In the latest issue of the Hazards Observer, there is an article titled Rebuild by Design; Lessons learned from the evaluation of HUD’s post-Sandy resilience design competition, by Carlos Marti (go to pages 6-13). Carlos Martín, PhD, is a Senior Research Associate in the Urban Institute’s Metropolitan Policy Center.
For those of you who share my interest in the innovative efforts made after H. Sandy, this assessment of the Rebuild by Design effort is of special note. But, I am not clear what the reviewer thinks of the effort – one the one hand it was highly original, but difficult to implement, and on the other hand it was duplicative and tiring for the participants. Plus, this effort was in addition to the usual recovery planning efforts.
I would be interested in what the readers of this blog think about the experiment.
As you may know, the Rockefeller Foundation is continuing its efforts to achieve resilience during recovery. So, it is important that the results of the Rebuild by Design effort be known and perhaps replicated.
Recovery Diva 
Interesting comments, John. I wish I knew the author of the article. It would be fun to chew on some of your points with him.
My general reaction is negative for several reasons.
• First and foremost, I don’t see how the experiment can be duplicated, or even institutionalized. It doesn’t seem to have inspired a groundswell of support nor yet accomplished anything of pith and moment.
• I’m not sure it should be institutionalized, at least not as it was implemented. This kind of design effort lengthens the time to recovery. It was clearly a distraction. The effort may do some good, but how much more could have been done by a different investment.
• Not mentioned but very important – what are the strings on the money? How much did the local communities have to invest in time and money? Did they feel they got value for their investment? I’m doubtful.
• In one sense, the timing is absolutely wrong. While it’s true that “you’re not recovering, you’re just preparing for the next disruption,” in fact this sort of thing should be undertaken a) by the community itself, b) PRIOR to the disaster, c) with the support of all of the relevant stakeholders. Instead, the experiment undertaken a) by outsiders, b) after the disaster as communities are trying to recover, c) that pays lip service to community involvement but ignores the impacts of the effort on the community.
• The effort is the sort of showpiece that politicians love, that seems to accomplish little.