INTEGRATING CHILDREN INTO URBAN SPACE DESIGN: … · integrating children into urban space design: “play without arriers” project sebla arin (ph.d.) ahsen Özsoy (prof. dr.) 7-9

INTEGRATING CHILDREN INTO URBAN SPACE DESIGN:

“PLAY WITHOUT BARRIERS” PROJECT

SEBLA ARIN (Ph.D.)AHSEN ÖZSOY (Prof. Dr.)

7-9 NOVEMBER 2016

CHILD IN THE CITY

CONFERENCE

8th EDITION

GHENT - BELGIUM

BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN: A PARTICIPATORY MODEL

EDUCATIONALTHEORIES

PARTICIPATION B.E.E.

CASE STUDY: GWB(GAME WITHOUT BARRIERS)

• B.E.E. MODEL• CHILDREN/YOUTH/CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

METHODOLOGY:

INTEGRATING CHILDREN INTO URBAN SPACE DESIGN: “PLAY WITHOUT BARRIERS” PROJECT| SEBLA ARIN – AHSEN ÖZSOY| CHILD IN THE CITY CONFERENCE | NOV. 2016 | GHENT

EDUCATIONAL THEORIES

• Friedrich Froebel: «kindergarten»

• Rudolf Steiner: Waldorf Method – individual development based om emphaty

• John Dewey: «democracy» in education

• Maria Montessori: Montessori Method

• Loris Malaguzzi: Reggio Emilia Method/ (informal), social environment effecting education

Educational Media & Methods

• Position of the educator• Experience based learning• Collaboration and co-production


• Piaget

• Vygotsky

• Krampen

Individual and society interaction

Social factors in child development

Personal experience

Interdiciplinary interaction

PARTICIPATION

representational democracy passive citizen

participatory democracy active citizen

Right to the city: LeFebvre, Harvey

GOVERNANCE two-way responsibility

communicative rationalismdecentralizationdemocracyopennesspluralism


• The aim is «educating» or«healing» the public by power/ government.

• Not sustainable nor continious• No new power• No change in statuco

• Citizens become a part of decisionmaking mechanisms

• «nobody» become «somebody»

Arn

ste

in’s

Lad

de

r o

f P

arti

cip

atio

n |

19

69

PARTICIPATION


Har

t’s

Lad

de

r o

f C

hild

ren

’sP

arti

cip

atio

n|

19

92

PARTICIPATION

Child and youth participation

The concept of «child participation» was first mentioned in 1989 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Article 121. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

• 1992 Rio de Janerio Earth Summit

• 1994 Bologna Children Manifest

• 1996 Habitat

• 2004 UNICEF “Child Friendly Cities” Framework


• Knowles-Yanez (2005), states that involving children in social decision takingprocesses should be evaluated with in the context of youth activism, citizenparticipation, children rights, experimental education and sustainability.

• The change in «being a child» with time

CHILD FAMILY CLOSE ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY

PARTICIPATION



PARTICIPATION


An ideal child participation project should be

• transparent,• have voluntary basis,• promote children to present their ideas,• let children understand the whole process with all its aspects,• let the children to see the results of their participation and effort .

children participation projects shouldn’t focus on making researches aboutchildren, but making researches with/by children.


BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION

Built Environment: living spaces designed by people

architecture

landscape architecture

urban planning

art

antropology

sociology

psychology

economy

Inte

rsec

tin

g A

reas

in B

EE |

Bis

ho

p, A

dam

s, K

een

; 19

92

SOCIETY &

PARTICIPATION

CHILD&

EDUCATION

HUMAN&

ENVIRONMENT

BEE


basic framework of built environment education

• Belgrade Conference on Environmental Education (1975) • Tbilisi Ingovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (1977)

BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION

The social evolution in 1970’s Citizen rights The rising importance of local governments Citizen as an active figure in local government Pluralism / multi-diciplinary studies «ecology» Awareness of user responsibilities in built environment


built environment education programmes are being arranged by many institutions:

• Chamber of Architects• NGO’s• Municipalities• Universities• museums and art institutions• private initiatives.

«PLAY WITHOUT BARRIERS» PROJECT (PWB)

Aim:

• Provide necessary cognition for participating into urban designprocesses.

• Promote participatory projects, contribute to produce qualified andsustainable environments.

• Support urban dwellers adopt to their living environments. Makethem take more responsibility about environmental subjects.

• Provide a participatory platform which let children and youngpeople take a role in local government.

• Design a playground project where disabled and non-disabledchildren play together by participants of PWB.


Participants’ age range: 8-14 years oldability to perceive built environmentself-expression to use architectural representative techniques

Criteria for Participants: • inclusive: (24 unhandicapped + 6 handicapped children)• involving actual users: (selected from nearby schools)• convenient age range: 8-14years old

Shareholders:Departments of Architecture and Education from the universities in Bursa & Istanbul (BOU,BTU, ITU, UU)Nilüfer MunicipalityNKK (Nilüfer City Council)District National Education Directorate (under the Ministry of National Education)Chamber of Architects-Bursa BranchChamber of Landscape Architects-Bursa Branch.

Methodology: 1st term: theoritical education (11 weeks)2nd term: practical education (16 weeks)

~4 hours/week (Every Saturday)



1

st SECTION

THEORY

1

st TERM

Week 1 Creative Drama & Introduction

Week 2 Human Rights, Children Rights & Disabled Rights

Week 3 Constituting a Project

Week 4 The Use of Public Space

Week 5 Sustainability, Environment & Ecology

Week 6 Evolution of "Play"

Week 7 Built Environment / Recycling

Week 8 Body & Architecture

Week 9 Urban Space & Urban Management

Week 10 Architectural Cognition / Landscape Design

Week 11 Eskişehir / Park Trip

2nd

SECTION BASIC DESIGN

2

nd TERM

Week 12 What is Architecture? / YogArch

Week 13 Basic Design

Week 14 Architectural Basics

3rd

SECTION ANALYSIS & PREPARATORY EXERCISES

Week 15 Site Visit

Week 16 Open Debate

Week 17 Site Plan & Model Making

Week 18 Introduction to plants & Model Making

Week 19 WORKSHOP: Urban Experience

4

th SECTION

PLAYGROUND PROJECT DESIGN

Week 20 Designing Playground

Week 21 Designing Playground

Week 22 Model Making

Week 23 Jury / Taking critics on the project

Week 24 Reviewing the jury decisions/ self critization

Week 25 Developing the playground design





1st term topics:• creative drama• human, children and disabled rights• designing a social project• the use of public space• sustainability, environment and ecology• game, children and space• scope of built environment• waste management• human body and architecture• rise of urban space and local authority• architectural cognition: (architectural design and application,

responsibilities of chamber of architects, open space design)

2nd term topics:• basic design education• architectural representational techniques• architectural analysis• creating space• designing for a specific purpose• designing for the user’s needs• representation of a spatial solution



Basic Design

• Structural principles• Notion of space• Proportion, scale, balance, rhytm• Architectural presentation techniques



YogA

rch

& C

lay

Wo

rksh

op

Map

pin

g an

d s

cale

wo

rksh

op

Arc

hit

ect

ura

l Pre

sen

tati

on

Wo

rksh

op



Analysis and pre-design

• User & site analysis• Function schema• Site model• Layout plan



Site

Tri

p

Spe

ake

r’s

Co

rne

r

Layo

ut

Pla

n /

Mo

de

l

«A

bo

ve t

he

Gro

un

d»

wo

rksh

op

–U

rban

Aw

are

nes

s



Play-ground project design

• Similar to undergraduate architectural design studio• Taking table-crits, participants carried on individual and group

studies through which they developed a collaborative project design• Creating a discussion platform that everybody can participate is

promoted.• participants («designers»), try and reflect what they really enjoy

doing/playing to their design.• Participants produce a 1/50 scaled model of the project design as a

group work.



Pla

y-gr

ou

nd

de

sign

Pla

y e

qu

ipm

en

de

sign

Pla

y-gr

ou

nd

de

sign

ap

pro

ach

es



Pla

ygro

un

d s

ite

mo

de

l

Jury

Eva

luat

ion

Exam

ple

s o

f Ju

ry P

rese

nta

tio

n B

oar

ds



Wo

rkin

g o

n p

layg

rou

nd

des

ign

Wo

rkin

g o

n p

layg

rou

nd

des

ign

Wo

rkin

g o

n p

layg

rou

nd

des

ign



Pla

y-gr

ou

nd

de

sign

fin

al m

od

el

The final play-ground design might be examined under four main topics.

Play-ground fittings: 1.Entrance | 2.Signboards | 3.Paths | 4.Boundry elementsİndoor space: 5.PWB CenterEarth as a medium of play: 6.Tunnels | 7.Hills | 8.Sense Labyrinth| 9. «Getting Dirty is Cool !» Area (Mud-pond) | 10.HydrolophonePlay equipment: 11. Giant chess | 12. Climbing walls| 13.Trambolins | 14. Tunelled mountain| 15. Geodesic Dome| 16. Daddy tummy| 17. Tree houses| 18. Toy bank & hospital| 19. Hammocks



Fin

al E

xhib

itio

n|

11

.06

.20

14

Exh

ibit

ion

bo

ard

s o

f th

e fi

nal

pro

ject



EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

Participants answered a short questionaire at the beginning of PWB program. According tothese answers before the educational program:

1. Participants weren’t aware of user impact in built environment

2. They were complaining about the boredom of the child spaces designed by adults

3. They weren’t aware of user-participation approaches in urban design

4. They weren’t aware of citizen’s rights and responsibilities arouse just because of livingin the city.

The participants answered another questionaire at the end of the PWB program. Accordingto these answers after the educational program:

1. Participants started to see themselves as crucial actors in the formation of builtenvironment as being the users of it.

2. Their common life perception got stronger

3. They developed «city right» consciousness

4. They found a platform to mention their critics about urban problems, offer theirsolutions for these and show their contribution.



The

ap

plic

atio

n p

roje

ct

Fin

al p

roje

ct d

esi

gnb

y p

arti

cip

ants


EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT«PLAY WITHOUT BARRIERS» PROJECT (PWB)


APPLICATION PHASE«PLAY WITHOUT BARRIERS» PROJECT (PWB)













TIMELINE


CONCLUSION:

An extensive built environment education:

• Promotes constructing urban conscious. Makes the user understandhis/her responsibilities for protecting natural and built cultural heritage.

• Contrubutes to internalize participatory processes. By distributing themethods of constructing participatory built environment designprojects, empowers active citizenship. Extending this culture dependson increasing the number and context of participatory projectssupported and promoted by local governments.

• Might be used as a medium for integrating young citizens intoconstruction of built environment. By this way children and youth’svoices can be heard in the urban environment.


CONCLUSION:

Institutionalization of built environment education programs

+citizen participation projects

=

rise the quality of education

+constitute minimal standarts of built environment.


Thank youfor listening!

Documents

INTEGRATING CHILDREN INTO URBAN SPACE DESIGN: … · integrating children into urban space design: “play without arriers” project sebla arin (ph.d.) ahsen Özsoy (prof. dr.) 7-9