Designing the Campus Settlement: A Studio Challenge

Designing the Campus Settlement: A Studio Challenge Sedef Ozcelik, Cahide Aydın İpekçi, Tarhan Arıkan Abstract- The Cayirova Campus Settlement of Gebze Institute of Technology (GYTE) consists of three main areas where their connections are mostly isolated: (i) the area including administrative buildings and the school of architecture (ii) the area located between the railway and the sea-shore, (iii) the area where the buildings left from the Seed Certification Institute. The second year Architectural Design Studio has searched for proposals in order to build relations using the potentials of those areas such as railway/highway connections, the creek, the wood and sea-shore. There is evidence that the number of students using the campus is growing due to the increases in the acceptance of students in the recent years; and facilities are not adequate for the increasing demands. The absence/inadequacy of these facilities such as central library, dormitories and other accommodation, gathering spaces, student centre, arts & exhibition centre; lead to abundance impression when the common working hours in the campus end. This work aims to present the proposals of students who took part in this design studio. The study is conducted during the 2009-2010 Spring Semester for 14 weeks. Two tutors, one assistant tutor and 10 students attended to the studies. The project topic is presented by informing students about the integration of three main parts of the campus. Then the students are asked to develop proposals within two phases preceding each other. In the first phase, macro-scaled analysis for the particular areas of the campus is focused. The programs of proposals are formatted due to the other campus examples and students’ own living experiences. Therefore, the program was not fixed and dictated, but was flexible and open to findings by the students. Students focused on integration of the neighbourhoods surrounding the campus as well as those three main parts. Different approaches were used in order to make use of the potentials of the areas; such as transportation, water element, hierarchy of greenery, user profiles, usage periods and characters of public spaces. As the first phase ended, the students were asked to focus on one particular facility within their proposal. The second phase focused on micro-scaled design and architectural approach. For the proposals of selected facilities; accessibility and sustainability were the main focus in order to create solutions. In both phases; plan, section and facade proposals; as well as the 3D visualisations-modelling and models were used in order to develop the concept. In addition, short animations and weekly sketch exercises were made. The focused facilities are: ‘School of Architecture’, ‘Central Library’, ‘Dormitory’, ‘Public Space’, ‘Student Centre’, ‘Auditorium’, ‘Water-sports Centre’, ‘Day-care Centre’, and ‘Railway Station’. Process-based, reflection-in-action teaching approach is adopted as a pedagogical model where students are the focus of Design Studio experience. The borders of the design area are left flexible and the arrangements within the neighbourhood of the campus are included. By this approach, the integrations of the campus facilities in the neighbourhood are enabled. The outcomes of the urban analysis conducted by the students are used; therefore the design studio is formed as an open-ended creative platform. Keywords- Design studio, campus settlement project, design teaching approaches, pedagogical models Introduction In this paper reflection-in-action approach in the design studio is reviewed in order to constitute the basis of the paths taken to teach architectural design at GYTE in the 2009-2010 Spring semester. The integration of three segregated parts of the GYTE Cayirova Campus is focused. The duration of the semester (14 weeks) is merely divided into two phases in which the scales are identified. In the first phase the analysis are acquired in order to determine the basic necessities of the campus and to design organisation schemas in the macro scale. The second phase is developed due to the outcomes of the first phase; focusing on architectural design of one particular function in the micro scale. Enhancing students’ awareness of culture, ecological and social environments, and larger social fabric, as well as developing social conscience is considered (La Harpe et al., 2009). Then the outcomes of both phases are analysed and categorized to present the diversity in creativity that a flexible approach offers students in the architectural design education. This study aims to present the findings and proposals of the students who took part in this particular work with respect to process-focused design teaching model. The outcomes of the studio experience are analysed in the frame of pedagogical approaches. Research may continue further as other studio practises are examined in the same manner by using design teaching methods. Pedagogical background The design of design studio teaching has been studied in order to develop design skills of students and the objectives of design teaching have evolved regarding the creative approach of architectural formation; as Goldschmidt explains, creativity is not a notion which can be taught, but it can be identified and encouraged (2003). The reflection-in-action process is coherent to the objectives of studio teaching. Dewey first used the term reflection and defined it as ‘an active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge’ (1933). Later, Schön described the concept as an innate elaborated by the already possessed (1987). The design studio context can be considered as ‘a conversation with the materials of a situation’ where the student is guided by the tutor in the process for ‘the construction of the problem, the strategies of the action, or the model of the phenomena’ (Schön, 1983). Therefore, the design studio is the fundamental basis of the architectural education in order to produce an interactive environment. Learning in architectural studio is developed through phases: problem identification, sketching, solution development, result analysis, and presenting a final project to be critically assessed (Madrazo et al., 2010). Also, the design studio aims to acquire cognitive and technical skills as creative/complex/analytical/abstract thinking, synthesis, exploration, innovation, conceptualisation, integration, perception, drawing, deconstructing, reinventing and criticising (La Harpe et al., 2009). Critical thinking in the design studio is an essential aspect of discovering forms, strategies and techniques leading to a critical attitude towards craft (Gore, 2004). By critiques instructors cover variety of issues within a particular design question relevant to the project (Goldschmidt, 2003). Matching with this statement; Çağlar & Uludağ suggest that studio brings about ‘conscientious debates’ on architectural design education focusing on extremely complicated sets of issues (Çağlar & Uludağ, 2006). The challenge Three areas of GYTE Cayirova Campus Settlement are segregated by boundaries such as railway, the creek, the wood and by extend campus region; approximately 364 acres (1 453 070 m2). The second year architectural design studio explored to generate integrations between them; keeping in mind that the boundaries also offer potentials as; transportation access and natural elements (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Current settlement of the GYTE Cayirova Campus GYTE is founded in 1992; one of the two ‘state-research-institutes’ in Turkey for only graduate degrees. Since 2000’s the institute has undertaken bachelor degrees, while the institute is extended by other faculties. The population on campus has been growing; current data shows, there are 926 undergraduate students, 1275 graduate students, 388 academic staff and 236 staff; a total of 2825 people are on the campus. Therefore, the limited facilities struggle to serve for demands of the increasing population. The inadequacy of some facilities causes limitations of life of the campus. The users tend to leave the campus in order to fulfil such needs, which lead to abundance impression after daily working periods on campus. In addition, the connections are poor within; (i) the area where administrative buildings and the school of architecture is situated (ii) the region between the railway and the sea-shore (iii) the north-eastern part of the campus near the wood and the creek. Design for learning in the architectural studio The design studio is conducted with two tutors, one assistant tutor and 10 students. The topic is presented to develop proposals within two phases preceding each other. Coherent to Marx, the main responsibility of design studio is the creation of content (2000); in the first phase, students focused on analysis and macro-scaled strategies. Each student constituted a program; with respect to his/her own living experiences on Campus. In addition, the borders of the project area are left flexible regarding the integrations between the campus facilities and neighbourhood. Also the design problem was open-ended demanding for creative perceptions; Chadwick defines flexible architectural education as a not-specifically prescribed program (2004). So, certain skills are not forcefully reproduced and architectural pedagogy is an ‘ongoing, daily, lifelong experience leading to architectural maturity’ (Jackson, 1999; Hickman 2001; Bothwell et. al., 2004). After first phase, particular facilities are focused for micro-scaled design regarding the product; as Ehmann defined as the creative outcome (2005). The program is also open-ended and suggests a solution for issues students choose to respond; that Habraken (1987) describes as a ‘bounded area’ (Goldschmidt, 1989). Goldschmidt & Weil describes this teaching approach to be fascinating, and potentially creative, or at least innovative (1998; Gharati, 2006; Petry, 2004). Phase 1: Macro scale The first phase is enhanced by analysis of region and forming strategies. As ‘conceptual paradigm’ defines the design process to be crucial than the final products in the studio learning experience (Fernando, 2006), other literature supports the process-centred studio approach for the integration of both conceptual and practical thinking (Demirbaş & Demirkan, 2007; Ozturk & Turkkan, 2006; Ellmers, 2006; Koch et al., 2002; Lawson, 2003; Ulusoy, 1999). The Cayirova Campus analysed as on the south-eastern periphery of Istanbul; in the border of Kocaeli. It is one of the main industrial cities of Turkey, on the major transportation junctions. North-eastern border is a very busy highway; E-5 connecting Anatolia and Europe. The railway passes through the campus, dividing the land in the east-west directions. There are two train stations, one on the east border, where the main entrance gate is located; the other one on the west, a less busy station (Fig. 2). Students mostly defined the design problem on the basis of transportation. Other examined elements such as water, hierarchy of greenery and public spaces complemented this basic question. Fig. 2 Current settlement; location of buildings, types of greenery, connection paths Water element There are two proposals focusing on the water elements. First proposal determined the water congestion areas. The idea derived from the major flood took place on the campus during the semester that this design studio continued. The strategy was to leave the control of land to nature. Therefore, the areas suitable for congestion were turned into a lake, some facilities of the campus were scattered on the small islands, connected by bridges (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 Water element: Proposal regarding the congestion areas on the campus The second proposal concerning the water element focused on the connectivity feature. It basically suggested widening the creek and opening water canals circulating around the campus. The campus is conceived to be a natural park as well as a technology institute (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 Water element: Proposal developed by enlarging the creek Hierarchy of greenery One proposal categorised the characteristics of greenery and named it ‘hierarchy of greenery’ since there are different types of green parts on campus. On the northern side, there is a thick wood of pine trees; while the southern part is mostly vast green fields. Also, the creek is isolated from these natural potentials. Strategy was to form a re-creative area on both sides of the creek which would integrate different social profiles both with the campus (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 Greenery categorisations: The wood, field and re-created areas Public spaces Analysis presented the lacking of public spaces on campus. User profiles, usage periods and connection between the industrial area in north and residential parts in south through campus were the main indicators. Three junctions are suggested, one on the each segregated area. In the middle of them would be a triangular large public space; each corner with a different character. Northern corner is regarded as an attraction area with entertainment facilities, eastern corner as a formal academic gathering space since administration buildings are situated around and southern corner as a re-creative area due to the dormitories suggested at that part (Fig. 6). Fig. 6 Public spaces: Concept of gathering Phase 2: Micro scale In the second phase every student focused on different facilities such as: School of Architecture, Central Library, Dormitory, Gathering Space, Auditorium, Water-Sports Centre, Day-care Centre and Railway Station. The designs are developed as plan, section and facade proposals; as well as 3D models. Short animation films are made in addition to weekly sketch exercises in order to develop the concepts. Dormitory Dormitory facility is a lacking on the campus. Due to the macro-scaled strategy presenting the effective usage of bicycle by alternative paths on such an extended area, the student worked on a dormitory design enabling access of bicycles; also an entertainment point for cyclers on the roof (Fig. 7). Fig. 7 Proposal: Dormitory on the bicycle path School of architecture Another proposal focused on school of architecture. The main idea was to abolish automobiles on campus so a circulation route is formed whose upper floors turned into different facilities. The program of the architecture school is constituted due the current needs of our faculty (Fig. 8). Fig. 8 Proposal: School of architecture Auditorium Due to another proposal, zoning is made in the macro-scale. The relevant functions are located close to each other and an organic settlement is put forward. Auditorium design is developed in the same character (Fig. 9). Fig. 9 Proposal: Auditorium Train station This proposal searches for passageways and a transportation point situated on the north-south and east-west intersection of the campus. The design consists of a complicated organisation of tubes between two sides of the railway (Fig. 10). Fig. 10 Proposal: Railway station proposal Conclusion Outcomes of flexible architectural study conducted by the students in 2009-2010 Spring Design Studio experience are presented in this paper; regarding the studio to be a creative and experimental platform. This reflection-in-action method provided students a wide spectrum of pertinent disciplines, allowing them to open a number of doors to different aspects of architecture to begin developing their potential. Correlation between individual creative thinking and design assignment performance is focused during the teaching process. The ability to obtain resources related to architectural design and to acquire skills about basic design principles on regional formative factors are focused. The human and natural environment relations and cultural variety are edited. The responsibility of architect about analysing owners and users’ needs, due to the architect’s leading role is conveyed within the two main phases of the teaching process. The necessities of a campus are studied and outcomes of the first phase are reflected as the sources of the second phase. Architectural designs of various facilities are formed due to the programs based on students’ own experiences such as School of Architecture, Central Library, Dormitory, Gathering Space, Auditorium, Water-Sports Centre, Day-care Centre and Railway Station. Further design studio work can be made in order to implement the major necessities of the campus; integrated with the outcomes gathered in this particular studio experience and responds of students can be assessed on this bases. References Bothwell S. E., Duany A. M., Hetzel P. J., Hurtt S. W. & Thadani D. A., (2004), Toward an ideal curriculum to reform architectural education, New Urban Press, Coral Gables, Florida, “Windsor forum on design education: toward an ideal curriculum to reform architectural education”, Vero Beach, Florida, April 12-14, 2002 Chadwick M., (2004), Back to school: architectural education – the information and the argument, Architectural Design, 74(5) De La Harpe B., Peterson F., Frankham N., Zehner R., Forsyth G., Musgrave E. & McDermott R., (2009), Assesment focus in studio: what is most prominent in architecture, art and design?, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 28(1): 37-51 Ehmann D., (2005), Using assessment to engage graphic design students in their learning experience, 2005 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Proceeding, 30 November-1 December, Sydney Fernando N. A., (2006), Design as exploration: an alternative model, Open House International, 31 (3): 10-16 Ferry N. M. & Ross-Gordon J. M., (1998), An inquiry into Schon’s epistemology of practice: exploring links between experience and reflective practice, Adult Education Quarterly, 48(2): 98-112 Gharati, K. M., (2006), A new view on architectural design studio; comprehensive studio, Changing Trends in Architectural design Studio, CSAAR 2006 Conference, Proceeding, National School of Architecture, Rabat, Morocco, 14-16 November Goldschmidt G., (2003), Expert knowledge or creative spark? Predicaments in design education, Expertise in Design, Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Proceeding, 17-18 December, Sydney Hickman R., (2001), Art rooms and art teaching, Art Education, 54(1): 6-11 Jackson T. A., (1999), Ontological shifts in the studio art education: emergent pedagogical models, Art Journal, 58(1): 68-73 Madrazo L., Riddy P., Botturi L. & Joklova V., (2010), Designing for blended learning: the OIKODOMOS experience, INTED2010 Proceedings, pp. 665-676 Marx J., (2000), A proposal for alternative methods for teaching digital design, Automation in Construction, 9(1): 19-35 Ozturk M. N. & Turkkan E. E., (2006), The design studio as teaching/learning medium – a process-based approach, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(1): 96-104 Petry E., (2004), Work in progress-education and practice: assessment for architecture education, 34th ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Proceeding, 20-23 October, Savannah, GA Schön D., (1983), The reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Sedef Özçelik Research Assistant / Architectural Design GEBZE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE Cayirova, Gebze  41400 / KOCAELI E-mail: [email protected] Office: +90 262 605 16 36 Cahide Aydin Ipekçi PhD Tutor / Building Sciences GEBZE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE Cayirova, Gebze  41400 / KOCAELI E-mail: [email protected] Office: +90 262 605 16 27 Tarhan Arikan MArch Tutor Acibadem Cad. Liseyolu Sok. No: 20/36 Acibadem 34718 / ISTANBUL E-mail: [email protected] Mobile: +90 537 307 88 67