Kuram ve Pratik Arasında Peyzaj: Kentin Karşıtı mı, Kentsel Süreçlerin Katalizörü mü?

Öz

Michel Foucoult (1997)’a göre, bahçeler, toplumsal normlara dâhil olmayan, mevcut üretim tarzı ile ilişkili olmayan, mevcut erk ve baskın ideoloji tarafından türdeşleştirilmeyen alanlar olarak heterotopya mekanlarından biridir. Peki ya peyzaj da bu sınıfa girmekte midir? Bu yazı, peyzajı ana çalışma alanı olarak tanımlayan peyzaj mimarlığı kuramı ve pratiklerinde bu sorunun cevabını aramaktadır. Yirminci yüzyıl başında Amerika’da peyzaj mimarlığı disiplini içerisinde kurumsallaşmasından günümüze kadar peyzaj kavramına, heterotopya fikrini çağrıştıracak şekilde, kentin ötekisi, pastoral estetik, pasif bir kent parçası, ya da alternatif bir kentleşme modeli gibi değişen anlamlar yüklenmiştir. Bu makale, peyzajın kuramsal olarak kentin karşısında konumlandırılma biçimlerini ortaya koymakta, ancak buna rağmen pratiklerinin kentsel dinamiklerle ve kapitalist birikim süreçleriyle ilişkilerini ortaya koymaktadır. Yazının amacı, literatür taraması ve gömülü teori araştırma modelini kullanarak, heterotopya olarak peyzajın kentsel üretim biçimleriyle ayrı tutulamaz ilişkisini ortaya koymak ve peyzaj kavramına kuramsal ve pratiksel bir bütünlükle yaklaşmanın olasılıklarına ışık tutmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• peyzaj
• kent
• heterotopya
• peyzaj mimarlığı kuramı
• kentsel süreçler
• peyzaj mimarlığı
• kuram ve pratik

Landscape in-between Theory and Practice: Antithesis to the City or Catalyst of Urban Process-es?

Öz

According to Michel Foucoult (1997), gardens are one of the heterotopia spaces that are not included in social norms, irrelevant to the existing mode of production, and cannot be homogenized by the existing power and dominant ideology. But does landscape fall into this category? This article seeks answer to this question in landscape architecture theory and practices whose main area of study is landscape. Since the institutionalization of landscape architecture discipline in America at the beginning of the twentieth century until today, various meanings has been attributed to the concept of landscape such as the other of the city, pastoral aesthetics, passive urban part, or an alternative urbanization model, that were evoking the idea of heterotopia. Using literature review and embedded theory research model, this article points out the theoretical positions of landscape against the city as heterotopia, nevertheless how their responses in spatial practices are related to urban dynamics and capitalist accumulation processes. The aim of the article is to reveal the inseparable relationship between landscape and urban processes and to shed light on the possibilities of evaluating the concept of landscape with a theoretical and practical integrity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• landscape
• city
• heterotopia
• landscape architecture theory
• urban processes
• landscape architecture
• theory and practice

Kaynakça

1. Beilin, R. (2013). Book review: The Essential Ian McHarg: Writings on design and nature. F. R. Steiner (Ed), Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics, 26. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9217-y.
2. Belanger, P. (2012). Landscape Infrastructure: Urbanism beyond Engineering. S. N. Pollalis, D. Schodek, A. Georgoulias, S. J. Ramos (Ed), Infrastructure Sustainability & Design (s. 276-315) içinde. London: Routledge.
3. Berman, M. (2004). Katı Olan Herşey Buharlaşıyor. İstanbul: İletişim.
4. Bingöl, E. (2019). Peyzaj tasarımında arazi kavramına çağdaş yaklaşımlar: Arazi’yi çoklu ölçekler, ilişkiler, süreçler ve deneyimler üzerinden okumak. Y.Aksoy (Ed.), Mimarlıkta Peyzaj Tasarımı (s. 147-176) içinde. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
5. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford.
6. Cohen, L. (2004). A consumers’ republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 236-239. doi:10.1086/383439.
7. Corner, J. (1999). Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8. Corner, J.(2006). Terra Fluxus. Charles Waldheim (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader (s 21-33) içinde. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

9. Cronon, W. (1996). Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. New York: W.W. Norton.
10. Duany, A.ve Talen, E. (2013). Landscape urbanism and its discontents. BC: New Society Publishers.
11. Eisenman, T.S. (2013). Frederick Law Olmsted, Green Infrastructure, and the Evolving City. Journal of Planning History, 4(12), 287-311. doi:10.1177/1538513212474227.
12. Erten, E. (2009). Algıdan hayalgücüne: resimsi” İngiliz bahçesinde doğa algısı ve kurgusu. Mimarlar Odası Yayınları, Dosya 17: Mimarlık ve Mekan Algısı, 37-46. http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/dosya/dosya17.pdf
13. Farhat, G. (2008). Open space and infrastructure networks in the Val de Bièvre metropolitan area (Paris). Journal of Landscape Architecture, 3, 56-67. doi:10.1080/18626033.2008.9723396
14. Foucault, M. (1997). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias. N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture- a reader in cultural theory (s. 329-357) içinde. Londra: Routledge.
15. Field Operations, (2002). Fresh Kills landsfill to landscape design competition design report. New York.
16. Görmüş, S. (2019). Peyzajın doğa ile akrabalık kombinasyonları üzerine. Peyzaj - Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 1, 1-8. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/758450
17. Jackson, J. B. (1984). Concluding with Landscapes. J.B. Jackson (Ed.), Discovering the Vernacular Landscape (s.145-158) içinde. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
18. Gissen, D. (2009). Subnature: Architecture’s other environments., New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
19. Glaeser, E. L. ve Shapiro, J. (2001). Is there a new urbanism?The growth of U.S. Cities in the 1990s. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper Number 1925. Massachusetts: Cambridge.
20. Hall, L. (1995). Olmsted’s America: An ‘‘Unpractical’’ Man and His Vision of Civilization. Boston, MA: Bulfinch Press.
21. Harvey, D. (2002). Spaces of Capital: Towards a critical geography. New York: Routledge.
22. Herrington, S. (2010). The nature of ıan mcharg’s science. Landscape Journal, Sayı 29. doi:10.3368/lj.29.1.1
23. Hill, K. (2001). Urban ecologies: Biodiversity and urban design. Case: Downsview Park Toronto, Harvard Design School PRESTEL, 91-101.
24. Kaplan, A. (2020). Peyzaj(lar)ın dinamik bağlamı üzerinden tasarımı ve (İnter) disipliner boyutu. Y.Aksoy (Ed.), Mimarlıkta Peyzaj Tasarımı (s. 23-42) içinde. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
25. Kaya, M.E. (2017). Peyzaj ve mimarlığı üzerine derlemeler, XXI Mimarlık Dergisi. https://xxi.com.tr/i/peyzaj-ve- mimarligi-uzerine-derlemeler.
26. Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan. London: Thames & Hudson.
27. Krueckeberg, D.A. (1994). The American planner: Biographies & recollections. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers CUPR.
28. Kwinter, S. (2008). Far from equilibrium: Essays on technology and design culture. Barcelona: Actar.
29. Lougran, K. (2014). Parks for profit: the high line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City and Community, 13(1)., 49-68. doi:10.1111/cico.12050.
30. Lyster, C. (2006). Landscapes of Exchange: Re-articulating Site. C. Waldheim (Ed.), Landscape Urbanism Reader (s. 219-238) içinde. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
31. McHarg, I. (1969) Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press.
32. McHarg, I. (2006). Ecology and Design. F. R. Steiner (Ed.), The Essential Ian McHarg: Writings on Design and Nature içinde. Washington: Island Press.
33. McHarg, (1965). Plan for the Valleys vs. Spectre of Uncontrolled Growth. Landscape Architecture Magazine 55(3), 179-181.
34. Meinig, D W (1979). Introduction. D.W. Meinig (Ed.), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Geographical Essays (s. 1-3) içinde. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Meyboom, A. (2009). Infrastructure as Practice. Journal of Architectural Education, Alternative Architectures: Alternative Practice, 4(62), 72-81. doi:10.1111/j.1531-314X.2009.01006.x
36. Meyer, E. (1997). The Expanded Field of Landscape Architecture. G. Thompson ve F. Steiner (Ed.), Ecological Design and Planning. (s. 45-79) içinde. New York: John Wiley Press.
37. Mikesell, M. (1968). Landscape. Sills, D.L (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Cilt 8, (s. 575-80) içinde. New York: Collier and Macmillan.
38. Molotch, H. (1976). The City as Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. American Journal of Sociology 82, 2, 309–332. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/226311.
39. Mostafavi, M. (2003). Landscapes of Urbanism. M. Mostafavi ve C. Najle (Ed.), Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape (s. 4-8) içinde. London: Architectural Association.
40. Mumford, E. (2009). Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline 1937–69. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
41. Olmsted, F.L. (1868). Mr. Olmsted’s Report (October 1st, 1868).
42. Olmsted, F. L. (1886). Law Notes on the Plan of Franklin Park and Related Matters. Boston, MA: Park Department.
43. Olmsted, F. L. (1895). Parks, Parkways and Pleasure Grounds. Engineering Magazine, 9, 253-54.
44. Pahl, R. E. (1975). Whose city? And further essays on urban society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
45. Peck, J., Nik, T., Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations. SAIS Review 29, 1, 49–66. doi:10.1353/sais.0.0028.
46. Quintana, M. (2006, 8 August). Changing Grid: Exploring the Impact of the High Line. Streeteasy. https://streeteasy.com/blog/changing-grid-high-line/
47. Rogers, E. (2001). Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. New York: Harry N.Abrams Inc.
48. Sassen, S. (2005). The Global City: Introducing a Concept, Journal of World Affairs 11(2), 27-43.
49. Smith, N. (2006). Yeni Küresellik, Yeni Şehircilik: Küresel Kentsel Strateji Olarak Soylulaştırma, Planlama, 2, 13-27. https://www.spo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/fbce4c1d7c425ba_ek.pdf
50. Spirn, A. W. (1984). Granite garden: Urban nature and human design. New York: Basic Books.
51. Spirn, A.W. (1995). Constructing Nature: The legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted. W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature içinde. New York: W. W Norton & Company, Inc.
52. Spirn, A.W. (2000). Ian McHarg, Landscape Architecture, and Environmentalism: Ideas and Methods in Context. M. Conan (Ed.), Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture içinde. Washington: D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
53. Strang, G.L. (1996). Infrastructure as Landscape (Infrastructure as Landscape, Landscape as Infrastructure. Places, 10, 3. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nc8k21m.
54. Taylor, K (2008, Ekim). Landscape and Memory: cultural landscapes, intangible values and some thoughts on Asia [Öz]. 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place – between the tangible and the intangible, Quebec, Canada. http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/139/.
55. Treib, M. (1993). Modern landscape architecture. A Critical Review. Massachusets: MIT Press.
56. Van Alen Institute, (2000). Park=city : designing Downsview Park, Toronto. New York : Van Alen Institute, Projects in Public Architecture.
57. Waldheim, C. (2002). Landscape Urbanism: A Genealogy. Praxis: Journal of writing+ building, 4.
58. Waldheim, C. (2010). On Landscape, Ecology and Other Modifiers to Urbanism. TOPOS, 71.https://scenariojournal.com/article/on-landscape-ecology-and-other-modifiers/
59. Weller, R. (2014). Stewardship Now? Reflections on Landscape Architecture’s Raison d’être in the 21st Century. Landscape Journal, 33. doi:10.3368/lj.33.2.85.
60. Wilson, W H. (1980). The Ideology, Aesthetics, and Politics of the City Beautiful Movement. A. Sutcliffe (Ed.), The Rise Of Modern Urban Planning 1800- 1914 (s. 165-190) içinde. London: Mansell.
61. Yiğit, B. (2004). Yirminci yüzyıl modern tasarım akımlarının peyzaj tasarımına etkileri Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.