YAŞANABİLİR KENT: AYVALIK’ TA BİR ÖĞRENCİ PROJESI TASARIMI

Year 2018, Issue: 18, 123 - 145, 01.09.2018

Gabriela Zec Ömer Erem , Birgül Çolakoğlu

https://doi.org/10.22520/tubaked.2018.18.008

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Günümüzde tarihi kentler kentsel yaşam kalitesini azaltan değişimlerle başa çıkmakta zorlanmaktadır. Sokaklartaşıtlar ile aşırı yüklenmekte ve işlevinden uzaklaşarak yayalar için korkutucu olacak şekilde araç park alanlarınadönüşmektedir. Genellikle, kentsel açık alanlar bir şehri yaşanabilir hale getiren en önemli ölçütler olan sürdürülebilirlik,ulaşılabilirlik ve yaya dostu olma özelliklerinden uzaklaşmaktadır. Buna karşılık kentin yaşanabilirlik ölçütleri,deneyimlenebilen ve güçlendirilebilen toplu iyi olma hali için önemli bir etmen olmaktadır. Modern bir kentyaşayanların yaşam kalitesini artırabilir özelliklere sahip olmalıdır. Bu makale yaşanabilir bir kentin teorik olarakyaşam kalitesini artıran ölçütleri önermektedir. İki kentsel kalite olan sürdürülebilirlik ve ulaşılabilirlik kavramları,yaya yolları, açık alanlar, hizmet alanları ve yeşil alanlar ağ katmanları üzerinden yaya dostu olma teması ile ortayakonmuştur. Ölçütler ortaya konduktan sonra Ayvalık kenti vakası üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Kentin tarihsel vekentsel analizi yapıldıktan sonra, yaşanabilirlik katmanları üzerine öneriler sunulmuştur. Kararlar ve dönüşüm ilkelerikent merkezinde seçilen bir alan üzerinde detaylı şekilde açıklanmıştır. Bu ilkeler İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi’ deyüksek lisans bölümü öğrenci deneysel projesi olarak bir kültür merkezi mimari projesi üzerinden uygulanmıştır.

Keywords

Yaşanabilirlik, sürdürülebilirlik, ulaşılabilirlik, yaya dostu, açık alanlar, bağlanabilirlik, yürünebilirlik

LIVABLE CITY: A STUDENT DESIGN PROJECT ON AYVALIK, TURKEY

Abstract

Today historical cities live difficulty to cope with the changes that deplete urban life. Streets are overloaded with vehicles and scarify the pedestrians on streets and open spaces which lose their relevance while being slowly replaced with parking lots. Generally, urban open space is slowly detaching from sustainability, accessibility and pedestrian friendliness which are important criteria to make a city livable. However, livability criteria of the city are an important factor of residents’ overall well-being which can be practiced and accelerated where needed. A modern city should provide features to raise inhabitant’s quality of life as much as possible. This paper proposes measures that theoretically increase life quality for a livable city. Two urban qualities, sustainability and accessibility are presented as encompassing a pedestrian friendliness through layers of networks such as pedestrian paths, open spaces, facilities and greenery. Once the measures are established those were to be evaluated through a case of Ayvalık. After the city’s historical and urban analysis, the recommendations on livability layers are given. Decisions and principles of transformation are shown in detail on a chosen smaller city neighborhood at the center of the city. These principles have been applied to a cultural center architectural design project which is an experimental student work of a master student on architecture in Istanbul Technical University

Keywords

Livability, sustainability, accessibility, pedestrian friendly, open spaces, connectivity, walkability

References

• ABLEY, S. / TURNER, S. 2011. Predicting Walkability: Technical Report. New Zealand TransportAgency. Auckland City. (2000). Growing our city: through liveable communities 2050, Auckland City.
• CAMBRA, P. J. M. 2012. Pedestrian accessibility and attractiveness indicators for walkability assessment (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis for the Master Degree (MSc) in Urban Studies and Territorial Management).
• CECCON, P. & ZAMPIERI, L. 2016. Paths, Tracks and Trails designed for pedestrians and cyclists, Images Publishing
• CETIN, M., & DOYDUK S. 2012. Re-reading of public life and urban- architecture in Ayvalik through nets of water, International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 03
• CHIU, M., SHAH, B. R., MACLAGAN, L. C., REZAI, M. R., AUSTIN, P. C., & TU, J. V. 2015. Walk Score® and the prevalence of utilitarian walking and obesity among Ontario adults: a cross-sectional study. Health reports, 26(7), 3.
• CIEŚLAK, I. & SZUNIEWICZ, K. 2015. The quality of pedestrian space in the city: a case study of Olsztyn. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 30, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University, pp. 31–41. DOI:http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/bog-2015-0033
• CITTASLOW. 2017. Manifesto. Retrieved March 26, 2018 from http://www. cittaslow.it/manifesto
• COOPER MARCUS, C. & FRANCIS, C. 2007. People Places: Design Guidlines for Urban Open Space. Retrieved November 22, 2017, from https://books.google.com. tr/books?id=tFVLm-A5hEgC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq
• EASTON, M., SALDAIS, M., DUMOVIC, V., CARRODUS, G., MACHAR C. 2016. Oxford Big Ideas Humanities 7 - Liveable cities. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://www.oup.com.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0030/58179/Chapter-5-Liveable-cities.pdf
• EWING, R. & HANDY, S. 2009. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban design, 14(1), 65-84.
• FORSYTH, A. & SOUTHWORTH, M. 2008. Cities afoot – Pedestrians, walkability, and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 1–3.
• FREEMAN, L., NECKERMAN, K., SCHWARTZSOICHER, O., QUINN, J., RICHARDS, C., BADER, M. D., ... & ARNO, P. 2013. Neighborhood walkability and active travel (walking and cycling) in New York City. Journal of Urban Health, 90(4), 575-585.
• GEHL, J., BLUNT, G., STITT, N., NICHOLSON H., MORTENSEN H, LIE G., DUCOURTIAL, P. 2004. Absolutely positively Wellington. (Case study) Retrieved December 10, 2107, from https://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/ services/environment-and-waste/urban development/files/ gehlreport.pdf
• GEHL, J., NEILSEN, T., KIRKNAES, S., NICHOLSON, H., INGLES, C., DELARUE, C., DRAVITZKI, M., ROERS, M. 2010. A city for people - Action plan - Christchurch 2010. (Case study). Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://www. ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Rebuild/Strategic-Plans/ JanGehlAction-Plan-web.pdf
• GEHL J., SKAUFEL, L., BÜLAY, S., SODE, R., VAMBERG, H., PAULY, S., NILSSON, M., GEHL ARCHITECTS, 2013. Istanbul an accesible city - a city for people. (Case study) Retrieved March 21, 2018, from https://issuu.com/ gehlarchitects/docs/issuu_998_istanbul-public-spaces-pu GIAP, T. K., THYE, W. W., & AW, G. 2014.
• A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: the Global Liveable Cities Index. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 11(2), 176-196.
• GIRARDET, H. 2004. Cities people planet: liveable cities for a sustainable world. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• HAHLWEG, D. 1997. The city as a Family. In Timmer, V., Seymoar, N. 2005. The livable city. The world urban forum 2006 Vancouver working group (Discussion paper).
• HEALTHY SPACES & PLACES. 2009. Design Principle – Parks and Open Space. Retrieved November 12, 2017 from https://www.healthyplaces.org. au/userfiles/file/Parks%20and%20Open%20Space%20 June09.pdf
• JONES, E. 2006. World transport: policy & practice. The Earthscan ReaderEdited by John Whitelegg and Gary Haq. The Geographical Journal, 172(1), 78-79.
• JUN, H. J. & HUR, M. 2015. The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography, 62, 115-124.
• KIYAK, A. 1997. A Methodology for the Analysis of the Formal and Spatial Structure of the City and the Ayvalık Example.Retrieved from: https://polen.itu.edu.tr/handle/11527/10392
• KOWALEWSKA, A. 2011. Sustainable urban green network concept for the city of Gdynia, Poland. Retrieved February 16, 2108, from http:// www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2046.pdf.
• LEACH, J. M., BRAITHWAITE, P. A., LEE, S. E., BOUCH, C. J., HUNT, D. V., & ROGERS, C. D. 2016. Measuring urban sustainability and liveability performance: the city analysis methodology. International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology, 1(1), 86- 106.
• LITTMAN, T.A. 2011. Economic Value of Walkability, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada.
• LO, R. H. 2009. Walkability: what is it?.Journal of Urbanism, 2(2), 145-166.
• LYNCH, K. 1960. The Image of the city. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from http://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/1960_ Kevin_Lynch_The_Image_of_The_City_book.pdf.
• PARK, S. 2008. Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station, Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.
• PSARROS, D. 2004. Kydonies - Ayvalık’ın Kentsel Tarihi. EGE’nin iki yakası-I: Ayvalık Kent Tarihi Çalışmaları Konferansı, Bildiriler Kitabı, 28-30, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi, Ayvalık Belediyesi, 28-30 Ekim 2004, Ayvalık.
• SALZANO, E. 1997. Seven Aims for the Livable City in Timmer, V., Seymoar, N., (2005.), The livable city. The world urban forum 2006 Vancouver working group (Discussion paper).
• SHRESTHA, B. 2011. Street typology in Kathmandu and street transformation. Urbani Izziv, (22) 2 (December 2011), pp. 107-121 Retrived from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/24920582.
• SOUTHWORTH, M. 2005. Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning and Development.DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9488(2005)131:4(246)
• SOUTHWORTH, M. 2003. Measuring the liveable city. Built Environment (1978-), 29(4), 343-354.
• TIMMER, V. & SEYMOAR, N. 2005. The livable city. The world urban forum 2006 Vancouver working group (Discussion paper). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/ library/wuf_the_livable_city.pdf
• UNESCO. 2017. Permanent Delegation of Turkey to UNESCO. Ayvalık Industrial Landscape. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https:// whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6243/
• VIRTUDES, A. 2016. Benefits of Greenery in Contemporary City. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 44 032020
• WOOLCOCK, G. 2009. Measuring up?: assessing the liveability of Australian cities. In State of Australian Cities: National Conference, Perth (pp. 1-19). Promaco Conventions.