Alternative Scale(ing) Practices in Architectural Design Studio

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 41 - 56, 20.07.2023

A. Derin İnan , Başak Uçar , Onur Yüncü

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1249848

Abstract

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 and shifts in the definition of the major reference unit. Each different scale(ing) condition studied through the given exercise was regarded as an act of confrontation for readings of scale as well as presenting provocative challenges to the architectural design processes. With this standpoint, the paper proposes a multi-layered reading of scale that argues the reference unit’s instrumentality in the definition of architectural space and proposes an alternative methodology of integrating scale in architectural design education.

Keywords

Scale, Scalability, Reference Unit, Precision, Design Studio

References

• Anderson, A. T. (2002). On the Human Figure in Architectural Representation. Journal of Architectural Education, 55 (4), 238-246.
• Bal, B. (2020). Cetvel: Elin Araçları, Soyu Tükenen Çizim Enstrümanları. Retrieved 19 February 2022, from https://manifold.press/cetvel.
• Brentano, F. (1981). The Theory of Categories. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 10.
• Carroll, L. (1871). Alice in Wonderland Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, London: Penguin Books.
• Delanda, M. (2011). Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthetic Reason. New York: Continuum.
• Delaney, D. & Leitner, H. (1997). The Political Construction of Scale. Political Geography, 16 (2), 93-97.
• Emmons, P. (2005). Size Matters: Virtual Scale and Bodily Imagination in Architectural Drawing. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9 (¾), 227- 235.
• Le Corbusier. (1950/ 2011). Modulor I. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.
• Le Corbusier. (1955/2011). Modulor II. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.
• Lukinbeal, C. (2016). Scale and its Histories. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 78, 15–27.
• Papapetros, S. (2010). MICRO/MACRO: Architecture, Cosmology, and the Real World. Perspecta, 42, 108-125.
• Sallie A. M. (2000). The Social Construction of Scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24 (2), 219–242.
• Swift, J. (1726). Gulliver's Travels. London: Penguin Classics.
• Tanju, B. (2015). Cetvel. Evren. S. (Eds.). Cevdet Erek Az Boş Belki. Berlin & Istanbul: Revolver & art-ist.
• Türkay Coşkun, S. (2017). Part and Whole: A Mereological Framework for Architectural Form. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara.
• Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Tavernor, R. (2007). Smooth’s Ear: The Measure of Humanity. New York: Rizzoli.  
• Wallick, K. (2012). Generative Processes: Thick Drawing. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 31(1), 19-29.