SPACE, PRACTICE, MEMORY: 060 - Cil.pdf · transformations made in a house may not only mean the...

Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul, 2007

SPACE, PRACTICE, MEMORY: the transformations of the houses in Kula, a town in Anatolia

060 Ela Çil Department of Architecture, Yildiz Technical University

Abstract This paper presents the transformation of the domestic space in Kula by comparing houses built in different periods in order to trace the ‘enduring’ and ‘altered’ typologies of habitations. Kula is a small preserved Ottoman town in Aegean Anatolia (Turkey) with houses dating from the late 18th Century to the present.

The theoretical point of departure for the paper is that the house is the physical framework of a household’s everyday life, a manifestation of taste and identity, and a site of performance. The analysis includes comparison of the changes in the typological and syntactic qualities of these transformed spaces.

Hitherto scholars interpreted the transformations of house types in similar contexts distinguished two syntactic types: ‘extroverted’ and ‘introverted’. The analyses included in this paper by juxtaposing syntax analysis, material culture, and ethnography of space introduces mid-core houses, an additional syntactic type with hybrid morphological characteristics, dominating the analyzed examples and existing side-by-side with deep- and shallow-core types. The existence of mid-core type together with the disjunction between the morphology of space and its use reflect the negotiations made between the functional and symbolic needs in the domestic spaces.

Analyzing how these houses have been transformed from their old Ottoman typology to one influenced by European taste, and then later, how they were altered to accommodate social and economic changes in Kula; one can see the hybridity of the house forms. The intention of naming the old house as the Ottoman house is not to contribute to the former studies by presenting examples from Kula. The aim is to delineate the Ottoman House as a dwelling type pointing to the earliest period that can be observed and from where the transformations in the home spaces began in the town.

Starting in the 1950s, these houses were subdivided among family members who had previously lived under the same roof in extended family households. In some cases, houses were semi-abandoned and new dwellings were built in courtyards.

Introduction When compared to several small towns in the Aegean region, and even in Anatolia, the story of the historical, economic transformation of Kula is not unique. The physical intactness of Kula, however,

Keywords: Kula Vernacular domestic space Spatial practice Transformation of the house typesSyntax analysis

Ela Çil Department of Architecture Yildiz Technical University 34349 Besiktas, Istanbul [email protected]

Çil; Space, Practice, Memory: The Transformations of the Houses in Kula, a Town in Anatolia


060-02

separates it from many other towns in the region. Its peripheral status after the construction of the railroad and non-damaged condition after the 1922 War resulted with a relatively slower spatial transformation of the town. As a consequence, Kula became one of the spatial manifestations of the 19th century Ottoman townscape. And eventually in 1978, Kula was declared as a site of cultural and historical heritage by the Turkish Ministry of Culture (Akin et. al., 1992).

The aim of this paper is to compare the houses built in different periods in Kula. The comparison includes the morphological and syntactic qualities of the houses as well as their everyday use in the last quarter of the 20th Century. In doing so, the previous work on the same transformation era in different places is complemented with a hybrid type, both in terms of typology and syntax, as well as with everyday use of these houses.

Scholars have interpreted the transformations of house types in similar contexts as ‘extroverted’ and ‘introverted’ or ‘innovative’ and ‘conservative’ (Orhun, Hillier, and Hanson, 1995 and 1996; Dursun and Saglamer 2003; Toker and Toker, 2003). Introducing the dual concept, Orhun, Hillier, and Hanson analyzed some examples of the Ottoman House surveyed by Eldem, in terms of the depth of the integrated spaces within the whole house syntax when considered from the exterior. (1996) According to them, there have been two distinct underlying spatial cultures built into the configuration of the Ottoman House revealed by the integrated cores located either at the deep end or the shallow end in the syntax graphs. Deep-core type was identified with an introverted life-style and possibly a conservative social system. Shallow-core type was identified with an extroverted life-style and a social structure more open to outside influences.

Parallel to this argument, Dogan Kuban’s interpretation of such transformation is grounded on the observation that the house was changed from the one facing the courtyard through the hayat to the one opening onto the street in all-possible directions. (1995: 68) Thus, Kuban defines extrovertedness based on the building facing the street instead of the courtyard. However, when different layers of the everyday life are considered, such as the form and syntax of the domestic space and the spatial practice within these spaces, richer and more complex relationships between the formal aspects of spaces and the society that inhabits them are revealed.

Hence, the objective in comparing the houses in Kula is to present sociology of the domestic space that does not fit into previously suggested sharp categorizations and sequential/orderly transformations. It, in fact, reveals a hybridity of configurations consisting different layers of form and practice. Additionally, focusing on the house as a juxtaposition of different layers, such as the physical framework of a household’s everyday life, a manifestation of taste and identity, and a site of performance, presents the discrepancies and consistencies between what spaces are and how they are used.

The fact that many houses actually fit in between typologies rather than in exact or narrowly defined categories, indicates the endurance of old habits in new houses. As it will be presented in the following pages, the sixty studied houses in Kula categorized according to different types mostly present a mid-cored syntax. These houses have a configuration made up of what Clifford Geertz terms the “borrowed fragments of modernity and exhausted relics of tradition.”(1983: 58) Based on this observation, it is possible to argue that the transformations made in a house may not only mean the transformation of a society from an introverted life-style to an extroverted one. It can also just mean replacing the old with the new,



060-03

in order to manifest a different taste and identity that are associated with a better, higher life-style. In Kula, being able to bring the ‘new,’ both new plan schemes and foreign building materials, into the ‘local’ or the ‘traditional’ has been thought to be equivalent to a good taste.

The paper develops in the following three parts. The first part includes the categorization of the houses according to the configuration of the spaces in the compound and within the house. In order to better explain the types, a case belonging to each category is described. The second part is the syntax analysis of these houses focusing on the transformation of the most integrated spaces and the depth of the integration cores. In addition to deep-core and shallow-core configurations, most of the cases in Kula suggest an emergent mid-core configuration. The last part of the paper is a discussion on the findings and on the comparison of the syntax, form, and current use of the houses.

Current House Types in Preserved Kula The houses can be distinguished in three categories:

• The first is the Ottoman House or the Old House, which exemplifies the oldest house type known in Kula, some of which can be dated back to the late 18th century.

• The second category can be titled ‘Westernized Style House’. The houses in this category did not appear in Kula before the mid-19th century and because of their certain morphological characteristics connected with the social structure in town, they have commonly been identified as the “Rum style”. The Westernized Style House includes types that have one entrance door directly opening into the house together with the hybrid types where the door entering the courtyard is still actively used.

• The third category includes the house-type created by the adaptations of the inhabitants into the above mentioned houses after the second half of the 20th Century. The spatial practices for these adaptations include subdivisions and additions in the courtyards of the old compounds. In addition, there are houses which have been built relatively recently (before the preservation rules were legally imposed in 1978) on the plot of the old houses which were demolished due to the lack of maintenance or decomposition.

The relationship between the façade, the section, and the plan represent the logic of the composition of the houses within these categories. The comparison of this relationship, the morphological and typological analysis, together with the syntax analysis of the houses reveals the consistencies and discrepancies between the form, use, and syntax of the houses.

The categorizations were made by distinguishing those houses which display transformations in plan, section, and elevation. The overlaps among categories usually occurred when there was a change in the elevation of a house but not in its plan, or when the section of a house fit exactly into one category but the morphological characteristics of its plans could represent another. Especially the hybrid type occurs due to the co-existence of characteristics which have been commonly acknowledged as the representative of distinct types belonging to different contexts.



060-04

The Old House / The Ottoman House

So much has already been written on the various aspects of the Ottoman House: on its morphology, structure, aesthetics, and the lifestyle it reflects. (Arel 1982; Kucukerman 1985; Eldem, 1986; Kuban, 1995; Tanyeli, 1997; and Ireland and Bechoefer, 2001). (Type A in Table 3 and Table 4.)

In each of its variations, the Ottoman house compound was comprised of three units: a two- or three-storey building (the living quarter/house); a courtyard; and a service quarter, usually a one-story building consisting of the kitchen and the toilet. The ground floor of the building was dedicated to storage rooms for the utensils, to the granary or the pantry. The upper floors were the living quarters, connected to the courtyard with a staircase. They consisted of rooms usually identical in size and a hayat [1] (gallery/balcony-like space). In some cases, the ground floor also included some rooms for living, and in these variations, the floor was raised from the ground level and a basement was added as the storage space.

The two striking aspects of the Ottoman House were the courtyard and the hayat. Courtyard was both like a large, open room for the activities of the household and it was also the edge space between the compound and the outside; through the wall of the courtyard, the household and the visitors could move in and out of the compound. The hayat was more than a circulation area between the rooms and the staircase; it was a semi-open multi-functional living space on the upper floors. With its strong visual connection to the courtyard and to its natural setting as well as to the rest of the town, hayat was a unique part of the Ottoman House. (Bing, 1997)

Figure 1:

A schematic typology of the Ottoman and the Westernized Style Houses



060-05

The westernized style house

The admired examples of the Westernized house-type (the inner and the central-hall type) appear first in Istanbul. Especially, the Rum community in Phanar (Fener) was the most influential in introducing this new taste to the Muslim elite in Istanbul and disseminating the new style of material culture into Istanbul society (Gocek, 1987: 125-128). Like the Rum community in Istanbul settled in Phanar, the Rum community in Kula was also the agent of such transformation. Their connections with the wider and the upper sections of the society in general (the European tradesmen, the other elite minorities in the region, and the Muslim elite –aghas- in Kula) caused them to gain a prominent status in the social dynamics of the town. They manifested their prominent role in the social and economic life of Kula by using the material culture, especially houses, as the expressions of their ability, achievements, and difference.

The façade of the house is a plane instead of having two levels of depth occurring because of the floors with their own volumetric integrity. In addition, most of the façades have an exaggerated stonewall look. The look of these walls gives the impression that the house was sounder and more durable. In this type, the courtyard is not the center of activities although it is still included in the plan, but the new house configuration definitely reflects some other concerns. The interesting feature of this house is the continuation of the emphasis given to the storage spaces. On the one hand, the courtyard loses its location as the primary space in welcoming the dwellers and the visitors deferring its priority to the hall inside the house; on the other hand, the ground floor, all of which is used as the storage space as in the old Ottoman House type, is given a separate entrance. This suggests that when the courtyard, the domestic space of production loses its importance in everyday life and gains a location at the back of the house similar to the back gardens of the contemporary houses, the storage spaces do not lose their priority in the house plan, and as a matter of fact, they gain more significance with their direct connections to the street. (Type G in Table 3 and Table 4.)

The most telling example of the changes in the hierarchy of entrances is the house known as the Architect Kri’s house. This house resembles many other examples built in Izmir and in the other Aegean towns in early twentieth Century. The entrance to the house comes after the marble staircase and it leads to the longitudinal hall. Expect for one room, all of the five rooms are aligned on the two sides of the hall and they are connected to one another. The kitchen and the toilet are inside the house, located at the end of another hallway. This separate hallway actually houses a staircase that goes down to the ground floor and up to the second floor, which is unfinished.

Figure 2:

An exterior photograph and plans of the so-called Architect Kri’s House in the town; it is a telling example of the Westernized Houses in Kula



060-06

The hybrid type

The first and the main change in the compound composition was the second door directly opening into the house. Although the doors in the houses with new styles opening onto the courtyards were actively used, the second door opening directly into the house from the street marked the beginning of alterations. The stairs with their marble steps, leading from the street level to the entrance door, emphasize the second door opening directly into the house and mark the division between the ground level and the house more sharply. The existence of two doors opening into different kinds of spaces also manifests the existence of two kinds of relationships that the domestic world has with its exterior. Besides their formal aspects, these houses have been inhabited with a life-style similar to the one that passes in a “traditional” Ottoman house. (The types B, C, D, E, and F in Table 3 and Table 4.)

One of the telling examples of this type is the Aghabeyler House located on the border zone between the Old Rum and the Turkish neighborhoods. The house has two entrances, one directly into the hayat on the first floor and one into the courtyard on the ground floor. Now, the hayat is enclosed by windows and turned into a living-room.

The house has another floor upstairs, and a curvilinear staircase connects all three floors. Except the façade and the direct entrance into the first floor, the logic of configuration is similar to that of the old Ottoman type: the service quarters housing the kitchen, toilet, and storage can directly be accessed from the courtyard. The façade, on the other hand, is what causes the locals to categorize the house as Rum.

located close to the control tower were fit to house lifts of small

Located at the far ends of the old town, two other examples of the same period are the Imamlar and the Burusuklar houses. Showing similar characteristics with the Aghabeyler House, their difference is that the stairs linking the door opening directly into the house with the street have rarely been used. Not only that, but the entrance hallway of the Burusuklar House is used as a guest room entered after the courtyard. (The comparison of the potential use offered by the configuration and the actual inhabitation is compared in the Table 4.)

There are also two intriguing cases which were built in the late 19th, early 20th Century. Perhaps belonging to the far ends of the style, the facades of the Karaibrahimler and the Goldeliler Houses display morphological characteristics that fit into the Westernized Style. However, both have no direct entrance doors into the living quarters and the entrance is only through the courtyard, while the latter

Figure 3:

Photographs and the floor plans of the Aghabeyler House. Photo Left: The formal entrance to the first floor of the house marked by the oriel above; Photo Middle: the second door directly entering to the courtyard on the ground floor. Photo Right: the courtyard



060-07

includes a hall as the integrating space of the second and the third floors the configuration of the former is similar to the Ottoman type. These two houses can be considered as the extreme examples of the hybrid type in Kula. (The Type C in the Tables 3 and 4.)

Adaptations Although people still occupy these preserved houses, virtually none of them is inhabited in the way it was originally intended. Some of the inhabitants have been making small but drastic alterations in the houses with the consequences that are rarely visible from the outside and sometimes so subtle that one is deceived to think that life has been going on in the same way since the late eighteenth century.

The logic of configuration of the old houses, which is based on the repetition of the same parts, makes them easy to be subdivided. There have been various modifications, but in general, the main idea underpinning the changes in the configurations or additions has been to gather all the spaces on the ground floor and arrange them in a composition that facilitates access from a central hall. This minimizes having to go out to the courtyard in order to reach the service units. Age is another major determinant in abandoning the upper floors and living solely on the ground floor. For the elderly, life in the house goes on in the same way as it was in the old type; the only difference is that they inhabit one room on the ground floor: they sit, eat, and sleep in the same room.

Kitchens and bathrooms are the most commonly renewed spaces in the houses; still, there are many houses with the old-style kitchens located in the courtyards. Nevertheless, it seems that there has been a difference in the old kitchens as well. After abandoning the old bathing-closets (gusulhane) in the rooms, some inhabitants began taking their baths in their kitchens in an enclosed niche in a corner resembling the old bathing-closet in the rooms or in a vessel placed in the middle of the kitchen. People who have been able to afford renewing their kitchens also made a new bathroom inside the house, usually accessed only after entering the kitchen. (Type H in Table 3 and Table 4.)

Prior to totally new house

Since the preservation regulations were legally imposed in 1980, some of the inhabitants gave up on renovating their old houses and began to negotiate with the rules by building new units in their courtyards. These new units were first winter-rooms or new kitchens on the ground floor; later they became more elaborate and gradually

Figure 4:

Photographs and the floor plans of the Burusuklar House. Photo Left: Entrance hall marked by two columns and stairs. Photo Middle: The formal façade of the house showing the importance given to the new entrance style. Photo Right: The everyday use of the entrance hall as a living room behind the doors. Right above: the syntactic analysis of the potential use of the plan Right below: the syntactic analysis of the current habitation of the house



060-08

gained the identity of a new dwelling; and finally the old houses have been completely or semi-abandoned.

Similar to the location of the old house in the compound, new units, or perhaps we should say new houses, are attached to the boundary walls of the courtyard. The courtyard walls are pierced towards the street side only if it is necessary; otherwise, windows of the new units face the courtyard. This solution left space for activities in the yard like in the Old House and it also prevented others from seeing the new construction from outside.

The inhabitants of the old houses desire to construct a new house, because they think that the new house would be easier to maintain and sounder in construction. The additions look like one-floor-high “sheds” made of concrete. There is no resemblance between the “new” houses and the “old” ones. There are individual units, separately located in the compound, which can be accessed independently; there are also compact configurations in which one

Figure 5:

The plan and the interior photographs of the Muhtarlar House built at the courtyard of the old Kasaplar house, now abandoned



060-09

can have access to all the parts of the house from a hallway. (Type I in Table 3 and Table 4.)

The Muhtarlar House (the old Kasaplar House), which was a rather big Ottoman House at the end of a building-island is a good example of this case. The new house was built twenty years ago and it consists of three rooms, one kitchen, a small bathroom, and a toilet (both accessed from the kitchen). Interestingly, three rooms of the new house are used in the old way. Rooms do not have any signified space roles; like an Ottoman room they are multifunctional and have equal sizes. The only difference between these rooms, as was the case in the old houses, is that one is assigned as a guestroom; it is used in winters and when highly-valued guests other than the neighbors and immediate relatives visit the house. The fact that there is no dining-table in the house suggests that dining is still performed in the old fashioned way: on the floor and around a low tray put over a large cloth used as a dinner table.

New house on the old plot

The transformation of Kula entered a new phase with the legal imposition of the preservation regulations in the early 1980s. There are some buildings which were built in the old town before the preservation rules came into force. Since repairing most of the old houses would cost more than the expenses of new constructions would bring, some inhabitants have left their houses to decay and given up the hope of building a new house on its land, but some who demolished the old houses prior to the preservation regulations built new ones on the same plot. (Type J in Table 3 and Table 4.)

An example of the houses which were built in the old town is Sumeroglus’. M. Sumeroglu stated that his father sketched the design of his house on a cigarette packet. He, himself and some other men he commissioned worked on the construction together.

Figure 6:

The photographs and the plans of the Sumeroglu House built in the late 1970s on the plot of a demolished house



060-10

The composition of the building on the plot is similar to that of the Ottoman House. The units are located around a courtyard and the rooms are aligned on a balcony like the narrow open spaces on the upper floor. On the one hand, the size of this balcony is far from the spaciousness of the hayat; but, on the other hand, there is similarity between this balcony and the hayat in terms of their syntax. Not only does the organization of the house, but also the lifestyle of the household, resemble the life in the Ottoman House. Sumeroglus have one married son and the younger couple lives on the second floor. Except the times for sleeping the whole family spends the days and the evenings together. The grandchildren love to spend time with the grandparents and especially in winter sleep with them in the same room on the ground floor. Although the young couple’s quarter upstairs is a full-fledged house with its separate toilet, bathroom, and kitchen, two families share their economy for daily expenses. For instance, unless one has a separate group of guests, they use the same kitchen and cook together.

Space Syntax Analysis of the Houses The delineation of certain spaces in the Ottoman House, like the seki at the hayat, may not be clear to an outsider; however, a demarcation with a step between two semi-open spaces, as Orhun, Hillier, and Hanson put it, were sufficient to “fine-tune social behavior within the houses.” (1995: 480) In this context these spaces are interpreted as independent spaces in the analysis; equal to the value a room has in the syntax of the house. Different from Orhun, Hillier, and Hanson’s interpretation of similar houses in other regions of Anatolia, the spaces that are commonly acknowledged as the service quarters, such as the kitchen, toilet, storage rooms, and pantries are also included; but the partition of the storage spaces and basements are discarded from the analysis and they are counted as one unit. The stairs were included into the calculations as individual spaces if they connected two floors, but the stairs connecting two surfaces less than a storey height were included only if they opened to a platform (where more than one person could stand); and in such cases, the platform and the staircase were included into the calculation as one space. Usually the examples of such spaces could be observed at the entrances of the westernized house types. Lastly, gardens were included into the calculations only if they were separated from the paved courtyard and if their soil comprised of an area close to that of the courtyard.

The depth of integration cores is a significant factor that reveals the transformation of the insider-outsider relationship in the domestic space. Different than the previous research, there are three categories defining the houses in Kula in terms of its syntactic depth. The shallow core houses are the ones which consist of integrated spaces at the level 0 (outside) and level 1 when justified from the outside. The mid core houses are the cases in which the integrated spaces are located at the shallow levels but do not include outside. Finally, the deep-core houses include integrated spaces which are located at the level 2 and above.

Findings of the Syntax Analysis

The syntactic categorization reveals that the mid-cored house type is more in number in all the cases regardless of their plan types. The most integrated spaces on the other hand, are the spaces that are crucial in circulation and entrance to the domestic space, such as hayat, hall, hayatalti, courtyard, and the stairs. If we compare the examples categorized as the Ottoman House (A, B, and C) and the ones as the Westernized House (D, E, F, and G) we can observe that the most integrated spaces in the former are the courtyard (5/16); and



060-11

that is followed by hayatalti (4/16), hayat (2/16), stairs (3/16), and hall way (2/16). The most integrated spaces in the Westernized House type become the hall (12/24), followed by the hayatalti (5/24) and hayat (4/24). The integrated spaces of the houses which have been transformed since the 1970’s (H, I and J) are the hall (8/20), courtyard (6/20); and hayatalti (3/20). Some of the hall and hayatalti spaces are in fact converted to living-rooms in the new configurations.

Old House

Westernized Style House

Adaptations Total

Deep-core 3 1 6 10 Mid-core 9 11 12 32 Shallow-core 4 12 2 18

Syntax Tyapes Total Hayat Hall Hayatalti Courtyard Stairs

Deep-core 10 3 5 0 1 1 Mid-core 32 3 11 5 8 5 Shallow-core 18 1 7 6 4 0 60 7 23 11 13 6

We can see that the hall, one of the emergent spaces in the new typology, also gained significance in the syntax of the house. However, it is hard to state that there is a direct correlation between the emergence of this space and shallowness of the syntax of the westernized houses. For, the deep-core houses are less in number in

Figure 7:

The justified graphs of the houses analyzed and categorized according to the depth of their integration cores

Table 1: The depths of the integrated spaces in three syntactic types

Table 2: The most-integrated spaces and their labels



060-12

the Ottoman House type and the mid-core houses also increased in the second type.

Regardless of the categories they belong, among the twelve compounds with the houses that have halls directly accessing the street (the small Göldeliler House had an inner hall but it did not have direct access to the street), five have shallow cores, and in them, only one house has the hall as the most integrated space; the other integrated spaces are the courtyard and the hayatalti. Interestingly all of the three of the twelve houses that have deep cores also have halls as the most integrated spaces. Three of the four houses in the mid-cored category have the hall as the most integrated spaces, and the hayatalti is the most integrated space in the other.

Discussion Sixty houses in Kula are analyzed typologically and syntactically both in terms of their potential inhabitations and actual uses. Although these sixty houses present a chronological transformation, they do not suggest a clear sequence from one life-style to another. In addition, the deep-core integration which is accepted as the evidence of an introverted, conservative lifestyle is less in number even in the oldest type which can be accepted to be as such. On the contrary, the mid-core and shallow core houses are more in number within the selected sample groups. This can also be interpreted that the houses acknowledged being the oldest in town or belonging to the Ottoman type were already within the transforming type in a greater group in Anatolia.

The crucial aspect of the transformation from the deep-core and mid-core configurations to shallow-core configurations has experiential consequences as well.

As the inner hall becomes the center of activities, the life in the house definitely gets a step closer to the street as does the outsider into the house. On the other hand, the perceptual relationship that is created between insider and the enclosed open spaces in the compound, nature, and the view beyond the house is gradually lost. Enjoying the nature and the experiential qualities that is offered by the intricate relationship between the courtyard, hayat, and hayatalti is broken during this transformation. In this sense, the continuation of the courtyard use and the sustained relationships between the spatial parts of the new configurations in the rather few examples can be regarded as the continued habits of the semi-rural lifestyle closely linked with nature.

The cases analyzed in this paper suggest that the aspects that we consider to be the fundamentals of transformation infuse slower than the classification one creates to understand the relationship between the types and the social logic that are imbedded in them. The dominance of the transitional and the existence of the hybrid types in Kula also suggest that some changes may have been adopted not because of their better comfort levels but because of their immediate/local social significance and meaning. These meanings in Kula can be related to being a part of the upper-class or displaying power and wealth within the community, rather than being open to a secular lifestyle or decreasing the thresholds that once kept the outsiders away from the domestic realm.

Endnote

[1] In various studies and regions hayat is also named sofa, çardak, or hanay in Kutahya region where Kula can be considered as a part of. It is also common to see it named hall, as in Sedad Hakki Eldem’s



060-13

classifications of the Turkish House, such as outer hall (hayat), inner hall, and central hall. In order to differentiate hayat from the inner and central hall spaces, which are syntactically similar but experientially different; the latter two are labeled as hall in this study.

References Akin, N., et al. 1992, “Manisa Ili Kula Ilçesi Koruma Amaçli Imar Plani Açiklama Raporu”, Revised Report, Istanbul Technical University.

Arel, A., 1982, Osmanli Konut Geleneğinde Tarihsel Sorunlar, Izmir, University of Ege, Department of Architecture.

Auslander, L., 1996, Taste and Power, Furnishing Modern France, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bing, J., 1997, "Why Study Çardaks? Traditional Porch Spaces of the Balkans and Le Corbusier's Vision of Modernity," Reflections on Heritage and Modernity, ACSA N.E. Regional Meeting, 192-199.

Bozer, R., 1987, Kula Evleri, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanliği Yay., no. 892, Ankara.

Choi, Y. K., 2001, “The Spatial Sustainability of Power Structure, Traditional Villages and Houses in Korea”, Proceedings, 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta.

Dursun P. and Saglamer, G., 2003, “Spatial Analysis of Different Home Environments in the City of Trabzon, Turkey”, Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

Eldem, S.H., 1984, Turkish House: Ottoman Period. 2 vol, Türkiye Anit Çevre Turizm Degerlerini Koruma Vakfi, Istanbul.

Fersan, N., 1980, “Küçük Anadolu Kentlerinde Tarihsel Dokunun Korunmasi Ile Ilgili Bir Yöntem Araştirmasi.” Ph. D. Thesis, Istanbul Technical University.

Geertz, C., 1983, Local Knowledge, Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, Basic Books, USA.

Gocek, F. M., 1987, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century, Oxford University Press, New York.

Hillier, B. and Hanson. J., 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ireland, S., Bechhoefer, W., (Eds.), 2001, “The Ottoman House”, Papers From the Amasya Symposium, September 24-27, 1996, Vol. BIAA, Monograph 26 Hertford, Stephen Austin & Sons, England.

Kirsan, C., 2003, “Detective Work with a Deficient Sample: Syntactic Analysis of the Houses of Conflict”, Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

Kuban, D., 1995,Turkish Hayat House, Eren Yay., Istanbul.

Kuçukerman, O., 1973, Spatial Organization of the Anatolian Turkish House According to Rooms, TTOK Yay., Istanbul.

Orhun, D., Hillier B., Hanson, J., 1995, “Spatial Types in Traditional Turkish Houses” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 22, 475-498.

Orhun, D., Hillier B., Hanson, J., 1996, “Socializing Spatial Types in Traditional Turkish Houses” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 23, 329-351.

Tanyeli, U., 1997, "Housing and Settlement Patterns in the Byzantine, Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Periods in Anatolia" Housing and Settlement in Anatolia a Historical Perspective, Y. Sey (Ed.), Tepe Yay., Istanbul.

Toker, U., Toker, Z., 2003, “Family Structure And Spatial Configuration in Turkish House Form in Anatolia from Late 19th Century to Late 20th Century” Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

Tosun, Y., 1969, Milli Mimarimizde Kula Evleri, Ticaret Matbaacilik, Izmir.



060-14

Table 3: House Types and Integration Core Depths



060-15

Table 4: The Findings of the Syntax Analysis



060-16

SPACE, PRACTICE, MEMORY: 060 - Cil.pdf · transformations made in a house may not only mean the...

Documents

Transcript of SPACE, PRACTICE, MEMORY: 060 - Cil.pdf · transformations made in a house may not only mean the...