​ARCHITECTURAL NOTION OF FREEDOM AND PARTICIPATION AND ITS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACES

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 31 - 42, 01.04.2019

Isra Tatlıć

Öz

The application of social plan and vision, whether it is written utopias or their models, is achieved through a system of norms and limitations. The society or the state propounds such systems by law, while the architect or planner applies them through design. The use of freedom and control in order to manage design and its contextualization is the central aspect of the system of norms. They represent the main tools used in the strategy of thinking of settlements, cities and states. The concept of freedom and control in philosophy is observed in relation to two different views. The first point concerns the metaphysical condition of the human being, while others consider their political status. May 2011, 71 According to Todd May, metaphysical freedom denies full determination of human life and in a sense recognizes the existence of certain control of thoughts and behaviours. The second type, according to May, analyses the freedom that an individual has or not in relation to a particular society. May 2011, 73 Participatory design, most commonly associated with the concept of freedom of decisionmaking, possesses specific methodological processes but also specific typological determinations. The most common use of participation is in urban planning and housing architecture, which demonstrates its link to private and semi-private spaces and mainly individual rights, while preserving the community. This relationship changes in public architecture, where the decision-making process is predominantly realized at the macro level or the topdown principle in the form of projective reality. What spatial character should public spaces have, especially the civil service whose purpose is to apply democracy and achieve equality? Does the reduction of control of a macro social level achieve the requirements of a particular user or community, and what are the public physical structures that determine the spatial quality of freedom?

Anahtar Kelimeler

architectural design, freedom and control, participation, politics of space

Kaynakça

• Alexander C.Tzonis, L. L. (2005). In the Name of the People; The Populist Movement in Architecture. In D. R. Michael Shamiyeh (Ed.), What People Want, Populism in Architecture and Design (pp. 289-306). Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser.
• Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. pp. 216-224.
• Aureli, P. V. (2011). City as political form. Architectural Design, 81(1), pp. 32-37.
• Aureli, P. V. (2011). The possibility of an absolute architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Bloom, B. (2013, 04 17). Superkilen:Participatory park extreme Retrieved from Mythological Quarter: http:// mythologicalquarter.net/2013/04/17/2013416superkilen-participatory-park-extreme/
• Fox, W. (2000). Ethics and the built environment. London; New York: Routledge.
• Fuchs, C. (2002). Concepts of Social Self-Organisation. Vienna University of Technology. Vienna: Human Strategies in Complexity.
• Habraken, N. (1998). The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Enviroment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Hamdi, N. (1991). Housing Without Houses: Participation, Flexibility, Enablement. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
• Jones, P. B. (2005). Sixty-eight and after. In P. B. Jeremy Till (Ed.), Architecture and Participation. London: Spon Press.
• Lefebvre, H. (2009). Dialectical Materialism. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
• May, T. (2011). Foucault’s conception of freedom. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Michael Foucault, Key Concepts (pp. 71-83). Durham: Acumen.
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Redfield, R. (1953). The Primitive World and Its Transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.
• Senett, R. (2004). Las ciudades norteamericanas. Bifurcaciones: revista de estudios culturales urbanos, 01.
• Sennet, R. (2007). La ciudad abierta. Otra parte, 11, pp. 26-32.
• Till, J. (2005). The Negotiation of Hope. In P. Blundell-Jones, D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds.), Architecture and participation (pp. 23-43). New York : Spon Press.
• Toker, Z. (2007). Recent trends in community design: the eminence of participation. Design Studies, 28(3), pp. 309-327.