Mathematical Approaches in Contemporary Architectural Practices: The Case of Baku

Abstract

Mathematics has long served as a fundamental tool in architecture, enabling the transformation of abstract concepts into spatial realities. This study explores the relationship between mathematics and contemporary architecture through a qualitative case analysis of three iconic structures in Baku: the Mirvari Restaurant, Baku Crystal Hall, and Crescent Mall. Despite differing in function and construction period, these buildings were selected for their shared formal characteristics such as shell structures, curvilinear geometries, and parametric design logic and their common placement along the Caspian Sea waterfront, exposing them to similar environmental dynamics. The research investigates how mathematical principles such as parametric geometry, structural optimization, and environmental simulation contribute to the form and performance of these structures. Conducted through literature review, formal-spatial analysis, and contextual interpretation, the study is structured around four key themes: design generation, material efficiency, climatic responsiveness, and cultural symbolism. The findings reveal that mathematics not only ensures technical precision but also enhances aesthetic expression and cultural meaning. This analysis underscores the productive and integrative role of mathematics in shaping functional, sustainable, and evocative architecture in the digital age.

Keywords

• computation
• geometry
• mathematics
• sustainability
• architecture

Çağdaş Mimarlık Uygulamalarında Matematiksel Yaklaşımlar: Bakü Örneği

Abstract

Matematik, mimarlıkta soyut kavramların mekânsal gerçekliklere dönüştürülmesini sağlayan temel bir araç olagelmiştir. Bu çalışma, matematik ile çağdaş mimarlık arasındaki ilişkiyi, Bakü’de yer alan üç ikonik yapı: Mirvari Restoran, Bakü Kristal Salon ve Crescent Alışveriş Merkezi üzerinden nitel bir vaka analizi yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Bu yapılar, farklı işlevsel ve dönemsel özellikler taşımalarına rağmen, ortak biçimsel özellikleri olan kabuk yapı sistemleri, eğrisel geometriler ve parametrik tasarım yaklaşımları sayesinde seçilmiştir. Ayrıca, her biri Hazar Denizi kıyısında konumlanarak benzer çevresel dinamiklere maruz kalmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, parametrik geometri, yapısal optimizasyon ve çevresel simülasyon gibi matematiksel ilkelerin bu yapıların form ve performansında nasıl rol oynadığı araştırılmıştır. Literatür taraması, biçimsel-mekânsal analiz ve bağlamsal yorumlama yoluyla yürütülen çalışma, tasarım üretimi, malzeme verimliliği, iklimsel duyarlılık ve kültürel simgesellik olmak üzere dört ana tema etrafında yapılandırılmıştır. Bulgular, matematiğin yalnızca teknik doğruluk sağlamadığını, aynı zamanda estetik ifade ve kültürel anlamı da güçlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Seçilen örnekler üzerinden yapılan bu analiz, dijital çağda işlevsel, sürdürülebilir ve etkileyici mimarlığın inşasında matematiğin üretken ve bütünleştirici bir rol oynadığını vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• geometri
• hesaplama
• matematik
• sürdürülebilirlik
• mimarlık

References

1. ArchDaily. (2022, March 2). The Biophilic Response to Wood: Can it Promote the Well-Being of Building Occupants? ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/974790/the-biophilic-response-to-wood-can-it-promote-the-wellbeing-of-building-occupants
2. AREP. (2018). Lorient Multimodal hub: A Wooden Showcase for Mobility in Brittany. AREP Architecture.
3. Bakar, E. S., Othman, N., & Roslan, A. H. (2019). Sustainable Wood Construction: A Review of Cross-Laminated Timber and Biophilic Architecture. Journal of Timber Research, 45(3), 210-220.
4. Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of Biophilic City Planning & Design. Island Press.
5. Brown, R. J. (2019). Technological Advancements in Timber: The Rise of Wooden Skyscrapers. Architecture Journal, 22(3), 45-53.
6. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design: Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
7. Burnard, M. D., & Kutnar, A. (2015). Wood and Human Stress in the Built İndoor Environment: A Review. Wood Science and Technology, 49(5), 969-986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-015-0747-3
8. Chang, C. Y., & Chen, P. K. (2020). Human Responses to Window Views and İndoor Plants in the Workplace: Biophilic Design in Action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(1), 35-43.

9. Chen, F., Bao, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Biophilic Design and Energy Performance: A Case Study on Tamedia Office Building. Energy and Buildings, 185, 181-192.
10. Coutts, A. M., Tapper, N. J., Beringer, J., Loughnan, M., & Demuzere, M. (2021). The İmpact of Green Spaces on Heat Stress Reduction and Well-Being: A Biophilic Design Approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127253.
11. Depledge, M. H. (2015). Healing Environments: The Role of Wood in Hospitals and Healthcare Settings. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 25(2), 151-162.
12. Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2019). Primary Energy İmplications of End-of-Life Management of Wood-Based Building Materials. Energy and Buildings, 43(7), 1928-1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.015
13. Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2020). Building Green: Biophilic Design and Health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 134-143.
14. Fell, D. R. (2010). Wood in the Human Environment: Restorative Properties of Wood in the Built İndoor Environment. University of British Columbia.
15. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Optimal Books.
16. Gilani, S., Carter, M. A., & Green, M. (2021). Mass Timber in Tall Buildings: Cross-laminated Timber and its İmpact on Biophilic Design. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 27(2), 04021005.
17. Gregory, M. D., & Andrews, A. (2020). Biophilic Architecture: Trends in Urban Sustainability. Green Building Reports, 36(4), 79-89.
18. Hansen, V., & Berker, T. (2016). Wood Use in Norwegian Homes: The Role of Materiality in Everyday Practices. Building Research & Information, 44(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1085266
19. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2021). Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 199-213.
20. Hollweg, K. S., & Palmer, J. (2017). Biophilic Design and Well-Being in the Built Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 074001.
21. Jimenez, P., Smith, M., & Robinson, J. (2018). The İnfluence of Biophilic Design on Wood Material Choice in Modern Architecture. Journal of Sustainable Building Design, 12(3), 46-60.
22. Karacabeyli, E., & Gagnon, S. (2014). CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber. FPInnovations.
23. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
24. Kellert, S. R. (2015). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley.
25. Kellert, S. R., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green LLC. https://www.biophilic-design.com
26. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (2008). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley.
27. Kim, J., Lim, Y. W., & Kim, J. T. (2019). Impact of Biophilic Design Elements on Occupants’ Psychological Health in Office Buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 28(9), 1124-1135.
28. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and Crime in the İnner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
29. Lindström, K. (2021). The İmpact of Wood in Healthcare Environments: A Biophilic Perspective. Journal of Healthcare Design, 45(1), 74-85.
30. Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2015). Cross-Laminated Timber: Status and Research Needs in Europe. BioResources, 10(3), 6247-6267.
31. Markus, A. (2018). Timber Construction: A Sustainable Future for Urban Architecture. Building & Environment Journal, 54(3), 112-119.
32. McGee, C., Frank, S., & Huang, Y. (2020). Wooden Materials and Biophilic Design in Workspaces. Journal of Sustainable Architecture, 34(2), 29-39.
33. Mehta, V. (2011). The street: A Quintessential Social Public Space. Routledge.
34. Rakhee, B. (2021). The Psychological İmpact of Natural Materials in Built Environments: A Focus on wood. Journal of Environmental Science, 47(6), 203-215.
35. Rahim, A. A., Iqbal, S. A., & Sharif, R. A. (2021). The Role of Wood in Enhancing LEED and BREEAM Certification. International Journal of Green Building, 16(2), 91-101.
36. Robertson, A. B., Lam, F. C., & Cole, R. J. (2020). Wood’s Potential to Enhance Building Sustainability: A Review of Biophilic Design and Energy Performance. Journal of Building Physics, 43(3), 251-268.
37. Ryan, C. O., & Browning, W. D. (2014). Biophilic Design Patterns: Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment. Journal of Sustainable Design, 8(4), 16-23.
38. Schiavon, S., & Altomonte, S. (2014). Influence of Wood on Indoor Comfort and Stress Levels.
39. Schweizer, D., & Goetzke, F. (2017). Biophilic Urban Design and the Future of Sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 103-112.
40. Song, J., Chen, C., & Zhang, X. (2017). The Role of CLT in Modern Wooden Building Construction: A Review. Wood Science and Technology, 51(1), 1305-1321.
41. Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y., & Sato, H. (2010). Physiological Effects in Humans İnduced by the Visual Stimulation of Room İnteriors with Different Wood Quantities. Journal of Wood Science, 56(6), 494-499.
42. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View Through a Window May İnfluence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
43. Watchman, M., Potvin, A. and Demers, C. M. (2016) Wood and Comfort: A Comparative Case Study of Two Multifunctional Rooms. BioResources,12(1), 168–182.
44. Wells, N. M. (2019). Green Buildings and Health: Biophilic Design’s İmpact on Occupants. Journal of Environmental Health, 81(8), 8-12.
45. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
46. Zellweger, M., Ban, S., & Huber, N. (2020). Timber in Modern Office Building Designs: A Case Study of the Tamedia Office Building. Architectural Science Review, 63(4), 295-306.