*Nr.

2600, Quaderna Superstudio, 1969 © Zanotta

ITU faculty of ar
chitecture ebi
department of ursun Ç
architecture Pelin D enel
2020-2021 spri Ş
Aslıhan ürkeri
ng
diploma projec il
Ayşe N m
T
t
de
jury G Arzu Er ur Sönmez
n
Nizam O zün Şengün
ü
Haka n T
P iker
Kerem
hveci
Esra Ka el
re-membering and re-imagining: Ecem T
ez
la n (advis
or)
A s
Sevim
a return to university
an odd school o
f architecture in Y
enikapı

In a world of global crises of economics, pandemics, and social upheavals, universities, like all other
institutions, need to redefine themselves in order to respond to the changing needs of society. In this diploma
project, we will question the existing institution of the university, its ways of production and operation, its
normative definition of the educated and the others, its spatial boundaries and the control of two-way flow of
people and knowledge, the possible restrictions and liberating power of its physical limits, its relationships with
other institutions and individuals.

Here, social and spatial strategies of education will be challenged through an architectural proposal for an odd
architectural school. The school of architecture is a starting point, however each proposal needs to be
rethought through other programmatic aspects, such as archaeological, transportational, and migrational, that
will be gathered from the site, which is next to the Metro station, and the wider context of Yenikapı. The
complexity of the site will suggest exchanges between existing stories and encourage new stories to be told.

We will remember the physicality of the university we had to abandon unexpectedly since the beginning of the
pandemics and imagine new socio-spatial possibilities through architecture. Can the future university be a
completely different place than just where people are “educated?” Can we remember and reimagine the ways
in which university provides openness, freedom, and accessibility, formal and informal ways of operation, local
and global relations, a cultural accumulation, and variety of productions?
Istanbul Technical University // Faculty of Architecture Department of Architecture
2020-2021 Spring Semester // MIM 4902E Diploma Project Jury G

Re-membering and Re-imagining:

A Return to University
an odd school of architecture

jury members:
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pelin Dursun Çebi
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aslıhan Şenel
Prof. Dr. Ayşe Nil Türkeri
Prof. Dr. Arzu Erdem
Ass. Prof. Dr. Nizam Onur Sönmez
Dr. Hakan Tüzün Şengün
M. Arch. Kerem Piker

advisor:
Sevim Aslan (M. Arch.)

reporters:
Res. Assist. Özgür Esra Kahveci // kahveci@itu.edu.tr
Res. Assist. Ecem Tezel // tezele@itu.edu.tr
 1. Definition and Conceptual Frame of the Theme

In a world of global crises of economics, pandemics, and social upheavals,

universities, like all other institutions, need to redefine themselves in order to respond to the
changing needs of society or they may expect to become redundant. The new world requires
institutions to reform themselves by collaborating with other institutions to build resilience
against global crises, by approaching traditional ways of production and operation with
criticism and also by involving a wider range of and more underrepresented participants.

“The extitution is a figure that threatens to undo the regularity and order established by the careful
regulation of an institution. The criminal is not the law-abiding citizen. The insane are bereft of
rationality. The sick have taken leave of health. The child is in need of education. The act of giving order
to an extitution therefore involves an attempt to give rise to institutional work. The asylum cleans up
insanity and seeks to restore the rule of rationality. Institutions that regulate the market get rid of
irregularities and return us to the normalities of perfect competition. The corporation eschews idlers and
ensures efficient return on investment. The work of institutions involves attempt to give rational order to
that which exists outside of institutional order, that which is essentially formless.” Andre Spicer,
Extitutions: The other side of institutions, Ephemera Journal, 2010.

In this diploma project, students are required to question the existing institution of
university, its ways of production and operation, its normative ways of defining the educated
and the others, its spatial boundaries and the control of two-way flow of people and
knowledge through those boundaries, the possible restrictions and liberating power of its
physical limits, its relationships with other institutions and individuals, in short, its social and
spatial strategies of education together with production and distribution of knowledge.
Furthermore, each student is expected to produce an architectural proposal for an
alternative university by remembering the physicality of the university we had to abandon
unexpectedly since the beginning of the pandemics and imagining a new institution, or an
“extitution” as defined by Andre Spicer, which does not seek to give an imposed order but
learns from the disorderliness of the others and the possibilities they may offer. As such, the
program of the proposed university is required to include others, which would allow us to
question the natural limits of university.

The project is inspired by today’s challenges of education during the pandemic and
its forced dissociations from spaces of education, but the proposals are expected to respond
to a broad period of time. Instead of reproducing current hybrid systems of distant online
learning, students will propose alternative ways to engage with space through various
material and immaterial constructions shaped by programmatic events and situations,
including the creation of distance and isolation in space.

Can the future university be a completely different place than just where people are
“educated?” Can we remember and reimagine the ways in which university provides
openness, freedom, and accessibility, formal and informal ways of operation, local and
global relations, a cultural accumulation, and variety of productions? Can we imagine a
future especially where universities drastically change to continue to be relevant for society?
What kind of practices a new kind of university involves in? Can it provide wider participating
opportunities for both the professionals and the community? Can they be places of
democracy in action, where public, researchers, educators, students, and other stakeholders
meet in more equal terms, discuss, and work together? This kind of democratic space will be
both necessary and attractive for different participants, as we are more aware that we are
losing our ground for democracy with more controlling governments and administrations. In
the period of pandemics and lockdowns, we have realized that universities are not only
places for education. The online platforms were quickly established in order to continue
communication and production. But, none were able to replace the unexpected encounters,
the informal happenings, the unforeseen conversations and debates that eventually affect
the formal spaces and programs of the universities. Neither do these online platforms
respond well to the needs of collaborative working. We are more aware now that
collaboration requires a space to share, that may offer safety and equality, first of all. The
unexpected, the informal, and the unforeseen are also very relevant for what a university
stands for.

In this diploma project, social and spatial strategies of education will be challenged
through an architectural proposal for an odd architectural school. The school of architecture
is a starting point, however each proposal needs to be rethought through other
programmatic aspects, such as archaeological, transportational, and migrational, that will be
gathered from the site, which is next to the Metro station, and the wider context of Yenikapı.
The complexity of the site will suggest exchanges between existing stories and encourage
new stories to be told.

The architectural proposals are expected to explore possibilities of physical space

(rather than popularly praised digital and hybrid alternatives), alternative narratives which
may help to consider in architecture not only the agency of humanity but also the non-human
and the non-living, and less expected temporal understandings which situate architecture as
not only existing in the present as a linear succession of past but envision it as embedded in
varying layers of time and exceeds our personal time frames. For the purpose of thinking
beyond the present, the most immediate location, and the most visible agents, a site with
multiple facets is chosen. Yenikapı is an exceptional site. We are made aware, through the
archaeological digs since 2004, the extent of the ways in which thousands of years old
spatial practices shaped this topography. A wide variety of flows of goods and people define
the site through disruptions, disturbances, and irrationalities. For example, there are
temporary residences of migrants who seek to share spaces in unexpected ways,
improbable stores for goods that are accumulated until they are transported, and improvised
stops that allow people rest for minutes, hours or days before their journeys. The students
are expected to consider the complexity of the site and propose different exchanges with the
stories it holds, furthermore they are encouraged to narrate new stories which complicate
the relationship of this site with their architectural proposal.

The site includes various buildings of Metro station and other buildings (B, C, M, D),
which may be replaced by your proposal. The location of station entrances may be
reconsidered according to the spatial relationships of your proposal, yet the reasons of
relocation need to be well-discussed. The historical building of the suburban train station (A)
is advised to remain, but to be re-programmed.

The underground train lines are marked in the provided map, the proposals are
required to consider them remaining in operation.

During the 2004 archaeological excavations, most of the findings (ships, artefacts,
etc.) are carried away from the site, the remaining building ruins of the ancient harbor are
marked on the provided map and a part of them are visible on the site. The boundaries of
the large rectangular pit at the site may be re-defined and the pit may be thought as part of
your proposals, considering that the whole area is an archaeological site.
#

#
 2. Aim and Scope

Diploma project, as an essential phase of architectural education, aims to bring the

students into adequate architectural knowledge, reasoning, skills and decision-making
mechanisms. It aims to validate that each student has acquired the understanding and
competence necessary for the architectural profession. It requires the demonstration of the
knowledge and skills to produce an architectural solution and to make design decisions
about a single project as well as a comprehensive integration and consideration of design
knowledge and decisions across systems, scales and disciplines. The diploma project
consists of the student projects, 3 jury sessions to be held throughout the semester, and a
final review. The final product is expected to culminate from the program defined in the brief.
The semester-long design process concludes with an outcome of an architectural project
reflecting students’ performances, intellectual actions, and their approach to architectural
research and analyses within a given scope. The development of each student is examined
and improved through jury evaluations and critics.

● Project: The project will be the outcome of the students' studies on the given subject
and especially their personal arguments and efforts. The result is expected to be
developed in guidance of the specified architectural program, urban context and
other conditions concerning the location and program.

● Workshop: A day-long workshop is planned to start for each student to think of a

critical and creative approach to the program and narrative of the Diploma Project.

● Jury Sessions: The project developed by the students will be presented to the jury
members at the indicated dates. All the drawings and other requested documents
 should be prepared for the sessions, in order to be reviewed and evaluated by the
jury. In these sessions the jury members will share their critics and comments on the
proposals. All the material that will be presented should be handed over to the
evaluation committee at the announced date and time via Ninova system. On the day
of the jury session, all the students are expected to be present at 09:30 for the jury to
review the poster presentations. The reviewing order of the projects will be
determined on the jury day. Participation is mandatory.

● Final Jury: Final Jury will be held for the presentations and explanations of the
completed projects. Besides that, the jury members may ask students various
questions in order to gain insight about the students' approach. The project is not
regarded as the sole input for evaluation. The final evaluation and grading include all
the stages, i.e. the final project, preliminary and final juries together; the project
should not be regarded as the single input for the final evaluation.

The student needs to meet the Prerequisites for the Graduation Project (MIM 492, MIM
492E) or the Diploma Project (MIM 4902, MIM 4902E) in the curriculum and 'Other
Requirements' determined by the Senate. For the general rules not written in the Diploma
Project Principles, the “Senate Principles” are valid related to taking the Diploma Project,
submissions and examinations of the Diploma Project. Links below must be checked: https://
www.mimogis.itu.edu.tr/duyurular/ogduyuru.htm
https://www.mimogis.itu.edu.tr/duyurular/belgeler/fk_karar.pdf
https://www.mimogis.itu.edu.tr/duyurular/belgeler/önşart_tablo.pdf
http://www.sis.itu.edu.tr/bitirme_onsart.htm
https://www.sis.itu.edu.tr/TR/mevzuat/bitirme-esaslar.php

3. Evaluation Criteria

Jury sessions have a %40 effect, the final submission and the final jury has a 60% effect on
total grading. Students, who do not enter more than one jury, are evaluated with VF grade.
Students, who fail to submit their final project, or, submit and not join the final jury, are
considered unsuccessful (FF). For the Diploma Project to be considered successful, a
minimum (CC) grade must be obtained. Jury members will also realize a grading for each
jury sessions and for the final jury according to the criteria below and according to the
Course Catalog Form:

● Attendance to jury, workshop and board sessions

● Personal evaluation of the design problem, ability of approaching design problems in
a multidimensional way, performance of carrying out the whole design process in a
critical way
● Expected competence in establishing relations of design decisions with context,
program and spatial-formal-tectonic layout
● Adequate usage of representation tools in the production, development and
communication of design concepts, competence in multidimensional representation
media
● Submission of required materials both for the jury session and final submission.
 4. Schedule
Date Time Task Location

1st Mar 2021

- Beginning of the Spring Term -
Monday
3rd Mar 2021 Submission of Diploma Project brief
13:30 Zoom
Wednesday and meeting
10th Mar 2021
9.30-16.30 Workshop Zoom
Wednesday
10th Mar 2021 Lecture 1 (Cem Kozar, Sevim Aslan,
16:30 Zoom
Wednesday Erkan Kambek)
10th Mar 2021
17:00 Deadline for submitting questions Ninova
Wednesday
17th Mar 2021
13:30 Announcement of the answers Ninova
Wednesday

17th Mar 2021

t.b.a. Lecture 2 (Sevgi Türkkan) Zoom
Wednesday
4th April 2021 Submission of documents for the 1st
09:00-18:00 Ninova
Sunday Jury
7th April 2021
09:30 1st JURY Zoom
Wednesday
2nd May 2021 Submission of documents for the 2nd
09:00-18:00 Ninova
Sunday Jury
5th May 2021
09:30 2nd JURY Zoom
Wednesday

30th May 2021 Submission of documents for the 3rd

09:00-18:00 Ninova
Saturday Jury
2nd June
09:30 3rd JURY Zoom
Wednesday
11th June 2021
- End of the Spring Term -
Friday
27th June 2021
09:00-18:00 Submission of documents for Final Jury Ninova
Sunday
1st July 2021
09:30 FINAL JURY Zoom
Thursday
4th July 2021 Deadline for Submission of Grades of
14:00 www.sis.itu.edu.tr
Sunday Diploma Project

*All additional activities will be announced later.

5. Documents to be Submitted to the Students

Diploma Project Brief: A digital copy of the brief and all related documents (maps,
photographs, etc.) will be shared via official Ninova system. Additional cloud storage
services might be used for larger files and submissions.
 6. Required Materials for Jury Evaluation

The materials for jury evaluation are specified both for students and jury sessions.
Jury members may ask additional contents from students for their process through juries.
For the final jury, students are expected to provide the materials described in the Article 7 of
the Diploma Project Principles in minimum.

Requirements for the 1st JURY:

16:9 ratio (landscape) presentation boards which must show ideas, concepts and
decisions that were improved through research and analyses for the project proposal and
scenarios for the whole of the urban area by using different representation techniques like
schemas, diagrams, drawings, texts, photographs, perspectives, models, collages, films…
specified by individual approaches and in convenient various scales. Students are
encouraged to develop various alternatives. Presentation boards will be in 16:9 ratio for
screen sharing during online jury sessions via Zoom. There must be a scale bar in every
presentation board.

Diagrams and narratives representing program proposal, approach to the theme, context
and site

Site plan and site section using appropriate scale (1/2000 and 1/1000).

Plans, sections, elevations and silhouettes of urban and architectural design decisions
that discuss the programmatic and architectural design concept with spatial proposals for life
scenarios (1/500)

Physical model in 1/500 (focused on project area) scales. The students are expected to
include model visuals in presentations. Also, 3D scan methods and applications can be used
for scanning physical models in three dimensions. While students will not deliver physical
models, they are expected to make physical models. A video lasting 30 seconds is expected
to be submitted.

Digital Models can be made a part of the presentation using augmented reality (AR) or
virtual reality (VR) applications such as kubity go, augment, etc.

+ A3 Portfolio
An A3 booklet will be submitted as a summary of the whole process of the work done for the
1st jury including the architectural design report attached.

Requirements for the 2nd JURY:

16:9 ratio (landscape) presentation boards that must show life scenarios and architectural
decisions that were developed through research and analyses for the project proposal and
scenarios by using different representations like schemes, diagrams, drawings, texts,
photographs, perspectives, models, collages, films… specified by individual approaches and
in convenient various scales. Descriptions of the all main aspects of design. Proposals are
expected to be more developed in terms of spatial, morphological, structural, constructional
aspects. Presentation boards will be in 16:9 ratio for screen sharing during online jury
sessions via Zoom. There must be a scale bar in every presentation board.

Site plan and site section using appropriate scale (1/2000, 1/1000 and 1/500)
Plans, sections, elevations and silhouettes of urban and architectural design decisions
that discuss the programmatic and architectural design concept with spatial proposals for life
scenarios using appropriate scale (1/500 and partial 1/200)

Plans, sections, elevations and perspective drawings that helps understanding of all
spatial arrangements showing architectural design decisions (spatial relation scenarios,
interpretations of the programme and operational systems and the research about
subsystems i.e. structural system, building element systems and service systems’ type and
materials) and their representative drawings in 1/500 and/or 1/200 scales.

Physical model in 1/1000 (urban relations) and or 1/500 (focused on project area) scales.
The students are expected to include model visuals in presentations. Also, 3D scan methods
and applications can be used for scanning physical models in three dimensions. While
students will not deliver physical models, they are expected to make physical models. A
video lasting 30 seconds is expected to be submitted.

Digital Models can be made a part of the presentation using augmented reality (AR) or
virtual reality (VR) applications such as kubity go, augment, etc.

+ A3 Portfolio
An A3 booklet will be submitted as a summary of the whole process of the work done for the
2nd jury including the architectural design report attached.

Requirements for the 3rd JURY:

16:9 ratio (landscape) presentation boards that must show life scenarios and architectural
decisions that were developed through research for the project proposal and scenarios by
using different representations like schemas, diagrams, drawings, texts, photographs,
perspectives, models, collages, films… specified by individual approaches and in convenient
various scales. Presentation boards will be in 16:9 ratio for screen sharing during online jury
sessions via Zoom. There must be a scale bar in every presentation board.

Site plan in 1/1000 and 1/500

Plans, sections, elevations and silhouettes of urban design decisions that discuss the
programmatic and architectural design concept with spatial proposals for life scenarios in
1/1000 and 1/500 scales.

Plans, sections, elevations and perspective drawings that show architectural design
decisions (spatial relation scenarios, interpretations of the programme and operational
systems and the research about subsystems i.e. structural system, building element
systems and service systems’ type and materials) and their representative drawings in 1/500
and/or 1/200 scales.

Sections that show subsystems i.e. structural systems, building element systems, service
systems and their components (materials) in 1/50 scale.

System detail drawing (partial system section, partial plan and partial elevation), including
one typical axis which comprise structural system, building element system, service system
and their components (materials and details) in 1/20 scale.
Physical model in 1/1000 (urban relations), 1/500 (focused on project area), 1/200 (partial)
The students are expected to include model visuals in presentations. Also, 3D scan methods
and applications can be used for scanning physical models in three dimensions. While
students will not deliver physical models, they are expected to make physical models. A
video lasting 30 seconds is expected to be submitted.

Digital Models can be made a part of the presentation using augmented reality (AR) or
virtual reality (VR) applications such as kubity go, augment, etc.

+ A3 Portfolio
An A3 booklet will be submitted as a summary of the whole process of the work done for the
3rd jury including the architectural design report attached.

Requirements for the FINAL JURY:

16:9 ratio (landscape) presentation boards that show the ideas and decisions that were
developed through research for the project proposal and scenarios by using different
representations like schemas, diagrams, drawings, texts, photographs, perspectives,
models, collages, films… specified by individual approaches and in convenient various
scales. Photos of the physical model should be embedded into the boards. Presentation
boards will be in 16:9 ratio for screen sharing during online jury sessions via Zoom. There
must be a scale bar in every presentation board.

Site plan in 1/1000 scale.

Plans, sections, elevations and silhouettes of urban design that discuss the
programmatic and spatial proposals for life scenarios in 1/1000 and 1/500 scales.

Plans, sections, elevations and perspective drawings that show architectural design
decisions (spatial relation scenarios, interpretations of the programme and operational
systems and the research about the materials, details and technical subsystems) in 1/500,
1/200 scales.

Sections that show subsystems i.e. structural systems, building element systems, service
systems and their components (materials) in 1/50 scale.

System detail drawing (partial system section, partial plan and partial elevation), including
one typical axis which comprise structural system, building element system, service system
and their components (materials and details) in 1/20 scale.

Physical models in 1/1000, 1/500 and 1/200 scales. The students are expected to include
model visuals in presentations. Also 3D scan methods and applications can be used for
scanning physical models in three dimensions. While students will not deliver physical
models, they are expected to make physical models. A video lasting 30 seconds is expected
to be submitted.

Digital Models can be made a part of the presentation using augmented reality (AR) or
virtual reality (VR) applications such as kubity go, augment, etc.

+ A3 Portfolio
For the final presentation an A3 booklet will be submitted as a summary of the whole
process of the work done during the Diploma Project including the architectural design report
attached.

After a selection, diploma projects will be exhibited online that will be announced later.

7. Presentation Guidelines
The size for the presentation boards is 16:9 horizontal ratio in .PDF file format. (For
some tips about optimizing your PDF files, you can visit https://darch.itu.edu.tr/tips-pdf-
optimization/?lang=en.) The ground level plans, sections, and elevations must include the
immediate surroundings, transportation (vehicle and/or pedestrian) connections and close
landscape of the building. The method of presentation is on students’ choice, provided that
the students themselves prepare and present the material. Drawing methods, use of manual
or digital representation techniques, 3D modeling of the project proposal and use of color is
left to the discretion of the student. In addition to these, students are advised to submit
properly formatted documents if sketches, graphics and textual descriptions depicting the
process are to be used. Posters are to be prepared with a view to project integrity and ease
of exhibition and preservation. Also, each poster, layout plan and model will be organized
from the same viewing direction graphically. Expressing the architectural project in its
entirety and authenticity will be taken into consideration in the evaluation.

Project documents will be uploaded to the Ninova system. Documents should not
exceed 50 MB size per file. For A3 exhibition, Faculty Archive and NAAB documents, a
template will be shared with students via Ninova again.

8. Architectural Brief and Programme

The school of architecture is a starting point, however the program needs to be

rethought as the proposals question the boundaries of the discipline of architecture and its
education through other programmatic aspects, such as archaeological, transportational,
and migrational, that will be gathered from the site and the wider context.

The organization of the program should rely on the poetic confrontations of space
and action, and the non-causal relationships between form and function, rather than the
traditional and canonic cause-and-effect relationships. Proposals are expected to explore
the interchangeability of form and program, so that an in-between position of provisional
organization, experiments, and non-planned situations becomes possible. The programmatic
components given below are thematically grouped only to suggest a catalog of required
spaces, and they are not meant to be directly translated into functional zones as such.
Instead, it can be interpreted in zones of ‘stability’ and ‘instability’ within this frame to suggest
a variety of permanent and temporary spatial constructions.

Total construction area is estimated to be around 10.000 m²: within this area % 30 is
advised to be the other programs and %10 to be operational and regulatory. The
percentages are negotiable according to the specifics of the proposals.

meeting, collaborating, exchanging

spaces of
 socialization while working or resting (a variety of size and characteristic of
spaces needs to be considered in order to encourage informal and unexpected
encounters as well as formal meetings for work, various kinds of meetings need to be
considered within the members of the school, and between members and others)

resting, stopping, having breaks, viewing

spaces of
idleness and recreation (a variety of size and characteristic of spaces needs
to be considered in order to allow unprogrammed and programmed facilities),
temporary inhabitancy (for 100-150 visiting students and staff, the number may be
reconsidered according to the design specifics)

happening, teaching, learning, researching

spaces of
production and performance (will be defined according to the additional
programs proposed by each student), education (for about 1000 students, 60
academic staff, 30 support staff)

operating, supporting, relating, regulating %10 of the total area

spaces of
circulation and services (these spaces are not exclusive of other spaces
required by specific scenarios; they may also be fully integrated in other components
of the program)

excavating, transferring, exhibiting, archiving, dwelling ... %30 of the total area
spaces
that will be defined and developed according to the specifics of each proposal
(the activities here are only given as examples, one or more of them may be taken
into consideration or others may be proposed)

9. Recommended Books and Materials

(on institutions)
Spicer, A., (2011 [1986]). Extitutions: The other side of institutions. Ephemera Journal, 2010,
10(1): 25-39.
Douglas, M. (2011 [1986]). How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.

(on architectural schools)

Borgonuovo, V. & Franceschini, S. (2020). Global Tools (1973-1975). When Education
Coincides with Life. Produzioni Nero.
Chadwick, M., (2004). Back to School: Architectural Education - the Information and the
Argument. Architectural Design.
Dutton, T., (1991). Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy.
University of Michigan.
Hardingham, S. & Rattenbury, K. (2007). Cedric Price: Potteries Thinkbelt. Routledge.
Ockman, J. (2012). Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North
America. MIT Press.

(on architectural program)

Bender, T. (2007). The Unfinished City: New York and the Metropolitan Idea. New York: NYU
Press.
Caples, S. & Jefferson, E. (2005). The New Mix: Culturally Dynamic Architecture,
Architectural Design Vol 75 No 5.
Chiesa, L. (2016). Space as Storyteller: Spatial Jumps in Architecture, Critical Theory, and
Literature. Northwestern University Press.
Dunne, A., Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hill, J. (2003). Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users. Routledge.
Leatherbarrow, D., (2000). Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology, and Topography.
MIT Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. Thames &
Hudson.
Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Werlemann, H. (1997). S,M,L,XL. Monacelli Press.
Tschumi, B. (1994). Manhattan Transcripts. Academy Editions.
Tschumi, B., (1994). Event- Cities. MIT Press.
Tschumi, B. (2018). Mimarlık ve Kopma (Architecture and Disjunction, MIT Press, 1996)
Janus Yay.
Wolfrum, S. (2015). Performative Urbanism: Generating and Designing Urban Space. Berlin:
Jovis.

(on Yenikapı)
Akkemik, U. (2015). Yenikapı Batıkları Cilt II – Yenikapı Batıklarının Ahşapları / Yenikapı
Shipwrecks Volume II – Woods of Yenikapı Shipwrecks. Ege Yayınları.
Bilsel, C. & Zelef, H. (2011). Mega Events in Istanbul from Henri Prost's master plan of 1937
to the twenty-first-century Olympic bids. Planning Perspectives, 26:4, 621-634.
Bilsel, C. (2011). “Les Transformations d’Istanbul”: Henri Prost’s planning of Istanbul
(1936-1951). ITU A|Z, 8 (1), 100-116.
Kocabas, U. (2015). The Yenikapı Byzantine-Era Shipwrecks, Istanbul, Turkey: a preliminary
report and inventory of the 27 wrecks studied by Istanbul University. The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 44.1: 5–38.
Özsait-Kocabaş, I. (2018). The Yenikapı 12 Shipwreck, a 9th-Century Merchantman from the
Theodosian Harbour in Istanbul, Turkey: construction and reconstruction. The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 47.2: 357–390.
Pulak, C., Ingram, R., and Jones, M. (2015). Eight Byzantine Shipwrecks from the
Theodosian Harbour Excavations at Yenikapı in Istanbul, Turkey: an introduction. The
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 44.1: 39–73.
Wolfgang M.W. (2001) Istanbul’un Tarihsel Topoğrafyası, YKY Publications

Research Seminars:
Tissink, F. E. (2016). Narrative-driven design: Roles of narratives for designing the built
environment. TU Delft, MSc Architecture Research Seminars.

Web-sites:
https://radical-pedagogies.com
https://saltonline.org/media/files/globaltools_scrd-1.pdf
https://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/architectural-storytelling-its-my-thing/
https://konkur.istanbul/theodosius/
http://www.istanbulurbandatabase.com/
http://yenikapibatiklari.com/kitap