Kamusal Alanlarda Heidegger’in “Yer” Yaklaşımı İle Mekan Dizim Yönteminin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Kentler, kullanıcıların yaşamlarında önemli bir deneyim üretim alanını oluşturmaktadır. Bu deneyimler ile kent parçasının kullanımı da değişmekte, çevresel ve ekonomik sonuçlar oluşturmaktadır. Bu nedenle deneyim üretiminin kaynağı hakkında pek çok çalışma yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmaların temelde 2 yönü bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan ilki kent parçalarını oluşturan mekanların kullanıcılarda deneyim üretimi sonucunda “yer” kavramına dönüşmesidir. İnşa ve iskan kavramlarının sırasını tersine çeviren bu görüş, kullanıcıların iskan ettikleri yerlerde inşa ettiklerini savunmaktadır. Bu alanda yapılmış çalışmaların diğer yönü ise kent morfolojisi gibi fiziksel ögelerden elde edilen objektif veriler ile deneyimin yoğunluğunu yani bölgenin sosyal potansiyelinin tahmin edilmesine dayanmaktadır. Bu, bilimsel yönü kuvvetli bir araştırmanın temelini oluşturmakla birlikte, önce inşa daha sonra iskan etmeyi savunan bir görüş oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bahse konu iki görüş, Heidegger’in felsefesi ve Space Syntax yöntemleri kullanılarak alan çalışması üzerinden incelenmiştir. Çalışmada metotların altında yatan felsefenin derinliklerine inmek ve güvenilirliklerini test etmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada her ne kadar bilimsel bir yöntem olarak tanımlanan metotların güvenilirlikleri yüksek olsa da, kullanıcı deneyimlerinin ölçümlerinde insan deneyimlerinin öznel olduğu, fiziksel çevre önemli olsa da başka etmenlerin de kullanıcı deneyimlerini etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçta, insan deneyimlerinin sonucunda yer deneyiminin oluştuğu, fiziksel çevrenin bu deneyimlerin bir parçası olarak değişime uğradığı göz ardı edilmemelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Heidegger
• mekan dizimi
• kamusal alan
• yer
• kent deneyimi

A Comparative Analysis of Heidegger's Approach of “Place” and Space Syntax Method in Public Spaces

Öz

Cities constitute an important experience production area in people's lives. With these experiences, the utilization of the city parts also changes, resulting in environmental and economic consequences. Therefore, there are many studies on the source of experience production in cities. These studies have two aspects. The first of these is the transformation of the spaces that form the city into the concept of “place” with the production of experience for the users. This view, which reverses the order of the concepts of construction and dwelling, argues that the users build in the places they inhabit. The other aspect of the studies conducted in this field is based on the estimation of the intensity of the experience, that is, the social potential of the region, as a result of objective data obtained from physical elements (such as urban morphology). While this forms the basis of strong scientific research, it also constitutes an opinion that advocates first construction and then settlement. This study examines these two views through fieldwork using Heidegger's philosophy and the Space Syntax method. The study aims to go deeper into the philosophy underlying the methods and to test their reliability. Although the reliability of the methods defined as a scientific method in the research is high, it has been determined that human experiences are subjective in the measurement of user experiences, and although the physical environment is important, other factors also affect user experiences. In conclusion, it should not be ignored that the place experience is formed as a result of human experiences, and the physical environment changes as a part of these experiences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Heidegger
• space syntax
• public space
• place
• urban experience

Kaynakça

1. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.
2. Carr, S. (1992). Public space. UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Crouch, D. (1998). The Street in the making of popular geographical knowledge. Nicholas R.Fyfe (Ed.), Images of the Street, London: Routledge, 158-172.
4. Crouch, D., Matless, D. (1996). Refiguring geography: parish maps of common ground. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21: 236-55.
5. Dalton, R. (2003). The Secret is to Follow Your Nose. Route Path Selection and Angularity. Environment and Behavior 35 (1): 107–131.
6. De Koning, R. E., Van Nes, A., Ye, Y., Roald, H. J. (2017) Strategies for Integrated Densification with Urban Qualities: Combining Space Syntax with Building Density, Land Usage, Public Transport and Property Rights in Bergen City. In: Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, July 2017.
7. Demirtaş, M. (2014). Heidegger’de Varlığın Anlamı ve Kökensel Düşünme. Düşünme Dergisi, 3(6), 37-46.
8. Dhanani, A., Tarkhanyan, L., Vaughan, L. (2017). Estimating Pedestrian Demand for Active Transport Evaluation and Planning. Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice 103: 54–69.

9. Dursun, P. (2007). Space Syntax in Architectural Design. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul, 056:1-12.
10. Dursun, P., Saglamer, G., (2003), Spatial Analysis of Different Home Environments in the City of Trabzon, J. Hanson (Ed.), Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, University College London, 17-19 June 2003, 2:54-54.18.
11. Dwimirnani, P., Karimi, K. (2017). Space After Dark: Measuring the Impact of Public Lighting at Night on, Visibility, Movement, and Spatial Configuration in Urban Parks. In: Proceedings of the 11 th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, July 2017.
12. Elden, S. (1999). Heidegger's Hölderlin and the Importance of Place, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 30(3): 258-274, DOI: 10.1080/00071773.1999.11007260
13. Glesne, C., Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. New York, NY: Longman Publishers.
14. Gündoğdu, M., 2014. Mekan Dizimi Analiz Yöntemi ve Araştırma Konuları. Art- Sanat, 2: 251-274.
15. Gündüz, O. (2005). Bilim, Teknoloji ve Sanat Üzerine: Martin Heidegger Düşüncesinde Bir Yolculuk. Kaygı(4), 104-110.
16. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeo
17. Heidegger, M. (1950) 'The Thing', originally delivered as a lecture to the Bayerischen Akademie der Schonen Kunsce, 1950. Translated by Alben Hofstadter in Poetry Language Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1971).
18. Heidegger, M. (1971). The Thing. M. Heidegger içinde, Poetry, Language, Thought (A. Hofstadter, Çev., s. 163-180). New York: Harper and Row.
19. Heidegger, M. (2004). İnşa Etmek Oturmak Düşünmek. Kutadgu Bilig Felsefe - Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi(6), 45-55.
20. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21. Hillier, B. (2002). A Theory of the City as Object: or, How Spatial Laws Mediate the Social Construction of Urban Space, Urban Design International, 7: 153–179.
22. Hillier, B., & Iida, S. (2005). Network and Psychological Effects in Urban Movement. In A. G. Cohn & D. M. Mark (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory (Vol. 3693, pp. 475–490). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_30
23. Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597237.
24. Hillier, B., L. Vaughan. (2007). The City as One Thing, Progress in Planning, 67(3): 205–230.
25. Karimi, K. (2018). Space syntax: consolidation and transformation of an urban research field, Journal of Urban Design, 23:1, 1-4, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2018.1403177
26. Karimi, K., and Parham, E. (2012). An Evidence Informed Approach to Developing an Adaptable Regeneration Programme for Declining Informal Settlements. In: Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago, Chile, January 2012.
27. Koohsari, M. J., Kaczynski, A. T., Mcormack G. R., Sugiyama, T., (2014). Using Space Syntax to Assess the Built Environment for Physical Activity: Applications to Research on Parks and Public Open Spaces, Leisure Sciences, 36:2, 206-216, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2013.856722
28. Liu, X., & Jiang, B. (2012). Defining and generating axial lines from street center lines for better understanding of urban morphologies. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(8): 1521–1532.
29. Major, M. D. (2018). The Syntax of City Space: American Urban Grids. London: Routledge.
30. Malpas, J. (2006). Heidegger’s Topology: Being, Place, World. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
31. Marcus, L., Giusti, M., Barthel. S. (2016). Cognitive Affordances in Sustainable Urbanism: Contributions of Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition. Journal of Urban Design 21 (4): 439–452. doi:10.1080/1357 4809.2016.1184565.
32. Maureira, V., and Karimi, K. (2017). The Everyday and the Post-Disaster Urban Systems as One Thing: A Configurational Approach to Enhance the Recovery and Resilience of Cities Affected by Tsunamis. In: Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, July 2017.
33. McCahil, C., Garrick, N. (2008). The Applicability of Space Syntax to Bicycle Facility Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. [Online] 2074, 46–51. Available from: doi:10.3141/2074-06.
34. McGlynn, S. (1993), Reviewing the rhetoric. Hayward, R. And McGlynn, S. (Eds.), Making better places, urban design now, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
35. Miao, P. (2001). Introduction (eds: Pu Miao eds). İçinde: Public Places in Asia Pacific Cities: Current Issues and Strategies. USA: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, ISBN 978-90-481-5739-6.
36. Montello, D. R. (2007). The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. Istanbul: 6 International Space Syntax Proceedings, IV, 1–12.
37. Netto, V. M. (2016). ‘What is Space Syntax not’: Reflections on Space Syntax as Sociospatial Theory. Urban Design International. 21(1): 25-40.
38. Peponis, J., Ross, C., Rashid, M. (1997). The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: The case of Atlanta. Geoforum, 28(3–4): 341–358.
39. Poldma, T., Labbe, D., Bertin, S., Grosbois, E. D., Barile, M., Mazurik, K., Desjardins, M., Herbane, H., Artis, G. (2014). Understanding people’s needs in a commercial public space: About accessibility and lived experience in social settings. ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 8:206–216
40. Raford, N., Chiaradia, A., Gil, J. (2007). Space Syntax: The Role of Urban Form in Cyclist Route Choice in Central London. [Online]. Accessed June 17 2012. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qz8m4fz#page-3
41. Ruppert, E. S. (2006). Rights to Public Space: Regulatory Reconfigurations of Liberty, Urban Geography, 27:3, 271-292, DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.27.3.271.
42. Ryan, S. (2009). Heidegger's Topology: Being, Place, World, 87(1): 169-171, DOI: 10.1080/00048400802587481
43. Seamon, D. (2007). A Lived Hermetic of People and Place: phenomenology and space syntax. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul, 2007, iii01-iiii16.
44. Sharr, A. (2010). Mimarlar için Heidegger. (V. Atmaca, Çev.) İstanbul: YEM Yayınları.
45. Sharr, A. (2017). Heidegger'in Kulübesi. (E. Yurt, Çev.) İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları.
46. Shen, Y., Karimi, K. (2016) Urban Function Connectivity: Characterisation of Functional, Urban Streets with Social Media Check-in Data. Cities 55: 9–21.
47. URL 1: https://www.commonground.org.uk/parish-maps/
48. URL 2. https://land.copernicus.eu/local/urban-atlas
49. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Project for Public Spaces.