Refugee camps also known as Planned Settlement Development are often designed by humanitarian organizations as temporary standardized infrastructures which are a response to a moment of political failure used to contain mass displacement. The refugee situation is usually a state that is static, unchanging, and a passive state of warehousing refugees in camps. Usually, as the stays get longer, the camps transform into a state of permanent temporariness, rather than wait for intervention the desperate need to improve their situation adaption kicks in transforming this temporariness of housing into something else. Like a metamorphosis, it is a gradual transformation of housing where the temporary, shifts into a complex urban refugee settlement customized to suit needs but reminiscent of a way of living of their homeland.
Origins
Initially based on military organization and patterns, early refugee camps were under military jurisdiction as a combat problem before being put under the UN mandate. The refugee camp became something that was in a “State of Exception” where it was part of the accommodating state and fully controlled by it but wasn’t necessarily embraced and accepted by the collective, positioning it on the periphery of acceptance and recognition. Conceptually headed by a humanitarian body in hierarchical order with refugees at the bottom only controlling their small units or residences. But over time, a more complex form of architecture considered a “Self Help Approach to Construction” arose as they started amending and upgrading the built environment. As the 1950s saw the establishment of the first camps, the Palestinian refugees for example took this concept of authorship of their permanent temporariness at the time by beginning to split their tents with blankets for more privacy which graduated to the building of boulder walls around their tents for protection from other people using stone and mud and finally topping it off with roof metal sheets on top of fully fledged housings structures.
The Disruption of an Imposed Solution
The structure and organization of refugee camps cannot be restricted to housing bodies in isolation of culture and traditions because this status quo long-term, creates a situation of disruption where the original setout orders of arrangement of the camp are challenged. The imposed solution is substituted with a re-appropriated version of the camp borrowing from their traditional domestic architecture and practices to fulfill spatial needs and create what is known as Domestic Refugee Architecture. A dilemma usually arises when creating more permanent structures for refugees who strongly desire to return to their home country. The one thing all these displaced communities carry with them from their homeland is their traditional way of living, which is characterized by how spaces are organized and ordered and how people move and interact within them. Displacement may mean geographical and physical dispossession from their homeland but does not necessarily imply social and cultural dispossession. This is a way to rewrite their story and an attempt to preserve part of their cultural identity especially before intervention kicks in.
Community Spaces in Rohingya Refugee Response
The creative challenge the architects faced for this project was the creation of an architecture that addressed the challenges of the refugees while displaying some elements of permanent sheltering as well as temporariness with the hope that they would eventually return to their homeland. The project also focused on organizing the context and designing based on people’s behaviors through extensive surveys and studies into previous projects to find what was ideal while still conserving their culture. The temporary nature of the refugee situation created, the risk of relocation of the refugees worthy of consideration by the design team. The design solution manifested through the use of steel poles and frames as structural elements with traditional walls being substituted with bamboo screens locally crafted with natural materials shielded from the elements with verandahs. The foldable windows opened up the indoor spaces further allowing for ventilation and more light into the interior.
The community center became a focal point where the displaced identity of these refugees could have a voice, be celebrated, and conserve their culture. In a time where architecture is looked at more as a final product, the construction process here was considered as an opportunity for the community to craft the narrative through sharing their ideas, ideologies, and knowledge while engaging in the construction of the project but also learning through the process as well. This engagement created excitement that fueled the need to make the crafty spaces, a hands-on customization using their efforts and artistry creating a unique Refugee Aesthetic. The key lesson was less about design and more about the co-authorship in the design and construction process with the community using local tools, local materials, and local knowledge, customization of creating something better than what they currently had. In this attempt to rewrite their story one of the biggest goals is to steer the path of the younger generation toward prosperity making education one of the most important things for this community.
Architecture, here, has gone beyond its conventional form and has become a slender tool for hope. It is not just a strict system of ideas, but a lively picture, upon which culture may express itself most intimately. The subtle play of light and shade in a traditional Japanese room is something that one can only whisper in terms of architectural principles, for it is upon these principles that the rich melodies of human experience depend. The architect ceases to be the strict director of the design and instead becomes a discreet conductor of the human spirit, and each of the refugees is a musician, their culture as their music, and their spatial management as their performance. The spaces are not empty creations; they are living documents, each patch on the wall, each bent blanket representing a verse in the never-ending book of survival and dignity of individuals. This approach provides more than shelter; it promises regeneration. They are places of learning, where the foundations of future generations are laid. Here, in these environments, which have been carefully constructed, young minds can dream, learn, and imagine who they can be; creating a small, sacred space of home between memory and possibility, where loss is transformed into hope, one stone placed carefully on another.
References:
Architecture Foundation (2021). Architectural Models & the Refugee Camp: Alessandro Petti, Wafa Hourani, Stephan Mörsch & Aya Musmar. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krsM4f5toq0 [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
Dezeen (2017). Highlights of Dezeen’s talk on refugees for Good Design for a Bad World. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-1vB3Xob4 [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
Dima Maurice (2020). Refugee Architecture_Spatial Histories Lecture. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DG3s95EqA [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
Neikirk, A., Nickson, R. and Shekhar Rijal (2023). Intangible cultural heritage and the protection of refugees and refugee camps. Journal of Refugee Studies. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fead092.
New London Architecture (2023). Refugee camp culture. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm1Jo3E3ln4 [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
The Design Story (2020). Rizvi Hassan – Collaborative Architecture for Refugee. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_FNBjObJPk [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
The World Around (2022). DAAR presents Refugee Heritage | The World Around Summit 2022. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuQtXKgyH0 [Accessed 23 Jan. 2025].
