Category: ARCH301
Pre-Jury2
After first jury, we reshaped the buildings. According to sunlight we uprised the north parts of the building, and downrised the south parts. As a result of this idea, the shapes turned to buildings with terraces. These terraces created usable social spaces. Then, we reorganized the inner spaces, esspecially corridors according to the first pre jury critics.
The main idea of us were urban balcony. The urban balconies which are placed on the 2nd floor levels on each building, create a social hub for both people living here and coming from outside. The terraces are just avaliable for people who live there. The levels of publicness are also what we focus on.
The elevated lines create different levels, and seperate the circulation of pedestrian and bicyle from the ground level. The level differentiations provide users different experiences of Kurtuluş Park and also roads and buildings. The idea of level differentiation is coming from the sketches of green areas in Ankara.(You can see below) The basic cause of that people usually prefer to go parks which are provide different types of levels and surfaces such as Seğmenler and Kuğulu Park. But the parks which stuck to the ground level, used for just transition. This analysis make us think that to create different levels make the experiences richer. So, Kurtuluş Park should be a place that people go there on purpose. Also, the idea change the all Kurtuluş area to a student center and active pedestrian and bicyle circulation area.
In prejury2, we accepted the critics about bicyle parking. One of the jury members suggested that people want to reach their houses with their bicyles. So, there would be a great idea to create ramps into buildings. After jury, we focused on this idea. Also, another comment was that elevated lines could be more bravely designed. So the second issue which we reconsider now is the movement and placement of elevated lines.
I hope we will make the project better until the final jury, and i will share with you the final draft of the project, not so far, just a few weeks later. See you soon.
The site analysis, the green areas of Ankara analysis and sketches, the levels of the elevated lines, the structure elements and how they come together, the elevated line map, the sketches of elevated line, the 3D presentations of the buildings and line.
1/1000 top view of the all area, 1/500 top views of the buildings, 1/50 plans of units.
Pre-Jury1
It was the firts pre-jury for this semester and we present our ideas and drwawings about the university-housing project to the jury.
Our main idea was the urban balcony. We stated from that idea and after a while we were trying to connect three urban balconies of three different buildings. So, we designed elevated lines for both interconnecting these three sites, and seperating the pedestrian movement from car trafic.
So, for the first pre-jury, we had the idea of the newest circulation of pedestrian and bicyle and the design decisions of inner spaces. Then, we accepted negative critics about inner desicions of buildings. The corridors were very long, so we should break the monotony.
In addition, in the Pre-jury1, we got some ideas about shapes of buildings. So, we decide to reshape them, also reconsider the inner organisations of them.
A trip to Ulus and a breif looking to historical background of Ankara
Ulus was the only living place when Ankara became center of the Independence War of Turks and then capital city of Turkish Republic. In that times, Ulus was a village like place which was not providing conditions of a capital city even in minimum levels. There was no background for a capital city such as old usable buildings, or some places to use for controlling the country. There was a need to have a place as national assembly, and with this building, the capital city, Ankara was started to be founded in Ulus.
A trip we made to Ulus as all students of 301 studio with our lecturer Bilge İmamoğlu, provide me to capture some old buildings which were built in early times of Republic.
Founder of Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, made European architects came to Ankara and the first main buildings and boulvards were designed by these architects. For example, Gudrun Baudisch was taking part in presidential house in Çankaya. National Assembly buildings and government buildings were designed by Clemens Holzmeister. The development plan of Ankara was prepared by Hermann Jansen. In addition to them, Ankara as capital of Turkish Republic was created with the touches of important European modern architects such as Ernst Egli, Theodor Jost, Martin Wagner, Martin Elsaesser, Bruno Taut, Robert Oerley.
The Opera Building, and its old design as Exhibition Hall.
Turkish architect Şevki Balmumcu designed the building as Exhibiton Hall and provided the building a very pure, modern form in 1934. Then, in 1948, Paul Bonatz changed the usage of the building, and designed it as a Opera Building. You can see the first form of it on the first picture above, then the final one shows the current building which i took last week in Ulus trip.
http://www.arkitera.com/haber/14101/gecmisin-modern-mimarisi–ankara—2
http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/arc/bau/trindex.htm
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/uc-ulkenin-ankaradaki-izleri-30062379
Analyses of Ankara’s Parks
In order to reach a proper design solution for Kurtuluş Park which creates a node for our total project area, we searched and analysed green areas of Ankara. The basic placement of the green areas are around the main boulvard of Ankara which is Atatürk boulvard. To differentiate and relate some characteristics of the green areas, we prepared a haritage and drew sections of all the parks. The result helped us to deside the proper definition and usage of Kurtuluş Park. We noted the current situation of it and also how it should be.
After looking the images, you will realize that although Kurtuluş Park has a central place, it has less visitors from away. The main characteristic of the park is that the placement of trees are so much closed to eachother on the outline. This couse the park is not creating an awareness for potential users. For example, most people just use the pedestriand path which Kurtuluş Park’s trees define in between road and inside of the park. This path is not in the park but in the other side of the wall of trees. The visual connection is limited from this path to the inside of the park. It could be an advantage and also be a disadventage. Actually, we desided to keep the characteristic of the Kurtuluş Park, but create new connection methods for the park. People should reach the park in different ways and use the park more efficently.
UNIVERSITY HOUSING PROJECT
Hello from the 3rd year of architectural education. This semester we are dealing with a housing project.Before starting the project details and site studies, we have seperated as 5 groups. As groups, we have produced our logos. With, Aylin Alicanoğlu and Uğur Namdar, we founded MUA ( Modern Urban Architecture ). Our logo is below.
After desinging logo, we produced our sign which is below.
For approaching the project as professionally as possible, we founded an architectural office as MUA and designed logo and sign for the office. So, we can start to produce projects.
UNIVERSITY HOUSING PROJECT
The project which is given to us is placed in around the Kurtuluş Park in Ankara. There are 3 university buildings around the park which are TED University, Ankara University Law Faculty, Hacettepe University Medicine Faculty. The project is a university housing project, so we are expected to produce an overall idea for the users which are generally students and acedemics. Before site studies, we started to search about university housing examples and prepared a case study.
CASE STUDY
As MUA, we searched architectural examples of university housing below. We prepared a presentation about them and express our ideas which can affect our design approaches for the university housing project. Here you can find some relevant examples for housing projects.
Swiss Pavilion, Paris, Le Corbusier,1931
Baker House, MIT, USA, Alvar Aalto, 1948
Milanofiori Housing Complex, Milan/Italy, OBR
Student Accommodation, China, Wuyang Architecture, 2014
Young worker housings and kindergarten, Paris, Chartier Dalix Architects, 2013.
University Housing, Gandia, Guallart Architects, 2011
Sharing Tower, Valencia, Spain, V. Guallart. 2005-2011
Monash University Student Housing, Monash, BVN,
University of Southern Denmark Student Housing Winning Proposal, C.F. Møller Architects
University Students’ Housing and Services, Florence, C+S Associati, 2007
Florey Building, Oxford, by James Stirling, Queen’s college, Oxford, UK, 1966–71
Peabody Terrace, Harvard, Joseph Luis Sert.
After all, we focused on some keywords which were indicated in these projects, such as “Urban Balcony“, “solid and void“, “sharing spaces“. Then we examined some issues according to our site, such as orientation to vista, enclosure according to sound, space organisation according to day light.
SITE SURVEY
Müge Güreş 