learning from experience in architecture: fathy,...

International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 11, No. 1 (2016), pp. 41-53 www.irssh.com ISSN 2248-9010 (Online), ISSN 2250-0715 (Print)

Learning from Experience in Architecture: Fathy, Correa, Cansever

Guliz Ozorhon (Corresponding Author)

Department of Architecture, Ozyegin University

Nişantepe District, Orman Street, 34794 Çekmeköy – Istanbul, Turkey

E-mail: [email protected]

Ilker Fatih Ozorhon Department of Architecture, Ozyegin University

Nişantepe District, Orman Street, 34794 Çekmeköy – Istanbul, Turkey

E-mail: [email protected]

(Received: 7-1-16 / Accepted: 25-3-16)

Abstract

This article investigates how to benefit from vernacular architectural knowledge in the future. The method employed in this study was to examine architects who successfully made use of vernacular architectural knowledge and their effectiveness. For this analysis, three architects (Hasan Fathy, Charles Correa and Turgut Cansever) were selected. These architects made attempts to expose their vernacular architectural knowledge through identifications, observations and publications and put their knowledge of architecture – in particular philosophically – in the centre of their understanding of architecture. This article analyses these three architects’ methods of utilisation concerning “traditional” and “vernacular” architecture and their interpretation and use. The article adopted two interrelated routes in order to analyse this. The first is the examination of their discourses/philosophies and the second is the examination of their architectural products that were motivated by or benefitted from these discourses. In the end, the study presents the similarities or differences of these architects on both discourse and practice levels in the context of vernacular architecture and in an integrated framework. It was found that they all put humans in the centre of their discourse and emphasized the importance/power of the culturally specific against the imitation-duplication and lost identity of architecture. In their architectural designs, they evaluated location-specific climatic and topographic properties as the main criteria and maintained spatial and structural continuity in traditional architecture. Keywords: Vernacular architecture, Hasan Fathy, Charles Correa, Turgut Cansever. 1. Introduction This article focuses on the issues concerning how vernacular architectural knowledge can be beneficial. In answering this question, the selected method was to apply the architectural activities of architects who developed architectural products/discourses on this issue. In the

Guliz Ozorhon et al. 42

context of this study, both their interpretation of the issue and their routes/methods were investigated separately and finally a common evaluation was made. 1.1 Literature Review What is vernacular architecture? Although it is entirely appropriate that definitions vary, a clarification of the issues is in order. Some scholars remain loyal to the conventional view that vernacular buildings must be old, rural, handmade structures built in traditional forms and materials for domestic or agricultural use (Wells, 1986; Warren, 1985). Although different cultures have their own ways of approaching the treatment of the natural environment and adopting their habitat to their surroundings, to be in harmony with nature is a property that is perfectly in line with the eco-centric environmental logic, which preaches “building with limited ecological foot prints” (Guy and Farmer, 2001; Eyuce, 2012) Vernacular architecture provides typical examples that show how local climate conditions, materials, techniques, building systems and living styles, traditions and socioeconomic conditions shaped how people lived in the region. The most original and beautiful examples are dwellings. These buildings show harmony in every respect with the region where they were built (Sozen and Gedik, 2007). Although each settlement has its own specific features, the settlements utilising the surface of the earth as the basic building material and forming the method of building production, are largely an outcome of the necessity to comply with cultural norms and to be in harmony with natural surroundings (Eyuce, 2012). Traditional settlements are historical documents of cultural spread and cultural adaptations from past to present; they vary from place to place and they increase the variety of “places”; therefore they are important (Köse, 2006). In fact, traditional structures/settlements contain a living reality of knowledge accumulation; they are like libraries where cause-effect relations can be observed directly (Sakınç, 2010). In modern times, we see that regional and traditional architecture was used as a source of inspiration. In this sense, it is possible to track traces of regional-traditional architecture in the works of Aalto and Wright. It is a rational approach to use the tested knowledge of the past in architecture. Moreover, for many architects, using regional properties as inspiration provided those styles. İnceoğlu (2004) states that all structures of Fathy, Doshi and Correa were inspired by regional architecture. He includes Turgut Cansever from Turkey in this list with his Demir Project, which gives the impression that “he has always been in that region” and it is “as if he was always there”. On the other hand, vernacular/traditional architecture has always aroused scholarly interest in architecture (sometimes more, sometimes less). So which subjects repeatedly played a role in making vernacular architecture a point of interest? This examination is important for both general understanding of vernacular architecture and the positioning of this article’s research question within this discourse. Identification/Documentation: Most studies are concerned with the identification of a place/settlement with the help of several methods and tools of architectural representation and documentation of these places. In addition, these studies provide a basis for further studies on this topic. This approach appears in articles/books with the titles African…, Asian…, American..., Greek..., Anatolian... etc. Some studies aiming at a broader view/perspective about human-settlement relationship through examining several different world geographies with the titles of vernacular… and global… and others focusing on a particular historical period with the title of ancient times… can be evaluated in this context. These studies are of vital importance in terms of cultural continuity and transfer. Vernacular Architecture as a Source: Studies in this category are attempts to transfer vernacular architectural knowledge to recent designs, buildings and settlements. In journals or books, these studies included titles such as Readings..., Rethinking..., Understanding..., etc. They evaluate products of different vernacular architecture and attempt to understand/learn and even teach how to use past experiences today. These studies sometimes associate the flow

International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2016), 41-53 43

of knowledge with recent parameters such as sustainability, ecological design, passive environmental control systems etc. These studies are very important for the deliverance and continuity of architectural culture and experience. Samples of local settlements are historical documents of cultural spread and cultural adaptations from past to present; they vary from place to place and they increase the variety of “places”; therefore they are particularly important. They should be conserved and documented against the popular culture, which rapidly spreads and changes, absorbs and makes everything similar. As each product within vernacular architecture is due to thousands years of cultural accumulation, this similarisation effect of popular culture may prevent future generations from experiencing these cultural components. This study investigates how to benefit from vernacular architectural knowledge today and in the future. The method employed in this study was to examine architects who succeeded in making use of vernacular architectural knowledge and their effectiveness. For this analysis, three architects (Hasan Fathy, Charles Correa and Turgut Cansever) were selected. These architects made attempts to expose their vernacular architectural knowledge through identifications, observations and publications and put their experiences of architecture – in particular philosophically – in the centre of their understanding of architecture. 1.2 Method This article analyses the three architects’ methods of utilisation concerning “traditional” and “vernacular” architecture and their interpretation and use. The article adopted two interrelated routes in order to analyse this. The first is the examination of their discourses/philosophies and the second is the examination of their architectural products that were motivated by or benefitted from these discourses. However, in the scope of the article, it is impossible to mention each architect’s mental and architectural products; therefore the study only includes basic principles and views of the above-mentioned architects in the context of vernacular architecture.

Architecture

Fig. 1: The Method of the Study

Vernacular Architectural Knowledge

Integrative Evaluation / Conclusion

Case 1:

H.Fathy

Dis

cou

rse

Arc

hite

ctu

re

Case 2:

C.Correa

Dis

cou

rse

Arc

hite

ctu

re

Case 3:

T.Cansever

Dis

cou

rse

Arc

hite

ctu

re


2. Hasan Fathy / Participatory Architecture 2.1 Discourse Hassan Fathy is an influential figure in 20th century Egyptian architecture. With his “most important architectural legacy of humanism, he has become a source of pride for the Third World and particularly for the Islamic World in general and specifically to Egypt” (Ultav and Sahil, 2004). According to Yücel (2000), Fathy is a social reformist, sociologist, socialist, populist, and populist utopian. For Özkan (2000), he is a thinker-architect. For those who are critical of Fathy’s approaches, he is a romantic, backward, marginal, historicist and post-modernist. Fathy adopted a philosophy that requires a direct relationship between societal structure and architectural activity. This is a thought towards the preservation and consolidation of the action of building that is included in societal processes (Özkan, 2000). Fathy puts the human factor at the centre of his architecture. He expresses this with these words: “Each building should contribute to human culture but how can it be done without referring to humans and without respecting human scale? We should reintroduce humans to our architecture; we should reintroduce human scale, human needs and human traditions” (Rastorfer, 1985). Fathy claims that cultures are equivalent; on the other hand, they carry “cultural uniqueness” with variables of psychological, physical and physiological necessities: “The modern’s search for novelty and ignorance of traditional norms has caused identity loss because tradition is always superior to an individualistic architect; the true identity of an architect can be achieved not through its alienation with the traditional but its integration” (Ultav and Sahil, 2004; Fathy, 1988). According to him, tradition does not necessarily mean deadlock; tradition has phases and some of these are experienced even today. The most frequently appearing tradition lies in village architecture. The aim of the architect is to maintain tradition and to give it a new force. In this sense, Fathy’s architecture aims not to be original but to maintain tradition. According to him, the architect cannot find what he seeks in terms of design and technology anywhere but among thousands of years of tradition. According to Tanyeli (2000), Fathy believes that “the old” always shows the right path even today and contemporary scientific data constantly verify “the old”. According to Fathy, true architecture should address the individualities of cultures as well as user individuality and the natural environment (Çelik, 1994). For Fathy, the continuity of tradition is a part of a society’s culture and it is changeable for all societies. The practice of architecture with its applied technology and means of production is a cultural component and for this reason it is variable. As Fathy urged, culture is the reaction of human beings towards their environment in order to fulfil their physical and moral needs. As the environment and needs in different parts of the world are different, culture is also “variable” (Fathy, 1990). Therefore, he refuses non-local architecture or architecture that does not exist in the culture of a particular region: “If they are not culturally compatible, foreign components cannot be imported from other cultures and environments. Components that are not culturally compatible will produce contradictions and do harm to traditional culture” (Ultav and Sahil, 2004; Serageldin, 1985). 2.2 Architecture Fathy’s architecture, in which local materials, climatic and economic needs and social concerns come into prominence, reflects the corruption of Egypt’s intellectual elite, negative impacts of industrialisation, symbolism, and ideas and beliefs concerning compatibility with nature. His understanding of architecture is led by his faith in community spirit, constructive craftsmanship, “ethics” and concern for compatibility with nature and climate (Yücel, 2000). Çelik (1994) stresses that the roots of Fathy’s architecture lie behind Egypt’s rural prototypes and traditional building materials and techniques. His designs do not cross the limits of traditional building materials and techniques; therefore, he does not include colours and tissues on surfaces and emphasises the importance of masses, morphology and spacing in the formation of holistic aesthetics. His works do not only repeat or imitate; he filters vernacular architecture through his own aesthetic sensitivities. He forms the main styles and places side by side and combines them on a new pattern. Main styles and places are the domed square


unit, vaulted rectangular unit, apse and pergola, porch and courtyard. He uses only mud brick, not only because of its cultural value but also its inexpensiveness. The most important feature of Fathy is “not to build a structure on a place but to form a structure from a place” (Rastorfer, 1985). That is to say, he not only looks for the cultural authenticity of a place from stylistic components but acquires typology through the technology of the place (Ultav and Sahil, 2004). 2.3 New Gourna The Gourna Project was implemented around the Upper Nile, in front of Luxor and on the site of the former Thebes village and the Thebes Cemetery of Nobles. In Gourna village, which has a history of 50 years and a population of seven thousand, people had earned their living from grave robbery. In order to prevent this and the sale of historical items and their skeuomorphs, it was decided to build a completely new village (New Gourna) and to resettle the villagers (İnciroğlu, 2010). The story of New Gourna village began in 1945 including the intertwined processes of design and construction. However, due to bureaucratic obstacles and decreasing villagers’ support as the construction was delayed, it was not completed. Hasan Fathy revisited the village in 1961 and published a book called Gourna: A Tale of Two Village (Özaloğlu, 2009). According to İnciroğlu (2010), this book successfully connects the Gourna experience with several conceptual frameworks. 40 years after its publication, the book deals with today’s architectural and social discussions and handles architecture in the social context.

Fig. 2a, 2b: Hasan Fathy / Egypt / New Gourna, 1942 Fathy, by taking the demographic, socio-political, socio-economic and ethnographic backgrounds of the village into consideration, presented different designs for the needs of each family, balanced varied crafts, materials and tools, and directed the construction process, which resembled a “chorus” consisting of several different voices. Along with the residences, buildings include a mosque, a hostelry, a village unit, a theatre and an exhibition centre. The participatory nature of the project’s design process is another component of Fathy’s paradigm. During the construction of the New Gourna village, on some occasions he paid attention to the wishes of villagers concerning the design of their houses and on others he observed how the villages used courtyards; then he started to design (Ultav and Sahil, 2004). Despite Fathy's good intentions and enormous efforts over three years to complete the project, it did not come to fruition and the village was only partially built. (EI-shorbagy, 2001). On the other hand this project, in which an architect aimed to increase the living standards of villagers and rehabilitate their comfort requirements, is seen as significant in terms of the attempt and experience rather than the outcomes. In the New Gourna project, Fathy not only made use of construction economy that was provided by traditional materials and techniques, and climatic comfort opportunities and tectonic-aesthetic expressions that were based on culture but also tried to reflect family groups constituting village society and beyond that each household’s identity, needs and


relationship to the place. He looked for an individual/social reflection that required a patient effort of social research instead of an anonymity consisting of repetition of typical residences (Yücel, 2000). 3. Charles Correa 3.1 Discourse Correa believes in change because to him, change supports growth. Even as he investigates the past’s architecture and reinterprets earlier solutions, he refuses a static understanding of history that may result in artificialness. For him, “architecture with its most vital condition is a tool for change. The most virtuous function of it is to create tomorrow” (Çelik, 1994). According to Correa (1982), If we look at the major concerns of humanists and environmentalists today—balanced ecosystems, recycling of waste products, people participation, appropriate life styles, indigenous technology—we find that the people of the Third World have already formulated responses to these concerns. From the Polynesian islands to Mediterranean villages to the jungles of Bangladesh, marvellous shelters have been built for thousands of years. In the past, the prototypical architect in these societies was not the beaux-arts prima donna. On the contrary, he was the site mistri (a term for a master-craftsman), an experienced mason/carpenter who helped with the design and construction of the house. What the architect must bring to bear on the situation is neither the prima donna performance nor the Red Cross bit; he must bring what the site mistri has always brought, which is compatibility, experience, and a high visual sense (Correa, 1982). On the other hand, in his many projects (like Belapur) Correa experiments with the concept of ‘‘contemporary vernacular’’, which he defines as a ‘‘self-conscious commitment to uncover a particular tradition’s responses to place and climate, and thereafter to exteriorise these formal and symbolic identities into creative new forms through an artist’s eye that is very much in touch with contemporary realities and lasting human values.’ (Chalana, 2013) 3.2 Architecture For Correa, the joy of creating the future for the Third World is due to balanced ecosystems, recycling of waste, participatory processes in design, appropriate life conditions and rich construction traditions that present a technology based upon resources. In his designs, he aims to reveal these values through synthesis. With regard to his climatic sensitivity, he combines open and closed spaces with open colonnades, courtyards, verandas and terraces, extends roofs as platforms and integrates them with open spaces, and through his synthesis, he forms a dialogue between topography and the natural landscape (Çelik, 1994). In Charles Correa's public housing projects, it is possible to see the effect of his design language. Correa, in parallel with the rapid population growth in Third World Countries, designed settlements that are low-rise and quickly built and have the potential for expansion. In addition, each house is designed with its own open spaces and the house groups with public spaces. Correa stated that “In this, the old architecture – especially from vernacular – has much to teach us, as it always develops a typology of fundamental sense.” (Torus, 2012; Correa, 2000). 3.3 The Belapur Housing Estate The settlement, which was founded two kilometres from New Mumbai on an area of 5.4 ha, includes 550 houses. It is a very dense settlement (500 people/ha). The buildings were designed on variable sizes of parcels, ranging from 45 to 75 m². The design allows settlement of different income groups and gradual development. Each building has an independent parcel. In designing the houses, typologies were produced in such a way that structures are allowed to be developed without cutting each other’s sunlight. The most important feature


here is that the buildings were planned so that each building forms the garden wall of another. These high-density, low-rise houses were grouped around common courtyards. Houses were built with simple construction technology and local labour. In order to reduce costs, toilets were grouped in pairs. At the same time, buildings encircling the garden reduced wall costs. In developing structures, user participation was allowed. Colours were used. Consequently, an inexpensive housing estate provided rich urban spaces that allow the representation of user identity. (Özbay, 1986). In the midst of the modernist hue and cry for ‘green architecture’ surfaces the architecture of Charles Correa, whose designs have evoked a notion of climate responsiveness equally balanced with the intricacy and refinement of his spaces, illustrating how sustainability can be achieved through passive strategies (Patherya and Lau, 2012). Belapur Housing makes a statement in itself that combines the principles of equity, incrementalism, environment and sustainability, spatial hierarchy, and individual identity allowing participation to form one’s own environment. As such, it is a robust architectural solution based on the concept of courtyards that help in achieving the above attributes that are essential in housing for the poor. Hence, the extensive and relevant use of courtyards for spatial hierarchy and as a territory defining element, justifies Charles Correa’s notion of sustainability (Patherya and Lau, 2012).

Fig. 3a, 3b: Charles Correa / Belapur/ Belapur Housing

4. Turgut Cansever 4.1 Discourse Cansever is an activist with his way of life, a commentator with his intellectual practice, an individual philosophically located under the umbrella of Islam, an utopian with his perception of the city and an architect with his deconstructive constructional activities (Tanyeli and Yücel, 2007). Turgut Cansever, who emphasises a consciousness of an ideal architect by expressing “the purpose of existence of human beings in this world and their main duty is to make the world more beautiful”, is the last great figure of the generation of Turkish architects in the 20th century (Ceran, 2011). He was regarded as an architect who adapted traditional Turkish architecture to contemporary architecture with the most rational and accurate approach (Yücel, 1983). Cansever (1992) defines architecture as a discipline that regulates human beings in all physical, organic, mental and intellectual realms and segments of existence. He underlines that architecture, alongside technological, economic and political issues, contains the whole intellectual world of human beings. His architecture, and particularly the constructional activity that he defined as Islamic architecture, plans for activities that include relationships between the conscious, which aims to “put the things back where they belong” and the city, humans and society in dynamic, organic and constant discontinuities (Ceran, 2011).


Cansever claimed that the changing, transforming and dynamic structure of the city can be demonstrated by authentic and local designs on the human scale, instead of macro and universally determined designs that wipe out the local ones; such local designs, despite the fact that they change over generations, should add a value to the individuals who live in them, consolidate their perceptions and reflect minimal and authentic features (Ceran, 2011). Cansever’s imagination of the city, in the context of harmony of existence and the object, ‘consists of components that are pieced together but also consists of behaviours which occur through interaction and due to cultural accumulation in time as a result of differentiating needs and changing purposes concerning the attitude towards historical legacy’ (Cansever, 1997). 4.2 Architecture Turgut Cansever’s place in Turkish architecture is seen as a synthesis of contemporary and Islamic architecture/thought (Düzenli, 2005; Tanyeli, 2001). According to Demirgüç (2006), Cansever answers the question asked by Frampton: “how to be modern and how to go back to the roots?” The source of Cansever’s architecture hosts his society’s culture, traditions and values. On the other hand, for Cansever tradition is not merely a tool for collecting formal data. He handles tradition by beginning with its essence, cultural content, belief system and historical experience in order to provide solutions for the future. In each of Cansever’s buildings, function, technique and environment of the structure and its relationship with the culture and society to which it belong is ontologically questioned (Demirgüç, 2006). In terms of function, Cansever bases it on “togetherness of interior and exterior place” and “human scale”; nevertheless an expression of a structure, which opens to the landscape and which is gradually perceived in motion, becomes prominent (Düzenli, H.İ., 2009). 4.3 Demir Holiday Village Demir Holiday village is located to the north of Bodrum on Mandalya Bay, where the Aegean and Mediterranean intersect. It is 5 h of land on the bay encircled by a national park. The initial stage of the Demir Holiday village was the erection of Demir houses consisting of 35 independent residences. The settlement consists of certain number of housing types with alternatives including single, two and three-storey buildings and the differences between the houses form a whole. In the whole structure, common decisions and principles of all houses are directed to form features; differentiation and dynamism are achieved through articulation of masses of higher scale or through the combination of different types of buildings in line with a programme (Demirgüç, 2006). The settlement, which is formed through the repetition of housing types, does not create a repetition-orientated routine. The status that provides variety is not achieved through differentiation or change of predefined components and housing types. Differentiation and variety are achieved through differences of predefined, standard and unchangeable components and housing types when they get together. These differences provide physical conditions stemming from appropriate positioning of houses towards topography or landscape such as places benefitting from sunlight. This variety and differentiation paves the way for an open-ended settlement. It does not create a closed totality; it can constantly grow and allows for articulation. Cansever paid attention to the reflection of values and behaviours on architecture such as respect for rules of nature, being plain, clarity and neighbourhood relations (Ekincioğlu, 2001). Similarly, according to Ayıran (2011) a respectful attitude towards the existing natural environment has been adopted in this village as with local architecture. So everything has been done in accordance with the local construction tradition that abstains from excavation. Tanyeli (2007) also indicates that Cansever constructed Demir houses with a combination of recent technology and old practices. Reinforced concrete and masonry patterns, window frames and open transparent surfaces share the same environment. Cansever suggested the


removal of the impregnable epistemological border between the new and the old, which was drawn in the early modern world. He believes that eliminating meanings and usefulness of style and techniques, just because they are old, is not a necessity (Tanyeli, 2007). As streets between houses develop in a pattern that is linear and not based on routine and repetition, a walker faces different perspectives on each occasion. These roads are references to the past and the locality but they also provide possibilities for different experiences to the user (Burkut, 2014).

Fig. 4a, 4b: Turgut Cansever / Bodrum/ Demir Housing 5. Integrated Framework According to Yücel, Fathy’s New Gourna Project has become one of the indispensable “Ka’baahs” of housing issues. Correa’s climatic sensitivity is a paradigm that we are still trying to develop today. Cansever’s Demir Project continues to inspire architects due to its connection with its location, interpretation of local construction and space setup and its respectful attitude towards the environment (Kılıç and Süer, 2015).

Table 1: Fathy, Correa, and Cansever

Discourse Architecture

The importance of the “human” factor

The importance of the place (climate,

topography)

Culture-specificity and consequently

originality

Production (material and construction

techniques)

Reinterpretation instead of imitation or

repetition

Continuity of traditional places

Continuity of common places and common use (habits)

The common features of the discourses and architecture of the three architects were analysed comprehensively in this article. Accordingly, a table was formed showing common methods with regard to their interpretation and use of past architecture (Table 1). As seen in the table, all three architects put humans at the centre of their discourses. They emphasised the importance/power of the culturally specific against imitation-repetition and identity lost in architecture. In their architectural designs, they evaluated local climatic and topographic features as the main criteria and prolonged the spatial and structural continuity of traditional architecture.


In addition to the common approaches of these three architects, who are prominent figures in their respective countries, it was observed that they differ in some matters. For example, Fathy is quite reserved towards “change”, which is an open-ended topic requiring special attention whereas Correa believes in change and claims that change supports growth. However, Fathy does not attribute a miraculous significance to the phenomenon of change. According to him, the new cannot be inventible as it exists within the “old”; the “new” is not attractive to him. Fathy expresses his approach to change with these words: “change is not always good and tradition does not always mean serenity” (Çelik, 1991). He is after anachronism. Yücel (2007), who compares the approaches of Fathy and Cansever, underlines the fact that unlike Fathy, Cansever does not fall into anachronism but even in the most historicist stance in a detail and in a technological solution, he puts his object into a filter of criticism and reproduces it For instance, while fictionalising vernacular tectonics and their reproduction in the Demir Housing project, he did not consider it merely a type on the iconic level but as a source of logic and knowledge on the archetypical level and in a way his refusal to leave his identity as an “architect and a thinker”. Cansever’s buildings, as they were formed through re-analysis, always include questions and consequently criticism. This approach, which is based on looking on the past consciously, brings questioning and critical perspective in itself (Demirgüç, 2006). All three architects have been criticised for being historicist, romantic etc. in terms of their methods and architectural products. Nevertheless, they emphasised that the profession of architecture includes a social responsibility/sensitivity and the impact/power of their thoughts and architecture has transcended their own contexts and become influential. For instance, Özbay (1986) in his article published in the journal of architecture included three samples of housing including Correa’s Belapur project in order to look for solutions regarding squatter housing in Turkey. In a way, this architecture has become a model not only for its home country but also for other countries that face similar problems. On the other hand, Özkan (2000) underlined the fact that Fathy’s thoughts extended beyond his own architecture’s limits and that he formed an effective and respected school in his own way. 6. Conclusion As we have been living in very critical times in terms of questioning our relationship with nature, the importance of architectural knowledge that has always been closely coupled with nature is clear (Ozorhon and Ozorhon, 2014). By looking at the products of vernacular architecture in the past we can learn many things about how “home” systems and “human” systems were integrated through creating a perfect eco-system. Today, we cannot take a step backwards to the past’s architectural experiences. We should solve our problems by looking ahead and being aware of our past experiences in order to reproduce a system that is more appropriate to our real needs. Vernacular houses are shelters that are reproduced in the context of a particular geography and a culture’s construction traditions. Despite their original physical properties, their constantly repeating patterns emphasise “the group identity” of their users. This culture’s data are important sources of inspiration in identifying, evaluating and solving problems concerning settlement and housing in our age. First of all, it is a rational approach to understand the experience that humans have accumulated for centuries and to apply this information to designing living environments. There is no doubt that the most important step for this is to give credit to this knowledge within architecture education and base the attempts of conservation and sustainability in architecture in this context. Only through this approach is it possible to generate sustainable and humane living environments (this is valid for both rural and urban areas) Fathy, Correa, and Cansever looked to the experience of the past in order to create today’s and tomorrow’s healthy/sustainable/humane environment. They are against architecture that is world-wide, commercialised, reduced to consumption goods and concerned with the popular; they aim to approach culture consciously, to perceive the whole, to maintain the continuity of culture and to become a bridge between the past and the future. Although some have criticised


their philosophy and said that their living environments were unable to reach a particular success, the common feature of these three architects is not the point that they reached but the path that they followed. Their understandings, which maintain the consistency in both produced discourses and architectural activities, question how life’s dynamics are reflected in architecture, consider “human” as the most important component with his individual characteristics and as a part of a social whole and consider features of a “space” as the main component of their design, will be a guide for researchers and implementers of architecture for all time. References [1] N. Ayıran, Architectural continuity towards cultural sustainability in bodrum, Open

House International, 36(2) (2011), 82-96.

[2] E.B. Burkut, Osmanlı/türk evi mekân kurgusunu modern konut mimarisinde okumak

(wright, corbusier, eldem ve cansever’in konutları), Unpublished Master Dissertation,

(2014), FSMVÜ, İstanbul.

[3] T. Cansever, Thoughts and Architecture, (1981), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi.

[4] T. Cansever, Şehir ve Mimari Üzerine Düşünceler, (1992), İstanbul: Ağaç Kitabevi

Yayınları.

[5] T. Cansever, İslamda Şehir ve Mimari, (1997), İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.

[6] Y. Ceran, Filozof mimar turgut cansever, İstanbul Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 11(2011),

35-38.

[7] M. Chalana, Slumdogs vs. millionaires, Journal of Architectural Education, 63(2)

(2010), 25-37.

[8] C. Correa, Üçüncü dünyada kentsel konut: Mimarın rolü, Mimarlık Dergisi,

8/9(1982), 45-48.

[9] C. Correa, The New Landscape- Urbanization in the Third World, (1989),

Butterworth Architecture.

[10] C. Correa, The Blessing of the Sky, (2000), London: Thames & Hudson.

[11] Z. Çelik, Üçüncü dünya mimarları (yayın tanıtma), Mimarlık Dergisi, 259(1994), 51-

55.

[12] U. Demirgüç, Mimarlıkta eleştirel bölgeselcilik ve turgut cansever, Unpublished

Master Dissertation, (2006), İTÜ, İstanbul.

[13] H.İ. Düzenli, Mimari otonomi ve medeniyet ben idraki kavramları bağlamında turgut

cansever projelerindeki biçim işlev yapı ve anlam analizleri, Unpublished Master

Dissertation, (2009), KTÜ, Trabzon.

[14] M. Ekincioğlu, Turgut Cansever, Çağdaş Türkiye Mimarları Dizisi, (2001), İstanbul:

Boyut Yayın.

[15] A.M. EI-shorbagy, The architecture of Hassan Fathy: Between western and non-

western perspectives, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, (2001), University of

Canterbury.

[16] Z.A. Ersoy, Konut ve ev kavramlarının karşılaştırmalı analizi, Unpublished Ph.D

Dissertation, (2002), DEÜ.

[17] A. Eyüce, Interdependence of traditional house form and settlement pattern,

Intercultural Understanding, 2(2012), 17-24.


[18] H. Fathy, Khan El Khalili between Fatamid Cairo and the Cairo of 21st and 22nd

Century: Architectııral Monographs Hassan Fathy, (1988), 125-136, Londra, NY:

Academy Editions, St. Martin’s Press.

[19] H. Fathy, Hasan Fethi Konuşuyor, (1990), 89-91, Arredamento Dekorasyon, Ekim.

[20] M. İnceoğlu and N. İnceoğlu, Mimarlıkta Söylem Kuram ve Uygulama, (2004),

İstanbul: Tasarım Yayın Grubu.

[21] E.O. İnciroğlu, Tasarım – mekân – kültür bağlantıları, Mimarlık Dergisi, 356(2010),

94-95.

[22] M. Kılıç and D. Süer, M artı D mimarlık, yapı 400-1973’ten geleceğe mimarlık, Yapı

Dergisi, 400(2015), 121.

[23] A. Köse, Balıkesir örneginde geleneksel kırsal avlu duvarı, Afyon Kocatepe Üniv.

Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, VIII(2) (2006), 159-183.

[24] S. Özaloğlu, Yeni gurna: Yerellik mimar: Hasan fethi, mimarlık dergisi, Mimarlık,

350(Kasım-Aralık) (2009), 29-32.

[25] H. Özbay, Ülkemizin ve dünyanın ortak sorunu üzerine gözlemler: Gecekondu sorunu

ve ucuz konut deneyimi, Mimarlık Dergisi, 6(1989), 47-49.

[26] S. Özkan, Hasan Fathy’nin Çabası ve Mimarlığı Üzerine: Hasan Fethi, (2000),

İstanbul: Boyut Yayın.

[27] S. Özkan, Charles correa modernizm'den esoterik modernizm’e, Arredamento

Mimarlık, 3(2001), 42-58.

[28] M. Patherya and B. Lau, Assessment of the behaviour of ‘courtyards’ as a design

element in India and its implication as an environmental solution, PLEA 2012-28th

Conference, Opportunities, limits & needs towards an environmentally responsible

architecture Lima, Perú, 7-9 November (2012).

[29] D. Rastorfer, The Man and his Work in Hassan Fathy: A Mimar Book in the Series

Architects in the Third World, (1985), Londra: Concept Media Ltd.

[30] E. Sakınç, Kapadokya’dan öğrenmek: Uplandown, Mimarlık Eğitiminin Dünü,

Bugünü, Yarını, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya, (2010), 251-259.

[31] M.S. Sozen and G.Z. Gedik, Evaluation of traditional architecture in terms of

building physics: Old Diyarbakir houses, Building and Environment, 42(2007), 1810-

1816.

[32] U. Tanyeli, Hasan Fethi ve Mimarlıkta Radikal Muhalefet: Hasan Fethi, (2000),

İstanbul: Boyut Yayın.

[33] U. Tanyeli, Çağdaş Mimarlıkta İslami İçerik Sorunu ve Cansever: Turgut Cansever,

(2001), İstanbul: Boyut Yayın.

[34] U. Tanyeli, Cansever Kimlikleri, Turgut Cansever: Düşünce Adamı ve Mimar,

(2007), İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ev Araştırma Merkezi.

[35] B. Torus, Charles correa’s housıng language, archi-cultural translations through the

silk road, Proceedings 2nd International Conference, Mukogawa Women’s Univ.,

Nishinomiya, Japan, July 14-16 (2012), 201-212.

[36] Z.T. Ultav and S. Sahil, Hassan fathy mimarlığı’nda tasarım ilkeleri üzerine eleştirel

bir inceleme, J. Fac. Eng., 19(4) (2004), 365-374.


[37] C. Wells, Old Claims and New Demands: Vernacular Architecture Studies Today,

Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture- II, (1986), Columbia, Missouri: University

of Missouri Press.

[38] A. Yücel, Contemporary Turkish architecture: A thematic overview thorough the

work of Eldem, Cansever and Cinici, Mimar, 10(1983), 58-68.

[39] A. Yücel, Hasan Fethi ve Sedad Hakkı: İki Mizaç, İki Mimari, Hasan Fethi, (2000),

İstanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu.

[40] A. Yücel, Ferdiyetin Yüceliği, Turgut Cansever: Düşünce Adamı ve Mimar, (2007),

İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ev Araştırma Merkezi.

[41] S. Guy and G. Farmer, Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of

technology, Journal of Architectural Education, 54(2001), 140-148.

[42] M. Şentürk, Turgut cansever düşüncesinde şehrin gelişimi, İnsan & Toplum, 4(7)

(2014), 25-55.

learning from experience in architecture: fathy,...

Documents