|
 |
| |
RADAR
FEATURES
COMMENT
| |
| | | |
 |
| |
| |
|
| | LETTERS AND FIXES
| Future Shack |
Sand Helsel’s article “Future Shack”, featured
in your September/October 2001 issue, is
without doubt one of the most overt written
examples of architectural self-deceit in
recent memory.
Here is an example of built work purported
by its architect to be an attempt “to satisfy a
social need”, a humanitarian project born out
of a sense of altruistic responsibility. It is
immediately clear, however, that the artefact
we are presented with will never be home to
refugees, disaster victims or political asylum
seekers. This much is made quite clear in the
first four words of the review which sum up
the true nature of the project: “Future Shack.
I’m sold.” And so we very well might be,
given the seductiveness of the images,
inviting us to go on first impressions, to buy
on impulse, to become what the marketing
people would surely love to label as an “urban
refugee”. Free from political or religious
persecution, the real end users of Future
Shack will be those fleeing the aesthetic
oppression of their bleak urban context.
There is no doubt that the container is,
as Helsel states, “packed full of architecture”,
and of course this alone would put it far
beyond the financial reach of any aid
organisation. More importantly to its real
market, though, its diminutive size keeps it
well within the budget (and the backyard?)
of most. Every detail of this structure is
clearly considered, starting with the colour
and condition of the modified container and
continuing right through to the tapware, and
at no point does it make any allowances for
the logistics or infrastructure requirements
of emergency relief housing. Are we, for
instance, to accept that only two people are
to inhabit each of these structures (as
evidenced by the provision of beds and
chairs) and that they are all to have the
luxury of an ensuite and kitchenette?
Serious emergency relief housing has
been carried out successfully by architects
elsewhere, with the cardboard tube structures
of Shigeru Ban being an example. For Future
Shack to be put forward in a context where
concerns such as cost, availability of
technology and use of skilled labour are to be
rigorously minimised is simple delusion. There
can be no doubt that this project is worthy of
our attention in its own right, but it is rather
embarrassing to the architectural profession
that the folly of its apparent driving principles
has thus far escaped the notice of all.
Stephen Cameron, Qld
|
| Fixes |
• The credits for the winner of the Walter
Burley Griffin Award for Urban Design, Line
of Lode by the University of South Australia,
should have included David Manfredi as one
of the design architects for the Visitors
Centre. Our apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Architecture Media Pty Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
