See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301595284

Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional

Çeşme houses

Article in A/Z ITU journal of Faculty of Architecture · July 2016

DOI: 10.5505/itujfa.2016.49368

CITATIONS READS

8 736

1 author:

Atalan Özlem
Manisa Celal Bayar University
36 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Atalan Özlem on 03 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • 121-131

Continuity of regional identity:

A case study of facade elements in
traditional Çeşme houses

Özlem ATALAN
[email protected] • Department of Interior Architecture and
Environmental Design, Faculty of Architecture, İzmir University, İzmir, Turkey

Received: July 2015 • Final Acceptance: March 2016

Abstract
A clear understanding of the meaning of sustainable conservation is crucial for
cities and settlements. Sustainable conservation can be achieved by protecting the
architectural identity of a region. The continuity of historic civic elements pre-
serves the identity and image of cities and settlements. In this context, this study
focuses on the importance of sustaining a settlement’s identity. In doing so, chang-
es in the architectural characteristics of the facades of the traditional houses in the
doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2016.49368

Çeşme Castle Conservation Area were considered. Herein, the research methods
include field study procedures to identify and analyze the area, and the build-
ing materials and facade elements characterize the continuity of regional identity.
The results of this research show that architectural facade elements in traditional
houses strongly emphasized the regional identity of Çeşme.

Keywords
Continuity of Çeşme identity, Çeşme houses, Facade elements, Regional identity,
Traditional Çeşme houses.
122

1. Introduction ponents as well as social cultural life.

Traditional buildings located in his- Regional identity and associated im-
torical parts of the city are important ages comprise several different natural
in terms of cultural heritage. Conser- and artificial components constituting
vation of these regions is a widely ac- environment and urban sociocultural
cepted responsibility for humankind; features (Kiper, 2004).
rebuilding these structures to meet Each region symbolizes a particular
today’s demands is carefully guided by culture. According to Mumford (2013),
preservation principles and rules. Con- a region or city is a symbolic world in
servation of these original buildings in its components and as a whole. Each
historical regions and the incorpora- part of the city has its own meaning;
tion of similar details and building ele- the parts convey a bigger picture. An
ments in new settlements is important important criterion that builds settle-
to ensure continuity of regional iden- ment identity is architecture. Archi-
tity. tecture best reflects a city as it emerges
Traditional Turkish houses devel- within the interaction of social struc-
oped over many centuries by the lo- ture, habits, activities, and relations.
cal Anatolians provide an interesting Life models developed by cultures have
living environment. These houses in laid the foundations of traditional ar-
Izmir Çeşme have been the subjects chitecture over time. The identity creat-
of several studies. This paper initially ed by buildings can be perceived from
describes the importance of sustain- several features. However, architectur-
ability of a region’s identity and image. al identity develops in accordance with
Next, the sustainability of traditional long-term environmental and building
facade elements, a significant factor policies, materials and construction
that shapes the identity of a region, technologies, architectural styles, and
is discussed. The study considered 19 behaviors and attitudes towards the
registered buildings in the Çeşme Cas- environment (Oliver, 1998).
tle Conservation Area. Each building’s Cançelik (2014) emphasized that ur-
unique facade materials and architec- ban symbols include not only concrete
tural elements were identified and re- or fixed forms, but also water, sounds,
ported. and lifestyles. Even past lives and
events are in the scope of symbolic val-
2. Importance of the regional ues. These urban values combine the
identity and its continuity past and future in our lives and imag-
Identity is the phenomenon of per- inary worlds and concurrently lead us
ceiving a living thing or an object to spiritual worlds (Guénon, 2012b, p.
through visual, aural, or other senses 109, Cançelik, 2014, p. 31).
and making it distinctive. In this sense, According to Ahunbay (2004), areas
identity is the status of uniqueness, that carry traces of the past and com-
individuality, and originality among prise natural and cultural values are
other living things and objects (Ertürk, historical environments. Historical en-
1996). Continuity of identity can be vironments, with their traditional fea-
sustained through common memories, tures, are tangible cultural components
traditions, and mutual feelings. Thus, that document the continuity of the so-
identity is a product of continuity and ciety, emphasize its identity, and form
accumulation. The meanings, tradi- place memory. These environments
tions, and dependencies that belong to also connect fragments of society to-
identity coalesce around the concept of gether and to the local geography. His-
place (Morley and Robins, 1995). torical environments characterize their
Lynch (2012, p. 132) defines a city as spaces with cultural, economic, and
a clustering and organization of mean- aesthetic values. This characterization
ings and relations that have occurred becomes apparent in the identity of a
in the context of civilization. Regard- region or a city. In the 21st century, a
ing cities and regions, identity has an new consciousness of the historical en-
extensive definition that highlights its vironment has led to their perception
visual dimension and includes natu- as indispensable parts of urban culture.
ral, geographical, and cultural com- Decisions concerning the city have

ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • Ö. Atalan

 123

Figure 1. Çeşme Castle Conservation Area and registered buildings.

considered new and old city centers, mass composition, façade and color
and the necessity to develop new meth- composition, construction materials,
ods for conservation has been widely and landscape order. Gindroz (2003)
acknowledged (Smith, 2001). For this considers facade and color compo-
reason, it is important to maintain the sition as significant and rapidly per-
original features in regions and incor- ceived components emphasizing ur-
porate them into today’s designs in ban identity. In this context the rapidly
order to achieve continuity in regional perceived and emphasising component
and urban identity. for Çeşme’s urban identity is facade
To prevent regional identities in and colour composition in traditional
historical environments from disap- structures.
pearing and to integrate these histor-
ical areas with the developing region 3. Traditional Çeşme Houses and
in a functional way, these areas must facade elements
support the necessities of modern life. 3.1. Location and Brief History of
Presently, social changes cause differ- Çeşme
entiation of regional functions and Çeşme is a district in Izmir located
changes in spatial structure. Wide- in the southwest corner of the Karabu-
spread impacts of globalization affect run Peninsula in the Aegean Region
identities of regions and cities, as well (Figure 1). It is 80 km from Izmir’s city
as our economic and social lives. His- center via highway. The Çeşme dis-
torical environments—reflecting life- trict also borders the sea. The winter
styles, building styles, and artistic sen- population of Çeşme is approximately
sitivities—do not adapt well to rapid 30,000–35,000, but the summer pop-
consumption and technological devel- ulation rises to approximately 600,000
opment and have begun to disappear (upper- and middle-income tourist
over time (Binan, 1999). groups prefer to visit Çeşme in the
The use of traditional elements in summer).
facades is a motion to emphasize local The Çeşme region was one of the two
identity and support historical envi- harbors in Erythrai (Ildırı)—one of 12
ronments in regions that have become ancient Ionian cities. During Ottoman
monotonous. Traditional facade ele- times, the peninsula was continuously
ments reflect characteristics of histor- used as a naval base for military pur-
ical environments. Unique elements poses. Bayezid II built the Çeşme Cas-
stemming from regional cultural life tle in the 16th century (1508). In the
are observed in regions distinctively 19th century, Çeşme became a summer
from other cities. The increased use of resort destination. After 1822, Muslim
these elements makes historical urban refugees settled in Çeşme. In the 20th
identity more apparent. century, settlements developed around
A structure’s identity is determined the Çeşme Castle (Beyru, 1973).
by its main characteristics and histo- Çeşme experienced social and phys-
ry. For this reason, necessary compo- ical changes attributable to the in-
nents that define its identity should be creased tourism in the 1950s and 1960s.
constructed accurately. According to During this time, the Ilıca coast was
Gindroz (2003), components that de- developed and settlements appeared
termine a structure’s identity include along the northern coasts of Dalyan,
Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional Çeşme houses
124

Şifne, Boyalık, Paşalimanı, Reisdere, tered monumental and civil buildings.

and Germiyan villages. During the late These building are centrally located
1970s and mid-1980s, summer hous- around the Çeşme Castle and along the
ing density increased in Dalyanköy coastal axis. Many were transformed
and Çiftlikköy (Master Plan and Re- into commercial buildings to support
port for Conservation Area of Çeşme tourism. In commercially dense areas
Castle, 1:1000 scale). such as Inkilap Avenue, ground floors
The first master plan for Çeşme of buildings are used for commercial
center was issued in 1951. In 1967, a purposes. Squares and streets on and
master plan was prepared for the Ilıca around Inkilap Avenue are known
region, and a subsequent master plan for busy commercial activities. In the
(1:25000 scale) was approved in 1984. streets behind Çeşme Castle, renovat-
The Ministry of Public Works and Set- ed buildings have replaced traditional
tlement approved an environmental Çeşme houses.
plan (1:25000 scale) in 1991 and the
Çeşme Urban Area Master Develop- 3.2. Çeşme Castle Conservation Area
ment Plan (1:5000 scale) in 1992. In case study
1993, this Master Development Plan The most important factor identi-
was applied in Ilıca, Dalyan, Ovacık, fying Çeşme is the traditional hous-
and Çiftlikköy The first decision to ing architecture, which has survived
conserve the historical and natural until today. This architecture reflects
beauty of the Karaburun Peninsula was the unique civil designs created by the
made in 1992 by the Izmir Council of Ottomans along the Aegean coasts.
Primary Cultural and Natural Heritage Houses built in the late 19th century
Conservation. In 1995, the council reflect an architectural interaction of
designated most of the Çeşme Penin- the Turkish–Greek population. During
sula as a Natural and Archaeological this time, most of the builders were
Conservation Site. The Çeşme Castle Greek; consequently, Muslim houses
Conservation Area and any streets re- look different from traditional Turk-
quiring conservation were identified ish houses (Kayın, 1990), And Çeşme
within the Çeşme urban site (Master houses include characteristics of tra-
Plan and Report for the Conservation ditional Turkish houses but impacts of
Area of Çeşme Castle, 2006). As shown Greek architecture are evident, partic-
in Figure 2, the Çeşme Castle Con- ularly on the ground floors.
servation Area includes several regis- Buildings in central Çeşme were ad-

Figure 2. Plan view of Çeşme Castle Conservation Area and registered buildings.

ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • Ö. Atalan

 125

and mortar. In accordance with build-

ing heights in the area, one or two rows
of wooden stretchers were used on
certain levels to prevent bulging under
the vertical load pressure. In buildings
with stone ground floors and wood
upper floors, a masonry system struc-
ture with a width of 0.50−0.60 m on
the ground floors was observed. Upper
floors were constructed using a wood-
Figure 3. Construction systems and en carcass system and mud brick seal-
materials for ground and upper floors. ants. Combined stone–wood buildings
jacently constructed with back court- constitute approximately 50% of all
yards but no front gardens. House buildings in the Çeşme Castle Conser-
doors opened directly to the street. vation Area. In the stone–wood build-
They were generally built as stone ma- ings, indoor partitions were built using
sonry or semi-stone masonry systems the lath and plaster technique. On inte-
and constructed as two- or three- sto- rior walls (15−18 cm thick), mud brick
ry buildings. As shown in Figure 3, was used as covering material.
ground floors were typically construct- In some buildings, kitchens and toi-
ed of stone while upper floors were lets are located in the courtyard instead
constructed of wood. Select buildings of indoors. Gable or hip roof types
in the area had both ground and upper constructed using mission (Ottoman)
floors constructed primarily of stone tile were common.
material (Figure 4). Presently, new buildings are being
Stone masonry buildings were con- constructed in the central Çeşme Cas-
structed with naturally acquired stones tle Conservation Area. As shown in
Figure 5, some of the new structures
reflect traditional building designs,
and some do not. Compatibility in the
architectural facade elements of these
buildings is important for continuity of
regional identity.

3.2.1. Architectural facade elements

Figure 4. Masonry and wood carcass construction systems.
in traditional Çeşme houses
In buildings that constitute tradi-
tional housing structures in Çeşme,
the most highlighted and rapidly per-
ceived feature for Çeşme regional iden-
tity is facade and color composition. As
illustrated in Figure 6, the main com-
ponents that constitute facade and col-
or composition in traditional Çeşme
houses are triangle pediment, win-
Figure 5. New buildings in the central Çeşme Castle Conservation dows, shutters, window jambs, doors
Area. and courtyard doors, window board
sunshades, and mouldings.

Triangle Pediments
Triangle pediments are observed on
stone masonry buildings and are one of
the most important building elements
in facades of traditional Çeşme houses.
Figure 7 depicts typical designs. Sym-
metrical or baroque decorations may
be present in the middle of triangle
Figure 6. Facade elements of traditional Çeşme houses. pediments. Kirpi saçak (a Seljuk and

Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional Çeşme houses
126

Figure 7. Triangle pediment examples on traditional Çeşme houses.

Ottoman type of fringe) is often locat- orations were observed on top of the
ed under triangle pediments. As shown rectangular windows. Figure 11 (a−b)
in Figure 8, stone masonry buildings shows the window characteristics for
with triangle pediments constitute ap- the ground and upper floors, respec-
proximately 60% of all buildings in the tively.
Çeşme Castle Conservation Area. Referring to Figure 11(a−b), the
ground floors mostly included rectan-
Windows and Window Jambs gular windows with arches (1:1.5 ratio),
In traditional Çeşme houses, win- and the upper floors included rectan-
dows are another important archi- gular windows without arches (1:2 ra-
tectural element. With rectangular or tio). This prevalence was observed in
arched forms, they add identity to the both stone masonry and stone mason-
flat or bay-windowed facades of the ry-wood carcass buildings.
buildings. As shown in Figure 9, rect- Window jamb is another important
angular upper floor windows had a 1:2 facade element in traditional Çeşme
ratio, consistent with traditional Turk- houses. In an authentic Çeşme house
ish designs. They are made of wood; facade, stone window jambs were con-
some have double casements. Select structed using stone or fragmented
houses contained window sections stones. However, in stone–wood hous-
that did not open upwards. Guillotine es, the window jambs were made from
windows were also observed in some wood on the upper floors.
houses. Window jambs were typically 15−20
In stone masonry systems, windows cm wide. Ground floors frequently in-
were located at least 100 cm from build- cluded arched stone window jambs,
ing corners. On upper floors, windows while upper floors included rectan-
were often rectangular, typically 80 cm gular wooden window jambs. Figure
wide and 160 cm high. As shown in 12(a−b) shows the window jamb char-
Figure 10, ground floor windows were
rectangular or arched (round, segmen-
tal) with a ratio of 1:1.5. In select stone
masonry buildings, round motif dec-

Figure 9. Upper floor 1:2 window ratio.

Figure 8. Triangle pediment prevalence in

19 registered buildings. Figure 10. Ground floor 1:1.5 window ratio with arch.

ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • Ö. Atalan

 127

Figure 11a. Ground floor window and door Figure 11b. Upper floor window
characteristics and prevalence. characteristics and prevalence.

acteristics for ground and upper floors, also function to reduce the intensive
respectively. Stone window jambs were sunlight entering the building. Wood-
generally made from andesite—a type en sunshades or board mouldings were
of volcanic rock. Recent 20th century observed in wooden carcass build-
buildings include plaster and concrete ings. Sunshades or board mouldings
window jambs. in stone masonry buildings were made
Ground floors of select houses in the from stone or bricks. Window board
Çeşme Castle Conservation Area were mouldings wide can be made from
built for commercial purposes. Ground stone, plaster over bricks, or wood (up
floors of this type typically include to 10 cm wide). Window sunshades can
double leaf wooden doors and may in- be made from stone, metal, or wood.
clude segmental arched stone jambs. Wooden window sunshades can be up
Figure 13 shows a typical design. to 10 cm wide, while stone and metal
sunshades and be 15−25 cm wide.
Sunshades, Window Board Mould-
ings, and Shutters Window shutter prevalence
As shown in Figure 14, several tradi- Window shutters on traditional
tional Çeşme houses have window sun- houses in the Çeşme Castle Conser-
shades and window board mouldings. vation Area are one of the most inter-
These sunshades and mouldings pro- esting building elements. The hot and
vide decorative features on facades but sunny climate in the region requires

Figure 12a. Ground floor window jamb Figure 12b. Upper floor window jamb
characteristics and prevalence. characteristics and prevalence.
Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional Çeşme houses
128

Building and Courtyard Doors

Doors in traditional houses in the
Çeşme Castle Conservation Area were
made of wood with decorations and
knockers. Most were double leaf doors
although single doors were also ob-
served. Only one side of the double leaf
door was used; use of both doors was
reserved for special occasions or nec-
essary situations. Doors open to stairs
or to the street directly. Doors can be
decorated barred windows and include
stone jambs over or around doors. The
door height was 220 cm and the door
width was 100 cm for single doors and
55−60 cm per door for double leaf
doors. Doors may also be decorated
with laths and engravings. Figure 16
shows examples of various traditional
Figure 13. Mixed commercial and entrance doors.
residential function in a traditional house. On large parcels, garden doors were
located on the edge of courtyards at the
street level. In modest houses, wooden
doors were located in doorways with
no doorframes. In elaborate buildings,
stone doorframes (at least 24 cm wide)
were built around courtyard entrance
Figure 14. Traditional window sunshades doors. Courtyard doors can include
and window board mouldings. arches that are round, bucket, Roman,
or Gothic style. Courtyard doors were
shutters. Shutters can be constructed commonly double leaf and wooden to
from wood or iron and were frequently allow vehicle or pack animal passage.
observed to be painted blue. Shutters Figure 17 shows examples of various
are located on the sides of windows; traditional courtyard doors.
sunshades are placed over windows. In newly constructed Çeşme build-
Contemporary shutters are observed ings, entrance doors are 100 cm wide
on newly built building facades, as well and 220 cm high. Larger, double leaf
as select registered buildings in study doors in traditional houses are no lon-
area. Figure 15(a−b) shows the prev- ger used. Courtyard entrance doors
alence of window sunshades/board are also different in new houses. New
mouldings and shutters, respectively. houses in Çeşme are often located in
gated communities; courtyard en-
trance doors are no longer needed. In

Figure 15a. Window sunshade and board Figure 15b. Window shutter prevalence.
moulding prevalence.
ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • Ö. Atalan
 129

oriels.
Three types of oriels exist in tradi-
tional Çeşme houses: single centered,
single sided, and double sided. All are
made from wood. In select houses,
oriels can be located on the second or
third floors. If their width is greater or
equal to 150 cm, wooden or iron but-
Figure 16. Traditional entrance doors. tresses must support the oriels.
Outbuildings in traditional Çeşme
houses are made from stone or wood
and can cover the entire facade. Stone
outbuildings in stone masonry houses
extend 30−40 cm into the street and are
supported by iron buttresses. Wooden
outbuildings extend into the street.
An outbuilding transforms the room
shape from square to rectangular. This
feature is common in traditional Turk-
Figure 17. Traditional courtyard doors. ish houses. Figure 18, presented pre-
viously, includes examples of various
traditional houses, humans and pack traditional outbuildings.
animals passed through courtyard Balconies were observed in both
doors. Today, outside of gated commu- stone and combination stone-wood
nities, these doors offer protection of a buildings, often centered on the build-
parcel’s borders. ing but also located to the side. Iron
and decorated parapets on balconies
Oriels, Outbuildings, and Balconies are prominent characteristics of tra-
Oriels, outbuildings, and balconies ditional Çeşme architecture. Wrought
in traditional houses in Çeşme’s Cas- iron buttresses often support balconies.
tle Conservation Area are additional Houses can have a single middle bal-
significant facade elements. A tradi- cony, a single side balcony, or a double
tional house can have only one oriel, side balcony depending on their facade.
outbuilding, and balcony; some have Figure 19 shows examples of various
a combination of several features. Ori- traditional balconies. Figure 20 shows
els in traditional Çeşme houses can be the prevalence of oriels, outbuildings,
built of stone; in combination stone- and balconies in the study area.
wood houses, oriels can be semi-stone. As shown in Figures 21 and 22,
Oriels have windows on all three sides many traditional facade elements of
and extend toward the street. Figure 18 the 19 registered buildings considered
shows examples of various traditional in this study were badly damaged or
deteriorated and approximately 40%
have lost their originality (i.e., are not

Figure 18. Traditional oriels and outbuildings.

Figure 20. Oriel, outbuilding, and balcony

Figure 19. Traditional balconies. prevalence.

Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional Çeşme houses
130

Figure 21. Damaged facades in traditional houses.

as originally constructed). Nonethe- 12 houses maintained their original
less, unique triangle pediments; win- building materials. Upper floors of two
dows and door designs; sunshades, registered buildings were completely
mouldings, and shutters; and, oriels, demolished; lower floors were consid-
outbuildings, and balconies remain as erably damaged.
features on the traditional Çeşme fa- The ground floors of most registered
cade. In addition, these facade elements houses were constructed using a stone
were often observed on non-registered masonry system, while upper floors
buildings in the study area. were built using wooden carcass meth-
ods filled with mud bricks. Many of the
4. Conclusions buildings included triangle pediments,
New structures in historical parts windows with a 1:2 ratio, windows
of Turkish cities are incompatible with with arches (1:1.5 ratio), door and win-
the structural and spatial identity of dow jambs, shutters, sunshades, oriels,
traditional architecture and do not re- outbuildings, and balconies.
flect features of sustainability. Histor- In conclusion, this study confirmed
ical building components constitute that select new housing structures in
a significant part of cultural heritage. the study area were incompatible with
The conservation of Çeşme urban her- the structural and visual identity of
itage is only possible through the pres- traditional Çeşme architecture. In this
ervation of historical buildings. context, all data regarding traditional
Çeşme has housed many monumen- houses should be used to benefit new
tal and civil architectural buildings; house construction in and surround-
today, only a few remain. Monumen- ing Çeşme’s urban site. Materials and
tal and civil architectural elements prevalence of facade elements (tri-
are major factors for determining and angle pediments; windows and door
supporting the identity of a settlement. designs; sunshades, mouldings, and
Traditional Çeşme housing and facade shutters; and oriels, outbuildings, and
elements also support settlement iden-
tity. Building materials used in tradi-
tional houses and prominent facade
elements are among the most interest-
ing and remarkable visual images (The
Urban Design Handbook, 2003).
In this study, building materials and
facade elements for 19 registered hous-
es in the Çeşme Castle Conservation
Area were investigated. Building ma-
terials were original in all but six of
these houses. Window and door ratios
in these buildings changed over time;
window frames, doorframes and shut- Figure 22. Deterioration and originality prevalence of facade
ters were removed and damaged. Only elements.
ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 2 • July 2016 • Ö. Atalan
 131

balconies) are important components Eyüce, A., (2007). Learning From

for determining the identity of tradi- The Vernacular: Sustainable Planning
tional Çeşme houses. Registered build- And Design, Open House Internation-
ings in the Çeşme Castle Conservation al, December, 32:4.
Area had a high prevalence of unique Gindroz, R., (2003). The Urban De-
facade elements. For this reason, these sign Handbook, W.W. Norton & Com-
traditional facade elements should be pany Ltd, Newyork.
preserved in existing buildings and Kayın, E., (1990). Ege’de Zaman ve
incorporated in new structures to sus- Mekan, “Çeşme’de Geleneksel Konut
tain the identity in and surrounding Mimarisi, Konsollor, Kapılar, Pencerel-
Çeşme’s urban site. er”, Ege Mimarlık 37, İzmir.
Kiper, P., (2004). “Küreselleşme
References Sürecinde Kentlerimize Giren Yeni
Abdelmonem, M. and Selim, G., Tüketim Mekanları ve Yitirilen Kent
(2012). “Architecture, memory and Kimlikleri”, Planlama, Journal Of
historical continuity in Old Cairo”, The The Chamber Of City Planners,
Journal Of Architecture, 17-2: 163-189, Http://Www.Spo.Org.Tr/Resimler/
doi: 10.1080/13602365.2012.678634 Ekler/31c83db8d2ff01b_Ek.Pdf
Ahunbay, Z., (2004). Tarihi Çevre Krier, R., (1983). Elements of Archi-
Koruma ve Restorasyon, Yem Yayın, tecture, Architectural Design, USA
İstanbul. Lynch, K., (2012). Kent İmgesi, (Çev.
Bevan, R., (2006). The Destruction Başaran, İ.), Türkiye İşbankası Yayın-
Of Memory, Reaktion, London. ları İstanbul.
Beyru, R., (1973), 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Mumford L., (2013). Tarih Boyunca
Kenti , İzmir: Literatür Yayınları. Kent, Kökenleri, Geçirdiği Dönüşüm-
Binan, C., (1999). Mimari Koru- ler ve Geleceği (Çev. Koca, G., Tosun,
ma Alanında Venedik Tüzüğü’nden T.), Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Günümüze Düşünsel Gelişmenin Morley, D. and Robins K., (1995).
Uluslararası Evrim Süreci, Yıldız Spaces of Identity: Global Media,
Teknik Üniversitesi Basım-Yayın Electronic Landscapes and Cultural
Merkezi, İstanbul, 116. Boundaries , Routledge, 105-124.
Cançelik, A., (2014). “Şehirler Ve Nora, P., (1989). ‘Between memory
Semboller”, Şehir Üzerine Düşünçel- and history: les lieux de mémoire’, Rep-
er- I, Esenler Belediyesi Şehir Düşünce resentations, 26.
Merkezi Şehir Yayınları, İlbey Matbaa, Oliver, P., (1998). Enc. Vernacular
İstanbul. Architecture Of The World, Cambridge
Çeşme Central Castle Conservation Univ. Press, Vol. I, UK.
Zone and Implementary Master Plan Rapoport, A., (1969). House Form
Report for Conservation of Urban Pro- And Culture, Prentice Hall, Engle-
tected Area with 1/1000 scale, http:// wood Cliffs Nj.
www.cesmebelediyesi.com Rapoport, A., (1994). Sustainabili-
Emeklí, G. and Soykan, F., (2008). ty, Meaning and Traditional Environ-
Prospects For Rural Cultural Tourism ments, Berkeley Center For Environ-
In Turkey: Case Study Of Karaburun, mental Design Research, University Of
Natural Environment and Culture In California, Traditional Dwellings And
The Mediterranean Region, pp. 347- Settlements Working Papers, 75: 75-94.
361(15), Cambridge Scholars Publish- Rapoport, A., (2000). “Theory, Cul-
ing İn Association With Gse Research, ture and Housing,” Housing, Theory
UK. And Society, Vol. 17, No. 4, 145-165.
Erdönmez, E., (2014). “ Kenti Bir Rosenfeld, G. D., (2000). Munich
Kamu Alanı Olarak Okumak”, Şehir and Memory: Architecture, Monu-
Üzerine Düşünceler- I, Esenler Bele- ments And The Legacy Of The Third
diyesi Şehir Düşünce Merkezi Şehir Reich, California University Press,
Yayınları, İlbey Matbaa, İstanbul. London.
Ertürk, T., (1996). Şehir Kimliği: http://www.izka.org.tr/files/planla-
Amasya Örneği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, ma/3_ilce_ calismalari/
İtü Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Continuity of regional identity: A case study of facade elements in traditional Çeşme houses

View publication stats