border/boundary :: public/private

Hakkı Akın Tunca 3

uar-lab — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:54:34 +0300

Hakkı Akın Tunca 3

Hakkı Akın Tunca 2

uar-lab — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:53:33 +0300

Hakkı Akın Tunca 2

Hakkı Akın Tunca 1

uar-lab — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:52:28 +0300

Hakkı Akın Tunca 1

duygu ormanci 3

uar-lab — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:51:08 +0300

duygu ormanci 3

duygu ormanci 2

uar-lab — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:47:00 +0300

duygu ormanci 2

duygu ormanci 1

uar-lab — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:43:00 +0300

duygu ormanci 1

syllabus

uar-lab — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:36:34 +0300

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY . FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

Architectural design v – vi

2010-2011 spring

belkıs uluoğlu – dila gökalp

c o u r s e s y l l a b u s

:: Context of the Course ::

The focus of this semester’s work is on the interrelationship of the private and public spaces within the neighborhood. Buildings and open spaces are seen as a cross-section of practices that take place here, at this specific portion of the city.

:: Task ::

Each student will 1) do the assigned readings, 2) perform necessary research work, 3) choose one specific portion of the city (parts of the Kadıköy district), characteristic of a specific form of public-private spaces relationship and analyze it in terms of spatial patterns, map the activity patterns, document the memory of this place and finally understand this place within the whole context of Istanbul; 4) develop the programs that will help in constructing proposals that are able to respond to the specific needs of the program and the place chosen, and finally, 4) to propose a solution for that specific place, in the form of a built-environment/building which has the potential for building a new life for the community, by responding to a question that exists there in terms of spatial relations or by creating a potential for generating a new interaction within the existing/developing environment.

:: Method ::

1. Team work: a) analysis/mapping of the place chosen with specific emphasis on public & private space relations and their organization within the general urban texture, determination of borders & boundaries within this texture; b) research work on similar design work ; c) program/activity development for the whole site, d) model of the environment.

2. Individual work: a) readings, b) program development, c) design of building(s) and open spaces that will house this program.

:: Schedule ::

1. Readings, analysis of site, concept development – 3 weeks, 2. Design at the grand scale (building & environs) – 5 weeks, 3. Design at the building & its systems scale – 4 weeks.

:: References ::

Readings – on city, memory, place making, private & public space relations, borders & boundaries – will be announced as a separate document.

:: Decision levels and issues ::

1. Determination of a specific area with a special pattern of public-private space relationship, and with border and/or boundary dialectics/conflicts; 2. Generation of ideas on the potentials of this place in terms of spatial organization and activity development; 3.Development of a program for a public and/or private space; 4. Design development.

:: Quality of work ::

1. STRENGTH AND MATURITY OF ORDERING CONCEPTS

Development of new design ideas with a future vision that entails the form of developments thought to take place in the chosen part of the city; organization and integration of new urban dynamics. Interpretation of the various possible relations of the Program (as cross-section of practices) + Building + Site (understood as part of an urban texture). Development of themes like private/public space, border / boudary, internal/external space, closed/open space, single buildings/settlement, and ideas/their realization. Within this context, meanings assigned to Program, Building, and Site and their revelation.

2. LEVEL OF INTEGRITY OF THE PROPOSED IDEA WITH THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

a) EVALUATION OF THE REINTERPRETED SITE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY IN GENERAL AND THE MEMORY OF THAT SPECIFIC PLACE

The level of consciousness, concerning the impact of the complex and heterogeneous structure of metropolitan cities and of that specific part of the city. Systematic of the scenarios developed with emphasis on the interpretation of the Program. The relationship of the new proposal with the existing place. The handling of boarders/boundaries, public/private relationships, character of the built environment, and other urban – spatial themes that are considered. The relation of the building(s) to its immediate surrounding and to the city at a larger scale, its impact on this environment as a life-form, thchange or the life it has introduced to this place.

3. SPATIAL QUALITY

a) IN THE SETTLEMENT AS A WHOLE

Care for spatial organization principles like boundaries, continuity, orientation, meaningfulness, conceivability, scale, etc.; appropriateness of the organization of practices/events; sensitivity to relations of building/ground, open/close spaces, buildings/landscaping, hard/soft elements; use of imagery.

b) IN INDIVIDUAL SPACES AS PART OF A WHOLE

Coherency of individual spaces with the ordering concepts of the design as a whole; convenience of spaces; organization of that specific space; use of furniture; ergonomic – anthropometrical requirements; use of imagery; user capacity; flexibility.

c) IN THE ORDERING OF SPACES

Coherency of the ordering of spaces with the general design concept; relation of spaces with each other (adjacency/separateness); hierarchy of spaces; use of spaces; organization of spaces (architectonically); use of imagery; tricks or charms created to enrich the spaces; flexibility.

d) IN THE INTEGRATION AND APPROPRIATENESS OF SPATIAL/FUNCTIONAL/CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Appropriateness and coherency of space-event/activity-general design concept.

e) IN THE SERVICES

Care for health conditions, fire safety, security, power sources, communications; transportation; flexibility.

4. QUALITY OF OTHER SYSTEMS THAT MAKE UP A BUILDING

a) STRUCTURAL QUALITY (Spatial-Structural appropriateness)

b) CLIMATIC QUALITY

c) LIGHTING QUALITY

d) APPROPRIATENESS OF CHOICES MADE CONCERNING THE BUILDING ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS

e) QUALITY OF OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL INPUTS

5. QUALITY OF COHERENTNESS (1 & 2 & 3) AND INTEGRITY (2 & 3 & 4) OF THE SYSTEMS

:: Submission Requirements ::

At preliminary review 1: march 14^th, 2011

Analytical/mapping work & concept development (in the form of drawings, models, schemes, etc.) - 1:2000 or 1:5000 to conceive the place within a general context.

Proposals concerning basic design decisions – public/private relations, borders/boundaries, proposed building/environs relations – 1:1000 / 1:500.

Plan schemes, sections and 3-d’s – 1:500

At preliminary review 2: april 18^th, 2011

Proposals concerning basic design decisions – public/private relations, borders/boundaries, proposed building/environs relations – 1:1000/1:2000

Site Plan 1:1000 / 1:500 (1:2000 or 1:5000 to conceive the place within a general context)

Study model 1:500

Plans, sections, elevations 1:200

Structural, mechanical,and other decisions – schemes

At final review: t.b.a

1) DESIGN INTENT

Ordering concepts / Basic premises – approach / Settlement decisions – environmental design characteristics / spatial organization – formal composition / Supporting systems: To be represented in written and/or graphical format.

2) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1:1000 and 1:2000 – 1:5000 (depends on your choice), connections and relation with the urban texture & systems; approach to the place (site), roads; characteristic environmental data; evaluation of its past and projections to the future: To be represented in the form of sketches, photographs, models, maps; etc.

3) SITE PLAN/SECTION

1:500 – 1:1000

. Orientation, scale; entrances, services, areas, and related zones to be specified; elevations.

. Section taken from an area characteristic of the site and its surroundings.

4) PLANS / SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS

1:200

. Plans: voids and fills, module/axis/pattern/structure system, chimney/shafts should be clearly shown; names of spaces and when necessary materials should be specified; hierarchy of lettering should reflect the hierarchy of spaces; elevations should be shown; ground floor should include its near surrounding.

. Sections: should cut from characteristic areas that reflect the spatial structure; floor-roof system, relations with the ground, etc. should be readable; names of spaces and elevations should be specified.

. Elevations: front/rear standing elements, voids, curvilinear surfaces, etc. should be recognizable; detachment, toning, shading, and similar techniques can be used.

5) SUPPORTING MATERIAL

. Interior and exterior perspective drawings; other 3-D representations; photographs & collages; details; day/night appearances of the building(s); etc.

. Notes, sketches chosen from your sketchbook and among your other drawings that are thought to reflect your design process or your critical points of decision can be presented in a special format.

6) MODEL

1:500

Supporting models in different scales can also be submitted.

■TO BE REPRESENTED ON STANDARD SHEETS – SAME DIMENSIONS.

■MODELS SHOULD BE DURABLE, MATERIALS ON THEM SHOULD NOT STAIN.

■ALL REPRESENTATIVE MATERIAL SHOULD REFLECT THE BASIC CONCEPT/STATEMENT OR CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING.

:: Evaluation ::

1. STRENGTH AND/OR ORIGINALITY OF THE CONCEPT (architectonically and conceptually)

2. THE LEVEL OF CONCRETIZATION OF IDEAS IN THE FORM OF AN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT OR THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO PROBLEMS STATED WITHIN A CONSTRUCTED REALITY OR A SCENARIO.

3. THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT/FULFILLMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

4. THE LEVEL OF REPRESENTATIONAL QUALITY

5. PARTICIPATION (student’s contribution to class meetings, to other students), ENTHUSIASM (felt for work)

6. ATTENDANCE

Grading standards:

A.. will be given for performance that is either a strong and/or an original concept, and which demonstrates both a mastery of the content discussed and its realization.

B.. will be given to studies that shows a good understanding of the required content, and in which minor deficiencies are present.

C.. will indicate that performance is at an acceptable professional level, although some deficiencies are evident.

D.. will be given to studies with serious deficiencies, which is passable but not professionally acceptable.

F will mean that performance is insufficient or inadequate, and does not demonstrate an understanding of the basic content of the course.

:: Studio Policies ::

■You are expected to attend all scheduled studio sessions and to participate in group reviews, crits, and discussions.

■You are expected to work in the studio.

■Work must be presented or handed in on time.

■Unexcused failure to display work at project reviews will be grounds for failure of the course.

Kentsel Yıkım Alanları / Derbent

olcaytoo — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:22:27 +0300

Kentsel Yıkım Alanları / Derbent

Genç Mimarlara Tavsiyeler - Doğan Kuban

olcaytoo — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:58:22 +0300

Genç Mimarlara Tavsiyeler - Doğan Kuban

Mumbai Skywalk

olcaytoo — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:33:00 +0200

“But once I arrived in the city, I became fascinated by its new system of Skywalks, 36 elevated walkways that are basically extended exits from the urban railroad stations…

The city planners’ position was that commuters wanted to be able bypass the swarm of taxis and hawkers that surround the station exits, and have the Skywalks deposit them several kilometers away which would more equally distribute the amount of exiting pedestrians. The first Skywalk was built at the Bandra railroad station, and it stretches several kilometers over the Bandra East slum to the entrance of the Bandra Kurla Complex, a hub of new office buildings and commercial development. So basically, business people taking the train can avoid walking through the slum by walking over it on the Skywalk.”

http://urbanizedfilm.com/blog/a-walk-in-the-mumbai-sky/

Photo

uar-lab — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:07:45 +0200

student projects for RIBA Award

uar-lab — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:14:48 +0200

student projects for RIBA Award

porto: faculty of food

uar-lab — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:12:18 +0200

porto: faculty of food :

street experiences / section / outdoor activities

the street

uar-lab — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:56:20 +0200

the street

Hashima Island : the ghost city

uar-lab — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:28:18 +0200

A little way off the southern coast of Japan lies Hashima Island or Gunkanjima, literally meaning “Battleship Island”. From 1887 to 1974 it was home to a coal mining facility and while at one time it was the most densely populated place on Earth today lies derelict. The island gets its namesake from the high concrete wall which surrounds the perimeter and tightly packed concrete buildings on top giving it a battleship-like appearance from outside.

Below its monolithic exterior the coal excavated from under the sea in no small part attributed to Japan’s early industrialisation and subsequently fueled their aggression during World War II. At this time the government forced prisoners from Korea and China to work in the mines – many perished in the harsh conditions.

After the war conditions improved considerably under the management of Mitsubishi and at its height the population density of the residential district reached a staggering 1,391 people per hectare which remains the highest ever recorded in the world. For a small island which was devoid of soil and relied totally on the mainland for all of life’s essentials (food/drink) it was a pretty incredible feat. However, with the advent of petroleum in the 1960′s the coal business entered dramatic decline and in 1974 the mine was closed and the island left deserted.

“The dead island of Hashima delivers a lively warning about the importance of foresight. It offers a view of the end result of “development,” the fate of a community severed from Mother Earth and engaged in a way of life disconnected from its food supply. In short, Hashima is what the world will be like when we finish urbanizing and exploiting it: a ghost planet spinning through space—silent, naked, and useless.”

click for the short documentary ->

http://dai.ly/gryCAw

Video

uar-lab — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:09:23 +0200

West 8 :: schouwburgplein

uar-lab — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:39:00 +0200

West 8 :: schouwburgplein:

… The square is designed as an interactive public space, flexible in use, and changing during day and seasons. Its appearance is a reflection the Port of Rotterdam. By raising the surface of the square above the surrounding area, the void was retained and the “city’s stage” created.

Parc de la Villette

uar-lab — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:37:25 +0200

Parc de la Villette:

Tschumi tasarımı olan park, kentin içinde büyük bir alanda yapıldı. Proje çok konuşuldu; çevresiyle kurduğu ilişki, mimarlığa getirdiği yeni bakış, arkitektoniği bakımından çok tartışılan, referans verilen bir proje…

Section 1 :: Faruk - Duygu - Akın - Cemile - Şevki Section ∞ ::...

uar-lab — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:04:00 +0200

Section 1 :: Faruk - Duygu - Akın - Cemile - Şevki

Section ∞ :: Olcay - Gülşah - Semra - Coşku

Section 3 :: Kumsal - Dilan - Sedef - Simge - Can

d e n - c i t y ; Kowloon

uar-lab — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:56:00 +0200

before-

http://www.archdaily.com/95757/kowloon-walled-city/

http://coilhouse.net/2008/08/kowloon-walled-city-the-modern-pirate-utopia/

http://www.archidose.org/KWC/

after-

http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/thousand.php#03