Mimarlık Bölümü Koleksiyonu

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/1947

Browse

Filters

2018 - 201922020 - 20242

Settings

Institution Author: search.filters.institutionAuthor.Aydemir, Ayşe ZeynepWoS Q: search.filters.wosQuartile.N/A

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Conference Object
    Architectural Writing Laboratory: A Design Learning Experiment
    (2024) Korkmaz, İrem; Aydemir, Ayşe Zeynep
    Writing is a spatial act - exploring different writing modes may unveil new modes of architectural thinking. When contextualised within the architectural framework, writing takes on a transformative role, capable of opening up possibilities for non-visual relationships and interconnected networks, thereby inviting critical inquiry and discourse. In architectural schools, where the design studio is the central focus, this area usually remains less explored, particularly in undergraduate programmes. However, practising architectural writing brings opportunities to students; for instance, they are introduced to and become familiar with spatial thinking in a literary space where their typically visual preconceptions do not operate.Pursuing this perspective, this paper explores how effectively using writing as a design tool can uncover new and unconventional perspectives on architecture and proposes architectural writing as an interdisciplinary learning tool for guiding future architects and architectural design researchers. These issues are examined through an in-depth study of pedagogical objectives and outcomes of the Architectural Speaking and Writing course, a mandatory subject for third-year undergraduate students.The course is structured as a writing laboratory that closely examines forms of architectural writing as primary instruments for finding a critical voice, engaging in critical dialogue, and communicating with the wider public. Through introducing the design of the course structure and analysing the writing exercises, this paper addresses the crucial role that diverse mediums and methods of expression play for students to connect their internal narratives with external realities in architectural education while altering the dominant position of the educator towards a facilitator.
  • Conference Object
    A Design-Build Studio: Kilyos Boathouse [2020]
    (European Association for Architectural Education, 2020) Aydemir, Ayşe Zeynep; Sezgin, Ahmet; İnceoğlu, Arda
    As a part of the stated curriculum of MEF University Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Design and Build! Studio (DBS) is a compulsory summer programme for students completing their first year in architecture and interior design. Within the framework of Design and Build! Studio, the school communicates its set of values through emphasising learning by doing, horizontal learning and underlining the process. This paper discusses how a design‑build studio can be a distinctive hidden quality of an architecture faculty through the case of Kilyos Boathouse project conducted in Summer 2018.
  • Conference Object
    A Design-Build Studio: Kilyos Boathouse [2019]
    (TU Delft Open, 2019) Aydemir, Ayşe Zeynep; Sezgin, Ahmet; İnceoğlu, Arda
    As a part of stated curriculum of MEF University Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, design-build studio is a compulsory summer internship for the students completing their first year in architecture and interior design. Within the framework of the design-build studio, the school communicates its set of values through emphasising learning by doing, implying horizontal learning and underlining the process. This paper will discuss how a design-build studio can be a distinctive subliminal quality of an architecture faculty through the case of Boathouse project conducted during Summer 2018.Boathouse Project is designed and built at Kilyos Beach in Istanbul by the students completing their first year in architecture and interior design for Boun Marine and Sailing Club to store their equipment such as small sailing catamarans and windsurf boards while providing a space for club members to gather. Thirty-five first-year students, four second and third- year student assistants and three tutors designed and built the project for five weeks with the support by Boğaziçi University for materials and accommodation; ZETAS for ground works; and TORID for timber supply. Boun Marine and Sailing Club members also provided voluntary support for logistics and finishing. Boathouse is awarded both for the Turkish Architecture Yearbook 2018 and Project Awards for Architectural Students in Turkey.One of the most distinctive aspects of the project is learning by doing. Direct engagement enables learning through several processes, and design-build studio is a relevant setting to enhance them. In this context, students grew away from the formal setting and relocated in an unfamiliar context to confront with a real world subject. They were responsible with developing a fully-fledged design proposal, making presentations to communicate with the client, keeping working setup in order as well as the building site, tracking material supply, and building the design in a limited timeframe. Students used woodworking tools after having health and safety training and they undertake the shared work items as workgroups each day.The second aspect of the project is horizontal learning. Instead of delivering top-down instructions, educators’ position was ruling out the hierarchy by working, living and making decisions together. In this sense, working setting was an extension of the studio culture, including sex equality among work sharing, team set-up, and dedication to the project. Moreover, each student was responsible for their work items as well as they were responsible to the whole group. Student assistants were exchanging their experience and knowledge with the first-years while they were sharing the responsibility. They were learning from each other.The third aspect is underlining the process of the project. Within a limited timeframe and limited experience, the process is always emphasised considerably more than the final product. In this context, openness was one of the crucial characteristics that led a direct dialogue with the client through a series of meetings with the Boun Marine and Sailing Club members for developing the design together. During the building phase last- ing three weeks, several adaptations were made as responses to challenges and opportunities.Design-build studio is one of the central characteristics of the school. As a common experience, all of the students get involved in this organisation as early as the first-year; and they become a part of the faculty culture. Participation of all of the tutors in design-build studios also provides an introduction for a mutual acquaintance among students and tutors. Moreover, projects include a social aspect either for community service or for community involvement enhancing the purposefulness which then empower the connection with the real life situations. Overall, the design-build studio setting is a unique subliminal quality for architectural education besides its well-known curricular qualities.
  • Presentation
    Institutional Architecture, Alternatives, and Opponents: Discussions on Architecture and Dwelling
    (Royal College of Art, School of Architecture, MPhil/PhD Programmes, 2018) Aydemir, Ayşe Zeynep; Eyiler, Mert
    If architecture shaped in relation to authoritarian hierarchies can be defined as institutional architecture, what can be other architectures at a distance to/against the institutional architecture? What are its culture and tools? Discussing this requires an understanding of the relationships between power and society. In response to this, ‘adaptation’ appealed to extend the discussions particularly to dwelling. To adapt and to be adapted are fundamentals of dwelling. Yet, they are usually understood to be limited to the relationship between the user and the space. While, thorough analysis of user-space interactions has informed many works and continue to be a source of architectural knowledge, ‘adaptation’ also extends to a larger network of relationships and stakeholders, as well as to discourses of institutional architecture, its alternatives and its opponents. The roundtable aims to bring these ramification of adaptation in relation to dwelling together. Discussions may consider varying conceptualisations of the word ‘adaptation’, and dwelling. How do users adapt to spaces and self-assert themselves? How do institutions and stakeholders adapt spaces for different purposes? What role do architects play in these?