Bilateral relations of tectonics through physical models: Anchoring architecture to the site

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2026.v7i1203

Keywords:

architectural design education, physical model, site, tectonics, topography

Abstract

Emphasizing the concentric relationship between the tectonics of Earth and the tectonics of architecture, this study argues that design ideas generated through this interaction have the potential to produce spatial constructs belonging to their sites, rather than objects merely positioned upon them. It examines a conceptually framed architectural design studio in which tectonics is explored as a design tool. By primarily questioning the concept of tectonics, it is defined in terms of relationalities, dualities, and dichotomies, thus offering students a robust and flexible methodology for idea generation. Within this framework, the scope is narrowed through the use of conceptual and physical tools. While tectonics is treated as a conceptual tool, the physical model is employed as a corporeal tool of inquiry. The discussions focus on analyzing the tectonics of the site and investigating its reproduction through physical models and how this form of representation affects architectural design. The study also critiques the process of analyzing the site and then moving on to idea generation, arguing that the site itself is a powerful datum for idea generation and that these processes are both incremental and deliberative. Within the architectural design studio that forms the scope of the study, the first stage was designed to question the concept of tectonics in order to raise students’ awareness of the project site. Questioning the Earth's tectonics constituted a pillar of the tectonic discussions that spread throughout the semester. The question at the center of these discussions is, “How can architecture anchor to the site?” In addressing the question, the conceptual framework of inquiry was defined as the dichotomy between tectonics and stereotomics. As a result of this inquiry process, the three-dimensional model was the medium through which the students would concretize their interpretations and findings. While the physical models constitute student-generated material, their abstraction, classification, and visual representation reflect the authors’ methodological reading of the design processes. The study ultimately proposes a methodological approach in which the relationship between site and tectonics is explored through physical modeling. On the other hand, it further argues that tectonics should be understood not merely as a descriptive category but as a critical operative concept within the design process. Owing to its inherently multilayered structure, tectonics offers a robust theoretical framework through which architectural production can be both interpreted and articulated. As such, the study provides a productive foundation for future research seeking to reassess the epistemological and methodological grounds of design practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Bilgen Dündar, Beykent University

    Bilgen Dündar serves as an Assistant Professor at İstanbul Beykent University, where her academic portfolio encompasses architectural design, architectural theory and history. Her scholarly interests lie at the intersections of architectural theory, history, and design. She received her undergraduate degree in Architecture from Dokuz Eylul University in 1998 and her Ph.D. in Architecture from Izmir Institute of Technology in 2011.

  • Aslı Uzunkaya, Beykent University

    Aslı Uzunkaya, working as an Assistant Professor at İstanbul Beykent University, received her PhD from İstanbul Technical University-Architectural Design Program. She completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University and received master degree from Yıldız Technical University. Her research interests focus on architectural design, design research, design process and reflective knowledge.

References

Anderson, S. (1981). Modern architecture and industry: Peter Behrens and the AEG factories. Oppositions, 23, 52-83.

Berlanda, T. (2014). Architectural topographies. Routledge.

Bötticher, K. (2002). Excerpts from Die Tektonik der Hellenen. In W. Oechslin, (Ed.), Otto Wagner, Adolf Loos, and the road to modern architecture. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1844).

Buck, E. (2006). Love and tectonics: Epikurean philosophy and reparative architecture. The Philosophical Forum, 37(4), 457-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2006.00248.x

Chih-Ming, S., & Yu-I, C. (2011). The tectonic bricolage of glass and steel architecture in Taiwan. International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet) (pp. 1856_1862). https://doi.org/10.1109/CECNET.2011.5769383

Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth cen-tury architecture. MIT Press.

Frampton, K. (1996). Modern architecture: Critical history. Thames & Hudson.

Frampton, K. (1998). Towards a critical regionalism: Six points for an architecture of resistance. In H. Foster (Ed.), The anti-aesthetic: Essays on postmodern culture (pp. 16-30). The New Press.

Hale, J. (2020). The ‘tectonic sensibility’ in architecture: From the pre-human to the post-human. Edinburgh Law Review, 59(3), 350-367. https://doi.org/10.3366/nfs.2020.0295

Hürol, Y. (2014). Reconsidering ethics in the tectonics of architecture through the tectonics of bodies in love. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(2), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2014.2.2

Karvouni, M. (1999). Demas: The human body as a tectonic construct. In S. Parcell & A. Pérez-Gómez (Eds.), Chora three: Intervals in the philosophy of architecture (pp. 104-124). McGill-Queen's University Press.

Kim, Y. J., & Park, S. (2017). Tectonic traditions in ancient Chinese architecture, and their development. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 16(1), 31_38. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.16.31

Kristeller, P. O. (1951). The modern system of the arts: A study in the history of aesthetics. Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(4), 496-527.

Lakkala, M., & Pihlajaniemi, J. (2018). Architectonic quality of industrial log architecture in the scope of tectonics: Learning from architectural competitions. Architecture and Urban Planning, 14, 46-54. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2018-0006

Lucchini, M., & Urban, G. J. (2023). Crossed destinies: The tectonic and modern architecture in Barcelona during the 1950s_60s. Revista de Expresión Gráfica en la Edificación, 18, 42_51. https://doi.org/10.4995/ege.2023.19642

Mallgrave, H. F. (1989). Introduction. In H. F. Mallgrave & W. Herrmann (Eds. & Trans.), Gottfried Semper: The four elements of architecture (pp. 1-44). Cambridge University Press.

Manav, A., & Urak, Z. G. (2024). Traditional architecture in the Central-Northern Mediterranean region: Tectonics and typological analysis of traditional mut houses. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 12(2), 606-637. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2024.297

McCoy, C. & Duffy, T. A. (2022). The deployable tectonic: Mechanization and mobility in architecture. Archi-tecture, Structures and Construction, 2(4), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00045-0

Oechslin, W. (2002). Tectonics and theory of raiment. In L. Widder (Trans.), Otto Wagner, Adolf Loos and the road to modern architecture, (pp. 44-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rociola, G. F. (2017). Matter, material, architecture. The tectonic conception between spontaneous consciousness and critical consciousness. Vitruvio: International Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability, 2(2), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.4995/vitruvio-ijats.2017.8745

Sántha, E., Hvejsel, M. F., & Entwistle, J. M. K. (2022). Tectonics of human well-being: Describing architecture in terms of constructed spatial gestures and their impact. Architecture, Structures and Construction, 2(4), 599-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00047-8

Schwartz, C. (2017). Introducing architectural tectonics: Exploring the intersection of design and construction. Routledge.

Semper, G. (1989). The four elements of architecture: A contribution to the comparative study of architecture. In H. F. Mallgrave & W. Herrmann (Eds. & Trans.), Gottfried Semper: The four elements of architecture (pp. 74-129). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1851).

Shou, T., & Xu, H. (2025). Topographical tectonics in the theoretical framework of vernacular architecture. Journal of Architecture, 30(2), 365-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2025.2554962

Smith, A. C. (2004). Architectural model as machine a new view of models from antiquity to the present day. Architectural Press.

Talamini, G., Xue, C., & Wang, Z. (2024). On the tectonic of bamboo: The rhizome of architecture. Architectural Research Quarterly, 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135524000113

UNESCO. (n.d.). The Mid-Atlantic Ridge. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/504/

Wijaya, C., Hariyanto, A., Soegiono, P., & Gunawan, E. (2024). Tectonics in architecture of Tanean Lanjhang and Osing house. Dimensi: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 51(1), 49_60. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.51.1.49-60

Downloads

Published

2026-04-30

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

Dündar, B., & Uzunkaya, A. (2026). Bilateral relations of tectonics through physical models: Anchoring architecture to the site. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 7(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2026.v7i1203

Similar Articles

1-10 of 186

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.