Similarities and Differences Between Contemporary Turkish Houses and Those Worldwide

Abstract

Due to discontent arising from the application of Modernism's totalitarian and homogenising logic to house design, recent research has concentrated on differences between cultures, societies and ethnic groups to the extent that today's students of architecture have difficulty finding sources which point to any universally valid values and preferences adopted by contemporary populations. In this study seventeen major design principles stemming from man-environment relationships, such as privacy, territoriality, personal space, backstage behaviour, orientation, and so on, as deduced from Turkish traditional houses, are investigated in terms of similarities among cultures. Samples of contemporary houses are selected from Turkey and elsewhere. Between local and international house designs full matches are depicted and verified by way of statistical analyses across fourteen items, such as living space subdivisions for guests and family, indirect access to the house (modulation), multi-purpose living space subdivisions (hierarchical living space), individualized bathrooms in bedrooms, independent family rooms, semi-closed spaces on the first floor, larger fenestration on upper floors as opposed to opacity of ground floors, segregated garden space, powerful demarcation of the garden space, orientation toward the house's own territory, bathrooms being situated in night time domains, differentiated status of spaces, multiple uses for stair landings (such as for hiding places for goods). Only three items showed some variance: closed balconies on upper floors were local, and semi-open spaces on ground floors were international tendencies. The practice of allowing direct access from the main entrance to a vertical circulation area was also predominantly a local choice.

Citation

Gür, Ş.Ö. and Erol, Ş.Y. (2011), "Similarities and Differences Between Contemporary Turkish Houses and Those Worldwide", Open House International, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-04-2011-B0006