28 October 2026 · Snapshot · 8dfd47e · Read only · Return to current edition
monad
Research
Edition 02
Published
Research02

In this research

MONAD CONTENT

ABSTRACT:

Monad explores the possibility of using fragmented post-disaster funding to support a cohesive modular architectural system that addresses immediate recovery needs while maintaining value for future reuse. Focusing on the earthquake vulnerability of Istanbul, the thesis links the economics of recovery with the technical development and application of a pre-existing prototype measuring 2.55 × 5.10 m. Through a comparative analysis of recovery spending, funding responsibilities, and industry outcomes, a foundation is established for evaluating affordability and potential financing strategies. Lessons learned from the 1999 Marmara earthquake are applied to a projected scenario in Istanbul, converting expected disruptions in housing and services into specific design requirements. The current unit is assessed based on cost, building performance, production, distribution, and deployment criteria. Clear, measurable goals direct its improvement and provide a means to evaluate the enhancements made. Lastly, the thesis investigates the circumstances under which the system could be adapted for educational, agricultural, healthcare, cultural, industrial, and tourism purposes. The goal is to create a revised unit and implementation plan, backed by an evaluation framework that connects emergency response to the ongoing usefulness of architecture beyond the disaster.

A. Metric Analysis:

1. Post-disaster recovery needs, financing and economic outcomes. Examine damage, assessed recovery needs, national and municipal funding, and industry outcomes to establish a basis for the unit’s cost, financing and business model. Use focused comparisons with explicit units, coverage and reporting periods.

  • 1.1. Housing recovery needs and disaster damage. Compare assessed housing recovery needs per affected person across ten disaster cases, ordered by pre-event GDP, alongside destroyed or fully damaged homes and direct housing damage costs. Keep government allocations and actual expenditure separate from assessed needs.

  • 1.2. Analysis and graph representation of the quantity of fund allocation BY THE MUNICIPALITIES (ranked by GDP or production capacity of the given city) per person with respect to different amenities after different types of disasters marked by their capacity of destruction in terms of the damage done measured by the costs of recuperation or how many units of habitation became non-usable.

  • 1.3. Beneficiary (Corporate) Analysis: (A. Disaster amplitude vs. Money spent, B. Disaster amplitude vs. Money made (by the top 3 beneficiaries), C. Disaster amplitude vs. Number of jobs created, D. Number of jobs created vs. Number of jobs that lasted over 3 years, E. Disaster amplitude vs. Taxes paid) vs. GDP for EACH INDUSTRY (energy, housing, food, etc.).

  • 1.4. Based on (A. Disaster amplitude vs. Money spent) vs. GDP for EACH INDUSTRY (energy, housing, food, etc.), a discussion of “To what extent could expenditures be channeled to a unified solution as a single unit of architecture?” is addressed and qualitative tools are further elaborated to understand how to conduct such measurements and how to express the concept of extent on the same basis of quantitative language.

  • 1.5. Sketching the solution and asking:

    1. 1.5.1. What could be the estimated allowed max. cost of such a solution per unit or per person with an assumption about how many people, on average, can share a unit of 2.55 × 5.1 m?

    2. 1.5.2. Who will pay which percentage of it?

    3. 1.5.3. What will be the business model?

B. The Context: Istanbul:

1. 1999 Earthquake detailed analysis.

  • 1.1. Analysis and graph representation of number of losses:

    1. 1.1.1. Lives and damages that prevent a person from working for over a year.

    2. 1.1.2. Houses beyond recuperation, with an estimated number of people occupying each unit (whether an apartment or a flat).

    3. 1.1.3. Infrastructure: The amount of water, electricity, gas distributed and consumed per day in the city vs. daily loss in consumption for the next 365 days after the disaster, and the economic loss analysis due to damage and absence of proper consumption.

    4. 1.1.4. Transportation: The number of km done by each and every main transportation means in the city a day and the total revenue as well as the profit obtained from each means, their shares among stakeholders and municipalities on a daily basis vs. daily loss in consumption for the next 365 days after the disaster, and the economic loss analysis due to damage and absence of proper consumption.

  • 1.2. Anticipated Earthquake detailed simulation analysis: This part will repeat the one above with respect to the first terms of the comparison couples, which will represent the current numbers of the city of Istanbul belonging to the year 2026, the second terms being the estimated numbers (the estimated number suggestion will be backed by a novel, dedicated calculation method which will be discussed at the beginning of the section).

C. The Analysis of the Existing Unit:

1. Cost Analysis of the EXISTING unit: material cost of each part, production cost with estimates on labour and the production site (the estimated number suggestion will be backed by a novel, dedicated calculation method which will be discussed at the beginning of the section).

2. Performance analysis of the EXISTING unit:

  • 2.1. Structural performance.

  • 2.2. Thermal performance.

  • 2.3. Moisture performance.

  • 2.4. Energy performance.

  • 2.5. Ventilation and indoor air quality.

  • 2.6. Fire and life safety.

  • 2.7. Durability and weather tightness.

3. Use cases within a single unit and combination alternatives.

D. Constraints of the Existing Unit and Updates on the Unit:

1. Critique of the existing unit with respect to the context of the immediate post-disaster period (earthquake) in Istanbul, mainly on the basis of its production (the costs, the labour), the distribution and deployment (on the site or sites) constraints.

2. Optimization Vectors: What is the aimed-for numeric goal with respect to the building performance parameters of the unit or of a depicted combination(s) and cost, distribution and deployment convenience vs. how far each current value of a given parameter is away from that goal, represented as a Cartesian point or vector (point)?

3. Updates on the Unit and Execution:

  • 3.1. The Finalized Unit.

  • 3.2. Production Plan.

  • 3.3. Distribution Plan.

  • 3.4. Deployment Plan.

4. Final evaluation of the Optimization Vectors and where they end up, with an open analysis and an expression of the improvements.

E. Post-Disaster Period of the Unit and Repurposing It:

1. Possible scenarios for REPURPOSING and a qualitative research on contextual parameters which the possible scenarios depend on.

2. Further evaluation of the possible scenarios and a presentation of each sample belonging to a use case for each distinct industry (as an embodiment of the required principles for each use case):

  • 2.1. Monad for Education.

  • 2.2. Monad for Agriculture.

  • 2.3. Monad for Health.

  • 2.4. Monad for Culture.

  • 2.5. Monad for Industrial Production.

  • 2.6. Monad for Tourism.

Conclusion