Effective Elements and Interior Typologies in the Public Space Construction of Shopping Centers

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 73 - 96, 06.05.2024

Fatih Şahin , Sonay Çevik

Öz

Shopping centers, which respond differently to today's sociality and daily life, are accepted as the new faces of public spaces. It has the discourse of being an alternative to the city center that brings people together, connects time and space, and intertwines activity formations with the activities/actions offered. While the urban model setup is used against the problem of large-scale building solution under a single roof/cover, it brings together the urban spaces scattered in the city and gives the human communication/interaction process with entertainment culture. In this study, the differentiated interior types of shopping centers in the physical context are removed, and the intensity of use and supported objects/elements are determined specific to the focus spaces. In the social context, the spatial continuity of the existing public space phenomenon in the city in the common use areas (foci) of shopping centers is evaluated through subjective perception. With globalization, publicity and influential elements are discussed and discussed on shopping centers with different thematic interiors designed for consumption.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Publicity, Public Space, Urban Model, Typology, Shopping Centers.

Kaynakça

• Arendt, H. (1994). İnsanlık durumu (B. S. Şener, Trans.). İletişim Yayıncılık (Original work published 1958).
• Başkaya, A., Wilson, C. and Özcan, Y. Z. (2004). Wayfinding in an unfamiliar environment: different spatial settings of two polyclinics. Environment and Behaviour, 36(6), 839-867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504265445
• Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: isovist and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 6(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1068/b060047
• Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
• Birol, G. (2005). Çağdaş alışveriş merkezlerinde kent dokusunun yeniden yorumlanması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(4), 421-427. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gazimmfd/issue/6666/88943
• Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.
• Çevik, S. (1991). Mekân-kimlik-kimliklendirme Trabzon sokakları örneği [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Çevik, S. (2002). Kentsel tasarım bilgisi lisans ders notları. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, Trabzon.
• Çevik, S. (2004). Kentsel tasarımda biçimlendirme lisansüstü ders notları. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, Trabzon.
• Çubuk, M. (1989, May 15-16). Kamu mekânları ve kentsel tasarım [Oral presentation]. Kamu Mekânları Tasarımı ve Kent Mobilyaları Sempozyumu, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Demirtaş, S., Diken, B. and Gözaydın, İ. B. (1996). Mekân ve ötekiler. Defter Dergisi, (28), 39-44. https://defterdergisi.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/sayi-28/
• Erdönmez, M. E. (2005). Açık kamusal kent mekânlarının toplumsal ilişkileri yapılandırmadaki rolü, Büyükdere-Levent-Maslak aksı [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
• Gehl, J. and Birgitte S. B. (2013). How to study public life. Island Press.
• Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to visual perception. Pergamon Press.
• Giritlioğlu, C. (1991). Şehirsel mekân ögeleri ve tasarımı. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayını.
• Gruen, V. and Smith, L. (1960). Shopping towns USA. Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing.
• Habermas, J. (1992). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Polity Press.
• Hartshorn, T. A., Dent, B. D. and Heck, J. I. (1992). Interpreting the city: An urban geography. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell Publishers.
• Hiller, B. and Hanson, J. (1984). Buildings and their genotyps, in the social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.
• Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press.
• Hillier, B. (2001, May 7-11). A theory of the city as object: or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space [Oral presentation]. 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Kostof, S. (1991). The city shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history. Thames and Hudson.
• Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. Academy Editions.
• Krier, R. (1983). Elements of architecture, architectural design. Academy Editions.
• Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory, the role of the behavioural sciences in environmental design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing.
• Lynch, K. (1961). The image of city. The M. I. T. Press.
• Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. The M. I. T. Press.
• Madden, D. J. (2010). Urbanism in pieces: publics and power in urban development. Columbia University Press.
• Moughtin, C. (1992). Urban design: Street and square. Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Oktay, D. (1999). Kentsel ortak mekânların niteliği ve kent yaşamındaki rolü. Yapı Dergisi, (207), 54-61.
• Ostrowski, W. (1970). Contemporary town planning: From the origins to the Athens charter. IFHP-CRU.
• Peponis, J. (2001, May 7-11). Interacting questions and descriptions-how do they look from here? [Oral presentation]. Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
• Peponis, J. and Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial structure of environment and behaviour. In R. B. Bechtel and A. Churchman (Ed.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 271-291). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon Press.
• Rapoport, A. (1990). Meaning of the built environment. The Universiy of Arizona Press.
• Robertson, K. A. (1993). Pedestrianization strategies for downtown planners: Skywalks versus pedestrian malls. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975887
• Sennett, R. (1996). Kamusal insanın çöküşü (S. Durak & A. Yılmaz, Trans.). Ayrıntı Yayınları (Original work published 1977).
• Şahin, F. (2005). Alışveriş merkezlerinin biçimlenmesinde önemli boyutlardan kamusal mekân ve kamusallık olgusu [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Şahin, F. (2009, Jun 11-12). Alışveriş merkezlerinde toplum yapısına bağlı anlamsal kriterler ve değişiminin incelenmesi [Oral presentation]. Planlama ve Mimarlık Alanının Son On Yılı Sempozyumu, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Şahin, F. and Çevik, S. (2010, May 10-13). Influences of art to the quality of public sphere in shopping centres [Oral presentation]. Identity and Interaction in Art, International Symposium, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing.
• Türkoğlu, H. D. (1998). Açık mekânların kapalı mekânlara dönüşümü: Şehir merkezlerinde alışveriş alanları. Yapı Dergisi, (195), 57-63.
• Vural, T. (2005). Değişen üretim-tüketim ilişkileri bağlamında alışveriş merkezlerinin anlamsal ve mekansal dönüşümüne eleştirel bir bakış [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Vural, T. and Yücel, A. (2006). Çağımızın yeni kamusal mekanları olan alışveriş merkezlerine eleştirel bir bakış. ITU Dergisi A, 5(2), 97-106. http://itudergi. itu.edu.tr/index.php/ itudergisi_a/article/view/912
• Yenice, Ş. (1998). “Kamusal olma” içeriğinin kamusal mekânın anlamsal ve kullanımsal boyutuna yansıması üzerine bir analiz çalışması [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.