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.