AN ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR PARTICIPATORY ARCHITECTURE: KUZGUNCUK GARDENS EXAMPLE

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 1 - 24, 08.08.2022

Ali Kemal Terlemez , Orhan Hacihasanoglu

Abstract

It is crucial to evaluate the architectural production processes through the concept of participation because the thoughts and comments that emerge as a result of the evaluation will contribute to the current architectural environment. Since 1960s the integrity of theory, research, and practice that has been put forward combined with user-oriented architectural movements, has enabled new developments and potentials. For this reason, it is necessary to observe and evaluate user-oriented studies that aim to establish the integrity of theory, research and practice to unfold the results in all their complexity. The outputs of the research can serve as a reference for targeted polyphonic architectural production processes in the future. The proposed method makes these interaction networks visible, applying them to participatory architecture processes. In this way, today's design tools have the potential to involve participants in the process. The present study proposes the hypothesis that these potentialities can be demonstrated by observing, evaluating, re-discussing, and interpreting previous studies. The article seeks to evaluate the relationship between users’ participation in architectural processes and the network of actors-stakeholders who take part in participatory approaches. The concept of participatory architecture is vital for future experiences of architecture in order to revive the development of architectural practice in Turkey. Therefore, to provide a guideline model for architects and researchers engaging in participatory architecture processes. The study’s goals are: (1) clarifying the reasons of area defense with solidarity and evaluating the level of participation in architectural practice, (2) examining stakeholder typology assessments, and (3) observation participation techniques and tactics in processes. This research includes descriptive analysis of the Kuzguncuk Bostan Recovery and Protection Project as a case study and qualitative analysis examining participatory processes with the multi-dimensional model (EMParArc). Through this multi-dimensional model, this article emphasizes an alternative framework for the assessment of architectural participation methods in holistic processes that provide inclusive spaces in particular needers in Turkey and other non-develop and developing countries.

Keywords

Participation, Participatory Architecture, Participatory Design, Evaluation Model, Solidarity

References

• [1] Sanoff, H. (2011). Multiple Views of Participatory Design. Focus. https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1
• [2] Hacıalibeyoğlu, F. (2013). A Model Proposal For User Participation in Architectural Design Process. PhD Dissertation. Dokuz Eylül University, The Graduate School Natural and Applied Sciences, Izmir.
• [3] Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.
• [4] Rosener, J. B. (1978). Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Administration Review, 457–463.
• [5] Habraken, N. J. (1986). Towards a new professional role. Design Studies, 7(3), 139–143. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0142694X86900505
• [6] De Carlo, G. (2005). Architecture’s public. Architecture and Participation, 3–22.
• [7] Tur, I. (2021). Solidarity architecture: Participatory design practices in Turkey. Yasar University, Izmir.
• [8] Aravena, A., Mori, A. A., & Iacobelli, A. (2016). Alejandro Aravena: Elemental: Incremental Housing and Participatory Design Manual. Hatje Cantz. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=CZYIjwEACAAJ
• [9] Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2013). Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. In Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315881249
• [10] Till, J. (2013). The negotiation of hope. In Architecture and Participation. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022863
• [11] Kusumaningdyah, N. H., & Purnamasari, L. S. (2018). The techniques of participatory design for inclusive public space provision in kampung kota of Surakarta. SHS Web of Conferences, 41, 7007.
• [12] Sanoff, H. (1999). Community participation methods in design and planning. https://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=opndN6irEVsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Architecture,+participation+and+society&ots=9Deyy_OUXY&sig=Sin2-ASRSQnI7qe78QAR1ld8iUQ
• [13] Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7(3), 153–162.
• [14] Burns, D., & Taylor, M. (2000). Auditing community participation. An Assessment Handbook.
• [15] Godschalk, D., Parham, D., Porter, D., Potapchuk, W., & Schukraft, S. (1994). Pulling together: A planning and development consensus-building manual. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 3.
• [16] Neuman, W. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. In Teaching Sociology (Vol. 30). https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488
• [17] Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
• [18] Tatlić, I. (2019). Architectural Notion of Freedom and Participation and Its Difference Between Private and Public Spaces. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Studies, 4(1), 31–42.
• [19] Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613
• [20] Lefebvre, H. (1974). La producción del espacio. Papers: Revista de Sociología, 219–229.
• [21] Sanoff, H. (2005). Community participation in riverfront development. CoDesign, 1(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880512331326022
• [22] Bulut, H. B. (2016). The Analysis of Participatory Design Approaches in Architecture and an Examination of Küçükçekmece Sample. Master Thesis. Yıldız Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Istanbul.
• [23] Andersen, N. (2013). The urban community: a world perspective. Routledge.
• [24] van Randen, A. (1985). “Open Building” – An Overall Strategy for Participation as in action in the Netherlands. In M. R. Beheshti (Ed.), Design Coalition Team (Vol. 2, pp. 43–64). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
• [25] Afrassiabi, A. H. (1985). Design Participation in the Context of Urban Renewal. In M. R. Beheshti (Ed.), Design Coalition Team (Vol. 1, pp. 94–106). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
• [26] Sanoff, H. (2008). Multiple Views of Participatory Design Introduction: Historical Background. International Journal of Architectural Research-IJAR. https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1
• [27] Arditi, D., & Gunaydin, H. M. (1998). Factors that affect process quality in the life cycle of building projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), 194–203.
• [28] Günal, B. (2005). Searching For The Psycho-Social Quality of Dwelling in The Context of Human-Environment Communication Model. Istanbul Technical University.
• [29] Dündaralp, B. (2017). İlya’nın Kuzguncuk Bostanı. In Solidarity Architecture Exhibition Book (pp. 64–79). TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi Sertifika No: 31979. https://www.dayanismamimarligi.org/kitap.php
• [30] Ercan, M. A. (2019). Regeneration, Heritage and Sustainable Communities in Turkey: Challenges, Complexities and Potentials. Routledge.