Pre-jury II | PAUSING

Sincerely it has been so hard for us to come to a decision while working on how to place the dwelling, production, and commercial units on the site and how to organize their relationship. According to what? After long days of discussions, we defined squares to create central zones on the site where the commercial and production units are going to be so dense.

Loop_ Prejury2

We initiated this idea by examining the user profiles coming from different directions to the site. So that we designed approaches directing to those squares. According to those analyses, on the square right-hand side, the density of commercial units are planned to be denser than production units while it’s the opposite on the other square.

So that we are aiming to obtain a variety of neighborhood relations by multiplying the activities on the street level.
There are many problems and points that are not designed or thought on yet. That’s why we should now work on 1/200 & 1/100 scales to detail the design and make changes accordingly.


Process… | PAUSING

Our project has already begun to take shape. According to our previous analysis of the variety of activities on the ground level (street level), we started to make further decisions. Initially, I believe that it will be better for you if I go over our main aim and strategy. We (as LOOP Architecture) are aiming to multiply the life on the ground level vertically. In other words, we want ground level activities to be on the upper levels to strengthen the neighborhood and provide a new type of dwelling appropriate for different user profiles.

 After the first pre-jury, our first concern was about how to organize different street layers on vertical so that they increase the relationship. Initially, we worked on some variations to bring dwelling, production, and commercial together. After that, we needed a vehicle access up to a point that production units on upper levels could have used. Here you see our first intention. The vehicle access is allowed only up to a level to provide privacy for the dwellers so that the upper level is for pedestrian access. Of course, this two was only the main streets to be supported by other sub-streets on various levels.

Yet the first critic has shown that such long longitudinal layers restricted our design and decreased the layering opportunities so that we better broke them and play with surfaces or use the potential of the topography while designing the platforms. Plus, providing such a space for vehicle access was not that necessary. So that we will reconsider all these decisions according to critics.

Pre-jury I | Development of the Design Strategy | PAUSING

The project given for this term is about mass- housing as I mentioned in my previous post. But the principal concerns of the project is about new modes of dwelling and duration of occupancy. It is a challenge to question the norms of 2+1, 3+1… housing. In this project, the neighbourhood issue and everyday life practices gain importance.

We started by defining the problems on the site. We worked on several topics until the pre-jury yet they were not strong enough to end up with a strategy or did not support the main principles of the project. So that, after much other analysis we, as LOOP, focused on everyday activities on the site. The result we gain was a problem for us. The variety of activities was so rich on the horizontal while on vertical one could only dwell but nothing. For this reason, we wanted to enrich the activities on vertical too by multiplying the street level upwards. Here you can find the presentation board of us for the first pre-jury.

What if?

I love what if questions since they push one to analyse that specific something from a different viewpoint and arouse new possibilities that some another would never find out. So that I love to use them for my projects, too. They make me see those that I don’t see.
This time the “what if” assignment was introduced as an injection exercise. Eg. “What if a swimming pool is injected to Torre David?” or “What if a zoo is injected to Unite d’Habitation?”
So that we were to transform the existing circumstances since what we would put forward was going to be something never thought while designing. For this reason, it is inevitable to end up with something totally different from the real one. Also, the new spaces we introduced brought some other space definitions that are alien to the existing design, too.

The first question of my decision was “What if an aquarium is injected to Torre David?”. Since aquarium is a public space and it works as a showroom, I wanted it to be seen from different elevations as much as possible and provided access from the separate building right next to the tower. Plus, I preferred to leave empty the spaces below and above the main aquarium to provide spaces to watch the aquarium from diverse elevations along with some common spaces right next to the glass surface of the aquarium.

What if a tree is injected to Unite d’habitation? A tree in this dimensions would change the circulation inevitably. But why not providing large open spaces for the inhabitants of this compact housing units?

What if a swimming pool is injected to Unite d’habiation?  A swimming pool with an extra mechanical space, rest rooms, and baths. How would the transformation be?

Scaling a bed?

A bed is almost like our entire home today. We do not only sleep on it but we eat, read and work. So a bed has multi-functions. Furthermore, it is a personal space, even though it can be shared for a short time and attain publicity, it is still remembered with the term privacy. So what happens when we re-size or multiply it?

These images above were through my first interpretations. A bed that is resized can have different functions and loose its initial purpose of use or multiplication can reduce privacy and such.
On my second analysis, I changed my initiator and worked with a crib. It is different because it changes the position of a man with a bed. It transforms the experience from being ON a bed to being IN a bed.

Case Study: Design with CODING

CODING is a word that can be easily misunderstood in its use as an architectural term. Coding is about having some decisions beforehand, it can be considered as the initial step of the process of design. Even though some presume that coding is a restriction that is limiting further possibilities and variations of design when it is treated as an element of design, it can work as a regulator that is ensuring the unity of overall decisions.

I believe that it is better to analyze coding through a case study which is Borneo and Sporenburg (by WEST8) in this case. In B&S the regulating effect of the codes is very legible form the landscape since the first codes are about the arrangement of land use. Continue reading “Case Study: Design with CODING”