A study focusing on the interpretation and perception of “void” infunctional transformations, through the examples of the Esma Sultan Mansion and the Sant Francesc Cultural Center.
The disciplinary concept of preservation, initiated by Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814–1879), developed in Europe from the 19th century onwards in order to sustain historical structures that reflect cultural and architectural values and to transfer them to future generations. While the initial goal was to return buildings to their original structural intetgrity,it was later realized that some of them no longer met the needs of modern life. Consequently, the functional transformation of culturally significant but functionally obsolete buildings came into discussion. The thesis from which this article is derived sought to answer the question: “Can we refer to creativity in functional transformation?” It conducted analyses through numerous successful examples, compared their pre- and post-restoration states, and evaluated these transformations based on defined criteria of creativity, aiming to shed light on future practices by identifying common points among the successful ones (Terece, 2013).
After accessing written and visual documentation of the buildings, the aim of identifying successful principles and creative solutions necessitated the development of a creative reinterpretation technique. This technique is grounded in key architectural design steps such as function, form, and material selection. In the selected examples, aspects such as the originality of the restoration and transformation, the building’s new functional decisions and form articulations, the materials used and methods of application, and especially the compatibility of the movable interior elements with the proposed new function were examined. Due to space limitations in the journal, only two examples will be discussed, with an emphasis on their implications regarding creativity rather than the results of the thesis.
Esma Sultan Mansion – The Marmara Esma Sultan, Istanbul
Believed to have been designed by architect Sarkis Balyan, the Esma Sultan Mansion was built between 1873 and 1877. Throughout its history, the mansion witnessed many events and was given by Sultan Abdülaziz to his daughter Esma Sultan as a wedding gift.
The Esma Sultan Mansion, with a rubble stone load-bearing system and hipped roof, has a rectangular plan and is a masonry structure consisting of three floors, including the ground floor. Designed in a neoclassical style, the building has four entrance doors: one facing the Bosphorus, two in the garden on the northern side, and one facing the street. The wall thickness ranges between 68–80 cm, and the windows are of the guillotine (vertical sliding sash) type. The tall, rectangular windows are aligned on all four facades and across each floor. In the garden, there is a cistern, a bath house (hamam), a kitchen,stables, and a two-story wooden annex building.
Located in Ortaköy, next to the Ortaköy Mosque and along the Bosphorus shore, the mansion offers a stunning view of the Bosphorus. It has been repurposed several times over the years and was used as a school, tobacco warehouse, carpentry workshop, and warehouse for timber, iron, steel, and coal. In 1975, a fire destroyed all of its wooden parts, leaving only the stone walls—the exterior shell—standing like a skeleton.
After the fire, the remaining walls also suffered structural erosion,turning the building into a ruin. In 1990, the Esma Sultan Mansion was purchased by The Marmara Hotel chain and was restored by Gökhan Avcıoğlu & GAD Architecture, reintroducing it to urban life. Since 2001, it has been operating under the name “The Marmara Esma Sultan,” hosting events such as meetings, conferences, and weddings. The building includes a bar, restaurant, and a multifunctional event hall. Both the interior and exterior spaces are arranged and lit according to the needs of each specific event.
During the restoration process, priority was given to reinforcing the thick stone walls that remained after the fire, and it was deemed suitable to construct two additional floors inside. The ground floor height is 3.80 meters,and the upper floor is 6.80 meters. With the original interior and roof completely destroyed by the fire, the mansion was reduced to a hollow, soulless skeleton stripped of its identity. Without altering the exterior façade, the architects chose to protect the structure by designing a transparent innershell made of glass and steel that did not touch the walls, avoiding any physical strain on the historical structure while supporting and preserving it.
This modern and transparent inner shell, placed within the historic shell, appears like a glass box—part of the building yet independent of it. In doing so, the contrast in materials and periods between past and present is highlighted. The transparent box made of glass panels is visible through the voids in the historic exterior walls, successfully establishing an interior-exterior relationship. The old outer walls, which surround the building on all four sides, allow maximum benefit from natural daylight due to their openness, and the way sunlight enters—refracted and layered—creates a bright and mysterious atmosphere inside.
After the fire, not only was the interior lost but so was the roof. Since no original spatial elements remained, each floor was treated as a single open space, connected by a spiral staircase with wooden steps and steel handrails and balustrades.
Sant Francesc Monastery – Sant Francesc Cultural Center, Santpedor,Spain
The Sant Francesc Monastery, built between 1721 and 1729 by Franciscan monks, is located in Santpedor, a small Catalan town in Spain. Used as a monastery until 1835, it is a 285-square-meter structure composed of stone vaults, arches, and thick columns supporting these arches.
Having served for many years as a monastery, the building was looted in 1835, and parts of it were damaged and fell into ruin. Declared unusable and considered a safety hazard, it was partially demolished by the government in 2000.
The monastery’s restoration, which took many years and was completed in 2011, was carried out by Catalan architect David Closes. After restoration, the building was reopened as a multi-purpose cultural center under the name “Sant Francesc Cultural Center.” In later stages, a “historical archive project” was also proposed for the upper floor on the south side of the monastery.
In the restoration of Sant Francesc, David Closes preserved the texture and form of the stone—the building’s traditional material—and reinforced the structure while maintaining the originality of both the building and the interior. To serve the building’s new function, necessary elements such as staircases, ramps, and technical units were added to the exterior, in order not to harm the original interior or historical fabric.
In these added elements, the architect chose to use contemporary materials—glass and steel—as a contrast to the traditional stone used in the original building. In doing so, he achieved a striking and creative harmony of opposites in terms of style, material, and application. By combining an opaque material like stone with a transparent one like glass, he created an expressive, dynamic volumetric effect. Maximum daylight is achieved in every part of the interior. Although the windows are not particularly ornate, the natural light coming from outside creates a stunning visual effect inside.
The circular staircase and ramp system created from a combination of steel and natural stone allows smooth transitions between spaces. While a contrast is established within the interior through material and form, the unity of opposites is achieved with great skill. In the interior space defined by vaulted ceilings and arched forms, the sharp and angular design of the staircase reinforces this unity.
Before restoration, some of the vaults had collapsed. During restoration, these gaps were turned into an advantage. Thanks to these voids,the interior can benefit significantly from daylight. At the same time, long, modern artificial lighting elements of various sizes, suspended from the vaults, present a harmonious and aesthetic appearance within this historic building—captivating the viewer.
Creativity in Functional Transformation
To preserve an object is to carry its message and image into the future. According to Ali Cengizkan (2002), how a preserved object is reinterpreted, re-programmed, and re-architected will influence the knowledge transmitted to the future. However, preserving the existing shell or skeleton of a building without demolishing it and adapting it to a new function hasemerged as an alternative construction technique in terms of labor, economy,sustainable memory, energy management, preservation of the urban fabric, and enabling listed buildings to finance themselves (Özkahraman, 2019).
In functional transformation, what such functionally outdated buildings represent today is more important than whom or what kind of system they served in the past. Therefore, assigning new functions to historical structures that reflect the architecture and culture of their time can be considered a more realistic approach for their continued use and transmission to future generations.
In this sense, restoring historical monuments—often left derelict—and bringing them back into use through completed restorations plays a crucial role in reintroducing architectural records of the past to contemporary cities and citizens. In these projects, the articulation of the new meanings and imagery brought to the space via its newly assigned function becomes highly significant.
A correct approach to restoration requires an understanding of the evolution of architectural philosophy and a sense of sensitivity. In the buildings discussed in this study, close attention has been paid to details such as interior design; the style, texture, and color of materials and furniture; the selection of accessories and lighting elements; and the way all these components are used and harmonized. Everything appears to have been considered down to the smallest detail. Yet, what is it that makes these transformation projects creative?
In the thesis, creativity is defined through criteria such as design principles (unity, integrity, unity of opposites) and material selection. However, as the thesis advisor, I now say—after a long time—that creativity lies in the void.
Mathers (2017), in describing the psychological concept of “void,”states:
“Claustrophobia is not the fear of closed spaces; it is the fear that one cannot move. It triggers a desire to escape. Yet, void is filled with possibilities of movement. It opens space not for fear, but for potential.”
When confronted with the void, the architect draws from the mind itself. It is unconditional and without excuses. This is the reward of the void!
When one lets themselves go with the flow, the void—being the source of creative intuition—draws them in. Virtue lies in sensing the dullness of the void, not in escaping it. Even if it seems distressing for a brief moment, the freedom to move in every direction, to come and go freely, begins to shape the creative possibilities of both inner and spatial voids. The creative designer does not try to force emotional intelligence in the face of emptiness, but rather transcends the barriers that limit it. They free themselves from others ’criticism and their worries about the past or even the future. They see the void as an opportunity and do not avoid the possibilities it brings.
Those who have learned to deal with their internal voids can also approach spatial voids with experience and confidence.
Thus, a creative approach in functional transformation can be defined,above all, by perceiving the building to be transformed with deep sensitivity and acting with courage. In this context, it is essential that in the first example, the architects took the concept of “void” as their starting point and recognized the futility of reproducing the past.
If something cannot be brought back in its original form, there is no point in insisting. Creativity begins with realizing this. Choosing contemporary material possibilities over a fabricated Neoclassical makeover is also a form of creativity. Using the entirety of the void to express that the space was once burned down is an act of creativity. Selecting the mostappropriate function is creativity. Choosing abstraction over reconstructing the burned-down roof to provoke questions in the minds of users is a phenomenological creativity—it prompts questions like “What was it?” or “What did it look like?” Choosing Neoclassical decor becomes a kind of clue. One is led to wonder: If the original had truly looked that way, would such contrast have been necessary?
Raising questions is the engine of creativity.
In contrast to this example, the Sant Francesc Monastery creatively turned the “void” left by collapsed vaults into an advantage by using it for natural daylight—offering a unique perspective on the concepts of restoration and functional transformation.
In short, what is truly creative may very well be the void itself.
