Methodology

The methodological approach of the RE-PUBLIC is based in a cross-disciplinary collaboration of researches and planners, as it is characteristic of place-making based projects. The Workshop incorporates qualitative as well as quantitative methods and has a strong analytic and design-oriented basis grounded on various scientific foundations of socio-spatial research.

The RE-PUBLIC Workshop in Istanbul will be the first of the three-phased joint workshop programme between the partner institutions. A specific public space will be analysed in each of the cities according to the agreed research strategy with a student empirical research programme and hands-on design practice, including developing pathways of implementation. The student empirical research phase of the workshop is a “pre-preparation” phase with empirical research on the subject and on the spot prior to the starting date of Workshop. Participation in the preparatory seminar is mandatory for all participants. The hands-on practice part of the workshop will be a 12-day joint working phase, which will take place with participants from the four universities forming three city-case oriented cooperative teams.

The Workshop phase will be structured through pre-preparation/empirical research and analysis, lecture series, mapping-oriented field studies, discussion sessions, studio work, frequent presentation of the findings and the preparation of a power-point presentation. The results of the empirical research phase and the workshop will be introduced in a workshop report by participants.

Pre-preparation/empirical research

The participants of RE-PUBLIC are expected to familiarise themselves with the topic and conduct preparatory empirical research before attending the workshop. Local meetings and compact seminars will be provided before the seminar. Blog diaries will be a helpful tool in disseminating the research result. The teaching material, relevant references will be reached through the website.

Lecture series

Lectures will be provided by the tutors of the four participating higher education institutions who are highly involved with public space and place-making. Guest lecturers will also be invited from relevant public authorities and NGOs to seek the perceptions of different actor constructs. The lectures will be thematic and methodology oriented with the target of finding evidence and success oriented methodological innovations in teaching and research, especially with regards to a cross-cultural environment of an international collaboration.  Themes for lecture series and related instructors are:

• Handan Türkoğlu, “Evaluation of public spaces”
• Thomas Knorr-Siedow, “Place-making methodologies and action research”
• Zeynep Günay, “The new vs. the good: Remaking the public spaces of Istanbul”
• Carlo W. Becker, “New challenges for urban design of public space: less money for building and maintenance; heterogeneous society, ability for further development”
• Christine Fuhrmann, “Identity of public space in times of global networks”
• Livia de Bethune, “Neighbourhood innovations for revitalisation of public spaces: Brussels projects”
• Alex Fubini, “The concept of public goods”
• Burak Pak, “Tools and strategies for the collective construction of public  spaces”
• Johan Verbeke, “Knowledge on design and research”

Panel

A “Re-Public Panel” will be organised with the participation of İpek Akpınar and Murat Güvenç in 19 July 2014.

Field Studies

The main component of the workshop will be “Field studies”. This will help participants to observe, analyse and assess the meaning and role of public space as well as the current challenges in the remaking of these spaces.

 

Design Workshop

Design workshop will be conducted in 3 stages: Analysis, evaluation and place-making.

1st stage - Analysis: There is a long tradition of analysing public spaces from various research perspectives, theoretically grounded and empirically performed. The realm is wide, from understanding the psychological impact of various spaces on the user and on looker to finding out about the pedagogic meaning of certain place patterns. Also descriptive analyses of the use of various spaces are well-known and used in teaching and designing of open spaces, as in the literature on public space as it was developed with regards to the iconic as well as the everyday places and gardens since the second half of the 20th century a broad body of knowledge has been built up (e.g. Gehl 1987; Carr 1992; Sachs Pfeiffer 1995; Kayden 2012 and many others), from which  a process of  theory-based and at the same time practice-oriented learning can be facilitated. The approaches to analysing public spaces are based upon a variety of observations. Sounds, the boundaries towards other sorts of use and between public and private, the embeddedness in the surrounding built environment, the observation of how the places are used, sigh-lines, the textures and materials, including greenery (flora and fauna), and their meaning for the usability and image, are of as much importance as the typologies of use from representation to pleasure and (often) undesired uses by homeless or other people. The genealogy and history of the places are as much of importance for the analysis as the history of decisions, management and maintenance and who takes up the responsibility of place-keeping for the present and the future. Analysis on territorial organisation: physical, territorial and cultural order (Habraken, 1998), levels of collectiveness (Morales, 2008) and social integration (and disintegration)/ segregation and borders (Madanipour, 2003) are also recommended. "Analysing the public space is a crossroad in which different stakeholders interact within the context of economic, political, social, environmental, and cultural challenges" Madanipour (2014).

2nd stage - Evaluation: The approaches to evaluating public spaces are social science based (evaluation theory and research) as well as founded in the analysis of concrete places and the effect they have internally and externally. Procedures of decision making and design, public participation and residents’ and civil-society’s interests and responsibilities are playing a role as does the itemised check of usability on the regional, urban and neighbourhood level (the ‘meaning of place’).

3rd stage – Place-making: Theories and practices of place-making are the final turn from analysis and evaluation to finding out about the planning methodology that can lead to better places based upon professional planning knowledge and the participation of residents, users, economic actors and politics. Planning in this sense is not a finalised piece of work, but a process oriented form of action, which continues during the use-period of spaces and includes collaborative running and maintenance of public places.

Discussion – Forum: Knowledge Cafe

The studio work will be supported by “Discussion – Forum: Knowledge Cafe” sessions to evaluate up-to-date progress. The method of “knowledge café” will be used to introduce a focused form of cross-disciplinary learning. Various methods of presentation will be learnt (e.g. Pecha Kucha).

Blog Diaries

Participants will also be required to prepare “Blog Diaries” to ease the follow-up of the progress and make them judge the relevance and contribution of the subject. It will help to disseminate the results throughout the planned process with the active participation of students and instructors.

Web-based social geographic platform

Social geographic platform will be utilised for the collective analysis of the public space as well as the enhancement of design-learning before, during and after the IP workshop. This platform was developed as a part of a long-term research project, customized and tested for three years in three different international design studio settings*. The platform provides various opportunities for enhanced integration and improving the learning processes. In the Erasmus IP context, the dialogue between the design students and studio teachers will be mediated in various ways using social software, mapping and information aggregation services; and will brought to a level where the web environment supports, augments and enriches the reflective learning processes. [See, http://www.archtheoryflanders.be/istanbul/]. *Burak Pak, Johan Verbeke (2012) Design studio 2.0: augmenting reflective architectural design learning, ITcon Vol. 17, Special Issue eLearning 2.0: Web 2.0-based social learning in built environment , pg. 502-519, http://www.itcon.org/2012/32.