Guidelines for Ecological and Technological Built Environment: A Case Study on Güdül-Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

In line with sustainable development, the reactions to current urban planning and design have led to a new alternative and futuristic approach called “ecological and technological (eco-tech) planning and design which is non-damaging to the environment, brings efficient uses of resources with local skills, turns the negative aspects of technological advances to positive, guides good landuse planning with compact forms, uses natural analyses in site selection and planning, combines environmental technologies in terms of renewable energy, explores sustainable transportation and infrastructure, brings urban agriculture to the cities for self sufficiency and uses information and geographic information technologies for ecological issues in the settlements. The objectives of this article are to present a design framework and strategic approach with eco-tech planning and GIS, to develop a design strategy guide, and to increase awareness about urban aspect of ecological challenge and environmental aspect of urban development based on conclusions from a case study in Güdül-Ankara, Turkey. New eco-tech guidelines for small settlements in this research are promoted.

 

Keywords: Eco-tech Planning-Design, Cities of Tomorrow, Urban Sustainability, Green-Smart Settlements, Advanced Technologies, Planning-Design Guidelines

 

Keywords

• Eco-tech Planning-Design, Cities of Tomorrow, Urban Sustainability, Green-Smart Settlements, Advanced Technologies, Planning-Design Guidelines

References

1. Hopkins, R., The Transition Handbook, Green Books, Devon, UK, (2008).
2. WWF Living Planet Report, World Wide Fund for Nature International, Gland, Switzerland. (2006).
3. Kızılaslan, N, Gürler, A.Z. and Kızılaslan, H., “An analytical approach to sustainable development in Turkey”, Sustainable Development, 15(4): 254-266, (2006).
4. Evrendilek, F. and Doygun, H., “Assessing Major Ecosystem Sustainability Management, 26(5): 479-489, (2000). Environmental in
5. Baz, I., Geymen, A. and Er, S.N., “Development and application modeling techniques for urban planning of Istanbul Metropolitan Area”, Advances in Engineering Software, 40(2): 128-140, (2009). analysis/synthesis
6. Ercoşkun, Ö.Y., “Sustainable City Plans Against Development Plans”, Gazi University Journal of Science, 18(3): 529-543, (2005).
7. Köroğlu, B.A. and Ercoşkun, Ö.Y., “Urban Transformation: A Case Study on Cukurambar, Ankara”, Gazi University Journal of Science, 19(3): 173-183, (2006).
8. Oktay, D., “Urban Design for Sustainability: A Study on the Turkish city”, Int. Journal of Sustain. Dev. World Ecology, 11: 24-35, (2004).

9. Ercoşkun, Ö.Y., Green Urban Planning and Design for Communication and Sustainable Development- ICTs for mobility, in: eds. A. Hallin, T.K. Gustavsson, IGI Global (2010). Organizational
10. Ercoşkun, Ö.Y., Ecological and Technological (Eco- Tech) Design for A Sustainable City: A Case study on Güdül, Ankara,Turkey, PhD thesis, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Gazi Uni., Ankara, (2007).
11. Slessor, C., Eco-tech: Sustainable Architecture and High Technology, Thames&Hudson, (1997).
12. Marras, A., ECO-TEC Architecture of the In- Between, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, (1999).
13. Bogunovich, D., Eco-tech cities: Smart metabolism for a green urbanism. In: eds. C.A. Brebbia, C. Martin-Duque, L.C. Wasdhwa, The Sustainable City II, Witpress, London, 75-84, (2002).
14. Amborski, D., Lister, N.M., An Eco-Tech Village for Commissioned by the Town of Milton, Toronto, 1- 42, (2002). for Policy,
15. Arapkirlioglu, K., ”Ekoloji ve Planlama”, Planlama, 4-8, (2003).
16. Atabek, U., Iletisim Teknolojileri ve Yerel Medya için Olanaklar, IPS, Istanbul, (2003).
17. Bandyopadhyay, P., “Application of Information Technology and Impact of Cyber Eco Cities in New Millennium”, Proceedings of ISOCARP Congress, Utrecht, (2001).
18. Yalçıner, Ö., “Geographic Information Systems for Earthquake-Resistant Cities”, Journal of Gazi University Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 17(3): 153-165, (2002).
19. Van Der Ryn, S. and Cowan S., Ecological Design, Island Press, Washington D.C., (1996).
20. Karaaslan Ş. and Ercoşkun, Ö.Y., “Eco-Tech Planning for Turkish Cities”, 12th Annual Sustainable Development Research Conference, Hong Kong, (2006).
21. Mahizhnan, A., “Smart Cities”, Cities (16)1: 13-18, (1999).
22. B.G.D. Consulting Inc., Implementation Options Report, Town of Milton Eco-Tech Village Pilot Project, Canada, (2002).
23. WETA web site, 2004 http://www.workraft.org.nz/WETA.htm, 13/10/2004 http://www.workraft.org.nz/WETA%20action%20pl an.pdf, 13/10/2004
24. Viikki Science Park and Latokartano Guide, City of Helsinki Planning Department, Town Planning Division, Helsinki, (2004).
25. Luke, T., “The Politics of Arcological Utopia: Soleri on Ecology, Architecture and Society”, Telos, 101: 55, (1994).
26. Arcosanti Foundation Web Site, http://www.arcosanti.org
27. Singh, K.A., Bo01, A New Ecological Urban District in Malmö, Sweden, A Post-Occupancy Assessment of The Area, Msc.Thesis, IHS-HDM, Rotterdam, Lund, (2004).
28. Ekostaden web site, http://www.ekostaden.com/pdf/en_hallbar_stad_eng. pdf, 14/09/2004, http://www.ekostaden.com/pdf/det_grona_bo01_eng .pdf, 14/09/2004
29. Clark, M., “Domestic futures and sustainable residential development”, Futures, 33: 817-836, (2001).
30. Gauzin-Müller, D., Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism, Birkhäuser, Berlin, (2002).
31. Hancock, C. Urban Ecology-City of Tomorrow, Bo01 Area in Malmö, Sweden: Towards a Sustainable http://www.ekostaden.com/pdf/article_towards_sust ainable_city.pdf (2001)
32. Ercoskun, O.Y., Varol, C, Gurer, N., “From A Planned Capital to A Scattered Urban Form: Analysing Sustainability of Ankara”, SB05 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference CD, Tokyo, (2005).
33. ADNKS (2007) Turkish Statistical Institute Census Population Results, TİE, (2007) [34] TUİK, (2000).
34. Anonim, Güdül Ankara İmar Planı Araştırma Raporu, İmar Planlama Dairesi Başkanlığı, İller Bankası, Ankara, 8 (1997).
35. Anonim, Güdül İlçe Tarım Müdürlüğü tarım raporu, 1-5 (2005).
36. Yazgan, M., Erdoğan, E., Dilaver,Z., Benzer, N., Günay, E., Özarslan, A., “Ekolojik Tarıma Dayalı Eko-Turizm ve Ekolojik Yerleşmeler: Güdül Örneği”, Raporu, TÜBİTAK, 49, 52, 71, 78, 83, 88, 129 (2005). TÜBİTAK Projesi
37. Gemalmaz, N., “Beypazarı ve Güdül İlçeleri Bağcılığı ve Yörede Yetişen Üzüm Çeşitlerinin Ampelografik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Araştırmalar”, Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 10 (1994). lisans tezi, Ankara
38. Sırakaya, N., “Uygulamalı Coğrafya Bakımından Güdül İlçesi,” Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 4, 9, 11-13 (1991).
39. Avrupa Komisyonu “Towards a local sustainability profile: European Common Indicators, Technical Report 2000”, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/pdf/in dicators_en.pdf (17/01/2006).
40. Vreeker, R., Scenarios for sustainable Urban Development, INTELCITY AB 5. çerçeve final raporu, 6-8 (2003).
41. Newman, P., “Sustainable Cities: Beyond Rhetoric”, keynote Development Research Conference Proceedings, Hong Kong, 3-10 (2006). Annual Sustainable
42. Türker, H., Ayaş, Güdül, Beypazarı ve Polatlı Arasında Kalan Bölgenin Florası, Msc Thesis, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Gazi Uni., Ankara, (1990).
43. Holmgren, D., Permaculture: Principles&Pathways beyond Sustainability, Holmgren Design Services, (2007).
44. Andrade, L.M.S., Romero, M.A.B., “The Principles of Environmental Sustainability Applicable to Urban Design Settlements: Condominium Located in the Federal District of Brazil and inside the Paranoa Environmental Kenneweg, H., Tröger, U., 2nd International Congress Area”, In: Eds. on Environmental Planning and Management, Visions, Implementations, Berlin, 35-38, (2007).
45. Kazimee, B. A., “Sustainable urban design paradigm: twenty five simple things to do to make an Sustainable City II: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, 31-41, (2002). sustainable”, The
46. Choguill, C.L., “Developing Sustainable Neighborhoods”, Habitat International, 32(1): 41- 48, (2008).
47. White, S.S. and Ellis, C. “Sustainability, The Environment, And New Urbanism: An Assessment and Architectural and Planning Research, 24(2): 125- 142, (2007). Journal of
48. Oral, G.K. and Manioğlu, G., “İklimle Dengeli Tasarım: Mardin, Antakya Örnekleri”, Tasarım, 157: 36-142, (2005).
49. Register, R., Ecocity Berkeley Building Cities for a Healthy Future, North Atlantic Books, California, (1987).
50. Todd, N.J. and Todd, J., From Eco-Cities to Living Machines; principles for ecological design, North Atlantic Books, California, (1993).
51. EU Urban Design For Sustainability, Final Report of the Working Group on Urban Design for Sustainability to the European Union Expert Group on the Urban Environment, Austria, (2004).
52. LEED-ND LEED for Neighborhood Development, U.S. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageI D=148 (02/09/2009). Council,
53. Lang, J.,” Implementing Urban Design in America: Project Types and Methodological Implications”, Journal of Urban Design, 1(1): 9-10, (1996).