Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Tezin Türü: Doktora
Tezin Yürütüldüğü Kurum: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Tezin Onay Tarihi: 2016
Tezin Dili: İngilizce
Öğrenci: Nezih Burak Bican
Danışman: ALİ CENGİZKAN
Özet:There has been a vast quantity of mass-housing production by the central housing authority in Turkey in the recent years. Operated in line with neo-liberal economy-policies since the beginning of 2000s, the public production has concentrated on speed of construction, quantity of dwelling units, and developing financial resource for ‘social housing’ provision by building luxury housing in profitable urban lands. However, this provision has faced criticism of various academic and non-academic circles, primarily for its sacrifice of spatial quality, liveability, and sustainability of the built environment. In accordance with this criticism, there has been a noticeably rising trend in the amount of academic research in various disciplines for the last ten years on ‘mass-housing’ and related practices of the public authority. Nonetheless, no comprehensive academic study has been conducted on its spatial decision-making -planning and architectural design- processes or has focused on alternative housing supply forms (HSF) for the country. In such a context, current study aims to contribute to the housing research field by introducing an alternative regeneration practice which has achieved sustainable solutions by enhancing the quality of the space and liveability of the settlement for the existing community. Therefore, it examines spatial decision-making process behind the regeneration of Gyldenrisparken recently realized in Copenhagen, and regarded as a ‘best-practice’ not only Denmark but also in international grounds. The study intends to reflect the totality of the process which took residents’ participation as the core matter and to introduce the alternative HSF, through which the current provision has been realized, to Turkey. Thus, the study highlights not only fundamental principles of the HSF, but also policy, planning, and design mechanisms contributed to the practice’s achievements in sustainability and spatial quality. Accordingly, this study resolves the case into its components: context-dependent conditions, decision-making process, role-taking/contributing actors, and their possible grounds to participate. As the final product, the study exhibits a complicated network in a systematized order by providing an analytically organized ‘story’ of the process, a graphically summarized scheme of spatial-decision-making, and a matrix for analysis of spatial decisions according to their contributions to sustainability. Consequently, it presents a framework based on the findings of the research to be exhibited as an alternative series of methods, systems, and processes not only for the Turkish context but also for others which face similar shortcomings in housing provision. It should be clearly noted that the study does not intend to make a comparison of HSFs, policies, practices, or cases of Turkish and Danish contexts. On the contrary, it aims to provide an in-depth understanding of an alternative housing practice to inspire new attitudes and research for novel housing policies and implementations.