WEEK 5: Lecture

In this week's lecture by Dr. Phil Crowther supported our quest to envision our future scenario, with a variety of points.

• Scenario should be based around facts and should consider future lifestyles, people. 
• What are they likely to do? Eat, drink, recreation and personal activities.
• Architecturally, how will this be formed?
• Huge number of people
• How do you deal with indeterminacy (unsure what will happen)
• Adaption to change? Future Problems 
• personal changes in socially, culturally, economically, spiritually....
• Unknowable use of the architecture.
• How change machines contribute?
• Services be able to move when required
• Do we need to use cars? 
• Do we need houses that stay in one place? 

I think Crowther's indeterminacy idea was most profound. Our scenarios may certainly happen due to numerous events and entities that might cause different changes. But, there are so many other external impacts that we have not thought about. And, not just the post-nuclear zombie distopian scenarios. A large proportion of existing architecture in Brisbane does not support our future needs and architecture built in the future may not support its needs too. So in reply to the term, indeterminacy, why shouldn't architecture have the ability to be resilient of future changes.

 Timeline change of Azimo

In reflection, I felt that the prediction and impact of machinces was surpressed by the group. It would be difficult to visualise this, but today there is evidence of future impact. Asimo a robot produced by Honda has made significant headway since the early 80's (see above).

In the future, robots could co-exist with humans. Seen in the video above the robot becomes a house assistant that is emotionally attached. This again implies the strong future relationship between architecture and technology.