Özel mülkiyette kamusal kullanımlı alanlar
Privately owned public spaces
Yazar: SEVDE NUR GÜNGÖRDÜ
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. TURGAY KEREM KORAMAZ
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Kentsel Tasarım Ana Bilim Dalı / Kentsel Tasarım Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2017
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture ; Peyzaj Mimarlığı = Landscape Architecture ; Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlama = Urban and Regional Planning

Özet:
Dünya nüfusunun önemli bir bölümünün kentlerde yaşaması kentlerde yoğunluk artışını beraberinde getirmiştir. Özellikle kent merkezlerinde arsa değerleri hızla yükselmiş ve kamuya açık alanlar hızla tüketilmiştir. Plansız bir şekilde yapılaşan kent merkezlerinde kamusal alan ihtiyacı pek çok dünya kentinin sorunu haline gelmiştir. Arsa fiyatlarının yüksekliği ve kamu bütçelerinin kısıtlılığı, kent merkezlerinde doğrudan temin yoluyla kamusal alan üretimini neredeyse olanaksız hale getirmiştir. Bu noktada kamu- özel sektör ortaklıkları oldukça önem kazanmış ve kentin kamusal alan eksiğini gidermede özel mülkiyetteki kamusal kullanımlı alanların rolü artmıştır. 
Kentsel çevre tasarlanırken kamu yararının sağlanmasında yasal düzenlemeler önemli birer araç olabilmektedir.  İmar Yasası ile düzenlenen New York'un "özel mülkiyette kamusal kullanımlı alanlar (POPS)"ı, kente dair sorunların çözümünde özel sektör- kamu işbirliklerinin kullanılmasında öncü ve yönlendirici bir uygulamadır. Yatırımcılara kamusal alan üretmeleri karşılığında, emsal teşviği ya da vergi muafiyeti gibi bir takım imar teşviklerinden yararlanma olanağı sunan yasal bir zemin oluşturulmuştur. Burada tek ve öncelikli amaç kamusal alan üretimidir ve üretilen kamusal alanlar bir takım standartlara uymak zorundadır. Bu yüzden çoğunlukla nitelikli kent mekânları üretilebilmektedir. 
Kamu özel sektör ortaklıklarının kamusal alan temininde kullanımı, her ülkede/kentte farklı şekilde araçsallaşmıştır. Örneğin Santiago/Şili'de bir emsal teşviği uygulaması yürürlükte olsa da, bu uygulamayla üretilen ÖMKA alanlarının kamusal niteliğine dair herhangi bir düzenleme bulunmayışından, yalnızca geçit hakkı benzeri bir uygulama alanı doğmuştur. Melbourne/ Avustralya'da emsal teşviği uygulaması yerine 3 paydaşlı bir kamu özel sektör ortaklığıyla ÖMKA alanları üretilmektedir. Taipei/ Tayvan'da Japon sömürü dönemi ve Amerikan etkisinin şekillendirdiği emsal teşviği uygulaması yerelin ihtiyaçlarına cevap vermede yetersiz kalınca, özgün mekanizmalar üretilmiştir.
Türkiye'de ise özel sektör eliyle kamusal alan üretimini amaçlayan özelleşmiş böyle bir yasal çerçeve olmasa da, mevcut yasalara dayanarak kamusal kullanımlı alan üretilebilmektedir. Bu durumda kamusal alan üretimi genellikle bir öncelik olmasa da bir sonuç olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Yap işlet devret modeli, üst hakkı, işletme hakkı devri gibi kamunun sadece kuru mülkiyeti elinde bulundurduğu, kullanım haklarını özel sektöre devrettiği uygulamalarla özel sektör eliyle kamusal alan üretimi mümkündür. Ancak Türkiye'de özel mülkiyette kamusal alan üretimi, imar yönetmeliğinde tanımlanarak yasallaşan portikler dışında, kullanım ve tasarım tercihleriyle üretilmektedir.

Abstract:
Public spaces are where interactions that are shaping our society occur. More than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas and city centers are becoming denser than ever. This unplanned growth caused public spaces to erode in city centres. While land prices are rising public budgets are shrinking. Land is not affordable within public budgets in central areas. Public private partnerships (PPP) can be an important tool for production of public space in those dense urban areas.

Today cities in Europe, America and Asia developed their own variations on how to use PPP in a way that benefits public. In Santiago/Chile there is a FAR bonus regulation to promote production of privately owned public spaces (POPS) but since public notion of these spaces are not defined in legal framework, they only follow the logic of private right of way.

In Melbourne however, FAR bonuses are not applicable. Instead, city uses a tri-organisational partnership. Main actors involved are local government authority, private developers and lastly community and private stakeholders. This dialogue between actors works successfully in terms of creating public spaces.

In Bangkok/ Thailand, FAR bonuses have a relatively short history. But since the FAR bonus ratio is too low to developers to commit, it has not been used frequently. Also legislations allows public to oblige production of POPS, without giving out bonuses.

In Hong Kong FAR bonuses has been in use since 1980's. POPS comprise a great portion of public space in Hong Kong. Since they are generally connected with public transportation system, outdoor POPS in shopping malls has an inevitable role in Hong Kong's everyday life. There is criticism regarding diminishing of traditional public spaces (such as street markets) due to POPS replacing them.

Taiwanese experience has a lot to offer. Taipei's planning tools are mostly originating from America and also strongly affected by Japanese colonial legacy. FAR bonuses developed under these influences resulted in low quality POPS.and they are criticized by dwellers for being privatized. Later, Taipei's city officials created their own creative solutions with their local needs in mind. These solutions, including temporary POPS, proved to be more successful. 


New York City is the pioneer in using public private partnerships for producing publicly accessible space. With a legal framework called incentive zoning, city allows developers to build bulkier buildings within their lots if they agree to build a space that will be open to public as long as building stands. Better known as privately owned public spaces (POPS), these spaces has a huge potential for enhancing urban environments.

New York has been producing POPS since 1961, city has more than 50 years of experience. Regarding those experiences New York City official created an highly detailed sets of standards. In this study, standards regulating POPS has been studied in five different categories: standards regulating form, standards regulating accessibility, standards regulating public amenities, standards regulating landscaping, standards regulating management.

After a literature review on New York Ciy's POPS, some criticism has been underlined due to their repetition. Those main criticisms are:
•	Choose of quantity over quality,
•	Exclusion,
•	Private actors' dominance in decision making process,
•	Profitability for the city and its dwellers,
•	Absence of public's supervision over developer,
•	Excessive security measures and restrictions on civil rights,
•	Privatization of public space.

Literature review on Turkey's POPS revealed that, there is no significant legislation regulating privately owned public space production. Although some arcades produced by plan decisions and defined in law, no holistic approach has been implemented. In Turkey's case, POPS generally produced by design and utilisation choices.  Turkey has 3 different types of POPS:
•	POPS created in street cross section,
•	POPS created in passages, 
•	POPS crated in complex buildings.

A literature review on studies measuring public space's quality led to a two phased methodology. In first phase unconstructed direct observation technique is employed. Selection of 7 POPS across Istanbul has been studied. Each study area has been visited in October, during a week day. Using camera, notepad and pencil observations have been made and notes have been taken. 

In second phase it is decided that implementation of an analytical multi criteria evaluation would be helpful. In this context, Neméth and Schmidt's index has been chosen, since its variables overlaps with this study's research questions. Some changes have been made according to local needs and literature this study has built on.

Final index has 19 variables in total, 11 variables encouraging use, 8 variables discouraging use. Variables have been categorized into 4 classes, following Neméth and Schmidt. These categories are: 
•	Surveillance/Policing, 
•	Design/Image, 
•	Laws/Rules,
•	Access.

Variables encouraging use are comprised of 1 surveillance/ policing, 8 design/image, 2 access variables. Variables discouraging use are comprised of 1 laws/rules, 4 surveillance/ policing, 1 design/image, 2 access variables. This distribution alone reveals the fact that while design has positive effect on POPS quality, surveillance has a negative impact.

Index results shows POPS created in complex buildings have higher scores of encouraging use than POPS created in street cross sections and complex buildings. But   POPS created in complex buildings also have higher scores of discouraging use. This results indicates that POPS in complex buildings designed and maintained better, but they also are under strict surveillance and/or have restrictions on access.