The Differences Between Metropolitan and Regional Styles in Ottoman Architecture - Report Example

WHAT WERE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL STYLES IN OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE AND RELATED ARTS (16TH- 17TH CENTURY MOSQUE, DECORATION STYLES, ISLAMIC BUILDING IN SYRIA IN THE 16TH -18TH CENTURIES? HOW DID ART & ARCHITECTURE OF THE OTTOMAN CENTRE (ISTANBUL AND SURROUNDINGS) AND PERIPHERY (SYRIA, EGYPT AND NORTH AFRICA and Cairo DIFFER AND WHY? By Course Professor’s Name Institution Location of Institution Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1.0 Study Background 3 2.0 The Development of Ottoman Architecture 4 3.0 The Characteristics of Ottoman Architecture 8 5.0 The difference between the Metropolitan and Regional styles in Ottoman Architecture 10 6.0 The Metropolitan Styles in Ottoman Architecture 11 7.0 The Regional Styles in Ottoman Architecture (Syria) 15 8.0 The historical background of Istanbul 17 9.0 Rise and development of Istanbul 19 10.0 Ottoman art & architecture and post modernism 21 11.0 Sinan and Its contribution to Istanbul 22 12.0 Conclusion 25 1.0 Study Background Ottoman architecture refers to the architecture of Ottoman Empire. Ottoman architecture emerged in Edirne and Bursa around the 14th centuries and the 15th centuries developing from earlier Byzantine, Iranian, Seljuk and the Islamic Mamluk architecture1. This happened after the Ottomans conquered the Constantinople2. In general, Ottoman architecture can be looked at as the combination of Byzantine Mediterranean and Middle Eastern architectural traditions Since then, the Ottomans have achieved a high level of architecture. They Ottomans mastered the technique of creating huge inner spaces which are confined by weightless and massive domes, and also succeeding in creating harmony between the inner and the outer spaces, and in addition, articulated shadow and light. The Ottomans transformed the Islamic architecture that earlier on was made up of buildings which were simple structures, but had extensive decorations. This they achieved by creating an architectural vocabulary which was dynamic and was made up of domes, vaults, columns and semi domes. The mosque became the sanctuary of refined elegance, technical balance, indeed an aesthetic taste of what heavenly transcendence might be. 2.0 The Development of Ottoman Architecture When the Ottoman Empire was established, the years 1300 to 1453 marked the early phase, when they were searching for new ideas. During this time, there were three different mosques types in existence, namely single-domed, sublime angled and tiered mosques. From Edirne and Bursa, emerged an architectural style of domed buildings, and the first mosque that was converted into the domed style was the Mosque at Bursa. The final phase of Ottoman capital was Edirne which was later called Istanbul. It is in Istanbul that we see the last stages in the architecture development which lead to the great holy mosques in Istanbul, examples being the Topkapı Palace, Fatih Mosque, the tiled palace and the Mosque. The mosques were integrated onto the community and included theological schools, soup kitchens, theological, tombs, hospitals and Turkish baths3 Figure 1: Topkapi Palace The next period is referred to as the classical period. This period is closely associated with Mimar Sinan’s works. Ottoman architecture was influenced by Sinan and this led to new harmonization and unification of many architectural influences, parts and elements that the architecture of Ottoman had to get harmonized with. The most emblematic structures of the classical period were the mosques designed by Sinan, and those that used the domed structure but changed proportions and added light, with a heavy emphasis on using shadow and lighting and with a large window volume. The above developments were derived from Byzantine structures and Hagia Sophia; and in addition, they were also a result of developments of Ottoman architecture from 1400. Again, during this period, mosques changed and included an inner and an outer courtyard. Examples of Ottoman architecture during this period are seen in Turkey, Balkans, Egypt, Hungary, Algiers and Tunisia where schools, bridges, mosques and fountains were built4 In the modernization period around 1703 to 1730, Ottoman religious architecture was influenced by Rococo and Baroque styles which were decorative in nature and very popular throughout Europe. During the Tulip Period, over 30 years, everyone turned towards the West, and instead of classical and monumental works, pavilions and villas were built in Istanbul5. Mosque of Sinan During the Tulip period, 1703 to 1730 the elite and the upper class in the Ottoman Empire began using the public and the open areas frequently. The introverted and the traditional manner started to change in the society. Waterside and fountains residences became popular, for example the Aynalıkavak Kasrı, and recreational areas made up of a picnic and water canal area were also established. Between 1720 and 1890, Ottoman architecture deviated from the earlier classical period, commencing with the Baroque styled mosques. The Baroque Period, which falls between 1757 and 1808, saw the construction of wavy, curved lines and structures. Examples includes Birgi Çakırağa Mansion, Nur-u Osmaniye Mosque, Fatih Tomb, Laleli Mosque and Laleli Çukurçeşme Inn. The most important architect of that time was Mimar Tahir. Other important structures built in the Ottoman Baroque style are the Jesus tomb in Jerusalem and the most holy place in Christendom. Birgi Çakırağa Mansio The last period of Ottomans architecture was after 1900. This period gave birth to the style which was dubbed ‘1st National Style of the architecture of the Turkish’. The approach here was a revival style of Ottoman architecture, with the intention of promoting Ottoman self-identity and patriotism. They were based on materials and construction techniques that were modern. They used materials like iron, steel, reinforced concrete and glass roofs. In many events they used a Beaux-Arts structure with an outward motif which was associated with the original architecture which inspired it. This focused on motifs and forms that were traditionally "Ottoman," for instance the roof overhangs, the pointed arches, the domes placed over corners or towers, the ornate tile decorated, amongst others6. Examples include Central Post Office of Istanbul in Sirkeci, Istanbul ferryboat terminals, Sultanahmet Jail, amongst others7 Sultanahmet Jail 3.0 The Characteristics of Ottoman Architecture The features of the architecture of Ottoman went through numerous changes. Geographically, the features changed according to the distance from the heart of the Ottoman Empire, and concessions thus are put to local architectural traditions for buildings that are constructed in the Ottoman provinces (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34). Ottomans architecture early in the formative period was mainly built in stone. The Ottoman architecture in actual sense is known for a very high quality of masonry. However, the combination of stone and brick continued to be commonplace, and brick is in fact used for vaults, arches and domes. In addition to this, lead is also used for covering minaret caps and domes from the 10th century onwards (Goodwin 1999, p.56). Polychrome and glazed ceramic tiles ceramic, such as the Iznik tiles where blue and white dominate, are then used as a wall covering. In around the 10th to the 16th centuries marble was used as a sheathing material. Wood in this architecture was used as a decorative material and as a structural material which is a predominant material for houses in Istanbul at the Ottoman capital (Goodwin 1999, p.56). One of the major characteristics of the mosques of Ottoman is the dominant central dome covering a large part of the people’s prayer hall. In the classical Ottoman period, the central dome was increased drastically in size. It was combined with a number of small domes and half-domes which cascaded up from what is called the central dome, with the general arrangement fitting into a pyramidal outline. Some of the mosques had one or several half domes each in support of the central dome. In the Ottoman architecture, the domes have a semi-circular flat profile. Large imperial Ottoman religious complexes usually include an important number of facilities, that in addition to the mosque, could also include a mausoleum meant for the patron, a hospital, a soup-kitchen, shops, a madrasa and a public bath (Goodwin 1999, p.56) The Ottoman mosque is so known for being elegant, simple and pencil-shaped, that is in most cases fluted and is finished in a lead-covered, long conical cap. The minarets clearly points to an Ottoman building throughout the empire. The minarets have about one to four balconies, resting on muqarnas vaults. Mosques of the royalty have minarets ranging from two to seven8. Muqarnas are usually used specifically in some areas, for example the underside of the balconies, in portals and above windows. Calligraphy, specifically the though and naskhi scripts, is an important part of the decorations of most of the buildings9. The surface decoration found in Ottoman architecture during the classical period is much more restrained in comparison to the Anatolian Seljuk and the later Ottoman phases (Goodwin 1999, p. 56). Ottoman architecture shows the influences of several traditions of the Byzantine and Anatolian Seljuqs, which both existed as Ottoman rose to authority in Anatolia. Most significantly, the Imperial mosques of the classical phase showed the influence of the Byzantine church of Hagia Sophia10. 5.0 The difference between the Metropolitan and Regional styles in Ottoman Architecture The metaphor ‘center’ and ‘peripheries’ describes the relationship between the advanced metropolis known as the center and the less developed areas known as the periphery. In the following discussion, we shall look at the characteristics of the styles used in the center, also known as the metropolitan, as well as the characteristics of the styles used in the regional area that is the peripheries, in an attempt to bring out the differences in the styles used. 6.0 The Metropolitan Styles in Ottoman Architecture Istanbul is a good example of a metropolitan area in Turkey. The Istanbul architecture just like the other metropolitan area is made up of vast varieties of structure reflecting many influences in all its districts. The architecture in the city consists of functional constructions, statues and buildings that evolved out of Ottoman, Genoese, Byzantine and the modern sources of Turkey. There are a lot of historical churches, synagogues, mosques, towers palaces and castles in Istanbul (Goodwin 1999, p. 56). In addition to this, in the metropolitan areas, there were open areas and these areas in Ottoman architecture were often informal in nature. Alternatively, they would be enhanced by the use of a single monument. Figure 2: 16th- 17th century Mosque There was also the use of an octagon supporting system created with eight pillars in between squared shell walls. There were four semi-domes in the corners of the square (Goodwin 1999, p. 34). There was a structure that enabled one to look at the mihrab from anywhere in the mosque. The Mosque of Selim II was surrounded by four minarets and it had a dome on top11. There were many additions around the mosque such as baths, libraries, hospitals, cemetery, schools, hospices, soup kitchen and markets. The mihrab was pushed into an alcove with enough depth allowing for illumination of windows from all three sides. This makes its tile panels sparkle in the natural light12. The inside of the mosque was applauded for its cleanliness and the spare lines within. It had monumental exteriors which portrayed the power and the wealth of the Ottoman Empire. The interior was plain and symmetrical. Lights were allowed in through the many tiny windows. The decorations were so nice and the example is given in the sample of window below; Figure 3: Decoration styles There existed promenades which were open spaces used commonly during summer and during spring. They had huge trees planted beside them and they were used as a source of entertainment. In the beginning, the buildings of Ottoman were made of wood. However at the beginning of the 18th centuries, stone became the primary building material in the metropolitan area. The centres also started adopting the European styles like the Baroque, the Neoclassical and the Rococo style, or a combination of the three13. The Stari Most Bridge was constructed using a local stone called tenelija. The arch shape was as a result of the many irregularities made by deformation of the inside line in the arch. To describe it more appropriately, it is like a circle with a depressed centre. Instead of having foundations, the bridge had limestone linked to walls along the cliffs at the waterside. Some types of buildings which were known as tekke were also constructed for house members of the mystical fraternities and other holy men who lived in a communal. The tekke was most often joined to the mosque. These building went to be the domed and the central plan structure which was constructed in Antolia by the Seljuqs (Brooks et al 2004, p.93). Another source of Ottoman architecture was Christian art. The Byzantine tradition, which was manifested at Hagia Sophia, was the main source of inspiration. Byzantine influence is seen in features such as brick and stone used together in the construction of the pendentive dome. In addition to this, in most mosques at Tur and Bursa, there exist stylistic parallels in the designs of the outer facade and in gates, roofs and windows to characteristics found in the Italian architecture. A distinctive characteristic of Ottoman architecture in the Metropolitan are is therefore the combination of both European and Islamic artistic traditions. Figure 4: Pillars of mosque Other characteristics of the Ottoman style of architecture in the metropolitan areas is that the buildings exhibited total logic and clarity in the way they were planned and also in elevation. Each part was considered in relationship to the whole part. Whatever was unnecessary was removed. The simplicity of these designs was attributed to Sinan and most Ottoman architects being trained as engineers at the beginning. The buildings all had cascade of descending vaults, ascending buttresses and half. Slenders and Minarets, slender framed the outer composition, where Ares the open space around the courts prevented the surrounding city from swallowing it (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34). Whereas külliyes and mosques were the most common monuments of the architecture of Ottoman, other important secular houses were also constructed including caravansaries, baths and the palace complex of Topkapi Saray. This was at Istanbul where three hundred years of architecture are well preserved in its halls, fountains and pavilion (Brooks et al 2004, p.78). 7.0 The Regional Styles in Ottoman Architecture (Syria) The Ottomans architecture in the regional areas was not as elegant as in the metropolitan areas14. Firstly it majorly focused in the use of stone. The architecture had a high quality of masonry. In addition to this, the mosques were constructed in the dome shaped that covered a large area of the prayer hall just like in the metropolitan areas however, unlike in the metropolitan areas, the central dome did not increase so much in size hence they did not include the small domes and the half- domes. Only one major dome was used (Von Gladib 2000, p.156-176). The regional areas had smaller religious complexes in comparison to the huge imperial religious complexes that usually featured a large number of facilities which would a soup- kitchen, the patron’s mausoleum, madrasa, shops, public bath and a hospital. The religious area hardly had any facilities except the worship places (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34). Figure 5: Islamic building in Syria The architectural work was inclusive of a Muqarnas which was used specifically in some areas like the inside of minaret portals, balconies and windows. A Calligraphy of the naskhi and thuluth scripts was rarely a compulsory part of the decorative plan of most buildings unlike in the buildings in the metropolitan areas15. Moreover, decoration in the architecture of Ottoman in the peripheries was restrained than it is in the metropolitan areas. Whilst the mosques in the metropolitan areas were transformed into a sanctuary of beauty, elegance, heavenly transcendence, aesthetic as well as with technical balance, most mosques in the regional areas were still dark, cramped with walls covered in arabesque (Mainstone and Rowland, 1990, p.22-27). Moreover, the mosques continued using the dome-shaped structure which was very much like the one for Hagia Sophia. Unlike in the central areas, the proportions remained unchanged. No room was created for more lights as they lacked the bigger windows which were present in the buildings at the metropolitan areas. It is important to note that these buildings were hardly influenced by Byzantine structures as well as Hagia Sophia. The traditional and the introverted way of the people in the regions hardly changed hence, unlike in the metropolitan areas, these area did not utilize their water sources to create waterside residences or fountains. Westernization attitudes rarely developed and people in the regions did not deviate from the principles of the classical times (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34). Lastly, unlike the architectural styles in the metropolitan areas, the architecture in the regional areas was hardly influenced by the Rococo and the Baroque styles. Classical and monumental works continued to be used in most instances; to a small extent these regions adopted the Rococo and the Baroque styles (Von Gladib 2000, p.123-156). 8.0 The historical background of Istanbul The records shows that the people who inhabited the immediate area of present day Istanbul can be traced for over ten thousand years back. The history further records that majority of these people inhabited this area in around 5000 B.C. Some of the early inhabitants included the Milesians, Greeks and Megarans who began settling along the coastal part of Bosporus and the Black Sea (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34). The Colony of Byzantium was formed in 660 B.C. by a man known as Megarian in the early 8th century and this particular colony was named after him (Sahin 2013). Due to its strategic position Byzantium took shortest time to establish its economic dominance in the region which attracted many people from the various quarters (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015, p. 34). Another important historical background of Byzantium is the fact that it was built along the Golden Horn which was providing the best natural harbour in the region (Sahin 2013 p45). The land was very fertile with abundant food like fish and other agricultural produce. There was struggle for the city in the early centuries by Athens, Persians, Greeks and the Spartans. However, the Byzantium managed to besiege the Macedonians who later requested Rome for protection hence making the city to be part of the Roman provinces (Mustafa and Hassan 2013, p. 65). With increased development and the wealth of Constantinople, many people were attracted to this city and Ottoman for the first time in history attached Constantinople in 1396. Ottoman drew his followers from western part of the Osman between 1259 to 1326 others were from Sunni Muslims warrior who later led raids on the Christina Byzantine who were enclaves in the western part of Anatolia which is the present day Turkey. In their strategy, the Ottoman Empire built a fort on the Asian side which help in preventing food and other aids from reaching the Constantinople (Hensel 2013 p 65). This did not prevent the city of Constantinople from prospering for more years. Ottoman increased their aggressiveness and built another fortress in the European side to help in suffocating the Constantinople during the reign of Mehmed II (Hensel 2013 p 87). During this time, Mehmed commissioned the production of larger ships to help in breaking the Ottoman walls. By the end of 1453, the Ottoman attached the city using both water and land. The enemy ship was prevented from entering the Golden horn by massive chain. However, the Mehmed entered the city and prayed in the Church of Haghaia Sophia. This as a very symbolic gesture that signalled the End of the Constantinople’s Christian era and the beginning of the Muslim rule (Sağdiç 2015). During the siege by Mehmed on the city, many people flew away and the city was almost desolate. Mehmed started repopulating the city by moving people from other communities into the city. By the end of 1457, the Constantinople became the capital of Ottoman Empire and the name currently is known as Istanbul (Hewitt 2015). The capital city of Ottoman Empire reached its Zenith during the rule of Suleyman the Magnificent. This period was defined by the magnificent building of architect Mimar Sinan in C 1489-1587. As one of the chief architect of the Ottoman Empire, over 300 buildings are credited to his name and Istanbul is what Istanbul is today because of the great work of Sinan. The Ottoman Identity was derived from his architectural work (Belakehal et al., 2015). As one of the most decorated artist and master of major monuments of the early 16 century, it is important to note that Ottoman empire is the one responsible for the major public works which existed for over 50 years as the empire was the one responsible for designing bridges and vast system of the water supply around Istanbul architecture without the rival b Turkish history (Belakehal et al., 2015). The Sinan has a conscious approach to the City planning and gave the Istanbul its current identity (Belakehal et al., 2015). 9.0 Rise and development of Istanbul Immediately after conquering the Constantinople, the old monasteries and other buildings which were still in good shape were given out to people from different ethnic background. At this point, Hagia and Sophia was immediately converted to mosque and the walls of the city was immediately repaired (Arab and Hassan 2013). The ruler build a new Castle against the western imperial gate. In the development of the city, first palace was built in Forum Tauri and the second one was started on the promontory dominating the entrance of the Golden Horn over the site of the first Greek city (Ergin 2015). During the period in which Mehmed II was the king, the number of new building reached over 300 under the stewardship of Sana and by the end of his reign, the new construction reached over 120,000. The most crucial aspect was the symbolic urban act which was the foundation of the Mehmet’s mosque and the catacomb over the destroyed church of the Holy Apostles where originally martyrium of Constantine was. It is important also to note that the great Turkish-Muslim characteristics of the new Capital Istanbul was the implantation of the conquerors’ signature on the image of the city (Ergin 2015). One of the main characteristics of the Istanbul landscape was bringing a different sense of urban organization a series of the great imperial mosque complexes which helped in shaping the form the current Turkish Istanbul. Towards the end of 15th centerur, historians records that one of the German traveller Arnold von Harff found a well-developed Istanbul city with over 200,000 people with many people opting to settle along the coast line overlooking the Golden Horn and surrounding monument axis of the city (Arab and Hassan 2013). Beyazit II built his mosque near his palace on the old Forum Tauri. This implies that before the emergence of Sinan and Sultan Suleyman the magnificent foundation of the city had already been laid down and the visual part had already began with great socio-religious background. The Istanbul city image before the emergence of Sinan was best conveyed by the famous miniature plan by the painter artist called Nasuh. The concept of urban design was developed from this concept, the all surroundings were influenced by the significant development and growth of Istanbul (Arab and Hassan 2013). The Ottoman Empire was the eye opener for the growth and development of major cities across the Istanbul. 10.0 Ottoman art & architecture and post modernism One of the most active postmodernist was Robert Venturi, born in 1925, he graduated from Princeton University with summa cum laude, always aspiring to be architect from his childhood. Three years after his graduation, he got his masters in Fine Arts from the same University, he in the end went to work with a portion of the colossal engineer of his time including Louis Kahn and Eero Saarinen. His book complexity and contradiction in architect played a very important role in opening the eyes of the readers on the new perspective of building construction16. After two years of working under stewardship of these great architect and as a tutor at the American Academy in Rome, Venturi later moved back to America where he opened his on structural firm in Philadelphia and later began addressing at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a great admirer of English and Italian architect17. He started criticizing the blandness that was seen and was smothering the cities of America and this architectural blandness was the modernism. One of the Venturi’s building is Vanna Venturi house the movement away of Robert Venturi from the modernism functionalism is well illustrated by Venturi’s adaptation of the Mies van de Rohe’s famous maxim “Less is more” to “less is a bore”.Venturi states that even the the modernist try to move away and reject the ornamental and decorative elements of architectural designs, they will not fade away and they are their to stay as long as the buildings are still existing. The venturi borrowed his architectural skills from the Ottoman empire. While trying to unravel what he saw as the defects in present day structural considering, he co-authored another book called Learning from Las Vegas in the year 1977. The book was for the most part about his experience on the excursion to Las Vegas. In the book, he recognized the way that despite the fact that there were deformities inside the strip like the sporadic arrangement of building furthermore the parking areas, the strip was there to sit tight. Venturi learnt a great deal from his trek to Las Vegas, knowing how to consider the current scene and afterward move from that and tolerating what was given. This thought of Venturi really stunned the universe of engineering. A significant number of the structural group felt that real roads the nation over including the one of Las Vegas Strip were so tremendously defective and along these lines, they should be totally be adjusted. From here, the impact of Venturi was being felt over the field of modeller and the pioneer marked him as a revolutionary. Venturi designed a stairways that was leading to nowhere in the Vanna Venturi’s building. These “nowhere stairs…accommodate awkwardly” to the central node space and add a sense of whimsy to the space and they urge people to trace their origin from Ottoman architecture. 11.0 Sinan and Its contribution to Istanbul The impact of Sinan design was very important and felt not only within Istanbul but within its peripheries. Sinan was the one in charge of the whole city of Istanbul, he was responsible for its administration activities, the management of its sewerage system, water supply, regulation of fire and the repair of the public buildings within the city (Schriwer 2013). The construction of the Sinan was in harmony with the land scape, concept which did not surface in Europe for a long period of time until late 16th century (Lindgren & Ross 2015). He was able to bring this harmony through unique designs, where his choices of site, the form, magnitude and the materials used in buildings used ingredients which were able to enhance the beauty of the overall city image. The change in the image of the city can be shown in the figure below; Figure 6: New city image The domed kind of designs were distributed over the city occupying major significant area where they were able to have physical aesthetic dominance (Tiliouine, Renima and Estes 2016). The main vision of the Sanai was to assimilate the old Byzantine capital into an Ottoman Islamic identity. The impact of these projects developed by Sanai on the city of the Istanbul can also be seen as apparent in the social, political and physical scope of his constructions. The buildings Kulliye and the complex places were able to create urban environment. These changes and new designs were known as mahalle or the districts by the locals. They were made functional centres for Ottoman rule18. The construction of three water supply by Sinan was one of its major contribution in shaping the city of Istanbul. The length of each three water system were roughly 50 km. they were built such that the first inlet fed the city of Edirne from the Taslimusellim water source while the other two supplied the city of Istanbul from the Suleymaniya and the Kirkcesme (Bankoff 2015). These social amenities and water system were later emulated by other European cities in construction their water infrastructure and sewerage system. The surroundings cities and other Empire designers borrowed a lot from the magnificent buildings of the Istanbul19. The modern architecture are still basing their design on these magnificent buildings and help to give the city its own identity (Erkal 2015). The strong nature of the water system designed and developed by Ottoman Empire is still in work to date despite their construction over 500 years ago. In the 17th century, there are only two major notable buildings which were built. These two magnificent buildings were designed by Davud who was the chief architect of Ottoman Empire after Sinan20. The constructions of these buildings were continued by Ahmed Aga after the death of Davud in 1598. These magnificent buildings are some of the major inspiration of the modern buildings and the post modernism are going back to the origin of art of building with the likes of Venturi developing a passionate urge of good buildings full of decoration. The impact of the Istanbul traditional buildings are still felt up to date in the whole world and Europe as a whole. 12.0 Conclusion In summary, the Ottoman architectural style lost most of the essential elegance and characteristics as it went further from its capital. This is because supervision was inadequate in the far away provinces. In addition to this, regional conventions were superimposed without any considerations of stylistic integrity. Bibliography Akbulut, D. Eksi, A. Ciftci, and M. T. Akbulut. "CHILDREN WORKSHOPS ABOUT" ARCHITECTURE" BY PRIVATE MUSEUMS IN ISTANBUL." EDULEARN13 Proceedings (2013): 2474-2480. Arab, Y. and Hassan, A.S., 2013. Daylight Performance of Single Pedentive Dome Mosque Design During Winter Solstice. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 9(1), p.25. Bankoff, G., 2015. DESIGN BY DISASTERS. Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction, p.53. Belakehal, A., Tabet Aoul, K. and Farhi, A., 2015. Daylight as a Design Strategy in the Ottoman Mosques of Tunisia and Algeria. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, (just-accepted). Brooks, Alan J, Poole & Domnique, T 2004, ‘Innovations in Architecture,’ New Cohen, J.P., 2014. Oriental by Design: Ottoman Jews, Imperial Style, and the Performance of Heritage. The American Historical Review, 119(2), pp.364-398. Ergin, N., 2015. Healing by Design? An Experiential Approach to Early Modern Ottoman Hospital Architecture. Turkish Historical Review, 6(1), pp.1-37. Erkal, N., 2015. Grain Scale of Ottoman Istanbul Architecture of the Unkapanı Landing Square. Journal of Urban History, p.0096144215612753. Ersoy, A.A., 2015. Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd... Erzen, Jale, N 2004, ‘An Aesthetic Analysis, Ankara: Metu, pg 133-199 Goodwin, G 1999 ‘A History of Ottoman Architecture,’ Thames and Hudson, pg 34-56 Hensel, M., 2013. Performance-oriented architecture: rethinking architectural design and the built environment. John Wiley & Sons. Hensel, M., 2013. Performance-oriented architecture: rethinking architectural design and the built environment. John Wiley & Sons. Hewitt, R., (2015); and Historiography of Persian Architecture (Routledge, 2015). He is the director and founding editor of the International Journal of Islamic Architecture. Anna Grichting is Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at Qatar University. She has a doctorate of design in urban. Contemporary Urban Landscapes of the Middle East, p.288. Inalcik, H 2003, ‘The Great Ottoman, Turkish Civilisation,’ Semih Ofset, Yeni, Turkiye, Lindgren, A. and Ross, S. 2015. The Modernist World. Routledge. Mainstone, Rowland, P 1990, ‘Developments in Structural Form,’ Cambridge: MIT Press Mustafa, F.A. and Hassan, A.S., 2013. Mosque layout design: An analytical study of mosque layouts in the early Ottoman period. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2(4), pp.445-456. Preiser, W.F., Vischer, J. and White, E. 2015. Design Intervention (Routledge Revivals): Toward a More Humane Architecture. Routledge. Sağdiç, Z., 2015. Ottoman Architecture: Relationships between Architectural Design and Mathematics in Sinan’s Works. In Architecture and Mathematics from Antiquity to the Future (pp. 95-106). Springer International Publishing. Sahin, S., 2013, June. From East to West: Persian, Indian and Central European Themes Forming the Architectural Scenery in Early Modern Ottoman Culture. International Conference on Architecture and Urban Design. Saliba, R., 2016. Urban Design in the Arab World: Reconceptualizing Boundaries. Routledge. Schriwer, C., 2013. Cultural and ethnic identity in the Ottoman period architecture of Cyprus, Jordan and Lebanon. Levant. Sulo, G., Shota, G. and Dervishi, S., 2014. A Comparative Study of Ottoman Inns in Albania during the XVII Century. Tiliouine, H., Renima, A. and Estes, R.J., 2016. The Changing Map of the Islamic World: From the Abbasid Era to the Ottoman Empire of the Twentieth Century. In The State of Social Progress of Islamic Societies (pp. 53-68). Springer International Publishing. Von Gladib, A 2000, ‘Ottoman Architecture’, M. Hattstein & P.Delius (Eds.), Islam Art nd Architecture, Konemann, pg 123-176. Yalcın, H.T., Ozen, M.O., Gocmen, B. and Nalbantsoy, A., 2014. Effect of Ottoman viper (Montivipera xanthina (Gray, 1849)) venom on various cancer cells and on microorganisms. Cytotechnology, 66(1), pp.87-94. Read More

The introverted and the traditional manner started to change in the society. Waterside and fountains residences became popular, for example the Aynalıkavak Kasrı, and recreational areas made up of a picnic and water canal area were also established. Between 1720 and 1890, Ottoman architecture deviated from the earlier classical period, commencing with the Baroque styled mosques. The Baroque Period, which falls between 1757 and 1808, saw the construction of wavy, curved lines and structures.

Examples includes Birgi Çakırağa Mansion, Nur-u Osmaniye Mosque, Fatih Tomb, Laleli Mosque and Laleli Çukurçeşme Inn. The most important architect of that time was Mimar Tahir. Other important structures built in the Ottoman Baroque style are the Jesus tomb in Jerusalem and the most holy place in Christendom. Birgi Çakırağa Mansio The last period of Ottomans architecture was after 1900. This period gave birth to the style which was dubbed ‘1st National Style of the architecture of the Turkish’.

The approach here was a revival style of Ottoman architecture, with the intention of promoting Ottoman self-identity and patriotism. They were based on materials and construction techniques that were modern. They used materials like iron, steel, reinforced concrete and glass roofs. In many events they used a Beaux-Arts structure with an outward motif which was associated with the original architecture which inspired it. This focused on motifs and forms that were traditionally "Ottoman," for instance the roof overhangs, the pointed arches, the domes placed over corners or towers, the ornate tile decorated, amongst others6.

Examples include Central Post Office of Istanbul in Sirkeci, Istanbul ferryboat terminals, Sultanahmet Jail, amongst others7 Sultanahmet Jail 3.0 The Characteristics of Ottoman Architecture The features of the architecture of Ottoman went through numerous changes. Geographically, the features changed according to the distance from the heart of the Ottoman Empire, and concessions thus are put to local architectural traditions for buildings that are constructed in the Ottoman provinces (Preiser, Vischer & White 2015 p 34).

Ottomans architecture early in the formative period was mainly built in stone. The Ottoman architecture in actual sense is known for a very high quality of masonry. However, the combination of stone and brick continued to be commonplace, and brick is in fact used for vaults, arches and domes. In addition to this, lead is also used for covering minaret caps and domes from the 10th century onwards (Goodwin 1999, p.56). Polychrome and glazed ceramic tiles ceramic, such as the Iznik tiles where blue and white dominate, are then used as a wall covering.

In around the 10th to the 16th centuries marble was used as a sheathing material. Wood in this architecture was used as a decorative material and as a structural material which is a predominant material for houses in Istanbul at the Ottoman capital (Goodwin 1999, p.56). One of the major characteristics of the mosques of Ottoman is the dominant central dome covering a large part of the people’s prayer hall. In the classical Ottoman period, the central dome was increased drastically in size.

It was combined with a number of small domes and half-domes which cascaded up from what is called the central dome, with the general arrangement fitting into a pyramidal outline. Some of the mosques had one or several half domes each in support of the central dome. In the Ottoman architecture, the domes have a semi-circular flat profile. Large imperial Ottoman religious complexes usually include an important number of facilities, that in addition to the mosque, could also include a mausoleum meant for the patron, a hospital, a soup-kitchen, shops, a madrasa and a public bath (Goodwin 1999, p.56) The Ottoman mosque is so known for being elegant, simple and pencil-shaped, that is in most cases fluted and is finished in a lead-covered, long conical cap.

Read More