Study for a morphological assessment: Impact of a new project on urban form of Galata, Istanbul

Eda Coşkun; Ayşe Sema Kubat

doi:10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2049

Study for a morphological assessment: Impact of a new project on urban form of Galata, Istanbul

Authors

Eda Coşkun Short Bio Istanbul Technical University

Eda Coşkun graduated from Amasya University, Department of City and Regional Planning in 2018. She received her MSc degree from the ITU Master of Urban Design program in 2021. She is currently a Ph.D. student in ITU. She is currently working as an urban planner and urban designer. Her research interests are Urban Morphology, Urban Design, and Space Syntax.
Ayşe Sema Kubat Short Bio Istanbul Technical University

Professor Ayşe Sema Kubat has degrees of B. Arch and M. Arch and PhD in Urban Design & Urban Planning from Istanbul Technical University (ITU). She worked as a Professor at the Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning of ITU (1996-2020). She was the founding professor of the Landscape Architecture Department and the Interdisciplinary Graduate program at ITU. She has been serving on the Steering and Refereeing Committees of the Space Syntax Symposiums since 2003 and was the chair of the 6th International Space Syntax Istanbul Symposium in 2007. Her assistance and cooperation to the research project entitled 21st Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Regeneration (CSUR) (2003-2008) is appreciated as “Honorary Fellow of Global Center of Excellence " at Tokyo University. Her research is focused on Urban Morphology, Urban Planning & Design, Urban History and Space Syntax. She currently serves as the “Chair of the Turkish Network of Urban Morphology TNUM” which aims to extend the cooperation between local researchers and other regional networks of ISUF (International Study on Urban Form).

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2049

Keywords:

Conzenian approach, Galata region, Galataport project, urban morphology, space syntax methodology

Abstract

Cities are in a continuous process with the change and re-adaptation of different parts. Cities are deliberately planned under different socio-economic, natural, religious, and political conditions in different historical periods. While cities are growing, new urban projects are planned that will affect urban morphology. Thus, the research problem is that new urban design projects require planning and integrated policy in interaction with the city. One of the aspects of ensuring this is examining the city from the historical point of view and comprehending urban morphology analysis. Within this framework, the Galata Region is chosen as the study area. The main reason for choosing the study area is; that it is thought the planning of the Galataport Project, the characteristics of the district and its impact should be questioned. Therefore, the study aims to first determine the change and development of the Galata Region over time with the Conzenian approach. In this section, historical maps of the area will be examined through the spatial development of the city, and the determination of the areas affected by the planning decisions will be revealed. Morphological region analysis will be done to identify the focus area boundary. Secondly, the aim is to reveal the impact of the Galataport Project on the region and on the use of the coastline by space syntax method. In this part, the effect of the Galataport Project will be explained comparatively by axiality, convexity, integration and intelligibility, and synergy concept through the 1980 and 2020 maps. As a result, it is seen that the study area has its spatial characteristics, cultural values, and historical process. In the general analysis of the area, it is seen that the old city center is seen as a high potential area for transformation due to its central location. The old city center plays a central role in the marketing of the city because of its economic potential. New design projects are done in the study area because of the transformation potential. It is observed that the Galataport project together with the morphological structure led to functional changes in the field and caused differences in the characteristics of the use of space. It has affected the area and old trading functions began to transform the leisure and tourism sector. Lastly, recommendations are given according to the results.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Agirbas, A., & Ardaman, E. (2015). A Morphological Comparison of Urban Tissues of Trani and Galata. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 39(4), 232-247.
Benech, C. (2007). The use of “space syntax” for the study of city planning and household from geophysical maps: the case of Dura-Europos (Syria). Städtisches Wohnen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum, 4(1), 403-416.
Choudhary P. (2012). Humane Approach to Urban Planning. COPAL Publishing GROUP. India.
Conzen M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick Northumberland a study in town-plan analysis, The Institute of British Geographers, London.
Conzen, M.R.G. (1969). Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis (Institute of British Geographers Publication 27, 2nd and.). London: Institute of Geographers.
Conzen, M.R.G. (1981). The plan analysis of an English city center. In J.W.R. Whitehand (ed.), The Urban Landscape: historical development and management: papers by M.R.G.
Conzen, M.R.G. (1988). ‘Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow’, in Denecke, D., and Shaw, G. (eds) Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 253-72.
Cowan R. (2005). The Dictionary of Urbanism, Streetwise Press, Wiltshire.
Dalton, N. (2010). Synergy, Intelligibility, and Revelation in Neighborhood Places. (Ph.D. thesis). University of London, England.
Dickinson, R. E. (1948). The Scope and Status of Urban Geography: An Assessment. Land Economics, 24(3), 221-238.
Gebauer, M., & Samuels, I. (1981). Urban Morphology: An Introduction (Joint Centre for Urban Design Research Note No. 8). Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic.
Gokce, D. (2018). An Empirical Investigation of the Interplay Form, Typo Morphological Transformation of Historic House Place, and Sense of Place. (PhD thesis). University of Liverpool, England.
Geremia, A. (2017). Road duplication impact in urban areas towards space syntax analysis. Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisboa
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space Is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Kropf, K. (2009). Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), 105–120.
Kropf, K. (2014). Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban Morphology, 18(1), 41–57.
Kubat, A. S. (1997). The morphological characteristics of Anatolian fortified towns. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 95–123.
Kubat, A. S. (1999). The morphological history of Istanbul. Urban Morphology, 3(1), 28–41.
Kubat, A. S., Ozer O. (2005). Movement activity and strategic design study for Istanbul’s historical Galata district. Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kubat, A. S. (2009). Antakya ve Konya tarihi kent dokularının morfolojik açıdan karşılaştırılması, International Journal of Human Sciences, 6 (2).
Kubat A. S. (2010). The study of urban form in Turkey, Urban Morphology, 14(1), 31-48.
Larkham, P. J. and Jones, A. N. (1991). A Glossary of Urban Form, Historical Geography Research Series no. 26. Geo Books, Norwich.
Lozano, O.E. (1990). Community Design & Culture of Cities. The Crossroad and the Wall, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maretto, M. (2013). Saverio Muratori: Towards a morphological school of urban design. Urban Morphology, 17(2), 21–34.
Marshall, S., & Çalişkan, O. (2011). A joint framework for urban morphology and design. Built Environment, 37(4), 409–426.
Mıhçıoğlu Bilgi, E. (2010). The physical evolution of the historic city of Ankara between 1839 and 1944: a morphological analysis. (Ph.D. thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology is an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology, 1(3)–10.
Scheer, B., & Scheer, D. (2002). Towards a Sustainable Urban Form in Chiang Mai. The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 69, p. 253–272).
Sevtsuk, A., & Davis, D. E. (2019). The Mathematics of Urban Morphology. In The Mathematics of Urban Morphology. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Springer International Publishing.
Tepeli, Ö., & Ocakçı, M. (2017). The change of identity and memory on urban space with project impact: Karaköy Kemeraltı district. Conference: ICONARCH III - International Congress of Architecture. Konya, Turkey.
Thilagam, N. L., & Banerjee, U. K. (2015). The morphological characteristics of medieval temple towns of Tamilnadu. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 00, 1–27.
Topçu, M., & Kubat, A. S. (2007). Morphological Comparison of Two Historical Anatolian Towns. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium.
Topçu, M. (2019). Morphological Structures of Historical Turkish Cities. Iconarp International J. of Architecture and Planning. 7. 212-229. 10.15320/ICONARP.2019.86.
Whitehand, J. W. R. (2001). British urban morphology: The Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103–109.
Url-1<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Living-sites-%3A-rethinking-the-social-trajectory-of-Karelse/31c3860faaa2669be82e6fadf7f96cb319455e84>, data retrieved 25.08.2022.

Downloads

PDF

517

420

Published

2022-08-31

How to Cite

Coşkun, E., & Kubat, A. S. (2022). Study for a morphological assessment: Impact of a new project on urban form of Galata, Istanbul. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(2), 140–161. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2049