ASSESSING PUBLIC SPACE COMPLEXITY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF WATERFRONT AREAS IN ISTANBUL'S BOSPHORUS DISTRICT

Year 2024, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 14 - 33, 29.01.2024

Semin Erdem , Fatih Terzi

Abstract

Public space is an essential symbol of connection and integrity for both citizens and cities, serving as a platform for interaction and shared experiences. Among public spaces, coastal areas hold significant importance as they facilitate integration between citizens and water, offering opportunities for transportation and recreational activities. This paper aims evaluating complexity on public space in waterfront in comparison with the two side in Istanbul based on Carmona’s classification. The study utilizes a comparative analysis based on land use data from the analysis by using Geographic Information System (GIS). Land use data, in essence, provides embedded information on accessibility. By analysing these classifications, the paper seeks to shed light on the similarities and differences in the public space characteristics and public access between the coastal areas of the Bosphorus District. Preliminary findings indicate that the positive space characteristics in both sides are comparable. However, the ratio of ambiguous and private spaces varies due to historical factors, property ownership and land use patterns. These influence the nature and accessibility of public spaces, thereby contributing to the observed diversity along the waterfront. The study's findings have implications for urban planning and the development of inclusive public spaces in coastal areas.

Keywords

bosphorus, coastal areas, public spaces, waterfronts

Thanks

This paper was prepared in the "GIS in Urban Planning" course conducted by Prof. Dr. Fatih Terzi in the Urban Planning Master's Program at Istanbul Technical University. We would like to express our sincere thanks to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Urban Planning Department for the data of land use analysis.

Kamusal Alan Karmaşıklığının Değerlendirilmesi: İstanbul'un Boğaziçi Bölgesindeki Kıyı Alanları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Kamusal alanlar, kent ve kentli arasındaki ilişkiyi güçlendiren yerlerdir. Kıyı kentlerinin önemli bir sembolü olan denizin, ulaşım ve rekreasyon gibi çeşitli işlevlere katkıda bulunarak kıyı ile kentli arasındaki ilişkiyi güçlendirmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Boğaziçi’nin farklı arazi kullanım ve kamusal erişilebilirlik özelliklerine sahip kıyı alanlarını Carmona’nın sınıflandırmasına göre değerlendirmek ve kıyı bölgelerindeki planlama ve tasarım çalışmaları için önerilerde bulunmaktadır.
Çalışmanın öncelikli sonuçlarına bakıldığında her iki yakanın “pozitif kamusal alan” özellikleri benzerdir. Ancak “belirsiz kamusal alan” ve “özel alanların” oranları, alanın tarihsel özellikleri, mülkiyet yapısı ve arazi kullanım dokusuna bağlı olarak değişmektedir. Bu faktörler, kamusallığı etkileyerek kıyı boyunca kamusal alan çeşitliliğine yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kıyı alanlarında kapsayıcı ve sürdürülebilir bir tasarım için, kamusal alanların çeşitlendirilmesi ve daha geniş toplumsal katılımı teşvik eden tasarım stratejilerinin benimsenmesine vurgu yapmaktadır.

Keywords

boğaziçi, kıyı alanları, kamusal alanlar

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Şehir Planlama Yüksek Lisans Programı kapsamında Prof. Dr. Fatih Terzi tarafından yürütülen "Şehir Planlamada Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri" dersi sürecinde hazırlanmıştır. Arazi kullanım verileri için İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Şehir Planlama Müdürlüğü'ne teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

References

• Akkar, M. (2005a). The changing ‘publicness’ of contemporary public spaces: a case study of the Grey's Monument Area, Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Design International, 10, 95–113.
• Akkar, Z. M. (2005b). Questioning the ‘publicness’ of public spaces in postindustrial cities. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 16,75–91.
• Al-Hagla, K. S. (2008). Towards a sustainable neighborhood: the role of open spaces. International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR, 2(2), 162-177, DOI: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v2i2.239
• Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9-24, DOI: 10.1080/01944360108976352
• Carmona, M. (2010a). Contemporary public space: critique and classification, part one: critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123-148, DOI: 10.1080/13574800903435651
• Carmona, M. (2010b). Contemporary public space, part two: classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157-173, DOI: 10.1080/13574801003638111
• Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing Contemporary Public Space. Journal of Urbanism. 8(4): 373–405. DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2014.909518
• Carmona, M. & Wunderlich, F.M. (2012). Capital Spaces: The Multiple Complex Public Spaces of a Global City. London: Routledge.
• Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dines, N., Cattell, V., Gesler, W. & Curtis, S. (2006) Public Spaces, Social Relations and Well-being in East London. Bristol: The Policy Press.
• Dovey, K. & Pafka, E. (2020). Mapping the publicness of public space, An access/control typology. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space (1st ed., pp.234-248). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351002189
• Ercan, M. A. & Memlük N. O. (2015). More inclusive than before?: The tale of a historic urban park in Ankara, Turkey. Urban Design International, 20(3), 195-221. DOI:10.1057/udi.2015.5
• Gehl, J. & Gemozoe, L. (2001). New City Spaces. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press.
• Hoyle, B. S. (1998). Cities and Ports: Concepts and Issues. Vegueta, 263-278.
• Istanbul Planning Agency (2020). Istanbul Spatial Analysis Report for Vision 2050.
• Ian, I.Y., Yung, E.H., Luo, M. J., Chan, E.H. & Chen, W.Z. (2020). A typological study of public open space in private developments in Hong Kong. 56th ISOCARP World Planning Congress in Doha, Qatar International Society of City and Regional Planner.
• Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. New York: Routledge.
• Koramaz, K. E. & Türkoğlu, H. (2014). İstanbul’da kentsel yeşil alan kullanimi ve kentsel yeşil alanlardan memnuniyet. Planlama. 24(1), 26-34. DOI: 10.5505/planlama.2014.03511
• Langstraat F. & Van Melik R. (2013). Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2013.800451
• Leclercq, E. & Pojani, D. (2023). Public space privatisation: are users concerned? Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 16(1), 1-18, doi: 10.1080/17549175.2021.1933572
• Leclercq, E., Pojani, D. & Van Bueren, E. (2020). Is public space privatisation always bad for the public? mixed evidence from the United Kingdom. Cities, 100, 102649. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102649
• Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
• Malone, K. (2002) Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public space. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 157–168.
• Mantey, D. (2017). The ‘publicness’ of suburban gathering places: The example of Podkowa Leśna (Warsaw urban region, Poland). Cities, 60(2017), 1-12
• Mantey, D. & Kępkowicz, A. (2018). Types of public spaces: the polish contribution to the discussion of suburban public space. The Professional Geographer, 70(4), 633-654, DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2018.1443475
• Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19:1, 53-88, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
• Nemeth, J. & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 5-23. DOI:10.1068/b36057
• Ozkan, O. (2017). Culture of coastal city – change of city culture with re-created border: example Maltepe coastline. Mimar.ist 59(2), 46-51.
• Sarıbıyık, F. (2022). Evaluation of public open spaces on urban waterfronts: the case of marmara waterfronts - Istanbul (Master Thesis). Istanbul Technical University.
• Sandalack, B. A. & F. A. Uribe. 2010. Open space typology as a framework for design of the public realm. In The faces of urbanized space architectural volumes, ed. R. Barelkowski, 47–86. Poznan, Poland: Exemplum.
• Seçmen, S. & Türkoğlu, H. (2022). An approach for the evaluation of the spatial quality of urban waterfronts: the case of Istanbul. The International Journal of Design in Society, 16(1), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1328/CGP/v16i01/91-111
• Sennett, R. (1992). The Fall of Public Man. NewYork: W.W.Norton.
• Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge
• Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and Wang.
• Stanley, B. W., Stark, B. L., Johnston, K. L. & Smith, M. E. (2012). Urban Open Spaces in Historical Perspective: A Transdisciplinary Typology and Analysis. Urban Geography, 33(8), 1089-1117, doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.33.8.1089
• Timur, U. P. (2013). Urban waterfront regenerations. M. Özyavuz (Eds.), Advances in Landscape Architecture (pp. 169-206). IntechOpen.
• Thomas, M. (1991). The Demise of Public Space. In V. Nadin, and J. Doak (Eds.), Town Planning Responses to City Change (pp. 209– 224). Avebury: Aldershot.
• Türkoğlu, H. & Seçmen S. (2019). The role of urban waterfront parks on quality of life in İstanbul., ITU A|Z Journal, 16(1) 53-66.
• Zukin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Varna, G., & Tiesdell S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: the star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 575–598. DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502350
• Yazgan, A. & Sel, D. B. (2014). Integrated coastal zone management - Cultural heritage :Istanbul coastal areas. 8th Symposium of Waterfront Engineering (pp. 125-137). Union Of Chambers Of Turkish Engineers And Architects, Chamber of Civil Engineer, Istanbul.
• Yenen, Z., Enlil, Z. Ş., & Ünal, Y., (2016). İstanbul a city of waterfronts or a city inland. Waterfronts: A New Frontier for Cities on Water. (pp. 116-123). Venice, Italy.