A graduating architecture student learns a different way to design

by Ownery Diala

It is really true that life outside school is very different. When I worked with TAO-Pilipinas as an intern, I was assigned to design a chapel for the Samahan ng Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Navotas (SANAGMANA) relocation area in Tanza, Navotas. And as one of the requirements, I was instructed to facilitate community workshops to know the residents’ preferences and ideas. I was excited and at the same time nervous because I had never facilitated a workshop before.

The design process used in the workshop, which is called participatory planning, is far different from the one that is taught in academic training. Participatory planning involves a lot of people-the architects, engineers, and the community members. Many minds are involved to solve a problem. The plan itself will come from the owners of the project, the community members, and with an acceptable design outcome, there is a sense of ownership because their ideas are integrated in the design.

I told them that the workshop was not a contest but an exercise to put in paper what they wanted their chapel to look like

The approach taught in school is different as a designer you are the one responsible for your own actions and ideas because you alone will think of the solutions to the problem presented by your professor. Back when I used to work for a private firm, I also designed on my own given the design problem. I was forced to make all the decisions in the design and afterwards, present it to my employer. The advantage of working in that private firm was that the process was easier, quicker, and there was more freedom in designing. I just had to follow what my employers instructed me to do unlike in participatory planning, where I had to act like a leader so I could encourage the members of the community to participate in the discussion and make sure that they would not be intimidated from expressing their ideas and opinions. The main goal was to know all their thoughts since they would be the ones who will eventually use the structure. I refrained from imposing what I personally wanted in the design, but in some cases, there were things that needed to be explained and altered (especially when their ideas were unattainable or impractical) so that we could help them achieve a more viable and efficient design.

I observed some disadvantages in participatory planning. It is a longer process because we were trying to incorporate all their ideas in the design. Sometimes there were conflicts in decision making which had to be resolved before coming up with the final design. We also had to conduct lectures and seminars to educate the participants in technical aspects of the design since most of them are laymen. Indeed, I had to expand my Tagalog vocabulary just to simplify the technical terms that we used. The workshops were a strenuous activity especially if they were done so often. One has to invest time in traveling to the communities and waiting for workshop participants. Nevertheless, even though it was tiring, I considered it as a learning experience.

When I first visited the SANAGMANA community in Navotas, I was amazed by the bamboo bridge they built to cross to the resettlement site. I sensed their commitment to improve their lives and the discipline they have as a community.

Drawing out ideas

I facilitated two workshops for the design of the chapel, with Arch. Arlene Lusterio as my mentor. The first workshop was for the youth and children where I brought some drawing materials such as papers, pencils, and boxes of crayons. Some of the participants were a bit hesitant to draw at first, reasoning that they weren’t very good in drawing. I tried to encourage them and told them that the workshop was not a contest but an exercise to put in paper what they wanted their chapel to look like.

The second workshop included the community members. The participants in that workshop were very much aware of the objectives and purpose of the activity since Mariano De Veyra, president of SANAGMANA and also known as Mang Ano, announced it prior to the meeting. At first, I was quite nervous because the community leaders and members were much older than me. It was apparent that the community members gave much importance to the design of the chapel, reflecting their devotion to religion. They listened attentively to all the discussions I presented, questioned some designs, and cooperated in the group activities. They drew their ideas of the facade, symbols and spaces they wanted to integrate in the chapel. Some ideas were rather grandiose; one participant even suggested that the roofing be made of stained glass.

From the ideas drawn out from the workshops, we made three schemes and they were asked to vote for a preferred design. In choosing the final design scheme, some were adamant in sticking to the scheme they initially wanted. Arch. Lusterio helped me out by asking some questions regarding the design of the chapel. We made a list of questions concerning the use of the chapel and building materials to be used for its construction. They responded that the chapel would not only serve as the worship place of the community but also as an evacuation center in times of disaster, stressing the placement of a second storey. They agreed that the chapel roofing can be made of micro-concrete roofing (MCR) tiles that the community can produce and the structure should be on-stilts, much like how the houses are built in SANAGMANA. They also reasoned out that they wanted their chapel to be beautiful to compensate for the simplicity of their houses.

It’s the architect’s job to translate the community’s design of the chapel into a cohesive design by taking into consideration all the comments and ideas they presented during the workshops. After going through this process, they were able to choose a final scheme for the chapel design. When we consulted Mang Ano on the how the chapel will be built, he said that they are raising funds for a phased construction. This also meant that the design should be able to consider incremental construction and the use of skilled laborers from the community to lessen expenses.

After two consecutive months of working in TAO-Pilipinas, ending my internship was not an easy thing to do because in a short span of time I built relationships that somehow changed the way I think and act now and made me recognize another perspective in life. But I know that every end of a journey actually introduces the beginning of a new one. I’ve come to realize some things that never crossed my mind before, such as my role as an architect in the country’s problems of poverty and inadequate housing. Being with the SANAGMANA community also made me think that being poor is not actually a hindrance in striving to have a well organized and disciplined community. I saw their hopes and it inspired me to help them achieve their vision in the best way I can. They remind me of a bamboo shrub ever yielding but never breaking and the bamboo bridge that symbolized how they stand together to bridge their future.

Ownery Rose Diala is a BS Architecture senior student at Mapua Institute of Technology. She joined TAO-Pilipinas’ summer internship program and was assigned in the technical assistance project for SANAGMANA community in Tanza, Navotas City. She shares with us part of her reflection journal for the Young Professional’s Program internship.

1 Comment

• 

  By Kate Cabais, August 26, 2008 @ 12:22 am

  Wow! Good job Ownery! ^_^
  Can’t wait to experience learning outside the walls of Intramuros myself.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

*Name

*Email (not published)

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.