Ian Davis

Developing building for safety programmes : guidelines for organizing safe building improvement programmes in disaster-prone areas

Summarizes the basic principles to be considered in the planning and implementation of community-based building improvement programmes for small dwellings in disaster-prone areas. Including case studies illustrating suggestions made.

Building for safety compendium : an annotated bibliography and information directory for safe building

1 General disaster management with particular reference to shelter and housing provision ... 3 2 Training and communication ... 8 3 Disaster-resist ant construction ... 11 4 Manuals and guidelines on construction ... 14 5 Building materials ...1 6 6 Services for human settlements ... 19 7 Project planning and evaluation ... 20 8 Community organization ... 23 9 Gender issues ... 26 10 Financial management ... 28 11 Case studies ... 30 12 Audio-visual materials ... 33 13 General resource material ... 35 14 Journals and newsletters ... 37 15 Directory of organizations ... 40

Disasters as agents of change?: Or: Form follows failure

“Under the immediate impact of a disaster people are ready to change longstanding methods and customs. Therefore act quickly to introduce improved construction methods and bye-laws.“’ Those privileged to reflect from the vantage point of their mid-seventies can look back on the rapid rise and even more rapid demise of some of the more extreme stylistic aspects of the Modern Movement in architecture and planning. Throughout the period a clutch of cryptic aphorisms capture some oversimplified concepts of architectural expression. Horatio Greenough invented ‘Form follows Function’” which became the basis for Louis Sullivan’s philosphy of architecture. One hundred and fifty years later this concept was challenged by Robert Venturi’s rather cynical reversal ‘Function follows Form’, to be followed in close succession by some new arrivals ‘Form follows Culture’ of Hendryk Skolimowski” and ‘Form follows Fad or Fashion’ of uncertain authorship. I am using this paper to add another to the overcrowded and already confusing list ‘Form follows Failure’. Disasters as catalysts, the agents of change within the built environment? To what extent does architectural history endorse the wise words that failure provides opportunities “to change long standing methods and customs”? What are the conditions for such radical changes to occur in reconstruction planning, and can the process for the production of safe buildings and settlements be retarded or accelerated by intervention and if so of what type and character? By examining some rather randomly chosen historical precedents I hope to look at some of the issues which surround a neglected subject, close to the heart of Otto Koenigsberger. Most historians have described the sequence of architectural or planning developments as if they were solely a response to cultural, social, technological or economic, or more frequently aesthetic developments and constraints, without ‘learning from failure’. These comprise isolated events that have resulted in interesting innovations, or they may have had widespread implications for an entire building tradition on a national or even global scale. This paper explores a more systematic overview.

Some initial lessons from Guatemala.

1.1 Damage. Approximately 200,000 homes (about a fifth of the country’s entire housing stock) has been severely damaged or destroyed. This destruction was of two distinct types. In the rural areas it was the failure of adobe houses (see Fig. 1 ) whilst in Guatemala city the failure was in the siting of wooden squatter homes on hazardous sites on ravine edges or top surfaces (see Fig. 2). The most obvious lesson IS to use the existing situation to instigate safe rebuilding techniques, and bnng into being new administrative structures to implement these new codes, and establish training programmes. As in most disaster situations the earthquake has exposed all the raw-nerves of deficient buildings, and deficient administrative structures to provide and ensure the safety (or even provision) of low cost housing. In Guatemala, the buildings were of unusually safe construction. The fault was the siting, and here there exists the greatest problem to face the Government how to release land which is safe for the continual urban influx of squatters.

Opportunities for British Involvement in the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

The UK Science, Technology and Engineering Committee for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was jointly established by The Fellowship of Engineering and The Royal Society, in 1990. Its purpose is to promote the aims of the IDNDR with particular reference to disaster risk reduction within developing countries. In order to provide a forum for people with a wide range of experience in this field to meet and exchange views, the Committee convened a one-day Workshop, held at The Royal Society in London on 27 March 1992. The following is a shortened version of a position paper (originally drafted by Ian Davis and subsequently approved by the Committee), setting out seven ‘priorities’ for the IDNDR, which formed the basis of discussion at the Workshop.

THE LICE EARTHQUAKE

Sir, I am amazed at the review of my report, The Lice Earthquake in South-eastem Turkey: A Geography of the Disaster, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, December 1976, by Ian Davis, inDisasters, 2, (1) 85-87 (1978). What amazes me is how a disaster specialist with theoretical and some field experience in foreign countries, along with his admission of a “cursory study of the Lice disaster” (p. 85) , would assume that another academician with a different disciplinary orientation, has made a “minimal contribution” because he chose to write something which did not address issues that he (Davis) deemed appropriate. Does Mr Davis’ brief visit to the Lice area with Ankara officials qualify him as the authority on Turkish disasters? Does one know about the human geography of Turkey and the local area when he confuses Ramazan with “Ramadan?” And the “Butlis” mountains, Lice’s original site, for the Bitlis (p. 85)? MI Davis sadly assumes that military academicians cannot address politically controversial subjects. He is sadly misinformed; indeed, his obsession with th is point perpetuates the myth. Evidently he is not familiar with the contemporary military. I suggest that he read carefully the following controversial articles, each written by military academicians: William B. Brundage and Willam A. Mitchell, “Toward an Understanding of Opium Poppy Production in Turkey,” Joum~l of African and Asian Studies, Vol. XII, No. 3 4 , October 1977; William A. Mitchell, “ Partial Recovery and Reconstruction After Disaster: The Lice Case,” Mars Emergencies, Vol 2 , pp. 233-247,1977; and Richard Wolniewicz, “In Whose. Image? Church Symbols and World Views,”Joumal of Popuhr Glture, Vol XI (4) (Spring 1978). My comment that Turkey faces extreme difficulty in coping with the events following an earthquake disaster is subjective and my own, based on many discussions with Turkish officials at national, regional, and local levels, and perhaps more importantly, with hundreds of villagers involved in disasters. My 3 months living in Gediz area villages and over 4 years living in Turkey give me a basis for my statements. I agree that Turkey is probably one of the best-prepared countries in coping with earthquakes. Anyone intimate with Turkey, however, knows that coping is difficult. I briefly noted the OXFAM issue on page 44 and included a photograph of one on page 69. Mr Davis was correct in his comment on the failure of the project. I, along with thousands of Turks, agree that the shelters are undesirable, impractical, and unsuitable for animals, much less people. It is axiomatic that he who writes, writes for or against something. It would be interesting to know why MI Davis is overly concerned with this project. Mr Davis grossly misrepresented a prime focus of my study. That is, on page 57 where I suggest that my recommendations for Gediz housing in terms of human needs, were not met for Lice. I specifically identify problems with the new houses, including physical arrangements and the restoration of traditional homes. MI Davis’s review makes one wonder what kind of axe he is