Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARCH121 FINAL ASSIGNMENT
ÇİSEM ATAK
Q1. What is the brief story of the buildings? (100-400 words)
(Who owns them? What were the functions throughout their lives? Who are the
architects, what are their stories? What is the buildings’ importance for the context of
the city?)
Ted University was founded by “Türk Eğitim Derneği” which has given education for 87
years. Buildings of TEDU are so fundamental about not only institutional but also
spatial history. TEDU buildings and their idea of foundation withstand to Republican
period and during this period, first structures of Ankara were formed. From 13
September 1923 ( Ankara became capital city.) till 1931 ( Jansen Plan), a plan which
guided urban development was in force. Also, this plan was created by architect Carl
Cristoph Lörcher. In this period, both Yenişehir and TED Ankara College were came
into existence.
According to Tanyer, first of all, origin of TED Ankara College was founded by “ Türk
Maarif Cemiyeti”. After a few years, this education foundation was renamed as
“Ankara College” in 1951. After that, according to Jansen plan, Yenişehir high school
(Ankara College ), it took part as a educational foundatition which served to whole city.
In that period, being situated in center of the school and provision of pedestrian access
to the school were very important for urbanism principles. Furthermore, location of the
school is very important to be social students. Seeing that, location of the school enable
to students using center functions easily.
After, TED Ankara College started to searching new location and after many efforts,
new location was found. This location was defined by Lörcher Plan. The territory which
was named “Fidanlık” which located next to “İncesu” border was bought. Then, in
1936, first buildings’ constructions started. According to Tanyer, architect of the first
buildings is Architect Selim.
In 1951, the school was renamed becoming “Ankara College” and location of Ankara
College strengthened its central location in the city’s settlement area. In 1958, second
part of TED Buildings was builded at south of Ziya Gökalp Street. Hence, TED
buildings were completed at Yenişehir. Then, via “Bölge Kat Nizamı Plan” TED
buildings’ territory was expanded and the school had very accesible situation. However,
in 1960s, its area was not enough to increase students’s number capacity.
Due to TED buildings which were completed according to 1930s and 1950s population,
in 1990s, the buildings squeezed in the city and thus, TED did not take a leap. However,
then, owners of TED buildings decided to renovation. With modernist a project which
was planned by architects Hüseyin Bütüner and Celal Abdi, TED University was
founded and TED University targeted to give a modernist and innovator education to
people who live around it.
Q2. What are the design qualities of the buildings and open/semi-open spaces in the
campus? (700-1000 words)
(Discuss the architectural designs in terms of their design decisions, compositional
principles, design elements, characteristic expressions, and architects’ intentions. Please
try to make use of everything you have learnt in ARCH 121, as well as your findings in
your research.)
TED University buildings’ designs reflect modernization efforts of Republican period.
In that period, architectural design set up measured modern structures with smooth
sub-structures. TEDU buildings followed this design strategy too. During process of
TEDU buildings, architecture adopted to international manners in that period and
architects prefered less ornamental structures. Also, they paid attention to harmony of
format and function. According to Günay (2005), straight lines, perpendicular angle
geometry, emphasis to horizontal and vertical elements, being given importance to
concrete, steel, brick and glass are so fundamental modern decisions and elements for
TEDU buildings. Pale colors were used for emphazing facades of TEDU buildings with
contrast colors and different elements. Thus, modern, international and simple
architectural attitudes reflected to TEDU buildings’ design qualities and decisions in
that period. Moreover, because of that period, TEDU buildings lived functionalism and
brutalism phases.
Due to the fact that architectural design qualities of the buildings and the buildings’
basics were strong, TED had a decision which was not collepsing of the buildings. At the
same time, TEDU buildings gained meanings thanks to not only its architectural value
but also harmony and relation with the cultural city. Thus, before TED buildings
became TEDU buildings, TEDU buildings had been regenerated and reinforced without
losing cultural principles with the city and losing its existing mass unity by Bütüner and
CAGAW architecture. With TEDU building renovations, TEDU buildings which have
incapacitated area obtained maximum efficient area in the campus. Seeing that TEDU
buildings were builded in 1930s and TEDU buildings were builded according to its
period’s population.
For nowadays, old TEDU buildings
were not enough to correspond
student capacity sufficiently.
Therefore, renovations and new
architectural designs’ aims were that
whereas existing structures or blocks
are given to educational and
administrative functions, open and
semi open spaces in the campus and
new are which was made at ground
floors are given to meet to needs of
social, cultural utilizations. At the same time, this buried structure or complex which
was designed on a green area met the needs of enterior which was area without
NORTH PART
SOUTH PART
substracting existing open garden area and this structure was designed according to
utilization for social and conference activities.
TEDU buildings consisted two infrastructures which follow each other and related with
each other. 3 units which take place on south of Ziya Gökalp were restored without
collepsing and they obtained again functionality. After that, 2 units which were builded
in 1957 was designed with modernity of today. Moreover, one annex which combine two
units and a new block which is for sport activities (E block) joined to these two units.
What is more, these 4 blocks created a wide open space which defined an courtyard.
Thus, whole structures obtained a balance and integrity. At the same time, these blocks
and courtyard- garden were a beginning to changing. After that, interior and exterior
localities started to being organized. Existing spaces were developed as carrier system.
Structures’ interiors were changed according to priorities and needs of an contemporary
university. Especially, social places ad circulation areas were designed as integrating
and associating with areas of education.
Furthermore, wide spaces which are stated in the roofs were created for studios and
similar spaces.
Also, gym which had a wide area was transformed to auditorium and gym moved to
block E. Hence, totally, TED obtained a whole composition with the buildings and their
courtyards and gardens. Courtyards and gardens were trasformed to spaces which are
multipurpose activity area. Another point is that due to the fact that blocks looks
different directions, TEDU buildings communicate with outside more and thus, it set up
indoor and outdoor continuity. Furhermore, while buildings protect structural
principles and identity, the changes which were made in interior space and using
modern textural elements created an contemporary and new representative
environment. When looking generally, an simple relation was created between
courtyard and buildings. Also, this define an interior street system arrange construction
of basic distribution system and social areas.
BLOCK E
By the way, when analysing more detail, colors of facade are for setting a harmony with
old buildings. When looking facades of the buildings, design concepts were set a grid
principles. Regular and same proportional windows obtained repeatation. At the same
time, windows which are different facades interrupted the repeatation and they created
variations. Moreover, glass walls set a visual continuity and relation with outside. Also,
using glasses are more functional to obtain daily light more efficiently. Moreover, glasses
and concrete are more strong characteristic qualities for the buildings.
Another way is using textural elements such as brick, conrete, natural looking woods.
These elements defined brutalist and modern architecture. These elements were used
not only outside of the buildings, but also inside of the buildings. At the same time, using
transparency on the facade of D block with steels represented modernism. Also, thanks
to the transparency, TEDU buildings obtained different light conditions. However, while
investigating two parts which located at north and south of Ziya Gökalp, north part of
TEDU buildings are more contemporary and less ornamental. Thus, functionalism is
more dominant than the other part.
Finally, buildings and their open and semi open areas created a whole. Directions of
buildings look same area and they defined an specific area. Thanks to this private new
design, TEDU gave comfy education which encourage students’ studies to its students.
At the same time, with advanced technologic sub-structures, TEDU enabled efficient
and fast capacity to students.
Q3. How would you compare these buildings and open/semi-open spaces in the campus
(in relation to your answer in Q2) to:
a. Each other? (Name and illustrate the buildings you are citing for comparison.) (300-
500 words)
b. Some other buildings in the nearby neighborhood. (Name and illustrate the buildings
you are citing for comparison.) (300-500 words)
a)TEDU buildings were existed in two parts. While one part takes place on north of
Ziya Gökalp, the other part takes place on south of Ziya Gökalp. Due to the fact that
these two parts were builded in different terms, different architectural designs affected
the buildings. Thus, these buildings have not only similar properties but also different
qualities. However, though the differences, whole composition has a harmony and
balance and they were builded and transformed according to certain functional aims.
First of all,
providing that
first part of
TEDU buildings
located at north
of Ziya Gökalp is
investigated, the comparing will be more beneficial. Seeing that the buildings completed
in the same period and around the same properties. When looking these buildings as a
composition, situations of the buildings between each other and their open and semi
open spaces which are defined by the buildings related with each other regarging to well
balanced, well designed, harmony and unity.
SOUTH PART
NORTH PART
Situations of the buildings were shaped to obtain maximum open area. Totally, this part
occurs from 2 pimary big units and 2 small secondry units. Functionality affected shapes
and sizes of the buildings. A and B blocks are more functional because they embrace
many structural multifunctional place such as,
education areas, adminisrative units, social areas,
mess hall, libary. Hence, these two buildings are
more dominant than the others and these other
buldings were formed pursuant to two primary
buildings. However, due to the fact that buildings
A and B have similar functions, they are related
with each other more. Providing that we analyse
exterior surfaces of whole buildings in this part,
we can understand that their design strategies are
in a harmony. Especially, same shapes and sizes
of glasses and windows, their directions and providing continuity are very strong
relation between the buildings.
A BLOCK
B BLOCK
Windows and glasses which were used on every buildings provide repeatation and they
follow each other in certain sizes and shapes. Moreover, diffirences of windows’ sizes
and shapes created variations on the buildings. At the same time, when looking facades
of the buildings, a grid strategy was used on every buildings via windows. Also, these
glasses are very important characteristic qualities for TEDU buildings. Harmony which
is between primary and secondry units was provided via continuity of windows.
As, in some parts of buildings, windows were mimiced from other buildings’ window
shapes. Thus, these buildings are not alien to each other. When looking interior designs
of the buildings, A and B blocks almost have same design strategy. As a matter of fact
these buildings functionality properties are same. On the other hand, it is obvious that
interior spaces of the buildings were designed according to a grid frame and system. If
Ahmet Ersan and A block are compared, it is obvious that two structures were designed
according to a grid strategy which has certain measure. However, due to the fact that
these structures have different funcitions, their sizes and shapes of their spaces and
rooms are different from each other. At the same time, the buildings have modern
textural elements which are in a harmony and balance. Also, again utilization glasses in
the rooms are very functional for the buildings.
If TEDU buildings which located at
south of Ziya Gökalp are
investigated, it is obvious that they
have again modern composition.
Also, buildings situations too each
other are very fundamental to obtain
maximum open area. At the same
time, windows ad glasses’ shapes
and sizes and following each other created repeatation and variations. Also, some
repeatation which belongs can be seen other buildings which have same functions. In
this part, the buildings have special entry ways. Moreover, these entry ways have similar
features such as curve.
When investigating designs of
interior parts of buildings,
different design features and
decision can be seen. The
buildings have different design
concepts. For instance, design
of G block is more ornamental
and figurative than others.
AHMET ERSAN
BLOCK A
ENTREE WAY
Conversely, D and E blocks have more modern communicative functional design. Also,
whereas their marbles which were used on the floors of block D and E define direction,
marbles which were used on the fllors of block G are only figurative and ornamental
and they do not define direction.
At the same time, utilization transparency on the D block shows that this block has more
different architectural decisions. Via transparency, daily light can be obtained in
different angles and shapes.
While comparing two pats of TEDU buildings, it is certain that some features of two
parts are different from each other according to Günay. Seeing that first composition
overweigh about modern architecture. First of all, textural elements are so important
for both sides. Marbles which were used on the first composition define direction to the
buildings. Also, marbles’ shape and colors help to define direction. When looking other
sides’ marbles, we can understand that they are simple and uncommunicative. At South
part, directions of building entry were emphazed by entry ways of the buildings.
BLOCK D BLOCK G
At the same time, whereas textural elements of first structures define directions.
Moreover, they create an harmony and continuity with columns of the buildings.
Harmony of windows of first buildings is more powerful than other parts’ buildings.
Functional utilization of glasses in A and B buildings can be seen at studio which are
stated in E block. Thus, it is obvious that if structures have similar functional features,
their design decisions and
elements are same too with
each other. Another point is
that open area have different
features due to different
functions. However, semi open
areas which were defined by
the buildings have similar
purpose such as cigarette
areas. Totally, whole TEDU
buildings are in a harmony.
Especially A and G blocks’s
parallel situations towards
each other shows that these two parts are related with each other, although their
situations are different.
b)On account of the fact that TEDU buildings were builded in Republican period and
TEDU buildings made contact with its neighbors, people do not think that TEDU
buildings are independent from the city. In spite of the fact that TEDU buildings
transformed to a modern structure, the buildings did not lose cultural legacy and
identity.
First of all, exterior colors of TEDU buildings were chosen in order to adopt with old
buildings which located around TEDU buildings. Hence, TEDU buildings’ exterior wall
colors are pale and TEDU buildings are not seen like an alien. At the same time, TEDU
buildings have horizontal shapes and thanks to this horizontality, TEDU can give
enough capacity to its students. Horizontal features of TEDU buildings claim that the
buildings do not diffirenciate and exceed other buildings located around TEDU. Lengths
and heights of TEDU buildings accomodate with other neighbors.
Furthermore, location of TEDU buildings was arranged according to other buildings.
Therefore, TEDU buildings obtained alignment with surroundings of TEDU. Seeing that
TEDU buildings and neighborhood look same direction. Especially, Ziya Gökalp Street
arranged this direction. Thus, as TEDU buildings were occuring, they did not seperate
from layout and structures of the city.
Another point is that, sizes and shapes of windows make contact with neighborhood.
Windows of TEDU buildings were defined according to glasses of other buildings
located around TEDU. Moreover, the gardens which located in TEDU make contact
with “Kurtuluş Park”.
On the other hand, although TEDU buildings and surroundings have many identic
features, TEDU buildings are more modern and contemporary. Seeing that modern
textural elements were used in TEDU buildings and design decisions of these elements
occured an integrity and coherence. Also, when looking other buildings seperately, the
do not define an harmony or composition because their design decisions are so primitive.
However, TEDU buildings have advanced design decision in the buildingsand campus.
So, TEDU buildings have a composition with noth only itself but also surroundings.
REFERENCES:
* (..| Mimarlık Dergisi |.. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from
http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=385&RecID=3
148)
*(TED ANKARA KOLEJİ’NİN YENİ YERLEŞKESİ ÖYKÜSÜ,BAYKAN
GÜNAY,2005,PAGES:3,5,6,11,12,13,63)
*TED Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from
https://www.tedu.edu.tr/tr/main/kampus-ve-tesisler
*VitrA Çağdaş Mimarlık Dizisi. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from
http://www.vitracagdasmimarlikdizisi.com/projeler/TED-Universitesi-Kolej-Yerleskesi-
1-Asama.aspx