THESIS STATEMENT There are many aid organizations in the world providing post-disaster care. There are even more opinions about how the care should be administered. Food, clean water, and clothing are all non-negotiable, but the issue of shelter is often a great source of controversy. A portion of the debate is rooted in what type of shelter is preferable after a natural disaster. Typically, people live in temporary housing: tents, trailers, etc., for a period of time longer than initially intended. The current opinion of many non-government organizations (NGOs) and architects is to skip the temporary housing phase of recovery and move straight into building permanent public infrastructure instead. In theory, this proposition seems ideal, but becomes problematic in execution 1 for those stuck in less than adequate situations
while politicians debate over infrastructure improvements. Temporary housing after a disaster is something that is going to develop whether or not NGOs authorize it. A type of temporary housing that can adapt to its inhabitants is needed. A house that is able to arrive at the site of the disaster quickly. A house that isn’t made with toxic agents. A house that will also utilize the principles of light, air, and quality materials to facilitate a healthier living experience. The incredibly vulnerable psychological state of victims throughout their post-disaster habitation characterizes their experiences. They are in the most difficult phase of recovery: depression and realizations of the magnitude of the disaster are hitting them the hardest. They need a steadying experience to ground