Week Seven : Further Research Precedent

The themes of co-creation, collaboration and exchange which have underpinned much of my own research to this point will form the basis of my direction for this project and thus in moving forward I actually want to take a step back to our reading Erasing Architecture into the System. The paper centred upon Cedric Price's Fun Palace (see below, image from Audacity) which is a complex comprised of various moveable entertainment facilities. It is a place which is expendable and changeable; whereby the contained spaces and objects challenge both the mental and physical dexterity of participants and allow for a flow of space and time, in which passive and active pleasure is provoked (Cedric Price 'A Laboratory of Fun' New Scientist, 14 May 1964).

According to Isozaki (1999);

"The significance of the Fun Palace was in its ideas on hardware whereby architecture became something to sustain and respond to ever uncertain circumstances. From the very beginning there was also a social activist edge to Price's wanting to force this hardware into the community to stimulate the cycle of everyday life and spark events".

The essence of my  ideas for Paddington Central is a space in which events, projects, ideas and plans, jostle, merge and coincide; a place which provides the means for people to learn, share, create and contribute. At its heart I would suggest that education underpins associated activities and is therefore a continuous necessity for all members of the community throughout their entire life. This would imply that in order to perpetuate exchange and collaboration across time the physical space would need a flexible and dynamic arrangement. The ideas of Price therefore provide a highly relevant case study. Not only did the Fun Palace look to act as a catalyst for self-participatory education but it also considered how the community could be activated as a collective entity. 

Another relevant project of Price's was the Oxford Street Corner House (OCH), which was a scheme proposed for an existing building in London. It was designed to handle up to 5000 visitors and staff and offer skills training, ‘teleconnections’ for the press, information storage and inter-city conference exchanges. Price conceived these interfaces using diagrams (see below) that made allusion to scientific structures and interconnectivity. The project pre-empts a plethora of technologies and services that have become embedded in modern cultural life, but as far as Price was concerned the site and the city ‘must indeed allow for continuous delight in the unknown in social terms’ (Remap,2012).

'OCH can be used as a citizens’ inquiry service where teleconnections can be made to press news rooms, travel agencies, government ministries, to Parliament, industry, commerce etc, thus making information accessible which is at present underused or ignored because of access difficulties. [Diagram A].

Or OCH can offer a skill-learning or research facility service through programmed machines [a Link drive-a-car trainer or a language teaching machine] or through teleconnections to other study centres. [Diagram B]

Or OCH can be used as a centre equipped to provide facilities for information exchange, at a meeting level, at a conference level, or at an inter-city [concurrent exchange] conference level. [Diagram C]

The basic user component in the centre would be the two-seater information carrel, but open floor space for observation, wandering, wondering, rest and refreshment by mobile preparation units is fundamental to the full use of the centre.' (Remap, 2012).

Both these concepts represent remarkable thinking. Not only did they envision a scenario that was well beyond the means of their time, but they also outline a unique approach to community-based design. Both ideas consider how to deeply interconnect people and entwine physical spaces and means with a kind of social agency. To take and apply these principles I think is to highlight the need for not only local interactivity but also connection to regional and national amenity. To a degree they highlight a pleasure in spontaneity and flexibility and I think that in order to perpetuate continuity and community interest these will be necessary inclusions in my own work.

To add another layer to this, is to consider how architecture or space can be made of an event rather than the envelope. Archigram's Monte Carlo competition entry from 1969 (see below) sought to achieve just this. The brief required a multi-purpose space to cater for a large banquet; variety shows, a circus, ice rink and cultural activities and so the architects considered how a proposal could extend its services but also remain complimentary in atmosphere and experience.

The solution was just a neat hole in the ground with features and events all inside, configured in such a way that each show makes its own environment – makes its own organization and its own circulation pattern. In fact the total shape is never even seen as there is always something dropped down or hung or compartmented off – the whole thing is a stage.

Interesting in this sense then is architecture at it bare minimum. Architecture designed to contain the 'architecture' of people, activities and events. That in relation to the Price's ideas for fluid and stimulating design I think is to consider how architecture can facilitate social currency and subscription through its capacity to interact with changing needs.