Kiralık Konut Tasarımında Kullanıcı Katılımı ve Yapay Zeka Araçlarının Bütünleşik Kullanımının Değerlendirildiği Saha Çalışması

Abstract

Mimari tasarım sürecinde, kullanıcıdan elde edilen bilgiler doğrultusunda ihtiyaç programlarının hazırlanması ve tasarım kararlarının bu ölçütlere göre geliştirilmesi, özellikle konut üretiminde yaygın olarak başvurulan bir yaklaşımdır. Bu yaklaşım, kullanıcıların tasarım sürecine dâhil edilmesi yoluyla daha işlevsel mekânlar üretmeyi ve kullanıcı memnuniyetini artırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Son yıllarda kullanıcı taleplerinin yapay zekâ araçları aracılığıyla hızlı bir şekilde belirlenmesi ve tasarıma aktarılmasına yönelik çalışmalar yapılmış olsa da bu alandaki uygulamalar henüz yeterli düzeye ulaşmamıştır. Bu araştırma, kullanıcı katılımı yoluyla elde edilen tasarım ölçütlerinin yapay zekâ araçlarıyla bütünleştirilmesi sonucunda ortaya çıkan mimari temsillerin tutarlılığını sorgulamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu sorgulamanın, günümüzde konut krizi nedeniyle önem kazanan kiralık konutlar üzerinden yürütülmesinin, soruna yönelik uygulanabilir bir yaklaşım geliştirilmesi açısından uygun olacağı değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca, farklı konut sahipliği biçimlerine ilişkin kullanıcı görüşlerinden elde edilen verilerin konut tasarımına etkisi, yapay zekâ tabanlı görselleştirme araçları kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında Uşak Üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 46 öğrenciyle bir anket gerçekleştirilmiştir. Anketten elde edilen veriler yapay zekâ araçları kullanılarak mimari temsillere dönüştürülmüş, bu temsillerin anket verileriyle ne ölçüde örtüştüğü uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, kullanıcı katılımına dayalı tasarım ile yapay zekâ entegrasyonunun, gerek kamu gerekse özel sektör tarafından gerçekleştirilen kiralık konut üretim süreçlerinde daha hızlı ve daha verimli çözümler geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• kiralık konut
• yapay zeka
• kullanıcı katılımı
• konut tasarımı
• mülkiyet tipleri

Research Study on Evaluating the Integrated Use of User Participation and Artificial Intelligence Tools in Rental Housing Design

Abstract

In the architectural design process, preparing needs programs based on information received from users and developing design decisions according to these criteria is a common practice, especially in housing production. The aim is to design more functional spaces with higher user satisfaction by involving users in the design process. While studies have been conducted in recent years to quickly identify user demands and translate them into design using artificial intelligence tools, this has not yet reached a sufficient level. This research aims to question the consistency of architectural representations resulting from the integration of design criteria obtained through user participation with artificial intelligence tools. The questioning was deemed appropriate to be conducted through the lens of rental housing spaces, which are currently in the spotlight due to the housing crisis, in order to develop a practical approach to the problem. The impact of the data obtained by collecting user opinions on housing ownership types on housing design was also discussed using artificial intelligence visualization tools. A survey was conducted with 46 students from Uşak University. Data obtained from this survey was transformed into architectural representations using the AI tools. Expert opinions were consulted to assess the degree to which these architectural representations matched the survey data. The study concluded that user-participatory design and AI integration could be more successful in producing efficient and faster solutions in the process of building rental housing, whether by public or private companies.

Keywords

• rental housing
• artificial intelligence
• user participation
• housing design
• property types

Ethical Statement

Survey received ethical approval from Yıldız Technical University Ethics Committee (Project ID: 008588 and Project ID: 008591, Session Number: 2025.06).

Thanks

I would like to thank the members of my doctoral thesis committee for their contributions to this article, which was produced as a result of the pilot study conducted within the scope of the Building Research and Planning Doctoral Program at the Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Ömür Barkul

References

1. AA. (2025, February 24). Konut araştırması: 18-29 yaş arasındaki gençlerin yüzde 65,7'si 5 yıl içinde konut almayı hedefliyor. Independent Türkiye. https://www.indyturk.com/node/754331/haber/konut-ara%C5%9Ft%C4%B1rmas%C4%B1-18-29-ya%C5%9F-aras%C4%B1ndaki-gen%C3%A7lerin-y%C3%BCzde-657si-5-y%C4%B1l-i%C3%A7inde-konut
2. Akalın, M. (2018). Kiralık sosyal konutlar: Türkiye’de barınma sorununun çözümü için yeni bir yöntem. Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 9(1), 88-121.
3. Ataman, C., Herthogs, P., Tuncer, B., & Perrault, S. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making in digital participation - A framework to evaluate participation in urban design processes. In B. Pak, G. Wurzer, & R. Stouffs (Eds.), eCAADe 2022 Co-creating the Future: Inclusion in and through Design Volume 1 (pp. 401-410).
4. Baek, H. Y., & Kim, J. H. (2025). Utilization of image-generating AI in the architectural design process: Focusing on the comprehension and expressiveness of 'sketch-to-image' input-based image-generating AI. Sensors and Materials, 37(6), 2607–2629.
5. Barker, N. (2024, March 4). It’s time for the Social Housing Revival. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/social-housing-revival/
6. Beresford Research. (2025). Generations defined by name, birth year, and ages in 2025. https://www.beresfordresearch.com/age-range-by-generation/
7. Bölek, B., Tutal, O., & Özbaşaran, H. (2023). A systematic review on artificial intelligence applications in architecture. Journal Of Design For Resilience In Architecture & Planning, 4(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2023.v4i1085
8. Bunszel, A. (2024). The current state, promise, and near-term future for AI in architecture. RIBA AI Report. https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-ai-report-2024

9. Ceylan, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence in architecture: An educational perspective. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) (pp. 100–107). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010444501000107
10. Chen, H., & Hsu, P. H. (2020). Data mining as a user-oriented tool in participatory urban design. In L. C. Werner & D. Koering (Eds.), eCAADe 2020, Anthropologic: Architecture and Fabrication in the Cognitive Age Volume 1 (pp. 11–18). eCAADe. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2020.1.011
11. Cho, M. (2020). Residential satisfaction among low-income single-mother households: The case of residential welfare facilities in South Korea. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-09-2019-0218
12. Daher, E., Kubicki, S., & Pak, B. (2022). Propositions for enabling participation in performance driven design. In B. Pak, G. Wurzer, & R. Stouffs (Eds.), eCAADe 2022 Co-creating the Future: Inclusion in and through Design Volume 2 (pp. 421–430). eCAADe. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2022.1.421
13. Gorbachevskaya, E., & Gimelshtein, V. (2021). Institutional rental housing market – new approaches and formats. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 751. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/751/1/012147
14. Hendrix, E. M. T., Kornelis, M., Pegge, S.M., & Van Galen, M. (2006). Combining Expert Opinion. Wageningen University & Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283224182_Combining_Expert_Opinion
15. Jain, S., Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Explanation of Delphi research method and expert opinion surveys. Think India, 27(4), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14421865
16. Jaruga-Rozdolska, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence as part of future practices in the architect’s work: MidJourney generative tool as part of a process of creating an architectural form. Architectus, 3(71), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.37190/arc22031
17. Kahraman, M. U., Şekerci, Y., & Kılıç, E. C. (2025). Comparison of ai-generated conceptual interior designs using standardized prompts in various ai models. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 15(4), 1365-1386. https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1736051
18. Karadeniz, B., & Aydın Türk, Y. (2022). Konut ve konut çevresi memnuniyet göstergeleri: Kaşüstü ve Yalıncak mahalleleri örneği, Trabzon. İdealkent, 13(38), 2599-2621. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1139539
19. Karagülle, C. (2009). Yerel verilerin konut tasarım sürecinde değerlendirilmesi: Mardin örneği [Unpublished PhD thesis]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
20. Kim, I., Shin, J., Shah, S. H., & Rehman, S. U. (2024). Client-centered detached modular housing: natural language processing-enabled design recommender system. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 11(3), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwae041
21. Konutder. (2024). Konut talebini belirleyen mikro faktörler: İstanbul örneği. https://konutder.org.tr/files/konuttalebinibelirleyenmikro-faktorleristanbul-ornegiwebformati-1740565431360.pdf
22. Lacroix, I., Lopes, G. F., & Sousa, J. P. (2021). Integrating sociological survey and algorithmic modelling for low-cost housing. In V. Stojaković, & B. Tepavčević (Eds.), eCAADe 2021 Towards a New, Configurable Architecture Volume 2 (pp. 445-454). GRID, Faculty of Technical Sciences.
23. Li, P., Li, B., & Li, Z. (2023). Sketch-to-architecture: Generative AI-aided architectural design. In Proceedings of the 31st Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications. Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics.
24. Lo, T.T., Schnabel, M. A., & Moleta, T. J. (2017). Gamification for user-oriented housing design: A theoretical review. In P. Janssen, P. Loh, A. Raonic, & M. A. Schnabel (Eds.), Protocols, flows and glitches (pp. 63-72). The Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA).
25. Lobato Valdespino, J. C., & Flores Romero, J. H. (2023). Más allá del estado estable: diseño discursivo como práctica reflexiva asistida por IA. In B. Bardí-Milà, & D. García-Escudero (Eds.), XI Jornadas sobre Innovación Docente en Arquitectura (pp. 102-114). Polytechnic University of Catalonia. https://doi.org/10.5821/jida.2023.12146
26. Ma, C., Najafi, P., Guerra-Santin, O., & Mohammadi, M. (2024). Implement virtual reality, digital twin, and artificial intelligence in the social housing renovation project based on the blue zones concept. In M. Mohammadi, L. van Buuren, & M. van Loon (Eds.), Book of Proceedings Smart Healthy Environments 2024 (pp. 224-235). ICT & Health Living.
27. Mangubat, J. (2026). Preference assessment of generative AI image tools for architectural design generation using MS-TORO framework. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2025.2585659
28. Ohakawa, T. C., Adeyemi, A. B., Okwandu, A. C., Iwuanyanwu, O., & Ifechukwu, G. (2024). Digital tools and technologies in affordable housing design: Leveraging AI and machine learning for optimized outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Inventions, 13(9), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15481.07523
29. Ortiz, S., (2025, May 9). The best AI image generators are getting scary good at things they used to be terrible at. ZDNET. https://web.archive.org/web/20251213142602/https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-ai-image-generator/
30. Öztürk, M., & Yıldırım, K. (2023). The effect of house size and number of rooms on user preferences. Modular Journal, 6(1), 34-49.
31. Raposo, M., & Eloy, S. (2020). Customized Housing Design Tools to enable inhabitants to co-design their house. In L. C. Werner, & D. Koering (Eds.), eCAADe 2020, Anthropologic: Architecture and Fabrication in the cognitive age Volume 1 (pp. 67-76). eCAADe.
32. Salama, A. M., & Patil, M.P. (2024). “YouWalk-UOS” – technology enabled and user-centred assessment of urban open spaces. Open House International, 49(5), 1015-1029. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-01-2024-0021
33. Selamet, B. (2017). Ev sahibi olma yaşı düşüyor. İnşaat & Yatırım. https://insaatyatirim.com/Haber/28538/ev-sahibi-olma-yasi-dusuyor
34. Tsigkari, M., Tarabishy, S., & Kosicki, M. (2021). Towards artificial intelligence in architecture: How machine learning can change the way we approach design. Fosters+Partners. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/insights/plus-journal/towards-artificial-intelligence-in-architecture-how-machine-learning-can-change-the-way-we-approach-design
35. TÜİK. (2024). Yoksulluk ve yaşam koşulları istatistikleri, 2024. Tüik Veri Portalı. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Yoksulluk-ve-Yasam-Kosullari-Istatistikleri-2024-53714
36. Yıldız, M.Y. (2006). Bolu merkezindeki halkın konut tercihlerine etki eden faktörler [Unpublished master's thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi.
37. Zhang, Z., Fort, J. M., & Giménez Mateu, L. (2023). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence as a tool for architectural design: A perception study using Gaudí’s works. Buildings, 13(7), 1863. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071863