Public Sphere and Spatiality: Architectural Norms, Phenomenology, and Participation

Abstract

The study presents an interdisciplinary framework combining phenomenological approaches (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Böhme, Bachelard, Ihde), public sphere theories (Arendt, Habermas, Negt and Kluge, Fraser), and critiques of capitalist spatial organization (Lefebvre, Foucault, Baudrillard). It examines how phenomenologists investigate individuals' spatial experiences and sensory perceptions, how public sphere theorists conceptualize a democratic and collectively participatory public sphere, and how critiques of spatial organization address the transformative effects of spatial production on the public sphere. These three theoretical approaches emphasize the necessity of spatial strategies supporting the sensory, social, and political vitality of the public sphere. Based on Pallasmaa's phenomenological approaches, five fundamental norms are identified: sensory perception, spatial experience, flexibility, subjectivity, and memory. These are argued to be instrumental in developing spatial designs that strengthen the social and political functions of the public sphere. The study emphasizes participatory design in public sphere-focused design, arguing for shifting focus from space to "spatiality". Dynamics in spatiality approaches of key theorists (Harvey, Lefebvre, Massey, Soja, Foucault) - sense of place, subjectivity, flexibility, relationality, memory - are related to Pallasmaa's norms. Evaluating the dynamics of spatiality alongside architectural norms establishes a theoretical foundation for spatial strategies enhancing the social and political functions of the public sphere. The study discusses how the public sphere can be considered in architectural design, offering a theoretical basis for innovative design strategies fostering a democratic public sphere.

Keywords

• Phenomenology
• Public sphere
• Participatory design
• Spatiality
• Architectural design

Kamusal Alan ve Mekansallık: Mimari Normlar, Fenomenoloji ve Katılım

Abstract

Çalışma, fenomenolojik yaklaşımlar (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Böhme, Bachelard, Ihde), kamusal alan teorileri (Arendt, Habermas, Negt ve Kluge, Fraser) ve kapitalist mekânsal örgütlenme eleştirilerini (Lefebvre, Foucault, Baudrillard) bir araya getirerek, fenomenoloji, kamusal alan teorisi ve mekânsal eleştirileri birleştiren disiplinlerarası bir çerçeve sunar. Fenomenologların bireylerin mekânsal deneyimlerini ve duyusal algılarını nasıl incelediği, kamusal alan teorisyenlerinin demokratik ve kolektif katılıma dayalı bir kamusal alan anlayışını nasıl ortaya koyduğu ve kapitalist mekânsal örgütlenme eleştirilerinin kamusal alan üzerindeki dönüştürücü etkisi ele alınır. Bu üç alanın ortak dinamikleri, kamusal alanın duyusal, sosyal ve politik canlılığını destekleyecek mekânsal stratejilerin gerekliliğini vurgular. Pallasmaa’nın fenomenolojik yaklaşımları temel alınarak duyusal algı, mekânsal deneyim, esneklik, öznellik ve bellek gibi beş temel norm belirlenir ve bu normların kamusal alanın sosyal ve politik işlevlerini güçlendiren mekânsal tasarımlar için yol gösterici olduğu savunulur. Kamusal alanı odağa alan tasarımda katılımcı tasarımların önemi vurgulanırken, bu süreçlerde mekân yerine "mekânsallığın" odağa alınması gerektiği belirtilir. Mekânsallık kavramını ele alan (Harvey, Lefebvre, Massey, Soja, Foucault) yaklaşımlarında belirlenen dinamikler (yer duygusu, öznellik, esneklik, ilişkisellik, bellek) Pallasmaa’nın normlarıyla ilişkilendirilir. Mekânsallığın dinamikleri ile mimari normlar birlikte değerlendirilerek, kamusal alanın sosyal ve politik işlevlerini güçlendirecek mekânsal stratejilerin kuramsal zemini oluşturulur. Çalışma, kamusal alanın mimari tasarımda nasıl ele alınabileceğini tartışarak, demokratik ortamı güçlendirecek yenilikçi tasarım stratejilerine yönelik kuramsal bir temel sunar.

Keywords

• Fenomenoloji
• Kamusal Alan
• Katılımcı tasarım
• Mekânsallık
• Mimari tasarım

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. Agyeman, J. ve Evans, B. (2003). Toward Just Sustainability in Urban Communities: Building Equity Rights with Sustainable Solutions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590(1), 35-53.
3. ArchDaily. (2023). Katılımcı Mimarlık: Proje Geliştirmede Toplum Katılımı. Erişim Adresi: https://www.archdaily.com/
4. Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
5. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.
6. Assmann, J. (2015). Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives (A. C. Jan Assmann ve J. Czaplicka, Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
7. Bachelard, G. (2014). The Poetics of Space (T. Ed.). Beacon Press.
8. Baudrillard, J. (2006). The System of Objects. Verso Books.

9. Faga, B. (2006). Participation: Transforming Challenges Into Opportunities. Urban Land Institute.
10. Böhme, G. (2017). Atmospheric Architectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces. Bloomsbury Academic.
11. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.
12. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (2nd ed.). Vintage Books.
13. Fraser, N. (2014). Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Polity Press.
14. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into A Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
15. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On Collective Memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. ve Çev.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950)
16. Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Verso.
17. Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
18. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso Books.
19. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan.
20. Hester, R. T. (2006). Design for Ecological Democracy. MIT Press.
21. Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Northwestern University Press.
22. Innes, J. E. ve Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge.
23. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University lectures. SUNY Press.
24. Kroll, B. (1986). A Participatory Design Process in Social Housing: The Case of the RAL-Project. Design Studies, 7(2), 113-122.
25. Kroll, L. (1986). Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. MIT Press.
26. Kroll, L. (1992). Architecture of Complexity. MIT Press..
27. Lefebvre, H. (2016). The Production of Space. Wiley-Blackwell.
28. Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment, Cultural Capital, and Neighborhood Ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.001
29. Lewicka, M. (2010). What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
30. Lewicka, M. (2011a). On the Varieties of People’s Relationships With Places: Hummon’s Typology Revisited. Environment & Behavior, 43(5), 676–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364917
31. Lewicka, M. (2011b). Place Attachment: How Far have We Come in the Last 40 Years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
32. Low, S. ve Smith, N. (2013). The Politics of Public Space. Routledge.
33. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. Sage Publications.
34. 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
35. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.
36. Middleton, D. ve Brown, S. D. (2015). The Social Psychology of Experience: Studies in Remembering and Forgetting. SAGE Publications.
37. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press.
38. Negt, O. ve Kluge, A. (2016). Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere (2nd ed.). Verso Books.
39. Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Wiley.
40. Pallasmaa, J. (2005). Encounters: Architectural Essays. Rakennustieto Publishing.
41. Pallasmaa, J. (2011). The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. Wiley.
42. Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the enses. Wiley.
43. Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
44. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Wiley.
45. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. Wiley.
46. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell.
47. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press.
48. SpringerLink. (2023). Oyunlaştırılmış Katılımcı Kamusal Alan Tasarımını Yapılandırma. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/
49. Think Wood. (2023). Topluluk Mimarlığı. Erişim Adresi: https://www.thinkwood.com/
50. Tekeli, İ. (2021). İzmir’de Katılımcı Planlama Arayışları: İzmir-Deniz, İzmir-Tarih projeleri. Içinde G. Özaydın ve M. Akı (Eds.), Mekân ve Yer (pp. 100-101). Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
51. Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia University Press.
52. Uysal, A. ve Güngör, Ş. (2016). Postyapısalcı ve İlişkisel Coğrafyalarda Bir Tarz Olarak Temsil Ötesi Teori(ler). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya Dergisi, 33, 83-93.
53. Yırtıcı, H. (2009). Çağdaş Kapitalizmin Mekansal Örgütlenmesi. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.