This past weekend I went to Biloxi to finish my documentary on disaster relief shelters, which I've been working on since the tsunami in December. After seeing what happened to the downtown area my view of architecture might have changed completely, or at least matured a great bit. Just know this, I'm sure you have seen the same things on CNN that I have and the images don't even come close to what happened. I was at least a hundred feet away from every building I saw on CNN and the atomic bomb analogies are not an exaggeration. I'm not sure if you've ever been to the Grand Canyon but I felt like the film footage we shot this weekend was like looking at my photos of the Grand Canyon; they don't even capture a small sense of what I saw.
The worst part of it all was driving through the neighborhoods that are completely empty except for a few people that are sifting through the rubble (and when I say rubble I mean blocks of flattened homes covering a desolate cityscape). It was very easy to see that the poorest people were the hardest hit, and that is no media hype or political bias.
Outside most of the houses were roughly cut sheets of plywood with an address spray painted on them and some even had a message like, "We're all o.k." or "State Farm Call Me." One of the most dramatic images was set in the middle of street after street of collapsed houses. A single stone house sat on a corner and appeared completely untouched, even the yard looked fine. Their piece of plywood said, "Surviving Katrina . . . Priceless." For what it's worth, I'll never see those trite MasterCard commercials the same way again.
The impact of what I saw didn't quite set in until I drove back into Atlanta and was surrounded by familiar buildings and homes (all of which were standing). As for my view of architecture, I'm not sure how to put it just yet. What was going through my mind while driving through those neighborhoods was, "it doesn't matter what color the house was painted or the style of the columns on the front porch." No house was saved because of style or floor plan, color or material, height or width. The houses failed in one of their functions, to provide shelter from the environment, and that led to the destruction of another function, emotional attachment to a space. I suppose that is why I am questioning architecture after seeing this; in the same manner, we question life after we witness death. Granted, no amount of engineering could have protected from the magnitude of this storm, but when something we truly believe in is challenged (and I truly believe in architecture) we always expect for it to transcend those challenges. When I saw hundreds of destroyed homes, one after the other, what I saw was the failure of dreams and memories not just structures.
I am not in any position to speculate which direction the rebuilding effort should go or if/how money should be appropriated. The only thing I know is what I saw and how it made me feel. I am going to do my part to make sure that my discipline of design does not fail again. And if it does, then I'll make sure that my discipline is there to fill the hole of its own failings. I would encourage everyone to respond to disaster the same way no matter what your discipline, even if you haven't seen the former downtown of Biloxi in person.
They should rebuild without those ugly-ass casino barges faaking up the shoreline. make 'em build on land, too - Faak that religious face-saving contortion of making your casinos have to be on water.
Well, the two main barges aren't on water anymore. They're sitting 300-400 feet in shore on trees and other buildings. Apparently there is major lobbying going on to change the law that the casinos in Miss. have to be on water. And with the states need the revenue from those casinos, my guess is that the days of floating casinos in Biloxi are over.
Kix, I appreciate your thoughtful and powerful comments.
Good luck with your documentary. I would appreciate you posting when it's complete, advising how we can engage it.
i feel the same after an earthquake happens (i'm from los angeles.)
sometimes you just like buildings based on how well it can withstand an earthquake.
for me it's pretty clear why there is no more house standing up in biloxi: you americans just don't use the approprriate building systems to withstand hurricanes, no wonder that those fragile wood buildings all crash down... I am sure if it were all brick or concrete buildings, they would stiil stand up, perhaps just some roofs would be gone... also in new orleans, all those wood buildings are rotting in the water now and will all be rebuild once the water is gone, concrete would just take some time to "dry" but still stand up...
About 1/3 of the destroyed buildings--large and small--I saw were concrete, some block, some poured. Although less damage was done to those buildings it was very apparent they could not be salvaged. And just in case you're wondering about steel, I-beam structures were stripped down and mangled. What was left of steel skeletons actually look pretty interesting. It would be great for someone to weld any fractures and reclad those, but that will never happen.
Not sure about the "american" criticism, even though I think Americans don't but should use their assets in materials and research. After all, we didn't criticize Sri Lankans for their huts not withstanding unprecidented wind loads.
Brown(satan) has a point though. We, in the past (key word, here), did not design & build w/ much regard to nature's ways. many disasters later, our bldgs are indeed built to withstand more. I think you need to compare US natural disasters w/ those around the world. I'm kinda certain that you'll see that over time, esp. the last 30 years or so, that we do build to withstand more. However, stricter bldg codes & engineering haven't done much to improve architecture (not talking just aesthetics) in the USA.
Also, we're avoiding a lot of big problems. Global Warming is one, - real &/or theoretical, depending on your (political) point of view..
One other observation that I'd like to share: There seems to be a belief on this blog (or maybe I'm sensing the wrong vibe) that 'concrete, or brick, or masonry bldgs are built to withstand storms. While these materials might indeed do well under adverse conditions, we should not assume that bldgs constructed w/ these matls are the right approach to surviving storms, seismic, or even plane crashes.
The fact is that many wood frame & light gauge steel bldgs that are DESIGNED w/ regard to appropriate forces acting upon them are very likely to survive things like hurricanes. Put it this way: get to know what 'hurricane ties' & lateral bracing (among other things) can do for survival.
I could go on, but as someone who has a good working grasp, but does not consider himself an expert on structures, I would like to ask Archinecters to join me in reviewing some of our undergrad structures books before we assume that 'heavy' & 'solid' = structural stability.
I know there is hope for us, here, because I haven't seen anyone use 'cement' in place of 'concrete'.
Agreed. Typically, Americans are a reactionary culture, meaning that despite evidence and warnings we are not moved to react until a significant event: WWI, WWII, 9/11, Social Security?, health care crisis?, etc.
I read a report that reaction to disasters have 3 year windows. For the 3 years following a major disaster (or event), the public and professionals are willing to do what is necessary to prevent the disaster again. After those 3 years, the impact of it fades along with the commitment.
Just as 'heavy' & 'solid' may not mean structural stability, 'bigger' does not necessarily mean 'better' (something I hear a lot from officials when speaking of rebuilding New Orleans).
Good point MysteryMan. I'm not sure if there is a hurricane proof building material. The increased mass of concrete and masonry might be able to hold up to stronger winds (if heavy enough) but they will fail as well.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the most destructive thing to our structures is water. I've dealt with buildings in flooded areas. I've seen the bricks on a school building soak up so much water that over the length of the building they expanded and pushed off the foundation by over 12 inches. So, even if the building held up to the winds, the water intrusion would probably destroy the building.
If we want to build safer we need to rethink where we build. Have you noticed how we seem to act as if we are more powerful than nature? New Orleans is a perfect example. It's not a logical place to build. The native Americans never lived in the flood plains of the Mississippi, yet once the Europeans came to settle that's where they built. Our collective solution has always been to use technology and engineering to habitate the land.
The examples are all over the world. Amsterdam and Venice come to mind. Washington DC was built on a swamp. Philly used to be a city of hills until it was flattened. Boston the same. Mexico city was built on a lake. We build in ridiculous places. I don't see that changing. Then again, if we don't want our buildings destroyed by hurricanes every again the only solution I see is quit building on the coast.
I recently returned from an interview in Bermuda. The island is extremely exposed and gets hit regularly with powerful storms. Of course on that island, a lot of the buildings have been standing for longer than 300 yrs. Full masonry construction, heavy timber roof members, heavy slate roofs with concrete topping and awning shutters. I was leaving the island when “Nate†was threatening and helped get the house in which I stayed ready for the storm. It took 30 minutes….
I understand the “plastic†nature of US construction. I live in Venice ,CA and I see houses torn down that are less than 25 yrs old, but I would expect that construction in area prone to recorded weather patterns would take these patterns seriously. I am from New Orleans and worked there for a few years before moving to LA. Most of the homes I worked on would include, say, shutters to appear traditional, but they were just bolted to the wall and non functioning. I realize that shutters alone would not save these structures, but I also feel that in areas directly on the coast could take a more active approach. But I guess it comes down to money…
Rebuilding Biloxi
This past weekend I went to Biloxi to finish my documentary on disaster relief shelters, which I've been working on since the tsunami in December. After seeing what happened to the downtown area my view of architecture might have changed completely, or at least matured a great bit. Just know this, I'm sure you have seen the same things on CNN that I have and the images don't even come close to what happened. I was at least a hundred feet away from every building I saw on CNN and the atomic bomb analogies are not an exaggeration. I'm not sure if you've ever been to the Grand Canyon but I felt like the film footage we shot this weekend was like looking at my photos of the Grand Canyon; they don't even capture a small sense of what I saw.
The worst part of it all was driving through the neighborhoods that are completely empty except for a few people that are sifting through the rubble (and when I say rubble I mean blocks of flattened homes covering a desolate cityscape). It was very easy to see that the poorest people were the hardest hit, and that is no media hype or political bias.
Outside most of the houses were roughly cut sheets of plywood with an address spray painted on them and some even had a message like, "We're all o.k." or "State Farm Call Me." One of the most dramatic images was set in the middle of street after street of collapsed houses. A single stone house sat on a corner and appeared completely untouched, even the yard looked fine. Their piece of plywood said, "Surviving Katrina . . . Priceless." For what it's worth, I'll never see those trite MasterCard commercials the same way again.
The impact of what I saw didn't quite set in until I drove back into Atlanta and was surrounded by familiar buildings and homes (all of which were standing). As for my view of architecture, I'm not sure how to put it just yet. What was going through my mind while driving through those neighborhoods was, "it doesn't matter what color the house was painted or the style of the columns on the front porch." No house was saved because of style or floor plan, color or material, height or width. The houses failed in one of their functions, to provide shelter from the environment, and that led to the destruction of another function, emotional attachment to a space. I suppose that is why I am questioning architecture after seeing this; in the same manner, we question life after we witness death. Granted, no amount of engineering could have protected from the magnitude of this storm, but when something we truly believe in is challenged (and I truly believe in architecture) we always expect for it to transcend those challenges. When I saw hundreds of destroyed homes, one after the other, what I saw was the failure of dreams and memories not just structures.
I am not in any position to speculate which direction the rebuilding effort should go or if/how money should be appropriated. The only thing I know is what I saw and how it made me feel. I am going to do my part to make sure that my discipline of design does not fail again. And if it does, then I'll make sure that my discipline is there to fill the hole of its own failings. I would encourage everyone to respond to disaster the same way no matter what your discipline, even if you haven't seen the former downtown of Biloxi in person.
They should rebuild without those ugly-ass casino barges faaking up the shoreline. make 'em build on land, too - Faak that religious face-saving contortion of making your casinos have to be on water.
Well, the two main barges aren't on water anymore. They're sitting 300-400 feet in shore on trees and other buildings. Apparently there is major lobbying going on to change the law that the casinos in Miss. have to be on water. And with the states need the revenue from those casinos, my guess is that the days of floating casinos in Biloxi are over.
Kix, I appreciate your thoughtful and powerful comments.
Good luck with your documentary. I would appreciate you posting when it's complete, advising how we can engage it.
i feel the same after an earthquake happens (i'm from los angeles.)
sometimes you just like buildings based on how well it can withstand an earthquake.
for me it's pretty clear why there is no more house standing up in biloxi: you americans just don't use the approprriate building systems to withstand hurricanes, no wonder that those fragile wood buildings all crash down... I am sure if it were all brick or concrete buildings, they would stiil stand up, perhaps just some roofs would be gone... also in new orleans, all those wood buildings are rotting in the water now and will all be rebuild once the water is gone, concrete would just take some time to "dry" but still stand up...
About 1/3 of the destroyed buildings--large and small--I saw were concrete, some block, some poured. Although less damage was done to those buildings it was very apparent they could not be salvaged. And just in case you're wondering about steel, I-beam structures were stripped down and mangled. What was left of steel skeletons actually look pretty interesting. It would be great for someone to weld any fractures and reclad those, but that will never happen.
Not sure about the "american" criticism, even though I think Americans don't but should use their assets in materials and research. After all, we didn't criticize Sri Lankans for their huts not withstanding unprecidented wind loads.
Brown(satan) has a point though. We, in the past (key word, here), did not design & build w/ much regard to nature's ways. many disasters later, our bldgs are indeed built to withstand more. I think you need to compare US natural disasters w/ those around the world. I'm kinda certain that you'll see that over time, esp. the last 30 years or so, that we do build to withstand more. However, stricter bldg codes & engineering haven't done much to improve architecture (not talking just aesthetics) in the USA.
Also, we're avoiding a lot of big problems. Global Warming is one, - real &/or theoretical, depending on your (political) point of view..
One other observation that I'd like to share: There seems to be a belief on this blog (or maybe I'm sensing the wrong vibe) that 'concrete, or brick, or masonry bldgs are built to withstand storms. While these materials might indeed do well under adverse conditions, we should not assume that bldgs constructed w/ these matls are the right approach to surviving storms, seismic, or even plane crashes.
The fact is that many wood frame & light gauge steel bldgs that are DESIGNED w/ regard to appropriate forces acting upon them are very likely to survive things like hurricanes. Put it this way: get to know what 'hurricane ties' & lateral bracing (among other things) can do for survival.
I could go on, but as someone who has a good working grasp, but does not consider himself an expert on structures, I would like to ask Archinecters to join me in reviewing some of our undergrad structures books before we assume that 'heavy' & 'solid' = structural stability.
I know there is hope for us, here, because I haven't seen anyone use 'cement' in place of 'concrete'.
Agreed. Typically, Americans are a reactionary culture, meaning that despite evidence and warnings we are not moved to react until a significant event: WWI, WWII, 9/11, Social Security?, health care crisis?, etc.
I read a report that reaction to disasters have 3 year windows. For the 3 years following a major disaster (or event), the public and professionals are willing to do what is necessary to prevent the disaster again. After those 3 years, the impact of it fades along with the commitment.
Just as 'heavy' & 'solid' may not mean structural stability, 'bigger' does not necessarily mean 'better' (something I hear a lot from officials when speaking of rebuilding New Orleans).
I hope they hurry up, though - Rita's on the way w/ a 'pop-quiz'.
Good point MysteryMan. I'm not sure if there is a hurricane proof building material. The increased mass of concrete and masonry might be able to hold up to stronger winds (if heavy enough) but they will fail as well.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the most destructive thing to our structures is water. I've dealt with buildings in flooded areas. I've seen the bricks on a school building soak up so much water that over the length of the building they expanded and pushed off the foundation by over 12 inches. So, even if the building held up to the winds, the water intrusion would probably destroy the building.
If we want to build safer we need to rethink where we build. Have you noticed how we seem to act as if we are more powerful than nature? New Orleans is a perfect example. It's not a logical place to build. The native Americans never lived in the flood plains of the Mississippi, yet once the Europeans came to settle that's where they built. Our collective solution has always been to use technology and engineering to habitate the land.
The examples are all over the world. Amsterdam and Venice come to mind. Washington DC was built on a swamp. Philly used to be a city of hills until it was flattened. Boston the same. Mexico city was built on a lake. We build in ridiculous places. I don't see that changing. Then again, if we don't want our buildings destroyed by hurricanes every again the only solution I see is quit building on the coast.
I recently returned from an interview in Bermuda. The island is extremely exposed and gets hit regularly with powerful storms. Of course on that island, a lot of the buildings have been standing for longer than 300 yrs. Full masonry construction, heavy timber roof members, heavy slate roofs with concrete topping and awning shutters. I was leaving the island when “Nate†was threatening and helped get the house in which I stayed ready for the storm. It took 30 minutes….
I understand the “plastic†nature of US construction. I live in Venice ,CA and I see houses torn down that are less than 25 yrs old, but I would expect that construction in area prone to recorded weather patterns would take these patterns seriously. I am from New Orleans and worked there for a few years before moving to LA. Most of the homes I worked on would include, say, shutters to appear traditional, but they were just bolted to the wall and non functioning. I realize that shutters alone would not save these structures, but I also feel that in areas directly on the coast could take a more active approach. But I guess it comes down to money…
There is no doubt it comes down to money.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.