Abstract
Post-conflict economy, rapid urbanization and the ever influential impact of global flows often drive very particular systems of post-conflict infrastructure, ignoring nuances of culture, politics and community. While a large number of analysts today contend that this is a growing symptom of the post-conflict economy, there has arguably always been a fundamental relationship between political articulation and architectural futures. The purpose of this paper is not to provide another planning parallax but to provoke the reader to reconsider habitat intervention within reconciliatory platforms and political developments today. Using the case of Kigali, Rwanda this paper seeks to pose both analytical and ethical questions. Firstly, can international development mediate with politics to engage with post-conflict habitats, considering complex backgrounds? Secondly, how does this challenge conventional thinking in planning and organization schemes that have largely driven habitat response and development in post-conflict spaces?
Highlights
Harshavardhan Bhat*Post-conflict economy, rapid urbanization and the ever influential impact of global flows often drive very particular systems of post-conflict infrastructure, ignoring nuances of culture, politics and community
The rational relationship between ideology and architecture is not a new concept within the framework of intellectual histories of violence
With a large segment of Kigali’s houses – temporary in nature, roofed with corrugated iron sheets, cardboard sheeting, local tiles and gravel paths to walk on – how far is the cognitive distance to a space that is built of steel, glass, concrete, marble, tarred and pebbled pathways, that is in terms with, ‘Singaporean,’ ideas of space? What is the political economy connection going to look like? There is a need to think of epistemology in post-conflict design that is far more connected to the socio-economic and cultural reality of a place
Summary
Post-conflict economy, rapid urbanization and the ever influential impact of global flows often drive very particular systems of post-conflict infrastructure, ignoring nuances of culture, politics and community. While a large number of analysts today contend that this is a growing symptom of the post-conflict economy, there has arguably always been a fundamental relationship between political articulation and architectural futures. The purpose of this paper is not to provide another planning parallax but to provoke the reader to reconsider habitat intervention within reconciliatory platforms and political developments today. Using the case of Kigali, Rwanda this paper seeks to pose both analytical and ethical questions. Can international development mediate with politics to engage with post-conflict habitats, considering complex backgrounds? How does this challenge conventional thinking in planning and organization schemes that have largely driven habitat response and development in post-conflict spaces? Can international development mediate with politics to engage with post-conflict habitats, considering complex backgrounds? Secondly, how does this challenge conventional thinking in planning and organization schemes that have largely driven habitat response and development in post-conflict spaces?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Stability: International Journal of Security & Development
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
