Description
The project site, located within an urban zone governed by strict and constraining building regulations, initially presented itself as a challenge within the design process. However, these limitations soon became an opportunity to define a disciplined and distinctive architectural response to the context. While the only renovated adjacent parcel had violated zoning laws—building with nearly 60% lot coverage and extending two meters beyond the permitted boundary—the project, by adhering to the legal maximum of 50% coverage, consciously sought to preserve the spatial order and visual coherence of the neighborhood. This approach not only resulted in more refined massing proportions and openings, but also enhanced the legibility and clarity of the threshold between public and private realms within the urban fabric.
In line with reducing lot coverage and improving the environmental quality of interior spaces, several voids were introduced throughout the building, including within the façade. Beyond meeting functional needs—such as natural light, effective ventilation, and fluid circulation—these interventions enabled the formation of purposeful solids and voids along the façade without compromising the client’s economic expectations. Within a project categorized as “infill architecture,” these voids transformed the façade from a conventional, passive decorative surface into an active, deep, and multi-layered interface—one that, through precise geometric rhythm and proportion, establishes a meaningful two-way dialogue between interior space and the urban frontage. Here, the façade is no longer an applied skin but an integral component of spatial experience, perception, and urban legibility. It becomes an element that, through a balance of form, function, and meaning, redefines the building’s relationship with its surroundings and elevates the quality of human interaction with architectural form.
Given that the surrounding context predominantly consists of mid-aged buildings—many of which are in need of renovation—the design process stands as an effective, responsive, and creative model for future interventions at the neighborhood scale. In an era where fleeting trends and superficial fashion-driven approaches increasingly shape the cityscape, an architecture grounded in fundamental principles—geometric order and aesthetic discipline—can serve as a powerful strategy against visual disorder and morphological chaos.
The delicate lines articulated in the façade through materials such as concrete and brick reflect a sensory duality between lightness and solidity. This interplay of texture, material, and tone produces a layered and meaningful perceptual experience for the observer. The material and formal dialogue is not abstract; it unfolds in conscious engagement with the surrounding urban context, where the physical qualities and chromatic values of the materials enter a silent yet influential conversation with the existing fabric and the collective memory of the neighborhood. Thus, the façade becomes a mediating element—an identity-bearing surface that simultaneously integrates with its urban setting and contributes to the continuity of the district’s physical and cultural legibility.
The incorporation of vegetation across the façade extends beyond aesthetic considerations; it is a multi-layered strategy aligned with sustainable architectural principles. The presence of living greenery enhances spatial perception and generates a sense of vitality, while performing essential environmental functions—moderating façade temperature, reducing air pollution, and improving the building’s energy performance. Rooted in biophilic design concepts, this interaction between nature and architecture fosters an emotional and cognitive connection between occupants and their environment. Through seasonal change and gradual plant growth, it introduces a temporal dimension to spatial experience. As mediating elements, the plants form not only a bridge between the building and its urban context, but also a deeper bond between human, architecture, and nature.
A key parameter shaping the project’s plan was the client’s request for two residential units per floor—each with distinct areas (two-bedroom and three-bedroom) and clearly defined private domains, despite sharing the same floor plate. With a human-centered approach focused on enhancing the quality of living, the spatial organization situates the larger unit on the southern side to maximize natural light, cross-ventilation, and open views. Accordingly, the vertical circulation core—comprising stairs and elevator—was positioned so that each unit benefits from an independent entrance lobby, reinforcing functional separation and privacy. These spatial strategies not only addressed the client’s needs but also elevated the psychological and social dimensions of dwelling within the units.
Architecture is not only the art of building; it is the art of not building. In infill projects, the voids, the gaps, and the terraces often remain the architect’s last strongholds. In this project, by symbolically “floating” brick volumes within the familiar concrete envelope and extending them inward, we sought—through purposeful fragmentation and void-making—to enhance shading, depth, and perspective in inherently flat infill façades, while alluding to the cultural narratives and aesthetic transitions of a transforming era. Thus emerges a layered architectural composition shaped by exposed concrete frameworks and brick massing units nested within them. In this family-oriented apartment, each volume carries its own story; yet our collective story is told through the interplay of inside and outside, past and present, light and shadow.
