The Nubian Arch: Adapting an Age-old Technique of Adobe Homes to Senegal

A Technology Transfer Report with Case Study from Rural Senegal

Patrick Wauters Peace Corps Masters International, Senegal

Masters of Forest Resources University of Washington

December 10, 2015

Abstract

In this paper I begin by reviewing the history of the Nubian Arch adobe construction technique in Egypt. The technique uses bricks made from a mixture of clay and sand that have been baked dry in the sun. Some remnants of these timberless vaulted roof buildings are over 3,000 years old and still stand today. An Egyptian architect, Hassan Fathy, brought the technique back from near obscurity in the 1940’s after he found a handful of masons still skilled in the technique and hired them to build a series of homes and villages. Fathy’s career culminated with a project commissioned by the Egyptian government to design and build an entire town of Nubian Arch homes for the population of a relocated village. The Nubian Arch technique owes its current popularity in West Africa to the success of a French NGO, La Voute Nubienne, operating in Burkina Faso and Mali. This group is using a market based development approach to grow its network of masons and clients, although it has struggled to achieve the same success in Senegal that it has in the other two countries. I provide specific strategies for adapting the Nubian Arch technique to the problems in Senegal posed by the country’s unique climate, soils, and socioeconomics. I also include a case study of a small Nubian Arch home that I built in a rural village in Senegal, detailing the building process and its outcome as a technology transfer demonstration. I describe the short term effects and potential long term impacts of the project in my host community and discuss the unforeseen difficulties and successes I encountered. I conclude with relevant recommendations.

! 1

Table of Contents

List of figures………………………………………………………………………………….…..3 1. Background………………………………………………………………………………….….4 2. What is Adobe?…………………………………………………………………………………5 3. History of Nubian Arch architecture …………………………………………………….……..6 3.1 Earliest examples……………………………………………………..………….……6 3.2 Basic technique……………………………………………………………………..…6 4. Revival of the Nubian Arch technique by Hassan Fathy…………… …………..………….…8 4.1 Fathy’s mission………………………………………………………………………..8 4.2 Rediscovery of expert masons in Egypt……………………………………………….9 4.3 Dispersal of technique…………………………………………………………………9 4.4 Modern preservation of remnants of Fathy’s legacy…………………………………10 5. Recent adoption of the Nubian Arch technique by Association la Voute Nubienne in West Africa…………………………………………………………………………………………….12 5.1 AVN mission…………………………………………………………………………12 5.2 Kick-start method……………………………………………………………………12 5.3 Recent progress………………………………………………………………………13 5.4 Adapting AVN strategy to Senegal…………………………………………………..13 6. Case Study…………………………………………………………………………………….17 6.1 Setup…………………………………………………………………………………17 6.2 Foundation………………………………….………………………………………..21 6.3 Walls…………………………………………………………………………………22 6.4 Arches……………………………………………………………………………..…24 6.5 Vaulted ceiling…………………………………………………………………….…25 6.6 Roof………………………………………………………………………………….27 6.7 Plastering…………………………………………………………………………….28 7. Community interaction………………………………………………………………………..29 7.1 Comprehension of project……………………………………………………………29 7.2 Cultural Differences……………………………………………………………….…31 7.3 Predicted impact…………………………………………………………….………..33 8. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….34 References…………………………………………………………………………….………….36 Appendix 1……………………………………………………………………………………….37 Appendix 2……………………………………………………………………………………….41

! 2

List of Figures

Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………………5 Figure 2………………………………………………………………………………………5 Figure 3………………………………………………………………………………………6 Figure 4………………………………………………………………………………………6 Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………………7 Figure 6………………………………………………………………………………………14 Figure 7………………………………………………………………………………………15 Figure 8………………………………………………………………………………………17 Figure 9………………………………………………………………………………………18 Figure 10……………………………………………………………………………………..19 Figure 11……………………………………………………………………………………..20 Figure 12…………………………………………………………………………………..…21 Figure 13…………………………………………………………………………………..…21 Figure 14…………………………………………………………………………………..…22 Figure 15…………………………………………………………………………………..…22 Figure 16…………………………………………………………………………………..…22 Figure 17…………………………………………………………………………………..…23 Figure 18…………………………………………………………………………………..…24 Figure 19…………………………………………………………………………………..…24 Figure 20…………………………………………………………………………………..…25 Figure 21…………………………………………………………………………………..…25 Figure 22…………………………………………………………………………………..…26 Figure 23…………………………………………………………………………………..…26 Figure 24…………………………………………………………………………………..…26 Figure 25…………………………………………………………………………………..…26 Figure 26…………………………………………………………………………………..…27 Figure 27…………………………………………………………………………………..…27 Figure 28…………………………………………………………………………………..…28 Figure 29…………………………………………………………………………………..…28

! 3

Chapter 1

Background

Currently in subsaharan Africa families are having increasing difficulties getting access to durable, affordable homes. As population continues to expand and traditional home-building materials such as timber and grass thatch become more scarce, families are turning to cement and sheet-metal (AVN, 2014). This type of home comes with higher costs: both a higher direct price for families and a higher toll on the environment to produce and transport these materials. A creative solution to this housing dilemma is the Nubian Arch technique. The Nubian Arch technique is a style of adobe brick construction invented thousands of years ago in Egypt. In the 1940’s the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy revived the technique from near obscurity during a decade of projects culminating in his work building the village of New Gourna in 1948. The Association la Voute Nubienne (AVN) adopted the technique in 1998 and continues to spread it through West Africa. While serving in the Peace Corps in Senegal, I built a small demonstration Nubian Arch home in my host village and later worked for nine months with AVN. Although the technique has remained largely unchanged over the years it has been adapted to each region and time where it is applied. Now it faces new challenges to adoption in Senegal, where the lack of high-quality clay soils and a population unskilled in adobe construction pose difficulties to the approach used in the previous decade in Burkina Faso and Mali.

In this paper I review the history of the Nubian Arch technique in Egypt, its current use by AVN in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal, and ramifications for its future in Senegal. I include a discussion of specific strategies for adapting the Nubian Arch technique to Senegal. I also include a case study of a small home that I built in a rural village in Senegal, tying in a discussion of technical details and social implications of the project into the larger context of the country and concluding with relevant recommendations.

! 4

Chapter 2

What is Adobe?

Adobe is a composite of mostly sandy clay mixed with water and sometimes containing gravel or ligneous materials. Little or no silt is desired, and organic material is not used unless in the form of straw or husks added specifically to improve durability. The ratio of clay to sand is generally the most crucial factor in creating a strong final product. Too little clay and the adobe crumbles and erodes easily. Too much clay and the adobe can crack while drying.

For making adobe bricks, sandy clay loam, sandy clay, or clay are best. Sand is then mixed in to yield the best blend. The ratio for adobe bricks is generally between 25-40% clay, 60-75% sand, with a small remainder consisting of small rocks and ligneous material.

Different clays vary considerably in their individual composition. One of the best sources for strong binding clay in Senegal is found in termite mounds (Figure 1). The materials are wetted and mixed together thoroughly, often by foot, to achieve a uniform blend and thick consistency. The wet adobe is then formed into balls or bricks to harden in the sun before being assembled with wet adobe mortar. In order to build arches or vaulted ceilings with adobe one must construct with prefabricated adobe bricks. At the simplest, the bricks are mixed by foot, formed by hand using wooden molds, and left to dry in the sun for several days (Figure 2). The bricks, once dried, are mortared together to form walls. The mortar is generally the same or similar mix as the bricks, but without ligneous material or small rocks. More modern techniques include compaction and integration of cement to strengthen the bricks and provide

! 5

! Figure 2. Adobe bricks drying in the sun. Ideally the bricks are made near the building site, and close to sources of clay and water.

! Figure 1. A termite mound in Senegal, excellent quality clay for adobe bricks.

greater resistance to water. In this report I focus exclusively on plain sand and clay adobe bricks, hand-made and sun-dried.

Chapter 3

History of Nubian Arch adobe architecture

Earliest examples

The earliest examples of Nubian Arch homes are in Luxor, Egypt. Constructed over 3000 years ago, remnants of these buildings still stand today, a testament to the durability of the technique (Figure 3). Although buildings with walls made from adobe existed even earlier, the real genius was using adobe bricks to build the roof of the buildings as well. The roofs were built from bricks in successively layered arches, each course adding strength to the vaulted ceiling. The result was an extremely resilient building, made entirely of earth. They contained no wood or thatch which could rot, attract insects, or catch fire, and did not rely on the relatively inaccessible materials that came later such as concrete or metal. For building in remote, dry climates the result was an incredibly self-contained, well-adapted, and sustainable home. The technique was so durable, in fact, that some examples outlived the civilization that invented it.

Basic technique

The principles of the Nubian Arch technique used today are the same as those used in Luxor. Thick walls rest on a solid foundation and support a vaulted ceiling made of carefully placed bricks (Figure 4). Successive layers of bricks are then added on top of the ceiling, but the weight is spread by the catenary arch shape and evenly supported by

! 6

! Figure 4. Vertical cross-section on a Nubian Arch home

!Figure 3. Adobe vaulted ceilings at Luxor, Egypt, built in 1,250 b.c.

the walls. Thus the finished building has a massively thick roof of adobe, which insulates and protects the interior space from the elements (Figure 5).

Part of the beauty of the technique is its simplicity. Whereas modern arched structures (such as bridges or cathedrals) require extensive scaffolding to hold all the pieces in place until the construction is finished, the Nubian Arch design requires no scaffolding for the vaulted ceiling. It is built free-form, using only a cable and strings to measure the radius of the arch and ensure a consistent, evenly spaced and symmetrical shape. This simplicity makes the technique accessible to

rural villagers without access to even such basic masonry supplies as a trowel and a plumb. It also makes constructing a home fast—a simple one-room home can be built in as little as three weeks.

It is the combination of simplicity, durability, and sustainability that makes this technique so well suited for poor residents in arid climates.

! 7

! Figure 5. Lateral cross-section of a modern Nubian Arch home.

Chapter 4

Revival of the Nubian Arch technique by Hassan Fathy in Egypt 1940-1950

1) Fathy’s mission: Affordable, sustainable, beautiful homes built with adobe bricks

I wrote this chapter based on the information in Fathy’s book, “Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt,” which explores his career with the Nubian Arch.

Hassan Fathy was an Egyptian architect born and raised in Cairo, whose fascination with rural dwellings began at a young age. His father had a pessimistic view of the family estates in the country, and prohibited his children from visiting what he described as polluted, stinky, and mosquito-infested backwoods (Fathy, 1973). Yet this vision was contrasted by his mother’s idyllic descriptions of growing up amongst tame farm animals, playing with lambs and feeding chickens. These contrasting images combined in his young mind to provide a picture of the country as a fallen Eden, a place of natural beauty and potential that had fallen into disrepair and ruin due to misuse and neglect.

Thus from a young age Fathy was motivated by a desire to improve the conditions of rural workers. Yet it wasn’t until he was enrolled in the architecture program at Cairo Polytechnic that he finally visited the country, traveling to a small rural town called Talkha (Fathy, 1973). He was both revolted and moved to action by the seemingly helpless plight of the people. They were forced by circumstance to live in squalor yet did not have the resources or opportunity to build new homes for themselves and their families. Fathy, with his youthful exuberance, sought a way to break this cycle of poverty and restore places like Talkha to the paradise he had imagined as a kid.

He began at one of his family’s own farms, near the town of Talkha. The dank, crowded little mud huts, shared with the livestock and resulting offal, disturbed Fathy. He convinced his father to rebuild the homes for the laborers. Even more, Fathy was convinced that in order to maintain better conditions on the farm he or someone from his family must visit the land and the workers more frequently. Despite his parents skepticism he built his own home on the land. To save on the cost of building supplies he designed a home using a trick gleaned from the dirty little mud huts themselves: mud bricks, also known as adobe.

The problem, Fathy observed, was not the material but the design. A small, dark, dirty mud hut could just as well be a spacious, bright, clean home. The difference could only be a larger floor plan, more windows, and a broom.

At this point Fathy began designing and building beautiful adobe country homes for other clients. The houses he made used the simple adobe bricks from the same soil that the peasants

! 8

used, only the results were open, airy, and beautiful. Yet the cost of these buildings, although a bit lower than other comparable homes, was only marginally less (Fathy, 1973). The problem was the cost of timber roofing materials. So was it possible to build an adobe home with an adobe roof? Fathy set out to find answers.

2) Rediscovery of expert masons in Egypt: Village of Gharb Aswan

Fathy had heard of a village near Aswan, where local masons still knew how to build homes with vaulted adobe brick ceilings. The town of Aswan itself was unimpressive to Fathy, but when he crossed the river and entered the village of Gharb Aswan he knew instantly that he had discovered exactly what he was looking for (Fathy, 1973). The village was filled with simple, elegant adobe homes, all built with beautiful and functional vaulted adobe roofs. These homes used no timber at all, relying only on the masterfully constructed arches of adobe bricks to support the roofs. They were made entirely from local clay and sand. Even the exterior aesthetics were impressive, a few artists who traveled with Fathy were taken by the intricate forms and designs fashioned with adobe finishes and plastered with natural colored clays, spending all day painting scenes of the picturesque village.

Fathy was elated to find such architectural skill alive and well in this remote village. He posited that these vaulted ceiling adobe homes were the remnant of ancient Egyptian architecture, still alive near Aswan in the region of Nubia in southern Egypt (Fathy, 1973). It was this discovery that led him to label the architectural style the Nubian Arch as he brought it out of obscurity and into the public eye.

Having met with repeated failures to create his own system for an adobe brick vaulted ceiling, Fathy contracted a team of masons from Gharb Aswan to complete his projects near Cairo. He was repeatedly astounded by the simplicity of their equipment (no measuring or leveling devices of any kind, nor trowel; simply an adze and their hands), and also the speed and precision of their work (Fathy, 1973). Within days the Nubian masons had completed the vaulted roofs on a series of experimental buildings Fathy had been struggling with over the previous months.

To Fathy, this success promised a new era of adobe architecture for Egypt. Besides being so much cheaper than traditional buildings (in many cases Fathy estimated the costs of the vaulted adobe homes to be one fifth the cost of traditional concrete homes) the Nubian Arch homes were strikingly beautiful. The curved ceilings, seamless junctions between roof and walls, and arched openings for doors and windows produced an aesthetic appeal to everyone who saw them.

3) Dispersal of technique: Successes and failures of Fathy’s Nubian Arch projects, including the village of New Gourna

So began a flurry of small projects for Fathy and his team of Nubian masons. They built homes, storage, rooms, stables, and barns, all of them equally impressive. One client, after seeing the beautifully crafted grain silo with a domed ceiling that he had commissioned, was so pleased

! 9

with the space he decided to convert it to a small musical concert hall (Fathy, 1973).

Fathy was convinced that Nubian Arch homes represented a renaissance for ancient Egyptian architecture—an opportunity for the technique of vaulted adobe ceilings to come from obscurity into popularity, as a cheap, durable, and beautiful alternative to the ubiquitous cement, metal, and timber buildings. Yet early on he met with resistance. One of the first housing projects Fathy took on was rebuilding 20 homes in a small community ravaged by recent floods. He built one demonstration home before the overseeing committee told him to wait while they consulted with another architect before proceeding. This second architect drew up a design for 20 uniform concrete housing units and asked seven times the budget that Fathy required, yet still the committee chose the concrete homes over the adobe (Fathy, 1973). Later his single Nubian Arch demonstration home was torn down; he was told it did not harmonize with the new concrete houses.

Shortly afterwards, however, Fathy scored what would become the largest project of his life. An entire community of 900 families living in Gourna was being relocated nearby to New Gourna, and Fathy was hired to design and build the new village—completely from Nubian Arch buildings. The villagers of Gourna resided near Luxor, an area covered in ancient ruins and underground crypts. For decades the residents of Gourna had become infamous for breaking into these tombs and stealing artifacts to sell on the black market. The Egyptian Department of Antiquities was finally intervening and relocating the village to protect the heritage site and its remaining historical pieces (Fathy, 1973).

For Fathy, New Gourna was an incredible opportunity to showcase the architecture and hopefully springboard the architectural style into the mainstream. He designed the entire community, from the placement and style of the central mosque to the arrhythmic layout of the streets to fit the personalized homes. Fathy consulted with the inhabitants of Gourna, learning of the differing ethnic groups, their priorities, and their desires. All of this he incorporated into his plan for New Gourna.

Beginning in 1945 Fathy planned on completing the village in three years. Due to substantial political and financial obstacles, however, Fathy ceased working on the project in 1948 having completed only 40% of the buildings (Fathy, 1973). At this point he had become so deadlocked by opposition to his project that he gave up, concluding that his dream of spreading the Nubian Arch architecture in Egypt was not worth the antagonism and frustration he was dealing with.

4) Modern preservation of remnants of Fathy’s legacy: After 60 years, the original Nubian Arch homes are being preserved as Egyptian national heritage site

Over the following decades, citizens of Gourna slowly trickled into New Gourna and took up residence in the homes Fathy and his Nubian masons had built. Yet this was a slow and unorganized migration, without the concurrent growth of houses and community that Fathy had envisioned. Since 1948 not a single brick had been laid to continue the project (Fathy, 1973).

! 10

Instead the new inhabitants were opportunistically moving into the open homes.

Having done no work of their own to secure these homes the Gournis felt little responsibility to maintain them. Thus over the following decades the Nubian Arch homes fell into disrepair, having nobody with the will nor knowledge to maintain them.

As the homes became compromised (roofs cracked, walls sagged, foundations eroded) people abandoned or replaced them. It is a testament to the craftsmanship that 60% of the Nubian Arch buildings persist to this day, 70 years later, having had almost no repairs or reconstruction (WMF, 2011). Some inhabitants or their descendants still live in the original houses, having made their own repairs or just persisted with minor faults and superficial damage. Yet many have been demolished, the old owners having long since rebuilt a new home with modern materials.

Thus despite the housing project at New Gourna being Fathy’s greatest contribution to the movement of sustainable architecture—arguably initiating the movement—it was also his greatest disappointment. The project failed in its mission to provide permanent new dwellings integrated in a thriving community and jumpstart the beginning of an era of new architecture in Egypt. Instead the technique fell dormant again. The new inhabitants did not embrace the homes and architecture as their own, but only lived in them temporarily until the buildings became uninhabitable at which point they left or rebuilt modern homes to replace them.

A new town has since grown around the historic core of Nubian Arch buildings. The majority of the residents now live in this new area, yet the original Nubian Arch buildings designed by Fathy remain an important aspect of the community. In fact New Gourna has continued to receive national and global attention and has recently been designated an Egyptian National Heritage Protectorate site in 2009 (WMF, 2011). A joint study by UNESCO and the World Monument Fund in 2010 sought to take stock of the physical and social legacy remaining in the present day community. This study investigated the condition of enduring Nubian Arch buildings and performed a community wide survey to judge the needs of the current residents, their relationships with the Nubian Arch homes, and their interest in conserving the buildings.

The study concluded that rising groundwater and a poor sewer system are the most urgent needs in order to conserve the remaining Nubian Arch homes (WMF, 2011). An expanding population is also putting a strain on the limited space, since families tend to grow larger while staying in the same house. Despite these problems inhabitants are content with their homes and proud to be a part of the Fathy legacy. Remnants of Fathy’s dream are still apparent in the spatial layout of the small, safe streets, intimately placed clusters of homes, and shaded communal open spaces.

It is ironic to note that the village of New Gourna, originally built to house the displaced despoilers of a heritage site, is now a heritage site itself. This is due to the legacy of Hassan Fathy and the groundbreaking project he envisioned and worked on. His unique contribution to the sustainable architecture movement has been the subject of praise and criticism over the decades but all sides agree his work influenced much that came after him.

! 11

Chapter 5

Recent adoption of the Nubian Arch technique by Association la Voute Nubienne in West Africa 1998-present

1) Association la Voute Nubienne’s mission: Durable, adapted, and affordable homes for rural families

Association la Voute Nubienne (AVN) was created in 1998 by two French and Burkinabese architects. The goal was much the same as Fathy’s in the 1940’s: to build comfortable, durable, sustainable homes for the average rural farmer and his family. Driven by the expanding population in sub-Saharan Africa and the current state of resource depletion (declining supply of wood and thatch for traditional timber huts), AVN revived Fathy’s Nubian Arch home design as an alternative to the ubiquitous cement and sheet-metal homes being built. Both cement and metal are relatively expensive and energy intensive (both to create and transport) compared to simple adobe bricks. AVN set out to popularize the Nubian Arch in a way Fathy never did: by creating a market for them, complete with trained masons and interested clients that would ideally become self-sustaining.

2) Kick-Start method: Building a market by educating clients (demand), and recruiting and training masons (supply)

To this end AVN adopted a system of strategic market-based development. The system requires extensive work by field agents to locate influential community members in target areas and recruit these “key” members to help disseminate the technique. After the “keys” are trained in the AVN strategy and briefed on the Nubian Arch technique, they work as local liaisons to the AVN office, organizing community demonstrations and acting as references for community members interested in building a Nubian Arch home.

Concurrently, AVN and the local “key” work to recruit potential masons to train in the Nubian Arch technique and help build the new homes in their own communities. The recruiting relies on on-site training—the new local recruits learn the technique and advance in skill and wage as they work with experienced Nubian Arch masons on actual buildings. Ambitious and skilled apprentices can find full-time employment working on traveling work crews. Experienced masons are encouraged to develop their own enterprises. AVN owes much of its success to this social-entrepreneurship model.

Ultimately AVN works only as an intermediary between clients and masons. AVN receives no commission or percentage of the cost of the home. Conversely, AVN offers no financial aid to clients. The client pays the full cost of the building and the masons receive all the profit after paying for equipment, supplies, and transportation. There are exceptions to this when a third-

! 12

party finances the building. This is often the case in Senegal where much international aid money exists to fund public projects such as schools, hospitals, and other communal buildings.

AVN helps locate new, interested clients, recruit new apprentice masons, provide informational trainings and demonstrations, and coordinate between all parties to facilitate the market. The end goal is to have a robust, self-sustaining market—an “autonomous” market in AVN’s words. At this point AVN will be able to leave and focus efforts on establishing new operations in the next region or country.

3) Recent Progress: The last 15 years in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal AVN began in Burkina Faso and Mali, and has since spread to Senegal, Ghana, and Benin. Since its inception in 2000 AVN has trained over 600 masons to build Nubian Arch homes, and facilitated over 1,200 Nubian Arch buildings in these five countries. The program has seen an average annual growth of 32% in number of projects completed each year. Currently over 17,000 people live or work in Nubian Arch buildings thanks to this progress. Fifty five percent of these inhabitants are rural farmers, the target population of AVN (AVN, 2014).

This is only a brief summary of the strategy and progress of AVN in West Africa, for more detailed information go to their website (available in both French and English): http://www.lavoutenubienne.org.

4) Adapting AVN strategy to Senegal: Problems and recommendations

I worked with AVN in Senegal as a field agent and technical consultant as well as marketing and recruitment specialist for nine months. My mission included choosing strategic geographic locations to begin operations (near quality clay, in high-visibility areas), developing and improving technical solutions for the Nubian Arch buildings, locating key community members, and improving promotional material to recruit new clients and masons.

Through my activities I had the opportunity to see what actions worked well and which fell short of the desired outcomes. The following are observations and recommendations to improve AVN’s operations in Senegal.

a) Technical issues: Buildings suffering from poor and unsuitable exterior plastering

In Burkina Faso and Mali the quality of clay and abundance of local know-how allows many Nubian Arch homes to be finished by the clients themselves using only natural, local materials. Almost all of the inhabitants have built with adobe to make simple one-room huts with thatched or timber roofs. Exterior plastering is made from mixtures of clay and cow dung that can protect the adobe from the seasonal rains for up to several years. The homeowner checks the exterior each season for signs of cracking or erosion, and makes necessary repairs. Once every two to three years he will apply an entire new coat of abode plaster. Capitalizing on this local expertise,

! 13

AVN has a protocol of building only the basic structure, leaving the plastering for the client to complete. This greatly reduces the overall cost of the home and improves stewardship by including the client in the construction and upkeep process.

This practice has been carried into Senegal with disastrous consequences. The Senegalese who have so far participated in the AVN program do not have the same skill or confidence in earthen exterior plastering, and the quality of clay available is usually inferior to that found in Mali and Burkina Faso. Senegalese who are unversed in abode home-building almost universally attempt to plaster the bare adobe bricks with cement, which is what they are used to doing with cement brick homes. Yet when cement is applied to adobe bricks it does not bind properly. The clay in adobe expands and contracts under fluctuating moisture conditions, while the cement remains rigid. This causes the thin cement veneer to separate from the adobe walls, cracking and falling away in as little as one or two years, and exposing the building to potentially catastrophic rain

damage (Figure 6).

This has been an ongoing problem in Senegal, resulting in many poorly finished homes. Even when the Nubian Arch masons build a sound structure, if it is not finished correctly the building will be in danger of collapse. Several buildings have already collapsed in Senegal because of this, and others have been compromised and had to be rebuilt. This damages the reputation of AVN and the Nubian Arch construction technique.

It is essential, in my opinion, to provide only fully finished homes in Senegal, and to professionally finish these homes with more durable coatings. The same team that

constructs the Nubian Arch building should finish it using a technique that does not require regular upkeep and repairs by the owner.

While working with AVN, I helped develop a consistent set of instructions for two such techniques to protect the Nubian Arch homes in Senegal from the seasonal rains: an asphalt-adobe composite and rock-studded adobe bricks with a cement finish.

The asphalt-adobe composite was inspired by the original earthen plasters used in Mali and Burkina Faso that incorporate cow dung to strengthen the final dried coating. Instead of cow dung, asphalt is heated until melted and mixed hot into the adobe plaster, then immediately applied with wooden trowels or by hand to the exterior of the building. This composite hardens into a water-resistant coating that—thanks to the clay—can still expand and contract in response to the adobe bricks and therefore maintain a strong bond. The composite does not break away

! 14

! Figure 6. Cement plaster detaching from adobe bricks after one year.

like a cement coating would, and is much more durable than simple adobe plaster, lasting an estimated 15-20 years instead of the usual two or three.

The second technique is to make special adobe bricks that have fist-sized rocks embedded in them. The embedded rock technique with a cement finish solves the bonding problem between adobe bricks and cement finish by introducing rocks as a link between the two different

materials. To make these bricks, rocks are placed into the brick mold as the wet adobe is added. The rocks are positioned against the inside wall of the mold so that they will show on the exterior of the brick when the mold is removed and the brick dries (Figure 7). This way, when the walls are built and these special bricks are positioned with the rock side facing the exterior, the exterior walls end up covered in firmly embedded rocks. The rocks act as anchor points, being both firmly embedded in the adobe bricks but also able to create a strong bond with the cement. Therefore the cement does not separate from the walls as it would with simple adobe bricks.

These two techniques represent the two most commonly used strategies in Senegal for protecting Nubian Arch buildings from the rain. The problem remains that the materials required (asphalt, or specialized rock-embedded bricks and cement) are more expensive, and therefore often put the price of a Nubian Arch home beyond the means of rural families.

b) Client (demand) issues: Cost, social stigma of clay, lack of client participation AVN is struggling to get the working class Senegalese rural farmers to build Nubian Arch homes. The largest barrier is cost. Because of the aforementioned techniques necessary to build durable homes in Senegal the price rises significantly. In Burkina Faso and Mali clients often make their own bricks, provide much of the labor, and complete their own finish work. This significantly reduces total cost.

This is not the case in Senegal. The lack of adobe-building expertise and scarcity of willing workers results in the client paying for the entire cost of the home. Or worse, the client agrees to participate in the construction to lower costs, but then fails to deliver the promised labor, materials, or supplies.

This has been a constant source of difficulties for AVN in Senegal, as clients initially promise their labor only to renege part way through, leaving the project stranded until AVN is forced to

! 15

!Figure 7. Adobe bricks with embedded rocks.

pay for the rest. This sets a poor precedent, as the locals come to expect financial aid from AVN. AVN needs to present a clear, consistent price for fully finished homes without client participation, to prevent this pitfall occurring with future clients.

Yet the target population, low-income rural farmers, cannot afford this price. So AVN cannot expect to market this new, professionally finished home to them. They have to seek a new clientele with middle class families. This can still be both urban and rural, but the price involved moves them out of the range of lower income families.

At the same time there is often resistance to Nubian Arch homes because they are made of adobe, which is seen as an archaic and backwards building material more suited to older generations. Most families aspire to a “modern” home of concrete.

Yet the current promotional materials for AVN are designed to convince new clients by focusing on the sustainability and ecological importance of building with adobe. This marketing approach has been adapted from the brochures and reports they use to garner support from first world donors but is misguided when applied to West African families.

In my opinion, it is essential to develop a new marketing strategy. This new strategy must focus on the modernity, comfort, and durability of Nubian Arch homes. It must offer fully finished homes to avoid the pitfall of inadequately built homes and unfulfilled promises. It must also focus more on the abundant middle-class clients in Senegal, and less on the poorer families who cannot afford these homes. It is unfortunate, but the last three years in Senegal have consistently shown that Nubian Arch homes are unsuited for AVN’s target population in Senegal—poor rural families. While the vast majority of AVN’s work still targets these poor families in Mali and Burkina Faso, Senegal can become a prototype in developing the market for middle-class clients and municipal projects.

c) Recruitment and training (supply) issues: Higher minimum wage, lack of experience with clay

Lastly is the problem of labor. AVN is finding once again that the approach (specifically the wages) used in Burkina Faso and Mali does not transfer to Senegal. There is a severe lack of Senegalese apprentices willing to learn the Nubian Arch technique. Currently masons from Burkina Faso and Mali—their transport paid by AVN—meet the demand. This approach works in the short-term but will not facilitate the rapid adoption of Nubian Arch homes in the long-term. Having a source of trained Senegalese masons will better generate and respond to client demand, accelerating the growth of a robust market. Furthermore, these local masons—like those in Burkina Faso and Mali—will often build Nubian Arch homes for themselves, developing a powerful informal market. In order to achieve this AVN must increase recruiting and training efforts in Senegal in addition to raising their minimum wage.

! 16

Chapter 6

Case Study: Step by step description of how I built a Nubian Arch demonstration home in my host village in Fatick, Senegal

1) Set Up

a) Soil Testing: 6 hours (all time requirements are based off a detailed work journal I kept, see appendix 1)

One of the initial steps was to locate good quality soil for the adobe. It needed to be high in clay, have little or no silt, be accessible, plentiful and preferably nearby. The source I used was a large termite mound. Termite clay is the best quality of clay to had in my region of Senegal, being comprised of about 70% clay along with the organic compounds secreted by the termites to build their home that make an even more resilient adobe composite.

Although termite clay is superior quality, it is not available everywhere and often not in large quantities. Thus many buildings use laterite, a deep red clay soil that is available in most areas of Senegal (Figure 8). Quarries

are interspersed throughout the country and used for making roads. This clay, although not as strong as termite clay, is still good for making adobe bricks. Both the termite and laterite clays available in Senegal, however, are inferior to the quality of clay available in Burkina Faso and Mali.

b) Brick Making: 434 hours (1,800 large bricks, 4,500 small bricks)

I made the adobe bricks by mixing clay, sand, and water in the proper proportions, forming them in a wooden mold, and letting them dry in the sun. My particular blend was 30% clay, 65% sand, and 5% millet chaff (the empty husks of millet after farmers have pounded and sifted the grain out). I mixed the adobe in large pits (2.25 square meters) dug next to the termite mound, and close to a nearby stream. In each pit I added termite clay from the mound and sand from an adjacent pit at roughly a 1:1 ratio until it was about 25cm deep (yielding about .5 cubic meter of adobe per batch). Since the termite clay was already about 30% sand the resulting blend was

! 17

!Figure 8. Mixing laterite clay for bricks with shovels, hoe, and water.

close to the desired 1:2 ratio of clay to sand.

I added just enough water to be able to mash the mud into a thick pasty consistency (a simple test is to plunge your foot into the pit of adobe; when your foot pulls out of the mix it should leave a permanent hole, but there should be no discernible clumps of dry earth). This is a difficult balance to explain but was intuitive to grasp once I had made just a few bricks. I found a preferred wetness for the mix that was ideal for forming the bricks—not so dry that it crumbled but not so wet that it slumped when I removed the mold. It is this blend that I aimed for while mixing the adobe. I added water or soil as needed until I achieved the desired consistency.

Two simple soil texture tests that can be used are the ball test and the ribbon test. In the ball test a small (golf ball-sized) ball of the mixture is formed in the hands and dropped onto the ground from chest height. The ball should hold together with only slight deformation. If it crumbles there is too much sand, if it squishes like a pancake there is too much clay. In the ribbon test a cylinder of the mixture is rolled in the hands (about the thumb-thickness). Held cradled in the palm of the hand, the cylinder is pressed out over the index finger using the thumb, forming a “ribbon” as it extends outwards. Ideally you should be able to form a 1-2 inch ribbon this way before it breaks. If little or no ribbon can be formed there is too much sand. If the ribbon stretches longer than 2 inches without breaking there is too much clay. After performing one or both of these tests sand or clay is added as needed.

After making several batches of adobe I could feel the right mix of clay (slippery) and sand (grainy) between my toes and know when the proportion was correct. So in summary there are three important factors to balance while mixing the adobe: clay, sand, and water. All three must

be in proper proportion, but any mistake in initial amounts can be easily remedied by adding more of one or the other.

Finally I added roughly 40 liters of millet chaff (straw cut into roughly 6 inch sections also works great for this) and mixed it in by foot. This adds strength to the bricks and helps avoid cracks as the bricks dry.

At this point I shoveled the adobe into a wheelbarrow and deposited it on the ground next to the clean open area where I formed the bricks (Figures 9 and 10). Each batch took about 8-10 wheelbarrow loads to transport and made 40-50 large bricks.

I made the bricks in two sizes. Large bricks (15x18x36 cm) were used for the walls. Small bricks (5x15x20 cm) were used for the arches and vaulted ceiling. The composition is subtly different,

! 18

!Figure 9. Making bricks near the village.

with the small bricks being made with a higher clay content (50% instead of 30%) and with added straw to prevent cracking and make a slightly lighter-weight brick.

After the bricks had dried (4-6 days for large bricks, 2-3 days for small bricks), they needed to be trimmed and cleaned. The dirt, rocks, and leaves underneath the brick when it was first formed often stuck to the bottom of the brick. Adobe also leaked out the base of the mold, especially when they were made on uneven ground, resulting in edges of adobe sticking out beyond the basic dimensions of the brick. All of this needed to be trimmed off with a machete to create clean, uniformly dimensioned bricks. This was especially important with the small bricks since their placement in the archways and ceiling was more precise and relied on a

tight fit between brick and mortar to hold them in place while they dried. A film of sandy soil on the underside of a brick would have formed a weak interface between brick and mortar later on.

c) Site Selection: 6 hours

Selecting a sound location for the building was vital. It had to be out of the way of any overland flow of rainwater, and far from any low point that collects water. A local highpoint would have been best but I was limited in choosing an area and at least found an area with a slight slope where water could be diverted around the building and no standing water would collect near the foundation. Since the entire building is made of water-permeable adobe it was essential to keep the foundation and walls as dry as possible. Any water that collected near the foundation could seep into the adobe and travel upwards through capillary action into the walls, jeopardizing the structural integrity of the building. A cement footing can be added later to further protect the foundation from water but this is no substitute for a well-chosen location.

d) Measuring and Marking Foundation: 16 hours

Once the location was chosen the building foundation needed to be delineated. The most important rule to remember when building a Nubian Arch home is the maximum span of the vaulted ceiling. Hypothetically, lengthwise the vaulted ceiling can extend indefinitely. But the area that the vaulted ceiling covers widthwise, between the two load-bearing walls that support it, should not exceed 3.25 meters. This span has been extensively tested for safety against collapse. Wider vaulted ceilings are possible but are not guaranteed to be as secure.

! 19

!Figure 10. A local apprentice assisting with the brick-making.

I drew up a typical two-room home design for my own house, 8.2x3.25 meters measured in the interior. It would have one long vaulted ceiling with a partition wall added later to divide the home into two smaller rooms. I like lots of airflow and light so opted to maximize my windows,

putting a total of six windows and two doors. These openings all required their own mini arches built into the walls.

As a rule, the number of openings in Nubian Arch homes is limited to 70 cm openings for every 150 cm of wall space, and no openings within 100 cm of a corner. Essentially every window and door requires 80cm to either side of it, or a full 100 cm if it is next to a corner of the building. All of this must be planned before measuring and marking the foundation. Once the design is solidified one can mark it out on site.

To delineate my foundation I drove stakes into each corner and tied string to mark both

the inside and outside boundary of each trench (Figure 11). The width of the foundation trenches was 50 cm for the end walls and 70 cm for the load bearing walls. The walls themselves were built 40 cm wide and 60 cm wide, respectively, leaving a small footing to better spread the weight of the building and insulate the walls from ground moisture.

! 20

!Figure 11. Measuring and marking the dimensions of the building

2) Foundation 226 hours

The foundation must be dug to a minimum depth of 60 cm, depending on the stability of the soil. Given softer soil the foundation is often dug to a depth of 100 cm. In my case I dug to 70 cm, where I reached a layer of harder, more compacted soil (Figure 12). Once the trenches were dug, I mixed an adobe mortar and applied it between layers of rocks, cementing them together. Ideally the rocks should be large, filling nearly the entire trench and resting on each other to create a continuous stone support structure. The adobe simply fills the gaps between rocks. In my case large rocks were extremely hard to come by, so I made do with successive layers of 15-50 cm rocks embedded in a matrix of adobe (Figure 13). The rocks still overlapped and rested on each other, especially in key junctions like the corners, but I filled in more of the foundation with a strong adobe mix.

! 21

!Figure 12. Digging the foundation with my brother, Michael, who visited me.

!Figure 13. Filling the foundation with stones and adobe mortar.

3) Walls 137 hours

The load bearing walls (foreground and background of Figure 14) were 60 cm thick, while the end walls (left and right in Figure 14) were each 40 cm thick. The 40 cm end walls were formed by simply laying a single course of bricks with the long (36 cm) sides facing each other, then offsetting the course of bricks that stacks above them to overlay the gaps between bricks. The 60 cm walls were two bricks thick, one line of bricks side to side, an adjacent line laid end to end, and a few centimeters of space between them which was filled with mortar. The next course of bricks above this was laid in the opposite fashion, effectively covering the gaps from the previous course.

Special attention was given to corners to insure a good fit and avoid gaps between bricks in the same spots in successive courses. Having the space between bricks line up in the same place in successive courses could cause weak points where the walls could crack under stress.

I placed the corner bricks first and leveled them, then ran a string the length of the wall between the two corner bricks. All the bricks between them were placed in line with the string (Figure 15). After each course of bricks was laid the intervening spaces between bricks were completely filled with mortar (Figure 16). A new layer of 2-3 cm of mortar was spread over the top of the finished course before proceeding to the next course of bricks. While laying the bricks each new course must be checked for level and plumb. I used a hand-held metal level with water gauge to

! 22

!Figure 16. Filling mortar in between bricks. In the foreground is Aji Kanka, my host grandfather who will inherit the house once I finish building it.

!Figure 15. Positioning bricks with string.

!Figure 14. Laying the bricks—two layers completed.

measure plumb of the vertical walls on each layer of bricks, and used a string line fixed to nails in each corner of the building to measure horizontal level.

While laying bricks it was essential to plan ahead for where windows, doors, and other built-in openings would be. The bricks had to be aligned properly on each course to leave the proper space open and also continue to overlap the gaps between bricks with each successive course (notice the doorways and window alcoves already taking shape in Figure 17). This was a crucial step for the structural integrity of the building and required a decent amount of planning and critical thought, not unlike putting puzzle pieces together.

! 23

!Figure 17. Six courses of bricks completed. The small triangular spaces are my personal design—air vents built low on the walls to allow for a cross-breeze along the floor of the house.

4) Arches 68 hours

The arches were formed using temporary molds to hold the bricks in place (Figure 18). The smaller bricks were used for these crucial weight-spreading features, and attention was given to minimize space between bricks to prevent cracks during drying. The last few bricks in the top of the arch had to be cut into wedge shapes and pounded into place, forming an extremely tight fit. These keystone bricks ensured that the arches spread weight effectively.

Once the arches were complete the mold could be removed and used in the next window or door (Figure 19). Since the vaulted ceiling would rest on top of these arches they had to be completed before the ceiling was begun.

! 24

!Figure 19. Finished window with barrel removed.

!Figure 18. Using a barrel mold to construct a window.

5) Vaulted Ceiling 133 hours

The next step was to set up the cable guide, which is a measuring device to ensure that all the ceiling is a uniform arch, without any irregularities. The cable guide was a fixed cord that ran the length of the building, equidistant from both side walls and at the height of the tops of the side walls (Figure 20). Strings were attached to this central guide with metal loops that could slide freely the length of the guide. This allowed the same radius to be measured from the guide to the ceiling at any spot in the building. This ensures that all of the bricks in the ceiling will be equidistant from the same fixed line, yielding a consistent and strong arch from one end of the building to the other.

Building the vaulted ceiling began at one of the end-walls. The small roofing bricks were laid at a slight angle and plastered with adobe mortar directly against the face of the end-wall in an arc shape, following the radius of the cable guide. The arc began at the top of each load-bearing wall and met at the apex, where a keystone brick was cut to fit in the gap and ensure optimal strength of the vaulted ceiling (Figure 21). Each new layer of the ceiling was built outward from the first, towards the far end-wall. It was important to overlap the spaces between the bricks, just as with the walls.

This was the most technically complex part of the construction. The concept of a free-standing vaulted ceiling with no support scaffolding is hard to believe or even imagine for many masons. I added extra photos of this step to help illustrate the process described in the above text (Figures 22, 23, 24).

! 25

!Figure 21. Using the string radius attached to the cable guide to measure placement for the keystone brick, completing the first layer of bricks in the vaulted ceiling.

!Figure 20. Setting up the cable guide, from which every brick in the ceiling will be measured.

Work on my demonstration house stopped permanently at this point (Figure 25). The following stages are described for the sake of continuity and photos are shown of other buildings. My building has not yet been finished, for reasons that will be discussed later.

! 26

!Figure 25. Vaulted ceiling complete.

!Figure 23. The vaulted ceiling after two days. Typical progress was 1.5 meters of ceiling per day.

!Figure 24. Finishing the vaulted ceiling against the far end-wall.

!Figure 22. Continuing the vaulted ceiling. Notice the incline of the successive layers that help the bricks hold in place until the mortar is dried.

6) Roof ~ 160 hours (detailed time requirements not available)

Once the vaulted ceiling is completed the load bearing walls are continued upward, building in the same fashion as previously and filling in the intervening curved space between ceiling and wall (Figure 26). It is important to fill this space with mortared bricks, not just build a freestanding wall and fill the resulting space between curved ceiling and wall with loose dirt or brick rubble. This would compromise the integrity of the roof. By filling all the space with mortared bricks the strength of the roof is enhanced. All of the weight encompassing the thin, single-brick-width arched ceiling applies universal counter-balancing pressure, making the entire roof an extremely resilient structure. These roofs are strong enough to build an entire second, or in theory, third, story.

Once the walls have been completed up to the height of the apex of the vaulted ceiling, a protective layer of plastic is laid down and then covered with a 10 cm layer of adobe (Figure 27). The plastic acts as a backup in case any water penetrates the roof once it is finished. Theoretically once the finish plaster is applied no water should reach this plastic. It acts as an emergency barrier to protect the roof. It also provides a warning in case of any damage; anywhere the black plastic begins to show requires immediate repair.

! 27

!Figure 26. Completing the walls and vault-to-wall space, also called “loading the arch.”

!Figure 27. Applying protective layer of plastic on roof.

7) Plastering ~ 120 hours

Once the bricks are all in place the exterior will require a final layer of plaster with adobe or another material (Figure 28). The simplest and most cost-effective solution is an adobe and cow manure composite typical of Mali of Burkina Faso. Yet for the reasons discussed earlier in this paper the Senegalese do not use this technique. Instead they use a mixture of asphalt and adobe, or just cement. This final layer serves to protect the building from direct contact with rain, which could otherwise gradually destroy the adobe bricks through erosion and compromise the stability of the building through saturation.

Plastering interior surfaces and installing windows and doors are the final steps. Technically this is unnecessary, the building is completely livable without these extra steps. Yet for aesthetic and security reasons it is nice to complete them. The interior finish can be simple adobe mixes, with different colored clays used to provide different attractive hues. Windows and doors can be installed by digging or chiseling grooves and tracks in the adobe bricks and then refilling with cement to secure pre-fabricated metal or wooden pieces in place.

Note that arches built in the earlier stages do not have to be left open as with windows but can be closed to the outside, leaving interior space for shelves or closets (Figure 29). This is one more benefit to having thick load-bearing walls.

! 28

!Figure 28. Exterior plastering with adobe-asphalt composite.

!Figure 29. Interior plastering and detail.

Chapter 7

Community interaction

1) Comprehension of project

At the outset of the project I sought and received approval and support from the community to build a Nubian Arch home on the outskirts of the village I lived in. Most importantly the owner of the land was quite excited by the idea of building this new home. I did not, however, perform any direct assessment of community need. I had instead, by researching Nubian Arch homes privately, come to the conclusion that this technique could greatly benefit my community. It offered safer, more comfortable, more durable, and cheaper housing than the other available options. I was also very personally interested in building a demonstration home, and I would have likely found a place to build it even if nobody had wanted it. As it turned out, all the individuals I talked to about the plan were very excited to see it and to help and learn the process. The owner of the land where I chose to build was a village elder, Aji Kanka, who was also my host grandfather. In day-to-day life however his step-son, Pape Willane, managed his affairs, and it was with Willane that I discussed what the home would look like, where and how we would build it, and how much time and resources it would take.

It is important to clarify my thinking. Particularly why I went ahead with such an ambitious project without having completed a substantial needs assessment of my community.

At this point I had spent nearly two years living in rural Senegal and through my own projects and helping other volunteers with their projects I had learned a great deal about how to effectively—and ineffectively—create change in rural Senegal.

What I had learned was that almost every new idea, whether it is composting, latrine building, or live fencing, is met initially with nearly universal enthusiasm. Everybody is looking for ways to improve their lives, and when you offer assistance they are eager to help. This initial support, however, quickly fades if what you are offering requires extra work with an uncertain outcome—even if the work required is negligible and the reward is great.

An example of this is the live fencing project (planting thorny trees in dense rows to grow into a living animal-proof hedge around gardens and farms) that the volunteer who served in my village before me had started. She performed a detailed community needs assessment including the village chief and other key members of the village. Together they determined that the top priority was to provide a secure place for women to collectively grow vegetables to improve nutrition for their families and to sell at the market for additional income. She completed all the necessary forms and received USAID grant money for barbed wire to be used to fence in a garden while trees were grown from seed to be planted around the perimeter of the garden and eventually fully protect the space, rendering the barbed wire no longer necessary. The community immediately saw the benefit of a safe collective area for their gardens, where no cows, sheep, or goats could

! 29

get in to destroy their crops. They then went ahead and planted the protected space with a variety of vegetables. In the meantime the long-term objective of the project—to establish a live fence around the garden with the barbed wire serving only as a temporary stand-in until the trees were large enough—languished. It required a lot of work to fill tree sacks, collect seeds, plant them, and carefully water and weed them for weeks before out-planting and continuing to water, weed, and replace dying seedlings, and prune quickly growing trees until a robust hedge was established. And the immediate need for all this work was unclear—they already had a safe space to garden in thanks to the barbed wire, and they were perhaps unsure of the efficacy of the live fence.

In the end the live fence never succeeded. Only about half of the perimeter ended up protected by thorny trees, and those were overgrown in weeds and tall grass and had grown too tall because they had never been pruned down into a bushy hedge. After only two years the barbed wire fence collapsed after termites devoured the wooden posts. Later, cows stampeded the garden, destroying the entire crop of vegetables. The garden was never re-established.

This is one of many examples I observed early on in my experience that made me realize the importance of leading by example instead of promising an uncertain future reward. I found it more effective to start a small demonstration myself and bring it to conclusion to fully demonstrate the rewards but also the work required. For example, when showcasing composting, I made three compost piles and rotated them for four weeks before amending my garden beds with compost. I then planted the same vegetables in amended and unamended beds side by side, demonstrating the higher vegetable yields of obtained from the compost-amended garden beds. This way people could see the amount of work I put into the project as well as the reward I received.

If instead I had just completed a survey of people interested in composting to improve their yields I would find at least nine out of ten people enthusiastic to have compost. But then five would drop out once they realized that I wasn’t making it for them, another three would drop out when the work became too much and the compost was not ready to apply, and only one of the ten would stick with it till the end. I, however, would have wasted considerable time and resources on all ten people. With an almost unlimited supply of potential work partners and projects to do, I had to be more efficient than this. By initiating the demonstration project myself I took a short-cut to find that one out of ten people who would be truly motivated to make compost, who would come to me for assistance, which I would gladly give. In this way I maximized my efficiency and minimized wasted time and frustration with failed projects.

This was my thinking when I began the Nubian Arch project in my village. Few people would really understand what the building was, what kind of work and costs it required, or what kind of home they would end up with until I could show them an example. Since no examples existed within 150 miles it was unreasonable to expect them to travel and see for themselves. So I determined to build a house first and then judge the real level of interest. It was a risk but I knew I would thoroughly enjoy the process regardless of the outcome, and I had high hopes of

! 30

convincing my community of the value of this style of construction.

2) Cultural differences

As it turned out I had overestimated the community investment in the project by failing to fully take into consideration the vast cultural differences between my American viewpoint and their Senegalese ones.

a) Risk taking vs conservative attitude

The biggest difference was our respective attitudes toward risk. Americans are much bigger risk-takers than Senegalese. Our economy thrives on investment, credit, and entrepreneurship, all of which are inherently risky but can provide great reward in the long run. Even our personal choices can be risky: driving cars, gambling, and pursuing recreational sports like downhill skiing are all risky endeavors. Our culture thrives on seizing opportunities today to make the most of tomorrow: the most profit, most success, most enjoyment. Yet Senegalese culture is decidedly conservative. Resources are communal—when one member of a family gets ahead they give their excess to those in need. There is little surplus wealth to put into risky ventures, and little incentive to strive for individual success when the results must be shared amongst many who did not participate. People seek to maintain a status quo. Perhaps because so much in the rural lifestyle is already risky—being so dependent on fickle rains—people strive for consistency rather than progress. The result is that my community, while outwardly excited about my project, doubted its success far more than I anticipated and therefore hesitated to put any actual work or money into it.

b) Novelty vs conformity

There is also a strong urge to conform in Senegalese culture—everyone desires to be just about the same as everyone else. They eat the same foods, wear the same clothes, study the same holy book, farm the same crops in the same manner, and build the same houses. They have little of the American fascination with individuality and novelty. In the US, industry relies on innovation and this has become a core principle of our culture. But in Senegal it would be undesirable to be the only family living in a round house when everyone else lives in a square one, even if the round home offered undeniable advantages. Or in this case the only family living in a Nubian Arch home when nobody else had one.

c) Cooperation and assistance

Cooperation became a more complex issue than I had anticipated as well. At the beginning I thought I understood the Senegalese work ethic pretty well, that generally work progressed slowly and with little stress but when someone needed help people would band together and in a fantastic burst of productivity they would finish the job. Thus they could all more quickly get back to their leisure time. I was confident, therefore, that if I really needed assistance all I had to

! 31

do was ask.

It was not this simple; politics were at play. Communal work happened frequently in the fields since everyone had a peanut farm and they all helped each other in turn. Building homes could be different, and depended on how good your connections were. Since the house I was building was not my house but that of Aji Kanka, only people owing him some kind of favor would be willing to show up and work for free. As it turned out he had few people to call on and I was left mostly to my own devices. The only people besides immediate family related to Aji Kanka to respond to my repeated appeals for help as the rains drew nearer were my closest friends. They helped because of our friendship rather than any sense of duty. The times Willane and the other relatives did help they were grudging, which I now realize was due to the previous two cultural misunderstandings: they did not have adequate faith in the outcome of the project and did not see the full value of it.

In the end I ran out of time. I finished the vaulted ceiling the day the rains arrived. Luckily I had already purchased a large tarp from the US and shipped it to Senegal. We tied the tarp over the building in a furious storm of rain and wind, and it protected the thin adobe ceiling for the entire rainy season. By that time the tarp had dissolved under the onslaught of rain and sun during the rainy season and we had another nine months after that to finish the house before the rains came again.

At this point I had taken plenty of time to reassess my earlier impetuousness and was not eager to jump into more work without the support of the community. In the last few weeks before the rains began my urgent calls for help to finish the building had been largely unanswered and I had resorted to paying villagers and a couple of Nubian Arch masons from the city to get the vaulted ceiling finished in time. I tallied my total costs at about $450 (see appendix 2 for a detailed breakdown of costs), and the time invested at about three months. Since I had not explicitly asked for financial assistance from Aji Kanka I thought it fair that I should swallow the entire cost up to that point, even though he had failed to deliver on often-promised labor.

I estimated it would take another $500 to finish the building, assuming we would need to hire a Nubian Arch mason and pay for the relatively costly materials for the water-resistant finish. I proposed to Aji Kanka and Willane that we split this cost, each paying $250, and finish the house. In the end Aji Kanka would get a finished Nubian Arch house for only $250, at a value of over $2,000, no small amount of money to them. Yet they refused. They would only accept to finish the house if I paid the entire amount. I was frustrated at this point, partly at them for being so miserly and ungrateful, but partly at myself for not anticipating this.

I subsequently left the village to begin working for AVN in the city of Thies. Eventually Aji Kanka and I talked through our differences and reached a sort of compromise: if they could make all the remaining bricks (another 1,500 large bricks, or two weeks labor for three men) I would return with a Nubian Arch mason and together the mason and I would work for free along with whatever labor the community could provide us to finish the house. I was still uncertain how I

! 32

would pay for the materials for the finish plaster but I would figure that out when I had to. Unfortunately Aji Kanka and Willane never made the bricks. Nine months passed and there was no progress for me to act on. Yet at the last minute before the rains came to destroy the house for good, the community rallied and constructed a timber and metal roof over the vulnerable adobe vault. I had resigned myself to hear of its demise so I was happy to hear they had thought it worth saving, although still disappointed that they had not finished the bricks in time. This provided a small but important glimmer of hope that the project had made some kind of impact.

3) Predicted Impact

a) Short-term: Provide a functional home and an example of the new architecture

For all the failings in planning, the home will still serve its original purpose: to demonstrate a new way to build an adobe brick house. Although the house was not completely finished it was built to a livable stage, which will go far to dispelling the first cultural misunderstanding; its feasibility. When the rains threatened to destroy the building the summer after I had left, Aji Kanka had a temporary metal roof erected over the unprotected adobe vaulted ceiling. Thus for the moment it is safe from the elements and could still be finished properly if people find the will to do so. Clearly they still value it to some degree or they would not have put in the work to protect it. Some elements of the Nubian Arch design will, I hope, become more attractive as the community has time to observe and use it.

The fact that I ended up building almost the entire house single-handed, for example, was not lost on my community—if I can do it alone they could do it much more easily as a family or community, now that they see what they are working towards. Nor were the building’s attributes lost on the community. They remarked on its durability, spaciousness, beauty, and natural climate-controlled comfort. In fact when I called a friend in the village after I had left, he reported that many people had been visiting the house and staying for hours. When I asked why, he replied that the house I built was “the coolest place in the village to take a nap on a hot day.” It may take them a while to adjust to something as dramatically new as a Nubian Arch house, but it seems they have begun to see at least part of its value.

b) Long-term: Upkeep and inspiration for other projects

I hope this trend continues. Even if people only adapt some of the Nubian Arch strategies, such as building walls 60 cm thick instead of only 15 cm, they will capture some of the advantage and improve the durability and comfort of their homes. In time people may even try to finish the house I began, or build a new one using it as an example. I am certain that the masons in my village have the skill to do so, even if they lack the self-confidence.

I had serious reservations about the upkeep of the house after I left, most notably I thought it would be destroyed by the rains. When in fact the community rallied and built a temporary metal roof to protect it I was pleasantly surprised. While this is likely the only attention it will receive,

! 33

it is conceivable that people with continue to take an interest in preserving the home I built and maybe even one day complete it. I left my host family with contact information for AVN in Senegal if they ever have need of an experienced Nubian Arch mason to help finish the house. It is not unheard of for AVN to even finance small projects like this in order to grow the market in a new area. The home I built could serve as an example for a whole new region of Senegal, bringing in new clients and apprentice masons.

Chapter 8

Conclusions

Despite being thousands of years old, the Nubian Arch technique is still relevant today. The benefits it provided its original creators are the same it provides to families today—affordable, sustainable, durable homes built from local materials using local labor. In addition it is a promising solution to the environmental stressors of a growing population and dwindling natural resources. By using earth instead of cement, metal, or wood, these buildings fit a unique niche in the ongoing quest for durable, affordable housing. Nubian Arch homes may not be the panacea that Fathy hoped but they are certainly a valuable option. AVN’s work has done much to spread awareness and understanding of the style in West Africa and build a lasting market. My own project building a home in a small rural village taught me first-hand many of the greatest obstacles affecting widespread and rapid change. The lessons I learned apply not just to new architecture techniques but to development work in general.

Yet despite some setbacks and frustrations I achieved a great deal of success, some of which may not be apparent until years or decades down the road. The first goal of Peace Corps is to “help meet the country’s need for trained individuals.” In this respect I struggled to effect immediate change in my community with the Nubian Arch home since participation fell short of what I had hoped. Yet the often-overlooked second and third goals of Peace Corps service are “to help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served” and “to help promote a better understanding of the peoples served on the part of Americans.” In this regard I may have made more significant and lasting changes. Building the home brought me into close working relationships with dozens of different people in my community and within the larger region. The fact that these relationships were not always easy or straightforward enhanced our mutual understanding and respect. I gained a much deeper insight into Senegalese culture, work ethic, priorities, and methods of communication. They in turn learned much about me and by extension about Americans.

Perhaps the most valuable lesson I learned was that development work is never straightforward, and those who seek to do development work are at constant risk of imposing their own priorities of those they seek to help. Such was the case with Fathy and the town of New Gourna. He sought to design a perfect community and demonstrate to the world the superiority of the Nubian Arch technique. Yet the administration he worked for and the people he built the homes for did not

! 34

view his efforts the same way, and discouragement eventually forced him to give up. Only decades later is the significance of what he built being fully realized and retroactively protected.

Similarly, AVN has developed a successful approach to housing development in Mali and Burkina Faso by promoting the Nubian Arch technique with a market-based approach. Yet they have met considerable resistance trying to apply this strategy in the differing conditions in Senegal. I believe the Nubian Arch technique has a valuable role to play in Senegal’s future, but AVN needs to learn from their strategic failures and adapt their approach to the new reality.

In my own case I was too preoccupied with the substantial benefits I saw with the Nubian Arch homes and failed to foresee how my community would react. I assumed that once I was able to build a complete house the benefits would be self-evident. But I underestimated the work involved and neglected to establish clear responsibilities for all parties. I jumped straight into building by myself, assuming that others would see the value in what I was doing as it progressed and I would be able call upon help as I required it. Instead I ended up building and financing most of the operation before realizing that the community was not ready for it. Only at the very last moment did they decide to erect a shelter over the home to protect it from the rain and preserve it for future use.

So perhaps in the end my community will learn and benefit from the Nubian Arch home I built there, but it will be on their own time and by their own rules. I enjoyed the incredible amount of learning that my community and I shared and the mutual understanding and respect that developed. This, more than a desire to see my community change anything in particular, is what drove me, and how I measure success.

! 35

References

AVN "TABLEAU DE BORD 2013-2014." http://www.lavoutenubienne.org. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

WMF: World Monuments Fund. "New Gourna Village: Conservation and Community." (2011): n. pag.Www.wmf.org. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

Fathy, Hassan. Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1973. Print.

! 36

Appendix 1

Work journal

Labor notes from demonstration Nubian Arch project

Daily work reporting (x)mh/(y) = total Man Hours of work (x)/number of workers (y)

February: w/ Michael 26: AM 6mh/2 dig test pit – PM 6mh/2 cont. digging, measure foundation 27: AM 8mh/2 stake foundation + dig pit – PM rest 28: AM 12mh/4 dig foundation – PM 8mh/4 make bricks

March: w/ Michael 1: AM 8mh/4 foundation – PM 6mh/2 brick 2: AM 8mh/3 foundation – PM 7mh/3 3: Rest day at farm 4: AM 5mh/2 foundation – PM rest 5: AM 8mh/4 foundation – PM 12/7 (kids) brick 6: Bike to Toubacouta (TC), rest 7: Rest 8: AM bike home – PM 8mh/3 brick 9: Moto to market at Touba Mauride – PM 4mh/2 brick 10: AM 8mh/3 – PM 6mh/4 brick 11: AM run + chill at farm – PM 6mh/2 brick 12: Visit Megan's village; Keur Malick Faty 13: AM 4mh/2 foundation – PM rest 14: AM 4mh/2 foundation – PM 6mh/2 brick 15: AM 9mh/3 foundation – PM 9mh/3 *brick till dusk,epic night ride to TC 16: Travel to Dakar, pick up Matthew at airport

w/ Michael and Matthew 17: AM Travel to TC – PM rest 18: AM Bike to village – PM 8mh/3 brick 19: AM 11mh/8 (kids) foundation – PM 9mh/3 brick 20: AM 10mh/3 foundation – PM 10mh/5 (kids) brick 21: *Bike trip adventure into forest 22: AM 12mh/4 foundation – PM rest *foundation nearly at ground level

! 37

23: *Pizza rest day at farm 24: AM 10mh/3 foundation – PM 9mh/3 brick 25: AM *run 12mh/6 (kids) foundation – PM bike to TC 26: Rest day in TC 27: Travel to Dakar 28: Matthew flies out, travel to TC

w/ Michael 29: AM bike home – PM 7mh/4 brick 30: Rest day 31: *Bike trip through Pataco, Koular, camp in oasis next to charcoal mounds

April: w/ Michael 1: *Day 2 bike trip, arrive home – PM 4mh/2 brick 2: AM 18mh/10 (kids) foundation – PM 9mh/3 brick 3: AM bike to TC – PM rest 4: TC rest day 5: *Bike to Sokone, visit Brennan, Nick, and Rob at sites 6: *Bike to Louma in TM – Final lunch with family – PM chill at farm 7: AM Ride to TC – PM rest 8: Travel to Dakar 9: Drop Michael at airport, travel all the way home

by myself 10: AM 5mh/1 foundation – PM 4mh/2 brick 11: AM 7mh/3 foundation – PM 3mh/1 brick 12: AM 10mh/3 *foundation done! W/ Ibra and Issa – PM 7mh/2 brick till dusk with Ibra 13: AM 5mh/1 brick – PM ride to TC 14: Thies 15: Thies 16: Thies 17: Travel, arrive home 18: AM 6mh/1 prep bricks – PM 3mh/1 prep bricks 19: AM 11mh/3 transport bricks – PM 4mh/3 prep bricks 20: AM 12mh/3 lay 1st layer of bricks! – PM 3mh/1 brick 21: AM 5mh/1 lay 2nd layer – PM 4mh/2 brick 22: AM 7mh/2 lay 3rd layer *scorpion sting – PM recover from sting 23: AM 4mh/1 brick – PM 3mh/1 brick 24: AM 8mh/3 brick (82 bricks w/ Akon and Moussa Geye) – PM 3mh/1 prep bricks *Baala's wedding 25: AM 6mh/1 brick – PM 4mh/1 brick

! 38

26: AM workzone meeting TC – PM 3mh/3 brick 27: AM 11mh/3 brick *108 bricks – PM 6mh/2 brick *80 bricks; total 188 for day 28: AM 14mh/4 lay 4th layer + plaster outside – PM brew cashew wine 29: AM 11mh/3 lay 5th layer w/ Assan – PM 5mh/1 brick 30: AM 8mh/4 lay 6th layer– PM 8mh/3 brick *50 bricks

costs: Ndude Sisse: transport 600 bricks (6,000 cfa), 20 loads termite clay (7,000 cfa) Moussa Geye: 14 loads rock (21,000 cfa), 10 loads clay (3,500 cfa) Issa Bure: 3 loads termite clay - cow charet (2,800 cfa) Allsan: 2 loads termite clay (1,000 cfa) Salif Cisse: 3 loads termite clay (free) Me and Pop: transport 150 bricks (free) Me and Dr. Ass: 10 loads termite clay (free)

May: 1: AM 8mh/3 lay 7th layer w/ Assan – PM 10mh/5 (kids) brick 2: “Rest” day *sat around hut having my pinched back and numb arms torment me 3: AM transport bricks 20mh/5 – PM 10mh/3 brick *220 small, 54 big *Pop, maam Dundy, Ass, Usainu, me, transported ~ 300 large bricks and 400 small

w/ Ass + Ousseynou 4: AM 10mh/3 lay 8th layer– PM 10mh/3 brick 5: AM 10mh/3 lay 9th layer– PM 10mh/3 brick * 240 little, 45 big 6: AM 12mh/4 lay 10th layer *walls done! – PM 13mh/5 (kids) brick * 240 little plus prep 7: AM 20mh/5 transport bricks plus first arch done – PM 9mh/3 brick *Pop, maam Dundy, Ass, Usainu, me, transported ~ 150 large bricks and 1,000 small 8: AM 15mh/3 lay *end wall 4 layers, 2nd arch done – PM 6mh/3 brick *sick 9: AM 15mh/3 lay *sick; other end wall 4 layers, 1st curved arch ½ done – PM 11mh/5 brick * sick; 350 little (using new 3-brick mold along with old 2-brick)

by myself, workers on holiday for wedding 10: AM 5mh/1 lay *1st curved arch complete – PM 1mh/1 prep pits 11: Rest day *sickness came back for the day, knocked me out, just lounged and read, was great. Spent night at farm. So cool. 12: AM * chill morning at farm 2mh/1 prep pits – PM 4mh/1 brick

w/ Ass + Ousseynou 13: AM 13mh/3 lay *end wall 3 layers, curved arch ½ done – PM 9mh/3 brick *400 little 14: AM 22mh/5 transport and lay *2st curved arch complete – PM 9mh/3 brick *400 little *Abib and me, early with donkey cart; Ass, Usainu, Maam Dundy follow with cows. Abib left after 3x loads, Pop Sy and Ablay Sy showed up. I started arch bricking. Total transported ~ 175 large, 1,000 small

! 39

15: AM 12mh/3 lay 16: AM 14mh/4 and lay *clay footing done – PM chill at garden 17: Work at garden, travel to TC 18: Travel to Thies 19: Meet Thomas is Thies 20: Travel to Dakar, then on to TC 21: AM Travel home PM 3mh/1 prep brick pits 22: AM 6/2 brick – PM 9mh/3 brick 23: Travel to TC 24: Travel to Thies, meet AVN people at new office 25: Meeting with VN masons 26: Brief meeting with Thomas, travel to Dakar. PM shopping, nap, chill, eat 27: Meet Demba, project 3rd year with AVN is a GO PM travel to Toubacouta, pick up masons, home

w/ Saloum (C3), Saliu (C2) and Alieu (labor) 28: AM 30mh/7 lay *3rd curved arch complete and 1st end wall – PM 15mh/5 lay *start voute! *Abib, Alsan, Mordu Khan, 2x kids w/ two donkey carts transported ~ 1,000 small bricks 29: AM 32mh/9 lay. Voute and voutains – PM 16mh/5 lay 30: Meeting in Sokone, visit Fatu Dieuf – PM 24mh/8 lay *voute half done! 31: AM 22mh/4 lay. Voutains done – PM 20mh/8 lay

June w/ whole crew

1: AM 24mh/4 lay. Cement footing – PM 16mh/4 lay. Finish footing, prep bricks 2: AM 24mh/4 lay. Voute done, prep plaster pits – PM RAIN!!! protect the castle!!!! 3: AM 4mh/1 start plaster pits, add 3x wheelbarrows fresh manure to 1st pile – PM 5mh/2 clean bricks, harvest red clay, level around house with earth (fill puddles)

! 40

Appendix 2

Technical details and cost breakdown of Nubian Arch Demonstration Home

26 square meter Nubian Arch house Three months, 1,026 total hours labor

Skill requirements: I was able to find most of the introductory information on how to build a Nubian Arch home on the AVN website (http://www.lavoutenubienne.org). I received the detailed technical documents and mason handbooks from my contacts at the AVN office in Senegal. From these I was able to design and execute the building without an experienced Nubian Arch mason helping me. It should be noted, however, that without the access to these resources or the basic proficiency in reading, writing, and construction that I had prior to this project, it would be difficult to build a Nubian Arch home that is fit for habitation. For most projects an experienced Nubian Arch mason is assigned to oversee the job, and leads a crew of made up of other Nubian Arch masons of varying skill levels along with local apprentices being introduced to the technique. The bare minimum for a normal project would be a single experienced Nubian Arch mason who has built several dozen Nubian Arch homes and knows the entire suite of technical skills from foundation to finish. With only two or three untrained apprentices he could complete a home the size of the one I built in a single month, working full-time.

Equipment: Donkey cart, wheelbarrow, pick, shovel, hoe, buckets (6), brick molds (4), rice sacks (15), barrel arch mold, level, string level, measuring tape, spades (2), hammer, water barrels (2) Subtotal Equipment: 63,500 CFA (~$125)

Materials: Cement (3) (9,750, rope (8,000), tarp from USA (40,000), plastic sheeting (10,000), nails, rope. Subtotal Materials: 67,750 CFA (~$135)

Transportation costs: Transportation of foundation rocks: 21,000 CFA Transportation of clay: 14,300 CFA Transportation of bricks: 6,000 CFA

Subtotal Transportation: 41,300 CFA (~$85)

Labor costs: (I completed the majority of the labor, along with community members working for no pay. Towards the end of the season I hired two mid-level Nubian Arch masons and a local apprentice to accelerate the process and get the building covered before the rains came)

! 41

Masons (2) 6 days: 42,000 CFA Apprentice 6 days: 12,000 CFA

Subtotal Labor: 54,000 CFA (~$110)

Total Project Cost: 226,550 CFA (~$455 US)

! 42