Revision history [back]

Hello Remi, Thank you for your answer. Thanks also for the IFRC website suggestion.

May I ask why you would want to give away 100 houses, and which criteria you would use? To get a new form of design seen. The Criteria by local NGO´s. We developed the transitional structure design in the wake of this disaster. Understandably, the larger NGO´s were focussed on organising the immediate response, smaller NGO´s re-directed us to the larger NGO´s. With few resources, I was forced to give up. Recently, I had an aid coordinator stay at our innovation and design centre in Spain to learn and exchange information. He confirmed the clear value in what I was offering and said immediate construction may be a good choice, at the time we were referring to Nepal. The design I have is a transitional structure, he said that there is a very clear need for these in the world. Something far more robust than a tent, faster and lower cost than a house. It can be removed with low-no no environmental cost. The design is designed to compliment and provide new options, and not to replace any other design. It solves three of the four challenges as cited on the IFRC website. Those are. 1. Debris- (The constructions are made in part from upcycling debris. (metal, wood, broken stone, brick broken tiles ) 2. Land (This is the challenge that is not answered and why I have tested the water by posting this on here.) 3. Accessibility. ( Fewer materials need to be brought in, it is possible to cheaply construct in areas where there is no road access due to fallen buildings for example and potentially without electricity and very basic tool requirements. 4. Need for replacement. (They can be demolished and replaced when required, yet potentially can stand for decades and be far stronger and more flood proof which is important when considering constructions on a flood plain area. Our design could be more weather proof than the temporary shelter shown on the website and adapt particularly well to the weather conditions of Haiti. They can either be constructed with the use of cement or through using agricultural crops and still be as strong as cement. The construction method can be taught in a morning and unskilled people can construct them if supervised.
(When organisations (private / NGOs / public) are trying to promote housing and debate the use of subsidies and so on, it can be very disruptive if another organisation comes in and offers things for free.) Agreed. That is why we are writing an entry here and asking for partners and not going directly to Haiti. The objective is to communicate a methodology that we think could be faster, cheaper, stronger than what is currently known of or applied. (For emergency shelter it is OK for but long-term housing, the main issue is typically not so much the actual housing structure but land (which can get very political, but are the only way to address long-term problems), finance (availability of housing finance...), infrastructure...) Agreed, exactly. What we have is where the need is most required, between the Emergency and the long-term housing. It is probably best defined as temporary, however it can be for emergency housing as it is fast. It is much warmer or cooler, storm proof than a tent yet is seen as flexible and cheap enough to be removed after 2, 4 or 15 years. This level of flexibility the design offers I believe is important in many places where ongoing long term land use is uncertain or not known at the time of construction.

Hello Remi, Thank you for your answer. Thanks also for the IFRC website suggestion.

May I ask why you would want to give away 100 houses, and which criteria you would use? use?

To get a new form of design seen. The Criteria by local NGO´s. We developed the transitional structure design in the wake of this disaster. Understandably, the larger NGO´s were focussed on organising the immediate response, smaller NGO´s re-directed us to the larger NGO´s. With few resources, I was forced to give up. Recently, I had an aid coordinator stay at our innovation and design centre in Spain to learn and exchange information. He confirmed the clear value in what I was offering and said immediate construction may be a good choice, at the time we were referring to Nepal. The design I have is a transitional structure, he said that there is a very clear need for these in the world. Something far more robust than a tent, faster and lower cost than a house. It can be removed with low-no no environmental cost. The design is designed to compliment and provide new options, and not to replace any other design. It solves three of the four challenges as cited on the IFRC website. Those are. 1. Debris- (The constructions are made in part from upcycling debris. (metal, wood, broken stone, brick broken tiles ) 2. Land (This is the challenge that is not answered and why I have tested the water by posting this on here.) 3. Accessibility. ( Fewer materials need to be brought in, it is possible to cheaply construct in areas where there is no road access due to fallen buildings for example and potentially without electricity and very basic tool requirements. 4. Need for replacement. (They can be demolished and replaced when required, yet potentially can stand for decades and be far stronger and more flood proof which is important when considering constructions on a flood plain area. Our design could be more weather proof than the temporary shelter shown on the website and adapt particularly well to the weather conditions of Haiti. They can either be constructed with the use of cement or through using agricultural crops and still be as strong as cement. The construction method can be taught in a morning and unskilled people can construct them if supervised.

(When organisations (private / NGOs / public) are trying to promote housing and debate the use of subsidies and so on, it can be very disruptive if another organisation comes in and offers things for free.) Agreed. That is why we are writing an entry here and asking for partners and not going directly to Haiti. The objective is to communicate a methodology that we think could be faster, cheaper, stronger than what is currently known of or applied.

(For emergency shelter it is OK for but long-term housing, the main issue is typically not so much the actual housing structure but land (which can get very political, but are the only way to address long-term problems), finance (availability of housing finance...), infrastructure...)

Agreed, exactly. What we have is where the need is most required, between the Emergency and the long-term housing. It is probably best defined as temporary, however it can be for emergency housing as it is fast. It is much warmer or cooler, storm proof than a tent yet is seen as flexible and cheap enough to be removed after 2, 4 or 15 years. This level of flexibility the design offers I believe is important in many places where ongoing long term land use is uncertain or not known at the time of construction.