Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Use of public spaces in private space-led urbanization: The cases of Kadıköy and Ataşehir in İstanbul

Pages
43–56
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article has for main parts, introduction clarifies the problem, the second part summarizes the debates on public space and publicness, the third part shows the results of the field re-search, and the last part includes results and conclusions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Public spaces have been in interrogation in last decades.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The focus of the dis-cussions is privatization of public spaces, regarding the way of urbanization.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article has for main parts, introduction clarifies the problem, the second part summarizes the debates on public space and publicness, the third part shows the results of the field re-search, and the last part includes results and conclusions.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Public spaces have been in interrogation in last decades. The focus of the dis-cussions is privatization of public spaces, regarding the way of urbanization. The approaches to the publicness of public spaces developed via diverse consider-ations such as the ambiguous meanings of the concepts of public and private, the role of public institutions, and control on public spaces. These approaches basi-cally depend on the experiences of advanced capitalist societies. In this research, the aim is to understand the basic characteristics of public spaces in terms of user profiles and user habits in Istanbul in two distinctive districts in Asian side. The public space literature on İstanbul suffers from the lack of the research depending on field survey. Hence, one of the areas is Kadıköy which is located in central part, and urbanized in a conventional fashion. The other one is West Ataşehir developed in the last decade, and built up as a constellation of gated communities, which is called private space-led urbanization in this research. Also, West Ataşe-hir is announced as a new CBD, the so called “Finance Centre of Istanbul”. The findings of field research are interesting in terms of similar profiles of users, and quite different with regard to user habits in both cases. The article has for main parts, introduction clarifies the problem, the second part summarizes the debates on public space and publicness, the third part shows the results of the field re-search, and the last part includes results and conclusions.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZGÜR, E. F., SEÇER, S., GÖĞÜŞ, Y. B., SAYIN, T. (2017). Use of public spaces in private space-led urbanization: The cases of Kadıköy and Ataşehir in İstanbul. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 43–56. https://ajindex.com/articles/145555

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Akkar Ercan, M. (2010).
  2. Less Pub-lic Than Before, Whose Public Space? p. 21-50, ed. A. Madanipour, Routledge Atkinson, R. (2003). Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and Empowerment in the Management of Public Spaces. Ur-ban Studies, 40(9), 829–1843
  3. Banerjee, T. (2001). The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9–24.
  4. Berney, R. (2010). Learning from Bogotá: How Municipal Experts Trans-formed Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 539–558.
  5. Davis, M. (1992). City of Quartz. Vintage Books. New York. De Magalheos, C. (2010). Public Space and Contracting-out of Public-ness: A Framework for Analysis, Jour-nal of Urban Design, vol. 15, no 4, 559-574
  6. Garcia-Ramon, M. D, Ortiz, A. and Prats, M. (2004). Urban planning, gen-der and the use of public space in a pe-ripherial neighbourhood of Barcelona. Cities, 21(3), 215–223.
  7. Geniş, Ş. (2007). Producing Elite Lo-calities. Urban Studies, 44(4), 771-798.
  8. Iveson, K. (2007).
  9. Publics and the City, Royal Geographical Society Book Series, Blackwell Publishing. Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neigh-bourhoods, the privatization of public space, Routledge Langstraat, F. & Van Melik, R. (2013). Challenging the “End of Pub-lic Space”: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429–448.
  10. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1993). Privat-ization of Public Space: The Los Ange-les Experience, Town Planning Review, Volume 64, Issue 2, 139-167.
  11. MacLeod, G. (2011). Urban Poli-tics Reconsidered: Growth Machine to Post-democratic City? Urban Studies, 48(12), 2629-2660.
  12. Madanipour, A. (1999). Why are the Design and Development of Public Space Significant for Cities?, Environ-ment and Planning B: Planning and De-sign, Volume 26, 879-891
  13. Madanipour, A. (2004). Marginal public spaces in European cities, Jour-nal of Urban Design, Volume 9 Issue 3, 267 – 286 Madanipour, A. (2010). Margin-al public spaces in European cities, Whose Public Space? ed. A. Mada-nipour, Routledge, 111-130.
  14. Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Pub-lic Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-phers, 85(1), 108–133.
  15. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space, The Gulford Press. Németh, J., ve Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: mod-eling and measuring publicness. Envi-ronment and Plan