An Evaluation of Urban Spaces Designed at Human Scale and Urban Residents' Sense of Belonging

Abstract

The human scale, among the principles of urban design, is a concept related to the sizes of the physical components in the space. Since the measurement unit of the space is human, the design of urban spaces at human scale and presence of human-sized components in these spaces evoke the feeling of like me in the individual. This sense of self leads to strengthening the human-space relationship and forming and developing a sense of belonging. For social sustainability, it is important to develop a sense of belonging in the individual. The sense of belonging helps to increase the sense of trust in place and decrease the alienation and tendency of crime. The aim of this study is to emphasize the relationship between human scale and sense of belonging. According to the study's hypothesis, the existence of human scale designs and elements in urban spaces improves the sense of belonging of the city dwellers. A survey was conducted with 400 participants in the study. The urban elements that the participants noticed while walking around the urban spaces and, at the same time, their sense of belonging to space were questioned. Then, urban elements were defined as independent and sense of belonging as dependent variables, and multiple regression analysis was performed. As a result, it has been determined that there is a significant and positive relationship between the participants' sense of belonging and variables such as landscape elements, urban furniture, pavement and pedestrian walkways, recesses-protrusions and door-window density on building facades. In addition, it was determined that there was a significant and negative relationship between the sense of belonging of the participants and the cars as the element they noticed. As a result, the design of spaces for pedestrians in urban design projects causes the sense of belonging of individuals to develop.

Keywords

• Urban design
• Human scale
• Sense of belonging

İnsan Ölçeğinde Tasarlanan Kentsel Mekanlar ve Kent Sakinlerinin Aidiyet Duyguları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Abstract

Kentsel tasarım ilkeleri arasında yer alan insan ölçeği mekândaki fiziksel bileşenlerin ölçüleri ile ilgili bir kavramdır. Mekânın ölçü birimi insan olduğundan, kentsel mekânların insan ölçeğinde tasarlanması ve bu mekânlarda insan ölçüsünde bileşenlerin varlığı bireyde benim gibi hissi uyandırmaktadır. Bu benlik hissi insan-mekân ilişkisinin güçlenmesine ve aidiyet duygusunun oluşup gelişmesine neden olmaktadır. Sosyal sürdürülebilirlik için, bireyde aidiyet duygusunun gelişmesi önemlidir. Aidiyet mekândaki güven duygusunun artması, yabancılaşma ve suç eğiliminin azalmasına yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, insan ölçeği ve aidiyet duygusu arasındaki ilişkiyi vurgulamaktır. Çalışmanın hipotezine göre, kentsel mekânlarda insan ölçeğindeki tasarımlar ve elemanların varlığı, kent sakinlerinin aidiyet duygularını geliştirmektedir. Çalışmada 400 katılımcı ile anket çalışması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcıların kentsel mekânlarda dolaşırken fark ettikleri kentsel elemanlar ve aynı zamanda, mekâna aidiyet duyguları sorgulanmıştır. Daha sonra, kentsel elemanlar bağımsız ve aidiyet duygusu bağımlı değişkenler olarak tanımlanmış, çoklu regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, katılımcıların aidiyet duyguları ve peyzaj elemanları, kent mobilyaları, kaldırım ve yaya yürüyüş yolları, bina cephelerindeki girinti-çıkıntılar ve kapı- pencere yoğunluğu gibi değişkenler arasında anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, katılımcıların aidiyet duyguları ve fark ettikleri eleman olarak arabalar arasında anlamlı ve negatif bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, kentsel tasarım projelerinde yayalara yönelik mekânların tasarlanması bireylerin aidiyet duygularının gelişmesine neden olmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kentsel tasarım
• İnsan ölçeği
• Aidiyet duygusu

References

1. Kitaplar:.................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. (Second edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Arnold, H. (1993). Trees in urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
4. Carmona, M. Tiesdell, S. Heath, T. and Oc, T. (2003). Public places- Urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
5. Ching, F. (2007). Architecture: Form, Space and Order. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Dover, V. and Massengale. J. (2013). Street Design: The secret to great cities and towns. Hoboken: Wiley. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
7. Glaser, M. Hoff, M. Karssenberg, H. Laven, J. Teeffelen, J.V. (2012). The City at Eye Level – Lesson from Street Plinths. Eburon Academic Publishers. Delft, the Netherlands.
8. Greene, H. (1976). Mind and image: an essay on art and architecture. Lexington: University press of Kentucky. Hajer, M. and Reijndorp, A. (2001). In search of new public domain. NAI Publishers, Rotterdam.

9. Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
10. Hedman, R. (1984). Fundamentals of urban design. Chicago: American Planning Association.
11. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
12. Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Karssenberg, H. ve Laven, J. (2012). The City at the Eye Level. in Glaser, M. Hoff, M. Karssenberg, H. Laven, J. Teeffelen, J.V. The City at Eye Level – Lesson from Street Plinths. Eburon Academic Publishers. Delft, the Netherlands.
14. Kay, J. H. (1997). Asphalt nation: how the automobile took over america, and how we can take it back. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15. Lovell, N. (1998). Locality and Belonging. London: Routledge Publishing.
16. Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165–185). New York: Plenum Press.
17. Marcus, C. C., and Francis, C. (1998). People places: design guidlines for urban open space. (Second edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
18. Salingaros, N. A. (2005). Principles of urban structure. Amsterdam: Techne Press. Steel, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI Publishing Company.
19. Teng, L. (2012). Human scale development. School of Planning and Media Design: Blekinge Tekniska Högskola.
20. Makaleler:..............................................................................................................................................
21. Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging—An analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644-659.
22. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 8(5), 279-286.
23. Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R., Clemente, O. and Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(1), 223-240.
24. Ewing, R. and Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-68.
25. Gehl, J., Kaefer, L. J., and Reigstad, S. (2006). Close encounters with buildings. Urban Design International, 11(1), 29-47.
26. Hansen, G. (2014). Design for Healthy Communities: The Potential of Form-based codes to create Walkable Urban Streets. Journal of Urban Design, 19(2), 151-170.
27. Hidalgo, M. C., and Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21: 273-281.
28. Long, Y. ve Ye, Y. (2019). Measuring human-scale urban form and its performance. Landsc. Urban Plan. 191, 103612.
29. Maslow, A. H, (1943). A Theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
30. Osman, D.A.M. (2018). A Place to Meet: The Art of Making the City’s Street. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 33-45.
31. Scannell, L., and Gifford. R. (2010). Definding place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30: 1-10.
32. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Architectural detail, van der laan septaves and pixel counts. Design Studies, 20(1), 83-97.
33. Stedman, R. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predictive behavior from place –based cognitions, attitudes, and identity, Environmental Behavior, 34, 561-581.
34. Bildiriler:................................................................................................................................................................................................ Lennard, S.H.C., Ungern-Sternberg, S., Lennard, H.L. (1997). Making Cities Livable, Wege zur Menschlichen Stadt, International Making Cities Livable Conferences, California.
35. Radwan, A. H. ve Morsi, A. A. G. (2019). The human scale in public spaces. an analytical study of new cairo settlements. Building The Future “Now”: Rights to Better Living, Architecture and Contexts.
36. Web siteleri:................................................................................................................................................................
37. Burke, S. (2016). Placemaking and the Human Scale City. Project for Public Spaces. https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-and-the-human-scale-city. (Erişim: 25.04.2021).
38. Raporlar:.........................................................................................................................................................................
39. European Green Capital Network [EGCN]. (2020). How Can Your City Get To... A Human Scale?, An Initiative of the European Commission.