Final Jury Assignment - artVALLEY

The final assignment required a group of two. In this assignment, the students were to design an art valley that contains exhibitions of art objects or installations, several workshop spaces and a coffee corner. The valley was free to carve and fill, only within certain constraints. Firstly, the valley was to be created by sectioning method, with a base that contains 60 entries for 60 sections, having 1 centimeter gap for each section. 4 of these sections were given by the instructors which were called 'main sections'. The main sections were not to be changed, only small changes were applicable. The rest of the 56 sections were to be shaped by the students. In this assignment, my partner was:

Emel Uçak.

First model

As for our initial model, we designed the topoghraphy using sticks, and used post and lintel structure for our spaces. As dividing the model into sections was not obligatory only for initial model, we've created the outline of the topoghraphy by weaving inbetween the sticks.

Second model

      We've designed the second model firstly by designing the plan. After that, we transferred the heights and lengths into our sections and created the topoghraphy. As for the structure, we thought that our L type of structures wouldn't carry themselves, so we used rope to carry them. Our broken structure on the further right side was appreciated the most. However, the valley was said to be too flat.

Pre-.jury model (topoghraphy)

In the pre-jury model, we aimed to use the intersecting spaces as our exhibition spaces, workshops and coffee corner. We've designed the topoghraphy with sticks ans certain figures in the plan view first, then transformed the heights and lenghts in the sections.

Pre-jury model (structure)

Our structure was as such. This was the structure for our painting exhibition. However, it was said not to carry and weak against lateral forces. Our topoghraphy was as well criticised heavily.

This design was graded as CC-.

Fourth model

Again we've designed the fourth model by designing the plan view first. We put the acetate papers in ourder to highlight our spaces that weren't visible until before. However, after the critics of this design we've realised that the relationships we built in plan view was not really visible in the model. So we decided to change our method of designing.

Fifth model

This model of ours was liked far more than the rest of our previous models. The dinamism, relationships, spaces were more appreciated compared to the previous critics. We've used a different method while designing this model.

Construction of the topoghraphy

By using certain prismatic geometries, we've constructed the whole topography of our model. After considering all of the area with those figures, we transferred them in the plan, with their heights. Than we transferred the heights and lengths to the sections as usual, and created our topoghraphy.
As for the structure, we've created it by breaking the form from the points of certain slopes.

Jury - Architectural Intervention to Eymir

 Being our first jury, the jury of this assignment was quite optimistic. As I have mentioned before, my group members were;

Emel Uçak
and Aytül İlge Genç.

We started designing by placing certain geometries on the plan draft; scaling, rotating and replacing them constantly. When we designed the first part, we went on by extruding the elements, changing their level differences to create the topography.

After a challanging process with weaving, we decided on our structure method as post and lintel. Since our topography was composed of broken triangles, we applied a similar intervention on the structure, to contribute the dynamic form of it.

This project was graded as BA.

Jury Assignment 1 - Architectural Intervention to Eymir

  Being a group assignment again, in this assignment, the students were to design an intervention in a certain inclined topography in Eymir, whose boundaries and quotes were provided. The intervention was made for the rowing club of METU, thus, it was supposed to cover certain spaces that serve to activities such as meeting, exercising, resting, eating and storing (the boats). My group members were;

Emel Uçak
and Aytül İlge Genç.

First model

Being our initial model, we chose the method of weaving. We aimed to create the spaces given above, without really touching the topography, being our major mistake.

Also, the structure we used on the roof was not to be used in the ground, unless the weaving starts in the roof and continues to move on the wall structures.

Second model

In the second model, our main concern was touching the topography. We thought that we were able to do so, but according to the critics we've received, it was not a sufficient intervention to topography.

Thus, we decided to plan the topography from the beginning.

Third model (topography)

This time, we started with the design of the topography, and continued with the structure. The primary elements we've decided to use was triangles, as can be seen.

Third model (structure)

Our model was said to lack references, having a crowded and chaotic topography. Also, we changed our method from weaving to framing, as weaving was far from a realistic approach.

Fourth model (topography)

In the fourth model, our main concerns were references and a clean topography. Thus, we worked with consistent angles and elements that are either repeated or scaled and repeated. This topography was criticised in a good way, making all three of us smile victoriously towards our design.

Assignment 2 - Playwall

  Being a group assignment again, this assignment was requiring to construct a wall that for children that enables them to perform certain activities such as climbing, sliding, hiding, etc. My group members were;

Ekin Mansuroğlu
and Özge Altuntop.

First model

Being our initial model, we aimed to construct a dinamic form that has a rather intricet form enabling certain activities for children. We chose our construction method as cellular organisation.

The model was criticised for having the form of a canopy rather than a wall, and falling weak in means of structure. It was also said to be in need of thicker elements.

Second model

In the second model, we changed our construction method to folding, which resulted in a weak structure once again. The elements were said to be to big and unable to carry the structure. The thickness of the elements were also to be changed into a thicker level.

Third model

Our third model was more similar to the first one, as we've changed our method again. However, even though we were able to catch the ideal thickness for our elements, the work was again evolved into a canopy-wise structure. It was roughly criticised.

Final model

In the final model, our main concern was to improve our model into a wall, which I believe we've finally accomplished to do so. We also aimed to construct a rather dynamic, but a light work. In order to do so, we used white cardboard and transparent acetate paper.

This project was graded as CC.

Assignment 1 - Lightcase

  As the first assignment of the second term being a group work, the students were asked to design a lightcase in a blobby shape that filters the light in varying intensities. My group members were;

Emel Uçak
Aytül İlge Genç
and Merve Bozkurt.

First model

We chose our construction method as weaving, and created our first design with it.

This work was criticised for not having a continuity, but being fairly dynamic and blobby. Also, the color was said not to be so appropriate for the final model.

So we worked on the continuity, and changed the color to black.

Second model

This model was criticised more optimistically. The only problem was the graduality of light spread: it wasn't gradual. So we work on the graduality for the final model.

Final model

The final model was improved in terms of the graduality of the spread of light.

We were graded as BB.

Final Jury - Seventeen

Jury Assignment, Seventeen

My jury project

My jury project

In my jury project, I chose to follow the method of folding. I chose my very initial design element as ortogonal eqiavalent triangle and repeated the foldings of it all over the design. I created a folding system and repeated, taken the symmetry of and variated it. I used my stick elements to create a transition space between voids, and used translucent acetate paper to contribute in void defining, and to take a peak to the void interactions. I used wire mesh the same shape with the acetate paper, however, I only used it twice in order to point out two important voids where the groups have open planary areas. So those areas were where the air could enter the design. I repeated the usage of the other materials rather than cardboard to form an orderly organised composition.

My design was said to be linear, and hard to read and understand. 

Poster (Development)

Poster (Diagram)

NonSerious: I need to give a positive posture to the jury members.*dead inside*

Pre-Jury - Seventeen

Jury Assignment, Seventeen

My jury project

My jury project

In the pre-jury project, I followed the grouping method again. I created a group, taken symmetry of it and variated it once. However, the voids were said to be non-flowing to each other, they were too open.

My jury grade is CC+.

Poster (Development)

Poster (Diagram)

NonSerious: My stylish Arch101 writing was not liked at all?!