Gelişen kent çeperlerinde belediye hizmet yapılarının sosyo-mekansal ve fenomenolojik değerlendirmesi: Balıkesir Altıeylül İlçe Belediyesi Hizmet Binası örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, gelişme bölgelerinde inşa edilen belediye hizmet binalarının mimari tasarım yaklaşımlarını; kentsel bütünleşme, demokratik temsiliyet ve fenomenolojik deneyim eksenlerinde çok boyutlu olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın kapsamı, kentin yeni gelişim akslarında yer alan belediye hizmet binaları ile sınırlandırılmış ve Balıkesir Altıeylül İlçe Belediyesi Hizmet Binası vaka çalışması olarak seçilmiştir. Yöntem olarak nitel bir tekil vaka çalışmasına dayanan makale, kuramsal altyapıdan türetilen parametrelerin mimari proje verileri (plan, diyagram ve üç boyutlu görseller) üzerinden eleştirel bir okumasını sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın metodolojik sınırlılığı, bedensel deneyime dayanan "yaşanan mekân" verisinden ziyade, tasarımcı niyeti ve mimari temsil (çizim, diyagram ve üç boyutlu modellemeler) üzerinden bir analiz gerçekleştirmesidir. Araştırma sonucunda, Altıeylül İlçe Belediyesi örneğindeki anıtsallığı reddeden parçalı kütle kompozisyonunun, geçirgen zemin katların ve duyusal tasarıma sahip "eşik" mekânlarının yapıyı kentsel bir katalizöre dönüştürme potansiyeli taşıdığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu stratejiler, idari yapıların salt bürokratik birer hizmet odağı olmanın ötesine geçerek, şeffaf ve kapsayıcı bir yurttaşlık kültürü ile kolektif kentsel belleğin inşasına temel oluşturabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Belediye hizmet binası tasarımı
• fenomenolojik deneyim
• kentsel katalizör
• kentsel bellek

Socio-spatial and phenomenological evaluation of municipal service buildings in developing urban peripheries: The case of Balıkesir Altıeylül District Municipality Service Building

Abstract

This study aims to multi-dimensionally evaluate the architectural design approaches of municipal service buildings constructed in development zones through the axes of urban integration, democratic representation, and phenomenological experience. The scope of the research is limited to municipal service buildings located on new urban growth axes, selecting the Balıkesir Altıeylül District Municipality Service Building as the primary case study. Employing a qualitative single-case study method, the article offers a critical reading of parameters derived from the theoretical framework through architectural project data, including plans, diagrams, and three-dimensional visuals. The methodological limitation of the study lies in conducting the analysis based on designer intent and architectural representation (drawings, diagrams, and 3D modeling) rather than "lived space" data rooted in direct bodily experience. The research findings reveal that the fragmented mass composition that rejects monumentality, the permeable ground floors, and the sensory-designed "threshold" spaces in the case of the Altıeylül District Municipality hold the potential to transform the structure into an urban catalyst. These strategies demonstrate that administrative buildings, moving beyond being mere bureaucratic service nodes, can establish a foundation for the construction of a transparent and inclusive civic culture, as well as a collective urban memory.

Keywords

• Municipal service building design
• phenomenological experience
• urban catalyst
• urban memory.

References

1. Dovey, K., ve Pafka, E. (2014). The urban density assemblage: Modelling multiple measures. Urban Design International, 19(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.13
2. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
3. Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
4. Aditia, T., Vazquez, A. L., & Aditia, R. (2025). Architectural Design of Public Spaces in Realizing Good Urban Governance Based on Community Participation. Journal Governance Society, 2(3), 195-205. https://doi.org/10.69812/jgs.v2i3.197
5. Nalbandian, J., O'Neill Jr, R., Michael Wilkes, J., & Kaufman, A. (2013). Contemporary challenges in local government: Evolving roles and responsibilities, structures, and processes. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12059
6. Akçay, F. Ç., & Aydın, D. (2024). Belediye binalarının mimari biçimlenişi: 1930’lardan günümüze Konya’da belediye binalarının öyküsü. GRID-Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 7(2), 654-682. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1399377
7. Erdönmez, E., & Çelik, F. (2016). Kentsel mekânda kamusal alan ilişkileri. TÜBA-KED Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, (14), 145-163.
8. Lynch K (1960). The Image of The City. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

9. Glaser, M. (Ed.). (2012). The city at eye level: Lessons for street plinths. Eburon Uitgeverij BV.
10. Pafka, E., ve Dovey, K. (2017). Permeability and interface catchment: Measuring and mapping walkable access. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2016.1220413
11. Hillier, B. (2007). Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Space Syntax.
12. Erkartal, P. O., & Uzunkaya, A. (2019, February). Transparency as a component of public space. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 471, No. 9, p. 092026). IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/471/9/092026
13. Rosales, C. (2022). Spatial transparency in architecture: light, layering, and porosity. Routledge.
14. Rowe, C., & Slutzky, R. (1963). Transparency: literal and phenomenal. Perspecta, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1566901
15. Dovey, K. (1999). Framing places: Mediating power in built form. Routledge.
16. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press.
17. Sudjic, D. (2005). The edifice complex: How the rich and powerful shape the world. Penguin Books.
18. Vale, L. J. (2008). Architecture, power and national identity (2nd ed.). Routledge.
19. Parkinson, J. (2012). Democracy and public space: The physical sites of democratic performance. Oxford University Press.
20. Goodsell, C. T. (1988). The social meaning of civic space: Studying political authority through architecture. University Press of Kansas.
21. Imrie, R., ve Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. Spon Press.
22. Vidler, A. (1992). The architectural uncanny: Essays in the modern unhomely. MIT Press.
23. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Social Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
24. Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses (3rd ed.). John Wiley ve Sons.
25. Schulz, C. N. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 17, 22-23.
26. Özçam, I. (2022). Fenomenolojik Yaklaşımın Mimaride Tasarımcı Kimliği ve Malzeme Kullanımı Üzerinden Okunması. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, 7(2), 503-523. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1052777
27. Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural environments. surrounding objects. Birkhäuser.
28. Hertzberger, H. (2005). Lessons for students in architecture (5nd ed.). 010 Publishers.
29. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Çev.). Routledge.
30. Böhme, G. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 36(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/072551369303600107
31. Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe and Company.
32. Sennett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling: Ethics for the city. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.