Abstract While the number of deaths, injures and economic losses caused by disasters increases every year worldwide, reconstruction programs in the Third World continuously fail to recover poor communities from destruction. Research demonstrates that despite that enormous resources are devoted to post-disaster reconstruction, very few housing programs targeted to low-income families have drawn to sustainable development. Furthermore, increasing uncontrolled urbanization, growing poverty in largely populated developing nations, and insufficient mitigation programs suggest that disasters as harmful as those occurred this year, are far to be coming to an end. Low-cost housing is one of the most important components of post-disaster reconstruction. It plays a major role in people’s vulnerability to disasters and in the mitigation stage, effecting not only the number of deaths, injuries and suffering population, but also the future quality of life of the survivors. Based on the latest post-disaster theories, this report hypothesises that successful social reconstruction requires the co-ordination between “physical factors” directly related to shelter provision, with “soft factors” such as education, employment and economic opportunities for the community, taxation policy, and the provision of information and technical assistance. This report presents a case study of a reconstruction program that responded to the dramatic consequences of the January 1999 earthquake in Colombia. This program, which included an ambitious rural housing agenda, illustrates the importance of judiciously combining the ‘physical’ and ‘soft’ factors. Focused on one of the most vulnerable communities and with an innovative institutional structure, the program illustrates several aspects required for the development of culturally and technologically appropriate housing. Looking beyond the dramatic analyses frequently used to interpret natural disasters and their consequences, surprising findings from the case study also suggest an alternative approach for the evaluation and development of reconstruction programs. Summary “In the earthquake I was with my wife, Rubiela, in the town, and we were surprised to see the houses falling down….we almost had to walk to my farm as there was no transportation. When we arrived, I felt happy to know that my family was alive, but at the same time very sad to see the house totally destroyed… We thought we could not rebuild our house again because we didn’t have any resources…” Oscar Bermudez. citizen and farmer of Calarca, Colombia; when asked about his experience in the earthquake (Translated from Cafered, January 25 2000. p.15). This family, as well as millions of families in the world, was affected last year by a disaster. In 1999, disasters left 105,000 deaths, and losses for 100 billion dollars (Insurance Swiss Company Swiss Re, as reported by the AP. Journal de Montréal, March 8, 2000). In earthquakes alone, 15 million people suffered serious injuries and 100 million had their homes destroyed in the last century (Hewitt, Regions of Risk.1997, p. 197). Disasters are common scenarios calling for the contribution and co-operation of international institutions. They take the attention of local and international media, and in several cases institutions put up with enormous economic resources in places where the regular economic conditions are already critical. Even though several strategies have been proposed, post-disaster housing has frequently been a controversial aspect of the reconstruction and mitigation stages. Therefore, the kind of aid that can, or should be provided, the interaction of international agencies with regional institutions, the role of the local government, and the participation of the community, are frequently targets of discussion. In order to provide the fastest relief, the most efficient shelter and the most adequate mitigation program to affected communities, different strategies have been proposed. However, the report of failures is frequent and sheltering communities after disasters is still a big challenge for architects and decision-makers. I carefully consider, for the rationale of this study, the importance of knowledge leading to the appropriate use of economic, environmental and human resources in reconstruction, for both developing as well as for industrialised countries. . I suggest in this research, that post-disaster low-cost housing is more than a technological problem. Successful reconstruction requires the co-ordination between factors that in this study I have classified as ‘physical’ and ‘soft’ factors. Furthermore, complementing the usual dramatic analysis of destruction, deaths and damages, I suggest an alternative approach to discussing disasters and reconstruction. The objectives of the research are: (i) to contribute knowledge in two complementary areas: in the development and in the evaluation of post-disaster programs of reconstruction, (ii) to report on and evaluate the experience and lessons of the reconstruction program conducted in Colombia, and (iii) to recognise and measure the different factors that influence post-disaster residential programs. The present study is intended for students and professionals in architecture and planning who are interested in low-cost post-disaster residential reconstruction. The methodology proposed by Robert Yin (1984) is the base for the design of the case study and the formulation of “analytical generalisations”. First, the theoretical framework is presented through the analysis of reconstruction theories. The research also presents the recommendations and procedural criteria of the most prominent institutions involved in post-disaster attendance world-wide (i.e. World Bank, UNESCO, OXFAM, UNDRO). Prior to the analysis of the Colombian case study, general conditions of the local context are presented. The extreme prevailing conditions influencing housing are reported through the compilation and analysis of statistics, plans, official reports, pictures and general data. In January 1999, an earthquake in Colombia left 1.170 dead, 150.000 homeless and destroyed almost 40.000 houses with 1.66 billion US dollars in direct damages. The disaster (the sixth most harmful in terms of human losses in the world in 1999) struck the country in the midst of a dramatic economic recession and a very complex political situation (Cepal. Ensayos sobre economia cafetera 14, 1999). Furthermore, the rural population is one of the communities that is most vulnerable to disasters in Colombia, as indeed it is the case in many other countries. However, the rural reconstruction program developed by the Coffee Growers’ Federation (CGF), based on helping the community to cope with he situation through an efficient institutional model, developed an ambitious housing agenda, targeted at more than 10.000 peasant families within a period of 10 months (Cafered, January 2000, p. 10). A prefabricated housing program was also promoted during the reconstruction period. However, prefabrication is not only relatively new in the Colombian housing market, but it is commonly criticised in low-cost residential reconstruction. Therefore, the introduction of prefabricated rural housing in a community where indigenous materials and conservative typologies are strongly rooted was a somewhat risky experiment from which many conclusions are drawn.