Spatial situations of ordinary actions encountered in everyday life and spatial practices occurred related to these phenomena are mostly ambiguous in the city layers. When examining İstanbul as a ‘palimpsest’ city, the spatial practices in eve- ryday life, how they work and affect society and culture are questioned together in the scope of this study. The aim of this study can be summed up as to discover the characteristics of ‘conversation’ as a simple/ordinary form of dialogue in eve- ryday life that produces space. In the research the meaning is attributed not to the place; to the spatial practices that have emerged in that place and the spatialities are being tested. In this regard, theoretical back ground has been built, enabling us to explore the spatial features appeared about the practice producing the space. This study has been searched the spatial practices and the dynamics triggering the production of space regarding daily life of an urban layer in İstanbul; Çorlulu Ali Paşa Madrasah known as ‘Conversation Space’. The emphasis of this study is that it will argue that conversation may create an interview environment, that this interview environment may both carry the potential of creating an alternative ‘living dialogue space’, and may be grasped as a channel of an alternative social fact/communalism. With establishment of the links with urban strata, revealing the palimpsest urban spaces have been changing and transforming continuously, relationship networks appeared in these spaces and the characteristic features will begin to be explored.
Alexander, C. (1965; 2013). A City is Not a Tree. The Urban Design Reader. 2nd ed. by Michael Larice and Eliza- beth Macdonald. USA, Canada: Rout- ledge, 152-166.
Barthes, R. (1982). Göstergebilim ve Şehircilik. Mimarlık. Çev. Korhan Gümüş ve İhsan Bilgin. 82 (11-12), 15- 19.
Barthes, R (1989). Yazının Sıfır Derecesi. Trans. Tahsin Yücel. İstanbul: Metis Yay.
Borden, I. M. (2012). Beyond Space: The Ideas of Henri Lefebvrein Relation to Architecture and Cities. Journal of Chinese Urban Science. 3 (1), 156-193.
Borlandi, M. ve diğ. (2011). Sosyolojik Düşünce Sözlüğü. Trans. Bülent Arıbaş, İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Degenne, A. ve Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing Social Networks. London: SAGE Publications.
Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklo- pedisi (1994). Çorlulu Ali Paşa Külliye- si. Vol. 2. p. 527. İstanbul: Ana Basım AŞ.
Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebve: Theory and the Possible. London: Continuum.
Foucault, M. (2006). Sonsuza Giden Dil. Çev. Işık Ergüden. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yay.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1959; 2004) Günlük Yaşamda Benliğin Sunumu. İstanbul, Metis Yay.
Height, C. Hensel M. ve Menges, A. (2009) En Route. Space Reader: Hetero- geneous Space in Architecture. UK: Wi- ley. Sf. 7-35
Lefebvre, H. (1974; 1991) The Pro- duction Of Space. Trans. Donald Nich- olson-Smith. Oxford: Cambridge, Blackwell.
Merrifield, A. (2000) Henri Lefe- bvre: A Socialist in Space. Thinking Space. Edt. Mike Crang ve Nigel Thrift. London: Routledge.
Özer, G. (2015) “Diyalog mekanları: Diyalogun mekan üretimi ve gündelik hayattaki mekânsal pratiklerinin deşifre edilmesi” (Unpublished master’s thesis, Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Aslıhan
Şenel). İstanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineer- ing and Technology, İstanbul.
Piaget, J. (1977). Epistemology and Psychology of Functions. Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.
Pope, A. (2009). Mass Absence. Space Reader: Heterogeneous Space in Architecture. Edt. C. Height, M. Hensel ve A. Menges. UK: Wiley. (52-71).
Shields, R. (1999). Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. Lon- don: Routledge.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Realand-Imag- ined Places. Oxford:Cambridge, Black- well.