Kamusal; Alan / Mekan

Kamusal alan ve kamusal mekân terimleri, günlük ve akademik ifade biçimlerinde çoğunlukla birbirinin ikamesi olarak kullanılan kavramlardır. Esasen bu kullanım Türkçe'ye özgü bir durum değildir; Batı literatürü temelinde gelişen kamusal alan (public sphere) ve kamusal mekân (public space) terimlerinin İngilizce'deki kullanımı da aynı ifade karmaşası içindedir. Bu ikiz kavramların birbiri içine geçmesindeki temel sorunsal, sosyal ve mekânsal bilimler çerçevesinde geliştirilen çalışmaların her birinin kendi çerçevesinde konuyu ele alışlarından kaynaklanmaktadır. Kamusal alan ve kamusal mekân kavramlarına dair bu birbirinden farklı ele alışları Iveson eylemsel ve topografik yaklaşımlar ayırımıyla tanımlamaktadır. Buna göre topografik yaklaşımlar "kamusal" kavramını mekânsal boyutlarıyla herhangi bir kent dokusu içerisinde, o kentin haritalarında belirli bir renkle ifade edilebilecek yine "belirli bir mekân türü" olarak ele alırken; eylemsel yaklaşımlar ise kamusal olanı, kolektif eylem ve diyaloğun gerçekleşebildiği "heryer veya herhangi bir yer" olarak ifade etmektedir. Kent ve kamusallık olgularının sosyo - mekânsal fenomenler oldukları kabulü ile bu makale, hem sosyal, hem mekansal bilimler çerçevesinde gerçekleştirilen kamusal alan ve kamusal mekân çalışmaları üzerinden teorik bir tartışma ile söz konusu ikiz kavramların birbirleriyle bağlarını ve farklılıklarını ortaya koymak amacındadır. Bu anlam karmaşası içerisinde, kamusal olanın herhangi bir kentteki mekansal karşılığının daha kapsamlı tanımlanması, tasarlanması ve savunulması için; bu çalışmanın da temel motivasyonu olduğu üzere, farklı disiplinleri ortak bir zeminde biraraya getiren bütüncül bir yaklaşım çerçevesinin tariflenmesi gerekmektedir

Public; Up in the Air or in the Ordinal Scale

The terms “public sphere” and “public space” are often used interchangeably in academic and daily language. However, there are important differences in how the term “public” is conceptualized in the social and spatial sciences. Iveson (2007) frames these distinct conceptualizations as the “procedural and topographical” approaches. In the topographical approaches, “public” is considered “a specific kind of place” in a city, and can be coloured on a given map as a “public space”. On the other hand, procedural approaches describe the “public” in reference to “any place” used for “collective action and debate” using the term “public sphere”. Thus, as a further step beyond this confusion, this paper aims to establish common ground and explore the similarities and differences between these two terms, offering a multi-disciplinary interpretation of them. Based on the assumption that the city and the public are socio-spatial phenomenona, as the main contribution of this study we introduce an in-depth theoretical study combining the insights of both approaches to better decode, design and defend the public spaces of our cities

PDF

___

Arendt, H. (1998) [1958]. The Human Condition. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Banerjee, T. (2001). The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (1),9–24.
Benn, S., Gaus, G. (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm.
Brook, J., Boal, A. J. (1995). Resisting the Virtual Life: The Culture and Politics of Information. San Francisco: City Lights Books. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books.
Buchstein, H. (1997). Bytes that Bite: The Internet and Deliberative Democracy. Constellations, 4(2), 248-263.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings: Using Public Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gehl, J., Søholt, H. (2002). Public Spaces and Public Life: City of Adelaide. Adelaide, (S. Aust): Planning SA.
Habermas, J. (1974) [1964]. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New German Critique, 3, 49-55.
Habermas, J. (1991) [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge and Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hiberseimer, L. (1955). The Nature of Cities. Chicago: Paul Theobold. Hobsbwan, E. (1992). The Age of Revloution: Europe 1789-1848, London: Abacus Book.
Huurdeman, A. A. (2003). The Worldwide History of Telecommunications. New Jersey: Wiley Interscience.
Iveson, K. (1998). Putting the public back into public space. Urban Policy and Research, 16 (1), 21-33.
Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the City. Wiley: Kindle Edition.
Jacobs, J., Appleyard, D. (1987). Towards an urban design manifesto: A 1987 prologue. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 112-120.
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatization of Public Spaces. London: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) [1974]. The Production of Space. D. Nicholson-Smith (Trans). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lefebvre, H. (2009) Comments on a New State Form (1966). in State, Space, World: Selected Essays. Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden (Eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lippmann, W. (1925). The Phantom Public: A Sequel to “Public opinion”. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Loader, B. D., Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social Media Innovations in Participatory Politics. Information, Communication and Society, 14(6), 757-769.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1988). Private Production of Public Open Space: The Downtown Los Angeles Experience. PhD Diss., University of Southern California.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1993). Privatisation of Public Open Space: The Los Angeles Experience. Town Planning Review, 64 (2), 139–167.
Lynch, K. (1981). A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge: MIT Press. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2005). Public Spaces of European Cities. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 18 (1), 7-16. Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose public space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Madden, K. (2001). How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces. A. Schwartez (Ed.). New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc.
Martin, R. (2013). Public and Common(s). Places Journal, Retrieved from https://placesjournal.org/article/public-and-commons/
Mason, D. S. A. (2015). Concise History of Modern Europe: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Kindle Edition.
Merriman, J. (2009a). European Civilization (1648-1945) Lectures: The Enlightenment and the Public Sphere. Retrieved from http://oyc.yale.edu/ history/hist-202/lecture-5
Merriman, J. (2009b). European Civilization (1648-1945) Lectures: Why No Revolution in 1848 in Britain. Retrieved from http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-202/lecture-11
Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–133.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: The Guilford Press. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116.
Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History. New York: Harcourt Brace & World Inc.
Nemeth, J., Schmidt, S. (2007). Toward a Methodology for Measuring the Security of Publicly Accessible Spaces. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73 (3), 283-297.
Negt, O., Kluge, A. (1993). Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Nemeth, J., Schmidt, S. (2011). The Privatization of Public Space: Modelling and Measuring Publicness. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design. 38(1), 5-23.
Project for Public Spaces. (2000). How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc.
Raaflaub, K. A., Ober, J., Wallace, R. W. (2007). Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press. Robbins, B. (1993). The Phantom Public Sphere. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sennett, R. (1970). The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sennett, R. (2002) [1977]. The Fall of Public Man. London: Penguin.
Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. M. Sorkin (Ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Sudjic, D. (2011). The Edifice Complex: The Architecture of Power. Penguin Books: Kindle Edition.
Thompson, A. H. (1954). The Agora at Athens and the Greek Market Place. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 13(4), 9-14.
Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public Environment in Towns and Environment. London: Longman Publishing.
Tucker, R. C., Marx, K., Engels, F. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: Norton and Company Inc,
UN-Habitat. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. Kenya: UN-Habitat.
Van, M. R., Langstraat, F. (2013). Challenging the End of Public Space: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448.
Varna, G. M. (2011). Assessing the Publicness of Public Places: Towards a New Model. PhD Diss. University of Glasgow.
Varna, G., Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the Publicness of Public Space: The Star Model of Publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575-598.