Mimari tasarım kriterlerinin değişkenliği :P/A ödül programı

Abstract

Bu çalışma ile bir mimari proje yarışması (P/A Awards Program) jürisinin değerlendirmelerinde^ kriterleri araştırmak sureti ile mimari tasarım kriterlerine ulaşmak hedeflenmiştir. Çalışma dört ana bölümden oluşmaktadır: T. BÖLÜM' de : 'Mimari tasarım' in tanımı yapılmış, bir problem çözme süreci olarak sorunlarına değinilmiş, mimari tasarım probleminin ana bileşenlerinden sözedilmiş ve de çalışmanın amacı açıklanmıştır. 2. BÖLÜM' de : Değerlendirmenin tanımlaması yapılmış ve de Eleştiride nesnellik, öznellik ve ölçüt kavramları üzerinde durulmuştur. Değerlendirmenin üç aşamada gerçekleştirildiği belirtilmiştir. Bunlar; 1. Değer kriterlerinin saptanması 2. Değer kriterlerinin ağırlıklarının saptanması 3. Bunlara göre tüm sistemin değerinin saptanmasıdır. Ardından tezin ana ilgi alanı olan değerlendirmenin (yukarıda adı geçen) ilk iki aşamasının -kriterlerin saptanması ve bunların ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi- çalışmasında neden yarışma projelerinin ve neden P/A (Progressive Architecture) Awards Programın tercih edildiği açıklanmıştır. 3. BÖLÜM : Değerlendirmenin ilk iki aşaması olan değer kriterlerinin saptanması ve önem sıralarının belirlenmesi çabasına yönelik işlemlerin ve bunların genel yorumlarının yeraldığı bölümdür. 36 yıl boyunca aralıksız süregelen 'P/A Awards Program' in özelliklerinden kısaca bahsedildikten sonra beşer yıl ara ile incelenen 7 senesinin (1961, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991) jüri değerlendirmelerinden faydalanılarak öncelikle her senenin kriterleri saptanmış, ardından da yine her yıl için tek tek bu kriterlerin önem sıralarının tespitine çalışılmıştır. Daha sonra bu yılların tümünün kriterlerinin genel bir kıyaslaması yapılmış ve bu yıllar boyunca kriterlerde ve ağırlıklarında gözlenen gelişme ve dalgalanmalar bulunmaya çalışılmıştır. A. BÖLUM : Tezin sonuçlarını içermektedir.

In the broadest sense the meaning of the term of "design" is defined as to create an object which is not seen or known before this process occured. In the light of this defination the "architectural design" is considered as the creation of the best physical environment in certain conditions of possibilities and restrictions to meet a certain set of needs of a certain user. In other words architectural design is to find the best solution from the group of solutions which are solved within the given limits of constraints and possibilities. Designing is process of problem solving. To be able to come to a solution, the qualities of the solution must be determined. Briefly, the criteria must be openly put forward. In some problems when the aim is objective and the solution is single, like -mathematical problems- this can be very easy. Although problems in architectural design are ill defined problems. When the problems are ill defined, the aim is abstract and can change from person to person. In this care personal value systems and personal design criteria are concerned and problem solving is to find a solution which meets most of the common variables. In architecture there is another problem and that is, being that there are a big group of individuals which have different expectations from the design there can be numerous variables and these variables in some cases can even produce different solutions in opposition. "For instance using some symbolic lements on the facade of the building can increase the price of the building". In this condition not only to determine the criteria but also to sequence them is necessary. If the criteria can be sequenced then it will be possible to obtain a solution which meets the most of the most important variables by defining "the first approprite solution". Being that the architectural design problem has much more than one variable, to be able to tackle the problem those variables must be classified, grouped and the main structure of the problem must be defined. For this method the architectural design problem' s elements can be clustered as follows :. Symbolic and Aestetic Values: Accepted values and judgements related with fine arts and values related with the form of the building and its expressions. . Functional Values: The appropriateness of the building in relation with its program its layout ' s relation pattern and the objective values.. Structural and Technical Values: It is related with scientific and technological developments. Construction techniques, materials used and the construction program is the basic elements of this value. After this classification it is important to consider the building as a whole, and a complex system. It must contain the appropriate form that will meet the given program, the structure which will carry the designed building form, and appropriate materials and building techniques for this purpose, and it must also meet aesthetic and meaning demands of the society. Assessment means to settle or determine the amount of something. The person that does the assessment is a third party which will intrude between the creator and the created building, he sometimes explains, sometimes classifies, sometimes judges and sometimes make comparisons. In some cases the creator or designer when designing can interfere in the creation process. In this case assessment can be divided into two : 1. Assessment of the design process 2. Assessment of the design product In the both cases the assessment criteria must be defined before the design process. The criteria in the two areas of assessment are not very different. Only there usage will change. In the first assessment with the help of the criteria it will be possible to choose the appropriate solution from the group of design alternatives, in the other case the design product will be assessed with some or all these criteria. When the design product is to be assessed, the critique' s can be divided in two groups: 1. Critique1 s who do not belong to the profession 2. Professional architects or engineers who are the design team or who are out of the design team The designer is responsible of meeting the requirements and protecting the rights of the users, local goverment owner other people use that same environment and future generations, and while realizing this he will also combine his personal values and design ability for an optimum solution. The main problem is to decide what are the weights of the criteria. VI As pointed out above being that the constraints and their relations are numerous, and also that some criteria can give way to solutions in opposition, this makes the architect more selective. Directly or indirectly related all design parameters of a design problem can not be used in the problem. Therefore in the assessment of a design it is not enough to define the criteria but also their weights of importance as must also be defined. In this case the process of assessments can be simulated certain sieves with different grains. The first sieve is the most important criteria and the design solution which pass through this one are the ones which meet the most important criterion. This process can go on until the last sieve. And the solution or solutions which pass all sieves is/are the best grains. Although we must consider that there are very many sieves or assessment criteria in architecture, it is not possible for an architectural design to pass all of them. Consequently the assessment of an architectural design will pass three phases: 1. The definition of design criteria 2. The definition of their weights 3. The assessment of the architectural design Within this system if the first two steps are designed accurately the last step will be successful. The aim of the thesis is to define the first two steps. It is possible to divide architectural assessment as objective and subjective. In subjective assessments there is no fear of failing and there is no need to prove it. Being that it is based on persons world wiew, passions, bliefs, etc. Objectif assessment is related with the measurable values of a certain thing. In architecture, objectivity is used for common values which can not be measured but which are related with the society. A persons objectivity is something which is not related with personal values but which are related with the society and which are argued to find out the reasons. Therefore a subjective or objective assessment does not only rely on the way the assessment is made, but the values subjectivity or objectivity is also an important factor. When assessment is done by objective criteria it is much more valuable when its publicity is concerned. Objectivity means reliability, honestyforthe society. Because of that most critiques try to do their assessments based on objective criteria. And because of the same reason philosophers of arts, try to rely on unchangable rules or values of art and objective criteria But it is not easy to explain art with objective values. Even in positive sciences which try to understand the universe and the natural forces, it is not possible to be all together objective and certain judgements related with subjective values are also included. Therefore, it is not right to think that architecture which lies between science and art, which is related with the community and which contains personal values can not have a subjective character. VII Consequently, if an objective assessment method is to be used in assessing an architectural design, this method can help the design to develop, but will not be enough to find the right solution. It is important to consider the subjective values valuable and necessary especially if art is concerned. If only objective values are used in the solutions of architecture, this will give way to non creative, stereotyped solutions. An accurately regulated subjectivity can bring a new dimension in architecture, and can help to obtain new developments in the architectural design, by creative solutions. If we consider architecture as partly art, then it' s assessment must also have subjective values. The important thing is to find the optimum of the objective and subjective ingredients. There are two institutions who must do honest and objective assessments. The educational institutions and the juries of competitions have to be just when assessing architecture designs. Because they do not only argue but also come to a conclusion or a judgement about the work of architecture. If a critique critisizes an architectural design, this will not harm the design or the designer. On the other hand the two institutions quoted above have the power to apply their judgements. They are like a judge in the court. The judge will with his decision sentence a person as guilty or not guilty. And the jury of a competition or an educator will decide about a design as successful! or not successful!. Because of this, when assessing an architectural design project the decision maker which has a role as a judge and has similar responsibilities will try to minimize his feelings and individual values and decide with more objective criteria or at least try to apply his subjective values equally to each project (to use subjective criteria in an objective way). It is much easier to do this in competitions as a jury. The design tutor can fail to judge objectively about a design project of his student which he had close relations for a tang period. Additionally the person who will judge about the students project will also have to judge himself. Because he is also educator. And it is very difficult to judge oneself in an objective way. This case is not valid in competitions. Professional competition juries are the most objective groups of people who can assess architectural design projects, being that there is more than one person in the jury which have different backgrounds, personalities and therefore different feelings passions, thoughts and trends, which can balance each other. There is always a danger in selection of jury members. If the organizer of the competition has certain subjective judgements, his selection can be biased. The selected members shoul be people who have a personality who can respect the values of other people. Because one of the most important goals of the competitions are to open new views and go beyond the status quo in architectural design. Architectural competitions are one of the best "milieu" s for new ideas to flourish. VIII To be able to define architectural design assessment criteria and their sequences of importance which is the aim of this thesis, a professional competition' s ( P/A Awards Program ) jury assessments and judgements were studied and the design criteria and the changing weights of these criteria in 30 years were studied by analysing the competitions of the years of 1961.1 966, 1 971, 1 976, 1 981, 1 986, 1 991. The weights of the criteria were determined by two different methods. The first one is the frequency of the criteria used for the total awarded projects. In the second method the criteria which were used positively were considered and they had different weights for different prizes. If the criterion was used in the first award, it had a weight of 3 points, if used in one of the awards it had a weight of 2 points and if it was used in a mention then it weighed only 1 point. When the P/A Awards were studied, first the criteria were sequenced for every year and then the total was found for thirty years. The criteria were ranked in three different groups : 1.Criteria related with form, function and construction were sequenced separately 2.Criteria related with form, function and construction were sequenced all together 3.These three different groups were sequenced in an order of their importance By defining the criteria the results below were found :. In this research 53 criteria 30 which were related to form, 13 to function, 10 to construction were defined.. The most important criterion in the FORM group was sensitivity of the idea although it was less spoken than the criterion simplicity of design. In the FUNCTION group the most important criterion was success in problem solving. In the CONSTRUCTION group although being less spoken than cost, detailing and new structures was the most important criteria. When the different years were compared, and the total values of all years were considered, success in problem solving held the first place, second was sensitivity of the idea and third was simplicity ? of design- » The list of criteria which were determined by founding total points are listed below : IX Frequency of The Criterion Spoken: 1. Success in problem solving (34) 2. Simplicity of design (30) 3. Sensitivity of the idea (29) A. Space organization-plan (23) 5. Respect to the context (20) 6. Scale (19) Originality (19) 7. The pleasantness of the building' s aesthetic (1 7) 8. Clarity of the concept (1 5) 9. Sensation of professionalism (1 3) 1 0. Being avantgarde (1 2) Creating attractive spaces (1 2) 1 1. Respect to the nature (1 0) 12. Feasibility (9) 1 3. Continuity of interior spaces & orientation (8) The light and air conditions (8) 1 A. Improvement of resource (7) Well designed elevations (7) Cost control (7) 1 5. Symbolism (6) Imaginative solution (6) 1 6. Respect to the human values (5) Giving possibilities (5) Detailing (5) The selection of materials (5) 1 7. Brave idea {A) Proportions {A) Presentation of drawings [A) Integration of the building elements (A) ClarHyoftheplanf'l) 18. Integration of form/function (3) Pattern of building (3) Success of using colors (3) Full information in presentation (3) Flexibility in planning (3) New structures (3) Clarity of structural idea (3) 1 9. Open ended design (2) Success on third dimention (2) Typological expression (2) Site planning (2) Landscape design (2) Successful organisation of various functions (2) 20. Integration of form and structure (1) Relations of contrasting elements (1) Use of space (1) Care of functions (1) Skill of using materials (1) Sensitivity of the structural idea (1) Simplicity of the structure (1) Use of new technologies (1) Well used technology (1) X The Place Where The Criteria were Used Positively 1. Success in problem solving (AS) 2. Sensitivity of the idea (41) 3. Simplicity of design (34) 4. Space organization-plan (29) 5. Respect to the context (26) 6. Scale (21) 7. The pleasantness of the building' s aesthetic (20) 8. Originality (19) 9. Clarity of the concept (1 8) 1 0. Being avantgarde (1 5) 1 1. Sensation of professionalism (1 A) 1 2. Creating attractive spaces (1 3) Respect to the nature (1 3) 1 3. Continuity of interior spaces & orientation (1 0) Improvement of resource (1 0) 1 A. Feasibility (9) The light and air conditions (9) 1 5. Symbolism (B) 1 6. Imaginative solution (7) Respect to the human values (7) 1 7. Detailing (6) New structures (6) 1 8. Well designed elevations (5) Cost control (5) The selection of materials (5) Brave idea (5) Proportions (5) Flexibility in planning (5) Clarity of structural idea (5) 19. Clarity of the plan {A) Integration of form/function (A) 20. Giving possibilities (3) Presentation of drawings (3) Site planning (3) Successful organisation of various functions (3) 21. Pattern of building (2). Open ended design (2) Landscape design (2) Integration of form and structure (2) Sensitivity of the structural idea (2) 22. Integration of the building elements (1) Success on third dimention (1) Relations of contrasting elements (1) Use of space (1) Simplicity of the structure (1) Well used technology (1) 23. Success of using colors (0) Full information in presentation (0) Typological expression (0) Care of functions (0) Skill of using materials (0) Use of new technologies (0) XI . When percentages of the main group's form, function and construction were compared the below order was defined : Frequency of The Criterion Spoken: LForm (% 67.26) 2. Function (% 25.38) 3. Construction (%7.36) The Place Where The Criteria were Used Positively: LForm (% 65.43) 2. Function (%27.13) 3. Construction ( % 1AA ). When the changing weights of criteria were examined in the period of 30 years the following were to be determined : In architecture the parameters are numerous and the problem can not be defined very clearly. Subjective values always exist therefore the weights of the parameters can change with the changing value judgements. In fact some criteria can exist for a time and then dissappear for certain periods. For instance after 60' s as a rebel against the highly rationalist (hard rationalist) views and their products respect to the context was a criterion used frequently. But the criteria which are the most important which take place on the top of the lists do not loose their importance but they sometimes change places within themselves.. When the competition reports were analysed, it was also seen that there was no systematic assessments done. When the systematic design methods were widely accepted and used in the 70' s the juries did not use numeric ( statistical ) assessment techniques and personal judgements were considered.