The weaknesses of the T.C.H.T

In contrast with strengths of the T.C.H.T, the opposite sides were found through:

 Difficulty to control, the T.C.H.T has no controlling strategy on the environmental performance, and rather that it is direct contact with the external environment through the central yard which has resulted in an environment that is not protected from the outside climatic conditions, such as rain or dust, which then increases the chance of unwanted dust Figure 6.4 illustrates this points.

Figure 6.4: The weakness of T.C.H.T (Author) such as

A. Difficulty to control rain water on winter according to use the traditional way to rain water drainage (1) (PH, CH4, 2012), (2) (PH, CH11, 2012)

B. Difficulty to control dust storms on continuous days of the year (3) (PH, CH3, 2012), (4) (PH, CH9, 2012)

169

Furthermore, this lack of control allows the entry of the harsh climate directly into the house. Oneinterviewee argued:

“The climate changes in the last years have affected the open yards. The negative point is that the traditional house is unable to face the surprise dust storms sweeping our summer from time to time. Also, they are unable to use the interior courtyard due to the rain and it is difficult to control the house as it needs much more time to clean it” (Arch., 9, 2012).

Moreover, modernization has emerged in different ways, which also indicates the difficulty of controlling the temperature, alongside the phenomenon of dust storms.

There has also been an increase in humidity through a rise in the level of underground water (see section 6.4.5/ part 2). Figure 6.5 an example of T.C.H.T that effected by modernisation.

Figure 6.5:The weakness such as difficulty to control of underground water in sardab of T.C.H.T that arise according to the modernization (PH, CH10, 2012), (Author).

 Cannot standalone. It would be difficult to design this kind of house in a modern location as it would have to fit in with the plans of the locality and the whole city; it could not function alone. Unfortunately, the house cannot work alone, but only within its complex system of winding narrow alleys and different types of space within one locality through the compactness. It needs an urban fabric consisting of hundreds of similar houses to work according to its environmental purpose. These houses are part of a mutually dependent system, and all the houses work together. A traditional house with an interior courtyard cannot be built independently among modern houses, because it will never work as an

170

environmental unit. This view was expressed by an interviewee who had an MSc in the environmental architecture of the T.C.H.T in Baghdad, she said:

“It cannot survive alone without all its neighbouring houses that form its locality. A courtyard house by itself can do nothing without the help of its numerous neighbours”

(Arch., 2, 2012).

 The individual houses in particular suffer from neglect and aging, and a few of the T.C.H.T have a new function in such a way that they have lost their identity.

 Also, the growing need for services, whether at home or of public services, is apparent.

The most striking result to emerge from the data is that there were strong rather than weak points in this T.C.H.T. As a result, this type of house has special characteristics and it is not easy to build similar houses because they would be very expensive and a professional builder is needed, as confirmed in section 6.3.1. I think this T.C.H.T deserves to be conserved. However, in section 6.4.5/ part 1, it was shown that the development project has presented the need for enhanced house performance for long time. Additionally, it confirmed the importance of the T.C.H.T even though these projects began in 1980. Therefore, the T.C.H.T has not become:

(1) fit with changes in weather and climate condition, (2) adapting to changes in lifestyle for the current user, and (3) updated according to the changing need in technology. Now, with our local situation, I think it deserves improvement.

A new perspective on this CH was added by the architects, who thought it might be adapted to meet the changes in society and the environment, as well as the technical changes, to enhance the level of services and achieve comfortable use for residents. This involves being responsive to upcoming needs and fixed techniques, which confirms the performance in this T.C.H.T, and requires improvement (see section 6.3.1), because it is not updated to the present or future users’ needs and there is a lack of technological development of different forms.

The development of the T.C.H.T as related to artificial systems was described through the advantages and disadvantages of adding new systems related to changing needs, and the possible characteristics for appropriate systems in the T.C.H.T. However, particular attention is required to provide these houses with long term improvement according to the changing needs, without having any effect on the architectural appearance by using artificial systems (see section 6.3.3- 6.3.4).

171

Obviously, a great deal of emotion was expressed by the architects concerning their attachment to this type of house and they talked about how they were nostalgic for the heritage and how it could be lost it in spite of not living in this house, as shown in section 6.3.5.

The summaries of the architect interviews support the current research as being a mixed picture; some architects were used some dimmed, while other said things in the interview, and other did not add anything because there were many problems in this type of house. However, there is no clear picture, and there is nothing that support or not from the view of these architects. They had a perception of positive things but the practice does not suggest that they were using these principles anymore, because one suggested that perhaps there is no demand for these things and clients did not prefer them. Interestingly, people did not use the design and other they used. Is that about the perception or is the idea of what is good based on nostalgia and emotion which does not match with reality in the data experience or about the hard facts of performance. This is quite an interesting contrast because the first part was emotion about the heritage but the reality of things is the knowledge part for looking to the T.C.H.T, which is obviously too expensive to build or to provide maintenance. Also, it is reality to spend 714,285 GBP /1 million dollars to refurbish these houses and then leave them for a long time without any maintenance or redevelopment. Therefore, the possibility of use IS in the T.C.H.T to adapt to changing needs and deal with social and environmental, as well as other, aspects is still not clear. Such an idea was articulated in an account by one interviewee who had participated as a team consultant member in preparing a study of traditional houses in old central Baghdad in Al-Kadhimiya and Al-Adhamiya. This an interviewee clarified:

“ The subject needs to be reviewed; to renew the idea to be in touch with modern life, the classic solution is not enough in the 21^st century as we are in the age of nano technology, but with the power and spirit of the past, new standards need to be dealt with” (Arch., 13, 2012).

Thus, we need others’ information to complete the whole picture of the possible use of IS in the T.C.H.T. This idea was confirmed by one professional architect who said:

“We only negotiate this matter theoretically and from our experience as an architect, but we also need information from authorized persons to do what we want

172

to improve. From their point of view, even they haven't the experience and imagination about the results of their decisions.” (Arch., 21, 2012)

6.5 Summary

This chapter has highlighted how the architects were selected, and has also reviewed the data collected from the architects in relation to different items, including their experience of CH, the main strategies to enhance user comfort, the adopting of the T.C.H.T, and the development of the T.C.H.T as related to artificial systems.

Additional aspects also emerged from the new project in the Al-Kadhimiya historical area and the negative aspects with this house type.

This chapter has illustrated the findings arising from the architect interviews around T.C.H.T. in Iraq in general and Baghdad specifically. The strengths of the T.C.H.T more than the weaknesses were apparent, which makes them deserving of conservation. On the other hand, it has weaknesses in performance of the house in different ways, indicating the need for improvement. However, the key view expressed in the interviews with the architects ascertained the need for improvement in house performance, and the possible use of IS in the T.C.H.T still not clear enough.

Also, we can question whether these houses still have the same features and characteristics. Therefore, the next chapter will explore the current condition of the T.C.H.T. in Al-Kadhimiya as the case study area, and illustrates what had happened to these houses on the ground.