View
29
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
“ Is it a Greek or a Turkish House ? A Comparative Morphological Enquiry into the Domestic Spaces of Coexistence in the Island of Cyprus ”. greek. greek. turkish. turkish. greek. turkish. Ciler Kirsan Gebze Institute of Technology, Turkey University College London, UK. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
““Is it a Greek or a Turkish HouseIs it a Greek or a Turkish House?
A Comparative Morphological A Comparative Morphological Enquiry into the Domestic Spaces Enquiry into the Domestic Spaces of Coexistence in the Island of of Coexistence in the Island of CyprusCyprus””
Ciler KirsanGebze Institute of Technology, TurkeyUniversity College London, UK
greek
greek
greek
turkish turkish
turkish
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
research question ...
greek
greek
greek
turkish turkish
turkish
how and to what extent were ethnic divisions reflected in the domestic cultures of two ethnic groups, namely:Turkish and Greek Cypriots, in the Island of Cyprus?
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
Greek and Turkish Cypriots,
• symbiotic coexistence (1571-1955) -distributed all over the Island- SPATIAL PROXIMITY - in mixed or nearby villages
confrontation (1955-1974) -due to ethnic conflict situation- GRADUAL SEPARATION
physical separation in 1974 -cross-ethnic occupation- DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN GROUPS – Turks to the NORTH; Greeks to the SOUTH
With this study I try to explain what it is that makes a house ‘Greek’ or ‘Turkish’ for the years of ethnic cohabitation ? Is there a distinction as ‘Greek house’ or ‘Turkish house’
problem background ...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
theory and methodology ...‘Space Syntax’
An analytical graph-based theory of architecture;
Also a morphological analysis tool for the analysis of the built forms to better understand the relationship between house form and culture;
the empirical studies in the field have shown that cultural and social information are primarily embedded in and transmitted with abstract structures called ‘configuration’ underlying spatial layouts.
This information is extracted with a key value called ‘integration’ which is a measure of spatial configuration.
Hanson defines integration simply as ‘….the extent to which the layout draws people and things together or keeps them apart ’ or as, ‘… a powerful predictor of how busy or quiet a space is likely to be ’.
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
One of the most essential tools for the investigation of spatial configuration is ‘justified access graphs’.
The measures of ‘integration’ and other syntactic properties are calculated from these graphs
Since the value is calculated based on the accessibility relations present in a system, houses whose spaces are overlinked will be ‘more integrated’ and those which have less connections will be ‘less integrated’ or ‘segregated’.
‘highly integrated’ house: a spatial layout which tends to bring people together;
‘segregated’ houses: to keep people apart..
The value of integration ranges between 0 and slightly above 1
Low values = high integration;
high values = low integration or segregation
Since these properties are expressed with numbers the technique is especially efficient in comparisons of different cultures primarily because instead of descriptive definitions more concrete and culture-specific results are obtained and the numbers enable even the minor differences to be captured.
theory and methodology...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
Sample and the analysis ... The analysis is based on a comparative study of the spatial layouts of 30
Greek and 36 Turkish houses from the Mesarion Region in Northern Cyprus.
The procedure adopted is;
1. the search for invariants or regularities in spatial patterning underneath the surface appearances of these houses which are invisible to naked eye and thus difficult to establish from a purely qualitative account and
2. then investigation of the way and the degree these vary across the ethnic groups
The exploration of patterns among Greek and Turkish Cypriot houses should have been based on data upto 1974 when both groups were in spatial proximity.
Scarcity of records of these houses have necessitated the collection of data through a field study - house layouts have been recorded retrospectively from their present situations with the help of unstructured interviews, observations and personal reasoning.
The plans have then been abstracted in the form of ‘justified access graphs’, and calculations of syntactic properties have been made automatically with the help of computer programs developed for this purpose
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
vernacular houses in Cyprus
produce store
produce store
8
26
21
14 20
19
17
18
17
26
1 15 25
3232
17 4 6 7 8 9 16 24
18 5 22
1319 21 14
20 11 12 10
oil mill
loggiam.room
granary shop
covered entrance bath
wc
kitchen
straw store
straw store
courtyard
second courtyard
exterior
upperloggia
upperm.room
upper m,room
15
1 2710
119
12
3
4
5
6
25
13
22
24
23
16
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
GROUND FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLANturkish
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
GROUND FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLAN
11 12
13
living room
stable
courtyard
straw store
animalcoveredshed
multi purposeworkspace
m.room 1
m.room 2
1 23
4
5
6
WC
coveredentr.
7
8
9
10
13
1
2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 1011
12
turkish
greek
courtyard
closedcentral h.room room
room room
granary
kitchen
animal shed
storageproduce]store
stable
wc
exterior
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
20
1 15 18
2
3 4 5 6 9 10 11 17 19
8 16 14
7 12 13
1
2
3 4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
greek
m.roomloggia
courtyard
wc
ancillary
kitchen
granary
?poultry
m.room(up)hanay
strawstore
stable 1
2
3
4
7
10
9
158
6
5
16
12
13
11
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
16
1
2 4 5
7
3
12
13
6 10 11 15 9
8 14
greek
s.closedcentral h. m.room
c. centralh. (up)
balcony
room 1 (up)
room 2(up)
granary
?
stable
straw store
courtyard
kitchen
larder
henhouse
animal shed
123
4
56
7
8
9
101112
13
14
15
wc
23
22
25 24 21
20
1617 18
19
25
exterior GROUND FLOOR PLAN JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
25
1
2 3 4 11 12 13
14
23
15
24
6520107
8
21
9 16
17 1819
22
s.closedcentral h. m.room
c. centralh. (up)
balcony
room 1 (up)
room 2(up)
granary
?
stable
straw store
courtyard
kitchen
larder
henhouse
animal shed
123
4
56
7
8
9
101112
13
14
15
wc
23
22
25 24 21
20
1617 18
19
25
exterior GROUND FLOOR PLAN JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
25
1
2 3 4 11 12 13
14
23
15
24
6520107
8
21
9 16
17 1819
22
turkish
8
7 10
96543
11 2
1
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
11
courtyard
coveredentr.
animalshed
m.living unit
straw store
kitchen
bath
upper m.room
wc
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPHGROUND FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLAN
all courtyard houses simple rectangular geometry – Appear in numerous forms –
heterogeneity and complexity Minimal main living unit + ancillary
spaces (livestock, agricultural equipment and storage) - agricultural economy - self sufficient households
‘workshop’-’laboratory’ multi-functional minimal living spaces
- not specific functions similar spatial ingredients in both
ethnic groups-Courtyards-closed/semi-closed central spaces -rooms-secondary spaces as kitchens, storages, stables...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
loggia
stable +storage
kitchen
wccourtyard
well
16
7
12
8
9
10
11
13
14
2
3
4
5m.room 2
street
main room 1
granary
DÜZENLENMIS GECIS GRAFIGI
1
2
3
4
0 14
11
5 1
12 8
2
6
13
7
93 4
10
convex analysis...
cyard < loggia < ext < m.room < kitchen < m.room (up) 0,529 0,625 1,009 1,153 1,297 1,682
Mean Integration
Mean Int wout exterior = 1.193
Mean Int with exterior = 1.112
1.778
1.201
0.721
1.297
1.201
1.009
0.625
0.769
1.153 1.153 1.105
1.682
1.345
0.529
1.
2.
‘spatial’
‘spatio-functional’
3.
Mean,Min,Max(with ext)
Mean,Min,Max(wout exterior) Cy,R1,R2 CS, R1,R2 Cy,CS,R2 Cy,Ex,R2 CS,Ex,R2 L,C,R Cy,L,R
Cy,Ex,L
Cy,Ex,R
0.742 0.772 0.768 0.821 0.649 0.756 0.808 0.954 0.736 0.917 0.756
LR
C
Living < Cooking < Reception 1,153 1,297 1,682
JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH
‘NEW WAVE’
‘PESH’
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
‘Difference Factors’
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
What are the spatial genotypes prevailing in the sample ?
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
The analysis of 66 houses individually have shown that:
‘COURTYARD-INTEGRATED’ (85%)
‘CENTRAL SPACE - INTEGRATED’ (15%)
These themes do NOT correspond to ethnicity.
Both ethnic groups are found to be dominantly ‘courtyard-integrated’
spatial themes...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
‘Courtyard-integrated’ ‘courtyard’ is the key structuring element which structures not only the relations among ‘living spaces’ by bringing them together but also links them with the ‘secondary work-related functions’ (of household economy)and to the ‘exterior’. ‘Central spaces’ whenever appear serve to separate the ‘main living functions’ from the ‘secondary ones’.
earlier houses – agricultural economy based on peasantry –traditional rural life
‘Central space-integrated’ ‘Central space’, as the key element of the overall configuration overtakes the structuring role of courtyard and ‘courtyard’ is more of a separator for the main living spaces and the secondary ones within the configuration.
later houses – transformation of economy into mechanised agriculture - changes in lifestyles to meet the demands of modernisation led to the abandonce of courtyard functions
configurational properties have been investigated by using the difference factors
‘what do these themes imply configurationally?
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
How does the dominant ‘courtyard - integrated’
( 85% ) theme vary across the two ethnic groups?
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
TURKISH courtyard < central space < kitchen < rooms(g) < ext < rooms(u)
GREEK courtyard < central space < kitchen < ext < rooms(g) < rooms(u)
Although both are ‘courtyard-integrated’, there are some differences in the inequalities (spatial ordering) underlying the houses
Common tendency in both groups: courtyards, central spaces, kitchens are on the integrated; whereas rooms on the segregated side of the mean.
Difference between Greek and Turkish Mesarion Houses: Greeks have a more extended integrated end; ‘exterior’, tend to integrate more with Greek houses, and remain more segregated across Turkish houses.
Mean Intg
Mean Intg
comparisons...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
0.8550.7090.6750.8630.7140.6641.1050.6681.050MEAN ALL COURTYARD-INTEGRATED
0.8620.7680.7060.8720.7720.6831.0960.6891.035GREEK
0.8450.6620.6260.8500.6650.6491.1130.6511.062TURKISH
CS,Ext,R2Cy,Ext,R2Cy,CS,R2CS,R1,R2Cy,R1,R2BDF -WOUT
Mean ENTG
BDF-WITH
Mean ENTG
Difference Factors for 'Main Spatial Components'WITHOUT exteriorWITH ExteriorCOURTYARD-INTEGRATED
0.8550.7090.6750.8630.7140.6641.1050.6681.050MEAN ALL COURTYARD-INTEGRATED
0.8620.7680.7060.8720.7720.6831.0960.6891.035GREEK
0.8450.6620.6260.8500.6650.6491.1130.6511.062TURKISH
CS,Ext,R2Cy,Ext,R2Cy,CS,R2CS,R1,R2Cy,R1,R2BDF -WOUT
Mean ENTG
BDF-WITH
Mean ENTG
Difference Factors for 'Main Spatial Components'WITHOUT exteriorWITH ExteriorCOURTYARD-INTEGRATED
comparisons...
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
comparative results...Mean Integration
Greek houses (mean int=1.035) are slightly more integrated than Turkish (mean int=1.062)
Spatial patterns
Both are found to be the products of same dominant spatial theme: ‘courtyard-integrated’; However the theme seem to vary between the two groups so that:
‘courtyard’ has a more powerful role in structuring the Turkish House; Greeks are more ‘exterior-oriented’ than Turkish houses; Turkish houses have more structure embedded whereas Greeks are more homogenised in terms of spatial patterning ‘central space’ whenever appear under this theme, is more powerful in structuring main living and secondary functions across Turkish houses compared to Greeks
Spatio-Functional patterns
Greeks are dominantly ‘living-integrated’, whereas
Turkish houses are equally ‘cooking’ and ‘living-integrated’ with cooking-intergated ones slightly dominating over living-integrated houses.
However these functional tendencies are found to be NOT strong and consistent (because of the weak differences found) to point to distinct domestic cultures for the groups.
Although the resulting patterns have rules of ethnicity, the t-tests suggest that ethnic variations are not striking except for ‘Exterior’ which is significantly more integrated with Greek houses.
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
interpretative speculation... It is thought that the similar rural lifestyles based on agricultural
economy have been built into the configuration of both ethnic groups and have led to the dominant ‘courtyard-integrated’ theme;
And a possible cultural influence between the groups due to their long term coexistence is likely that has also contributed to their similar spatial cultures.
However, the unsignificant differences as, Turkish being more segregated, less exterior-oriented, more structured and dominantly cooking-integrated is meaningful and can be interpreted in two ways:
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
interpretative speculation...1.One can be related to the still maintained differences in the social structures of the two
communities which might have led to more hierarchy in Turkish families and render their houses
more structured. DIFFERENT SOCIAL STRUCTURES
2.The other speculation is made regarding the ethnic conflict situation. It is again well known by
historical records that during the conflict situation Turkish people withdrew itself into
disconnected enclaves and had led an introverted life with the feeling of insecurity emanating
from their minority status. In the meantime they have also experienced serious political and
economical difficulties. It is likely that this introverted life style has caused the houses of this
group to develop as more closed to the outside world. ETHNIC CONFLICT SITUATION
However these factors could NOT produce completely different spatial themes for each ethnic group but rather produce variations of a single dominant spatial theme.
It seems that ethnicity do NOT have clear, significant implications in the spatial constitution of their domestic spaces.
And that the terms ‘Greek House’ or ‘Turkish House’ are likely to have been created artificially with political and nationalistic concerns resulting from ethnic conflict situation.
18th IAPS conference EVALUATION IN PROGRESS JULY 7-10 2004, Vienna, Austria
‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’a comparative morphological enquiry
into the domestic spaces of coexistence
ciler kirsan
End of presentation
Thank you!
Recommended