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
