This paper aims to investigate the impact of typomorphological changes of residential environments on residents’ sense of place’. Seven housing developments representing different types introduced in Ankara, Turkey since the late 19th-century are selected as case studies. Their morphological characters at the building, street and neighbourhood scales are examined, and typological transformations among the cases in terms of the degrees of continuity are identified. The paper proposes a conceptual model consisting of ten indicators to assess sense of place at the building, street and neighbourhood scales of the residents of the seven cases. The scores of sense of place are generated through structured interviews with the residents and analysed in SPSS. The results show that sense of place is negatively affected by typomorphological changes over time, particularly when mutational changes occur. Continuity in typomorphological transformation helps to maintain sense of place at a desirable level. Furthermore, physical changes at the street and neighbourhood scales have larger impact on sense of place than that at the building scale. The research thus suggests that planning and design should be responsive to traditional types in residential development, particularly at the street and neighbourhood scales to maintain residents’ sense of place.
AltabanO (1998) Cumhuriyetin Kent Planlama Politikaları ve Ankara Deneyimi (Urban planning policies of the republic and the experience of Ankara). In: 75 Yılda Deǧişen Kent ve Mimarlık (City and Architecture changing in 75 years), Istanbul: Is Bankası Kultur Publishing.
2.
BatumanB (2006) Turkish urban professionals and the politics of housing, 1960–1980. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture23(1): 59–91.
3.
BiddulphM (2007) Introduction to Residential Layout, Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press.
4.
BonaiutoMFornaraFBonnesM (2003) Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environment: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning65: 41–52.
5.
BramleyGDempseyNPowerSet al. (2009) Social Sustainability and urban form: Evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A41: 2125–2142.
6.
BurkayHO (2006) Social policy of urban transformation: Social housing policies in Turkey from the 1980s to present, Istanbul: Dissertation, Bogazici University, The Ataturk Institute for Modern Turkish History.
7.
CaniggiaGMaffeiGL (1979) Composizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia/1 Letttura dell’edilizia di base (Architectural Composition and Building Typology: Interpreting Basic Building), Venezia: Marsilio Editori.
ChenFThwaitesK (2013) Chinese Urban Design: The Typomorphological Approach, Surrey: Ashgate.
11.
CobanAN (2012) Housing policies from the proclamation of the republic to the present. SBF Dergisi (Journal of Faculty of Political Sciences)67(3): 75–108.
12.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Hove and London: LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
13.
ErmanT (2001) The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse. Urban Studies38(7): 983.
14.
Erturk Z and Ozen H (1987) Günümüzde Toplu Konut Planlamasında Geleneksel Türk Evinin Uygulanabilirliği (The adjustability of Traditional Turkish Houses to current mass housing projects). In: The 9th Technical Congress, pp.559–566. Ankara: TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odasi.
15.
FieldA (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edition. London: SAGE.
16.
GenSPendolaR (2008) Does “Main Street” promote sense of community? A comparison of San Francisco neighbourhoods. Environment and Behavior40(4): 545–574.
17.
GeorgeRVCampbellMC (2000) Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research20: 163–175.
GokceDChenF (2016) Does the typological process help to build a sense of place?Urban Morphology20(1): 66–69.
20.
HayR (1998) A rooted sense of place in cross-cultural perspective. Canadian Geographer42(3): 245–266.
21.
HernandezBHidalgoMSalazar-LaplaceMet al. (2007) Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology27(4): 310–319.
22.
HillierB (2007) Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture, London: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
23.
HummonD (1992) Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In: AltmanILowS (eds) Place Attachment, New York: Plenum, pp. 253–278.
KrierR (1979) Urban Space, London: Academy Editions.
27.
Kyle JB (2007) Sense of place and new urbanism: Towards a holistic understanding of place and form. PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.
28.
LangJ (1987) Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Theory, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
29.
LarsonSDe FreitasDMHicksCC (2013) Sense of place as a determinant of people’s attitudes towards the environment: Implications for natural resources management and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Elsevier Journal of Environmental Management117: 226–234.
30.
LewickaM (2010) What makes neighbourhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology30(1): 35–51.
31.
LewisP (1979) Defining a sense of place. In: PrenshawPWMcKeeJO (eds) Sense of Place: Mississippi, Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press.
32.
LopezR (2010) Sense of place and design. Focus. 46–52.
33.
LowSMAltmanI (1992) Place Attachment, New York: Plenum.
34.
LynchK (1960) The Image of City, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
35.
MayoJ (1979) Effects of street forms on suburban neighbouring behavior. Environment and Behaviour11: 375–397.
36.
MGM (2016) Available at: https://mgm.gov.tr (accessed 20 February 2016).
37.
NgSHKamPKPongRWM (2005) People living in ageing buildings: Their quality of life and sense of belonging. Journal of Environmental Psychology25: 347–360.
38.
Norberg-SchulzC (1979) Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture, New York: Rizzoli.
39.
OktayD (2004) Urban design for sustainability: A study on the Turkish City. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology11: 24–35.
40.
ParadisT (2000) Main street transformed: Community sense of place for nonmetropolitan tourism business districts. Urban Geography21(7): 609–639.
41.
PerkinsDDFlorinPRichRCet al. (1990) Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context I. American Journal of Community Psychology18(1): 83–115.
42.
ProshanskyHMFabianAKKaminoffR (1983) Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology3: 57–83.
43.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone, New York: Simon and Schuster.
44.
RapoportA (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form, New York: Pergamon Press.
45.
RelphE (1976) Place and Placelessness, London: Pion Limited.
SchneeklothLHFrankKA (1994) Type: Prison or promise? In: FrankKASchneeklothLH (eds) Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 15–38.
48.
SeyY (1998a) Republican Turkey architecture and building production. In: Sey Y (ed.) 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık [The Changing City and Architecture in 75 years], Istanbul: Is Bankası Kültür Press, pp. 24–39.
49.
Sey Y (1998b) Cumhuriyet Döneminde Konut (Housing in republican Period). In: Sey Y (ed.) 75 Yιlda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlιk [The Changing City and Architecture in 75 years]. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Press, pp. 273–300.
50.
ShamaiS (1991) Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum22(3): 347–358.
51.
ShamaiSArnonSSchnellI (2012) From home to community and settlement: Sense of place in different scales. Studies on Home and Community Science6(3): 153–163.
52.
ShamaiSIlatovZ (2005) Measuring sense of place: Methodological aspects. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie96(5): 467–476.
53.
Smith KM (2011) The Relationship between Residential Satisfaction, Sense of Community, Sense of Belonging, and Sense of Place in a Western Australian Urban Planned Community. PhD Thesis. Edith Cowan University.
54.
StedmanRC (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Taylor & Francis Society & Natural Resources16(8): 671–685.
55.
SteeleF (1981) The Sense of Place, Boston: CBI Publishing Company, Inc.
56.
StokolsDShumakerSA (1981) People in places: A transactional view of settings. In: HarveyJ (ed.) Cognition, Social Behaviour and the Environment, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
57.
TuanY-F (1974) Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values, Morningside Edition. New York: Colombia University Press.
58.
TuanY-F (1977) Space and Place, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
WilkersonACarlsonNEYenIHet al. (2012) Neighbourhood physical features and relationships with neighbours: Does positive physical environment increase neighbourliness. Environment and Behaviour44(5): 595–615.
61.
WilliamsR (2009) Place attachment, sense of belonging and identity in life history narratives of Iranian Baha’i refugees. Baha’i Studies Review15: 3–18.
ZiaANortonBGMetcalfSSet al. (2014) Spatial discounting, place attachment, and environmental, concern; toward an ambit-based theory of sense of place. Elsevier Journal of Environmental Psychology40: 283–295.
