Pre-Jury II | the “HOUSE”

Continue reading “Pre-Jury II | the “HOUSE””

Advertisements

PRE-JURY 1 | On This Earth

I couldn’t have any opportunity to share about my design before, so that I will be explaining all the details with the process and jury comments.

salt-lake-map

I started the project with deciding on where to locate. It took time but finally I have found a road which was coming from the hills behind the lake and ending with combining itself with the main road. This road is special to me since it sees the focus point at the horizon all the way down (focus point is where the sky touches the lake or the area in between two hills at the horizon) I wanted my project to be as an extension of the road on the lake. The jury did not find it strong enough since the road I chose was not as significant as the main road. I should find a way of enhancing it. 

I focused on space perceptions while designing my spaces.  I want you to see them with sections drawings of my design since both are referring to bodily experiences and spatial configurations.

The images above show what I used as grafting ideas from Göreme. Since the topography of Göreme was really hilly and on the contrary the salt lake is very flat, I used multiples of ramps and stairs with different scales and ramps with diverse slopes and used different heights for spaces to enrich the movement and sometimes the perception of the lake. For instance, in some cases the ground level of the lake becomes your eye level or you see it from the three persons height in some other spaces. The jury found those interventions successful in terms of changing space perceptions but they also stated that my design is not that strong from the point of bodily experiences. Further more, for the subject of -ish condition, I used corridor-like or door-like openings to work as thresholds between spaces. I kept them really tiny in dimension so that people would not be able to walk through outside but to next space and they would work as elements framing vista.

On the lake there were two directions that people were going through. One is the focal point that I mentioned above (I will be calling it Josephine right from this point) and the other was the sunset in the evening. Yet, since where the sunset happens is changing throughout a year a divided it into two parts to study it precisely. So that I had 3 directions.Later on, I came up with a strategy of adding new directions to the already existing ones to enrich the orientation, because people were going and turning back on a line and they were not experiencing what was happening on their left or right hand sight. So while designing my spaces I wanted them to be directing people to vista only visually, but to the sides of the lake physically. So that they would be walking around the spaces from the main directions I created to access the direction on the lake. There was no clear comment to my strategy but I think that they did not find it weak to work on an I personally find it strong with respects to make people experience the lake moreprejury-i-expressive-drawings

Additionally, the jury said me to be aware of the courtyard-like space that is occurred from the location of my spaces. Since it was becoming a very strong space and as long as I do not control it, it and turn out to be an uncontrolled space and inconsistent design. As the revision of this comment I am planning to create an underground path from the most right place through the courtyard which will be enlarging in size through the court and with the help of this path I am planning to enrich the bodily experiences which was not that strong in my design as I noticed before.

prejury-i-density-of-peopleI differentiated my spaces as those facing Josephine and those facing sunsets. While doing this I wanted to transfer the changing density of people in the area through a day to my spaces. The jury did not comment to it directly but I sensed that they didn’t really find it essential. Seems like I should decrease this strict differentiation between spaces.
One other comment of the jury was about the scales of my two spaces the one at the northwest and the other one close to it which is not colored. They thought that I added them just because the dominant structure does not work well and needed some additions.
I should play with its form to adjust itself to the others and changing its scale or maybe the position.

Briefly, I should increase the bodily experiences while also revising my spaces in terms of this idea and sizes and forms of them. I should control the courtyard occurred. While studying on the project I have found something very weak in the design that jury didn’t notice. I have a problem about the most right space which goes underground. People who entered them does not have a quick access through the courtyard area or spaces marked with gray color. As I remarked above I came up with a path idea which will connect the rightmost space to the courtyard area and while doing so I want to enrich the bodily experiences also at this point the connection path to the ramp in the middle will be very crucial for me.

Here are further images of the model:

 

2nd Pre-jury model

Unlike the first pre-jury we were supposed to inject our seed models into a 40×70 field. That’s why I have reconsidered my strategy and examined the areas that the seed describes.

I have observed that the field has two highest levels at the upper layer and one lowest level of area at the bottom layer and I wanted to relate that far parts with the help of the seed. Therefore, my seed’s location is shaped through the direction of these main three parts. It spreads as  diagonally and at hrough the corner where the prts of upper layer are located, it can be observed more obviously from the top. However, around the middle of the diagonal it overflows from the field at the bottom layer.