Maravi

(HERALD) Need for major construction drive

Need for major construction drive

FAR too few houses for lower income families have been built in the last decade, despite the best efforts of the Government and housing co-operatives. The result is that far too many people, especially in urban areas, are living in expensive rented rooms, or are overcrowded, or are in sub-standard accommodation.

Upper-income and middle-income families are usually served by private developers. And it looks as if in the last decade these developers managed to keep the market supplied despite the collapse of the mortgage market.

Generally all that both these groups need is the return of building societies to their core function of mobilising savings for housing. But poorer families need special help.

As we report elsewhere in this issue, co-operatives have been a major engine of mobilising savings and can obviously do more, especially if there is some help from donors and others.

But their effect will still be limited unless we look at a major construction drive in Zimbabwe, a drive that will consider all aspects of home-building from finance to materials and design.

We believe that housing can be one of the engines for growth as Zimbabwe rebuilds its economy.

Not only does the country need the homes, but the economic benefits of a major construction drive can be immense.

Construction itself, and the manufacture of many of the materials for buildings, are notoriously labour-intensive industries.

In fact, almost the entire cost of an average house is made up of labour charges since the basic raw materials — clay, trees, water, and assorted rock — are not very expensive.

So a major construction drive can put a lot of people into employment and their taxes and spending will benefit a lot of other industries.

But capital shortage is still a problem, and the final cost of houses built with machine-made bricks and large amounts of cement might well be beyond the pocket of many families, even if cheap loans were available.

This is why we and many others are so keen on seeing proper research into alternative construction techniques.

Adobe walls, when properly laid, last for centuries in climates like Zimbabwe’s, especially if they are stabilised with lime or cement.

Many sneer at hand-made "farm" bricks, yet there are many buildings over a century old in central Harare built of such bricks, including the core of the Parliament building itself.

We feel the quality problems some experience can easily be overcome by dissemination of better information.

Most houses in the United States and over vast areas of Australia are built of wood.

Very little research seems to have been done in Zimbabwe to see if local plantation softwoods are suitable and what sort of treatment is required to make them impervious to pests.

Again some of the early colonial houses in central Harare now more than 100 years old seem to incorporate a lot more wood in their construction than later houses.

Those houses were often built by families with limited funds and little access to expensive or high-tech materials.

Some quite extraordinary houses are now being designed and built in developed countries as architects and engineers seek maximum energy efficiencies.

The most interesting aspect of many of these designs is the amount of natural material included and the use of many of the alternative building techniques often pioneered in the developing world.

There is clearly nothing second-rate about such materials and techniques and nothing sacrosanct about the brick-under-tile bungalows of mid-20th century suburban England. Building second-class copies of second-class designs does not seem the best way forward.

We believe that Zimbabweans can be decently housed at an affordable cost. But it will require leadership, imagination and organisation for that to happen.

Labels: CONSTRUCTION

posted by MrK @ 4:26 PM