Designing Like They Give a Damn? A Critical Study of Architecture for Humanity
LEFT SafeR House built in Sri-Lanka 2004 after the tsunami. Photo: Peter Novikov
ABOVE The damage that was left in the wake of the tsunami. Photo: Reuters Staff
It is said that ‘Architects are in desperate need where they can be least afforded’. Sadly this is only too true with only 10% of the world’s buildings actually having any input from designers of any kind. There is a multitude of issues that architects can begin to influence and help to resolve. In a world where one in seven people currently live in a slum and three billion people (nearly half the world’s population) do not have access to clean water or adequate sanitation there is a moral obligation for architects to help as they have a skill set that is ideally suited to deal with a wide range of design challenges. However, this being said, architectural organisations that solely dealt with humanitarian issues weren’t common place until fairly recently. Aid groups would often be left trying to search for help and when it came to design services there was most definitely no one around that specialised like some of the practices do today. It wasn’t until the late nineties that architecture practices that dealt with these issues began to surface, and at the time there was only one major company in this field and that was ‘RedR’. They would connect professionals with frontline humanitarian agencies and provide aid workers to be distributed around the world. It wasn’t until 1999 that companies such as ‘Architecture for Humanity’ (Details inAppendix i) and ‘Habitat for Humanity’ started to appear and provide dedicated support networks to those in need and provide communities in need with professional design solutions.
CRITICAL STUDY
Wherever there are wars, natural disasters or people living in dire poverty there will be a need for humanitarian architecture. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is one of many in recent times that exemplifies this. An area that stretched from Sri Lanka to Indonesia was savaged by the sheer brutality of nature and almost flattened to the ground in the worst hit areas. The rebuilding process was a formidable task but with the help of disaster relief aid and numerous other humanitarian resources the place and its population are now rebuilding and reshaping their lives, infrastructure and buildings. In disaster relief situations architecture plays a key role in its regeneration; and this is where humanitarian architecture is positioned. Humanitarian architecture is concerned with finding architectural solutions to humanitarian crises and natural disasters across the globe. These solutions cover a wide range of issues and can be anything from housing and community centres to sanitation and clean water systems.
CRITICAL STUDY
From the humble beginnings in 1999 (Details given in Appendix ii) the founders slowly began to build up an organisation that responded to poverty, climate change, conflict zones and natural disasters in a completely unprecedented way. They realised that a handful of architects sat in their offices in America couldn’t change the world but that it would take the collective effort and input of hundreds of designers from all around the world with different backgrounds to make a real change. The organisations first project; the Kosovo design competition became the blue print for how they would run all of their projects. Over time they developed their own way of working as an architectural organisation. On the right here is a graphic that explains the way that they work and how they go about it (see fig 1).
ABOVE Architecture for Humaity working at a community meeting in Brazil. Photo: Architecture for Humanity
RIGHT Fig 1, A graphic representation of how architecture for humanity works as an organisation. Image: Elefint Design
CRITICAL STUDY
CRITICAL STUDY
The organisation has plans to develop and expand; they want to have an impact on as many people’s lives as possible. (Details given in Appendix iii) But could all this expansion be too much too quick? There could be a very real risk of Architecture for Humanity becoming too big and losing touch with their roots and the communities that they are trying to help in the first place. This map shows the areas of the world that they have managed to work in to date (see fig 2). RIGHT Fig 2, A 2011 map of A rchitecture for Humanity offices and building sites around the world. Image: Architecture for Humanity
CRITICAL STUDY
CRITICAL STUDY
ABOVE Fig 3, A taxonomy showing a sample of the broad range of projects undertaken by Architecture for Humanity Original Image
CRITICAL STUDY
Architecture for humanity has had a wide range of different projects and has been commissioned for a whole host of different purposes. They’ve done work for poverty alleviation projects as well as post conflict community buildings and housing. A lot of their work revolves around ‘at-risk’ communities and disaster areas. This is something
that they clearly feel very passionate about however buildings are not necessarily their only goal. They work on basic infrastructure projects such as bridges as well as projects to provide Africa. When children played on a merry-go-round it would pump water to a storage tank to supply the local community. This fun yet simple and effective design
epitomises Architecture for Humanity’s style and shows it has a realistic and at times playful approach in dealing with important topics. Here is a graphic that gives a breakdown of some of the best projects that organisation has produced to date. The uses range from community centres and schools to sanitation and health projects (see fig 3).
CRITICAL STUDY
Biloxi Model House New Orleans, USA 2005-8 Re-housing program following hurricane Katrina
Rector Street Bridge New York, USA 2002 Used to re-connect certain parts of the city and allow access for construction after 9/11
Life In 1.5 X 30 Dhaka, Bangladesh 2008 Housing behind a tea stall for the owner, on a ‘micro’ plot
LIFT House Dhaka, Bangladesh 2009-10 Houses designed to cope with the constant flooding in the area
Alluvial Sponge Comb Venice, Italy 2005-Present Flood deffences
enviRenew New Orleans, USA 2009-11 packages of environmentally friendly items that can be used for DIY etc
Katrina Cottage Mississipi, USA 2005-Present Affordable housing in the wake of hurricane Katrina
39571 Project Mississipi, USA 2006 Community Center and Laundrette built after Katrina
Superuse Harvest Map Enschede, Netherlands 2006-9 A network for finding old materials that can be re-used
Butterfly Houses Tak Province, Thailand 2008-9 Orphanage for displaced children from the war in Burma
Solar Decathlon Washington DC, USA 2002-Present A demonstration of the latest in material development and alternative energy
100K House Philadelphia, USA 2008-9 A house designed using ‘mass customisation’
Bamboo Shelter Ramsar, Iran 2008-9 Designed for post disaster situations
Now House Project Toronto, Canada 2005-Present Sustainable houses that generates as much power as they use
10 X 10 Housing Initiative Cape Town, South Africa 2007-9 Government housing scheme
Ma’erkang Steel Frame Housing Sichuan Province, China 2008-9 Houses designed to cope with earthquakes
Bois le Pretre Tower Paris, France 2008-11 Regeneration from old tower blocks into eco friendly flats
Chapel of San Isidro Labrador Oaxaca, Mexico 2010 A small chapel designed and built using local methods and materials
Make It Right New Orleans, USA 2007-Present A series of specialist houses designed after Katrina to cope against flooding etc.
Diez Casas Para Diez Familias Guadalupa, Mexico 2009-10 10 Houses designed f using ‘found’ materials for low income families
La Ruta Del Peregrino Jalisco, Mexico 2008-10 Shelter for pilgrims on the hike from Ameca to Talpa de Allende
Tiuna el Fuerte Cultural Park El Valle, Venezuela 2006-10 A youth center for the ‘urban arts’ and to get youths off the street
Fuji Kindergarten Tokyo, Japan 2005-7 A school designed with the mind set of the children inhabiting it.
The Pebble Project USA, UK & Netherlands 2000-Present Providing health care environments based on evidence and knowledge from professionals
Skateistan Kabul, Afghanistan 2007-Present Skateboarding school for provide refuge to the youth of Kabul
Green School Bali, Indonesia 2005-7 A school with a eco-friendly criteria built using traditional methods and materials
Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres UK, Hong Kong & Spain 1994-Present Alternative spaces for people affected by cancer to get counciling
High Line New York, USA 1999-2011 Old railway converted into public gardens
Watercone Various 1999-Present A way of purfifying and collecting clean drinking water through condesation
Centre Pour le Bienetre des Femmes Burkina Faso, Africa 2006-7 Off-the-grid women’s health center
Mahiga Hope Rainwater Court Mahiga, Kenya 2009-10 An off-grid rainwater catchment system and basketball court
Hippo Water Roller Throughout Africa 1993-Present A way of transporting and cleaning water to create clean drinking water
Friends Center at Angkor Hospital for Children Siem Reap, Cambodia 2006-8 Childrens hospital
Hazelwood School Glasgow, Scotland 2003-7 A school for young people with sensory impairment
Playpump Lesotho, Africa 1996 A childrens merrygo-round that pumps water deep from an underground well
SOS Children’s Villages Lavezzorio Community Center Chicago, USA 2004-8 Center to reconnect orphaned siblings
Bridge School Fujian Province, China 2008-9 Both a school and a piece of infrastructure that conects the old and new parts of the village
Emergency Water Bladder Various 1990-Present A method for storing portable and hygenic water in emergencies.
Gimnasio Vertical Chacao, Venezuela 2001-4 A solution to the areas lack of sporting facilities and a lack of space
Olifantsvlei Primary School Kilptown, South Africa 2006 A school that engages pupils with their surroundings
Rainwater HOG Australia, USA 2004 A low profile, modular rainwater collection system
CRITICAL STUDY
Marsupial Bridge & Media Garden Wisconsin, USA 2005-6 Re-generation of unused space into a local gathering center
CRITICAL STUDY
The publications ‘Design like you give a damn’ and ‘‘Design Like You Give a Damn [2]’ can be considered the best known endeavour upon which Architecture for Humanity have embarked. These books give an insight into the workings of the organisation and catapulted them in to the public eye. ‘Bursting with intriguing and often beautiful examples of how designers and architects around the world have created innovative housing for those most in need of it. You can’t read it without feeling inspired both by the individuals concerned, and by the power of design to make a difference.’ (Anderson,C. 2006.) Both books received international acclaim whilst publicising the changes that can be made possible. They are an example of the organisations ability to publicise themselves and get there their message heard. The impact that Architecture for Humanity has had, on the world, led by Cameron Sinclair, is undeniable and it has definitely set the trend for the current wave of humanitarian architects. As one of the first studios to champion this philosophy they pioneered the way forward and developed a way of successfully working with open-source architecture. The impact they have had not only in the field of architecture but on the lives of thousands of people around the world is immense and somewhat unprecedented. The provide communities with a sense of hope and pride. In a video that documents the organisations work on a community centre in a village in Tamil Nadu, India, one villager is quoted as saying;
‘Everyone always says how great other places are, now this building will make us proud of our own village, it’ll be beautiful, it will be just like the outside world.’ (Frontline, 2008.) This is evidence of the positive impact the organisation is having on the lives of people in the communities. It is not only the initial building either that is improving lives. Ideas and skills are often taken away and transferred into other projects that the communities can then run themselves, independent of Architecture for Humanity.
“Everyone always says how great other places are, now this building will make us proud of our own village, it’ll be beautiful, it will be just like the outside world.” (Frontline, 2008.)
ABOVE Villagers from Tamil Nadu work with their architect to create a community building they can both be proud of Photo: Practical Action RIGHT 10 X 10 Housing initiative for government housing in South Africa Photo: World Changing
CRITICAL STUDY
ABOVE Internal shots of ‘Soe Ker Tie Hias’, (the butterfly houses) an orphanage built on the border of Thailand Image: Los Vacios Urbanos
Kate Evarts is a perfect example of this; she gave up her position in a New York firm to work in Haiti on behalf of Architecture for Humanity. Although she receives very little money and often has to rely on her savings she claims that it is one of the best decisions of her life. “My time in Haiti has been rewarding in surprising ways,” she says, “as I’ve gotten back to the basics of what I loved about architecture.” (Evarts.K 2012) Sinclair reflects on the issues regarding the lack of pay by saying; “Actually, deep down under their business exterior, architects care a lot. The sort of person who’s prepared to study for years, does it from a desire to improve the environment.” (Sinclair.C 2003) However this being said, there are still a number of criticisms to be had with the way that Architecture for Humanity works. Some people believe that the priorities of the organisation can often be in the wrong place and that occasionally they need to look at
the bigger picture. Instead of providing individual buildings they should be providing communities with the facilities to expand and create more structures on their own, i.e. factories and production plants. “One might be better off building concrete plants and glassworks than giving a bunch of people ‘community centres” (Architecture for Humanity: Is it perfect, 2009) This could be a better way of working but I feel that without the guidance of Architecture for Humanity there is no way that the regeneration process of these areas would be as efficient or successful. When dealing with such the topics that this organisation has to there will inevitably be various moral and ethical issues to be dealt with. One of the main issues relates to the way that they choose the projects they want work on. Out of the thousands of applications that they receive how do they decide which ones take priority and which communities to help, after all, they can’t help everyone. This is a decision that they don’t take lightly. Cameron Sinclair faced this type of issue early on in his career with what would eventually become Architecture for Humanities second project after the Kosovo refugee efforts. The project was known as the ‘OUTREACH’ project as was a mobile health centre for people suffering with HIV/AIDS. They were just getting ready to launch the design competition when the world trade centre was attacked. This was a devastating event that shocked America to its core. Naturally Sinclair wanted to do anything that he could to help. It was now a choice between
between postponing the Africa project to focus on what was at the time a more pressing issue, or keep going and follow the competition through. It wasn’t until he received an email from a Kenyan doctor that he made up his mind. The email read; “You’ve just experienced a terrible disaster losing 3,000 people in one day; it is truly horrific. Naturally the focus will turn toward bringing those responsible to justice, and projects like ours will be pushed to one side. However, the fact is, Africa loses twice that many people every day to AIDS, and although the loss is not as visible, the pain is just as great.”(Unknown Source, 2001.) He decided to push on with the OUTREACH competition. Judging from the email it is easy to see why Sinclair made the choice that he did. I believe that with the experience that they have gathered over the years, Architecture for Humanity are now perfectly suited to making balanced decisions that have the potential to change the future of hundreds; no easy feat.
“You’ve just experienced a terrible disaster losing 3,000 people in one day; it is truly horrific. Naturally the focus will turn toward bringing those responsible to justice, and projects like ours will be pushed to one side. However, the fact is, Africa loses twice that many people every day to AIDS, and although the loss is not as visible, the pain is just as great.” (Unknown Source, 2001.)
CRITICAL STUDY
The average architect working in the industry today can expect to earn around £35,000 (RIBA, 2012) where as a humanitarian architect can only expect to earn around £15,000 (Cary,J. 2012). This is not always guaranteed, as working on humanitarian projects can often be completely voluntary, however free accommodation is often provided along with various other benefits. The fact that so many people are still willing to work on humanitarian projects just shows how passionate they are about the work that they do. It demonstrates that they are not doing it for the money, but because they genuinely care about the issues at hand and find it rewarding doing so.
CRITICAL STUDY
As previously mentioned Architecture for Humanity has grown at an exponential rate, developing from a small one room endeavour to a multinational organisation in a matter of years. It’s the way that they work with the communities at a personal level that is the reason they are so successful and losing this could potentially work against them. However due the nature of the organisation i.e. being a series of networks this hopefully shouldn’t be an issue as the networks can just be increased to compensate so they can maintain those vital links (see fig 4).
ABOVE Fig 4, A graphic demonstring the development of the organisation and the networks it uses. Image: Architecture for Humanity
When it comes to aesthetics there has always been a debate between the quality of design and the budget of a project. Cameron Sinclair believes you can have both; you don’t have to have the biggest budget to create a beautiful piece of design. Sadly he sees a big difference between architects like himself and the likes of Norman Foster etc. It is his opinion that a lot of architects at his level use their incredible budgets to create pieces of ‘show-boat’ architecture instead of putting the money to better use. He draws a comparison between medics and architects saying;
“Some of us work as plastic surgeons and some of us work in the emergency room.” (Sinclair,C. 2009)
“Some of us work as plastic surgeons and some of us work in the emergency room.�
CRITICAL STUDY
This statement implies that architects like Sinclair are making a real difference as apposed to just working at face value for richer clients. Sinclair see’s Zaha Hadid as being one of the worst examples of this, her concern is not about helping those in need but in demonstrating her skills as a designer with flamboyant and expensive pieces of work. When she was asked to talk about ethics in architecture at a conference in 2009 at the Barbican in London, Sinclair commented saying that it was similar to asking Robert Mugabe to give a talk on Human rights (Sinclair,C. 2009). This was a comment that he would later have to apologise for. His views on this topic are of course extremely biased due to his position in the field, but none the less I feel that it is a valid point. Although I do see there being a place for ‘show-boat’ architecture, it is about finding the correct balance between the two sides of the argument. But on the other hand humanitarian architecture can just become extremely functional, straightforward pieces of architecture where the focus completely shifts from the design to the practicality. It is Architecture for Humanity’s willingness not to compromise on style that puts them head and shoulders above the rest, they clearly care about the quality of the design and are determined not to just churn out something with no soul or character; they manage to successfully find a balance between the two contrasting ideas.
RIGHT Volunteers working on a secondary school building in in Basa, Nepal. Image: Kruger Design Studio
CRITICAL STUDY
Controversially, Farshid Moussavi, a professor of architecture at Harvard university claimed that humanitarian architecture is ‘ dubious’. Whilst giving a speech at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2011 she commented saying that a lot of her own students wanted to join organisations working overseas however; “Most of them are not the really good students.” (Moussavi.F, 2011) She then went on to say it can become an ‘excuse and an easy option’. With an opinion as strong as this there was always going to be objection and Cameron Sinclair clearly objected by saying ‘There is nothing easy about working in rural Africa’. (Sinclair.C, 2011) Moussavi isn’t the only person that objects to humanitarian architecture and aid. Dambisa Moyo, a young female economist and writer from Zimbabwe wrote a book called ‘Dead Aid’. In the book she questions how much the aid Africa has received actually benefits the people and how it could be better spent. “Has more than $1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off? No. In fact, across the globe the recipients of this aid are worse off; much worse off. Aid has helped make the poor poorer, and growth slower. Yet aid remains a centrepiece of today’s development policy and one of the biggest ideas of our time. The notion that aid can alleviate systematic poverty is a myth. Millions in Africa are poorer today because of aid; misery and poverty have not ended but have increased.” (Moyo.D, 2009) In this ground breaking book she presents evidence to support her claims that Africa isn’t benefiting from the rest of the western world’s help. It’s certain that aid will continue to overwhelm the countries that need it; and this isn’t going to stop in the foreseeable future. The problem lies within the methods in which the money is spent, not the money itself; It is being spent on the wrong things and in the wrong places. This is why organisations like Architecture for Humanity are making a truly positive change. They are approaching the issues in a completely new and refreshing way that is actively making a positive change.
“Has more than $1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off? No. In fact, across the globe the recipients of this aid are worse off; much worse off. Aid has helped make the poor poorer, and growth slower. Yet aid remains a centrepiece of today’s development policy and one of the biggest ideas of our time. The notion that aid can alleviate systematic poverty is a myth. Millions in Africa are poorer today because of aid; misery and poverty have not ended but have increased.” (Moyo.D, 2009)
CRITICAL STUDY
Throughout the past few months that I have spent reading and learning about Architecture for Humanity I have discovered a lot about this young organisation. I’ve found the investigation to be eye opening and extremely informative. As a student it is said that the years that we spend at university are some of the most influential in our life and that we should spend our time opening our minds and absorbing as much information as possible. Reading ‘Design Like You Give a Damn’ and ‘Design Like You Give a Damn [2]’ has certainly done this and made me aware of a whole movement and a huge range of issues to which I was previously completely unaware of. It has encouraged me to delve further into to the subject of humanitarian architecture and through personal investigation discover more organisations etc that work within the movement such as ‘RuralStudio’. In the future I hope to demonstrate how this evolved my thought process and plan on implimenting this into my studio work, I think that the way in which Architecture for Humanity works is extremely fresh aswell as being completely relevant to the way the world is now. They are able to produce beautiful pieces of design whilst still working with limited budgets, often whilst still adearing the local vernacular style and using local materials. Some of their designs such as Fuji Kindegarten (2007) inparticular have beauty in their simplicity. This is one of my favourite designs, it’s a simple elegant oval that makes the most out of its landscape and basic form to create a fun and friendly atmosphere for the pupils. Maybe it is not all about using new parametric software to create abstract forms as the current trend in architecture seems to be, maybe it should be about taking it back to basics like this example demonstrates. Besides with the economic climate the way it is, is it right to still be producing these fancy buildings with mulit million pound budgets? A lot of these designs often don’t get built due to the scale or abstract nature of them and I agree with Cameron Sinclair when he says; “Unless you build it, it doesn’t matter” (Sinclair,C. 2012) What is the point in a design unless it becomese a phsycial structure that you can move through and interact with; experiencing the spaces. Until it gets built it is just a product of an architects imagination and it is not going to benifit anyone.
“Unless you build it, it doesn’t matter’” (Sinclair,C. 2012)
ABOVE Pupils using Fuji Kindergarten in Tokyo, Japan Image: Architype Review
“design for good is figuring out a programme that not only creates better spaces, but creates jobs, creates new industry and really raises the conversation about how we rebuild, and if we can create a new generation of architects who are focused on the marriage between ethics and aesthetics then we can create a much more open world for people to live in.�
This being said I think that is important to always have a balance within architecture, if everyone worked in the same field or with the same stlye it would never develop, move forward and progress which is key to successful design. There needs to be designers that work on the bigger projects and those that work at the grassroots. It is all about balance.
“design for good is figuring out a programme that not only creates better spaces, but creates jobs, creates new industry and really raises the conversation about how we rebuild, and if we can create a new generation of architects who are focused on the marriage between ethics and aesthetics then we can create a much more open world for people to live in” (Sinclair,C. 2008)
CRITICAL STUDY
The public can be very cynical and quick to dismiss the views of public figures and others that are in the media. They often suspect them to have an alternative motive i.e money; this is a crying shame. Some people genuinely just want to make a positive change, not because of money or fame, but because they honestly care. These people aren’t affraid to stand up for what they believe in. The world is in dire need of more pople like this, more people like Cameron Sinclair. Although his organisation revieves a plethora of critisicms he always remains undetred and continues his misson for positive change. Together,Sinclair and his organistation are a brilliant role model for anyone that wants to make a positive change. Whilst diving into the inner working of Architecture for Humanity I have discovered both positives and negatives about the organisation. I found that it is down to the individual and how they perceive these, how do they balance the good and bad points to form their own opinions on the matter and how their ethical position is influenced by modern media and their surroundings. Personally I would love to work in the field of humanitarian architecture and this is a view that has most definitely been shaped by architecture for humanity. It has become the blue print for other similar organisations following in its wake. Their whole philosophy of combining good design and ethical design looks at the issues at hand at a holistic level. Cameron Sinclair has a utopian vision of the future saying;
I am more than happy to be a member of this ‘new generation of architects’ that he mentions and would cherish any opportunity to help. I think it is clear to see the impact that Architecture for humanity has had on myself and the rest of the world of architecture and the reason that it has had such a big impact is most definitely due to their enthusiasm and willingness to ‘do good’. It’s not just about the building; it is about how the building affects the community after Architecture for Humanity has left; the legacy that they leave behind. They are obviously very passionate from start to finish and yes they are most definitely still designing like they give a damn.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
Architecture for Humanity is a volunteer based, non-profit, organisation that provides architectural solutions to humanitarian crises around the world; previous projects include emergency shelters, schools and community centres. Their aim is to ‘demonstrate the power of design to change people’s lives’. They do this by providing contemporary solutions to the problems facing the world today, for example; basic shelter, healthcare, education and access to clean water. The organisation believes that the biggest of all the humanitarian challenges that faces the world today is that of providing basic shelter. Helping to alleviate this issue is a primary objective of theirs. The organisation is made up of a network of over 50,000 professional volunteers that all lend their time and expertise to provide unique and sustainable solutions to the issues previously mentioned. Each year 25,000 people directly benefit from their work and a further 60,000 benefit from further training and outreach schemes that are provided to the communities across the world.
Architecture for Humanity was founded in 1999 as a response to the war in Kosovo by Kate Stohr and Cameron Sinclair. After hearing about the displaced Kosovo refugees Sinclair saw an opportunity for architects to help. He thought that there would be people all around the world that cared about this situation in the same way that he did, people that would want to use their creativity and design skills to help (Sinclair,C. 2006. p.11). He approached his boss at the time, Charles Lauster (Lauster & Radu Architects), and together they launched a design competition for transitional housing for these refugees. The competition received and incredible response with hundreds of entries from all over the world. One team was made up of students from Kosovo that would volunteer during the day and then work on their design during the evenings. There was an outstanding range of designs including inflatable houses and structures there were made from the rubble of the destroyed homes of the refugees. From the overwhelming replies they began to narrow down the entries until they had a selection of four which they then attempted to build in Kosovo. Unfortunately, this never manifested due to overwhelming issues with legislations etc. However undeterred Cameron Sinclair and his partner Kate Stohr went ahead and co-founded the company that would eventually become ‘Architecture for Humanity’ as we know it today.
Over the years Architecture for Humanity has developed its own unique design philosophy and at the centre of this is their involvement within the communities that they are aiming to help. This connection is seen as their most valuable asset when designing; after all no one has a better understanding of the problems at hand than the locals that experience them day after day. They also work within the communities to exploit their local expertise and help find local labour. Architecture for Humanity has grown into a much larger organisation since its founding in 1999 and as a result it no longer has to proactively seek projects. Aid groups are putting communities in touch with the organisation who are then sending them their own requests. Once they receive a request Architecture for Humanity has to ensure that it is an appropriate project that meets with their philosophy and that they feel confident enough to deal with the request, this is explained in the graphic. Next they work with the community to ensure that they get the structure and design that they want, designers are often shipped out to the site to work with local builders and contractors to ensure that in the end the community receives a new ‘resource’ that is indispensable to the local population. Architecture for Humanity has a motto that reflects this; “Building change from the ground up” (Architecture for Humanity,2012.)
APPENDIX IIII
RIGHT A Young boy using a swing at the ‘the butterfly houses’ Image: Archdaily
APPENDIX
2005 saw the organisation begin to expand at an exponential rate and in 2011 they had 2250 buildings constructed in over 44 different countries. They continue to have a huge impact across the globe with projects all over the world and they have even managed to open four regional offices. They have projects distributed throughout the world. A lot of the locations in which they work relate to natural disaster areas and war zones. There are a lot of projects in areas surrounding the Indian Ocean that were effected by the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and likewise there are a lot in Haiti after it was effected by the 2010 earthquake. But Architecture for Humanity doesn’t just work in third world countries; it also works in more developed countries. When it came to the disaster in New Orleans they were there straight away to help the re-housing efforts. A lot of the developed countries also have issues of their own that have fallen under the radar of governments etc; for example homelessness in America amongst other places
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Anderson,C. (2006), TEDblog, (Online blog), Quoted in; Design Like You Give Damn (Online), Available from: < http://csinclair.readyhosting.com/designlikeyougiveadamn/index.htm>, [Accessed 18/10/12]. Architecture for Humanity. (2008), Frontline, (Online Video), Available from: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEN_zIH2JaM>, [Accessed 18/10/12]. Architecture For Humanity: Is it perfect. (2009), Archinect, (Online blog), Available from: <http://archinect.com/forum/thread/94775/architecture-for-humanity-is-it-perfect>, [Accessed 24/10/12]. Architecture for Humanity. (2012) Design Like You Give a Damn [2] Building Change from the Ground Up. [New York], Abrams. Cary,J. (2010), Humanitarian Design: Fellowships, Architectural Record. (Online), Available from: <archrecord.construction.com/features/ humanitarianDesign/The-GoodList/Fellowships.asp>, [Accessed 01/11/12]. Evarts,K. (2012), Does “Doing Good” Pay the Bills?, Architectural Record. Vol 200, n.3, p.41-2. Moyo,D. (2009), Dead Aid, Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is Another Way For Africa. [London], Penguin Books, p.19. Moussavi,F. (2011), Is Volunteer Work In Architecture an “Easy Option”? One Starchitect Says Yes, Cameron Sinclair Says “Wot?”, Treehugger. (Online), Available from: <http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/volunteer-work-architecture-easy-option-one-starchitect-saysyes-cameron-sinclair-says-wot.html>, [Accessed 26/10/12] RIBA. (2012), Architect Salary Guide, RIBA Appointments. (Online), Available from: <http://www.ribaappointments.com/Salary-Guide. aspx>, [Accessed 01/11/12] Sinclair,C. ( 2003), Architecture with a humanitarian conscience, Architects Journal. (Online), Available from: <http://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/home/architecture-with-a-humanitarian-conscience/146308.article>, [Accessed 01/11/12] Sinclair,C. (2006) Design Like You Give a Damn Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises. 4th ed. [London], Thames & Hudson, p.11. Sinclair,C. (2008), Architecture for Humanity – Cameron Sinclair, (Online Video), Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=5JOKlbx4WIs>, [Accessed 26/10/12] Sinclair,C. (2009), Cameron Sinclair Lights Fuse Under Zaha Hadid Architects at The Barbican Debate, Treehugger. (Online), Available from: <http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/cameron-sinclair-lights-fuse-under-zaha-hadid-architects-at-the-barbicandebate.html>, [Accessed 26/10/12] Sinclair,C. ( 2011), Quoted in; Is Volunteer Work In Architecture an “Easy Option”? One Starchitect Says Yes, Cameron Sinclair Says “Wot?”, Treehugger. (Online), Available from: <http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/volunteer-work-architecture-easy-option-onestarchitect-says-yes-cameron-sinclair-says-wot.html>, [Accessed 26/10/12] Sinclair,C. (2012), Design Like You Give a Damn [2] Building Change from the Ground Up. [New York], Abrams, p.12. Unknown Source. (2001), Quoted in; Design Like You Give a Damn Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises. 4th ed. [London], Thames & Hudson, p.16.
IMAGE REFERENCES Archdaily. (2009), (Online Image), Available from: <http://www.archdaily.com/25748/soe-ker-tie-house-tyin-tegnestue/>, [Accessed 15/11/12].
Architecture for Humanity, (2010), (Online Image), Available from: <http://architectureforhumanity.org/donate>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. Architecture for Humanity. (2012), (Online Image), Available from: <http://architectureforhumanity.org/projects>, [Accessed 14/10/12]. Elefint Designs. ( 2012), (Online Image), Available from: <http://www.infographs.org/2012/07/architecture -for-humanity-infographic/>, [Accessed 12/10/12]. Kruger Design Studio. (2008), (Online Image), Available from: <http://krugerdesignstudio.com/?page_id=2>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. Los Vacios Urbanos. (2009), (Online Image), Available from: <http://losvaciosurbanos.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/soe-ker-tie-house-butterflyhouses.html>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. Novikov,P. (2007), (Online Image), Available from: <http://peternovikov.tumblr.com/>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. Practical Action. (2007), (Online Image), Available from: <http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/node/477>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. Reuters. (2009), (Online Image), Available from: <http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/12/11/how-did-the-tsunami-affect-you/>, [Accessed 15/11/12]. World Changing. (2007), (Online Image), Available from: <http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/projects/10x10_housing>, [Accessed 15/11/12].
BIBLIOGRAPHY Architecture for Humanity, 2006, Design Like You Give a Damn Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises. 4th ed. [London], Thames & Hudson. Architecture for Humanity, 2012, Design Like You Give a Damn [2] Building Change from the Ground Up. [New York], Abrams. Dambisa Moyo, 2009, Dead Aid, Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is Another Way For Africa. [London], Penguin Books.
REFERENCES
Architype Review. (2007), (Online Image), Available from: <http://www.architypereview.com/15-schools/projects/133-fuji-kindergarten>, [Accessed 15/11/12].