A Spatial and Experiential Assessment of the Kirazlıdere Glass Observation Deck: Urban Integration and User Perception

Abstract

In urban contexts, aesthetic structures increasingly function as multifunctional spaces that contribute to public space production, tourism development, and urban identity. This study evaluates the Kirazlıdere Glass Observation Deck in Isparta through technical, spatial, and user-centered perspectives, aiming to assess its role within the urban landscape and social dynamics. Employing a mixed-methods approach, it analyzes structural systems and spatial configuration using technical data and evaluates user profiles and satisfaction through a survey with 400 participants. As of June 2025, the deck had drawn over one million visitors—twice the city's population—with more than 45% from outside the city, underscoring its broad appeal. The findings indicate that the deck functions beyond a scenic platform, serving as a site of social interaction, regional attraction, and digital visibility. Its inclusive design and experiential accessibility align with sustainable tourism and urban planning goals. Concrete recommendations are proposed to enhance accessibility, support social diversity, and promote smart infrastructure. The study highlights the importance of evaluating such structures not only as engineering feats but as integral elements of contemporary urban development.

Keywords

• Glass observation structures
• urban public spaces
• user experience
• spatial analysis
• urban identity

Thanks

The authors would like to thank the Directorate of Survey and Project, Isparta Municipality, for providing the necessary technical data, visual materials, and project documentation used in this study. This study received Ethics Committee Approval' from the Ethics Committee for Research and Publication in Science and Engineering at Süleyman Demirel University, with the decision dated 20.06.2025 and numbered E.1031644.

Kirazlıdere Cam Seyir Terasının Mekansal ve Deneyimsel Değerlendirmesi: Kentsel Bütünleşme ve Kullanıcı Algısı

Abstract

Kent bağlamında estetik amaçlı tasarlanan yapılar, giderek kamusal alan üretimi, turizm gelişimi ve kent kimliği gibi işlevleri de üstlenen çok yönlü mekânlara dönüşmektedir. Bu çalışma, Isparta’daki Kirazlıdere Cam Seyir Terası’nı teknik, mekânsal ve kullanıcı odaklı açılardan değerlendirerek, yapının kentsel peyzaj ve sosyal etkileşim üzerindeki rolünü incelemektedir. Karma yöntem yaklaşımıyla yürütülen araştırmada, yapının taşıyıcı sistemleri ve mekânsal organizasyonu teknik verilerle; kullanıcı profilleri ve memnuniyet düzeyleri ise 400 katılımcıyla yapılan anketle analiz edilmiştir. Haziran 2025 itibarıyla bir milyondan fazla ziyaretçiyi ağırlayan yapı, kent nüfusunun iki katını aşmış; ziyaretçilerin %45’ten fazlasının şehir dışından gelmesi, güçlü kamusal çekiciliğini göstermiştir. Bulgular, seyir terasının yalnızca manzara sunmakla kalmayıp sosyal buluşma, bölgesel cazibe ve dijital görünürlük açısından da işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Kapsayıcı tasarımı ve deneyim temelli erişilebilirliği, sürdürülebilir turizm ve kent planlama hedefleriyle uyumludur. Çalışmada, erişilebilirliğin artırılması, kullanıcı çeşitliliğinin desteklenmesi ve akıllı altyapıların entegrasyonu yönünde somut öneriler sunulmuş; bu tür yapıların yalnızca mühendislik ürünü değil, çağdaş kent gelişiminin bütüncül bir parçası olduğu vurgulanmıştır.

Keywords

• Cam seyir yapıları
• kentsel kamusal alanlar
• kullanıcı deneyimi
• mekânsal analiz
• kentsel kimlik

Thanks

Yazarlar, bu çalışmada kullanılan gerekli teknik verileri, görsel materyalleri ve proje dokümanlarını sağladıkları için Isparta Belediyesi Etüt ve Proje Müdürlüğü'ne teşekkürlerini sunarlar. Bu çalışma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Etik Kurulu'ndan 20.06.2025 tarih ve E.1031644 sayılı kararla Etik Kurul Onayı almıştır.

References

1. Alam, M. M. & Zakaria, A. F. M. (2021). A probit estimation of urban bases of environmental awareness: Evidence from Sylhet City, Bangladesh. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08342. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.08342
2. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York, NY: Wiley.
3. Arthur, P. & Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and architecture. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill.
4. Bağcı, H. R., Şirin, M. & Zeybek, H. İ. (2019). Torul Castle (Gümüşhane) Glass Viewing Terrace. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 10, 111–123. DOI: 10.36362/gumus.609488
5. Çatır, O., Şimşek, G. G. & Mazan, A. (2019). Visitor behavior and destination image of Uşak Ulubey Canyon and Glass Terrace destination in Turkey. Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research, 2, 1–25.
6. Chavez, L., Ruiz, C. Curras, R., & Hernandez, B. (2020). The role of travel motivations and social media use in consumer interactive behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Sustainability, 12(21), 8789. DOI: 10.3390/su12218789
7. Day, K. (2001). Constructing masculinity and women's fear in public space in Irvine, California. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 8(2), 109-127.
8. Elevator World. (2024, March). Glass observation terrace, elevator and cable car for Ihlara Valley. Elevator World Magazine. https://elevatorworld.com/article/glass-observation-terrace-elevator-and-cable-car-for- ihlara-valley/

9. Giles-Corti, B. & Donovan, R. J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 54(12), 1793–1812. DOI: 10.1016/s0277- 9536(01)00150-2
10. Gretzel, U., Yuan, Y. L. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). Preparing for the new economy: Advertising strategies and change in destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 146–156. DOI: 10.1177/004728750003900204
11. Isparta Municipality, Directorate of Survey and Projects. (2023). Project stages of the Kirazlıdere Glass Observation Deck. Isparta Municipality Archive.
12. Jang, S. S. & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2), 580–590. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.024
13. Kaplan, R. (1987). The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 14, 161–176. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3924(85)90058-9
14. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. DOI: 10.1080/02699930302297
15. Krenichyn, K. (2006). ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: Women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health & Place, 12(4), 631–643. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.08.015
16. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
17. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings & power: Freedom and control in the origin of modern building types. London: Routledge.
19. More, T. & Stevens, T. (2000). Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure Research, 32(3), 341–357. DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2000.11949920
20. Munar, A. M. (2011). Tourist‐created content: Rethinking destination branding. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 291–305. DOI: 10.1108/17506181111156989
21. Orians, G. H. & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 555–579). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195060232.003.0016
22. Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
23. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
24. Richards, G. & Wilson, J. (2004). The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, cultural capital of Europe 2001. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1931–1951. DOI:10.1080/0042098042000256323
25. Schwartz, Z. & Lin, L. C. (2006). The impact of fees on visitation of national parks. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1386–1396. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.015
26. Shafer, C. S., Lee, B. K. & Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: User perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(3–4), 163–178. DOI:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00057-8
27. Sökmen, E. D. & Yener, Ş. D. (2022). A study to evaluate the recreation potential of Bentler Nature Park. The Journal of Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 13(2), 176-188. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.1103500
28. Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
29. Şekerci, Y., Kaynakcı Elinç, Z. & Açıkel, M. (2020). Design proposal for transforming Antalya Kırkmerdiven and its surroundings into a terrace garden. The Journal of Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 11(2), 230-245. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.781093
30. Şekerci, Y., Koyuncu, F. & Kaynak Elinç, Z. (2022). Antalya province glass observation deck design suggestions. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 12, 127–142. DOI: 10.13114/MJH.2022.578
31. TÜİK. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2024). Address-Based Population Registration System (ABPRS), 2024 results – Isparta Province population data. https://www.tuik.gov.tr Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005
32. Ujang, N. & Zakariya, K. (2015). Place attachment and the value of place in the life of the users. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.243
33. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. DOI: 10.1016/S0272- 4944(05)80184-7
34. Whalley, J. M. (1988). Water in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 16(1–2), 145–162. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(88)90040-0
35. Whitzman, C. (2007). Stuck at the front door: gender, fear of crime and the challenge of creating safer space. Environment and Planning A, 39(11), 2715-2732.
36. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
37. Zeybek, H. İ., Aylar, F. & Bahadır, M. (2020). Çatak Kanyonu Glass Viewing Terrace, Azdavay/Kastamonu. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 6(25), 381–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/kesit.47718
38. Zeybek, H. İ., Şirin, M. & Bağcı, H. R. (2018). In Terms of Tourism Movement Torul Castle Glass Viewing Terrace. In: II. International Sustainable Tourism Congress (pp. 246–261). Gümüşhane, Türkiye.
39. Zhang, J., Diao, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, J., Lu, Z., Wang, Y., Mu, Y. & Lin, W. (2024). Comparison of three indoor viewing models and on-site experiences to assess visual landscape perception in urban forests. Forests, 15(9), 1566. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091566
40. Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005