Systemic View of Urban Public Space, Proposing a "Human-First" Model For Livable Interspaces/Interfaces.

Öz

Livability requires creating public spaces that can question the quality of cities and places, increase physical activity in urban life, and provide opportunities for social interaction in the built environment. In national and international meetings such as Habitat II, Habitat III, Vision 2023, and Arama Conference, it has been stated that what is expected from a city whose basic reality is "human priority" is public space/place with the phenomenon of publicity. With in the scope of the study of experts on the quality of urban space and the Jacops, Gehl, PPS, TOD models and approaches they have developed are explanied. Based on the inter-scale approach, systematic parts and urban networks from micro to macro scale are evaluated. İn this study the “neigbourhood” structure, which is the most basic unıt of the local scale, which reflects the social value of societies in addition to physcial characterics of the development of thecities was taken as a scale. Buıldıng-space, avenue-street, square etc. Openings are referred to as networks that make up the public system. İn this context, a model proposal with a participatory apporoach has been developed which leads to research on the qualities of livable search interspace/interface.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The Phenomenon of Publicity
• Human Friendly Space
• Livable interface/interspace.

Kaynakça

1. Amin, A. (2006). The Good City. Urban Studies 43, pp.1009-1023.
2. Amare, S. (2014). Enhancing Livability of Squares and Streets: The Case of Romanat District. (Published Master Thesis). Mekelle CBD, Mekelle, Tigray, pp.32.
3. Appleyard, D., (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley University of California Press.
4. Ashihara, Y. (1983). The Aesthetic Townscape. MIT Press, Cambridge.
5. Baday, Ö.N. (2011). Modern Kent Mekanlarında Mahallenin Konumu. (Published Master Thesis). Selçuk Unıvercity. Konya.
6. Bala, a.h. (2006). Mimarlık-şehircilik, bina-kent, iç-dış, özel-kamusal arasında: kentsel arayüzler. Yapı mimarlık-kültür-sanat dergisi. Vol. 293, 44-49.
7. Barte, P. and Mulukutla, P. (2013). Parking and Transit Oriented Developments Presentation, The HUB, WRI INDIA. http://wricitieshub.org/contributors/paul-barter [09.05.2016].
8. Bertlin, J. (2014). Socıal Sustaınability from the perspectıve of three concept: human scale, the city at eye level and publıc lıfe. (Published Degree Project In Urban And Plannıng). Advanced Cycle Stockholm, Kth Royal Instıtute Of Technology School Of Architecture And The Buılt Environment,.29-33

9. Bilsel, G. (2002). Kent Kültürü - Kültürel Süreklilik ve Yaşanılası Kentsel Mekan Kavramı Üzerine, Kentleşme ve Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyumu. Çukurova Üniversitesi Adana Kent Konseyi-Yerel Gündem 21 Yayınları.(5). 107-114.
10. Bloomberg, M., Burden, A., Burney, D., Farley, T. and Khan, J. (2013). Shaping the Sıdewalk Experıence, Active Design, Newyork, NYC.
11. Carmona, M., Tiesdell,S., Heath,T., and Oc, T., (2010). Public places public spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Archtectural press, UK.
12. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, Mekânsal Planlama Genel Müdürlüğü. (2016). Kentsel Tasarım Rehberlerinin Hazırlanması. http://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/csb/dokumanlar/mpgm0002.pdf. [20.04.2016]
13. Cilliers, E.J., Timmermans, W., Goorberg, F. and Slijkhuis, J.S.A. (2015). The Story Behind the Place: Creating Urban Spaces That Enhance Quality of Life, Applied research in Quality of Life. 10(4), 589-598.
14. Conzen, M.R.G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town Plan Analysis, IBG Monograph No. 27, London.
15. Elshater, A. (2012). New Urbanısm Principles Versus Urban Design Dimensions Toward Behavior Performance Efficiency İn Egyptian Neıghbourhood Unıt. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (68), 826–843.
16. Erdönmez, E. (2005). Açık Kamusal Kent Mekânlarının Toplumsal İlişkileri Yapılandırmadaki Rolü, Büyükdere-Levent-Maslak Aksı. (Published PHD Thesis). Yıldız Teknik Univercity. İstanbul, 22.
17. Francis,M.,(1987). Urban different meanings attached to a public park and community gardens. Landscape journal (6), 101-102.
18. Gehl, J. (2001). Life Between Buıldıngs, Using Public Space. Washington – Covelo – London: Island Press, 13.
19. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press, 26
20. Gökgür, P. (2008). Kentsel Mekânda Kamusal Alanın Yeri. Bağlam Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
21. Jacops, J. (1993). Büyük Amerikan Şehirlerinin Ölümü ve Yaşamı. çev. B. Doğan, Metis Yayıncılık, 150-173.
22. Jacopson, J. and Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TOD: Good Practice for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use 1(2), 51-88.
23. Jaffe, R. (2014). Urbanısm Hall Of Fame: Jan Gehl İntegrates Humanıty in to Urban Design. http://thecityfix.com/blog/urbanism-hall-fame-jan-gehl-integrates-human ity-urban-design-copenhangen-cities-for-people-dario-hidalgo/.[15.02.2016].
24. Hulme, M. and Truch, A. (2006). The role of İnterspace in Sustaining İdentity. Knowledge-Techonology - Policy/Spring. 19 (1)., 45-53.
25. Karaca, S., Siper, N.(2011). Kentsel Mekânda Kamu Yararı Arayışı ve Kültürel Planlama. Toplum ve Demokrasi. (11)., 75-96.
26. Karner, M. (2015). From İnterspace to Interface Shaping Public Life. (Published Master of Architecture Thesis). Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg.
27. Kaya, E. (2003). Kentleşme ve Kentlileşme. İlke Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
28. Kırkık Aydemir, K.P., (2018). Yavaş Kent Hareketi Üzerinden Yaşanabilir Aramekan/Arayüz Geliştirmede Bir Model Önerisi: İstanbul/Beşiktaş-Sinanpaşa Mahallesi Örneği. (Published PHD Thesis). Bartın Unıvercity. Bartın.
29. Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. Rizzoli.
30. Köseoğlu, E. (2011). Kent Mekânına İlişkin Kuramsal Bakışlar: Rob Krier, Christopher Alexander ve Bill Hillier. İdeal Kent Dergisi. (5)., 96-111.
31. Köknar, S.B. (2001). Mekansal Arayüzlerin Kente ve Yaşama Katılımları üzerine bir inceleme. (Published Master Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Unıvercity, İstanbul.
32. Lupton, J.R. (2008). City Planning-and un-planning. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~udls /slides/city_planning.pdf. [20.08.2016].
33. Luz, A. (2001). Places in Between: The transitional Location of Nomadic Narratives. http://www.eki.ee/km/place/pdf/kp5_11_luz.pdf. [20.05.2016].
34. Lynch, K. (1960). The İmage of the City. çev. Başaran, İ. (2010). Kent İmgesi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, ISBSN: 978-9944-88-948-3, İstanbul.
35. Madanıpour, A. (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities?. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (26)., 879-891.
36. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. 1st.ed. London Routledge, 206.
37. Montgomery, J.(1998). Making a city: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design, Journal of Urban Design.(3), 93-116.
38. Montgomery, J. (2003). Cultural Quarters as Mechanısm for Urban Regeneration . Part 1: Conceptualising Cultural Quarters. Planning Practice & Research. 18 (4)., 293-306.
39. Mumford, L.(1938). The Culture of Cities. New York. Harcourt,Brace and Company.
40. Muriby, R., (2007). The Community Speaks: The Case For Urban Placemaking in A Tod.B.A. (Published Master of Urban and Regional Planning). Unıvercity of Texas, Austin,.
41. Otaner, F. and Keskin, A. (2005). Kentsel Geliştirmede Kamusal Alanların Kullanımı. İTÜ Dergisi / A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4 (1), 107-114.
42. Özcan, Y. (2003). Kamusal/Özel Alan Tartışmaları. Genç Hukukçular, Hukuk Okumaları V Birikimler 1, Kurtis Matbaacılık. http://genchukukcular.org/pdfs/birikimler 1.pdf. [08.05.2016].
43. Özdal, S.O. (2010). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Kentsel Tasarımın Değişen Rolü ve Yeni Kentleşme Akımı İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İrdeleme. (Published Master Thesis). Mimarsinan Unıvercity. İstanbul.
44. Özdal, S.O. and ÖZDEDE, S. (2012). Mevcut Mahallelerin Dönüşümünde Yerele Özgü Çevresel Değerleme Metotlarının Karşılaştırılması. Dünya Şehircilik Günü 36. Kolokyumu. Bildiri Kitabı, Ankara, 217-231.
45. Özer, Ö. (2014). Kentsel Mekanda Yaya Hareketleri: Morfoloji ve Kentsel Algı’nın Etkisi. (Published Master PHD Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Univercity, 10-21. İstanbul.
46. Özsel, S.B. (2009). Bina Kentsel Mekan Arayüz Özelliklerinin Kentsel Yaya Mekanlarına Etkisi. (Published Master Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Univercity, pp. 30.
47. Paasch, S. (2015). Liveable Dimension of Public Spaces: A psychologıcal analysis of health, well-beıng and socıal capital in urban squares. (Published Diploma Thesis). Technische Unıversitat Dresden Faculty of Science Department of Psychology.
48. Perinçek, S. (2003). Kamusal Alan – Kamuya Açık Özel Mekân İlişkisinde Geçiş Bölgeleri. (Published Master Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Univercity. İstanbul, pp. 53-55.
49. Polat, E. ve Bilsel, G. (2006). Mimarinin ve Kentin Birlikte Planlanması’nda Farklılaşan Kavramlar Üzerine. Planlama Dergisi., (4). pp. 57-67.
50. PPS (2015). Jane Jacops. http://www.pps.org/reference/jjacobs-2/[12.06.2018].
51. Punter, J. (1991). Participation in the design of urban space. Landscape design (200)., pp. 24-27.
52. SAGP SA (2002). Public Spaces and Public Life-Cıty Of Adelaıde. http://www.parksleisure.com.au/documents/item/773. [02.05.2016].
53. Sennet, R. (1999). Gözün Vicdanı Kentin Tasarımı ve Toplumsal Yaşam. Ayrıntı Yayınları. ISBSN: 978-975-539-262-9, İstanbul, pp. 23-24.
54. Sezgin, D. (2016). Tasarımla Daha Güvenli ve Erişilebilir Kentler, Yaşanabilir Şehirler Sempozyumu.
55. Siegel, C. (2016). The Progressive roots of New Urbanısm, Chapter 3 of The Humanists Versus the Reactionary Avant Garde: Clashing Visions for Today’s Architecture Omo Press. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/progressive-roots-new-urbanism
56. Steutevile, R., (2016). The Four phases of New Urbanism, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/four-phases-new-urbanism-0. [12.06.2022].
57. Svarre, B. and Gehl, J. (2015). Senses Scale and 12 Quality Criteria, http://courses. washington.edu/gehlstud/gehl-studio/wp-content/uploads/documents/Birgitte Svarre_Lecture_2015.pdf. [10.02.2016].
58. Taskın, A. (2012). Modern Dünyada Bireyin Mahremiyeti ve Kamusallık İlişkisi Üzerine, Adoolf Loos ve Lecourbiser Üzerinden. https://mimaritasarimveelestiri. wordpress.com/2012/05/22/modern-dunyada-bireyin-mahremiyeti-ve-kamusallik-iliskisi-uzerine-adolf-loos-ve-le-corbusier-uzerinden-degerlendirme-2/, [25.02.2016].
59. Tonnelat, S. (2010). The Sociology of Urban PlacesTerritorial Evolutıon and Planning Solutıon: Experıence From China and France, Paris, Atlantis. press:2010.
60. UCLG (2016). Democratizing the City Through Public Space. https://www.uclg. org/en/media/news/democratizing-city-through-public-space. [11.11.2016].
61. Uzun, İ. (2006). Kamusal Açık Mekan-Kavram ve Tarihe Genel Bakış, Ege Mimarlık, http://www.izmimod.org.tr/ege mim/59/14-17.pdf.
62. Wickersham, J. (2001). Jane Jacob’s Critique of Zoning : From Euclid to Portland and Beyond. Boston College Environmental Affaırs Law Rewiev, 28 (4).,
63. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.