Post Presentation

Presentation Feedback:

I appreciated the critical feedback from my presentation and will certainly take these points on board for future projects. A couple of suggestions arose from my presentation that I feel I didn’t address well during the presentation and I would like to take the time to address them now; I will aim to be much clearer on my intent for future presentations.

1) Circulation (vertical circulation).

Response: I attempted in this project to provide a method of vertical circulation in each building block. In this case I have a different means in each block; the west wing has escalators, the right wing has a lift (although it didn’t show on my printouts – you can see them clearly in the above section (beige colour with elevator doors), and a stairwell in the car park. I am now aware that this is insufficient and that fire stairs are required at closer intervals and I will make a point of remembering this for my next assignment.

2) Holographic technology may be a little far-fetched.

Response: Through research during this assignment I discovered that major technology companies Apple and Microsoft are investing heavily in holography with Apple implementing patents and trademarks in anticipation of this emerging technology. As I mentioned in the presentation, (and as seen in the youtube video that I posted in week 13 “Holographic TV coming in 2012”) we are already seeing the clumsy beginnings of this technology. Take, for instance, tablet technology. This was first imagined in science fiction shows like Star-trek 20 years ago. It has taken 20 years for this technology to become reality. Surely with technological advances increasing at exponential rates it is not out of the question to expect to see results much sooner than 2032.

3) Building appears unresolved.

Response: As I mentioned during the presentation (and you can see some of my floor plan sketches in previous weeks) I did consider a more solidified response which included internal walls however deeper reflection revealed that this traditionalist thinking is what stifled the original Paddington Central. In 2032 walls may not be necessary if we have the technology at hand to project them. For the benefit of ‘future use and re-use’the ability of the building to adapt to changes in future use hinges heavily on how flexible it is to accommodate change, thus the solution is to provide a simple, open and multi-functional floor plan.

4) Too much car parking.

Response: Yes I agree but there are two reasons for this. 1) Unless legislation enforces some kind of moratorium on personal travel and public transport improves greatly – it is still comprehensible that people will still use personalised transport. Given that the population of Paddington in 2032 will obviously increase greatly – council may still have to make provisions for this in its council planning scheme, i.e. Car Parking to GFA ratios. In the event of a reduction in personalised transportation these now empty floor plates can accommodate further retail/recreational facilities or be removed in favour of open parkland. 2) It provides the substructure for the interactive screen.

5) Holographic products are unlikely to replace the actual product.

Response: I totally agree. That’s why I made a prediction that holography would be able to replicate the sensations of touch. Advances in nano-technology are being made with amputee victims that allow them to experience the sense of touch through ‘fake’ nerves. So again, the technology is emerging. On reflection, a mixture of ‘virtual’ and ‘actual’ product may be a better option.

This assignment brief stipulated that the project had to be believable; this is why I have based all of my assumptions and imagery on current research as to what may be available to us in 20 years time.

If you got this far, thank's for taking the time, you've more than earned yourself a beer, so cheers to you.

The End.