The Impacts Of Utopias On Mass Housing Design

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 1996Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 1996Varoluşundan beri, temel işlevi, insanı fiziksel etkilerden korumak ve barınmasını sağlamak olan konut, toplumun sosyo kültürel yapısını da bünyesinde barındırır. Davranış ve düşünce sistemlerindeki dönüşümlere koşut olarak konut mekanları da farklı anlamlar kazanmış ve dönüşümlere uğramıştır. Endüstrileşme dönemine gelinene dek, konutun planlama, üretim ve sunum süreci, belli sosyal kesimlerin gereksinimi dışında, doğrudan kullanıcının denetiminde, ya da kullanıcıyla yapı ustalarının yoğun ilişkisi içinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yoğun bir konut istemi olmadığından, geleneksel konut üretim süreci ve varolan konutların sağladığı yaşam kalitesi yeterli olmuştur. Endüstri devrimi ile birlikte gelişen yeni üretim teknikleri ve yoğunlaşan sermaye, nüfusun endüstri bölgeleri yakınlarında yoğunlaşmasına, hızlı kentleşmeye ve dolayısıyla büyük bir konut açığına yol açmıştır. Konut üretim mekanizmaları, endüstri toplumunun yoğun konut istemine, nicel ve nitel olarak karşılık verememiştir. Endüstri toplumunun ve kentinin olumsuz koşullan, 19. yüzyılın başlarından itibaren, pek çok düşünür ve ütopist tarafından dile getirilip eleştirilmiştir. Yeni bir kent ve yeni yaşama mekanlarıyla birlikte, yeni bir toplum ve toplumsal organizasyonu yaratmak istemişlerdir. Bu amaçla, kollektif bir yaşam biçimi ve ortak mekanların, ortak kullanımı fikrinin ilk örneklerini ortaya koymuşlardır. Böylece toplu konut fikri, bu dönemde hızlı kentleşmenin yarattığı sorunlara bir çözüm yolu olarak ileri sürülmüştür. Toplu konut düşüncesinin prototipi olarak nitelendirilebilecek ütopya modellerindeki toplu yaşam kavramı, modern düşünce sistemi içinde bir evrim geçirerek günümüzdeki evrensel anlamına ulaşmıştır. Buradan hareketle, günümüz sosyal ve toplu konut mekanlarının güçsüzlüğü, ütopya modellerinin düşünce sistemi ile ilişki kurularak irdelenmiştir. Sosyo-kültürel etkenler gözönüne alınmadan tasarlanmış toplu ve sosyai konut mekanları biçimsel, işlevsel, sosyal ve psikolojik gereksinmeleri tam olarak karşılayamamıştır. Benzer mekansal örüntülerin farklı kullnıcı tipleri için farklılaşan gereksinimlerin tümünü karşılaması öngörüsünden yola çıkıldığı için barınma ortamı kullanıcının bireysel, sosyal, kültürei farklılıklarından bağımsız bir tutumla ele alınmıştır. Bu nedenie, günümüz sosyal ve toplu konut mekanlarıyla sosyal ütopya modelleri arasındaki etkileşimler irdelenirken, fiziksel ve işlevsel karar ölçütlerinin yanısıra sosyo-kültürel etkenler de gözönünde tutulmuştur.The dwelling which the main function is to secure the human kind from environmental and physical affects, also reflects the socio-cultural structure of the society, parallel to the transformations of behaviour and concept systems, dwelling spaces also transformed and gained various meanings. Till the era of industrialization, dwellings were planned, generated and supplied under the direct control of users or, cooperation of the users and costruction masters. Traditional dwelling production and physical quality have been satisfactory because of the low demand for the housing. During the industrialization era progress of the production techniques, enlargement of the capitals, increase of the population arround the industrial areas, resulted with rapid urbanization and a negative balance for the supply and demand for dwellings. Lots of utopists and philosophers criticized the negative facts of the industrial population and urbanization with the beginning of 19. century. They wanted to create a new community and social organization along with new dwelling and urban spaces. They offered the first samples of common usage of common spaces in a collective society style. Mass housing idea is proposed as a solution for the problems of rapid urbanization in this period. Common society idea of the utopic models which can be accepted as a prototype of mass housing idea reached to its universal meaning with the transformations and evolutions in the modern philosophies. Starting with this point, weakness of the social and mass housing spaces are examined with the relation of the utopic model and thinking systems. This thesis consists of six parts. Its aim is to compare the social Utopian modeis with the current social and mass housing spaces. In the first part, the importance and dimensions of the Utopian models in mass housing process is generally described. In the second part, the contents and the limits of this study and then the main concepts such as "industrialization", "utopia" and "mass housing" are defined. These concepts determine the framework of the research and the variables of the housing production. IX The third part, is reserved for the conceptual and historical evoluation of housing production. Then, housing types and settlement forms are historically analysed under the affects of industrialization process. Till the 18. century, production, planning and supply mechanisms of housing protected the local and traditional quality. Housing process had not been forced because of low density of population. Industrial revolution caused radical social transformation series. In this period, mass housing concept has been put forward as a solution for the problems of rapid urbanization. The fourth part is reserved for the response against to the negative conditions of industrial cities. Modern architecture has been accepted for the beginning of 20. century with concretizing the positivistic rational thought in built environment. In 18. and 19. centuries, becoming dense capital, developing technology, new production techniques and new social organizations caused a new, dynamic, hopeful, idealist expression. In that period, architects have gained their own proper statutes. In this way, architects became the unique professional responsible for production of built environment. Thus, they have gained capacity of taking decision in that process. In this thinking system, mass housing production accelerated. People and objects have been reduced just a model. The Utopian concepts have been effective in all of this production and planning decisions. It was intended that creating a new social organization with the inspection of physical environment. After the second world war, particularly dating from 60's, it has been seen that the architects began to lose their statutes which gained with modern thinking system. Along with the transformations in socio-cultural structure, first, the built environment of modern architecture and mass housing groups have been criticized. At the same period, anonymous, monotonous and meaningless structure of mass housing settlements caused later modem Utopias. Negative conditions of industrial towns and unbalances of social structure caused 19. century Utopias. Parallel to this, predicaments of modern cities were starting point in later modern Utopias. Also in later modern Utopias, as 19. century Utopias, personal preferences and cultural diferences and habits were neglected as intentionally. After the 70's, post modern criticism system put forward against to the abstract figurative language, the lack of metaphors, anonymity of dwellings. The conceptual system of post modernism is based on polyphony, participation and historical references. The iast and the sixth part is reserved to the comparative results between 19. century Utopian living spaces and current mass housing and social housing spaces. Mass housing idea that had a descent influence in Utopian thinking system, aimed at social and politic goals much more than economic goals. Utopian models based on collective organization, common usage spaces, usually could not be realized. Because all Utopian models have aimedstandart spaces for homogenous society and reaching social goals. Architecture activity served authority and power until 1 9. century. But after this period, architects have maintained activity as compenent authority in planning built environment until 70's. Architects have become responsible for production of built environment acording to modern thinking system. The whole people has the same organism and same necessities. In that case, anonymous dwellings and physical environments can be planned for ideal user model. Many groups such as architects, social scientists, users and clients have been expressed discontentments from social and mass housing spaces. Each group has been affected only one way. But users and clients have struggled transforming the physical environment. They have tried either creating new behaviour model or enduring psychological, socio-cultural and behavioural problems. The reason of physical, cultural and social absences of current mass housing spaces, can be shown as defects of 19. century social Utopian thinkers. For that reason, current social and mass housing spaces are compared with social Utopian thinking system as cultural, physical, social and functional characteristics. The Following parameters have been used in that comparison. - Physical requirement criteria - Lodging needs - Service Systems and building sub-systems - Land utilization and density criteria - Functional requirement criteria - Dimensions and forms of spaces - Relations between activities - Socio-cultural and psychological requirement criteria - Secrecy and purifications necessities - The necessity of collective transmission areas - Symbolic and aesthetic values - Personal space and manifesting necessity - Domination boundaries and aeral behaviour necessity - Development and flexibility facilities - Participating to decisions - Cultural symbolization and social standing necessity XI The social model of Utopian thinking system, has been in the vanguard of current mass housing concept in that meaning, the physical, cultural and social weaknesses of current mass housing concept are defined by means of Utopian thinking system of industrialization era. The following conclusions may be enumerated by this comparative analysis ; - Both Utopian models and current mass housing concept, the main aim has been improving the negative physical conditions. - Utopian models had to be dominant in whole social life end all of them have disregarded the culture. Current mass housing thinking system has also similar mentality. - Architects have began to be interested in society since Utopian thinking system. - Architects have gained a special role as the unique authority in producing built environment. Architecture has been transformed. - Both Utopias and curent mass housing thinking system aimed a new social organization by the control of physical environment. - Whether Utopias or current mass houses aimed that people has been reduced simple and faultless organism. - It has been accepted that, all of the human requirements can be fixed in advance. - Defects of social utopists in social life of the future caused physical, behavioural, cultural and social defectiveness of current mass houses. - Common place usage has been dominant both Utopias and current mass houses. - All of Utopians models like social houses, have had a closed, social unit structure. - An absolute geometric morphology and an authoritarian attitude has dominated in Utopian thinking system. - Cultural differencies and individual symbols has been neglected both Utopias and mass houses. Xll The main aim of turning towards the nature of Utopias living places has been escape of negative conditions of the industrial cities.Land speculations and land prices have caused today' s expansion tendency. Privacy requirements and secrecy has been neglected in both Utopias and social and mass houses. Activities has been organized in public spaces because of complete socialization in both Utopias and current mass and social houses. As a result of that comparison, a new housing production process should be instituted. In this process, users should be entered into the planning process. Users demands, social, economic, cultural, behavioural and symbolic characteristics should be realized. The necessity of taking shelter of low income social groups should be responded especially, squatter houses can give a hint to answer the low income peoples needs. Flexible place using and use customs of squatter houses should be taken into consideration. In the mass housing production process, both, physical specifications and users expectations, life styles, social, cultural and behavioural differencies should be important. But the process of physical reflections of cultural differences, should be avoided from generalizations carefully. It should be remembered that, different individual symbols, different passions can be possible in similar cultures, and similar social and economic groups.Yüksek LisansM.Sc