House: Rewind Final Jury

While I was designing the thingy my main design decision was dividing space and controlling visual relationship. Therefore surfaces are important for me. And I think that the thingy should not be single-minded and I decided that it should also provide storage. The Thingy has steel grid panels that divide spaces. After that I decided who use it. The user should need surfaces and storage. Therefore the user became a graffiti writer and he is a man. The graffiti writers make some sketches and after that they start to paint and make practices on canvasses. Therefore I think that he needs two different working space and the thingy creates their divisions. Also the user of The Thingy can put his spray paints on this steel grid and when he change their density and also location in this steel grid he has visual relationship between spaces indoor and outdoor and also with same things he can have different light and view conditions. While he is working with canvases he some exploded surface in the thingy has also help to put the spray paints and sometimes he can use these surfaces as a stair to reach the top of the canvasses.

In my infographic, I analysed how different subjects in scenario relate to each other in terms of spaces that they use and share in a daily, weekly, monthly and annual period.

In addition to my scenario there are also three students who come to university in Ankara with bachelor degree, they study psychology and they do not know Ankara. They have a schedule therefore they have regular life when we compare to graffiti artist. They generally go out to know Ankara.

The graffiti artist sometimes get job for graffiti paints. He study and make practices at home. Graffiti artist works generally Saturday nights and if it is indoor space he prefers working on Sundays. In monthly period he has exhibition of his works in every November therefore he do not accept any work in October’s.

When we came to the site, it is in Kırlangıç Street which is in urban context. It was one way street and there is no public transportation in Kırlangıç.  In Arjantin Street density of traffic is much more when we compared to Kırlangıç but in Kırlangıç because of the car parking problem sometimes there are lots of car going around and it creates noise. There is an international kindergarten and there is also a lot of noise in daily period because of this I want to do introverted design in terms of usage. Trees are existing in the site I think that in urban context, vegetation is really important. Therefore, also I want to include this three trees in my design as court creator in private and in common usage. I also wanted to keep in touch the graffiti artist and students but they also have their own spaces therefore my design shape as three part.

People generally use Kırlangıç Street. Therefore I want to adduct working spaces of graffiti artist to there so people can easily reach and recognize it and also I want that he also easily reach his working spaces. Students generally spend their time in their working space As I said there is an introverted usage I don’t want to completely rupture their relation with surrounding by benefitting from the site’s slope I raise students part and create a visual relationship so they can see this green area also. As I said graffiti artist and students have a relation and sometimes he show and teach graffiti therefore I designed topography so that they can use it. Therefore I designed the court and they use these emergent surfaces and also while doing that I also want to create different terrace balcony kind of things for these different parts.

Parihoa Farmhouse by Patterson Associates

While I was searching for window types and how can I use them in my housing project I found and study Parihoa Farmhouse.

Parihoa is a rural raised on the slopes between Muriwai and Bethells beaches only one hour from Auckland, New Zealand. Patterson Associates designed the contemporary house settled into the slope with panoramic views of the coast.

Patterson Associates describes its design strategies.

“A simple strategy of formal juxtapositions such as converging and expanding walls create varied spatial experiences throughout the form. An entry lobby is guarded by a portcullis to keep the sheep out and sections of the perimeter wall also pivot open unexpectedly.

The home is arranged as a series of spaces linked by way of the circulation courtyard and secret doors, discovering forms and shapes seemingly arbitrarily positioned, yet suggesting a history; a sense of transcended time. Long views across the protected courtyard end on the all persuasive horizon, moving toward the edges of the structure, the ocean and sky open up above and below, until the view’s full breadth is revealed.”

This project is really help me for how should I use tranparent surfaces and which type of them should I use in my project.

Manfredo Tafuri ‘Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology’ (1969)

Manfredo Tafuri was a Marxist architectural historian of the Renaissance and modern era and Italian architectural theorist. He is noted for his pointed critiques of the partisan “operative criticism” of previous architectural historians and critics like Bruno Zevi and Siegfried Giedion. He was influenced by the political turmoil and ascent of the radical left. He challenged ideas that Renaissance was the golden age and he believed architectural theory was a continuous toil played out on critical, theoretical, and ideological levels.

After Manfredo Tafuri received his architectural degree, he worked as a teaching asistant under Saul Greco, Adalberto Libera and Ludovico Quaroni.

Contemporary architecture’s circumstance was never more significantly theorised than by Manfredo Tafuri. Locating architecture’s intellectual project in the historical matrix of the bourgeois metropolis, Tafuri details the entire cycle of modernism as a unitary progression in which the avantgardes‘ visions of utopia come to be seen as an idealization of capitalism, last’s rationality into the rationality of autonomous form – architecture’s “plan,” its ideology. Getting together the strings that relation the sociology of Georg Simmel and Max Weber, critical theory of Georg Lukacs, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor Adorno, the structuralism of Louis Althusser and Roland Barthes, and the negative opinion of Massimo Cacciari, Tafuri recognizes what for him is contemporary architecture’s simply state of probability to collapse into the very system that warrants its demise or retreat into hypnotic solitude (Hays, 1998, p. 2).

Tafuri’s book Theory and History of Architecture concentrated on the architectural historian’s obligation to alter architecture substantially, rebuking the inadequacies of architects as historians. Tafuri has drawn on the work of Walter Benjamin along these lines, this book also foresees the failure of modernism, referring to modern architecture’s complicity with capitalism. As Mallgrave and Contandriopoulos said this book addressed not only the perceived crisis of modern theory but also question of whether modernism could in fact be interpreted as a unified body of ideas (Mallgrave & Contandriopoulos, 2008, p. 396). After this book his inventive book subjects proceeded and amid the 1970’s, Tafuri distributed his imperative works in Oppositions journal.

In the most recent decade of his career he embraced an extensive reassessment of the theory and practice of Renaissance architecture, investigating its different social, intellectual and social connections, while giving an expansive comprehension of uses of representation that shaped the whole time. Interpreting the Renaissance: Princes, Cities, Architects blends the historical background of architectural thoughts and projects through arguments of the great centres of architectural innovation in Italy.

Tafuri’s essay Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology published in the Marxist journal Contropiano. In this essay, Tafuri investigates architecture as an element within the city and changes of architectural ideology from the Enlightenment period to late Modernism through the lens of putting architecture inside the urban setting and additionally the part of urban planning on architecture. Concentrating on the genesis of the rational plan as manifested in metropolitan structure, Tafuri refers to seventeenth and eighteenth century ideas of the city and its connections to the nature, in other words city as a natural object; nineteenth and twentieth century modernism and pragmatism, in other words city as a rational object; then ideologies of Le Corbusier that architecture as a cellular object which totals and forms into an entire; in conclusion, architecture in present day and its relation to economy and capitalism as characterizing components. He brings the issue of architecture’s false awareness into more keen political focus and he makes a few claims with respect to the death of architecture’s avant-garde or utopian ideals despite its usurpation by late capitalist powers (Mallgrave & Contandriopoulos, 2008, p. 396).

The essay starts with the Enlightenment and the urban design theories of Marc-Antoine Laugier, an advocate of aesthetics of the pleasant, and his naturalism conception in planning and in addition the idea of the city as forest. Laugier writes “Anyone who knows how to design a park well will draw up a plan according to which a city must be built in relation to its area and situation. There must be squares, intersections, streets. There must be regularity and whimsy, relationships and oppositions, chance elements that lend variety to the tableau, precise order in the details and confusion, chaos and tumult in the whole.” (Bao, 2015, para.2). From Laugier, in order to discover an answer for the problems created by the cities, Tafuri brings up the increasingly political role obtruded Enlightenment architects.

Piranesi’s Campo Marzio introduced an experimental design struggle the problem of balancing opposites with regards to the city. This political role was shown in the urban design of Milan by Antolini, and his desire to infuse a totalizing message through bound unified architectural form.

As Andrew mention in his article Technology, Authenticity and Architectural Ideology, through investigating the course of the modern movement as an ideological instrument of capital, Tafuri breaks the history into three successive stages from 1901 to 1939:

  • Formation of urban ideology as a method for overcoming architectural romanticism
  • The increase of artistic avant-gardes as ideological activities, which then hand those activities over to architecture and urban planning to understand those ideals in tangible form
  • Architectural ideology turns into the ideology of plan

Tafuri proposes that architecture started to seem unnecessary and marginal regarding financial and political powers which tackled more prominent positions of power in the planning and dispersion of capitalism. Stage one is depicted by the usage of work of art by the avant-gardes as a field on which to project the sense of shock typical of the urban experience and of living in a city which functions as a machine whose gain is to concentrate esteem from its citizens and to provide a place to collect and to consume on a mass scale. That is the city is an instrument for organizing the cycle of production-distribution-consumption (Pun, A., 2011, para.7). Starting with nineteenth, form should considered as a creation of logic of subjective reaction with objective unity of production. Dialectic explanation of individualism shows itself as cubism, futurism, Dadaism and De Stijl. This comprehension of the city as an instrument can be found in the cubism of Picasso and Braque, in the work of the De Stijl like work of Mondrian and Futurist movements.

The ideals of the avant-gardes slowly merged into one vision of the city as a place of tumult and order, and into a single ideal of translating tumult into meaning and value. Tafuri defines the Bauhaus as the decantation chamber of the Avant-gardes, in which their goals were handed over to architecture and planning to be interpreted into reality. The first and clearest sample of this interpretation into the reality was Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin. Once the city was comprehended as an instrument of production, a tremendous social machine where the building is no more an object, rather it is individual cells that make physical form (Bao, 2015, para.7). The architect starts to play the part of production for an assembly line and turns into an organizer of the process. Tafuri proposes that Le Corbusier tested and improved the most extensive system of rational plans at different scales, and implemented them into different projects. He saw his project as the rationalization of the total organization of the urban machine utilizing the strategy of organic unity. The city’s arrangement must happen so that the magnificence of the entire will be subdivided into infinity of details. Each is not quite the same as each other so that there are always new interpretations arising; it is through this clear tumult or irregularity that characterizes great cities.

Through time the architect has slowly become removed from the creation and process associated with architectural design, and the first stages of this is exhibited by the architect as a manger of the process that create the architecture, not so must the creator of the built environment. This disassociation between architect and building is further intensified through the realization of vast potential of technology in the rationalization of the city and outlying areas. 1930’s architects afraid to share their ideological approach in the terms of political circumstance then they started to focus on technology. All this development brings to mind the idea of the proletarianization of the architect

Tafuri suggests that the after 1930, architectural ideology basically entered a stage of regression. He argues that ‘’the entire course of modern architecture… was born, developed and brought into crisis in a grandiose attempt…to resolve the imbalances, contradictions and delays typical of the capitalistic reorganization of the world market.’’ (Mallgrave & Contandriopoulos, 2008, p. 397).

Furthermore, he says that there can be no such thing as a political financial aspects of class, but just a class critique of political financial aspects and similarly there can never be an aesthetics, art or architecture of class, but just a class critique of aesthetics, art, architecture and the city and Marxist critique of architectural and urbanistic ideology can just demystify history behind the unifying classifications of the term art, architecture and city (Hays, 1998, p. 32).

In conclusion, Tafuri defines modernism period as a part of evaluation of the avant-garde’s utopian perspective which can identify as an idealization of capitalism. He analyses the architectural form and plans, failures and crisis of modernism under ideology.

References

Bao, D., (2015, March 17). Toward a critique of architectural ideology Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://blogs.cornell.edu/arch5302sp15/2015/03/17/toward-a-critique-of-architectural-ideology/

Hays, K. M. (Eds.). (1998). Architecture theory since 1968. England: The MIT Press

Mallgrave, H. F., & Contandriopoulos C. (Eds.). (2008). Architectural theory: volume II-an anthology from 1871 to 2005. USA: Blackwell Publishing

Pun, A., (2011, November 26). Technology, authenticity and architectural ideology presentation Retrieved April 9, 2016, from https://andrewpun.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/technology-authenticity-and-architectural-ideology-presentation/

House: Rewind

My site is in Kırlangıç Street which is in urban context. It was one way street and there is no public transportation in Kırlangıç.  In Arjantin street density of traffic is much more when we compared to Kırlangıç but in Kırlangıç car parking is huge problem. There is a green area near my site and it creates a vista for my site. In opposite direction there is an international kindergarten and there is a lot of noise in daily period.

Therefore, I want to do inward oriented design. I think that in urban context, vegetation is really important. Therefore, graffiti artist’s bedroom is extroverted because of park’s vista and also I want to include this three trees in my design as court creator for private and common usage. If I turn my scenario I want to keep in touch the graffiti artist and students but they also have their own spaces therefore my design shape as three part this part for graffiti artist and this part for graffiti artist and this part for students and spaces are shaped according to function distributions first common spaces, second in between spaces and third private spaces. People generally use Kırlangıç. Therefore I want to adduct working spaces of graffiti artist to there so people can easily recognize it. The walls are important for me because of both my thingy and my scenario. This wall is surround all house. It is starting in somewhere and go to working spaces and be used as thingy and continue there go upstairs and end here and it cuts the relation with outside as the thingy aims and he also can use these surfaces to do graffiti.

Here is my house’s plans, sections and model.

prejury pafta plan