J Hous and the Built Environ (2013) 28:293–309 DOI 10.1007/s10901-012-9313-6 ARTICLE
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement in Sanliurfa, Turkey Ayhan Bekleyen • Nail Mahir Korkmaz
Received: 24 April 2011 / Accepted: 29 August 2012 / Published online: 14 September 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Traditional living spaces contain climatic and cultural elements that may be used in the design of future living spaces. The sustainable characteristics that have been developed by trial and error for hundreds of years can be reinterpreted in contemporary architecture according to modern conditions. In this study, user satisfaction levels have been examined in the new living spaces in Sanliurfa, a city located in southeastern Turkey. The design of the mass housing settlement examined within the scope of this study was inspired by traditional living spaces. It has been shown that, contrary to expectations, the similarities between the modern and traditional living spaces are not always accepted by today’s users. In this study, users reflected that they would be more satisfied if there were some changes in the design of their houses terms of spatial organization. They also raised some concerns about the setting and characteristics of the settlement. Keywords Residential satisfaction Post-occupancy evaluation Design problems Mass housing settlement Built environment
1 Introduction 1.1 The concept of residential satisfaction A house, which is a private space, cannot be evaluated separately from its environment because there is an organic relationship between the house and its nearby environment. For that reason, in housing studies, houses should be examined by considering their environment both from a social and a physical perspective (Amerigo and Aragones 1997). A. Bekleyen (&) Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Dicle University, 21280 Diyarbakir, Turkey e-mail:
[email protected] N. M. Korkmaz Building and Technical Office, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail:
[email protected]
123
294
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
Generally, these studies determine the satisfaction levels of the users; the users’ perceptions of their environment are presumed to reflect the quality of the house. Satisfaction levels are examined both to define the users’ quality of life (Acar and Bekleyen 2008; Altas¸ ¨ zsoy 1998; Grzeskowiak et al. 2006; O ¨ zbudak and Bekleyen 2006; Lu 1999) and to and O determine which problems cause residential mobility (Amerigo and Aragones 1990, 1997; Wiedemann and Anderson 1985). Rapoport’s (2004, p. 70) saying, ‘‘Design is for users’’, indicates that the satisfaction levels of the users is a measure of the success of a design. User evaluations of the artificial environment capture opinions of the weak and strong aspects of the living space (Preiser 2005; Preiser and Vischer 2005; Preiser et al. 1988). In this respect, ‘‘the objective attributes of the residential environment, once they have been evaluated by the individual, become subjective, giving rise to a certain degree of satisfaction’’ (Amerigo and Aragones 1997, p. 48). Subjective knowledge reflects the user’s quality of life (Marans 2003; van Kamp et al. 2003), which symbolizes the negative and positive aspects of user satisfaction (Adriaanse 2007; Canter 1983; Galster and Hesser 1981; Liu 1999; Tu¨rkog˘lu 1997; Wiesenfeld 1992). It has been recognized that, when the artificial environment is usable, it is accepted by the users, whereas those with negative outcomes are rejected (Rapoport 2004). Negative outcomes also cause a desire to move, which is another result of user dissatisfaction (Bonaiuto et al. 1999; Winstanley et al. 2002). This desire stems from the lack of adaptation to the environment. If the environment cannot be changed to meet the needs of the user, satisfaction levels may be affected negatively (Sanoff 1977). Adaptation to the environment generally depends on the capacity of the environment to meet both the needs of the user (Du¨lgerog˘lu et al. 1996) and the flexibility and changeability options of the environment (Gu¨r 1993, 1997). 1.2 Artificial environments evaluated differently by user and designer Human-environment studies have shown that the choices of designers, as well as their reactions to the environment, may be quite different compared to those of the users (Rapoport 1990). A number of studies have shown that users and designers have different opinions, especially when it comes to houses and their near environments. For example, it has been revealed that the Maiden Lane Housing Project in London, which was praised in the Architectural Review Journal (November, 1988) and received architectural prizes, has not been found satisfactory by its users (Sherwood 2002) and has even been described as ‘‘similar to a Nazi camp’’ (Rapoport 2004). Newmann (1972), on the other hand, found that the Pruitt-Igoe houses have negative associations among their users. The tradition of organizing contests to choose the best architectural projects still continues. However, according to the results of some studies, the evaluations of the jury members may be quite different from those of the users. The winner of Ohio State University’s Visual Arts Center competition finished in fourth place after a re-evaluation by users (Nasar and Kang 1989). Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1982) found a discrepancy between the evaluations of users and professionals regarding the aesthetic features of a government building. These findings indicate that it is necessary to design buildings that are sensitive to the needs and desires of the users. For this reason, collecting the opinions of users through post-occupancy evaluation studies is extremely important before designing future buildings (Preiser 1989, 2001; Preiser and Nasar 2008; Reizenstein and Zimring 1980; Zimmerman and Martin 2001; Zimring and Reizenstein 1980). The importance of user preferences is evident from the changes made by users in their houses. Architectural design is not resistant to the changes users will make. There are some
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
295
projects that allow users to shape or personalize their environment. The Quinta Monroy Housing Project in Iquique, Chile is one of these projects. This project, designed by Alejandro Aravena and his team, is one of the radical solutions to situations in which funds were insufficient to complete the living spaces. Accordingly, only half of the building was constructed; the other half was left for the users to complete however they desired. This project, which is often mentioned in discussing situations with financial limitations, lets the users make their houses wider without encroaching upon the neighbors’ property (Swenarton 2009). 1.3 Preferences from past to present Traditional living spaces, which have been designed by trial and error, exemplify the adaptation of human beings to their environment (Bekleyen and Dalkılıc¸ 2011, 2012). In this sense, traditional living spaces can be a model for future housing design from both a cultural and climatic perspective. As suggested by Pressman, ‘‘the vocabulary of the past constitutes a repository of ideas and forms which, if successfully adapted, can prove beneficial’’ (1994, p. 6). Traditional architecture, a basic component of culture, is also a sign of cultural links. The continuance of the traditional housing architecture is closely related to cultural determination (Gu¨nc¸e et al. 2007). Human behavior affects the human-built environment and vice versa, i.e., the environment also affects human behavior. They change and shape each other through this reciprocal interaction (Gu¨r 1988). Modern house design points to the rich cultural assets and interpretations of people living in a certain region, and it reflects both the complex acculturation effects as well as the effects of their families and their individual characteristics (Gu¨r 2000). Therefore, in the design of new living spaces, characteristics of the past and the potential of modern-day technologies should be taken into consideration (Gu¨r 1994; Gu¨r and Bekleyen 2003). The present study examines levels of satisfaction among users of a mass housing settlement in Sanliurfa, a city in the Southeastern Anatolian region of Turkey. This settlement has been chosen as sample because the houses in the project conveyed some traces of the traditional housing style of the region.
2 Past and present housing settlement in Sanliurfa Both the features of the historical settlement of Sanliurfa and the new mass housing settlement in the city are explained in this part of the study in terms of settlement structure and house space organization. 2.1 Historical settlement and traditional houses of Sanliurfa The historical settlement of Sanliurfa dates back to ancient times. Many civilizations have occupied this area. The historical Sanliurfa has a compact city texture similar to that of other settlements in the Mesopotamian region. A city settlement like this consists of traditional houses. These houses have been arranged in a settlement texture that consists of adjacent parcels with different sizes. Adjacency is a design strategy to protect the houses from the sun’s heat. Houses in a hot and dry climate are constructed as close to the neighboring houses as possible to reduce the amount of outer surface that is exposed to sunlight. Therefore, a
123
296
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
design with courtyards has been adopted. The spaces between the houses are spontaneous, narrow roads that make the entrance to courtyards and houses possible. Since pack animals were used for carriage, these narrow roads did not cause transportation problems. Further, since the roads were narrow, they were shadowy and cooler. House plans were organized around the centrally located courtyard. In an adjacent settlement, generally all the spaces have a view of the courtyard, which allows for light and air (Fig. 1). Other spaces (rooms, toilet, and kitchen) are designed around this multifunctioned component of the house. There is also a semi-open space called iwan, which is always placed in the southern part of the courtyard and faces the north, namely the courtyard. Because it faces the north, the iwan is not exposed to direct sunlight; thus, it is cooler. Therefore, it serves as the primary space for eating, sleeping, and sitting in summer (Fig. 2). The shape of the courtyard house in the Middle East offers important advantages concerning both privacy and climatic conditions. Privacy is represented by a closed plan type that shields the family (the courtyard, which is surrounded by high walls, cannot be seen by the neighbors). The latter advantage derives from the purposeful shape and usage of the courtyard. For example, the northern parts of the courtyard face the south and these are called the winter spaces. The southern parts of the courtyard, called the summer spaces, are perfect for summer usage since they are not exposed to direct sunlight. There is a continuous movement around the courtyard according to the sun’s angle. This important formal structure is the main design criterion for most of the traditional houses in the Middle East (Bekleyen and Dalkılıc¸ 2007, 2011, 2012). The houses have a flat roof, a functional aspect, which can be used to dry vegetables during sunny summer days. It serves as a cool sleeping area for the household on the hot
Fig. 1 Courtyard of a traditional house of Sanliurfa (Source Authors)
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
297
Fig. 2 Iwan of a traditional house of Sanliurfa (Source Authors)
and dry summer nights, with the help of practical foldable mattresses spread on wooden bedsteads called taht (Akkoyunlu 1989). The narrow roads between the houses can only be viewed through the windows in the upper floor rooms, called cumba in the local language (Fig. 3). The ground floor is completely closed off and only has a view of the courtyard, not the road (Akkoyunlu 1989). 2.2 Akabe mass housing settlement of Sanliurfa The Akabe mass housing settlement (AMHS) lies in a region called Akabe, 6 km southwest of Sanliurfa city, with an inclined topography (Fig. 4). There is a small industrial estate on the north side of the area. Although the Housing Development Administration of Turkey planned to build 795 two-story houses (Groups of Houses A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6), only 474 could be built (Groups of Houses A1, A2 and A3) (Fig. 5). Among those that were built, 269 (Groups of Houses A2 and A3) are used by homeowners or tenants. Due to a lack of demand, government offices use the remaining 205 (Group of Houses A1) for their employees’ accommodations. The Turkish Housing Development Administration hired a private company in 1995 to design the mass housing settlement for low-income immigrants who had moved from the rural areas to the city. This project received the best of project prize in the 5th National Architecture Awards of Turkey in 1996, and the construction was completed in 1997. This mass housing project is a modern and economical adaptation of the traditional courtyard houses of Sanliurfa. In other words, the traditional courtyard house and its texture inspired the new house design. As a result, the effect of the sun has been minimized
123
298
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
Fig. 3 Windows looking to the street from upper floor of a traditional house of Sanliurfa (Source Authors)
by both the use of shadowy areas and the cooling effect of air as well as by narrow roads, high walls, courtyards and other small openings. The designers tried to meet the requirements of the World Bank, in the hope of receiving funding for the project from the institution. They also conformed to the standards of the Housing Development Administration listed below. In order to meet different needs, planning should be flexible and suitable for lowincome families, simplicity in construction technology, construction opportunities that do not require expensive material, complex details and equipment. (Elmas and Gu¨lc¸ur, 1996, p. 108) The two-story houses in the AMHS include a courtyard, iwan, living room, entrance hall, toilet, and kitchen on the ground floor, as well as three bedrooms, a bathroom, and terrace on the upper floor. The parcel is 92 square meters, whereas the entire house measures 100 square meters. An adjacent and continuous texture has been formed by the courtyard houses constructed around narrow roads with stairways on an inclined area (Fig. 6). The roof is flat, and it was planned to serve multiple purposes such as preparing traditional foods like jam, tomato paste, sun-dried pepper, and parched and crushed wheat.
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
299
Fig. 4 A map of Sanliurfa and the location of the mass housing settlement (Source Authors)
Fig. 5 A map of the mass housing settlement (Source Akyu¨rek Elmas Architecture)
123
300
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
Fig. 6 Plans, section and elevations of houses that have been investigated (Source Akyu¨rek Elmas Architecture)
Another anticipated function of the roof was to serve as a sleeping area on hot summer nights like the traditional houses of Sanliurfa.
3 Methodology In this article, AMHS in Sanliurfa has been chosen as a case study. These courtyards houses, which remind one of the traditional Sanliurfa houses, attracted the attention of the researchers because they were part of a mass housing project. This project sets forth the following research questions:
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
301
1. Do the new houses in the mass housing settlement in Sanliurfa resemble the traditional houses of the city? 2. What is the satisfaction level of the users of the new houses in Sanliurfa? 3. According to the findings obtained from the study, which similarities between the traditional houses and new houses are sustainable and can be used in modern housing architecture? 3.1 Research instruments Two instruments were used to collect data within the scope of the study. Through the administration of a questionnaire, this award-winning housing project was evaluated by its users. The first part of the questionnaire concerned the attitudes of the users towards a number of factors about space organization such as privacy, comfort levels and the function of the courtyard as well as some additional factors like affordability, aesthetics and security. The second part of the questionnaire was related to the users’ attitudes towards the settlement’s setting and characteristics. Finally, the respondents were asked whether they would want to move from their houses if they had better economic conditions. It was hypothesized that the greater the desire they expressed to move out of their houses, the lower their satisfaction level would be. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert-type questions, with a scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The second part of the instrument, which included questions about the settlement, had two options. The findings were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Another research instrument used by the researchers was an interview. Since this study examined the users’ opinions about the modern interpretation of a traditional house style, the interview questions focused on their opinions about the traditional components of the house like the courtyard and the traces of the traditional settlement characteristics. Users were also asked to define how they would like to shape their house and the settlement. 3.2 Participants in the study This AMHS consists of 474 houses. The 205 houses used for the employees of a government office fall outside the scope of this study. The instruments were administered to the users of 78 houses from the remaining 269 two-story courtyard houses that were chosen as samples. Most of the respondents were female (65 %), and they were mainly housewives. This is considered to be an advantage since they spend more time at home and may be the most aware of the strengths and weaknesses of house design. The remaining respondents (35 %) were males, mostly occupied with small-scale trade. Most of the users have low incomes (89 %). Their level of education is also quite low (78 % of the respondents were primaryschool graduates). Homeowners comprise 71 % of the residents.
4 Results and discussion In this part of the paper, the findings are presented according to the research questions formulated in the methodology section.
123
302
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
4.1 Do the new houses in the mass housing settlement in Sanliurfa resemble the traditional houses of the city? To answer this question, the houses and the settlement area were examined by the researchers. The AMHS resembles the traditional settlement in Sanliurfa due to their similar textures and courtyards. Like the traditional city texture, the AMHS consists of adjacent houses and narrow roads. The new courtyard houses have an inward-looking spatial organization just like the traditional houses. Another similar feature is that the openings to the outside world consist of the outer doors on the ground floor and the windows on the upper floor. In new houses, there is a minor addition; there are a few small windows on the ground floor facing the narrow roads, which can be closed with shutters to provide privacy. The new houses have flat roofs like the traditional houses so that the roof can serve both as a place to prepare food and as a place to sleep on hot nights. In addition, just like the traditional Sanliurfa houses, each of these new houses includes an iwan that is placed in the south of the courtyard and faces the north. Mostly, it can be said that the spatial organization of the new houses is similar to that of the traditional houses. 4.2 What is the satisfaction level of the users of the new houses in Sanliurfa? All living spaces in this housing settlement have an inward-looking organization of space. The results indicate that, although the percentage of the users satisfied with the organization is low (10 %), 59 % of the users are satisfied with the privacy of their houses (Table 1). In these houses, as in the traditional houses, courtyards form the center of the house. All of the users are satisfied with the existence of the courtyard, but its size is not approved by 63 % of the users. In their answers to the open-ended interview questions, they mentioned a need for a large green and watered area that would give a sense of relief in the hot seasons. About half of the users think their houses lack a good view (46 %) and think they do not get enough daylight (55 %) (Table 1). Table 2 gives the respondents’ answers to the question related to their ideal house and location. Most of the respondents want to live in a house with a garden (82 %). When the location is taken into consideration, it is observed that the largest group of respondents wants to live in a house with a view (43.6 %). More than half (56 %) of the respondents said they were not pleased with the size and number of the rooms. The fact that more than half of the respondents (53 %) consider their house big may be due to the presence of a courtyard. In addition, 51 % of the users said they did not find their houses comfortable and practical (Table 1). The same proportion reported that their houses were not comfortable. When asked for the reason, all of them mentioned that the halls were open to the courtyard, which made the houses relatively cold in winter. Regarding affordability, 42 % of the users are satisfied. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the respondents think the appearance of the house cannot be defined as nice (68 %) and that the environment is not modern (56 %). The roofs of the new houses are flat like those of traditional houses. Most of the users (66.7 %) have a low level of satisfaction regarding the roof (Table 3) since this space is not perceived as a safe area. It is easy to reach their roof from the roofs of neighboring houses. In the traditional dwellings, the narrow and cool roads were connected to larger streets and social areas like schools and markets. Instead of large automobiles, people relied on pack animals for transport and shipping. In the AMHS, 73 % of the users are not happy about the distance between the settlement and the city center, whereas 90 % think they
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
303
Table 1 Users’ opinions related to the house and near environment Statement
Frequency of responses
Scale
Strongly agree 5
Mean
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
4
3
2
1
Percentage of agreement (%)
We are satisfied with the housing space organization of our house
2
6
12
36
22
2.10
10
We are satisfied with privacy of the house
11
35
14
7
11
3.36
59
We are satisfied with existence of the courtyard
7
71
0
0
0
4.09
100
We are satisfied with size of the courtyard
0
29
0
49
0
2.74
37
Our house does not have a good view
13
23
10
26
6
3.14
46
Our house does not get enough sunlight
20
23
3
25
7
3.31
55
Our house is big
11
30
8
25
4
3.24
53
Our rooms are small
6
38
8
21
5
3.24
56
The number of rooms is not adequate
6
38
7
24
3
3.26
56
14
26
12
17
9
3.24
51
4
29
13
14
18
2.83
42
We do not live in a house that looks good
24
29
10
13
2
3.77
68
We do not live in a modern environment
18
26
9
18
7
3.38
56
Play and sport areas for children are not sufficient in the settlement
14
30
6
22
6
3.31
56
We do not live in a comfortable house We are satisfied with the affordability of the house
need more social activities. Fifty-six percent of the respondents think the number of recreational areas for children is not sufficient (Table 4). The parks built for children are placed at the outer edge of the settlement, which is beyond the control of the parents.
123
304 Table 2 User expectations related to the ideal house type and location
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
House types and locations
Responses of users Frequency
Percentage
House type Apartment
14
18
Two-story with a garden
30
38.5
One-story with a garden
34
43.5
3
3.8
Location of the house An esteemed neighborhood A house that may be valuable in the future
17
21.8
A house with a view
34
43.6
A house that is close to the city center
21
26.9
3
3.8
78
100
A house that is close to friends and relatives Total
Table 3 Users’ satisfaction rates related to the neighborhood Statement
Frequency of responses/percentage Satisfaction
Dissatisfaction
Security between adjacent neighboring houses with flat roof
26/33.3%
52/66.7%
Pedestrian ways in settlement
20/25.6%
58/74.4%
Easiness of carrying goods to/from the house or car
29/37.2%
49/62.8%
Transportation to the settlement
21/26.9%
57/73.1%
Distance to the schools
20/25.6%
58/74.4%
Social facilities
8/10.3%
70/89.7%
Table 4 Users’ satisfaction levels Statement Strongly agree Agree
Frequency N
Percentage
1
1.3
27
34.6
Undecided
28
35.9
Disagree
10
12.8
Strongly disagree
12
15.4
Total
78
100
Questionnaire item: I am satisfied with my house and the near environment
The planning of the new housing settlement is characterized by adjacency; that is, houses are adjacent to each other and the roads are narrow with stairways. Most of the respondents (74.4 %) are not pleased with the pedestrian roads (Table 3). Cars are expected to drive along ramps on two sides of the pedestrian roads. However, these roads are quite steep. It is difficult to reach the houses in the center of the settlements, both because they are far from the main roads and because the roads within the settlement are
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
305
Fig. 7 Narrow streets with stairways and ramps on two sides (Source Authors)
not designed in a way that cars can easily be driven along them (Fig. 7). Most of the respondents (62.8 %) stated that it was difficult to carry bags or other items from the vehicle area to their houses (Table 3). In the interview, the respondents mentioned that the steep roads with stairways are not suitable for disabled and elderly people. When the users were asked about their general attitude towards their houses, it was found that only 35.9 % were satisfied (Table 4). However, another 35.9 % were undecided, and only 28.2 % expressed dissatisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the users are not satisfied with their houses. However, when the details are examined, user satisfaction was found to be low. In similar studies, another technique was used to measure real satisfaction. With this technique, the users are asked about their wish to move. This wish is taken as an indicator of the users’ real satisfaction levels (Bonaiuto et al. 1999; Winstanley et al. 2002), because there is a relationship between residential satisfaction and residential mobility. As suggested by Amerigo and Aragones (1997: p. 47), ‘‘residential satisfaction has been studied as a trigger factor affecting residential mobility.’’ In the present study, most of the low-income users reflected that they would move to another house if their economic situation were better (87.2 %), as shown in Table 5. During the interviews, two main reasons for complaints were given by the less-satisfied users: spatial organization and the settlement’s setting and characteristics. The AMHS is situated on top of a hill and, unlike traditional houses, the living spaces in the new houses are placed on the west part of the courtyard. In this new organization, the doors of the rooms give access to the semi-open corridors that run around the courtyard. Therefore, the doors are not exposed to direct sunlight. Although this can be advantageous in summer, it turns out to be a disadvantage in winter. Note that the highest temperature in summer is 46.8 °C, whereas the lowest temperature in winter is -9.3°C (TSMS 2010). In other
123
306
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
Table 5 Mobility demand of user Statement
If you had a better economic condition, would you want to move to a new house?
Frequency of responses/percentage Yes
No
Total
68/87.2%
10/12.8%
78/100%
words, someone who wants to go to his/her bedroom in winter has to pass through the open corridor. Many users solved this problem by closing off the corridors with windows, but that solution raised another issue. In summer, because of a lack of ventilation, the rooms became hotter. As stated earlier, government offices use 205 houses (43 % of the total) in this settlement because these units could not be sold. According to the government authorities, the intended low-income population considers the price rather high. Similarly, in this study, only two-fifths of the users stated that they were satisfied with the affordability of their houses. In the traditional life style of the people living in the area, the roofs served a number of functions, such as a sleeping area in the hot summer nights. New houses are constructed on an inclined area, whereby the roofs can be seen and reached from the neighboring houses. Because of the lack of privacy and safety, the residents do not want to use the roof as a sleeping area on summer nights. Instead, they place water tanks and solar energy systems on the roofs, leading to visual pollution (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8 The visual pollution on the roofs (Source Authors)
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
307
The design of the AMHS is the first of its kind in Turkey. There has not been a similar example before. None of the contemporary examples of architecture have applied an introvert design that uses the courtyard as the focal point. This first prize-winning project was appreciated because of its reflection of traditional references, namely, the introvert spatial organization with a courtyard in a compact city texture. The evaluation committee found this project worthy of the award because of the successful adaptation of the references mentioned above. However, in an article, the designers of the project reflected that, before the design process, they did not have the necessary information about the users (Elmas and Gu¨lc¸ur 1996). 4.3 Which similarities between the traditional houses and new houses are sustainable and can be used in modern housing architecture? The findings indicate that it is possible to use the courtyards in the traditional sense in new houses, since the courtyard provides the users with a sense of privacy. With the help of the modern construction materials such as sliding walls, the courtyards can be designed in a convertible way so they can be opened up in summer and closed off in winter. By adding an inner garden with decorative pools and other refreshing details, it can be used as a living area in summer that serves as a safe play area for kids and a hospitable area for guests.
5 Conclusion In this study, it has been argued that there is a difference between the evaluations of users and those of competition juries. In addition, it has been determined that, when adapting traditional examples in modern architecture, differences in terms of the spatial usage and user preferences between past and present should also be considered. It can be disappointing if the physical features are imitated without considering the spatial preferences of today’s users. In the future, houses should be designed to combine the values of the past with the preferences of the modern user. If the changing preferences are ignored and only the physical features are imitated, this will merely be a good example of a nostalgic design. However, as this study argues, when the examples from the past are re-evaluated, the preferences of the modern users should not be neglected. The results of this study show that although the case was an award-winning project, the users were not completely satisfied with their houses. They reflected that they would be more satisfied if there were some changes in the design of their houses. In some studies, examples of higher dissatisfaction can be seen. The project of the Maiden Lane Housing Settlement in London was awarded first prize by a competition jury. However, user satisfaction levels for this settlement were found to be quite low (Rapoport 2004; Sherwood 2002). There are examples of other construction projects that led to similar results that is, despite being chosen by the competition juries, they were not given high satisfaction rates by the users (Marans and Spreckelmeyer 1982; Nasar and Kang 1989). It is interesting that most of the users would like to move if they had better economic conditions. Therefore, it can be said that the potential for residential mobility is quite high in this settlement. An architectural product should be made to satisfy the users. Aesthetic values are essential, but a needs analysis of users is equally important. It should be kept in mind that new technological improvements may change the preferences of users. Therefore, new architectural products should be designed with due consideration for the changing conditions and users’ preferences.
123
308
A. Bekleyen, N. M. Korkmaz
Acknowledgments The research reported in this paper was carried out as part of a project entitled ‘‘Postoccupancy Evaluation of Mass Housings in Diyarbakır and Sanliurfa: a Comparative Analysis’’, funded by the Department of Scientific Research Projects of Dicle University. The authors thank the Department for funding the project.
References Acar, B., & Bekleyen, A. (2008). An investigation of the houses constructed within the scope of return to village and rehabilitation project in terms of user satisfaction: The case of Islamko¨y Village and Tur Hamlet. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology, 9(2), 241–259. Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), 287–304. Akkoyunlu, Z. (1989). Architectural characteristics of traditional houses of Urfa. Ankara: Culture Ministry Publications. ¨ zsoy, A. (1998). Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for Altas¸ , N. E., & O quality housing. Building and Environment, 33(5), 315–323. Amerigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1990). Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(4), 313–325. Amerigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57. Bekleyen, A., & Dalkılıc¸, N. (2007). Combination of modernity and tradition (Diyarbakır): Is it possible to design future dwellings considering the concept of climate based traditional houses? In M. Tas¸ (Ed.), Future of architecture/architecture for future (pp. 277–287). Bursa: UCTEA Chamber of Architects Press. Bekleyen, A., & Dalkılıc¸, N. (2011). The influence of climate and privacy on indigenous courtyard houses in Diyarbakır. Turkey. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(4), 908–922. Bekleyen, A., & Dalkılıc¸, N. (2012). Design with climate-what can we learn from the past to cope with climate in terms of design strategy and usage style of courtyard houses? Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 11(3), 357–366. Bonaiuto, M., Atello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 331–352. Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 659–698. Elmas, E., & Gu¨lc¸ur, Z. (1996). The S¸anlıurf mass housing project. Yapı, 180, 107–112. Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758. Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Claiborne, C. B. (2006). Housing well-being: Developing and validating a measure. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 503–541. Gu¨nc¸e, K., Ertu¨rk, Z., & Ertu¨rk, S. (2007). Questioning the ‘‘prototype dwellings’’ in the framework of Cyprus traditional architecture. Building and Environment, 43(2008), 823–833. ¨ . (1988). ‘‘Needs research’’ and ‘‘interpretation’’ in architecture. Ekistics, 55(328-329-330), Gu¨r, S¸ . O 141–145. ¨ . (1993). Paradigms of liveability in housing environments. In S¸ . O ¨ . Gu¨r & S. Aydemir (Eds.), Gu¨r, S¸. O Research report on the Eastern Black Sea Housing (pp. 1–62). Ankara: State Planning and Development Agency and KTU School of Architecture. ¨ . (1994). House preferences of users at different phases of acculturation. Ekistics, 61(366–367), Gu¨r, S¸ . O 176–182. ¨ . (1997). Flexibility as a quality parameter for housing. Yapı, 191, 114–120. Gu¨r, S¸ . O ¨ . (2000). House culture: Eastern Black Sea Region as the case. Istanbul: YEM Publications. Gu¨r, S¸ . O ¨ ., & Bekleyen, A. (2003). The failure of man-environment studies in influencing design decisions. Gu¨r, S¸ . O In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza, & M. V. Giuliani (Eds.), People, places and sustainability (pp. 94–106). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers. Liu, A. M. M. (1999). Residential satisfaction in housing estates: A Hong Kong perspective. Automation in Construction, 8(1999), 511–524. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287.
123
An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement
309
Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: The 2001 DAS and Its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 73–83. Marans, R. W., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Measuring overall architectural quality: A component of building evaluation. Environment and Behavior, 14(6), 652–670. Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). A post-jury evaluation-The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 464–484. Newmann, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Collier Books. ¨ zbudak, Y. B., & Bekleyen, A. (2006). Pathological findings obtained from the houses in Dicle Quarter, O Diyarbakır. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology, 7(2), 343–356. Preiser, W. F. E. (1989). Building evaluation. New York: Plenum. Preiser, W. F. E. (2001). The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In Federal facilities council technical report, learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation (pp. 9–22). Washington: National Academy Press. Preiser, W. F. E. (2005). Building performance assessment-from POE to BPE, a personal perspective. Architectural Science Review, 48(3), 201–204. Preiser, W. F. E., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84–99. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. C. (2005). Assessing building performance. Oxford: Elsevier. Pressman, N. (1994). Introduction: climatic factors in urban design. Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour, 10(1), 5–7. Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Rapoport, A. (2004). Culture-architecture-design (S. Batur, Ed., Trans.). Istanbul: YEM Publications. Reizenstein, J. E., & Zimring, C. M. (1980). Editor’s introduction. Environment and Behavior, 12(4), 427–428. Sanoff, H. (1977). Methods of architectural programming. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc. Sherwood, R. (2002). Housing prototypes (Maiden Lane stage 1). Retrieved from http://housingprototypes. org/project?File_No=GB006. Swenarton, M. (2009). Research shortcomings in housing. Building Research and Information, 37(1), 101–105. Turkish State Meteorological Service. (2010). Temperature values of Sanliurfa (1975–2008). Retrieved from http://www.meteor.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=SANLIURFA. Tu¨rkog˘lu, H. D. (1997). Residents’satisfaction of housing environments: The case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(1997), 55–67. Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-beign towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 5–18. Wiedemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residental satisfaction. In I. Altman & C. H. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 153–182). New York: Plenum Press. Wiesenfeld, E. (1992). Public housing evaluation in Venezuela: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 213–223. Winstanley, A., Thorns, D. C., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Moving house, creating home: Exploring residential mobility. Housing Studies, 17(6), 813–832. Yu¨ksel, Y. D., Aydınlı, S., Yılmaz, Z., & Pulat, G. (1996). Toplu Konutlarda Nitelik Sorunu. Ankara: Housing Development Administration of Turkey. Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: Benefits and barriers. Building Research and Information, 29(2), 168–174. Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 12(4), 429–450.
123
