A Morphological Examination of Urban Renewal Processes: The Sample of Konya City

Authors: Muzaffer Ali Yaygın, Mehmet Topçu

Abstract:

This research aims to investigate morphological changes in urban patterns in urban renewal areas by using geographic information systems and to reveal pattern differences that occur before and after urban renewal processes by applying a morphological analysis. The concept of urban morphology is not involved in urban renewal and urban planning practices in Turkey. This situation destroys the structural characteristic of urban space which appears as a consequence of changes at city, street or plot level. Different approaches and renewal interventions to urban settlements, which are formed as a reflection of cultural issues, may have positive and negative results. A morphological analysis has been applied to an urban renewal area that covers 325 ha. in Konya, in which city urban renewal projects have gained speed with the increasing of economic investments in this study. The study mentions urban renewal and urban morphology relationship, varied academic approach on the urban morphology issue, urban morphology components, changes in lots pattern and numerical differences that occur on road, construction and green space ratios that are before and after the renewal project, and the results of the morphological analysis. It is seen that the built-up area has significant differences when compared to the previous situation. The amount of green areas decreased significantly in quantitative terms; the transportation systems has been changed completely; and the property ownership has been reconstructed without taking the previous situation into account. Findings show that urban renewal projects in Turkey are put into practice with a rent-oriented approach without making an in-depth analysis. The paper discusses the morphological dimension of urban renewal projects in Turkey through a case study from Konya city.

Keywords: Konya, pattern, urban morphology, urban renewal.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1125997

References:

[1] Ulu, A. and İ. Karakoç, Kentsel Değişimin Kent Kimliğine Etkisi. Planlama Dergisi, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yayını, 2004. 29(3): p. 59-66.
[2] Ünlü, T., Mersin’de Değişen Kentsel Mekan. Çamlıbel’de Morfolojik Değişim, Megaron Dergisi, 2006. 4(1): p. 178-200.
[3] Köseoğlu, B.D. and D. Aydın, Müstakil Konut Alanlarında Morfolojik ve Bağlamsal Değişim: Konya Meram Öğretmen Evleri. BAÜ FBE Journal, 2009. 11(2): p. 110-123.
[4] Çetin, S., Dönüşüm Süreçlerinin Tarihi Kent Merkezleri üzerine Etkileri: Isparta Örneğinde Bir İnceleme, Erciyes Üniv. Fen Bil. Enst. Dergisi, 2011. 27: p. 185-199.
[5] Tüter, R. and D.S. Ökesli, Geleneksel Kent Çeperinde Dönüşüm - Tarsus Örneği. Türkiye Kentsel Morfoloji Ağı, Türkiye Kentsel Morfoloji Sempozyumu, Bildiri Özetleri Kitabı, Mersin, 2015: p. 49.
[6] Whitehand, J.W.R., Taking stock of urban geography. Area, 1986: p. 147-151.
[7] Vance, J.E., This scene of man: the role and structure of the city in the geography of Western civilization. 1977: HarperCollins College.
[8] Whitehand, J., Urban Geography: the city as a place. Progress in human Geography, 1985. 9(1): p. 85-98.
[9] Whitehand, J.W.R., Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition. The urban landscape: historical development and management: papers by MRG Conzen Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, 1981. 13: p. 1-24.
[10] Geisler, W., Danzig: ein siedlungsgeographischer Versuch. 1918: W. Geisler.
[11] Geisler, W., Die deutsche stadt: eine beitrag zur morphologie der kulturlandschaft. 1924: J. Engelhorns nachf.
[12] Martiny, R., Die grundrissgestaltung der deutschen siedlungen. 1928: J. Perthes.
[13] Kubat, A.S. and V. Dökmeci, Anadolu kale şehirlerinin morfolojik analizleri: Ankara, Antalya, Bursa, Dİyarbakır, Erzurum, İznik, Niğde, Trabzon, Urfa kale şehirlerinden örnekleme. 1994: İTÜ.
[14] B, M.J. and H.C. Roring, Das Blockkonzept – Analyse und Bewertung eines. 1990, Planungsinstrumentes.
[15] Klaiber, C., Die Grundrissbildung der deutschen Stadt im Mittelalter unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der schwäbischen. 1912: Berlin.
[16] Siedler, E.J., Märkischer Städtebau im Mittelalter: Beiträge z. Geschichte d. Entstehung, Planung u. baulichen Entwicklung d. märkischen Städte. 1914: Berlin : Springer.
[17] Bobek, H., Über einige funktionelle Stadttypen und ihre Beziehung zum Lande. 1938: na.
[18]. Christaller, W. and H. Louis, Die geographische Gliederung von Groß-Berlin. 1937, JSTOR.
[19] Whitehand, J.W.R., Urban fringe belts: Development of an idea. Planning Perspectives, 1988. 3(1): p. 47-58.
[20] Conzen, M.R.G., Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), 1960: p. iii-122.
[21] Slater, T.R., A Medieval New Town and Port: The Plan Analysis of Hedon, East Yorkshire. Vol. 21. 1983: Department of Geography, University of Birmingham.
[22] Leighly, J., The towns of Mälardalen in Sweden: a study in urban morphology. Vol. 3. 1928: University of California Press.
[23] Bastian, R.W., Architecture and Class Segregation in Late Nineteenth-Century Terre Haute, Indiana. Geographical Review, 1975: p. 166-179.
[24] Bastian, R.W., The Prairie style house: spatial diffusion of a minor design. Journal of Cultural Geography, 1980. 1(1): p. 50-65.
[25] Jakle, J.A., Motel by the Roadside: America's Room for the Night. Journal of Cultural Geography, 1980. 1(1): p. 34-49.
[26] Jakle, J.A., Roadside restaurants and place-product-packaging. Journal of Cultural Geography, 1982. 3(1): p. 76-93.
[27] Gurdes, G. Development Logic of the Spatial systems of Towns and the Influence of Innovations on the spatial structure of European Towns. in 30th RSA European Congress, İstanbul. 1990.
[28] Rossi, A., The architecture of the city. 1982, Chicago: The graham foundation for advanced studies in the fine arts.
[29] Hillier, B. and J. Hanson, The social logic of space. 1984: Cambridge university press.
[30] Whitehand, J.W.R. and P.J. Larkham, The urban landspaces : Issues and perspectives, Urban landscapes: international perspectives edited by J.W.R. Whitehand and P.J. Larkham, . 2000, London and New York.
[31] Moudon, A.V., Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban morphology, 1997. 1(1): p. 3-10.
[32] Topçu, M. and M. Southworth, A comparative study of the morphological characteristics of residential areas in San Francisco. A/Z Itu Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, 2014. 11(2): p. 173-189.
[33] Sağ, N.S., Dönüşüme bağlı kentsel gelişmenin yönetilmesinde bir araç olarak akıllı büyüme; Konya kenti örneği. 2011, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
[34] Yenice, M.S., Konya kentinin planlama tarihi ve mekânsal gelişimi. Erciyes Üniversistesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Kayseri, 2012. 28(4): p. 344-346.
[35] Anonim, H. Gümüş, Editor. 2015: Selçuklu Belediyesi İmar ve Şehircilik Müdürlüğü.