508

 CONSERVATION OF MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS: EARLY
REPUBLICAN ROW APARTMENT-BLOCKS IN ULUS, ANKARA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

ABSTRACT
CONSERVATION OF MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS: EARLY
REPUBLICAN ROW APARTMENT-BLOCKS IN ULUS, ANKARA

Master of Science, Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Architecture
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pınar Aykaç Leidholm December 2022, 221 pages
Conservation of modern residential heritage has been a major topic in the field of heritage conservation in recent decades. The current practice of modern residential heritage conservation, however, mainly focuses individual structures, overlooking apartment blocks forming the modern urban tissue. Although there are theoretical and practical studies on the conservation of modern residential heritage, these heritage buildings are converted into touristic or cultural facilities. Thus, the dynamics of the city and the needs of inhabitants including housing opportunities are not taken into consideration in practice. Similarly, in Turkey, conservation of modern residential heritage is made individually as short-term solutions to the needs of time and general approach is to reuse them as touristic, commercial, or cultural facilities. Anafartalar Street and its surrounding is an important residential and commercial area of early Republican Ankara, which still comprises of many apartment buildings from the early Republican period. In time, however, these apartment buildings which formed the residential texture of the area have been gradually damaged due to fragmented and isolated interventions. Although there is a street rehabilitation project for the Anafartalar Street at present, this project only focuses on the facades of the structures framing the street. This thesis focuses on a group of Early-
vi
Republican apartments along Mevsim Street at the intersection of Anafartalar and Konya streets. It aims to develop conservation and adaptive-use principles for this group of buildings that will respond to the current dynamics of the area and the needs of the inhabitants. Based on these principles, proposals are developed for the buildings for the continuation of their uses as apartment buildings for different user groups.
Keywords: Modern Residential Heritage, Conservation and Continuing use, Modern Apartment Buildings, Early Republican Apartments, Anafartalar Street
vii
ÖZ
MODERN APARTMAN YAPILARININ KORUNMASI VE KULLANIMLARININ DEVAMI: ANKARA, ULUS MEVSİM CADDESİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI


Modern konut mirasının korunması ve uyarlanabilir (yeniden) kullanımı, son yıllarda kültürel mirasın korunması alanında önemli bir konu olmuştur. Bununla birlikte, modern konut mirasının korunmasına yönelik mevcut uygulamalar, modern kentsel dokuyu oluşturan apartman bloklarını göz ardı ederek, esas olarak bireysel yapılara odaklanmaktadır. Modern konut mirasının korunmasına yönelik teorik ve uygulamalı çalışmalar olmakla birlikte, bu miras yapıları genellikle turistik veya kültürel tesislere dönüştürülmektedir. Bu nedenle, uygulamada kentin dinamikleri ve konut imkanları da dahil olmak üzere yaşayanların ihtiyaçları dikkate alınmamaktadır. Benzer şekilde Türkiye'de de modern konut mirasının korunması, zamanın ihtiyaçlarına yönelik kısa vadeli çözümler olarak bireysel odaklı yapılmakta ve genel yaklaşım bunların turistik, ticari veya kültürel tesisler olarak yeniden kullanılması yönündedir. Anafartalar Caddesi ve çevresi, erken Cumhuriyet döneminden kalma çok sayıda apartmandan oluşan Ankara'nın önemli bir konut ve ticaret bölgesidir. Ancak zamanla konut dokusunu oluşturan bu apartmanlar parçalı ve tekil müdahalelerle giderek tahrip olmuştur. Anafartalar Caddesi için şu anda bir sokak sağlıklaştırma projesi olmasına rağmen, bu proje sadece sokağı çevreleyen yapıların cephelerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu tez, Anafartalar ve Konya caddelerinin
viii
kesişiminde, Mevsim Caddesi boyunca yer alan Erken Cumhuriyet apartman grubuna odaklanmaktadır. Bu yapı grubu için alanın güncel dinamiklerine ve yaşayanların ihtiyaçlarına cevap verecek koruma ve uyarlanabilir kullanım ilkeleri geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu esaslardan hareketle, farklı kullanıcı grupları için binaların özgün işlevlerinde, apartman olarak kullanımlarının devamına yönelik öneriler geliştirilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Modern Konut Mirası, Koruma ve Kullanım, Modern Apartman Yapıları, Erken Cumhuriyet Konutları, Anafartalar Caddesi
ix
To my dear brother and sister
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pınar Aykaç Leidholm, for her guidance during my study. She has always encouraged me with her valuable suggestions, deep knowledge, and endless support and with her positive perspective.
I would also like to express my thanks to the examining committee members; Prof. Dr. Güliz Bilgin Altınöz, Assist. Prof. Dr. Sibel Yıldırım Esen, Assist. Prof. Dr. Azize Elif Yabacı and Assist. Prof. Dr. Deniz Avcı Hosanlı for their advice and constructive criticism. I would also like to thank to Prof. Dr. Neriman Şahin Güçhan for her critiques.
I would also thank to Ankara Metropolitan Municipality - Department of Cultural and Natural Assets, Ankara Metropolitan Municipality Archive (especially Numan Ertan for his helps to reach the documents), Altındağ Municipality and Ankara Regional Board Archive for providing relevant archival documents of the thesis. I would especially thank to Bekir Ödemiş and Mustafa Kaymak for their sharing and participation. I also would like to thank all the people who attend and share their answers to my surveys and interviews through the site study.
I would like to express my special thanks to my dear friends Sıla Elaslan, Pınar Elmastaş, Berna Atamtürk and Tuğba Varlı for their sincere friendships and their moral support. I would also like to thank M. Arch. Pınar Başak Tongal, my project manager, for her great patience and endless support.
I owe my special thanks to Firuze İrem Canlı and Şemsettin İslamoğlu for being in my life, for their patience, for their endless support, for the joy they have brought to my life and for the endless help they have provided in all matters. Without the positivity they brought to my life and the motivation they gave me; I would not have been able to finish this thesis.
xi
Last but not least, I would like to thank to my family. I would like to thank the youngest person of my family, my nephew Yiğit Demirağ for the unconditional love he brought to my life. My parents, Ünal Genç and Nigar Genç for supporting me in every way, for their kindness and for their priceless efforts. I would like to thank them for who I am now and for all my achievements. Also, I owe my special thanks to my sister Dilara Genç Demirağ, for motivating me with patience and being there for me whenever I need her and my brother Arda Genç, for making every moment I spend with him pleasant, for making me feel that he is here to help me and supports me at every moment.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. v
ÖZ............................................................................................................................vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................... x
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................xii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................xix
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Definition .....................................................................................1
1.2 Aim of the Study.........................................................................................3
1.3 Methodology of the Thesis .........................................................................6
2 CONSERVATION AND CONTINUING USE OF MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS............................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Modern Heritage Buildings and Their Conservation................................11
2.2 Housing Buildings/Interwar Apartments as Modern Heritage Buildings.19
2.3 Conservation of Modern Apartment Buildings ........................................23
3 MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS IN ANKARA AND EARLY REPUBLICAN APARTMENTS ALONG MEVSIM STREET............................. 35
3.1 Ankara, Capital of the Republic of Turkey...............................................35
3.2 Formation of Residential Areas and Modern Housing Buildings in Ankara, Ulus........................................................................................................37
3.3 Current State of the Ulus, Anafartalar Region..........................................42
3.4 Selected Apartment-blocks along Mevsim Street, Ulus ...........................49
xiii
3.4.1 Projects of the Buildings ................................................................... 51
3.4.2 Architectural and Spatial Features .................................................... 52
3.4.3 Structural and Material Features ....................................................... 66
3.5 Current Situations of the Selected Buildings ........................................... 71
3.5.1.1 Current Functions and Current Plans of the Buildings .............. 74
3.5.1.2 Physical Condition..................................................................... 93
3.6 User Needs and Expectations ................................................................. 125
3.6.1 Users of the Surrounding Buildings and Commercial Streets ........ 125
3.6.2 Users of the Selected Buildings ...................................................... 134
3.6.3 Decision Makers ............................................................................. 136
4 ASSESSMENT OF EARLY-REPUBLICAN APARTMENT-BLOCKS ALONG MEVSIM STREET AND PROPOSAL FOR THEIR CONSERVATION ................................................................................................139
4.1 Values and Significance ......................................................................... 139
4.2 Problems................................................................................................. 141
4.2.1 Changes in the Urban Context ........................................................ 142
4.2.2 Changes in the Architectural Features of the Buildings ................. 143
4.2.3 Structural and Material Conditions of the Buildings ...................... 149
4.3 Assessment of Needs of the Users ......................................................... 150
4.3.1 Needs of the Users of the Urban Context ....................................... 150
4.3.2 Needs of the Users of the Selected Buildings ................................. 153
4.4 Proposal for the Conservation of Early-Republican Apartment Blocks along Mevsim Street ......................................................................................... 154
4.4.1 Conservation Proposal for People with Disabilities/Elderly People (Multiple Use) ............................................................................................... 156
xiv
4.4.2 Conservation Proposal for White-Collars/Public Employees (Multiple Use) ......................................................................................................... 161
4.4.3 Conservation Proposal for an Extended Family with Their Shop on the Ground Floor (Single Use) ............................................................................ 163
4.4.4 Conservation Proposal for a Student Dorm (Single Use) ................ 165
5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 169
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 173
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 178
A. High Council for the Conservation Council of Cultural Assets Decision, dated 10.07.1986 ............................................................................................... 178
B. Approval Form from the Applied Ethic Research Center ...................... 211
C. Social Survey Form Prepared for Users of the Surrounding Buildings and a Sample ............................................................................................................ 212
D. Social Survey Form Prepared for Temporary Users of the Neighborhood and a Sample ...................................................................................................... 215
E. Social Survey/Interview Form Prepared for Decision Makers ............... 218
F. Social Survey Form Prepared for Users of the Selected Buildings ........ 220
xv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 1.1. Information Table of Surveys .................................................................. 8
Table 3.1. Possible Original Façade Formation of Mevsim Street (Author, 2021) 55
Table 3.2. Possible Original Façade Formation of Anafartalar Street and Konya Street (Author, 2021) .............................................................................................. 56
Table 3.3. Original Architecture Elements of the Buildings (Author, 2021).......... 59
Table 3.4. Original Architecture Elements of the Buildings (Author, 2021).......... 60
Table 3.5. Possible Original Plans of Building A (Author, 2021) .......................... 62
Table 3.6. Possible Original Plans of Building B (Author, 2021) .......................... 63
Table 3.7. Possible Original Plans of Building C (Author, 2021) .......................... 64
Table 3.8. Possible Original Plans of Building D (Author, 2021) .......................... 65
Table 3.9. General information of Building A (7261/1) (Author, 2021) ................ 76
Table 3.10. Current Plans of Building A (Ground Floor and 1st Floor) (Author, 2021) ....................................................................................................................... 79
Table 3.11. Current Plans of Building A (2nd Floor and 3rd Floor) (Author, 2021) 80
Table 3.12. Current Plans of Building A (4th Floor) (Author, 2021) ...................... 81
Table 3.13. General information of Building B (7261/2) (Author, 2021) .............. 83
Table 3.14. Current Plans of Building B (Author, 2021)........................................ 84
Table 3.15. General information of Building C (7261/2) (Author, 2021) .............. 85
Table 3.16. Current Plans of Building C (Author, 2021)........................................ 86
Table 3.17. General information of Building D (7261/2) (Author, 2021) .............. 87
Table 3.18. Current Plans of Building D (Author, 2021) ....................................... 88
Table 3.19. Current and Possible Original Plans of the Ground and First Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021) .................................................................................. 89
Table 3.20 Current and Possible Original Plans of the Second and Third Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021) .................................................................................. 90
xvi
Table 3.21 Current and Possible Original Plans of the Fourth Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021) ......................................................................................... 91
Table 3.22. Material analysis of Building A – Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................................................ 99
Table 3.23. Material analysis of Building A Anafartalar Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................................................ 99
Table 3.24. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building A – Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ................................................................................ 101
Table 3.25. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building A Anafartalar Street Facade (Author, 2021) ................................................................................ 102
Table 3.26. Material analysis of Building B Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ............................................................................................................................... 108
Table 3.27. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building B Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................... 109
Table 3.28. Material analysis of Building C Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ............................................................................................................................... 115
Table 3.29. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building C Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................... 116
Table 3.30. Material analysis of Building D Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ............................................................................................................................... 121
Table 3.31. Material analysis of Building D Konya Street Facade (Author, 2021) ............................................................................................................................... 122
Table 3.32. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building D Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................... 123
Table 3.33. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building D Konya Street Facade (Author, 2021) ........................................................................................... 124
Table 3.34. Chart Showing the Age Distribution of Users of the Surrounding Buildings ................................................................................................................ 126
Table 3.35. Chart Showing the Gender Distribution of Users of the Surrounding Buildings ................................................................................................................ 126
xvii
Table 3.36. Chart Showing the Years of Occupancy of Users of the Surrounding Buildings ............................................................................................................... 127
Table 3.37. Chart Showing the Thoughts about the Significance of Buildings of Users of the Surrounding Buildings...................................................................... 128
Table 3.38. Chart showing the thoughts about the positive features of the region by users of the surrounding buildings. ....................................................................... 129
Table 3.39. Chart showing the thoughts about the negative features of the region by users of the surrounding buildings. ....................................................................... 130
Table 3.40. Chart showing the thoughts of users of the surrounding buildings about what they would like to have in the area............................................................... 131
Table 3.41. Chart Showing the Age Distribution of Temporary Users of the Area ............................................................................................................................... 132
Table 3.42. Chart Showing the Gender Distribution of Temporary Users of the Area....................................................................................................................... 132
Table 3.43. Chart Showing the Current and Old Duration of Temporary Users of the Area ................................................................................................................. 133
Table 3.44. Chart Showing the Thoughts About the Significance of Surrounding Buildings of Temporary Users of the Area........................................................... 133
Table 3.45. Interviews of the users of four Early Republican Apartment Blocks 135
Table 4.1. Chart showing the thoughts about the problems of the region by users of the surrounding buildings. .................................................................................... 151
Table 4.2. Chart showing the needs of the region by users of the surrounding buildings................................................................................................................ 152
Table 4.3. Chart showing the needs of the surrounding buildings by their users. 153
Table 4.4. Suggested plan organization of Building A, ground floor and 1st floor158
Table 4.5. Suggested plan organization of Building A, 2nd and 3rd floor.............. 159
Table 4.6. Suggested plan organization of Building A, 4th floor .......................... 160
Table 4.7. Suggested plan organization of Building B ......................................... 162
Table 4.8. Suggested plan organization of Building C ......................................... 164
Table 4.9. Suggested plan organization of Building D ......................................... 166
xviii
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. The location of the building group, Ulus (Author based on Google Earth Image, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1.2. The one on the left taken by the Author (2021). The one from right is provided by one of the users of the buildings. The photograph was taken in 1980s.5
Figure 1.3. Schematic representation of the basic methodology (Author, 2022) ..... 6
Figure 2.1.Unité d’habitation designed by Le Corbusier (Source: https://lecorbusier-worldheritage.org/en/unite-habitation/) .................................... 13
Figure 2.2. Villa Savoye, designed by Le Corbusier (Source: https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/140704)....................................................... 13
Figure 2.3. Inter-war architecture, From left to right, 1933; Apartment blocks in Dositejeva, 1937; Francuska, 1937; Svetogorska, 1938; and Bosanska Street in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1940 (Blagojević, 2003) ................................................ 21
Figure 2.4. Molitor Apartment, designed by Le Corbusier and e Pierre Jeanneret. Retrieved from https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/09/le-corbusier-immeuble-molitor-housing-paris-provides-residents-sky-trees-steel-concrete-unesco-world-heritage-list/ ............................................................................................................ 30
Figure 2.5. Aerial view of the Hufeisensiedlung (Aygün Aşık, 2017, p. 25) ......... 31
Figure 2.6. Saraçoğlu Neighborhood (Tanrıverdi, 2012, p. 131)............................ 32
Figure 2.7. Saraçoğlu Neighborhood (2012) (Tanrıverdi, 2012, p. 131) ................ 33
Figure 3.1. Ulus, Anafartalar Street. (Sağdıç, 1993)............................................... 38
Figure 3.2. 1929 Anafartalar Street, Ulus. (Cangır, 2007) ..................................... 39
Figure 3.3. Photograph of Foto Apartment, Seyfi Arkan, 1935 (Aslanoğlu, 2001) 40
Figure 3.4. Map showing the location of the selected buildings, context of the buildings and important constructions around them. (1) II. TBMM, (2) I. TBMM, (3) 100.Yıl Çarşısı, (4) Ulus Square and Ulus Atatürk Statue, (5) Ulus Çarşısı, (6) Anafartalar Çarşısı, (7) Former Municipal Building, (8) Ulus Hali, (9) Suluhan, (10) Former Courthouse Building, (11) Anatolian Civilizations Museum, (12)
xx
Erimtan Museum, (13) Rahmi Koç Museum, (14) Ankara Castle, (15) A.B.B Hisar Park, (16) Gençlik Parkı .........................................................................................42
Figure 3.5. Map showing the relevant boundaries around the region. Prepared by Sıla Elaslan on the base map achieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (2022). .....................................................................................................................43
Figure 3.6. Map showing the transportation network and elements of the region. Prepared by Sıla Elaslan on the base map achieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (2022).................................................................................................44
Figure 3.7. The former distribution of residential and commercial use in the region (Author based on base map retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, 2022)........................................................................................................................48
Figure 3.8. The current distribution of residential and commercial use in the region (Author based on base map retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, 2022)........................................................................................................................49
Figure 3.9. A photograph of Anafartalar Street in 1929. Retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality archive..........................................................................50
Figure 3.10. Buildings on Mevsim Street, from Konya Street to Anafartalar Street, respectively (Author,2021)......................................................................................51
Figure 3.11. Buildings’ relation with streets and surroundings. Drawing created with a base map from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. .....................................51
Figure 3.12. Building B, window facing ventilation shaft. (Author, 2022) ............57
Figure 3.13. Section detail of the building showing steel beam, brick wall and concrete slab of the structure. ..................................................................................67
Figure 3.14. Entrance door of the Building B. (Author, 2021) ...............................68
Figure 3.15. Stair railings of Building C. (Author, 2022) .......................................69
Figure 3.16. Cast mosaic stairs, Building B. (Author, 2022) ..................................70
Figure 3.17. Structural system of the buildings, intersection of concrete columns and slab with steel beams. .......................................................................................71
Figure 3.18. Buildings on Mevsim Street, from Konya Street to Anafartalar Street, respectively (Author, 2021).....................................................................................72
xxi
Figure 3.19. Buildings’ relation with streets and surroundings. Drawing created with a base map from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality...................................... 73
Figure 3.20. Current Lot and Block borders ........................................................... 74
Figure 3.21. A map showing the former and current building boundaries and relation with the lot boundaries............................................................................... 75
Figure 3.22. Approved repair project’s Second Floor Plan from 1997. Retrieved from the Ankara Conservation Board ..................................................................... 77
Figure 3.23. Approved documentation project’s Second Floor Plan from 1988. Retrieved from the Ankara Conservation Board..................................................... 78
Figure 3.24. Building A (Author, 2021) ................................................................. 93
Figure 3.25. Mevsim Street façade of Building A (Author, 2021) ......................... 94
Figure 3.26. Mevsim Street façade of Building A (Author, 2021) ......................... 94
Figure 3.27. Second floor coverings of Building A (Author, 2021)....................... 95
Figure 3.28. Third floor steel beam of Building A (Author, 2021) ........................ 96
Figure 3.29. Anafartalar Street façade detaching of plaster (Author, 2021)........... 97
Figure 3.30. Building A staining due to humidity, Third Floor (Author, 2021)..... 98
Figure 3.31. Oxidation in steel beam, Third Floor (Author, 2021) ........................ 98
Figure 3.32. Mevsim Street façade of Building B (Author, 2021) ....................... 103
Figure 3.33. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building B (Author, 2021) ..................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 3.34. Restaurant on ground floor of Building B (Author, 2022) ............... 105
Figure 3.35. First floor of Building B (Author, 2022) .......................................... 106
Figure 3.36. Hall on the first floor of Building B (Author, 2022) ........................ 106
Figure 3.37. The windows on projection in first floor of Building B (Author, 2022) ............................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 3.38. Deteriorations due to humidity on wall (Author, 2022) ................... 107
Figure 3.39. Mevsim Street façade, Building C (Author, 2021)........................... 110
Figure 3.40. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building C (Author, 2021) ..................................................................................................................... 111
xxii
Figure 3.41. Bookmaker (ganyan) on ground floor of Building C (Author, 2022) ...............................................................................................................................112
Figure 3.42. Bookmaker (ganyan) on basement of Building C (Author, 2022)....112
Figure 3.43. Moisture staining on fourth floor of Building C (Author, 2022) ......113
Figure 3.44. Loss of paint due to plumbing leak in basement, Building C (Author, 2022)......................................................................................................................114
Figure 3.45. Deterioration of ceramics on the balcony, Building C (Author, 2022) ...............................................................................................................................114
Figure 3.46. Konya Street and Mevsim Street facades of Building D (Author, 2021) ...............................................................................................................................117
Figure 3.47. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building D (Author, 2021)......................................................................................................................118
Figure 3.48. Plaster and paint detachment on the façade, Building D (Author, 2021) ...............................................................................................................................119
Figure 3.49. First floor of Building D (Author, 2022) ..........................................119
Figure 3.50. Apartment door from inside, Building D (Author, 2022) .................120
Figure 4.1. Changes in Ground Floor and First Floor ...........................................145
Figure 4.2. Changes in Second Floor and Third Floor ..........................................146
Figure 4.3. Changes in Fourth .Floor ....................................................................147
Figure 4.4. Top view of buildings taken with drone (Gökhan Sarı, 2021) ............ 149
1
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Architecture is a science intertwined with humans and has reflected the changing nature and life of humans for ages. The conservation approach for architecture also aims to preserve not only the physical formation of buildings, but also the values they reflect. Depending on the changing political, ideological, technological and social factors of societies, the conservation approach also changes and develops. Since the 20th century, the protection of the structures of the formation of Modern Architecture has begun to enter the conservation agenda.
1.1 Problem Definition
Even though, the conservation of modern architectural heritage is widely embraced in theory, how these structures can be conserved is still an ongoing debate. Current practices generally concentrate on iconic examples of the 20th-century heritage structures with a less focus given to the ones that are integral components of modern urban tissue. Furthermore, since modern architectural places are seen as potential income areas, their demolition have increased in recent years. As ICOMOS also pointed out in a report published in 2001, 20th-century heritage structures, and particularly modern housing examples, are the building groups that have the high risk of demolition.1 A recent document titled “Approaches to the Conservation of Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage Madrid-New Delhi Document”, prepared by ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Twentieth-Century Heritage
1 This information is from the Heritage at Risk Report 2001-2002 of ICOMOS, http://www.icomos.org
2
(ISC20C), and states that modern heritage places should be conserved by providing their integrity with the city as well as the interior and exterior relations of the buildings (ISC20C, 2017). However, the inconsistency of the practical and theoretical works regarding to the technical, ideological, and economical obstacles, had been a challenge to achieve this aim. (Omay Polat, 2008).
Similar challenges are also valid in Turkey. After the 20th century architectural structures were first mentioned as a cultural heritage by the Bursa Chamber of Architects at the 18th International Construction and Life Congress in 2001, studies on this subject started to increase and awareness began to develop. In 2002, DOCOMOMO Turkey was established and conducted studies such as conferences and posters presentations for introducing and documenting the 20th century architectural heritage places to raise public awareness. While most of these studies are concerned with the theoretical background of the topic, the buildings and building groups that are modern architectural heritage are still under the risk of demolition by new constructions or improper conservation practices.
Ulus district of Ankara is one of the places that have an urban fabric of modern architecture, since it is formed as a center after the establishment of the Republic with respect to the new lifestyle. The area is comprised of the public buildings and first residential areas of the Republican Ankara (Avcı Hosanlı, 2018). Early Republican buildings in Ulus, which are mostly the public buildings, are currently registered (Gültekin, 2017). Their registration status, however, does not ensure their conservation. The early-Republican apartment-blocks, which have already been damaged by the new constructions with the development of the private sector over time, gradually becomes illegible with sporadic and improper interventions, without conducting detailed analyses or evaluations. In addition, the conservation projects implemented for these early-Republican apartment-blocks mainly foresee commercial and touristic functions in order not to leave the buildings idle. These interventions are generally made for buildings in commercially prominent regions like Anafartalar Street. On the other hand, buildings located in the same urban tissue
3
but are no longer functional are not aimed to be used with their original functions and do not undergo any repair and maintenance even though they are physically in bad condition. In this way, Ulus, which was once a significant residential district of Republican Ankara with important commercial centers, has lost its significance as the city center and facing urban decay. Thus, the priority given to commercial axes not only causes physical inconsistency in the district but also triggers the transformation of these decayed areas into touristic and commercial facilities.
Within Ulus, and particularly along Anafartalar Street, early Republican apartment-blocks constitute most of the urban tissue. Current tendency of converting all these apartment-blocks into commercial or touristic facilities result in the complete detachment of Ulus from the everyday life as a living district of Ankara. Within this context, conserving and continuing the use of early Republican apartment blocks with changing life conditions, dynamics of the city and the needs of users becomes significant for Ulus district’s future.
1.2 Aim of the Study
This thesis aims to develop strategies for early-Republican Apartment buildings in Ulus, as representatives of modern apartment buildings, to ensure their conservation with their original use by considering their character and the dynamics of the city and the needs and demands of its inhabitants. To accomplish this aim, a group of early-Republican apartment buildings, which can be defined as row houses, along Mevsim Street, Ulus, is selected as the case study. These apartment blocks are the examples that represent the character and architecture of their period, their present condition varies in terms of their use, physical condition, and changes they underwent.
4
Figure 1.1. The location of the building group, Ulus (Author based on Google Earth Image, 2022)
5
Figure 1.2. The one on the left taken by the Author (2021). The one from right is provided by one of the users of the buildings. The photograph was taken in 1980s.
To accomplish the aim of this thesis, several topics are analyzed and explained. Understanding and analysis of these buildings from their construction to the present day as maintaining their integrity is one and first of them since this is an important prerequisite for creating a conservation proposal for the modern heritage places as indicated in the ‘The Madrid-New Delhi Document’ of ISC20C (2017). Following this, understanding the context of the structures, and understanding needs of the users are important research topics for the progress of the thesis. Based on the understanding and analysis of these buildings, the thesis assesses the buildings as modern apartment buildings and identify their values, problems, and potentials. Afterwards, different user groups are selected for each apartment building based on the current dynamics of the city that will offer to investigate the possibilities of using these buildings as a single unit and as multiple units. Eventually, with considering all the inputs and assessments, the thesis proposes a conservation and (re)use strategy
6
for selected early-Republican apartment-blocks in order to emphasize the significance of conserving these modern housing heritage with their original use that will hopefully be a starting point for the adoption of similar approaches for the future of Ulus, and early-Republican apartment buildings in general.
1.3 Methodology of the Thesis
The thesis consists of four parts: conceptual background, understanding of the selected apartments with their context, assessing the buildings as modern heritage housing building-blocks, and the development of a conservation and use strategy and proposal for the buildings. To accomplish these parts of the thesis, the study was based upon different sources of information, which was obtained via literature review, archival study, and site study.
Figure 1.3. Schematic representation of the basic methodology (Author, 2022)
Literature review was conducted to gather information on the conceptual background and understanding the case and consist of books, journal articles, theses, international documents, newspapers, and magazines. For the first part of the thesis, the main topics of the literature review are definition and development of modern architecture heritage and its conservation, current discussion and projects on this topic and
7
conservation of modern heritage housing buildings. These reviews aim to provide a conceptual basis for the rest of the study. Literature review was also conducted for the early Republican Ankara and the evolution and transformation of Anafartalar Street and its surrounding.
Archival research was held to gather archival documents (maps, aerial photographs, architectural projects, registration documents) from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, Altındağ Municipality, and General Directorate of Mapping, VEKAM and Ankara Regional Conservation Council of Cultural Assets. This data was used to understand the case study and its larger context.
Lastly, a site study was conducted. Site study was composed of two scales, which are the case study of the four buildings and their nearby environment to understand the physical, functional, social aspects, and the dynamics of the area. In building scale, the four buildings were surveyed in site. The facades (Anafartalar Street, Mevsim Street and Konya Street facades) of the buildings documented by a laser scanner and 1/100 scale architectural drawings were made by the author. Since the interiors of the buildings cannot be scanned2, proportional sketches were made for the plans of the buildings. In addition, they were surveyed by analyzing their characteristic features, conditions, and changes in site. The material and problem analyses were made on the buildings’ drawings. As part of the site study, social survey was conducted through questionnaires with inhabitants and in-depth interviews with users and owners of the selected buildings to identify the needs and
2 It could not be entered with a laser scanner due to Covid and the stacks of items inside the buildings.
8
expectations of the inhabitants3. Four different types of social surveys were made on the site4 :
 Social survey with the users of surrounding buildings (42 surveys),
 Social survey with temporary users of the neighborhood (12 surveys),
 Interview with decision makers (conducted with Bekir Ödemiş, Head of Department of Conservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage, and Mustafa Kaymak, Director of Ankara Regional Board Directorate of the Conservation of Cultural Assets,),
 Interview with the owners/tenants of the selected buildings (5 interviews).
Table 1.1. Information Table of Surveys
Participants Number of Questions
Survey with Users of Selected Buildings
5 BLDG-A (GF) (owner) BLDG-B (GF) (tenant) BLDG-B (F1) (owner) BLDG-C (GF) (owner) BLDG-D (GF) (owner)
12
Survey with Users of Surrounding Buildings
42
14
Survey with Temporary Users of the Neighborhood
12
9
Interview with Decision Makers
2 Bekir Ödemiş (Head of Department of Conservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage) Mustafa Kaymak (Director of Ankara Regional Board Directorate of the Conservation of Cultural Assets)
5
3 This study was carried out by making use of the data of the survey study conducted within the scope of the street rehabilitation project for Anafartalar Street, which is currently ongoing, but in a wider area.
4 Permission from METU Applied Ethic Research Center was taken before the studies were conducted and permission was obtained from the people interviewed during these studies to benefit from their information.
9
After all the necessary information was gathered and processed, the assessment of the buildings was conducted. The values and the needs were determined considering the characteristics and dynamics of both the site and buildings together based on the requests of the inhabitants. Regarding those assessments and evaluations, a conservation and use strategies and proposal were developed to emphasize the values, to improve condition of the buildings, to ensure maintenance and continuous use, and to respond the current needs of the users and the area. As mentioned before, different user groups were identified for conservation proposals, which will allow the continuing use of these buildings as apartments in their entirety by a single group or by multiple groups with similar needs and expectations, which are:
People with disabilities /elderly people (multiple use),
White collars/public employees (multiple use),
Students (single use)
An extended family with their shop in ground floor (single use)
10
11
CHAPTER 2
2 CONSERVATION AND CONTINUING USE OF MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS
Developed on antiquity and monumental values, the field of conservation only embraced modern architectural structures as heritage starting from the 1990s. In time, two different ideas emerged, which are: adding a new approach to the existing conservation literature and using already established principles for the conservation of modern heritage. Currently, conservation methods and practices began to be studied in modern architectural heritage buildings with their own dynamics and characteristics (Baturayoğlu Yöney, 2016).
The conservation of residential buildings, which make up the majority of modern architectural structures and make it convenient to read the characteristics of the period and the changing daily life, as it includes life, is another issue that needs to be addressed.
In this part of the thesis, the modern architectural heritage and its conservation, housing structures as modern heritage and their conservation are mentioned, and finally, current practices and approaches are discussed.
2.1 Modern Heritage Buildings and Their Conservation
Industrial Revolution affected many fields and practices in the world, including architectural practice. Many technical, technological, and practical advancements were made after during this period. At the end of the 19th century, the changes began to bear fruit and Modern Architecture buildings began to be designed and constructed (Gültekin, 2017). Modern Architecture covers a long period starting from the
12
beginning of the 20th century until the end of 1970s, and therefore it covers variety of styles and architectural forms (Baturayoğlu Yöney, 2016).
As early as 1950s, however, due to new urban regulations and population growth in cities, some of the buildings of Modern Architecture movement started to be demolished not many years after their construction. In 1960s, some of the iconic works modern architecture sought to be protected and discussions about conserving modern structures has been started. After those discussions, some of the prominent examples of Modern Architecture started to be listed to ensure their protection. Unité d’Habitation by Le Corbusier, which is considered as one of the most iconic buildings of Modern Architecture, was registered in the 1960s (Figure 2.1.). Furthermore, in the middle of 1960s, Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye (Figure 2.2.) was claimed as a historical monument and was listed with the efforts of the French Minister of Cultural Affairs (Murphy, 2002). Discussions and awareness about the conservation of Modern Architecture had started, but this was progressing in a way that focused on the iconic structures of the period rather than being done with an order and strategy.
13
Figure 2.1.Unité d’habitation designed by Le Corbusier (Source: https://lecorbusier-worldheritage.org/en/unite-habitation/)
Figure 2.2. Villa Savoye, designed by Le Corbusier (Source: https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/140704)
14
The importance of modern heritage buildings was recognized only after they collapsed and became poor in terms of condition. Beginning in the 1970s, modern architectural heritage was acknowledged and classified as cultural property by professionals in the field, due to the destruction of several iconic buildings (Z. İ. Yılmaz, 2018). The destruction of a single building did not result in this outcome, but according to a number of authors, the destruction of separate structures marked the understanding and acceptance of modern heritage (E. E. Omay Polat, 2008).
Up until 1990s, only professionals were interested and were making effort about the conservation of modern heritage. But even among professionals, some differences of opinion began to emerge. In general, it can be said that there are two main views. One side argued that the previous conservation theory, strategies, and methods could be used to preserve the heritage of Modern Architecture. However, the other side argued that the modern architectural heritage was a new formation and needed specific conservation principles because they had different dynamics and character (E. E. Omay Polat & Can, 2008).
Modern architecture chose to be ordinary rather than magnificent and attempted to suit the social needs of the society since it is formed by socio-economic restrictions (Gültekin, 2017). So that it can be claimed it differs from the monumental structures in which the previous conservation concept was created, and it is difficult to adapt to this conservation concept (E. E. Omay Polat, 2008). However, on the other hand, the danger and risk of extinction of Modern Architecture works continued, so it was urgent to define a conservation definition and take action. When a built structure reaches the end of its lifespan, begins to deteriorate significantly, or is completely worn out, demolition is generally considered as an option. One of the most useful strategies for a building's survival has been to keep it functional and to maintain it constantly. For many years, this approach has been the focus of conservation theory and practice (Mason et al., 2002). Prior to the 18th century, the repairs that were undertaken did not have a completely developed conceptual infrastructure, but over
15
time, they were constructed on conservation practices, conceptual definitions, and legal requirements (Jokilehto, 1999).
After the second part of the 20th century, conservation has evolved into a fully developed field of study. In 1964, the Venice Charter was founded and the key conservation decisions employed today were defined (ICOMOS, 1964). In general, the charter of Venice expresses the following viewpoints:
The work has historical significance in addition to its artistic worth.
Other than monumental structures, conservation of all works that have thequality of documentation
The building to be conserved, the protection of building groups with asuitable function, and the conservation of the structure's integrity with itssurroundings
Conservation of monuments in their completeness
Giving conventional conservation approaches priority
Utilization of modern methodologies and documentation of their applications
Recognizing the annexes and keeping in mind that they have documentationvalue
Preserving monuments by evaluating them in relation with theirenvironment, as opposed to independence
Connecting each repair to scientific research and studies
No new structures may be constructed in archaeological locations;integration studies must be conducted based on the material excavated
Documentation of all phases of the project is crucial
The Venice Charter is a document that is still valid today. It has been accepted by law in many nations to preserve architectural history (Binan, 1999). Diverse working groups in various nations continue their efforts to establish criteria for the preservation and conservation of cultural heritage to future generations. It is quite challenging to suggest a general standardization while attempting to preserve the
16
uniqueness of each structure. However, internationally acknowledged standards are required to demonstrate the importance of conserving structures prior to their adoption and to highlight their values. The Burra Charter, created in 1979, is one of the documents in which the value system is presented. Within the context of socio-cultural traditional values, criteria such as historical values, cultural-symbolic value, social value, religious value, and aesthetic value were established. The charter also highlights the importance of ‘adaptation’ and ‘compatible use’ that are crucial for the conservation of cultural significance of heritage places (Australia ICOMOS, 2013).
In the twenty-first century, modern constructions began to be conserved and the value system began to be re-evaluated. With the existing criteria, it was impossible to determine which, how, and why these modern structures would be protected, and challenges were encountered with their protection and conservation procedures (Güner, 2010). Consequently, the discussions focused on new criteria and how to standardize them. The maintenance of the modern buildings, as in the original, and its contemporary appearance needed the material's ongoing replenishment. Consequently, the boundaries of originality were examined alongside the conservation requirements of them, and efforts were made to establish additional conservation criteria for modern constructions (Güner, 2010).
DOCOMOMO (International working party for Documentation and Conservation of buildings, sites and neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement5) is the first organization that is dedicated to conserve and preserve Modern Architecture. It was founded in 1988. The non-governmental organization with headquarters in the Netherlands has enabled the conservation of numerous modern architectural heritages not only in the region where it was created, but all across the world.6 In
5 Retrieved from https://docomomo.com/organization/
6 Retrieved from https://docomomo.com/
17
1993, DOCOMOMO established and published standards for the conservation of modern architectural heritage. It is stated by DOCOMOMO that, modern heritage consists of structures with no historical allusions and having modern design ideas based on utility, technique, or spatial conditions rather than embellishment and decoration (Gültekin, 2017). This definition was useful for taking action and starting some discussions. There are two types of defined values: basic criterion and complimentary criterion. The basic criteria define technological value, social value, artistic and aesthetic value (Güner, 2010). However, it should be taken into account that modern architectural products can also vary from region to culture and from culture to culture, and with this definition, these changes were put into the background (E. E. Omay Polat, 2008). Today, DOCOMOMO is the leading institution for the conservation and discussion of modern architectural structures.
One of the most recent guidelines for the conservation of modern heritage is the “Approaches for the Conservation of Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage, Madrid Document 2011”. It was prepared by the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee for Twentieth Century Heritage (ISC20C) in 2011. Document proposes the steps to be taken into consideration in the conservation process of modern heritage places, which includes the identification and assessment of cultural significance, which is composed of their physical location, design, construction systems and technical equipment, fabric, aesthetic quality and use, and intangible values as well as interiors, fittings, associated furniture and art works (ISC20C, 2017).
Moreover, the document highlights the adoption of a “cautious approach to change”, which should be “as much as is necessary and as little as possible” (ISC20C, 2017). Similarly, the document cautions about the extent and depth of change, including the functional change, which can damage the historic materials and cultural significance. Therefore, continuing the use of or finding appropriate and least invasive reuse strategies for their conservation is a significant concern for modern heritage places (ISC20C, 2017).
18
The conservation of modern heritage is handled in a slightly different manner in Turkey. Buildings from the 20th century in Turkey are not only notable for their architecture but also for the political role they played in the country at the time. The “Law on the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property " was officially put into action in the year 19837. This law, which is still valid today, does not include any article on modern heritage as a cultural heritage type, but it does include information regarding the buildings that were constructed during the Republican Period (E. Omay Polat, 2008).
Many different protection criteria have been established in the laws in order to recognize cultural assets and guarantee that they are safeguarded. However, there is not a single legal law that specifies a rating system or criterion for modern heritage (E. Omay Polat, 2008).
Even though protection can be provided more easily in public buildings in comparison to other building types, structures that are no longer in use are at risk of demolishment. As an instance, one may consider residences that are not up to standard with the levels of ease and comfort that are prominent nowadays. The Turkey DOCOMOMO Working Group8, which has been active in the conservation of modern heritage since 2002 when it first began its operations, is particularly efficient in its work. Because of the value of the buildings, their listing on the list of cultural heritage that should be preserved is warranted.
In Turkey, the Early Republican Period buildings, which were created with the post-war ideology, began to be registered in the 1970s, taking into account the political and architectural values of the structures. This was done despite the fact that there were gaps in the law and policy decisions at the time. The percentage of public buildings that have been registered is relatively high, particularly in Ankara. The
7 https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.2863.pdf
8 http://www.docomomo-tr.org/
19
cultural property protection boards are responsible for making the decisions about the conservation of the buildings (E. Omay Polat, 2008). However, essential conservation can be offered by educating administrators and the general public about the importance of conservation. In spite of the high registration rates, comprehensive and well-planned conservation efforts are not currently being implemented for modern heritage places in Turkey. As a result, the modern urban tissue of cities, and modern heritage buildings that comprise this urban tissue will gradually decay because of this. The conservation of these modern structures should be related to a process, and decisions on conservation should be made in accordance with an assessment method created regardless of the personal perspectives of committee members and politicians.
2.2 Housing Buildings/Interwar Apartments as Modern Heritage Buildings
In modern housing, education, health, industry, sports, and entertainment systems, new typologies have emerged as a result of social requirements. However, residential structures comprise the great majority of modern constructions, which serve as the basis for the modern way of life.
The residential architecture of the era is broken down into three distinct categories by Prudon (2008): single-family homes, suburban developments, and multi-story residential complexes. These descriptions are based on the advancements that have taken place in the United States of America; nevertheless, one may argue that many industrialized countries share some of the elements that are fundamental to residential architecture (Prudon, 2008, p. 2).
During the 1920s, new architectural products included not only of physical space fictions but also of several social and cultural challenges. This discourse centered on the necessity for good settlement and housing, particularly after the world's major conflicts. In 1928, following the conference held in La Sarraz, Switzerland, CIAM (Congres Internationale D'architecture Moderne) was founded as a community that
20
adopted and sought to disseminate this new concept. In general, CIAM members discussed contemporary urban issues and examples from throughout the world during meetings. Between 1928 and 1956, the CIAM organized numerous meetings that centered on the interaction between housing and city in the formation of healthy human settlements. (Gold, 2007).
Modern architectural discourse's sensitive approach has raised the topic of healthy and comfortable housing for all. Since shelter is one of the fundamental human necessities, the subject of housing, whose primary function is to provide shelter, and its associated issues have been addressed in a variety of ways since the beginning of humankind (Gold, 2007). Housing, the smallest unit in which a person can continue his vital activities, has been one of architecture's fundamental topics. Corbusier often stated that the primary function of design is to provide appropriate and healthy housing, and he focused on housing and urban interactions. (Corbusier, 2013).
As an important part of the modern era, during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, the construction of apartment buildings, inter-war flat structures, took place. They have a height of two or more storeys and contain two or more individual residential units in each building. The apartment buildings that were constructed during the Inter-War period give us a sense of both our history and our cultural identity, and they also make a significant contribution to the personality of the neighbourhood in which they are located.
Although there was a great deal of stylistic variety in housing architecture throughout the interwar period, the housing types themselves were made much more uncomplicated. During the time between the wars, the most common forms of residential construction were apartment buildings and villas. The villas were held by the privileged class, and because there were no government-run initiatives to alleviate the housing shortage, the rental property market expanded, and a new style of dwelling came into existence as a result. These same wealthy residents also
21
invested in apartment complexes that would be rented out to those from the middle class (Dragutinovic et al., 2017, p. 4).
Figure 2.3. Inter-war architecture, From left to right, 1933; Apartment blocks in Dositejeva, 1937; Francuska, 1937; Svetogorska, 1938; and Bosanska Street in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1940 (Blagojević, 2003)
In terms of the year the building was constructed, the authenticity, and the integrity of the structure, there are not universally recognized and standardized assessment standards that may be used to identify modern housing structures as heritage structures. Despite this, Historic England (2017) has issued a guideline regarding the selection criteria for modern properties that can be added to the registry. Specific issues are outlined according to the many categories of contemporary housing, which include Modernist and inter-war houses, and Arts and Crafts Movement houses.
However, the degree of the design's survival, the levels of alterations, the influence of the design, and its good representation as a part of housing development are stated as key considerations. The guideline also expresses the difficulty of establishing listing criteria, particularly for inter-war housing (Historic England, 2017). The criteria for housing settlements include a comprehensive approach with low rise developed projects and innovative spatial design, the balance of individual spaces and connected common areas, and the integration of aspects of both the built environment and the natural environment. It has been said that the replacement of windows or doors, for example, is not a significant issue, despite the fact that it is believed to be essential to preserve the original layout and components of the
22
building. This is because such changes do not have an impact on the building's personality as a whole. The concept of "group value" can also be understood as an additional factor to take into account when discussing housing settlements in a broader context. This is due to the fact that numerous buildings can be considered to be part of a group and can each possess a unique characteristic (Historic England, 2017).
Because these structures had begun to physically deteriorate, and the need for documentation, reuse, restoration, and demolition of these structures began to come into question, the perception of cultural property in modern housing has actually been defined as an international issue, especially since the 1980s. This is because these structures had begun to wear down physically, and the question of whether or not they should be demolished began to arise. This argument has also taken place over the iconic residences, which are also the means of exhibition and display, if we look at the instances that have been represented in the media (E. Omay Polat, 2014, p. 57).
Over the course of more than a century, the user expectations in built environments have seen dramatic and rapid shifts in terms of sizes, comfort standards, and utilities. This has led to the depreciation of modern architecture on the grounds that it is inadequate and out of date. Numerous contemporary residential structures have already been modified through the inclusion of later expansions, renovation through the changes of materials and elements, which render the original design unintelligible (Tülce, 2018, p. 5). These alterations further led to the desire for irreversible adjustments and demolitions, which are more obvious and more alarming in the case of modern residential architecture due to the simplicity with which radical interventions may be made in comparison to the construction of other types of buildings. As a result, contemporary residential architecture runs the risk of becoming obsolete, being abandoned, being demolished, and having insufficient potential for adequate re-use. Due to a lack of identification and awareness, the absence of comprehensive legislative rules, insufficient technical knowledge and
23
experience, as well as speculations of real estate, the conservation of modern residential architecture is problematic in the midst of such irreversible threats (Tülce, 2018, p. 5).
2.3 Conservation of Modern Apartment Buildings
In the process of modernity, as a means of understanding, explaining, and exhibiting the modern, the house was the object of discussion of basic approaches throughout the century; however, by the end of the century, this time protecting the modern house became the object of discussions (E. Omay Polat, 2014, p. 56).
One of the places where changes and transformations can be read best is housing and residential settlements. It carries the period in which the users live, the characteristics of the period, the conditions and the clues of the next period. Therefore, the study of residential spaces is an important research area that needs to be addressed. Since residential spaces are for individual use and private property, they are the spaces most open to change with individual interventions (E. Omay Polat, 2014). Especially in this period when urban mobility is intense, it is an important agenda that housing settlements are handled by individuals or institutions and exposed to various interventions.
For a period, residential structures keep their character and value, but in time, it is necessary for them to undergo routine repairs. When maintenance and repairs are performed at the appropriate times, even small damage and deterioration are prevented from developing into large and expensive restoration issues. Environments that are deteriorating pose a variety of significant challenges to the continued structural integrity of period buildings. The most efficient and cost-effective strategy for preventing the deterioration of significant building fabric is to perform routine inspections and maintenance on the structure. When problems are addressed as soon as they are recognized, additional deterioration or damage can be avoided (Waverly Council, 2017, p. 13).
24
In terms of preserving or re-associating the urban identity, housing and residential structures that talk about the past and past life are the types of buildings that have the most difficulty in protection or intervention studies because they belong to a single person or family in terms of property. There is also the problem of high number of housing buildings representing the modern architecture, therefore, the selection and the question of what to preserve emerge as crucial issues (E. Omay Polat, 2014).
Regarding the concept of uniqueness, it is desired to preserve original knowledge on the materials used and the craftsmanship of a structure built during the 16th and 17th centuries. This is due to the significance of antiquity and singularity. During this time period, we are discussing a process in which new materials are evaluated, while certain buildings continue to employ historically significant materials. On the other hand, circumstances in which the originality of the design is emphasized are evaluated differently. When examining the conservation decisions made for the structures or the method in which these decisions were implemented, the hierarchical relationship between the design data and the original material is altered. (E. Omay Polat, 2014, p. 59).
Through the Council of Europe, European countries have introduced a new policy and implementation organization that goes by the name of "integrated protection." These countries have said that only this model is capable of satisfying the requirements of the current generation (E. E. Omay Polat, 2008).
In the Amsterdam Declaration (1975), it is stated that the concept of cultural heritage protection does not only mean the protection of monuments, but also that it would be correct to consider buildings and neighborhoods with residential buildings as a whole with their historical and cultural values.9 And when it is evaluated that most
9 http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_en0458431001536681780.pdf
25
of the neighborhoods are composed of modern housing structures and reflecting the changing modern life, this argument is supported.
After the 1980s, there has been a marked increase in the number of discussions on the conservation of architectural artifacts that were constructed in more recent times. In particular, there were challenges in protecting housing and residential areas from danger. Since the 1990s, a number of different groups have been founded with the intention of preserving and documenting the modern period structures. One of these organizations, DOCOMOMO (Documentation and Conservation of Modern Movement), has been working with a variety of events and publications at both the national and international levels in order to raise awareness about the viability of modern architectural heritage. Additionally, within the scope of these studies, inventories of modern architectural products have been created at both the local and international levels. A number of studies have been carried out with the goal of locating and elucidating the architectural creations of the modernist era, together with the social, technical, and aesthetic components of those structures (Cooke & Sharp, 2000; E. E. Omay Polat, 2008).
In the early 2000s, the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Twentieth- Century Heritage (ISC20C) was established. The committee aimed to focus on twentieth-century heritage by endorsing the Madrid Document. It is crucial that the Madrid Document be translated into more than ten languages and shared with the international and national communities, and that the proposal is revised for more comprehensive versions, so this effort is a result of the need for an international proposal for 20th century architectural heritage. The early work of ISC20C aimed to raise awareness of issues related to modern heritage by revealing different genres, contexts and epochs on a global scale. Indeed, these studies included a global survey aimed at identifying various problems and challenges of modern heritage sites in different parts of the world (Burke, 2007).
26
Today, the definition of architectural heritage includes not only high-quality buildings and their surroundings, but also all urban and rural areas with historical and cultural characteristics. Housing structures are also an important part of this. The problem of protection of modern architectural products, which many countries have to face, should not be considered as a marginal problem, but as the main target of city and country planning. Görgülü (2007) mentions three stages of protection: 'awareness', 'adopting' and 'protection'. It is important for people to be aware of the city they live or visit and to create a protection instinct by adopting it. (Görgülü, 2007).
Since the early 2000s, the issue of how to properly conserve modern architecture has been an important topic of discussion in the field of conservation and architecture, both on a global scale and in Turkey. Housing, when viewed in the context of its relationship with modernity, actually does a pretty good job of describing the conservation issues that are unique to this time period. Housing served as an exhibiting instrument throughout the process of modernization, which aimed to comprehend, express, and develop the modern. In the course of the 20th century, fundamental approaches were debated over illustrative instances of housing, and by the end of that century, the topic of conserving modern housing had made its way onto the discourse of the field of conservation (E. Omay Polat, 2014, p. 56).
The fact that preserving Turkey's modern heritage is much more difficult than preserving the country's traditional historical textures and monumental structures is due to the fact that modern heritage is neither historical nor monumental. This deficiency is what makes preserving Turkey's modern heritage much more difficult. In order for protection measures, such as registration applications, to be finalized, new legislative requirements will need to be established. Despite the fact that the 19th century threshold in the conservation legislation can be exceeded with reference to the memory and document value of the modern cultural property to be registered and the criterion of direct witnessing to the founding period of the Republic, it ought to be a priority to give the 20th century the historical value it deserves. When taking
27
into account the factors pertaining to rent, it does not appear to be an easy task to ensure the unprotected nature of the houses that are included in the products of civil architecture (Balamir, 2014, p. 44).
The lack of public empathy for modern housing buildings, shifting standards of environmental regulations, fluctuating land values, and the use of modern building materials with limited life spans are some of the current conservation issues. Additionally, it is possible to specify that in order to prevent radical changes, replacements, or demolition of the property, the building should be beneficial to its owner, and conservation efforts should be described in accordance with this principle (Rich, 2017, p. 123).
There are encouraging conservation strategies and projects focused on modern residential architecture that have a crucial role to play in producing theoretical and, most importantly, practical knowledge on the issue. These strategies and projects have the potential to raise awareness of the problem and contribute to the production of knowledge. The Getty Conservation Institute has published conservation management plans of specific houses from the modern era such as Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie House. These plans generally elaborate on the following topics: introduction about the case, historical development and physical evidences, comparative studies, evaluation of the significance of cultural heritage, conservation policies and implementations (Havinga et al., 2020, p. 8).
This effort was made because there was a need for an international proposal for the architectural heritage of the 20th century. As a result of this need, the Madrid Document was translated into more than ten languages and shared with international and national communities. Additionally, the proposal was revised for more comprehensive versions. It is possible to say that the initial works of ISC20C (the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Twentieth Century Heritage) were intended to raise awareness of the issues related with the modern heritage by revealing various types, contexts, and periods on a global scale (Burke, 2007, p. 145).
28
According to the Madrid Document, change is an essential component of the conservation process. This involves taking into account the unavoidable shifts that occur in day-to-day use, and it also suggests that, in some instances, new interventions and additions may be required to ensure that a historic building can continue to be used (ISC20C ICOMOS, 2017).
The conservation actions of the heritage of Modern Architecture and Modern Residential Architecture includes approaches that involve different levels of intervention, from the reconstruction in accordance with the original design principles to the maximum conservation of the original material (Vural & Sağıroğlu, 2022, p. 756).
The work of groups such as Getty Institute, Iconic Houses, and Corbusier Foundation can be examined as international examples of the conservation of modern residential heritage structures.
Several buildings by Frank Lloyd Wright10 and Le Corbusier11 have been selected as world heritage sites. Among them, there are also residential buildings that these architects frequently designed.
The Molitor Apartment, built in 1934, designed by Le Corbusier, is an important example of conservation of residential apartment buildings. The building, of which Le Corbusier was also a user, is on the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage list. The building, which carries all the basic design principles of Le Corbusier, has been very late in being protected due to multiple ownership (Vural & Sağıroğlu, 2022, p. 758). The apartment, which belongs to Le Corbusier, whose restoration work started in 2015, now serves as a museum house. The building, which has had insulation problems since the time it was built, has been found to have problems such as humidity, shedding in the coatings and metal corrosion. The main problem is which
10 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1496/
11 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1321/
29
period will be taken as a reference in the conservation project to be prepared for the problems. The originality of the color, material and texture changes in the building and interior design, which has been used by Le Corbusier for 30 years and on which interventions have been made, is discussed. As a result, later interventions have been preserved as a product of Le Corbusier's creative mind and a part of his design approaches. 12
12 http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/
30
Figure 2.4. Molitor Apartment, designed by Le Corbusier and e Pierre Jeanneret. Retrieved from https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/09/le-corbusier-immeuble-molitor-housing-paris-provides-residents-sky-trees-steel-concrete-unesco-world-heritage-list/
31
Another example is the Hufeisensiedlung (Horseshoe Campus), designed by Bruno Taut in collaboration with Martin Wagner, Leberecht Migge and Ottokar Wagler. It was built in Berlin between 1925-1933.
Figure 2.5. Aerial view of the Hufeisensiedlung (Aygün Aşık, 2017, p. 25)
The buildings, which was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2008 as one of the six modern residential settlements in Berlin, is still used as a residence today. Ongoing maintenance after extensive restoration has ensured that this housing estate can continue to be used. For the continuous maintenance to be done, informative booklets have been prepared and the changes that can be made are limited.13.
13 http://andberlin.com
32
Since the legislation in Turkey has not made a decision to protect the modern architectural heritage, the number of registered modern architectural structures is quite low.
When we look at the characteristics of the registered buildings, it is seen that the symbolic structures or the structures that are the first ones dominate. Therefore, there are difficulties in registration of jointly owned apartment buildings or cooperative settlements, which can be considered anonymous (Vural & Sağıroğlu, 2022, p. 765).
In Turkey, a modern architectural heritage residential area that has been on the agenda with intense discussions lately is the Saraçoğlu Neighborhood. The design of the housing area built for senior civil servants in Ankara Kızılay as Turkey's first mass housing project dated 1945-48 belongs to the architect Paul Bonatz. The area was designated as an urban conservation site in 1973.14 Recently, however, the area was declared an area under disaster risk and excluded from the scope of protection (Tanrıverdi, 2012).
Figure 2.6. Saraçoğlu Neighborhood (Tanrıverdi, 2012, p. 131)
14 https://korumakurullari.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/41321,ankara-envanter.pdf?0
33
Figure 2.7. Saraçoğlu Neighborhood (2012) (Tanrıverdi, 2012, p. 131)
Despite years of objections and legal struggle, construction works have started in the region. In the project, where it is stated that the existing structures will be preserved, 120 residences, 92 commercial offices, 212 offices and 5 hotel structures will be built within the scope of new construction in the region. Another modern architectural heritage residence campus built in Ankara in the same period is Yenimahalle residences. However, due to the absence of a conservation decision for the region, only 81 of the 2902 houses in the region have survived. These structures are also in a very different situation from their original state with many unqualified interventions (R. C. Yılmaz & Sağıroğlu, 2020, p. 312).
When the world and Turkey are evaluated in general, it can be argued that there are still problems about the documentation and registration process of modern housing structures to the process of preparing and implementing a restoration project. It can be stated that there is a registration problem in these structures due to their high
34
number. In conservation projects, these buildings are usually converted into museums, cultural centers or luxury residences like in Saraçoğlu Neigbourhood. Although these buildings reflect the life and style of the period as residences, it is not very common as an approach to conserve them by sustaining their own function.
35
CHAPTER 3
3 MODERN HOUSING BUILDINGS IN ANKARA AND EARLY REPUBLICAN APARTMENTS ALONG MEVSIM STREET
A group of Early-Republican residential buildings is considered as modern heritage buildings within the scope of the thesis. The buildings are located in Ulus, the historic city center of the capital city, Ankara. So, the location of the buildings and the surrounding context and its character is also standing as a very important aspects in terms of developing conservation strategies for those buildings. Ulus was a very important district both for Ankara and Turkey in general, in the Republican Period. The district became the first city center of the Ankara and in Ulus the buildings as examples of modern architecture were constructed. Both residential buildings and commercial buildings were placed in Ulus. However, in time, the density of commercial uses has increased, and Ulus is currently a dilapidated center for trade and commercial needs in Ankara.
3.1 Ankara, Capital of the Republic of Turkey
Ankara has hosted many civilizations in the historical process. There is no definite information about the establishment of the city of Ankara. However, the prehistoric traces found in the researches in the region prove that the city has been a permanent settlement area since the Palaeolithic age, and traces of some of these settlements still exist (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2018; Kartal, 2005, p. 60).
The idea of moving the capital of the Ottoman Empire from Istanbul to an Anatolian city began to be discussed unofficially between individuals since the 1910s. However, the convenient location of Istanbul, its prestigious historical past, the population of millions living in the city and the pro-Western view of the members of
36
the empire prevented the idea of relocating the capital from being officially put forward (Kartal, 2005). Mustafa Kemal’s departure to Samsun in 1919 in order to establish a state based on national sovereignty was the first step taken in the process of Ankara becoming the capital.
In the congresses held in various periods in Anatolia, it was argued that the capital function should be separated from Istanbul and moved to an Anatolian city, and that Istanbul, which is the symbol of the sultanate and caliphate institutions, could not fulfill its functions when it was occupied. Moving the headquarters of the House of Representatives to Ankara on December 27, 1919 was an important factor in the transfer of the capital function to Ankara (Akçura, 1971). The factors such as proximity to the fronts, especially the Aegean front, proximity to Istanbul, the newly established parliament, the existing road and railway system in transportation, and proximity to the physical center of the country to be managed were effective in the election of Ankara.
Although Ankara became the capital of the country unofficially after 27 December 1919, it became the administrative center of all military and civil administration over time. With the official occupation of Istanbul by the Allied Powers as of March 16, 1920, the Assembly became inoperable and this situation caused Ankara to become the administrative center of the country (Akçura, 1971). With the convening of the Grand Assembly of Turkey on April 23, 1920, and the adoption of the first constitution on January 20, 1921, the capital of Ankara was registered, and from now on, Mustafa Kemal continued his efforts to establish the Republic here.
After the successful end of the War of Independence, on 13 October 1923, the law proposal stating "The Turkish State's Makarri Administration is the City of Ankara" was accepted as a constitutional provision and thus Ankara was declared the legal capital of the Republic of Turkey (Akçura, 1971).
The fact that Ankara is the capital is a political decision beyond its physical strategic features. By establishing the capital of the modern Republic, the new administration
37
wanted to show that it had a completely different identity from the old administration (Kartal, 2005).
While Istanbul was the symbol of the Ottoman view, the transition to Central Anatolia, to Ankara, became the symbol of the radical, revolutionary new government. A lot of effort was put into the establishment of Ankara and its transformation into a modern city. In the history pages of 19th century Ankara, it is described as a "poor, dusty, malaria and thirsty" or "narrow street, outdated timber house", "uniquely unpleasant" Anatolian settlement. For this reason, Ankara, as the “first republican city created out of nothing”, became the indicator of the success of the new government and the republican regime (Batur, 2007).
3.2 Formation of Residential Areas and Modern Housing Buildings in Ankara, Ulus
The housing problem in Ankara, which dates back to the years of the War of Independence, increased a lot, especially after the Republic and its capital. According to the Statistical Yearbook dated 1931-1932, in 1927, excluding the agricultural sector, approximately 50% of the working population in Ankara consisted of military and civilian bureaucrats appointed after the Republic of Turkey (Nalbantoğlu, 1984). This issue has always had a multidimensional importance for Ankara as an issue that both needs to be resolved and guides its development.
Towards the end of the 1920s, several types of housing can be mentioned in Ankara. The first of these is the traditional residence in and around the Castle; the second is Ankara's four-five-floor, ornate, expensive, first rent apartments; the other is the garden house type, discrete order civil servants' residences. Old Ankara is lively day and night, while the new districts where the third species is found have taken on a silence (Tankut, 1993).
38
Figure 3.1. Ulus, Anafartalar Street. (Sağdıç, 1993)
Although the first multi-storey housing examples/apartments built in Ankara were built by the public, they were generally built by individuals and especially in Ulus, the commercial center of the period (Avcı Hosanlı, 2018). Since the land prices in Ulus were very high and the Condominium Ownership Law had not been adopted yet, building an apartment required high costs, and therefore, living in an apartment, especially in an apartment in Ulus, was considered a symbol of prestige (Nalbantoğlu, 1984).
Except for a few apartments that were built by the state's famous architects, most of these buildings were built by master builders, not architects. In accordance with the accepted architectural style of the period, Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian masters generally worked on the decorations of these structures, which were shaped according to the common taste of the owner, builder and workers. Of course, the current state of building technology was also influential in the formation of new buildings. The 1929 World Economic Crisis and the limited domestic capital did not allow a suitable environment for construction activities. Construction materials such as cement and steel continued to be imported on an increasing scale until the 1930s
39
due to the inadequacy of the industry in this regard. But despite all these negativities, Ankara continued to lead the way in housing construction (Nalbantoğlu, 1984).
Figure 3.2. 1929 Anafartalar Street, Ulus. (Cangır, 2007)
When examined in terms of architectural features, in accordance with the general approach of the period, the facades of the apartments were given more importance than their plans. It was accepted that the wealth of the owner of the building was directly proportional to the wealth and decorations of the façades. Although there was not yet a standard approach in terms of plan features, service spaces were generally gathered around a shaft, and rooms of more or less equal size opened onto a hall or corridor (Avcı Hosanlı & Altan, 2018).
40
Figure 3.3. Photograph of Foto Apartment, Seyfi Arkan, 1935 (Aslanoğlu, 2001)
In the 1930s, Ankara maintained its rapid development, which led to an increase in the city's population as well as the need for housing, which eventually became an issue. Ankara, Ulus continued to be a priority during this time period despite the fact that construction operations in the country were relatively constrained as a result of the consequences of the 1929 World Economic Crisis and the unfavorable conditions of the local market. Even though progress was slow, construction and zoning operations proceeded uninterrupted throughout the entire process. However, as a result of high prices and challenges in sourcing materials, the demand for housing could not be completely satisfied, and it remained one of Ankara's most important concerns during this time period. The areas of Ulus Square, Çıkrıkçılar Hill, and Saman Bazaar had the highest land prices, and rental values were often very high in these areas as well. Because of this, even the basements, attics, and garages of apartments that were constructed with individual investments have begun to be rented out as houses after undergoing only minor renovations (Nalbantoğlu, 1984, p. 260).
41
The vast majority of the residences that were built during that time period in the nation were designed by local architects, and with a few notable exceptions, every single one of them was created in accordance with the principles of the International Architectural Movement. Despite the fact that there are single- and two-story homes, the most common type of dwelling during this time period was the apartment, which might display a variety of characteristics depending on the city in which it was situated. Apartments in Ankara were mostly rented by civil servants, hence the floor plans were on the smaller side (Aslanoğlu, 2001, pp. 79–80). During this time, there was a shift toward a different kind of family structure. Today, the nuclear family best represents what is meant by the terms "modern family" and "modern life," and the apartment serves as the primary dwelling unit for nuclear families (Gürallar, 1999, pp.119).
The following are characteristics that are typical of these apartments:
- Semi-detached or attached on both sides to neighboring buildings,
- Narrow and dense apartment blocks,
- Separate spaces for separate functions like restrooms, bathrooms and kitchen,
- Having architectural elements such as towers, projections, arched doors and windows (Avcı Hosanlı, 2018, pp. 137–138).
One more characteristic of these structures is that their occupants, rather than being the owner of the property, are now tenants in the building. This circumstance was reflected in the space, which consisted of more than one apartment on each floor and smaller apartments overall. Additionally, it was also around this time that the rooms began to differentiate themselves in terms of their functions. Previously, rooms of roughly equivalent size had been arranged side by side. On the other hand, when the building facades of this time are compared to those of the previous one, it is clear that the significant change that has been noticed is not being reflected in the plans at this rate (Nalbantoğlu, 1984).
42
3.3 Current State of the Ulus, Anafartalar Region
In this section, current state of the urban context, Ulus Anafartalar area is explained. While analyzing the current state, it is important to approach the building with its context. Because the urban scale of the buildings is effect the buildings in both long and short terms and any conservation decision and strategy should be designed considering both upper and building scale.
The upper scale which is the area including Anafartalar Street and Konya Street in Ulus were analyzed in terms of social and economic structure, current functions with considering current residential areas and physical aspects.
Figure 3.4. Map showing the location of the selected buildings, context of the buildings and important constructions around them. (1) II. TBMM, (2) I. TBMM, (3) 100.Yıl Çarşısı, (4) Ulus Square and Ulus Atatürk Statue, (5) Ulus Çarşısı, (6) Anafartalar Çarşısı, (7) Former Municipal Building, (8) Ulus Hali, (9) Suluhan, (10) Former Courthouse Building, (11) Anatolian Civilizations Museum, (12) Erimtan Museum, (13) Rahmi Koç Museum, (14) Ankara Castle, (15) A.B.B Hisar Park, (16) Gençlik Parkı
43
Figure 3.5. Map showing the relevant boundaries around the region. Prepared by Sıla Elaslan on the base map achieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (2022).
The Ulus region is an urban area that hosts many activities at the same time, maintains its social and cultural diversity, and adapts the physical space in line with its uses. Throughout its history, the region has always served as a center where different uses such as housing and trade come together, and its relationship with the environment has developed and changed accordingly.
44
Figure 3.6. Map showing the transportation network and elements of the region. Prepared by Sıla Elaslan on the base map achieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (2022)
Ankara started to be built around Ulus in its historical development, and continued its development in Yenişehir with a new focus in the south of the railway in the Republican Period. As a result of the developments that started around this new focal point of the city, Ankara has grown and developed with its two-focused structure formed by Ulus and Kızılay. Ulus, which generally serves the areas where the lower-income urban residents live, and the Kızılay, which functions as the center of the higher-income areas, and Atatürk Boulevard, which connects the Ministries,
45
undertook the biggest burden in transportation as the backbone of the city. Despite the fact that the two centers, separated by the railway, could not unite physically, they began to function as a single center with different specialized functions as a result of the increasing strength of both centers. During the intervening period, while Ulus traditional city center functions, which had a slower development rate, were loaded, modern functions were replaced by Kızılay-Tunalı-G.O.P. located on the axis.
Atatürk Boulevard-Çankırı Avenue, Talat Paşa Boulevard, Bentderesi Avenue; It is one of the main axes of Ankara. Ulucanlar Street, Anafartalar Street, Kevgirli Street, Adnan Saygun Street, Istiklal Street, Cumhuriyet Street and Denizciler Street are the second-degree main roads that connect Ulus to the city with these transportation axes or enable the city and its citizens to reach Ulus easily. Industry Street, Government Street, Şehit Teğmen Kalmaz Street, Hisar Park Street, Çiçek Street-Ada Street, Hacı Bayram Veli Street, which are connected to these streets and where vehicle-pedestrian transportation continues to exist together and in an inseparable way, can also be defined as third-degree roads.
Public Transportation to Ulus is provided by buses and minibuses. Although the Kızılay-Batikent Subway Ulus station is not in a position to provide direct service to Ulus Historical City Center, it is an important access element.
The development of Ulus as a central business area for low- and middle-income groups has also paved the way for the widespread development of minibus-dolmus-based applications in transportation. Thus, minibuses gained their current effectiveness in establishing the transportation connection of Ulus with almost all of Ankara. Ulus-ended minibus lines operate depending on the terminal areas located in various parts of the Ulus region. Lines coming from the east and north of the city use the two terminal points on Bentderesi Street. The lines coming from the northwest of the city end in the Rüzgârlı Sokak area, the lines coming from the west of the city end at the terminal areas on Istanbul Street, and the lines coming from the
46
south and southwest end at the terminals established on Denizciler Caddesi and Sıhhiye. These terminal areas are usually on the edges of Ulus historic district. These locations make it difficult to reach many points of the region on foot from these areas. Some of the minibus lines enter the inner areas via some connections such as Anafartalar Caddesi, Sanayi Caddesi and Adnan Saygun Caddesi and use the streets and streets as terminals. Some minibus lines, on the other hand, use the Kevgirli Sokak-Anafartalar Caddesi-Gükümet Caddesi-Şehir Keskin Sokak-Uluçınar Sokak route to reach Bentderesi Caddesi, and drop their passengers irregularly at the Anafartalar Caddesi-Gükümet Caddesi junction.
Among the public transportation vehicles serving Ulus, there are also EGO buses and vehicles of different private bus operators. The buses of EGO and private sector operators serve on different routes in the same corridors. While minibuses are not allowed to use Atatürk Boulevard, the bus lines of public and private operators are concentrated in the main corridors. Since the main corridors use many bus lines, there are many intermediate and head stops, especially at the road connections in the triangle of Atatürk Boulevard, Istanbul Street and Cumhuriyet Street.
Six separate rail system lines with different technical characteristics are operated in Ankara, and the construction of two rail system lines continues. Although none of the rail system lines that are operated and under construction do not have a station in the central Ulus area, the Ulus stop of the M1 Batıkent Kızılay metro and the ASKİ stop of the M4 Keçiören-AKM metro are the closest rail system stops to the center of Ulus. Ulus Historical City Center is a center that can be accessed by public transportation to a large extent, but there are also intense pedestrian movements in certain regions and at certain times of the day in this area. Especially Ulus Square, Hacı Bayram Square, Hergele Square, Samanpazarı and Çerkez Street are the areas where pedestrian movements are evident. In addition to the transportation features summarized above, there are problems that limit accessibility due to the inadequacy
47
of road cross-sections, lack of parking, and pedestrian-vehicle confusion caused by the lack of traffic education15.
The distribution of residential areas in the Ulus Historical City Center Urban Protected Area varies according to the neighbourhoods. This difference is due to the fact that a large part of the area has assumed the function of the Central Business Area (CBD). Therefore, the fields of activity, which are gradually expanding by transforming residential areas, are also destroying the original housing texture. The interventions to the structures, therefore to the region and textures, caused the loss of important cultural assets.
It is seen that most of the residential areas in the Anafartalar region are located on the ground floors and 1st floors. It would be correct to say that there are many buildings that remain vacant despite the residential areas being used as residences. Empty dwellings are generally residential areas that are not suitable for use as dwellings sandwiched between workplaces. Since a significant part of the neighborhood is reserved for the use of workplaces, it can be said that the proportional sizes do not correspond to the aerial sizes, and in this respect, the residential areas are relatively few in the Anafartalar region.
15 It has been written based on the information collected within the scope of TÜMAŞ A.Ş. Anafartalar Street, Street Rehabilitation and Urban Design Projects.
48
Figure 3.7. The former distribution of residential and commercial use in the region (Author based on base map retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, 2022).
49
Figure 3.8. The current distribution of residential and commercial use in the region (Author based on base map retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, 2022).
3.4 Selected Apartment-blocks along Mevsim Street, Ulus
The four adjacent apartment-blocks are located on Mevsim Street, in between Anafartalar Street and Konya Street. Despite the fact that there is not a conservation development plan for the area (transition period protection principles are applied) (Öztürk, 2019), the buildings are within the boundaries of the urban conservation
50
site.16 The location of the buildings is a center of commercial activities in Ulus. Similar to the housing apartments in the region, these buildings designed and constructed as ground floors are commercial and upper floors are residential use. A father constructed the buildings that have similar architectural forms and characteristics for their 4 children17. The construction date of the buildings is 1924.18
Figure 3.9. A photograph of Anafartalar Street in 1929. Retrieved from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality archive
16 The Urban Conservation Site of Ulus Historic City Center is declared in 1980 by GEEAYK and the last change was made in 2008 by AYAKTVKK.
17 According to the users of the buildings.
18 According to the property documents provided by Ankara Metropolitan Municipality
51
3.4.1 Projects of the Buildings
The four Early- Republican apartment buildings will be mentioned as Building A, Building B, Building C and Building D as it is represented below.
Figure 3.10. Buildings on Mevsim Street, from Konya Street to Anafartalar Street, respectively (Author,2021)
Figure 3.11. Buildings’ relation with streets and surroundings. Drawing created with a base map from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality.
52
These selected buildings create an important complex together. They are designed for four siblings and aimed to have a balance between them. Both in architecturally and spatially. The architect of the buildings is unknown. However, the users/owners of the buildings and surrounding buildings claimed that the architect was from a foreign country. The approved project of the buildings cannot be found neither in the archives of municipalities nor by the owners/tenants of the buildings19.
The buildings are designed with different entrances for the shop and the circulation for upper floors on the ground floor. Therefore, the commercial part and residential part of the buildings are separated. The upper floors are designed to consist of two rooms, a living room, a kitchen, and a toilet, shaped around a narrow hall. The large living rooms, which make up almost half of the plan, face Mevsim Street and include the area of the projection on the 2nd and 3rd floors and have a balcony on the 4th floor.
3.4.2 Architectural and Spatial Features
The ground floors of the buildings are arranged as a single large area to be used as commercial space. The reflection of this area on the facade is seen as high and spacious windows between the columns. Entrance doors are positioned on the sides. The first floor, arranged as a mezzanine floor above the shops, is animated with two rectangular windows on each side. The buildings begin to exhibit a symmetrical character from this floor.
19 It has been reached by official correspondence that there are no approved projects in the municipality.
53
The first and second floors are separated by horizontal molding. At the upper level of the first floor, a semi-cylindrical projection rises on the hemispherical console in the middle, along the levels of the second and third floors. The second and third floor facades are the same. There are three rectangular windows above the projection and two on the sides on the facades of both floors. The windowsills of the windows on the projection extend throughout the projection and serve as a horizontal wiping. The upper part of the projection is arranged as a balcony at the fourth-floor level. The semicircular balcony has concrete railings. Railings are having a geometric pattern. The façades are finished with a gable roof and the balcony door on the fourth floor and the windows on both sides mimic the roof shape.
54
55
Table 3.1. Possible Original Façade Formation of Mevsim Street (Author, 2021)
56
Table 3.2. Possible Original Façade Formation of Anafartalar Street and Konya Street (Author, 2021)
57
There are architectural elements in the buildings that carry and reflect the characteristics of the period. Based on both the materials used and their character in form. The entrance doors are made of iron and there are ornaments made by hand. All windows, doors and showcases in the building, except the entrance door leading to the floors, are made of timber. Long and wide shop windows reflect the character of that period. In the windows located on the upper floors, the glass density is less, and a partitioned type is used. This is a window type that can be seen in the buildings of that period. The door opening to the balcony on the fourth floor and the windows on both sides are made in a triangular form, imitating the roof of the building. This can be said as one of the characteristic features of the structures. The doors used in the interior of the building and the windows facing the shaft spaces are also timber, and although the windows are smaller in size, they are similar in character to the ones on the façade.
Figure 3.12. Building B, window facing ventilation shaft. (Author, 2022)
58
The stairs of the buildings are spiral staircases, and the stair railings and handrails reflect the character of the period. The balustrades are iron, and the handrails are made of timber.20
20 The information about the other structures in the same period in this section comes as a result of the research and archive searches carried out within the scope of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality "Anafartalar Street Street Rehabilitation and Urban Design Project".
59
Table 3.3. Original Architecture Elements of the Buildings (Author, 2021)
60
Table 3.4. Original Architecture Elements of the Buildings (Author, 2021)
61
These group structures, which a father had his four children built, show similarities to each other in terms of plan scheme. Ground floor and first floor are planned as shops and offices. The second, third and fourth floors are designed for residential use.
In the buildings, the entrance to the shop and the apartment entrance to the upper floors are kept separate. In Building A, Building B and Building C, these entrances are located at both ends of the same façade. There is a skylight designed for the basement floor in the opening between these entrances. In Building D, the shop entrance and the apartment entrance to the upper floors are on different facades. The skylight is designed in front of the opening next to the shop entrance. Basements are designed for storage or service areas of shops and access is provided from inside the shop. The second, third and fourth floors are repetitive for each building. The plan scheme, which is similar in all four buildings, consists of rooms shaped around a small hall.
Building A and Building B have 2 rooms, living room, kitchen, and bathroom. Differently, Building C and Building D each have 1 room. The living rooms of the buildings are designed on the façade facing Mevsim Street and the cylindrical projection is included in the room. On the fourth floor it is shaped as a balcony.
The small bathroom, located facing the entrance in Building A, Building B and Building C, is located on the side of the entrance in Building D.
62
Table 3.5. Possible Original Plans of Building A (Author, 2021)
63
Table 3.6. Possible Original Plans of Building B (Author, 2021)
64
Table 3.7. Possible Original Plans of Building C (Author, 2021)
65
Table 3.8. Possible Original Plans of Building D (Author, 2021)
66
3.4.3 Structural and Material Features
These apartment buildings, which were constructed in 1924, are an example of the establishment of a structural system by utilizing a combination of steel and concrete, which began to become prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s. This method was widely used in the early Republican apartment buildings (Avcı Hosanlı, 2018).
The primary structural components of the buildings were composed of columns and slabs made of reinforced concrete, which were held up by steel beams. Brick is used both for the partition walls and the exterior walls. Bricks are used in the construction of the distinctive cylindrical projections that may be found on some of the buildings. Stone is used for the floor moldings that provide a divide after the first level of the building and visually differentiate the residential use of the building from the office use of the structure.
At the same time, the stone is used for the windowsills and balustrades of the balcony that is built at the end of the fourth story. The roofs of the houses are finished with tiles, and the roofs themselves are finished with gable ends. Both an access to the upper floors and an entrance to the shop may be found in the buildings. Doors made of iron is observed at each of the apartment complex's entrances.
67
Figure 3.13. Section detail of the building showing steel beam, brick wall and concrete slab of the structure.
68
Figure 3.14. Entrance door of the Building B. (Author, 2021)
Timber is used for all of the other joinery on the buildings, including the shop windows, doors, and windows. The partitioned joinery that was popular during this time period was used in the construction. Cast mosaic can be seen on the treads of
69
the stairs that lead to the inner spaces of the buildings. The character of the era is carried over into stair railings.
Figure 3.15. Stair railings of Building C. (Author, 2022)
70
The railings are constructed of timber, while the balustrade is built of iron. The landings of the stairs are likewise cast in mosaic. When it comes to the flooring in the rooms, mosaic tiles are typically employed. Ceramic coating can be found in toilet and kitchens. Cast mosaic can also be found in storage areas as “yüklük”.
Figure 3.16. Cast mosaic stairs, Building B. (Author, 2022)
71
Figure 3.17. Structural system of the buildings, intersection of concrete columns and slab with steel beams.
3.5 Current Situations of the Selected Buildings
In this section, current situations of the selected four Early-Republican housing buildings are explained.
The four Early-Republican housing buildings were analyzed in terms of physical situations and current situations of the buildings. To accomplish this, material and problem analyses were made on the façades and the plans21 of the buildings. After that, an overall physical condition was determined for each building.
21 Some parts of the buildings could not be entered because the owners could not be reached and users did not allow due to Covid. Due to the lack of data in these parts, these studies could not be carried out.
72
While explaining the current situations of the buildings, they will be named as Building A, Building B, Building C and Building D in the order that is showed below (Figure 3.18.).
Figure 3.18. Buildings on Mevsim Street, from Konya Street to Anafartalar Street, respectively (Author, 2021)
Two of the four buildings, which are in the middle of the block, numbered 7261, have one façade facing to the Mevsim Street. The other buildings are positioned at the corners of the block and have two facades. At the point where Anafartalar Street intersects with Çıkrıkçılar Slope, there is an open area and Anafartalar street façade of the buildings is facing this open area (Figure 3.19.).
73
Figure 3.19. Buildings’ relation with streets and surroundings. Drawing created with a base map from Ankara Metropolitan Municipality.
According to the 1920-1932 cadastral map22 the buildings have separate lots for each. Afterwards with the subdivision plan numbered 5872/I, the number of the block and the lots have changed in 1939. While conducting this change, lots aimed to be united but since the law numbered 2289 do not allow that as long as there are buildings on them, it is cancelled on objection. However, after 6 months, with the enactment of the Development Plan Law numbered 6785, this restriction is removed. In 1963, with the subdivision plan numbered 50550, the separated lots for the buildings are united
22 Provided by Ankara Metropolitan Municipality
74
to two lots, buildings facing the Anafartalar Street and the rest (Figure 3.20.). Although the property owners objected to this, it was rejected because there was no legal obstacle23. The buildings have been registered in 1986 with the decision of the High Council for the Conservation Council of Cultural Assets24.
Figure 3.20. Current Lot and Block borders
3.5.1.1 Current Functions and Current Plans of the Buildings
Currently, the ground floors of the buildings are used for commercial activities; one exchange office in the building facing Anafartalar street, a fast-food restaurant and
23 The information is gathered from official correspondences.
24 Appendix A
75
bookmaker (ganyan) in the buildings located on the middle of the block and a shop of a glass importer in the building facing Konya Street.
There is multiple ownership for the buildings. Only the owner of the fast-food restaurant is a tenant in the buildings, the remaining users are the owners.
Currently, the building A, which is the closest to the intersection of the street with Anafartalar Street, has been combined with the corner buildings and had become a single building that sits on the lot (Figure 3.21.).
Figure 3.21. A map showing the former and current building boundaries and relation with the lot boundaries.
76
Table 3.9. General information of Building A (7261/1) (Author, 2021)
77
Currently, it can be claimed that Building A is the most changed one among the studied buildings. In terms of both change in use of the spaces and the physical characteristics of them. The most significant change of the building is that; it was combined with two adjacent structures. By evaluating repair project and documentation project of the building, it can be said that the intervention is made between the years 1988 and 1997 (Figure 3.22.) (Figure 3.23.).
Figure 3.22. Approved repair project’s Second Floor Plan from 1997. Retrieved from the Ankara Conservation Board
78
Figure 3.23. Approved documentation project’s Second Floor Plan from 1988. Retrieved from the Ankara Conservation Board
79
Table 3.10. Current Plans of Building A (Ground Floor and 1st Floor) (Author, 2021)
80
Table 3.11. Current Plans of Building A (2nd Floor and 3rd Floor) (Author, 2021)
81
Table 3.12. Current Plans of Building A (4th Floor) (Author, 2021)
82
Today, the ground floor of Building B is used as a restaurant. On the ground floor, which consists of a single space, a plasterboard partition wall and a toilet were added for the use of customers. The basement floor is used as both the kitchen and the storage of the restaurant. On the first floor, two basic divisions were made, namely the executive room and the production area. A compartment used as a storage room and a toilet were built in the executive room. The upper floors of the building are not far from the original. The ventilation gaps that existed in the original were closed and added to the toilet. A second entrance door to the apartment was opened from the stair landing on the second floor.
The ground floor of Building C is used as a bookmaker (ganyan). There is an intervention in the staircase leading to the upper floors of the building. The part of the staircase leading down to the basement was canceled and opened from a different place. The basement floor is also used related to the bookmaker (ganyan). The upper floors of the building are used for short and long-term rental purposes. In these parts, there are no interventions that will greatly affect the plan scheme. The ventilation gap facing the entrance door is closed and it has started to be used as a wet space.
The ground floor of the building is currently used by the glass manufacturer/importer. Likewise, the same person uses the basement and upper floors as storage. No changes were made in the plan scheme of these spaces, due to the fact that they remained idle and could not function.
83
Table 3.13. General information of Building B (7261/2) (Author, 2021)
84
Table 3.14. Current Plans of Building B (Author, 2021)
85
Table 3.15. General information of Building C (7261/2) (Author, 2021)
86
Table 3.16. Current Plans of Building C (Author, 2021)
87
Table 3.17. General information of Building D (7261/2) (Author, 2021)
88
Table 3.18. Current Plans of Building D (Author, 2021)
89
Table 3.19. Current and Possible Original Plans of the Ground and First Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021)
90
Table 3.20 Current and Possible Original Plans of the Second and Third Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021)
91
Table 3.21 Current and Possible Original Plans of the Fourth Floors of the Buildings (Author, 2021)
92
93
3.5.1.2 Physical Condition
Building A
In order to examine the physical conditions of the structures, material use, material decay and structural problems analyses are conducted. If we examine Building A in terms of material use, we see that its facade is plastered and painted in pink.
Figure 3.24. Building A (Author, 2021)
Metal facade cladding has been applied on both sides of the building, on Mevsim Street and Anafartalar Street, on the ground floor, where there is commercial use. Cement-based plaster appeared on the parts of the Mevsim Street facade, on the ground floor where the coating was not applied/removed.
94
Figure 3.25. Mevsim Street façade of Building A (Author, 2021)
Joinery in four different materials was used on the façade. These; metal, aluminum, plastic (PVC) and timber. On the Mevsim Street facade of the building, the showcases on the ground floor are aluminum and the apartment door providing the entrance to the upper floor of the building is metal. Again, on the same facade, aluminum and PVC windows were applied on the first floor. The windows and balcony door on the second, third and fourth floors are original and made of timber.
Figure 3.26. Mevsim Street façade of Building A (Author, 2021)
95
On the Anafartalar Street front, the showcases on the ground floor are aluminum. There are PVC and aluminum joinery on the first floor of the building. The windows and balcony door on the upper floors are made of PVC, while the others are timber and original windows. Apart from this, the balcony railings and horizontal moldings on the facade are stone, but there is plaster and paint on them. Laminate flooring was applied on the first floor as flooring in the interior of the building. On the second floor, in addition to the laminate flooring application, ceramic coating is seen in the kitchen and toilets.
Figure 3.27. Second floor coverings of Building A (Author, 2021)
On the third floor, laminate flooring has been applied. On the fourth floor, the terrace and balcony are covered with ceramic tiles, and the interior parts are screed concrete. Steel beams, which are a part of the structural system of the building, can be observed in the interior of the building.
96
Figure 3.28. Third floor steel beam of Building A (Author, 2021)
When the problems are analyzed, there are surface cracks and dust and dirt accumulations in the plaster on the facade as material decay. There is material loss (stone) and loss of plaster, especially on the balcony railing and lower parts.
97
Figure 3.29. Anafartalar Street façade detaching of plaster (Author, 2021)
There are loss of paint, abrasions and deformations on the timber joinery on the facade. The most obvious interventions as new intervention problems are on the ground floors. There are signage applications that prevent the character of the façade by changing the showcases on the ground floor. There are staining and blistering due to humidity in the interior spaces. Oxidation was observed on the steel beams.
98
Figure 3.30. Building A staining due to humidity, Third Floor (Author, 2021)
Oxidation was observed in metal beams.
Figure 3.31. Oxidation in steel beam, Third Floor (Author, 2021)
99
Table 3.22. Material analysis of Building A – Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
Table 3.23. Material analysis of Building A Anafartalar Street Facade (Author, 2021)
100
101
Table 3.24. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building A – Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
102
Table 3.25. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building A Anafartalar Street Facade (Author, 2021)
103
Building B
In order to examine the physical conditions of the structures, material use, material decay and structural problems analyses are conducted. If we examine at Building B in terms of material, we see that its facade is painted in cream color. Metal facade cladding was applied in the parts of the building where commercial use is on the ground floor. Metal is also used in the door of the building.
Figure 3.32. Mevsim Street façade of Building B (Author, 2021)
104
Figure 3.33. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building B (Author, 2021)
Joinery in four different materials was used on the façade. These; metal, aluminum, plastic (PVC) and timber. The showcases on the ground floor of the building are aluminum and the apartment door providing the entrance to the upper floor of the building is metal. First floor windows are plastic (PVC). The windows and balcony door on the second, third and fourth floors are original and made of timber. Apart from this, the balcony railings and horizontal moldings on the facade are stone, but there is plaster and paint on them. Ceramic is used as flooring throughout the interior of the building.
105
Figure 3.34. Restaurant on ground floor of Building B (Author, 2022)
When the problems are analyzed, there are structural cracks on the façade, surface cracks in the plaster and dust and dirt accumulations as material problems. A window on the 3rd floor is broken. Abrasion on timber surfaces and oxidation on metal surfaces.
106
Figure 3.35. First floor of Building B (Author, 2022)
Except for the entrance and the first floor, which are actively used indoors, there is heavy dirt and bird droppings on the unused floors. There are loss of plaster on the wall due to humidity and neglect.
Figure 3.36. Hall on the first floor of Building B (Author, 2022)
107
Figure 3.37. The windows on projection in first floor of Building B (Author, 2022)
Figure 3.38. Deteriorations due to humidity on wall (Author, 2022)
108
Table 3.26. Material analysis of Building B Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
109
Table 3.27. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building B Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
110
Building C
In order to examine the physical conditions of the structures, material use, material decay and structural problems analyses are conducted. If we examine the Building C in terms of material, we see that its facade is painted in cream color. Metal facade cladding was applied in the parts of the building where commercial use is on the ground floor. Metal is also used in the door of the building.
Figure 3.39. Mevsim Street façade, Building C (Author, 2021)
111
Figure 3.40. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building C (Author, 2021)
Joinery in three different materials was used on the façade. These; metal, aluminum and plastic (PVC). The showcases on the ground floor of the building are aluminum and the apartment door providing the entrance to the upper floor of the building is metal. Except for the ground floor, all window and balcony joinery are made of plastic (PVC). Apart from this, the balcony railings and horizontal moldings on the facade are stone, but there is plaster and paint on them.
Ceramics were used as flooring in all the entrance and basement floors of the building.
112
Figure 3.41. Bookmaker (ganyan) on ground floor of Building C (Author, 2022)
Figure 3.42. Bookmaker (ganyan) on basement of Building C (Author, 2022)
113
While ceramic flooring is used in the Toilet, Bathroom and Balcony on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, laminate flooring is applied in other places. When the problems are analyzed, there are moisture-induced staining, dust and dirt deposits on the facade as material problems. There are stains on the wall caused by moisture. There are deteriorations in the balcony ceramics. The basement floor of the building was damaged due to a plumbing leak.
Figure 3.43. Moisture staining on fourth floor of Building C (Author, 2022)
114
Figure 3.44. Loss of paint due to plumbing leak in basement, Building C (Author, 2022)
Figure 3.45. Deterioration of ceramics on the balcony, Building C (Author, 2022)
115
Table 3.28. Material analysis of Building C Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
116
Table 3.29. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building C Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
117
Building D
When the problems are analyzed, there are moisture-induced staining, dust and dirt deposits on the facade as material problems. There are stains on the wall caused by moisture. If we examine Building D in terms of material, we see that its façade is plastered and painted yellow.
Figure 3.46. Konya Street and Mevsim Street facades of Building D (Author, 2021)
118
Timber facade cladding was applied on both sides of the building, on Mevsim Street and Konya Street, on the ground floor, where commercial use is available.
Joinery in two different materials was used on the façade. These; metal and timber. The shutters on the ground floor of the building and the apartment door providing the entrance to the upper floor of the building are metal. All windows and balcony door in the building are original and made of timber.
Apart from this, the balcony railings and horizontal moldings on the facade are stone.
Figure 3.47. The facade of the shop on the ground floor of Building D (Author, 2021)
When the problems are analyzed, there are dust and dirt deposits with high plaster loss on the facade as material problems. Although it can be seen in places in almost the entire building, there is material loss (stone) and loss of plaster on the balcony railing and lower parts.
119
Figure 3.48. Plaster and paint detachment on the façade, Building D (Author, 2021)
There are paint detachments, abrasions and deformations on the timber joinery on the facade. The upper floors of the building are unusable. There are dead animals and giant spider webs on the ground. There are staining and blistering due to humidity in the interior.
Figure 3.49. First floor of Building D (Author, 2022)
120
Figure 3.50. Apartment door from inside, Building D (Author, 2022)
121
Table 3.30. Material analysis of Building D Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
122
Table 3.31. Material analysis of Building D Konya Street Facade (Author, 2021)
123
Table 3.32. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building D Mevsim Street Facade (Author, 2021)
124
Table 3.33. Material Decay and Structural Problems of Building D Konya Street Facade (Author, 2021)
125
3.6 User Needs and Expectations
This section of the thesis concentrates on the ideas and needs of the individuals who will be utilizing the urban scale and the buildings that have been chosen for the thesis. In order to accomplish this, a social survey research study was carried out in the field. At the urban scale, there were found to be two distinct sorts of users. Users who frequent the location on a regular basis, people of the shop or building, and users who went there to satisfy temporary needs or desires.
In the four Early Republic apartment blocks that were analyzed in the thesis, surveys were conducted out with the tenants as well as the owners of the buildings. As a consequence of these surveys, an attempt was made to identify the particular requirements of each building.
3.6.1 Users of the Surrounding Buildings and Commercial Streets
The area around Anafartalar Street and Konya Street was surveyed to understand the context of these apartment buildings. In total, 42 surveys were conducted with people who use shops and buildings on a regular basis and are therefore considered to be permanent users of the environment25. When we consider them in terms of the social dynamics at the first place, that one of the users is the youngest of the group at only 25 years old. It is possible to argue that the lack of young people under the age of 25 in the region is a factor that is detrimental to the social development of the area. People between the ages of 46 and 65 make up the vast majority of users in this area (Table 3.34.).
25 Appendix C.
126
Table 3.34. Chart Showing the Age Distribution of Users of the Surrounding Buildings
The majority of users are men, which is to be expected given the shifting demographics of the region brought on by the progression of time and the resulting changes to the social structure. Only 4 out of the total of 42 respondents that participated in the survey were females, while 38 of them were men (Table 3.35.).
Table 3.35. Chart Showing the Gender Distribution of Users of the Surrounding Buildings
127
Considering the year of use rate, which is another crucial component, a slightly different distribution was also seen. The number of individuals who have been using the region for less than 10 years compared to the number of people who have been using the region for more than 10 years is very close to being equal (21 people over 10 years, 20 people under 10 years) (Table 3.36.). There are people in Ulus, which is a particularly historic commercial center, who have been running businesses there from generation to generation for a very long time. On the other hand, there are also those that transfer to the area in order to start their own shops there due to the fact that the region is continues its character as a center since it is known as a center for jewelers.
Table 3.36. Chart Showing the Years of Occupancy of Users of the Surrounding Buildings
After questioning the survey participants about the problems, needs, and positive/negative characteristics of the building that they use, the next question that was posed to them was regarding the significance of the building. Whether they think that it is or it is not significant for them. It is essential that the opinion of the user be taken into consideration if the user is to continue to occupy the building; in other words, if the building is to be used. In spite of the fact that more than half of the users (28 out of 42 participants) answered in the positive, ten of the respondents claimed
128
that they did not find it significant and that it even needed to be demolished and rebuilt (Table 3.37.). The ratio is still significantly larger in this case.
Table 3.37. Chart Showing the Thoughts about the Significance of Buildings of Users of the Surrounding Buildings
When the users of the area are asked about the positive things about the area, we can understand from the answers that the area's being a commercial area, which has been an important feature since its establishment, is interpreted as an important feature for many people. The users of the area also interpret the historical texture of the area as an important feature. We can understand from this that it is important for them to have a history and they will have a positive eye on the conservation of the region and its structures.
The fact that the region is known by people and has easy access is also counted as a positive aspect. Considering that the residential area is gradually moving away from the area, it can be said that easy access is an important factor for the businesses here.
Finally, people say that the area has a touristic potential as a positive feature. It can also be said that being a historical city center and being a region close to the castle have effects on this (Table 3.38.).
129
Table 3.38. Chart showing the thoughts about the positive features of the region by users of the surrounding buildings.
It is seen that the majority of the negative features of the area and the lack of safety are mentioned. The fact that there are too many jewelers as a type of trade in the area can be defended as a reason why people emphasize this issue. At the same time, security problems usually increase in the evening, and as a problem, the area is secluded in the evening. These are the things that have an impact on the removal of housing use from the region.
In addition, it is seen that the problem of traffic and vehicle parking comes to the fore. These are also factors that have the potential to affect the reduction of short and long-term users of the region in the long run.
Finally, it is noticed that a minority of users talk about the maintenance of the area and its uneven urbanization. And it is observed that there are few participants who emphasize that they are not enough socially and as green space. This situation shows that the region has come to the forefront as a commercial area so much that it has been thrown into the second plan in terms of evaluation as a residential and social life area (Table 3.39.).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
commercialarea
touristicpotential
easy access
reasonableprice
historicalarea
being aknown area
commercialdiversirt
Positive Features of the Region
130
Table 3.39. Chart showing the thoughts about the negative features of the region by users of the surrounding buildings.
When the users are asked what you would like to have in the area, what would be a place you use more in your daily life, the car park seems to be the most requested thing. Demanding things for the development of social and cultural structure such as green areas/parks, playgrounds, shopping malls, coffee shops, cultural centers and museums also shows that the area is lacking in this respect.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Negative Features of the Region
131
Table 3.40. Chart showing the thoughts of users of the surrounding buildings about what they would like to have in the area.
Shops providing to the needs of visitors26 are commonly visited by those using the area temporarily. Only 12 surveys were completed for this study because the majority of participants did not want to participate in the survey because of Covid-19.
There is a narrow range of ages represented among users. The youngest user who was questioned in this location was 35 years old. 6 individuals within the age range of 35-50 and 6 individuals within the age range of 51-78 responded to the survey. Because of this outcome, it is reasonable to make the claim that young people do not visit the area for any kind of temporary use, including going shopping and participating in social events.
26 Usually there were people who came to Anafartalar Street to buy and sell gold, to Konya Street for electronics, to Çıkrıkçılar Hill for special occasion clothes and to Hal for food shopping
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
What would you like to have in the area?
132
Table 3.41. Chart Showing the Age Distribution of Temporary Users of the Area
Table 3.42. Chart Showing the Gender Distribution of Temporary Users of the Area
133
Table 3.43. Chart Showing the Current and Old Duration of Temporary Users of the Area
Table 3.44. Chart Showing the Thoughts about the Significance of Surrounding Buildings of Temporary Users of the Area
134
3.6.2 Users of the Selected Buildings
The ground floors of the buildings continue to be used as commercial premises in the current situation. Within the scope of the thesis, in-depth interviews were conducted with the shop user of all four buildings, and with the 1st floor user of Building B.
The problem of multiple ownership in buildings has persisted, and today this problem is tried to be solved by the shareholders. Building A and Building C are owned by a single person, whereas Building B and Building D are currently multiple-ownership. Shareholders and users are not satisfied with this situation. Because in this case, it becomes difficult even to take simple repair decisions about the building and put them into practice. And the duty of the citizen, who are struggling to learn the procedures arising from the fact that it is already registered, but cannot have maintenance and repair, becomes even more difficult.
The general complaints and requests of the users regarding the environment are similar to each other. As a result of the interviews, it can be argued that the profile in the Ulus, Anafartalar region has changed in a negative way over time, and this has an impact on the physical environment by affecting the usage. The fact that the social structure in the surrounding disappears over time and that it loses its vitality in the evenings due to security vulnerabilities is also one of the problems of the users. They said that the former tradespeople's relations are stronger and that the users here can no longer trust each other in that regard. Users, who stated that their expectations regarding the environment are primarily to solve the security problem, also stated that they think that the Ulus region will not be the same as before.
While talking about the problems related to the building, all users expressed the problems arising from the old age of the building. Since Building A and Building C are single title deed, it has easier maintenance and repair, however, no alterations have been made in Building B and Building D, other than interventions such as the renewal of pipes.
135
The lack of natural gas causes a heating problem for users. They draw attention to technical problems such as roof leaking, moisture problems in floors and wall joints.
Regarding the façade of the buildings, Building D is very neglected and the user has presented the shedding of the plaster as a negative thing.
Table 3.45. Interviews of the users of four Early Republican Apartment Blocks
Participants
Building A (GF)
Building B (GF)
Building B (1st F)
Building C (GF)
Building D (GF)
Function
exchange office
restaurant
silver workshop
bookmaker( ganyan)
glass manufacturing
owner /tenant
owner
tenant
owner
owner
owner
building's needs
water leak problem the installations are old
heating problem water leak problem
the installations are old
roof insulation
heating problem water leak problem the installations are old
building's positive aspects
location
aesthetic
soundness
historical
historical
Should the building be protected?
no
yes
yes
yes
no
136
3.6.3 Decision Makers
The interview with the decision makers consists of 5 questions and was conducted with Bekir Ödemiş (Chair of the Department for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets) and Mustafa Kaymak (Director of the Ankara Conservation Board Board).
In the interview, the importance of the region for the person, thoughts about the change in time, positive features, problems and needs were emphasized.
Bekir Ödemiş emphasized the importance of Ankara Ulus region as a reflection of the Republic and the administrative center of the state. At the same time, he stated that the Anafartalar region plays an important role in the development and social development of Ankara. With its architecture, it is emphasized that it is a region that has taken its place in the memory of the city and the country.
Referring to the change of the region over time, he stated that the center was Ulus when looking at the planning history, but this region remained in the background of Kızılay over time. Stating that the structure of the nation region has deteriorated due to wrong policies, Ödemiş also claimed that its depopulation was a major factor in this. With the departure of public buildings from the region, the profile of people with a good income level has also left the region. At the same time, he emphasized the lack of plan work and stated that demolitions without expropriation and new, reinforced concrete and incompatible construction in the region had negative effects.
Referring to the positive features, problems and needs of the region, Ödemiş stated that the strongest aspect of the region is that it has the traces of all of them since it is home to the settled human community.
He emphasized that it is an important cultural and historical symbol of Turkey. He stated that although people are not aware of it, it is an important place in terms of cultural accumulation, but also a political center.
137
He emphasized that a properly planned conservation plan should be studied as both a problem and a very important need of the region. He stated that the existing values should be protected quickly and in a qualified manner. He argued that value should come to the fore as another important need of the region and that a historical urban belonging should be established in the Ulus Region.
Mustafa Kaymak emphasized the importance of Ankara Ulus region as the center of the city and the place where the people of Ankara learned and practiced dealing with trade.
Referring to the change of the region over time, he stated that while it was a region used by the elite and high-income people of Ankara, then the region began to lose its character as people migrated from here. He stated that as the user of the region changes, the cultural texture of the region is affected. At the same time, he claimed that the users of the changed region were not conscious of the value of the region, and that when many buildings that remained idle were evaluated, there was no one left to protect the region's culture.
Referring to the positive features, problems and needs of the region, Kaymak stated that he thinks that apart from the past character and historical importance of the region, there is no positive feature of the region that can be carried to the present day.
He suggested that the buildings were neglected as a physical problem. Stating that the Ulus region is slowly falling apart from life, Kaymak stated that many user segments of the city, such as the young, do not know the region and that the Ulus region is now obsolete.
He emphasized that the region needs a conservation development plan, and suggested that it also needs functions other than trade that will add vitality to the region, where empty buildings are also evaluated.
In conclusion, it would be correct to argue that the two decision makers interviewed argue that the region has depopulated and changed negatively over time. At the same
138
time, they state the need for the region to develop socially and attract different types of users. They also emphasized how essential it is to work on a plan for the region by eliminating unplanned interventions in the region. At this point, the reasons behind the departure of the users from the region and the development of the region by regaining the housing function in the buildings can be examined.
139
CHAPTER 4
4 ASSESSMENT OF EARLY-REPUBLICAN APARTMENT-BLOCKS ALONG MEVSIM STREET AND PROPOSAL FOR THEIR CONSERVATION
The four buildings built in 1924 were evaluated as Early Republican apartment blocks and proposals were made for their conservation so that their use would continue. For this, first of all, the values and significance of the buildings were evaluated. The problems of the buildings and the environment that affect the structures are discussed. User thoughts and needs determined by the survey data from the field study were also evaluated in order to make a proposal accordingly.
4.1 Values and Significance
The value assessment made in this section has been completed based on publications on modern heritage values supported by international documents. Consequently, it is appropriate to say that these four buildings, which are apartment blocks of the Early Republic period, can be considered as cultural heritage in many respects and various values can be attributed.
The buildings, constructed in 1924, are one of the modern apartment buildings that combine residential and commercial use in the Ulus district, which stands out as the center of the changing and developing Ankara of the first years of the Republic. This building group consisting of four apartment blocks along the street also reflects the architectural understanding of the period. They have a group value since they represent a particular time and architectural style together and they create a row house complex.
140
The facades, which generally have a vertical emphasis, have a cylindrical projection that continues on the 2nd and 3rd floors and turns into a balcony with a stone and ornamented balustrade on the 4th floor. In the symmetrical façade layout, which is one of the features of the period, the openings are rectangular. It is also an apartment group that reflects the changing lifestyle with its plan structures. So that, it can be claimed that they have historical and document value since they represented changing lifestyle.
These four early republican apartment buildings have architectural value with their facades, functional plan organization. And it can be supported that they have aesthetic value with simple ornamentations they have.
Furthermore, in the period when innovations in the structure system were also introduced, the buildings carry the character of the period, as they have a load bearing system in which iron and concrete are used together, which was determined to be more applied in the 1920s and 1930s. Therefore, it is important for the technological value of the buildings to have a load bearing system in which concrete slabs and concrete columns are supported by steel beams.
With these values, the document value of the buildings has emerged by both reflecting the characteristics of the period and showing its own architectural formation as the interpretation of the period. Furthermore, the buildings can be stated as the examples of modern heritage buildings since the time scope of the modern heritage places is between 1920 and 1975 by DOCOMOMO (Baturayoğlu Yöney, 2016, p. 66).
In terms of location, the buildings are located in the Ulus region, which is the multi-layered historical region of Ankara. This region, which has witnessed many histories such as the Republic, Ottoman, Seljuk and Roman, has also become a center where historical, social, economic and cultural developments took place with the proclamation of the Republic (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2018). The daily state of the changing and developing modern life and the traces of the republican ideology were
141
also reflected in the buildings built here. Also, in this region, which became the center after the establishment of the Republic, there were many people from different segments who used it to meet their commercial, social and cultural needs as well as the residents. For these reasons, it can be claimed that these four Early Republican period apartment buildings are also important in terms of their location.
In addition to these tangible attributes of buildings, there are also intangible values that can be associated with the buildings even though the impact on urban memory of Ankara is not very strong.
Since the buildings were built by a father for his four children and the members of this family lived for many years on the upper floors used as residences, they have a memory value passed down from generation to generation. In addition, the commercial function of the lower floors of the buildings brings social qualities. In this regard, the relationship of the buildings with the tradespeople who have shops there and the customers who come there for commercial use is important. The commercial use of the buildings has always continued since the time they were constructed, and in this situation, it can be stated that the buildings have both social and use value.
4.2 Problems
Considering the problems affecting the buildings, it is necessary to examine these problems of buildings and their context. The problems in urban context are about its social and cultural changes and perspective of people to the region. The problems at the building scale are the changes that the original texture and character of the building have undergone due to use, and the deterioration that can be handled physically. These problems are discussed in this part of the thesis.
142
4.2.1 Changes in the Urban Context
During the Early Republican Period, the modernization efforts of the new state were implemented at Ulus. At that time, Ulus was a residential and commercial center; there were numerous shops and stores there. These were frequently seen in apartments with stores on the ground floor and living space on the higher floors. Furthermore, the presence of numerous public buildings in the region encouraged the continuation of life and work, thereby supporting the region as a commercial district. However, in 1950s produced new architectural typologies, such as commercial districts and tall office buildings. This has resulted in the demolition and renovation of numerous pre-existing structures.
As a result of the transfer of public buildings (such as the town hall and courthouse) over the years, the district's commerce has continued to attract middle-income and mostly low-income users. With the city's growing population and the reorientation of its trade axis, the historical city center has become a low-income neighborhood with relatively high crime rate. Due to this negative change, serious security problems have arisen here and the use of residential buildings has decreased considerably.
In addition, the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality's proposals for the historical city center included the planned and complete demolition of a considerable number of structures in the region. Today, the traditional social and physical qualities of the Ulus Anafartalar region have begun to disappear. The majority of inhabitants do not like to reside in Ulus due to its negative perception. In fact, many do not even prefer to visit there to meet their personal or economic requirements.
Due to these changes, there are many residential buildings in the region that have remained idle. This, in turn, negatively affects these structures both physically and socially, causing them to seperated from the city and put them in danger of being demolished. The four Early Republican Period apartment buildings blocks on
143
Mevsim Street are also mostly idle and are affected by the changing context in which they are located, both in terms of use and policies.
4.2.2 Changes in the Architectural Features of the Buildings
When the changes in terms of architectural features are examined; it is seen that the plan organisations of the buildings are still legible with changes over time. However, some elements such as windows, doors and floor coverings have changed in the buildings.
It is possible to see architectural elements repeating each other in this four-apartment building group, which are apartment buildings of the Early Republic period. For this reason, even if it is not found in one structure, it is possible to observe and derive a type from another. It can be argued that Building A, that is, the building facing the main street, is the one whose plan scheme and architectural elements (especially the interior) have changed the most among the four building groups. This is among the four least vacant apartments since it was built, and has undergone many changes over the course of its use. However, the plan scheme and traces of architectural elements are legible.
Similarly, changes are observed in the architectural elements in Building B and Building C. It is possible to argue that the windows on the facade, especially in Building C, have been changed in a way that is not suitable for the building. Building D (the building on the Konya Street side) is the most original building among them. It can be said that it is possible to read the traces of the building group and its architectural features from this building.
144
145
Figure 4.1. Changes in Ground Floor and First Floor
146
Figure 4.2. Changes in Second Floor and Third Floor
147
Figure 4.3. Changes in Fourth .Floor
148
149
4.2.3 Structural and Material Conditions of the Buildings
Material and structural problems in buildings are; structural and surface cracks, material losses, dust and dirt deposit, staining, deformation in timber elements, and oxidation in metal elements.
When Building A, Building B and Building C were examined, no serious structural problems were detected during the social surveys conducted with the users and during the fieldwork. In Building D, on the other hand, there are cracks in the concrete columns in some areas and there is a problem of collapse on the roof.
Figure 4.4. Top view of buildings taken with drone (Gökhan Sarı, 2021)
There are problems that arise due to insufficient insulation and plumbing system in buildings and not regular maintenance and repairs. Such as moisture collection on the ceiling and the resulting blistering and staining. The maintenance of most of the
150
timber elements that have survived to the present day without any change in the buildings has been disrupted, their paint has been peeled off and deterioration has begun to occur in the material. Apart from this, Building D, whose whitewash has not been renewed, has serious loss of paint and plaster layers. Oxidation has been observed in the steel beams, which are a part of the structural system of the buildings.
4.3 Assessment of Needs of the Users
One of the important issues in order to make a proposal for the structures studied in the thesis is the user requests and needs. Surveys made with the users of the surrounding buildings and the region were mostly used to create a user profile. In the surveys made with the building users, the physical and spatial characteristics of the buildings, their problems and needs are at the forefront. In this part of the thesis, the data from these surveys were evaluated.
4.3.1 Needs of the Users of the Urban Context
As a result of the surveys conducted with the users and residents of the neighbourhood during the fieldwork, we can see that the issue that the users see as the biggest problem regarding the neighbourhood is security. This is followed by being close to Hal, user profile, drug dealing and alcohol use, respectively. From here, it can be said that problems such as security gap and user profile, which may lead to a decrease in the use of the region as a residential area, continue to negatively affect the commercial users of the region.
151
Table 4.1. Chart showing the thoughts about the problems of the region by users of the surrounding buildings.
When we consider the needs of the users of the region, we see that the biggest need is car parking. Shop owners and users argue that the arrival of people from the user segment coming to the region by vehicle will increase the region economically and socially. However, it will be difficult to attract these people to the area without a parking lot where they can leave their vehicles. The things that the surveyed users see as the most needed in the neighborhood, respectively, are green spaces, cafes/restaurants, shopping malls, closure of the area to traffic and cinema. From here, we can deduce that the users need the social development of the region with different uses in the region.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Security problems
Illegal drug trafficking
Alcohol consumption
Being close to Hal
User profile (majority of the elderly)
Problemsof the Neighborhood
152
Table 4.2. Chart showing the needs of the region by users of the surrounding buildings.
When we look at the needs of the users in the region regarding the structure they are in, we see that it is related to maintenance and repair. Considering that the buildings in the region are over 70 years old, it can be said that the buildings need regular maintenance and repair, but it can be argued from the comments of the users that there is a deficiency in this area.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Green area
Be closed to traffic
Parking area
Cafe
Cinema
AVM
Needs of the Neighborhood
153
Table 4.3. Chart showing the needs of the surrounding buildings by their users.
4.3.2 Needs of the Users of the Selected Buildings
During the fieldwork, 5 users were interviewed. These were conducted with the shop user of four buildings and the first floor user of building B. While Building A and Building C are owned by a single person, Building B and Building D are currently multi-owned making it difficult to make simple building repair decisions and users are raising this as a problem. The ownership issue needs to be resolved so that buildings can be protected more efficiently.
The general complaints and requests of the users about the environment are that the profile in Ulus, Anafartalar region has changed negatively over time and this has an impact on the physical environment by affecting the usage. Users stated that their expectations about the environment are primarily to solve the security problem.
As a result of these interviews in building scale, it is seen that the biggest problem related to the buildings is the plumbing problem. The building user/owners have renewed the installation in the current situation. The users of the buildings, especially Building D, stated that they also needed insulation improvement. Apart from this, it
0
5
10
15
20
25
Plumbing renovation
Maintenance of the buildings' facades
Needs of the Surrounding Buildings
154
can be said that the problems caused by aging of buildings in general need to be corrected with regular maintenance and protection practices.
4.4 Proposal for the Conservation of Early-Republican Apartment Blocks along Mevsim Street
After all the research and evaluations, conservation strategies have been developed to preserve the building group with the original function of them, which is these two uses together, in the Ulus region, which stood out as a residential and commercial center during the first years of the Republic.
The aim here is to propose that the modern housing structures in this region and similar regions, which are mostly either idle or converted into touristic, cultural or commercial uses, can be adapted to today's life and the changing users of the region with conservation strategies and continue their lives with their original uses. Therefore, before the design decisions on the basis of four Early Republican Period apartment blocks, which are the subject of the thesis, conservation principles that can guide such cases were identified:
 While creating the conservation approach of the building/s, not only an integrity between the buildings and the urban texture it creates, but also a functional and spatial integrity with the whole of the city and its surroundings should be ensured.
 The building/s’ character that is reflecting the character of the period with their structural, material and architectural features should be highlighted and preserved.
 Conservation strategies should consider original uses, solutions should be presented in a way that will adapt to modern living conditions.
 By determining the user profile of the project area, meeting the user demands and needs should be taken into account while creating solution proposals in the building/s. For this purpose, temporary (customer) and permanent
155
(business) user profiles should be determined and information should be collected through social surveys. By processing this information, demands and needs should be determined and adapted to the project.
The conservation decisions to be taken should be formed in a way that willguide the new interventions to be made in the future periods. At the sametime, strategies should be presented to ensure the sustainability of the textureof the region in terms of usage, technical, functional and architectural.
Physical and spatial changes to be made should be evaluated and onlynecessary interventions should be made.
The interventions should be compatible with the building. However, it shouldbe distinguishable from the original of the building in an inconspicuous way.
The material and structural analyses should be made by experts. All kinds ofinterventions, necessary maintenance and strengthening operations related tothe material and structure of the buildings should also be carried out underthe supervision of experts and with regard.
Even though each structure and case are unique and needs to be studied anddesigned specifically, taking decisions based on these principles will provideconsistency to the conservation approach and cause less damage to thehistorical building/s and texture.
In this case, the main purpose is to argue that modern housing structures can continue to be used as housing. For this purpose, 4 different user profiles were created according to the characteristics of Anafartalar region and potentials and the results from the social surveys. Those are:
- People with disabilities /elderly people (multiple use),
- White collars/public employees (multiple use),
- Students (single use)
- An extended family with their shop in ground floor (single use)
156
While studying the cases, it was also aimed to study two different uses of a building blocks. These are named as single use and multiple use. The single use case has been studied for a tradesperson with a large family and students, where the entire apartment block is used by a single family/business. Multiple use, on the other hand, has been studied for people with disabilities and white-collar workers, and it is the case of using the apartment block as separated residential units/apartment flats.
For people with disabilities and white-collars, multiple use design is suggested; where there is a one flat on each residential floors. On the other hand, for a tradesperson with a large family and students, single use design is suggested. This corresponded to the use of the whole family for the family of tradespeople, and for the students it corresponded to a student dormitory with one administration. Examination of design choices as both multiple use and single use can be presented as a solution proposal for buildings that cannot spatially adapt to changing living conditions over the years. Thus, it can be supported that, for modern heritage apartment buildings like this, different solutions can be suggested to maintain their original use.
4.4.1 Conservation Proposal for People with Disabilities/Elderly People (Multiple Use)
The Building A, which is located at the intersection of Mevsim Street and Anafartalar Street and is formed by the combination of three buildings, is designed for the use of people with mobility impairment, such as the elderly or people with disabilities, as it has the most spatial potential and has the highest accessibility.
The use of the floors is kept the same, with the ground floor and first floor being commercial-office and the upper floors being residential. For the residential section, a multiple use proposal was made, with one flat on each floor (second and third floors). The fourth floor of the building is designed as a floor where the mechanical room and common use area are located. The part that originally had a toilet and
157
ventilation space in the apartment, which is now combined with the two buildings next to it, has been altered. Considering the use and accessibility for people with disabilities, it is not recommended to return to the original, since it is a toilet that will already be insufficient and will require intervention.
Considering the user profile, the necessity of an elevator solution was foreseen in the building. An elevator was proposed, which provides access to the upper floors and is accessed from the entrance, which is separated from the shops on the ground floor. It is positioned on the same axis as the staircase. An elevator with its own load-bearing system and no extra load on the walls of the building was considered. The mechanical room was proposed to be solved on the fourth floor. It works as a separate piece opening to the corridor like the staircase circulation on the second and third floors where the residential apartments are located and on the fourth floor where the common area is located.
All spaces and circulation routes are designed to be used by a wheelchair user. For this, in some cases, different spaces have been created from the existing and original ones. It has been proposed to continue its use as there are two shops on the ground floor and office spaces on the first floor as it is currently used.
A plan scheme has been created on the second floor in the form of a living room, two rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. These are connected by a middle hall, as in the original of the building.
Similarly, a plan scheme has been created on the third floor in the form of a living room, three rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. There is also a middle hall.
Every element that is original in the building will be preserved and necessary maintenance will be done. Elements that are compatible with the character of the building but can be differentiated will be used instead of architectural elements that are missing or need to be renewed.
158
Table 4.4. Suggested plan organization of Building A, ground floor and 1st floor
159
Table 4.5. Suggested plan organization of Building A, 2nd and 3rd floor
160
Table 4.6. Suggested plan organization of Building A, 4th floor
161
4.4.2 Conservation Proposal for White-Collars/Public Employees (Multiple Use)
The use of the floors is kept the same, with the ground floor and first floor being commercial and the upper floors being residential. For the residential section, a multi-use proposal was made, with one flat on each floor (second, third and fourth floors). Public employees, who were a very important part of the region in its former state and were both users and residents of the region, decreased considerably after the courthouse and municipality left the region. However, there are still museums, institutions and public buildings in the vicinity, and the white-collar workers who are their employees live outside the district. For this reason, a proposal for white-collar workers or public employees has been studied for the residential part of this building.
In the proposal, the second, third and fourth floors, where the residential use is located, are the same as each other in plan scheme. In the proposal, which does not differ much from the plan scheme in its current state (which is very similar to the original plan scheme), a bedroom is proposed, unlike the original. The door to the second room was closed and it was proposed to be used as a dressing room, which is passed through the bedroom.
The floors consist of a living room, a room, a bathroom and a kitchen. Inside the kitchen is a small room (also found in the original) used for storage. These are connected by a middle hall, as in the original plan scheme of the building.
The ventilation shaft, which is in its original form but is currently closed, will be kept closed. This part will be added to the bathroom.
Every element that is original in the building will be preserved and necessary maintenance will be done. Elements that are compatible with the character of the building but can be differentiated will be used instead of architectural elements that are missing or need to be renewed.
162
Table 4.7. Suggested plan organization of Building B
163
4.4.3 Conservation Proposal for an Extended Family with Their Shop on the Ground Floor (Single Use)
The use of the floors is kept the same, with the ground floor and first floor being commercial and the upper floors being residential. For the section that will be residential (second, third and fourth floors), a proposal has been made as a singular use. There are many tradespeople in the region due to its commercial use, which is still a very dominant feature of the region. Flats with commercial use on the ground floor and residential use on the upper floors, which are a common type of apartment in the region, can be used for the living of families engaged in commerce in the region. For this reason, a proposal has been studied for a large family of tradesperson who have a shop downstairs in this building.
Currently, the location of the staircase leading from the ground floor to the basement floor has been changed. It has been suggested that this intervention be altered and the location of the staircase should be restored to its original state. There is a living room, a kitchen, a dining room, a storage room, 3 toilets, 4 rooms and 2 bathrooms on the first, second, third and fourth floors of the residence.
Since the building was designed with a large family in mind, the dimensions of the space were also evaluated accordingly. The first floor will be used as a living room. On the second floor, there is a kitchen, storage room, toilet and a dining room where all family members can eat together. It has been suggested that the third and fourth floors will have two rooms, a bathroom and a toilet.
Every element that is original in the building will be preserved and necessary maintenance will be done. Elements that are compatible with the character of the building but can be differentiated will be used instead of architectural elements that are missing or need to be renewed.
164
Table 4.8. Suggested plan organization of Building C
165
4.4.4 Conservation Proposal for a Student Dorm (Single Use)
The region can be a suitable accommodation for many students in terms of its location and ease of transportation. In addition, permanent student attraction to the region will contribute to the social and cultural development of the region. For this reason, the proposal was studied as a student dormitory in this structure.
The dormitory capacity is designed as 24 people. There is an executive office, 2 study rooms, 9 rooms and a shared bathroom on each floor.
Since the building is spatially restrictive, it is proposed to have a restaurant on the ground floor, in agreement with the dormitory. In this way, it will be used both as a business place and as a cafeteria for the students in the dormitory. There are study rooms on the first floor, a library and executive office room in the hall.
Rooms are located on the second, third and fourth floors. There are two double and one quadruple rooms on each floor. There is a shared bathroom.
Every element that is original in the building will be preserved and necessary maintenance will be done. Elements that are compatible with the character of the building but can be differentiated will be used instead of architectural elements that are missing or need to be renewed.
166
Table 4.9. Suggested plan organization of Building D
167
Housing structures, which constitute the majority of the modern architectural heritage, are good reflectors of the changing and modernizing life style, as they are directly related to life and people. Functional change, which is one of the problems encountered in their conservation, damages these tissues. Here is a study of four early republican apartment structures exemplifying their conservation with their own function. In this study, four different user profiles (determined by data from research and fieldwork for context) were studied for four structures. The aim here is to show that while the buildings continue to be used as residences, they can respond to different user needs along with changing living standards.
168
169
CHAPTER 5
5 CONCLUSION
Modern heritage structures are structures belonging to a certain period that started to be included in the conservation literature at the end of the 20th century and created various discussions on how to protect them over time. Since the value definitions made and accepted in historical and monumental structures do not correspond to these structures exactly, these structures have been evaluated as cultural heritage structures through academic studies.
At this point, two different approaches have emerged. While one of them argues that modern architectural products should be protected with the current conservation practice, another view argues that the current approach should be re-discussed and adapted according to the structures of this period, since these structures have their own dynamics and characteristics (E. E. Omay Polat & Can, 2008, p. 179).
Intense immigration waves, which started with industrialization in the 19th century, brought along a very serious housing problem in cities. A mass housing production that benefited from rapid, economical, new production methods and technology in order to accommodate this population that accumulated in the cities and to reconstruct the cities that were destroyed after the war (Vural & Sağıroğlu, 2022, p. 755).
From the point of view of the Modern Architecture heritage, the fact that the housing structures are structures with new materials and techniques used, the proposed new living culture and new spatial arrangements to reflect this shows that they have an important place in this heritage. In this respect, it can be argued that although the protection of public and historical structures by the society and state authority does not attract as much attention, it is equally important in terms of conservation practice.
170
Housing structures, which are the subject of the thesis, are one of the modern architectural heritage products, and they face difficulties starting from the registration stage. Among the perceptions that create these problems are the fact that they are large in number and that they are not adequately supported by the usual monumental and historical values in the conservation literature. Conservation strategies developed for these structures generally include suggestions for functional changes such as museums and cultural centers.
This situation is also present in Ankara, Ulus region. The buildings were either converted into cultural functions or left idle. Houses in the Anafartlar region of Ulus also face this problem. Over time, with the change in the profile in the region, a decrease in the number of users residing here has been observed. The residential buildings in the region are mostly idle and used as warehouses and similar functions. However, this region has gained a certain character and texture, especially with the residential textures formed after the republican period. For this reason, it can be argued that it is important to bring a residential texture to the area again.
For these reasons, it has been studied how the four apartment blocks, which can be called row houses, can still be used as residences depending on the user of the region by adapting them to the changing living conditions. While working on this, with the necessary field and archive studies, the context of the buildings and the needs of the context were determined first. It has been tried to understand the user profiles of the region and these structures. The problems and needs of the buildings were determined by the surveys carried out with the existing users of the buildings and the field studies carried out on the buildings. After all these inputs were evaluated together, user types were determined for the buildings with reference to the region and a case study was carried out for each building.
As a result, the aim of this thesis is to adapt the housing structures/apartments with modern housing texture in the region to today's living conditions and protect them with their original functions. The conservation principles set for similar structures and building groups can set an exemplary process and specify a general framework
171
for such studies. Restoration projects should be prepared as a result of more detailed studies for the protection of these structures and their adaptation to today's conditions.
172
173
REFERENCES
Akçura, T. (1971). Ankara Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Başkenti Ankara Hakkında Monografik Bir Araştırma. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi.
Aslanoğlu, İ. (2001). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi mimarlığı 1928-1938. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları.
Australia ICOMOS. (2013). The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance-(The Burra Charter). http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_en0795934001587381516.pdf
Avcı Hosanlı, D. (2018). HOUSING THE MODERN NATION: THE TRANSFORMATION OF RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE IN ANKARA DURING THE 1920S (Issue March). MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY.
Avcı Hosanlı, D., & Altan, T. E. (2018). The Residential Architecture of Ankara during the 1920s: The Housing Types in the Settlement Zones of the New Capital City. Journal of Ankara Studies, 6(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.5505/jas.2018.08108
Aygün Aşık, M. (2017). MODERN KONUTUN KORUNMASI VE YENİDEN KULLANILMASI : FLORYA ATATÜRK DENİZ KÖŞKÜ. Yıldız Technical University.
Ayhan Koçyiğit, E. S. (2018). A Tale of Ulus Square: A Critical Assessment of Continuity, Transformation and Change in a Public Open Space in Ankara/Ulus. MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY.
Balamir, A. (2014). Çerçeve Sunuşlar. In KORUMADA SİVİL MİMARLIK Çalıştay
174
Notlar (pp. 37–56).
Batur, A. (2007). Modern Olmak: Bir Cumhuriyet Mimarlığı Arayışı. Modern Türk Mimarlığı, 37–53.
Baturayoğlu Yöney, N. (2016). Modern Mimarlık Mirasının Kabulü ve Korunması: Uluslararası Ölçüt ve İlkelere İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme. DergiPark, 17, 62–76.
Binan, C. (1999). Mimari Koruma Alanında Venedik Tüzüğü’nden Günümüze Düşünsel Gelişmenin Uluslararası Evrim Süreci. Yıldız Technical University Faculty of Architecture.
Blagojević, L. (2003). The Elusive Margins of Belgrade Architecture 1919-1941. The MIT Press.
Burke, S. (2007). Icomos. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 13(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2007.10785001
Cangır, A. (2007). Cumhuriyetin Başkenti. Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
Cooke, C., & Sharp, D. (2000). The Modern Movement in Architecture / Selections from the DOCOMOMO Registers. 010 Publishers.
Corbusier, L. (2013). Bir Mimarlığa Doğru. İstanbul: YKY Yayınları.
Dragutinovic, A., Pottgiesser, U., De Vos, E., & Melenhorst, M. (2017). Modernism in Belgrade: Classification of Modernist Housing Buildings 1919-1980. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/5/052075
Gold, J. R. (2007). The Practice of Modernism Modern Architects and Urban Transformation, 1954–1972.
Görgülü, Z. (2007). Kültür Mirasımızın Korunması Üzerine Bir Kez Daha Düşünürken. In Kent ve Planlama: Geçmişi Korumak Geleceği Tasarlamak
175
(pp. 39–46). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Gültekin, N. T. (2017). Evaluation of the conservation of modern architectural heritage through Ankara’s public buildings. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/8/082046
Güner, D. (2010). ’Şimdi’nin Restorasyonu. In N. Özaslan & D. Özkut (Eds.), Mimari Korumada güncel Konular (pp. 135–153). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Havinga, L., Colenbrander, B., & Schellen, H. (2020). Heritage attributes of post-war housing in Amsterdam. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOAR.2019.04.002
Historic England. (2017). Domestic 4: Modern Houses and Housing. 1–24.
ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites-(The Venice Charter). http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_en0243704001536681730.pdf
ISC20C ICOMOS. (2017). Madrid – New Delhi Document. Approaches to the conservation of Twentieth Century cultural heritage.
Jokilehto, J. (1999). A History of an Architectural Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kartal, M. (2005). YONTMATAŞ BULUNTU TOPLULUKLARI IŞIĞINDA ANKARA Neyi Biliyoruz? Neyi Bilmiyoruz? Yeni Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar. Anadolu (Anatolia), 28, 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1501/andl_0000000321
Mason, R., Low, S. M., Mourato, S., & Et.al. (2002). Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. In The Getty Conservation Institute.
176
Murphy, K. D. (2002). The Villa Savoye and the modernist historic monument. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 61(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/991812
Nalbantoğlu, G. (1984). 1928-1946 Döneminde Ankara’da Yapılan Konutların Mimari Değerlendirilmesi. Tarih İçinde Ankara, Eylül 1981 Semineri Bildirileri, 258–271.
Omay Polat, E. (2008). Modern Mimarlık Mirasını Onaylamak: Yasal Süreç ve Tescil Kararlarına Bakış. Mimarlık Dergisi, 340, 49–53. http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=290&RecID=1706
Omay Polat, E. (2014). Çerçeve Sunuşlar. In Korumada Sivil Mimarlık Çalıştay Notları (pp. 56–71). Vekam Yayınları.
Omay Polat, E. E. (2008). Türkiye’nin modern mimarlık mirasının korunması: kuram ve yöntem bağlamında bir değerlendirme [Yıldız Technical University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
Omay Polat, E. E., & Can, C. (2008). Modern mimarlık mirası kavramı: tanım ve kapsam. MEGARON, 3(2), 177–186. https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/MEGARON-07078-ARTICLE-POLAT.pdf
Öztürk, E. (2019). Ankara Ulus Tarihi Kent Merkezinde Koruma Planına Geçiş Dönemlerindeki Uygulamalar ve Neden Oldukları Sorunların İncelenmesi. Gazi University.
Prudon, T. (2008). Preservation of Modern Architecture.
Rich, G. (2017). Renewing Modernism: Emerging Principles for Practice. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 23(1–2), 116–140.
Sağdıç, O. (1993). Bir Zamanlar Ankara. Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
177
Tankut, G. (1993). Bir başkentin imarı: Ankara (1929-1939). Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi.
Tanrıverdi, Z. (2012). FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ ANKARA SARAÇOĞLU MAHALLESİ TARİHSEL ÇEVRE ÇÖZÜMLEMESİ KORUNMASI ve ÖRNEK YAPI BLOĞU RESTORASYONU RÖLÖVE-RESTORASYON PROGRAMI FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ TARİHSEL ÇEVRE ÇÖZÜMLEMESİ KORUNMASI ve ÖRNEK YAPI BLOĞU. Yıldız Technical University.
Tülce, H. (2018). Controversial Concepts on Conservation of Modern Residential Architecture. In Contemporary Issues in Housing Design (pp. 1–22). https://books.google.com/books?id=PzJ3DwAAQBAJ
Vural, Z. B., & Sağıroğlu, Ö. (2022). Modern Mimarlık Mirası Bağlamında Konut Mimarisi ve Türkiye’deki Yüksek Katlı Konut Örnekleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi, 7(2), 751–772. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.958353
Waverly Council. (2017). Waverly Council Inter-War Fact Sheets Heritage Study. May, 52.
Yılmaz, R. C., & Sağıroğlu, Ö. (2020). Ankara ili Yenimahalle ilçesinde bulunan müstakil konutların korunmasına yönelik bir değerlendirme. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 305–322.
Yılmaz, Z. İ. (2018). Conservation of a modern heritage place: “Çarşı” – the commercial core of Middle East Technical University (METU) [Middle East Technical University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
178
APPENDICES
A. High Council for the Conservation Council of Cultural Assets Decision, dated 10.07.1986
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
B.Approval Form from the Applied Ethic Research Center
212
C. Social Survey Form Prepared for Users of the Surrounding Buildings and a Sample
ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
KÜLTÜREL MİRASI KORUMA YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI
MODERN MİMARİ MİRASIN MODERN KENT DOKUSUNUN BİLEŞENLERİ OLARAK UYARLANABİLİR YENİDEN KULLANIMI: ULUS, MEVSİM SOKAK’TA BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ARAŞTIRMA FORMU
Çalışmanın Amacı
Bu çalışma, “Modern Mimari Mirasın Modern Kent Dokusunun Bileşenleri Olarak Uyarlanabilir Yeniden Kullanımı: Ulus, Mevsim Sokak’ta Bir Vaka Çalışması” yüksek lisans tezi kapsamında vaka çalışmasının yapılacağı bölgedeki değer tanımlarının saptanması ve kullanıcının alan ve yapı ölçeğindeki ihtiyaçlarının anlaşılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma bölgedeki tescilli yapıların ve/veya dönem yapılarının kullanıcıları ile gerçekleştirilecektir. Bu kapsamda toplanan bilgiler Mevsim Sokak boyunca uzanan bir grup Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi konut binalarını, orada oluşmuş olan modern dokunun bileşenleri olarak ele alarak bölgenin güncel dinamiklerine ve kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına cevap verecek bütüncül bir koruma ve uyarlanabilir yeniden kullanım stratejisi geliştirmek için bir kaynak olarak kullanılacaktır.
Çalışmanın Kapsamı
Çalışmanın kapsamı; kullanıcı profilini anlamak, kullanıcı bakış açısından bölgenin değerlerini saptamak, kullanıcının alan ve yapı ölçeğindeki sorunlarını, ihtiyaçlarını ve taleplerini saptamaktır.
213
Adres: Tarih:
Bina Bilgileri
Yapım Yılı/ Tescil Durumu: Ticaret Türü:
Kişi Bilgileri
Adı-Soyadı: Yaş:
Oturduğu Semt: Meslek: ◯Mal Sahibi ◯Miras/ ◯Satın Alınmış ◯Kiracı
Sorular
1.Kaç senedir burada çalışıyorsunuz? Ne için burayı tercih ettiniz?
2.İş yeri/ Bina bundan önce hangi işlevle kullanılıyordu?
3.İş yerinin /Binanın olumlu ve olumsuz özellikleri nelerdir?
4.İş yerinin /Binanın sorunları nelerdir?
5.İş yerinin /Binanın ihtiyaçları nelerdir?
6.İş yerinizin bulunduğu binayı önemli buluyor musunuz? Neden?
214
7.İşiniz dışında Ulus, Anafartalar bölgesine geliyor musunuz? Ne sıklıkta? Neiçin?
8.Geçmişte bu bölgeye ne sıklıkta ve ne için gelirdiniz?
9.Bu bölgede ne olsa daha çok kullanacağınız bir semt olur?
10.Sizce bu bölgenin olumlu özellikleri nelerdir?
11.Sizce bu bölgenin olumsuz özellikleri nelerdir?
12.Sizce bu bölgenin sorunları nelerdir?
13.Sizce bu bölgenin ihtiyaçları nelerdir?
14.Civardaki yapılar hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz? Sizce korunmasıgerekenler var mı? Neden?
215
D. Social Survey Form Prepared for Temporary Users of the Neighborhood and a Sample
ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
KÜLTÜREL MİRASI KORUMA YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI
MODERN MİMARİ MİRASIN MODERN KENT DOKUSUNUN BİLEŞENLERİ OLARAK UYARLANMIŞ YENİDEN KULLANILMASI: ULUS, MEVSİM SOKAK’TA BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ARAŞTIRMA FORMU
Çalışmanın Amacı
Bu çalışma, “Modern Mimari Mirasın Modern Kent Dokusunun Bileşenleri Olarak Uyarlanabilir Yeniden Kullanımı: Ulus, Mevsim Sokak’ta Bir Vaka Çalışması” yüksek lisans tezi kapsamında vaka çalışmasının yapılacağı bölgedeki değer tanımlarının saptanması ve kullanıcının alan ölçeğindeki ihtiyaçlarının anlaşılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma bölgenin kullanıcıları ile gerçekleştirilecektir. Bu kapsamda toplanan bilgiler Mevsim Sokak boyunca uzanan bir grup Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi konut binalarını, orada oluşmuş olan modern dokunun bileşenleri olarak ele alarak bölgenin güncel dinamiklerine ve kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına cevap verecek bütüncül bir koruma ve uyarlanabilir yeniden kullanım stratejisi geliştirmek için bir kaynak olarak kullanılacaktır.
Çalışmanın Kapsamı
Çalışmanın kapsamı; kullanıcı profilini anlamak, kullanıcı bakış açısından bölgenin değerlerini saptamak, kullanıcının alan ölçeğindeki sorunlarını, ihtiyaçlarını ve taleplerini saptamaktır.
216
Adres: Tarih:
Kişi Bilgileri
Adı-Soyadı: Yaş:
Oturduğu Semt: Meslek:
Sorular
1.Ne sıklıkta Ulus, Anafartalar bölgesine geliyorsunuz? Hangi günler vehangi saatler?
2.Ne tür ihtiyaçlar için burayı tercih ediyorsunuz? Neden?
3.Geçmişte bu bölgeye ne sıklıkta ve ne için gelirdiniz?
4.Bu bölgede ne olsa daha çok kullanacağınız bir semt olur?
5.Sizce bu bölgenin olumlu özellikleri nelerdir?
6.Sizce bu bölgenin olumsuz özellikleri nelerdir?
7.Sizce bu bölgenin sorunları nelerdir?
8.Sizce bu bölgenin ihtiyaçları nelerdir?
9.Civardaki yapılar hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz? Sizce korunmasıgerekenler var mı? Neden?
217
E. Social Survey/Interview Form Prepared for Decision Makers
ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
KÜLTÜREL MİRASI KORUMA YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI
MODERN MİMARİ MİRASIN MODERN KENT DOKUSUNUN BİLEŞENLERİ OLARAK UYARLANABİLİR YENİDEN KULLANIMI: ULUS, MEVSİM SOKAK’TA BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ARAŞTIRMA FORMU
Çalışmanın Amacı
Bu çalışma, “Modern Mimari Mirasın Modern Kent Dokusunun Bileşenleri Olarak Uyarlanabilir Yeniden Kullanımı: Ulus, Mevsim Sokak’ta Bir Vaka Çalışması” yüksek lisans tezi kapsamında vaka çalışmasının yapılacağı bölgedeki değer tanımlarının saptanması ve kullanıcının alan ve yapı ölçeğindeki ihtiyaçlarının anlaşılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma bölgedeki ilgili kurum çalışanları, dernek üyeleri, bölge muhtarı gibi çeşitli karar mercileri ile gerçekleştirilecektir. Bu kapsamda toplanan bilgiler Mevsim Sokak boyunca uzanan bir grup Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi konut binalarını, orada oluşmuş olan modern dokunun bileşenleri olarak ele alarak bölgenin güncel dinamiklerine ve kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına cevap verecek bütüncül bir koruma ve uyarlanabilir yeniden kullanım stratejisi geliştirmek için bir kaynak olarak kullanılacaktır.
Çalışmanın Kapsamı
Çalışmanın kapsamı; kullanıcı profilini anlamak, kullanıcı bakış açısından bölgenin değerlerini saptamak, kullanıcının alan ölçeğindeki sorunlarını, ihtiyaçlarını ve taleplerini saptamaktır.
Adres: Tarih:
218
Kişi Bilgileri
Adı-Soyadı: Yaş:
Oturduğu Semt: Meslek:
Sorular
1.Ulus, Anafartalar bölgesinin sizin için önemi nedir? Burayı neden tercihediyorsunuz?
2.Bölgenin zaman içerisindeki değişimini nasıl değerlendiriyorsunuz?
3.Sizce bölgenin olumlu özellikleri nelerdir? Eskiden olup şu an yitirmişolduğu bir özelliği var mı?
4.Sizce bu bölgenin sorunları nelerdir?
5.Sizce bu bölgenin ihtiyaçları nelerdir? Bölgede ne olsa günlük hayatınızdabu bölgeyi daha çok kullanırsınız?
219
F. Social Survey Form Prepared for Users of the Selected Buildings
ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
KÜLTÜREL MİRASI KORUMA YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI
MODERN MİMARİ MİRASIN MODERN KENT DOKUSUNUN BİLEŞENLERİ OLARAK UYARLANABİLİR YENİDEN KULLANIMI: ULUS, MEVSİM SOKAK’TA BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ARAŞTIRMA FORMU
Çalışmanın Amacı
Bu çalışma, “Modern Mimari Mirasın Modern Kent Dokusunun Bileşenleri Olarak Uyarlanabilir Yeniden Kullanımı: Ulus, Mevsim Sokak’ta Bir Vaka Çalışması” yüksek lisans tezi kapsamında vaka çalışmasının yapılacağı bölgedeki değer tanımlarının saptanması ve kullanıcının alan ve yapı ölçeğindeki ihtiyaçlarının anlaşılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma tezin vaka çalışması olarak belirlediği Mevsim sokakta bulunan Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi konut binalarının kullanıcı ve mülk sahipleri ile gerçekleştirilecektir. Bu kapsamda toplanan bilgiler Mevsim Sokak boyunca uzanan bir grup Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi konut binalarını, orada oluşmuş olan modern dokunun bileşenleri olarak ele alarak bölgenin güncel dinamiklerine ve kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına cevap verecek bütüncül bir koruma ve uyarlanabilir yeniden kullanım stratejisi geliştirmek için bir kaynak olarak kullanılacaktır.
Çalışmanın Kapsamı
Çalışmanın kapsamı; vaka çalışması yapılacak binaların kullanıcı profilini anlamak, kullanıcı bakış açısından bölgenin değerlerini saptamak, kullanıcının alan ve yapı ölçeğindeki sorunlarını, ihtiyaçlarını ve taleplerini saptamaktır.
220
Adres: Tarih:
Kişi Bilgileri
Adı-Soyadı: Yaş:
Oturduğu Semt: Meslek: ◯ Mal Sahibi ◯ Miras/ ◯ Satın Alınmış ◯ Kiracı
Sorular
1.Ulus, Anafartalar bölgesinin sizin için önemi nedir? Burayı neden tercihediyorsunuz?
2.Bölgenin zaman içerisindeki değişimini nasıl değerlendiriyorsunuz?
3.Sizce bölgenin olumlu özellikleri nelerdir? Eskiden olup şu an yitirmişolduğu bir özelliği var mı?
4.Sizce bu bölgenin sorunları nelerdir?
5.Sizce bu bölgenin ihtiyaçları nelerdir? Bölgede ne olsa günlük hayatınızdabu bölgeyi daha çok kullanırsınız?
6.İşyerinizin/Binanızın sizin için önemi nedir? Neden burayı tercih ettiniz?
221
7.İşyerinizin/Binanızın hangi mekânlarını ne amaçla kullanıyorsunuz? Boşmekân varsa neden kullanmıyorsunuz?
8.İşyeriniz/Binanız düzenli aralıklarla bakıma ihtiyaç duyuyor mu? Öncedenyapmış olduğunuz onarım veya bakım uygulamaları neler?
9.İşyerinizin/Binanızın sorunları nelerdir? (Isınma, su, aydınlatma,havalandırma vb.)
10.İşyerinizin/Binanızın ihtiyaçları nelerdir? İmkânınız olsa neyi değiştirmekveya ne tür değişiklikler yaptırmak isterdiniz?
11.İşyerinizin/Binanızın olumlu özellikleri nelerdir? Korunması gerektiğinidüşünüyor musunuz?
12.İşyerinizin/Binanızın tescilli olmasının sizin için olumlu ve olumsuz yönlerinelerdir?