Bir Yaşam Sahnesi Olarak Sokak Algısının Kullanıcılar Gözünden Okunması: Ankara ve İstanbul Sokaklarından Tespitler

Dilara Yılmaz; Sevgi Öztürk; Öznur Işınkaralar

doi:10.51664/artium.1169765

EN TR

Reading the Perception of the Street as a Life Scene through the Eyes of Users: Detections from Ankara and İstanbul Streets

Abstract

Streets, which are considered urban places that are also important in terms of urban identity, affect people's perceptions of their physical, spatial, historical, cultural, and visual characteristics. When people's perception of the street is negative, the intelligibility of the street and the city is also low. This situation also complicates the resolution of the city. This study, it is aimed to reveal the importance of the physical characteristics of the streets, which are important in terms of urban identity and urban life, in urban space richness and urban design studies. For this purpose, a spatial perception analysis of 20 streets selected from the cities of Istanbul and Ankara is presented. The spatial perception assessment was conducted with 170 participants using the recognition test method. While 13 of 20 streets are recognized, 7 of them are not. The feature that most influences the recognition of streets are the facades of the buildings. The recognition rates of streets with different facade arrangements were also high. As a result of the test, the physical features that are effective in the recognition of the streets have been determined. Finally, suggestions have been developed to increase the perception of urban space by evaluating all the findings obtained.

Keywords

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanmasında, Kastamonu Üniversitesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Ana Bilim Dalı’nda yürütülmüş olan “655881” numaralı “Kentsel İmge Açısından Önemli Olan Sokakların Fraktal Geometri İle İrdelenmesi” başlıklı yüksek lisans tezinden yararlanılmıştır.

Kaynakça

Abacıoğlu, E. (2013). Mekânsal Algılama ve Davranışsal Başarım: Kahramanmaraş Atatürk Meydanı Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı. Adana.
Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1996). Movement and wayfinding in the king saud university built environment: a look at freshman orientation and environmental information. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(4), 303-318.
Akbarishahabi, L. (2017). İmgelenebilir Kentsel Mekânların Niteliklerinin Fraktal Yaklaşım İle Saptanması ve Bir Tasarım Gramerinin Geliştirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Anabilim Dalı. Ankara.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. (Second edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known. Environment and Behavior, 1(2), 131-156.
Cohen, M. E. (1980). The effects of environmental interaction on the structure and process of cognitive mapping. Doctoral Dissertation, Psychology Department, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Dennis, N., Kim, H.K., & Cabeza, R. (2007). Effects of aging on the neural correlates of true and false memory formation. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3157–3166.
Eisner S., Gallion A.B. (1980). The Urban Pattern: City Planning and Design. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Company.

Eşen, S. (2007). Kentsel Donatı Elemanlarının Çevresel İmge Üzerine Etkileri: Kuşadası Sahil Bandı Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı. İzmir.
Evans, G. W. (1980). Environmental cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 88(2), 259-287.
Ewing, R., Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-68.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(1), 223-240.
Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 117-125.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Giritlioğlu, C. (1991). Şehirsel mekân öğeleri ve tasarımı. İstanbul: İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi.
Greene, S. (1992). Cityshape: communicating and evaluating community design. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 177-189.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting taSokak Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2(1), 3-22.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27-43.
Işınkaralar, Ö., Varol, Ç. (2021). Kent Merkezlerinde Ticaret Birimlerin Mekânsal Örüntüsü Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme: Kastamonu Örneği. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 6 (2), 396-40.
Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. (1972). Rated prefererence and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
Kara, B. (1997). Kentsel Mekânların Algılanması ve Mekânsal İmaj ile Bornova Kent Meydanı Örneğinde Bir Bilişsel Haritalama Çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İzmir.
Kim, Y. O., & Penn, A. (2004). Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the environment. Environment and Behavior, 36(4), 483-504.
Köse, B., Dönmez, Y., (2021). Mahalle Ölçeğinde Kültürel Değerlerin Kent Kimliğine Etkileri: Kale Mahallesi-Samsun. Kent Akademisi, 14(4), 1156-1190.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lawton, C. A. (1996). Strategies for indoor wayfinding: the role of orientation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2), 137-145.
Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1976). Human memory: the processing of information. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale.
Long, Y. (2007). The relationships between objective and subjective evaluations of the urban environment: space syntax, cognitive maps, and urban legibility. Doctoral Dissertation, Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lozano, E. (1990). Community design and the culture of cities. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, K. ( 1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Magliano, J. P., Cohen, R., Allen, G. L., & Rodrigue, J. R. (1995). The impact of wayfinder’s goal on learning a new environment: different types of spatial knowledge as goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(1), 65-75.
Montello, D. R., Grossner, K. & Janelle, D. G. (2014). Space in mind: concepts for spatial learning and education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morley, D., & Robins, K. (1997). Spaces of identity: Global media, electronics and cultural boundaries. London and New York: Rutledge.
Moshagena, M., & Thielschc, M. (2010). Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 689-709.
Murakoshi, S. and Kawai, M. (2000). Use of knowledge and heuristic in an artificial environment. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 756-774.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative quality of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
Nasar, J.L. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), pp:41-53
Oosyendorp, A., Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19(1), 73-82.
Ozturk, S., Ayan, E. and Isinkaralar, O. (2018) Visual Landscape Evaluation of Kastamonu Clock Tower Environment as a Historical Urban Area. Fresen. Environ. Bull. 27, 9617- 9625.
Ozturk, S., Isinkaralar, O., Yilmaz, D. and Cicek, E. (2021d). Tourists’ Perspective of Cultural Heritage Areas: Importance-Performance Analysis of Safranbolu. Research&Reviews In Architecture,Planning and Design, Gece Akademi, Chapter 7, pp. 133-155
Önaç, A.K., Birişçi, T. (2019). Transformation of Urban Landscape Value Perceptionover Time: a Delphitechnique Application. EMAS, 191(12), 1-24.
Öztürk, S. ve Işınkaralar, Ö. (2019). Kastamonu Kent Merkezinde Otopark Sorunsalı: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(67), 506- 511.
Öztürk, S., Işınkaralar, Ö., Yılmaz, D., (2021b). Restorasyon çalışmaları sonrası yerel halkın algı ve tutumları (Kayseri kalesi örneği). Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 26(45), 183-194.
Öztürk, S., Işınkaralar, Ö., Yılmaz, D., Çılgınoğlu, H. (2021c). Bir Kültür Turizmi Destinasyonu Olarak Hasankeyf Örneğinde Ziyaretçi Memnuniyeti. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 23 (2), 359-369.
Öztürk, S., Işınkaralar, Ö., Yılmaz, D., Şimşek, M., Almansourı, H.M.S., & Elahsadı, A.H.M.,(2021a). Covıd-19’untüketici alışkanlıklarına etkisi üzerine bir araştırma: Türkiye-Libya karşılaştırması. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 26(46), 97-108
Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment, a nonverbal communication approach. Tucson: University of Arizona press.
Robins,K., Morley,D. (1997). Kimlik Mekânları. Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul, ss:35-37.
Salingaros, N. A. (1999). Urban space and its information field. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 29-49.
Salingaros, N. A. (2005). Principles of urban structure. Amsterdam: Techne Press.
Stamps, A. E. (1999). Architectural detail, van der laan septaves and pixel counts. Design Studies, 20(1), 83-97.
Stamps, A. E. (2003). ADvances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 30(3), 449-463.
Taylor, N. (1999) The elements of townscape and the art of urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 4, pp. 195–209.
Todorovic, D. (2008). Gestalt principles. Scholarpedia, 3(12), 44-53.
Türkoğlu, H. (2002). Kentsel imge: İstanbul’dan bulgular. İTÜ Dergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım 1(1).
Weisman, J. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility-wayfinding in the built environment. Environment and Behavior, 13(2), 189-204.
Yılmaz, D., Öztürk, S., Işınkaralar, Ö. (2022). Kent İmgesinin Yapıtaşı Olarak Sokaklarda Mekânsal Zenginliğin Fraktal Geometri İle Analizi, Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(3)1341-1358.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Kentsel Politika

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Dilara Yılmaz ^*
0000-0002-9151-0529
Türkiye

Sevgi Öztürk
0000-0002-3383-7822
Türkiye

Öznur Işınkaralar
0000-0001-9774-5137
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

28 Şubat 2023

Gönderilme Tarihi

1 Eylül 2022

Kabul Tarihi

21 Ekim 2022

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 1970 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.51664/artium.1169765

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA38SG96PA

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Yılmaz, D., Öztürk, S., & Işınkaralar, Ö. (2023). Bir Yaşam Sahnesi Olarak Sokak Algısının Kullanıcılar Gözünden Okunması: Ankara ve İstanbul Sokaklarından Tespitler. Artium, 11(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.51664/artium.1169765

Cited By

Turizm Potansiyeli Ekseninde Yapılı Çevrelerdeki Görsel Karmaşıklığın Analizi: Odunpazarı, Eskişehir Örneği

Kocaeli Üniversitesi Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1206985

Dijital Oyunlarda Kent İmgesini Oluşturan ve Temsil Niteliği Taşıyan Yapılar: Euro Truck Simulator 2 Örneği

Bodrum Journal of Art and Design

https://doi.org/10.58850/bodrum.1635954

Reading the Perception of the Street as a Life Scene through the Eyes of Users: Detections from Ankara and İstanbul Streets

Abstract

Keywords