Beyond the Refuge Thesis

BEYOND THE REFUGE SPATIAL PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN MASTERS THESIS 2016 JORDANA LYDEN-SWIFT - 08006205

Definition of a refugee: ‘owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (UNHCR 1951, Article 1.a.2).

CONTENTS THESIS SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE METHODOLOGY REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE AND CASE STUDIES CITY MAKING AND ECONOMICS OF SPACE PUBLICS AND SEMI-PUBLICS - THE SLIDING SCALE TEMPORARY VS PERMANENCE PROPOSALS

THESIS SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE What is the essence of a city, what is it that makes it a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ one? This is a question that much has been written about. There have been grand theories and one could say heroic attempts on how best to house massive conglomerates of populations. As population densities increase, where do priorities lie in regard to the provision of amenities? City making is commonly a process taking tens if not hundreds of years. So what happens when it is done at hyper speed? When systems and infrastructure do not have time to organically and progressively grow to meet the needs that grow in turn?

How does one build a city in a day? This is a question being faced by large-scale refugee camp organisers.

I will investigate the Spatial planning and urban design of long term refugee settlements, focusing on three main factors; city making and the economics of such spaces, the constant balance between temporary and permanence and the scales and roles of publics and semi publics within refugee settlements. Using case studies and primary research of both camps and traditional settlements I will endeavour to discover potential adaptations and additions to create more positive human environments within refugee settlements.

In order to set some parameters for this thesis, one must attempt to define the desirable traits of a city. It is so often it’s variety and complexity that differentiates a ‘good city’ from one that simply ‘works’. A city can function with basic infrastructure but it isn’t that alone necessarily that makes it a good city. Culture, relevance to population, adaptability, and opportunity among other aspects add to the experience. These are the things that drive populations to migrate to denser areas.

Oddly enough these are factors that are increasingly

being found in large-scale refugee camps.

Organic growth of cities is sustainable when in congress with a sustainable organic growth in population. Refugee camps are high-speed town planning in action, with sometimes thousands arriving in a day (Foy, H. UNHCR refugee statistics). In recent history the spatial planning of camps is conducted primarily via UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) policy among others like the Sphere Project. This policy deals with sanitation, water distribution and emergency shelter provision. These are quoted as ‘minimum emergency standards’ (Handbook for Emergencies, 2000). These are all completely essential factors, but factors that deal with only the most basic of human needs, those needed to survive. This is understandable in an emergency situation. They are somewhat fire fighting, only dealing with the immediate problem. UNHCR tents are designed to last approximately six months. As is, to a point, their policy.

Post the 6 month mark additional schools, shelters and medical centres may be added as numbers increase, but no new service, no new treatment of space as the longevity of the camp increases. The main reason for this is simply that camps were never intended for use as a solution past 6 months. ALNAP, an organisation that aims to strengthen humanitarian action through evaluation and learning have proposed that the UNHCR have become entangled in ‘what an international agency manual prescribes’ as opposed to ‘obtaining a clearer perspective on what the refugees themselves need’ (Arafat Jamal, 2000). This was also mirrored in reports by the UNHCR’s own evaluation department EPAU (Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit).

An issue arises because UNHCR policy whilst being quite basic can also be quite restrictive. Meredith Hunter stated that ‘the physical characteristics of organized refugee settlements are incompatible with the needs of refugees and hinder any attempts to engage in sustainable livelihoods’ (Hunter, 2009), this being said in relation to the UNHCR’s self reliance policies. What it does supply tends to be very over-determined in form.

This means that as time passes and additional needs are identified, it is unable to evolve, and if the dinosaurs taught us one thing about evolutionary biology it is this, if you don’t adapt you die. Some of the large camps illustrate this, a stagnation of environment and human spirit as nothing is allowed to evolve. Most services and requirements that are identified and seen as outside the remit of the UNHCR are provided by smaller NGO’s or grass roots initiatives.

One can understand from a psychological perspective, there are conditions a person can withstand for a duration of time, they things are bearable because they are finite. This is the case with many refugee or IDP (internally displaced people) camps caused by natural disasters. Rebuilding is generally their main obstacle to return to a degree of normality. The way forward may be hard, but it is there. However, issues arise when a camp is not finite. How do you plan something when the end date is not known? This is the case with so many refugees from ongoing conflict. According to experts, happening today is the biggest mass movement of people since World War II. Beyond refugees fleeing persecution, today we can see a continuing migration towards urban centres, perhaps rapidly growing cities can learn from the adaptability of some camps?

The question this thesis will attempt to answer is ‘How do you plan a city, without permanence?’ Can factors like infrastructure, culture, adaptability and opportunity be provided while maintaining the temporary?

CALAIS

AL ZAATARI

DADAAB

SHATILA

METHODOLOGY I have chosen to look at the most extreme refugee camp situations; feeling that in these it would be easiest to uncover what makes things better and worse.

Palestinian camps are the oldest dating back to 1949.

Shatila, a Palestinian camp in Beirut (Lebanon) has a population of 18,000 in an area of approximately 1sq/ km. In recent years it has received additional influxes of Syrian refugees. Shatila, like other Palestinian camps is very dense and built-up with buildings reaching six storeys and above. Shatila in particular has become quite defensive in layout; partially due to the numerous violent attacks and massacres it has suffered throughout its lifetime.

The second extreme studied is Dadaab camp, a Somali camp in Kenya. This has the largest population, reaching 450,000 at its peak. Dadaab is made up of a series of five camps and the original settlement of Dadaab, which now houses most of the organisational infrastructure for the surrounding settlements. Three of the five settlements came into existence in 1991/2, however the two newer settlements were only established in the early 2010’s to take pressure off the original ones.

The third extreme studied is Al Zaatari, a Syrian Camp in Jordan. This camp experienced very high-speed growth being only twelve miles from the border with Syria.

Established in 2012 it has a population of approximately 80,000, however upwards of 460,000 have settled there and moved on. Al Zaatari was also very highly documented, with many planners and architects taking interest in the process.

Calais camp, otherwise known as ‘the Jungle’, is the final extreme studied. European and illegal it is in contrast to

all the others. Whilst it has only received mainstream attention in recent times, a camp of some sort has been present in Calais since the early 90’s. The exact current population is unknown though it is estimated as just over 7000. Calais has caused much controversy as its 98% male population are seen as economic migrants attempting to make it to the UK and not true ‘refugees’.

Through this cross section I hope to find the similarities and differences that can benefit refugees all over. This has proven to be helpful as some aspects are more acutely expressed under different stresses.

I believe camps can be a version of city without permanence. By distilling and following spatial planning and urban design rules of good cities, and also referencing the parts of long term camps that do work, a formula for high speed town planning can come about.

A formula may never fully govern a human environment; there is perhaps too much variety in cultural norms to truly systematise. This cannot replace highly specific and tailored spatial design. However, it can create a better environment than those currently in existence as well as create situations conducive to adaptation and customisation by the end users.

It is important to remember that different forms of settlement do require different treatments. An action or intervention that was successful in one type may not be in others. However, by taking care with these ‘border crossings’ between type and application I believe that valuable solutions and adaptations can be deduced.

GEDDES

LE CORBUSIER

REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE AND CASE STUDIES Henry VIII defined a city by the presence or absence of a cathedral in the 1540’s. A single physical structure manifested a city, or perhaps a city once ready manifested a cathedral. Royal letters patent were another way of achieving city status. However, whilst the title of ‘city’ was hard fought for, it gave no special rights barring the associated prestige. It can probably be agreed however that neither a single building nor one person’s say so can create the instinctual feeling of city. The obsession with city is relatively localised concept. ‘In France, ville (town) does service equally for everywhere from a minor regional center to Paris itself, while cité is used for everything that’s “concentrated”, from a museum to a housing estate.’ Explains Robert Bevan, a writer for the Guardian newspaper (2014).

However, the understanding of city is something integral and built in to us as humans. Richard Sennett, a professor of sociology at LSE and visiting professor of architecture at Cambridge University said “But above all, a city, rather than a village green, is a place where strangers meet; where new ideas are formed in a public space. A common ground.” (2016) This concept of strangers creating new ways of inhabiting space is one very relevant to refugee camps.

The 20th century bred many town planners, individuals or groups that believed they understood and had the answer to how people should live in dense areas. Le Corbusier’s, Plan Voisin was one of the most infamous though thankfully did not become a reality, at least not how he intended it to. The Plan Voisin abolished street life entirely, making it the primary domain of vehicular circulation. Public life was meant to take on a vertical presence; the street form of it was identified as ‘impure’. Le Corbusier aimed to predict every possible use in advance, or maybe simply restrict inhabitants to

a series of ‘approved’ uses. Whilst Plan Voisin never became reality, Le Corbusier’s theories were taken on by numerous countries and became the language of social housing globally. This form has showed all it’s faults over time as neighbourhoods were torn down in favour of tower blocks which isolated individuals from each other, the vertical public life never materialised and the wide open spaces between buildings were left mainly unused partially due to the lack of human scale and partially due to the absence of services and hence incentive to inhabit. Richard Sennett described this situation ‘Over-determined pre-planning on this model has become endemic in modern urbanism: the proliferation of zoning regulations in the 20th Century is, for instance, unprecedented in the history of European urban design.’ (2016). Whilst taking reference from positive examples of cites, it is also important for camp planners to learn from their failings.

In stark contrast to Le Corbusiers approach, Sir Patrick Geddes had a much more adaptive and responsive approach for his time. He believed in an evolution of society that mimicked that of biological evolution, he himself being a biologist by trade at first. Responding to social theorists he felt that physical geography, market economics and anthropology were needed in combination in order to create positive environments, that there was interconnectedness and they responded and fed back to each other. Unlike the broad sweeping propositions of Le Corbusier, Geddes proposed “constructive and conservative surgery”(Mumford, 1947). Unlike Corbusier who’s large master plans never made it in to reality, the center of Tel Aviv city was completely planned and laid out according to Geddes’ specification.

CLARENCE PERRY I am not claiming to have the solution to build the perfect urban environment, because I do not believe it is possible for one individual to predict everything that could/would be required to create one. I feel it is only possible through guiding the evolutionary process and ridding ourselves of the notion that complete understanding should come before any action. Human settlements are reactionary, by beginning a process we change the reality and hence our previous understanding may now be wrong. Geddes’ infamous motto in relation to urban planning was “diagnosis before treatment” advocating strongly the civic survey. Whilst educating ourselves of the geographical, economic and social life of a place before we intervene in it is important, there will always be one more thing to know and hence this process of gathering information can be paralyzing.

The hyper-speed planning necessary in refugee camps is simply not sympathetic or conducive to this.

Refugee camps are by their nature temporary, at least in intention. UNHCR policy outlines three durable solutions to a refugee camp. First is repatriation, this being the ideal situation whereby people can return to their homes. Second is resettlement in the country of asylum, they are integrated in to the host population. The third option involves resettlement in another country, if the initial host country is not appropriate for them to be integrated in to. Whilst these are durable solutions, the limbo that happens in between being forced from their homes until a decision is made on which of these three options is most viable has an increasing lifespan.

The average lifespan of a refugee camp today is 2530 years. The average stay of an individual is 17 years.

This timescale does not fit within the normal concept of ‘temporary’. This is far beyond the UNHCR’s intended six months.

Uncontrolled population influxes are not sustainable for any kind of settlement. Alejandro Aravena, a Chilean architect and urban planner, defines this threat as the Three S’s, scale, speed and scarcity. Urban planning proposals that resulted from this dynamic can be see in situations that weren’t humanitarian crises. The industrial revolution was the beginning of the up rise in mass rural to urban population migration. Chicago among others suffered due to the massive spike in population, with urban sprawl rapidly declining into slums. Good urban planning could not keep up with the high speed of city growth. A system had to be devised to enable the sprawl to fit inside a framework that could maintain it.

Clarence Perry’s neighbourhood units were the solution for the immediate problem and worked very effectively.

They ensured a good distribution of amenities like schools, churches and commercial points. It reinforced ‘neighbourhoods’ and the human scale as distances were measured in time taken to walk. This was also the beginning of the rise of the motorcar, so the units were somewhat defensive, channelling the majority of traffic around the perimeter. These units were victims of their own success and issues arose when they continued to be applied as a ‘one size fits all’ solution when the urgency of mass population influx had subsided.

Different circumstances called for an augmentation of the framework. However Clarence Perry’s units were infamously blanket applied across parts of Florida, which lead to the creation of homogenous swathes of development.

Whilst historically, architects and planners have attempted to rule out the semi-chaos that occurs when end users begin to alter and augment the spatial environment provided for them, the resistance to user adaptation is thankfully being overcome in today’s world. Alejandro Aravena was asked by the Chilean government to house 1000 families, for $10,000 each in half a hectare of space, giving them at least 40sqm to live in each. This was a social housing effort to replace the inner city favelas that were in steep decline. Initial analysis showed detached houses would have accommodated 30 families, row houses 60 families. Towers were the only means that they thought could possibly accommodate the required numbers, however residents threatened to go on hunger strike if this was carried out. This was due to the fact that they wouldn’t be able to expand. The housing solution that was designed in response and indeed have been repeated in different formats, revel in the ability of users to add value to their environment. This is especially beneficial in situations where financial resources of governing bodies are limited. In working out a housing solution there was only money to construct ‘half of a good house’ or a small house. The half houses that were designed allowed occupants to contribute to their environment, within a framework that limited uncontrollable expansion. People did not fund a government housing project directly, but indirectly increased the value of housing stock with their own money, leading to the betterment of their own lives. Aravena advocates that we ’must channel peoples own building capacity’(Aravena,2014). Again this is a misconception many of the newer refugee camps. There is a false assumption that all refugees are completely dependent on hand outs and unable to contribute to the betterment of their own situation

NEW TOWN

OLD TOWN

CITY MAKING AND THE ECONOMICS OF SPACE “In the human environment of the city, overdetermination both of the city’s visual forms and its social functions can have a similar “dinosaur-effect.” This danger is particularly acute in the rapidly-growing cities today of the developing world; the placement, shape, and function of many buildings and streets in Shanghai ten years ago often makes little sense a decade later as the city has expanded; the buildings have therefore to be torn down, the streets erased. In some cases this is simply too expensive, and in all cases wasteful; the dead dinosaur which human beings have built then begins to deaden the space around it. Over-determined form in human society is usually the result of regimes of power, seeking permanent control. Rigidity is equated, usually falsely, with the regime’s security. In urbanism, however, closure is somewhat special; rigidity can be equated with the purity of form.” (Sennett, 2016).

One could ask whether or not cities of today are a good example to be followed in relation to sustainable design.

By sustainable I do not just mean environmentally but also socially. Historically speaking cities were more flexible, buildings and environments were able to change uses over time as needs changed. Since the 20th century this has begun to change, buildings have shorter lifespans with an over-determination in their use, which restricts change over time. This is fundamentally unsustainable.

An example of where this prescription was massively implemented is in the Sahara desert oasis of Ghadames, Libya. On visiting I saw two very distinct urban situations.

To the north was the old town, approximately five thousand years old. It has thick walls, up to a meter in places; these allow the buildings to stay cool in the hot desert sun. The walkways and small roads are mostly covered over, again a way to mediate the intense heat.

Temperatures can drop by up to 15° by entering the city.

Water is supplied throughout the town by underground streams. Being a strictly Muslim country, women are not allowed to walk the streets unaccompanied. Here the nature of the urban environment stepped up to solve a social issue. Thanks to the covered walkways there was an entire roof-scape that could be traversed. The women and young children used the rooftops to move throughout the town. Boys above a certain age were not allowed, nor were men. In this way the women could meet whilst not exposing themselves to men unchaperoned. This urban situation developed over a long time and was perfectly suited to both climate and social structure of the population.

However, in the name of progress and modernisation, the Gadaffi government believed that a new form of settlement was appropriate for modern Libya. To the south of the old town is a new one; with wide American style tarmacked streets and concrete condos all with air conditioning units that must always be kept on to keep the heat at bay. It was implied to me in interviews that the Gadaffi regime all but forced the residents to move from old town to new. There is little to no street life as there is no shade, women have now become isolated with no way to interact and meet each other without an escort from a husband or male family member.

The old town survived and worked for five thousand years, however the designed city is already failing in a number of ways. The over-determination and inability for it to adapt, not to mention its complete disregard for context are seeing more and more people abandoning it in favour of larger cities. The earlier and vernacular settlements that were too big to completely relocate have proven themselves more flexible, sustainable and stimulating than the closed system placed in Ghadames.

Among others Richard Sennett discusses the nature of open and closed systems in relation to the design of cities. Norbert Weiner being the first to point out systems theory. The primary argument states that a closed system aims for a ‘harmonious equilibrium’, whilst on the other hand an open system embodies an ‘unstable evolution’. This is a fair point, an open system is unpredictable whilst a closed system can be planed and catered for to predict and ensure needs are met.

However, a system in complete balance cannot change and adjust if it is discovered that a particular need or program has not been predicted without causing imbalance, this being the greatest fear of those running a closed system urban environment. Unfortunately UNHCR long-term refugee camps are the embodiment of this flaw in a closed system. Their handbook on camp planning and shelter provision focuses on the basic needs, those of shelter, water, sanitation, and food distribution. This is their ‘minimum standards’ closed system. When needs arise that are not within this system there is a breakdown/riot or the need is repressed or ignored. I will elaborate on some examples of when this has happened. Richard Sennett describes this closed system as a form of paralysed urbanism and suggests that an open system may be able to free it. I believe aspects of an open system city can be applied to long term refugee camp, in my opinion, there is no where they are more relevant.

When changes occur within UNHCR camps it is generally due to an individual or ‘Champion’. Killian Kleinschmidt has become infamous as the Mayor of Zaatari and the rebel of the UNHCR. He has since left and started his own organisation due to the inefficiencies and ignorances he found after 25 years with them. In Al Zaatari camp, refugees were siphoning electricity from

the streetlights. The modifications were often unsafe and caused power surges and subsequent black outs.

Kleinschmidt, had discussions with the refugees to urge them to stop, explaining that there were not the funds to pay for the additional generators and electricity. The refugees fled Syria with much of their savings and were more than willing to pay for the electricity they used and for the proper installation. Killian in an interview with me explained that there was no system whatsoever whereby refugees can pay for something. The ideas of refugees as an ultimate dependent was so resolute that there was no system in existence for them to purchase a service, a process carried out by almost every individual on the planet.

Herein lies a basic unsustainability of humanitarian organisations, hand out after hand out eventually creates a dependant population, this can cripple peoples mentality. Due to the absence of the basic concept of market economics, the complete lack of control erodes and compounds the issue. Relief from relief should be the aim of humanitarian actions, it is one of the few professions where if you are out of a job and no longer needed it is a good thing. There are many factors at play, which contradict this, charities can become self-serving, with so much infrastructure that continuation and proliferation of the organisation becomes more important than the realisation of the goal. But this is beside the point. Restructuring the aid industry is not a task for this moment.

The above describes what happens over time through the unsustainable nature of the economic management of camps. Market economic sustainability is only one factor though, where might we focus our resources to create a sustainable system? How do we evaluate

in terms of Physical Geography and anthropology as Geddes suggested. Creating a balance could be seen as beneficial and indeed it is. However there is the danger, that in the same way some charities become focused on the continuation of the institution, they now become focused on the continuation of the balance.

The proliferation of balance over a response to need is a situation found in some governments also. An even distribution of energy throughout leads to nothing being done that is particularly amazing and hence a sort of sterile environment persists. We can see how in some less balanced settlements, one resource may be lacking whilst another thrives. This creates a degree of stimulation, which is an asset to any environment, and there is then the possibility for improvement and to excel in other areas.

There was a fear with Clarence Perry’s units that in their aim to create identifiable neighbourhoods they would in turn create segregation between large communities, especially as the large roads, which wouldn’t encourage integration, separated them. A similar fear exists in a number of camps that house multiple races or tribes.

They tend to cluster together and it has been debated whether to force a mix and integration between them or not.

Integration has similar connotations to balance. It feels like it should be a good thing in all aspects. However, integration by its nature lessens the value of the individual and can contribute to the de-humanising factors that come with camps. With so much taken from them, do refugees not have the right to cling to what they know if that brings them security and is good for their mental wellbeing? It has been shown that healthier people tend to have stronger familial social support structure. John Seely Brown once said

“Every technological advance poses at the moment of its birth a threat of disruption and dysfunction to a larger system”. Herein lies the threat and hence the fear of something that isn’t integrated, that in its variety or difference, conflict may be created. This does not only apply to integration between refugee populations, but between camp systems and new innovative systems that have to potential to change and improve refugee camps environments.

Alexis de Tocqueville explains how people will not necessarily naturally congregate and converse with those not known to them. This is not due to animosity or any particularly negative emotion, but simply indifference. However he warns that this in turn can lead to a break down in society. As with other closed systems, in isolation we can stagnate. Stagnation means we cannot evolve, and again we do not want to meet the same fate as the dinosaurs. He states “Each person, withdrawn into himself, behaves as though he is a stranger to the destiny of all the others. His children and his good friends constitute for him the whole of the human species. As for his transactions with his fellow citizens, he may mix among them, but he sees them not; he touches them, but does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone. And if on these terms there remains in his mind a sense of family, there no longer remains a sense of society.” (1961) Family and work are the two main ways people today interact with society. In his book Democracy in America he encourages people to join voluntary services to combat this breakdown in society, organizations like church groups and child mentoring groups like scouts and brownies. This may be a stretch to ask of refugees that have lost so much, however it is just as necessary. As children in camps are encouraged in to education

to ensure a future, so much the adults be encouraged in to society to ensure a present. Collective space and buildings in camps could be a key to establishing this.

Whilst restructuring the aid industry may be implausible at this time, there are examples of when previously integrated mainstream practice was changed and lead to more dignified aid solutions. Again referencing Al Zaatari and information received from Killian Kleinschmidt. Food distribution in large camps has been done in a similar fashion for a long time. People in queues line up for hand-outs through a small window… like Argos but more depressing. There were riots over the indignity of the process but also what was on offer.

It was not feasible to pack a bespoke box for every family dependant on preference, however it was also understandable that mac and cheese is not as widely appreciated as initially thought, especially amongst the Syrian refugees being catered for. This is not a joke, former head of Al Zaatari informed me of this himself (interview, 2016). His solution was blindingly obvious once established. Apart from the Palestinian crisis, the majority of large-scale refugee crises have been in Africa, among populations that were more accustomed to aid culture before they were dispelled. So they traded amongst themselves and generally accepted the food distribution handouts. The Syrian refugees in Al Zaatari were not used to this, nor had they well enough established internal trade at that point (this situation has also now changed considerably). Kleinschmidt had a shop set up which worked on credits, the same credits as the distribution centre. The food was still free and handed out as such, but the people could choose for themselves. After initial costs, this was not more expensive to run that the distribution point had been. As the camp grew, it was treated as the city it

was becoming. People shopped for their goods like any other city, people had limits on their spending, like any other city. Can you imagine a city of Argos’s but with less selection? Is it any wonder there were riots among the Syrian doctors and lawyers and tradesmen that wished to maintain their dignity. Just because refugees have lost much doesn’t mean they deserve and should be happy with less now.

By taking influence from the most basic form of commerce in a normal settlement, the dignity and mental wellbeing of the residents was dramatically increased. What interests me in addition is the fact that this change did not affect the temporary nature of the camp. The ‘shop’ was no more permanent than the distribution centre had been.

A major factor that allowed this adaptation to be so effective was the degree of control given to the end user.

This is something I don’t believe can be overestimated in a camp environment. One thing ‘camps’ have in common is the dehumanisation of the individual.

Consider this in relation to prison/concentration camps, but probably less so with summer camps (but not completely unfathomable). Obviously with refugee camps this is a side effect as opposed to intentional.

How much control can be handed to the refugees in the creation of their own environment?

A camp environment should be open to change, not immediately seek to stabilise it. It has to be understood when UNHCR policy has become too restrictive.

Speaking with Prof. Maurice Mitchell, he explained interactions he and his students have had pertaining to the restrictive nature of UNHCR policy. Working in central Africa in a UNHCR refugee camp, a student

designed, developed and prototyped a method of gabion housing. Buying only reels of chicken wire, children amongst other refugees collected stones and rocks from the surrounding areas to make housing that was more durable, sustainable and cheaper than the UNHCR tents that were being shipped in. On requesting money for chicken wire instead of tents the student was asked to desist in his work. The tents had already been purchased for the purpose. The UNHCR was unable to adapt when a better and more innovative solution presented itself. By stabilising the change instead of embracing it, the problem of shelter continued to compound as the tents disintegrated over time.

SHELTER ADAPTATION

PUBLICS AND SEMI-PUBLICS - THE SLIDING SCALE ‘The public realm can be simply defined as a place where strangers meet. The difference between public and private lies in the amount of knowledge one person or group has about others; in the private realm, as in a family, one knows others well and close up, whereas in a public realm one does not; incomplete knowledge joins to anonymity in the public realm.’ – Richard Sennett Public space, its purpose and what its purpose should be has been thoroughly debated. Hannah Arendt focused on the large centers, places like Trafalgar square which cities orbit around. Manifesting through their density, she felt that politically they leveled people, creating equality through anonymity. Alternatively, Jurgen Habermas saw public space more as a communicative practice, feeling that as people discussed their differences and variety they would rise above it through the awareness of it. This school of thought focused more on smaller urban spaces, where proximity forces interaction. Both of these have their virtues, but I feel both are idealistic, a view of what public space should be but not what it is, but perhaps this is only my personal experience, I have never started up a conversation with anyone in the center of Trafalgar square, never mind someone so strikingly different from myself that after I was transformed and enlightened by their alternative point of view.

The theory I would like to follow, and the one I feel has the most relevance to long -term refugee camps is that of Clifford Geertz. Much more perfomative as opposed to prescriptive, it is less political and more cultural.

Arendt and Habermas may struggle in cities outside the western world, where as the direct interaction and study of the minutiae of behaviors of Geertz and Sennett I feel are more translatable. By studying how

spaces are inhabited this can form bridge between the visual/physical and the social life of a part of city or settlement. People adopt buildings and spaces to express themselves socially. By observing and analysing this behavior, almost in an anthropological manner it may be possible to create environments within camps that can encourage this positive social interaction. It may be possible to re-create them or at least the factors that seem responsible. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that a refugee settlement like a city is a living place, not a stage set and hence it will not always be predictable how people will act, they may not have read the same script. However, it can be argued that people are ritualistic in nature, hence things and spaces deduced from observations of dramatics elsewhere can create new rituals. I stated earlier that a system could never create an ideal human environment due to cultural differences and other variants. This is true of the current UNHCR system. However systems in the technological world by their nature, respond to feedback so whilst they may appear limited and ‘closed’ they may be more open to evolution. This possibility of evolution is my hope for the system defined by the UNHCR policy, additions and adaptations would be much better and sustainable combined with their existing ability to provide the easily predicted needs.

There is already a degree of control that happens, upgrading tents and other shelter that is provided. The UNHCR allows but does not look favourably on these.

‘The balance between an individual’s desire to create a place of their own, and the government’s intention to maintain order and security, can be seen in every day decisions in the camps’ (Julia Slater, 2014).I have learned something else from this. Many architects and designers tend to go for the tent, the primary form of

shelter as the best place to input new design. There have been many forms of rapidly deployable shelter designs, each faster or cheaper or spacious or more specific than the last. In my research however I have found that this is possibly the most contentious and least beneficial place to invest energy in design. The ability for refugees to build their own shelters has been proven again and again, through the additions they make, but also from what they manufacture themselves when they are given nothing. Their ability to help themselves is not only convenient for the finances of aid organisations but also has a dramatic effect on the mental wellbeing of the refugees themselves. To have this one thing that they have agency over is an empowering factor when, as previously discussed so many other controls have been taken from them.

Due to the insubstantial nature of tents and small size (18sqm) considering they commonly house 5-7 people, private space tends to expand beyond the tent boundaries. Defined public space is equally rare.

Space that is appropriated for collective uses tend to be created from intended firebreaks and voids.

“Community centres” as with so many unchampioned spaces with no specific purpose tend to become white elephants. Those in Domiz camp, a Syrian camp in Iraq sit completely unused, famously resembling bus shelters.

These blurring of lines between public and private can lead to some very interesting human interaction. One of the most telling anecdotes I came across was in a camp in the west bank. Women will walk through the camp with their hair uncovered; this is because it is a form of private space. The entire camp is considered home. However, hair will be covered if leaving the camp, because that is the boundary with the public. The camp in a way is still private space, alternatively, there is no private, so the semi-public of the camp becomes the new boundary. Perception of space is the key here.

The nature of centre in city public space is different but equally poignant to that of refugee settlements.

In cities, the centre is often the focus of activity, the location of the main services. If a new community asset is to be built, the instinct says to put it in the middle. However, with increasing occurrence, the edge condition is being re-evaluated. We look again at the line between integration and segregation. The reinforcement of an inward facing community identity lessens possibilities of positive relationships developing outside. On the other hand, forced integration can lead to conflict. Refugee camps can develop geographic centres of sorts, however services are generally placed on peripheries in accordance with UNHCR policy. Whilst culture as a marker of identity is important, one thing all refugees in camps have in common is a relationship with the camp organisers. It is essential to form good relations between camp organisers and refugees, whilst integration may have its issues, segregation definitely will not accomplish this. Hence I feel it is of high importance to consider carefully how camp organisers’ buildings sit in relation to refugee residential areas, hopefully in conversation with them, on edges between communities.

Palestinian camps are particularly interesting in their relationship with the conventional idea of public space. It is highly rare to find a public square or plaza in a Palestinian camp, despite the high level of multistorey developments and other amenities like schools and medical centres. However, Palestinian refugees themselves have been highly against the development of public spaces, them being connected to notions of civic-ness and hence a permanence that’s contrasts with the core of Palestinian culture, the ‘right to return’. This has been seen in other ways. In Shatila, the Palestinian camp in the heart of Beirut city, an NGO planted trees on the boundary with the intention of simply improving

the aesthetic of the camp. These trees were uprooted overnight. The Palestinians I spoke with saw it as an outside effort to make their situation more permanent.

At the time I was confused by this reaction. Looking at their six storey reinforced concrete towers they had built for themselves I struggled to see how trees could make it more permanent. But over time I have come to the understanding that it was a lack of their own agency in the development that they were revolting against, not the trees themselves. This was confirmed when after a few days spent with them they asked what I would suggest to improve the camp. Having reacted to the brightly painted interiors I had come across I showed them a simply photo shopped image of their camp painted and they were enthused with the idea and spoke to a number of NGO’s about getting 22,000 gallons of paint. I had not intended on making them any proposals, having informed them that I was only researching to find solutions they had uncovered that other refugees less fortunate might benefit from.

Whilst I was glad my idea was well received, I have no doubt that if I had proposed it unbidden or worse started painting without first consulting it would have caused outrage within the camp. Again we return to the importance of agency, not just in camps, but in our cities too. Community consultation, now common practice in cities is less so in camps.

A very unusual instance of designated public space in a Palestinian camp took place recently. It was planned and carried out by a Palestinian female architect, who was the wife of a UNRWA officer that works in that same camp. This public space in the center of a Palestinian camp in
the west bank was the subject of much debate before construction. Palestinian refugees have always revolted against symbols of permanence in their settlements. The more settled they become, the more it weakens the right to return. Even after over sixty years, these are ‘temporary solutions’. A public square is a civic icon and so tensions are created. It took much collaboration with existing residents in both placement

and format. A real understanding of the population had to be established. It was not only the civic-ness that concerned people but also the exposure of the women. As it has turned out, the square is often used by women who sell the crafts they had always made at home. To combat the concern on exposure, the side and one corner of the square are walled; this creates an outdoor room, rendering it a private enough space for women to use unaccompanied. It is also used as a sports ground by the youth of the camp. Through this example, we see the significance of designated public space, it defines the difference between a city and a large collection of people in proximity.

Levels create congregation points - defensible space

Walled Space creates room with out a roof Centralised in residential areas

Open area to accomodate multiple activities

When it comes to designing public spaces, these areas for appropriation, one must look at what has made others successful. The social life of small urban spaces took a great step towards what makes a public space good. Studying human behaviour on how we tend to congregate and edges and objects rather than in the centre of an open space. It studies the types of people that used the different areas.

In addition to the example in the Palestinian camp I have selected a few public spaces from different forms of settlement that explore some of the reasons people choose to appropriate. By identifying these

factors and translating them to camp planners in their distilled form we can speed up the process and positive human environments can happen without the need for everyone of them to undergo substantial training in spatial planning and urban design.

HUAY PAKOOT, MAE CHAEM, THAILAND This space is used for the majority of collective functions in Huay Pakoot Village, home to a Karen hill tribe. This is due to its proximity to the temple and school. In addition is it one of the few large open spaces, the majority of the surroundings are either densely forested
or cultivated.

Smaller areas in the village are generally associated with one house and so the ownership limits its use by

the rest of the inhabitants.

The overly prescriptive nature of these other areas means they are rarely used for collective purposes.

It is situated on the main road in to the village (there are only two). This means people in transit are relatively frequent and it becomes the natural place to stop and meet. The connectivity produced by proximity to high traffic areas is a key part of its success.

Village school, second most central site in village Connection to village entrance of many community events

Lake - central to Loi Kratong festival

School Access

Shaded by nearby trees Open space in generally forested area Main road in to village

FLATIRON PLAZA, NEW YORK, USA This space in New York City was initially one of the most
difficult places to cross the road due to the multiple lanes and direction of traffic. When making it a plaza was discussed it was almost written off on the assumption that no one would use it with the beautiful Madison Square Park in such proximity.

It has proven to be vastly popular. This can be put down to a number of traits. Its positioning and views of the

Flatiron and empire state building literally creates the feeling of being in the middle of things in New York City. Whilst one might assume that you would want a quiet space to pause, it has been shown that many like to observe activity whilst resting. Due to its relatively small size, it gives a feeling of privacy and exclusivity.

Scale of public space tends to define both its use and the type of people it draws in.

View of Flatiron Building

Flatiron Plaza

Madison Square Park

Highly used despite larger green space Connecting point of previously difficult crossing

View of Empire State Building

ALTON ESTATE, ROEHAMPTON, UK This space is in the Alton Council Estate in south west London. Despite the presence of many large green areas, which are only commonly used for council organised events, residents tend to congregate on the widened pavement near the main road in to the estate.

This is due to many factors. It is a dispersal point from the main services. Smaller roads lead to surrounding residences, making this the connection point.

It is overlooked as there are homes above the shops lining the street giving a feeling of safety as opposed to isolation experienced in the large green areas.

The wall lining the green area is comfortable seat height and rows of elderly residents often sit here in warmer weather, to converse and watch the traffic on the road.

Proximity to religious, community and commercial centers draws in people, who’s presence then attracts more people.

Proximity to religious sites Boys club and sports court Residents above stores Residents above other services

Main Road

Frequent congregation space

Perimeter wall common seating space Green Space Minimal use

Public Library

SHATILA, BEIRUT, LEBANON This space isn’t immediately recognisable as a ‘public space’. As discussed, tensions can be formed in Palestinian camps regarding forms of spatial arrangement that have civic association. Shatila camp is extremely dense with little to no leftover space with in the camp. This area on the periphery is used mainly for parking and takes advantage of the void that is formed at the border of the camp. Whilst there is no

Interior of camp too dense for groups of more than four to meet without blocking paths

fence, there is a clear line between the camp and the surrounding Beirut city.

People are largely drawn here by a small coffee shop in a space where larger numbers can congregate. The point of interest causes people to populate a space and engage in collective life. This is a public space born from necessity the desire of inhabitants as opposed to prescription of a planning body.

Expanding buildings shade and shelter space

Passages through to camp Resident provides coffee shop Point of interest Perimeter of camp allows open space in dense city

Perimeter road creates buzz of people passing

ALEXANDRA TOWNSHIP, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA This public space is tied in with a community building, the Alexandra Heritage Centre. It has many features that one may question in relation to successful public space, regarding a striking difference in materiality and scale compared with its surroundings, not to mention questions of ownership due to its clear integration in the building.

However, this building and space was constructed over a period of fifteen years with massive input from the locals. Whilst the building has its own function, small openings for shop fronts were built in to the ground floor to create an open frontage point of interest. These were made available to local residents.

The method of genuine inclusion and consultation in the process that created the space has meant it has been fully adopted by inhabitants.

Heritage centre bridges road Draws attention due to different scale Residents butt up against building and space, -creates continuous landscape Historical/Cultural importance.

Junction was home to Mandiba

Amphitheater-like space accommodates multiple uses- Markets/Barbers etc

Growing space Cross roads - frequent passage of people Popular gym built in providing draw point

The attributes described in the above spaces create a positive and human public realm. Using the techniques like Geddes’ civic surveys and Sennett’s anthropological observations we can deduce which are most likely to work for a specific population. More than likely it will be a combination of many of these factors. However, this cross section outlines successful methods, a toll kit of sorts that can be a resource for camp planners.

HAITI HOMES

HAITI CAMP

TEMPORARY VS PERMANENCE The first reaction of many I have discussed the temporary nature but permanent reality of camps with and indeed myself at first was to disregard the temporary and just plan for permanence. Many buildings being erected in large cities today may not have a lifespan to match the 30 year average of a camp, the average being 40 years in the UK, 35 years for a New York skyscraper. It is understood that many host countries do not want refugee camps to become permanent; this is for a number of reasons. There is the basic fear of a drain on resources, which may seem selfish and mean with so many people around the world sending donations.

However, I have been informed by sources within the UNHCR that this fear is valid but not in the way I had assumed. When a refugee crisis begins, donations and funds flood in through NGO’s and humanitarian organisations to help. Large camps are set up, and hence more refugees are attracted to an area. Refugee populations can grow exponentially, at this point as the initial crisis fades from mainstream news, funds and donations lessen, and more often than I had presumed NGO’s and humanitarian organisations leave. This leaves the host country to pick up the pieces and fund the effort itself. Host countries don’t fear the emergency influx they fear what happens after. However, this highlights a major flaw in refugee camp policy. In looking for other durable solutions, they fail to make the existing situation sustainable while they wait. As I mentioned, refugees from natural disasters and manmade conflict, differ in nature, however a degree of sustainability is still required.

This situation was reflected in an interview I conducted with a member of the World economic forum, Gillian Cassar who works with the refugee and sustainability departments. Her main area of expertise was with the

transitional camps set up after the natural disaster struck Haiti. In relation to refugee camps she told me “you can’t make them better than where they came from, or they won’t leave” (interview, 2015). This at first seemed callous. Cassar explained that due to the deprived nature of parts of rural Haiti, occupants of the emergency camps genuinely felt it was a better environment as basic services were provided for them.

As with so many camps, instant urban environments were created. Sustainable housing solutions were established in the original villages and as such NGO’s and the other humanitarian organisations began to withdraw. This left a void at management level, which was swiftly filled by drug lords and other forms of organised crime. An urban settlement that is not run by local government from the outset is always going to be vulnerable to this. At a macro scale this can be seen in some east African countries when colonial governments pulled out without training and securing a local system of government to replace itself. As Richard Sennett states “time subverts, alters, destabilises; in natural history this is evolution’s guiding law”. It is the responsibility of humanitarian organisations that set up camps, to ensure their sustainability and self-sufficiency over time.

The question then arises ‘would an aim for selfsufficiency mean disregarding the temporary nature?’ It is easy to brand a governmental authority ‘self-serving’ and attempt to force through a permanent placement.

Through interviews with refugees in a variety of camps I found my second surprising factor regarding permanence in camps. The refugees themselves also have no desire for it to be permanent. Despite the six storey buildings in Palestinian camps they still insist it is a temporary solution. There were riots in Al Zaatari

camp when they laid concrete foundations for some of the medical centres. This is not the case for all, but a higher proportion than I had expected.

I have mentioned and has been endorsed by many modern architects and planners the importance of agency and empowerment in the urban environment. It can be of great benefit to the individuals involved. This benefit can be seen in Calais camp, otherwise known as ‘the jungle’. The jungle is a completely illegal and hence unregulated camp. It functions through a number of very small NGO’s and the refugees themselves. Due to the lack of involvement of the large organisations like the UNHCR of the ICRC the basic infrastructure is very limited. Sanitation and access to clean water is much lower that regulated camps. However, the residents have chosen their layouts and spatial configuration.

This has lead to the formation of high streets and other urban forms that are common in traditional settlements. There is a large ethnic diversity in Calais, including Afghani, Pakistani, Sudanese, Eritrean, and Syrian to name a few. As such there are concentrations of nationalities in certain areas. What are fascinating to see are the traces of the vernacular forms of living that can be traced to the inhabitants’ country of origin. The high streets are dominant in the Afghani areas, with enclosed/protected yards more common in the Eritrean sector. Whilst dilapidated, there is an instinctual feel of vibrancy, of hope and opportunity. These spatial layouts, which contribute positively to the refugees’ daily lives, would not have come about in a gridded regulated UNHCR camp. The layer of complexity afforded by this human lead organic design cannot be replicated inside the current system regardless of it’s proof of success.

The legal camp Grand-Synthe at Dunkirk which has a mostly Kurdish population lacks any feeling of city or

settlement though it is actually more permanent and substantial in its physical structures.

Again we can see that these positive factors, that reference city planning, more importantly city planning that is relevant to the refugee population in question dos not have to imply permanence. But maybe this is not possible to do through a system. Calais camp is run down and lacks many resources, as there is no mainstream funding though MSF is developing a presence there now. Imagine what might have been possible if these ingenious people, that have built something from nothing, had been given resources to work with. In reaction to the growing population in the jungle, the French authorities built a container village. Sixteen men occupy one container, in bunk bed dormitory style. Accessed via a biometric scanner, the refugees that decide they want to live there instead of in the main camp have to be processed which puts limitations on them reaching England, which is the primary reason the Calais camp exists in it’s current position. Within the container village there is better access to water and sanitation. The containers are better insulated and waterproof. All round what is assumed to be a better experience. Supplied are all those basic needs the UNHCR pride themselves on, and indeed are very good at delivering.

I interviewed a number of refugees in the Calais camp, asking what they preferred and why. Almost unanimously they wanted to live in the refugee made camp. A few had even snuck in to the container village under the fences and spent a night or two there in the dry and warm to decide if it would be better. They all returned to their shacks, because ‘this is where the life is’ (interview, 2016). Despite the vastly superior services, being part of the collective multi-faceted life of the

camp was more important. ‘Prefabricated structures have proved ineffective in most situations, due to their high cost, and lack of social context’ (Greane, 2011). This discovery challenges Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, by putting psychological needs before physiological, but maybe there is a sliding scale, whereby higher levels of psychological and social support can compensate for a lack of a physiological need.

The equality through anonymity that Arendt proposed in city public space may be relevant to this factor.

UNHCR registration is necessary, as without it people cannot be planned and catered for. This was a large issue surrounding the demolitions in the Calais camp in February 2016. Due to the lack of regulation, French authorities claimed there were no more that three thousand people living there. NGO’s on the ground claimed there was closer to six thousand. How could any judge make a sound decision with such vast differences between reports? Anonymity has always been a protector of migrants, both legal and illegal, in both camps and traditional settlements. Many fled their home countries due to being singled out for a race or belief and fled persecution due to this special notice.

Anonymity in Calais as in cities is worn like armour; James Scott refers to it as the “weapon of the weak.”

(1985) The relationship to vernacular urban form that was/is exhibited in the Calais camp could be referred to and context. This is something taken in to account in most developments. The choice can be made to contrast or compliment it. This is done with varying degrees of success. We reference context when designing in order to create a cohesive environment, one understood by its users so that they can interact with it in a positive

way. The context for these refugee settlements exists but due to the strange circumstances is not necessarily what physically surrounds them. This must be taken in to account. However there is a difference between simulation and reference to context. We are not attempting to create the same environment, but one that is understood. It can then grow more naturally over time from a starting point residents understand.

Mimicry has the ability to stagnate as fast as any other closed system.

DESIGNATED PUBLIC AREA - NO BUILDING

COLLECTIVE BUILDINGS

PUBLIC VOIDS FOR COLLECTIVE

SEMI-PUBLIC VOIDS FOR APPROPRIATION

USE

RESIDENT MANAGED VOIDS

KINDERGARTEN

URBAN SPACE

SCHOOL

REGISTRATION

DISTRIBUTION

Medical Centre to High Street to Registration

Staggered Square Tent Layouts

School to Neighbourhood to Camp

High Street and Courtyard Tent Layouts

Registration Centre to Main Square to Main Roads

URBAN RELATIONSHIP STUDIES

NGO OFFICE

COMMUNITY

RELIGIOUS

COMMERCE HIGH STREET

MARKET

SCHOOL

SECURITY

DESIGNATED PUBLIC AREA - The Agora/Official Plaza of the camp

PUBLIC VOIDS FOR COLLECTIVE USE - These are attached to buildings with a collective use and encourage people to interact with the camp management

SEMI- PUBLIC VOIDS FOR APPROPRIATION - These spaces belong to the adjoining tent blocks, collective decision made on its function

RESIDENT MANAGED VOIDS - Internal spaces for the use of only the 10-16 block of tents surrounding it.

This illustrates the potential texture and layout of a refugee camp. Defining not only services but ideas regarding a gradient of public spaces.

Hypothetical Camp Layout Scenario

SCHOOL

MEDICAL

PROPOSALS Through my research I have begun to understand that it is this series of publics and semi-publics, these collective use spaces and buildings that can create a positive human environments within camps.

Neighbourhood identity can be established as a collection of private spaces, also allocating semi-public space for that unit. This can then function as needed by that neighbourhood. Spaces for appropriation are then available as needs are established. If a distinct collective need does not arise, they become spaces for densification as population or time or both increase. It is almost impossible to predict in advance every spatial requirement that a population may have. However it is almost certain that there will be a requirement. ‘Rapid construction often leads to a lack of communal space in urban design’ (Slater, 2014). Hence the importance of spaces in between and spaces leftover, that have a collective ownership so that when these needs arise they can be catered for. The same could be said of collective use buildings like schools and medical centres. As with the neighbourhoods, they can benefit from having additional space dedicated to them that does not have an immediate determined function. These leftover spaces can be controversial; the indeterminate nature of them can be seen as impractical. However, over the course of this essay I believe we have shown that in more cases, it is over-specification that becomes impractical. There are forms of inhabitation that tend to develop around these sites but can be problematic if the urban design does not cater for them. For example, refugee hospitals and medical centres often struggle to provide food as well as medical care. Case studies on medical centres in Mae Hong Song, a Burmese camp in northern Thailand as well as others in central Africa have shown that families will often set up cooking facilities in proximity to the hospital in order to prepare food for

their interned family members.

Providing a courtyard in front of a hospital allows for this to occur safely, it also functions well if sudden influxes take place. On a more academic level, it is found that this also helps to bridge the gap in scale between the residential tents and the much larger hospital tents that over all forms a more pleasant and accessible urban fabric.

One of the primary differences between camp and traditional town planning is the placement of these collective use spaces within the context of the entire camp. They are almost exclusively placed on the peripheries of residential areas. There is very little mixing of program, which leads to many issues.

Children are sometimes discouraged from attending school as it is too far away and parents feel uneasy about allowing them to make the journey alone. This may help to account for the fact that camp schools have an average of 30% attendance rate. The placement at peripheries is done for a few reasons. Logistics is a main factor; it is easier to access from the outside, which teams up with it being easier to evacuate staff if that becomes necessary. Clarence Perry placed schools at neighbourhood centres. This meant children were safest, not having to cross any major thoroughfares. It also placed education at the centre of the community, which gives it importance hence boosting attendance rates. This is a very transferrable idea from architectural theory to camp reality. There is no reason to suspect that basic rules like this would be applicable in a city but not in a camp. Why are refugee settlements considered to no not worthy of the rules we apply to every other settlement?

These aspects of design that have been deduced from camp and city case studies can be translated to camp planners with great simplicity. To the right are some diagrams illustrating rules of design to be applied to different collective use buildings.

Listening to and being in conversation with refugees regarding their requirements on a basic level can lead to much more positive relations between residents and organisers. However, as occurs in city developments, the problem is often a disconnection between parties.

Conflict occurred in Al Zaatari again because of a lack of consideration and communication. When Al Zaatari received its upgraded shelter solution, moving from tents to Porto cabins, surveyors mostly ignored the existing configuration of tents. If they had looked they would have found people clustering, creating defensive yards. Often these were with other people that originated from the same area or village. As in Calais, the residents had begun to form urban designs that mimicked the vernacular architecture from where they came. However, surveyors laid out a gridded plan, in spite of the fact this ‘rigid structure creates military-like camps that decrease cultural connection among occupants’ (Corsellis, 2005). This plan was then implemented by a secondary group of people.

I have seen the conflicts arising between individuals and these implementers over the placement of the Porto cabins allocated to them. Extended families that lived in compounds are segregated and encouraged to live in the grid. The majority of implementers are unaware as to the WHY of the surveyors plans even though they understand what the people want, whereas the surveyors do not. The rules that govern the surveyor’s plans are firebreak distances. ‘Spacing of individual shelters two times apart the height of the building’

(Camp Management Toolkit, 2008). That is the primary rule. The grid is simply the easiest way to accomplish this, not the only way. The firebreak rule is easy to follow whilst still allowing from the courtyards and defensible spaces the residents wished to create. Here the lack of communication and collaboration once again caused riots. In time, this form of operation did not even manage to achieve its basic primary goal. Residents were so unhappy with the layout that in absence of the crane, which initially lifted them in to place, perimeter fence posts were pulled down and in combination with tyres were fashioned in to trailers. The Porto cabins were then levered on and shifted in to more desirable positions by the residents themselves. The entire situation lead to animosity between refugees and organisers in some areas became an unsafe environment. Much of this could have been accommodated or avoided with earlier conversation between refugees, implementers and surveyors.

These examples among others show that spending funds and energy on primary shelter alone is not enough to create an environment refugees wanted to stay in.

The larger scale spatial layout holds great importance, the formation of neighbourhoods, and on from them the definition of neighbourhood identity. The social life of a settlement is defined by it’s in between spaces, the voids and the public space. However, as I have explained, ‘public’ space and civic-ness can have very different meanings to regular settlements. built element, just more consideration and supplying

SCHOOL IS CENTRAL TO RESIDENTIAL AREA - NOT PERIPHERY SCHOOL HAS CENTRAL PLAY AREA SECURE SITE - BUT VISABILITY MAINTAINED COLLECTION AREA FOR PARENTS OUTSIDE SCHOOL

SCHOOL SURROUNDING LAYOUT DESIGN RULES

CENTRAL TO COMMERCIAL AREAS BUILD SECURE BOUNDARY INTO STRUCTURE TO AVOID THE NEED FOR FENCING AVOID COMPOUNDS - CONSIDER SURROUNDING SCALE OPEN ACCESSIBLE FRONT - AVOID ‘THEM/US’ DYNAMIC

SECURITY SITE SURROUNDING LAYOUT DESIGN RULES

CENTRALISED LOCATION WITH SATELLITE UNITS FRONT GREEN BELT PUBLIC SPACE - FOR BRIDGING SCALES FEEDING STATION IN PROXIMITY REAR ROAD ACCESS WITH CLEAR WAY OUT OF CAMP - REFUSE

HOSPITAL/ MEDICAL CENTRE SURROUNDING LAYOUT DESIGN RULES

PERMEABLE BARRIER TO CAMP - CELLULAR LAYOUT OPEN PUBLIC SPACE - MEETING/FINDING/MISSING POSTERS CONNECTION TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS CLEAR WAYFINDING TO DISTRIBUTION AND MEDICAL CENTRES

REGISTRATION SURROUNDING LAYOUT DESIGN RULES

Medical Centre Exploded Isometric Steel frame with canvas covering

Patient Journey Adult with minor shrapnel wound, requires stitches and blood test.

OUT-PATIENT TRIAGE

Due to the cellular nature of the frame, it can be reformatted in multiple layouts

Child entered for feeling unwell, requires substantial treatment for dehydration.

Staff processes blood sample for anti-natal patient then goes for break

Pregnant woman, complications in labour, requires C-section then post-natal care

School Design Interior congregation area for children being picked up

Central channel through school.

Encourages collective behaviour over segregation

Older years closest to entrance, closest connection to camp

Interconnecting sheltered space For whole school assemblies etc

Separate space for younger years -Less disturbance for nap times -Less disruption to older years for play time Various scales of spaces created through combination of classroom units.

The spaces between are as important

Sheltered recreation area

Largest Enclosed Classrooms Permutation

Smallest Enclosed Classrooms Permutation

In relation to the buildings themselves, which form the collective life of camps, these should abide by the same rules as the public space. The adaptive ability to respond to changing needs must be possible here too.

To achieve this, buildings (be they tents or otherwise) must be able to grow and alter. As such, a kit of parts seems wise, camp planners that understand the needs of their populations can select that from. A building that allows and is conducive to involvement from the end user would encourage empowerment and agency.

At a collective level this can help to form communities out of aggregates of individuals. Above are designs for some such buildings. They abide by UNHCR policy on permanency and meet the ‘minimum emergency standards’. Due to their more robust nature they are suitable for reuse and hence are more sustainable and

cost effective in the long term than the structures they replace. The modular language means they are easy to expand, however the range in modules means they can be specified to needs. These buildings are not ‘THE’ way to fulfil some of the criteria to improve environments in camps, merely ‘A’ way.

In summary, neighbourhood layout, open public space adjoining collective use buildings and the orientation of said buildings in relation to residential areas are core spatial planning and urban design features that can drastically change the experience of a camp. All without affecting the temporary/permanent balance that is maintained in camps. All without costing or adding any built element, just more consideration and supplying better not more.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, Philip. The Origins Of British Sociology, 1834-1914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Print.

Aravena, Alejandro. “My Architectural Philosophy? Bring The Community Into The Process”. Ted.com. N.p., 2014. Web. ( h t t p s : / / w w w. t e d . c o m / t a l k s / a l e j a n d ro _ a r a v e n a _ m y _ a rc h i t e c t u r a l _ p h i l o s o p h y _ b r i n g _ t h e _ c o m m u n i t y _ i n t o _ t h e _ process?language=en#t-339716) Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. [Chicago]: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Print.

Bbc.co.uk. N.p., 2016. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zgtvcwx) Beckett, J.V. City Status In The British Isles, 1830–2002. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005. Print.

Bevan, Robert. “What Makes A City A City - And Does It Really Matter Anyway?”. the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/08/what-makes-citytech-garden-smart-redefine) Calais refugees. Discussion On Conditions. 2016. in person.

Cassar, Gillian. Discussion Of Refugee Situation. 2015. in person.

Corsellis, T andVitale, A, Transitional Settlement: Displaced Populations.

Oxfam.Oxford (2005) Foy, H, UNHCR refugee statistics: full data. The Guardian. (2010) Geddes, Patrick and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, Lewis Mumford. Patrick Geddes In India. London: L. Humphries, 1947. Print.

Greane, P., Pfiffner, S. and Wilson, D. The Sphere Handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. 4th ed.

Hampshire: Practical Action. (2011).

Handbook for Emergencies, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 2000 Hunter, Meredith. “The Failure Of Self-Reliance In Refugee Settlements”.

POLIS Journal 2.University of Leeds (2009): Print.

Jacobs, Jane. The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House Inc., (1969). Print.

Kimmelman, M. Refugee Camp for Syrians in Jordan Evolves as a Do-ItYourself City. NYtimes. New York. (2014)

Kingsley, Patrick. “Arab Spring Prompts Biggest Migrant Wave Since Second World War”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2015/jan/03/arab-springmigrant-wave-instability-war) Kleinschmidt, Killian. Discussion Of Refugee Situation. 2016. in person.

Mitchell, Maurice Prof. Discussion Of Civic in Developing Nations. 2016. in person.

Mumford, Lewis. “The Neighbourhood and the Neighbourhood Unit”. The Town Planning Review (1954) N.p., 2005. Web. (www.alnap.org/pool/files/erd-2950-summary.pdf) NRC, Camp Management Toolkit. Oslo. (2008) O’Flaherty, Brendan. City Economics. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. (2005). Print.

“Patrick Geddes”. Wikipedia. N.p., 2016. Web. 2016. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Geddes) Perry, Clarence, The Neighbourhood Unit (1929) Reprinted Routledge/ Thoemmes, London (1998) Phillips, Katherine Dr. Discussion Of Refugee Hospitals. 2016. in person.

Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.

Yale University Press. (1985).

Sennett, Richard. The Fall Of Public Man. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Print.

Sennett, Richard. “Quant – The Public Realm - Richard Sennett”. Richardsennett. com. N.p., 2016. Web ( h t t p : / / w w w. r i c h a r d s e n n e t t . c o m / s i t e / s e n n / t e m p l a t e s / g e n e r a l 2 . aspx?pageid=16&cc=gb ) Shatila refugees. Discussion On Conditions. 2014. in person.

Sinclair, C. Design like you give a damn. New York, NY: Abrams. (2006) Slater, Julia. “Urban Systems of the Refugee Camp”. SURFACE 12. Syracuse University (2014): Print.

Tocqueville, Alexis de, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Reeve. Democracy In America.

New York: Schocken Books, 1961. Print.

UNHCR. A Review Of The UNHCR Programme In Kakuma, Kenya. EPAU, 2000.

Print. Minimum Standards And Essential Needs In A Protracted Refugee Situation.

UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response: Web. (2014)