A Model Proposal Created in Geographic Information Systems for the Effect of the Concept Of Boundary in Urban Space on Social Activity Streets


Abstract views: 81 / PDF downloads: 56

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10732626

Keywords:

Street vitality, social activity spaces, boundary concept, Geographic Information Systems

Abstract

Streets, one of the most important components of urban areas, not only provide pedestrian and vehicular flow but also produce spaces for social relations. Enabling communication processes between people and the environment, street spaces contribute to the vitality of urban space. Streets that strengthen social relations, where activities such as sitting, meeting with friends, resting and enjoying activities take place, attract attention with their characteristic features such as secluded, dim, calm and functional diversity. In architectural design and urban planning, the concept of boundary, which is expressed with a line to create and define space, appears as a phenomenon that constructs relationships on the streets where daily life takes place, supports social communication by creating specific spaces, and unites urbanites. While the number of connections arising from the spatial organization of the streets reveals the ability of the streets to attract pedestrian flow, tall buildings on narrow streets create a closed effect in these areas. The diversity of ground floor functions in the streets where social activities take place plays a unifying role for individuals. This article examines the streets where social activities take place according to the connectivity, closure and unification features that create a boundary effect and investigates the effect of these features on user behavior. In the paper, a model based on the representation of the three different approaches in Geographic Information Systems is created. As a result of the study, shows that there are strong relationships between the connectivity, enclosure, and merging features that create a boundary effect and user behavior, and that these features contribute to the vitality of streets by increasing their use.

Author Biography

Berrin Akgün, Balıkesir Üniversitesi

Berrin Akgün, Professor Doctor, bakgun@balikesir.edu.tr, Architecture, Architecture, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey

References

Akbarıshahabı, L. (2017). İmgelenebilir kentsel mekânların niteliklerinin fraktal yaklaşım ile saptanması ve bir tasarım gramerinin geliştirilmesi [Doktora tezi]. (Tez no.472667), Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gazi Üniversitesi.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. & Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language-Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press.

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places, urban spaces. The Architectural Press.

Carmona, M. & Tiesdell, S. (2007). Urban Design Reader. Architectural Press is an imprint of Elsevier.

Cooper, J. & Oskrochi, R. (2008). Fractal analysis of street vistas: a potential tool for assessing levels of visual variety in everyday street scenes, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 349-363.

Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. The Architectural Press.

Ewing, R. & Handy, S. (2006). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-68.

Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings. Island Press.

Gehl, J. (2019). İnsan İçin Kentler. (Çev. Erten, E.), Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Gehl, J. & Svarre. B. (2013). How to Study Public Life. Island Press.

Gill, J., Varoudis, T., Karimi, K. & Penn, A. (2015). The space syntax toolkit: Integrating depthmapX and exploratory spatial analysis workflows in QGIS, Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium, 148, 1-12.

Gürer, N., Güzel, İ., B. & Kavak, İ. (2017). Evaluation on Living Public Spaces and Their Qualities – Case Study from Ankara Konur, Karanfil and Yüksel Streets, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(7), 1-13.

Hassan, M., D., Moustafa, M., Y. & El-fiki, M., S. (2019). Ground-floor façade design and staying activity patterns on the sidewalk: A case study in the Korba area of Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10, 453-461.

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic Of Space. Cambridge University.

Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Jacobs, J. (2011). Yenilenmiş baskı, Büyük Amerikan Şehirlerinin Ölümü ve Yaşamı. (Çev. Doğan,

B.), Metis Yayınları, (Orijinal Yayın Tarihi, 1961).

Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1989), The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Krier, R. (1979). Urban Space. Academy Editions.

Krier, R. (1992). Elements of Architecture. Academy Editions.

Li, X., Qian, Y., Zeng, J., Wei, X. & Guang, X. (2022). Measurement of Street Network Structure in Strip Cities: A Case Study of Lanzhou, China, Sustainability, 14(5), 2839.

Lefebvre, H. (2019). Yenilenmiş baskı, Mekânın Üretimi, (Çev. Ergüden, I.,), Sel Yayıncılık, (Orijinal yayın tarihi, 1974).

Lynch, K. (1960) &. The Image of the City. The Mit Press.

Maas, P., R. (1984). Towards a theory of urban vitality. University of British Columbia.

Mahdzar, S., S., B., S. (2008). Sociability vs Accessibility Urban Street Life [Doktora tezi], Bartlett School of Planning Unıversıty College London.

Mahdzar, S., S., S. (2013). Streets for People: Sustaining Accessible and Sociable Streets in Pasir Gudang City Centre. Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium, 108, 1-18.

Mehta, V. (2006). Lively streets: Exploring the relationship between built environment and social behavior [Doktora Tezi]. University of Maryland.

Mehta, V. (2009). Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and you will hear: Urban design and social interaction on streets. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 29–64.

Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93–116.

Özer, Ö. (2014). Kentsel mekânda yaya hareketleri: morfoloji ve çevresel algının etkisi [Doktora Tezi]. (Tez no. 353714), Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.

Stamps, A., E. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(3), 163-184.

Tibbalds, F. (2001). Making people-friendly towns: Improving the public environment in towns and cities. Spon Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.

Topçu, M. & Kubat, A., S. (2007). Morphologıcal Comparıson Of Two Hıstorıcal Anatolıan Towns, Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul, 2007.

Van Nes, A. & Yamu, C. (2021). Introduction to Space Syntax in Urban Studies. In Introduction to Space Syntax in Urban Studies.

Whyte, H., W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. The Conservation Foundation.

Yıldırım, E. (2018). Kentsel dokunun değerlendirilmesi için mekân dizimi ve fraktal analize dayalı bir yöntem: Gaziantep örneği [Doktora Tezi]. (Tez no. 513726), Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.

Published

2024-02-29

How to Cite

Tibet, A., & Akgün, B. (2024). A Model Proposal Created in Geographic Information Systems for the Effect of the Concept Of Boundary in Urban Space on Social Activity Streets. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HUMANITIES SCIENCES RESEARCH, 11(104), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10732626