Looking For Landscapes In Urban Vacancy: Urban Enclosure or Ecological Encryption?

Year 2021, Volume: 31 Issue: 3, 1287 - 1298, 16.09.2021

Büşra Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.881701

Abstract

Looking at the hierarchical-based planning process, the landscape is filled with conservation principles from the rural area to the process of adapting to the city. This undefined task assigned to the landscape turns into planned but unresolved void experiences in cities. Today, however, there is an evolution towards experimental applications by using the dynamic structure of the landscape. From this point of view, the necessity of dwelling on the importance of the correct definition of the landscape, which is stuck between the implementation steps of the current planning approaches, comes to the fore. The aim of the study is, in the first stage, “are we reading the urban landscape correctly?” and “where does urban planning see the landscape?” is to ask questions. It is to examine these questions on a theoretical basis in the context of the city, urban and urban landscape placed at the base of the system. On the one hand, the new design environment and tactical urbanism experiences, on the other hand, theories of the wilderness landscape that listen to the narrative of spontaneity of landscape are discussed. The connection and contrast set up between the two approaches are presented on a theoretical basis. As a result, it becomes clear that individual needs must be defined correctly. It is imperative to look at this situation, which causes urban siege concerns, from an ecocentric ethical framework.

---

 

Keywords

Loose Space, Urban Landscape, Urban Enclosure, Ecological Encryption

PLANLI BOŞLUKLARDA KENTSEL PEYZAJI ARAMAK: KENTSEL KUŞATMA MI, EKOLOJİK ŞİFRELEME Mİ?

Abstract

Hiyerarşik temelli geleneksel planlama sürecine bakıldığında, kent yaşamında daha az insani peyzajlara yer verildiği görülmektedir. Bu sistem içerisinde peyzaj, kırsal alandan kente adapte olma sürecine kadar koruma ilkeleri ve eşik öngörüleriyle doldurulmaktadır. Peyzajın üzerine atanan bu tanımsız görev; dekoratif unsur olmaktan öteye gidemeyen, planlı ancak çözümsüz boşluk deneyimlerine dönüşmektedir. Bugünün planlama bakışında ise, peyzajın dinamik yapısını kullanarak deneysel uygulamalara doğru bir evrilme yaşandığı görülmektedir. Bu bakıştan hareketle, mevcut planlama anlayışının adımları arasına sıkışan peyzajın doğru tanımının önemi üzerine durma gerekliliği gündeme gelmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, ilk aşamada “kentsel peyzajı doğru mu okuyoruz?” ve “kent planlama peyzajı nerede görüyor?” sorularını yöneltmektir. Aynı zamanda, bu soruları sistemin temeline yerleştirilen kent, kentli ve kentsel peyzaj bağlamında kuramsal temelde irdelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, bir tarafta geleneksel planlama anlayışından uzaklaşarak gelişen planlama sisteminin ürettiği yeni tasarım ortamı ve “taktiksel şehircilik” deneyimleri, diğer tarafta peyzajın kendiliğindenlik anlatısını dinleyen “el değmemiş peyzaj” teorileri tartışılmaktadır. Bahsi geçen iki yaklaşım arasında herhangi bir uzlaşı ortamı aranmadan bağlantısallık ve zıtlık kurgusu teorik temelde bir değerlendirme şeklinde sunulmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, birbirine monte edilmesi gerektiğine inanılan üçlü sistem (kent, kentli ve kentsel peyzaj) içerisinde, bireysel ihtiyaçların doğru tanımlanması gerektiği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Kentsel kuşatma endişesini doğuran bu duruma ekosentrik temelli etik bir çerçeveden bakma zorunluluğu ise, bir diğer önemli bulgu olarak belirtilmektedir.

---

 

Keywords

Kayıp Alan, Kentsel Peyzaj, Kentsel Kuşatma, Ekolojik Şifreleme

References

• Aelbrecht, P.S. (2016). Fourth places: The Contemporary Public Settings for Informal Social Interaction Among Strangers, Journal of Urban Design, 21 (1), 124-152.
• Asadpour, A. (2018). Vernacular Landscape; The Transition of the Past Concepts to the Contemporary Context, International Federation of Landscape Architects, Middle East Landscape Architecture Conference (MELAC), Tehran, Iran, 07-08 May 2018.
• Augoyard, J.F. (1941) Step by Step: Everyday Walks in A French Urban Housing Project. London: University of Minnesota Press.
• Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S. ve Smith, G. (1985) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. Oxford: Architectural Press.
• Boz, E. (2017). Atıl Kent Mekânının Geçici Kullanım Yaklaşımı İle Değerlendirilmesi: Kadıköy, Yeldeğirmeni Örneği. (Yüksek lisans tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Broudehoux, A., (2004). The Making and Selling of Post-Mao Beijing. New York: Routledge.
• Castells, M., (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Cihanger, D. (2018). Spaces By People: An Urban Design Approach To Everyday Life. METU JFA, 35(2), 55-76.
• Crommelin, (2015). Faculty of Built Environment, Unruly Urban Brands: How Informal Image-Makers Are Reshaping Post-Industrial Detroit and Newcastle. (Doktora tezi), UNSW Australia, Faculty of Built Environment.
• Dunn, N., Cureton, P. ve Pollastri, S. (2014). A Visual History of the Future, Future of cities. Working Paper, Foresight, Government Office for Science. Ergin, Ş. (2010). Felsefeden Bilime ya da Düşünceden Eyleme Peyzaj ve Kent, Dosya, 18, 5-12.
• Fainstein, S.S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review. 35(4), 451-478.
• Foucault, M. (2005). The Order of Things, Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Franck, A. ve Stevens Q. (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. New York: Routledge.
• Garrard, G. E., Williams, N. S. G., Mata, L., Thomas, J. ve Bekessy, S. A. (2018). Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design. Conservation Letters, 11, 1–10.
• Gross, M. (2010). The Public Proceduralization of Contingency, Social Epistemology, 24(1), 63–74.
• Herrington, S. (2017). Landscape Theory in Design, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Kullmann, K. (2014). The usefulness of uselessness: Towards a Landscape Framework for Un-Activated Urban Public Space, Architectural Theory Review, 19(2), 154-173.
• Kullmann, K. (2018). The Landscape of Things, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 13(1), 58-67.
• Lara-Hernandez, J. A., Melis, A. and Lehmann, S. (2019). Temporary Appropriation of Public Space As an Emergence Assemblage for the Future Urban Landscape: The Case of Mexico City. Future Cities and Environment. 5(1), 1–22.
• Latour, B. (1996). On Actor-Network Theory, Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.
• Locke, R., Mehaffy, M., Haas, T. ve Olsson, K. (2018). Urban Heritage as a Generator of Landscapes: Building New Geographies from Post-Urban Decline in Detroit. Urban Science. 2(92).
• Mike, L. ve Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action, Long-Term Change, Washington: Island Press.
• Mitchhell, W.J. (1997a). Space, Place and Infobahn, City of Bits: Soft Cities. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Mitchhell, W.J. (1997b). City of Bits: Soft Cities, Street Networks, World Wide Web. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Morton, T. (2011). Zero Landscapes in the Time of, Hyperobjects, Graz Architectural Magazine, 7, 78–87.
• Murphy, M. D. (2016). Landscape Archıtecture Theory: An Ecological Approach, Washington: Island Press.
• Myers, Z. (2020). Wildness and Wellbeing: Neture, Neuroscience and Urban Design. Singapure: Palgrave Pivot.
• Nemeth, J. and Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking Urban Transformation: Temporary Uses For Vacant Land, Cities, 40, 143–150.
• Olwig, K. R. (2005). Liminality, Seasonality and Landscape, Landscape Research, 30(2), 259–271.
• Rapoport, A. (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York: Pergamon Press.
• Schultz, P. Lynnette Zelezny, W., ve Dalrymple, J.N. (2000). A Multinational Perspective on the Relation Between Judeo-Christian Religious Beliefs and Attitudes of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 32(4). 576–91.
• Tonkiss, F. (2014). Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form. London: Polity Press.
• Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology. 44(1), 1–24.