Hi Russell,
So basically, just to run it by you at a very preliminary level.
I am thinking about basing my design proposal in response to the floods in Queensland.
I would analyse the 'Queenslander' typology, assessing how it came about, how it has been succesful in the past (or where it has failed), what worked in its design during the floods and where it failed during the floods.
Later, in a design response, proposing an new ideal 'queenslander,' i.e. no budget, and introducing various technologies. To be followed by developing an adaptation to a feasible real-world solution, which can be mass produced (perhaps pre-fabricated) for a modest budget and perhaps with a minimal build time.
How is this sounding?
Hi Blake,
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned a while ago I’m insisting that everyone at least begins with the FAME site down by the train station. So think about how that could relate ... a centralised response centre? The factory where the architecture would be fabricated ... something.
Otherwise it’s a start, it's important that you feel passionately about it ... the matrix should lay out all the issues relating to “queenslander’, mass production, technology, floods/natural disasters, etc etc ... in as much specificity as possible. And yes, I'm also expecting it will develop over time, but important at this stage to see if the idea has enough meat to sustain a major project.
Cheers
Thanks for that Russell,
ReplyDeleteI do feel passionately about the issue, especially as it is sure to be on a similar scale to the redevelopment of Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. Also having the opportunity to suggest measures of future construction techniques or guidelines ahead of the government authorities is something that interests me greatly.
If for instance I went with a manufacturing facility of the architecture, do I focus my research matrix on the product of the facility or the facility itself?
Thanks again,
Blake