Although the final crit was a bit of a blur, we fortunately had somebody to take notes from the critics. One major point of difference to our design was that it was a parasitic shelter that needed to attach to its surrounding environment as opposed to a stand alone structure. We therefore needed to use a method of connection to enable the shelter to attach. This was in the form of suspension, using guy ropes to pull out or manipulate it in the way we desired. This was a point the critics were interested in. Why was it suspended? There was concern about the overhead rope and the way it was anchored in the middle of the room, it might cause somebody to trip over it…The lower rope on the structure prevented easy access…Was there some way to do it without the suspension element?
But the critics could see the potential in the design in the way that it could be added to so that it grew and expanded. We had added the paper template of the module to the package to allow for this possibility, to give the user the opportunity to take material from their own inventory and build on the original. We also acknowledged that if we had the time to look at other materials, it might have been possible to find something with enough structural integrity that it might be able to support itself.
The slightly resistant and challenging nature of the shelter meant that we had to work out quite carefully the optimum way to suspend it to create the effect we wanted. However, we thought that it would be quite possible to suggest a number of ways to suspend it depending on the spatial condition of the user. Despite not much initial success with the experiment with a corner wall, we knew that it could be resolved with more time. We decided to use computer imaging to suggest other possible ways it could be hung.
From left to right, original in situ, a hovering shelter acting more as a roof, set up in the corner, lastly the shelter is inverted to create a larger canopy for a more encompassing feel.