ECOLOGY, PLANNING and DESIGN (book)
Editors
Prof. Dr. Irina KOLEVA
Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Faculty of History Department of Ethnology
Sofia, Bulgaria
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ülkü DUMAN YÜKSEL
Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Ankara, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Lahcen BENAABIDATE
University of Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah Faculty of Sciences and Technology
Department of Environment Laboratory of Georesources and Environment
Fez, Morocco
ISBN 978-954-07-4270-0
ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI UNIVERSITY PRESS
SOFIA .
2017
Chapter 6 pages 56-70
Building Design in the Context of Sustainability in Architectural Education and A Case Study for Ecological Design Training
Can Karagülle (Abant İzzet Baysal University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture)
Introduction
Until the last century, human-induced environmental damage has not yet reached the level
which can aff ect the degradation of ecological balance on the earth. The change in type of
production in the post industrialization process, from rural to urban migration, rapid transition
from producing profi le to consuming profi le, improvements in technology and health2 and
the rise of the world population from 1 billion to 7 billion at the end of a period of nearly 100
years are the main cause of human-induced damage mentioned here. On the other hand, it
is guaranteed by modern regimes in developed countries that people are equal and equally
valued. Under favor of this development, not only the environmental and ecological balance
issues3, but also the regulation in the requirements of psycho-social and cultural comfort of
the individual are also included in the concept of sustainability as a human right.
Figure 1. World Population Growth, (source: https://ourfi niteworld.com )
Following such awareness, the Brundtland Commission in 1987 defi ned sustainable
development as “development that meets current needs without sacrifi cing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs “. This text, by its very nature, has become a common definition that agrees on all disciplines of sustainability. Norman and Partners have defined sustainability in the fi eld of architecture as energy effi ciency, healthy, comfortable, fl exible and creation of long-lasting buildings. BSRIA (Building Services Research and Information Association) said that sustainability in architecture is “the creation and management of healthy buildings based on resource effi ciency and ecological principles” (Edwards, 2006).
It has been determined that the majority of the existing buildings in the world and Turkey
are constructed as housing and 36 percent of the total energy4 consumed in the world is
used by the dwellings (Anonymous, 2009 and DPT, 2001). Uncontrolled population growth,
excessive consumption habits, not consuming energy and other resources more eff iciently
are the source of many high-scale problems such as global warming, environmental pollution and hunger. When the life of a housing structure is predicted to be 30 to 50 years on average and the world population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 are considered (Edwards, 2006), it will not be diff icult to understand how today’s housing and residential areas will be determinative for future generations to access resources such as energy and water.
Turkey is heavily dependent on foreign sources because of its fossil-based energy resources and oil and natural gas constitute the biggest import item in the income-expenditure balance of the country5. The responsibility of the building industry in current account defi cit that aff ects development of the country, unemployment, health and education expenditures cannot be underestimated. Compared to the statistics in developed countries, it is seen that Turkey has a long way to go about sustainability and ecological design and putting them into practice 6.
It has become a common view at the national and international level that in the educational
process of occupational group, which is responsible for building design, needs to be involved in all aspects of sustainable building design. In this context, it is necessary to question the architecture education in our country in the sense of sustainable architecture and ecologica architectural design (which is far behind in developed countries such as Germany and Japan in terms of the use of renewable energy in statistics).
Since Turkey has diff erent climate regions, energy conservation principles and people’s need for physical comfort diff er from region to region for designs. Architectural design must be accompanied by an adequate number of compulsory and elective courses on how these
diff erences will be addressed in the creative design under the directives, standards, and user demands. Teaching sustainability and ecological architecture principles and strategies to an architectural student in one or two theoretical lessons without putting into it to the practice, does not seem to always achieve the desired success of the projects.
Architecture Education in Turkey
It may be useful to look at how design is taught in the architectural departments before
examining how sustainability is being addressed in architecture today. The students who
come to the architecture departments have some prejudices that they have already obtained
from the outside world regarding the forms of the objects. Design elements and principles
are taught in the “basic design” course in the fi rst and / or second semester in architectural
education in Turkey. With this course, it is aimed to formally break down this prejudices from
the past. On the other hand, it is thought that the student will be encouraged to take risk in
design and in this way creative thinking will be developed. The method used in this course
is to produce compositions with the help of geometric forms that are free from symbolic
meaning, to go to decomposition and to handle the elements forming the whole (Gürer,
1990).
Oktay has emphasized that current architectural design does not give importance to the
environmental issues while architectural design is seen as an “object’ and stylistic aesthetics
is treated with great respect by a group of architects. In the face of this phenomenon, it
is emphasized that the education given in architectural schools should be examined while
the reason why the environment cannot be an important design data is questioned. Since
students are aff ected by sculptural, iconic and mediatic buildings of star architects in studios which architectural design is taught, graduated architects will focus on individual success more without thinking the societal and the environmental consequences (Oktay, 2011).
The transformation of the learned design principles and concepts into concrete objects
usually starts from the second year and it continues with conceptualizing the projects of
houses, hospitals and schools that contain divergent functions, in the architectural studios.
Also, students begin to create their fi rst designs with abstract design concepts in which
students learn in an eff ective way during the fi rst year and the concrete interaction they have received from the outside world they live in. The artifi cial urban environment in which the student lives is shaped by the socio-economic development of the period concerned and the guidance of law of property ownership (where housing fi nance is solved with land revenue sharing system). Since there was no concern about sustainability in this period, no data on housing design could be formed. Sustainability has not found a place in the legislation in the period of formation the urban texture we still live in. In other words, examples that students emulate in their designs often consist of designs that do not consider sustainability principles, and even those that challenge these principles. Also, the typological solutions that stick at the back of students’ mind and remain from the periods when extinction of fossil-based energy sources has never been questioned are still being used intensively in their designs.
Architectural Sustainability in the Education of Architectural Schools in Turkey
The educational programs of the well-established architectural schools in our country have
been formed in earlier periods, when resource shortage such as energy and water and
environmental problems are not on the agenda. For this reason, the issue of sustainability is
still not included as a core-compulsory course in the curriculum in most schools. It is observed that these well-established educational institutions, which are infl uenced by traditions, have a more conservative view of having current trends in educational programs. These institutions prefer to off er current topics such as ecological design and sustainability with more elective courses. Since there is a more technical approach to environmental issues in elective courses due to structure of the courses, the social context and aspects of legislation are missing (Civaroglu, 2011). On the other hand, it is observed that newly opened universities have more place in ecological architecture in their curriculum.
Although architectural schools in Turkey have compulsory courses with diff erent names for
sustainability and environmental awareness, the number of lessons taught by direct principles and strategies, such as sustainable building design or ecological architectural design courses, exists in very few schools. These types of courses, which are based on local conditions, the efficient use of natural resources and the sustainability of energy, are often taught at the undergraduate level in a selective course format or under the other courses within a chapter such as “building physics and physical environmental design” and the subject is being taught theoretically8. Ecological architectural design in urban or a single structure scale is considered as a project theme in architectural project studios from time to time, and applied lessons in some architectural schools. On the other hand, it is clear that taking the theoretical foundation of ecological building design and teaching it as a practical project topic without teaching the principles and methods will be very inadequate in creating the desired consciousness about ecological architectural design.
Ecological architectural design is addressed in post-graduate education in the form of elective courses under various names and in the form of a thesis topic (often as a study of a traditional settlement area study). The fact that ecological architectural design in curriculums of architecture schools in Turkey is included in elective courses, which are often two hours, has quantitatively large defi ciency in the science of architecture that falls under the heading of human sciences in classifi cation. Because an architecture student should have the responsibility when graduated towards the next users of the building for the next decades, the people who share the environment in which the building is situated, and the other people who will experience the environmental pollution and the global warming due to the over energy, which is spent on the higher scale. It is a great contradiction in terms of architectural education that the lessons which will provide this consciousness and responsibility in the curriculums of architectural schools are not necessarily included. Edwards’ statement that “moral validity of any architectural structure is not possible without its environmental sustainability” tells us that ecological architectural design can no longer be taught with two-hour elective courses (Edwards, 2006).
Nowadays, the necessity of carrying out a new methodology to communicate with creative
design in order to ensure adequate teaching with all dimensions of sustainability is now
debatable. (Altomonte, 2009). In the European Directive EC 2005/36, there is a clear balance between theoretical and practical in the 11 articles on architectural education, but the sociocultural, economic and environmental sustainability principles and practices in building design are not clearly emphasized. This directive should also be updated in this sense. (Altomonte, 2011).
According to the research conducted in the architectural congress in Oxford that is about
the theme of “architecture education after 50 years” (with a presentation by American
architecture students), the fi rst three of the nine elements of expectation of architectural
education of future generations are related with “ecological diversity and sustainability, social responsibility and global change”. This result is important in terms of refl ecting the education and environment of the architectural students in the USA (Oktay, 2011).
Modern Architecture, created by western universities, defends the movement that physical
comfort can be provided by technology without considering the impact on the environment.
Yet, there has been changings observed in these universities’ curricula in support of
sustainable and ecologic architecture. Architecture education curricula, carrying the traces of western universities’ old curricula, which is shaped by these universities and abandoned by them 30-40 years ago, should be re-evaluated in Turkey. The fi nancing of housing production in Turkey is based on the principle of land revenue sharing system today. Housing and residential areas are planned and produced in the form of multi-storey blocks as a result of this economic principle. Most of the graduated architecture students will probably be able to deal with multi-storey residential design. On the other hand, there is an absolute relationship between the decisions made by the technical staff at different positions who will have a voice in planning and designing housing areas and the total energy consumption of the country. Because of this strong relationship, it was thought that it would be benefi cial to address this subject with an architectural project course on
mass housing in Abant Izzet Baysal University Architecture department.
A CASE STUDY FOR ECOLOGICAL DESIGN: Alternative Bolu TOKI Houses
The theoretical teaching of ecological architectural design alone is not suffi cient to break the design habits that are formed by the current building bylaws. For this reason, the information taught at the theoretical level should be given practically for ecological design in which the local conditions are taken away from the strong prejudices of the 20th century on building design. When considering the magnitude of the impact on the environment, it should be practical for the architectural students, especially where the ecological architectural design can be used eff ectively in mass housing design. In courses such as urban design or city planning projects given in the context of architectural education in Turkey, mass housing projects are mainly based on the use of effi cient parcels determined by the topography and the pedestrian-traffi c road system (with habits from periods when ecological balance and global warming concerns are not prominent). In these projects, designs that shut themselves off to the sun are rewarded with design decisions towards a formal block placement at random such as the random courtyard and cluster without considering local climate data. It should be shown to the students that there may be alternative environmental solutions in the project courses.
After such a thought, “ecological mass housing design” was discussed in the context of
Architectural Project-V course at Abant İzzet Baysal University. For the project area, Bolu-
Karaköy 1st Stage mass housing, where TOKI9 completed the implementation of 500 housings on approximately 10 hectares and its residents are still living in, was selected. Students are asked to use the same size and the same number of housings without changing the area of the residence where TOKI applied it. TOKI’s 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 standard residence type which is produced in every region of Turkey independently from local conditions and alternative design development for mass housing area planning were given as a project theme.
TOKI Karaköy 1st Stage Housing Project in Bolu Town
The project is located in the Karaköy district, in which houses are constructed by TOKI for
people who have low or middle income and is located approximately 7 km from the town.
In this project, there are 13 F-type blocks consisting of 2 + 1 apartments and 12 C-type
blocks consisting of 3 + 1 apartments. While 2 + 1 apartments are allocated to citizens who
have lower income, 3 + 1 apartments are considered for the group whose income level is
moderate. A small shopping block has been constructed along with residential blocks in the
area about 200 meters from the International D-100 highway and a primary school and a
mosque planned to serve second stage of 500-housings were constructed within the scope
of the project.
In mass housing projects consisting of only “Type C” housing blocks (as in Karaköy 2. Stage
Houses built in the same region) of TOKI, 30 percent more energy consumption for heating,
which is caused by half of all housing, causes waste of the resources of the country and
contributes unnecessarily to global warming. The main reason for such negativity is a false
choice of residential typology that challenges climate data in mass housing areas. When
considered in terms of ecological design, the same false choice is made in the thousands
of completed and ongoing housing projects that the public and private sector has now
undertaken nationwide. Housing projects consisting of tower-type high blocks with four fl ats
on each fl oor, where the private sector advertises under the name of “residence” or luxury site project, is based on the principle of achieving maximum land revenue sharing system and financing in this way. However, the per capita cost of housing in many areas of the country is very small, like the land of Bolu TOKI Karaköy project, since it is built outside of the city. The use of tower-type high housing blocks with 4 apartments on each fl oor in a city’s mass housing project where the land cost is at a minimum level, such as Bolu, means that the housing users will be sentenced to pay 30 percent more heating energy fees for 40 to 50 years unnecessarily. On the other hand, even though this project land has forest and lake views, most of the houses do not benefi t from these, since the housing blocks cover each other.
Post Occupancy Evaluation Survey
TOKI does not conduct a study for determining users’ requests before planning and housing
design while establishing a residential area in any region. Students conducted a survey with
a total of 112 residents before their design to determine the socio-economic structures of
residents living in TOKI, their demands and complaints after use. The survey was conducted
with 112 samples in a total of 500 housing units, and the confi dence interval was quite high.
In general, the questionnaire for post-use assessment (POE, Post Occupancy Evaluation) is
composed of six parts;
• Personal information of the user
• Demographic structure
• Income level
• Socio-cultural structure
• Comparing with a previously owned house
• Housing satisfaction
The survey was conducted with 65 males and 47 female participants. 54 percent of
respondents were selected from the low-income group and 46 percent were selected from
the middle-income group. It has been observed that 73 percent of residents of TOKI residents are homeowners. 90 percent of the respondents are married. The proportion of the people born in Bolu town remained at 58% for the low-income group in the project which stipulates the previous residence condition in Bolu. Most respondents (56%) were the age group of 30- 50, while the proportion of those over 50 years old was 24 percent.
It is observed that other occupations have a balanced distribution while the proportion of
housewives who spend more time in the house in terms of time during the day and in a sense the main user position is 37 percent. With this information, the number of unemployed wives attracts notice. Depending on this case, income level in the family is also seen to be quite low. Another data that shows the income situation is where the income comes from.
According to this, while 87 percent of TOKI residents are paid, only 13 percent are engaged in trade. 39 percent of the families living in TOKI have 2 children, and the ratio of 3 and 1 children is 24 percent and 23 percent respectively. For the Karaköy TOKI project, 55 percent of the respondents were primary school graduates and 22 percent were high school graduates, while the proportion of those who completed the university remained at 15 percent.
Comparison of New and Privious Housing:
Satisfaction Related with Housing
82 questions about TOKI’s house planning were mostly complaints about the narrowness of
balcony dimensions. While the number of participants who found the kitchen small was 68,
the number of participants who wanted to be taken their own ideas in the housing design
was 63.
A question about the frequency of use of the places used during the day, participants
indicated that they mostly used the living room and the kitchen at about the same level.
Housing users who participated in the survey at Karaköy TOKI housing in Bolu, which had a big earthquake more recently, stated that they would pay attention to the earthquake resistance of construction system at 70 percent in the case of buying a fl at. Among other priorities are those with a good environment and neighbors with 65 percent; 61 percent of view of the sun.
In response to a question of how you would like to live in a house, 57 percent of the
respondents said that they wanted to live in a modern planned single-storey house while 38
percent said they wanted to live in a traditional planned house, while only 5 percent wanted
to live in a luxury multi-storey residence. It is noteworthy that “building aesthetics” has the
lowest preference with 17 people. This result is very meaningful and interesting in terms of
understanding how diff erent designer’s priority and user’s priority is.
Also, there was a question about whether the urban texture in TOKI is satisfying or not and
71 (63 percent) participants found satisfactory while 36 participants (32 percent) found
unsatisfactory. Housewives, children, disabled and retired people who attended to this
project use their houses more than others in terms of time. When the answers of satisfaction
of these residents in the questionnaire were examined, it was observed that there was
balance between the situations. However, there has been a general consensus that there are no spaces for sports fi elds, where elderly, disabled, and children’s residents can spend time during the day.
Alternative Architectural Project Work for TOKI:
In the project study which is considered as an alternative mass housing design and space
planning for TOKI, eff ective use of passive systems in ecological architectural design principles for all houses has been determined as a success criterion. It was seen that all the houses were able to look at the right directions with the condition of protecting the same number of houses in student projects using the same piece of land as TOKI, and at the same time the vast majority of the houses were able to provide the scenery data.
In TOKI housing projects for the lower and middle income groups, housing blocks of certain
types are often randomly used regardless of the geographical region, climate, and the data
for the socio-cultural structure.
TOKI plans the middle income and low income user groups separately in the blocks that they make in the country scale. In other words, there is only 2 + 1 residential type in F-type blocks. When the region where TOKI Karaköy project is examined, its closeness to the university is remarkable. It is observed that students and faculty members rent a house in this settlement. On the other hand, widows and retired people, who do not have children or live alone, demand 1 + 1 housing type. In the residential blocks designed by architecture students alternatively to TOKI, 4 + 1, 3 + 1, 2 + 1 and 1 + 1 residential alternatives with different expectations and housing sizes are placed at the same fl oor and the isolation of the users in the certain group is avoided
In order to attract people in the higher income group, apartment houses with 4 + 1 plan
schemes and single duplex houses are also designed in the students’ project. On this basis,
it has not been declared that a residential area is intended for a specifi c income segment
with a classifi cation as low, middle or high income at the project stage. When the traditional
urban textures of Anatolia examined, where the sense of identity and belonging are felt at
the highest level, it seems that such a distinction does not exist. On the other hand, Karaköy
has become much more identifi able than TOKI in terms of settlement, silhouette and texture formed by the blocks with diff erent height resulting from the evaluation of the scenery and the sun in the residential area and the self-contained houses which are thought for the different income groups in the same settlement.
It is seen that the traffi c roads in Karakoy TOKI project pass the blocks both in front and
behind, it is seen that this way covers a signifi cant area in the use of land. In designs that
students created, the traffi c roads were signifi cantly reduced and the inner areas were more allocated for pedestrians, which reduced the use of fuel for vehicles and the emissions of the surrounding gases on the other hand. Such a planning leads a clear solution for the children and the elderly who are complained in the questionnaires about the sports and open areas.
Conclision
Today, the sustainability of a single building or urban scale can only be achieved through
participation of individuals living in that environment to the design. We need to teach
architecture students that it is necessary to determine the user’s experience and requests
for physical, psycho-social, economic and cultural life by methods such as questionnaires,
interviews, meetings, etc.
The impact of modern architectural movements on student projects cannot be denied in
schools that do not have enough sustainable building design and ecological architecture
education (which can encourage climate-independent building designs by using of
contemporary technology). It is clear that without the evaluation of the “place” that the
houses are made in the architectural design and the eff ects on the environment related to
the life cycle of building, designing projects with using only the geometry of the architectural
movement of the period will cause the waste of resources in the long run.
Designers of architectural candidates who will grow with suffi cient sensitivity and awareness of environmental context and ecological balance can be predicted to have a higher level of responsibility and concern for the next generation.
The comprehensive and as early as possible description of ecological building and
environment design in architectural education and informing the students about ecological
design principles are emphasized (Ozmen, 2006). To raise the awareness of architectural
students about environmental and architectural sustainability, the compulsory courses which
constitute the theoretical foundation of these subjects should be given in parallel with the
basic design courses in the fi rst year. In this way, the student will be able to question the plans of the old periods that he saw around his surroundings in terms of sustainability.
It is suggested that the education programs include theoretical lessons such as environment
related lessons in sustainable architecture education in the form of applied courses that relate to both design issues and local architecture (Oktay, 2011).
After the theoretical information given in the course named “environmental design and
ecological architecture” in architectural education in Abant Izzet Baysal University, the
consideration of ecological architectural design principles with an applied architectural
project course, students have got enough consciousness about environmental context and
ecological architecture, it is seen that students could achieve architectural sustainability
when the outputs of the design are examined. Following the results of the survey conducted
in scope of the project, students became aware about the expectations, complaints and
desires of the residents who are from diff erent age, socio-cultural groups and gender without putting forward their own ego about the product they designed. With this method, while the environmental sustainability is internalized, on the other hand, with the infl uence
of architectural designs on identity and belonging concepts by showing practically,
consciousness has been created to provide sustainability in terms of the culture as well.
Notes
1 The study was produced by using the case study data of “A Critical Look For Ecological
Architectural Design Education in Turkey: Alternative Bolu TOKI Houses” presented in the
2nd National Symposium on Architectural Design Education: Integration-2 in 2011 in Yıldız
Technical University (YTU) (Istanbul).
2 The increase in energy consumption of the buildings after the development, and the
widespread use of machinery in every sector. In 1950, there were only 3-4 electric tools per
house, which number is above 50. Nowadays, electric consumption per day, it is accepted as a criterion for development.
3 Energy consumption (tpe) equivalent to 1.7 billion tons of petroleum in 1950 rose to 8 billion in 1999 (Kuban 2002).
4 Architecture activities of UK is responsible for 45 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK (Esin, 2011).
5 In Turkey, the energy rate generated from fossil fuels in 2009 is 81%. As of 2009, the share of renewable energy in electricity generation is 19%. The share of renewable energy in hydroelectricity is 98%
6 Germany produces 647 billion-kilowatt hours of electricity in 2015, 30 percent of which is
covered by renewable energy sources. (13 percent of wind; 7 percent of biomass; 6 percent
of Solar panels (PV Panels); 3 percent for HEPPs account and 3 percent for domestic waste
accounts) (http://enerjienstitusu.com; Last access March 2017).
7 The work titled as ‘The environmental context of architectural education in Turkey’ has
researched environmental issues in undergraduate and graduate education programs in 42
of architectural departments. Accordingly, when the courses in the names of building physics or physical environment supervision in undergraduate education programs are excluded, it has been found that 7 architectural departments outside METU that opened recently, which directly address environmental issues. (Civaroglu, 2011)
8 For more information, Civaroglu’s work for 42 architectural departments has a breakdown
of courses in undergraduate and postgraduate education programs according to schools.
(Civaroglu, 2011)
9 TOKI: The shortened name that stands for The Housing Administration in Turkey.
10 Approximately fi fty percent of the residences in which the TOKI has a block of type C which is frequently used in housing applications, are inevitably oriented to the north. It is known that an apartment oriented to the undesirable direction in the researches on housing design consumes 30% more energy for heating than the apartment facing the appropriate direction. This means that it could be saved at least 30 percent more energy for heating in the dwelling project phase.
References
Altomonte, 2011, Handle with Care. The Challenges Sustainability and the Agenta of
Architectural Education, Teaching a New Environmental Culture. The Environment as a
Question of Architectural Education, Ed.; M.Voyatzaki, European Network of Heads of Schools of Architecture)
Anonim, 2009, TTMD, Isıtma, soğutma, havalandırma, klima, yangın ve sıhhı tesisat dergisi,
(Heating, cooling, ventilation, air conditioning, fi re and sanitary installation journal),
Issue:November-December, Ankara.
Civaroğlu, A., 2011, Türkiye’de mimarlık eğitiminin çevresel bağlamı: İyimser tabloya kuşkucu yaklaşımlar, Dosya: Mimarlık Eğitiminde Sürdürülebilirlik, (The environmental context of architectural education in Turkey, Special issue: Sustainability in Architectural Education) Mimarist Journal, Published by İstanbul Chamber of Architects-Büyükkent Branch, issue:41, p.52, İstanbul
Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DPT), 2001, Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı Konut Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, (Eighth Five-Year Development Plan, Housing Specialization Commission Report) Published by DPT, Ankara
Edwards, B., 2006, Sürdürülebilirlik Kültürü ve Mimari Tasarımın Önündeki Güçlükler, Ekolojik Mimarlık ve Planlama Ulusal Sempozyumu, (Diffi culties Facing Architectural Design and Culture of Sustainability, National Symposium on Ecological Architecture and Planning) p.23, Published by Chamber of Architects-Antalya Branch, Antalya
Esin, N., 2011, Sürdürülebilir Tasarım ve Mimarlık Eğitimi, (Sustainable Design and Architecture Education) Mimarist Journal, Published by İstanbul Chamber of Architects-Büyükkent Branch, Issue:41, p.43, İstanbul
Gürer,L., 1990, Temel Tasarım (Basic Design), Published by İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi,
İstanbul
Kuban, B., 2002, Fosil Yakıtlar ve Kent (Fossil Fuels and the City), Mimarist Journal, Published by İstanbul Chamber of Architects-Büyükkent Branch, Issue:6, İstanbul
Özmen, B., 2006, “Ekolojik Tasarım Bilinci: Mimarlık Eğitimine Yansıması Üzerine bir
Deneme” (Ecological Design Consciousness: An Essay for Refl ections on Architectural
Education), Uluslar arası Ekolojik Yapı Tasarımları ve Malzemeleri Semineri (International
Seminar of Ecological Building Designs and Materials), Chamber of Architects, Antalya
Branch, Antalya,
TMMOB, 2012, Oda Raporu: Türkiye’nin Enerji Görünümü (Chamber Report: Turkey’s Energy Outlook), Chamber of Mechanical Engineers, Issue: MMO/558, Ankara
Oktay, D., 2011, Çevre ve Toplum Dostu Sürdürülebilir Bir Mimarlık Eğitimine Doğru, Dosya:
Mimarlık Eğitiminde Sürdürülebilirlik (Towards an Environmentally and Community-Friendly
Sustainable Architecture Education, Special issue: Sustainability in Architectural Education),
Mimarist Journal, Published by İstanbul Chamber of Architects-Büyükkent Branch, Issue:41,
p.46, İstanbul
TEVEM, Türkiye Enerji ve Enerji Verimliliği Çalışma Raporu, (Turkey Energy and Energy
Effi ciency Study Report), http://www.tevem.org 2010
