You are here

Home » Content

ARTAN POPÜLERLİĞİ VE DEĞİŞEN SONUÇLARI IŞIĞINDA FAYDACILIK DÖNEMİNDE “TOPLULUK İÇİN TASARIM”

COMMUNITY DESIGN IN ITS PRAGMATIST AGE: INCREASING POPULARITY AND CHANGING OUTCOMES

Journal Name:

  • Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2006

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Community design has originally been influenced by the idealist approaches of human rights movements and advocacy planning until 1980s, during which economic challenges pushed practitioners in the area towards exploring more pragmatist grounds. The last two decades have been even more challenging for community designers, since the term has became popular even though the practice of genuine participation, hence the correct use of the term “community design” has not. In a pragmatist age in the area, many examples of pseudo-participation under the disguise of community design have generated a new context where misuse of the term “community design” is overlooked. The way new urbanism has adopted the term “community design” is an example of such misuse. We argue that even in a pragmatist age, genuine participation should form the foundation of community design. We identify four essential elements to insure genuine participation in community design, and we exemplify the application of these with two projects we have been involved in. Alındı: 17.10.2006 Anahtar Sözcükler: “topluluk için tasarım”; katılım; hakiki katılım(cılık); sahte katılım(cılık); faydacılık.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
“Topluluk için tasarım” çıkış noktasında, yani 1980 yılına kadar, ekonomik mücadelenin uygulamacıları daha faydacı zeminler aramaya sürüklediği bir süreçte, insan hakları hareketinin idealist yaklaşımlarından ve insan haklarını savunan planlamacılıktan etkilendi. Son yirmi yıl “topluluk için tasarım” uzmanları için daha da zorlu oldu; çünkü terim popülerleştiyse de “hakiki katılım(cılık)”ın pratiği ve dolayısıyla “topluluk için tasarım”ın doğru kullanımı gerçekleşmedi. Alandaki bu faydacı dönemde, “topluluk için tasarım” kisvesi altında yapılan pek çok “sahte katılım(cılık)” örneği, “topluluk için tasarım” teriminin yanlış kullanımını gözden kaçıran yeni bir bağlamın ortaya çıkmasına yol açtı. Bu türden yanlış kullanımlardan birisi ‘Yeni Kentçilik’ (New Urbanism) yaklaşımının benimsediği tarzdaki “topluluk için tasarım”da ortaya çıkar. Bu yazıdaki tutumumuzla, bir faydacılık döneminde bile “hakiki katılım(cılık)”ın “topluluk için tasarım”ın temelini oluşturması gerektiğini savunmaktayız. “Topluluk için tasarım”da “hakiki katılımı” garantilemek için dört asal eleman tanımlıyor ve tasarımına katıldığımız iki projeyle bunların uygulamalarını örneklendiriyoruz.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_290_23_pp_155-166.pdf
  • 2
155-166
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

ALINSKY, S. (1972) Rules for Radicals, Vantage Books, New York.
ARNSTEIN, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the
American Institute of Planners (35) 215-224.
BRESSI, T. W. (1994) Planning the American Dream., in P. Katz (ed.) The
New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill
Inc., New York; xxv-xiii.
CALTHORPE, P. (1994) The Region, in P. Katz (ed.) The New Urbanism:
Toward an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York;
xi-xvi.
COMERIO, M. C. (1984) Community Design: Idealism and
Entrepreneurship, Journal of Architecture and Planning Research (1)
227-243.
CREIGHTON, L. (1994) Involving Citizens in Community Decision Making: A
Guidebook (Program for Community Problem Solving),Washington,
DC.
CURRY, R. (2000) History of Community Design, in J. M. Cary Jr. (ed.)
The ACSA Sourcebook of Community Design programs at Schools of
Architecture in North America; 38-43.DAVIDOFF, P. (1965) Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of
American Institute of Planners, (31) 331-38.
DesignShare (n.d.) Retrieved October 2006, from “Designshare, Designing
for the Future of Learning” website: http://www.designshare.com/
index.php/projects/laguna-center.
DUANY, A. and PLATER-ZYBERK, E. (1994) The Neighborhood, the
District and the Corridor, in P. Katz (ed.) The New Urbanism: Toward
an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York; xvii-xx.
DUANY, A. and PLATER-ZYBERK, E. (1992) Towns and Town-Making
Principles, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Graduate
School of Design, Rizzoli, New York.
FAGA, B. (2006) Designing Public Consensus: The Civic Theater of Community
Participation for Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners, and Urban
Designers, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
HALL, K. B. Jr. and PORTERFIELD, G. A. (2001) Community by Design:
New Urbanism for Suburbs and Small Communities, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
HAMDI, N. (2004) Small Change: About the Art of Practice and the Limits of
Planning in Cities, Sterling, VA: Earthscan,London.
HAMDI, N. (1991) Housing without Houses: Participation, Flexibility,
Enablement, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
Cincinnati, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco.
HARVEY, D. (1997) The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap,
Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997; 68-71.
HAYDEN, D. (2003) Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-
2000, Pantheon Books, New York.
HESTER, R. (1990) Community Design Primer, Ridge Times Press,
Mendocino, CA.
SACHNER, P. M. (1983) Still Planning with the Poor: Community Design
Centers Keep up the good Works, Architectural Record, June; 126-131.
SANOFF, H., TOKER, U., TOKER, Z. (2005) “Research Based Design
of a Child and Family Education Center” in Proceedings of the
36th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research
Association (EDRA 36).
SANOFF, H., TOKER, Z. (2003) Three Decades of Design and Community,
Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Extension and Engagement and the College of Design.
SANOFF, H. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
SORKIN, M. (1998) Can New Urbanism Learn from Modernism’s
Mistakes? Metropolis, August/September.
SUSSKIND, L., MCKEARNAN, S. and THOMAS-LARMER, J. (eds) (1999)
The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching
Agreement, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
TALEN, E. (1999) Sense of Community and Neighborhood Form: An
Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies,
36(8), 1361-1379.
TOKER, Z. (in press) “Recent Trends in Community Design”, in Design
Studies.
TORRE, S. (1999) Expanding the Urban Design Agenda: A Critique of
the New Urbanism, in J. Rothschild (ed.), Design and Feminism: Re-
Visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things, Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London; 35-43.
WATES, Nick. (1999) The Community Planning Handbook: How People
Can Shape Their Cities, Towns and Villages in any Part of the World,
Earthscan, London.
WULZ, F. (1986) The Concept of Participation, Design Studies (7)3; 153-162.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com