CIPA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
Naturally, this table and its method of evaluation may have 
mistakes and issues that may be criticized; however, what is 
important here is the necessity for formation of comments that 
may be guiding at the phase of decision-making and that are 
based on objective data as much as possible. 
Lastly, it has to be mentioned that as long as the use of 
developed techniques and methods become more wide-spread, 
the resulting products become maybe very sensitive but they 
sometimes remain insufficient to express the characteristics of 
the building subject to analysis. See: Figure 
In this experimental system where 20 points is the highest score 
according to the results of the table where evaluation made on 4 
different buildings are seen, a selection system going towards 
complex and expensive methods according to increasing points 
is suggested. Also it has to be mentioned here that this system 
does not bring definite limits but it is more appropriate to use a 
mixed method and technique according to the purpose in spite 
of using a single method in architectural survey studies as it had 
been defended by various authors before. 
The main reason that justifies the method suggested here is the 
fact that costs increase when complex and developed techniques 
and methods are selected instead of simple methods and it is 
also the elimination of risks when the costs are at a level that 
may prevent the treatment of “patient” as it has been expressed 
at the beginning. Another thing that might be done in this 
context is to decrease the costs of these complex techniques and 
methods. I think that this is necessary in the developed societies 
of our day where architectural heritage is that much developed 
and diversified since the concept of preservation and the sources 
transferred for its application will not increase without any 
limits. 
References 
Smith, J., 1989. Space Data from Earth Sciences. Elsevier, 
Amsterdam, pp. 321-332. 
Schuller Manfred , 2002, Building Archaeology, ICOMOS , 
München, 
Binan Can , 2002, Istanbul, Azapkapi Fountain Architectural 
survey and Restoration Project. Project Manager 
Binan Can , 2002, Istanbul, Tophane Fountain Architectural 
survey and Restoration Project. Project Manager 
Binan Can , 2002, Istanbul, Egrikemer Aquaduct Architectural 
survey and Restoration Project. Project Manager 
Drawing 02 Tophane fountain 
Albertz Jörg, ed., 2002, Berlin, International Symposium of 
CIPA, September 18-21 2001, Surveying and Documentation of 
Historic Buildings- Monuments - Sites, Traditional Methods., 
Photo 01, Aquaduct Egrikemer