The Concept of Limits in Architecture as an Instructional Tool for Design Education

Abstract

The paper aims to re-thinking limits in architecture through an educational approach. A study on the concept of limits in architecture provides an understanding of architecture's sensitivity, responsibility, and bindingness. To investigate the effect of limits on design, the paper has conducted a discussion of a design studio experience as a case study. As a method in the study, an architectural design studio where students are asked to produce architectural solutions by giving physical legal, and social limits has been established. In the architectural design studio scenario, Garipce Village, a fisher village located on the border of Istanbul and a first-degree protection area by the Bosphorus zoning laws, was given as a design problem to second-year architecture students. The design solutions that the students brought to the limits of the village both exemplified how architectural design sought an answer to the limits and demonstrated how to approach rural areas. The limits of conservation areas, the social implications of the conservation sites, and the physical limitations of the village compose a limitation set for the design problem of the rural area. The outputs of the design studio are discussed in the context of architectural solutions for limits. The results revealed how questioning the concept of "limit" transformed students' learning experiences in the design studio. It has been observed that the act of designing with limits improves students' awareness, strengthens the relationships established with the context, and incorporates the social dimensions of architectural design into the design.

Keywords

• Architectural Design Studio
• Architecture in Conservation Areas
• Rural Architecture
• Limits in Architecture

References

1. Dinçer, D., & Aydınlı, S. (2016). Blurring Limits in Architecture. Tasarım+Kuram, 48-60.
2. Dinçer, İ., Enlil, Z., Evren, Y., (2009). İstanbul’da Koruma Alanlarının Değerlendirilmesi, Megaron, YTÜ Mim.Fak.e-Dergisi, Cilt 3, sayı 3, 310-324.
3. Fatouros, D., (2002), Who cares? Towards a Common European Higher Architectural Education Area, Ed. Spiridonidis, C.&Voyatzaki, M., pp. 31–35, Greece.
4. Feigenberg, A., (1991). “Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn”. Voices in Architectural Education, s. 265-278, Eds. Dutton, T., Bergin & Garvey, New York.
5. İlhan, T. ed. (1994). Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi Cilt II. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
6. Karadag, R. E., (2003). Rumelifeneri Kalesi Restorasyon Projesi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
7. Kararmaz, Ö., Ciravoğlu. A. (2017). Erken Dönem Mimari Tasarım Stüdyolarına Deneyim Tabanlı Yaklaşımların Bütünleştirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Megaron Dergisi 12 (3), 409.
8. Lawson, B., Dorst, K. (2013). Design Expertise. Routledge

9. Locke, J., (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill: UK.
10. Mumcu Uçar, Ö. ve Özsoy, A., (2006). “Sınır Kavramına Mekânsal Bir Yaklaşım: Bahçelievler Örneği”, İtüdergisi/A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, Cilt:5, Sayı:2, Kısım:1.
11. Ockman, J., 2012. Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America. Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT Press.
12. Queneau, R., (1947). Exercices de Style: Edition Gallimard, Collection Folio.
13. Queneau, R., (1998). Exercises in Style, Trans by. Barbara Wright: John Calder Publishers, London.
14. Queneau, R., (2003). Biçem Alıştırmaları, Trans.by: Armağan Ekici, İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
15. Riker, S., (2013). "Overcoming Limits", Volume 21 - 2013. 8. https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cas-lehighreview-vol-21/8
16. Salama, A., (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio. United States of America: Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing.
17. Savaşır, G., (2008). "Re-thinking the Limits of Architecture through the Avant-garde Formations during the 1960s: Projections and Receptions in the Context of Turkey", Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
18. Şentürer, A., (1994), “Mimari Tasarım, Stüdyo Eğitimi Bu Kadar Rastlantısal mı Olmalı?”, Tasarım 43, İstanbul.
19. Shaffer, D. W., (2003). Portrait of the Oxford Design Studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–11). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
20. Uluoğlu, B., (1990), Mimari Tasarım Eğitimi: Tasarım Bilgisi Bağlamında Stüdyo Eleştirileri, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
21. Ünal, Y., (2003). Türk Şehir Planlama Hukuku. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
22. Url-1 www.envanter.gov.tr (Last visit: 19.10.2020)
23. Url-2https://www.tripadvisor.com.tr/Restaurant_Review-g293974-d3383562-Reviews-Garipce_Aydin_Balik-Istanbul.html (Last visit: 19.10.2020)
24. Url-3 https://tayfurlab.com/2016/07/07/garipcekoyu/ (Last visit: 19.10.2020)
25. Yücel, S., and Aydınlı, S., (2015). ‘Mimarın Eğitimi’ Üzerine Spekülatif Bir Deneme, Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı:31(1) s. 17-2.
26. Zeren-Gülersoy, N., Tezer, A., Yiğiter, R., (2001). Zeyrek a Study in Conservation. İstanbul: Cenkler Matbaası, İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi.
27. Zeren, N., (1991). Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planı Yapım ve Uygulama Sorunları. İstanbul: İ.T.Ü. Çevre ve Şehircilik Uygulama-Araştırma Merkezi, Proje No: 71/20.