Analysis of spatial components in building-garden-garden-road relationship: Trabzon, Yavuz Selim Boulevard example/Bina-bahce-yol iliskisinde mekansal bilesenlerin analizi: Trabzon, yavuz selim bulvari ornegi.
Keywords: Building, front yard, road, building-front yard-road-relationship, spatial components
Azet: Kentler, birAs.ok islevsel A[paragraph]genin bulundugu mekAcentsnlardir. Konutlar, bahAs.eler, parklar, alisveris mekAcentsnlari, saglik ve egitim kurumlari, ulasim arterleri, konaklama gibi pek As.ok farkli islevi ve mekAcentsni bir arada bulundururlar. Fiziksel aAs.idan en A[paragraph]nemli A[paragraph]gelerden biri de yollardir. Yollar; sokaklar, caddeler, bulvarlar seklinde olup, kentin diger bilesenleri ile iliski kurmayi saglarlar. GA1/4nA1/4mA1/4z kentleri; kA1/4ltA1/4rel ve ekonomik alanlarda degisirken, fiziksel ve ekolojik anlamda da degismektedir. Kentlesmeyle birlikte insanlar iAs.in pek As.ok kolaylik saglasa da, yaAs.ama alanlarinda dogal A[paragraph]zellikler bakimindan kayiplar ortaya As.ikmaktadir. Azellikle var olan mekAcentsnsal kurgu A[paragraph]nemsenmeden yapilan ilaveler mekAcentsnsal bA1/4tA1/4nlA1/4gA1/4 bozmaktadir. Bu As.alismada amaAs.; Trabzon kentinde artan ihtiyaAs.lar dogrultusunda yapilan Yavuz Selim Bulvarinin, yapimindan sonra ortaya As.ikan mekAcentsni analiz etmektir. Yavuz Selim Bulvar'inin gA1/4ney ve kuzey kesimin de yer alan 92 bina, bina A[paragraph]nA1/4 ve yol; mekAcentsnsal bilesenler aAs.isindan irdelenmistir. TA1/4m binalarin islevleri, yol ve bina giris kotu arasindaki farklar, binalarin kat yA1/4kseklikleri, yol genisligi, yapisal ve bitkisel peyzaj elemanlari tespit edilmistir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bina, A[paragraph]n bahAs.e, yol, bina-A[paragraph]n bahAs.e-yol iliskisi, mekAcentsnsal bilesenler
Increased population, advancing technologies, changes in the economic and social structure of the society fueled immigration, especially to the cities. The rural depopulation resulted in the change of existing physical texture and the introduction of additional loads (Eren, 2012).
As a result of these additional burdens, a wide variety of changes and transformations have been experienced in different aspects of the urban texture. For example, depopulation of certain parts of urban centers for various reasons, and their subsequent repopulation, transfer of certain functions to different elements, building new streets affected the urban quality of life positively, while concurrently introducing various problems (Tekeli, 2011).
In the 21st century, transportation is among the most serious urban needs. Building roads as a response to the increasing transportation needs significantly affects the urban aesthetics and the landscapes in the path of the route. Expanding growth and the increase in number of motor vehicles in today's urban areas caused the city to be considered as a traffic artery (Oksuz, 2004).
According to Lynch (1973) roads are the most effective tool for organizing a space within the urban system. Based on the features of the elements around them, roads could both separate and integrate these elements. According to another definition, the roads are elements providing mobility for the urbanites and the city between the building islands (Oksuz, 2004).
Under normal conditions, roads are limited to the gaps in the front and back of the buildings around them and the gardens if there are any (front or rear). Therefore, the spatial perception about the roads could change. Properties of the buildings and gardens around the road, building functions, number of floors, garden dimensions, presence or lack of plants, the difference between the elevation of the garden and the road, and the presence of structural and vegetative landscape elements have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the space.
In the space between the building and the road, horizontal and vertical distances, the use of different material and colors (plants and furniture) contribute to the enrichment, attractiveness and novelty of the space (Giritlioglu, 1991). Plants are one of the spatial components that urbanites need the most when living in high-rise buildings in urban areas. However, several studies focused on large scale urban open green areas (Irvine et al., 2013; Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2013; Wolch et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2015). Only a few emphasized building-garden-road relationships (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997, Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2005, Daniels et al 2006a, Daniels et al., 2006b, Verbeeck et al., 2010). Thus, the relationship between the building, garden and road spaces was examined in the present study.
In western countries, a considerable part of urban open green spaces are building gardens (Sanders and Stevens, 1984). Building gardens, in certain cases, provide a wildlife habitat (Thompson et al., 1993; Chamberlain et al., 2004; French et al., 2005), in other cases, they are a source for weeds (Zagorski et al., 2004, Sullivian et al., 2005). In certain cases, they are in form of hobby gardens where people can plant seeds and plants (Head et al., 2004). Recent studies conducted in the UK provided evidence that gardens have a very important role in establishing privacy, socialization and establishing emotional ties with the nature (Seddon, 1997).
The concept of garden was defined differently by various researchers. Some of these definitions are as follows: According to Akdogan (1974), the garden is a little paradise in the lives of people in this world. According to Arseven (1983), the garden is a space where trees and flowers are planted in urban areas and near buildings. According to Demiroz (2003), garden is a piece of land where flowers, ornamental plants, fruits, vegetables and medicinal herbs are grown, also where the beauty, greenery, relaxation of the nature is controlled by humans. According to Kus et al. (2009), garden has been developed as a planned and arranged space with certain boundaries based on the objectives of individuals, and became a space that humans created to integrate with and to be near the nature.
Based on the definitions proposed by the abovementioned scholars, gardens are outdoors and limited spaces that contain structural and vegetal spatial components (trees, shrubs, bushes, ground covers, walls, garden doors, stairs, ramps, roads, arches, ornamental ponds, flower beds, etc.) where individuals could come in contact with the nature, breathe and spend good time.
To ensure compatibility between the user requirements and the buildings and the nearby surroundings and ultimately to improve the quality of life, socio-cultural, physical, economic, aesthetic and technological requirements should be considered as a whole (Aydinli, 1993). The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a transportation axis that was built due to increasing needs on the existing physical texture and to examine the spatial components in the relationships to the building, garden and the road in particular. Accordingly, the research problems were determined as follows:
* The space between the the road and the buildings is undefined,
* The spaces in front of the buildings have lost garden characteristics and vegatative and structural landscape elements are inadequate,
* The landscape at the front of buildings that appeared after the construction of the road is random and was not planned based on the building function or user needs,
* There is to ratio between number of building floors and road width and similarly, there is no balance between the distance of the road and building-front distance,
* The difference between the road elevation and building entrance elevation has increased considerably in certain parts.
Given the rapidly increasing population and their needs, it is likely to experience certain losses as a result of the changes implemented to meet these needs. However, there must be a balance between replacement and preservation.
2.1. Study Area
The buildings and their gardens bordering Yavuz Selim Boulevard (a.k.a. Tangent Road) in Trabzon urban center were determined as the study are considering the possible contribution of the study findings to the developing city of Trabzon. Is the relationship between the building, garden and the road and the landscape created after the construction of the road absolutely coincidental? Or is it organized based on requirements? The study aimed to find answers to these questions using various analyzes and methods.
The roads, buildings and gardens were investigated at a 1.2 km section of Yavuz Selim Boulevard located in the south Trabzon, parallel to the Black Sea. In this section, 92 buildings and gardens in both sides of the road were included in the study. This road, which had to be tangent to the old city texture and residential areas, was completed in 2005, 20 years after its planned inauguration. It passes through the Kaleici settlement at a very high elevation, creating a negative visual effect (Yilmaz and Beyazli, 2006).
2.2. Data Collection
All observations and on-site inspections conducted during the research were carried out in spring and summer 2011. Based on the identified problems, the research method and data collection process were determined as follows. The current 2002 Trabzon city plan was obtained and the boundaries of the study area were identified in the Autocad 2014 software (Figure / Sekil 1). The length of the road within the boundaries of the study area (Figure / Sekil 1) was 1.2 km and the width varied based on the location. 92 buildings in the northern and southern sides of the road were included in the stidy. Each building was enumerated and indicated on the plan.
To define the spaces between the road and the buildings, the functions of the 92 buildings (BF) (Figure / Sekil 2) was initially determined. The ratio of the road width (RW) to the number of building floors (NBF) (Figure / Sekil 3) is important in urban areas. If the RW / BFH is larger than 1, the space widens and if it exceeds 2, it becomes much wider. But if the RW / BFH is smaller than 1, the space gets narrower and narrower and eventually becomes cramped. The balance is obtained when the RW / BFH reaches 1. While Le Corbusier has applied rates of 5 or even 10 in real building designs, the most adequate RW / BFH ratios are 1,2, or 3 (Inceoglu, 2007). Thus, the number of building floors (NBF) and the distance between the space between the building and the road and the road (BD) (Figure / Sekil 8) and the width of the road (RW) (Figure / Sekil 7) were measured. The study continued by investigating the RW / BFH ratio.
In the next step, the road elevation (RE) was taken as a reference and accordingly 92 building entrance elevations (BEE) (Figures / Sekil 4 and 5) were determined. The elevation difference between the road elevation and the entrance elevation of each building (BED) was found (Figure / Sekil 4 and 5). Furthermore, in parts where the elevation difference was the highest, in other words in problem areas, the difference was demonstrated with cross-sections (BED) (Figure / Sekil 6).
Finally, to respond to the question "Can the space between the building and the road be considered as a garden space?" the structural (walls, stairs, lighting, sitting, garbage can, ramps, paths, doors, railings, fences, etc.) (Figure / Sekil 12) and vegetal landscaping elements (trees, shrubs, bushes and ground cover) (Figures / Sekil 13 - 17) were determined by observation and in situ analysis methods. In the introductory part of the study, it was emphasized that a space should have certain spatial components to be characterized as a garden, and it should have established boundaries. Accordingly, the spaces in front of the 92 buildings in the study area were examined from this perspective and the number and composition of the building gardens were determined (Figure / Sekil 10).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Findings on Buildings
3.1.1. Building Functions (BI)
It was determined that there were 92 buildings on the northern and southern sides of Yavuz Selim Boulevard. Initially, research demonstrated that there were 36 buildings (Figure / Sekil 1) on the northern side and 56 buildings on the southern side of the boulevard. A typology study on building functions (BF) was conducted. According to the typology study, building functions in the determined area were identified as mosque, theater, museum, residence, construction, business, warehouse, parking lot, business center, school and combined function of business + residence (Figure / Sekil 2). In other words, it was determined that there were 11 different functions in 92 buildings in total. The fact that the study area is active in pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and located in the city center caused several different functions to be present in a 1.2 km long area. Certain building functions (BF) changed since the construction of the road. While some buildings were completely residential before, after the construction, the entrance and the second floors were transformed into commercial stores. Analysis of the distribution of the functions demonstrated that, out of 92 buildings, 30 were residential, 21 were business + residential, 13 buildings were commercial centers, 5 were under construction, 4 were mosques, 3 were parking garages, 2 were schools and museums, and there was a theater and a warehouse (Figure / Sekil 2).
Figure 2. Functions of buildings (BI) Sekil 2. Bina islevleri (BI) Number of buildings by function Office... 21 Mosque 4 Theater 1 Museum 2 Housing 30 Construc... 5 Office 10 Storage 1 Parking 3 Office... 13 School 2 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.1.1. Number of building floors (BKY)
Second, the number of building floors (NBF) was determined. It was found that there were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11-storey buildings within the boundaries of the study area. Of the 92 buildings, 14 were 1, 17 were 2, 22 were 3, 13 were 4, 5 were 5, 8 were 6, 9 were 7, 3 were 8 and finally 1 was 11 -storey high. Accordingly, most of the buildings were 3-storey (n=22) and only 11 buildings were 1-storey buildings. The number of 1, 2, 3 and 4-storey buildings were higher than 5, 6, 7, 8, 11-storey buildings (Figure / Sekil 3).
Figure 3. Height of buildings (BKY) Sekil 3. Bina kat yukseklikleri (BKY) Number of buildings by height Single storey 14 Tow storey 17 Three storey 22 Four storey 13 Five storey 5 Six storey 8 Seven... 9 Eight storey 3 Eleven... 1 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.1.2. Differences between the building and road elevations (BGF)
One of the most important methods of establishing a connection between the building entrances and the road is the lack of elevation difference or the presence of a minimum elevation difference between these two elements. Because the functions such as transition, connection, circulation could be present when these elevation differences are minimized. This was one of the significant problems in the study area.
The fact that the road was constructed years after the settlement, the relationship between the existing buildings and the road could not be established in certain locations. Building entrance elevations were under the road elevation in some parts, in others, these were higher than the road elevation. Only 3 buildings were at the same elevation with the road. 41 buildings were higher than the road, while 48 buildings were lower than the road (Figure / Sekil 5 and 6).
Figure 5. Number of buildings by road level Sekil 5. Yoldan ustte veya altta olan bina sayisi Number of buildings by road level YKY 41 YKA 48 AK 3 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 6. Elevation differences between the building and the road (BGF) Sekil 6. Bina ve yol arasmdaki kot farki (BGF) Number of buildings by elevation difference between building entrance and road 0<BGF<1m 49 1m< BGF[less than or equal to]5M 25 5M<BGF[less than or equal to]10M 7 10M<BGF[less than or equal to]16M 11 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Elevation differences varied between 0 and 16 m. As mentioned before, Yavuz Selim Boulevard passes through the Kaleici settlement, also called Tabakhane Valley, via viaducts, which are quite elevated. Analysis of the entire study area demonstrated that the elevation difference (BED) between the building entrances and the road (Figure / Sekil 6) was 0 < BED [less than or equal to]1 m in front of 49 buildings.
There is no problem accessing the road from these buildings. In front of 25 buildings, this difference was between 1m < BED [less than or equal to]5 m, in front of 7 buildings it was between 5 m <BED [less than or equal to]10m, in front of 11 buildings, it was 10 m < BED [less than or equal to]15 m (Figure 6). Access to the sidewalk or the road from these buildings was rather difficult. Access and transportation was impossible when there were user disabilities. Cross sections that demonstrate elevation differences were taken at four different points. These were demonstrated with the cross-sections of Gulbahar Hatun Mosque, the Kaleici settlement area (Tabakhane Valley), Technology Museum and the Kilpa Market (Figure / Sekil 6).
3.2. Findings about the road
3.2.1. Road width (YG)
Yavuz Selim Boulevard is bidirectional and has a central refuge. Furthermore, certain streets connect to this boulevard from adjacent neighborhoods. At the junctions of the side roads with Yavuz Selim Boulevard, roundabout or triangle island junctions were constructed. The boulevard has sidewalks on both sides. While different analyzes and observations were conducted for each building, the width of the road in front of each building (YG) was also measured.
The road width (RW) ranged between 7 m and 18 m (Figure / Sekil 7). At a large part of Yavuz Selim Boulevard, the road width (RW) was 12 m. As seen in the graph, the road width in front of 45 buildings was 12 m. It was 9 m in front of 2 buildings, 10 m in front of 12 buildings, 11 m in front of 2 buildings, 13 m in front of 1 building, 14 m in front of 2 buildings, 15 m in front of 12 buildings, 16 m in front of 6 buildings and finally 18 m in front of 6 buildings (Figure / Sekil 7). Given road widths (RW) include the sidewalk and the middle refuge widths.
Figure 7. Road width (YG) Sekil 7. Yol genisligi (YG) Number of buildings according to the width of the road ahead 7m 3 9m 2 10m 12 11m 2 12m 45 13m 1 14m 2 15m 12 16m 6 18m 6 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.2.2. Road central refuge plant species
The species identified in central refuge and the junction islands included 5 tree species, 11 shrub and bush species, 2 creepers and 4 ground covers (Figure / Sekil 8). The identified trees were Cedrus libani, Cedrus deodora, Thujo occidentalis 'Smargard', Cercis siligastrum and Acer palmatum 'Osakazuki'. The identified shrubs and bushes were Rosa subsp., Juniperus horizantalis, Cotaneaster frigidus 'Comubia', Berberis thunbergii 'Atropurpureum', Forsythia intermedia, Ligustrum japonicum, Callistemon citrinus, Yucca filamentosa, Pittosporum tobira 'Nana', Euonymus japonica. Creepers were Rosa and Wisteria sinensis. Ground covers were Taraxacum officinale, Bellis perennis, Tulipa, and Veronica persica.
Figure 8. Number of roadside and central refuge plants based on their horticultural features Sekil 8. Yol ve orta refujdeki bitkilerin hortikulturel ozelliklerine gore sayisi Horticultrical Properties Of Refuge And Herbal Plants Tree 5 Shrub and Bushes 11 Wrapping 2 Groundcover 4 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.2. Findings on the section between the buildings and the road
3.2.1. Distance between the building and the road (BU)
The research continued with the analyzes and inspections of the gaps between the road and the buildings. The questions "Each space between the 92 buildings and the road is a garden, or not? Do these spaces exhibit spatial characteristics?" were attempted to be answered. The distances between the road and the building varied between 1 and 18 m. These spaces usually included private areas (garden) or parts of the road (sidewalk, railing, etc.). The length of this space was 3 m in front of 26 buildings, 4 m in front of 18 buildings, 6 m in front of 15 buildings. The highest distance (BD) was 18 m in front of 1 building, 16 m in front of 1 building, 15 m in front of 3 buildings. It is determined that the shortest distance was 1 m in front of 2 buildings and 2 m in front of 7 buildings (Figure / Sekil 9).
Figure 9. The distance between the building and the road (BU) Sekil 9. Bina ve yol arasi mesafe (BU) Building Number between Building and Road 1m 2 2m 7 3m 26 4m 18 5m 5 6m 15 7m 7 8m 4 10m 1 15m 3 16m 1 18m 1 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.2.2. Number of gardens
The distances between the 92 buildings and the road were examined and the space in front of 14 buildings were limited and exhibited certain spatial features. The areas in front of 14 buildings could be described as spaces. In 78 buildings, there were no gardens specific to the building between the road and the building (Figure / Sekil 10). Among the buildings with a garden, 3 were mosques, 1 building was a theater, 2 buildings were museums, the school of 2 buildings were schools, 3 were commercial buildings and 5 buildings were residential (Figure / Sekil 11).
Figure 10. Number of gardens Sekil 10. Bahce sayisi Number Of Building With And Without A Restricted Garden THE GARDEN 14 NON-GARDEN 78 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 11. Number of gardens based on building function Sekil 11. Bina islevlerine gore bahce sayisi Number of gardens by building functions Mosque 3 Theater 1 Museum 2 School 2 Office 3 housing 5 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.2.2. Structural landscaping elements in the section between the road and the building
A total of 15 structural landscaping elements were found in the space between the building and the road. At least one structural landscaping element was present in front of 33 buildings. These included stairs, lighting elements, flowerpots, walls, fences, garbage cans, table + chairs (sitting group), garden gates, benches, railings, ramps, busts, basketball hoops, flowerpots and membrane covers. Accordingly, the elements that were found in the area were mainly lighting fixtures, stair and wall elements. At least one lighting element was found in front of 45 buildings. These lighting elements were tall lighting elements. Stairs were identified in front of 18 buildings. The stairs were usually 4 to 5 steps between the front of the building and the entrance to the building. There was a wall in front of 17 buildings, there were flower beds in front of 7 buildings, there were membrane covers in front of 7 buildings, there were benches in front of 8 buildings, there was a fence in front of 1 building, there were garbage bins in front of 2 buildings, there were table and chairs in front of 3 buildings, there were garden gates in front of 6 buildings, there were guard rails in front of 8 buildings, there were ramps in front of 2 buildings, there were basketball hoops in front of 2 buildings and there were flower pots in front of 3 buildings (Figure / Sekil 12).
Figure 12. Structural landscaping elements identified in the study area Sekil 12. Calisma alaninda tespit edilen yapisal peyzaj elemanlari Structural landscaping elements found in the study area Stairs 18 Lighting 45 Flower bed 7 Wall 17 Fence 1 Garbage... 2 Table- chair 3 Garden... 6 Bench 8 Railing 8 Ramp 2 Bust 2 Basketball... 2 Flowerpot 3 Membra... 7 Note: Table made from bar graph.
3.2.3. Vegetal landscaping elements in the space between the road and the building
Finally, plant landscape elements in the study area, namely trees, shrubs, bushes, ground covers and creeper plant species, were identified. Observations for plant identification started in February 2011 and conducted during the spring and summer seasons. Within the limits of the study area, it was determined that the plants were located in two different areas. These were the section between the building and the road, and the central refuge and the islands located in the junctions. The plants in these sections were identified separately based on the species. When these plants were examined based on the taxa, 61 different taxa including trees, shrubs, bushes, ground covers and creepers were found. 25 species were trees, 21 were shrubs and bushes, 9 were ground covers and 6 were creepers (Figure / Sekil 13).
Figure 13. Number of plants that were located between the buildings and the road based on their horticultural features Sekil 13. Bina ve yol arasmdaki bitkilerin hortikulturel ozelliklerine gore sayisi Plants according to horticultural characteristics Tree 25 Shrub and Bushes 21 Wrapping 9 Groundcover 6 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Sixteen tree species were angiospermae (Olea europaea, Acer negundo, Magnolia soulangeana, Cercis siliquastrum, Ficus carica, Salix viminalis, Fraxinus excelsior, Prunus subsp., Prunus ceracifera 'Atropurpureum', Eribotrya japonica, Laurocerasus officinalis, Juglans nigra, Quercus pontica, Alnus glutinosa, Trachycarpus fortunei, Populus tremula), and 9 were Gymnospermae (Sequoia sempervirens, Picea orientalis, Cryptomeria japonica, Pinus pinea, Cedrus deodora, Cupressus sempervirens Pyramidalis, Chamaecyparis pisifera, Cupressus macrocarpa 'Goldcrest', Cupressoparis leylandii) subspecies (Figure / Sekil 14). There were at least one of these tree species in front of 64 buildings. Many of these plant species identified were located together in 14 gardens.
Figure 14. Trees based on their species Sekil 14. Turlerine gore agaclar The number of buildings in front of the trees Cupressoparis leylandii 1 Cupressus macrocarpa 'Goldcrest' 3 Chamaecyparis pisifera 3 Cupressus sempervirens var. Pyramidalis 2 Cedrus deodora 2 Pinus pinea 3 Cryptomeria Japonica 1 Picea orientalis 1 Sequoia sempervirens 3 Populus tremula 1 Trachycarpus fortunei 2 Alnus glutinosa 1 Quercus pontica 1 Juglans nigra 1 Laurocerasus officinalis 5 Eribotrya Japonica 5 Prunus ceracifera 'Atropurpurea' 1 Prunus subsp. 8 Fraxinus excelsior 1 Salix viminalis 1 Ficus carica 11 Cercis siliquastrum 1 Magnolia soulangeana 2 Acer negundo 2 Olea europaea 2 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Eighteen shrub and bush species were angiospermae (Syringa vulgaris, Citrus sinensis, Citrus Union, Euonymus japonica aurea variegata, Jasminum fruticans. Yucca filamantosa, Laurus nobilis, Nerium oleander, Ligustrum japonicum, Ligustrum japonicum 'Aureum', Euonymus japonica. Hydrangea macrophylla, Spiraea x vanhouttei, Forsythia intermedia, Rosa, Buxus sempervirens, Cotoneaster frigidus 'Comubia', Euonymus japonica aureus), and 3 were gymnospermae (Platycladus orientalis, Thujo occientalis, Juniperus chinensis) subspecies (Figure / Sekil 15).
In total, there were at least one of the 9 ground cover species (Veronica persica, Bellis perennis, Urtica subsp., Taraxacum officinale, Conium maculatum, Lotus comiculatus, Lamium purpureum, Rumex potentia and Brassica nigra) in front of 36 buildings (Figure / Sekil 16). Most of the identified ground cover species were naturally grown in the area, and there were no cultured ground cover species.
A total of 21 buildings had at least one of the 6 types of creepers (Vitis vinifera, Rubus, Hedera helix, Hedera helix Eleganttissima', Wisteria sinensis, Campsis radicans). Identified creepers were usually identified on the walls.
Figure 15. Shrubs and bushes based on their species Sekil 15. Turlerine gore agaccik ve calilar The number of buildings in which the species of shrubs and bushes are located Euonymus japonica aureus 2 Thujo occientalis 3 Cotoneaster frigidus 'Cornubia' 1 Buxus sempervirens 1 Rosa 9 Forsythia intermedia 2 Spireae x vanhouttei 3 Hydrangea macrophylla 5 Euonymus japonica 3 Juniperus chinensis 2 Ligustrum japonicum 'Aureum' 1 Ligustrum Japonicum 8 Platycladus orientalis 1 Nerium oleander 3 Laurus nobilis 1 Yucca filamantosa 3 Jasminum fruticans 2 Euonymus japonica aurea variegata 3 Citrus limon 2 Citrus sinensis 2 Syringa vulgaris 1 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 16. Ground covers based on their species Sekil 16. Turlerine gore yer ortuciller The number of buildings where ground cover types are located Brassica nigra 2 Rumex potentia 3 Lamium purpureum 5 Lotus corniculatus 3 Conium maculatum 4 Taraxacum officinale 5 Urtica subsp. 6 Bellis perennis 5 Veronica persica 3 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 17. Creepers based on their species Sekil 17. Turlerine gore sarilicilar Number of buildings in front of the enclosed species Campsis radicans 1 Wisteria sinensis 4 Hedera helix 'Eleganttissima' 1 Hedera helix 12 Rubus 2 Vitis vinifera 1 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Based on the findings, it was determined that there were no landscaping elements in front of 17 buildings (building numbers: 15, 16, 21, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 44, 48, 51, 63, 66, 72, 75, 81, 92). In front of 32 buildings (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 41, 47, 53, 54, 55, 71, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 89, 90) there were at least one or more structural landscaping elements only, in front of five buildings (building numbers: 14, 20, 33, 35, 91) there were at least one or more plant landscaping elements only, and in front of 30 buildings (building numbers: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 24, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 82 and 86), there were both the plant and structural landscaping elements.
In the present study conducted on Yavuz Selim Boulevard, spatial components were analyzed in the space between the buildings and the road. In situ observations demonstrated that after the road was constructed, it was observed that the spatial relationship between the buildings and the road was weakened. It was evidenced that several spaces in front of buildings lost their garden features qualitatively and quantitatively.
Daniels and Kirkpatrick (2006) examined 107 buildings in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia and found that there were garden spaces at the front or rear of all buildings. They also identified 12 different garden types. In the present study, it was found that only 14 of 92 buildings had a limited garden space. 9 of these had different functions (mosque, school, museum, etc.) and 5 were residential buildings. In other words, 9 were buildings that were required to have gardens. There were limited number of gardens that exhibited untainted or spatial characteristics.
The identified structural and plant components were far from meeting the demands of individuals and were not aesthetic. Certain buildings did not have any elements in front of the building, some had plant and structural elements, but no organizations were present., Kirkpatrick et al. (2009) identified several structural and plant landscaping elements in their study conducted in residential gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. In their study, several structural and plant element categories have emerged. For example, walls were classified under red brick walls, weather board walls, artificial walls. In the present study, the wall element was observed in front of 17 buildings. These buildings were mosque, school, museum, office buildings, and all had a gray brick wall. Random landscapes were identified in the study area. There was no clear access path from the buildings to the road and pavement.
Kirkpatrick et al. (2006) found that there were three types of soil; sandy, clayey and coarse grained soil in the study they conducted in Hobart in 31 neighborhoods and 51 buildings. Another study was conducted by Verbeeck et al. (2010) in five residential areas in the Flanders region in Belgium. In this study; it was determined that each of the five residential areas had a quite large front garden. In only one of the five zones, the terraces in front of the building protruded by 1% and in the other four zones the protrusion was 65%, 35%, 36%, 48%). It was further found that a single building was built on a land of 157 [m.sup.2] in the first zone, 250 [m.sup.2] in the second zone, 322 [m.sup.2] in the third zone, 845 [m.sup.2] in the fourth zone and 335 [m.sup.2] in the last zone on average.
In the present study carried out on Yavuz Selim Boulevard, it was measured that the most frequent distance between the building and the road was 3m in front of 26 buildings, and there were even buildings where this distance decreased to 1 m. These results demonstrated that it was difficult to have a spatial element in an area of this scale.
In another study conducted in Belgium, it was determined that there were garages, driveways, pathways and terraces in residential areas. In the present study, there were no car parking spaces in front of buildings. Several structural and plant landscaping elements were found in buildings such as mosques, schools and museums and these were not esthetic.
Last et al. (1976) investigated the plant species in residential gardens in Edinburgh, Scotland and determined that the indigenous forest tree species were moved to residential gardens due to special requests and these were prominent in residential gardens. In the present study, however, all the plant species in the study area, especially the ground cover species, were naturally grown species. They were not planted based on the request of users. The structural landscape elements that were prominent in the area, namely the lighting and sidewalk elements, were constructed by the municipality.
In the interviews conducted in the study area, it was revealed that the people living here actually selected this area to stay away from the traffic, but then they were exposed to intense traffic after construction of the road. There were no children's playgrounds for children living in the residents in the study area. There were no front gardens to meet the needs of the users and there was no arrangements to serve the children.
Richard (1984) found that building gardens in New York, Syracuse were 48% of the available green spaces. In the present study, it was determined that there were no open spaces, especially green spaces that belonged to the buildings. The most important consequences of the present study were the facts that the connections between the buildings and the road were broken, the frontal spaces lacked garden features, the spatial components (determinants) were inadequate, and the emergence of random landscapes.
As the cities evolve and change, user-oriented developments should be conducted suitable to the existing texture and integrity. When meeting a demand, another need should not be ignored. It should be ensured that the highest number of users could actively utilize the limited urban areas to the fullest extend.
Aydemir, S., Aydemir, S., Beyazh, D.S., Okten N., Oksuz, A.M., Sancar, C., Ozyaba, M., Turk, Y.A. 2014. Kentsel Alanlann Planlanmasi ve Tasanmi, Iber Matbaacilik, Ekim 2004, Trabzon
Akdogan, G., 1974. Bahce ve Peyzaj Sanati Tarihi, AU ZF yaymlan
Arseven C.E., 1983. "Sanat Ansiklopedisi- 5. Cilt", Milli Egitim Basimevi, Istanbul, s. 154-163
Aydmli, S., 1993. Mimarlikta estetik degerler, IT Universitesi - Istanbul
Chamberlain, M.J., Austin, J., Leopold, B.D., Burger L.W., 2004. Effects of lansdcape composition and structure on core use areas of raccoons in prairie landscape. The American Midland Naturalist 158(1): 113-122.
Daniels, G.D., Kirkpatrick, JB., 2006a. Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biological Conservation 133(3): 326-335.
Daniels G.D., Kirkpatrick, J.B., 2006b. Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Landscape and Urban Planning 78:344-352.
Demiroz, Z., 2003. "Tarihsel Surec icinde islam Bahce Sanati Hint-Mogol Bahceleri Omegi ve islam Bahcelerinin Tilrk Bahce Sanatma Etkileri, Istanbul Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Istanbul, s. 129
Edirne il Yilhgi, Edime Valiligi Yaymlari, ISBN:975-585-604-8, Edirne
Eren, E.T., 2012. Kentsel acik yesil alanlarin dagilimlarinm tarihi surec icindeki degisimi: Trabzon kenti Boztepe-ganita aksi ornegi. Yuksek lisans tezi, Karadeniz teknik universitesi.
French, K., Major, R., Hely, K., 2005. Use of native and exotic garden plants by suburban nectarivorous birds Biol. Conserv 121:545-559.
Giritlioglu, C., 1991. Sehirsel Mekan ogeleri ve tasanmi, ITU, Istanbul.
Head, L., Muir, P., 2004. Nativeness, invasiveness, and nation in Australian plants. Geog Rev 94:199-217.
Head, L., Muir, P., Hampel, E., 2004. Australian backyard gardens and the journey of migration. Geo Rev 94: 326-347.
Irvine K.I., Warber S.L., Devine-Wright, P., Gaston, K.J., 2013. Understanding Urban Green Space as a Health Resource: A Qualitative Comparison of Visit Motivation and Derived Effects among Park Users in Sheffield, UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10(1): 417-442
Kirkpatrick, J., Daniels, G., Davison, A., 2009. An antipodean test of spatial contagion in front garden character. Landscape and Urban Planning 93:103-110.
Kirkpatrick, J.B., Daniels, G.D., Zagorski, T., 2007. Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 79: 314-322.
Kus C.S., Erol U.E., 2009. "Turk Bahcelerinin Tasarim Ozellikleri", Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Orman Fakultesi Dergisi, Seri: A, Sayi: 2, ISSN: 1302-7085, Isparta, s.170-172 Kus, Sahin ve Erol (2009)
Last, F.T., Good, J.E.G., Watson, R.H., Gried, D.A., 1976. The city of edinburg- its stock of trees: a continuing amenity and timber resource. Scott For 30: 112-116.
Lynch K., 1973. What Time Is This Place? The Massachusetts institute of technology, ISBN0-262-62032-4, MIT.
Miller R. W., Hauer R.J.J, Werner L.P. (2015). Urban forestry, planning and managing urban green spaces third edition, Waveland pres, USA.
Oksuz, A.M., 2004. Kentsel dis mekanlar, Kentsel Alanlarin Planlanmasi ve Tasarimi, Iber Matbaacilik, Ekim 2004, Trabzon.
Peschardt, K.K, Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 26-39.
Richards, N.A., Mallette, J.R., Simpson, R.J., Macie, E.A., 1984. Residential greenspace and vegetation in a mature city: Syracuse, New York Urban Ecol 8: 99-125.
Sanders, R.A. and Stevens, J.C., 1984. Urban forest of Dayton, Ohio: a preliminary assessment. Urban Ecol 8: 91-98.
Seddon, G., 1997. G. Seddon Landprints-Reflections on Place and Landscape
Sullivan, J.J., Timmins, S.M., Williams, P.A., 2005. Movement of exotic plants into coastal native forests from gardens in northern New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 29: 1-10.
Tekeli, I., 2011. 'Tasarim, mimarlik ve mimarlar' tarih vakfi yurt yayinlari ISBN: 9789753332590, Istanbul.
Thompson, P.S., Greenwood, J.J.D, Greenaway, K., 1993. Birds in European gardens in the winter and spring of 1988-89. Bird Study 40(2): 120-134.
Verbeeck, K., Orshoven, J.V., Hermy, M. 2010. Measuring extent, location and change of imperviousness in urban domestic gardens in collective housing projects. Landscape and Urban Planning 100: 57-66.
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough'. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234-244.
Yilmaz, Z., Beyazli, D.S., 2006. CBS ile Kent Bellek Noktalarina Optimum Erisilebilirlik, 4. Cografi Bilgi Sistemleri Bilisim Gunleri.
Zagorski, T., Kirkpatrick, J.B., Stratford, E.(2004). Gardens and the bush: gardeners attitudes, garden types and invasives Aust. Geogr. Stud., vol. 42, pp. 207-220
Zmyslony, J., Gagnon, D., 1997. Residential management of urban front-yard landscape: A random process? Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 295-307.
Emine Tarakci Eren (1*), Cengiz Acar (1)
(1) Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
(*) Corresponding author e-mail (Iletisim yazari e-posta): email@example.com
Received (Gelis): 21.04.2016 - Revised (Duzeltme): 09.09.2016 - Accepted (Kabul): 02.11.2016
Cite (Atif) : Tarakci Eren, E., Acar, C., 2017. Analysis of spatial components in building-garden-garden-road relationship: Trabzon, Yavuz Selim Boulevard example. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 67(2): 275-289.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Research Article / Arastirma Makalesi|
|Author:||Eren, Emine Tarakci; Acar, Cengiz|
|Publication:||Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||The effect of different wood varnishes on surface color properties of heat treated wood materials/Isil islemli ahsap malzemelerin yuzey renk...|
|Next Article:||Changes and trends of seasonal total rainfall in the province of Istanbul, Turkey.|