Individual Project One Statement

I believe our group project was successful in imagining a logical evolution of society and graphically representing the complex ideas and circumstances of this future scenario. 

Representing the scenario with the analogy of evolution helped to categorise the range of different changes we had imagined. It was not as simple as ‘people and lifestyles’, ‘future scenarios’, ‘architectural opportunities’ and ‘sustainable futures’ because these all have cause and effect on each other. If we imagined future changes in policies for example, this would affect all four categories, and those affects would have a reciprocal flow on affect and so on.

So instead we recognized the major pressure points that would initiate these changes and called them our ‘ages’ (Jurassic Age etc). From here we separated our ideas into ‘species’ – Politics, Culture, Education, Transport, Agriculture, Built Environment and Technology. We looked at how these would evolve differently throughout the different ‘ages’ – where we decided they would evolve more rapidly was represented with greater splitting of branches. The semi-circular form of the diagram allowed us to cross reference easily between ‘species’ for example when there was a change in cultural attitudes we could easily place the flow on effects of that within the evolution of other species for example new policy implementation, implications of policy implementation etc.

The changes we predicted were graphically represented with pictograms to allow a more visually appealing and diagrammatic exploration. Some of the pictograms represent quite complex ideas however, were able to be explained within the timeline above.

The future scenario of cultural change, the shift towards individualism and the potential of new social order will play a huge role in guiding my individual project. The resource crisis, and its affect on all the ‘species’, in particular its evolutionary affects to the exploration of retrofitting and parasitic architecture will also be a main focus for my architectural proposal.

As a group we worked well together, however, we had to work around one of our group members experiencing a personal tragedy in the week before the due date. We were able to manage the workload and complete the desired outcome regardless. 

Architecture as a Dissident Practice

This reading was short and sweet - i liked it.
The reminder that most ideas don't come out of space but from a discourse is useful in critiquing design decisions. Sometimes the most difficult aspect of imagining future scenarios is the absolute unrestricted possibility of everything - it is too broad. When we can focus from a discourse and to some extent narrow the view to our future scenario, it allows us to target more specific ideas for change. If we start with a political discourse, as we essentially did with our group assignment, it becomes a driver for a much stronger idea. It naturally becomes intertwined with other discourses but there is always a constant thread throughout to which you can tie all design ideas and decisions. I will certainly work with this in mind on the next stage of the project.

The way in which they speak about space in temporal terms is also very interesting. Though it is not a particularly unique idea i think they eloquently sum up how this influences their design process and decisions. I believe it is particularly topical when considering the future of architecture - the contrast of this with traditional ideas of permanence and monumentality. I believe with densities increasing, resource crisis' and sustainable design practices, that ephemeral notions of architecture - 'architecture of atmosphere' offer a more indeterminate typology of architecture (and is far more sustainable). This thought combined with the ideas from the 'Shearing Layers' reading begin to setup groundwork for a design methodology where the blending of virtual and reality, growth and decay, bio and mechanical offer dynamic and sustainable design opportunities for the future (virtual infrastructure, retrofitting, parasitic architecture).

Politics and the Situationist International

This reading reiterated concepts fresh in my mind from last semester - existentialism, phenomenology and Heidegger. It is this school of thought that has potentially caused me to struggle so much with the idea of entirely virtual future scenarios. This reading however, allowed me to bridge the gap a little between existentialism, the phenomenological approach and imagining future scenarios. It is the 'politicization' of existentialism from this reading that i found particularly helpful.
The collective act, the act in solidarity, permitted groups to act in accordance with collective choices in the face of repression by powers exerted by those whose authority is to be resisted (p. 95).
This idea of Sartre's, when re-imagined in the current context of social media begins to suggest that a dramatic shift in power is a plausible future scenario. It was interesting to see the overlap of this reading and what we had discussed as a group - we had been considering an increase in individualism and this combined with Debord's interesting prediction that media would become a future driving force of capitalist economy (after railroads and motor cars prior), led me to think that the potential for social media platforms to have major power in our future is quite high. I would assume that what we know as social media today will continue to evolve and become increasingly sophisticated before it reaches a rivaled level of driving force (to the media, motorcar & railroad). It also leads the imagination to consider how powerful this may be when considering it in relation to the huge percentage of world population in developing countries having access to social media, increasing their ability to 'act in solidarity'. The change could be immense.
I think i will enjoy finding out more about the 'Situationist International'.

Week 05: Architectural Evolution

After discussing the implications of politics in regards to its affects on the growth of society, we became interested in what the evolution of architecture would look like - what pressure points/'atmospheric change' has caused a splitting in the gene pool - evolution. The requested topics for this assessment piece are so intertwined and dependent on each other it is difficult to separate them - nothing in evolution happens in isolation. You cannot separate people, lifestyles, sustainability, architectural opportunities & future scenarios, they are all completely dependent on each other.

Week 04: Character Charrette

Creating a personal scenario within our future imagined scenario allowed us to expand our thought in regards to the 'real' affects of the issues we had discussed. It revealed a shared agreement that looking at potential policies created in response to the crisis' would help to imagine design opportunities that may emerge. When looking into history the evolution of policy reveals a great deal on all other aspects of life at the time - it is a deeply embedded structure which responds and dictates human evolution. 

Key policies we proposed included:

-No cars in CBD (in response to climate change, carbon tax, increased population)

-Sustainable business rebates (climate change, resource crisis, shift in retail norms)

-No new buildings in CBD  (resource shortage, economy, social agenda for sustainable practice)

- Global agreement on immigration (compassion, acceptant of global responsibility, population balance with local carrying capacities)

We then went on further to analyse the benefits, consequences and architectural opportunities of these new policies. 

Hugh Barton: What about population growth?

Barton’s theories offered little in addition to what should now be considered common knowledge amongst designers of the built environment. The most frustrating component of his writing is that it seems to completely ignore the impacts of inevitable population growth. The focus is entirely on transport in terms of emissions and its impact on climate change. Sure, this is important to consider but its highly plausible that a clean alternative fuel source is not so far away on the timeline of technological development. If a clean fuel source is available then limiting people’s transportation is obviously not as necessary in terms of environmental protection. What will be a much more pressing issue is the strain an over-inflated population will have on congestion of transport networks and access to resources (food, water, housing). Finding a solution to clean energy already fits into existing principles of human psych, for example, high values placed on human development, economic stimulus etc. Where as solving population growth is likely to require a solution that contradicts most existing social norms. For example, population distribution (to adjust to more localised carrying capacities) would challenge nationalism, immigration policies, territorial instincts etc. and population capping would potentially challenge values on family choices, healthcare (its effect on life expectancy), and essentially the value of a single human life.

I believe when considering future scenarios we should place some faith in those people who are currently developing technologies that will provide a renewable and clean source of energy. How this might affect our grid systems, infrastructure, transport and building services (will everything be completely ‘wireless’?), is far more important to consider than whether or not clean energy technology we require is actually possible. When it comes to transport systems and urban design, I believe it is much more important to consider the unit of space a car consumes than the fuel it consumes. As population and density inevitably increases, transportation will need to adapt to suit high volumes of people with an expectation of relatively personalized transport modes – an expectation of choice in locations to be picked up/dropped off. Will this mean cities will no longer require the same transport veins that roads have, for centuries, enforced upon them? Will our mode of navigation through cities entirely change? In terms of gps technology in phones etc, roads and street names certainly don’t have the same necessity as previous generations experience in our navigation of a city.

Shearing Layers: Time Is The Essence

Time is the essence of a real design problem – Francis Duffy. 

I found this reading extremely useful; it’s simplicity of content and potential implications on future planning, particularly in relation to resource scarcity, embodied energy and sustainable retrofitting, gave a practical design methodology that one can apply immediately to any design project – old or new.

One aspect I found myself questioning was the statement that ‘Site’ was eternal. First of all, I believe this requires a definition of what exactly site includes; is it purely land, is it ecosystems, is it social fabrics, is it town planning zones, property boundaries, waterways etc.? I would argue that regardless of which of these you include, site is never ‘eternal’, at least not in a static sense. Site is ever-changing, however, most often on a time scale which far exceeds that of the building structure and other components discussed in this reading.

Examples of significant site changes include:

Natural: Slow onset flooding, with the potential to turn 'site' into a lake/waterway for months/years. Erosion of sea side 'sites'. Sea level rises in future are also a real threat to long term changes in 'site'. 

Human Made: The Highline in NY showed how new development, improved ammenity and town planning codes can create a significant change in site. When you consider the change in what a designer might initially note in site analysis these 'uneternal' aspects of site can play a huge impact in the type of development proposals clients and designers would consider. 

Week 03 Lecture: Human Principles

I enjoyed the week 03 lecture content. The 'principles' discussed in relation to the human psych were what I thought to be the missing link in the previous weeks archigram reading and within many of the proposed technology based future scenarios. Whilst I expect technology will undoubtedly continue to play a huge role in changing the way we live; from the way we work & socially interact to the way we design and build; I believe the idea of surrogates and entirely virtual life goes against what it means to be human at a fundamental and almost sacred level. Perhaps the divide between the virtual and haptic realm will become a balancing act in design as currently acknowledged between indoor and outdoor.

Week 03 Tutorial: Initial Ideas

This week revealed a shared belief within our group that the future will hold a number of significant 'crisis' that we, as designers, as part of the human race, will have to overcome. A discussion of how society is equipped to deal with these 'crisis' began with a focus on the conflicting 'principles' (as discussed in the previous lecture) that might affect/impact the global issues.
For example:
Belief in equality VS. Patriotism
Humanitarian Aid VS. Greed
Sharing VS. Political Agendas
Global Citizenship VS. Blame
These were all large scale issues difficult to relate to real outcomes - as a result we considered what some of the 'closer to home' impacts of society's reaction to global crisis could be. A study of the city site revealed a large amount of retail space, City Library, City Hall, King George Square, Casino etc. It was interesting to note the types of buildings and spaces other than the Myer centre (which seemed to be the focal point of most prior discussion). What would happen if there was a dire economic crisis - this could significantly shift focus to public space and leave many retail spaces redundant. Many of the crisis' we had previously discussed had the potential to require space for mass protests or public discussion - how might the city change to accommodate this?

Week 02 Tutorial

The design charette was challenging in how endless the possibilities to consider are.
To pick one point for reflection:
Possibility of car fee creating class segregation between rich and poor. Is the car becoming more and more an item that all can no longer afford... Fuel prices, parking costs etc. It is interesting to consider that the end of a products lifespan may reflect its beginnings - where only the wealthy can afford it. So what will replace it now that most people (at least in most developed countries) see personal private transport mode as a necessity?

Some other groups focused on what would become of the leftover spaces ie car parks if cars were no longer a part of the city. It is interesting to consider how the city would evolve without the same necessary transport veins that have previously dictated city sites... No more wind tunnel along George st?

Inspired by archigram: possible future scenario

Archigram’s System’s Philosophy & Sustainability: The Missing Link

Archigram seemed to be on the right track, philosophising the importance of ‘seeing everything in relationship’, simultaneity, whole system approaches to design. I believe their writing (at least in the Archigram 7 publication) was evidently still overcome by its context in time despite their best efforts to ‘see into the future’. It was written at a time when consumerism was seen as sophisticated advancement of human development, where environmental sustainability and human impacts on the degradation of natural systems was not as widely understood as we know today. Clearly, the talk on architecture being sympathetic to emergent situations is highly relevant when considering sustainable design approaches; it is the method in which they propose to achieve this that reveals a different understanding of embodied energy, resource limitation etc. For example, ‘the expendable house’, ‘kit-of-parts’ etc, essentially still characterises a ‘throw away’ society. I believe that many of their concepts engaging with the idea of high density living are extremely useful and simply need to be rethought alongside closed loop design solutions.

Sadler, S., 2005. Beyond Architecture. In. Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp90-138. 

Future Visions vs. Fundamental Human Values: What Archigram Ignored.

I found interesting, Archigram’s underlying focus on the shift from a classical ‘principle unity’ of architecture to a socially determined programme and it’s consequent result of a deliberate questioning of the power an architect should hold to dictate social activity through fixed spaces. They describe traditional architecture as freezing social will in the program of a building therefore see it as restricting. They seem to become obsessed by this concept to the point where they skim over the fact that there are many historical buildings which prove that an architect does not have this ‘almighty power’ to dictate social activity and that regardless of a buildings ‘fixed’ nature it almost always has the potential to adapt with human needs or desires. Obvious example of ‘traditional’ buildings which have provided flexibility throughout significant social change in history include: Hagia Sophia, the Louvre; or more locally, Brisbane Powerhouse, The Barracks (Petrie Terrace) etc.

I agree that there is some onus on the architect to seek out the existing structure of the community and allow this structure to develop in positive directions, but I believe in failing to credit humans inate ability to adapt, retrofit and renovate that Archigram stray into the danger of planning to far into the future; consequently ignoring the key role of an architect to design with consideration of fundamental human values. Most concerning, I found, was their willingness to neglect principles such as a humans deep spiritual connection to the haptic realm, nostalgia, place (or country), and familiarity. Their ideas of flexibility, modularity, mass production etc are useful (particularly in the context of environmental sustainability) but only if one can find a way to keep them grounded in these fundamentals of human psych. To me, site will always be important. Whether or not the future takes us to travelling buildings, or the possibility of entirely virtual life, I believe we can never ignore these fundamentals; we will always be human.

Sadler, S., 2005. Beyond Architecture. In. Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp90-138.