Mimari ve Kentsel Dokuyu Ölçmek: İMÇ ve SSK Kompleksleri Örneği

Öz

İstanbul'un Zeyrek bölgesi’nde yer alan; Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, ve Metin Hepgüler’in tasarlamış olduğu İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı (İMÇ) ve Sedad Hakkı Eldem’in tasarladığı Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu (SSK) Kompleksleri, 1960'larda Türk çağdaş mimarlığının gelişiminde yaşanan büyük değişimi temsil eden en önemli örneklerin arasında yer aldıkları kabul edilmektedir. Uluslararası Tarzın önceki dönemini karakterize eden tek-monolitik bina eğiliminin aksine, bu iki kompleks, yeni, büyük-anıtsal bina komplekslerinin daha küçük parçalar halinde eklemlendiği yeni bir biçimsel yaklaşım sunmuştur. Bu yaklaşım, tarihsel bağlam olarak eski, geleneksel Türk mahallelerinin daha küçük ölçekteki kentsel dokusuna duyarlı ve içinde çeşitli mimari hassasiyetleri barındıran yeni bir mimari yaklaşımı oluşturmak amaçlı uygun bir strateji olarak algılanmaktadır. Bu makale, İMÇ ve SSK Komplekslerinin görsel karmaşıklıklarını ve yakın çevrelerindeki Zeyrek Mahallesi'nin özgün kentsel dokusunu karşılaştırmalı olarak “fraktal boyut analiz yöntemini” kullanarak ölçmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu analiz kapsamında bahsi geçen iki farklı mimari kurgu ve mevcut yerleşimin kentsel dokusu, yerleşim planı ölçeğinde ve mimari kurguyu oluşturan “Euclidyen plan çizimleri” şeklinde ifade edilmiştir. Böylelikle çalışma kapsamında; SSK ve İMÇ kompleksleri ile bulundukları kentsel oluşum arasındaki biçimsel ilişkiyi, “planimetrik görsel karmaşıklık ve süreklilik” açısından ele alarak, sayısal olarak ölçmek ve sonrasında ortaya çıkan sonuçlar ışığında yeniden tartışabilmek mümkün olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğan Tekeli-Sami Sisa-Metin Hepgüler
• Kentsel doku üzerinde fraktal boyut analizi
• İMÇ Kompleksi
• Sedad Hakkı Eldem
• SSK Kompleksi

Measuring Architecture and Urban Fabric: The Case of the İMÇ and the SSK Complexes

Öz

Located in the District of Zeyrek in Istanbul, Turkey, the İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı (İMÇ) or Manifaturacılar Retail Center İstanbul by Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, and the Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu (SSK) or Social Security Agency Complex by Sedad Hakkı Eldem are regarded as two of the most prime examples representing the major shift in the development of Turkish contemporary architecture in the 1960s. As opposed to the trend of single monolithic buildings characterizing the previous era of International Style, these two complexes offered a new formal approach in which new, large building complexes were articulated into smaller fragments. Dubbed as the “small, multipart approach”, this strategy was—and is—perceived as an appropriate strategy to generate new type of architecture considered more sensitive and respectful to the smaller urban fabric of the older, traditional Turkish neighborhood as the historical context. This paper measures this very relationship between architecture and urban fabric by utilizing fractal dimension analysis to calculate the visual complexities of the İMÇ and the SSK Complexes and the urban fabric of District of Zeyrek adjacent to these two complexes, represented in the form of block plan drawings, in a comparative manner. Thus, it is possible to evaluate the formal relationship between these two complexes and the surrounding urban fabric in terms of the visual complexities in a mathematically measurable manner.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğan Tekeli-Sami Sisa-Metin Hepgüler
• Fractal dimension analysis for urban fabric
• İMÇ Complex
• Sedad Hakkı Eldem
• SSK Complex

Kaynakça

1. Akcan, E. (2016). Global conflict and global glitter: Architecture of West Asia 1960–2010. In E. G. Haddad & D. Rifkind (Eds.), A Critical History of Contemporary Architecture, 311–338. New York: Routledge.
2. Alsaç, Ü. (1973). Türk mimarlık düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki evrimi. Mimarlık, 121, 12-25.
3. Bechhoefer, W., & Bovill, C. (1994). Fractal analysis of traditional housing in Amasya, Turkey. Traditional Dwellings and Settlement Review, 6(1) 14–15.
4. Bozdoğan, S., Özkan, S., & Yenal, E. (1987). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Singapore: Concept Media.
5. Bozdoğan, S., Akcan, E. (2012). Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. London: Reaction Books.
6. Burkle-Elizondo, G., Sala, N., & Valdez-Cepeda, R. (2014). Geometric and complex analyses of Maya architecture: Some examples. In K. Williams and M. J. Ostwald (Eds.), Architecture and Mathematics from Antiquity to The Future, 1, 113–126. Basil: Birkhäuser.
7. Ediz, Ö. (2009). “Improvising” architecture: A fractal based approach. In G. Çağdaş & B. Çolakoğlu (Eds.), Computation: The New Realm of Architectural Design: 27th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, 593–598. Istanbul: Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University.
8. Ediz, Ö., & Çağdaş, G. (2007). A computational architectural design model based on fractals. Open House International, 32(2), 36–45.

9. Ediz, Ö., Kanatlar, Z., & Kul, B. (2011, 23 May). Fraktal boyuta dayalı mimari bir analiz: Sedad Hakkı Eldem ve konut mimarisi [paper presentation]. Mimarlıkta Sayısal Tasarım 2011 Ulusal Sempozyumu, Gebze İleri Teknoloji Enstitüsü Mimarlık Fakültesi, Gebze, Kocaeli.
10. Ediz, Ö., & Ostwald, M.J. (2012). The Süleymaniye Mosque: A computational fractal analysis of visual complexity and layering in Sinan’s masterwork. ARQ Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135512000474
11. Ekincioğlu, M. (ed.) (2001). Doğan Tekeli-Sami Sisa. İstanbul: Boyut Kitapları.
12. Eldem, S. H. (1970). Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu, Zeyrek (Social Security Complex, Zeyrek, Istanbul). Unpublished manuscript, Sedad Hakkı Eldem Archive, SALT Research Center, Istanbul.
13. Eldem, S. H. (1971). Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu Tesisleri. Arkitekt, 1971-03(343), 105–108.
14. Foroutan-Pour, K., Dutilleul, P., & Smith, D.L. (1999). Advances in the implementation of the boxcounting method of fractal dimension estimation. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 105(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-3003(98)10096-6.
15. Gürel, M.Ö. (2016). Introduction. In M. Ö. Gürel (Ed.), Mid-century modernism in Turkey: Architecture across cultures in the 1950s and 1960s, 1–8. London, New York: Routledge.
16. İlhan, C., & Ediz, Ö. (2019). Kent Dokusu Morfolojik Değişiminin Fraktal Geometri Aracılığıyla Hesaplanması: Bursa örneği. Journal of Architecture and Life, 4(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.54692
17. Kuban, D. (1985). A Survey of Modern Turkish Architecture. Architecture in S. Cantacuzino (Ed.), Continuity Building in the Islamic World, 64–75. Victoria: Aperture Islamic Publications Ltd.
18. Lionar, M.L., & Ediz, Ö. (2020). Measuring visual complexity of Sedad Eldem’s SSK Complex and its historical context: A comparative analysis using fractal dimensions. Nexus Network Journal: Architecture and Mathematics, 22(3), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-020-00482-4
19. Lorenz, W.E. (2003). Fractals and fractal architecture. Vienna: Department of Computer Aided Planning and Architecture, Vienna University of Technology.
20. Mandelbrot, B.B. (1982). Fractals: Form, chance, and dimension (revised edition). San Fransisco: WH Freeman and Company.
21. Ostwald, M. J., & Ediz, Ö. (2015). Measuring form, ornament, and materiality in Sinan’s Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque: An analysis using fractal dimensions. Nexus Network Journal: Architecture and Mathematics, 17(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-014-0219-3.
22. Ostwald, M. J., & Vaughan, J. (2013). Limits and errors: Optimising image pre-processing standards for architectural fractal analysis. Architecture Science (ArS), 7, 1–20.
23. Ostwald, M. J., & Vaughan, J. (2016). The fractal dimension of architecture. Birkhäuser.
24. Özbil, A. (2014). Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s typological analysis of the Turkish house as a tool for an operative design methodology. Özyeğin University faculty archive. https://faculty.ozyegin.edu.tr/ayseo/files/2014/02/Ozbil_typologicalapproach.pdf.
25. Qin, J., Fang, C., Wang, Y., Li, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2015). A three dimensional box-counting method for estimating fractal dimension of urban form. Geographical Research, 34(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201501008
26. Rian, I. Md., Park, J., Ahn, H., & Chang, D. (2007). Fractal geometry as the synthesis of Hindu cosmology in Kandariya Mahadev Temple, Khajuraho. Building and Environment, 42(12), 4093–4107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.028
27. Sakai, S., Nakamura, M., Furuya, K., Amemura, N., Onishi, M., Iizawa, I., Nakata, J., Yamaji, K., Asano, R., & Tamotsu, K. (2012). Sierpinski’s forest: new technology of cool roof with fractal shapes. Energy and Buildings, 55, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.052
28. Sedrez, M., & Pereira, A. (2012). Fractal shape. Nexus Network Journal, 14(1), 97–107.
29. Tanyeli, U. (1994). Doğan Tekeli-Sami Sisa, Projeler Yapılar, 1954–1994. Istanbul: YEM Yayınevi.
30. Tanyeli, U. (2001). Sedad Hakkı Eldem. Istanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu.
31. Tekeli, D., Sisa, S., & Hepgüler, M. (1960). İstanbul Manifaturacilar Çarşisi Proje Müsabakasi. Arkitekt, 1960-03(300), 122–132. http://dergi.mo.org.tr/dergiler/2/241/3338.pdf
32. Vaughan, J., & Ostwald, M.J. (2008). Approaching Euclidean limits: A fractal analysis of the architecture of Kazuyo Sejima. In B. Forwood (Ed.), Innovation, Inspiration and Instruction: New Knowledge in the Architectural Sciences, ANZAScA08, Newcastle, Australia, 26–28 November. 285–294. Newcastle, NSW: University of Newcastle.
33. Vaughan, J., & Ostwald, M.J. (2009). Nature and architecture: Revisiting the fractal connection in Amasya and Sea Ranch. In S. Loo (Ed.), Performative Ecologies in The Built Environment: Sustainability Research Across Disciplines, 42. Launceston: School of Architecture & Design, University of Tasmania.
34. Voss, R. (1986). Characterization and measurement of random fractals. Physica Scripta, 1986(T13), 27–32.
35. Yücel, A. (1983). Contemporary Turkish architecture. In H. Khan (Ed.), Mimar 10: Architecture in Development. 58–68. Singapore: Concept Media Ltd.