On This Earth / Pre-Jury Reviews

For this semester, we have visited Tuz Gölü and then Göreme sites for our new project. In Tuz Gölü we have produced a lot of maps by analyzing certain qualities and according to our experiences. On the other hand, in Göreme we were expected to produce some sketches and diagrams again according to our experiences and this time we focused on the architectural elements and their usage. The reason of this work is that we were expected to graft certain features of Göreme onto Tuz Gölü.

According to my analysis from Tuz Gölü, I have realized that the visitors were tended to go through the Josephin which is the line that sky and the ground intersects. So that, people were tended reach that vast area. The other thing that I have realized is that in the evenings, people were directed towards to sun set. So, I took these two features as references for my design. I have tried to produce two main spaces that carries different vista conditions. To connect them, I created a bridge-like path. This bridge-like path was connecting the spaces that has two totally different vistas. And the sides of this path were not transparent because I wanted to create a dramatic transition between those two different vistas. It was only open from the top that again creates a different vista which is the sky. People who visits here were directed by the effects of these two references and they were tended to reach the vista. I tried to produce different kinds of openings and spaces while considering the experiences of humans. The sizes of these two main spaces were different than each other. The sizes were changing due to the vista conditions and human scale was affecting it.

As far as I have understood from the critiques of the jury members, the liked the scenario of my design. However, it was not working well how it should have been. They found some parts that were designed well. For instance, there were main two axes in my design that represents the Josephine and sun set directions. Because, the two axis were not working in a contrast way. They were not differentiated from each other. However, they should have been working in a contrast manner to differentiate the functions of those two main spaces. It was not that obvious that they were placed there for different functions. I think that it is caused by shape and angles of those shapes too. They were not representing the directions obviously. I could produce more obvious edges and angles. The other thing is that I could improve the definitions of the spaces. Because they commented that my designed was finished in that level so it was limiting me to improve it and add something more in it. I think they appreciated how I have used the extreme conditions of the spaces and the vistas. They have added that every decision should carry a reason behind of it such as proportions, shapes, scales and etc. Controlling the spaces in terms of the scenario and spatial conditions that I have created is significant and could be worked on that more.

For my drawings they commented that it would be way more better and help me more to put human figures in my drawings to understand the scale of my design.

After the critiques of the jury members, I have realized that some parts of my design should be worked again. I have decided to change the shape and the form of my two main spaces. I hope this time I can  apply my strategy into my design. Because while I was working I had some struggles while I was applying my ideas in a three dimensional design.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s