KENTSEL MEKÂNDA KAMUSALLIĞI YENİDEN KURAN TASARIM YAKLAŞIMLARI: TAKTİKSEL ŞEHİRCİLİK, KENTSEL AKUPUNKTUR VE KENTSEL KÜRASYON

Abstract

Endüstrileşme ve göçle büyüyen kentlerde yeni mimari unsurlar ortaya çıkmış; modernizmin etkisiyle 20. yüzyılın başlarında, fonksiyonellik ve minimalizm vurgulanarak planlama yaklaşımları değişmiştir. Kentin fiziksel dönüşümüyle birlikte toplumsal ve ekonomik yapısı da bireyselleşme ve özelleşme üzerinden dönüşmüştür. Günümüzde özelleşmenin, mekânı farklı kitlelerin kullanımı için bölümlemesi ve farklı sebeplerle kentin geri kalanında göz ardı edilen, sıradanlaşan, tanımsız mekânlar oluşmakta; kapsayıcı kamusal mekânlar azalmaktadır. Son yirmi yılda mevcut planlamanın boşluklarını dolduran farklı tasarım yaklaşımları ortaya çıkmıştır. Yeni yaklaşımlar sorunlu alanlarda aşağıdan yukarı, pratik ve küçük müdahalelerle insan ölçeğinde etkiler yaratmaktadır. Çalışmada bu yaklaşımların kuramsal yapıları, sistematik bir yöntemle örnekleriyle birlikte incelenmiştir. Lydon ve Garcia'nın (2015) kavramsallaştırdığı yerel farkındalık ve katılımla ortaya çıkan taktiksel şehircilik De Solà-Morales’in (1980) geliştirdiği, kente noktasal müdahalelerle yaklaşan kentsel akupunktur; çeşitli sanatçı ve ofislerin geliştirdiği, kentin ilişkisel süreçlerini ve mekân kurgularını araştıran kentsel kürasyon yaklaşımları üzerinden ilerlenmiştir. Tartışma bölümünde yaklaşımların birbirlerini nasıl beslediği, benzerlik ve farklılıkları irdelenmiş; sonuçta ulaşılan ilişkiler, güncel tasarım yaklaşımlarının taşıdığı bakış açılarının planlama süreçleri için denemeler ve yöntemler sunma potansiyelini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Kentsel Akupunktur
• Taktiksel Şehircilik
• Kentsel Kürasyon
• Kentsel Mekân
• Kamusallık.

Ethical Statement

Makale için Etik Kurul onayına gerek yoktur.

DESIGN APPROACHES THAT RESTORE PUBLICITY IN URBAN SPACE: TACTICAL URBANISM, URBAN ACUPUNCTURE AND URBAN CURATION

Abstract

New architectural elements have emerged in cities growing with industrialization and migration; under the influence of modernism in the early 20th century, planning approaches underwent a transformation with an emphasis on functionality and minimalism. Along with the physical transformation of the city, its social and economic structure has also been transformed through individualization and privatization. Today, privatization divides the space for the use of different social groups, leading to the creation of ignored, ordinary, undefined spaces that are overlooked within the rest of the city; inclusive public spaces are decreasing. In the last two decades, various design approaches have emerged to fill the gaps in existing urban planning. New approaches create human-scale impacts in problematic areas through bottom-up, practical, and small-scale interventions. In this study, the theoretical frameworks of these approaches are systematically examined with examples. The study is based on tactical urbanism conceptualized by Lydon and Garcia (2015), which emerges through local awareness and participation; urban acupuncture developed by De Solà-Morales (1980), which approaches the city through punctual interventions; and urban curation approaches developed by various artists and offices which explore the relational processes and spatial constructions of the city. In the discussion section, the interrelations between the approaches, their similarities and differences have been examined; the relationships identified demonstrate the potential of contemporary design approaches to offer experiments and methods for planning processes, reflecting the perspectives they embody.

Keywords

• Urban Acupuncture
• Tactical Urbanism
• Urban Curation
• Urban Space
• Publicity

References

1. Archdaily. (2020). Rejuvenation of Shajing Ancient Fair / ARCity Office. 4 Ocak 2024’de https://www.archdaily.com/951504/rejuvenation-of-shajing-ancient-fair-arcity-office adresinden alındı.
2. Archdaily. (2021). Jinjiang District Yucheng Street Renovation / Fanzhu Design. Archdaily. 4 Ocak 2024’de https://www.archdaily.com/960680/jinjiang-district-yucheng-street-renovation-fanzhu-design adresinden alındı. Archdaily. (2018). Nantou Eski Kentinin Kentsel Tasarımı ve Araştırması + UABB Mekânı / URBANUS'un Mimari Tasarımı. Archdaily. 4 Haziran 2024’de https://www.archdaily.cn/cn/899381/nan-tou-gu-cheng-cheng-shi-she-ji-yu-yan-jiu-plus-shuang-nian-zhan-zhan-chang-gai-zao-urbanusdu-shi-shi-jian adresinden alındı.
3. Architects, G., & DOT, NYC. (2013). world class streets: Remaking New York citys public realm. New York, disponibel en: http://gehlarchitects. com/cases/new-york-usa.
4. Arlt, P. (2013). What city planners can learn from temporary users. Oswald et al.(Eds.), Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use, 80-87.
5. Atay Kaya, İ., & Kut Görgün, E. (2017). Do it yourself (DIY) movement in urban space production. Planlama-Planning, 27(1).
6. Benner, S. M. (2013). Tactical urbanism: from civil disobedience to civic improvement (Doctoral dissertation). https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/23995, (29.03. 2023) Bishop, P., & Williams, L. (2012). The temporary city. Routledge.
7. Campo, D. (2014). Iconic eyesores: Exploring do-it-yourself preservation and civic improvement at abandoned train stations in Buffalo and Detroit. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(4), 351-380.
8. Casagrande, M. (2014). Paracity: Urban Acupuncture. Proceedings of the Public Spaces Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia, s. 4-5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279058320_Paracity_Urban_Acupuncture

9. Curl, J. S., & Wilson, S. (2015). The Oxford dictionary of architecture. OUP Oxford.
10. De Certau, M. (2008). Gündelik hayatın keşfi 1- Eylem, uygulama, üretim sanatları. (L. Arslan Özcan, Çev.). Dost Kitabevi. s. 119. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1990).
11. De Solà-Morales, M. (2008). Manuel de Solá-Morales: A Matter of Things. NAi Publishers. s. 24, 26.
12. Deslandes, A. (2013). Exemplary amateurism: Thoughts on DIY urbanism. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 216-227.
13. Di Monte P., Gravalos I., (2013), “Estonoesunsolar: urban acupuncture and sustainable regeneration”, Portus the online magazine of RETE.
14. Douglas, G. C. (2014). Do–it–yourself urban design: The social practice of informal “improvement” through unauthorized alteration. City & Community, 13(1), 5-25. http://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12029
15. Enigbokan, A. (2016). Delai Sam: social activism as contemporary art in the emerging discourse of DIY urbanism in Russia. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1029507
16. Fabian, L., & Samson, K. (2016). Claiming participation–a comparative analysis of DIY urbanism in Denmark. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), 166-184.
17. Fiederer, L., (2017). AD Classics: Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project / Minoru Yamasaki. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/870685/ad-classics-pruitt-igoe-housing-project-minoru-yamasaki-st-louis-usa-modernism
18. Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International research on placemaking and urban sustainability, 7(4), 381-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.891149
19. Firidin Özgür, E. (2022). Kentsel tasarımda kuramsal yaklaşımlar ve güncel tartışmalar. Firidin Özgür, E. ve Ünlü, T. (Ed.), Mekânda nitelik arayışı kentsel tasarım. (s. 10-22) içinde. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
20. Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (Eds.). (2006). Loose space: possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge.
21. FYW. (nd.). StedelijkLab Slotervaart (2005-2011). Face Your World. 4 Ocak 2024’de http://www.faceyourworld.net/nl/ adresinden alındı.
22. Gehl, J. (2020). İnsan için kentler. (E. Erten, Çev.). Küy Yayınları. s. 82, 87, 118, 198. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 2019).
23. Gökgür, P. (2017). Kentsel mekânda kamusal alanın yeri. Bağlam Yayıncılık. s. 59, 66.
24. Hızlı Erkılıç, N., Ciravoğlu, A. (2019). Tanımsız Kentsel Açık Alanlar Üzerine Mekânsal Tarifler, Sorunlar, İmkânlar: Büyükdere Aksı Levent Bölgesi. Mimar.ist, 3 (66), 89-100.
25. Hou, J. (2010). Insurgent public space: guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities. Routledge.
26. Iveson, K. (2013). Cities within the city: Do‐it‐yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International journal of urban and regional research, 37(3), 941-956. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12053
27. Jacobs, J. (1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Modern Library Edition edn.)
28. Jooshani, B., & Polat, S. (2019). Transforming public space through urban acupuncture. Livenarch 6th International Congress, (s. 576 - 588). Trabzon. https://www.livenarch.org/dosya/site/labook2019-1.pdf
29. Hajer, M., Reijndorp, A. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers
30. Kitsinger, A., (2014). Tactical Urbanism” or Public Vandalism?. Plannersweb. https://plannersweb.com/2014/01/tactical-urbanism-public-vandalism/
31. Krasny, E. (2014). Urban curators at work–A real-imagined historiography. Planning unplanned: towards a new positioning of art in the context of urban development, 119-127. https://www.academia.edu/31613757/Krasny_Urban_Curators_At_Work_A_Real_Imagined_Historiography_2015
32. Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın üretimi. (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1974).
33. Lerner, J. (2014). Urban acupuncture. Island press.
34. Loukaitou‐Sideris, A. (1996). Cracks in the city: Addressing the constraints and potentials of urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), 91-103.
35. Lydon, M., Garcia, A., Flynn, J., Murriente, S., Wall, D. ve Simpson, C. (2016) Tactical urbanist’s guide to materials and design. The Street Plans Collaborative. The John s. and James L. Knight Foundation. Version 1.0. s. 11 https://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tu-guide_to_materials_and_design_v1, (23.03. 2023)
36. Lydon, M., Garcia, A. (2015). A Tactical Urbanism How-To. (pp. 171-208) In: Tactical Urbanism. Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0_5
37. Nehl, M. (2018). Urban Curation-An explorative study on understandings, roles and functions of curating practices in urban contexts. s. 5, 47. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1482282&dswid=2703 , (23.03. 2023)
38. Németh, J., & Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143-150.
39. Northam, R. M. (1971). Vacant urban land in the American city. Land Economics, 47(4), 345-355.
40. Oram, S. (2004). “Constructing Contemporary”: Common Sense Approaches to “Going Modern” in the 1950s. Interior Design and Identity, 174-190.
41. Pagano, M. A., & Bowman, A. O. M. (2000). Vacant land in cities: An urban resource (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
42. Sawhney, N., De Klerk, C., & Malhotra, S. (2015). Civic engagement through DIY urbanism and collective networked action. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 337-354.
43. Scaff, K. (2016). DIY Urbanism: changing communities, one piece of artwork at a time.
44. Shepard, B. C. (2014). DIY urbanism as an environmental justice strategy: The Case Study of Time's Up! 1987-2012.
45. Spataro, D. (2016). Against a de-politicized DIY urbanism: Food Not Bombs and the struggle over public space. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), 185-201.
46. Spatial Agency. (nd.). Chora. 4 Ocak 2024’de https://www.spatialagency.net/database/chora adresinden alındı.
47. Spatial Agency. (nd.1). Jeanne Van Heeswijk. 4 Ocak 2024’de https://www.spatialagency.net/database/van-heeswijk adresinden alındı.
48. SPC. (nd.). MDT Quick Build Program. Street Plans Colloborative. 2 Ocak 2024’de https://street-plans.com/mdt-quick-build-program/ adresinden alındı.
49. SPC. (nd.2). Plaza 98 | Miami, FL. Street Plans Colloborative. 2 Ocak 2024’de https://street-plans.com/plaza-98-miami-fl/ adresinden alındı.
50. Stavrides, S. (2021). Kentsel heterotopya: Özgürleşme mekânı olarak eşikler kentine doğru. (A. Karatay, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık. s. 32. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 2010).
51. Strzelecka, M., Sorensen, J., & Wicks, B. E. (2010). The role of place attachment in revitalization of neighborhood parks in East St. Louis. Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure, 33(2), 251-272.
52. Superpool, (2021), Zümrütevler Meydanı Dönüşüm Provası, Bernard van Leer Foundation, https://bernardvanleer.org/tr/publications-reports/zu%cc%88mru%cc%88tevler-square-interim-implementation/(Erişim Tarihi: 05.12. 2023)
53. Tonnelat, S. (2008). Out of frame' The (in) visible life of urban interstices—a case study in Charenton-le-Pont, Ethnography, 9(3), 291-324.
54. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: theories of urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
55. Urhahn, G. (2010). The spontaneous city. BIS.
56. Yassin, H. H. (2019). Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alexandria engineering journal, 58(1), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.02.005
57. Yimeng, Z. (2015). Rethinking the Dimension In Urban Acupuncture -“Super scale” strategy in practice. Master Thesis. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. s. 10, 15. https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/103124 , (23.03. 2023)