Project 2 - Blog 1

Moving on from Project 1..

After presenting the ideas developed in project one its time to take the ideas a lot further in project 2 and synthesize them into a resolved architectural entity.

The idea of a third house remains potent and can be interpreted in a number of different ways. I am undecided at this stage whether to take the idea literally and retrofit a third house into the existing parliament house or whether to take the show on the road and explore a more mobile alternative.

The Issue Revisited

I have been thinking about Debate and Forum as the focus of project 2 and see debate as the issue and forum as an architectural facilitator of the debate. Looking at the status quo of Australian Parliament and Politics in general it is clear that there is an issue with communication between politicians and the public realm. One only has to look at the Carbon Tax debate as an example of how disjointed and unorganized political discussion is. Witnessing the debate myself as well as noting the opinions of academics condeming the way the debate has played out has led me to ask the question of how we can improve political debate/discourse?

Q and A

In exploring the question at hand I started thinking about examples of effective debate and discourse especially pertaining to political issues that affected Australia. One of the best forums I could think of was the ABC television show Q and A which is something I already watched on a regular basis. The show is a great example of how the debate of an issue can be structured, unbiased and engage a diverse range of people from public and private realms. To top things off Q and A also adopts a virtual strategy to enhance the debate by utilizing social media during the debate. This adds another layer to this discussion and changes the dynamic to something above traditional discourse. The simple notion of reading another persons twitter comment on the screen while listening to someone speak helps to reinforce or rethink what it is you are listening to. It also broadens the debate to involve the entire population who can interact with the debate proceedings from the comfort of their own home/cafe/work thorough their mobile phone.

What can I take away from Q and A?

Format / Scale / Technology

Q and A has given me an example of what a controlled public debate can look like and offers

a potential model for my architectural entity.

The format of Q and A is the critical success factor and is the reason that the debate is structured and kept flowing. The moderator plays a key role in this and acts as a centre of the debate. Without the moderator then the debate would lack structure and become disorganized.

The scale of the debate is also very important in order to maintain an efficient and controlled discourse. From a physical perspective it allows for face to face discussion between the panelists and the studio audience. If the audience is too large then this face to face visual/verbal interaction would be lost and the conversation would not feel as natural. At this stage I don't have research to back this up but will endeavor to find some.

The social technology used by Q and A enhances the dynamic of the debate through the inclusion

of public opinion and instant feedback on the ongoing debate. It also expands the debate beyond the physical constraints and allows to people to be part of the discussion through a virtual interface such as facebook or twitter.

The virtual strategy they adopt also has a lot of potential to be adapted and used to enhance my architectural outcome. After looking at the Q and A structure for ideas I am led to ask some further questions..

How else can I structure a debate in a way that will facilitate my architectural project?

What structure will enhance public political discourse?

and..

How can architecture enhance debate?

I've included this short video of the Q and A set assembly as it has led me to think about debate forums and their physical presence. Essentially the physical studio set is simple and relatively mobile. It does not take a great deal of resources to assemble meaning it could be constructed anywhere. This video has given me some ideas for a mobile debate studio/auditorium that allows one to 'take the debate to the public'.

Q and A set assembly

Written Project Statement

DAB810

Project 1//Capithetical

After exploring how Parliamentary Services can be Flexible, Mobile, Distributed or Virtual, the following questions were raised. What if there was no longer a gap between the Australian parliament and the Australian public? What if the public could be involved in parliamentary decision-making?

The virtual strategy intrigued the group and discussion steered towards the idea that there exists an entirely parallel world to the one in which humans currently dwell. This virtual world is becoming more and more essential to many peoples lives, to the point where people are becoming dependant on it for social, professional and even physical needs. How could this virtual world be used to minimise the distance between the Australian government and the Australian public?

One issue with Australia’s current parliamentary system is the lack of public involvement in decision-making. It may even be asked whether or not Australia really is a democracy. The public have very little influence in what decisions are made in parliament. There is a much larger population, which is disproportionate to individual representative ability. This is causing friction at the moment with the carbon debate; the government is making decisions above the control or involvement of the public.

The Capital Strategy that this group would like to implement consists of a third virtual house that takes on a supportive role, dwelling among the existing Senate and House of Representatives. This Virtual Layer will play two main roles. Firstly, it will provide constant, live public viewing access to all the happenings of parliament. This will truly make parliament transparent as well as raise public interest in the decision making process. Secondly, it will provide an interface with which guilds will communicate via surrogate robots any ideas or queries of the people. They will present the most optimised and developed ideas from the people to the parliament. This will encourage the public to be more intimately involved with any decisions made in Parliament. When implemented, this service endeavours to restore this uncommunicative relationship between the government and the public. The role of the guild is to mediate between the two: “Public By Proxy”. All Guild leaders will be acting on a short term to maximise accountability while spreading out the power.

A member of the public has access to their local Guild member and is able to present anything they like to them, at which point the guild as a body considers wether this is worthy of pursuing and then makes the decision to refine the idea and take it to parliament. This creates a direct line from the public to the parliament. Through the use of surrogates, this process can happen very quickly because there is no need for travel.

The architectural presence of such an environment will not be entirely virtual. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives will need to adapt to changes so they can accommodate surrogates and the virtual layer. With the implementation of this system, we hope to achieve a more transparent democracy where the people are interested and involved with decisions made, which affect us all.

WK06 - FInal Presentation Boards

Board 1

Board 2

Board 3

Board 4

WK05- BLOG - Project Development

Key Themes

Virtual infrastructure

Public Integration

Debate space

Strategies

Virtual [Main Strategy]

Flexible

Mobile

Distributed

Research Topics

Parliament House

House of Representatives

Chamber Architecture

Debate/Discussion + Architecture

Reflection

My main objective this week was to explore the changes in parliament infrastructure with our architectural statement and virtual strategy in mind. My main concern is in utilizing a strategy that doesn't denigrate the effectiveness or security of current parliament house. The use of a third house allows the existing parliament to maintain its security and function and maintains control over public access and privacy issues. Digital technologies allow for the public presence in the existing chambers without needing a physical presence.

In conceiving of the third house I first explored the dynamics of debate which is to be its primary function. As discussion can take many different forms the space is to function in a range of modes that facilitate different arrangements of people and digital communication infrastructure. For example the space might host a panel discussion one night with a small audience and the next night hold a much larger crowd with a main debate stage at the front. As the format of the forum changes so does the digital technology used during the debate/discussion. One example could be the use of a virtual debate where members of the discussion are not physically present but there image is projected onto the stage. The perimeter of the space may also have images projected onto it in order to create a virtual environment that adds to the sensory experience of the debate.

diagram 1 - mapping discussion

diagram 1 - rethinking chamber function

diagram 1 - framing debate space

diagram 1 - flexible mode space for changing conversation