Page 1


Index 5 7 8

Introduction Yarışmayla Yap A Complicated Competition Story: Beyazıt Square

20

Change of the Evaluation Criterias in Architectural Project Competitions Organized in Turkey between 1930-2010

32

Structures Acquired Through Architecture Project Competitions Prior to 1960 in Eskişehir

50 62 72 82 90 100 114 124 132 144

Architect Maruf Önal’s “Competition Stories” Shadow for Göbeklitepe Competition Stories: Experiments, Experiences Post-Competıtıon Phase: An Evaluation Through Current Applications Post-Competition Phase: An Evaluation Through Current Applications An Urban and Architectural Competition Experience in Turkey: İMÇ Blocks Private Sector’s Large Scale Architectural Demands Architecture in between Private and Public Benefit Student Competitions in Turkey Competition Experience of Young Architects and an Evaluation on the ‘Invısıble’ Sides of Competitions More than a Competition: City Dreams Projectidea Competition as a Participatory Social Model


INTRODUCTION

“This is the first event organized within the scope of the symposium series titled ‘Competitions and Architecture Symposium’, ‘Do by the Competition’, whose main theme consists of competition stories, envisaged to be held annually. The aim of the symposium held in 7 May, 2013 is to contribute to the reviving of the competition environment and development by providing an intellectual platform. Within the scope of the symposium, which involves competitions from the early republican era to the present time and has a rich collection of stories, it has been aimed to focus on the place of competitions in the world of architecture with their different aspects, rather than the processes, legal grounds, procedures and bureaucratic aspects which have been dealt with in other activities before. It is anticipated to expand the different dimensions of competition processes, drawing attention to their various aspects and prepare the ground for possible discussions on the subject in the world of architecture. As the Symposium Organization Committee, we would especially like to thank to the participants, invited speakers and debaters and the members of the Symposium Science Committee who have contributed to the symposium with their proclamations and presentations. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to Seranit Construction Group and host Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture for their contributions to the event and rendering the event into a publication. By publishing all the presentations within the scope of the symposium, it will be possible to achieve both a permanent document and to reach larger masses. We present our compliments with the belief that the symposium book will contribute to architecture, architecture education and architectural competitions. Symposium Organisation Comittee

5 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Competitions and Architecture 6 Symposium


The project “Yarışmayla Yap” has come into being by the approach “All the public indoor and outdoor spaces ought to be designed by competitions” in September 2012. Basically, it is aimed to improve the competitions in terms of quality and quantity and to construct the results of them. “Competitions and Architecture Symposium” is one of the activities we conduct in order to bring the competitions into view, which, we believe, is one of the most accurate methods to attain projects, creating an opinions network by producing new ideas about it, revitalizing the competitions environment and creating a competitions culture. The theme of the first symposium we are organizing in 2013 is based on the competition stories those are tracing back to the Republic times and waiting to be told. We hereby thank all the participants who helped us to create this publication, which includes all the papers related to theme “Competition Stories” and for sharing their stories. Once more, we hereby thank, Istanbul Technical University Architectural Faculty for hosting the first symposium that is planned to be organized annually with a different theme each year, the organization committee for helping us to organize and develop it, the science committee members who evaluated the papers we have received and last but not the least, The Seranit Construction Group for giving us their support to realize the project. Team of “Yarışmayla Yap”

7 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


A COMPLICATED COMPETITION STORY: Beyazıt Square Sevince Bayrak

Competitions, which are a method of acquiring a project, or service, are also a method resorted to for the purpose of organizing the complicated processes frequently come across in the areas of architecture and city planning. If the public works activities in especially the first 50 years of the Republic are analyzed, there are two solutions which are generally referred to, when a problem related to architecture, or city planning gets difficult. In cases where not only spatial, but political and relationship networks are also effective, one of the most frequently used methods is to invite an expert from abroad and request him to speedily solve the problems which have become multi layered due to having been accumulated; the other method is the propose a competition to be organized. The common point of both methods is that, they are both a result of the belief that the problematic processes can be saved with a magic touch. What is more, just like the expert invited from abroad, competitions are expected to make the process which has transformed into a multi layered problem with its economic, political, sociological and spatial dimensions smooth and functioning in a single attempt. Most of the time, both methods naturally cannot meet the result of these high expectations. In fact, as a consequence of these expectations, sometimes the competition itself may turn out to be a problem. Within the scope of this proclamation, Beyazıt Square example, as one of the above mentioned problematic cases, which kept not only the city’s, but also the country’s agenda busy from 1957 until the middle of the 60’s will be analyzed. Since competition stories make up the main axis of the proclamation, although the second method of foreign experts will not be analyzed within the framework of this study, the process Beyazıt Square has gone through is noteworthy, in terms of both organizing competitions and inviting foreign experts respectively as methods used. The reconstruction of Beyazıt Square which started in mid 1950’s continued until the mid 1960’s. After Sedad Hakkı Eldem, Luigi Piccinato, Hans Högg and municipality

Competitions and Architecture 8 Symposium


architects and planners whose names are not mentioned, but have in one way or another contributed to the construction process which nearly continued for 10 years and the projects which were repeatedly renewed, Turgut Cansever has been included in the process as a result of an invitee competition organized by the Municipality in 1960, but his project has been realized in an imperfect and faulty manner (Cansever, 2008, p. 304). The construction activities were immediately terminated after Turgut Cansever’s resignation from his position in the Municipality in 1964 and the square turned out to be almost the way it is in the present time. The details of the process the square has gone through are exceed the scope of this study, however the study will focus on the process of the above mentioned invitee competition and the processes which followed the competition, with the aim of analyzing especially the role of competitions in public projects. The aim of the proclamation is to discuss competition as a method of acquiring a public service through the Beyazıt Square example, not only in terms of a period of time during which projects were called for and evaluated, but as an installation which was shaped with the discussions and development prior to and after this period of time and to shed light to the stories which lie behind. The main reason why these stories

Figure 1: A postcard, where the pond which was demolished in 1957, in Beyazıt Square can be seen (Source: Salt Sedad Hakkı Eldem Archive)

9 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


related to the competition organized in 1960 in Beyazıt Square is not to bring out in the open the fragments related to the past; the revealed network of relationship sand the details concerning the process contain certain clues related to the methods which arose during the Republic era and continue arising even today, about the decisions taken in terms of the city. The study is based on a detailed archive research in the daily newspapers of the time, the Arkitekt magazines published during those years, in the archives of public institutions and the personal archives of the architects, whose names are mentioned in the study. The data fragments, which do not seem related to each other as a result of the archive research, have been discussed once again to form a “competition story”. Although the process of reorganizing Beyazıt Square started in 1955 with the confiscation of certain buildings and thus expanding the square (Milliyet, 8 October 1955), it started in 1957 with the detailed activities which involved the whole square. That year, the Beyazıt pond was demolished within the scope of public works activities in the Menderes period and the traffic flow and the general installation was re-handled (Milliyet, 13 August 1957). The construction in the square continued of a couple of years. There is no information in the publications during this period, as to who the project owners are and the competition to reorganize the square through a competition was not brought to the agenda until 1959. When the applied project did not give any results for two years, arguments related to the method applied started in the public opinion. According to Sayar, the most important lesson to be taken from Beyazıt Square is the need to design the city with scientific methods and studies and without haste (Sayar, 1958, p.54). While Sayar

Figure 2: Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s 1958 dated illustration (Salt Research Sedad Hakkı Eldem Archive)

Competitions and Architecture 10 Symposium


complains that the project owner of the project being realized in the square at that time was not known, in a petition written by Sedad Hakkı Eldem to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in 1960, it came into the open that Eldem designed the realized project in 1957. However, Eldem’s proposal had remained a project idea and as he stated in his petition, the municipality started realizing his project in an incomplete and fault manner, without consulting him (Eldem, 1960). The typical features of the process experience in Beyazıt Square appear in general in the design process of public areas in Istanbul as well. Constructions which were hastily initiated, without a discussion platform and detailed projects which were agreed upon caused both a waste of time and resource and the opportunity for the new arrangement to be designs which met the needs and opened the way for a new forecasting about the city. While Zeki Sayar criticized that sufficient time was not spent on these projects, he is also among those who criticize the fact that the public administrations invited city planners and designers of international fame for the public works and to order projects which could be prepared within a very short period of time from some of them. In his article published in Arkitekt in 1958, he states that the “disorderly, disconnected and spiritless” state Beyazıt Square was in was caused by the above mentioned approach and the resulting “insufficient plans” (Sayar, 1958, p.53). In 1959, the solution of ordering a project from “an internationally acclaimed expert to be invited from abroad” as defined by Sayar came on the agenda for the square’s fruitless construction which had been going on for two years. Hang Högg, who had worked in the development directorates of the cities of Hanover and Munich and had taken part as a planner in the redevelopment of the city of Stettin after World War II was in fact invited to Istanbul to examine the city’s construction plans in 1956 before the Beyazıt Square construction (Cumhuriyet, 3 August 1956). After this 15 day short visit, he retained the needs of the city as a subway system, opening of the Karaköy roads, joining of Galata and Atatürk bridges from the North shore and joining of London asphalt and Şişli asphalt and to connect Okmeydanı to the Bosphorus and the suspension bridge to be constructed and went back to his country (Cumhuriyet, 20 August 1956). When he came to Istanbul once again in 1957 to put these into action as the guest of Prime Minister Menderes, the newspapers stated that Högg was a real Istanbul lover whose house in Munich was adorned with “Istanbul views” and underlined that his doctorate 30 years ago was on “Turkish Public Works in Istanbul and Dardanelles Straits” as if replying to Sayar’s criticisms (Cumhuriyet, 15 January 1957). In March 1959, it was announced that Istanbul Municipality was organizing an invitee competition for Beyazıt Square and that the deadline of the competition to 11 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


which Luigi Piccinato and a Turkish architect were invited along with Hans Högg was the end of the month of March (Cumhuriyet, 26 Mart 1959). However, there is no information stating that this Turkish architect was Turgut Cansever. In the light of this information, it can be stated that two invitee competitions were organized for Beyazıt Square, both organized by the Municipality in 1959 and in 1960. Two days after the announcement of the competition, one of the mayors of the period, Kemal Aygün gave this statement to the newspapers: “Istanbul’s public works have been advancing through efforts and ideas quite higher than the normal level for the past few years; those who do find this speed strange are claiming that there is no plan and program. No matter how speedily public works progress, a plan is mandatory. Let me also express that there is still an issue called Beyazıd Square. Due to the excavation of Millet Avenue, the level of the square has been lowered in order to be able to connect it with other roads. There are five projects and four models for Beyazıd. Among these are those with and without a pond and shops. These are being analyzed. After the final decision is taken,

Figures 3 and 4: Hans Högg’s project which he proposed for Beyazıt Square (22 May 1959 Cumhuriyet Newspaper)

the chosen project will be put into action”. (Cumhuriyet, 28 Mart 1959) At this point, this statement given by the municipality a few days after the announcement of the invitee competition, is an indication the processes which proceed Competitions and Architecture 12 Symposium


independently. There is no information as to who evaluated the projects and how a decision was taken; however, it was announced that the winning project belonged to Högg. In 22 May 1959, Högg’s project was published in the newspaper as “The new shape Beyazıd Square will be taking” (Cumhuriyet, 22 May 1959). In the project, the square would be raised 4 meters above the road level and a shopping mall complex consisting of 300 shops would be constructed underneath. On the upper level of the square, a vent-hole ventilating two ponds and five below ground shops was proposed. While the road from Vezneciler would be preserved, the roads passing through the square are turned into pedestrian roads. The square would be connected to Ordu Avenue which is next to Beyazıt Mosque with a 50 meter wide ramp. In addition, on the right hand side, a 3 story, 500 shop capacity new bazaar and a bridge connecting the bazaar with the square to be built in the area where the existing flea market named Kapalıçarşı is located was suggested. Högg’s project was speedily initiated. The already changed level of the square was reorganized in accordance with the new project. In December of the same year, the idea to raise the level of the square was completely abandoned and it was decided not to construct the shops underneath the square as Högg suggested (Milliyet, 9 December 1959). A short while after this decision, the project was completely abandoned and the idea of an invitee competition came on the agenda. At this point, how a second 13 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


invitee competition idea was proposed is narrated in different ways in the sources. Turgut Cansever states that, Högg, Piccinato and Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s already lacked a reasoning systematics in the design of the square and that he has presented his own projects about the squares to Adnan Menderes before with the encouragement of those municipality officials who knew about his projects (Cansever, 2010, s. 259). However,

Figures 5 and 6: Turgut Cansever’s winning proposal in the invitee competition dated 1960. (Source: Arkitekt, 1961-01 (301) p:5)

the clearest source related to Cansever’s involvement with the process related to Beyazıt Square is Cansever’s resignation letter published in 22 March 1964, in Milliyet newspaper, at a time when the issue was still fresh. In this letter, Cansever states that, Piccinato and Högg have prepared two projects in a period of over one and a half years, with teams consisting of fifteen architects and along with his own project dated April 1960, the three projects were evaluated by a team of 40 experts from Provincial Bank Planning Directorate, Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Architecture and Istanbul Municipality. This limited competition which is also registered in the official reports of the GNAT, was shared with the public in contrary to the first competition organized in 1959 and different institutions spent effort for this process to turn into an efficient discussion. As a reflection of this effort, after the results of the competition were announced to the public, Istanbul Municipality organized a widely attended meeting in 7 March 1961 and opened the winning project to discussion. Among those who attended the meeting were Rector Sıddık Sami Onar, Governor Refik Tulga and deputy mayors, Competitions and Architecture 14 Symposium


Istanbul Technical University academicians, Fine Arts Academy academicians, owners of some newspapers and columnists, representatives of Chambers of Architects and Engineers Associations, architect Faruk Omay, Ahsen Yapaner and Enver Abiral (Cumhuriyet, 8 Mart 1961). As a result of the meeting, the discussed focused on three main ideas. • The current project being very nice • To acquire a project by organizing a new competition • To evaluate the plan after the determination of Istanbul’s structural plan (Cumhuriyet, 8 March 1961) In the meeting organized with the purpose of sharing a project selected through a competition with the public, the proposal for a new competition is significant in terms of portraying the expectations from the competition, in especially public projects. Competitions are not merely a method resorted to in order to acquire a good design. No matter how democratic a method competitions are, it has also been observed that competitions are used a tool to legitimize the power domain, or the redefine the existing power domains, in especially public projects. Proposing a new competition as the only solution to object to a project selected through a competition is a good example of this. Waiting for the completion of the structure plan of the square on the other hand is an impossible proposal to be realized in practical terms. Waiting for the structure plan means to leave the square which had been in a state of construction for four years in the same state for a couple of more years. While especially the representatives of the Chamber of Architects argued that taking action without a structure plan would be a mistake stating that Istanbul is the only city in the world without a structure plan, professors of the Academy and the Technical University had a different opinion and argued that the square was an entity that could influence the structure plan and that it can be reorganized even if there is no structure plan (Sayar, 1961, p.25). At the end of the meeting, it was decided to put Turgut Cansever’s project into action, after the changes required by the municipality were done. This meeting is noteworthy, in the sense that public competitions were shared with various parties, such as universities, official institutions and the press. Sedad Hakkı Eldem was also invited to the meeting, among the names chosen as representative of the Chamber of Architects by the Chamber. At that time, Eldem was exchanging official correspondence with the municipality and was stating the discomfort he felt about the new projects he read in the newspapers (Eldem, 1960). On top of this, he stated that the Municipality put into action his Beyazıt Square idea projects dated 1957, without consulting him and in an incomplete manner and that the idea of keeping traffic

Figure 7: A photograph taken at the meeting dated 7 March 1961 (Source, Cumhuriyet, 8 March 1961)

15 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


outside the square, which was the backbone of his proposal was proposed once again as the main idea in the projects of firstly Högg, later Piccinato and lastly by Cansever. The fact that Eldem made a request in 30 January 1961, prior to the meeting to the municipality to analyze Cansever’s project and that the municipality in reply sent him the projects and asked for his “valuable opinions” can be seen in the official correspondence in Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s personal archive. After receiving the projects, Eldem prepared a 6 page report containing his evaluations on the project. It is stated in both Eldem’s and Cansever’s documents that Sedad Hakkı Eldem proposed to give consultancy services to the municipality for Turgut Cansever’s project to the municipality in 1961 before he prepared the report. When Eldem’s proposal was rejected, he stated in the petition dated 22.02.1961 to the Chamber of Architects that he has evaluated the project and has reached a definite opinion (Eldem, 1961). He stated that an open competition should be organized for Beyazıt Square. In fact, he also stated that he did not believe that this type of city planning issues could be handled through competitions. However, he stated that he thought of Beyazıt Square as an exception; many data have been complied fort he required substructure for a competition through the years. In a petition sent by the Chamber of Architects to Eldem, it was stated that a group of architects have applied for a Beyazıt Square competition to be organized to the Chamber of Architects and that the Chamber has sent the request to the municipality. In the light of all these documents, it may be stated that the idea of organizing a third competition in the meeting held in 7 March belonged to the representatives of the Chamber, among whom Sedad Hakkı Eldem was also present. Eldem’s main concern was that the square project for which his project ownership vas valid has been moved completely away from his control with the newly organized competition. On the other hand, the new project owner Turgut Cansever thought that two contradictory ideas clashed in that meeting. According to Cansever, the proposal to realize the square project through a competition clashed with the idea that the project could only be realized after the structure plan was ready. In addition, Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s proposal to work together with him on one side and stating that constructing the square was only possible through a competition when his proposal was rejected on the other side were “irrecoverable behaviors” according to Cansever (Cansever, 2010). In the later months of 1961, the municipality gave approval for the project and Cansever started preparing the construction drawings. However, some time after the initiation of the project, the Square project was left unfinished once again with Turgut Cansever’s resignation in 1964 (Milliyet, 22 March 1964). What has been narrated up to this point show that behind the scenes of the Competitions and Architecture 16 Symposium


reorganizing process of Beyazıt Square for long years are as complicated as its visible parts. Since the remaining details of the process exceed the scope of this study, they will not be handled here; however, the competition story which came to life in Beyazıt Square is significant in the sense that it displays the expectations from the competitions and the effect of competitions. In the renewal process of cities, design is indeed an important but significant part of the intricate network of relationships. Competitions, which are needed to better define the roles within this intricate network of relationships, are an institution just like marriage; however, to evaluate competitions merely as a process where designs are evaluated and to propose them as the single solution with high expectations despite this may cause unwanted results especially in public projects. The Beyazıt Square example is interesting due to acquiring a good design through a competition; however, the experiences lived in this example also display the fact that the single reason why the square was not able to be reorganized was not the lack of a “good project”.

17 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


References

Cansever, T., 2008. Understanding Istanbul. Timaş: Istanbul. Cansever, T., 2010. Not placing the Dome on the Ground. Timaş: Istanbul. Eldem, S. Personal Archive, Salt Research. Sayar, Z., 1958. The Lesson We Should Learn from Bayazıt Square. Arkitekt 291 (2) p. 53-54 Sayar, Z., 1961. Beyazıt (Hürriyet) Square!. Arkitekt 302 (1) p.3-5,21. Yücel A., Tanyeli U., 2007. Turgut Cansever, an Intellect and Architect. Osmanlı Bank Archive and Research Center and Garanti Gallery. Cumhuriyet, 3 August 1956 Cumhuriyet, 20 August 1956 Cumhuriyet, 15 January 1957 Cumhuriyet, 26 March 1959 Cumhuriyet, 28 March 1959 Cumhuriyet, 22 May 1959 Cumhuriyet, 8 March 1961 Milliyet, 8 October 1955 Milliyet, 9 December 1959 Milliyet, 13 August 1957 Milliyet, 22 March 1964

Competitions and Architecture 18 Symposium


CHANGE of THE EVALUATION CRITERIAS in ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT COMPETITIONS ORGANIZED in TURKEY between 1930-2010 İ. Aydın Meltem

Summary:

As the architectural project competition reports between 1930-2010 are analyzed chronologically, the change in the project evaluation criteria can be identified. These criteria can be classified with the main lines as follows: “Functionality, feasibility, being economical, modernity, compatibility with the program, being compatible to the climatic conditions, simplicity, nationality/Turkish identity, being symbolic/formality, adding value to environment, being compatible to the human scale, being ergonomic, being compatible to the city, being compatible to historic fabric, environmental-friendliness, transportation/traffic, being accessible to public/being inviting/participation, transparency, sensitivity for disabled people, being ecological, sustainability, urban identity/ urban memory.” Although some of these criteria might seem like unchanging in 80 years, it can be said that the greater part of them actually change and transform into each other. There might be no evaluation criteria in architectural competitions that is remains constant and cannot be transformed. The aim of this study is to exhibit the evolution of design demands and design evaluation criteria changing and transforming by time through architectural design competitions. Keywords: Competition, Criteria, Design, Change

1. Introductıon

According to the Roman Architect Vitruvius, there were three necessary components in b.c 1st century to have successful architecture: “solidity, practicality and beauty”. Albeit, these are believed to be the first criteria used to evaluate architecture, afterwards different values started to arise. The goal of this paper is to try to read these changing values via competitions. Competitions and Architecture 20 Symposium


Figure 1: Ankara Exhibition Hall Building [46]

Within the scope of this work, the jury and owner reports of the architectural project competitions between 1930-2010 are scanned chronologically; the reports of app. 45 competitions for 80 years of process in total are used in the content. With the help of these reports, it is been tried to understand the written communication between the participants and the jury. In this work, the things written about the projects are taking into the consideration instead of the content of the projects. It was investigated according to what criteria are those projects been chosen or not chosen and if the selection criteria change by time or not. As the method, the parts of Arkitekt Magazine from 1930-1980 and Mimarl覺k Magazine from 1980-2010, which were focusing on competitions, are scanned; 80-years long process is analyzed being separated into 4 different periods considering the changes in the world and indirectly in architecture. In the end of the study, a table is put together showing in which period of time each analyzed criteria was effective and it is been tried to get an idea about the changes in the designs.

2. Evaluating Competition Projects By Periods

In order to follow the transformation of demands in architectural competitions, it has been tried to analyze the 80-year long time period by dividing it into 4 different 21 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


periods according to the changes in the world. The factors forming the breaking points in these periods can be connected to the employers. As the structure of the employer changes, periods, demands and criteria change along. 1930-1940 – Early Republic Period 1940-1950 – WWII Period 1950-1980 – Cold War Period 1980-2010 – Globalization Period

2.1. 1930-1940 – Early Republic Period When we look at the competition reports from this period, “simplicity, modernism, modernity, healthiness, productivity, being economical, emphasizing the young republic, representing the reforms, indication of advancement, eligible to planning, looking charming to people, Turkish character, use of the local materials, solidity, functionality” are the words used to define the features demanded and presented. In the projects chosen in the Social Service and Children protection Institution Building Competition in 1934 factors such as “letting plenty of light and air, responding to the needs of the time, maximum feasibility, appropriate effect by the façade of the building” were mentioned. [1] On the report of one of the award receiving projects in the Hotel Competition in Yalova the same year, it says: “ It is been tried to give a simple and calm form so that the design fits to the small scale of Yalova. A monumental building here would make a heavy effect and damage the natural beauty of Yalova.” [2] Once again the same year, on the specifications of the Competition for Memorial to the Martyrs of March 16th and the Conservatory Building it is been stated that “As the architecture of the building and the style of construction will be suitable to modern taste and technical conditions, it should not contradict with the local character. On the public and external view the personality of the building and its quality should be able to catch one’s eye in terms of its style”. [3] In 1935, on the report of the winning project of Sümerbank Competition in Ankara, it says: “The building will be constructed with reinforced concrete carcass, filled with brick and the exterior walls will be built out of Ankara’s natural stone. The white parts also seen on the model as a long ribbon will be made out of Hacı Bektaş marble. Hence, the entire building will represent the character of the Ankara of the revolution.” [3] The same year, on the report of the “Municipality Banks” Building Competition in Ankara, it indicates: “The façade of the building is Competitions and Architecture 22 Symposium


cladded with Ankara stone. Yet this form of cladding has never been seen in Ankara before. Inside and outside of the building will be built with local and newly discovered various materials.” [4] Furthermore, it is emphasized that the most important aim of this project is its eligibility to the Ankara city planning. Zeki Sayar writes about the Exhibition Hall Building that was achieved by competition and completed in 1935: “The abundance in the appearance of the building is not obtained with assorted and expensive materials the foreign architects waste redundantly like on the other buildings of Ankara, it is been achieved with proportional and harmonic concord of the volumes. [5] On the project reports of “Karaköy Passenger’s Lounge” Competition in 1937, such statements are used: “ This lounge also represents the progress of Turkish state with Turkish descents love for art and their ideal effort. The entire building, with its inner and outer face, will show the share out and its construction inside decisively. No wonder, all of these have the quality to give the first impression to the foreign passengers about the city and the construction art of Turkish Republic.” [6] Once more in 1937, on the project reports of “Izmir Wholesale Market Wind Plant” Competition, it is been specified that about the building: “it should have a pleasant expression to attract the people”. [7] The explanation of the material used on one of the participating projects in Bursa Community Center Competition in 1938 as follows: “In this building, no luxurious material will be used but mere solid and local material will be applied with a careful craftsmanship.”[8] On the reports of the award winning projects in “Kadiköy Community Center” competition in 1938, the goal is described as “it is been aimed to create architecture of our century on condition that staying Turkish on the arrangement of the building and suiting to the climate of Istanbul. The architectural style of the building is designated with simple forms, the need and the proportion remain important.”[9] The “Turkish character” is emphasized on the jury reports especially related to the façade. According to the specifications of the Parliament Building Competition from the same year, “It is been not asked to bear in mind to have all the necessary particulars for the building to work practically from the point of interior organization of the Parliament but at the same time the perfection of the style, the cleanness, the harmony of the exterior borderline, the requirements of the 20th century and the construction of a monument that will represent and embody the existence of the Turkish Republic.” [10]

23 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


2.2. 1940-1950 – WWII Period As the competition reports of this period studied, it can be seen that the projects are analyzed in two ways as “external” and “internal”, the monumentality comes into prominence and for the most part of the projects are monuments and cemeteries. It is understood that the projects are demanded in reinforced concrete with carcass and cladded with stone, lightness is unwanted, heaviness and permanence are emphasized and the projects must be buildings with national features. It is observed that terms like “traditional, classical, heavy, monumental, permanent, harmonic” are used and the first requests on “planning”, “settlements in historical area” and “traffic” are started appearing in the competitions for the first time in this period. According to the specifications of Atatürk’s Mausoleum Competition in 1943, “the project that will be applied must be a national production. Since the Mausoleum is a monument, it must be a work with national character and the owners of this work must be Turkish artists”[11]. It is been emphasized that the building must be monumental and represent Ataturk’s principles. On the report of the first Teacher’s House Competition in 1944 following statement takes part: “The material used must be entirely local and the construction systems being applied must be simple, it is been considered that the project buildings must be compatible to the landscapes and must have a local character.” [12] The same year, on the jury report of Adana Municipality Building competition it says: “In this project, the situation of the architectural character that is connected to the tradition, could be applied well without exaggerating it.”[13] On the report of one of the eliminated projects in the Radio House Competition in 1945, the situation is explained as: “It has been eliminated due to the lack of eligibility of the exterior architecture and being not good enough in architectural aspect.” [14] On the jury report of the Istanbul Open air Theater Competition in 1946 it is indicated, “it is observed that most of the competitors organized their plans classically.” [15] On the jury report of the Eskisehir Train Station Competition in 1947 following statement takes part, “Interior and exterior architectural quality is satisfactory in terms of both quality and local character. Architecture of the exterior façades is weak comparing to the inventions on the plan. The character of the exterior architecture is proportional yet foreign to its own locality. The practicality, tidiness and being responsive to the program are appreciated but the humble exterior architecture of the design is not found to have the same quality.” [16] On the jury report of the 2nd place winner project in Trabzon Exhibition Hall Competition in 1947 following statement takes part: “Architectural taste, maturity of Competitions and Architecture 24 Symposium


composition and the feeling of proportion is strong but the expression of the exterior architecture is not right, it has the feeling of being built with such a light material that architectural effect is out of concern.” [17] Again in 1947, on the jury report of the Istanbul Courthouse Building Competition it states, “matching the historical environment is one of the essentials” [18]. Besides, on the specifications, it is mentioned that it is desired for the courthouse to set an example for technical and architectural advancement of the time and an immortal monument of the Republican era that will stand throughout history. On the jury report of the first-runner in this competition it is been stated, “the exterior architecture is conventional and boring.”[18] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Istanbul University Law And Business Faculties Additional Building Competition in 1947 it says: “It has been found much superior than the other projects in terms of Urban planning scheme, the use, architectural maturity and harmony. ”[19] On the specifications of the Foundation Office Block Competition in 1949, it is seen that it is made obligatory to have stone cladding due to the building’s location in historical part of the city. [20]

2.3. 1950-1980 – Cold War Period When the competition reports from this period are analyzed, we can see that, lightness is preferred, horizontality and low-rise are accepted as positive qualities, traffic solutions gain importance, human scale and 3rd dimension are emphasized and fabric compatibility is searched. “Construction, horizontality, simplicity, flexible plans, being formative, traffic, urbanism, circulation (accessibility – connections), unearned income, green areas, plastic, compatibility to topography, costs, feasibility, lightness, environmental compliance, structure, fabric, directing, being inviting, human scale, humbleness, volume, economical, technological” are the terms used. These words from the report of one of the eliminated projects in the Ankara Craftsmen Cooperative Market and Office Block competition in 1956 are interesting: “An harmonic mass composition, light and elegant architectural form are approved but, although it has a proper planning, the architecture being proportionally heavy and monumental, not working with to the theme, caused the elimination of the project.” [21] According to the jury report of the winning project of Sakarya overnment office Competition from the same year, “it establishes a connection between the architectural masses and human scale in outer space. Especially, the connection and continuity between inside and outside provided on the ground floor is quite successful. The architectural problem is not handled entirely as surface, but as a problem of volume and space. [22] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Inhisalar Department of the 25 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Treasury Competition in 1958 it says: “The ground floor having an inviting character and no desire for mobility on the top floor gives a high architectural quality to the building.”[23] The same year, in the end of the Urfa Government Office competition, the jury advises the project owners: “precautions to keep the buildings against sun in this climate must be considered and local opportunities must be taken in construction materials. It is necessary to search for an architecture that is more local in façades and plans yet has a strong representative effect appropriate for the subject. The works to break this elegant monumentality effect should be achieved with humble mass and elevations without any exaggeration.” [24] On the jury report of the Antalya Region Museum Competition in 1964 it is mentioned: “Our jury chose to criticize and evaluate the projects without any sharp criteria and with important qualities like conception of the plan, the connection of the building with the art works, buildings’ offers in changing spaces with plastic building arrangements and climatic features.” [25] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Izmir Konak Building Complex Competition in 1966 it says: “ This suggestion creates the most successful composition in of the competition bringing into consonance with its immediate and further surroundings and in its own totality, following the fractured texture of Izmir City coming down to the site with its low-rise, small masses. This complex, which offers the most convenient solutions to important issues, as also indicated on the competition parameters, especially asking for high rent value, economical and quick construction; it also protects itself easily from extreme plastic affections and attained a simple and tranquil background silhouette behind the individual high rise blocks on the coast which can be considered acceptable in this part of the city. This is the most important secret of its success. It will melt in the urban texture and adapt to it in no time.”[26] The jury of the Istanbul Congress Building Competition in 1969 sums up their criteria as: “This is an architectural expression that has appropriate power of representation to the specialty of this subject. Compatibility to the architectural and artistic understanding of today… Compatibility to the economical conditions of our country… Reserving appropriate spaces for artwork together with the representative identity of interior and exterior spaces of the building. The spaces allowing to be used flexibly… Compatibility to the site and the surroundings, placing the guidance and function groups in row to suitable positions for interior and exterior circulation. Having the load-bearing system designed according to the subject.” [27] According to the jury report of the Diyarbakir University Campus Planning Competition in 1971, the evaluation criteria were enlisted as: “ it is essential to attain Competitions and Architecture 26 Symposium


economy by, scheme directly settles into the topography, cheap structure, plain building forms, local technical and worker standards, a building design that can easily be realized easily and well, micro climate possibilities obtained with building forms, economical installment possibilities, plain road structure, compact design, minimum interference to the environment.” [28] In the Samsun Municipality Building Competition in 1972, the evaluation criteria of the jury were enlisted as: “External factors, local natural inputs, road connections, internal factors, program, the condition of the areas, beneficial areas, function, the relationship between the departments, internal relations in the departments, external relations with the building, internal relations with the building, technology, use, protection, building being formative.”[29] In Bursa Medicine Faculty Competition in 1974, the evaluation criteria of the jury were given as: “general emplacement, climate and orientation, interior and exterior transportation, building site, static system, installment system, function, forms of the buildings and plastic qualities. ”[30]

2.4. 1980-2010 – Globalization Period As the competition reports from this period are analyzed, we can see that the diversity is at the forefront. “Texture, energy efficiency, performance, traditionalism, historical environment, built environment, organism, urban activity area, urban identity, rationality, symbolism, prestige, independence, polyphony, participation, diversity, urban memory, being the focal point, transforming the environment, ecology, transparency, permeability, micro-climate, spatial abundance, language, technology, shell, sensibility for disabled ones, sustainability” are among the terms those are used. On the jury report of the Afyon Government Office Competition in 1980, the evaluation criteria of the jury were divided into 3 main topics “compatibility to location and environmental features, success in terms of utilization qualities, symbolic qualities”. The jury used the expression following for the 1st prize-receiving project “Besides the outstanding formal qualities the proposal holds, it is found also successful in convenience of construction and the management economy. From this point of view, it is a concrete evidence of possibility to reach high plastic qualities with limited sources and possibilities.” [31] In The Constitutional Court Competition in 1981, the criteria of the jury were summarized as: “Success in interpretation of the meaning of the subject, site plan at present condition (Relation with the immediate and further surroundings, semantic relations of subject elements to the surroundings, Guidance, Entrances), function relations, compatibility in interior-exterior volumes, climatic solutions, research, effort for being unique.” [32] 27 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


On the jury report of the Central Bank Istanbul Exchange Branch Competition in 1984 it says: “The goal of the competition is to solve an architectural whole which does not reject this environment, on contrary stands close to it, integrates with the environment in further scale; In the city of Istanbul which presents a very different character, becomes a symbol and property of the district it is located, not monumentalized by being exaggerated with a subjective judgement or by rejecting its surroundings. [33] According to the specifications of Antalya Municipality Bus Terminal Competition in 1986, briefly, it is aimed to develop a proposal that is modern, local and symbolic. [34] On the jury report of the Samsun Municipality Commerce Center Competition in 1987, the evaluation criteria of the jury were enlisted as: “ Prestige, flexibility, construction economy will be taken into consideration and will be analyzed. It will be criticized management economy, structural and elementary wise and the proposed solutions will be evaluated in this frame. The facility is located on one of the most important commercial centers of the city, on a city block. As it is stated on the specifications, the relationship of this complex to its immediate surroundings and the cohesion of the masses are among the evaluation criteria.” [35] In Kuşadası Municipality Trade and Social Facilities Competition in 1990, the criteria of the jury were enlisted: “ General Settlement and Surrounding relations, city-pedestrian-car relations, relations with the main road, relations with surrounding buildings and spaces, open and green spaces, the scenario of the proposal, locations of several departments, relations of sizes with each other, interior relation, flexibility, topography relations, climate qualities, profitability, feasibility, economy, technology, material, construction, language, urban identity, spatial redundancy, plastic qualities, symbol.” [36] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Ankara Congress and Cultural Center Competition in 1995 it says: “The façades have the quality to provide the urban figurativeness that was required from the building. The massification of the building language and the interpretation on the façades are solved in a simple way.” [37] In Grand National Assembly of Turkey Building Competition in 1997, the criteria of the jury were enlisted: “compatibility and contribution to the environment, integration with the park areas, providing enough interior and exterior spaces, convenience of arrivals (entrance and exit) and visibility of interior-exterior guides (especially regarding the visitors). The balance of open and closed spaces in this exceptionally limited building area, luminosity, architectural and structural solutions for working units of the parliamentarians, compatibility with the program, architectural quality Competitions and Architecture 28 Symposium


and improvability” [38]. These are the criteria according to jury report of the Mugla Dalaman Airport International Flights Terminal Competition in 2000: “The abundance of the design approach, its leadership, its uniqueness and operability, its possibility to improve and change keeping the main scenario of the project, its potential to adapt to the technical revision and changes coming up in time, its planning success; providing functional and technical requirement and priorities regarding the passenger, luggage and service circulation, modern, investigating, expression of a unique and avant-garde architectural identity, followed principles in spatial abundance, building system and selection of materials and establishing continuity between the load-bearing system and architectural language, climatic data and an ecological sensitive approach to the comfort conditions, economical climatization possibilities, interpretation of the situation of the building as a door at entrance and exist, existence of a design language which would contribute to the formation of a first and a last image, perception of the terminal from a plane : ‘5th façade aesthetics’, technological application convenience”[39] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Kadiköy Square, Haydarpaşa-Harem Immediate Surroundings Urban Design Competition in 2001, these statements take part: “Urban identity, providing urban continuity, giving an urban salience” [40] These were the keywords chosen on the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Urban spaces and Façades Design Competition- Doğukent in 2002: “Nature, sustainability, quality of life, integration with the environment.” [41] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Manisa Municipality Service Building Commerce Center and Urban Space Arrangement Competition in 2006, it says: “The surface takes the urbanite inside as it preserves the permeability in horizontal plane in the vertical plane. This new texture of the area, in fact not a “square”, nor a “building”, nor a “park”. Little from each of them.” [42] On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Eskişehir Chamber of Commerce Competition in 2008, a “shell” is mentioned. “In the proposed architectural solution, the concept of shell is impressive as a strong image for emphasizing coexistence of diversity. Besides the project creates a strong image with this shell concept, it becomes prominent with its use of area and the interior space quality it creates. The project is exciting in terms of movement bringing itself into being in the shell, the relationships of the units with the shell, the relationship of the shell and the units with place; on the other hand, it is a qualified response how an element standing so plain and monotonous can be so quite and exciting.” [43] On the jury report of the winning project of Denizli Government Office and Immediate Surroundings Competition in 2019, it is said: “Giving an identity to the city, creating an urban memory mark, setting up the right relationships by referring 29 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


positively to the old-new building setup; the design playing a role that is open to qualified and desired spatial development and encouraging on behalf of the immediate surroundings just outside the borders of the competition site. On the jury report of the 1st prize winning project in Izmir Municipality Opera Building Competition in 2010, it is stated: “Value of a urban landmark and timeless architectural language will empower the existence of the building as a value on the urban scale.” [45]

3. Conclusıon

In the end of this study, the project evaluation criteria found in competition reports and specifications are classified by periods in a table and attempted to identify the criteria changing and not changing by time. CRITERIA

1930-1940

1940-1950

1950-1980

1980-2010

Functionality

Feasibility

Economy

Modernity

Compatibility with the Program

Compatibility with the Climatic Conditions

Simplicity

Nationality / Turkish Identity

Figurativeness / Formality

Compatibility with the City

Compatibility with the Historic Fabric

Providing Added value to the Environment Compatibility with the Human Scale Compatibility with the Environment

Compatibility with the Natural Environment

Transportation / Traffic

Open to Public/ Being invitatory/ Participation

Transparency

Awareness for Disabled People

Being Ecological

Sustainability

Urban Identity / Urban Memory

Table 1: Indicating the change of evaluation criterias according to the jury and project reports of project competitions took place between 1930-2010

Competitions and Architecture 30 Symposium


References:

[1]Arkitekt Magazine (1934) “Himayei Etfal Apartmanı Müsabakası“ 1934/03: 71-76 [2]Arkitekt Magazine (1934) ”Yalova’da Bir Otel Proje Müsabakası” 1934/04: 105-116 [3]Arkitekt Magazine (1935) “Sümerbank Proje Müsabakası” 1935/03: 68-84 [4]Arkitekt Magazine (1935) “Belediyeler Bankası Proje Müsabakası” 1935/10: 287-295 [5]Arkitekt Magazine (1935) “ Sergi Evi” 1935/04: 97-107 [6]Arkitekt Magazine (1937) “Karaköy Yolcu Salonu” 1937/03: 74-80 [7]Arkitekt Magazine (1937) “İzmir Hal Santralı Proje Müsabakası” 1937/05-06: 136-142 [8]Arkitekt Magazine (1938) “Bursa Halkevi Proje Musabakası” 1938/01: 16-20 [9]Arkitekt Magazine (1938) “Kadıköy Halkevi Proje Müsabakası” 1938/02: 43-56 [10]Arkitekt Magazine (1938) “Kamutay Meclis Musabakasi” 1938/04: 99-132 [11]Arkitekt Magazine (1943) “Anıtkabir müsabakası” 1943/01-02:1-21 [12]Arkitekt Magazine (1944) “İlk Öğretmenevleri Proje Müsabakası” 1944/01-02: 145-146 [13]Arkitekt Magazine (1944) “Adana Belediye Sarayı Proje Müsabakası” 1944/07-08: 154-160 [14]Arkitekt Magazine (1945) “İstanbul Radyo Evi Proje Müsabakası” 1945/07-08: 143-157 [15]Arkitekt Magazine (1946) “İstanbul Açık Hava Tiyatrosu Proje Müsabakası” 1946/05-06: 104-109 [16]Arkitekt Magazine (1947) “Eskişehir Garı Proje Müsabakası” 1947/01-02: 18-26 [17]Arkitekt Magazine (1947) “Trabzon Sergi Evi Proje Müsabakası” 1947/03-04: 66-69 [18]Arkitekt Magazine (1947) “İstanbul Adalet Sarayı Proje Müsabakası” 1947/05-06: 103-114 [19]Arkitekt Magazine (1947) “İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk ve Ekonomi Fakülteleri Ek Binaları Proje Müsabakası” 1947/11-12 : 255-273 [20]Arkitekt Magazine (1949) “Vakıf İş Hanı Proje Müsabakası” 1949/11-12: 213-222 [21]Arkitekt Magazine (1956) “Ankara Esnafları Kooperatifi Çarşı ve İş Hanı Proje Müsabakası” 1956/01: 34-44 [22]Arkitekt Magazine (1956) “Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası” 1956/03: 105-108 [23]Arkitekt Magazine (1958) “İnhisarlar Umum Müdürlüğü Binası Proje Müsabakası” 1958/01: 23-30 [24]Arkitekt Magazine (1958) “Urfa Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası” 1958/03: 114-121 [25]Arkitekt Magazine (1964) “Antalya Bölge Müzesi Proje Yarışması” 1964/01: 28-37 [26]Arkitekt Magazine (1966) “İzmir Konak Sitesi Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1966/01: 40-47 [27]Arkitekt Magazine (1969) “İstanbul Kongre Binası Mimarî Proje Yarışması” 1969/01: 33-43 [28]Arkitekt Magazine (1971) “Diyarbakır Üniversitesi Kampüs Planlama Yarışması” 1971/02: 67-80 [29]Arkitekt Magazine (1972) ”Samsun Belediye Binası ve Hizmet Tesisleri Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1972/02: 70-75 [30]Arkitekt Magazine (1974) “Bursa Tıp Fakültesi Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1974/02: 89-96 [31]Arkitekt Magazine (1980) “Afyon Hükümet Konağı Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1980/02: 49-52 [32]Mimarlık Magazine (1981) “Anayasa Mahlemesi Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1981/08-09: 2-23 [33]Mimarlık Magazine (1984) “T.C. Merkez Bankasının İstanbul Kambiyo Şubesi İcin Açtığı Sınırlı Proje Yarışması” 1984/02: 46-47 [34]Mimarlık Magazine (1986) “Antalya Belediyesi Otobüs Terminal Tesisleri Mimarş Proje Yarışması” 1986/2: 9-19 [35]Mimarlık Magazine (1987) “Samsun Belediyesi Ticaret Merkezi Mimari Proje Yarısması” 1987/05: 68-77 [36]Mimarlık Magazine (1990) “Kuşadası Belediyesi Ticaret ve Sosyal Tesisleri Mimari Proje Yarışması”1990/01: 19-26 [37]Mimarlık Magazine (1995) “Ankara Kongre ve Kültür Merkezi Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1995/09-10 / 17-36 [38]Mimarlık Magazine (1997) “TBMM Milletvekilleri Çalışma Binası Ulusal Mimari Proje Yarışması” 1997/05-06 : 38-42 / 97-275 [39]Mimarlık Magazine (2000) “Muğla Dalaman Havalimanı Dış Hatlar Terminali Proje Yarışması” 2000/03-04: 21-23 [40]Mimarlık Magazine (2001) “Kadıköy Meydanı, Haydarpaşa-Harem Yakın Çevresi Kentsel Tasarımı” 2001/09-10: 22-38 [41]Mimarlık Magazine (2002) “Kentsel Mekanlar ve Cepheler Tasarım Projesi I – Doğukent Yarışması” 2002/11-12: 29-39 [42]Mimarlık Magazine (2006) “Manisa Belediye Hizmet Binası Ticaret Merkezi ve Kentsel Mekan Düzenlemesi Yarışması” 2006/07-08 [43]Mimarlık Magazine (2008) “Eskişehir Ticaret Odası Proje Yarışması” 2008/01-02 [44]Mimarlık Magazine (2009) “Denizli Belediyesi Hizmet Binası ve Çevresi Yarışması” 2009/07-08 [45]Mimarlık Magazine (2010) “İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Opera Binası Yarışması”2010/11-12

31 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


STRUCTURES ACQUIRED THROUGH ARCHITECTURE PROJECT COMPETITIONS PRIOR to 1960 in ESKİŞEHİR Rana Karasözen, Dr. Güler Koca Assist.Prof.Dr, Assist.Prof.Dr

The initiation of determining certain public buildings through architecture project competitions takes place in 1930’s. These competitions allowed a reflection of architectural approaches in the country and the world to the city and the structures and gained an n important function in terms of high quality architecture culture to be spread to the country. Large scale projects which carried importance for the city were also acquired through competitions in Eskişehir which developed into a modern city during the Republic era. When we take a look at the state of competitions in Eskişehir, we can see that the first competition was geld in 1946, went through a hectic period until 1069, entered a period of halt between 1960 and 1980 and went through a period of revival once again after 1980. This process, especially between 1946 and 1960, during which the organized competitions were frequent are noteworthy in terms of the city’s development. The structure acquired through competitions during this period are significant in the sense that they create the modern character of the city center, represent the period’s architectural understanding, organized by the important architects of the country and each forming a triangulation point in the city center. In this study, it has been determined which structures were acquired through competitions in Eskişehir, which institutions organized these competitions, their dates, architects and whether they have been constructed or not. Almost all of the competitions organized during this period are public buildings opened by the central administration. The study also deals with the organization stories of these competitions and the analysis of their architectural characteristics. In the light of certain interviews conducted with some architects who came to the foreground due to a change in the function, or demolishment decision of their buildings, certain evaluations have been done. This study aims at analyzing the characteristics and processes of competitions of quality architectural structures, which have been acquired through architecture project competitions that have an important role in the recent history of Eskişehir. Key Words: Eskişehir, Project Competitions, Prior to 1960

Competitions and Architecture 32 Symposium


1. Introduction

The architecture project competitions becoming the current issue in Turkey, in an environment where private capital was still not developed in the early Republic era, the environment demanding architecture being limited to the state has been influential. In Turkey, it has been observed that architecture project competitions came into the Picture starting from 1930’s and that these competitions became more frequent in the 1950’s. In 1952, the issuing of “Regulations on Architecture and City Planning Competitions’ by the Ministry of Public Works and the legal arrangements realized as a result of the joint efforts of the Chamber of Architecture and the Ministry, the architecture project competitions gained an institutional characteristic (Sayar, 2002: 71). As a result of adopting liberal economy and the private sector also becoming a part of the Picture, numerous competitions were organized by public and private sector institutions such as, municipalities and banks (Tekeli, 2002: 65). It has been observed that, in the preparation of the construction plans of public buildings, the central administration preferred to organize competitions. The architecture project competitions which started in 1946 in Eskişehir continued until 1960 and entered a period of recess until the 1980’s. The public buildings acquired through competitions in this first period carry great importance due to their characteristics and their contributions to the city setting. Besides the written source research for the compilation of information related to the competitions and structures of this period, the interviews conducted with the architects of these buildings and institutions’ administrations have also formed the research method.

2. Urban Setting Development Process and Competitions in Eskisehir

Eskişehir has become a regional center as a result of the construction of railroads in the city at the end of 19th century, development of industry and the settlement of Crimean and Balkan immigrants in the area with its socio-economic structure, transportation facilities and physical characteristics. While the new settlements were in the Odunpazarı traditional settlement and south of the Taşbaşı Bazaar Porsuk Creek, the new settlements created by the immigrants started to develop in the north of the Porsuk Creek (Ertin, 1994: 17). Köprübaşı and Çukurçarşı areas located in the center of the city and on both sides of Porsuk Creek create commercial areas. In the first years of the Republic, it has been observed that the fruit and vegetable gardens between Taşbaşı Bazaar which creates the commercial center and Odunpazarı located in the south of the city speedily turned into residential areas. In the Republic era, the city center has gained a new appearance, as a result of the demolishment of old buildings on two sides of Porsuk Creek and in the center and with the construction of new buildings. A part 33 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


of these buildings consists of buildings constructed by the public institutions and have caused the city to have a modern identity, both in terms of their large scale and in terms of their functions. PROJECT NAME

KURUM

YIL

MİMARLARI

Eskişehir Terminal Building

DDY Başkanlığı

1946

Leyla Taylan (Baydar), Ferzan Baydar

Eskişehir Terminal Building

State Railways Directorate

1946

Leyla Taylan (Baydar), Ferzan Baydar

Eskişehir Cheap House Type

Turkish Higher Architects Association

1950

Atilla Arpat, Aydemir Balkan

Eskişehir Construction Plan

İller Bank

1952

M. A. Topaloğlu, B. Berksan

Eskişehir Central Bank

Republic of Turkey Central Bank

1952

Orhan Bolak

Eskişehir State Hospital (not constructed)

Eskişehir Governorship

1953

Affan Kırımlı, Mübin Beken

Porsuk Hotel

State Retirement Fund

1955

Vedat Dalokay

Eskişehir Sports Complex

Physical Training General Directorate

1959

Osep Saraf, Nişan Yaubyan

Eskişehir Emek Hotel and Bus Terminal

State Retirement Fund

1960

AHE Group [K. A. Aru, M. A. Handan, A. Tekin, H. Çağlar (Suher), Y. Emiroğlu, A. Erol]

Eskişehir Fair

İller Bank

1981

Cengiz Eren, Canan Erselçuk

Eskişehir Cultural Center (not constructed)

Eskişehir Private Administration General Directorate

1984

Tamer Başbuğ, Hasan Özbay, Baran İdil

Kızılay Eskişehir Division Work Center

Kızılay Foundation Eskişehir Division

1998

Cem Açıkkol

Tepebaşı Municipality Service Building

Eskişehir Tepebaşı Building.

2004

Selim Velioğlu, Sunay Yusuf, Erce Funda

Anadolu University. Foreign Languages Graduate School

Anadolu University Rectorship

2005

N. P. Kahvecioğlu, H. Kahvecioğlu, E. Sönmez

Eskişehir Chamber of Commerce Service Building, FairCongress Center

Eskişehir Chamber of Commerce

2007

Alişan Çırakoğlu, Oral Göktaş

Table 1: Project competitions organized in Eskişehir

In the shaping of Eskişehir’s modern city center, the projects acquired through competitions have a significant role (Table 1). The first architecture project competition was organized in 1946, in Eskişehir. When we analyze the competitions organized after that year until today, it can be observed that the period between 1946 and 1960 was quite busy in terms of competitions; there is a disconnection between 1960-1981 Competitions and Architecture 34 Symposium


35

Competitions Figure 1. EskiĹ&#x;ehir City Center (1.Terminal Building, 2. Central Bank, 3.Officer’s Club, 4. Sports Complex, 5.Emek Hotel and Bus Terminal) Symposium

and Architecture


Figure 2: Eskişehir Terminal project and the square in front of it

and that they come into the picture once again in certain intervals after the 1980’s. When the competition organized between 1946-1960 as the object of this study are analyzed, it is noteworthy that the majority of the first large scale public structures which create the identity of the city have been constructed during this period. The city’s first construction plan (1952) was acquired through a competition in this period. The terminal building, Central Bank, Porsuk Hotel (Officer’s Club), Eskişehir Sports Complex, Emek Hotel and the Bus Terminal are buildings acquired through competitions in this period (Figure 1).

2.1. Terminal Building

Eskişehir Terminal was constructed after the demolition of the old terminal building built by the English, in 1892. In “The Eskişehir Terminal building Project Competition” organized in 1942, the jury members were Paul Bonatz, Şekip Akalın, İrfan Kuraner, Galip Yenal, Hüseyin Kara, Sedat Eldem, Emin Onat, Nurettin Evin and Recai Akçay and the first prize was given by a majority of votes to Master Architect Leyla Taylan (Baydar) and Ferzan Baydar’s project (Architecture 03-04, 1946: 46) (Competition Index, 2004: 31). This project is made up of about a seventy meter long, two story linear mass (Arkitekt 1-2, 1947: 20). The single story colonnades in parallel position to the mass and the yards in the side wings create setting wise hierarchies. This Competitions and Architecture 36 Symposium


Figure 3: EskiĹ&#x;ehir Terminal project storey plans

Figure 4: EskiĹ&#x;ehir Terminal project front view

building also defines the city square in front of it (Figure 2). The building is symmetrical and the passenger rooms are made up of two stories. The passenger room is defined with thin and vertical gaps. There are administrative and service areas on the two sides. The mass housing wings are adjacent to the main building and positioned around the yards in two story forms, which are lower than the main building (Arkitekt 1-2, 1947: 22) (Figure 3). The facade order of the side wings are equal in size and created by the rectangle Windows in the gap. The building is completed with a terrace roof (Figure 4). 37 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


However, this project was not constructed and another project prepared by Professor Orhan Safa was built (Baydar, 2010). The constructed building carries similarities with the competition project in terms of plan diagram. Both designs are made up of a linear mass that is in parallel to the railway, a passenger room in the central axis and symmetrical wings on the sides. However, the yards in the competition project do not exist in the constructed building. The Colonnades in the project have been transformed into arcades by bringing these closed to the building’s facade. Front facade understanding and mass designs are also different. While the competition project has been designed with a terraced roof, the constructed building’s passenger rooms are covered with reinforced concrete cross vault, which is higher than the side

Figure 5: Present Terminal Building

wings. The passenger room facades are made up of glass surfaces divided by vertical bearers. The wings are three storied and consist of administrative units of the terminal. These are covered with a hipped roof. The front facade order of the wings is made vertical windows series with equal intervals. The front and back facades of the building are the same. There are arcades in the ground storey level through the length of the wings on the platform side. The platforms consist of a single line of reinforced concrete horizontal series which have been positioned in parallel to the building and the railway; these are covered with horizontal plaques and are connected to the arcades situated in front of the wings in a vertical manner (Figure 5). The new terminal building’s Competitions and Architecture 38 Symposium


foundation was laid in 1963 and was opened to service in 1955. When the competition project is analyzed with an architectural approach, it can be seen that it has been designed with a modernist attitude. However, the parts of the constructed building have different understandings. The waiting room which makes up the main area reflects the modern understanding of architecture, both in terms of highlighting the structural opportunities of the reinforced concrete and its transparent facades. The horizontal position of the plaques on top of the columns in the platforms strengthens the modern influence. On the side wings, an approach in line with the 2nd National Architecture understanding with the vertical window series and overhangs. The proportional and rhythmic harmony created by the merging of different understandings creates a language unity in the whole of the structure. Therefore, the structure has been decided by the EskiĹ&#x;ehir Preservation of Culture and natural Assets Committee to be officially registered in 2008 (kentvedemiryolu.com, 2009).

Figure 6: Government Office and the surrounding area

39 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


402. Central Bank, 3.Officer’s Club, 4. Sports Complex, 5.Emek Hotel and Bus Terminal) Figure Competitions 1: EskiĹ&#x;ehir City Center Building, and(1.Terminal Architecture Symposium


2.2. Central Bank

The winner of the Eskişehir Central Bank competition organized in 1952 is Orhan Bolak’s project (http://www.5n1k.org, 2009). The structure positioned in a vertical manner to the Provincial Hall and September Second Avenue defines the square in front of it in a setting wise manner as well (Figure 6). The structure is two storied; the ground level height is higher than the upper level and creates a symmetrical “U”

Figure 8: Eskişehir Central Bank facade

form towards the back facade. In addition, the main entrance was built on the close side of the square to the avenue and it spoils the symmetrical order of the front facade. The entrance door is within a dent of two stories high and on a platform escalated with steps. It can be seen that the corners of the structure are left deaf in the facade arrangements. The Windows consisting of equal gapped vertical window series are the same height as the storey heights and grab the attention with their quality wrought iron workmanship. The facades are covered with natural Stones (Figure 7). In the back facade, while the vertical effect of the well hole is reflected on the facade with glass bricks, it also spoils the symmetry of this facade (Figure 8). The roof which is covered with a hipped roof is completed with wide overhangs. The Central Bank Service Building carries the characteristics of the 2nd National Architecture understanding, with its vertical window arrangement, wide overhangs, monumental entrance and facade material. The structure has been officially registered by Eskişehir Preservation of Culture and Natural Assets Committee’s decision dated 15.08.2000 due to these characteristics.

41 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


2.3. Porsuk Hotel (Officer’s Club)

The winner of the competition organized by the State Retirement Fund for Porsuk Hotel in 1995 for a hotel and Office tower was Vedat Dalokay’s project. The building’s construction was completed in 1958 and was transformed into the Officer’s Club after it was bought by National Defense, in 1961 (Çelikkanat, 1963: 110). The structure facing Porsuk River is located in Köprübaşı, which is Eskişehir’s commercial center. The structure consists of eight stories with the ground level and is made up of a horizontal rectangle prism form. The construction method is reinforced concrete carcass. The dome shaped reinforced concrete glass mass, supported by columns shaped like “V” located in the corner side of the front facade emphasizes the structure’s

Figure 9: Eskişehir Porsuk Hotel (Officer’s Club)

entrance. The ground level and the first storey made up of glass surfaces give a lighter feeling to the structure. The main character of the building’s front facade consists of balconies separated by a grate system. The terrace storey is completed with a horizontal and continuous space. The fittings level, whose support levels are moved back on the front facade in comparison to the lower levels, allows the readability of the structure’s functions from the front facade, by a wall surface full of horizontal bands from the terrace level. The spaces in the form of vertical grate in the front and side facades balance the structure’s horizontal features (Figure 9). The structure in question is an example of a rigid Modern Architecture understanding, due to its separation from the ground Competitions and Architecture 42 Symposium


Figure 10: EskiĹ&#x;ehir Sports Complex

Figure 11: Closed Sports Hall

43 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


with transparent surfaces, the emphasis of function on the facades, usage of terrace roof and its planning taking into consideration the right-angled geometrical system. It is one of the representatives of the International Style, initiated with the Hilton Hotel in the 1950’s, in Turkey. The officer’s Club has lost a part of its original functions due to the modifications it went through in different periods (Koca, Karasözen, 2010).

2.4. Eskişehir Sports Complex

The winner of Eskişehir Sports Complex competition in 1959 to be constructed in place of the old stadium demolished in 1952 is Nişan Yaubyan’s and Osep Sarafoğlu’s project. The project situated on Atatürk Avenue consists of a football stadium and a closed sports hall (Figure 10). Atatürk Stadium was planned for 25 000 people, however only the 10.000 people open tribunes were built. Although the sports hall was proposed to be at the back of the stadium, when it was possible to publicize the area, a new project was designed by the project owners to be built on the front facade of the stadium overlooking to Atatürk Avenue. This part consists of the entrance and the

Figure 12: Eskişehir Bus Terminal

Competitions and Architecture 44 Symposium


Figure 13: Eskişehir Emek Hotel

foyer, 1500 people capacity sports hall and facilities (the athletes’ dressing and washing settings, administrative offices, a small conference hall, wrestling exercise hall, referee offices and journalists’ and radio commentators’ offices. To overcome the problem of the viewer circulation, economy of the load bearers and the height of the building, the game area has been buried 2,50 meters to the ground. The hall’s side and upper covers are made up of plaques rising in a graded manner and the spaces have been directed to the north to achieve control of natural light (Figure 11). Except for the hall’s upper cover made up of steel structure, the structure is reinforced concrete carcass. The occupational controllership duty has been realized by the architects (Arkitekt 336, 1969: 152, 153). Later on, with changes done without the knowledge of the architects, additions were made to the open and closed tribunes (Yaubyan, N., 2010). It has been decided to demolish the sports facilities and to hand over the complex to HDAT in line with the protocol signed in 2012.

2.5. Emek Hotel and Bus Terminal

Eskişehir Emek Hotel and Bus Terminal competition was organized by State Retirement Fund, in 1960. The project designed by the AHE group (Kemal Ahmet 45 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Aru, Mehmet Ali Handan, Aydın Tekin, Hande Çağlar, Yalçın Emiroğlu, Altay Erol) received the first prize. The building complex located on Yunus Emre Avenue and next to Porsuk Creek was completed in 1964. While the Bus Terminal building was positioned based on Yunus Emre Avenue, the hotel block was situated as to form a square connected to the bus terminal, away from the avenue and near Porsuk Creek. The construction technique is reinforced concrete carcass and has a structure made up of columns lined with a grate system. In the bus terminal building designed as two stories and with yards, there are shops in the ground level and offices in the upper level. The ground levels consist of completely transparent, the upper levels consist of wide and horizontal band windows in the yard facade and these two stories are separated with an overhang made up of a horizontal, reinforced concrete plaque along the avenue. The structure is covered with a terraced roof (Figure 12). The hotel building consists of a ground level and a 69 room 3 support level on a mezzanine floor plan and a restaurant floor at the top. The structure which has the form of a horizontal rectangle prism is completed with a terraced roof http://www. emekli.gov.tr, 2009) (Özaslan, Karasözen, 2004). The building in question consists of completely glass surfaces in the ground and mezzanine floors and balconies in grate cage order in the room levels (Figure 13). Due to all these characteristics, Emek Hotel is another representative of the International Style in Eskişehir, just like Porsuk Hotel (Officer’s Club).

3. Conclusion:

In the period prior to 1960, the project competitions a majority of which were organized by the public institutions have an important place in the creation of Eskişehir’s modern city identity. These buildings are also important images, in terms of their place in the city scale and quality of their architectural designs, besides being in the centre of the city and still continue their functions. The project competitions organized for Eskişehir have allowed designs to be possible, which are in line with Turkey’s architecture agenda and exceed the local understanding in the city. In this respect, extensions of the Second National Architecture understanding, which was the popular tendency in the 1940’s along with International Style in terms of architectural approaches in projects acquired through competitions. . Especially the buildings constructed after 1970 have mostly been efficient in terms of spoiling the setting wise quality of the city and remained behind the structures acquired through competitions in the issue of structure quality. These structures Competitions and Architecture 46 Symposium


have mostly been constructed in an environment where competition fell behind commercial competition in terms of architectural design, where commercial concerns were emphasized in a build-sell system by the architects. Generally, the construction plans and the construction regulations’ uniform decisions in general in the country rather than local scale, faulty practices of the local administrations with typical projects and domestic migration have played a role in this quality lacking structuring. In this period, the architecture project competitions staying outside this process has resulted a significant barrier, in terms of the expansion of architecture culture to spread to the city. As a result of these evaluations, there arises a need architectural project competitions with long term solutions instead of short term, with a global point of view and involve a certain quality in itself in terms of design, by giving different points of view a place.

47 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


References

Baydar, L. (2010), Individual interview. Çelikkanat, Fikret (1963), Eskişehir, Bozkurt Press, Eskişehir. Ertin, Gaye (1994), The Evolution of Settlement in the City of Eskişehir, Anadolu University Publications. No:773, Eskişehir. Koca, G., Karasözen, R., “The Influence of 1946-60 period Architectural and Urban Project Competitions in the Creation of Eskişehir Modern City Center”, Three Generation Architecture Articles, 329-339, Anadolu University Press, Eskişehir, 2010. Özaslan, Nuray ve Karasözen, Rana., (2004), The Reflections of the international style in Eskişehir, Local Expansions of Modernism in Turkish Architecture, DOCOMOMO-Turkey National Study Group’s Poster Presentations, METU Faculty of Architecture-Ankara. Sayar, Yasemin Yılmaz (2002), “The Initiation Period of Architecture Project Competitions in Turkey (1933-1950)”, Arredemento Architecture 2002 / 04, p.66-73. Tekeli, Doğan (2002), “Are Project Competitions Only an Exploitation of Effort?”, Arredemento Architecture 2002 / 04, p.64,65. Yaubyan, N. (2010), Individual interview.. Arkitekt (1947), “Eskişehir Terminal Project Competition” Arkitekt 1-2, 18- 26 Arkitekt (1969), “Closed Sports Hall Project-Eskişehir”, Arkitekt 336, 152, 153 Architecture (1946), “Jury Report on Eskişehir Terminal Building Project Competition’s Selection Results and Reasons”, Architecture 03-04, s.34-36. Architecture (1953), “Eskişehir County Hospital Project Competition Jury Report”, Architecture 01-06, s.32-35. Republic of Turkey Eskişehir Governorship City Culture and Tourism General Directorate. Competition Index 1930-2004 (2004), TEAUC Chamber of Architects General Directorate and TEAUC Chamber of Architects Ankara Division, Ankara. http://www.emekli.gov.tr/tasinmazmallar.htm, 08.07.2009. http//kentvedemiryolu.com/diger/eskisehirgar.jpg, 14.05.2009. http://www.5n1k.org/orhan-bolak/, 28.05.2009.

Competitions and Architecture 48 Symposium


ARCHITECT MARUF ÖNAL’s “COMPETITION STORIES” Arbil Ötkünç

Dr., Research Assistant Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts, Faculty of Architecture

Introduction

Professional architect Maruf Önal (1918-2010) with his multi-dimensional occupational identity is one of the esteemed names of Turkish architecture. He has worked as an academician for long years, produced many works and has significantly contributed to the organization period of the Chamber of Architects. He has entered numerous competitions during his career and served as a member of numerous juries. In his interviews, he has frequently stated that “the reason for his interest in competitions is because competitions are an area of interest which keep occupational discussion and criticism environment alive and contribute to the occupation”. There are three main actors of architecture project competitions: Competing architects, jury members and employers (public and private sector). Chamber of Architects is in a direct relationship with these three actors. Önal has contributed to the organizational activities of the Chamber of Architects’ foundation and competitions and by taking responsibility both as a competitor (individually and as a member of teams) and in the selection committees in different periods of his life. For this reason, taking a look at Önal’s ‘competition stories’ allows one to enter the inner life of competitions in Turkey after the year 1950. The place of competitions in Turkey within the occupation of architecture in the past will be handled within the framework of three main questions through Önal’s and his colleagues’ studies: • What kind of a work environment did they create then? • Which competitions did they enter? • How was the evaluation process during their jury memberships?

Work Environment: Community of Practice

1 Construction Architecture Atelier, 1951.

Önal has entered within the scope of CAA since the 1950’s, together with Abdurrahman Hancı, Turgut Cansever, Şahap Aran, Suha Toner. After Haluk Baysal, Melih Birsel, Sedat Gürel, Faruk Sırmalı and Radi Birol also joined their team, they

Competitions and Architecture 50 Symposium


became a group of ten. They have created a special work method. These names formed sub groups among themselves and created their projects by discussing their projects with a pilot team and the ones who are responsible for criticizing them once, or twice a week. Thus, they were able to enter more than one competition at the same time. According to the participants, this work method has played a significant role in their occupational efficiency. Thus, they have contributed to the architecture criticism during the competition and development of the architectural environment. In order to evaluate Önal’s and his colleagues’ work method; the concept of ‘Community of Practice’ may be used. According to Senger (1998) and Lave, communities of practice are people who share a particular interest, curiosity and passion and learn how to makes it better by being in regular interaction. Learning is a continuous action, which is created through an interaction between other individuals and the environment. Creating communities of practice allows environments in which the participants are able to use knowledge and practice together. Relationships with friends, colleagues and workers create the chance to learn. Learning is not only acquiring information/data from the external world and internalizing them through individual efforts. Although, learning does not have a concrete beginning, or end, is a social process which is realized through a framework of our daily actions and experiences. (Smith 2003, 2009). Here, Önal and his friends have entered voluntary process of interdisciplinary, dynamic and creative occupational training. Learning from each other is simultaneous with critical thought development and collective production. In a community of practice, the units are not individuals, or social institutions, but informational groups which develop by tine, involving people with the same are of interest. Within the analyzed community, CAA can be accepted as one unit and Baysal-Birsel partnership can be accepted as another unit. In addition, in a community of practice, learning is not limited to young and inexperienced people. A community’s practice is dynamic and involves learning on behalf of everyone, without forming a hierarchical structure. The main goal is to develop cooperation, which allows learning within ‘equals’ that is an eccentric and exceptional pursuit and collective production. Architects tell what kind of cooperation they have developed from different points of view. Birol (2010) emphasizes the learning experience during the time where the groups works together and defines this time period as saying “this has almost been the second occupational education of my life”. He tells the coming together of the community as follows: CAA was located at the top floor of Galatasaray Inn. In 1953, our office was located next to Markiz, in İpek Inn. Prof. Sedat Gürel and Prof. Faruk Surmalı from ITU were also working in that office. Then, Maruf Önal came up with

2 According to social learning theoretician Dr. Etienne Wenger (2006) and social anthropologist Dr. Jean Lave, the communities in question develop their practices by activities, such as “solving problems, answering each other’s demands, sharing their experiences, coordination and creating synergy”. 3 Cooperation is firstly related to the commitment level of the community members to the created community. Wenger (1998, 2000) states that the sense of belonging which the members feel towards their environment has three main aspects: commitment, imagination and unity.

51 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


4 During this period where Önal and his colleagues worked together, the most important formation in architecture circles was the founding of the Chamber of Architects in 1954 among other occupational chambers, by the joint activities with Ministry of Public Works between 1950-1953. Again, during this period, ‘regulations related to competitions’ which were brought forward by domestic architects starting from mid1930’s were realized with the framework of ‘Regulations for Architecture and City Planning Competitions’ issued by the Ministry of Public Works, in 1952 (Sayar, 2004). 5 Cansever: “When competitions came into the Picture, a survey was given and people throughout Turkey were asked who they wanted to be the jury… Maruf Önal was the first name and I was the second! Orhan Alsaç was in thirty seventh place. However, they were the head of the jury in all the competitions! We were working under this kind of bureaucracy. […] In every competition, five people had to be from the Chamber. All jury members were to attend the colloquium after the competition. If there were objections to the jury report, the objecting person was to give a written, explanatory report. All jury members were required to write which aspects they supported and not and if there is anything besides the agreed text; thus, it would be understood whether the jury members correctly judged the crated works. They may be very accurate. If their ideas are accurate, even if they are the minority, then the architecture circles should understand the person and bring his name higher up in the next list and eliminate judges which have not been objective” (Tanyeli, Yücel, 2007, 176).

a proposal: “We are going to enter competitions. Let’s form a team…” We said, “You are complimenting us, Brother Maruf ”. The same proposal was made to Haluk Baysal and Melih Birsel as well. Thus, we became a group of ten. During the competitions, the artist team consisted of 3-4 people. They would say, “There is this and that project. Would anybody like to work on them?” The ones who wished to work on these projects would volunteer and form a team. The remaining people would be the jury. We would meet twice a week and discuss the project designed by the pilot group. We would hold our meeting at either CAA, or Haluk Baysal’s and Melih Birsel’s offices. Since we were the youngest in the team, we were usually not asked if we wanted to volunteer. In these meetings, there would cut-throat discussions. The pilot team would defend its project. Decisions would be taken. Instructions would be given to the pilot team. The project would develop and take it final form to be sent to a competition”. Cansever, on the other hand, narrates the team’s formation as follows: “We had an Office together with Maruf Önal and Abdurrahman (Hancı). […] the reason behind this Office was the years 1955 and 1956. We thought that stupid things were being done for Istanbul and said “We need to think of something, discuss it”. Then, everybody started saying something. And the road building stories began… this 3-4 people became eight, or ten people. We sometimes met twice a week and talked for three or four hours” (Tanyeli, Yücel, 2007, 154). Cansever handles this period in terms of social works. When he is narrating the period, he emphasizes the preparation phase of the article they wrote against the roads being paved in the peninsula. The names which created the group have not only contributed to the competitions with projects, but also tried to develop the institution of competition by constantly discussing it. The discussions that took place were simultaneous with the founding of the Chamber of Architects, rules for determining the jury and defining of the criteria. Cansever narrates the preparations for the Chamber of Architects as follows: “While architects in France could come together, talk about and discuss all kinds of issues was something Turkey did not have. We said, ‘If we want to do something, we need to turn architecture into an issue whose characteristics, goals and problems are discussed and talked about in this country”. Then, Maruf visited our office a couple of times. […] Of course, at that time we also had the Chamber of Architects issue at hand, which started in 1947. The Chamber issue gained on a much more official nature. (…) People said “Let’s think about the future of architecture in Turkey, in parallel to the founding activities of the Chamber”. Abdurrahman, Maruf and I met Haluk Baysal and Melih Birsel. They also started attending the meetings we held. […] We are discussing the performance of Menderes. Meanwhile, effort was being spent and preparations were done for the founding of the Chamber. After the founding of our Chamber, this time

Competitions and Architecture 52 Symposium


we started discussing what the Chamber needs to regulate and architecture rights… […] In fact, a very extensive study was conducted; however the main ideas developed in the Office. (…) Wage scales, the selection of the jury for competitions and their operating principles, the rights attained by the winners of competitions… These were all narrated to people, as issues discussed in the Chamber. These ideas were defended by larger groups in the Chamber and became Chamber decisions in the congresses”. (Tanyeli, Yücel, 2007, 174). Cengizkan (2007, 2) summarizes the wide effects of the meeting held in the publication prepared for Baysal-Birsel as follows: “These meetings became a regular activity under the name ‘Tuesday Meetings’ between 1954-56. The group was joined by architects and city planners, along with people from other disciplines, or even other cities. It may be stated that, participating in competitions with projects designed with ideas developed in these meetings have been quite useful in terms of guidance for the period’s architecture”. Kaçel (2007, 13-14) in his article titled “Fidüsyer: A Collective Thinking practice”, in which he analyses architecture of Baysal-Birsel, evaluates the community’s work method and approach to architecture. “Collective thinking, which is essential in this model is vehement criticism and discussion. A brain team was created with three partnerships and single architects joining from the outside. This team was anonymous, because the coming together of 9-10 architects happens outside the daily architecture practice. However, the architects’ idealist, perfectionist and passionate attitude make the architecture they display completely idealist and progressive as well”.

Architecture Project Competitions

In the period covering 70 years, between 1930-2000, when we take a look at Turkey’s competition process, we come across about 600 competitions (Başbuğ, 2007, 10-11). Önal has participated individually, or with a team in the 30 of the competitions in question and as a jury member in 30 of them, starting from the 1940’s. When the lists in the Competition Index (2004) are analyzed chronologically and in detail, the qualitative and quantitative importance and continuity can be seen. Between 195055, within these competitions which constituted a lively occupational platform, the projects they have designed as a team stood out with their progressive attitude. In 1955, the first part of the community which came together (T. Cansever, A. Germen, A. Hancı, M. Önal, R. Birol) entered the Ankara City Planning competition and won an honorable mention. Meanwhile, R. Birol, T. Cansever, S. Gürel, A. Hancı, F. Sırmalı won the second place in Antalya Construction Plan competition. Birol (2010) who was present in both competitions narrates this experience as follows: “In Ankara

6 “It has been deemed as the first prize winner along with the first prize project through a legal struggle after the competition and with the decision of Public Works Higher Science Committee” (Cengizkan, 2007, 102). 7 The Institution which Organized the Competition: Ministry of Public Works; Permanent Jury Members: Maruf Önal, Doğan Tekeli, Rahmi Bediz, Ersen Gömleksizoğlu, Ali Terzibaşoğlu; Associate Jury Members: Esen Bolak, Hilmi Beyazıt, Demirtaş Kamçıl; Advisory Jury Members: Selahattin Başiplikçi, Ergin Çıtıpıtıoğlu, Uğur Ersoy, Yalçın Ersoy, Refik Oral, Hamit Şerbetçioğlu; Rapporteurs: Şükran Atay, Yücel Akyürek 1st Prize: Şaziment Arolat, Neşet Arolat, Ergün Aksel 2nd Prize: Tülay Taşçıoğlu, Adnan Taşçıoğlu 3rd Prize: Yüksel Erdemir, Umut İnan, Edip Önder Us Honorable Mention: Hasan Öncüoğlu, Ihsan Onrat Honorable Mention: Hasan Kuruyazıcı, Erhan Balkan Honorable Mention: Yurdanur Sepkin, Halis Pektaş, Öner Olcay, Gür Dalkıran

53 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


International Construction Plan Competition, I’m not a bit hesitant to say that our project has been lowered to first honorable mention at the last minute. […] The same thing happened in both of the competitions. The second was Antalya construction plan competition. We won the second place. Afterwards, a person who worked in Antalya municipality told us that we were awarded the second place at the last minute. If that project was chosen, Antalya would now be a model city. Inner sections of the fortress and the cliff would be preserved and gentrified. The city would advance towards the inner regions…” These projects show that the community conducted research on the city as well as structure construction, discussed the related issues, produced ideas and projects, but that this process was terminated with implementation. In 1955, the Ankara Highways General Directorate Building competition which the whole team entered together is the most important work of the team, due its avant-garde aspects and as the winner of the competition. Hancı (Birol N., 2008, 50), narrates the project as follows: “This kind of a competition was preferred in order to achieve a building that was in harmony with especially the Anıtkabir silhouette, through economical and a modern office technique which in function did not require any sacrifices to be made. We were inspired by Anıtkabir’s ground level colonnade and had the main building built on top of this. This colonnaded entrance allowed for a view in the direction of Anıtkabir. We especially gave importance to the flexibility of the construction system in the Office levels in length and breadth. The project which was designed as to give the chance of main entry to be from the sides of the building, envisaged the communication to be done between the levels through an elevator and a paternoster”. According to Birol (2010), the steel construction in the proposed project was to be performed for the first time in 1954, in Turkey. It was later on changed to reinforced concrete”. Doğan Tekeli (2008, 10) narrates how this unique project designed by the community has had a broad repercussion in the architecture circles as follows: “The two story, steel framed, simple project later on influenced many young architects and have won similar awards in the dense project competitions organized at that time. The failure to implement the Highway project due to various reasons has been a great loss in terms of our architecture”. The team won the second place in the “Ataköy, Baruthane Building Complex Idea Project Competition” the same year. Birol (2010) talks about the project as follows: “The competition was on Baruthane, with a population of 65.000. We won the competition. But since we were young, they did not take us seriously. Of course, since everyone in the team showed modesty, nobody ever talked about these later on. They were all good architects. It was a strong team. I and Sedat were the youngest of the team. […] Melih Birsel wanted to demand justice. He could not tolerate injustice Competitions and Architecture 54 Symposium


of any kind; he was a person of positive energy. Therefore, we made a complaint as a tem to the Ministry of Public Works. A new jury was formed. We were once again the winner. However, the employer hired an Italian architect from abroad. And our project was not implemented”. In the architecture of this period, in parallel to the developments in Western countries, International Style was not the only approach anymore and different approaches, such as Brutalism, Regionalism, Organic Architecture, etc. took place simultaneously. The most distinctive among these was an approach which took organic architecture as its starting point, preserves the geometry of the prism, but turns it into a multi pieced plan typology by repeating it in small scales (Sayar, 2004). The projects proposed by Önal and his colleagues in the competitions they have won can be evaluated as extending beyond the dominant architecture understanding of the period and as progressivist. Perhaps it is for this reason that although the projects won awards and have become the subject of many discussions, they have had the chance to be implemented. However, all projects show that working as a team does not result in an “average, medium and reconciliatory, etc.” Attitude; on the contrary, the discussion and criticism processes allow for a progressive product to be achieved as a result of collective work.

Jury Memberships

Önal other important contribution to Turkey’s architecture project competition area is the jury memberships. According to Önal (2006, 81-82): “Jury membership is a job which carries great responsibility: both to yourself and your colleagues and the public. The jury has great responsibility in the appreciation and appropriate criticism of the project you vote for. Therefore, I have lived this responsibility and had great trouble because of it. That is the reason why I have never analyzed any project on a superficial level; I have tried to make a deep analysis and to find out what the final aims of a project are. I always read the work report of project owners and determine what point the project owner has come to by taking into consideration certain aspects. After that, I sit down and draw the project to get to know it better; I take a look at it and to be able to determine the order of the whole setting and how the usage areas are connected to one another and for what purpose they are arranged. I draw the plan and sketch of the project, draw its intersections and then take a look at it once again. I conduct a separate analysis for each project and after my analysis, I get an impression about them. I give positive, or negative points to it in accordance to the impression I have and assign a place for it. As a member of a jury, every time I take part in a competition, I determine the first, second and third place and give points according to my own 55 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


views. Sometimes the winners are close to the ones I have chosen; but mostly they are different from my preferences”. The ‘Competition Notes’ file which is located in the personal archives Önal has granted to Chamber of Architects Istanbul Büyükkent Division Şener Özler Archive and Documentation Center show his the personal care and effort he has shown to jury membership. In the file, there personal and written evaluation notes he has taken in over thirty jury memberships, some of which are underlined. Among these notes, the notes belonging to one competition stand out in terms of reflecting Önal’s evaluation criteria and method.

Erzurum Atatürk University Engineering Architecture Graduate School Competition

The project competition was opened for departments of mechanical, electronic, construction, mining and architecture. Önal has grouped the settings in the program while evaluating them into four groups: L (laboratories), A (settings of academic members: professors, associate professors, assistants and academic members), E (education: classes/workshops, conference rooms) and ADM (administration: for schools (faculty) and departments). At the beginning of Önal’s jury activities, there are criteria determined for ‘Engineering and Architecture Graduate School’: ‘Depending on the departments of […] which are the main criteria to be a whole within themselves and to maintain social and scientific criteria’, these were the aspects to be taken into consideration: • In the handling of the subject -the suggested solution type, • In the general setting plan -topography, -climatic aspects, area conditions, -close and far relationship with the environment, -pedestrian and vehicle traffic order, • In the Plan settlement, -the connection of usage parts with each other and within themselves, -the settlement of usage units within usage parts, -the areas used and the rate of areas encircling these, -the settlement of inner and exterior transportation, -flexibility, • In the structure, construction Competitions and Architecture 56 Symposium


-convenience to be maintained in the application, -characteristics of the suggested technology, -construction system, -flexibility created by the system, • In the costs -the first investment, -management, -maintenance, -repayment costs’. With the addition of other concepts, the criteria determined by Önal also appeared in the jury reports of award winning projects. Önal has drawn numerous sketches on tracing paper with lead pencil, by making all delivered projects’ location plans, or floor plans and made them abstract. Primarily, it can be observed that he checks the appropriateness of the program in the terms of conditions, evaluates the circulation (entry of different parts) and controls whether there is excess in the areas. The sketches reflect the main ideas of the participating architects, such as modulation, pursuit of rhythm, positioning around a yard, or yards, positioning in a main axis and sub axis. (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The sketches have been around in a quite detailed, almost in a scaled manner as to carry signs of the third dimension. When the projects were weak (like the projects which are eliminated in the first and second stages), or when the analyzed project did not have a min idea that could be made abstract, the details of the sketches were few (Figure 6, 7). After evaluating the projects one by one, Önal also prepared a table which classified the setting diagrams of the projects which were both to be eliminated and to be evaluated in terms of typology. (Figure 8). Five of the projects have been evaluated under the heading ‘compact setting diagrams’. These are settings which are convenient for ‘linear development in planning’. Önal has drawn the ‘development directions’ on the sketches. Other settings are classified under the heading ‘multi yarded sectionals’, ‘sectionals’, ‘ each part separate’. A sketch has also been drawn for Monoblock (single sectional, deductive), but there are no notes on this sketch. This table summarizes the integrated and precise evaluation approach. The sketches Önal has drawn and the notes he has taken contain important clues which answer important questions: “How does the jury evaluation process work? How do the jury members behave? How do they decided?”… When a competition is finalized, a single written explanation is generally a jointly written protocol by the jury. Even if the individual evaluations of the jury members have been brought to agenda during the 57 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 1: 1. The evaluation sketch, model photograph, floor plan of the award winning project

Figure 2: 2. The evaluation sketch, model photograph, floor plan of the award winning project

Figure 3: 3. The evaluation sketch, model photograph, floor plan of the award winning project

Figure 4: 1., 2., 3. Evaluation sketches and model photographs of honorable mention winning projects

Competitions and Architecture 58 Symposium


Figure 5: 4., 5., Evaluation sketches and model photographs of honorable mention winning projects

Figure 6: Evaluation sketches of four projects which have been eliminated in the third (last) stage

Figure 7: Evaluation sketches of 6 projects which have been eliminated in the first and second stages

Figure 8: Table which classifies the setting diagrams of the projects Ă–nal has evaluated in terms of typology

59 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


question-answer stage in the colloquium, these have not been preserved until today. The sketches and notes also show how Önal individually made his evaluation. During these competitions where there is a large number of participation, Önal’s attitude is directed towards a long evaluation period. The criteria he gave importance to are of course not results achieved by evaluating numerical values, by doing additions and subtractions within a rigid set of rules. In fact, the important aspect is, what kind of a main idea the value which is analyzed through a concentrated effort reflects.

Competitions and Architecture 60 Symposium


References

BAŞBUĞ, Tamer, in ÇAKIROĞLU, Tuba (prepared by), National Architecture Competitions Symposium, İzmir, TEACA Chamber of Architects General Center, TEACA Chamber of Architects İzmir Division, 2007, p. 9-12. BİROL, Nil (prepared by), Abdurrahman Hancı, Structure/ Projects, 1945-2000, Istanbul, Literatür, 2008, 231 p. “Interview on Maruf Önal“ with BİROL, Radi, (Ötkünç A.), 23.11.2010. CENGİZKAN, N. Müge (ed.), “Önsöz”, Haluk Baysal-Melih Birsel, Those who Spent Effort for Architecture Series-III Ankara, TEACA Chamber of Architects, 2007, 144 p. “Erzurum Atatürk University Engineering and Architecture Graduate School Architecture Project Competition”, Architecture 1972/04, no. 25, Ankara, Chamber of Architects General Center, 1972, p. 43-48. KAÇEL, Ela, “Fidüsyer: A Collective Thought Practice”, Haluk Baysal-Melih Birsel, Those who Spent Effort for Architecture Series-III, (ed. N. Müge Cengizkan), Ankara, TEACA Chamber of Architects, 2007, ps. 7-31. ÖNAL, Maruf, Portraits from the History of the Chamber: Maruf Önal, Istanbul, TEACA Chamber of Architects Istanbul Büyükkent Division, 2006, 143 p. ÖNAL, Maruf, Competition Notes, Chamber of Architects Istanbul Büyükkent Division, file which contains documents from his personal archive, donated to Şener Özler Archive and Documentation Center. SAYAR, Yasemin, “Architecture Project Competitions in Turkey 1930-2000: An Evaluation”, File: Always on the Agenda: Competitions, Architecture Magazine, no 320, p. 29-36, November December 2004. URL1:http://www.mo.org.tr/mimarlikdergisi/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=38&RecID=838 SMITH, Mark K., “Communities of Practice”, the encyclopedia of informal education, 2003, 2009, URL2: http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_ of_practice.htm. (Accessed:02.03.2013) TANYELİ, Uğur, YÜCEL, Atilla (dir.), Turgut Cansever, Intellectual and Architect, Istanbul, Ottoman Bank Archive and Research Center, «Garanti Galeri», 2007. TEKELİ, Doğan, “Prologue: Abdurrahman Hancı and Republic Era Turkish Architecture”, Abdurrahman Hancı, Structures/ Projects, 1945-2000 (prepared by: Nil Birol), Istanbul, Literatür, 2008, p. 9-11. WENGER, Etienne, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 318 p. WENGER, Etienne, “Communities of practice and social learning systems”, Organization, 7(2), 2000, p. 225–246. WENGER, Etienne, Communities of Practice, a brief introduction, 2006, URL3: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm (Erişim:02.03.2013) Competition Index 1930-2004, Ankara, TEACA Chamber of Architects General Center and TEACA Chamber of Architects Ankara Division, 2004, 303 p.

61 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


SHADOW for GÖBEKLİTEPE İpek Yürekli

Assist.Prof. Dr. ITU Faculty of Architecture

The Place Which Changed the Course of Human History: Göbeklitepe

Göbeklitepe which has been excavated since 1995 by the German Archeology Institute shakes the foundation of the basic judgments we know with the surprising questions it puts forward, even if we do not know the answers. From this perspective, it is like a huge puzzle, which we do not expect to find the answers to, but still are affected by its splendor. Göbeklitepe is an artificial hill, which is situated 15 kilometers northeast of Urfa. One of the unanswered questions is about this artificiality. By time, the hill has filled up layer by layer like a mound. This layer build up is the work of a design, because the lower layers were filled on purpose by filling materials (pebbles, soil and partly animal and human bones). We do not know why the area has been filled up over and over again. The excavation site is dominated by T shaped stalagmites, which are located in the perimeter of the excavation in circles and in its middle. There are animal embosses on the stalagmites (they are all carnivores) and stylized human arms and hands. It is not known what kind of a world of symbolism these pieces belong to either. The guesses are that, the shapes could be symbolizing the controlling of wild animals and that they might a part of the Ata cult. Up until now, five of the areas have been excavated. As the excavation progresses, numerous new areas are expected to be found. The only fact that is almost known for sure about Göbeklitepe is that there are no settlements among these extraordinary structures. Excavation Manager Klaus Schmidt (Schmidt, 2010) stipulates that the area might have been renewed and used for generations for symbolic rituals. The most striking fact about Göbeklitepe is its age: the oldest layers have been dated back 10.000, 11.000 years from today. This date coincides with a period of time, during which humans in the rest of the world dealt with hunting and fishing by foot, agriculture in Mesopotamia, the taming of animals and permanent settlement were about to start. Therefore, Göbeklitepe contains information which can destroy the belief that cities come first and that culture follows cities. This is a holy area, where groups came together periodically to hold religious ceremonies for a couple of thousand years. The T shaped stalagmites’ sizes are also Competitions and Architecture 62 Symposium


magnificent. While the older ones can reach up to 7 meters, the stalagmites in the newer layers fall down to 4 meters. The weight of big stalagmites can be as heavy as 50 tons. How such an enormous structural organization was organized by small groups which had not adopted the permanent settlement system and how its technology was developed are the questions which make up one of the pieces of the puzzle.

Figure 1: View of Göbeklitepe from the southeast

The structure of nature

Naches plateaus connected with smooth sloped hills are separated by the low profile of Göbeklitepe. Even though the hill which reaches up to 20 meters is small in the endless continuity of nature, it is still an effective triangulation. The dominant color and texture is made up of warm earth tones, which are merged into each other different tones on the partially rocky, partially sandy ground. At this point, which is on the east side of the Euphrates River that is accepted as the boundary of the ‘West’ and the ‘East’, the simple effectiveness of the location is a result of the scale and the unity, as ‘the spirit of the area’ is deeply felt. Göbeklitepe is a place, where time and setting layers are intertwined and penetrate humans. The layers revealed by the excavations show how people thousands of years ago touched nature. Although the holy quality of 63 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


the area has changed shape until today, it is overwhelming to see that it is still there. On the tree on the hill, there are still colorful pieces of cloth tied carefully. The holy quality of the area is preserved, as it is a location where many different wishes have been made.

Competition

In 2011, the German Archeology Institute dealing with the excavation of Göbeklitepe covered the area to allow people to be visit the place without giving damage to the excavation site and to protect the area from rain and sun and decided that it should be a tour area. In order to realize this project, an invitee competition was organized. The rules to be applied in the new cover system design in place of the temporary cover of the area and the requirements the design would have were presented to the groups in very detailed ‘design briefs’. In the Göbeklitepe excavation site, which is expected to be a part of the world heritage list1 of UNESCO in the near future, sensitivity towards the area and the symbolic value of the design were especially emphasized along with all the functions the design should meet. It was especially underlined that, the design which would protect the emerging of human made objects and the extraordinary aspects of nature should be of ‘Land-Art’ quality and should have a strong and organic relationship with the area. One other important aspect of the competition was that, the budget would be severely controlled. The competition jury consisted of German archeologists, architects and construction engineers. Competition map sheets and the model were sent beforehand to DAI’s Berlin center for the jury to analyze. Two weeks later, the groups presented their designs separately to the jury panel. At the end of the competition, İpek Yürekli, Arda İnceoğlu and Suna Brisen Otay team which competed with four German architecture groups were deemed the second place.2

The Targets of the Design

1 UNESCO World Heritage Site 2 Competition team: İpek Yürekli, Arda İnceoğlu, Suna Birsen Otay; assistants: Eylem Yılmaz, Gürkan Okta

The excavation at Göbeklitepe is organized in 10 meter X 10 meter squares. To enable Access between the squares, one meter side walking paths are left. These pat hare removed by time (Figure 2) and the complex’s spatial unity can be perceived. Until recently, although the temporary covers which partially protected the excavation did their job, they are about to be completely removed due to their unqualified designs. When we take a look at Figure 2, we can see that the most compelling aspect of the design is that the cover which is expected to cover a very large area (about 2.500 m2) is not connected with the load bearing system and only allows to be stepped on designated points. Increasing these points or their removal is out of the question. The load bearing system should not only carry the cover, but the walking platforms as well. Therefore,

Competitions and Architecture 64 Symposium


problem becomes more complicated. The requirements informed by DAI, according to which the design should meet were as follows: a. The T shaped stalagmites at the center of the excavation and the circle shaped walls encircling these should be protected especially against the erosion effect, caused by rain and snow. b. The feet of the load bearing system should only be placed in the designated areas. c. The walking paths should allow for a good view of different points of the excavation site. At the same time, the walking paths should be at such a distance as to prevent the visitors from touching the objects at the site. A separate load bearing system cannot be used for the walking paths. Although the direction is not determined, it should be a circular road, whose entrance and exit start and end at the same point. d. The vertical carriers of the load bearing system should be of minimum possible number. The load bearing system should not visually compete with the findings. e. In order for the embossments on the T shaped stalagmites to be perceived, natural and artificial light should be distributed equally to the excavation site. f. The seismicity of the area should be taken into consideration in the design process of the load bearing system. g. Heavy equipments cannot be used in the design and its production to protect the excavation site and the findings. h. The whole of the design should be easily unraveled and removable. i. The maintenance of materials which make use of sustainability principle and their maintenance during the use of the design should be taken into consideration. j. All rain water that may build up on the cover should be removed by directing it in the southern area. k. The area marked in the plan shows the minimum amount to be covered by the cover.

Figure 2: Views of the excavation site Phogotgraph: Nico Becker, DAI

Along with this very detailed requirements list sent from DAI, the evaluation criteria were as follows:

Design:

a: Reflection of the cultural and historical meaning of the area and the findings b: Its place in the landscape: the emphasis of the area, its relationship with ‘Wishing tree’ 65 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


c: The quality of the setting underneath the cover – The relationship of the cover with everything underneath the cover d: The design unity of the structure and its physicality – the visual relationship formed between the excavation area and the findings

Function:

a: Protection from rain and snow – removal of the water b: Lighting of the area and the stalagmites c: Circulation of the visitors and the archaeologists

Realization:

a: Economy of the production and maintenance processes

It was especially emphasized that the items in the above list did not contain any priority, or an order of preference Drawing 1: Göbeklitepe excavation schematic plan The dotted lines show the minimum amount of area to be covered; the points marked with X indicate the areas, which the load bearing system’s feet are allowed to stand on.

Drawing 2: Design concept

The Character of the Archaeological Area

Archaeological layers; stone circles settled on top of one another; the formation of the hill by time; giant sized objects drilling the hill. The extraordinary environment and dramatic objects in Göbeklitepe have a calming, but also an alienating effect. It is expected an object to be added to this strange, but poetic environment, without harming the existing character. In the essence of the design, the soft curvilinear fluctuation and the overlapping of the archeological layers are reflected.

Design Concept

Figure 3: T shaped stalagmites and embossments Photograph: İpek Yürekli

Some structures are defined through their shadows. The shadow gives the setting its character as being independent from the structure and as a strong entity. The cover

Competitions and Architecture 66 Symposium


design over the GĂśbeklitepe excavation underneath the hot yellow aims at achieving this: the removal of the structure from the excavation site, from the earth and mostly from its own shadow. The cover floats within the soft slope continuity of the endless topography.

Drawing 3: The design reflects the topography without imitating it

Design Targets

The cover is perceived as a part of the landscape; it gains on a land-art quality and started to be perceived as an object in the surroundings. It emphasizes the importance of the archeological area and starts to recede. As soon as you go under it, the floating cover evaporates and the visitor is left alone with the positions of the objects within the archeological area within the archaeological area and relationships between them.

Figure 5: Two layered clipper design, vertical load bearing elements and walking path

Figure 3: T shaped stalagmites and embossments Photograph: Ä°pek YĂźrekli

67 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Design Details

The cover, ‘cover’ and protects the excavation site and the objects within by a system consisting of overlapping objects. In a way, the layered texture of the excavation site is reflected on another dimension. The membranes located on top of two layers are positioned by gliding. This gliding allows the controlling and guiding of natural light and natural ventilation. Natural light does not directly enter the area, however the light reflected from the glided membranes is used without any limitation. With the membrane bands located on the steel clippers which are designed with different profiles each are placed in the North-south direction. By the positioning of the two layered

Figure 6: Walking path sequences

Competitions and Architecture 68 Symposium


Figure 7: Load Bearing system details

69 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 8: North – South direction profile All the load bearing clippers are different profiles

clipper design and cover membranes by jumping on and underneath the clippers, natural ventilation is controlled. By the discontinuity of the cover, the accumulation of hot air under the cover is prevented and the formation of air movements is supported. The positioning of the membrane bands which made up the cover, allows the dominant west winds to easily pass within the construction. At the same time, the slope towards the South allows the accumulation of rain water and is removed from underneath the entrance ramp. The vertical load bearers which are made up of steel tubes branch out towards the load bearing clippers. The branching out stylistic emphasis has been preferred as a practical method of bringing together the clippers which follow an orderly axis system through the randomness of the permitted vertical load bearers besides reducing the effect of the vertical load bearers. The steel construction walking pat hare added to the same vertical load bearers as well. The width of the walking path expands and narrows according to the position of the objects to be followed. Underneath the walking path, a lighting system has been designed, which the visitors cannot see the light source. The cover is lighted from underneath as well, a homogenous light effect is produced and the feeling of the cover breaking away from the ground at night is supported. The load bearing system consists of 13 vertical bearers which are placed in the permitted areas and 14 clippers. The profiles of the clippers are shaped according to the opening passed through. Due to the randomness of the points permitted for the vertical bearers, the gaps which are passed through also expand and contract in a random manner. In order to meet these differences, a variable clipper system has been designed. The spaces between the clippers are equal to each other. A total of an area of 53 to 47 meters is thus covered. The vertical bearers of the load bearing system are minimized and thus an effect of lightness is given from a distance. It does not exceed from being a touch done today in the spatial and temporal indefiniteness of the place. Competitions and Architecture 70 Symposium


Figure 9: layers of the system

Figure 10: Plans

References

Schmidt, K (2010) GÜbekli Tepe – The Stone Age Sanctuaries. New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII; 239 - 256

71 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


COMPETITION STORIES: Experiments, Experiences Ferhat Hacıalibeyoğlu *, Deniz Dokgöz **, Orhan Ersan***

* Research Assistant Architect- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture ** Research Assistant Doctor- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture *** M. Architect

Competition is a voluntary position, which involves reaction against the general perception and quality of the environment that is reached by the physical production of architecture and a field of production, which contributes to the environment against the present mechanism little in quantity but high in quality. This field is sum total of progresses and experiments that is given meaning by the independent productions those hold different values and critics in themselves together with multiple actors, competitiveness and challenge. All these independent processes-experiments are a separate experiment itself. These experiences contributing to the competition environment and to the construction of competition culture have values requiring being shared and discussed in terms of phases they passed through. It becomes crucial for the processes taking place during the production of the projects and the phase after the competition, starting with the end of the colloquium to the application, to be known, shared and evaluated. An evaluation will be carried out with the longest section possible in order to see these introvert operating processes where new actors and ideas emerge and to observe similar or different situations. Hence, within the context of this study, the experiments that obtained opportunity-possibility to experience the competition process in long section with 1st place or equivalent awards in national architectural project and concept project competitions produced between 2005-2013 and their stories are covered. It is being aimed ultimately to contribute to the competition culture by pointing out these experiences not usually partaking in the physical architectural environment: the roads they have taken, the problems they had,

Table 1: Process

Competitions and Architecture 72 Symposium


the actors they came across and sharing and discussing their situations affecting the result. Being inspired by the description of “competition stories” of the symposium, a title-experience relationship is established by matching each experience with a book that will give meaning and reflect the most significant character. In a sense, sometimes it is been referred to the process directly and sometimes the unexpected situations are emphasized with this form of expression summarizing the experience with a title.

Figure 1: Competition Stories Match-up’s

73 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Additionally, story setup also influences the literally language used to narrate the experiences. In this context, within this framework: The Pendik Municipality Service Center and Surroundings National Architectural Project Competition 2005, 1st Prize (Big Hopes), The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Congress Center Building National Architectural Project Competition 2008, 1st Prize (The Wall), The Kemeraltı Market Cover Coat and The Urban Furniture National Concept Project Competition 2008, Equivalent Prize (The Storyteller), The Kadirli Municipality Service Center and Cultural Center National Architectural Project Competition 2008, 1st Prize (The Madcap), The METU Student Center and The METU Square National Architectural Project Competition 2010, 1st Prize (The Trial), Mersin Chamber of Commerce and Industry Service Building and Business Center National Concept Project Competition 2012, Equivalent Prize, (Waiting for Godot)

Big Hopes

“ The first award we won; dreams, expectations and hopes created with all the excitement we had “ The year is 2005… We are waiting for the results of the second national project competition we took part as a team. We find out that we got the 1st prize after 11 daylong evaluation of the jury. Joy, happiness, excitement... Despite the fact that there is no common jury report, it is been specified why our project got the 1st prize in the Pendik Municipality new Service Building National

Figure 2: The Pendik Municipality Service Center and Surroundings

Competitions and Architecture 74 Symposium


Architectural Project Competition with personal views of the jury members in the project report. According to the report “…planning public related departments of the municipality service building such as parliament within the mass but detaching it partially increasing the power of representation in the 3rd dimension and creating an architectural setup with the low-rise building that is not competing with the immediate surroundings’ silhouette...” , “…Reducing the total story height of the building thanks to the gained subground creates good interior space. The plain but mature approach chosen to form the building and create the architectural language is one of the most important features of the project.” , “…Having good distribution relationships and interior solutions …” Along with those comments our faith and trust in our project increase and we dream of passing to the application phase as soon as possible. The competition comes to an end and we (project owners) come up against with the institution -employer- organizing the competition. In fact it is a process rather tedious and unpredictable. First, they will negotiate you to lower the price that you get for the application project, just as in a bidding process, over a price determined according to the regulations of The Ministry of Public Works (now Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning) or the Chamber of the Architects, which will not be directly paid you. Of course, due to lack of experience you will be surprised first and then will not know what to do. The institution will end the negotiation issue with telling you “we will not give you the job if you don’t reduce the price. You would end up reducing the price even more if you had taken the job with a bidding anyways”. The inexperienced and young project owners will accept the reduction due to lack of support of any institution or person. The first process of the competition practice had started troubled and actually the rest would be even more troubled. The institution or the most authorized person in the institution will take the project in its hands and designates its requisitions and those requisitions might include some changes that ruins the architectural features made you won Pendik Municipality Project Competition. That is to say, especially the public spaces created with detachment of the spaces frequently used by the public from the municipality service building as it was stated in the jury report will suffer from erosion with Mayor’s pressure saying “my room should be located here, the cafeteria should go to the top of the building”. Its been demanded from you to increase the number of the floors indicating the need for new units in terms of square meters. Then, ideological requisitions such as not placing men’s and women’s WC’s next to each other comes 75 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


from the the institution administrators. At last, we were asked to design the façade with a traditional style. This is our first encounter with the Seljuk style façade demand which we will later find out is a chronic case. The tight negotiation starts on all the issues you can compensate or not against all the pressure. Yet the administration holds all the trumps. In the end, the application phase of the project rasped and suffered erosion comes to an end. Afterwards the mayor changes, ideas change, goals change and project will not be applied.

The Wall

“Wall both an architectural element that describes and gives meaning to the project and an expression represents the hard and tough nature of the process.” It is 2008… Ministry of Foreign Affairs Congress Center Building national architectural competition is announced. Our teams begins designing 1 month before the deadline. Coming to the final phase of the design 5 days before the deadline makes Orhan do news sketches during his Istanbul trip. After the trip, the sketch is discussed at the office and 4 days till the deadline, it is decided to draw “the wall project” and it is been drawn. The result is the 1st place. After the project getting the 1st prize, Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives necessary order to the undersecretary of The Public Works.

Figure 3: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Congress Center Building

When we told them that there is a possibility of 2 members of our group going to military service in August 2008, we are told that it is more convenient if we go after the application projects are drawn. Orhan Ersan’s service is postponed 1 year with a letter from the Ministry. Before the contract was signed, there are some additions and changes asked us to be done on the preliminary project. Some additions made to the Competitions and Architecture 76 Symposium


program. Soil investigation report, architectural, static, mechanical, electrical projects and details, interior projects and details of specific spaces, projects and details of fixed furniture, catalog and key plan containing photos and details of movable furniture, infrastructure project and details, acoustical project and details of congress center, material details and approximate cost & bidding file covering all these are asked to be prepared. It is predicted 110 days for the delivery of all the projects including the confirmations. We pass the real interview after all these requisitions. The negotiation… The team is more experienced with negotiating now! In the tender meeting we are told that the price we bid is too high, besides we should not include the extra spaces in this price. The responsible principal tells us kindly that in earlier competitions they always got 20% off and the discount should apply here too and that the prices of the Public Works also need an update. Our experienced team gathers outside the room and is obliged to accept this project for this price.

Figure 4: The Kemeraltı Market Cover Coat and the Urban Furniture

At this point, the principal’s attitudes as well as his will to do a work in scale and experience it play an important part. After a fast and troublesome application project process, the projects and the bidding file is been delivered. As we were waiting for the bidding and the ground-breaking ceremony, the Minister related changes, the undersecretary in charge retires, ideas change, goals change and the project is suspended. A while later, the program of the congress center is transferred to the Campus for Ministry of Foreign Affairs Architectural Project Competition announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a result, the entire process of competition and the application is not finalized with a building, ending up with a competition experience for the architectural environment and an experience for application project for us. The wall is torn down before it is been built. Orhan serves his time in Şırnak.

77 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 5: Kadirli Municipilaty Building and Cultural Center

Competitions and Architecture 78 Symposium


Storyteller “Eight apples fall from the sky, 7 of them are rotten”

It’s 2008. There is not much time for the team, which was coming back from the award ceremony of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Competition. It is important and exciting for the team that is living in Izmir to produce something for this city. The site is visited with good sprit. It is a first time for the team to participate in a concept competition and the project is chosen to be one of eight equivalent award winners. At the colloquium, it is been said that there would be another meeting on a further date and bid farewell. For us, there could not be anything further than that. Rumor has it that, some experts chose a project, the application projects were drawn and the project was about to be built. At least, it is pleasing to see that the process was conclusive. The biggest weakness of this experience is ethics and its lack of process based on communication.

The Madcap “This is another project we thought it would not be applied but it is near done ”

The year is 2009. The team draws for the competition together. The results are announced. The first price... Two people from the team go into the army. The one left goes to Kadirli to pick up the prize. After the award ceremony, the mayor states that it is a good project but can be better if we used Seljuk motives on the façades. It is asked to the Mayor “Can you make a request to the surgeon which part of your body to cut as a patient laying on the operating table” and the Mayor answers, “I am the surgeon”. Even before coming to the Seljuk Syndrome issue, there are disagreements about the price and then both sides mutually pulls back and looses connection. 6 months pass by. The part of the team doing their time in the military service is now back and the other member joins the army. The municipality requires another meeting. Based on our prior experiences, it is predicted by the team that this unnamed meeting is a negotiation for the price and the time. During the meeting, which we went prepared ourselves for this, we are asked to reduce the price 60% and explained that it would be extremely difficult for the Kadirli Municipal council to confirm the price mentioned earlier since Kadirli is a medium sized district. Albeit, we leave the table for few times, in the end it is decided to take the offer. The earlier experiences start giving a hopeless feeling among the team about a competition project being built. The ideas like “let’s have this building realized and give support the Municipality as much as we can”, helping out a small-scaled town municipality that organizes a competition, seeing final products of competitions and encouraging other municipalities pushes us to take the job. The contract requiring only the architectural, static, electrical and mechanical projects and the details is signed on the June 7th, 2010 and it had 60 days before the expiration. The 79 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


projects are delivered to the Municipality after revisions such as changing the Cultural Center’s hall system to graded sitting arrangement. Seljuk influenced façade syndrome is suppressed and even swept away. A while after, the municipality gets loan from the Ilbank and the projects are sent to the Adana Ilbank. The technical staff of the bank requests revision and additional drawings. In app. 3 months time the loan application is confirmed and put in a tender.

Figure 6: METU Student Center and METU Square

The construction starts with construction site delivery to the constructor on the April 4th, 2012. After the confirmation of Ilbank, the process goes forward quite fast for the construction expected to be completed in June 2013. The personnel of the Kadirli Municipality working devotedly to finish the construction and the determination of the Mayor become important factors paving the way. As the building appear, it is priceless to hear from the Mayor, who used to talk about Seljuk façades, saying: “folk, it turned out to be a very modern, contemporary building, anyone who sees it admire

Figure 7: Mersin Chamber of Commerce and Industry Service Building and Business Center

Competitions and Architecture 80 Symposium


it, thank you”. We continue to contribute to the construction process we are trying to follow although there is no following-up service.

The Trial “To be unable to satisfy our desire”

It’s 2010. The team is disorganized but still a team. The last day for visiting the site... Deniz is doing his service in military and he is on leave. He sees the site, gets the document and then back to the watch. It excites us that the competition is at METU and has a fun subject like student center. The project completed in the end of a hot and tough process, is chosen to get the 1st prize. As we were saying “METU would not announce a competition, if it would not build it, it will definitely be built”, we find out that it has been filed a claim. The process had stopped. Unfortunately, nothing happens after the colloquium again. We are waiting as we keep our hope.

Waiting for Godot “Welcome Godot”

It is 2013…”Equivalent price” for the second time. A similar process with the Kemeralti Competition in 2008... No news, no interviews... Mersin is far, not even a speculation this time. It is as if this competition was never announced, never held.

Conclusion

Despite all these negativity and inconclusiveness were faced after all these experiences, we remain contributing to the practice of competitions and to the culture. We see competitions as a way of producing and existing in the field of the profession. Although the table below draws a negative picture, it does not damage our faith in competitions and the qualified productions achieved with competitions. On the table it is seen that, the inconclusive situation is directly connected to the attitudes of the administration and the actors leading the process after the competition. The process working in a totally self-enclosed way and the fact that competition ends with colloquium brings uncontrollable indefinable-undefined processes along with itself. Although there are examples working well and coming to conclusion, it is needed to increase that number and it is needed to have productions of them partaking in physical architectural environment. In this sense, increasing number of competitions and existence of applicable projects in recent period is being observed as a pleasing development and evaluated as positive steps towards future.

81 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


POST-COMPETITION PHASE: An Evaluation Through Current Applications Cem Ä°lhan

Introduction

The importance of competitions in terms of building quality structures and environments has been endlessly underlined, some topics have been brought to the fore about the subject and been discussed in great detail. Competitions are an issue which is always in the agenda of architecture practice. It is apparent that the current project building methods do not contribute an environment of transparency and just competition. However, although there is a general agreement about the subject in our country, where there is a long history of competitions, it has been observed that this method is not sufficiently managed and that, even if it is managed, the process is not duly completed. Besides issues discussed in terms of the subject, such as the competition management’s presenting young colleagues certain expansions to make themselves more visible, the extent of transparency, a just competition and the unique solutions this may bring to the fore, it is known that it has benefits such as creating variations in the alternatives, on-the-job training and self-development, to weigh oneself up in the architecture environment and having a document quality in terms of the trends of the period. This proclamation rather aims at opening a discussion on the post-competition processes and evaluating this through experiences. Within the scope of this paper, the post-competition processes will not only be evaluated through success stories. Those applications, which ended negatively will also be handled and discussed.

1. Post-Competition Phase What are the standards of completing, or not completing a structure which has been achieved through the competition with a satisfactory result? In general terms, criteria such as to what extent project ownership rights are protected, budget allocated for design, whether occupational inspection service is given or not, to what extent the employer defines his needs, whether the jury is a referable authority in case of disputes and how much the employer trusts the architecture are the first main titles which come to mind. Let us now extend these topics one by one: Competitions and Architecture 82 Symposium


1.1. Project Ownership Rights In every competition, the least evaluated issue is perhaps the agreement drafts, which are appendices of the competition terms of contract. These are documents, which are not closely inspected during the first years of the competition practice, but are seriously faced with after the competition is won. It is highly important whether there is a just agreement text, which protects the project ownership rights that define how a structure is to be constructed, both during the application of the project and after the bidding. However, the main problem is that, these agreement texts, which may contain objectionable clauses are indirectly signed, saying “we accept the terms of the competitions fully�. If these are signed, it is not possible to enter the competition. Project ownership rights do not end with the construction of the structure. It is another great problem whether arbitrary revisions are done, without consulting the architect about the needs which may arise after the structure is being put into service. We do know that a large number of buildings become unrecognizable due to interventions after the construction. 1.2. Occupational Inspection In parallel to the first heading, whether the occupational inspection right is given to the architect or not directly affects the quality of the final product. During the construction process, in cases where the inspection right is not given to the architect, we all know that the initiative passes onto the contactor, or the employer. An understanding which views the architect as a barrier makes the competition project unrecognizable. When detail solutions, or problematic practices which may be recognized in the worksite that cannot be foreseen during the project design process are solved leaving the architect outside, generally the solutions consist of the shortest and seemingly most economical methods. However, revisions which are caused by detail or material changes which may naturally arise during the application can be realized with the participation of the project owner, without breaking away from the main idea. 1.3. Project Costs The allocated budget for design is generally set down under the minimum wage level required by the project, due to a common construction bid rationale. This situation may lower the quality of the received service. Although there are certain structures constructed through devoted work, this approach prevents a sustainable independent office culture from being created, by causing architectural offices to experience serious financial problems. Financial issues such as, the hardware used during the design process, licensed software and hiring of experience personnel are tried to be handled within limited budgets. Mostly, these cannot provide the minimum requirements 83 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


needed by the project scale. Unfortunately, the minimum wage rates determined by the trade association are accepted as the upper cost, from which the bargaining is started during the agreement process and the bargaining is done through this amount. 1.4. Requirement Program It is another problem whether the allocated budget for the structure and the requirement program are clearly defined from the beginning. The most common case is the uncertainty of the requirement program, or in other words, the employer who cannot define his needs. The argument here is uncertainty in the name of flexibility. During the preparation of the requirement program, a program whose limits are not clearly defined is created and this is thought to be leading the competitor to create unique designs by setting him free of restrictions. However, this uncertainty may cause frequent comebacks during the project design process. Thus, it creates a corrosive situation for both the architect and the employer. 1.5. Belief in the Employer and the Project Whether the administration/customer believes in the project achieved as a result of the competition, is perhaps one of the most crucial standards. It is of great importance that the actor, which is in a way the sponsor of the idea in the institutions which organize the competition, has an active role in the whole process from the project design of the structure to its construction, embracing the structure, shortly adoption of the project that is the winner. In especially projects organized by institutions, it is very difficult to find a real addressee. The interventions on the design knowingly, or unknowingly during the processes which represent the institution or during the process of approval, easily cause a break away from the main idea. As a result, behind the successful constructions, there is a person of initiative “slams his fist on the table�, someone who makes others listen to him. 1.6. Jury The competition jury should not only be a referable authority during the competition evaluation process, but remain as such until the completion of the construction. Although this is frequently not the case, it may be beneficial if the jury steps in and expresses an opinion on disputed issues concerning the property owner/ management. In the project process, where the architect is left alone after the competition, the jury which finds the project worth constructing may become a tool for constructing quality structures.

2. An Evaluation Through Examples In this part of our study, we would like to make a short evaluation by discussing the post-competition problems which have been mentioned above under the main Competitions and Architecture 84 Symposium


headings. These five examples which have been chosen consist of structures that were built through architecture project competitions organized by various public institutes in the last ten years. Except for one of the projects here, all have been chosen from competitions organized within the framework of the Chamber of Architects Competition Regulations. The answers received from project owners, who were asked to evaluate the process they experienced according to the 7 criteria explained above have been summarized in the table below: METUTRNC Campus Centre Rectorship, BİM and Library Buildings

HDAT Kayabaşı Premises 17th Neighborhood

Union of Notaries building

Karatay City Center

Akhisar Municipality Service Building

1. Is there a just contract protecting the property ownership rights during the application of the project and after the bidding?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. In parallel to the first heading, has the inspection right been given to the architect?

Yes

No (*)

Yes

No

Yes

3. Has the budget allocated for the design been lowered under the minimum wage limits due to a common construction bid rationale?

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

4. Has the budget allocated for the construction of the building and requirement program been explained clearly from the beginning?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (**)

5. Does the Management/ customer have belief in the project constructed as a result of the competition?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

6. Was the jury able to keep itself within the process as an authority of reference until the completion of the construction?

No

Not known (*)

Yes

No

Yes

7. Have some revisions been done without consulting the architect about the needs which may arise after the building is put into service? (related to item no 1)

No

The building has recently put into service

No

Yes

Yes

Table 1: Evaluation of Post-Competition

85 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


3. Results

It is apparent that, achieving a quality environment through competitions is possible with “laws” and that changes should be done in the occupational, structure, bidding law, city planning and reconstruction regulations. However, even if these changes are made, the timidity of the employers, primarily institutions are noteworthy. Not initiating the construction process of those projects which have won competitions and are expected to be constructed reduces the amount of trust on the method. However, the projects which were carried to the construction phase stand out as buildings which have higher standards. We believe that, as this process is carried on,

Figure 1-2

Figure 3-4

the belief of the employers will also increase. However, it is a must that the construction of the buildings is realized by remaining true to the ideas chosen in the competition. Before doing a general evaluation of the post-competition process through the analyzed examples, we think that it would be useful to state a few important issues. Firstly, the projects achieved through the competition can be arguable sides in terms of design. It is obvious that, different jury compositions may choose different projects in the same competition. In addition, there is no guarantee that the desired quality will be achieved in the process of achieving the application projects. However, the issue being discussed here is the jury’s evaluation of the projects achieved as a result of a competition after the competition phase. It can be seen as a result of our analysis that, in all the projects the final buildings are being directly affected by the main criteria which are the basis of our quality and performance evaluation. As in the case of Union of Notaries buildings, the buildings which meet the majority of the criteria positively point out to the fact that, the requirements for creating satisfactory and quality environments do not only depend on the consistent completion of the competition phase, but also the post-competition phase (Figure 1-2). It is of vital importance whether the occupational inspection right is given to the project owner. In one of the examples which are a topic of discussion, the project owners tried to be a part of the construction process by a devoted shift, although they were not given project ownership right in the HDAT Kayabaşı buildings

Competitions and Architecture 86 Symposium


Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 8

Figure 7

87 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


(Figure 3-4). Unfortunately, it is not possible to give the same kind of service in every situation. For instance, an office which is active in Istanbul in the Karatay City Center project was not able to interfere in a worksite in Konya through regular shifts (Figure 5-6). A person who believes in the project and takes on its sponsorship facilitates solving many problems. It has been observed that the jury does not take an active role in the post-competition phase. Still, as in the cases of METU TRNS Campus Center buildings, it is possible to consult some members’ views unofficially (Figure 7-8) It is a significant gain that the competition method is preferred and applied in different manners. It is surely important whether the organized competitions are national, local or invitees and whether they are organized within a certain framework of regulations. However, as in the Akhisar Municipality building, public or private institutions’ making use of the competition in any manner as a method is a remarkable situation (Figure 9-10.) Successful applications matting the criteria analyzed above in a positive way show that the related criteria is a determining factor in terms of quality.

Competitions and Architecture 88 Symposium


89 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


COMPETITIONS in TURKEY as a DISCURSIVE PRACTICE: Naming the Urban Design Competitions1 Devrim Çimen

Dr. Mimar - Kentsel Tasarımcı

Introduction:

Urban Design started developing as a new area in Western World in 1950’s and as the paradigms shift, the context of urban design and the professional components have transformed. Today, urban design is defined as an interdisciplinary area as it’s believed it is not under a professional absolute domination of any kind and with this feature in theoretical and practical means, urban design separates itself from other 3 related disciplines (architecture, planning and landscape architecture). Urban Design in Turkey has started constituting its conceptual infrastructure and its discourse in academic environments in pre-1980’s. Starting from then on, urban design accomplished to settle the concept by instrumentalizing the competition establishment. This paper aims to reach a conclusion by carrying out a research within the context of 1980 Eskişehir Expo and Recreation Entertainment Culture Areas Urban Design Competition, as creating an urban design discourse via competitions, which actors were instumentalized and how were they instrumentalized.

Beginning?

It is not easy to put out an exact date when the urban design competitions started in Turkey. For instance, Mehmet Çubuk claims that 1969 Side Touristic Master Plan was the first when Baran İdil sets the date back to 1960’s Roumeli Hissar Garden Design and says: “Mehmet Çubuk’s date is a little late. Maybe without the name of urban design but there are lots of competitions, lots of work done without much change of the format. I took part in many of them when i was working with Turgut Cansever in my studentship. There is no doubt they were all urban design. One of them was Competitions and Architecture 90 Symposium


under architectural design and it is possible to call them urban design as well. For instance, there was Roumeli Hissar Competition in which we got the 2nd place and Doğan Tekeli got the 1st. “ Çubuk says about the internationally participated 1969 Side Competition, which they got the 1st place and he calls as the breaking point: ‘That competition’s context is loaded with design even though it is tourism planning There are things in it which will put out the design guide. There is even color designing. Thus it is a milestone for Turkey.’ In parallel with their own discoursive configuration, both names call their earlier practice as urban design. What I am trying to do in this research is not to find the beginning of urban design. On contrary, I find this approach dangerous because all the practices embody in different discoursive contexts and power relations; they are all conceptualized with different objects, themes, concepts and strategies. What is important to me is to try to make visible how all these complex relationship installations and discourses occurred in a specific period of time inside of described information set. From this point of view, what I aim here is to set out the multi-disciplinary structure rather than defining urban design, which is presented by complex power and relationship network created by different actors and the discoursive practices they staged during the formation of knowledge of the field through reading competition processes. In this sense, saying that the concept of “Urban Design” is a discoursive umbrella development that draws the general frame to different discoursive approaches would be right. If we talk with contemporary/recent conceptualizations, we can say that the history of urban design competitions go back to 1960’s and as a result of the savings of this process, urban design as a concept found itself a place both in academic and professional fields. İdil’s assertion is that the infrastructure of urban design in competition environment was built in the İzmit Expo and Recreation Competition in 1977 where he was one of the jury members and which was organized by Ilbank. İdil continues: “We were on the jury together with Mehmet Çubuk, the program developed of it could easily provide basis or take as an example for the urban design competition organized later, because we worked a lot on it. That is the story. I was a hardworking man. Mehmet Çubuk was hardworking too. But there was also 91 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


İlhan Gülgeç, also a hardworking man. We worked a lot on the specifications. We changed many of them. We put words in it like price, value...encouraging the team makings and we claimed to the mayor that the cost of all these will a little bit different. He accepted it. The chamber started taking these specifications as an example but we produced similar examples even earlier in Ilbank. They all accumulate. “ Despite the fact that, the program of the İzmit competition is very similar to the competition those were organized later and used the urban design term in their names, there is no emphasis on urban design term and it is observed that the terminology, the objects it includes, the themes and the concepts are mainly regarding the field of planning. And yet, it is a fact that this accumulation, which is formed by the contribution of academic and professional fields, brought along an important increment in the number of urban design competitions. In this sense, there is an increase that can easily be observed in the number of urban design competitions starting from the 1980’s. After 2000’s, it is possible to see that competitions with similar programs gained a much more multidisciplinary character and concepts such as architecture, planning, landscape architecture, sculpture and engineering were added next to the concept of urban design. This situation, on the one hand points out that, it is been tried to clarify the area urban design grasps and on the other hand, it can be interpreted as the sign for the disciplines mentioned earlier trying to validate their discourses in the context, which is formed by the present power relations.

Derivation of Competitions in Turkey between 1930-2009

The architecture and design competitions are closely related with institutionalizing the disciplines. The tradition of competition in Turkey starts with the Republic, which is a modernization project that presents western living style both on theoretical and practical platform. It needs the public buildings, boulevards, and squares to reflect the modern face of the young Republic This situation demands projects on both levels; planning and architecture. The foreign architects mainly imported from Europe are the first locomotives of the competitions. Meanwhile, the local architects could become dominating in the field in the end of 1930’s after the fight they gave to become an institutionalized profession (Sayar, Competitions and Architecture 92 Symposium


1988) and the competitions came to the forefront as an instrument to be able to ‘get the job’ among all the invited foreign architects who have been dominating both the academy and the professional field (Kolcu, 2005). In the beginning of the 1930’s majority of the competitions had similar program scopes and they were mainly singular buildings. In this sense, in the first period the discipline of architecture put the constellations aside and created unity in discourse. The first planning competition was organized internationally and with invitation in 1928 for building the new and modern Ankara. Hermann Jansen who was a German planner-architect won this competition. During the process after this, between 19401970, Ilbank organized open national competitions and played an important role on the relationship of this discipline with scientific thinking (Tekeli 1998). The Landscape discourse as Discipline of Landscaping was described separately as a discipline for the first time in Architecture Magazine in 1969/vol.9 (Adam and others, 1969). Its existence within the context of competitions goes back to Roumeli Hissar competition in 1957. It is interesting that Landscaping and Urban Design reached to the peak points in terms of numbers in the same period. The duality between Landscaping and Urban Design discourses points out a potential research area and these two discourses can be considered as opponents to each other. The majority of the competitions opened under the name of Landscaping were designated as immediate surroundings of a building or a monument by the program; the rest of it is mainly based on the landscape concept. Landscaping competitions continued decreasing till the end of 1990’s but could not make it to the 2000’s.

Naming the Urban Design Competitions

In the first half of the 1980’s the concept of Urban Design become widespread in academic environments and discussed on different platforms. Istanbul Technical University and Mimar Sinan University Planning Departments were founded in this period and Planning started to separate itself from Architecture as another discipline. Parallel to these developments Urban Design master degree and Ph.D. programs were founded with the planning departments but in the field of competitions the term of Urban Design was not used until 1980. Mehmet Çubuk mentions that during the Izmit competition in 1977, they tried to use the Urban Design term but they failed. Using the term for the first time was possible in Eskişehir Expo and Recreation Entertainment Culture Area competition where Çubuk was once more a jury member. The Landscaping competitions which were close to Urban Design scale and program wise started in 1960’s, 11 of them were announced and this process ended in 1990’s. It is clear that competitions were instrumentalized to produce discourses and 93 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


dominate the field in some certain periods and in this sense, competitions were used actively to establish the term of Urban Design. It would be interesting to look at Eskişehir competition, which was a first in this sense and see how it was instumentalized as fields where discoursive constitutions are produced by people and exercised with its objects of the competition institute, its expression styles, its concepts and themes.

Figure 2: Site Plan Showing the Competition Area. Resources: Ilsbank (1980)

Eskişehir Expo and Recreation, Amusement, Cultural Areas Competition

1970’s and 80’s were years whose the term of urban design was discussed profoundly in academic environments, universities and conferences yet there was no legal ground for organizing a competition called Urban Design in the 80’s. Eskişehir competition serves as an important model with this feature. In this sense the competition jury preferred to use the term on purpose and in a legitimizing way. As Competitions and Architecture 94 Symposium


Mehmet Çubuk states, the jury insisted on the use of this term and stressed that it should be named like that. 1980 Eskişehir Competition, although the programs do not overlap with each other, it is the first example where the legitimation and generalization of the term Urban Design on a discoursive degree provided by instrumentalization of the institute of competition. It can be beneficial to take a look at these texts accepting that the documents of the competition are important tools to produce discourse. On the foreword of the specifications, Ahmet Menderes, Ilbank president of the time, sets out the description of the problem as a planning competition, does not refer to urban design or use the term whatsoever. On the rest of the specifications, the term of Urban Design was not used either but only takes part on name of the competition. There are 2 articles and a report on addition to the specification. Consultant jury member Tansu Gürpınar, in his article called Natural Environment and Landscape, focuses on the green areas of Eskişehir and emphasizes that competition is an important opportunity to gain these areas. Whereas the jury member Özcan Altaban emphasizes on the importance of recreational and cultural areas in urban life in this article. Altaban criticizes the situation of high standard cultural areas designed for the parts of the society with lower-income and points out the importance of competitions in terms of developing alternative approaches and says: “We can not approach to the function of ‘culture’ with a classical understanding of it, within the context of this competition in which taking services to urban society, vitalizing the social and economical life are among the goals. When we aim for avail of society’s traditional and new cultural values and mass participation to a high level, it gains importance not to steer for well-educated individuals and groups but the big masses those are not interested in activities and newly urbanizing.”(Ils Bank, 1980) In brief, Altaban opposes to the idea of a rooted cultural center and puts forward the idea of community center instead. DSI (State Hydraulic Works) as the bearer of the discourse of the engineering practice shared as a quiet technical and terminologically heavy report in the appendix of the specifications, along with the report the jury members tried to publish a summary with their own sentences trying to make the DSI report more understandable and indicated that the project area is suitable for recreational uses. Although the specifications were not referring to the term of Urban design on discoursive level, the jury report has an entire different position. In the jury report, 95 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 2: Site Plan of the Project that got the 1st place Resource: Personal Archive of Ă–zcan Altaban

urban design term was written in capital letters and bold fonts and was specifically emphasized by the jury. At the same time, the jury indicates that urban design is a field separating itself from architecture and planning and appreciates the Ilbank and the participants for making the level of urban design in this country visible. Jury clearly indicated the evaluation standards in the beginning part of the report. 1. Standard: general, 2. Standard: planning, 3. Standard: design, 4. Standard technique and the last one is feasibility. The first three standards are important in terms to show how the jury approaches the problem and conceptualizes urban design. Compatibly with the given program, level of interdisciplinary-ness, continuity of planning decisions on larger and smaller scales and environmental harmony are gathered under the title of general standard. Region planning and landscape planning were placed under the planning standard. Under the standard of design, the jury was

Competitions and Architecture 96 Symposium


Figure 3: Engineering Schemes of 3rd Prize Winner Project. Resource: Personal Archive of Ă–zcan Altaban

contented with general descriptions instead of referring to any specific design discipline, but when subtitles are analyzed it is understood that design was mentioned in a general meaning. 1. ability of spatial design, decisions of site choices and the compatibility of all these with the competition site are emphasized, 2. consistency of functions and solutions in spatial design, 3. mental and functional use of the symbolic notions and the last, coherency of the road system with human activities and environmental context are enlisted as the subtitles. Even though the program of the competition is mainly on the landscape design, there is no landscape architect in the jury, which is interesting and planners and architects cover this area. From this point of view, we can say that the discourses regarding the landscape discipline are also produced by the planners and the architects.

97 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Conclusion

The interviews I made show a reality that architect-planner academics played an important role in producing discourse of the time and in fact this situation shows that the competitions were also instrumentalized along with conferences and congresses in order to create parallel space to the legitimation struggle of the urban design discourse in the academic environment that has been going on for a while. EskiĹ&#x;ehir competition is important in terms of being the beginning of such struggle within the context of competitions and it became a role model and created space for many urban design competitions that came afterwards.

Competitions and Architecture 98 Symposium


References

Adam M., Aktüre T., Evyapan A., Tankut G., 1969, The Role of Architect and Planner in the Discipline of Landscaping, Mimarlik Magazine 1969/9 Çimen D. (2010), Urban Design Competitions as Discursive Practice in Turkey: 1980-2009, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, METU İller Bankası (1980), The Specifications of Eskişehir Expo and Recreation, Amusement, Cultural Areas Competition Kolcu E. (2005), The Competitions and the Ideology in Turkey 1930-1950, Unpublished Master Thesis, Osmangazi University Tekeli İ. (1998), Urban Planning Theory Since 1945, Sage, London Sayar Y. (1998), The Impact of Architectural Design Competitions in Evaluation of Architectural Design Trends For a Secular Identity 1933-1950, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, DEU

99 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


An URBAN and ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION EXPERIENCE in TURKEY: İMÇ Blocks Devrim Işıkkaya Assist.Prof.Dr.

Upon the demand of Linen Drapers and Cloth Merchants Market Cooperative, in 1954-55 an area between Bozdoğan Archway and Unkapanı Bridge, which continued along Atatürk Boulevard and whose upper usage rights belonged to the market cooperative was confiscated. Again, upon the demand of the cooperative, the “Site Construction Plan” competition was opened in 1958 for this area and Cihan Fındıkoğlu and his team won the competition. Later on, in 1959, an invitee architecture design project competition which covered about 160.000m2 was organized on the area. This project competition covered 1117 shops, restraint, buffet, post Office, barber shop, pharmacy, storage houses and closed-open parking spaces. The competition was won by Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa and Metin Hepgüler on behalf of SİTE Architecture Group. The project was constructed in 1961-1967, by remaining true to a majority of its characteristics and was opened with a ceremony by the Prime Minister of the time, Süleyman Demirel the same year. The study’s objective is to comparatively analyze the multi legged project competition process and the transverse, unique and innovative position, the Linen Drapers and Cloth Merchants Market Cooperative, which consists of six large blocks and with a ground area expanding to 40.000m2, achieved within today’s architectural and urban design competition understanding and culture, in terms of its urban and architectural qualities and quantity.

Competıtıon Process

“This work is a product of Turkish Architects, Engineers, Technicians, and Artisans, Contractors and lastly the Turkish laborers common efforts and hard work. In order to be able to achieve such a result, our partners who are the members of our Cooperative have created an opportunity with unity and common sense and have given Turkish Cooperative history a valuable and

Competitions and Architecture 100 Symposium


model gift. The shopping center constructed by the IMÇ Cooperative which has 1000 partners, is the result of a common effort and organization. We should be encouraged by this example, bring together the work and excellence force and lighten up our whole country. We should have and preserve an honorable place which we deserve in the creation of the tomorrow’s prosperous Turkey. I hope that our shopping center brings prosperity to the Turkish nation”. Özcan (1969) During the first half of 20th century, Istanbul’s linen drapers market expanded to the city’s Sultanhamam district and its surroundings and settled into the 19th century buildings in the area. In the beginning of 1950’s, the city was almost reconstructed and in this respect, especially Sultanhamam and its surroundings, which have gone under great changes in terms of urban morphology in the historical peninsula and lacked the aspects to be sufficient for dense commercial activity. The structures used have seriously moved further away from meeting needs in social and physical terms. The merchants, almost whom are tenants have been becoming uneasy day by day due to the constantly changing demands of the owners. In addition to this, the construction activities in question and vehicle transportation conditions, the complications in the delivery of goods have had negative effects on the sector’s work conditions (Kızılkayak, 2001).When the notification on the closing down of Tahtakale and its surroundings to vehicle traffic was sent to the linen drapers, The Merchants of Linen Drapers and Cloth founded “Limited Responsibility Istanbul Linen Drapers and Cloth Merchants Shopping Center Building Society” in 1954, in order to get themselves a shop constructed and to have a brand new shopping center and create its own linen draperscloth market, under the leadership of Remzi Peker and his friends (Özcan, 1969). The Cooperative has especially preferred Haydarpaşa and its close surroundings for the targeted shopping center campus land, since the transportation facilities were easier, the trade relationship with Anatolia can be formed easily and the piece of land sufficient for such a task for this purpose could be easily found for a low price. However, the great construction and confiscation activities which started at that time in Istanbul had left Istanbul Municipality in a bad financial position. Therefore, the governor and the mayor Fahrettin Gökay, on behalf of Istanbul Municipality proposed the cooperative for the shopping center to be constructed between Bozdoğan Archway and Unkapanı, at an urban area next to Atatürk Boulevard, taking into consideration that the project and construction of the shopping center would greatly shape the construction of the area as well. His proposal dated 1.9.1955 at a meeting could only be realized 4,5 years later, in 6.8.1959, when the cooperative bought the land in question 101 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


through the bureaucratic, economic and other facilities provided by the municipality (Kızılkayak, 2001). An uncertainty about the land confiscation boundaries came into the Picture due to the area not having a construction plan and a lack of urban construction program related to the area. Therefore, the municipality urged the cooperative to organize a “site construction plan” competition to be able to realize

Figure 1: Istanbul Linen Drapers Shopping Centre Project Model and Silhouette

the required urban arrangements to be done. The jury has deemed Master Architect Cihat Fındıkoğlu, Master Architect. Kamil Bayur, Master Architect. Tarık Aka, Master Architect Niyazi Duranay and Master Architect Özdemir Akverdi’s project the first prize in the 27.08.1958 date competition, out of fourteen projects (Kızılkayak, 2001). The project chosen through the efforts of Municipality Planning Directorate was approved by the Public Works and Housing Ministry in 1960 and the confiscation issues of the area and its construction conditions were taken as basis for the project in line with this approval and underwent a revision. City Planning Counselor Prof. Luigi Piccinato, who worked as permanent advisor within the scope of the municipality has played an efficient role during the competition process (Kızılkayak, 2001). In order to strengthen the relationship between the structures and the Süleymaniye Social Complex, Piccinato has made some additions to the project of competition winner Fındıkoğlu, Bayur, Aka, Duranay and Akverdi. The most important of these is the changing of the direction of the small Competitions and Architecture 102 Symposium


pieced structures to the Süleymaniye Social Complex and this proposal was included in the first site construction plan and to the architecture design project competition regulations (Kızılkayak 2001). It has been decided at the end of these first activities that for the upper part of Şebsefa Hatun mosque to have between two and three and for its lower parts to have between two and four story structures and this has been included in the architecture project competition as a construction requirement. Within the same year, the cooperative organized an invitee and international level architecture project design competition, which would be the continuation of the site construction plan competition, with the support and guidance of the municipality once again, for the shopping center campus in the designated land. In accordance with the architecture project requirements, the participants were asked to design the following: 1117 shops in 4 different styles, whose value differs according to their size ranging from 80-90m2; if possible, special storages connected to each shop and other public storages in different places of the shopping center; offices to the levels above the shops in the blocks and taking environmental conditions into consideration, multi storied offices buildings at certain places; restaurants and buffets; a barber shop, a pharmacy; police center; a post Office; large parking spaces, underground parking spaces, a newspaper,; appropriate places for tobacco shops and buildings with central heating. In addition, although this was not in the competition regulations, one of the orally narrated issues to the participants was the idea proposed by the prime minister of the time Adnan Menderes to pave a road 70 meters wide from Atatürk Boulevard to Süleymaniye Mosque (Kızılkayak, 2001). The participants were asked to evaluate this idea as an urban data and the participants took this into consideration during the design stage of the projects (Tekeli, 2001). Teams and individuals, namely Onat, Orhan Safa, B.M.O. Architecture Bureau, Orhan Şahinler – Tarık Aka, Site Architecture Bureau, Haluk Baysal – Melih Birsel, A.E.A. Architecture Bureau, İMA Bureau, Zıpçı Architecture Bureau, Orhan Bolak - Gazanfer Beken - Orhan Bozyurt and Affan Kırımlı have entered the national and invitee competition. The jury consisting of the mayor of Istanbul of the time, Kemal Aygün; Rıfat Edin, Development Manager Master Architect Faruk Akçer, Municipality Development Advisor Master Architect Cevat Erbil, Prof.Dr. Mukbil Gökdoğan, Prof. Mustafa İnan, Master Architect. Sedat Hakkı Eldem, Master Architect Asım Mutlu, Master Architect. Sadık Sever, Master Architect. İsmail İşmen, Master Engineer Architect Ali Rıza Ünsal, deemed the project of Site Architecture Bureau members, master engineers and architects Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa and Metin Hepgüler for the first prize and to be realized (Kızılkayak, 2001). The projects which entered the competition and the result of the competition 103 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


were then presented for the evaluation of the City Council, architecture circles and cooperative partners in an exhibition held in ITU’s Faculty of Architecture of 15 days (Özcan, 1969). The complications which arose during the licensing formalities (the efforts spent by the municipality to dissuade the cooperative from using the shopping center land) were settled with the interventions of the deputy mayor of the time İhsan Bingüler and governor and mayor Refik Tulga. Thus, the construction of the shopping center which covered a total of about 160.000m2 construction area and consisting of 6 blocks has been completed between 1961-1967, in the contractor process guided by Eti Structure Limited Company. At the end of the construction process which was realized in stages, the structure group was completed at a lower cost than first calculated (on the basis of total cost, an excess of 7%). The last stage of Istanbul Linen Drapers Shopping Center competition and construction process has resulted in another competition subject to arise. Especially in the 1960’s and afterwards, with the influence of certain artists and politicians in Turkey, a law was passed in relation to the preservation of placing works of art in state buildings. In this respect, it has decided that about 2% of art works to be placed to all state buildings according to this law (Tekeli, 2001). In this light, the proposal of SİTE Architecture Office to the shopping center’s administrative committee about placing examples of Turkish modern plastic arts by IMÇ structure group was approved. As a result of the plastic arts project competitions which were organized twice, Kuzgun Acar’s Wall Statue, Rüeyo Koral’s Ceramic Board, Bedri Rahmi Eyüboğlu’s Mozaic Board, Eren Eyüboğlu’s Mozaic Board, Yavuz Görey’s Fountain/Statue, Ali Teoman Germaner’s Wall Relief, Sadi Diren’s Ceramic Board, Nedim Günsür’s Mozaic Board were applied to the interiors and exterior facades of the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th blocks (Çil, 2009).

Architecture Project Evaluations

“the more an architectural work, or a group of structures is appropriate to the city area it is in, in other words, the more it is born out of urbanism, the more successful it is. Adaptation to its environments is not only an aesthetical demand or worry, but a complicated issue where social, economic and technical problems can be solved together”. (Özdeş, 1968)

The jury report on the winning project out of eleven proposals as a result of the organized architecture project competition is as follows: Competitions and Architecture 104 Symposium


Figure 2: Istanbul Linen Drapers Shopping Centre Project Model and Silhouette

“In the project chosen as the most suitable project among the others for the Linen Drapers, these are the main aspects: The composition of the area between Bozdoğan Archway and Şebsefa Hatun Mosque has been found to be positive in terms of urbanization and architecture; however, although the above mentioned positive aspects were viewed only partially between Şebsefa Hatun Mosque and Atatürk Bridge, it has not been found appropriate, due to the locations of the three high Office blocks

Figure 3: . Istanbul Linen Drapers Shopping Center Location Plan

and the extreme altitude. The shape proposed for this project by the investigation committee has been stated in addition in the attached recommendation report. On the other hand, although the number of shops is complete in this project, their width has been found narrow (gross 4.40 m). However, the lack of flexibility in the project can be removed. The ventilation of the orientation to the land and the restricted area 105 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


buried to the ground by opening up ducts to the yards and back service road has been nicely accomplished (Kızılkayak, 2001)1. Although the jury refused the high building blocks of the project near Unkapanı, as seen in the model photograph and proposed a single high block, as a result of ground investigation, high blocks idea was completely abandoned (Kızılkayak, 2001). In Istanbul, where the exchange concept comes to the fore and Byzantium, Ottoman-Islam shopping centers become dense, the IMÇ Project which forms an analogical connection between the spatial tradition of Ottoman bazaars, covered

Figure 4: İMÇ Premises Air Photograph

bazaars, caravansary, inn and closed bazaar vulture, develops the shopping center typology/concept with a modern interpretation and redefines it, is the reflection of solidarity-organization performance, which is a candidate to the Ataturk’s city and social ideology, to the city’s physical environment as well. With the understanding of a new shopping center created by architects, the galleries and common spaces which were now defined as yards between the shopping blocks, the user has taken a step to be tradesmen, or a trade community from being shop keepers addicted to unit shops. The respectful relationship of this building group within the close environment of Süleymaniye and with Süleymaniye is also noteworthy (Özkan, 2001). As Özkan states, this shopping center which forms the threshold of Istanbul’s historical peninsula and establishes an almost avant-garde relationship as an open structure, is in a position of Süleymaniye Social Complex’s pedestal in the design team’s words. In this respect, the influence of the environment to the Linen Drapers Shopping Center, the preservation of the scale which looks big at the top, but is not Competitions and Architecture 106 Symposium


really that big has resulted in showing respect to the small textured neighborhood scale in its skirts. In addition, it carries the worry that a structure order which does not respect these could devastate all this scale and their respectability (Tekeli, 2001). In both stages of the competition, SİTE Architecture group has given great care to make integration possible for the historical-structural character of the area, achieving a visual connection to the complex from the mosque from all points by the arrangement of the interior yards to tranquil Süleymaniye Mosque at the top of the nice, sloped hill as the focal point of the area. But most importantly, the group has aimed at achieving an urban, structural planning and practice, by preventing any kind of damage to be given to the existing mosque and entombed saints on the parcel (Hepgüler, 2001). The team which aimed at merging the existing 16th-17th century urban texture with the boulevard scale, which is a product of 1950’s urban construction plan, adopted Frank O. Ghery’s language as the project’s narrative language. In Ghery’s words, the modern structure group has a ‘friendly’, surprising and a changing installation which is not monotonous. Wince the 75 meter modular setting organization, placed on a 5mX5m axis within and in between the shopping center’s structure blocks (all six blocks), which make inner city circulation possible, or guiding and easily learnable, disciplines the unloading, loading and storage habits within a certain order, that easily turn in a chaos in Sultanhamam since these are done without planning (Kızılkayak, 2001).. The linen drapers shopping center which is Turkey’s first big modern “Shopping Mall” within its two open courts with closed grounds has been completed in six years, in an environment of inconvenience caused by the construction industry with very limited materials, technology and workmanship, by mostly remaining true to the preliminary project and was opened to service in 22 April, 1967 by the prime minister of that time, Süleyman Demirel. After its opening, only thirty shops became active for ten years and the cooperative members were reluctant to leave Sultanhamam until a fire started in the area.

Conclusion

As an example of bringing a contemporary concept to the historical shopping center and work place culture (Özkan, 2001), the most attention grabbing aspect of İÇM is that, it has been designed by taking into consideration the relationship between itself and the urban conditions around it and forming a lively and smooth bridge between the old city and the new urban center. In this respect, it is a version of mega city Istanbul, which continuously expands and transforms to a small universe (Hanru, 2001). The İMÇ Blocks which are peers of and bear serious similarities and identity 107 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 5: General View of upper part of İMÇ from Atatürk Boulevard

Competitions and Architecture 108 Symposium


109 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 6: Inner courtyard of İMÇ Block 5 expression of monumental architecture

with the Yale University Art Gallery Louis Kahn has established between 1951-1953, in USA’s New Haven, Connecticut district and the British Art Center building constructed between 1969-74 for the same university (Togay, 2002), Herman Hertzberger’s Diagoon Housing Project constructed in Amsterdam, in 1969-70 and De Drie Haven housing Project constructed in Amsterdam in 1964-74 and lastly the MinMij Factory constructed in 1962-64 (Bergeijk, 1997), is worth to be analyzed within the “mat architecture and urbanism” concept, which has been coined by Alison Smithson and adopted and examined by the Team 10 group towards the end of 1950’s, but Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, or Metin Hepgüler never voiced for İMÇ. In the light of “mat architecture and urbanism” concept, which may increase or decrease in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative conditions, flexible; modular, collective, multi-purpose, variable, productive, having crucial points, instead of a static architectural work (Smithson, 1974), the İMÇ Blocks can be accepted as homogenous with Le Corbusier’s Venice Hospital, or Broek and Bakema’s Lihnbaan Shopping Center in Rotterdam, constructed in 1951-1953. Istanbul Linen Drapers Shopping Centre’s project design and application process

Figure 7: Wall relief on the façade of İMÇ Block 5, Ali Teoman Germaner

Competitions and Architecture 110 Symposium


within the architecture and urban design competitions ontology in Turkey with its: multi partnered cooperative employer profile; the unified activity skills of municipality officials and other bureaucratic, or technical actors; the political actors’ sensitivity towards the competition in question and modern architecture construction and their embracing of these with excitement and the national statute they attributed to the building complex, the multi identity, but compact jury with its urbanism, architectural and detail competitions, which are each other’s prerequisites consisting of two, or even three stages just like the experience lived in the Berlin Potsdam Area transformation process realized in the last quarter of the 20th century, have produced a shopping centre morphology which has active publicity aspects that are shaped with the city, determine the construction of the city and open to the city. The structure which brought the definition cancer cells of cities (Ungers, 1997) to shopping centers and is even marginal today - due to its circulation plans and the contemporary definition it brings to the old-new, traditional-contemporary interpretation, a structure group which has about 160.000m2 of enormous construction area has been analyzed with a competition and despite the low profile construction sector, the project’s construction by almost remaining true to the total of the project (today, only 3% of competition projects are constructed), its flexible regulations content and the unclear urbanization and construction conditions in return; with its area data and the architecture of Tekeli, Sisa and Hepgüler, which has achieved an international dimension within contemporary architecture performance (Lassa Tyre Production Factory can be another example) has had a unique and innovative position, in terms of the strong, intimate and creative relationship it has formed with art, sculpture and other fine arts.

111 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


References

Bergeijk, H., (1997), “Herman Hertzberger”, Birkhauser Verlag Publications, Berlin Çil, S., (2001), “Restoration of Honor”, From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Hepgüler, M., (2001), “İMÇ from the Witnesses’ Eyes”, From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Hou, H., (2001), “World Factory İMÇ”, From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Kızılkayak, G., (2001), “Yesterday and Today of İMÇ, Hopeful Days”, From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Özcan, N., (1969), “Union Makes Strength – Istanbul Linen Draper Shopping Center”, Güzel Sanatlar Press, Istanbul Özdeş, G., (2001), “What was the Factor that Made İMÇ’s Design So Special?” From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Özkan, S., (2001), “Forty Years Dedicated to Architecture”, Doğan Tekeli – Sami Sisa, Boyut Publishing Group, Istanbul Smithson, A., (1974), “How to recognize and Read Mat – Building”, wordpress.com Tekeli, D., (2001), “İMÇ from the Witnesses’ Eyes”, From Collective Work to İMÇ, İMÇ Publications, Istanbul Togay, N., (2002), “Louis Kahn and History”, Boyut Publishing Group, Istanbul Ungers, O.M., (1997), “ The Dialectic City”, Thames and Hudson Publications, London

Competitions and Architecture 112 Symposium


113 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


PRIVATE SECTOR’s LARGE SCALE ARCHITECTURAL DEMANDS Architecture in between Private and Public Benefit Güven Erten

There is absolutely no one who does not complain about the bureaucratic frustrations caused by the demands of the public sector architecture when making demands of project service procurement. It is emphasized at every opportunity how projects demanded through competition will contribute to the development of architecture and advancement of the society, by defining equal rights to the environment of architecture. When we take into consideration that airports, harbors, stations, museums, public buildings, squares, parks, shore lines, historical and archeological parks and antique settlements reflect and carry a given society’s common culture to the future, architecture can be defined as the transmitter of culture. Therefore, the function public administrations demand from architecture is in fact producing public benefit. However, when public administrations demand architecture, they find themselves in a very ungraceful bidding system. They need to overcome complicated procedures while demanding project acquirement as a service. Most of the time, they resort to inured methods in order not to meet barriers and not to make an explanation to the state’s controlling mechanisms. As a result, we see monotone, ordinary and repetitive settings and structures, which are not able to form dialogues with their environment. We are startled and even have difficulty and feel at a loss as how to express our discontent. Today, there is an increasing need to define the dialectic between architecture and city administrations and to propose it as an architectural and city planning vision. Kartal and Küçükçekmece Project Acquisition in 2006, Zorlu Center Competition in 2007, Tema Park Competition in 2011 and Yenikapı Competition in 2012 allow us to analyze to what extent public and the private sector was willing to resume their eagerness and how they concretized this. These competitions also allow us to understand the relationship between architecture and city administrations and to define the institutional structure that are needed and issues related to capacity development. Competitions and Architecture 114 Symposium


Architecture in between Private and Public Benefit: Zorlu Center and Tema Park Projects

Zorlu Center The privatization of the highway territory in Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul in 2007 has had broad repercussion in the public opinion. One of the reasons for all this excitement behind this interest was the social demand to reincorporate a piece of city land to city life, which was almost isolated from the rest of the city and had turned in on itself. The meeting point of Istanbul with the Bosporus is limited. This highway territory has the potential to transform Istanbul’s meeting point with the Bosporus into one of the world’s most unique global city settings. An awareness of architecture and city planning gives importance to the expectations of the society and what the city wants. After the privatization process, Zorlu Group, who is the new owner of the territory, showed common sense and incorporated the reshaping of this land into an open and anonymous process that was open to the society. The Group organized an international project acquisition process and demanded modern architectural norms. It did not limit itself by the development plan data of the Privatization Administration, which define the rights of housing. It has viewed the process as a problem of architecture and city planning and has preferred to greatly make use of architectural accumulation, by demanding international standards. In 2007, the Group has realized a project acquisition, which gave equal rights to both Turkey’s and the world’s architectural representatives, under the consultancy of World Architecture. IT has made an open call for all actors which met a certain amount of competence to express interest. An independent advisory group has evaluated over a hundred applications. 14 design groups were called to give project proposals. 13 of these have presented their project proposals to a jury consisting of internationally acknowledged representatives. The jury has looked for and questioned the global values of architecture and city planning in the projects, free from all influence and then transmitted its evaluations to the Zorlu Group. The initiative that was displayed has created a reconciled atmosphere. It is significant that the private sector in Turkey has demanded architecture on a wide basis in an open and transparent manner, without isolating itself from the public. This has been a case of self-trust and it has come to fruition. Turkey’s architecture representatives were able to reach above the standards of the international environment under equal rights. When the conditions for good architecture were achieved, it has even increased the international standards. The process of Zorlu Center competition and the proposed projects have been documented as a publication. These are expected to reach the architecture circles. 115 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


However, the most important issue is how the post-competition process develops. The competition documents are in a way tools of good will. During the post-competition design development phase, it is expected for good will to be adopted and preserved. It is observed that during the design development phases, architecture actors look for a kind of consensus between the spatial expressions the city needs and the structural scales the investing groups demand. Especially the rationale the investing groups look for in the market conditions do not generally agree with the city’s rationales and contradict with each other. It is generally up to the architect to bring this conflict and contradiction to acceptable scales. We cannot define the investing groups’ and employers’ wish to protect their own interest within the market competition conditions as extraordinary. However, we especially expect city administrations to be efficient, in order for the actualization of the city settings which are promised in these kinds of large scale projects and public interests to be realized. Two projects which have been chosen for application and synthesized in the Zorlu Center competition have made quality urban setting proposals as desired and expected. Both of these projects aimed at achieving sustainability for Zorlu Center with the city, by defining independent and mobile public areas around the blocks. This kind of an approach and sensitivity has been appreciated by the jury and the project organization. We will only be able to witness whether the structural and spatial element proposals, which serve as urban mounds and urban shells each, will be able to realize the urban setting and publicity they promised when the project is completed and is put into use. In the Zorlu Center competition, the development rights and housing norms have been defined by a development plan, which has been prepared and approved by the Privatization Administration. The development plan which has been approved for the highway territory envisaged a housing area of 237.000 m2 with a 2, 8 model rate and has stipulated that, 35% to be used for residences, 30 % to be used for tourism, 15% to be used commercially, 10% to be used for offices and the remaining 10% to be used for socio-cultural purposes. This project document which also serves as competition terms of reference has demanded from the architecture groups to most appropriately turn these legal data into a project design in terms of the bearing capacity These project documents, which we came to know as ‘Brief ’, are very important documents; because they interpret the existing situation, demands and expectation, conditions and requirements and turn these into a design problem. They demand from the architecture groups to reinterpret this problem using their own creativity and give their own design approaches a distinctive identity. We cannot acknowledge and project documents as turning themselves into soulless and isolated terms of reference which Competitions and Architecture 116 Symposium


only define rules. They should emphasize the reality and subjectivity of the project and should definitely give an opportunity for creativity and flexibility. We should not acknowledge project documents as static documents. We should evaluate these as a kind of tool and method used to give identity to the designs to be presented. It should make references not only to the project acquisition process, but to design development processes as well and manage to survive. In order for the main aspects of the project to be carried from the design stage of the employer, architect and public administration to the stage where it is put into use, it should have a kind of project constitution function and opportunity. It should be demanded that they are of high standards. These documents should not be viewed as an intermediary need and their preparation should not be subjected to time limitations. They should be able clearly transit the expectations of the employer and the demands of the public administrations. The architecture groups should be given the opportunity to suggest alternatives. Without restricting themselves to the definitions and scale of the requirement program, they should be able to interpret what the city needs and the importance of suggesting alternatives should be emphasized. They should ease conditions which limit the architecture groups’ creativity and skills and extend the scope of the project. We should demand that project documents, especially in large scale architectural projects which have urban effects and urban design projects which aim at reshaping of urban settings, to be institutionalized as a tradition. In fact, the project documents of urban areas which are of critical value should be acquired through competitions. Public administrations should also take part in the preparation of these documents. In projects which have a certain size and scope, the project documents should be approved by the public administrations and gain an official reference quality. Because, in design development processes, the defense and preservation of positive ideas, urban acquisitions and public benefits which are expressed in the competitions can only be possible with documents which can be shown as reference. We should demand large scale projects to be acquired through competitions, the design development stages to progress with the initiative of public administrations in an open and transparent manner and to meet a new future. Architecture actors always need public administrations for designs to by protected and defended and for the projects not to have totally new contents and appearances through different motifs, by staying behind closed doors during the design development stages. We cannot expect public administrations to act in a distanced responsibility in large scale projects and to gain function within the scope of a kind of architecture 117 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


commissariat, which controls whether they exceed their model scales or not. What is more, while our public housing laws are open to misuse and defenseless, in order to avoid being subject to elusiveness, which we call housing games, we have no other foundation to rely on besides public administrations efficient responsibility especially in large scale projects. For instance, even a change in the “+,- 0”grade may cause unexpected changes in the designs’ physical expression and the city silhouette. We should develops methods and tools to prevent projects acquired through competitions from being defenseless against abuses and compromises; architecture not to contradict with public benefit and personal gains and positive ideas to take a different course and lose their value. Competitions display good will and good will can only be preserved through openness and transparency. In case the project actors share the phases Zorlu Center’s competition went through as publication, a significant experience in Turkey will be documented. Unless this project, which has made a tremendous impact in the Turkish architectural scene is completed and its stages are turned into an architecture knowledge, we cannot sat that subjective interpretation will bring any kind of benefit to the city and to architecture. However, once it is put into use, we will wishfully be expecting urban settings which give an identity to the project and are appreciated to exist.

Tema Park

Although the Tema Park did not raise as much interest as Zorlu Center in Turkey’s architecture circles, it has been the subject of project acquisition in one of Istanbul’s city project competition disciplines. Turning an area which has been used as garbage dump in Halkalı, Istanbul into a regional park by rehabilitating it, has been planned by public administrations for long years. After Istanbul was acknowledged as the provincial border of Metropolitan Municipality in 2005 and was subject to urban sprawl, a new situation in the area, including Halkalı came into the picture. The area known as the city’s perimeter has gradually been becoming the center of gravity in the city with its increasing population. Today, Başakşehir, Ispartakule, Halkalı and Kayabaşı are increasingly becoming housing areas with dense populations. The urban services and city infrastructure, rail transportation opportunities, socio-economic and cultural equipage of this area should also be increased. Istanbul’s development process and Dynamics as a city require that Tema Park not only be a housing area and to involve social, economic and cultural aspects as well. Providing daily life opportunities for the population which has reached millions in Competitions and Architecture 118 Symposium


Halkalı and its surrounding areas is a public administration saving. The transfer of Tema Park area from public to private sector savings and defining the project is a very complicated process. Besides local administration authorities, HDAT has participated as an actor. It was required that, the new users of the area to define the project they wished to realize through a main plan and this plan to bring suggestions on function and housing, which are in line with the development plan notes. 0,3 model value housing was permitted in about a 150 h. area. It was foreseen to preserve the commercial and residence values of areas to be acquired from slope. It was targeted to use Tema Park in a mixed manner, which the city needed. The new developers of the area after its privatization were a joint venture on project basis. In March, 2011, different from Zorlu Center’s competition, a project proposal period was organized that was open to international invitees, in order to create Tema Park’s main plan. A Project Document was drawn, which defined the expansions expected from the main plan of the project. The architecture groups, that wished to develop project proposals after an interview method organized between architecture groups which are internationally acknowledged and the employer joint venture, have prepared their proposals within a competition discipline. They have presented their proposals to the employer group and the jury which acted as advisory. This process shares its stages in the Internet environment with all its transparency and naturalness, along with the project document and project suggestions. What the city wants and the demands of the investor-developer actors are reflected to the knowledge of the public opinion in an exemplary manner and the suggestions of the architecture groups are shared without hesitation. These stages are very beneficial in terms of creating conditions of good architecture. We cannot document the stage the Tema Park has reached, without the promotion of the project’s public opinion is realized. We respect the privacy needed by an important investment and initiative that has to protect itself against the market conditions and administrative responsibilities. However, we expect this project to be brought to life through the principles stated in the documents shared with the public opinion. We believe that, within the focus of the development of the city, in the realization of a project which raises the international standards in activities such as commerce, Office, fairs, tourism and entertainment, Istanbul and especially local administration actors and excited and efficient. We hope that the waste collection areas of the city, which has remained stagnant for a long time will reclaim its natural characteristics and reach healthy environment values. To act by making Tema Park’s unification with the city a main plan subject is to given an example of a project organization that is amicable with Turkey’s architecture 119 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


and housing circles. The urban and setting scales which are expected to be revealed in the main plan and required from the application stage to transportation are at the beginning of the process. In order for the public interest and urban benefit that is expressed in the project document to be realized, the openness and employer common sense are realized in the acquisition stage of the project. The Tema Park Project has been designed as an urban project. It has been targeted for city administration to adopt the main plan. In the application process, it was aimed at preserving and protecting the main plan principles. In its current state, it is in the design development process. We believe that all actors carry the awareness and sensitivity present at the beginning of the process successfully. We presume that, the city administration will not leave the project on its own to do follow-up on record and document approval and license requirements, in order to preserve the benefits on architecture and the city. We are assuming that all design actors, starting from the project’s main plan to the lower units are acting with awareness as to shape an important part of Istanbul. To compete naturally involves struggling and rivalry. If we think independently about the pros and cons of competing and struggling, to compete is a try which aims at pushing the existing opportunities and acquiring new ones. Since it carries humans’ constantly developing and diversified actions ahead and guides and concretizes the skills and the urge to exceed the capacity, and even awards and honors them, competitions play a significant and positive roles in our lives. It would be a denial to suggest that competitions are unimportant, while it is possible that they have negative effects We cannot easily suggest that architecture competitions are an opportunity in terms of the competition and rivalry between the architects. We observe the competition between the architects through their publications, feel it in the discussion environments they participate in and the dialogues they form with their employers. Architecture competitions are not organized through a feeling of adventure like sports competitions, or the Olympics, whose rivalry is long ranged. They do not take everywhere by storm like the elections, in which political parties assert themselves and put those personnel in competition, which promise to realize the social services, by reflecting their ideas, principles and values on the society. They are not transmitted to a natural selection and global admiration, such as cultural and art works, which enrich our senses by activating them or strike us with admiration by strengthening our belief in the beauty of life. However, the claim of putting forward and defending an extraordinary excitement, architectural ideas and values in the architecture competitions are lived simultaneously with the pride of displaying architectural skills Competitions and Architecture 120 Symposium


and presenting them to the like of the public. Since architecture competitions are actually competitions of effort, where the mind and senses exceed their capacity and feed, their discussions may also be polyphonic. Time shows whether these can be as exciting and wondrous as sports competitions, whether their consequences change the course of our lives as in democratic election processes and whether the winner is really successful or not as in culture and art works. However, what really competes in architecture competitions is an idea and imagination. It can express itself only in the abstract level. Ideas which are liked and appreciated in competitions need to be concretized and for these to reach their targets, they need to be defended and preserved in the post-competition processes. This can only be possible when post-competition processes proceed with high tensioned and widely participated lively discussions, as much as the competition processes themselves. If the post-competition design development stages close in on themselves and fail to be open and transparent, there arises a risk of projects, which gradually move further away from the positive ideas put to the fore, open to compromise, defenseless and as a result lose their function, to come into the picture. This is especially very important in large scale architecture competitions which have urban effects. The projects which we expect to establish sustainability with the urban setting, become a natural part of it and increase the setting and life quality of the city have as much public responsibility after the competition as well as the competition process. Today, one of the messages which the current discussions on architecture and competitions can give to the current architecture environment with a unique content is the importance public responsibility carries in architecture competitions. The changes in life in general and in our daily lives caused by architectural ideas and their effects are a natural cause of looking for good architecture in the demand for architecture. The target should be for the idea of architecture to evolve in social structures with demand architecture, as much as in the production settings of architecture. Architectural ideas having a lively discussion environment especially in local administrations contribute greatly to the development of cities. Because, the development of cities’ economic and social aspects and the preservation and increase of cultural and historical riches are possible through architectural variety and richness. Cities ask for vision from architecture for the future and expect sensitivity and care for the values to protect past values. One of the key concepts concerning the association of cities with architecture is the public responsibility and public benefit. Architecture carries the promise of doing the best for the society in its own subjectivity, gains its function and legitimacy through its activities directed at the society and meets with 121 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


the idea of public benefit. At times, the quality of the manifested building and the setting become the subjects of discussion and when they receive reactions and are not adopted, if there is a public benefit and urban opportunities it presents, it gains a kind of base and has at least an argument to make itself acceptable. An architecture which isolates itself from urban sustainability and only gains quality as structure and setting, is merely a hidden monument. It is limited and restricted. It cannot make use of opportunities to express itself. It becomes nowhere to be seen, loses its vitality and disappears. However, structures and settings which make themselves touchable, accessible, and shareable and are fearless become nationalized, transform into cultural entities, live and give life to their environment. Good architecture transforms public values into public benefit and they are adopted by and preserved by the public.

Competitions and Architecture 122 Symposium


123 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


STUDENT COMPETITIONS in TURKEY Sait Ali Köknar

Lecturer (PhD) Istanbul Technical University

The first thing that comes to mind when architecture project competitions are the national, international, open, invitee, single stage or multi stage competitions. Acquiring projects through competitions become even more important if the building to be constructed carry public aspects. The solutions are shared, all possibilities are laid in the open and the most suitable one is selected by a chosen jury. On the other hand, we see that competitions which do not necessarily aim at constructing a building directed at students are also being organized. This article focuses on student competitions in Turkey, which started in the eighties. The article aims at discussing what the primary aim of student project competitions is, or should be, which do not target the construction of a structure since students do not have construction license. Therefore, it forms a suitable basis to have a look at the short history of student competitions organized in Turkey and to make an evaluation by making a comparison on the goals of student project competitions which have gradually changed. As a result, the article culminates a crisis definition which may shortly be called ‘pragmatic architecture and conceptualist architecture dissociation’ which arises out of a discussion on the goals of the student projects which are interpreted in various ways and a simple solution proposal for the crisis. When we take a look at architecture student projects history organized in the Turkey in national scope, we see that these were first started to be organized in the eighties. In the nineties, the increasing student project competitions continued to increase in number in the 2000’s. In rough estimation, although the number of competitions increased, wee see that the total of student competition only make up about 10% of all architecture project competitions. We may then suggest that, in an architectural environment where there are an insufficient number of competitions, there is no space for student competitions. When we analyze the graphic, it should be taken into consideration that there has been a decrease in the number of competitions

Competitions and Architecture 124 Symposium


organized in the 1970’s. Although the reason for this decrease is the subject of another research, it may be totally wrong to think that economic and cultural inconveniences experienced in the construction acquirement processes, in a country where its relationship between global economy and international architecture culture has decreased in the 1970’s could be the reason. Despite the decrease in the number of competitions in the 1970’s, it is also possible to observe a geometrical increase by the 1980’s. We will analyze the student competitions by decades.

Eighties

We should begin by stating why student competitions were not held before the 1980’s and why they were started to be organized in that particular decade. The reason they were not held could be that there was not a need to organize student competitions. Most probably, there were a sufficient number of competitions in terms of the number of participants. In the 1950’s, architects whose number did not exceed 500 were attending competitions as much as the conditions allowed and the competitions then served as schools as well. Therefore, we know that architecture students who were not graduates also entered these competitions and even won. In the current architecture competitions, we frequently see that architecture students are included in the participant lists as assistants. When we think of the reason why student competitions were not organized prior to the 1980’s, we may say that the main objective of organizing competitions was not to achieve a constructed building; therefore, organizing student competitions was not a wise decision at all. Before anything else, student competitions organized with a view to achieve constructed buildings are not pragmatic. When we question why student competitions were started to be organized in the eighties, the first assumption is whether there is a relationship between student competitions and economic and political conditions which opened to foreign countries with Özal’s policies and became freer. The first student competition we came across in documents is a competition organized in 1983. The “Cumalıkızık Village/Suggestions for 2007” Themed Student Idea Project Competition (1983) organized by the Chamber of Architects and Ağa Han Foundation-UCTEA Chamber of Architects’ joint “Life, Space and Time” Themed Student Idea Project Competition (1983) are Turkey’s first student competitions. In 1983, the Ağa Han award given every three years was given in Istanbul Topkapı Palace and competitions were planned to be organized in parallel to these activities. At this point, we see an example of Turkey following the footsteps of the West in a delayed manner. Just as Erdek Theatre Festivities’ being organized with the inspiration of Avignon ten years after the first theatre festival was organized 125 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


in Avignon, or the organization of TMÖB about ten years after the first EASA meeting, within the scope of the international excitement and intellectual energy area created by the Ağa Han Award, the first student competition was organized with a jury consisting of people who spent most of their time not constructing buildings, but thinking and writing, such as Sibel Bozdoğan, Mehmet Adam, Ali Artun, Doğan Kuban. The limited number of total student competitions in the eighties was organized by the Chamber of Architects, or groups consisting of architects. The subjects of these competitions focused on future residents and housing environments. If that has been the case, then we need to define the reason why these competitions are organized as creating awareness in architecture students in certain aspects and to strengthen the relationship between intellectual accumulation and architecture, which remains outside the construction acquisition processes, but is closely related to these processes. The competitions organized in the eighties come to the forefront as activities which are highly significant in terms of strengthening the relationship between cultural accumulation and constructed environment, but are not pragmatic at all from the perspective of acquiring constructions through student competitions. If we take a look at this situation in the opposite manner, we may say that as a result of the reaction against environments which started to become the same under the influence of globalization in the eighties and Norberg Schultz’s ‘genius loci’ which probably became popular due to similar concerns, the student projects have been as tools with the concern of creating an awareness in the traditional culture and local modernity discussions and. In this manner, student competitions with their specially selected project subjects and the effect they produce on the future generations, also display characteristics of being a social awareness, or consciousness developing projects; thus, they differ from professional architectural project competitions. Professional competitions do not have such power and position.

Nineties

We see that the competitions increased significantly in the nineties. Besides the competitions organized by the Chamber of Architects and architects themselves in the eighties, new actors such as companies, companies-foundations jointly became the determinants and operators of student competitions. The same years became the period in which job acquirement in the area of architecture moved away from public and Ankara centered and became private sector and Istanbul focused; and during which Istanbul quintets and the differences between Istanbul and Ankara were discussed in the periodicals. The nineties, during which the free market conditions which started in the eighties were becoming more settled, also created a need to promote an increasing Competitions and Architecture 126 Symposium


number of various construction products as well. In these years, during which the volumes of the structure catalogues became thicker and the publishers increased, the student competitions served as a platform where future generation of architects were introduced to new construction materials, encouraged and at least given a brand sympathy. The country’s developed and improved relationship with the global economy and international architecture circles played an important role for private companies to reach an economic and intellectual accumulation to be able to organize competitions. In this respect, for student competition which served intellectual accumulation to be possible, we may reach the conclusion that national and especially international cultural inflows played a significant role. With this point of view, whether the decrease in the number of competitions in the 1970’s was caused by the decrease in international cultural inflows is a question that should be asked. When we take a look at the competitions organized in the nineties, we see that the increasing competition between the companies was carried to this area as well. A competition organized by Ytong, in 1990 is followed by the competition organized by Çimentaş Gazbeton, in 1992. While Gazbeton’s competition did not continue, Ytong continued to organize student competitions starting from 1993 every two years. Ytong started to organize idea projects instead of student competitions in the 2000’s. Another series of competitions were started to be organized starting from 1883 by Turkish Prefabricate Association, which is a professional trade body, and not a company. Again, after the 2000’s, we see that these competitions did not continue. There is a competition organized by Işıklar Holding, in 1995 to encourage the use of bricks. We need to remind that, this competition was organized before the installation of brick pavements in Taksim and neighboring districts in 1996, due to the Habitat meeting held in Istanbul. It seems that the company officials did not feel the need to organize another competition, after this arrangement which painted the city’s pavement red for decades. Another student competition series were the USKON competitions, which aimed at highlighting space architectonics. The first of these competitions, organized by USKON company that was established by Yaşar Marulyalı’s and Levent Aksüt’s company UMO Architecture and where one of the founders were definitely a member of the jury. The competition series which aimed at architectures’ transferring their experiences to the younger generations must have been continued with difficulty, because after its 10th organization in 2004, which was recognized as having a symbolic value was not organized once again. One of the benefits brought by companies to the student competitions was the persistent continuity and to produce competition names which had easily remembered brand value. These student competitions served as bridges which survived on their 127 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


own, continued and were not erased in a cultural environment which constantly changed and dissolved and thus, carried the former knowledge to the future. However, they were rightly criticized for not publishing the participating projects and announcing the names of the young architects. One difference the company sponsored student competitions from other competitions was the money awards. Giving Money awards to students may be interpreted as an entrepreneur attitude, which increased the participation in the free market conditions by buying it. However, their attitude to distribute money awards which were quite modest compared to professional competitions almost evenly between ranks should be viewed as a socialist attitude, encouraging the younger generations to develop and to reach large masses. The greatest gift the nineties contributed to Turkish Architecture cultures must be the Turkish architecture schools diploma project competition Archiprix. Archiprix which started to be organized taking inspiration from the original competition that has been organized since 1979 in Holland was held with the contributions of Şevki Vanlı Architecture Foundation, Ferhan-Hülya Yürekli and Doğan Hasol representing the Construction Industry Center (YEM). The competition which was created by the coming together of various actors, such as academicians, foundations and companies, transformed into a tool which guided architecture education by making architecture education visible. It is important that the organization was created by the joining of different identities. The establishment of the Archiprix award emphasizes the fact that, the Architecture area is not only a structure producing area, but also an intellectual production area which develops men. The trio structure is also an indication that the Turkish architecture culture has reached the level of maturity where difficult organizations can be held together with complicated associations. Archiprix has given importance with its jury compositions to bring together architects who produced structures, gave thought to structures and taught how to produce structures; allowed the nurturing and development of the culture of architecture through discussions between different interest focuses of architecture and gives architecture students concerning the future. We may say that the until the crisis which first started in the past three years, it has continued the same attitude by strengthening it. Another important contribution of the Archiprix competition is that it promoted the projects of all competition participants with a publication and to remind that there is a need to create a memory by documenting an insufficiency within architecture culture.

Competitions and Architecture 128 Symposium


2000’s

The beginnings of the 2000’s were lived as a period, during which the free market conditions and international relations which started in the eighties and developed in the nineties, were truly established and diversified. During this time, competitions such as, Archiprix, Uskon and Ytong continued. In the developing competitive environment, we see that İzocam’s insulation themed competition starting from 2001 and Kanuf ’s plaster board themed student competitions starting from 2005 taking place. In the aluminum sector, Çuhadaroğlu Company started to organize the ALU competition series in 2004. Can Alüminyum Company organize a competition in 2006, which did not continue later on. ALU competitions which followed the Archiprix example became the first student competitions to and publish all of the participating projects and prepare a catalogue and archive these in an institutional Internet site. If the contribution of publishing all projects within a competition to the development of the architecture culture and to improve the future solutions are taken into consideration, it is possible to see that the real strength of the competitions are to display many alternatives, rather than produce single solutions We see that the trend about promoting different construction materials through student competitions in the nineties was accompanied by the student competition which was started to be organized in 2002 by Borusan, whose name was changed to Prosteel in 2004. Competitions which sent the award winning projects’ teams to the international stage of the competitions, such as the Prosteel competition and Concrete Design Competition which was supported by TCMA the first one organized in 2006 and continued every two years, gained on a new function. We may add to these competitions which functioned as the national selection committee of international competitions as the national division of global economic relations, the student competition on accessibility, organized by the elevator company Schindler, which started to accept Turkish participants in 2000. It should be noted that in the international stages of the competitions, Turkish teams started to take places. We may also add the Archiprix competition, which sent the award winning project owner to visits abroad and started to include international jury members in its jury to this trend which increased from national to international. Again, during this period, we see that a second student competition as important as Archiprix, organized by Architecture Education Foundation started and contributed to architecture education. The MimED competitions, which first started in 2000 were organized every two years in the beginning and then they were organized every year. MimED, which evaluated the projects designed in all of the academic terms of architecture schools, allow such projects as Archiprix which were designed 129 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


in studios and aimed at education to be represented and be a part of the competition again. Thus, not only the projects, nut institutions with their education models also become visible. Although the contributions and disadvantages of the MimED and Archiprix competitions to architecture education is the subject of another article, it may not be totally wrong to say that the subjects taught in studio education after these competitions were prepared taking the competitions into consideration. The final contribution to the student competitions is the reappearance of student competitions which aimed at social awareness, which were organized in the eighties, but forgotten in the nineties. The SOS Istanbul 20006 Harbour, 2007 dated AKM competitions, Chamber of Architects’ City Dreams competitions first organized in 2007 should be taken as a multi voiced civilian reaction, which took place at the point where global economic movements which increased in number with the AKP regime, started to harm urban life.

Last three years and the crisis

We have analyzed the recent past and presented the strong points of student competitions. Student competitions, which have strong points such as, creating an awareness, promotion, extending the intellectual area of education and architecture, give a reaction against the damages caused by the free market and present multi solution pools instead of single solutions, appear as potential energy areas where architectures which are possible in other ways, involve market conditions, but cannot be shaped only with this conditions. However, in the recent years, the experiences in the student competitions also show that a threatening discrimination has appeared in terms of the development of architecture. The first example that can be given to define the crisis is the Rising Talent competition, which has apparently been organized only once for now by Saray AlĂźminyum company in 2011. It bring forward an exclusive understanding that is focused on a single distinctive person and not an inclusive understanding which is meant for the common ground, with its hidden message in its name and the first place award being 25 times higher than the other awards. The competition which managed to buy the interest directed at the competition by money in lien with the rising values of the period, rather than earning it with a painstaking attitude, tried to attract architecture culture to its own agenda in a coarse manner, instead of serving architecture culture. It is an important example that can be given to the damage market pragmatism which has been stripped of other values of architecture can give to architecture culture. Another example can be given from the developments experienced in the last Competitions and Architecture 130 Symposium


three years in the Archiprix competition evaluations. As a result of certain projects that came to the foreground, with the claim that they make people think, rather than being realizable under the influence of 2010 competition jury member Julien de Smedt and earned awards, a discussion under the heading ‘Conceptual’ and ‘pragmatist’ projects started. During the 2011 period, jury member Kenan Güvenç’s placing the second place winner of the competition in the foreground and his proclamation in the axis of ‘market’ and ‘university’, where he sides with the university, has brought a new dimension to the discussion. During the discussion conducted in both periods, although a discriminative language that is against the integrated structure that feeds from all attitude that is ‘practitioner without thought’, ‘thinker without practice’, ‘thinker while practicing’ and ‘practitioner and thinker’ which are indispensable for the realm of existence of architecture and its development, experiences indicate a successful jury composition which can represent different approaches. However, when the selected projects as a result of the evaluation process which did not raise any discussions in 2012 are taken into consideration after the previous discussions, we see that the jury evaluated a student competition like a market focused, structure acquisition competition. If structure acquisition which makes up only a part of the architecture area and surveillance of the market conditions win against all Architecture related conditions in an unbalanced manner, we may find ourselves in an environment where architecture culture does not develop and gradually decreases. The solution is to display a message which dictates that other kinds of architecture, which protects all the other conditions of architecture are possible, organizing competitions in line with this approach and creating suitable jury compositions.

131 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


COMPETITION EXPERIENCE of YOUNG ARCHITECTS and an EVALUATION on THE ‘INVISIBLE’ SIDES of COMPETITIONS Esin Kömez, Canay Batırbek, Berna Malkamak Kayaçetin, Cihan Kayaçetin

Introduction

Architecture project competitions have become an important part of the architecture discipline in the last century. The main reason for this is the multidimensional contribution of the competitions to architecture culture and constructed environment. In international terms, the different layers of this contribution can be seen more easily if we take a look at competitions which came to the forefront in the last century. For instance, in 1992, Chicago Tribune Architecture Project Competition has taken an important place in period architecture with the winner of the competition John Mead Howells’ and Raymond Hood’s constructed project that turned into a symbol, along with the second place winner Eliel Saarinen’s project, defined as ‘one of the most impressive structures of the 20th century’. On other competition in the 1920’s was organized in 1927 in Geneva for the League of Nations Building. Although Le Corbusier did not receive any awards in the competition, Aigfried Giedion defined the elimination of Le Corbusier’s project as one of the reasons to establish the International Modern Architecture Congress (CIAM), in 1928. Between 1951-1952, the Golden Lane Estate competition held in London came to be known for its projects in which Smithsons did not receive any awards, but their discourses became visible. Candilis-Josic-Woods project, which was the winner of the Berlin Free University Competition held in 1963 was partly constructed and has a significant place in the development and discussion of the ‘mat-building’ concept and design strategy. Besides certain architecture design strategies from coming to the fore, competitions sometimes may have a historical value as the main events in the development and discussion of some architecture trends. For instance, the Roma Interrotta Competition which was held in 1978 and entered by architects such as, Colin Rowe, Robert Venturi, Michael Graves, Aldo Rossi, Rob and Leon Krier is one of the important activities given as reference in the post-modern architecture discussions. The Parc de la Villette Competition held in 1982, in Paris has become one of the symbols of deconstructionist approach in architecture, with the Competitions and Architecture 132 Symposium


winner Bernard Schumi’s project that was constructed. One of the other significant benefits of competitions besides this physical and discoursive contributions to provide a democratic platform, which allow young architects who have just stepped into this occupation to develop and make themselves visible. The Yokohama International Ferry Terminal Competition held in 1994 marks the beginning of winner Alejandro ZaeraPolo’s occupational practice and international fame. Architecture project competitions have also become one of the influential building blocks of architecture practice after 1930 in Turkey as well. Competitions have significant contribution to the whole architecture discipline such as contributing to the intellectual and ideational aspect of architecture, to build quality structural environments, to create an efficient production and continuous training environment for architects and to extend the participatory roles of young architects all stages of this process. Competitions have also become a tool for many young architects to open their own offices. Therefore, competitions are a qualified way of getting job offers, besides creating democratic platforms, where young architects can voice themselves. However, the post-competition process does not generally present a positive Picture especially for young architects; unfortunately, this makes up the most unrecognized and discussed, thus a not so transparent side of architecture agenda. In this respect, we define the announcement of the competition, project admission, jury’s evaluation, colloquium and representation and sharing of projects in various environments as the ‘visible’ sides of competitions and the phase where a person wins the competition and acquires project owner position as the ‘invisible’ side. Our aim within the scope of this symposium’s main theme ‘competition stories’ is to share our experiences in relation to the ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ sides of the competition, as the winners of Republic of Turkey Hatay General Provincial Council National Architecture Project Competition and to discuss what can be done for the process in the second phase for us young architects to advance in a better way.

The ‘Visible’ Side of the Competition Process

Republic of Turkey Hatay General Provincial Council National Architecture Project Competition has been organized on 15 July, 2011, as an independent, national and single-stage competition by the Hatay General Provincial Council. The competition projects have been evaluated by the permanent members of the competition Bülent Tarım, Kemal Nalbant, Kaya Arıkoğlu, Yakup Hazan and Ali Osman Atahan and by a team consisting of associate members Esra Fidanoğlu, Tolga Akbulut and Hakan Türker and the results have been announced in 3 October, 2011. Out of 72 participating projects, our project which passed all of the four eliminations by the jury was decided 133 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 1: Sketches

Figure 2: Sketches

to be placed in the ward group after the 4th elimination by consensus and has been awarded the first place with project majority of votes. The project was developed by a team of four people, consisting of Berna Malkamak Kayaçetin, Esin Kömez, Cihan Kayaçetin and Canay Batırbek’ten. Since the same team had entered the Manisa Municipality Service Building and Environment National Architecture Project Competition earlier, it had experienced how much great effort the process required. Therefore, the team decided to enter the competition after a week long idea and sketch production activity. (Figure 1). The main conceptual approach and profile later on formed the basis of the project. Starting from the initial design stage, the main idea of the project has been formed beyond the competition program and area data to create a strong sense of belonging with the ‘area’, in a city like Hatay, which has a multi layered historical and rich cultural heritage. On the researches and observation about the city, it has been observed that stone masonry, stone walls and facades have been resisting as quality architectural elements in an environment which starts to lose its identity due to speedy urbanization and effects of unearned income. Therefore, the use of Stone walls has become the focal characteristic of the design of the project with a modern interpretation and the project has been developed in the light of program, climate and environmental factors. As a result, the processes of trying to understand the context and establishing a dialogue with it and creating from were realized simultaneously and in an intertwined manner. In the project, the General Provincial Council and Special Provincial Administration Building has been designed as two buildings which achieve a design unity with each other, but function separately. The buildings were positioned

Figure 3: Layout Plan

Competitions and Architecture 134 Symposium


parallel to the main road which is situated in the northeast of the area; its visibility in the city development axis was increased by a permeable dynamic surface and the pedestrian and vehicle entries were provided from these facades. (Figure 3). The construction was realized in the two transverse corners of the area, a square to be used

Figure 4: Land Settlement Sketch

Figure 5: General View

Figure 6: View from the Southeastern Court

for ceremonies and different activities between the two buildings and two large green areas were designed and these areas were targeted to be a part of daily life, by freeing them from the unnecessary restrictions of the relationship between the state and the 135 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Figure 7: View from the Indoors

urbanites. (Figure 4). While the solid ground in the entrance allow for activities such as ceremonies/official activities to the held in the square, the South east court was designed to be suitable for multi-purpose activities, such as cultural and commercial activities. (Figure 5, Figure 6). In the project, a quality indoor setting installation which is defined with stone walls has been aimed at and a gallery opening, which integrated with the offices and the circulation space between the walls. (Figure 7). This low permeable stone wall, which creates the southwestern facade, has been designed with reference to the climactic data (Figure 8). Office units have been installed in a sectional manner to bring an innovative expression to work areas in state offices and green terraces have been suggested to provide the workers with common, shaded open spaces. (Figure 5). The load bearing system for the structure has been designed as a grate system with steel posts and beams. While this system allows the office units and circulation spaces to the freely installed, the merging of the stone walls with the steel system also allowed traditional and modern construction techniques to be interpreted together. (Figure 9). Colloquium was held in Hatay, in 13 October, 2011 and the jury report was announced in this colloquium. Colloquiums and the jury report are the most important building blocks of the ‘visible stage’ after the competition. Although colloquiums are Competitions and Architecture 136 Symposium


Figure 8: Climatic Design Decisions

defined as the most effective discussion environments achieved after the competition, due to the low attendance, this was not possible in Hatay. Unfortunately, the colloquium as witnessed in many different competitions rather served an award ceremony. After the colloquium, the project was continued to be shared in various environments. While certain parts consist of web sites, the others consist of various meetings and activities. The first of these was realized within the context of ‘Architecture Dialogues: Young Architects, Experiences, Competitions’, which was organized in

Figure 9: Load Carrier System Diagram

137 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Osmangazi University, in 22 December, 2011. This discussion has been very fruitful in terms of meeting with architecture students. The second big presentation has been realized within the framework of ‘Space/Spacelessness’ theme in the Association of Architects, in 6 March, 2012. In this setting, a different experience was lived in terms of sharing of ideas on the attitude to be followed in the ‘invisible phase of competition’ with many experienced free-lance architects. After a recess where the ‘invisible phase’

Figure 10: Timetable which shows the Visible and Invisible Stages of the Competition

continued, the project was presented within the context of ‘Young Competitors’ of the Association of Architects, in 3 April, 2013 and the experiences of this phase was shared with the participants. The rest of the competition story from that point on rather consists of the ‘invisible phase’. (Figure 10).

The ‘Invisible Phase’ of the Competition Process

The ‘invisible phase’ started with preparations and researches concerning the application of the project after the colloquium and these researches have been conducted bilaterally: application subjects and legal issues. Although it is thought that the first of these is already experienced in professional life, the responsibility of being the project owner has caused issues which were not necessarily thought of before until that moment to be a part of the work plan. The main issue in the team’s plan was to make use of the time prior to the agreement as good as possible. This situation Competitions and Architecture 138 Symposium


continued until the tam was invited to Hatay after 1.5 months from the date of the colloquium. Although the officials stated that they would hold a meeting that would be more detailed and open to the media, the first project meeting was realized in the existing building of Hatay Provincial Special Administration building, only with the employees and officials of the Provincial Special Administration. During the colloquium, the positive attitude of the officials of Hatay Provincial Special Administration officials and the governor of Hatay and their wish not to waste time for the application has allowed this meeting to be realized in an environment most desired by a team who has won a competition. In the meeting, issues such as the requirement that the project should be completed the latest within the year 2014, that the Administration has decided on certain revisions to be done and that it would be informing the project owner group as soon as possible. After the meeting, it was decided for the architecture group to have a legal entity. After the meeting, the required preparations were done to create the proposal and taking the prices determined by the Ministry of Public Works and Association of Architects and consulting various experienced architects and advisors, the proposal has been drawn up. As a result, the proposal was drawn up based on the meetings with the engineers and the service specifications which were legally accepted; unfortunately, the suggested price was found high. Therefore, in 19 December, 2011, information was received that a senior official from Hatay Provincial Special Administration will held a meeting on the price in Ankara. After this date, it has been observed that the prices received from the Administration became uncertain and that the proposal of the other side was constantly setback. If we take a look at the process from its end, it may be suggested that the aspect which caused the cancellation of the project arose at this stage. However, this time period was put to use by working on the details which came into the picture with the suggestions of the jury, came to the fore during the meetings held with the engineers, but were not developed at the delivery of the project. After a period of about two months, a meeting was held with a senior official from Hatay Provincial Special Administration in Ankara, but this meeting only focused on the costs and the Administration persisted on a pride reduction. This situation in terms of the project owners who wished to bring the project to life created a result which was not worth the wait and far from satisfactory. Although the Administration wished the project to be brought to life, reasons such as not allocating a decent budget and high bureaucracy effecting the decision, a definite result was not achieved in this meeting. 139 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


Having doubts about the realization of the project result in different mechanisms entering the process. After meetings held with the competition jury members and Hatay Architecture Association, this tine a meeting in Hatay was organized. By the inclusion of two establishments (jury and architecture association) which played a significant role in the opening of and realization of the competition, the two sides who wished to work tougher, but were not able to reach an agreement were given a chance to have a process of meeting which would progress more healthily. In this meeting held with the employer establishment, it has been emphasized that the realization of the project is an opportunity which should not be missed for the city, the establishment itself and even its administrators. As a result of these meetings, in 6 April, 2012, the two parties reached an agreement in financial matters, with the compromises made by the project owners. However, issues related to the realization of the project such as the definition of the responsibilities and job descriptions of the two sides carried as much importance as the definition of the costs and the time required to agree on these matters is a proof of this. The time spent from the receipt of the first draft agreement to reaching a settlement on all issues was over 1 month and in the history of competitions, this period sometimes exceeded 6 months. In the process following this, although an agreement was reached on the draft and meetings with the engineers on the project were once again initiated, the expected agreement invitation was not sent to the project owners. The reason for the cancellation of the project first arose in a telephone conversation with the Administration in 18 July, 2012 and the project owners were informed that the details of the Metropolitan Municipality Law were to be waited for. The Administration from that point on waited for an instruction from the Ministry and initiative was not taken until the law was passed. In 12 December, 2012, after the passing of the “Law in relation to the establishment of metropolitan municipality in thirteen cities and twenty six districts, along certain changes to be done on statutory decrees and laws�, the most effective role in the opening of the competition by being a metropolitan municipality meant the cancellation of the project. After this date, a final decision was waited from the establishment which lost its function and entered a process of being closed down and potential possibilities were evaluated. Lastly, in 15 March, 2013, an official statement and information was requested from the establishment on the final situation.

Competitions and Architecture 140 Symposium


Conclusion

As it was expressed in the article, the ‘invisible’ stages of competition can be much longer, dense and as it is true in this example much more corrosive compared to their ‘visible’ stages (Figure 10). Forming a team to get prepared for the competition, design process, the sharing atmosphere in the colloquium and other environments where the project is presented create a large area of training for especially young architects. However, young architects who became project owners after winning the competition are moved further away especially at this stage and left alone within an employer-employee relationship. As the winners of Republic of Turkey Hatay General Provincial Council and Provincial Special Administration Service Building National Architectural Project Competition, we would like to suggest these aspects for the improvement of the ‘invisible’ stages of competitions: • •

Ministry of Public Works Competition Regulations and Architecture Association Competition Regulations would be merged and a single Competition Regulation should be effective in the country. More transparent and obligatory arrangements should be brought on relation to the stage after the results of competition are announced in the Competition Regulations and should contain more decisive provisions in terms of acknowledging and protecting especially the project owners’ rights. The Regulations should be drawn as to shed light on the stages after the competition, besides providing a variety of information to the participants during the competition stage (such as land, program). In this preparatory process, the jury and establishment acting as the organizer of the competition should reach a consensus in terms of meeting the provisions in the regulations. The Jury’s post-competition responsibilities should be redefined. Most of the time, the jury’s function ends after the colloquium. However, it carries great importance for young architects to receive guidance from these experienced people and the jury’s intermediary role with the establishment is important for this process to progress more healthily. The jury, rapporteurs, organizing establishment, but especially the competitors should be well informed about the competition obligations. It would be highly beneficial if a guidebook with the required regulations can be published. The Architecture Association needs to develop its legal and technical support. The Architecture Association should provide all kinds of support 141 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


• •

to the project owners after the competition, for the realization of legal transactions where necessary and to remove defective aspects. It is important for the process to progress more healthily that the Architecture Association cooperates with the local administration, organizing establishment and project owners in the city where the competition is held. It is necessary for the process to be more transparent that the news media where competition projects and shared and discussed to follow-up the stage after the colloquium and share it with the public opinion.

As a result, we would like to state that, architecture is surely not a discipline built solely on constructed objects. Therefore, competitions contribute greatly to the area with the discoursive aspects as well. However, it is clear that structures constructed through competitions are an important issue. For this reason, we believe that making the ‘invisible’ stages of competitions more ‘visible’ will increase the effect of competitions on the architecture culture.

Competitions and Architecture 142 Symposium


143 Competitions and Architecture Symposium


MORE THAN a COMPETITION: City Dreams PROJECTIDEA Competition as a Participatory Social Model Tezcan Karakuş Candan, Y.Yeşim Uysal TAECA Chamber of Architects Ankara Division

Criticisms from many angles have been directed at urban transformation projects, which have been implemented since 2004, in Turkey and various suggestions have been developed for these projects to be produced through healthier methods. These projects generally appear as being far from transparency, the final product being low quality and their distanced stance towards participation, which is perhaps the most important dimension in social terms. In the context of these examples, for which social participation and spatial quality are sacrificed for capital accumulation, City Dreams PROJECTIDEA competitions which have been organized by the TAECA Chamber of Architects Ankara Division 7 times (preparations are on the way for the 8th) presents an example of a worthy discussion with the effort to transform the competition idea into a social participation model. The transformation of Ulucanlar Jail, which is the first competition series, into a memory space has been fictionalized within a struggle which aims at getting ahead of the demolishment of the structure group in question. In order to prevent the demolishment of the setting, it has been aimed at expanding the decision process by sharing the issue with the public opinion and to use competition format for a quality product to be acquired. The coming together of these two dimensions has created a new structure which stands outside the familiar competition context. Within the structure in question, the related institutions and organizations were allowed to participate in the design of the competition and the jury and the setting visits allowed people to meet with the inhabitants of the setting which is the subject of the competition. After the initial evaluation of the jury, through an open discussion atmosphere referred to as “Evaluation Conference”, the participants of the competition have been able to share their identities openly with social groups, representatives of institutions and city residents, along with the jury. Until now, the 8th of the City Dreams Competitions which have been organized on Ulucanlar Jail, Hasanoğlan Village Institute Campus, Zonguldak Coal Washery Area, Kızılay City Center, EGO Hangars, Social Residences in Mamak and Mamak Jail, is being fictionalized on Saracaoğlu Neighborhood; which has been announced as a transformation area, on the grounds that it carries “disaster risk”. Some of the competitions organized so far have been able to influence the transformation processes to be realized in the areas they handle and allowed the project products to be embraced by sometimes grabbing the attention of city residents and sometimes the related administrations. The City Dreams PROJECTIDEA Competitions, which aim at expanding not only the quality architectural product, but also the production of this product, its selection and the realization process to different layers of the society, involve significant authenticities with their fiction that analyze the participatory models of urban transformation which connect architecture with the society. Key Words: Competition, Urban Transformation, Urban setting, City dream, Social participation, Chamber of Architects Ankara Division

Competitions and Architecture 144 Symposium

Competitions and Architecture Symposium 2013  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you