KONUT YERLEŞİM PLANLARININ TOPLUMSAL BAĞLAMDA YORUMU: İSVİÇRE'DEN BİR ÖRNEK

Housing units are material products of society that define and delimit domestic space for households. They provide shelter and protection for daily activities. The fact that housing units in the same society have quite different shapes and sizes, and that they are built with a range of construction materials suggests that, beyond pragmatic factors, others are of at least equal importance in determining their layout, construction, and meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an understanding of those contextually defined factors implicated in the layout, construction, and use of housing units. For example, one purpose of the spatial ordering of residential environments is to distinguish between public and private domains. Nonetheless, this distinction can be interpreted from several perspectives. Some of these interpretations will be briefly reviewed in this paper. Then a case study of the layout, construction, and use of urban housing in Switzerland will be presented. The interrelations between public and private domains of residential areas can and have been considered explicitly by architects and urban designers. Chcrmayeff and Alexander (1963), for example, proposed an 'anatomy of privacy' defined in terms of hierarchy of spaces, and the ways in which different domains are linked while retaining their autonomy and clarity. Their book, however, presents only a spatial interpretation with no analysis of the meanings and uses of boundaries, borders and transition spaces that simultaneously separate and link public and private spaces in a range of different contexts. When one adopts a cross-cultural and historical approach to study public and private domains, it can be shown that these domains define and are mutually defined by a range of administrative, behavioural, judicial, and socio-political factors concerning property rights, which are contextually defined by societies and they may change over the course of time (Lawrence, 1986). Received : 23. 12. 19% Keywords: Borders, Boundaries, Public, Collective and Private Spaces, Societal Context, Housing, Housing layout Plan From the perspectives of economics, law and politics, the tenure status of housing, with its implications for personal control and security, is the critical dimension underlying the meaning of private domestic space. For example, Saunders (1990) claims that the marginalization of rented housing in Britain is the result of a natural law founded on innate biological and psychological principles that are reflected in the quest for 'ontological security' which is achieved by the owner-occupation of housing and other personal possessions. However, this emphasis on tenure ignores that large share of the population in past and present societies (including affluent countries like Switzerland) who choose to rent. Hence, like an architectural or any one-dimensional interpretation, this one is also incomplete. In contrast, the meaning of housing is contextually defined according to a range of cultural, societal, and individual human factors as well as the interrelations between them over time (Lawrence, 1987). An integrated historical perspective shows that from the late eighteenth century an important shift in the design, meaning, and use of domestic space occurred owing to a number of economic and social developments related to urbanization and the ideals of the autonomous household. These developments in the United Kingdom have been studied by Shorter (1976) and in France by Aries (1962), Flandrin (1979) and Donzelot (1977). These authors study a number of sociopolitical factors, including public education and discipline. Moreover, Daunton (1983) relates this kind of interpretation to developments in the design and use of residential quarters in England. When Daunton (1987) applied this approach to examine housing provision and tenure in Britain from the late 19th century, he was able to question many recent interpretations of the housing market and tenure status. In particular, he identified sets of economic and political factors that progressively marginalized private rental housing while initially promoting public rental housing and then owner-occupation from as early as the First World War. When the same kind of approach was applied in Switzerland, it was possible to identify and comprehend the reasons for two-thirds of the housing slock persistently being rental tenure, and not more than 4% being provided by the publicseetor (Lawrence, 1986). Moreover, therelativestabilityof theownership, provision, and tenure of housing in Switzerland can be contrasted with two significant shifts in Britain during this century which Daunton has identified. In sum, these and other studies show that contemporary definitions of public and private have been socially constructed over a long period. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate and apply an integrated historical perspective that can account for both constant and dynamic societal processes that are contextually defined. It is necessary to challenge those contemporary architects and social scientists who claim that the meaning and functioning of the built environment can be derived from the layout and spatial ordering of buildings. For example, Hillier and Hanson (1984) endeavour to show that the 'space syntax' of the built environment mirrors how human relations occur, especially the interface between different classes of people in spaces with controlled and liberal access. These authors try to identify those spatial layouts of the built environment that encourage or inhibit ways in which personal contact between individuals and groups occur. However, their interpretation only examines the tangible constitutents of specific settings while ignoring the claims and responsibilities of parties, as well as the rules and conventions between parties. Moreover, they overlook the growing volume of research in the social sciences on privacy regulation and social penetration theory (Lawrence, 1987, chapter 5). From this perspective the concept of a boundary is fundamental. On the one hand, boundaries have spatial implications, yet they do not inevitably have a dimension; the frontier between Switzerland and France, or the boundary between my house and that of my neighbour can be defined by a line on paper or by words in a legal document, whereas a fence occupies more space than the boundary itself, but it does not necessarily obstruct access or visibility. On the other hand, the sociopsychological implications of boundaries are fundamental as Altman, Vinsel and Brown (1981) have discussed. In general, it is the multidimensional nature and position of boundaries that are a source of international, regional, local, or interpersonal conflict, because they are ambiguous and can change over relatively long periods of time. From this perspective the boundary between public and private is socially constructed by communities and individuals as a fundamental means of producing and reproducing processes of self-, social-, and place-identification. 1. This study has deliberately examined rental housing, because this sector İs the dominant form of tenure in Switzerland, generally, and in Geneva, in particular. According to official census returns in 1980, 29.9% of the housing stock in Switzerland was owner-occupied, 63.2% was rental tenure in the private and public sectors. and 6.9% included other forms of tenure such as co-operatives and institutional housing. Concurrently, in Geneva, 11% of the housing stock was owner-occupied, 83% was rental tenure and 6% was other forms of tenure including co-operatives and institutional housing. These proportions have not changed significantly since 1960. The reasons for this structure of the housing stock are examined in Lawrence (1986). In any residential environment it is possible to distinguish between residents and strangers. Generally, there are subsets of residents that can be defined in terms of their socio-demographic and judicial status (such as the head of household who signs the lease for a rented housing unit). Moreover, there are subsets of strangers (who are commonly labelled visitors, servicemen, etc.). All these groups of people occupy buildings for varying periods of time, and they have diverse claims and responsibilities. In general, Hillier and Hanson ignore these dimensions. Rather, they maintain that the position or depth of a space in relation to the public realm of the street indicates whether strangers, in general, have easy access to that space. This generalization requires numerous qualifications owing to the fact that the claims and responsibilities of all parlies vary in relation to the ownership, tenure status, and control of the residential environment in question. In sum, a topological analysis of one or more housing areas can provide information about their spatial layout but, in principle, alone it cannot yield precise information about the meaning and use of specific spaces. Residential environments are not just created physically as the case study reported below shows: they are simultaneously ordered by judicial, behavioural, and symbolic dimensions that may vary over time. In principle, meanings do not reside in material objects. Rather all human-made products including buildings are attributed meanings by people who are part of a specific societal context. Meanings are construed socially, usually in accordance with sets of rules and conventions that may change over time. Therefore, it is essential to identify and understand them. From this perspective, the term housing is assigned a wide range of images and values. The meaning of 'housing', like the meaning of 'home', is variable from person to person, between social groups, across cultures, and over the course of time. Dwelling units are commonly attributed an economic value, an exchange value, an aesthetic value, and a use value, whereas in addition to these, a home is usually attributed a sentimental and a symbolic value (Lawrence, 1987). Whereas real estate agents are primarily concerned with the economic and exchange values of residential buildings, owner-occupiers will not only share this concern but also complement it with an interest in aesthetic, use, sentimental, and symbolic values that cannot be quantified and compared in monetary terms. All these values are not simply expressed by individuals, but they are acquired, nurtured, transmitted, reinforced, or modified, by interpersonal communication. The preceding paragraphs indicate that a reorientation of studies of housing layout, design and use is required. Both theoretical and methodological developments are necessary to formulate and apply a more comprehensive approach. This is the aim of this short paper. This kind of interpretation can improve current knowledge of the design and meaning of housing. Given this improved knowledge this paper argues that it is possible to apply theoretical and methodological principles in housing research. These principles will be illustrated by a case study of rented housing in Switzerland (1).