SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY TURKISH HOUSES AND THOSE WORLDWIDE

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGur, Sengul Oymen
dc.contributor.authorErol, Sengul Yalcinkaya
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-13T10:33:37Z
dc.date.available2024-03-13T10:33:37Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.departmentİstanbul Beykent Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractDue to discontent arising from the application of Modernism's totalitarian and homogenising logic to house design, recent research has concentrated on differences between cultures, societies and ethnic groups to the extent that today's students of architecture have difficulty finding sources which point to any universally valid values and preferences adopted by contemporary populations. In this study seventeen major design principles stemming from man-environment relationships, such as privacy, territoriality, personal space, backstage behaviour, orientation, and so on, as deduced from Turkish traditional houses, are investigated in terms of similarities among cultures. Samples of contemporary houses are selected from Turkey and elsewhere. Between local and international house designs full matches are depicted and verified by way of statistical analyses across fourteen items, such as living space subdivisions for guests and family, indirect access to the house (modulation), multi-purpose living space subdivisions (hierarchical living space), individualized bathrooms in bedrooms, independent family rooms, semi-closed spaces on the first floor, larger fenestration on upper floors as opposed to opacity of ground floors, segregated garden space, powerful demarcation of the garden space, orientation toward the house's own territory, bathrooms being situated in night time domains, differentiated status of spaces, multiple uses for stair landings (such as for hiding places for goods). Only three items showed some variance: closed balconies on upper floors were local, and semi-open spaces on ground floors were international tendencies. The practice of allowing direct access from the main entrance to a vertical circulation area was also predominantly a local choice.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage74en_US
dc.identifier.issn0168-2601
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-83755195492
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage57en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12662/4052
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000298779600008
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOpen House Inten_US
dc.relation.ispartofOpen House Internationalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHouseen_US
dc.subjectDesignen_US
dc.subjectBehaviouren_US
dc.subjectDifferencesen_US
dc.subjectSimilaritiesen_US
dc.titleSIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY TURKISH HOUSES AND THOSE WORLDWIDEen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu