old and new city- morphological analysis of antakya.pdf

7/27/2019 OLDANDNEWCITY-morphologicalanalysisofAntakya.pdf

1/16

PAPERREF#8251Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumEditedbyM.Greene,J.ReyesandA.Castro.SantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.

8251:1

OLDANDNEWCITY:morphologicalanalysisofAntakya

AUTHOR: MehmetTOPUSelcukUniversity,FacultyofEngArchitecture,DepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanning,

CampusKonya,Turkeyemail:[email protected]

AyeSemaKUBATIstanbulTechnicalUniversity,FacultyofArchitecture,DepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanning,Turkeyemail:[email protected]

KEYWORDS: Antakya,SpaceSyntax,UrbanMorphology,GIS

THEME: HistoricalEvolutionoftheBuiltForm

AbstractCities are in a continuous process of change and readjustment of their different parts, which are

spontaneously developed or deliberately planned under different socioeconomic, natural and political

conditions indifferentperiods.Overtheyears,Antakya(Antioch),which isacityofTurkey,hasundergone

variousphysicalandfunctionaltransformations.Thispaperinvestigatesthemorphologicaltransformationof

Antakya in termsofspatial integration including thecomparisonof traditionalandmoderncentersof the

city.MorphologicalstructureofAntakya,whichwasbuiltwiththebasicplanningapproach,hasahistoryof

2300years,naturalconditionsandhasacquiredashapewithinhumanandsocietyorder,wasanalyzed. It

was observed that inAntakya therewere two different dimensions related to city structure; an old city

between natural boundaries and a new city characterized by radial development. In this study, these

dimensionswerestudied indetail. Inotherwords, inthisstudy,morphologicaldifferencesbetweentheold

citypatternwhichappearedwithin2300yearsofhistoryandthenewcitypatternwhichappearedwithin

approximately100yearsofplannedhistoryandtheintegrationsofthesetwodifferentpartsofthecitywere

explored.Thesedifferencesincludepublicandprivateopenspaces,urbanwebsandurbanblocks.Fourpilot

districtswereselectedassampleareas,includingtwoareasfromthecommercialdistrictsoftheoldandthe

newcityandtwoareasfromthehousingdistrictsoftheoldandthenewcity.Atthisstage,therelationsof

the citywith different structures of urbanpatternwere exemplified by using themodernmorphological

approach(spacesyntaxmethod)andtraditionalapproach;ananalyticalstudyofbuildings,roadsandopen

spaces,wasconductedwithin thescopeof theconceptof livablearea.These twodifferentmethodswere

comparativelyanalyzedtoexaminethesubjectindetail.Inconclusion,wecanseethatthereisaverystrong

relationship

between

the

livable

area

index

values

and

intelligibility

for

the

selected

sample

areas.

It

was

thoughtthatthesestructuralrelationshipsthatwerefoundastheresultofthepresentstudycouldprovidea

contributiontofurtherplanningstudies.


2/16

Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.

8251:2

1. URBANMORPHOLOGY

Urbanmorphologycanbedefinedasanapproachthatprovidesanunderstandingoftheform,creationand

transformation processes, spatial structure and character of human settlements through an analysis of

historicaldevelopmentprocessesandtheconstituentpartsthatcomposethesettlements.Inthisessence,

urban morphology is used as an important assessment tool or method in determining the change

transformation processes ofurban fabrics,making sense of thehistorical roots of spatial and functional

structuresandbringingthemtothepresentday.

Thedevelopmentofurbanmorphology,whichconstitutedacomponentofurbangeographyasasubject,as

anindependentscientificdisciplineanditsuseasamethodintheanalysisofthephysicalstructuresofthe

citiesdatesbacktothefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury(Whitehand,1986).

Buildings,gardens,streets,parksandmonumentsareamongthemainelementsofmorphologicalanalysis.

Theseelements,however,areconsideredasorganismswhichareconstantlyusedandhencetransformed

throughtime.Theyalsoexist inastateoftightanddynamic interrelationship:builtstructuresshapingand

beingshapedbytheopenspacesaroundthem,publicstreetsservingandbeingusedbyprivatelandowners

alongthem.Thedynamicstateofthecity,andthepervasiverelationshipbetweenelementshaveledmanyurbanmorphologiststopreferthetermurbanmorphogenesistodescribetheirfieldofstudy (Moudon,

1997).

Inthecourseoftime,variousapproacheshaveemergedformorphologicalanalyses;

InISUF(InternationalSeminarofUrbanForm),thecomingtogetherofresearchersfromdifferentlanguage

areasanddisciplinesisdescribedasfoundedoncommonground.First,thereisagreementthatthecityor

town can be read and analyzed via the medium of its physical form. Further, there is widespread

acknowledgementthat,atitsmostelementallevel,morphologicalanalysisisbasedonthreeprinciples.

1. Urbanformisdefinedbythreefundamentalphysicalelements:buildingsandtheirrelatedopenspaces,plotsorlots,andstreets.

2. Urban form can be understood at different levels of resolution. Commonly, four are recognized,correspondingtothebuilding/lot,thestreet/block,thecityandtheregion.

3. Urban formcanonlybeunderstoodhistorically since theelementsofwhich it iscomprisedundergocontinuoustransformationandreplacement(Moudon,1997).

InConzensapproach,urbanmorphology isthestudyoftheformandshapeofsettlements.Initialwork in

the field focusedonanalyzingevolutionand change in traditionalurban space (Carmona,2001).Conzen

consideredlanduses,buildingstructures,plotpatternandStreetpatterntobethemostimportant(Conzen,

1960).

Buildings,particularly

the

land

uses

they

accommodate,

are

usually

the

least

resilient

elements.

Although

moreenduring,theplotpatternchangesovertimeas individualplotsaresubdividedoramalgamated.The

Streetplantendstobethemostenduringelement(Carmona,2001).

ThemaintopicofthestudiesconductedbyKrierwastheexaminationofurbanhistoryandhistoricalurban

piecesthroughmorphologicalandtypologicalanalyses,(Krier,1979)thestudyofsociological,culturaland

psychologicalreasonsfortheformationofurbanformandfabric(Rossi,1966).


3/16


8251:3

Urbanmorphologyhasbecomeacommonand importantresearchmethodfortheanalysisofthephysical

structures of cities through the numerical content (Space Syntax) brought in these studies by Hillier

especiallywiththesupportofthetechnologicaldevelopmentsexperienced inrecentyears(Hillier,Hanson

1984, Kubat, Dkmeci, 1994; Hillier, at al, 2007). Space syntax is a technique that can be used for

morphologicalanalysesofbuildings,architecturalplans,urbanareas,andurbanplans.Spacesyntax isalso

oneofthefewtheorieswhichallowustounderstandhowcultureandsocietyareembeddedinthespecific

relationalpatternsconstitutingarchitectureandurbandesign.

Analysisofthecharacteristicsandstructuresoflocalsettlementobtainedthroughthecontinuityofcultural

andsocialvalues,evaluationofthehistoricalvalues,andcreationofasocialconsciencefortheconservation

oftheseareasarebelievedtoleadtothepreservationofpresentsettlementsthroughassigningthemupto

datefunctions.Thiswillalsobeaninspirationformodernandcontemporarydesigns.

Ithas seen that therearecountless studiesaboutUrbanMorphology. In this framework, in this study,a

comparative evaluation ofmodern (Space Syntax) and traditional morphological analysis methods in an

universal sampleareawhichhascultural,architecturaldiversityand rich inhistoricalurbanbuildupwas

aimed.Anevaluationthatcanfacilitatetourbanplanning inordertoconstitutethespaceperceptionand

spacequalityespeciallyinnewlydevelopedurbanspaceswasmade.

2. SELECTIONOFSAMPLES

Anatoliaisrichinarchitectureandurbanstructure,reflectingitsgeographicallocationandtheinfluenceof

severalcivilizations(Kubat,2010).

Antakya isoneof theoldest settlements inAnatolia.Thecitygainedgreat importanceduring theRoman

Empire.ItwasthethirdbiggestcityofRomanEmpire.Itsimportancecamefromtraderoads;itwaslocated

intheintersectionoftheseroads.Atthattime,citizensofRomanEmpirecalledAntakyaasTheQueenof

theEast. In the7th century, the citywas conqueredbyArabiansand Islamicpropertiesbegan to showthemselves.Intime,AntakyalostitsluxurythatcamefromRomans.Thatwasbecauseoftheprivacyneeds

ofIslamicculture.After1516Ottomansconqueredthecitybutthishasnotresultedinanimportantchange

in its pattern. After that time, Antakya still maintained its importance until the new trade roads were

discovered. Although it lost its importance in trade, it did not lose the importance in religion. In 1963,

AntakyawaschosenforpilgrimagebythePope.AtthepresenttimeAntakyaisaveryuniqueexamplewith

itsmixedsocioculturalandeconomicfactors.However,becauseofpoliticalandeconomicreasonsitlostits

beautyanduniqueproperties (Demir1996).Antakyahasadifferentsocial,culturalandphysicaldiversity

within itsboundaries. There is a combinationof religions such asChristians,Muslims and Jews. Turkish,

ArabicandArmenianculturalgroupsformamixedcultureinAntakya.Socialandculturalethnicgroupshave

formedaverydifferentandrichphysicalpattern inthesettlement(Topu&Kubat,2007).Thepatternof

Antakya stillbears themarksof itsearlyHellenisticandRoman structures,especially in the formationofgeometrical grids. The configuration of the streets reinforces Islamic characteristics; cul desacs mean

privacyandstreetstructureisnarrow(Topu,2003,Hakim,1986).

Within the scopeof thepresent study, fourpilotdistrictswere selectedas sampleareas from thenewly

developingplanneddistrict(NewCity)andthehistoricaldistrictthathasanorganicurbanfabric(OldCity)in

thecityofAntakya,twoofwhichwerefromcommercialdistrictsoftheoldandthenewcityandtheother

twowerefromthehousingdistrictoftheoldandthenewcity.Eachoftheselectedareaswas12.000m2.Of


4/16


8251:4

theselectedareas,ACommercialArea (NewCity)andBResidentialArea(NewCity)wereplannedspaces

thatwereformedastheresultoftheurbanplanningstudiesconductedduringtheperiodoftheRepublicof

Turkey,whileCCommercialArea(OldCity)wasanOttomanmarketwheretradewasconductedatdifferent

levels,whichwas named as bedesten (covered bazaar) and housed innswithin the historical period.D

ResidentialArea(OldCity)wasselectedasanareaofthecityofAntakyawherealltheurbanchangeshave

beenexperiencedfromtheRomanperiodtothepresentday(Figure1).

Figure1SettlementMapofAntakyaandSelectedSampleAreas

3. METHOD

Twodifferentspatialanalyseswereperformedintheselectedsampleareasandtheresultswerecompared.The firstanalysis involvedmorphological comparisons in theurban space.Within this scope, road areas,

open spaces,built areas and total built areas on the urban spacewere respectively calculated for each

samplearea.Afterwards,proportionalcomparisonswereconductedfortheselectedsampleareasinterms

ofbuiltfloorareauseandtotalbuiltareasandintermsofopenspacesandroadareas.Then,anassessment

wasperformedconsideringtheproportionofwalkableopenspacesandtotalbuiltareaswithinthescopeof

theconceptof livablearea index,which isan indexusedto identify therelationshipbetweenstreetsand

NewCity

OldCity

ACommercial(NewCity)

BResidential(NewCity)

CCommercial(OldCity)

DResidential(OldCity)

B

A C

D


5/16


8251:5

theirdensitiesandwhichgivesacorrelationbetweenthetotalareaofbuiltenvironmentandthetotalarea

ofopenspacesinastreetzone.

Spacesyntaxmethodwasusedinthesecondanalysis.SpacesyntaxwasdevelopedbyHillierandHansonat

theUnit forArchitecturalStudies,UniversityCollegeLondon (Hanson1989;Hillier1989,Hillier&Hanson

1984;Hillier et al1983; 1992;1993) and is a technique that can be used formorphological analysesof

buildings,architecturalplans,urbanareas,andurbanplans.Space syntax isalsooneof the few theories

which allow us to understand how culture and society are embedded in the specific relational patterns

constituting architecture andurban design. The aim of the technique is todescribe different aspects of

relationshipsbetweenthemorphologicalstructureofhumanmadeenvironmentsandsocialstructuresand

events.It ispossibletogivequantitativedescriptionsofbuiltspaces.Thismethodologycontributesgreatly

totheunderstandingofthephysicalstructureofthecasesinthisstudy.

First,anaxialmapof theentirecityofAntakyawasgenerated.Then, integrationand intelligibilityvalues

werecalculatedonthegeneratedaxialmapbyusingUCLDepthmap8.15.00software.

The central concept of space syntax is integration. The technique allows one to express integration in

numericalvalues.Asisthecasewithmanyothermeasuresofspatialstructure,thesevaluesaredependentupon theurbanarea.The integrationofspace isa functionof themeannumberof linesandchangesof

direction that need to be taken to go from that space to all other spaces in the settlement system.

Integrationisthereforeaboutsyntacticnotmetricaccessibility,andtheword'depth'ratherthan'distance'

isused todescribehow faraspace lies.Every line inasettlement layouthasacertaindepth fromevery

otherline.Theintegrationvalueofalineisamathematicalwayofexpressingthedepthofthatlinefromall

other lines inthesystem.It isassumedthatthedistributionof integrationacrossanurbanareacorrelates

with themovementpattern of an area.Urban areas can bedistinguishedby and compared in termsof

differentlevelsof integration(Hillier,1996).Integrationisusedasameasureofqualityforurbanareas.By

calculatingintegratedandsegregatedpartsofasettlement,itisalsopossibletoknowwhetheranewdesign

proposalfitsintotheexistingstructureofanarea.

The syntactic intelligibility of an urban system is defined as the degree of correlation between the

connectivityand integrationvalues inthesystem.Theterm intelligibility isusedbecausethestrongerthe

correlation, the easier it is to infer the global position of a space from its directly observable local

connections (Hillier at al 1983). Thismakes it possible to capture thewaypeople can learn about large

patternsfromtheirexperienceofsmallpartsorfailtodosowhenthecorrelationisweak(Hillier&Hanson

1984).

Withinthisscope,integrationmapswerecreatedforthecityofAntakyaandtheselectedsampleareasand

intelligibility resultswerecomparativelyevaluated.Following thedatacollectionandanalysisprocedures,

theresultsobtained fromthetwoseparateanalyseswere interpretedandevaluated toshed lightonthe

most important question of how these comparisons can contribute to the urban planning, urban

morphology,spacesyntaxandspatialdesignprocesses.


6/16


8251:6

4. FINDINGS

A MorphologicalAnalyses

BuildingDensities:Thetablesoftheanalysesregardingbuildingdensitiesarepresentedbelow(Figure2).Floorareavaluesandthetotalbuiltareavaluesinthefourdifferentsamplesselectedforthestudywerecalculatedbasedonthe

resultsoftheanalyses.

Floorarea values fordifferenturban fabricsof the sampleareas selected from the cityofAntakyawere

foundas56.693m2forAreaA,70.532m

2forAreaB,31.022m

2forAreaCand68.093m

2forAreaD.Total

builtareavalueswerecalculatedas231.976m2forAreaA,149.183m2forAreaB,180.625m2forAreaC

and106.044m2forAreaD(Table1).

Figure2.BuiltfabricofareasABCDselectedfromAntakya

A

B

C

D


7/16


8251:7

Consequently,itwasobservedintheareasselectedfromthenewandtheoldcitythat;

There was not a very significant difference between the sample areas selected from the historicaldistrict (C,D) in termsof the ratesof floorareause,butof the samples selected from thenewcity

(planned district), the sample selected from the commercial area used 25.671 m2 more floor area

comparedtothesampleselectedfromtheresidentialarea.

Whentheoldandthenewcitywerecomparedintermsoftotalbuiltareause,itwasobservedthatthetotalbuiltareause in thesample selected from thecommercialareaof thenewcitywas51.351m2

largercomparedtothesampleselectedfromtheresidentialarea.Inthesamplesselectedfromtheold

city,however, thetotalbuiltareause in thesample fromthecommercialareawas43.139m2 larger

comparedtothesampleselectedfromtheresidentialarea.

Table1.Valuesoffloorareaandtotalbuiltareauseintheselectedsampleareas

SelectedAreasAreaUse(m

2) TotalBuiltArea

/BuiltFloor

AreaTotalBuiltArea BuiltFloorArea

A Commercial(NewCity) 231.976 56.693 4.1

B Residential(NewCity) 180.625 31.022 5.8

C Commercial(OldCity) 149.183 70.532 2.1

D Residential(OldCity) 106.044 68.093 1.6

RoadandOpenSpaceDensities:Afterwards,roadsandopenspacesexistingintheurbanspaceweredetermined(Figure3).Then,roadsandopenspaces(parkinglot,courtyard,square,etc.)inthefoursamplesselectedforthestudywerecalculated.


8/16


8251:8

Figure3.RoadsandopenspacesofareasABCDselectedfromAntakya

Thepercentagesof roadandopenspaceuseweredeterminedonthebasisof thesampleareasselectedfromthenewandtheoldcity.

The values obtained as the result of the comparison of the road areas in differenturban fabrics of the

sampleareasselectedfromAntakyawerecalculatedas28.826m2forAreaA,32.039m

2forAreaB,24.638

m2forAreaCand15.536m2forAreaD.Totalopenspacevalueswerecalculatedas35.481m2forAreaA,

57.036m2forAreaB,25.830m

2forAreaCand37.371m

2forAreaD(Table2).

Therefore,intheareasselectedfromthenewandtheoldcity;

Itwasseenthatintermsofroadareause,roaduseinthecommercialzoneoftheareasselectedfromtheoldcitywas9.102m

2morecomparedtotheroaduseintheresidentialzone,whereasroadusein

theresidentialzoneofthenewcitywas4.116m2morecomparedtotheroaduse inthecommercialzone.

Whenthevaluesobtainedregardingopenspaceusewereexamined,itwasseenthatopenspaceuseintheresidentialzoneofthesampleareasselectedfromtheoldcitywas11.541m

2morecomparedto

theopenspaceuseinthecommercialzone.Whenthesampleareasinthenewcitywereexamined,it

was seen that similar to the old city, open space use in the residential zonewas 25.555 m2more

comparedtotheopenspaceuseinthecommercialzone.

A

B

C

D


9/16


8251:9

Table2Valuesofroadandopenspaceuseintheselectedsampleareas

SelectedAreas AreaUse(m2)

RoadArea OpenSpaceA Commercial (NewCity) 28.826 35.481B Residential(NewCity) 32.942 57.036C Commercial (OldCity) 24.638 25.830D Residential(OldCity) 15.536 37.371

Asageneral interpretationofthefindings, itcanbeunderstoodfromthegraphpresented inFigure4thatthe total built area use in the samples selected from the new city was higher compared to that in thesamplesselectedfromtheoldcity.However,whenwelookatbuiltfloorareause,itcanbeseenthatfloorareausewashigherintheoldcity.Itisseenthatroadareausewasslightlyhigherinthenewcitysamples.However, it appears that open space use was higher in residential samples in both the old and the newcities.

Figure4Graphicaldisplayofspaceuseinselectedsampleareas

LivabilityIndexAn index named as livable area index, was used to identify the relationship between streets and theirdensities.This indexgivesacorrelationbetweenthetotalareaofbuiltenvironmentandthetotalareaofopenspacesinastreetzone.Theopenspaceconceptisdefinedinamoredetailedwayinthisstudyaswell.Openspaceconcept isdivided intothreepartsaspedestriansareas,parkingareasandrecreationalareas.(Blen,etal,2005).From this point of view, the correlation between walkable open space and total built environment wasevaluated fortheselectedsampleareas(Table3).Themost importantpointhere istobeabletoputtheopenspacesthatarewalkabletogooduse.Wecaneasilycalculatethewalkableopenspaceofthenewcityby subtracting the road areas and built floor areas from the total sample area. However, the concept ofwalkableareaintheoldcityrequiresamoredetailedevaluationandexaminationforboththesampleinthecommercialareaandthesampleintheresidentialarea,becausethepresentfabricoftheoldcityresemblesthespatialstructureobservedintraditionalIslamicsettlements(Hakim,1986).Forthisreason,itisseenthat

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

TotalBuiltAreaBulitFloorAreaRoadAreaOpaeSpace

m2

SpaceUses

AModernCenter

BModernresidential

CHistoricalCenter

DHistoricalresidential


10/16


8251:10

roadsandopen spacesareused inadifferentdimension.Thenarrowwidthof the roadsdoesnotallow

drivingvehiclesandtheroadsareusedonlybypedestrians(Figure5D).Openspaces,ontheotherhand,

aremostlyusedascourtyardsinsidebuildings.Inthecommercialareaoftheoldcity(Figure5C),courtyards

areopenspacesthateveryonecanpubliclyuse.However,theyareusedasprivatespacesratherthanpublic

spacesintheresidentialareaoftheoldcity.Withinthisscope,thesumofroadareasandopenspaceswas

acceptedaswalkableareainthecommercialsample,whereas,sincealmosttheentireopenspaceswere

inprivateuse,only roadareaswere regardedas walkableareas in the residential sample.Afterwards,

livableareavalueswerefoundbycalculatingtheratioofthewalkableareastothetotalbuiltareaforeach

sample.

Table3.Correlationbetweentotalbuiltareaandwalkableopenspace

SelectedSamples LivableSpaceIndex

A Commercial(NewCity) 0.153

B Residential(NewCity) 0.316

C Commercial(OldCity) 0.338

D Residential(OldCity) 0.146

Therefore, thecommercialareaselected from (Figure5A) thenewcityand the residentialarea selected

from theold cityhad close values in termsof the livable area index.Similarly, itwasobserved that the

residentialarea(Figure5B)samplesselectedfromthenewcityandthecommercialareasamplesselected

fromtheoldcityhadvaluesclosetoeachother.

Figure5.StreetpatternSelectedsamles

D

A B

C


11/16


8251:11

B SpaceSyntaxAnalysis:

Firstly,theaxialmapofthecityofAntakyawasgeneratedandtheSpaceSyntaxanalyseswereperformedby

usingDeptmap software.Basedon the resultsof theseanalyses, the integration valuesof the citywere

calculated and an integrationmap was generated (Figure 6). Furthermore, the integration maps of the

selectedsampleareaswithrespecttothewholecityarepresentedinFigure7.

Figure6.IntegrationmapofthecityofAntakya


12/16


8251:12

Afterwards,integrationvaluesandintelligibilityvaluesofthewholecityandthedefinedsampleareaswere

comparativelyanalyzed.

Figure7.Integrationmapoftheselectedsampleareas

When we examine themean integration values in the selected sample areas, it can be seen that the

commercial area sample selected from thenew cityhas thehighestmean value (0.932). The residential

sampleinthenewcityandthecommercialsampleintheoldcityhavecloseintegrationvalues,whereasthe

residentialareasampleintheoldcityhasthelowestintegrationvalue.Thissituationcanalsobeobservedin

themapspresentedinFigure6andthevaluespresentedinTable5.

TheintelligibilityvalueforthewholeofAntakyawasfoundtobe0.327.Asfortheselectedsampleareas,

intelligibilityvaluewasfoundas0.541forthecommercialareaand0.384fortheresidentialareaselected

from the new city. These values were found to be 0.353 for the commercial area and 0.572 for the

residentialareaselectedfromtheoldcity(Table4).

A

B

C

D


13/16


8251:13

Table4.Intelligibilityvaluescalculatedinselectedsampleareas

SelectedSamplesSyntacticMeasures

ntelligibility MeanIntegrationValues

A Commercial(NewCity) 0.541 0.932

B Residential(NewCity) 0.384 0.857

C Commercial(OldCity) 0.353 0.863

D Residential(OldCity) 0.572 0.677

5. EVALUATIONANDCONCLUSION

Urbanmorphology is the studyof the formand shapeof settlements.Appreciationofmorphologyhelps

urbandesignerstobeawareoflocalpatternsofdevelopmentandprocessofchange.(Carmona,2001).

Inurbanmorphology,urban form isunderstood through the studyof theprocesses shaping it (Larkham,

2002).Inthepresentstudy,twoseparatecomparativeanalyseswereperformedforthefoursampleswhichwereselectedfromtheOldandtheNewcityandeachofwhichhadexperiencedadifferentspatialshaping

process.

Intheevaluationsthatwereperformedbasedonthelivableareaindex,thecommercialareaselectedfrom

thenewcityandtheresidentialareaselectedfromtheoldcityhadvaluesclosetoeachother.Similarly,the

residentialareasampleselectedfromthenewcityandthecommercialareasampleselectedfromtheold

cityhadclosevalues.

Whenthemeanintegrationvaluesareexamined,itcanbeseenthatthecommercialareasampleselected

fromthenewcityhadthehighestmeanvalue(0.932),whereastheresidentialareasampleinthenewcity

and the residential area sample in the old city had values close to each other, and the residential area

sampleselectedfromtheoldcityhadthelowest(0.677)integrationvalue.

Whentheintelligibilityvaluesareexamined,itcanbeseenthatthevaluesforthecommercialareasample

selected from thenewcityand theresidentialareasampleselected from theoldcitywereclosetoeach

other.Similarly,thevaluesfortheresidentialareasampleselectedfromthenewcityandthecommercial

areasampleselectedfromtheoldcitywerefoundtobeclosetoeachother.

Inconclusion,wecanseethatthereisaverystrongrelationshipbetweenthelivableareaindexvaluesand

intelligibilityfortheselectedsampleareas.


14/16


8251:14

Table5.Numericalevaluationsconductedfortheselectedsampleareas

SelectedSamples

AreaUse(m2) SyntacticMeasures

TotalBuilt

Area

BuiltFloor

Area

Road

Area

Open

Space

LivableArea

Indexntelligibility

Mean

Integration

Values

A Commercial(NewCity)

231.976 56.693 28.826 35.481 0.153 0.541 0.932

BResidential(New

City)180.625 31.022 32.942 57.036 0.316 0.384 0.857

CCommercial(Old

City)149.183 70.532 24.638 25.830 0.338 0.353 0.863

DResidential(Old

City)106.044 68.093 15.536 37.371 0.146 0.572 0.677

Whenwevisuallyexaminethespatialareause,acomparisonofthecommercialareasampleselectedfrom

thenewcityandtheresidentialareasampleselectedfromtheoldcityshowsthat intelligibilityvaluesand

livableareaindexvalueswerefoundtobeveryclosetooneanother,whereasintegrationvalueswerefoundtobehighlydifferent.

Itwasobservedthattheresidentialareasampleselectedfromthenewcitydistrictandthecommercialarea

sampleselectedfromtheoldcitydistrictnotonlyhadcloseintelligibilityandlivabilityindexvaluesbutalso

hadclosemeanintegrationvalues(Table5).

Theconclusionwehavereachedhereisthatnomatterhowdifferentthespatialformationprocessofeach

selected sample is, it is a fact that the analysis of the structural and numerical data regarding the use,

shapingandthedesignprocessofthespacewillprovideveryimportantcontributionstounderstandingthe

stagereachedtodayandthespacedesignprocessestobeperformedinthefuture.

It isconsideredthatthecomparisonsperformed inthepresentstudywillcontributetotheworkofurbandesigners,urbanmorphologystudiesandplanning.

REFERENCES

Blen, F., Trkolu,H., Yirmibeolu, F.,2005, stanbul'da arazideerleri ve yaplama younluu ilikisi,

Dnya ehircilikGn29. Kolokyumu, Planlamada YeniPolitika ve Stratejiler Riskler Frsatlar,203216,

stanbul.

Carmona,M.,2001, Sustainableurbandesign:Apossibleagenda,PlanningforaSustainableFuture,eds.S.

Batty,A.Layard,S.Davoudi,S.Batty,SponPress,NewYork;16592.

Conzen,M.R.G.1960.AlnwickNorthumberland:AStudy inTownPlanAnalysis, IBGMonogrphNo:27,

London.

Demir,A.,1996,ThroughtheAgesAntakya,stanbulAkbankCultureandArtPublication,stanbul.

Hakim,B.S.,1986,ArabicIslamicCities:BuildingandPlanningPrinciples,KeganPaulInternational,Andover,

Hants.


15/16


8251:15

Krier,R.1979,UrbanSpace,AcademyEditions,London,s.172.

Hakim,B.S.,1986,ArabicIslamicCities:BuildingandPlanningPrinciples,KeganPaulInternational,Andover,

Hants.

HansonJ.,1989,OrderAndStructureInUrbanDesign:ThePlansForTheRebuildingOfLondonAfterThe

GreatFireOf1666,Ecistics.Vol,56(334/335),pp,2242.

Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J., Hudson, J., Burdett, R., 1983, Space syntax: A Different Urban

Perspective,TheArchitectsJournal,vol,178(48),pp,4767.

Hillier,B.,Hanson.J.,1984,TheSocialLogicofSpace,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Hillier,B.,1989,TheArchitectureoftheUrbanObject,Ecisticsvol.56,pp.33435521.

Hillier,B.,Penn,A.,Dalton,N.,1992,MiltonKeynes;LookBackToLondon,TheArchitects'Journal,vol,

195(15),pp.4246.

Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Penn, A., Grajewski, T., Ku, J., 1993, Natural Movement: Or Configuration andAttraction inUrbanPedestrianMovement,EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesignvol,20,pp.

2966.

Hillier,B.,1996,SpaceistheMachine.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Hillier,B.,Turner,A.,Yang,T.,andPark,H.,2007.Metricand topogeometricpropertiesofurban street

networks:someconvergences,divergencesandnewresults.In:Proceedingsofthe6thInternationalSpace

SyntaxSymposium,Istanbul,Turkey.

Kubat,A.S.,1997,MorphologicalCharacteristicsofFortifiedTowns,EnvironmentandPlanningB:Planning

andDesign,vol.24,pp.95123.

Kubat A. S., Dkmeci V., 1994 Anadolu Kale ehirlerinin Morfolojik analizleri; Ankara, Antalya, Bursa,

Diyarbakr, Erzurum, znik, Nide, Trabzon, Urfa, Kale ehirlerinden rnekleme .T.. Aratrma Fonu,

stanbul.

KubatA.S.,2010,ThestudyofurbanforminTurkey,UrbanMorpholgyV(14)1,pp.3138

KubatA.S., TopuM.,2009Antakya veKonya TarihiKentDokularnnMorfolojikAdanKarlatrlmas,

UluslararasnsanBilimleriDergisi,c:62,ISSN13035134.

Larkham,p.J.,2002,MisusingmorphologyUrbanMorphology,V.62,7

MudonA.V.,1997,UrbanMorphologyAsAnEmergingInterDisciplinaryField,UrbanMorphology,Vol,1pp,

310

Rossi,A.,L'1966.Architetturadellacitta.

Topu, M., 2003, ehir Morfolojisi zerine bir alma: Konya ve Antakyann Tarihi Dokularnn

Karlatrlmas,M.AThesis,IstanbulTechnicalUniversity,Istanbul.


16/16


8251:16

Topu, M., Kubat, A. S., 2007 Morphological Comparison Of Two Historical Anatolian Towns, The 6nd

International Space Syntax Symposium, Aye Sema KUBAT,zhan ERTEKN, Yasemin nceGNEY, Engin

EYBOLU,028sp,Cenklerpub.,stanbul,TURKEY,ISBN978975561304 8(V1),

WhitehandJ.W.R.1986."Takingstockofurbangeography",Area,v.18.

old and new city- morphological analysis of antakya.pdf

Documents