For the first initial process of my design project in the Arch201, I wanted to explore different languages of design. Because of the reason the reason that in our first studio I choose to study with a purely orthogonal design, I wanted to challenge myself to see the different possibilities and potentials that come with different tools. Firstly I studied with the addition of some paths that move around and create separations and spaces with the usage of red-taped lines. Then I saw that the creation of spaces can also be constructed in a more volumetric manner. I used triangulation to obtain a folding surface and has more orientation.
After that, I saw that I can also produce a spatial experience by using organic curvilinear elements. These curved surfaces were constructed by the strategy of a transition that comes from being at zero level to some value in a smooth manner. This creates an increasing enclosure level that I got inspired very much that to inject that triangulation tool to that strategy of producing volumes.
In our project for a design that deals with how to translate our design and compositional skills that we have gained from our first year studio into something that is established from a real life field where the designs are no longer existing in a hypothetical space and the site is observable in real life, we visited Meke Maar as our topography for intervention.
This semester of our second-year studio deals with how to enrich the experiences that are present in this volcanic formation with the inspiration and the information that transforms into forms and themes from Çatalhöyük and Taşkale.
This involves the study of human scale and the scale of the overall design that are evident in the site. This process allows me to see the part of the design process reflected to the real life examples of spaces and how they are formed. Even though the function of these constructs is absent, in this case, their function is to only make the experience of these people more enhanced.
My jury mostly involved the critics that the jury members directed towards me to create a discussing medium that allows me to further develop the project. My biggest critique was the sudden end of the design when encountered with a barrier. While I am trying to construct an “artificial landscape” that transitions into a singular space that is defined away from the topography, this sudden end is not evident in the field and is not naturally made. Nothing in nature ends in a climax point. There is always a dissolving afterward that make the process end somehow but in a suitable way.
What goes up must come down
Also after the jury, I needed to consider the reason why I choose that particular area with respect to the other parts that suit my analysis of enclosure levels. After some thought, I noticed that my area was the only one where the transition from a high enclosure level to a common openness was present in a linear manner that could allow me to study this condition sequentially.
In the jury, I became aware that my design did not consider the whole topography for the experience of this particular area. After the jury, I tried to solve this problem by making the path in a curvilinear way to always experience the perimeter of the main crater mountain.