İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı / Mimarlık Tarihi Bilim Dalı
1930-1940 yılları arasında İstanbul'da inşa edilmiş apartmanların cephe biçimlenişleri
Facade organization of the apartment buildings in Istanbul between 1930-1940
Bitişik nizam yapılaşma şablonu içerisinde yer alan apartmanların cepheleri, bina-yol ara kesitinde yer almakta ve kentin yüzünü oluşturmaları sebebiyle özellikle önem taşımaktadır. Tekrar ederek kullanılan cephe elemanları, en küçük detaylarıyla birlikte, bir dönemin konut mimarisine karakterini vermektedir. 19. yüzyıldan itibaren Galata başta olmak üzere Beyoğlu, Şişli ve Nişantaşı gibi semtlerde görülen apartmanlar, Cumhuriyet Dönemi'nde İstanbul için yeni bir tipoloji olmamakla beraber, 1930'lu yıllardan itibaren yapımı hız kazanmıştır. Modern yaşamın simgesi olan apartmanlar bu dönemde özellikle tercih edilen bir konut tipi olmuştur. 1930'lu yıllarda hız kazanan apartman yapımı, İkinci Dünya Savaşı sebebiyle 1940 sonrasında giderek azalmıştır. Apartmanların cephelerini İstanbul örneği üzerinden incelemek farklı mimari üslupların bir aradalığının oluşturduğu zenginliği görmek açısından da ilginçtir. 1930 ve 1940 yılları arasında İstanbul'da inşa edilmiş olan apartmanların cephe biçimlenişlerinin ele alındığı bu çalışmada, modern bir yaşam biçimi sunan apartmanlar ve bu yeni yaşam biçiminin görüntüsü olan cepheleri incelenmiştir. Yapılan çalışma esas olarak tipolojik bir inceleme olmakla beraber, cephe üzerinden dönemin kültürel, toplumsal ve kentsel yapısı hakkında da tartışmayı mümkün kılmıştır. Tezin ikinci bölümünde Avrupa'da apartmanların ortaya çıkışı ele alınmıştır. Sanayi Devrimi'yle birlik artan konut talebi, ilk işçiler için yapılmış olan kira apartmanları ve daha sonrasında bu sağlıksız koşullara tepki olarak Modernizm etkisinde gelişen konut blokları araştırılmıştır. Üçüncü bölümde ise öncelikle İstanbul'da Osmanlı Dönemi'nde inşa edilmiş ilk apartmanlar; daha sonra ise 1930-1940 yılları arasındaki apartmanlar, dönemin dergilerinde yayınlanan yazılar üzerinden apartman hakkındaki düşünceler, bir statü sembolü olarak apartmanda yaşamanın talep edilmesi, kira evi kavramı ve İstanbul'daki üslup çoğulluğu üzerinden ele alınmıştır. Son bölümde ise ele alınan apartmanların cephe elemanları analiz edilmiş ve cephelerin biçimlenişini etkileyen unsurlar belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bunun için öncelikle bu dönemde Arkitekt'te yayınlanan apartmanlar ve cepheleri, Arkitekt'te yayınlanmış olan metinler ve söylemler üzerinden analiz edilmiştir. Cihangir, Teşvikiye, Nişantaşı ve Gümüşsuyu'nda yapılan gözlemler sonucu seçilen apartmanlar da araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir.
This study covers the facade organization of the apartment buildings in Istanbul, built between years 1930 and 1940. The modern way of life offered by these apartments is also reflected within their facades. Although this study is essentially a typological research, it shall further enable a debate on the cultural, social and urban aspects of the era. The facades of the apartments mentioned through this study are initially interpreted around the concepts of adjacent parcel design, building regulations, rental housing, front facade – back facade contrast, privacy and view. Then a final evaluation is done regarding typology and dating. "Street – city block – parcel" geometry are what defines the borderlines of an apartment and shapes its physical properties in the first place. Long and narrow parcels repeated through a template of adjacent constructions lead to similar looking buildings in alignment and with narrow facades. These narrow facades are not to be understood as an architectural choice but an inevitable necessity born out of adjacent parcel design. However, when a parcel is to be non-standard, it is observed the full potential of the land is utilized. The facade organizations of Tüten Apartment and Demirağ Rental House are two examples to support this finding, where the borders of their neighboring buildings are misaligned. Nan Apartment is also an example to reinforce this idea, as its facade being influenced by the square geometry of the land. Another aspect which limits the facade organization in addition to adjacent parcel construction is the construction laws. It has been seen that 'Building Law' (Ebniye Kanunu) established in the Ottoman era was in effect during the early years of the Turkish Republic, defining the dimension of alcoves. The alcoves located at the side facade of the apartment building in Pangaltı designed by Architect Sırrı Arif published in Arkitekt Magazine 1932 issue and the balconies of Ceylan Apartmanı in Taksim designed by Architect Sedat Hakkı published in Arkitekt Magazine 1933 issue were shaped in accordance to this law. With the no. 2290 of the new building law (Yapı ve Yollar Kanunu) established in 1933, it was now completely forbidden to construct buildings with alcoves on street narrower than 9.5 meters. However with another building law established in 1957, construction of alcoves were forbidden entirely. According to the law of commerce defining municipality taxes (Belediye Vergi ve Resimleri Kanunu) in 1933, apartment buildings were declared as public spaces similar to shops, hotels, taverns and cafes. Such declaration caused the apartment buildings to be taxed as a commercial entity. While the buildings published in Arkitekt were named as 'apartment', starting from 1934 they were now named as 'rental houses'. It can be derived that the 'apartment' terminology is abandoned and instead 'rental house' is being used due to circumvent the financial effects of this new law of commerce. Furthermore the increase in the number of flats per floor from one to two happening on the same year with this definition change, inevitable attracts attention. The doubling in number of flats to get more rental income affected the facade organizations as well. Having 'Closed + Open' type of alcoves and their entrances being located at the sides, the facade of the buildings constructed before 1934 had an asymmetrical appearance with respect to the latter. The buildings constructed after 1934 however have a symmetrical appearance with their 'Open + Closed + Open' type of alcoves and entrances located in the center. According to the results of this study it can be said that there is a significant contrast between the front (main) and rear facades of the apartment buildings. However rather than paying attention to the front and neglecting the rear, this difference is evaluated in regarding to facade organization and elements. It is observed that alcoves, regardless of the function of the room they are a part of, belong to the front facade; while balconies belong to the rear facade. Nevertheless there are some exceptions where balconies can exist in a front facade. In such cases the relation between the view and the balcony is a highly important criteria. Similarly the rear facades of the apartment buildings inhabit large balconies especially when they face the view. It can also be seen in the articles and photographs published in Arkitekt magazines that view is an important aspect and mostly identified with the balcony. Through the adjacently oriented apartment buildings, alcoves which define the character of the facade tend to follow a specific pattern. This enables a typological evaluation through such alcoves. Through this study thirty four different apartment buildings published in Arkitekt Magazines between 1930 and 1940 as well as twenty one first-handedly documented apartment buildings are examined. Thus five types of alcove forms are identified as 'Open + Closed', 'Open + Closed + Open', 'Vertically Symmetric Open + Closed', 'Closed' and 'Oriel'. Although not having strict boundaries, these findings can be utilized as a method of date classification of the decade between 1930 and 1940. The most clear one would be the wide use of 'Open + Closed' alcove type until 1934 and once the number of flats per floor are doubled, the symmetric type alcove, 'Open + Closed + Open' are chosen to be used instead. Furthermore 'Oriel' type of alcoves used in apartment buildings where there is a single flat per floor, are not applied in the buildings later than 1935. Two of the rental houses built at the end of 1930's are exceptional cases with their massive 'Closed' type alcoves and stand out to be atypical in form. The huge alcoves of the rental house in Taksim built by Arif Hikmet Holtay in 1939 and the rental house in Teşvikiye built by Zeki Sayar in 1940 are not to be came across until then. 'Vertically Symmetrical Open + Closed' alcove type is only seen in the first-handedly documented apartment buildings at Teşvikiye. Such alcove types are not seen in the apartment buildings published in Arkitekt Magazine. In addition, the balustrade details of the alcoves published in the Arkitekt Magazine are more plain than the balustrade details of the fist-handedly documented apartment buildings. Such balustrade details of the fist-handedly documented apartment buildings are seen to have common attributes through the same district and is thought to differentiate in relation with the cities themselves. Nevertheless, the current scope of this research would be insufficient to come to such a conclusion just yet. These assessments up to now are based on the apartment buildings which lasted until today, being majorly selected from Teşvikiye, Gümüşsuyu and Cihangir districts and the examples published in the Arkitekt Magazine. However it should be kept in mind that this study should not be considered to reflect the total of the city. The apartment buildings published in Arkitekt Magazines are built in favor of the upper-middle class, where the apartment buildings in which lower-income classes live are excluded. Although the buildings mentioned in Arkitekt Magazines have at most two flats in a floor, it is known that apartments with four flats per floor existed in the Historical Peninsula. Such flats are much smaller when compared to the ones in Arkitekt Magazines and are usually positioned to surround a hall in the center of the building. Still there are apartment buildings with alcove types mentioned above are present among the wider range of other apartment buildings. This shows the form does not represent a single class and can be transferred once learned. The scope of this research can be expanded with a wider study at Sultanahmet, Gedikpaşa, Türbe and Beşiktaş districts. A further study in such scale shall be important to question the differences between the samples spread through the city and the samples mentioned in the Arkitekt Magazines. Such an extended study shall help to uncover the vast stock of residential buildings of which only a minor part is cited in the Arkitekt Magazines as well as to differentiate the variances in terms of city scale. Finally it has been crucial to document the hastily disintegrating –even during the very process of writing this thesis– architectural heritage of residential building built through the early Republican period.