The evaluation criteria of the jury was indicated in the competition guideline as follows:

Transcription

1 GENERAL EXPLANATIONS The jury evaluation of the student design competition Green & Cypriot: Innovative Ideas for a Green Kyrenia - Sustainable Workplace Design took place on Thursday, in Girne American University, Faculty of Architecture, in room ADA202. The evaluation criteria of the jury was indicated in the competition guideline as follows: quality of the design solutions; interaction and integration with the surrounding area; consistency with competition aims; ability to deliver an exciting vision for the project; originality and novelty in the use of local resources and technologies; ecological sustainability and feasibility of a functional, social and economic project; clarity and quality of the delivery and presentation of ideas. The aims of the competition were also announced on the competition guideline as follows: innovation & design; special design methods and unique regional credits; reducing environmental footprint of buildings; incorporating ecological and energy saving design solutions; complying with the local natural characteristics of the space (topography, climate and vegetation); water efficiency practices both indoor and outdoor; using local materials and natural energy resources in design; developing more liveable and comfortable workplace designs, and design ideas inspired by vernacular / traditional architectural identity. The jury evaluated all the projects according to these criteria and aims. After the evaluation of all of the projects, the jury made following general comments related to all of the projects: Vernacular / traditional aspects of the city should have been taken into consideration in terms of building design, planning and material choice; An architectural project cannot be designed without considering the users of the building and its environment. Therefore, the projects should have been more careful in terms of program requirements indicated in the guideline, needs of building users, and the needs of the city itself; Although this competition was focused on natural / ecological and vernacular aspects of the city, most of the projects disregarded the local / natural characteristics of the site. Only one project kept the existing tree on the site; Innovative design solutions regarding ecological / energy saving issues were not applied; Verbal and graphic communication of all the projects should improve; All the students should be encouraged to attend competitions more often so that they will become more familiar with competition culture. 1

2 Students are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements indicated in the guideline The projects of the following students were eliminated at the beginning, because they had their names on their posters, which was against the competition rules: Student names: Burcu Şahan Derya Sınar Gönül Kavi Canan Armağan Tutku Avcı Esma İstemez Betül Avcı In the first session, the following projects were eliminated: PROJECT JA21 09GU Names of the students Ahmad Mahmoud A.Asi Daichi Oeki Etusi Eboseremen Oriaifo Said Salim Ahmed Al- Rawahi Ramazan Selçuk Uysal Ezgi Yalçın Gülhanım Aslan Didem Tokgöz REASON FOR ELIMINATION Critical problems about the interior space planning. There is no information about interaction and integration with the surrounding area. There are some ideas about ecological and energy saving design solutions, but they are not applied on the building. Interaction and integration with the surrounding area does not exist in terms of building form and material choise. Interior solutions are not properly designed. Ecological and energy saving design solutions are not applied. 1N9Q Nuriye Ceren Kaplan Quality of the design solutions are not enough. There is no interaction and integration with the surrounding area (windmills are not proper for the city center.) No idea about ecological and energy saving design solutions. Presentation of ideas are not clear and qualified enough. BF10 Meltem Dere Begüm Şahin Hamit Ferhat Han İrem Pilgir No ideas about ecological and energy saving design solutions. Presentation of ideas are not clear and qualified enough. MA02 Mehmet Ali Kopan The project does not fit the land. The project is very similar to ZL35. 10AR Rabia Erdem Presentation of ideas are not clear and qualified enough. Section and elevations are missing. No ideas about ecological and energy saving design solutions. ZL35 MM90 CC06 Lokman Işık Fahrettin Alaf Mehmet Ali Yılmaz Melih Bostan Hürşah Utku Kaya Oğuzhan Okur Seyidnur Özcan Emrecan Türkkan Ragıp Tanlı The project does not fit the land. The project is very similar to MAO2. The project does not fit the land. There is no idea about ecological and energy saving design solutions. There is not enough explanation about project details. Ideas and drawings are not clearly expressed. No ideas about ecological and energy saving design solutions. 2

3 PROJECT AZ88 Names of the students Elifcan Şahingözü Gözde Akgün Esra Göçer Savaş Gelal Funda Gezer REASON FOR ELIMINATION The project does not fit the land, poster size is not correct. Ali Yapıcıoğlu Azmi Öge Hassina Nafa In.Site: Studios KKTC Chamber of Architects GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts Redif Nurel Nurel Groups of Companies Senem Zeybekoğlu Sadri GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts 3

4 In the second session, the following projects were eliminated: PROJECT XX31 MU25 GR34 Names of the students JURY COMMENTS RESULT Mehmet Veysel Yel Müslüm Şeker Anastasiya Talalayeva Ezgi Karagür Merve Yılmaz Uğur Türk Fatima Mohsen Omaya Hasan Saratu Mohammed Haldun Cenk Aydınonat Anıl Us Mustafa Amaç Özen Cihangir Duman Programwise, the project works. However, ideas related to ecological design and energy saving solutions are not very well developed and not applied on the project. Presentation of ideas are not clear and qualified enough. The staircases do not work properly. Mezzanine and other floors are not connected to each other. Interior solutions are weak. Ecological and energy saving design solutions are mentioned, however the plans and sections do not reflect the application of those ideas. Programwise, the project works (in terms of functional requirements). However, the ground floor cannot be used as a showroom properly and access to basement is not solved properly. There are some ideas of ecological and energy saving design solutions, however their application on the building is not shown. Ali Yapıcıoğlu Azmi Öge Hassina Nafa In.Site: Studios KKTC Chamber of Architects GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts Redif Nurel Nurel Groups of Companies Senem Zeybekoğlu Sadri GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts 4

5 Among 19 projects, the following 4 projects were selected as the most successfull ones, for their sensitivity of their design approach; awareness of ecological and energy saving solutions and attempt to apply those ides in their projects; and effort in presentation of their ideas. PROJECT SA01 NE19 BR01 LH63 Names of the students JURY COMMENTS RESULT Selim Karaman Arif Şavluk Ece Karaarslan Muhammet Nazif Öztürk Bülent Gökalp Rıdvan Durmaz Erdem Türkmen Kurtuluş Teselli Deniz Semiz Hasan Fırat Lami Ateşoğlu Mehmet Melik Aslan Hasan Bilekli The idea, project explanations and presentation techniques are good. The existing tree has been protected. There are some idea sketches showing the water collection system. However, the use of glass on all sides is not appropriate for this climate. Mentioned about the local natural characteristics of the city (such as courtyards) but not applied. The idea of wind corridor is successful. Relation between staircases with interior organization is not successful. Ecological and energy saving design solutions are considered. The use of wind tower is good. Creepers have been located on the proper side in terms of climatic conditions. However, the project does not reflect the systems on the drawings properly. There are some ideas of ecological and energy saving design solutions, however their application on the building is not shown. The jury concluded that, those projects need to be improved in terms of proper application of ecological design solutions; relation with vernacular / traditional architectural identity; and graphic expression of all ideas. To organize a workshop with these four groups, on the issues of ecological design, contextual design and presentation techniques; To give one month extention time to work on their projects (submission will be on ) After the submission, the jury will evaluate the projects and announce the results within one week. The money awards, and the scholarship awards that were announced on the competition guideline will be decided and given after the submission of the projects. 5

6 Ali Yapıcıoğlu Azmi Öge Hassina Nafa In.Site: Studios KKTC Chamber of Architects GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts Redif Nurel Nurel Groups of Companies Senem Zeybekoğlu Sadri GAU, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Fine Arts 6