Bir Kamu Binasında Mimari Tasarım Yaklaşımı; Bolu Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü

Abstract

Mekân kavramı toplumsal düzeyde ele alındığında herhangi bir ürün ya da nesneden ziyade bir ilişkiler bütünü olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Toplumsal düzenin vazgeçilmez parçaları olan eğitim, sanat ve sağlık olarak ayrılabilecek kamu hizmet binaları, hizmet temelli bir ilişkinin gerçekleştiği, toplum ve devlet arasındaki iletişime aracılık eden alanlar olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu binalar aynı zamanda temel hizmetler sunarak ve hükümet ile halk arasında bir köprü görevi görerek toplumun işleyişinde önemli bir rol oynar. Bir mimari tasarım problemi olarak karşımıza çıkan ve kamuya hizmet vermek için var olan ve devlete bağlı kurumlardan oluşan kamu binalarının tasarımını etkileyen ana faktörler amaç, işlev, bütçe ve kimlik kavramlarıdır. Bu tür binaların mimari tasarımında yalnızca fiziksel işlevsellik ve kullanışlılık değil, aynı zamanda toplum ve çevre üzerindeki etki de göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Bu çalışma, bir kamu binası olan Bolu Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü Binası'nın mimari proje tasarımına yönelik kavramsal ve sistematik yaklaşımı incelemektedir. Bu çalışma, bir kamu binası tasarım probleminin ele alınmasına ve geliştirilen mimari ön tasarım ve uygulama projelerinin tasarım ilkelerine odaklanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Mimari tasarım
• mekansal organizasyon
• kamu hizmet binaları
• tasarım süreci

Architectural Design Approach of a Public Building; Bolu Regional Directorate of Forestry

Abstract

When the concept of space is considered at the social level, it appears as a set of relations rather than any product or object. Public service buildings, which can be divided into education, art, and health, which are essential parts of the social order, appear as areas where a service-based relationship occurs, where the buildings act as intermediaries for communication between society and the state. Public administrative service buildings, which exist to provide service to the public and consist of state-affiliated institutions, are an architectural design problem with a purpose, function, budget, and identity that are the main factors affecting the design of public buildings. These buildings also play a crucial role in the functioning of society by providing essential services and acting as a bridge between the government and the public. The architectural design of such buildings must consider not only the physical functionality and practicality but also the impact on the community and the environment. This study examines the conceptual and systematic approach to the architectural project design of a public building, the Bolu Regional Directorate of Forestry Building. This study focuses on addressing a public building design problem and the design principles of the architectural preliminary design and application projects developed.

Keywords

• Architectural design
• spatial organization
• public service buildings
• design process

References

1. KAYNAKLAR Anuar, A., Selamat, S., Jaini, N. I., & Hashim, N. (2019). The evaluation of interior design elements in nature interpretation centre. Journal of Hotel and Business Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.35248/2169-0286.19.8.191
2. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecologic al Pyschology; Concepts and Methods for Studying Human Behaivor, Stanford University Press, California.
3. Bekar, M., & Manioğlu, G. (2018). Simulation-based Approach to Optimize Courtyard Form Concerning Climatic Comfort in Hot and Humid Climate. International Building Physics Conference 2018. 4.https://doi.org/10.14305/ibpc.2018.ie-6.04
4. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. & Stone, A.M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
5. Cuff, D. (2012). Collective Form: the status of public architecture. Thresholds, (40), 55-66.
6. Çelik, T. (2022). Rize Tapu ve Kadastro Müdürlüğü Yeni Hizmet Binasının Mimari Tasarım Süreci. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 7(2), 674-692.
7. Dursun, P. (2012). Dialogue on space: Spacial codes and language of space. ITU AZ Journal, 9(1), 104- 119.
8. Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Berardi, U., & Ghaffarianhoseini, A. (2015). Thermal performance characteristics of unshaded courtyards in hot and humid climates. Building and environment, 87, 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.001

9. Gibson, V. (2003). Flexible working needs flexible space? Towards an alternative workplace strategy. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 21(1), 12-22.https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780310468275
10. Golledge, R.G. (2001). Behavioral Geography. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (Ed.), (p. 1105 1111). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
11. Graham, G. (2006). Can There Be Public Architecture?, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 243–249, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8529.2006.00245.x
12. Habermas, J. (2003). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü. (Çev. Tanıl Bora, Mithat Sancar). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
13. Hillier, B. (2003). The architectures of seeing and going: or, are cities shaped by bodies or minds? And is there a syntax of spatial cognition? In: (Proceedings) 4th International Space Syntax Symposium. : London, UK.
14. Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). Buildings and Their Genotyps, in The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press.
15. Jamaludin, A. A., Hussein, H., & Tahir, K. M. (2016). Resident’s acceptance of internal courtyard buildings. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 66, p. 00098). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600098 Lawson, B. (2007). Language of Space. Routledge.
16. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space, London: Blackwell.
17. Norberg-Schultz, C. (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
18. Norouzi, N., Shabak, M., Embi, M R., & Khan, T H. (2015). The Architect, the Client and Effective Communication in Architectural Design Practice, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 172, P 635-642,ISSN 1877-0428,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.413.
19. Odabaş, U. K. (2018). Tarihsel süreçte kamusal alanın yapısal dönüşümü ve Habermas. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(Özel Sayı 2), 2051-2066.
20. Özgece, N., Edgü, E., & Taluğ, M. (2015, July). Exploring children’s perceptions and experiences of outdoor spaces. In 10th International Space Syntax Symposium (Vol. 125, pp. 1-15).
21. Peponis, J. & Wineman J. (2002). Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior, in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, ed. Robert B. Bechtel, Arza Churchman, J. Wiley, New York.
22. Preiser, W. F., & Schramm, U. (1997). Building performance evaluation. Time Saver Standards (7th Edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
23. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57 83.
24. Public Buildings Operation, Maintenance and Repair Regulation, 1971
25. Qi, Y., Yan, Y., Lau, S. S., & Tao, Y. (2021). Evidence-based design for waiting space environment of pediatric clinics—Three hospitals in Shenzhen as case studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 11804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211804
26. Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119-140.
27. Seamon, D. (1987). Phenomenology and environmental-behavior research. In E. Zube & G.Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design. New York: Plenum
28. Shahu, R. (2017). Flexibility in construction building structures-a case study. Industrial Engineering and Management, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0316.1000229
29. Taleghani, M., Tenpierik, M., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2012). Environmental impact of courtyards—A review and comparison of residential courtyard buildings in different climates. Journal of Green Building, 7(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.7.2.113
30. Tunçok Sarıberberoğlu. M. (2018). Eğitim Binalarında Mekânsal Davranışın Dizimsel (Sentaktik) İrdelenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
31. Tunçok Sarıberberoğlu, M. (2020). Eğitim Binası Tasarımında Mekânsal Yaklaşımlar; Hukuk Fakültesi Örneği. Artium, 8 (2) , 88-94 .
32. Wolfe, M., Rivlin, L. G. (1987). The Institutions in Children’s Lives. in C.S. Weinstein and T. G. David (Eds) Spaces For Children: The Built Environment and Child Development. NewYork Plenum Press.
33. Van Nes, A., & Yamu, C. (2017). Space Syntax: A method to measure urban space related to social, economic and cognitive factors. In The virtual and the real in planning and urban design (pp. 136-150). Routledge.
34. Zawawi, E. M. A., Kamaruzzaman, S. N., Dahari, N. D. M., & Rashid, R. A. (2014). Perception Study on Workspace for Government Office in Malaysia. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 15, p. 01017). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20141501017 URL_1 https://www.ogm.gov.tr/boluobm/kurulusumuz/genel-bilgiler (01.12.2023)