My project is around the halfway point. I've been doing some reflection and critical analysis of where it stands now, and into the future. The image is from the early days, before the project started. I'm salvaging materials in the 40 degree heat at the Music Box. Sweet. -------- **Where is my project at after 50 days?** The framework and critical parameters that have been developed as a result of the process to-date: **This project is about architectural interaction, or, interaction with architecture. I am testing and developing methods of provoking, facilitating, measuring and quantifying interaction with architecture.** To date, the method of facilitating the architectural interaction has been done virtually. I have established a website which provides daily updates as to the process of design and development of an architectural project. Users of the website have the facilities to comment on this development, the design process and the intentions of the project as it occurs. The object that is being developed is a temporary pavilion in the urban environment of Perth. The object is the vessel for promoting the interaction with architecture. The physical manifestation of the object is the result of an interactive, virtualised design process. I am not necessarily concerned with the actual built outcome of the object; the process that created it is the experiment. This project is not about pre-conceived ideas, methods or styles of practising architecture. The project is not about architectural convention. Through this project I am attempting to establish a methodology and framework for future experiments and studies into the idea of interaction with architecture, or, architectural interaction. **Where is my project going for the next 50 days?** The project is currently at a critical juncture. Based on the first 50 days of the project, I have developed an understanding of the patterns of interaction by users of the website. Anecdotally, it seems that a lot of people have an interest in the project. However, the manifestation of this interest by way of interaction with the website through comments is minimal. I have decided to address the methods and techniques for provoking the interaction online. To date, the pattern of interaction with the project has been one-way. I will post an image, text or ideas about the project and people will respond with a comment. Sometimes they might ask a question, but it is always related directly to my post. Whilst interesting, this pattern of interaction is stale and static. It is reactionary. What I hope to do in the next 50 days is to develop methods and techniques that change the relationship between me (the designer) and the user (the inhabitant). I want to try and get the interaction occurring in a dynamic way, where user contributions form the basis of design and development of the project from this point. Whilst in the virtual stage, my initial method for instigating this dynamic interaction is to pose a series of challenges, whereby readers of the website can contribute to the physical manifestation of the project. The user of the website is able to upload images and text that respond to the challenge questions posed by me. The way that I frame and pose the questions and challenges to the user is obviously going to influence the response that I get. This is where my control or curatorial skill is manifest. The questions and challenges that I create and pose will be developed as ways of testing the critical parameters of the project. The physical manifestation and second stage of this test of architectural interaction will be the temporary architectural pavilion. This pavilion will exist within the urban environment of Perth. It is a physical way of testing interaction. An extension of the process established by the website, the physical object will be an intervention into the space and patterns of the city. As with the website, the pavilion is merely an object, a tool for testing and developing methods of provoking, facilitating, measuring and quantifying interaction with architecture. The difference in this second stage is that the testing process is physical. My techniques for quantifying the impact of the object in the city will be comparable to those used on the website. I will monitor the time, visits and habits of the users of the object. As with the website, I will use the object, the pavilion, to ask questions of the user, and hopefully provoke comment and interaction. The physical object will provide differing opportunities and restrictions to that of the virtual. For example, site context, materiality and spatial contexts will all provoke different responses to that possible on the website. This will allow me to further test the critical parameter and question of the project: what is architectural interaction? These physical interactions will be documented and recorded online throughout the process. This will

Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The Engineering Initiative Unit. From No.1 Magazine 10th Sept 1988.