Evaluation of Mecidiyeköy as an urban threshold in socio-cultural sustainability framework

Authors

  • Olcay Yıldızgördü image/svg+xml Architect, Ozyegin University, Turkey

    Olcay Yıldızgördü graduated from Özyeğin University as an architect in 2019, and she received an acceptance from Architecture M.Sc. in the same year. She is still on her master studies in Architecture at Özyeğin University. Her research interests include culture and space studies, housing design and research, globalization and its effects on new housing trends, and Turkey's modern architectural history.

  • Derya Yorgancıoğlu image/svg+xml Assist. Prof. Dr. Özyegin University, Turkey

    Derya Yorgancıoğlu received her B.Arch (2000) degree from Yıldız Technical University Department of Architecture (2000), and M.Arch (2004) and Ph.D. (2010) degrees in Architecture from the Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture. She worked as Assistant Professor at the Department of Architecture at Istanbul Kemerburgaz University (2011-2017). Currently she is working at Özyeğin University Department of Architecture. She conducted short term research studies at Queen’s University of Belfast, Center for Educational Development (CED) in 2017 and at Indiana University, Bloomington, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning in 2018 as a visiting researcher. Her research project was granted by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [grant number 215K234]. Her research interests cover the fields of theory and research in architecture, architectural design, architectural education, learning space design, scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2021.v2i1014

Keywords:

urban space, urban threshold, Mecidiyeköy, third space, socio-cultural sustainability

Abstract

The globalization process resulted from technological and economic developments in the second half of the 20th century has created a rapid urban transformation in the world and Turkey as a developing country. This rapid urban transformation has affected the urban and architectural context of cities, including Istanbul, both in negative and positive ways. Urban policies, which lay the groundwork for minimizing the negative effects of rapid urbanization on cities and producing more inclusive life scenarios, are mostly based on socio-cultural sustainability approaches. However, when urban policies are concerned, the issue of sustainability is usually approached from the perspectives of ecological and/or physical features, whereas the significance of socio-cultural sustainability for urban development strategies is often neglected. Within this framework, this study aims to examine the potentials and constraints that Mecidiyeköy encompasses as an “urban threshold” and to inquire the ways that socio-cultural sustainability can offer a ground for future urban policies and architectural practices to trigger the co-existence of differences and social interaction between them. This study is designed as a case-study and the methodological framework of the study consists of literature review and on-site observations. This article revealed that socio-cultural sustainability, as a conceptual framework and urban approach, can provide a fertile ground for future urban scenarios that would be developed for Mecidiyeköy. If approached from the socio-cultural sustainability perspective, it can be ensured that this region having constraints and potentials in terms of accommodating spatial and human diversity and triggering the interaction between them, can actually work as an “urban threshold.”

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  • Anonim. (1994). Mecidiyeköy. In Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 5, pp. 317-318). Istanbul, Turkey: Kültür Bakanlığı Tarih Vakfı.
  • Artuç, D. (2016). Kentsel dönüşümün sosyal ve mekânsal etkileri: Fikirtepe dönüşüm alanı [Master's thesis, Maltepe University]. Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration & social sustainability: best practice from European cities. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Çalışkan, O., Ribeiro, D. C., & Tümtürk, O. (2020). Designing the heterotopia: from social ideology to spatial morphology. Urban Design International, 25(1), 30-52.
  • Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development, 19(5), 289-300.
  • Dişli, E. Y. (2006). Toplu taşıma sistemleri entegrasyonu ve Şişli Mecidiyeköy uygulaması [Master’s thesis, Istanbul Technical University]. Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Dixon, T. (2011). Putting the s word back into sustainability: can we be more social? The Berkeley Group, Oxford Brookes University.
  • Gür, A. (2019). Integration of public transport services: the case of Istanbul [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Ankara, Turkey.
  • Hediger, W. (2000). Sustainable development and social welfare. Ecological economics, 32(3), 481-492.
  • Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for students in architecture. 010 Publishers.
  • Hoseinpournader, S. (2013). Mecidiyeköy-Zincirlikuyu aksında turizm,hizmet, ticaret ve konut alanlarının tarihsel gelişim sürecinin irdelenmesi [Master's thesis, Yıldız Technical University]. Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), Metro Istanbul. Retrieved April 4, 2021 from https://www.metro.Istanbul/haber/detay/m7-hatti-gunluk-100-bin-yolcuya-ulasti
  • Karaman, O. (2008). Urban pulse—(RE)Making space for globalization in Istanbul. Urban Geography, 29(6), 518-525.
  • Karuppannan, S., & Sivam, A. (2011). Social sustainability and neighbourhood design: an investigation of residents' satisfaction in Delhi. Local Environment, 16(9), 849-870.
  • Kesikbaş, N., & Albayrak, F. (2003). Melih Birsel’le söyleşi. Yapı, 256, 45-48.
  • Keyder, Ç. (2000). Istanbul: küresel ile yerel arasında. Metis Yayınları.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1992). The production of space. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Li, X., & Zhou, S. (2018). The trialectics of spatiality: the labeling of a historical area in Beijing. Sustainability, 10(5), 1542.
  • Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1996). Sustainable development and cities. In C. Pugh (Ed.), Sustainability the Environment and Urbanization (pp. 23-62). Earthscan Publications.
  • Mutman, D., & Yorgancıoğlu, D. (In press). Re-reading the tools and actors: commodification of urban space and promoting the image of ‘new’ Istanbul [Special issue: Turkey, Urbanism and the New Habitat, Oktay (Ed.)]. Ekistics and the New Habitat, 80(1).
  • Oktay, D. (2014). Kent, sürdürülebilirlik ve yaşam kalitesi Eskişehir Kent Sempozyumu, Eskişehir, Turkey.
  • Önder, D. (2015). Kent deneyiminde özgürleşme aralıkları olarak heterojen mekân [Master's thesis, Istanbul Technical University]. Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Ozus, E., Turk, S. S., & Dokmeci, V. (2011). Urban restructuring of Istanbul. European Planning Studies, 19(2), 331-356.
  • Sachs, I. (1999). Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In T. Jahn & E. Becker (Eds.), Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation (pp. 25-36). Zed Books.
  • Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Stavrides, S. (2010). Towards the city of thresholds. Professionaldreamers.
  • Stavrides, S. (2015). Common space as threshold space: Urban commoning in struggles to re-appropriate public space. Footprint, 16, 9-19.
  • Şevik, E. (2018). Territoriality of heterotopia: threshold as a condition of heterotopian space in the case of Emek district, Bursa [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Ankara, Turkey.
  • Şevik, E., & Çalışkan, O. (2018). Heterotopyanın alansallığı: heterotopolojinin temel mekânsal koşulu olarak kentsel eşikler II. Kentsel Morfoloji Sempozyumu, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Tekeli, İ. (2013). Istanbul'un planlanmasının ve geliṣmesinin öyküsü. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
  • Teyssot, G. (2008). Mapping the threshold: "a theory of design and interface". AA Files, 57, 3-12.
  • The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
  • Woodcraft, S. (2012). Social sustainability and new communities: moving from concept to practice in the UK. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 29-42.
  • Url 1 Yıldızgördü, O. (2019). Analysis of Mecidiyeköy and Üsküdar in the context of socio-cultural sustainability. Retrieved March 5, 2021 from https://youtu.be/WKzSpz2_Zok
  • Url 2 Istanbul, M. Quasar Istanbul (Tekel Likör ve Kanyak Fabrikası). Retrieved March 5, 2021 from http://megaprojelerIstanbul.com/#quasar-Istanbul-mecidiyekoy-likor-fabrikasi
  • Url 3 Civelekoğlu, L. Likör uğruna Istanbul’a kadar gelen bir “Parisien”: Mimar Rob Mallet-Stevens. Retrieved February 26, 2021 from http://lcivelekoglu.blogspot.com/2013/11/likor-ugruna-Istanbula-kadar-gelen-bir.html
  • Url 4 Istanbul, M. Torun Center (Ali Sami Yen Stadı). Retrieved March 5, 2021 from http://megaprojelerIstanbul.com/#torun-center-ali-sami-yen-stadi
  • Url 5 Rodoplu, B. G. (2019). As they tower over you. https://issuu.com/gunrodoplu/docs/fad413final_g_nrodoplu
  • Keleş, F. G. (2019). In. Personal archive.
  • Rodoplu, B. G. (2019). In. Personal archive.
  • Topal, U. (2019). In. Personal archive.
  • Yıldızgördü, O. (2019). In. Personal archive.

Downloads


Published

2021-04-29

How to Cite

Yıldızgördü, O., & Yorgancıoğlu, D. (2021). Evaluation of Mecidiyeköy as an urban threshold in socio-cultural sustainability framework. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 2(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2021.v2i1014

Issue


Section

Research Articles