6. FROM SELF-ORGANIZATION TO CONDITIONED SPACE Introduction It is a difficult task to determine the boundaries of architecture within infinity and variable of knowledge. With the changing technologies, transforming forms, increasing number of materials and differentiating methods of representation, the concrete ground that will help to understand
RESEARCH
architecture has become quite uncertain. In this sense, it is quite misleading to try to read architectural action only on the result product. In the design process, where only the effective presence of the designer cannot be mentioned, it is a more appropriate approach to make ‘accident’ estimates rather than producing problems and finding solutions. In this context, a linear-linear design, a hierarchical network of relations, the previous condition is passed to the other after the completion of the specified design tasks designed to work for the proposed product, it seems unlikely when considering the current forms. As a result, it is difficult to understand architecture through a ‘finished’ architectural product. So, in order to examine architectural action, there is a need to re-think the ideas, approaches to be questioned on different views, to analyze the complex network of relations and to understand the ‘process’. (Tanyeli, 2016, s. 312) [2] Within this complex network of relations, the transformation of the architectural product at different scales exists. Because every period the object of architecture has responded to the needs within its own context. In this respect, the aim of this study is to discuss the ‘big’ buildings of the architecture and the mega-structures. How have mega-structures changed in the historical process? With this question, the mega-structure designs and the functioning of the mega-structures of the 1960s and today’s architecture will be tried to compare. The designs of Yona Fridman and Archigram will be analyzed and the notion of ‘junkspace’, which Rem Koolhaas says, which is criticized for many ‘big’ structures will be
’’In reality, architecture has become too important to be left to architects. A real metamorphosis is necessary to develop new characteristics in the practice of architecture and new behavior patterns in its authors: therefore all barriers between builders and users must be abolished, so that building and using become two different parts of the same planning process.’’ (Giancarlo de Carlo, 1971, p. 9) [5]
examined. Mega-structure of the 1960s: Architecture cannot be considered independent of the conditions of the period. Therefore, everything that affects the society and human has also affected architecture. The 1960s were a period of many wars and urban revolutions. So, many cities needed economic and rapid reconstruction. This context has questioned not only the concrete architectural object but also the theoretical basis of architecture. In addition to being a technical and concrete structure, architecture also designs the way of living. (Kumar, 2006) [3] The utopias of the 1960s are the designs that shape the life style of the society at the urban scale. Thinking at the urban scale, designing not only of a single structure but of the whole has been the working area of many architects. (UnStudio, Archizoom, Metabolists etc.) Mega-structures are the structural equivalents of these utopias. In this context, the architects of the period to be examined Yona Friedman and Archigram’s megastructures will be made through the architectural analysis. Firstly, Hungarian architect Yona Friedman, born in 1923, living in France, defines architecture as ‘process’. According to Yona Friedman, there is no finished architectural product. Because a designed and physically realized space is forever re-shaped by the influence of numerous human relationships and individual daily life practices. (Friedman, 2006) [4] Pelin Tan supports this iddea and she says that: ‘’Although we know that cities are
Figure 2: Spatial City, Yona Friedman, 1960 [4]
created by planners and architects; in fact, the dynamics that shape the
325