Üniversite kampüslerinin kentsel doku üzerindeki mekânsal etkileri: Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi örneği, Türkiye

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 4, 2237 - 2248

İmran Gümüş Battal , Ender Şen , Barış Mert Karasu

https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1608505

Öz

Bu çalışma, üniversite kampüslerinin kentsel çevrenin ayrılmaz bileşenleri olarak kentsel dokunun morfolojik gelişimi üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Aynı üniversitenin iki ayrı kampüsünü kapsayan kentsel dokuda bir sosyo-mekansal değişim analizi yapılmıştır. Space syntax analiz yöntemi kullanılarak, kampüsler çevrelerindeki kentsel bağlamlarla birlikte incelenmiştir. Kentsel dokunun evrimine ilişkin morfolojik yorumlar, kampüslerin ilk kurulumları ve mevcut durumları için ayrı ayrı elde edilen verilere dayalı olarak yapılmıştır. Veriler, kampüsleri birbirine bağlayan ulaşım eksenlerinin sayısının arttığını ve bu eksenlerin, kampüslerin konut ve kamusal alanlarla olan fiziksel ilişkilerini güçlendirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu durum, kampüs alanlarının bulundukları kentsel dokuyu önemli ölçüde şekillendirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, özellikle kampüs alanları bağlamında, gelecekte çalışma alanı için planlanan kentsel tasarım uygulamalarına bir temel sağlaması beklenmesi açısından önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kentsel Dönüşüm , Mekan Sentaksı , Üniversite Kampüsleri , Anlaşılabilirlik , Sinerji

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi tarafından desteklenen "Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi Kampüslerinin Yerleşim ve Yapı Ölçeklerinde Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Analiz Edilmesi ve Mekansal Stratejilerinin Geliştirilmesi" başlıklı Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi (BAP) kapsamında yapılmıştır.

Kaynakça

• 1. Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M., Communicating behavioral research to campus design: Factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan, Environment and Behavior, 31, 1-18, 1999.
• 2. İçen, D., Gökgür, F.P., Üniversitelerin kentlere etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi, Kırklareli Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (2), 1-17, 2023.
• 3. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, SAGE, London, 1994.
• 4. Conceição, P., Heitor, T., On the role of the university in the knowledge economy, Science and Public Policy, 26 (1), 37-51, 1999.
• 5. Duderstadt, J.J., New Roles for the 21st‐Century University, Issues in Science and Technology, 1999.
• 6. Christiaanse, K., Hoeger, K., Campus and the City- Urban Design for the Knowledge Society, 1st ed., gta Verlag, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 2007.
• 7. den Heijer, A., Managing the University Campus in an Urban Perspective: Theory, Challenges and Lessons from Dutch Practice, Corporations and Cities: Envisioning Corporate Real Estate in the Urban Future, May, 9, 2008.
• 8. Campos Calvo-Sotelo, P., The Journey of Utopia: The story of the first American Style Campus in Europe, Novascience Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2005.
• 9. Temple, P., From Space to Place: University Performance and its Built Environment, Higher Education Policy, 22 (2), 209-223, 2009.
• 10. Temple, P., The Physical University: Contours of Space and Place in Higher Education, Routledge, Abingdon, New York, 2014.
• 11. Edwards, B., University Architecture, Taylor and Francis, London, 2003.
• 12. Hajrasouliha, A.H., Ewing, R., Campus Does Matter: The Relationship of Student Retention and Degree Attainment to Campus Design, Planning for Higher Education, 30-46, 2016.
• 13. Dober, R.P., Campus Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore, 1992.
• 14. Larkham, P., Institutions and Urban Form: The Example of Universities, Urban Morphology 4 (2), 63-77, 2000.
• 15. Campos Calvo-Sotelo, P., From typological analysis to planning: modern strategies for university spatial quality, CIAN-Revista de Historia de las Universidades, 17 (1), 31-58, 2014.
• 16. Chapman, M.P., American Places: In Search of the Twenty-First Century Campus, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2006.
• 17. Gehl, J., Cities for People, Island Press, 2010.
• 18. Salihoğlu, T., et al., The Effect of Campus Design on the Quality of Student’s Campus Life: The Case of Gebze Technical University Çayırova Campus Master Plan, Kent Akademisi, 14 (4), 975-994, 2021.
• 19. Hajrasouliha, A., Master-planning the American campus: Goals, actions, and design strategies, 2017.
• 20. Kenney, D.R., Dumont, R., Kenny, G., Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2005.
• 21. Dong, D., et al., A new paradigm for comprehensive design strategy for university campus renewal, City and Built Environment, 1 (1), 1-6, 2023.
• 22. Jihuang, S., Li, N., Study on the matching and integration of building and base environment, J Xi’an Univ Architect Technol, 3, 376-381, 2008.
• 23. Wiewel, W., Perry, D.C., Global Universities and Urban Development: Case Studies and Analysis, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Armonk, NY, 2008.
• 24. Cannas da Silva, L., Heitor, T., University Precincts in Lisbon Metropolitan Area: A Morphological Description, PNUM 2012: Urban Morphology in Portuguese Speaking Countries, 1284-1296, 2012.
• 25. Mohammed, A.M.S., Ukai, T., University Campuses as Agents for Urban Change, Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 10 (1), 22-37, 2022.
• 26. Mohammed, A.M.S., Ukai, T., Campus-Neighbourhood Interaction in the Knowledge Economy City: Japan as a Case Study, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15 (1), 102268, 2024.
• 27. Trigueiro, E., Onofre, C., Finding Ways around the Campus: A Study to Support a New Signage System for a University Campus in Natal, Brazil, Proceedings of Seventh International Space Syntax Symposium, KTH, Stockholm, 2009.
• 28. Fard, H.R., Demir, Y., Trisciuoglio, M., The Histology Atlas of Campus Form: A Framework to Explore Liveability and Sustainability in University Campuses, A|Z ITU J. Fac. Archit., 16, 87-102, 2019.
• 29. Cannas da Silva, L., Heitor, T., University Precincts in Lisbon Metropolitan Area: A Morphological Description, PNUM 2012: Urban Morphology in Portuguese Speaking Countries, 1284-1296, 2012.
• 30. Hillier, B., Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
• 31. Cannas da Silva, L., Heitor, T., To Integrate or Not to Integrate? A Matter of Choice for Universities, Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 2 (Special Issue), 74-88, 2021.
• 32. Silva, J.M., Cannas da Silva, L., Heitor, T.V., Urban Quality of University Campuses: Curitiba and Lisbon as Case Studies, 48th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, 1-12, 2009.
• 33. Hillier, B., Hanson, J., The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
• 34. Durmaz, M., Sağıroğlu Demirci, Ö., An Evaluation of Imprecise Outputs of Space Syntax Applied Urban Studies, Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 10 (3), 259-271, 2022.
• 35. Lee, J.H., Ostwald, M.J., Zhou, L., Socio-Spatial Experience in Space Syntax Research: A PRISMA-Compliant Review, Buildings, 13, 644, 2023.
• 36. El-Darwish, I.I., Enhancing Outdoor Campus Design by Utilizing Space Syntax Theory for Social Interaction Locations, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13, 1-7, 2022.
• 37. Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Spierings, B., Çil, E., The Spatial Configuration and Publicness of the University Campus: Interaction, Discovery, and Display on De Uithof in Utrecht, Urban Design International, 27, 80-94, 2022.
• 38. Ozbil, A., Gocer, O., Bakovic, M., Gocer, K., A Quantitative Investigation of the Factors Affecting Patterns of Occupation in a Suburban Campus: The Case of Ozyegin University in Istanbul, Archnet-IJAR, 12, 98-125, 2018.
• 39. Peponis, J., The Space Syntax of Intelligible Communities, in R.H. Hunter, L.A. Anderson, & B.L. Belza (Eds.), Community Wayfinding: Pathways to Understanding, Springer International Publishing, Springer Nature, 35-60, 2016.
• 40. Bafna, S., Space Syntax, Environment and Behavior, 35, 17-29, 2003.
• 41. van Nes, A., Yamu, C., Introduction to Space Syntax in Urban Studies, Springer Nature, 2021.
• 42. Kostakos, V., Space Syntax and Pervasive Systems, in B. Jiang, X. Yao (Eds.), Geospatial Analysis, Modelling Urban Structure and Dynamics, 99, 31-52, 2010.
• 43. Al-Sayed, K., Turner, A., Hillier, B., Iida, S., Penn, A., Space Syntax Methodology, 4th ed., Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London, 2014.
• 44. Turner, A., Visibility Graph Analysis, UCL, London, Available online: http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/research/vga/, 2004.
• 45. Hillier, B., Yang, T., Turner, A., Normalising Least Angle Choice in Depthmap and its Implications for Global and Local City Space Analysis, Journal of Space Syntax, 3 (2), 155-193, 2012.
• 46. Suchoń, F., Olesiak, J., Historical Analysis of the Example of Nowy Sącz in Space Syntax Perspective: Guidelines for Future Development of Urban Matrix in Medium-Sized Cities, Sustainability, 13 (19), 11071, 2021.
• 47. Basee, D.H., Zina, R.A., Transformation of Urban Morphology, Vulnerability and Resilience: Haifa Street Area, as a Case Study, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13 (101718), 1-9, 2022.