Evaluation of Different Housing Typologies with a Design Pedagogy

Abstract

Design studios generally concentrate on some critical concerns of urban life to overcome, and housing is one of those. Rapid development and advanced technology increase the need for and problems with housing. Such concerns should be addressed in theory, practice, and pedagogy. This study assesses the sophomores’ design output and their understanding of housing typologies based on real-world project sites to contribute to pedagogical aspects. Our study results show that students’ villa typologies generally focus on specific social groups with central themes, including health and recreation, while apartment complex designs converge on community life, urban identity, and tranquility. Based on the survey, students were part of it; they had difficulty with the scale and site-related grading problems, while most wished to work on the other typology theme. This study eventually calls attention to housing problems based on the design students’ perspectives on different residential typologies.

1. Introduction

Architectural studios are widely adopted methods of architectural education [1,2,3,4]. Unlike the studios of other disciplines, such as fine arts, where aesthetic concerns are generally the primary aim, the studios of landscape architecture, architecture, and urban planning primarily focus on tangible and comprehensive solutions. These methods pursue common objectives by integrating design elements and cooperation from stakeholders, such as citizens, neighbors, and site users [4]. Such studios provide pedagogical experiences and allow students to apply and infer their socio-economic and socio-demographic observations in studio contexts. The project approaches consider different user needs regarding social, cultural, and economic aspects to guide students in the context of requirements and place. These studios address various urban and rural issues, including migration, social class disparities, urban sprawl, low wages, and the scarcity of urban green spaces and inadequate housing and residential environments, which remain topical trends as they are integral to everyday life for inhabitants. Furthermore, a vital feature of architectural education is the rapid proliferation of potential design solutions in response to changing residential areas and housing types [5].

In addition to the critical aspects of urban and rural problems, the rapidly changing and developing social and physical environment has led to the emergence of various housing types, as individuals prefer to live in different housing typologies [6]. While some scholars defined typology as a part of the city with a homogeneous urban form—which can be related to the Western world—some other researchers remark on a heterogeneous type of urban form that is most related to the developing countries, i.e., Turkey [7,8].

Industrialization and the growing urban areas have encouraged people to live in residential houses in some countries. The need for housing has increased due to the migration of people from rural to urban areas and immigration from various countries. This situation has led to a shift in housing typologies in social and cultural terms [9]. Gated communities, “bordered safe zones” (residential and mass housing) in Turkey, first emerged in metropolises with a new mass housing legislation formed after the 1980s [10,11]. Despite having a relatively short history, the number of gated communities in urban areas has increased gradually over the past two decades [11]. Housing typologies are categorized as gated towers, villa towns, apartment blocks, and gated towns [12].

Gated villa towns are single-unit dwellings whose target audiences are the upper classes. Gated apartment blocks are residential buildings that cater to the middle and upper-middle classes [12]. The types of houses within the scope of this study primarily focused on gated villa towns and gated apartment blocks, which are more commonly preferred. While there are over 2,5 million gated apartment blocks in Turkey, over half of them were built in the last two decades [13]. Considering the massive increase in housing, a comprehensive approach to how studios may help better understand design pedagogy is underexplored.

As such, this study examines the design studio framework, which encompasses various housing typologies (residential villas and mass housing), and aims to provide an extensive perspective on students’ outputs. In the direction of this path, students were expected to produce landscape design solutions by connecting the given scenarios for residential villas and apartments. Considering the multi-component nature of architectural education, this studio approach facilitates the adoption of different housing typologies in response to changing trends.

Concerning the needs and objectives of this study, housing is a multidisciplinary context that encompasses architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture, and it involves various social, cultural, and environmental features. The importance of housing led these disciplines to refrain from offering comprehensive solutions that cater to changing housing typologies and their associated needs. Establishing a core path at the pedagogical level of undergraduate studies may lead to a better understanding and objectives for such purposes. So, this study focused on typological aspects of housing in a studio practice to understand the context holistically, providing a platform for design and planning disciplines to offer more effective solutions.

2. Literature Overview

2.1. Built Environment and Architecture Pedagogy

Architecture faculties offer unique perspectives on the studio experience, exploring new ideas and generating alternative design solutions [14] to enhance the studio experience. This exploration of new ideas and generation of innovative design alternatives [14] enables the faculty to explore new ideas and generate new approaches to the studio experience. Additionally, architectural studios are dynamic platforms [15] and often lack formal teaching methods. Therefore, the class structure, instructors’ approach, and design problem, among other factors, stimulate students to develop their design solution processes [16]. Hadjiyanni [17] initiated a broad scope for the pedagogy and design disciplines by addressing the challenges and curriculum concerns. This study aimed to generate a different vision of pedagogy by assessing the following three design concepts: culturally sensitive housing, universal design concept for kitchen sections, and museum design. Some other studies have suggested that idea competition may also foster sustainable pedagogy practices by spreading out various principles. The author also drew specific attention to covering various aspects of the design phases with drawings [18]. Some authors have also proposed integrated education models that combine pedagogical architectural practices with sustainable approaches in various contexts, such as architectural educational strategies and eco-didactic approaches [19,20].

When an architectural studio’s pedagogy is examined, instructors pursue various methods. Sawyer (2017) discusses pedagogical practices in design studios under five themes: design approach, technique, actions, and educators’ beliefs for the studio [21].

Some studies assessed the association between the built environment and pedagogy. Gamble et al. (2015) investigated the architectural building aspects and related energy efficiency attributes within a studio pedagogy to integrate green technology into students’ design studio themes [22]. This study established a pedagogical understanding of building technology, housing typologies, and the sustainability nexus by incorporating green technology ideas into housing options, involving more than fifteen students. Kamalipour and Peimani (2019) examined informal settlements in an urban design program studio, focusing on urban design education from an educational perspective, regarding urban design education in the context of informal settlements [23]. Scrutinizing two urban design studios, the authors reported that urban design education should be engaged with other disciplines, including architecture and landscape architecture, to offer comprehensive design studio contexts. Keynoush and Daneshyar (2022) conducted a graduate studio on the nexus between buildings, landscape architecture, and architecture, specifically in the context of green areas and local agriculture [24]. This study, therefore, aimed to contribute to social sustainability within four studio projects.

2.2. Pedagogy and Housing

Other bodies of literature have examined the nexus between pedagogy and housing. Park (2007) structured a studio to assess various urban village houses in Honolulu, Hawaii [25]. Twelve students were asked to examine and create solutions for high-rise building contexts, and they had final projects that included physical models. While the students mentioned that this approach to the studio offered an alternative to high-rise buildings as vertical sprawl, remodeling, and providing novel solutions made them think they had a vital role in shaping housing typologies. De Jong and Lyster (2010) organized a graduate studio that highlighted housing urbanism in Chicago, with thirty-two students creating various novel housing typologies as studio outcomes [26]. The concepts included live-work contexts, aging populations, high-density communities, and others, and this study contributed architectural and infrastructural ideas for rapidly growing cities. Dabaieh et al. (2018) also conducted an architectural studio on the sustainability aspects of low-cost and energy-efficient concepts at the undergraduate level [27]. The authors structured a three-phase semester, including lectures, field trips, students’ design process and development, and prototype and evaluation. This study contributed to the pedagogy aspects of green and energy-related architectural understanding. Czafik et al. (2020) highlighted the transformation in residential building design for all-year students in Bratislava, Slovakia, by examining both theoretical and practical aspects of housing [28]. The authors asked students questions about typologies and housing design approaches, including one-family homes, residential complexes, and multifunctional complexes. This study suggests that residential design pedagogy should be provided harmoniously across both bachelor’s and graduate degrees to tackle housing concerns, addressing them both theoretically and practically.

3. Research Methodology

This study is based on two methodological understandings: assessing the students’ output and perspectives on residential design solutions by using qualitative methods. This study followed a particular direction with essential stages, including the introduction of sites that feature two housing typologies, and data collection approaches. It conveyed brief information on studio structure, revealed emerging patterns in student products, and explored students’ preferences regarding the studio process.

Students are part of the sophomore studio as it is the third studio course of the landscape architecture program. It is evident that all students enrolled in this studio possess ample knowledge and experience in hand drawing, computer-aided design, basic design, physical modeling, and have completed two studio experiences at various scales and contexts, including university campus and public open space design. There are 26 students in this studio who have acquired knowledge on the aspects mentioned earlier, and four instructors with various backgrounds in the given studio context. The studio took 14 weeks to complete in the fall semester.

3.1. Site and Data Collection

The project sites were selected based on the studio context through communication with developers and architects. Initially, there were few other options, and eventually, the sites were selected based on the available site plans and the developers’ appropriate times (Figure 1).

The studio project areas are in Bursa, a developing industrial city in Turkey’s Marmara Region. Bursa. Increasing migration and the need for housing have created a severe housing demand in Bursa. The city of Bursa, whose municipality was established in 1987, comprises five metropolitan districts. Among these districts, Nilüfer is a notable one, as it is the location of the first organized industrial zone in Bursa, which was also home to Turkey’s first planned industrial zone. The district of Nilüfer, which experienced significant industrial migration, particularly in the 1980s and later, stands out as one of the most sought-after districts in terms of housing and the built environment. Therefore, many people wishing to own a house create demand for newly opened and future residential areas in the Nilüfer district. Within the framework of this studio, project sites were selected from the neighborhoods of Gumustepe and Kayapa in the Nilüfer district. Housing construction has been completed in both project sites that form the basis of the studio project and constitute construction sites for landscaping projects. In Figure 2 and Figure 3, details specific to the actual site are shown in the composition created from these two and three, details specific to the actual site are shown in the composition created from construction site visits to the studio project areas.

3.1.1. Villas

The villa sites are located within Gumustepe, almost 13 km (8 miles) from the city center. The site includes five villas covering nearly 5500 square meters (1,3 acres) (Figure 2).

The common area of villas included 2600 square meters (0.65 acres), with some limitations regarding topography and site grading. The developers aimed to build seven to eight villas, each equipped with amenities such as a pool, gathering area, and fire pits, offering a wider city view (Figure 3). The figure also represents the physical conditions of the structures during the site visits.

3.1.2. Apartment

The apartment complex is located 24 km (15 miles) from the city center, further than the villas (Figure 4). There are three apartment complexes with around two hundred units over a five-floor plan covering 7000 square meters (1.7 acres).

The common area of apartments is 4200 square meters (1 acre), and the key concern was to address several amenities for more than two hundred apartment units (Figure 3). Furthermore, the architects and developers expressed concerns about common areas for grading while also emphasizing the need for inclusive design solutions. The site is located next to an industrial zone, as well as a few major roads. Apartments are four- to six-story buildings with lower elevation differences (Figure 5).

3.2. Studio Structure

The class structure followed specific directions for better understanding (Figure 6). Such directions began with site visits to gain a general knowledge of the project’s sites and instructed students on-site observation within the context of site analysis. The project owners and managers attended site visits to address the students’ questions and concerns, as well as the issues and limitations of the sites. Students and instructors also discussed essential site specifics over the hard copy site plans. Next, the students were asked to prepare a presentation based on their concepts from the site visits. The general framework of the presentations consists of the history of villas and apartments, their developments over the years, recent trends in the global agenda, and potential design attributes in the project context. The aim was to refine and revisit some key terminologies related to housing typologies, in which some students had misunderstandings and disagreements regarding the studio requirements.

Studio meetings were followed by hosting some guest speakers, including landscape architects, architects, developers, and faculty members (Figure 7). While guest speakers relayed various essential information on housing, residential patterns, case studies, personal experience as designer and faculty, expectations of inhabitants, the limitations of implementation phases of developers, site-specific problems, and how landscape architects and architects tackled such issues in the field, theoretical aspects of quality of life, etc., students were able to ask questions and obtain some background information on the context. While the studio was utilized face-to-face, some online tools, including Google Drive and a WhatsApp studio communication group, were used for material sharing, such as base maps, project reports, syllabi, course presentations, weekly assignments, student support, clarifications, and FAQs. This method also ensured a digital archive of all studio products during the fourteen weeks.

Students proceeded with site analyses, conceptual design, initial design, and site implementation projects for the team and personal projects. The first seven weeks of the studio covered site visits, guest speaker sessions, and common design (team) phases till mid-term. In the second half of the semester, the studio concentrated on the individual design of project sites. Students were asked to give pin-up presentations and conduct individual desk critiques for both the team and individual projects.

The residential housing problem-based studio comprises two key phases: designing common areas for both sites based on given scenarios and designing specific villa and apartment sites with their respective concepts. Two pivotal steps aim to ensure the students capture the essential ideas of the studio requirements in the common area as a “warm-up” phase. The students were divided into three subcategories, comprising a total of six groups. The three scenarios of villa projects are age-friendly communities, digital-based communities, and health-related communities. In contrast, apartment scenarios include mixed-use development, industry-based community, and airport/aircraft-related communities. In this phase, the students brought their site analysis and design solutions for the common area. At the same time, they created the initial physical modeling of the site as a group assignment (Figure 8). Then, they were asked to design the residential sites to create solutions with their design concepts. With these instructions, the students were randomly divided into two main groups: those for gated villas (13 students) and those for gated apartments (13 students).

4. Results

4.1. Emerging Concepts of Student Products

Having different typologies for the studio structure revealed some notions. Assessing the students’ projects revealed several key themes and categories. After analyzing the most frequently used words in the students’ final reports and the concepts they employed, themes were extracted from the conceptual project details and narratives of the students. Initially, the concept names were categorized into social, sustainable, and technology sub-categories. Then, their project reports were used to identify the most frequently used words related to their concept names, and this process was further elaborated on the essential themes. Students’ problem-solving and concept approaches are ultimately grouped under nine different themes. These concepts are community life (8 students), nature (5 students), light (2 students), design for all (2 students), sustainability (2 students), memory (1 student), entertainment (2 students), technology (1 student), and sound (1 student) (Figure 9).

As a notable observation of the students’ projects, it can be derived that some students focused on the same concept despite studying different housing typologies. For instance, community living, nature, inclusive design (in the context of “design for everyone”), and recreation concepts were explored in both typologies. On the other hand, some themes adopted only one typology. Regarding apartment typology, students designed sound, memory, and sustainability-oriented solutions, while villa typology projects focused on themes of technology and illumination (lighting installations) (Figure 10).

Students explored various themes related to apartment typology, and some of these covered interesting notions. The co-living and recreation mottos were common ideas that aimed to take “out” the inhabitants who live in a dense apartment life by offering some program elements, i.e., hobby gardens, agricultural activities, recreational amenities, etc., while sound concepts used different sound sources, i.e., water, wind, vegetation, and animals to provide essential tranquility and quiet environment for inhabitants (Figure 11).

Regarding villa project themes specifically, students concentrated on some other aspects. Some projects aimed to bring nature adjacent to the villas, allowing residents to interact and engage with it. Some other concepts attributed technology-oriented aspects to villa life. For instance, metaverse paths, digital scenes, and smart home applications were the key features of this concept. The last common approach was the use of illumination and installation art concepts, which included various lighting, reflection, and shadow-related program elements to establish distinctive concepts (Figure 12).

In addition to the typologies, students developed critical thinking skills and applied them to tackle design challenges, such as solving circulation issues in conjunction with topography and constructing common activity areas. In addition, due to the high number of gated apartment block users, the common areas of the gated apartments progressed more slowly than those of the villa towns. However, it was observed that students coping with such phases of the project positively affected their development while producing the necessary solutions based on their studio outcomes.

4.2. Student Surveys

The students were asked to participate in a survey regarding their experience during the studio. The survey questions inquired about several key aspects, including the studio’s impression, challenges, willingness to design for other housing typologies, design criteria, and approach, as well as the studio’s contributions and areas for improvement (

Table 1. Themes of the survey questions.

Question Aim	Question Type	Response Option
Studio keywords	Choice	Category
Willingness for another typology	Choice	Category
Challenges	Choice	Category
Design criteria	Choice	Category
Observing typologies	Choice	Likert Scale
Contributions of studio	Open-ended	Category
Lack of experience	Open-ended	Open-ended
Socio-demographic (Age/Gender)	Choice	Category

). All students who submitted their final products participated in the survey (N = 24).

The students’ first impression keywords for the studio are “grading” and “stress/anxiety”, respectively, 60% and 20%. The most challenging subjects for students are “grading” and “time management,” with 67% and 13% of students, respectively. If they wished to work for the other housing typology, 67% said they would be interested in working. The main reasons for this response were that gated apartments involved less grading concern or required a greater understanding of the grading calculation, particularly with villa typology. Based on another survey question, the students would have difficulty if they had a chance to work for the other typology, on grading for villas (42%) or designing for many people who live in gated apartments (38%). Inquiring about their design criteria for the given project sites, 33% of the students mentioned they mainly took into consideration the physical aspects of the site, i.e., slope and circulation. In comparison, 29% of the students concentrated on users’ and residents’ preferences, while 21% of them focused solely on whether their concept was working with the site or not. These two directions also represent their project themes in relation to their design concepts.

Other questions that might be integrated for the instructors’ further development were asked of the students, as follows: How might this studio be improved? What improvements could be made to this studio? Of them, 21% mentioned that the current form of teaching is sufficient, the same percent of students suggested adding more desk critiques as they are getting more input regarding their studio process, 17% of them asked for more clarifications and explanations for the deliverables and key milestones, and 17% of them suggested to include more case studies, grading, slope, ramp, and stair calculations and theoretical informative course sessions.

5. Discussion

Within the scope of this studio, the aim was to enable residents to establish a holistic and healthy relationship with their environment from a pedagogical perspective by assessing the students’ products and their evaluations of the course structure. Dwellers who experience interior architecture also desire to connect with nature and such elements from a multifunctional perspective, as the framework of this design studio is constituted. Considering the user’s relationship with residences across different typologies, students’ perceptions and understandings of the relationship between socio-demographic and economic structures and housing were key attributes. Hence, the different typologies in the studio were examined through technical excursions by students. The students assigned to the related typologies developed their design solutions by considering the difference between typology features, socio-demographics, etc., and the sites. Considering these aspects prompted the students to think beyond traditional house gardens, as they observed and analyzed different housing typologies, including gated apartment block gardens and villa towns, and examined how these typologies differ in their surroundings as part of urban life by comparing the profiles of the dwellers. Since various typologies were designed, the students considered all scenarios with different backgrounds. Starting from the same phase of projects at larger scales, students were introduced to the spatial setup and the process of analyzing land cover and land use, green areas, transportation, and solid-void maps in site analyses. While the villa towns were surrounded by large forest landscapes and panoramic urban views, the gated apartment blocks were transformed from agricultural areas into residential ones. They were recently allocated for settlement at the periphery of the organized industrial zone. Therefore, students began to comprehend and differentiate typological determinants on a 1/10,000 scale in the first phases of the studio.

In landscape architecture studios, housing-related design studios often revolve around the design of villa gardens, typically defined as enclosed private spaces designated for single-family use. However, the studio framework described in this study distinguished itself through the following two key innovations: (i) the exploration of various housing typologies and (ii) the realization of common area needs and designs for different users within these typologies. This is also confirmed by the students’ products, particularly in the common areas, which are designed to accommodate many user profiles and multi-layered actions. Students faced challenges in addressing the needs and functional requirements of approximately 300 residents while adopting conceptual approaches, as well as in addressing the almost 16-m elevation difference in design solutions. Ultimately, they sought to identify the similarities and differences between villa and apartment units in terms of design solutions.

These observations directed some patterns specifically. For the apartment complex typology, it was observed that students spent time on the parking areas, resulting in functional proposals that were often detached from the realities of landscape use despite coherent conceptual intentions. Students allocated approximately forty percent of their design area to parking spaces and produced a substantial number of sketches to balance circulation requirements with permeable surfaces—particularly in the context of reflecting their nature-based design concepts. In the villa typology, rather than focusing on parking space, projects explored the implementation of individual areas for each villa, incorporating functional and aesthetic program elements. Another notable pattern was the inclusion of a co-living theme in both housing typologies. It is assumed that villas are more suitable for a co-living approach; however, this study confirmed that both villas and apartments are welcomed regarding pedagogical output [29,30]. Furthermore, as the majority of the students’ scenarios concentrated on co-organized activities for various residents, including large families and student housing, the co-living theme revealed community engagement [31].

One of the key contributions of this studio was the observable advancement in sophomore students’ ability to conceptualize and engage with spatial housing typologies through both analytical thinking and design strategies. Before participating in the studio, many students demonstrated a tendency to conceptualize housing predominantly from an interior-oriented perspective. However, as the studio progressed, they began to develop a more comprehensive understanding of housing as a multi-layered integration of relationships between the inside and outside, encompassing physical features, user demographics, and spatial context. The local context provided a practical framework for examining how residential forms are shaped by land morphology and class-based settlement patterns. Accordingly, two contrasting typologies were selected for the studio: (i) an apartment complex located on relatively flat plains and (ii) villa sites situated at the mountainside characterized by significant elevation changes. This specific site selection aimed to allow students to think critically about both the physical aspects of the site (topography, elevation, grading, climate conditions, etc.) and the users’ demands and needs for residents (how different housing typologies require different programs). With this predefined scenario, students developed syntheses of multifunctional programs and optimized communal spaces within apartment typologies. In contrast, students in the villa typology primarily advanced to calculations involving elevation and slope, as well as individual user demands.

One of the most notable differences between the groups was the topography and slope factors. The students in the villa towns project received more support in landscape engineering and site analysis, while the gated community groups received more assistance with program elements. To foster these processes, one-third of the project process was supported by physical models, which allowed the studio students to think in three dimensions and to imagine engineering and site solutions.

6. Conclusions

Housing has recently garnered more attention due to shifting policies, growing populations, and advancing technologies. This study aimed to address housing design by assessing different typologies at the undergraduate studio level.

This study eventually revealed two key aspects. Students are familiar with the housing sector and are learning to address potential issues from architectural and socio-demographic perspectives. The operability of the studio process focused on the housing periphery in a specific area by connecting spatial reality with various extracurricular supports, including guest speakers, site visits, frame presentations, and physical model workshops. The instructors aimed to provide students with technical skills for project drawing and enhance their multidimensional thinking skills. They developed skills in hand- and digital-drawing techniques for concept development, slope site grading, and other related areas. However, one of the studio’s outputs that fell below expectations was the level of construction details that did not emerge from students’ projects as expected. In this regard, the development of studio outputs should be supported by focusing more on the construction details.

The studio approach focused on technical learning outcomes through a practical project, as opposed to studying imaginary contexts of dwellings or landforms. In this context, the studio design based on realistic foundations and avoiding the creation of only imaginary products provided a tangible contribution to the students.

Although the students’ performances in terms of grades were not within the scope of this study, students who regularly received the critiques better addressed the deficits and improved their skills more successfully. One of the most striking points noted among the housing typologies at the final phase was that the more challenging topography of the villa towns yields more creative and imaginative design solutions. On the other hand, it was observed that gated apartment blocks with low slopes and relatively fewer site-related problems emerged, accompanied by fewer creative projects.

It was observed that a studio setting with various dynamics beyond the one-way user-garden understanding contributed to the student development process. It would be interesting to observe how different typologies are increased and expanded in future studio dealings. Future studies can also focus on overcoming students’ early design processes in studio experiences and improving holistic classroom success beyond individual efforts.

Consequently, incorporating a studio-based pedagogy tends to improve students’ general orientation towards practice regarding housing typology in their profession. This may also yield essential theoretical and practical insights for students and instructors, ultimately leading to enhanced living environments.