DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

METU MUD Master of Urban Design

The 20th Anniversary

Döşemealtı Design Guideline

Envisioning New Urbanities for the Metropolitan Fringe

METU MUD Master of Urban Design

The 20th Anniversary

April 2018

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN Studio 2017-2018

Prof. Dr. Adnan Barlas , Prof. Dr. Müge Akkar Ercan, Asst. Prof. Dr. Olgu Çalışkan (coordinator), Asst. Prof. Dr. Cansu Canaran

Akın Kaya, Ayşegül Erçin, Büşra İnce Emre Coşkuner, Gamze Dinç, Gizem Şahin, Hira Tariq, H. Özge İdali, Irmak Bilir, Neslişah Kesici, Nilay Nida Can, Okan Çalışkan, Ömer Borucu, S. Bircan Işık, Sahra Gök, Selen Demirezen, Sinem Görücü

PREFACE Peripheral Urbanism: Envisioning New Urbanities for the Metropolitan Fringe Introduction:

i

How the city should reproduce itself while growing out has always been one of the major questions of urbanism. Since definition of the ‘new’ within very uncertain nature of the future is the most appealing and challenging question for design, unavoidably, it is one of the issues to be tackled by planning. In the very context of rapidly developing cities, projecting the possible forms of urbanity on their frontiers turns out to be the prominent agenda in spatial planning and design. Therefore, urban peripheries can be regarded as the major context in which the creative capacity of urbanism, the art of building thehuman environments, is experienced to a great extent. Such a relatively more applicable liberty in peripheries for design thinking in urbanism derives from the very characteristics of the urban fringe which essentially lacks the limitations of the existing fabric in urban core, as well as its intrinsic condition of indeterminacy along with the incompatible and transient land-uses emerged in time.

Nevertheless, lacking binding morphological references of the core and the state of transition in peripheral development of the cities is not considered sole advantage in urbanism. The context of urban fringe imposes its own peculiar aspects to be confronted as a series of design problems as well. Firstly, the act of urban design is not pursued on a blank and vacant ground. The ownership and utilisation of the cadastral land are the main factors which condition what is intended to develop on urban peripheries. Depending on the economics of the region in which the city is located, the peripheral land of the city is usually subject to be utilised by extensive productive sectors such as agriculture and industry. In addition to that, the facilities which are used to be avoided in central areas of the city (i.e. graveyards, junkyards, wasteyards and refineries, warehouses and logistics centres) increase the complexity of the utilisation pattern of the peripheries. The extension of the city through the new development precincts has to take place within this complex and transforming programmatic context. The periphery, in this sense, is not neither ‘tabula rasa’ nor ‘no man’s land’ free from any possession of individual, corporation or state. As in the case of inner city

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

transformations, the property pattern of the peri-urban land characterises both the utility and form of the new developments on the fringe. In this regard, whether the given pattern of land ownership is dominantly private or public, fragmented or segmented do basically set the basis (legal) limitations in front of the projected form of the new design schemes and and their specific programs.

Urban growth occurs by opening up new lands for further development via plans (whether by the partial plans or master plans) or through the occupation of the land by the informally settled communities. Whether controlled by partial or holistic planning frameworks, realisation of urban growth and external development by the provision of housing settlements (along with the necessary public facilities) is called ‘suburbanisation’. Organised in different ways (in the form of new towns, satellite cities or planned communities), suburbanisation, on the one hand, does actually represent a broad category for designing the new living environments within new urban conditions and communalities in the vicinity of the city, the cultural domain of urban life. As another concept on urban growth, ‘urban sprawl’, on the other hand, is basically considered a kind of self-regulative and uncontrolled form of urban growth that is quite a common phenomenon in many rapidly developing capitalist cities.

Embodying a low-density, dispersed, scattered and multi-centred (somehow acentric), form of development, urban sprawl suggests a counter model against high density and centralized settlements with a certain spatial mixture of functions and compact / continuous internal morphology.

During the post-war transformation of the cities in the States and Europe, the tendency towards spatial decentralization was proliferated in the western world, while most of the underdeveloped cities were experiencing urban expansion through informal processes.

While the new settlements around large cities were kept relatively bounded and contained in Europe, the lack of strong land control mechanisms in the States resulted in an extensive dissolution of the cities within an unprecedented process of sprawl. Due to the new retail and office investments locating at the outer fringe of many American cities (i.e. regional malls, corporate headquarters, speculate housing and office buildings), even a new typology called ‘edge city’ was to emerge within chaotic assemblage of land utilisations . After the ruling tendency for neo-liberal policies since the 1980s, in many European countries, suburbanization process has been experienced in a very similar form of dispersal as in the American case, as well. Considering the countries which followed this political transformation lately in the global context, one could claim that rapid urban growth and dispersal of the

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

ii

central cities (along with the partial transformation of the core urban fabrics) has turned out to be an international phenomenon experienced in all different urbanistic contexts.

With all its negative externalities emerged in time, urban sprawl is characterised as an inefficient, environmentally irresponsible and aesthetically ugly form of spatial growth in the contemporary urbanism. In the critiques, sprawl is characterised as an unmanageable risk factor for agricultural productivity in the fringe with loss of prime farmland areas, forests and wetlands. Moreover, it is considered the main incentive for social segregation in a dispersed spatial setting as well as performing as monotonous and chaotic visual landscape displaying neither urban nor rural characteristics.

iii

In the current context, the notion of sprawl has dominantly a negative connotation in the literature of physical planning. In one view, urban sprawl is a kind of ‘disorder in the growth of the cities’. It not the natural result of the growing of the capitalistic city, but a phenomenon determined by the enduring planning policies . In the other perspective, sprawl is a logical and consequence of economic growth providing people with mobility and choice. It is the most efficient mechanism to reduce the congestion and long commuting distances in addition to the provision of more affordable housing options. Moreover, it is not something peculiar to the capitalistic city, but as old as the city itself.

Yet despite the diverse interpretations of the phenomenon from a planning point of view, the spatial quality suggested by the very fragmented form of expansion in the periphery under the rapid phase of development without any morphological control and guidance has already made the issue as one of the major design problem for urbanism . In addition to the models for the controlled land development by planning, formulation of efficient design frameworks has long been in the agenda of the contemporary urban design.

The comprehensive perspective from a design point of view was first developed by C. Tunnard and B. Pushkarev (1961) with the provocative declaration of against the poor quality condition of suburbanization and sprawl deteriorating the traditional landscape. Since then, the body of design knowledge on the issue has been elaborated with many practices tending to tame the dissolving effect of suburbanization and sprawl against urbanity. The shared motivation of the projects applied in that context is that they mainly aim to achieve certain level of urban compactness by design with the suburban ingredients of houses, offices, shops and hotels. Designed in the form of either, transit oriented developments

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

(TODs), Traditional Neighbourhood Developments (TNDs) or ‘urban villages’ , they are mainly considered an alternative to strip or so-called cookie-cutter developments of the conventional subdivision plans. In another approach, the villages under the very pressure of suburban development are taken as the basic design context and theme for an alternative urbanism.

While the first stream of anti-sprawl urban design approaches tends to ensure traditional urbanism by the new developments within the peripheral context, the recent applications apparently aim to achieve a certain kind of hybrid spatial condition by reproducing the suburban landscape via adapting transformative and retrofitting tactics in an incremental manner.

This approach essentially prefers adaptive transformations and re-use reconciling the seemingly contradictory forms and programs in the same context. The new approach, so-called ‘hybrid urbanism’ is potentially to end the distinct settled separation between natural landscape and the built space . The approach emerging in the contemporary theory and practice in the West is actually compatible with that in rapidly developing Asian urban context, as well. The binary opposition between the main categories of urban and rural loses its validity in that view.

Whether promoted or prohibited, rapid urban growth in the form of so-called ‘sprawl’, an extensive spill-over on the peripheral land is a real phenomenon. What crucial for the design discipline of urbanism within this big picture is that envisioning alternative forms of development patterns such a dynamic condition of urban peripheries would potentially generate positive performative solutions and productive life conditions that are evidently lacking in suburbia, if not to pursue a naïve opportunistic position for the sake of speculative novelty by design. By this way, spatial design is believed to support the systemic formulation of new urban policies with a strong morphological connotation as well.

Framework: The main design questions within the specific context As Lukez (2007) argues, “The morphology of the suburban condition is often deficient in two ways: First, it lacks identifiable urban places with figural spaces supporting social interaction and public life. Second, the suburbs’ current fabric –its organization of building types, open spaces and street networks- often lacks a consistent or coherent structure.”

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

iv

(pp. 96). This statement is quite valid in the very condition of ongoing peripheral developi a r i h ci i a ll r a ar 201 h ra ar r p riph ral developments resulted in social segregation, low level of accessibility and publicness in Turkey is very indicator of urban sprawl in the context of Turkey, today. The new real estate developments do not grow out of the rural culture and remains alien to their environs. The streets only serve to the individual developments not to the neighbouring ones. Within such fragmentation and ephemerality, agricultural land loses its economic ground for its safe endurance in the future as well. In the given condition, it is very hard to conceive a hybrid condition in an ideal way by which a productive utilisation of land is ensured in larger territorial context.

After the new legislation made in 2012, the boundary of legal responsibility of the metropolitan municipalities were seriously extended on a larger scale. After the law enacted, a large portion of agricultural land around the cities have encountered with an intensive pressure of speculative development. This actually made the abovementioned sprawl-like suburbanisation processes experienced by many Western countries valid in our own context (albeit in different forms), as well.

v

Within this condition, where the first results have already been observed in many Turkish metropolitan cities, a pro-active approach by design is urgently needed in planning. The main design questions on the prospective formation of urban peripheries can be cited as follows: • Envisaging alternative urbanities for the rapidly transforming peripheries which expose an in-between character in form and experience.

• Creating stronger sense of community in the edge of the cities with the new spatial centralities and morphological coherence required.

• Developing a territorial approach by design control that enables the morphological and programmatic integration between life, agriculture and nature.

• Retaining farmlands and farmers (i.e. ‘metro-farming’) within the alternative settlement patterns combining agricultural and permacultural production with tourism and housing.

• Encouraging variety and uniqueness in landscape ecology while harmonising the built-up tissue with the natural and rural setting.

• Defining a contextual design framework responsive to the local environmental

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

and (exurban) socio-cultural conditions which are highly disregarded in the current context.

•

Ensuring social mix as alternative to the homogenous and segregated social landscape of the suburbs.

With reference to those design questions, a series of design tasks are formulated to be dealt within the studio projects during the semester: • Integrating residential, recreational and touristic development with agricultural and rural land rather than segregating property uses.

• Projecting alternative forms of compactness in new housing to minimise the footprint for the sustainability of efficient agricultural production and natural preservation.

• Devising and open and connected fabric as an alternative to the closed and segregated speculative housing sites.

• Fostering active preservation of natural and agricultural land by keeping the farming communities in the rapidly transforming country.

• Coding the picturesque characteristics of the landscape in the peri-urban areas development areas.

• Qualifying the townscape characteristics in low-density village-like environment.

All the questions which apply to any generic condition of urban sprawl and suburbanisation in general, will be examined in the specific condition of a given context. Within this framework, the design research studies of the METU MUD Studio in the 2017-2018 acaic p ri i c c r al h i c i i hi A al a metropolitan area in southern Turkey. ca a h r h r p riph r h ci A al a al r where the rapid suburban development has been encountering for the h a r ar r rh r c ci A al a al cc c ii a r illa 1 i al a h ar r h a the metropolitan area with a distance of 20 km to the central city.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

i last pi h

i a rri r few decades. a ra i i al r a

vi

ihi i i p p la i 0 000 r i c i hi h i i icipali ar a al r al a a ic charac r hr h h i i cr a i p p la i h p c p p la i h c i a 2 0 000 r h ar i h r ar to the current trends and tendencies. Considering the capacity of the area (900 km2 in total), this actually signifies a serious transformation in the spatial and social characteristics of the area. Though the local economy of the region is used to be based on agriculture li c a ci r pr ci ai h r a i i rial i al ha ra r h cial pr il h l Al ih h r i cy of real estate developments in and around the settlement, such particular transformation of the area calls for an an effective approach of design control managing the current trend of sprawl .

vii

According to the information from the municipality, only 9% of the total plan area is currently occupied by the settled areas. In this context, not only the transforming villages, but also h l i r a ric h l r al i a p riph ral charac r i al This implies the problem of consolidating an in-between fabric within a non-characteristic semi-rural context. In this sense, the emerging discourse of hybrid peri-urban morphology i a r ali r i h c r a ric al i h a ri p i l i r tions of programmatic juxtapositions, re-use and infill.

What We Have Done: Designig for the Peripherial Urbanism in Döşemealtı The design research during the semester will be conducted by a series of lectures, seminars and design workshops during the semester.

By research seminars, we aimed to develop background knowledge and a robust theoretical framework to support our own visions and design decisions accordingly. The intensive reading sessions included the literature of socio-politics as well as that of urbanism, spatial planning and design. The related seminar topics and the major research questions were specified as follow: 1.

The phenomenon of sprawl and the concept periphery in urbanism: Definition of the main concepts that characterize the idea of ‘peripheral urbanism’ –i.e. suburbia, exurbia, edge city, fringe- How the phenomenon of growth was experienced in the different periods of urban history. The patterns of urban extensions in relation to changing modes of

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

production in history. The production cycles and transforming spatio-morphology of inner and outer fringes of the cities. Suburbia as a way of life. –sociology of the urban periphery and its critical reflections- The perception of suburbia in arts and politics –cinematic representation of the suburban way of life and the changing political discourse since the post-war period.2.

Suburbia by design: Suburbia as the product of urban design and planning. The changing strategies to control the rapidly developing urban peripheries –land control and growth management programs introduced by different planning regimes in the World.Design morphology of the planned residential developments –a brief atlas exemplifying different terms and positions in modern urbanism.- Contemporary approaches and radical conceptualizations on designing the peri-urban fabrics.

Especially in the first track of the research seminars, the special terminology and legend of the main theme, ‘urban periphery’ has been aimed to elaborate. This was actually believed to condition the future design operations in tactical level as well. Thus, the specific uses and utilisations on the peripheral lands (i.e. cultivated cropland, farmland, open pastureland, flood plain, wetland and woodland) were listed and discussed in relation to the suburban developments and transformations.

In parallel to the thematic researches supporting the construction of creative design perspectives on the issue, spatial research has been pursued in order to contextualize the design ideas properly. During the research, in order to understand the transforming social and economic structure of the settlement in relation to its spatial-morphology, the typological sections of the current development have been mapped out. The morphological analysis was held by creative mapping techniques illustrating not only the existing form, but also the transformation retrospectively.

In the light of the main framework given above on the specific context of the site, the following types of interventions were prominent to be researched by design: • Application of new building typologies enabling compact collective-forms and patterns in residential pre-urban fabrics. li a i h r a li i r r a a ric al ih r building typologies exposing a legible layout and pedestrian friendly, consistent streetscape.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

viii

• Reclaiming the existing urban infrastructure of the settlement to reinforce the public space structure which, in turn, would trigger new desired transformation in the surrounding fabric.

• Minimising and detrimental effect of the peripheral highway by suggesting the design strategies to transform the traffic route into a kind of ‘high street’ accommodating public life on it.

• Defining ecological corridors, productive and recreational fields by designing smart growth strategies such as compact villages and hamlets, hybrid [agricultural + urban] mega-blocks and mixed-use enclaves etc.

• Programming new forms of tourism developments (i.e. ecological villages, permacultural estates) that would be compatible with the rural landscape.

ix

In order to contextualise all the theoretical discussion on ground, METU MUD 2017-2018 i ir c c a i l rip al A al a i i c r 201 ri h rip the studio group had a chance to get in touch with the very peculiar problem of peripheral r a i i h par ic lar c al h ir rip al ha already started up the design studies of the studio by conducting a very introductory design workshop in the town.

The main intention of the workshop was to reveal the context by design explorations. Just after visiting the different development areas of the city, we experimented some explorative ideas in the light of the specified problematic on the site. In this workshop, the students were asked to reveal the context and its intrinsic problems by conceptual designs. The results of the workshop were presented to the public at the municipality to open up discussions to get more insight on the selected context.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

x

i

r h pi

al i

c

r1

201

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Revealing the context by design explorations.

lic pr ai October 21, 2017.

xi

h

ra

c

h

r

h pi

h

icipal c

cil

al i

Following the design workshop, the studio was introduced with the very task of the year: i lli r h i r p r ai i al r h ai define alternative development patterns both for the whole of the territory and for the different the different spatial sections (inner city, inner and outer fringe) of the periphery.

In this workshop, the groups are expected to define different typo-morphological alternatives and apply them within the larger context of the area.

The target output of the semester was to come up with a concise design guideline which will be based on the previous (typological) design models defined for the different sections of the periphery. This guideline was to include generic design codes and principles hich l ili l r al al r a ci r h a condition of rapid peripheral development.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

The Design Guideline: Scope and Objectives h ai r a h M M i c i r al A al a a h i research area for this year was that the town was to reveal a very peripheral character both in itself and within its larger territorial context. As observed in our field trip, while the inner fabric of the city was exposing an inconsistent character in-between agricultural production and urban development, the outer fringe of the settlement was under the pressure of real-estate developments. The new developments both inside and outside the settled area of the city do not suggest an adaptive behavior on the existing agricultural way of life and semi-rural character of the city. Therefore keeping the inherent agricultural life-pattern within the future development of the city turns out to be the major problematic issue for al Nevertheless, despite all the ill-defined relationships between urban vs. rural and natural vs. artificial; the hybrid nature of the metropolitan fringe of Antalya provides a very interesting potentiality to define new rurbanities for the future (trans)formation of the city and its environs. The so-called new ‘rurban’ condition basically connotes a kind of territory which possess the basic standards (i.e. economic characteristics and lifestyles) of an urban area while retaining its essential futures of a rural area. It is supposed to be constituted by areas with urban typologies where some farming is carried on.

The point is that it is hardly possible to define single (trans)formation model for the whole rri r al h r ar a p l i i l i h h l rri rial a ric Each fabric exposes particular characteristics in socio-economic profile, property relations and life-style. In that context, the most efficient way to control the development of the settlement is to develop a typological design framework covering all the design area in a generic manner. The design framework which includes a series of rules and principles illustrating the ways to achieve desired urban form is called ‘design guideline’. Design guidelines are the concise collection of codes which are the comprehendible expression of the design tactics and strategies via abstract diagrams and clear statements.

The major outcome of the METU MUD 2017-2018 Studio, in this context, has been specified as writing a design guidance for the peripheral formation of Antalya (northern) metropolitan fringe. Within the design guide, there will be a series of illustrations showing the

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

xii

possible alternative formations for each typological section of the territorial urban and rural fabric. For each section, there will be the diagrams showing re-constructed relationships between the major elements of urban form characterising the specific life-patterns. Therefore, each project groups are asked to come up with a kind of scenario illuminating the different activity patterns based on the main issue of ‘productive peripheral urban landscape.

The design guideline has been organised by selecting the most characteristic areas reflecting the typological problematics of the territory. Accordingly, six design groups have been asked to develop systematic design codes in accordance with a strategic perspective to be applied for the same typological context even for the different cities and territories. In the current guideline, six areas have been selected out of eleven. The selected areas do actually reveal inner, middle and outer fringe condition of the overall territory.

xiii

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

xiv

The six selected character areas involved in Döşemealtı Design Guideline

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

For each character areas, the guides have been organized in main three sections: Strategic perspective: the model proposal in the form of conceptual schemes visualizing the main scenario to be employed in the (trans)formation of the selected area. (large-scale alternative development patterns of the city within its territory and conceptual diagrams showing the main scenario) Design codes: The types of elementary spatial interventions and matrices organizing the design components, tools and operations involved. The codes will involve the major design aspects: • street pattern (configuration of the circulation network, typological street sections) • built form (3D composition of the building setting on plot, street, block and ensemble, architectural elements and typologies) • landscaping (plantation, form and utility of the green areas, materialization, townscape elements)

xv

Design simulation: Digital and modeling showing the future urban condition when the codes are applied in accordance with the strategic design perspective.

The studio, in this regard, were encouraged the representation of incremental and adaptive (trans)formations of the design patterns rather than the presentations of blue-prints depicting the end-result with single leaps. Codifying the typical parts of the extensive periphery and formulating generic and focused design models from a strong typo-morphological point of view (as opposed to the static nature of master plans) are not only to respond to the contemporary view in development control by design , but also enable the smart and holistic control over all kinds of possible fragments to emerge in the territory in future.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Middle-fringe I Mass Housing Periphery: TOKI Housing Development

A

a a

r

r

r

r c

01. Area Assessment

Döşemealtı is one of the central districts of Antalya province and it is located at the north of Antalya. The distance between the center of Antalya and Döşmealtı is 20 km. Population is approximately 60,000 in Döşemealtı.

-1-

In 1980s, it is seen that the general characteristic of the city of Antalya was the plateau settlement and it has developed towards the upper plateau in the north east corridor till now. Döşemealtı, on the other hand, is a village with rural characteristics. In 1990s, irrigation investments and agricultural production, as well as the industrial zone, had a significant impact on development in Döşemealtı. Döşemealtı has started to shape a linear form in south-north direction since 2000. After 2000, urban development has accelerated towards fertile agricultural lands.

In Döşemealtı, economy depends mainly on agriculture, industry and animal husbandry. With its fertile land, climate and water resources, Döşemealtı is suitable for agricultural activities that almost all kinds of vegetables, fruits, grains are cultivated. However, it is observed that the number of labours in industry has been increasing rapidly while it has been decreasing in agriculture and husbandry in last 5 years.

It was envisaged in Döşemealtı Development Plan in 2008 that 7200ha area planned as urban settlement and only 8% of this area are now covered. In this plan, Döşemealtı was expected to provide land for the increasing population in Anta lya for following 30 years.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-2-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-3-

TOKI settlement area is located on the north-east of Döşemealtı. This area surrounded by industrial zone, Antalya-Burdur Highway, agricultural and forest.

This area is characterized with middle-fringe features like coexistence agricultural activities, low-density residential and mass housing developments. It is seen that in this area dispersed building pattern is dominant. While north direction of the area has high – rise medium density buildings which are mostly in the form of mass-housing, south part of the city reveals plot-based development pattern.

Most of housing areas are accommodated by low and middle income groups in this area. Moreover, mass housing units are preferred by high income groups for the purpose of investment.

The main problematic issues in this area can be classified as; lack of human activity and interaction, dispersed housing areas (mass housing, estates and parcel-based development) and dissolution of the agricultural identity. In the proposed development plan, it is seen that this trend will continue. There is no transional interventions between parcel-based developments and those of super blocks in the form of closed housing estates. Altough there is a possibility to create social interaction in empty open areas, they are not utilized as active public spaces.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-4-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-5-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

02. Strategic Perspective VISION PERIPHERAL UNITY: Integration of agriculture, built & unbuilt environment and human activities by initiating compactness and mixed-use based urban approach under the concept of peripheral urbanism design.

OBJECTIVES

-Sustaining agricultural activities and identity -Harmonizing agricultural activities with built environment -Ensuring compact and hybrid urban form -Providing social interaction by design diverse public spaces -Creating continuous structure of agriculture within the fabric

-6-

The Concept of Fringe Wall:

Normally, in most of the developments, density decreases from inner parts through the edge of the city. However, by creating a compact development by concentrating the building density at the very edge of the city, we could control the development tending to sprawl to the fertile agricultural land at the periphery. By the proposed model, it is aimed to preserve agriculturally productive lands in the territory.

ANTALYA DĂ–ĹžEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Peripheral Unity

-7-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-8-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-9-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

03. Design Principle s & Rules

-10-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-11-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-12-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Samples Projects

Infıll System - Infills can break monotone linearity.

- Infill can turn useless and old structures into new functional areas.

- Infills not only encourage creativity but also construct relationship between existing features and the new structures.

- Infills are the most appropriate alternatives for the vacant and dispersed open spaces within the fabric.

-13-

- Infills encourage productivity, increase quality and enables more livible environment.

- Infill structures can be designed according to the references from the environment like building size, direction and roads so that they can serve to sustainability and unity.

- Infills that are attached to the existing structure are used for residential purposes and they do not damage the structure. A new plan order are suggested for new structures after the insertion of the new buildings.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-14-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

OPEN SPACE SYSTEM AND LANDSCAPING

-15-

-Public rooms are used as an extension of permaculture corridors within compact urban pattern.

-Permaculture corridor and the rooms enable ventilation within the dense urban fabric.

Principles of Green Systems

-Permaculture corridors areprovided to sustain agricultural and cultural identity of the area in urbanized pattern.

-Plot sizes on green corridor should be at least 300 m2.

-Roads near the green corridors are pedestrian oriented and there are traffic calming applications on it.

-Buildings’ open facades face to the green corridor and green spaces inside the building blocks connect to the these corridors for leading purposes.

-There are public areas and cottages on permaculture plots.

-At most three sequential plot on this green corridor an exist together without interruption by a pedestrian road. These roads enable linkage between green corridor and the built environment.

-Green corridors are connected with each other through with green roads for every 800 m.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

04. Design Simulations

-16-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Middle-fringe I Residential Periphery

01. Area Assessment

Sahra Gök, Selen Demirezen, Zeliha Irmak Bilir

-17-

middle-fringe periphery

Loca�on of the project site in Döşemeal� METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-18-

Areal foto of the area 1km x 1km

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Development Plan of the area 2

4

3

3

1 2

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

2

1

1

4 3

1

1

2

2

1 1

1 3

2

4

2 2 1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

2 1

2 1

2

1 1

1 5

1

1 1

1

1

3

1

4 2

1

1

2

2 1

1

3

3

3

2 1

3

2

1

4

3

1

4 1

-19-

3 2 2

1 2 1

4

2

3

2

1

2

3

3

7 1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

1 2

1

2

4 1 3

2 2

1

1 1

1

3

1

2

2

5

1 1

2

1 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1 1

PARK16 3

1

2

1

1

1 2

1

1

PARK18 6

1

1

PARK19

1 1

2

2

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 2

2

1

1 1

2 3

2 1

1 1

1

1

3 1

1

1

1

1

2

3 1

1

1

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT SITE

Analysis of the Area

The project site is located to northern part of Atatürk Street, the spine of Döşemealtı. Atatürk Street is the major advantage of the project site since it is easier to maintain economic development, necessary interferences and the result of these; rapid transformation.

There is a canal that flows parallel to Atatürk Street across the town. This canal can positively contribute to the urban tranformation in terms of land use and new activities and turn into an urban recrational space which is clearly lacking and needed.

The project site situated it is in the middle fringe, but further away from the city center. It mainly consists of vast agricultural lands and nonhomogenous built fabric which is unconnected in itself and with the surronding environment. This noncoherent morphological character which can be seen overall of the town is the root problem which creates social and economic problems.

Beside the built fabric, the organization of the street layout in the project site is quite poor to satisfy the desired urban quality. Unconnectivity and lack of hierarchy is the basic problems of street layout design. We also encounter rather pedestrian unfriendly street design for the secondary streets which has no pedestrian path or necessary street components.

The inconsistency and excessive differences between the building typologies are other urban design problems in terms of perception of integrity and coherency.

Lastly, the excessive numbers of undefined, vacant lands even on the spine is another shortcoming which effects daily life quality.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-4-20-

Sprawl

Loss of Agricultural Lands

Undefined Streets

-21-

No Safety for Pedestrian and Bicycle Users

No Hierarchy in Street Network

Undefined Voids

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-22-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

02. Strategic Perspec�ve Macro-scale Strategic Perspec�ve for Döşemeal� The main vision for Döşemealtı is to create a suburban settlement with a high quality of life, by integrating the existing values of peri-urban and rural town (such as agricultural, pastoral, green and easyful life style) with the urban qualities (such as well-defined and designed public spaces, streets and buildings) that accommodate a variety of daily activities.

Strategies for that vision;

-23-

- Making the necessary design interventions from the town to human scale along Atatürk Street to make the main city spine more defined and lively.

- Creating a street hierarchy and an order.

- Making streets more pedestrian-friendly by redesigning layout and installing street furniture.

- Creating urban recreational spaces along the canal to transform it into a green corridor in Döşemealtı.

- Creating well defined accessible open spaces which accommodate various activities, including agricultural, recreational and sport activities.

- Improving the quality of neighbourhood life and creating a sense of belonging by proposing new morphological character and fabric which allows collective activities to happen by the community.

- Sustainable, eco-friendly applications and implementations in every design scale.

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-24-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Macro Strategic Perspec�ve for the City

-25-

AGRICULTURAL AREA EXISTING BUILDINGS

SUPERBLOCK

NEW BUILDINGS GREEN AREA

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

C O H A B I T A T I O N

A TA TU R K S T.

G G E E

COHERENCE

R R

INTEGRATION

E E N N C C R R

COLLECTIVE AGRICULTURE

O O R R I

CONTINUITY

I D

-26-

D O O R R S S

A TA TU R K S T. DENSITY

SIZE OF AGRICULTURAL AREA UNDEFINED STREETS & VOIDS ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

COMPACTNESS

-27-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-28-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-29-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-30-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-31-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-32-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-33-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-34-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-18-35-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-36-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-37-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-38-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-39-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-40-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-41-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-42-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-43-

METU MASTER OF URBAN DESIGN 2017-2018 STUDIO

-44-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!"#!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!"$!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!"%!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!"'!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!"(!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!#)!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!#*!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!#+!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!#,!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!#"!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!##!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!#$!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!#%!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!#'!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!#(!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!$)!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!$*!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!$+!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!$,!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!$"!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!$#!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!$$!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!$%!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!$'!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!$(!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!%)!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!%*!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!%+!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!%,!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!%"!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!%#!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!%$!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!%%!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!%'!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

!%(!

!"#$%!&'#"(%)*%$(+&,%-"'./,%012340125%'#$-.)

!')!

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Middle-fringe I Peripherial G ated C o m m u nities: Palm City

01. Area Assessment

a

al

a

a

i

ra

c

Döşemeal� is the new development area located to the north of Antalya. Under the recent development pressure of the city of Antalya, the urban macroform has grown towards the north in �me, and is currently grow con�nuing. While the fer�le agricultural and forest lands that are important for the sustainability, cultural, environmental, social and aesthe�c of the city, it also plays an important role in the economic development of Antalya at the same �me.

-81-

Economy based on agriculture and animal husbandry for many years. Then Anltaya city-region provided a strong economy to the city with the establishment of the organized industrial zone and created new employment opportuni�es for the territory.Despite this strong economy, the city’s rapid development to the north is more likely to raise new problems, risks and challenges based on our examina�on and observa�ons.

Therefore, some deficiencies are iden�fied in the development of the region, in the forma�on of new forms of life, in the process of adap�ng to exis�ng �ssues and in crea�ng ac�ve urban life.

The urban development scenario that we envisage through this project primarily is concerned with the protec�on of natural thresholds and fer�le agricultural lands in the region. In this direc�on, the Palm City area to the east of Döşemeal� is selected as the design project site.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

T h e V i c i ni ty o f th e S el ec ted Area

-82-

M AI N P R O B L E M S • Agricultural lands in the region are under the risk of urban development • New development areas are disconnected from the city center and form a self-contained system • Inaccessibility, lack of interac�on and ac�ve public use • Taking into account these problems and our observa�ons; the Palm City region which is located to the east of Döşemeal� is determined as the study area.

Palm city is a gated community in middle-fringe peripheral urban fringe development area. It is located to the east of the city around 3.5 km far from the Döşemeal� commercial center. This self-contained residen�al site offers a wealth of social, cultural and entertainment opportuni�es. However, this site has weak connec�on with other newly developed areas that are located around the Döşemeal� commercial center. As a design approach, we iden�fy the key problems of the area in order to prevent the urban rupture between the Döşemeal� center and this new development site and thus to create controlled development zones.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

U rb an R u p tu re 1. U R B AN R U P T U R E B E T W E E N R U R AL S E T T L E M E N T AN D AG R I C U L T U R AL AR E A The project site is situated between the Çığlık rural se�lement and Döşemeal�'s important agricultural lands. Presently, the agricultural and forst lands, as well as existing rural spa�al fabric are under a high risk of urban development due to the rap i d r a i a�o a spec la�ve la val es in the periphery of Antalya. Specula�ve and piecemeal urban development on the middle fringe of Antalya cause the crea�on of ‘urban ruptures’.

-83-

2. U R B AN R U P T U R E B E T W E E N C IT Y C E N T E R AN D M I D D L E F R I N G E P E R I P H E R Y C O M M U N IT IE S The site between the Döşemeal� center and the newly developed gated communi�es is an important area for studying the problem of urban rupture in the city.

Deficiencies in social space, inadequate green spaces, transporta�on and street system forma�on prevent an ac�ve life on the field. he lac of social facili�es gree spaces tra sporta�o a street system ith o h i erarc h y and around the project site leads to chao�c life on the ground. These problems and deficiencies bring about breaks in the connec�on between the central and the closed communi�es in newly developing areas, causing uncontrolled growth.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-84-

U rb an R u p tu re o f P ro j ec t S i te • The zone between the city center and the agricultural land is under threat of development • Inadequate connec�on of the designated area with the city organiza�on • No varia�on in lot types • Presence of homogeneous housing • Green areas that do not work together with urban pa�ern • The breakdown of green space and social facili�es • No regular street development • Presence of a homogenous social profile

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-85-

Areal f o to o f th e area 1k m x 1k m M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-86-

D e v e l o p m e n t P l an

o f t h e ar e a 1 k m

Developme t Pla of the area

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

x 1 k m m

m

02. Strategic Perspec�ve Macro Strategic Perspec�ve for the City V IS IO N Considering the natural thresholds and rich agricultural fabric in the project site, the main aim of this project is to prevent urban rupture by designing new living units which will be accessible and provide interac�ve building fronts. Therefore, this project tries to design a system called “ ec rsive Mo larity”. It refers to a system that consists of different units, but feeds each other as a network structure.

-87-

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

U rb an N u c l ei M o d el Strategic framework of design model is based on the concept of “U rb an N u c l ei ”. In this concept; con�nuity and permeability are the main issues which consist of h i erarc h y o f et or hierarchy of moveme t a ecological et or . The concepts of movement, space hierarchy and permeability are foregrounded and the design codes are shaped according to these concepts.

The key design idea behind this model to create self-sufficent centers by supplying p lic tra sporta�o gree et or s mi e - se corriors a y amic se leme t evelopme t. ierarchy of Moveme t

H i erarc h y o f C o mmu ni ty

cological et or

Transit Corridor Thourugfare

Town Center

Natural System in Urban Area

Transit Corridor Boulevard

Urban Core

Urban Green

Thoroughfare

Mixed-Use Corridor

Street Green

Thrafic Calmed Thoroughfare

Local Focus

Boulevard

Local Street

Dynamic Neighborhood

Green Crossing

Mehaffy, M., Porta, S., Rofè, Y., & Salingaros, N. (2010). Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: The ‘emergent neighborhoods’ model. URBAN DESIGN Interna�onal, 15(1), 23-38.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-88-

-89Protec�on of natural assests, providing a con�nuity of green spaces, infilltra�on of green areas into the city and protec�on of farmlands are the main principles of macro-scale for project site strategies by applying the basis of ec rsive Mo larity a r a clei This design project uses the concepts of node, segment and interface to prevent the development of urban break-ups and fragmented development areas in Döşemeal�.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Developme t Strategies for Peripherial ate Comm

i�es

Crea�ng controllable units Con�nuity on streets and crea�ng connectors Establishing the street hierarchy to provide connected community

-90-

ierarchy of Moveme t The present urban texture contains a homogeneous road connec�on. The l ac k o f h i erarc h y i n th e ro ad sy stem leads to problems both in ac�ve street life and transporta�on.

By taking human ac�on into account at macro scale, this project purposes a sustainable, walkable and hierarchical road system.

The emphasis is placed on linking the different segments of the roads in the proposed system and interac�ng with the nodules to be formed in the city.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Developme t Strategies for Peripherial ate Comm

i�es

-91-

H i erarc h y o f C o mmu ni ty The interac�on between the zones is weak. For this reason, this project aims to create a hierarchical structure by crea�ng different neighborhood centers in the city.

The Çığlık region is designated as the rural center and residen�al neighborhoods with ac�ve social life are proposed so as not to threaten the agricultural land.

The areas between the center and the gated communi�es, this project aims to prevent the breakage of the macro scale by applying ac�ve neighborhood centers.

This project also proposes a hybrid urban development to increase interac�ons within and between gated communi�es. It suggests an urban development pa�ern that connects different segments in the site through a hierarchical road network and establish nodes in public ac�vity points.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Developme t Strategies for Peripherial ate Comm

i�es

Exis�ng Green New Green Connec�ons Exis�ng Farmland Farmland to be protected

-92-

cological et or As the agricultural and forest lands in Döşemeal� d o no t or as a i tegrate gree system, this causes ruptures in the macroform of the city.

In addi�on to the exis�ng green sites, this project proposes a green network, compromising urban green sites, such as small parks, agricultural and forest lands. This will enhance the sustainability of the ecological system in Döşemeal�.

The green areas that serve as the interface between the different segments of the city con�nuity created a hierarchical structure in the green area by crea�ng nodes at some points.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

Street Pa er et or Str ct re( street hierarchy and configura�on) C O N N E C T O R S T R E E T

L O C AL S T R E E T

AR T E R I AL S T R E E T

* The connectors should be recommended at a minimum distance of 150 meters from the reference arterail street

* Local streets must be proposed to connect connectors and the arterials.

* It should be proposed between 300-500 m

* It can be only for pedestrian or pedestrian + services.

* Main Public Transporta�on routes will be proposed along arterials

* It can con�nue on the road of maximum 250 meters, then it has to break.

-93-

* At the breaking, points there must be public spaces or usages.

* The width of the road can be max 10 meters

* The width of the road can be at least 20m

* The width of the road can be maximum 15 meters.

C o n n e c to r S tre e t L o c al S tre e t A r t e r i al S tre e t

is� g Pla of Selecte Site

Street Co

ec�o Proposal

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

Street Pa er

ree Co ec�o s Pe estria et or

les N o d e H i erarc h y

-94-

I nterf ac e

U rb an N o d es

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

B u i l t F o rm Crea� g Co

ector i

les

ages

Crea� g y ri loc Segme ts

is

-95-

Crea� g Co

ector i

ages

Crea� g y ri

is

loc Segme ts

Connector streets were created to prevent urban rupture and create a permeable interface with the design.

The designed connector street has many different uses and it forms urban nodes at the points where the street is broken.

The streets are linked to each other by pedestrian ways, bringing maximum pedestrian access.

The breaking points supported by the open area system and urban squares to form a hybrid street pa�ern.

Suggested pedestrian paths provide access to the permaculture areas as well as to the exis�ng site as much as in the neighborhood units.

The design provides a solu�on to the problem of urban rupture.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

B u i l t F o rm

Materiali a�o

-96P ermac u l tu re B l o c k

C o nnec to r S treet

eigh orhoo

Each permacultural block consists of commercial center, prac�cal educa�onal and housing areas.

Non-residen�al units are located along the connector streets. Connector streets are defined by urban blocks that are 4-5 storey buildings.

Neighborhood units consist of 2-3 storey residen�al units and green areas. concrete

metal

wood vegeta�on

it

concrete

wood

stone

stone

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Materiali a�o

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

B u i l t F o rm

Sec�o s form the Proposal Pla

Sec�o

-97-

Sec�o

Sec�o C M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les A B C

C

B

A

Sec�on A demonstrate us residen�al pa�ern alongside the arterial street. It can be understood from the sec�on that residen�al units are directly integrated with each other and green areas. Sec�on B is from connector street and shows us non-residen�al units. Sec�on C contains residen�al units, premacultre block and non-residen�al areas at the same �me.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-98-

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

B u i l t F o rm Plot co

-99-

g ra�o

loc forma�o

*Commercial and public usages as schools, hospitals can be applied along the Connector. * Setbacks for the buildings which are located toward the “Local Street”, can be minimum 3 meters maximum 6 meters. * There must be used can�levers or niches along the buildings along the Connectors * It might be proposed pedestrian flow within the building and cohousing inside the building * The building can not exceed 50 meters. * The codes for Type 1.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 1.2 * Along the Connector street it must be used at least 2 single blocks. * The buildings can only be proposed through the Connector path and along the Local pathway * “L” forms can be proposed at the blocks according to the func�ons. * The codes for Type 1.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 1.3 * Along the Connector street it must be used at least 2 single blocks. * The buildings can only be proposed through the Connector path and along the Local pathway * “L” forms can be proposed at the blocks according to the func�ons. * The codes for Type 1.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 1.4 * Along the Connector street it must be used at least 2 single blocks and they can be connected if providing a pedestrian access at max 50 meters. * The buildings along the Local Street can be a�ached or detached. * Minimum setback for the buildings which referencing from local streets is 5 meters. * Max 5 houses can be a�ached along the

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

B u i l t F o rm Plot co

g ra�o

loc forma�o

*Local streets are designed with reference to building block. *If the block is referenced by the Connector and Arterial, the block typology can be both Type 2 or Type 3. * The buildings can only be used for accommoda�on. *Setbacks for the buildings which are located toward the “Local Street”, can be minimum 3 meters and maximum 6 meters. * The length of a building façade cannot exceed 50 meters. *The codes for Type 2.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 2.2 *It can be used a�ached or detached houses *It can be allowed at most 8 buildings along the Local Street (120m) * The length of a façade for each -100a�ached house can be minimum 6m * The codes for Type 2.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 2.3 * Along the Local street it must be used at least 2 built-in blocks except using Pa�o type of development. * In Pa�o type of development at most 6 a�ached houses can be used through the street. * Minimum setbacks for Pa�o housing is 6 m and max. 30 m * The buildings can only be proposed through the Local street *The codes for Type 2.1 plot configura�on and block forma�on are used for Type 2.4 * Along the Local street it must be used at least 2 built-in blocks. * The buildings along the Local Street can be a�ached or detached. * Minimum setback for the buildings which referencing from local streets is 5 meters.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

les

B u i l t F o rm Plot co

-101-

g ra�o

loc forma�o

* The block should be self-sufficient and mix-use that fulfill the daily need of residents * The blocks can have “permacultural parks” * If the blocks have permacultural parks,the building typology must be created as one single building follows the a�ached ones * If the block is created with pa�o type, there won’t be permacultural parks

Green con�nuity is recommended along the local streets and has to connect to the squares

The social service areas (health center, sports, school, mosque) have to be located at the connector road

If the connector is breaking, the “L” form has to be retracted

If local streets are stuck to the blocks on the connector, empty spaces will be created at the front or back of the building

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

03 . Desig

Pri ciples

pe Space System a

les a

scapi g

c�o al ypology of ope space 1 The essen�al target is to a�ain the con�nuity of the facades at the connectors

2 At the breaking points of the connectors, there will be squares and public green spaces

3

Urban block forms will define the main connector streets The green linkages for pedestrian roads and the permaculture parks which are located at the edge of the urban nuclei form must be directly connected with the squares

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-102-

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

-103-

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

il i g ypology a

e eral -D ayo t

permaculture block open space

permaculture block

-104-

urban blocks

residen�al areas

permaculture block

Crea�ng new way of life in the area is the main purpose of this project. We want to change and replace the spa�al pa�ern of the area with new street system that is supported by green spaces and commercial uses. Co-housing is the other proposal to change the exis�ng urban pa�ern that will support the life in the area and integrate a heterogenous socio-economic community.

il i g ypology

For residen�al buildings, units such as interior garden, terrace and balcony are designed to strengthen the interac�on with the surroundings and weaken the building boundaries. The structural units are resiliently integrated into the residence so that they can be changed according to the users’ preferences. Urban blocks allow flexible usage thanks to dynamic façade and gaps.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

-105-

Less permeable architectural combina�ons are located along arterial street. Adjacent residen�al units are designed to blur the boundaries and enrich the communica�on. Ar�cula�on of architectural units provides intersec�ons, strength communica�ons and support co-housing system.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

-106-

c o n n e c to r stre e t

Non-residen�al units are located along the connector street that will help the penetra�on of green spaces into the inner parts of the building block. Urban blocks with four-five storey building units define the street and nodes will provide new set of urban func�ons to fulfill the needs of the users of the project site. Clusters and urban blocks will provide with easy and friendly spaces for social interac�on and will be directly connected to green areas.

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

-107-

Permaculture blocks consist of 1-2 storey residen�al units, non-residen�al units and green areas. Hybrid pa�ern of this type of blocks and co-housing system prevent social disconnec�on.

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s

R end ers

-108views from residen�al units

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

04 . Desig

Sim la�o s Structures at intersec�ons of buildings are designed for common spaces because we propose co-housing; a type of system for strength rela�onship and support daily life.

-109-

Dynamic and in�mate layout of blocks and enriched urban pa�ern provides interac�ve and social neighborhoods and promotes communica�on. Co-housing is an inten�onal community of private homes clustered around shared space. This system par�ally proposed for the project site to combine primary ac�vi�es, max i mi z e sy nergy a mi imi e co ict

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-110-

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Middle-fringe I Peripheral G ated C o m m u nities: Co mmu n ity D e ve

lo p me n t

01. Area Assessment

Ayşegül Erçin, Gizem Şahin, Neslişah Kesici

-111-

Area is c arac erize y middle fringe characteristic . It locates in between fertile agricultural land and city center M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Character Areas in the Overall Ur an Territory of Döşemeal� 'D÷EHOඈ %DGHPD÷DFÕ

.RYDQOÕN

7KHUPHVVRV ,QGXVWUඈDO =RQH

-11 dÕ÷OÕN

&ඈW\ &HQWHU

72.ø

$OWÕQNDOH

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

The Main Developmental Dynamics of Döşemeal� 1RUWKHUQ 5XUDO 6HWWOHPHQWV $JUඈFXOWXUDO /DQG

%XUGXU 5RDG

7KHUPHVVRV +ඈVWRUඈFDO 3ODFHV

.RYDQOÕN 7HSH .DUDWDú

-11 7KHUPHVVRV )RUHVW

,QGXVWUඈDO =RQH

72.ø

.RUNXWHOඈ

$OWÕQNDOH

dÕ÷OÕN 9ඈOODJH

ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ LJŶĂŵŝĐƐ

^ŽĐŝĂů LJŶĂŵŝĐƐ

ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů pƌŽĚ͘ ;'ƌĂƉĞ͕ 'ƌĂŝŶ ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ ĂƩůĞ ƌĞĞĚŝŶŐ dƌƵĐŬ tƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ &ĂƌŵŝŶŐ

>Žǁ eĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ lĞǀĞů of iŵŵŝŐƌĂƟŽŶ ůĚĞƌůLJ pŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ dĞĮĐŝĞŶĐLJ WƌŽĚƵĐƟǀĞ wŽŵĞŶ

DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ rŝĚŐĞ KƌŐĂŶŝĐ půĂŶ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ oǀĞƌ ĂƌŶ dƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů hŽƵƐŝŶŐ

EĂƚƵƌĞ tŽƵƌŝƐŵ ƵůƚƵƌĞ tŽƵƌŝƐŵ ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJ tŽƵƌŝƐŵ

^ŽĐŝĂů iŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ ƵůƚƵƌĂů aĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚ͘ >ŽĐĂů ĂŶĚ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ

'ƺǀĞƌ uĕƵƌƵŵƵ <ŦƌŬŐƂnj hĂŶ ŶĐŝĞŶƚ tŚĞĂƚƌĞ ŝƚLJ gĂƚĞ ZŽŵĂŶ rŽĂĚ

^ƉĂƟĂů LJŶĂŵŝĐƐ

>Žǁ eĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ lĞǀĞů dƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů cĂƌƉĞƚ of iŵŵŝŐƌĂƟŽŶ ƉŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ůĚĞƌůLJ pŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ &ĂƌŵŝŶŐ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ dĞĮĐŝĞŶĐLJ WƌŽĚƵĐƟǀĞ wŽŵĞŶ

dƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů hŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ĂLJ wŝŶĚŽǁƐ ^ĐĂƩĞƌĞĚ ^ĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚ iŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů aƌĞĂ ;&ŽŽĚ /ŶĚ͕͘ DĂĐŚŝŶĞ iŶĚ͕͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŶ ĂŶĚ mŝŶĞ iŶĚ͘Ϳ

>ĂĐŬ ŽĨ lŝǀŝŶŐ uŶŝƚƐ ĨŽƌ wŽƌŬĞƌƐ >ŝŵŝƚĞĚ cŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů půĂĐĞ >ŝŵŝƚĞĚ oƉĞŶ sƉĂĐĞ lĂĐŬ ŽĨ pƵďůŝĐ tƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ

/ŶƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚ sŽĐŝĂů iŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ aĐƟǀŝƚLJ aŵŽŶŐ wŽƌŬŝŶŐ pĞŽƉůĞ

ŵŝŐƌĂƟŽŶ zŽƵŶŐ pŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ dĞĮĐŝĞŶĐLJ DŝĚĚůĞ cůĂƐƐ EŽŶ pƌŽĚƵĐƟǀĞ lŝǀŝŶŐ aƌĞĂ wŽŵĞŶ >ĂĐŬ ŽĨ sŽĐŝĂů aĐƟǀŝƚLJ ,ŝŐŚ eĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ lĞǀ͘ hƉƉĞƌ cůĂƐƐ ĂůĂŶĐĞĚ aŐĞ lŝǀŝŶŐ aƌĞĂ gƌŽƵƉƐ >ĞƐƐ cŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů 'ĞŶƚƌŝĮĐĂƟŽŶ aĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ^ŽĐŝĂů sĞŐƌĞŐĂƟŽŶ cŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŽŶ ůŽƐĞĚ cŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ fĞƌƟůĞ lĂŶĚ WƌĞƐƟŐŝŽƵƐ dŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ WŽŵĞŐƌĂŶĂƚĞ ďĂŶĚŽŶŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ pƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ rƵƌĂů pƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ &ĞƌƟůĞ iƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚ ĚƵĞ ƚŽ iŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ rĞŶƚ &ŽƌĞƐƚƌLJ aƐŝŵŝůĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ rĞĂů ŐƌŽƚŽƵƌŝƐŵ lĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌƐ

,ŝŐŚ dĞŶƐŝƚLJ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝnjĞĚ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ EŽ ĂůĐŽŶLJ KƉĞŶ sƉĂĐĞ dĞĮĐŝĞŶĐLJ ,ŝŐŚ ƵĂůŝƚLJ vŝůůĂƐ >Žǁ dĞŶƐŝƚLJ tĂƚĞƌ cŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů gĂƌĂŐĞƐ tĂůůĞĚ gĂƌĚĞŶƐ WƌŝǀĂƚĞ půŽƚ oƌŝĞŶƚĞĚ ^ĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ pƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ ŽŶ fĞƌƟůĞ aŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů lĂŶĚ fŽƌĞƐƚ ĂŶĚ Ƶŝůƚ fĂďƌŝĐ tŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

The Pro lema�c Issues Planning and Architectural /ƚ ŝƐ ĂŝŵĞĚ ƚŽ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ůƨŶŬĂůĞ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉƐ ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůLJ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƐŽĐŝĂů ĂŶĚ ƐƉĂƟĂů segregation ƚŽ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ďLJ ƐƉĂƟĂů ĂƌƟĐƵůĂƟŽŶ while to ƉƌŽǀŝĚing ƐŽĐŝĂů ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƟŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ ƐŽĐŝĂů ŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ ďLJ ĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚ ƉĞƌŝƉŚĞƌLJ͘

uali�es

hZ E KZ

:(67

KDD Z / > y/^

'Z/ h>dhZ > Z

dZ E^/d/KE KE

,/',t z

($67

/^K> d ^ dd> D Ed^

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-11 -

Gated Communi�es the shi from industrial produc�on to service sector increase in demands and investments for private residen�al areas Turkish ci�es underwent a transforma�on from coherent morphology to a rela�vely fragmented income ine uality deepened the transforming pa ern from rural to ur an

func�onal and social fragmentation in ur an areas has deepened

-11 -

- entrance of e buildings orientate in i i ual to the roads - car parkings - private garden & pool

on the areas which are provided by the municipality individualism no common area in the vicinity

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Spa�al Analysis of the Area ^W d/ > E >z^/^ K& d, Z

individually oriented uilding settings

terrace can�lever alcony housing storage arn parking garden coop commercial

E L Y S IU M

V IL L A S

L IK Y A P A R K V IL L A S SEVG VILLAS L O TU S V I L L A S

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-11 -

Architectural Feature of the Area Buildings consist of self-contained villas apartment uildings and pu lic uildings Sites with high security measures including individual car parks and common car park areas as well as pools are the most important characteristics of the settlement typology in the area Although there are housing estates where there is interaction in themselves If there are also the sites with no interaction y separating walls Despite the fact that some sites have a common treatment in landscape design particular landscaping via individual gardens draw attention in some sites Basic Types of Private Housing

-11 -

1 .

2 - storey uildings customi ed roof wide windows directly related with the outdoor space

2 - storey uildings customi ed saddle roof wide windows private jacu i - garden

2 .

Typological Elevation

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Social Structure of the Area PRIVATIZATION - SECURITY - RESTRICTED PLOTS - HIGH CAR-OWNERSHIP WZ/s d/ d/KE Ͳ ^ hZ/dz Ͳ Z hZs E ^^ Ͳ Z ^dZ/ d W>Kd^ Ͳ ,/', Z KtE Z^,/W Z d

/' 'Z E Z ^ t/ dKd > &>KKZ Z DKZ ^K / > Z ^

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Khd Z &Z/E'

WZ ^d/'/Kh^ ,Kh^/E' &KZ hWW Z > ^^

D/ > &Z/E'

-11 -

^d E Z / d , ,Kh^ &KZ D/ > hWW Z > ^^ >/D/d 'Z E Z ^ >/D/d dKd > &>KKZ Z ^/D/> Z h/> /E' TYPOLOGIES > < K& KDDKE Z ^

A e r i al V i e w o f t h e A r e a

-11 -

1 100 000

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

D e v e l o p m e n t P l an

o f th e A re a

-1

1 100 000

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

G R E E N P A TTE R N p ar k playground B U IL TA R E A S educa�on health - cultural services mos ue

-1 1housing

S TR E E T P A TTE R N

No connection etween the different typological sections High uality uildings eside the ordinary housing tissue

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

02. Strategic Perspec�ve

Spatial rtic latio of the a ric- Chai Cl ster Mo el

The main strategy is the designing the middle fringe s gated communi�es on the asis of spa�al ar�cula�on to serve social interac�on with the chain hierarchy which is made up of multiple loop system Towards Integrated Ur an Form The Alterna�ve Way Forward E nclosure Si e appropriate degree permea ility and accessi ility easy movement and walka le districts more diverse communi�es socially economically and physically heterogeneous ur an area

Boundary E ect physical features of the oundary the length the frontages the accommodated facili�es the surveillance condi�ons

Working A re a

Round Chain

C e n t e r C h ai n

O liv e G ar d e n s A ta tü rk S tre e t

P u lic Spaces shared ameni�es and facili�es pu lic transit system pedestrian ways recrea�onal and educa�onal services landscape greenery and views Fractali ed Se lement

Ringed Circula�on

Interac�on in etween Blocks

Common Spaces Hierarchy

G a te d Communi�es

Burdur Highway

M ai n C h ai n

Su Strategies

M ai n P e d e s t r i an

The characteris�c feature of the sampling area is the precedent gated communi�es that lead to tension etween pu lic an d p r i v at e s p ac e r e s t r i c t e d y order lines Therefore su - strategies are defined to support the macro strategy of social integration y spatial articulation

A x e s In n e r O p e n S p ac e s Security - Privacy

Pedestrian Way

Pu lic Transporta�on

Junc�on Point - Commercial Facili�es

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Unit Segment

Ring Road

G re e n C o re

-1

-

Macro Strategy Social Interac�on y Spa�al Ar�cula�on D ZK ^dZ d 'z͗ ^ŽĐŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ LJ ^ƉĂƟĂů ƌƟĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ ƐĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŚĂƐ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ƚŚĞ ŵĂŝŶ structure ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĨŽĐƵƐ ĂƌĞĂƐfor the future developments The proposed ur an texture provides the integrity with agricultural land and forests %XUGXU

-1

Aiming for the integrity of agricultural areas and forest areas internal circulation route structure is set It is aimed to connect each settlement of the ur an fa ric with each other %XUGXU

The main route and secondary axes are integrated The integrated chain system is esta lished y providing the pedestrian automo ile traffic and pu lic transport structure on the whole city %XUGXU

-

$QWDO\D

$QWDO\D

$QWDO\D

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

T h e T ransp o rty System | i s o r g an i z e d i n t o loops over the main ack one that will unite the functions in the city while providing the main distri ution Atat rk Street was designed as the main spine and Burdur road as ypass road and supported with pedestrian

a se Patter is organi ed in parallel with the current functional density distri ution within the city This is tended to support the major policy to generate more intensive developments around the specified centers

pe Space Str ct re is linearly organi ed along the pedestrian circulation Open spaces are used as pu lic parks and active green areas in the city center Towards the periphery active green spaces increasingly get wider and utilised as olive groves and recreation areas

-1

^dZ d E dtKZ<

ANTALYA DĂ&#x2013;Ĺ&#x17E;EMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

> E h^

'Z E ^dZh dhZ

-

WĞƌŵĞĂďŝůŝƚLJ

ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ 'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ

'ƌĞĞŶ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ

ĐŽ WůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ

tŽŽŶĞƌĨ

^ƉĂƟĂů ƌƟĐƵůĂƟŽŶ

tĂůŬĂďůĞ ŝƚLJ

-

WĞƌŵĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞ

-1

^ƚƌĞĞƚ &ƵƌŶŝƚƵƌĞ ǁŝƚŚ >ŽĐĂů DĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

^ŽĐŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ

KůŝǀĞ 'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ

ŝĐLJĐůĞ ZŽĂĚ

WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ &ƌŝĞŶĚůLJ

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

02. D

esi g n P ri nc i p l es & R u l es

Definining Coordinates &/E/E' KKZ /E d ^ K& d, Z/E' of the Ring

1 1 Defining major vertex x1 to cons�tute the ring inside the exis�ng se lement T junc�on Point X1 should e chosen on the longest road etween exis�ng plots Point x1 should e on the T junc�on points The distance etween x1 and R1 should e etween 1 0- 00 meters

1 2 Defining second vertex y1 according to the distance and angle from the major point Point y1 should e chosen on the T junc�on of exis�ng plots -Max distance of y1 from R1 200- 00 meters -Max distance of y2 from R2 100-200 meters

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

1 Defining x2 Point x2 should e on the closest perpendicular axis and its perpendicular junc�on that should not e -closer than 00 meters -further than 800 meters

1 Defining y2 Point y2 should e chosen on the perpendicular junc�ons of the parallel -not closer than 800 meters -not further than 00 meters

-1

-

^dZ d^

If t h e le n g t h o f t h e r in g is b e t w e e n 2 - 3 k m

If t h e le n g t h o f t h e r in g is b e t w e e n 3 - 4 k m

DĂŝŶ ƌƚĞƌy͗ ZŝŶŐ ŝƐ ƵƐĞĚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ŵĂŝŶ ƌŽĂĚ ĨŽƌ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ system͘ ϰ >ĂŶĞ ͖ ϮнϮ 2m sidewalk KŶ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ϱŵ͖ for cŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϯŵ

-1

-

Collector ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͗ ϰ >ĂŶĞ ͖ ϮнϮ Ϯŵ sidewalk KŶ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ϱŵ͖ for cŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϯŵ WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ fƌŝĞŶĚůLJ ƐůŽǁĞĚ ƚƌĂĸĐ esi e tial Street ϭ >ĂŶĞ ϭ͘ϱŵ sidewalk KŶ ƚŚĞ ƌŽĂĚ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͖ ϱŵ͖ ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͖ ϯŵ WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ǁĂLJƐ ďLJ tŽŽŶĞƌĨ

Th e n u m b e r o f b l o c k s ta e v e r y c o r n e r is 4 - 10 Th e d i s t an c e b e t w e e n c l u s t e r s is 2 0 0 -4 0 0 m

Th e n u m b e r o f b l o c k s ta e v e r y c o r n e r -1 Th e d i s t an c e b e t w e e n c l u s t e r s is 1 0 0 -4 0 0 m

If t h e le n g h t o f t h e r in g is b e t w e e n 3 -4 k m

If t h e le n g h t o f t h e r in g is b e t w e e n ; 3 -4 k m

Th e 9 -1 Th e 2 0 0

Th e 1 0 -1 Th e 2 0 0

6

n u m b e r o f b l o c k s at

e v e r y c o r n e r is

d i s t an c e b e t w e e n c l u s t e r s ; -4 0 0 m

n u m b e r o f b l o c k s ta e v e r y c o r n e r is 5 d i s t an c e b e t w e e n c l u s t e r s is -4 0 0 m

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

>K <^ Ͳ W>Kd^ ůů ďůŽĐŬƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ŚĂǀĞ Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚ ŽŶĞ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ͘

1 . C l o s e d c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

2 . S e m i - closed c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

1 . C l o s e d c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

2 . S e m i - o p e n c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

3 . C o n jo in t c lu s t e r s

4 . O p e n - c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

3 . C o n jo in t c lu s t e r s

4 . O p e n - c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

ŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ ŽĨ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ŝŶ ďůŽĐŬƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ

-1

&ĂĐĂĚĞ ŽŶƟŶƵŝƚLJ͗ Length of fronted facade of uildings Min 0 m - Max 0 m 1 . C l o s e d c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

2 . S e m i - closed c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

1 . C l o s e d c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

2 . S e m i - closed c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

3 . C o n jo in t c lu s t e r s

4 . O p e n - c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

3 . C o n jo in t c lu s t e r s

4 . O p e n - c o u r t y ar d c l u s t e r s

&ůŽŽƌ ^ƉĂĐĞ ĨŽƌ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͗ DŝŶ ϭϬϬŵϮ DĂdž ϯϬϬŵϮ ŚŵĂdž͗ ϭϱŵ ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ďƚǁ ĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϯͲϴŵ Min coverage area of the courtyards 10 Max coverage area of the courtyards 2

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

P D S S

2 1

-

2

3

4

2 1

2

4

3 4

S

WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ street ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJ circulation structure ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ

-1

1

3 4

ĂĐŚ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ƚLJƉĞ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ƵƐĞĚ ĨŽƌ certain ďůŽĐŬͲ ƉůŽƚ ƚLJƉŽůŽŐLJ Sidewalks ϭ͘ϱŵ ŝĐLJĐůĞ Paths͗ ϭŵ

3

1

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

> E ^ W

1

CŽŶƟŶƵŝƚLJ in green structure ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ in coordination with ƚŚĞ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ƚLJƉĞ ĂƐ͗

1 2

3

2

3 4

4

Ͳ KůŝǀĞ 'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ ;&ƌĞĞ ŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶͿ

-1 -

Ͳ 'ƌĞĞŶ adžŝƐ is ;dĞĮŶĞĚ y ƌŽǁ of ƚƌĞĞƐͿ Ͳ ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ͖ Playgrounds ϭϬϬͲϰϬϬ ŵϮ ŽŵŵŽŶ KƉĞŶ ^ƉĂĐĞs ϰϬϬͲϴϬϬŵϮ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ 'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ ϴϬϬͲϭϲϬϬŵϮ

1

1 2

3

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

4

3

2

4

Building Block and Plot Configura�on TY P E 1 . a

Block type 1 a should e in the ra�o of x 1 x A ached uildings - defined corners Height range -1 m FAR 0

TY P E 2 . a

Block type 2 a should e in the ra�o of x 2x The entrances of the lock x 2 A ached uildings - defined corners Corner uildings a ached to adjacent uilding Height range -1 m FAR 0

TY P E 1 . b

Block type 1 should e in the ra�o of x 1 x The entrances of the lock x A ached and detached uildings - defined corners Corner uildings used as commercial and housing Height range -1 m FAR 0

-1 1TY P E 1 . c

TY P E 2 .

Block type 2 should e in the ra�o of x 2x The entrances of the lock x 2 A ached detached uildings - defined corners Corner uildings a ached to adjacent uilding from its x 2 or y Height range -1 m FAR 0

Block type 1 c should e in the ra�o of x 1 x The entrances of the lock x - x 2 A ached and detached uildings - defined corners Height range -1 m FAR 0

TY P E 2 . c

TY P E 1 . d

Block type 1 d should e in the ra�o of x 1 x The entrances of the lock x A ached and detached uildings - defined corners Height range -1 m FAR 0

Block type 2 c should e in the ra�o of x 2x The entrances of the lock x A ached detached uildings - defined corners Corner uildings a ached to adjacent uilding from its x 2 or y Height range -1 m FAR 0

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

TY P E 3 . a

Block type a should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x Detached uildings Private agricultural gardens Height range - m FAR 0

TY P E 3 .

Block type should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x 2 Detached uildings Corner locks a ached to each other from its x Private agricultural gardens community gardens Height range - m FAR 0

TYPE a

Block type should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x 2 Detached uildings Corner locks a ached to each other from its x Private agricultural gardens children gardens Commercial locks in the courtyard c o r r e s p o n d s t o r o ad s Height range - m FAR 0

TYPE

Block type should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x 2 Detached uildings Corner locks a ached to each other from its x Private agricultural gardens children gardens Commercial locks in the courtyard Height range - m FAR 0

TYPE c TY P E 3 . c

Block type c should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x 2 Detached uildings Corner locks a ached to each other from its x Private agricultural gardens children gardens Commercial locks in the courtyard c o r r e s p o n d s t o r o ad s Height range - m FAR 0

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Block type c should e in the ra�o of x x The entrances of the lock x 2 Detached uildings Corner locks a ached to each other from its x Private agricultural gardens children gardens Commercial locks in the courtyard Height range - m FAR 0

-1 -

dZ d E dtKZ<

'Z E ^dZh dhZ

> E h^

dLJƉĞ ϭ

ĞŶƚƌĂů ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ

dLJƉĞ Ϯ

WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ EĞƚǁŽƌŬ ZŝŶŐ ZŽƵƚĞ

-1

-

dLJƉĞ ϯ

ffice loc

dLJƉĞ ϰ Ͳ ϱ

Commercial loc

dLJƉĞ ϭ

dLJƉĞ ϰ

catio - ealth Service loc

dLJƉĞ ϯ

Commercial loc

dLJƉĞ Ϯ

dLJƉĞ ϱ

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Building Typologies ZKt ,Kh^ ^ dzW ϭ

h/> /E' dzWK>K'/ ^

&ĂĐĂĚĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ĐĂƌ ƉĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚ ƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ dŚĞ new ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ ƚŚĂƚ responses to ƚŚĞ ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů ƚĞdžƚƵƌĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƌŽŽĨ ďĂLJ ǁŝŶĚŽǁ ĂŶĚ ǁŝŶĚŽǁ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ͘ &ůƵŝĚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƉƉĞĂůƐ ƚŽ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ facade

dd , ^/E'> ,Kh^

dt/E ,Kh^ ^

ZKt ,Kh^ ^ dzW Ϯ

-1

WƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂƟŽn in shading and solar ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ effective ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ďLJ ƌŽŽĨ ƐůĂďƐ͕ ĐŽůƵŵŶƐ ĂŶĚ ďĂůĐŽŶŝĞƐ ŝŶ ƵƌďĂŶ tissue͘ ŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ĂŶĚ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ďLJ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŝǀĂĐLJ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƐƚĂŝƌǁĂLJ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘

ZKt ,Kh^ ^ dzW ϰ ZKt ,Kh^ ^ dzW ϯ

The row house are lower construction costs and land space re uirements per dwelling unit There is relatively greater privacy in living side y side in row houses Municipal services can e more economically provided in areas of row house

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

dZ d E dtKZ<

'Z E ^dZh dhZ

> E h^

ϭ͘ džŝƐƟŶŐ ^ĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƟŽŶƐ͗ Ͳ WŽƐŝƟŽŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƌŽĂĚ structure ƐŽ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƚ ǁŝůů serve Ă ƐƚŽƉ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ͲCreating ĐŽŵŵŽŶ ĂƌĞĂƐ ďLJ ĚŝƐůŽĚŐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůƚͲŝŶ ƚĞdžƚƵƌĞ͘ Ͳ /ĚĞŶƟĨying ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ƌŽŽƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŵďŝŶĞ ĐŽŵŵŽŶ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽĨ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͘ ͲIŶƚĞŐƌĂƚing ƚŚĞ ďŝĐLJĐůĞ ƌŽƵƚĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘

-1

-

Ϯ͘ /ŶŶĞƌ &ƌŝŶŐĞ͗ ϮĂ ĞŶƚƌĂů ƌĞĂ Ͳ DŝŶ͘ ϴ ůŽĐŬ for ^ŽĐŝĂů &ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ;ϭ ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ͕ ϭ ,ĞĂůƚŚ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ Ϯ ĂĨĞͲ ZĞƐƚŽƵƌĂŶƚ &ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ Ϯ ZĞƚĂŝů ĂŶĚ Ϯ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐͿ Ͳ ŽƚŚ ƐŝĚĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ZŝŶŐ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ Ͳ ďƵƐ ƐƚŽƉ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ŽŶ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐŝĚĞ Ϯď ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƌĞĂ ;KƉƟŵƵŵ pŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ͗ϭϬ͘ϬϬϬͿ Ͳ /Ŷ ϭƐƚ rank ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ DŝŶ͗ ϲ DĂdž͗ ϭϬ ůŽĐŬ dLJƉĞ ϭ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ Ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ ϴ DĂdž͗ ϭϮ dLJƉĞ Ϯ ďůŽĐŬ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ Ϯ DĂdž͗ ϰ dLJƉĞ ϯ ;ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ďůŽĐŬͿ ϯ͘ DŝĚĚůĞ &ƌŝŶŐĞ͗ ϯĂ ĞŶƚƌĂů ƌĞĂ Ͳ DŝŶ͘ ϲ ůŽĐŬ for ^ŽĐŝĂů &ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ;1 ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ͕ ,ĞĂůƚŚ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ ĂĨĞͲ ZĞƐƚŽƵƌĂŶƚs͕ Ϯ ZĞƚĂŝů ĂŶĚ ϭ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐͿ Ͳ ŽƚŚ ƐŝĚĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ the rŝŶŐ sƚƌĞĞƚ Ͳ ďƵƐ ƐƚŽƉ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ŽŶ ŽŶĞ ƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐŝĚĞ ϯď ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƌĞĂ ;KƉƟŵƵŵ WŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ͗ ϲ͘ϬϬϬͿ Ͳ /Ŷ ϭƐƚ rank ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ DŝŶ͗ ϰ DĂdž͗ ϴ ůŽĐŬ dLJƉĞ ϭ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ Ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ ϲ DĂdž͗ ϭϬ dLJƉĞ Ϯ ďůŽĐŬ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ Ϯ DĂdž͗ ϰ dLJƉĞ ϯ ;ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ďůŽĐŬ Ϳ ϰ͘ KƵƚĞƌ &ƌŝŶŐĞ͗ ϰĂ ĞŶƚƌĂů ƌĞĂ Ͳ DŝŶ͘ ϯ ůŽĐŬ for ^ŽĐŝĂů &ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ;ϭ ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ͕ ϭ ZĞƚĂŝů ĂŶĚ ϭ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐͿ Ͳ ŽƚŚ ƐŝĚĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ the rŝŶŐ sƚƌĞĞƚ Ͳ ďƵƐ ƐƚŽƉ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ŽŶ ŽŶĞ ƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐŝĚĞ ϰď ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƌĞĂ ;KƉƟŵƵŵ WŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ͗ ϰ͘ϬϬϬͿ Ͳ /Ŷ ϭƐƚ rank ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ DŝŶ͗ Ϯ DĂdž͗ ϰ ůŽĐŬ dLJƉĞ ϭ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ Ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ ϰ DĂdž͗ ϲ dLJƉĞ Ϯ ďůŽĐŬ Ͳ /Ŷ ŐƌĂĚĞ ϯ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ DŝŶ͗ ϲ DĂdž͗ ϭϬ dLJƉĞ ϯ ;ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ďůŽĐŬ Ϳ

ŶŐůĞĚ ŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚ ŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚLJ ŝǀĞƌƐŝĨLJ

Ϯ͘ /ŶŶĞƌ ϭ͘ džŝƐƟŶŐ &ƌŝŶŐĞ ^ĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚ ϯ͘ DŝĚĚůĞ ϰ͘ KƵƚĞƌ &ƌŝŶŐĞ &ƌŝŶŐĞ

&Z d > , /E DK >

ƵƌĚƵƌ ZŽĂĚ

/ŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ ŽĚĞƐ

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂƌĞĂ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĨŽƵƌ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ areas through ĨŽƵƌ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ morphological ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͘

ŝƚLJ ĞŶƚĞƌ

Interac�on Codes KƌƚŚŽŐŽŶĂů &ƌĂŐŵĞŶƚĞĚ ŽŶƟŶƵŝƚLJ

>KKW DK >

&ŽĐƵƐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƌŶĞƌƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚ ƌŝŶŐ ƌŽĂĚ͘

&ŽĐƵƐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĞĚŐĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚ ƌŝŶŐ ƌŽĂĚ͘

dŚĞ ĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŝƐ ϮϬϬŵ

dŚĞ ĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƩůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŝƐ ϭϬϬŵ

WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƌŽŽƚƐ ĂƌĞ ƉŽƐŝƟŽŶĞĚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ĂƌƟĐƵůĂƚĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ

WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƌŽƵƚĞƐ ĞdžƚĞŶĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ƚŚĞ ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ ĞīĞĐƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ͘

/ŶůĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƌŽŽƚƐ ƐŚĂƉĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵďŝŶĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ďůŽĐŬƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĨŽƌŵƐ͘

/ŶůĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƌŽŽƚƐ ƐŚĂƉĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵďŝŶĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ďůŽĐŬƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĨŽƌŵƐ͘

ZĞĐƚĂŶŐƵůĂƌ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂŵŽŶŐ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵƉĂĐƚ ŽůŝǀĞ ŐƌŽǀĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐůƵƐƚĞƌƐ͘

>ŝŶĞĂƌ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂŵŽŶŐ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ĂŶĚ ĨƌŝŶŐŝŶŐ ŽůŝǀĞ ŐƌŽǀĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐůƵƐƚĞƌƐ͘

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

d E dtKZ<

> E h^

'Z E ^dZh dhZ

Social Interac�on y Spa�al Ar�cula�on Achievements ^ŽĐŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƟŽŶ ďLJ ^ƉĂƟĂů ƌƟĐƵůĂƟŽŶ

&Z d > , /E DK >

ĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͗

ϭ͘ ZŝŶŐ ZŽƵƚĞ͗ Ͳ dŚĞ ůŽǁĞƌ ƉĂƌƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ĂƌĞ well ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚ ŶŽƚ ŽŶůLJ ƚŽ within ŝƚƐĞůĨ ďƵƚ ĂůƐŽ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ǁŚŽůĞ ĐŝƚLJ͘ Ͳ tŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ͕ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ is aimed to ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚ ĂŶĚ ĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂů ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ͘ Ͳ &ƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ďƌĞĂŬƐ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ƚŚĞ ůŽǁĞƌ ƉĂƌƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ĂƌĞĂ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ periphery ƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ĂƌĞ ĨŽƌŵed Ͳ closed ƐLJƐƚĞŵ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ǁŚŽůĞ ĐŝƚLJ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĞdžƚĞƌŶĂů ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ZŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƌŝŶŐƐ͘ Ϯ͘ WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ZŽƵƚĞ͗ Ͳ /ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚing ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŶŐ ƌŽƵƚĞ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘ Ͳ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƟǀŝƚLJ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ĞĂĐŚ ŽƚŚĞƌ͘ Ͳ TŚĞ ĐŽŶƟŶƵŝƚLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŐƌĞĞŶ ĂƌĞĂƐ is ensured y ĐŽŶƟŶƵŝƚLJ ŽĨ landscaping with ƚƌĞĞƐ͘ ϯ͘ ĞŶƚƌĂů &ŽĐĂů WŽŝŶƚƐ͗ Ͳ ĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĂƐ ƚŚĞLJ ĂƌĞ ďƵŝůƚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ ƐƚŽƉƐ͘ Ͳ ^Ğƌǀing varied ŶĞĞĚƐ everyday ϰ͘ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƌĞĂƐ͗ Ͳ ƋƵĂů ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŽ ĐĞŶƚƌĂů ĨŽĐĂů ƉŽŝŶƚƐ͘ Ͳ Appealing ƚŽ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ůŝĨĞ styles and preferences͘ Ͳ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ƌƵƌĂů ďůŽĐŬƐ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŚĞŝƌ ŽǁŶ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ͘ ϱ͘ KƉĞŶ ^ƉĂĐĞƐ͗ Ͳ WĞƌŵĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĨŽƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶĂů ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ͘ ͲFew ďůŽĐkƐ have ĂĐƟǀĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ Ăŝŵ ƚŽ attract people ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ ϲ͘ KůŝǀĞ 'ĂƌĚĞŶ͗ Ͳ /ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ĂƐ Ă ŵĂƐƐ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘ Ͳ ^LJƐƚĞŵĂƟnjĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ƵŶŝƚƐ͘ Ͳ ZĞƐƉŽŶĚing ƚŽ ƵƌďĂŶ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ŶĞĞĚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƉĂƚŚƐ͕ ďŝĐLJĐůĞ ƉĂƚŚƐ ĂŶĚ ŵƵůƟĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂů ƵƌďĂŶ ĨƵƌŶŝƐŚŝŶŐƐ͘

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-1 >KKW DK >

-

Landscape Codes Planta�on Green spaces are divided mainly into four categories ased on the func�onal typology which are private open spaces lock gardens community gardens and pu lic open spaces As each of them serves di erent purposes their type of planta�on depends on func�on of re uirements The common point is that all landscape elements resistant to arid air condi�on

Pu lic Open Spaces Pu lic open spaces are the key element to increase interac�on etween pu lic and private spaces In this regard landscape elements are to e used for defining common spaces y landscape codes As the study area has arid climate feature planta�on elements are chosen to design spaces to o er appropriate places for social interac�on and circula�on Another main criteria is crea�ng natural environment which serves as protected areas in the ur an se lement �ssue

-1

-

B l o c k g ard ens are the common space that provide opportunity for daily and weekly ac�vi�es who lives in the gated communi�es It serves secondary green space to increase social interac�on Also landscape elements which are used as permea le oundary to decrease wall confinement e ect in the ur an �ssue

C o mmu ni ty g ard ens are proposed to create sense of community and foster the development of community It serves as an opportunity for people to produce on the fer�le land wşthşn the cşty fa ric

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Func�onal Typology of Green Spaces Privacy Oriented

Pu lic Oriented PRIVATE OPEN SPACES BLOCK GARDEN COMMUNITY G A R D E N PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

- integrating varied social groups and diverse communi�es - easy movement - walka le district - sense of community

- gathering di erent lock residents together - secondary green space

- privacy - self ac�vity

- recreational produc�on - the interface etween ur an and rural - interac�on place - permaculture

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-1

-

Configura�on Stages ^d ' ϭ 1 Ring with coordinates surrounding the olive gardens 2 Blocks ur an cluster and rural fields aligned to the ring at least 1 rural lock at every corner 1 rural ur an Pedestrian and cycling circulation route Landscaping along the ring row trees

-1

^d ' Ϯ Blocks ur an and rural locks aligned on the ring connected to Stage 1 clusters Pedestrian and cycling circulation route access roads to olive gardens from the point that has meters distance from the gravity center of the clusters greenhouses aligned on olive garden access roads 7 Production and retail facilities at T junctions of access roads

^d ' ϯ 8 Blocks ur an and rural locks aligned on the ring connected to Stage 2 clusters Pedestrian and cycling route secondary access roads to olive gardens having distance from the gravity center of clusters greenhouses aligned on olive garden access roads 10 Production and retail facilities at T junctions of access roads

-

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-1

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

Green Space System

-1 1-

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Network System

-1

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

04 . Desig

-1

Sim la�o s

-

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

Green Space Composi�on

-1

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

Fun�onal Configura�on

-1

-

pu lic open space arterial road ring road

private garden

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-1

pu lic open space arterial road community garden

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

-

-1

-

c o m m u n i t y g ar d e n

M E TU M A S TE R O F U R B A N D E S I G N 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 S TU D I O

-1

r i n g r o ad c o m m e r c i al b l o c k s

ANTALYA DÖŞEMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

ar t e r i al r o ad

-

Inner-fringe I Urban Spine: Yesilbayir

01. Area Assessment

Sinem Görücü, Hira Tariq, S. Bircan Işık

-150-

Dosemealti has a population of 60,000 people as the northern suburb of Antalya.Pastures of pomegranate and olive trees dominate the area in between the spora­ dic built fabric.

----

0

I

2

4

8km

Location of the characteristic area within the overall fabric

ANTALYA DO�EMEALTI DESIGN GUIDELINE

Yesilbayir is located in the southern part of the area on the main road;Ataturk street. Major commercial activity is concentrated along the Ataturk street, which retains high density development on itself. The irrigation canal also passes through the area, with a potential of brin­ ging recreational spots to the area.

METU MUD Studio 2017-2018 Master of Urban Design

The 20th Anniversary