Taksim Kentsel Tasarım Yarışması / Tutanak ve Raporlar

Page 1

Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 18, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Florya IPA Campus, on Saturday, 18th of July, at 09:00. ●

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Principal Jury Member Manuel de Rivero (Architect) was not able to participate in the jury sessions for Stage 1. Therefore, Substitute Jury Member Arman Akdoğan (Architect) was commissioned as a Principal Jury Member.

Advisory Jury Member Korhan Gümüş was not able to participate to the jury sessions for Stage 1. Therefore, he was removed from the Advisory Panel.

Oktay Özel was commissioned as an Advisory Jury Member.

Jury members who participated at the jury sessions for Stage 1, made a statement of honesty oath that they have not seen the submitted projects before and the authors’ identities were unknown to them.

The report below was presented by the rapporteurship before the jury sessions. o o

In total, 146 submissions have been received. Confidentiality has been ensured by covering all alias with sequential numbers from 1 to 146. SUBMISSIONS ▪ Project number 9 was submitted only with identification envelope and project documents were not submitted. LATE SUBMISSIONS ▪ Project number 143 was received at 13.32 GMT+3, 13th of July 2020 ▪ Project number 146 was received at 15.16 GMT+3, 17th of July 2020 FORMAT OF DELIVERABLES ▪ Project number 55, 91 were not submitted in vertical layout as described in Stage 1 Deliverables ▪ Project number 34, 85 and 112 were submitted only in Turkish. ▪ Project number 55 was submitted in English and Turkish. ▪ Project number 40, 71, 87, 105 and 142 was submitted without a site plan. ▪ 7 projects were submitted without respecting the page limitations of the booklet. ● Booklet of project number 26 has an extra 1 page. ● Booklet of project number 123 has extra 9 pages.

According to the report above, Principal Jury Panel has decided; o o o o

Project number 9 is disqualified for submitting no documents in addition to the identification envelope. Project number 143 and 146 are disqualified for late submission. The extra pages of projects 26 and 123 should be removed. The texts written in Turkish should be covered in projects 34, 55, 85 and 112.

Individual evaluation started at 11.00.

The jury stopped to work at 20:00. 1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 19, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Florya IPA Campus, on Sunday, 19th of July, at 09:00.

 

Individual evaluation continued. The jury stopped to work at 19:00.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 20, 2020

The jury for the Taksim Urban Design Competition convened at Florya IPA Campus on Monday, 20th of July 2020, at 09:00. 

In the first round, a total of 20 (twenty) projects were eliminated unanimously. The numbers of the eliminated projects are 12, 29, 30, 34, 47, 55, 62, 64, 71, 78, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 95, 109, 112, 129 and 142.

In the second round, a total of 78 (seventy-eight) projects, with numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 77, 79, 81, 82, 86, 89, 92, 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144 and 145 were eliminated. o

Projects numbered 7, 11, 13, 18, 25, 26, 33, 37, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 79, 81, 82, 86, 89, 92, 98, 100, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 131, 137, 139, and 141 were eliminated unanimously

o

Projects numbered 5, 31, 32, 53, 60, 73, 96, 110, 113, 115, 134 and 140 were eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from İpek Akpınar)

o

Projects numbered 3, 10 and 144 were eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Arman Akdoğan)

o

Project 24 was eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Arzu Nuhoğlu)

o

Projects numbered 61 and 119 were eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Kerem Piker)

o

Projects numbered 8, 20, 23, 36, 39 and 145 were eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Arman Akdoğan)

o

Project number 27 was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from Can Kubin and Arzu Karahan)

o

Project number 97 was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Rainer Schmidt)

o

Projects numbered 125 and 136 were eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Kerem Piker)

o

Project number 130 was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from Arman Akdoğan and Kerem Piker)

o

Project number 132 was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Arzu Nuhoğlu)

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition o

July 20, 2020

Project number 138 was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Zeynep Ahunbay)

Evaluation criteria for the second elimination were as follows:     

Projects lacking a clear overall design approach for the competition site, Proposals, focused only on specific parts of competition site, not having a holistic approach, Design proposals offering no solutions for the current problems of the competition site, Entries proposing no architectural program to identify strategies and to define activities/ functions, Formalistic approaches without any relationship with the urban context.

Projects which do not possess one or more criteria indicated above have been eliminated. 

The jury stopped to work at 21:00.

2


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Florya IPA Campus, on Tuesday, 21st of July, at 09:00. 

In the third elimination, a total of 25 (twenty-five) projects were eliminated. Eliminated projects are 1, 4, 6, 17, 21, 22, 42, 45, 51, 56, 57, 65, 74, 75, 76, 83, 84, 94, 99, 101, 102, 103, 108, 117, 121. The reports about the eliminated projects are presented below:

PROJECT NUMBER 1 The general framework proposed by the team; “We accept the idea that the change of the public square in any terms is the only thing which is permanent” is found praising approach by the jury. The project is keeping the site as a green hub by providing a reasonable reference to the Prost Plan and focusing on the existing landmarks. It is a sensitive approach to the historical past. The idea of “change” and the interpretation of this concept as the major permanent feature of the square is logical. Based on this idea, the emphasis on the square in a physical design is evaluated as a consistent design approach. The project develops the concepts of sustainability and temporariness. Proposed setup; new meeting points for daily life activities, and temporary structures are evaluated as positive aspects of the project. The proposal is creating a linkage between the surrounding environment by utilizing different modes of movement. The continuous structure that supports the pedestrian flow and its section characteristics are evaluated positively. Meantime, the framework and the analytical studies on urban relations, connections with focal points, and circulation infrastructure are highly appreciated. However, the results of the analyses are considered as not reflected on the project on an adequate level. The idea that is projected on the design is obscure and provides a limited contribution to the existing situation. The design attitude towards the integration and historic restoration of the park area is considered as the basic shortcomings of the design proposal. Additionally, the uncertainty of the intervention of Mete street, an unsuited curvilinear form of the pedestrian structure and formbased approach to the whole area are criticized as a particular case. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 4 The project’s approach that considers the historical layers and sociological setting is very significant. Analytical studies, development of the concepts in macro and micro scales, pictograms, proposals on traffic, circulation, and integration with the urban space are positive aspects of the project. A new definition of Gezi Park as a central green open space and its pure design language is considered as one of the strongest parts of the proposal. Besides, interpretation of the level differences at the edge of the park on Cumhuriyet Street with the insertion of various functions is found beneficial for the vitality of the pedestrian area. Although there are detailed analyses and a well-prepared framework for the project, the jury believes that these issues are not transferred well into the design process at a sufficient level. Especially there is a lack of remarkable design suggestions to the use of the square, a large area of hard surfaces, proposed urban furniture are not fitting well to the context, and the scale of the buildings that are placed above Tarlabaşı Tunnel are criticized as the negative aspects of the project. The project was eliminated unanimously. 1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 6 The project offers a new place for the neighborhood; a green meeting space, and in addition, it is encouraging the participatory process. Based on this idea, the project site is divided into four parts; flying carpet, educational garden, sensory line, and canopied walkway which covers some part of the existing hard-surfaced square area. The area of the flying carpet or where the project intensively focuses on a surrounded multi-story walkway which refers to the historical barracks. (Although its relation with the park is questioned.) As a proposal, the lightness, and the ecological approach of the structure are appreciated by the jury. The canopied walkway concept will provide the livability of the square like the site furniture proposals used in sensory lines (Cumhuriyet Street). The project intensifies green areas and proposes a new geometrical system on Gezi Park. These issues and spatial relations between the square and the park are the major negative aspects that were criticized by the jury. In addition, the small scale or temporary objects are used, and thus proposing very limited interventions to reduce the effect of the existing large hard surfaces. These propositions are considered as the negative parts of the project. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 17 The proposal conceptualizes Taksim Square within its social and built fabric as an urban tapestry, a mode of connection between the site’s cultural history. It is reviving the necessity of place making. The proposal references "Landscape Urbanism" to create a holistic approach towards the urban park, infrastructure, and cultural development through the creation of an “urban ground�. It is offering new spatial and ecological relations. With this respect, pedestrian flow is evaluated as the main motivation for defining the spatial forms. There is an emphasis on the spatial quality of metro stations as an urban space. Performance and play areas are the backbones of the public activities and the layout is developing a flexible and multifunctional setting on the urban surface. With its conceptual framework, the proposal is found very strong. The weaving metaphor is creative and integrates the existing infrastructures and values. The design proposal which tries to define a new language to manage movement, the definition of subspaces, management of surface water, and creation of dynamic surfaces are positive gestures for the city. The design also evaluates trees as a strong element and adds value to the public space. The project also protects the existing trees and adding new ones to the spatial setting. Public space and metro stations are enriched with pavilions but their integration with the proposed surface strategy is poor. The integration of this space formation with the park is also unclear and weakening the strengths of the proposal. Although the proposal has a very strong design language and a new approach to Taksim Square, the proposal generates an overdesign strategy for the current context of Taksim. The project was eliminated unanimously.

2


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 21 The project proposal conducts the project site at two levels: urban context and spatial context. Taksim square as a place of physical and symbolic confluence, focusing on water and democracy issues. The three main water elements are proposed which is animated by the public. Discreet restoration approach of the existing structure of Gezi Park is found positive. Attempt to create a focal point in front of AtatĂźrk Cultural Center with the proposed staircases found an interesting design intervention. The project has an attempt to integrate water elements into the design, offers a participatory process by making citizens get involved thorough water play. In this way it supports raising awareness. These are the positive elements of the project. The overall spatial design approach is poor in relation to the local context and Taksim identity. The founding spatial identity is criticized as a negative aspect of the project. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 22 The project proposes a building along the southern part of The Gezi Park, covering a large area which is approximately one-quarter of the park surface. The architectural design is following the footprint of Gezi Park and the proposal contributes to the spatial definition of Taksim square and Cumhuriyet Boulevard. The opening through Mete street gives an opportunity for the open space to be developed. The proposed amphitheater in the center of the park indeed does have potentials for welcoming the visitors of Taksim. Nevertheless, even though the green roof is being proposed over the building, the major volume is very alien to the park, it is very bulky, it is in a very large scale, and inappropriate for the public use. The jury's common opinion is that it is not suitable for the current context. The proposed project scheme manipulates the site drastically, attempts to transform the existing spatial setting while disregarding the historical background and the identity of the site. These are the main characteristics of the project which were criticized by the jury. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 42 The project attempts to provide solutions in a very classic manner for the historical situation of the current context. The trees are placed on a part of the Cumhuriyet Street, That approach is reasonable and commented with positive remarks. It is transforming the historical marble stairs to a new Taksim stage. This relative small scale intervention is integrating the plaza with the park and creating the relation between inside and outside of Gezi Park. The stage serves in two directions, the square, and park side. That design solution is balancing the soft and hard surface and providing opportunities for multiple choice of use. The scheme also provides a good stage for the concert and art festivals which could open in both directions. These are the positive aspects of the project. However, the composition of the scheme is symmetrical, too classical, and very much form-based. It is not projecting an innovative modern intervention. The dominant overall mirrored scheme is criticized as a simplistic formal gesture. The overall assertion of having traditional design aspects are 3


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

quite different from today’s Taksim image, and for the future, it will be far from giving a new and consistent identity which will compromise with the context. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 45 The project is based on the historical framework, keeping Gezi Park’s current structure, adding the new trees and the new facilities like platform, urban room and fountain plaza. The edges of the Gezi Park are formed by the new structure of sitting stairs and balconies. The whole area between the Marmara Hotel and AKM and whole Taksim square and parts of the Gezi Park is being framed by a big new canopy ring is using roof level and ground level. Purposed spatial structure, separating the whole area in three different open spaces. The circular structure is embracing the green park, the amphitheater, and the edges of Gezi Park Cumhuriyet Street. This creating a strong identity that is appreciated by the whole jury. It is a clear spatial structure and has significant values for a new sign of Taksim. This edge of the Gezi Park integrated with cafes and multipurpose halls. On the Cumhuriyet Street and Taksim Square big canopy shields covered areas uses as markets or meeting areas. The topographic situation at the entrance of Tarlabaşı boulevard, very elegant solution that is forming a plateau with the same language as the wide walled edge of Gezi Park. These are considered as positive elements. Although it is a strong suggestion and has a value with particular merits, the strong circular canopy ring is the most dominant element in the design proposal. The project is handled as a one-liner manner, trying to solve every issue with one proposition. It is considered as the basic negative aspect of the project. The scheme has a very identical, distinct formal language and competing with the current identity of the place. It has an uncertain function and an unknown contribution to the context of Taksim. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from İpek Akpınar and Rainer Schmidt)

PROJECT NUMBER 51 The project is developed under the umbrella of the major phrase “People for Taksim and Taksim for people”. In this context, the proposal is based on the historical design of Gezi park and hence in the proposal, the park is being restored. The project adds a great amount of tress on the site. The spatial design at the edge of the Cumhuriyet street forms a curvilinear landscape with different small artificial hills and a playful topography. The street is also structured together with the market pavilions that are positive inputs. Gezi park integrated with different elements like workshop pavilion and with others. Taksim square is an open area with different functions. These elements of the project are commented as positive insertions for the area. Overall, it is an adequate design but without a strong identity. Taksim Outlook platform and the oval pool is providing a positive spatial gesture but these proposed elements may not be enough to furnish an identity to the Taksim monument square. The square is left without any design as vague and empty space. The project was eliminated unanimously.

4


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 56 The proposal is concerning the integration of Gezi Park and the square. Cumhuriyet Street side of the park is activated with greenery, public activities and green roofs and courtyards. The proposal extends the Gezi Park into the Square with green patches. There is an effort to integrate historical and new elements in the design. The project proposes a green extension from Gezi Park towards Taksim Square. On the west edge of Gezi Park, a courtyard typology with green roofs for public programs is introduced. A series of container structures are placed as kiosks along Cumhuriyet Avenue. Rehabilitating the park, integration of the courtyards through existing park structure is carefully studied. Preserving the historical balustrade on-site is evaluated positively. The proposal for enhancing the green character of the park is appreciated. The proposal makes substantial transformation in the park and its integration with the square is seen as a problematic suggestion. The extension of the green area into the square blocks the pedestrian flow in the square. The proposal does not develop the square as a whole space. It fragmentizes the square which weakens the legibility and integrity for public activities, informal events, and happenings. The formal language of the pool and the pedestrian paths dividing the green both in Park and Square is unfamiliar and they are not related to the context. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 57 The project proposes to extend the Gezi park through Cumhuriyet Street. A new square definition is made by the proposal in front of the Taksim Maksem. The new design of Taksim square fits very good on the major connections lines and through the axes. The project proposes a sunken plaza on Taksim Square connected to Gezi Park as an extension of the existing urban infrastructure. A large pool is inserted on the north wing of the Gezi Park. Existing trees are preserved and the park is extended through Cumhuriyet Avenue. Taksim square is reframed around the Taksim monument. The proposed open space sequence, the connections between the park and the square are positive specifics of the project. The scale of the artificial pool is criticized and sustainability issues that are related to water system are questioned. Sunken plaza with a series of urban activities around is appreciated. In Gezi Park, pedestrian connections with the existing urban structure are carefully studied. However, due to the location of the sunken plaza, Taksim Square is divided into fragments that are uneasy to generate an urban activity on the surface ground. Connections from the aboveground via public stairs are not well integrated. Removal of the landscape design around the monument and the wide hardscape is questioned. The structure of the pedestrian bridge that is connecting the park and library is problematic. The integration of the new focal points and object weakens the importance of the Atatürk Statue. The connection between the Gezi Park and Atatürk Library is a positive assertion but the scale of the bridge is exaggerated. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (one vote in favor was from Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 65 The entry proposes a layered approach to design with the concept of “bridging people, society, and culture”. The design includes bridge alley, green podium, and cultural and historical layers. The proposal evaluates Landscape as a mediator between these layers. The general approach of the

5


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

project is positive. The design is protecting and respecting the existing trees and proposes very clear edges with the insertion of pavilions towards Taksim Square and Cumhuriyet Street. The park’s entrance and the design of the square is not worked out very well. The continuous structure at the periphery of the park and historic reference are positive elements. The design approach on the Cumhuriyet Street is invasive. Extension of the green into this part is dysfunctional due to the mass pedestrian flow in this place. The bridge alley creates a linkage between the park and Elmadağ District however its tectonic is heavy and problematic. In the project report, it is claimed that the park diffused into the square with green patches. But the implementation of this decision in the plan is insufficient. The integration of the park with the square is problematic. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from İpek Akpınar and Can Kubin).

PROJECT NUMBER 74 The Project entitles the urban space of reconciliation proposing an active public space has been defined in a new level with an elegant visualization. The project sets up new canopies for defining new spaces. The new voids and the upper canopies spatially define the proposal. An enlarged evaluation of the site and detailed analysis of the context for an urban space of reconciliation, the design proposal is covering different levels, the connection between two levels with sunken plazas forms, covered with glass structure, footpaths connection to the back side of the culture center, the continuity of The Gezi park restoration following its existing conditions are positively considered. However, the gigantic scale of the proposal stairs facing the Istiklal Street, it is completely defining a new context without referring to the existing spatial identity and dominating the square and human scale, vagueness of the sections between the Marmara Hotel and the new Taksim square, the lack of programme for the open public spaces are negative aspects of the project. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 75 The proposal offers urban integrity as being part of the global network of open and agile smart cities. The holistic public proposals reflect on the concept of public open spaces. The urban and architectural strategies are defined well and promising a new design. The schematic representation brings flexibility for the current context and programs a speculative and dynamic projection for the future. However, the lack of a clear master plan is considered the weakest part of the submission. The project does not possess clear design elements and the ideas are not reflected in the spatial design propositions. There are no clues of the architectural framework. According to the jury, it is difficult to predict if the team has the potential for transforming the ideas into a concrete design proposal at the following phases. These are the negative aspects of the submission. The project was eliminated unanimously.

6


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 76 A powerful structure flying over the trees defines the scale of the urban program and the dimension of the square. The project develops a raised structure as a new frame of exhibition spaces. It integrates various functions that are flying over the edge of Gezi Park. This challenging scheme is facing previous political discussions in a progressive manner. It is proposing a futuristic use as an alternative to the poor attempt of reestablishing the military barracks of the past. The proposition contributes to Gezi Park's topographic social memory, the new structural form is offering a new identity and an architectural quality to Taksim. The scheme is framing the plaza which is positive for the spatial human sensors and activities. The new stairs and the new structure with a powerful architectural language, re-defines the site as an urban stage. Although the visualization is representing a gentle touch to the ground, the scale might be considered as out of proportion for this site. An elevated public building is a grandiose gesture which has the potential to generate other forms of urban and other political discussions. The lack of urban design strategy is considered as negative assets of the submission. The public opinion might be divided in the future as the proposal might fit or not fit into the context of the site, nor respond to the site expectations and design problems. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from Arman AkdoÄ&#x;an and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 83 The proposal focuses on the participation of the public and generating transparency through design. It is an attempt of establishing sustainability through the cooperation of the public contribution. The conceptual framework of the project is very strong and its “connection, collection, collaboration� approach is very interesting. However, the project does not respond to the current requirements of the square and the park. There are clear programmatic suggestions for the square and Gezi Park. The scale of these suggested structures are too small in comparison to the scale of the programmatic issues and diversity. On the other hand, the project touches upon ecological issues such as water and re-use of materials. The intention of the project to include public majority by using digital tools found up to date. Overall, the architectural and urban design quality is not defined well in the project scheme. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 84 The project evaluates Taksim in a multi-layered perspective which is the positive characteristics of the project. Social life, publicity, urbanity is evaluated as major components of the idea. The design fosters the spatial character of Gezi Park with some new decisions such as the sunken gardens in the central area with different activities. The proposed spatial choreography includes a rich programmatic context. The philosophy of the project is strong and detailed. There is a large amount of information embedded in the site analyses and upper scale studies on general framework. However, it requires a strong character and spatial definition. The reflection of these analyses into the design process, especially for the square design, is not clear and visible.

7


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from Arman Akdoğan and Kerem Piker).

PROJECT NUMBER 94 The project is based on enlarged urban analysis that is proposing a new structure dividing the Gezi Park and the Square in two parts and giving a new scale to the Taksim square. The possibilities of cycling and new mobility are considered as positive improvement. The large canopy structure, forming a new spatial edge to the square, develops the sense of place. On the edge of Cumhuriyet Boulevard, terraces are formed as new shops and coffee places. Square is strongly oriented to Ataturk Cultural Center. These proposition are positively received by the Jury. Nevertheless, the proportion of the raised terraces with the new structure is a weak part of the proposal. Water element at the beginning of the Boulevard could be properly redefined. The proposal doesn’t fit into the context of the site and doesn’t respond to the site realities and design problems. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (three votes in favor were from İpek Akpınar, Arzu Nuhoğlu and Kerem Piker).

PROJECT NUMBER 99 The enlarged urban analysis, the detailed architectural evaluations are positively considered. Based on the historical design of Gezi Park, the project proposes a new geometric edge with new functions like playgrounds, amphitheaters and others. In this regard, the proposal, with its narrative of experiences, projecting squares of movements, and the design of the park including diversity is considered good. The Edge of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard, designed as an artificial hill of landscape and integrated with kiosks for market functions is considered positively. However, a new square around the Ataturk Monument, only defined with pavement structures, is considered weak. The scale of the design proposal for the square is found out of scale. The edge of the Taksim Square, defined a with new stairs and arcades with shopping facilities, offering a clear structure entry, is considered the weakness of the project offering no strong design idea. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from Arman Akdoğan and İpek Akpınar).

PROJECT NUMBER 101 The spatial layout of the project is based on the extension of Gezi Park towards Taksim Square maximizing the green area and the space of the park. A new art district is proposed with public programs along Cumhuriyet Avenue. The continuation of Gezi Park towards Opera Square is appreciated. Piazza around Cumhuriyet Monument defined by public programs is positive. Cumhuriyet Av. has a new gate with a gallery and market building activating the urban scene. These are proper assets of the submission.

8


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

On the other hand, the project reduces the size of Taksim Square if this proposition is in favor of the park itself is a question mark. The project is erasing the memory of the Taksim Square in all senses, that approach is criticized by the jury. The Language of architectural elements and the urban artifacts of the proposal appears to be out of date and unfamiliar to the context. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 102 The project has a strong intellectual background. On-site plan, the general outline of historical Gezi Park is restored and the existing trees will be preserved. The new trees will be added. The edge of Cumhuriyet Av. is designed with slopes. The Project promotes a new design with small hills together with tree groups. Following the historical traces of Gezi Park, restoration of the park is appreciated. The proposed pedestrian arcade along Cumhuriyet Street that is ending with an urban canopy and tribune structure is positive. Proposed topographical interventions in front of the AKM building are criticized in relation to the context. Edge of the park along the boulevard will be unable to generate an urban character. This issue is questioned by the jury. The relation between existing buildings and public tribune may create problems in use. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 103 The project proposes a sequence of spatial elements in order to activate and regenerate urban scenes referring to diverse characteristics of the site, in relation to its memory, and the urban nature. Detailed analysis and conceptual background of the proposal are well appreciated. Children friendly interventions on Gezi Park are positive. Gezi Park will be preserved according to its historical layout. Inside the park, new programs generating urban scenes such as the library, coffee building, creative center, and Gezi panorama are appreciated. Temporary structures around Cumhuriyet Monument found generic and problematic in scale. Wide hardscape in front of the AKM building is criticized. The project was eliminated unanimously. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 108 The main idea of the project is to form a clear built -edge to Taksim Square and Cumhuriyet Road. Proposing a public building with a green roof on Gezi Park, a monumental structure defined by a series of colonnades is the main intervention of the project. In relation to the Gezi Park, Sectional intervention on the southwest corner of the park aiming to trigger public events on the square is promising. Along the Boulevard, coffee shops, galleries, and public uses are promoted. However, architectural language and the scale of the building are in question if the proposal is appropriate for the site. The colonnade attached to the building defining the surface pattern of the square is criticized. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (two votes in favor were from Arzu NuhoÄ&#x;lu and Kerem Piker). 9


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 21, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 117 The Project is proposing a new structure or an open grid in the edge of Gezi Park framing the Taksim square and an urban canopy covering a market area along the Cumhuriyet Av. The open grid is promoting temporary uses such as festivals or open-air concerts in order to keep the square alive. Festival Canopy along the Cumhuriyet Av. generating urban life is promising. Material sensitivity in various scales such as pervious pavement, repair-use strategies are well appreciated. Night use and lighting proposal are positive. However, beyond a series of physical interventions, an overall design idea is missing. A clear definition and design strategy for the Gezi park is needed. The Diagonal walkway passing by the Gezi park without a clear ending is criticized. Water pools along the festival canopy are questioned. The project was eliminated with the majority of votes (one vote in favor was from İpek Akpınar).

PROJECT NUMBER 121 The proposal evaluates Taksim Square and Gezi Park as a public arena with the motto which summarizes its conceptual approach: “prospective memories for Taksim- echoes for the future”. With this perspective, all design decisions are developed to create a democratic framework. It proposed a diverse programmatic setting. These are all positive elements of the project. Meanwhile, Gezi Park’s historical geometry is kept and restored with adding trees with activity zones. The proposal preferred a conservative approach to the existing situation and hence the structures offered are too small for the scale of the problem. Temporary and movable additions in the Taksim square found inefficient. Besides the spatial quality of the edge is criticized as well. The project was eliminated unanimously.

The jury stopped to work at 20:00.

10


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

Project numbers that moved to Stage 2 are 2, 14, 15, 16, 19, 28, 35, 38, 41, 43, 52, 54, 70, 72, 80, 93, 106, 127, 133, 135. Recommendations are listed below:

PROJECT NUMBER 2 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. Architectural, landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. A green strategy should be defined. The project should be re-evaluated by considering the Gezi Park. More concrete strategies should be developed to enhance or reclaim the Gezi Park. A detailed park program considering daily activities of the square should be clearly defined and designed. The proposal protects the historical stairs between the Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. Dimensions of the canopy should be reconsidered. Public programs such as co-working spaces along the Cumhuriyet Ave. should be diverted. The boulevard character should be enhanced in favour of pedestrians. The water element along the monument and AKM direction should be eliminated or reconsidered. Vertical posts should be reconsidered. The spatial organization of the park next to the Ceylan Hotel should be studied, detailed and integrated to the environment. A clear proposal for the pavement should be given. It is suggested to support the shallow water features both around the monument and on the axes should be supported with detailed hardscape and softscape strategies referring to pedestrian flows. It is suggested to rethink about the human scale in the square. Distribution of the tree rows and their relation with hardscape, pedestrian flow and public activities should be reconsidered. The organisational chart of the teamwork must be developed.

PROJECT NUMBER 14 Design strategies defined in the booklet should be reflected and incorporated into the design scenario. Improvement of public space program and its articulation on spatial design are strongly recommended. More urban activities and programs should be considered especially along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard. The spatial layout of the Gezi Park should be supported with programs. Softening the green boundaries and integrating green with the paved areas are aimed in the project, but only curvilinear green boundary is seen rather than transition from soft to hard landscape. The scale and the height of the Central Canopy and its impact on the AtatĂźrk Statues (in terms of visibility of the monument) should be reconsidered. The canopy should be clearly detailed. The design of the proposed Pavilion at the entrance of Gezi Park should be in harmony with the existing park structure with its form and scale.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

A detailed planting design strategy is essential. The organisation of the working team must be improved regarding the multi-disciplinary group hierarchy and inter-relations.

PROJECT NUMBER 15 The pedestrian route on elevated ground in relation with the existing buildings, trees and urban artefacts should be designed carefully. The need for bridges must be reconsidered and revised accordingly. For the Gezi Park, a design concept proposed for the open society should be presented in detail. Proposed pavilions should be clearly defined and detailed. The proposal protects the historical stairs between the Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. Functions for the square, as well as the surroundings of the Cumhuriyet statue should be defined. More attention should be given to the paved areas for a stronger identity. Architectural language should be reconsidered according to the programmatic needs.

PROJECT NUMBER 16 A stronger spatial identity with civic functions and activities for the project area should be developed. Public space values and quality of urban life should be promoted and developed. The proposal should reconsider the spatial quality of “Cultural Street” and spatial definition of “Social Pattern”. The design strategies for the square and the surrounding area (hardscape and softscape, tree rows, metro exit) should be developed in detail based upon the pedestrian flow and possible public activities. It is suggested that park program and east-west periphery of the park in relation with square should be defined in detail. The design proposal on Gezi Park (new combined lawn encircled by reinforced tree border) is appreciated. However, a detailed program for the park and Taksim gardens should be developed. The relationship between the museum and the bus stops as well as sectional relations between the ground level and underground should be considered. Reflecting pool in front of the AKM Cultural Centre should be re-scaled. Pavement structure for hard surfaces should be developed. The existing trees of the Gezi Park and strategies for new tree planting should be developed.

PROJECT NUMBER 19 There should be a relation between the green structure and the urban context. The power of the project comes from the idea of Sinkhole and urban context. In this regard, the tectonic language needs to be reconsidered with an urbanistic vision. It should set up dialectic relations with urban context and answer daily urban needs.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

How the existing structure of spatial hierarchy and the level of publicity are changed in the proposal should be re-evaluated. The rural characteristics along the border walls should be reconsidered. The extension of green in the city should be flexible and adapted to the urban conditions. The scale and programme of underground public spaces should be re-evaluated. The design strategy of the park and its intersection with the square should be evaluated. Green structure of the park should be more ecological and dense. The design of the Obruk should be clearly expressed. The location of the Obruk, its scale and surroundings should be evaluated. Pedestrian connection with the Gezi Park and the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be strengthened.

PROJECT NUMBER 28 A detailed park program should be developed. More trees should be proposed for the Gezi Park as well as the corner of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard. Formal approach and the formal use of green elements in the Taksim Square should be reconsidered. The design proposal for Taksim Museum should be detailed. The museum’s connection to the underground should be refined. The pedestrian connection between the library and the park should be developed. Roof-scape of pavilions and shops along the Cumhuriyet Avenue should be more integrated with the Gezi Park landscape. The pool encircling the Atatßrk Monument should be reconsidered.

PROJECT NUMBER 35 A green strategy should be established and designed for the Gezi Park. The proposal protects the historical stairs between Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. The canopy structure should be designed carefully in relation with the existing park structure and detailing. Paved surfaces and hardscapes both in Taksim Square and the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be evaluated. The spatial qualities of water elements and their locations should be reconsidered.

PROJECT NUMBER 38 The west side of Gezi Park, facing the Cumhuriyet Avenue, should be redesigned with more vivid and urban functions. Large and empty hard surfaces should be re-evaluated. The roof of the new museum building and the museum plaza should be re-designed as a green park structure.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

Programmatic interventions should be considered along the promenade. Sport fields should be removed. Detailed park programme should be reconsidered. The existing trees should be preserved. The organisation of the working team must be clearly defined and its hierarchical structure must be presented.

PROJECT NUMBER 41 The Green strategy should be clearly defined and based on a holistic urban design approach. Architectural, landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. Park Square and the Republic Square should be more integrated at pedestrian level. It is strongly recommended that the canopy structure should be more porous for pedestrians. The spatial frame of the Taksim Square defined by the green strip should be resized. The scale of the pavilions should be reconsidered in relation to the park. The Roof should be re-evaluated as a green landscape. The proposed underground network should be clearly defined. The hardscape of the park should be reduced. The proposed trees and the biodiversity in the park should be developed.

PROJECT NUMBER 43 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. In this manner, landscape, transportation, and ecological principles should be improved and detailed. The green design strategy should be clearly defined. The hardscape ratio in overall design should be decreased. The dimension of the pedestrian bridge of the Gezi Park should be re-evaluated. The scale of the diagonal axis should be reconsidered. The height of the walls can be reconsidered: the dominance of the walls should be reduced. The intersection of the walls with the landscape can be rescaled. The proposed canopies should be designed carefully in terms of construction and the material. New programs may be introduced along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard. The facade along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard may be developed accordingly. The planting strategy should be refined Hardscape and rhythmic green elements should be reconsidered for Taksim Square.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 52 A clear and holistic design concept and strategy should be developed for Gezi Park. The spatial design should be defined clearly and integrated with the programmable spaces. Physical interventions around Taksim Square (Republic square) should be reconsidered. The architectural language of the urban artefacts should be unified. Pedestrian connections to the library should be considered. The proposal protects the historical stairs between Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. Choice of materials and the character of the greenery should be refined. The hardscape surfaces on Taksim Square should be reconsidered. Public programs, connections with levels above and below ground should be studied carefully.

PROJECT NUMBER 54 Design strategies for Taksim Square and the monument (hard-scape and soft-scape, tree rows, metro exit, and open air theatre) should be developed in detail, with consideration for pedestrian flow. Bio-diversity museum should be reconsidered. The proposed structure is located in a densely planted area. The proposed structures should be ecologically sustainable. The urban qualities of the connective axis between the Cumhuriyet Boulevard and the AtatĂźrk Monument should be reconsidered. The landscape design strategies may be enriched. The commercial strip along the West perimeter of the Gezi Park should be refined. Landscape artefacts such as tree pots, seating elements, lighting features should be reconsidered and detailed with a holistic design approach. The underground public spaces should be designed in detail and the relation between ground level and underground spaces should be developed. The dominance of hardscape surfaces should be re-evaluated. Pavement pattern should have an identity which should also be consistent with the place.

PROJECT NUMBER 70 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. The spatial qualities of Taksim Square and the surrounding of Maksem should be increased. A clear identity following the design principles of the proposal should be introduced. For Gezi park, an architectural concept with a program may be defined. New elements that may contribute to the daily life may be integrated with the Gezi Park. The sunken garden inserted into Taksim Square should be re-evaluated considering the scale since the current proposal causes a division in Taksim Square. Thus overall decision may be revised. The landscape design approach should be improved. Architectural design of new buildings should be refined. The scale of all architectural elements can be reconsidered referring to the human scale.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

The design of the urban artefacts (like lighting, etc) should be developed. The amount of hardscape in the park should be reduced and the design of the paved areas should be revised. Water element should be re-evaluated.

PROJECT NUMBER 72 The Green strategy should be clearly defined, based on a holistic urban design approach. Proposed sketch for the idea of “suture� should be reflected on design. Architectural, landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. In this regard, a clear design approach for Gezi Park should be developed. In order to activate the urban scene, different functions for the public spaces may be introduced. A concept of biodiversity should be integrated with the overall landscape design. Within this framework, the project should reflect an ecological and sustainable approach. Existing topography and sections should be carefully reconsidered. The corner of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard and the Taksim Square can be re-scaled and presented in detail. Hardscapes and paved surfaces for the Taksim Square and the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be designed in detail. The water element along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard can be reconsidered.

PROJECT NUMBER 80 Considering the physical interventions and programmatic contributions, more attention should be given to the design of Taksim Square, Square garden and the courtyard. Overall, the proposal should be more contributory to the project area in physical manner. The Parade Road should be more suited for a vivid urban space. A holistic approach allowing different uses in various parts of Gezi Park should be proposed. Proposals to contribute its vitality level may be considered. Urban artefacts and architectural elements such as Gezi Pavilion or the skywalk should be designed in more detail. Selection of the new trees must depend on deeper study.

PROJECT NUMBER 93 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. The permanent and the temporary structures in Taksim Square should be clearly identified and designed in detail. A unique and significant design for Arcades should be proposed. The intense structural composition should be reconsidered. The stairs, forming a pyramidal form, may be re-evaluated, considering the scale.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

Extension of the Taksim square towards Gezi park should be reduced. In overall design, hardscape surface ratio should be decreased. The number of trees in Taksim Square, around Maksem and Cumhuriyet boulevard should be increased. A clear planting concept should be developed for the Gezi Park. The west wing of Gezi Park, edge to the Cumhuriyet Boulevard, should be more integrated with the built environment. The facade along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard may be reconsidered.

PROJECT NUMBER 106 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. Landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. The concept of the Park design should be clearly defined. Different park characteristics should be integrated with a holistic design concept. The participatory design process should be clearly defined. Design language should be in line with participatory processes. The proposal protects the historical stairs between Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with a new spatial design. Canopy structures should be clearly defined and developed with a holistic approach. The canopy located at the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be re-evaluated. Tree settings around the Taksim Square and in front the Maksem should be enhanced. Planting design proposal for the square, in front of the Maksem, around The Water Plaza and Specimen Trees Plaza should be reconsidered. Hardscape and softscape design startegies should be developed. Planting strategies should be clearly defined according to various open space typologies (Plaza, park, street planting etc.)

PROJECT NUMBER 127 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. Landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. The concept of the Park design should be clearly identified. Dimensions of the “Central Taksim Square� may be re-defined. Hills, proposing a new topography for the Taksim Square should be reconsidered for the unity of the program. The one located in front of the AKM cultural centre, in particular, critically divides the square . Pedestrian connection to the library should be defined clearly. A series of public programs may be proposed for the underground spaces. Their relationship with the ground level should be defined clearly . The amount of the proposed underground construction should be reconsidered in respect to the natural identity and the historical proportion of the Park. Water features can be integrated with different public activities. Planting design proposed for Taksim Square and surroundings should be re-evaluated. Number of trees both in the Square and the boulevard should be increased.


Recommendation Reports for the Projects Moved to Stage 2

July 22, 2020

In general, functions should be more diverse and defined clearly. The structures of the pavilions should be designed carefully.

PROJECT NUMBER 133 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. Architectural, landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. Shops surrounding the Aya Triada Church are part of its original layout and should be preserved. The proposal protects the historical stairs between the Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. The structure of the canopy roofs should be stronger to bring a new identity. The relation with the ground level should be enhanced. More design attention should be given both to the use and the structure of the Gezi Park. Public programs for the underground spaces may be introduced. Attention should be paid to the pedestrian access to the AtatĂźrk Library. The pavement structure for the Taksim Square and for the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be reevaluated. Typologies for urban furniture should be detailed. Participatory and smart green city concepts should be integrated into the design.

PROJECT NUMBER 135 A holistic urban design approach based on design strategies is expected. Architectural, landscape design, transportation and ecological proposals should be improved and detailed. Architectural and urban programs considering daily needs should be added. Public programs may be introduced for the underground spaces. The proposal protects the historical stairs between the Gezi Park and Taksim Square. It is recommended to integrate the protected stairs with the new spatial design. Tree lines proposed in Taksim square should be more related to the urban context. Especially the group of trees towards the Maksem area should be more integrated to the place. The sloped terraces along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard should be in relation with the vivid urban scene. Light structures along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard (such as small rest pavilions, etc.) should be reevaluated, according to the programmatic needs. The re-location of the playground structures should be considered. The selection criteria for materials to be used in the public open spaces, should be presented in more detail, with references to the identity of the square and the park.


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Florya IPA Campus, on Wednesday, 22nd of July, at 09:00. •

Project numbers that move to Stage 2 are 2, 14, 15, 16, 19, 28, 35, 38, 41, 43, 52, 54, 70, 72, 80, 93, 106, 127, 133, 135.

For 20 (twenty) projects moved to Stage 2, reports are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 2 The project is developed with the motto of “a common ground for dialogue”. Based on this concept, the systematic design interventions, which are focusing on six major points in the project area, are found positive. The design proposal attempts keeping the unity of the park as a whole, trying to integrate historical structures, and introducing different cultural and intellectual programs to the site. Meantime the connections between the underground and the ground levels are found positive. Especially the proposed entrance structure that serves as a gathering activity place with its canopy is evaluated as very beneficial in terms of both its functional use and physical contribution to the square as an element for spatial definition other than aesthetic manner. Re-evaluation of the existing shops and the arcades along the Cumhuriyet Street and re-use of the underground passage is thought to increase the vitality level in the area. The green axis referring the connection between Taksim monument and AKM is also found positive but its spatial design is considered as poor and the water trench in this area is re-considerable. The park program, which proposes a mono-functional setting, the scale of the canopy, creation of massive alignment by using posts or poles, intervention to the historical shop and destroying the ancient walls of the of the church, and poor planting design are other criticized issues for the project. The project was selected for Stage 2 with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 14 The project emphasizes the Taksim Cumhuriyet Monument as the most crucial point with the motto of “(un)beating heart of İstanbul”. Visual historical summary of the area and its interpretations, design strategies, design concepts, the idea of integrated Taksim square to green corridors and intentions for re-defining the green boundaries are highly appreciated. The canopy that is surrounding the Monument puts an emphasis and on the node, while its lightness prevents it from disturbing the monument. Division of the hard surfaced areas in different functional parts as cultural plaza, fountains and event plaza, metro plaza, promenade plaza is also enriched by the noticeable paving proposals. New structures proposed on stairs and green areas along Cumhuriyet Street is expected to have positive effect on vitality level of the pedestrian area. New trees proposed in front of the Marmara hotel contribute spatial definition of the Taksim square. Similarly, new stair system with sitting facilities, combines park to square while constituting another framing element for the area. Combinations of New art pavilions with proposed tribunes bring new spatial elements and new uses as well. However, neglecting the historical marble stairs is criticized by the juri. Although re defining and softening the green boundaries and integrating green with paved areas are aimed, proposed design offers only curving of the edges and does not reflect this issue effectively.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (two counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay and Can Kubin).

PROJECT NUMBER 15 The project focuses on Taksim as an undefined urban void and proposes guiding principles and a detailed program to regenerate Taksim. With this respect, the proposal develops a spatial framework to transform the existing undefined spaces. Main idea of the entry is based on a careful restoration and new definition of Gezi Park which includes integration of new activity zones, lawns, pavilions, and elements. The other important element of the project is pedestrian connection mostly in the form of a bridge starting from the bus and metro area station and going to Maçka Park. The project is based upon some analysis to understand the existing structure of the site, the urban pattern and historical development and activities and functions. Linkage between analysis and design is very clear. Proposed open space sequence is found positive and evaluated as one of the strongest part of the project. Upper scale evaluation and site scale evaluations is consistent. The spatial design decisions and social program is found positive and diverse. The social sustainability of the program is promising. The idea to create an alternative pedestrian flow and connections in the form of elevated structure is strong. However, the impact of this elevated structure on the surrounding environment (such as blocking the view of the park from the historical building blocks on the Talimhane side) is questioned and criticized. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Can Kubin and Kerem Piker).

PROJECT NUMBER 16 The proposal approaches to Taksim Square as an urban stage which can be watched or lived. The methodological approach of the project based on user’s spatial approach to square from different routes. With this regard the proposal aims to reinterpret the spatial relations of the square with its surrounding environment by considering the landmark such as Gezi Park, Atatürk Culture Center, Hagia Triada Church, Taksim Water Reservoir and the Republic Monument. The proposal systematically explains their approach to the square in terms of square borders, connections, spatial growth and change, spatial framework, influence of this framework to Taksim Gezi Park, social programs and park program which is found positively. The upper scale approach of the proposal which emphasize green connections found positive. Reactivation of the surrounding streets and avenues with social programs and green lines also considered positively. Spatial design proposal for the Gezi Park is very clear and strong. The proposal protects the formal spatial language of Gezi Park and make it more legible by the introduction of great lawn. Vivid Street life and its integration to the project setting found positive. However, the spatial setting of the square found very poor in terms of design. Extension of the green canopy through İstiklal Street is positive. Decision on functional setting such as museum and underground usage and leaving the ground surface for open space activities found positively. But monotypic surface characteristics of the square decreases the quality of design. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from İpek Akpınar, Can Kubin and Kerem Piker).

2


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 19 Seeking a concept based on 5 step process has a mindset which made the proposal very strong in terms of its concept. Sinkhole (Obruk) is not only a gesture but has a role to generate the public life while drawing attention to the importance of the nature’s power of healing. The concept of healing is defined with a metaphor by a trauma / sinkhole gives a start to obtain a powerful urban void. With this respect the proposal was found interesting and promising. The Design has a potential to transform Gezi Park in a lusher open area for the city. Cumhuriyet street is becoming part of a cultural zone following Atatürk Monument and extending to Atatürk Cultural center where sinkhole (Obruk) is a core binder for this proposed open and green space. This zone with its diverse programme is framing Gezi park. There is a vision of regeneration of ecology. Overall, the approach of the design found positive. The jury appreciate the creative capacity of the proposal. However, the attitude of the project reflects ignorance to site realities, context and place. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (two counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay and Can Kubin).

PROJECT NUMBER 28 Historic values and historical development of the site is resolved and is successfully expressed in the plan. Setting in the urban fabric was managed and re-scaling of Cumhuriyet Boulevard transforms the west edge of the site to a lively urban space. Proposed combination of park structure and urban pattern considered positively. New structure of Gezi Park re-organized efficiently. Proposed underground urban connection structures and Museum supports public life and have a potential to increase the quality of the space. The trees and planting elements towards Atatürk Cultural Center defines the space as a strong design. Management in terms of green and social strategy supports the sustainability of the site. However, construction proposal with in the park was not found over scale. The project was selected for Stage 2 with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 35 In the proposal, the green infrastructure of in front of Cultural center is not very well defined, there is no design decision on design of square, detailed spatial analyses of the urban pattern and green network, diagrammatic representations are considered good. The project evaluates the overlapping historical layers and interpret it in design. The project develops to integrate the green pattern with the surrounding built environment. It extends the park towards the square and gives a new definition of the barrack with the new canopy. New design proposal for the Gezi Park with respecting existing trees and additional trees as a form urban park forest and the abstraction are also welcomed by the Jury. The balance between open public spaces and the closed ones is good. Framing the Gezi Park with canopy frame and clear edges in the design is positively considered. New different areas for sitting and meeting activities, open public space for the Taksim square integrated water fountain, different pavilions with various functions and activities integrated in edges of canopy frame are part of the good proposal. The new structure is appealing. The development of three urban scenarios is positively considered. The reminiscence of the historical structure is welcomed by the Jury.

3


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

The project was selected for Stage 2 with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 38 Detailed analyses of public spaces which led the design proposal is considered as the most powerful aspect of the project. The proposal, projected as part of the larger urban system, identify collective problems and unveil existing problematics. It proposes urban integrity, connectivity, and articulation of people to the place. Although the diversity of layers can be disturbing for the overall design concept and the program decisions for the Park is eliminating historical layout of the Gezi Park, and does not fit appropriately to the context, the existing trees are not respected, and the continuity of the Mete Avenue is interrupted, the decision of the museum location is positively considered by the Jury. Architectural solutions, included in the design approach, can be executed. The proposal of the city museum contributes to sustain the collective and spatial memory. The emphasis on Urban Commons is good. The scale hierarchy created by the division of space is considered positively. Proposal has good green connection approach on big scale. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Arzu Nuhoğlu and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 41 Main idea of this entry from edges of along the Cumhuriyet until to Atatürk monument, system of buildings and elevated roof gardens are creating interesting solutions. Concept and the distribution of green areas are considered to be organized well. The perseveration of the past historical elements is well accepted. The architecture that is embracing the monument are positive. They are light and transparent structures. However, the facilities that are on the alignment of Cumhuriyet street, the roofs might have larger green surfaces and leaving less room for the passage stairs that are connecting to the park. The extension of gezi park to the Marmara hotel is not very clear. Proposed spatial situation on Taksim mosque and monument shall be developed. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, İpek Akpınar and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 43 The project provides good analyses for historical development. Interesting entry working with existing structure of gezi park by analyzing which parts are protected and which parts are open for a new design. Big open lawn in the middle at the end amphitheater and edges of gezi park Cumhuriyet street and Taksim square structured with wide concrete walls forming individual design language. This edge of the Gezi Park integrated with cafes and multipurpose hall. On the Cumhuriyet Street and Taksim Square big canopy shields covered areas uses as markets or meeting areas. Typographic situation at the entrance of Tarlabaşı boulevard very elegant solution that forming plateau same language as wide walls edge of Gezi Park. However, the dull edges opening to the Cumhuriyet square, the monument are not received well and the proposed formal language is not solving the new use of the main plaza. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Arman Akdoğan and İpek Akpınar).

4


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 52 The analyses react positively to the restoration problems of the Taksim area. Integration of the digital tools for the users are interesting and deserves attention. The overall systematical solutions as diagrams are excellent however the analyses shall turn into clear proposal and spatial planning architectural solutions. The project needs a second stage but the jury have doubts about the entry team could achieve the desired level since there are only diagrams to be observed. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (one counter vote was from Zeynep Ahunbay).

PROJECT NUMBER 54 The new sloped garden accessing to the museum is a brilliant suggestion. The edge of Cumhuriyet Street has a clear form and creating borders. The tea houses, kiosks that are located at the edges of the park are positive elements. There is new sitting area from the Taksim square up to the Taksim gezi park. Designing plaza is structuring the Taksim square. Taksim square is a multipurpose open space with different uses. Overall it is a serious design suggestion. However, it is a question of how the trees will be preserved and relocated. Also the sloping surface is preventing the pedestrian walkway cross connections on the park. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Can Kubin and Kerem Piker).

PROJECT NUMBER 70 Although the proposal for the Taksim square and open public spaces are not well defined, the diagonal urban axis dominates the public open space, design proposal for square is not bringing a new solution for the existing urban problems, the use of large Hard-scape, the scale of the Taksim square corner and the height of the new upper deck which is out of proportion and scale and the lack of a systematic urban and architectural program are not positively considered, the architectural and green analyses support the development of a proposal for the Gezi Park. The project, respecting the historical geometric outline, develops a new design approach with a large number of new trees and activity elements. Considering the Park as a single united space is physicalizing the call for coexistence. In this framework, it proposes the development of the edges of the Cumhuriyet Avenue while adding new buildings integrated with gardens. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Arman AkdoÄ&#x;an, Kerem Piker and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 72 Although the lack of detailed urban analysis, the immature design proposal for the Taksim square and the lack of physicalisation of the concept are negatively considered, the detailed analysis of the overlapping historical layers is considered positively. The existing structure of the Gezi Park is proposed as a design guideline. The urban and architectural scale of the proposal is in balance. Addition of New trees in front of the Marmara Hotel, new stairs through the Gezi Park, stairs and canopy structures along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard are positively considered. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Arman AkdoÄ&#x;an, Kerem Piker and Rainer Schmidt). 5


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 80 Although no detailed activity program is not well developed for the Taksim square, the design is not a giving a new identity to Istanbul enlarged urban analyses offer a holistic reading of the urban space. New design for the Gezi Park with the central water axis combined with amphitheater and the terraces formed along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard are positively considered. The enlargement of the green is welcomed by the Jury. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Arzu Nuhoğlu, Kerem Piker and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 93 Although the scale and the use of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard which is not well defined and there is increase in the hardscape ratio are not considered positively, the systematic analyses of the project area and the systematic approach of the project are considered positively. The concept of the entry works with existing structure of Gezi Park and Taksim Square. The project, bringing temporary urban furniture elements like temporary canopies, art works, kiosks, different functions like sport fields, fairs, markets, festivals, ice rings depending on different seasons and different festivals, offers spatial flexibility, temporary interventions and activities. Overall idea is creating an event space for the Gezi Park and the Taksim Square. This Usage program is considered positively. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Can Kubin and Arzu Nuhoğlu).

PROJECT NUMBER 106 The historical structure of Gezi Park is preserved in general. Sectional intervention on south wing promoting public activities over “gateway lawn” is well appreciated. Park is restored with new trees. The additional programs and interventions in the park such as playgrounds, dog-park, public forum are positive. Along the Cumhuriyet Av. the terraced landscape integrated with Gezi balcony, canopy structures as well as program-based interventions through boulevard are promising. Visual identity studies are positive. The water plaza in front of AKM building is questioned. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Arman Akdoğan and Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 127 The proposal focuses on extension of the Gezi Park. It redefines a new edge of the park and creates a new focal point in the center of the park. It proposes a new programmatic zoning. The Central Gezi is activated by the help of underground multi-purpose plaza. However, the size of the underground plaza is found so big and the construction will destroy the park. The park and the square evaluated as a whole in the proposal which found positive. The small hills proposed in the square found interesting however it criticized for blocking the pedestrian flow in the square and weakens the character of the square. In the proposal the central area of the park is defined as water surfaces. However, it is defined in the 3D images as greenery. This inconsistent situation is criticized. 6


Taksim Urban Design Competition

July 22, 2020

The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, İpek Akpınar and Can Kubin).

PROJECT NUMBER 133 The proposal focuses on extension of the Gezi Park with canopies. The relation between the park and square is soften in the proposal. The proposal just focusing on the project site but there is no upper scale reading and analysis for urban context. Canopy roof formed a new identity for Taksim Square which is found positive. The tectonic structure of the canopy found weak. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Zeynep Ahunbay, Arzu Nuhoğlu and Kerem Piker).

PROJECT NUMBER 135 The conceptual framework of the project focuses on recognizing existing diversity and restoring integrity in Taksim. The main manifest of the proposal is to restore the historical traces within the urban pattern. There is an obvious effort to define the Taksim square. It proposes concrete suggestions to enhance the existing spatial layout of the park and the square. The conceptual idea found very strong. Square definition found positive. Park edge design is appreciated. The proposed program diversity found promising. However, the proposed pavilions found so symbolic and does not strongly referred to a specified open space program. The project was selected for Stage 2 with the majority of votes (three counter votes were from Arman Akdoğan, Arzu Nuhoğlu and Rainer Schmidt).

The jury finished the study at 19:00.

7


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 17, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Yenikapı, Eurasia Exhibition and Art Center, on Thursday, 17th of September, at 09.00. ●

Jury members who participated at the jury sessions for Stage 2, made a statement of honesty oath that they have not seen the submitted projects before and the authors’ identities were unknown to them.

The report below was presented by the rapporteurship before the jury sessions: o o

All 20 teams selected for Stage 2, made their project submissions. Each team submitted 6 panels. Confidentiality has been ensured by covering all alias with their first stage project numbers. These project numbers are 2, 14, 15, 16, 19, 28, 35, 38, 41, 43, 52, 54, 70, 72, 80, 93, 106, 127, 133 and 135.

Individual evaluation started at 10.00.

In the first round, a total of 3 (three) projects were eliminated unanimously. The numbers of the eliminated projects are 38, 133 and 135. Project reports are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 38 The upper-scale studies which were successful in the first stage of the competition are not reflected in the proposal, although they are mentioned in the report. The intervention in Gezi Park or the triangular roof structures that are extruded on the upper surfaces of the Taksim square is found as they are very excessive and have negative effects on the natural characteristics and the identity of the park. The size of the museum is very large and creating scale problems in relation to the Taksim square. Although the idea of inserting a sunken museum at the core of Taksim square is appreciated, these negative aspects are very prominent and may not be recovered by the design revisions. The proposed tectonic movement in the form of roof design of the museum brings a different aspect to the site and supports three dimensional quality of the open space. However, it creates fragmented green patches at the end and this part of the project could not be integrated with the overall park plan. In general, the proposed program is considered inefficient for the vitality of the area. The triangular light structures will create dull surrounding surfaces and leave the square without the program (The inclined green surfaces are creating large areas with uncertain activities). The jury also criticized the large and empty paved spaces. The proposed large open lawn area within the park with thematic plants was found positive. But, changes in the historic boundaries of the park and its defined spatial frame were found negative.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 17, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 133 The motto of the project “Design the Edge” is considered as a convenient theme for the proposal. However, the jury believes that the concept is not effectively and suitably converted into a design scheme for Taksim square. In addition, the idea of “roofscape”, on which the project is based on, is also used in very limited parts of the proposal. As mentioned in the jury recommendations, a comprehensive approach covering architectural, urban and landscape design, transportation, and ecological aspects are considered as not improved in the project. The formal design language of the canopy roof is totally new. Although the search for a new design language is appreciated, the curvatures and free forms are questionable. Since the public opinion is very delicate on the subject of the Taksim Square, the characteristics of the designed elements should be strong enough to bring a new identity. (As the jury recommended before, the design shall be more harmonious with the current situation.) For that reason, the jury considered that the canopy design is not improved sufficiently to the desired level. The proposed green island within the square and around Atatürk Monument was found generic. This decision cannot be integrated into existing spatial layout; they become isolated objects and installations. So, this aspect of the project was criticized. The proposal does not include a clear, robust and systematically evaluated planting design strategy. Species were selected for the project site but how they come together to create a composition and details cannot be seen in the project. The fragmented green areas, monotony in the pavement design, the level of architectural proposals, and the activity scenarios were found insufficient to contribute to the future of the area.

PROJECT NUMBER 135 "The 4 steps" strategy is appreciated well by the jury, but the reflection of the inclusive design process is not visible on the proposal. Similarly, the concept of "pluralism" is also well appreciated, but its spatial reflection has resulted in design language problems, which are considered as not suitable to Taksim’s identity. Thus, the proposal seems to ignore the historical essence of the Gezi Park and tries to introduce something new for the site with diverse spaces. The presentation method, the graphic design language is not sufficient for providing enough information for architectural quality, materialization, and clues for realization. Besides these issues, the general organization of the inserted buildings is not synchronized to form and to develop a better scheme for Taksim Square. The use of trees in the physical definition of the square and the proposed new metro entrance in front of AKM is found positive. The proposal of a market place is contributing to the vitality of the area, but the proposed program for the site is insufficient. The ecological sensitivity, search for biodiversity and selections of species within the project are appreciated but they are not emphasized and reflected to the design scheme sufficiently. Planting design proposed for the Square blocks the flow of people between Taksim Square and Atatürk monument. ●

The jury stopped to work at 19:00. 2


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records

EQUIVALENT PRIZE 15 - 46Q35YX7 Project Author  Şerif SÜVEYDAN, Architect  Burcu SEVİNÇ YILMAZ, Architect  Rıfat YILMAZ, Architect  Süleyman YILDIZ, Architect  Sezer BAHTİYAR, Architect  Murat GÜVENÇ, Urban Designer  Herman SALM, Landscape Architect Consultants  Gülsün TANYELİ, Architect  Uğur TANYELİ, Architect  Evrim GÜREL SÜVEYDAN, Graphic Designer  Duygu ÇAKIR, Electronics Engineer  Gürden GÜR, Architect  Erdem ÖZLÜ, Civil Engineer  Cantekin TURAN, Civil Engineer  Hakan MİNTAŞ, Environment Engineer  İpek DUBEN, Artist  Cem KOZAR, Architect  Özkan ÇALIŞKAN, Civil Engineer  Ertuğrul AĞAOĞLU, Electrical Engineer  Ömer ALTUN, Electrical Engineer  Duygu ERTEN, Civil Engineer  Bilge KOBAŞ, Architect  Zeynep UŞŞAKLI, Architect

EQUIVALENT PRIZE 16 - 48P12T05 Project Author  Bünyamin DERMAN, Architect  Dilek DERMAN, Architect  Mehmet KADIOĞLU, Urban Planner  Redife KOLÇAK, Landscape Architect Consultants  Mustafa AKKAYA, Lighting Specialist  Gülay ZORER GEDİK, Acoustic Consultant  Neşe YÜĞRÜK AKDAĞ, Acoustic Consultant  Sibel SARIKAYA, Fire Consultant  Nur URFALIOĞLU, Restorator Architect  Emre ILICALI, Civil Engineer  Yeşim DEMİR, Graphic Designer  Britta NAGEL, Museum Planner and Exhibition Designer  Serhan ÇAYCILAR, Mechanical Engineer 1

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records     

Yusuf TIMBIR, Structural Engineer Selahattin ÖZDENİZ, Electrical Engineer Tanju ÖZELGİN, Interior and Industrial Designer Günnur ÖZSOY, Artist Semih ALTIN, Environmental Engineer

Assistants  Berk ÖZDEMİR, Architect  İsmail Hakkı TUNÇAY, Architect  Hasan ÖGÜT, Architect  İdil DERMAN, Architecture Student

EQUIVALENT PRIZE 19 - 79CS5H8Y Project Author  Kutlu İnanç BAL, Architect (Team Leader)  Hakan EVKAYA, Architect  Barış EKMEKÇİ, Landscape Architect  Münire SAĞAT, Landscape Architect  Olgu ÇALIŞKAN, Urban Planner Consultants  Selen CAMBAZOĞLU, Archaeologist, Art Historian  Figen Kıvılcım ÇORAKBAŞ, Architect, Restorator  Pınar EVRENOSOĞLU, Sociologist  Yasin İLEMİN, Wildlife Expert, Biologist  Levent Y. İNCE, Graphic Designer  Pınar ERSÜ, Interior Architect, Lighting Designer Assistants  Yasemin KILIÇ, Architect  Serhat ÇAKIR, Architect  İpek GÖNÜLLÜ, Architect  Kıvanç MUTLU, Architect  Lal Gülten ÖNER, Architect  Eda Nur MOTCU, Architecture Student  Sevi ÖZDEMİR, Architecture Student  Sina ÇİFTÇİ, Architecture Student  Berke CANBAZ, Landscape Architecture Student

EQUILAVENT MENTOIN 14 - 31ne58fi Project Author  Elmira JAFARİ, Architect  Erfan FARAHMAND, Landscape Architect  Ahmad MORADİAN, Urban Designer

2

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records Consultants  Mohammad SEDİGHİ, Architect  Aliyar AHMADİ, Sociologist  Gül AKTÜRK, Architect  Mohammad ABOUSAEIDI, Urban Planner  Samira JAFARI, Civil Engineer  Mahnaz KHALILI, Master of Seismology and Tectonics  Majit SHAHRABI, Artist Assistants  Ehsan KARIMI, Landscape Archtitect  Arajsh MOADDAP, Architect

EQUILAVENT MENTION 35 - AAT4KS1M Project Author  Jaime Daroca GUERRERO, Architect, Urban Planner  Jose Mayoral MORATILLA, Architect, Urban Planner  Jose Ramon Sierra Gomez de Leon, Architect, Urban Planner  Beril SERBES, Architect  Amanda CASTELLANO, Architect  Alonso ROSA, Urban Planner  Oscar Blasco, Landscape Architect  Sergi CARULLA, Landscape Architect Consultants  Gökhan KARAKUŞ, Historian, Artist, Curator  Candaş ŞİŞMAN, Media Artist  Deniz KADER, Media Artist  Pablo ANAYA, Structural Engineer  Diego TERAN, Structural Engineer  Xavier Aguilo i Aran, Environmental Engineer, Mechanical Engineer  Ezgi AKGÜN, Lighting Designer  Clemnet de COLIGNY, Sustainable Mobility Engineer

EQUILAVENT MENTION 52 - ct914736 Project Author  Zuhal KOL, Architect, Urban Designer (Team Leader)  Carlos ZARCO SANZ, Architect, Urban Planner  Berna YAYLALI, Landscape Architect  Ozan Önder ÖZENER, Architect, Associate Professor Consultants  Ceren HAMURCUOĞLU, Sociologist  Elif ACAR, UX Designer  Mehmet AKBAŞ, Lawyer

3

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records

September 20, 2020

Assistants  Zeynep KÜHEYLAN, Architect  Ozan ŞEN, Architect, Landscape Urbanist  Banu GAFFARİ, Architecture Student

EQUILAVENT MENTION 54 - D5A2H9P4 Project Author  Hayriye ESBAH TUNCAY, Landscape Architect  Ebru Erbaş GÜRLER, Landscape Architect  Ayşen TABAK OFLAZ, Landscape Architect  Ayça KESKİN, Landscape Architect  Bengi Su DOĞRU, Landscape Architect  Oya ESPAH, Landscape Architect  Paolo BELLONI, Architect  Stefano ROLLA, Architect  Fatih TERZİ, Urban Planner  Okan Murat DEDE, Urban Planner Consultants  Murat YILDIZ, Infrastructures and mobility consultant  Ahmet TOPBAŞ, Civil Engineer, Structural Design, Bim Manager  Mehmet OKUTAN, Sustainability Energy Manager, Mechanical Engineer,  Özgür ULUPINAR, Electrical Engineer  Yusuf KURUCU, Agricultural Engineer  Yasin ABDOLLAHZADEHMORADI, Hydroulic and Water Resources Consultant  Utku CELEP, Geologist  Lorenzo GIUSTI, Art Consultant  Ferdi AKARSU, Biologist  Luca ORLANDI, Historian and Archeology Expert  Ebru YETİŞKİN DOĞRUSÖZ, Sociologist, Facilitator to Participation  Letizia FERRARI, Graphic and Communication Expert Assistants  Gülgün ATALAY, Landscape Architect  Arianna GALLO, Architect

EQUILAVENT MENTION 80 - LF125TVP Project Author  Sinan GÜNAY, Architect (Team Leader)  Nurhayat ÖZ, Architect  A. İrfan ERTİŞ, Architect  Seda GECÜ, Architect  C. Alphan KÖROĞLU, Urban Planner  Çiğdem GEZ KÖROĞLU, Landscape Architect

4


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records Consultants  Ertunç DENKTAŞ, Architectural Historian  Mert GÜLLER, Environmental Engineer  Yvonne WAHL, Artist  Yiğitcan KOÇAK, Graphic Designer  M. Emre YILDIRIM, Light Designer  İlkiz TIRTIL, Sound Designer Assistants  Hadis ABDULLAH

2 – 2AXL3S7B Project Author  Yılmaz DEĞER, Architect (Team Leader)  Hüseyin Ali KORKUT, Architect  İsmihan Yonca ATAM, Architect  Aygen EROL, Architect  Oğulcan ÜNEŞİ, Architect  Mert AKAY, Urban Planner  Seda ALTAN, Urban Planner  Melih BOZKURT, Landscape Architect  Rumeysa AKGÜN, Landscape Architect  Eda HAFIZOĞLU, Landscape Architect  Bayram CANSU, Interior Designer  Birsen STERLER, Interior Designer  Ümit ALTUN, Industrial Designer  Avşar GÜRPINAR, Industrial Designer  Sinan ALTUN, Industrial Designer Consultants  Halit Yaşa ERSOY, Architect  Tansel KORKMAZ, Architect  Gül KÖKSAL, Architect  Mustafa ÖZGÜNLER, Architect  Leyla TANAÇAN, Architect  Mehmet OCAKCI, Urban Planner  Bengi KORGAVUŞ, Landscape Architect  Serhat KİRAZ, Artist  Sinan LOGIE, Architect & Artist  Cansu CÜRGEN, Architect  Ezgi BAKÇAY, Artist  Meral DEĞER, Artist  Yaşar DEĞER, Civil Engineer  Mustafa Erkan KARAGÜLER, Civil Engineer  Murat ÇAKAN, Mechanical Engineer 5

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records          

Zeki KADİRBEYOĞLU, Electrical Engineer Burak BOYSAN, Architect Zafer AKAY, Architect Z. Tül AKBAY SÜALP, Sociologist Ferda ERDİNÇ, Sociologist Şahin TEKGÜNDÜZ, Journalist Oğuz AYATA, Architect Cihan UZUNÇARŞILI BAYSAL, Sociologist Cahit YILMAZ, Economist Fabrizio CASERETTO, Economist

Assistants  Selen ÇATAL, Architect  Berk EKMEN, Architect  Elif AKMAN, Architect  Sinem ÖZTÜRK, Architect  Asena SONBAY, Landscape Architecture Student  Kübra BEKAR, Landscape Architecture Student

28 - 666734at Project Author  İhsan Murat TABANLIOĞLU, Architect  Melkan GÜRSEL, Architect  Selin ETKİNÖZ TUNÇER, Landscape Architect  Baykan GÜNAY, Urban Planner Assistants  Deniz ASLAN, Architect  Salih YILGÖRÜR, Architect  Ali ÇALIŞKAN, Architect  Ahmet ÇORAPÇIOĞLU, Architect  Gonca ARIK ÇALIŞKAN, Architect  Sena ALTUNDAĞ  Yusufcan AKYÜZ, Graphic Designer  Seyhan DENİZ, Architect  Cahit EĞİLMEZ, Architect  Ceyda CİHANGİR UÇAROĞLU, Architect  Yaprak KARATAŞ, Architect  Efe KURTOĞLU, Architect  Berk KESİMOĞLU, Student  Melisa TÜRKAY, Student

38 - AE0718SR Project Author  Inanç Eray, Architect (Team Leader) 6

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records           

F. Cana BİLSEL, Architect, Urban Designer Noemie Lafaurie-DEBANY, Landscape Architect Züleyha SARA BELGE, City Planner, Urban Designer Pınar GÜVENÇ, Design Strategist Yifan YANG, Junior Architect Yasmine ABUZEİD, Servis Designer Noah SASS, Architectural Assistant Zeynep DAMGACIOĞLU, Architectural Assistant Hyemin GU, Landscape Designer Javier Gonzales- CAMPANA, Landscape Designer Chris LİAO, Landscape Designer

Consultants  Owen MİLLER, Historian  Cem KINAY, Turism Entrepreneur, Hospitality Consultant  Didem ÖZBEK, Artist, Curator  Marianne de ZEEUW, Art Historian  Mehmet GÖZETLİK, Visual Communucation, Experience Designer  Onurcan AKINCI, RPA Developer  Michel de ZEEUW, Traffic Safety and Road Designer  Namık ERKAL, Architect, Museum Consultant  Maria SEZER, Artist, Art Education Consultant  Christina MALLON, Inclusive Design Consultant  Kemal OBACIK, Electrical Engineer  Emre KARAMUK, Structural Engineer  Serhan MUMCU, Mechanical Engineer  Cemil YAMAN, Sustainability Consultant  Murat Haşim CERAN, Quantity Surveyor, Cost Consultant  Zeynep ODABAŞ, Fire Strategy Consultant  Quemuel ARROYO, Accessibility Consultant

41 – AR25TY7Z Project Author  Mustafa Batu KEPEKCİOĞLU, Architect (Team Leader)  Rivka GERON SCHILD, Architect  Esma Selen AKSOY, Architect, Landscape Architect  Can BOYACIOĞLU, Architect  Hayrettin Haldun BOZKURT, Architect  Osman Yasin POLAT, Architect  Nazife Tuğçe ONUK MADANOĞLU Landscape Architect  Tayfun SALİHOĞLU, Urban Planner  Doğa Dinemis AMAN, Landscape Architect  Fatma Nihan BALKAN, Urban Planner

7

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records Consultants  Erinç TEPETAŞ, Architect, Lighting Designer  Sibel HORADA COŞKUN, Artist, Art and Design  Deniz ERDEM OKUMUŞ, Urban Planner, Landscape Architect  Yiğit BATTAL, Civil Engineer  Can HANÇER, Environmental Engineer  Ayşe Ceren GÜLER, Restoration, Architect Assistants  Murat DEMİRER, Computer Graphic Artist  Burak BELLİ, Urban Planner  Diler ÇİFTÇİ, Urban Design, Landscape Architect and Forest Engineer  Fulya TURAN, Architect  Yusuf BOSTAN, Architecture Student  Esra YAVUZ, Architect  Ece Sıla BORA, Architect, Landscape Architect  Emre SÖYLEMEZ, Urban Planner  Ebru SATILMIŞ, Urban Planner  Koral ORAL, Industrial Designer

43 – AZ135924 Project Author  Dimitrios ZOUPAS, Architect (Team Leader)  Stella PANTELIA, Architect  Ioanis EVMOLPIDIS, Urban Planner  Anna KONSTANTOPOULOU, Architect Consultants  Panagiotis DOUROS, Historian  Eleftherios KATSOULAKOS, Agronomist  Gerasimos AVLAMİS, Visual Artist  Stamatina MAGKLARA, Lighting Expert  Georgios KARIDIS, Civil Engineer  Nikolaos NAKOS, Mechanical Engineer

70 – inout811 Project Author  Alen ZUNIĆ, Urban Planner, Urban Designer (Team Leader)  Rea MIHELKO, Architecture Student  Karlo LAUC, Architecture Student  Marko URSA, Landscape Architect  Fran POLAN, Architecture Student  Nedjeljko ŠPOLJAR, Graphic Designer  Siniša BJELICA, Architect  Antonija ŠAKORONJA, Architecture Assistant 8

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records   

Dora IVANČAN, Architecture Assistant Bruna KRSTIČEVİĆ, Architecture Student Ines JAKOPANEC, Architecture Student

Consultants  Anka MİŠETİĆ, Sociologist  Strava STUDIO, 3D Visualizations  Janko KOŠČAK, Civil Engineer  Zlatko KARAČ, Architect Conservator  Ivana ZEC, Economist, Urban Management Consultant, Art Consultant  Marin LJUBAN, Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Consultant  Marin DOKOZA, Transportation Consultant  Bozica STEPİĆ, Arborist  Tamara LOVEY, Security System Consultant  Slavko ŠİMUNOVİĆ, Infrastructure Consultant

72 – J4N7S1K9 Project Author  Murat Arif SUYABATMAZ, Architect  Hakan DEMİREL, Architect  Zeynep HAGUR SORGUÇ, Landscape Architect  Ahmetcan ALPAN, Urban Planner Consultants  Ahmet Doğu İPEK, Artist  Nilüfer ŞAŞMAZER, Editor, Curator  Karoly ALIOTTI, Art Consultant, Curator  Duygu DEMİR, Art Historian, Curator  Ulrike BRANDI, Lighting Designer  Cemal Cenk HAMAMCIOĞLU, Architect  Ayça İNCE ONKAL, Sociologist  A. Hamit DEMİREL, Graphic Designer  Bülent DEVECİ, Civil Engineer Assistants  Elif YILMAZ AŞKIN, Architect  Kadir Mert TATAR, Architect  Özge ÖZÇELİK, Architect  Orhun ÜLGEN, Architect  Gamze KAYA, Architect  İrem TÜMAY, Intern  Ela Tara SUYABATMAZ, Intern

93 – MXC730TR Project Author  Jose Munoz VİLLERS, Architect 9

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records                        

Carlos López MARÍN, Architect Emma Morales Garcia de ALBA, Urban Design Expert Anahí Arriaga GÓMEZ, Urban Designer Nazli BALKAYA, Architect Anlam de COSTERARSLANOĞLU, Art Manager Claudio Nieto ROJAS, Architect Mariana Estrada GONZALEZ, Architect Ricardo Ruíz GONZALEZ, Architect Daniela Sanchez PEREZ, Architect Luis Guísar BENÍTEZ, Architect & Landscape Designer Hugo SANCHEZ, Architect & Landscape Designer Alejandra Segura GUZMAN, Architect & Landscape Designer Rosana Valverde ROJAS, Landscape Designer Carlos VERÓN, Architect Fernando Kido KERSE, Architect Yaşar Adnan ADANALI, Urbanist K. Mehmet KENTEL, Historian Sevgi TÜRKKAN, Architect Süreyya TOPALOĞLU, Architect Cumhur ZİBEL, Infrastructure Engineer Francisco BONİLLA, Environmental Studies İlker KARADAĞ, Environmental Studies Burcu ACET, Architect Işıl ÇİFTÇİ, Architect

Consultants  Jose CARDONA, Interior, Industrial and Lighting Design  Tannia VİVAR, Architect  Jose Luis MONTİEL, Architect  Xavier PAEZ, Business Manager  Juan Martínez RAMÍREZ, Mechatronic Engineer  Mete DEMİR, Urban Planner  Daniel Olivera GALLEGOS, Architect  Sergio Almanza CAMACHO, Civil Engineer  Fernando Vallejo MARTÍNEZ, Structural Engineer  Luis Aguilar UGARTE, Structural Engineer  Donaji Abreu HERNANDEZ, Electric Engineer  Edgar Flores RÍOS, Automation Engineer  Erdinç ÇİFTÇİ, Architect  Arif BOZABA, Civil Engineer  Hakan TOKGÖZ, Structural Engineer  Utkan ÖZCAN, Structural Engineer  Ufuk SEZER, Electric Engineer  Yaman YILDIRIM, Mechanical Engineer 10

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records

106 - S3OG16BJ Project Author  Hayrettin GÜNÇ, Architect, Urban Designer (Team Leader)  Elif TAN, Architect, Urban Planner  Erdem TÜZÜN, Architect  Yelta KÖM, Architect  Dima RACHID, Landscape Architect  Leah MOUKARZEL, Landscape Architect  Sina ÖZBUDUN, Architect Consultants  Emre PARLAK, Graphic Designer  Doruk Kemal KAPLAN, Civil Engineer  Volkan DODA, Architect  Naz BEYKAN, Architect  Celal Tolga İMAMOĞLU, Engineer  Yunus Emre YILMAZ, Engineer  Selva GÜRDOĞAN, Architect  Gregers THOMSEN, Architect  Evrim DEMİR MISCHENKO, Architect  İrem ZİNCİRCİOĞLU, Interior Architect  Pelin TAN, Sociologist  Merve GÜLÖZOKÇU, Architect  Emre GÜNDOĞDU, Architect  Elif Çiğdem ARTAN, Sociologist, Museologist  Doruk ÇİFTÇİ, Architect  Didem DANIŞ, Sociologist  Neşe GÜRALLAR, Architect  Viola CASTELLANO, Anthropologist  Cem DİNLENMİŞ, Artist Assistants  Ayşegül SEYHAN, Architect  Tarık KESKİN, Architect  Elif Çak KÖM, Product Designer  Aziz BARBAR, Architect

127– X0213012 Project Author  Clement LOBBENS, Architect (Team Leader)  Dace GURECKA, Architect  Jeroen BEEKMANS, Social Geographer  Khedidja BENNICHE, Landscape Architect, Architect, Urban Planner  Lars VILSGAARD, Urban Planner, Architect, Landscape Architect

11

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition Identification Records

133– KI20AYD1 Project Author  Kei SASAKİ, Architect  Ilgın Ezgi TUNÇ, Architect Consultants  Hideyuki ISHII, Landscape Architect  Mika ARAKI, Structural Architect  Junpei MORI, Architect, Art Director Assistants  Onur YABANSU, Architect, Interior Designer  Dalila GIAMPIETRO, Architect, Graphic Designer  Onur DEĞİRMENCİ, Architect, Urban Planner  Didem KARACA, Landscape Architect

135– op3cm1fg Project Author  Sebastian BARTNICKI, Architect  Nicolas KOFF, Architect  Nilüfer ÇALIŞKAN, Landscape Architect  Edin ZAIM, Urban Planner  Filiz KLASSEN, Artist

12

September 20, 2020


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 18, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Yenikapı, Eurasia Exhibition and Art Center, on Friday, 18th of September, at 09.00. ●

In the second round, a total of 7 (seven) projects, with numbers 2, 41, 43, 70, 93, 106 and 127 were eliminated. Project reports are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 2 In general, it is considered that the study is not improved to the desired level in the second stage. Especially the most appreciated element of the first stage, the proposal that is creating a large umbrella for stage activities, art gallery, auditorium, metro entry and the large canopy structure is not developed. Unfortunately, the submission is lacking various design improvements. The layout of political history and the general approach in the design of understanding the needs of Taksim are appreciated. The proposal of re-organizing Cumhuriyet Street on the ground level is found a positive approach, although the Gezi Park edge is left unclear. Similarly, the pedestrian areas are not increased. The program for the re-use of the underground spaces obtained by the relocation of the street is not enough for supporting this operation, as well. The proposed landscape design for the square, especially around the Cumhuriyet Monument are handled in a manner of a classical design approach creating an angular ray of connection with the monument and Ataturk Cultural Center. The jury considers these aligned trees on Taksim Square as weak and dividing elements, without having any significant reference. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 41 The comprehensive report on "the habitat network strategy" that is providing a continuous green system is well appreciated. The renderings for the seasonal uses are convincing and considered as positive aspects of the project. The proposed massing scheme around the monument is criticized by the jury although the canopy building insertion has benefits in forming a new identity and offering a gathering area for the square. The jury believes that adding the terraced buildings might be problematic for the context with a negative perception when it is aligned with Istiklal Street and might disrupt the unity of the main square. The open square becomes an inner space with a limited functional program, while the ratio of hardscape was increased within the park. The units that are aligned along the Cumhuriyet Street are developed well and crucial for the vitality of the area. These elements and the general improvements of the project are appreciated but the rest of the design proposal is considered as an insufficient scheme for the future of Taksim. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from İpek Akpınar and Arman Akdoğan).

PROJECT NUMBER 43 The project in the first stage of the competition provided a good analytical framework. In this stage these analytical approaches are not reflected in the design proposal. The green design and planning strategies, as recommended by the jury, were not improved to a satisfactory level.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 18, 2020

Similarly, the dominance of the walls, which are dividing the space, and the amount of the hard surfaces, are considered as negative aspects of the overall design scheme. The triangulated system that is used as the main design scheme has failures as the major direction is pointing at Tarlabaşı area. This does not improve the current situation, on the contrary, the general approach is creating undefined curved plates that might be an alien design language for the memory of Taksim. The design of the memory garden is considered as very brutal and forcing the pedestrians cross over connections. The inserted element of thematic garden and underpass to AKM is considered as not a necessity and a negative dividing mass for the Square. In particular, the interplay with the level differences and definition of subspace by using level differences enrich the spatial framework of the project, but the division of the main square into two different levels by the stairs, high walls in front of the buildings in Tarlabaşı, tree pots between the park and square, and the scale and end of the diagonal path are criticized by the jury. The overall design scheme is considered as problematic for the future of Taksim area. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 70 The approach that is built on multidimensional space, unification bands, urban strategies and spatial layers is considered as positive. On the other hand, proposed system is considered as very destructive for the characteristics of Gezi Park. Besides, the removal of the historical stairs without a reason is found negative by the jury. The water elements that were mentioned in the jury recommendations have not found an appropriate design and location. The large amount of hard surfaces and their texture are criticized, as they don’t contribute to the improvement of the square. Similarly, the ratio of hardscape within the park was found dominant. The decision to transform the park into an urban surface was found negative. Besides, the elevation rise along Tak-ı Zafer Street is considered as the detachment of the Square from the street and negative for its use. The effort to develop thematic green zones within the park and surrounding area was appreciated. However, decisions on hardscape and spatial organization to define these zones break the continuity of greenery within the park decreasing the natural quality and park atmosphere. As a result, the overall landscape quality of the park is found weak in general. In addition to these issues, the program that may contribute to the life in Taksim and architectural approach needs improvement. The project was eliminated unanimously.

PROJECT NUMBER 93 General approach, which is based on using temporary structures as a solution to the problem, is considered as a valuable idea. Similarly, the project’s attitude on increasing the vitality level of the area and proposed traffic system supporting this attitude are positive sides of the entry. However, the permanent physical interventions, which totally change the existing identity of the area, demolish the park and historical stairs. Moreover, these interventions widen the hard surfaces and paved areas while creating a weak spatial definition. As a result, the area of the park and greenery is reduced. Despite these major interventions, the relationship between the park and the square is found weak. 2


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 18, 2020

A planting and landscaping strategy that would contribute to the improvement of the area could not be followed on the proposal. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (there were two favoring votes from Kerem Piker and Arman Akdoğan).

PROJECT NUMBER 106 A flexible, responsive and adaptive spatial approach is considered as a very remarkable starting point for the subject matter. The proposal of re-establishment of the Maçka-Taksim urban forest is found worthy in the upper scale. But such stable landscape approaches cannot be followed in lower scales. Dispersed, mixed and rare plantations in the square, which cause weak spatial definition, are criticized by the jury. Cumhuriyet Street is designed only with open space activities and thus the proposed program for the street is found weak to increase the livability of the area. The “s” shaped elevated walkway seems unfit and connects the amphitheater which is called “Gezi commons” to another one whose orientation is questioned. The benefit of transforming the Tarlabaşı Cumhuriyet tunnel to a one-way direction cannot be perceived. Also the new traffic system out of this proposal was found problematic and an optimum solution could not be followed in the project. Proposed landscape typologies and species compositions specialized for these topologies were found positive and its capacity to create micro climatically modified urban space was appreciated. But plantation strategies for the Square do not contribute to its spatial definition and legibility. The thematic subdivision of the square as water plaza, main plaza, green plaza could be acceptable, but the integration of all of these different spaces in a holistic way could not be achieved. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (there were three favoring votes from Zeynep Ahunbay, İpek Akpınar and Arzu Nuhoğlu).

PROJECT NUMBER 127 The efforts on unification of the three parts of the area under the concept of “Central Taksim” were considered as positive by the jury. The use of sustainable material and variety of textures in the area are also positive aspects of the entry. But the reason behind the change of the opening from Taksim Square to Gezi center and transforming the urban open space to an isolated void surrounded by green is not justified. During this operation, transplantation strategy which is proposed for 180 small trees within the park was found unrealistic and unnecessary, as site specific solutions were expected. Because of the proposed open space in Gezi Park is occupied by pools, fountains and different uses, the new system is not allowing gathering activities neither in this area, nor in the Square, as the proposed plantation strategies create different levels of blockage for mass movements and meetings. This approach is criticized by the jury, since hosting gathering activities is one of the most important roles of Taksim Square. Landscaping approach, using the mounds, is considered as alien to the characteristics of the site. These green islands do not allow direct access and movement between Taksim Square and Cumhuriyet Street as well. 3


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 18, 2020

In addition to these issues, the scale of the museum located under the park is found disruptive for the park. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Arman Akdoğan). ●

In the third round, a total of 2 (two) projects, with numbers 28 and 72 were eliminated. Project reports are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 28 The entry proposes to transform Taksim Square to a park with the motto of “Better Square, Better Park”. But removal of the square, which obviously causes the loss of spatial identity, was strongly criticized by the jury. Although the design proposal offers more greenery, it removes most of the remains of Gezi Park, while the buildings with large-scale footprints destroy many of the trees in the park. As an idea, the extension of the park toward the square could be an advantage in ecological sense, but this decision does not match with the character and dynamic usage of the Square. Although the entry makes such a green proposal; lack of a detailed landscape strategy was considered as another major shortcomings of the project. Proposed stage in front of AKM was considered to have contributions to the area. But the location features and scales of dispersed canopies were criticized by the jury. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (a vote in favor was from Rainer Schmidt).

PROJECT NUMBER 72 The project site is evaluated in 5 zones and each zone includes site-specific design interventions. This systematic approach and proposal, which offers integration with the surroundings as a solution to the problem with the motto of “suture”, is considered as a valuable approach. But how this approach is handled during the design process is questioned by the jury, as this elaboration can only be followed on the Cumhuriyet Street edge of the Gezi Park. As the protection of existing structure of Gezi Park is positive, scarcity of contributions is criticized. Similarly, very limited interventions to the Square, and its unintegrated condition with Cumhuriyet Monument are considered as negative aspects of the overall design. The dominance of hardscape in the overall plan was criticized. The project is focusing on the architectural overhang structure but its position in the landscape, its relation to overall spatial design is unclear. Besides, planting design intervention was found poor. The project was eliminated by majority of votes (there were three favoring votes from Can Kubin, Arzu Nuhoğlu and Kerem Piker). ●

A total of 8 (eight) projects, with numbers 14, 15, 16, 19, 35, 52, 54 and 80 were chosen for the prize group.

The jury stopped to work at 19:00.

4


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 19, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Yenikapı, Eurasia Exhibition and Art Center, on Saturday, 19th of September, at 09.00. ●

A total of 8 (eight) projects, with numbers 14, 15, 16, 19, 35, 52, 54 and 80 were chosen for the prizes and mention as below: Equivalent Prize Equivalent Prize Equivalent Prize

Project number 15 Project number 16 Project number 19

Equivalent Mention Equivalent Mention Equivalent Mention Equivalent Mention Equivalent Mention

Project number 14 Project number 35 Project number 52 Project number 54 Project number 80

Project reports are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 14 (EQUIVALENT MENTION) The project based on multi-scaled intersections offers the redefinition of the boundaries of Gezi Park, Taksim Square as well as the Cumhuriyet Boulevard. The design concept using contemporary architectural language, brings a new urban focus around the Republic Monument of 1928 by using canopies and it has a potential of bringing dynamism to the urban life. The triple canopy system dividing the Taksim Square into two parts, re-scales the public open spaces by a series of various spatial and flexible urban plazas. One of the most important aspect of the project is the pedestrian fluidity and interconnectivity of the surrounding areas. Although the visual corridors were respected, the frame of the focal point compete with the Republic Monument. The project partly preserves the spatial and social memory of the park along the Mete Street, and it also brings a new atmosphere and experience with water and green elements. In this respect neglecting the historical marble stairs is criticized by the jury. Moreover, the location of the pavilion cafe is questioned since it weakens the connection between the park and the Square. The proposed green structure strategies were found generic and the biodiversity layer of the greening strategy was found undeveloped. The project has been awarded for equivalent mention with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 35 (EQUIVALENT MENTION) The upper scale landscape strategies, site scale landscape analysis and search for biodiversity were found strong and positive. The position of the canopy and embedded functions that support the park program were found strong. The light canopy structure, referring to historical traces is adding positive values to the site. However, the architectural quality of the canopy was criticized. The relation between the park and the square were found weak. Extension of the green towards Atatürk monument was criticized due to the lack of spatial organization and pedestrian flows. Program of open public space usage was expected to be enhanced and integrated with the surrounding urban space. The project has been awarded for equivalent mention with consensus. 1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 19, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 52 (EQUIVALENT MENTION) The project reads new urban dynamics in a positive way, reclaims the pluralistic unpredictable contingent and broad networks of Taksim and offers a new perspective to develop urban public space. This visionary approach is pushing forward the public awareness and encourages to gain publicly owned urban space through participatory methods. The idea that is brought by the project to transform Taksim into the central hub of İstanbul where city flows through Taksim in the physical and digital form was found very strong. Detailed analysis of the site was appreciated. The approaches proposed by the team were found very valuable in terms of guiding principles and discussion to create ever changing cultural landscape, dynamic and symbolic spaces and democratic eco-political conditions. However, the lack of spatial design and a holistic framework on urban design in the project was criticized. Although the project promises a diverse and rich program for use of space as a public sphere, it lacks detailed solutions for spatial requirements. Site specific architectural solutions were expected, instead of generic design proposals. The project has been awarded for equivalent mention with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 54 (EQUIVALENT MENTION) The unity of a strong architectural language defines the project area, yet it is not strongly related to the existing context of urban space. The historical background of the project area and its cultural heritage is not reflected in the design and hence it is not possible to follow traces of collective memory in the urban space. Intensive architectural interventions are challenging the sustainability of existing urban values and ignore the existing movement pattern between Cumhuriyet and Mete Streets. The greenhouse proposal was criticized due to lack of integration with the park. The new function was appreciated but its architectural composition was found rigid, not allowing any flow between the Mete Street and the park. Therefore, it creates a barrier between the Street and the park. Definition of a central meadow at the heart of the Gezi Park, open space organization and strategies for storm water management were found positive. However, transplantation strategies were criticized. The project has been awarded for equivalent mention with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 80 (EQUIVALENT MENTION) The design intervention at the heart of the Gezi Park and its ability to define a central space and to carry the activities into the urban park were found positive. Although the project promises to extend Gezi Park to its “original borders”, spatial proposal is not promoting new functions at the urban edges. The design intervention at the heart of the Gezi Park and its ability to define a central space was found strong. However, the architectural quality of the structure proposed within the park is requiring a higher level of intervention. The design proposal for Taksim Square was found unscaled and undetailed. The design intervention needs improvement. On the other hand, the idea of a universal grid and its interpretation in the projects site as a design tool was found very strong. 2


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 19, 2020

The effort to extend the original boundary of the Gezi Park was positive. The design suffers from a detailed design intervention of the grid. Effort to create biodiversity and planting strategies were appreciated. The project has been awarded for equivalent mention with consensus.

PROJECT NUMBER 15 (Equivalent Prize) The project proposing the urban regeneration of the Gezi Park offers a holistic design and reintegrates the Taksim Square, Cumhuriyet Boulevard and the Mete Avenue. In this regard both the park and the Square are well defined. The square has been rescaled by a group of greenery and its human redefinition envisions the rehabilitation of the park. Moreover, the project reconnects the fragmented urban greens surrounding the areas, and unveils new urban potentials of different urban layers. In this framework, the integration of new activity zones, lawns, pavilions, art and water elements is achieved by the diversity and interconnectivity of the public open spaces. The shops located under the terraces of the Gezi Park reshape the boundary of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard and enrich the everyday life of the outer park. The elevated bridge offers a new spatial experience and dynamic urban fluidity through the Square towards the Maçka Park. The connection of the skywalk with the ground level and the typologies provided for the connection were found positive. Although the continuity of pedestrian flow between Maçka Park and Taksim Square via Skywalk is found positive, scale, route and the effects of the Skywalk vis-a-vis the facades of the Cumhuriyet Boulevard brings few spatial problems. The expansion of the tramline supports the interconnectivity of the project. The well-defined transportation hub easily integrates different levels, pedestrians, underground and upper deck and offers an active panoramic contemplation of the city. Digital app and identity set conceptualize a new dynamic phase of the era. The participatory approach to design and the idea of transforming formal void into sequence of open spaces is appreciated. The planting strategy which respects the existing and endemic species, the level of landscape details and the zoning for the pavement were found positive. The project has been awarded for Equivalent Prize.

PROJECT NUMBER 16 (Equivalent Prize) The project “Interconnecting Memory of Urban Space with the Vision of the Future” is mainly focused on enlarging the green strategy as well as the rehabilitation of the Gezi Park. The proposal envisions Taksim Square as an urban stage to be contemplated or experienced. The new urban park provides dense human use and different activities. Project takes the traffic on the surface along the Cumhuriyet Boulevard and converts the underground space into the underground Memory Museum. However, this simple conversion should be architecturally well defined. With this conceptual framework, the project provides a strong green edge for the city and activities for the citizens – which is also addressing the future of the society. The Taksim Square which has been redefined by this green edge, provides a stage for citizens in their everyday life. However, the proposal related to buildings located in front of the Hagia Triada Church should be reconsidered (the area belongs to the Church Foundation). The proposal not only empowers the social memory but also strengthens it. The most valuable aspect of the project is the enrichment of the park, with the minimum touch, for the future 3


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 19, 2020

generations/city and the fulfillment of the social aspiration of the dense green park in the middle of the city. The Taksim Garden section of the project and the landscape developed for this zone, considering seasonal change, were strongly appreciated by the jury. The idea of the project highlighting green connections, the increased density of the trees providing an embedded green image to the park and the square are found very powerful. However, the maintenance of this green canopy and sustainability of the created image was questioned. A detailed plantation strategy has to be developed by considering the growth rate of the trees. The project has been awarded for Equivalent Prize.

PROJECT NUMBER 19 (Equivalent Prize) While preserving the layer of Prost’s Plan, the project is offering the rehabilitation of the park and provides an enriched urban scenario for urban activities of citizens, empowering the continuity of social memory. The project rescales the square with greenery, creates an urban stage and powerful cultural axis from the AKM. On this cultural axis, Sinkhole (Obruk), aiming to generate the public life, while drawing attention to the importance of the nature’s power of healing, has relocated the urban void, and combined it with the funicular system. This relocation and rescaling have rationalized the radicality of the previous argument. The project clearly redefines the boundary of the park with the Cumhuriyet Boulevard and its junction with the Tarlabaşı Boulevard by enlarging greenery. However, the proposal of the expansion of greenery towards the Istiklal Street obstructs the pedestrian movement, ignoring the main flow. Moreover, the ratio of soft-scape and hardscape around the Atatürk Monument was found undefined in details. The collective greening as well as digital application system – which can be developed and proposed by various civil groups, offer a multi-layered urban scenario for the everyday life. One of the most important features of the project is expanding the green strategy towards the future to be collectively and voluntarily developed. The project has been awarded for Equivalent Prize.

The jury stopped to work at 20:00.

4


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 20, 2020

Taksim Urban Design Competition jury convened at Yenikapı, Eurasia Exhibition and Art Center, on Sunday, 20th of September, at 09.00. ●

Jury advises for equivalent prize projects are as below:

PROJECT NUMBER 15  

        

The project should implement an accessibility strategy for persons with disabilities. The proposed pedestrian route connecting Gezi Park with Maçka Park is appreciated. However, it is recommended to keep the walkway on surface level on Cumhuriyet Boulevard or reconsider the size and location of the vertical connection structures. A detailed study for architectural elements such as pavilions is needed. A detailed study for skywalk considering the level differences on site is needed. A detailed structural study for the skywalks should be introduced. The hardscape surfaces in Gezi Park should be reduced in favour of green. Extension of Nostalgic Tram line should be worked in detail. Underground spaces for transportation nodes should be integrated with the overall design. Spatial quality of those spaces should be increased. Height, size and the route of the proposed pedestrian bridge should be detailed in respect with existing trees. Soft-scape and hardscape relations should be solved and detailed over the pedestrian bridge Pedestrian bridge section details should be developed to sustain the softscape proposed.

PROJECT NUMBER 16       

The project proposal should implement an accessibility strategy for persons with disabilities. Public transportation scenarios at surface level should be detailed. Bus stops, dolmuş stops, taxi lanes as well as shuttle busses should be considered. Along the edge of Gezi Park with Cumhuriyet Boulevard, a series of urban furniture, kiosks and small retail units may be introduced. Underground museum should be more integrated with above ground. Light holes and additional entrances may be proposed. Proposed structural system for covering existing underground system should be fragmented in order to minimize the construction operation. In overall design, an urban furniture and lighting concept should be introduced. Hardscape characters and pavement structures in Taksim square should be detailed.

Project proposes to build a dense urban forest; in order to obtain and sustain this concept:    

Norms of new tree species should harmonize with existing green structure. Spatial Design Strategy with softscape should be developed. A detailed Plantation Strategy based on time scale should be prepared Infrastructure for the proposed planting should be planned, designed in detail. Coordination with relevant professions is crucial.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition

September 20, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 19  

    

The project should implement an accessibility strategy for persons with disabilities. For the conservation of Gezi Park, existing trees are respected and new trees will be introduced. Norm of proposed tree species should be in harmony with existing planting texture in order to reach the quality of spatial design intended. In Gezi Park, resin bound gravel surfaces should be reduced in favour of green. Sections of proposed green roof terraces over shops and cafes should provide the sufficient planting medium to sustain the proposed planting. The architectural quality of the buildings along the Cumhuriyet Street edge of Gezi Park should be increased. The green mass in Taksim Square Zone should be strengthened by adding two rows of trees along Tak-ı Zafer Street, where currently there is a single row at the edge. Pedestrian flow to Cultural Axis, Taksim Square, İstiklal Street and Cumhuriyet Boulevard both from north -south and east-west directions should be re-studied. Green strategy developed at this zone has a risk of blocking the pedestrian movement. In order to overcome this obstacle: o Softscape (Prairie interpretation) proposed around Taksim Republic Monument has to be removed or minimized. o Block of trees around the metro entrance has to be extended towards the west by respecting the circle of the monument. o The green carpet around Obruk has to be removed or to be minimized. Trees should be preserved.

Due to the Article 31 of the Competitions of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, Urban Design Projects, Urban Planning and Works of Fine Art, it is expected from the competitors to revise their projects considering the jury advices above and to submit revised projects together with other deliverables that was mentioned in the specifications as “Requirements from Equivalent Prize Winners before the selection of the Construction Project” until October 9, 2020, Friday 17:00. Referring to the specifications section “21- Procedures and Principles for the Construction of the 1st Prize Winning Project” and the headline “Selecting the Equivalent Prize Winner Project to be Constructed”, before opening the identification envelopes to announce the winners of the competition, separately from the competition process, a confidentiality agreement is signed between the jury and the Organizer. Identification envelopes were opened and recorded. All the official records and project reports were controlled. The jury stopped to work at 17:00.

2


Addendum: Taksim Urban Design Competition Calendar Update

May 4, 2020

The competition is organized under the Article 23 of the Public Procurement Law of Republic of Turkey No. 4734, within the frame of the Regulations for Competitions of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, Urban Design Projects, Urban Planning and Works of Fine Art. The contagious disease known as Corona Virus caused 167,515 confirmed global cases in 150 countries, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) report number 56, dated on March 16, 2020. The global risk level for Corona Virus was increased from "high" to "very high" by WHO and it was declared "International Public Health Emergency" on March 2, 2020. The competition calendar that was postponed within the question-answers document published on March 24, 2020, has been updated again due to the proposals of the Coronavirus Scientific Board established within the Ministry of Health of Turkey, the circulars regarding the works and procedures to be carried out at the Public Institution issued by the Presidency and the written requests from the competitors. Hence, the submission date of Taksim Urban Design Competition for Stage 1 has been postponed to July 12, 2020 Updated competition calendar is as below: Deadline for submissions for Stage 1: Jury session for Stage 1 begins: Notifications to Stage 2: Deadline for questions regarding Stage 2: Answers regarding Stage 2: Deadline for submissions for Stage 2: Jury session for Stage 2 begins: Award ceremony and colloquium:

July 12, 2020, Sunday, 23:59, GMT +3 July 18, 2020, Saturday July 24, 2020, Friday August 4, 2020, Saturday, 23:59, GMT +3 August 8, 2020, Wednesday September 11, 2020, Friday, 23:59, GMT +3 September 17, 2020, Thursday September 26, 2020, Saturday

With this addendum, the calendar above has been updated. Contestants who submit their projects before May 4, 2020, the day this addendum is signed, can preferably withdraw their projects and submit their projects again. The addendum will be published on the website of the competition and will be sent to all contestants who have registered their e-mail address after receiving the specification.

1


Taksim Urban Design Competition Alias Determination Record

PROJECT NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

ALLIAS 1S2O3D46 2AXL3S7B 3u80y923 4HumaNow 5K71M386 7C3F5S1L 7N6O95LH 8E3A7BPY 17NZ20BR 19G02I25 20BN25RK p8027018 29b18e30 31ne58fi 46Q35YX7 48P12T05 52A4R1L8 61nzmk95 79CS5H8Y 172KAS53 0815avjk 1053TZYX 02007DIT 4326EG17 8374ABIO 384501ot 475909JE 666734at 912326k1 15082094 A5MG3S2T A9O15A28 a48t12d6 a642930r AAT4KS1M E835Y716 AD283096 AE0718SR AH017295 AIQ19XPT

September 20, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

1

ALLIAS AR25TY7Z az13kn19 AZ135924 azb39k5s B8LDWZP2 b206cd B0791R3E bi0t8pe2 BT01MG20 BTGU6150 C71598YU ct914736 D1A70C2L D5A2H9P4 D715N2A0 dialog15 E1SC3AZ7 E5G8BN2M E034W79F e59k8a1s E216384D e4783015 G1E2J3D4 g35a1638 g410792l H2O3SPEC HBD52360 hexopark IFS23520 inout811 ipkdvrt J4N7S1K9 JSHWC197 K3Z8T1E5 K12M06L8 K051397N komg1ray KX3E5T7S L42E56AN LF125TVP


Taksim Urban Design Competition Alias Determination Record

PROJECT NUMBER 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

ALLIAS LMTV6794 LN829165 LZBN1985 M7K26318 m812395f MAND4KRU MAY30195 MC160528 mcy35tak MHDTAP01 MM1122RA MPESGB20 MXC730TR N1T8F9A7 n2h7b6z8 n158397t nfrcbv20 NO_ALIAS_ overlay1 p5a1r3k6 PEDCTX20 PL8361AC r487639d rm86l42k S1R5K9H0 S3OG16BJ sbvy1612 SD27P518 sfkemrvt SLV907KD snsc2229 SROS2020 t2c0j2p0 t3kz96b5 t17382495 tghmsc20 THA735F2 thb16233 THUSA513 TKS12401

September 20, 2020

PROJECT NUMBER 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

2

ALLIAS TKSIBL20 TZD19264 V10X925W VIDPO143 vu9w6vsk X7WD25AC X0213012 y9n5371t ymrt1358 Z28S056M ZBLROX42 bis7842a KI20AYD1 laparch op3cm1fg 08136594 assun727 bu76um52 n6h3gu59 O4C1T7A7 O568A742 prc3591t su218490 7d9g2l5u PTHYBRID 924150ac


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

EXPLANATIONS ●

The way the questions were written was not interfered.

For stage 2, the identification envelope must contain the following documents: 

Team List o

A list showing the team members’ names, professions, and responsibilities within the competition referring to the organizational chart (not to be signed).

Competition Terms & Conditions Acceptance Document o A signed document stating that the team’s urban planners, architects and/or landscape architect at the current stage have fully accepted the terms and conditions of the competition. (see attestation document for a sample form) o In case of applications by multiple project authors from the same or different disciplines, each team member must submit these documents individually.

Member Identification Documents o For participants from Turkey, a member identification document prepared by the relevant organization for the participant specifically for this competition, in accordance with the eligibility rules. o For foreign participants, a document that certifies each project author’s ability to practice his/her profession in his/her home country.

Each project authors must submit these documents individually. 

Correspondence Envelope o Participants are required to submit a separate folder within the project submission package, that is bearing the same alias and named with “alias_ correspondence_envelope”, which will contain an e-mail address. This e-mail address must be identical to the alias and provided by a generic e-mail service provider. (such as Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)

Stage 2 submissions must meet the following criteria: o o o

Digital submission: Project and appendices will be sent digitally before September 11, 2020, 23:59 GMT+3. Mail submission: Participants are required to send their sealed identification envelope as a hard copy via mail before September 11, 2020, 23:59 GMT+3. Identification envelope must be delivered to the Organizer’s address before September 17, 2020. Delivery time should be considered and calculated according to location and postal destination. 1


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers ●

Plan orientation must be geographical north in A0 panels.

1:500 site plan must be placed in A0 panel as below:

August 8, 2020

In project booklet pages will be printed in A3 portrait format.

Aerial views taken in 2017 have been uploaded. See the appendix "01_aerial_views".

Metro and funicular passenger survey has been uploaded. See the appendix "02_metro_funicular_survey".

Questions received have been grouped under the titles below: A. Questions about participation and eligibility B. Questions about specifications, information and documents C. Questions about current situation of the site and design proposals D. Questions about submission and competition calendar E. Other

2


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

A - Questions about participation and eligibility 1.

If a team is integrated with foreign and Turkish specialist, does the rule about “teams participating from Turkey must include at least one team member from the TMMOB Chamber of Planners” still apply? If a team is integrated with foreign and Turkish specialists, each participant must be certified in his / her home country.

2.

Can someone who was in the jury for another competition organized by IPA be a consultant for the teams? Yes. All participants must follow “eligibility” rules in the specifications.

3.

It is noted in the competition specification book on page 20 that the identification envelope for stage two must include the names and necessary documentation of the team members, whose identities have been concealed in the organizational chart given in stage one. If the consultant is not belongs to a discipline which has chamber to demonstrate his/her professional identity, which kind of documentation should be proposed? Consultants do not have to present their professional certificates. Only authors (architect, landscape architect, urban planner) need to present the required documents.

4.

Are the team members except the main disciplines (certified architect, landscape architect and urban designer) required to present their certificate for the related disciplines? Or only their name and discipline should be mentioned in the team list in the identification envelope? In case the certificates are required do the original documents suffice or the English translation should be presented? Consultants and assistants do not have to present their professional certificates. Project authors must present both original documents and English translations. However, the team list must contain the names of all the members who contributed to the competition project.

5.

Some European countries combine the figure of architect and urban planner in one degree. Would it be possible to use a certificate that verifies the figure of the architect/urban planner in our home country? Yes.

6.

Can we change (add or delete) the members included in the identification envelope? Can we change (add or delete) the members included in the organizational chart included in the booklet? Do we need to include their names and professional certificates? New project authors, assistants, and consultants can be included in the team for Stage 2. However, a team member who participated in Stage 1 can not be excluded from the team. Project authors must present all the documents required.

7.

Can someone who has been listed as a consultant in a team that was eliminated in the first stage join another team as a consultant for the second stage? Yes.

3


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers 8.

August 8, 2020

Is there any possibility to change existing advisors to the new ones (same major and qualifications) for the second stage? New project authors, assistants, and consultants can be included in the team for Stage 2. However, team members who participated in Stage 1 cannot be excluded from the team.

B - Questions about specifications, information and documents 9.

Within the Identification Envelope, we are going to provide full names and organizational roles of all team members. Two questions here: if we are inviting special consultants for specific roles, should the name of their companies be included or written as well, or just names? Is it allowed to provide company portfolios as well? The team list inside the sealed identification envelope must consist of all the members who contributed to the competition project. The identities are anonymous during the jury sessions. Presenting a company portfolio is not allowed.

10. What is precisely the content of the identification envelope? Should we include other documents except the team list, terms and conditions acceptance, members identification documents? For stage 2, the identification envelope must contain following documents: 

Team List o

A list showing the team members’ names, professions, and responsibilities within the competition referring to the organizational chart (not to be signed).

Competition Terms & Conditions Acceptance Document o A signed document stating that the team’s urban planners, architects and/or landscape architect at the current stage have fully accepted the terms and conditions of the competition. (see attestation document for a sample form) o In case of applications by multiple project authors from the same or different disciplines, each team member must submit these documents individually.

Member Identification Documents o For participants from Turkey, a member identification document prepared by the relevant organization for the participant specifically for this competition, in accordance with the eligibility rules. o For foreign participants, a document that certifies each project author’s ability to practice his/her profession in his/her home country.

Each project author must submit these documents individually. 

Correspondence Envelope o Participants are required to submit a separate folder within the project submission package, that is bearing the same alias and named with “alias_ correspondence_envelope”, which will contain an e-mail address. This e-mail 4


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

address must be identical to the alias and provided by a generic e-mail service provider. (such as Gmail, Hotmail, etc.) 11. Should you please describe a little further about the terms “identity studies” and “elements of urban identity” which are mentioned in the specification booklet under the “Stage 2 Deliverables” subtitle on page 22? There is sufficient information regarding this matter in the specifications. 12. On page 22, the brief states: 3D Visuals: The participants are required to submit 3D visuals in the amount and dimension of their choice, given that one of the visuals depicts the general characteristics of the project site in a holistic manner. Does this remark refer to an aerial depiction? Yes. An aerial view is required together with other 3D visuals. 13. Could you provide us with a ground floor plan of the new Atatürk Cultural Center building? Additional documents for Atatürk Cultural Center cannot be provided at the moment. 14. Is it possible to provide us with a larger 3d context file? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 15. Do you have more birds eye view pictures of and from the competition site (for example, picture from the roof of the hotel)? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 16. Is it possible to receive high quality drone images of the area that give us views which could be used for 3D visualizations? For the first stage we had only 4 photos that had a blurred surrounding area. Aerial views taken in 2017, have been uploaded. See the appendix "01_aerial_views". "5_2_oblique_drone" file shared in the website, reflects the situation of the site from February, 2020. 17. Could you share more drone photos to be used in aerial renderings other than the oblique drone shots that were shared in the first stage? If not available, could you share the drone videos uploaded to youtube in high resolution? Aerial views taken in 2017, have been uploaded. See the appendix "01_aerial_views". Drone videos can be found in high resolution here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4X7PQk1pNQ&list=PLnxXRKP_i2YxobsIPmDifBqPndX4UY vBF&index=2&t=0s 18. Can you provide seasonal reports (temperature, wind, rain) ? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 19. Is it possible to get the floor plan of the under-construction Mosque? Additional documents for the mosque cannot be provided at the moment.

5


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

20. Should you please share property boundaries of the area of 1000 meters radius around the Gezi Park? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 21. Should the jury please share these informations about Taksim Metro Station? a. Last 5 years usage data b. Future visions and possible capacity increases Metro and funicular passenger survey has been uploaded. See the appendix "02_metro_funicular_survey". 22. Could we kindly request the tree plantation survey of the Elmadag park after Harbiye bridge connection? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 23. Should the jury please share Historical Peninsula urban – archeological protected area KANIP and Şişli – Dolapdere Piyalepaşa Boulevard and Surroundings RNIP as digital documents (preferably AutoCAD file)? Information and documents given to competitors are sufficient. 24. Are detail drawings required to be in a form of plans/sections or can they be provided with all the necessary informations via detailed axonometric drawings? Participants should refer to Stage 2 deliverables in specifications. 25. Is it possible to provide vehicle volume data for the intersections at Cumhuriyet Cad. & Asker Ocagi Cad.and Asker Ocagi Cad. & Taskisla Cad.? "3_4_5_vehicle_count" document had been provided in Stage 1. 26. For understanding the expectations of the 1/2000 Urban Design Plan, should you please share conservation development plan notes? Information and documents had been provided in Stage 1.

C - Questions about current situation of the site and design proposals 27. Is there an expectation of a revision proposal for the conservation development plan according to the design decisions of the square and the surroundings? The current Conservation Master Plan has been given for information purposes in “3.1. master_plan”. There are ongoing efforts for its development. 28. What is the current stone used in the Gezi park tiles and steps ? Gezi park steps are made of Marmara marble. Limestone is used for paving and balustrades. 29. Are the existing stairs in Taksim Square from Henri Prost design a protected element? Should they be kept as they are today? Henri Prost design is not under legal protection. Parts of the original design should be respected.

6


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

30. In the first stage report, the jury recommended that the historical stairs of Gezi Park is to be integrated into the new spatial design. Is it expected to propose a physical intervention on historical stairs and ramps? Would you please clarify what is meant by integration? Conservation is proposed for the stairs. Integration means trying to add harmoniously to the original features. 31. The balusters from Henri Prost design are very deteriorated and in many places missing. Should we reintegrated and rebuilt them or is it an option to not include them in the design? The competition is open to viable proposals. 32. Although we appreciate the jury's efforts to give us feedback, the recommendation report is very high level and lacks constructive feedback on the individual aspects of our proposal. Is it possible for the jury to elaborate on their feedback for the first stage or share their general takeaways from the projects selected for the second stage so that participants can better understand their intentions? Jury recommendations have been provided. 33. Are Gezi Park and Taksim Square bound to operate as one entity in terms of civic administration in the aftermath of this competition or will they continue to operate as singular entities? The urban design competition is a platform to set up a holistic / interrelated public space at Gezi Park and Taksim Square. Competitors can propose a management and operational model. 34. How deep underground structures are possible to build in places with no underground infrastructure? It is recommended not to exceed the depth of the existing metro system’s infrastructure. 35. Can we change the location of the subway ventilation shafts (concentrate them in one area)? No. 36. What is expected from participants to detail regarding public transit at the site? Is it expected from participants to define stations and stops for all the bus lines that pass through Taksim? If so, could you provide more information on where each bus line is waiting when they are idle? Participants should describe a general strategy for the public transportation. Bus lines and stops should be defined accordingly. Detailed information may be obtained from “3.4.4. public_transport” and http://www.otobus.istanbul/ . 37. Does the Stage 2 proposal has to be qualified according to Turkish building/open space regulations? If yes, could you provide us with these regulations (for public buildings, large events, public accessibility, maintenance, fire regulation)? It is competitors’ responsibility to access to the legal codes and regulations. 38. What is the physical scope of the 1:500 Site plan? Should it be developed for the entire area or only for some characteristic areas? The physical scope of 1:500 site plan should cover Taksim Square with the monument, Cumhuriyet Street and Gezi Park.

7


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

39. Is it possible to propose a re-design of the hotel’s surroundings/platform? No. 40. Would it be possible to clarify what should be developed in the ‘Project Report’ for the Project Booklet? For the content of the project booklet, refer to page 22 of the specifications. 41. Would it be possible to clarify what should be developed in the ‘Identity Studies’ for the Project Booklet? For the content of the project booklet, refer to specifications, page 22. 42. Can the proposed grass/vegetation areas be accessible for public? Yes. 43. Is it possible to reuse rainwater collection for watering the trees? Yes. 44. What level of detail would they need at this stage regarding the specific artistic interventions and cultural programs we are envisioning, especially given that the framework we recommend is open competition/collaboration-based and we will not impose an art program without consulting with the local institutions and communities? Competitor should refer to the specifications. 45. Is it necessary to propose a design solution for the tram's parking place (currently behind the mosque)? No. 46. Is it possible to stop the tram line from going around the monument and propose an alternate solution? Is it allowed to stop the route before fully entering the square? It depends on the judgement of the competitor. 47. The city area included in the design competition covers in the southeastern part a town block (between the square and Aya Triada) – do we have to propose a solution for the inner part of that block? It’s a protected area. Competitor does not have to propose a solution. 48. Does the Organizer hold a position in terms of the Square’s function as a site of democratic expression and civil rights protests? Would an otherwise desired increase in green surfaces on the Square prove hindrance to such function? Are we to assume overall that the Organizer understands this form of democratic expression in a positive manner? The function of the square as a meeting place; its associations and meaning should be preserved. 49. To what extent is it realistic to propose interventions on building facades along one or more streets? How would property rights function in that case? Only interventions at maintenance level might be acceptable.

8


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

50. Could you please clarify the exceptions for the vegetation proposals plan if details like the identification of the proposed trees are enough or all the groundcover and bushes types are expected to be named in 500 plan. Yes. 51. Is there any restriction about not choosing the geographical north as the plan orientation? Yes. Plan orientation must be geographical north. 52. Should we use a broader presentation border for the 1/500 plan which also show the surroundings of the square? Yes.

D – Questions about submission and competition calendar 53. Could you please clarify what part of the Stage 2 submission is sent digitally and what part should be sent through mail as printed material? Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 54. Could you explain the second stage submission process step by step by bullet points to minimize any confusion in digital and hard copy submissions? Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 55. According to updated competition rules “Section 13-Design Submissions and Submission Rules” •Participants are required to deliver identification envelope as a hard copy via mail-in Stage 2. Attention: The deadline for the Organizer to receive the envelope as a hard copy via mail is subject to the same date for the delivery of the digital delivery of projects. The Organizer is not responsible for any delays in the mail. Is hardcopy identification envelope for the 2nd stage still an issue or is it going to be digitally delivered via e-mail similar to Stage 1? Participants are required to deliver an identification envelope as a hard copy via mail in Stage 2 Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 56. Should the printed material be sent before the deadline (with post stamp date) or should it arrive before the deadline? Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 57. From the Specifications file we assume that, in a similar manner to Phase 1, all boards and the accompanying A3 Project Booklet will be delivered to the Organizer through email. With the exception of course of the Identification Envelope that will be sent as a hard copy. Is that correct? Regarding the boards, do you prefer the files in a single pdf or separate pdf files? Is it also required to deliver the content files individually? Submission process is clarified in the explanations. Panels could be sent as single pdf or separate files. The graphics used in the panels should be submitted separately in a folder named “images” (in JPG or PNG format). 58. Is it possible to have Turkish text on renderings and collages? The language of the competition is English.

9


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

59. Is it required to include identification documents with the digital submission? No. Identification envelope must be sent as a hard copy via mail. 60. Is there a maximum/minimum page amount for the Project Booklet? There is no page limit for the project booklet. 61. Does the A3 booklet have a page limit? There is no page limit for the project booklet. 62. Is it allowed to include an updated version of 1/1000 plan of our project as 3xA3 folded in the second stage A3 booklet? Yes, it is allowed. But 1:1000 site plan is not obligatory in project booklet. 63. In regard to the Project Booklet: should the pages featuring the A3 panels, the project report and so on...be bonded into one single brochure featuring a cover, or they have to be delivered just with a staple? Is there any maximum number of pages for the Project Booklet? Project and appendices will be submitted digitally. (Jury sessions will commence after the digital submissions are printed by the Organizer). There is no page limit for A3 project booklet. 64. What should be the number of pages and format of the project report? Are the chapters for art integration and scenarios complementary information to the panels content or in fact the related information should be extracted and restructured from the panels? Participants are free to design their booklets according to their preferences. There is no page limit for the project booklet. The project booklet must be organized in portrait alignment. 65. Is it sufficient to have a project report embedded in the A3 booklet or do you need the report in a separate document? “Project Booklet” in A3 dimensions will include all panels resized to A3, project report, proposals for integrating art into the competition site, scenarios for the site’s usage, and identity studies. 66. Should the A3 booklet format in the second stage be horizontal or vertical? Will it be printed as a booklet ( pages printed on both sides of the paper) or as individual pages? Project booklet must be organized in portrait alignment. It will be printed as a booklet. 67. Is there a page limit for the A3 project booklet? And is it possible to use the horizontal layout for “Project Report” while maintaining “A3-resized A0 boards” fit vertically and oriented horizontally? Participants are free to design their booklets according to their preferences. There is no page limit for the project booklet. The booklet must be organized in portrait alignment.

10


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

68. Does the A3 booklet in the second stage must be designed double-sided or single-sided? Is it oriented horizontal or vertical? Is there a word or punto restriction for the project report? Participants are free to design their booklets according to their preferences. There is no page limit for project booklet. The booklet must be organized in portrait alignment. 69. Is there any pre-proposed hanging orientation for the 6 A0 sheets? Are they in a single row? Six A0 panels will be presented side by side in a single row. Each panel will have a presentation layout in the lower right corner showing its place in the group. See page 22 in specifications. 70. In regard to the 6 A0 panels: do they have to be submitted mounted on rigid foam boards? Do the panels must be wrapped with any kind of paper to ensure no material proposal is seen? Can this package of 6 panels show the alias code written in big format in the wrapping paper or not? Panels must be sent digitally. Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 71. Is there any recommended orientation and format for the site plan 1:500, like the first stage? It can fit vertically in one panel or horizontally in two panels with the full competition boundary. Plan orientation must be geographical north. The physical scope of 1:500 site plan should cover Taksim Square with the monument, Cumhuriyet Street and Gezi Park. 72. Should the site plan with scale 1:500 included in the A0 boards include the full competition outline? Or can it be adapted so some limits are left out like in the first submission? The physical scope of 1:500 site plan should cover Taksim Square with the monument, Cumhuriyet Street and Gezi Park. 73. The site plan does not fit entirely on the panel A0 (even if rotated), is it possible to put segments of the plan in scale 1:500 or does it need to be in ‘one package’? (weird - stage 1 was scale 1:1000, now 1:2000 and 1:500 which does not fit) 1:500 site plan must be placed in A0 panel as shown in the explanations. 74. Are we allowed to place a QR code (respecting the confidentiality of the identities) on the panels for other digital material? Yes. 75. Do the jury suggest to the competitors to give academic references for the proposal report? Participants are free to use academic references. In order to preserve anonymity of the project, the reference list should not expose participant’s identity. 76. Is "wet signature" a must for “the competition terms & conditions acceptance document” or is it possible to present them digitally signed? - As we might consider to collect the additional documents digitally and send them might cause additional problems, considering that there are still disruptions in some international flights! Digital signature is acceptable for the competition terms & conditions acceptance document.

11


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

77. As currently the international post-delivery is working on an irregular and indefinite timing plan, isn’t it possible to also send the identification envelope via email? Participants are required to deliver an identification envelope as a hard copy via mail in Stage 2 Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 78. What is the due date to announce the final structure of the team? Should it be submitted with the identification envelope at the deadline of the second stage or we should inform the organizer in advance? Submission process is clarified in the explanations. 79. Which documents should the advisor members of the design team provide for the second stage? Consultants do not have to present their professional certificates. Project authors must present all the required documents. 80. Is there any proposed date for the publishing of the second stage results before the colloquium? Stage 2 results will be sent to the competitors by e-mail right after the jury working session ends. All the official records will be published in the competition website before the colloquium. 81. Would it be possible to extend the submission deadline for the Stage 2 ? No. 82. Is it possible to extend the deadline for the submission of Stage 2 (two or more weeks)? There are several reasons for that - Stage 1 was extended for over a month (due COVID-19 which is still causing work-related problems); Stage 2 is happening during the summer period when many collaborators and team members take their days off (vacation); any extension would allow teams to have more time to perfect their projects which is interest for both parties teams and the city of Istanbul. No. 83. Although it is thoroughly understood that the Organizer wants to be exact in terms of schedule and the overall selection process, it is a fact that the Covid-19 emergency has pushed the dates in such a manner that half of the available time period for this second phase lies within the month of August, usually a period of holiday. We would like to know if the Organizer would, on that basis, consider a small extension in the due date for the second phase that would probably ensure that all teams and their collaborators could have a more substantial time to deliver their proposals. At the moment no postponement is foreseen. 84. Is there any possible delay or change in the medium (virtual) for the colloquium due to the covid-19 pandemic? No.

12


Taksim Urban Design Competition Stage 2 Questions and Answers

August 8, 2020

E – Other 85. We understand that we are not allowed to share our work from stage 1 or in any way reveal our alias / identity but we were hoping that we can just publish the short news saying that: We were selected among 20 projects (out of 146) for the Stage 2 of the competition for Taksim square in Istanbul and we can not present our work yet but we are looking forward to showing it once the competition is over (without any pictures or indications on how our design project looks like). No. 86. Is it possible to get permission through the municipality to take some high quality drone photographs of the site? No. 87. We would like to know if there is any general or specific study or workshop conducted by the municipality, a private company or a nonprofit organization whose subject were participatory placemaking to develop urban actions for Takism Square, Gezi Park, public spaces, public parks, streets…or community-based ideas of how to shape and activate Taksim. It is recommended that the competitors conduct research for documents related to the subjects mentioned above. 88. Who will fund and manage the cultural and artistic program of Taksim - a team within the Istanbul Municipality or a newly founded independent entity? Are we also expected to make recommendations on this matter? Recommendations are welcome on this matter. 89. We would also like to kindly ask if we will receive the finalist’s portion of the compensation prior to the submission of the second phase or at the end of the competition. Following the public announcement of the results at the end of the competition, the prizes and honourable mentions will be paid to the winners within 30 days at the latest. 90. Which version of the competition specifications document should be considered as a legal document if there is any inconsistency between English and Turkish versions? The language of the competition is English. 91. Please provide more information regarding “the Article 29 of the Income Tax Law No. 193”; does it mean that the prize amounts are calculated before or after tax? We would like to know if participants from EU countries need to pay any tax for the received amounts. Prizes and honourable mentions will be paid to the winners within 30 days at the latest, in compliance with the Article 29 of the Turkish Income Tax Law No. 193. 92. Will the first stage submissions also re-evaluated in the second stage? Do the competitors have to represent all the information which are also in the first stage, graphically and verbally, in the second stage? Or should we cut some presentations in the second stage which were mentioned in the first stage for opening some more space for the second stage? See Specifications, page 21, Stage 2 Deliverables.

13