SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2019 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: Özel Sayı

Managing the Urban Change: A Morphological Perspective for Planning

Tolga ÜNLÜ
Pages
55–72
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

It reveals that there is a need for amorphological perspective that would take into account themorphological unity of urban form elements within their interplay inorder to develop a responsive planning approach.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study questions the awareness of planners on the intrinsic qualitiesof the built environment in shaping of urban form in Turkey throughouta centennial period after foundation of Turkish Republic in 1923.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Itsuggests a morphological framework, to develop such an evaluation,which is based on three basic principles: the historicity of urban forms,the hierarchical nesting of urban form elements, and their reconciliationwithin a complex interaction with each other in a part-to-wholerelationship.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It reveals that there is a need for amorphological perspective that would take into account themorphological unity of urban form elements within their interplay inorder to develop a responsive planning approach.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study questions the awareness of planners on the intrinsic qualitiesof the built environment in shaping of urban form in Turkey throughouta centennial period after foundation of Turkish Republic in 1923. Itsuggests a morphological framework, to develop such an evaluation,which is based on three basic principles: the historicity of urban forms,the hierarchical nesting of urban form elements, and their reconciliationwithin a complex interaction with each other in a part-to-wholerelationship. It is regarded as an initial attempt to develop a briefdiscussion about a morphological perspective to be utilized in planningpractice. It is asserted that the centennial development of planningpractice in Turkey brought to light that the professionals lost theirconcern on the intrinsic qualities of urban form, on how it is evolvedhistorically, and on how its elements are related to each other. Theyabandoned themselves to the relative ease of application of insensitiveplanning with high confidence on the decency and convenience ofprocedural functioning of planning. It reveals that there is a need for amorphological perspective that would take into account themorphological unity of urban form elements within their interplay inorder to develop a responsive planning approach.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNLÜ, T. (2022). Managing the Urban Change: A Morphological Perspective for Planning. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: Özel Sayı, 55–72. https://ajindex.com/articles/538285

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Akcan, E. (2012). Architecture in translation: Germany, Turkey and the modern house. Durham: Duke University Press.
  2. Alexander C. (1966). A city is not a tree. Design 206:47–55
  3. Alexander C., Neis H., Anninou A. & King I. (1987). A new theory of urban design. Oxford University Press,
  4. New York Balamir, M. (1975). ‘Kat Mu lkiyeti ve Kentleşmemiz’ (‘The process of ownership fragmentation in Turkish urbanization’), Middle East Technical University, Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 1 (2), 295–319.
  5. Barke, M. (2003). The lifespan of a typological form?. Urban Morphology 15:21–38
  6. Barke, M. (2015). Further thoughts on research and practice in urban morphology: a British perspective. Urban Morphology 19(1):96-99.
  7. Barke, M. (2018). The Importance of Urban Form as an Object of Study. In Oliveira V (ed) Teaching Urban Morphology. Springer, Cham, pp.11-30.
  8. Barke, M. (2019). Why study urban morphology? The views of ISUF members, Urban Morphology 23(2):105-14
  9. Bilgin, İ. (1999). ‘Modernization’, in Sey, Y. (ed.) Housing and settlement in Anatolia: a historical perspective (Tepe Architectural Culture Centre, İstanbul) 247–361.
  10. Bobek, H. (1927).
  11. Grundfragen der Stadtgeographie, Geogr. Anz. 28, 213-24.
  12. Booth, P. (1995). ‘Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy’, Journal of Planning Education and Research (14):103-112.
  13. Borsi, K. (2015). Drawing the region: Hermann Jansen’s vision of Greater Berlin in 1910. The Journal of Architecture, 20(1), 47-72. Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building. Seattle:University of Washington Press.
  14. Bozdoğan, S. & Akcan, E. (2012). Turkey: modern architects in history. Reaktion, London Cataldi, G. (2003) From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphology 1:96–99
  15. Conzen, M.R.G. (1958) The growth and character of Whitby. In: Daysh GHJ (ed) A survey of Whitby and the surrounding area. Shakespeare Head Press, Eton, pp 49–89
  16. Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick: Northumber- land: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication 27. George Philip, London. Conzen MRG (1969)
  17. Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in townplan analysis, 2nd edn. Institute of British Geograpers Publication 27. London: Institute of British Geographers. Conzen, M.R.G. (1975). Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) Anglo-German symposium in applied geography. Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102
  18. Conzen, M. R. G. (2004).