Hey everyone, as you know it is our jury week and all the juries are happening in this two weeks in our university. I was able to listen to some of them so here are 4th year’s jury and 1st year of city planning:
Tedu City Planning first year:
It was one of the juries that I got to listen from the start. Baykan Hoca told about how the students started the progress. They focused on human movements and not the functions. What they’ve worked on was still some kind of abstarct. They focused on geometries also.
First one to go was Meltem Aykan,
She had generated simple places for people to enjoy. She had 3 entrances in her design. The main was on left near the valley. She tried to make more constructive places on that place. She made a creation of human movement patterns. The jury criticized some parts of her design but was happy with the end result overall. Her oral presentation was liked very much, it was expressive and understandable. She didn’t have topography lines showing in the zoomed in part of her poster which was warned. One exit in her design was too open to world and why she couldn’t use the Gestalt rules on the upper sides was discussed.
She also got critiques about how the introverted spaces were too limited. She could’ve use the same language on both sides because it was found very differentiated. She was advised to find a way to control the upper part of her design because there are common places and there could be a better coming together. One one part climbing was easy but in the other controlled part getting there was not as easy. Making them more introverted or specially not that small was advised. Also one spatial experience (climbing) repeats too much in a very large area of her model. How people’s way of feeling on those spaces and how it differentiated was discussed. She was also advised to use more strong ways to show what she’s aiming for with her design.
The second one was Ece Nur Bahçekapılı,
In her design she thought that geomorphical materials were more useful for the topography. She tried to obtain a group of people’s relation to one single person. She had an enterance on top. She wanted people to predict somethşng while they were approaching the design. She putted walls around the enterance to make people wander and go up and see what’s there. She had gathering areas near the enterance, than resting places.
She had structural elements in her design which she used to connect two parts of her design, which they were allowed to use in an abstract manner. On another hill top there was another gathering place and areas for people that wanted to be alone. On the right side of the cite the pattern was found nice by jury but on the left side it was weaker. Right side was dominated by gathering places so designing that part was easier for her while on the left it was harder because there was only one hill top to use as a gathering place. The jury thought that while walking on the left side there wasn’t many options to choose from for the visitors because it was too directional. And it couldn’t relate to other places. So jury thought that left didn’t have as much potential as the right part and wanted her to connect her ideas together. Overall her sketches was also liked.
4th year juries was titled Change Climat Change. They were adding something, some approaches, to their designes than can help to change the climate change.
First one I could listen was Cansu Nur Örek
She was critisez about her linear design approach. What if the cite was square then how would the design change was talked. The transportation net in her design was too linear and how it’s relating to other elements in her design was talked.
Other one that I could listen was Irem Asena Güney
She had separated the cite to three parts according to topography. All three of them holds each other but recycleation is like the main element in her design. Recycling the trash of people that live there is what she had focused on more. There’s a place for accommodation for people that work here and come there for conferences. One of the things that jury criticized was how socializing is forced to decend when recycling is too dominant and so people wouldn’t want to live there. Simbaş Altınoran was shown as an example here. So whether or not the living conditions were appropriate for people was discussed. And to solve that problem to have a distance in between would be a good solution was questioned because then if recycle place was too far can the people that live there use it very often or not.
Another thing that was criticized was her having a main element in her design as recyclation corridor, and then using another element to travel from other places. Because her recycling corridor is related with accommodation place and goes through exhibition place so it was found enough.
She was told that she sould have a trailer of how accommodation parts could be implemented to other spaces. It could’ve been useful for the jury to understand. To show her strategic tactics/ decisions and relations. Other than that her proportions, mass transitions in topography and human scale was talked about. And it was decided that the topography is indeed hard to work on.
Here is a picture of our jury presentation to guest juries:
My Way To Arch 