Konut Tasarımında Minimalizmi Yeniden Tanımlamak: NLP ve Çok Ölçekli Kriterler ile M1–M13 Değerlendirme Modeli

Öz

Bu çalışma, mimari minimalizmi yalnızca estetik bir tercih olarak değil; konut tasarımında verimlilik, kullanıcı memnuniyeti ve kültürel sürekliliği odağına alan çok katmanlı bir stratejik yaklaşım olarak yeniden tanımlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda geliştirilen “M1-M13 Minimalist Konut Tasarım Kriterleri”, minimalizmi biçimsel boyutların ötesinde değerlendirerek, tasarım süreçlerinin ölçülebilir, karşılaştırılabilir ve veri temelli bir çerçevede analiz edilmesini mümkün kılmaktadır. Örneğin, M2 kriteri kullanıcı refahına, M5 enerji verimliliğine ve M10 modüler üretime odaklanmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında Amerika, Kanada, Birleşik Krallık, Hindistan ve Portekiz’den seçilen yedi çağdaş konut projesinin mimari anlatıları, doğal dil işleme (NLP) teknikleri kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Doğal dil işleme (NLP) teknikleri, projelere ait metinlerde hangi tasarım temalarının ne sıklıkla ve ne derinlikte işlendiğini tespit etmek amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Her projeye ait yaklaşık 1500-2000 kelimelik metin kümesi BoW, TF-IDF ve kavramsal eşleşme analizleri ile değerlendirilmiş; tematik yoğunluklar, önceden tanımlanmış anahtar kelime kümeleri aracılığıyla M1-M13 kriterleriyle eşleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, UDAAN ve Platforms for Life projelerinin özellikle modüler üretim, fonksiyonel esneklik ve teknik yalınlık gibi kriterlerde yüksek temsiliyete sahip olduğunu; buna karşın Adro ve Park Hill projelerinde kültürel bağlamın güçlü ancak teknik verimliliğin sınırlı düzeyde temsil edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, tasarımda şeffaflık, müdahale kolaylığı ve kültürel süreklilik gibi sosyal sürdürülebilirlik odaklı kriterlerin pek çok projede düşük düzeyde kaldığı görülmüştür. Çalışmanın teorik katkısı, minimalizmin yalnızca “az” ilkesiyle tanımlanamayacağını; bunun yerine sadeleştirilmiş ve çok yönlü karar stratejilerinin bir ifadesi olarak ele alınması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Mimarlıkta nadiren kullanılan NLP teknikleri, bu çalışmada mimari metinlerin nesnel biçimde analiz edilmesini sağlayarak değerlendirme süreçlerine yeni bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Bu model, akademik araştırmaların ötesinde, tasarım yarışmaları, sosyal konut politikaları ve planlama süreçlerinde karar destek aracı olarak pratik bir potansiyele sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Minimalist konut tasarımı
• Tasarım değerlendirme kriterleri
• Doğal dil işleme (NLP)
• Mimari metin analizi
• Konut üretimi

Redefining Minimalism in Housing: Introducing the M1-13 Evaluation Framework via NLP and Multi-Scale Criteria

Öz

This study redefines architectural minimalism in contemporary housing not as a visual trend, but as a strategic and multi-layered design approach. It highlights how minimalism can support project efficiency, enhance user satisfaction, and maintain cultural continuity throughout the entire life cycle of housing projects. In this context, the “M1-M13 Minimalist Housing Design Criteria” have been developed to extend beyond the formal dimensions of minimalism and enable the evaluation of design processes within a measurable, comparable, and data-driven framework. For example, M2 relates to user well-being, M5 to energy efficiency, and M10 to modular construction. The architectural narratives of seven housing projects from the U.S., U.K., Canada, India, and Portugal were analyzed using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods were used to analyze architectural texts, helping identify how frequently and deeply specific design themes, such as flexibility or sustainability, are emphasized in project descriptions. The study utilized Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, including Bag of Words (BoW), Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), and conceptual keyword matching, to analyze a text corpus of approximately 1500-2000 words per project. These techniques identified how often and how deeply specific design themes appeared in the texts. Thematic densities were then mapped to the M1-M13 criteria using predefined keyword clusters, and each project was scored on a 0-6 scale for comparative visualization. The findings indicate that UDAAN and Platforms for Life exhibit high representation particularly in criteria such as modular construction, functional flexibility, and technical simplicity. In contrast, Adro and Park Hill demonstrate strong cultural contextuality, but limited technical efficiency. Moreover, several projects showed low levels of representation in socially sustainable criteria such as transparency in design, ease of intervention, and cultural continuity. Theoretical contributions of this study argue that minimalism cannot be defined solely by the principle of “less” but must be reconsidered as the expression of simplified, multi-dimensional decision-making strategies. At the methodological level, the study utilizes the analytical potential of natural language processing techniques, rarely employed in architectural research, to evaluate architectural narratives through a data-based approach, thereby enhancing the objectivity of architectural critique. Practically, the M1-M13 criteria serve as an applicable, modular, and replicable decision support tool for architectural education, design competitions, public housing policies, and sustainable urbanization strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Minimalist housing design
• Design evaluation criteria
• Natural language processing (NLP)
• Architectural narrative analysis
• Housing production

Kaynakça

1. Blackburn, R., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Schram, A. (2024). Could a minimalist lifestyle reduce carbon emissions and improve wellbeing? A review of minimalism and other low consumption lifestyles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 15(2), e865. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.865
2. Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamón-Jaramillo, S., Aristizábal-Monsalve, P., Vásquez-Hernández, A., & Botero, L. F. B. (2019). Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: Positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during construction phase. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 1322-1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.216
3. Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., García, H., & Larrauri, M. (2015). Sustainability‐related decision making in industrial buildings: An AHP analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015(1), Article 157129. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/157129
4. De Paris, S. R., & Lopes, C. N. L. (2018). Housing flexibility problem: Review of recent limitations and solutions. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(1), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.11.004
5. Du, J., Zhang, J., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Hu, Y. (2023). Lean manufacturing applications in prefabricated construction projects. Automation in Construction, 150, 104790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104790
6. El-Husseiny, M. A., & El-Setouhy, H. (2022). Sürdürülebilirlik yöntemi olarak düşük teknolojili inşaat modlarının canlandırılması. Sürdürülebilirlik, 14(21), 13762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113762
7. Ertürk, Ö. F., & Markoç, İ. (2025). Young adults’ accessible and affordable housing challenge in Istanbul. Eren Journal, 4(6), 9-27.
8. Freidin, R. (2021). The strong minimalist thesis. Philosophies, 6(4), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6040097

9. Heikkilä, M., & Hautamäki, R. (2024). Restorative environmental experiences: Uncovering the invisible and visible attributes in Finnish forests and Japanese gardens - A literature review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2418343
10. Kalhoefer, G., & Radogna, D. (2022). Environmental and technological flexibility for new housing needs. VITRUVIO - International Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability, 7(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.4995/vitruvio-ijats.2022.17461
11. Kallis, A. (2023). The minimum dwelling revisited.
12. Kamali, M., & Hewage, K. (2017). Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3592-3606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108
13. Kang, J., Martinez, C. M. J., & Johnson, C. (2021). Minimalism as a sustainable lifestyle: Its behavioral representations and contributions to emotional well-being. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 802-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.001
14. Kaur, A. (2024). Minimalism: A game changer for industries. In Sustainable Consumption Experience and Business Models in the Modern World (pp. 125-143). 10.4018/978-1-6684-9277-2.ch006
15. Kumar, S., Sakagami, K., & Lee, H. P. (2025). Beyond sustainability: The role of regenerative design in optimizing indoor environmental quality. Sustainability, 17(6), 2342. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062342
16. Lucchi, E. (2023). Energy and climatic performances of modern architecture: A complete overview of building physics implications. Engineering Proceedings, 53(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15203
17. Markoç, İ. (2012). Bursa’nın Kentsel Gelişimi ve Konut Üretimi, Ph.D. Thesis, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey.
18. Markoç, İ. (2018). Konut Kullanıcısı Hareketliliğinde Kalite ve Memnuniyet Değerlendirmesi: Sarıgöl Konut Dönüşüm Alanı. (Doctoral dissertation), Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Science, Istanbul, Turkey.
19. Markoç, İ., & Çınar, C. (2017). Reading housing satisfaction parameters over housing mobility in the redevelopment process: Sarıgöl, Istanbul, Turkey. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1412915
20. Markoç, İ., & Çınar, C. (2018). Loss of social belonging, displacement and social exclusion in the neighbourhood: Urban redevelopment in Sarıgöl, Istanbul, Turkey. Megaron, 13(2), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.97658
21. Markoc, Ilkim (2021). Poverty and Difficulties in Participation of Urban Social Life: Young Women in Istanbul. Journal of International Women's Studies, 22(9), 49-67.
22. Marrero, M., Rivero-Camacho, C., Martínez-Rocamora, A., Alba-Rodríguez, D., & Lucas-Ruiz, V. (2024). Holistic assessment of the economic, environmental, and social impact of building construction: Application to housing construction in Andalusia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140170
23. Molavi, J., & Barral, D. L. (2016). A construction procurement method to achieve sustainability in modular construction. Procedia engineering, 145, 1362-1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.201
24. Oktay, D. (2020). Towards sustainable habitats in Turkey: Challenges and prospects for the future. Ekistics and The New Habitat, 80(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.53910/26531313-E2020801436
25. Perrucci, D., & Baroud, H. (2020). A review of temporary housing management modeling: Trends in design strategies, optimization models, and decision-making methods. Sustainability, 12(24), 10388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410388
26. Rulli, D. (2007). Less is more: Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, glass houses and immigration. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 32(2), 92-97. https://doi.org/10.33043/TH.32.2.92-97
27. Sari Haksever, T., & Markoç, İ. (2020). Social Perception of the Green Roofs in contribution to Urban Sustainability: Istanbul. Journal of Developing Country Studies, 10(4). http://doi.org/10.7176/dcs/10-4-08
28. Sutantio, A., Anwar, N., Wiguna, I. P. A., & Suryani, E. (2022). Developing a model of sustainable construction for condominium projects in developing countries; case of Indonesia. GEOMATE Journal, 23(96), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.21660/2022.96.3319
29. Vijayakumar, A., Mahmood, M. N., Gurmu, A., Kamardeen, I., & Alam, S. (2024). Social sustainability assessment of road infrastructure: A systematic literature review. Quality & Quantity, 58(2), 1039-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01683-y