Search

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2014, Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2014, Çalışma kapsamında, liman kenti, büyük ve genel bir başlık olarak kent kavramı çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Liman kenti tanımı, bileşenlerinin neler olabileceği, limanın kent dönüşümündeki rolü değerlendirilerek İstanbul için, liman kenti kimliği dönüşümü değerlendirilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda liman kentlerinin, ilk kentten, endüstri kentine ve metropole geçişte, kentsel teoriler çerçevesinde konumlarının belirlenmesine çalışılmaktadır. Çalışmanın, bir diğer genel kavramı kimliktir. Kimlik kavramı liman kenti özelinde, fiziksel ve sosyal bileşenleri ile bir bütün olarak ele alınmaktadır. Kimlik tartışılırken eleştirel bir bakış açısı geliştirilmesi ön görülmektedir. Kentsel kimlik kavramını anlamlandıran öğeler üzerinde durulmaya çalışılmaktadır. Kimlik kavramının, liman kenti özelinde, gündelik hayattaki yansıması tartışılmaktadır. Gündelik hayat ifadesiyle kastedilen, kentlinin fiziksel ve sosyal açıdan kenti kullanım alışkanlıklarıyla yeniden biçimlendirerek anlamlandırmasıdır. Bu anlayışa paralel olarak, gündelik hayat dinamikleri içinde, kentlinin kenti kullanarak yarattığı kendiliğinden dönüşüm biçimi, kentsel kimliği biçimlendiren önemli bir bileşen olarak görülür. Bu genel başlıklar bağlamında, çalışma alanı olarak, bir liman kenti olan İstanbul ele alınmaktadır. İstanbul limanları içinde, günümüzde, kentin merkezinde sayılabilecek konumu, Tarihi Yarımada’yla ilişkisi, zamansal, mekansal ve sosyal açıdan geniş katmanlaşması göz önünde bulundurularak Galata-Karaköy seçilmiştir. Liman kenti ve kimlik (gündelik hayat) çerçevesinde Galata tarihsel süreç içinde değerlendirilirken, kendiliğinden dönüşümü ve planlı dönüşüm projeleri karşılaştırılmaya çalışılacaktır. İstanbul’un, Galata bölgesi özelinde, liman kenti kimliği çerçevesinde, kendiliğinden dönüşümü ile planlı dönüşümünün mimari ve kentsel açıdan tartışılması planlanmaktadır. Liman kentlerinde, özellikle liman bölgelerindeki dönüşüm süreçlerinde kentlinin rolü sorgulanmaktadır. Buna göre kentli bağlamında ve kentsel kimlik çerçevesinde, Galata’nın kendiliğinden gelişimi/dönüşümü ile planlı dönüşümü arasındaki ilişki, bu ilişkinin, İstanbul özelinde, kentsel tasarıma katkısının neler olabileceğinin araştırılması; aynı çerçevede Galataport projesinin tartışılması amaçlanmaktadır. Mevcut haliyle, kaotik bir görünüme sahip Galata ve civarında, gündelik hayatın dinamikleri doğrultusunda ortaya çıkan üretimlerin yarattığı kendiliğinden dönüşüm ile pek çok farklı katmandan kentlinin bir arada yaşayabildiği görülmektedir. Galata’nın liman kenti kimliğinin dönüşümünün geldiği noktaya “bir durum olarak” yaklaşılması, kentin anlanlandırılmasında önemlidir. Çalışma boyunca, kentli odağında ele alınan kent kavramı ve liman kenti kimliği dönüşümü doğrultusunda, kente yapılan her müdahalenin birincil müdahili kentlidir. Bu bağlamda, İstanbul’un liman bölgesi için yürütülecek planlamada, kısa vadede sonuçların öngörülebilirliğinin arttırılması, kentin mümkün olan en geniş perspektifte ele alınarak, minimum noktasal müdahale(ler) ve kentli odaklı bir projelendirmeyle mümkün görünmektedir., In this study, the port city is considered as a large and general title in the frame of city concept. By interpreting the definition of “port city”, the possible sub-components of it and the role of the port in the transformation of the city; the transformation of port city identity of Istanbul is evaluated. In this context, the position of port cities is located in the transition from the early city to industrial city and metropolis within the scope of urban theories. Today, city is composed of countless different components that cannot be seen at a single glance. This situation makes impossible to describe every piece that constitutes the city and hence to define the city completely with a unique description. In this respect, it might be said that the city exists as the interaction area of a great number of variables. In the present day, it is almost impossible to plan the cities since we have no idea on how to control the factors affecting the city. In each passing day, the borders of city become wider and more indefinite. The city, which is under a continuous transformation without any interference, offers an experience area for each citizen. In his or her everyday life the citizen destructs and constructs this “experience area” in physical, economic, social and cultural aspects perpetually. This continuous transformation carries the entire potential of citizen-city interaction. It is thought that the potentials of citizen-city interactions might create possibilities to understand and design city better. When the city concept is considered specifically as port city, water is appeared as an important datum of the discussion. Throughout the historical process water remains important for cities. As a borderline and/or transition space where water and land meets, the waterfront concept is a dominant component in the shaping of city – and the citizen- although its employment type differs due to technological, economic, social and cultural changes. Even if the relationship of Istanbul with water, waterfront and sea resembles the relationship of other port cities in a great deal of aspects, it differs with regard to its local properties. It is possible to say that dynamic waterfront spaces transform Istanbul with Istanbul citizens. Port city is a scene of transformation under the influence of transmarine economic bindings. It is impossible to explain this transformation created by many different factors under equilibrium with simple causations or chronological historic events. On the other hand, depending on the geographical conditions port offers a natural resource to the city. This resource might be political and economic or social and technological. Port cities have become the space of continuous transformation in the influence of urban planning approaches of age and in the axis of transmarine discoveries, the developments in the naval technologies and the changes in the commercial channels. Starting from the beginning of 20th century, port has lost its integrated place within the city at the center of social and everyday life. While the port is being vitalized with renovation projects, it is important not to make the port unattainable and to create spatial fictions with single functions. Another general concept of the study is ‘identity’. The concept of ‘identity’, in the scope of port cities, is taken into consideration as a whole with its physical and social components. As identity is discussed, it is anticipated that a critical point of view will be developed. The factors that give meaning to the urban identity concept will be emphasized. In the scope of port cities, the reflection of identity on everyday life is discussed. The term “everyday life”, here, implies the citizen interpretation of the city physically and socially by reshaping it through his or her habits. Parallel to this interpretation, self-transformation created by the citizen with the utilization of city in everyday life dynamics is considered as an important component. It is observed that handling city’s identity discussion with limited and reductionist approaches experiences difficulty in covering the organic-structured, multi-layered and with citizen transforming city definition. Being tightly linked to a historical stationary structure the identity concept, in city domain, is thought to be incomplete in the interpretation of city. In this respect, urban identity is considered as a continuously transforming existence that reverberate the space by stratifying. Considering urban identity as a continuous existence and interpreting the citizen with the city as a means that changes the city, make it possible to continue the identity discussion in everyday life context. According to this, it is possible to consider the urban identity concept in citizen’s everyday life. Today, urban identity is the productions under the speed, dynamism and temporariness of citizen’s everyday life. Everyday life practices as a part of city’s transformation are thought to be important for the citizen to interpret the city as an experience and production area. On the other hand, in the direction of identity discussion carried out, plurality is considered as important for Istanbul. Istanbul port city identity, being at the center of the discussion, is considered as one of many components of Istanbul. What emphasized in this respect is the high level of difficulty in the interpretation of historically, politically and socially multi-layered cities such as Istanbul with one-sided views, and the study is focused on a component of Istanbul and the dominant identity of this component. In the context of these titles, Istanbul, which is a port city, is considered as the work space. Among from the ports of Istanbul, Galata-Karaköy is selected by regarding its current central location in the city, its relationship with the “Historical Peninsula”, and its extensive temporal, spatial and social stratifications for the study. While Galata-Karaköy is being evaluated in the historical period with the frame of port city and identity (everyday life), its self-transformation and planned transformation projects will be compared. It is planned to run a discussion on the architectural and urban aspects of self-transformation and planned transformation of Istanbul, specifically in Galata-Karaköy region, within the port city identity frame. The role of the citizens on the transformation processes in port cities, especially in port regions, is examined. According to this, in the context of citizen and the frame of urban identity, the relationship between the self-transformation/development and planned transformation of Galata, and the contribution of this relationship to urban design are researched and a discussion on Galataport project in this frame is aimed. Considering the shaping of Galata, the effects of interferences done by the central governments and local municipalities are obvious. It can be said that this shaping is reflected to citizen’s use. On the other hand, what is the influence of citizen’s everyday life practice on this shaping? In the context of citizen’s everyday life, what kind of a self-transformation can be referred to? At this point, it is critical to consider the planned transformation projects and self-transformation phenomena objectively. Ongoing transformation of Galata and the projects directed to the beautification of the region are evaluated by considering the transformations done in the port region of world’s important port cities. At this point, however, it is important to relate the city’s original structure with world cities’ similarities. Even though Galata is under a transformation process almost at the same time with the examples in the Europe, it has some differences in dynamical aspects. In 19th century, Istanbul still had a middle age city view (Akın, 1998). The city did not experience the industrial revolution and did not confront with the problems appeared through the industrial revolution. In 19th century’s Galata, the meaning of transformation is a package of renovations offered by the central authority. These renovations are prepared by considering the urban planning studies done in Europe at the same age. However, these imported projects could not get meaning in citizen’s everyday life and hence the expected transformation was not obtained. The ongoing transformation of Galata today, on the other hand, has come into existence under the influence of much more complicated factors. The work, most of which has been done by the central government or the local municipalities under the influence of the central government and under the pressure of the political regime, has been kept away from the contemporary urban planning approaches and discussions. This process gained speed starting from the mid of the 20th century and in this process the region has lost many of its structures, citizen-water relationship has ended completely and Pera’s (Beyoğlu) attraction and dense use could not be transferred to Galata. This part of the city has become unfavorable for the citizen. It is obvious that taking the transformation concept as a solution seeking for a problem not a process is a problematic point of view at the start as it is tried to be defined in the first section. In this respect, it is important to consider the transformation as city’s shaping by the citizen. In the transformation of this relatively smaller region with respect to the examples it is compared, the region’s local dynamics are the elements that creates difference. Looking chaotic in its current state, the citizens coming from different layers can coexist together as a result of the self-transformation occurring due to the dynamics of everyday life in Galata and its neighborhood. It is important to approach the point where Galata’s port city identity’s transformation has come as “a state” with regard to the interpretation of the city. Throughout the study, the primary interferer that interferes to the city in the direction of port city identity transformation and in the concept of city considered with a focus on the citizen is citizen. In this respect, it is critical to approach the planning of Istanbul’s port region with minimum pinpoint interference and with a citizen-centered attitude. In addition to this, it is possible to increase the predictability of short term results by considering the city with the widest possible perspective. Galata is not a space of a designed and completed whole but the space of half-finished, trial-and-errors and simple interferences. It is possible to view the resource of vitality and dynamism as the interface and/or interaction areas of these dualities. The chaotic appearance and paradoxes of Galata – and even most of Istanbul- only expresses a state in the interpretation of the city’s today., Yüksek Lisans, M.Sc.