Tarihsel Süreçte Sokak ve Caddelerin Görsel Estetik Kalitesinde Meydana Gelen Değişimi Değerlendirmede Bir Model Önerisi: Ankara’nın Ulus ve Kızılay Kent Merkezleri Örneği

Kentler tarihsel süreç içerisinde ekonomik, sosyal ve politik kararlar doğrultusunda değişmekte ve dönüşmekte bu süreç kentlerdeki sokak ve caddelerin görsel estetik kalitelerini olumlu ya da olumsuz yönde etkileyebilmektedir. Sokak ve caddelerin görsel estetik kalitelerinin korunması, iyileştirilmesi ve geliştirilmesi kentin görsel karakterinin sürdürülebilirliğini sağlamakta, bireylerin yaşam kalitesini artırmakta, kollektif kimliğin, mekâna aidiyetin ve güçlü kent imajlarının oluşumuna aracılık etmektedir. Sokak ve caddelerin görsel estetik kalitesini iyileştirmek ve geliştirmek için öncelikle görsel estetik kaliteyi etkileyen unsurların tespit edilmesi gerekmektedir. Çalışmada, Ankara’nın Ulus ve Kızılay kent merkezleri ve yakın çevresinde meydana gelen değişim ve dönüşüm sürecinin sokak ve cadde görünümlerinin görsel estetik kalitesine etkisi, tarihî ve güncel sokak görüntüleri üzerinden karşılaştırmalı olarak fraktal analize dayalı nicel ve nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin birarada kullanıldığı özgün bir model ile sorgulanmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları farklı dönemlere ait sokak görüntüleri üzerinden karşılaştırmalı sorgulamalar yapılarak kentsel mekânların görsel estetik kalitesini etkileyen unsurlara ilişkin önemli ipuçlarına ulaşılabileceğini göstermektedir.

A Suggested Model for the Evaluation of Historical Changes in the Visual Aesthetic Quality of Streets and Avenues: An Example of Ankara’s Ulus and Kızılay City Centers

Cities change and are transformed over time due to economic, social and political decisions, and this process can have either a positive or a negative effect on the visual aesthetic quality of the streets and avenues. The preservation and improvement of the visual aesthetic qualities of the streets and avenues ensures the sustainability of the visual character of the city, improves the quality of life, and also encourages collective identity, a sense of belonging, and strong urban images. It is suggested that the factors affecting visual aesthetic quality should be determined in order to improve the visual aesthetic quality of streets and avenues. This study assesses the effects of the change and transformation processes occurring in Ankara - Ulus and Kızılay city centers, as well as the effects on their immediate surroundings in terms of the visual aesthetic quality of streets and avenues. Furthermore, the factors affecting the visual aesthetic quality of streets and avenues are questioned through the use of a model in which both quantitative and qualitative research methods are used comparatively with historical and current street images. The results of the study show that by comparing street images from different periods, important clues can be obtained in regard to the factors affecting the visual aesthetic quality of urban spaces.

PDF

___

Andersen, B., ve Røe, P. G. (2017). The social context and politics of large-scale urban architecture: Investigating the design of Barcode, Oslo. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 304–317.
Akbarishahabi, L. (2017). İmgelenebilir kentsel mekânların niteliklerinin fraktal yaklaşım ile saptanması ve bir tasarım gramerinin geliştirilmesi. Yayımlanmış doktora tezi, G.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. ve Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. London: Oxford University Press.
Akkerman, A. (2000). Harmonies of urban design and discords of city-form: Urban aesthetics in the rise of western civilization. Journal of Urban Design, 5(3), 267-290.
Arnheim, R. (1977). The dynamic architectural form. California: University of California Press.
Arnheim, R. (2007). Görsel düşünme (Çev.: R. Öğdül). Ankara: Metis Yayınları.
Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known: A predictive tool for architects and planners. Environment and Behavior, 1(2), 131–156.
Baker, G. (1989). Design strategies in architecture: An approach to the analysis of form. London: E.& F.N. Spon.
Bayraktar, N., Görer Tamer, N., Tekel, A., Gürer, N., Kızıltaş, A. ve Armatlı Köroğlu, B. (2012). Görsel eğitimde yaratıcılık ve temel tasarım. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
Beardsley, M.C. (1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Beardsley, M. C. (1982). The aesthetic point of view, ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.
Berleant, A. (2005). Aesthetics and environment variations on theme. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Berlyne D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berlyne, D.E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Boeing, G. (2018). Measuring the complexity of urban form and design. Urban Design International, 23(4), 281-292.
Bonthoux, S., Chollet, S., Balat, I., Legay, N. ve Voisin, L. (2019). Improving nature experience in cities: What are people’s preferences for vegetated streets? Journal of Environmental Management, 230, 335–344.
Bostancı, S.H. ve Ocakçı, M. (2009). Kent siluetlerine ilişkin tasarım niteliklerinin entropi yaklaşımı ile değerlendirilmesi. İTÜ Dergisi Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 6(2), 27-36.
Boyer, C. (1998). The city of collective memory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity theory and planning theory: A necessary encounter. Planning Theory, 2(3), 171–178.
Carlson, C., S. Aytur, S., Gardner, K. ve Rogers, S. (2012). Complexity in built environment, health and destination walking. Journal of Urban Health, 89(2), 270–284.
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, part one: critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123–148.
Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorising contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(4), 373–405.
Chalup, S. K., Henderson, N., Ostwald, M. J. ve Wiklendt, L. (2008). A method for cityscape analysis by determining the fractal dimension of its skyline. 42nd Annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association Proceedings, 26-28 November 2008 (s.26-28). Newcastle: University of Newcastle.
Chang, H. (2020). Propositions for the aesthetic continuity of urban landscapes. Sage Journals, 1-3. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244020941851 adresinden erişildi
Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G.J., ve Song, Y. (2008). Quantitative analysis of urban form. Journal of Urbanism, 1(1), 17–45.
Cooper, J. (2003). Fractal assessment of street level skylines possible means of assessing and comparing character. Urban Morphology,7(2), 73- 82.
Cooper, J. (2005). Assessing urban character: the use of fractal analysis of street edges. Urban Morphology, 9(2), 96 -107.
Cooper, J. ve Oskrochi, R. (2013). The influence of fractal dimension and vegetation on the perceptions of streetscape quality in Taipei: with comparative comments made in relation to two British case studies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(1), 43 – 62.
Cooper, J., Watkinson, D. ve Oskrochi, R. (2010). Fractal analysis and perception of visual quality everday street vistas. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(5), 808-822.
Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. London: Architectural Press. Eaton, M. M. (1995). The social construction of aesthetic response. British Journal of Aesthetics, 35(2), 95-107.
El-Darwish, I. İ. (2019). Fractal design in streetscape: Rethinking the visual aesthetics of building elevation composition. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(3), 957–966
Ewing, R. ve Clemente, O. (2013). Measuring urban design. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Fernandes, C. O., Silva, I. M., Teixeira, C. P. ve Costa, L. (2019). Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 37, 97–108.
Forsythe, A., Nadal, M., Sheehy, N., Cela-Conde, C.J. ve Sawey, M. (2011). Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 49- 70.
Gill, H. J. (1991). Merleau-Ponty and metaphor. Humanities Press.
Gunawardena, G. M. W. L., Kubota, Y. ve Fukahori, K. (2015). Visual complexity analysis using taxonomic diagrams of figures and backgrounds in Japanese residential streetscapes. Urban Studies Research, 4, 1-2.
Günay, B. ve Selman, M. (1994). Kentsel görüntü ve kentsel estetik Örnek kent: Ankara. İ.Tekel (Yay. Haz.) Kent, planlama politika, sanat Tarık Okyay anısına yazılar içinde (s. 46-51). Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.
Günay, B. (1999). Urban design is a public policy. Ankara: METU Faculty of Architecture Press.
Günay, B. (2007). Gestalt theory and city planning education. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture METU, 24(1), 93-113.
Hagerhall, C, M., Purcell ve Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 247–255.
Hagerhall, C. M., Laike, T., Taylor, R.P., Küller, M., Küller, R. ve Martin, T.P. (2008). Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception, 37(10), 1488-1494.
Hagerhall, C. M., Laike, T., Küller, M., Marcheschi, E., Boydston, C. ve Taylor, R.P. (2015). Human physiological benefits of viewing nature: EEG responses to exact and statistical fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 19(1), 1-12.
Hamameh, S. ve Yücel Caymaz, G. F. (2020). Evaluation of Aesthetic, Functional, and Environmental Effects on the Design of Urban Open Spaces: A Case Study of İstanbul Şişhane Park, Turkey. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 4(2), 67-89.
Hartig, T. ve Staats, H, (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 215–226.
Hillier, B. ve Hanson, J. (1997). The reasoning art: or, The need for an analytical theory of architecture. London: University College London.
Huq, F.F., Shuvo, I.U.K. ve Islam, N. (2019). The essence of urban form and its relationship with urban aesthetics: A case from Rajshahi city, Bangladesh. Proceedings of the 55th ISOCARP World Planning Congress, 2019. https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3485718 (s.1215-1222) adresinden erişildi.
İstiklal Caddesi fotoğrafı. (1933-1935). Ankara, Fotoğraf ve Kartpostal Arşivi (Envanter No: 2073), Koç Üniversitesi Vehbi Koç ve Ankara Araştırmaları Merkezi (VEKAM), Ankara.
Jackson, J.B. (1970). Landscapes; selected writings of J.B. Jackson. Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Jacobsen, T. (2010). Beauty and the brain: culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation, Journal of Anatomy, 216(2), 184–191.
Jevrić, M., Knežević, M., Kalezić, J., Kopitović-Vuković, N. ve Ćipranić, I. (2014). Application of fractal geometry in urban pattern design. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 21(4), 873-887.
Jiang, B., Chang, C. Y. ve Sullivan, W.C. (2014). A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender difference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26–36.
Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B. ve Sullivan, W.C. (2015). A dose– response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 16–25.
Joye, Y. (2006). Some reections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 33(2), 143-147.
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305-328.
Kacha, L., Matsumoto, N., Mansourı, A. ve Cavalcante, A. (2013). Predicting perceived complexity using local contrast statistics and fractal information. Courrier du Savoir, 16, 89- 97.
Kaplan, R. ve Herbert, E. (1988). Familiarity and preference: A cross-cultural analysis. J. Nasar (Ed.). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (s. 379–389). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. ve Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
Kaplan, R. ve Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. ve Ryan, R. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island Press.
Kaplan, A., Taşkın, T. ve Önenç, A. (2006). Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban- fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosystems Engineering, 95(3), 437–448.
Kavaratzis, M. ve Ashworth, G. (2005). City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 506–514.
Kaya, S. H. ve Bölen, F. (2011). Kentsel dokudaki değişimin fraktal geometri yöntemiyle incelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi, 10(1), 39-50.
Lang. J. (1987). Creating architectural theory - the role of the behavioural sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Lang, J. (1988). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press
Lefebvere, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lepore, J. (2020). The history of loneliness. The New Yorker web sitesinden erişildi: https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2020/04/06/ the-history-of-loneliness
Lozano, E. (1990). Community design and the culture of cities. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. ve Carr, S. (1979). Open space: freedom and control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Macdonald, E. (2002). Structuring a Landscape, Structuring a Sense of Place. Journal of Urban Design, 7(2), 117–143.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space. An inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process Chichester: John Wiley& Sons.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London and New York: Routledge.
Mansouri, A. (2005). Analysis of the relationship between streetscape attractiveness and its fractal dimension: study on streetscape attractiveness using brainwave analysis. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, Osaka, (s.1099–1100). DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.1142.7444
Maslow, A. H. (1948). “Higher” and “lower” needs. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25, 433–436.
Mesev, T. V., Longley, P. A., Batty, M. ve Xie, Y. (1995). Morphology from imagery: detecting and measuring the density of urban land use. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 27(5), 759-780.
Moughtin, J. C. (1995). Urban design: Ornament and decoration. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Moughtin J. C. (2003). Urban design: Street and square. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Mouratidis, K. (2018). Rethinking how built environments influence subjective well- being: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place making and Urban Sustainability, 11(1), 24–40.
Mouratidis, K. (2019). The impact of urban tree cover on perceived safety. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 44, 126434.
Mouratidis, K. ve Hassan, R. (2020). Contemporary versus traditional styles in architecture and public space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos. Cities, 97, 102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102499
Müller, J. (1977). The changing city. New York: Atheneum.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the Amercan Planning Association, 53(4), 499-509.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
Nasar, J. L. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Nasar,J.L. ve Hong, X. (1999). Visual preference in urban signscapes. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 671-691.
Negami, H. R., Mazumder, R., Reardon, M. ve Ellard, C. G. (2019). Field analysis of psychological effects of urban design: A case study in Vancouver. Cities and Health, 2(2), 106-115.
Norberg-Schulz. C. (1980). Intentions in architecture. The MIT Press.
Oliver, P. (2006). Built to meet needs: Cultural issues in vernacular architecture. Architectural Press.
Oppong, R.A., Marful, A.B. ve Asare, E. S. (2017). Improving urban visibility through fractal analysis of Street edges: the case of John Evans Atta Mills High Street in Accra, Ghana. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(2), 248-260.
Öner, A.C. ve Tekel, A. (2016). Estetik refah kavramının Nasrettin Hoca temalı yapı örneğinde tartışılması. Ege Mimarlık, 26(93), 24-27.
Pettigrew, T.F. ve Tropp. L.R. (2006). A Meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Posner, J., Russell, J. A. ve Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 715–
Rapoport, A. (1977) Human aspects of urban form, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Rapoport, A. (2013). History and precedent in environmental design. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Roberts, M. ve Greed, C. (2001). Approaching urban design: the design process. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Rogge, E., Nevens, F. ve Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4), 159–174. Rollero, C. ve Piccoli, N.D. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2),198-205.
Root, E.D, Silbernagel, K. ve Litt, J.S. (2007). Unpacking healthy landscapes: Empirical assessment of neighborhood aesthetic ratings in an urban setting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 168, 38-47.
Russel, J. A. ve Pratt, G. (1980). A description of affective quality attributed to environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311–322.
Salingaros, N. A. (2000). Complexity and urban coherence. Journal of Urban Design, 5(3), 291-316.
Salingaros, N. A. (2001). Fractals in the new architecture. Archimagazine.
Salingaros, N. A. (2010). Twelve lectures on architecture: algorithmic sustainable design. Solingen: Umbau-Verlag.
Sargolini, M. (2013). The city under transformation. M.
Sargolini (Ed.). Urban landscapes: Environmental networks and quality of life içinde (s. 19–42). Springer-Verlag.
Samin, R. (2019). The amount of attitudes towards the use of urban aesthetical elements and citizenship identity: A sociological survey in three neighborhoods in Tehran, Socio-Spatial Studies, 3(6), 8-20.
Sawhill, J.C. (t.y.). The web’s largest resource for famous quotes & sayings. Quotes web sitesinden erişildi: https://www. quotes.net/quote/36566.
Scheerer, K. (2003). Introduction: cognitive components of emotion. R. J. Davidson (Ed.). Handbook of affective sciences içinde (s. 563–673). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schindler, I., Hosoya, G., Menninghaus, W., Beermann, U., Wagner, V., Eid, M. ve Scherer, K. R. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PloS ONE, 12(6). https://doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0178899
Schulz, N.C. (1971). Existence space and architecture. London: Praeger Publishers Inc.
Seresinhe, C., Preis, T., MacKerron, G. ve Moat, H. S. (2019). Happiness is greater in more scenic locations. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 4498. https://doi:10.1038/s41598-019-40854- 6.
Spehara, B., Cliffordb, C.W.G., Newellc, B.R. ve Taylord, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Journal of Computers & Graphics, 27, 813–820.
Spehara, B, Walker, N. ve Taylor, R. P. (2016). Taxonomy of individual variations in aesthetic responses to fractal patterns. Front Hum Neurosci. 8(10), 350. https://doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00350
Tang, J. ve Long, Y. (2019). Measuring visual quality of street space and its temporal variation: methodology and its application in the Hutong Area in Beijing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 191, 103436. https://doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2018.09.015
Taylor, R. P., Spehar, B., Wise, J.A., Clifford, C.W.G., Newell, B.R., Hagerhall, M.C., Purcell, T. ve Martin, T.P. (2005). Perceptual and physiological responses to the visual complexity of fractal patterns. Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 9(1), 89-114.
Taylor, R, P. (2006). Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo, 39(3), 245-250.
Tekel, A. (2015). Estetik yargı ve estetik yargıyı etkileyen faktörler. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 16, 146-157.
Tekel, A., Akbarishahabi, L., Yıldırım, K. ve Bande, B. (2016). The role of symbolic architecture on aesthetic judgment: a cross-cultural investigation on the perception of African “Calabash” figure. Gazi University Journal of Science, 29(3), 525-536.
Tekel, A. ve Savran, S. (2016). Evaluation of Ankara Esenboğa and Konya urban entrance gates in the context of aesthetic welfare. Journal of Planning, 26(1), 32-39.
Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making people-friendly towns. Harlow: Longman Group
Ulus Meydanı [Fotoğraf] (1933-1935). Fotoğraf ve Kartpostal Arşivi (2073), Koç Üniversitesi Vehbi Koç Ankara Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (VEKAM), Ankara.
Varna, G. ve Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598.
Velarde, M.D., Fry, G. ve Tveit, M. S. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes – landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(4), 199– 212.
Vihanninjoki, V. (2019). Urban places as aesthetic phenomena: framework for a place-based ontology of urban lifeworld, Topoi, 40(2), 1-10.
Weber, R. (1995). On the aesthetics of architecture. Aldershot: Avebury.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zijlema, W. L., Triguero-Mas, M., Cirach, M., Gidlow, C., Kruize, R. Grazuleviciene, R., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. ve Litt, L.S. (2020). Understanding correlates of neighborhood aesthetic ratings: A European- based four city comparison. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 47, 1-12.
Zmeškal, O., Nežádal, M. ve Buchnícek, M. (2001). Fractal analysis of image structures. HarFA - Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis, 1(1), 3-5.