ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452 www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Metamorphism in culture and housing desing: Turkey as an example

Ilkay Masat Ozdemirb,, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglua
a

Department of Interior Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080, Turkey b Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey Received 19 September 2005; accepted 2 December 2005

Abstract Lawrence maintains about all architectural environments and housing that, they are both in a relationship with culture and they are a total conguration of social, demographical, psychological, human behavioral and environmental structure. Moreover, in analyzing this complex structure, he emphasizes to examine it within two perspectives: design-meaning and use. Consequently, the basic components, which affect housing design, are classied in three main topics: cultural, social, and psychological. In the light of Lawrences ideas, under the topic of the role of culture and tradition in the development of housing, this paper aims to dene the basic Turkish traditional housing principles with slogans and important examples. In this content, cultural, social and psychological components in traditional Turkish houses are held under the heading of the development of traditional Turkish house. The organization rules, the effects of the basic psycho-social componentsyetc., and the presence of these principles are criticized with Turkish housing examples before and after 1980. The chosen period in this study is not coincidental. The aim of choosing the periods before and after 1980 has a special meaning in Turkeys economic, politic and social life. Choosing these two basic periods, will not only point out the changeslike a metamorphismin cultural life, but in architectural needs in Turkish houses. Therefore, in the aim of analyzing cultural changes and their effects on housing design, the architectural meanings in the elements of Turkish houses are put forward in details, in order to make some estimation for the future of changing Turkish architectural life. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Turkish house; Tradition; Metamorphism; Culture; Spatial elements; Housing types1

1. Introduction The Turkish house, which can be shortly named as Anatolian, has undergone many stages of development in the course of ve centuries. For this reason, different types were produced in the different regions of Turkey where the Turkish style penetrated and took root. The study on Metamorphism in Culture and Housing Design: Turkey as an Example aims to show the similarities and the differences of the housing principles before and after 1980s. Secondly, it aims to put forward the basic principles and their meaningful and formal changes in usage that can be used in the housing designs of the future, with a new language. In this context, the study consists of three main parts. In the rst part, under the heading of The Development of Traditional Turkish House, an introduction to the origins of the concepts of the Turkish house, the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 462 377 20 35; fax: +90 462 32574 99.

concepts and the forms of the traditional houses are presented. The Organization of the Spatial Elements in Traditional Turkish Houses and The Basic Psycho-social Components That Affect the Organization of the Traditional Turkish House are put forward under the second and third subsidiary headings. The traditional and modern examples are given in general to express the ideas. An introduction to the development of the housing problem before and after 1980 is put forward under the last subsidiary heading. The development of the housing problem in Turkey is discussed under six stages, throughout a continual period of 19001980. In conclusion, 11 housing types, which are common and accepted around the world, are exemplied with housing designs, made after 1980. 2. The development of traditional Turkish house The concept and the form of the Turkish traditional house, which can be shortly named as Anatolian, rstly, came into being in accordance with a number of factors;

E-mail address: ilkayozdemir1@yahoo.com (I.M. Ozdemir). 0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.12.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1446 I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452

tradition, economic conditions, regional, physical inuences and practical application [1]. The buildings have variations and are described in the following. And also it is observed that social structures in Anatolia have had their effects on the formation of the houses. According to Kucukerman, the variations of traditional housing buildings in Anatolia are: Nomadic tents and houses, village houses, urban houses, other types of Anatolian houses [2]. The other types of Anatolian houses are different from the commonest types of all. These are usually carefully constructed on an imposing scale and display extremes both in their environmental elements and their interior arrangements. They may be listed as follows: Large multi-purpose imposing mansions, summer residence villas set in open country, gardens and with picturesque views, waterfront houses; yali, well-protected large mansions; kasir, palaces; saray, serving as residences for senior ofcials built on a larger scale and with great elaboration [2]. There are many variations among these buildings but they have one common characteristic in that they are all large, imposing and carefully built, and differ from region to region. Among them the most characteristically Turkish are to be found in the towns and cities, and, the ofcial residences, being large and ornate, hold a very special position in the community [1]. According to Eldem, these variations are grouped into seven main regions in Turkey, and consist of the main details and specications [3], (Table 1). 3. The organization of the spatial elements in traditional Turkish house The traditional Turkish house has three spatial fundamental elements which form the structure. These important elements are the oda (room), the sofa (space between

rooms) and the eyvan (space between the groups of rooms). The room is accepted as the main element, which does not show any difference in usage. It is a space with many functions having inside for many purposes [4]. The sofa is the space, between the rooms, to provide the inner communication. The sofa, shortly means the common area between the rooms, provides access between open and closed areas. The sofa has a various technical terminology in Turkish, as; sergah, sergi, sayvan, cardak, divanhane, hayat,...etc. The eyvan, is the passageway in front of the rooms, which permits a common life inside. Its relation with the external open areas is very important, (Table 2). As well as providing a passageway inside the house, sofa also serves as a meeting ground and the space around the circulation area was adapted for seating. In time, sofa became the most important element of the whole form of the Turkish house and inuenced its whole shape. The traditional Turkish house is classied according to the position of the sofa in the plan organization. This classication gives four types of houses: Without a Sofa, With an Outer Sofa, With an Inner Sofa, With a Central Sofa [3]. The rst one is the primitive state of a house plan and consists of merely one or more rooms placed in a row. The second one is the rst step in the development of the plan. This form of plan was used in the Hellenic houses in Anatolia before the arrival of the Turks. The type of plan with an inner sofa is the one, which is most common in Anatolia. This plan was developed by the addition of another row of rooms onto the outer side of the sofa. The last type presents a central sofa surrounded by the rooms on four sides. The origin of this type is Byzantines house with a central atrium.

Table 1 Traditional Turkish houses due to the seven regions in Turkey The Blacksea shore and Hinterland region The Istanbul and Marmara region The Aegean Hinterland region The Mediterranean region The Central Anatolia region The Eastern Anatolia region The South-East Anatolia region

Trabzon

Istanbul

Izmir

Antalya

Nevsehir

Malatya

Urfa

Safranbolu

Bursa

Aydin

Mugla

Sivas

Erzurum

Maras

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452 Table 2 Oda, Sofa and Eyvan in traditional Turkish house 1447

Oda

Sofa

Eyvan

Besides this general information about Turkish house, there are some basic components that affect the organization of the house and can be seen in all cultures, in different scales, in different levels.

5. The development of Turkish house during republican period 5.1. The development of Turkish house before 1980 In 1923, the declaration of the republic was the beginning of the new life style in Turkey. Lots of different economic, political, social and cultural extensions took breath at the same time. The rights which were given to women, and in this manner, womens experiencing the working life has, moreover, affected the family structure. The patriarchal family structure has turned to the basic family structure. The house, which was a breeding module because of the womens introverted life, has also turned to exhausting module with womens role outside the house. Much breeding which had been occurred in the house, in the past were began to be formed with the developments in technology and industry by the experted commercial foundations. For this reason, the usage of the house has changed, the large spaces, which can be exemplied as kitchens, storages, pantries in tradition, were not only used less but reduced as well, and the spaces have gained different identities. In short, the life style of the Turkish family has changed, and this change has reected the forming of the house. Between the years of 1900 and 1930, during the period of the First National Architecture movement, which was stated by the architects Mr. Vedat and Mr. Kemalettin, it seems that there was affection from traditional houses in housing designs. Between the years of 1930 and 1940, there was a trend of extravert. The foreign architects like Egli, Holzmeister, etc. understood and studied the Turkish architecture away from being national. Just in the same period, the plan sketches were held in the lights of western effects, and designed in a way of harmonizing without social traditions, in other words; simple, economic and functional. Western life style started to became widespread. The housing concept began to take place in the targets of the government in 1930s, and, in this way, the 1930s pointed out the years of constructing the rst social housings in Turkey [912], (Table 3). Between the years of 1940 and 1950, by the help of the Second National Architecture movement, there appeared

4. The basic psycho-social components that affect the organization of the traditional Turkish house As it was mentioned before, the structure of the families, life styles, customs, traditions, habits and religions take great roles in the spatial organization of the house. Rapoport pointed out that the life style was one of the important link in turning the culture into action [5]. Land depended life style and the religion of Islam had brought up some psycho-social components that also affect the organization of Turkish house. The concepts of privacy, bas oda, personal space and territoriality are the main elements of these components. The word privacy is dened as the behavioral period, which controls the interactions of the people or the groups with each other, and arranges different behavioral mechanisms. In other words, it has a meaning of the optimum level of approaching conditions of the others to a person or a group, as well as, the level of suitable social relations. This great role in organizing social relations constitutes the main characteristics of human behaviors. For example, by the effects of the patriarchal structure, the space; bas oda, especially occupied for the head of the family, men or guests could be seen in every house. Moreover, selamlik (spaces for men) and haremlik (spaces for women) in houses show that the concept of privacy had really a great role in space organization [6,7]. The personal spaces are the rows of spaces to determine the limits in mind, between the others and oneself [8]. This concept has become identical with the xed furniture as sedir in rooms, which stated parallel through the windows, having movable cushions to arrange the distances between people. The concept territoriality is a special part of the space, which a person or a group uses, possesses or checks. It reected the house as security, possession and the control mechanism.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1448 I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452

a connection with traditional architecture, but the principles of the Rational and Functional movement did not lose their importance. By the help of the studies of architect Sedat Hakki Eldem, the principles of Turkish plan types were used. The social traditions were wanted to be preserved in housing designs till 1950s. In some of the neighborhood as; Saracoglu neighborhood in Ankara in 19441947, and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Levent neighborhood in Istanbul in 1947, the concepts from Turkish social traditions like privacy, personal spaces,yetc. were used. In contrast, after 1950, the plan types which were copied from west were started to be applicated in the houses [11]. Until the year of 1950, dominantly, detached or semidetached housing types, generally houses with gardens, having less stories and a decrease in rant structure seemed. However, the social houses were the houses, built for the homeless people for accommodation after great disasters. Furthermore, the blocks/apartments were the types, which could be rarely seen outside Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir [13]. The years after the Second World War and 1960s, pointed out the increasing housing problems, rising population, social and economic difculties, migrations to cities. In this period, the problems in squatter settlements had great dimensions, and besides this, there appeared many blocks/apartments in cities in great deals of numbers. The Turkish architects designed houses by searching local and regional characteristics, depending on
Table 3 Housing examples between 1900 and 1940 19001930

tradition [12]. The period of constructing blocks/apartments in cities, which began in 1950s and lasted till the end of 1960s, began to develop, rstly as many ats in one block, and then continued as housings in large scales, in 1970s [9], (Table 4). Until 1970, many styles began to be dominant in Turkish architecture, consequently, in housing architecture. Some of these understandings were; rational-purist, brutalist, independent formal understandings, new interpretations on traditional architectural valuesyetc. [12]. Postmodernism began to show its effects only after 1970. The years of 1980s were the years which postmodernist style, especially, reected the houses, (Table 5). 5.2. The development of Turkish house after 1980 After 1980, modication in protection and construction act resulted in clear differences and development in Turkish building forms (increase in at length, roof at usageyetc.). The period in which popular trends and western origin materials were used heavily in Turkey, continued on a very colorful and dynamic way. According to Kandil, the years of 1980s were the lively period of discussing 2nd Republican Concept and living cultures together at the same time [14]. By the help of the government and private banks, there seemed a great increase, especially in housing estates, to obtain the needs and

19301940

Harikzedegan Apartment, Arch: Kemalettin Bey, Istanbul.

Vedat Tek house, Arch: V. Tek, Istanbul.

Ceylan apartments, Arch: S.H. Eldem, Istanbul.

Sonmez apartments, Arch: B.I. Unsal, Ankara.

Table 4 Housing examples between 1940 and 1960 19401950 19501960

Apartment in Nisantasi, Arch: E. N. Uzman, Istanbul.

2nd Levent Neighborhood, Arch: K. A. Aru, R. Gorbon, Istanbul.

Pegasus apartment, Arch: H. Baysal, Istanbul.

Sedef houses, Arch: K. Erogan, Sedef Island.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452 1449

necessities in housing. At rst, the housing estates, which aimed to serve for the groups of middle-income, began to address the groups of high-income by the great capital of investments of private sectors later on. These units, like Naciye Sultan-Istanbul, Bahcesehir-Istanbul, Eryaman-

Ankara, began to show their existence with their shopping centers, education buildings, parks...etc. as a whole, in the vacant areas or near the closer regions of the cities [9]. In the recent years, it can be said that, there was also an increase in the summer resorts which were mostly in

Table 5 Housing examples between 1960 and 1980 19601970 19701980

Yali Kirac, Arch: S. H. Eldem, Istanbul.

Apartment, Arch: R. Zipci, A. Akin, Istanbul.

Mesa Gunes houses, Arch: MESA, Ankara.

Yuksel houses, Arch: Y. Okan, Yalova.

Table 6 Housing types after 1980Part 1 Detached houses Semi-detached houses

Villa Yavuz, Arch : D. Ciper, Mersin. Duplex houses

House in Hekimkoy, Arch: K. Guvenc, Ankara.

Nur-Tur houses, Arch: G. Kabakcioglu, Bodrum. Patio houses

Tuzla houses, Arch: N. Arolat, Tuzla, Istanbul.

Saffet Kanpak house, Arch: I.S. Kural, Cesme, Izmir. Row houses

Bogazici houses, Arch: D.Tekeli&S.Sisa, Istanbul.

Gurel house, Arch: S. Gurel, Canakkale. Teras houses

House in Bogazici, Arch: E. Bolak, Istanbul.

Row houses, Arch: UC MIM, Bahcesehir, Istanbul.

Row houses, Arch: UC MIM, Bahcesehir, Istanbul.

Suruculer Teras houses, Arch: M. Karaarslan, Ankara.

Teras houses, rch: M. Karaarslan, Ankara.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1450 I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452

detached and duplex type, settled outside the cities or on resorts, built especially by the rich people in longing for the nature. After the Modern Architecture, the tendencies of eclecticism, populism, new classicism, kitsch and deconstructivism has also effected the housing. As a result of these, it can be pointed out three main styles in Turkish architecture in recent years. The rst one is; to adopt the architectural ideas in developed countries, the second one is; to tend local, regional and Islamic origins in Anatolia, and nal one is; to aim producing the lasting values by dealing with the international development of architecture, with the original conditions of Turkey as a whole. The architects, who prefer to study under these styles are; Merih Karaarslan, Semra Uygur Ozcan, Sezer Aygen, Turgut Cansever, Mehmet Konuralpyetc. As a conclusion, if to take a look at the types and the development of the present houses in Turkey, it is possible to nd many different housing types which were held due to the users needs and necessities, social and economic

levels, and life styles. These, all point out the metamorphosis of the existence and the development of present Turkish houses. According to Dulgeroglu, the present housing types in Turkey are grouped into 11 types: Detached, semi-detached, duplex patio, row, teras, yali, villa, squatter, blocks/apartments, social houses [13], (Tables 6 and 7). 6. Results In this paper, from tradition to present, metamorphism in housing is tried to be expressed by the examples with their frontal levels. As it is understood from the examples, traditional aspects were not left, but even there are implications of them. Besides this, it appeared that, the developments in the worlds architectural environments are followed in Turkey. The traditional behaviors, consequently, the meaning, existence and the elements of space, in Turkish house has also had metamorphoses, because of the appearing acculturation within the time. The life styles and the

Table 7 Housing types after 1980Part 2 Yalis Villas

Yali in Beylerbeyi, Arch: U. Izgi, Istanbul. Squatters

Yali in Uskudar, Arch: D. Hasol, Istanbul.

Villa Gul, Arch: M. Karaarslan, Ankara. Blocks/apartments

Villa in Ankara, Arch: K. Guvenc, B. Bardak, Ankara.

Squatters, ???, Istanbul. Social houses

Squatters, ???, Ankara.

Mercan&Platin houses, Arch: B. Cinici, Ulus, Istanbul.

Sinanoba houses, Arch: EMLAK A.S., Istanbul.

Egekent-2, Kent Koop., Izmir.

Social houses in Sanliurfa, Arch: E. Elmas, Sanliurfa.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452 1451

behaviors, the variations in needs and wishes, and the most importance is, the metamorphose in patriarchal structure to the nucleus family structure are effective in forming present houses [6], (Table 8). In traditional house, the concept of room, which could be used for multi-purposes, and had included lots of functions inside, like; eating, sitting, sleeping, bathing yetc., has also had metamorphoses in present houses. Moreover, it was identied and classied according to the main functions appeared inside, like; kitchen, bathroom, bedroomy. etc. If to make a comparison between a traditional house and a present housing unit, by taking todays social relations into consideration, an analogy can be made on the concept of room in traditional house, with the concept of house in today. Another analogy can be put forward on the concept of sofa, which was used as a common space in traditional house, with the concept of street, because of experiencing extravert life style, in present. Furthermore, the analogy can be pointed out on the relations between the all rooms in tradition, and the relations between the all houses as neighborhood scale in present [15]. The privacy threshold has also had metamorphoses [16], in present housing. The concept of the privacy, which depended on the secrecy of the men and women in tradition, formed spaces like haremlik/selamlik, bas oda, the usage of rst oor/upper ooryetc. and show

differences in our time. These spaces, which we meet now are used as night halls, which occurred by the concepts of halls or corridors, in separating the night and day activities, and, as personal spaces in identied spaces. Therefore, it can be said that, the individual activities have great roles in todays housings. Because of this, the spaces, which gain names according to the activities appeared inside, and which can be dened as personal spaces in identied spaces like living rooms, bedroomsyetc., are seemed as sub-spaces, chosen for the special activities to study, read or listenyetc, (Table 9). In present, the concept of the bas oda changes its form and usage, and becomes identical with the concept of the quest room or sitting room, with a new usage of entertaining both women and men, at the same time, and closed for the daily usage for the family members. In conclusion, there appeared many changes for Turkish people, in life styles, behaviors, living standards, wishes for the housing, in the lasting period. By the effects of social, economic, and technologic developments, many concepts, which had great importance in traditional life styles and houses, have lost their validity in present or began to be interpreted in different forms by different manners. Parallel to this, within a period in which a developing country lives in her ordinary production and consumption relations, Turkey lives her metamorphose in combination tradition and modernity.

Table 8 The acculturation in spatial organization Traditional environment Traditional elements c Acculturation Metamorphism in culture . Metamorphism in behavior . Metamorphism In space c Present environment Traditional elements Modern elements Acculturative behavior

Traditional behavior

Traditional organization

Traditional organization half Traditional organization modern organization

Table 9 Some examples from duplex and apartment types

Duplex type

Apartment type

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1452 I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 14451452 [9] Sey Y. Cumhuriyet Doneminde Konut. 75 Yilda Degisen Kent ve Mimarlik. Bilanco 98, Istanbul, 1998. [10] Alsac U. Turk Kent Duzenlemesi ve Konut Mimarligi, Istanbul, 1993. [11] Keles G. Konut Plan Semalarinda Degisimin Grak Tekniklerle Incelenmesi. Master Thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Turkiye, 1988. [12] Sozen M. Cumhuriyet Donemi Turk Mimarligi. Ankara, 1984. [13] Dulgeroglu YY. Konut Mekani Kavraminin Tipolojik Temelleri. Istanbul, 1995. [14] Kandil M. 70 Yillik Cumhuriyet Mimarligi Uzerine Dusunceler. Kimlik-Mesrutiyet-Etik. Turkiye Mimarligi Sempozyumu, Ankara, 1993, p. 18890. [15] Atunay AS. Gelenekten Gelecege Evimiz Proje Yarismasi. T.C. Kultur Bakanligi Guzel Sanatlar Mudurlugu, Istanbul, 1992, p. 5284. [16] Gur SO. House preferences of users at different stages of acculturation. Ekistics 1997;61(366/67):17683.

References
[1] Besgen A, A General Investigation About the Architectural Characteristics of Traditional Houses in Anatolia and Eastern Black Sea Region. Small Towns Housing and Identity. IFHP Urban Planning Summer School Papers; 1997; p. 110118. [2] Kucukerman O, Turkish House, Istanbul, 1985. [3] Eldem S H, Turk Evi I, Istanbul, 1984. [4] Ozdemir IM. Space organization of Turkish house since traditional till today. IAHS Conference. Portugal 1998(2):52230. [5] Rapoport A. Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York, 1977. [6] Ozdemir IM. Mimari Mekanin Degerlendirilmesinde Mekan Orgutlenmesi Kavrami. Konutta Yasama Mekanlari. PhD Thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Turkiye, 1994. [7] Ozdemir IM. Konut Tasariminda Otorite. Ideoloji Erk ve Mimarlik. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Izmir, 1996, p. 2228 [8] Turgut H, Unugur M. Gelenekten Gelecege Evimiz Proje Yarismasi. T.C. Kultur Bakanligi Guzel Sanatlar Mudurlugu, Istanbul, 1992, p. 14687.