Methods of Cultural Analysis Final Report

istanbul + new york EXISTING LAND USE OF PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC SPACES + USE OF PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

methods of cultural analysis S P R I N G 1 5 Luka Lucic

Z E Y N E P

A R O L A T

1

i s t a n b u l

v s .

n e w

y o r k

EXISTING LAND USE OF PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC SPACES + USE OF PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ZEYNEP AROLAT Professor Luka Lucic Pratt Institute Methods of Cultural Analysis Spring 2015

Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - 10 participants from Istanbul and New York were asked to write down the places that they went to in a week in a weekly calendar that was created and sent out to each of them before the start date of the survey. They were also asked to indicate the mode of transportation they used to reach each of their destinations and to determine whether the places they have been into is a private or a public space.

The study is to compare and contrast the amount of public vs. private spaces each participant visited in different cities. The results showed that the pedestrian circulation and the circulation with public transportation modes were much higher in amount in New York as well the number of visits to public areas, since there are more amounts of open spaces in the city than in Istanbul. The accurate data collection and techniques are further explained with the analysis of different conditions, in the report.

the land according to their function by measuring out areas that are needed for each program. However, it is not the only way that a city can be sustainable.

The urban cities which are chaotic and crowded today in the 21st century, were all planned out centuries ago by philosophers, sociologists, architects and engineers who studied on aligning or extending the lines of an existing monumental palace or a plaza to create the passage ways to other existing public squares or avenues.

For example Barcelona’s city planning has softened corners at each intersection point of every street in plan, which is formed by carving some area from the restricted space (blocks) and giving that area to the public, to create interaction areas at these corners.

With the development of technology, the era of modernization of cities and the population growths, the idea of dividing the land has also evolved in a more challenging way. Now societies’ needs, supplies, cultural tastes and skills are so diverse that it is very hard for the

INTRODUCTION Urban Planning Def – NOUN - the planning of the physical and social development of a city through the design of its layout and the provision of services and facilities.

“A well connected open city is a powerful paradigm and an engine for integration and inclusivity.”1 The interaction that would be provided by the significant planning of a city is essential to enhance the quality of life for the inhabitants. City plans are made for the individuals to circulate, transport and live on the same land in the most efficient way, while interacting with each other.

The connections inside a city can be made in different ways. The grid plan, grid street plan or gridiron plan is a type of city plan in which streets run at right angles to each other, forming a grid. This is an easy and an efficient way to create a city. It is not hard to work with dividing

1

results in the lack of interaction between functions and the public realm. The first image below depicts New York as the “efficient city” on the right and Istanbul as a free circulatory space with different opportunities of routes. These are briefly the general urban fabric of both cities.

Below that, are the maps of each city representing the green spaces and other open spaces. The amount difference of different types of public areas are shown clearly.

city to sustain a common ground, which serves all of the above for its community and to have an organization of spaces throughout a grid at the same time.

In the physical three-dimensional world, there are buildings in a city that serve the needs of the community. They demand to exist for individuals’ everyday use. Office buildings, residences, hotels, banks, shopping malls are inevitable to not have in a city in common sense and in 21st century. These spaces are restricted, secured and like biomes inside themselves. They are being protected from the “outsiders” who sociologically or functionally does not belong there. Even though they can’t not exist in an urban city, they are not enough to provide a city circulation on the ground floor.

Permeable spaces on the ground floor plan provide social interaction in between the individuals of a society which is necessary for the maturity and the psychological growth of a society.

That is why some planners tried to form and change cities in a way that leaves the ground floor to the public by decreasing the area of restricted/private spaces on the ground floor and adding the needed space on top of that area on to the upper floors.

New York, with a great population growth needed to be designed in a way that the private areas are very dense because of the societies needs, but a lot of vast areas were kept empty to become green spaces or squares in which people would interact. The city itself has a lot of opportunities to provide intersections which can be occupied as public spaces. On the other hand, Istanbul, my hometown is also a very rapidly growing urban city but have some adversities in terms of topography and geography. It postponed the design of infrastructure for years while other growing cities were building them, because the differences of heights was an obstacle, which decreased the opportunities for public transportation.

The division of land was also not planned ahead for the green areas to be created. The enclosed areas act as barriers when circulating through the city and this

ISTANBUL

NEW YORK

GREEN AREAS AND SQUARES

ISTANBUL

OPEN SPACE AREAS

NEW YORK

2

The map of New York specifies the range of access to parks across the city.

Areas colored by the darkest shade of red --in Staten Island and the northern neighborhoods of the Bronx-- have excellent open space provision (more than 2.5 acres per 1000 residents).

In conclusion, today a very significant comparison can be made between two cities in terms of the land use of open and restricted spaces. Despite all the analysis of urban cities and proposal that were made until today, changing a city’s spacial organization is very challenging and takes a lot of effort, time and money.

The purpose of the present study is to focus on the amount of private and public spaces in two rapidly growing important cities in the world and to compare the amounts of each types of spaces as well as todiscuss how these densities affect the daily lives of people in terms of transportation and circulation throughout the city. According to my own experiences, I know that there are less public areas in Istanbul than that in New York, so I believe that there is less opportunity to interact with people while transporting around the city.

Below are some quantitative data of facts of both cities in the table and their public transportation maps on the right.

(Only the subway map of New York.)

NEW YORK SUBWAY MAP

ISTANBUL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAP

inhabitant population

13.438 million

8.24 million

5.24 million more inhabitants.

It is harder to plan and organize the infrastructures and the land use of cities with a high population.

population growth rate

1.68%

0.9%

0.78% times faster population growth. It gets harder to keep the existing sustainability of land use when the speed of growth is high.

population density

2662 people/km

10518 people/km2

green area in hectars

16,287

56,528

m2 of green area per one inhabitant

6.4 m2

23.1 m2

gross domestic product (GDP)

182 billion $

1280 billion $

3

3.95x lower population density.

Population density shows how cramped or spread out inhabitants are. Cities with high population densities can be considered overpopulated, but the extent to which this is the case depends on factors like quality of housing and infrastructure and access to resources.

GREEN AREAS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE CITY TO BREATHE. THEY ARE ALSO THE SPACES TO INTERSECT, GATHER AND COMMUNICATE FOR PEOPLE*

1098 $ billion higher gross domestic product (GDP). The level of GDP shows how rich and productive the city is.

4

METHOD Participants The beginning aim for the amount of participants was 10 participants from each city. However 5 participants from New York did not finish the survey so there are more participants from Istanbul than from New York. A total of 15 participants are included in the data analysis who their age ranges from 25 to 55 and who are all working adults with a profession in both cities.

Procedure All participants had a week to fill out the survey I created and sent out for them. The survey included instructions and general questions, which they needed to answer such as their age, profession and gender. The important part of the survey was the calendar of a week which included three parts, which is shown on the left. Each participant needed to fill out the calendar by writing down his or her daily schedule and assign whether each place they have been into is a public or a private space. They were also asked to indicate the mode of transportation that they used to reach their each destination at the last part of the everyday calendar.

A

Analysis Since my aim was to extract the amount of public and private spaces each participant have been into and the number of times they happen to be at a private or a public space, I needed to analyze the data in a few ways. From the answers I got from the surveys, I selected 11 conditions to analyze for each participant in both cities and combined them in 5 groups of graphs.

1. The number of private spaces they have been into in a week.

2. The number of public spaces they have been into in a week.

3. The number of private transportation used in a week.

4. The number of public transportation used in a week.

5. The total number of times each participant went to a private space.

5

6. The total number of times each participant went to a public space.

7. The total number of times each participant used a public transportation method to reach their destination in a week.

8. The total number of times each participant used a private transportation method to reach their destination in a week.

9. The number of participants who used public vs. private transportation method 5 or more than 5 days in a week.

10. The number of days in which each participant used only private transportation.

11. The number of days in which each participant used only public transportation.

the numbers of participants from both cities, the overall result fit my hypothesis.

The quantitative data proves that there are really not enough opportunities in Istanbul to use a public transportation system such as a bike or subway as well as the convenience to reach the destination by foot.

LEGEND FOR ALL CHARTS AND GRAPHS Numbers from the analysis.

G1

G2

GRAPH 1 - NUMBER OF SPACES AND TRANSPORTATION WAYS

GRAPH 2 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TIMES BEEN IN SPACES AND USED TRANSPORTATION WAYS

1

PRIVATE SPACE

5

PRIVATE SPACE

2

PUBLIC SPACE

6

PUBLIC SPACE

3

PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

7

PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

4

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

8

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

RESULTS

G4

All surveys were analyzed and the data were recorded into the tables after each participant sent their surveys back to me. Each participant’s survey was then given a number from 1 to 10 for the participants from Istanbul, and 1 to 5 for the participants in New York. Even though there were some intersections in

NEW YORK

G3

G5

ISTANBUL

7 8

PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

NEW YORK

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

ISTANBUL

G1

ISTANBUL

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 1

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 2

1

0

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 3

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 4

PARTICIPANT 5

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 6

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 7

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 8

6

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 9

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 10

G1 NYC

11

10

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 1

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 2

PARTICIPANT 3

When we look at the first set of graphs G1 (G1) that shows the number of different types of public and private spaces visited by each participant in each city, there is an obvious difference in the numbers.

The overall number of private spaces that participants in Istanbul went to is more than the number of private spaces that participants in New York went to. In the same way, the number of public spaces visited by New Yorkers are more than the number of public spaces visited by the Istanbul participants.

This set of graphs does not include the number of times each participant visited a private or a public space, but the numbers are counted for only different types of spaces. For example if a participant has been at the bank for a few times in a week, that space is counted as only 1 type of private space.

The surveys showed that while New Yorkers used public grocery stores or shops that are accesible by everyone who walks down the street, the participants in Istanbul needed to go inside a shopping mall to visit stores which affect the number of private vs. public spaces each participant visited. At the right, the image shows the list of places two participants from each city went to. The difference of the number of private space vs. public space in between participants is hard to neglect.

The second part of the same graph set shows the number of different types of private vs. public transportation mode that was used by each participant. The results show that some participants in

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 4

Participant from Istanbul

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 5

Participant from New York

Istanbul

New York

7

G2

ISTANBUL

30

25

25

20

20

20

20

20

15

15

15

15

15

0

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

5

0

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

10

5

5

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

NUMBER OF TIMES

5

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

5

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

G1 PARTICIPANT 1

PARTICIPANT 2

PARTICIPANT 3

PARTICIPANT 4

PARTICIPANT 5

35

30

30

30

30

30

25

25

25

25

25

20

20

20

20

20

15

15

15

15

15

5

0

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

5

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 6

10

5

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 7

NUMBER OF TIMES

5

5

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

0

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PARTICIPANT 8

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 10

PARTICIPANT 9

G2

45

NYC

40

35

30

25

25

25

25

20

20

20

20

20

15

15

15

15

15

0

5

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 1

5

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 2

10

5

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 3

8

NUMBER OF TIMES

5

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

5

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

NUMBER OF TIMES

NUMBER OF TIMES

10

0 PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 4

PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE

PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PARTICIPANT 5

New York did not even use private transportation in some days. On the other hand, there are no participants from Istanbul who had used only public transportation in a day and there is a use of private vehicle (car) almost everyday by every participant. In this case even though it is very clear, the number of different types of transportation modes used is not as important as than number of times each participant used specific mode of transportation. That will be discussed on the second set of graphs.

The second set of graphs (G2) also have 2 parts. The first part shows the number of times each participant visited private and public spaces. In this set of G1 graphs if the space is the same, the number of times visited each space is being counted and the data is collected accordingly. The same count for the private and public transportation modes are also made which is shown on the second part of this set of graphs.

At this step of the analysis process, I

# of private spaces visited in a week

5.7

4.2

# of public spaces visited in a week

3.2

7.2

# of times been at a private space

18.1

16.4

# of times been at a public space

8.8

14

# of times of private transportation

18.5

0.6

# of times of public transportation

9.4

25.4

average # of days participants used only private transportation

4

0

average # of days participants used only public transportation

0.12

6

public space than that in Istanbul. While the average number for the participants in Istanbul is 8.8, the average number for the participants in New York is almost doubled, 14. Similarly, the number of times of using private transportation mode like a car or a taxi is much more higher in Istanbul than that of New York.

Likewise, the number of average use of public transportation in Istanbul is less than half of that in New York.

The third set of graphs (G3) which is a numerical graph, shows all numbers for each participant in both cities at the same time. The same quantitative information on the graphs show the difference in the use of public vs. private transportation as well as the use of private vs. public spaces.

The fourth group of graphs, shows the number of days each participant from both cities have been into only private or only public spaces as well as the use of only private or only public transportations.

The results are the same as the others.

B

realized not only the spaces which participants in New York visit is mostly public spaces, but the number of times they intentionally or non-intentionally “be� at a public space is also countable and noteworthy. The mean table above shows that there is a signicifant difference in between the number of times the participants in New York have been at a

C

9

G3

NUMBER OF TIMES “BEING” AT A PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC SPACE IN A WEEK 45

40

35

30

NUMBER OF TIMES

25

20

ISTANBUL PRIVATE SPACE

NYC

PUBLIC SPACE (GREEN)

15

PRIVATE SPACE (BLUE)

10

5

ISTANBUL PUBLIC SPACE

0 PARTICIPANT 1

PARTICIPANT 2

PARTICIPANT 3

PARTICIPANT 4

PARTICIPANT 5

PARTICIPANT 6

PARTICIPANT 7

PARTICIPANT 8

PARTICIPANT 9

PARTICIPANT 10

NUMBER OF TIMES USING PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN A WEEK

45

40

35

30

NUMBER OF TIMES

25

20

ISTANBUL PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

15

NYC

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

10

ISTANBUL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

5

NYC

G1

PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

0 PARTICIPANT 1

PARTICIPANT 2

PARTICIPANT 3

PARTICIPANT 4

PARTICIPANT 5

PARTICIPANT 6

10

PARTICIPANT 7

PARTICIPANT 8

PARTICIPANT 9

PARTICIPANT 10

The last set of diagrams (G5) indicate the percentage of participants from each city who used 5 or more days of only public or private mode of transportation.The results show that there ane none participants from Istanbul who used only public transportation in 5 or more days. When combining with the fourth set of graphs, it can even be highlighted that only one participant used public transportation for the minimum of 4 days. Looking at the participants in New York, the 4 out of 5 participants used 5 or more days of public transportation only.

G4

NUMBER OF DAYS IN WHICH EACH PARTICIPANT USED ONLY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

7

6

5

4

3

NYC

2

DISCUSSION ISTANBUL

1

The results of this study fits my hypotheis really well. I believe that the results are accurate enough to agree on a conclusion. The surveys were done by each participant who have an ordered life and a profession in both cities, so a portion of their everyday life presents a lot of information about their living and their interaction with other people. I think that if students were included in this study, the results would not be as different as it is now in between participants from different cities, because a living of a student can be more public than an adult with a job and a settled daily life.

My experiences in both Istanbul and New York are also very different so I am glad that the quantifiable information also supported my hypothesis about the amount of time spent in public vs. private spaces and that in the use of public transportation vs. private transportation.

0

NUMBER OF DAYS IN WHICH EACH PARTICIPANT USED ONLY PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

7

6

5

ISTANBUL

4

3

2

1

NYC

0

G5 NYC - 80% 4/5

CONCLUSION PARTICIPANTS WHO USED MORE THAN 5 DAYS OF ONLY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

It is true that the cities transform our everyday lives and our circulation thoughout the city in which we live in.

The transportation and the infrastructure are also a important parts of an urban fabric and they define the characteristics of spaces that we occupy as citizens.

The interactions with the public depends on the existence of public spaces and the succesful grid that support the circu-

NYC - 0%

ISTANBUL - 70% 7/10

PARTICIPANTS WHO USED MORE THAN 5 DAYS OF ONLY PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION

11

lation through these open areas.

Even though the choosing process of the participants were done ahead, I did not take into account that they were going to be much less participants who would answer from New York. To avoid the differences in the number of participants in the further studies, a confirmation may be taken from participants before sending the surveys out. I guess New York, a city with a high density of private spaces as well as public parks and open areas, decreases the amount of time New Yorkers spend on surveys.

REFERENCES - http://versus.com/en/istanbul-vs-new-york - http://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?coun try1=Turkey&city1=Istanbul&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY - Surveys from 15 participants is the main source of all analysis.

1.

Richard Rodgers

Notes: All the images that are labelled A, B, C, and D are works of a group of architects called Superstudio which inspires me, and which have notable ideas about radical architecture and some anti architectural proposals which use grid systems as a way to mediate space.

D

12