A Cross-cultural Analysis of New Urbanist Neighborhoods in the US andTurkey: Neighborhood Form, Community Life, and Resident Experiences.

New Urbanism;Neighborhood Form;Resident Preferences;Space Syntax;Cross Cultural;Environment and Behavior;Architecture;Social Sciences (General);Urban Planning;Arts;Social Sciences;Architecture

Erkul, Kadriye FusunWineman, Jean D. ;

University of Michigan

关键词: New Urbanism;    Neighborhood Form;    Resident Preferences;    Space Syntax;    Cross Cultural;    Environment and Behavior;    Architecture;    Social Sciences (General);    Urban Planning;    Arts;    Social Sciences;    Architecture;   

Others  :  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64661/kerkul_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

This study examines the cross-cultural practice of New Urbanism, one of the most internationally influential contemporary urban design models. The goal is to expand knowledge of global practice of urban design via a cross-cultural comparison of two New Urbanist neighborhoods—Ispartakule in Istanbul, Turkey and Cherry Hill Village in Detroit, USA. The research design employs case study methodology combined with quantitative and qualitative tools. The primary data collection tactics are surveys, face-to-face interviews, and structured observations. The research uncovers the similarities and differences of the two New Urbanist developments in different cultural contexts, with reference to their physical and spatial qualities as well as the residents’ motivations, behaviors and attitudes. The primary findings are: 1) The physical and configurational properties of the neighborhoods are significantly different. In the US case, neighborhood form is successfully designed to enhance pedestrian movement and active use of public spaces. In contrast, the design of the Turkish neighborhood has disadvantages that challenge pedestrian movement and use of civic spaces. 2) Public space use and level of social engagement also differ with respect to cultural context. In the US case, streets and civic spaces accommodate a greater variety of activities and are better used than in the Turkish case. Similarly, the US residents are both physically and socially more active than the Turkish residents. 3) Residents’ motivations in choosing New Urbanist communities reveal the different priorities of goal-oriented needs in different cultural contexts. US residents consciously chose their New Urbanist neighborhood for its distinct architectural style, traditional town concept and active community life. Turkish residents chose their neighborhood for its high-quality construction and environment. When New Urbanist practice is adapted to a different cultural context, the outcome can contradict New Urbanist principles: neighborhood form might inhibit active use of public spaces; multiple building types might result in segregation; civic spaces might become deserted; neighborhoods might function as isolated settlements rather than well-integrated centers that promote active urban life.