There are many challenges associated with the climate crisis, such as economic disparity and inequity, marginalization, imbalance in the ecosystem and environment, and increasing stockpiles of waste, only to name a few. All these challenges call for innovative methods in architecture that requires critical engagement with people and place. This certainly cannot only be about focusing on the production of a building. We should look beyond the object and consider creativity as a problem-solving act. To do this, we need to expand our skills as architects and create projects with people and then arrange funding or patronage. It's a matter of being present physically and working closely with the community to resolve the challenges. This means that we will have to rethink the role of the architect and, with it, the agendas of the profession.
What is the responsibility of architects in these times of climate insecurity?
Build responsibly: this responsibility begins with the question of whether we need to build at all or whether we reuse existing structures. Source responsibly: we need to focus on reducing long supply chains and source locally as much as possible. Design responsibly: to reduce our dependency on mechanical means of operation and maintenance.
You mentioned the need for new methods in architecture; what approaches do you take in your search for innovative and appropriate solutions?
For us, research is fundamental to understanding where the problems are. For example, we study the geographical location that is affected by the changes in climate. The coastal region of Bangladesh, for example, has always possessed landscape dynamics evoked by water. With the prolonged rains caused by the climate crisis and the foreshortened glacial water flowing down from the Himalayas, we face entirely new challenges. It was important for us to find out how this situation was affecting people. So, we had to be on the ground to understand the impact and how it affects human lives. Only then could we find actual solutions that would be practical and relevant. Intervention in vernacular living that can sustain and be adopted by the people takes a long time.
Can you give an example of how you have developed a solution based on your research?
For a project on the coast of Bangladesh, we were influenced by the local construction methods. Particularly along the rivers, the local population builds houses in a timber frame knock-down construction. These houses are a flourishing business in Dohar, Lohajang, and Munshiganj. We took the idea of the knock-down system and developed a low-cost space frame structure that can be moved from one place to another. We call this system Khudi Bari. The cost-effectiveness makes it affordable for people who have lost their land to erosion and have no means of income. The people who live along the riverbanks of Bangladesh are a marginalized group. Our structure is therefore made of bamboo, a natural and inexpensive material, and steel for the connections to facilitate mobility. It is divided into two levels of liveable space so the residents can move higher to the upper level if flood waters rise too fast, for example. This simple system is scalable and has the potential to respond to very different problems.
You touched on it before, but what can architects learn from the local population, who have always lived with the water, monsoons, and flooding?
The people who are affected the most by the climate crisis have a zero carbon footprint. They take an inherently sustainable approach to housing construction by using materials they can find in their immediate landscape. They grow their own food and have no dependency on electricity or running water. In general, vernacular architecture always responds to the climate. This type of construction never strives to be unusual or flashy, but continues to evolve and be perfected from generation to generation. These are important lessons that an architect can learn and practice in many ways.
You have designed structures with bamboo and clay, but they have always been located outside of the megacity of Dhaka. How can cities be persuaded to embrace a new approach to urban architecture?
The values that come from vernacular construction are transferable everywhere. You can think locally in any area, both in terms of materials and labour. Craftspeople and artisans stimulate the local economy; that's not to be underestimated. However, I think we need to question the city itself. In the past, there were good reasons why we needed cities: industrialization and the associated ecology of that time. With the fast development of communication technologies, our physical presence can be replaced by virtual connectivity; our geographical presence has become secondary. I can live a quality life in a village if my basic needs, such as education, health, and a proper living environment, are met. So we should focus more on liveability in rural areas and small towns to reduce the pressure on our metropolitan areas. That will make us all healthier. We can then build with natural materials in the smaller towns. Only when we rethink the city can we really make a difference there.
