Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Biçim Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bursa Yıldırım İlçesi Konut Alanları Örneği

Year 2021, Volume: 12 Issue: 34, 1440 - 1479, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.847287

Abstract

Kentlerde daha iyi yaşam çevrelerinin üretilmesi, şehir planlama meslek alanında fiziksel çevredeki kalite standartlarına ve bunların uygulanmasına bağlıdır. Sürdürülebilir kentsel biçim (SKB) ilkeleri ise, daha yaşanabilir kentsel çevrelerin, komşuluk ve yapı-adası ölçeğinde tasarlanmasını ve planlanmasını gündeme getirmiştir. Bu bağlamda makale, Türkiye’deki kentsel alanları SKB ilkelerine göre değerlendirmeyi ve şehir planlamanın mekân üretme pratiğine katkı yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. Akıllı büyüme ve yeni şehircilik gibi akımların doğrultusundaki LEED-ND programında kullanılan SKB ölçütlerinin uygulanabilirliği kentsel tasarım yazını ve Türkiye imar mevzuatıyla irdelenmiştir. Derişiklik/yoğunluk, erişilebilirlik, karma-arazi kullanımı, yeşil alanlar, geçirgenlik ve çeşitlilik gibi SKB ölçütlerine dair ölçüm yöntemleri geliştirildikten sonra, bunlar Bursa’nın Yıldırım ilçesinde morfolojik farklılığa sahip konut alanlarını temsilen altı mahallede seçilen birer yapı adası ve çevresinde incelenmiştir. İncelenen yapı adaları en fazla yoğunluk/derişiklik ve karma kullanım ilkelerini karşılarken, sürdürülebilir bir yoğunluğun gerektirdiği açık-yeşil alanlar, erişilebilirlik ve geçirgenliğin dengelenmesinde sorunlar bulunmuştur. Bu dengeyi en fazla sağlayan 1980’lerde kooperatif yoluyla üretilen konut alanlarıyken, kent merkeziyle iç ve dış çeperlerde yer alan eski ve yeni konut dokularında imar mevzuatından ve toplumsal süreçlerden kaynaklanan farklı sorunlara rastlanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma konut alanlarının sorunları ve kent içindeki konumlarını göz önünde bulundurarak, geliştirdiği SKB ilkeleriyle ilgili bazı standartlar ve tasarım ölçütleri ile imar mevzuatının iyileştirilmesine katkı sağlamaktadır.

Supporting Institution

Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi

Project Number

191N026

Thanks

Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi'ne Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi kapsamında sağladığı destek için teşekkür ederiz.

References

  • Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. ve Silverstein, M. (Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. ve Angel, S. ile birlikte) (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bache, I. ve Scott, K. (2017). Politics and wellbeing. (CWIPP Working Paper No.10), Center for Wellbeing in Public Policy, The University of Sheffield.
  • Bölen, F., Türkoğlu, H., Ergun, N., Yirmibeşoğlu, F., Kundak, S., Terzi, F. ve Kaya, S. (2006). İstanbul’da konut alanlarında fiziksel çevre kalitesi analizi. İMP Konut ve Yaşam Kalitesi Grubu Raporu, İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
  • BYB (2020). Kent bilgi sistemi verisi. Bursa Yıldırım Belediyesi
  • Camagni, R., Capello, R. ve Nijkamp, P. (1998). Towards sustainable city policy: an economy-environment technology nexus. Ecological economics, 24(1), 103-118.
  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. ve Tiesdall, S. (2003). Public places urban spaces the dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
  • Chen, S., Cerin, E., Stimson, R., ve Lai, P. C. (2016). An objective measure to assessing urban quality of life based on land use characteristics. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 36(Supplement C), 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.09.009
  • Cheng, Z., Smyth, R. ve Wang, H. (2013). Housing and subjective wellbeing in urban China. (Department of Economics Discussion Paper, no. 39-13), Monash University.
  • Chhetri, P., Han, J. H., Chandra, S., ve Corcoran, J. (2013). Mapping urban residential density patterns: compact city model in Melbourne, Australia. City, Culture and Society, 4(2), 77-85. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2013.03.001
  • Chiu, R. (2003). Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development, Housing and social change: East-west perspectives (Vol. 221): Routledge
  • Diener, E. ve E. Suh (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators, Social Indicators Research 40(1-2): 189-216.
  • Elariane, S. A. (2012). Neighbourhood urban quality of life: guidelines for urban planning and development of new assessment tool. (Doktora tezi). Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. Giza, Egypt. Erişim adresi: http://www.cpas-egypt.com/
  • El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E. ve Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Hbrc Journal, 9(1), 86-92.
  • Ersoy, M., (2007). Kentsel planlama kuramları. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
  • Ertürk, H. ve Karakurt-Tosun, E. (2009). Küreselleşme sürecinde kentlerde mekânsal, sosyal ve kültürel değişim: Bursa örneği. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (16), 37-53.
  • Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism, urban design with nature. Farr Associates. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Fleming, D. (1998). The Space of argumentation: urban design, civic discourse, and the dream of the good city, Argumentation, 12: 147-166.
  • Google (2021, 1 Kasım). [Yıldırım, Bursa için google maps uydu görüntüsü]. Erişim adresi: https://goo.gl/maps/XsiVNpzZU7SgE6c77
  • Gouda, A. A., ve Masoumi, H. E. (2018). Compactness, connectivity, and walking accessibility on the neighborhood level according to sustainability certifications: improvement or downgrade? A case study of Cairo, Egypt. Journal of Geographical Systems, 20(4), 413-449. doi:10.1007/s10109-018-0272-7
  • Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 1(2), 151-165.
  • İlkme, M. (2009, 27 Aralık). Bursa kent raporu. TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Bursa Şubesi. Erişim adresi: http://www.spo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=840&tipi=2&sube=3
  • Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220-229.
  • Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26 (1), 38-52.
  • Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Jones, C., Jenks, M. ve Bramley, G. (2010). Complementarities and contradictions, M. Jenks ve C. Jones (Ed.), Dimensions of the sustainable city (s. 239-256) içinde, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, Londra, New York: Springer.
  • Kaya, H. E., ve Taylan Susan, A. (2020). Sürdürülebilir bir kentleşme yaklaşımı olarak, ekolojik planlama ve eko-kentler. İdealKent Dergisi, 11(30).
  • Keleş, R. (2006). Kentleşme politikası, Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
  • Kropf, K. (2017). The handbook of urban morphology. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley.
  • Larkham, P. J., ve Jones, A. N. (Ed.). (1991). A glossary of urban form. Historical Geography Monograph, no. 26, Urban Morphology Research Group, School of Geography, University of Birmingham.
  • LEED v4 (2018, 3 Eylül). LEED v4 for neighborhood development - current version, Erişim adresi: https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version
  • Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
  • Marans, R. W. (2015). Quality of urban life & environmental sustainability studies: future linkage opportunities. Habitat International, 45: 47-52. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019
  • Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 73-83.
  • Maryanti, M., Khadijah, H., Uzair, A. M., ve Ghazali, M. (2017). The urban green space provision using the standards approach: issues and challenges of its implementation in Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 210, 369-379.
  • McCrea, R., Stimson, R., ve Marans, R. W. (2011). The evolution of ıntegrative approaches to the analysis of quality of urban life. R.W. Marans ve R. Stimson (Ed.), Investigating quality of urban life (s. 77-104) içinde, Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Moughtin, C. (2003). Urban design street and square. Great Britain: Elsevier Science.
  • Nedovic-Budic, Z., Knaap, G. J., Shahumyan, H., Williams, B., ve Slaev, A. (2016). Measuring urban form at community scale: case study of Dublin, Ireland. Cities, 55, 148-164.
  • Newman, P. W. (1999). Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 219-226.
  • Oikonomou, M. (2015). The urban block as a potential for sustainable urban design. The Sustainable City X, 194, 69.
  • Oktay, D. (2001). Kentlerimiz, yaşam kalitesi ve sürdürülebilirlik. Mimarlık Dergisi, 302: 45-49.
  • Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of life quality in human geography. Progress in Geography, 6(4), 495-514.
  • Pakzad, E., ve Salari, N. (2018). Measuring sustainability of urban blocks: the case of Dowlatabad, Kermanshah city. Cities, 75, 90-100.
  • Porta, S., ve Renne, J. L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. URBAN DESIGN International, 10(1), 51-64.
  • Rezvani Kakhki, S., Rahnama, M. R., ve Ajza Shokouhi, M. (2018). Urban form analysis based on smart growth characteristics at neighborhoods of 9th district in Mashhad Municipality. Modern Applied Science, 12.
  • Shach-Pinsly, D., ve Capeluto, I. G. (2020). From form-based to performance-based codes. Sustainability, 12(14), 5657, doi:10.3390/su12145657
  • Sınmaz, S. (2013). Yeni gelişen planlama yaklaşımları çerçevesinde akıllı yerleşme kavramı ve temel ilkeleri. Megaron, 8(2), 76.
  • TC-ÇŞB. (2017). Kentsel mekânsal standartların geliştirilmesi. Ankara: T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Tekeli, İ., Güler, Ç., Vaizoğlu, S., Algan, N. ve Kaya Dündar, A (2010). Yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri: Türkiye için bir veri sistemi önerisi. Ankara, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
  • TÜİK (2020a). 1990 Genel nüfus sayımı. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  • TÜİK (2020b). 2000 Genel nüfus sayımı. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  • Türkoğlu, H. (2015). Sustainable development and quality of urban life. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202 (Supplement C), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.203
  • Türksever, A. N. E. (2000). Türkiye’de büyük şehir alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir yöntem denemesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
  • Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., ve De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65 (1), 5-18.
  • Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1-39.
  • Yazarlar (2020). Yazarların kendi fotoğraf arşivi, Alan araştırması, Yıldırım, Bursa.
  • Yıldız, S., Yılmaz, M., Kıvrak, S. ve Gültekin, A.B. (2016). Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools and a comparative analysis of five different assessment tools, Journal of Planning, 26(2):93–100, doi: 10.14744/planlama.2016.05914
  • Walters, D. R. (2007). Designing community: charrettes, master plans and form-based codes. UK & USA: Elsevier.
  • Wheeler, S. M. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment, 8(3), 317-336. doi:10.1080/13549830306656
  • Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Orr, B. J., Gimblett, R. H., Chalfoun, N. V., Going, S. B., Guertin, D. P., ve Marsh, S. E. (2016). Designing healthy communities: a walkability analysis of LEED-ND. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(4), 433-452.

Evaluation of Sustainable Urban Form Quality: The Case of Residential Areas in Yıldırım District of Bursa

Year 2021, Volume: 12 Issue: 34, 1440 - 1479, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.847287

Abstract

Better living environments in cities depends on the quality standards of physical environment and their implementation through city planning. Sustainable urban form (SUF) principles propose designing and planning of livable urban environments by focusing on neighborhood and city-block. The article aimed to evaluate urban areas in Turkey through SUF principles and to contribute into place production practice of city planning. The study searched for the applicability of SUF measures in smart growth, new urbanism and LEED-ND program by discussing through urban design literature and legislation in Turkey. After developing assessment methods for compactness/density, accessibility, mixed-land use, green areas, permeability and diversity, the study evaluated their performance in building-blocks and their environment that are selected among six neighborhoods, which represent morphological differences of residential areas in Yıldırım, Bursa. Although the areas met density/compactness and mixed-land use, problems occurred in balancing sustainable density through open-green areas, accessibility and permeability. Cooperative houses of 1980's satisfied this balance, while central city and inner/outer peripheries have diverse problems due to deficiencies in legislation and social processes. In conclusion, the study contributes into development legislation by proposing standards and design indicators involved with SUF principles regarding the problems of residential areas and their location within city.

Project Number

191N026

References

  • Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. ve Silverstein, M. (Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. ve Angel, S. ile birlikte) (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bache, I. ve Scott, K. (2017). Politics and wellbeing. (CWIPP Working Paper No.10), Center for Wellbeing in Public Policy, The University of Sheffield.
  • Bölen, F., Türkoğlu, H., Ergun, N., Yirmibeşoğlu, F., Kundak, S., Terzi, F. ve Kaya, S. (2006). İstanbul’da konut alanlarında fiziksel çevre kalitesi analizi. İMP Konut ve Yaşam Kalitesi Grubu Raporu, İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
  • BYB (2020). Kent bilgi sistemi verisi. Bursa Yıldırım Belediyesi
  • Camagni, R., Capello, R. ve Nijkamp, P. (1998). Towards sustainable city policy: an economy-environment technology nexus. Ecological economics, 24(1), 103-118.
  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. ve Tiesdall, S. (2003). Public places urban spaces the dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
  • Chen, S., Cerin, E., Stimson, R., ve Lai, P. C. (2016). An objective measure to assessing urban quality of life based on land use characteristics. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 36(Supplement C), 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.09.009
  • Cheng, Z., Smyth, R. ve Wang, H. (2013). Housing and subjective wellbeing in urban China. (Department of Economics Discussion Paper, no. 39-13), Monash University.
  • Chhetri, P., Han, J. H., Chandra, S., ve Corcoran, J. (2013). Mapping urban residential density patterns: compact city model in Melbourne, Australia. City, Culture and Society, 4(2), 77-85. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2013.03.001
  • Chiu, R. (2003). Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development, Housing and social change: East-west perspectives (Vol. 221): Routledge
  • Diener, E. ve E. Suh (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators, Social Indicators Research 40(1-2): 189-216.
  • Elariane, S. A. (2012). Neighbourhood urban quality of life: guidelines for urban planning and development of new assessment tool. (Doktora tezi). Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. Giza, Egypt. Erişim adresi: http://www.cpas-egypt.com/
  • El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E. ve Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Hbrc Journal, 9(1), 86-92.
  • Ersoy, M., (2007). Kentsel planlama kuramları. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
  • Ertürk, H. ve Karakurt-Tosun, E. (2009). Küreselleşme sürecinde kentlerde mekânsal, sosyal ve kültürel değişim: Bursa örneği. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (16), 37-53.
  • Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism, urban design with nature. Farr Associates. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Fleming, D. (1998). The Space of argumentation: urban design, civic discourse, and the dream of the good city, Argumentation, 12: 147-166.
  • Google (2021, 1 Kasım). [Yıldırım, Bursa için google maps uydu görüntüsü]. Erişim adresi: https://goo.gl/maps/XsiVNpzZU7SgE6c77
  • Gouda, A. A., ve Masoumi, H. E. (2018). Compactness, connectivity, and walking accessibility on the neighborhood level according to sustainability certifications: improvement or downgrade? A case study of Cairo, Egypt. Journal of Geographical Systems, 20(4), 413-449. doi:10.1007/s10109-018-0272-7
  • Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 1(2), 151-165.
  • İlkme, M. (2009, 27 Aralık). Bursa kent raporu. TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Bursa Şubesi. Erişim adresi: http://www.spo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=840&tipi=2&sube=3
  • Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220-229.
  • Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26 (1), 38-52.
  • Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Jones, C., Jenks, M. ve Bramley, G. (2010). Complementarities and contradictions, M. Jenks ve C. Jones (Ed.), Dimensions of the sustainable city (s. 239-256) içinde, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, Londra, New York: Springer.
  • Kaya, H. E., ve Taylan Susan, A. (2020). Sürdürülebilir bir kentleşme yaklaşımı olarak, ekolojik planlama ve eko-kentler. İdealKent Dergisi, 11(30).
  • Keleş, R. (2006). Kentleşme politikası, Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
  • Kropf, K. (2017). The handbook of urban morphology. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley.
  • Larkham, P. J., ve Jones, A. N. (Ed.). (1991). A glossary of urban form. Historical Geography Monograph, no. 26, Urban Morphology Research Group, School of Geography, University of Birmingham.
  • LEED v4 (2018, 3 Eylül). LEED v4 for neighborhood development - current version, Erişim adresi: https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version
  • Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
  • Marans, R. W. (2015). Quality of urban life & environmental sustainability studies: future linkage opportunities. Habitat International, 45: 47-52. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019
  • Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 73-83.
  • Maryanti, M., Khadijah, H., Uzair, A. M., ve Ghazali, M. (2017). The urban green space provision using the standards approach: issues and challenges of its implementation in Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 210, 369-379.
  • McCrea, R., Stimson, R., ve Marans, R. W. (2011). The evolution of ıntegrative approaches to the analysis of quality of urban life. R.W. Marans ve R. Stimson (Ed.), Investigating quality of urban life (s. 77-104) içinde, Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Moughtin, C. (2003). Urban design street and square. Great Britain: Elsevier Science.
  • Nedovic-Budic, Z., Knaap, G. J., Shahumyan, H., Williams, B., ve Slaev, A. (2016). Measuring urban form at community scale: case study of Dublin, Ireland. Cities, 55, 148-164.
  • Newman, P. W. (1999). Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 219-226.
  • Oikonomou, M. (2015). The urban block as a potential for sustainable urban design. The Sustainable City X, 194, 69.
  • Oktay, D. (2001). Kentlerimiz, yaşam kalitesi ve sürdürülebilirlik. Mimarlık Dergisi, 302: 45-49.
  • Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of life quality in human geography. Progress in Geography, 6(4), 495-514.
  • Pakzad, E., ve Salari, N. (2018). Measuring sustainability of urban blocks: the case of Dowlatabad, Kermanshah city. Cities, 75, 90-100.
  • Porta, S., ve Renne, J. L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. URBAN DESIGN International, 10(1), 51-64.
  • Rezvani Kakhki, S., Rahnama, M. R., ve Ajza Shokouhi, M. (2018). Urban form analysis based on smart growth characteristics at neighborhoods of 9th district in Mashhad Municipality. Modern Applied Science, 12.
  • Shach-Pinsly, D., ve Capeluto, I. G. (2020). From form-based to performance-based codes. Sustainability, 12(14), 5657, doi:10.3390/su12145657
  • Sınmaz, S. (2013). Yeni gelişen planlama yaklaşımları çerçevesinde akıllı yerleşme kavramı ve temel ilkeleri. Megaron, 8(2), 76.
  • TC-ÇŞB. (2017). Kentsel mekânsal standartların geliştirilmesi. Ankara: T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Tekeli, İ., Güler, Ç., Vaizoğlu, S., Algan, N. ve Kaya Dündar, A (2010). Yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri: Türkiye için bir veri sistemi önerisi. Ankara, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
  • TÜİK (2020a). 1990 Genel nüfus sayımı. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  • TÜİK (2020b). 2000 Genel nüfus sayımı. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  • Türkoğlu, H. (2015). Sustainable development and quality of urban life. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202 (Supplement C), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.203
  • Türksever, A. N. E. (2000). Türkiye’de büyük şehir alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir yöntem denemesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
  • Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., ve De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65 (1), 5-18.
  • Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1-39.
  • Yazarlar (2020). Yazarların kendi fotoğraf arşivi, Alan araştırması, Yıldırım, Bursa.
  • Yıldız, S., Yılmaz, M., Kıvrak, S. ve Gültekin, A.B. (2016). Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools and a comparative analysis of five different assessment tools, Journal of Planning, 26(2):93–100, doi: 10.14744/planlama.2016.05914
  • Walters, D. R. (2007). Designing community: charrettes, master plans and form-based codes. UK & USA: Elsevier.
  • Wheeler, S. M. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment, 8(3), 317-336. doi:10.1080/13549830306656
  • Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Orr, B. J., Gimblett, R. H., Chalfoun, N. V., Going, S. B., Guertin, D. P., ve Marsh, S. E. (2016). Designing healthy communities: a walkability analysis of LEED-ND. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(4), 433-452.
There are 59 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Arzu Taylan Susan 0000-0001-5718-8794

Melek Gökmeydan This is me 0000-0001-5113-5405

Zeynep Erdoğan This is me 0000-0002-4881-3524

Arda Tuncer 0000-0002-4846-0263

Project Number 191N026
Early Pub Date January 1, 2022
Publication Date December 31, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 12 Issue: 34

Cite

APA Taylan Susan, A., Gökmeydan, M., Erdoğan, Z., Tuncer, A. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Biçim Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bursa Yıldırım İlçesi Konut Alanları Örneği. İDEALKENT, 12(34), 1440-1479. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.847287