Ruins still linger along Kallady beach, Batticaloa
These days, it seems that natural disasters sweep through the headlines as swiftly as they do through the communities that they ravage. With yet another
tragedy underway, it's important to remember the
influence media coverage can have on international response, and look back at past emergencies to see how reconstruction has fared, well after the world's attention has shifted elsewhere.
As I announced back in August on our
facebook page, I travelled to Sri Lanka and took the opportunity to visit several reconstruction projects that took shape over the years that followed the infamous tsunami triggered by the 9.2 Indian Ocean earthquake in December 2004. One of the deadliest natural disasters in recent history, the series of waves reached up to 6 meters in height and more than 2 km inland in southeastern Sri Lanka, the most severly hit country after Indonesia. Here, the tsunami killed about 35,000, displaced over 1 million, damaged or destroyed over 100,000 homes, and rendered at least 150,000 jobless, leaving behind a hefty reconstruction bill of $3.5 billion. No matter how many times we've heard the numbers before, they are always difficult to grasp.
Six years later, the scars left by the tsunami are still visible on the coast of Batticaloa
I wanted to see for myself what these numbers meant in tangible form, and moreover, how they had been addressed six years on, specifically in terms of reconstruction. We often hear of emergency prototypes being tested in the immediate aftermath, or the start of housing projects early on, but we rarely get to see these structures serve their purpose and successfully integrated into the daily lives of affected communities. After all, if well-intentioned
aid fails to work, it should be learned from rather than overlooked.
I set out to visit a series of sites located in some of the hardest hit areas of the country, some of which were built by architects I knew, others which I simply found out about along the way. Each project exemplified different approaches and solutions to the complex task at hand: not only rebuilding homes, but essentially rebuilding lives in the most economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and culturally appropriate spaces possible. This often entails far more than what is within the architect's reach; finding land for available for construction or adjusting to government regulations like the oscillating
no-build buffer zone were just some of the difficulties architects had to work around.
The following documents various projects I visited along the east and southeast coast, including several by architectural NGO's like Smart Shelter Foundation and Architecture for Humanity, and one of which has been nominated for this years prestigious Aga Kahn award.
54 Concrete Dome Houses, Inspector Eatham, Pottuvil (east coast)
Partner organization: Sewalanka Foundation (Sri Lanka)
Cost of one dome: €10,400
Construction time: 2.5 years
Dubbed by locals as the "balloon houses", these tropical iglus were implemented using the pneumatic framework originating from the
Monolithic Dome Institute. The Dutch architects chose this model for its strength, durability, low cost and ease of construction. Unfortunately, the houses took over 2 years to finish and ended up costing more than planned, which could partly be due to price hikes in materials and skilled labor which were scarce. While the choice of dome structures for tsunami-proof reasons is not so relevant given that the site is already far removed from the coastline, the most unfortunate outcome is perhaps that of their cultural incongruence. While a few humble owners expressed gratitude out of respect, when I asked them what they though of their houses, one gets the feeling that these bubble homes are not really taken seriously by the community at large.
Days later when I spoke to UN Habitat's national project manager IA Hameed (pictured left) at Colombo's UN headquarters, he explained that indeed this was the case: "I'll never forget what this poor mother said to me. She said, 'How can I offer this house as a dowry for my daughter? No one will accept it.'" Having a culture embrace their new homes is the only way that it can thrive within them. This is exactly the kind of experience that should be talked about and learned from, in order to build back better.
Hijra Nagar Friendship Village, Pottuvil (east coast)
Donor Organization: Government of Japan
Units: Approx. 200 Houses
Construction time: 2006-2008
Beneficiaries: 180 Muslim + 20 Tamil families
This is one of several ‘friendship villages’ that were built with the support from the Japanese Government to resettle tsunami-affected families who were living on the coast. Called "friendship villages" because of their aim in fostering peace and harmony between Sri Lanka’s different ethnic groups, the village was built several kilometers inland, on the only land available at the time of construction. As with many projects that relocated families away from the seaside, livelihoods were shaken. Previously dependent mainly on fishing, many workers have had to turn to carpentry or other viable jobs, while others find themselves commuting to Pottuvil center to keep their businesses going. Here, only a morning bus passes through the village once a day, which leaves many having to walk for several kilometers in the glaring heat to the town center and children to the closest school.
Unlike the balloon houses, these houses were built according to the traditional style. Apart from their "business problems," as they call them, they are happy with the houses, which they feel identified with. Each house has its own bathroom, receives water from a communal water tower, and includes a plot of surrounding land on which to grow their own crops.
Relocation of 20 families in Kurukkulmadam, Batticaloa (east coast)
Donor Organization: CRWRC
Cost of each house: €4900
Construction time: November 2005 - April 2006
These houses were built for families who were living illegally in the 200-meter buffer zone before the tsunami, and who as a result, received no help from the government. They are
donor-driven houses, meaning that the donor entity--in this case the Canadian relief organization CRWRC--was responsible for implementing and financing the project. Martijn Schildkamp of Smart Shelter Foundation, who we've
featured on arkinet before, acted as the architect and technical consultant during the entire construction process. I asked Martijn what the most difficult part of his job was: "The biggest challenge in such huge operation, is to find the right local people with the right local knowledge."
71 Houses in Mankadu, Batticaloa
Architect: Martijn Schildkamp / Smart Shelter Foundation
Funding organization: CRWRC and Sri Lankan government
Cost of each house: €5000
Construction: November 2005 - Fall 2006
Located just a short distance from Kurukkulmadam, these houses in Mankadu were also supervised by SSF. In a joint collaboration between CRWRC and the government, these houses were developed through an owner-driven process, meaning that each family built their own house, hiring their own labourers and ordering the necessary materials. Each beneficiary was granteed a sum from the government complemented by another from the CRWRC. According to Martijn, this scheme proved very effective: "What went really well is that the people were responsible for the construction themselves. They hired the labourers and came up with their own desired layout, which resulted in a nice mixture of all kinds of different houses. Lesson learned: people know exactly what they want and need, they merely need assistance. And that was our job: training and supervision, and making sure that they got their installments. It was split into 5 stages; foundation, walls, roof, flooring & finishing, and water/sanitation and electricity."
Exterior (background, left) and interior (right) of the temporary shelter adjacent to the main house, where the families lived during construction of their permanent homes. Kavirajah Muthurajah (pictured left) was the building inspector for both SSF projects, and an amazing host. Thanks Kavi!
Yodakandyia Community Center, Tissamaharama, Hambantota (southeast)
Architect: Susie Platt / Architecture for Humanity
Partner Organizations: Pinsara Federation of Community Development Councils, UN Habitat
Funding: Do Something , Architecture for Humanity, LEF Foundation
Cost: $104,000
Construction time: December 2005 - 2007
Beneficiaries: 2000
A little further south in the district of Hambantota, lies the
Aga Kahn Award-nominated Yodakandyia Community Complex. Architecture for Humanity worked in partnership with UN Habitat and the local community to build three community buildings comprising a community center, a library/computer/medical center, a preschool and a cricket pitch. Located inland and unaffected by the tsunami, the project was allocated to this site as part of a larger program which involves the resettlement of 218 families affected by the tsunami in places like nearby Kirinda.
The intervention by Susie Platt, the architect in charge of the project, is laden with loving details and cultural nuances that make this such a soulful place. Locally crafted ironwork in indigenous animal motifs decorating the windows of the preschool, or traditional wood carvings on the doors of the community hall, are just as remarkable as the elegant brickwork or the passive ventilation strategies achieved by roof forms and high-level openings.
This is the community hall where the local CDC--democratically elected "Community Development Councils" established in order to engage with the beneficiaries throughout the resettlement process-- meets about once a month to articulate the needs and priorities of community members. Suffice to say that the group leaders and people who worked side-by-side with Susie Platt--they were fully involved in the design and building process--only had one complaint to date: all they wanted was Susie back!
Locally crafted wood-carvings, typical of Sri Lankan architecture.
Architect: Shigeru Ban
Funding: Colliers International
Per Unit Cost: €10,500
Construction time: November 2005 - 2007
Kirinda was by far, one of the worst hit villages of the country. In a partnership between global real estate company
Colliers International and the rich-client/poor client Shigeru Ban, this project is described on the
UN Habitat site as
"looking more like an eco-resort that caters to European middle class tourists, rather than a poverty-stricken and isolated fishing village rebuilt with very little money." This is hardly how I would describe it, though it would imply no extra merit if it were true.The small community continues to be a humble one of Islamic fisherman who live day by day. The houses, built using advanced techniques but modeled on the traditional typology, have no doubt had an enormously positive impact on their lives.
Yet considering the use of the Lego-like system of compressed earth blocks for its low cost and quick construction, it is difficult to say why each house cost over €10,000 (the amount sited on the UN Habitat page), which is at least double the amount of some of the projects previously mentioned. Ban also used treated rubberwood--rarely an architectural material--for the windows, doors and pre-fabricated furnishings. Most houses, however, were shut from most sides and quite dark inside; the owners of one of the houses (pictured below) explained that the wood used for the openings had posed problems because that had either swollen shut or deteriorated over the years.
Partner: UN Habitat
Funding: Lef Foundation, Do Something, Architecture for Humanity
Cost: $30000
Construction time: 2007-2008
Benficiaries: 100 families
In another partnership between Architecture for Humanity and UN Habitat, this community center is located on the banks of the Lunawa River in Moratuwa, just south of Sri Lanka's capital city of Colombo. The two-story structure houses flexible workshops for classrooms or small local industries on the ground floor and a community hall on the first floor, with recreation space at the front of the building.
The project forms part of a wider resettlement program begun years before the tsunami 2002 to respond to the needs of local residents suffering from annual flooding of the nearby river and canal system (pictured left) during monsoon seasons; both of which are heavily polluted from the mass of industrial waste that is poured directly from nearby industries. After the tsunami two years later, the UN expanded the project to rehouse one hundred affected families within the Lunawa project.The building occupies the center of the housing site and gives onto the new main access road and canal.
The first floor pavillion looks out toward the nearby canal and surrounding homes, and is often used to celebrate local festivities, weddings and other celebrations.
Stairwell leading up to the community hall.
Architect Susie Platt once again incorporated traditional wood carvings as architectural details in the design.
-----------------
Reconstruction after disaster is a long-term, complex task, and as with all aid, has to be watched closely during
and after to ensure not only the success of each project, but its transparency on all levels. In places like Sri Lanka where the tsunami dealt a hard blow to a society already battered by 30 years of civil strife, rebuilding was hampered by
political violence in areas that still today are in urgent need of reconstruction after the end of a war that claimed 100,000 lives. With numbers like that, it makes you wonder why the global response to the escalating war was so
scarce in comparison. As for the tsunami victims, while the majority of the population has been resettled, it is important that we don't forget those who are still waiting.
Just lasy year, 1300 families in Kalmunai rendered homeless by the tsunami were reported to still be living in emergency camps, a sad reality that UN Habitat's Mr. Hammed confirmed was still unresolved.
The good news is, disaster reconstruction has evolved, and it's only getting better. While more case studies like the ones shown above will show us best practices and improve transparency, a ever-growing number of students and architects around the world are getting involved in socially-driven, humanitarian design. We hope to be there to witness and report how architecture has improved the lives of those who need it most.
All photos © Bruno Pereira
-----------------
Special thanks to Martijn Schildkamp for his long-distance tips, Kavi and Mr. Hameed for their input and hospitality, Ranjith Samarasinghe of the Lunawa project, Architecture for Humanity for the contacts, and to
Bruno Pereira for filming and photographing all at once in the sweltering heat!
-----------------
This coverage was made possible thanks to the support of Sustainable Emergency Architecture, a new MA program in Barcelona focused on disaster reconstruction and international cooperation.
