Improving the public r e a l m
A project by
Aylin GÜLER Foad SARSANGİ Emre ÇİNCANER INTRODUCTION TO URBAN DESIGN ISTANBUL BILGI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE
Spring 2018
T a b l e
of
co n ten ts
Preface ...................................................................................... 1 Urban biopsy ........................................................................... 2 Who owns the space? .......................................................... 8 How is the space operated? ................................................10 Who uses the space? ............................................................ 12 Does the space meet the needs of existing users? ........ 13 Are there people who are excluded? ................................ 16 How open is the space to public? ................................... 17 Bryant Park NYC a case study ............................................. 18 Parklet San Francisco a case study .................................. 30 An adaptation ........................................................................ 42 The Levazim Parklet ............................................................. 46 Bibliography .......................................................................... 52
pre fac e This project is based on a research of the Zorlu Center and the Levazim district in Istanbul, Turkey. The first phase of the project was researching and understanding the space and its public qualities. It was understood that the district is vividly divided in two. Zorlu Center and Levazim. The two have very divergent characteristics. The second phase was to explore the public spaces and pin out their problems. In addition, public spaces with the same problems were investigated. As a result we understood how some of the problems were fixed by sometimes even small interventions. In the end these interventions were researched and similar approches were taken to “improve the public realm.
2
Urban Biopsy When it comes to textures and urban patterns, Istanbul has many to offer since it is one of the most diverse cities in the world. One of these major patterns is located at one of Istanbuls transportation peaks, Zorlu-Levazim region. This region is located within the Besiktas municipal boundary. In the year 2000, the population growth in the district led to the separation of Levazim and Nispetiye neighborhoods. During this time, population growth played an important role in the increase of gated communities. The non self sufficient state of the neighborhood and the growth in population and construction at the time led to a decision for a new project around the corner. The construction of Zorlu began in 2007 and ended in 2014. With the rise of Zorlu and finding its place in the commercial district of Maslak, an axis was created connecting the first bridge and Buyukdere. Zorlu Center is a mixed use project. It has a hotel, a performance and cultural center, a shopping mall and residential units. The main pattern difference between the Levazim neighborhood and Zorlu center was the circulation. In Zorlu people mostly move in a vertical axis whereas in Levazim an everyday life demands a horizontal axis. Another difference is the openness of both of these areas. Zorlu being a major commercial hub in Istanbul is much more open and welcoming to people from the outside whereas Levazim is much less welcoming in this matter. Below are some of the researches showing the pattern difference in these
SCALE: 1/750.000
understanding urban patterns of istanbul
SCALE: 1/10.000
3
4
Urban Biopsy
GROUND FLOOR USE
residential
commercial + off ice
health care
green surface
cultural facilities
education
religious facilities
residential + commercial
5
understanding urban patterns of istanbul
DENSITY VARIABLES & MIXED USE LEVEL
POPULATION SIZE OF A TYPICAL BLOCK: 1168
POPULATION SIZE OF A TYPICAL BLOCK: 354 505 p/ha
114 p/ha 0 p/ha
500 p/ha
PDEN
1200 p/ha
0 p/ha
500 p/ha
22
1200 p/ha
10
L 0
15
30+
0
0.40 0
0.5
0
2.5
1
2.80 5+
0.86
GSR
FSR
0
2.5
0
0.5
5
0.5
Zorlu
1
0.5
1
2.5
5+
2.5
5
0.1 0
MXI
30+
2.4 0
OSR
0
15
0.3
0.5 0
0.5
Levazim
1
6
Urban Biopsy
USER PROFILE, QUALITIES OF URBAN SPACE & EVERYDAY LIFE
Elderly (55+) %23
Financial aid : Very low - %1.07 Household : 8
Adult B (35-54)
Adult A (20-34)
%36
%21
Educational aid: Very low - %2.1 Household : 41
Food aid: Low - %2.67 Household : 41
understanding urban patterns of istanbul
Teen (10-19)
Child B (5-9)
%9
%6
Parks: Faruk Guventurk Park Zorlu Center Park Attila Ilhan Park
Green space per person: 4.1 sqm
7
Child A (0-4)
%5
Health Unit Levazim health unit is the only medical unit in the neighborhood
8
Who owns the space?
Private Ownership Public Property Mixed No info
Who owns the space?
According to the official zoning plan, the region being intervened is considered as public property.
9
10
How is the space operated or managed, and how open this space is to public use?
Features that control users
Visible sets of rules posted
Security cameras
Presence of sponsorship
Areas of restricted use
How is the space operated or managed, and how open this space is to public use?
Features encourage freedom of use
Lighting to encourage night use
Small-scale food consumption
Entrance accessibility
Missing features: P u b l i c r e s t r o o m D i v e r s i t y o f s e a t i n g V a r i o u s m i c r o c l i m a t e s A r t / v i s u a l e n h a n c e m e n t O r i e n t a t i o n a c c e s s i b i l i t y
11
12
Who uses the space?
According to a one day observation and questioning of the users in the park, it was determined that approximately 90% of the users are locals which live in the neighborhood. However only 10% of the users consisted of non-locals.
To what extent does the space meet the needs of existing users?
Sizce buranın eksiği nedir?
İstanbul Bilgi Ü n ive r s ite s i | M imar lık f ak ü lte s i | Ö ğrenci a ra ştır m a proj esi
As a research to apprehend the extent which the space meets the needs of the users, we designed stickers as seen above. We then fixed them on various walls, placed a pen and left them for a couple of days to achieve the results. The responses were mostly useful and gave us an idea about the needs of the users concerning the space. The following are some of these responses.
13
14
To what extent does the space meet the needs of existing users?
To what extent does the space meet the needs of existing users?
Music
Cafe
Color
Tree / Grass
Pool
Nigh-time security
15
16
Are there people who are 'excluded' because of the concrete or abstract qualities of the place?
As there are no forseen designs regarding a space for street performers or any art/visual enhancement, these group of people do not feel welcome to perform their art.
As stated on the entrance of the park, no hawkers or vendors are weloce in to the space. Therefore street food or small scale food cannot be seen in this area.
Another sign at the entrance states that photography is prohibited in the park and the areas around it. Therefore even if there were sights that would be appealing for photographers, they would not have permission to capture them.
As a quality of a public space, it should present potentials fore various activities. One of these are reading and studying. The park does not in anyway encourage this activity and the lack of diversity in seating types plays a major role in this.
OVERALL ASSESsMENT/ how open is the space to public?
Open to the public
closed to the public
As an overall assesment, it is clearly seen that the residential areas of Levazim are mostly closed to public use. Zorlu center as a public/commercial area presents openness to the public use. As seen in the illustration above, the most open space for public use is the Levazim park, however, the features that control users which are visable in the park, create an obstacle for it to gain full openness values.
17
b r y a n t P
a
r nyc
a case study
k
A case study
location : Manhattan , New york city Area : 39,000 m2 founded : 1686 redesign : Lynden miller , william h. whyte
19
Bryant Park is an excellent example of the final placemaking principle: that “You Are Never Finished.� Even though this iconic park in Midtown Manhattan has been widely recognized as one of the best public space renewal projects of the last three decades, programming for the space is under constant review and refinements are made regularly in how the park is managed. The story of Bryant Park offers key lessons about how you turn a place around, and how you make sure it remains vital over time. The celebrated 1980s restoration project was guided by close observation of how the space was being used and misused, inspiring multiple mid-course corrections.
In 1686, when the area was still a wilderness, New York's colonial governor, Thomas Dongan, designated the area now known as Bryant Park as a public space. George Washington's troops crossed the area while retreating from the Battle of Long Island in 1776. Beginning in 1823, Bryant Park was designated a potter's field (a graveyard for the poor) and remained so until 1840, when thousands of bodies were moved to Wards Island. The first park at this site opened in 1847 as Reservoir Square. It was named after its neighbor, the Croton Distributing Reservoir. In 1853, the Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations with the New York Crystal Palace, featuring thousands of exhibitors, took place in the park. The square was used for military drills during the American Civil War, and was the site of some of the New York City draft riots of July 1863, when the Colored Orphan Asylum at Fifth Avenue and 43rd Street was burned down. The Crystal Palace, also known as the Great Exhibition Hall, burned down in 1858. In 1884, Reservoir Square was renamed Bryant Park, to honor the New York Evening Post editor and abolitionist William Cullen Bryant. In 1899, the Reservoir structure was removed and construction of the New York Public Library building began. Terrace gardens, public facilities, and kiosks were added to the park.
William Hollingsworth "Holly" Whyte (October 1, 1917 – January 12, 1999) was an American urbanist, organizational analyst, journalist and people-watcher. After his book about corporate culture The Organization Man (1956) which sold over two million copies, Whyte turned his attention to the study of human behaviour in urban settings. He published several books on the topic, including The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980).
William H. “Holly” Whyte, the former Fortune magazine editor best known in urban circles for his classic book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, famously did a report on Bryant Park in the 1970s that was ultimately used as a basis for transforming what was then known as “Needle Park.”
under u s e
basic problem
Unseen
In the first place it is unseen. Here and there across the country there are a number of hidden parks and plazas and without exception they are little used. Most are hidden inadvertently. In the case of Bryant Park, however it was by design. When the plan was drawn up in 1934, it was done so with the idea of walling off the park as a sanctuary. The intentions were of the best and the design was widely praised.
No outer park
Now we know better. If you were to apply the principal findings of research in reverse and strive to create a park that would be little used you would. elevate it four or five feet above street level put a wall around it put a spiked iron fence atop the wall line the fence with thick shrubbery This was exactly the kind of design Frederick Law Olmsted warned against. He believe the streets around a park should be conceived as an “outer park.”
cut off from the street
Bryant Park is so cut off from the street as to accentuate another defect. There is a very meager pedestrian flow through the park. The eastern and western steps on 42nd Street, for example, average only 540 and 480 people per hour respectively at lunch time. Again, this is the result of a definite design decision. Various recommendations made for paths to encourage pedestrian flow were rejected, it being felt that this would detract from the sanctuary aspect of the place. But we now know that healthy pedestrian flow is a great asset; it enhances the activities and acts as something of a magnet. Characteristically, the most favored places for sitting, reading, schmoozing, are apt to be athwart to the main pedestrian flow, rather than isolated from it.
Elevation
What is tantalizing about Bryant is how close it comes to being seeable. Another foot or so of elevation and it would be beyond redemption save at tremendous cost. But it’s close. If you are just over six feet tall you can see over the top of the steps on the Avenue of the Americas, if you are five feet eleven inches you can get occasional glimpses along 42nd Street. Only for want of a few inches is it hidden from most people.
recommendations Structural Recommendations
Programming
Maintenance
Policing
Landmark Status
A case study
Remove the iron fences atop the walls.
1- Remove the iron fences atop the walls 2- Remove the shrubbery
3- Open up access with new steps midway between the existing ones on 42nd Street 4- Provide ramps for the handicapped 5- Open up access to the upper terrace with new steps 6- Rehabilitate the restroom structures 7- Improve the visual access from the steps on Avenue of the Americas 8- Rehabilitate the fountain
9- Cut openings in the balustrades for easier pedestrian circulation within the park
25
Similar problems between the old bryant park and faruk guventurk park
Similar too Bryant Park before its redesign, Faruk Guventurk parks main problem also is underuse. As mentioned before, the park is mostly used by locals of the Levazim district. However, Zorlu center being a major attraction for various groups of people, does not play an active role in the use of this park. This is due to multiple problems, one of which being that the park is not visible from the Zorlu center entrance.Some other problems such as the ones mentioned below also play a part.
Similar to bryant park, this park is also unseen. Being located on a natural slope, it is not visible from the entrance of Zorlu center, hence it is not mostly used by non-locals.
Although the main entrance of the park is slightly sloped and therefore convenient for handicapped access, the south side of the park as mentioned is elevated and the only entrance is from a set of stairs, therefore handicap access is not possible.
A case study
29
This park has also fences around it especially on the south side where it looks at the residential buildings. This feature, similar to Bryant park has an active role in underuse.
William Whyte suggested a functioning fountain would help the publicness of the park. This park does not have a functioning fountain.
As mentioned by William Whyte in the Bryant park report, the relationship between the park and the street is very important. The park should not be cut off from the street, as a matter of fact the street should become an outer park for the main park. However in this case, the park is completely cut off from the street and this plays a role in its lack of usage.
A functioning public restroom is an important indicator of how much a space is open to public and welcoming. This park lacks this feature.
P a r k l e t san francisco a case study
The Pavement to Parks Program is part of the City of San Francisco’s overall strategy for creating safe, complete streets and new open space for the public. Complete streets balance the needs of people walking, riding bicycles, taking transit, or moving around in a private automobiles. New open spaces created through Pavement to Parks are made up of small Parklets and Street Plazas which add to the City’s larger City parks and playgrounds.
Pavement to Parks provides opportunities for communities to create small but important public spaces right in their own neighborhoods. Temporary Street Plazas test the conversion of a street to a pedestrian only space for community-sponsored events, gatherings, and greenspace. Plazas are typically proposed and sponsored by neighborhood organizations, associations, or nonprofits. Parklets repurpose part of the street next to the sidewalk into a public space for people. These small parks provide amenities like seating, planting, bicycle parking, and art. they are publicly accessible and open to all. Parklets re ect the diversity and creativity of the people and organizations who sponsor and design them. They also reflect the City’s commitment to encouraging walking, bicycling, and strengthening communities.
Program goals
REIMAGINE THE POTENTIAL OF CITY STREETS Complete streets balance the needs of people walking, riding bicycles, taking transit and travelling by car. Parklets are relatively a low-cost, easily implementable approach to acheiving better balance for all users of the street.
ENCOURAGE NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Parklets encourage walking by providing pedestrian amenities like public seating, landscaping, and public art. Parklets often provide bicycle parking which makes it easier for people to make the choice to bicycle.
ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & ACTIVITY Parklets provide buffer areas between traffic lanes and the sidewalk. They also provide outdoor gathering place in areas where City parks are few or far away.
FOSTER NEIGHBORHOOD INTERACTION Parklets invite pedestrians to sit and gather with friends and neighbors. In many cases, neighbors have participated in the design, financing, construction, and stewardship of parklets.
A case study
35
!"
design elements of a parklet
The parklet platform
Threshold Any openings between the sidewalk and the Deck Surface shall be flush without a horizontal or vertical separation greater than 1/2 inch. Changes in level 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch high maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:4 (25%). Where the parklet fronts existing driveways or curb ramps, the driveway area or curb ramp shall be temporarily levelled for the duration of the Parklet’s installation. Bolting Bolting into the street or penetrating the surface of the road in any way is strongly discouraged. Parklets may be bolted to the existing curb, but only with a restoration plan and performance bond posted by the parklet sponsor. See Supplements: Parklet Curb Bolting & Restoration. Platform surface The top of the parklet platform must be flush with the sidewalk with a maximum gap of 1/2 inch. In the case of a sloping street, staff will work with the designer to address issues of access. See Design for Accessibility later in this chapter. Concrete If using a concrete base for the parklet deck, the concrete cannot be poured directly on the road surface. A plastic slip-sheet can be used to prevent the concrete from binding to the roadbed below. To facilitate easy removal of the parklet, the concrete floor should not include structural rebar and must weigh less than 200 pounds per square foot. Surface materials. Loose particles, such as sand or loose stone, are not permitted on the parklet. Access If the platform base is not a solid mass, the clear space underneath the platform surface must be accessible for maintenance through access panels, removable pavers, etc. Drainage The parklet cannot impede the flow of curbside drainage. Designers are strongly encouraged to cover openings at either end of the parklet with screens to prevent debris buildup beneath the deck and in the gutter. satisfy all slope and accessibility requirements for the finished deck.
design elements of a parklet
The parklet enclosure
Buffer the edges Depending on the location, the parklet should have an edge as a buffer from the street. This can take the form of planters, railing, cabling, or some other appropriate enclosure. The height and scale of the buffer required will vary depending on local context. For example, on some low-traffic streets, a continuous edge may not be required. If cable railing is used, spacing between cables cannot exceed 5 inches. Maintain a visual connection to the street. Designs should allow pedestrians on either side of the street see into the parklet. Continuous opaque walls above forty-two inches that block views into the parklet from the surrounding streetscape are highly discouraged. Avoid overhead elements that span the sidewalk. Overhead elements that span the sidewalk and connect the parklet to the adjacent building faรงade are strongly discouraged. Such proposals may be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will require a minimum vertical clearance of 80 inches above grade. Extend the sidewalk Parklets should be designed as an extension of the sidewalk, with multiple points of entry along the curbside edge. Consider the back of the parklet While not visible from the sidewalk, the outside of the parklet enclosure is highly visible from across the street. Large blank walls can be an invitation for tagging. This can be mitigated by adding visual interest like pattern, color, modulation or planting.
design elements of a parklet
The parklet amenities
Integrate amenities into the parklet structure Parklets should include some permanent seating integrated into the parklet structure. This ensures that the parklet still feels welcome after moveable furniture like tables and seating are taken inside at night. Diversity of form leads to diversity of use A diversity of form helps to ensure that your parklet design will be accessible and comfortable for a wide variety of users. The creative integration of seating and tabletop elements into a parklet structure can take many forms including traditional eating, railings designed for leaning, narrow benches, single- seat benches, and seating steps. Movable elements If you choose to use movable tables, chairs and benches, they must be different from the furniture that you may currently use 1) inside your business and/or 2) on the sidewalk as part of your CafĂŠ Tables and Chairs Permit.
42
An adaptation As a first proposal for the park itself, using the case study on Bryant Park and the questionnaire answered by the users in and around the park, we proposed several minor improvements to the park. These improvements would hopefully play a role in solving part of the underuse problem of this park.
Adding a ramp to the south entrance of the park for handicap entrance.
Adding a functional public restroom to the north entrance of the park.
Adding a functioning fountain or water element to the current non-functional fountain.
An adaptation
Removing fences and boundaries around the park to resuscitate the park’s relationship to the street around it
Adding vegetation, especially grass to the landscape of the park.
Adding various types of seating and benches for multiple functions.
43
44
An adaptation
Adding a distinct entrance for the park to make it more “seen�.
Granting access to vendors to the park. The one buffet in the entrance has a relationship with the street but not with the park directly.
Adding more lighting elements to the park for night time use. Inadequate number of lightings currently prevent night use.
considering the fact that the park is unseen from Zorlu center, it has a bad relationship with the street, it is cut off from the street and that it does not have what William Whyte suggests “ an outer park ” , as a second proposal to help improve the public realm, we decided to design a parklet. This parklet would have two main functions. Firstly it would complete the lacking spaces and functions in the park as an “outer park”. And secondly it would act as a guide and visual route starting from Zorlu center leading to the park itself. This way users from zorlu center would be intrigued to follow this route and use its functions, in the end they would find themselves in the park and hopefully this can be a solution for the underuse of Faruk Guventurk Park of Levazim.
The levazim Parklet
Bicycle parking
Street performance stage
Various Seatings
Exhibition panels
Distinctive entrance
As a way to encourage bicycle usage in the area, we added a bicycle parking spot at the entrance point of the parklet. This way users can park their bicycle and start using the parklet.
As the users noted in the questions we handed out, music is an important element missing in this area. As a solution we added a mini-performance stage to be a platform for street performers to share their music. Their is also a stair-tyoe seating for users to sit and enjoy the street performance.
Throughout the parklet we added various seatigs for users. These seatings can be a place to eat, read, socializ, play games, or even watch the football court in the front of the parklet.
An important element of night-usage is the lighting. We added lightings throughout the parklet so that it could be used in the night time also. In addition to the lightings there are exhibition panels attached to the lightings.
To finish off the parklet we added a distinctive entrance for the park. Using a vertical element we also wanted the entrance to be seen from somewhat far distances.
Bibliography
Parklet Manual v2.2 by San francisco public works The social life of small urban spaces 1980 by William H. “Holly� Whyte www.urbanophile.com www.lincolninst.edu bryantpark.org Tactical Urbanism 4 by codesign studio Public Space Acupuncture by Helena Casanova
Istanbul Bilgi University / Faculty of Architecture Spring 2018