Daha Kapsayıcı Konutlar için Katılımın Farklı Tasarım Aşamalarındaki Rolü Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Kentsel büyüme ve nüfus artışı, genişleyen ve heterojen sosyo-kültürel yapıyla birlikte şehirler için temel itici güçler olmuştur. Kentleşmedeki artan eğilimler, özellikle konut alanında gözlemlenen büyük eşitsizlik ve dışlanmayı da ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Konut, eskiden kullanıcılar tarafından oluşan sosyokültürel bir ürünken, yirminci yüzyılda daha standartlaştırılmış ve finansallaşmış bir varlığa dönüşmüş ve kullanıcılar üretim sürecinden soyutlanmıştır. Bu dışlayıcı konut eğilimlerine karşı, daha kapsayıcı sonuçlar için kullanıcıların konut üretimindeki yerini yeniden tanımlamak tasarımcıların görevidir. Dolayısıyla bu makale, daha kapsayıcı sonuçlar elde etmek için konutta katılımcı yaklaşımların potansiyelini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Buna göre, 1960'lardan başlayarak konut katılımına ilişkin biriken bilgi, önde gelen yayınlar aracılığıyla kronolojik ve birbiriyle ilişkili olarak tartışılmakta ve haritalanmaktadır. Sonrasında, konutun kapsayıcılığına yönelik belirli katılımcı yaklaşımların faydaları, gelecekteki uygulamalar için bir çerçeve oluşturmak üzere üç tasarım aşamasına göre değerlendirilir: i) tasarım/tasarım öncesi, ii) uygulama ve iii) kullanım(sonrası). Çalışma, çeşitli aşamalarda ve seviyelerde katılımcı yaklaşımların, kullanıcıların karar verme süreçlerinde temsilini artırarak, katılımı kolaylaştırma yolunda profesyonel araçları anlaşılır kılarak ve inşaat ve kullanım sırasında çevrelerin dönüştürülmesine izin vererek kapsayıcı konut yaratılmasına katkıda bulunduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kapsayıcılık
• kapsayıcı konutlar
• katılımcılık
• katılımcı tasarım

Evaluating the Role of Participation in Different Design Phases for More Inclusive Housing

Öz

Urban growth and population increase have been major driving forces for cities, combined with an expanding heterogeneous sociocultural structure. The growing trends in urbanization pose massive challenges of inequalities and exclusions, primarily observed in housing. While housing was initially a sociocultural product involving users, it has transformed into a more standardized and financialized entity in the twentieth century, resulting in the abstraction of users from the production process. Against these exclusionary housing trends, it is the role of designers to redefine the place of users in housing for more inclusive results. So, this paper aims to investigate the potential of participatory approaches in housing to achieve more inclusive outcomes. Accordingly, accumulated knowledge on participation in housing starting in the 1960s is chronologically and interrelatedly discussed and mapped through prominent publications. Then, the benefits of specific participatory approaches in the inclusivity of housing are evaluated regarding three design phases to form a framework for future practices: i) design/predesign, ii) implementation, and iii) (post) occupancy. The study showed that participatory approaches at various phases and levels contribute to creating inclusive housing by increasing users’ representation in decision-making, demystifying professional tools, and allowing alternative and dynamic appropriation of living.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• inclusivity
• inclusive housing
• participation
• participatory design

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp. 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
4. Bianchin, M., & Heylighen, A. (2018). Just design. Design Studies, 54, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.001
5. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Viking, p.13.
6. Broome, J. (2005). Mass housing cannot be sustained. In P.B. Jones, D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds.) Architecture and participation, (pp.72-86). New York: Spon Press.
7. Borș, S., & Dascălu, D. (2013). Notes towards a theory of contestational architecture. Retrieved June 25, 2022 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259560896_Notes_towards_a_Theory_of_Contestational_Architecture
8. Calavita, N., Mallach, A. (2010). An international perspective on inclusionary housing. In N. Calavita, A. Mallach (Eds.) Inclusionary housing in international perspective: Affordable housing, social inclusion and land value recapture. (pp. 1-14.) Massachuttes: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

9. Coleman, R., Lebbon, P.J., Clarkson, J. & Keates, S. (2003). Introduction: From margins to the mainstream. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates & C. Lebbon (Eds.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population. (pp. 1-25). London: Springer.
10. Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3), pp. 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00444
11. Czischke, D. (2017). Collaborative housing and housing providers: Towards an analytical framework of multistakeholder collaboration in housing co-production. International Journal of Housing Policy, 18, pp. 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593
12. Czischke, D., Ayala, A. (2021). Housing in the global north and global south. In A. M. Orum, J. Ruiz-Tagle, & S. V. Haddock (Eds.) Companion to urban and regional studies. (pp. 579-604). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119316916.ch27
13. Dacombe, R. (2018). Rethinking civic participation in democratic theory and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Davidoff, P. (1995). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, pp.331-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
15. Davidson, S. (1998). Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning, 1262, pp. 14–15.
16. De Carlo, G. (1980). An architecture of participation. Perspecta, 17, pp.74-79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1567006
17. DESA (2009). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report Creating an inclusive society: Practical strategies to promote social Integration, Retrieved May 28, 2022 from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2009/Ghana/inclusive- society.pdf
18. Erkılıc, M. (2012). Inclusive schools and urban space diversity: Universal design strategies in use. METU JFA, 29(1), pp. 193-206. https://doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2012.1.11
19. Fichter, R., Turner, J., & Grenell, P. (1972). The meaning of autonomy. In J.F.C. Turner & R. Fichter (Eds.) Freedom to build: Dweller control of the housing process, (pp. 241-254). New York: Macmillan.
20. Forrest, R., Williams, P. (2001). Housing in the thwentieth century. In R. Paddison (Ed.) Handbook of urban studies. (pp. 88-101). Sage Publications.
21. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York: Anchor Press.
22. Habraken, N. J. (1972) Supports: An alternative to mass housing. London: Architectural Press.
23. Habraken, J. (1986). Towards a new professional role. Design Studies, 7(3), pp.139-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(86)90050-5
24. Hamdi, N. (1995). Housing without houses: Participation, flexibility, enablement. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
25. Harvey, D. (1992). Social justice, postmodernism, and the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(4), pp. 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1992.tb00198.x
26. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented Societies. Vancouver: UBC Press Heylighen, A., Van der Linden, V., & Van Steenwinkel, I. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, pp. 507-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008
27. Hill, J. (2003). Actions of architecture: Architects and creative users. London: Routledge.
28. Hoskyns, T. (2014). Empty place: Democracy and public space. London: Routledge.
29. Jenkins, P., Smith, H., & Ping Wang, Y. (2007). Planning and housing in the rapidly urbanising world. Routledge.
30. Jenkins, P., Pereira, M., & Townsend, L. (2009a). Wider scoping of relevant literature. In P. Jenkins, L. Forsyth (Eds.) Architecture, participation and society, (pp.60-80). London: Routledge.
31. Jenkins, P., Milner, J., & Sharpe, T. (2009b). A brief historical review of community technical aid and community architecture. In P. Jenkins, L. Forsyth (Eds.) Architecture, participation and society, (pp.23-38). London: Routledge.
32. Joiner, D. and Ellis, P. (1989) ‘Making POE Work in an Organization’, in W. F. E. Preiser (ed.) Building Evaluation, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
33. Jones, P. B., Petrescu, D., & Till, J. (Eds.). (2005). Architecture and participation. New York: Spon Press.
34. Keates, S., & Clarkson, J. (2004). Countering design exclusion: An introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0013-3
35. Kernohan, D., Gray, J., Daish, J. and Joiner, D. (1992). User participation in building design and management: A generic approach to building management, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
36. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso Books.
37. Lape, S. (2010). Race and citizen identity in the classical Athenian democracy. Cambridge university press.
38. Lang, R., Carriou, C., & Czischke, D. (2020). Collaborative housing research (1990–2017): A systematic review and thematic analysis of the field. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(1): 10–39. doi: 10.1080/14036096.2018.1536077
39. Lefebvre, H. (1976). Survival of capitalism. Allison & Busby.
40. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
41. Lefort, C. (1986). The political forms of modern society: Bureaucracy, democracy, totalitarianism. The MIT Press.
42. Luck, R. (2018). Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times. Design Studies, 59, pp. 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003
43. Milner, J., Madigan, R. (2004). Regulation and innovation: Rethinking ‘inclusive’ housing design. Housing Studies, 19(5), pp.727-744. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000249170
44. Mitchell, T. (2015). Democracy’s beginning: The Athenian story. Yale University Press. New Wortley Community Centre | projectoffice. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2022, from projectoffice website: https://leedsbeckett.wixsite.com/projectoffice/new-wortley-community-centre
45. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720444
46. Peace, S. M., Holland, C. (2001). Inclusive housing in an ageing society: Innovative approaches. Bristol: The Policy Press.
47. Persson, H., Ahman, H., Yngling, A.A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: Different concepts-one goal? On the concept of accessibility-historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Univ Access Inf Soc, 14, pp. 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z
48. Richardson, T., Connelly, S. (2005). Reinventing public participation: Planning in the age of consensus. In P.B. Jones, D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds.) Architecture and participation, pp.87-110. London: Spon Press.
49. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
50. Sanoff, H. (2006). Democratic design participation: Case studies. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller
51. Sanoff, H. (2011). Multiple views of participatory design. Focus The Journal of Planning Practice and Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1Special issue: The Segal method. (1986). Architects’ Journal.
52. Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
53. Turner, J.F.C. (1976). Housing by people: Towards autonomy in building environments. New York: Pantheon Books.
54. United Nations Habitat. (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. Retrieved on 03.10.2022 from https://unhabitat.org/the-challenge-of-slums-global-report-on-human- settlements-2003
55. United Nations Habitat. (2017a). New urban agenda. Ecuador. Retrieved May 25, 2022 from https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban- agenda/
56. United Nations Habitat. (2017b). Human rights in cities handbook series: The human rights-based approach to housing and slum upgrading. Nairobi. Retrieved May 27,2022 from https://unhabitat.org/the-human-rights-in-cities-handbook-series-volume-i-the-human-rights-based-approach-to-housing-and-slum-upgrading
57. United Nations Habitat. (2020). World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. Retrieved May 21, 2022 from https://unhabitat.org/World%20Cities%20Report%202020