The main question that arose in the jury is what is under threat in my narrative. Where as before I was arguing The Architect is under threat by their Ego, I am now considering whether it is in fact The City that is under threat by not embracing The Spectacle.
(i) In the case of Battle-Hole City, both the city and the spectacle are under threat. But the Battle is not so much Hole vs. City, rather Death vs. Survival, as The City and The Spectacle in fact on the same side. Where as they were once thought of as opposing forces, we begin to realise that The Spectacle and The City are in fact on the same side. Though the spectacle physically destroys, it is crucial in allowing the city to develop.
(ii) In the case of Yamasaki, we (the audience) become engrossed by the spectacle of destruction. By neglecting to publish or recognise the destructive force that building can play in the city, the architect unintentionally kills the city.
(iii) In the case of my mini-pancakes we deconstruct the spectacle within the wider context of the city to understand the relationship between the two on a smaller scale within the architecture school. The stage could have been set up anywhere and the event taken place anywhere in the school, it is the characters (Zaha; Me; Yamasaki; Xia) and arrangement of people that make the event rather than the physical object.
(iv) Link between the Yamasaki Stage; The Hole; and The Present situation as we see that the event is not made by a physical object, but by the spectacle. The boxing match/Yamasaki/presentation could have taken place anywhere, but it is the characters involved that make it.