The Movement of Void: From Architectural Space to Urban Space
Abstract
Masses and voids are the fundamental physical properties that form both the architectural and urban spaces. This study discusses the contributions made by the void in the architectural form to urban voids. Void is a concept which finds itself a place among the definitions of space. Where there is no void, there is no space as the space generates the void. However, other than making up a space as its main function, void can also exist within a space for symbolic, semantic, etc. reasons. The first title of section definitions and concepts of the study describes the relationship between the space and void. Areas remaining after architectural spaces in an urban space however are defined as void lots. The second title of section definitions and concepts of the study focuses on the definitions of an urban void while the relationship between an urban space and void is discussed. The discussions section questions the mutual impact between the void in architectural and urban spaces. The interaction between the voids in architectural and urban spaces is discussed and described with examples from the history and today. While the importance of the voids created in an architectural space in the shaping of urban voids is given emphasis, it is also asserted that rather than creating a space, the void might be capable of defining, directing and strengthening the relation between areas. It is also stated that this coexistence should be considered in architectural and urban spaces intended for design. The historical examples have been selected among the squares as the most important urban void lots while those of today have been selected among those existing with their impact in an architectural space and contributing to the urban area. In consequence, it could be said that the squares existing in the history as urban voids have been recreated through the voids in today's architectural spaces and that architectural voids are supporting
Keywords
References
- Akı, A. ve Erdönmez M.E. (2005) “Açık Kamusal Kent Mekanlarının Toplum İlişkilerindeki Etkileri”, Megaron, YTÜ Dergisi, 1(1): 67–87.
- Bala, H.A. (2006). “Mimarlık- Şehircilik, Bina-Kent, İç-Dış, Özel- Kamusal Arasında Kentsel Arayüzler”, Yapı Dergisi, 293: 44–49.
- Colomnia, B. (2001). Mahremiyet ve Kamusallık, Kitle İletişim Aracı Olarak Modern Mimari, Çev: Aziz Ufuk Kılıç, Metis Yayınları.
- Demirel, T. (2008). Kent Meydanları Yer Seçimine Metodolojik Bir Yaklaşım: Adana Kenti Örneği, Y. Lisans Tezi, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Çukurova Üniversitesi.
- Gülmez, F.G. (1996). Boşluk Kavramı ve Mimari Tasarımdaki Yeri, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul.
- Gür, Ş.Ö. (1996). Mekan Örgütlenmesi, Gür Yayıncılık, Trabzon.
- Hasol, D. (1999). Mimari İzlenimler, Yem Yayınları, İstanbul.
- Kara, B. ve Küçükerbaş, E.V. (2001) “Kent Meydanlarının Tasarımına Demokratik Yaklaşım”, Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Bornova, İzmir, 38(1).
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
-
Journal Section
-
Authors
Nilgün Kuloğlu
This is me
Publication Date
December 30, 2013
Submission Date
April 23, 2015
Acceptance Date
-
Published in Issue
Year 2013 Volume: 1 Number: 2