Abstract

As a result of the global cultural, economic and social events of recent years, the definition and utilization of public spaces have again become a matter of debate. Public spaces are basically places where people living in the city come together and meet. Additionally, they also have always been playing an important role in reorganization and development process of societies and cities. For centuries, city squares have been the most important public spaces of the cities. As well as being urban spaces, city squares are significant architectural elements in terms of representation of their surrounding structures. To the present day, city squares have been transformed by the ruling authorities and their different ideologies. In this study, two major squares in Berlin, Pariser Platz and Potsdamer Platz; and one square in Istanbul were selected for the case study. Located in the centre of Berlin, between Brandenburg Gate and Unter den Linden, Pariser Platz was the largest square of the city before World War II. But after the war, following the construction of the Wall, the square turned into an idle space. The Potsdamer Platz is also located in the centre of the city and in only 1 km south of the Pariser Platz. But these two squares different from each other strongly in terms of their structures and features. For instance, Pariser Platz is a dominant and closed square, whereas Potsdamer Platz is a point streets are directed towards. Since the days the city was being developed, these two squares preserved their identities with their different typologies over the course of history presenting World War II, the era of National Socialism and the erection of the Wall, to the present day. In regard to significance, the last square to be examined, located in Istanbul Taksim, can be considered as important as the city of Istanbul itself. With its long history dating back to the end of 1800s, it is a major square in Istanbul. Focusing on the utilization of Pariser Platz, Potsdamer Platz and Taksim Square, this study aims to examine how spatial quality and its criteria in open public spaces are defined, under the light of new trends in architecture using the methods of comparative analysis, literature research, observation and questionnaires.

Highlights

  • The lexical definition of the term “public” includes both the notions “related to public” and “belonging to the state”

  • Public spaces are sites where complaints, criticisms and wishes can be freely announced in the streets, parks and squares

  • If we were to examine Turkey based on this example, life in Turkish villages mainly focuses on either the coffee shops located in squares or in the little spaces shopkeepers “invent” in front of their shops by putting a couple of chairs where they communicate with their surroundings

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The lexical definition of the term “public” includes both the notions “related to public” and “belonging to the state”. According to Habermas, the most prominent features of public space are its exemption from the authority and its being a space where citizens of all different levels have access to. It is distinct from the authority of the state and independent of the public authority. Public spaces are sites where complaints, criticisms and wishes can be freely announced in the streets, parks and squares. They are sites where institutional considerations and freedom of press are emphasized. They are sites where institutional considerations and freedom of press are emphasized. [2] The quality of public spaces (of streets, squares and similar components) plays an important role in the formation of the identities of cities

Urban Space
Public Squares As Urban Spaces
Square Typologies
Berlin
Pariser Platz
Findings
Spatial Quality
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call