the outset and used the plastic sheeting provided to line of the walls, so they covered with a kind of partial covering with a plastic sheet.

In this section, house owners prioritized which parts of their shelters needed the most attention, focusing first on doors for security, then walls for shelter, and finally on windows for ventilation. This shows a systematic approach to addressing immediate needs. Many beneficiaries took the initiative to purchase their timber for these structures while utilizing plastic sheeting for insulation and protection in the interim.

Think of rearranging your room when you move in. You would likely place essential furniture, like your bed and desk, before decorating the space. Similarly, homeowners first secured their doors, ensuring safety, before making other improvements, like adding windows for better airflow.

Others sold a plastic sheeting and hired the local artisans to build adobe walls. So, they have given it back and they sold it in the market and they could able to get some money and they could able to put some more money and built the adobe walls and so this whole process you know, it’s all showing up an incremental process depending on each household what kind of economic feasibility they had, what kind of infill they are responding to their needs and demands.

Here, some beneficiaries opted to sell their plastic sheeting. They used the money to hire local artisans, allowing them to invest in stronger adobe walls. This reflects an incremental development where improvements were tailored by each household's financial situation and specific needs, demonstrating adaptability in resource use.

Consider someone who wants to renovate their kitchen. They might sell unused appliances to gather funds, then focus on getting new countertops first because they value cooking and need a functional space. Just like these homeowners, they’re using available resources to gradually enhance their settings.

So, with this, the government have understood that yes there is a possibility that to scale up this process. So, now what they did was they developed from 18 square meters to 20 square meters and the permanent walls of adobe and timber and they launched the project build about 40,000 low cost houses.

The government recognized the potential of these individual upgrades and decided to scale up the process. They expanded the housing project size from 18 to 20 square meters and aimed to build 40,000 low-cost houses. This initiative reflects an understanding of community needs and a commitment to providing more substantial housing solutions.

Imagine a successful community garden where a few residents grow vegetables. As the demand grows, the local government steps in to support them with more plots, leading to the construction of a larger garden area that benefits even more families. This showcases how successful small actions can lead to larger community improvements.

But when you talk about the theoretical understanding of it, you know as I said you in the beginning transition shelter is not a noun, it is a verb, it is a process. So, as Christopher Alexander describes a house is an activity which is ‘created gradually, as a direct result of living which is happening in it and around it’ by people who spend only what they can afford.

This chunk discusses the idea that housing isn't just a static object; instead, it's an evolving process influenced by the experiences and needs of those living in it. Christopher Alexander's theory emphasizes that houses are shaped by the ongoing activities of their inhabitants, reflecting their financial capacities and priorities.

Think of how a school has classrooms and labs that are used by students. As students learn, they contribute to the environment, changing how the space is used over time. Similarly, a home evolves as families live and adapt their spaces based on daily life and needs.

When you start living in it, you realize that you know, what you need and accordingly people start amending that, not only within the house, around the house. And this is the similar observations made from John F.C. Turner on his work in Mexico, housing by people.

This section highlights the concept of 'use value', which refers to the practical benefits and functionalities derived from a home, as opposed to 'market value', which is the selling price of properties. John F.C. Turner noted that for residents, how well a house serves their needs is more critical than its market worth.

Consider an artist renting a small studio. For them, the space's ability to inspire creativity is more important than its rental cost. Just like this artist prefers a suitable environment over a costly but less functional space, homeowners prioritize what their homes offer them over mere financial evaluations.

Similarly, John Habraken supports on 3 levels of decision making; one is the tissue and the support which is the base building. The tissue refers to the urban fabric and the support refers to the base building and the fitout refers to the infill, what the people have done in their houses and the tissue tends to remain the same because it’s a larger content and the supports will change with time and infill will change more regularly.

This chunk discusses John Habraken’s three levels of decision-making in housing: 'tissue' refers to the overall urban environment, 'support' refers to the foundational structures of the buildings, and 'fitout' refers to personalized modifications by residents. While the urban fabric remains constant, the structures and personal touches continuously evolve.

Consider a classic neighborhood where most houses have been standing for decades. The neighborhood style (tissue) is constant, but one homeowner has renovated their kitchen and another has added a porch (fitout). Just like these homes have unique features that change with time, it illustrates how individuals interact with the larger environment.

So, this keeps changing very frequently and the system of subdivision allows users to interface with a level that is relevant to them. So, how each community response to these different 3 categories? The consumer or households they act on infill level, the housing corporation or a development agency on a support level or the municipality works on a tissue level.

In this segment, it emphasizes how different actors in the housing system, such as households, housing corporations, and municipalities, interact at their respective levels. Households primarily influence the fitout (infill), development agencies impact the support structures, and municipalities govern the urban fabric (tissue).

Think of a local school where students (households) take charge of decorating classrooms (infill), teachers (housing corporations) support learning with structured programs (support), and the school district (municipality) sets the overall policies and guidelines for education (tissue). This collaboration in education reflects the housing dynamics discussed.

Similarly, buildings are also essentially made of 6 time bound layers. This is space time phenomenon which Ian Bentley also talks about it. One is a site, which generally does not change, although a few buildings are transportable. The structure, the foundations and load bearing element are expensive to change because in the structure, once if you setup the foundation, it is very difficult to change.

This chunk describes the six time-bound layers that make up buildings, as discussed by Ian Bentley. These layers include the site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and stuff. The site is generally static, while changes to the structure and load-bearing components can be costly and complex. On the other hand, elements like space plans and 'stuff' (furniture, appliances) can vary significantly over time.

Imagine a park (site) where the landscape stays the same, but the playground equipment (structure) changes out every few years as wear and tear occur. The picnic tables (skin) are replaced with newer models, while families regularly bring their own chairs and blankets (stuff) for each visit. This illustrates how some components have permanence whereas others are more transient.

Once a kit is developed, if a standard structure is acceptable in an owner-driven process and this kind of intervention is upgradeable temporary shelter than budgeting, procurement and distribution of standardized kits is a relatively small, simple operation.

This section discusses the importance of developing a standardized shelter kit that can be used in an owner-driven process. If the structure is deemed acceptable, it simplifies budgeting, procurement, and distribution, making the process of creating temporary but upgradeable shelters much more efficient.

Think of how IKEA provides flat-pack furniture kits that allow customers to easily assemble their furniture at home. This standardized approach saves time and effort and allows for easy upgrades or customizations over time, similar to how these shelter kits can empower residents to improve their homes incrementally.

So, this is very important when we are looking at the transitional shelter and as well as when they are actually looking at the owner-driven process, you need to understand the whole resources and their vulnerability context itself.

This chunk emphasizes the significance of considering the livelihood framework when discussing transitional shelters and owner-driven processes. It reminds us that providing shelter alone is not enough; we must also account for the community's access to resources and understand the vulnerabilities they face.

Imagine an outreach program aimed at helping families improve their lives. If it only addresses housing needs without considering employment opportunities, education, and access to healthcare, it won't be effective. Like a tree needs both strong roots and branches to thrive, communities require comprehensive support to flourish.

The enabling approach recognizes the bottleneck to housing created limited access to finance. So, we talked about the cash flows, we talked about how at a stage wise, how we can deliver the financial disbursement.

This section highlights how limited financial options can hinder housing development. Addressing this issue involves implementing an enabling approach that facilitates cash flows at various stages of construction, ensuring that individuals and families can finance their housing upgrades effectively.

Imagine a student needing to pay for college. If they only receive financial aid after the semester is over, they may not be able to attend classes at all! Instead, if funding is distributed step-by-step as they register for classes, they can afford their education. The same principle applies to housing finance, allowing gradual financial support for families.

Also, the materials and labour because materials have a major cost implications and also inappropriate building regulations can inhabit the production of housing. So, the legal frameworks, that is where we talk about the governments can play a key role in supporting the creation of enabling environments for housing provision through reviewing legal and regulatory framework.

This chunk discusses the role of materials, labor, and regulations in housing production. The government can significantly influence housing outcomes by reviewing and adjusting laws and regulations to accommodate community needs and utilize local materials effectively. This can further encourage community involvement and collaboration.

Consider a new community garden where initial local laws prohibit certain types of crops. If community members engage with local authorities to review and alter those regulations, they can create an inclusive environment that supports diverse plantings and increases community engagement—similar to how housing regulations can be adjusted to foster greater collaboration.

--