Cultural Perception Performance Assessment of Adaptively Reused Heritage Buildings: Kilis Eski Hamam Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.200Keywords:
adaptive reuse, heritage buildings, cultural heritage, post-occupancy evaluation, building assessmentAbstract
Adaptive reuse of the built heritage can often result in damage to heritage values both during the adaptation and reuse processes -in many cases it can bear on building performance and user satisfaction. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a well-known method of assessing building performance, and previous studies demonstrated the practicality of employing POE in reused heritage building assessment. Yet, POE’s contribution to heritage conservation has not been comprehensively explored. This paper presents the findings of an indicative POE of a hammam building adapted into a restaurant as a case study.
The case study building was evaluated through a series of walk-throughs, photographs, documentation, and a user survey. The POE has pointed to damage and authenticity loss in the building by reuse based on established conservation principles concerning intangible heritage values and cultural perception, resulting in a series of recommendations to prevent future deterioration and improve the performance of the building. A key observation is that data from the user survey do not coincide with the findings based on internationally acknowledged principles of conservation practice, which indicates that heritage awareness still has not been gained by the wider society. Hence, this study concludes that more research is required to examine the use of POEs in addressing heritage conservation issues and suggests a greater understanding of the role of POE surveys for a more valuable insight into user feedback. It also provides designers and decision-makers with matters to be taken in account regarding the preservation of authenticity when executing an adaptive reuse project for a heritage building.
Metrics
References
Ahunbay, Z. (2019). Kültür Mirasını Koruma İlke ve Teknikleri. Yem Yayın.
Altan, İ. (2015). Mimarlıkta Mekân Kavramı. Ofis 2005 Yayınevi.
Altınoluk, Ü. (1998). Binaların Yeniden Kullanımı. Yem Yayın.
Architects’ Council of Europe Leeuwarden Declaration: Adaptive Re-Use of the Built Heritage: Preserving and Enhancing the Values of Our Built Heritage for Future Generations. Available online: https://www.ace-cae.eu/uploads/tx_jidocumentsview/ LEEUWARDEN_STATEMENT_FINAL_EN-NEW.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2022).
Bacon, K. (2001). The adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. [Master’s Thesis, University of Calgary]. http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/19336
Bebekoğlu, S. (2005). Drawings of Eski Hamam Restoration Project.
Bullen, P. and Love, P. (2011). Adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. Structural Survey, Vol. 29, No. 5, 411-421.
De Medici S, De Toro P, Nocca F. (2020). Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Impact Assessment of Two Adaptive Reuse Projects in Siracusa, Sicily. Sustainability, 12(1):311.
Deuble, M. P., de Dear, R. J. (2014). Is it hot in here or is it just me? Validating the post occupancy evaluation. Intelligent Buildings International, 6:2, 112-134, DOI: 10.1080/17508975.2014.883299
Dogan, H.A. (2019). Assessment of the perception of cultural heritage as an adaptive re-use and sustainable development strategy: Case study of Kaunas, Lithuania. Journal of Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No: 3, 430-443.
English Heritage (2008). Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage.
Günçe, K., Mısırlısoy, D. (2019). Assessment of Adaptive Reuse Practices Through User Experiences: Traditional Houses in the Walled City of Nicosia. Sustainability, 11, no 2: 540.
Hadjri, K., Crozier, C. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27, 21–33.
Hasol, D. (2016). Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sözlüğü. Yem Yayın.
Hassanain, M.A., Mathar, H. and Aker, A., (2016). Post-occupancy evaluation of a university student cafeteria. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(1), 67–77.
Hassanain, M. A., Sedky, A., Adamu, Z. A., and Saif, A. W. (2010). A framework for quality evaluation of university housing facilities. Journal of Building Appraisal, 5(3), 213–221.
ICOMOS (2008), “Quebec declaration of the preservation of the spirit of place”, 16th General Assembly of ICOMOS, Quebec, available at: https://www.icomos.org/quebec2008.
Jokilehto, J. (2008), “Aesthetics in the world heritage context”, in Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation, Polistampa, pp. 1000-1010.
Labadi, S. (2010). “World Heritage, Authenticity and Post-Authenticity.” In Heritage and Globalisation, edited by S. Labadi and C. Long, 66–84. Oxford: Routledge
Langston, C., Shen, L. (2007). Application of the adaptive reuse potential model in Hong Kong: A case study of Lui Seng Chun. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 11:4, 193-207, DOI: 10.1080/1648715X.2007.9637569
Madran, E. (2006). Modern Mimarlık Ürünlerinin Belgelenmesi ve Korunması Süreci için Bazı Notlar. Mimarlık, 332, 20-22.
Mazlum, D. (2014). Koruma Kuramının Mimari Rekonstrüksiyona Bakışı. Mimarlık. 380, 72-77.
Meir I.A., Garb Y., Cicelsky A. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: an inevitable step towards sustainability. Advances In Building Energy Research, Volume 3, 189–220.
Mezzino, D. (2017). Cultural Built Heritage’s Tangible and Intangible Dimensions and Digitalization Challenges. [Doctoral Dissertation, Carleton University]. https://doi.org/10.22215/ETD/2017-12183
Mısırlısoy, G. (2017). New Designs in Historic Context: Starchitecture vs Architectural Conservation Principles. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(6), 207-214.
Mundo-Hernández, J., Valerdi-Nochebuena, M.C., Sosa-Oliver, J. (2015). Post-occupancy Evaluation of a Restored Industrial Building: A Contemporary Art and Design Gallery in Mexico. Frontiers of Architectural Research, Volume 4, Issue 4, 330-340.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Orbaşlı, A. (2017). Conservation Theory in the Twenty-First Century: Slow Evolution or a Paradigm Shift? Journal of Architectural Conservation, 23 (3), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2017.1368187
Pintossi, N., Ikiz Kaya, D., & Pereira Roders, A. (2021). Assessing Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Practices: Multi-Scale Challenges and Solutions in Rijeka. Sustainability, 13(7), 3603. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073603.
Plevoets, B. (2014). Retail-reuse: an interior view on adaptive reuse of buildings. [Doctoral Dissertation, Hasselt University].
Plevoets, B., & Sowińska-Heim, J. (2018). Community initiatives as a catalyst for regeneration of heritage sites: Vernacular transformation and its influence on the formal adaptive reuse practice. Cities, 78, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2018.02.007
Plevoets, B. & Cleempoel, K. (2012, March 28-29). Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy towards Conservation of Cultural Heritage: A Survey of 19th and 20th Century Theories. 1-6. RIE International Conference, Ravensbourne.
Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2019). Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage: Concepts and Cases of an Emerging Discipline. Routledge.
Preiser, W.F.E. (2001). Feedback, feedforward and control: post-occupancy evaluation to the rescue. Building Research & Information, 29:6, 456-459.
Preiser, W.F.E., Nasar, J. (2008). Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution from Post-occupancy Evaluation. International Journal of Architecture Research, Volume 2, Issue 1, 84-99.
RIBA. (1991), A research report for the architectural profession. In Duffy, F.W. (Ed.), Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, E. & F.N. Spon, London.
Rushton, H., Silcock, D., Rogers, J., Schnabel M.A. (2018, June 13-15). The Tangible and Intangible: Interpreting Modern Architectural Heritage in Virtual Realities. [Paper presentation]. Tangible - Intangible Heritage(s) Design, Social and Cultural Critiques On The Past, Present And The Future, London.
Sanni-Anibire, M.O., Hassanain, M., & Al-Hammad, A. (2016). Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Housing Facilities: Overview and Summary of Methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000868
Shipley, R., Utz, S. and Parsons, M. (2006). Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of building renovation in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 12 No. 6, 505-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250600940181
Smith, R. D. (1988). Reversibility: A Questionable Philosophy. Restaurator, Vol. 9, no. 4, 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1515/rest.1988.9.4.199
Stone, S. (2019). UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory. Routledge.
Taçon, P.S., Baker, S.J.H. (2019). New and emerging challenges to heritage and well-being. Critical Review, 2(2), 1300-1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2020084
Taha, S. (2013). Attachment to Abandoned Heritage: The Case of Suakin, Sudan, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 48:4, 550-551, https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.827851
Tekin, H. (2002). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Yargı Yayıncılık, Ankara.
The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.
The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, Adopted by the IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964.
The UNESCO World Heritage, G. (2019). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Paris, available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines
Velthuis, K. & Spennemann D. H. R. (2007). The Future of Defunct Religious Buildings: Dutch Approaches to Their Adaptive Re-use. Cultural Trends, 16:1, 43-66, https://doi.org/10.1080/09548960601106979
Viñas, S.M. (2002). Contemporary theory of conservation. Studies in Conservation, 47:sup1, 25-34, https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.2002.47.Supplement-1.25
Vischer, J. (2001). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaceted Tool for Building Improvement, In Stanley, L. (Ed.), Learning from our Buildings: A State-of-the practice Summary of Post-occupancy Evaluation, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 23-34.
Yaldız, E., Asatekin N.G. (2016). Anıtsal Yapıların Yeniden Kullanımında Kullanıcılar Üzerinden Kültürel Algı Performansı Değerlendirmeleri; Sivas Buruciye Medresesi Örneği. Megaron, Vol. 11, 3, 333-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2016.66487
Yazdani Mehr, S., Wilkinson, S. (2020). The importance of place and authenticity in adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 38 No. 5, 689-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-01-2020-0005
Yung, E., Chan E.H.W. (2013). Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings: Differences between the laymen, professionals and policy makers. Facilities, Vol. 31 Issue 11/12, 542-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2012-0023
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 