Following our analysis in Tuz Gölü and Göreme and our strategical studies we are in the middle of a process of designing a construct in Tuz Gölü area. We are making use of the “grafting” of some qualities we have taken out of Göreme. As we have just started the design process of the construct, these ideas and productions are quite in the “draft” side of the project…
The ever so empty, desert-like open space that is Tuz Gölü and Göreme settlements swarming with different kinds of spaces; is the contrast we have to work on…
For our prejury I produced a model in 1/200 scale, a site plan in 1/1000, multiple diagrams, section drawings in 1/1000 (site section), 1/500 and 1/200 scales along with some sketches revolving around my strategy of achieving a gradual transition between the land and the lake. I also tried to give hints about the structural elements by using some vertical structural members to elevate some of my spaces. Also I made use of architectural elements such as ramps for some of the accesses between different levels and door-ish earnings from our previous studies.
In my jury, the main assigned goals which were diversity, multiplicity, enriching and grafting were appreciated, I suppose, as they did not have a particular focus on them as a problem. My main approach was to achieve a transition in between that happened gradually.
gradual (adj.): gradualis, from Latin gradus “step”. Meaning “arranged by degrees“.“having steps or ridges,” from Medieval Latin
I was aiming to enrich the experience of that transition while creating diverse and multiple spaces. Some of the tools I used for this was creating an axial design. For this design I grafted the quality of clustering of the spaces from Göreme and repetition of spaces. I received a critique that this design caused a graphic that looks like a heart rate graph of someone running to death… 😀
Generally, the jury thought that my design strategy is good, but I somehow lost my focus on my initial thoughts while producing and designed some unrelated and confusing parts along with it. Also, my diagram above was liked by the jury but I had a problem with the model. I changed and maximized some of the scales and I practically made the model of that drawing. This was probably the biggest problem according to my critics. Instead of making models of those boxes, I should consider them as representations of three-dimensional elements that will take place in there. This is the main critique that guides my thoughts about the revisions I am trying to produce. Instead of making a model of the diagram and jumping to conclusion, I should experience more steps along the way, governing more decisions about the qualities and organizations of those spaces.
Other critiques about my design applications concerned dimensions, which were quite large throughout my design. Even though it was an attempt for me to get closer to the gigantic experience of the sky and the lake; I’ve been told that I can achieve that by still keeping things more minimal. And I will make use of that in my revisions.
My oral and visual presentation did not receive any bad comments. My overall visual content was found satisfying, especially when comparing to the model. The jury was a productive step for my progress and was also pleasant with small remarks and jokes. I hope to move forward with my design and develop new ways of achieving my aim with the help of the critiques I’ve received from my instructors in the jury.