Özge Yalçıner Ercoşkun, Simge Özdal Oktay

A Structural Evaluation of Urban Design Guidelines in TurkeyandThePerformance-BasedApproachfor Sustainability

Purpose Urbandesignguidelines(UDGs)providecomprehensivedocumentsthatleadtosustainable implementations in the local context. The aim and content of a UDG can differ according to the vision, aim, and associated urban plans. The most common UDG approaches in the world are prescriptive, advisory, and performance-based in order of their appearance in time. The UDGs have been applied in the United States and the United Kingdom since the beginning of the 20th century with the ultimate goalof architectural coherence and environmental sustainability. However, their use is relatively very recent in developing countries, including Turkey. Therefore, this study aims to investigate three common types of UDGs in the context of Turkey and provide a deeper understandingtheir role in achieving urban sustainability from a country-specific perspective.Design/Methodology/ApproachSeven UDGs have been found that provides a complete process and an extensive content. Three examples,IzmirKemeraltıPrescriptiveUDG,RizeAdvisoryUDG,andGaziantepBizimşehir Performance-based UDG met the selection criteria of comprehensive content, data accessibility, complete process, and comparability and examined in detail. The examples were evaluated and compared according to their integration into the urban planning system and evaluated based on aggregated sustainability criteria. Sustainability criteria set aggregated based on three sustainability frameworks -European Green City Tool, Urban Sustainability Indicators, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) –applicable to Turkey. Two out of seven UDG examples from Turkey and 11 out of 23 sustainability frameworks from the World could not be investigated further as aresult of inaccessible data.FindingsAs a result, Gaziantep Bizimsehir Performance-based UDG achieved the highest score in the overall criteria aggregated from existing and common frameworks in the world. Research Limitations/ImplicationsIt is important to validate the findings by an evaluation of locally defined sustainability criteria for Turkey. However, there is a lack of well-defined publicly available data. Originality/ValueThe results provided the first comprehensive evaluation of three common types of UDGs in the Turkish context. This study presents a detailed framework for future applications not only in Turkey but also in other regions with thesimilar context.

PDF

___

CNU, NRDC, & USGBC. (2011). LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development. USGBC. www.usgbc.org
Dogan, U. (2020). Assessing the Urban Design Quality of Turkish Cities. In A. Almusaed, A. Almssad, & L. Truong-Hong (Eds.), Sustainable Cities and Society (Vol. 56). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89779
Dokuz Eylül University Department of City and Regional Planning. (2002). Kemeralti 1. Etap Kentsel Tasarım Rehberi.
Dokuz Eylül University Department of City and Regional Planning. (2009). Kemeralti 2.Etap 1. Bölge Kentsel Tasarım Rehberi.
European Commission. (2018). In-depth-report: Indicators for Sustainable Cities (Issue 12). https://doi.org/10.2779/121865
European Commission. (2020). European Commission Green City Tool. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/greencitytool/home/
Gürler, E. (2018). The Performance of Relationship Between Instrument and Mechanism: The Hidden Value of Urban Design Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Development. In N. Charalambous, N. Z. Cömert, & Ş. Hoşkara (Eds.), 1st Regional Conference: Cyprus Network of Urban Morphology CyNUM 2018 Proceedings (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 93–108).
Hakim, B. S. (2008). Mediterranean urban and building codes: Origins, content, impact, and lessons. Urban Design International, 13(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2008.4
Hall, Arthur Crawshay (1996). Design Control: Towards a New Approach. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
HT-TTM. (2018a). Bizim Şehir Gaziantep İli Pilot Bölge Çalışması 1/1000 Uygulama İmar Planı Açıklama Raporu.
HT-TTM. (2018b). Bizim Şehir Gaziantep İli Pilot Bölge Çalışması 1/5000 Ölçekli Nazım Planı Açıklama Raporu.
HT-TTM. (2018c). Bizim Şehir Gaziantep İli Pilot Bölge Çalışması Kentsel Tasarım Rehberi (S. Özdal Oktay (ed.)). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation.
Kenttam. (2016a). Kentsel Tasarım Rehberleri Vol.I Araştırma ve Tanımlama. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/mpgm/editordosya/file/Kentsel
Karaman, A. (1999). Bir Disiplin ve Meslek Olarak Kentsel Tasarimin Yeni Konumu ve İçeriği. 1st National Urban Design Congress, 234-239, İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University,Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning
Kenttam. (2016b). Kentsel Tasarım Rehberleri Vol.II İçerik. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/mpgm/editordosya/file/Kentsel
Kenttam. (2016c). Kentsel Tasarım Rehberleri Vol.III Mevzuat. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/mpgm/editordosya/file/Kentsel
Kenttam. (2017). Kentsel Mekansal Standartların Geliştirilmesi (1st ed., Issue 1). ReRepublic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation.
Lang, J. (1996). Implementing urban design in America: Project types and methodological implications. Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809608724368
Mega, V., & Pedersen, J. (1998). Urban Sustainability Indicators. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/pubdocs/1998/07/en/1/ef9807en.pdf
MSGSÜ. (2017). Rize Kensel Tasarım Vizyonu. Rize Municipality. http://www.rize.bel.tr/dosyalar/Rize2053/Rize-2053-Kentsel-Tasarim-Vizyonu.pdf
Punter, J. (1996). Urban Design Theory in Planning Practice: The British Perspective. Built Environment (1978-), 22(4), 263–277. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23288422
Punter, J. (1999). Seattle. In Design Guidelines in American Cities (pp. 31–65). Liverpool University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gn6bsv.8
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. (2010a). KENTGES Bütünleşı̇k Kentsel Gelı̇şme Stratejı̇sı̇ve Eylem Planı 2010-2023.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. http://www.kentges.gov.tr/_dosyalar/kentges_tr.pdfRepublic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. (2010b). Urban development strategy (2010 -2023). https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/kentges/icerikler/kentges-en-20191223090807.pdf
Symes, M., & Pauwels, S. (1999). The diffusion of innovations in urban design: The case of sustainability in the Hulme development guide. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809908724440
Shirvani, H. (1990). Beyond Public Architecture: Strategies for Design Evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Yalçıner Ercoşkun, Ö., & Karaaslan, S. (2011). Guidelines for Ecological and Technological Built Environment: A Case Study on Güdül-Ankara, Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Science, 24(3), 617–636.