Maybe some of you have seen the thread I started a little over a week ago here talking about ideas I've had for my 5th year thesis project involving architecture with a social imperative. Needless to say, I've been reading Architecture for Humanity's Design Like You Give A Damn.
I'm reading through this book and thinking to myself, that it all sounds very grand and... well... Utopian. Architecture for Humanity is an organization I haven't seen anyone disagree with or challenge. In fact, Cameron Sinclair has even attacked others for not being "humanitarian". What I'm wondering, however, is where Architecture for Humanity goes wrong or becomes too much. Has Sinclair become a poster superhero-like puppet for politicians to parade around as a solution?
As I read through this book again, now with a critical eye, I'll try and offer some questions in reference to the text.
[p.12]"It soon became clear that what was needed was not temporary shelter but some sort of medium-term or transitional structure that retuning Kosovars could live in while they rebuilt their homes."
Are temporary and transitional structures only different in the end idea they suggest to achieve?
[p.13]"One resident, frustrated with the response from the West, said, "We need real care, not awareness. When one sees one's friends and families suffering each day, one is aware of the problem. We don't need pop stars giving concerts, we need doctors giving treatment."
At a certain point does the "west" become victimized for not being able to solve everyone's problems? Is there so much dependence on the heroics of the West that possible innovative solutions natives aren't even explored?
In response to your initial post, I'd suggest looking at the following:
Ian Davis--Shelter After Disaster 1978
Fred Cuny--Disasters and Development 1983
UNDRO--Shelter After Disaster:Guidelines for Assistance 1982 (now under revision)
this idea about transitional (process-driven) shelter has been around a while, and these are a few good, non-architecty sources that may help ground your ideas
Something, which in some small way improves lives on this earth...
Or...
Nothing, because partial improvement nonetheless leaves the world imperfect...
Which would you prefer? I have little patience for the abstract criticism of a humanitarian group when most of us do hardly anything to make the world better than we found it. If, on the other hand, you have some constructive suggestions for Cameron, why not offer them to him directly rather than attempting to froth up controversy on a discussion board?
I think before you try to answer those questions...
One should probably determine how effective Architecture for Humanity actually is. The problem with non-profit and grassroots movements is determining a cost-benefit analysis of their overall objective and subjective goals.
To do this, you'd need quite a big budget. You'd have to determine all of the man hours volunteers put into such an organization, where those hours go and what kind of projects are materialized from them.
You'd then have to set up an experimental study surveying all the parties involved and determine a dataset of how the things built by Architecture for Humanity affected the participants objectively and subjectively.
That kind of data would have to be broken down further by each individual region and deter which problems existed and which problems have been solved.
For instance, an objective measurement would be the overall picture of how malaria or dysentery disease rates have change. The subjective measure would be if people generally feel better or worse after the intervention.
This would all have to be third party and you'd really have to gain the trust of the participants. Any group of people who desperately want change in their lives maybe unwilling to complain for fear that future inventions might be cut off.
After all that data was collected, you'd have to determine the cost per data point. For instance, the number of hours "billed" to the decline in cases. If there isn't a significant correlation, there maybe other factors at work completely unrelated to the intervention-- i.e., construction may have contaminated local water sources that lead to a decline in mosquito populations (as in, the act of construction was more beneficial than the construction itself).
And once you determine that cost-benefit ratio, you can determine how much actual good an organization is doing for a given chunk of effort.
There's two flaws in Architecture for Humanity that I see as something not being addressed specifically-- economic development (big picture urban planning) and engineering. Neither is cheap. Neither is easy. And people probably need roads and drainage more than they need functional housing.
(This is the kind of the approach done recently to studies in welfare programs. It turns out about 80% of the time, giving people money is actually cheaper than trying to give them other things of equivalent monetary value.
A bad (and patently false) example could be how like giving someone $30 may actually cost $35 but giving someone $30 worth of socks ends up costing $55. After giving 3 people socks, you could have given 5 people $35 dollars.)
I think the bigger idea there is in open source design--it's an experiment, and probably a bit early to render a verdict (particularly by crunching the numbers).
How does someone in a tide forest in Brazil whose only abundant wood source is mangrove versus someone in rural china whose only abundant wood source is bamboo utilize the same open source design?
the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty.
regional AFH chapters, at least ours, has been working on projects around the world: kenya, china, peru, guatemala - and locally as well.
frankly, i think anything that gets architects thinking about helping those that need it is a positive.
one of the better things i noticed w/ AFH was that most places weren't building properly - concrete and CMU walls weren't being built without rebar, lack of education on typical building details that would go a long way to prevent total building failure in earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
AFH projects become a model for the community and a teaching instrument for passing on life-saving information to those that construct schools, edifices, etc. in extremely impoverished regions.
orochi - they're not utilizing the same design - but via collaboration, hacking, etc - they can come up with regionally appropriate response.
houseofmud - I'm not suggesting that AFH is a bad thing at all. In fact, I'm on the bandwagon for it. I'm honestly just looking to stir some talk, get some perspective on what I'll be facing for my thesis project, and maybe be enlightened to a new path that wasn't blazed by Cameron. As for talking to him, I fully intend to after developing these ideas and questions.
A couple of criticisms of AFH that I've heard (but don't pass judgment upon) are:
- They focus too heavily on disaster relief and too little on places experiencing endemic poverty not brought on or exacerbated by an acute event.
- They expend (or causes their volunteers to expend) too many resources moving people to distant locations when there are poor people in need within a few mile radius of just about everyone on the planet.
"the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty.
frankly, i think anything that gets architects thinking about helping
those that need it is a positive.
one of the better things i noticed w/ AFH was that most places weren't building properly - concrete and CMU walls weren't being built without rebar, lack of education on typical building details that would go a long way to prevent total building failure in earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
AFH projects become a model for the community and a teaching instrument for passing on life-saving information to those that construct schools, edifices, etc. in extremely impoverished regions."
While some of the things you're saying are pretty grounded statements others are not.
"the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty."
Define poverty. Define perfect.
What I posted above is the essentials on how you do a pretty basic program evaluation. No one likes program evaluation other than sociopaths and rule jockeys.
My point was more or less-- is it effective? How effective is it actually?
4arch has brought up two good points.
And I'd add that your examples of CMU and concrete can show a lack of understanding about the global supply chain of construction materials. There's lot of places in the world where neither are easily or readily available.
So, just from a standpoint, I don't think you can really have "Architecture" for "Humanity." Not in the universal sense, that's for sure.
One might be better off building concrete plants and glassworks than giving a bunch of people "community centers."
isn't one of the 800 lb gorillas with afh (as well as many other organizations) the fact that it's core identity is so closely aligned with a single person? i don't know cameron personally and i'm sure he's a straight up, stand up guy. but, what if? what if it comes out that he's less than perfect in some way (and especially if that directly involves the organization)? would afh be able to carry on as effectively?
i think there's a difference between having a spokesperson for an organization and the organization being so focused around a particular person. and i'm sure cameron will say that it's not about him that he is in part it's key public figure who's there to call attention to something no else is (because, to be fair, who else is taking up that mantle). however, the bias in the media is as equally focused on him as it is afh, whether he's intended that or not.
compare that to public architecture or the 1% solution, both of which are doing a similar type of thing broadly speaking. yes, the individuals running it have seen their share of acclaim, but in almost everything i've seen from or about the organization, the focus is on the end results, not simply the problem. the personalities are downplayed to a degree where, if one were to walk away, the entity seems like it wouldn't miss a beat.
i'm not dismissing afh, what it does, nor am i personalizing anything towards cameron - i've only met him once, very, very briefly, and i have a lot of respect for what they do. but, if we're offering up constructive criticism, this seems like a logical place to re-examine.
I think the challenge the OP is facing is getting past AFH. There are plenty of sources for inspiration/research on this topic--as pointed out above, Sinclaire is not the first person to declare a problem with the current situation.
Look at Jamii Bora (www.jamiibora.org), a "for-profit" microfinancing organization in Kenya that provides small loans and low-cost housing to people living in slums, paired with business and entrepreneurship training. After successfully repaying a small loan, like $300, people can qualify for a housing loan, around $4500, which is repaid over 10-15 years with interest. This has succeeded in moving thousands of people out of the slums in Nairobi, yet at no point is anybody "given" anything.
Architecture For Humanity: Is it perfect?
Maybe some of you have seen the thread I started a little over a week ago here talking about ideas I've had for my 5th year thesis project involving architecture with a social imperative. Needless to say, I've been reading Architecture for Humanity's Design Like You Give A Damn.
I'm reading through this book and thinking to myself, that it all sounds very grand and... well... Utopian. Architecture for Humanity is an organization I haven't seen anyone disagree with or challenge. In fact, Cameron Sinclair has even attacked others for not being "humanitarian". What I'm wondering, however, is where Architecture for Humanity goes wrong or becomes too much. Has Sinclair become a poster superhero-like puppet for politicians to parade around as a solution?
As I read through this book again, now with a critical eye, I'll try and offer some questions in reference to the text.
[p.12]"It soon became clear that what was needed was not temporary shelter but some sort of medium-term or transitional structure that retuning Kosovars could live in while they rebuilt their homes."
Are temporary and transitional structures only different in the end idea they suggest to achieve?
[p.13]"One resident, frustrated with the response from the West, said, "We need real care, not awareness. When one sees one's friends and families suffering each day, one is aware of the problem. We don't need pop stars giving concerts, we need doctors giving treatment."
At a certain point does the "west" become victimized for not being able to solve everyone's problems? Is there so much dependence on the heroics of the West that possible innovative solutions natives aren't even explored?
In response to your initial post, I'd suggest looking at the following:
Ian Davis--Shelter After Disaster 1978
Fred Cuny--Disasters and Development 1983
UNDRO--Shelter After Disaster:Guidelines for Assistance 1982 (now under revision)
this idea about transitional (process-driven) shelter has been around a while, and these are a few good, non-architecty sources that may help ground your ideas
... and you might take a look at this for some perspective on the innovation question
Facing the alternative of either doing
Something, which in some small way improves lives on this earth...
Or...
Nothing, because partial improvement nonetheless leaves the world imperfect...
Which would you prefer? I have little patience for the abstract criticism of a humanitarian group when most of us do hardly anything to make the world better than we found it. If, on the other hand, you have some constructive suggestions for Cameron, why not offer them to him directly rather than attempting to froth up controversy on a discussion board?
I think before you try to answer those questions...
One should probably determine how effective Architecture for Humanity actually is. The problem with non-profit and grassroots movements is determining a cost-benefit analysis of their overall objective and subjective goals.
To do this, you'd need quite a big budget. You'd have to determine all of the man hours volunteers put into such an organization, where those hours go and what kind of projects are materialized from them.
You'd then have to set up an experimental study surveying all the parties involved and determine a dataset of how the things built by Architecture for Humanity affected the participants objectively and subjectively.
That kind of data would have to be broken down further by each individual region and deter which problems existed and which problems have been solved.
For instance, an objective measurement would be the overall picture of how malaria or dysentery disease rates have change. The subjective measure would be if people generally feel better or worse after the intervention.
This would all have to be third party and you'd really have to gain the trust of the participants. Any group of people who desperately want change in their lives maybe unwilling to complain for fear that future inventions might be cut off.
After all that data was collected, you'd have to determine the cost per data point. For instance, the number of hours "billed" to the decline in cases. If there isn't a significant correlation, there maybe other factors at work completely unrelated to the intervention-- i.e., construction may have contaminated local water sources that lead to a decline in mosquito populations (as in, the act of construction was more beneficial than the construction itself).
And once you determine that cost-benefit ratio, you can determine how much actual good an organization is doing for a given chunk of effort.
There's two flaws in Architecture for Humanity that I see as something not being addressed specifically-- economic development (big picture urban planning) and engineering. Neither is cheap. Neither is easy. And people probably need roads and drainage more than they need functional housing.
(This is the kind of the approach done recently to studies in welfare programs. It turns out about 80% of the time, giving people money is actually cheaper than trying to give them other things of equivalent monetary value.
A bad (and patently false) example could be how like giving someone $30 may actually cost $35 but giving someone $30 worth of socks ends up costing $55. After giving 3 people socks, you could have given 5 people $35 dollars.)
I think the bigger idea there is in open source design--it's an experiment, and probably a bit early to render a verdict (particularly by crunching the numbers).
How does someone in a tide forest in Brazil whose only abundant wood source is mangrove versus someone in rural china whose only abundant wood source is bamboo utilize the same open source design?
more than one designer, more than one design. getting the designers' participation is the far trickier part
more than one designer, more than one design. getting the designers' participation is the far trickier part
the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty.
regional AFH chapters, at least ours, has been working on projects around the world: kenya, china, peru, guatemala - and locally as well.
frankly, i think anything that gets architects thinking about helping those that need it is a positive.
one of the better things i noticed w/ AFH was that most places weren't building properly - concrete and CMU walls weren't being built without rebar, lack of education on typical building details that would go a long way to prevent total building failure in earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
AFH projects become a model for the community and a teaching instrument for passing on life-saving information to those that construct schools, edifices, etc. in extremely impoverished regions.
orochi - they're not utilizing the same design - but via collaboration, hacking, etc - they can come up with regionally appropriate response.
concrete and CMU walls weren't being built with rebar,
houseofmud - I'm not suggesting that AFH is a bad thing at all. In fact, I'm on the bandwagon for it. I'm honestly just looking to stir some talk, get some perspective on what I'll be facing for my thesis project, and maybe be enlightened to a new path that wasn't blazed by Cameron. As for talking to him, I fully intend to after developing these ideas and questions.
A couple of criticisms of AFH that I've heard (but don't pass judgment upon) are:
- They focus too heavily on disaster relief and too little on places experiencing endemic poverty not brought on or exacerbated by an acute event.
- They expend (or causes their volunteers to expend) too many resources moving people to distant locations when there are poor people in need within a few mile radius of just about everyone on the planet.
"the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty.
"the intent of AFH is not to be perfect. there is no shot at perfect, there are too many people living in abject poverty."frankly, i think anything that gets architects thinking about helping
those that need it is a positive.
one of the better things i noticed w/ AFH was that most places weren't building properly - concrete and CMU walls weren't being built without rebar, lack of education on typical building details that would go a long way to prevent total building failure in earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
AFH projects become a model for the community and a teaching instrument for passing on life-saving information to those that construct schools, edifices, etc. in extremely impoverished regions."
While some of the things you're saying are pretty grounded statements others are not.
Define poverty. Define perfect.
What I posted above is the essentials on how you do a pretty basic program evaluation. No one likes program evaluation other than sociopaths and rule jockeys.
My point was more or less-- is it effective? How effective is it actually?
4arch has brought up two good points.
And I'd add that your examples of CMU and concrete can show a lack of understanding about the global supply chain of construction materials. There's lot of places in the world where neither are easily or readily available.
So, just from a standpoint, I don't think you can really have "Architecture" for "Humanity." Not in the universal sense, that's for sure.
One might be better off building concrete plants and glassworks than giving a bunch of people "community centers."
isn't one of the 800 lb gorillas with afh (as well as many other organizations) the fact that it's core identity is so closely aligned with a single person? i don't know cameron personally and i'm sure he's a straight up, stand up guy. but, what if? what if it comes out that he's less than perfect in some way (and especially if that directly involves the organization)? would afh be able to carry on as effectively?
i think there's a difference between having a spokesperson for an organization and the organization being so focused around a particular person. and i'm sure cameron will say that it's not about him that he is in part it's key public figure who's there to call attention to something no else is (because, to be fair, who else is taking up that mantle). however, the bias in the media is as equally focused on him as it is afh, whether he's intended that or not.
compare that to public architecture or the 1% solution, both of which are doing a similar type of thing broadly speaking. yes, the individuals running it have seen their share of acclaim, but in almost everything i've seen from or about the organization, the focus is on the end results, not simply the problem. the personalities are downplayed to a degree where, if one were to walk away, the entity seems like it wouldn't miss a beat.
i'm not dismissing afh, what it does, nor am i personalizing anything towards cameron - i've only met him once, very, very briefly, and i have a lot of respect for what they do. but, if we're offering up constructive criticism, this seems like a logical place to re-examine.
I think the challenge the OP is facing is getting past AFH. There are plenty of sources for inspiration/research on this topic--as pointed out above, Sinclaire is not the first person to declare a problem with the current situation.
Look at Jamii Bora (www.jamiibora.org), a "for-profit" microfinancing organization in Kenya that provides small loans and low-cost housing to people living in slums, paired with business and entrepreneurship training. After successfully repaying a small loan, like $300, people can qualify for a housing loan, around $4500, which is repaid over 10-15 years with interest. This has succeeded in moving thousands of people out of the slums in Nairobi, yet at no point is anybody "given" anything.
off-topic, but here's more on microloans:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/03/17/080317ta_talk_surowiecki
http://www.microcapital.org/news-wire-usa-forbes-names-top-microfinance-institutions/
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.