Evaluation Criteria of Parasitic Architecture

Abstract

It has been observed in the literature that examples of installations, sculptures or building elements and their annexes are stated as parasitic architectural products. These misinformation also indicate that parasite architecture features are issues that need to be studied and discussed. Research problem is "can the determined features, land use, relocation, originality, flexibility, compatibility with human scale, ease of assembly, sustainability, be used in the questioning of parasitism of a building?"In the study, symbiosis, parasite and parasitic architecture were questioned in the literature. As a result of the concept and case analysis, the properties that will enable the structures to be characterized as parasites have been determined. Within the scope of the research, the parasitism of one hundred structures, which were obtained through literature research and considered as examples of parasitic architecture, were evaluated.Generalizations have been made by trying whether these determined features can be used in the questioning. There are a few main features that distinguish parasitic architecture from other architectural approaches. These features, which were determined as a result of the researches made on the literature and internet resources; are independence from space, relocation, flexibility, size, assembly, sustainability and originality. The most important thing to note here is that all these features follow each other. Each feature allows another feature to exist. In order to talk about the parasitism of a structure, the parasite must provide all these features.The aim of this study is to add descriptive new criterias as well as bringing together the existing ones, in a certain framework in order to define the concept of parasitic architecture by examining a limited number of sources related to parasitism. For this purpose, a significant number of samples found were examined according to the determined parameters by listing their tags and parasitism characteristics separately. As a result, it is determined that there are many installation and infill examples defined as parasites in the literature, although they are not parasites. It is considered that these false acceptances will decrease as number of studies explaining the concept and its examples increase.

Keywords

• Symbiosis
• symbiotic relationship
• parasite
• parasitic architecture
• evaluation criteria

References

1. Myburg, J. (2014). Mesoparasite: A Symbiotic Affair. (Master Thesis). Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland.
2. Kachri, G. (2009). Parasite Ecologies: Extending Space Through Diffusion - Limited Aggregation Models. (Master Thesis). University College London / Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, Londra.
3. McDaniel, C. N. (2008). Strategic Intervention: Parasitic Architecture. (Master Thesis). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
4. Adhienides, D. (2005). Re-inhabiting the Void. (Master Thesis). Pretoria University, Pretoria.
5. Yıldırımer, B. (2016). Parasites on Architecture: An Assessment of Building Additions in Mahmutpasa, Istanbul. Master Thesis. Yeditepe University/ Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, İstanbul.
6. Yıldırım, S. (2013). Urban Parasites: Re-appropriation of Interstitial Spaces in Architecture Through the Act of Graffiti. (Master Thesis). Middle East Technical University/Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara
7. Pit, M., Steller, K., Streng, G. (2017). T02 Essay Parasitic Architecture [PDF Document]. available at: http://www.gerjanstreng.eu/files/T02%20essay%20parasitic%20architecture.pdf. (accessed 3 Jan 2022).
8. Akgün Gültekin, A. ve Birer, E. (2019). Emancipating Urban Interventions/ Kamusal Alanda Özgürleştirici Müdahaleler: Parazit Mekanlar. Kent Akademisi. 12(40), 729-738.

9. Şensoy, G., & Üstün, B. (2018). Traces of the Past Utopias in Contemporary Architecture: Parasitic Architecture.
10. Baroš, T., & Katunský, D. (2020). Parasitic architecture. Selected Scientific Papers-Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(1), 19-28.
11. Yorgancıoğlu, D., Güray, T. (2018). Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Alternatif Yaklaşımlar: Bir Mekân Tasarımı Stratejisi Olarak ‘Parazit Mimari’. Megaron Journal, 13, 144-155.
12. Özen, E. S. (2022). İç Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde İnformel Yaklaşıma Bir Örnek: Parazit Eklemler Çalıştayı. Birimden Bütüne İnterdisipliner Tasarım Yaklaşımları, 52.
13. Šijaković, M., Perić, A. (2018). Symbiotic Architecture: Redefinition of Recycling Desing Principles. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7, 67-79
14. Gürcan, B. (2015). Mutualistic Understanding Of Fill-In Architecture. Architectural Engineering Graduation Studio. AR3AE013 Research Paper. Delft Technical University, Delft.
15. Bilimkurgukulubu. (2020). available at: https://www.bilimkurgukulubu.com/genel/bilimteknoloji/ortak-yasam-simbiyoz-nedir-ve-nasil-evrimlesmistir/ (accessed 3 Jan 2022).
16. Albani, F. L. (2017). New lives for deconsecrated churches. Symbolic values and the identity of places. In Conservation/Adaptation. Keeping alive the spirit of the place. Adaptive re-use of heritage with symbolic values (pp. 11-16). EAAE, European Association for Architectural Education,
17. El-Shorbagy, A. (2020). Parasites: Shaping the Image of the City. Münih: BookRix
18. Ajeel and Hamza. (2019). "Symbiotic Architecture: Symbiotic as a Strategy in the Production of Contemporary Architectural Text". International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET).
19. Zamperini, E., & Lucenti, S. (2015). Symbiotic Architecture for building and urban rehabilitation. Proceedings of REHAB, 1037-1046.
20. Christenson, M. (2014). Comprehensive Parasites. Rethinking Comprehensive Design: Speculative Counterculture. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA, 14, 781–790.
21. Brown, G. (2003). Freedom and Transience of Space (Techno-nomads and Transformers). Robert Kronenburg (Ed.), Transportable Environments 2 (s. 3-13). Londra: Spon.