Evaluation of Analysis Techniques for Decoding the Design Principles of Historic Environments

Öz

There is a complex relationship between many factors that shape the buildings in the historic environment, which is formed according to cultural lifestyles. Analyzing this complex relationship is important in revealing and documenting the design language of historic environments and creating a basis for new designs to be made in the environment. There are many specialized analysis methods for analyzing the design principles of the environment. The question of which attributes are to be extracted from the environment, what the scale of analysis is, and how the collected data will be processed are important in terms of which analysis technique to choose. In this study, ten analysis techniques, which are the most commonly used methods for historic environmental analysis, including visual analysis, image analysis, morphological, typological and typomorphological analysis, space syntax, shape grammar, fractal analysis, geographic information system (GIS) and data mining, are examined. Analysis techniques have been compared regarding their quality, scale, and opportunities, and their similarities and differences have been revealed. While some analysis techniques focus more on the building scale, others have shown more effective use at the urban scale. It has been observed that analysis techniques frequently used at both urban and building scales are often used together and form a bridge between them. At the end of the study, a comprehensive assessment of the existing body of knowledge in the literature has been made, providing a helpful background for researchers whose field of study is analysis in the historic environment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Historic Environment
• Design Principles
• Analysis Techniques
• Cultural Heritage

Kaynakça

1. Arabacıoğlu P & Aydemir, I (2007). Tarihi çevrelerde yeniden değerlendirme kavramı. Megaron, 2(4), 204-212.
2. Ahunbay, Z (2004). Tarihi çevre koruma ve restorasyon. YEM Publishing.
3. ICOMOS (2011). The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas, https://www.icomos.org.tr
4. Rapoport A (1969). House form and culture. englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Karatosun M B (2010). Geleneksel dokularda yeni yapı tasarımı: Alaçatı örneğinin incelenmesi. Ege Mimarlık Dergisi, 32-35.
6. Beder D, Pelowski, M & İmamoğlu Ç (2024). Influence of complexity and Gestalt principles on aesthetic preferences for building façades: An eye tracking study. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 17(2).
7. Gümüş B (2019). Visual analysis of traditional residential facades: Example of Afyonkarahisar. Master's Thesis, Konya, Necmettin Erbakan University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Konya, (in Turkish).
8. Erkan N & Yenen Z (2010). Yerleşmelerde imaj analizi konusunda bir yöntem: Kastamonu örneği. Megaron, 5(2), 67-81.

9. Gündoğdu H, Kuru A & Özkök M (2016). Kırklareli kent algısı üzerine deneysel bir çalışma. İdealkent, 18(7), 48-79.
10. Günal F (2008). Exploring downtown Çanakkale Image of the city and it's urban fabric, Master's Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, İstanbul, (in Turkish).
11. Sınmaz S & Özdemir H (2016). Türkiye şehir planlama pratiğinin kentsel morfoloji ve tipoloji üzerindeki etkileri: Siverek kenti için bir değerlendirme. İdealkent, 18(7), 80-115.
12. Koç A & Kubat A S (2018). Kent biçimi araştırmalarında karşılaştırmalı analiz yöntemleri: İstanbul tarihi yarımadası örneği. Türkiye Kentsel Morfoloji Ağı, II. Kentsel Morfoloji Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, 243–254.
13. Chen W, Wu A. N, & Biljecki F (2021). Classification of urban morphology with deep learning: Application on urban vitality. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 90, 101706.
14. Gürer T K (2016). Tipomorfoloji: Kentsel mekânın yapısını anlamak. İdealkent, 7(18), 8-21.
15. Stojanovski T (2019). Swedish typo-morphology–morphological conceptualizations and implications for urban design. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 7, 135-157.
16. Ayyıldız S & Özbayraktar M (2018). Kültürel süreklilik için tipolojik analizin önemi: İzmit merkez geleneksel konutları örneği. Online Journal of Art and Design, 6(4), 128-167 Velioğlu A (1992). Tarihi çevre içinde mimari tasarım ve süreci üzerine bir araştırma, Doctoral Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Trabzon, (in Turkish).
17. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Detection and documentation of stone material deterioration in historical masonry structures using UAV photogrammetry: A case study of Mersin Aba Mausoleum. Advanced UAV, 2(2), 51-64.
18. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Detection and documentation of stone material deterioration in historical masonry structures using UAV photogrammetry: A case study of Mersin Aba Mausoleum. Advanced UAV, 2(2), 51-64.
19. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Restitution suggestion for Mardin TatlıDede Mansion. Advanced Engineering Days (AED), 4, 61-63.
20. Dursun, P. (2002). Morphological analysis of the built environment in Trabzon, Doctoral Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Science Engineering and Technology Instute, İstanbul, (in Turkish). Crucitti P, Latora V, & Porta S (2006). Centrality in networks of urban streets. Chaos: an interdisciplinary journal of nonlinear science, 16(1).
21. Özen Yavuz A (2011). Morphologic analysis of contemporary house examples and a conceptional and experimental model proposal within computational design environment aimed to production, Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, (in Turkish).
22. Güzelci, O., Z. (2012). A shape grammer study on Amasya Yaliboyu houses, Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Science Engineering and Technology Instute, İstanbul, (in Turkish).
23. Economou A (2000). Shape grammars in architectural design studio. Proceedings of the 2000 ACSA Technology Conference: The Intersection of Design and Technology, MIT, Cambridge, USA, 11, 75-81.
24. Xiong L, Xiong, W & Zhang H (2013). Gulou structure grammar and its computer implementation. In eCAADe 2013: Computation and Performance–Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Delft, The Netherlands.
25. Özkaraduman T (2007). The design grammar for vernacular architectural language: Mardin. Master's thesis, Yıldız Technical University, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, İstanbul, (in Turkish).
26. Topbaş D & Arslan H (2022). Geleneksel Mersin ve Tarsus evlerinin fraktal boyuta dayalı cephe değerlendirmesi. GRID - Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 5(1), 22-52.
27. Kanatlar Z (2012). An architectural analysis based on fractal dimension: Sedad Hakki Eldem and his residential architecture. Master's thesis, Bursa Uludağ University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bursa, (in Turkish).
28. Büyükemir Karagöz, E. (2019). Comparison of facade in traditional dwellings by using fractal size analysis: The case of Isparta, Master's thesis, Süleyman Demirel University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Isparta, (in Turkish).
29. Rubinowicz P (2015). Decomposition, deformation, dispersion and new complexity in architecture and urban planning. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 19(2), 269-282.
30. Yimsek, F. S., & Yakar, M. (2023). Akıllı Kentlere Genel Bir Bakış. Türkiye Arazi Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(1), 49-56..
31. Unel, F. B., Kusak, L., & Yakar, M. (2023). GeoValueIndex map of public property assets generating via Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information System for Mass Appraisal: GeoValueIndex. Aestimum, 82, 51-69.
32. Uyan M & Çay T (2008). Mekânsal uygulamalar için veri madenciliği yaklaşımı, 2. Uzaktan Algılama ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Sempozyumu, 531-538, Kayseri, Turkey.
33. Sabah L & Bayraktar H (2020). Veri madenciliği birliktelik kuralları ile binaların risk durumlarının analizi: Kaynaşlı, Düzce örneği. Gazi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 70-78.
34. Sökmenoğlu A (2016). A Knowledge Discovery Approach to Urban Analysis: The Beyoğlu Preservation Area As a Data Mine, Doctoral Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Science Engineering and Technology Instute, İstanbul