Kentsel Mekânlar Tipolojisi ve Kentsel Hareketlilik Topolojisinin Bağlantısallığı

Abstract

Çalışmada, kentsel ulaşım ve hareketlilik sorunlarına müdahalede mekânın ontolojik ve epistemolojik bilgisinin bağlanabilirliği örnek alan üzerinden sorgulanmaktadır. Sorgulamanın amacı; mekânın epistemolojik bilgisini ontolojik bilgisine yansıtmayı deneyerek, potansiyel kentsel hareketlilik çözümlemelerinin ve özgün uygulama ilkelerinin elde edilip edilemeyeceğinin anlaşılmasıdır. Kentsel hareketlilik çalışmaları; özgün hazırlık, plan, uygulama ve izleme süreçleriyle ele alınan, kentsel ulaşım sorunlarının çözümünde, arazi kullanım düzenlemeleri, imar planları ve ulaşım planlarını bir araya getiren, mekânsal ve buna bağlı olarak gelişen diğer ilişkisel boyutları bunlarla kombine eden, sürdürülebilir ve güncel yaklaşımlar olarak görülmektedir. Araştırma sonucunda, mekânın epistemolojik ve ontolojik bilgisi arasındaki bağlantısallığın, kentsel ulaşım ve hareketlilik sorunlarını etkin bir şekilde çözdüğü tespit edilmiştir. Özellikle kentsel hareketlilik planlamasında alt ölçekte, plan uygulamaları sırasında veya plan yapmadan önce planlama ve tasarıma yön vermede etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmanın ilk aşaması kentsel mekânın ontolojik ve epistemolojik katmanlarının anlaşılmasından oluşmaktadır. İkinci aşamada ise, bu katmanların kentsel ulaşım ve hareketlilik sorunlarına müdahale etmedeki bağlantısallıkları incelenmektedir. Çalışmada kentsel hareketlilik çözümleri üretilirken, mekânın ontolojik ve epistemolojik katmanlarında (topografik, tipolojik, topolojik ve hodolojik) iyileştirmeler yapılmış ve bunlar örnek alan üzerinde test edilmiştir. Böylece izlenecek yöntemin diğer kentlerde geçerli olup olmayacağı da anlaşılmış olacaktır.

Keywords

• Mekân
• Tipoloji
• Topoloji
• Hodoloji
• Kentsel Hareketlilik

Connectivity of Urban Spaces Typology and Urban Mobility Topology

Abstract

In the study, the connectivity of the ontological and epistemological knowledge of the space in intervening in urban transportation and mobility problems is questioned through the sample area. The purpose of the questioning; is to understand whether potential urban mobility analysis and original application principles can be obtained by trying to reflect the epistemological knowledge of the space to the ontological knowledge. Urban mobility studies; it is seen as sustainable and up-to-date approaches that are handled with original preparation, plan, implementation and monitoring processes, that bring together land use regulations, development plans and transportation plans in the solution of urban transportation problems, and combine spatial and other relational dimensions that develop accordingly. As a result of the inquiry, it was determined that the connectivity between epistemological and ontological knowledge of the space effectively solved urban transportation and mobility problems. It has been seen that it is effective in directing planning and design, especially in urban mobility planning, at the lower scale, during plan implementations, or before plan making. The first stage of the study consists of understanding the ontological and epistemological layers of urban space. In the second stage, the connectivities of these layers in intervening in urban transportation and mobility problems are examined. In the study, while producing urban mobility resolutions, improvements were made to the ontological and epistemological layers of the space (topographic, typological, topological, and hodological), and these were tested on the sample area. Thus, it will be understood whether the method to be followed will be valid in other cities.

Keywords

• Space
• Typology
• Topology
• Hodology
• Urban Mobility

References

1. Ak, E. 2006. “Transformation of Space Concept with Computer Technology –New Space Definitions.” MSc diss., İstanbul Technical University.
2. Arefi, M. and Triantafillou, M. 2005. “Reflections on the Pedagogy of Place in Planning and Urban Design.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25: 75-88. doi: 10.1177/0739456X04270195
3. Baxter, S. J. 2021. “Modes of Spread in Social Innovation: A Social Topology Case in Rural Portugal.” Journal of Rural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.016
4. Bilgin, N. 1990. “Fiziksel Mekândan İnsani ya da İnsanlı Mekâna.” Mimarlık Dergisi 28 (3): 241
5. Brelsford, C., Martin, T., Hand, J., and Bettencourt, A. M. L. 2018. “Toward Cities without Slums: Topology and the Spatial Evolution of Neighborhoods.” Sci. Adv. 4, eaar4644. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar4644
6. Carmona, M. 2010. “Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (2): 157-173. doi: 10.1080/13574801003638111
7. Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. An Essay on Man: The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Three Volumes. New Haven: Connecticut.
8. Cerrato, M. 2020. “Heidegger’s Philosophical Nationalism: Topology and Tropology.” Política Común 14. https://doi.org/10.3998/pc.12322227.0014.006

9. Çetin, İ. 2010. “Gecekondunun Kentle Bütünleşme Sürecinde Alan-Mekân Faktörü: İzmir Örneği.” PhD diss., Ege University.
10. Ersal, Ö. L. 2013. The Search for Form In Architectural Space and the Semantic Dimension: An Ontological Approach. (Thesis (M.Sc.)). İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/11527/3476
11. Eyce, N. 2011. “Çağdaş Mimarlıkta Mekân, Yer ve Mekânsallık Tartışmaları – Cermodern Örneği.” MSc diss., Gazi University.
12. Güney, D. Y. 2007. “Type and Typology in Architectural Discourse.” J. BAUN Inst. Sci. Technol. 9(1): 3-18.
13. Harvey, David. 1988. Social Justice and the City. Translated and edited by Mehmet Moralı. İstanbul: Metis, 18-48.
14. Hoffman, M. L. And Thatcher, E. J. 2019. “Urban Studies and Thinking Topologically.” Territory, Politics, Governance 7 (2): 141-155. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2017.1351887
15. Kahveci, K. 2017. “In Between Existence and Non-Existence: an Assessment on Space.” Atatürk University Journal of Faculty of Letters 59: 101-108. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/atauniefd/issue/37366/431703
16. Karadede, G. and Yavuz, Ö. A. 2018. “Evaluating the Organization of Urban Environments Through Virtual Media: The Example of Video Games.” Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning 6(1): 9-18.
17. Kaufmann, Vincent. 2012. “Motility.” Mobile Lives Forum. Accessed on: 06.06.2018, Available at: http://en.forumviesmobiles.org/marks/motility-461.
18. Kürkçüoğlu, E. and Ocakçı M. 2015. “A Perceptual Behavior Study on Spatial Orientation in Urban Fabric: Kadıköy Bazaar District.” Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture 10(3): 365-388. DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2015.02486
19. Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
20. Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
21. Madanipour, A. 2013. “Researching Space, Transgressing Epistemic Boundaries.” International Planning Studies 18 (3-4): 372-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.833730
22. Malpas, J. 2006. Heidegger’s Topology: Being, Place, World. London: The MIT Press.
23. Mitropoulos, G. E. 1974. “Space Networks: Towards Hodological Space Design for Urban Man, Starting with a Cognitive/Perceptual Notation.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh.
24. Mommersteeg, B. 2014. “Space, Territory, Occupy: Towards a Non-Phenomenological Dwelling.” MSc diss., The University of Western Ontario. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2510
25. Norberg-Schulz, N. 1971. Existence, Space & Architecture. New York: Praeger.
26. Osti, G. 2005. “Socio-spatial Relations: An Attempt to Move Space Near Society.” Polyarchies DiSPeS Studies and Researches 4/2015. http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/10215 (Poliarchie)
27. Polat, E. and Dericioğlu, T. K. 2020. Planning Science and Scientificity of Spatial Planning. Ankara: Astana.
28. Qi, Z. 2021. “The Construction of a Learning Field Based on Lewin’s Equation for Behavior.” International Journal of Education, Learning and Development 9 (6): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijeld.2013
29. Skowron, B. and Wójtowicz, K. 2020. “Throwing Spatial Light: On Topological Explanations in Gestalt Psychology.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 20: 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09691-1
30. Smith, Brewster M., Bruner, S. Jerome, and White, W. Robert. 1956. Opinions and Personality. New York.
31. Soja W. E. 1996. Thirdspace, Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell: Cambridge.
32. Soja, W. Edward. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Translated and edited by Yunus Çetin. İstanbul: Sel, 163.
33. Solak, G. S. 2017. “Space-Identity Interaction: A Conceptual and Theoretical Overview.” MANAS Journal of Social Studies 6 (1). ISSN: 1624-7215
34. Stojanovski, T. 2019. “Swedish Typo-Morphology-Morphological Conceptualizations and Implication for Urban Design.” International Journal of Architecture & Planning 7 (Special Issue): 135-15. doi: 10.15320/ICONARP.2019.81
35. Tekeli, İ. 2021. “Kentiçi Ulaşıma Öncelikle Stratejik Bir Yaklaşımın Gerekliliği Üzerine.” İdealkent Journal of Urban Studies 34(12). doi: 10.31198/idealkent.1053286
36. Trancik, R. 1986. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
37. Tsiotasa, D. and Polyzosa, S. 2017. “The Topology of Urban Road Networks and Its Role to Urban Mobility.” Transportation Research Procedia 24: 482–490. 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.087
38. Tuan, Yi-fu. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39. Wlodzislaw, D. 2017. “Kurt Lewin, Psychological Constructs and Sources of Brain Cognitive Activity.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320890871
40. Yürekli, H. 2014. City Topographies. İstanbul: İstinye University.
41. Zlatanova, S., Yan, J., Wang, J., Diakité, A., Isikdag, U., Sithole, G. and Barton, J. 2019. “Spaces in Spatial Science and Urban Applications—State of the Art Review.” International Journal o f Geo-Information 9 (58). doi:10.3390/ijgi9010058