Architecture of Empowerment by Hannah Martin

Architecture of Empowerment Participation based approaches to address housing poverty in marginalised communities Huan Rimington 070178364

Contents

Title 1. 1. Introduction to housing poverty 2. 2. Marginalised communities 3. 3. Social Architecture and Humanitarian Architecture 4. 4. Housing assistance 7. 5. Participation and housing 9. 6. Case Studies 11. Selection 11. Tools and techniques 14. Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal 17. Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile 22. Rural studio, USA 27. Safe [R] House, Sri Lanka 31. Taâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;u Houses, Taiwan 34. Emergency dwellings, Romania 39. 7. Conclusions 43. i) Analysis of projects 43. ii) Participation techniques 44. iii) Issues 47. iv) Architects and initiators 50. v) Future 52. vi) Further study 53. 8. Appendix 54. 9. Image credits 56. 10. Bibliography 58.

Architecture of empowerment Participation based approaches to address housing poverty in marginalised communities

This study looks at participation based approaches which address housing poverty in marginalised communities. The format comprises a discussion of contextual issues and their subsequent analysis in six case studies, followed by a conclusion drawing on the findings of the latter. The first section includes a brief introduction to housing poverty, a consideration of the term marginalised and a discussion of the constructs; Social and Humanitarian Architecture. An analysis of methods of housing assistance introduces the subsequent discussion of participation and housing. This discussion concludes with the detailing of selected participatory techniques and tools, which are analysed in case studies.

1. Introduction to housing poverty

1. Lipps, A. (2007) ‘Selected Statistics: the other 90%’, Smith, C., Design For The Other 90%, New York, Cooper-Hewitt, pp. 133 2. Hait, J, Affordable Housing: Designing An American Asset, Dorgan, K and Evans (2008) ‘Mainstreaming Good Design in Affordable Housing: Strategies, Obstacles and Benefits’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books pp. 148-157 3. Sinclair, C, (2006) in Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp. 138-139 4. Fisher, T, (2008) ‘Public Interest Architecture: A Needed and Inevitable Change’, in Bell And Wakeford, Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism pp. 8-13

Shelter and housing poverty is a pressing issue in the world today. A world where more than one billion people live in inadequate housing, including six hundred and forty million children in developing countries, whilst more than 100 million are classified as homeless1. The issue is not limited to less economically developed countries; in the USA 25%, 30 million households face severe housing challenges2 and at least 2 million Europeans live in premises not fit for human inhabitation3. The causes of housing poverty are complex; rural to urban migration as a result of economic development, conflicts, natural disasters, population increases, domestic policy and rural poverty. In a shrinking world, where even the rural poor are affected by global economic currents, these economic forces are the greatest underlying factors. What is clear is that the problem is going to increase, as development intensifies and brings ever more extensive changes. The United Nations anticipates 2 billion people out of a global population of 9 billion will be living in slums by 20504 and further predictions estimate there may be as many as 200 million environmental refugees as a result of climate change5.

5. Myers, N (2005), Environmental Refugee: an Emergent Security Issue, [http://www.osce. org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf accessed 15/01/10]

2. Marginalised communities

This study looks at how participation based architectural approaches can be used to address housing poverty in marginalised communities. The existence of marginalised communities spans regions, ethnicity and demographics, nor is it simply proportionate to wealth, yet all these factors may play influence it. Similarly, a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence in a minority does not necessarily mean they are marginalised. As the selection of case studies exhibited in this study will show, quantifiable indicators of poverty such as GDP, life expectancy, infant mortality rate and access to education to name a few, vary extensively between marginalised communities. Thus such indicators cannot form a definition. Marginalisation however can be defined by effect; the disempowerment and the restriction of opportunity. The term refers to the position of persons at the edge, either locally or globally, of society. It is here where opportunities are limited and the greatest barriers exist. It can be debated whether housing poverty pushes people to these edges, or presence at the edge is the route of such poverty itself. Both statements are true, but significantly both outcomes push people further out. The impact of housing poverty goes far beyond the home; squalid unhygienic conditions lead to numerous health problems, whilst excessive rent payments and ongoing repairs to substandard homes can place crippling financial burdens on families. Such financial difficulties have the knock on effect of obstructing education, access to healthcare or investment in income generating activities. Poor housing stigmatises families, and often those in such conditions are at greatest risk from crime and violations of human rights.

3. Social Architecture and Humanitarian Architecture

[Location of case studies, see case study timeline]

United nations founded, 1945 World War 2 and aftermath: Rise of Humanitarian Aid and the NGO

UN Conference on Human settlement, 1976

NGO Habitat for Humanity builds first home, Zaire, 1973

Humanitarian Architecture 1850

1900

1950

[Continuation of social architecture]

Architecture for Humanity, Design Corps, formed, 1999 Open architecture network, 2006

2000

2010

Social Architecture Pruitt Igoe, USA, 1955 Haley Hall, Halifax UK, 1955

Bournville, nr Birmingham, UK 1879

Masion Dom -ino, France, 1914-15

Park Hill, UK, 1961 Housing Act UK , 1930, hosuing becomes a state responsibilty for first time

Fig1; Timeline; social architecture and humanitarian architecture

Social architecture

1. Dixon, D and Muthesius S (1985), Philanthropy and Paternalism in Housing, Victorian Architecture, London, Thames and Hudson, pp 69 -73

Social architecture, an architecture for the poor, has been in existence since at least the turn of the 19th century. Industrialisation, first in Western Europe was, and elsewhere in the world still is, the catalyst for far reaching changes. Previously, populations consisted of the rural poor and a minority of elites and urban dwellers. In rural areas housing, although basic, had evolved vernacularly. Rapid migration to towns and cities resulted in quickly built substandard housing. Overcrowding, a prevalence of disease and a decline in living standards ensued. In the context of the acquisition of knowledge and education which the Enlightenment brought the century before, an increased awareness of housing poverty stimulated calls for social reforms. Benevolent industrialists began to provide housing for their employees, building new more spacious communities close to factories. Examples include Haley Hill, Halifax (1855) and Bournville, near Birmingham (from 1879)1. The advent of Modernism first brought an agenda of ‘architecture of change’ into the realm of the profession. Modernists’ proposals for utopian living were an architecture to address social ills. Le Corbusier declared ‘we are dealing with an

2. Le Corbusier, Vers une Architecture, 1923, quoted by Stohr, K, (2006) in Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp. 138-139

urgent problem of our epoch, nay more, with the problem of our epoch. The balance of society comes down to the question of building’2.

Figure 2; Park Hill, Sheffield, UK, 1961

3. Spatial agency [http://www.spatialagency. net accessed 22/3/10] 4. Ibid.

In the 20th century the aftermath of World Wars One and Two brought an acceleration of social reforms and inadequate housing became a major contemporary issue in the west. In these countries, for the first time, housing became the responsibility of the state, with the 1930 Housing Act in the UK and the Nation Housing Act of 1934 in the USA. Schemes such as Park Hill, 1961 saw a switch from the sole provision of housing, to attempts to create social cohesion. 1974 saw the formation of the Architects’ Revolutionary Council, which proposed that ‘creative architecture should be available to all people in society, regardless of their economic circumstances’3. In the USA, Architects, Designers and Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) was formed in 19814. The ideas discussed by these and similar groups remain relevant to the discussion of an Architecture of Change today.

Humanitarian architecture

5. Gámez, J. and Rodgers, S., (2008) ‘An Architecture of Change’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books pp. 8-13

Humanitarian architecture can be explained with reference to the wider humanitarian field. Put simply, humanitarian aid comprises interventions into the existence of poverty and human suffering. Conventional interventions have entailed the provision of food, water and medical supplies. This approach has begun to be adopted by elements of the architecture profession. The changing attitude is being both followed and proposed in literature, José LS Gámez and Susan Rodgers claiming ‘What is needed is an architecture of change’5, Thomas Fischer argues;

6. Fisher, T, (2008) ‘Public Interest Architecture: A Needed and Inevitable Change’, in Bell And Wakeford (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, pp. 8-13

7. Cameron Sinclair (2006), Cameron Sinclair on open-source architecture [http://www.ted. com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_ architecture.htmlaccessed 4/3/10]

8. Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises

9. Cameron Sinclair (2006), Cameron Sinclair on open-source architecture [http://www.ted. com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_ architecture.htmlaccessed 4/3/10]

10. Accommodation provided by local authorities offering secure tenure and rents below market rates 11. Property crash opens door to the new council house, The Times (28/10/2008), [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/ property_and_mortgages/article4629981.ece accessed 23/3/10]

‘architecture and all the design professions are undergoing a major transformation that is both proactive and reactive: proactive as a search for roles with greater relevance, and reactive as a response to the humanitarian and environmental crises facing the world’6 The assumption is often made that humanitarian interventions are only needed in the Global South, ‘most people look at poverty and see the face of a foreigner’7. However the humanitarian architecture approach acknowledges need within western domestic contexts. Organisations such as Design Corps and Rural Studio both practice in marginalised communities within USA. It is difficult to put an exact date on the origins of the movement, but the formation of not for profit Architecture for Humanity in 1999, which aims to ‘provide architectural solutions to humanitarian crises’8, may be a milestone. The last 10 years has seen the movement’s expansion; numerous similar organisations been established around the world; in the UK 2005 saw the formation of Architects for Aid (now Article 25). The creation of the ‘Open Architecture Network’ 2006 and ‘Shelter Library’, 2008 expanded the movement’s digital presence, while ‘Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises’ (2006), and ‘Expanding Architecture; Design as Activism’ (2008) brought the subject to print. Whilst architects have been working with impoverished, marginalised communities for many years, the construct of humanitarian architecture is relatively new. In a globalised world there is increased awareness of poverty, it is no longer just a domestic issue. While social architecture emerged and exists to deal with domestic issues, humanitarian architecture operates in an expanded global field. Cameron Sinclair, AFA cofounder, claims ‘there is a grass roots movement going on of socially responsible designers who believe that this world has got a lot smaller’9. This expanded field has brought new issues forward and consequent developments in working methods. A further difference between the two constructs is the matter of need and exigency. This can be explained through the example of local authority provision of council housing10 in the UK, a form of social architecture. While supply may not always meet demand, confidence exists in this provision and it is accepted that a large number of families will live in these homes (2008, 2.5 million homes11). Unlike the council housing example, humanitarian architecture refers to situations where reliable mechanisms of support do not function, but where even greater need exists, calling for an exigent response. The case studies investigated in chapter six can be termed humanitarian architecture.

4. Housing assistance

To understand the relevance of participatory approaches to housing assistance today, it is necessary to look at how different methods developed over the 20th century. Elements of these approaches have influenced and culminated in the diverse field that exists today. The modern movement saw an attempt to address social welfare issues through architecture with mass production of the standardised unit. Le Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino design, proposed for post war reconstruction, could be stacked and repeated endlessly. In theory the layout could be configured by each user. Whilst such ideas were never extensively built or successfully implemented, they heavily influenced approaches to housing assistance in forthcoming years. Their influence included expansive post- war schemes like Pruitt Igoe, St Lewis USA, 1955. Post war schemes and modernist’s proposals amounted to a separation of architecture and the user. Consequently the latter was neglected with universal overtaking the individual. Programs failed to deliver the communities promised, and a legacy of social problems followed. 1. Hamid, N (1991) Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enactment, ITDG Publishing, UK 2. Ward, C (1985) When We Build Again, Lets have housing that works!, Broome, J, Mass Housing cannot be sustained, in BlundellJones, P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J.(eds), Architecture and Participation, London, Spon Press, pp.65-75

3. Stohr, K, (2006) in Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp. 138-139

Nabeel Hamid, in Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enactment defines this as the ‘provider’1 approach, the provision of housing was the responsibility of the authority so there was centralised control. In his book, When We Build Again, Lets have housing that works! Colin Ward describes such attempts as ‘confusing paternalistic authoritarianism with social responsibility’2. With the expansion of international humanitarian aid operations following World War Two, the approach began to be applied overseas. Schemes often took a ‘clean slate’ approach, where existing structures were removed to make way for development. The existing skills and assets of communities were not only neglected, but wasted in the name of efficiency. Vernacular, or appropriate technologies, posed an alternative to these approaches. They stressed the importance of local materials and building techniques, arguing that imported modern technologies were irrelevant and far beyond the reach of the poorest communities. Key advocates of the approach were Hassan Fathy and the Intermediate Technology Development Group, founded in 1966. Egyptian born Fathy was responsible for the 1949 construction of the New Gourna village3, Egypt which utilised locally produced mud bricks. However the community rejected traditional materials in favour of modernity. The experience demonstrates an issue still central to this approach today; designers misunderstanding communities’ values. This not only underlines the importance of architects engaging with users, but makes the case for the process to be user lead through participatory processes.

Figure 3; New Gourna Village, Egypt, 1946

4. Turner, JFC (1972), Freedom to Build, New York, Macmillan, p. 145

5. Ibid, p.241

6. Broome, Mass Housing cannot be sustained, in Blundell-Jones, Petrescu, and Till, Architecture and Participation, pp 65-75 7. European Urban Knowledge Network (30th October 2008),”To tackle cases of extreme poverty housing is essential” [http://www.eukn. org/romania/news/2008/10/interview-catalinberescu_1040.html, accessed 26/3/10]

John FC Turner’s research into informal communities in Lima, Peru, dating from 19614, put forward concepts that would still be relevant to the discourse of social and humanitarian participatory design decades later. Turner argued for an approach that embraced the assets, infrastructure and skills that already existed in communities, where administrating organisations facilitate citizen lead improvements. Turner proposed not only that the poor were the best equipped to lead the creation of housing, but that participation in, and determination of, the process was as important as the product itself; ‘When dwellers control the major decisions and are free to make their own contribution to the design, construction or management of their housing, both the process and the environment produced will stimulate individual and social well being’5. This argument is central to the case for participatory approaches to housing today. Jan Broom makes a similar point ‘most important is what housing does for people’6. Here may be the time to mention what is obvious, but often overlooked; housing is used by people, therefore user participation is essential. The alternative risks the repetition of past failures. Simone Pekelsma, EUKN argues ‘Just producing housing and parachuting them onto a piece of land does not work’7. Empirical evidence for this participation is presented in case studies.

5. Participation and housing

1. De Carlo, G (1969) Architectures Public, in Blundell-Jones, P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J.(eds), Architecture and Participation, London, Spon Press, pp.3-22

2. Till, J (2004), ‘The negotiation of hope’, in Blundell-Jones, Petrescu. and Till, Architecture and Participation, pp.23-41

3. Pateman, C (1970), Participation and Democratic theory , quoted in Till, J (2004), ‘The negotiation of hope’, in BlundellJones, Petrescu, and Till., Architecture and Participation, pp.23-41

4. Manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, citizen control. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224

Participation in architecture is the broad and encompassing term for the involvement of people in the making of their environment. As Grancarlo de Carlo declared in his seminal 1969 Liege lecture, ‘architecture is too important to leave for architects’1, the involvement of the citizen is crucial, not least in housing. Yet this involvement is not as clear cut as some applications of the term may suggest, or even necessary beneficial. Participation may vary from little more than the application of the term to a process where the traditional power holders retain full control, to full and egalitarian citizen control. At one end of the spectrum, the attempt to ‘create a feeling of participation’2 involves persuading people to accept decisions made without their involvement. Such an approach ironically further disempowers the citizen. In her book Participation and Democratic Theory, Carole Pateman terms this as ‘pseudo participation’. ‘Where each individual member of the decision making body has equal power to determine the outcome of the decision’3 is termed as ‘full participation’. While such outcome is clearly something to aspire to, it may be hard to achieve in a field beset with real and perceived differences in knowledge and power. Pateman also defines a third term ‘partial participation’, where all parties have an input, but the final decision is left with one. This may be more common in architectural participation. Sherry Arnstein goes further in defining varying degrees of participation in her ‘Ladder of Participation’4. At the bottom of the ladder, ‘manipulation’ and ‘therapy’, are the substitutes for non participation, comparable to Pateman’s pseudo participation. The layers ‘informing’ and ‘consultation’ allow the participants to have a voice, but power is not relinquished to them. ‘Placation’ gives participants further rights to advice, but like lower stages this does not form any real citizen control. At the third to top rung on the ladder is ‘partnership’, where citizens are in a position to negotiate. Above this is ‘delegated power’, where participants hold the balance of power. At the top of the ladder is full citizen control, comparable to Pateman’s full participation. A key factor in any participatory process is communication. In a negotiation where one party ‘the architect’ in seen to be in possession of knowledge, and therefore power, there is an inbuilt imbalance. The situation is compounded by the use of graphical representation, a language in which only those within the profession are fluent. The user only has the opportunity to approve, and not challenge, and the architect is artificially elevated.

5. Lefebvre, H, The Production of Space (extracts), Leech, N, (1997) Extracts in Rethinking Architecture: a reader in cultural theory, London, Routledge pp.138-146

In his seminal book, The Production of Space, Henri Lefebvre argues that such process creates an artificial perception of knowledge. Architecture discourse ‘suffers the delusion that ‘objective’ knowledge of reality can be attained by means of graphical representation’5. Lefebvre discusses how the reduction of space to

6. Ibid

‘blueprints’ or images is the enemy of the imagination, arguing that ‘the user’s space is lived – not represented (or conceived)’6. Jeremy Till’s suggestion that ‘architectural knowledge should not be applied as an abstraction from outside, but developed from within’ supports this stance. The implication of Lefebvre’s view is that space needs to be communicated in another way. Alternatively, is it possible to graphically represent space in a manner accessible to all parties? In light of the issues raised in this discussion, an extensive variety of techniques and tools have been developed to further participation in design. A selection will be analysed through case studies.

6. Case Studies Selection

Emergency Dwellings, Romania

Rural Studio, USA

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal Ta’u houses, Taiwan

Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile

Fig 4; Case study location

The six case studies have been chosen to explore a range of participatory techniques and key issues relating to housing in marginalised communities across different contexts. The issues relate to architects / initiators, informal urban development, culture preservation, segregation and discrimination, time / urgency and, disaster reconstruction. ‘Architects / initiators’ refer to the role and backgrounds’ of those involved in facilitating housing assistance. This includes whether the initiator is from the global north, working in the global south, from the country where the project is based, or form the same local community. The impact of these backgrounds is assessed in each study. The studies also explore variations in geographical and social economic contexts. Two projects, Rural Studio and Emergency Housing are located in the ‘West’. Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Safe (r) House and Ta’u Houses are located in ‘emerging’ economies. Habitat for Humanity is based in a Less Economically Developed Context. A further important factor is settlement type; case studies explore urban (Quinta Monroy Housing Project), semi-urban (Emergency Dwellings) and rural (Habitat for Humanity, Safe (r ) houses and Ta’u houses). Other factors identified are original intervention initiator, construction method, size and cost.

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal

$400 GNI per capita $480 project cost $9400 GNI per capita

Quinta Monroy Housing Project

Rural Studio, USA

$7500 project cost

$47580 GNI per capita

Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile

Rural Studio, USA

$20000 project cost Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

$1790 GNI per capita $3400 project cost

Ta’u houses, Taiwan

Emergency Dwellings, Romania

$17230 GNI per capita

Participatory tools and techniques are catalogued in chapter seven, and identified in each case study. The Emergency Dwellings, Romania, case study is specifically $7930 includedGNIbecause it does not explicitly involve any of the latter. An per capita exploration of reasons for this decision and the projects context furthers our $16000 GNI per capita understanding of participatory approaches to housing assistance. 10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal Rural Studio, USA

Quinta Monroy Housing Project

Rural Studio, USA

Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

Ta’u houses, Taiwan

Emergency Dwellings, Romania 80

life expectency

100

literacy rate Fig 5; Literacy and life expectency comparision

Quinta Monroy Housing Project 2003 - 2004,

Emergency Dwellings, Romania, Winter 2006

Rural Studio, USA, 1992 - ongoing 1900

Ta’u houses, Taiwan 1994 - 1997

Safe [r] House Sri Lanka 2005 - 2008

2010

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, August 2007 - August 2008

Fig 6; Case Study Timeline

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal

$400 GNI per capita $480 project cost $9400 GNI per capita

Quinta Monroy Housing Project

Rural Studio, USA

$7500 project cost

$47580 GNI per capita

Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile

Rural Studio, USA

$20000 project cost Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

$1790 GNI per capita $3400 project cost

Ta’u houses, Taiwan

$17230 GNI per capita

Emergency Dwellings, Romania

$7930 GNI per capita $16000 GNI per capita 10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Fig 7; GNI project cost comparison

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal Rural Studio, USA

Quinta Monroy Housing Project

Rural Studio, USA

Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

Ta’u houses, Taiwan

30m2 80

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal

72m2 60

Quinta Monroy Housing Project

55m2 20

Rural Studio, USA

37m2

150 m2

Emergency Dwellings, Romania

48 m2 100

Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

Ta’u houses, Taiwan

Emergency Dwellings, Romania

Fig 8; Floor Area

Tools and techniques

Consultation (Ta’u Houses, Rural Studio)

1. Careri, F and Romito, L, Stalker: the Big Game of Camp Boario, in P B Jones, D Petrescu and J Till (eds), Architecture and Participation, London, Spon Press, pp.227232

The architect is ‘finding out’ what the needs and desires of the users are, so they can design ‘for them’. This process may include questioning, conversations or discussions. This is the method most often utilised by mainstream organisations, for example in planning procedures. Once informed of the user’s views, the power holders decide whether to take these onboard.

Immersing: (Rural Studio) An attempt by architects and designers to understand and engage with users through shared activities and time spent with communities. This may be used when there is an awareness of value differences between parties. A dedication to this approach is exhibited by Stalker collective’s existence at Camp Boario, Rome1. The collective attempted to ‘discover’ the complexity of the space, through living, playing and organising games over several months.

Client based (Rural studio) The user is treated as the ‘client’ (as in a conventional client architect relationship) and the architect caters for their needs accordingly. This technique is likely to use Consultation methods

Workshops: (Ta’u Houses, Quinta Monroy Housing Project) Intended as a two way process, where architects work with users to develop design. The issue of communication and finding a common language is paramount. If graphical communication is used, the accessibility of this language needs to be considered.

Asset based: (Habitat for Humanity, Rural studio, Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Ta’u houses, Safe (r) House) Centring programs around community assets, rather than focusing on perceived problems. These assets may include materials, skills or labour or community infrastructure. The technique is likely to involve a consultation or workshop method, to reveal assets. The approach is theorized in Amanda and Seth Hendler-Voss’s essay, Designing with an Asset-Based Approach.

2. McKean, J (1989), Learning from Segal, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, p172

Incremental building: (Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Habitat for Humanity, Safe [r] House)

Flexibility: (Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Habitat for Humanity, Safe [r] House)

Building in stages; users determine when and what construction takes place, appropriate to their circumstances. The technique aims to empower user to develop homes themselves. When an intervention includes an initial built form, this affects the scope for opportunity in later stages.

Provides immediate and ongoing control of dwelling through user configuration of space. A key issue is how (or if) the framework for flexibility is provided. An example is the Walter Segal method of timber frame construction which operates a grid system on which walls and openings can be freely placed.

Self build: (Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Habitat for Humanity) Users build homes themselves, so are empowered to determine their own living environment. The experience of the Walter Segal’s self build method in Lewisham2, suggests the making of decisions on site removes the problem of inequalities between users and architects caused by graphical representation. 3. Feldman, RM, Out of the box: Design Innovations in Manufactured Housing in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books pp. 202-219 4. Teddy Cruz Border cities, tactics of encroachment, [http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=u0saEe0caJ8 accessed 4/4/10]

Self help: (Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Habitat for Humanity) Tools are provided to users to lead home development themselves. These vary, but can include micro financing, construction education or the provision of sites.

Frame / Supports: (Quinta Monroy, Habitat for Humanity) The provision of a structural frame to facilitate informal construction. A proponent of the approach Teddy Cruz, has developed a ‘flexible, prefabricated structural system of metal uprights [and] platform’3 in Tijuana to, creating a ‘safe structural coherence’4 to solidify informal dwellings.

5. Kadushdin (2008) quoted by Jenkens, P and Pereira, M, International Experience, Jenkens, P and Forsyth Le, Architecture, Participation and Society, London Routledge, pp.74 6. Jenkens and Pereira, International Experience, Jenkens, P and Forsyth L, Architecture, Participation and Societ

Open source - also known as Open Design5 (Quinta Monroy, Habitat for Humanity, Ta’u Houses) Comparable to the principles of Open Source Software, this is the open authorship of design. It is accessibility of architecture, underpinned by a belief in people’s ability to design and make decisions. This accessibility may form the potential to adapt and change, or to replicate and make architecture ‘their own’. If the stance is taken that knowledge is necessary to access architecture, the technique can involve the provision of knowledge to empower users. Paul Jenkens and Marcia Pereira argue this ‘approach regards such power [as created by knowledge] as an instrument which may be used to facilitate participatory design’6.

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal

Demographic: Rural poor, those affected by caste or ethnic minority inequalities (Dalits and indigenous groups) Settlement type: Rural Location: Jhapa and Morang, South east Nepal Local Economy: Subsistence agriculture, informal labouring, some formal employment Country context: UN: medium human development Construction: Masons and labour supllied by famillies Size: 30m2 Cost: $480 Date: August 2007 - August 2008

1. Habitat for humanity, report, HFHI Nepal (13th January 2007),Project proposal: Incremental construction and renovation of homes for low income families, by email, pp .2 2. CARE Nepal, Ibid 3. Central Bureau of Statistics 2004, Ibid 4. The mason, or builder, is the tradesperson who undertakes most small scale construction in the region

Frame / supports, incremental building, self build, flexibility, asset based, self help, open source (?) [techniques] material selection; local and reclaimed materials [key issues] no architect [architect / initiators]

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal’s (HFHI Nepal) attempts to address housing poverty operate in the poorest and least developed context of the six case studies. The NGO’s approach explores elements of incremental development, self build, self help, open source and asset based techniques. The methodology does not involve an architect, bringing in to question if their role is always necessary. This study is based in the Jhapa and Morang districts of rural South East Nepal, an area where rural poverty presents issues apparent in other parts of the developing world. The average daily wage in the region is around $11 whilst ‘continuous subsistence agriculture has lead to widespread soil erosion and flooding, further reducing the ability of families to make an income from agriculture’2. In 2004, 47% of rural housing was classified as less than adequate3, examples of such housing include unhygienic, poorly lit and cramped, shack – like homes that leave occupants exposed to the elements. HFHI Nepal specifically, but not exclusively, targets families effected by caste or ethnic minority inequalities. While historical discrimination saw members of these groups marginalised, restrictions to opportunity still exist today, limiting families’ capacities to make home improvements themselves. Home construction is facilitated through micro financing. This approach empowers users to achieve home improvements themselves, without being reliant on donor support. Whilst this measure is positive, the way in which house design and construction materialises needs to be considered. The design of homes is determined by discussion between the HFHI Nepal representative, families and latterly the mason4. Consequently, recipients do not have complete citizen control over how the loan is used. Three basic designs are provided by the NGO, which are then adapted. This provision reduces user participation in design. The NGO also feels it needs to ‘convince’5 users of what they can afford, removing further user control. A closer look at this discussion reveals that removing the architect, who as the perceived expert naturally may assume the stronger position, can reduce the potential for inequality. If specialist communication methods that the architect may bring are removed, discussion takes place in a language both parties can understand. As there is no architect, the potential and need for users to make design decisions exists

5. Poudel, S, email 23 March 2010

6. Highest caste in Nepali caste system

when adapting homes. It is sometimes suggested that the architect brings their own inappropriate values into design, so their absence could prevent this happening. However the HFHFI Nepal representative’s educated, Brahmin6 background is also different to that of users. This experience demonstrates that background and value differences are likely to exist when outsiders ‘intervene’. It can also provide a lesson for practicing architects; equality of communication and a dedication to users’ creative input contributes to an effective participatory practice.

Figure 9; Home construction, creating foundation and roof supports

HFHI Nepal adopts an incremental development approach to construction; the initial stage generally comprises of roof and the roof’s supporting structure. Families can complete later stages independently or by seeking micro financing once the first loan is paid back. Devolving control of home improvements to families amounts to a high level of citizen control, however the framework provided for future development needs to be considered. The bamboo / concrete column structure generally allows the users to control where they position walls, although the foundations restrict footprint of the home. For the NGO, the main priority of the first stage is to make a permanent improvement which will not deteriorate regardless of further construction. Construction is lead by local masons, families contribute ‘sweat equity’ to their and other families homes. Although this may form a type of self build, this involvement alone doesn’t represent participation in design. Families are responsible for infill of walls, once the initial stage is complete, plastic sheeting, woven bamboo and scrap materials may be used. This however amounts to little participation, but does allow cultural stylizing.

Figure 10; initial constuction stage

Figure 11; Infilling walls

7. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224

The methods of micro-financing and incremental development in theory result in extensive citizen control, yet the framework of HFHI Nepal’s approach restricts this potential. Consequently the level of participation could amount to what Sherry Arstein defines as ‘placation’7, power still rests in the hands of the NGO. The organisation’s structural provisions could be considered frame / support, yet they are generally too prescriptive to be very empowering. The apparatus of assistance provided by HFHI Nepal is also prescriptive. However the reality is that in the region many families attempt to build homes beyond their resources, when these are not completed, their investment goes to waste. House building is not something families are likely to be experienced in, so perhaps it is necessary for the NGO to inform families. While this may be true, there is a case for the organisation to do so in a manner that empowers users to make decisions themselves.

Figure 12, nearing completion

Whilst these houses may appear ‘simple’, their creation embodies personal meaning, the homes maybe can referred to as what Lefebrve describes as ‘lived space’. However, the project’s greatest achievement is perhaps the replication of the incremental construction methodology by other families in the local area. The creation of this methodology, accessible to users, can be termed open source.

So can this achievement be attributed to the absence of the architect? Any scheme that creates a dependency on the architect is likely to have difficulties in a context where there is no convention of architects practicing; there is not even a Nepali word for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. However, this is not an argument for the architect to be removed from the process. A better analysis would be that architects should facilitate communities creating housing themselves, working with contextually appropriate methods.

Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile

Demographic: Integrated urban Settlement type: Informal Urban Location: Iquique, Chile Local Economy: Integration with formal and some informal local economy Country context: UN: high development; Construction: Initial base: contractor, latter 50%: self build Size: 72m2 (when 100% built) Cost: $7500 Date: 2003 - 2004, ongoing

Frame / supports, incremental building, self build, flexibility, self help, open souce (?), workshops, asset based [techniques] Informal urban settlements [key issues] Local architect [architect / initiators]

Quinta Monroy Housing Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to resettling 93 families from an illegal urban settlement, embraces an array of participatory techniques. The project has received commendation across the world1 and has become a well known example of participatory housing. In a world where 1 in 6 people live in slums, which could grow to 1 in 3 by year 20202, the scheme explores issues surrounding urban housing poverty. Resettling the Iquique settlement encountered a challenge faced by those working with informal urban communities across the world; how to preserve dignity whilst maintaining the density of accommodation. The acquisition of sites in such areas is expensive, so when resources are limited, a choice usually has to be made between making savings on homes, or moving residents to the periphery, where land is cheaper. The latter, has a detrimental effect on communities, separating residents from jobs and networks that support them.

1. Example include Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises by Architecture for Humanity, Domus (886), 2005, November, CasabellaÂ vol. 70, no. 742, 2006 March, 2. Council of Europe, quoted by Sinclair, C, in (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp.138 Figure 13; Preexisitng settlement

3. Aravena, A, ELEMENTAL, Elemental SA, Chile, pp.17 [http://www.holcimfoundation.org/ Portals/1/docs/F07/WK-Norm/F07-WK-Normiacobelli02.pdf accessed 14/01/10]

4. Ibid p.17 5. Ibid p.21

The project was initiated by an interdisciplinary design team, Taller de Chile, part of Elemental housing; a Chilean based Doing Tank, who took the decision to house families on the same site of their original homes. After land expenditure, the $7500 funding provided by the government Chile-Barrios program, was enough a 30 m2 sized home3. Elemental took the approach; ‘When the given money can afford just half of the house, the key question is: Which half do we do? We chose to provide the half that a family will never achieve on its own’ 4 Elemental’s intervention aimed to build 50% of ‘a middle income house’5 in a manner that would create a framework to facilitate the resident’s incremental expansion of the latter 50%. Whilst the economic rather than participatory motivation for this decision could be criticised, what is important is the extent of participation realised by the project. The arrangement of two units per lot provided the required density, gave the ground floor house potential to expand horizontally, and the upper floor apartment potential to expand horizontally and vertically into gaps between units. This meant users, assisted by construction workshops, could build between the base unit’s reinforced concrete column structure with low tech methods. This could be termed an open source approach, structural and educational assistance provided accessibility.

Figure 14; incremental expansion

Although base units were standardised, only kitchen and bathroom spaces were defined, with basic plumbing providing flexibility. While the system provided ‘citizen control’ of the base unit layout and building of the latter 50% of the house, it also imposed restrictions. Primarily, incremental construction had to stay within the predefined building line (aimed at restricting building to maintain open space) while the shell of the base unit had to be respected. A further consideration is does user participation continue as time elapses? Although only the first generations receive construction training, perhaps the low tech approach keeps opportunity for user participation open.

Fig 15 and 16, after construction and after habitation

6. Ibid p.21

7. ibid

It is necessary to evaluate how this system was designed, to consider if these restrictions were an imposition, or were developed by the community. Although Elemental carried out workshops with residents, the extent of participation in these is unclear. The aims; ‘to communicate restrictions and constraints’ and ‘whenever possible we want families themselves to choose’6 suggests a paternalistic approach to these negotiations. This opportunity for users’ views to be heard, but with no degree of citizen power, fits with Arstein’s concept of ‘informing’ and ‘consulting’. However, despite these limitations, residents embraced the concept of the incremental development, some completing the other 50% of their homes within a year and a half7. The structural provisions could be considered a support / frame, successfully empowering users to determine dwellings themselves. However, can these interventions be less prescriptive? One solution may lie in the existence of an effective participatory process. If the supports / frames are developed by the community; inherent restrictions aren’t an external imposition. The workshop approach did appear to engage users, although it could have gone much further. The experience is a lesson that architects should reconsider their attitude to users and be prepared to invest in the decision making abilities of communities.

8. ibid p.23 9. Gallanti, F, ‘Interiors with Figures, Domus (886), 2005, November pp. 34-41

The approach achieved some clear successes. Whilst incremental development, in the form of sites and services projects, could be criticised for costing residents more and achieving less, the method has been economically successful. Following the $7500 investment in base units, the latter 50% of homes cost families roughly $10008. The approach has won much praise, Domus describes it as ‘an open and varied scenario that lets life unfold in all its freedom and potential’, and which resists the foresighted controls of architecture’9. However, it could be

Fig 17 and 18, before and after; incremental expansion

10. Urban Nouveau (2009) [http://www. urbanouveau.com/index.php?/ihs/projectdescription/ accessed 20/3/10]

suggested there is a prejudice towards the project, on the grounds that it was lead by a South American team practicing in a field where the work of European and American architects often has precedence. Known of the techniques used are new, while projects with similar principles, such as Urban Nouveau and SPARCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Incremental Housing Strategy10, are yet to gain such acclaim. The approach is certainly transferable, but as a process, not a structural model. To be successful, it has to remain appropriate to community and context. Its application in more economically developed countries provokes new questions. Is a self building approach going to be embraced by a more mobile population? How will planning and building legislation impact on the method? This brings a whole new discussion: the relationship between the formal, the informal and planning regulations. It is a debate in which the approach developed in Quinta Monroy has a role. Fundamentally, this project demonstrates capabilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of residents to design and determine their living environment go a long way, but maybe architects can offer a process to bind and apply these assets.

Rural Studio, USA

Demographic: marginalised Black rural isolated communities Settlement type: Rural Location: Hale County, Alabama, USA Local Economy: high employment, catfish farms Country context: UN: very high development; ‘western’ Construction: Student built Size: approx 55 - 115m2 Cost: $20000 approx Date: 1992 - ongoing

Client based, consultation, immersing, asset based [techniques] Reclaimed and recycled materials [ key issues] Studio lead [Architects / initiators]

Rural Studio has pioneered an approach involving architecture students working on built projects in marginalised communities. The studio has attracted widespread attention, with some crediting it as a major influence within the humanitarian architectural sector. Kate Stohr in her essay ‘100 Years of Humanitarian Design’ asserts the studio ‘brought the practice of architecture back to the design of low cost shelter’1. The studio, a partnership with Auburn University, was founded on the conviction that the architectural profession has an ‘ethical responsibility to help improve the living conditions of the poor’2, and a desire to push architectural education beyond an abstracted academic study. Students learn through design and construction of home and community projects using recycled, reclaimed and donated material. Based in rural west Alabama, the studio works with predominantly isolated black communities in the locality. The area has a 40% poverty rate3, with dilapidated homes and conditions that have improved little since the depression era. The scale of poverty is such that the families the studio works with are generally too poor to be helped by formal state housing assistance.

1. Stohr, K. (2006), ‘100 Years of Humanitarian Design’, in Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp. 32-55 2. Dean, A.O. and Hursley, T (2002), Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of Decency, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 1 3. Ibid p 2 4. ibid p. 17

The housing process is lead by the students, who initially select families from a shortlist. The design process considers families as clients, with students consulting families in an attempt to understand their needs. In an attempt to bridge the differences in backgrounds between students and recipient communities, an immersing process is adopted. This varies, but involves anything from dinners with families to time socialising on site. The client based approach can be criticised for negating user leadership of the design process. Studio founder Samuel Mockbee believes this is essential, as communities ‘don’t have a clue how to get out of poverty’4. Such a stance appears paternalistic. Although these people have faced difficulties improving their situation independently, this is no reason not to empower them to lead an external intervention. Fundamentally, this approach neglects the users’ creative engagement in design. A suggestion of the limits of such an approach is provided in the Harris families’ comparison of their new ‘Butterfly House’ with their previous home. Describing the old ‘ramshackle’ home Harris states; ‘the only thing I hated about it was we didn’t

Fig 19; Harris famillies olf house, an example condition of homes

have a bathroom’, whilst the new home provokes the response it ‘doesn’t have room for my things’5. It appears despite the new home promising vast improvements in terms of structure, space and aesthetics; it does not satisfy its inhabitants.

5. Ibid p. 34 6. Ibid p. 10.

If the design process is lead by students, what is the extent of the users’ participation in design? Stylistically, it appears that studio has the largest influence. Strong similarities exist within the studio’s work, and designs have been compared in terms of style to Mockbee’s buildings for private clients6. While an explanation for similarities may lie in the studio’s use of recycled and reclaimed materials, the

Fig 20; Butterfly House

7. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224 8. Till, J and Wigglesworth, S. (2003) ‘Strong Margins’, in Moos, D and Trechsel, G. (eds), Samuel Mockbee and the Rural Studio: Community Architecture, Birmingham, AL, Birmingham Museum of Modern Art, pp 80-81

user’s involvement in the selection of these assets should be considered. The process is also initiated by students and consequently offers little to empower the user. Crucially, families do hold the power of veto. In the example of Bryant House 1994, the Bryants vetoed a two story design and the initial orientation. Consequently the studio’s approach does see a degree of citizen power, yet the exclusion of user active involvement in the design process means the application of this power is minimal. The approach is thus better described as ‘consultation’7. The studio’s work has won extensive recognition, from the cover shot of the January 2009 Blueprint journal to the commendation of Jeremy Till and Sarah Wigglesworth; ‘it produces work which can hold its own in any architectural beauty contest (the final objects are spatially and technically innovative)’8. However this is not what is important when considering housing assistance in marginalised communities; it is what the homes created mean. Rural Studio’s neglect of active user engagement not only limits potential for creating homes synonymous with the users, but limits the positive and empowering experience of ‘creating’ your own home. Conversely, a donor approach is open to criticism of creating dependency.

Fig 20; Lucy House, use of recycled carpets

9. Dean, A.O. and Hursley, T (2002), Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of Decency, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 12. 10. Fisher, T., (2008), ‘Public interest Architecture: a Needed and Inevitable Change’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books, pp 8-13 11. Hendler-Voss, A, and Hendler-Voss, S (2008), ‘Designing with an Asset Based Approach’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books pp 124-131

As a mechanism for addressing housing poverty, could Rural Studio’s approach proliferate? Mockbee admitted the studio has reached its maximum workable size and does not intend to expand further.9 Such a student and tutor intensive process in reality offers little to solving the problem of housing poverty in a world where only 2 – 5 % of buildings are directly affected by architects10. However the idea of an architectural education that contributes to marginalised communities has much more mileage, and has spread with the formation of similar projects, such as the Design Corps Summer Studio11. Perhaps Rural Studios greatest success is not as a method for addressing housing poverty, but in opening doors into the humanitarian architecture profession.

Safe [r] House, Sri Lanka

Initiator: Prajnopaya Foundation Demographic: Tsunami effected families â&#x20AC;&#x201C; those cant afford to are build themselve Settlement type: Rural village communities Location: Dodanduwa, coastal Sri Lanka Local Economy: Tourism, formal, subsistence and small scale fishing Country context: UN: medium development Construction: contractor built Size: approx 37m2 Cost: $3400 Date: 2005-2008

Techniques: Incremental building, flexibility, asset based [techniques] Issues: disaster reconstruction [key issue] Academic design team from Global North working in Global South [Architects / Initiators]

The Safe [r] House project was a NGO lead response to the destruction inflicted by the December 2004 South Asia Tsunami. The involvement of an international team of architects, designers and engineers provides a valuable insight into the issues facing those practising across cultural and geographical boundaries. In the aftermath of the Tsunami, the Sri Lankan Public Security Ministry announced new restrictions forbidding the rebuilding of homes less than 100 metres from the sea. Despite such measures, in some areas these regulations proved unfeasible. The situation prompted the Prajnopaya Foundation, an international NGO, to seek an alternative approach to the construction of 1000 homes in these areas. In conjunction with Harvard Graduate School of Design and SENCEable CITY Laboratory at MIT, methods of rebuilding homes that offered increased Tsunami and flood resistance were investigated.

1. Tsunami Safe (R) House, a design for the Prajnopaya foundation, pp.3 [http://senseable. mit.edu/tsunami-prajnopaya/pdfs/SafeRhouse. pdf, accessed 3/3/10] 2. Ibid, pp.8

Fig 21; Safe [r] House

The design team proposed a structure comprising four C shaped concrete structures in each corner of the dwellings, the structures themselves providing more resistance to water pressure, while their positioning did not restrict the flow of water through the building. The building’s skin and internal walls were created with bamboo or traditional woven partitions, the porosity aided ventilation and cooling in the Sri Lankan climate. The design was tested using simulation software by London based engineers Buro Happold who found that the new design ‘should be able to resist a wave over five times higher than the traditional design’1. Whilst the design is a clear structural success, it is less obvious if Tsunami resistance was the number one priority for all involved. It appears that the impetus on a structural solution for the house design may have come from the NGO, perhaps a response to the ‘100 metre rule’. The very imposition of the regulation by the government actually suggests that Tsunami safety was not the number one priority of the residents. At a crucial stage of the project, the formation of a brief, the community participation appears to have been neglected.

Fig 22; Safe [r] House exploded axonometric

Elsewhere in the design process, there appears little evidence of user participation. However the design team makes promises of ‘engaging residents’2 in the use and determination of homes. The four C shaped structures can be configured to accommodate different functions, such as storage, kitchen or a toilet. However it is difficult to see how such mechanisms provide much more effective determination of dwelling environment beyond allowing residents to determine what activities happen in which area of the house. The rigid core structure actually makes the possibility of changes to the internal layout difficult.

living kitchen toilet bedroom storage veranda Fig 23; flexible usage proposal

+30%

Fig 24; Modular expansion proposal

3. Ibid, pp.9

4.. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224

5. Tsunami Safe (R) House, a design for the Prajnopaya foundation, pp.2 [http://senseable. mit.edu/tsunami-prajnopaya/pdfs/SafeRhouse. pdf, accessed 3/3/10] 6. Architecture for Humanity (eds), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, London, Thames and Hudson, pp.126-129 7. The Prajnopaya Foundation, Tsunami Rehabilitation efforts [http://www.prajnopaya. org/index.php/projects/tsunami-relief, accessed 3/3/10]

The structural arrangement is also presented to enable modular expansion. The original house comprises of 4 C-cores, with the option of expanding by adding further pairs. Yet the system is restrictively rigid, offering expansion along only one axis with the first expansion interval at 30%3. Whilst the design facilitates resident participation in customising and upgrading the construction of partitions, this is only according to the original framework set down by the designer. Subsequently, the project involved a minimal level of user participation. Where provisions were made to allow users to engage and determine their homes, these were in a rigid framework predefined by the architect. Little actual power was ceded to the citizen. Perhaps such approaches are best described as ‘Therapy’4. A paternalistic attitude overtakes user participation. Where attempts are made to empower users, they do not go far enough to be effective. Given the absence of user participation, what are the effects of a design team from a different background to that of the local community? The prioritising of Tsunami resistance by the Prajnopaya Foundation, may be due to the external perspective held by the non local organisation. However, diverging values of the international design team and the local community are likely also to have contributed. While the design utilised a ‘similar shape, same technology and materials’5 as conventional homes, the intended ease of replication is questionable. Contractor costs, estimated at $15006, later rose to US $3,4007, suggesting that the international team’s disconnection from local practices may have created complications. The Safe (r) House experience provides an example of what international experts can achieve technically, even when those from the global north practice in the global south. However the importance of participation and engagement of users is crucial in such situations, when values may differ between architects and users. This is essential to ensure the professional and technical expertise remains relevant, and can create opportunity, rather than risk restricting it.

Ta’u Houses, Taiwan

Demographic: Village communties on island with autonomous culture Settlement type: Rural village Location: Pongso-no -Ta’u, Taiwan Local Economy: limited employment oppertunities on island, so young seek work on mainland Country context: UN: high human development Construction: Local contractor Size: 150m2, demonstration dwelling Cost: subsidy unknown Date: 1994 - 1997

Consultation, workshop, asset based, open source (?) [techniques] Issues: Culture preservation (?) [issues] NTU, Taiwanese mainland academic / profession design team [Architects / initiators]

National Taiwan University’s (NTU) involvement in the rebuilding of homes for the indigenous Ta’u tribe appears to embrace a participatory process, but the residents’ decision not to adopt the organisations recommendations provides a valuable insight into the challenges these practices present. In reference to the Ta’u communities, this study also explores how architects consider how culture and tradition effects housing in a changing world. In the 1970s and early 1980s a Taiwanese government program attempted to make improvements to housing conditions of the Ta’u peoples, on Pongso-NoTa’u, one of Taiwans most northerly Islands. The intervention saw the eradication of four out of six Ta’u villages and the replacement of traditional homes with rows of ‘concrete barracks’1. The changes brought enormous cultural upheaval bringing traumatic changes to the Island, because the Ta’u home is an embodiment of customs. The home’s appearance expresses residents’ social status whilst village layout reflects clan hierarchies. A vernacular response; the home is made up of a fully submerged element, Vahay, a partially submerged element, Makarang, a courtyard, Inaorod and a Tagakal, high above ground, each holding unique sacred value and purpose. Homes are constructed from stones and timber found on the island.

1.Hou, J.(2008), ‘Traditions, Transformations and Community Design: The Making of Two Ta’u houses’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books p 75 Fig 25: Traditional Ta’u home

Fig 26: decaying government intervention

By the 1990s Government built housing had drastically deteriorated, prompting protests by members of the tribe in Taiwan’s capital. The Taiwanese government bowed to public and media pressure, agreeing to provide subsidies and support the rebuilding of damaged homes. A group of design professionals at NTU were assigned to design and plan the rebuilding. The distribution of government subsidies, simultaneous to the NTU’s public presentation of its proposals, created a unique scenario; residents could follow the NTU’s proposals or opt to build independently. In a field where primary data on participants’ perspectives is difficult to obtain, and where much of the commentary is from within the architecture profession, the outcomes are extremely interesting. The NTU, aware of the cultural implications of home design and the changes in technologies globalisation was bringing, attempted to find a balance between Ta’u heritage and contemporary life. It is questionable who determined this direction; the absence of participation suggests it to be a benevolent, if not paternalistic desire of the NTU. Furthermore, the NTU’s involvement was not instigated by the Ta’u. However the NTU initiated a process of community design, carrying out interviews, conducting workshops and listening to residents’ views. Residents’ reluctance to talk openly about the layout of their home created difficulties. This was

a result of it being culturally inappropriate to talk about one’s plan in public, as it is feared doing so will result in sabotage of one’s home by evil spirits. In an attempt to overcome these challenges, the team used an extension to a local school to create a demonstration dwelling. Following the principles of open source design, the team hoped villagers would replicate and adapt the design. Although a local resident was hired to work with the NTU to make refinements and construct the home, this offered little empowerment to the wider community.

Fig 27: demonstration dwelling

2. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 4, 216 — 224

Villagers rejected the NTU’s designs, a hybrid of contemporary and local materials that respected elements of Ta’u tradition. Instead homes were constructed entirely from reinforced concrete, creating modern internal spaces with tiled floors, painted walls and electrical appliances. Traditionally important outdoor spaces and customary hierarchies in the arrangement of buildings were absent. The participation process consequently failed to successfully engage with the desires and priorities of the community. An explanation could lie in the level of participation in design amounting to what Arstein describes as ‘therapy’ or ‘consultation’2, the community’s rejection of proposals was due to their lack of real influence in design. The involvement of users alone did not form effective participation.

3. Hou, J.(2008), ‘Traditions, Transformations and Community Design: The Making of Two Ta’u houses’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books p 79

However, the adoption of an open source approach to the completed design did empower users, even if this solely amounted to a rejection of the scheme. As much as these homes built by villagers may appear a departure from Ta’u culture, ‘they still play an important role in Ta’u society, just as the traditional homes once did’3. The home remains a symbol of social prestige.

Fig 28, Islander built home

4. Hou, Jeffery (25th March 2010), email, see appendix 5. Hou, Jeffery (25th March 2010), email, see appendix

Jeffery Hou’s explanation; ‘we didn’t have enough access to the younger generation who spend most of their time in Taiwan rather than on the island’4, underlines the importance of communication between architects and the community. This makes the case for an immersing approach, so that architects can understand the needs of communities they are designing for. Hou further argues, ‘it just requires more time and patience that most projects don’t allow and most practitioners don’t have the luxury to have’5. If time is a limited, but necessary resource for a consulting approach to function, there is a case for an alternative approaches; one that engages with, and is lead by the community.

The rejection of NTU proposals and participation shortcomings highlighted the organisation’s misjudgements of the Ta’u people’s contemporary identity and how this impacted on housing. These misjudgements may have been caused by the background of designers. Well educated, urban, mainland, ethnically ‘Taiwanese’ professionals are likely to hold starkly different values to those of the indigenous Ta’u community. In this context, do architects have a role in preserving cultural traditions? However benevolent architects’ intentions are, it is not for them to impose their assumptions on communities. On principle doing so would be paternalistic, in practice the outsider is likely to get it wrong. An insufficient level of participation combined with a misunderstanding of contemporary Ta’u cultural identity severely limited the NTU’s ability to address the housing needs of the Ta’u community. The failures of this approach identifies the importance of effective participatory design in humanitarian architecture. Where well educated professionals work with marginalised communities, even within the same country, values and perceptions will most definitely differ. Fundamentally the approach validated the concept of open source architecture; the challenge is now to apply these principles to the design process.

Emergency Dwellings. Romania

Initiator: Town commissioner Demographic: Marginalised roma communities and pioor urban dwellars Settlement type: town periphery Location: Dorohoi, Romania Local Economy: previously informal retail, few opportunities due to discrimination Country context: UN: high human development Construction: Contractor Size: 48m2 Cost: $16000 Date: Winter 2006

No techniques formally applied, immersing [techniques] Segregation and discrimination, urgency [key issues] Architect academic with experience in community [Architects / initiators]

Numerous Roma, or Romany, communities across Europe currently live in serious housing poverty, on the margins of what is considered a developed society1. The Emergency Dwellings in Dorohoi, Romania, are a response to this issue. Unlike other approaches studied, the scheme appears to have little user participation. The project, the reasons behind the approaches lack of participation and the unique context allow us to explore further issues surrounding participatory housing approaches. It is firstly necessary to understand the complex existence of Roma communities. The Roma people have been subject to extensive repression, involving slavery, pogroms, and segregation, throughout their history. Centuries of discrimination and a lack of understanding have culminated in much mistrust and ignorance of Roma communities by the ‘Romanian’ population. Consequential antagonism has resulted whilst racism towards them transcends both local communities and public office. The Roma people’s transition from a nomadic life style to ‘settling down’ was traumatic, because they were condemned settle on poor land on the peripheries of towns and villages. Although today no such official practices exist, Roma communities are still finding themselves confined to similar sites, for example where

1. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (November 2009), Comparative report: - The situation of Roma EU citizens moving to and settling in other EU Member States [http:// fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ ROMA-Movement-Comparative-report_en.pdf, accessed 26/3/10] Fig 29; example periphery community, Tarlungeni, Romania. Note rubbish sorting in centre of image

2. European Urban Knowledge Network (30th October 2008),”To tackle cases of extreme poverty housing is essential” [http://www.eukn. org/romania/news/2008/10/interview-catalinberescu_1040.html, accessed 26/3/10] 3. Berescu, C and Celac, (2006) M, Housing and Extreme Poverty; The Case of Roma Communities, Bucharest, Ion Mincu University Press, pp .11

there risks from floods or waste disposal2. Disconnection from cultural traditions, a lack of security and few livelihood opportunities have resulted in precarious squalid homes, that could be termed ‘shantytowns’. However the Roma’s poverty goes beyond the home itself, they are subject to what the projects architects Catlin Berescu and Mariana Celac define as ‘community poverty’3. This is separation from public utilities, transport, education and other services, amounting to little political, social or economic participation.

4. Ghenciulescu, S [http://www.mimoa.eu/ projects/Romania/Dorohoi/Emergency%20 Housing, accessed 26/3/10]

Fig 30; existing homes in historic centre

In Dorohoi, the removal of Roma communities from the town’s historic centre saw the town’s Commissioner propose emergency accommodation for the 180 neediest people affected. Berescu and Celac became involved following a research study in the town, designing 8 units each containing 3 apartments and 4 individual 4 room maisonettes, each of identical design. The homes were constructed from standardised ‘semi-prefabricated wooden elements that could be installed rapidly on site’4.

Fig 31; Emergency Dwelling Unit plan

Fig 32; Emergency Dwellings and periphery site

Fig 33; Emergency Dwellings at completion

5. Berescu, C and Celac, (2006) M, Housing and Extreme Poverty; The Case of Roma Communities, Bucharest, pp .127 6. Ibid, p. 128 7. ibid. p .117 8. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, p 216 — 224

9. Berescu, C and Celac, (2006) M, Housing and Extreme Poverty; The Case of Roma Communities, Bucharest, p .22 10. Ibid. p .22

The standardisation of dwellings and the imposition of a ‘universal design’ negated user participation and could have contributed an assumption that the Roma community were a homogenous group. This would appear to go against the architects’ own assertion in Housing and Extreme Poverty; the Case of Roma communities that they are ‘a group of families and household with different needs’5. However, the architects’ experience in and around Roma communities, their research published in the book named above, undoubtedly influenced their decisions. The housing typology was chosen to reflect the group’s urban background6 whilst the absence of a indoor bathroom reflected community priorities7. Yet observing how a marginalised group currently live does not give architects a mandate to determine how they should live. Likewise, while the approach could be compared to Sherry Arsteins concept of ‘Consulting’8, the lack of any actual user involvement more likely constitutes ‘non participation’. Berescu and Celac justify the approach as ‘sheltering as many persons as possible, even at minimum standards of comfort’ in the context of a minimal budget and urgency due to the harsh winter climate. The argument makes the assumption that participation was not possible with such urgency. The architects own admissions that ‘there are only few who are open and willing to speak about their state’9 and cite ‘behaviour reactions that make dialogue difficult if not limit it’10, suggest any such process may face difficulties and could need time to resolve. Whilst timescale may have limited the achievements of negotiation, it should not deny its existence. Did other factors contribute to the use of a non participatory approach? The forced eviction of the community from their original homes to an industrial area on

11. Ibid p.112

12. ibid p. 92-93

the edge of town is not the ideal starting point for engaging users in an participatory process. However in Housing and Extreme Poverty; the Case of Roma communities, the architects actually suggest that ‘self generated building... shouldn’t become a fetish’. They make the case for an interventionist approach as a necessary measure to put an end to the vicious circle of poverty11. It is worth considering their reasons for this caution towards some participative approaches. Without giving weight to any stereotypes of Roma communities, years of social, economic and psychological marginalisation may have made community engagement and leadership less likely. These difficulties should not rule out participation; they should lead to an understanding that housing approaches need to consider communities’ assets and respond accordingly. Whilst circumstances may have limited participation in the initial design stage, this should not rule out continued participation. The architects themselves propose a model for ‘stepped social accession’12, where both visibility and possibility of advancement is necessary. This should surely translate into a housing approach that facilitates self improvement. However, the inflexibility in the design restricts these opportunities. However, maybe the greatest criticism of the emergency dwellings is their site on the periphery, 4km from the nearest school. This amounts to a continuation of segregation and separation. While this proved to be outside the architects’ control, it is a lesson that location and integration with existing networks is a consideration as important as houses themselves.

7. Conclusions i) Analysis of projects

The projects represent an array of objective achievements. Rural Studio won the commendation of the architectural profession for its combination of aesthetics and process, while Safe [R] House was technically successful, creating a structure that was five time stronger than conventional homes against Tsunami. The Emergency Dwellings provided accommodation in the necessary time frame. The HFHI Nepal project successfully developed a low cost housing model, as it could be copied by others. Quinta Monroy Housing Project demonstrated how twice as much built space could be created with existing grant funding. However, should housing projects be evaluated solely according to objective criteria? Maybe not. 1. Turner, 1972. Quoted by Hamid, N (1991) Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enactment, ITDG Publishing, U, p.44

2. Turner JFC, Housing by people: towards autonomy in building environments, pp56, Broome, J, Mass Housing cannot be sustained, in P B Jones, D Petrescu and J Till (eds), Architecture and Participation, London, Spon Press, pp 65-75

Turner states that ‘the important thing about housing is not what it is, but what it does in people’s lives’1. Housing is not solely about the provision of a built form and the corresponding issues of aesthetics, structure and space standards. What is more important is the opportunities and empowerment it can create. If these opportunities are not offered, through imposition, inflexibility or inappropriateness the potential for positive change is limited, irrespective of what is provided. Turner further argues ‘When people have no control over, or responsibility for key decisions in the housing process... dwelling environments may instead become a barrier to personnel fulfilment’2. Creating opportunities is not a straightforward process, and a variety of techniques to achieve participation have been used. Some of these are illustrated in the case studies and examined below.

ii) Participation techniques

A consultation technique aims to reveal user’s needs, so (generally) architects can design for them. The consultation was used in the Rural Studio and Ta’u Houses projects with diverging outcomes. Rural Studio used successfully the technique to create bespoke homes for individual users, but Ta’u houses didn’t manage to create a design that was acceptable to the community. The technique’s functionality is dependent on designers being able to access communities’ views and subsequently take them on board. Yet neither instance represents real user engagement in design, the whole process remains lead by the architect. The process therefore creates little empowerment. The same analysis can describe the client based approach; meeting users’ needs does not empower them. Workshops were used too in the negotiation of design in the Quinta Monroy Housing Project and Ta’u Houses, with different results. Despite workshops, the NTU’s design proved not to be acceptable to Ta’u communities. One explanation was the difficulties accessing younger generations, introducing the issue of inclusion: how can all parties be included in the participation process? In Quinta Monroy, following a series of workshops, the incremental housing arrangement appeared to be embraced by the community. The experience of the two projects indicates that the provision of workshops alone does not result in participation; whom they include and how the negotiation is structured are far more important. An immersing approach, whereby designers aim to increase their understanding of communities by sharing their experiences, was utilised by Rural Studio, but not sufficiently in the Ta’u Housing project. In Rural Studio, the approach may have helped to bridge the differences between the middle class architecture students and poor black communities. The implementation of an immersing approach might have helped to overcome value differences that existed between the NTU and the local community. However, can the approach do more than just inform architects to act effectively on users’ behalf? Indeed, greater mutual understanding surely furthers the productivity of the negotiation between architect and user. In the case of Emergency Dwellings, Catlin Berescu and Mariana Celac’s extensive experience in Roma communities undoubtedly assists the project. However their approach involved little in the way of participation or user empowerment of design. Accordingly, immersing is valuable, but is not a substitute for user participation. Both the Quinta Monroy and HFHI Nepal projects made use of self build techniques. The projects had diverging outcomes. The Quinta Monroy Project entrusted residents to design and build the second 50% of their home within the frame / support provided. HFHI Nepal allowed residents to determine the infill and positioning of some walls. The extent to which self build allows empowerment depends on the influence users have over design. This was much more the case with the Quinta Monroy Housing Project than HFHI Nepal.

This technique raises other issues; does it rely on the assumption that the poor always build for themselves? If so, is self building an imposition? No, although self building may be encouraged on the basis of resource or economic reasons, by its nature it cannot be imposed. The option of self build is itself empowering. Incremental development techniques, where the user determines how and when different stages of building take place, were used to different extents in Quinta Monroy Housing Project, HFHI Nepal, and Safe [r] House, manifesting varying amounts of participation, empowerment and opportunity. The Safe [r] House offered incremental development in the limited form of choice of partition material, consequently doing little to empower the user. In Quinta Monroy Housing Project, users could determine how they built the second half of their homes within the given frame. As with self build, it is the architect relinquishing control to the user which provides empowerment. A similar story exists with the technique of flexibility, where users are given the opportunity to configure space according to their requirements. The extent of empowerment differs according to the degree of user control. The Safe (r) House design, despite promising flexibility, only offered users the opportunity of rearranging the location of different activities within the home. In contrast the base units of Quinta Monroy Housing project only defined kitchen and bathroom location, thus providing greater user choice. Flexibility importantly also promotes the possibility of user determination over time. While none of the projects utilises an intentionally changeable and deconstructable building method, the use of low-tech legible construction techniques can allow changes to be made easier overtime. Quinta Monroy Housing Project provides an example of this. Where education may have empowered the first generation to build and adapt homes, construction legibility can provide this opportunity to future generations. Frames and support techniques aim to facilitate informal construction through structural assistance. While the initial stage of HFHI Nepal Houses creates a frame, the reality is that this is prescriptive and creates few opportunities. The provision of the concrete base units for users to build between in Quinta Monroy Housing Project can also be termed a frame; it is less prescriptive then HFHI Nepal, but still imposes control. Asset based techniques, which involve centering projects around communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resources, are evidently used in five of the six case studies, but it is less certain whether the technique was adopted by Emergency Dwellings. Given that project initiators are likely to make use of local resources anyway, does such a technique

always further empower users? If the selection of assets is not a result of the community’s engagement this may not be the case. Rural Studios material selection does little for user empowerment, despite using reclaimed and recycled materials. Whereas a consideration of traditional materials and assets already exists, there is need for a greater focus on the wealth of skills, knowledge and creativity that exist in the local community. Elements of these techniques come under the umbrella of self help, although this term applies to methods of assistance not centred around structure or space, one example being micro financing in the Habitat for Humanity Project. However a similar debate emerges, how assistance can be provided to empower not prescribe. The technique Open Source, the open authorship and accessibility of design was explored in the Quinta Monroy Housing project, Habitat for Humanity and Ta’u houses. Both the provision of a replicable construction methodology by Habitat for Humanity and the incremental construction system in Quinta Monroy Housing Project empowered users. The provision of the example Ta’u house dwelling gave residents the opportunity to reject the design. While these moves could be described as open source, the methods used vary. Perhaps open source is better described as an ‘approach’ which empowers users to determine design. The case studies suggest that a level of participation and empowerment can be facilitated through self building techniques and informal construction. However what do other techniques, as in those associated with the design rather than building process, offer? Case studies indicated that the use of consultation, client based or immersing methods do not by themselves result in effective participation or engagement by the user. These techniques still have a valuable use and can significantly assist the architect working in marginalised communities. Workshops did however exhibit potential to engage users in design creatively, this approach though is very much dependant on how negotiations happen. There is a clear case for further research into participation at the design stage. The analysis of incremental development, self build, frame / supports and flexibility, concludes that user control is necessary for empowerment. However case studies also demonstrate how it is not solely user autonomy, but the provision of ‘support’ which empowers users. Consequently such techniques need to aim to facilitate the minimum prescription, with the maximum support. The above methods relate to the concept of Open Source Architecture, they all provide a degree of accessibility to users determining architectural space. Whereas these should impose minimum prescription or control; the same concept can be applied to the wider design process. For design to be empowering it needs to be accessible. This is Open Source Architecture.

iii) Issues

Informal / Formal Housing assistance in marginalised communities brings a debate over the relationship between the formal and informal. Five out of six of the projects involve a level of informal design or construction, the exception being the emergency dwelling project. The analysis of participatory approaches, exemplifies the potential benefits of self build practices to empowering the user, so should these techniques to be applied in all situations? The approaches were located in areas where informal architecture is not limited by regulation and successes can be attributed to the techniques appropriateness to context. In communities where there is a practice of informal self building, the use of such methods is empowering, while more formal alternatives risk imposing barriers. The application of informal methods where there is a precedence of formal construction is likely to encounter difficulties, notably in planning and building regulations. So should, in this context, the emphasis of participation be placed within design stages? Further case studies are necessary before worthwhile conclusions can be made.

Urban Context Case studies demonstrate that the location, infrastructure and networks of housing of projects are extremely important. For Quinta Monroy Housing Project the maintenance of the local community support structure was a key driving force behind the project. The Emergency Dwellings similarly emphasises how important location is. It can be argued that the greatest issue facing the Roma people is their ongoing segregation and separation. As many times as the case for opportunity and empowerment in the design of homes can be made, this may mean little in reality if users are not connected to appropriate infrastructure, trading networks, employment opportunities or education facilities. The resolution of these issues is rarely simple given the array of competing influences in urban contexts. Decisions are equally complex, presenting the case for the participatory leadership by residents, so their views are not lost.

Time / Urgency a) External influences Time is a hugely important influence on issues effecting marginalised

communities. The urgency of the Emergency Dwellings was the architects’ own justification of a method that included little participation. The Safe [r] House project showed how disaster reconstruction attempts had to operate in the context of elapsing time. The Ta’u housing strategy was affected by the team’s shortage of time on the island. So whilst sometimes there is the opportunity for an extended design period allowing extensive engagement and immersion in communities, external factors often prevent this from being possible. One solution may be in viewing design not as a defined, allocated activity, but something which continues throughout the lifetime of homes. While participation may be hampered by short term time constraints, the provision of a system that allows users to adapt, develop and change homes over time facilitates ongoing participation in design. A further consideration is when time constraints exist; an effective participation approach can ensure the priorities of the community, not the design team, are determined. b) Time and participation Throughout the six case studies, user participation is facilitated in a variety of time frames. The Quinta Monroy Housing Projects introduces user involvement early on; the communities embracing of the incremental building system may be due to this move. The Ta’u and Safe [r] House projects indicate the risks of the participation process being initiated after the formation of a brief; the subsequent NTU Ta’u housing proposal being rejected by the community. User participation needs to start when the project starts.

Social Context Working with marginalised communities sees the likelihood of encountering unique social - cultural issues. The Ta’u House project faced difficulties due to the community’s unwillingness to talk about house design in public whilst the Emergency Dwellings highlighted issues that working with a continuingly discriminated community brings. Both instances brought unexpected difficulties to participation processes. How can they be resolved? There is no one answer but Jeffery Hou’s proposal of ‘time and patience’ is probably the best although even this can be difficult to achieve as the discussion of time explains.

Culture Preservation The NTU experience illustrated the dangers of architects making misjudgements in the name of cultural preservation. Whilst the reasons for these are discussed in the subsequent section, lessons can be derived from this experience. In housing contexts, culture should be a quality defined by its placement and prioritisation in communities, not outsidersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interpretations. However benevolent architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intentions are, it is not for them to make cultural judgements and risk imposing them on communities. Instead, architects should facilitate a participatory process which enables communities to define cultural priorities themselves.

iv) Architects and initiators

Value Difference The involvement of outsiders in addressing housing poverty in marginalised communities brings a likelihood that architects and other initiators have different backgrounds and values from those they are working with. These differences were demonstrated in the case studies at both global and local levels. Harvard Graduate School of Design and SENCEable CITY Laboratory at MIT involvement in Sri Lanka could have contributed to distorting prioritising of structure in the Safe (r) House design. Despite coming from the same country, the misunderstandings in the Ta’u houses project demonstrated a gulf between the values of the NTU and those of the local population. These two scenarios demonstrate the risk of initiators imposing inappropriate design decisions on communities.

3. Jenkens, P, Concepts of social participation in architecture, Jenkens, P and Forsyth L, Architecture, Participation and Society, London Routledge, pp.20

4. Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224

It could be argued that the strongest influence on these differences in values is the professional background of the architect, a result of ‘socio cultural exclusion in architecture’3. It is highly unlikely these professional values are going to be shared by the marginalised communities architects work with. However the HFHI Nepal study, where the architect is replaced by the local NGO representative (university educated, high caste background), shows that extensive differences are still apparent with other initiators. So how can the imposition of alien values be avoided? The case studies demonstrate that this happened where there were limits to the user’s participation, notably when participation was confined to Arsteins ‘consulting’ or ‘informing’4 definitions. A much higher degree of user participation is therefore required, at the same time a greater understanding of communities on the part of architects and other initiators is necessary. Immersing techniques can further this awareness.

Challenges

5. Hendler-Voss, A and Hendler-Voss (2008), S, Designing with an Asset-Based Approach in B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books pp. 202-219

Although some architects have worked extensively with marginalised communities, it can be assumed that with the rapid growth of the humanitarian architecture movement, many have little experience in the area. In a world where the majority of buildings are produced informally, formal training and experience may not equip the architect well. The experience of the Rural Studio approach questions the relevance of the traditional client architect relationship to empowering communities. In fact, there have been suggestions that this donor-recipient mentality creates unhealthy dependency5. Further challenges centre on the vital issue of communication. The Safe (r)

House project’s innovative construction and design detailing created obstacles to local contractors erecting houses. The absence of the architect in the HFHI Nepal example makes the case for a communication method that both parties a are fluent in. Whilst graphical communication is known to bring difficulties, language differences when architects practice overseas may also create barriers to participation.

Criticism 6. Vestbro, .D.U (ed), ‘Are architects and planners obstacles to slum upgrading?’, [Department of Urban Planning and Environment The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), http://www.asfint.org/documents/ publications.pdf accessed 17/01/10] 7. Turner, JFC (1972), Freedom to Build, New York, Macmillan, p. 147

These challenges have lead some to go as far as suggesting that architects are obstacles to development. A recent seminar organised by Arquitectos Sin FronteirasEspaña, ASF-Sweden, and ARC●PEACE - International Architects Designers Planners for Social Responsibility discussed the question ‘Are architects and planners obstacles to slum upgrading?’ 6. Turner, argues ‘The certified professional makes a fool of himself, and often does a great deal of harm to other people, by assuming that he knows more than the uneducated by virtue of his schooling’7.

A Role? So should the architect be involved at all? The HFHI Nepal project successfully developed a housing model that was replicated and adapted by the community independent of the NGO, without the use of an architect. However, the experience does not argue for the removal of the architect from the housing process but shows what can be achieved by embracing methods that are accessible to local communities. The HFHI Nepal approach can certainly be improved with the help of architects. The Quinta Monroy Housing Project for example shows how architects, with their specialist skills, can contribute to the development of supportive yet non prescriptive interventions.

v) Future

Whereas the traditional view of the architect was to design a project and then to oversee its completion, assisting marginalised communities requires a paradigm shift. The architect’s role is to facilitate people’s ability to help themselves. Where once architects provided design, their task now is to facilitated users’ access to and control of it. This accessibility is paramount for the empowerment of marginalised communities. This is what an Open Source Architecture calls for. Open source architecture, the open authorship of design, comprises a belief in people’s right, and ability to determine architecture themselves. This right is underpinned by the broader notion that decisions affecting people should be made by people themselves. The belief in people’s ability can be compared to the principles of open source software; an unrestricted network of participants offers an unlimited contribution. The application of this right requires barriers to participation in design to be removed. This study has identified a selection of techniques to do this and calls for architects to work to deconstruct these barriers.

vi) Further study

1. United Nations Development programme [http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ accessed 8/4/10]

The conclusions make the case for further study into the design based participatory approaches and the relationship between the formal and the informal. However, an analysis of case studies also flags up a need to study a greater variation of project contexts. This should include further case studies in the very poorest areas of the world, the areas which the UN classifies as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Low Human Developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;1.

8. Appendix Email correspondence

Jeffery Hou - Ta’u Houses (Jhou@u.washington.ed), received 25th March 2010 Hi Huan, Thanks for the questions -- See below. Hope this helps. --Jeff

> How did you become involved with the NTU’s approach, were you part of > the design team, or how did you observe the project? Yes, I was on the design team.

> From your account in ‘Expanding Architecture’, it appears that the > design team’s proposals made misjudgements in regard to contemporary > Ta’u culture. To what extent did this situation arise due to > shortcomings of the participation process? In part, it’s because we don’t have enough access to the younger generation who spend most of their time in Taiwan rather than on the island. We did do some outreach and held two workshops for younger folks. Also, it’s against the Tau tradition to fully express one’s intention in public. It took us a while to understand better their desire, value, and preferences.

> Did the process facilitate > the necessary exchange of information, or could the misjudgements be > put down to the NTU making a benevolent attempt to maintain Ta’u > tradtions? It just requires more time and patience that most projects don’t allow and most practitioners don’t have the luxury to have. The same mistake can be made by another design team seeking to develop completely new design.

Jeff Hou, PhD Chair, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture Adjunct Associate Professor of Architecture and Urban Design & Planning University of Washington College of Built Environments

Sandip Poudel - Habitat For humanity International Nepal Jhapa representative (sandip868@gmail.com), received 23rd March 1010

Dear Huan, Here my answers are

-how is the design /size / layout of homes determined? for example is it marked out on the ground and discussed? We have our own home design and size for the house. Basically, we have three different size of house, and design is quite same. Size of house mainly depend on number of family and their saving. We discuss with home partners first and convince them and talk with mason.

-Who leads this process, is it lead by you or your organisation, local masons or by families? We conduct village orientation program (VOP) for the selected home partnerts, and their mason. We conduct VOP among the home partners, masons and representative of village Banks, and representative from our organisation conduct the VOP. in VOP we briefly explain about the low cost housing and and how poor home partners can build affordable safe house by their small saving and our small initiation. During the VOP we also talk about the house size and design, we tranied the mason about the house design, answer their question.and later in construction site, we also visit and suggest for the furthet improvementns . In this ,our regular formal and informal meeting help them to build one full house. Sandip

9. Image credits

Fig 1; Timeline; social architecture and humanitarian architecture, Huan Rimington Fig 2; Park Hill from Sheffield City Centre, RIBA Journal, September 1962 Fig 3; New Gourna Village, Egypt, 1946, University of California [http://publishing. cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/data/13030/2g/ft8x0nb62g/figures/ft8x0nb62g_00125.jpg] Fig 4; Case study location, Huan Rimington Fig 5; Literacy and life expectency comparision, Huan Rimington, data from WHO statistical information system [http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html accessed 24/3/10] Fig 6; Case Study Timeline, Huan Rimington Fig 7; GNI project cost comparison, Source World Bank statistics GNI per capital PPP [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf accessed 24/3/10] Fig 8; Floor Area, Huan Rimington Fig 9; Home construction, creating foundation and roof supports, Huan Rimington September 2008 Fig 10; example initial stage construction, HFHI Nepal [http://hfhi-nepal.blogspot. com/] Figure 11, infilling walls, as above Figure 12; nearing completion, as above Figure 13; Preexisting settlement Aravena, A, ELEMENTAL, Elemental SA, Chile, [http://www.holcimfoundation.org/Portals/1/docs/F07/WK-Norm/F07-WK-Normiacobelli02.pdf accessed 14/01/10] Figure 14; incremental expansion, as above Fig 15 and 16, after construction and after habitation, as above Fig 17 and 18, before and after; incremental expansion

Fig 19; Harris families old house an example condition of homes, Hursley, T., Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of Decency, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2002 Fig 20; Lucy House, Architecture for Humanity, Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, ed Sinclair, C and Stohr, K., London, Thames and Hudson, 2006 Fig 21; Safe [r] House, as above Fig 22; Safe [r] House exploded axonometric, Ratti, C. and Nicolino, R., Tsunami Safe (R) House, a design for the Prajnopaya foundation, [http://senseable.mit.edu/ tsunami-prajnopaya/pdfs/SafeRhouse.pdf, accessed 3/3/10] Fig 23; flexible usage proposal, as above Fig 24; Modular expansion proposal, as above Fig 25: traditional ta’u home, Hou, J.(2008), ‘Traditions, Transformations and Community Design: The Making of Two Ta’u houses’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books Fig 26: decaying government intervention, as above Fig 27: demonstration dwelling, as above Fig 28; Islander built home, as above Fig 29; example periphery community, Tarlungeni, Romania. Huan Rimington, August 2009 Fig 30; existing homes in historic centre, Berescu, C. and Celac, M., Housing and Extreme Poverty; The Case of Roma Communities, Bucharest, Ion Mincu University Press, 2006 Fig 31; Emergency Dwelling Unit plan, as above Fig 32; Emergency Dwellings and periphery site, as above Fig 33: Emergency Dwellings at Completion, Ghenciulescu, S, project description [http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Romania/Dorohoi/Emergency%20Housing, accessed 26/3/10]

10. Bibliography General Architects san Frontieres International, International Federation [http://asfint.org/ accessed 28/10/09] Architecture for Humanity, Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, ed Sinclair, C and Stohr, K., London, Thames and Hudson, 2006 Arnstein, SR., ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969, 35: 4, pp 216 — 224 Article 25, ‘registered charity that designs and delivers buildings and structures, for those in greatest need worldwide’, UK [http://www.article-25.org/ accessed 25/3/10] Awan, N., Till, J., Schneider, T., Spatial agency, [http://www.spatialagency.net accessed 5/1/10 – 9/4/10] Bell, B. And Wakeford K (ed.), Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books, 2008 Blundell-Jones P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J. (ed), Architecture and Participation, London, Spon Press, 2005 ‘Community planning website, the’ [www.communityplanning.net accessed 6/4/10] Cruz, T., Border cities; Tactics of Encroachment, lecture, Centre for Humanities at University of California, San Diego [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0saEe0caJ8 accessed 4/4/10] Design Corps, NGO working for ‘positive change in communities by providing architecture and planning services’, USA, [http://www.designcorps.org/ accessed 25/3/10] Diacon, D. and Guimar, S., Putting people at the centre: sustainable housing solutions worldwide, Open House International, vol. 30, no. 4, 2005 December Dixon, D and Muthesius S, Victorian Architecture, London, Thames and Hudson, 1985 Ellis, C, Self Build Selection, Architects Journal, January 25, 1984 Hamid, N., Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enactment, ITDG Publishing, UK, 1991 Heyden, M, Evolving Participatory Design: A Report from Berlin, Reaching Beyond, Field Journal, October 2008 [http://www.field-journal.org/uploads//file/2008%20 Volume%202%20/Evolving%20Participatory%20Design_Heyden.pdf accessed 12/10/09] Hughes, J., and Saddler, S., Non-Plan: Essays on Freedom, Participation and

Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism, London, Architectural Press, 1999 Jenkens, P., and Forsyth, L, Architecture, Participation and Society, London, Routledge, 2010 Lefebvre, H, The Production of Space (extracts), Leech, N., Extracts in Rethinking Architecture: a reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge 1997, pp.138-146 McKean, J, Learning from Segal, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1989 Myers, N, Environmental Refugee: an Emergent Security Issue, 2005 [http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf accessed 15/01/10] O’Donnell, H., “Shelter is a process rather than a product”, what is the appropriate role of the architect relief, What more can an architect offer?, dissertation University of Sheffield, 2009 Open Architecture Network, open source information sharing of humanitarian architecture projects [http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/ accessed 15/2/10] Rooksby, T., Can architecture be Open Souce? No, dissertation University of Sheffield, 2008 Serageldin, I. (ed), The Architecture of Empowerment; People, Culture and Liveable cities, London, Wiley, 1997 Shelter Centre, the NGO supporting the humanitarian community in post-conflict and disaster shelter and housing, [http://www.sheltercentre.org/ accessed 25/3/10] Sinclair, C., Cameron Sinclair on Open-Source Architecture, 2006 [http://www.ted. com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture.html accessed 4/3/10] Smith, C., Design For The Other 90%, New York, Cooper-Hewitt, 2007 The Times, Property crash opens door to the new council house, 28/10/2008, http:// www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article4629981.ece accessed 23/3/10] Turner, JFC, Freedom to Build, New York, Macmillan, 1972 United Nations Development programme [http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ accessed 8/4/10] UrbanInform, open source documentary information sharing ‘architecture and urban design best practice-projects for the informal city’ [http://www.urbaninform.net/ accessed 29/12/09] Urban Nouveau, Studio engaged in urban housing project Mumbai (2009) [http:// www.urbanouveau.com/index.php?/ihs/project-description/ accessed 20/3/10]

Vestbro, .D.U (ed), ‘Are architects and planners obstacles to slum upgrading?’, [Department of Urban Planning and Environment The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), April 2008 http://www.asfint.org/documents/publications.pdf accessed 17/01/10] Weizman, E. and Brauman, R. in conversation, Humanitarian support: emergency planning, Celine Condorelli, C. and Wade, G with Langdon, J., Support Structures, Sternberg Press, 2009 WHO statistical information system [http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html accessed 24/3/10] World Bank statistics GNI per capital PPP [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf accessed 24/3/10]

Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, blog [hfhi-nepal.blogspot.com/ accessed 4/3/10] Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, Factsheet: Housing and Micro Financing, hardcopy received August 2008 Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, Factsheet: Save and Build and Micro Financing, hardcopy received August 2008 Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, Factsheet: Housing and Micro Financing, hardcopy received August 2008 Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal, Project proposal: Incremental construction and renovation of homes for low income families (13th January 2007), by email [aruna.paul@gmail.com, received 16/10/09 Personal experience and journals. August – September 2008, Intern, Habitat to Humanity International, Nepal. Kathmandu and Jhapa. Duties include drafting project concepts and proposals, visiting homes at different stages of development Poudel, S, Habitat for Humanity International, Nepal local representative, Jhapa, Email Re: Housing [sandip868@gmail.com, received 23 March 2010] see appendix

Quinta Monroy Housing Project, Chile Aravena, A, ELEMENTAL, Elemental SA, Chile, [http://www.holcimfoundation.org/ Portals/1/docs/F07/WK-Norm/F07-WK-Norm-iacobelli02.pdf accessed 14/01/10] Aravena, A, Quartiere di abitazione Quinta Monroy - Elemental, Iquique, Cile, Casabella vol. 70, no. 742, 2006

Arch Daily, architecture news website http://www.archdaily.com/10775/quintamonroy-elemental/ accessed 14/01/10] Gallanti, F, ‘Interiors with Figures, Domus (886), 2005, November pp. 34-41

Safe [R] House Prajnopaya Foundation, the, Tsunami Rehabilitation efforts [http://www.prajnopaya. org/index.php/projects/tsunami-relief, accessed 3/3/10] Ratti, C. and Nicolino, R., Tsunami Safe (R) House, a design for the Prajnopaya foundation, [http://senseable.mit.edu/tsunami-prajnopaya/pdfs/SafeRhouse.pdf, accessed 3/3/10]

Tsunami Safe (R) House, a design for the Prajnopaya foundation, Senseable city laboratory, MIT, http://senseable.mit.edu/tsunami-prajnopaya/

Rural Studio Dean, A.O. and Hursley, T., Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of Decency, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2002 Dean, A.O. and Hursley, T., Proceed and Be Bold: Rural Studio After Samuel Mockbee, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2005 Kelly, P., Rural Studio, Alabama, Blueprint, no. 274, 2009 Jan., pp, 32-38 and cover shot Moos, D and Trechsel, G. (eds), Samuel Mockbee and the Rural Studio: Community Architecture, Birmingham, AL, Birmingham Museum of Modern Art, 2003 Rural Studio, studio website [http://www.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/default.aspx accessed 7/1/10] Smith,C., and Topham, S., Xtreme Houses, Prestel, London, 2002

Ta’u Housing, Taiwan Hou, J.(2008), ‘Traditions, Transformations and Community Design: The Making of Two Ta’u houses’, in Bell, B. And Wakeford K (eds) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York, Metropolis Books Hou, J, email; Ta’u Houses, Pongso-No-Ta’u [jhou@u.washington.ed, received 25 March 2010] see appendix

Emergency Dwellings, Romania Berescu, C. and Celac, M., Housing and Extreme Poverty; The Case of Roma Communities, Bucharest, Ion Mincu University Press, 2006 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (November 2009), Comparative report: - The situation of Roma EU citizens moving to and settling in other EU Member States [http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ROMA-Movement-Comparativereport_en.pdf, accessed 26/3/10] European Urban Knowledge Network ,”To tackle cases of extreme poverty housing is essential”, 30th October 2008 [http://www.eukn.org/romania/news/2008/10/ interview-catalin-berescu_1040.html, accessed 26/3/10] Ghenciulescu, S, project description [http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Romania/ Dorohoi/Emergency%20Housing, accessed 26/3/10] Personal Experience, Better homes volunteer, FAST - Foundation for Social Assistance and Youth, Tarlungeni , Romania. Project works with Roma Community on village periphery in upgrading homes.