KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Türkiye Mesleki ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8

KENTSEL TİCARİ ALANLAR VE YENİ NESİL MEKÂNSAL ETKİLEŞİM: BÖLGESEL DİNAMİKLER ÇERÇEVESİNDE KAVRAMSAL BİR İNCELEME

URBAN COMMERCIAL AREAS AND NEXT-GENERATION SPATIAL INTERACTION: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF REGIONAL DYNAMICS

Aykut Sezgin

Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-05-07
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Bu çalışma, kentsel ticari alanların iktisadi ve mekânsal dinamiklerini, makroekonomik bölgesel kalkınma yaklaşımları ile yerel düzeydeki kentsel tasarım unsurları ekseninde bütüncül bir biçimde incelemektedir. Makro ölçekte, mekâna duyarsız yığılma modeli ile mekâna dayalı yerel potansiyeli harekete geçiren stratejiler karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Yerel düzeyde ise katı planlama pratiklerinin yarattığı sınır boşlukları, eski binaların küçük ticari girişimciler için düşük sabit maliyetli mekânsal bir altyapı sunması ve yüz yüze etkileşimin bilgi taşmaları üzerindeki kritik rolü analiz edilmektedir. Ampirik çerçevede, geleneksel ölçüm yöntemlerinden öteye geçilerek konum tabanlı servisler, Bayes ağları ve makine öğrenmesi gibi yeni nesil mekânsal veri analitiği yöntemlerinin kentlerdeki ticari etkileşimleri nasıl dinamik bir şekilde modellediği ortaya konmaktadır. Ayrıca, uzaktan çalışma pratikleriyle şekillenen pandemi sonrası dönemde, ofis odaklı alanlarda kırılganlık yaşandığı ve bilgi taşmalarında kesinti olduğu üzerinde durulmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında, sürdürülebilir kentsel ticari alanlar inşa edebilmek için katı işlevsel ayrımlar yerine; karma kullanımı, esnek planlamayı ve yerel dinamikleri merkeze alan, veriye dayalı kentsel yönetim modellerinin hayata geçirilmesi gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

Abstract

This study holistically examines the economic and spatial dynamics of urban commercial areas, integrating macroeconomic regional development approaches with local-level urban design elements. At the macro scale, the spatially blind agglomeration model and place-based strategies aimed at mobilizing local potential are comparatively analyzed. At the local level, the study investigates the border vacuums generated by rigid planning practices, the role of older buildings in providing a low-fixed-cost spatial infrastructure for small commercial entrepreneurs, and the critical impact of face-to-face interactions on knowledge spillovers. Within the empirical framework, moving beyond traditional measurement methods, the study demonstrates how next-generation spatial data analytics—such as location-based services, Bayesian networks, and machine learning—dynamically model commercial interactions in urban spaces. Furthermore, it emphasizes the vulnerabilities and the disruptions in knowledge spillovers experienced in office-centric areas during the post-pandemic era, which has been fundamentally shaped by remote work practices. In light of these findings, it is argued that to build sustainable urban commercial areas, rigid functional separations must be abandoned in favor of data-driven urban management models that prioritize mixed-use development, flexible planning, and local dynamics.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sezgin, A. (2026). KENTSEL TİCARİ ALANLAR VE YENİ NESİL MEKÂNSAL ETKİLEŞİM: BÖLGESEL DİNAMİKLER ÇERÇEVESİNDE KAVRAMSAL BİR İNCELEME. Türkiye Mesleki ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 8. https://doi.org/10.46236/jovosst.1932609

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

↗Yeni Sekme

PDF belgesi yükleniyor...

Kaynakça (46)

  1. Althoff, L., Eckert, F., Ganapati, S. ve Walsh, C. (2022). “The Geography of Remote Work”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 93, 103770.
  2. Arbia, G. (2012). Spatial Data Configuration in Statistical Analysis of Regional Economic and Related Problems. Springer Science & Business Media.
  3. Arbia, G., Espa, G. ve Giuliani, D. (2021). Spatial Microeconometrics. Routledge.
  4. Atkin, D., Chen, M. K. ve Popov, A. (2022). “The Returns To Face-To-Face Interactions: Knowledge Spillovers In Silicon Valley”, (No. w30147), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  5. Barca, F., McCann, P. ve Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012), “The Case For Regional Development Intervention: Place-Based Versus Place-Neutral Approaches”, Journal of Regional Science, 52: 134-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x.
  6. Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N. ve Davis, S. J. (2021). “Why Working from Home Will Stick”, (No. w28731), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  7. Baydar, M. (2016). Konum Tabanlı Sosyal Ağlarda Konum Tahmini, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  8. Beckmann, M. J. (1999). Lectures on Location Theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
  9. Cambridge Econometrics (2025). Cambridge post-pandemic commercial district study district profiles final report. Summer 2025.
  10. Cambridge MA. (2013). Kendall square final report 2013. Cambridge Community Development Department.
  11. CBT Architects (2026). Designing for innovation: shaping districts that connect science, city, and community. February 27th 2026. https://www.cbtarchitects.com/news-ideas/designing-innovation-shaping-districts-connect-science-city-and-community.
  12. Chan, Y. (2011). Location Theory and Decision Analysis: Analytics of Spatial Information Technology. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  13. Combes, P. P., Gobillon, L. ve Zylberberg, Y. (2022). “Urban Economics in a Historical Perspective: Recovering Data With Machine Learning”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 94, 103711.
  14. Davelaar, E. J. ve Nijkamp, P. (1986). The urban incubator hypothesis: old wine in new bottles?. No. 0039, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
  15. De Beule, M., Van den Poel, D. ve Van de Weghe, N. (2014). “An Extended Huff-Model for Robustly Benchmarking and Predicting Retail Network Performance”, Applied Geography, 46, 80-89.
  16. Di Comite, F., Kancs, D.A. ve Torfs, W. (2015). Macroeconomic modelling of r&d and innovation policies: an application of rhomolo and quest. European Commission Joint Research Centre Report EUR 27084.
  17. Duan, L., Ye, X., Hu, T. ve Zhu, X. (2017). “Prediction of Suspect Location Based on Spatiotemporal Semantics”, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-information, 6(7), 185.
  18. Duranton, G. ve Handbury, J. (2023). “Covid and Cities, Thus Far”, (No. w31158), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  19. Duranton, G. ve Puga, D. (2004). “Micro-foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 2063-2117, Elsevier.
  20. Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial Econometrics: from Cross-sectional Data to Spatial Panels. Heidelberg: Springer.
  21. Ester, M., Kriegel, H. P., Sander, J. ve Xu, X. (1996). “A Density-based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases With Noise”, In kdd, Vol. 96, No. 34, pp. 226-231.
  22. Foray, D. (2014). Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. Routledge.
  23. Gaetani, R., Huang, N., Li, J. ve Yang, Y. (2026). “Are Cities Losing Innovation Advantages? Online Versus Face-to-face Interactions”, The Economic Journal, 136(674), 655-685, https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaf068.
  24. Gillette, C. P. (2023). “Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District”, Journal of Legal Analysis, 15(1), 201-234.
  25. Hurter, A. P. ve Martinich, J. S. (2012). Facility Location and the Theory of Production. Springer Science & Business Media.
  26. Ikeda, S. (2020). “Jane Jacobs and the Knowledge Problem in Cities”, In Critics of Enlightenment Rationalism (pp. 263-278), Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  27. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books.
  28. Jiang, X., Tian, J., Li, J., Ye, D., Lan, W., Wu, D., Tian, N. ve Yin, J. (2026). “Unraveling the Impact Mechanisms of Built Environment on Urban Vitality: Integrating Scale, Heterogeneity, and Interaction Effects”, Buildings, 16(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010029.
  29. Jing, Z., Luo, Y., Li, X. ve Xu, X. (2022). “A Multi-dimensional City Data Embedding Model for Improving Predictive Analytics and Urban Operations”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 122(10), 2199-2216.
  30. Kim, M. (2013). Spatial Qualities of Innovation Districts: How Third Places are Changing the Innovation Ecosystem of Kendall Square, Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  31. Kline, P. ve Moretti, E. (2014). “Local Economic Development, Agglomeration Economies, and the Big Push: 100 Years of Evidence from the Tennessee Valley Authority”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 275-331.
  32. Kocabas, V. ve Dragicevic, S. (2013). “Bayesian Networks and Agent-based Modeling Approach for Urban Land-use and Population Density Change: a BNAS Model”, Journal of Geographical Systems, 15(4), 403-426.
  33. Lall, S. V., Kaw, J. K., Shilpi, F. ve Murray, S. B. (2023). Vibrant cities-on the bedrock of stability, prosperity, and sustainability: overview (English). Washington, DC: World Bank.
  34. Liu, S. ve Su, Y. (2025). “The Effect of Working from Home on the Agglomeration Economies of Cities: Evidence from Advertised Wages”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-45.
  35. Lynch, K. (1964). The Image of the City. MIT Press.
  36. McCann, P. (2023). The recent place-based shift in US green industrial and technological policies. European Commission, Joint Research Center.
  37. Morrill, R. (2001). Spatial equity. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pergamon.
  38. OECD (2009). How regions grow: trends and analysis. OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264039469-en.
  39. Ramani, A. ve Bloom, N. (2021). “The Donut Effect of COVID-19 on Cities”, (No. w28876), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  40. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Bartalucci, F., Lozano-Gracia, N. ve Dávalos, M. (2024). “Overcoming Left-behindedness. Moving Beyond the Efficiency Versus Equity Debate in Territorial Development”, Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(12), 100144.
  41. Selvi, H. Z. ve Buğdaycı, İ. (2019). Konum tabanlı hizmetler teknolojisi ve yeni gelişmeler. TMMOB Harita ve Kadastro Mühendisleri Odası, 17. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı, 25-27 Nisan 2019, Ankara.
  42. Seravalli, G. (2015). “Spatially-Blind Versus Place-Based Policies”, In: An Introduction to Place-Based Development Economics and Policy, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15377-3_1
  43. Varga, A. (2017). “Place-based, Spatially Blind, or Both? Challenges in Estimating the Impacts of Modern Development Policies: The Case of the GMR Policy Impact Modeling Approach”, International Regional Science Review, 40(1), 12-37.
  44. World Bank. (2009). World development report 2009: reshaping economic geography. The World Bank Washington DC.
  45. Yavan, N. (2013). Küresel kriz sonrası bölgesel kalkınma politikalarında yeni yaklaşımlar Dünya Bankası, Avrupa Birliği ve OECD’nin yaklaşımları. Coğrafyacılar Derneği Yıllık Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, İstanbul, Türkiye, 19-21 Haziran 2013, pp.520-534.
  46. Zhao, Z., Chen, G., Duan, J. ve Xu, Y. (2025). “Site Selection Analysis and Prediction of New Retail Stores from an Urban Commercial Space Perspective: A Case Study of Luckin Coffee and Starbucks in Shanghai”, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(6), 217.