SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

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

Elif Merve ALPAK
Pages
85–94
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)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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).
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALPAK, E. M. (2020). Occupants creating their own spaces without thinking as a real designer: A revolt and a routine. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 85–94. https://ajindex.com/articles/354927

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. 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
  2. Aelbrecht, P. S. (2016). Fourth Places: The Contemporary Public Settings Informal Social Interaction among Strangers. Journal of Urban Design, 21, 1, 124-152
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology; Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environments of Human B ehav ior. Stanford Universtiy Press,
  6. Stanford, California, p. 18-185
  7. Becker, F. & Coniglio, C. (1975). Environmental Messages: Personalization and Territory. Humanities, 11, 55-74
  8. Bilgin N. (1990). Fiziki Mekândan İnsani ya da İnsanlı Mekâna. Mimarlık, 3, 62-65.
  9. 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
  10. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: An Introduction, John Wiley,Sons, p. 1-18
  11. Dines, N. & Cattell, V. (2006). In: Public Spaces, Social Relations and Well-being. The Policy Press, Bristol, p. 13-18, 26-30
  12. Düzenli, T., Bayramoğlu E. & Özbilen A. (2010). Needs and preferences of adolescents in open urban spaces. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 201-216
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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 Fabia