THE GOODTalking to other students after our presentation they said that what they liked about our project was it gave a purpose to the assembly of the flat pack systems. One comment was that while other peoples designs were limited to making squares, rectangles and L shapes our design was flexible enough to evolve depending on the opportunities of the site and the needs of the community.
I'm glad that our peers were able to pick up on this idea because it was after all the basis of our project. Since flat pack architecture is by its own nature segmented and compartmentalised, comparisons to natural systems can quite easily be drawn on to guide the project and this idea of evolution was the best way for Linka and I to express our design. As the project develops we as designers would slowly relinquish control and change from suppliers of a product to providers of a service, which we felt would be the most effective way to utilize the flexible and customisable nature of flat pack systems.
THE BAD
The majority of comments from the tutors related to resolution of the fine details of our design, such as how do the joints in every instance within the design. Unlike other groups linka and I chose to focus on the possibilities of a flat pack system rather than a single iteration, because of this our joining systems were not completely resolved. This is an understandable request as the joints and the fixings of a flat pack system are very important as they must work without the designers intervention. Given more time I have no doubt Linka and I would have been able to resolve these technical issues, however, we felt that it was more beneficial to explore the concept of flat pack architecture rather than just a single resolution.
The other comment made was to be careful of the kinds of imagery and forms created by the structure. It was noted that our 4th stage of evolution looked very similar to the Portuguese ecclesiastical buildings in area and this should definitely be taken into consideration as in the Timor Leste culture the building may have completely different connotations which might be at odds with what its intended use is. The building in question was for ceremonial purposes as well as gatherings so in this respect the ecclesiastic nature of the form may well suit the intended use, however, more research and greater communication with the local people would need to be undertaken before any assumptions are made.