Didem Pamuk

Principles of Cultural Heritage Conservation class.

The 2011 documentary film Ekumenopolis by Imre Azem discusses the rapid urbanization of Istanbul in last decades. By raising several questions, presenting the results of urban transformation, it depicts a realizable dystopia for its future.

The term, Ecumenopolis, is derived from the words ‘world’ and ‘city’ to represent the idea that in the future urban areas and megalopolises would eventually fuse and there would be a single continuous worldwide city as a progression from the current urbanization and population growth trends. In this case, it represents the future of Istanbul, the city that had started losing its limits.

The most striking aspect of the film was that it barely stated an opinion on its own. Interviews with architects, planners, contractors, businessmen and politicians in succession not only show their idea, but also give the desired conclusion. Most messages are delivered through cinematography, efficient street views or cityscapes as well as the illustrations. Numeric data are also utilized well in the film.  Most importantly, the city is three times more overpopulated than its capacity in planning.

Ignorance of the authorities causes the city to wither up. The second and third bridges, connecting roads and lands around them destroy the Northern forests, the lungs of the city. Under the names of tourist city, financial city, culture city or as such, city grows enormously. Even though these initiatives aim urban development, they caused tremendous issues concerning urbanism and sociology on the other side of the coin.

Istanbul is being separated from Istanbulites. These newly-introduced forces push away the locals to have a place in the center. Those exiled occupants are forced to move outer city. Lands are seen valuable without any care for its occupants. Gentrification is not even considered as a problem to be solved. This is considered as the death of the social state.

Renewal of the city, if necessary, should be done with its occupants. These occupants after living in a tent for one year and chasing promises of the politicians were forced to buy the provided houses with inhumane living conditions that are still over their budget. To top it all, the contractor of the new residences that ‘everyone deserves’ on their land describes resettling them as an incentive for crime.

The concept of neighborhood is swiftly being erased from the collective memory. Not only the squatter housing but also state-supported houses are being renewed by sending them away as well. Occupants insist on staying, saying this land is where they belong, where they lived and wish to die. Although many moved to TOKİ buildings, all families came back to surrounding neighborhoods except for one.

After TOKİ obtained the power to qualify any land for urban renewal, as the film calls it Anti-Social Housing took a toll on the society. Horrifying pictures of the social border are being created today: Polarizing the society, destroying the feeling of safety, otherizing each group and isolation. Combined with the emerging gated communities, social segregation will be inevitable despite the claims of ‘rehabilitation’. In fact, this social housing typology was tried out and destroyed because of its cataclysmic effects on society with a ceremony as the film shows. It has a -both socially and economically- high cost.

Insulting interventions by politics to urbanism point out the lack of a controlling mechanism in city planning office of the state. Plans of the city are never being followed by. To make more money, municipalities often violate these plans and projects are being strayed away from urbanism. That eventually turns İstanbul into a projected city instead of a planned one.

We cannot afford being careless as we create cities. We shape the cities, they shape us. Economic limits are exceeded. Ecologic limits are exceeded. Population limits are exceeded. All we are left with is this chaotic city without limits.

Acı Hayat, released in 1962, is considered as a classic and a masterpiece of its time. In the hands of the director Metin Erksan, class differences and the huge social gap between people starkly unfold.

Characters portrayed by Türkan Şoray, Ayhan Işık, Ekrem Bora and Nebahat Çehre are not simply classified as good or bad as in other movies of the time but represent their own values and help vividly depicting the period. Yet, the most helpful tool in that sense must be İstanbul itself. Instead of ‘plastic’ studio shootings, İstanbul sets the scene all through the story. The scenes in which our main characters look for a house in the streets of a city that struggles with rapid urbanization are as realistic as it could get. The social gap is clarified through architecture and urban planning.

Nermin and Mehmet come face to face with housing shortage when they decide to get married. For weeks, they look for houses that they heard from acquaintances hinting they cannot even afford a real estate agent. In the background, developing İstanbul is seen with old housing districts, squatter housing, new apartment blocks and luxurious villas. Despite the variety of housing type, they cannot find one for themselves. The housing projects are all unsuitable for the lower income group. Illegal housing seems to be their only chance.

Even the distasteful, almost desolated, old houses which have neither electricity nor water supply (and which are to be destructed by the end of the decade) are overcharged. In another old house, rooms are rented by different families. Although it goes against the traditional Turkish family lifestyle, those families probably had to live that way because of the housing shortage. Another house they visit was in good condition and the rent was affordable, yet, this time the owner demanded 6 months payment in advance, making them disheartened.

We see new apartment blocks overlooking the old settlement, they want to take a look knowing they cannot afford. They aspire to the modern life promised by the apartment blocks. They state the contrast by saying one bedroom is as large as the houses they live in and Mehmet’s two monthly salaries are not enough for the rent alone. They hopelessly leave thinking that they will never have that way of living.

Nermin works at a beauty salon for the wealthy. We see the customers discussing the design of their villas, comparing them to those in Europe, and more interestingly, reading a German architecture magazine Das Haus. Houses of the Turkish elite are considered luxurious even in Europe. This contradicts Turkey’s economic conditions and also points out the social injustice in housing. The adoption of the modern lifestyle by the upper class is also implied by western entertainments of youth and jazz songs playing in the background.

We witness how both families cope with neighbourhood pressure. In need of money, Nermin accepts her position and tells her family to turn a blind eye to rumours. On the other hand, Filiz’s father who is economically advantaged becomes terrified of harming his reputation as a businessman and immediately tries to conceal it with hush money.

They feel stuck in their class and are hopeless about having better living conditions. To move up the social ladder, they are after miraculous sudden changes instead of conventional way of working harder and getting better at their jobs. For instance, Nermin’s mother prescribes her to use her beauty to find a rich husband and escape the misery. In the meantime, Mehmet takes odds and buys a lottery ticket. As luck would have it, he wins and becomes a millionaire.

When he gets richer, we see that Mehmet is not very different from the upper class I mentioned earlier. He owns a nightclub and expands his fortune by construction. He buys one of those luxurious apartments for his family and hires an architect to build for him. His house reflects modernism in every aspect with its modern form, cantilevered mass, open plan, white non-decorated walls and fully transparent façade that lets landscape flow through.

The most impressive scene, in my opinion, was the one where Mehmet states houses must have a soul. He would rather live in a squatter with his loved one without the intervention of social gap in their lives. In fact, he curses the luxurious houses which he depicts as ‘concrete graves’.

Addressing the housing issue -which emerged in ‘50s- in early ‘60s is an exceptional feature of the movie. The way issues are raised gives a documentary value to the movie. Thus, it is considered as a milestone in Turkish cinema history.

Sumer Campus of Abdullah Gul University designed by Emre Arolat Architects has received 2016 National Architecture Award given by Turkish Chamber of Architects along with the 1st prize at the World Architecture Festival. It is considered to be one of the best transformation projects of our time.

The project of Sumer Campus is an important attempt for architectural transformation since the factory was once a symbol of industrialization and modernization in Turkey. The textile factory had been built in 1933 by the Russian architect Ivan Sergeevich Nikolaev and his Turk-Russian team and was a distinctive example of Russian Constructivism. Therefore, it’s crucial not to walk away from the past, but to bring it back to life.

Reigniting the building as an open campus that will serve the public also means bringing back its purpose in Kayseri as it used to be the economic and social focus in the city. It will make AGU an innovation center for industry, culture and activity center for the social life and intellectual center for academic activity (AGU City Campus). And the city will once again meet its needs with the same building.

Its lost importance is given back by the interventions that are aimed for conservation, repair and vital renovation procedures. To preserve the building, functions were given according to the existing components. Additions and removals were determined to balance out the destruction of the old and alienation with the new context. The orangery became an interface between the city and university. The campus is meant to be perceived as whole with layers added in time.

REFERENCES:

Abdullah Gül Presidential Museum and Library (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.emrearolat.com/gallery/abdullah-gul-presidential-museum-and-library/

AGU City Campus (n.d.). Retrieved from http://divisare.com/projects/221104-eaa-emre-arolat-architects-agu-city-campus

Sümer Campus (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.agu.edu.tr/sumerkampus#

Palais Garnier, named after its architect, was decided to be built in 1960 under the reign of Napoleon the third. A need for a secure opera hall for the emperor acquired currency after he had survived an assassination attempt by an Italian revolutionary at Opera Le Peletier. Therefore, a competition, first of its kind, was held anonymously. The design had to express the glory of France. The victorious project belonged to the young architect, Charles Garnier.

At the time Napoleon III had charged Baron Haussmann, prefect of the Seine, with renovation of Paris. His vast and massive program included boulevards, road networks, housing and, of course, public buildings like the Opera House. The building was also a sensitive issue because of the assassination attempt. That is to say, Garnier and his team of young architects had to deal with thorough examination of politicians and were constantly being criticized by public. The importance assigned to this building brought the difference between theory and practice in nineteenth-century architecture to light.

A variety of setbacks obliged changes within fifteen years. Only a little after the beginning of the construction, an underground stream flooded the foundations. Thus, Garnier went through his plans and lifted up the Opera on a double concrete vat containing the infamous Opera Lake. When the prefect Haussmann allowed surrounding buildings to be built five meters higher than the regulation limit, monumentality of the Opera was challenged. Garnier had to raise the attic as fast as possible to gain it back. After the Franco-Prussian war and the fall of the Second Empire, Prussians in group sculptures on the facade became the symbol of hate towards the regime by Parisians. With only a few workers left, it seemed to be destined to remain incomplete. It could only resume on construction when Opera in Rue Le Peletier was burnt down. Metallic structure was employed, concealed behind the moldings to protect from fire which had been common in former theaters. Even after the completion, the streak of bad luck kept on with the fall of the grand chandelier, weighing seven tones of pure bronze and crystal, resulting in death of an audience. Along with the maze at the backstage and mysterious cellars through the building, it inspired and became the most suitable background for a Gothic masterpiece, Gaston Leroux’s The Phantom of the Opera.

The Opera House is considered to be an instance of Second Empire Baroque period, in which eclectic revivalist approach dominates. Garnier, studying both Romanticism and Neoclassicism, incorporated a mixture of styles and restored coherence to the traditional ones successfully(Mead, 1986). Great attention to detail, elaborate gilded sculptures, bronze busts of great composers, spectacular ceiling and wall paintings, velvet, gold leaf, cherubim and nymphs as well as the expensive building materials like coloured marbles, mosaics are dazzling. The architect himself called his own masterpiece “Architecture of illustration” due to dominating highly-detailed sculptures, depictions, repeated arches, huge paired columns, balconies, row of round blind windows(Barrymore, 2011). The pageantry highlights the luxury, power and wealth of France. However, this Neo-Baroque understanding is accompanied with search for harmony, ideal natural order and humanistic tradition. Use of classical elements like Corinthian columns, pediments, Greek mythological depictions and figures helped create a rich well-combined design.

The well-known staircases of The Paris Opera House serve the purpose of a social gathering space which had never been given to an access area. The great staircase and its landings act as another stage, being viewed from the alcoves and corridors, while letting people socialize during intervals and move in large masses.

Palais Garnier is one of the few buildings that represent the magnificence of 19th century France. Its influence on architecture continued not only in France but beyond seas and became a prototype for theaters all around the world.

REFERENCES:

Mead, C. C. (1986). Charles Garnier's Paris Opera And The Renaissance Of Classicism In Nineteenth-Century French Architecture (Beaux-Arts). University of Pennsylvania. Dissertations available from ProQuest.

Barrymore, L. S. (October 1, 2011). Architecture as Allegory. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304447804576411653392693110

Also for further information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salle_Le_Peletier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_Garnier

https://optimisticcynicist.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-palais-garnier-a-marvel-of-neoclassical-architecture/

http://www.archdaily.com/105785/ad-classics-paris-opera-charles-garnier

The movie “Ankara: The Heart of Turkey” is a documentary by Sergei Yutkeviç released in 1934. It was shot during the 10th year anniversary of the Republic and follows the path of Soviet delegations as they arrive in Istanbul, then, head to Ankara for the celebration on October 29, 1933.

It’s no surprise that there is a huge emphasis on the ‘old friendship’ of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkish Republic. This friendship was surely based on the shared history between nations, both having been through the same phases: world war, battle against empire, founding a republic, modernization of the country, developments in economic, scientific, and cultural terms and rapid industrialization. However, that emphasis caused the significant documentary to be banned for political reasons in Turkey for about forty years.

Ankara was an important center having been home to many civilizations and cultures. Greek, Roman and Byzantine ruins are preserved. Yet, during Ottoman period, the city was neglected.  It is just as free from the traces of Ottoman Empire as the Republic itself intends to be. The city is built from scratch and designed to reflect the Republic ideals. Its architecture can be seen as a literally ‘concrete’ manifestation of vision(Bozdoğan, 2001). Hence, Ankara is considered as the symbol of ‘new Turkey’.

The movie makes visual comparisons to indicate differences between old and new Ankara. In pre-republican times of Ankara, it is like small Anatolian village with old narrow, graveled, irregular pathways, animal carriages and hovels. City is then planned with large boulevards, squares, landscaping in contemporary manner. Streets are filled with modern cars and buildings. New state buildings introduced in the film were all modern buildings that signal a development in the country.  İsmet Paşa Women’s Institute, Science Institution, Higher Agricultural Institute and conservatories demonstrate the importance given to higher education and well-trained society in fine arts or science. Other modernist buildings include the Ethnographic Museum, the Soviet embassy, Ministry of Healthcare, Numune Hospital Community Center (Halkevi) and National Assembly. Ottoman styles were abandoned and many of those were designed by European architects. It is said that they could fit in with modernist and functionalist European architecture at the time(Zajicek, 2014).

To highlight the change in mentality, women take an important role in the film. Unveiled modern Turkish women are seen in leading positions, actively participating in celebrations, playing instruments, getting training in institutes, sitting in parks, playing with children. Despite the efforts to obliterate traces of Ottoman period and start anew, Anatolian heritage is not forgotten, quite the reverse, appreciated. As a part of welcoming the delegations, zeybek dancing was presented to them. Therefore, we get the sense that new Turkey is a modern society with a deep rooted culture.

The film is a key source for Early Republican period. Without alteration, it shows the transformation of the new civilization and of Ankara as the embodiment of progress. It has evidential value for the well-known apothegm Atatürk had said on the very same day: “We have accomplished many great things in a short period of time”.

References:

Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington.

Zajicek, T. C. (2014). Modern Friendship: The “New Turkey” and Soviet Cultural Diplomacy, 1933-1934. University of Washington.

Multipurpose Hall & Workshops

Section Perspectives

Principles of Cultural Heritage Conservation class.