Tell me if I'm wrong here. I think I see where they're coming from, and I'm all for improving living conditions. Many, many people in the world live in true squalor. Especially in urban slums. A better home structure could make significant, meaningful improvements in health and wellbeing for millions of people.
But. $5,000? For 387 (.5!) square feet? I know it's probably average size for shantytown houses in many places. I'm sure many people are living in much less space. But that doesn't mean that 387.5 sq. ft. is a lot of space. It's nothing. And $5,000 is a lot of money for a shoebox.
And solidifying slums by giving them a shiny coat of whitewash and eco-friendliness seems like it would serve only to reinforce all the structural violence inherent in systems that have created and drawn people to live in them to begin with.
Even more dangerously, this would allow people at the top of these systems (those people look a lot like you and me, by the way) to convince ourselves that those problems have been mitigated by these nice clean purty new houses. It makes it seem like it's OK to live in a tiny paper (paper!) house packed in like sardines in sprawling slums, like it's just inevitable, just some people's lot in life.
It's pretty clear who loses in that scenario.
So, what is really the point of these things?
That's not a rhetorical question. What do you know that I don't know? What am I not understanding here?
2 comments:
This post is one of the many reasons why you rock.
And I also can't help but think of Monty Python "Come see the violence inherent in the system! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Kinda. Both your post and the article draw attention to the fact that these houses are made out of paper, but there's a big difference between processed, resin-soaked paper constructed in a honeycomb pattern and regular pressed paper. You of course know that, but it's an important distinction. Also, $5k for 387 sq. ft. actually boils down to $13 per sq. ft.--way cheaper than most structurally sound houses (but of course still expensive for the developing world).
The big question, though, is: if not this, then what? Obviously, the issue of urban slums is nearly insurmountable, and it gets bigger by the minute. They're not going away, nor are they going to be replaced by anything much nicer anytime soon. It'd be great if there was a top-down effort to deal with all of their issues, but let's be realistic.
Which leaves the bottom up approach. Give people nice houses that are theirs; that are safe, insulated, and watertight. Think about the potential empowerment having a solid roof over one's head brings. With that empowerment brings community engagement, and with greater community engagement comes the possibility of community-wide improvements.
Just some thoughts. Great post.
Post a Comment