Metu Arch 302 Spring 2019-2020 Logbook by METU_Arch_3rdYear_HOC

3 1920 S

302

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

SPRING 2019-2020

METU ARCHITECTURE

ÇETİN ERTAN YAVUZATMACA

ARCH

log book

ARCH 302 TEAM INSTRUCTORS: HASAN OKAN ÇETIN SEREN ERTAN MERCAN YAVUZATMACA

STUDENTS: ABDULLAH ZAMIR AKTEKİN TOZUN ARİF EREN YILDIRIM ASRIN ONAT ŞENGÜL DAVUT BALCİ FURKAN TÜRKER GAZİ CAN ŞAHİN MEHMET GÜLER ONURCAN MIZRAK RECEP SELİM YARBAŞI UMUTKAĞAN DURĞUT AYŞENUR GÖKHAN BERFE NAZ HAŞEMOĞLU BUSENUR GÜNGÖR BÜŞRA AŞCI BÜŞRA BALLI DİLARA GÜNEY EKİN MANSUROĞLU ELİF GÜNGÖR NADINE YOUSIF NİHAN MUTLU SELCAN BİLGİÇ ŞEYMA SEZEN YİNİNG SHİ ZEYNEP ERİŞTİ

ARCH

302

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

log book

SPRING 2019-2020

course outline

tutors

objectives

Hasan Okan Çetin > (hocetin@metu.edu.tr) Office No: 404 Seren Ertan > (serenertan@hotmail.com) Office No: 317 Mercan Yavuzatmaca > (mercany@metu.edu.tr) Office No: 315 Design of buildings in relation to their particularly historical urban context is emphasized. Issues of settlement dwelling relationships, buildings of functional complexity and spatial variety and architectonic interpretations of structural systems are analyzed and designed. (Arch 301-302 METU Catalog- 2015-2017) New version: Analysis and design of buildings in relation to their urban context and structural form. Term projects include large-scale housing settlements, new buildings in historical environments and large span structures, with emphasis on programmatic complexity and diversity, spatial variety and architectonic expression. Knowledge • Building up of culture and repertoire for the analysis and design of housing with mixed-use schemes, innovative structures and multifunctional public buildings. • Develop critical thinking, and knowledge about problems of architecture within an environmental context (historical, traditional, urban), Skills • Improvement of skills in architectural planning, construction and presentation techniques; advanced proficiency in oral, visual and written mediums for communication of design ideas. Attitudes • Awareness development for the cultural heritage and sites of natural and historical significance; acquaintance with the legal and ethical aspects of working in such contexts.

outcomes

The following outcomes are common to Arch 301 and 302 studios, which can be given in either of the terms (depending on the organization of studio trips). By the end of two consecutive courses, the student will be able to: Knowledge • identify, discuss and interpret prominent cases from world literature on relevant works of pioneering features; • carry out, critically, analysis of design problems in relation to environmental, social and urban aspects; • pursue and use reliable knowledge in sustainable design, building tectonics, and design of new buildings in historical context; • propose a building program based on social and cultural scenarios, with the guidance of sample briefs provided in class; • create alternative concept designs and work out master plan ideas at neighborhood scales;

• explore and apply intermediary and advanced technologies in giving structural form to spaces. Skills • accurately produce base maps, site plans and sectionelevations, with correct representation of the proposed design and its environmental context; • demonstrate dexterity in presentation techniques, using advanced computer programs skillfully; using both manual and computer aided drawings and models. • articulate the structural and tectonic form of buildings with precision and expressive quality; • work out coherent transitions between multiple scales (from 1/5000 to 1/50), with demonstrated skill in full expression of each scale; • prepare reports in mature language on proposed program and design ideas. Attitudes • develop maturity in managing teamwork, demonstrating individual responsibility and commitment to collective achievement; • develop consciousness on poetics of space and structure; • demonstrate adoption of values concerning natural and cultural diversity, with utmost care for heritage sites and buildings; • demonstrate evidence of professional ethics to resist and challenge real life procedures of practice. Panel and table critiques, lectures and group discussions. Diversification in subject matter and working habits throughout term projects, each being planned to expose the students to different learning experiences. Students’ regular and timely attendance to the studio is important yet this does not ensure their progress and contribution to the educational milieu. The regular and sustainable intellectual development of each student will be observed by means of group and individual production via panel and individual critics, sketch problems, home-works, preliminary juries etc.

course conduct

attendance

An attendance less than 80% during the semester means failing the course. Students with such poor attendance will not be allowed to submit their work for the final jury. For any project given, even though the student may have been physically present in class during the semester, if the studio critics have not seen adequate work of the student in progress, submission for the jury of that particular project will not be accepted. The exact measure of ‘adequate work’ may vary in each studio group. Students are required to get feedback each week regularly. 5

evaluation

Students of architecture are expected to be on time in submitting project, since this is demanded from them as prospective professional architects. In order to develop the necessary virtue of being punctual, the studio project submissions will be required to be strictly on time. Late submission or partial submission of the missing items will cause half or one grade deduction from the jury grade decided during the jury period. Grade deduction will be in comparable amount to the missing work. If there is no valid excuse (such as a medical report), the extra time given for the late submission cannot be more than one additional day. Failing to submit the final jury project may result in NA, a failing grade. Grading percentages of studio works can vary in different groups depending upon the work schedule, workload and processing of the different types of studies. Besides the grades received from term projects and assignments (preliminary and final juries, sketch problems, site studies, case studies), opinion based on observations of student conduct in the studio (attendance and participation, performance in panel and table critiques, and demonstration of progress) will have a role in the determination of the final grades. For the improvement of the grades received from assignments and juries, the instructors may request (or permit) additional work. An improved grade is not guaranteed simply because additional work is done. Group work is a part of the academic and professional life of architects. Students are to create positive social and physical atmosphere and act in union with the group members, share information, effort, and work load.

grading

PROJECT01 . Large Span Structures 5% Term Studies (Assignments / Case Studies / Site Analysis / Sketch Problem etc.) 20% Jury PROJECT02 . New Buildings in Historical Settings 5 % Term Studies (Assignments / Case Studies / Site Analysis / Sketch Problem etc.) 25% Preliminary Jury 45% Final Jury

Students must be aware of the University’s policies regarding academic integrity, honesty, and plagiarism; they are advised to read the following regulations and take them seriously:

reminders

Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Öğrenciler için Akademik Dürüstlük Kılavuzu (http://oidb.metu.edu.tr/sites/oidb.metu.edu. tr/files/ODTUAkademikDurustluk-Kilavuzu-7.3.2016.son_.pdf) Middle East Technical University, Academic Integrity Guide for Students (http://oidb.metu.ed u.tr/en/system/files/Academic%20 Integrity%20Guide%20for%20Students.pdf) • Carefully read the documents concerning academic integrity which have been issued to you and the related regulations on the University’s website. Learn in detail which situations fall into the scope of plagiarism in academic studies from relevant resources (e.g. ODTÜ UEAM website). • If any distrust about authorship occurs, students can be examined on the basis of their design project documents produced during the semester. • In cases of plagiarism, excuses such as “I wasn’t aware that what I’ve done is within the scope of plagiarism” are unacceptable. Be informed that the responsibility for such behavior is entirely yours. • Use your own ideas in all of your work such a piece of homework, project etc. Indicate the source of any thought, idea, text, document or finding which does not belong to you. • Prepare all your homework, projects, reports etc. by referring to the accessible original (primary) sources. • During examinations/evaluations, abide by the rules in the “Middle East Technical University Guide for Rules To Be Followed in an Examination Environment” as well as the rules determined by the instructor of the course are used. • The conduct of the studio requires mutual understanding and respect. • The studio environment must be kept tidy and clean and maintained in silence. • Personal belongings must be kept in individual care and responsibility. • Use of harmful adhesive bonding material like Pattex is strictly forbidden. • Studios are not places for having meals. • Mobile phones must be in silent mode and out of sight during lectures and discussions. • Students with special needs or disabilities should inform the studio tutors at the beginning of the semester in order to provide appropriate arrangements in the class. 7

academic integrity guide for students

Middle East Technical University aims to access knowledge and produce, apply and disseminate it for the social, cultural, economic, scientific and technological development of both our society and humanity by carrying out activities of education, research and community services at universal standards, and to educate individuals who are equipped with this knowledge and at the same time who respect knowledge and the rights of others. In accordance with this aim, all members and students of our university adopt the following METU Code of Honor: “As reliable, responsible and honorable individuals, all members of Middle East Technical University embrace only the success and recognition they deserve, and act with integrity in the use, evaluation and presentation of facts, data and documents.”

What is academic integrity? Academic Integrity entails carrying out original work and sharing ideas and findings of others provided that the source is cited.

What are infringements of academic integrity? 1. Plagiarism, 2. Cheating, 3. Presenting or submitting in different courses the whole or part of a personal study, homework or project done previously with a different purpose without citing the source, 4. Indicating sources that do not actually exist as references or creating a false data set, 5. Conducting academic work on behalf of other students, 6. Behaving in a manner so as to obtain an unfair advantage (obtaining false medical reports, declaring false excuses for period extensions and make-ups, transferring or obtaining the right of enrollment to a course in exchange for a personal gain, etc.), 7. Producing or making use of fraudulent documents (reference letters, medical reports, proficiency documents/scores, transcripts, etc.) 8. Impersonating someone else in an exam; having someone else impersonate oneself.

Plagiarism: “Plagiarism is intentionally or unintentionally acquiring and using someone else’s ideas and opinions and presenting them as if one’s own without making a reference to or citing the source.” (ODTÜ UEAM) 8

Detailed information on the types of plagiarism can be found at the address http://ueam.metu.edu.tr/intihal.

Cheating: Cheating is described as any attempt or action involving the use of disallowed sources secretly while answering exam questions. Each item below is within the scope of cheating: 1. Peeking at another student’s paper during an exam, 2. Peeking at another student’s paper during an exam and copying the answers onto one’s own paper, 3. Talking to other students during the exam, 4. Any kind of sharing of information and sources during an exam (exchanging notes, etc.) 5. Taking exam questions and/or answers out of the exam hall without permission by writing them down or photographing them, 6. Transmitting exam questions to someone else or obtaining answers through cellular phones or any other electronic gadget during the exam, 7. Writing notes concerning the content of the exam on desks and accessories used during the exam, or on one’s body or elsewhere, 8. Having someone else do the academic work; doing work to be done individually with other students, 9. Submitting to the course instructor reports/documents such as homework or projects prepared by others as if one’s own work. Disciplinary action to be taken against cheating is arranged by the Rules and Regulations Governing Student Disciplinary Actions in Institutions of Higher Education, which can be found at the address http://oidb.metu.edu.tr/yonetmelikler.

timetable

Arch 302_Architectural Design III_Spring 2019-20_ÇETİN.YAVUZATMACA.ERTAN_Studio Timetable (tentative)

10:40 - 12:30

13:40 - 17:30

MFebruary 03

General Introduction (13:40 - 14:30) / Film Screening (14:40 - 17:30)

T February 06

Presentation : Bekir Özer Ay, Structural Systems

Discussions on A01 : Case Studies on Long Span Structures (P1) (G)

MFebruary 10

Presentation : Ali İhsan Ünay, Structural Systems

SITE TRIP for PROJECT.01

T February 13

Discussions on A01-02 : Case Studies on Long Span Structures (P2) (G) (final presentation with physical models)

MFebruary 17

Discussions on A03 : Site Analysis (G) & FIRST PROPOSALS (G)

PANEL CRITICS

T February 20

Presentation: Suna Güven

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

MFebruary 24

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

T February 27

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

M March 02

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

T March 05

JURY FOR PROJECT.01

M March 09

SITE TRIP for PROJECT.02

T March 12

Discussions on the first impressions over the site

M March 16

one week break - COVID19

T March 19

one week break - COVID19

M March 23

warmup studies to the new medium

T March 26

Discussions on A04 : Site Analysis

M March 30

Discussions on A06 : Case Studies

T April 02

Discussions on A06 : Case Studies

M April 06

Presentation: Ömer Faruk Ağrısoy

Discussions on A07 : Readings

T April 09

Discussions on A07 : Readings

M April 13

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

T April 16

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

M April 20

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

T April 23

National Soverignty and Children's Day - PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

M April 27

PRELIMINARY JURY for PROJECT.02

PRELIMINARY JURY 01 for PROJECT.02

T April 30

PRELIMINARY JURY for PROJECT.02

PRELIMINARY JURY 01 for PROJECT.02

M May 04

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

May 07

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

M May 11

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

May 14

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

M May 18

PANEL CRITICS (1/2)

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

Lecture: Gökçe Nur Çelebioğlu

PANEL CRITICS (2/2)

Ramadan - Regional Holiday

PRESENTATION CRITICS

M June 01

FINAL JURY WEEK

T June 04

FINAL JURY WEEK

T 17

M May 25 T

May 21

May 28

Arch 302_Architectural Design III_Spring 2019-20_Ă&#x2021;ETÄ°N.YAVUZATMACA.ERTAN_Studio Timetable (tentative) Assignment

Submission

A01 : Case Studies on Long Span Structures (G) A02 : Model Making for the Case Studies (G) Project Program (in detail)

A01

A03: Site Analysis (G) A01 - A02 A03

JURY - Requirement List

J.RL J.RL

A04 : Site Analysis (G) A05 : Site Documentation

A06 : Case Studies A06 A07 : Readings

A06 A07 A05, A07

PJ01 - Requirement List

1/200 plan solutions 1/200 plan solutions 1/200 plan solutions 1/200 plan solutions Elevations and Landscape Final Jury - Requirement List

Elevations and Landscape

030220 / M.A

Film Screening

Image source: Hasan Okan Ă&#x2021;etin, 2020 16

030220 / M.A

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

ARCH 302

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IV SPRING 2019-2020

Project_01

SHELTERING ANKARA’S ANCIENT PAST

Instructors: Haluk Zelef

Hasan Okan Çetin

Gizem Nur Aydemir

Mercan Yavuzatmaca

Ömer Faruk Ağırsoy

Seren Ertan 17

Wikipedia underlines the historical importance of the city of Ankara as follows: “Ankara is one of the world’s oldest capital cities, having been a major urban center, though not a capital, for far longer than cities like London, Paris or Madrid; even Istanbul. When present Istanbul, then the Roman provincial town of Byzantium, was being groomed as a new capital for the Roman Empire in 324, Ankara was already an important administrative center from which most of the northern half of Turkey was run.” As you all know the history of Ankara can be traced back to the Bronze Age Hatti civilization, then 2nd millennium BC by the Hittites, in the 10th century BC by the Phrygians, and later by the Lydians, Persians, Macedonians, Galatians, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks and Ottomans. One of the significant pe-

SHELTERING ANKARA’S ANCIENT PAST

030220 / M.A

Augustus in 25 BC. Now the capital city of the Roman province of Galatia, Ancyra continued to be a center of great commercial importance. Ankara is also famous for the Temple of Augustus and Rome) which contains the official record of the Acts of Augustus, inscribed in marble on its walls. Today’s cityscape of Ankara offers glimpses of its long history starting from the classical times, through its Roman Baths, Augustus Temples, Roman Theatre and Julianus Column. Many excavations in the city unearth further traces of the Roman past. The plot next to the Anafartalar Shopping Mall is one of the sites, close to the main street of the roman Angora, where new findings are located after the demolishing of the building block. Therefore this area should be protected during the excavations as well as the display of the findings after. A shelter touching the ground minimally will help to protect the underground findings. This place is also a social hub of the city, close to the grand

project brief

riods of Ankara is the Roman era after it was conquered by

food market and many more historical hans and modern marketplaces. Such a central location also suggests a shelter for the modern day citizens, to take a short rest protected from the rain and sun. 19

presentation

Structural Systems

Bekir Ă&#x2013;zer Ay

01 060220 / T.M

Bekir Ă&#x2013;zer Ay

PR01

06.02.2020

Bekir Ã&#x2013;zer Ay

presentation

Structural Systems

Ali İhsan Ünay

02 100220 / M.M

Ali İhsan Ünay

PR02

10.02.2020

Ali İhsan Ünay

During the design process, Anafartalar Shopping Mall was prioritized as one of the crucial aspects of this design project. 28

Site Visit

SHELTERING ANKARAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S ANCIENT PAST

02 100220 / M.A

presentation

Old Ankara: Narrative, Space and Memory

Suna GĂźven

03 200220 / T.M

Cengiz Bektaş - Aphrodisias Museum Annex (Group 12) Ahlbrecht Felix Scheidt Kasprusch - St Antony Industrial Archaeological Park (Group 11) A3GM Arquitectos - Clunia Forum (Group 10) Amann-Cánovas-Mauri - Roof for Molinete Roman Ruins (Group 9) Jean Nouvel - Gallo Roman Museum (Group 8) Turgut Cansever - Karatepe Aslantaş (Group 7) Savioz Fabrizzi Architectes - Coverage of Archaeological Ruins of The Abbey of St-Maurice (Group 6) Bernard Tschumi - New Acropolis Museum (Group 5) Atölye Architecture Office - Zeugma Dionysos and Danae Houses Protection Shed (Group 4) Atölye Architecture Office - Çatalhöyük Protection Shed (Group 3) Erkal Architects - Necropolis Museum and Archeological Park(Group 2) Kreatif Mimarlık - Göbeklitepe Protection Shed (Group 1)

Renzo Piano - Paul Klee Center (Group 1) Nicholas Grimshaw - Eden Project (Group 2) Renzo Piano - California Academy of Sciences (Group 3) Cedric Price – London Zoo Aviary (Group 4) Frei Otto and Shigeru Ban - Japan Pavilion EXPO Hannover (Group 5) Grimshaw and Samoo - Botanic Greenhouses at the National Ecology Center (Group 6) Calatrava, Lyon Train Station (Group 7) Calatrava, Gare do Oriente Railway Station (Group 8) Richard Rogers – PA Technology Center & Inmos factory (Group 9) Jürgen Mayer - Metropol Parasol (Group 10) Shigeru Ban - Japan Pavillion Expo 2000 (Group 11) Hariri Pontarini Architects - Ontario’s Celebration Zone Pavilion, Toronto (Group 12) 32

As an initial study, groups of 4-5 students are asked to analyze two examples of such structures. One example is selected from the archeological settings and the other group of buildings are examples of long-span structures with different functions. The buildings were required to be analyzed in their structural and constructional properties. The classifications given to the students below aimed to guide them. Therefore the students asked to study the Mitchell’s groupings in terms of form-based and material-based structures. Students we expected to pay attention to the materials used and the dimensions of the spans and structural elements. LONG SPAN STRUCTURE CASE STUDIES Roof Structures: FORM-BASED Classification (Mitchell’s Building Series) 1. Truss and Girder Roofs: timber, steel, concrete 2. Rigid Frames and Arched Roofs: timber, steel, concrete 3. Thin Shells: timber, concrete (a) Single curvature : shell barrel vaults (b) Double curvature: shell domes: including doubly curved shells 4. Folded Slabs / Plates: timber, concrete 5. Grid Structures: Space Frameworks: flat, folded, curved types; timber, steel, concrete (a) Flat grids / planar space frames / space & lattice grids - Rectangular types: space trusses - Triangulated space trusses: space frames (b) Folded grids and lattice plates (c) Curved grids and curved space frames; diagrid / diagonal grid - Braced / ribbed barrel vaults, lamella grids - Braced / ribbed domes, grid domes, geodesic domes 6. Tensile Structures (suspended / hanging roof constructions): network of cables with cladding (a) Cable roofs: arch ribs, compression arches, compression rings (b) Cable-supported tents (c) Tensegrity structures 7. Membrane Structures: single and double layered membranes, stressed skin (monocoque, semimonocoque), pneumatic structures 8.Mushroom Structures: Long Span Structures: MATERIAL-BASED Classification 1. Timber structures: 2-d and 3-d structural elements; trusses, frames 2. Steel structures: 2-d and 3-d structural elements; trusses, frames 3. Concrete structures: Folded plates, shells, cantilevers, prestressed elements; waffle slabs; plates ribbed along isostatics

SHELTERING ANKARA’S ANCIENT PAST

The first assignment of the Arch302 course focused on the long span structures covering large uninterrupted spaces. It particularly dwelled on the capacity of these structures in the archeological sites where the sheds over the fragile remains are required to leave minimum impact on the ground.

Case Studies

130220 / T.M

4. Tensile-membrane structures: Tents and suspended structures; tensile-linear, tensile-surface 5. Pneumatic structures: Ribbed and inflated 33

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

GROUP 5

GROUP 6

GROUP 7

GROUP 8

GROUP 9

GROUP 10

GROUP 11

GROUP 12

130220 / T.M

1 Berfe Naz Haşemoğlu, Fukran Türker Safiye Bilge Doğan, Ebrar Sayın 2 Ayşenur Gökhan, Zeynep Erişti - İrem Hancıoğlu, Zeynep Sengel 3 Elif Güngör, Nihan Mutlu – Özlem Karaeminoğulları, Sena Küçükdağlı 4 Aytekin Tozun, Selcan Bilgiç – Özge Gündoğdu, Mert Manas Erten 5 Gazi Can Şahin, Yining Shi – Ceren Şahin, Derin Yiğit 6 Asrın Onat Şengül, Arif Eren Yıldırım – Omar Ekhwan, Sena Gümüş 7 Umut Kaan Durğut, Onurcan Mızrak – Zülal Benli, M. Ali Demir

Groups

GROUP LIST:

SHELTERING ANKARA’S ANCIENT PAST

8 Dilara Güney, Davut Balci – Buket Samancı, Yaşar Emir Karcı 9 Abdullah Zamir, Busenur Güngör, Mehmet Güler – Meryem Eroğlu, Maryam Saeed 10 Nadine Yousif, Şeyma Sezen- Deniz Günday, Bengi Bayar 11 Ekin Mansuroğlu, Büşra Ballı – Ayşenur Yıldız, Eren Kaya 12 Recep Selim Yarbaşı, Büşra Aşçı – Eren Cömert, Kemal Yılmaz, Oğulcan Dandan 35

Group 1_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 1_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 2_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 2_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 3_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 3_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 4_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 4_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 5_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 5_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 6_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 6_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 7_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 7_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 8_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 8_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 9_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 9_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 10_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 10_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 11_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 11_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Group 12_Case Studies

A01

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Group 12_Student Project Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Project_02

New Conservatory in the ITU Maรงka Campus

06 090320 / M.M

Case Trip

ODUNPAZARI / OMM

ESKİŞEHİR

06 070320 / ST.M

Case Trip

ARTER

Ä°STANBUL

06 070320 / ST.A

Lecture

Dr. Gülsün Tanyeli

06 080320 / S.A

Tour / Lecture

Ufuk Biรงakรงi

06 080320 / S.A

New Buildings in/with old settings

Architect

Date

Location

Cer Modern

Semra, Özcan Uygur

2010

Ankara

Group 1

Harbiye Military Museum

Nezih Eldem

1991

İstanbul

Group 2

Naval Museum

Teğet Mimarlık

İstanbul

Group 3

Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu

S.H. Eldem

2013 1963

İstanbul

Group 4

Gothenburg City Hall Prado Museum New Buildings in/withannex old settings

E. G. Asplund Rafael Moneo Architect

1936 2007 Date

Gothenburg Madrid Location

Group 5

Narona Archaeological Museum Cer Modern Odunpazarı OMM Harbiye Military Museum Arter Naval Museum YKY Cultural Center Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu Port House Gothenburg City Hall Murcia City Hall Prado Museum annex Berlin Museum Narona Archaeological Museum Odunpazarı OMM

Radionica Arhitekture Semra, Özcan Uygur Kengo Kuma Nezih Eldem Nicholas Grimshaw Teğet Mimarlık Teğet Mimarlık S.H. Eldem Zaha Hadid E. G. Asplund Rafael Moneo Rafael Moneo David Chipperfield Radionica Arhitekture Kengo Kuma

2007 2010 2019 1991 2019 2013 2017 1963 2016 1936 1998 2007 2009 2007 2019

Split-Croatia Ankara Eskişehir İstanbul İstanbul İstanbul İstanbul İstanbul Antwerp Gothenburg Murcia Madrid Berlin Split-Croatia Eskişehir

Group 7 Group 1 Group 8 Group 2 Group 9 Group 3 Group 10 Group 4 Group 11 Group 5 Group 12 Group 6 Group 13 Group 7

Arter

Nicholas Grimshaw

2019

İstanbul

Group 9

YKY Cultural Center

Teğet Mimarlık

2017

İstanbul

Group 10

Port House

Zaha Hadid

2016

Antwerp

Group 11

Murcia City Hall

Rafael Moneo

1998

Murcia

Group 12

Berlin Museum

David Chipperfield

2009

Berlin

Group 13

Music Schools - Conservatories

Architect

Date

Location

Musiki Muallim Mektebi

Ernst Egli

1927

Ankara

Group 13

Hacettepe Conservatory (unrealized)

İlhan Kural

2012

Ankara

Group 12

Bilkent Conservatory

İlhan Kural- Erkut Şahinbaş

Ankara

Group 11

Uludağ University State Conservatory

Özgür Ediz- Yıldız Çağlı

1993 2010

Bursa

Group 10

Juilliard School Aix Music en Provence Conservatory of Music Schools - Conservatories

Diller Scofidio- Renfro Kengo Kuma Architect

2009 2013 Date

New York Aix en Provence Location

Group 9 Group 8

Music Conservatory /17th Arrd. Musiki Muallim Mektebi Ramon Cortines School of Music Hacettepe Conservatory (unrealized) Meizeres Music Conservatory Bilkent Conservatory Berkeley College of Music Uludağ University State Conservatory Circus Art Conservatory Juilliard School Henri Dutilleux Conservatory Aix en Provence Conservatory of Music Tohogakuen School of Music Music Conservatory /17th Arrd. Ramon Cortines School of Music

Basalt Architecture Ernst Egli Coop Himmelblau İlhan Kural Dominic Coulon İlhan Kural- Erkut Şahinbaş William Rawn Özgür Ediz- Yıldız Çağlı ADH Architect Diller Scofidio- Renfro Dominic Coulon Kengo Kuma Nikken Sekkei Basalt Architecture Coop Himmelblau

2013 1927 2006 2012 2009 1993 2014 2010 2012 2009 2015 2013 2014 2013 2006

Paris Ankara California Ankara Meizeres Ankara Boston Bursa AUCH France New York Belfort /France Aix en Provence Chofs /Japan Paris California

Group 7 Group 13 Group 6 Group 12 Group 5 Group 11 Group 4 Group 10 Group 3 Group 9 Group 2 Group 8 Group 1 Group 7 Group 6

Meizeres Music Conservatory

Dominic Coulon

2009

Meizeres

Group 5

Group 6

Group 8

assignment

CASE STUDIES

03 030220 / M.A

Büşra Aşçı . R. Selim Yarbaşı . Eren Cömert . Kemal Yılmaz

A06

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Busenur Güngör . Mehmet Güler . Nadine Yousif . Davut Balcı

Abdullah Zamir . Maryam Saeed . Meryem EroÄ&#x;lu

A06

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Ceren Şahin . Derin Yiğit . Gazi Can Şahin . Oğulcan Dandan

Mert Manas Erten . Özge Gündoğdu . Aktekin Tozun . Selcan Bilgiç

A06

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Elif Güngör . Özlem Karaeminoğulları . Sena Küçükdağlı . Büşra Ballı

Ekin Mansuroğlu . Ayşenur Yıldız . Eren Kaya . Bengi Bayar

A06

CASE STUDIES 26.03.20

Arif Eren Yıldırım . Asrın Onat Şengül . Sena Gümüş

presentation

Analysis Methods Tips And Tricks

Ömer Faruk Ağrısoy

10 060420 / M.M

NEW IN THE OLD CONTEXT KEYWORDS AUTHORS C. Jencks Context-Contextualism B. Roberts Genius Loci Critical Regionalism Urban Infill Conservation

ARCH 302 - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IV- 2020 SPRING Zelef - Çetin - Aydemir - Ağırsoy - Ertan - Yavuzatmaca

Precursors

Group No 1 2 3 4

M. Reza Shirazi

Building in Old Settings as a Problem of Place From “Towards a Critical Regionalism” Critical Regionalism, Raum, and Tactility: Kenneth Frampton’s Contribution to Phenomenological Discourse in Architecture

L. C. Szacka, V. Patteeuw

Critical Regionalism for our time

K. Demiri

New Architecture as Infill in Historical Context City Architectural Heritage Revival: The Need of a New Applied Approach

C. Norberg-Schulz K. Frampton

R. Elrasoul

D. J. Levi

New Designs in Historic Context: Starchitecture vs Architectural Conservation Principles Does History Matter? Perceptions and Attitudes toward Fake Historic Architecture and Historic Preservation

H. Sotoudeh, W. Abdullah

Evaluation of Fitness of Design in Urban Historical Context: From the Perspectives of Residents

Friedrich Kurrent: New Building in Old Setting

D. Mısırlısoy User-responses

ARTICLES Contextual Counterpoint In Architecture Why There's No Postmodernism 2

F. Kurrent, M. Sacks, J. Ruskin, A. Loos, Manfred Sack: Integration of Old and New M. Frish, T. W. Adorno Opinions Voiced: John Ruskin, Adolf Loos, Max Frisch, Theodor W. Adorno

13 14

assignment

READING LIST

10 030220 / M.A

Safiye Bilge Doğan . Büşra Ballı . Elif Güngör . Ceren Şahin

A07

READING list 06.04.2020

Mehmet Güler . Ayşenur Yildiz . Davut Balci Sena Küçükdağli

Emine Zülal Benli . Derin Yiğit . Zeynep Sengel . Yaşar Emir Karcı

A07

READING list 06.04.2020

Raziye Beril Kalkan . Dilara Güney . Ayşenur Gökhan . Aktekin Tozun

Özge Gündoğdu . Nihan Mutlu . Selcan Bilgiç . Asrın Onat Şengül

A07

READING list 06.04.2020

Oฤ ulcan Dandan . Eren Kaya . Eren Cรถmert . Maryam Saeed

Nadıne Yousıf . Deniz Günday . Umutkağan Durğut

A07

READING list 06.04.2020

Buket Samancı . Kemal Yılmaz . Busenur Güngör

Ebrar Sayın . Gazi Can Şahin . Furkan Türker

A07

READING list 06.04.2020

Özlem Karaeminoğulları . R.Selim Yarbaşı . Onurcan Mızrak

In addition to the long span structure, another subject of the ARCH 302 course is designing a new building in a historical environment. For this project, Istanbul Technical University Maçka Campus has been determined as the study area, and an additional new conservatory building was given as a design problem after considering the needs of the existing buildings on the campus. The exemplary building cases such as Eskişehir Odunpazarı Modern Museum and Istanbul Arter Contemporary Art Museum were observed during the site trip to Istanbul in order to create a discussion base for the subject. Additionally, best-known cases from Turkey and abroad were examined under the categories of new additions in old settings and conservatory buildings; and this was supported by discussions on the assigned articles and readings. On one side the old barrack building, ateliers and poliçe station; on the other side the old Italian embassy building and the Maçka Primary School former extension could be taken as the fore historical references of the site. In addition to these, the primary and secondary education facilities next to the site have been examined to find new potentials and possibilities in shaping and recreating the new limits of the campus. The architectural program was given as 8200 m2. It consists of education (exploration), performance, experience, administration, and service facilities. Besides the functional needs, the configuration of the circulation has been considered as one of the important elements of the project. It has been discussed as a generative flexible design element between the defined concrete areas in order to create and enforce a transformative and interactive life.

project brief

A NEW CONSERVATORY BUILDING IN ITU MACKA CAMPUS

090320 / T.A

site analysis

090320 / M.M

100

101

102

103

digital site model

ANNEX BUILDING FOR THE ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY TURKISH MUSIC CONSERVATORY MUSIC EXPLORATION Classrooms Seminer Rooms Practice Rooms (Voice Training) Practice Rooms (Instrumental Performance) Practice Rooms (Ensemble) Practice Rooms (Turkish Folk Dances) Acoustic Laboratories Recording Studios

unit 12 4 12 36 4 4 4 4

size 40 80 10 10 20 40 40 60

total 480 320 120 360 80 160 160 240

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2

MUSIC PERFORMANCE Instrumental Rehearsal Hall Choral Rehearsal Hall Turkish Folk Dances Rehearsal Hall Recital Hall (in capacity of 500 seats) Stage & Stage Support for Recital Hall Foyer Ticketing & Wardrobe

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

200 100 200 500 250 200 80

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2

MUSIC EXPERIENCE Exhibition Hall - Museum Storage (exhibition hall) Library (sheet music-books-newspapers) Listening Libraries (incl. Audiovisual) Archive

1 1 1 1 1

200 50 200 100 100

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2

ACADEMIC & ADMINISTRATION Secretary Office Executive Office Administrative Offices Academic Offices Conference Rooms

2 2 10 40 2

20 40 20 20 40

40 80 200 800 80

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2

3000

160 400 200

m2 m2 m2

TOTAL circulation (%35)

6060 2121

m2 m2

GRAND TOTAL CAR PARKING (OPEN AIR-30CARS) OPEN-AIR FACILITIES

8181

INSTRUMENT MAKING Music Instruments Production (to be accomodated in the existing buildings) UTILITIES & BUILDING SERVICES Storages Restrooms Mechanical & Electrical Spaces

104

1920

1530

650

1200

760

105

program

106

weekly critics

WEEK 13.04.2020 - 16.04.2020

11 130420 / M.M

107

108

Weekly Critics 13.04.2020-16.04.2020

109

110

weekly critics

WEEK 20.04.2020 - 23.04.2020

12 030220 / M.A

111

112

Weekly Critics 20.04.2020-23.04.2020

113

114

preliminary jury

13 270420 / M.M

115

116

Digital Presentation + 4 A1 size Poster Design in portrait orientation Poster Submission: one day before at 18:00 pm (max. 5 mb for each in JPEG format & they will be shared by the jury members beforehand) (You are asked to add a project report (max 300 words) on the first page of the poster to accompany and share your ideas.) Digital Presentation: You are expected to be ready on time for the individual presentation. (max 5-7 minutes) Detailed Requirements: Conceptual Drawings, Diagrams, Analysis Please make sure that individual site analysis and your design concept / approach / method is explicitly presented indicating the relations with the nearby environment both in urban and campus scale. No limit for the number and graphic techniques of analyses. SITE 1/1000 Campus Site Plan; showing; • Relation with the overall campus references and nearby educational buildings. 1/500 Site Plan; showing; • Surrounding streets and nearby buildings, • Landscape (trees, green areas), hardscape (pavements etc.) • Entrances to the complex (main entrances, garage and service entrances) using arrows as indicators, • Stairs, ramps, level differences and retaining walls, • All levels with reference to a preset ±0.00 level (for example main entrance) 1/500 Site Sections; (2 sections in different directions) • Silhouette of nearby buildings, • Major levels BUILDING(S) Plans: 1/500 Ground + Basement + Other Floor Plan(s) (road level, other entrance levels, level of the main hall, upper floors, etc.) (not in continuous manner, indicating each on its own level); showing • Structural members and axes, • Main functional distributions (use colors for indication) • Open spaces (courtyards, green areas, terraces etc.), • All levels with reference to a preset ±0.00 level, • Circulation members 1/500 Recital Hall Plan showing; • Structural members and axes, • Seating and interior and exterior circulation arrangement, • Foyer, stage and backstage relations • Audience, performers and service entrances Digital Model & Renderings (minimum 2, one from bird’s eye view & one from eye view) (You will keep the model ready and open during the presentation in case of any additional needs.)

New Conservatory in the ITU Maçka Campus

General Requirements:

PJ01 requirements

270420 / M.M

117

Abdullah Zamir

118

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Aktekin Tozun

119

Arif Eren Yıldırım

120

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Asrın Onat Şengül

121

Ayล enur Gรถkhan

122

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Berfe Naz Haşemoğlu

123

Busenur GĂźngĂśr

124

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Büşra Aşçı

125

Büşra Ballı

126

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Davut Balci

127

Dilara GÃ¼ney

128

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Ekin MansuroÄ&#x;lu

129

Elif Güngör

130

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Furkan TÃ¼rker

131

Mehmet GĂźler

132

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Nadine Yousif

133

Nihan Mutlu

134

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Onurcan MÄ±zrak

135

R. Selim Yarbaşı

136

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Not Submitted

Selcan Bilgiรง

Not Submitted 137

Å&#x17E;eyma Sezen

Not Submitted 138

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

UmutkaÄ&#x;an Durgut

139

Yining Shi

Not Submitted 140

PJ01

PRELIMINARY JURY_01 27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Zeynep EriÅ&#x;ti

141

PREJURY MEMBERS

Hasan Okan Çetin Seren Ertan Mercan Yavuzatmaca Faculty Members Ensar Temizel Ömer Faruk Ağrısoy Gizem Nur Aydemir Guest Members Özgün Özçakır Elif Düzel Osman Sümer 142

Pre jury comments

New Conservatory in the ITU Maรงka Campus

13 270420 / T.M

143

27.04.2020 – MONDAY – PJ01 / 302 • Please improve your analysis and concept diagrams to use them for the final presentation. • Improve your rendered image senses and qualities, try to minimize the physical model effect, instead articulate the nearby landscape according to your own needs incorrect level and flat/sloped/stepped feelings. BUSENUR GÜNGÖR • The topographic relations should be integrated well. • The adaptation of the surrounding references and height relations is positive. • Be careful about the mass articulation. Now the sense is too heavy and introverted, but it should be just the reverse, I guess. • The outer open spaces should be a part of design solutions. • Please check the potential and new possibilities coming from the AA section, how our solution be a part of the road system passing in front at two different levels. • It is a good choice to learn from OMM, but we should find a way of breaking the direct relation or reference to that building. Our case should be unique on its own truths. BÜŞRA BALLI • Check the image qualities of the plan analysis on the presentation. • Be careful about the characteristics and spatial quality of the linear zone in-between the educational facilities and the new proposal. • Separating the ground floor solutions is positive regarding the different needs of use; but please look for solutions to how the building will be integrated with the rest at the underground and upper floors. • The composition out of triangular forms and its adaptation to the existing environmental references are quite positive. • Why is this passage like thing coming from the existing road system important for you? First, you should define the problem coming from the urban references then the solution, please. • For the passage reference, where it starts and where it ends is so much important. • Using two references, one from the old primary school – other from the existing conservatory buildings,) on just one building on the left is quite positive. DAVUT BALCI • The way you organize the open spaces in front of the building is positive. Still, you should be careful about the location of the car parking area and the zone between the existing educational buildings and the new proposal. • Sedat Hakkı Eldem . SSK Zeyrek Binası • Please be careful about the use of the topography as a part of the mass articulation • References / Grids is a bit uncertain. You can create more powerful relations coming from the reference system. 144

DİLARA GÜNEY • The whole presentation-quality very nice presentation, so mature. • What is your reference to the historical context? (Again problem definition and how the solution is important) • There is a very rational building, changing the roofline, extending through the old Embassy building. Use of roof as a terrace (?) • The size of the blocks can be altered in relation to the nearby buildings. • One could be strict and tiny, but the other could be flexible and enlarged. • The location of the recital hall is critical. Instated of hiding it, we should expose it to the ground floor solutions and find a way of adapting it for the level differences. NADINE YOUSIF • How will the building get in relation to the topography is critical? Please check the sections? • The location of the open space, the location of the linear block, just the reverse? • Open areas and their functions are important. Look for how the interior solutions are a part of outside functions. • Double loaded or single loaded... (think it once more) • How will the topography follow the one single linear mass? ŞEYMA SEZEN • The road coming from South is OK, but the rest of the organization is a blurred right now. • Please be careful about the leftover spaces coming from the mass organizations. • Berlin Free University – Matt Building. Case Sample • Specific User groups to specific open spaces _ critical • Different axis coming on top of each other / (Eisenmann: Yenikapı project) • Matt building on the upper levels and base building for underground parts. Search for the combination of these two worlds. YINING SHI • The idea of using the courtyard and its interpretation is positive, but please check the dimensions of it. • The elevated social platform is also positive, but be careful about its position on the upper floors. • Using the plot as a perimeter is also positive. • Adding some perimeter bridge-like elements gives the whole complex a feeling of totality. • You should explain this building in relation to the campus decisions. • Improve the presentation techniques, please. It has a full set of presentation coming from the conceptual/contextual analysis to the detailed solutions. 145

NİHAN MUTLU • There are two amphitheaters and not well connected. Please try to define their dominancy within the system. • The height relations are out of scale. Search for lower relations. • The relation between the Maçka Primary School is critical. • Please check the levels coming from the topography • For the stairs at the back no need to make the articulation of the geometry. Use it as on orthographic geometry. • Mekka Cultural Center as a case SELCAN BİLGİÇ • What’s the function of yellow? A circulation element or a separated system attached to the other blocks. • We should define the contrasting attitude between White and yellow. • Thanks for the analysis, but please be careful about the quality of the presentation. • Simplification is needed for the White and Yellow Blocks. • Make an analysis of the circulation system for the White blocks. ONURCAN MIZRAK • The Green zone between the existing buildings and proposed building need have more paved surfaces. • The setbacks are positive. • Please check once more the location of the recital hall. It is blocking the pedestrian movement between the blocks. • Please think about the new location of the recital hall in relation to the main open spaces coming from the educational building’s courtyard through the main green area within site. UMUTKAĞAN DURGUT • Music note sheet representation is critical—no need to emphasize it more. • The ground floor relations are positive. • The relation to the old embassy building is critical. • Thanks for the graphic quality of the presentation. • The references are so much dominant, but instead, we should feel it instinctively. • The ideas are so ambitious. • Not the sheet, but the harmony within is important. • The façade articulation, movable facades can give the senses of harmonies and rhythms. • Be careful about the fillet corners and the turning left of the mass at the end. If you want to create a basic system that will organize everything on it. Be careful about its simplicity. MEHMET GÜLER • Please check the formulation of the masses. Many of them formulate themselves coming from just the site borders. • Be careful about environmental references. • Starting with a mass underground and followed by other masses elevated one by one is a good choice. • Just one high rise building could be enough, and the rest could be located just underground / the base / a part of topography / or the horizontal building should behave as a part of the topography. 146

30.04.2020 – THURSDAY – PJ01 / 302 AYŞENUR GÖKHAN • The additional use of base floor could help you to break the feeling of 3 floor building inserted totally into the topography. • Please avoid yourself from excavating all the topography and putting the building on a flat surface. The interrelation with the topography should be enhanced. • Think to change the orientation of some of the blocks in relation to the other references coming from the site. • Please think about the location and the functionality of the recital hall. • Consider the relationship with the road. • Sunken garden might be a good idea. ELİF GÜNGÖR • The angle between the existing educational buildings and our proposal is slightly different. Please check it. • Try to integrate the open spaces with interior solutions. • The location of the recital hall might be problematic. • Topography lines should be parallel to each other. • Proposing a clue that shows the open area from road might be a good idea. BÜŞRA AŞÇI • The topographic relation on the north and south part • The feeling of outer stairs attached to the building. • The glass boxes? We should think about their generative potentials for an interactive life within the building. • Studying on the structural system, formal analysis and functional distribution are quite positive. • Please also, check the passage-like space in between the existing buildings and our proposal. ASRIN ONAT ŞENGÜL • Courtyard – breaking the feeling of introverted open spaces • The base should be integrated well with the courtyard and buildings • The characteristics of the courtyards might be changed • How different functions could be inserted on those similar blocks • The location the main open space could have a relation with the open space in between the educational buildings. • Reference Case: Competition of minister of education- Yazgan design ZEYNEP ERİŞTİ • The referred road could change its character according to the new needs of the campus. We can also feel its continuation within the block solution also as an in-between circulation area. • Continuous staircases and circulation elements could have a direct relation with this inbetween space. • Reference Case : Galyum Block from Teknokent • Reference Case : Yapı Kredi Building – Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu • Please check the open spaces and their relation with the topography and nearby surrounding. • The introverted open spaces next to main roads could be problematic. • Main image of the presentation should be the one that is taken from street through the Italian Embassy . 147

ARİF EREN YILDIRIM • Totally a new proposal. • We should understand the positive sides of the two different project. Continue on one of them deeply. • In means of mass articulation, one is much more unified and solved under topography but the other one is composed of separated blocks and based on referred orientations. • We should understand the complexity level of the solution we are in. FURKAN TÜRKER • For main presentation, red figures on the gray-scale background is better. • Connections to the existing buildings should be studied more. Check the attached locations. • The staircases in front of the primary school should be considered more. • The relation between the open spaces is also important. The integration to the open space between the educational buildings should be considered well. • In sections it is hard to understand the relation with surrounding buildings. • Check the orientation of the recital hall. EKİN MANSUROĞLU • Columbus – Wexner Center - Eisenmann sample • The Green space in front should be considered more. • The scale _ ? • Ramazan Avcı _ Çanakkale Belediyesi • İnterior Solution – Levels differences should be felt from the interior, cascaded interior terraces somehow. • The Grid.. a very strong and dominant element. Please aware of its feeling and pressure on the overall project. • The continuation of the topographic levels from outside to inside along the two sides of the bld. • The grid and the building have different languages. 148

R. SELİM YARBAŞI • Please check the sculpturesque effect of the massive building exposed to outside. • For level differences, the fluency of the staircases might be helpful. • The perimeter block looks through the other sides of the campus; we can also feel that alteration over the mass articulation / façade organization. AKTEKİN TOZUN • The characteristic of the in-between space between the two blocks, where it starts and where it ends are all important for the directionality. • İTÜ İşletme Fakültesi . Purchase Award _ Sample Case • The orientation of the main open staircases should be taken into account once more. The directionality potential in relation to the in-between open space is critical. BERFE HAŞEMOĞLU • Simplification of the main scheme • Using the red extrusions on just one part of the building in order not to damage its dominancy. • The articulations over the open spaces are too much to control, simplification is also needed for these areas. • For the main block, it might have a more strict geometry (linear block). Other extensions could be attached to this block at lower levels.

BEST

149

150

presentation

Gökçe Nur Çelebioğlu

16 210520 / T.M

151

Gökçe Nur Çelebioğlu

152

PR05

27.04.2020 / 30.04.2020

Gökçe Nur Çelebioğlu

153

For the Final jury, students are expected to prepare; -Six A1 posters (60x85cm in portrait orientation) - compulsory additional digital presentation (slide by slide) (8 – 10 minutes) -Digital Model (with smooth topography based for renderings) The final jury posters should include; Main image; An exterior render showing the most characteristic part of the project from eye level. Report; General information regarding their project, concepts and analysis. Conceptual Drawings, Diagrams, Analysis individual site analysis (specific to your projects) and design concept/approach/method SITE 1/1000 Campus Site Plan; showing; • Relation with the overall campus references and nearby educational buildings. 1/500 Site Plan; showing; • Surrounding streets and nearby buildings, • Landscape (trees, green areas), hardscape (pavements, etc.) • Entrances to the complex (main entrances, car and service entrances) using arrows as indicators, • Stairs, ramps, level differences and retaining walls, • All levels with reference to a preset ±0.00 level (for example main entrance) 154

1/500 Site Sections; (2 sections in different directions) • Silhouette of nearby buildings, • Major levels

BUILDING(S) 1/200 Ground + Basement + Other Floor Plan(s) - road level, other entrance levels, level of the main hall, upper floors, etc. - not in a continuous manner, indicating each plan on its own level; showing All plans should show; • Structural members and axes, • Main functional distributions (use colors for indication of the functions, at least for circulation) • Open spaces (courtyards, green areas, terraces, etc.), • All levels with reference to a preset ±0.00 level, • Circulation members (stairs, ramps, elevators including the precautions for handicapped) • The minimum amount of wet spaces for each floor Recital Hall showing • Structural members and axes, • Seating and interior and exterior circulation arrangement, • Foyer, stage and backstage relations • Audience, performers and service entrances 1/200 Sections; Additional renders;

Final requirements

New Conservatory in the ITU Maçka Campus

040620 / T.M

155

Abdullah Zamir

156

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Abdullah Zamir

157

Aktekin Tozun

158

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Aktekin Tozun

159

Arif Eren Yıldırım

160

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Arif Eren Yıldırım

161

Asrın Onat Şengül

162

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Asrın Onat Şengül

163

Ayล enur Gรถkhan

164

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Ayล enur Gรถkhan

165

Berfe Naz Haşemoğlu

166

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Berfe Naz Haşemoğlu

BB+ 3.23

167

Busenur GĂźngĂśr

168

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Busenur Güngör

169

Büşra Aşçı

170

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Büşra Aşçı

171

Büşra Ballı

172

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Büşra Ballı

173

Davut Balci

174

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Davut Balci

175

Dilara GÃ¼ney

176

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Dilara GÃ¼ney

177

Ekin MansuroÄ&#x;lu

178

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Ekin Mansuroğlu

179

Elif Güngör

180

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Elif Güngör

181

Furkan TĂźrker

182

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Furkan TÃ¼rker

183

Mehmet GĂźler

184

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Mehmet GÃ¼ler

185

Nadine Yousif

186

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Nadine Yousif

187

Nihan Mutlu

188

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Nihan Mutlu

189

Onurcan MÄ±zrak

190

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Onurcan MÄ±zrak

191

Recep Selim Yarbaşı

192

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Recep Selim Yarbaşı

193

Selcan Bilgiรง

194

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Not Submitted

Selcan Bilgiรง

Not Submitted 195

Å&#x17E;eyma Sezen

196

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Å&#x17E;eyma Sezen

Not Submitted 197

UmutkaÄ&#x;an Durgut

198

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Umutkağan Durgut

199

Yining Shi

200

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Yining Shi

201

Zeynep EriĹ&#x;ti

202

FINAL

FINAL JURY 04.06.2020 - 05.06.2020

Zeynep Erişti

203

FINAL JURY MEMBERS

Hasan Okan Çetin Seren Ertan Mercan Yavuzatmaca Faculty Members Ekin Pınar Ensar Temizel Neris Parlak Temizel Guest Members Özgün Özçakır Elif Düzel Osman Sümer 204

Final jury comments

New Conservatory in the ITU Maรงka Campus

20 040620 / T.M

205

04.06.2020 – THURSDAY – FJ / 302 • Please improve your analysis and concept diagrams to use them for the final submission. • Improve your rendered image senses and qualities, try to minimize the physical model effect, instead articulate the nearby landscape according to your own needs incorrect level and flat/sloped/stepped feelings. UMUTKAĞAN DURGUT • The facade articulation is good; separation of functions is positive. • The building is well placed and well-functioning. At Right-hand side, life is going on, campus like feeling. • From site to detail your project has good solutions. • All materials that you produced are successful, however sections need reconsideration. • The landscape articulation could be more playful. • The design developed a lot from the pre jury however there is still a need for defining connection with existing buildings. • The project needs more transparency and more balconies. • There are too many office spaces please check again. BERFE NAZ HAŞEMOĞLU • Dynamism of the project is very positive. • The interior solutions are very good however the presentation of your project should be developed. • Please reconsider how are you using the triangular place on the ground floor? • Please check the opening orientation of the doors. • The placement of the seminar rooms is problematic, the location is more appropriate for public functions. • Please check the entrance for the backstage. • You could introduce more greenery, especially in the renders. • The size of the open space seems problematic. EKİN MANSUROĞLU • The use of public spaces with many levels is a nice idea. • The relationship with the existing buildings needs reconsideration, you should omit the prefabricated one. • The presentation needs more renders. • Terraces are quite good however they might need more articulation and the one on the performance hall could use more openings. • Please be careful about using the correct scale of human figures. • Please check the size of your mass, it seems larger than its supposed to be. NADİNE YOUSİF • The main image is very powerful. It possesses some clues that indicates the existence of another function at the end. Please reconsider the possibilities, is it going to be a green area, playground… so on? • The use of material needs reconsideration, the reflective glass is not very friendly. • You should emphasize your approach to the site more. • Please work on your presentation skills, there is room for improvement. • The different block relations should be reconsidered. • The facade offers a potential to be integrated with the landscape, please check again. The stairs could accommodate additional elements such as vegetation or water. 206

ELİF GÜNGÖR • Please reconsider the plan organization, the ratio of the circulation area; size, scale and proportions of circulation and rooms are problematic. • The sections need more variety and movement. • The form is good however the spaces and sections need further improvement. • The number of the renders are too much, it is not necessary to increase the numbers just use strong images. Please be cautious about the camera’s point of view. • Please don’t forget to focus on characteristics of your project. • Please check your courtyard solutions. Which spaces are looking courtyard? • More direct access to that courtyard would be beneficial. • You need a drawing that shows the interior courtyard. NİHAN MUTLU • The approach to the project is very positive and the plans are working well. Successful and sensitive project. • Please check the inclination again. • Courtyard organization is also quite successful however the tectonic language is arguable. • Landing of the outer stairs on top is problematic and needs reconsideration. • The facades could be articulated more. • Please check the plans once more don’t enter with a corridor. • There is a need for vertical circulation. • Further step could be the evaluation and the articulation of topography with stairs and ramps. • Please select a better render for a strong main image. AYŞENUR GÖKHAN • The use of topography is successful. • Your approach to the design problem and the indications of daily life in this building are positive. The way that you articulated is quite nice. • Open spaces and the several courtyards that have a hierarchy are also successful. • Please don’t forget to emphasize the circulation with color and decide which color corresponds to which function. • Please be considerate about the tectonic expression. • On the ground floor please use clear geometry for construction purposes. ONURCAN MIZRAK • Balance between close and open spaces is positive. • The level differences are quite successful. • Please fix the door opening directions and be careful about the classroom orientations. • Linear blocks need further articulation, the sizes of the block and language are too similar. • Please be aware that your building is very closed; it needs to say something about what is going on inside. • There should be a balance between colors. All the renders are covered with the same material; however, you have some transparent facades. It is important to emphasize them. • Two images one your poster blends together and turns into one image, please differentiate them. The current condition alters the first impression of your design. • Please check Teget, Yapı Kredi building. 207

ASRIN ONAT ŞENGÜL • The courtyard scheme has some opportunities; you should use them. • Please check the scale of the building, it seems problematic. • The design should be in balance with the surrounding topography, currently the relation between building and topography is weak. The problem might be related with the platform. • The courtyards should have different characteristics, one could be relatively private or vice versa. Please try to cchallenge the courtyard topography. • Please work on your sections. • Imc building-unkapanı. MEHMET GÜLER • The arrangement of outer space and approach to the topography is positive. • The renders are very realistic, and the sections are rich, interior solutions are positive however site plan and renderings don’t match. • Please reconsider location of the top block. • The scale of these terraces is too big and all of them have same characteristics, you should reconsider them. • Please reconsider how can you figure out site plan organization? • Please check the quality of facade solutions. • There is a lack of greenery in the project. YINING SHI • The previous design approach was more extraverted. • The connection with surroundings is weaker, frontal facade in the pre jury works better… now it is more conventional, please check your former jury proposal. • Please consider the reason for the existence of green roofs. Why do you have green roofs over there? You can unite your green roof with topography. It could be a public roof. • Please check the scale of plans. BÜŞRA BALLI • The organization of the courtyard and open spaces are positive. • The design scheme is simple and powerful. • The passageways could be improved, and the facades should be articulated further. • You exhibit a kind of sensitivity through the project which is also good for your portfolio. • The sections are repetitive, it could be beneficial to introduce some triangles. • The triangular fragmentations could be beneficial in third dimension, in sections and landscape. • The outer spaces should be reconsidered. • The integration to the site needs reconsideration. The highest block is isolated from the rest, the integration of the highest with others is not very well. 208

05.06.2020 – FRIDAY – FJ / 302 BUSENUR GÜNGÖR • The use of architectural terminology during the presentation is successful. • The mass articulation and integration of parts are positive. • Be careful about the surrounding topography, it seems too rigid, could be more playful. • Please check the building’s relation with ground. • Please reconsider the facade articulations, since all facades have similar characteristics it is hard to follow the indication of the entrances. • Kengo Kuma & Associates . Odunpazarı Modern Museum (OMM) • The render images and ground presentations are dominated by the color grey, the images should have more greenery and playfulness. • The image on page eleven is promising. The addition of greenery could be beneficial for the end product, please reproduce accordingly. • Please be careful about the architectural program, it requires to be more extraverted. • The topographic relations should be integrated well. • The articulation of the rectangular blocks is not very visible in the interior organization and the floor plans. ARİF EREN YILDIRIM • The organization of the courtyard and open spaces are positive. • The platforms that reach out to other sides are positive as well. The linear organization is quite dynamic, sense of the movement and the layout solution is successful. • Starting with architectural elements is a good idea and reconfiguration of the said elements is successful. • Renders need improvement, horizontality should be emphasized in renders. • The terraces should be designed further, the addition of more greenery or activity could be beneficial for the design. • Please check the bubble diagram in the 3rd poster, it needs reconsideration. • Please reconsider the wider masses, it could be better for them to get a lighter feeling gradually. R. SELİM YARBAŞI • The presentation method is quite positive. • The design idea is clever, and the combination of elements are clear. • Please reconsider the performance hall, it is not well integrated. • The curvilinear layout is hard to adapt to topography. Maybe more vertical circulation elements could be beneficial. • The topography, courtyard, and blocks could be articulated further than this through a sculptural expression. •https://www.arkitera.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/YAZGAN_ ONS-İNCEK_01.jpg.jpeg •https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brighton-college-school-ofscience-and-sport-oma-uk 209

DİLARA GÜNEY • The design of the topography facade articulations and the connection of southern side are positive. • Please reconsider the use of colors such as orange and green and emphasize the circulation in plans. • The usage of grey color in posters are too dominant, especially in the plans, please check again. • It might be better to perceive the street as an alle, also please reconsider the accessibility within the site and the street. • Please check the overuse of wood as a material. ABDULLAH ZAMİR • The design displays a minimal statement however please check the square meter of your design; your project area appears to be less than the others. • The interior needs light and fresh air through the sunken courtyards. • Regarding the mentioned courtyards as atriums would be a better definition. • Please reconsider the design of rehearsal hall, details are necessary. • The outer space and topography need more articulation. Introduce greenery and more levels. • Please be aware that construction stages of the building could be problematic. SELCAN BİLGİÇ • Very well solved interior organization, but for the mass organization, it is not at that level. • The transparent circulation element’s integration with the main functions both in plan and section has many potentials. In order to emphasize this, you should draw more sections passing through the intersection points. • The relation of the masses with the site borders is so concrete. The project needs of more positive outer spaces in between the site borders and the proposed frontal faces. • Starting the project with the site and programmatic analysis, filtering them at some certain titles and presenting all in an order are some of the positives of the proposal. But, for the project itself, the presentation skills should also be improved both in 2D and 3D mediums. • Please keep in mind that dealing with both for interior and exterior solutions simultaneously is so much crucial for the project development process. AKTEKİN TOZUN • There is no connection to the school area, please be careful about environmental references and integrate your design to the surroundings. • You should incorporate the topography to your organization. • The two parts of your design do not share similar characteristics, they are doing two f-different things. • Please be aware that the courtyard is not readable from the top view • Sections are stiff looking; they need more movement. • The articulation of the courtyard needs more transformation. 210

FURKAN TÜRKER • Please reconsider the northern part, change the previously established site line. • The layout is positive and there is a good balance between balconies and open spaces. • Please check two big open areas, they could be more articulated. • The site articulation needs more greenery. • The language that is used during the presentation is successful. • Please do not forget to remove the Lumion emblem prom your renders. • Please check the academic parts again, the masses could be moved up a little, currently its too narrow. ŞEYMA SEZEN • Please be careful about the articulation of the facade, it would be wise to use more variation, emphasize the vertical and horizontal features of your project. • Your outline has tension however in terms of topography, it is difficult to fulfill your outline. • Please be careful about the leftover areas in your design. • You need to use topography levels to enhance the potential of the site. ZEYNEP ERİŞTİ • Your approach to the design problem is very successful and intersections are quite nice. • The presentation is very clear, the project is very detailed, and the floor plans are successful. • Please check the section from the rehearsal hall, the atrium could involve more variety. Various sized spaces that connect through free flow could be interesting. • The car parking area, the canopy is fine, but the environment it should be reconsidered. • Please reconsider the first render image angle, searching for different perspectives might be beneficial. • Please check the cutout parts, they do not benefit the facade that much. BÜŞRA AŞÇI • Your approach to the design problem is very successful. • The idea of cascading the roof is applied skillfully, the use of glass boxes is positive, however they can be a little bit lower. • Teğet Mimarlık – The opera house • Might search for staircase integration with interiors. • Please reconsider the recital hall entrances.

211

212

213