Yaşlı bireyler için entegre yaşam alanları: Ortak konutlar

Ümran Sofuoğlu Demirbaş; Nuriye Nida Çelebi Şeker

Authors

Ümran Sofuoğlu Demirbaş Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5475-0462
Nuriye Nida Çelebi Şeker Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3965-5744

Keywords:

Elderly, Senility, Consumer society, Co-housing

Abstract

The proportion of the elderly population is gradually increasing due to reasons such as decreasing birth rates in the world, improving living standards and increasing average life expectancy with advances in medicine. Fast-paced life in cities, changes in family structure, and individualization of people under the influence of consumer culture cause elderly individuals to become lonely and move away from society. The study aims to reveal the relationship between co-housing, which has become one of the alternative lifestyles with the influence of the increasing consumption phenomenon/culture with changing lifestyles, and the continued coexistence of elderly individuals with society. Within the scope of the quantitative research, five different examples of co-housing built for the elderly, which are expected to stand out in terms of design in the 21st century, were examined specifically in the context of the Ball Model, a new living model for the elderly realized at the TTS (Work Efficiency Institute) Institute, and the structures were examined. Spatial analyzes were made. As a result of the study, by comparing the features of the buildings in line with the findings of the analyses, it was emphasized that such designs would prevent the increasing number of elderly people in the world from becoming isolated and facilitate their participation in society, should be developed and increased in sociological, psychological, architectural and economic terms.

References

Altuntaş, O. & Kayıhan, H. (2012). Ev düzenlemelerinin yaşlılarda günlük yaşam aktiviteleri, mobilite ve denge üzerine olan etkisi. Akademik Geriatri Dergisi, 4, 78-88.

ArchDaily. (2013). Concoret housing for the elderly / NOMADE architects. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/453882/concoret-housing-for-the-elderly-nomade-architects?ad_medium=gallery (16.11.2023).

ArchDaily. (2016). Housing for the elderly / Óscar Miguel Ares Álvarez. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/800971/residencia-personas-mayores-scar-miguel-ares-alvarez?ad_medium=gallery (16.11.2023).

Aydıner Boylu, A. (2013). Yaşlılıkta yaşam kalitesi ve konut ilişkisi. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 24(1), 145-156.

Bresson, S. & Denéfle, S. (2015). Diversity of self-managed co-housing initiatives in France. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011423

Çetin Dağdelen, M. (2017). Tüketim kültürüne alternatif bir bakış: Yaşlılık değerinin tüketimi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(49), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1580

Danış, M. Z. (2008). Toplum temelli bakım anlayışı ve sosyal hizmetler: Türkiye örneğinde bir bakım model önerisi. Türk Geriatri Dergisi, 11(2), 94-105.

Demirok, H. S. & Güner, V. (2015). Toplumsal üretim biçimleri ve yaşlılık: Yaşlının statüsü ve geleceği. 8. Ulusal Yaşlılık Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, (p.235-242), Denizli.

Dezeen. (2021). Tetris and Sangberg design senior housing around a covered communal courtyard. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/17/tetris-sangberg-agorahaverne-ibihaven-architecture-denmark/ (15.11.2023).

Dominique Coulon & Associés. (2018). Huningue 2018 housing for the elderly. https://coulon-architecte.fr/projet/716/huningue (17.11.2023).

Evans, G. & McCoy, J. (1998). When bBuildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health. The Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0089

Featherstone, M. (2013). Postmodernizm ve tüketim kültürü. Ayrıntı Yayınları.

Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborating on community, living together 29. Context Institute.

Görgün Baran, A. (2004). Türkiye’de aile içi ilişkiler üzerine bir model denemesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1, 31-42.

İçli, G. (2016). Yaşlılık sosyolojisi. Harun Ceylan (Ed.), Sosyal statü ve rol bağlamında yaşlılık (s. 41-55). Nobel.

Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning, 43(3), 560-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a43296

Karaoğlu Can, M. (2021). Kalite parametrelerinin iç mekân tasarımı özelinde yorumlanması ve Barselona Tasarım Müzesi üzerine bir değerlendirme. Megaron, 16(3), 468-487. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2021.98624

Kasanen, P. (2004). ‘Elderathome’ The prerequisites of the elderly for living at home: Criteria for dwellings, surroundings and facilities, final report. TTS Institute’s Publication 393, Helsinki. https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Elder_at_Home_-_The_prerequisites_of_the_elderly_for_living_at_home2004.pdf (06.11.2023)

Kläser, S. (2006). Selbstorganisiertes wohnen. Arch Plus, 176-177, 90-99.

Larsen, H. G. (2019). Three phases of Danish cohousing: Tenure and the development of an alternative housing form. Housing Studies, 34(8), 1349-1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2019.1569599

Lasch, C. (2006). Narsisizm kültürü (S. Öztürk, Ü. H. Yolsal, Trans.). Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.

Lawton, M. P. (1980). Environment and aging. Brooks-Cole, Monterey.

McCamant, K. M. & Durrett, C. R. (1988). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Habitat press.

McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating cohousing. building sustainable communities. New Society Publishers.

New Ground Cohousing. (2016). Our architects at Pollard Thomas Edwards write. https://newgroundcohousing.uk/architecture (15.11.2023).

PatDasler, M. A. (2003). Adapting the home. University of Florida Press. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy630 (14.11.2023).

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon Press.

Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities. A literature review. Sociological Inquiry, 84(2), 316-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12031

Sargisson, L. (2012). Second-wave cohousing: A modern utopia? Utopian Studies, 23(1), 28-56.

Scotthanson, C. & Scotthanson, K. (2004). “Marketing and membership”, the cohousing handbook: Building a place for community (pp.203-228). New Society Publishers.

Smith, T., Nelischer, M. & Perkins, N. (1997). Quality of an urban community: A framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 229-241.

T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı. (2018). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/YaslanmaOzelIhtisasKomisyonuRaporu.pdf (02.09.2023).

Tercan, M. E. (2020). Ortak konut (co-housing) modelinin İstanbul’da genç profesyoneller üzerinden değerlendirilmesi. Arkitera. https://www.arkitera.com/gorus/ortak-konut-co-housing-modelinin-istanbulda-genc-profesyoneller-uzerinden-degerlendirilmesi/ (02.11.2023).

Van der Voordt, T. J. M. & Van Wegen, H. B. R. (2005). Architecture in use: An introduction to the programming, design and evaluation of buildings. Architectural Press.

Weber, M. (1999). Protestan ahlakı ve kapitalizm ruhu. Ayraç Yayınları.

World Health Organization (WHO). (1999). The world health report 1999: Making a difference. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42167 (23.11.2023).

World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67215/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (01.12.2023)

Zastrow, C. (2013). Sosyal hizmete giriş. Nika Yayınevi.