Seismic-resistant buildings that were taught by the older generations

Every nation has traditional buildings that withstand earthquake events since people built them through trial and error for hundreds of years. The older generations passed the knowledge to their younger ones on how they meticulously learned the flow of the earthquake forces in the structural elements. Through that, they applied the understanding of structural composition and its connection to ensure the building's integrity. Moreover, the traditional structure is seismic resistant and fulfills cultural appropriateness and acceptance. Hence, we can enjoy robust and beautiful heritage buildings in many countries that blend with nature. I am reflecting on DR. Teddy Boen's teaching when I attended his class more than 30 years ago. 

But, nowadays, constructing traditional houses can be considerably expensive. Cities have become more populated; therefore, people must build vertically so that more than one family can live in the same structure. Limited land forces people to build multistory buildings, a new knowledge for everyone. On the other hand, due to economies of scale, people become familiar with steel and reinforced concrete structures, which materials and builders are available in good numbers in the market.

Due to economic pressure, construction methodologies to build faster are more evolving than the technology to reduce the earthquake impact. For instance, since the early 1990s, it has been common to construct multistory buildings in fast-track. It showed that construction companies can pour the concrete floor every 5-7 days for the upper level. The need for fast construction is understandable since the fixed costs of renting tools and machinery, such as tower cranes and construction team salaries, are expensive. For good projects, they have construction management in which the project manager ensures that construction materials have been installed correctly as quality assurance measures. The problem becomes aggravated if the effort to reduce cost sacrifices the meticulous construction detail. Some builders even go against the law by lowering the quality by reducing cement and reinforcement in the concrete structure.

There is some reflection we can take following the latest earthquake events nowadays. What went wrong with so many casualties due to damage and collapsed structures? In the present times, we have been introduced to new construction technologies and a wide variety of building materials, which is good to some extent. Still, we need to be careful of the paradigm that robust, fast, and economical can always be obtained in constructing a building. It is not due to the methodology but to the builders' capabilities, which relate to their expertise and resources. 

As we might learn from our older generation, they carefully put seismic-resistant features in their buildings. Nowadays, builders need to design, build, and ensure every element is correctly installed following the code, which should be ahead of any measures rather than reducing costs through fast-track or other initiatives to cut costs. Government and aid agencies should emphasize this idea when supporting the post-disaster housing recovery. The government should enforce sanctions on those who violate the codes. Aid agencies need to support self-recovery initiatives by developing the capacities of local actors, including homeowners, to rebuild a robust structure according to their needs.

Arwin Soelaksono

📸 Damaged buildings in Antakya, Hatay, Türkiye.

 

Housing Recovery and Time-frame Dilemma

Housing recovery post-disaster always takes considerable time; hence, instead of rushing to force quick-fix solutions, government and aid agencies should deliver housing assistance according to the pace, capacities, and affected people's preferences.

Major disasters always take time for housing recovery. For instance, following the 2010 earthquake, Haiti took more than ten years. Following the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, the government planned for ten years of recovery. Nepal took more than six years after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. But there are some people who are still working on their recovery beyond their government recovery time frame. The problem with massive recovery campaigns is that some people are still struggling to rebuild their housing while their neighbors have already completed the reconstruction.  People in their vulnerability will potentially left behind due to a lack of capacity to acquire resources such as builders, construction materials, and banking systems.  

The affected people surely want to get their lives back to normal, including having their houses rebuilt. From the government's point of view, prolonged housing recovery time will potentially create social and political tension. Hence, in many countries, pressure from political actors for a quick rebuild adds noise to the recovery plan. Aid agencies also facing the same challenges. Due to limited funding, which is also reflected in the limited timeframe, many are tempted to deliver quick assistance but not significantly contribute to the affected people's recovery pathways. Learned from the Asian Tsunami 2004, fishermen in Aceh, Indonesia, who usually live in wooden and timber houses, got housing donations made of brick and reinforced concrete. Since it was a turn-key project, they just received the houses, they have no ability to expand, maintain, or repair. Therefore, many of those houses were broken and unrepaired. The hardest lesson learned was that giving houses will not automatically correlate to improving the earning ability. There are other factors that need to be provided, not merely housing construction per se. 

From the affected people's perspective, they are in shock due to the loss of their family members, their houses, or maybe their livelihood. They need time to digest and comprehend their situation and limitations. Some of them may take refuge in other cities. These situations show that affected households have uniqueness, and we need to be aware of their specific needs. The problems are aggravated if their land is missing due to landslide or tsunami. This includes if they are not allowed to rebuild their houses on their original site due to government regulations that their land is unsafe to rebuild. On the other hand, the construction market those are builders, and construction materials, need time to balance the supply and demand due to massive reconstruction.

Hence, housing recovery needs to be seen as a massive collaboration between recovery actors and the construction market which affected people should be part of it. Both affected people and builders should be trained for proper construction. Government and aid agencies should encourage self-recovery and at the same time, strengthen the initiative with construction market improvement through subsidies, capacity building, and streamlining the policies. Aid agencies with their limitation need to find meaningful contributions that link the house rebuild with their livelihood for sustainability. Shelter or housing organizations should collaborate with other NGOs who are experts in livelihood and land issues since housing recovery is not merely a house rebuild. All of these are taking considerable time since those are processes; in the end, solid collaboration will deliver comprehensive and long-term solutions to the affected people.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo from Carl Courts Getty Images Photo Journalist https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1702063191914668088