INTRO | HIGHLIGHTS | FEATURES | FOCUS | PERSPECTIVES | BIOS
Built to be abandoned
To give an idea of how this government
housing project could help the communities
involved and be cost-effective, I explored the
same quality housing schemes implemented
by other agencies. Anecdotal estimates from
local builders, tin sheet traders, elected
local representatives and communities
suggest a maximum of 35,000 Taka (267
GBP) to build a house that is part of the
government’s housing scheme. This is a very
rough valuation however and there is a fair
chance of it being undervalued by the local
community as a whole. There is widespread
frustration over this housing scheme for
several reasons. Gabtola people were provided
with houses in the end. In fact, other NGOs
who provide housing, like Muslim Aid, CARE,
DSK, BRAC, Friendship, MCC and others,
had Gabtola as their top priority, but they
were diverted to other villages, following a
promise of a foreign diplomat of building
a model village in the most affected area.
There were rumours of promises for
delivering much better quality houses,
particularly more spacious ones with brick
and cement walls, but the houses received
were far below expectations.
Abandoned government
sponsored house in Bangladesh.
A substantial amount of the housing budget
went to vendors and builders and space
was an issue as one house allocated to a
single household (a household comprises
all members of a family whose meals are
cooked together) was not suitable for an
entire family. People with little to no money
or voice in government complained about
squeezing into a small house while relatively
affluent families’ unmarried sons were
declared as separate households and received
more houses. Finally, design of these houses
was severely criticised for being culturally
insensitive and having no foresight in terms
of liveability. The problems in relation to
cultural sensitivity and liveability were
seemingly shared by all the recipients of
the government housing scheme.
The government houses were normally built
very poorly and were inadequate for people’s
needs. Therefore many recipients that had
rebuilt their homes abandoned them. For
them, budgeted construction costs for
government relief houses (10,000 Taka
each) was simply a waste of money.
There is a large discrepancy between
the government and beneficiaries.
The bureaucratic nature of the ‘relief’
mechanism in place, lack of accountability
and vigilance and eliminating the local
community from hands-on participation has
caused widespread dissatisfaction amongst
the beneficiaries and deprived them from
receiving a house worth living in.
Not only do these houses have little value
for communities, but they also come with
potential health risks. For example, tin
sheets keep the inside hot in the summer
and cold in the winter. Combining this with
poor ventilation, they are like small tin
tombs that can increase heat-induced forms
of disease. These extreme hot and cold
conditions mainly expose toddlers to sickness
and disease, such as pneumonia, measles
and smallpox. However, people who can
afford it have their homes rebuilt with wood
or bamboo fenced walls all around and high
tin-roofs with a soft ceiling of bamboo fence,
plywood, hardboard and so on underneath.
Some reused relief tin sheets and pillars,
others left them abandoned or used them
as sheds for their livestock. Only those
who really cannot afford to rebuild their
homes are squeezing into the houses
government provided.