A provocative essay, undermined by the academic, somewhat rarified language. As an Caribbean-African raised in UK, the butt of every African joke seemed to end with mud huts. Even now, it remains a stock put-down. At a School of Architecture, only when non-Africans appropriated this material, was it seen as credible. When I advocated it's use as an extension of the Earth-Sheltered ecological direction surfacing within the trend called 'Community Architecture', in the early/mid 80's, I was told it wasn't feasible in the 'English climate': "We don't make mud huts here.." Had I known about 'wattle&daub' construction then, my answer might have resulted in my expulsion from the school! The 'market', sets precedents totally tangential to community wellbeing. This form of construction is labour intensive but feasible for disenfranchised communities, where every stakeholder is involved in the construction process. I'm happy participating in any discussion arising from the essay presented here.
Absolutely agree. I live and study in Argentina and this is hardly a subject in the university, despite it being a traditional method used by our ancestors (it's a craft now almost lost). Both the steel and cement industry sponsoring a lot of competitions for students has its impact, but the most of it is because of cultural submission (the logic would be: ours is outdated, northern hemisphere is good). From a governmental perspective it's even more ridiculous when you think that: A. it would work well in most of our climate zones, B. we have land in abundance, C. it would lower energy subsidies and positively impact on the balance of payments, D. we have unfulfilled housing demands and a steady >25% unemployment rate. *thanks to @Spazio Projects for uploading this
A provocative essay, undermined by the academic, somewhat rarified language. As an Caribbean-African raised in UK, the butt of every African joke seemed to end with mud huts. Even now, it remains a stock put-down. At a School of Architecture, only when non-Africans appropriated this material, was it seen as credible. When I advocated it's use as an extension of the Earth-Sheltered ecological direction surfacing within the trend called 'Community Architecture', in the early/mid 80's, I was told it wasn't feasible in the 'English climate': "We don't make mud huts here.." Had I known about 'wattle&daub' construction then, my answer might have resulted in my expulsion from the school!
The 'market', sets precedents totally tangential to community wellbeing. This form of construction is labour intensive but feasible for disenfranchised communities, where every stakeholder is involved in the construction process. I'm happy participating in any discussion arising from the essay presented here.
Absolutely agree. I live and study in Argentina and this is hardly a subject in the university, despite it being a traditional method used by our ancestors (it's a craft now almost lost). Both the steel and cement industry sponsoring a lot of competitions for students has its impact, but the most of it is because of cultural submission (the logic would be: ours is outdated, northern hemisphere is good).
From a governmental perspective it's even more ridiculous when you think that:
A. it would work well in most of our climate zones,
B. we have land in abundance,
C. it would lower energy subsidies and positively impact on the balance of payments,
D. we have unfulfilled housing demands and a steady >25% unemployment rate.
*thanks to @Spazio Projects for uploading this
12:55, where can I find info about this decorative style of rammed earth?