Derin Inan

What are the possible grounds for practicing 'research' in design studio? Design studios have a tendency to assume that the 'research' and 'design' happen independently and they complement each other intuitively. In this paper, this assumption will be challenged through presenting and discussing a year-long studio exercise for a house design in the second-year level, where 'researching others' design work' is defined as the fundamental component of the given design problem, as dominant over other usual ones such as program, scenario, function, context, etc. The objective is defined as a quest into the diverse and variable interrelations of practices of design and research, in which, not only the design process is defined in majorly research-based means, but research is also redefined as something designed in a highly individual and subjective act. In this frame, the paper will largely discuss the notion of 'originality' as a prominent topic in architectural design and design teaching, through questioning the varying means of referring as design actions; such as 'quoting' , 'adapting' or 'appropriating'; or even generating a 'cover' , a 'sample' or a 'variation' in design studios.

Commonly associated with the accurate representation of reality according to a specific ratio, which depends mainly on measuring and precision, the notion of scale has been considered an operative tool in architecture to perceive and indicate the size of anything according to a reference system. An effort to challenge the concept of scale(ing) to include diverse reference units and their scalar articulations holds the potential of instigating novel associations in architectural design studios. Possible readings of these alternative scale(ing) conditions are discussed in the paper in reference to a series of design exercises conducted at architectural design studios. The main intention is to question these unmediated associations to the reference unit in the determination of size and proportion, thus possible scales of architectural space. This particular method of analysis aims to arrive at various scale(ing) conditions, whose internal reference system is challenged by the changes a...

Scale, in architecture, is often regarded as a term used to indicate a certain size of an object in close reference to the categorisation of information that is expected to be transmitted through that size. Therefore it is mostly regarded as an issue related to the presentation of the object rather than an instrumental tool guiding the formation process of any object.

The scale as a topic also rarely finds its deserved attention in architectural education. The potentials the issue can provide are much diverse and therefore deserve to be regarded as a fundamental subject guiding the experience of design studios in architecture schools. In the light of these concerns a series of studies were conducted at different years of architectural design studios, where the issue of scale is regarded as the main framework for searching the formation of architectural space and students’ modes of operation with architectural space. The paper, which will present studio exercises from different years, formulated around the problem of understanding and evaluating on the idea of scale, discuss the instrumentality of scale as a tool for developing spatial strategies.

The paper will also comment on the diverse contributions of the issue to the general structure of each design studio alone. Its spatial associations will be discussed through the prominent keywords like ‘Scales of Contact’, ‘Scalability’ and ‘Correlative Scales’ as appeared in different years of the studio exercises, within their particular priorities, subjects and concerns. So the paper will not only try to trigger a discussion for understanding the idea of scale as an operative tool for design thinking in general, but will also try to discuss the ways and which it can be utilised as an inclusive and yet stimulating strategy for architectural studies.

İşlev olgusunun mimari tasarım süreçleri üzerindeki etkisi ve tarihsel süreçte bu anlayışın mimarlık pratiği alanında ürettiği açılım ve referanslara daha yakından göz atarken , işlev kavramının mimaride pek çok açılımı olduğu ve bu kavramın zaman içinde farklı değer yargılarını ve anlamları içinde barındırarak nasıl şekillendiği anlamaya çalışılacaktır. Bu tartışmanın günümüzde biçim ve işlev tartışmasına bir alt zemin hazırlamasının ötesinde, “biçim işlevi izler” ilkesinin bir tasarım prensibi olarak Sullivan’dan, 1930’ların modernist söylemine ve hatta bugüne taşınırken geçirdiği kırılım ve anlam kaymalarının göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiği öne sürülürken, mimari formun işlevselliği ile mimarlığın işlevselliği arasındaki ilişki irdelenmektedir.

The paper attempts to map out some issues and thoughts on the emerging reality of PhDs by Design; a
reality stemming from the intensive interferences between architectural research and architectural projects and, as
commonly argued, the reliance of both on new tools and techniques.  The paper is a survey of the present conditions, aiming to construct a way to address this topic and develop a probable understanding of it. So, more than the issue of PhD by Design itself, it’s more about
how to address it. Therefore we focus on two issues which we propose as a way to analyse and frame this theme, the
first being the specific ‘architecturality’ of this kind of research, and the second the issue of its evaluation-judgment
as a ‘PhD’.

Ele avuca sığmayan büyük, şişman, ciddi görünümlü ve pahada ağır S,M,L,XL’den sonra OMA ve Rem Koolhaas bu sefer hafif, geçici (anlık) ve ucuzun peşinde kuşe kağıt “dergi gibi ‘kitap’ gibi dergi“ Content’i piyasaya sürdü. İçerik olarak S,M,L,XL’ den çok daha geniş bir ‘mimari’ düşünce alanına serpilmiş olan Content, anafikrinde OMA’nın ve Rem Koolhaas’ın alıştığımız tarzından çok da farklı değil. Parodi ve ironiyle zenginleşen bir dil ile, spekülasyon ve gerçeklik arasında gidip gelen mimarlığı global dünyanın bütün getiri ve götürüleri çerçevesinde tartışmak, sorgulamak.

Focusing on the specific place of the suburban İstanbul Plajı, and trying to locate the role of architecture (design and planning) in this historical process, the paper will try to put forward a strategy for reclaiming the space of the coast. Trying to understand the present condition, what will be proposed is an 'archaeology' of the İstanbul Plajı. Studying the various ways in which modern behaviours, lifestyles, symbols, structures and infrastructure have been interfering with each other within the context of İstanbul plaj's ecology, the ways architecture has operated as one of the conditions of emergence of the plaj discourse and its relative cultural practices will be questioned. Plaj culture is understood as a specific twentieth century 'bio-political' phenomenon; a discursive formation whose elements lay on the modernist categories of health, class, sexuality, identity and progress, inspiring a whole series of new public rituals.

Considering the shifting relations between the city, the architectural profession and architectural schools, a shift informed by the emergent globalised social, legal and financial networks as well as by new communication technologies-design tools, this paper will try to discuss architectural research as a central actor within this environment. Emphasising on the innovative and the critical potential of architectural research, one could answer the following question: How is research actually situated within this city-profession-education compound, and why can an understanding of the former offer an insight to the latter?