In Tuz Gölü, there was a specific and strong orientation towards and through to the specific part of the horizon line which is created by closing two peninsulas and merging both sky and horizon. My strategy is that I want to enrich the experiences of Tuz Gölü which are orientation and big scaled conditions. Then, according to my Göreme analysis, some specific properties and enrichment of spaces attract my attention. I mean that openings of spaces in Göreme create some experiences, between the spaces, to human. I want to use this condition to enrich and multiply for the orientation of Tuz Gölü. In fact, openings of my design enrich the experience of space with an overlapped openings are faced with the horizon line in a diverse manner. Also, I grafted the varied scale conditions of Göreme onto Tuz Gölü. I used different sales for the enrich to people’s experiences both inside the spaces and on the Tuz Gölü.
Jury’s comments about my design and basic approach to given problem are that orienting openings to specific side works but it should be developed and all openings do not see wanted vista; some spaces and architectural elements block them, they just oriented, do not allow vista. They should consider and locate again, they thought. About the blocking some visualities, that were arranged on purpose may not be like on the model. Find other meanings of relating rather than blocking the view. Then opening strategy will all over create more spatial contribution from many sides not only one side. About the approach, I did a path which for the approach my design from the road to my design. This path perpendicular to the road and have an angle with the spatial composition but Jury criticized this path in a way that it should be on the same axis/angle and orientation with my spatial composition. Also, my path started at one point but this point has no specific importance for my design. Therefore, they advised to me that consider and think about this issue. Actually, my ideas were liked from the Jury members but they advised to develop more. About the scale conditions, they criticized to me that spaces scale should be arranged in terms of human density, how many people can experience there at the same time and subspaces for different experiences will be helpful for me. There is one more critic for me that think about the positive outdoor spaces. Actually, I have some outdoor spaces but I did not use them with a purpose.
Then these all critics, I will revise my design according to Jury’s critics and my research. For example, I will change the first location of the path and some openings according to the spatial composition. Then, I will work on positive outdoor spaces which designed on a purpose. Actually, I was aware outdoor spaces which are defined some but I did not work much on them. Openings strategy will not change but their diversity and multiplicity will be changed.
Actually, Jury members critics are parallel with my ideas about the revision so, I am aware that what I should do, mostly.
The jury did not criticize my visual and oral presentation. Therefore, I thought that I had not any problem with my presentation. Also, I thought that my all drawings, models and sketches were explanatory because they can easily understood to my design. On the other hand, likely all my friends, I have tp draw sections for the explaining my design more and more.