PRESENTATION DEVELOPMENT
MANIFESTO OUTCOME


We were having a lot of trouble deciding how to show what our architecture was, so taking inspiration from the semi-lattice framework, we have showed our architectural concept through diagram.
The structure displays elements, sets and layers that overlap to create the brief for our 21st century parliament architecture. This will obviously be redone for the final presentation. Click image for larger size if you have trouble reading the elements.

PRESENTATION DEVELOPMENT

RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

Chantal looked up the Australia wide railway infrastructure, so I have incorporated that into our map of Australia for presentation diagrams. I didn't realise until we started this project how wide spread the infrastructure is; of course not all of these services are high quality, or fast train travel, but the infrastructure is there, and can be improved.

PRESENTATION DEVELOPMENT


Sticking with the concept of the honeycomb, below are some diagrams I've created for the final posters, showing the density of Australia in a hive like format. I've also included the world map density, to show Australia's relationship and connection to the wider earth network. 

IDENTITY AND PRESENCE?


I think it is a crucial aspect of the design to ensure that it instills a sense of pride within the area, a sense of identity as a structure of parliament, and to position the architecture as an icon. 


The reading "The Architecture of Parliament House" outlines a variety of way in which parliament in Australia is seen as an icon, the three most prominent being "the flag, the hill and the wall".


"The idea 'Australia' is distilled in three quintessential signs: the flag, emblem of the nationhood; the hill, embodiment of place; and the wall, mark of human inhabitation. These abstract yet highly representational signs prompt individual feelings about patriotism, place and people". (Page 20).


Could these three ideas, or elements, be used in our design to create a sense of identity and presence?


I definitely think these ideas could be integrated in, in some form of abstract of figurative sense. These three elements are associated so strongly with parliament ("Yet the drive over the lake and up the sides of the Parliamentary Triangle discloses a paradox; there is no building - just a flag, a hill, and a wall"), they are already associated with a certain use and meaning.

The flag, the hill and the wall.

Just a side note; isn't it interesting how the hill was designed as a space for the public to enjoy, yet we are no longer allowed due to security reasons? How is parliament house a place for the people?

WHAT TO ACHIEVE?


Notes of discussions in regards to what we want to achieve within out "architectural manifesto"... ie. what do we want the architecture to be...

As a group, because we all want to go in a variety of directions, we have decided to not put a specific title on WHAT the structure will be, but rather state what the architecture is a space FOR. 

Personally, a few ideas that are coming to mind for me are;

- A "meeting space"

- A learning centre

- A collaboration space

Or... all of these combined? And all these spaces may not be created through one piece of architecture, it may incorporate an open space, a public square...

PANEL IDEAS


Thinking about what each panel should incorporate...

HONEYCOMB ARCHITECTURE


Honeycombs seem to be the inspiration for a lot of modern day architecture. Not only are the shapes somewhat hypnotising, the structural properties associated with the honeycomb are quite astounding. The hexagon shapes also allow interesting manipulations.


Below are some inspiring images... I'm not sure if I'll go down the track of actually creating a piece of architecture inspired by the honeycomb, but that is something I may peruse in a few weeks time...

HIVE MENTALITY & THE LIFE OF BEES


I'm finding this whole bee concept quite inspiring, there's definitely a great idea behind the 'hive mentality'. 
A few ideas of what the "hive mentality" is; 
- A collective consciousness
- Group thinking
- Herd behaviour
- Conformity
- Swarm intelligence
- A centrally controlled structure


I guess some of these ideas have negative connotations, but the sense in which we have been discussing it is working collaboratively, rather than as individuals.


BEE STRUCTURE


Queen Bee
The Queen Bee is the head of a hive; she lays the eggs and controls the development of the hive. For a new Queen to be born, the worker bees must feed the larva royal jelly. When a new Queen is born, the old Queen will kill it, or leave it with half of the hive colony (which results in a bee swarm).


Worker Bee
Worker bees collect water, nectar and pollen. Other tasks include cleaning the cells, guarding the hive entry and feeding the drones and larvae. They have glands that produce wax, which they shape into the honeycomb structure. 


Drones
Making up 10% of the hive colony, the drones have strong wings used for the mating flight. After this flight, the worker bees take care of the drones - they then bite off their wings before Winter, and kick them out of the hive, as they have no other use.

HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE

"A honeycomb is a mass of hexagonal wax cells built by honey bees in their nests to contain their larvae and sites of honey and pollen."

Geometry?

- Axes of the honeycomb cells are always quasi-horizontal 

- The non angled rows are always horizontally, rather than vertically aligned

- Each cell has two vertical walls, with a floor and ceiling (with two angled walls)

- The cells slope slightly upwards

Why are the cells hexagons?

- Hexagons tile the plane with minimal surface area

- Uses the least material to create a lattice of cells

- The ends are able to nest into one another, shared by opposing cells

RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE


Just a little bit of research into the Australian railway network.
Below is a map of Australia wide services, and then one of the Sydney to Melbourne region. The services into Canberra, and to surrounding areas are definitely in need of improvement. A more direct route is needed.

Some points on the railways system;

- To a large extent, rail is State Government based - THERE IS A NEED FOR COLLABORATION AUSTRALIA WIDE to produce more efficient Australia wide rail travel.

- A majority of the infrastructure is government owned (at either federal or state level)

- Only a small number of privately owned railways

- The Federal Government has formulated national policies and provides funding for national projects, however rail is often neglected for road transport networks.

- Federal Government don't regularly invest in railways, unless they are their own (ie. the Commonwealth Railways) - consider State railways owned by State Governments to be a State responsibility.

STUDIO WEEK FIVE DEVELOPMENTS


The studio this week was really productive, especially in figuring out what direction we will be going for the first assignment.


CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

Hive Mind Mentality 

A distributed system with a centre controlling structure (as in, each element works for, and report to the "queen bee")

versus 

Anarchic Mentality

A distributed system with no leader, and a self governing structure (as in, each element thinks and works for itself)

The diagram below shows a good representation of various centralised/ decentralised / distributed mentalities...

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
- Possible nodes of activity that function in a hive mentality, located across Australia
- Location derived from population density
- Linked by existing railway infrastructure (as it is the most constant, and wide spread sustainable infrastructure --  and has a great opportunity for future developments), and creation of new railway links


PURPOSE OF THE NODES?
- To act as the previously mentioned 'Agents of Parliament'
- Either each node will encompass all nine agents, or each will have a specific purpose?
- Act as a space for collaboration and innovation between public and the parliament

AGENTS OF PARLIAMENT


Chantal made a really good discovery in regards to 'Agents of Parliament'.
The Local Government Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Network (IKEN) is an;


"Interactive online space that provides a range of tools, resources and support for information exchange, collaboration, mutual learning and share insights... covers themes of importance for practitioners, including the emerging big issues, challenges and opportunities for local government in 21st century Australia."


(IKEN: Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Network. (2011). An Australian Government Initiative. Accessed from http://www.iken.net.au/)


Despite this being a project for local governments, I think this is a fantastic idea for collaboration and innovation within the 21st century, and can definitely be adopted at a national scale.


Key topics noted for 21st century are;

(http://www.iken.net.au/)

MIND MAPPING


After the studio last week, the two other members of my group and I decided to collate all of our ideas on to a mind map so we can begin to see particular trends in our research. Below are some screen shots (click images to see larger versions);

 Images above & below = smaller mind map

 Images below = large mind map displaying a large number of ideas. 

Images below = Taken from Chantal's blog; she wasn't comfortable using the program, so wrote her thoughts on some paper.

CULTURAL ADAPTATION IN CANBERRA?


Whilst reading 'A city is not a tree' a few points really stood out to me in regards to the culture in Canberra. Look at these two images I have found online...

Laneway in Melbourne

Downtown Street in Canberra.

Canberra hasn't had an opportunity to create a culture for itself. Melbourne has developed naturally, and turned the un-used spaces to display its culture and creativity. Melbourne has allowed for natural adaptation.

Canberra on the other hand, due to being too well planned has no empty spaces to develop this sense of culture. Everything has been allocated and planned specifically in a certain way, disallowing the opportunity to make Canberra an individual and adaptable city.

A CITY IS NOT A TREE
(I apologise for the long-winded review, but the reading incorporates a lot of important ideas that will probably form the basis of the entire project).


As outlined by Cameron in the theme group selection page, the reading "A city is not a tree" by Christopher Alexander (accessible here) will be the basis for the theme group topic and thought process for tutorial group 'Distributed 2'. Below is an outline of the points discussed in the article; beginning with an introduction into the terminology and how it applies to the issues at hand within the Australian capital.


The article discusses the structure of cities; primarily natural and artificial (planned) city. Not only is the reading quite informative in general about the structure of traditional and modern day cities, but it also has particular relevance to the planned nature of Canberra. It seems that a semi-lattice structure is what is missing from Canberra.

The semi-lattice structure. Note the overlapping elements.

Alexander frames some important questions on the evolution of modern cities, and how they are reaching a point of crisis, and that it is important to understand the basic underlying structure of cities to ensure their positive development in the future. It was recognised that "the city is a system of vast complexity and in turn is part of a bigger system of social organisation whose values and goals are being questioned" (pg. 1).


The two terms used in the paper are that of a 'tree structure' and a 'semi-lattice structure'. Both of these terms are used in relation to a way if thinking about how "many small systems go to 'make up a large and complex system.'" They are names for a structure of sets; that is - a structure of a collection of element we believe / see as belonging together. When elements within these sets are believed to belong together and work together, we refer to the set of the elements as a system.


When these structures meet certain conditions they are referred to as a semi-lattice. If the structure meets more restrictive conditions, it it referred to as a tree.


Definitions;
Semi-Lattice; "A collection of sets forms a semi-lattice if and only if, when two overlapping sets belong to the collection, then the set of the elements common to both also belongs to the collection" (pg. 4).


Tree; "A collection of sets forms a tree if, and only if, for any two sets that belong to the collection, either one is wholly contained in the other, or else they are wholly disjoint" (pg. 5).

The top image is a typical tree structure. The bottom image is a semi-lattice structure.

The main difference between the two systems is that a semi-lattice contains overlapping units; making it a much more complex and stable structure than a tree.


Alexander continues to discuss how modern day architects, planners, engineers, etc. thinking only in terms of 'tree structures' (as semi-lattice structures are too difficult to visualise within ones mind), and this is what is "crippling our conceptions of the city".  The lack of structural complexity is providing only an artificial solution to issues within our cities. Tree structures lack connection to other elements within the structure, hence failing as a structural system. 


Examples;


Alexander provides a few examples of cities designed as trees, and discusses the issues found within this.
The image below is of Brasilia, in which "the entire form pivots about the central axis, and each of the two halves is served by a simple main artery. This main artery is in turn fed by subsidiary arteries parallel to it. Finally, these are fed by the roads which surround the super-sized blocks themselves. The structure is a tree". This was one of the cities I analysed earlier in the semester, so this is an interesting comparison.

Looking through the examples of tree like cities, I was able to identify some points that are similar to the issues faced within Canberra;
- The city is divided into separated / segregated units; in Canberra there is a segregation of the university, CBD, cultural, parliamentary, military and historical precincts. In a semi-lattice structure these elements should overlap.
This is shown diagrammatically below;

The structural diagram of this would look similar to the one below (which is for a different city, but one with a similar issue). As you can see, it is a tree structure.

Alexander relates the common creation of tree structures to the "compulsive desire for neatness and order that insists that the candlesticks on a mantelpiece be perfectly straight and perfectly symmetrical", however the semi-lattice structure is a complex fabric which mirrors the structure of living things - living things are not perfect and symmetrical, they show richness, chaos and overlaps. 

It is these overlaps - the right overlaps - that allow the changing functions of a city to manage and grow together, and to continue supporting the systems. 

CENTRAL LIBRARY, SEATTLE

The above video, a recommended watch from Cameron, displays an interesting take on the 'transprogramming' concept. A few points that really stuck with me from the video include;


- The importance of rationality at an absurd level
- The importance of NO AUTHORSHIP (as architects we should SOLVE PROBLEMS, not satisfy our ego)
- Shot gun flexibility - spaces where anything can happen.


Although he goes through three projects in the video, the Central Library, Seattle definitely stood out to me. 


- How can be predict the future? We can't - so it is important to design spaces that can be used and altered for the future needs.
- Public libraries are one of the only FREE public spaces left - libraries have a very important social factor/ criteria.
- The design incorporates different layers of different uses; these overlap to create BETTER spaces - activity is created through the public - they create uses we can't predict.


I think this layer and overlapping concept is definitely something to remember, especially with this notion of transprogramming...
Even if none of what I just wrote makes any sense, it's definitely a worthwhile video to watch. 

ARE CITIES UNSUSTAINABLE?


Just a little blurb on an interesting point discussed in the studio... are cities all unsustainable? 


Should we begin to think of dispersing the population, and disbanding this "city" concept?  


I don't think we necessarily can ever get away from the concept of a city, but we can maybe move towards some form of EXPANDABLE city - with individual nodes or "active communities" that create their own sustainable hub.


What factors could make up this HUB?
- Transport - sustainable & short distances
- Services
- Infrastructure
- Education
- Community
- Green space
- Food resources
- Connectivity

It would be necessary to create a city (hub) that fully supports itself... I think this is the only way to have a sustainable city?
Of course there would need to be connections between each of the hubs, so what could the vacant land be used for? Agricultural purposes, etc? Maybe?


Of course this couldn't really be created, due to all the infrastructure currently in place - this is an "ideal" world situation... but I guess I can begin to think about what elements can be integrated into cities today to somewhat get them on their way to being sustainable?

DISPERSION OF A CAPITAL CITY?


After forming our official groups for the rest of the semester, I have a lot of different trains of thought to think about and consider.


With the tutorial topic being 'Distributed', we began our discussions based upon the brainstorming activities from the past few weeks, and figured out what elements we all considered important or similar. The result of this was a certain idea for a 21st century (capital) city.


What if certain elements of a capital city were dispersed across Australia? To the state capitals, or other main centres? Could this potentially create a strong sense of identity nationwide? 


I THINK IT COULD.


Elements or areas of 'capital' in Canberra could be dispersed to the different cities, with Canberra acting as the main "meeting place". Each city could in turn be the capital of SOMETHING, or the nodes could even be identical?




What WOULD create more of a sense of identity - identical nodes, or purpose nodes? 
- People would feel some form of attachment to each purpose node and in turn associate this with a sense of identity.
- Perhaps a similar design element that ties the nodes together across Australia, but each with a specific and different federal parliament purpose?

If each node had a specific purpose, and Canberra acted as the meeting point... would the relationship Australia wide and to Canberra change?

A few elements to think of after discussing this concept...

- What would the connections be like?

- What would each specific city purpose BE?

- Could this be implemented at a city scale (rather than nation scale)?

WEEK FOUR LECTURE


The lecture this week was conducted by Phil Crowther and Paul Sanders... I always look forward to a lecture being done by Phil, and he definitely didn't disappoint!


Phil showed a lot of information, mostly on his recent trip to New York... but there were a few things that really stuck with me.


NEW YORK & AMSTERDAM GLIMPSES


The 2040 New York & Amsterdam Glimpses project looks towards the future for culturally diverse and collaborative 21st century cities. Focusing around the themes of BREATHING, EATING, MAKING, MOVING & DWELLING, the outcomes are astounding in providing not only solutions but even more questions for the future of cities in the 21st century. I personally have gained a great deal of insight into the role that architecture can play in the planning and development of cities in the future. Could the five elements of living be implemented into our brief or concept for a new parliament? Maybe!


Images and more information can be found here. 

Click on the image for a larger size. I love the diagram techniques that have been used at the bottom of the panel.

NEW YORK HIGH LINE

The New York High line is a 2km strip "aerial greenway" that runs through the lower west side of Manhattan. The "strip" was a disused elevated railroad (previously called the West Side Line), which was bought by a privately owned company who raised money to complete the development. The development, which was only completed recently has spurred real estate development in the area, and has thus led to urban regeneration and gentrification. The High Line provides a variety of different "rooms" that each 'have their moment' at different times during the year, and show constantly changing atmospheres. The High Line is a fantastic example of 'urban greenery' - currently one of my interests after my final design project last semester.


Not only is the design and history of this project inspiring, I am also liking some of the concepts that can be adapted to our re-designing a new Canberra project; using disused transportation networks to recreate a space. Or even using various layers of a development to create life - overlapping layers to create an ever-changing public realm.


I am yet to do the 'A City is not a tree' reading, but I wonder if it will have any relationship to this?


Either way, the New York High Line is amazing, and is definitely on my 'To See' list!

One of the opened sections from above. Some designs incorporate the existing railway tracks as a design feature.

The High Line displays various layers of activation.

The High Line before it was turned into a public park; disused and taken over by greenery. It's interesting how its previous disuse nature has somehow inspired the design of the High Line now.

NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

FACTS
- Construction began in 1981
- Inspiration behind the design; the shape of two boomerangs enclosed within a circle
- The structure is topped by a 81m flagpole
- A majority of the building is buried under Capital Hill
- The meeting chambers and accommodation for parliamentarians are free-standing in the boomerang shaped arms
- The facade development is based upon the patterns of Old Parliament House
- Designed to "sit above" Old Parliament House, as seen in the image above
- Sweeping lawns up Parliament House are supposed to symbolise its openness to the public; these have been closed off due to security concerns.
- Contains 4,700 rooms
- Contains 2, 416 clocks
- Site size; 32 hectares
- Building size; 300m in length and width, contains 250,000 square metres of floor space.
- On a non-sitting day, there could be 2000 - 3000 people working on site.
- The flag;
       - Designed as the pinnacle of Parliament House
       - Easily recognisable symbol of Federal Government
       - Visible by day from outside and inside Parliament House, and lit up at night.

Slightly more detailed floor plans;