2. Government Initiatives in Housing

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 part, it describes the rapid progress made by homeowners in upgrading their shelters using reclaimed materials. Within just a month, more than half (53%) of the homeowners had initiated improvements to their living spaces. It highlights that the modifications were feasible, based on available resources, emphasizing the significance of timely intervention in improving housing conditions.

Think of this like a community garden project where people quickly come together to improve their shared space. Just as a majority of neighbors can collaboratively plant flowers in a month, homeowners here made quick improvements to their shelters, reflecting a strong community effort.

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 the line of the walls, so they covered with a kind of partial covering with a plastic sheet.

This chunk outlines the priorities that homeowners considered when upgrading their shelters. First on the list were doors for safety and access, followed by walls for structural integrity, and lastly windows to ensure proper ventilation. Some individuals opted to purchase their materials, such as timber, to ensure that their upgrades met their specific needs. The use of plastic sheeting as a temporary measure illustrates resourcefulness and community resilience in the face of limited resources.

Imagine organizing a school project where the first priority is getting a sturdy poster board (the door), then writing on it (the walls), and finally decorating it with colorful images (the windows). Just like a well-structured project, homeowners focused on essential upgrades to create a safer and more livable space.

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.

In this section, we learn about alternative building methods that some homeowners opted for. Instead of using plastic sheeting, others sold it to hire local artisans for constructing adobe walls. This shows an incremental improvement strategy, where each household makes choices based on its own financial capabilities and specific needs. This approach promotes both community engagement and supports local economies.

Think of it as a group of friends pooling resources to throw a party. Some might sell their old items to buy better snacks (hiring artisans), while others might choose to reinvest in what they can afford. Each decision builds a better overall experience, just as upgrading housing improves living conditions.

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. So, by the end of March 2009, it is about 16,240 were built and mainly with the partnership of UNHCR and MoSSP.

This passage discusses the government's recognition of the success achieved through these incremental upgrades, leading them to scale the housing initiative. Expanding the size of houses and constructing over 40,000 low-cost houses indicates a substantial investment in improving the living conditions for many families. The partnership with organizations like UNHCR highlights collaborative efforts to enhance housing infrastructure.

Consider a successful school fundraising event where the initial goal is met quickly. Recognizing this success, the school decides to expand the event to support more projects. By enhancing the program, more students benefit, similar to how the government scaled housing projects so more families could have better shelter.

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 section emphasizes the idea that housing is a dynamic process rather than a static object. Citing Christopher Alexander, it posits that a house becomes a home through ongoing activities and modifications made by its residents, adapting to their circumstances and financial capabilities. This perspective encourages viewing housing as a living entity, shaped by people's experiences and needs over time.

Picture a clay sculpture. At first, it may just be a lump of clay, but as you mold and shape it, it gradually transforms into something meaningful. Just as the sculpture evolves through your hands, so does a house evolve into a home through the lives and experiences of its occupants.

When you talk about the use value derived from this approach was more significant than the market value, as what housing does for the user is more important than what it is. So, this is not a product, it is a process how man evolves, a house into a home. And he tried to see that the use value is more significant than the market value.

This chunk highlights the distinction between use value and market value in housing. Use value reflects the actual benefits and functionality that a home provides to its occupants, while market value often reflects financial considerations. The argument presented is that the true essence of housing lies in how it serves its residents over time, emphasizing the personal and emotional significance of a home.

Consider a beloved family heirloom, like a piece of furniture. Though it might not have a high market value, its memories and family history give it immense use value. Similarly, homes have deep personal significance beyond their market price, built over years of living and shared experiences.

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 section introduces John Habraken's three levels of decision-making in housing development. The 'tissue' pertains to the broader urban landscape, remaining relatively stable, while the 'support' represents the foundational aspects of buildings, which may evolve over time. 'Infill' refers to individual modifications by homeowners, which can change frequently to meet their needs. This framework reflects the complex interplay between community, structure, and adaptability.

Think of a pizza. The dough represents the tissue (the base of the community), which stays the same. The sauce and cheese are the support (the structure of the building), which might change flavor or type over time. The toppings are the infill (the personal touches added by each household), which can vary greatly from one pizza (home) to another, highlighting individual preferences.

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. You can break the walls; you can take out the prefab walls, so people generally try to avoid doing that. The skin which is the exterior surfaces and these may change over 20 years or so. Whereas, the services working guts of a building, electrics, plumbing which wear out periodically, so you need a periodic maintenance of it. A space plan, an interior layout, where walls, ceilings, floors and doors go commercial spaces can change as often as every 3 years and remain the same for 30 years. And the stuff, the intermediate elements of furniture, appliances may change even monthly or even daily.

This section discusses the concept that buildings consist of multiple layers, each subject to change over different time frames. The site remains constant, while the structure is costly to alter. The building’s skin, internal services, layout, and furniture can evolve more frequently based on usage and necessity. This layered understanding emphasizes the need for maintenance and adaptability in housing.

Imagine a cake. The cake base is like the site—it stays the same. The frosting represents the structure, which is complex but hard to change once set. The decorations and flavors on top reflect individual preferences that can change frequently. Just as a cake can be enjoyed in many different ways, buildings can adapt to meet the diverse needs of their inhabitants over time.

If the intervention is permanent construction, then the standardized structural options designed in collaboration with end users can be developed into standard bill of quantities and set key-stage grant disbursements. Because each stage we have to look at the funding allocation as well and while still allowing flexibility on the design of skin and space plan.

This passage discusses the importance of standardization in constructing permanent housing solutions. By aligning design options with user needs, organizations can create efficient building plans and allocate funds at various stages while still allowing some flexibility in design elements. This helps streamline the process of building durable structures while remaining responsive to the community’s preferences.

Think of building a model kit. If the pieces are standardized, it’s easier to determine how much glue to use or how long it will take to put together. Similarly, in constructing homes, by using standardized parts and stages, builders can effectively manage costs and time while adapting to what families want in their ultimate design.

when we are dealing with this kind of poor communities, one has to look at the livelihoods framework, it is not just only a shelter and this is where, the defeats ASAL framework to sustainable livelihood framework is very apt and considering because how an individual or a communities or a social group, how their abilities to access certain resources whether it is a social, economic, human, natural, political.

This section stresses that in complex social contexts, such as impoverished communities, housing cannot be viewed in isolation. Instead, it is necessary to assess how individuals and groups access various resources—social, economic, natural, and political—that impact their livelihoods. This understanding informs better housing strategies that are integrated with broader community development goals.

Consider a tree that needs sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to thrive. Similarly, homes need the right conditions and resources—like community support, training, and financial assistance—to be sustainable. Just as a tree flourishes in a nourishing environment, communities can build better homes when they have access to all necessary resources.

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 passage discusses the 'enabling approach' in housing, which aims to alleviate financial barriers that hinder housing development. By organizing financial resources and strategically dispensing funds at various stages, stakeholders can better manage cash flow and enhance community access to essential housing improvements.

Imagine planting a garden where you need sufficient water distributed at the right times for plants to grow. If water is limited, plants might struggle. Similarly, in housing, providing the right financial support at the right times ensures that development can flourish instead of stagnating due to lack of funds.

Also, the materials and labour because materials have a major cost implications and also inappropriate building regulations can inhabit the production of housing.

This section emphasizes the role of legal and regulatory frameworks in housing provision. Appropriate building regulations can facilitate the use of cost-effective local materials and labor, while inappropriate rules can hinder construction efforts and drive up costs. Ensuring favorable regulations aligns with the goal of providing accessible housing for all.

Think about the rules of a game. If the rules are too strict or make it hard to play, it will discourage participation. Conversely, flexible and clear rules enable more players to join and enjoy the game. Similarly, in housing, sensible regulations help enable construction and better living conditions for communities.

The people and governance, where we talk about how we can engage the people to participate individually and as well as collectively. The national policy making, the planning and implementation, monitoring of housing projects and the managing of the services and wider political processes.

This chunk addresses the importance of engaging communities in housing projects. By involving individuals both individually and collectively, policymakers can better align initiatives with community needs and ensure successful planning, implementation, and management of housing services. This collaborative approach fosters local ownership and accountability.

Imagine organizing a school event where students and parents are encouraged to contribute ideas and resources. When everyone participates, the event is more likely to be successful and enjoyable. Similarly, involving community members in housing projects ensures that their voices and needs are recognized, leading to better housing solutions.

So, this can gradually lead to an important transition in their lives because they can be self-reliable, they can make their own system, they can rely on that system they can. Only we need to provide a little support system in order to progress with it.

The final passage underscores that with the right support systems in place, communities can become self-reliant. By gradually providing assistance and resources, individuals can develop their own sustainable systems that enhance their lives and promote resilience. This approach leads to significant changes in their socio-economic conditions.

Think of teaching someone to ride a bike. Initially, they might need support and guidance. Over time, with practice and minimal assistance, they gain confidence and learn to ride independently. Similarly, with little support in housing projects, communities can ultimately thrive and become self-sufficient.

--