Aesthetic Evaluation of a Modern Period Architecture: The Case of Çınar Hotel

Abstract

New construction methods, which developed with the Industrial Revolution, have changed the evaluation of aesthetics in the built environment. The historical aesthetic attitude has been replaced by the aesthetics of new modern materials and functionalism. This research aims to reveal the aesthetic characteristics of an architectural form based on two fundamental questions: 1. How is aesthetic defined in architecture based on a selected period and its conditions? 2. What is the relationship between aesthetically distinctive architectural form/style and the periodic aesthetic preferences? The theoretical basis of the research was shaped based on the literature study and developed through theoretical analysis of the selected 1950s hotel. The basic aesthetic features are discussed through the characteristics of the modern period architecture. By understanding the aesthetic approaches of architectural forms from different countries' socio-political periods, the research can help improve the quality of their buildings and environments that follow similar aesthetic preferences.

Keywords

• Aesthetics
• Aesthetic and Modern Architecture
• Visual Characteristic
• Cinar Hotel
• Istanbul.

Modern Dönem Mimarisinin Estetik Değerlendirmesi: Çınar Oteli Örneği

Öz

Sanayi Devrimi’yle gelişen yeni yapım yöntemleri, yapılı çevrede estetiğin değerlendirilmesini değiştirmiştir. Tarihsel estetik tutumu, yerini yeni modern malzemelerin estetiğine ve işlevselciliğe bırakmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında, bir mimari formun estetik özelliklerinin iki temel soruya dayanarak ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmaktadır: ‘1. Seçilmiş bir döneme ve koşullarına göre mimari açıdan estetik nasıl tanımlanır?’,‘2. Estetik olarak ayırt edici mimari biçim/üslup ile dönemsel estetik tercihler arasındaki ilişki nedir?’. Araştırmanın kuramsal temeli, literatür çalışmasına bağlı olarak şekillenmiştir ve seçilen 1950’li yıllara ait otel yapısı üzerinden teorik analizlerle geliştirilmiştir. Temel estetik özellikleri, modern dönem mimarisinin özellikleri üzerinden ele alınmıştır. Araştırma, farklı ülkelerin sosyo-politik dönemlerine ait mimari formların estetik yaklaşımlarını anlayarak onların, benzer estetik tercihleri takip eden bina ve çevrelerin kalitesini iyileştirmesine yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Estetik
• Çınar Otel
• İstanbul
• modern mimari ve estetik
• Görsel Karakteristik

References

1. Ahmad Nia, H., & Atun, R. A. (2016). Aesthetic design thinking model for urban environments: A survey based on a review of the literature. Urban Design International, 21(3), 195-212.
2. Al-Assaf, N., & Dahabreh, S. (2014). The aesthetics symptoms of architectural form: the case of barcelona museum of contemporary art. In ARCHDESIGN’14/Architectural Design Conference (pp. 1-10).
3. Zipci, R., Akın, A., & Ertam, E. (1959). Çınar Oteli. Arkitekt, 297, 132-140.
4. Atmaca Çetin, H. (2019). Reading the modern through hotel interiors of the 1950s: Divan and Çınar Hotels in İstanbul (Thesis No. 605461). [Doctoral dissertation, Istanbul Technic University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.
5. Atmaca Çetin, H., Ultav, Z. T., & Uz, F. (2019). Reflections of the İstanbul Hilton Hotel on Mid-century Hotel Buildings in Turkey. Art-Sanat, 12, 57-88.
6. Atmaca Çetin, H., Uz, F., & Tuna Ultav, Z. (2022). After İstanbul Hilton: Turkey’s local-global dichotomy in the 1950s interiors of Divan Hotel and Çınar Hotel. Interiors, 12(1), 19-49.
7. Aydeniz, N., Silinir, M., & Karhan, G. (2012). Küreselleşme olgusuna temel yaklaşımlar. Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 1013-1023.
8. Ayrancı, İ. (2013). Metropoliten alanlarda planlama - kentsel gelişimin yönetimi ilişkisi ve bir izleme değerlendirme model önerisi (Relation of planning-urban development management in metropolitan areas and a monitoring and evaluation model proposal) (Thesis No. 352390). [Doctoral dissertation, Istanbul Technical University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.

9. Beer, C. (2014). The contingent public value of ‘good design’: Regulating the aesthetics of the Australian urban built environment. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(2), 282-290.
10. Bozdogan, S., & Akcan, E. (2013). Turkey: Modern architectures in history. Reaktion Books.
11. Cantemir, B. (2013). Çok partili hayata geçiş sürecinde İstanbul’un mekân ve sosyal yapı dönüşümü (1946–1960) (Thesis No. 354142). [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.
12. Carmona, M. (2009). Design coding and the creative, market and regulatory tyrannies of practice. Urban Studies, 46(12), 2643-2667.
13. Çeliköz, A. (2001). Moda faktörünün beş yıldızlı otel mimarisinde lobi iç mekan kimliği üzerindeki etkileri (Influences of the fashion on the five-star hotel building's lobby designing and its effects on design's identity) (Thesis No. 24455). [Master’s dissertation, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.
14. Çırak Yılmaz, M. & Aydın, D. (2021). Mimaride biçimin görsel etkisi; Tasarımcı hedefi ve kullanıcı üzerinden bir araştırma. Modular Journal, 4(2), 152-171.
15. Demiriz, A. (2019). Cumhuriyet mimarlığının uluslararası dönemi: 1940-1970 (International period of republican architecture: 1940-1970) (Thesis No. 546337). [Master’s dissertation, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.
16. Erinç, S. (1997). Bir estetik olgu olarak kentleşmek kentlileşmek. Anadolu Sanat, 7, 57-65.
17. Erzen, J. N. (2012). Çoğul Estetik. Metis Yayıncılık.
18. El Amrousi, M., & Elhakeem, M. (2018). Abu Dhabi’s Downtown Area, An Examination of Modernist Applications of the international style; Superblocks in a Modern Arab City, Improving Visibility and Social Space. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471(7). IOP Publishing.
19. Jiang, Y. (2019). The similarities and differences between classical architecture and modern architecture in design methods and aesthetic theories. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 267(5). IOP Publishing.
20. George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000). Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 163-175.
21. Ghomeshi, M., & Jusan, M. M. (2013). Investigating different aesthetic preferences between architects and non-architects in residential façade designs. Indoor and built environment, 22(6), 952-964.
22. Güngör, O., & Harman Aslan, E. (2020). Defining urban design strategies: An analysis of Iskenderun city center’s imageability. Open House International, 45(4), 407-425.
23. Hadighi, M., & Duarte, J. P. (2020). Local adaptation of the international style contextualizing global architecture between east and west. In 38th Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, eCAADe 2020 (pp. 331-340). Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe.
24. Hassanpour, N., & Soltanzadeh, H. (2016). Tradition and modernity in contemporary architecture of Turkey (Comparative study referring to traditional and international architecture in 1940-1980). The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 754-770.
25. Jennath, K. A., & Nidhish, P. J. (2016). Aesthetic judgement and visual impact of architectural forms: A study of library buildings. Procedia Technology, 24, 1808-1818. Kortan, E. (1971). Türkiye’de mimarlık hareketleri ve eleştirisi (1950-1960). ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.
26. Kopuz, A. D., & Bal, A. (2023). The conservation of modern architectural heritage buildings in Turkey: Istanbul Hilton and Istanbul Çınar Hotel as a case study. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(4), 1-11.
27. Keleş, R. (1995). Kentleşme ve Türkçe. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6, 1-5.
28. Lang, J. (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: toward a research agenda. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11-26). Cambridge University Press.
29. Loodin, H., & Thufvesson, O. (2023). Which architectural style makes an attractive street scape? Aesthetic preferences among city centre managers. Journal of Urban Design, 28(1), 25-43.
30. Mako, V. (2016). Aesthetics of architectural concept: From metaphorical vision to creative concretization. In 8th International Conference: Architecture in Prospective, Vysoka škola banska-Technicka univerzita Ostrava, Fakulta stavebni, katedra architektury (pp. 21-22). Ostrava.
31. Merwood-Salisbury, J. (2019). Modern architecture and luxury: Aesthetics and the evolution of the modern subject. Arts, 8(3), 1-5.
32. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
33. Naycı, N. (2019). Türkiye Turizm Tarihinde Bir Kavşak Noktası: Aksaray Ağaçlı Turistik Tesisleri. Mimarlık, 406, 61-66.
34. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1965). Intentions in architecture. MIT press.
35. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1988). Architecture, meaning and place. Rizzoli Electa.
36. Pazooki, S. (2011). The application of formal aesthetics by architects and interior architects according to their own ranking performances [Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University]. Institutional Repository.
37. Punter, J. (1999a). Aesthetic control/design control in the United Kingdom. Urban Design International, 4(1-2), 67-75.
38. Punter, J. (1999b). Improving the instruments, processes and products of aesthetic control in Europe. Urban Design International, 4(1-2), 79-99.
39. Proskuryakov, V., Bohdanova, Y., & Yuriychuk, R. (2018). “International style” and its interpretation at the beginning of the XXI century. Środowisko Mieszkaniowe, 23, 172-177.
40. Sağsöz, A., Midilli Sarı, R., Elmalı Şen, D. & Al, S., (2014). 1938-1960 yılları arası cumhuriyet dönemi Türk mimarlığı’. Turkish Studies, 9(10), 941-955.
41. Salvan, G. S, & Thapa, S. (2000). Architectural and construction data. JMC Press.
42. Stecker, R. (2006). Aesthetic experience and aesthetic value. Philosophy Compass, 1(1), 1-10.
43. Sınacı, F. (2009). Stratejik mekansal planlamanın yasal boyut açısından değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye-AB karşılaştırması (Assessment of spatial strategic planning in the legal level: The comperation of Turkey and European Union) (Thesis No. 268165). [Master’s dissertation, Gazi University]. National Thesis Center Data Base.
44. Şahin, M. (2011). Bütüncül bir tasarım örneği: Okyar köşkü. Mimarlık, 361.
45. Tanyeli, U. (2007). Mimarlığın aktörleri: Türkiye 1900-2000. Garanti Galeri.
46. Tanyeli, U. (2015). Saçaktaki metropolün modernlikleri İstanbul: 1930-2005. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.
47. Tapan, M. (2005). International style: Liberalism in architecture. Modern Turkish Architecture, 105-118.
48. Teymur, N. (1981). 'Aesthetics' of aesthetics: Aesthetic question in architectural and urban discourses. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 7, 77-96.
49. Vinchu, G. N., Jirge, N., & Deshpande, A. (2017). Application of aesthetics in architecture and design. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 10(1), 183-186.
50. Architecture Styles (n.d.). International. https://architecturestyles.org/international/
51. Böyük, O. (2008, June 6). Çınar Otel. Yeşilköy semtini tanıyalım. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from http://yesilkoyutaniyalim.blogspot.com/2008/03/nar-otel.html
52. Burlingame, J. (2014, May 14). Building Ghosts: A Month of Empty Commercial Properties in a Capital City, and the History that Haunts Them. Timelapsed & Still. Retrieved June 23, 2022, from https://www.timelapsedandstill.com/new-page
53. Yeşilköy’ün Tarihi. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://www.yesilkoyum.com/Yesilkoy_Tarihi/YESiLKOY_TRH.htm