Who is designing for whom? A critical design studio approach


  • Alperen Meral image/svg+xml Bingöl University

    Alperen Meral graduated from Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture in 2005. He received his Ph.D. degree from Düzce University. He is research assistant in Landscape of Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture in Bingöl University.

  • Emrah Yalçınalp image/svg+xml Karadeniz Technical University

    Emrah Yalçınalp graduated from Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Landscape Architecture in 2000. He received his MSc and Ph. D. degree in the same university. Working as an Associate Professor in the Landscape Architecture Department of Karadeniz Technical University, Yalçınalp has worked as an instructor, designer and researcher at different schools such as Mississippi State University, Okayama University, Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, Florida International University.

  • Özgür Demirci image/svg+xml Karadeniz Technical University

    Özgür Demirci graduated from Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Landscape Architecture in 2011. He completed his master’s degree at the same university in 2018. He started his Ph.D. studies at Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Landscape Architecture in 2019. He still continues his research in the field of Landscape Architecture, Plant Materials and Cultivation at Karadeniz Technical University.




environmental design and project, landscape architecture education, landscape studio


Studio studies can easily be defined as the cornerstone of the discipline in departments giving architectural education. Although the educational process differs in educational institutions and among the educators, its main purpose is always to give the best experience on design process to the students and to bring together different space designs and functions with certain criteria. Although it is often stated to the contrary, it is generally difficult to get the necessary support from the social sciences in studio work. For students, considering the design with sociological data and creating a concept can be perceived as a waste of time, since the user experience cannot be observed in a project that will not be implemented in the real life and it will often create differences that cannot be measured. Dealing with form, color, and material instead can help impress teachers and other students in the studio much more easily. Students often act pragmatically and choose the method that promises them a higher score in a shorter way, as creating a charming product in studio will seem more powerful while a deep research on the sociologic and ecologic background cannot reflect themselves easily on a render. Although very different user profiles were determined for the same area at the beginning of the design process, it may cause that the resulting products cannot create enough characteristic differences in the end. The aim of this research is to examine whether the projects differ in terms of functionality regarding their different user profiles determined by the students, based on the studio work of Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Landscape Architecture within the scope of Environmental Design and Project II course. As a result of the examination, it has been determined that although the designer and customer profile are different, the morphological differences in designs are not perceived very easily, which means the methodology in the studios should be examined again.


Metrics Loading ...


  • Acar, H. and Bekar, M. (2017) ‘A studio work in landscape architecture education: Coastal area landscape design project’, MEGARON / Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture E-Journal, 12(2), pp. 329–342. doi:10.5505/megaron.2017.65265.
  • Akın, Ö. (2002) ‘Case-based instruction strategies in architecture’, Design Studies, 23(4), pp. 407–431. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00046-1.
  • Alon-Mozes, T. (2006) ‘From “Reading” the Landscape to “Writing” a Garden: The Narrative Approach in the Design Studio’, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 1(1), pp. 30–37. doi:10.1080/18626033.2006.9723362.
  • Alpak, E.M., Özkan, D.G. and Düzenli, T. (2018) ‘Systems approach in landscape design: a studio work’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), pp. 593–611. doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9402-7.
  • Arıdağ, L. and Aslan, A.E. (2012) ‘Tasarım çalışmaları-1 stüdyosunda uygulanan yaratıcı drama etkinliklerinin mimarlık öğrencilerinin yaratıcı düşünce becerilerinin gelişimine etkisi’, MEGARON / Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture E-Journal, 7(1), pp. 49–66.
  • van den Brink, A. and Bruns, D. (2014) ‘Strategies for Enhancing Landscape Architecture Research’, Landscape Research, 39(1), pp. 7–20. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.711129.
  • Chang, S. (2005) ‘Seeing Landscape Through Cross-Cultural Eyes: Embracing a Transcultural Lens Toward Multilingual Design Approaches in the Landscape Studio’, Landscape Journal, 24(2), pp. 140–156. doi:10.3368/lj.24.2.140.
  • Chen, S. and Lee, V. (2015) ‘From metropolis to allotment: scaled system thinking in advancing landscape studio knowledge’, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, pp. 344–354.
  • Deming, E.M. and Swaffield, S. (2011) Landscape architecture research, inquiry, strategy design. New Jersey: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
  • Dinçer, A.E., Temel, S.C. and Öztürk, S.M. (2021) ‘Safranbolu- İncekaya Bölgesi’nde bir mimari stüdyo deneyimi’, Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 9(1), pp. 278–292.
  • Kahveci, H. and Göker, P. (2020) ‘Kent Mobilyaları Tasarım Dersi Stüdyo Çalışması; Üst Örtü-Oturma Birimi ve Piknik Donatısı Tasarımı’, Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), pp. 693–707. doi:10.24011/barofd.729622.
  • Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., Bianchi, G. and De Paiva, V.T. (2010) ‘Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), pp. 453–476. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z.
  • Lenzholzer, S., Duchhart, I. and Koh, J. (2013) ‘“Research through designing” in landscape architecture’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, pp. 120–127. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.003.
  • Özkan, D.G., Alpak, E.M. and Düzenli, T. (2016) ‘Tasarım eği̇ti̇mi̇nde yaratıcılığın geliştirilmesi: peyzaj mimarlığı çeve tasarımı stüdyo çalışması’, IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), p. 136. doi:10.18769/ijasos.96154.
  • Welsch, W. (1999) ‘Transculturality: The puzzling form of culture today’, in Featherstone, M. and Lash, S. (eds) Spaces of Culture. London: Sage.
  • Wingren, C. (2019) ‘Walk and dance through landscape in design studio teaching: reflective movement as an initial and explorative design tool’, in Jorgensen, K. et al. (eds) Teaching Landscape: The Studio Experience. 1st edn. London, pp. 16–29.
  • Yilmaz, S. et al. (2016) ‘Analyzing the Unity Concept in Design on Student Works: A Case Study of Architectural Design Course’, Inonu University Journal of Art and Design, 6(14), pp. 1–13. doi:10.16950/i.




How to Cite

Meral, A., Yalçınalp, E., & Demirci, Özgür. (2022). Who is designing for whom? A critical design studio approach. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(3), 418–424. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i3066



Research Articles