Imaged Experiences: Mapping the Trabzon City Center

Abstract

This research sets out from the cycle of impaired belonging between city dwellers and the cities they live in and the weakened perceptibility of urban identity in spatial experiences as a result of the chaos and rapid flow of daily life in today's cities that evolve around consumption culture. This cycle is addressed with experiential mapping applications, which prompt citizens to take a step back and slow down their rhythm of life as a way to connect with their city. Based on this, it is aimed to reveal the deepening of the relationship between city dwellers and the city through experiential mapping, which provides a more meaningful and conscious interaction with the urban environment. In this research, the urban identity formed between urban space and the user was analyzed by image analysis, taking the Theory of Imageability as a basis. The application process consisted of three main phases and was conducted with ten students studying at Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Architecture. The research findings show that experiential mapping and semantic rating, applied with a view to increasing the visibility of urban images peculiar to Trabzon city center, enabled the participants to direct their focus on and explore the spatial components of Trabzon city center, suggesting that experiential mapping can be an effective tool in exploring the potentials and problematic aspects of cities.

Keywords

• Experiential map
• Urban experiences
• Urban images
• Trabzon

References

1. Aliağaoglu A, Mirioğlu G. 2020. Urban identity of Balıkesir. Inter J Geograp Edu, 42: 374-399.
2. Alver K. 2012. Kent imgesi. Alver K, editor. Kent sosyolojisi. Hece Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 9-31.
3. Araldi A, Fusco G. 2019. From the street to the metropolitan region: Pedestrian perspective in urban fabric analysis. Environ Plan B: Urban Analyt City Sci, 46(7): 1243-1263.
4. Begel EE. 1996. Kentlerin doğuşu. Cogito, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, 8: 7-16.
5. Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C. 2017. Understanding the cognitive, affective and evaluative components of social urban identity: Determinants, measurement, and practical consequences. J Environ Psychol, 50: 138-153.
6. Cadwallader M. 1979. Problems in cognitive distance. Environ Behav, 11(4): 559-576.
7. Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T, Tiesdell S. 2003. Public Places-Urban spaces. Routledge, London, UK, pp: 106-129.
8. Certeau M. de 1984. The practice of everyday life. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, pp: 91-110.

9. Cosgrove D. 1985. Prospect, perspective and the evolution of the landscape idea. Transact Institute British Geograp, 10(1): 45-62.
10. Evans GW, Brennan PL, Skorpanich MA, Held D. 1984. Cognitive mapping and elderly adults: Verbal and location memory for urban landmarks. J Gerontol, 39(4): 452-457.
11. Gehl J. 2011. Life between buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press, Washington, USA, pp: 33.
12. Giddens A. 2012. Sosyoloji. Güzel C, editor. Kırmızı Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp:978.
13. Harvey D. 2022. Kent deneyimi. Sel Yayıncılık, Istanbul, Türkiye, 4th ed, pp: 13.
14. Jang KM, Kim Y. 2019. Crowd-sourced cognitive mapping: A new way of displaying people’s cognitive perception of urban space. PLOS ONE, 14(6): 1-18.
15. Knox PL. 2005. Creating ordinary places: Slow cities in a fast world. J Urban Design, 10(1):1-11.
16. Krätke S. 2014. Cities in contemporary capitalism. Inter J Urban Regional Res, 38(5): 1660-1677.
17. Lynch K. 2022. Kent imgesi. Is Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul, Türkiye, 16th ed, pp: 16-53.
18. Matos Wunderlich F. 2008. Walking and rhythmicity: Sensing urban space. J Urban Design, 13(1): 125-139.
19. Milgram S. 1970. The experience of living in cities. Sci, 167(3924): 1461-1468.
20. Özgen AI, Türkseven Doğrusoy I. 2020. İzmir-Karşıyaka’da çevresel algıyı çözümlemeye yönelik bir araştırma. Tasarım+ Kuram J, 16(29): 153-167.
21. Pinder D. 2003. Mapping worlds: Cartography and the politics of representation. In Blunt A, Gruffudd P, May J, Ogborn M, Pinder DP, editors. Cultural Geography in Practice. Arnold Publishers, London, UK, pp: 172-187.
22. Pocock DCD. 1971. Urban environmental perception and behaviour. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 62(5): 321-326.
23. Rozman Cafuta M, Sitar M. 2017. Rethinking the city spatial identity through the eyes of the observer. Prostor, 25(2/54): 316-327.
24. Schoonderbeek M. 2017. A theory of “design by research”; Mapping experimentation in architecture and architectural design. Ardeth, 1: 63-79.
25. Spencer C, Weetman M. 1981. The microgenesis of cognitive maps: A longitudinal study of new residents of an urban area. Transact Instit British Geograph, 6(3): 375-384.
26. Šenk F. 2021. On the interaction of here and there. Places in the city. In Giombini L, Kvokačka A, editors. Everydayness. Contemporary aesthetic approaches. Roma TrE-Press, Rome, Italy, pp: 65-78.
27. Simmel G. 2005. Metropol ve zihinsel yaşam. In Aydoğan A, editor. Şehir ve cemiyet. Iz Yayıncılık, Istanbul, Türkiye, 2nd ed., pp: 167-184.
28. Şenel A. 2014. Haritalama: Bir anlama, elestirme ve tasarlama eylemi. In Şentürer A, Paker N, Berber Ö, Şenel A, editors. taarla: Projections on Istanbul. ITU architectural design research laboratory works. ITU Vakfı Yayınları, Istanbul, Türkiye, pp: 26-33.
29. Şenel A. 2019. Mimarlık eğitiminde haritalama: Geleneksel eril mimarlık üretimine yaratıcı bir eleştiri. In Aral EA, editor. Dosya 42: İlişkisel bir eylem olarak haritalama. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 5-18.
30. Topcu KD, Topcu M. 2012. Visual presentation of mental images in urban design education: Cognitive maps. Proc - Soc Behav Sci, 51: 573 – 582.
31. Yaylı H. 2012. The effects of globalization on the cities: The case of Istanbul. The J Soc Econ Res,, 12(24): 331-356.
32. Yorgancıoğlu D, Çalak I. 2020. A methodological inquiry for re-structuring spatial knowledge derived from bodily-experience: Experiential mapping. Megaron, 15(1): 126-137.