The Receptacle

Day 52 some reflection

My project is around the halfway point. I’ve been doing some reflection and critical analysis of where it stands now, and into the future.

The image is from the early days, before the project started. I’m salvaging materials in the 40 degree heat at the Music Box. Sweet.

Where is my project at after 50 days?

The framework and critical parameters that have been developed as a result of the process to-date:

This project is about architectural interaction, or, interaction with architecture. I am testing and developing methods of provoking, facilitating, measuring and quantifying interaction with architecture.

To date, the method of facilitating the architectural interaction has been done virtually. I have established a website which provides daily updates as to the process of design and development of an architectural project. Users of the website have the facilities to comment on this development, the design process and the intentions of the project as it occurs.

The object that is being developed is a temporary pavilion in the urban environment of Perth. The object is the vessel for promoting the interaction with architecture. The physical manifestation of the object is the result of an interactive, virtualised design process. I am not necessarily concerned with the actual built outcome of the object; the process that created it is the experiment.

This project is not about pre-conceived ideas, methods or styles of practising architecture. The project is not about architectural convention. Through this project I am attempting to establish a methodology and framework for future experiments and studies into the idea of interaction with architecture, or, architectural interaction.

Where is my project going for the next 50 days?

The project is currently at a critical juncture.

Based on the first 50 days of the project, I have developed an understanding of the patterns of interaction by users of the website. Anecdotally, it seems that a lot of people have an interest in the project. However, the manifestation of this interest by way of interaction with the website through comments is minimal.

I have decided to address the methods and techniques for provoking the interaction online. To date, the pattern of interaction with the project has been one-way. I will post an image, text or ideas about the project and people will respond with a comment. Sometimes they might ask a question, but it is always related directly to my post.

Whilst interesting, this pattern of interaction is stale and static. It is reactionary.

What I hope to do in the next 50 days is to develop methods and techniques that change the relationship between me (the designer) and the user (the inhabitant). I want to try and get the interaction occurring in a dynamic way, where user contributions form the basis of design and development of the project from this point.

Whilst in the virtual stage, my initial method for instigating this dynamic interaction is to pose a series of challenges, whereby readers of the website can contribute to the physical manifestation of the project. The user of the website is able to upload images and text that respond to the challenge questions posed by me.

The way that I frame and pose the questions and challenges to the user is obviously going to influence the response that I get. This is where my control or curatorial skill is manifest. The questions and challenges that I create and pose will be developed as ways of testing the critical parameters of the project.

The physical manifestation and second stage of this test of architectural interaction will be the temporary architectural pavilion. This pavilion will exist within the urban environment of Perth. It is a physical way of testing interaction. An extension of the process established by the website, the physical object will be an intervention into the space and patterns of the city.

As with the website, the pavilion is merely an object, a tool for testing and developing methods of provoking, facilitating, measuring and quantifying interaction with architecture. The difference in this second stage is that the testing process is physical.

My techniques for quantifying the impact of the object in the city will be comparable to those used on the website. I will monitor the time, visits and habits of the users of the object. As with the website, I will use the object, the pavilion, to ask questions of the user, and hopefully provoke comment and interaction. The physical object will provide differing opportunities and restrictions to that of the virtual. For example, site context, materiality and spatial contexts will all provoke different responses to that possible on the website. This will allow me to further test the critical parameter and question of the project: what is architectural interaction?

These physical interactions will be documented and recorded online throughout the process. This will allow a relationship and dynamic to develop between the virtual and physical manifestation of the project. This feedback loop will be critical to the process of the project.

How does this address the learning outcomes for the unit?

Performance area 1: Problem formulation

Prepare a design proposal to an adequately resolved level from which an architectural or landscape architectural solution can form.

The design proposal for this project is not a conventional architectural response. I am designing the process of architecture, not the architectural object. My architectural solution is derived from interaction with this process, in the virtual (the project website), and the physical (the built pavilion).

Performance area 2: Concept

Define personal values systems and ethical positions in response to complex architectural or landscape architectural project requirements.

The complexity of my project is manifest in the unknown, the human response and interaction to it. My personal value systems and theoretical understanding and thoughts on architecture are driving the direction of the process of the project – I am posing a series of questions of what we understand to be the architectural process. These questions are positioned contextually as I negotiate my transition from architectural student to architectural graduate and future practitioner.

Performance area 3: Development

Resolve at a professional level architectural or landscape architectural propositions of substantial complexity.

The resolution of this project is not object-based. The built architectural result of the process is a small pavilion, a simple structure. This alone is not what the project should be judged on. The complexity in scale and architectural proposition for this project is in the process of design and development of the tools for the experimentation: the project website and the built pavilion. Through these tools, the development and testing of a complex architectural concept – the notion of interaction – is manifest.

Performance area 4: Technical Integration

Integrate to a professional level advanced technical and environmental knowledge in the resolution of an architectural or landscape architectural proposition.

There are a number of complex technical aspects present in the development of the project. These exist as the result of the methodology of the process. In the virtual process (the website), there are technical considerations such as website content, accessibility, communication and integration of the project. In the physical process (the pavilion), technical considerations such as site analysis, approvals, insurances, installation procedures, safety, engineering and structural design are all present.

Performance area 5: Contextual awareness

Incorporate the breadth of professional concerns impacting upon the design process.

The context for this project is interesting as it is seeking to actively engage with the architectural community within Perth. As well as the local engagement with the process and then the physical object, the use of the internet allows a national and then worldwide connection into the project. This variance in scale and engagement with the profession, users of the internet and inhabitants within the city is critical as a part of the design process. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the design concept and critical parameters that frame the project are of relevance and interest to the wider architectural community. Additionally, the project is being framed within a broader personal context, with the potential for further research and similar proposals in the years following my completion of my architectural degree.

Performance area 6: Communication

Deploy the full range of architectural or landscape architectural communication skills at a professional level.

The project is developed with communication at the heart of the architectural process. The two primary mediums utilised are the internet, through the project website, and the pavilion itself, which is physically manifest in the urban environment of Perth. These communicative mediums are made up of the more conventional architectural methods – photography, drawings, images, model making and text. The standard and polish of the website, the pavilion and the project as a whole is intrinsic to the success of the manifesto. Essentially, the project relies on effective communication in order to exist.

Hide comment form

About Show

Top of page

The Receptacle is a temporary architectural intervention into the urban environment of Perth, Western Australia.

The Receptacle is the name for my Independent Design project for my Higher Award in the Master of Architecture at the University of Western Australia. This website will document the process and development of the project as it happens, from initial ideas to final product. My hope is that you, the reader of this website will take interest and interact with the project, both online and in the real world.

Thanks for reading!

- Kukame McKenzie, March 2009

THE MANIFESTO

Architecture and buildings make up solid, slow moving urban landscapes. Buildings are designed to last 30 years, 50 years, 200 years. There is solidity, a permanency in the existence of architecture and the built environment. Cities do not change overnight, they evolve over time. Often, this change is in-perceptible to the user or inhabitant of the city. It is a part of the subconscious, the change only recalled through photographs, moving images, stories, and, the mind.

Reflecting upon this, it becomes apparent that cities themselves also become repositories of memory. As the buildings and urban form experience time, they also record it. Paint jobs, renovations, additions, subtractions and demolitions all mark moments of history within our urban environment. In a city such as Perth, shaped over time by a boom and bust cycle, there is often an erased memory – the old buildings are no longer standing. They are remembered as images of the past, stored in libraries and books. Thus, the collective memory of what the city once was fades over time. This temporary exhibition pavilion can be a source of memory, a place where people stop, look inside and see what the city once was.

My interest is to see what happens when the life-cycle of a building or a piece of architecture is shortened. Instead of being built to last 30 years, what happens if a piece of architecture is built to last 30 hours? Instead of being considered “permanent”, what happens when architecture is thought of as “temporary”?

Does a temporary building question the relationship between inhabitant of urban space and their environment? Is the fact that the building exists for a short period of time a catalyst to spark the consciousness towards inhabitation of a built environment?

Can a temporary building actually awaken the city dweller, heightening their sense of awareness of the urban environment in which they live? Can its temporal existence cause the user of the city to step back, look at the city, and, perhaps, consider their relationship to it? The fleeting presence of an architectural object as an urban intervention could spark interest, activity and conscious thought about the urban realm. The temporary building can exist as a moment, a brief performance, a memory of the urban environment that passes us by.

A TEMPORARY EXHIIBITION PAVILION

Capable of exhibiting a small photographic or equivalent display, the exhibition pavilion will be initially designed and developed at UWA in the architecture workshop. Once developed, the pavilion will be installed into the urban environment of Perth, in the public space adjacent to the Perth Town Hall. Whilst in the urban space, the pavilion will display historical architectural images of the city, specific to the site it occupies. There is the potential for the pavilion to also showcase architectural images of proposed developments, ideas and thoughts about the architectural future of the city of Perth. The pavilion will be designed to encourage contributions and interaction by the public regarding the content and development of architecture in the city of Perth.

The exhibition content will be developed concurrently to the development of the pavilion, and may use historical images from collections such as the Battye Library, UWA library, the City of Perth and other databases. There is also the potential for the pavilion to showcase images, sound and video streaming of the development and installation of the object into the city, and user reactions to this.

The pavilion will inhabit the urban environment for a fixed time, up to a week, after which it will be removed from the city. Following the removal of the object from the city, the pavilion will be re-assembled and constructed at the UWA Cullity Gallery or ALVA courtyard, where it will showcase published images, audio and video of the architectural process that created it.

A PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE SITE

Exhibited within the pavilion, a photographic and historical survey of the project site will be developed over 100 days. This survey and exhibition will document and display the ideas and theoretical approaches driving the temporary piece of architecture. The exhibition will be specific to the site, and in a larger context, the city of Perth, with images and text of the city and urban environment that once existed at that place displayed.

The exhibition will be a visual display and documentation of the ideas and theories driving the temporary piece of architecture.

A ‘LIVE’ SITE ANALYSIS

The inhabitation and occupation of the urban environment will be developed and exhibited as a ‘live’ site analysis. Images and analysis of the project site will be carried out prior to the installation of the pavilion object. These images and analysis will then be compared and contrasted with ‘live’ up-to-date images of the occupation of the site and the project throughout the installed timeline. This comparison will provide a real-time display of the impact, interactions and reactions to the temporary piece of architecture.

The site analysis will be recorded and displayed in the pavilion at the conclusion of the project.

MODELS, PROTOTYPES, DRAWINGS, IMAGES, TEXT

The complete design process and development of the object will be documented and available through tools and methods associated with architectural development. These will include models, one-to-one prototypes, drawings, images and text.

These objects of process will be virtually exhibited online during the development of the project. The objects will also be exhibited in the pavilion at the conclusion of the project.

PROCESS

The project will be delivered and published online throughout the process. This documentation will chart the process and development of the project, and will include photographs and text, audio and video of the design, development, construction, installation, and inhabitation, plus the deconstruction process.

These documents will be collected and developed over the course of the project. At the conclusion of the project, the project data will be exhibited in the pavilion itself.