A Comparative Analysis of Health and Hygiene in Modern Apartment Interiors in Turkey
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52200/docomomo.73.05Keywords:
modern apartment interiors, wet space, health, hygiene, Emlak Bank, housing in TurkeyAbstract
While the modernist discourses of the 20th century pretended to solve all the problems of daily life through the acts of standardization, unification, and scientific progress, the modernist practice incorporates its advancements and conflicts within the same built environment. One such discourse is on domestic health and hygiene, which proposes to integrate various functions of bathing, cleaning, washing, and defecation within the so-called volume ‘wet space’, equipped with modern utilities. It is questionable how healthy and hygienic such a spatial model is compared to traditional domestic life, in which most of these functions have been segregated and/or performed according to cultural norms. This neglected problem has become evident with long-term lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in apartment blocks where all inhabitants have to share a single wet space throughout the day. This paper questions whether the modernist discourses of health and hygiene function properly in modern domestic architecture and how the conflicts of wet space can be read. Accordingly, we concentrate on selected apartments in Turkey that were built between 1950 and 1970 and are still in use today: Ataköy Housing Estate, Phase I-II, and Yeşiltepe Blocks, developed and built by the Emlak Kredi Bank. Through scholars’ and architects’ discourses and practices on domestic hygiene derived from articles and architectural drawings in national archives, the paper provides a comparative analysis of wet spaces in these apartments in terms of their location within the spatial layout, the utilities and materials applied, as well as their privacy level. The analysis shows that the limitations of the wet space in these modern apartment interiors reveal the possible risks to domestic health and hygiene, particularly in times of pandemic.
How to Cite
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Selim Sertel Öztürk, Burkay Pasin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Plaudit
References
Ataköy Sitesi [Ataköy Housing Development (1958)]. Arkitekt, 291, 61-66.
Atatürk Research Center (2006). Atatürk’ün söylev ve demeçleri I-III [Ataturk’s speeches and statements I-III. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. [Atatürk Supreme Council for Culture, Language, and History - Atatürk Research Center].
BATUR, A. (2005). A Concise history: architecture in Turkey during the 20th century. Ankara: Chamber of Architects of Turkey Publishing.
BAYDAR, G. (2002). Tenuous boundaries: women, domesticity, and nationhood in 1930s Turkey. The Journal of Architecture, 7, 229- 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360210155429.
BAYSAL, H., & Birsel, M. (1959). Birkan apartmanları [Birkan Apartments]. Arkitekt, 294, 5-10.
BEDİZ, R., & Kamçıl, D. (1969). Yeşiltepe kooperatifi blokları [Yeşiltepe Housing Blocks]. Arkitekt, 333, 5-7.
BOZDOĞAN, S. (2002). Modernizm ve ulusun inşası: erken cumhuriyet Türkiyesi’nde mimari kültür [Modernism and nation bulding: Turkish architecture in the early republic]. İstanbul: Metis Publishing.
BOZDOĞAN, S., & Akcan, E. (2012). Turkey: modern architectures in history. Reaktion Books.
CENGİZKAN, A. (2000). Discursive formations in Turkish residential architecture (1948- 1962). (Publication No. 93269) [Doctoral dissertation, METU]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center, Turkey.
CENGİZKAN, A. (2002). Modernin saati [The hour of the modern]. Ankara: Mimarlar Derneği 1927, Boyut.
Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archive. (1937). An advertisement for a gas water heater. https://www.gastearsivi.com/gazete/cumhuriyet/1937-01-12/11
EMRE, N. (1937). Karantinada bir villa [A villa in the quarantine]. Arkitekt, 76, 100-102.
GAYATRİ, M., & Puspitasari, M. D. (2022). The Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on family well-being: A literature review. The Family Journal, 31(4), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221131006
GÜVENÇ, M. & Işık, O. (2021). Emlak bankası (1926- 1998) [The Emlak Bank (1926- 1998)]. Tarih Vakfı
GÜREL, M. Ö. (2012). Domestic arrangements: The maid’s room in the Ataköy apartment blocks, Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Architectural Education, 66(1), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2012.721313
GÜREL, M. Ö. (2008). Bathroom as a modern space. The Journal of Architecture, 13(3), 215- 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360802214943
HANNA, H. A. F. (2023). Towards domestic space design in the post-COVID-19 era: A review of relevant literature. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 73, 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.04.067
HEYNEN, H. (2005). Modernity and domesticity: tensions and contradictions. In H. Heynen and G. Baydar (Eds.), Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture (pp. 1-29). Routledge.
KILINÇ, K. (2012). Imported but not delivered: the construction of modern domesticity and the spatial politics of mass housing in 1930’s Ankara. The Journal of Architecture, 17(6), 819-846. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.746015
LAERMANS, R., & Meulders, C. (1999). The Domestication of laundering. In I. Cieraad (Ed.), At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space (pp. 118–129). Syracuse University Press.
LE CORBUSIER (1943). La Charte d’Athénes [Charter of Athens]. Paris: La Libraririe Plon.
MENTEŞE, E. (1958). Ataköy sitesi hakkında rapor [Report on Ataköy site]. Arkitekt, 291, 79.
MUMFORD, E. (2000). The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960. The MIT Press.
PETERS, T., & Halleran, A. (2021). How our homes impact our health: using a COVID-19 informed approach to examine urban apartment housing, Archnet-IJAR 15(1), 10-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-08-2020-0159
SAYAR, Z. (1958). İmar vekaletinden beklediklerimiz [Our expectations from the ministry of urban planning]. Arkitekt, 290, 4.
TEKELİ, İ. (2012). Turkey’de yaşamda ve yazında konutun öyküsü, 1923-1980 [The story of housing in life and literature in Turkey, 1923-1980]. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
TULUK, Ö. İ. (2010). Erken 20. yüzyıl Çorum evlerinde banyo teknolojisi [Bathroom technology in early 20th century Çorum houses]. METU Journal of Architecture, 27(2), 61-82.
WHO Coronavirus Dashboard. (2023, October). Number of COVID-19 cases reported to WHO. WHO Health Emergencies Programme. https://covid19.who.int/
YAMAN, G. Ö., Erturan, E. M., & Yıldırım A. A. (2021). Changes in apartment and site-type houses during the COVID-19 pandemic. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning 9(2), pp.584–610. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.173
YILDIZ, Y. (2008). Retrofitting existing mass housing for energy efficiency: a case study in Gaziemir Emlak Bank housing area, Izmir, Turkey (Publication No. 232870) [Graduate thesis, İzmir Institute of Technology]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center, Turkey.
YÜCEL, A. (1984). Pluralism takes command: The Turkish architecture scene today. In R. Holod, A. Evin, & S. Özkan (Eds.), Modern Turkish Architecture (pp. 122-152). University of Pennsylvania Press.
