ContactISSN:e-ISSN: 3108-4885
Author Sign-inReviewer Sign-inRegister
TürkçeEnglish
HomeABOUTAIM AND SCOPEGUIDE FOR AUTHORSSend ArticleLatest IssueArchiveContact Us

The Chıld as an Invısıble Subject ın Urban Desıgn and the Rıght to the Cıty: A Theoretıcal Analysıs

Esma Nur Yılmaz,Ümmügülsüm DAĞLIOĞLU

  • Esma Nur Yılmaz: Necmettin Erbakan Güzel Sanatlar ve mimarlık
  • Ümmügülsüm DAĞLIOĞLU: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar ve Mimarlık Fakültesi
  •  Year : 2026
  •  Vol : 3
  •  Issue : 1
  •  Page : 36-57
This study examines children’s position in urban design through public space, the right to the city, spatial justice, and child participation. Modern urbanization and adult-centred planning position children not as active subjects of urban space, but as passive users needing protection and direction. This limits children’s relationship with streets, neighbourhoods, and public open spaces, weakening their participation, mobility, and visibility in urban life. The study theoretically analyses the child-city relationship. It is grounded in Habermas’s approach to public space, Lefebvre’s and Harvey’s discussions on the right to the city, Jacobs’s perspective on street life and public safety, and Hart’s Ladder of Participation. Children’s role in producing urban space is discussed through the child-friendly city approach, built environment education, and everyday spatial practices. The study emphasizes that a child-friendly city cannot be limited to playgrounds or safe facilities. Children’s right to the city concerns not only access to safe spaces, but also visibility in streets, neighbourhoods, public open spaces, and decision-making processes. Safety is evaluated not through controlled spaces separating children from the city, but through lively street life, natural surveillance, and everyday encounters. The study argues that children should be recognized as active subjects who experience and transform the city and whose views should inform design decisions. Child-friendly urban design should include physical interventions, participation mechanisms, everyday mobility, and built environment awareness. The study highlights the need for an inclusive urban design approach that strengthens children’s visibility and participation in public space while addressing spatial, administrative, and pedagogical dimensions together.
Cite this Article As : Yılmaz, E. N., & Dağlıoğlu, Ü. (2026). Kentsel tasarımda görünmez özne olarak çocuk ve şehir hakkı: Kuramsal bir analiz. Thinking of Urban Decoding Journal (TUDEJ), 3(1), 37-57.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article is published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Thinking Of Urban Decoding Journal
2026, Vol3, Issue1
E-ISSN: 3108-4885
Received : , Accepted : , Published Online :

References

  1. Arın, S., & Özsoy, A. (2015). Kentsel mekân tasarımında çocuk katılımı. İdealkent, 6(17), 182–201. https://izlik.org/JA64EF32SB
  2. Ataol, Ö., Krishnamurthy, S., Druta, O., & van Wesemael, P. (2022). The inability of Turkey and Istanbul in institutionalisation of children’s participation in urban planning: A policy analysis study. Children & Society, 36(5), 1064–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12557
  3. Ataol, Ö., Krishnamurthy, S., Druta, O., & van Wesemael, P. (2023). Co-generating urban knowledge with children in Istanbul: Children as urban investigators and problem solvers. Children, Youth and Environments, 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1353/cye.2023.0008
  4. Aydoğan, T. G., & Dilek, E. F. (2024). Çocuk dostu kentsel planlama ve tasarım ölçütleri. GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism, Recreation and Sports Sciences, 7(1), 188–211. https://doi.org/10.53353/atrss.1367400
  5. Birleşmiş Milletler. (1989). Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşme.
  6. Bozdemir, N., & Özmen, E. (2025). Çocuk dostu kentlerin bebeklikten ilk çocukluk dönemine etkisi: Muğla/Menteşe örneği. Disiplinlerarası Çocuk Hakları Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 1–23. https://izlik.org/JA25DD46WL
  7. Cele, S., & van der Burgt, D. (2015). Participation, consultation, confusion: Professionals’ understandings of children’s participation in physical planning. Children’s Geographies, 13(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.827873
  8. Çağlar, B. (2020). Çocuğun kent planlamasındaki yeri nedir? Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi, 3(2), 86–91. https://izlik.org/JA36EP95KW
  9. Çukur, D. (2003). Türkiye’de bir öteki olarak çocuk ve kent planlamada temsil sorunsalı [Yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi].
  10. Derr, V., & Kovács, I. G. (2017). How participatory processes impact children and contribute to planning: A case study of neighborhood design from Boulder, Colorado, USA. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1111925
  11. Habermas, J. (2003). Kamusallığın yapısal dönüşümü (T. Bora & M. Sancar, Çev.; 5. baskı). İletişim Yayınları. (Özgün çalışma 1962’de yayımlanmıştır)
  12. Hart, R. A. (2016). Çocukların katılımı: Kuram ve uygulamada toplum gelişimi ve çevre korumasında genç yurttaşları içermek (T. Şener Kılınç, Çev.; 1. basım). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  13. Harvey, D. (2013). Asi şehirler: Şehir hakkından kentsel devrime doğru (A. D. Temiz, Çev.; Ö. Çelik, Yay. haz.; 2. baskı). Metis Yayınları.
  14. Jacobs, J. (2011). Büyük Amerikan şehirlerinin ölümü ve yaşamı (B. Doğan, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
  15. Karampini, Z. (2025). Children’s claim on spatial justice: Play practices in urban space. Human Geography. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427786251340418
  16. Karsten, L. (2005). It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies, 3(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280500352912
  17. Lefebvre, H. (2020). Şehir hakkı (I. Ergüden, Çev.; 4. baskı). Sel Yayınları.
  18. Malone, K. (1999). Growing up in cities as a model of participatory planning and “place-making” with young people. Youth Studies Australia, 18(2), 17–23.
  19. Mansfield, R. G., Batagol, B., & Raven, R. (2021). “Critical agents of change?”: Opportunities and limits to children’s participation in urban planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 36(2), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220988645
  20. Million, A., & Heinrich, A. J. (2014). Linking participation and built environment education in urban planning processes. Current Urban Studies, 2(4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2014.24032
  21. Nordström, M., & Wales, M. (2019). Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning. Ambio, 48(5), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01146-5
  22. Razaki, C. B., & Ülkeryıldız, E. (2025). Antik Çağdan günümüze kamusal alanda çocuk temsili ve çocukluk olgusunun çocuk mekânlarına yansımaları. Kent Akademisi, 18(2), 878–907. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1521591
  23. Riggio, E. (2002). Child friendly cities: Good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment & Urbanization, 14(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780201400204
  24. Strand, I., & Nielsen, L. M. (2025). Architecture in school practice: Possible tools for supporting spatial literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35, 1597–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09951-0
  25. Wilhelmsen, T., Øvreås, S., Roll-Hansen, H., Bjerknes, A.-L., & Thorrud, S. (2023). Developing child-friendly cities: Young children’s participation in urban planning. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 4(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202343290
  26. Winder, J. (2023). Revisiting the playground: Charles Wicksteed, play equipment and public spaces for children in early twentieth-century Britain. Urban History, 50(1), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926821000687