Arch Go! 建筑实例 建筑图片 建筑文章翻译

建筑师: Emre Arolat Architects


主管建筑师:Gonca Paşolar, Kerem Piker, Deniz Kösemen, Zeki Samer, Serdar Sipahioğlu

设计团队:Gülseren Gerede Tecim, Zeynep Yapar, Nesime Önel, Sezer Bahtiyar, Olcay Özten, Volkan Yağ, Özge Çağlayan, Hale Ikizler, Merve Yüksel, Süleyman Yıldız, Başak Tekin, Nida Pelin Üye, Sevim Uyan, Elif Ekim,Ertuğrul Morçöl, Selahattin Tüysüz


摄影师:Courtesy of Emre Arolat Architects + Ertuğrul Morçöl + Selahattin Tüysüz

建造商:Bahadır İnşaat

结构工程师:İsmet Babus Mühendislik

机械工程师:Detay Mühendislik

电力:Çağ Yapı Mühendislik

景观:Ds Mimarlık

文字来自建筑师。 位于乌卢斯的住宅区占地约80000平方米,由26座大小相同的建筑构成。就这个住宅区的设计来说,有两条信息是必须要了解的。首先,在城市的这一区域,建设条件实际上严格得毫无理由。其次,呈现在我们面前的建筑实体是事先设定好的,其在法律层面错综复杂的审批手续也已齐备,因此,投资方想要保留原有的建筑大框。屈就已有的建筑条件几乎成为决定建筑决策的仅有因素,而且作为一项硬性规定,原有项目中建筑的数量、位置、每座建筑的层数在新设计中必须予以保留。






Architects: Emre Arolat Architects

Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Architect In Charge: Gonca Paşolar, Kerem Piker, Deniz Kösemen, Zeki Samer, Serdar Sipahioğlu

Design Team: Gülseren Gerede Tecim, Zeynep Yapar, Nesime Önel, Sezer Bahtiyar, Olcay Özten, Volkan Yağ, Özge Çağlayan, Hale Ikizler, Merve Yüksel, Süleyman Yıldız, Başak Tekin, Nida Pelin Üye, Sevim Uyan, Elif Ekim,Ertuğrul Morçöl, Selahattin Tüysüz

Year: 2013

Photographs: Courtesy of Emre Arolat Architects + Ertuğrul Morçöl + Selahattin Tüysüz

Constructor: Bahadır İnşaat

Structural Project: İsmet Babus Mühendislik

Mechanical Project: Detay Mühendislik

Electricity: Çağ Yapı Mühendislik

Landscape: Ds Mimarlık

From the architect. There were two important inputs regarding the settlement located in Ulus, which was to be situated on a lot of approximately 80,000 square meter and would consist of 26 masses of the same size. The first of these inputs is the meaningless rigidity of building conditions that are in effect in these regions of the city. As for the second input, it emerged before us as the entity of a project that was prepared beforehand, whose intricate processes of approval were legally completed, and for which, within this context, the investor preferred to preserve the outlines. Although architectural decisions were shaped almost solely with the concern to conform to operative building conditions, the fact that the number, location and levels of building blocks in the existing project were exactly preserved in the new design emerged as a requirement.

The most important factor that determined the course of the design was this requirement, combined with building inputs, which defined quite rigidly the massive structure of the blocks to be built, such as the 15-by-20-meter base area of blocks that was to be parallel to the slope of the lot, the projections on stories above the ground floor, and the roofs with a 33-percent slope on all four sides. Another of the project’s exigent features was the fact that it is meaningless to speak of a noteworthy architectural characteristic as regards the Ulus Valley, which has become a torrent of buildings due to the many gated communities that seem to have penetrated into every nook and cranny that could be found, side by side, one on top of the other, all built under the same conditions mentioned above.

Geneal Ulus building structure that is formed by the special building regulations of the area, which is the case also for Maksimum Houses Project. Despite all these unfavorable factors the Savoy Project’s location within the city, the dynamic structure of its topography, and the investor’s audacious attitude regarding the architectural level of this settlement, were all factors that gained importance as being inspiring and heartening enough.

The garage issue, which, despite being of vital importance for these kinds of investments, seemed to be unsolvable in the existing project, was given precedence as one of the main conditioning elements of the design. The garage level was designed to hold a sufficient number of cars and to fit the basement of each building block, and, by problematizing the upper cover, at the same time constituted the substructure of a “new topography” within a negative-positive relationship. Each different level in the garage was connected by ramps, thus rendering it fluid. Some of the shells that formed the cover were completely removed; added to this, occasional slits and interstices formed by the slight difference in level effected between two shells created surprise nuances by blurring the boundary between the underground layer and the exterior. These nuances enabled both daylight to penetrate the shell structure, and the connection between recreational areas and the exterior. The aim was also that at night they be used to illuminate the landscape thanks to the light that would seep from the inside.

It was envisaged that it would be an important characteristic for the settlement that the shells, which are the main material of the exterior landscape, would, in places, be present in all there hardness and sharpness, though most often partly “concealed” by the layer of vegetation growing over them, while they would still remain legible in some way from all points of the area. How this fabric, which gives the feeling of being broken up and fragmented rather than that of continuity, could be repeated on the buildings emerged as an important problem at this stage. Conventional apartment blocks take shape according to decisions concerning mass, which are determined by building conditions; such expressionistic eagerness as described above confronts and clashes with these blocks and transposes them by luring them within its own boundaries. A much enjoyable and experimental design process was made possible thanks to this. The aim was that he fabric be present, though with a fragmentary identity and without loosing its continuity, throughout the entirety of the surfaces running along the garage, exterior landscape, and housing blocks; and also that the pattern which would take shape therefrom would turn into a coupling agent that would prevent disjunctions between the topography and the structure thanks to its all-extensive mapping effect.