Uncovering: An Interface Between Land & Sea (MSc)

UNCOVERING

An Interface Between Land & Sea

Emergent Technologies and Design

ARHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

GRADUATE SCHOOL ProgrammeME

ProgrammeME: Emergent Technologies and Design

YEAR: 2024-2025

COURSE TITLE: MSc. Dissertation

FOUNDING DIRECTOR: Dr. Michael Weinstock

COURSE DIRECTOR: Dr. Milad Showkatbathsh

STUDIO MASTER: Anna Font

STUDIO TUTORS: Abhinav Ranjan Chaudhary

Alvaro Velasco Perez

Danae Polyviou

Felipe Oeyen

Paris Nikitidis

DISSERTATION TITLE: Uncovering: An Interface Between Land & Sea

STUDENT NAMES: Ayca Okman (MSc)

Manjiri Kothawale (MArch)

Shivangi Panchal (MArch)

Zeynep Çolak (MArch)

DECLARATION: “I certify that this piece of work is entirely my/our own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged”

SIGNATURE OF THE STUDENT(S): Ayca Okman (MSc)

DATE: 19 September 2025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to thank to my dear family and friends for their continuous support and encouragement throughout this period.

I would also acknowledge to all my instructors for their invaluable guidance during my studies. I am particularly grateful to Milad Showkatbakhsh for broadening my design perspective during the thesis process, and my gratitude extends to Michael Weinstock, whose profound knowledge and insights greatly enriched my academic journey.

Finally, I am truly grateful to my dear friend, Zeynep Çolak, for her companionship and the joy we shared while developing this project. I am also thankful to Manjiri Kothawale for the collaboration and kind support provided throughout this journey.

CONTENT

Abstract Introduction

01. Domain

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System : Context and Challenges

1.2 Land - Sea Interface Diagnosis

1.3 Case Site: Maltepe

1.4 Existing Interventions and Gaps

1.5 Problem Synthesis

1.6 Precedent Studies

1.7 Synthesising Problem

02. Research Methodology

03. Research Development

3.1 Site Analysis

3.1.1 Wind Analysis

3.1.2 Fluid Dynamics Analysis

3.1.3 Bathymetry Analysis

3.1.4 Fluid Dynamics Synthesis

3.1.5 Reclamation Area and Surroundings

3.1.6 Pedestrian Intersections

3.1.7 Most Reachable Routes

3.1.8 Large Scale Planning ParaMetres

3.1.9 Outcome

3.2 Chanel Morphology

3.2.1 Edge Condition

3.2.2 Void Condition

3.2.3 Redirect Condition

3.3. Material Study

3.3.1 Seaweed–Biochar Composites as Regenerative Infrastructures

3.3.2 Establishing Evaluation Criteria

3.3.3 Initial Experiments: Iterative Refinement

04. Design Development

4.1 Channel Typology Development

4.1.1 Length Experiments

4.1.2 Curvature Experiments

4.1.3 Cross Section Experiments

4.1.4 Initial Channel Morphology Experiments

4.1.5 Design Space

4.1.6 Generative Catalogueue

4.1.7 Selected Modules

4.1.8 CFD Performance of Selected Modules

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

4.2.1 Three Stage Planning

4.2.2 Spatial Distribution

4.2.3 Spatial Organisation

4.2.4 Spatial Connectivity

4.2.5 Planning Outcomes

4.3. Material System

4.3.1 Layered Composite Strategy

4.3.2 Casting Process and Reuse Strategies for Composite Materials

05. Design Proposal

5.1 Channel Placement

5.1.1 Channel Placement Strategies

5.1.2 Water Circulation

5.2 Panel Placement

5.2.1 Panel Placement Strategies

5.3 Master Plan

5.3.1 Master Plan Layers

5.3.2 Master Plan Functions

5.3.3 Existing and Proposal

5.3.4 Final Adjustments and Future Possibilities

5.4 Panel Design

5.4.1 Excavation and Construction

5.4.2 Material System in Architectural Integration: Panel-Based Design Proposal

5.4.3 Biomimetic Principles and Material Performance

5.4.4 Panel Development : Design Methodology

5.4.5 Panel Placement on Master Plan

5.4.6 System Detail

06. Critical Reflections and Future Prospects

Bibliography

List of Figures

ABSTRACT

The sea is a place of paradox, both a barrier and a bridge, shaping life on land as much as within its depths.1

This paradox is most clearly witnessed in the Sea of Marmara in Istanbul, once a richly biodiverse and hydrologically active inland basin linking the Aegean and Black Seas, now facing an unprecedented ecological crisis. In recent years, large scale outbreaks of marine mucilage have revealed the sea’s fragility. This thick, gelatinous substance blankets the surface, suffocating marine life, disrupting activities at sea, and limiting the use of marine resources. This phenomenon is not isolated, but a visible symptom of more profound disruptions. Nutrient inflows from urban, industrial, and agricultural waste accelerate eutrophication, while stratification reduces oxygen exchange, and hard-edged reclamation zones block circulation, creating stagnant waters that intensify the problem. These structural pressures, rooted in urban expansion, weaken marine resilience and distance people from the sea. Maltepe, one of Istanbul’s most significant reclamation projects, makes this condition tangible. The coastline has been hardened into a rigid boundary. While intended to provide public space, this transformation has disrupted natural hydrodynamics, degraded ecosystems, and severed the spatial relationship between land and sea. This project is based on the hypothesis that rethinking coastal edge design can restore marine health and reconnect urban life with the sea. It proposes the Interwoven coastal spine, reimagining the reclaimed shoreline as a porous and living system. Flow channels, shaped by bathymetry and guided by fluid principles, draw seawater inland, increase circulation, and relieve stagnation. Alongside them, removable bio-based panels made from natural materials absorb nutrients and support short cycles of regeneration, rebuilding a vertical ecological connection by restoring water quality and enhancing oxygen exchange. Together, these interventions transform the edge into a living system that actively restores water quality. In parallel, the project re-establishes the coastline as a civic space. Public routes, nodes, and gathering platforms are aligned with the channels, reconnecting the city to the sea. Rather than a static barrier, the shoreline becomes a shared threshold, where water flows, marine ecologies recover, and people regain access to the sea. The Interwoven coastal spine thus operates on two levels: ecologically, by restoring circulation and resilience; and spatially, by reimagining the reclaimed edge as a dynamic interface between land and sea.

INTRODUCTION

For centuries, the Sea of Marmara has been more than a body of water. As the inland sea linking the Black Sea and the Aegean, it shaped empires, sustained fisheries, and gave Istanbul both livelihood and identity. Its layered hydrology, with saltrich currents below and nutrientheavy waters above, once supported biodiversity and urban life. Maritime trade routes, ports, and settlements flourished along its shores. Yet the same waters that once nurtured life are now suffocating under the weight of human impact and ecological imbalance.

In 2021, vast blankets of marine mucilage, a thick gelatinous substance often called “sea snot,” covered large portions of the Marmara’s surface and extended into the water column.These blooms suffocated marine life, blocked sunlight, and revealed what scientists and fishermen had long feared: the sea was losing its resilience. Mucilage may appear sudden, but it is the symptom of long-term imbalance shaped by nutrient overload, oxygen loss, and weakened circulation. In a semi-enclosed sea with limited natural flushing, these stresses accumulate quickly, accelerating ecological collapse.2 3

This decline cannot be explained by oceanography alone. It is also a product of how the coastline has been reshaped. Over the past half century, urban expansion and reclamation projects have hardened the Marmara’s edge into an impermeable boundary. Where natural shores once absorbed and diffused wave energy, massive reclamations for parks, ports, and highways now seal the interface. The most striking case is the Maltepe coastal reclamation, the largest in the Marmara, creating one of the most extensive engineered edges along the shoreline. These surfaces suppress circulation and accelerate stagnation. What was once a living interface between city and sea has been reduced to a defensive frontier, alienating both ecosystems and communities. Policy responses to mucilage have been immediate but largely symptomatic. Boats were deployed to skim tonnes of mucilage from Istanbul’s harbours, yet within weeks the blooms reappeared, underscoring the limits of short-term interventions. Chemical and biological treatments have been tested, and new wastewater plants promise cleaner inflows. These measures matter, but they address effects rather than causes. The deeper problem remains: a collapse of circulation at the urban–sea boundary. For too long, the shoreline has been conceived as a hard edge or wave-breaker, not as a metabolic system capable of sustaining ecological and cultural continuity.

This thesis therefore focuses on the question: How can design interventions reshape Istanbul’s hardened Marmara shoreline into a porous, ecologically regenerative, and socially accessible interface that prevents mucilage formation and restores continuity between city and sea?

The research positions design as both diagnosis and proposition, exposing the structural causes of mucilage while offering spatial strategies for repair. It reframes reclamation not as land expansion but as ecological negotiation, one that works with water rather than against it. Hydrology, urban theory, and regenerative materials are combined to test how flows of water, nutrients, oxygen, and urban connection can be reactivated. Computational simulations and bio-based composites are used not as technical ends in themselves but as instruments to reimagine design logics that align with marine metabolism. The Sea of Marmara is treated not only as a site of crisis but also as a testing ground for a new urban–sea relationship.

The work unfolds in a layered progression: it first establishes the ecological and geographical context of the Marmara, analysing its vulnerabilities and tracing the urban transformations that produced its current condition. It then examines adaptive strategies and international precedents, exploring how hydrodynamics, design practices, and materials can be rethought. Building on this foundation, it turns to Istanbul’s urban fabric, mapping critical nodes, networks, and landmarks that could reconnect daily life with the reclaimed shoreline. Before developing the design proposal, it analyses existing conditions of wind, currents, bathymetry, mucilage accumulation zones, and wave dynamics. A Catalogueue of edge conditions is then generated through computational fluid dynamics, physics of reclamation, and hydrodynamic studies. Finally, a proposal for Maltepe integrates channels, adaptive edges, and regenerative material systems, culminating in a model of coastal urbanism where the shoreline acts once again as a medium of resilience rather than a line of separation.

In this way, the Marmara is approached as both a vessel of memory and a horizon of possibility, holding traces of past neglect while guiding us toward design practices that restore movement, continuity, and life.

2] M. L. Artüz, Müsilaj: Denizin Sessiz Katili (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2016) [English ed. by the author: The Sea of Marmara 2016, Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TÜDAV) https://tudav.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/THE_SEA_OF_MARMARA_2016.pdf]

3] A. Yilmaz, A. C. Yalçıner, and C. Gazioğlu, “Sea of Marmara Under Siege: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions of Marine Mucilage,” Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 28, no. 1 (2022). https://blackmeditjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/4-2021_2_167-183.pdf

An aerial

of increased

levels near the shoreline of Istanbul on June 15, 2021. Source :Photograph by Muhammed Enes Yildirim / Anadolu Agency, via The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

01. DOMAIN

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System : Context and Challenges

1.1.1 Marmara as Semi-Enclosed Sea

1.1.2 Hydrological Stratification and Vulnerabilities

1.1.3 Marine Resources and Ecological Decline

1.1.4 Environmental Pressures: Nutrients, Temperature, Oxygen Loss

1.1.5 Mucilage as Sympton of Systemic Breakdown

1.2 Land - Sea Interface Diagnosis

1.2.1 The Boundary Between Land and Sea

1.2.2 Land and Sea Pressures

1.2.3 Convergence: A Feedback Loop of Decline

1.2.4 The Interface as Conflict Zone

1.3 Project Site: Maltepe

1.3.1 Historical Shoreline Transformation of Istanbul

1.3.2 Maltepe Coastal Reclamation Project

1.3.3 Architectural and Material Detail of Maltepe

1.3.4 The Case for Bio-Based Porous Materials

1.3.5 Ecological and Urban Consequences

1.3.6 Maltepe as Representative Case

1.4 Existing Interventions and Gaps

1.4.1 State and Municipal Actions

1.4.2 Technical Limitations

1.4.3 Design Gap: Materiality and Form

1.4.4 Comparitive Inspiration

1.4.5 Toward a Design-Based Response

1.5 Problem Synthesis

1.6 Precedent Studies

1.6.1 Ecological Restoration and Urban Interfaces

1.6.2 Hydrodynamic Renewal and Morphological Studies

1.6.3 Regenerative materials and Nutrient Absorption

1.6.4 Lessons for the Marmara

1.7 Synthesising Problem

of Eceabat, Çanakkale, showing the Sea of

before and after the

Source: Ali Atmaca, photograph, in The Guardian, “Clean-up of Turkey’s Sea of Marmara – in pictures,” July 7, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jul/07/clean-up-of-turkeys-sea-of-marmara-in-pictures

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System: Context and Challenges

1.1.1 Marmara as Semi-Enclosed Sea

The Sea of Marmara is an inland sea situated between the Black Sea to the north and the Aegean Sea to the south. It is the only inland sea in the world that connects two continents. This unique geography makes it both a transitional body of water and a cultural hinge linking Europe and Asia. With a surface area of 11,500 km² and an average depth of about 600 metres, the Marmara has long served as a corridor for commerce, empire, and settlement.4

Since antiquity, cities such as Byzantium and later Constantinople flourished on its shores, drawing strength from its position at the hinge of continents. The Marmara was more than a maritime passage; it functioned as a living boundary where land and sea coexisted in dynamic equilibrium. Harbours, shipyards, fish markets, and artisanal workshops established a socio-economic foundation that supported trade, naval construction, and cultural exchange. Ancient urban morphologies aligned with natural topography and marine flows, situating ports and public spaces along permeable coastlines that accommodated seasonal currents, sediment, and biodiversity.5 In this respect, Istanbul’s historical relationship with water echoes a longer lineage of hydrodynamic intelligence, from the tidal docks of Lothal in the Indus Valley,6 layered inlets of the Golden Horn,7 and the engineered basins of Portus in Rome,8 each an example of how past societies designed with water rather than against it.

Unlike open seas, the Marmara’s semi-enclosed form makes it acutely sensitive to external pressures, as its exchange of water with neighbouring basins is limited. As a result, pollutants, nutrients, and sediments tend to accumulate rather than disperse. In open waters, such inputs are diluted through circulation and mixing. In the Marmara, they concentrate, creating an ecological equilibrium that is prone to systemic breakdown. The Marmara has long functioned as an archive of intertwined natural and cultural processes, recording both ecological rhythms and urban transformations at its shores.

4] TÜDAV, The Sea of Marmara: Marine Biodiversity, Fisheries and Pollution Status Report, (Istanbul: The Turkish Marine Research Foundation, 2016), page 2, 20. https://tudav.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/THE_SEA_OF_MARMARA_2016.pdf

5] V. Narci, Marmara: The Last Refuge (Istanbul: Deniz Publishing, 2021).

6] George F. Dales, “The Harappan ‘Port’ at Lothal: Another View,” Expedition 7, no. 3 (1965): 25–34, University of Pennsylvania Museum. https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/7-3/Shipping.pdf

7] Ceyda Bakbaş and Evrim Töre, “From Industry to Culture: Regeneration of Golden Horn as a ‘Cultural Valley,’” The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication 9, no. 3 (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336186709_FROM_INDUSTRY_TO_CULTURE_REGENERATION_of_GOLDEN_HORN_AS_A_CULTURAL_VALLEY

8] Simon Keay, “Portus: A Maritime Port for Imperial Rome,” in Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean, ed. S. Keay (London: British School at Rome, 2012), https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/ItalyWest/Portus/Portus-Keay2012.pdf

Source: NASA Visible Earth, Sea of

Turkey. https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/66903/sea-of-marmara-turkey/66906l

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System: Context and Challenges

1.1.2 Hydrological Stratification and Vulnerabilities

At the heart of the Marmara’s ecology lies its layered hydrology. The sea is defined by two principal flows: a less saline, nutrient-rich current from the Black Sea that moves at the surface, and a denser, saline current from the Mediterranean that travels in the opposite direction at depth. These layers are separated by a sharp halocline, forming a permanent barrier that restricts vertical mixing and oxygen transfer between layers.9

Historically, this stratification sustained biodiversity by balancing nutrient supply and salinity. Ancient settlements were attuned to these dynamics, building harbours and shipyards that aligned with prevailing currents and seasonal flows. The coastal edge functioned not only as civic infrastructure but as part of a larger environmental system, allowing the sea to regulate itself through circulation and oxygenation. Here we are reminded of Ian McHarg’s ecological planning principles,9 where design works with layered natural systems rather than erasing them, and of Michel Serres’ metaphor of the parasite, which warns of imbalance when flows are blocked or distorted.10

Yet today stratification creates ecological instability. Because oxygen transfer between layers is restricted, the deeper waters of the Marmara are increasingly prone to hypoxia. In some zones, oxygen levels have already dropped to thresholds incapable of sustaining aquatic life. Rising sea surface temperatures and growing nutrient inflows intensify stratification further. Circulation weakens, oxygen loss accelerates, and resilience declines. These stratified waters illustrate a paradox: the very structure that once sustained biodiversity now accelerates its decline.

9] McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature. New York: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1969. https://archive.org/details/designwithnature00mcha/page/26/mode/2up 10] Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. https://Catalogueue.unccd.int/539_Serres_Michel_The_Natural_Contract(1).pdf

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System: Context and Challenges

1.1.3

Marine Resources and Ecological Decline

For centuries, the Sea of Marmara sustained the region’s ecological, cultural, and economic development. Its waters supported abundant fisheries alongside diverse marine species, while marine resources sustained both livelihoods and ecological balance. These resources not only underpinned food and trade networks but also reinforced the resilience of marine systems. Coastal wetlands and estuaries created vital links between land and sea, strengthening ecological cycles while supporting human settlement.

Fishing villages, harbours, and coastal markets were deeply interwoven with the productivity of these waters, making the Marmara central to both daily life and the wider maritime trade networks of the region. Historically, this interdependence was reinforced by porous coastlines that absorbed wave energy and facilitated exchange between urban and ecological systems. Ports, markets, and public spaces aligned with the rhythms of the sea, creating a dynamic balance between human settlement and marine productivity.11

The Marmara also functioned as an archive, preserving not only ecological abundance but cultural memory along its shores, a living record of the intertwined life of sea and settlement, now increasingly at risk. As Gaston Bachelard reminds us in Water and Dreams, water is not only material but also a medium of imagination, shaping how societies remember, inhabit, and construct their environments.1²

Over recent decades, however, this interdependence has steadily eroded. Untreated effluents, overfishing, and habitat loss have reduced biodiversity and weakened ecological functions, leaving the Marmara increasingly exposed to further disturbance.

11] V. Narci, Marmara: The Last Refuge (Istanbul: Deniz Publishing, 2021).

12] Gaston Bachelard, Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter (Dallas: Pegasus Foundation, 1983), https://www.academia.edu/113359329/Water_and_dreams.

covers a starfish and other sea creatures at a depth of 30 Metres off Büyükada, Turkey, on May 16, 2021.

Source: Sebnem Coskun / Anadolu Agency / Getty, published in The Atlantic, “Turkey’s Sea Snot Disaster,” June 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System: Context and Challenges

1.1.4 Environmental Pressures: Nutrients, Temperature, Oxygen Loss

The erosion of ecological balance in the Marmara has been accelerated by cumulative pressures. Wastewater rich in nitrogen and phosphorus continues to flow into the basin, fuelling eutrophication and oxygen depletion.

Agricultural runoff and industrial discharges add to this burden, introducing fertilizers, chemicals, and heavy metals.13

Urbanisation along the shoreline has magnified these pressures. Where ancient settlements once adapted to topography and currents, modern reclamations and port developments have replaced permeable edges with hardened boundaries. These engineered surfaces sever ecological continuity and suppress hydrodynamic exchange, reducing the sea’s capacity to dilute pollutants.14

Climate change compounds these stresses. Rising sea surface temperatures intensify stratification, limit vertical mixing, and deepen hypoxia. Together, these conditions have turned the Marmara into a system of accumulation rather than renewal. Pollutants linger instead of dispersing, leaving the sea under constant strain.15

13] B. Yalçın, S. Sur, and H. Balkıs, “Nutrient Dynamics and Eutrophication in the Sea of Marmara: Data from Coastal Areas,” Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017): 405–420, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971731286X.

14] Ö. A. Genel, A. H. Demir, and M. Y. Seker, “Assessing Urbanisation Dynamics in Turkey’s Marmara,” Remote Sensing 13, no. 4 (2021): 664, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/4/664.

15] T. Basdurak, B. Yilmaz, G. Erdem, and E. Aksu, “Climate Change Impacts on River Discharge to the Sea of Marmara,” Frontiers in Marine Science (2023),https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/ articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1278136/full

1.1 The Marmara Coastal System: Context and Challenges

1.1.5 Mucilage as Symptom of Systemic Breakdown

The 2021 mucilage outbreak made the Marmara’s ecological imbalance visible. Formed when excess nutrients, stagnant waters, and warming temperatures converge, mucilage appears as gelatinous aggregations that block light, suffocate habitats, and disrupt marine life.16 Although similar blooms have occurred sporadically in other seas, the scale in the Marmara was unprecedented, covering nearly 90% of its surface. For coastal communities, it disrupted fisheries, closed harbours, and rendered beaches unusable. What seemed at first like a sudden anomaly was instead the manifestation of systemic breakdown.

The buildup of mucilage is closely linked to the physical transformation of the shoreline. Reclamations, seawalls, and impermeable embankments create stagnant basins that slow hydrodynamic circulation, allowing nutrients from wastewater, stormwater, and agricultural runoff to accumulate. Rising sea surface temperatures further intensify stratification, reducing oxygen transfer to deeper waters and weakening ecosystem resilience.

Today, the sea exists in a precarious equilibrium. Its semi-enclosed form, layered hydrology, and hardened shorelines amplify nutrient accumulation and oxygen loss, producing a system that stores stress rather than renewing itself. The mucilage crisis is not an isolated event but a symptom of dysfunction at the land–sea boundary, where urban expansion and ecological processes collide. Understanding this dysfunction is crucial for addressing the root causes, rather than merely responding to surface symptoms.

Fig. 1.9. Source: Image by the author. Relationship between mucilage intensity, air temperature, and sea surface temperature in Maltepe (March–July 2021). Air and sea surface temperature data were obtained from the ERA5 reanalysis dataset (Hersbach et al. 2020) via the Copernicus Climate Data Store (CDS, ECMWF). Mucilage intensity values (index 1–5) were derived from visual interpretation of maps provided by the PrattSAVI Musilaj Project (PrattSAVI 2021). Data processing and Visualisation were performed in Python.

16] A. Yilmaz, A. C. Yalçıner, and C. Gazioğlu, “Marine Mucilage in the Sea of Marmara and Its Effects on the Marine Ecosystem: Mass Deaths” (2022), ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/357735433.

Source:Image by the author.

https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj/

1.2 Land - Sea Interface Diagnosis

1.2.1 The Boundary Between Land and Sea

Building on the systemic fragility outlined earlier, the Sea of Marmara’s shoreline is more than a geographic edge; it is a zone of exchange where hydrodynamics, ecology, and urban life intersect. Historically, this interface was porous and adaptive. Beaches, wetlands, and estuaries absorbed wave energy, filtered nutrients, and created breeding grounds for marine species. Human settlements aligned themselves with these rhythms, building harbours and markets along permeable coasts that mediated between land and water.17

Over time, however, this living boundary has been redefined as a rigid frontier. Reclamations, seawalls, and industrial ports have hardened the coastline, suppressing natural exchange between marine and urban systems. What once ensured continuity has become a site of rupture. To understand this transformation, it is necessary to examine both the pressures arriving from the land and the conditions arising from the sea.18

1.11. Conceptual diagram of land–sea interactions at the coastal edge, showing links between urbanisation, reclamation, nutrient change, and mucilage formation. Source: Image by the author.

17] Kurt, Sümeyra. “Land Use Changes in Istanbul’s Marmara Sea Coastal Regions Between 1987 and 2007.” Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 11, no. 11 (2012): 1584–1590. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271012363.

18 ] V. Narci, Marmara: The Last Refuge (Istanbul: Deniz Publishing, 2021).

1.2.2 Land and Sea Pressures

Urbanisation has been the most powerful force reshaping the Marmara’s edge. Istanbul’s rapid growth since the mid-20th century has brought vast discharges of wastewater, extensive reclamations, and new industrial developments along its shores.17

Even with modern treatment plants, large volumes of untreated or only partially treated wastewater still enter the sea, carrying nitrogen and phosphorus that fuel eutrophication. Industrial zones add heavy metals, chemicals, and organic pollutants, while surrounding agricultural catchments contribute fertilizers and pesticides through runoff.

The sea’s physical structure intensifies these stresses. Its uneven depth profile restricts circulation, while the halocline separating Black Sea surface waters from denser Mediterranean waters acts as a barrier to vertical mixing. Seasonal winds drive surface currents, but weak connectivity with neighbouring seas prevents pollutants from being flushed away. In deeper zones, oxygen depletion has already reached critical thresholds, and stagnant circulation traps organic matter and contaminants in place.

Individually, these land and sea based pressures strain the ecosystem. Together, they create a system of accumulation where inputs linger rather than disperse, turning the Marmara into a basin of retention. For coastal communities, this not only degrades ecological functions but also severs cultural ties to the sea, reducing access, livelihoods, and everyday relationships with the shoreline.

1.2.3 Convergence: A Feedback Loop of Decline

The crisis of the Marmara does not come from land or sea drivers alone but from their interaction at the shoreline. Nutrients discharged from settlements and industries are retained by weak circulation, while hardened coastlines suppress the natural dynamics that once dispersed them. Stratification prevents oxygen renewal at depth, leaving ecosystems unable to recover from growing pressures.

The mucilage outbreak of 2021 made this feedback loop visible. Organic matter built up in semi-enclosed bays and harbours, suffocating ecosystems and halting coastal economies. Attempts to remove the blooms by skimming or chemical treatment brought only temporary relief because they addressed symptoms rather than causes. The Marmara does not cleanse but stores, and in storing, it suffocates.19

17] Kurt, Sümeyra. “Land Use Changes in Istanbul’s Marmara Sea Coastal Regions Between 1987 and 2007.” Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 11, no. 11 (2012): 1584–1590. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/271012363.

19] The Istanbul Chronicle. 2021. “The Marmara Sea Faces a Mucilage Crisis and Needs Urgent Action.” The Istanbul Chronicle, June 9, 2021. https://www.theistanbulchronicle.com/post/the-marmara-seafaces-a-mucilage-crisis-and-needs-urgent-action

1.3 Project Site: Maltepe

1.3.1 Historical

Shoreline Transformation of Istanbul

For much of its history, Istanbul’s coastline was shaped by natural bays, estuaries, and sandy shores. These features allowed the sea to mediate between ecological processes and urban life, supporting ports, markets and shipyards aligned with currents and topography.

The late 20th century brought a decisive rupture. Growing demand for land, transport, and public space drove widespread reclamations that replaced natural edges with engineered surfaces such as concrete embankments, rubble fills and artificial peninsulas. In Istanbul, this shift was not only technical but political, reflecting urban policy that privileged expansion over ecological continuity.20

20] The Evaluation of C, N, P Release and Contribution to the …” (year), SciSpace, PDF, https://scispace.com/papers/the-evaluation-of-c-n-p-release-and-contribution-to-the-2e6gi965

Source:Image by the author.

https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj/

1.3 Project Site: Maltepe

1.3.2 Maltepe Coastal Reclamation Project

Among the reclamations along Istanbul’s Marmara shoreline, Maltepe stands as the largest and most emblematic. Planned in the early 2000s and largely completed by the mid-2010s, the project created an artificial peninsula of approximately 1.2 km².21

The reclaimed land was designated for recreation and civic use, including large parks, sports fields, and festival grounds; it was presented as an urban amenity. Yet the project fundamentally reconfigured the relationship between the district and the sea, extending the coastline outward as a uniform edge with little capacity for ecological exchange.

1.3 Project Site: Maltepe

1.3.3 Architectural and Material Detail of Maltepe

The Maltepe reclamation was constructed through large-scale infill. Rock, rubble, and construction debris were deposited into the sea, stabilised by concrete revetments and seawalls. The resulting edge is steep and impermeable, designed for durability and ease of maintenance rather than ecological integration.22

This material palette reflects a long-standing paradigm of reclamation: durability and land production at the expense of ecological porosity. Unlike traditional techniques, which used mud and rock to create adaptive but temporary surfaces, modern reclamations seal the sea off entirely. The Maltepe peninsula thus embodies a material condition that accelerates ecological stagnation: impermeable edges that trap sediments, suppress currents, and disconnect marine ecosystems.

1.3.4 The Case for Bio-Based Porous Materials

The ecological consequences of such hardened materiality raise a critical question: how might reclamations be built differently? Regenerative and porous materials suggest possible alternatives.

Marine-derived resources such as seaweed, oyster shells, and seagrass composites are increasingly studied for their dual capacity to provide structural support while contributing to ecological function. Seaweed filters nutrients, sequesters carbon, and withstands salinity.23; Crushed shells buffer acidity and provide habitats.24 Unlike concrete, which seals the edge, these materials invite metabolic exchange.

In parallel, cultural and philosophical perspectives offer a deeper resonance. Water has long symbolised renewal, adaptability, and reciprocity. This symbolic dimension is not separate from ecological function but echoes it. Marine systems have nourished life for millennia, and human dependence on them has shaped both culture and construction.Today, regenerative practices draw on marine organisms, such as seaweed and mussels, for applications in agriculture, design, and material development.25

Thus, the critique of Maltepe’s hardened edge is not only technical but cultural: a reminder that materials mediate how we relate to the sea. To reclaim the Marmara as a living archive requires materials that embody reciprocity, enabling both structure and life to coexist.

22] Sahil Şeridini Güzelleştiriyoruz,” Ardeşen Belediyesi, 25 March 2022, photo gallery, https://ardesen.bel.tr/Detay/sahil-seridini-guzellestiriyoruz.html?foto=4.

23] F. W. R. Ross et al., “Potential Role of Seaweeds in Climate Change Mitigation” (2023), Science of the Total Environment, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723023203

24] Virginia Institute of Marine Science, “Study Highlights Under-Appreciated Benefit of Oyster Restoration” (2013), https://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/archives/2013/oyster_buffer.php

25] R. Ginocchio et al., “Seaweed Biochar (Sourced from Marine Water Remediation Farms) for Soil Remediation: Towards an Integrated Approach …” (2023), BioResources 18(3): 4637–4656, https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/seaweed-biochar-sourced-from-marine-water-remediation-farms-for-soil-remediation-towards-an-integrated-approach-of-terrestrial-coastal-marine-water-remediation/

1.15. Maltepe site section showing construction layers (adapted from Ardeşen Belediyesi, Sahil Şeridini Güzelleştiriyoruz, March 25, 2022, bottom left), detailed edge conditions (right), and site location map (top left) generated using OpenStreetMap in QGIS. Data sources: OpenStreetMap and GEBCO Source: Image by the author. https://ardesen.bel.tr/Detay/sahil-seridini-guzellestiriyoruz.html?foto=4.

1.3 Project Site: Maltepe

1.3.5 Ecological and Urban Consequences

The ecological consequences of Maltepe’s hardened edge are already evident. By projecting a rigid edge into the sea, hydrodynamic circulation in the surrounding waters has been suppressed, leading to sediment accumulation and stagnation. These are not systemic feedbacks, as in the Marmara at large, but site-specific disruptions triggered by coastal geometry.

Urban consequences mirror these ecological effects. While the site provides recreational space, it alienates the community from the living sea. The park offers spectacle and events, but the water itself is inaccessible, sealed behind a defensive frontier. Fishing, small-scale harbour activity, and other traditional practices have been displaced. What was once a porous edge of daily life has been recast as a stage for urban leisure, detached from ecological and cultural continuity.

1.3.6 Maltepe as Representative Case

Maltepe crystallises the contradictions of Istanbul’s coastal development. It is at once the city’s largest reclamation and the clearest example of how urban expansion has intensified ecological decline. Its impermeable edge embodies the shift from shoreline as medium of exchange to shoreline as barrier.

At the same time, Maltepe reveals the potential of rethinking reclamation. By exposing the limitations of hardened materiality, it highlights the urgency of exploring porous, regenerative alternatives. As such, it is not only a local project but also a representative case: a lens through which the broader crisis of the Marmara’s urban ecological interface comes into view.26

26] Seda Kaplan Çinçin and Nevnihal Erdoğan, “The Evaluation of Waterfront as a Public Space in Terms of the Quality Concept: Case of Maltepe Fill Area,” Recent 17, no. 3 (2019), https://www.researchgate. net/publication/335421842_The_Evaluation_of_Waterfront_as_a_Public_Space_in_Terms_of_the_Quality_Concept_Case_of_Maltepe_Fill_Area

1.16. Süreyya Beach & Temple of the Virgins, 1930

Source: Photograph shared on Twitter by Ufuk Yüksek Kaya (@UfukYuksekkaya), August 12, 2017. https://x.com/UfukYuksekkaya/status/896300419378532352

Fig. 1.17. Süreyya Beach & Temple of the Virgins, 1988

Source: Screenshot of a post by @hayalleme on X (formerly Twitter), showing relevant content. https://x.com/hayalleme/status/1700570120051982769

1.4 Existing Interventions and Gaps

1.4.1 State and Municipal Actions

Over the past decades, the Marmara has been the focus of numerous state and municipal initiatives aimed at balancing urban expansion with environmental protection. Reclamation projects, such as Maltepe, have been justified as civic amenities, while wastewater treatment infrastructure has been promoted as a key ecological safeguard.27 With time advanced treatment plants have been constructed to reduce nutrient inflows, with major financial investment. In parallel, coastal parks and public spaces have been developed on reclaimed land to demonstrate civic return.

The 2021 mucilage outbreak triggered additional short-term measures. Skimmer boats were deployed to collect surface blooms, tonnes of organic matter were removed from harbours, and biological and chemical treatments were tested in select areas. These responses were highly visible, underscoring the urgency of the crisis and demonstrating institutional capacity to mobilise at scale.28

1.4.2 Technical Limitations

Despite these efforts, the interventions remain limited in scope. Wastewater infrastructure continues to face coverage gaps, and storm overflows or partially treated discharges still deliver high nitrogen and phosphorus loads into the sea. Reclamation projects provide land but harden the shoreline, suppressing hydrodynamic exchange and accelerating stagnation.

The mucilage clean-up operations revealed the symptomatic nature of current approaches. While surface scums were temporarily removed, deeper deposits persisted, suffocating benthic ecosystems. Such actions addressed immediate visibility but not the metabolic processes that generate blooms. In technical terms, governance interventions slow degradation but do not re-establish ecological balance.29

27] A. Kucuksezgin, A. Uluturhan‐Suzer, M. E. Basturk, and E. Kontas, “Pollutant Dynamics between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara through the Istanbul Strait: Implications for Wastewater Management,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 172 (2021): 112891, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112891.

28] The Istanbul Chronicle. 2021. “The Marmara Sea Faces a Mucilage Crisis and Needs Urgent Action.” The Istanbul Chronicle, June 9, 2021. https://www.theistanbulchronicle.com/post/the-marmara-seafaces-a-mucilage-crisis-and-needs-urgent-action

29] Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV). The Mucilage Problem: Causes, Consequences and Solutions Report. Istanbul: TUDAV, 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374350034_The_ Mucilage_Problem_Causes_Consequences_and_Solutions_Report.

Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

1.4 Existing Interventions and Gaps

1.4.3 Design Gap: Materiality and Form

A critical dimension missing from current practice is the material and spatial configuration of the shoreline itself. Policies regulate discharges and collect blooms, but they do not address the hardened infrastructures that prevent the sea from functioning as a metabolic system. Concrete seawalls and rubble fills, as seen in Maltepe, remain the default construction paradigm. These edges resist exchange rather than enable it, turning the shoreline into a barrier rather than an ecological medium.

This is where design enters. By rethinking reclamation through porous and regenerative materials, it becomes possible to combine structural stability with ecological performance. Such materials filter nutrients, provide surfaces for marine life, and resist saline erosion, transforming coastlines into active participants in marine metabolism.30 The gap, therefore, is not only in policy but in form and material, domains that architecture and design are uniquely positioned to address.

1.4.4 Comparative Inspiration

International precedents show how interventions can shift from symptomatic control to systemic integration. The Netherlands’ Room for the River Programmeme demonstrates how hydraulic infrastructure can simultaneously manage risk and restore ecological functions by giving space back to water.31 Sydney’s “Living Seawalls” experiment with modular, textured panels that enhance marine biodiversity along engineered edges shows that civic use and ecological repair can coexist.3²

These examples reveal a crucial lesson: successful interventions do not treat the shoreline as inert infrastructure but as a living interface. For Istanbul, the challenge is to move beyond reclamation as barrier and wastewater as endpoint, toward a vision of the Marmara as a metabolic system where design, materiality, and ecology are inseparable. Economically, this shift is significant. Current mucilage removal operations are costly and labor intensive, addressing damage only after it occurs. By contrast, systemic strategies that work preventively by filtering nutrients, dispersing stagnation, and restoring exchange offer long-term efficiency as well as ecological resilience.

1.4.5 Toward a Design-Based Response

Existing state and municipal actions provide essential groundwork, from wastewater treatment to emergency clean-ups. Yet their limitations highlight the urgency of complementary approaches. The mucilage crisis is not only a biological symptom but also a material one, tied to hardened coastlines that trap and store ecological imbalance.

The role of design, therefore, is to intervene where governance does not: at the interface of land and sea, in the materiality of reclamation itself. By embedding porosity, adaptability, and reciprocity into the built shoreline, new forms of coastal infrastructure can restore metabolic balance. Importantly, this approach is also economically sustainable. Instead of recurring expenses on removal and remediation, preventive systems reduce future costs by mitigating damage before it manifests.

This reframing situates Maltepe not only as a site of critique but also as a laboratory for alternative futures, where architecture becomes part of ecological repair rather than ecological rupture.

30] Michael Pawlyn, Rachel Armstrong, and Tom Goreau, “Regenerative Architecture: A Paradigm Shift for the Built Environment,” PLOS ONE 6, no. 7 (2011): e22396, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0022396.

31] Marleen van Buuren and Geert de Roo, “Room for the River: A Spatial Planning Perspective on Multifunctional Floodplain Redevelopment in the Netherlands,” Journal of Environmental Management 274 (2020): 111183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111183.

32] University of Plymouth, “Living Seawalls in Plymouth,” Marine Eco-Engineering Research Unit. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/marine-eco-engineering-research-unit/living-seawalls-in-plymouth.

Source: PANORAMA – Solutions for a

https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/room-river-nbs-coastal-and-river-flood-protection-cities

Source:

https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/room-river-nbs-coastal-and-river-flood-protection-citie

https://www.reefdesignlab.com/living-seawalls

https://www.reefdesignlab.com/living-seawalls

1.5 Problem Synthesis

The Sea of Marmara today reflects a fragile urban–ecological equilibrium. The transformation of Istanbul’s shoreline has replaced porous, adaptive edges with rigid, reclaimed structures, suppressing natural flows that once sustained ecological continuity. Nutrient inflows from wastewater, stormwater, and riverine runoff accumulate in stagnant basins created by artificial peninsulas and seawalls, triggering oxygen depletion and mucilage blooms. These events are not isolated anomalies but visible symptoms of a system unable to metabolize excess nutrients, sediments, and organic matter.

This systemic fragility becomes more apparent when set against the historical lineage of hydrodynamics. From the tidal docks of Lothal in the Indus Valley.33 to the commercial harbours of the Golden Horn.34 and the maritime infrastructures of Portus in Rome,35 cities once engaged water as a dynamic medium, shaping ports and settlements in dialogue with currents and tides.36 Such precedents show that coastal resilience was historically achieved not through impermeable barriers but through infrastructures that worked with hydrological rhythms. Today’s hardened reclamations invert this principle, erasing reciprocity and producing stagnation instead of flow.

Alongside ecological pressures, the urban experience of the shoreline has been reshaped. Reclaimed zones provide recreational space and civic amenities but limit direct access to the water, displacing traditional practices of fishing, boating, and small-scale Harbour life. The hardened edge creates a defensive frontier, transforming the shoreline from a threshold of exchange into a stage for urban spectacle. At the material level, concrete, rubble, and infill impose impermeability, trapping sediments and further suppressing circulation. These materials are active agents in ecological stagnation rather than neutral supports. Here, Bachelard’s reflections on water as a reservoir of memory and imagination remind us that the sea is not only ecological but also cultural: by severing daily encounters with water, modern reclamations disrupt both ecosystems and imaginaries.37

Efforts to intervene, including wastewater treatment infrastructure and emergency mucilage clean-ups, demonstrate technical and institutional capacity but remain partial and reactive. Coverage gaps, fragmented responsibilities, and labor-intensive removal highlight the inefficiency of addressing symptoms rather than structural causes. The economic and ecological costs of repeated remediation emphasize the need for approaches that prevent degradation rather

than responding after the fact. This aligns with Ian McHarg’s call to design with ecological processes: unless interventions work with, rather than against, natural metabolisms, they will remain costly, temporary, and incomplete.38

Taken together, these dynamics crystallise a larger problem: Istanbul’s reclaimed shoreline embodies an urban metabolism that is incomplete, hardened, and ecologically detached. The Marmara is treated as a boundary to defend and a platform to expand, rather than as a living medium requiring reciprocity. In this sense, Michel Serres’s notion of the contract with nature is instructive: once the sea is conceived only as territory to be occupied, rather than a partner in exchange, collapse becomes inevitable.39

The mucilage crisis highlights three interlinked drivers of ecological collapse: nutrient accumulation, water stagnation, and impermeable reclamation edges. To move beyond recurring crises and prevent the formation of mucilage, interventions must operate before damage becomes visible. Ecological balance requires infrastructures that preempt nutrient buildup rather than removing its consequences, morphologies that restore water flow rather than suppress it, and material systems that filter and exchange rather than isolate. By addressing these systemic drivers, the conditions that give rise to mucilage blooms can be mitigated, reducing both ecological and economic costs.

The synthesis of these ecological, urban, material, and institutional challenges reveals that the Marmara’s crisis is part of a broader condition shared by coastal cities worldwide. To explore effective solutions, it is now necessary to examine international precedents where design, material innovation, and hydrodynamic strategies have successfully regenerated land–sea interfaces.

33] George F. Dales, “The Harappan ‘Port’ at Lothal: Another View,” Expedition 7, no. 3 (1965): 25–34, University of Pennsylvania Museum. https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/7-3/ Shipping.pdf

34] Ceyda Bakbaş and Evrim Töre, “From Industry to Culture: Regeneration of Golden Horn as a ‘Cultural Valley,’” The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication 9, no. 3 (2019) https://www. researchgate.net/publication/336186709_FROM_INDUSTRY_TO_CULTURE_REGENERATION_of_GOLDEN_HORN_AS_A_CULTURAL_VALLEY

35] Simon Keay, “Portus: A Maritime Port for Imperial Rome,” in Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean, ed. S. Keay (London: British School at Rome, 2012), https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/ uploads/Documents/PLACES/ItalyWest/Portus/Portus-Keay2012.pdf

36] McGrail, Sean. Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford University Press, 2015. [For Lothal & ancient harbours] https://www.academia.edu/39591350/BOATS_OF_THE_WORLD

37] Bachelard, Gaston. Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter. Dallas: Pegasus Foundation, 1983. https://www.academia.edu/113359329/Water_and_dreams

38] McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature. New York: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1969. https://archive.org/details/designwithnature00mcha/page/26/mode/2up

39] Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. https://catalogueue.unccd.int/539_Serres_Michel_The_Natural_Contract(1).pdf

1.24. Boats in mucilage on the Caddebostan shore, Marmara Sea, Turkey, June 8, 2021.

Source: Yasin Akgül / AFP via Getty, in The Atlantic, “Turkey’s Sea Snot Disaster,” June 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/

1.6 Precedent Studies

1.6.1 Ecological Restoration and Urban Interfaces

One of the most widely cited restoration efforts is the Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration in Seoul. Completed in 2005, the project dismantled an elevated highway to uncover the buried stream beneath, reintroducing water flow and ecological life to the urban core. Technically, the project relied on controlled water pumping from the Han River, combined with constructed edges that integrated pedestrian access, planting, and flood management. The restoration achieved measurable outcomes: reduced urban heat island effects, increased biodiversity, and improved water quality in a formerly stagnant channel.Its relevance to the Marmara lies in its demonstration that even in highly urbanised contexts, hydrological renewal can be engineered as part of civic infrastructure.40

Yet Cheonggyecheon also reveals a critical limitation. The restored flow is artificial, dependent on continuous pumping and high energy input rather than natural hydrodynamics. The stream remains an engineered spectacle more than a self-regulating ecosystem.41 For Istanbul, where energy-intensive circulation is unsustainable, the lesson is clear: restoration must activate existing hydrodynamic potentials rather than import external flows.

The San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project offers a complementary precedent. Once industrial salt flats, these landscapes have been gradually re-flooded to recover wetlands, restore tidal circulation, and reestablish habitats. Technical strategies include breaching levees, designing controlled channels, and using adaptive management to monitor salinity, sediment, and species recovery. Here, natural tidal exchange drives circulation, significantly reducing reliance on artificial pumping.41

The limitation in San Francisco’s case lies in its spatial and temporal scales. Restoration is gradual, requiring decades to balance salinity and sedimentation, and large tracts of land are committed to ecological rather than urban use. In Istanbul, where coastal reclamations have already consumed valuable land and urban pressure is acute, such extensive set-asides are not feasible. The Marmara requires strategies that deliver circulation and ecological benefit within limited urbanised coastlines.

Together, these precedents demonstrate both the promise and the limitations of ecological restoration when translated into dense metropolitan contexts. They show that circulation can be revived and ecologies reintroduced, but they also highlight the need for context-specific strategies that reconcile limited space, urban demand, and long-term ecological performance.

40] Jeroen Rijke, Chris Zevenbergen, Chris Browning, and Richard Ashley, “Room for the River: Delivering Integrated River Basin Management in the Netherlands,” Sustainability 9, no. 8 (2017): 1368, https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/234111926_Room_for_the_River_Delivering_integrated_river_basin_management_in_the_Netherlands

41] Jeroen Rijke, Chris Zevenbergen, Chris Browning, and Richard Ashley, “Room for the River: Delivering Integrated River Basin Management in the Netherlands,” Sustainability 9, no. 8 (2017): 1368,https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/234111926_Room_for_the_River_Delivering_integrated_river_basin_management_in_the_Netherlands

1.25. Cheonggyecheon River restoration in Seoul, showing urban design with public interaction along the revitalised waterway.

Source: archdaily, “Re-Naturalization of Urban Waterways: The Case Study of Cheonggye Stream in Seoul, South Korea” https://www.archdaily.com/1020945/re-naturalization-of-urban-waterways-the-case-study-of-cheonggye-stream-in-seoul-south-korea

1.26. Aerial view of the San Francisco Bay salt ponds, case study of coastal transformation. Source: DCReport, “San Francisco Bay Judge Blocks Destroying Salt Ponds,” October 29, 2020. https://www.dcreport.org/2020/10/29/san-francisco-bay-judge-blocks-destroying-salt-ponds/

1.6 Precedent Studies

1.6.2 Hydrodynamic Renewal and Morphological Strategies

Where circulation is compromised, design can draw from principles of fluid dynamics to restore movement and oxygenation. The Venturi principle, first described in the eighteenth century, demonstrates that when water flows through a constricted passage, its water velocity increases while pressure decreases. This dynamic not only sustains movement but also reduces stagnation, keeping systems active and self-regulating.42 In controlled hydraulic studies, constricted passages increased water velocity by up to 20 percent compared to baseline channels, confirming their effectiveness in reducing stagnation. Experimental Venturi flumes further demonstrated how such geometries accelerate water velocity and improve circulation efficiency in channels where flow might

Fig. 1.27. Open Venturi flume for flow measurement. Source: Environmental Expert, Smart Storm Model BS3680. https://www.environmental-expert.com/products/smart-storm-modelbs3680-critical-flow-open-venturi-flume-523344

42] Venturi Flume, Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/106102929/Venturi_flume.

otherwise fail.43 Similarly, in drainage and irrigation systems, Venturi geometries have been applied to maintain self-cleaning capacities, allowing water to flush debris and sustain oxygenation without mechanical input.44 Experimental studies on miniature Venturi flumes have further demonstrated that the principle performs reliably at small scale, confirming its robustness in practical applications.45 These applications demonstrate that what appears as a simple physical law has real-world value in mitigating stagnation and enhancing ecological function.

Historically, coastlines mediated circulation through porous and adaptive forms, allowing natural currents and tidal exchanges to regulate the sea.

Modern reclamations have instead sealed these flows, suppressing the very dynamics that once sustained ecological balance. For the Marmara, where circulation is suppressed by stratification and hardened coastlines, the Venturi effect offers more than an abstract principle. It suggests a design logic in which coastlines might be reimagined not as rigid barriers but as adaptive geometries that channel, accelerate, and renew water velocity. Such an approach reframes reclamations from being agents of stagnation into potential drivers of metabolic exchange. Rather than sealing the sea into stillness, engineered porosity could help sustain its living processes.

Fig. 1.28. Plan and elevation views of a Parshall flume. Source: Open Channel Flow, “How to Read a Parshall Flume,” https://www.openchannelflow.com/blog/how-to-read-a-parshall-flume1

Fig. 1.29. Algal Turf Scrubbing system for nutrient removal. Source: University of Maryland, Department of Environmental Science and Technology. https://enst.umd.edu/sites/enst.umd.edu/files/files/documents/ Research%26Extension/Algal-Turf-Scrubbing-Article.pdf

43] Mohammed Al-Ani, Ali Mahdi, and Hussein Al-Saedi, “Hydrology and Hydraulic Performance of Venturi Flume Structures,” Hydrology 8, no. 27 (2021): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8010027.

44] Investigation of Miniature Venturi Flume, Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/31383661/Investigation_of_Miniature_Venturi_Flume.

45] Investigation of the Performance of Miniature Model of Venturi Flume, ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381039960_Investigation_of_the_Performance_of_Miniature_Model_of_Venturi_Flume.

1.6 Precedent Studies

1.6.3 Regenerative Materials and Nutrient Absorption

A third line of precedent comes from material research that addresses eutrophication through nutrient absorption and bioremediation. In many aquatic systems, algae blooms are driven by excess nitrogen and phosphorus, 46 and recent studies have developed material-based interventions to lock, filter, or transform these nutrients. For example, research on algal turf scrubbers has shown how engineered surfaces seeded with fast-growing algae can absorb large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are later harvested and repurposed as biomass for fertilizers or energy.47 This creates a closed-loop system where nutrients are removed from water but reintegrated into productive cycles.

Similarly, projects in China’s Taihu Lake have experimented with floating beds that combine aquatic plants and carbon-rich substrates to capture nutrients while providing habitat for fish and invertebrates.48 In controlled trials, these systems significantly reduced algal density and improved dissolved oxygen levels.

The drawback of these approaches lies in their dependency on continuous maintenance and harvesting. If algal scrubbers or biochar beds are not actively managed, absorbed nutrients re-enter the water column through decomposition, perpetuating eutrophication rather than solving it. For the Marmara, where largescale deployment is challenging and municipal oversight limited, regenerative materials must be designed as low-maintenance, long-lasting systems integrated into coastal infrastructure rather than temporary fixes.

This indicates an opportunity for design to go beyond experimental installations and embed regenerative materials directly into shoreline panels, revetments, and channel walls, ensuring nutrient absorption becomes a continuous and structural function of the coast itself.

1.6.4 Lessons for the Marmara

Taken together, these precedents illuminate pathways but also cautionary limits. Cheonggyecheon demonstrates the urban value of restored hydrology, but at the cost of artificial pumping. San Francisco’s salt ponds reveal the power of tidal renewal, but require vast spatial and temporal commitments. Venturi-based strategies show that morphology itself can drive circulation, yet must be adapted to Marmara’s stratified waters. Regenerative materials prove effective at nutrient capture, but only if embedded into long-lasting and manageable systems.

For the Marmara, the lesson is not to replicate these projects directly but to synthesise their principles: integrating hydrodynamic renewal, morphological porosity, and regenerative materials into one adaptive system. Where other projects have solved a fragment of the problem, whether through flow, nutrient capture, or ecological reintroduction, the Marmara requires a composite approach that can operate at the scale of an urban sea.

46] Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV). The Mucilage Problem: Causes, Consequences and Solutions Report. Istanbul: TUDAV, 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374350034_The_ Mucilage_Problem_Causes_Consequences_and_Solutions_Report.

47] R. J. Craggs, “Wastewater Treatment by Algal Turf Scrubbing,” Water Science and Technology 44, no. 11–12 (2001): 427–33, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11804130/

48] Bingyin Cao, Long Ren, Yuan Wang, Xuwen Bing, Zhen Kuang, and Dongpo Xu, “In Situ Ecological Floating Bed Remediation Alters Internal Trophic Structure: A Case Study of Meiliang Bay, Lake Taihu,” Fishes 10, no. 2 (2025): 44, https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10020044

1.7 Synthesising Problem: Framing the Research Question

The ecological crisis of the Sea of Marmara is not reducible to singular causes but emerges from the entanglement of three systemic failures: nutrient accumulation, water stagnation, and impermeable reclamation edges. These forces interact at the land–sea boundary, where hardened urban infrastructures have transformed what was once a porous, adaptive interface into a static frontier. The 2021 mucilage outbreak revealed this condition not as an anomaly but as a visible symptom of structural collapse: the shoreline, once a medium of metabolic exchange, now stores and amplifies imbalance. This diagnosis establishes the central problem: how to reconfigure Istanbul’s reclaimed shoreline so that it operates not as a sealed barrier but as an active system capable of circulation, nutrient absorption, and flow regulation.

The hypothesis guiding this design research is that design interventions, if grounded in hydrodynamics, regenerative materials, and adaptive morphologies, can restore metabolic exchange at the urban–sea boundary. Specifically, it proposes that a reimagined coastal spine interwoven with channels and bio-based infrastructures can convert stagnation into flow, nutrient overload into resource, and impermeability into porosity. Rather than treating reclamation as a loss of functional ground, it may instead become a medium of operational repair.

Precedent studies offer fragments of this proposition. The Cheonggyecheon restoration demonstrated how flow can be reinstated in urban contexts, even if artificially sustained. The San Francisco salt ponds revealed how tidal exchange can redistribute water and support circulation, though at vast scales. Venturi-based geometries confirmed that form itself can accelerate water velocity, while regenerative materials such as biochar and seaweed composites showed potential for nutrient capture and water quality regulation. Each experiment addressed a portion of the crisis, but none alone is sufficient for the Marmara, where circulation, nutrient overload, and impermeable edge converge simultaneously. The challenge therefore is to synthesize these principles into one spatial and material system capable of operating in dense metropolitan reclamations like Maltepe.

From this synthesis emerge three research questions, each aligned with one of the proposed lines of intervention. First, if circulation failure is a core driver of mucilage, how can hydrodynamic design strategies, such as Venturi-inspired geometries, be applied to reclaimed coastlines to accelerate water velocity and prevent stagnation? Second, if nutrient accumulation fuels eutrophication, how can regenerative bio-based materials be embedded into coastal infrastructures to absorb and recycle nitrogen and phosphorus as part of a continuous system rather than as temporary installations? Third, if impermeable reclamations suppress metabolic exchange, how can the very morphology of the shoreline be reconfigured to integrate circulation, nutrient absorption, and public accessibility into a single adaptive framework?

Together, these questions frame the inquiry not as a matter of technical remediation but as a design-led rethinking of the shoreline as operational infrastructure. They orient the project toward a composite solution that treats the Marmara not only as a site of crisis but as a testing ground for reimagining coastal urbanism: one where flows of water, nutrients, and civic life are restored through the interwoven logics of hydrodynamics, regenerative materials, and adaptive morphologies.

1.30. Sea snot near the pier of Büyükada, the largest of Istanbul’s Princes Islands, in the Marmara Sea, Turkey, May 2, 2021. Source: Daily Sabah, “Sea Snot in Marmara Sea Threatens Tourism, Fisheries, Human Health,” https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/sea-snot-in-marmara-sea-threatens-tourism-fisheries-human-health/news?gallery_image=undefined#big

02. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The aim of the project is improving the water quality and transform the rigid land & sea boundary into a dynamic interface.

The project consists of three integrated scales: a masterplan that establishes the land–sea interface, a channel system that enhances water flow, and panel structures that clean the water by absorbing nutrients through bio-based material systems.

Marine System Changes

Waste Discharge Reclamation

Rising Sea Temperature Stratification

Nutrients Load Stagnant Water Boundary

Mucilage Problem

Increasing Water Velocity

Absorbing Nutrients Creating Interface

Channel Design

Panel Design

Master Plan Design

Oxygenating Water

Cleaning Water

Breaking the Boundary Between Land & Sea

Conditions

Independent Variables

Convexity (convex/concave)

Channel Design

Environmental Parameters Seasonal Currents (Lodos & Poyraz)

Independent Variables Materials

Seaweed Biochar

Material Proportion

DependentVariables

Design Outputs

Edge condition: convex

Dependent Variables

Nutrient Absorption

Phosphorus Nitrogen Test

Curve alignment: a-b

Degradation of Material

Material Proportion

Environmental Parameters

Analysis

Panel Design Land Use Analysis

Master Plan Design

Environmental Analysis Network Analysis

Phosphorus Level

Nitrogen Level

Salinity Level

Independent Variables

Dependent Variables

wind bathymetry mucilage acuumulation

Design Experiment

Design Experiment Design Outputs Design Outputs

Reachability Betweennes Bathymetry (CFD) GIS social areas cultural areas green areas

pedestrian vehicular Planning Algorithm Layers public nodes high velocity areas most reachable routes

Channel

Morphology

Curvature

Independent Variables Curve dimension

Dependent Variables Design Experiment

Channel Typologies

morphology categorization

Material System [Layer System]

Cross-section

Midpoint position

Convex channel profiles Velocity Field

CFD Analysis

Functional Performance Independent Variables

Public Functions (0 to -1m depth)

Filtration & Absorption (-1 to -3m depth)

Habitat Creation (-3 to -5m depth)

Productive Areas

CFD: stagnant zones

Morphology: outward convex

depth categorization

Material

Exploration

Nutrient Flow: 0–3 m depth

Green Areas Community Areas

Planning

usage categorization

Channel Curvature Categorization

Channel Usage Categorization

Dependent Variables Design Experiment Independent Variables Design Outputs

Oblique (< 90°)

Perpendicular (≈ 90°)

Linear (≈ 180°)

Linear with cross-connection

Moderate velocity, enclosed pockets Production Areas

Edge turbulence, velocity increase Intersection Areas

Stable flow, smooth intersections Green Areas

Highest acceleration, strong connectivity Community Areas

Environmental Analysis

For the environmental analysis, data was obtained from several sources, including GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans), ECMWF (Copernicus Climate Change Service), and the Copernicus Marine Data Store. The data was processed and visualized using different tools such as QGIS and Python. The ERA5 reanalysis data (Copernicus Climate Change Service) were processed in Python using the packages xarray, numpy, and matplotlib. Wind rose plots were generated with the windrose package.

Urban Analysis

For the urban analysis, after obtaining data from several sources, the layers were organised in the QGIS Programme. OpenStreetMap and Google Earth data were included and overlaid with the layers derived from the environmental analysis. Accordingly, reachability and betweenness analyses were conducted using Grasshopper. The synthesis of these analyses was then used to generate the planning algorithm.

CFD Analysis

In the form-finding phase and site analysis, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) will be employed to simulate and Analyse fluid behaviour. CFD provides a means to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance of the proposed typologies and to examine their fluid dynamic characteristics. To investigate the morphological behaviour of the reclamation area, a series of CFD simulations will be conducted under varying environmental conditions (e.g., different wind types), across multiple typologies, and at different scales.

Planning Optimization

For the planning optimization, environmental and urban analyses were synthesised, and design paraMetres were generated. Based on these paraMetres, a planning algorithm was developed to optimize planning across three layers: spatial distribution, spatial Organisation, and spatial connectivity.

3 Layer Material System Analysis

This analysis examines a material system designed to achieve a balance between strength, ecological function, and long-term durability. Modules were immersed in saline water enriched with phosphorus and nitrogen to simulate conditions similar to those of Marmara mucilage, and nutrient absorption was monitored using an API water testing kit. Although preliminary, the results provide a foundation for identifying material combinations that can perform structurally while supporting ecological responsiveness.

Fabrication Experiments

The fabrication experiments evaluated the feasibility of producing the proposed geometries and offered a provisional estimate of time and resource requirements. Casting and moulding trials confirmed that complex shapes are achievable, though they often necessitate sacrificial moulds and additional preparation. These findings informed both material selection and fabrication strategy for the design proposal, with the scope limited to production feasibility rather than on-site deployment. Also, in terms of installation and assembly considerations, basic installation strategies were evaluated to determine how modules could be transported, anchored, and stabilised in marine conditions. This overview identifies modular assembly and site-specific adaptation as key requirements for future deployment

03. RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Site Analysis

3.1.1 Wind Analysis

3.1.2 Fluid Dynamics Analysis

3.1.3 Bathymetry Analysis

3.1.4 Fluid Dynamics Synthesis

3.1.5 Reclamation Area and Surroundings

3.1.6 Pedestrian Intersections

3.1.7 Most Reachable Routes

3.1.8 Large Scale Planning ParaMetres

3.1.9 Outcome

3.2 Chanel Morphology

3.2.1 Edge Condition

3.2.2 Void Condition

3.2.3 Redirect Condition

3.3. Material Study

3.3.1 Seaweed–Biochar Composites as Regenerative Infrastructures

3.3.2 Establishing Evaluation Criteria

3.3.3 Initial Experiments: Iterative Refinement

3.1 Site Analysis

3.1.1 Wind Analysis

3.1.2 Fluid Dynamics Analysis

3.1.3 Bathymetry Analysis

3.1.4 Fluid Dynamics Synthesis

3.1.5 Reclamation Area and Surroundings

3.1.6 Pedestrian Intersections

3.1.7 Most Reachable Routes

3.1.8 Large Scale Planning ParaMetres

3.1.9 Outcome

3.1. Site Analysis

Wind Analysis

Wind analyses have been conducted in the Maltepe design area. 12-month analysis of wind direction1 (Figure 3.1). The dominant winds in Maltepe in terms of speed were taken as reference. Winds blowing from the southwest and northeast are dominant. Based on this information, bathymetry analyses will be presented in the following sections.

1] Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), ERA5 Hourly Data on Single Levels from 1959 to Present. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu. Figure generated by the author using Python.

3.1. Site Analysis

Fluid Dynamics Analysis

Based on these wind analyses, two wind speed and direction cases were taken as reference, and fluid dynamics were Analysed using the bathymetry data of the Maltepe design area 2 . Water dynamics along the shoreline of the fill area were examined in plan and section. Offshore flow dynamics were also interpreted. Normally, the surface current in the area flows from east to west; however, under the influence of winds blowing from the southwest, the water becomes less turbulent. As one moves from the shore toward offshore, during periods dominated by northeasterly winds, the water velocity was higher compared to periods dominated by southwesterly winds.

3.1. Site Analysis

Bathymetry Analysis on Test Area

These bathymetry analyses were also examined and interpreted in more detail specifically for the test area. When comparing the effect of southwesterly winds on water velocity between December and January with the effect of northeasterly winds between March and November, the influence of the southwesterly winds is lower. During this period, the water becomes more stagnant. The regions where the flow is fastest within this stagnant period will serve as a guide in the transition to the design phase, since the zones of maximum acceleration during the most critical period will be highly significant in terms of enhancing water circulation in the design. As shown in Figure 3.3, the CFD simulations were performed using Autodesk CFD, based on Copernicus ECMWF wind data and GEBCO bathymetric data, which were processed and visualized in QGIS

3.1. Site Analysis

Fluid Dynamics Synthesis

As shown on the Figure 3.4, bathymetry and flow dynamics were synthesised, and thus the boundaries of high-velocity, stagnant, and highly stagnant zones were defined using the contours of the existing seabed topography together with CFD analyses3 . The points where high-velocity zones intersect with the seabed topography contours were identified. These points were then traced to their counterparts along the shoreline, using the seabed topography contours as reference. It is expected that these shoreline points will play a critical role in the design development phase, since they represent the coastal counterparts of the fastest water flows, and their locations will constitute one of the key design paraMetres for improving water circulation.

3] QGIS.org, QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2023; OpenStreetMap contributors, OpenStreetMap, 2023, https://www.openstreetmap.org ; GEBCO Compilation Group, GEBCO 2021 Grid (National Oceanography Centre, 2021).

Fig. 3.4. Map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, based on OpenStreetMap basemap and GEBCO bathymetric data.

3.1. Site Analysis

Reclamation and Surroundings

When focusing on the reclamation area and its surroundings, it has been observed that, beyond the reclamation itself, certain factors further damage the marine system. Breakwaters, port construction, and a blocked stream have disrupted the already fragile relationship between coastal and marine ecosystems, while boulevards, railway barriers, and other environmental factors have also been Analysed as additional elements that weaken the relationship between land and sea.

3.1. Site Analysis

Pedestrian Intersections

Pedestrian intersections were examined, with the aim of identifying node points to be taken as reference in the proposed design. Pedestrian paths were Analysed, and the points where they intersected most frequently were determined. These points were then mapped to the corresponding areas where they converge. From these marked areas, those that are the most active in terms of public use, according to the existing condition analysis, were selected. In this way, three regions were identified and highlighted as nodes.

In addition, pedestrian crossing points along the boulevard, which currently acts as a barrier, were identified. These points were also defined as potential crossing areas on the boulevard. They will be important in determining the critical points during the design phase, particularly when shaping an accessible interface between land and sea.

3.1. Site Analysis

Most Reachable Routes

As shown on Figure, reachablity and betweennes analyses were conducted by taking the previously identified pedestrian nodes as starting points and reclamation area as destination points 4.The points along the shoreline which are closest to the highest accessibility routes were selected to be used in the computational urban design phase. These points will be considered as the new starting points for the proposal design to improve the pedestrian accessiblity.

area

4] QGIS.org, QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2023; OpenStreetMap contributors, OpenStreetMap, 2023, https://www.openstreetmap.org ; McNeel, Grasshopper Algorithmic Modelling for Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023.

3.8. Map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, using OpenStreetMap basemap data. Reachability and betweenness analyses were performed in Grasshopper.

3.1. Site Analysis

Large Scale Planning ParaMetres

As a result of all these analyses, large scale planning paraMetres have been defined. These paraMetres include the critical points that will be used in the computational design phase for master plan development. As shown on the map, all significant points have been synthesised and summarised to be used in the following stages and to guide the design process.

3.1. Site Analysis

Outcome

In conclusion, as a result of the large scale analyses, multi-layered planning strategies will be developed. The design layers will be formed by synthesising land-use analyses, environmental analyses, and transportation network analyses. Through land-use analyses, public open spaces have been identified. Environmental analyses have determined shoreline points with high water flow. Transportation network analyses have revealed accessible routes and critical points along the boulevard. All these identified points have been interpreted and categorised for use in the optimization of the master plan.

3.2 Channel Morphology

3.2.1 Edge Condition

3.2.2 Void Condition

3.2.3 Redirect Condition

3.2 Channel Morphology

Workflow Diagram

by the author.

The regional-scale design experiment is based on the hydrodynamic principle of the Venturi effect, first articulated by Giovanni Battista Venturi.5 This principle explains how fluid velocity increases and pressure decreases as water passes through a constricted section of a channel. Zerihun (2016) demonstrated its relevance to curvilinear open-channel flows, identifying constriction points as critical zones of velocity amplification, particularly under shallow flow conditions.6 Building on this, Sathe, Hinge, and Gurav’s (n.d.) miniature flume experiments highlighted how precise modulation of inlet, throat, and outlet proportions influences discharge and velocity dynamics.7 Together, these studies establish a theoretical foundation for the channel-based experiments developed in this thesis, suggesting that variations in channel form can be strategically employed to mitigate water stagnation and enhance nutrient circulation at the regional scale. To examine this hypothesis, a series of channel form-finding experiments were conducted under three conditions: edge, void, and redirect

5] Giovanni Battista Venturi. Recherches expérimentales sur le principe de la communication latérale du mouvement dans les fluides. Modena, 1797.

6] Zerihun, Y. T. (2016). “A Numerical Study on Curvilinear Free Surface Flows in Venturi Flumes.” Fluids, 1(3), 21. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids1030021

7] Sathe, N. J., Hinge, G. A., & Gurav, G. V. (n.d.). “Investigation of Miniature Venturi Flume.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research / STM Journal. Available via Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/31383661/Investigation_of_Miniature_Venturi_Flume

Edge condition experiments examined how reclamation boundaries interact with site-specific hydrodynamics. The aim was to evaluate whether edge geometries could mitigate water stagnation and shape flow distribution under environmental drivers such as wind and currents. In these tests, the edge surface was modified using different planar alignments and profiles. Four typologies: convex, concave, inwardly inclined, and outwardly inclined, were tested to assess their influence on velocity behaviour.

Void condition experiments investigated how circular void geometries generate internal circulation and influence velocity distribution. Circular routes of varying radii were tested with the inlet and outlet positioned on the same surface (a–a alignment). Additional variations in inlet–throat–outlet ratios were introduced to evaluate how radius size and geometric proportions influence flow performance.

Redirect condition experiments explored how flow redirection strategies can enhance circulation and water exchange. In this setup, circular forms of varying radii were applied, combined with variations in inlet–throat–outlet ratios. Unlike the void condition, the inlet and outlet were positioned on separate surfaces, and curves were aligned according to cross-surface strategies (a–b alignment). These tests assessed how redirect geometries alter velocity and establish circulation routes across boundaries.

EDGE CONDITION

In the edge condition experiment set-up, tests were conducted under the prevailing winds of the Sea of Marmara: northeasterly winds (Poyraz) and southwesterly winds (Lodos). Two different plane orientations were considered: a vertical plane and a horizontal plane. In the vertical plane, four typologies were tested: convex, concave, inward inclination, and outward inclination, while in the horizontal plane, two typologies were tested: convex and concave.

According to the CFD analysis8, the convex edge performed better in the vertical plane, while the concave edge performed better in the horizontal plane. The results also highlighted the contrasting hydrodynamic effects of the two prevailing winds. Lodos is more likely to induce water stagnation in the Sea of Marmara, particularly in semi-enclosed or artificially modified coastal zones. Poyraz, by contrast, supports flushing and enhances water renewal. CFD simulations confirmed that Poyraz is more effective than Lodos in increasing velocity. Consequently, the velocity performance of all tested typologies showed stronger results under Poyraz, while Lodos represents the worst-case scenario for stagnation and mucilage accumulation.

VOID CONDITION

The void condition experiment set-up consisted of two parts. In the first four typologies, the independent paraMetre was the radius of the void, tested at 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x. In the second four typologies, the independent paraMetre was the inlet–outlet–throat ratio. As an environmental factor, prevailing winds were also considered: northeasterly winds (Poyraz) and southwesterly winds (Lodos).

According to the CFD analysis9, in the first four typologies, velocity magnitudes increased with larger radius sizes. Recorded values ranged from a minimum of 0.48 m/s to a maximum of 0.78 m/s. The best-performing configurations were the larger radii (4x and 5x), which produced higher and more consistent velocities, particularly under Poyraz (NE–SW wind). This indicates that larger void radii perform better in mitigating stagnation and maintaining higher velocity.

Fig. 3.13. Comparative velocity results for void condition typologies under two dominant wind directions. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

In the second four typologies, the radius was fixed at 5x, while inlet–outlet–throat ratios were varied. Velocity magnitudes increased when the throat was narrower than the inlet and outlet, demonstrating the Venturi effect. Results ranged from 0.46 m/s to 0.78 m/s. The best performance was achieved when inlet = outlet > throat (narrow throat), while wider throats reduced velocity performance. These findings confirm that a narrowed throat performs more effectively than wider throat configurations, validating the Venturi effect.

REDIRECT CONDITION

The redirect condition experiments were tested in two categories, similar to the void condition. In the first four typologies, the independent paraMetre was the radius of the void (5x, 6x, 7x, and 8x). In the second four typologies, the independent paraMetre was the inlet–outlet–throat ratio. As with the previous experiments, prevailing winds were considered: northeasterly winds (Poyraz) and southwesterly winds (Lodos).

According to the CFD analysis10, in the first four experiments, velocity magnitudes ranged from a minimum of 0.40 m/s to a maximum of 0.82 m/s. The best-performing typology was Radius 6x under Poyraz, reaching 0.82 m/s. Radius 7x and 8x also produced strong results (0.72–0.77 m/s), while Radius 5x was comparatively weaker (0.47–0.73 m/s). As a conclusion, larger radii (6x–8x) performed better overall, with Radius 6x achieving the peak velocity (0.82 m/s).

3.14. Comparative velocity results for redirect condition typologies under two dominant wind directions. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

In the second four experiments, the radius was fixed at 6x, while inlet–outlet–throat ratios were varied. Narrow-throat cases (inlet = outlet > throat, or throat < inlet/ outlet) accelerated velocity more effectively, reaching up to 0.72 m/s. In contrast, wider-throat or balanced ratios reduced performance, with velocities in the range of 0.40–0.51 m/s.The best performer was the narrow-throat configuration, consistent with the Venturi effect. As a conclusion, narrow-throat ratios work more effectively, resulting in higher velocity outcomes than equal or wide-throat arrangements

3.3 Material Study

3.3.1 Seaweed–Biochar Composites as Regenerative Infrastructures

3.3.2 Establishing Evaluation Criteria

3.3.3 Initial Experiments: Iterative Refinement

3.3 Material Study

3.3.1 Seaweed–Biochar Composites as Regenerative Infrastructures

Marine ecosystems in the Sea of Marmara are facing unprecedented ecological stress due to recurring mucilage outbreaks, a phenomenon driven largely by nutrient overload and aggravated by climate change. Conventional responses to this crisis have been largely reactive, emphasising post-event clean-up rather than addressing the structural causes of eutrophication. This research instead positions materials as active agents in ecological repair. By embedding nutrient absorption, porosity, and biodegradability into construction materials, the reclamation shoreline can be reimagined not as a hardened boundary but as a porous medium of metabolic exchange. Central to this proposition is the development of bio-based composites formed from seaweed and biochar, designed to stabilise excess nutrients while maintaining structural resilience in the demanding marine environment.

3.15. Causes of mucilage: eutrophication through increased nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Image produced by the author.

3.3 Material Study

Seaweed constitutes the first pillar of this system. Its capacity to sequester nitrogen and phosphorus through photosynthesis is well documented.11 12Yet in the Marmara, mucilage prevents regular harvesting cycles, leaving large amounts of seaweed to decay. Once the bladders rupture, organic matter sinks into deep waters, where nutrients are eventually re-released, perpetuating eutrophication. This research reframes such detritus as an ecological opportunity: if harvested at the right moment and processed into a stable composite, seaweed can immobilise nutrients in solid form rather than return them to circulation.

Materially, seaweed’s intrinsic properties reinforce its suitability. Its fibrous cell walls generate porosity, distributing stresses and mitigating fracture under fluctuating moisture. Its composites are breathable, limiting microbial growth in saline conditions.13 Thermally, seaweed provides low conductivity, while its

UV resistance and dimensional stability across temperature variations prevent cracking or deformation. In short, seaweed not only metabolises nutrients but also offers a robust foundation for marine composites.

Yet seaweed alone is insufficient. To strengthen both ecological performance and mechanical stability, biochar is introduced as a complementary component. Produced through pyrolysis, biochar’s negatively charged carbon matrix attracts ammonium (NH₄+) and binds phosphate (PO₄3-) via naturally present minerals such as calcium and magnesium. Studies confirm adsorption rates of approximately 3.5 mg of ammonium and 2.0 mg of phosphate per gram, while also buffering pH in aquatic environments.14 15 Structurally, its microporous granules distribute stresses, increasing the integrity of composite panels.16 Biochar thus functions both as a nutrient filter and as a stabilising matrix.

3.16. Seaweed nutrient cycle: cultivate and stabilise absorbed nutrients. Image produced by the author.

11] Hanny Meirinawati and A’an Wahyudi, “Seaweed as Bioadsorbent for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal,” Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 6, no. 1 (2023): 1–28, https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/383205222_Seaweed_as_bioadsorbent_for_nitrogen_and_phosphorus_removal.

12] Xiugeng Fei, “Solving the Coastal Eutrophication Problem by Large Scale Seaweed Cultivation,” Hydrobiologia 512, nos. 1–3 (2004): 145–51, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225959746_Solving_the_coastal_eutrophication_problem_by_large_scale_seaweed_cultivation.

13] Gökhan Apaydın, Volkan Aylikci, Erhan Cengiz, M. Saydam, Nuray Kup Aylikci, and E. Tirasoglu, “Analysis of Metal Contents of Seaweed (Ulva lactuca) from Istanbul, Turkey by EDXRF,” Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 10, no. 2 (2010): 167–72, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261986548_Analysis_of_Metal_Contents_of_Seaweed_Ulva_lactuca_from_Istanbul_Turkey_by_EDXRF.

14] Yasser Vasseghian, Megha M. Nadagouda, and Tejraj M. Aminabhavi, “Biochar-Enhanced Bioremediation of Eutrophic Waters Impacted by Algal Blooms,” Journal of Environmental Management 367 (2024): 122044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122044.

15] Xichang Wu, Wenxuan Quan, Qi Chen, Wei Gong, and Anping Wang, “Efficient Adsorption of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wastewater by Biochar,” Molecules 29, no. 5 (2024): 1005, https://doi. org/10.3390/molecules29051005.

16 ] Salim Barbhuiya, Bibhuti Bhusan Das, and Fragkoulis Kanavaris, “Biochar-Concrete: A Comprehensive Review of Properties, Production and Sustainability,” Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024): e02859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e02859.

3.3 Material Study

When combined, seaweed and biochar yield a composite that is simultaneously ecological and architectural. Unlike conventional concrete, which seals and isolates, this bio-composite is porous, nutrient-binding, and biodegradable.Cast into seawall panels, it is designed for periodic replacement once its nutrientabsorption capacity is saturated. In this way, the material system introduces temporality into architecture: structures are not inert but participate in cycles of capture, replacement, and reintegration.The act of replacement is not a failure of durability but a design principle that aligns with ecological rhythms of nutrient flux and marine growth.

This approach, however, must withstand critique. Bio-based composites cannot rival the compressive strength or permanence of concrete, raising questions of scalability. Yet such critiques assume that architecture’s value lies solely in durability. By contrast, this research argues that periodic renewal ensures ecological efficacy, while anchoring construction within regenerative economies. Seaweed cultivation and biochar production necessitate localised harvesting, pyrolysis, and fabrication infrastructures. Far from being a weakness, this dependency situates the material system within a regenerative economy: panels are grown, fabricated, and replaced locally, tying urban construction cycles directly to ecological rhythms of the Marmara.

In positioning bio-composites as infrastructural elements, this research reframes architecture’s role in ecological crises. The material system is designed as a metabolic agent integrated into hydrodynamic and morphological interventions. In concert with channel geometries and circulation strategies, the composites absorb the very nutrients that drive mucilage, shifting architecture from passive occupation toward ecological repair. The proposed material system thus operates at multiple registers: it locks nutrients in solid form, supports marine biodiversity through porosity, resists saline erosion through intrinsic durability, and embeds a cyclical temporality into architectural practice.

In conclusion, the Sea of Marmara’s mucilage crisis reveals the urgency of rethinking materials not as inert carriers of form but as active participants in ecological cycles. Seaweed–biochar composites demonstrate how architecture might lock pollutants into matter, transform waste into structure, and reintroduce porosity into hardened reclamation edges. More than a technical fix, this system proposes a paradigm shift: from remediation after a crisis to continuous participation in metabolic exchange. By embedding nutrient absorption and ecological responsiveness into the very materiality of the shoreline, architecture becomes not only a witness to environmental collapse but a collaborator in its repair. Yet the promise of this system remains contingent on experimental validation. The following chapters move from conceptual framing to empirical testing.

3.3 Material Study

3.3.2 Establishing Evaluation Criteria

Fig. 3.19. Evaluation Criteria : Permeability, Cohesion, Erosion Resistant and Strength

The research development phase commenced with the establishment of evaluation criteria to assess the performance of proposed bio-based composites within a marine context. To approximate conditions similar to those in the Sea of Marmara, the experimental setup used 1L of saline water, verified with a refractoMetre, and enriched with nitrogen- and phosphorus-based solutions. This allowed the composites to be tested for their capacity to withstand nutrient-rich saline conditions and to evaluate their effectiveness in supporting the intended ecological function. The framework integrated material properties and environmental factors, ensuring that each experiment reflected conditions comparable to those of the Sea of Marmara. On this basis, four key criteria were defined: permeability (nutrient absorption and pore performance), cohesion (granule size and bonding capacity), erosion resistance (variable water velocities), and structural strength (durability under saline exposure).

Among these, permeability was considered paramount, not only as a measure of porosity but also as a measure of the functional openness of biochar’s microand mesopores. Research demonstrates that biochar’s negatively charged pore surfaces attract ammonium (NH₄+) ions, while its mineral content enables phosphate (PO₄3-) binding.1 If these pores are blocked during composite formation, the material loses much of its ecological functionality. The design of the composite system therefore, required careful calibration of particle size, binder ratios, and curing methods to maintain open-pore networks, ensuring that biochar could continue to act as a nutrient sink rather than an inert filler.2

17] Xichang Wu, Wenxuan Quan, Qi Chen, Wei Gong, and Anping Wang, “Efficient Adsorption of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wastewater by Biochar,” Molecules 29, no. 5 (2024): 1005, https://www. researchgate.net/publication/378499916_Efficient_Adsorption_of_Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_in_Wastewater_by_Biochar

18] Yasser Vasseghian, Megha M. Nadagouda, and Tejraj M. Aminabhavi, “Biochar-Enhanced Bioremediation of Eutrophic Waters Impacted by Algal Blooms,” Journal of Environmental Management 367 (2024): 122044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122044.

3.3 Material Study

3.3.3

Initial Experiments: Iterative Refinement

The initial phase of experimentation sought to establish whether seaweedbased composites could withstand the structural and environmental stresses of a marine setting. Early trials began with simple formulations, using seaweed powder as the base material and agar agar as a binder. The addition of biochar introduced a porous medium capable of distributing structural stress and enhancing nutrient adsorption. Of all the preliminary mixes, the most promising was a 50–50 percent seaweed–biochar composite. While this combination displayed better cohesion than pure seaweed, it remained fragile. After one month of observation, the composite developed cracks and visible shrinkage, confirming its limited durability under prolonged exposure. Close inspection suggested that seaweed powder was obstructing the biochar pores, reducing permeability and undermining adsorption capacity. These failures underscored that biochar’s function as a nutrient absorber depends not only on its inclusion but also on preserving its open pore architecture. To address these structural weaknesses and improve cohesion, the next phase of testing was introduced.

Seeking improved cohesion, clay was introduced as a binder. The evaluation criteria at this stage focused on cracking, shrinkage, strength, and cohesion. However, the clay-based mixes cracked extensively within hours of casting, indicating incompatibility between clay shrinkage and seaweed’s organic behaviour. Moreover, the fine particle size of clay further blocked biochar pores, compounding the earlier issue observed with seaweed powder. These failures revealed a structural paradox: while binders were needed for cohesion, they also risked undermining permeability by obstructing biochar’s pores.

During this stage, the choice of formwork also emerged as a decisive factor. Initial samples with agar agar and clay binders were cast in 3D-printed PLA moulds. These moulds, while precise in geometry, restricted airflow around the material. As a result, drying was uneven, with the lower surfaces retaining moisture for extended periods. Within days, fungal growth developed at the base of the blocks, accelerating disintegration. This observation highlighted that material behaviour could not be isolated from casting conditions: the formwork was shaping not only geometry but also microbial vulnerability. In response, later experiments employed plywood moulds, which allowed more even drying and air circulation. With this change, fungal growth ceased to appear during the curing period, demonstrating the importance of environmental conditions in tandem with composite formulation.

Building on these insights, the next iteration replaced both agar agar and clay with xanthan gum, chosen for its hydrogel-forming properties and capacity to stabilise organic composites. To address pore obstruction, seaweed granules were substituted for powder, allowing the biochar to retain more of its active porosity. Three different compositions were tested with varying xanthan gum proportions. All produced crack-free composites, representing a significant improvement over earlier trials. Yet a new issue emerged when samples were exposed to saline water: the xanthan gum binder swelled, with the degree of swelling directly proportional to its concentration. This not only threatened structural stability but also risked occluding biochar pores, again undermining adsorption performance.

To mitigate swelling, xanthan gum was replaced with powdered resin. Using resin in powdered form was intended to avoid pore blockage while maintaining cohesion. While swelling was reduced, the resin-based composites proved brittle, crumbling rapidly upon immersion in water. The structural trade-off between preventing swelling and maintaining integrity remained unresolved.

Across these cycles of testing, several critical lessons emerged. First, the preservation of biochar’s pore structure is non-negotiable, as it directly governs the material’s nutrient absorption potential. Second, binders must balance cohesion with permeability, a condition not yet achieved in this stage. Third, environmental conditions such as formwork and drying regime are equally determinant of material performance, with plywood moulds proving far superior to 3D-printed PLA for preventing fungal growth. These insights, though accompanied by repeated failures, laid the groundwork for a more strategic approach.

3.3 Material Study

3.3 Material Study

04. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Channel Typology Development

4.1.1 Length Experiments

4.1.2 Curvature Experiments

4.1.3 Cross Section Experiments

4.1.4 Initial Channel Morphology Experiments

4.1.5 Design Space

4.1.6 Generative Catalogueue

4.1.7 Selected Modules

4.1.8 CFD Performance of Selected Modules

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

4.2.1 Three Stage Planning

4.2.2 Spatial Distribution

4.2.3 Spatial Organisation

4.2.4 Spatial Connectivity

4.2.5 Planning Outcomes

4.3. Material System

4.3.1 Layered Composite Strategy

4.3.2 Casting Process and Reuse Strategies for Composite Materials

4.1 Channel Typology Development

4.1.1 Length Experiments

4.1.2 Curvature Experiments

4.1.3 Cross Section Experiments

4.1.4 Initial Channel Morphology Experiments

4.1.5 Design Space

4.1.6 Generative Catalogueue

4.1.7 Selected Modules

4.1.8 CFD Performance of Selected Modules

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Following the channel morphology experiments in the research development chapter, the design development chapter focused on channel typology experiments as the next stage of form-finding. The aim of this stage was to define the channel typology by testing additional design paraMetres through CFD analysis. These paraMetres: length, curvature, and cross-section were derived from the outcomes of the previous stage. In this phase, only Lodos was considered as the independent environmental paraMetre, as it constitutes the worst-case scenario for the project site.

The design outputs from the research development stage: edge condition: convex, curve alignment: a–b, and an inlet–outlet–throat ratio of 3:2:1 were taken forward as predefined inputs. Building on these, the new paraMetres of length, curvature, and cross-section were systematically tested in the design development stage.

Length experiments investigated the effect of channel proportions by varying the X- and Y-values of the curves to test different length ratios. The objective was to investigate how the proportion between X and Y values influences fluid dynamics and velocity. With the a–b alignment and inlet–outlet–throat ratio already defined, the boundary limits of the channel typology were adjusted to assess length effects.

Curvature experiments focused on modifying the degree of curvature in the channel curves to evaluate its impact on velocity. These experiments examined how increased curvature alters flow behaviour and how curvature interacts with length in shaping hydrodynamic performance.

Cross-section experiments built on the earlier finding that convex profiles performed best. This form was further developed into an initial phenotype. Three cross-sectional variants: inward inclination, outward inclination, and convex were tested through CFD analysis to determine their comparative influence on velocity.

LENGTH EXPERIMENTS

X: 2a Y: a

X: 2a Y: 2a

X: 2a Y: 3a

4a Y: a

X: 4a Y: 2a

X: 4a Y: 3a

6a Y: a

X: 6a Y: 2a

X: 6a Y: 3a

According to the CFD analysis1, in the length experiments, different X–Y ratios of the channel curves were tested, with velocities ranging from 0.44 m/s to 0.60 m/s. For the shorter channel length (X = 2a), stable outcomes were observed: Y = a and Y = 2a both reached 0.54 m/s, while performance declined at Y = 3a (0.49 m/s). For the intermediate length (X = 4a), velocities gradually improved with increasing Y-values, rising from 0.46 m/s at Y = a to 0.52 m/s at Y = 3a. The longest channel length (X = 6a) showed the widest variation, with the lowest result at Y = 2a (0.44 m/s) and the highest overall at Y = 3a (0.60 m/s). Overall, the most effective configuration was X = 6a with Y = 3a, which achieved the peak velocity of 0.60 m/s. However, X = 2a with Y = a or Y = 2a provided more consistent and stable performance across tests.

CURVATURE EXPERIMENTS

X: 0 Y: a (K) ≈ 0.090

X: 0 Y: 2a (K) ≈ 0.023

X: 0 Y: 3a (K) ≈ 0.008

X: 2a Y: a (K) ≈ 0.065

X: 2a Y: 2a (K) ≈ 0.040

X: 2a Y: 3a (K) ≈ 0.003

Fig. 4.4. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

According to the CFD analysis, in the curvature experiments, different curvature values were tested across X–Y ratios, with velocities ranging from 0.47 m/s to 0.63 m/s. The strongest performance was observed at X = 0, Y = a (K = 0.090), achieving the highest velocity of 0.63 m/s. Configurations with X = 0 consistently performed well, maintaining velocities above 0.58 m/s across all Y-values. At X = 2a, results showed gradual improvement with increasing Y, from 0.51 m/s at Y = a to 0.57 m/s at Y = 3a. In contrast, X = 4a produced the weakest results, with velocities between 0.47 m/s and 0.52 m/s, despite higher curvature values. Overall, the results indicate that shorter curve lengths (low X) combined with higher curvature values improve flow performance, whereas longer and flatter curves reduce velocity efficiency.

CROSS SECTION EXPERIMENTS

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Initial Channel Morphology Experiment

Boundary: Channel Contour

Two curves were defined at the beginning of the experiments as constant paraMetres. Along these curves, the channel morphology was generated. These curves served as the geometric basis for all subsequent experiments.

Curvature: Channel Cross-Section

Cross-sectional variations of the channel morphology were created by introducing controlled movements that modified the contour of each step in the section. These movements acted as independent paraMetres of the experiments, controlling the shape of the channel. In this way, different cross-sections were generated, each producing distinct hydrodynamic performance.

Phenotype: Channel Morphology

Finally, an initial channel phenotype was created.

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Initial Channel Morphology Experiment: Generative Catalogueue

4.1 Channel Typology Development

The initial channel morphology experiment applies a multi-objective optimization using the Wallacei plugin in Grasshopper. The optimization is driven by four design objectives: (1) minimising the outlet width, (2) maximising the inlet width, (3) minimising the outlet–throat distance, and (4) minimising the throat width.

These objectives aim to explore the crosssectional performance of the channel geometry.

The design variables determined the morphological behaviour of the cross-section, and the optimization aims to evaluate how different inlet–outlet–throat proportions affect the channel’s velocity performance.

Wallacei’s evolutionary algorithm generated a diverse population of solutions, and the best-performing individuals for each objective were selected from the final generation. These individuals represent the best performers in each design objective.

Fig. 4.7. Multi-objective optimization results from the initial channel morphology experiment using the Wallacei plugin in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates). The figure shows four selected best-performing individuals from the final generation

4.1 Channel Typology Development

After running the simulations, the cross-sectional performance of selected phenotypes (Gen 96 Ind 7, Gen 87 Ind 6, Gen 84 Ind 5, and Gen 97 Ind 0) was tested. The experimental setup was organised into three categories: inward inclination, outward inclination, and convex. Each phenotype was modified according to these cross-sectional types in order to evaluate their comparative effects.

Inward inclination: In this setup, the phenotypes were modified with an inward-sloping crosssection. The intention was to test the influence of an inward geometry on flow conditions.

Outward inclination: In this setup, the phenotypes were modified with an outwardsloping cross-section. This allowed observation of how an outward geometry affects the flow.

Convex: In this setup, the phenotypes were modified with a convex cross-section. The aim was to examine the effects of a rounded geometry within the simulations.

Gen 96 | Ind 7

According to CFD analysis, convex cross-section orientation works better.

Inward Inclination

Outward Inclination Convex

Gen 87 | Ind 6

According to CFD analysis, convex cross-section orientation works better.

Inward Inclination

Outward Inclination Convex

Gen 84 | Ind 5

According to CFD analysis, convex cross-section orientation works better.

Inward Inclination

Outward Inclination Convex

experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

Gen 97 | Ind 0

According to CFD analysis, convex cross-section orientation works better.

Inward Inclination

Outward Inclination

Convex

The cross-section experiments consisted of three categories: inward inclination, outward inclination, and convex. AutodeskCFD analysis showed that inward inclination produced the weakest performance (0.49–0.52 m/s), while outward inclination performed moderately better (0.52–0.54 m/s). The convex cross-section consistently achieved the highest and most stable velocities, maintaining 0.56 m/s across all phenotypes.

Overall, the convex cross-section was found to be the most effective configuration, achieving both higher and more stable velocity performance than the other types.

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Design Space

Ratio: Base Channel Shape

Division: Projection of Slabs

Movement: Volume of Slabs

Following the CFD experiments, the design space for channel morphology was defined. The process began with the base channel shape, established through the X and Y values of the curve, channel length, and curvature degree. This was followed by the division and projection of slabs, which defined the width relationships between the two curves. Finally, the movement and volumetric configuration of slabs introduced height and cross-sectional variation. The CFD analyses also set the range of each paraMetre, specifying minimum and maximum values for X, Y, curvature, and height. Together, these ranges established the design space of the channel morphology.

The primary aim of the channel morphology form-finding process is to increase flow velocity and enhance oxygen mixing, thereby improving overall water quality. The design objectives guiding this process include maximising the outlet width, maximising the inlet width, minimising the outlet–throat distance, and minimising the throat width. Each objective was aligned with the functional Organisation of the architectural proposal, establishing direct relationships between hydrodynamic performance and spatial Programmeming.

Intersection Areas

Community Areas

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Generative Catalogueue

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Selected Modules

01 | Production Areas

This phenotype was selected for its performance in maximising the inlet width, enabling a greater volume of water to enter the channel and supporting potential production activities. In addition, the relatively long channel length enhances its effectiveness for production use, complementing the hydrodynamic performance of the module.

TYPE 02 | Community Areas

This phenotype was selected for its performance in minimising the throat width. By narrowing the throat, the module generates closer spatial connections, which increase the surface area at ground level. This expanded footprint enhances its potential for community functions, making the module effective for accommodating cultural and social activities.

This phenotype was selected for its performance in maximising the outlet width The intention is to utilise this form behaviour in support of ecological functions, particularly in the integration of green areas. By expanding the outlet, a greater volume of water can be directed to these zones, enhancing their environmental performance.

This phenotype was selected for its performance in minimising the outlet–throat distance. This configuration generates intersection zones within the channel, which can support socio-cultural activities and serve as meeting points between different parts of the morphology. In addition, its relatively linear form, with reduced curvature, enhances its effectiveness in establishing connections between modules.

4.1 Channel Typology Development

Selected Modules

4.1 Channel Typology Development

CFD Performance of Selected Modules

The Autodesk CFD analysis revealed distinct performance variations across the four phenotypes, with each configuration aligning closely with its intended function. Type 04 (Intersection Areas) achieved the highest velocity (1.03 m/s), where a well-defined throat produced strong acceleration through the outlet, making it the most effective morphology for enhancing water circulation and supporting its role as an intersection between modules. Type 01 (Production Areas) and Type 03 (Green Areas) generated stable outlet velocities of 0.59–0.63 m/s. In Type 01, moderate throat constriction produced steady but less intensified acceleration, while Type 03 demonstrated a stronger throat–outlet relationship, aligning with its ecological water distribution function. Type 02 (Community Areas) showed the weakest hydrodynamic performance (0.52 m/s), as its wider throat reduced outlet acceleration. However, its minimised throat width increased ground-level surface area, benefiting community and socio-cultural activities despite lower velocity.

Fig. 4.15. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

Overall, the results confirm that the relationship between inlet, throat, and outlet is the key determinant of hydrodynamic performance. Modules with sharper throat constrictions, such as Type 03 and Type 04, achieved greater acceleration and higher outlet velocities, making them more suitable for circulation-driven functions, whereas wider throat conditions, as in Type 02, prioritized surface interaction over hydrodynamic efficiency.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

4.2.1 Three Stage Planning

4.2.2 Spatial Distribution

4.2.3 Spatial Organisation

4.2.4 Spatial Connectivity

4.2.5 Planning Outcomes

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Three Stage Planning

Spatial Distribution

In the first stage, a spatial distribution optimization was conducted. For this purpose, a cell system was created within the 2000m x 600m test area through a custom algorithm. The goal of this algorithm was to categorise spatial uses and establish their relationships and hierarchies. To enable further design oriented optimizations, three categories of land use were defined with square Metre allocations: community usage, green areas, and production usage. Based on these defined area limits and design objectives, the first stage of spatial distribution optimization was completed.

Spatial Organisation

The second stage involved generating vector fields using the results of the first stage. This process provided a visual analysis of the spatial hierarchy while also producing the base map required for the third stage.

Spatial Connectivity

In the final stage, spatial connectivity was optimized using the vector fields generated in Stage 2. This optimization refined both the water network and the pedestrian network, ensuring improved integration and performance across the master plan.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Three Stage Planning

spatial distribution

spatial Organisation

spatial connectivity

Fig. 4.16. Synthesised map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, using OpenStreetMap basemap data. The map integrates GEBCO bathymetry, CFD simulation results, and reachability/betweenness analyses performed in Grasshopper.

As shown on the Figure 4.16, a synthesised map of the study area was created 2. The spatial distribution, spatial Organisation, and spatial connectivity optimizations will be conducted using synthesised paraMetres derived from large scale environmental and urban analyses of the design area. The points marked on the map will be computationally utilised in structuring the algorithms of these planning optimization categories.

2] QGIS.org, QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2023; OpenStreetMap contributors, OpenStreetMap, 2023, https://www.openstreetmap.org ; GEBCO Compilation Group, GEBCO 2021 Grid (National Oceanography Centre, 2021); Autodesk Inc., Autodesk CFD User Guide (San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Inc., 2022); McNeel, Grasshopper Algorithmic Modelling for Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Distribution

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Distribution

The Centre points of the cells were used for clustering generation, which will be visually presented in the layers of the algorithm section. The primary objective of the spatial distribution optimization is to establish the relationships and hierarchies between community and production activities. Areas outside these two categories were defined as green areas. As explained in the previous section, community usage and production usage were constrained by specified square Metre limits, and during the optimization process, the positions of the cells changed with each iteration.

For the community usage category, the proximity of each cell Centre to public space points and transportation nodes identified from urban analyses was calculated. Existing public spaces and bus stops were taken as reference, and 1000 Metre radius circles (corresponding to a 15 minute walking distance) were used as the basis of this evaluation. Cells with the shortest distance were classified as public usage and assigned the largest radius, while those farther away were classified as private usage and assigned the smallest radius. After that, these radii were used for generating both clusters and vector fields.

Based on this setup, specific objectives were defined. The goals of the optimization were identified as: minimising the proximity of community usages to existing public nodes, maximising the number of green areas, and minimising the density of production usages.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Distribution

Fig. 4.20. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the computational algorithm of spatial distribution optimization.

The diagrams illustrating the layers of the algorithm were organised sequentially. These layers were illustrated for explaining the computational design logic. They were also utilised both to rationalise the design objectives and to perform the optimization process.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Distribution

Following the optimization, the K-means clustering method was applied 3 to select the most suitable version. Out of 1000 iterations, optimum solution is highlighted. In making this selection, the priority order of the objectives was considered. Since the relationship between community usages and production usages was considered more significant compared to the second objective which is related with green areas, the version which the first and third objectives were selected.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Organization

objective 1 maximising water network intersections

objective 2 maximising spatial fragmentation

objective 3 minimising distance from start point to end point of water network

objective 4 maximising pedestrian intersections inside of the community patches

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Spatial Connectivity

Following spatial distribution, spatial Organisation phase was conducted for generating base for network oprimization. Considering spatial distribution as a base, vector fields were first created, and from the vector fields, a set of base points was defined. Using these points, networks were constructed. Spatial connectivity goal was achieved through network

boundaries

existing urban focal points

proposed urban focal points

end points (water network)

base

starting points (water network)

high velocity (existing condition)

for spatial connectivity optimization is highlighted.

optimisation. Network optimisation has two layers which are water network and pedestrian network.

For the water network, shoreline points derived from bathymetry analyses were assigned as starting points, while points located within community usage clusters were defined as end points.

For the pedestrian network, all edge points of the test area along the sea were considered as starting points, and the projection points of all urban analysis nodes onto the shoreline were designated as ending points. Among the potential network versions generated from that algorithm, the most suitable option was selected.

4.2 Multi-Layered Planning Strategies for Channel Placement

Planning Outcomes

In conclusion, optimizations were conducted in three categories which are clustering optimization for spatial distribution, vector field generation for spatial Organisation, and network optimization for spatial connectivity. Those layers were overlayed and the computational planning optimization process was completed.

Next stage is rationalising this optimized master plan through placing the channels on master plan to achive the main goal which is increasing the water velocity on test area.To achieve this, designed channell typologies must be integrated into the master plan.

4.3.2 Casting Process and Reuse Strategies for Composite Materials 4.3 Material System

4.3.1 Layered Composite Strategy

4.3 Material System

Layered Composite Strategy: Toward an Optimised Material System

The shortcomings of single-layer composites prompted a strategic shift toward layered assemblies, where each stratum could be tailored for a distinct role: the outer layer for erosion resistance, the inner for nutrient absorption, and the interface for cohesion. This strategy was adopted to reconcile the conflicting demands of structural strength, permeability, and long-term stability in saline water.

Initial experiments introduced seashells to improve strength and reduce brittleness. However, seashell–resin composites fractured easily under mechanical stress, while resin powder, intended to minimise pore blockage, instead swelled in saline water, accelerating disintegration. These failures underscored the need for both a more stable binder and a particle structure that preserved biochar’s open pore architecture, which is essential for nutrient adsorption.

4.3 Material System

OL : Seashell (P) 92% + Sodium Alginate 8%

IL : Biochar 70% + Seaweed (P) 10% + Seashell (G) 20%

OL : Seaweed (G) 85% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 70% + Seaweed (P) 5% + Seaweed (G) 25%

OL : Seashell (G) 85% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 70% + Seaweed (P) 5% + Seashell (G) 25%

OL : Seaweed (P) 50% + Seashell (G) 40% + Sodium Alginate 10%

IL : Biochar 40% + Seaweed (P) 10% + Seaweed (G) 25% + Seashell (G) 25%

OL : Seaweed (P) 92% + Sodium Alginate 8%

IL : Biochar 70% + Seaweed (P) 10% + Seaweed (G) 20%

OL : Seaweed (G) 40% + Seashell (P) 50% + Sodium Alginate 10%

IL : Biochar 75% + Seaweed (P) 5% + Seaweed (G) 10% + Seashell (G) 10%

4.3 Material System

The second series of trials tested seaweed and seashells in both powder and granule forms as outer layers, with resin replaced by sodium alginate. When paired with sodium alginate, seaweed powder swelled and expanded in volume, while seaweed granules resisted swelling but eroded progressively in saline water. Seashell powders offered greater density but clogged biochar pores, reducing permeability. Granular seashell layers bound more effectively, yet they separated from the inner matrix after prolonged exposure, confirming that layer cohesion was as critical as material selection.

To address erosion and binding, zeolite was introduced in the inner layer. Although zeolite partially blocked biochar pores, it provided secondary ecological benefits by adsorbing ammonium (NH₄+). Its use in small proportions improved cohesion between layers, especially when extended into the outer layer, but higher concentrations compromised permeability. Importantly, zeolite’s adsorption spectrum is limited: it binds ammonium but does not absorb phosphorus or contribute to pH stabilization.4 Thus, its role was carefully restricted to a supportive rather than primary component.

The critical breakthrough came with the introduction of an interface layer, composed of fine biochar powder stabilised with sodium alginate. This thin interlayer created a continuous transition between outer and inner layers, reducing delamination under saline exposure. Subsequent refinements focused on balancing biochar and zeolite proportions, aiming to maximise the availability of biochar pores while exploiting zeolite’s selective ammonium capture. Experiments confirmed that composites with higher biochar content and minimal zeolite achieved superior permeability and nutrient absorption.

Further optimisation involved small additions of sodium alginate to the inner layer, crosslinked with calcium chloride (CaCl₂). The Ca²+ ions not only stabilised the alginate network but also interacted with biochar, enhancing its capacity to bind phosphate (PO₄3-) through precipitation as calcium phosphate (Ca₃(PO₄)₂). This chemical mechanism complemented the physical adsorption provided by biochar, resulting in a more balanced removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from seawater.

Through this iterative process, a final optimised composite was achieved. Granular seashells contributed strength and erosion resistance in the outer layer. The inner layers were biochar-dominant with trace zeolite for ammonium capture. A biochar–alginate interface ensured cohesion. Collectively, these elements produced a system with high permeability, reduced erosion, robust saline-water performance, and maintained open-pore structures for nutrient adsorption.

To evaluate ecological functionality, the final layered composite samples were immersed in saline water enriched with nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. Nutrient concentrations were recorded prior to immersion to establish baseline values. Following immersion, measurements were conducted using the API Freshwater Test Kit, and gradual changes in nutrient levels were observed.

The layered composite strategy demonstrates how architectural material innovation can align structural durability with ecological function. By orchestrating particle size, layer function, and selective chemistry, the final material moves beyond reactive durability toward active nutrient regulation. This sets the stage for the next chapter, where these composites are scaled into design applications along the Marmara shoreline.

Technology 341 (2021): 125812, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2021.125812.

and Recovery by Acid and Alkaline Treated

4.3 Material System

OL : Seashell 85% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 45% + Seaweed 7% + Seashell 20% + Zeolite 25% + Sodium Alginate 3%

OL : Seaweed 40% + Seashell 45% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 45% + Seaweed 7% + Seashells 20% + Zeolite 25% + Sodium Alginate 3%

OL : Seashell 70% + Zeolite 15% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 60% + Seaweed 10% + Seashell 10% + Zeolite 15% + Sodium Alginate 5%

OL : Seaweed 70% + Zeolite 15% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 60% + Seaweed 10% + Seashell 10% + Zeolite 15% + Sodium Alginate 5%

OL : Seaweed 85% + Sodium Alginate 15%

IL : Biochar 45% + Seaweed 7% + Seashells 20% + Zeolite 25% + Sodium Alginate 3%

OL : Seaweed 30% + Seashell 40% + Zeolite 15% + S. A. 15%

IL : Biochar 60% + Seaweed 10% + Seashell 10% + Zeolite 15% + Sodium Alginate 5%

4.3 Material System

The layered composite strategy demonstrates how architectural material innovation can align structural durability with ecological function. By orchestrating particle size, layer function, and selective chemistry, the final material moves beyond reactive durability toward active nutrient regulation. This sets the stage for the next chapter, where these composites are scaled into design applications along the Marmara shoreline.

4.3 Material System

4.3 Material System

Casting Process and Reuse Strategies for Composite Materials

The development of regenerative composites (Fig. 4.33.) demonstrated that the casting process itself was as critical as the material composition. Each action directly influenced permeability, cohesion, and performance under saline conditions. Early experiments revealed that improper casting techniques, such as compression or vigorous mixing, tended to block biochar pores, diminishing adsorption capacity and weakening the material. Equally crucial was the choice of formwork. Initial tests with 3D-printed PLA molds often resulted in fungal growth and uneven drying, particularly along the lower surfaces where airflow was restricted. By shifting to plywood formwork, these microbial issues were reduced, as the material was able to dry more uniformly. Such refinements emphasized that casting was not a neutral or secondary step, but a key determinant of material viability in marine environments.

The final methodology of casting evolved into a layered strategy where each stage served a functional purpose. The outer layer was prepared with sodium alginate and seashell granules, combined with water to reach a dough-like consistency that maintained form. Once in place, surface roughness was created through crosshatching before applying an interface layer composed of fine biochar powder and sodium alginate. This thin intermediate zone enhanced mechanical adhesion between layers. The inner layer was then prepared by hydrating binders before folding in seaweed and biochar granules. Careful handling was required: rather than vigorous mixing, which risked pore obstruction, materials were folded and lightly pressed to maintain porosity. The formwork was removed within ten to fifteen minutes, while the blocks remained moist enough to ensure binding. Finally, crosslinking with calcium chloride solution consolidated the layers, with outer layers treated three times to improve erosion resistance and inner layers treated only once to preserve permeability. This combination of material sequencing, formwork choice, and controlled crosslinking resulted in composites with higher durability and reduced swelling under saline exposure.

Alongside refining the casting process, the research also foregrounded strategies for reuse and ecological reintegration. A core ambition was to ensure that each composite could re-enter ecological cycles productively after its service life. Once material had been deployed and retrieved, they were mechanically separated into inner and outer layers, allowing targeted recovery. The outer layers, rich in seashell granules, were soaked in hot water to dissolve the sodium alginate binder.

Seashell particles were brushed clean and could be reused in subsequent casts, their mineral composition making them highly durable. The dissolved alginate solution, rather than being discarded, offered secondary applications such as biodegradable seed coatings.5

The inner layers required a different approach. These were broken down and soaked in water before being blended to release the nutrients absorbed by the biochar. The resulting slurry was then combined with compost, enabling the biochar to serve as a soil amendment.6 In parallel, seaweed residues contributed valuable organic matter, growth-promoting compounds, and micronutrients, positioning them as a regenerative input in soil systems.7 Zeolite, though more limited in nutrient diversity, offered benefits by increasing cation exchange capacity and improving ammonium retention, supporting fertilizer performance.8 Each constituent of the inner layer thus provided ecological value: biochar improved soil structure and nutrient cycling, seaweed enriched fertility, seashells supplied calcium carbonate to buffer soil pH, zeolite contributed ammonium regulation, and residual sodium alginate boosted soil water retention.

By integrating both casting precision and reuse cycles, the composites achieved not only technical viability but also ecological circularity. Casting determined their structural and environmental performance during use, while reuse strategies ensured a meaningful afterlife through mineral recovery and soil enrichment. The process transforms the composite from a short-lived material experiment into a regenerative system that engages both marine and terrestrial cycles. This chapter thus sets the foundation for the next stage, where the optimized composites will be scaled into architectural systems for coastal infrastructure.

5] Rizwangul Abdukerim et al., “Coating Seeds with Biocontrol Bacteria-Loaded Sodium Alginate/Pectin Hydrogel Enhances the Survival of Bacteria and Control Efficacy against Soil-Borne Vegetable Diseases,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 279, pt. 3 (2024): 135317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.135317.

6] Shubh Pravat Singh Yadav et al., “Biochar Application: A Sustainable Approach to Improve Soil Health,” Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023): 100498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100498.

7] Ali Rafi Yasmeen et al., “Role of Seaweeds for Improving Soil Fertility and Crop Development to Address Global Food Insecurity,” Crops 5, no. 3 (2025): 29, https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5030029.

8] Renata Jarosz et al., “The Use of Zeolites as an Addition to Fertilisers – A Review,” CATENA 213 (2022): 106125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106125.

05. DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.1 Channel Placement

5.1.1 Channel Placement Strategies

5.1.2 Water Circulation

5.2 Panel Placement

5.2.1 Panel Placement Strategies

5.3 Master Plan

5.3.1 Master Plan Layers

5.3.2 Master Plan Functions

5.3.3 Existing and Proposal

5.3.4 Final Adjustments and Future Possibilities

5.4 Panel Design

5.4.1 Excavation and Construction

5.4.2 Material System in Architectural Integration: Panel-Based Design Proposal

5.4.3 Biomimetic Principles and Material Performance

5.4.4 Panel Development : Design Methodology

5.4.5 Panel Placement on Master Plan

5.4.6 System Detail

5.4.7 Critical Assessment and Future Prospects

5.1 Channel Placement

5.1.1 Channel Placement Strategies

5.1.2 Water Circulation

5.1 Channel Placement

Channel Placement Strategies

In the channel placement stage, all four typologies were positioned on the project site based on their CFD performance, functional attributes, and the water network analysis presented in previous chapters. Placement was informed by these paraMetres, ensuring that each typology was integrated into the urban plan according to its specific role. Attention was also given to the orientation of inlet and outlet points, as the overall strategy aims first to draw water into the system at higher velocities and subsequently to generate circulation through the interconnected channels and pools of the proposal.

5.1 Channel Placement

5.1 Channel Placement

Water Circulation

Outlet: -3m depth

Inlet: -5m depth

TYPE 01 | Production Areas

Outlet: -3m depth

Inlet: -5m depth

TYPE 02 | Community Areas

On the urban plan, the channels located along the edges function as inlet–outlet systems. These channels draw water into the network and release it back, ensuring a continuous exchange with the surrounding sea. Moving slightly inward, channels combined with pools establish circulation within the system. This arrangement enables water to circulate between modules, strengthening overall connectivity and supporting hydrodynamic performance.

5.1 Channel Placement

TYPE 03 | Green Areas

TYPE 04 | Intersection Areas

After the four typologies were placed within the urban plan, slope integration was applied to the channels. The depth gradually decreased toward the outlet, enhancing water circulation and strengthening the overall hydrodynamic performance of the system. In this process, the relative positioning of the channels within the plan was also taken into account. Pools located between channels further supported circulation by establishing connections across channels. As a result of the depth variations introduced through slope integration, some pools followed a gradient while others remained flat. This differentiation influenced both the hydrodynamic behaviour and the functional performance of the channels and pools.

5.2 Panel Placement

5.2.1 Panel Placement Strategies

5.2 Panel Placement

Panel Placement Strategies

Panel placement was determined according to a set of functional paraMetres. The cross-section of each channel typology consists of three functional layers: public functions, filtration and absorption, and habitat creation. Panels were placed only within the filtration and absorption layer of the channels, as nutrient flow at the project site primarily occurs within the upper 0–3 m of depth. Therefore, additional panels below this level were not required. Beyond this environmental paraMetre of nutrient activity, other factors also influenced panel placement, including CFD analysis and channel morphology.

According to the Autodesk CFD analysis1, stagnant areas were detected, particularly near the inlet and outlet zones. In contrast, the throat areas showed less stagnation due to increased velocity generated by channel morphology. For this reason, the inlet and outlet regions were selected for panel placement. Morphology further guided this strategy: the cross-sections of the channels follow a convex-like shape, and the outward convex surfaces were selected to support effective panel replacement processes. In each case, these outward convex parts are located at the inlet and outlet areas.

TYPE 01 | Production Areas

TYPE 03 | Green Areas

TYPE 02 | Community Areas

TYPE 04 | Intersection Areas

5.2 Panel Placement

panel placement

Four distinct channel types are integrated alongside pedestrian paths and service roads designated for panel replacement. Panel locations, replacement zones, and service axes are systematically defined, ensuring a coherent operational framework. Overall, the design scenario proposes an interface that merges

community functions with productive uses. While the channels enhance water velocity, the panels absorb nutrients. Through this interaction, the design seeks to improve water quality within an open and accessible interface.

Steel Guiding Anchored C section

Steel Frame Work Support

Thick Perforated Sheet

Panels

Insertion

Replacing Panels

Pushing and Locking at bottom

Nutrients absorption For 4 weeks Pulling to Unlock

Uncovering: An Interface Between Land & Sea 82

5.3 Master Plan

5.3.1 Master Plan Layers

5.3.2 Master Plan Functions

5.3.3 Existing and Proposal

5.3.4 Final Adjustments and Future Possibilities

5.3 Master Plan

Master Plan Layers

water network channels

pedestrian network

water bodies

land formation

channel placement and water network

The primary layers of the master plan consist of the water network, channel placement, pedestrian circulation, and land formation. In addition, the functional Organisation is structured according to the initial square Metre definitions. Panel replacement axes are planned in relation to designated panel placement areas. The quantity of panels at the inlets and outlets was taken into account, and their surface areas served as a reference for defining replacement zones and establishing service circulation to facilitate panel installation and periodic replacement.

5.3 Master Plan

Master Plan Functions

functions

Programme areas in relation to inlets, outlets, and panel replacement services. Image produced by the author.

5.3 Master Plan

Existing and Proposal

This visual compares the existing condition with the proposed design. In the current situation, the reclamation area consists of green spaces, pedestrian pathways, and parking lots. The proposal introduces a test area that was computationally designed and modified to mitigate stagnant water conditions by introducing channels that increase water velocity while reducing the perceived massiveness of the reclamation zone.

Existing

Test Area Proposal

5.3 Master Plan

Final Adjustments

and Future Possibilities

The proposed test area remains subject to adaptation according to the surrounding physical context. Following optimization and computational design methods applied to this area, the next objective was to explore the design’s flexibility. To introduce a more dynamic scenario in terms of both physical and ecological conditions, the adjustment was carried out by eliminating sections between the channels and the edges closest to the water. This transformation reshaped the rectangular test area into a more fluid and dynamic interface.

5.4 Panel Design

5.4.1 Excavation and Construction

5.4.2 Material System in Architectural Integration: Panel-Based Design Proposal

5.4.3 Biomimetic Principles and Material Performance

5.4.4 Panel Development : Design Methodology

5.4.5 Panel Placement on Master Plan

5.4.6 System Detail

5.4 Panel Design

Excavation and Construction

The project site provides materials that inform the design concept, which is derived from uncovering and reinterpreting the existing situation. At present, the area consists of hardscape and softscape elements: concrete surfaces, which cause an increase in land temperature, and green areas as softscape.

The proposal introduces an excavation process to collect and reuse these site materials, specifically concrete and soil. Waste concrete is incorporated into the channel substructure, while excavated soil is repurposed for land formation through robotic excavation and fill techniques.

Existing Situation

Excavation Process Proposal

Excavation depth (h) varies depending on the channel or pool typology.

5.4 Panel Design

Installation Process

The panel placement process operates in a continuous cycle. Panels are secured to a modular frame with the assistance of labour, after which a crane lifts and positions the frame along the edge. Once in place, the panels remain submerged in water for around four weeks to allow absorption. Following this period, they are removed and replaced with new units, continuing the cycle. The use of modular frames and cranes makes the process efficient, scalable, and low-impact on the surrounding edge environment.

Removed Panels further Transferred for Processing

5.4 Panel Design

Material System in Architectural Integration: Panel-Based Design Proposal

The design proposal represents the culmination of the material experiments and performance evaluations described in earlier chapters. While the research questions asked how regenerative material systems might mitigate eutrophication and mucilage proliferation in the Sea of Marmara, this chapter shifts from isolated composites toward their architectural incorporation. The central objective is to test whether a biochar–seaweed–zeolite composite, designed to absorb nutrients and mediate hydrodynamics, can be scaled into tectonic components of marine infrastructure. Specifically, the proposal focuses on modular seawall panels intended to combine nutrient capture with enhanced water flow. This chapter critically examines the rationale, design process, and structural logic of the panel system, while reflecting on its limitations and unrealized potentials.

The panel emerged as the most logical architectural format because of two overlapping demands: scalability and replaceability. Eutrophication in the Marmara is not a static problem but a cyclical one, driven by seasonal nutrient loads, fluctuating pH, and rising sea temperatures. Material systems that saturate after a limited functional lifespan: biochar, for instance, reaching a threshold of approximately 3.5 mg/g NH₄+ in one litre of seawater; must therefore be periodically renewed. A modular tectonic system, capable of panel-by-panel substitution, offers a practical method to integrate biological functionality with architectural resilience, without dismantling entire infrastructures or harming surrounding ecologies.

Positioned along urban reclamation edges and within engineered channels, the panels act as interfaces: absorbing nutrients, inducing water turbulence, and resisting erosion at sites where stagnant water and nutrient accumulation otherwise intensify mucilage blooms.

5.4 Panel Design

Biomimetic Principles and Material Performance

The panels take inspiration from coral reef morphologies, which couple porosity and corrugation to balance stability with metabolic exchange. Translating this The panel design was conceived through a translation of ecological principles into architectural form, drawing direct inspiration from the morphologies of coral reefs. Corals exemplify how porosity and corrugation can operate simultaneously to maintain stability while enabling metabolic exchange, and this dual strategy became the foundation of the composite system. The design thus approached performance at both micro and macro scales, embedding material intelligence within spatial organisation.

At the micro scale, porosity within the composite maximises the interface between seawater and the biochar–zeolite matrix, ensuring nutrient adsorption is distributed evenly across the surface. Corrugation at this scale generates micro-turbulence, preventing water stagnation and enhancing the rate of contact between water flows and reactive surfaces. These conditions not only improve ecological function but also mitigate material fatigue by dispersing stresses across the matrix.

At the macro scale, porosity was organised radially across the panel surface. Smaller apertures were placed at the edges, where the material was most vulnerable to erosion, while progressively larger openings were introduced toward the centre

to encourage flow and maximise nutrient exchange. This radial gradient balanced ecological performance with structural resilience, reducing the risk of premature degradation observed in earlier experiments. Corrugation depth was similarly modulated according to the layered composition of the panel: deeper along weaker zones to reinforce stability, shallower where permeability was prioritised. These spatial and structural decisions were anchored in adsorption values drawn from existing studies. Biochar, with a capacity of approximately 3.5 mg/g NH₄+, and zeolite, with a capacity of around 10 mg/g NH₄+, formed the active core of the inner layer. In this configuration, biochar (45%) and zeolite (25%) together accounted for roughly 30% of the total panel composition. When modelled against local eutrophic conditions, where ammonium levels typically measure 2.16 mg/L, the projected nutrient capture capacity of the composite indicated a potential reduction to approximately 0.3 mg/L, a threshold associated with ecological stability.

It was on the basis of these interrelated paraMetres material adsorption rates, proportional composition, hydrodynamic flows, and structural durability that the final panel size of 50 × 50 × 5 cm was derived. This dimension represented a balance between ecological efficacy and constructability: large enough to filter an estimated 5,000 litres of seawater per cycle, yet compact enough to be cast, replaced, and integrated into a modular tectonic system.

5.4 Panel Design

5.4 Panel Design

Panel Development : Design Methodology

The development of the composite panels required not only the refinement of material experiments but also the articulation of a computational framework capable of translating ecological performance into architectural form. The computational design workflow thus served as a mediating tool, bridging ecological logics with architectural fabrication.

The panel design began with the establishment of a grid-based layout to regulate porosity distribution across the surface. The grid acted as a computational field, enabling localised control of apertures and ensuring that porosity was not uniformly applied but strategically distributed. This framework allowed the design to reconcile two competing demands: maintaining sufficient strength at the edges while maximising nutrient exchange at the Centre.

Building on this framework, radial scaling of porosity was introduced. Smaller apertures were located along the edges, where the panels were most susceptible to erosion and structural stress, while progressively larger openings were positioned toward the Centre. This gradient, derived from earlier physical experiments that revealed the vulnerability of edges, allowed the panel to resist degradation while continuing to optimise ecological performance.

To generate variation across the panel surface, a differential growth pattern was computationally simulated. Beginning from the Centre and expanding outward, the growth field served as a guide for distributing porosity in a manner that mimicked natural morphogenetic processes. This biologically inspired approach ensured that apertures were not placed in a purely geometric or arbitrary sequence, but rather evolved in relation to dynamic patterns that balance strength, flow, and filtration.

Once the growth pattern was established, porosity allocation was calibrated against both structural and functional performance. Computational simulations were used to test how different aperture sizes and distributions would impact load-bearing capacity and water flow, allowing the design to negotiate between ecological function and tectonic durability.

Finally, corrugation depth was introduced as a third-order paraMetre, tailored to the layer of material composition. Corrugation not only enhanced turbulence at the micro level, but also reinforced the structural integrity of the panels, reducing the risk of warping or premature failure. By modulating depth in relation to the material strata, the design further integrated ecological and architectural logics into a single performative system.

5.4 Panel Design

5.4 Panel Design

To translate these principles into a buildable tectonic component, several casting and fabrication strategies were tested. Early 1:1 fragments used 3D-printed formwork, which offered the highest resolution in controlling porosity patterns but was restricted in scale.

A full 1:1 prototype relied on CNC-cut foam, which proved feasible but less precise, particularly in reproducing fine porosity at the edges. The comparison highlighted a trade-off between resolution and scalability. A hybrid strategy emerged as the most promising: using 3D-printed formwork only on the surface where porosity control was required, while employing plywood formwork on the other sides for structural economy and reduced risk of fungal growth.

5.4 Panel Design

Panel Placement on Master Plan

panel placement inlet outlet

panel placement inlet outlet

Panel details of the selected module are illustrated in Fig. 1 and further shown at different scales in the images below. As described in previous sections, the replaceable panels are positioned at the inlet and outlet areas of the channels. These locations were selected based on CFD analysis, which revealed stagnation zones near the inlets and outlets, and on morphological considerations, as the convex outward surfaces in these areas facilitate panel replacement. In this way, the panels support both hydrodynamic performance and ecological functionality.

5.4 Panel Design

Structural System

The modular replacement panel system is designed for durability and ease of installation in marine environments. The primary frame begins at −1m, just below the exposed steps, and extends to −3m below ground level. It is constructed as a fixed, anchor-bolted C-section frame (2.63 × 0.12 × 0.5m), profiled to secure firmly to the main structure at the rear. At its base, a push–pull locking strip enables rapid engagement and release.

Each secondary frame is inserted vertically into the primary frame, locking automatically into position through a guided sliding mechanism. These secondary corner members, designed as C-sections (0.1 × 0.15 × 0.5m, with 0.015 m thickness), provide stability and hold the panels securely. Together, the primary and secondary frames form a robust structure capable of withstanding harsh marine conditions.

Operational Logic

The system is designed for efficient monthly replacement. Cranes lift and position the modules, allowing panels to be removed or inserted with minimal labour. Each secondary frame accommodates four panels, extending across −2m of depth below the exposed steps, with each panel covering a 0.5m step height.

The positioning of the replacement panels responds directly to the sea’s ecological conditions. The top 2m of the water column contains the highest concentration of nutrients that trigger mucilage blooms. For this reason, the submerged panels are placed within this zone, optimised to absorb nutrients where they are most prevalent. The first 1m below ground level remains as exposed steps. The following 2m functions as a nutrientabsorption column within the water, while below 3m the structure opens to support marine habitat. This vertical layering brings together accessibility, nutrient removal, and ecological accommodation in a single adaptive system.

Panels are reinforced with a 0.004m perforated marine-grade sheet, which stabilises the assembly while permitting circulation. Spacer members secure both sheet and frame while maintaining a 0.1m gap between adjacent panels. Together, this ensures stability, continuous water flow, and accessibility during maintenance.

Ecological Performance

The central layer of each panel is composed of a nutrient-absorption medium, deliberately exposed to seawater. The perforated backing and gaps between panels maximise exposure, allowing seawater to circulate freely while enhancing nutrient capture. Over time, the panels absorb excess nutrients from the water column, reducing concentrations that fuel harmful processes such as mucilage formation.

At the end of their service life, the panels are removed and processed into nutrient-rich fertiliser, closing the material loop by supporting terrestrial landscaping. In this way, the design integrates structural resilience with ecological regeneration. It transforms the challenge of nutrient accumulation into an opportunity for nutrient recovery, while sustaining water circulation and enhancing shoreline resilience.

Exploded section of panel and frame assembly with joinery details

Panel

Perforated Sheet

Spacer Member

Secondary Framework

Guiding Member Anchor to Structure

Locking Part Fixed Inside Frame

Locking Part Fixed at Base Plate

Reused Concrete+Zeolite

Panel

Vertical Movement-supporting Member

Secondary Frame

Perforated Sheet

Fixed Vertical Movement Guiding Rail Member

Primary Frame

5.4 Panel Design

0.015m diaMetre Bolts securing Sheet to Main Frame Spacers

0.004m thick Perforated Marine-grade Sheet supporting Back Panels to Frame

Panels (0.5 × 0.5 × 0.05 m)

Submerged Panels in Water (Large-scale View)

Marine-grade Secondary Frame

Vertical Movement-supporting Member

Spacer Member to Support Panel on Frame

Perforated Steel Sheet (4 mm thick)

Panels

Panel Frame Assembly Details

Panels Placed in Water on frames

Primary Frame anchored on structure

Submerged Structural Details with Panel Placement in Water (Zoomed-in View)

Removable Marine-grade Secondary Frame

Primary Frame Permanently Anchored in Water

Secondary Frame to Primary Frame Insertion Details

Inserted Frames Elevation

Frame Insertion Elevation Details (Front view)

Plan View

Visuals

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

The research set out to address the central questions of how design interventions can mitigate the conditions driving mucilage and how bio-based systems might be mobilised as active ecological agents. The work demonstrated that architectural experimentation, when grounded in both scientific analysis and material testing, can begin to reposition infrastructure as a medium for ecological remediation. While the scope of inquiry was necessarily limited, the outcomes confirmed the project’s ability to align ecological performance with design ambition, establishing a foundation for further refinement and development.

The development of channel morphology was informed by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, with the objective of increasing water velocity and disrupting stagnation zones. By enhancing turbulence, the channels were tested as spatial interventions capable of addressing one of the root causes of mucilage proliferation. These explorations were grounded in hydrodynamic research and framed within the wider architectural intent of coupling ecological remediation with spatial experience. At this stage, the investigation focused primarily on marine conditions, examining water dynamics and nutrient flows within the body of the sea. Initial steps were also made toward extending this focus to the reclamation–sea threshold, thereby beginning to integrate aquatic processes with the urban fabric. Yet the scope of work constrained the capacity of the design to operate as a fully coherent coastal system. Looking ahead, urban–marine relationships must be developed more explicitly, with channel typologies embedded into shoreline planning strategies. Computational analysis could also be expanded to include wind dynamics and urban edge conditions, ensuring that architectural responses are attuned to both environmental forces and the core research aim of reconfiguring the urban–coastal–water spine. Through this reframing, the proposal may evolve beyond hydrodynamic optimisation toward a more comprehensive model of coastal urbanism.

Alongside hydrodynamic modelling, material experiments were undertaken to explore how bio-based composites could act as active participants in ecological remediation. Despite its conceptual coherence, the panel system revealed significant shortcomings when measured against both the research questions and the design objectives of the project. While the biochar–zeolite composite proved capable of nutrient absorption, its saturation threshold limited effectiveness to roughly one month. This rapid cycle of replacement rendered the system technically unsustainable and spatially disruptive.

Within the channel network, designed to bring people into renewed proximity with water, such maintenance would have undermined accessibility and transformed a regenerative interface into a logistical burden. These limitations suggest that the composite system should not be understood as a discrete tectonic object, but as an ecological interface embedded in flows of water and human activity. Reconceived as a performative medium, the material can move beyond the logic of replacement panels and instead operate as part of metabolic infrastructures through which hydrodynamics, nutrient cycles, and ecological repair are mediated. In doing so, the composite is repositioned as a participant in metabolic urban processes, aligning more closely with the central research question of how bio-based materials can be mobilised to mitigate mucilage while fostering renewed urban–marine relationships.

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

Architectural propositions begin to illustrate this shift. The composite might be embedded within floating infrastructures, such as platforms tethered within the channels. These mobile elements could filter nutrients while simultaneously functioning as public platforms for recreation, aquaculture, or ecological education. Their mobility would allow them to be rotated or replaced without interfering with the fixed architecture of the channel, transforming maintenance from an obstacle into an opportunity for dynamic spatial Programmeming.

The lesson of these experiments is therefore not only technical but methodological. The fragility of treating bio-material composites as objects, vulnerable to erosion, saturation, and replacement, underscores the need to reconceptualise them as ecological interfaces: adaptive, processual, and inseparable from environmental rhythms. This reframing sets the ground for future prospects where architecture is designed less as static assembly and more as metabolic infrastructure. In this sense, the material experiment becomes not an end in itself but a catalyst for rethinking how architecture participates in the ecological processes of a coastal city. The tests confirmed that the material system was effective, though performance against other key nutrients could also be evaluated in future to provide a fuller understanding of its ecological potential.

Attention was also given to the installation of the composites within architectural systems. The modular panel and frame concept was intended to simplify replacement once saturation occurred, reduce disruption to surrounding ecologies, and align with cycles of ecological renewal. While the system proved conceptually viable, the current replacement cycle of approximately one month risks being spatially disruptive, interrupting both ecological continuity

and public accessibility. For the design to fulfil its architectural ambitions, installation strategies must be rethought as opportunities for embedding renewal into infrastructure rather than as repetitive maintenance procedures. Possible directions include adaptive anchoring, floating infrastructures, or regenerative materials capable of extending their performance lifespan in situ.

Taken together, the reflections across channel morphology, material development, nutrient testing, and installation suggest that while the system is still at an experimental stage, it offers a valuable prototype for rethinking the role of architecture in ecological processes. The project demonstrated that bio-based composites can actively absorb nutrients, and that hydrodynamic interventions can reshape flows to reduce stagnation. It also showed that temporality, rather than permanence, may serve as a productive design principle, aligning material cycles with ecological rhythms. While technical and methodological gaps remain, these are understood as opportunities for refinement rather than failures. In this sense, the research contributes both a material prototype and a methodological framework for reconceiving coastal infrastructures as metabolic agents, positioning architecture not as static boundary but as collaborator in ecological repair.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Domain Chapter Bibliography

Acar, Uğur, and Osman Salih Yılmaz and Meltem Çelen and Ali Murat Ateş and Fatih Gülgen and Füsun Balık Şanlı. 2021. “Determination of Mucilage in The Sea of Marmara Using Remote Sensing Techniques with Google Earth Engine.” International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics 8, no. 4: 423-434. https://doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.957284

A. Kucuksezgin, A. Uluturhan‐Suzer, M. E. Basturk, and E. Kontas, “Pollutant Dynamics between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara through the Istanbul Strait: Implications for Wastewater Management,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 172 (2021): 112891, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112891.

Archdaily, “Re-Naturalization of Urban Waterways: The Case Study of Cheonggye Stream in Seoul, South Korea” https://www.archdaily.com/1020945/re-naturalization-of-urban-waterways-the-case-study-of-cheonggye-stream-in-seoul-south-korea

A. Yilmaz, A. C. Yalçıner, and C. Gazioğlu, “Marine Mucilage in the Sea of Marmara and Its Effects on the Marine Ecosystem: Mass Deaths” (2022), ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357735433.

A. Yilmaz, A. C. Yalçıner, and C. Gazioğlu, “Sea of Marmara Under Siege: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions of Marine Mucilage,” Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 28, no. 1 (2022). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374350034_The_Mucilage_Problem_Causes_Consequences_and_Solutions_Report

Al-Ani, Mohammed, Ali Mahdi, and Hussein Al-Saedi. “Hydrology and Hydraulic Performance of Venturi Flume Structures.” Hydrology 8, no. 27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8010027.

B. Alpar, C. Gazioğlu, and B. Yüksek, “Impacts of Human Activities and Climate Change on the Coastal Dynamics of the Marmara Sea,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2024), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-024-09128-w.

B. Kuşçu Şimşek and M. D. Işık, The Evaluation of Waterfront as a Public Space in Terms of the Quality Concept: Case of Maltepe Fill Area, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335421842.

B. Yalçın, S. Sur, and H. Balkıs, “Nutrient Dynamics and Eutrophication in the Sea of Marmara: Data from Coastal Areas,” Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017): 405–420, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971731286X.

Bachelard, Gaston. Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter. Dallas: Pegasus Foundation, 1983. https://www.academia.edu/113359329/Water_and_dreams

Cao, Bingyin, Long Ren, Yuan Wang, Xuwen Bing, Zhen Kuang, and Dongpo Xu. “In Situ Ecological Floating Bed Remediation Alters Internal Trophic Structure: A Case Study of Meiliang Bay, Lake Taihu.” Fishes 10, no. 2 (2025): 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10020044

Carson, Rachel. The Sea Around Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Ceyda Bakbaş and Evrim Töre, “From Industry to Culture: Regeneration of Golden Horn as a ‘Cultural Valley,’” The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication 9, no. 3 (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336186709_FROM_INDUSTRY_TO_CULTURE_REGENERATION_of_GOLDEN_HORN_AS_A_CULTURAL_VALLEY

Craggs, R. J. “Wastewater Treatment by Algal Turf Scrubbing.” Water Science and Technology 44, no. 11–12 (2001): 427–33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11804130/

F. W. R. Ross et al., “Potential Role of Seaweeds in Climate Change Mitigation” (2023), Science of the Total Environment, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723023203

George F. Dales, “The Harappan ‘Port’ at Lothal: Another View,” Expedition 7, no. 3 (1965): 25–34, University of Pennsylvania Museum. https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/7-3/Shipping.pdf

hayalleme (@hayalleme). “Zitat or post content here (first 20-40 characters)… ” X (Twitter), September 16, 2023. https://x.com/hayalleme/status/1700570120051982769

Hersbach, Hans, Bill Bell, Paul Berrisford, Shoji Hirahara, András Horányi, Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Julien Nicolas, et al. 2020. “The ERA5 Global Reanalysis.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 146 (730): 1999–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803

Investigation of Miniature Venturi Flume, Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/31383661/Investigation_of_Miniature_Venturi_Flume.

Investigation of the Performance of Miniature Model of Venturi Flume, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381039960_Investigation_of_the_Performance_of_Miniature_Model_of_Venturi_Flume.

Jeroen Rijke, Chris Zevenbergen, Chris Browning, and Richard Ashley, “Room for the River: Delivering Integrated River Basin Management in the Netherlands,” Sustainability 9, no. 8 (2017): 1368, https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/234111926_Room_for_the_River_Delivering_integrated_river_basin_management_in_the_Netherlands

Karagöz, Büşra, and Nebiye Musaoğlu. “An Extended Analysis of Coastal Reclamation Areas through the Utilization of Remote Sensing Data and Landscape Metrics.” Journal of Coastal Research 113, no. sp1 (December 20, 2024): 539–543. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCR-SI113-106.1

Kurt, Sümeyra. “Land Use Changes in Istanbul’s Marmara Sea Coastal Regions Between 1987 and 2007.” Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 11, no. 11 (2012): 1584–1590. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/271012363.

M. L. Artüz, Müsilaj: Denizin Sessiz Katili (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2016).

Marleen van Buuren and Geert de Roo, “Room for the River: A Spatial Planning Perspective on Multifunctional Floodplain Redevelopment in the Netherlands,” Journal of Environmental Management 274 (2020): 111183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111183.

McGrail, Sean. Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford University Press, 2015. [For Lothal & ancient harbours] https://www.academia.edu/39591350/BOATS_OF_THE_WORLD

McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature. New York: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1969. https://archive.org/details/designwithnature00mcha/page/26/mode/2up

McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature. New York: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1969. https://archive.org/details/designwithnature00mcha/page/26/mode/2up

Michael Pawlyn, Rachel Armstrong, and Tom Goreau, “Regenerative Architecture: A Paradigm Shift for the Built Environment,” PLOS ONE 6, no. 7 (2011): e22396, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022396.

Mohammed Al-Ani, Ali Mahdi, and Hussein Al-Saedi, “Hydrology and Hydraulic Performance of Venturi Flume Structures,” Hydrology 8, no. 27 (2021): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8010027.

Ö. A. Genel, A. H. Demir, and M. Y. Seker, “Assessing Urbanisation Dynamics in Turkey’s Marmara,” Remote Sensing 13, no. 4 (2021): 664, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/4/664.

PrattSAVI. 2021. Musilaj Project. GitHub. https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj

R. Ginocchio et al., “Seaweed Biochar (Sourced from Marine Water Remediation Farms) for Soil Remediation: Towards an Integrated Approach …” (2023), BioResources 18(3): 4637–4656, https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/seaweed-biochar-sourced-from-marine-water-remediation-farms-for-soil-remediation-towards-an-integrated-approach-of-terrestrial-coastal-marine-waterremediation/

Rachel Carson, The Sea Around Us (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961).

Sahil Şeridini Güzelleştiriyoruz,” Ardeşen Belediyesi, 25 March 2022, photo gallery, https://ardesen.bel.tr/Detay/sahil-seridini-guzellestiriyoruz.html?foto=4.

Seda Kaplan Çinçin and Nevnihal Erdoğan, “The Evaluation of Waterfront as a Public Space in Terms of the Quality Concept: Case of Maltepe Fill Area,” Recent 17, no. 3 (2019), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335421842_The_Evaluation_of_Waterfront_as_a_Public_Space_in_Terms_of_the_Quality_Concept_Case_of_Maltepe_Fill_Area.

Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. https://Catalogueue.unccd.int/539_Serres_Michel_The_Natural_Contract(1).pdf

Simon Keay, “Portus: A Maritime Port for Imperial Rome,” in Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean, ed. S. Keay (London: British School at Rome, 2012), https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/ItalyWest/Portus/Portus-Keay2012.pdf

T. Basdurak, B. Yilmaz, G. Erdem, and E. Aksu, “Climate Change Impacts on River Discharge to the Sea of Marmara,” Frontiers in Marine Science (2023), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1278136/full.

The Evaluation of C, N, P Release and Contribution to the …” (year), SciSpace, PDF, https://scispace.com/papers/the-evaluation-of-c-n-p-release-and-contribution-to-the-2e6gi965

The Istanbul Chronicle. 2021. “The Marmara Sea Faces a Mucilage Crisis and Needs Urgent Action.” The Istanbul Chronicle, June 9, 2021. https://www.theistanbulchronicle.com/post/the-marmara-sea-faces-a-mucilage-crisis-and-needs-urgent-action

TÜDAV, The Sea of Marmara: Marine Biodiversity, Fisheries and Pollution Status Report, (Istanbul: The Turkish Marine Research Foundation, 2016), page 2, 20. https://tudav.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/THE_SEA_OF_MARMARA_2016.pdf

Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV). The Mucilage Problem: Causes, Consequences and Solutions Report. Istanbul: TUDAV, 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374350034_The_Mucilage_Problem_Causes_Consequences_and_Solutions_Report.

University of Plymouth, “Living Seawalls in Plymouth,” Marine Eco-Engineering Research Unit. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/marine-eco-engineering-research-unit/living-seawalls-in-plymouth.

V. Narci, Marmara: The Last Refuge (Istanbul: Deniz Publishing, 2021).

Venturi Flume, Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/106102929/Venturi_flume.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, “Study Highlights Under-Appreciated Benefit of Oyster Restoration” (2013), https://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/archives/2013/oyster_buffer.php

Yüksek Kaya, Ufuk (@UfukYuksekkaya). “Süreyya Plajı ve Bakireler Mabedi (1930) #Maltepe #İstanbul #hayalleme.” Twitter, August 12, 2017, 10:20 a.m. https://x.com/UfukYuksekkaya/ status/896300419378532352

Research Development Chapter Bibliography

Apaydın, Gökhan, Volkan Aylikci, Erhan Cengiz, M. Saydam, Nuray Kup Aylikci, and E. Tirasoglu. “Analysis of Metal Contents of Seaweed (Ulva lactuca) from Istanbul, Turkey by EDXRF.” Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 10, no. 2 (2010): 167–72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261986548_Analysis_of_Metal_Contents_of_Seaweed_Ulva_lactuca_from_Istanbul_Turkey_by_EDXRF.

Autodesk Inc. Autodesk CFD User Guide. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Inc., 2022.

Barbhuiya, Salim, Bibhuti Bhusan Das, and Fragkoulis Kanavaris. “Biochar-Concrete: A Comprehensive Review of Properties, Production and Sustainability.” Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024): e02859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e02859.

Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). “ERA5 Hourly Data on Single Levels from 1959 to Present.” European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). https://climate.copernicus.eu/c3s-updates-its-maps-without-gaps-1959-1978

Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). ERA5: Fifth Generation of ECMWF Atmospheric Reanalyses of the Global Climate. ECMWF, 2017.

Fei, Xiugeng. “Solving the Coastal Eutrophication Problem by Large Scale Seaweed Cultivation.” Hydrobiologia 512, nos. 1–3 (2004): 145–51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225959746_Solving_the_coastal_eutrophication_problem_by_large_scale_seaweed_cultivation.

GEBCO Compilation Group. GEBCO 2021 Grid. National Oceanography Centre, 2021. Google Earth Pro. Version 7.3. Mountain View, CA: Google, 2025. Imagery © 2025 Maxar Technologies. https://earth.google.com/static/multi-threaded/versions/10.89.0.3/index.html?

McNeel. Grasshopper Algorithmic Modelling for Rhino. Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023.

Meirinawati, Hanny, and A’an Wahyudi. “Seaweed as Bioadsorbent for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal.” Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 6, no. 1 (2023): 1–28. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/383205222_Seaweed_as_bioadsorbent_for_nitrogen_and_phosphorus_removal.

OpenStreetMap contributors. OpenStreetMap. 2023. https://www.openstreetmap.org

Vasseghian, Yasser, Megha M. Nadagouda, and Tejraj M. Aminabhavi. “Biochar-Enhanced Bioremediation of Eutrophic Waters Impacted by Algal Blooms.” Journal of Environmental Management 367 (2024): 122044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122044.

Wu, Xichang, Wenxuan Quan, Qi Chen, Wei Gong, and Anping Wang. “Efficient Adsorption of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wastewater by Biochar.” Molecules 29, no. 5 (2024): 1005. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/378499916_Efficient_Adsorption_of_Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_in_Wastewater_by_Biochar QGIS.org. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. 2023.3.

Design Development Chapter Bibliography

Abdukerim, Rizwangul, Lei Li, Jun-Hui Li, Sheng Xiang, Yan-Xia Shi, Xue-Wen Xie, A-Li Chai, Teng-Fei Fan, and Bao-Ju Li. “Coating Seeds with Biocontrol Bacteria-Loaded Sodium Alginate/Pectin Hydrogel Enhances the Survival of Bacteria and Control Efficacy against Soil-Borne Vegetable Diseases.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 279, pt. 3 (2024): 135317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijbiomac.2024.135317

Autodesk Inc., Autodesk CFD User Guide (San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Inc., 2022)

Jarosz, Renata, Justyna Szerement, Krzysztof Gondek, and Monika Mierzwa-Hersztek. “The Use of Zeolites as an Addition to Fertilisers – A Review.” CATENA 213 (2022): 106125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. catena.2022.106125

McNeel, Grasshopper Algorithmic Modelling for Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023; Wallacei, Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization Plugin for Grasshopper, 2023; J. B. MacQueen, “Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1:281–297 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967)

Muscarella, Sofia Maria, Luigi Badalucco, Beatriz Cano, Vito Armando Laudicina, and Giorgio Mannina. “Ammonium Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery by Acid and Alkaline Treated Zeolite.” Bioresource Technology 341 (2021): 125812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125812

Sofia Maria Muscarella, Luigi Badalucco, Beatriz Cano, Vito Armando Laudicina, and Giorgio Mannina, “Ammonium Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery by Acid and Alkaline Treated Zeolite,” Bioresource Technology 341 (2021): 125812, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2021.125812.

QGIS.org, QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2023; OpenStreetMap contributors, OpenStreetMap, 2023, https://www.openstreetmap.org ; GEBCO Compilation Group, GEBCO 2021 Grid (National Oceanography Centre, 2021); Autodesk Inc., Autodesk CFD User Guide (San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Inc., 2022); McNeel, Grasshopper Algorithmic Modelling for Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023.

Yadav, Shubh Pravat Singh, Sujan Bhandari, Dibya Bhatta, Anju Poudel, Susmita Bhattarai, Puja Yadav, Netra Ghimire, Prava Paudel, Pragya Paudel, Jiban Shrestha, and Biplov Oli. “Biochar Application: A Sustainable Approach to Improve Soil Health.” Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023): 100498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100498

Yasmeen, Ali Rafi, Theivanayagam Maharajan, Ramakrishnan Rameshkumar, Subbiah Sindhamani, Balan Banumathi, Mayakrishnan Prabakaran, Sundararajan Atchaya, and Periyasamy Rathinapriya. “Role of Seaweeds for Improving Soil Fertility and Crop Development to Address Global Food Insecurity.” Crops 5, no. 3 (2025): 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5030029

LIST OF FIGURES

Domain Chapter List of Figures

Fig. 1.1. Conceptual visualisation of project features and spatial integration.

Source : Image by the author.

Fig. 1.2. An aerial view of increased mucilage levels near the shoreline of Istanbul on June 15, 2021.

Source :Photograph by Muhammed Enes Yildirim / Anadolu Agency, via The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

Fig. 1.3. Aerial view of Eceabat, Çanakkale, showing the Sea of Marmara before and after the mucilage bloom.

Source: Ali Atmaca, photograph, in The Guardian, “Clean-up of Turkey’s Sea of Marmara – in pictures,” July 7, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jul/07/clean-up-of-turkeys-sea-of-marmara-in-pictures

Fig. 1.5. Current flow pattern in the Sea of Marmara, created using QGIS with data from Copernicus Marine Service and OpenStreetMap.

Source: Image by the author.

Fig. 1.6. Schematic cross-section of water layers in the North Aegean, Sea of Marmara, and Black Sea basins, illustrating temperature, salinity, oxygen, and stratification patterns.

Source: Image created by the author, adapted from Yakushev et al., 2008; Keskin et al., 2011; Lagaña et al., 2017; Çağatay et al., 2022.

Fig. 1.7. Mucilage covers a starfish and other sea creatures at a depth of 30 Metres off Büyükada, Turkey, on May 16, 2021.

Source: Sebnem Coskun / Anadolu Agency / Getty, published in The Atlantic, “Turkey’s Sea Snot Disaster,” June 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/

Fig. 1.8.Spatial distribution of mucilage in the Sea of Marmara, created by the author using data from Acar et al. (2021) and basemap tiles from OpenStreetMap. Source: Adapted from Acar et al. 2021; OpenStreetMap contributors.

https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj

Fig. 1.9. Source: Image by the author. Relationship between mucilage intensity, air temperature, and sea surface temperature in Maltepe (March–July 2021). Air and sea surface temperature data were obtained from the ERA5 reanalysis dataset (Hersbach et al. 2020) via the Copernicus Climate Data Store (CDS, ECMWF). Mucilage intensity values (index 1–5) were derived from visual interpretation of maps provided by the PrattSAVI Musilaj Project (PrattSAVI 2021). Data processing and Visualisation were performed in Python.

Fig. 1.10. Mucilage accumulation maps of the Sea of Marmara, showing monthly distribution from March to July using data from OpenStreetMap and Pratt Savi, Musilaj.

Source:Image by the author.

https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj/

Fig. 1.11. Conceptual diagram of land–sea interactions at the coastal edge, showing links between urbanisation, reclamation, nutrient change, and mucilage formation.

Source: Image by the author.

Fig. 1.12. Maps of the Sea of Marmara highlighting the focused study area. Top: overview of the basin; bottom left: Istanbul; bottom middle: zoom-in on Maltepe case site; bottom right: site-level details with land use and urbanisation, using data from OpenStreetMap and Musilaj.

Source:Image by the author.

https://prattsavi.github.io/Musilaj/

Fig. 1.13. Timeline maps of Maltepe, Istanbul, showing coastal changes between 2012 and 2015.

Source: Google Earth

Fig. 1.14. Aerial view of Maltepe, Istanbul, showing the site in relation to the Sea of Marmara.

Source: Google Earth.

Fig. 1.15. Maltepe site section showing construction layers (adapted from Ardeşen Belediyesi, Sahil Şeridini Güzelleştiriyoruz, March 25, 2022, bottom left), detailed edge conditions (right), and site location map (top left) generated using OpenStreetMap.

Source: Image by the author.

https://ardesen.bel.tr/Detay/sahil-seridini-guzellestiriyoruz.html?foto=4.

Fig. 1.16. Süreyya Beach & Temple of the Virgins, 1930

Source: Photograph shared on Twitter by Ufuk Yüksek Kaya (@UfukYuksekkaya), August 12, 2017. https://x.com/UfukYuksekkaya/status/896300419378532352

Fig. 1.17. Süreyya Beach & Temple of the Virgins, 1988

Source: Screenshot of a post by @hayalleme on X (formerly Twitter), showing relevant content. https://x.com/hayalleme/status/1700570120051982769.

Fig. 1.18. Mucilage gathered inside a boom for removal in a shipyard region on the Marmara Ereğlisi coast, June 12, 2021.

Source: Photograph by Muhammed Enes Yildirim / Anadolu Agency, via The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

Fig. 1.19. Mucilage gathered inside a boom for removal in a shipyard region on the Marmara Ereğlisi coast, June 12, 2021.

Source: Photograph by Muhammed Enes Yildirim / Anadolu Agency, via The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/.

Fig. 1.20. River Waal at Nijmegen before the Room for the River intervention.

Source: PANORAMA – Solutions for a Healthy Planet.

https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/room-river-nbs-coastal-and-river-flood-protection-cities

Fig. 1.22. Living Seawalls project, Sydney, Australia.

Source: Reef Design Lab, Living Seawalls, 2023.

https://www.reefdesignlab.com/living-seawalls

Fig. 1.21. River Waal at Nijmegen after the Room for the River intervention.

Source: PANORAMA – Solutions for a Healthy Planet.

https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/room-river-nbs-coastal-and-river-flood-protection-citie

Fig. 1.23. Living Seawalls project, Sydney, Australia.

Source: Reef Design Lab, Living Seawalls, 2023.

https://www.reefdesignlab.com/living-seawalls

Fig. 1.24. Boats in mucilage on the Caddebostan shore, Marmara Sea, Turkey, June 8, 2021.

Source: Yasin Akgül / AFP via Getty, in The Atlantic, “Turkey’s Sea Snot Disaster,” June 2021.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2021/06/photos-turkeys-sea-snot-disaster/619254/

Fig. 1.25. Cheonggyecheon River restoration in Seoul, showing urban design with public interaction along the revitalised waterway.

Source: archdaily, “Re-Naturalization of Urban Waterways: The Case Study of Cheonggye Stream in Seoul, South Korea” https://www.archdaily.com/1020945/re-naturalization-of-urban-waterways-the-case-study-of-cheonggye-stream-in-seoul-south-korea

Fig. 1.26. Aerial view of the San Francisco Bay salt ponds, case study of coastal transformation.

Source: DCReport, “San Francisco Bay Judge Blocks Destroying Salt Ponds,” October 29, 2020.

https://www.dcreport.org/2020/10/29/san-francisco-bay-judge-blocks-destroying-salt-ponds/ Fig. 1.27. Open Venturi flume for flow measurement.

Source: Environmental Expert, Smart Storm Model BS3680.

https://www.environmental-expert.com/products/smart-storm-model-bs3680-critical-flow-open-venturi-flume-523344

Fig. 1.28. Plan and elevation views of a Parshall flume.

Source: Open Channel Flow, “How to Read a Parshall Flume,” https://www.openchannelflow.com/blog/how-to-read-a-parshall-flume1

Fig. 1.29. Algal Turf Scrubbing system for nutrient removal.

Source: University of Maryland, Department of Environmental Science and Technology. https://enst.umd.edu/sites/enst.umd.edu/files/files/documents/Research%26Extension/Algal-Turf-Scrubbing-Article.pdf

Fig. 1.30. Sea snot near the pier of Büyükada, the largest of Istanbul’s Princes Islands, in the Marmara Sea, Turkey, May 2, 2021.

Source: Daily Sabah, “Sea Snot in Marmara Sea Threatens Tourism, Fisheries, Human Health,”

https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/sea-snot-in-marmara-sea-threatens-tourism-fisheries-human-health/news?gallery_image=undefined#big

Research Development List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Monthly wind roses for Maltepe (Istanbul) in 2021. Data derived from ERA5 reanalysis provided by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) and visualized by the author using Python (xarray, matplotlib, windrose).

Fig. 3.2 Velocity distribution obtained from Autodesk CFD simulation: (left) SW–NE direction, (right) NE–SW direction. Data sources: ECMWF Copernicus wind data and GEBCO bathymetry data (processed in QGIS).

Fig. 3.3 Velocity distribution obtained from Autodesk CFD simulation: (left) SW–NE direction, (right) NE–SW direction. Data sources: ECMWF Copernicus wind data and GEBCO bathymetry data (processed in QGIS).

Fig. 3.4. Map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, based on OpenStreetMap basemap and GEBCO bathymetric data.

Fig. 3.6. Map of the study area produced by author in QGIS. Data sources: OpenStreetMap and GEBCO (see note 3)

Fig. 3.7. Map of the study area produced by author in QGIS. Data sources: OpenStreetMap and GEBCO (see note 3)

Fig. 3.8. Map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, using OpenStreetMap basemap data. Reachability and betweenness analyses were performed in Grasshopper.

Fig. 3.9. Map of the study area produced in QGIS. Data sources: OpenStreetMap and GEBCO (see note 3)

Fig. 3.10. Workflow diagram of channel morphology. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 3.11. Diagram of conditions: edge condition (left), void condition (Centre), and redirect condition (right). Image produced by the author.

Fig. 3.12. Comparative velocity results for edge condition typologies under two dominant wind directions. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

Fig. 3.13. Comparative velocity results for void condition typologies under two dominant wind directions. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

Fig. 3.14. Comparative velocity results for redirect condition typologies under two dominant wind directions. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

Fig. 3.15. Causes of mucilage: eutrophication through increased nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 3.16. Seaweed nutrient cycle: cultivate and stabilise absorbed nutrients. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 3.17. Biochar: absorption of nutrients.

Fig. 3.18. Biochar & Seaweed

Fig. 3.19. Evaluation Criteria : Permeability, Cohesion, Erosion Resistant and Strength

Design Development List of Figures

Fig. 4.1. Workflow diagram of channel typology

Fig. 4.2. Diagram of design paraMetres: length experiments (left), curvature experiments (Centre), and cross-section experiments (right). Image produced by the author.

Fig. 4.3. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

Fig. 4.4. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

Fig. 4.5. Initial channel morphology experiment showing the design process. Illustration by the author.

Fig. 4.6. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates).

Fig. 4.7. Multi-objective optimization results from the initial channel morphology experiment using the Wallacei plugin in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates). The figure shows four selected best-performing individuals from the final generation

Fig. 4.8. Multi-objective optimization results from the initial channel morphology experiment, showing three cross-section groups with three generated versions of each, produced using the Wallacei plugin in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates).

Fig. 4.9. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

Fig. 4.10. Design space of the channel typology. Illustration by the author.

Fig. 4.11. Design objectives of the experiment. Images produced by the author.

Fig. 4.12. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates).

Fig. 4.13. Multi-objective optimization results from the channel typology experiment using the Wallacei plugin in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates). The figure shows four selected best-performing individuals from the final generation.

Fig. 4.14. Concept sections of each channel typology, illustrating the spatial and functional performance of the four types. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 4.15. Comparative velocity results of length experiments under a dominant wind direction. Results generated using Autodesk CFD by the author. (see note 1)

Fig. 4.16. Synthesised map of the study area produced by the author in QGIS, using OpenStreetMap basemap data. The map integrates GEBCO bathymetry, CFD simulation results, and reachability/betweenness analyses performed in Grasshopper.

Fig. 4.17. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the results of spatial distribution optimization.

Fig. 4.19. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Wallacei plugin), illustrating the results of three objectives.

Fig. 4.18. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the results of spatial distribution optimization.

Fig. 4.20. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the computational algorithm of spatial distribution optimization.

Fig 4.21. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Wallacei plugin), illustrating the results of K-means clustering.

Fig. 4.22. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the result of spatial connectivity optimization overlaid with spatial distribution

Fig. 4.23. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates),. Selected result for spatial connectivity optimization is highlighted. (see note 3 )

Fig. 4.24. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates).Selected result for spatial connectivity optimization is highlighted.

Fig. 4.25. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates).

Fig. 4.26. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the results of multi-layered planning optimization.

Fig. 4.26. Image produced by the author in Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates), illustrating the results of multi-layered planning optimization.

Fig. 4.27. Three-layer composite material experiments.

Fig. 4.28. Three-layer composite material experiments.

Fig. 4.29. API strip test results showing nitrate (NO₃) concentration reduction after placing modules. in water.

Fig. 4.30. Three-layer composite material experiments.

Fig. 4.31. Layered composite strategy diagram. Image produced by author.

Fig. 4.32. Final Optimized Composite

Fig. 4.33. Left: sample cast with plywood mould, showing no cracks. Right: sample cast with PLA mould, showing cracks and fungal growth.

Design Proposal List of Figures

Fig. 5.1. Workflow diagram of channel placement

Fig. 5.2. Channel placement illustration showing four typologies and their integration with water networks, pedestrian paths, and land-use layers. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.3. Illustration of water circulation showing the inlet and outlet positions of channels. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.4. Slope integration diagrams of each channel typology. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.5. Illustration of water circulation showing the in–out and circulate–out positions of channels. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.6. Workflow diagram of panel placement

Fig. 5.7. Comparative velocity results for four selected channel typologies. Results were generated using Autodesk CFD by the author.

Fig. 5.8. Illustration of the urban plan with a highlighted area. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.9. Illustration of panel placement with four types, pedestrian roads, and service roads.

Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.10. Illustration of panel arrangement showing replacement areas and axes. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.11. Assembly process of the panel system, showing the renewal cycle. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.12. Master plan layers, showing water network, channels, pedestrian network, land formation, water bodies, and channel placement. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.13. Master plan functions showing Programme areas in relation to inlets, outlets, and panel replacement services. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.14. Master plan. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.15. Existing condition and test area proposal comparison diagram on the master plan. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.16. Final proposed test area. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.17. Workflow diagram of excavation and construction.

Fig. 5.18. Illustration of excavation and construction methods. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.19. Diagram showing the stepwise process of the panel replacement cycle. Image by the author.

Fig. 5.20. Material system mimics the fundamental principles of corals

Fig. 5.21. Defining panel size and design considerations

Fig. 5.22. Panel porosity and corrugation strategy. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.23. Development process of material prototypes from digital model to physical tests.

Fig. 5.24. Illustration of panel placement showing the inlet and outlet positions of channels, with the selected module area highlighted. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.25. Highlighted module. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.26. Panels with substructure. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.27. Zoomed-in panel. Image produced by the author.

Fig. 5.28. Channel section with panel placement zones; Detail A shows panel–frame joinery, Detail B shows front elevation of textured panels. Image by the author.

Fig. 5.29. Exploded view of panel assembly illustrating structural system details. Image by the author

Fig. 5.30. Modular submerged panel system showing assembly details, frame insertion, and locking mechanism for marine applications. Image by the author.

Fig. 5.31. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.32. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.33. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.34. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.35. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.36. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.37. Render by the author.

Fig. 5.38. Render by the author.