Comments on: House re-Growth Pod, a solution for fire destroyed homes in Australia

By: 121

121 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:03:49 +0000

its certainly not super cool/

The pod is a precast concrete box without the trimmings providing basic services and a place to sleep.
This provides a starting point, a work in progress to allow for each occupant to customise and build onto.
The pod provides a structural platform to grow the new house.

Rather than offering judgement perhaps we should try to empathise with the families that are now coming to terms with the prospect of rebuilding their homes.

http://www.regrowthpod.com

By: sami

sami — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:04:55 +0000

In providing for temporary housing I agree there are no blanket solutions…. but this is such a designers response… it is obvious that the this solution is a nice design… but I guess that’s the problem… Finding ways of relocating a lot of people and maybe adapting existing structures for a mass solution is certainly not sexy architecture…. but it is always these small super cool boxes that are proposed… it looks good… it seems like an effective solution… but i don’t think it is a mass solution…. so it’s effect on the relief effort will probably negligible…. anyway it is hard to judge without the statistics….

By: Miguel Sá, Arqt

Miguel Sá, Arqt — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:18:36 +0000

the idea is to praise the design did not
I could not understand why the toilet outside
already become homeless

By: thematador

thematador — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:18:06 +0000

@Sami – I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this is a blanket solution for every one affected by the bushfires. It sounds like it will work for some people and not for others. There are loads of people not covered by insurance who can’t just go out and get a hotel room while the contractors come in and re-build. Some people are going to have to re-build themselves.

By: m ss ng v w l

m ss ng v w l — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:45:50 +0000

Not a new idea, but the people in vic. could use all the help they can get.

@ Sami – As for the ‘active role’ you might find that a lot of these people built their own homes in the first place.

By: Sami

Sami — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:30:59 +0000

This is a completly out of real life approach. What does an active role mean? Do you actually have to be on the construction site to be actively involved in re-building? Come on! How can an architect propose on ‘construction-site’ living when we all know what a construction site is like. Messy, dusty end noisy. This will never work its pie-in-the-sky architecture theory.

Sorry really not convinced.

By: Richie

Richie — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:10:04 +0000

It’s a temporary shelter, not a replacement house, Kim. As for the effectiveness, I see a lot of designs for these type of things and I’ve never seen one in action, so I have no idea how realistic a solution it is, but I admire the intent and there doesn’t seem to be any reason why it wouldn’t work.

By: rk

rk — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:45:22 +0000

This is a great idea for those people displaced by the fires so they can play an active role in the re-building process. It makes sense to have people living on their own properties rather than on the local football oval, which seems to be happening. I would like to would like to know the psychological effect this approach has for those coping with such loss. It seems to be proactive.

@ klm I think you may have missed the point. “…has been designed to be built upon, but in the short term acts as a habitable starting point for the building of a new home.” I’m sure people would prefer living in a space with water, bedroom, kitchen etc over living in a caravan for 6mths waiting for their house to be re-built.

By: kim

kim — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:19:01 +0000

From a generic Mac-mansion of 200sqm, 6 bedrooms, with garden and pool in the bush to a box with a garage door…Wow I am sure the guys in Victoria would love living in a concrete block with a toilet on the side…