3.2 began with a critical reflection in conjunction with reviews of where I had progressed to in 3.1.
Programme:
Floors served solely for each programme of meet, make, share and work to form creative modular (as referred to in the big draw 1 summary) working environments
​
Main issues:
Each square prompted holds a minimum of 30 people
​
This becomes a sizable building that could be broken into a more simpler design process while maintaing the similar mass of space
​
Addressed through CONTEXT:
The studies and research displayed on developing and inspiring the hidden voices are hindered by seperating programmes by floors.
​
​
Programme:
To create a space for debate where both the SPH councilmen, councilwomen and the minority groups (young people) can source out solutions on issues in the community.
This would also not just be done by the auditorium but through the circulation as the SPH members would access the site from the top floor being able to view the works of the young people and getting a better outlook on their viewpoint before the discussion.
​
​
SPH
Main issues:
The volume of space is misinterpreted as the auditorium presented would not be one volume but rather 2-3.
This takes away from the intended purpose of the circulation connection to the Union and the link to SPH
​
Addressed through CONTEXT:
​
This Auditorium does not clearly
reference how the pedestrian paths
would link in with this site
​
And it's scale comes into question when
matched with it's purpose draws out
a number of more cost effective and
safety solutions.
​
​
SPH
