010 Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea ...

SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium

M Saatci & D Onder Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea Region, Turkey

10:1

010 Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea Region, Turkey

Merve Saatci Yildiz Technical University, Department of Architecture, İstanbul, Turkey [email protected] Deniz Erinsel Onder Yildiz Technical University, Department of Architecture, İstanbul, Turkey [email protected]

Abstract

The houses human beings occupy directly reflect their attitudes, habits, self-‐expressions, and their way of perceiving life. For vernacular housing, as well, one of the major factors that influence spatial configuration is culture. The impact of user-‐specific lifestyles reveals itself through the formation of housing. Different spatial organizations and housing schemes depend on cultural differences.

In this context, determining the factors that help shape vernacular housing that can be used as paradigms for new designs is essential in terms of physical, social and cultural sustainability.

One of the first steps in designing a house is to determine where its spaces fall on the spatial hierarchy scale from “public” to “private”. Spatial hierarchy, which is a crucial criterion for comprehending the interrelation between spaces, also provides understanding of cultural identity. In this paper, the impact of cultural difference on spatial configuration is emphasized and vernacular housing in three different cultures (Laz, Hemshin and Georgian) in close proximity to the Eastern Black Sea region are evaluated using the criteria of spatial hierarchy.

The criteria that help us rank the spaces from public to private are as follows;

1. In order to obtain the accessibility coefficient, the properties of the space; that is, its position within the system, its density, and its frequency of use are taken into consideration.

2. In order to obtain the psycho-‐social coefficient, the roles of the space; that is, its privacy, security, identity, and time are taken into consideration.

With the help of these two coefficients, the “spatial hierarchy coefficient”, which enables the ranking of spaces from public to private, is obtained.

Within the scope of the research, thirty houses were studied. The spaces designated as kitchen, sitting room, entrance, and guest room, which were common in all three cultures were ranked according to their spatial hierarchy coefficients. The results were evaluated in terms of user relationships with their cultures. In this research, space syntax, observation, and face-‐to-‐face interview methods were used to reach the findings.

In this study, conducted on the spaces formed and inhabited by people of three different cultures located in the same region, it was determined that the cultures produced both similarities and differences in the spatial configuration of their houses.

Keywords

Culture and environment, spatial hierarchy, vernacular houses, Eastern Black Sea Region, Turkey.



10:2

1. Introduction

In the configuration of houses, cultural factors, including a society's beliefs, customs and traditions, behavior and habits, in addition to physical factors such as climate, materials, and topography, play important roles.

People's different perceptions, patterns of cognition, and behaviors that emerge as a result of their cultural experiences are reflected in the environmental organization, which brings with it different necessities. Since culture and environment mutually influence each other, a mutual relationship and interaction between humans, culture, and environment emerge.

The interaction between culture and environment is a process resulting from the mutual influence among “behavioral processes,” such as privacy, personal space, territoriality, and crowds; “mental processes,” such as perception and cognition; “environmental orientation,” where worldview and religious and moral values are influential; “natural environment,” which includes topography and flora and fauna; and “built environment,” consisting of cities and houses (Altman and Chemers, 1986).

The human-‐environment interaction affects lifestyles and shapes living spaces with various spatial organizations. When spatial organizations that belong to different cultures are analyzed, the aspects of life that are specific to the user emerge in the interrelation of spaces.

As a result of different needs and requirements in spatial organization, a “spatial hierarchy” is formed that depends on a number of variables such as social order, the requirement of privacy, gender of user, and the user/guest’s temporary or permanent use of space. In this context, spatial hierarchy is a significant criterion for understanding the interrelation of spaces, and it provides information on cultural identities that determine house design.

Spatial hierarchy is a gradation that emerges during the transition from public space to private space. In this study, public-‐private space means that the space can serve both personal and communal use (Newman, 1997; Hertzberger, 1991; Peatros, 1997; Wojgani and Hanson, 2007).

1.1. Public Space – Private Space

When we analyze different spatial scales, we can see that each scale is graded as weak or strong within a hierarchy. In a house, the user’s own bedroom is a private space. The person is responsible for its cleaning and order. As for the living spaces, they are public spaces for those who reside in that house. When we view the house in the context of the neighborhood, we see that those who reside in the house have their own keys, and the house is a private space for them. The members of the household are responsible for the environment they reside in; they undertake the expenses and guard their house (Onder, 1996).

Each category is defined as follows:

Public space; are spaces accessible to everyone and open to communal use within certain parameters.

Semi-‐public spaces; are those that are owned by certain individuals or groups requiring fewer rules for entrance or passage.

Semi-‐private spaces; are those offered to certain individuals or groups, with their own rules for living, for certain periods, under short-‐ or long-‐term ownership.

Private spaces; are those that meet the maximum level of privacy individuals need, and whose accessibility is determined by small group or individual agreement, they are at times in short or long term use, expressed in physical and symbolic elements, and are owned, protected, personalized, and guarded.



10:3

The aim of this study is to reveal the impact of cultural differences on spatial configuration with reading out the spatial hierarchy criteria of vernacular houses inhabited by the Laz, Hemshin and Georgian peoples living together in the Eastern Black Sea Region.

2. Methodology

While analyzing the thirty houses located in the Eastern Black Sea region;

• a human-‐environment interaction system; thus, the concept of privacy,

• spatial hierarchy within different cultures and communities,

• spatial diversity within historical progression,

• the significance of the building requirement system; thus, the concepts of behaviour and behaviour system, as well as business organization,

were taken into consideration in order to determine the spatial hierarchy criteria, which are as follows (Onder, 1996) :

1. In order to obtain the accessibility coefficient, the properties of the space, that is, its position within the system (integration values), its density (the ratio of the number of its users to the area of the space), the frequency of its use (the ratio of the hours in use to the potential hours it can be used) were taken into consideration.

2. In order to obtain the psychosocial coefficient, the roles of space; that is, privacy, security, identity, and time were taken into consideration. (Grading is “0: seldom, 1: average, 2: often” for privacy, security, and time and “0: could be added, 1: could not be added” for identity).

With the help of these two coefficients, the “spatial hierarchy coefficient”, which enables the ranking of spaces from public to private, was obtained (Onder, 1996).

For the purposes of the study,

1. Ten houses from the district of Fındıklı of Rize Province were used as examples of Laz houses; ten houses from the district of Çamlıhemşin of Rize Province were used as examples of Hemshin houses; and ten houses from the district of Şavşat of Artvin Province were used as examples of Georgian houses. A total of thirty vernacular houses were examined in situ, and their plans were drawn.

2. Information on the lifestyles and culture specific to the region was obtained through one-‐on-‐one interviews conducted with local people.

3. The spatial configuration and sociocultural structure of the houses were analyzed with the Depthmap Software using Convex Space Analysis Method (Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996).

The common spaces of houses belonging to the three different cultures, namely, the kitchen, sitting room, entrance, and guest room, were ranked from the most public to the most private in accordance with the spatial hierarchy criteria.

3. Eastern Black Sea Region

The Black Sea region, which is located in the north of Turkey, is divided into three sub-‐regions, the Eastern, Central and Western Black Sea regions. The Eastern Black Sea region covers the area between Ordu and Artvin Provinces.



10:4

Figure 1: Location of the vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea Region (Source: Google Earth)

With its high mountains, steep valleys, very rainy climate, and rich vegetation, the Eastern Black Sea region has quite a distinct natural structure. The variety and richness in natural structure has been reflected in the lifestyle of the local people and the vernacular architecture, which led to the formation of a structural character specific to the region that integrates with the environment (Eruzun and Sözen, 1992).

The rugged structure formed by high mountains and steep valleys in the Eastern Black Sea region brought about scattered settlement. In the steep and sloping terrain, houses spread backwards without overlapping and left green spaces in between. The houses that are situated with their fronts facing open space are preserved by the area’s natural structure. Another reason for scattered settlement is the fact that villagers want to place their homes near their fields for the maintenance and protection of crops such as corn, hazelnuts, and tea (Ozgüner, 1970).

3.1. Vernacular Houses in Eastern Black Sea Region

Although the house plans in the Eastern Black Sea region look similar, under scrutiny we can see that different styles emerge from the diversity in culture and living, which play a crucial role in spatial configuration. Among the cultures living together in the region, the housing belonging to the Laz, Hemshin and Georgian cultures have specific characteristics of spatial configuration. It is possible to see the impact of living culture on spatial configuration when the houses belonging to these three cultures are analyzed.

Figure 2: Typology of the houses with location of the main spaces; kitchen, sitting room, entrance and guest room



10:5

3.1.1. Main Spaces in Laz Houses

Laz houses generally have two floors. The basement floor is configured as either a stable or a warehouse, while the ground floor is the living space.

Figure 3. The exterior and interior spaces of the Laz house (Saatci, 2014).

The kitchen -‐ “aşhane”

The main space of the house meets various daily needs such as preparing food, cooking, dining, washing the dishes, washing the children, sitting, resting, hosting neighbors, and collective working. Aşhane is the most important part of the house and is where family members come together, discuss problems, and share precious moments in their lives.

Aşhane is situated in the preserved section of the area selected for the house. Since family members spend most of their time here, such an arrangement is preferred for protection from rain and wind in winter. The bedrooms and the entrance open onto this space, which is the passage to hayat, the bathroom, and the other parts of the house.

The most important part of aşhane is the middle section, where there is a hearth and a constantly lit fire. While some houses have high-‐arched hearths with large chimneys, smoke rises freely and billows out of the holes in the ceiling in other houses. There is a chain hanging from the ceiling over the furnace. With its adjustable height and hook, this chain is used to carry the boilers and saucepans used for cooking. When viewed from outside, smoke billowing out is a sign of life continuing in that house. Thus, the hearth is the most important element of aşhane (Eruzun and Sözen, 1992).

The sitting room -‐ “hayat”

This section is either reached through a corridor or hall, or it is sometimes accessed directly from the aşhane. It is located in the area of the house facing the view. One or two rooms are located on each side of hayat.

Unlike aşhane, hayat does not have a fire burning in the middle. Since aşhane gets sooty because of the fire and lacks sufficient light, there has been a need for a better lit, easily cleaned space with important rooms around it (Ozgüner, 1970).

Hayat is the space where the household sits on a sofa facing the view and rests. Since it is surrounded by guest rooms, it functions more as a space for passage. It has smaller dimensions than aşhane. Despite being another common space of the house, it is not used as effectively as aşhane.

The entrance -‐ “küçük avla”

Küçük avla is the main entrance to the house. Aşhane is reached by passing through this space. In some house examples, it is possible to reach the toilet and bathroom located at the front of the house by passing through the küçük avla. Another entrance in the rear facade of the house opens



10:6

onto the corridor and makes it possible to reach hayat and other rooms without having to pass through aşhane. The main purpose of the back door is to let people in directly to the bathroom or toilet when they get dirty from working in the garden.

The guest room -‐ “büyük oda”

Büyük oda is the biggest of the rooms surrounding hayat. There is generally a furnace in the room, which provides comfort for those sitting on a sofa in front of the window facing the view. It is usually used when hosting guests or coming together with guests on a special occasion. One entire side of the room is reserved for closets and cabinets.

3.1.2. Main Spaces in Hemshin Houses

Hemshin houses can have one, two, or three floors. The basement is configured as a stable or warehouse, while the ground and upper floors are used as the living spaces.

Figure 4. The exterior and interior spaces of the Hemshin house (Saatci, 2013).

The kitchen -‐ “ev”

One of the two living spaces of the house is ev. This space is used for preparing food, cooking, dining, washing the dishes, sitting, resting, and hosting neighbors. Family members gather here for dining. With two facing doors, the back entrance of the ev opens onto the garden It is located in the sheltered part of the terrain to be protected from rain and wind.

The most important section of the ev is the part with a high arch where there is a hearth. The hooked and adjustable chain hanging from the ceiling over the hearth is used to carry the boilers and saucepans used for cooking.

The sitting room -‐ “hayat”

Another common space in the house is hayat. It does not have a furnace but rather a stove at present use. The rooms of the household open onto Hayat. It meets daily needs, such as watching the view, sitting, resting, and hosting neighbors. Because the bedrooms of the household open onto this space, it could be used more effectively. As it is, hayat is used very heavily for the purposes above in addition to its function as a transition point between the rooms. Together with the ev, it is one of the two living centers of the house.

In passing through hayat or ev, one finds a ladder that leads to another hayat located on the upper floor of the house. Rather than functioning as a sitting or resting room, it serves as a passage between the rooms on the upper floor. It is possible to access the upper floor both with the ladder on the ground floor or via the ramp in the garden.



10:7

The entrance -‐ “giriş holü”

The house has two facing entrances. The main entrance makes it possible to reach ev and yan oda. This entrance also provides privacy by separating daily life from hospitality. Another entrance in the rear of the house opens onto the ev. The doors in the front and rear provide air circulation in the house.

The guest room -‐ “yan oda”

The space that can be reached directly from the entrance of the house is separated from the common spaces of daily life. The room, which also includes a furnace, is quite a bit larger when compared to the other bedrooms of the house. Its sofas, which are 30-‐40 cm high, can be used both for sleeping and sitting. The guest room, which is generally located on the ground floor, can also be located on the upper floor in large mansions.

3.1.3. Main Spaces in Georgian Houses

Georgian houses generally have three floors. The basement is configured as a stable, while the ground floor is used for living. The first floor fulfills the functions of drying and storing food products.

Figure 5. The exterior and interior spaces of the Georgian house (Saatci, 2014).

The kitchen -‐ “ev”

The main space of the house responds to the daily needs such as preparing food, cooking, dining, washing the dishes, having a bath, sitting, resting, sleeping, and hosting neighbors. On cold days, the household meets in the kitchen, where an essential part of everyday life is spent.

In traditional use, the room features the buhar (furnace), where the fire burns, and a sofa. The location of these items is the most important part of the ev. The sofa provides the opportunity for both sitting and sleeping. The fire burning in buhar serves to boil water and cook as well as to illuminate the space. In traditional use, there is not a separate space in the house for having a bath; the lidded mils/shafts (bath tubs) under the sofa are used for this purpose. In order to be close to the warmth, the mil is placed under the sofa near the buhar (Aydemir, 2010).

The sitting room -‐ “dandraba”

The biggest spaces of the house that open onto the outside are used more in summer; they are located facing the view. The ground-‐floor dandraba is the place used for living when the weather is not very cold. The main entrance to the house directly opens into the dandraba. The members of the household who work in the fields during the daytime spend more time here in the evenings. Since the dandraba is used more in warm seasons, there is no furnace.

On the upper floor, there is another dandraba, which also opens up to the outside. It is the space where fruits and vegetables are collected from the fields, and dried. Opening directly onto dandraba, there are storage rooms that are sheltered places with high thresholds, in which dried foods,



10:8

primarily corn, are stored. In some houses, the storage rooms on the upper floor may be used as bedrooms when necessary.

The entrance -‐ “ara”

The house has two facing entrances. The main entrance opens directly into the dandraba. The entrances can take on the role of a path between the rooms and dandraba and provide privacy. Since the back entrance is far from the common spaces of the house, it enables a person coming back from the fields to bring the crops to the upper floor without passing through other spaces where there may be guests.

The guest room -‐ “geriki oda”

This space, which could be reached directly from the entrance of the house, is separated from the common spaces of daily life. The room includes sofas that are 30-‐40 cm high, used both for sleeping and sitting.

4. Spatial Analyses of Vernacular Houses

4.1. Convex Space Analysis of the Laz Houses

According to the spatial integration hierarchy of the Laz houses, we see that the most integrated space is aşhane (1.920), which is the main space of the house. The most segregated space is the toilet (0.658). The relationship between aşhane and hayat plays a determining role in the establishment of spatial configuration.

Table 1. Ranking of the spaces according to mean integration value without exterior.

Hayat functions more like a passage than it meets the need for sitting. As a result of this attribute, the integration value of hayat (1.350) looks more separate than the aşhane in terms of the general average.

Because the entrance (1.030) is not located in the center and it is connected to a maximum of two spaces, this position results in a decrease in its integrating effect.

With the position of the guest room in spatial organization, not only the privacy value is kept high but also the hygiene and tidiness of the room is preserved due to its distance from the spaces where there is extensive activity. With its integration value of 0.690, the guest room is one of the most segregated room of the house with toilet (0.658).

1 2.211 2.211 1.474 0.884 1.142 0.737 0.8842 2.211 1.895 1.105 0.884 0.884 0.631 0.8293 1.774 2.217 1.478 _ 1.060 0.985 0.6824 1.895 1.206 2.211 0.829 0.829 0.884 0.6635 1.958 1.119 1.958 0.870 0.922 0.979 0.4896 1.471 1.307 0.871 0.871 0.828 0.588 0.5067 1.653 1.069 0.757 0.909 0.835 0.519 0.5868 1.891 1.300 1.387 0.990 0.729 0.697 0.5209 2.298 2.238 1.205 2.298 0.831 0.681 0.706

10 1.833 1.833 1.100 0.785 0.785 0.611 0.720mean 1.920 1.640 1.350 1.030 0.884 0.690 0.658

guest room (büyük oda)

wchouse number

kitchen (aşhane)

corridor sitting room (hayat)

entrance (küçük avla)

bedrooms



10:9

Figure 6. Integration map of the Laz houses. (aşhane: kitchen, hayat: sitting room, hol: hall, küçük avla: entrance, büyük oda: guest room, koridor: corridor, avlu: courtyard)



10:10

4.2. Convex Space Analysis of the Hemshin Houses

According to the spatial integration hierarchy of the Hemshin houses, the most integrated space is hayat (2.780), while the most segregated space is the guest room (0.550). In spatial organization, the interrelation between ev and hayat, and the position of the entrances play a determining role.


Because the bedrooms of the household open to hayat instead of to ev, this centrality decreases the integrating effect of the ev (1.580).

Since the entrance space is directly connected to only the guest room and ev, it has a lower integration value compared to the other common spaces. Its integration value is 1.110.

Even though the guest room has easy accessibility from the entrance space, its integration value of 0.550 results from its weak relations to the other spaces of the house.

1 2.217 _ 1.774 0.887 0.806 0.739 0.5212 3.447 _ 1.273 _ 0.861 0.689 0.7123 3.447 _ 1.723 _ 0.861 0.878 0.6894 8.870 _ 1.478 _ 1.108 0.698 -15 2.402 1.104 1.070 1.001 0.690 0.768 0.5796 1.613 2.304 1.152 1.240 0.985 1.152 0.7687 1.666 1.800 1.153 1.285 0.978 0.584 0.8188 1.463 2.090 2.251 1.125 0.922 1.045 0.7139 1.550 2.396 2.396 _ 0.952 1.054 1.054

10 1.125 1.272 1.540 _ 0.740 0.650 0.650mean 2.780 1.828 1.580 1.110 0.890 0.823 0.550

wc guest room (yan oda)

house number

sitting room (hayat)

sitting room 2 (üst kat hayat)

kitchen (ev)

entrance (giriş holü)

bedrooms



10:11

Figure 7. Integration map of the Hemshin houses. (hayat: sitting room, ev: kitchen, yan oda: guest room, yatak odaları: bedrooms, koridor: corridor, avlu: courtyard)



10:12

4.3. Convex Space Analysis of the Georgian Houses

According to the spatial integration hierarchy of the Georgian houses, the most integrated space is dandraba (1.970), which is the living space of the house. The most segregated space is the guest room (0.700). In spatial organization, the position of dandraba plays a determining role.


The entrance space assumes the role of a path separating the living space and the rooms. Its integration value is 1.640. Due to its position in spatial organization, the entrance has an integrating effect.

The integration value of the ev is 0.850. Because this space is not in a central position in the plan weakens its integrating effect.

The guest room is the least connected to the other spaces of the house with an integration value of 0.700. This room, which demonstrates the characteristics of a segregated space, obtains a value below the average.

1 1.085 1.833 1.063 0.713 0.785 0.7852 1.740 1.044 0.948 0.712 0.824 0.6263 1.327 2.654 1.069 0.878 0.947 0.9794 1.149 2.500 0.942 0.698 0.861 0.8615 2.111 1.001 1.828 0.692 0.527 0.4226 2.611 1.100 1.087 1.195 0.979 0.6527 2.956 1.108 0.951 1.119 0.887 0.5918 1.108 2.956 0.915 0.832 0.887 0.8879 2.654 1.105 1.062 1.198 0.947 0.631

10 2.956 1.108 1.120 1.120 0.887 0.591mean 1.970 1.640 1.098 0.915 0.850 0.700

bedrooms guest room (geriki oda)

house number

sitting room (dandraba)

entrance (ara)

kitchen (ev)

balcony



10:13

Figure 8. Integration map of the Georgian houses. (dandraba: sitting room, ara: entrance, geriki oda: guest room, ileriki oda: bedroom, balkon: balcony, arka bahçe: backyard)

5. Calculation of the Spatial Hierarchy Coefficient

When the common spaces of the three different cultures, namely, the kitchen, sitting room, entrance, and guest rooms are ranked from the most public to the most private according to the



10:14

spatial hierarchy coefficient (accessibility coefficient x psycho-‐social coefficient), we can see that the differences in the socio-‐cultural structure and lifestyle are reflected in this ranking.

When considering the spatial hierarchy coefficient values of the Laz houses, the kitchen with its value 1.188 is the most public space, the entrance with its value 0.422 is the second, and the sitting room with its value of 0.303 is the third public space. Despite being a common space in the house, the sitting room is not used as extensively as the kitchen and, thus, shows consistency with the value it received in the spatial hierarchy ranking. The guest room is positioned as a private space in the ranking with its value of 0.224.

Table 5: Calculation of the spatial hierarchy coefficient for Hemshin houses. (kitchen: ev, sitting room: hayat, entrance: giriş holü, guest room: yan oda)

In the Hemshin house, the sitting room with its value of 2.224 is the most public space, and the kitchen with its value 1.292 is the second public space. Because the sitting room and kitchen are used more extensively, the entrance (0.455) has the lesser value. We see that the guest room received a value of 0.087, which makes it the most private space in the ranking.

Table 6: Calculation of the spatial hierarchy coefficient for Georgian houses. (kitchen: ev, sitting room: dandraba, entrance: ara, guest room: yan oda)

kitchen sitting room entrance guest room density 10/40=0.250 6/20=0.300 10/10=1.000 5/20=0.250

frequency of its use 15/24=0.620 6/24=0.250 10/24=0.410 8/24=0.330integration value 1.920 1.350 1.030 0.690

accesibility coefficient 0.25x0.62x1.92= 0.297 0.30x0.25x1.35=0.101 1x0.41x1.03=0.422 0.25x0.33x0.69=0.056

privacy 1 1 0 2security 1 1 1 1identity 0 0 0 0

time 2 1 0 1psycho-social coefficient 4 3 1 4

spatial hierarchy coefficient 0.297x4=1.188 0.101x3=0.303 0.422x1=0.422 0.056x4=0.224



accesibility coefficient 0.50x0.41x1.58=0.323 0.40x0.50x2.78=0.556 1x0.41x1.11=0.455 0.16x0.33x0.55=0.029






accesibility coefficient 0.50x0.41x0.85=0.174 0.40x0.50x1.97=0.394 1x0.50x1.64=0.820 0.16x0.33x0.70=0.036






10:15

In the Georgian houses, the sitting room, entrance, and kitchen received 1.576, 0.820 and 0.696, respectively. The sitting room is the most public space of the house, while the guest room receives the value of 0.108 which makes it the most private space in the house.

6. Conclusion

According to the spatial hierarchy coefficient and the relationship between the findings of this study and local culture, the impact of culture on spatial configuration has been evaluated by comparing the vernacular houses belonging to three different cultures located together in the Eastern Black Sea region.

When the kitchen, sitting room, entrance, and guest room spaces of the vernacular houses belonging to the Laz, Hemshin and Georgian cultures in the Eastern Black Sea region are ranked from the most public to the most private in accordance with the analyses made, we can see that there are differences along with similarities that result from lifestyles that are mostly reflected in spatial configuration.

Although the living spaces serve similar purposes in the houses of the three cultures, differences in meaning and the functions ascribed to the spaces are clear. The major roles women undertake in everyday life in the Eastern Black Sea region have an impact on the spatial configuration of the Laz houses. The aşhane space that responds to the necessities of life such as cooking, dining, and, sitting is positioned as the center and life of the house. The fact that aşhane is the largest space in the house where daily life takes place and that the bedrooms of the household open onto it shows that the house could easily be managed from the space where women spend most of their time. As the second living space, hayat, being spatially smaller than the aşhane, demonstrates that aşhane is used as the main living space whereas hayat is only used for sitting and as passage to the rooms.

In the Hemshin house, ev and hayat together serve the role of the aşhane. Along with the fact that ev serves similar functions to aşhane, the bedrooms of the household that open onto the hayat instead of the ev shows that the hayat space, which is present in both cultures, is more integrated and effectively used in the Hemshin house. Corresponding to the hayat space on the ground floor of the Hemshin house, there is a larger hayat space on the upper floor onto which the bedrooms open. The higher number of living spaces in the Hemshin house indicates that this culture values sitting and resting in addition to working; therefore, more spaces meeting these needs are established in the house accordingly.

In the Georgian house, the ev space is organized to respond to the need for sleeping in addition to the functions of cooking, dining, sitting, and having a bath. Because this space demonstrates a more segregated characteristic compared to that of the other two cultures suggests privacy for women as well as the culture’s privacy value on the space where women spend most of their time.

While the food products are dried and stored in the space called serender which is located outside the house in the other two cultures (Laz and Hemshin), the upper floor of the Georgian house is used for this purpose. All these findings show that the number of rooms is kept low and addresses more than one user and that everyday life and agriculture are intertwined in Georgian culture.

The rooms used for hosting guests are separated from the main living spaces of the house in all the three cultures. This separation is most evident in the Laz house. While the rooms of the household that are used for everyday living are positioned to be facing the garden and the street, the rooms reserved for the guests are positioned in the part of the house that faces the view and are cleaner and more carefully preserved as well as separate from the area used for everyday life. Georgian houses there is a large room for guests , which is located close to the entrance and kept clean with similar care, this room is generally positioned in the part facing the street. The bedrooms of the household are also positioned to be facing both the view and the street.

The entrance is one of the most public spaces of the Georgian house. The space that is named ara is the most extensively used as a path between the living spaces and bedrooms, and it features one of



10:16

the staircases that allows access to the upper floor. We see that ara is connected more to the whole house compared to the entrances in the Laz and Hemshin houses.

Clearly, the different socio-‐cultural structures of the three cultures produce different spatial configurations as well. The public space-‐private space ranking made according to the spatial hierarchy criteria is consistent with these findings. Regarding the common spaces of the three cultures;

• the Laz house yields a ranking of:

‘kitchen>entrance>sitting room>guest room’ as a result of the kitchen (aşhane) is used as the main living space whereas sitting room (hayat) is not used as extensively as the kitchen,

• the Hemshin house yields a ranking of:

‘sitting room>kitchen>entrance>guest room’ in accordance with the fact that sitting room (hayat) and kitchen (ev) are used together for living and the rooms of the household open onto hayat,

• the Georgian house yields a ranking of:

‘sitting room>entrance>kitchen>guest room’ because the main entrance opens directly into the sitting room (dandraba), and it functions as a passage to the other spaces in the house.

In accordance with the findings obtained from all these studies it is clear that the public or private character of a space corresponding to a certain function in the spatial organization of a vernacular house is determined according to the needs that arise from the lifestyles of those who occupy the households. Despite being located in the same region, differences created by life style are significantly reflected in the configuration of domestic space. The impacts created by cultural and social values such as the population of the household, domestic life style, and host-‐guest relations generate differences in the organization of spaces.

Ozgüner (1970, p.59) expresses this finding as follows; “In order to draw a plan scheme, put forward different types of plans and make a ranking; it is essential to identify the major factor affecting the plan arrangement, it is better to look for this factor in life style, because the roles of climate, topography, view, sun, and material are of secondary importance for the Eastern Black Sea region”

In light of the findings obtained in this study, it could be concluded that each culture has a spatial organization specific to itself in accordance with the similarities and differences generated by the culture of living and that vernacular houses provide us with important clues to understand the relation between the culture of living and space. In this context, determining the factors that help the configuration of vernacular house settlements and using them as data in new designs carries a significant value in providing physical, social, and cultural sustainability.

As a continuation of this study, similar analyses may be carried out on the spaces of vernacular houses belonging to other cultures and settlements in the Eastern Black Sea region, and house typologies may be developed for the entire region. In this way, the relation between the culture of living and space regarding the same region could be evaluated in a broader perspective.



10:17

References

Altman, I. and Chemers, M. (1986), ‘Culture and Environment’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aydemir, E. (2010), ‘Yöresel Mimarinin ve Kırsal Dokunun Korunması: Artvin Şavşat Balıklı Mahallesi Örneği, (Protection of Vernacular Architecture in Rural Areas: Example Of Balıklı District in Artvin Savsat )’ , Master Thesis, Istanbul: İstanbul Technical University,

Eruzun, C. and Sözen, M. (1992), ‘Anadolu’da Ev ve İnsan, (Houses and Human in Anatolian)’ İstanbul: Emlak Bank Publications.

Hanson, J. (1998), ‘Decoding Homes and Houses’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hertzberger, H. (1991), ‘Lessons for Students in Architecture’, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Hillier, B. (1996),’ Space is the Machine’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984), ‘The Social Logic of Space’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newman, O. (1972), ‘Defensible Space, Crime Prevention Though Urban Design’, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Peatros, F.D. (1997), ‘The Spatial Dimention of Control in Restrictive Settings’. In: Major, M.D. and Amorim, L. and Dufaux, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Space Syntax Symposium, London: University College London, p.14.1-‐14.15.

Onder, D.E. (1996), ‘Kent Otellerinde Mekânsal Kademelenmenin Değerlendirilmesi İçin Bir Yöntem,(A Method for Evaluation the Hierarchy of Space on Hotels)’, Phd Thesis, İstanbul: Yıldız Technical University.

Ozgüner, O. (1970), ‘Köyde Mimari: Doğu Karadeniz, (Village Architecture in the Eastern Black Sea Region)’, Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture.

Wojgani, H. and Hanson, J. (2007), ‘Extra Care Housing: a paradigm shift’. In: Kubat, A. S., Ertekin, Ö., Güney, Y. I. and Eyuboglu E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul: ITU Faculty of Architecture, p.065.1-‐065.15.

010 Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea ...

Documents

Transcript of 010 Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea ...