Last week was a pre-jury week, it required so effort and cups of coffee. Pre-jury has importance to advance design and give very detailed critic about design. Our aim is grafting Zelve’s experience and spatial qualities on Tuz Gölü. According to my analysis Tuz gölü has so huge flat and white surface, its most important aspect of Tuz gölü so I want to support this aspect with my design. Because of Tuz gölü surface far away hills can see clearly but between two hills are created line son human move directly this area. I determined two references lines from these hills and I combined this lines in topography that parallel to the horizon line. Then outside of this lines, I placed my composition. My main aim is to limit the visual perception of a human with spaces, this operation will cause that flat surface and horizon line combination being more dominant for human perception. Directly sense of infinity increase. About grafting strategy, I observe the diversity of experience depends on what in Zelve and Uçhisar. Changing of enclosure level, changing height, changing environment qualities effects the diversity of experience. In Göreme there were some spaces that had more than one entries. According to entries environment is changing so the diversity of experience is changing.
In the plan , direction and qualities of spaces can be seen clearly. First space is divided two part according to reference lines, its aim clearly distributes the people to spaces and courtyard. Upper line (according to plan) spaces more complex in terms of height of walls and enclosureness and between spaces there was circulation and orientation. The second one has also private courtyard beside to huge interior courtyard and its two spaces can be allowed to pass between these courtyards. The third one is more open space and gradually space that located at line separated each other for creating infinity sense. I also added horizontal surfaces in composition to enrich the human experience. The lower part space included interior spaces and exterior spaces. Interior space is closer and private one. About my diagram, they showed how I applied grafting strategy. The density of red color indicated the level of the enclosure and blue and purple highlighters shown that physical access to the environment and visual access. In general sense except for courtyard, spaces do not have physical access the environment they only experience visually. I tried to combined different corridorish condition for direct the people but I will use the other architectural elements for same aims.
When I placed spaces, I paid attention their relation with each other, not only relation with line spaces that located two different line have a relation especially visual relation. Also with angles, space orient the people on interior common space ‘courtyard’ and other spaces. Jury comment is on approach is this relation can be more physical one instead of visual relation. About angle, the angle can be more controlled. These two lines separated from each other with a diversity of relation. Line spaces included more enrich experience but jury comments on it that they can separate more strong way, some space may be more direct or some space may more close. Another advice of the jury are the using higher level and changing topography. I may change topography according to my design. I also should pay attention to space and relation should not be same. About my last spaces, its relation with composition is so relevant I should revise this part and also controlled area between the spaces. Design beginning is undefined in the model, according to Tuz gölü analysis people experience begins on the road so the design should include something for people access. For example, I should play topography or simple I can give texture like a path for walking. A jury member proposes my reference line can extend to the road. This idea can enrich my design more. These are the general comments of the jury about my design.