Mekânsallık ve Kamusal Alan: Sürdürülebilir İnsani Kalkınma için Katılımcı Bir Model

Abstract

Sürdürülebilir kalkınma genellikle ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal boyutların dengelenmesine odaklanırken, sürdürülebilir insani kalkınma insan refahı, hakları ve yaşam kalitesine vurgu yapar. Bu makale, sürdürülebilir insani kalkınma için kamusal alanların önemini vurgulamakta ve demokrasinin mekânsallığını açıklayan kamusal alanın ölçülebilir normlarının, insani kalkınmayı destekleyen mimari mekânların tasarımına nasıl entegre edilebileceğini araştırmaktadır. Mimarlık ve şehir planlama disiplinlerinde mekân ve demokrasi arasındaki ilişki genellikle kamusallık ve kamusal mekânlar kavramları üzerinden ele alınır. Kamusal alanın, insani kalkınmanın temel bir aracı olarak, genellikle kamusal mekânlar aracılığıyla var olduğu varsayılır. Ancak, kamusal alan, belirli mekânsal sınırları olmayan bir ortamı temsil ettiğinden, tasarım ve planlama süreçlerine dolaylı olarak dâhil olur. Katılımcı tasarım yaklaşımları, özellikle kentsel planlamada, sürdürülebilir insani kalkınmaya ket vuran ve kamusal alanı sınırlayan sorunları ele alır. Saha araştırmaları yapar ve kamusal mekânlarla ilgili uygulamalar kullanarak demokrasiyi güçlendirmeyi amaçlar. Katılımcı yaklaşımlarla tasarlanan mekânların kamusal alanı canlandırabileceğine inanılmaktadır. Mimarlıkta, katılımcı beklentilere ve işlevsel verimliliğe odaklanan araştırmalar, katılımcı tasarım yaklaşımlarında öne çıkmaktadır. Ancak, katılımcı tasarım yaklaşımının, kamusal alanın canlılığını amaçlayarak nasıl yapılandırabileceğini tartışmak gerekmektedir. Bu yaklaşım, mekânsallığı, mimari ölçekte geliştirilen planlama ve tasarım süreçlerine dâhil ederek, demokrasiyi ve sürdürülebilir insani kalkınmayı geliştiren tasarım stratejileri için teorik bir temel sağlar. Kamusal alanın soyut doğasına rağmen, katılımcı tasarım süreçlerindeki aşamalar, ölçülebilir niteliksel normlara dayanarak, sürdürülebilir insani kalkınmayı güçlendiren yönde yapılandırılabilir ve aynı zamanda demokratik mekânsallığı güçlendirebilir. Makale, saha uygulamaları ve sosyal bilimlerle desteklenebilecek "kamusal katılımcı tasarım" olarak adlandırılan bir prototip yaklaşımı önermektedir. Sonuç bölümünde, bu teorik yaklaşımın sağlayabileceği potansiyel faydalar ve çeşitli perspektifler vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Demokrasi
• Kamusal Alan
• Katılımcı Tasarım
• Mekânsallık
• Sürdürülebilir İnsani Kalkınma

Spatiality and Public Sphere: A Participatory Model for Sustainable Human Development

Abstract

Sustainable development typically focuses on balancing economic, environmental, and social dimensions, while sustainable human development emphasizes human well-being, rights, and quality of life. This paper underscores the significance of public spheres in sustainable human development, exploring how the measurable norms of the public sphere, which elucidate the spatiality of democracy, can be integrated into the design of architectural spaces that support human development. The relationship between space and democracy in architecture and urban planning is often addressed through the concept of publicness and public spaces. It is generally assumed that the public sphere, as a fundamental tool for human development, exists through public spaces. However, since the public sphere represents an environment without specific spatial confines, it is indirectly involved in design and planning processes. Participatory design approaches, particularly in urban planning, address issues that constrain sustainable human development and limit the public sphere. They conduct field research and aim to strengthen democracy by implementing applications related to public spaces. It is believed that spaces designed with participatory approaches can revitalize the public sphere. In architecture, research focusing on participatory expectations and functional efficiency is prominently featured in participatory design approaches. However, there is a need to discuss how a participatory design approach can be structured to aim for the vitality of the public sphere. This approach provides a theoretical foundation for design strategies that enhance democracy and sustainable human development by incorporating spatiality into the planning and design processes developed at the architectural scale. Despite the abstract nature of the public sphere, stages in participatory design processes can be structured towards sustainable human development by relying on measurable qualitative norms that also strengthen democratic spatiality. The paper proposes a prototype approach termed "public participatory design," which can be further developed through field applications and supported by social sciences, revealing different dimensions of the theoretical framework. The conclusion emphasizes the potential benefits and various perspectives that this theoretical approach can offer.

Keywords

• Democracy
• Public Sphere
• Participatory Design
• Spatiality
• Sustainable Human Development.

References

1. Acedo, A., Painho, M., ve Casteleyn, S. (2017). Place and city: Operationalizing sense of place and social capital in the urban context. Transactions in GIS, 21(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12282
2. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., ve Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
3. Anand, S. ve Sen, A. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. World Development, 28(12), 2029-2049. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00071-1
4. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
5. Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. Viking Press.
6. Arendt, H. (2011). İnsanlık durumu. İletişim Yayınları.
7. Arendt, H. (2014). Vita activa: The human condition. Piper.
8. Arendt, H. (2017). Devrim Üzerine. İletişim Yayınları.

9. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
10. Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900011449
11. Berktay, F. (2012). Dünyayı bugünde sevmek (Hannah Arendt’in politika anlayışı). Metis Yayınları.
12. Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems design. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2
13. Brand, P. ve Dávila, J. D. (2011). Mobility innovation at the urban margins: Medellín’s Metrocables. City, 15(6), 647-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.609008
14. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.
15. Buttimer, A. (1980). Home, reach, and the sense of place. In A. Buttimer ve D. Seamon (Eds.), The human experience of space and place (pp. 166-187). Croom Helm.
16. Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., ve Oc, T. (2010). Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Routledge.
17. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. ve Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.
18. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Belt, M. van den. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
19. Cresswell, T. (2004) Place: A Short Introduction. . Wiley-Blackwell.
20. Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic thought: A critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
21. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.
22. Dewan, H. (2009). Re-defining sustainable human development to integrate sustainability and human development goals. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 5(4), 147-162.
23. Dovey, K. (2010). Becoming places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. Routledge.
24. Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press.
25. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
26. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
27. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. Routledge.
28. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press.
29. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Blackwell.
30. Friedmann, J. (2011). Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory. Routledge.
31. Fu, H., Liu, J., Dong, X., Chen, Z. ve He, M. (2024). Evaluating the Sustainable Development Goals within spatial planning for decision-making: A major function-oriented zone planning strategy in China. Land, 13(3), 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030390
32. Fung, A., ve Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5-41.
33. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
34. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press.
35. Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245
36. Gürallar, N. (2009). Kamu - Kamusal Alan - Kamu Yapıları - Kamusal Mekân: Modernite Öncesi ve Sonrası için Bir Terminoloji Tartışması. Mimarlık Dergisi, (350). Erişim adresi: http://mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&dergisayi=364&recid=2230
37. Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press.
38. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. MIT Press.
39. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press.
40. Habermas, J. (2014). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü. İletişim Yayınları.
41. Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan International Higher Education.
42. Halbwachs, M. (2016). Hafızanın Toplumsal Çerçeveleri. Heretik Yayınları.
43. Halbwachs, M. (2018). Kolektif Bellek. Pinhan Yayıncılık.
44. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell.
45. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Edinburgh University Press.
46. Harvey, D. (2006). Umut Mekanları. Metis Yayınları
47. Harvey, D. (2019). Postmodernliğin Durumu. Metis Yayınları
48. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.
49. Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed.). Macmillan International Higher Education.
50. Hillier, B. ve Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.
51. Johnston, R., Jones, K. ve Manley, D. (2016). Space scale and political worlds: Exploring the geographies of political analysis. Taylor & Francis.
52. Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline ofcivic life. London: Penguin.
53. Latham, A. ve Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities:Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Wiley, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444
54. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
55. Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekanın Üretimi. Sel Yayıncılık
56. Lindsey, G. (2012). Use of urban greenways: Insights from Indianapolis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 219-232.
57. Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28(3), 217-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.002
58. Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2-3), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982177
59. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. Routledge.
60. Marques, B., Freeman, C., Carter, L., ve Zari, M. P. (2020). Sense of place and belonging in developing culturally appropriate therapeutic environments: A review. Societies, 10(4), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040083
61. Massey, D. (1984). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the geography of production. Macmillan.
62. Massey, D. (1994). A global sense of place. In D. Massey (2005). For space (pp. 59-85). SAG 0E Publications.
63. Massey, D. (1995). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the geography of production (2nd ed.). Routledge.
64. Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE Publications.
65. Massey, D. (2013). Space, place and gender. Polity Press.
66. Meadowcroft, J. (2004). Deliberative democracy. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000209629
67. Mendel, M. (2019). The spatial ways democracy works: On the pedagogy of common places. Research in Education, 103(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719839743
68. Negt, O. ve Kluge, A. (1993). Public sphere and experience: Toward an analysis of the bourgeois and proletarian public sphere. University of Minnesota Press.
69. Negt, O. ve Kluge, A. (2018). Kamusallık ve tecrübe. Notabene.
70. Nora, P. (2006). Hafıza Mekanları. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
71. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
72. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press.
73. Pearce, D. W., Markandya, A., ve Barbier, E. B. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan.
74. Perez-Gomez, A. (2016). Attunement: Architectural Meaning after the Crisis of Modern Science. MIT Press.
75. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
76. Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. Routledge.
77. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
78. Sachs, J. D. (1999). Globalization and the Human Condition. Worldwatch Institute.
79. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. John Wiley & Sons.
80. Sanders, E. B.-N. ve Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
81. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons.
82. Seamon, D. (1979). A geography of the lifeworld: Movement, rest, and encounter. Croom Helm.
83. Seamon, D. (2018). Life Takes Place: Phenomenology, Lifeworlds, and Place Making. Routledge.
84. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
85. Simonsen, J., ve Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge handbook of participatory design. Routledge.
86. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso Press.
87. Soja, E. W. (2003). Writing the city spatially. City, 7(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360481032000157478
88. Soja, E. W. (2006). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell.
89. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
90. Soja, E. W. (2014). My Los Angeles: From urban restructuring to regional urbanization. University of California Press.
91. Soja, E.W. (2019). Postmodern Coğrafyalar: Eleştirel Toplumsal Teoride Mekanın Yeniden İleri Sürülmesi. Sel Yayıncılık.
92. Smith, N. (2015). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.
93. Spence, C. (2020). Sensehacking: How to Use the Power of Your Senses for Happier, Healthier Living. Viking.
94. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163-174.
95. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., ve Fitoussi, J. P. (2010). Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up. The New Press.
96. Talen, E. (2002). The social goals of new urbanism. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 165-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2002.9521438
97. Tanyeli, U. (2004). Mimarlığın aktörleri: Eleştirel bir tarih denemesi. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
98. Tanyeli, U. (2006). Kamusal alan ve mimarlık. Arredamento Mimarlık, 19(8), 356-359.
99. Tanyeli, U. (2016). Yıkarak yapmak: Anarşist mimarlık kuramı için altlık. Metis Yayınları.
100. Tekeli, İ. (2022). İzmir’de Katılımcı Planlama Arayışları: İzmir-Deniz, İzmir-Tarih projeleri. Içinde G. Özaydın ve M. Akı (Editörler), Mekân ve Yer (s. 100-101). Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
101. Timur, T. (2017). Habermas’ı okumak. Yordam Kitap.
102. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
103. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994). Human development report 1994. Oxford University Press.
104. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1997). Governance for sustainable human development: A UNDP policy document. United Nations Development Programme.
105. Uysal, A. ve Güngör, Ş. (2016). Postyapısalcı ve İlişkisel Coğrafyalarda Bir Tarz Olarak Temsil Ötesi Teori(ler). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya Dergisi, 33, 73-81.
106. Werner, M., Lave, R., Christophers, B. ve Peck, J. (Eds.). (2018). The Doreen Massey reader. Agenda Publishing.
107. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces.
108. Wilkinson, R. ve Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Allen Lane.
109. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
110. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
111. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
112. Zang, J., Wang, Q., Xia, Y., ve Furuya, K. (2022). Knowledge map of spatial planning and sustainable development: A visual analysis using CiteSpace. Land, 11(3), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030331
113. Zhang, H., Zhang, Z., Dong, J., Gao, F., Zhang, W. ve Gong, W. (2020). Spatial production or sustainable development? An empirical research on the urbanization of less-developed regions based on the case of Hexi Corridor in China. PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0235351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235351