Although this is my first post, I will save introduction / exegesis / confession / apology for another time. I wanted to jump right into the pool in response to today’s post on the future of the reconstruction of Haiti and design professionals. As a current Masters of Landscape Architecture candidate at the Harvard GSD, I was amazed that the public voice of the ASLA listed organizations that are going to be / are involved in the Haitian reconstruction effort without as much as mentioning Landscape’s involvement. The organizations noted in the post are Architecture for Humanity, Article 25, the AIA, Emergency Architects, and the US GBC. While shelter may be the priority, these are likely going to be the organizations, along with the UN and governments, that decide, strategize, and plan the new Haiti.
The future, and the future agency, of landscape, depends on its practitioners to be the pioneers in leading massive reconstruction and planning such as these. But how can landscape react to an event in the immediate “now”? What are the efforts that landscape is capable of to assist in alleviating a disaster situation? How can landscape insert itself into the dialogue, and re-assume its crucial market share from engineers, architects, and planners?
I have been following news via internet and radio since the 7.0 Richter scale earthquake occurred, and while the current effort is orbitally focused around saving the few undiscovered victims who may still be alive, and centrally focused on disseminating aid and medial relief, there has been discussion about the future rebuilding of Haiti. The former Haiti, as noted in by Bryan Walsh in Time magazine here, had no building codes to speak of. Buildings were constructed with substandard materials. The Infrastructurist has a short piece about the Time article as well. Clearly there is a dire need to supply, require, and enforce the construction of structures to code, with appropriate materials. This is a given. Temporary as well as permanent shelter is a necessity, as even the buildings left standing are untrustworthy, especially w/r/t aftershocks (this morning, a 6.1 Richer occurred).
Walsh writes:
“At 7.0 on the Richter scale, the earthquake that hit Haiti on Jan. 12 was strong, but hardly record-breaking — very similar, in fact, to a 7.0 temblor that hit the San Francisco Bay area in 1989. But that’s where the similarities end. The 1989 San Francisco quake left up to 12,000 people homeless and killed 63. The 2010 Haiti quake, however, will likely make over a million people homeless, and its death toll could be 50,000 or much higher.
What the Bay Area had, and has, is both money and infrastructure. Haiti had, and has, neither. Infrastructure is the most important, and often overlooked, aspect to a society that functions efficiently, dependably, and soundly. Infrastructure, however, is not an overnight process. While temporary buildings and hospitals can be set up in hours, and indeed, a niche market segment of architecture has fulfilled the demand for these spaces, infrastructure – energy, transportation, communication – is equally important to remediating the immediate effects of a disaster, as well as participating in the reconstruction process.
The infrastructure of Haiti before the earthquake was in dire straits. The CIA fact book gives us some statistical information – remedial telephone and cellular systems, little energy production compared to average per-capita demands, inadequate transportation and road systems. Post-quake, these systems are shells, slowing medical care, food, water, and movement. The participation of landscape in the project and process of infrastructural development, and indeed, the management and stratification of actors is necessary is landscape is not going to die. But these are medium to long term processes. Again, the question must be asked – how does landscape react in the now. How can landscape intervene in an ongoing crisis? What form can its humanitarian intervention take?
