Examining the Concept of Quality of Space in Public Open Spaces: The Example of Çanakkale Özgürlük Park

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 795 - 812, 30.12.2022

Alper Sağlık Merve Temiz Fatoş Kartal Dilan Şenkuş

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1169558

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Public open spaces provide many services that will improve the physical and mental health of the society and increase the quality of life. These services are an important indicator for measuring spatial quality. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the reinforcement elements used in the Özgürlük Park in the city of Çanakkale according to the spatial quality criteria in the Space Quality Diagram. Situation analysis, which is a component of the qualitative research design, was used in line with the target and the reinforcement elements were evaluated as successful or unsuccessful. As a result, it was determined that the park is an area with high quality value, but the "maintenance" criterion was found to be insufficient in the area. It is suggested that the maintenance and repair works of the reinforcement elements and plant elements in the area should be carried out regularly.

Keywords

Quality of life, urban identity, Çanakkale

Thanks

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study.

Kamusal Açık Alanlarda Mekân Kalite Kavramının İrdelenmesi: Çanakkale Özgürlük Parkı Örneği

Abstract

Kamusal açık alanlar, toplumun fiziksel ve ruhsal sağlığını iyileştirecek ve yaşam kalitesini artıracak birçok hizmet sunmaktadır. Sunulan bu hizmetler, mekânsal kalitenin ölçülmesi için önemli bir göstergedir. Bu çalışmada, Çanakkale kentinde yer alan Özgürlük Parkı’nda kullanılan donatı elemanlarının Mekân Kalitesi Diyagramında yer alan mekânsal kalite ölçütlerine göre değerlendirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Hedef doğrultusunda nitel araştırma deseninin bir bileşeni olan durum analizi kullanılmış ve donatı elemanları başarılı-başarısız olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçta, parkın kalite değeri yüksek bir alan olduğu saptanmış ancak “bakım” kriterinin alanda yetersiz olduğu görülmüştür. Alanda yer alan donatı elemanları ve bitkisel öğelerin bakım onarım çalışmalarının düzenli olarak yapılması önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Yaşam kalitesi, kent kimliği, Çanakkale

References

• Alpagut, Y. (2003). Toplu konut dış mekânlarında tüm kullanıcılar için erişebilirlik ölçütlerinin saptanması (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Access Address (09.07.2022): Access Address (09.07.2022): https://polen.itu.edu.tr:8443/server/api/core/bitstreams/ba36853c-0e41-4790-a40b 8ad18a5971a6/content
• Burns, L. D. (1979). Transportation, temporal and spatial components of accessibility. Toronto: Lexington Books. ISBN-10: ‎ 0669029165.
• Burt, M. E. (1978). A survey of quality and value in building. Watford, UK: Building Research Establishment. ISBN-10: ‎ 0851250483.
• Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: a case study of Guwahati. Social Indicator Research Journal, (88), 297-310. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9191-6.
• Dissart, J. & Deller, S. (2000). Quality of life in the planning literature. Journal Planning of Literature, 15(1). Doi: 10.1177/08854120022092962.
• Erdönmez, M. E. & Akı, A. (2005). The effects of open public urban spaces on social relations. MEGARON, 1(1), 67-87. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/MEGARON-21939-ARTICLE-ERDONMEZ.pdf
• Erdönmez, M. E. & Çelik, F. (2016). Public space relations in the urban area. Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Cultural Inventory, (14), 145-163. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tubaked/issue/57267/810019
• Google Earth (2022). Google Earth Image. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://earth.google.com/web/search/%c3%a7anakkale+%c3%b6zg%c3%bcrl%c3%bck+park%c4%b1/@40.1633576,26.4079543,56.27182868a,784.59513386d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CigiJgokC YZVCpW-hDRAEYZVCpW-hDTAGSvtfz-o5iVAIRQQc8ifzlbA
• Hacıhasanoğlu, I. & Hacıhasanoğlu, O. (1997). İ.T.Ü. Ayazağa Kampüsü Binalarının ve Yakın Çevrelerinin Özürlülerin Kullanımına Uygun Olarak Düzenlenmesi. İstanbul: İTÜ. Araştırma Fonu Araştırma Projesi.
• Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73-76. Doi: 10.1080/01944365908978307.
• İnceoğlu, M. & Aytuğ, A. (2009). The concept of quality in urban space. MEGARON, 4(3), 131-146. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://megaronjournal.com/tr/jvi.aspx? pdir=megaron&plng=tur&un=MEGARON-24772
• Jacobs, J. (1969). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
• Karayılmazlar, A. S. & Çelikyay, H. S. (2018). Design and importance of public spaces in cities. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 9(17), 83-90. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/522467
• Külekçi, E. A. (2018). Examination of original designs in urban equipment with landscape ergonomics approach. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications (JASA), 3(2), 89-109. e-ISSN: 2548-0170.
• Önder, S. & Polat, A.T. (2012, May). The place and importance of urban open-green spaces in urban life. Formation and Maintenance Principles of Urban Landscape Areas Seminar, Konya.
• Öztürk, S. & Özdemir, Z. (2013). The effect of urban open and green spaces on the quality of life "The example of Kastamonu". Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 13(1), 109- 116. Access Address (09.07.2022): https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/159529
• Project of Public Spaces. (2022). What Makes a Successful Place. Access Address (10.07.2022): https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat
• Sağlık, A., Sağlık, E. & Kelkit, A. (2014, May). Examination of urban reinforcement elements in terms of landscape architecture: Çanakkale city center example. 1st International Urban Planning-Architecture-Design Congress, Kocaeli.
• Sağlık, A., Baytan, N., Bayrak, M.İ., Temiz, M. & Kelkit, A. (2020). Optimization of lighting equipment in Çanakkale Public Garden in terms of energy efficiency. Urban Academy | Journal of Urban Culture and Management, 13(43), 4, 599-608. Doi: 10.35674/kent.754469.
• Sağlık, E., Sağlık, A. & Temiz, M. (2020). Landscape design-campus walkways-quality of life. GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism Recreation and Sports Sciences (ATRSS), 3(1), 35-46. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4003811.
• Sağlık, A., Sağlık, E., Kelkit, A., Öncül, N. E. & Temiz, M. (2020). The relationship between livability and landscape design in ÇOMÜ Terzioğlu Campus. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 8(2), 427–441.
• Sağlık, A., Demir, S., Çelik, R., Durdymyradov, O. & Bayrak, M. İ. (2021). Investigation of Çanakkale Public Garden in terms of design principles for everyone. Journal of Bartin Faculty of Forestry 23(3), 720-732. Doi: 10.24011/barofd.935509.
• Temiz, M. & Sağlık, A. (2021). Sustainable cities: green business parks. Turkish Journal of Landscape Research, 4(1), 1-12. Doi: 10.51552/peyad.786432.
• True, E. M. & Türel, H. S. (2017). Analysis of a public space based on the space diagram of Pps (Project For Public Spaces). Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 54(3), 319-326. doi: 10.20289/zfdergi.387931.
• Uzgören, G. & Erdönmez, M. E. (2017). A comparative study on the relationship between space quality and urban space activities in public open spaces. MEGARON, 2(1), 41-56. doi: 10.5505/megaron.2016.42650
• Yazıcıoğlu, Y. & Erdoğan, S. (2011). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 3. Baskı Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.