SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1

Evolution of city squares and transformation of publicness

Meriç Demir KAHRAMAN
Handan TÜRKOĞLU
Pages
69–87
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

In this sense, this study aims to interpret this messy and dynamic structure of publicness and the spatial and functional evolution of city squares together.Consequently, the most significant contribution of this study to urban planning and design literature is the discussion of the historical evolution of city squares from both procedural and topographical approaches.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although it is still very limited, there is a rising concern on the relation between publicness and public spaces over the last two decades.
📊
Key Findings & Data:On the other hand, there are significant differences in how the term “public” is discussed from mainly two perspectives that Iveson (2007) defines as “procedural and topographical” approaches.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this sense, this study aims to interpret this messy and dynamic structure of publicness and the spatial and functional evolution of city squares together.Consequently, the most significant contribution of this study to urban planning and design literature is the discussion of the historical evolution of city squares from both procedural and topographical approaches.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although it is still very limited, there is a rising concern on the relation between publicness and public spaces over the last two decades. On the other hand, there are significant differences in how the term “public” is discussed from mainly two perspectives that Iveson (2007) defines as “procedural and topographical” approaches. In the procedural approaches, “public” is described as “any place used for collective action and debate,” whereas “public” is considered as “a specific kind of place” by the topographical approaches that are repeatedly concerned with the accessibility of “public spaces.” This study, which might also be seen as a reading of urban historiography, emphasizes the necessity of understanding the notion of “publicness” as described by the procedural approaches to reveal the public spaces’ topographical evolution better. Here, we claim that squares set on a city scale with representational and historical backgrounds reflect the transformation of publicness. In this sense, this study aims to interpret this messy and dynamic structure of publicness and the spatial and functional evolution of city squares together.Consequently, the most significant contribution of this study to urban planning and design literature is the discussion of the historical evolution of city squares from both procedural and topographical approaches.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHRAMAN, M. D., TÜRKOĞLU, H. (2022). Evolution of city squares and transformation of publicness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1, 69–87. https://ajindex.com/articles/426302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. London: The University of Chicago Press.
  2. Bacon, E. N. (1967). The Design of Cities. London: Thames and Hudson. Benn, S. & Gaus, G. (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm. Berman, M. (2012). The Romance of Public Space. In: Shiffman, R. et al. (eds.) Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Public Space (pp.197-207). Oakland: New Village Press.
  3. Cameron, E. (2001). Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History. Kindle Edition:
  4. OUP Oxford. Carr, S. Francis, M. Rivlin, L.G. Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Carr, S. Francis, M. Rivlin, L.G. Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Demir Kahraman, M., Türkoğlu, H. (2017). Public; Up in the Air or in the Ordinal Scale. Journal of Planning – UCTEA Publications, 27(2), 141-151.
  7. Dewald, J. (2004). Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopaedia of the early modern world. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Favro, D. (1988).
  8. The Roman Forum and Roman Memory, Places, 5(1), 17–24.
  9. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democ racy, Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
  10. Gallion, A. B. & Eisner, S. (1963). The Urban Pattern. Canada: D. Van Nostrand Com. Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Gehl, J. (2010).
  11. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  12. Gehl, J., Søholt, H. (2002). Public Spaces and Public Life: City of Adelaide. Copenhagen: Gehl Architects Aps. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge and Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  13. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Hay, D. (2014). Europe in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (General History of Europe). London and New York: Routledge. Herbst, J. (2006). The History of Transportation. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books. Hiberseimer, L. (1955). The Nature of Cities. Chicago: Paul Theobold. 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.
  15. Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the City. Kindle Edition:
  16. Wiley. Koenigsberger, H. (2014). Early Modern Europe, 1500-1789. London: Routledge. Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privati