PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS

With a clear direction of utilising parks to distribute the parliament and with the idea of appealing to youth, I have started an investigation into parks and playgrounds with the aim of finding an appropriate architectural solution.

 During this investigation I found many interesting approaches to designing a space that invites participation from young people.

SOME EXAMPLES..

 

CARLTON PLAYGROUND, MELBOURNE 2000

Taylor Cullity Lethlean with Mary Jeavons Landscape Architects

NOGUCHI UN PLAYGROUND,  NEW YORK, PROPOSAL, 1952

Isamu Noguchi

 Image from aqua-velvet.com

CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND, TAKINO HILLSIDE PARK, JAPAN, 2000

VAN CAMPENVAAT PLAYGROUND, HOLLAND,

Carve

 

SCULPTURAL PLAYGROUND, GERMANY 2011

Annabau

 

Having thought about these approaches and the brief at hand, I am very keen to consider further if there might be a way to design a solution that incorporates a playful approach or a way to invite interaction from young people... 

PARKS

The more I think about using parks as the primary tool for distributing the parliament, the more sense it makes. Parks are:

• Part of the Australian identity and so very relevant for a solution for Parliament. The numerous parks we have in our cities reflect and culture and our way of life. Australians are reputed for being 'outdoor' people, embracing the active and sporty lifestyle that our climate affords us. The many parks and natural landscapes in Australia and in our cities show our appreciation of this active aspect of our lifestyle, as well as the social yet laid-back nature of the culture.

• Parks are an adventure playground for children. The lacking interest of people in the Parliament and the federal Government can be attributed largely to the low priority that education about our government system is given. And the best way to introduce a new system of education into our lifestyles is to encourage this learning from as young an age as possible. If we can distribute the parliament through our cities in such a way as too expose children to the parliament, then it could potentially become a part of their lives from a very young age. Parks therefore have the potential to expose children to the workings of the parliament. This needs to be investigated further, as an architecture that will invite children to participate must surely be different to one which invites the participation from adult members of the community....

• The use of parks gives a very clear message about being open and accessible. As we identified that one of the biggest weaknesses with the existing parliament is its isolation from the people, than a successful solution will need to have a very different approach. Parks meet this different approach. Parks are places that are well recognised as public spaces, spaces for the people and they are highly accessible. Also if I can find a solution that will retain the outdoor qualities of parks then it will be possible to create an inviting and social solution which extends an invitation to people without mystery or intrigue.

PLAYGROUNDS AND ARCHITECTURE

Although after finding so many innovative ways to create a space which is enticing for children, the more I think about it, the more complex it is becoming for me to align this direction with a clear architectural resolution in response to the breif.

This direction is leading me to thoughts of developing an interactive education environment, a publicly accessible playground, which is appealing to children and will engage them and educate them about the parliament through a very visual and tactile approach. However this will not lead me to an architectural solution that I feel could be expected for this project. I have also given a lot of thought to how I could posssible create a transient and dynamic environment in which playground 'equipment' can be reconfigured into an architectural entity for use with the Parliament. The more I think about this however, the more I feel like I am starting to manipulate the direction to achieve what I think is expected from my and to ensure that my outcome will be soundly 'architectural'. I don't feel that this manipulation will lead to an appropriate response to the problem at hand, so for now I will leave the playground idea to rest and explore other avenues.

Aspects of this direction which I will hold onto though are:

• The potential for an interactive architecture to be able to engage people..
• Strength in visual communication to reach people.
• The open, social, and accessible nature of parks to draw people together..

VISUAL COMMUNICATION

Today as I was walking around the city I considered the messages that are communicated by the urban environment as we pass through it. Whilst most of this communication is subliminal or subconscious to some degree, I can definitely recognise the significance of the architecture surrounding us and the connections and associations we make in response to this. I also noticed the increasing investment in imagery and visual communication to talk to people. An example of this is signage..

I have noticed recently that some worded signage has been replaced by graphical signage that communicates with colours and images rather than words. I find this incredibly effective and it makes a positive contribution to the visual aesthetics within the city. An example is the riverside bicycle path that runs the length of the city. A myriad of colourful adhesive images have been adhered to the pavement which are visually appealing and communicate very clearly as well. The visuals can be seen on from the paths and also from the bridge above, also a very aesthetically appealing perspective.

I will investigate further this use of visual communication. It is very connected to architecture and is also very relevant to the idea of finding a solution for this project which appeals to children. As children respond very favorably to variety in colour and other qualities to ensure constant stimulus, perhaps a strong visual communication could be the way to invite participation in the parliament?

PARLIAMENTARY FUNCTIONS

Investigating the functions of the parliament and the inner workings of the government system has been somewhat frustrating because I keep reaching the conclusion that it is far from a perfect system, and that there is a highly unequal distribution in power between the members of parliament and the people. Instead of thinking about how to solve this though, I will refine my brief by making a decision now that I will not propose any changes to the current system and the way things work. I will instead focus my attention on how to involve the Australian people in the parliament and in a way that really offers something of value to them. To do this I decided to piece together the information I have learnt  to determine a clear framework for the people's involvement in the parliament and where exactly the people have power, where they can make a worthwhile input.

Following this is has become very clear to me where to concentrate my efforts. I will search for a solution which facilitates the functions or events with which people are directly involved or have power. Functions that come to mind which could possible be housed in a Parliament designed for the people include:

• Voting stations (Although voting only happens occasionally, it is currently held in free halls, schools and the likes. Whilst this works well in terms of using underutilised infrastructure close to the voters, it does nothing for the (often) disconnection of the people with the vote and with the parliament as a whole)

• Lectures.. Given by politically independent experts on their field. This education would lead to an increased understanding of issues relating to legisalation, and also result in more informed voting and other decisions by the people. Question and answer sessions also.

• Ceremonies or events related to the areas of legislation covered by the federal Government. Eg. Ceremonies for citizenship which are currently held only twice a year.

• Information offices or similar to offer advice to people regarding legislation etc. It could become a point of contact for the people with the parliament and offer them information as they need it.

I have not yet decided if I will design a space to house all of these functions or if I will choose one to concentrate on. These different functions will ideally require quite different space conditions each, so I will wait until I have a clearer idea of the direction I am developing before I make this decision.

DIRECTION

I was very happy with the outcome of the presentation for our group. We established a clear strategy for distribution..........decentralise the parliament to bring it to the people. I will continue working with this strategy in mind, however I will move away from the idea of the parasitic architecture. It may come up as a significant strategy in further development but at the stage we are at now, it is too early to define whether parasitic architecture is an appropriate response to the problem.

I'm not sure how an architectural solution will develop from my thoughts at the moment, but I am starting to think about what the Government can offer people and how this can be executed as an architectural solution.

I have also been thinking further about the infrastructure that exists within the framework of Australian cities, and I keep returning to the idea of utilising parks to distribute the Parliament. After all of the reading about the government and the systems and the attempts to try to organise everything to gain control I decided to go back to basics. Instead of looking at the needs of the people from the perspetive of the government and getting deeper into the complexity of what we may or may not need from a government, I decided to look at what the Australian people need as people, at the most basic level.

 This led me to Maslows analysis of human needs which gives a fresh perspective from which to rethink about the problem at hand:

According to Maslow, Physiological needs, safety, Love/belonging, Self-esteem and self-actualization are what we as human beings NEED. Is there some way the to transprogram this heirarchy of needs with the needs of the people from a Government? Can a Government offer these things?

I think it is worth looking into this further as I can regonise already one of these needs missing from the Parliament which we identified as being a barrier. LOVE AND BELONGING. We established that most people feel very disconnected from the Parliament or the federal Government because it is isolated. Both physically and functionally. There is very little attempt to involve the general public in the affairs of the parliament, and this lack of involvment leads to a lack of interest and of empowerment. The feeling that is missing is that of belonging. Without any feeling of ownership towards our parliament, there is no motivation to become involved.

For this reason, the idea of utilising parks as the principle infrastructure for this project deserves further exploration. Parks are a public place where everyone is welcome and where people come together and socialise. It could be the perfect place to facilitate a sense of belonging to the parliament and regain an interest from members of the community.

Final panels

We decided as a group that our architectural investigation will depict a parasitic architecture (representation of an active, energetic, architecture that can interact with our cities and allow elemenst of the parliamentary system to interact with our cities and invite the participation of the people.

Anthony's renders look great, I think the images of the lattice-like architectural modules attached to buildings that are clearly recognisable as important parts of cityscapes in Australia is very effective. It gives the buildings a clear identity when these modules are attached and as an image of parliament they represent the people of Australia in a more relevant way than the parliament house in Canberra. The perceived identity of Australians as free-thinking, open minded, active and social is encapsulated effectively in these modular energetic architectural spaces which move in and about our cities, distributing elements of the parliament in the process. A clear contradiction to the traditionally monumental solid architectural structure that sits in Canberra, disconnected from the real life of our cities and its people.Our proposal has an identifiable presence in its ability to move. Its dynamic and active nature continually evokes awareness in both residents and visitors to our cities.

We have now brought our panels together and modified to create a set of panels that are more graphically consistent.

Katie and Kat have also created a model and a short video which illustrates out strategy to distribute and the concept of our parasitic architectural elements really effectively!