AU  - Zengel, Rengin
AU  - Supervisor: Cimcoz, Atilla 
TI  - An evaluation of the settlement patterns in campus planning with regard to the criteria of accessibility
PY  - 1998///
CY  - İzmir
PB  - Dokuz Eylül University
KW  - Architecture
KW  - Bina tasarımı
KW  - Mimarlık
KW  - Building design
N1  - Includes appendices (224-276 p.); Includes references.(216-223 p.); Chapter One; INTRODUCTION; 1; A General Framework; 1; Aim of the Study; 3; Method of Study; 5; Definition of University; 7; Mass Education; 7; Continual Education; 7; Elite Education; 8; Interdisciplinary Flexible Programs; 8; Standardization And Accreditation; 8; Advanced Technologies/Remote Education; 8; Directed and Organized Basic Research; 9; Historical Evaluation of University Education in the World; 13; Effects CIAM Congress and Team 10(X) ON University Patterns; 15; Historical Evolution of Higher Education in Turkey; 20; Provincial Universities; 20; Sub - Regional and Regional Universities; 21; Metropolitan Universities; 22; Methodology of  University Planning; 22; Theoretical Scale; 23; Planning Scale; 24; Design Scale; Chapter Two; DETERMINATION OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES; 26; Determination of Planning, Design and Accessibility criteria for University Campuses; 26; Planning Criteria; 26; Locational Aspects; 27; Cultural Aspects; 27; Financial Potentials; 28; Population Criteria; 28; Education Criteria; 30; Traffic Segregation; 31; Relationships Between City and Industries; 31; Flexibility Criteria; 32; Campus Growth Models; 33; Micro Growth Model; 33; Micro Growth Model; 37; Design Criteria; 37; Determination of the User Groups; 38; Determination of the Major Zones; 39; Determination of Primary and Interdisciplinary Relations between the Major Zones; 43; Accessibility Criteria; 43; Physical Control of the Campus; 47; The Meaning of Open Spaces for Pedestrians in Campus Settlements; 52; Determination of Primary Pedestrian Axes of a Given Site; 54; The Meaning of Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design; 54; Accessibility Criteria for Students; 55; Accessibility Criteria for Academics Staff; 57; Accessibility criteria for Recreational Facilities; 59; Four Major Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design; Chapter Three; COMPARISON OF CAMPUS PATTERNS WITH CITY MODELS; 72; Comparison of Campus Pattern with City Model; 72; Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements; 74; Satellite City Model; 75; Example of a Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of York; 78; Centralized Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements; 82; The Star City Model; 84; Example of a Radial Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements Temasek Polytechnic; 86; Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements; 92; Linear City Model; 93; Example of Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements; 93; University of Surrey; 96; University of Bath; 99; Grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements; 99; The Rectangular Grid City Model; 100; Example of a grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of Loughborough; 102; Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement; 102; Scattered (Irregular)City Models; 102; The Baroque Axial Network Model; 103; The Lacework City Model; 104; Example of Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement/University of Leeds; 106; Mega-structure Grouping Campus Settlements; 106; Mega - Structure City Model (A Proposed Model); 107; Trihex Grid City Model (A Proposed Model); 107; Example of a Mega-structural Grouping in Campus Settlements/ Lethbridge University; 109; Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements; 110; Example of Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements/University City of Mexico; 114; Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements; 114; Example of Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements / Tougaloo University; Chapter Four; A SURVEY OF EXISTING TURKISH UNIVERSITIES; 119; Method Employed on the Survey; 120; Evaluation of the Survey Questionnaires From Question 1 to Question 5; 121; Question 1: The Organisation of the Faculty Buildings in the University; 121; Question 2: Type of the Educational Hinterland the University is Located; 125; Question 3: The Present Student Population of the University; 128; Question 4:Numbers of Staff in Turkish Universities; 132; Question 5: Numbers of Academics Institutions in the Universities; 136; Evaluation of the Survey Questions from Question 6 to Question 14; 136; Question 6:Type of the campus pattern Adapted for the eixsting or Proposed Campus Site of the University; 137; Question 7: Existing Conditions of the University Campus on the Requirement of Accessibility Distances for a Pedestrian between Center and the Farthest Edge in Less Than 10-15 Minutes Walking Period; 141; Question 8:Total Space of the Existing or Proposed Major Campus Site; 144; Question 9:Accessibility Possibilities between the City and the Campus Site; 146; Question 10:Most Dominant Circulation Network within the University Campus; 148; Question 11: Degrees of Traffic Segregation within Each Circulation Network of the Evaluated Campuses; 152; Question 12: Location of the Socialization Centers of the University Either inside or Outside the Campus Site; 156; Question 13: Location of the Dormitory Buildings in the Major Campus Site; 161; Question 14: Location of the Library Halls in the Major Campus Site of the University; 164; General Results of the Survey Study; Chapter Five; EVALUATION OF THE AEGEAN UNIVERSITY AS A CASE STUDY; 170; Case Study : Aegean University; 170; Definition of a Case Study; 172; Method Employed on the Case Study; 172; Evaluation of the Existing Conditions of the Aegean University; 174; A Redevelopment Project for the Aegean University; 177; Proposed Network for Campus Circulation; 180; Proposed Pedestrian Bridges; 182; Pedestrian Bridges; 184; Conversion of the Academics Programs; 187; New Building Proposals for the Existing Plan; 193; An idealized Scheme for the Existing Academic Program; Chapter Six; CONCLUSIONS; 199; Conclusions; 199; A New Higher Education Policy; 200; Alternative University Models; 205; Compact Nucleated Structures with An Axial Order; 207; The organisation of the Major Groups of Functions and Their Repetition for Ideal Campus Settlements; References; Appendices
N2  - ' ABSTRACT 	Higher Eucation Councils are the most efficient institutions for the rapid progress of nations on international platforms.They are the leading institutions on developmant of the countries on science and technology.Turkish Higher Education Council,which give service on diffrent parts of the country since the establishment of Turkish Goverment is supported by the new changes on the laws after 1992.Following that year there has been a definite increase on the numbers of established universities there has been inflation on universty planning process. Consequently during this re-construction period of Turkish Higher Education System some problems are met by the user group of the newly built university campuses.The most comeaccrossed problem on campus planning in the recent years seems that the universities do not perform a definite unity in their campus settlements.Instead of collecting all the academic programs a certain university under a major campus site,most of the universities have distributed their academic programs into minor campuses that are separated from each other.  	Besides that,when the major groups of functions such as resting-feeding-socializing and learning are not designed under a major campus site and they are socializing and learning are not designed under major campus site and they are separated from each other,then the basis of the 24-hour university concept cannor be obtained.Because of this situation the present trend on establishing scattered campuses for a proposed university should be investigated from the begining and alternative university models should be developed for these problematic universities. On the contrary,among the existing Turkish University that are established under a major campus site most of them,either related to their selected campus pattern or to largeness of the selected campus site,are not used effectively as it is desired by the students.Generally these university campuses'development schemes are planned above the average walking distances of pedestrians.So,in most of their land-use palns the accessibilty distances between the major groups of functions and between the relative academic spaces usually exceed the defined average walking standards for pedestrians.As a result students have difficulties on the perception and orientation of the campus spaces.They cannot share with others easily,social unification does not occur and students lack of their social identities on belonging to a certain community. On behalf of these discussions made,it is required to analyze the design process of campus settlements in relation with the requirement of the campus users.It is tried to analyze the alternative models of various land-use plans on the basis of the accessibility in order to create livable campus enviroments.  ÖZET 	Yüksek öğrenim kurumları toplumların biliçlenmesi açısından uluslararası platformdaki en önemli müesseselerdir.Ülkemizde yükseköğretime verilen değer özellikle 1992 yılında yasalarda yapılan yeni düzenlemelerle artmıştır.Üniversitelerimizin sayılarında kısa sürede belirgin bir artış olmuştur ve 1998 yılı itibariyle sayıları 72 ye yükselmiştir.Dolayısıyla bu sürade ciddi bir üniversite enflasyonu yaşanmıştır.Bu yapılanma döneminde tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde kullanıcılar tarafından bir takım sorunlarla karşılaşılmıştır.Buradaki en önemli problem özellikle son yıllarda tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde belirgin bir bütünlük görülmemesidir.Aynı üniversiteye ait akademik mekanların farklı bölgelerdeki kampüslere dağıtılmış olması üniversite öğrencilerini belirli bir kampüse dolayısıyla,sosyal kimliğe sahip olma yoksun bırakmaktadır.  Öte yanda bir üniversitede bulunması gereken ana foksiyon gruplarının bir başka deyişle yeme-uyuma-öğrenme-sosyokültürel ilişkileri geliştirme imkanlarının tek bir kampüs içinde çözülememiş olması öğrencilerin ihtiyacı olan 24-saatlik üniversite ortamını sağlayamamaktadır.Bu açıdan var olan bu dağınık kampüsleşme eğilimleri tekrar gözden geçirilmeli ve bu tür yaklaşımlara alternatif tasarım önerileri getirilmelidir. Bir ana kampüs alanı içinde tasarlanmış olan üniversitelerimizin çoğunluğunda ise gerek seçilen kampüs tipolojisinden gerekse uygulanan kampüsün büyüklüğünden kaynaklanan problemlerden dolayı bu kampüsler istenildiği gibi etkin kullanılamamaktadır.Genellikle bu üniveriste kampüslerinin gelişim şemaları yayaların ideal yürüme standartlarının çok üstünde planlanmıştır.Dolayısyla kampüs binalarının organizasyonunda fakültelerarası  ve ana fonksiyon arasındaki mesafelerin ortalama yürüme standartlartlarına göre uzak olması akademik birimler arasında diyolog kopukluğu oluşturmaktadır.Kampüs alanları kullanıcılar tarafından kolay algılanabilir veya tanımlanabilir olamamaktadır.Böylelikle bir akademik çervedee paylaşılması gereken bilgi iletişimi ve sosyal bütünleşme istenilen düzeyde gerçekleştirilememektedir.      	Sonuç olarak yukarıda açıklanan tartışmalar ışığında,bu tez çalışmasında kampüs mekanlarının kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına bağlı olarak nasıl bir dağılım şeması ile biraraya gelebileğini,ve bunların hangi ulaşılabilirlik kriterlerine göre konumlanabileceğini araştırmak gereği duyulmuştur. '
ER  -