ciler kirsan gebze institute of technology, turkey university college london, uk

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




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?




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 ...




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 ’.




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...




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




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


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


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


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...




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


‘NEW WAVE’

‘PESH’

UPPER FLOOR PLAN

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

‘Difference Factors’




ciler kirsan

What are the spatial genotypes prevailing in the sample ?




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...




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?




ciler kirsan

How does the dominant ‘courtyard - integrated’

( 85% ) theme vary across the two ethnic groups?




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...




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...




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.




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:




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.




ciler kirsan

End of presentation

Thank you!

ciler kirsan gebze institute of technology, turkey university college london, uk

Documents