Shelter

Uderstanding shelter as a temporary architecture that has a simple function, is specified and fits into what we want to be protected from. It is important what the shelter is made out of as well as where is it situated. But can the shelter stop existing if the danger is removed?

For shelter from nature, we can use natural materials. For the shelter against humans (bunker) we are using human-made materials (improved strength, durability, resistance). Is the material the shelter is made out of connected to the level of danger?

Is the material then informing how temporary the shelter can be? The lifespan of the shelters I have been collecting is just a few weeks. They are existing next to or within architecture. Still, they are expressing many of the architectural qualities. That are having the lightness and simplicity that I am looking for in architecture in general, but because of the time frame, they exist in they are not so valued. They exist not to show an idea but to give a function, a shelter for tools or machines.

Making a shelter is contacted to acknowledge a state of emergency.

How would a shelter against climate catastrophe look like? Or maybe it should not be a shelter against climate catastrophe but against ourselves, society, system.

How to make architecture in the postnature times?