4. BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN TYPO-MORPHOLOGY AND SENSE OF PLACE
6.2. House Form in Ankara and Case Selection
6.2.2. Case Selection Process and Field Survey
151
societal stratification, which then motivated the low-income groups to move out from this newly created living environment since they did not feel a sense of belonging. This initiated the gentrification process and in a short time gated communities protected with a special security system that creates social isolation in urban settings became widespread (Coban, 2012).
6.2.2. Case Selection Process and Field Survey
Referring back to the rationale for the case selection explained in the methodology chapter, it was decided to choose all the cases from the same city, Ankara. Then, the housing transformation history in Ankara was reviewed above and five morphological periods from the late 19th century to the present were identified. Table 6.2 below summarises the major factors and housing trends identified in each period.
Table 6.2. Changing Turkish housing context over time (adapted from Guney & Wineman, 2008;
Balamir, 1994; Batuman, 2006; Toker & Toker, 2003; Dikmen, 2012; Sey, 1998b).
MORPHOLOGICAL PHASES AND CHANGING HOUSING TRENDS A 1890s-1923 à The Late Ottoman Empire Period
New house types emerging under the influence of Western countries were unwelcome.
People were still in favour of traditional houses following the spatial principles of nomadic lifestyle.
B 1923-1950s àThe Early Republican Period
There was a significant housing shortage after WWI.
The ideal housing types were Garden City Houses.
However, unwanted apartment buildings became widespread.
Apartmentalisation was heavily criticised.
C 1950s-1980s à The Modernisation Period
The construction of informal houses increased dramatically.
Apartment buildings became widespread and replaced the garden houses.
The apartment lifestyle was well promoted and adopted by Turkish culture.
D 1980s-2000 àThe Liberalisation Period
This is the period of recession for housing production.
There was a significant decline in the ratio of slums.
Housing cooperatives were established.
Gated communities were initiated.
E 2000 to date à The Contemporary Period Urban regeneration projects are on the agenda.
Gated communities have become widespread.
Current trend is the widespread of mixed-use housing developments.
* A, B, C, D, E represent the identified morphological phases in chronological order and are used in brackets within the text to indicate what period the cases represent.
According to the periods identified above, firstly, the Turkish housing literature was reviewed and the potential house types for each corresponding period were determined from the secondary sources before the site visit. Then, the chosen housing
developments were visited, and their appropriateness as case studies was considered against two criteria: first, the houses should still be functioning as residential use;
second, the number of existing house units should be enough to allow a sufficient number of interviews to be conducted. For these reasons, the research has to disregard the traditional Turkish houses located in central Ankara and representing the late Ottoman Empire period (A) and the other two chosen housing developments, namely Bahcelievler (B) and 14 Mayis (C) representing the housing concepts in the 1930s (the early Republican period) (B) and in the 1950s (the Modernisation period) (C) respectively.
The design of the Traditional Turkish Houses is developed based on two main elements:
rooms and a hall (called ‘sofa’ in Turkish) (Tavsan & Sonmez, 2013; Oztank, 2010).
According to the location of the hall, there are three main types developed over time:
the houses with outer hall, inner hall and central hall respectively. The one with an outer hall is the most primitive one, which is currently difficult to find within Ankara. In contrast, the most developed and widespread ones are houses with inner (Case I) (A) and central hall (Case II) (A). However, most of these that are located in central Ankara are not currently used for residential purposes but as restaurants, cafés, shops and hotels for touristic purposes (Figure 6.9). Therefore, these house types, the examples of which date back to the late 19th century and early 20th century, were chosen from Beypazari, a historical district of Ankara located 100km west of the city centre (Ankara Development Agency, 2012).
Figure 6.9 The renovated traditional Turkish houses in central Ankara
Bahcelievler (B) and 14 Mayis (C) housing developments were located in a place where the regeneration projects had a strong effect. Thus, they were mainly replaced by the new housing developments, and the existing ones are mostly used for commercial purposes (Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11). Since the sample size was not large enough and
153
the existing ones could not give a sense of neighbourhood, these cases had to be disregarded.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6.10 The existing housing units of Bahcelievler Housing Development (a: currently used as a café, b: currently used by an association, c: still used as a house – the last existing housing unit)
Figure 6.11 Examples of the existing 14 Mayis Houses (the photo on the left shows how the area was occupied by high-rise apartment buildings which replaced the low-rise, medium-coverage existing
housing tissue)
Instead of these types, the apartment buildings (Case III) (C), which were built in the 1950s and became the widespread house type representing Ankara’s housing concept until the 1980s, were selected. This house type represents the period when the public embraced the apartment lifestyle. Therefore, it is an important transition from the traditional houses (A) to the low-rise apartment buildings (C). In addition, this house type replaced the garden houses (B), which were introduced in the 1930s and then adopted as the ideal house types after the traditional houses (A) in the following period.
The replacement was also an important indication of how single-family lifestyles sustained in the garden houses (B) adapted to the apartments (C). Given all these points, to overcome the case selection limitation, the 1950s apartment buildings (C) were the most suitable choice, fulfilling the requirements of the case selection by relating the cases in different periods (Figure 6.12). To establish a link at some degree between the cases in different periods and to allow a sensible comparative analysis with different degrees of continuity and mutation, three housing developments (Cases IV, V and VI)
0"9!B*.*!)/'7*5!35!8/*!='GG'B35%!F*.3'A!0NXbMWLMMM9,![17*!P^:![17*!^!15A![17*!^P!1.*!
8/.**!A3==*.*58!/'#7*!8$F*7!)'@@'5G$!)'578.#)8*A!?$!8/*!/'#735%!)''F*.1836*7,!>/*7*!
8/.**! /'#7*! 8$F*7! B*.*! )/'7*5! ?*)1#7*! '=! 8/*3.! [email protected]*7! 35! 7'@*! 7F1831G!
)/1.1)8*.3783)7!8/18!)15!?*!G35(*A!8'!8/*!F.*63'#7!/'#7*!='.@7!18!A3==*.*58!A*%.**7!15A!
G*6*G7!0>/*7*!B3GG!?*!3A*583=3*A!35!A*813G!35!8/*!5*S8!)/1F8*.9,!>/*!7*G*)83'5!'=!8/*!8/.**!
)17*7!=.'@!8/*!71@*!F*.3'A!37!1G7'!8'!35A3)18*!8/18!8/*!/'#735%!3@FG*@*58183'57!'=!8/*!
F*.3'A!A3A!5'8!='GG'B!1!)'@@'5!/'#7*!8$F*,!>/*!)'58*@F'.1.$!/'#735%!A*6*G'F@*58!
0[17*!^PP9!0Y9!35!8/*!='GG'B35%!@'.F/'G'%3)1G!F*.3'A!B17!1G7'!)/'7*5!35!177')3183'5!B38/!
8/*!F.*63'#7!)17*7,![17*!^PP!37!1!%18*A!)'@@#538$Z!8/37!8$F*!?*)1@*!B3A*7F.*1A!1=8*.!
LMMM,!-!F.3618*!)'578.#)83'5!)'@F15$!?#3G8!8/37!/'#735%!A*6*G'F@*58!35!LMMO,!>/*!?#3G8!
A18*!@*157!8/18!8/*!.*73A*587!/16*!/1A!15!1A*D#18*!5#@?*.!'=!$*1.7!8'!A*6*G'F!<'H!
?$!8/*!83@*!'=!8/37!.*7*1.)/,!!
>/*!)17*!78#A3*7!B*.*!7*G*)8*A!353831GG$!1))'.A35%!8'!8/*3.!/'#735%!G1$'#87!35!G35*!B38/!
8/*! )'..*7F'5A35%! @'.F/'G'%3)1G! F*.3'A7,! J'B*6*.:! 8/*$! 1G7'! .*F.*7*58! 1! 61.3*8$! '=!
78.**8! 15A! 5*3%/?'#./''A! 8$F'G'%3*7,! P5! 1AA383'5:! 8/*7*! )17*7! B*.*! A*G3?*.18*G$!
7*G*)8*A!8'!F.*7*58!7'@*[email protected]*7!15A!A3==*.*5)*7!B38/!*1)/!'8/*.!)'5)*.535%!8/*!
7F1831G!)/1.1)8*.3783)7!18!?#3GA35%:!78.**8!15A!5*3%/?'#./''A!7)1G*7!7'!8/18!8/*!G'%3)1G!
8.157383'5!15A!8.157='.@183'5!?*8B**5!8/*@!)15!?*!*173G$!8.1)*A,!I3%#.*!`,NL!?*G'B!
7/'B7!8/*!=351G!)17*!7*G*)83'5!15A!8/*!F'773?G*!8.157='.@183'51G!G35(7!?*8B**5!8/*!)17*7!
1))'.A35%!8'!8/*!3A*583=3*A!@'.F/'G'%3)1G!F*.3'A7!0-!Y9:!B/3)/!B3GG!8/*5!?*!*S1@35*A!
35!A*813G!35![/1F8*.!^PP,!
!
='1<(.!YMNP!B*/.!/.+.)0'2#!7'04'#!04.!%2(&42+21')*+!3(*%.72(\!
!"#$%%% !"#$&'%%
()&
Case Selection
!"#$%' !"#$&' !"#$&'%
!"#$&% !"#$&%%
" * ! + $
, ( - .
()& ()& ()& ()& ()& ()&
! !! !!! !" " "! "!!
! NRR! !
P5! 8'81G:! 7*6*5! /'#7*! 8$F*7! .*F.*7*5835%! A3==*.*58! 7F1831G! )/1.1)8*.3783)7! '=! 8/*! ='#.!
@'.F/'G'%3)1G!F*.3'A7:!15A!A3==*.*58!G*6*G7!'=!8.157='.@183'5!15A!)/15%*:!B*.*!)/'7*5!
=.'@!8B'!A3==*.*58!?'.'#%/7!'=!8/*!)38$!'=!-5(1.1,!-7!@*583'5*A!1?'6*:![17*!P!15A![17*!
PP!1.*!=.'@!+*$F121.3!15A!8/*!'8/*.7!1.*!=.'@!e*53@1/1GG*,!>/*!/'#7*7!'=![17*!P!15A!
[17*! PP! 1.*! A378.3?#8*A! .15A'@G$! B38/35! 8/*! )'57*.6183'5! 1.*1! 35! +*$F121.3,! >/*!
F.'S3@38$!?*8B**5!8/*!'8/*.!=36*!)17*7!G')18*A!35!e*53@1/1GG*!37!17!7/'B5!35 I3%#.*!`,Nd,!
>'!1!=*173?G*!*S8*58:!8/*!.*7*1.)/*.7!A*G3?*.18*G$!7*G*)8*A!)17*7!35!1!)G'7*!63)3538$!B/*.*!
F'773?G*:!8'!*57#.*!8/*!)17*7!/16*!73@3G1.!G15A!'.!/'#7*!F.3)*7!7'!8/18!8/*!.*73A*587!/16*!
?.'1AG$!73@3G1.!7')3'W*)'5'@3)!15A!)#G8#.1G!7818#7,!>/37!B17!8'!@353@37*!8/*!F'8*5831G!
3@F1)8!'=!F1.83)3F1587U!7')3'W*)'5'@3)!)#G8#.1G!)'5A383'57!'5!<'H!08/*!A*813G7!'=!8/*!
7')3'W*)'5'@3)! 15A! A*@'%.1F/3)! A181! 15A! A3==*.*5)*7! 8/.'#%/! 8/*! )17*7! B3GG! ?*!
F.*7*58*A!35![/1F8*.!^PP9,!!
!
='1<(.!YMNT!B*/.!+2)*0'2#!%*&!!_L221+.!:*&/^!PZNY`!8<('a%*]*#'^!PZNO`!:L:^!PZNYb!
The site visit continued with the interviews and 20 residents were recruited for each case for the assessment of SoP (Figure 6.12). A field survey was completed with the documentation and collection of the architectural drawings, plans and maps from the municipality archives and photographs of the cases were taken.