ARCH121 FINAL ASSIGNMENT

ÇİSEM ATAK

Q1. What is the brief story of the buildings? (100-400 words)

(Who owns them? What were the functions throughout their lives? Who are the

architects, what are their stories? What is the buildings’ importance for the context of

the city?)

Ted University was founded by “Türk Eğitim Derneği” which has given education for 87

years. Buildings of TEDU are so fundamental about not only institutional but also

spatial history. TEDU buildings and their idea of foundation withstand to Republican

period and during this period, first structures of Ankara were formed. From 13

September 1923 ( Ankara became capital city.) till 1931 ( Jansen Plan), a plan which

guided urban development was in force. Also, this plan was created by architect Carl

Cristoph Lörcher. In this period, both Yenişehir and TED Ankara College were came

into existence.

According to Tanyer, first of all, origin of TED Ankara College was founded by “ Türk

Maarif Cemiyeti”. After a few years, this education foundation was renamed as

“Ankara College” in 1951. After that, according to Jansen plan, Yenişehir high school

(Ankara College ), it took part as a educational foundatition which served to whole city.

In that period, being situated in center of the school and provision of pedestrian access

to the school were very important for urbanism principles. Furthermore, location of the

school is very important to be social students. Seeing that, location of the school enable

to students using center functions easily.

After, TED Ankara College started to searching new location and after many efforts,

new location was found. This location was defined by Lörcher Plan. The territory which

was named “Fidanlık” which located next to “İncesu” border was bought. Then, in

1936, first buildings’ constructions started. According to Tanyer, architect of the first

buildings is Architect Selim.

In 1951, the school was renamed becoming “Ankara College” and location of Ankara

College strengthened its central location in the city’s settlement area. In 1958, second

part of TED Buildings was builded at south of Ziya Gökalp Street. Hence, TED

buildings were completed at Yenişehir. Then, via “Bölge Kat Nizamı Plan” TED

buildings’ territory was expanded and the school had very accesible situation. However,

in 1960s, its area was not enough to increase students’s number capacity.

Due to TED buildings which were completed according to 1930s and 1950s population,

in 1990s, the buildings squeezed in the city and thus, TED did not take a leap. However,

then, owners of TED buildings decided to renovation. With modernist a project which

was planned by architects Hüseyin Bütüner and Celal Abdi, TED University was

founded and TED University targeted to give a modernist and innovator education to

people who live around it.

Q2. What are the design qualities of the buildings and open/semi-open spaces in the

campus? (700-1000 words)

(Discuss the architectural designs in terms of their design decisions, compositional

principles, design elements, characteristic expressions, and architects’ intentions. Please

try to make use of everything you have learnt in ARCH 121, as well as your findings in

your research.)

TED University buildings’ designs reflect modernization efforts of Republican period.

In that period, architectural design set up measured modern structures with smooth

sub-structures. TEDU buildings followed this design strategy too. During process of

TEDU buildings, architecture adopted to international manners in that period and

architects prefered less ornamental structures. Also, they paid attention to harmony of

format and function. According to Günay (2005), straight lines, perpendicular angle

geometry, emphasis to horizontal and vertical elements, being given importance to

concrete, steel, brick and glass are so fundamental modern decisions and elements for

TEDU buildings. Pale colors were used for emphazing facades of TEDU buildings with

contrast colors and different elements. Thus, modern, international and simple

architectural attitudes reflected to TEDU buildings’ design qualities and decisions in

that period. Moreover, because of that period, TEDU buildings lived functionalism and

brutalism phases.

Due to the fact that architectural design qualities of the buildings and the buildings’

basics were strong, TED had a decision which was not collepsing of the buildings. At the

same time, TEDU buildings gained meanings thanks to not only its architectural value

but also harmony and relation with the cultural city. Thus, before TED buildings

became TEDU buildings, TEDU buildings had been regenerated and reinforced without

losing cultural principles with the city and losing its existing mass unity by Bütüner and

CAGAW architecture. With TEDU building renovations, TEDU buildings which have

incapacitated area obtained maximum efficient area in the campus. Seeing that TEDU

buildings were builded in 1930s and TEDU buildings were builded according to its

period’s population.

For nowadays, old TEDU buildings

were not enough to correspond

student capacity sufficiently.

Therefore, renovations and new

architectural designs’ aims were that

whereas existing structures or blocks

are given to educational and

administrative functions, open and

semi open spaces in the campus and

new are which was made at ground

floors are given to meet to needs of

social, cultural utilizations. At the same time, this buried structure or complex which

was designed on a green area met the needs of enterior which was area without

NORTH PART

SOUTH PART

substracting existing open garden area and this structure was designed according to

utilization for social and conference activities.

TEDU buildings consisted two infrastructures which follow each other and related with

each other. 3 units which take place on south of Ziya Gökalp were restored without

collepsing and they obtained again functionality. After that, 2 units which were builded

in 1957 was designed with modernity of today. Moreover, one annex which combine two

units and a new block which is for sport activities (E block) joined to these two units.

What is more, these 4 blocks created a wide open space which defined an courtyard.

Thus, whole structures obtained a balance and integrity. At the same time, these blocks

and courtyard- garden were a beginning to changing. After that, interior and exterior

localities started to being organized. Existing spaces were developed as carrier system.

Structures’ interiors were changed according to priorities and needs of an contemporary

university. Especially, social places ad circulation areas were designed as integrating

and associating with areas of education.

Furthermore, wide spaces which are stated in the roofs were created for studios and

similar spaces.

Also, gym which had a wide area was transformed to auditorium and gym moved to

block E. Hence, totally, TED obtained a whole composition with the buildings and their

courtyards and gardens. Courtyards and gardens were trasformed to spaces which are

multipurpose activity area. Another point is that due to the fact that blocks looks

different directions, TEDU buildings communicate with outside more and thus, it set up

indoor and outdoor continuity. Furhermore, while buildings protect structural

principles and identity, the changes which were made in interior space and using

modern textural elements created an contemporary and new representative

environment. When looking generally, an simple relation was created between

courtyard and buildings. Also, this define an interior street system arrange construction

of basic distribution system and social areas.

BLOCK E

By the way, when analysing more detail, colors of facade are for setting a harmony with

old buildings. When looking facades of the buildings, design concepts were set a grid

principles. Regular and same proportional windows obtained repeatation. At the same

time, windows which are different facades interrupted the repeatation and they created

variations. Moreover, glass walls set a visual continuity and relation with outside. Also,

using glasses are more functional to obtain daily light more efficiently. Moreover, glasses

and concrete are more strong characteristic qualities for the buildings.

Another way is using textural elements such as brick, conrete, natural looking woods.

These elements defined brutalist and modern architecture. These elements were used

not only outside of the buildings, but also inside of the buildings. At the same time, using

transparency on the facade of D block with steels represented modernism. Also, thanks

to the transparency, TEDU buildings obtained different light conditions. However, while

investigating two parts which located at north and south of Ziya Gökalp, north part of

TEDU buildings are more contemporary and less ornamental. Thus, functionalism is

more dominant than the other part.

Finally, buildings and their open and semi open areas created a whole. Directions of

buildings look same area and they defined an specific area. Thanks to this private new

design, TEDU gave comfy education which encourage students’ studies to its students.

At the same time, with advanced technologic sub-structures, TEDU enabled efficient

and fast capacity to students.

Q3. How would you compare these buildings and open/semi-open spaces in the campus

(in relation to your answer in Q2) to:

a. Each other? (Name and illustrate the buildings you are citing for comparison.) (300-

500 words)

b. Some other buildings in the nearby neighborhood. (Name and illustrate the buildings

you are citing for comparison.) (300-500 words)

a)TEDU buildings were existed in two parts. While one part takes place on north of

Ziya Gökalp, the other part takes place on south of Ziya Gökalp. Due to the fact that

these two parts were builded in different terms, different architectural designs affected

the buildings. Thus, these buildings have not only similar properties but also different

qualities. However, though the differences, whole composition has a harmony and

balance and they were builded and transformed according to certain functional aims.

First of all,

providing that

first part of

TEDU buildings

located at north

of Ziya Gökalp is

investigated, the comparing will be more beneficial. Seeing that the buildings completed

in the same period and around the same properties. When looking these buildings as a

composition, situations of the buildings between each other and their open and semi

open spaces which are defined by the buildings related with each other regarging to well

balanced, well designed, harmony and unity.

SOUTH PART

NORTH PART

Situations of the buildings were shaped to obtain maximum open area. Totally, this part

occurs from 2 pimary big units and 2 small secondry units. Functionality affected shapes

and sizes of the buildings. A and B blocks are more functional because they embrace

many structural multifunctional place such as,

education areas, adminisrative units, social areas,

mess hall, libary. Hence, these two buildings are

more dominant than the others and these other

buldings were formed pursuant to two primary

buildings. However, due to the fact that buildings

A and B have similar functions, they are related

with each other more. Providing that we analyse

exterior surfaces of whole buildings in this part,

we can understand that their design strategies are

in a harmony. Especially, same shapes and sizes

of glasses and windows, their directions and providing continuity are very strong

relation between the buildings.

A BLOCK

B BLOCK

Windows and glasses which were used on every buildings provide repeatation and they

follow each other in certain sizes and shapes. Moreover, diffirences of windows’ sizes

and shapes created variations on the buildings. At the same time, when looking facades

of the buildings, a grid strategy was used on every buildings via windows. Also, these

glasses are very important characteristic qualities for TEDU buildings. Harmony which

is between primary and secondry units was provided via continuity of windows.

As, in some parts of buildings, windows were mimiced from other buildings’ window

shapes. Thus, these buildings are not alien to each other. When looking interior designs

of the buildings, A and B blocks almost have same design strategy. As a matter of fact

these buildings functionality properties are same. On the other hand, it is obvious that

interior spaces of the buildings were designed according to a grid frame and system. If

Ahmet Ersan and A block are compared, it is obvious that two structures were designed

according to a grid strategy which has certain measure. However, due to the fact that

these structures have different funcitions, their sizes and shapes of their spaces and

rooms are different from each other. At the same time, the buildings have modern

textural elements which are in a harmony and balance. Also, again utilization glasses in

the rooms are very functional for the buildings.

If TEDU buildings which located at

south of Ziya Gökalp are

investigated, it is obvious that they

have again modern composition.

Also, buildings situations too each

other are very fundamental to obtain

maximum open area. At the same

time, windows ad glasses’ shapes

and sizes and following each other created repeatation and variations. Also, some

repeatation which belongs can be seen other buildings which have same functions. In

this part, the buildings have special entry ways. Moreover, these entry ways have similar

features such as curve.

When investigating designs of

interior parts of buildings,

different design features and

decision can be seen. The

buildings have different design

concepts. For instance, design

of G block is more ornamental

and figurative than others.

AHMET ERSAN

BLOCK A

ENTREE WAY

Conversely, D and E blocks have more modern communicative functional design. Also,

whereas their marbles which were used on the floors of block D and E define direction,

marbles which were used on the fllors of block G are only figurative and ornamental

and they do not define direction.

At the same time, utilization transparency on the D block shows that this block has more

different architectural decisions. Via transparency, daily light can be obtained in

different angles and shapes.

While comparing two pats of TEDU buildings, it is certain that some features of two

parts are different from each other according to Günay. Seeing that first composition

overweigh about modern architecture. First of all, textural elements are so important

for both sides. Marbles which were used on the first composition define direction to the

buildings. Also, marbles’ shape and colors help to define direction. When looking other

sides’ marbles, we can understand that they are simple and uncommunicative. At South

part, directions of building entry were emphazed by entry ways of the buildings.

BLOCK D BLOCK G

At the same time, whereas textural elements of first structures define directions.

Moreover, they create an harmony and continuity with columns of the buildings.

Harmony of windows of first buildings is more powerful than other parts’ buildings.

Functional utilization of glasses in A and B buildings can be seen at studio which are

stated in E block. Thus, it is obvious that if structures have similar functional features,

their design decisions and

elements are same too with

each other. Another point is

that open area have different

features due to different

functions. However, semi open

areas which were defined by

the buildings have similar

purpose such as cigarette

areas. Totally, whole TEDU

buildings are in a harmony.

Especially A and G blocks’s

parallel situations towards

each other shows that these two parts are related with each other, although their

situations are different.

b)On account of the fact that TEDU buildings were builded in Republican period and

TEDU buildings made contact with its neighbors, people do not think that TEDU

buildings are independent from the city. In spite of the fact that TEDU buildings

transformed to a modern structure, the buildings did not lose cultural legacy and

identity.

First of all, exterior colors of TEDU buildings were chosen in order to adopt with old

buildings which located around TEDU buildings. Hence, TEDU buildings’ exterior wall

colors are pale and TEDU buildings are not seen like an alien. At the same time, TEDU

buildings have horizontal shapes and thanks to this horizontality, TEDU can give

enough capacity to its students. Horizontal features of TEDU buildings claim that the

buildings do not diffirenciate and exceed other buildings located around TEDU. Lengths

and heights of TEDU buildings accomodate with other neighbors.

Furthermore, location of TEDU buildings was arranged according to other buildings.

Therefore, TEDU buildings obtained alignment with surroundings of TEDU. Seeing that

TEDU buildings and neighborhood look same direction. Especially, Ziya Gökalp Street

arranged this direction. Thus, as TEDU buildings were occuring, they did not seperate

from layout and structures of the city.

Another point is that, sizes and shapes of windows make contact with neighborhood.

Windows of TEDU buildings were defined according to glasses of other buildings

located around TEDU. Moreover, the gardens which located in TEDU make contact

with “Kurtuluş Park”.

On the other hand, although TEDU buildings and surroundings have many identic

features, TEDU buildings are more modern and contemporary. Seeing that modern

textural elements were used in TEDU buildings and design decisions of these elements

occured an integrity and coherence. Also, when looking other buildings seperately, the

do not define an harmony or composition because their design decisions are so primitive.

However, TEDU buildings have advanced design decision in the buildingsand campus.

So, TEDU buildings have a composition with noth only itself but also surroundings.

REFERENCES:

* (..| Mimarlık Dergisi |.. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from

http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=385&RecID=3

148)

*(TED ANKARA KOLEJİ’NİN YENİ YERLEŞKESİ ÖYKÜSÜ,BAYKAN

GÜNAY,2005,PAGES:3,5,6,11,12,13,63)

*TED Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from

https://www.tedu.edu.tr/tr/main/kampus-ve-tesisler

*VitrA Çağdaş Mimarlık Dizisi. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from

http://www.vitracagdasmimarlikdizisi.com/projeler/TED-Universitesi-Kolej-Yerleskesi-

1-Asama.aspx