Speaker
Description
This paper examines urban mobility as an embodied experience, where movement is shaped not only by physical displacement but also by social, political, and cultural dimensions. Drawing on Tim Cresswell’s distinction between movement and mobility, it argues that mobility involves the meanings and power dynamics embedded in movement. In the city, mobility is shaped by obligations, identities, and the socio-political structures that govern access to space.
Uzunçayır is a critical mobility space where various movements intersect, functioning as a destination, departure point, and route for pedestrians, automobiles, and public transportation. This intersection, formally recognized as a grade-separated junction, it functions a space where manifold flows intersect, intertwine, and create a complex system of movement with different scales and speeds. Henri Lefebvre’s rhythmanalysis is employed to unravel these intersecting motions. Lefebvre distinguishes between organic rhythms of the body and mechanical rhythms imposed by infrastructure and technology, arguing that both are integral to understanding how urban spaces are navigated. In Uzunçayır, these rhythms are embedded in the structure of mobility itself, where the interplay of different speeds creates a layered experience. Through rhythmanalysis, Uzunçayır’s intersection is revealed as a space where movements are choreographed into a regulated system. Faster, motorised flows dominate, rendering pedestrians as mobile minorities. This analysis uncovers how urban design imposes a structured hierarchy, where speed and efficiency are prioritised, and slower, organic mobilities are less emphasised. It highlights how the materiality of space enforces a rhythm that reinforces social dynamics within the urban environment.
Uzunçayır exemplifies the stark dichotomy between automobile and pedestrian mobility, where the design of the space enforces a clear hierarchy in favor of motor vehicles. The intersection is structured to prioritise the smooth and uninterrupted flow of automobiles, with pedestrian movement relegated to narrowly defined, segregated paths. These pedestrian spaces are designed not for ease or comfort but to minimize interference with the dominant vehicular traffic. The physical infrastructure—through conduits, pedestrian separation structures, and regulatory measures—forces a division between modes of mobility, with pedestrians essentially sidelined. The design reflects a broader societal trend, where the car is considered the primary mode of urban movement, and pedestrians are treated as secondary, subjected to the demands and pace of faster, mechanised flows. This rigid separation of mobilities highlights the ongoing struggle for space in the city, where pedestrians are often forced to navigate environments not designed for their needs, underscoring the power dynamics at play in the design and experience of urban mobility.
The urban infrastructure in Uzunçayır, designed to prioritise automobile movement, reflects a hierarchy that limits pedestrian freedom. Influenced by Alker Tripp’s 1936 concept of segregating pedestrians from roads to ensure frictionless automobile mobility, the pedestrian separation structures in Uzunçayır enforce predetermined movement patterns. These structures, though intended to facilitate pedestrian flow, impose rigid, binary choices of mobility, limiting alternative routes and reinforcing the dominance of motorised vehicles. Despite the design, pedestrians often resist these structures, creating informal 'desire paths' that challenge the controlled mobility system. These unauthorised paths highlight the tension between regulated urban mobility and individual freedom, revealing the failure of the city’s infrastructure to accommodate diverse forms of movement. The system of pedestrian separation reflects a broader cultural and political power that shapes urban life, materialising social injustices and controlling how bodies navigate the city.
The prioritisation of automobiles through pedestrian separation structures creates an injustice for pedestrians, positioning them as mobile minorities.. These infrastructures hinder the pedestrian mobility by regulating and constraining it. This approach reinforces the dominance of the automobile while marginalising walking, reflecting how urban design and infrastructure regulate mobility, privileging motorised transport.
References
Borden, I., (2012). Drive: Journeys through Film, Cities and Landscapes. Reaktion Books.
Cresswell, T., (2010a). On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. Taylor & Francis Group.
Cresswell, T., (2010b). Towards a Politics of Mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space [online]. 28(1), 17–31.
Jensen, O. B., (2009). Flows of Meaning, Cultures of Movements – Urban Mobility as Meaningful Everyday Life Practice. Mobilities. 4(1), 139–158.
Lefebvre, H., (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Prytherch, D., (2015). Rules of the Road Choreographing Mobility in the Everyday Intersection. In: J. Cidell and D. Prytherch, eds. Transport, Mobility, and the Production of Urban Space. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 45–63.
Rooney, D., (2018). Keeping pedestrians in their place: Technologies of segregation on the streets of East London. In: P. G. Mackintosh, R. Dennis and D. W. Holdsworth, eds. Architectures of Hurry: Mobilities, Cities and Modernity. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 120–136.
Sheller, M. and Urry, J., (2000). The City and the Car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 24(4), 737–757.
Sorkin, M., (1997). Traffic in democracy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.
| Keywords | urban mobility, rhythmanalysis, mobile actors, mobility justice, infrastructure |
|---|
