Kadriye Burcu Yavuz KUMLU, Şule TÜDEŞ, Ruşen KELEŞ

3018

Komşuluk Birimi Ölçeğinde Yapılı Çevreyi Biçimlendiren Planlama Kararlarına İlişkin Sonuçların Ölçülmesine Yönelik Çok Değişkenli Bir Yöntem Önerisi

Kentler, günlük yaşantının temellerini oluşturan sosyoekonomik etkinliklerin süregeldiği yapı, çevre ve insandan oluşan sistemler bütünüdür. Kenti oluşturan sistemlerin bütünlüğünün sağlanması, günlük yaşamın devamlılığının da sağlanabilmesi için gerçekleştirilmesi gereken sosyoekonomik etkinliklerin sürekliliğinin sağlanması için önemlidir. Bu çerçevede, sözü geçen sosyoekonomik etkinlikler, kentlerin yapılı çevresi kapsamında gerçekleştirilir. Kent planlaması da kentin yapılı çevresini biçimlendiren en önemli araçlardandır. Planlama yoluyla mekâna ilişkin olarak alınan arazi kullanım, yoğunluk ve komşuluk birimi tasarımına ilişkin kararlar, içinde yaşadığımız yapılı çevreyi biçimlendiren kararlardır. Yaşadığımız yapılı çevre de insanların günlük yaşantısını doğrudan etkileyebilme kabiliyetine sahiptir. Bu etkinin derecesini tespit edebilmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilecek çalışmalarda yapılı çevrenin biçimlenmesinde rolü olan planlama kararlarına ilişkin sonuçların ölçülmesi gerekmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmayla; arazi kullanımı, yoğunluk ve komşuluk birimi tasarımına ilişkin planlama kararlarıyla biçimlenen yapılı çevrenin mevcut durumunun; sırasıyla kullanım çeşitliliği, yoğunluk durumu ve belirlenen komşuluk birimi tasarım ölçütlerinin sağlanıp-sağlanmadığına yönelik sonuçlarının ele alınarak ölçülmesine ilişkin bir yöntem önerisi geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen yöntem, komşuluk birimi ölçeğindeki yapılı çevrenin arazi kullanımı, yoğunluk ve komşuluk birimi tasarımı çerçevesinde niceliksel bağlamda analizinin nasıl yapılabileceğine ilişkin varsayımsal (hypothetical) bir örnek üzerinde açıklanmıştır. Bu yöntem, esnek bir yapıya sahip olduğundan farklı komşuluk birimlerinde, farklı alt-ölçütler ele alınarak uygulanabilir. Böylelikle yapılı çevrenin arazi kullanımı, yoğunluk ve komşuluk birimi tasarımı doğrultusundaki mevcut durumu tespit edilerek, yapılı çevreyle kentlilerin ulaşım tercihleri, sağlık durumları (obezite, ruh sağlığı vb.), konut yer seçimi, toplumsallık bilinci ve aidiyeti gibi oldukça geniş bir yelpazede yer alan çeşitli olgular arasındaki ilişki belirlenebileceği gibi arazi kullanımı, yoğunluk ve komşuluk birimi tasarımı çerçevesinde yapılı çevrenin sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirliğe etkisi de tespit edilebilir.

Proposal of a Multivariate Method to Measure the Results of Planning Decisions Which Shape the Built Environment on the Neighborhood Unit Scale

Urban areas are considered as the integrated systems which are consisted of structures, environment and people, as well as they are holding the socio-economic activities that constitute the fundamentals of the everyday life. Providing the integration of the systems, which constitute the urban areas is significant in the sense that providing the maintenance of the daily life. In this context, the places, where aforesaid socioeconomic activities going on are the components of the built environment in the urban areas. Urban planning within this sense is conceived as the most important tool, which shape the components of the urban built environment. Land use, density and neighbourhood design decisions related with the urban space have a crucial role in structuring the built environment where we are living in and the built environment has the ability of directly affecting the daily life of its inhabitants. In order to determine these effects, it is required to measure the components, which shape the built environment. In this context, a method on the neighbourhood unit scale has been proposed to enable researchers to analyse numerically the built environment within the scope of land use diversity, density situation and whether the certain neighbourhood design criteria are provided, which are the results of the planning decisions related with land use, density and neighbourhood design, respectively. This proposed method could be applied to different neighbourhoods, by considering various sub-criteria. Hereby, existing situation of the built environment, in the context of land use diversity, density and neighbourhood design could be analysed numerically. Therefore, it would be possible to determine whether there is a correlation among the obtained results with the travel behaviour, medical condition (as obesity, mental health etc.), household residential choice, sense of community and place attachment etc. of the inhabitants. As well, it would be possible to confirm if there is a relation between the results of the planning decisions in the sense of land use, density and neighbourhood design characteristics of the built environment with social, environmental and economical sustainability
PDF

___

  • Alexander, E. R. (1993). Density Measures: A Review and Analysis. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 10(3), 181–203. http://www.jstor. org/stable/43031090.
  • American Planlama Derneği (2017). Characteristics and guidelines of great neighborhoods. https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/ characteristics.htm
  • Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of economic theory, 2(3), 244-263.
  • Bourne, L. S. (1976). Urban Structure and Land Use Decisions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66(4), 531–535. http://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1976.tb01108.x.
  • Boyko, C. T., & Cooper, R. (2011). Clarifying and re-conceptualising density. Progress in Planning, 76(1), 1–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.07.001.
  • Bölen, F., Türkoğlu, H. D., & Yirmibeşoğlu, F. (2009). İstanbul’da yapılaşma yoğunluğu - yaşanabilir alan ilişkisi. Itüdergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 8(1), 127–137.
  • Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., & Watkins, D. (2009). Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A, 41(9), 2125–2142. http://doi.org/10.1068/ a4184.
  • Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48. http://doi.org/10.1068/b33129.
  • Brown, B. B., Yamada, I., Smith, K. R., Zick, C. D., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Fan, J. X. (2009). Mixed land use and walkability: Variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health and Place, 15(4), 1130–1141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.008.
  • Burton, E. (2000). The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1969–2006. http://doi. org/10.1080/00420980050162184.
  • Calgary Bölgesel Birliği. (2011). Greenfield Tool Box for Implementation of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan’s Compact Settlement Land Use and Development Policies.
  • Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2003). Reviewing the evidence. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area.
  • American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1478–1483. http://doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478.
  • Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel Demand and The 3ds : Density, Design And Diversity. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1361- 9209(97)00009-6.
  • Cheng, V. (2010). Understanding density and high density. In E. Ng (Ed.), Designing high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability (pp. 3–17). London: Earthscan.
  • Churchman, A. (1999). Disentangling the Concept of Density. CPL Bibliography, 13(4), 389–411. http://doi.org/10.1177/08854129922092478. Congress for The New Urbanism. (2001). Charter of The New Urbanism.
  • Dave, S. (2009). Neighbourhood density and social sustainability in cities of developing countries. Sustainable Development. https://doi. org/10.1002/sd.433.
  • Day, K. (2003). New Urbanism and the Challenges of Designing for Diversity.
  • Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 83–95. https://doi. org/10.1177/0739456X03255424.
  • Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2012). The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning, 77(3), 89–141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2012.01.001.
  • Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). (1998). Planning research programme: The use of density in urban planning. London: TSO.
  • Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2014). The urban density assemblage: Modelling multiple measures. URBAN DESIGN International, 19(1), 66–76. http:// doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.13.
  • Duany, A., & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1994). The neighborhood, the district and the corridor. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill, New York, xvii-xx.
  • Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism: Urban design with nature. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Forsyth, A. (2003). Measuring Density : Working Definitions for Residential Density and Building Intensity. Design Center for American Urban Landscape, 8(8), 2–8.
  • Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1466, 44–52. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108.
  • Grant, J. (2002). Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(February 2015), 71–84. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944360208977192.
  • HATC. (2010). Room to swing a cat? The amount and use of space in new dwellings in London & the South East Ilkley, West Yorkshire: HATC Limited.
  • Holden, E., & Norland, I. (2005). Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: Household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the greater Oslo Region. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2145–2166. http://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500332064.
  • Hoppenbrouwer, E., & Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies, 13(7), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500242048.
  • Kısar-Koramaz, E., & Türkoğlu, H. (2010). Neighboring As asn Indicator of Social Integration in Residential Areas of Istanbul. In 14th IPHS Conference: Urban Transformation: Controversies, Contrasts and Challanges (pp. 1–10). İstanbul.
  • Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel Behavior as Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record, 1607(1), 116–125. http://doi. org/10.3141/1607-16.
  • Lau, S. S. Y., Giridharan, R., & Ganesan, S. (2005). Multiple and intensive land use: Case studies in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 29(3), 527– 546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.04.007.
  • Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546–1551. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546.
  • Manaugh, K., & Kreider, T. (2013). What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(1), 63–72. http://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v6i1.291.
  • Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. a. (1988). The Dimensions of Residential Segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281–315. http://doi.org/10.1093/ sf/67.2.281.
  • Mutlu, H. (2006). İstanbul Metropolitan Alanında kentsel Arazi Değerlerinin Mekansal Dağılımının Analizi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İTÜ.
  • Newman, P., & Hogan, T. (1981). A Review of urban density models: Toward a resolution of the conflict between populace and planner. Human Ecology, 9(3), 269–303. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00890739.
  • Park, Y., & Rogers, G. O. (2015). Neighborhood Planning Theory, Guidelines, and Research. CPL Bibliography, 30(1), 18–36. http://doi. org/10.1177/0885412214549422.
  • Perry, C. (2013). The Neighborhood Unit. Michael Larice & Elizabeth Macdonald (ed.), The urban design reader (ss. 78-89). New York: Routledge.
  • Pont, M. B., & Haupt, P. (2010). Spacematrix: space, density and urban form. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00006a&AN=m elb.b4036900&scope=site.
  • Porta, S., & Renne, J. L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International, 10(1), 51–64. http://doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000136.
  • Rohe, W. M. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neigh borhood Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209–230. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360902751077.
  • Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking? Planning Practice and Research, 11(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459650036477.
  • Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood Planning in Historical Perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(February 2015), 161–174. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944368508976207.
  • Song, Y., Merlin, L., & Rodriguez, D. (2013). Comparing measures of urban land use mix. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 42, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.08.001.
  • Song, Y., & Rodríguez, Da. (2005). Carolina Transportation Program White Paper Series The Measurement of the Level of Mixed Land Uses : A Syn thetic Approach.
  • Srinivasan, S. (2002). Quantifying Spatial Characteristics of Cities. Urban Studies, 39(11), 2005–2028. http://doi.org/10.1080/004209802200001133
  • Talen, E. (1999). Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form : An As sessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism, 36(8), 1361–1379.
  • Taylor, Z., & Nostrand, J. (2008). Shaping the Toronto Region, Past, Present, and Future.
  • Terzi, F., & Bölen, F. (2010). İstanbul’da şehirsel saçaklanmanın ölçülmesi. Itüdergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 9(2), 166–178.
  • Türkoğlu, H. D. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 55–67.
  • Witten, K., Blakely, T., Bagheri, N., Badland, H., Ivory, V., Pearce, J., … Schofield, G. (2012). Neighborhood Built Environment and Transport and Leisure Physical Activity: Findings Using Objective Exposure and Out come Measures in New Zealand. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(7), 971–977. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104584.
  • Yang, Y. (2008). A Tale of Two Cities: Physical Form and Neighbor hood Satisfaction in Metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 307–323. http://doi. org/10.1080/01944360802215546.
  • Yigitcanlar, T., Dur, F., & Dizdaroglu, D. (2014). Towards prosperous sus tainable cities: A multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach. Habitat International, 45, 36–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.033.
PLANLAMA-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-7319
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1986
  • Yayıncı: TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Komşuluk Birimi Ölçeğinde Yapılı Çevreyi Biçimlendiren Planlama Kararlarına İlişkin Sonuçların Ölçülmesine Yönelik Çok Değişkenli Bir Yöntem Önerisi

Kadriye Burcu Yavuz KUMLU, Şule TÜDEŞ, Ruşen KELEŞ

Tarihi, Kültürel ve Doğal Değerlerin Korunması ve Yönetiminde Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Çanakkale Savaşları Gelibolu Tarihi Alanı

Dilek ERBEY

Bir ‘‘Planlama Örneği” Olarak Köy Enstitüleri Deneyimi

Gül ŞİMŞEK, Cansın MERCANOĞLU

Site ve Mahalle Yerleşimlerinde Açık Alan Oyunlarının Karşılaştırılması: Tekirdağ Örneği

Okşan TANDOĞAN

Mekânın Üretimi ve Lefebvre’in Mekânsal Üçlü Kavramsallaştırmasının Görünürlüğü: Taksim Gezi Parkı Örneği

Pınar YURDADÖN ASLAN, NURİ YAVAN

Suç Korkusu Konusunda Bir İnceleme: Kadıköy Örneği

Nilgün Çolpan ERKAN, Beril SEVİN