Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

A model suggestion for determining physical and socio-cultural changes of traditional settlements in Turkey

Pages
81–93
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is aimed to answer these questions using a method for comparison of traditional settlement parameters with new settlement parameters in Turkey and put forward the physical and socio-cultural changes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The processes of change observed in many field today such as urbanization, urban transformation and globalization which all are caused by socio-cultural, technological, economic, ecologic and politic factors have great influence on peo-ple, relationships, living environments, houses and cities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is seen that traditional life style and buildings have changed and/or decreased in terms of functional incompetence and dilapidation in accordance with these transformations and changing require-ments of the century.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is aimed to answer these questions using a method for comparison of traditional settlement parameters with new settlement parameters in Turkey and put forward the physical and socio-cultural changes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The processes of change observed in many field today such as urbanization, urban transformation and globalization which all are caused by socio-cultural, technological, economic, ecologic and politic factors have great influence on peo-ple, relationships, living environments, houses and cities. Existing as a loop these dynamics interact with each other and structure the new parts of the city as well as transform the old / traditional settlements. It is seen that traditional life style and buildings have changed and/or decreased in terms of functional incompetence and dilapidation in accordance with these transformations and changing require-ments of the century. It is possible to state that the traditional housing areas, as an important component for cultural sustainability and worth of historical heritage have transformed accordingly in terms of socio-cultural and physical ways with their users. Some questions occur at that point like “How can we find out if a settlement has changed?”, “How can this change can be formulated?”, “What is the rate of the change?”. It is aimed to answer these questions using a method for comparison of traditional settlement parameters with new settlement parameters in Turkey and put forward the physical and socio-cultural changes.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATİK, D., ERDOĞAN, N. (2017). A model suggestion for determining physical and socio-cultural changes of traditional settlements in Turkey. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 81–93. https://ajindex.com/articles/144207

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Al-Soliman, T. M. (1991). Societal Values and Their Effect on the Built Environment in Saudi Arabia: A Re-cent Account. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (JAPR), Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 235- 254. Arü, K. (1998).
  2. Türk Kenti, YEM Yayınları,
  3. İstanbul.
  4. Atik, D. (2011). A Suggestion of a Model for the Determination of Physi-cal and Socio-Cultural Changes in Tra-ditional Housing Areas: Edirne City Sample. Unpublished Doctorate The-sis, Trakya University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences De-partment of Architecture. Bayık, A. (1973).
  5. Edirne, İstanbul.
  6. Bayramoğlu Alada, A. (2007). Küreselleşen Şehrin Geleneksel Mahalles-ine Reddiye. Kent Ve Politika; Antik Kentten Dünya Kentine, editör Ayşegül Mengi, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, s:27-45, 1. Baskı,
  7. Eylül, İstanbul.
  8. Bektaş, C. (2007). Türk Evi (Turkish House). Bileşim Yayınları: 282, June, İstanbul.
  9. Cansever, T. (1994).
  10. Ev ve Şehir. İnsan Publications, İstanbul.
  11. Darkot, B. (1965). Edirne Coğrafi Giriş. Edirne’nin 600. Fethi Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı, Ankara.
  12. Eldem, S. H. (1968).
  13. Türk Evi Plan Tipleri, İstanbul Technical University Faculty of Architecture Publications, 2nd Edition,
  14. İstanbul.
  15. Errington, S. (19799. The Cosmic House of the Buginese. Asia, 10/17/94 Eruzun, C. (1989).
  16. Kültürel Sürekli-lik İçinde Türk Evi, Mimarlık, Volume: 236, 68-71.
  17. Eyüce, A. (2005).
  18. Geleneksel Yapılar ve Mekanlar, Birsen Yayınevi,
  19. İstanbul.
  20. Firidin Özgür, E. (2006). Sosyal ve Mekansal Ayrışma Çerçevesinde Yeni Konutlaşma Eğilimleri: Kapalı Siteler, İstanbul-Çekmeköy Örneği. Yayın-lanmamış Doktora Tezi MSGSÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  21. Giddens, A. (1988).
  22. Modernliğin Sonuçları, Küreselleşme ve Kültür içinde (Tomlinson, J., 2004,). Çev: Er-sin Kuşdil, Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul, 70. Gönül, B.Y. (2001). The Effects of Multiculturalism on Housing in Tradi-tional Architecture and their Contempo-rary Results. Traditional Environments in a New Millennium, edited by Hülya Turgut & Peter Kellett, Proceeding of the 2nd International Symposium of IAPS-CSBE and SBEN, 22-23
  23. June, Amasya/Turkey. Günay, R. (1999). Türk Ev Geleneği ve Safranbolu Evleri, YEM Yayınları,
  24. İkinci Baskı, İstanbul. Gündüz M.; & Yıldız, C. (2008). Türk Yazılı Kültüründe Komşuluk. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C:7 Yaz,, s:123-138.
  25. Gür, Ş.Ö. (2000). Doğu Karadeniz Örneğinde Konut Kültürü. YEM Yayın-ları, 1. Baskı,
  26. Nisan, İstanbul.
  27. Harvey, D. (2003).
  28. Postmodernliğin Durumu, Çev: Sungur Savran, 3. Basım Metis Yayınları,
  29. Ekim, İstanbul.
  30. Kahraman, H.