Mongolian dwellings

In working on my MA in Cultural Studies ("culturology") at the Mongolian University of Arts and Culture, I wrote about changes in the material and intellectual culture of the Mongolian home. One of the trends I found quite interesting was the transformation of the GER XOROOLOL--the peri-urban districts of Ulaanbaatar, in which approximately two-thirds of the city's population lived in yurts in fenced yards (GER)--through the contruction of permanent dwellings. These are generally built by the homeowners themselves, commonly using roughly-hewn lumber (15x15 cm?) faced with a wooden lattice covered with clay-plaster, and follow a simple rectangular design consisting of a kitchen and living area separated by a full or partial wall. As the households in these areas accumulate increasing amounts of capital, it has become more and more common to see investment in more elaborate dwellings--often made of brick, sometimes extending to two stories, and in many cases built by professional contractors. The distinction between these types of dwellings is underlined in the different terminologies used: the simple, self-built homes are known as AMINY ORON SUUC, whereas private residences on par with apartments are known as XAUS ("house"); the term XASHAA BAISHIN ("fence [and] building") generally refers to the former rather than to the latter. What interests me in particular is the way in which notions of household comfort and standard of living have come to be tied in with the practices of building and living in different types of residences as expressions of status.

Part of my research involved a closed-response survey of residents in the GER XOROOLOL, asking the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements concerning the positive and negative properties of yurts and private homes. What was most intriguing about the results was that many people justified their preference for permanent buildings in ways that seemed to overlook, or even contradict, what I thought of as very positive qualities of the yurt: its capacity to retain heat in the winter, due to the combination of an efficient minimization of volume (through low ceilings that taper away from the central heat source towards the walls, where most activity involves sitting or lying down) and the use of multiple layers of thick, natural felt insulation (wool fibres); the continuous air flow achieved in summer by rolling up the XAYAAVCH along the floor and opening the O'RX in the roof, providing a much cooler environment than plaster or concrete buildings; the possibility of moving, or setting up and dismantling, yurts within the fenced lot to take seasonal advantage of shade and sunlight or to accommodate changes in the household composition; the aesthetic value of a circular space; and so on. One of the concerns that no one acknowledged directly, but that I think was essential to this situation, was the value of capital investment as a means of reinforcing land tenure. Keeping in mind that apartments and urban lots were not privatized until 1998-1999, and that there has been a history of moving urban yurt-dwellers to accommodate new apartment complex developments, building a permanent house--if possible out of brick--can be an effective strategy for protecting against expropriation. We came up against this in 2005 when I was working on the World Bank Sacred Urban Landscapes project, and were investigating the possibility of nominating a World Heritage Site encompassing Gandantegchenling Monastery: the hill on which the monastery is situated had been designated as a protected area, and the government's official plan was to expropriate the 200 or so households surrounding the monastery in order to build a type of Buddhist theme park. But the local member of parliament had (illegally) arranged for the distribution of property certificates to the families in this area just prior to the previous election, and many families had subsequently invested heavily in developing their real estate.

There are 0 attachment(s) stored for this page.