Chapter

New Additions to Existing Built

Heritage and Their Contributions
to Sustainable Development:
Cases from Ankara, Turkey
Gulsen Disli

Abstract

New additions to historic buildings are mostly required either to extend the
longevity of the building or to meet the new program requirements imposed to the
built heritage as part of historic preservation process. The additions might be in the
form of a rooftop, front, rear, side, or basement attachment. In all cases, the
question of what is a sensitive addition according to the world-wide preservation
standards is to be well analyzed. This study uses data from a new survey on five case
study historic mosques and khans in Ankara with new exterior or interior additions
to reveal the quality, compatibility and/or incompatibility of contemporary new
additions and their contributions to sustainability. Case study analysis, in-situ
observations, archival and literature survey are the principle methods applied dur-
ing the study. Research findings show that, the additions follow different paths;
they can be differentiated from the main historic building with their massing,
material, and either color, or they hinder the existing built heritage, or even damage
its character-defining features. Hence, for sensitive and successful new additions,
restorations should be in compatible with world-wide standards and should be well
analyzed and applied by the related authorities both during project approval and
restoration phases.

Keywords: existing built heritage, historic preservation, rehabilitation, adaptive

reuse, new additions, alterations, sustainability, Ankara

1. Introduction

Historic buildings bear the traces of different periods because of additions

attached to the building in different times. Among them, the contemporary new
additions, commonly applied as part of historic preservation treatment, either in
the form of exterior additions or interior alterations, expand the outer limits of the
original building, or create new spaces in building interiors [1]. A new exterior
addition is mostly required for programmatic reasons and is accepted as an
appropriate alternative only if “the new program requirements cannot be met
within the existing building envelope” or by altering only interior spaces without
changing character defining features of the building [1–4]. Interior additions are
similarly applied to make compatible use of the property through interior repairs

1
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

and alterations [4]. As US Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabil-
itating Historic Buildings has proposed and if an exterior addition has to be done,
it should be clearly differentiated from the original and should be built without
damaging character defining features of the old [4]. This research examines the
new exterior additions and interior alterations observed in five case study historic
buildings, three khans and two mosques, across historic Ulus district, in Ankara.
They provide examples of both adaptation projects and original use, all
maintaining significant details of the old building, and at the same time have new
additions that attract public attention. Selection parameters are; they should be
public buildings, they are to be located in historic fabric of city of Ankara, and
their new additions should exemplify either the need for adaptive reuse or con-
tinuous use of original function of the old building. Main objectives of the study
are first to question the compatibility of the new additions and alterations with
international standards and to investigate their contributions to sustainable
development of the district. It begins with a literature review on the type of new
additions to existing built heritage, followed by international legal framework and
guidelines on new additions and continued with case study buildings and their
new additions with an evaluation of their compatibility with the standards and
their sustainable contributions.
There is a vast amount of literature on new additions to historic buildings [5–14].
Among them, there are various studies examining the issue of evaluating those
new additions, possible approaches applied in their designs, and their appropriate-
ness to the historic fabric [5–10]. New additions have also been discussed by
scholars within adaptive reuse and rehabilitation framework and with a focus on
sustainable benefits of rehabilitation [11–14].
There are also considerable literature related to prehistoric and historic devel-
opment of historic city center of Ankara; on municipal, construction, agriculture,
and commercial activities mainly in historic Ulus district, and related to urban,
archeological, natural, and historical protected areas and strata’s of the area [15–22].
Among them, Taş’s research includes a comprehensive archival research on com-
mercial activities, administrative structure, neighborhood, and public and private
life in the seventeenth century Ankara [18]. Various studies similarly focus on the
historic districts and architecture of the city including historic buildings belonging
to Roman, Seljuk, Ottoman, and Republican periods [23–29]. Though in limited
number, some scholars also examined the urban conservation process in Ulus dis-
trict and alterations and special transformations of historical buildings in due
course, as well as their sustainable conservation issues [30–33].
Although, all those existing literature tend to focus on architecture and history
of Ulus district, and they rarely address the issues of new additions to historic
buildings and their contributions to sustainable development in the area. Hence,
this study is significant in terms of providing data on compatible and incompatible
new additions to the case study old buildings located in the district and providing
evaluations on their contributions to the revitalization of the area.

1.1 New additions to existing built heritage

New exterior additions, as part of rehabilitation treatment, can be inevitable in

order to extend the longevity of the historic building falling into disuse because of
the problem of abandonment, misuse, or damage. Changes in present day require-
ments, programmatic needs caused by adaptive reuse, and need for the completion
of damaged parts in historic buildings esthetically, functionally, and structurally, as
well as user expectations also cause differentiations in the form of exterior additions
and/or interior alterations to the built heritage [9, 34]. Al-Jameel and Saffo (p. 3)

2
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

Figure 1.
New additions designed according to three different approaches: Standard, contrasting, and identical [3, 7,
39, 40].

also counts the “factors such as natural changes, disasters, social, economic, cultural
and political transformations” among the very reasons of constructing new addi-
tions with different types and models [35].
There is not a certain formula about the type and form of the addition, such that
it can be “traditionalist, contemporary or a simplified version of the historic build-
ing”, as long as it preserves a balance between the differentiation and compatibility
[36]. Though there are some recommendations, there are not certain rules on scale
(height and width), form, massing, setback, orientation, alignment, rhythm, spac-
ing, and proportion of a new addition [1, 3, 4, 37]. It can be as small as a vestibule,
or as large as an entire building mass, but it is encouraged that it should be smaller
than and not overwhelm the original building and should be less visible from the
street side [2, 37]. Hence, it is more appropriate to position a new addition at the
rear or side elevation of the existing building, and front additions are to be avoided
as much as possible [37].
According to “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring &
Reconstructing Historic Buildings”, White (p. 38) categorizes the various
recommended and discouraged methodologies toward additions to historic build-
ings in three groups: standard, contrasting, and identical [7] (Figure 1). Standard
approach is explained as “compatible,” but “differentiated” from the old, thus
ensuring that it “subordinates” to the historic building [7]. Also known as abstrac-
tion, in this approach, a new addition should be similar, but slightly different from
the original building [6]. As another approach, contrasting style is defined as in
“extreme contrast” to the old, thus avoids potential misunderstanding of what is
original and what is new [6, 7]. On the other hand, in identical approach, new
additions are almost the same with the old, in terms of style, design elements,
material, scale, and detail [6, 7]. Semes similarly defines four possible strategies in
designing new construction in a historic setting and calls them as the following; “(1)
literal replication, (2) invention within the same or a related style, (3) abstract
reference, and (4) intentional opposition [38].”
In addition to above mentioned design approaches, there are also some criteria
that should bear in mind in designing new additions. Tanaç-Zeren (pp. 31–33)
explains the criterion in new additions constituting the esthetic impression as fol-
lows [34]:

• “Environmental impact: the historic neighborhood in which the building is

located and the building plot affects the location, material, and style of new
addition.

• Impact of scale: horizontal and vertical dimensions of the new addition and its
impact on human scale and its proportions affect the esthetic factors. Hence, new
additions with correct dimensions/scales will not dominate the historic building.

3
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

• Impact of contrast: contrast can be set up by means of material, color, and scale.

• Impact of mass: selection of form in a new addition affects the sense of massing
and builds its compatibility or contrast with the historic building.

• Impact of the rhythm: while designing new additions, it is possible to use

rhythmic adaptation with the historic building by means of repeating the
original material, proportion, or component.

• Impact of the material: material selection in new additions is an important

criterion in determining quality of the addition.”

According to the historic preservation standards, primary exterior new additions

include [1, 3, 4, 7, 41] (Figures 2 and 3);

• Rear additions,

• Side additions,

• Camelback (second story) additions,

• Rooftop additions, and

• Storefronts.

Tanaç-Zeren (pp. 37–38) groups those new additions, which were generated as
part of space and program requirements of secondary functions given to the old
buildings, as follows [34]:

Figure 2.
Drawings showing different types of appropriate additions according to the City of Houston historic preservation
manual, 2015 [7].

Figure 3.
Different configurations of appropriate and inappropriate new additions to historic buildings [37].

4
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

• “completions of roof,

• completions of façade,

• transition elements between the two buildings,

• fire escapes attached to the historic buildings, and

• eaves additions.”

There are also front and basement additions observable in historic buildings.
But, especially the front additions are mostly avoided or even prohibited in order
not to hinder the visibility of the original building from the street side [37].
US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that
functions and services necessary for the new use are to be located in noncharacter
defining interior spaces instead of constructing a new exterior addition [1]. Interior
alterations may include “inserting an additional floor; an entirely new mechanical
system; or creating an atrium or light well, but such alterations should not radically
change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or
finishes” [42].

2. International and legal framework and guidelines on new additions

In principle, world’s leading preservation organizations such as United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International
Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the U.S. National Park Service
(NPS) oppose to the attachment of new additions to historic buildings [6, 10].
Nevertheless, they welcome compatible additions if required for the benefit of
users and for present day use as long as they do not affect character defining
features of the old building [6]. Those primary international charters, guidelines,
and standards related to new additions to historic buildings and their related arti-
cles/sections are given below:
• Venice Charter, 1964, Article “12” and “13” [43],

• Third General Assembly of ICOMOS, 1972, Article “3” and “4” [44],

• The Declaration of Amsterdam, 1975, section “f” [45],

• U.S. Preservation Briefs 18, 1988 [46],

• U.S. Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for

Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, 1990, “p. 62”, Article “9” and “10” [4],

• U.S. Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated

Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, 1997, “pp. 91–93” [1],

• ICOMOS Charter of 14th General Assembly in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 2003,

Article “2.3” [47],

• UNESCO Fifteenth General Assembly, 2005, “p. 4”, section “D-18” and
“D-21” [48],

5
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

• ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010, “p. 8”, Article “21” [49],

• U.S. Preservation Brief 14, 2010 [3],

• The Burra Charter, 2013, Articles “7.2., 15, 21.1, 21.2, 22.1” [50].

In addition to those international guidelines, in Turkey, there are also some

regulations, which partially mention about the new additions to historic build-
ings though there is not a regulation solely related to the issue [51–53]. Among
them, The High Council Resolution No: 731, dated 19.06. 2007, regulates the
restoration interventions, applications, and inspections for the cultural heritage
such as mosques, masjids, and tombs supervised and managed by Directorate
General of Foundations [51]. According to this Resolution, in adaptive reuse of
monumental historical buildings with waqf root, their original functions, if
specified in their waqf documents, are to be preserved. Any kind of house
reserved for someone who holds a particular job in a mosque or shops/stores
cannot be built attached to the historic building itself or in their courtyards.
Similarly, late comers’ portico cannot be closed even with glass material, and in
ablution spaces and in such areas, new material use that will destroy the tradi-
tional texture both structurally and visually is not allowed [51]. In addition, The
High Council Resolution No: 660, dated 05.11. 1999, groups the immovable
cultural heritage and regulates the conditions of their maintenance and repairs
[52]. In this Resolution, it is noted that, if a new function is to be given to an
old building, opinion of the Conservation Board is to be taken regarding the
characteristics of new additions and their integration with the old, and those
new additions can be applied only after its approval by the mentioned Conser-
vation Board [52]. Furthermore, in The High Council Resolution No: 720, dated
04.10.2006, on Conservation and Usage Conditions in Urban Protected Areas, it
is stated that it is not possible to build new buildings whose locations and height
might adversely affect the protected urban silhouette of the street or zoning
island that they are located [53]. Those existing regulations in Turkey show that
they lack a detailed explanation about the approaches, types, and recommenda-
tions on application procedures of new additions to old buildings.

3. New additions to historic buildings and their contributions to

sustainable development: cases from Ankara, Turkey

The case studies discussed in this part of the chapter are all historic public
buildings, easily accessible located in historic Ulus district, in Ankara. The cases
clearly exhibit both compatible and incompatible exterior and interior additions
according to the international guidelines. Most of the examples selected were
built in the sixteenth century, and the architectural landmark of the district and
the additions were attached in last 80 years. In all of the cases, the exterior and/
or interior additions, either in the form of small interventions or major addi-
tions, were attached to the existing building during the extensive restoration
works. The case studies involve front, rear, side, basement, storefront, and
rooftop exterior additions and some interior alterations. Among the case studies,
the mosques are still used in their original function, and the khans exemplify
adaptive reuse rehabilitation treatment; two are converted to a museum and
one is started to be used as a boutique hotel. New exterior additions of case
studies employ both standard and contrasting approaches explained in part 1.1.
of this chapter.

6
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

3.1 Cases of historic buildings with compatible new additions

At this part, three cases—Çengel Khan, Çukur Khan, and Zağfiran Khan are
selected which have contemporary additions, exemplifying both standard and
contrasting design approaches. Original function of all cases is khan and located on
the southwest side of historic Ankara Castle, one of the most important touristic
routes of the district (Figure 4).

3.1.1 Çengel Khan

It is located in historic Ulus district, on the southwest side of the castle

(Figure 4). According to its inscription panel, it was built in 1522–1523 by Rustem
Pasha [28, 55]. It has an open-courtyard plan type constructed in masonry tech-
nique with stone and brick. Thanks to the sloppy topography of the site, two-story
building has also a basement floor on the southwest side. The only entrance to the
building is from the northeast façade, along which shops/stores are aligned. Its
latest restoration was completed in 2005, and the building has started to be used as a
museum with stores and a café, hence created new job opportunities. Adaptation of
Çengel Khan to an exclusive cultural, social, and educational place attracts many
local and international tourists. During the latest restoration, a steel and glass
rooftop was added above the central courtyard, and thus, the courtyard could be
used as an exhibition hall (Figure 5). Another new addition is observable on the
basement floor, in the form of a rectangular room with large wooden windows at
the southwest facade, used as a permanent exhibition area (Figure 5). On that
facade, there is another rear addition located above the masonry walls (Figure 5).
Similarly, wood and glass storefronts with wooden pillars and slightly sloppy
awnings alongside the northeast façade of the building were added during the last
restoration works (Figure 5). The masjid above the entrance vault changed its
function, and this part was renovated with large wooden windows and started to be
used as a café (Figure 5). Hence, in Çengel Khan, front, rear, rooftop, and store-
front exterior additions are observable, all attached during 2003–2005 restoration
works in order to meet the requirements of new function and usage of the building
(Figures 5 and 6). Interior additions, on the other hand, are mostly seen in wet
spaces and in the form of mechanical installations (Figure 7). Scale of interventions
in both exterior and interior new additions is small, reversible, and differentiated
with its material, form, and color, thus compatible with the old building.

Figure 4.
A map showing the location of case study historic buildings with compatible new additions in ulus district. (A)
Çengel khan, (B) Çukur khan, and (C) Zağfiran khan (Safran/Zafran) [54].

7
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Figure 5.
Çengel khan: Rooftop addition covering the courtyard, exterior (a) [56] and interior views (b), completion
of side walls above the entrance vault and storefront additions (c) and views from rear additions
(d, e, and f) [39].

Figure 6.
Ground floor plan drawing of Çengel khan with new additions shown in different colors (source: Rearranged
from [56]).

3.1.2 Zağfiran (Safran/Zafran) Khan

It is located in Salman Street behind (southwest side) the Çukur Khan. It was
built in 1512 [28, 55]. The two-story building has an open central courtyard with
the rooms lined beneath the semi-open riwaqs. Main body walls were constructed
with rubble stone, and arches and vaults were built with brick material. Losing its
function during the end of raw silk trade, it was used as a jail at the last periods of
Ottoman Empire and at the beginning of the Republican Period [57]. Entrance to
the building was from the west side [26]. As a result of new renovations and
adaptations, today entrance is provided by means of a new addition passageway
from the Cengel Khan. The building had many alterations in time and redesigned

8
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

and adapted to a museum by Rahmi M. Koç Museum and Culture Foundation in

2012–2016. The upper level has been adapted for a restaurant with an open ter-
race. Regarding its contemporary exterior additions, Zağfiran Khan has a major
side addition attached to its west facade and a rooftop addition above the central
courtyard (Figures 8–10). New additions are clearly modern in their use of mate-
rial, massing, and space arrangement. Rooftop architecture has a flat form built
with glass and steel material (Figure 8). It creates a visual richness on the terrace
of the restaurant and at the same time, enables permanent exhibition in the
courtyard beneath. Side addition on the west side has similarly been created for
various functional reasons, such as wet spaces, restaurant, and service halls for the
stairs and elevators. Its facade is covered with glass material (Figure 9). Interior
additions are mostly seen in west side addition, and in the old part, as door
passageways and mechanical installations (Figure 11). In Zağfiran Khan, all those
new additions exhibit present day appearance by means of contrasting style with

Figure 7.
Interior additions in Çengel khan are mostly observable at mechanical installations, handicapped lift, and door
and window alterations and at designing wet spaces [39].

Figure 8.
Interior (a) and exterior (b) views of rooftop addition in Zağfiran Khan [39].

Figure 9.
Side addition of Zağfiran Khan; views from the restaurant, terrace (a), and whole south and west façade of the
side addition (b) [39].

9
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Figure 10.
Schematic plan drawing of Zağfiran Khan with new additions shown in different colors (source: Redrawn
from [57]).

Figure 11.
Interior new additions of Zağfiran Khan; stairs, elevator, wet spaces, and newly added passageway between
Çengel Han and Zağfiran Khan [39].

their material, color, and form, hence original and new parts can easily be differ-
entiated from each other.

3.1.3 Çukur Khan

It was constructed in the sixteenth century with rubble stone foundation walls.
Above the rubble stone foundation are wooden pillars and trusses with mud-brick
infill. The two-story building has a wooden hipped roof. The building is located in
Atpazarı, next to Çengel Khan. It has an open courtyard plan type, surrounded by
semi-open riwaqs, and the rooms behind. Entrance to the building is provided on
the north side [28]. It lost its historic character and character defining features to a
great extent during its repair works in 1950s [26]. Hence, it was in a ruined condi-
tion before its last restoration which was completed in 2010. During the last adap-
tations, the building was converted to a boutique hotel with all the rooms having a
different concept. Hence, it still retains its original accommodation use, and with
the renovated shops on the north façade, it continues to provide public access/use
and preserves its streetscape character. During its restoration in 2007–2010, its
open courtyard was covered with a rooftop, and thus the space below could serve as
a bar restaurant (Figures 12 and 13). This rooftop addition exhibits a contrasting
approach in terms of material (glass and steel) selection and construction tech-
nique, so can easily be distinguishable from the original. The entire storefronts on
the north facade, that were too deteriorated to repair or were not existent, were
replaced with wood and glass material, by using the physical evidence as a model as
suggested in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guide-
lines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Figure 12) [4]. Both the new rooftop and
storefront additions are compatible with the size, scale, and massing of the historic

10
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

Figure 12.
Çukur khan: Rooftop addition (a and b) and storefronts (c) [39, 57].

Figure 13.
Ground floor plan drawing of Çukur khan with new additions shown in different colors (source: Rearranged
from [56]).

building. New interior additions include alterations and adaptations in wet spaces
and mechanical installations.

3.2 Cases of historic buildings with incompatible new additions

At this part, two cases—Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque and Kursunlu Mosque—are
selected with exterior additions, exemplifying standard and contrasting design
approaches. Original and present-day function of both cases is a mosque.

11
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

3.2.1 Hacı Bayram-ı Veli mosque

The building was constructed in 1427/1428 [26]. It is located in historic Ulus

district, attached to August Temple of Roman period on the east side. Main prayer
space has a rectangular plan, covered with a flat wooden ceiling, above which is a
hipped roof with tile covering. Main body walls were built with brick material. On
the south side of the mosque, there is Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Tomb, which has a square
plan covered with a dome above [58]. The mosque undertook comprehensive repair
works between 1703–1730 and 1757–1774, later in nineteenth century, in 1941, and
in 1970 [26, 56, 58–60]. Especially during the last 80 years, the mosque was
enlarged with new exterior additions, causing severe lost in its architectural and
historic entity [58]. Late comers’ portico on the north side of the mosque was
enlarged, and a riwaq was added on the north, east, and west sides. Also, a basement
floor was added for women’s praying and for wet spaces. The first addition was
conducted on the west side of the mosque with a vaulted gateway beneath, in early
eighteenth century repairs [56]. Later, in 1941, late comers’ portico was enlarged
with a concrete addition covered with tile material [56]. It took its present-day
appearance during its latest restorations completed in 2011 (Figures 14 and 15). At
present, the front addition on the north side, together with its side riwaqs, is nearly
larger than the original façade of the building. Though the old and new are at the
same height, have similar material, and color, because of the location and massing
of the new additions, the original building is suppressed by the new and cannot be
perceived from the north side. Similarly with the basement addition, the square area

Figure 14.
Hacı Bayram-ı Veli mosque new exterior additions on the north side ((a) view from the north, (b) view from
the east, and (c) view from the west) and views from the basement addition (d, e, and f) [39].

12
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

Figure 15.
Ground floor plan drawing of Hacı Bayram-ı Veli mosque with new additions shown in different colors (source:
Rearranged from [56]).

Figure 16.
Exterior (a and b) and interior (c) views of front addition [39].

of the building was enlarged 2.5 times larger than the original size of the mosque
itself [58]. Hence, in Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque, exterior additions were applied
with standard approach in the form of front and side additions, and basement
addition exhibits the contrasting approach. They are all incompatible with the old
building according to the international standards. On the other hand, regarding the
interior alterations, providing access to the wet spaces and women’s prayer space by
means of a newly added escalator exemplifies the social responsibility role of new
designs, taking into consideration of physically disabled and handicapped.

3.2.2 Kursunlu mosque

It is located in Ulus district, Samanpazarı area. Though the mosque does not
have an inscription panel, it is dated to the sixteenth century [26, 55, 59]. It has a
square main prayer area covered with a dome. Main body walls were built with
alternating rows of stone and brick, and window arches and minaret were built with
brick material. There is a minaret on the northeast side of the main prayer hall. The
minaret was rebuilt after the earthquake in 1921 [26, 59]. The mosque was restored
in 1914 and in 1990, and its late comers’ portico on the north side was replaced with
concrete two-story addition in 1972 repairs [28, 56] (Figures 16 and 17). Today, this
front side addition is used for women’s prayer area and for religious education of the
children, but the original function of the main building is still continued. Its base-
ment floor is allocated for wet spaces and water depot. The material used for the
new addition—concrete columns and beams—is incompatible with the original
building and also incompatible in terms of historic preservation rules. In addition,
neither its massing and location nor its material is size respectful to the old building,

13
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Figure 17.
Front addition in Kursunlu mosque located on the north side of the historic building (source: Rearranged
from [56]).

and in that, the perception of old building is blocked from its north façade.
Although, international guidelines suggest the control of mass, proportion, volume,
material, color, and placing of new additions, in Kursunlu Mosque, and none of
these criteria are observable.

3.3 Evaluation of case studies in terms of their new additions and their
compatibility with the international preservation guidelines

As Torres (p. 6) states, in order to better evaluate the cohesiveness between

historic buildings and their new additions, first, one has to clarify the methods of
evaluation [6]. In order to establish an evaluation criteria and analysis method
of compatibility of new additions, in their research, Yüceer and İpekoğlu
(pp. 419–425) determined the architectural characteristics including “environ-
ment and setting, the site, the mass, and the facade order”, and values of historic
building before and after its new additions [9]. Mısırlısoy’s (pp. 207–214) evalua-
tion method, on the other hand, is based on the international guidelines [10].
Similarly, in this research, Mısırlısoy’s (p. 213) evaluation chart has been devel-
oped more, and the five case studies of this research have been evaluated in terms
of the type, approach, and compatibility of their new additions with the interna-
tional conservation charters, standards, and guidelines on new additions to his-
toric buildings that have been outlined in part two of this chapter. In this study,
according to those international guidelines, total 11 subtitles have been deter-
mined as shown in Table 1. Then, the case studies have been assessed whether
their contemporary additions meet or avoid a full level of cohesiveness with the
old building according to those subtitles. In addition to the determination of
evaluation criterion based on the international guidelines, archival and historical
research, as well as field surveys constituted the other research methods. Among
the five case studies, Çengel Khan, Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque, and Kursunlu
Mosque have front additions; Çengel Khan, Çukur Khan, and Zağfiran Khan have
rooftop additions; Çengel Khan and Çukur Khan also have storefront additions;
Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque and Zağfiran Khan have side additions; Çengel Khan
has a rear, and Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque has a basement addition. Although in
Çengel Khan, four different types of new additions—front, rear, rooftop, and
storefront—are observable, in Kursunlu Mosque, only the front addition was
applied (Table 1). In all cases, either the standard or contrasting design
approaches were used, or for the compatible contrasting cases, new and modern
materials such as steel and glass were incorporated. Regarding the cases which
have rear, front, or side additions, the new attachments either maintain the same

14
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

Name and no of case study buildings Case study buildings

Compatible Incompatible

Compatibility of case study buildings

1-Cengel Khan, 2-Cukur Khan, 3-Zağfiran, Khan, 4-Hacı 1 2 3 4 5

Bayram-ı Veli Mosque, and 5-Kursunlu Mosque

Types of exterior additions: front (a), rear (b), side (c), a, b, e, f e, f c, e a, c, d a

basement (d), rooftop (e), and storefront (f)

Approaches in new additions: Contrasting (C), Standard a-(C), e-(C) c-(C) a-(S), a-(C)
(S), Identical (I) b-(C), f-(S) e-(C) c-(S)
e-(C) d-(C)
f-(S)

1-New additions preserve and respect the character and √ √ √ x x

integrity of historic building

2- Reversible new additions √ √ √, x x x

3- New additions can be differentiated form the old to √ √ √ √, x √, x

preserve its character, by taking its design cues from, but
not copy the historic building.

4- New additions can be compatible with the old with √ √ √ √, x x

volume/mass, form, size, scale, color, texture, surface
articulation, and material

5- Placement or location of new additions are carefully √ √ √, x x x

considered

6- New additions are simple and unobtrusive √ √ √, x x x

7- New additions have less impact and are not highly √ √ √, x x x

visible from the public, and subordinate the historic
building in size & design

8- New additions do not include imitations that falsify the √ √ √ x √

public right of way

9- New additions are respectful and in harmony with the √ √ √ √, x x

close neighborhood

10- New addition preserve the historic building’s form/ √ √ √ x x

envelope, significant materials and features

11- Rooftop additions are not much visible, have less √ √ √ — —

impact, and inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding
streets

Table 1.
An evaluation of case studies in terms of their new additions and their compatibility with the international
preservation standards, charters, and guidelines.

height or less than the original building height, and general forms of the additions
are rectangular cubes.
When evaluated according to the subtitles determined in Table 1, in terms of
international standards, new additions in Çengel Khan and Çukur a Khan are the
most compatible cases, and Zağfiran Khan similarly exemplifies a compatible case
with their respectful design approaches both with the old building and with the
neighborhood as well. On the other hand, Kursunlu Mosque and Hacı Bayram-ı Veli
Mosque fulfill only two or three steps among the 11 subtitles, and thus have been
categorized as incompatible cases. Their huge front additions, neither respect to the
massing nor to the scale and proportion of the old building, at the same time

15
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

dominate the historic fabric. In Kursunlu Mosque, the concrete attachment on the
north side is also incompatible in terms of material selection.

4. Contributions of cases to sustainable development and rehabilitation

of the building and the nearby built environment

Expanding damage to historic buildings because of natural changes, disasters,

social, economic, cultural, and even political transformations, as well as the growth
of the functional requirements and user expectations make the rehabilitation of old
buildings in the form of new additions and adaptive reuse critical [35]. Thus, as
Torres (p. 6) states, by reusing existing buildings, it becomes both possible to
preserve the history and natural resources as well, by providing historic, economic,
and sustainable contribution [6]. Kóródy and Vukoszávlyev, also, emphasize the
importance of building rehabilitations in environmental, economic, and social
responsibility, such that with their fewer new additions, and without demolition,
rehabilitation projects both save energy, improve functional use, and “contribute to
the local community’s consciousness” [14]. Similarly, The Declaration of Amster-
dam (1975) states that rehabilitation of old monuments is less costly than new
construction and “social costs” are to be taken into account while deciding which
one to choose [45].” Yüceer (p. 90) explains the economic value as “the potential of
building for the satisfaction of maintenance expenses and for extra income with the
financial gain in its present situation [8].”
When our cases are evaluated in that context, Cengel Khan, Cukur Khan, and
Zağfiran Khan clearly exhibit economic, environmental, and social value with their
new compatible additions and income generating new functions. Adaptation of
those former khan buildings to museums and a boutique hotel with shops, café, and
restaurant facilities increased the financial value of the buildings, and at the same
time, both initiated a fine socio-cultural precinct in this part of Ulus district and
brought new job opportunities back to this once intensively used buildings. Those
cases, with their new use also demonstrate the importance of functional change and
need for modernization for sustainability, as well as reveal the role of heritage
conservation in urban revitalization. Such that they became important meeting and
visiting points in the area attracting both local and international tourists, thus
positively increased the quality of the vicinity and contributed to the economic,
cultural, and social development of the local community.
Among the five case study buildings of this research, Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque
and Kursunlu Mosque still survive their functional continuity, though found
incompatible according to international standards in terms of their new additions.
Cengel Khan, Cukur Khan, and Zağfiran Khan were given a new function in order
to meet the requirements of contemporary conditions with new exterior additions
and interior alterations. In all cases, they positively contribute to the historical
continuity and thus to the sustainability of heritage buildings, and urban fabric
since they are still alive and can be transferred to next generations. Especially the
compatible cases demonstrate that adaptive reuse of historic buildings can make
them sustainable places linking the past with the present, as well as preserving their
historic character. Also, considering the construction waste and cost, adaptation of
historic buildings into new uses or retaining their original uses is also important in
terms of economic and environmental point of view [61]. In all cases of this
research, since they are still used in their original function or with their new
functions by the attachment of new additions, instead of constructing new ones,
construction wastes are reduced, and sustainability is increased. In addition, esca-
lator, elevator, and handicapped lift attachments during their rehabilitations gave

16
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

way to accessibility of physically disabled as part of social responsibility of sustain-

ability. Hence, the cases presented in this research justify the importance of com-
patible new additions and adaptive reuse and at the same time, exemplify their
contributions to sustainable development.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This research aimed to reveal the quality, compatibility, and/or incompatibility

of contemporary new additions and their contributions to sustainability in five case
study historic buildings in Ankara, Ulus district. In those cases, it has been deter-
mined that either standard or contrasting approaches have been used for the new
additions. Compatible case study examples showed that thanks to those new addi-
tions and adaptive reuse treatments, and it became possible to contribute to the
cultural, social, functional, and economic survivability of the historic buildings. But,
it should be noted that since the human needs are consistent and unlimited, it is still
possible that those buildings may be subjected to new additions in time that might
cause to overwhelm the original building. In those circumstances, it should be
strictly avoided to make again new additions to historic buildings. For instance, in
Hacı Bayram-ı Veli Mosque and Kursunlu Mosque, it might have been a better
solution to direct the users of the mosques to nearby ones, which are quite near to
those buildings, during the prayer times, instead of constructing incompatible,
overwhelming new additions. As Yüceer (p. 110) mentions, although refunctioning
of historic buildings with new additions have some economic and functional gains,
may at the same time cause lost “in the cultural, contextual and authentic values” in
old buildings [8]. Hence, though new additions are required for sustainable devel-
opment, the borders of new additions are to be determined thoroughly, and during
their applications, both national and international standards and guidelines are to be
obeyed strictly. Yet, when the local guidelines are examined, it is understood that,
in terms of new additions, they are formulated at a general level, without direct
information on types, possible approaches, and conditions of new additions, instead
emphasizing that at specific situations, Conservation Boards are authorized and
shall make a decision. In this research, especially the incompatible cases showed
that, during the applications of new additions, international standards were not
followed.
As future suggestions, this research can be a starting point for the evaluation of
other historic buildings in Turkey with new additions, and it might give an insight
for the new additions planned to be built to existing built heritage in the near future.
It is also suggested to develop general local guidelines and standards on the issue, as
the future suggestion. It is thought that increase in fieldworks by examining much
more examples with new additions to historic buildings will contribute both to
development of the local general guidelines and evaluation of their contributions to
sustainability.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Turkish Republic Directorate General of Foun-
dations (DGF) for the provision of files on case study buildings.

17
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Author details

Gulsen Disli
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Necmettin
Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

18
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

References

[1] Brown Morton W, Hume GL, Weeks New York: Columbia University; 2018,
KD, Jandl WH. Secretary of the here pp. 27-30, 38, 40, 42
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,
and Illustrated Guidelines for [8] Yüceer H. An evaluation of
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. interventions in architectural
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of conservation: new exterior additions to
the Interior National Park Service historic buildings [thesis]. Izmir: Izmir
Heritage Preservation Services; 1997. Institute of Technology; 2005, here
135 p, here pp. 42-46, 90-93 pp. 89-90, 110

[2] Baghasingh K. Sensitive Additions to [9] Yüceer H, İpekoğlu B. An

Historic Buildings: A Primer [Internet]. architectural assessment method for
2015. Available from: https://www.he new exterior additions to historic
ritageohio.org/2015/05/18/ sensitive- buildings. Journal of Cultural Heritage.
additions-to-historic-buildings-a- 2012;13:419-425
primer. [Accessed: 2018-10-22]
[10] Mısırlısoy D. New designs in
[3] Grimmer AE, Weeks KD. New historic context: Starchitecture vs
exterior additions to historic buildings: architectural conservation principles.
Preservation concerns. Preservation Civil Engineering and Architecture.
Briefs. 2010;14:1-16 2017;5(6):207-214

[11] Cramer J, Breitling S. Architecture

[4] U.S. The Secretary of the Interior's
in Existing Fabric: Planning Design
Standards for Rehabilitation and
Building. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Verlag AG; 2007. 221 p. ISBN-13:
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
978-3038210955
Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Preservation Assistance
[12] Thiebaut P. Old Buildings Looking
Division; 1990. 55 p
for New Use: 64 Examples from Europe.
Kustantaja: National Book Network;
[5] Demel S. Preservation, historic 2007. 276 p. ISBN-13: 978-3936681086
significance and a theory of
architectural additions: The canon and [13] Artola I, Rademaekers K, Williams
its consequences [thesis]. New York: R, Yearwood J. Boosting Building
Columbia University; 1996 Renovation: What potential and value
for Europe? Brussels: European Union;
[6] Guzmán Torres ZN. Historic 2016. 72 p. Available from: http://www.
buildings and contemporary additions: europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/
the elements of a cohesive design STUD/2016/ 587326/IPOL_STU(2016)
relationship [thesis]. College Park, 587326_EN.pdf [Accessed: 2018-10-15]
Maryland: University of Maryland;
2009, here pp. pp. 6, 12-14, 20-21 [14] Kóródy A, Vukoszávlyev Z. Aspects
of social sustainability in cases of
[7] White AM. Defining building rehabilitations in Central
appropriateness: An analysis of the Europe. Építés – Építészettudomány.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards on 2014;42(3–4):287-333
additions to historic structures and its
impact on the practice of architecture, [15] TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara
development and preservation [thesis]. Şubesi. Ankara Tarihi Kent Merkezi-1,

19
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Ulus Paneli. Ankara: Matsa Yayıncılık; [26] Öney G. Ankara’da Türk Devri
2007. 139 p. ISBN: 978–9944893688 Yapıları. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi
Basımevi; 1971. 390 p., here pp. 59, 66,
[16] Alpan A. Approaching the stratified 67, 139, 141
city of Ankara as an integral unity.
Idealkent Journal. 2016;19(7):662-671 [27] Öz N, editor. Ankara’nın Türk-İslam
Dönemi Paneli. 14 October 2006.
[17] Galanti A. Ankara Tarihi I-II. Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası
Ankara: Çağlay Yayınları; 2005. 303 p. Ankara Şubesi; 2008. 138 p. ISBN:
ISBN: 975-9899450 9759944896030

[18] Taş H. Ankara’nın Bütüncül [28] Erdoğan A, Günel G, Kılcı A.

Tarihine Katkı, XVII. Yüzyılda Ankara. Osmanlı’da Ankara. Ankara: Ankara
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları; Büyükşehir Belediyesi; 2007. 320 p.
2006. 281 p. ISBN: 975-1618711 ISBN: 9799944473065, here pp. 119-122,
168
[19] Koltuk T, Güneş M, Pakırdağ N. In:
Alikılıç D, editor. Osmanlı Belgelerinde [29] Günel G, Kılcı A. 1924 map of
Ankara, Belediye ve İmar Faaliyetleri. Ankara city: Recognizing Ankara with
İstanbul: Seçil Ofset; 2016. 451 p. ISBN: an old map. Journal of Ankara Studies.
9786059347112 2015;3(1):78-104

[20] Güneş M, Koltuk N, Koltuk T, [30] Aksoy Z, Varol Ç. Spatial

Pakırdağ N. In: Alikılıç D, editor. transformation processes of immovable
Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ankara, Tarım ve pious foundation properties from the
Ticaret. İstanbul: Seçil Ofset; 2016. 455 early republic to today: Ankara case.
p. ISBN: 978-6059347150 Vakıflar Dergisi. 2015;44:105-129

[21] Kırpık G, Erdoğan A, Akyol H, Kılcı [31] Erder E. Sustainable conservation

A, Çam M. Şehr-i Kadim Ankara-I. issues of four 14th and 15th century
Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi mosques in Ankara: Ahi Elvan mosque,
Yayınları; 2015 344 p. ISBN: Örtmeli, Sabunî and Poyraji Mesjids.
9786054067930 METU Journal of Faculty of
Architecture. 2010;27(1):45-66
[22] Aydın S, Emiroğlu K, Türkoğlu Ö,
Özsoy ED. Küçük Asya’nın Bin Yüzü. [32] Kurtar C, Somuncu M. Conservation
Ankara: Dost Yayınları; 2005. 720 p. and sustainability of urban cultural
ISBN: 9752981739 heritage: Ankara Hamamönü example.
Journal of Ankara Studies. 2013;1(2):
[23] Irklı-Eryıldız D, editor. Cumhuriyet 35-47
Döneminde Mimari. Ankara: TMMOB
Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi [33] Osmançavusoglu A. Urban
Yayınları; 1999 transformation process: Ulus historical
city center planning project [thesis].
[24] Kırpık G, Erdoğan A, Çam M, Kılcı Ankara: Middle East Technical
A, Topraklı AY. Şehr-i Kadim Ankara- University; 2006
III. Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi Yayınları; 2015. 494 p. ISBN: [34] Tanac-Zeren M. Tarihi Çevrede
9786054067954 Yeni Ek ve Yeni Yapı Olgusu, Çağdaş
Yaklaşım Örnekleri. İstanbul: Yalın
[25] Konyalı İH. Ankara Camileri. Yayıncılık; 2010. 94 p. ISBN
Ankara: VGM; 1978. 117 p 9944313773, here pp. 29, 31-33, 37-38

20
New Additions to Existing Built Heritage and Their Contributions to Sustainable…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82734

[35] Al-Jameel AH, Saffo BH. Patterns of Washington, D.C.: United States,
additions to old buildings. In: The National Park Service; 1995. 196 p.
Second International Conference on ISBN-13: 978-0160480614
Conservation of Architecture, Urban
Areas, Nature & Landscape: Towards [43] International Charter for the
a Sustainable Survival of Cultural Conservation and Restoration of
Landscape- Heritage 2011; March 2011; Monuments and Sites (The Venice
Amman, Jordan. 2011. pp. 1-16 Charter 1964) [Internet]. 1964.
Available from: https://www.icomos.
[36] Technical Preservation Services, org/charters/venice_e.pdf [Accessed:
Planning Successful Rehabilitation 2018-10-21]
Projects, New Additions to Historic
Buildings [Internet]. Available from: [44] Third General Assembly of
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/ ICOMOS Budapest, Resolutions of the
applying-rehabilitation/successful- Symposium on the Introduction of
rehab/additions.htm [Accessed: Contemporary Architecture into
2018-10-17] Ancient Groups of Buildings [Internet].
1972. Available from: https://www.
[37] City of New Orleans HDLC – icomos.org/publications/93towns7e.pdf
Guidelines for New Construction, [Accessed: 2018-10-19]
Additions and Demolition [Internet].
2011. Available from: https://www.nola. [45] The Declaration of Amsterdam –
gov/nola/media/HDLC/Guidelines/ 1975 Congress On The European
12-New-Construction-Additions- Architectural Heritage [Internet]. 1975.
Demolition.pdf [Accessed: 2018-10-15] Available from: http://www.icomos.org.
tr/ Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_
[38] Semes SW. “Differentiated” and 0899129001496825552.pdf [Accessed:
“compatible”: Four strategies for 2018-10-16]
additions to historic settings. Forum
Journal & Forum Focus. 2007;21(4). [46] Jandl HW. Rehabilitating interiors
https://forum.savingplaces.org/ in historic buildings identifying and
viewdocument/differentiated-and- preserving character defining elements.
compatible Preservation Briefs. 1988;18:1-8

[39] Photo Archives of the Author, 2005, [47] ICOMOS Charter- Principles for the
2016, 2018 Analysis, Conservation and Structural
Restoration of Architectural Heritage,
[40] Dinkeloo R. The Jewish Museum 14th General Assembly in Victoria Falls,
[Internet]. Available from: http://www. Zimbabwe [Internet]. 2003. Available
krjda.com/Sites/JewishMuseumInfo1. from: https://www.icomos.org/charters/
html [Accessed: 2018-10-18] structures_e.pdf [Accessed: 2018-11-01]

[41] Jandl HW. Rehabilitating historic [48] UNESCO Fifteenth General

storefronts. Preservation Briefs. 1982;11: Assembly of States Parties to the
1-11 Convention Concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural
[42] Weeks KD, Grimmer AE. The Heritage, Paris, 2005, [Internet]. 2005.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Available from: whc.unesco.org/
the Treatment of Historic Properties document/6814 [Accessed: 2018-10-20]
with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating Restoring & [49] ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for
Reconstructing Historic Buildings. the Conservation of Places of Cultural

21
Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation within Sustainability

Heritage Value [Internet]. 2010. Bayram-ı Veli Mosque, and Kurşunlu

Available from: https://www.icomos. Mosque
org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/
ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010_FINAL_ [57] Rahmi M. Koç Museum Brochure.
11_Oct_2010.pdf [Accessed: 2018- Ankara; 2018
10-19]
[58] Eskici B. Ankara Hacı Bayram
[50] The Burra Charter, the Australia Camisi onarımlaru üzerine. Turkish
ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Studies - International Periodical For
Significance [Internet]. 2013. Available The Languages, Literature and History
from: https://australia.icomos.org/wp- of Turkish or Turkic. 2014;9(10):
content/uploads/ The-Burra-Charter- 557-576
2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf
[Accessed: 2018-10-17] [59] Erken S. Türkiye’de Vakıf Abideler
ve Eski Eserler I-IV. 2nd ed. Vol. I.
[51] Kültür ve Tabiat Varliklarini Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü
Koruma Yüksek Kurulunun Vakiflar Yayınları; 1983. 768 p., here pp. 364,
Genel Müdürlüğü İdare Ve Denetiminde 417-418
Olan Cami, Mescit, Türbe vb. Kültür
Varliklarini Müdahale Biçimleri [60] Ayverdi EH. Çelebi ve II. Sultan
Uygulama Ve Denetimi İle İlgili İlke Murad Devri, 806–855 (1403–1451).
Karari [Internet]. 2007. Available from: İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti
http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/yazdir? Yayınları; 1972. 606 p., here p. 235
549C 7059D7FF142A3CF3B98AB092CB66
[Accessed: 2018-11-01] [61] Stewart E, Howells T, editors. New
Uses for Heritage Places, Guidelines for
[52] İlke Kararı- Karar No: 660 / Karar the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and
Tarihi: 05.11.1999 [Internet]. 1999. Sites. New South Wales: NSW
Available from: http://www.kulturva Department of Planning; 2008. 52 p.
rliklari.gov.tr/TR-44311/ilke-karari– ISBN 1 921121 130
karar-no-660–karar-tarihi-05111999.
html [Accessed: 2018-11-02]

[53] İlke Kararı- Karar No: 720 / Karar

Tarihi: 04.10.2006 [Internet]. 2006.
Available from: http://www.kulturva
rliklari.gov.tr/TR-44332/ilke-karari–
karar-no-720–karar-tarihi-04102006.
html [Accessed: 2018-10-12]

[54] Ankaramızı Tanıyalım [Internet].

2018. Available from: https://alivedato
ygur.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/rahmi-
m-koc-muzesi/[Accessed: 2018-10-18]

[55] Ergenç Ö. XVI. yüzyılda Ankara ve

Konya. 1st ed. Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü
Vakfı; 1995. 247 p., here pp. 18-19, 24

[56] Archives of Directorate General of

Foundations, file on Çengel Khan,
Çukur Khan, Zağfiran Khan, Hacı

22