Kayıp Mekanlarda Uygulanan Taktiksel Şehircilik Pratiklerinin Karşılaştırılmalı İncelemesi

Year 2026, Volume: 14 Issue: 2 , 490 - 510 , 19.04.2026

Serra Altunok , Nilgün Çolpan Erkan

https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.1763755

https://izlik.org/JA68RF79NH

Abstract

Günümüzde kentler dinamik, karmaşık ve parçalı mekanlar olarak çeşitli kentsel problemler ortaya koymaktadır. Geleneksel ve bütüncül planlama yaklaşımları ile planlanan çözümlerin, değişime kapalı, yavaş işleyen süreçlere sahip ve kullanıcı ihtiyaçlarına cevap vermediğinde kaldırılması zor ve maliyetli olması nedeni ile kentsel problemlerin çözümünde yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu nedenle ortaya konan yeni planlama yaklaşımlarından biri olarak taktiksel şehircilik, mekâna özgün ve noktasal yöntemleri savunan, düşük maliyet ve düşük risk konularını gündeme getiren, değişime ayak uydurabilen esnek ve hızlı müdahaleleri içeren bir yaklaşım olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu noktada çalışma bu pratikleri “kayıp mekan” olarak tanımlanan alanlara bir çözüm önermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Taktiksel şehircilik uygulamalarının etkin bir biçimde çözüm ürettiği yaygın bir kentsel problem olan kayıp mekanların (lost space) kamuya kazandırılması konusu ise günümüz kentlerindeki yoğunluk, sıkışıklık ve kentsel arazi israfı vb. nedenlerle önem kazanmıştır. Ayrıca bu alanların kirlilik, bakımsızlık, kentsel alanda kopukluk, güvensizlik, atıllık gibi problemler oluşturduğu da açıktır. Bu çalışma ulusal ve uluslararası örnekler üzerinden kayıp mekanların taktiksel şehircilik yaklaşımı ile karşılaştırmalı biçimde incelenmesini içermektedir. Çalışmada dünyada birçok farklı ölçekte ve işlevde taktiksel şehircilik uygulaması gerçekleştirildiği ve paydaş çeşitliliğinin de aynı oranda fazlalık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda taktiksel şehircilik uygulamalarının kayıp mekanlar için etkin bir çözüm olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca Kadıköy örnekleri uluslararası benzerleri ile kıyaslandığında düşük maliyet sağlaması ve katılımcılık bağlamında çeşitlilik sağlaması ile başarılı bulunmuştur. Ancak işlev çeşitliliği ve esnek mekan üretim biçimleri çerçevesinde yetersiz görülmüştür.

Keywords

Taktiksel şehircilik , kayıp mekan , kentsel tasarım , Kadıköy , yeni planlama yaklaşımları

A Comparative Study of Tactical Urbanism Practices Applied in Lost Spaces

https://izlik.org/JA68RF79NH

Abstract

Today, cities, as dynamic, complex, and fragmented spaces, present various urban problems. Projects proposed through traditional planning approaches are inadequate in solving urban problems because they are resistant to change, have slow-moving processes, and are difficult and costly to remove when they fail to meet user needs. Therefore, tactical urbanism, one of the emerging new planning approaches, emerges as an approach that advocates site-specific and pinpointed methods, emphasizes low cost and low risk, and incorporates flexible and rapid interventions that adapt to change. This study aims to propose solutions for areas defined as "lost space" by utilizing these practices. The issue of reclaiming lost space, an urban problem to which tactical urbanism provides applications, has gained importance due to the density, congestion, and waste of urban land in today's cities. It is also clear that these areas pose problems such as pollution, neglect, urban disconnection, insecurity, and idleness. This study examines lost spaces through a comparative analysis of national and international examples using the tactical urbanism approach. The study determined that tactical urbanism practices are implemented globally at many different scales and functions, and that stakeholder diversity is equally high. The study concluded that tactical urbanism practices are an effective solution for lost spaces. Furthermore, the Kadıköy examples were found to be successful compared to their international counterparts due to their low cost and diversity in terms of participation. However, they were found to be inadequate in terms of functional diversity and flexible spatial production methods.

Keywords

Tactical urbanism , Lost space , Urban design , Kadıköy , New planning approaches

Ethical Statement

This study does not involve human or animal participants. All procedures followed scientific and ethical principles, and all referenced studies are appropriately cited.

Supporting Institution

This research received no external funding.

Thanks

This article is derived from the master's thesis written by Serra Altunok under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Nilgün Çolpan Erkan within the scope of the Urban Spatial Organization and Design Master's Program at the Department of City and Regional Planning, Yıldız Technical University.

References

• Adams, E. (n.d.). Council of gardeners: Green guerillas. Retrieved August 12, 2025, from https://www.greenguerillas.org/council-of-gardeners
• ArchDaily. (2021). Open-air library / Karo Architekten. https://www.archdaily.com/39417/open-air-library-karo-architekten
• Arkitera. (2020). Kalamış Parkı kolektif dönüşüm projesi. https://www.arkitera.com/proje/kalamis-parki-kolektif-donusum-projesi/
• Aydın, A. (2019). Anomalous /guerrilla gardening as a local participation method. Idealkent, 10(27), 714–732. https://doi.org/10.31198/IDEALKENT.591666
• Berger, A. (2006). Drosscape: Wasting land urban America. Princeton Architectural Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/yildiz/detail.action?docID=3387358
• BMW Guggenheim Lab. (n.d.). What is the lab. Retrieved August 12, 2025, from http://www.bmwguggenheimlab.org/what-is-the-lab
• Bowman, A., & Pagano, M. A. (2004). Terra incognita: Vacant land and urban strategies. Georgetown University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZblEWrbwa_EC
• Boz, G. E. (2016). An evaluation of urban vacant space through the temporary use approach: A case study of Kadiköy, yeldeğirmeni [Master’s thesis, Istanbul Technical University]. https://polen.itu.edu.tr/bitstreams/4b942ecc-879a-4cec-a28f-3b18f9d82805/download
• Çınar, H. S., & Yı̇rmı̇beşoğlu, F. (2020). Kentlerde taktiksel yaklaşımla domino etkisi yaratmak: Türkiye’de taktiksel yaklaşım. In B. Manzak (Ed.), Mimarlık, planlama ve tasarım alanında akademik çalışmalar (pp. 31–44). Gece Kitaplığı. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340540117_KENTLERDE_TAKTIKSEL_YAKLASIMLA_DOMINO_ETKISI_YARATMAK_TURKIYE%27DE_TAKTIKSEL_YAKLASIM
• Douvlou, E., Papathoma, D., & Turrell, I. (2008). The hidden city: Between the border and the vacuum: The impact of physical environment on aspects of social sustainability. Sustainable City, 117, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC080351
• Erdoğan, G. (2009). Street art in public space: Graffiti, Istanbul, Beyoğlu, yüksek kaldirim axe [Master’s thesis, Karadeniz Technical University]. https://platform.almanhal.com/Details/Thesis/2000026102
• Ersoy, M. (1995, July 11). Planlama kuramları ve etik. http://www.melihersoy.com/makaleler/
• Ertaş, B., Sarı, G., İmren, A. K., Öztürk, S., Cebeci, B., & Tutuk, İ. (2022). Common space at the intersection of tactical urbanization and urban open space: The case of Kartal Meydan Park. Idealkent, 13(38), 2480–2519. https://doi.org/10.31198/IDEALKENT.1140121
• Fraker, H. (2007). Where is the urban design discourse? Places: Forum of design for the public realm, 19(3), 61–63.
• Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=p0XbDwAAQBAJ
• Genç, F. (2018, September 10). Bir ihtimal olarak şehir. http://birartibir.org/kent-hakki/133-bir-ihtimal-olarak-sehir
• Groth, J., & Corijn, E. (2005). Reclaiming urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3), 503–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500035436
• Guerilla Gardening. (2021, September 8). Mediamatic. https://www.mediamatic.net/en/page/86832/internship-guerilla-gardening
• Hall, P. A. (2010). The post-industrial urban void: Rethink, reconnect, revive [Master’s thesis, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.
• Herkes İçin Mimarlık. (2021). Boğada. https://herkesicinmimarlik.org/calismalar/bogada/
• Hou, J. (2010). Insurgent public space: Guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203093009
• Hung, H. (2017). Formation of new property rights on government land through informal co-management: Case studies on countryside guerilla gardening. Land Use Policy, 63, 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2017.01.024
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
• Jooshani, B. (2021). Sağlıklı kentler için atıl kamusal mekanları dönüştürmek: Kentsel akupunktur yaklaşımı [Master’s thesis, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi]. https://search.proquest.com/openview/362c4cd7f422d77c54cc66fffd78d66f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
• Jooshani, B., & Polat, S. (2022). Âtıl kamusal mekanları dönüştürmek için kentsel akupunkturdan nasıl faydalanabiliriz? In E. Baylan (Ed.), People, place and participation: In the face of environmental and social challenges in landscapes (pp. 61-105). IKSAD.
• Kentsel Strateji. (2021, August 12). Çalışmalar. https://kentselstrateji.com/projeler/
• Kızıltaş, F. Z., & Masatlıoğlu, C. S. E. (2024). Design approaches that restore publicity in urban space: tactical urbanism, urban acupuncture and urban curation. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33(2), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.35379/CUSOSBIL.1444585
• Kösa, B., & Arı, D. (2021). Kentlerdeki kayıp mekânların kentsel tarım ile geri kazandırılması: İstanbul-Ayvansaray Mahallesi örneği. In 8. Kentsel ve Bölgesel Araştırmalar Ağı Sempozyumu (pp. 375–400). https://app.box.com/s/6xp0gmsdd14y6jrqdhszvquvbk5f5zap
• Kut Görgün, E., & Atay Kaya, İ. (2024). Diverse viewpoints on tactical urbanism in vacant lots: A collaborative design with young planner candidates in Türkiye. CoDesign, 20(4), 742–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2024.2393591
• Kut Görgün, E., & Atay Kaya, İ. (2022). Place-making and participation: A case study in Barbaros (Izmir, Türkiye). In E. Baylan (Ed.), People, place and participation: In the face of environmental and social challenges in landscapes (pp. 35–60). IKSAD. https://avesis.deu.edu.tr/yayin/fab9ca53-643a-4d12-9ea9-51fd68b08687/place-making-and-participation-a-case-study-in-barbaros-izmir-turkiye
• Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). A tactical urbanism how-to. In M. Lydon & A. Garcia (Eds.), Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change (pp. 171–198). Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0_5
• Lydon, M., Bartman D., Garcia T., Preston R. & Woudstra, R. (2012). Tactical urbanism 2: Short Term Action Long Term Change. M. Lydon (Ed.). Street Plans Collaborative. https://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism_vol_2_final
• Marshall, W. E., Duvall, A. L., & Main, D. S. (2016). Large-scale tactical urbanism: The Denver bike share system. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1029510
• Melih, E. (2017). Planlama kuramları. In S. S. Özdemir, B. Sarı Özdemir, & N. Uzun (Eds.), Kent planlama (pp. 145–147). İmge Kitabevi.
• Özkan, A. H. (2012). Planlama sistemlerinde esneklik kavramı: Türkiye üzerine bir analiz [Master’s thesis, Istanbul Technical University]. https://polen.itu.edu.tr/bitstreams/18a4f74e-8f1c-4607-8ec1-5a68ba41a112/download
• Pagona, C. (2013). DIY urbanism: Property and process in grassroots city building. Marquette Law Review, 97(2), 335-390.
• Poyraz, M. (2021). Şehrin bağlayıcı ve harmanlayıcı gücü olarak ara mekânlar: İstanbul’un kenarları ve Paris’in banliyöleri üzerinden karşılaştırmalı bir bakış. In Ö. Güven & M. E. Kardeş (Eds.), Felsefede kent ve kent hakkı (pp. 167-184). Istanbul University Press.
• Selvin, E. (2016). Politics of participatory urban space design: A case study on Istanbul. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3406.2967
• Shackelford, K. (2014). Tactical urbanism: A movement on the rise.
• Simpson, C. (2015). An overview and analysis of tactical urbanism in Los Angeles [Undergraduate capstone project, Occidental College]. Urban & Environmental Policy, Occidental College. (pp. 6–14). https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/Simpson%2520Final%2520-%2520Copy.pdf
• Stevens, Q., Fauster, A., & Kim, D. (2019). Temporary and tactical urbanism in Australia: a review of current practice, policy and practitioner perspectives. In Proceedings of the 9th State of Australian Citiesb (pp. 1–10). https://hdl.handle.net/10779/rmit.27584751
• Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. (n.d.). CORINE CBS. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://corinecbs.tarimorman.gov.tr/corine
• Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. SAGE Publications. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/yildiz/detail.action?docID=456804&query=urban%20planning%20theory
• The Underline. (2021, September 12). The underline project. https://www.theunderline.org/
• Toy, E., & Görgülü, E. (2018). An example of art applications on public space: Mural Istanbul. The Journal of International Social Research, 11(56), 1150-1160. https://www.academia.edu/download/57856116/toy_ertan.pdf
• Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
• Türkoğlu, S., & Terzi, F. (2021). The effects of tactical urbanism practices on urban design strategies: Istanbul abstract. In Planlama: Kavramlar ve arayışlar (pp. 75–100). Şehir Plancıları Odası.
• Urbanite. (2017, August 3). Fintan Magee “Pray for rain” in Istanbul. Urbanite. Retrieved May 15, 2019, from https://www.urbanitewebzine.com/2017/08/03/fintan-magee-pray-rain-istanbul/
• Vardı Topal, H. (2023). Institutionalizing the tactical urbanism approach in Turkey: The case of İzmir Karşıyaka. Kent Akademisi, 16(3), 2116–2141. https://doi.org/10.35674/KENT.1257082
• Villagomez, E. (2010). Claiming residual spaces in the heterogeneous city. In J. Hou (Ed.), Insurgent public spaces: Guerilla urbanism (pp. 81–95). Taylor & Francis Group. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/yildiz/detail.action?docID=515383
• World Bank. (n.d.). Urban population (SP.URB.TOTL). Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL?end=2019&start=2012&view=chart
• Yalçın, D., & Kürkcüoğlu, E. (2023). Place to space, space to place: A theoretical discussion on place-making in lost spaces. Turkish Journal of Sense of Place and Urban Studies, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11091089
• 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