DESIGN GUIDEBOOK

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING CRP 302 | BURSA PLANNING AND DESIGN STUDIO 2018-2019 FALL

DESIGN GUIDEBOOK FOR THE PROBLEM AREA FINAL PROJECT

SÄ°NAY COSKUN

TABLE OF CONTENT

I.

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………. 1 A. THE VISION STATEMENT B. PLANNING PROCESS C. DEFINITION OF SPATIAL PROBLEM AND DESIGN APPROACH D. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOKLET

II. SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………. 5 A. DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE B. INCLUSION IN PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN C. CONCLUDING REMARK III.

SITE ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………. 13 A. LOCATION OF INVESTIGATION AREA AND ITS SURROUNDING B. DEMOGRAPHICS OF INVESTIGATION AREA C. LAND USE ANALYSIS OF THE AREA D. SUITABILITY OF THE AREA FOR EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION

IV.

POLICY PROPOSALS……………………………………………………………..16 A. PROVIDING EQUITABLE USE OF PUBLIC SPACES B. PROVIDING PERCEPTIBLE INFORMATION IN PUBLIC SPACES C. PROVIDING SIMPLE AND INTUITIVE USE OF PUBLIC SPACE D. PROVIDING TOLERANCE FOR ERROR E. PROVIDING ENOUGH SIZE AND SPACE FOR APPROACH AND USE

I.

INTRODUCTION

A. THE VISION STATEMENT ‘’ The Region Embedded by Meronymy’’: Cooperating in production, warehousing and distribution of outputs; incorporating environmentalist and decentralized units in industrial production; egalitarian in the distribution of social and technical facilities; adopting meronymy in the continuity of green; based on increasing productivity in production with technological inputs; interworking together within region in providing tourists’ mobility.

In line with the vision: The amount of active green areas per person is above the standards; it produces with a greener and technological industry, exists in not only production but also research and development activities; evaluates its tourism potential with the support of the region, people have equal access to social and technical infrastructure; and self-sufficient with the economic returns of all these developments in 2040.

B. PLANNING PROCESS The planning process can be summarized with 3 main steps. The first step of this process was preparing a strategic plan with well-defined vision, goals, objectives and policies of a selected strategic development for Bursa city.

In line with the vision, 4 main focuses of the first step can be listed as follows: -

Decentralization of different agricultural functions which are concentrated at central districts and consignment of agricultural products.

Source: Illustrated by group members

1

-

Decentralization of industrial units and consignment of automotive and textile based industrial products both to domestic and foreign market.

-

Providing continuity of green and formation of green belt/corridors in both urban and regional scale.

Providing accessibility between tourism centers and commercial nodes.

-

2

The first step is followed by the translating the planning decisions from 1/50.000 scale plan into a chosen district illustrated on a 1/25.000 scale plan. Previously defined aims, objectives and goals are reconsidered on the basis of spatial and social needs of the action area. Main focuses of the second step are given with an illustration below.

C. DEFINITION OF SPATIAL PROBLEM AND DESIGN APPROACH In the final stage of this study a problem-based planning approach is pursued. This approach requires focusing on a problem which lies in the action area. After defining a problem related with the vision, it is needed to ask a spatial question to clear up the problem.

According to preliminary analysis during the first field trip in Bursa and parallel with the vision statement which was ‘’The Region Embedded by Meronymy’’ the problem is decided to be ‘’Exclusiveness of the Space’’ and the spatial question is asked as ‘’How to Create Inclusive Public Spaces?’’ The problem is approached from an Urban Design Perspective.

With the help of analysis, observations and literature reviews about the problem, it would be reasonable to provide inclusive and embracing design proposals in the public space as the first step of constructing embedded relations between various sectors of the city.

Before the second field trip, the parameters of the explored phenomenon were defined, good and bad cases about the issue were understood and an extensive literature review was made by the author.

3

General flow of the study is given below.

D. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOKLET

4

II.

SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

A. DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE The concept of public space began to be discussed in Western Countries in the 1960s, the concept of public space has different definitions for the different perspectives.

Public space is a habitat defined by the tools, processes and spaces that individuals make mind about a common subject, enter into a rational discussion and as a result, create a public opinion on the subject (Habermas, 1962). Habermas lays emphasis on an issue that public space is exempt from state authority, also from the public authority and it is open to the use of individuals from all walks of society. For him, public spaces can be discussed in two different ways: -

In physical sense; these are the areas where complaints, criticism and requests are freely announced in streets, parks and squares.

In symbolic sense; these are the areas where theoretical thoughts are formed and the freedom of press is emphasized.

Most of the approaches share the same opinion on that ‘’Public space is open to all parts of society and can be shared by everyone.’’ (Gove, 1976). Due to the increasing emphasis on the subject, many theories were derived about the functions and components of public space. Ben and Gauss (1983) argue that public spaces have different qualities and functions with the influence of many different components such as city, location or neighborhood in which they are located. Parallel with the qualities; accessibility, actors and utility are considered as decisive criteria for an ideal and inclusive public space.

Due to changing social and administrative structures of societies, the concept of public space has gained different dimensions. Public space is the container of politics, it is the meeting place where the opposites and dissimilar people meet and where there is a combination of differences (Kluge, 1993). The concept of public space evolved in the 20th century and gained a new dimension. Castells (2005) argued that networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies, with the spread of this logic, production, experience, power and cultural functioning also change. The phenomenon of network society is an indication that social morphology is dominant to social contagion.

B. INCLUSION IN PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN Cities where a wide variety of human communities live together should consider all these human diversity, user differences, especially in the use of public space. The city needs to be equal and inclusive to the different users living in the entire city, in a manner that suits people's dignity. The arrangement of urban spaces with an inclusive design approach has been influenced by the universal design that came up in the 1980s.

5

Lefebvre (1968) had the preliminary words with the term ‘’ The Right of City’’. For him, ‘‘Right to city’’ states that each individual residing in the city has well-defined rights over that city.

Inclusiveness of the space is originated from Universal Design approach. Universal design or design for everyone is simply, designing all products, buildings, open spaces to enable as many people as possible. As an important actor of planning process, designers or planners must try to empathize with the user rather than dictating to their needs, he/she has to steer the design with users’ opinion. Design for all has superior, humanistic and egalitarian content different from the other design approaches (Evcil, 2014) Principles of Inclusive Design The 7 principles were developed in 1997 by a working group of architects, product designers, engineers and environmental design researchers, led by the late Ronald Mace in the North Carolina State University. The purpose of the Principles is to guide the design of environments, products and communications. According to the Center for Universal Design in NCSU, the principles may be applied to evaluate existing designs, guide the design process and educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments.

Principle 1: Equitable Use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

-

Provide the same means of use for all users; identical whenever possible; equivalent when not.

Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users.

Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users.

Make the design appealing to all users.

Good Examples

Figure 1

Figure 2

6

Bad Examples

Figure 4

Figure 3

Principle 2: Flexibility in Use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

-

Provide choice in methods of use.

Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use.

Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision.

Provide adaptability to the user's pace.

Good Examples

7

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive Use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

-

Eliminate unnecessary complexity.

Be consistent with user expectations and intuition.

Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills.

Arrange information consistent with its importance.

Provide effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion.

Good examples

Figure 8

Figure 9

Bad examples

Figure 10

Figure 11

Principle 4: Perceptible Information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

-

Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information.

Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its surroundings.

Maximize "legibility" of essential information.

Differentiate elements in ways that can be described (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions).

Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with sensory limitations.

Good examples

Figure 12

Figure 13

8

Bad examples

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Principle 5: Tolerance for Error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

-

Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded.

Provide warnings of hazards and errors.

Provide fail safe features.

Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require vigilance.

Good examples

Figure 17

Bad examples

Figure 18

Principle 6: Low Physical Effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

-

Allow user to maintain a neutral body position.

Use reasonable operating forces.

Minimize repetitive actions.

Minimize sustained physical effort.

9

Good examples

Bad examples

Figure 20

Figure 19

Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

-

Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing user.

Make reach to all components comfortable for any seated or standing user.

Accommodate variations in hand and grip size.

Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance

Good examples

10

Figure 21

Figure 22

Bad examples

Figure 23

Figure 24

C. CONCLUDING REMARK After the literature review and site analysis, the Fethiye Neighborhood in NilĂźfer is investigated on the basis of 5 different parameters to create inclusive public spaces. These parameters are decided according to their observability* in the area and suitability* to the neighborhood scale. Detailed information and analysis about the neighborhood are available in Part III. SITE ANALYSIS and 5 components that are taken into consideration during the site analysis are given below.

11 It is good to keep in mind that inclusion in public spaces is tried to be provided for the people who have disadvantages different than average users of the space. Here the average user stands for the people who can use the space without any difficulties.

Disadvantaged groups can be children, parents with children, elderly people or disabled people.

*Observability: The conditions which are not suitable for the parameters mentioned in the literature review have been observed in the area. *Suitability: Implementation of proposals/recommendations is suitable for such a neighborhood.

Sources of Figures Figure 1: https://www.wglt.org/post/bloomington-open-inclusive-playground-special-needschildren-0#stream/0 Figure 2: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-opens-first-inclusive-playgroundzaatari-refugee-camp-jordan Figure 3: https://www.haberler.com/engellilere-ve-yayalara-duyarsiz-surucu-engel10106920-haberi/ Figure 4: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/engelliler-yolu-engellerle-dolu-37186700 Figure 5, 6: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328875916_Herkes_icin_Tasarim_Gecmisten_Ge lecege Figure 7: http://www.ek.yildiz.edu.tr//images/images/yayinlar/ktp.pdf Figure 8: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Skye-Duncan-NACTO_GlobalStreet-Design-Guide-preview-sm.pdf Figure 9: https://www.pps.org/article/ten-strategies-for-transforming-cities-throughplacemaking-public-spaces Figure 10: https://www.generalrecreationinc.com/before-you-buy-take-a-playground-fieldtrip/ Figure 11: http://www.globalride-sf.org/images/DFID.pdf Figure 12: http://www.spoon-tamago.com/2017/10/12/tokyo-signs-products-inspired-bythe-streets-of-tokyo/ Figure 13: https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/design-style/design/sydney-launchesthe-worlds-biggest-network-of-street-signs-for-the-vision-impaired Figure 14, 15, 16: https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17703/LongwoodAvenue-Pedestrian-Study-Report-062018 Figure 17: https://www.greatoutdoorsplay.com/pages/safety-ground-cover Figure 18: https://observer.com/2015/08/playground-battles-can-safety-and-adventure-coexist-where-children-play/ Figure 19: http://www.ek.yildiz.edu.tr//images/images/yayinlar/ktp.pdf Figure 20: Photo taken by the author.

Figure 21, 22: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/143822/A_12%20Creating%20an %20Inclusive%20Public%20Space.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

12

III.

SITE ANALYSIS

In this part of the study, site analysis on Fethiye Neighborhood which is in NilĂźfer District of Bursa is given. Observations are made on the basis of 5 different parameters which are previously defined in Part II. A. LOCATION OF INVESTIGATION AREA AND ITS SURROUNDING

Source: Illustrated by the group members

13

Source: Illustrated by the author.

Zone A: Bursa Organized Industrial Zone. One of the boundaries of the neighborhood is defined by the main road where the entrance and exist of heavy vehicles are provided. Along with the boulevard, there are parking areas for straddle truck and interruptedly located passive green areas which is indicating that Zone A can be considered as a boundary line with relatively empty areas.

Zone B: Along with the Sanayi Road, there are private hospitals, educational institutions and residences which are usually appealing to high income groups.

Zone C: In this area where there is a large-scale shopping center and similar to the Zone B, housing types are appealing to high or middle income groups.

Zone D: Along with the Ata Boulevard there are different commercial uses mostly like cafes, small-scale shopping centers. Boulevard has relatively wide pavements that allows for window shopping.

B. DEMOGRAPHICS OF INVESTIGATION AREA Fethiye Neighborhood is located in NilĂźfer district in Bursa. When the population change is examined, it is seen that the population of the neighborhood is gradually increased and the male and female population ratios are close to each other.

In 2019 population is about to be 20. 000 with the ratios of gender; 51 % female and 49 % male.

C. LAND USE ANALYSIS OF THE AREA

14

D. SUITABILITY OF THE AREA FOR EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION To clarify the link between the vision and spatial problem of this study: ‘’It would be reasonable to provide inclusive and embracing design proposals in the public space as the first step of constructing embedded relations between various sectors of the city.’’

During the field trip in Bursa city, observations were made according to 5 different parameters to come up with some specific proposals or recommendations to ‘’Create Inclusive Public Spaces’’. Fethiye Neighborhood is found as a suitable investigation area due to its conditions listed below.

15

Photos taken by the author.

IV.

POLICY PROPOSALS

Important Remarks In this part of the study Design Strategies are clarified by following an order given as follows:

16 A. PROVIDING EQUITABLE USE OF PUBLIC SPACES A.1 Usability of design elements A.1.1 Provide the same usage patterns for people with disadvantages in public places. If it cannot be the same, it is necessary to provide similar or equivalent patterns. (The Center of Universal Design, 1997) A.1.1.1 Playgrounds should be designed on the basis of the integration of children with the disabled children in the context of spatial infrastructure and functional usage forms (Özdemir, 2017).

• •

Variety of movement is encouraged in playgrounds.

Creating opportunities for children to participate in activities carried out alone or together with other children is encouraged.

17

A.1.1.2 Usability of both open and enclosed public spaces should be increased for parents with children.

• • • •

Parking places for baby strollers are recommended.

Short-time cupboard renting system for small bags or belongings are recommended.

Comfortable social environment with plenty of spaces for parents is supported to sit and share the place with children.

Traffic safety measures were supported on main roads intersecting with school entrances and playgrounds.

18

A.1.1.3 Design elements should be in suitable sizes for the use of disabled and elderly people in public places.

• •

Solutions for more usable travel paths are recommended for both walking disabled users and people with low vision.

Usable tables are recommended for the users of wheelchair (or similar tools).

19

A.2 Accessibility of the space A.2.1 Make the public spaces accessible not only for average users, but also for the people with disadvantages.

A.2.1.1 Public spaces should allow entry, exit and comfortable circulation of disabled people (Furgeson, 2016).

• Five-foot minimum width at paths for one way traffic to accomodate the turning radius of a wheelchair is recommended.

• Providing a support railing for those with unsure footing where the slope does exceed 1:20 is recommended.

• For the people with low vision, creating a change in texture at the edge of a path is recommended.

20 A.2.1.2 The experience between the school, playground and home should be secured for primary school students. •

•

Traffic safety measures were supported on main roads intersecting with school entrances and playgrounds (referring back to the figure 4: Location of primary school, playground and main road) Waiting benches are recommended for those who grab their children or grandson from the school.

B. PROVIDING PERCEPTIBLE INFORMATION IN PUBLIC SPACES B.1 Guidance in public space B.1.1 Provide consistent warning signs around/near the obstacles and protruding elements in public spaces.

B.1.1.1 There should be some measures to provide clear, obstruction-free, level and wide pathways for the convenience of people with mobility problems (Urban Management of the Lebanese Company and UN, 2004).

•

• •

•

Fixed poles are redesigned with contrasting durable color marking strips of at least 0.30 m in length, placed with the center line at a height between 1.40 m and 1.60 m, to warn pedestrians with limited vision.

Undetectable obstacles mounted lower than 2.00 m reconsidered with a maximum distance of 0.10 m to the pathway.

Tactile warning markings on the ground around the obstruction redesigned to be extended over a width of at least 0.60 m outside the projected area at the base of the obstacle.

Gratings are redesigned to be flush with the pathway surface and should have narrow patterns of not more than 13 mm.

21

B.1.2 Design the paths of travel to be easy to follow and away from complexity.

B.1.2.1 The path of travel should be easy to detect by a disable person, with the help of natural guide lines and guide strips. • • •

Replacing missing natural guidelines is recommended by filling the gaps of more than 10.00 m in a guide strip Pedestrian crossings are reconsidered to guide disabled people (Urban Management of the Lebanese Company and UN, 2004).

The disaster and emergency gathering areas that are frequently encountered in the neighborhood have been redesigned.

22

C. PROVIDING SIMPLE AND INTUITIVE USE OF PUBLIC SPACE C.1 Elimination of complexity C.1.1 In order to understand the form of a design or space, the usage should be clear or contain explanatory information.

C.1.1.1 The design elements in the playgrounds should be appeal to the right age group in order to improve both the usability of elements and the quality of experience. •

Written and visual explanations describing the use of design elements in playgrounds are proposed.

23

C.1.1.2 Disabled people should be able to experience the space easily like average users (average users are the ones without disadvantages). •

Visual, audio and tactile warning signs recommended for disabled pedestrian crossings.

C.1.2 Provide all types of signs to be understood easily by everyone.

C.1.2.1 Signs should be visible, clear and easy to read. •

Contrasting colors are recommended to differentiate the figure from the background.

Commonly colors are white for the figure and blue for the background (Urban Management of the Lebanese Company and UN, 2004).

C.1.2.2 Signs for children should be remarkable because they may not be as careful as adults. •

Warning signs that oblige children to stop and control the traffic at the points where entrances of schools or playgrounds intersect with the main road are proposed.

24

D. PROVIDING TOLERANCE FOR ERROR D.1 Selection of surfacing materials in public spaces D.1.1 Provide appropriate type of surfacing materials to protect users from an unhandled condition.

D.1.1.1 The material used under and around playground equipment should decrease outcomes of a fall (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

•

Shredded tires are recommended for playgrounds’ surface instead of other commonly used materials such as sand, pea gravel and wood chips. (CPSC recommends a minimum of 12 inches of surfacing under and around public playground equipment to reduce the risk of potentially life-threatening injuries from falls.)

25 D.1.1.2 The surfacing materials in public spaces should be reconsidered on the basis of elderly people’s abilities and needs.

•

Flat and anti-skidding surfaces are recommended in addition to shredded tires so that both children and elderly people can share the same space with these previously taken measures.

E. PROVIDING ENOUGH SIZE AND SPACE FOR APPROACH AND USE E.1 Line of sight in public spaces E.1.1 Provide a clear line of sight to important design elements for any seated or standing user (Center of Universal Design).

E.1.1.1 A clear line of sight should be provided for parents in playground so that they can watch their children conveniently.

•

•

Comfortable social environment with plenty of spaces for parents is supported to sit and share the place with children (referring back to figure 3: Inclusive design elements for parents with children).

Neither too short nor too high elements are supported so that parents can interfere in the children during the play.

E.1.1.2 Tribunes should be designed for those with disabilities to participate in the football field carpet activities in sports complexes as a watcher. •

Available tribunes for those using wheelchair recommended to provide convenience while accessing the tribune or watching the game.

26

Bibliography Furgeson, M. (2016). Healing gardens. Design. SULIS: Sustainable Urban Landscape Information Series. University of Minnesota Extension. http://www. extension.umn.edu/garden/ landscaping/design/ healinggardens.html. Available on: May 5, 2019 Guidelines, Standards and Best Practices. (2010). Retrieved May 04, 2019, from http://playgroundsafety.org/safe-resources/guidelines-standards-and-best-practices Mace, R. (1997). The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. Retrieved May 06, 2019, from http://universaldesign.ie/ Özdemir, A. (2017). Engelsiz Oyun Alanları İçin Kapsayıcı Tasarım Yaklaşımı. [online] Egemimarlik.org. Available at: http://egemimarlik.org/95/5.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2019].

S. L., & K. K. (2019, May 04). The Future in Universal Design. Lecture presented at Universal Design Workshop, New York. Retrieved May 04, 2019, from https://www.aucd.org/template/index.cfm The Center for Universal Design, The Principles of Universal Design (Evrensel Tasarım İlkeleri), çeviren: Hacıhasanoğlu I., Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 1997 Urban Management Department of the Lebanese Company in collaboration with ESCWA. (2003-2004) Accessibility for the Disabled, A Design Manual for a Barrier Free Environment

27