July 22, 2014

EMRE AROLAT ANTAKYA MUSEUM HOTEL


A
ANTAKYA MUSEUM DESIGN BY EMRE AROLAT
Antakya, Turkey
 A
B
ANTAKYA MUSEUM DESIGN BY EMRE AROLAT
Antakya, Turkey
B
The archeological findings discovered in an excavation on the project site in Antakya which is close to St. Pierre Church (an important Christian pilgrimage site), directed the employer who was planning to build a five-star hotel, to build a museum-hotel on the site. The dichotomy between the public program of an archeological park and the private use of the hotel becomes a major input in the design process.
The findings discovered during the excavations and the physical and sociological characteristics of Antakya act as primary sources of contextual information. The hotel, a placeless building-type defined by its own programmatic codes; turns itself inside out to deal with the specific characteristics of this unique situation and place. Since the hotel will be situated on a site characterized by archeological findings, in order to deal with this unique situation the program elements are considered as individual units spread on the site under a protective canopy, rather than building a compact, introverted, conventional hotel building.
The location of the findings discovered on site determines the exact location of the columns. The composite columns are situated on the trace of former riverbed that goes through the middle of the site and on the periphery of the site in order to minimize any potential damage to the findings. The canopy supported by these columns acts both as a marker for the archeological park and as a platform housing program elements such as the ballroom, meeting rooms, swimming pool and fitness center. This platform creates vista points to enjoy the view of the city and St.Pierre Hill and sustains the local tradition of roof terraces. Slits on the platform act as skylights for the archeological site below and provide a visual connection between the findings and the hotel amenities located on the platform.
The main body of hotel is consisted of prefabricated hotel-room units stacked on top of each other. The room-units placed on the steel sub-structure are connected to the main circulation with walkways and bridges. The rooms are located under the main canopy and this semi-open space creates an inner world where one can experience the climate and local conditions and has visual contact with the excavation site all the time. Terraces and gardens located under the canopy enhance the experience.  The lobby, restaurant and lounge are located on the lower levels in relation with the archeological site. With its characteristics, the hotel becomes a site-specific building without compromising spatial standards of a five-star hotel.
The open-air circulation path, composed of ramps and bridges, allows visitors to experience the archeological park from different perspectives. The InfoBox marks the beginning of the path and displays information about the findings on the site.
The pre-fabricated components of the hotel help minimize in-situ fabrication. The building is assembled on site rather than being built there and reminds one of the temporary structures built by archeologists during the excavation.
The archeological findings discovered in an excavation on the project site in Antakya which is close to St. Pierre Church (an important Christian pilgrimage site), directed the employer who was planning to build a five-star hotel, to build a museum-hotel on the site. The dichotomy between the public program of an archeological park and the private use of the hotel becomes a major input in the design process. The findings discovered during the excavations and the physical and sociological characteristics of Antakya act as primary sources of contextual information. The hotel, a placeless building-type defined by its own programmatic codes; turns itself inside out to deal with the specific characteristics of this unique situation and place. Since the hotel will be situated on a site characterized by archeological findings, in order to deal with this unique situation the program elements are considered as individual units spread on the site under a protective canopy, rather than building a compact, introverted, conventional hotel building. The location of the findings discovered on site determines the exact location of the columns. The composite columns are situated on the trace of former riverbed that goes through the middle of the site and on the periphery of the site in order to minimize any potential damage to the findings. The canopy supported by these columns acts both as a marker for the archeological park and as a platform housing program elements such as the ballroom, meeting rooms, swimming pool and fitness center. This platform creates vista points to enjoy the view of the city and St.Pierre Hill and sustains the local tradition of roof terraces. Slits on the platform act as skylights for the archeological site below and provide a visual connection between the findings and the hotel amenities located on the platform.The main body of hotel is consisted of prefabricated hotel-room units stacked on top of each other. The room-units placed on the steel sub-structure are connected to the main circulation with walkways and bridges. The rooms are located under the main canopy and this semi-open space creates an inner world where one can experience the climate and local conditions and has visual contact with the excavation site all the time. Terraces and gardens located under the canopy enhance the experience.  The lobby, restaurant and lounge are located on the lower levels in relation with the archeological site. With its characteristics, the hotel becomes a site-specific building without compromising spatial standards of a five-star hotel. The open-air circulation path, composed of ramps and bridges, allows visitors to experience the archeological park from different perspectives. The InfoBox marks the beginning of the path and displays information about the findings on the site.The pre-fabricated components of the hotel help minimize in-situ fabrication. The building is assembled on site rather than being built there and reminds one of the temporary structures built by archeologists during the excavation.
www.emrearolat.com
You may reach to see Emre Arolat’s other projects of Istanbul Antrepo 5 Museum and Santral Istanbul Museum of ContemporaryArts from my blog archive to click below links.
http://mymagicalattic.blogspot.com/2012/12/istanbul-antrepo-5-museum-of.html
http://mymagicalattic.blogspot.com.tr/2014/06/santral-istanbul-museum-of-contemporary.html
A
B




A


































EMRE AROLAT’S PHILOSOPHY
Using two quite disjunct channels, architecture and its product, the building, occurred more frequently than before in the entrepreneurial and madcap urban environments of post-1980. The building either became, directly as its very self, an effective medium for the politics of the day, or, within the trend mechanisms of the day, it occupied the environment through the visual values that took shape with it. It can easily be claimed that during this period, the latter lagged in comparison with the former, both because it was much flimsier, and as a quite naïve channel when compared with the pragmatic realities of the former.
This new environment outside of the world of architecture also put the architects who produced those buildings on the agenda, in a way never experienced until then. After that, certain buildings ceased to be talked about exclusively within that world, a fact which for years had grieved the world of architecture. And what’s more, certain buildings or projects were now being mentioned not in conjunction with their investors’ or contractors’ names, as was always the complaint, but in conjunction with their architects’ name. And today, we can finally speak of an amateur audience other than architects. This group problematizes not only the quantitative inputs to which it has direct access, but even the design motivations that determine the success of the project. In fact, it reasons, dissects and comments in a way that shows so much initiative that this time it angers the world of architecture.
Today, apart from, or maybe even opposed to the fact that the architect is valued outside of the architectural world, and that he/she is glorified with such exaggeration that even the architects themselves are taken aback, there might also be a danger of being trivialized by the world outside to the degree that he/she is unable to expand and enrich his/her own inner world. It will be interesting to think of this opposition together with the fact that certain milieus of the modern world, both within and outside the profession, somehow manage to approach each other, blend, and gradually become homogenized. However, another subject that rates a lengthy discussion is how the architectural environment has lately been finding it difficult to re-produce itself, and to what degree it faces the danger of gradually becoming stunted. In an environment where the number of those whose sole motivation is to protect their status and those who are quite content with both themselves and the world is increasing at an astonishing rate; this discussion may also trigger a debate on how and at what rate architecture can become socialized. And it is obvious that this shallow and introverted situation is not peculiar only to Turkey…
In our studio, where we produce many different subjects and on many different scales, we aim to maintain an architectural design practice focused on “situation” and to develop this through the potentials inherent to it. This is a practice based on identifying the individual problems of each project, of each special situation, distinguishing their particular inputs, and looking for answers to the situation that has now become specific through a description that is as stratified as possible. Familiar styles, motivations of architectural movements, and design conventions are introduced at times, however, a noteworthy investment in these are put off each time. This tendency also problematizes a sort of aspiration to be consistent, which is rather widespread in the milieu and which pins its hopes on the kinship in the appearance of buildings produced. For instance, a design might loosen the specific parameters of the situation faced in each project, and determine its entire motive, while practically ignoring, so as to achieve a building that is as plain, spare and purified as possible; we do not strictly distinguish the unconditional choice of such a design from that which chooses, as a general attitude, to be expressionistic or polyphonic from the outset. We believe that the situation of “being chosen in a mechanical way”, which is the fundamental characteristic of the seemingly antipodal two attitudes, uproots them both from the real world and renders them no different from one another.
And we hope that our design tendency, which could be called a sort of “tropism”, will be able to reach the marks of its inherent consistency – if there is such a thing – through the “quest for awareness” in the process of redefining each time what is to be conceived. However, we must add right away that this quest does not aim for a “perfect” kind of consistency that healthy, adult and civilized human beings supposedly have. We might even say that the attitude in question is one that senses that such consistency can never be achieved and that once it starts to grasp the world in this way, it considers it important to understand and take seriously the nonconformities of that world. This is an attitude in which the creative subjects – the persons in charge of the design –, just like the product they create, feel that they themselves are not entirely free of these nonconformities, in which they question each time both the situation and themselves instead of forming consistent systems, instead of playing it safe, and contenting themselves with what suits their best interest.
We feel that the design process acquires an appeal that is open to a gradual deepening through the individualities of the subject who conditions it and through the fantasy it will rediscover in itself. At this point it can be claimed that the phenomenon we consider important and which we expect will take its place in the process alongside awareness is “consciousness”. “Consciousness” forces the multilayered and two-edged game, which occupies the zone between matter and the intellect, to fit somewhere within the framework of passion, intuition, knowledge and breeding. The moment it is introduced, it begins to condition the work and thanks to it the potentials created by the fact that it is possible to continue to work on the piece forever are abandoned at one go but just at the right time and in moderation. Consciousness turns the work into a project while reminding us of the presence of incompleteness and two-edgedness and the futility of the quest for maturity.
http://www.emrearolat.com/about/philosophy/










EMRE AROLAT ARCHITECTS
Emre Arolat Architects was founded in May 2004 by Emre Arolat and Gonca Paşolar in Istanbul, as the continuation of Emre Arolat’s architectural practices which he started at Arolat Architects as an associate designer in 1987. Arolat Architects was founded in 1961 and the group has drawn significant professional experience from regular contributions to architectural competitions and executed significant housing, tourism facilities, leisure centers, administrative buildings and sports grounds projects. The practice is being continued with the same range of projects in EAA-Emre Arolat Architects with the contributions of other partners, Neşet Arolat, Şaziment Arolat, Sezer Bahtiyar and a professional architectural staff in its office in Istanbul.
EMRE AROLAT VISION
In the architectural design process at EAA, main decisions consider interpretation of the ‘context’ in its widest sense. In this case, each context anticipates different approaches and this leads to an architectural practice where a conceptual and positional consistency is valid, rather than specific visual correspondences. The material use is determined by a categorical approach, depending on its visual and tactile nature, rather than designation of an inevitable specific material. Consequently, a flexible architectural expression is pursued on the basis of a definite conceptual ground. 




July 19, 2014

STONESCAPE DESIGN BY KENGO KUMA & ASSOCIATES




STONESCAPE DESIGN BY KENGO KUMA & ASSOCIATES
AGAPE, DAVIDE GROPPI, II CASONE & MAPEI




STONESCAPE DESIGN BY KENGO KUMA & ASSOCIATES
AGAPE, DAVIDE GROPPI, II CASONE & MAPEI
The synergy between Japanese architect Kengo Kuma and a team of leading companies will give life to an exclusive event that will make its debut as part of Bologna Water Design, and as a sideshow to the showroom of Cersaie 2012.
From September 25 to 29, in the refurbished buildings of the monumental complex of the Former Hospital Bastardini, the spotlight will turn to STONESCAPE the fable-like set-up installed for Agape, Il Casone and Mapei in the form of a lytic landscape where natural and artificial elements coexist in an awe-inspiring scenery.
Through a project concept and a sensual approach that interpret the embracing setting of Pietra Forte Fiorentina sandstone with the same refinement of the elements for the bathroom space that rise out of the water, Il Casone  leader in the industry of extraction and processing of Pietra Forte Fiorentina , Agape  for 40 years now the benchmark for bathroom decor projects in the top-tier market, and Mapei the biggest manufacturer worldwide of adhesives and sealing products for architecture, have chosen the poetic and essential creativity of Master Kengo Kuma to assert their avant-garde technological know-how and to experiment with their propensity for innovation.
The water models the space in curve and convex lines, drawing liquid shapes that
transform the surfaces from matt to shiny, and urges the onlooker to gently caress
them. The body of water that takes center stage and is sculpted into the Pietra
Forte Fiorentina is a magical and fascinating picture of soft and elegant domestic sculptures: large bathtubs and wash-basins, the latter a tribute to the work of Angelo Mangiarotti.
STONESCAPE will be officially inaugurated on September 25th  in the presence of architect Kengo Kuma and with the appearance of Philippe Daverio, special guest of the event Bologna Water Design 2012.
Kengo Kuma had collaborated with  for this Project Agape, Mapei, Davide Groppi, and II Casone. You may reach Davide Groppi’s news and Kengo Kuma’s projects of   Casalgrande Old House and Ginzan Onsen Fujiya Hotel to click below links from my blog archive.
http://mymagicalattic.blogspot.com.tr/2014/02/a-story-of-lamps-by-davide-groppi.html
http://mymagicalattic.blogspot.com.tr/2013/03/casalgrande-old-house-design-by-kengo.html
http://mymagicalattic.blogspot.com.tr/2013/01/ginzan-onsen-fujiya-hotel-design-by.html






















































KENGO KUMA
BIOGRAPHY
2008   Established Kuma & Associates Europe ( Paris, France)
1990   Established Kengo Kuma & Associates
1987   Established Spatial Design Studio
1979   Completed the Master Course, Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
1954   Born in Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan
TEACHING & PROFESSORSHIPS
2009 - Present - Professor at the Graduate School of Architecture, The University of Tokyo
2007 – 2008 - Visiting Professor at the School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign ( Chicago, USA )
2001 – 2009 - Proffessor at the Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University
1998 – 1999 - Proffessor at the Faculty of Environmental Information, Keio University
1994 -  Lecturer at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University ( New York – USA )
1985 - 1986 - Visiting Scholar Graduate School, Columbia University and Asian Cultural Council ( USA )
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
First class Architect in Japan
Architecte DESA ( Diplome de l’ Ecole Speciale d’ Architecture
Architecte Inscrit au Tableau de l’ Ordre des Architectes
International Fellow for Royal Instıtute of British Architectes ( RIBA )
Honorary Fellow fort he American Institude of Architects ( AIA )
Received a Ph D from Keio University
AWARDS ( For Kengo Kuma )
2012   The 6th ASIAGRAPH Award
           Japan Information – Cultuology Society Award
2011   The Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’ s Art Encouragement Prize for ‘’ Yusuhara Wooden Bridge Museum ‘’
2010   Mainichi Art Award for ‘’ Nezu Museum ‘’
2009   Decoration Officier de L ‘ Ordre des Arts et des Lettres ( France )
2008   Energy Performance + Architecture Award ( France )
           Bois Magazine International Wood Architecture Award ( France )
2002   Spirit of Nature Wood  Architecture Award ( Finland )
2001   Togo Murano Award for ‘’ Nakagawa – machi Bato Hiroshige Museum ‘’
1997   Architectural Institute of Japan Award for  ‘’ Noh Stage in the Forest ‘’
           First Place , AIA Dupont Benedictus award for  ‘’ Water Glass ‘’ ( USA )