SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2019 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

A Comparative Analysis of the Spatial Characteristic of Apartment Buildings in Gaziantep,Turkey

Yurdagül GÖRÜCÜ
M. Serhat YENİCE
Pages
608–625
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

However, differences andvariations are mostly observed in the first plan typologies and it isnoteworthy that this diversity has reduced, and similar plan schemeshave been widely used in recent examples.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to analyze the planning and design process, basicprinciples, and the change-transformation process of the apartment typeresidential buildings in Turkey, Gaziantep.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result of the study, it is seen that the accessgraph and space sizes of the apartment-type residential buildings datingback to the 1960s, have significantly changed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, differences andvariations are mostly observed in the first plan typologies and it isnoteworthy that this diversity has reduced, and similar plan schemeshave been widely used in recent examples.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the planning and design process, basicprinciples, and the change-transformation process of the apartment typeresidential buildings in Turkey, Gaziantep. The scope of the researchconsists of residential buildings built in the post-Republican period inGaziantep. The basic materials of the research are zoning-city plans, planexplanation reports, plan diagrams of buildings and photographs basedon field research. The method of the research is based on a comparativeanalysis of spatial changes in apartment buildings according to historicalbackground. These changes evaluated from the analysis of a series ofvariables ranging from parcel-level to plan projects, access graphs tospatial size and ratios. As a result of the study, it is seen that the accessgraph and space sizes of the apartment-type residential buildings datingback to the 1960s, have significantly changed. However, differences andvariations are mostly observed in the first plan typologies and it isnoteworthy that this diversity has reduced, and similar plan schemeshave been widely used in recent examples.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRÜCÜ, Y., YENİCE, M. S. (2022). A Comparative Analysis of the Spatial Characteristic of Apartment Buildings in Gaziantep,Turkey. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 608–625. https://ajindex.com/articles/538279

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Balamir, M. (1975). Kat Mülkiyet ve Kentleşmemiz. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, (1), 295-318. Brkanić, I., Stober, D., & Mihić, M. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of the Spatial Configuration of Apartments Built in Osijek, Croatia, between 1930 and 2015. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 17(1), 23-30. doi:http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.17.23
  2. Byun, N., & Choi, J. (2015). A Typology of Korean Housing Units: In Search of Spatial Configuration. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15(1), 41-48.
  3. Choi, Y. (2013). Comparative Evaluation of Unit Layout Alternatives in Plan-Extension Remodeling of Domestic Korean Apartments. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 12(2), 205-209.
  4. Franic, T., Korlaet, L., & Vranic, D. (2005). Contribution to Analysis of Housing Policies and Planned Housing Construction in the Netherlands and Croatia. Protor, 13(2), 95-205.
  5. Görücü, Y. (2017). A review of spatial changes in the apartment type of residences; Case of Gaziantep. Gaziantep: Hasan Kalyoncu Univetsity, Institue of Natural and Applied Sciences. Gür, Ş. (1989). 80’li Yıllarda Apartman Örnekleri. Mimarlık Dergisi, 27(233), 62-65.
  6. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Ju, S. R., Lee, L., & Jeon, S. Y. (2014). The Typologies of Block and Unit Plan in Malaysian Apartments - Focused on Middle Cost Houses Supplied by the Private Sector -. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 13(2), 397- 404. Keleş, R. (2000). Kentleşme Politikası (5 b.). Ankara:
  8. İmge Kitabevi.
  9. Kurian, S., & Thampuran, A. (2001). Assessment of Housing Quality. Institute of Town Planners, India Journal, 8(2), 74- 85. Öncel, A. (2010). Apartman: Galata’ya Yeni Bir Konut Tipi. İstanbul:
  10. Kitap Yayınevi.
  11. Pamuk, A. (1996). Convergence Trends in Formal and Informal Housing Markets: The Case of Turkey. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2), 103-113.
  12. Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. US: Prentice Hall. Sey, Y. (1998). Cumhuriyet Döneminde Konut. Y. Sey içinde, 75 yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık (s. 285-300). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  13. Streimikiene, D. (2015). Quality of Life and Housing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,, 5(2), 140-145.
  14. Ulusoy, M. (2006). Historical Development of Apartment Buildings in Konya. Konya: Memleket A.Ş. Yenice, M. S. (2014). A historical analysis of the urban regeneration experiment of Turkey