Mekanda Umut ve Hayal Gücüyle Normatif bir Model

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 426 - 438, 20.09.2025

Devran Bengü

https://doi.org/10.54864/planarch.1697090

Abstract

Günümüzde mekânsal tasarım, yalnızca fiziksel çevre düzenlemesi olmaktan çıkarak, toplumsal ilişkilerin ve kolektif değerlerin yeniden örgütlendiği karmaşık bir alan haline gelmiştir. Mevcut literatürde demokratik tasarım genellikle katılım ve yönetişim süreçleriyle sınırlı kalmakta, yaratıcı ve eylemsel kapasitesi yeterince ele alınmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu kısıtlılığı aşmayı hedefleyerek, demokratik mekânsal tasarımı "radikal hayal gücü" ve "dönüştürücü umut" kavramları aracılığıyla yeniden düşünmekte ve çok katmanlı normatif bir model önermektedir. Makale, mekân kuramı, planlama teorisi ve eleştirel pedagoji literatürlerini sentezleyerek özgün bir kuramsal çerçeve sunar. Çalışmanın temelinde, mevcut sosyo-mekânsal düzenin sınırlarını aşarak alternatifleri tahayyül etmeyi sağlayan radikal hayal gücü ve bu tahayyülleri kolektif eyleme dönüştüren dönüştürücü umut kavramları yer alır. Bu kavramlara dayanarak, katılımcılık, dayanışma, sürdürülebilirlik/erişilebilirlik ve müşterek üretkenlik olmak üzere dört temel demokratik mekânsal tasarım normu yapılandırılmıştır. Makale, bu normların yalnızca ilkesel düzeyde kalmayıp, kavramsal araçlarla nasıl bütünleşik çalıştığını ve mekânsal pratiklerde gözlemlenebilir göstergelere nasıl dönüştüğünü sistematik olarak analiz eder. Geliştirilen model, normların birbirini tamamlayıcı işleyişini kuramsal tutarlılıkla birleştirir, radikal hayal gücü ve dönüştürücü umudu eşzamanlı olarak modele entegre eder ve ampirik araştırmalarla test edilebilir bir yapı sunar. Bu yönüyle çalışma, demokratik mekânsal tasarımın yaratıcı, eylemsel ve dönüştürücü potansiyelini vurgulayarak, literatüre önemli bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Radikal hayal gücü , dönüştürücü umut , kolektif eylem , demokratik mekânsal tasarım , katılımcı mekânsal planlama

A Normative Model of Space with Hope and Imagination

Abstract

Contemporary spatial design has evolved beyond mere physical environment arrangement, becoming a complex field where social relations and collective values are reorganized. Existing literature often confines democratic design to participation and governance processes, neglecting its creative and action-oriented capacities. This study aims to overcome this limitation by rethinking democratic spatial design through the concepts of "radical imagination" and "transformative hope," proposing a multilayered normative model. The article synthesizes literature from spatial theory, planning theory, and critical pedagogy to offer an original theoretical framework. Central to the study are radical imagination, which enables envisioning alternatives beyond the boundaries of the existing socio-spatial order, and transformative hope, which translates these imaginings into collective action. Based on these concepts, four fundamental democratic spatial design norms are structured: participation, solidarity, sustainability/accessibility, and common productivity. The article systematically analyzes how these norms, rather than remaining solely at a principled level, operate integrally with the conceptual tools and are translated into observable indicators in spatial practices. The developed model combines the complementary functioning of the norms with theoretical consistency, simultaneously integrates radical imagination and transformative hope into the model, and provides a structure testable through empirical research. In this regard, the study contributes significantly to the literature by emphasizing the creative, action-oriented, and transformative potential of democratic spatial design.

Keywords

Radical imagination , transformative hope , collective action , democratic spatial design , participatory spatial planning

References

• Abers, R., Brandão, I., King, R., & Votto, D. (2018). Porto Alegre: Participatory budgeting and the challenge of sustaining transformative change. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/research/porto-alegre-participatory-budgeting-and-challenge-sustaining-transformative-change
• Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainable communities and the challenge of environmental justice. New York University Press.
• Appadurai, A. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Verso.
• Arampatzi, A. (2017). The spatiality of counter-austerity politics in Athens, Greece: Emergent ‘urban solidarity spaces’. Urban Studies, 54(9), 2155–2171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016629311
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
• Arquitectura Viva. (2018, June 13). Bois-le-Prêtre by Lacaton & Vassal. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/transformacion-de-la-torre-bois-le-pretre-10
• Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Polity Press.
• Berk, M. G., & Akbulut, T. (2022). Solidarity Architecture: Socially Minded Approaches Emerging in the Professional Practice in Architecture. Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(4):1996-2009. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1167138
• Bloch, E. (1995). The principle of hope (N. Plaice, S. Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.; Vol. 1). MIT Press. (Original work published 1954)
• Bradley, K., & Hedrén, J. (2014). Utopian thought in the making of Green futures. In L. Andersson & K. Bradley (Eds.), Green utopianism: Perspectives, politics and micro-practices (pp. 57–81). Routledge.
• Brand, P., & Dávila, J. D. (2011). Mobility innovation at the urban margins: Medellín’s Metrocables. City, 15(6), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.609007
• Cabannes, Y. (2019). Participatory budgeting: A powerful and expanding contribution to the achievement of SDGs and primarily SDG 16.7 (GOLD Policy Series No. 2). United Cities and Local Governments. https://www.gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/02_policy_series-v3.pdf
• Castoriadis, C. (1998). The Imaginary Institution of Society. MIT Press. (Original work published 1975).
• Cinema of Commoning. (2022, October 12). Collective experiences and political communities around cinemas. Retrieved from https://cinemaofcommoning.com/2022/10/12/collective-experiences-and-political-communities-around-cinemas-how-do-cinemas-create-political-spheres-and-collectivity/
• Cinema of Commoning. (2024, October 24). Exploring cinema as social space: Communities, encounters, experiments. Retrieved from https://cinemaofcommoning.com/2024/10/24/exploring-cinema-as-social-space-communities-encounters-experiments/
• De Angelis, M. (2007). The beginning of history: Value struggles and global capitalism. Pluto Press.
• Dovey, K. (2014). Urban design thinking: A conceptual toolkit. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Ellin, N. (2013). Participatory architecture on the Parisian periphery: Lucien Kroll's Vignes Blanches. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1162/104648800564572
• Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.
• Federici, S. (2012). Feminism and the politics of the commons. D. Bollier & S. Helfrich (Eds.), The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state (pp. 45–54). Levellers Press.
• Federici, S. (2018). Re-enchanting the world: Feminism and the politics of the commons. PM Press.
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum.
• Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. Seabury Press.
• Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed (R. R. Barr, Trans.). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Ghaleb, M., & Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2024). Structural equation modeling (SEM) for social and behavioral sciences studies: Steps sequence and explanation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Review, 6(1), 69–108. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jobreview/issue/82893/1395927
• Giroux, H. A. (2001). “Something’s missing”: Cultural studies, neoliberalism, and the politics of educated hope. Strategies, 14(2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402130120088785
• Giroux, H. A. (2004). When hope is subversive. Tikkun, 19(6), 38–41. https://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~girouxh/online_articles/Tikkun%20piece.pdf
• Giroux, H. A. (2025). Paulo Freire’s legacy and critical pedagogy in dark times. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 40, 136–149. https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/sites/default/files/article-pdfs/Giroux%20Viewpoint%20Issue%2040.pdf
• Goldfrank, B. (2007). Lessons from Latin America’s experience with participatory budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory budgeting (pp. 91–126). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
• Gutiérrez, G. (1988). A theology of liberation: History, politics, and salvation (C. Inda & J. Eagleson, Trans.). Orbis Books. (Original work published 1971).
• Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1983).
• Haiven, M., & Khasnabish, A. (2014). The radical ımagination: Social movement research in the age of austerity. Zed Books.
• Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Harvard University Press.
• Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. University of California Press.
• Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, (53), 23–40. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii53/articles/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
• Imrie, R. (1996). Disability and the city: International perspectives. Paul Chapman Publishing.
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
• Kroll, L. (1987). An architecture of complexity (P. B. Jones, Trans). Rizzoli. (Original work published 1984)
• Kroll, L. (1988). Lucien Kroll: Buildings and projects (W. Pehnt, Intro.). Rizzoli.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell.
• Libeskind, D. (2004). Breaking ground: Adventures in life and architecture. Riverhead Books.
• Marcuse, H. (2014). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1964).
• Merrifield, A. (2006). Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. Routledge.
• Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508). SAGE Publications.
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
• Owolabi, H. O., Ayandele, J. K., & Olaoye, D. D. (2020). A systematic review of structural equation model (SEM). Open Journals of Educational Development, 1(2), 27–39. https://www.openjournalsnigeria.org.ng/pub/ojed20200203.pdf
• Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books.
• Stavrides, S. (2016). Common space: The city as commons. Zed Books.
• Tekogul, I. (2023, September 11). Making hopeful futures: Critical hope and radical imagination in design. RSD Symposium. https://rsdsymposium.org/hope-and-radical-imagination/
• Trzcińska, M. (2021). Add, transform, and utilize: Possibilities of applying Druot, Lacaton, and Vassal’s modernization strategies and solutions in Polish large-panel housing estates. Land, 10(12), 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121308
• Ünal, U. (2021). Structural equation modeling as a marketing research tool: A guideline for SEM users about critical issues and problematic practices. Journal of Statistics & Applied Science, 2(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.52693/jsas.1015831
• Vale, B., & Vale, R. (1991). Green architecture: Design for a sustainable future. Thames & Hudson
• Wallpaper*. (2022, September 30). Screen stars: One-off cinemas across the globe. Retrieved from https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/screen-stars-one-off-cinemas-across-the-globe
• Waterworth, J. M. (2004). A philosophical analysis of hope. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Webb, D. (2013). Pedagogies of hope. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9336-1
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
• Zyphur, M. J., Bonner, C. V., & Tay, L. (2023). Structural equation modeling in organizational research: The state of our science and some proposals for its future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041621-031401