While I was analysing Tuz Gölü I worked on wind and sun condition and also spatial part of the horizon (where the sky and Tuz Gölü integrated in a line) and its orientation. The location of my design is located where we stopped at Tuz Gölü. Because I experienced that area more. I tried to create another direction for people to different experience. I did not use the orientation that is already exist at Tuz Gölü. I do not want to orient people to the spatial part of the horizon directly. Then at that part as hollow I gave the direction to the horizon where the direction changes people can experience the Tuz Gölü at the under the surface by modifying the topography of the Tuz Gölü. My aim of that part for the experience feeling the Tuz Gölü without the sense of the infinity. Also, I used semi open architectural elements to block the wind. In addition to these, I did not use linear condition because I do not want people to see the finish part from starting point.
According to jury critics, the entrance point of my design would be more meaningful, since the visitors come from larger area. Jury criticized my design because it is linear but beside that, the being not in strongly axial condition was positive and jury told that the level changes on my path are not bad. My path design was orienting visitors precisely so that jury mentioned that they would like to see solutions on my design, they said that the design needs something in other directions as well. Also, jury found how the path ends (there is a pit at the end) interesting and a sudden end to all journey. I should work on there more. That end part’s scale was so small that only one person could experience it at the same time.
BÜŞRA ŞAFAK 