From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building

Hasan Doğan

doi:10.30785/mbud.1729840

EN TR

From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building

Abstract

This study examines how tectonic theory can inform the analysis of contemporary architectural practice through the case of the EMU Student Services Building. It develops a framework based on materiality, construction, detail, architectural experience, and the relation between design intention and construction realisation. Using a qualitative interpretive case-study approach, the research draws on drawings, project documents, photographs, on-site observation, and construction-process information. The analysis focuses on structural expression, material articulation, tectonic detail, spatial experience, and the transformation of tectonic intention from proposal to built form. The findings show that tectonic ideas are not transferred directly from theory into practice, but are negotiated through constructional constraints, material substitutions, and implementation decisions, particularly in the shift from the intended steel structure to the realised reinforced concrete system. Rather than treating tectonics as static, the study redefines tectonic expression as a negotiated process shaped by intention, material transformation, constructional limitation, and realised experience.

Keywords

Tectonics, design intention, constructional realisation, materiality, EMU Student Services Building

Ethical Statement

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics committee approval was not required for the study.

Thanks

The draft version of this manuscript was originally submitted as part of the graduate course “ARCH 534: Theory of Tectonics” at the Department of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, during the 2017-2018 Spring semester.

Tektonik Teoriden Mimari Uygulamaya: EMU Öğrenci Hizmetleri Binası

Abstract

Bu çalışma, tektonik kuramın çağdaş mimarlık pratiğinin analizine nasıl katkı sağlayabileceğini EMU Öğrenci Hizmetleri Binası örneği üzerinden incelemektedir. Çalışma; malzeme, yapım, detay, mimari deneyim ve tasarım niyeti ile inşa edilmiş biçim arasındaki ilişkiye dayanan bir çerçeve geliştirir. Nitel yorumlayıcı vaka çalışması yaklaşımıyla yürütülen araştırma; çizimler, proje belgeleri, fotoğraflar, yerinde gözlem ve yapım sürecine ilişkin bilgilerden yararlanır. Analiz; strüktürel ifade, malzeme kullanımı, tektonik detay, mekânsal deneyim ve tektonik niyetin tasarımdan inşa edilmiş yapıya dönüşümüne odaklanır. Bulgular, tektonik fikirlerin kuramdan pratiğe doğrudan aktarılmadığını; yapısal sınırlılıklar, malzeme değişimleri ve uygulama kararları içinde müzakere edildiğini göstermektedir. Bu durum, özellikle tasarlanan çelik strüktürden uygulanan betonarme sisteme geçişte belirgindir. Çalışma, tektoniği statik bir okuma olarak ele almak yerine, tektonik ifadeyi niyet, malzeme dönüşümü, yapısal sınırlılık ve gerçekleşen mimari deneyim tarafından şekillenen müzakereci bir süreç olarak yeniden tanımlar.

Keywords

Tektonik, tasarım niyeti, yapımda gerçekleşme, malzeme, EMU Öğrenci Hizmetleri Binası

References

Akgün, Y., Erkarslan, Ö. E., & Kavuncuoğlu, C. (2022). Tectonics of kinetic architecture: Moving envelope, changing space and the shades of the shed. Front. Built Environ., 8(1), 1-18.
Bachelard, G. (1964a). The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bachelard, G. (1964b). The psychoanalysis of fire (A. C. Ross, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Baklık, D., & Allmer, A. (2016). A critical review of ornament in contemporary architectural theory and practice. ITU A|Z, 13(1), 157-169.
Beim, A. (2013). Tectonic thinking in contemporary industrialized architecture. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 1(2), 85-95.
Beim, A. (2023). Ecologies of tectonics. Technology|Architecture + Design, 7(1), 20-23.
Bötticher, K. G. (1992). The principles of the Hellenic and Germanic ways of building with regard to their application to our present way of building (1852). In J. Bloomfield, K. Forster, & T. Reese (Eds.), What style should we build? The German debate on architectural style (W. Herrmann, Trans., pp. 147–167). Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of the Arts and the Humanities.
Bulfinch, T. (1964). Bulfinch’s mythology. London: Spring Books.
Doğan, H. (2025). Author’s personal archive.
Frampton, K. (1980). Modern architecture: A critical history. London: Thames & Hudson.

Frampton, K. (1990). Rappel à l’ordre: The case for the tectonic. Architectural Design, 60(3–4), 21–32.
Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth century architecture (J. Cava, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gönül, H. (2025). The unacknowledged status of applied ornament in contemporary architecture. VLC arquitectura, 12(1), 9-25.
Herrmann, W. (1984). Gottfried Semper: In search of architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ingold, T. (2010). Bringing things to life: Creative entanglements in a world of materials (NCRM Working Paper Series 05/10). ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
Access Address (20.09.2021): https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2786/
Lakkala, M., & Pihlajaniemi, J. (2021). Tectonics and architectonic quality in recently published Finnish log architecture: Corresponding architects’ perceptions. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 10(4), 741-757.
Mallgrave, H. F. (2005). Modern architectural theory: A historical survey, 1673–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pallasmaa, J. (2000). Hapticity and time: Notes on a fragile architecture. The Architectural Review, 78–84.
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Sayın, T. (2022). Mimari tasarımda cephe kurulumunda geçirgenlik üzerine bir araştırma: Tektonik ve yüzey. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 7(1), 119–131.
Schultz, A.C. (2023). Architectural tectonics in the age of climate crisis, social change and digital fabrication. Technology|Architecture + Design, 7(1), 2-3.
Schwartz, C. J. (2017). A taxonomy of architectural tectonics. Paper presented at the Building Technology Educators’ Society 2017 Conference: Poetics and Pragmatism, Des Moines, Iowa.
Sekler, E. (1965). Structure, construction, tectonics. In G. Kepes (Ed.), Structure in art and science (pp. 89–95). New York: George Braziller.
Semper, G. (1989). The four elements of architecture and other writings (H. F. Mallgrave & W. Herrmann, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semper, G. (2004). Style in the technical and tectonic arts, or, practical aesthetics (H. F. Mallgrave, Trans.). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Yakasim, S. I. (2016). An analysis of the tectonic qualities in the traditional architecture of Kano (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul.
Yüzen, R. K., & Ökem, S. (2025). Krisarion as a conceptual tool for the tectonic inquiry of crisis in architectural epistemology. Buildings, 15(1070), 1-26.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Architectural History, Theory and Criticism, Architecture (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hasan Doğan ^*
0000-0002-9082-3275
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 28, 2026

Submission Date

June 29, 2025

Acceptance Date

May 15, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 11 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1729840

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA48GL68BZ

APA

Doğan, H. (2026). From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 11(1), 197-219. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1729840

AMA

1.Doğan H. From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building. JASA. 2026;11(1):197-219. doi:10.30785/mbud.1729840

Chicago

Doğan, Hasan. 2026. “From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building”. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications 11 (1): 197-219. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1729840.

EndNote

Doğan H (July 1, 2026) From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications 11 1 197–219.

IEEE

[1]H. Doğan, “From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building”, JASA, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 197–219, July 2026, doi: 10.30785/mbud.1729840.

ISNAD

Doğan, Hasan. “From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building”. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications 11/1 (July 1, 2026): 197-219. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1729840.

JAMA

1.Doğan H. From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building. JASA. 2026;11:197–219.

MLA

Doğan, Hasan. “From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building”. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, vol. 11, no. 1, July 2026, pp. 197-19, doi:10.30785/mbud.1729840.

Vancouver

1.Hasan Doğan. From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building. JASA. 2026 Jul. 1;11(1):197-219. doi:10.30785/mbud.1729840

From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building

From Tectonic Theory to Architectural Practice: The EMU Student Services Building

Abstract

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Thanks

Tektonik Teoriden Mimari Uygulamaya: EMU Öğrenci Hizmetleri Binası

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

JASA JOURNAL TAG / MBUD DERGİ KÜNYESİ