The environmental aspects of `sustainable housing

Transcription

Yildiz, P. (2013) The environmental aspects of ‘sustainable housing properties’ in big cities with growing population.
International Journal of Sustainable Human Development, 1(4), 177-187.
The environmental aspects of ‘sustainable housing
properties’ in big cities with growing population
Pelin Yildiz
The Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Hacettepe University, Turkey,
peliny@hacettepe.edu.tr
In the vision of environmental context with the architectural point of view, there are consequences
based on public space in the concept of housing territorial. In the countries with growing
population like Turkey the housing concept is one of the most important problems in big metropolis
whereas housing properties should be depending on the matter of sustainable considerations
regarding the social and cultural aspects of the community living there. The purpose of this work is
to make an approach to the sustainable housing design in order to see the reflections of this issue
starting from the nearby environment to the city scale with social and cultural considerations. And
the purpose of this study is to propose a model for growing cities in the issue of housing under
sustainable circumstances with social aspects in the nearby environment. From this point the public
space concept is a general common point to be analyzed. The sustainable aspect of housing in social
context should bring together the heterogenic public life in a common situation. The environmental
point of view mostly depends on the situation of common public access. So in this work the subject
will be declared starting with the problem statement with visual representation of the meaning of
sustainable housing under the social point of view also with substances one by one. The general
body of the paper will constitute analyzes of sustainable housing regions on behalf of architectural,
social and cultural point of views. The analyzed samples will be presented on a scientific basis of
sustainable quantities those being detected through the phases of sustainable housing values in the
international terminology. As the method of this study is making scientific analyzes on some basic
sustainable houses, making comparisons between the analyzed works identifying common and
different points is required in order to maintain an ideal prototype regarding sustainable housing.
This prototype should contain: Sustainable housing under social and cultural aspects, the
environmental reflections of this public space as a module, bringing together some different
modules regarding environmental public space usage by analyzing the structure of the city
planning depending on housing policies, making analyzes between metropolis with growing
population on behalf of sustainable housing criteria and public space. The findings and results will
put forward the fact that starting from the micro scale of the housing consideration with
sustainable features to the mezzo scale which is forming the healthy and adequate type of city
planning by growing population on behalf of social public space usage should be identified clearly.
A new approach to confront the housing challenge: Housing Development Administration (TOKİ)
from Turkey should be identified as a sample. In the conclusions and recommendations part; it
should be declared that sustainable housing is an issue in planning big metropolis city map with its
cultural and social environmental effects while the context of being a sustainable city is depending
on some main basic levels and phases. Starting from the micro scale of the housing considerations
through the mezzo scale by planning issues of public life in city, the macro scale is then being
formed as a general identification of the city with the reflected image of a city.
Introduction
Sustainable housing is considered to be a wide symptom in forming the general structure of a city complex.
In the aspect of the general definition of a city there are some main parts to define the general structure:






Transportation abilities, traffic ways and pedestrian roads
Recreation possibilities
Common spaces in city centers as landmarks or conjunction points in city life,
Housing, collective housing, residential parts,
Educational areas
Administrative regions and nearby,
 2013 Copyright remains with authors. First published by Eduserv Group Publishing Division, UK, 2013
177




Shopping facilities,
Zoo and shelters for animals,
Agricultural facilities in a sustainable feature in city life etc.,
Sport facilities
These creations are the basis of the general context of a city. All are forming to be as one in order to
organize the necessities of man in the living cycle with a wider range of possibilities and surroundings. The
city life is the reflection of people with their social arrangements, cultural identifications, living styles, usage
of common space by public access in the sense of sharing etc. All the creations are in conjunction with each
other whereas the chain is to be formed acting as one that is in relation with each other and interactively
affecting each other to be acting as a mechanism.
Sustainable housing properties
Housing policies have passed through many permutations in the last 50 years, based on differing, even
conflicting, approaches that, if we were totally truthful, have not really solved the housing problems faced by
the majority of the world's population. The challenge of housing is a simple one: the need for a healthy
shelter at an affordable price. In recent years, the concept of sustainability has become central not just in
housing policy, but in the consideration of human settlements, employment, infrastructure, transportation and
urban services. In fact, the concept of sustainability may be one of the most overused and misunderstood
urban policy components in use today (Choguill, 2007). The concept of sustainability should be clarified
leading to what is hopefully an operational definition that can be used to measure progress toward this
desirable state. The ideas developed are then applied to the field of housing policies, that is, the guidance that
governments can give to housing providers, whether they be commercial, public or self-builders, placing
housing activity within the overall framework of the sustainability of human settlements and national and
international economic activity. In the course of this discussion, certain criteria for sustainability will emerge,
including the need for poverty reduction and slum eradication, as well as the broader goal of environmental
preservation and the importance of developing channels for making viable finance available. Of course,
without improvements in employment opportunity and incomes, whatever is done within the housing policy
area is likely to lead to disappointing results (Uzun, Çete, Palancıoğlu, 2009).
Housing
territorials
Housing territorials
Sub-center
Housing
territorials
Educational parts
and divisions
Housing
territorials
Common
space
CITY CENTER
Recreational
facilities
Artistic features
Sub-center
Administrative
parts
Sub-center
Housing
territorials
public
Figure 1: The general structure of city settlements in big cities
Sustainable housing is a concept as from the architectural point of view; consisting of 2 main parts:
1
2
Architectural design issues and strategies
Social and cultural strategies whereas the relations are then being formed by;
 Sustainable interior properties
 Sustainable physical impacts among necessities of the building
 Sustainable nearby environmental aspects
178
In order to have an overall approach of the sustainable housing content the main structure should be
identified. The module is the house with its interior and outer facilities.
The well developed cities as with their sense of image; the big chain based on these materials are the
modules acting in a good sense in relation with each other. For example in New York, Toronto, Paris,
London, Tokyo etc. the main structure of city is to be formed in a logical and conscious process.
The approach of city planning structure form these prototypes has been formed mostly from the
acceptance of the city center as the common space for public use but in addition the multicentric abilities of
these cities letting them live the environmental publicity with differentiated benefits.
The location of housing territorial are divided in three main parts;
1 Individual houses
2 Apartments and blocks
3 Collective housing
The subject to be concerned is the environmental issues and the common space usages of the living areas
where the social cultural reflections are being percepted mostly. Because house are living areas where the
communities are totally feel them as their homeland and both affect the formation of these paces and being
effected from the environment in many ways in a multicultural issue. For example in London housing
environments are to be perceived mostly with the nearby of the houses as gardens or any private usage and
these prototypes are to come together in forming the general city life and this brings a definition of security
for city. According to Maliene, Malys (2008) UK cities have been subject to severe social and economic
pressures over the past few decades, which have had an uneven spatial impact on the urban environment and
have given a rise to the concentration of the most deprived households in the worst urban neighborhoods.
In another sense in New York the housing territorial and nearby usage has been divided to some parts. In
the peripherical areas of the city houses are to be concerned individually and people are sharing the nearby
environments in accordance with the common spaces of each region or cultural section.
Sustainable housing properties in Turkey, Ankara
The migration from rural to urban areas experienced especially in the industrialization period has led to rapid
urbanization and the construction of illegal settlements in many countries. These settlements are usually
over-crowded, unsafe, temporary, unhygienic, probably illegal, and mostly located in the suburban areas of
cities. The main causes of their constructions are government inefficiencies and lack of effective policies that
supply adequate housing for low-income people. As of 2007 more than half of the world's population lives in
cities, and one out of three individuals among them lives in inadequate housing conditions. Upgrading
squatter settlements that involves physical, social, economic, organizational and environmental
improvements to existing slum is widely seen as the most proactive and effective way to achieve this target
(Uzun, Çete, Palancıoğlu, 2009).
Sustainability, which is presented as a 21st century concept, has been in fact applied since Vitruvius
wrote his books and was realized spontaneously in traditional architecture. When “sustainable design and
construction strategies for Turkey” are under scrutiny, then it is possible to observe how traditional buildings
and settlements in Anatolia were designed in harmony with the local cultural, topographical and climatic
conditions and how their design and construction could be integrated in today's design practices. The most
important design parameters affecting indoor thermal comfort and energy conservation in building scale are
site and orientation of the building, distance between buildings, building form and optical and
thermophysical properties of the building envelope. Among these parameters building envelope, as it
separates the outdoor and indoor environment, is the most important parameter. All of these parameters are
related to each other and the optimum values of each parameter should be determined depending on the
values of the others and their optimum combination should be determined according to the climatic
characteristic of the region (Manioğlu, Yılmaz, 2007).
179
Socıal sustaınabılıty
The three different interpretations of social sustainability summarized by Chiu (2003) from the extant
literature reflect inter‐connections (Table 1). One of the interpretations equates social sustainability with
environmental sustainability, in that developments are restricted by social constraints, as by ecological limits
(Munro, 1995). The social constraints are set by social norms. If an activity breaches the social limits, it will
fail because of people's resistance. Hence for an activity or development to be socially sustainable, it has to
keep to specific social relations, customs, structure and value. The thrust of this interpretation is therefore the
influence of social values, norms, and social structure on the continuation or progress of development
policies, projects or activities. This interpretation is thus development‐oriented as its main concern is social
constraints that limit development. According to Rebecca L. H. C. (2004) as a key component of the built
environment, housing plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of cities. The primary purpose of
housing development is to meet housing needs and to improve housing conditions.
Table 1: Interpretations of social sustainability
Interpretation 1
Interpretation 2
Interpretation 3
Social constraints limiting development
Social pre‐conditions determining
distribution of resources and assets within
and over generations
Maintenance or improvement of the well‐
being of people
a. social relations
b. customs
c. structure
d. values
a. rules
b. values
c. preferences
d. norms
a. increased social cohesion and integrity
b. enhanced social stability
c. improvement in the quality of
d. life
Development‐oriented
Environment‐oriented
People‐oriented
When social sustainability is interpreted in terms of social constraints limiting development, cultural
factors are significant, as cultural values and customs are often at play to set social norms. The same
relationships apply when social sustainability is interpreted as social preconditions necessary to support
environmental sustainability. Culture affects the social structure, social values and life styles of a society, and
hence the impact of human activities on the natural environment. The relationship between social and
cultural sustainability is even more intimate when social sustainability refers to the upkeep or improvement
of the well-being of people in this and future generations. This is because such improvements involve, as
discussed later, social relations, the distribution of resources and benefits, and quality of life, all of which are
culture‐specific (Rebecca L. H. Chiu, 2004).
Cultural sustaınabılıty
Before canvassing the concepts of cultural sustainability, we need to straighten out the basic concepts of
culture. Social relations, social structure, value, norms, customs, rules, the conceptions of equity, and life
style are either affected by or part and parcel of a culture. In unpacking the concept of “culture”, Rapoport A
(2001) has distinguished two dimensions of elements that determine culture: the social dimension including
kinship, family structure, social network, identity, status and so forth; and the ideological dimension
encompassing values, ideals, images, norms, standards, expectations, rules, and so forth. This breakdown
underscores the influence of social structure in culture, and hence their inseparable relationship. A finer
definition for culture should, however, cover three major aspects as summarized from the works of Rapoport
A (1969). The first is its aesthetic and artistic aspect. This covers fine arts, music, popular culture,
performing arts, and so on. The second aspect refers to the cultivation of mind and spirit. It includes
knowledge, belief, religion and ideologies. The third aspect is the anthropological perspective: the way of
life; and it pertains to the social aspect of human behavior. It is the totality of the socio‐cultural convention
inherent in a specific society. It includes morals, values, laws, codes, customs, traditions, heritage, life styles
and the ways we socialize within specific social structures. The above three aspects overlap and influence
one another in various ways.
180
The new housing projects in Ankara regarding the formation of
multicentre scale
In turkey the approach is to be clarified in the variability of housing territorial and the reflections nearby. The
general identification should be made by analyzing the general structure of city formations and the
regulations. The climate of the Eastern Anatolian Plateau is relatively similar to desert climate. This region
represents the hot and dry area with a high temperature difference between day and night. When evaluating
traditional architectural examples, it can be seen that designers were more sensitive and they presented the
most suitable design and settlement examples for each climatic region. The concept sustainable development
was initially conceived as a term most relevant to macro economic development. It is only more recently that
it has been applied to a consideration of the quality of development in human settlements and, by
implication, housing.
Figure 2: Old city plan, Ankara.
Figure 3: Ankara in 50‟s
Figure 4: Ankara in 1990
Ankara is growing with a great demand of population in the recent years and this causes the acceleration
in housing projects and housing estate whereas the center is then started to being formed by a multicenter
area and surrounding. The housing projects are mainly around the regions; Dikmen Valley, Batıkent Housing
Estate, Çayyolu Regions with big housing estate unites, İncek, Eryaman (mini cities) etc.
These new formations of housing territorial are the new faces of Ankara as the growing population brings
new demands and necessities with new evaluations of housing aspects. The housing projects are usually
formed on the basis of tall buildings as houses, residences (a new approach of life style), parking facilities,
green usage, and playgrounds for children, sporting areas, etc.
Figure 5: Ankara sustainable housing planning consideration, housing estate, Batıkent.
The present post-disaster housing approach is not responding properly to the interrelated problems of
speed, time, economy and no response or under-response. Whenever one type of the problem is taken in hand
singularly, it‟s seen the other problems‟ severity increase (Ehrenkrantz, 1989). The many related components
of post-disaster housing need to be analyzed as a whole. The development of systems approach has made it
possible to take all the components of a system into consideration, understand their relationships, perceive
alternative solution and foresee their impact and make adjustments when needed through constantly checking
results. Thus, each system is a coherent and indivisible whole that can be distinguished from its
surroundings. Moreover this whole is organized since it reflects the dynamic and reciprocal interactions of its
various components, and any change in one element will necessarily change others and consequently the
entire system. A system cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts, since the latter do not have the same
significance when studied in isolation as when seen as contributing to the whole. If we look at each
component separately, therefore, we might miss the factors that constitute the system as such. As a result
181
system approach is determined appropriate to be used as a tool to solve this problem (Limoncu S., Celebioglu
B., 2006).
Prior to applying the concepts of social sustainability to housing Chiu R.L.H. (2003) defined the tenets of
sustainable housing development. She argued that the primary concern of sustainable housing development is
to meet the housing needs of the people and not to preserve the environment. However, the environment has
to be safeguarded from deteriorating to an extent that it diminishes the ability of future generations to meet
their housing needs. Further, sustainable housing should not be merely about meeting basic needs, but should
also improve the livability of the living environment, both internal and external.
Based on these tenets, she proposes that the social sustainability of housing should include four aspects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
the social preconditions conducive to the production and consumption of environmentally
sustainable housing;
equitable distribution and consumption of housing resources and assets;
harmonious social relations within the housing system;
an acceptable quality of housing conditions. Following on from the previous discussion about
the common areas between social and cultural sustainability, the first and the fourth aspects
are also pertinent to cultural sustainability.
Table 2 Objectives, goals, resources and activities
OBJECTIVES
To solve housing problems
practically, systematically,
urgently, low-costly
ecologically.
To develop sustainable
settlements
GOALS
-the number of victims
according to the disaster
scenario -necessary number
of emergency shelters, and
usage period of them
-necessary number of
temporary housing, time
needed to provide them and
usage period of them
-the necessary number of
permanent houses and time
needed to finish them
RESOURCES
Natural Resources (land,
natural building materials,
water, solar energy ect.)
Manufactured Resources
(materials, tools, energy. ect.)
Manpower (designers,
constructors, Manufacturers,
Supervisors, Users)
Financial Resources
Information Resources
(Science, Consents,
Experience, Evaluation)
Housing
ACTIVITIES
Stage of Sustainable
Emergency
Relief
Stage of Transforming the
Units Into Permanent Houses
Table 3 According to (S Limoncu, B Celebioglu, 2006) the problems given below shows that the present
post disaster housing approach can not provide the needs of the victims progressively, urgently, economically
and it is also inadequate in using country‟s resources efficiently. Furthermore, it is understood that there are
not any set strategies regarding the subject, it is always decided after the disaster which prevents the society
from being ready against the disasters.
Table 3
Problems of the
present post–disaster
housing approach
administrative -legal
problems
-The government is
not ready against the
disasters beforehand
and has unsustainable
policies in place.
-Lack of organization
/ Not having
sustainable
organization structure
Land qualification and location
problems
Units‟ designapplication-usement
problems
Substructure
problems
Sociopsychological
problems
-Unscientific approaches are
followed for the selection of the
land and location decisions and
the agricultural sustainability is
not considered. -The local data
is not taken into consideration
during the settlement plans.
-The present settlements are not
analyzed.
-Settlements are not designed to
be added on the urban life and
the social sustainability is not
considered.
-The ecological conditions are
-The units are not
suitable for the life style
of the victims.
-The units are not
suitable for the regional
and climatic conditions.
-The emergency shelters
and temporary houses
are not sustainable,
recyclable; therefore it is
not sustainable in terms
of users‟ health and
comfort.
Lighting, water,
canalization, flood
problems are caused
by lack of basic
substructure and the
sustainability of the
substructure is not
considered.
-The victims are
left alone at
unhealthy
conditions.
-The socialcultural-economic
life is not
considered.
182
Economical
problems
-Applying
international solutions
-The cost of the
transportation is high
therefore it is seen that
economical
sustainability is not
considered.
not taken into consideration
during the location of the units.
Being unsustainable /not
appropriate to be recycled
-Not having sustainable politics
-Not having sustainable
organization structure
-Not being sustainable in terms
of users‟ health and comfort
-Not having sustainable
substructure plans.
-Not having thought social
sustainability.
-Not having thought economical
sustainability.
-Effecting the agricultural
sustainability negatively
Analysis of social and cultural reflections among sustainable housing
properties; ‘toki’ & the urban renewal projects in Ankara
The primary purposes of the new approaches in Turkey would be upgrading the unplanned and unhealthy
illegal settlements, and thus providing economic, social and cultural improvements to urban areas. The illegal
settlement upgrading model of TOKİ is generally implemented to upgrade unplanned and problematic areas,
occupied public lands, regions having disaster risks, and cultural and historic areas surrounded by illegal
settlements. The project areas are generally located around the city centers where the land is particularly
valuable. There are two alternative approaches to implementing the model:
1.
2.
demolishing the illegal settlements, constructing new houses in the same area, and allocating them
to the right holders,
constructing new houses in a different area to transfer the right holders living in the upgrading area
(Uzun, Çete, Palancıoğlu, 2009).
In the both models, local authorities determine the illegal settlement area where the upgrading project is
going to be implemented, and they place an application to TOKİ. (Uzun, Çete, Palancıoğlu, 2009). In the first
model, construction of housing units for slum owners and squatters is performed on the same slum area
following a land purification process by TOKİ. The slum owners are moved to temporary houses during the
upgrading process, and their rents are paid by the local authority. Following completion of the construction,
new housing units are given to the entitled right holders in the project area. In the second model, modern
housing units for slum owners and squatters are constructed by TOKİ on a vacant area, and entitled right
holders move into them.
Illegal settlements and their incongruity with city centers have been important issues in Turkey especially
since the 1950s. A model for solving slum/slum issues were developed by the Turkish Housing Development
Administration (TOKİ) in 2003. The primary purpose of the model is to upgrade illegal settlements through
demolishing them and constructing new residential units in the same or different areas. In this context, TOKİ
has implemented the model in cooperation with local authorities in several cities throughout Turkey. In a
similar manner, the countries trying to improve conditions of their illegal settlement areas could also benefit
from the model. A slum upgrading project: Erzincan-Çarşı Quarter example (TOKİ, 2007), (Uzun, Çete,
Palancıoğlu, 2009).
183
Figure 6: A slum upgrading project: Erzincan-Çarşı
Figure 7: The location of the valley in Ankara
Quarter example (TOKİ, 2007)
Dikmen Valley is another project to be concerned in the same way. It is located between two densely
populated housing areas, Çankaya and Dikmen, which are in Ankara's southern urban development zones. It
starts almost from the city centre, Kızılay, and extends to the forested areas in the southern city limits. The
valley has been designated a natural conservation area in all urban development plans. Ankara metropolitan
Area Planning Bureau are the names of the urban development plans that were legally approved for the
development of Ankara between 1933–1982 as it is one of the important air circulation corridors and water
basins of Ankara (Devecigil, 2007).
Figure 8: TOKİ model of illegal settlement upgrading
by (TOKİ, 2007)
Figure 9: Dikmen Valley in 1989: Slum houses surrounded
authorized housing. (personal archive of K. Özdemir)
According to Devecigil (2007) the slum development process in the valley started after the 1960s and the
number of slum units reached 1,916 with nearly 10,000 inhabitants in 20 years. After the 1980s, the valley
became an area for urgent intervention due to the prevailing air pollution and green area problems of Ankara.
In 1984, the Greater Ankara Municipality (GAM) introduced the Dikmen Stream Green Area Project, which
aimed to relocate the slum owners into another part of the city and to transform the valley into an urban park.
This project could not be implemented because of high expropriation costs and opposition from the slum
settlers. It is very important in Turkish planning experience because it has become the most popular model
proposed for transforming informal settlements in Turkey. It is an important case for the sustainability–
184
livability debate since it shows the obstacles encountered when the interests of actors are in contradiction to
the larger interests of sustainability.
The urban decision-making process in Turkey is following a top-down, hierarchical, and expert-driven
structure. The urban legislation allows citizen participation after the plans are prepared (Günay, 1992).
Environmental issues have been more or less addressed in most of the urban development plans. There is an
attempt to include the principles of sustainable development in urban plans and projects at their initial
development stages. However, reaching the goals of urban development plans in practice has been difficult
due to the developments taking place outside the legal and planned context as well as the plan amendments
leading to increases in construction density. The Dikmen Valley case points out the difficulty of bringing
together the contested visions of the urban actors to promote sustainability, especially when the actors in
question do not have any perspective of urban sustainability (Devecigil, 2007).
During the interviews, the right-holders who were asked about the meaning of urban sustainability stated
that they did not hear the concept “sustainability” and they have no idea what it is. On the contrary, the
professionals interviewed were fully aware of the debates, especially referring to the balance to be
established between economical, environmental and socio-cultural interests. There is a continuing struggle
between the urban actors in terms of realizing environmental, economic and socio-cultural targets. This
struggle exists between the urban actors, and also within them. In the Turkish urban development context,
searching for a balance between economic development and environmental preservation has been the issue of
the technical specialists, academia or NGOs, but such an attempt could not be extended to the community
level. Besides, their involvement is dependent on the decision-makers' willingness to include them.
Results and conclusions
The urban practices in Turkey have been evolving as a bargaining process that is defined and redefined
according to the actions of the actors and tend to end up with the sacrifice of the environmental targets. The
current situation of Dikmen Valley is a good example of the gap between the environmental protection goal
set at the beginning and the outcome that changed due to relations of the urban actors. The technical level,
which has no power at all, determined the sustainability targets; whereas the political level determined the
level of implementing these targets establishing coalitions with other groups. In Dikmen Valley a relatively
livable and modern environment was created for the slum inhabitants of the first and second implementation
zones at the level of a participatory decision-making mechanism, but Dikmen Valley has already lost its air
corridor function for Ankara city (Devecigil, 2007).
According to official documents, urban sustainability was included on the Turkish agenda from the
1990s. The establishment of the Ministry of Environment in 1991 was a crucial step towards setting up
environmental standards in accordance with international agreements. As an impact of the Rio Conference
and Agenda 21, the sustainable development concept has been integrated into national development plans.
The second Habitat conference led to the preparation of the Turkish National Action Plan for sustainable
urban settlements with the participation of a wide range of groups. The last step taken in this context was the
National Environmental Action Plan prepared in 1998. There have been limited practices in the context of
sustainability such as several Local Agenda 21 actions in several cities. The urban question in reaching
overall sustainability in Turkey has been revolving around how to overcome the problems created by the
informal settlements (DPT, 1992).
In Turkey the prototype of creating sustainable housing abilities should be under the affect of main
reflections regarding cultural and social necessities, adaptive abilities and behaviors and livable
surroundings. The projects applied to form the basis of a sustainable environment in Ankara shows that the
habitants living in the area nearby has been carried to residential availabilities in parallel with the similar
standards of their general expectations.
Social and cultural life style in the nearby environments of regions in Ankara has been passed through a
great transformation whereas the environment has gained a value by the financial facade. This situation may
seem interesting and enlighten the future projects. But the most important approach should be along with the
preservation of identity, culture, and image of the city.
Transformation processes like urban renewal projects in the city context should be handled very carefully
while one of the most important symptoms in city is its image. The image of a city is being formed among
185
very long periods and cultural developments. It is not easy to carry the structure of a residential area or
region to another image only by the addition of modern building styles. The sustainable feature of the current
condition has to be evaluated first; the current data, elements to be preserved should be identified; then the
changes, extractions and additions should be applied according to main findings. The respect to the
typologies to be preserved should be carefully analyzed and a new environment then could be formed.
Whenever this symptom is neglected then a very successful transformation project in a chosen region may
fail with the result of an inadequate application according to the fact „human behavior‟. The culture,
traditions, the social public share are factors to be preserved and to be carried widely in a delicate sense while
building the new structure of the new living space. This would capture the most important symptom of the
sustainable housing in a social and cultural context. Otherwise it would be a new living area with only
calculating the problem solving of residential necessities.
References
Choguill, C.L. (2007) The search for policies to support sustainable housing. Habitat International.Volume 31, Issue
1
Chiu, R.L.H. (2003) Sustainable Development, Social Sustainability and Housing Development: The Experience of
Hong Kong., in FORREST, R. and Lee, J.(eds) Housing and Social Change: East‐West perspectives. Routledge, London.
Clark, M. (2000) Mainstreaming environmental innovation Town Country Plans. Domestic Futures and Sustainable
Residential Development. 69 (7/8) Futures Volume 33, Issue 10, December 2001,
Çete M., Palancioğlu, H.M., Uzun, B. (2010) Legalizing and upgrading illegal settlements in Turkey. Habitat
International Volume 34, Issue 2.
Devecigil, P.T. (2007) The Role of Local Actors in Transforming Informal Settlements in Turkey for Sustainable
Urban Development: The Ankara–Dikmen Valley Case. International Planning Studies Volume 11, Issue 3-4.
DPT (Turkish State Planning Organization) (1992) Çevre ve Yerleşme, Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. Ankara:
DPT.
Ehrenkrantz, E. D. (1989) Architectural Systems: A needs, Resources and Design. Approach, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, USA.
Jansen, H., (1937) Ankara İmar Planı, Plan Raporu. Alaeddin Kıral Basımevi, İstanbul.
Hardoy, J.E., Miltin, D. (1992) Satterthwaite Environmental problems in third world cities. Earthscan, London
Keleş, R. (1971) Eski Ankara’da Bir Şehir Tipolojisi. S. B. F. Yayınları
Keleş, R. (2006). Kentleşme Politikası. İmge Kitabevi, ISBN 975-533-053-4, 9. Baskı, Ankara.
Leitmann, J., Baharoglu, D. (1999) Reaching Turkey's spontaneous settlements: the institutional dimension of
infrastructure provision. International Planning Studies, 4(2): 195–212.
Limoncu, S., Çelebioğlu, B. (2006) Post-disaster sustainable housing system in turkey.
http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/limoncu_sevgul.pdf
Günay, B. (1992) Mekan Planlamasında Temel Yaklaşımlar ve Temel Sorunlar: Türkiye Gerçeğinde Bir
Değerlendirme, Ankara: Unpublished Research Paper.
Majale, M. (2008) Employment creation through participatory urban planning and slum upgrading: the case of
Kitale, Kenya. Habitat International, 32.
Maliene V., Malys N. (2009) High-quality housing—A key issue in delivering sustainable communities. Building and
Environment, Volume 44, Issue 2.
Manioğlu, G., Yilmaz, Z. (2008) Building and Environment, Energy Efficient Design Strategies in the Hot Dry Area
of Turkey. Volume 43, Issue 7.
Metropol İmar. 1991. Dikmen Vadisi Projesi Uygulama İmar Planı Raporu, Ankara: Unpublished Urban
Development Plan Report.
Metropol İmar. (1992) Dikmen Vadimiz, Vol. 4, Ankara: ABB.
Munro D.A. (1995) Sustainability: rhetoric or reality in Trzyna, T.C., Osborn, J.K. (eds) A Sustainable World:
Defining and Measuring Sustainable Development, published for IUCN – the World Conservation Union by the
International Center for the Environment and Public Policy.
186
Rebecca L. H. C. (2004) Socio‐cultural sustainability of housing: a conceptual exploration. Housing, Theory and
Society, 21:2, 65-76
Rapoport A. (1969) House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs N.J Prentice‐hall, Inc.
Rapoport A. (2001) Theory, culture and housing, Housing, Theory and Society 17 145 165
Schusky E.L., Culbert T.P. (1973) Introducing Culture. New Jersey Prentice‐Hal
Şenyapili, Ö. (1982) Konut Politikasi Gelistirme Calismas: Ruhsatsiz Yapilasmanin Donusum Sorunlar, Istanbul:
Konut Kurultayi. Conference Proceedings.
Şenyapili, T. (1996) 1980 Sonrasında Ruhsatsız Konut Yapımı, Ankara: TOKI. T.C. Başbakanlık Toplu Konut İdaresi
Başkanlığı Konut Araştırmaları Dizisi: 8
Toki. (2007) Yaşanabilir Çevrelerde “Herkese Yeterli Konut”, 22 Yıllık Tecrübe. T.C. Başbakanlık Toplu Konut
İdaresi Başkanlığı Faaliyet Kitapçığı, Ankara.
Toki. (2008) TOKİ Erzincan urban renewal (Slum transformation) project of Turkey. Application document to the
best practice Dubai award. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Housing Development Administration (TOKİ), Ankara,
Turkey.
Toki; (2008b). T.C. Başbakanlık Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı – Erzincan Belediyesi İşbirliği ile Geliştirilen ve
Uygulanan Erzincan-Çarşı Mahallesi Kentsel Yenileme Projesi Açıklama Raporu. Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı,
Ankara.
Tuncer, M. (2006) Tarihsel Çevre Koruma Politikalar. Ankara. [mehmet-urbanplanning.blogspot.com]
Viratkapan V., Perera R. (2006) Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: what has contributed to their success or
failure? Habitat International, 30.
Vitruvius (1960) Ten books on architecture. Dover Publication, New York
http://www.kent-koop.org.tr/harita/harita.htm
187

The environmental aspects of `sustainable housing

Transcription

Similar documents

proyecto ejecutivo de un ecoalojamiento en la reserva de la biosfera

GREEN MOVEMENT IN TURKEY

Teaching Sustainability thru Interac"ve Systems Thinking Educa"on

Omorebokhae

Sustainability brochure - Queen Mary University of London

Shooting Simulator ATESİM

View General Motors Sustainability Presentation - Eco-Green

accompanying presentation slides

The Sustainable University

A Different Look at Game Day and Special Event Recycling

Ankara

Three glasses a day smooths wrinkles away!

Spatial Representation of Power: Making the Urban Space of