Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

22
Type of activity:
• Exercise/play
• Business – formal. For example, shopping/selling/commerce –
(conducted via a commercial retail building)
• Business – informal (e.g. street vending, shoe-shining, producing
goods at home for informal selling)
• Reading/educational
• Praying/religious
• Eating/drinking
• Traveling/Commuting
• Housework/yard work/etc.
• Conversing
Type of inter-personal interaction
• Solitary or group
• Number of people
• One age cohort or mixed
• Same sex or mixed
Activities and interpersonal interactions were noted for each time
period. Incidents were tallied. Photos were also taken to record
some events. Data was collected for each ten-minute session at
each defined urban open space. Activities and interactions were
then recorded for each incident observed (See Figure 8).
[3] Major findings from the study include:
• 608 total people were observed.
• 74% of the total observations were of groups.
• Of the group observations, 55% were mixed-ages and 46%
were mixed-sex.
• 100% of the “mosque garden” users were men.
• The “other vegetated area” and the “mosque garden” each
accounted for 7% of the total observations.
• The “main street” and “all other streets” accounted for 52% of
all observations.
• Conversing was observed in 68% of all the observations
• People do things in groups.
• Conversations are frequent in all urban space typologies.
• Mixed-sex interactions account for 69% of the interactions on
the side streets and spaces near the streets.
• The street is a key urban space typology for all areas.
• Streets and spaces near the street were where 70% of all
incidents observed.
[4] Problems & weaknesses of the study:
Observation analysis is limited with possible researcher bias. Multiple
researchers conducting the observations might help combat
this. Additionally, other research methods, such as surveys, could
be used. Also, the defined open space typologies could be missing
something. Finally, people may have altered their behavior because
of the presence of the researcher, although the researcher finds
this unlikely.
References
Arslan, Rifki. (1989): Gecekondulasmanin Evrimi. Mimarlik 89/6,
no. 238, 34-37.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1983): Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital,
soziales Kapital. Soziale Ungleichheiten(Soziale Welt, Sonderheft
2), edited by Reinhard Kreckel. Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co.
183-98.
Cavender, Amal. (2006): Gecekondu: Illusion and Reality. Submission
to Onesmallproject. Indianapolis, U.S.A. 2006. http://www.
onesmallproject.com/pagescontributors/contributorcavender.html
Ergun, Nilgun. (1991): Evaluation of upgrading plans as a proposal
for the solution of squatter problem – The case of Talatpasa
District. Housing for the Urban Poor – European Network for
Housing Research International Symposium, Istanbul, pp. B125-
B137.
Ergun, Nilgun. (2008): Personal Interview. 6 May 2008. Istanbul.
Krier, Robert. (1979): Typological and Morphological Elements of
the Concept of Space. Urban Space. Rizzoli, New York, 15-29.
Lofland, Lyn. (1973): A World of Strangers: Order and Action in
Urban Public Space. New York: Basic Books.
Neuwirth, Robert. (2005): Shadow Cities. New York: Routledge.
Penn, Alan. (2001): Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition. Or,
why the axial line? University College London, United Kingdom.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium,
Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.
Pretty, Jules, et al. (2003): Social Capital and the Collective Management
of Resources. Science , 1912-1914.
Saglamer, Gülsün; Turgut, Hülya; Inceoglu, Arda; Aksoy, Meltem;
Paker, Nurbin. (1994): Is Informal Housing The Destiny Of The
Urban Poor? An International Symposium on People, Place And
Development, Cardo-University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1-2, pp.
606-615.
Sariyer Municipality. (2007): Internet accessed on May 1, 2007:
http://www.sariyer.bel.tr/Sariyer_Rehberi/Semt_Semt_Sariyer/Pinar/Genel_Bilgi.aspx
Senyapili, Tansi. (2004): Charting the ‘Voyage’ of Squatter Housing
in Urban Spatial ‘Quadruped’. European Journal of Turkish Studies.
Thematic Issue No. 1 – Gecekondu.
Tas, H.I. and Lightfoot, D.R. (2005): Gecekondu settlements in
Turkey: Rural - Urban migration in the developing European periphery.
Journal of Geography.
Turgut, Hülya; Aksoy, Meltem; Paker, Nurbin; Inceoglu, Arda;
Sa¤lamer, Gülsün. (1995): House and Street, Relationships of
Home-Street in Squatter Settlements and Urbanization. VII. International
Building and Life’95, pp. 153-163.
Turgut, Hulya. (2001): Culture, Continuity And Change: Structural
Analysis of the Housing Pattern in Squatter Settlement. Global
Built Environment Review Vol. 1 No. 1 pp 17-25. Edge Hill, Lancashire,
United Kingdom.
Türker-Devecigil, Pinar. (2005): Urban Transformation Projects as
a Model to Transform Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example
of Dikmen Valley – Ankara. European Journal of Housing Policy,
Volume 5, Issue 2, 211 – 229. August, 2005.
Figure 8: Sample activity recording sheet