Neighborhood Connection Density-Neighborhood Morphology Connection: The Case of Antalya Kaleiçi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2024.307Keywords:
Antalya- Kaleiçi, Neighborhood connection density, Neighborhood morphology, Neighborhood unit, Traditional settlementsAbstract
Can neighborhood boundaries be defined in terms of morphological and functional characteristics in cities that have developed different formations due to various influences in the historical process? While neighborhood units in planned settlements are pre-planned with an integrative approach, in unplanned traditional settlements, residences come together as pieces and ultimately form the settlement. In this study, which was carried out in Antalya-Kaleiçi, qualitative and quantitative research methods were used. In the study, the neighborhood formation system was discussed based on the hierarchical structure. A set of buildings including residences that are next to and opposite a residence and directly open into a shared urban space is defined as the neighborhood cell of that residence. The functional relationships among residential elements were defined as neighborhood connections, and a method to determine neighborhood connection density was developed. In morphological development, an arrangement involving religious buildings accepted as focal points, neighborhood cells of different degrees forming around them, neighborhood blocks of different degrees belonging to neighborhood cells of different degrees, and neighborhood units formed out of neighborhood blocks was observed. It is understood that the density of neighborhood connections is influenced by the number of residences defining neighborhood cells, the number of connection points between residences such as building doors and gates, and the spatial sizes of neighborhood spaces in which neighborhood connections take place. In other words, the tendency for dense neighborhood connections emerges in areas with more residences and connections but low square footage area. This situation was considered a reflection of the relationship between the morphological and functional structures. It was concluded that unplanned traditional neighborhood units were formed in a way that did not show the self-sustaining and enclosed character of planned residential units, and this structure was a characteristic that should be taken as an example and maintained in terms of settlement culture.
Metrics
References
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. & Silversteın, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aru, K.A. (1998). Türk Kenti. İstanbul: YEM Yayınları.
Barlas, A. (2012). Komşuluk Birimi. M. Ersoy (Eds.). Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük, 281-283. İstanbul: Ninova Yayınları.
Başman, B. S. & Akın, O. (2018). Mahalle Ölçeğinden Birim Konut Ölçeğine Ortak Mekân Kavramı ve Değişimi. Türkiye Kentsel Morfoloji Araştırma Ağı II. Kentsel Morfoloji Sempozyumu, “DeğişKent” Değişen Kent, Mekân ve Biçim, 31 October- 2 November, İstanbul, p. 945-964. https://tnum.org.tr/index.php/tnum/article/view/89
Bauer, C. (1945). Good Neighborhoods. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242(1), 104-115. doi:10.1177/000271624524200114
Brody, J. (2016). How Ideas Work: Memes And Institutional Material in the First 100 Years of the Neighborhood Unit. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(4), 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1074602
Canan, F., Kobya, H. B., Aköz, A. B. & Temizci, A. (2020). Vernaküler ve Çağdaş Mimarlık Örneklerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: Antalya Kaleiçi ve Deniz Mahallesi Örneği. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Appli ed Sciences, 24 (2), 256-266. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.651622
Cataldi, G. (2003). From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of the Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphology, 7(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.51347/jum.v7i1.3904
Cerasi, M. M. (1999). Osmanlı Kenti Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Mimarisi. Ataöv, A. (Trans.). İstanbul: YKY Yayınları.
Dahir, J. (1947). The Neighborhood Unit Plan Its Spread and Acceptance, A Selected Bibliography with Interpretative Comments. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dayar, E. (2020). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Son Dönemlerinde Antalya Kaleiçi ve Çevresi. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 59–84. http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/content/view/186/171/
Eren, B. & Cengiz Taşlı, T. (2020). Kentsel Arayüz /Ara Mekân Kalitesinin Taksim Asmalımescit Mahallesi Üzerinden Okunması. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences JONAS, 3(1), 18-35.
Erman, O. (2017). Mekansal Komşuluk Kavramı Üzerinden Mimari Mekanın Analizi. Çukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, 32(1), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaummfd.310083
Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington: Island Press.
Isaacs, R. R. (1948). The Neighborhood Theory: An Analysis of its Adequacy. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 14(2), 15-23. doi:10.1080/01944364808978605
Johnson, D. L. (2002). Origin of the Neighbourhood Unit. Planning Perspectives, 17(3), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665430210129306
Kallus, R. & Law-Yone, H. (1997). NEIGHBORHOOD — THE METAMORPHOSIS OF AN IDEA. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14(2), 107-125.
Keleş, R. (1998). Kentbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
Kılıç, S. (2022) Antalya Kaleı̇çı̇’nı̇n Sı̇vı̇l ve Dı̇nı̇ Mı̇marı̇ Örneklerı̇nde Görülen Köşe Pahları ve Süslemelerı̇. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 31(1), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.29135/std.1004885
Kızılcık, H. Ş. & Damlı, V. (2019). Fizik Eğitiminde “Öz Kütle” ve “Bağıl Yoğunluk” Terimleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Avrasya Terim Dergisi, 7(2), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.31451/ejatd.640555
Koca, F. (2015), Türkiye’de Geleneksel Yerleşim Örüntülerinin Özgün Karakter ve Kültürel Mirasını Koruma Anlayışına Ontolojik Bir Yaklaşım. Planlama, 25(1): 32-43.
Komşu. (2023, April 10). Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükler. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
Kostof, S. (1991). The City Shaped Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. London: Thames and Hudson.
Maretto, M. (2013). Saverio Muratori: Towards a morphological school of urban design. Urban Morphology, 17(2), 95-106.
Mehaffy, M. W., Porta, S. & Romice, O. (2015). The “Neighborhood Unit” on Trial: A Case Study in the Impacts of Urban Morphology. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(2), 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.908786
Mosharraf, H. (2023). Urban Morphology Schools: A Review of the English, Italian, and French Schools of Thought. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 11(3), 399-407.
Mumford, L. (1954). The Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Unit. The Town Planning Review, 24(4), 256-270.
Özbek Eren, İ., (2012). Türkiye’de dönüşen kentlerin son kalesi: Kent kurucu öğe olarak Osmanlı'dan günümüze 'Mahalle'. International Journal of Human Sciences [Online]. (9)2, 1547-1568.
Pacifico, D. & Truex, L. A. (2019). Why Neighborhoods? The Neighborhood in Archaeological Theory and Practice. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 30, 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12110
Palaiologou, G. & Vaughan, L. (2014). The Sociability of the Street İnterface-Revisiting West Village, Manhattan. 21st International Seminar on Urban Form – ISUF 21, 3-6 July, Porto, p.88-102.
Park, Y. & Rogers O. G. (2015). Neighborhood Planning Theory, Guidelines, and Research: Can Area, Population, and Boundary Guide Conceptual Framing? Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412214549422
Perry, C. A. (1929). City Planning for Neighborhood Life. Social Forces, 8(1), 98-100. doi:10.2307/2570059
Petruccioli, A. (2008). Bellek Yitiminin Ardından Akdeniz İslam Kent Dokusunun Öğrettikleri. Kütükçüoğlu, B. (Trans.). İstanbul: YEM Yayınları.
Ruonavaara, H. (2022). The Anatomy of Neighbour Relations. Sociological Research Online, 27(2), 379-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211012708
Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood Planning in Historical Perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368508976207
Taş, N. & Sezen, B. (2020). Yapay Sinir Ağları ile Trafik Yoğunluğu Tahmini. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 22 (4), 1020-1034. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.746349
Türk, A. (2014). Antalya Kenti Konut Dışı Tescilli Sivil Mimari Yapılar ve Özellikleri. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Science, 17(1), 113-132.
Wilkerson, A., Carlson, N. E., Yen, I. H. & Michael, Y. L. (2012). Neighborhood Physical Features and Relationships With Neighbors: Does Positive Physical Environment Increase Neighborliness?. Environment and Behavior, 44 (5), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402058.
Yağcı, Ö. (2009). Antalya Tarihi Kent Merkezi Gelişim Süreci. Planlama, 2, 31-49.
Zhang, X., Ai, T., Stoter, J., Kraak, M.J. & Molenaar, M. (2013). Building Pattern Recognition in Topographic Data: Examples on Collinear and Curvilinear Alignments, Geoinformatica, 17, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-011-0146-3
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.