Reinterpretation of Urban Intervention Processes within the context of Infratucture Space

Year 2019, , 875 - 883, 15.12.2019

Burak Haznedar , Sinan Mert Şener

https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.647067

Abstract

Contemporary studies that look into
the formation of urban space show a strong tendency to refer to multiplicity,
pluralism and diversity as opposed to a homogeneity that result from the
decisions of certain individuals or a homogeneous cross-section of the society.
A deeper look into this phenomenon reveals a global mechanism which makes
cities within different cultural and geographical contexts less distinct and
more similar as a result of socio-economic and socio-political transformations
which happen to be the most important agenda of most of today’s cities. As the
systematic of rules which this rapidly evolving global mechanism is built upon
further expand and crystallize, its impact on contemporary approaches to urban
development also becomes ever visible. This neo-liberal system can be defined
as a hierarchic set of fundamental rules which reproduces itself through the
continuous inclusion of further masses. When reinterpreted through its rapidly
changing actors, it reveals itself to be a setup which deals with diversity as
a uniform systematic organization.

Throughout the ages, the appearance
of early cities, and their interactions with their surroundings and other
cities have also led to the development of competitive approaches. Such
interactions led to the development of networks and interactive cooperation.
Although most studies on these development focus on ‘loci’ or locality, the
dominations of the global system which underlies these abovementioned processes
allowed for cities to progress based on their samenesses and not just on their
distinct qualities through urban interventions. In this context, this study
aims to research the infrastructure space, which constituted with a global
sameness approach, and its effects on urban interventions.Infrastructure Space, Open City, Urbanization, Urban Interventions, Limitation of Urban Space

Keywords

Infrastructure Space, Open City, Urbanization, Urban Interventions, Limitation of Urban Space

Kentsel Müdahale Süreçlerinin Altyapı Mekânı Altlığı Üzerinden Okunması

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

Contemporary studies that look into the formation of urban space show a strong tendency to refer to multiplicity, pluralism and diversity as opposed to a homogeneity that result from the decisions of certain individuals or a homogeneous cross-section of the society. A deeper look into this phenomenon reveals a global mechanism which makes cities within different cultural and geographical contexts less distinct and more similar as a result of socio-economic and socio-political transformations which happen to be the most important agenda of most of today’s cities. As the systematic of rules which this rapidly evolving global mechanism is built upon further expand and crystallize, its impact on contemporary approaches to urban development also becomes ever visible. This neo-liberal system can be defined as a hierarchic set of fundamental rules which reproduces itself through the continuous inclusion of further masses. When reinterpreted through its rapidly changing actors, it reveals itself to be a setup which deals with diversity as a uniform systematic organization.

Throughout the ages, the appearance of early cities, and their interactions with their surroundings and other cities have also led to the development of competitive approaches. Such interactions led to the development of networks and interactive cooperation. Although most studies on these development focus on ‘loci’ or locality, the dominations of the global system which underlies these abovementioned processes allowed for cities to progress based on their samenesses and not just on their distinct qualities through urban interventions. In this context, this study aims to research the infrastructure space, which constituted with a global sameness approach, and its effects on urban interventions.

 

KEYWORDS: Infrastructure Space, Open City, Urbanization, Urban Interventions, Limitation of Urban Space

ÖZ:

Günümüzde kentsel mekân kurgusuna dair yapılan çalışmalara bakıldığında çoğu zaman tek ve benzerlerin ürettiği bir homojenlik yerine çokluğa, çoğulculuğa ve farklılıklara yapılan atıfların ön plana çıktığı görülmektedir. Bu yaklaşımın bir adım ötesine gidildiğinde ise farklı coğrafi ve kültürel birikimleri ile dikkat çeken pek çok günümüz kentinde öncelikle sosyo-ekonomik ve sosyo-politik değişim-dönüşüm süreçlerinin etkisiyle kentleri giderek birbirlerine benzeten bir küresel düzenden bahsedilebilir. Hızlı bir şekilde de kendini güncelleyen bu küresel düzenin etrafında örgütlenen yeni kurallar sistematiğinin gelişim ve değişim süreçleri boyunca bugünün kent yapılanmaları ve yaklaşımları üzerindeki etkileri de ciddi şekilde hissedilmektedir. Sürekli yenilenerek daha geniş kitleleri kapsaması istenen bir üst kurallar düzeni olarak tanımlanabilen bu neo-liberal sistem hızlı bir şekilde güncellenen aktörleri üzerinden yeniden okunmaya çalışıldığında ise ortaya çıkan, çokluğu bile tekdüze bir sistemsel yapılanma olarak ele almaya çalışan, kurgulanan izlerin bir arada yer alma durumu olmaktadır.

Kentlerin ortaya çıktığı ilk dönemlerden itibaren çevresiyle veya diğer kentlerle olan etkileşimleri rekabetçi süreçlerin ortaya çıkmasını beraberinde getirmiştir. Bununla birlikte, etkileşimin giderek artması sonucu oluşan ağsal yapılar hızlı bir şekilde interaktif birlikteliklerin oluşmasını da sağlamıştır. Bu süreç üzerine yapılan atıflarda ve yaklaşımlarda ‘yer’e odaklanıldığı düşünülse de kentsel müdahale süreçleri ile birlikte kural koyucu küresel sistem ve altyapısı bir noktadan sonra kentleri aynılıkları üzerinden ilerlemeye mecbur bırakmıştır. Çalışma bu çerçevede altyapı mekânı yaklaşımı üzerinden oluşturulan küresel aynılık yaklaşımı ve kentsel müdahaleler üzerindeki etkisine odaklanmaktadır. 

ANAHTAR KELİMELER: Altyapı Mekânı, Açık Kent, Kentleşme, Kentsel Müdahale, Kentsel Mekânın Sınırlandırılması

Keywords

Altyapı Mekânı, Kentsel Müdahale, Açık Kent, Kentleşme, Kentsel Mekânın Sınırlandırılması

References

• Araujo, R., (2012); The City is Me; The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Arendt, H., (1958); The Human Condition; University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Aureli, P.V., (2011); The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture; MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Boyacıoğlu, C., Pulat Gökmen, G., Ayıran, N., (2017); Anthropocene Idea in Modern Avant-garde Architecture: A Retrospective Discussion on Wright and Fuller; A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Vol. 14 No.2, July 2017.
• Easterling, K., (2014); Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructure Space; Verso, New York.
• Fuller, R. B., (2008); Operation Manual for Spaceship Earth; Lars Müller Publishers, Baden.
• Harvey, D., (1985); Consciousness and the Urban Experience, Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
• Hasol, D., (1975); Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sözlüğü; Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Herzog, J., (2015); “How Cities Are Inevitably Specific”, The Inevitable Specificity of Cities; Lars Müller Publishers, Zurich.
• Herzog, J., de Meuron, P., (2015); “How Cities Differ?”, The Inevitable Specificity of Cities; Lars Müller Publishers, Zurich.
• Leeds, A., (1994); Cities, Classes, and the Social Order; Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
• Lefebvre, H., (1992); The Production of Space; Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
• Lefebvre, H., (1996); Writing on Cities; John Wiley and Sons; New Jersey.
• Marx, K. H., Engels, F., (1935); Manifesto of the Communist Party; Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R., Moscow.
• Mumford, L., (2007); Tarih Boyunca Kent; Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Norberg-Schulz, C., (1971); Existence: Space and Architecture; Studio Vista, London.
• Ouroussoff, N., (2008); “The New, New City”, The New York Times Magazine 8.Haz.2008; The New York Time Company, New York.
• Rancière, J., (1999); Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy; University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
• Rieniets, T., Sigler, J., Christiaanse, K., (2009); Open City: Designing Coexistence; SUN, Amsterdam.
• Rossi, A., (1982); The Architecture of The City; MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Rowe, C., Koetter, F., (1978); Collage City; MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Sassen, S., (2008); “Urbanness”, Urban Transformation; Ruby Press, Berlin.
• Schmid, C., (2015); “Specificity and Urbanization: A Theoretical Outlook?”, The Inevitable Specificity of Cities; Lars Müller Publishers, Zurich.
• Soja, E. W., (2015); Postmodern Coğrafyalar, Eleştirel Toplumsal Teoride Mekânın Yeniden İleri Sürülmesi; Sel Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
• Swyngedouw, E., (2009); “The Zero-Ground of Politics - Musings on the Post-Political City”, New Geographies 1: After Zero; Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Virilio, P., (2003); Enformasyon Bombası; Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Webber, M. M., Dyckman, J. W., Foley, D. L., Guttenberg, A. Z., Wheaton, W. L. C., Wurster, C. B., (1964); Explorations into Urban Structure; University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
• Weber, M., (2000); Şehir: Modern Kentin Oluşumu; Bakış Yayınları, İstanbul.