Let’s replace the local materials and techniques used for generations with expensive, hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs designed in a month by outside builders with no experience of local conditions and no concern for how things fit in with the local environment or whether local people can afford them or build them, making them dependent on outside support, all for some dubious gains in mosquito protection that could be achieved just as well by adding some cheap screens to the existing houses. Groundbreaking.

▲ fwipsy 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The local materials and techniques which the locals happily cast aside? The hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs which poorer families were almost ostracized for accepting? Your aesthetic preference for thatched huts does not override the desires of the people who actually have to live in them, nor the proven health impact. Cost is the real problem here; I don't see these houses competing with bed nets anytime soon in practical terms.

▲ dzonga 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

well said.

a lot of these NGO people have done so much damage to vulnerable African populations.

a lot of rural African homesteads are usually spaced out - made out of sustainable materials - reed & thatch for roofing, then earth brick - which is cooling.

the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters. but of course - some NGOs will come telling the local people that you've been doing it all wrong.

	▲	manarth 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		`> the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters` Toilet facilities are lacking in many parts of the world, and "open defecation" – e.g. toileting in a field without the benefit of a dedicated hole / long-drop / pit – is still in use. The study did show positive health outcomes with the new housing over a traditional mud + thatch dwelling. Given that the new housing incorporated dedicated latrines, harvesting of clean water, and insect-exclusion techniques, it's unsurprising that the new housing outperformed traditional dwellings in health outcomes. It didn't do a cost-benefit analysis comparing an equivalent investment in e.g. provision of latrines, insect-netting, clean water, or simply providing cash to the participants.

▲ lioeters 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All for the affordable price of nine thousand dollars, which is likely more than what a local person makes working for an entire year. It seems to me that the concept of "housing" needs a serious re-think.

▲

manarth 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Median income in Tanzania is ≈ $1,800pa, so this property is around 5 times the median annual salary.

That said, housing in first world countries is generally a significant multiple of annual median income. In the UK, banks typically lend at 3–4 × an individuals salary or 3 × a couple's combined salary, so a single median earner on around £40k could borrow £120k – £160k.

The article notes the pricing is out-of-reach for many people in Tanzania, but it's also not wildly disconnected from salary:housing ratios in high-income economies.

▲

mothballed 3 days ago | parent [-]

Also i doubt Tanzania has the code/zoning insanity of the US. You build your hut for cheap and quickly, then you put your concrete house next to it and build it over 10 years as you get money. Probably shared across a larger family. In places like US this impossible; you can only build 1 house on most plots and permits aren't amenable to slow progress so you need a loan and a gigantic pile of money all at once.

	▲	vovavili 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Zoning concerns wouldn't apply to a country without functioning state institutions and a monopoly on violence either way.

▲

vscode-rest 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Don’t worry, they can get a mortgage!

▲ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]