KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / A+Arch Design International Journal of Architecture and Design / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 1

AN ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR PARTICIPATORY ARCHITECTURE: KUZGUNCUK GARDENS EXAMPLE

Ali Kemal Terlemez(ÖZYEĞİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0003-1986-715X
Orhan Hacihasanoglu(Özyeğin University, Faculty of Architecture and Design)0000-0003-1835-6550
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2022-08-08
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Through this multi-dimensional model, this article emphasizes an alternative framework for the assessment of architectural participation methods in holistic processes that provide inclusive spaces in particular needers in Turkey and other non-develop and developing countries.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:It is crucial to evaluate the architectural production processes through the concept of participation because the thoughts and comments that emerge as a result of the evaluation will contribute to the current architectural environment.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Since 1960s the integrity of theory, research, and practice that has been put forward combined with user-oriented architectural movements, has enabled new developments and potentials.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Through this multi-dimensional model, this article emphasizes an alternative framework for the assessment of architectural participation methods in holistic processes that provide inclusive spaces in particular needers in Turkey and other non-develop and developing countries.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Participation · Participatory Architecture · Participatory Design

Abstract

It is crucial to evaluate the architectural production processes through the concept of participation because the thoughts and comments that emerge as a result of the evaluation will contribute to the current architectural environment. Since 1960s the integrity of theory, research, and practice that has been put forward combined with user-oriented architectural movements, has enabled new developments and potentials. For this reason, it is necessary to observe and evaluate user-oriented studies that aim to establish the integrity of theory, research and practice to unfold the results in all their complexity. The outputs of the research can serve as a reference for targeted polyphonic architectural production processes in the future. The proposed method makes these interaction networks visible, applying them to participatory architecture processes. In this way, today's design tools have the potential to involve participants in the process. The present study proposes the hypothesis that these potentialities can be demonstrated by observing, evaluating, re-discussing, and interpreting previous studies. The article seeks to evaluate the relationship between users’ participation in architectural processes and the network of actors-stakeholders who take part in participatory approaches. The concept of participatory architecture is vital for future experiences of architecture in order to revive the development of architectural practice in Turkey. Therefore, to provide a guideline model for architects and researchers engaging in participatory architecture processes. The study’s goals are: (1) clarifying the reasons of area defense with solidarity and evaluating the level of participation in architectural practice, (2) examining stakeholder typology assessments, and (3) observation participation techniques and tactics in processes. This research includes descriptive analysis of the Kuzguncuk Bostan Recovery and Protection Project as a case study and qualitative analysis examining participatory processes with the multi-dimensional model (EMParArc). Through this multi-dimensional model, this article emphasizes an alternative framework for the assessment of architectural participation methods in holistic processes that provide inclusive spaces in particular needers in Turkey and other non-develop and developing countries.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Terlemez, A. K., Hacihasanoglu, O. (2022). AN ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR PARTICIPATORY ARCHITECTURE: KUZGUNCUK GARDENS EXAMPLE. A+Arch Design International Journal of Architecture and Design, Volume: 8 Issue: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1169996

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (30)

  1. Sanoff, H. (2011). Multiple Views of Participatory Design. Focus. https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1
  2. Hacıalibeyoğlu, F. (2013). A Model Proposal For User Participation in Architectural Design Process. PhD Dissertation. Dokuz Eylül University, The Graduate School Natural and Applied Sciences, Izmir.
  3. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.
  4. Rosener, J. B. (1978). Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Administration Review, 457–463.
  5. Habraken, N. J. (1986). Towards a new professional role. Design Studies, 7(3), 139–143. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0142694X86900505
  6. De Carlo, G. (2005). Architecture’s public. Architecture and Participation, 3–22.
  7. Tur, I. (2021). Solidarity architecture: Participatory design practices in Turkey. Yasar University, Izmir.
  8. Aravena, A., Mori, A. A., & Iacobelli, A. (2016). Alejandro Aravena: Elemental: Incremental Housing and Participatory Design Manual. Hatje Cantz. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=CZYIjwEACAAJ
  9. Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2013). Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. In Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315881249
  10. Till, J. (2013). The negotiation of hope. In Architecture and Participation. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022863
  11. Kusumaningdyah, N. H., & Purnamasari, L. S. (2018). The techniques of participatory design for inclusive public space provision in kampung kota of Surakarta. SHS Web of Conferences, 41, 7007.
  12. Sanoff, H. (1999). Community participation methods in design and planning. https://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=opndN6irEVsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Architecture,+participation+and+society&ots=9Deyy_OUXY&sig=Sin2-ASRSQnI7qe78QAR1ld8iUQ
  13. Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7(3), 153–162.
  14. Burns, D., & Taylor, M. (2000). Auditing community participation. An Assessment Handbook.
  15. Godschalk, D., Parham, D., Porter, D., Potapchuk, W., & Schukraft, S. (1994). Pulling together: A planning and development consensus-building manual. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 3.
  16. Neuman, W. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. In Teaching Sociology (Vol. 30). https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488
  17. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  18. Tatlić, I. (2019). Architectural Notion of Freedom and Participation and Its Difference Between Private and Public Spaces. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Studies, 4(1), 31–42.
  19. Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613
  20. Lefebvre, H. (1974). La producción del espacio. Papers: Revista de Sociología, 219–229.
  21. Sanoff, H. (2005). Community participation in riverfront development. CoDesign, 1(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880512331326022
  22. Bulut, H. B. (2016). The Analysis of Participatory Design Approaches in Architecture and an Examination of Küçükçekmece Sample. Master Thesis. Yıldız Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Istanbul.
  23. Andersen, N. (2013). The urban community: a world perspective. Routledge.
  24. van Randen, A. (1985). “Open Building” – An Overall Strategy for Participation as in action in the Netherlands. In M. R. Beheshti (Ed.), Design Coalition Team (Vol. 2, pp. 43–64). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
  25. Afrassiabi, A. H. (1985). Design Participation in the Context of Urban Renewal. In M. R. Beheshti (Ed.), Design Coalition Team (Vol. 1, pp. 94–106). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
  26. Sanoff, H. (2008). Multiple Views of Participatory Design Introduction: Historical Background. International Journal of Architectural Research-IJAR. https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1
  27. Arditi, D., & Gunaydin, H. M. (1998). Factors that affect process quality in the life cycle of building projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), 194–203.
  28. Günal, B. (2005). Searching For The Psycho-Social Quality of Dwelling in The Context of Human-Environment Communication Model. Istanbul Technical University.
  29. Dündaralp, B. (2017). İlya’nın Kuzguncuk Bostanı. In Solidarity Architecture Exhibition Book (pp. 64–79). TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi Sertifika No: 31979. https://www.dayanismamimarligi.org/kitap.php
  30. Ercan, M. A. (2019). Regeneration, Heritage and Sustainable Communities in Turkey: Challenges, Complexities and Potentials. Routledge.