Jan 26, 2001 - inhabit a house just as they would during normal conditions. .... particular way of doing things; the second as a system of symbols, meanings .... are reflected in space names which allude to physical characteristics of the space ...
kashikar 1 Kashikar Vishwanath Understanding Place 01 January 2006 Tradition and Transformation: A Post-Disaster Perspective on the Making of Vernacular Place The built environment is a stage to a constant battle between opposing forces like tradition and modernity, and globalization and localization. Natural disasters bring these complexities to the forefront, requiring professionals to sit up and take notice. Disasters do not pose new types of problems; it is the tremendous scale of events that pose a challenge to all. It is indeed a moment of sorrow and reflection, but let us not forget the tremendous opportunity of a better future. A better future that can be made possible by learning from our past. In dealing with post-disaster rehabilitation process, there are a plethora of often conflicting requirements that have to be taken into consideration. Many researches in postdisaster rehabilitation have analysed reconstruction projects to understand socio-cultural, economic, and architectural dimensions of this problem. Apart from this, the fields of mass housing and vernacular studies also have a bearing on large scale housing projects in rural areas. These three fields: post-disaster rehabilitation, large scale housing, and vernacular studies are explored in the context of a large scale post-disaster housing project in Vavaniya village in Gujarat, India. The process of design, construction, and transformation in this project indicates one possible solution that negotiates these complex problems.
Post-Disaster Rehabilitation Natural disasters like earthquakes, cyclones and tsunamis destroy lives, built environments and livelihood sources. Injury and loss of life calls for a swift response by rescue and health services and long term post-trauma and rehabilitation measures. Debris removal and temporary shelter are immediate responses required in the field of built environments, whereas infrastructure development and building reconstruction are long term interventions that take a few years to bear fruition. Rehabilitation measures like regeneration of livelihood sources ensure a steady income, giving hope for a better future. Aid in the form of food, money and basic necessities is only a stop-gap arrangement. Each of these rehabilitation requirements are interconnected; yet it is necessary to distinguish them as they have distinct temporal and budgetary requirements. Another important realization is that disasters do not create new types of problems. Accidents, unemployment, and homelessness exist in normal conditions as well. Disasters simply aggravate the problem by a manifold
kashikar 2 increase in scale. This realization is pertinent in housing reconstruction. People continue to inhabit a house just as they would during normal conditions. The unique situation of postdisaster housing does not imply a unique house. Various researches (Davis, Maskrey, Oliver-Smith) have discussed rehabilitation as much more than financial aid and housing reconstruction. Apart from the various aspects of rehabilitation already discussed previously, questions of development are also raised in rehabilitation. Unfortunately, development is in itself a subjective and complex term. Development needs to be tied up with local culture and conditions rather than being a standard solution to worldwide problems. Reconstruction projects are influenced by constraints of time and money. Speed is essential not only in the provision of temporary shelters, but also in the construction of permanent housing. This is especially true of regions that face harsh climate (Lizarralde). However, fast paced reconstruction is associated with other problems. Timely disbursement of financial aid to the right people is always of concern. Even when aid reaches people, it is hardly equitable. In such conditions funds are chronically insufficient for reconstruction of adequate shelters. Speedy and cheap reconstruction eventually ends up as a ‘one house fits all’ solution in the form of universal prefabricated shelters. This solution has been termed unviable by UNDRO (1993) for various reasons. Such reconstruction also leads to a conflict between local technology and house-form, and global engineering and shelter. Modern construction technology places a high value on disaster preventive engineering design. This usually translates into steel or concrete structures. Whilst there is no debate on the performance of such structures, traditional wood and mud constructions are also known to withstand earthquakes and floods. They are not deemed disaster proof because they are considered indeterminate structures due to complexity of design. Time and again, disasters have destroyed both modern and traditional structures while having spared some modern and traditional constructions. Quality of materials and construction techniques probably play a more vital role in the performance of buildings. Standardized prefabricated structures also disregard local house-form and patterns of space use. Innumerable cases of abandonment of post-disaster housing have been documented (Boen, Jigyasu, Oliver “Dwellings …”, Shaw “International…”). Many more cases of misfits exist although they have been occupied out of no choice (Oliver “Dwellings…”). It is very easy to make a house that works, but equally difficult to make one that works well.
kashikar 3 Large Scale Housing A disaster causes widespread damage resulting in ‘adoption’ of villages and towns by donor agencies. Reconstruction in this context takes the form of large scale housing projects usually managed by a small group of architects and contractors. ‘Mass housing’ is one of the popular design processes employed for large scale housing. Mass housing treats the design of many houses as one project. This project has one set of designers, one concept, one or few unit types and one implement agency. There is no input from intended users of the project. At its best, mass housing takes into cognizance general housing preferences established from surveys, and develops a handful of individual house types that are stacked in various ways. The perceived advantages of this design process are economy and speed of construction due to standardization at many levels. These perceived advantages have already been discussed as crucial components of disaster rehabilitation. However, there are hidden costs involved. Due to its disregard for individual requirements, these houses are usually modified by users entailing additional costs and time (Habraken). There are two reasons for such modifications. Changes in family structure or personal use patterns of space necessitate changes in built form. Changes also occur with rise in living standard. Many people cannot afford to invest in a complete house. For them, housing is an incremental process that closely replicates economic status (Turner). Mass housing as a design process fails to accommodate this vital aspect of dwelling. The second and perhaps larger issue is loss of identity. Throughout the previous century, mass housing has resulted in ‘disastrous high rise developments plastered without respect to cultural differences, in cities throughout the world’ (Oliver “Tradition…”). A house is an expression of ones individuality, and we like to ascertain it amongst other norms of societal conformity. This is why many mass housing projects are variously described as ‘military barracks’ and ‘chicken coops’. Various alternatives to mass housing have been proposed- supports and infill (Habraken), sites and services, open building etc. each with their own benefits. In the context of disaster reconstruction, mass housing with its apparent cost and time benefits seems an ideal solution. The cost on the quality of the built environment is however, tremendous.
Vernacular Architecture Vernacular is now a widely used term to denote local, native, indigenous products and processes. Oliver states that “all forms of vernacular architecture are built to meet specific needs, accommodating the values, economies and ways of life of the cultures that produce them” (“The encyclopedia…” v1, ii). It is thus an embodiment of the culture that produces it.
kashikar 4 Culture itself is a complex term and is defined as “… a way of life typical of a group, a particular way of doing things; the second as a system of symbols, meanings, and cognitive schemata transmitted through symbolic codes; and third as a set of adaptive strategies for survival related to the ecological setting and its resources.” (“Culture and…” 50-51). It is however important to note that “…they [vernacular architecture] may be adapted or developed over time as needs and circumstances change.” (Oliver “Dwellings…” 14). Vernacular architecture is not characterized only by its form, material and space; it is the marriage of lifestyle with corresponding space. A dwelling is not only a physical construct, but a vast web of social, personal, and use patterns whose footprints encompass an area much larger than the house itself. Change in family structure, monetary resources, climactic conditions, and festive occasions constantly modify the vernacular space in various ways. Some changes are temporary and reversible like change in functional use of spaces. In many instances of vernacular housing, space names are rarely functional. Distinctions are made between enclosed and open spaces, dry and wet spaces, holy and unholy spaces. Other changes are permanent. Houses grow as needs increase; rooms are added as and when required or possible. Semi-permanent structures are strengthened and converted to permanent rooms. Houses also fall into disuse with reduction in family size or drop in fortunes. “Vernacular buildings are not resistant to change, but by experiment, trial and evaluation, embrace new technologies or details when their employment is perceived as beneficial.” (Oliver “Tradition…” 3). Such examples of vernacular dwellings occur all over the world. Two such dwelling types are found in Kutch- the bhunga in central Kutch grasslands and the coastal house. The district of Kutch lies in northern Gujarat at the Western extremity of India. Kutch is separated from the rest of Gujarat by a vast salt marshland known as the Rann of Kutch. The Rann is a vast flat-plain which gets flooded during the wet season by salt water. In the dry season the water recedes, leaving large salt islands many miles inland. Local culture and tradition of Kutch is relatively intact due to this separation from the mainland. Kutch is in a dry arid zone with wide diurnal and annual temperature fluctuations. Although the central grasslands called banni were rice producing areas, it is now a vast grassland only during the wet season. Cattle grazing, trade, and cottage industries are the main sources of income. Many people also work in salt pans. Due to its harsh climate, Kutchis have developed a reputation of being hardworking, enterprising, stoic and shrewd. The bhunga (ill. 1) consists of a single circular space 3 to 5 meters in diameter, enclosed by thick mud walls plastered with a mixture of mud and cow dung. The
kashikar 5 roof is conical in shape and made of radially placed wooden or bamboo members on a central floating column. Thatch is used as the roofing material. The bhunga sits on a raised earthen platform. Some houses consist of more than one such unit sharing a common raised platform. Some units are rectangular in shape. The main space inside is kept immaculately clean and is richly decorated with mirror work patterns on the walls. Utensils and other valuable items are displayed in open storage shelves that line the walls. The house works well in the extreme climate of Kutch. The thick mud walls provide excellent thermal insulation keeping the house cool during the day and warm at night. Outdoor spaces are extensively used throughout the year. Children play, men folk hold gatherings, guests are received and the family sleeps during summer nights, in this outdoor space. Cooking is also done outdoors on earthen stoves using firewood or cow-dung. A thatch shelter or a separate mud walled space is sometimes constructed for use as a kitchen. The indoor space is used as a multipurpose space. It acts as a space for women during large gatherings, space for the whole family on hot days, a bedroom in winter, for afternoon naps, and as a storage and display area. The coastal typology (ill. 2), predominantly found in Southern Kutch and coastal Saurashtra, consists of one or two rooms of equal size with a large verandah in front and a small cooking area in front of the verandah. The walls of these houses are usually constructed of stone blocks or bricks using mud mortar. The roof consists of country tiles or thatch on a wooden sub-structure. The room sizes vary from 2 to 3 meters. The rooms are used as multipurpose spaces; there is no distinction between a bedroom and a living room in a two room house. The use of space is similar to use of space in the bhunga. The verandah is usually 1.6 to 2 meters deep and is extensively used for sleeping, playing, meeting people and preparation of food. 1. Room 2. Verandah 3. Cooking area 4. Semi-open area 5. Mud Plinth
1
1 1
1
4
2 3 3
Coastal Kutch Ill.1: Vernacular House-form in Kutch
‘Banni’ region
4 5 3
kashikar 6
The two typologies of vernacular house form found in Kutch vary considerably in form, space, material and structure. However, it is interesting to note the commonality in patterns of space use that are probably shaped by shared climate and culture. These patterns are reflected in space names which allude to physical characteristics of the space rather than their function. Basic differentiation is thus made between an enclosed space- ordo and a verandah- osri. In case of more than one room, all rooms are called ordo. Space names are not function specific. The other characteristic of these two house forms is the inhabitant’s attitude towards the house. In case of the bhunga, periodical maintenance is required for the roof as well as the floor and wall finishes. Additions in the form of another unit or pavilions are made when there is a change in family structure or a substantial increase in economic status. In the coastal typology, these changes are most evident in the growth of the kitchen. The kitchen starts out as a basic mud stove attached to the verandah or the main house. It is open to sky with a small mud platform or just a cleanly swept floor. Over a period of time, a rudimentary cover made of wooden poles and a thatch roof is constructed over the stove. In the final transformation, this is replaced by a room constructed using mud, brick or stone. In both these instances of vernacular houses, decades of modifications have evolved a house type that is perfectly suited to the local people at a particular time and space. This intricate fit between lifestyle and building is the essence of vernacular architecture. The physical construct of the house is only a transient manifestation.
The Vavaniya project An earthquake of magnitude 7.6 struck the region of Kutch at 08:46 (IST) on 26th January, 2001 (USGS). 20,000 people were killed and over 160,000 injured as a result of the total destruction of approximately 370,000 buildings and partial damage caused to over 900,000 buildings (UNDMT). The earthquake was a result of a much larger system formed by the thrusting of the Indian plate into the Eurasian plate. A series of fault lines in the Kutch region have produced many earthquakes in the past century. Subsequently, this region is categorized as zone V in the Vulnerability Atlas of India. Vernacular architecture of this region bears testimony to this troubled history. The circular form of the bhunga and its light weight roof provide substantial earthquake resistance. Modern constructions are guided by Indian Standard codes (IS codes) that provide specific design guidelines for earthquake resistant structures.
kashikar 7 Immediately after the earthquake, the Tata group of companies set up Tata Relief Committee (TRC) to coordinate relief activities by the company. TRC undertook the reconstruction of Vavaniya village in Maliya taluka of Rajkot district. More than two thirds of this village with a population of 4000 was either completely destroyed or badly damaged. TRC approached the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), an Ahmedabad based NGO that was already involved in livelihood regeneration programmes in this region. CEE was the implementing agency responsible for a total rehabilitation package for the village. The United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) was appointed in an advisory capacity to oversee the whole programme. CEE appointed Neelkanth Chhaya architects as the design firm for this project. The rehabilitation process envisaged integrated village development, and natural resources and livelihood regeneration. Integrated village development consisted of rebuilding infrastructure- streets, lighting systems and tree plantation; public facilities- schools, primary health centre and community centre; and individual houses. Water harvesting systems, agriculture, animal husbandry, entrepreneurship support, and health and sanitation were covered under natural resources and livelihood regeneration. Stress was laid on community participation, capacity development, self-sufficiency and sustainability. The cost of each unit was fixed at Rs.50,000 ($1150). The design had to confirm to guidelines set out by the Indian Standard codes. These guidelines favor concrete as opposed to brick, wood and mud due to large variations in quality of the latter. Local conditions like chronic water shortage and saline water are not reflected in these codes. A conscious decision was taken to reconstruct all houses at original sites rather than relocating them. New sites were chosen only in the case of a previously landless community which benefited from the donors decision to provide them with homes. The design process of housing reconstruction had three components- data collection, design strategy, and post occupancy evaluation. The first step of data collection was undertaken jointly with a CEE team. Once the beneficiaries were identified, a detailed survey was carried out on each site. A site plan, list of salvaged items, and household details were drawn up in this survey. Simultaneously, the architects studied local dwelling types and their use patterns, climactic data, and basic costs of construction at local rates. Confronted with the relative advantages of standardization and individualization, the architects developed ‘core units’ and a ‘kit of elements’ (ill. 2). The core units were not perceived as dwellings. They were conceived as bare stripped down shells that would provide a framework for future dwellings (ill. 3). The core units were derived from local house types. They were based on multiples of brick dimensions rather than spatial modules. This allowed
kashikar 8 for a large degree of variation in the core unit. As many as 16 core units were developed and modified further for the latter phases of the project. Individual costs were calculated for each part of the kit of elements. The kit consisted of floor finishes, doors and windows, shelves, lighting fixtures and other elements. Coordination between core unit types and kit of elements, and individual costing allowed several combinations. The basic structure consisted of random rubble masonry footings. Building debris was used extensively in foundations solving the problem of debris removal. All walls were made of load bearing bricks. Concrete structures were avoided due to water scarcity and unfamiliarity with concreting techniques. All units were designed for two floors to facilitate future expansion. The roof was a concrete flat slab as the terrace is widely used in this region.
Ill. 2: Core unit types
Ill: 3: The core unit and the preliminary stages of transformation starting with the kitchen.
Each house was designed over a series of meetings with the owners. The choice of the core unit type usually depended on family size and monetary resources. The owner could ask for modifications in the size of the core unit. A list of materials and labor provided by the owner was drawn up. Cost savings would then be calculated and additional elements or larger rooms could then be requisitioned. Unskilled labor provided by the owner was remunerated on a daily basis at market rates. A site plan was drawn for each house along with drawings of standard details. Some owners provided additional money to build larger houses. These
kashikar 9 meetings with the owners were also an opportunity for community bonding and livelihood regeneration. Most of the houses developed as a result of this process were unique. Standardization was used in building and structure details and costing systems rather than space modules or building elements. By divorcing standardization from dimensional aspects, the problems associated with standardization were solved. The units provided to the people were not intended to be homes. The act of dwelling and the modifications therein transformed these core units into lived-in residences. Transformations began immediately after occupation. The owners were aware of additions at the design stage and modified their core units accordingly. A detailed survey of transformation was carried out till 2 years after occupation. These transformations provided invaluable data for the design process of the second phase. A selection of transformation studies is presented below.
Case 1
Ill: 5: Occupying the outdoor space through acts of dwelling and transformation.
Original cluster plan
Stage I
Ill.4: Case Study Dwelling Cluster 1
A group of four core units is constructed according to the original design guidelines. Note the complex placement of units and their relative orientations. At this stage the ground around the units is untreated; there are no marked pathways. However, the demarcation of public and private space clearly exists amongst the inhabitants.
kashikar 10 The ground outside the house is kept clean and used as a private outdoor space. Children play, men have informal gatherings on charpoys (cots), and women cook in this space. Over a period of 1.5 years, this space is completely transformed. The placement of the original units is creatively used to create extra spaces and access-ways, generating a complex hierarchy of indoor spaces, verandahs and plinths. The walls of the existing house are effectively used to minimize construction of additional walls. A staircase indicates vertical growth of the unit and use of the terrace. Additional walls have been constructed to create a private outdoor area around this housing cluster. The trace of the original unit is completely obliterated by these additions. The core unit is now a lived in home.
Case 2
Ill: 7: Elements of transformation- staircase, decorative parapets and connecting slabs.
Original cluster plan
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Ill.6: Case Study Dwelling Cluster 2
Three units are constructed by an extended family. The houses vary considerably in size, type and orientation. All the main doors open into the central area. A staircase is constructed on either side of the main house. This clearly indicates a desire to have separate access to future houses on the upper floor. The extent of their territory is demarcated and cleared.
kashikar 11 Many small units are added to the existing units. These are mainly used for storage and cooking. These units are added at the periphery of the domain and open inwards forming a natural compound wall. An additional wall is constructed to demarcate rest of the territory. A full height wall with an entry gate completes the cluster. The indoor open area is now fully private. It is used extensively for all activities during the day, and for sleeping at night. Some areas are already being paved using salvaged stone. More acts of transformation will continue to occur at regular intervals.
Case 3
Ill: 9: Encroachments like verandahs, gates and walls are tolerated.
Original cluster plan
Stage I
Stage III
Ill.8: Case Study Dwelling Cluster 3
One double unit and one single unit are constructed. The siting of these units is heavily influenced by adjoining units that do not form part of this cluster. The single unit is constructed without a verandah which is slightly unusual. It is clear that the larger unit is meant to function as one house. A difference of opinion amongst brothers leads to division of the larger unit. A cluster is now formed between the smaller unit and one part of the larger unit. A wall joins the two and also provides for a kitchen. The open space is privatized with the construction of a high compound wall and a gate. The wall also acts as structure for the staircase. In this case, it is interesting to note how changes in family structure and relations have a direct impact on the growth of the houseform.
kashikar 12 Conclusion: Transformations of the house and changes in space use patterns indicate continuity with the past. a house is not an inanimate artifact; it is a living organism that grows, changes, and falls into decay. Vernacular architecture takes cognizance of this dynamic quality of the house. Natural disasters pose new challenges, but these do not require unique solutions. John Turner (“Freedom to…”) once said that probably the best way to solve the housing problem is to not build at all. This takes a new meaning in post-disaster housing where constraints of time and money are immense. In Vavaniya, the architects tackle this problem by planting a sensitively designed seed unit. The act of dwelling transforms this into a unique house. This process embodies the true spirit of vernacular architecture.
kashikar 13 Works Cited Boen, Teddy and Rohit Jigyasu. Cultural Considerations for Post Disaster Reconstruction: Post-Tsunami Challenges. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre. 12 Dec. 2005 Davis, Ian and Yasemin Aysan. “Disasters and the Small Dwelling- Process, Realism and Knowledge: Towards an Agenda for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR).” Disasters and the Small Dwelling: Perspectives for the UN IDNDR. Ed. Aysan, Yasemin and Ian Davies. London: James and James Science Publishers Ltd., 1992. Habraken, John. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Urban International Press, 1972. Centre for Environment Education. Rebuilding Hope. 10 Dec. 2005 Jain, Kulbushan and Minakashi Jain. Mud Architecture of the Indian Desert. Ahmedabad: AADI Centre, 1992. Jigyasu, Rohit. From Marathwada to Gujarat- Emerging Challenges in Post-Earthquake Rehabilitation for Sustainable Eco-Development in South Asia. Universite de Montreal. 12 Dec. 2005 Lizarralde, Gonzalo. Reconstruction Management and Post-disaster low-cost Housing: the Case for Social Reconstruction. M.Arch Thesis: McGill University. 2000. Maskrey, Andrew. Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach.Oxford: Oxfam. 1989. Oliver, Paul. Dwellings: The Vernacular House World Wide. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2003. ---. “Tradition by Itself…” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Working Paper Series 136 (2000): 2-9. Oliver, Paul ed. Encyclopedia of the Vernacular Architecture of the World. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Oliver-Smith, Anthony. “Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction and Social Inequality: A Challenge to Policy and Practice.” Disasters 14.1 (1990): 7-19. Rapoport, Amos. “Culture and Built Form- A Reconsideration.” Culture- MeaningArchitecture: Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport. Ed. Diaz Moore, Keith. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2000.
kashikar 14 ---. “Culture and the Urban Order.” The City in Cultural Context Ed. Agnew, John et al. Winchester, Mass.: Allen & Unwin Inc., 1984. ---. “On the Relationships Between Family and Housing.” Housing Provision and Bottom-up Approaches: Family Case Studies from Africa, Asia and South America. Ed. Awotona, Adenrele. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1999. Shaw, Rajib et al. “International Cooperation in a Post-Disaster Scenario: A Case Study from Gujarat, India.” Journal of Natural Disaster Science 24.2 (2002): 73-82. Shaw, Rajib et al. The Bhuj Earthquake of January 26, 2001: Consequences and Future Challenges. IIT-EDM Joint Reconnaissance Report, 2001. Turner, John. Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process. New York: Macmillan, 1972. ---. Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. London: Marion Boyars, 1976. UNDRO. Shelter after Disaster. Geneva: Editorial of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, 1993. UNDMT. Gujarat Earthquake 2001 Rehabilitation Initiatives: Factsheet. 11 Dec. 2005 USGS. Preliminary Earthquake Report. Jan. 26, 2001. 10 Dec. 2005 Vulnerability Atlas of India: Earthquake, Windstorm and Flood Hazard Maps and Damage Risk to Housing: 1997. New Delhi: Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 1997.
Credits Ill. 1. Redrawn from- Jain, Kulbushan and Minakshi Jain “Mud Architecture…” All drawings and photographs provided by the office of Neelkanth Chhaya Architects, Ahmedabad, India.
