inci SHOAINIA

advisor

Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Ankara

Turkey

İnci Shoainia is an architect and co-founder of Spika Architecture, based in Turkey. She holds a… more

One of the project's strongest aspects is its approach to AI infrastructure, treating it not merely as a technical data center, but as a public urban system. Its vision for the future is comprehensive, successfully integrating architecture and technology within the same framework. The project's unique approach, particularly its linking of the AI ​​hub concept to a modular city system floating on the sea, offers a powerful urban interpretation of Tung Chung's current "sleeping city" problem. The project proposes a holistic system considered not only at the building scale but also at the infrastructure, transportation, energy, and ecological scales.

The floating island concept, not merely a formal choice but directly linked to current issues such as climate change and land scarcity, makes the project more credible. The use of a modular hexagonal system is a successful decision both aesthetically and in terms of scalability. The system's ability to adapt to different scenarios increases the project's flexibility. The integration of AI centers into public life, rather than their closed and inaccessible nature, is a highly valuable approach. Solving commercial, research, public service, and technology functions within the same network strengthens spatial diversity.

The relationship established between energy production, the transportation system, and structural organization in the project appears quite consistent. The idea of ​​freely moving energy islands stands out as one of the most innovative parts of the project. The use of seawater as a natural cooling system constitutes a strong proposal in terms of sustainability. The transportation loop's function as a backbone organizing the entire system supports the project's integrity. The ability to respond to sea level changes thanks to adaptive connections and movable bridges creates a strong resilience scenario for the future.

The design language is generally quite professional and consistent. The density of diagrams successfully reflects the research-based aspect of the project. In particular, the system diagrams and layered narrative language make the complex structure of the project readable. The atmosphere of the perspective visuals supports the futuristic character of the project and creates a powerful world. The fact that the architectural language, despite being technological, does not produce a purely mechanical aesthetic, but maintains the relationship between landscape and water, is a significant achievement.

It is also quite impressive that the project does not remain merely a speculative future design but proposes a model that can be applied to different cities. The Singapore, Rotterdam, and Gui'an scenarios show that the design is conceived as a universal infrastructure system. One of the project's strongest aspects is its ability to integrate technology, public life, and ecological systems under one roof. Overall, the project presents a powerful and contemporary architectural proposal with its depth of research, systematic approach, visual language, and future vision.

• Although the technical operation of the AI infrastructure is strongly explained in the project, how the daily user experience will be created can be supported with more detailed spatial scenarios.
• The atmosphere of public spaces and the human-scale experience can be shown through more sections, perspectives, and usage scenarios.
• The intense technological language of the floating systems sometimes overshadows the sense of architectural space; user-oriented social space designs can be emphasized more.
• The interior organization of the AI Hub can be solved in more detail; in particular, the relationship between public access and security can be explained more clearly.
• The day-night usage scenarios are not sufficiently explored in the project; night life and the continuity of public activities can be addressed more strongly.
• Although the marine ecology laboratory is an important idea, its spatial character is less prominent compared to other functions; this area can be strengthened with more original architectural decisions.
• The transportation loop forms a strong backbone, but sometimes creates an over-engineering feeling at the human scale; more permeable and public intermediate spaces can be added.
• The climatic comfort decisions in the project can be shown in more detail; the impact of offshore environmental effects such as wind, sun, and humidity on the user experience can be discussed further. The modular system's constantly repeating geometry can create monotony in some areas; varying densities and spatial diversity could be increased.
• The role of residential or long-term living spaces in the project remains limited; a more hybrid living model could be developed based on profiles of permanently residing users.
• Although the structural system diagrams are strong, the actual scale structural behavior of the floating platforms could be supported with more detailed technical drawings.
• While the energy production systems appear quite innovative, maintenance, storage, and long-term operation processes could be explained more clearly.
• The social dimension of the project could be strengthened; the access and usage patterns of different income groups within this system could be discussed.
• The information density in the drawings makes some diagrams difficult to read; the graphic hierarchy could be simplified, and the main ideas could be highlighted more clearly.
• While the project presents a very strong future vision, it remains overly speculative in some sections; the feasibility of the proposal could be made more convincing by establishing a connection between certain components and current technologies.

13.05.2026