KENT KİMLİĞİNE SİMGESEL PEYZAJIN ETKİLERİ

Year 2019, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 438 - 448, 25.06.2019

Tuğba Düzenli , Sema Mumcu , Serap Yılmaz

Abstract

Kentlerin de içlerinde oluşan yapılarıyla insanlar gibi kendi kimlikleri vardır. Kent kimliği; kent
imajını etkileyen; kendine özgü özellikleri olan; fiziksel, kültürel, sosyo-ekonomik, tarihsel ve
biçimsel özelliklerden etkilenen bütüncül bir olgudur. Günümüz kentleri simgesel referanslarla
karakterize edilerek tanımlanır. Bu araştırmada kent kimliği ve simgesel peyzaj kavramlarına
odaklanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında simgesel peyzajların kent kimliğine etkilerini belirlemek
amacıyla önce 18 uzmanla daha sonra Trabzon kenti açık mekanlarında 236 kullanıcıyla anket
yapılmıştır. Ankette kentin simgeleyen açık mekan ve öğelerin neler olduğu sorgulanmıştır. Sonuçta,
Ayasofya, Boztepe, Meydan parkı, Ganita, Surlar, Atatürk köşkü, Sümela Manastırı, Uzungöl kentin
simgesel mekanları olarak ortaya çıkmış ve kent kimliğini etkiledikleri belirlenmiştir. Kente ilişkin
kültürel ve sosyal özellikler de (horon, kemençe, hamsi, Trabzonspor vb. gibi) simgesel öğeler olarak
ağırlık kazanmıştır. Bu sonuçlara bağlı olarak yerel kimliğe ağırlık verildiği saptanmıştır. Simgesel
mekanların öğelerden daha çok kent kimliğini etkilediği de çalışmanın sonuçlarındandır.

Keywords

Kent Kimliği, Simge, Peyzaj, Trabzon

References

• Adam, R. (2012). “Identity and Identification: The Role of Architectural Identity in a Globalized World”. In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 176-193. Bentham Science Publishers. Aguilar, M. A. (2002).” Identity and Daily Space in Two Municipalities in Mexico City.” Environment and Behavior, 34 (1), 111-121. Altman, I. & Low, S. M. (Eds.) (1992). “Place attachment.” New York: Plenum. Bayramoğlu E., Yurdakul N.M.. (2019). "The Effects of the Places as Urban Open Spaces on the Quality of Life: The Case of Trabzon", Journal of History Culture and Art Research , vol.8, pp.425- 4435. Birol Akkurt, H. (2012). “Reconstitution of the Place Identity within the Intervention Efforts in the Historic Built Environment”. In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 63-77. Bentham Science Publishers. Butina, G., & Bentley, I. (2007). “Identity by design”. Burlington: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Casakin, H. & Elliot, E. A. (2012). “Place Identity Principles and Cultural Metaphors in a Mexican Environment”. In H. Casakin, & F. Bernardo, (Eds.) The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments (pp. 146-162). Bentham Science Publishers Casakin, H., & Bernardo, F. (Eds.) (2012). “The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments”. Bentham Science Publishers. Chow, K., & Healey, M. (2008). “Place attachment and place identity: First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 362-372. Düzenli T., Mumcu S., Tarakci Eren E., (2018). "Peyzaj Mimarlığında Heykel Kullanımı: Trabzon Kenti Örneği ", Journal Of History Culture And Art Research, 1, 553-564 Goličnik Marušić, B. & Nikšič, M. (2012). “Multilayered Identity of Places: Linkage between Physical Form, Behaviour Patterns and Public Perception”. In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 120-132. Bentham Science Publishers. Hay, R. (1998). “Sense of place in developmental context”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29. place identity in natives and non-natives”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310-319. Hernández-Garcia, J. (2012). “Open Spaces in Informal Settlements in Bogotá, Expressions of Attachment and Identity”. In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 92-106. Bentham Science Publishers. Knez, I. (2005). “Attachment and identity as related to place and its perceived climate”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207-218. Koolhaas, R. (Ed.) 2001. “Great Leap Forward”. Taschen, Koln. Koolhaas, R. and Mau, B. 1995. “Small, medium, large, extra-large: Office for Metropolitan Architecture”. Monacelli Press, New York. Lang, J. (1994). “Urban Design: The American Experience.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA. Lewicka, M. (2005). “Ways to make people active: Role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 381–395. Lewicka, M. (2008).”Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209–231. Manzo, L. C. (2003). “Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61. Noormohammadi, S. (2012). “Essential Human Qualities in Strengthening Place Identity as Expressed in Louis Kahn’s Architectural Theory”. In H. Casakin, & F. Bernardo, (Eds.) The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments (pp. 22-34). Bentham Science Publishers. Osborne, B. S. (2001). “Landscapes, Memory, Monuments, and Commemoration: Putting Identity in Its Place”. The Department of Canadian Heritage for the Ethnocultural, Racial, Religious, and Linguistic Diversity and Identity Seminar Halifax, Nova Scotia November 1-2, 2001. Padua, M. G.(2007). “Designing an identity: The synthesis of a post-traditional landscape vocabulary in Hong Kong”. Landscape Research, 32 (2), 225-240 Pol, E. (2002). “The Theoretical Background of the City-Identity-Sustainability Network”. Environment and Behavior. 34 (1), 8-25. Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R.(1983). “Place Identity: Physical world socialization of the self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83. Relph, E. (1976). “Place and placelessness”. London: Pion Limited. Schulz,N.,C.,(1971). “Existence,space and architecture”, Praeger, New York, 9-36. Seamon, D. (2012). “Place, Place Identity, and Phenomenology: A Triadic Interpretation Based on J.G. Bennett’s Systematics.” In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 3-21. Bentham Science Publishers. Steward, J., 1948. “A Functional Developmental Classification of American High Cultures. A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archeology.” Memories of The Society for American Archeology. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). “Rootedness versus sense of place.” Landscape, 24, 3-8. Twigger-Ross, C., & Uzzell, D. (1996). “Place and identity processes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220. Vidal, T., Troffa, R., Valera, S. & Fornara, F. (2012). “Place Identity as a Useful Psychological Construct for Approaching Modern Social Challenges and New People-Environment Relations: Residential Mobility, Restorative Environments, and Landscape.” In H. Casakin, F. Bernardo, (Eds.). The Role of Place Identity in the Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, pp. 78-91. Bentham Science Publishers. Zorlu, T. Aydınlatan, E. & Engin, E. (2010).” Kentsel Müdahale Kent Kimliği: Tanjant ve Karadeniz Sahil Yollarının Trabzon Kent Kimliğine Etkileri”. Mimarlık Dergisi. 352.