With global migration and millions collectively fleeing economical, political, social and natural disaster, should we look to Archigram's walking cities, consider options as freedom ships, or embrace temporarity?
Populations that are stateless, permanently searching for a better life are hosted formally and informally. NGOs, the UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations aid governments in reception of refugees. Many escape the formal approach, however, in search of sustaining a livelihood outside of legality. Could the spatial design for permanent temporarity be made more humane and potentially eco-efficient?
The current minimal standards calculated by the Sphere Project and the UNHCR are supposed to aid in bottom up design. They are so minimal, however, that they do not incorporate growth or public space. They offer a bare minimum in which people may be able to 'live'. Camps are not supposed to be comfortable.
"But no government, however benign and generous, can be expected to allow hundreds of thousands of people from a neighboring country to enjoy a higher standard of living than the native population, so great pressure exists to cap the amount of aid available or at least to avoid its conspicuous display." (The Exigent City, Jim Lewis, NY Times)
Refugees are not wished to resettle in a new and safe environment. Camps are beyond the rule of law and the (western) countries that pay for them are not willing to host the refugees as asylum seekers. However, their inconvenient overstay causes a whole range of new problems for the host community. Their illegal status disallows them to formally contribute to their new environment. A parallel economy is created within the camps that draws away from the existing, and the ecological impact of a sizable new settlement on the local environment is huge.
The current minimal standards calculated by the Sphere Project and the UNHCR are supposed to aid in bottom up design. They are so minimal, however, that they do not incorporate growth or public space. They offer a bare minimum in which people may be able to 'live'. Camps are not supposed to be comfortable.
"But no government, however benign and generous, can be expected to allow hundreds of thousands of people from a neighboring country to enjoy a higher standard of living than the native population, so great pressure exists to cap the amount of aid available or at least to avoid its conspicuous display." (The Exigent City, Jim Lewis, NY Times)
Refugees are not wished to resettle in a new and safe environment. Camps are beyond the rule of law and the (western) countries that pay for them are not willing to host the refugees as asylum seekers. However, their inconvenient overstay causes a whole range of new problems for the host community. Their illegal status disallows them to formally contribute to their new environment. A parallel economy is created within the camps that draws away from the existing, and the ecological impact of a sizable new settlement on the local environment is huge.
No comments:
Post a Comment