Yesterday (16.04.19) , I and my friend went to an exhibition in the Architects’ Association 1927. When I heard about this exhibition and when I saw the poster of it, I really wonder the content of it. There were drawing with an extreme level of complexity. Many integrated humans and objects. Some of the drawings were from Ankara. For example Kuğulu park, in a very abstracted manner. It was really hard for me to understand how a person can think of so many overlapped information at the same time. I think as architects to be, this is kind of what we expected. I am sharing one of the smallest and the least crowded drawing with you. So that you may guess why I admired it so much 🙂
It is magnificent that we are officially creating spaces for humans! Of course, we did not start to build houses or something but we are now considering human proportions and experience. We use our own modulars in 1/100 scale. We still have our proposal approximately 50-70-70 yet we are designing variation of spaces on their proportions. I mostly consider their movements and feelings. For example, in my proposals fragmented part ( less permeable) I used narrow transitions so that people don’t feel confident in them, they move more fast to the spaces that I created by designing surfaces. So they don’t spend that much time there. Thus, I believe my spaces become even more fragmented. This images are my section drawings, by the help of them I understand the relation between my proposal and humans better .There are some more things that I am trying to do however after the critics I might change them a little bit so they develop. I will be happy to share them with you also 🙂
Last Wednesday, I went to a conference at school. It was about Ankara city planning and Jansen. I am from İzmir, so from the time I got here, I felt something was wrong with here 🙂 I know the landscape is not that easy to build a capital city. But after this conference, I learn a lot about here. Firstly the plan which you see left is Jansen’s competition plan but the plan at right is what he did. Baykan Günay explained to us why it is wrong. He said the strategy fully changes between these plans. Moreover, he stated that this plan is not suitable for expanding. Competition plan is from 1927 so he might not imagine what kind of things could happen. But again restating him he could have created an open plan. So that the next generations could develop it. The other topic that we talked about was his way of planing city. Jansen worked on master plans; so some parts, are not that clear.-although they have borders and the location of the façade of the building- Also there are really few photographs or sketches of the city, on the plans, it is mostly written Berlin. Of course, he was the head of a department in Berlin University, he wasn’t just the man walking on the street. But we just learn that everything could be better. And way too different. because city designs change people lives.
When I saw to syllabus of the Architectural Commutation Tech 2 course, this lecture was the thing that I most wondered. Because I know it was harder to draw according to other techniques but it is the most realistic one. So, in the lesson we first learn about what is perspective and what effects it. Then we started with one-point perspective. It was a bit hard to follow this lecture because as you draw you need to understand every reason why you are drawing and how you are drawing. Anyway, after we finished that we started with our main object which is two-point perspective. After we finished our exercise, we were assign to draw Bauhaus with this technique. I don’t want to mention how hard that was for me 🙂 The sad part is after I almost finish all my drawing I saw a huge mistake which was from the very begging. The right surface of my elevation wasn’t on the picture plane. After that point I couldn’t start all over so I keep it as it is. I will draw it again for my final of this course, I hope I will share it with you here also.
After the process of creating 3D Maps and field we started to work for spaces. The fields information came from 3D Maps. By looking my 3D map I realized that I created 2 different spaces between transparent sheets. They are either fragmented or permeable to each other.
So, my strategy was to exaggerate this permeability and fragmentation situation so that I can create an unbalance distribution of the spaces. To achieve that goal my tactis were using two different type of surfaces as addition to my field. The first one is tear and fold surfaces and locate them for extend permeable spaces. The edges of them are projection of field tear parts. But after the critics I understand that that was wrong. They seem both alien to my fields and doesn’t help for the creation of the spaces. I need to make them more dimensional. My second surfaces are folded thus they fragment those spaces even more.
So for the following steps, I understand that my added surfaces need to be more dimensional but I will keep the differentiation of two types of surfaces. I will keep the way I produce my field and my strategy. I hope for the next assignments I will try to create more efficient spaces and make my strategy more visible in my proposal.
Today, I went to a conference. Deniz Aslan is an architect but as I understand he is know working on landscape gardening. He talked about some project either he did or he was involve in a way. It was a wonderful conference for because things that he talked about things I really wonder. I love nature, I love biology surprisingly architecture too 🙂 In the projects that he mentioned they were together. For example he talked about green roofs. They are green spaces on top of the high buildings. By designing them people own more natural spaces. Of course he and also us questioned is it enough or not. But the case is not that I believe. The thing that matters is, we try. He mentioned about the problems they faced with these roofs. In the simplest term, the shouldn’t be not even a drop of leak. And things like this. Also this conference reminded me The Gaudi, I know it is not the same kind of approach, but when I look deeply I see different ways of telling something. So to be clear ,the works he did or tell us really interested me. I want to keep learning about this kind of things.
As I mentioned before, after creating voids with cardboard layers that represent our maps, we started to think about spaces. For crate space from voids we were assign to use new surfaces with clear cuts. So that the field (proposal of voids) and the additions were clear. For doing this my strategy was to show the secondary relations of the maps by the new surfaces. After critics we learned that every step needs to refer the one before. So I am going to change my strategy accordingly. But the way I use surfaces can help me I believe. After I discovered my maps qualities of being permeable and fragmented I used to different way to use surfaces. The first one is for my permeable spaces which are tear&fold and the second one is fold only. By using them I tried to create the differentiation of the spaces.