What happened in Haiti, or perhaps a better question is “what will happen in Haiti after the January 12th earthquake,” especially in terms of planning.
It is evident that each speaker at the panel on Monday, November 1, 2010 at Columbia University, Before Design, Rebuilding Haiti after the Earthquake, has a unique connection to Haiti that has influenced their ideas of how the reconstruction of Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince and its peripheries should materialize. For better or worse, each speaker also represents a player (it may not be them per se but certainly someone that will exemplify similar ideologies) that will help determine the reconstruction plan and the ultimate rebuilding process in Haiti. Marc-Andre Franche, represents the passionate civil service diplomat; while Charles Marks is the unassuming condescending foreigner (and architect) ready to build, help and protect the ignorant locals from the predators of capitalism; on the other hand, Jesse Keenan embodies, the land tenure equity advocate disguised as an attorney; and Dowoti Desir personifies the educated Haitian Diaspora that will help ensure cultural sensibility remains acute in the reconstruction efforts. To craft the appropriate reconstruction plan these players will also need to be joined by two other main players: the Haitian government and the Haitian locals from all social strata.
Ninety seconds and a 7.0 magnitude earthquake shook Haiti on January 12, 2010 crumbling a significant portion of its capital’s city centre down to bits and rubble. Certainly, it was not just 90 seconds of shaking that implicated such a catastrophic effect on the Caribbean nation, but rather the problem in Haiti came from deeper roots than just the earth’s tectonic shakedown. As Marc-Andre Franche suggests, the deeper roots of the problem are found in the fallacy of the Haitian government’s short-sighted planning efforts and its belief that short term and long term planning could start at the same time. However, to me it seems that Franche is too generous in his assessment, and that in fact only short term and piece-mail planning happened in Haiti. Congruently, the severity of the impact on the built environment suggests that real long term planning was continually de-prioritized and indefinitely pushed out to a never present future that finally arrived on January 12, 2010. Today, the earthquake is regarded as both a natural and manmade disaster, with the human component taking more of the blame because of the lack of regulation and planning foresight from the Haitian government.
For me, the biggest lesson learned from the panel was the underlining cultural components that are and will continue to be present in Haiti’s reconstruction process. Who really are the people at the table that will plan the new pillars of Haiti, and are their morals in the right place? Sure, the four speakers agree that Haitians should rebuild Haiti, but what does this mean? Do they mean: Haitian planners, Haitian architects, Haitian money, Haitian workers, or Haitian construction companies? If we take the panel to represent some of the ideology creating the Haitian reconstruction plan, as I have, then equity, cultural sensibility and quality infrastructure seem to be paramount. However, I am left wondering if the earthquake’s present memory is enough to motivate Haiti’s government to move towards more equitable planning, or will it continue to procure more socially stratified infrastructure; my hope is that it will seize the opportunity to “build back better (Marc-Andre Franche).”
