Submission

From the outset I really wanted to use this project to explore spacial and organisational ideas, and to see how their integration could be used to generate form- working from the inside, out. My initial starting point was the experience of the context, and my predominantly night photos, created this focus on the grunge of the area and particularly margianlised spaces that you find off Lennox St at the back. I had always been captivated by the work of Bill Henson, but it was this reading of the area that made me feel his art was a perfect compliment. During this time the character of Joe the young, successful drug lord with a secret passion for art was developing- and I felt that using such a character could create some interesting dynamics in the spaces as well as setting a playful tone for the project.

Before developing any architectonic concepts, I set myself the task of integrating and developing the ideas that I had learnt about circulation organising spaces from the 1st project, and how to vary horizontality from the 2nd project. I didn't want to replicate them as they were, but instead explore the principles of these lessons. This was quite useful in focusing my work.

To reiterate the underlying concepts of the design. There is an organisational armature that also becomes the circulation, which then determines the placement and 'flow' of the programatic spaces around it. In this sense the programatic spaces become like leftover geometries created by the shifting of the armature. The geometry of these spaces was perfect for containing the Henson artwork, because there is a lot of tension and disorientation created, by inhabiting these spaces where the walls are constantly shifting and projecting in almost opposing directions. This was an essential spacial idea for me, the spaces could not allow for a passive reading of the artwork, their geometries had to bring out the same unnerving tonal and emotional qualities in Henson's work, not to force such a reading, but instead provide an environment to encourage engagement and reflection. This is where openings for introducing lighting became so important, to introduce constantly shifting treatments of light, that would vary throughout the day and seasons as the sun would shine from different directions with different intensities. I also developed an intricate circulation path in the back apartment for the client's needs, in the same way that Geoffrey Bawa had done for Dr Bartholomeusz. This would allow him to quickly leave when his associates park outside to discuss his business plans, either into the courtyards of straight onto Lennox St through the storeroom and loading zone. Another element of the project that I only developed near the end was a sense of external materiality with the help of Felicity. After exploring the realities of using a material like Corten, treated to rust, it was a nice way of continuing the theme of grunge. I explored this in an external perspective, and also tried to visualise the streaking pattern that emerges as the cladding panels are put together- which gives the gallery quite a different appearance to what the flat and smooth model suggests.

One element of this project that I really enjoyed and feel that I developed skills in was in using physical models to develop and test my spacial and formal ideas. By making the models it also helped me in understanding how the spaces fitted together and talked to each other, and to see how the openings would introduce atmospheric dynamics to the spaces. Another important ability that I have developed during my work is the capacity to be self critical. I feel that the aspects of the project and presentation that need to be reconsidered are the: organization of the apartment spaces; the treatment of the shop front; internal materiality; the entrance off the car park; and my vignettes which do have a certain artistic quality that I like, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure if they best represent the tonal qualities of the spaces that would house the Henson work- because at the moment there is a little too much contrast between the two that may not be able to be reconciled.

After completing this design studio at UNSW I can confidently say that I don't regret transferring from the course offered at UTS. This studio really assisted me in developing a passion, rigor and intensity for my work- and most importantly it no longer felt like 'work'. I appreciated the way that Felicity encouraged and assisted everyone to develop their schemes based on their architectural interests, which was equally aided by the free brief- that did truly offer possibilities. At UTS there is currently a big push by the faculty to focus on, and only offer, one architectural reading- this being Digital/Typological/Parametric Architecture. As if by the mere fact of offering the course they have a 'right' to exert on students for their own selfish reasons. While these areas have their intriguing aspects, they were being taught in such a way that it was impossible to engage with, frustrating, and ultimately destroying any love for architecture because everything was exploratory or had to be imagined because of their large scale of formal complexity. I really enjoyed this studio because it allowed us to develop, test and experience our ideas on a tangible scale, by asking us to make considered architectonic solutions to problems and being able to argue for them. Whereas at UTS the method is to generate a heap of possible outcomes from data collecting/mapping, and then just pick one from this pool, amend it so it complies with the BCA- and then call it a day n give yaself a pat on the back. But a question I often found myself asking was where was the development of architectural sensitivity and sensibility in all of this. I felt that worst of all the teaching was dishonest, because the line of intellectual rigor and honesty, that the briefs would ask you to carry out in your work, from collection of data to generating formal outcomes, would be abandoned frequently at the childish whim of a tutor or course coordinator. In other words to be honest, just a load a pretentious BS used to coverup what essentially became a puerile search for aesthetically pleasing, monumental and hollow objects, not architecture, just abstract forms. I suspect that part of the lack of coherency comes from the staff not even knowing what all these lofty and abstract ideas are about, as they try to appropriate and clumsily implement already outdated courses from foreign private architecture schools, and desperately distinguish themselves from UNSW and USYD. I completely accept that many will disagree with me, but that is fine.

For the full set of presentation components refer to:
1. Narrative -Wk2 1st Attempt
2. Plans - Wk5 5th Attempt
3. Vignettes - Wk5 3rd Attempt
4. Model Photos - Wk5 6th Attempt