| 000 | 14326na a2201801 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 55021 | ||
| 003 | koha_MIRAKIL | ||
| 005 | 20221103133847.0 | ||
| 008 | 190109b tu 000 0 | ||
| 040 |
_aCY-NiCIU _btur _cCY-NiCIU _erda |
||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 090 |
_aD 31 _bZ46 1998 |
||
| 100 | _aZengel, Rengin | ||
| 245 |
_aAn evaluation of the settlement patterns in campus planning with regard to the criteria of accessibility _cRengin Zengel; Supervisor: Atilla Cimcoz |
||
| 260 |
_aİzmir _bDokuz Eylül University _c1998 |
||
| 300 |
_a276 p. _btable _c30.5 cm |
||
| 336 |
_2rdacontent _atext _btxt |
||
| 337 |
_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn |
||
| 338 |
_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc |
||
| 504 | _aIncludes appendices (224-276 p.) | ||
| 504 | _aIncludes references.(216-223 p.) | ||
| 520 | _a' 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. ' | ||
| 650 | _aArchitecture | ||
| 650 | _aBina tasarımı | ||
| 650 | _aMimarlık | ||
| 650 | _aBuilding design | ||
| 700 |
_aSupervisor: Cimcoz, Atilla _91656 |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTS |
||
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter One | |
| 505 | 1 | _tINTRODUCTION | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g1 _tA General Framework |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g1 _tAim of the Study |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g3 _tMethod of Study |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g5 _tDefinition of University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g7 _tMass Education |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g7 _tContinual Education |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g7 _tElite Education |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g8 _tInterdisciplinary Flexible Programs |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g8 _tStandardization And Accreditation |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g8 _tAdvanced Technologies/Remote Education |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g8 _tDirected and Organized Basic Research |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g9 _tHistorical Evaluation of University Education in the World |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g13 _tEffects CIAM Congress and Team 10(X) ON University Patterns |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g15 _tHistorical Evolution of Higher Education in Turkey |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g20 _tProvincial Universities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g20 _tSub - Regional and Regional Universities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g21 _tMetropolitan Universities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g22 _tMethodology of University Planning |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g22 _tTheoretical Scale |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g23 _tPlanning Scale |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g24 _tDesign Scale |
|
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter Two | |
| 505 | 1 | _tDETERMINATION OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g26 _tDetermination of Planning, Design and Accessibility criteria for University Campuses |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g26 _tPlanning Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g26 _tLocational Aspects |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g27 _tCultural Aspects |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g27 _tFinancial Potentials |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g28 _tPopulation Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g28 _tEducation Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g30 _tTraffic Segregation |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g31 _tRelationships Between City and Industries |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g31 _tFlexibility Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g32 _tCampus Growth Models |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g33 _tMicro Growth Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g33 _tMicro Growth Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g37 _tDesign Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g37 _tDetermination of the User Groups |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g38 _tDetermination of the Major Zones |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g39 _tDetermination of Primary and Interdisciplinary Relations between the Major Zones |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g43 _tAccessibility Criteria |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g43 _tPhysical Control of the Campus |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g47 _tThe Meaning of Open Spaces for Pedestrians in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g52 _tDetermination of Primary Pedestrian Axes of a Given Site |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g54 _tThe Meaning of Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g54 _tAccessibility Criteria for Students |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g55 _tAccessibility Criteria for Academics Staff |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g57 _tAccessibility criteria for Recreational Facilities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g59 _tFour Major Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design |
|
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter Three | |
| 505 | 1 | _tCOMPARISON OF CAMPUS PATTERNS WITH CITY MODELS | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g72 _tComparison of Campus Pattern with City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g72 _tMolecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g74 _tSatellite City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g75 _tExample of a Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of York |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g78 _tCentralized Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g82 _tThe Star City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g84 _tExample of a Radial Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements Temasek Polytechnic |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g86 _tLinear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g92 _tLinear City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g93 _tExample of Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements/ |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g93 _tUniversity of Surrey |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g96 _tUniversity of Bath |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g99 _tGrid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g99 _tThe Rectangular Grid City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g100 _tExample of a grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of Loughborough |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g102 _tScattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g102 _tScattered (Irregular)City Models |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g102 _tThe Baroque Axial Network Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g103 _tThe Lacework City Model |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g104 _tExample of Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement/University of Leeds |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g106 _tMega-structure Grouping Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g106 _tMega - Structure City Model (A Proposed Model) |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g107 _tTrihex Grid City Model (A Proposed Model) |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g107 _tExample of a Mega-structural Grouping in Campus Settlements/ Lethbridge University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g109 _tHorizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g110 _tExample of Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements/University City of Mexico |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g114 _tVertical Grouping in Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g114 _tExample of Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements / Tougaloo University |
|
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter Four | |
| 505 | 1 | _tA SURVEY OF EXISTING TURKISH UNIVERSITIES | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g119 _tMethod Employed on the Survey |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g120 _tEvaluation of the Survey Questionnaires From Question 1 to Question 5 |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g121 _tQuestion 1: The Organisation of the Faculty Buildings in the University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g121 _tQuestion 2: Type of the Educational Hinterland the University is Located |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g125 _tQuestion 3: The Present Student Population of the University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g128 _tQuestion 4:Numbers of Staff in Turkish Universities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g132 _tQuestion 5: Numbers of Academics Institutions in the Universities |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g136 _tEvaluation of the Survey Questions from Question 6 to Question 14 |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g136 _tQuestion 6:Type of the campus pattern Adapted for the eixsting or Proposed Campus Site of the University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g137 _tQuestion 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 |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g141 _tQuestion 8:Total Space of the Existing or Proposed Major Campus Site |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g144 _tQuestion 9:Accessibility Possibilities between the City and the Campus Site |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g146 _tQuestion 10:Most Dominant Circulation Network within the University Campus |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g148 _tQuestion 11: Degrees of Traffic Segregation within Each Circulation Network of the Evaluated Campuses |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g152 _tQuestion 12: Location of the Socialization Centers of the University Either inside or Outside the Campus Site |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g156 _tQuestion 13: Location of the Dormitory Buildings in the Major Campus Site |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g161 _tQuestion 14: Location of the Library Halls in the Major Campus Site of the University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g164 _tGeneral Results of the Survey Study |
|
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter Five | |
| 505 | 1 | _tEVALUATION OF THE AEGEAN UNIVERSITY AS A CASE STUDY | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g170 _tCase Study : Aegean University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g170 _tDefinition of a Case Study |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g172 _tMethod Employed on the Case Study |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g172 _tEvaluation of the Existing Conditions of the Aegean University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g174 _tA Redevelopment Project for the Aegean University |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g177 _tProposed Network for Campus Circulation |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g180 _tProposed Pedestrian Bridges |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g182 _tPedestrian Bridges |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g184 _tConversion of the Academics Programs |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g187 _tNew Building Proposals for the Existing Plan |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g193 _tAn idealized Scheme for the Existing Academic Program |
|
| 505 | 1 | _tChapter Six | |
| 505 | 1 | _tCONCLUSIONS | |
| 505 | 1 |
_g199 _tConclusions |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g199 _tA New Higher Education Policy |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g200 _tAlternative University Models |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g205 _tCompact Nucleated Structures with An Axial Order |
|
| 505 | 1 |
_g207 _tThe organisation of the Major Groups of Functions and Their Repetition for Ideal Campus Settlements |
|
| 505 | 0 |
_p216 _tReferences |
|
| 505 | 0 |
_p224 _tAppendices |
|
| 999 |
_c304 _d304 |
||