THE PUBLIC CHANGING ROOM

For instance, how can a space of exhibition change into one of liberation, activism or education? How can a space transform and perform multiple functions throughout the day, the seasons, the year? And how can a building trans-form itself?

The tectonics of space then, become fundamental in the conception of the underlying structural ordering principles to enable these change rooms to trans-form. Moreover, the sculptural quality and experience of these “rooms” becomes an environment that is both tangible and intangible. As with the photographs above.

Your changing rooms must make explicit connections between all the previous briefs, charrettes/workshops and resource material thus far.

In terms of spatial programme, you are free to come up with your own schedule of spaces to be included in the design. The changing rooms have to accommodate at least two main functions with/without a “strange” relationship between them (not opposite, try to avoid binary positions). However, ensure that the spaces respond to the needs of your end users. Think of their everyday needs (sleep, love, care, rest, create, perform, leisure, exchange and interact) and their ceremonial rituals (celebrate, commemorate, march, protest, activism, etc). What relationship do these changing rooms share with time and with the rest of the greater context? Consider the relationship between the public, semi-public, private and the rooms in-between (liminal, fluid and thresholds), service and served rooms, Indoor and outdoor rooms, streets, pavements and rooftops. Porosity between different spaces. Your architectural intervention may be located on open spaces in-between existing buildings or clip-onto existing structures within your allocated site strip (see brief 5.2). It must apply framed construction technology, it must have a changing physical aspect that transforms the building (eg, façade, rooms moving). It must also draw from other creative disciplines (fashion, art,industrial design etc) and reflect on the material culture of Newtown in its materiality for the envelope and/ form. It must also respect the height and boundary restrictions of the site.

Look for appropriate precedent studies and include an analysis of at least two buildings (one local and one international) to assist you with resolving the following: spatial layout, structural systems, circulation, thresholds, materiality and transformation technology.

Use the above data to formulate and present a design proposal. Your presentation must include but not be limited to:

-Conceptualisation (diagrams, sketches, 3-4 conceptual models at 1:200 documented through photography in the group context model, films, performances, etc)

-Technical Presentation design drawings in context: Site plan 1:200, Ground Floor Plans with landscaping

1:50

(inclusive of streets), All other plans 1:100, 2 SECTIONS 1:100, 2 ELEVATIONS 1:100

-2 Perspective drawings- Use characters from your reading/brief 1 and dioramas in all your renders (avoid shadow people, give them identity and life)

-Technical, fully specified and dimensioned 1:20 Skin/ perimeter section

-1:100 presentation model in context

AFLEWERINGS [Deliverables]

-A1 POSTER/S documenting your consolidation of previous work (brief 1-3 and charrettes), conceptualisation, design development (including precedent study analysis), design details and presentation drawings as per outputs of brief

-3-4 Conceptual Models

-1 well-constructed presentation model expressing transformational aspects of proposal

-Films (less than 1:00 min)

AFLEWERINGS [Deliverables for Architectural Technology]

-1:200 Detailed Site Plan & Roof Plan

-1:50 Detailed Ground Floor Plan & First Floor Plan (Should include services layout)

-1:50 Detailed Cross-Section (Section Note: The above sections of your design must include your main staircase / double/triple volume/auditorium/atrium space)

-2x 1:100 Elevation

-Door & Window Schedule

-1x 1:20 Perimeter Section (This should include your basement level/semi basement)

-3x 1:10 Edge Details.

VERWYSINGS [References]

Choquette. E. nd. QUEERING ARCHITECTURE: (UN)MAKING PLACES. SITE.

Reed, C. 1996. Immanent Domain: Queer Space in the Built Environment. Art Journal, Vol. 55, No. 4. Pp. 65-70

OUTRE WAREHOUSE Rapha Kanokena 221085890

PROCESS & CONCEPTUAL WORK Rapha Kanokena 221085890

SECTIONS & DETIALS Rapha Kanokena 221085890

PERSPECTIVE MONTAGE

Longitudinal Section

“HAS IT NOT BEEN ACCEPTED – THAT THERE IS AN UNBRIDGEABLE GULF BETWEEN REALITY IN ITSELF AND REALITY AS IT APPEARS TO US? THAT OUR POSSIBILITIES OF KNOWING HAVE MORE TO DO WITH OUR OWN APPARATUS THAN WITH THE NATURE OF REALITY?” 1

“WHY DO WE HAVE A MIND IF NOT TO GET OUR WAY?” 2

JACQUES-AURÉLIEN BRUN’S – ABSTRACT PHOTOGRAPHY - IGNANT

1 - ELIA ZENGHELIS - FONDAZIONE DEPART. (2013) ‘SAN ROCCO – WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE PRIMITIVE HUT?, - 8, PP 84

2 – FYODOR DOSTOYEVSKY - FONDAZIONE DEPART. (2013) ‘SAN ROCCO – WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE PRIMITIVE HUT?, - 8, PP 84