Skip to main content

Characteristics of social formations and space syntax application to quantify spatial configurations of urban regeneration in Levent, Istanbul

Abstract

In recent years, with the effect of globalization, many domestic and foreign investments have been made in the construction sector in Istanbul. Along with the advantages of these activities, there are also some disadvantages; such as uncontrolled urban growth and certain changes in the urban areas. One such example is the Levent area which contains the most important business center of Istanbul. Today, we can assume the Levent area to be divided into three regions. In the 1950s, after the construction of houses and establishment of industrial facilities in the north side of Istanbul, these three regions were developed as residential, industrial and slum areas. The industrial region became a central business district and its environment was developed independently in the form of market areas. As a result, the functions of the houses of Levent’s residential area were changed as these become the buildings that were used for business activities or which served the subsidiary sectors. These three areas, adjacent to one other, are still undergoing very rapid changes in all physical, cultural and functional senses. Therefore, the urban regeneration of these districts has been investigated in detail along with their historical developments and space syntax methodology has been applied to quantify the spatial configurations in the region. The changes in physical, cultural and functional characteristics in the region have been observed to affect the relationship between the spaces in the urban system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Akbulut, (2012). Kemal Ahmet Aru ve misyon kusagi. Tasarim + Kuram,8(14), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altinok, E. (2006). Yasadisi yapilasan alanlarda donusturme kapasitelerinin tukenisi ve kentsel yoksulluk: Celiktepe ornegi. Master’s thesis, Yildiz Techical University, Istanbul.

  3. Asami, Y., Kubat, A. S., & Istek, C. (2001). Characterization of the street networks in the traditional Turkish urban form. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,28, 777–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baba, E. C. (2010). Tasarim surecinde katilimci yaklasimlara dair bir degerlendirme: Istanbul Levent bolgesinde alan calismasi. Tasarim + Kuram,6(9-10), 21–53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barros, A. B. G., Kneib, E. C., Paiva, M., & Tedesco, G. M. I. (2014). Analysis of trip generating developments by space syntax: A case study of Brasília, Brazil. Journal of Transport Literature,8(3), 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baser, B., & Kubat, A. S. (2007). A new landscape design strategy for creating continuous, perceptible and productive urban green: A case study of Kadikoy-Istanbul. Paper presented at the 6th international space syntax symposium, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, June.

  7. Baydar, O. (1994). Levent. In Dunden bugune Istanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 5, pp. 207–209). Istanbul: Kultur Bakanligi ve Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cakmak, B. Y., & Topcu, M. (2018). An evaluation of urban open spaces in historical city center of Konya in the context of pedestrian mobility. International Journal of Human Sciences,15(4), 1827–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Can, I., & Heath, T. (2016). In-between spaces and social interaction: a morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,31(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Can, I., Ince, I., & Yamu, C. (2015). The rationale behind growth patterns: Socio-spatial configuration of Izmir, Turkey 1700 s–2010. Paper presented at the 10th international space syntax symposium, University College London, London, UK, July.

  11. Cil, E. (2005). Space syntax analysis of the twentieth century transformation of Kula. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University,23, 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ciravoglu, A. (2015). The impact of urban pattern on claiming ‘place’: Case studies from Istanbul. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development,7(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Erbas, A. E. (2012). Ornek bir prestij konut alani olarak Levent Mahallesi. Tasarim + Kuram,8(14), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ercoskun, C., & Yalciner, O. (2004). Istanbul kent merkezinin donusumu ve finans merkezlerindeki ofis alanlarının gelisimi: Maslak-Buyukdere aksi. Paper presented at the 8 Kasim Dunya Sehircilik Gunu 28. Kolokyumu, Ankara, Turkey, November.

  15. Eyuboglu, E., Kubat, A. S., & Ertekin, O. (2007). A new urban planning approach for the regeneration of an historical area within Istanbul’s central business district. Journal of Urban Design,12(2), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gulen, M. (2006). Stratejik planlama yaklasimi cercevesinde kentsel projeler-kamusal alan iliskisi: Buyukdere Aksi Levent plazalar alanı ornegi. Master’s thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul.

  17. Guney, Y. I., Kubat, A. S., Ozer, O., & Ucar, H. (2009). A syntactic analysis of recent changes in the CBD of Balikesir, Turkey. Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June.

  18. Hanson, J., & Hillier, B. (1987). The architecture of community: Some new proposals on the social consequences of architectural and planning decisions. Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour,3(3), 251–273.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hillier, B. (1989). The architecture of the urban object. Ekistics,56, 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1987). Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture et Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour,3(3), 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B,20(1), 29–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jeong, S. K., Lee, T. H., & Ban, Y. U. (2015). Characteristics of spatial configurations in Pyongyang, North Korea. Habitat International,47, 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahraman, E. D., & Kubat, A. S. (2015). In the effects of accessibility factors on land values in the CBD of Izmir. Paper presented at the 10th international space syntax symposium. University College London, London, UK, July.

  27. Karabey, H. (2009). Kullan tuket terket: Levent. Mimarlik,349, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Karimi, K. (2012). A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’ methodology. Urban Design International,17(4), 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Klarqvist, B. (1993). A space syntax glossary. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research,2, 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2006). Urban social geography: An introduction. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koohsari, M. J., Kaczynski, A. T., Mccormack, G. R., & Sugiyama, T. (2014). Using space syntax to assess the built environment for physical activity: Applications to research on parks and public open spaces. Leisure Sciences,36(2), 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kubat, A. S. (2010). The study of urban form in Turkey. Urban Morphology,14(1), 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lungo, M., & Baires, S. (2001). Socio-spatial segregation and urban land regulation in Latin American cities. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Segregation in the City, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, July.

  34. Oktem, B. (2005). Kuresel kent soyleminin kentsel mekani donuşturmedeki rolu: Buyukdere-Maslak hatti. In H. Kurtulus (Ed.), Istanbul’da kentsel ayrisma: Mekansal donusumde farkli boyutlar. Istanbul: Baglam Yayınlari.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Oktem, B. (2011). The role of global city discourses in the development and transformation of the Buyukdere–Maslak axis into the international business district of Istanbul. International Planning Studies,16(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Onder, D. E., & Gigi, Y. (2010). Reading urban spaces by the space-syntax method: A proposal for the South Halic Region. Cities,27, 260–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ozbaki, C., & Onder, D. E. (2009). The spatial alteration of Istanbul: Celiktepe District. Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June.

  38. Ozbil, A., Peponis, J., & Stone, B. (2011). Understanding the link between street connectivity, land use and pedestrian flows. Urban Design International,16(2), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ozer, O. (2017). Accessibility of spatial networks: Using ArcGIS network analyst and space syntax to investigate accessibility to urban facilities. Paper presented at the 11th international space syntax symposium, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, July.

  40. Ozer, O., Koramaz, T. K., & Kisar-Koramaz, E. (2015). The effects of spatial relations in property-led regeneration. Paper presented at the 10th international space syntax symposium, University College London, London, UK, July.

  41. Ozer, O., & Kubat, A. S. (2015). Measuring walkability in Istanbul Galata Region. ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture,12(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D., & Xu, J. (1998). Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B,25(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Peponis, J., Hadjinikolaou, E., Livieratos, C., & Fatouros, D. A. (1989). The spatial core of urban culture. Ekistics,56, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peponis, J., Ross, C., & Rashid, M. (1997). The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: The case of Atlanta. Geoforum,28(3–4), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Psarra, S. (2003).Top-down and bottom-up characterisations of shape and space. Paper presented at the 4th international space syntax symposium, University College London, London, UK, June.

  46. Tasan-Kok, T. (2015). Analysing path dependence to understand divergence: Investigating hybrid neo-liberal urban transformation processes in Turkey. European Planning Studies,23(11), 2184–2209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Topcu, M. (2009). Accessibility effect on urban land values. Scientific Research and Essay,4(11), 1286–1291.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Topcu, M., & Kubat, A. S. (2007). Morphological comparison of two historical Anatolian towns. Paper presented at the 6th international space syntax symposium, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, June.

  49. Topcu, M., & Kubat, A. S. (2009). The analysis of urban features that affect land values: The case of Istanbul. Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June.

  50. Topcu, M., & Kubat, A. S. (2012). Old and new city: Morphological analysis of Antakya. Paper presented at the 8th international space syntax symposium, PUC, Santiago, Chile, January.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asli Agirbas.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agirbas, A. Characteristics of social formations and space syntax application to quantify spatial configurations of urban regeneration in Levent, Istanbul. J Hous and the Built Environ 35, 171–189 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09671-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Space syntax
  • Spatial configuration
  • Social formation
  • Urban regeneration
  • Levent
  • Celiktepe