Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı

İNCEOĞLU, MEHMET; AYTUĞ, AYFER

Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı

Mehmet İNCEOĞLU, (Anadolu Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, Eskişehir, Türkiye)

Ayfer AYTUĞ (Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Megaron

98 14

Yıl: 2009 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 131 - 146 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı

Öz:

Özellikle son on yılda dünyadaki teknolojik, bilimsel gelişme- ler paralelinde kentleşme kavramının yeniden sorgulaması ileberaber; kentlerdeki yaşanabilirlik, insanların yaşam kalitesi vekentsel mekân kalitesinin geliştirilmesine yönelik ciddi araştır- malar yapılmakta ve bunların sonuçları araştırma raporları ola- rak sunulmaktadır. Kentsel mekân bir şehrin/kentin ana bütün- leşme aracıdır. Kentsel mekânlar kentlilerin ya da değişik kulla- nıcılarının kültürel birikimlerini paylaştığı, aktardığı, tekrar öğ- rendiği yerlerdir. Aynı zamanda kentin tanımlanması (o kentedair imaj oluşumu) bağlamında kullanıcıların; kültürel kimlikle- ri, kişisel gelişimleri ve insanların birbirleriyle etkileşimleri so- nucu kentli olma deneyimini elde etmesi de bu mekânlarda ol- maktadır. Kentlerde ya da şehirlerde kamusal mekânla ilgili kar- şılaştığımız pratik ve kavramsal problemlerin birçoğu metodo- lojiktir. Bunun sebebi, “kamusal mekân” denildiğinde neyin an- laşıldığı ya da neyin kastedildiğinin tam olarak bilinmemesi- dir. Aslında bu karmaşanın anlaşılabilmesi sorunu sosyal, po- litik, fonksiyonel ve estetik meselelerin gelişigüzel ele alınma- sı ile değil de bilimsel anlamda uzmanların bu konuları net birşekilde araştırmalarıyla ilgili buldukları çözümlerin ortaya koy- masıyla aşılabilir. Bu çalışmada da dünyadaki gelişmeler para- lelinde, ülkemizdeki mekân kalitesi bağlamında, gerek tasarı- mı yeni yapılacak gerekse yeniden düzenlemesi yapılacak kent- sel mekânlara (meydanlar ve sokaklar) yönelik kullanılabilecekmekânsal kalite parametrelerinin belirlenmesine çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelime: algılama kentsel tasarım kalite parametreleri mekansal kalite sokaklar meydan kentsel planlama kentsel mekan kamusal mekan çevre kalitesi yaşanabilirlik

The concept of Urban space quality

Öz:

Especially during the last decade, in parallel with the techno- logical and scientific developments in the world, empirical re- searches have been conducted on the livability in urban spaces,people’s quality of life and the development of the urban spacequality, together with a general questioning of the concept ofurbanization. The results of these researches are presented asresearch reports. Urban space is the main tool integrating a city.Urban spaces are shared by the city-dwellers and various users,and serve as the environment in which they convey and relearncultural accumulation. Moreover, in the context of defining theurban environment (the formation of the image regarding thatcity), city-dwellers acquire the experience of being a city-dwelleras a consequence of their cultural identities, individual develop- ment and interaction with each other in these spaces. In citiesor urban places, the practical and theoretical problems experi- enced with respect to public spaces are mostly methodologicalsince it is not exactly known what is meant or understood by“public spaces”. The problem of understanding this complica- tion can be solved not by evaluating the social, political, func- tional, and aesthetic issues randomly, but by the experts’ clearpresentation of the solutions related to their research. In thisstudy, in parallel with the developments in the world, the pa- rameters of space quality to be used were determined for theurban spaces (squares and streets) in our country to be rede- signed and renewed in the context of the quality of space.

Anahtar Kelime: urban planning urban space public space environmental quality livability perception urban design quality parameters spatial quality streets square

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Schulz-Norberg, C., (1971), Existence, Space and Archi- tecture, London: Studio Vista, London.
2. Meiss Von, P., (1990), Elements of Architecture: from Form to Place, Van Nostrand Reinhold Pub.:New York.
3. Kuban, D., (1992), Mimarlık Kavramları, Tarihsel Perspe- ktif İçinde Mimarlığın Kuramsal Sözlüğüne Giriş, (4 Baskı) Yem Yayınları, İstanbul.
4. Madanipour, A., (1999), ‘Why are the design and devel- opment of public spaces significant for ities’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(6), 879-891.
5. Altan, İ., (1992), Mimarlıkta Mekan Kavramı, Mimarlık ve Şehircilikte Mekan, Yıldız Üniversitesi Yerleşme ve Mimarlık Bilimleri, Uygulamalı Araştırma Merkezi, İstanbul.
6. Joedicke, J., (1985), Raum und Form in der Architektur: Ä Uber den behutsamen Umgang mit der Vergangenheit [Space and Form in Architecture]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kraemer.
7. Usta, A., (1995), Kentsel Çevre Modeli Olarak Kampus Yerleşmelerinde Dış Mekan Kaliteleri , Mimari ve kent- sel çevrede kalite arayışları sempozyumu: 5,6,7 Haziran : bildiriler / İ TÜ, İstanbul, 104-111.
8. Krier, R., (1979), Urban Space, New York, Rizzoli.
9. Alexander, C., Silverstein, M., Ishikawa, S. (1977), A Pat- tern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Yücel, A., (1981), Mimarlıkta Biçim ve Mekanın Dilsel Yo- rumu Üzerine, İTÜ.
11. Bell, P.A., Fisher, J.D., Baum, A., Greene, T.C., (1990). En- vironmental Psychology (third edition), Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., London.
12. Ittelson, W.H., (1978), Environmental perception and ur- ban experience. Environment and Behavior 10, 193-213.
13. Aytuğ, A., (1987), Mimaride Doku Kullanımının Psikolojik Etkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Doktora Tezi, İ.T.Ü. Fen Bil- imleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
14. Lang, J., (1987), Creating Architectural Theory, The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Enviromental Design, Van Nos- trand Reinhold, New York, , pp 86-110.
15. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., Stone, A.M., (1992), Pub- lic Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Pluta, K., (2003), IFHP 47TH WORLD CONGRESS ”Cities & Markets” Vienna.
17. Urban Task Force (1999), Towards an Urban Renaissance, London: E&FN Spon.
18. Moughtin, C., (2003), Urban Design: Street and Square. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
19. Sitte C., (1889), City Planning According to Artistic Prin- ciples (translated by Collins, G.R. and Collins, C.C., 1965), Phaidon Pres, London. Sitte, Camillo (1983 reprint of 4th ed. 1909). Der Städte- bau nach seine künstlerischen Grundsätzen: vermehrt um ‘Grossstadtgrün’. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
20. Zucker, Paul, (1959), Town and square: From the agora to the village green, Columbia University Press, New York
21. Lien, B., (2005), The Role Of Pavement In The Perceived Integration Of Plazas: An Analysis Of The Paving Designs Of Four Italian Piazzas, Master Of Science In Landscape Architecture, Washington State University, Washington,
22. Vitruvius (1960), The Ten Books of Architecture (tms by Morris Hieky Morgan), Dover Publieations, New York, Book V, Chapter 1.
23. Carmona, M., Heath T., Oc T., Tiesdell, S., (2003), Public Places, Urban Spaces, (Oxford, Architectural Press).
24. EPOA (Essex Planning Officers Association), (1997), The Essex Design Guide for Residential and Mixed Use Areas, Essex County Council.
25. Hörmann, E., Trieb, M., (1977), Grundlagen des stadt- gestalterischen Entwerfens. Stuttgart: Universität Stutt- gart.
26. Bacon, E.N., (1967), Design of Cities, Viking, New York. Bacon, Edmund (1974), Design Of Cities. London: Thames And Hudson
27. Burt, M. E., (1978) A Survey of Quality and Value in Build- ing. Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK.
28. Juran, J.M., (1974), Quality Control Handbook, McGraw- Hill, New York, Third Edition.
29. Hall, Edward T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor Books.
30. Appleton, J., (1988), Prospects And Refuges Revisited. In Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, And Appli- cation (p. 27-44). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Newman, O., (1972), Defensible Space: People and De- sign in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press. Newman, O., (1996), Creating Defensible Space. Wash- ington: US Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment.
32. Hollahan, J.C., (1982), Environmental Psychology, Ran- dom House, New York.
33. Kaplan, S., (1988), Perception and landscape: concep- tions and misconceptions. In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (p. 45-55). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Appleyard, D., (1981), Livable Streets, London: University of California Press.
35. Lynch, Kevin, (1984), Good city form, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
36. Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., Smith, G. (1985), Responsive Environments: A Manual for Design- ers. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
37. Lang, J., (1994), Urban design: the American experience Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
38. Maslow (1943), A theory of human motivation Psycho- logical Review, Volume 50, Issue 4, July 1943, Pages 370– 396.
39. Gehl, J. (1989), ‘A changing street life in a changing soci- ety’, Places, v.6, n.8, pp.8-17. Gehl, J. (1996), Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Copenhagen, Arkitekens Forlag. Gehl, J. (1996), Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Third Edition, Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag. Gehl, J. and Gemzøe, L. (1996), Public Spaces - Public Life, Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press and the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architec- ture. Gehl, J. and Gemzøe, L. (2001), New City Spaces, Copen- hagen: Danish Architectural Press. Gehl, J., (1987). Life Between Buildings, Van Nostrand- Reinhold, New York. Gehl, J., (2002), Public Spaces and Public Life. Jan Gehl, Architect MAA, Dr. Litt. & Helle Lis Søholt, Ar- chitect MAA, M.Arch. (Uni. of Wash.) Strandgade 100, Bygning N, DK-1401 Copenhagen, Denmark Gehl, J., (2004), Places for People City, of Melbourne in collaboration with GEHL ARCHITECTS, Urban Quality Consultants Copenhagen, MELBOURNE 2004
40. Jacobs, A., Appleyard, D., (1987), “Toward an Urban De- sign Manifesto”, Journal of the American Planning Asso- ciation, Vol. 53, No. 4, p. 112-120.
41. Llewelyn-Davies Yeang ve ark., (2000), Urban Design Compendium I, English Partnerships/Housing Corpora- tion, London.
42. Whyte, W.H., (1980), The Social Life of Small Urban Spac- es (Washington, DC, Conservation Foundation).
43. Whyte, W.H., (1988), City; rediscovering the centre. Dou- bleday, New York.
44. Rapoport, A., (1982), The meaning of the built environ- ment: A nonverbal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
45. http://www.dqi.org.uk (2006).
46. Voordt, D. J. M. van der, (2005), Architecture in use: an introduction to the programming, design and evaluation of buildings / Amsterdam: Architectural Press.
47. Greene S., (1992), Cityshape: Communicating and Evalu- ating Community Design, American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association; Spring 1992; 58, 2; Academic Research Library, p. 177-189.
48. Franz G., (2005), An empirical approach to the experi- ence of architectural space, Dissertation at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen and the Bauhaus University, Weimar.
49. Kaminski, G., (Ed.). (1976), Umweltpsychologie: Perspe- ktiven, Probleme, Praxis. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.
50. Nasar J.L., (1998), The evaluative image of the city Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nasar J.L., (1988), Environmental aesthetics: theory, re- search, and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
51. Nasar J.L., (1989), “Perception, cognition and evaluation of urban places.” In I Altman and EH Zube (Eds.) Public places and spaces: human behavior and environment: advances in theory and research volume 10. New York and London: Plenum Press, p. 31-56.
52. http://www.pps.org (2005).
53. Roger Tym & Partners & One NorthEast. (2006), Physical Regeneration Investment Framework (Newcastle, One NorthEast) Available at: http://www.ignite-ne.com/
54. Llewelyn Davies Yeang, ODPM (2006) Quality of Place: The North’s Residential Offer; Leeds City Region Llewelyn Davies Yeang: London.
55. CABE, Piccadilly Gardens, http://www.cabe.org. uk.casestudies.aspx, (2007).
56. Urban Land Institute (2001), Residential Streets, third edition. Washington D.C. http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home& CONTENTID=98886&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. cfm 2006
57. Spacesyntax http://www.spacesyntax.com/Files/Me- diaFiles/Public %20Spaces%20Profile%204pp%20QXD _2006%2010%2020.pdf (2006).

APA	İNCEOĞLU M, AYTUĞ A (2009). Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. , 131 - 146.
Chicago	İNCEOĞLU MEHMET,AYTUĞ AYFER Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. (2009): 131 - 146.
MLA	İNCEOĞLU MEHMET,AYTUĞ AYFER Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. , 2009, ss.131 - 146.
AMA	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. . 2009; 131 - 146.
Vancouver	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. . 2009; 131 - 146.
IEEE	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A "Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı." , ss.131 - 146, 2009.
ISNAD	İNCEOĞLU, MEHMET - AYTUĞ, AYFER. "Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı". (2009), 131-146.

APA	İNCEOĞLU M, AYTUĞ A (2009). Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron, 4(3), 131 - 146.
Chicago	İNCEOĞLU MEHMET,AYTUĞ AYFER Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron 4, no.3 (2009): 131 - 146.
MLA	İNCEOĞLU MEHMET,AYTUĞ AYFER Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron, vol.4, no.3, 2009, ss.131 - 146.
AMA	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron. 2009; 4(3): 131 - 146.
Vancouver	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron. 2009; 4(3): 131 - 146.
IEEE	İNCEOĞLU M,AYTUĞ A "Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı." Megaron, 4, ss.131 - 146, 2009.
ISNAD	İNCEOĞLU, MEHMET - AYTUĞ, AYFER. "Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı". Megaron 4/3 (2009), 131-146.