Preservation of 20th-Century Residential Areas and a Proposal for Karabük Yenişehir Settlement

Abstract

Modern heritage, especially post-war housing estates, is facing the problems of appreciation and preservation. These buildings are interpreted in different ways by decision-makers because of questions relating to their identification. Accordingly, this research aims to better understand the heritage attributes and significance of post-war housing estates, in particular in the Yenişehir settlement—a neighborhood in Karabük, Türkiye. Within the framework of cultural significance and heritage values (values of DOCOMOMO), an assessment was conducted by using expert interviews for data collection. The AHP (analytical hierarchy process) method, one of the decision support systems, was used to contribute to the subjective decision process. The experts determined significance levels for the studied buildings based on whether they needed to be preserved. Comparisons with the AHP created essential data that showed different views, especially regarding intangible values. Through the process, the attributes and values of buildings were made visible. According to experts, the significance of the buildings has changed. This study consists of 5 stages: authenticity analysis of the buildings in the area, classification of the buildings, application of the AHP on buildings of greater significance, determining of cultural significance ranking, and making suggestions according to the ranking.

1. Introduction

In the 20th century, housing production styles changed rapidly due to industrial developments and post-war housing problems. With the increase in population and urbanization, large mass-housing estates were built in the 1950s [1]. Especially in Western countries, cost-effective residential areas were planned around cities. In many European cities, there are examples of such housing, usually designed for workers. Today, decades after their construction, these cheap and fast-built housing estates are experiencing many problems. Some examples, however, continue to be used in their current state and are not obsolete, and these are home to tens of millions of Europeans [2].

The main challenge in preserving post-war housing areas as cultural heritage is their demolition or renovation, ignoring their historical or artistic value due to potential obsolescence, changing demographics, and rapidly increasing demands for energy efficiency, as well as new standards of living [3]. However, if their value is adequately recognized and they can be protected, they can provide historical, economic, and environmental sustainability [4].

Buildings in these areas may have heritage value as individual buildings but also have group value. English Heritage has mentioned that these areas should be evaluated together in terms of their “group value”, as distinct from individual buildings [5].

In response to the question, “How does the twentieth-century architectural heritage differ from that of earlier centuries?”, Cantacuzino (2003) argued that the general values embodied in ICOMOS charters are as valid for 20th-century buildings as they are for earlier eras. However, Cantacuzino suggested that, instead of relying solely on principles and rules, an empirical approach is more suitable for preserving modern buildings. He described the most important differences as their designing for a short life cycle, sheer quantity, numerical multiplicity, and absence of rarity. In determining what merits protection, he emphasized the necessity of establishing selection processes and, consequently, criteria for selection [6].

Looking at the first steps in the conservation process, it is generally accepted that some buildings have heritage value. The Nara Document states that heritage values may differ from culture to culture and even within the same culture. Many researchers and international associations have analyzed heritage values and created value typologies. Avrami and Mason state these values are “not fixed, but subjective and situational”. The process of creating heritage values and assessment methods cannot be objective, technically precise, or one-size-fits-all. Therefore, the focus should be on methodologies (the process of generating knowledge), ensuring the use of relevant information, bringing transparency to the process, and enabling broader and more meaningful participation [7]. In the case of post-war buildings or residential areas, there is a lack of methodologies for heritage value assessment and related research and practice.

There are housing estates in Türkiye that are similar to European examples. Although there are no obstacles in the legislation to protecting modern building examples, problems may be encountered in listing and protecting these buildings due to the lack of direct determining and limiting provisions. Since it is not possible to protect all of these numerous buildings, it is necessary to identify the buildings with “cultural significance”, which is also frequently emphasized in the literature.

The Burra Charter defines cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations”. It is synonymous with “cultural heritage significance” and “cultural heritage value”. It is emphasized that different places may have value for different individuals or groups. It is recommended that groups and individuals associated with a place (as well as those involved in its management) should be provided opportunities to contribute to and participate in identifying and understanding its cultural significance [8].

One of these housing estates, the Yenişehir settlement in Karabük, Türkiye, is designated as an “urban preservation site”, and only one building in the area, the Cinema Building, is listed. The future status of this neighborhood, some parts of which have been demolished and in which urban transformation has been carried out over time, poses a problem in its current state. According to the legal regulations in Türkiye, whether the buildings in the area will be preserved or not will be decided based on subjective preferences by experts who are the legal decision-makers. This necessitates the need for a transparent and knowledge-based methodology.

There are case studies on housing estates in Türkiye but, in general, there is a lack of methodological studies. Havinga et al. reviewed many studies on public housing heritage assessment and noted a lack of research defining a methodological approach [9]. In the literature, it is mentioned that these areas are usually studied as case studies in many studies. Providing a comprehensive survey of the literature, Spoormans and Roders (2021) stated that, despite the wealth of applications, there is limited research on tools and methods for assessing the values of architecture and urbanism today [10].

In summary, the problems addressed within the scope of this study were determined to be as follows: conservation problems of post-war housing areas, the difficulty in making decisions through subjective preferences under the current legal regulations, the necessity of subjective evaluations to be objective and transparent, the insufficient understanding of the factors which contribute to the value of these buildings, which are numerous in the Karabük Yenişehir settlement, the debate on the priority of conservation, the lack of methodology for a better view of these buildings’ value, and the lack of methods to help create a management plan to ensure the sustainability of the area.

This study proposes an evaluation model for modern buildings in the Karabük-Yenişehir settlement. To establish an order of priority between the buildings, they were divided into groups based on authenticity analysis. In this analysis, buildings with modern heritage values were highlighted. The AHP method was used to subjectively evaluate these buildings. Within the scope of this study, the conservation problems of residential areas built in the post-war period, the difficulty in making decisions based on subjective preferences under the current legal regulations, and the necessity of subjective evaluations to be objective and transparent are discussed at the beginning. Afterward, the conservation problems specific to the Karabük Yenişehir settlement are addressed. The content and sample application of the proposed methodology developed in this regard are given. The results obtained about the area are discussed. According to the results obtained with the developed method, evaluations were made regarding the area and the protection of modern heritage.

1.1. Post-War Housing Estates and Their Conservation Status

When we look at implementation practices, there are examples of preserved residential areas that were built in the 20th century. Park Hill Estate in England [5], and Lakeside Drive, which houses the [11] EDF Towers at Ivry-sur-Seine in France [12]. Other examples have also become controversial, including Alison and Peter Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens [13]. In Open Garden Estates, a post-World War II prefabricated housing settlement, 93% of the owners voted to protect their property. Since six houses were supported, they were listed, and the rest were converted [14]. Harnack and Heger (2023) mentioned that, in Germany, the current legislation allows the best examples to be preserved while others are blocked by non-professionals [15]. In countries such as the UK, Russia, and France, many examples of social housing with poor conditions have become neglected and idle, and have also been demolished [16,17,18].

It was recommended that modern heritage be categorized as local, national, and global. UNESCO, ICOMOS, and DOCOMOMO are working in this direction [19,20,21]. Accordingly, examples of modernist housing estates of global value have been inscribed on the World Heritage List. In Berlin, six separate housing estates were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008. Built between 1910 and 1933, they were included in the World Heritage List as “an outstanding example of the housing policies of the Weimar Republic in the city of Berlin, a symbol of political, social, cultural and technical progress”. Some of the leading architects of German modernism were involved in designing and constructing these buildings, developing innovative urban, building, and mass-housing typologies, technical solutions, and aesthetic achievements. These features of these buildings have contributed to their selection for the World Heritage List [22]. The city of Le Havre in France was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2005. During World War II, the center of the historic city of Le Havre, which was destroyed by bombardment, was re-planned by Auguste Perret, and the buildings were designed by Perret and his students [23].

Some important public housing complexes (as in the examples mentioned above) have only recently started to be recognized as heritage sites, and the development of strategies for their protection, conservation, and regeneration is still in its early stages [24,25]. Looking at the limited research studies on this topic, it can be seen that some studies have conducted an analysis and developed a methodology [26,27,28]. Havinga et al. (2019) conducted comprehensive research on the cultural significance of social housing estates in Amsterdam, including a review of assessments of 10 housing estates [9]. Studies involving residents are noteworthy, especially considering the insufficient sensitization of users and the public. Ampuero et al. (2024) conducted a methodological study to make the values of a residential area in Madrid visible to its residents [27]. Another example is the study by Roberts (2017), conducted on some residential areas in London [28]. One of the studies that developed a methodology for documenting modern heritage is by Alghamdi et al. (2023) [29].

While the situation in Europe was briefly described above, after 1935, a housing crisis emerged in Türkiye for workers and civil servants, which led to the production of areas similar to the housing settlements in Europe [30]. The architects of the newly established and modern Republic of Türkiye took the “siedlungs” as an example of mass housing in Germany [31]. The first examples of these settlements were the officials houses in the Saraçoğlu settlement in Ankara, the Bahçelievler Building Cooperative, and the Levent, Ataköy, and Koşuyolu settlements in Istanbul. At the same time, with the establishment of industrial facilities in Anatolia, worker settlements were planned in many cities. The Saraçoğlu settlement in Ankara is an urban preservation site, but later faced the threat of urban transformation under the disaster law [32]. The Levent settlement was listed as a preservation site in 2008 [33]. Even though some areas are preserved, the fact that their buildings are not included in the scope of protection constitutes a significant problem. For instance, an international campaign has been launched to protect the Ataköy settlement. The area selected for this research is the Yenişehir settlement, one of the first examples of these settlements, implemented for the Karabük Iron and Steel Factory.

When we look at the studies conducted in Türkiye on this topic, it is seen that there are not enough studies in terms of methodology, as is also the case in the world in general. There are many studies in which these examples are generally studied as case studies, and in which conservation problems are mentioned [33,34]. Madran mentioned the heritage value of the Saraçoğlu settlement in 2013 [32], and Altınay and Nalçakan (2021) conducted a comprehensive study to identify the value of the same neighborhood from the perspective of the users by interviewing the former residents of the Saraçoğlu settlement [35]. Yıldız (2015) conducted a study, including interviews with residents, to determine the changes in and value of the Koşuyolu settlement, and made recommendations for the area [36].

As summarized above, there is a lack of methodological studies on a global and local scale for the conservation of post-war housing areas. This study aims to contribute to this field.

1.2. Theoretical Framework: Notions of Importance

The term “cultural significance” is used to mean the importance of a place as determined by the aggregate of values attributed to it. Value is defined as a set of positive characteristics or qualities perceived in cultural objects or sites by certain individuals or groups [37]. Conservation processes require increased cooperation among professionals, decision-makers, and community members to achieve balanced decisions. These different persons are often referred to as “stakeholders”. The stakeholders are the many individuals, groups, and institutions with an interest in the outcomes of heritage and conservation issues [38].

When we look at conservation approaches to heritage value, Poulios [39] summarized the discipline of heritage conservation from its birth to the present day with two approaches: the material-based approach and the value-based approach. Although these approaches emerged in different periods, they are both applied today. However, the value-based approach is currently recognized as the most preferred and adopted approach in heritage conservation [40].

The material-based approach, referred to as “authorized heritage discourse” [38], shows an excessive focus on preserving the material/fabric. The material-based approach is an expert-driven approach. Responsibility for identifying and conserving heritage lies in the hands of the authority (often state appointees), and is led by political authorities and, especially, conservation specialists. It was introduced by experts such as Alois Riegl in research conducted in the 19th and early 20th centuries [41]. It was the basis for the development of the World Heritage concept and the adoption of the World Heritage List [42,43,44,45]. A material-based approach is mentioned in the Venice Charter [39,44].

The basic premise of the values-based approach is that different people attribute value to heritage sites in numerous ways and that values play a central role in defining and guiding the conservation of built heritage. The ultimate aim of conservation in the values-based approach is not to preserve the material for its own sake but to preserve (and shape) the values inherent in heritage, and physical intervention or treatment is one of many means to this end [7]. The main difference between the two approaches is who makes the decisions. Conservation professionals are the authority in the material-based approach. Avrami et al. criticize that this approach highlights top-down, normative conceptions of heritage imposed by national bodies or experts [7].

On the other hand, according to the value-based approach, there are groups of stakeholders—including the local community—and conservation professionals supervise them. These stakeholders include local and indigenous communities, which are related to the protection of values associated with tangible and intangible expressions of heritage such as user or social value.

At this point, who defines a building as being a part of cultural heritage is important. While there are different views on the number of stakeholders and who should be involved, there are many views which agree on the fact that it should be different based on the place. Local attributes need to be evaluated in a local context with scales. There are many examples of assessments reduced to national, regional, and city dimensions. Many studies emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary (with experts) approach to assessing cultural significance (e.g., Australia ICOMOS, English Heritage, [8,46,47]). Studies on this matter are summarized in

Table 1. Studies on identification of stakeholders.

Burra Charter, 1979 [8]	Kerr, 2013 [48]	Avrami et al., 2000 [47]	Mason, 2002 [49]
1. Groups and individuals with associations with the place	minimum number of persons having the necessary range of skills between them directly relevant to the assessment of the particular place	1. Stakeholders;	1. Insiders
		professionals	public officials
2. persons involved in the management of the place		academics	bureaucrats
		community members	policymakers
		2. Potential stakeholders;	conservation professionals
		the individual, the family, the local community, an academic discipline or professional community, an ethnic or religious group, a region, a nation-state, macrostates, the world.	other experts invited into the process
			2. Outsiders
			everyone else with a stake in the heritage in question but with little or no leverage on the process
			3. Potential stakeholders
			a future exercise some interest in the heritage site in question—future generations

.

The notion that values are subjective and mutable is taken for granted in many academic circles today. However, this notion is still being debated in the conservation field. Avrami and Mason said that values are “subjective and situational, not fixed” [7].

Table 2. Typologies of modern heritage values.

Docomomo International [50]		Docomomo Türkiye [51]	ICOMOS, ISC 20C, Madrid—New Delhi Document, (2017) [52,53]		Council of EuroPE (1991) [54]
Intrinsic value	Technical -Technological	Technical	Tangible values	Physical location	Aesthetic
	Social	Social		Views	History of technology
	Artistic and Aesthetic	Cultural and aesthetic		Design (for example, form and spatial relationships; colour schemes and cultural plantings; construction systems, fabric, technical equipment, as well as aesthetic qualities)	Political
	Integrity	Historic	Intangible values	Historic	Cultural
Comparative significance	Canonic			Social	Economic
	Referential			Scientific	Social development
				Spiritual associations
				Evidence of creative genius

contains value typologies regarding modern heritages. Many researchers and international associations have studied the features of heritage value that the mentioned buildings must have to be considered heritage. Due to the impossibility of conserving all the numerous buildings, it is necessary to determine which buildings possess “cultural significance”.

As mentioned above, utilizing the typology of heritage values and the concepts of cultural significance is recommended when attempting to register a building. Many academic studies and legal regulations have been established within the framework of these concepts. However, values themselves may be perceived differently epistemologically and semantically by stakeholders. While values can be interpreted differently among different stakeholders, there are also differences in how they are evaluated. For example, an assessment of economic value by a corporation operating and owning a heritage site, compared to that by a typical resident of a nearby village [49].

Heritage conservation in Türkiye has historically been based on a material-based approach. Relevant protective laws and regulations directly authorize the experts. Groups and individuals with associations with the place are not participants in its identification and preservation. Although the general public is sensitive to the preservation of traditional architectural heritage, conservation decisions for modern heritage may be contested by local communities [55]. In addition to not being accepted as heritage, many listed buildings were recently delisted on the grounds due to their structural conditions (Istanbul Atatürk Cultural Center, Mecidiyeköy Liquor and Brandy Factory, Karaköy Passenger Hall, and dozens of apartment buildings demolished under the Disaster Law are some examples) [56].

The reasons why these buildings cannot be preserved and will be demolished can be cited as lack of awareness, urbanization, economic policies, the poor physical condition of these buildings (especially those built between 1950 and 80), and the lack of a systematic inventory of these modern buildings [55]. There is no expectation to comply with urban design principles and structural and environmental standards when preserving traditional buildings. Still, these factors are particularly problematic during the restoration of modern heritage [57].

Since it is not possible to preserve all of these numerous buildings, it is necessary to identify the buildings with “cultural significance”, as emphasized in the introduction. The Burra Charter, published by ICOMOS Australia in 1981, is one of the leading comprehensive studies on cultural significance and has guided many studies [8]. Within the scope of this charter, ICOMOS Australia published the “Conservation Plan: Guidelines for the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Sites of European Cultural Importance” by J. S. Kerr (1982) [48]. In this guide, a comprehensive study on the importance levels of the values related to heritage has been made, and a guide for creating conservation plans has been created. One of the examples implemented in line with this study is the study prepared for UrbanGrowth NSW in 2014 [58].

ICOMOS, ISC 20C, the Madrid Document of 2011, and the Madrid-New Delhi Document of 2017 recommend using comparative analysis to determine cultural significance. The following table presents a typology of cultural significance developed by some researchers and organizations (

Table 3. Heritage groups and their importance levels were developed by different researchers and organizations.

Mason, 2002 [49]	Kerr, 2013 [48]	Council of Europe, 2005 [59]	Isakhan, 2014 [60]	Docomomo [21]
Degree of Importance of a Particular Value	Significance	Importance, Interest	Value	Group
Unique	(Potential)	Of regional or local importance	No value	Local
Important	Little	Of special national interest	Unknown	National
Typical etc.	Some	Of outstanding national importance	Limited	International
	Considerable	Internationally important	Some
	Exceptional		Considerable
			Exceptional

).

In the study by Isakhan (2013), a value scale was created using the conservation values scale created within the scope of the Australian Conservation Plan [20]. The destruction index of cultural heritage in Iraq damaged after the war was calculated according to the heritage values determined by English Heritage [60]. Dastgerdi and De Luca (2018) discussed the cultural significance approach within the context of the historic urban landscape approach [61]. Ferreira et al. (2023) conducted a cultural significance-based analysis for reinforced concrete buildings [62].

The AHP method, chosen as a tool in this study, is a method capable of evaluating qualitative and quantitative variables for criteria creation, including the preferences of individuals or groups in the process and providing solutions by handling them using a hierarchical approach. Saaty developed the importance scale for pairwise comparisons of AHP factors [63]. According to this scale, the options to be evaluated are compared with each other based on main-sub-criteria by the decision maker. The hierarchical importance ranks of the options are obtained by the decision-maker answering the comparative survey questions containing the AHP matrix. In case there is more than one decision maker, the geometric mean of the results of the participants is taken to determine the group decision.

The AHP method is included to assist in the evaluation part of this study, especially since it is necessary to compare buildings to determine their cultural significance according to different experts. It seems that many different studies in architecture, as well as in other disciplines, have used this method. Yetkin and Koç (2022) conducted a study using the AHP method to determine heritage values [64]. The method was used in two separate studies to determine the weights of modern heritage values [65,66]. For example, in their studies, intending to decrease subjectivity in design evaluations, Al-Saggaf et al. (2020) used it to develop a decision-support system regarding buildings’ life cycles which comprises an owner’s and an architect’s relative preferences among more than one essential criterion (functionality, cost, aesthetic, etc.) [67]. Bozic et al. (2018) made proposals to enhance the variety of tourism products by using AHP to rank the attractions of six cultural heritage areas on Phuket Island in Thailand [68]. Furthermore, Yau (2008) determined alternatives to conservation projects with the participation of various experts [69].

In this study, developed in light of these studies, a model was created using the AHP method for cultural importance analysis, and suggestions for the field will be mentioned. The AHP method and its analysis are studied in more detail within the scope of the author’s PhD thesis, which is in the completion process.

1.3. Legal Status and Practices of Modern Heritage in Türkiye

The 1983 Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets and the related regulations do not clearly define the time limit in the definition of cultural property. However, a provision stipulates that those buildings from the Early Republican period (between 1923 and 1938/1950, although there is no definite date) should not be demolished without the opinion of the Preservation Council (Principal Decision No: 662). Accordingly, these buildings can be listed and protected. However, for buildings built after the 19th century, the condition of “consideration to needing preservation” may lead to different results in practice.

The regulation lists heritage values for single buildings, but these criteria cover all buildings, and there are no separate classification or evaluation criteria for modern buildings. In line with these situations, buildings that fall within the scope of modern heritage can be preserved with the current legal regulations. Still, problems arise, as there are differences in the application of the rules. Baturayoğlu Yöney et al. (2017) stated that, without a grading system, an objective comparison cannot be made between buildings that are reviewed and evaluated by different reporters and councils, that it is not clear how to determine the “designation value”, and that the main obstacle to the protection and listing of these buildings is related to the “criteria of the designation” [70].

Efforts are being made to contribute to this situation, and the annual event organized by the DOCOMOMO-Türkiye National Working Group, “DOCOMOMO-Türkiye Poster Presentations: Local Expansions of Modernism in Turkish Architecture”, is one of the most essential activities in this regard. Within the scope of this event, more than a thousand buildings/building groups in Türkiye have been presented since 2004 [71]. Along with this work, there are various studies and much academic research on the documentation of modern architectural heritage [30,31,72,73,74,75,76].

The conservation process of buildings in Türkiye is shown in the figure below (Figure 1). Within the framework of the rules set by law, it is decided whether a building with heritage value will be designated. The designation of the building is a prerequisite for its conservation, but the necessary maintenance and repair must be provided for the building to continue its life. The critical point here is that the public or building owners should be involved in this process because the state’s resources are insufficient to protect all qualified buildings.

While this is the case for buildings, no special category or rule exists for the house settlements examined in the study area. In addition, if it is decided that they have the necessary quality, they can be protected as an urban site within the scope of the above process. In this context, gardens or landscape areas in urban preservation areas can be protected. The rules for the direct designation of these areas are not clear. Considering that parks and gardens in these areas may fall within the scope of “cultural landscape”, this concept is not yet included in the relevant laws in Türkiye. For this reason, there is a lack of rules on protecting landscape elements in these areas or on the forms of intervention.

In line with these discussions, settlement areas, which are numerous and whose status may become controversial, have been identified as a sample study area to solve this problem. Although, theoretically, the conservation process is expected to be realized within a value-based approach, current legal regulations in Türkiye do not consider public participation. In addition, legal decision-makers are a community of experts, such as legal experts and archaeologists. In this study, the number of experts was increased, and experts directly related to the subject were selected to be an improved version of the legal conservation council members.

Although it is intended to provide a clear framework for determining how many monuments should be protected within the economic means of the state (Article 7th of the Conservation Law), the definition of “sufficient number of monuments” can be interpreted in varying ways. Accordingly, a model was developed to prioritize which buildings should be protected in the area selected as the study area. Within the scope of this article, the model obtained using the AHP method, and this model, as well as the analysis and recommendations made using the data of this model, are presented.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Karabük Yenişehir Settlement and Conservation Status

With the establishment of Kardemir Iron and Steel Factory, the first heavy industry of the Republic of Türkiye, a new neighborhood was established in Karabük Kapullu Village, a village with 13 households in a region close to the factory, named Yenişehir to meet the housing needs of the factory’s officials, workers, technicians, engineers, and managers (Figure 2). Kaya reported that the settlement plan was prepared by French architect and urbanist Henri Prost in 1938 [77]. Öktem, on the other hand, stated that the Yenişehir settlement was prepared by a foreign architect at the same time as the factory. Still, since the original zoning plan was lost, the architect is unknown [78]. According to Özkan Altınöz, there are documents in the state archives on the planning of Karabük by Henri Prost [79].

In the settlement, residences are positioned to meet modern needs, with social and cultural facilities, gardens, and roads, considering the differences in status of those who live in the settlement. Civil servant, worker, and manager houses are arranged as low and multi-story houses in gardens, and sports, educational, and social facilities have been created (Figure 3). Built in stages for the employees of the Kardemir Iron and Steel Factory, which started to serve in 1939 [80], this settlement is the first mass-housing area of Karabük. It continues to serve as the factory’s housing area today.

It was determined in the study by Onur (2021) [81] that 19 different plan types of residences exist in the area. The residences were categorized according to their modules, and 23 different types were created. It was stated that there are approximately 500 residences in the settlement and, although these houses are different from each other, they are generally differentiated by the addition volumes to the same type of plans, especially in single-story houses.

The area was designated as an urban preservation area in 1996. The justification for protection was stated as the area having an essential place in the history of Karabük, having a symbolic value in terms of witnessing the industrialization and development of the city, and being an urban area that constitutes concrete documents of the social, economic, and cultural lifestyle of a certain period and a particular segment of our society, as well as that the value given to human beings and interpersonal relations are reflected in the space, being an exemplary settlement unit with an urban area design that will shed light on the present and future in terms of density and buildings with open space use [82].

Although there are many buildings in the area, only one building, Yenişehir Cinema Building, was listed in 2018 [82]. Some parts of the region were demolished in different periods, and several building groups of various types have disappeared. It is determined as an essential problem that there is only one building in the area that is listed, and that the other buildings are not protected. For this reason, it seems that the values of the area are not sufficiently understood. With this study, attention will be drawn to the values of the buildings in the area, and suggestions for protection will be made.

2.2. Structure of the Method

The research in this study consists of 5 stages: authenticity analysis of the buildings in the area, classification of the buildings according to the authenticity analysis, application of the AHP method on fine examples according to the determined categories, creation of cultural significance ranking, and making recommendations according to the significance ranking.

Since there are many different types of buildings in the area, these buildings first need to be categorized. The most significant differences between these buildings are in their authenticity and integrity values. For this reason, recently constructed and changed buildings were identified and separated. These buildings are classified as intrusive/damaged. Other buildings retain their original design. Among these, there are a large number of row houses. Apart from the row houses, the buildings that maintain their original design are the Cinema Building, Engineers’ Club, and Kübana Houses.

In interviews with experts, it was found that row houses have “little importance” in terms of cultural significance due to their standardized characteristics compared to other buildings. The high number of these was also a disadvantage. Since the experts had different views about the other three buildings, the significance ranking for these buildings was determined using the AHP method.

In evaluating the significance of the buildings in the Yenişehir settlement, a comparison was made among the selected prominent buildings. The AHP method was used as a comparison method. The method is one of the multi-criteria decision support systems. This method is used when there are multiple decision makers and multi-criteria evaluation. AHP was used as a tool to determine the importance levels of the buildings, for which this study conducted a subjective assessment. The AHP method allows for obtaining measurable/quantitative results from non-quantifiable/qualitative criteria and is most useful in evaluating intangible attributes [83]. The main advantage of this method is that it allows the inclusion of intangible attributes such as experience, subjective preferences, and intuition in a logical and structured way [84].

Making comparisons between characteristics of a property is a fundamental mathematical process for creating measurements, and for intangible properties without a scale, direct comparison is necessary to create measurements [85]. Especially when the attributes of alternatives are intangible, it is not easy to design a measurement scale, and using relative measurements such as AHP simplifies the analysis [83].

According to the Burra Charter, “meanings” are related to “intangible dimensions”. It is stated that meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes, or expresses to people. A place may have tangible and intangible dimensions, and these intangible dimensions—meanings—are related to people associated with the place. The people (stakeholders) for whom the place has significant associations and meanings should participate in the conservation, interpretation, and management of the place [8]

As mentioned in the cultural significance section, to prioritize the preservation of buildings, it is useful to establish a ranking of importance through comparison. In this context, the AHP method helps to determine significance that is subjective, immeasurable, and intangible and makes the values of buildings visible.

Within the framework of the regulations by law, it is decided whether a building with heritage values will be registered. In this process, the registration decision is determined as a result of the studies carried out by officials. There are conservation councils for each region in Türkiye. These councils evaluate all issues related to cultural heritage.

For this reason, there are experts from different fields of expertise. The study area is within the scope of duty of the Karabük Regional Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage. The legal council members consist of 7 people in total: 1 law expert, 2 architects, 2 archaeologists, 1 art historian, and 1 urban planner. These experts work in different cities and may not have sufficient knowledge about the area. Within the scope of this study, the stakeholders who will decide on this ranking of importance have been determined as experts who are knowledgeable about the area, thus being an improved version of the council of legal decision-makers.

There are a total of 9 experts, like in “a listing committee”: academician, art historian, and architect members of the Regional Council, art history experts from the Directorate of Council, an architect as a representative of Karabük Municipality, and researchers who played a role in documenting the buildings in question as researchers/academicians in the field (

Table 4. List of decision-makers in the research.

Decision Maker	Description
DM1	Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Karabuk University
DM2	Architect, Karabük Municipality
DM3	Art history expert in the Directorate of Karabük Regional Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage
DM4	Professor, Department of Art History, Karabuk University
DM5	Art history expert in the Directorate of Karabük Regional Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage
DM6	Lecturer in the Department of Restoration at Karabuk University and member of Karabük Regional Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage
DM7	Associate Professor, Department of Art History, old member of Karabük Regional Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage
DM8	Lecturer, Department of Restoration in Karabuk University
DM9	Architect, Lecturer, Researcher

). It was also thought that the fact that two of these people were neighborhood residents would contribute positively to the study.

The number of decision-makers in this study was close to that of legal decision-makers. Two of them are council members, one current and one former. A municipality representative also attends the council meetings as a decision-maker. For this reason, an architect expert from Karabük municipality was included in this study. The issues prepared by the experts in the Council Directorate are discussed in the council meetings. Representing them, two art history experts participated in the study. The other experts are academic staff who have knowledge about the area.

For the evaluation criteria of the method, the value typology of DOCOMOMO International was used. The three buildings obtained through the preliminary study were compared with each other using the main and sub-criteria of these values. These evaluation criteria are included in the evaluation section of DOCOMOMO’s internationally used documentation fiche. These are detailed as follows:

• Technological: Does the work employ innovative modern technology to solve structural, programmatic, or aesthetic challenges?
• Social: Does the design reflect the changing social patterns of 20th-century life? Did the designer attempt to improve either living or working conditions or human behaviors through the work’s form or function?
• Artistic and Aesthetic: Does the work exhibit skill at composition, handling of proportion, scale and material, and detail?
• Canonic: Is the work and/or architect famous or influential? Is it exemplary work?
• Referential: Did this work exert an influence on subsequent designers as a result of one or more of its attributes?
• Integrity: Is the original design intent apparent? Have material changes been made which compromise the architectural integrity of the structure or site?

The criteria used by DOCOMOMO are described above, and nine questions consisting of 6 main criteria and sub-criteria are identified. Each decision maker compares the importance-value of the buildings with the matrices formed from these nine questions and assigns a score between 1 and 9. The AHP method has an importance scale where “1 point” is equally important, and the degree of importance increases up to “9 points”. Figure 4 summarizes the methodology used.

Each of the main values was considered to be of equal importance, and the buildings were evaluated through sub-criteria according to the hierarchical model. At this point, whether the experts should determine a priority ranking was investigated. Emphasizing that it is important to stay away from expressions that privilege some values over others, Mason mentioned that some sense of priority should be created by evaluating and indicating the uniqueness or importance of the values of the place against other places in the nation/region/world (regardless of the decision-making area) [49]. As mentioned in the section of this study on cultural significance, prioritization is intended to be achieved between buildings. This study aims to approach all values equally and help all of the buildings’ values be revealed. For this reason, no prioritization was established between values.

The survey questions were answered in face-to-face interviews with the participants. These interviews were conducted separately. Matrices were obtained from the comparisons made by the participants. The buildings were evaluated according to different criteria on a scale of equal moderate strength, very strong, and extreme importance. Participants expressed the attributes of the buildings and determined their levels of significance. These comparisons revealed the values that the experts attributed to the buildings, which were also noted. In summary, both numerical data for significance ratings and building values/attributes were obtained from the evaluations.

3. Results

3.1. Practicing of the Method

The process of the model was as follows: authenticity analysis of the buildings, determining the fine examples in the area through the consultation with experts by pre-selection, deciding to evaluate the selected three buildings, determining the importance of the three buildings using the AHP method and revealing their values, creating an order of importance according to the results of this survey of experts, and then making suggestions according to the order of importance.

3.1.1. Attributes and Categorization of Buildings in the Area

When the authenticity of the buildings in the area was analyzed, it was found that most social and educational buildings have been changed or demolished and reconstructed (Figure 5). For this reason, they do not have qualities to be evaluated within the scope of heritage. It is seen that the highest density of buildings in the area is represented by row houses. Large value differences occur when the attributes of these buildings are compared with those of other buildings according to the value typology used in the methodology. Interviews with decision-makers/experts revealed that, since the number, simplicity, and similarity of row houses are high, they should be placed at the end of the importance rating as a separate category from the featured buildings in the area.

According to the Nara document declared at the ICOMOS 1994 Conference, authenticity is based on various sources of information. These sources may include the design and form, materials and substance, use and function, tradition and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors [86].

These newly constructed buildings and others whose form, material, function, layout, and original design have changed are evaluated in different categories according to their authenticity. These buildings are separated from other buildings that preserve their original design. Accordingly, within the scope of cultural significance, buildings designed as part of an urban site and which are witnesses of the past were determined through pre-selection.

According to the authenticity analysis, recently built or renovated buildings were identified as intrusive/damaged. These buildings were constructed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s [78]. The common attribute of these buildings is that they were constructed in the area at different times. Also, they are not a main part of the area. However, the row houses and the other original buildings were designed along with the area. The adaptive reusing of some of them and renovation of others have weakened their relationship with the site. These buildings can be considered as new additions to the historical process of the area. Due to the characteristics of their form–material–structural elements and their recent construction, they are excluded from the scope of modern heritage.

Buildings 5, 14, 15, and 18 have become different from their original designs through various interventions. Buildings 1, 3, 8, 11, and 17 were constructed in recent years. It is known that there was a Yenişehir sports field on the site of the 1-stadium building [77]. The field and its tribune were demolished and completely renovated. The 2-school building belongs to a private foundation and has existed since 1968. The other school, of a private foundation, has no direct relationship with the factory and the campus. Various additions and changes have been made to the school campus over time. The 5-workers’ club building was used as a club in the past and has been completely changed with renovations and additions. The 15-community center building is known to be the last example of workers’ pavilions [77], but with a renovation, the building was enlarged and converted into an educational center. The 18-storehouse building was formerly the officers’ club and is now used as a warehouse with new buildings (Figure 6).

The buildings for which old photographs are available are shown in Figure 7. It is known that 6 and 7 were built in the 60s, and 13—a recreation area with a swimming pool—was built in the 40s [78]. In their current state, these buildings are different from their original designs. These buildings, added to the area later through renovations, and making use of new forms and materials, do not have the values of originality and integrity within the scope of modern heritage. Additionally, the buildings numbered 9 and 16 have been demolished.

The Cinema Building, the Engineers’ Club, and the Kübana Houses are the three buildings that stand out as having value among the row houses and other changed buildings in the area (Figure 5). Of these examples, only the Cinema Building is listed, while the other two examples (the Engineers’ Club and Kübana Houses) and all of the other buildings in the settlement are not listed. It is known that Architect Münci Tangör played a role in the design of these three buildings [88,89].

The construction of the Cinema Building was completed in 1958. Although it is referred to as a Cinema Building, it has hosted many performing arts, including theater and opera [79]. It has an orchestra pit and seats 750 people. Mosaic tile coating was used on the exterior and interior. Its arcaded entrance and functional form make it one of the first examples of republican Cinema Buildings. The building is currently not in use, and it is known that preparations are being made for restoration works (Figure 8).

The Engineers’ Club building, known as the “Yenişehir Club”, began being used in the 1940s. It was a social facility where factory workers and important guests were hosted. The architect Münci Tangör is known to have made various additions and decorative revisions [88]. After lying idle for a long time, it has been converted into an official building for the factory through recent renovations (Figure 8).

It is known that the Kübana Houses were designed in 1959 [90]. With four floors and eight blocks each, these buildings, which were the tallest buildings of the settlement, were built for senior officials and engineers. Unlike the other buildings in the settlement, they have terrace roofs. Each of the Kübana Houses has a mosaic tile-coated facade, large windows on the front facade, and decorative metal wrought iron to ensure the privacy of the bedroom. The Kübana Houses are currently in use (Figure 8).

3.1.2. Determining the Importance of Selected Buildings Using the AHP Method

According to the matrix questions answered by the nine participants, the percentile importance levels of the buildings were obtained. The Super Decisions program (Version: V2.10) was used to obtain the numerical calculations (Figure 9). Other computer-aided programs for the AHP method (such as Expert Choice and SpiceLogic AHP software) were also used [91].

Table 5. Results of experts’ evaluation in all questions.

Criteria		Building	DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8	DM9	Group Decision
Technological	Sub-Criteria-1	CB	0.64	0.74	0.33	0.79	0.63	0.79	0.33	0.66	0.76	0.60
		EC	0.10	0.06	0.33	0.15	0.09	0.09	0.33	0.06	0.07	0.12	0.48
		KH	0.26	0.19	0.33	0.07	0.28	0.13	0.33	0.28	0.17	0.20	0.12
	Sub-Criteria-2	CB	0.64	0.78	0.33	0.23	0.75	0.19	0.23	0.54	0.15	0.36	0.26
		EC	0.10	0.08	0.33	0.67	0.08	0.08	0.06	0.10	0.07	0.12
		KH	0.26	0.14	0.33	0.10	0.17	0.73	0.71	0.36	0.79	0.32
Social	Sub-Criteria-1	CB	0.33	0.58	0.33	0.70	0.73	0.73	0.37	0.33	0.47	0.48
		EC	0.33	0.37	0.33	0.23	0.07	0.20	0.58	0.33	0.05	0.22	0.36
		KH	0.33	0.05	0.33	0.08	0.20	0.07	0.05	0.33	0.47	0.15	0.19
	Sub-Criteria-2	CB	0.29	0.17	0.33	0.18	0.73	0.07	0.31	0.16	0.46	0.24	0.30
		EC	0.08	0.61	0.33	0.07	0.07	0.20	0.20	0.25	0.06	0.15
		KH	0.63	0.22	0.33	0.75	0.20	0.73	0.49	0.59	0.48	0.45
Artistic and Aesthetic	Sub-Criteria	CB	0.29	0.77	0.33	0.70	0.73	0.70	0.15	0.34	0.48		0.44
		EC	0.08	0.16	0.33	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.07	0.11	0.06		0.10
		KH	0.63	0.07	0.33	0.23	0.20	0.23	0.79	0.55	0.46		0.31
Canonic	Sub-Criteria-1	CB	0.43	0.74	0.33	0.33	0.73	0.73	0.79	0.54	0.47	0.54
		EC	0.14	0.06	0.33	0.33	0.07	0.07	0.13	0.10	0.05	0.11	0.47
		KH	0.43	0.19	0.33	0.33	0.20	0.20	0.08	0.36	0.47	0.26	0.12
	Sub-Criteria-2	CB	0.47	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.73	0.24	0.20	0.64	0.58	0.39	0.32
		EC	0.07	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.07	0.06	0.20	0.07	0.05	0.12
		KH	0.47	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.20	0.70	0.60	0.29	0.37	0.38
Referential	Sub-Criteria	CB	0.24	0.33	0.43	0.10	0.73	0.13	0.14	0.29	0.47		0.26
		EC	0.09	0.33	0.43	0.23	0.07	0.08	0.14	0.06	0.05		0.12
		KH	0.67	0.33	0.14	0.67	0.20	0.80	0.71	0.65	0.47		0.45
Integrity	Sub-Criteria	CB	0.33	0.33	0.69	0.77	0.76	0.78	0.75	0.76	0.58		0.61
		EC	0.14	0.33	0.22	0.07	0.07	0.08	0.12	0.07	0.05		0.11
		KH	0.53	0.33	0.09	0.16	0.17	0.13	0.13	0.17	0.37		0.20

and Figure 10 show the importance percentages of the three buildings for each criterion evaluated by the nine decision-makers.

Technological values: In the first sub-criterion, ‘Innovative modern technology....’, seven experts found that the Cinema Building qualified at significant rates. Those who found the Cinema Building more important stated that it is functionally prominent and structurally important in terms of its size, interior space width, and structure. The other two experts stated that each building has its technological value and found them equally important. In the criterion of technological value, ‘Aesthetic challenges’, some experts found the Kübana Houses important, unlike for the first criterion. Their comments here were that they brought aesthetic innovation since they were the first apartment block and the tallest buildings in Karabük. They also emphasized the importance of being the tallest buildings made of reinforced concrete. DM4, unlike the others, found the Engineers’ Club to be the most qualified because it brought aesthetic innovation with its interior diversity and facade features.

Different evaluations were made of the social values. In the criterion of “reflecting the lifestyle of the 20th century”, three experts found all three buildings equally important. The opinion of the experts here is that all three buildings provide a lifestyle according to their function. While five experts found the Cinema Building more effective, one expert stated that the Kübana Houses were stronger. The fact that the Cinema Building is the first and only Cinema Building in the city, that there are concerts and events attended by the public here, and that it is historically seen as an important means of connecting with the world has been stated by some experts as an important social innovation. Some experts also argued that the Kübana houses, as the first apartment blocks in the city, directly led to a significant change in lifestyle. DM7, unlike the others, found the Engineers’ Club important and stated that this building provided a new and diverse social environment. In the criterion of “improving living/working conditions through design (form or function)”, six experts found the Kübana Houses more important. The experts stated that the fact that they are apartment blocks is a big change for the users, so they are more important than other buildings. DM2, unlike the others, found the Engineers’ Club important and stated that the social environment offered by this building changed people’s living standards. Notably, the club building is the most important in terms of social values for DM2 and DM7.

In evaluating aesthetic attributes, four experts found the Cinema Building more important, while three experts found the Kübana Houses more important. DM9 found the two to be very close in terms of values, while DM3 stated that he found them all equally good. Those who found the Cinema Building more important explained that it is a special building with its interior and exterior elements and that it is a specific building. Those who found the Kübana Houses more important argued that they were qualified by their facades, interior details, and size. DM3, who considered all of them equally important, said that each building was qualified.

In the canonical criterion of “the building and/or its architect being famous”, seven experts stated the Cinema Building is the most important. The experts emphasized that this building is used intensively by the public and that it stands out because it is the most recognized building in the region. According to the criterion of “Being an exemplary work”, some experts prioritized the Cinema Building because it is the only Cinema Building in the city and one of the first examples in Türkiye. In contrast, some experts prioritized the Kübana Houses because they were the first apartment blocks.

Although it is the most tangible and measurable value compared to the other values, there were different ratings for the integrity value. Nevertheless, the vast majority, seven experts, ranked the Cinema Building first. The clubhouse was ranked last by seven experts due to its high number of modifications, while the ratings differed numerically. Most of the experts identified the interventions made by the users of the Kübana Houses as a disadvantage.

When the group decision is analyzed, it is seen that the Cinema Building stands out in all values except the reference value. The Cinema Building was ranked first for more than one value. The Kübana Houses are considered more important in terms of reference value because they are the first apartment blocks in the city and are an example of other blocks. This can be read from the interviews and analysis. The clubhouse was ranked last according to all values. However, considering that DM2 and DM3 are residents of the settlement, it is seen that these two experts emphasize many values differently from other experts. These experts emphasized that it is a socially important building. DM3, especially, in his evaluation, stated that the buildings are important in terms of most values, that each of them has its special value, and that he cannot see these buildings as different from each other.

As a result, in the group decision, the Cinema Building was ranked first, the Kübana Houses were ranked second, and the Engineers Club was ranked last (

Table 6. Experts’ evaluation result.

	DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8	DM9	Group Decision
A-Cinema Building	0.376	0.518	0.409	0.474	0.731	0.496	0.359	0.471	0.498	0.471
B-Engineers Club	0.120	0.264	0.330	0.211	0.071	0.097	0.180	0.116	0.056	0.135
C-Kübana Houses	0.504	0.217	0.261	0.316	0.198	0.407	0.461	0.413	0.446	0.347

).

Looking at the evaluations of all experts, it is seen that the building-importance percentages of the participants are different from each other. The results show different evaluations among participants with the same expertise. It is seen that, according to two experts, the Kübana Houses are in the top rank, while, according to the other seven experts, the Cinema Building is in the top rank. The clubhouse is ranked last according to seven experts. This is because the building is lower than other buildings in terms of integrity and is less effective than other buildings in terms of technological/structural values. In addition, some experts stated that the public’s limited use of the building in terms of social values has a negative contribution to the evaluation of the building. On the contrary, DM2 and DM3, residents of the settlement, stated that use by authorized officials makes the building more special and valuable for the neighborhood residents when it is in use. The other two buildings were found to be more important than the clubhouse in terms of structural attributes.

The Cinema Building’s first-place ranking in the results supports the current designation decision. It is also noteworthy that the not-listed Kübana Houses ranked first according to two different experts. According to two experts (DM2 and DM3), the Engineers Club ranked second, ahead of the Kübana Houses. It is important to note that these two experts are neighborhood residents.

4. Discussion

According to the analysis conducted with the experts identified within the scope of this study, it was concluded that each expert evaluated the buildings differently. It is particularly noteworthy that two experts, residents of the settlement, ranked the Club Building in second place, unlike the other experts. Also, the not-listed Kübana Houses ranked first according to two different experts. These results show that different results can be obtained with different experts or with the participation of neighborhood residents.

The more people that are involved in the evaluation, the more difficult it is to achieve a coordinated, coherent, and useful evaluation. According to Kerr, successful assessment is a matter of balance. The aim should be to involve the minimum number of people with the necessary skills that are directly relevant to assessing a particular place. The contributions of different participants will need to be coordinated [46]. The constituency analysis and stakeholder identification are extremely important tasks, as it is widely believed that widening the circle of stakeholders involved in a project will improve both the process and the outcome [50]. In line with these views, using the AHP method as a tool in the study helps involve many participants in decision-making and facilitates the process.

Considering that the decision-makers in the current legislation are from different areas of expertise (off-topic: law, archeology, etc.) and are not in sufficient numbers, it is clear how important the number and skills of people in the assessments are. Accordingly, the decision-makers regarding cultural significance/values or priority ranking in an area should be a meaningful and balanced crowd.

During the analyses and evaluations, it was seen that different buildings stood out for different criteria. Considering that the value of the building should be protected, not as an object or fabric, it is understood that each building has a separate value. This could be a reason for each building to be designated as cultural heritage. In addition, considering that each user or expert attributes a different meaning and value to the buildings, it is once again proven that the building evaluation process should be supported by methodologic analysis.

Since heritage assessment is subjective and cannot be objective, be precise, or fit every place, the focus should be on methodologies (the process of generating knowledge), as in this proposal. Buildings’ values should be made visible, and assessments should be carried out with transparent, broad, and meaningful participation.

Recommendations Based on the Study Data

The analysis conducted herein determined the value/importance that the three evaluated buildings have from the experts’ point of view. The values listed below were obtained as a result of comparisons:

Cinema Building:

• Functional and structural importance;
• One of the most important cultural and social buildings for the public;
• Specific in terms of mass, interiors, facade, and form;
• One of the first Cinema Buildings in Türkiye.

Kübana Houses:

• The first high building and an apartment block in Karabük;
• Specific in terms of mass, interiors, facade, and form;
• Functional and structural importance.

Engineers Club:

• Variety of interiors and qualified façade;
• Providing social facilities;
• Changing living standards;
• Has limited public use.

Notes and recommendations on the buildings’ significance and value are presented below (

Table 7. Notes and recommendations on the selected buildings.

Name and Picture	Significance/Values	Notes	Recommendations
	▪ functional and structural importance ▪ one of the most important cultural and social buildings for the public ▪ specific in terms of mass, interiors, facade and form ▪ one of the first cinema buildings in Türkiye	It is the only listed building in the area. Compared to many other buildings, it is one of the most authentic and preserved.	The restoration of the building will be started soon.
Cinema Building	Exceptional Significance
	▪ The first high building and apartment in Karabük ▪ specific in terms of mass, interiors, facade and form ▪ functional and structural importance	The fact that the balconies on the rear facades are closed in the flats, which have not undergone large-scale interior changes, creates a negative situation.	Removing the extensions, especially on the rear facade, would be appropriate.
Kübana Houses	High Significance
	▪ variety of interiors and qualified façade ▪ providing social facilities ▪ changing living standards ▪ used by authorised officials	The surrounding buildings, which are additions, constitute negativity. The recently repaired building is not yet open to public use.	It would be appropriate to remove the additions around the building and open it to public use.
Engineers’ Club	Moderate Significance

). Within the scope of this study, we have tried to make visible the values of the buildings in the area. The listing of the Kübana Houses and Engineers Club, which are seen to have more than one value, should be evaluated with a comprehensive management plan.

Through the analysis, the importance rankings in the area were obtained, and it was determined which buildings should be prioritized for conservation and have more importance/value. According to this result, an analysis was made from the most important to the least important, as shown in Figure 11.

The categorization conducted at the beginning of this study was determined. The importance of row houses as having “little significance” was determined due to their simpler characteristics compared to the other three buildings.

According to the results of the authenticity analysis of the buildings, the importance ranking of the three qualified buildings in the area (Cinema Building, Kübana Houses, Engineers Club) by consultation with the experts by pre-selection was carried out. The row houses were determined to have “little significance” due to their simple and basic constructions. Other buildings that have been altered and reconstructed have been identified as intrusive/damaged.

With the AHP method, the significance levels of the other buildings were also determined, and the importance ranking for the area was obtained. Also, according to the information obtained from the interviews with experts, the buildings’ significance levels were obtained at the national, regional, and local levels—as recommended by UNESCO, ICOMOS Australia, and DOCOMOMO [19,20,21]. These significance levels were obtained in parallel with the ranking determined by the AHP method.

In this context, the Cinema Building, one of the country’s first Cinema Buildings, was determined as the most important. As the city’s first apartment building, the Cubana Houses were defined as high-significance. The Engineers’ Club, which has social importance for the neighborhood, was determined as moderate-significance. The row houses, which constitute the majority of the urban fabric in the neighborhood, were determined to have little significance. The levels of significance are listed in the table below (

Table 8. Levels of significance.

Levels	Justification
Exceptional Significance	Rare or outstanding element contributing to the place
High Significance	High level of original design
	Alterations do not detract from its significance
Moderate Significance	Altered or modified elements
	Elements with low heritage value but which contribute to the significance of the place
Little Significance	Alterations detract from its significance
	Elements with low quality
	A large number and difficult to interpret
Intrusive/demaged	Damaging to the place or incompatible

). This table also may be a guide for analyzing significance levels and use in other studies.

The area’s conservation plan ensures the preservation of the landscape, which is also a naturally protected area, and only the listed Cinema Building. The other buildings can be demolished and reconstructed while preserving their size.

These houses, which have undergone interventions and whose facades have been changed by various additions, need a comprehensive renovation. These houses, which constitute most of the area and met the region’s essential housing needs in the past, have intangible meanings other than their structural qualities. These values should be made more visible through refurbishment and renovation. Notes and recommendations on the buildings’ significance levels and value are presented below (

Table 9. Notes and recommendations on the row houses.

Name and Picture	Significance/Values	Notes	Recommendations
	Eighty-seven blocks of single-storey workers’ houses. Simple, Frame masonry construction system.	Building elements are poorly maintained. Add-ons such as tents-garages create a negative image.	It would be appropriate to make simple repairs, renew the damaged building elements, and remove the add-ons that create facade pollution.
Çamlık Houses	Little Significance
	Thirty-five blocks of two-storey officers’ houses. Simple, frame masonry construction system.	Building elements are poorly maintained. Add-ons such as tents-garages create a negative image.	It would be appropriate to make simple repairs, renew the damaged building elements, and remove the add-ons that create facade pollution.
Officers Houses	Little Significance
	Eleven blocks of two stories high, managers’ houses. Simple, frame masonry construction system.	It is more well-maintained than other types of houses.	It is more well-maintained than other types of houses.
Managers Houses	Little Significance
	Five blocks of bachelor worker houses. Simple, frame masonry construction system.	The building elements are in disrepair.	It would be appropriate to make simple repairs, renew the damaged building elements, and remove the add-ons that create facade pollution.
Bachelor Worker Houses	Little Significance
	Thirty-four blocks of officers’ flats and two stories high. Simple, frame masonry construction.	It is more well-maintained than other types of houses. Add-ons such as tents-garages create a negative image.	It would be appropriate to remove the additions that create facade pollution.
Officers Flats	Little Significance

).

5. Conclusions

While the Yenişehir Campus is a protected area, the fact is that only one of its buildings is listed and the status of the other buildings in the area is a controversial issue. Considering that some of the buildings in the area were demolished in the past, the current legal status of the existing buildings is a disadvantage. Accordingly, there is a need to develop a system for the protection of modern heritage and the protection of such settlements together with their buildings.

Türkiye does not yet have a comprehensive conservation system that is value-based and which allows the participation of the public and users. In addition, since expert assessments should be made by experts in the field of 20th-century building assessment, existing legal decision-makers may be insufficient. The experts selected for this study have points of consensus and divergence. In addition, the values of the buildings have become visible through a multidimensional examination.

The AHP method contributed positively to the study, as it helped to make the values of the buildings visible. The method made the complex problem more readable. The systematization of comparisons with the AHP method encouraged the decision-makers to think in multiple ways. It also created important data in terms of showing different views together. Especially the comparisons in terms of intangible values provided an advantage. It was observed that different buildings came to the fore with the consideration of different values, according to the experts.

Thus, it has been confirmed that heritage can have different meanings and values for people, as stated by the Burra Charter and as seen in studies conducted in similar areas in the literature. In addition, a significance level was created according to the studies of UNESCO, ICOMOS Australia, and DOCOMOMO, and buildings were grouped according to their importance in terms of neighborhood, city, and country. The Cinema Building, one of the country’s first Cinema Buildings, is the most important in this area. As the city’s first apartment building, the Kübana Houses are determined to have high significance. The Engineers’ Club has social importance for the neighborhood and is defined as moderate-significance. The row houses, which constitute the majority of the texture in the neighborhood, are determined to have little significance.

The listed Cinema Building was identified as the most important building in the study, and results were obtained that paralleled the legal status of this building. It is noteworthy that the not-listed Kübana Houses ranked close to the listed Cinema Building and were determined to be more important than the Cinema Building for some of the criteria (especially in reference value) during the comparisons. The fact that the Engineers Club has lost its original qualities compared to the others is one of the important reasons why it ranks last. However, the evaluations revealed that each building has different and various values.

In summary, in this study, the experts’ comparison of the buildings during the evaluation process made the attributes and values of the buildings visible. The information verbally provided by the experts while answering the questionnaire became numerically readable. The heritage assessment process has become more objective and transparent. An importance ranking of the buildings according to expert assessments was obtained. The method has made the complex problem more readable. The AHP method systematizes the comparisons and encourages decision-makers to think in multiple ways. The method helped to solve the complexity caused by subjective different opinions. In addition, it has created various and important data in terms of showing different opinions together. Therefore, the AHP method contributed positively to this study, as it helped to analyze the cultural importance of the buildings.

The analyses have determined the priority buildings in the area for preservation. These results show the need for improving the area’s current legal regulations. The experts also stated that there being only one listed building in the area is insufficient. The protection of all buildings should be evaluated with a comprehensive management plan since it is within the economic means of the state or users. Competent experts and officials should conduct these assessments.

The registration of a building is a precondition for its preservation, but the necessary rehabilitation and preservation are required for the building to continue its life. The buildings are protected with the financial support of the building owner or the state through the practice of conservation experts. The critical point here is that the local people or building owners should be involved in this process because the government’s resources are insufficient to protect all buildings.

The large numbers of these buildings will necessitate a survey of their cultural significance, which will support the identification of significant buildings within the means of the state. They are also structurally disadvantaged and may face future conversion. The data presented in this study represent an initial attempt to understand the heritage significance and value of modern residential settlements. If similar studies are conducted in different regions, the evaluation criteria herein can be used as a fixed base, and the participants/decision-makers should vary according to the location. Moreover, the AHP method allows for including more decision-makers if desired. More interdisciplinary studies and public participation should be encouraged for the complex and variable heritage assessment process.