**Table 4.**

*Weights of the main criteria.*

$$S\_k(\mathbf{x}\_i) = \sum\_j^n f\_j^k(\mathbf{x}\_i) w\_{kj} \tag{2}$$

presented in **Table 5**. All the criteria were scored between 0.000 and 1.000. For all the criteria, the scores closer to 1.000 indicate the high level of success for the criterion, whereas the scores closer to 0.000 indicate failure. In this section, the

In this criterion aiming to measure the urban design quality of Turkish cities in

In this criterion, taking the environmental quality as a basis, there are three subcriteria. None of these sub-criteria could exceed the score of 0.30 (appearance and

terms of the physical design, there are five sub-criteria. Constituting the main principles of the physical design in general, the highest score among the five criteria was 0.35, whereas the lowest one was 0.15. Since it has a score of 0.35, "diversity" is the criterion with the highest score, but it is much lower than the intermediate level (0.50). Moreover, the mean score of these five criteria was found to be 0.21. From this aspect, the score of the main criteria is 0.19. Given these values, it can be understood that urban design quality is not at a good level in Turkey. All the scores were found to be below 0.35. There are many problems to solve before Turkish cities can come to the forefront with their planned development. It is an inevitable necessity to reconsider the integrity of planning and design in both planning and designing processes. It is understood from these results that, without considering the identities and characters of the cities, they were either damaged or neglected and not included in the planning and design processes. Rather than emphasizing or enhancing the diversity, an inclination towards stereotyping and monotony has been exhibited. Rather than making the cities more readable and defined, the complexity and irregularity have become the dominant approach. The physical and functional continuity has been destructed by the point regulations. There are many undefined areas. The effects of guidance, coverage, and closeness have decreased. Rather than flexible regulations meeting the current necessities, strict and old-

evaluations are made based on the scores of criteria.

school implementations have become prominent.

**8.2 Second main criterion**

**343**

**8.1 First main criterion**

*Scores by the main criteria and sub-criteria.*

*Assessing the Urban Design Quality of Turkish Cities DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89779*

**Table 5.**

where *j* = 1,2, … ,9; *Sk*ð Þ *Xi* is the element evaluation *X <sup>I</sup>* and j criteria for all sub-criteria k.

$$T(\mathbf{x}\_i) = \sum\_{j}^{n} \mathbf{S}\_k(\mathbf{x}\_i) w\_k \tag{3}$$

*T*(*xi*) is the evaluation of all criteria for the element k.
