Housing is not merely a physical structure but a vivid representation of cultural codes, social reproduction, and political landscapes. In the evolving context of Istanbul, the concept of housing continually transforms and is redefined, influenced by shifting cultural dynamics, social structures, individualism, technological advancements, and authoritative governance. This research aims to critically analyze the evolution of apartment layouts in Istanbul from 1980 to 2020. It explores these changes through the lens of spatial syntax, delving into the nuances of spatial perception and recognition. Over the past four decades, Istanbul has witnessed profound urban and cultural metamorphoses. This period of change, marked by escalating population density, economic growth, infrastructural advancements, and urban redevelopment, makes a chronological examination of housing developments in the city particularly compelling. The study focuses on the domestic spaces within low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings, scrutinizing the evolving patterns of daily activities. It investigates the transformation of domestic spaces as a manifestation of the interplay between co-existence, privacy, and social structure, framed within the contexts of cultural identity, political influences, and authority. To conduct this analysis, 20 apartment housing projects in Istanbul were selected, based on the published works of architects. This selection aims to provide a focused analysis of domestic space plans at a specific level of architectural distinction. The neighborhoods where these projects are located predominantly fall within the mid to mid-upper socioeconomic stratum. The research employs a visual-graph analysis of spatial syntax to dissect and understand spatial recognition in the design of these apartment housing plans. This methodology allows for a nuanced exploration of the relationship between domestic spaces, both syntactically and semantically. Simultaneously, it examines how the evolving significance of homes, under the impact of political and economic factors, manifests in the symbolic expression of dwelling. In conclusion, the study observes that the domestic spaces of the 1980-2020 period, specifically the sub-zones of living, cooking, and sleeping, demonstrate a tendency to shift in their positioning and hierarchy within diverse architectural configurations.

Keywords - housing, space syntax, spatial configuration, domestic spaces, social structure, syntax 2D

[1] Hillier, B. ve Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[2] Ozaki, R. (2005). Comparing the properties of different space syntax techniques for analysing inter-house design as a representation of values and lifestyles: the meaning of use of domestic space. In R. García Mira, D. Uzzell, J. E. Real, & J. Romey (Eds.), Housing space and quality of life. Ashgate Publishing.

[3] Coolen, H. & Ozaki, R. (2004). Culture, Lifestyle and the Meaning of a Dwelling. in: Adequate and Affordable Housing for All. Research, Policy, Practice, June 24–27, Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto

[4] Talu, N (2018). Bir Arzu Nesnesi Olarak Ev. Arzu Mimarlığı- Mimarlığı Düşünmek ve Düşlemek içerisinden. Derleyenler: Nur Altıntıldız Artun, Roysi Ojalvo. İstanbul: İletişim.

[5] Psarra, S. (2009). Architecture and Narrative: The formation of space and cultural meaning. Routledge.

[6] Lefebvre, H. (2001). The Production of Space, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

[7] Coccacia, E. (2023). Metamorfozlar. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları.

[8] Ross C. Brownson, PhD, Christine M. Hoehner, PhD, MSPH, Kristen Day, PhD, Ann Forsyth, PhD,James F. Sallis, PhD, Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity State of the Science, American Journal of Preventive Medicine,36(2009),p.p.99-123.

[9] Lawrence, R. (2012). People–Environment Studies. In D. F. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Housing Studies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[10] Kıray, M. (1979). Apartmanlaşma ve Modern Orta Tabakalar. Çevre, 4, 78.

[11] Eyice, S. (2002). İstanbul’un imar planı raporları. İstanbul Dergisi, 43, 20-24.

[12] Şalgamcıoğlu, M. E. (2013). İstanbul’da Çoklu Konut Gelişiminin Semantik ve Sentaktik Olarak İrdelenmesi: 1930-1980 Dönemi.

[13] Doğusan, G. N., "Türk Orta Sınıfların Kurgusunda Konut Kooperatiflerinin Rolü", Osmanlı Başkentinden Küreselleşen İstanbul’a: Mimarlık ve Kent 1910- 2010, editör: İpek Ya da Akpınar, Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 96-101, İstanbul, 2010.

[14] Yenel, S. (2012). Konut Yerleşmelerinde Değişimin İrdelenmesi: İstanbul.

[15] Tekeli, İ. (1979). Mekan organizasyonlarına makro yaklaşım: Türkiye üzerinde bir deneme. Ankara: ODTÜ.

[16] Tekeli, İ. (2009). Modernizm, modernite ve Türkiye'nin kent planlama tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.

[17] Bozdoğan, S., & Akcan, E. (2012). Modern Architectures in History: Turkey. London: Reaktion Books.

[18] Erman, T. (2004). Gecekondu Çalışmalarında “Öteki” Olarak Gecekondulu Kurguları. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Erişim Tarihi: 15 Mayıs 2024, erişim adresi ejts.revues.org/index85.html

[19] M., 1979. Türkiye’de Apartman Olgusunun Gelişimi: İstanbul Örneği. Çevre Mimarlık ve Görsel Sanatlar Dergisi, Sayı 4, Temmuz-Ağustos.İstanbul

[20] Işık, O., Pınarcıoğlu, M.M., Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk- Gecekondulaşma ve Kent Yoksulları: Sultanbeyli Örneği, İletişim Yayınlar, İstanbul, 2001.

[21] Özüekren, Ş. A., 1996. “Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme”, Kooperatifler ve Konut Üretimi, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. İstanbul.

[22] Koç, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de Aile Yapısının Değişimi Sürecinde Tek Ebeveynli Ailelerin Oluşumu, Belirleyicileri ve Refah Durumu (2006-2016). Y. Esen ve C. Nuhrat (Ed.). Türkiye Aile Yapısı İleri İstatistik Analizi içinde (s. 33-85). Ankara: Aile, Çalışma ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı.

[23] Topal, M. (2020). Modernleşme Bağlamında Türkiye’de Ailenin Dönüşümü.

[24] Yıldırım, E. (2013). Türk Ailesinin Tarihsel Gelişimi, Aile Sosyolojisi.

[25] Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J., Hudson, J., Burdett, R. (1983). Space syntax: a different urban perspective. The architects journal. 178 (48), 47-63.

[26] Franz G., Wiener, J. M. (2008). From space syntax to space semantics: a behaviorally and perceptually oriented methodology for the efficient
description of the geometry and topology of environments. Environment and planning b: planning and design, 35, 574-592.

[27] Benedikt, M. (1979). To take the hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and planning b: planning and design, 6, 47‐65.

[28] Kıray, M. (1979). Apartmanlaşma ve Modern Orta Tabakalar. Çevre, 4, 78.