Touching Human Life in an Architectural Way: Social Responsibility and Home

Abstract

Touching to human’s life and creating a difference was always one of the main priorities of architecture. Especially when it comes to ‘home’, the responsibility of architect becomes a current issue; not only as a designer but in a social context as well. Starting after the end of the 2nd WW, the theme ‘home’ was discussed under many economic conditions. Designs for low-income people and spaces under the leading drive of participatory designs invited the architects to remember their social responsibilities. The aim of this study is to address different perspectives of how architects see ‘home’ since 1945, and evaluate. This outlook takes its roots not from architectural movements but from terms ‘being happy and belonging to’ in challenging and hard times. For this reason, in the title it is named as ‘home’ and not house as stated in architectural circles. The examples are chosen from different geographies, years and conditions. The experiences during their life time, the evaluation of the architect’s decisions and the relationship between home and individual on social responsibility are the main starting points of this article.

Keywords

• Home,participatory architecture,house,architecture and human,social responsibility

İnsan Yaşamına Mimarca Dokunmak: Sosyal Sorumluluk ve ‘Ev’ Halleri...

Öz

İnsan yaşamına dokunmak ve bir farklılık yaratmak mimarlığın her zaman temel önceliklerinden biri olmuştur. Özellikle söz konusu ‘ev’ olunca mimarın sadece tasarımcı olarak değil, sosyal bağlamda da sorumluluğu gündeme gelmektedir. 2. Dünya savaşından bu yana ‘ev’ konusu çok farklı ekonomik şartlar altında tartışılmıştır. Düşük gelirliler için yapılan tasarımlar ve katılımcı mimarlığın öncülüğünde oluşturulan yaşam alanları, mimarları sosyal sorumluluklarını hatırlamaya davet etmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı 1945’ten bu yana mimarların ‘ev’e bakışı konusunda farklı perspektifleri ele almak ve değerlendirmektir. Bu bakış temelini tasarım hareketlerinden değil insan yaşamının zorlandığı anlarda ortaya çıkan, ‘mutlu ve ait olmak’ kavramlarından almaktadır. Bu nedenle de başlıkta adı mimarca bir terminolojiden uzak olarak konut değil ‘ev’ şeklinde konmuştur. Örnekler farklı coğrafyalardan, farklı yıllardan ve farklı şartlardan seçilmiştir. Örneklerin kendi var oluş sürelerinde yaşananları ve mimarın karar ve sosyal sorumluluğu bağlamında ev ile birey arasında kurulan ilişkiyi tekrar gündeme getirmek bu çalışmanın temel çıkış noktasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ev,katılımcı mimarlık,konut,mimar ve insan

References

1. Aras, L. (2018). Sosyal Konutun İtibarı, XXI, Temmuz-Ağustos, Sayı 171, ss. 38-39.
2. Aravena, A. (2013). More than the Enigma of a Stone. I like it’s Calmness, ArchIdea, Vol. 47, ss. 10-15.
3. Ballesteros, M. (2010). Elemental-Lessons in Pragmatism. Perspecta, Vol. 42, ss. 83-84.
4. Betts, P. (2003). The Politics of Post-Fascist Aesthetics 1950s West and East German Industrial Design. Life after Death Approaches to a Cultural and Social History of Europe During the 1940s and 1950s içinde, Ed. Richard Bessel, Dirk Schumann. Cambridge University Press. New York.
5. Boano, C. ; Perucich F. V. (2016). Half-happy Architecture. Viceversa, Vol. 4, ss. 59-81.
6. Comerio, M. (1981). Pruitt-Igoe and Other Stories. JAE. 34, (4), pp. 26-31.
7. Erten, C. (2015). Mimarlık Pratiklerine Kendin-Yap (DIY) Kültürü Üzerinden Bir Bakış. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İ.TÜ.
8. Fathy. H. (1973). Architecture for the Poor; an Experiment in Rural Egypt. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

9. Florian, U. (2013). The Hut on the Garden Plot Informal Architecture in Twentieth-Century Berlin. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 72: (2). ss. 221-249.
10. Le Corbusier. (1986). Towards a New Architecture. Dover, New York.
11. Rattenbury, K. (2011). ‘Too Good to Be True, The Survival of Everyday English PoMo’. Architectural Design, Vol 81:(5), ss.106-114.
12. Sixsmith, J. (1986). The Meaning of Home: An Exploratory Study of Environmental Experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 6. ss. 281-298.
13. Tanju, B. (2003). Mimarlık ve Toplumsal Sorumluluk. Arredamento Mimarlık, 100+56, ss. 53-55.
14. Turner, J., Fichter, R. (1973). Freedom to Build, Dweller Control of the Housing Process. The Macmillan Company, New York.
15. Turner, C. (2015). Homes Through the Decades – THE Making of Modern Houses. NHBC Vakfı ve Richards Partington Mimarlar grubu, İngiltere.
16. Zhuravlyova, S. (2013). The people's palaces: 70 years on Britain's prefabricated houses are still home to many. http://www.independent.co.uk/property/gardening/the-peoples-palaces-70-years-on-britains-prefabricated-houses-are-still-home-to-many-8646134.html
17. URL 1. Prefabs- the Solution to a Housing Crisis http://www.epsomandewellhistoryexplorer.org.uk/MoreOnPrefabs.pdf
18. URL 2. http://www.spatialagency.net/database/john.turner
19. URL 3. https://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classics-robin-hood-gardens-alison-and-peter-smithson
20. URL 4. http://www.arkitera.com/haber/29990/priztker-odulunu-kazanan-balkrishna-doshinin-hayati-ve-projeleri
21. URL 5. https://www.archdaily.com/780168/ad-interviews-vo-trong-nghia-chicago-architecture-biennial
22. URL 6. https://saigoneer.com/saigon-development/10675-vo-trong-nghia-brings-low-cost-prefabricated-s-houses-to-northern-vietnam
23. URL 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/vo-trong-nghia-prefabricated-housing.html
24. URL 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/t-magazine/pritzker-venice-biennale-chile-architect-alejandro-aravena.html
25. URL 9. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/viewpoints/few-architects-have-embraced-the-idea-of-user-participation-a-new-movement-is-needed/10008549.article