Occupants creating their own spaces without thinking as a real designer: A revolt and a routine

Urban design literature refers to the spatial characteristics of places that are transformed into behavioral patterns through regular use in an open space and how they are used. However, they do not mention the characteristics of the spaces which are transformed into places of short-term interaction with extraordinary and innovative uses, their intended use and the relationship between the people. This study aims to reveal the differences between the regular uses of urban open spaces and the unusual and innovative (insinuate) uses and the spatial characteristics and behavioral characteristics of the places created by the users. Half-participant behavior was observed in the study. In order to determine the behaviors at the observation points, the observations were designed as 15 minutes observation and 10 minutes break for 3 days (75 minutes). While the physical properties of the spaces chosen for behavioral patterns and unusual uses were similar, it was found that they differed in terms of spatial definitions, duration of use of space and relationships between people. The study of the disciplines that are interested in urban design only in open spaces, and the inability to include the effects of this on human behaviors and the infiltration into the space cause the emergence of gaps in such studies. With this study, it was concluded that urban open spaces, where both infiltration and behavior patterns were made together, were more effective in exchanging ideas and making joint activities.

PDF

___

Düzenli, T., Alpak, E.M. & Özbilen, A. (2017). Gençlerin kampüs açık mekân kullanımlarına mekânsal özelliklerin etkisi: KTÜ Kanuni Kampüsü Örneği. Journal of Human Sciences, 14 (3), 2417-2435

Aelbrecht, P. S. (2016). Fourth Places: The Contemporary Public Settings Informal Social Interaction among Strangers. Journal of Urban Design, 21, 1, 124-152

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). APattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 599-602

Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: Diversion of the physical environment in a re-appropriation proces. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8, 1, 26-41

Bäckma, M. & Rundqvist, M. (2005). Social Space in a City of Life: The case of Hanoi. Spatial Planning at Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karslkrona, Sweden, p. 47-90.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology; Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environments of Human B ehav ior. Stanford Universtiy Press, Stanford, California, p. 18-185

Becker, F. & Coniglio, C. (1975). Environmental Messages: Personalization and Territory. Humanities, 11, 55-74

Bilgin N. (1990). Fiziki Mekândan İnsani ya da İnsanlı Mekâna. Mimarlık, 3, 62-65.

Cilliers J. E., Timmermans W., Den Goorbergh F.V. & Slijkhuis J. (2015). Green Place making in Practice: From Temporary Spaces to Permanent Places. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 3, 349–366

de CERTEAU M. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 38-39

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: An Introduction, John Wiley,Sons, p. 1-18

Dines, N. & Cattell, V. (2006). In: Public Spaces, Social Relations and Well-being. The Policy Press, Bristol, p. 13-18, 26-30

Düzenli, T., Bayramoğlu E. & Özbilen A. (2010). Needs and preferences of adolescents in open urban spaces. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 201-216

Edinger, E.C. (2014). Examining Space Perceptions. Combining Visual and Verbal Data with Reactive and Non- Reactive Methods in Studies of the Elderly and Library Users. Historical Social Research, 39, 2, 181-202

Enigbokan, A. (2016). Delai Sam: Social Activism as Contemporary Art in the Emerging Discourse of DIY Urbanism in Russia. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability,9, 2, 101-116

Eren, T. E., Düzenli, T. & Akyol, D. (2018). Pedestrianization of Streets in Urban Center: The Trabzon Kahraman Maras Street Case. MEGARON 13(3), 480-491

Fabian, L. & Samson, K. (2015). Claiming Participation – a Comparative Analysis of DIY Urbanism ın Denmark. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place making and Urban Sustainability, 9, 2, 166-184

Fry G, Tveit, M. S., Ode, A. & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9, 933-947

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings, New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, p. 11-31

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People,Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London, p. 75-87

Harrison-Pepper, S. (1990). Drawing a Circle in The Square: Street Performing in New York’s Washington Square Park. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, p. 126-127

Henk De Haan. (2005). Social and Material Appropriation of Neighbourhood Space: Collective Space and Resistance in a Dutch Urban Community, p. 7-10

Kärrholm, M. (2005). Territorial Complexity in Public Places – a Study of Territorial Production at Three Squares in Lund. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 99-114

Kärrholm,” M. (2007). A Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday Life of Public Space, Space and Culture, 10, 4, 437-453

Kärrholm, M. (2008). The Territorialisation of a Pedestrian Precinct in Malmö: Materialities in the Commercialisation of Public Space, Urban Studies, 45, 9, 1903–1924

Kaya, İ.A. & Görgün, E.K. (2017). Kentsel Mekân Üretiminde ‘Kendin Yap’ Hareketi. Planlama, 27, 1, 57–74

Kyle, G., Bricker, K., Graefe, A. & Wickham, T., (2004). An Examination of Recreationists’ Relationships with Activities and Settings. Leisure Sciences,26(2), 123-142

Laurier, E. & Philo, C. (2006). Cold Shoulders and Napkins Handed: Gestures of Responsibility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 193-207.

Lefebvre, H. (1992). Critique of ev-eryday life: Vol. 1. Introduction. London, England: Verso, p. 87

Lofland, L. (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, p. 25-71

Lydon, M. & Garcia, T. (2015). Chap-ter 1: Disturbing the Order of Things.In Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change (Lydon and Garcia eds.), 1-23.

Island PressMehta, V. (2007). Lively Streets: Determining Environmental Characteristics to Support Social Behaviour, Journal of Planning Education and Re-search, 27, 165-187

Mehta, V. (2009). Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets. Journal of Urban Design, 14, 1, 29–64

Mumcu, S., Yilmaz, S. & Özbilen, A. (2013). Ekolojik yaklaşımlar doğrultusunda çevresel tercih modeli. SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal, 14, 143-151

Peters K., Elands B. & Buijs, A. (2010). Social İnteractions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9, 93–100

Pfeifer, L. (2013). The Planner’s Guide to Tactical Urbanism, p. 4-8

Ruppert, E. S. (2006). Rights to Public Space: Regulatory Reconfigurations of Liberty. Urban Geography, 27, 271-292

Simpson, P. (2011). Street Performance and the City: Public Space, Sociality, and Intervening in the Everyday. Space and Culture, 14, 415-430

Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p. 19-60

Wells, M. M. (2000). Office Clutter or Meaningful Personal Dispalys: The Role of Office Personalization in Employee and Organizational Well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 239-255

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC: The Conservation Foundation, p. 16-50

Yuen, B. & Chor, C. H. (1998). Pe-destrian streets in Singapore, Tran sp or-tation, 25, 225–24