An analysis of the vision cones towards every other room area proved to be very difficult to interpret within a two dimensional drawing. We therefore made a simplified 3D model of the protostructure along with 60° vision cones pointing towards each group point. This helped us define common groups as well as exact positioning of certain apertures.
We decided to develop a specific form of observation/surveillance per general program of the other groups in our studio. For example, group 2, a garden - group 3, a bathing room - group 6, a cliff hanging refuge. These groups all share a common general program of repose. Not only that, but these three groups are aligned when viewed from a central position in the protostructure (cf the three aligned/connected "windows" in the below photo). These three aforementioned groups will be observed in a transparent manner. This means that the users of these rooms will be able to see the surveyor and vice-versa. The general program of repose is therefore hindered by the apparent observation.
The next group cluster is 1, physical and mental activity - 7, staircase/circulation - 9, transitional space. These three groups, as they all involve movement will be observed with a hybrid auditory and visual aperture to ensure that movement can be tracked by simple listening (therefore allowing the visual observation of a whole other area at the same time), and to still ensure that, if required, the surveyor is still able to visually confirm any possible movement.
Groups 8 and 10 (observing the view of the lake and multiple function room respectively) will be subject to one way observation but for different reasons. In the first case, room 8 is subject to counter-observation as the general program is far too similar. In the second case, the one way observation is to ensure that what can happen in this room (as the general program of said room is that anything can happen) will happen.
Finally, the last group (number 5). This room is designed to be a space for a writer. The subversive nature of such a program defines it as a point of interest. Control over such an area by observational means renders the users unable to resist the panopticon system. As per Foucault's definition such a system causes the users to control themselves under the suspicion of constant surveillance - even if such surveillance is unavailable due to lack of surveyor or by simple lack of visual connection with the area. The sheer harshness of the panopticon used as a tool to break into the already rigidly defined balloon frame that is the protostructure.
A similar study as the above was executed directly on the protostructure model in an attempt to test the visual obstruction of certain elements of the balloon frame in the eventuality of cutting into the protostructure and replacing the structural bars with another form. A temporary anchor was added to the model, taking into account average eye height to ensure a higher accuracy.
Test cuts were made on a protostructure fragment model.
Finally, different apertures were defined based on the above microprograms. This time, the exact form is not defined as it varies depending on location. Instead, each aperture has to fulfill certain criteria (one-way, two-way, large opening, small opening, etc) per location. This way, the design of each element can be relatively lax allowing for easier interconnection and coverage.