“An airport…” says Le Corbusier, “should be naked..”
“The glory of an airport lies in its wide open spaces.
To compete with a machine;a plane is not easy. The suitable architecture for an airport is the one that is invisible. Only sky, grass and concrete landing field…”
“Naked Airport”
A Cultural History of the World’s Most Revolutionary Structure.
Alastair Gordon. Metropolitan Books- 2004.
The Sabiha Gökçen International Airport’s 3rd Terminal ’s design choices were made by considering various interconnected factors. Mainly, “site” constituted an essential pivotal point. The existing structural pattern of the airport complex, as well as the rugged and exceptional topographical conditions in the region where the new structure is to be built, were both considered as significant preliminary data. The structural embodiment of a relatively sensorial framework, developed through the sensual perceptions that the passenger would experience in relation to their surroundings, the impressions they would form about Istanbul city, and the residue that would remain in their imagination upon reaching their destination after passing through this port, was served as an intellectual route, actuated from the initial stages of the design. Another distinctive aspect of the design was the aim of achieving a sustainable terminal with ecological concerns by minimizing environmental problems that such a massive terminal could generate, as well as the energy resources consumed by the building.
It was envisioned that the new terminal and multi-storey car park buildings would create a categorical difference from the existing terminal I and II, leaving them in their own states, and take form by making the most coherent use of the opportunities provided by the existing topography, instead of conflicting with its harsh conditions. This attitude paved the way for an extended, low terminal body that is topographically integrated to its surroundings. It almost presents itself as a part of nature. From this body, a pier structure gently departures to organize apron relations through a kind of machine aesthetic.
Rather than a conventional -normative- structure, the new terminal presents itself prominently to all who arrive as a man-made topography, bearing resemblance to a form of -land-art-. The topographical carpet that covers a variety of functions and massive structures, partly fractures in a gentle manner to form linear slits and skylights with the aim of penetrating and illuminating the interior spaces. By courtesy of this green sculpted carpet, the massive terminal structure seems almost invisible at first glance. Meanwhile, the pier delicately breaks off from the main terminal structure by creating an inner courtyard, it maintains the apron edge with a linear planimetry.
Considering the contrast that emerges between these two entities, one can argue that the main terminal structure serves as a continuation of the existing topography and blends into the surrounding environment whereas the piers define themselves through the technological language established by the relationship among the apron, runway, other technical structures, and even the aircraft themselves.
The project, which considers all the sensorial components of the context, needs to meet cognitive criteria such as buildability, cost-effectiveness, smooth passenger-baggage flow, ease of operation and maintenance, expandability, and flexible usage without error. In this respect, an inner world is created with a dynamic language. The interior design sustains a fluid visual quality and is characterized by openness and spaciousness. A kind of movement can be observed from every point through gallery voids that are thoughtfully placed among different levels.
