Rooftop as a reciprocal transformation per diem

Abstract

This article focuses on rooftop architecture as an interface and confrontation between the inhabitants and the contemporary city of Ä°stanbul. The utilitised rooftop is suggested as an alternative habitable space in high-density urban environments and wherever there is a shortage of housing. The visibility on the rooftop displays signs of the effects of the limit to growth, such as economic factors, and is affected by the environment, and the utilisation of space depends on the needs of the inhabitants. In today's conditions, living in rooftop goes beyond the necessity actions such as dominating the landscape, looking, seeing and being seen, and bringing concepts such as social justice and chaos in the city.

References

Melet E., Vreedenburgh E. Rooftop Architecture: Building on an Elevated Surface. 2005, Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, p. 7.

Feng J., Zhenning F., Petermann S., Koolhaas R., Amo, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Boom I. Roof. 2014, p. 404. Italy: Marsilio, Venice Architecture Biennale, Ele-ments of Architecture, 14. International Architecture Exhibition.

Melet E., Vreedenburgh, E. Rooftop Architecture: Building on an Elevated Surface. 2005, Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, p. 8.

Haus-Rucker-Co, viewed 24.06.2019, http://www.spatialagency.net/database/haus-rucker-co.

Melet E., Vreedenburgh, E. Rooftop Architecture: Building on an Elevated Surface. 2005, Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, p. 10.

Others are pilotis, the free plan; the horizontal window; and the free façade. Colquhoun A. 2002. Modern Architecture, Oxford History of Art. 2002, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 148, 150.

Roth L. M., Roth Clark, A. C. Understanding Architecture, Its Elements, History, and Meaning. 2014, New York, London: Routledge, p. 581.

Roth L. M., Roth Clark, A. C. Understanding Architecture, Its Elements, History, and Meaning. 2014, New York, London: Routledge, p. 116.

Melet E., Vreedenburgh, E. Rooftop Architecture: Building on an Elevated Surface. 2005, Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, p. 9.

Pomeroy J. Room at the Top-The Roof as an Alternative Habitable/Social Space in the Singapore Context. Journal of Urban Design, 2012, 17, 3: 413-424. doi:10.1080/13574809.2012.666176.

Medio S. The Unresolved Rooftop. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architec-tural Research, 2012, 6, 2, p. 118: 115-131. doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v6i2.87.

Silverstein M. The First Roof: Interpreting a Spatial pattern. In: Seamon D., (ed.). Dwell-ing, seeing, and designing: toward a phenomenological ecology. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993, p. 77, pp. 77-101.

Alexander C. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. 1977, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 570.

Rapoport A. House Form and Culture. 1969. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, p. 134. (Originally from: Cramer R. D. Images of Home. AZA Journal, XLVI, 1960, 3: p. 41, 44).

Hodder I. Çatalhöyük, Leoparın Öyküsü, 2017, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Çetin Y. Osmanlı Konut Mimarisinde Cihannümalar (Seyir Köşkleri). Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 2008, XVII, 2: p. 45, pp. 43-58.

Bertram, C. Imagining the Turkish House, Collective Visions of Home. 2008, Austin: University of Texas Press, p. 33.

Originally from Kanar M. Farsça-Türkçe Sözlük, İstanbul, 2000, p. 401.

Originally from Arseven C.E. Cihannümaâ€, Sanat Ansiklopedisi, C. 1, İstanbul, 1983, p.22, Akın N. Ev, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, C. 11, İstanbul, 1995, p. 510).

Çetin Y. Osmanlı Konut Mimarisinde Cihannümalar (Seyir Köşkleri). Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 2008, XVII, 2: p. 44, 45, 46, 47, pp. 43-58.

Alioğlu E. F. Mardin, Şehir Dokusu ve Evler. 2003, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, p. 62.

Kuipers S., Broekema H. Failed Policy, Successful Architecture: Self-Made City Istan-bul, 2013. viewed 12.06.2018, http://failedarchitecture.com/failed-policy-successful-architecture-self-made-city-istanbul/.

Deleuze G., Guattari F. Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 1987, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. 21.

Akbulut MF, Başlık S. Transformation of Perception of the Gecekondu Phenomenon. METU JFA, 2011, 28, 2: 1-44. doi: 10.4305/METU.JFA .2011.2.1.

Eruzun C. Kültürel Süreklilik İçinde Türk Evi. Mimarlık Dergisi, 1989, 236, 4: p. 68, pp. 68-71. viewed 17.06.2019, http://dergi.mo.org.tr/dergiler/4/566/8580.pdf.

Azem I. Ecumenopolis: City Without Limits, 2011. viewed 01.08.2015, http://http://www.ekumenopolis.net/.

Borden I. Thick edge: Architectural Boundaries in the Postmodern Metropolis. In: Bor-den I., Rendell J., (ed.). InterSections: Architectural history and critical theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 222, pp. 221-246.

Borden I. Thick edge: Architectural Boundaries in the Postmodern Metropolis. In: Bor-den I., Rendell J., (ed.). InterSections: Architectural history and critical theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 225, pp. 221-246.