Thesis – Week 2 – Pecha Kucha

Karen Nelson Comments

  • Q1. Provocative spatial and political argument
  • A1. Thank you. 
  • Q2. Maintain only an image of representational democracy?!
  • A2. This is my nod to the embedded corrupt nature of a system with a locked representation while we can have our first trillionaire and how a small handful can manipulate a small group (non growing representatives). The corruption will only become worse… There are other solutions, but I am trying to maintain the form of an idealistic form of what it should be rather than the reality of the situation
  • Q3. How do you make decisions about the form of the project? How serious… how sci-fi?  Is it worth contrasting our numbers to those of China and its larger legislature?
  • A3. I have a precedent I am using within my research about the Galactic Senate in Star Wars, which is about the monumentality. I am also using the Nazi Capital as a precedent for the propaganda piece and that is when I relate it to China. A representative republic needs to have an answer, so it doesn’t get left behind, and can continue to be relevant. I like to make a comparison of the church using the best “artists” like Michelangelo to showcase. The best of the best was used as an association. This is similar to Celebrities, Athletes, Institutions, etc. They use the best of the arts to illustrate their propaganda to get an association bump. It is important to have a form that reflects that in order to compete against authoritarian governments. We don’t want the next generation of surface thinking to be “China is cool” and “America is dead” 

Daniel Daou Comments

  • Q1. Concur, very provocative. But the symbolic dimension needs to be foregrounded. the driving argument can’t be a merely functional one.
  • A1. I have a precedent of the nazi capital, which its intent was to create a monumental space that would be a symbol of power. The goal was to have delegates that arrive to brag about the architecture back home. This happens a lot in China and UAE, and it has very valid societal impacts just by being a symbol (propoganda). There are overlaps of China (Communism) and their use of propaganda and how a representational democracy can combat that propaganda without feeling left behind.
  • Q2. What would the “terms of criticism” be?
  • The terms of criticism are as follows: 1) Is there a space to meet with representatives in a more direct and neutral way? The intent of the space would be to acknowledge that both parties; that of the representative and the citizen, are equal and there is not hierarchy above one another in these dialogue zones to better understand the needs of the community. 2) When the representatives are working, can the public see them? 3) Is there space for the public at hearings, committees, office meetings, and when congress is in session? 4) Does the building meet the standards of a healthy working atmosphere (healthy building)? 5) Does the building have a monumental stance in its environment that can command attention?
  • Q3. How do you evaluate how successful your design/research is? Does anything go? Speculation is perfectly fine, but internal narrative self-consistency becomes paramount.
  • A3. On the surface it is speculation, and hopefully the supporting documentation can support my Key Performance Index, which is: 1) Increase the Size. 2) Balance of Security and Openness. 3) Creating spaces for Collaboration and Conversation. 4) Creation of regional zones of lesser magistrates that will have a standard operating procedure of judgement in order to pass any potential legislation on to the Federal Senate and House for a vote. 

Susan Morgan Comments

  • Q1. worth including in an intro why we should keep/add on to the existing capitol building versus step away and create new, adaptable facility for proper representation. Side note: in the world of digital meeting, to what extent is the assumption of physical presence appropriate for the next 50+ years?
  • A1. Great point on a focus on the keep/add of existing capital vs new. I explored this idea early on and there is some interest in exploring it further, but it tended to not be manifesting itself in form, but rather a cerebral push and pull about the proper way of representation when it intersects technology. I can get carried away with this idea, because it is rich. 
  • Q2. With such direct visual comparisons to Buckminster Fuller and Norman Foster, you should be explicit about these references and acknowledge their relationship to assumptions and visions for the physical expression of political engagement. 
  • A2. Understood. I do have these references in the expanded version of the presentation, but I will ensure that I make reference within a reduced presentation as well. 

Ekaterina Siemoneit Comments

  • Q1. Some sketches reminds me of Reichstag glass dome by Norman Foster. Was it your inspiration?
  • A1. Yes I did look at this building. It is very beautiful. I also looked at some concepts for the Tokyo Stadiums that have a wrapping path around the building. Very good catch!

Molly Boudreau Comments 

  • Q1. Seems costly. Maybe they should all remote work instead? Ha!
  • A1. I understand you are being playful, but I think we both know this could be a reality very easily, and I touch on it slightly, but don’t go too much into it because of my bias towards built form. 

Ryan Hoppe Comments

  • Q1. What security considerations have you made about having a public elevated platform above a house of government given what we saw in January?
  • A1. I intend to touch on the full history of attacks on the Capitol. I specifically touch on “1983 U.S. Senate bombing” by the New Communist Movement. I am focused on the fortification from weaponry and bombs along with cordining of populations. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.