Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||İnsan-kent İlişkisinde Bir Arayüz Olarak mimarlıkta Kamusal Mekan|
|Other Titles:||Human-urban Relationship As An Interface public Space In Architecture|
|Publisher:||Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü|
Institute of Science And Technology
|Abstract:||Uçakta koltuğumuzda otururken uçağın kalktığını hissettiğimiz anda refleks olarak cama bakar, uçağın yerden kopuşunu izleriz. Bu kopuş ile birlikte yere baktığımızda giderek daha da genişleyen bir bakış açısıyla arkamızda bıraktığımız kentin nasıl bir dokuya ve karaktere sahip olduğunun farkına varırız. Denizlerle kara parçalarının, kara parçalarıyla yapı adalarının, yapı adalarıyla yolların ve hepsiyle bizim yani ‘’insanın’’ ölçek aralığını ve bizim bu ölçek aralığını algılamakta ne kadar uzak olduğumuzu uçak yolculuklarıyla farkedebiliriz. Peki insan ölçeğinden baktığımızda içinde ya da dışında bulunduğumuz yapılar kenti algılamamıza ne kadar yardımcı olmaktadır? Yapılar tasarlandığı parsel sınırları dışında kentten neler alıp vermektedir? Kent içindeki yapılar insanın kamusallaşması adına nasıl bir arayüz oluşturmaktadır? Yapıların kendi sınırlarının belirsizleştiği, eridiği, kente farklı değerler kattığı, katarken de kentin belirli değerlerini içine aldığı, bazen de o yeri kentle birlikte ördüğü ve o yer ile birlikte bir kamusal mekan imkanı sunduğu mimarlık yaklaşımlarının tartışılması konunun çerçevesini belirlemektedir. Arayüz sadece kendi sınılarını eritmekle kalmaz aynı zamanda insan ile kent arasındaki ölçek aralığını da eritir. Bu sayede insanın kentle ve diğer insanlar ile bağ/ilişki kurabileceği potansiyelleri yaratır. Çerçeve içinde yer alan yapı örneklerinin kritik özellikleri ise kamusallık sunma biçimlerini fonksiyona dahil olunmadan sağlayabilmeleridir. Yapının kamusallığı ile tanımlanmak istenen, kendinden tamamıyla soyutladığı artık bir boşluktan öte, yapıyla fiziksel olarak ilişkili fakat yapının fonksiyonu ile ilişkilenmeden iki kişinin olsa bile rastlantısallık çerçevesi içerisinde sosyalleşebildiği mekandır. Yapının işlevi ya da büyüklüğü, konuyu tartışırken bir kriter olmamıştır. Burada ele alınan yapılar ya da örnekler kamusallık yaratabilme becerisiyle tartışmaya açılmıştır. Kimi zaman ticari, kimi zaman konut, kimi zaman da dini yapılar üzerinden incelenmiştir. Fonksiyona dahil olunmadan gerçekleştirilen kamusal mekana katılma biçimleri, yapının iki ölçek aralığı içinde aldığı tavra göre incelenmiştir. Kentsel ölçekte kurduğu bağlamsal ve insan ölçeğinde kurduğu algısal ilişkiler, yapı tiplerinin kamusallık kuvvetini sorgulamakta kullanılan özellikler olarak var olmuştur. Kentsel bağlam üzerinden yapının yerle ve çevreyle kurduğu ilişki çeşitleri incelenirken, insan ölçeğinde de yaratılan farklı algısal yaklaşımlar ve sunduğu kamusallaşma potansiyelleri irdelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu iki ölçek farklılığı üzerinden yapıların incelenmesiyle, yapıların hangi yöntemlerle kamusallaştıklarının açığa çıkarılması amaçlanmaktadır.|
While we are sitting on our couches in the plane, we look through window as a reflex and watch the plane’s leaving from the ground. We start to realize the texture and character of the city behind us with a greater perspective after this moment. We obtain how hard to understand the scale difference of the sea and the earth, the earth and urban blocks, urban blocks and roads and human to all, with these plane travels. How the buildings that we are in or outside help us to perceive the city when we look from the human scale? What do buildings except from their parcel boundaries, contribute or not to the city? How do buildings in the city create interface for human in order to be apart of the public. Buildings that obscure, their boundaries, melting, different values of the city adds certain values while adding the city also bought into, and sometimes that place had knitted together with the city to the ground, together with a public space that offers the possibility of architectural approaches is to determine the framework of the discussion of the topic. In the thesis process, initially, the meaning of public space and square are differenciated. However, meaning of this two terms is confused by people. This differentiation is examined with Ali Akay sample. Also, the meaning of public space and public square is explained. Then, where the position of public interface is located between this two terms. This two terms are create the base of public interface. According to this two terms, the analyze of public interface is researched on the cases. After then, two terms which are urban context and human scale are explained with the references. People and urban have different scale gap. Public interface is discussed to solve this gap so meaning of urban and people is explained deeply. Buildgings which can offer public interface without inside of it discussed to solve this gap. The relationship of buildings with urban context is explained theoritical and pratical. The meaning of interface is explained after the based termsn are discussed. İnterface term is opened in the different profession such as IT technology, geography, planning etc. Then, where it comes from to architecture is explained. İn addition to this, the public interface is extended some examples such as Oslo Opera House, Pompidou Center, mosques, the installation works on facades. This examples are used to how public interface can be created simply. Also, the horizontal and vertical converging interface are discussed. Horizontal converging includes plan ideas such as organization of program elements to create public interface. Vertival converging includes facades and silhouettes ideas of building to create public interface. Oslo’s urban strategy and design ideas is public environment. Oslo Opera House is designed parallel to this strategy. Oslo Opera House designed as walking its above. Public life and system of building is divided with this way. Pompidou Center is also used to explain public interface. It creates public interface with one of box and ramp types. It colletcts pedestrian flow by ramp. Moreover, how the realitionship of urban context and program of building affect working of public interface is discussed. What the criters are while analyzing public interface on the building are dedicated. Building are analyzed according to publicty potential without inside of building. Also how building melts its boundry between the urban context is another criter. Also what buildings offer in human scale and urban context is discussed on the cases. When buildings are analyzed, some architectural terms are adapted to help such as courtyard, ramp, corridor etc. In this context, the critical features of the building samples are enabling public life without being a part of function. When intended to define the structure of the public sphere of a building, rather than its empty space isolated from itself, related with physically, where you can socialize without function as randomly. According to this, Milli Reasürans, İstanbul Drapers Bazaar and Trump Cadde is selected to analyze public interface. Door, courtyard, corriodor are adapted as keywords for Milli Reasürans. This terms explained with the horizontal and vertical converging of interface. In addition to this, how the enviroment affect to create public interface is discussed. Milli Reasürans is differenciated in the solid facades by creating door, corridor and courtyard. Also, programatic relationship analyzed in the public interface. Then, İstanbul Drapers Bazaar is analyzed with on other keywords such as courtyard, ramp and corridor. How İstanbul Drapers Bazaar is hosting keywords by creating public interface is discussed. İstanbul Draper Bazaar is differenciated with its mat-urban idea. The pattern of İstanbul Draper Bazaar knitted to urban context. This mat-urban idea creates many advantages to adapting urban life for public interface. İstanbul Draper Bazaar can live itself like a city to have some facilities such as fountain, grocery, post office. Moreover, silhouettes relation between İstanbul Draper Bazaar and Süleymaniye Mosque is designed. The last building which one is Trump Cadde designed on the terrace of Trump Towers. It’s architectural and structural system connected to Trump Towers. This situation differenciated Trump Cadde than other cases. Public interface is created with the relationship of some industrial containers. Flexible movements of containers create many opportunity for public interface. Courtyard, street and boxes are adapted as keywords for Trump Cadde. In additon to this, crossing readings are made in thesis process. One of building which desing idea is being public interface, but it does not work is discussed. Zorlu Center is selected in this part. Zorlu Center does not work completely although it’s desing idea exists as being ‘’public interface’’. ‘’Puplic shell’’ is the main term of Zorlu Center, but this term does not contructed after the design competiton ended. Also, how the pedestrian roads are not manipulated according environment is discussed. This misconnection with urban context cause coming off pedestrian. In addition to this, ‘’bignees’’ theory of Rem Koolhaas is discussed on Zorlu Center. While discussing, the function or the dimension of the building is not considered as a criteria. Buildings and examples that are mentioned in this study are opened for discussion as having ability to create a public life. This subject is analyzed over commercial, residential and regional buildings. Forms of being part of the public space without being part of the function are defined with its behavior between two different scale ranges. Relations - both on urban scale context and on human scale perceptual- are features of questioning the strength of publicity. While the building’s relations with its space and environment are analyzed on urban scale, on the other side the potential of being public and different perception approaches are analyzed on human scale. It is aimed to show what kinds of methods are used for buildings to be public among these two different scales. Finally, people and city have different scale. Urban life try to melt this difference with offering some facilities, but also buildings can attribute many things to solve this problem. Building can create true public life without inside of it. In the thesis, one type of attribute which is public interface is discussed and analyzed on the cases. People need to interact together in the city, but cities does not always support this needs. Building can activate to solve this problems if they desinged and organized truly with the city. The meaning of interface is explained after the based termsn are discussed. İnterface term is opened in the different profession such as IT technology, geography, planning etc. Then, where it comes from to architecture is explained. İn addition to this, the public interface is extended some examples such as Oslo Opera House, Pompidou Center, mosques, the installation works on facades. This examples are used to how public interface can be created simply. Also, the horizontal and vertical converging interface are discussed. Horizontal converging includes plan ideas such as organization of program elements to create public interface. Vertival converging includes facades and silhouettes ideas of building to create public interface. Oslo’s urban strategy and design ideas is public environment. Oslo Opera House is designed parallel to this strategy.
|Description:||Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2015|
Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015
|Appears in Collections:||Mimarlık Lisansüstü Programı - Yüksek Lisans|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.