We did it. We overcame to first jury. In my opinion, it was a nice jury and I hope we get some good scores from it. So, let’s talk about what we did for this jury.
In previous critics, we were criticized a lot on what we did. So, we were hopeless, and we have only two days before jury. We immediately started to work. First, we went deeper analysis about the site. Where is human density, how the roads coming together, what is the important aspects of the site and so on. After that, we decided what could be the image of the building. We noticed that east side of our site has important conditions such as khans, human densitiy and so but the west side is reserved for residential areas. That’s why we decided that the construction can have a transition condition for site. In order to do this, we suggest some proposals. Such as extroversion, fragmentation and capillarity. We diagrammatize those ideas in various ways. We don’t want to suggest one solution for each condition, that’s why we used variations of one solution. For example, for fragmentation, the idea is coming from the urban fabric of the Gaziantep. We noticed that the site that is given to us has some conditions about urban fabric. East side of the site mostly massive and commercial buildings but the west side is fragmented and residential. So, we said that the building can have a concept of fragmentation. In order to do this, we suggested 3 variations The masses could subtracted from the mass, there could be a gradual fragmentation or the building seems massive from outside but it fragmented from inside.
The main critic that come to us is about working on the programmatic elements in their own sizes. We generally worked on the human density in a program but not square meter of it. So, it is suggested that, it could create some problems in further stages, so we have to look them, too.