Big Questions for – 3.3 Low-energy, secure keeping place for artefacts

Dawul Wuru Aboriginal Corporation Energy Big Questions for – 3.3 Low-energy, secure keeping place for artefacts

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #5066
    Jeremy Chu

      Hello, my group has decided to take on 3.3 as the challenge, a single design solution as per my universities guidelines. We are currently in the process of forming ideas however are hitting road blocks in terms of what the scale is and the reach we have.

      Our current research has lead to many different avenues of various scales in terms of solutions, for example, we can change the building geometry and design for increased energy-efficiency and climate control; or we can implement electronic climate control devices either in a confined area (cabinet) or large area (room); or we can implement small reusable items to control humidity; do we install solar panels (an unoriginal idea)? The problem is that we think that the solution to this problem will require various disciplines (e.g. structures + energy) and solutions (specifically designed cabinet in specifically designed room). In a case like this, what is the recommended approach? Are we expected to focus only on a minor design feature (e.g. only a cabinet) or the bigger picture (how all systems interlink and should function for max. efficiency)?

      Also, I’ve looked at the Interactive map for the Dawul Wuru Office and can only see loose artefacts, no glass cabinets, would it be possible to upload pictures of these?

      On the topic of cabinets, how does the community want these items displayed? Should spears be stored vertically or horizontally? Do they want boomerangs and dilly bags mounted on the wall or laying flat on the display? Knowing how they’d like their items displayed would help inform us to create a design they may enjoy. Another question is, how often do they change their display? One of our designs involves having a display that is not often touched or displaced from its case.

      Also, for storage of artefacts, it’s mentioned that we should assume that some artefacts are not for public display. If not for public display then can they just be stored in a separately designed box solely designed for preservation or must it be integrated with the public viewing displays as well (this may also apply to the wood cut-outs of the ready to be crafted boomerangs)?

      A final question relates to the HUB designation. Will this secure keeping place of artefacts (if it’s a building) be the starting point where additional modular buildings branch out? Or will it be a part that will eventually be integrated and added in a larger complex?

      This is quite a long post so we understand if these questions are too specific to answer. We appreciate you reading this post and answering any questions here.
      Thank you,

      Jean Aquinde

        Hi Jeremy,

        Thanks for taking us through your group’s thought process. It’s interesting how many variables can play in designing a low-energy, secure keeping place for artefacts.

        You’re making significant progress! Part of the design process is starting broad and converging into a few design options. A decision matrix is a valuable tool to help you evaluate and prioritise a list of design considerations. Check these examples from previous top reports on how the students defined and scored their design criteria which landed them in their final design. Another helpful tip from the Big Tricky Questions: Explained (resource available on the Challenge website) is to look at how you can enable our partner organisation to quickly prototype and test the feasibility of your idea without spending a lot of money. Regardless of the scale of your proposed project, a successful prototype might lead to future development and investment.

        It sounds like you’re leaning towards the systems thinking approach if you also think of designing the product and the room. The good news is that you can be as innovative and creative as you can be for this challenge. Whichever approach you take, the only expectation is that we want to see how you justify your design and document your assumptions (if there are any) based on your understanding of the project context and the design criteria you’ve set.

        Unfortunately, we can’t provide any more photos aside from what’s available at the gallery. The project brief mentioned that their collection is growing and is of varying sizes. In this context and at this stage, you may assume that their current preference is not critical in your proposed design. Think of how you can factor modularity in your design, knowing the range of dimensions of the artefacts. You may want to suggest a few configurations/sketches that you think they may enjoy, including recommendations on how the cabinets can be easily maintained. You may also wish to expand your research on museums’ best practices to support your recommendations. I suggest you apply the same approach to the storage of the artefacts.

        The vision of a collective hub on country is to start small and grow. You can read more details in this brief.

        I hope we have provided you with enough information to help your team move forward.

        All the best,

        Jeremy Chu

          Hello Jean, I saw your post 3 weeks ago but didn’t have the time to reply, but put off replying (as I was busy w/ other project) so sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the information given. This was helpful for us to determine which problems we think are a greater priority in terms of time-management and what’s expected from us.
          Thanks again,

          Jean Aquinde

            You’re welcome Jeremy! I’m very glad to hear your update. 🙂

          Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.