Competitions and Architecture Symposium 2014

Index 5

Competitions & Architecture Symposium II – 2014

14

Design and Application Processes in the Conceptual Topic Based Window Design Contests: The Case of Akmerkez Window Design Contest

22

Construction in Architectural and Design Student Competitions: A Case Study of TEDxITU Design Proposals Student Competition

22

The Post-Competition Processes: Construction Performances of the Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Organized by the Local Governments between the Years of 2005-2013

38

Large-Scale Architecture Demands of the Public: Kartal and Küçükçekmece Projects

48

The Relationship of the Political the Power and the Legitimacy, Urban Planning and Urban Design Competitions in the Context of Daily Political Relations: The Case of Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara

60

A Story of Urban Design Competition in Ödemiş: Evolution of an Urban Strategy Project into a Parking Lot Construction Project

78

On The Uşak Municipal Service Building Project Competition and the Construction Process

90

The Effect of the Architectural Design Competitions in Formation of the Urban Identity: The Case of Gaziantep

108 114

Architectural Production via Leisure: Some Contradictions A New Model Proposal for Dialog Based Competitions

COMPETITIONS & ARCHITECTURE SYMPOSIUM II – 2014

Competitions, Process and Result The first symposium of the “Yarışmayla Yap” project, which centered upon the competition environment as a sustainable method and tradition in acquirement, renewal and transformation of the structural and urban contexts in its discussions and actions; focused on the Competition Stories and took place at Istanbul Technical University.

The second of the symposium series, which aim to share the intellectual basis of competitions by travelling around different universities, evaluates the competitions in terms of Process and Result at the Middle East Technical University.

At the symposium where the experiences within the process from design until construction are shared and discussed, the process developing between the conceptual beginning and the end product is handled; the concept of competition and its environment, the design and the real, are evaluated in terms of the process and product relationships.

We are grateful to the Science Committee, to the participants who contributed to the discussion platform with their papers and presentations, to the invited speakers and to the debaters as the Symposium Organizing Committee. We would like to thank to the Seranit Group for supporting the realization of the activities and publications within the scope the “Yarışmayla Yap” Project and to the Middle East Technical University Faculty of Architecture; the host of the 2014 Symposium.

We wish particularly for the younger generation of architects to follow and develop this symposium series and its publications, which aim to contribute to the architectural environment by thinking and discussing through the competitions.

Best Regards, On behalf of the Symposium Organizing Committee Ass. Prof. Lale Özgenel

5 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

DESIGN and APPLICATION PROCESSES in the CONCEPTUAL TOPIC BASED WINDOW DESIGN CONTESTS: The Case of Akmerkez Window Design Contest H. Tonguç Tokol Res. Asst. at Marmara University Fine Arts Faculty Interior Architecture Department, İstanbul

Abstract

One of the contests those are organized in the fields of architecture, interior architecture and design are window design contests. This kind of contests can be based on brand or products as well as a concept or a topic like in the Window Design Contests of Akmerkez. These contests, which were organized for the window displays on the exterior walls and the interior windows of the Akmerkez shopping mall in Etiler, Istanbul, aimed to bring professionals and students of art and design to participate.

Chosen proposals are applied to standard size windows and evaluated by the jury members. The design proposals must not exceed a certain budget. Furthermore the production and the assembly are participant’s responsibility. Therefore, the contest requires not only a project but a good planning that includes the production and the application processes.

Throughout the paper, the method of study, the evaluation and the deductions of the author who has participated in these design contests for seven times and obtained several prizes such as 1st place, 2nd place, special jury award and mention will be presented along with visual materials to support.

Keywords: Window Design Contest, design stages, application

1. Introduction

Along with the competitions in architectural field that has been on for many years, especially in the last twenty years, there has been some design competitions in interior architecture and industrial design fields handling furniture, volume and various industrial products. The design contests in the interior architecture and industrial design fields, which became popular as those professions and their education Competitions and Architecture 6 Symposium

improved, can be organized in student and professional categories. The evaluation in the contests in those fields is usually via project studies, only some works those are granted awards are manufactured.

In the case that is been handled in this paper: “Akmerkez Window Design Contest”, the contest is finalized by the jury evaluation of the design application after the project phase. This approach directs participants to consider every detail about the production in the project design phase.

2. Akmerkez Window Design Contests

Akmerkez window design contests generally chose its themes from the contemporary topics or some conceptual subjects. Although it is introduced as a window design contest, it does not aim to advertise any product or brand. The participant profile consists of the fine art students, instructors and professionals.

Window arrangements are done on 12 window displays on the exterior walls of the shopping mall, independent from the interior space and 8 freestanding window displays placed outside on the pedestrian roads. The works, which can pass the prequalification and considered worth for exhibition and not exceeding the budget are produced by the participant and applied on the window displays. On a predetermined date, the jury evaluates the realized works for the last time and afterwards the ranking and the distribution of the prizes are determined. As it is understood, the competition among the participants is not only about the project design but also about production, application and timing.

Akmerkez was granted awards in the contests organized by the ICSC (International Council of Shopping Centers): ICSC-Solal Merit ‘01 award in Community Relations category, in March 2001, in Turin and ICSC-Maxi ‘01 award in the same category in October 2001, in Orlando. [1] Professor Erol Eti comments on the Akmerkez window design contests in comparison to 1960’s window decorations: “ There is nothing that does not need advertisement. This should be make good use of. Commercial addressing should be refined. People’s eyes are always on the windows. We are aiming for educating along with evoking. This contest put forward some very effective examples in terms of education.” [2]

3. Topics of the Contests

Topics of the Contests held between 2000-2002 are: • “Anatolian Civilizations and Millennium” (1st Akmerkez Window Design Contest) • - “Zodiac and Horoscopes” (2nd Akmerkez Window Design Contest) 7 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

• - “Fashion: from the Vine Leaf to Present ” (3rd Akmerkez Window Design Contest) • - “Adventure of the Communication: from Fire to Mobile Phones” (4th Akmerkez Window Design Contest) • - “2002 World Cup” (5th Akmerkez Window Design Contest)

4. Designs of the Paper Author in The Contests

Figure 1. Special Jury Award in the Contest “Anatolian Civilizations and Millennium” [3]

Figure 2. Special Jury Award in the Contest “Anatolian Civilizations and Millennium” [4]

Here are the chosen works, awards and the design approach of the author of the paper which were chosen to be applied in the Akmerkez Window Design Contests: The works themed “Anatolian Civilizations and Millennium” were awarded with the Special Jury Awards in wall window and freestanding window categories.

In these works, two chosen symbols of the Hittites who were one of the civilizations lived in the Anatolia; the Hittite sun (Figure 1) and the Hittite dear (Figure 2) were used as starting point and it was aimed to establish a visual connection with the present day.

Materials, colors and details associated with the modern times are used in order to make a connection with the past and the present without getting away from the original form. The materials used in this design are: wood, metal looking paint on MDF panel construction, steel wire, turnbuckles, bolts and eye nuts.

The “Zodiac and the Horoscopes” themed work was awarded with a mention in the window display category. The sign of the horoscope that is the subject of the work is placed in the center of the circular form that has all the other horoscope signs on (Figure 3). The background is created with a star effect. MDF and metal panels are used.

The works with the theme “Fashion: from the Vine Leaf to Present Day” were awarded 2nd prize in the freestanding window category and mention in the wall display category. The freestanding window was designed in three-dimension because unlike one sided wall display designs, freestanding window designs must be perceivable from different angles. It was interpreted as a translucent and metal looking, 17th century styled figure (Figure 4). The application was realized on a metal structure with gauzes with different textures.

On the wall display design, vine leaves made of various fabric materials were hanging on clothes lines in front of human silhouettes made out of metal sticks (Figure 5).

The work with the theme “Adventure of the Communication: from Fire to Mobile Phones” was awarded with the 1st prize. The lighthouse, which guides the ships in the sea was chosen as the subject of the work. There was no conceptual approach to the subject, the stress was laid on a realistic visual effect. In addition to materials as metal

Competitions and Architecture 8 Symposium

Figure 3: Mention in the Contest “Zodiac and the Horoscopes� [5]

9 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 4. 2nd Place in the Contest: “Fashion: from the Vine Leaf to Present Day” [6]

Figure 6. 1st Place in the Contest “Adventure of the Communication: from Fire to Mobile Phones” [8]

Figure 5. Mention in the Contest “Fashion: from the Vine Leaf to Present” [7]

and MDF panels, natural sand was used. The rocks on the ground were produced using paper material and color effects (Figure 6).

The “2002 World Cup” themed work was awarded with the 1st prize in the freestanding window category. Inspired from “table football”, various flags of the countries participating in the World Cup was placed in the background and astro pitch material was used.

5. Conclusion

In such contests as Akmerkez Window Design contest, where the format includes a production process after the project process, it is required to plan well from the sketching phase till the end.

The project adds the cost issue to the process, which already includes production phases, transportation and installation. Because, there is a budget for the production Competitions and Architecture 10 Symposium

of the works and it is one of the factors affecting the design. Furthermore, the timing issue, which is encountered also in the professional life, becomes an important element in every phase of the contest that affects the results.

The most important inference of the author in the process of Akmerkez Window Design Contest is that the participants usually encountering problems during the production phase. The reason for that is, participants usually care more for the visual quality of the proposals in the first presentation phase and not consider the production, installation and even transportation phases in the first sketches. Another argument of the author is the timing problem of the student participants. Yet, it is constructive for the ones who are either pursuing their studies or newly graduated professionals to take part in contests that involves manufacturing to the process as in the case of Akmerkez Window Design Contest Therefore, it is of capital importance in terms of contribution to professional development to increase the number of contests organized in the fields of architecture, interior architecture and industrial design fields that includes the production.

Figure 7. 1st Place in the Contest: “2002 World Cup� [9]

11 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

[1] http://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2004/02/10/akmerkez.htm (01.02.2014) [2] http://www.porttakal.com/ahaber-akmerkezde-sanatsal-vitrin (01.02.2014) [3] Tokol,T., 2000. Personal Photo Archive [4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid.

Competitions and Architecture 12 Symposium

CONSTRUCTION in ARCHITECTURAL and DESIGN STUDENT COMPETITIONS: A Case Study of TEDxITU Design Proposals Student Competition Doğa Gülhan

Abstract

The student competitions have important contributions to the architecture and design discussions; the properties of competition such as aim, proposals and result give hints about the near future of contemporary architecture and design. This paper discusses the construction and production possibility of student competitions. As a case study, TEDxITU competition is an idea and construction competition which aims to architecture and design students. Because of this character the competition is a current example among other student competitions.

Firstly on the purpose of an evaluation for competitions, student competitions and construction in competitions are summarised through some definitions and examples. The role of architectural and design student competitions are discussed.

Then TEDxITU competition is examined via its four major stages: Determining the competition properties (aim, jury members, representation techniques, deadlines etc.), announcement of competition through various media, jury evaluation and construction. The main aim of competition is to design proposals for the ‘key moments’ themed TEDxITU event which takes place at Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Architecture Conference Hall 109 and its surroundings in 1 December 2013. The announcement are made through printed media, architectural publications and social media. Jury evaluation payed attention for both idea and construction sides of proposals, and the winning entry is constructed by the team. Lastly the potentials of student design competition which ends with a physical construction are discussed.

Keywords: Architectural competition, Design competition, Student competition, Construction after competition

Architectural and Design Student Competitions

Competition, workshop and other events in architecture and design related fields

Competitions and Architecture 14 Symposium

may be seen as potentials for current discussion platforms. Design and architectural competitions may be categorized into idea, construction, preselected competitions etc. but it is possible to mention their restrictions. An important category is the division between student and professional competitions, generally competitions are held either for students or for professionals, therefore we may see a student competition category.

Especially student competitions aims to create discussion platforms through many ways.

Some national and important competitions are mentionable due to their recognition and continuity; ‘Archiprix Diploma Project Competition’ firstly constituted

by Dogan Hasol, Sevki Vanli, Hulya Yurekli, Ferhan Yurekli and organized since 1996, ‘MIMED Architecture Student Awards’ organized by Architectural Education Association (MIMED) since 2001, ‘City Dreams’ organized by Chamber of Architects since 2007, and ‘Critical Readings in Architecture’ organized by Architect’s Association since 2009. Moreover some competitions offers both student and professional categories for the same theme instead of a student-professional distinction. For example, Chamber of Architects, Ankara Division organize a competition with these two categories for Adana Stadium in 2013.1 Besides universities, institutions, associations and companies offers competitions and other events.

Construction in Student Competitions

In design and architectural student competitions many outcomes such as idea, visual representation, written representation etc. are created and may be discussed.

But generally there is hardly any physical/virtual construction/production of these outcomes. Every kind of design proposals is valuable, but lack of construction and production may decrease the variety of competition process. One important reason is that the competitions are not planned to allow such outcomes. Planning competitions which aims for construction phase might create more valuable competition process.

In this context, an international and recognizable example is Solar Decathlon which is organized by U.S. Department of Energy.2 In this competition multidisciplinary teams of students propose solar-powered houses, and in the last phase these proposals are built and operated by teams. The proposals of the students with various disciplines such as architecture, design, engineering etc. are evaluated within energy efficiency, lightning, ventilation, liveability, manufacturability, marketability etc.

Another and a national example is Sehit Ogretmen Nese Alten Elementary School Landscape Project Competition which is organized by a private investment 15 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

company.3 The competition was opened for landscape undergraduate students from third and fourth years, and the winning entry was planned to be constructed in summer 2014. There is some uncertainties about construction though, for example landscape architects and other professional might be needed. On the other hand it may be a radical example as a landscape student competition which aims also a construction phase. (There is still some uncertainties about construction as in february 2014.)

TEDxITU Competition Process4

The organization team of TEDxITU which is a special event for Istanbul Technical University by an independent and nonprofit organization series called TEDx announced a design competition for the conference hall and its surroundings, therefore the competition process has begun. The competition process can be examined in four phases; these are • Defining the competition properties, • Announcement of the competition and submissions of entries, • Jury evaluation, • Construction process.

Besides that feedbacks on competition, criticism and construction specific conditions are also important data.

The first phase of the competition is defining competition properties such as aim, representation techniques, deadlines etc. The main aim of competition is designing for conference hall and its surroundings temporally at the ‘key moments’ themed event TEDxITU. The expected features of proposals are being theme-specific, easy applicable, temporal, lightweight, economical, environmental friendly, not single-use, reusable, not persistence. There was no restriction for representation techniques and participant profile therefore the quality and quantity of proposals may be increased.

The winning entry or entries was planned to be constructed as a part of event. Then a competition folder which includes useful documents for competition for participants was created.

As the second phase the announcement of competition was made through website of event, social media and important architecture and design sites within an about one month deadline period. The competition posters were also hold at ITU’s various faculties.With the announcement of competition a folder which includes a photo album and a dwg file of space was provided for open access download. In regard to not limit submissions, there was no restriction about school, faculty, program class or individual - group works. Also for the same reason representation techniques were free of choice. At least the entries from participants are transmitted via the reporter.

Competitions and Architecture 16 Symposium

The third phase, jury evaluation was firstly done individually on thirteen submissions, the jury members criticised projects one by one and arranged their suggestions about winners. Secondly these critics are shared along all the members for the consensus and the jury report takes its final form. Three projects (10313, 77855 and NK004) were decided as winners, also one of them (NK004) was decided as the construction winner. Original ideas and approach to the theme are considered by the winning entries, besides the construction project is also considered within its physical conditions (e.g. easy construction methods, economical aspects and reuse potential etc.). After the evaluation, the jury report and all projects were exhibited at ITU Architecture Faculty, and also uploaded to the website as an archive.

Figure 1. A selection from the equivalent winner project 10313

Figure 2. A selection from the equivalent winner project 77855

The following explanation is cited from the jury report: ‘Project NK0004 was decided as a positive proposal by the following properties; an integrated approach from the entrance of Taskisla building into the conference hall, a protective approach to the original character of conference hall, consistency in itself, reuse potential of materials etc. Despite the lack of interpretation of theme and originality, being possibly the least problematical project among other entries forms the one of the equivalent winners and also the construction winner. According to the aim of competition and also lack of time, multiple projects were not chosen to be constructed. Therefore NK004 was selected to be the sole construction project in respect to its technical competence and ease of application.’ 17 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 3. A selection from the equivalent nner project and construction project NK004

Figure 4. A selection from the equivalent nner project and construction project NK004

In the last phase as the construction stage within an about three week period, the details about construction were discussed by the team members of project (Egemen Nardereli and Mert Kocaman, students from ITU Department of Architecture) in regard to the event budget.After that the team began to construct the project with some revisions such as decreasing the number of repetitive components. The core of project is grid structures formed by cardboard, spray paint and connector parts, information boxes, stickers and some additional elements. Moreover it was proposed that the boxes on stage may be used for video mapping. Those proposals were installed in the event morning by the team.

Figure 5. Two photos of the conference hall after the construction

Competitions and Architecture 18 Symposium

There were some problems in the construction phase, but these issues may also give opportunities for problem solving and are improving. Some of the main problems are • Necessity of revisioning due to time, budget, work force etc., • Lack of work force and difficulties to manage a common working period, • Inconsistency between the planned and spent time, • Lack of contribution of faculty, also thrown out materials with the reuse potential by the faculty management.

These problems are overcame and the main aims are reached, though the construction phase were tougher than expected. On the other hand it may become a current example for the construction possibility of student competitions.

Discussion

TEDxITU competition process which began after the discussions on the lack of construction in architectural and design competitions can be criticized in itself. At this point the other properties of competitions might be discussed to improvements, some salient features are as follows: • Not aiming towards a specific participants profile and not limiting the participations, • Variety and originality of competition themes, • No restrictions on representation techniques, economical and environmental friendly regulations, no participation fees, • Thinking on the archive problem of entries and building a competition memory and trying to form a discussion platform, • A balance between jury and competition and carefulness on evaluation process, • Competition platforms with the support of sponsors and valuable awards.

• These kinds of proposals on student competitions might enrich the design and architectural discussions.

Contemporary architectural debates are also on the rarity of competitions, unconstructed competition results, differentiation between winning entry and the constructed entry, bureaucratic issues on construction and so forth. Some of them might be seen on student competitions too. These issues on professional competitions may turn into usable data for the improvements of student competitions. The diversity of student workshops and the variety of think tanks could also contribute to the discussion platforms positively.

19 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

[1] www.adanamimod.org.tr/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/Kent_icin_Donusun_Ulusal_Mimari_Fikir_Y arismasi_Sartnam esi_2013.pdf [2] www.solardecathlon.gov [3] www.amplio.com.tr/peyzaj_yarismasi.html [4] www.tedxituyarisma.blogspot.com.tr

Competitions and Architecture 20 Symposium

THE POST-COMPETITION PROCESSES: Construction Performances of the Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Organized by the Local Governments between the Years of 2005-2013 Pelin Aykutlar1, Seçkin Kutucu2

1 Pelin Aykutlar, Research Assistant, University of Gediz, İzmir.

2 Ass. Prof. Dr. Seçkin Kutucu, Yaşar University, Department of Architecture, İzmir.

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to present an analysis of the construction performances and its discussion in the construction processes of the 1st price winner projects after the national and international architectural and urban design competitions launched by the local governments between the years 2005-2013 in Turkey.

In recent years, architectural competitions which are mostly launched by the local administrations, is a method preferred by the institution for acquisition of qualified architectural products and practices. The reasons why the opinions passing through the idea-filter of the institution opening the competition, appointed jury and competitors, not coming to realize has always been a topic of discussion. Although the competition mechanism is accepted as a method of acquiring quality living environments, buildings and run that way in modern countries, it has not become entirely effective in our country and the underlying causes of it should be discussed.

After each competition, a sequence of meetings begin between the institution helding the competition and the chosen author, based on conducting relations legitimately and finaliting the construction. Problems that are known as the post-competition process and that cannot always be defined objectively with every party’s own point of view might become an obstable for construction. The time, effort and money wasted until the moment of putting the idea aside lead to frustration and pessimism in the all architectural environment, particularly the institution and the author. The focus of the study, is to present an analysis of what causes problems between the institution and the author after the competition; in which stages and conditions these problems emerge and discuss the results.

The architectural competitions that are launched by the local governments and the processes followed between the years of 2005-2013 are discussed in the following sequential form: • Positions of the the institutions and their importance in the competition Competitions and Architecture 22 Symposium

processes; after the competition, mechanisms of operation in the construction process • The performance of institutions in the national and international architectural and urban competitions that were launched by the local governments • The construction performance of the competition ideas; the analysis and discussion of the reasons for not constructing Discussion of the reasons for giving up constructions of the projects that are awarded with the first prize and are accepted for construction is important. In order to understand the difficulties in the mechanism, detection of in which stages different negative consequences occur, such as business interruption, withdrawal or the handover and reveal and discussion of the location and causes of congestion, has been aimed through interviews with authors and institutions. Thus, a discussion platform is aimed to be created regarding the redefinition of the relationships between the administrations and the author in the competition mechanism.

Keywords: Local Governments and Architectural Competitions, Application Processes, Post-Competition Processes, Competition Architecture

Introduction

Architectural competitions, which serve the purpose of creating quality living environments, therefore are used as a method in the building production process, are professional practice areas where designs are developed, as well as discussion platforms of ideas. Competitions, due to the principle that all competitions have in their essence, aim for the acquaintance of “the best”, “most qualified” “the most appropriate solution” for need in a transparent and democratic way. In accordance with its definition, the competition aims to provide “appropriate environment” for “the development of the culture, art and the of environmental ​​values through competing, selection of the most economical, functional and innovative solution from multiple options, determination of the author and the promotion of the fine arts”, “development of the professions, establishment of ethical values​​, gains in international competitiveness” (Competitions Regulation, 2002). Within the scope of the competitions held, whereas the employer’s expectation from competitions is to achieve qualified projects; architects’ and the architectural environment’s expectation from the competition process is greater (TÜRKMEN 2009). This expectation may be possible to summarize in three axes.

23 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

1. The Discussion Grounds With the design recommendations developed under the competition subject, a rich discussion environment is created from the coexistence of different opinions and ideas that reflects the versatility of the architecture between the quality of the final product that the jury and the institution have been in search for and the selected project.

2. Exchange of Ideas, Developing a Design Language Particular for Competition Fikirlerin yarışması kadar, katılımcılar arasında düşünsel bir değiş tokuş da yaşanır. Tartışmaların sahne aldığı bu karşılıklı değişim, kollektif bir eğitim, mimarlık bilgisinin toplum içinde yaygınlaştırılması açısından ayrıca önemlidir.

3. Test Environment for Architectural Discourse It prepares the platform for developing discourse via practice in the architectural environment and revising these discourses through discussions that are made. Apart from that, the competitions create a quite important platform in terms of giving new practices the chance to set foot on the architectural scene via enabling participating young architects to run their designs and ideas in the competitive environment.

Along with the customs union, in our country where free movement of services is pronounced as much as of goods, competitive environment the competitions brought about makes it possible for all architectural practices to provide self-improvement.

As in the world, also in our country, the competitions are of great importance in acquirement of quality living environment, architectural design and constructions.

In recent years, the urban and architectural competitions mostly held by the local governments are also important. The local administrations, by launching competitions, whether local, national or international scale, create a incomparably higher debate platform regarding the formation and development of the architectural practices, as well as the development of architecture and urban environment. If we look from perspective of the institutions and the public, development in many ambiguous cases closely related with the procurement system and controversial areas in the organization of the urban environment and the public interest, can be achieved through competitions.

What is the performance of the competitions which we emphasize the importance and wish for their continuation and development, within the framework of the local governments in Turkey?

Competitions and Architecture 24 Symposium

Table 1. National, Regional and Invited Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Between the years of 2005-2013

Figure 1. National, Regional and Invited National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Between the years of 2005-2013

Table 2. Construction oriented Student and Idea Competition Between the years of 2005-2013

25 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 2. Construction oriented National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions, between the years of 2005-2013

The Competitions in Turkey

By the local governments adopting “build it with competition� approach, between the years 2005-2013, covering the period of last two local governments, including 110 national, 6 regional and 6 invited competitions, a total of 122 architecture and urban

Table 3. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions, Rates by Regions, between the years of 2005-2013

Table 4. Construction-oriented National Architectural and Urban Design Competition Rates, by Regions, between the years of 2005-2013

Competitions and Architecture 26 Symposium

Table 5. Rates of the Construction-oriented Architectural and Urban Design Competition Rates, by Institution, between the years of 2005-2013

design competitions were held in Turkey. As the national architecture and urban design competitions constitute the 90% of the competitions held, the invited competitions constitute 5% and the regional architecture and urban design competitions constitute the other 5%. (Table1)

Table 6. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations Rates, by Regions, between the years of 2005-2013

Out of 110 national architecture and urban design competitions; as 78 application-oriented competitions compose 71%, 32 student and idea competitions compose 29% of all competitions. (Table 2 ) Out of 78 construction-oriented architectural and urban design competitions, 45 competitions composing %56 of total, are organized by the local administrations, where 24 competitions, 30% at rate, are organized by other government agencies and 11 of them, 14% at rate, are organized by foundations and other private institutions.

27 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

(Table 5) As can be seen clearly on the tables, local governments in certain regions are in search for use of competitions mechanism in the quest to achieve quality architectural design and constuctions.

Despite the quest, the rate of realization of the competitions launched is also clear. The reasons why the opinions passing through the idea-filter of the institution opening the competition, appointed jury and competitors, not coming to realize has

Table 7. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations Rates, by Region, between the years of 2005-2013

Table 8. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations Rates, by Region, between the years of 2005-2013

always been a topic of discussion. What are reasons for the competition mechanism in our country not becoming entirely effective? What is the performance of local governments?

The Local Governments and Feasibility in Competitions

In Turkey, between the years of 2005-2013 covering the period of two local governments, 12 out of 45 contsruction-oriented architectural and urban design Competitions and Architecture 28 Symposium

competitions launched by the local governments were contstucted with a rate of 27%, as for the 33 of them, however, from the ongoing negotiation processes after the colloquium between the institution and the author, results could not be accomplished with a rate of 73% (Table 7, Table 11).

As it can be seen on table 9, between the years of 2005-2013, in total of 33 the competitions opened by the local administrations, the 18% withdrawed in the colloquium process, the 24% in the process of meeting with of the municipality, the 6%

Table 9. Number of Competitions launched between the years of 2005-2013

in the revision process after the consultation with municipality, the 9% in the process of the contract with the municipality, the 34% in the preparation of constuction drawings and the last 9% remained in the tendering process and could not be constructed.

Uncovering the reasons for the recantation of construction of the projects which were awarded the first prize and accepted to be constructed in the competitions held by local governments is important in the understanding of the challenges in the mechanism. Through the interviews with the winning project designers and the institutions, in which stage occurs different negative consequences as business interruption, withdrawal or handover and detection of the location of setbacks in the mechanism and their causes should be put forward.

29 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Table 10. The reasons for not constructing the National Architectural and Urban Design Competition Projects, Launched by the Local Administrations in Turkey, Between 2005-2013

Bu bağlamda, yarışma birincileri ile yapılmış görüşmeler sonucunda; uygulanamayan projeler araştırıldığında ortaya çıkan sebepler aşağıdaki başlıklar altında kategorize edilmiştir : In this context, as a result of interviews conducted with competition winners; the reasons found in investigation of the unconstructed projects are categorized under the following titles: 1. Change of the local management and the project policy 2. Failure to reach an agreement with the author.

3. The lack of the project budget.

4. Lack of construction budget.

5. Development plan change requirement.

6. The institution not owning the land On table 9, the number of competitions opened by the local governments shows a drop as the year progresses, between the years of 2005-2013. As for the table 10, the rate of non-contruction of the competitions show parallelism to this graph and is directly proportional to the number of competitions launched. As the years progress, as much as there is a decline in the number of the competitions, the nonconstruction rate also decreased to a certain extent. As for the table 11 and table 12,

Competitions and Architecture 30 Symposium

Table 11: Post Competition Processes of the National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Launched between 2005-2013 by the Local Administrations in Turkey, by years

31 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Table 12: Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations and were not Constructed, between the years of 2005-2013, by years

Competitions and Architecture 32 Symposium

when the competitions held by the local governments in these years examined in terms of the subjects; 15 competitions creating the 33% of all competitions, 13 municipal services building competitions constitute the 29% of these competitions. In this type of competitions that are the most popular in terms of subject, only 3 of 15 urban design competition, creating 20%, 5 of 13 municipal services building, 38% are either constructed or in the process of construction. When the reasons for not constructing the competition projects are examined, in the period of the last two local governments, the reasons are correlated with; the lack of the project budget of the local governments with a rate of 41%, the institution not owning the land with a rate of %15, not requring development plan change with a rate of %15, change of the local management and the project policy with a rate of %15, Failure to reach an agreement with the author with a rate of %11 and lack of construction budget with a rate of %3 ( Table 12 ). On the top of the list for not constucting the competition projects are, institution launching the competitions Though it does not provide competence in the terms of the budget, then is the land not belonging to the institution, failure to provide the required zoning changes and changes of the local government, project policy. Yet, When TMMOB Chamber of Architects Competition Regulations Section 3, Article 10 is examined, it will be seen that the required capabilities for a local government to be able to launch a competition; having competition form and type, subject, location designated and budget guaranteed are emphasized. However, as a result of superposing these articles with results of Table 9, it is cleary seen that there aren’t sufficient enforcements on institutions and a mechanism that investigates this control is needed.

After each competition that is launched, a sequence of meetings begin between the institution helding the competition and the chosen author, based on conducting relations legitimately and finaliting the construction. Defined as the post competition process and as much as the problems not always identified that every party sees from their point of view, wasted time, effort and money leads to frustration and pessimism in the all architectural environment, especially both in the institution, and the author.

In order to prevent this from happening, with the joint efforts of the Chamber of Architects and the Ministry of Public Works, which connect the institution and the way competition is held, competition regulations have been created regarding several years.

When TMMOB Chamber of Architects Competition Regulations Section 3 of Article 10 is examined, it will be seen that the required capabilities for a local government to be able to launch a competition; having competition form and type, subject, location designated and budget guaranteed are emphasized. However, as a result of superposing these articles with results of Table 9, it is cleary seen that there 33 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

aren’t sufficient enforcements on institutions and a mechanism that investigates this control is needed.

Conclusion and Suggestions

In consideration of the tables of the national architectural and urban design competitions which were launched by the local governments between the years 20052013, some recommendations regarding what to do can be summarized as follows: • In public spaces and in public buildings, the acquisition of a certain size and type of buildings and in the organization of the public urban areas, choosing the competition method should become an imperative. In discussing this, besides the institution interests, in the name of development of the built environment, social mission of architecture and significance to society, the public interest of having it with its priority and its intellectual context must also be protected.

• In acquisition of qualified public buildings, the local governments’ requirement for referring to the competitions should be included in the law and should be made compulsory.

• Public buildings built in this way should be kept in scope of the “Law for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works”. The author rights should be supported, building as a product of qualified opinion and a work of art should be maintained.

• When local governments develop their project subjects within the framework of their actions, they should work with expert consultants, a sustainable development model should be adopted, principle of continuity should be adopted in the government policies and the applications realized with resources of the public, it should not be interrupted or spoiled by the new management coming after the former one.

• The competition mechanism should not be discussed in a small segment of people. If we believe in the competition mechanism, support must be provided by public and even it should be possible to carry out discussions in public. For this, clarity across all institutions is necessary.

• It must be accepted by the professional environment that the competitions are also a business is distribution mechanism, qualifications must be sought and the employer must be able to prevent the victimization of the institution. For this, professional liability insurance system can be applied.

• Administrations should be able to take a counseling service as well from the author of the selected competition project. For this purpose, a budget intended for consultance of buildings and situations that require expertise should be Competitions and Architecture 34 Symposium

allocated. A different counseling and support mechanism must be established also for the younger and less experienced authors, the chamber of architects must be able to observe the process.

• In order to support local government’s processes of project and building acquisition through competitions, in the name of achieving sustainable environments, development agencies and government support may be provided. The support may include financial support for the consultant especially in the planning of preparatory periods. Similar support can also be provided for the consultant support after the competition.

• • Local governments should also open competitions for small-scale buildings in order to improve the urban living environments and contribute to the development of the local architectural offices in a competitive environment.

• • Local governments should spend a preparation period for the competition, should have budget and zoning competence and should establish a monitoring mechanism that is open to the public throughout the competition process. danışman için mali desteği kapsayabilir. Benzer bir destek yarışma sonrası danışman desteği için de verilebilir.

• Yerel yönetimler, kentsel yaşam çevrelerini geliştirmek adına küçük ölçekli yapılar için de yerel yarışmalar açmalı, yerel mimarlık ofislerinin rekabetçi bir ortamda gelişimine kamu adına katkı koymalıdırlar.

• Yerel yönetimler yarışma için bir hazırlık dönemi geçirmeli, bütçe ve imar yeterliliklerine sahip olmalı ve yarışma süreci boyunca kamuya açık bir izleme mekanizması oluşturmalıdırlar.

35 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

Table 1. National, Regional and Invited Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Between the years of 2005-2013 Table 2. Construction oriented Student and Idea Competitions, between the years of 2005-2013 Table 3. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions between the years of 2005-2013, Ratios by Region Table 4. Construction-oriented National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions between the years of 2005-2013, Ratios by Region Table 5. Construction-oriented Architectural and Urban Design Competitions between the years of 2005-2013, Ratios by Institution Table 6. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations between the years of 2005-2013, Ratios by Region Table 7. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations between 2005-2013, Ratios by Region Table 8. Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations and been Constructed, between the years of 2005-2013, Ratios by Region Table 9. Post Competition Processes of the National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Launched by the Local Administrations in Turkey Between the Years of 2005-2013 Table 10. The reasons for not constructing the National Architectural and Urban Design Competition Projects, Launched by the Local Administrations in Turkey, Between 2005-2013 Table 11: Post Competition Processes of the National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Launched between 2005-2013 by the Local Administrations in Turkey, by years Table 12: Architectural and Urban Design Competitions launched by the Local Administrations and were not Constructed, between the years of 2005-2013, by years Figure 1: National, Regional and Invited Architectural and Urban Design Competitions Between the years of 2005-2013, By region Figure 2: Construction oriented National Architectural and Urban Design Competitions, between the years of 2005-2013, by regions http://www.arkitera.com/files/haber/12397/yarisma-raporu-2012-baski.pdf http://www.arkitera.com/files/haber/19424/2013-yarisma-raporu.pdf *Competitions are gathered from the Chamber of Architects, kolokyum.com, yarışmaylayap.com and Arkitera * Interviews were held with the project authors.

Competitions and Architecture 36 Symposium

LARGE-SCALE ARCHITECTURE DEMANDS of the PUBLIC: Kartal and Küçükçekmece Projects Güven Erten*, Efe Gönenç*

Contemporary Urbanism and Urban Administrations in Architecture Problems

Regardless of its political and administrative risks, reasons for the strengthening of urban administrations rapidly increase all over the world. The struggle to find the balance between natural resources and the needs of the rapidly increasing population lies at the bottom of the problems of the world we live in. The new problem in the humankind’s struggle for life is the environmental risks of the rapidly growing cities with increasing population density and the declining economies.

Reducing the inequality generated by the globalization and eliminating its disadvantages occupy an important place among the modern urban planning problems. The world metropolises of today race to provide their vital resources from different locations of the earth, for the purpose of fulfilling their own vital needs. The resources, particularly at the underdeveloped parts of the world, are consumed in order to feed the metropolises through an unnamed urban-rural colonization.

As for many cities emerging in the periphery of the developed cities, these are being packed with commercial real estates, expected to bring income at a fast pace.

Their economical balances are subjected to non-sustainable new dynamics, and become vulnerable to the social and the environmental risks. Today, as the western economies fail to find a way out from the economic bottleneck they have fallen in, due to the recurring recessions, we cannot ignore the negativities to be created on the world by a setback to be experienced in the medium term by the rapidly growing eastern economies.

In brief, subjects of modern architecture and urban planning require the construction of a multidimensional and collective capacity. Today, there is a truth shown to us by the crises occurring in the European environment and ongoing all around the world. No matter how international the problems are, no matter how these problems require international initiatives and settlements, it is always the urban Competitions and Architecture 38 Symposium

administrations that are to develop suggestions and to come through. The corporate set-up to be developed and the steps to be taken by the urban administrations those achieving the relevant awareness will give hope to our lives and assure the future.

Administrations of world metropolises should elude popular public administration tendencies. They have to achieve strengthened administrative structure and resources, and administrative staff capable to take initiative. Istanbul is also a metropolis that needs to undergo such change.

Turkey’s Agenda

A dialectic should be constructed in Turkey between the architecture and the public administration. We further need the effective presence of the public administrations in architectural production, both in the private sector projects and the projects of the public sector. We cannot argue the public administrations protect the architecture, the public interests when they demand, and generate common good merely by enforcing the Public Procurement Legislation. On the contrary, reinforcement and reconstruction of the justice palaces, municipality buildings, schools and hospitals, metro stations, roads, bridges, metrobus stations, mass housing, urban renewals, urban transformations, development of natural and ecologic areas, protection of the forests and the basins, rendering the cities resistant against economic crises and natural disasters, are more complex than to be merely seen as a public service procurement problem in a narrow frame. In the 21st century, modern city administrations should be able to present opportunities on a much larger plane, in association with architecture and city planning.

A Lost Thrill: Istanbul Metropolitan Planning (IMP)

Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and Urban Design Center (IMP), which was established in the year 2005, is a fairly important public administration initiative in the recent past of Turkey, in displaying the architecture activities both in the field of the urban planning and in the city-scale. Unfortunately, the center could never become institutionalized, as it became further inactive as years passed, without ever having the chance to strengthen its technical and administrative substructure.

Although it was a hope, as it could provide an opportunity to bring academic knowledge together with professional capacities, the collective working conditions of academic staff and professional staff were subjected to a problematic management.

By courtesy of center’s manager Hßseyin Kaptan, the malfunctions were eliminated, academic researches and professional activities were balanced, oriented and brought to an issue.

39 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

While it was desired for the IMP to be effective in solution of the urban problems of Istanbul, it became further ineffective and lost, due to the ambiguity of its functioning within the public administration systems. However, the researches it had performed, the plan documents it had issued and the urban design projects it had conducted, had a broad repercussion in Turkish public, as the national and the international urban design competitions it organized.

IMP was able to produce the “plan, program and project togetherness”, which doesn’t have many equals in the urban planning history of Turkey. However, it failed to be lasting. The presence of IMP was subjected to constant questioning, since it was perceived as a competitor and alternative of the municipality’s existing planning and project planning units. The approach of the planning, design and architecture environment, suspecting the legitimacy of the activities the IMP carried out, was also effective in IMP’s failure “to become institutionalized”. Moreover, its was subjected to narrow-minded analogies such as “Istanbul Marketed as Product”, and it was perceived as an establishment used as a cat’s paw by ill-intentioned parties. Under these circumstances, the IMP was unable to protect its own skeleton crew, and inevitably disappeared, without being able to share the positive functions it carried out with the public. It was choked in its own cradle. When the urban planning and the urban architecture processes of Istanbul and of Turkey were subjected to after 2006, are taken into consideration, it might be reconsidered how much the society needs a formation like IMP. Here we will focus on the competition process of two important urban projects, carried out in the years of 2005 and 2006, leaving the place, emphasis and influence of IMP within the urban planning and the urban architecture of Turkey as subject to another paper. Thus, it will be possible to discuss the tools, the possibilities, the management capacity and the implementation of public sector’s demand of large-scale urban projects under competition rules and traditions.

Being Able to Bring Together Urban Problems with Architecture: Kartal and Küçükçekmece Projects

IMP’s desire to describe the macro-scale problems of Istanbul, as an architecture and design problem was cyristalized with the Kartal and Küçükçekmece competitions.

These competitions are steps taken by the public administration to anonymize the problem and make it claimed by the society, in order to be able to generate solutions to the structural problems of the city.

As expressed in many academic articles commenting on and criticizing the urban development of Istanbul, these projects were not built as extensions of the Competitions and Architecture 40 Symposium

neoliberal policy. On the contrary, there is common good in these projects, in raising awareness for the speedy elimination of the city’s main problems and in developing a social process.

Kartal Sub-center Project was planned in order to take the single-centered urban functioning of Istanbul, which is increasingly advancing towards the natural areas in the north, under control, and to orient it to the boundaries of the city. As for the Küçükçekmece Coastline Project, it is a public commitment displayed in order for a city to reclaim its natural areas, which is presently consuming its natural areas.

This paper will criticize the following points of these two projects: • The basic targets of the projects were misused and their main axes were shifted with compromises and abuses.

• Their common goods were forgotten, and the progress is behind the expected acceleration, on a course distant from their fundamentals, • The projects are no more owned administratively and politically by the public administration, • While the aim was to organize these as urban projects, these projects, particularly the Kartal Project, was transformed in time to a real estate and construction project of the private sector.

The Method-Principal Dilemma: The Lack of Urban Project Management

The ongoing discussions on Kartal and Küçükçekmece Competitions focus on the fact that these projects are only open to international teams, and Turkey’s planning and architecture representatives are excluded. In contrast to popular wisdom, there was nothing intentional here. Both projects were planned with the aim to make use of the architecture knowledge of Turkey and the world equally. An open competition, which allows both national and international representatives participate, was suggested in the frame of both UIA norms and the multiple-staged competition models.

Contrary to popular belief, these processes were not carried out behind closed doors where the Chamber of Architects and other architecture organizations of Turkey were excluded. In the end, it was the Mayor’s decision that the competition was exclusively open to international architecture firms. The IMP was the party most uncomfortable with the fact that the competition was not open to local planning and architecture actors. For the main concern of IMP was not to participate to the competition and take the project, but the organization of a strong project management following the competition and the urban project application models in Turkey becoming diversified.

It is the development of technical, corporate, financial and expert workforce capacities 41 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

through large-scale urban projects.

Unfortunately, seeing the Kartal and Küçükçekmece competitions merely as an architecture project acquirement problem caused the process to be stuck in a narrow place. In fact, the reorganization of urban parts of Istanbul in time, building of transformation processes, became a fairly vivid subject of discussion, as it was envisaged. However, unfortunately, adequate and qualified public-private partnerships and project management structures on the subject are lacking today. On the contrary, the demolish-and-build implementations of contractor firms, performing business with peer arrangements, are pointed out as examples of urban transformation, due to the architectural and planning-related ignorance. The contemporary city planning of Turkey, is now fell behind, when compared to the effectiveness of the early 2000’s, while it was supposed to break through and display examples of good practice.

It could have been much more meaningful to discuss the Kartal and Küçükçekmece competitions until now, as organization of urban projects and problem of administrative and financial managements of urban projects, instead of a problem of local and foreign architects.

Unfinished Project Organization - Non-applicable Support Programs

During the planning process of Istanbul in the year 2006, it was discussed how the urban development would be affected if the financial environment becomes dynamic again and the financial sources increase after the crisis experienced in Turkey in the year 2001. It was predicted that the private sector corporate capitals, which focused on interest rates through investing on Domestic Government Bonds until the year 2005, would gradually orient towards the real estate market. The planning agenda of Istanbul also included the necessity to orient the foreign capital inflow, which began in the year 2006.

The Metropolitan Area Real Estate Markets Program, developed by the IMP within the scope of its strategic plan, described a series of actions in order for the urban development to be positively affected from increasing financial accumulation.

It was aimed for the urban areas not to witness speculative moves, and households not to be subjected to high-cost housing loans. Today, unfortunately, we experienced a process, which was the total opposite of these goals. National and international capitals acted randomly in a chaotic environment. Instead of controlling and orienting the relevant process, the public administration almost stood idle. As a matter of fact, in time, it can even manipulate the urban development and transformation processes in the disaster-risky areas, by triggering a speculative demolish-build process on account of transformation.

However, the Metropolitan Area Real Estate Markets Program, which was Competitions and Architecture 42 Symposium

developed as a tool complementing the main strategic plan in the year 2006, describing the urban development areas where the energy of the private sector would be channeled.

It aimed to orient the finance sector institutions in investments and project loans.

Particularly the Kartal Project is a focus area of the Metropolitan Area Real Estate Markets Program. The IMP suggested the Kartal Project to become subject to a mixed economic organization. It preferred its management by a project implementation authority to be structured in the frame of public-private partnership. The IMP also presented international examples on this subject to the public administration.

Unfortunately, the Kartal Project had to progress under a distant responsibility of the public among these models. The organization of landowners, and their ability to express themselves under the roof of an association, was an extremely important step to begin. However, this association was devoid of the orientation and leadership of the public administration necessary for it to gain power and to turn into a real estate partnership. The association found itself in a functioning limited to financing the acquirement of the architectural project and following-up the preparation of the development plans. As for the project management of the process, it unfortunately fell wide of the scope of an urban project organization.

The public ignored the architecture and urban planning subjects, and focused almost only on the criticism of the scheme developed by Zaha Hadid. The project was seen as a neoliberal city action and was excluded. People continued to discuss the process as a blow dealt to the Turkish architecture. However, the negativities of this process not only to architecture but also to the future of the city and the faith in the public administrations were left unexpressed, as the process was not related to the ownership, leadership and efficiency of the public.

Today, the technical and administrative capacities of urban administrations in Turkey, to orient large-scale projects, are questioned. The municipalities’ role is limited merely to approval of the zoning plans and control of the peers. Nearly all authorities and activities are being collected in the central administration units. Our local administration system is experiencing a concussion in terms of city planning and urban architecture. In such an environment, the private sector displays a great effort to gain developmental right on a parcel-scale and to start the construction process as soon as possible. Large-scale urban projects are put into practice without being presented to the public and being discussed. Many urban interventions, with the purpose of rent, harming the social patterns and conflicting with the cultural past of the cities, are questioned by the society.

Today, Kartal Project has failed to gain the aimed acceleration, on a course distant from its principles, as a result of leaving the political and administrative ownership 43 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

of the public administration. The established association is in no position to have a capacity for developing an urban project. The development plan approval processes between local administrations being vastly ineffective, along with the speculative acts of the land market, damage the purpose of the project. Since the project failed to establish dialogue with the public, it drew reaction and was not embraced by public.

As for the planner and architect experts involved in the process, instead of displaying any activity in order for the project to be redeveloped as an urban project, they prepare certain documents to describe the norms of the construction and claim the project will turn out fine. The public administration is almost fully uninvolved in the project.

There is a gradually increasing pressure for making the parcel-scale plans approved, generating architectural projects and initiating the construction process.

As for the Küçükçekmece Project, without even being subject to all these discussions, it had to remain in the design phase. However, such a special area, where the sea and lake meet, reclaiming its natural characteristics is a planning and architecture thrill of universal level. In the year 2006, Küçükçekmece Lake and Basin were about to lose their natural characteristics and to disappear due to extreme pollution, which required emergency intervention. Since the basin was to be relieved from urbanization pressure and to be subjected to ecologic restoration, it was expected for it to be a planning and organization agenda of first priority of tbe public administration. On the contrary, since the above-mentioned year, let alone the reclaiming of the coastline where the lake meets the sea, the northern side of Küçükçekmece Lake has been the scene for the densest housing movements of the city of Istanbul. Istanbul was subject to urban sprawl after the boundaries of the Metropolitan Municipality were accepted as the Provincial boundaries in the year 2005, and this development gave a new status to the area containing the Küçükçekmece Lake. The area, known as the periphery of the city, now becomes the center of gravity of the city, with its rapidly increasing population.

Housing stock, having the capacity to accommodate around 1 million people was produced, at Kayabaşı, Resneli, Ispartakule, Altınşehir, Başakşehir, Bahçeşehir, Ayazma, Oyak, Onurkent, İkitelli and Halkalı. It is the most extensive housing process of Istanbul’s contemporary urbanization history. The scale was lost, as the real demand was exceeded.

The dominant emerging pattern is housing estates lacking urban spaces. The urban quality of these settlements, lacking urban centers, social and technical equipage, cultural areas and recreation services, are questioned. The housing stock produced is sold in consideration of extremely high prices, within a speculative real estate market, and the consumer loans provided to households bring additional financial burdens.

Competitions and Architecture 44 Symposium

The relevant process is not sustainable in the medium and long term. In every part of the metropolitan area, the labor force-residence area balances are getting damaged in a wrecking manner. Transportation and technical infrastructure services are not coordinated with the urban development. The current landscape is fully the opposite of the controlled and graded development and restoration of the natural areas goals set back in the year of 2006.

Conclusion

Everybody complains from the unnerving state of state’s bureaucracy concerning project service procurement while the public sector demans architecture and city planning. As for the contribution to the development of architecture and the progress of the society, to be made by the public’s demand of architecture via competitions where equal rights are defined to the architectural environment, it is expressed and emphasized virtually on every possible occasion.

When it is taken into account the fact that the airports, terminals, ports, stations, museums, public buildings, squares, parks, coastlines, historical and archeological parks and ancient settlements, both reflect and carry into the future the common culture of the society, the architecture is a culture transmitter. For this reason, the function demanded by public administrations from architecture is actually the generation of common interest.

However, while demanding the architecture, the public administrations found themselves in a quite bulky tender system. They see it has to overcome complex procedures while demanding project acquirement as a service. Mostly, in order to avoid these obstacles, and in order to relieve itself from the duty to duly account to the auditing mechanisms of the state, the public administrations apply to inured methods.

In the end, we encounter monotone and ordinary spaces and buildings, repeating themselves and failing to establish the dialogue with their place of location. Sometimes we wince from the situation and even fail or struggle to express our dissatisfaction.

However, the legal and administrative tools of public administrations for making good use of architecture and city planning as a source are not always weak. There is always an opportunity to take the legal and administrative measures to institutionalize more functioning methods. It is also the source for the development and presence of the public administration idea. Public administrations provide service to improve the conditions and the means. They work to solve the problems. It is hard to imagine public administrations that are making conditions and means more difficult, causing the gains to regress and producing new problems. Effective public administrations are always needed in order for the society to benefit from architecture and city planning 45 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

in the best manner.

This paper gives a new insight to Kartal and Küçükçekmece competitions, as an unrealized public initiative in Turkey’s city planning and architecture history. Public administrations should always be in search of novelties, in order for the society to be able to benefit from architecture, city planning, design and planning services in the best manner. The IMP in the year 2005 was not a wrong step. It only was incomplete.

The problem areas of modern architecture and city planning have widened increasingly. The new problem area in the humankind’s struggle for life is the environmental risks of the rapidly growing cities with increasing population density and the weakening economies. Administrations of world metropolises should elude popular public administration tendencies. They have to achieve strengthened administrative structure and resources, and administrative staff capable to take initiative. Istanbul is also a metropolis that needs to undergo such change.

Istanbul’s need for technical units that are able to work in an extensive manner on the subjects of architecture and urban planning increases gradually. The capacity of the city administration should develop in parallel with the relevant need, and the city administration should protect and strengthen its staff. It shall not take back the steps it has taken.

The application processes of the Kartal and Küçükçekmece Projects show us the vital importance of several subjects.

For example, we should demand the large-scale city projects to be decided through competitions, to progress during the subsequent design and development stages with open and transparent design panels under the initiative of public administrations, and to make these a tradition.

We cannot expect the public administrations acting in large-scale projects with a distant responsibility and limit themselves to a type of architecture commissariat controlling whether the peer dimensions are exceeded. We always need the public administrations during the design and development processes of urban projects, in order to prevent the projects to gain a new content and appearance with difference motives, after being placed beyond closed doors, and in order to protect and defend the designs. Besides, while our development legislation is so open to abuse and so vulnerable, the efficient responsibility of the public administrations are our sole grounds, in order to avoid applications exploiting the zoning ambiguities.

Competitions and Architecture 46 Symposium

47 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

The RELATIONSHIP of THE POLITICAL the POWER and THE LEGITIMACY, URBAN PLANNING and URBAN DESIGN COMPETITIONS in THE CONTEXT of DAILY POLITICAL RELATIONS: The Case of Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara SavaĹ&#x; Zafer Ĺžahin

Ress. Asst. at Atilim University, Public Administration and Political Science

Abstract

Urban planning and urban design competitions can be recognized as a part of the public relations practices exercised by municipalities in order to gain currency, a way of generating numerous design alternatives with less effort and resources, a means to enhance knowledge and experience of technocrats, an embodiment of the attempt to gain creative products with the amateur spirit in a professionalized world, or all of the foregoing and even more. This, in fact, has become controversial in connection with two crucial notions, which are the political power and the legitimacy.

Planning and urban design competitions ensure legitimation of the established order by means of a method, which is believed to be objective, on one hand, and enable physical visibility of decisions within a framework designated by the political power, on the other. To have an idea about how planning and urban design competitions have been related to the notions of political power and legitimacy in the historical process, it is essential to scrutinize how and by which methods a city and public spheres in a city are shaped as a publicity. Representing the face value of the form of political representation of existing local governments, their internal organizations and their relations with capital accumulation processes, these political relationships bring competitions to the forefront with the intention to create a different legitimacy mechanism, particularly in formalization of publicities beyond a single building scale in the city. On this regard, it is possible to say that competitions have begun to bear a rather different meaning in the political process than in the course of design, which sets the ground for the competitions basically in terms of the purpose of the competitions, the influence of the political power over the competition process, the influence of occupational organizations over the process and the potential of the competitions to carry into action. This report aims to present a basic theoretical framework in this sense and then discuss the relationship between the last planning and urban design competitions organized in early 2000s by Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara, which Competitions and Architecture 48 Symposium

has not organized any competition nearly for the last ten years, and political power and its legitimation with a critical approach.

Keywords: Competition, Political Power, Legitimacy, Daily Political Relations, Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara.

1. Introduction

When the historical background of planning and urban design competitions is studied, it is observed that experiences related to the competition process have accumulated in various contexts, influencing the occupational formation and the functioning of occupational organizations. Today, this influence defines the functioning of competitions, their relation with the political power and the impact they create (Ĺžahin, 2011). To have an understanding of meanings ascribed to competitions and the social position of competitions, it is essential to address how daily power relations and the practice of competitions go hand in hand. This may help us reveal the inevitable relationships between the political power conditions whereby the daily life is reproduced and conditions whereby competitions are reproduced. In a closer look on these relationships, the issue of why competitions are not organized gains as much importance as the issue of why they are not organized. This paper will primarily set forth a basic theoretical framework in terms of daily political relations and the political power, and then address the example of Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara, which has a historical significance in terms of planning and urban design competitions but has not launched such competitions for nearly a decade, with a discussion on validity of this theoretical framework.

2. A Theoretical Framework Attempt on The Competitions and The Daily Political Relations

SAccording to Sagalyn (2006), there is always an explicit or implicit political agenda lying beneath the search for new design options, innovative solutions and new urban visions in competition practices. It is possible in the daily course of competition to make certain spatial changes for such political agenda, adopting a relatively impartial attitude meanwhile. In this sense, architecture competitions and urban design and planning competitions differ from each other. As different kinds of knowledge and skills from various disciplines are needed for the solution of an urban problem in planning and urban design competitions and this involves a serious intervention in the urban structure, competitions lead to a new arrangement in the urban power structure with their results in the daily life practice. On the other hand, competitions

serve for numerous purposes also in the daily political process. Competitions can be utilized to meet the need for sources as well as for the solution of political problems or may themselves can be used as a political opposition. Sagalyn (2006) classifies these purposes under six titles: • To create a political ground for an application in any urban subject or for a meaning to be changed • To create a political ground as a support mechanism in geopolitical subjects (the olympics, EXPO, etc…)

• As a means for the political opposition to defend or protect a symbolic icon or bring forward a new idea against those in power • To share the responsibility for complicated problems involving the entire city with other political forces • To share the responsibility for political gridlocks • To be able to mobilize sources needed for the area subject to competition The element, which specifies the practices of competitions and outer contours of daily political relations, is the nature of competitions as a sphere of public policy.

It is possible to say that competitions, if handled as a public policy, consist of many stages. Some part of these stages define the conditions under which the competitions take place while some part thereof manifest the internal processes of competitions.

National legislations and traditions applicable upon competitions represent external

Figure 1. Competition in terms of the Public Policy Processes - The Cycle of Daily Political Affairs

Competitions and Architecture 50 Symposium

conditions, while the method and results of competitions refer to internal processes (Collyer, 2004; Nasar 1999). In this sense, it is feasible to address the relationship of competitions with the political power and daily political processes within a cycle (Figure 1).

The general framework of competitions is often defined at the national scale.

As for international competitions, it is necessary to guarantee their recognizability in the national legal system too. The method and legal status of competitions, prizes and monetary rewards and standards are set out in the national legislation regarding competitions. The relationship of competitions with the daily political sphere is, in a sense, built by the national legislation regarding competitions within the context of the public policy.

The execution of competitions as a public policy primarily starts with the identification of the area to be opened for competition and of the problematique. The decision upon the analysis of an urban area or problem on the public platform through competition is a complicated issue, which has yet to be debated adequately. Whereas in practice, this issue constitutes a crucial stage whereby the relations are built between the political power and the area of competition, and even, the composition of jurors.

Recognition of an urban area as a problem is usually a situation, which is inherent in the program of the political power or is voiced by the actors in the city. However, the decision to open such problematic area for competition may usually be linked to alliances between the parties in power and actors of bureaucracy or professional actors of architecture and planning. Competitions offer an area of legitimacy for the political power while providing academicians with the opportunity to gain recognizability and promotion, and offering bureaucracy the potential to secure its position. The composition of politicians, bureaucrats, academicians and the self- employed in the jury is an indicator of the network of these complicated relationships. Once the jury is formed, the relationship of the political power with the competition process relatively will weaken. The political power will have less and less influence over the formation of the competition specifications by the jury, execution of the competition reporting process and the decision-making process of the jury. However, there might be circumstances in which the political power is also a juror and they somehow convey their preferences in the jury selection process.

Once the winners are chosen by the jury, a different political process will begin in the public coverage of the results of competition and in the construction process.

The competitors who have lost the competition will start to question the competition by means of their own professional networks and other networks with which they are in interaction1; meanwhile a distressful administrative process will begin, primarily in 51 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

terms of payment of the jury members’ fees and the competition awards. Winners of competitions are often involved in with the hope that the construction drawings will also be prepared by themselves. However, in case the winner’s project is not favoured or cannot be perceived by the political power, such project might be subject to inattentive treatment of the political power in terms of preparation of the constuctions drawings and construction of the projects. The recent increase in such type of complaints can be interpreted as an indicator of this situation2. It can even be argued that the political power have created the desired effect and gained the desired legitimacy upon finalization of the competition, and may not always be interested further constuction.

Moreover, an examination of the jury evaluation reports for the competitions in recent years reveals that there has been an increase in reports, which make the constuction stages harder for the winning projects3, or in the number of competitions held for idea projects and student projects with the intention to escape such liability.

Whether constructed or not, competition projects may pave the way for new competitions with their results. Experience, legitimacy and recognizability gained regardless of the level of success cause the political powers to perceive competitions as an apparent means to acquire projects. The planning and urban design competitions have a special status in this sense. The competition projects often covering various phases and sub-project naturally bring forward new competitions up for discussion.

However, continuity of competitions is directly related to the continuity of the political power, especially for the local governments. In case of a change in the party in power, this continuity may be interrupted, as the perception towards competitions needs to be renewed. In the continuity of the political power, competitions may even produce effects, which will cause, in the medium and long term, amendments to and re-definition of the national legislation.

As is seen, there are large number of factors determining the relations between the formation of daily political power relationships and the competition practices.

Nevertheless, this may be generally examined under the titles of “the purpose of the political power in opening up a competition”, “the impact of intervention by the political power on the competition process”, “the role of occupational organization in the competition process” and “practicability of competitions”. The purpose of the political power in launching a competition can be classified as ideological, for legitimation of the political power or for creating a political ground; while the role of intervention by the political power in the competition process can be classified as high or low, the role of occupational organization as influential or weak, and practicability of competitions as high or low. Such type of classification may help evaluation of a competition experience of any country or city with relatively different dimensions.

Competitions and Architecture 52 Symposium

3. Ankara in the View of the Historical Relationship of Planning and Urban Design Competitions Organized by the Political Power in Turkey

When the history of planning and urban design competitions in Turkey is examined, there is seen to be a turning point for competitions with the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. The cities in Turkey, primarily Ankara, have been transformed into a public works and planning experience reflecting the nation- state ideology throughout the process initiated by the proclamation of Ankara as the capital city.

One of the most important steps in this frame is the Development Plan Competition in Ankara (Tankut, 1993). Here, it can be argued that the fundamental purpose of the parties founding the Republic was a search for the nation- state ideology and for legitimation of the replacement of the ancient capital Istanbul by Ankara. The competitions that often took place at the beginning of the century can be said to have been highly influential over public opinion in terms of the generation of an idea about competitions. As a matter of fact, the idea of acquiring Ankara Development Plan by means of a competition was brought forward by founders of the Republic. The entire process; from the announcement of the requirements of the competition until the selection of the winning projects, was carried out by the bureaucrats and the politicians (Tankut, 1993). Although the political power seemed dominant over the competition, imitation of the West by the ideology founding the Republic (BozdoÄ&#x;an, 2002), and the belief in planned urban development resulted in fairly less intervention in the content of the competition project, and an effort to put the winning plan into practice within the bounds of possibility. This very first experience can be said to have a rather weak relationship between the political power and competition.

Ankara Development Plan Competition remained influential until 1960s; this competition experience had impacts on development plan competitions held in many other cities. However, two important events have prevented an increase in the number of planning and urban design competitions. The first one is the statist perspective predominant until the early 1950s. The statist modernity adopted a strict imitation of the West beginning from the second half of 1930s (Tekeli, 1998), preferring to order architecture and planning projects to European architects instead of holding architecture and planning competitions. The impacts of this approach gave rise to a reaction by Turkish architects. Sayar (2004), quoting Mimar Dergisi (Architect Journal) dated 1933, mentions that the Turkish architects of the period defended the competition method against contracting work to foreign architects. The second important event is the extensive fragmental interventions in the cities, which began with the ruling of the Democratic Party in 1950s. As a result, the intervention of the state and bureaucracy 53 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

substantially manifests itself in competitions. The statements regarding the practices performed a few days after the announcement of winners, as reported by Nahit Yücel and Raşit Uybadin, who were the first prizewinners in the International Ankara Development Plan Competition held in 1955, verify the situation. Although the jury had internationally recognized members such as Abercombie and Piccinato, a number of changes were made on the winner project immediately after the selection.

The period from 1960s until 1980s witnessed the obvious transformation of architecture and planning into a market and a professional organization in Turkey, and formation of a technocratic structure in the state. Liberal economic policies following transition to the multi-party system accelerated service procurements of the government in fields of architecture and planning; planned economic developments and import substitution policies adopted after 1960s extended the government’s control over the architecture area and urbanization process. Foundation of the Chamber of Architects in 1954, opening of the City and Regional Planning Department of Middle East Technical University in 1967, and various arrangements for competitions in 1960s and 70s by the Ministry of public works, Ministry of Planning and Settlement and the Provincial Bank all accelerated the process of institutionalization of competitions held in this period. Sayar (2004) calls this predominant approach of the period as “technocrat modernism”. The bureaucracy gained higher and more profound influence over the competition within the twenty-year period full of political turmoils following the military intervention in 1960. Occupational organizations criticized and occasionally protested the approach of bureaucracy during this period. However, the disputes were resolved by reconciliation, beginning from 1970s. On the other hand, this reconciliation had striking results in terms of competitions. In an environment overwhelmed by the state intervention in the public, competitions nearly became an extension of the bureaucratic process, with results imitative of international models and almost reduced to typical projects instead of creative ideas (Sayar, 2004).

The developments that have taken place since 1980s until today are in parallel with the developments worldwide. An environment with neo-liberal policies implemented, less state intervention in public, and increase in powers and responsibilities of local governments have eventually led to an increase in the number of competitions; urban design competitions have considerably increased in number while planning competitions remained constant (Figure 2). The relations between the daily power relations and the competition practices were intertwined during this period in which competitions were institutionalized in real terms and the national legislation on competitions matured. Competitions have performed remarkable functions in terms of creating a political ground and demanding resources for both Competitions and Architecture 54 Symposium

the central government and the local governments within the last three decades witnessing structural reforms in public management and often under the coalition government. Perhaps the most important characteristics of the post-80s period is the status of competitions transformed into processes mainly initiated and executed by local governments as per the national legislation today. Considerable increases were observed in the number of competitions especially in the period between 19851995, the rising period for the Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi) and the social democrats, in which the urban infrastructure of metropolitan areas was renovated by authorization of local governments and major projects were constructed, and between 1995- 2005, the rising period for the conservative Islamist local governments. Despite the increase in the number of competitions and institutionalization of competition experience, competitions still occupy less volume than projects and plans acquired by the ruling parties through tenders and subcontracting after 1980. Although the number of competitions seems to have increased, this increase is insignificant when compared to plans created by the free market and local governments’ own departments in the last three decades in which the urban structure has undergone dramatic changes. The only exemption was the urban design competitions. The number of urban design competitions has gradually been increasing since the state departments and the free market lack adequate capacity to bring forward creative projects in real terms. However, as stated by Sayar (2004), competitions have become an extension of the market mechanism; they have become isolated from the ideological content and gained a different form of instrumentalism.

When the nearly nine-decade life cycle of the Republic of Turkey is examined, planning and urban design competitions are seen to have initially functioned as a means of non-institutionalized ideological legitimation and then been transformed into a means of reconciliation joined with the bureaucracy, and later into a means of local political legitimation internalized by the market mechanism. When the framework in the previous chapter is taken into consideration, the experience gained can be seen in the following scheme: Period

Aim of the Competition

Government Effect

Professional Organization

Becoming a Construction

1930-1960

Ideological

High

Low

High

1960-1980

Legitimacy

High

Effective

High

1980- Present

Creating Political Base

Relatively low

Relatively low

Relatively low

Table 1. The Governments and the Competitions in history of Turkish Republic

55 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

As is seen, the capital Ankara has an important status in terms of the history of competitions. Public institutions, which contribute to the formation of competition tradition, are located in Ankara; and, competitions have had an important function in structuring of the city of Ankara. However, with the twenty first century, especially planning and urban design competitions have decreased in number in the city of Ankara. There was almost no planning and urban design competitions held in the last decade. The last competitions for the public areas concerning the whole city that were opened up by Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara nearly ten years ago. Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara opened up competitions one after the other at the early 2000s; however, none of the winner projects have been constructed, and the municipality has already fully ceased the competition method. In this sense, these competitions of Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara constitute a significant example in terms of the relationship between daily political relations and competitions. These competitions are analyzed with in-depth interviews in scope of this report. Below are these four competitions launched one after the other between the years 2000 and 2003: • City Hall and Commercial and Social Facilities of the Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara (2000) • Design Project 1 for Urban Spaces and Façades – Doğukent (2002) • Project Competition for 50. Yıl (50th Anniversary) Park and Monument of Martyrs Complex (2003) • Monument Complex and Park for the 700th Anniversary of the Foundation of Ottoman Empire (2003) Themes of competitions feature two specific elements. One of these elements is the nationalist- conservative emphasis in competitions, and the other is the design of certain urban functions required by the municipality. This reflects general and local political processes of the period. Such nationalist- conservative emphasis can be considered natural for that period in which there were debates over banning the Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi), which was established to replace the banned Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), and Abdullah Öcalan was arrested and taken to Turkey. This is closely related to the organization of competitions. Melih Gökçek, Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality who was a member of the Fazilet Party, which was about to be banned, later acted as an independent member. This precisely corresponds to the period when these competitions were opened up, which might be related to a particular search for legitimacy in municipal services. It is significant to search for this legitimacy in certain functions for Melih Gökçek, who was re-elected in local elections of 1999, especially such as the city hall, which had not been completed or initiated by Competitions and Architecture 56 Symposium

the former social democratic municipality.

However, the competition themes could reflect the spirit of the period with alliances formed by certain dynamics in local politics. The most important constituent of this alliance is the technocrat staff in the municipality, from the former social democratic tradition. This technocrat staff reflecting the period and habits of social democratic municipality offered competitions as a means of producing projects with the aim to be able to maintain their positions and statuses under the government of Melih Gökçek. These technocrats also had close relationships with the occupational organization associated with competitions, which enabled these competitions, opened up by the municipality, to gain legitimacy before professional chambers. Another important constituent of this alliance is the academic staff. Especially the attendance of the doyenne Prof. Dr. Gönül Tankut as the chairman in the jury had a significant role in continuation of the alliance. The close relationships of the academic staff with famous architects such as Merih Karaaslan, who had financial relations with the municipality, had an additional influence over the legitimation of competitions. When the jury is considered, it is seen that the juries gather famous professionals, academicians, county mayors and municipal bureaucrats of the period. Here, the selection of jurors is seen to reflect, from time to time, the political relations of the relevant period. A remarkable example is the selection of M. Ziya Kahraman, the then Mayor of Altındağ, as the permanent member of the Project Competition for the 50.Yıl Park and Monument of Martyrs Complex under the title of civil engineer although this competition was out of the realm of his powers.

The competitions were organized in a relatively smooth manner and they received media coverage during that period. However, none of the winner projects have been constructed. This problem was later frequently brought to the agenda by professional chambers, and the municipality developed their own bureaucratic responses on the issue of non-construction of these projects. For instance, it is seen that the jury was subjected to pressure and had to inscribe the annotation “not feasible” onto the winner project in their report in subsequent competitions due to debates over the non-constuction of the competition for the City Hall. Thereupon, the municipality developed a reflex against competitions in subsequent years; even causing a conclusion that competitions do not yield expected results. As the competition processes could not be discussed properly, this judgement of the municipality could not be evaluated as to whether it is justifiable. However, it can be argued that the motive for the organization of these competitions is current political processes of the relevant periods. Melih Gökçek participated at the ruling Justice and Development Party after 2003, which minimized the problems of legitimacy. There are various reasons for the ending of 57 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

the alliance which once formed the legitimating processes, such as the departure of experienced academicians in the competition processes due to decease, retirement etc., and replacement of technocrats representing the social democratic period by young and inexperienced staff. Eventually, competitions have been replaced by subcontracting practices.

Conclusion

Planning and urban design competitions can be defined as a special type of professional experience crossing with both the sphere of legitimacy of the political power throughout history and the sphere of production of creative ideas. They are of high sigificance particularly in legitimation of daily political relations and positions.

Alliances of political, bureaucratic and academic staff occupy an important space in this legitimation process. Competitions have been institutionalized and joined with the legal system throughout history; and accordingly, the meaning and purpose of competitions have been subject to changes. This process is verified by the experience in Turkey and Ankara. The interaction between daily political relations and competitions is seen to have generated solutions, sometimes leading to total disappearance of competitions and standardization of subcontracting practices. Indisputably, future initiatives of architecture and planning professions for this venture of competitions from their position as an instrument to a platform certainly need to eliminate the mysterious processes of competitions and increase the social benefits of the competition experience. It would be unfair to consider competitions as a political instrument as they represent a precious knowledge as well as the potential for generation of new opportunities for professional communication, cooperation and production. The way to this objective involves, above all, the enlightening of the obscure points regarding competition processes, without delay. It is vital, in such a process, to reveal the political and institutional projections of competitions held in the past.

Competitions and Architecture 58 Symposium

References

Collyer, G. S., (2004), Competing Globally in Architecture Competitions, Wiley Academy.

Nasar, J. L., (1999), Design by Competition, Cambridge University Press.

Sagalyn, L., (2006), “Political Fabric of Design Competitions”, in C. Malmberg eds. The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University Press.

Sayar, Y., (2004), “Architectural Project Competitions in Turkey 1930-2000: An Evaluation”, Mimarlık, 320. Şahin, S.Z. (2011), “Relationship of Power, Legitimacy, Planning And Urban Design Competitions: A path extending from instrumentality to being a Platform”, Planning 2010/3-4, TMMOB Chamber of Urban Planners.

Tankut, G., (1993), Constructing a Capital, Anahtar Books Publishing.

Tekeli, İ,. (2001), Urban Planning as Overcoming Modernity, Imge Publishing, Ankara.

59 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

A STORY of URBAN DESIGN COMPETITION in ÖDEMİŞ: Evolution of an Urban Strategy Project into a Parking Lot Construction Project Sertaç Erten

1 It can be claimed that another reason is the fact that the approach of “projectcreator municipality”, which emanated in Istanbul during Dalan’s mayorship, increased its efficiency in cities. (Semar Erder, “Kentte Değişen Güç İlişkileri ve Kentsel Dönüşüm”, Gecekondu, Dönüşüm, Kent. Tansı Şenyapılı’ya Armağan, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları, 2009, Ankara).

Urban design competitions have gained acceleration especially in 2000s and spread from metropolises to smaller county settlements. We can assert that behind these developments lies the need for new urban planning and design trends that would fill the gap of understanding, theory, approach, method and institutional structure created by the planning practices, which were stuck in “development works”.1 However, determination of such needs may arise from the requests from the local administration as well as the guidance of certain other actors, who support, counsel and cooperate with the local. Besides, the natural dissociation of projects, which are achieved through competitions, from contexts such as “limits of authority”, “proprietorship relations” and “municipality budgets” causes that a different language emanates between the competitor (author) and the municipalities (administration) within the process after the competition.

Within this article, it is aimed that the situation determined above would be studied through the urban design competition initiated in 2012 at the county of Ödemiş of İzmir. In this context, we would like to examine, and share with the reader, the process where the identity of “competitor” transforms into the identity of “project owner” by receiving the first prize in the competition, the ruptures and omissions in the process, the process where the local returns to its initial need which was intended in organizing the competition in the first place, together with the causes of such processes. Analyzing the first competition experience of Ödemiş in advance would help us understand the competition of year 2012.

Ödemiş and Competitions 1: 1944 Planning Competition

Affiliated to Izmir, Ödemiş constitutes an Aegean settlement with a county population of approximately 95,000. The acquaintance of the county with competitions dates back to the 1940s. In 1944, a master plan competition is held and, amongst the

Competitions and Architecture 60 Symposium

members of the jury, there were Henry Prost, Gustav Öelsner and Paul Bonantz, who were popular urban planners and architects of their era.2 The idea of a competition was brought forward by a group of experts, namely Municipalities Development Committee, with its center in Ankara. In other words, the competition was not initiated with the request or need of the local administration.

Figure 2. The project of Kemal Ahmet Aru, Orhan Sefa and Celile Berk which was awarded 2nd prize in the planning competition launched in 1944. This project, has shaped later on, the growth scheme of the city and future development activities (Resource: “Ödemiş City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt 3-4, 1945).

Figure 1. Award-winning projects of the Ödemiş Planning Competition, 1944. In the competition where no first prize was given, as K. Ahmet Aru team and Selman Yönder team were awarded the 2nd prize, Necmi Ateş team and Asım Kömürcüoğlu team were awarded the 3rd prize. Sabri Oran team received procurement award. (Resource: “Ödemiş City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt 3-4, 1945)

The jury convened in Ankara on the 16th of November 1944 and 8 days after declared the results of the competition together with a report. According to the report of the jury, almost all of the teams that participated in the competition proposed constructions, which were too monumental, and too big squares for a settlement with the scale of Ödemiş. (Figure 1) : “Most of the competitors considered this planning work too extensively. The traffic that brings life and activity to Ödemiş originates from the surrounding villages. Therefore, since Ödemiş will remain always as modest a peasant city, the proposals for constructing enormous and monumental buildings here will not be considered as appropriate.”3

2 “Ödemiş City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt, 3-4, 1945, Istanbul. Pages 50-55.

3 City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt, 3-4, 1945, Istanbul.

Pages 50-55.

61 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 3. A base map of Ödemiş in the year of 1927: The frame around the map points the area in the Figure 1 (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012). In the district with a typical Ottoman urban morphology, dead-end streets, organic and non-hierarchical road network is seen. the new core of the city is no longer the traditional trade center marked with dark colors, but east-west corridor which passes by the southern edge of the large open area with a star and crescent and meets with the Station Square and the Bus terminal.

Even if none of the projects was awarded the first prize in this competition, the proposal of Kemal Ahmet Aru’s team, which was awarded the second prize, is considered as a base and the zoning plan decisions of the city are developed on this basis (Figure 2). The jury gave wide coverage to the abovementioned comments and recommendations and, even though it did not elect a winner, it specified that the projects in the first four places should determine a road map for the implementation zoning plans to be further carried on. The jury also recommends that the planning work would be contacted to the project owners who were awarded the second prize: “[...] Even though the recommendations are distributed to the 4 projects that won prizes, the implementation plans shall be created with the election of one of these projects. Our Jury Committee recommends that the remaining work of conclusive construction and detail plans would be entrusted to the owners of the project with order number 12 and nickname 04871 because it is seen that this project is created by an artisan who is more experienced in urban planning.” 4 While the building-space relationships and morphological structure of the city featured the characteristics of an Ottoman city (Figure 3) before this project, residences with front gardens, squares (the Station Square, Atatürk Square, etc.), avenues, boulevards, large sports areas with re-creative purposes (such as stadium, city park…) enter the life of Ödemiş community with this project. The existing train station is transferred from the southern periphery of the city to the newly-identified modern center which bears the emphasis of the post-Republican era. Thus, the commercial center catches an expansion towards the east and a corridor that starts to function as the main commercial spine of the city forms. This intention is also specified in the project report of the project that was awarded the second prize: “It would be appropriate to maintain the old market without altering its character. However, large stores will be placed on the ground floors of the buildings, considered to be constructed newly, on the Gazi and Ragıp Avenues in the project. Also the hans in the old market will be transferred to the region of new wholesale market halls and bazaars in the south.”5

Ödemiş and Competitions 2: 2012 City Center Urban Design Competition

4 “City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt, 3-4, 1945, Istanbul.

Pages 50-55.

The county does not experience any other competitions until the “Ödemiş Municipality City Center and Immediate Surroundings National Architecture and Urban Design Competition” held in 2012.

5 “Ödemiş City Zoning Plan, Project Competition Result”, Mimarlık Dergisi, 1944, Istanbul

The main purpose of the competition, which was declared at the beginning of year 2012, is expressed as “[...] procuring architectural and urban design projects

Competitions and Architecture 62 Symposium

Figure 4. The development plan in force shows the designated project area borders of the competition. As the red border shows expected spatial strategy diagram with a scale of 1/2000, the green border shows the urban design area with a scale of 1/500 and the pink border shows the urban square arrangement area with a scale of 1/200 (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012).

63 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

including the reconstruction of the Hükümet Square by maintaining its ceremonial area character, New Municipal Services Building square construction and design of the multifunctional area (cultural and arts center) which integrates with the neighboring parcel”.6 In fact, the municipality only needs the first work, which was listed in the first order and is related with the “reconstruction of the front section of the Hükümet Square”. However, with the guidance of the members of the jury, a strategic scheme framework was drawn for the whole city and a 3-phase scales list was expected from the competitors (Figure 4). Accordingly, a 3-phase and scaled design framework was described with: • A spatial strategy scheme with a scale of 1/2000 (107 ha.)

• An urban area with a scale of 1/500 (26 ha.)

• An urban square construction area with a scale of 1/200 (9 ha.)

Figure 5. Superposed map of the Kemal Ahmet Aru and his team’s competition project designed in 1944 and the area that is designated as landscaping area with a scale of 1/200 in the competition of 2012.

6 Interview with Faruk Göksu, one of the jury members of the 2012 Competition, March 2014.

Figure 6. The base map, which is among the required plans from competitors, shows urban square landscaping area border with a scale of 1/200: The building shown with dark color is Ödemiş Municipality (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012).

Competitions and Architecture 64 Symposium

Figure 7. While the Hükümet Square was demolished during the 2012 competition; the Ödemiş Municipality building was demolished after the competition, the documents given to competitors were moved to their indicated new location (Resource: Contest Documents, 2012)

According to this framework, the area subject to the planning competition in 1944 and the area of which the spatial strategy scheme is expected in this competition are almost the same regions (Figure 2 and 4). Besides, the 2012 competition emerged as a quest for a solution against the spatial problems created with the competition in 1944. In order to be able to understand that, it is sufficient to superpose the project of Kemal Ahmet Aru, which constitutes the road map for zoning plan of Ödemiş, upon the 1/200 urban square construction area of the competition of 2012. The THK (Turkish Aeronautical Association) building in Tayyare Park, Ödemiş Municipal Building, which constitutes a border between the park and Hükümet Square, are elements, which were proposed by this project and then implemented (Figure 5). Also during the 2012 competition, it was communicated to the Competitors that the existing building of Ödemiş Municipality would be demolished and, instead the relation between Hükümet Square and the park should be enforced (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The team considered as the project owner of the competition in 1944 developed, in fact, a proposal that reflected the architectural- urbanism approaches of the era and they 65 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

7 Examining the projects of the Competition in 1944, it can be seen that there are no buildings in the mentionedfocus area other than the old Government Office building, which is used as the Police Headquarters of the County today. All the proposals, except for the projects of Asım Kömürcüoğlu and Necmi Ateş, tried to create a defined and determined square by proposing additional buildings to this existing building.

8 Municipality City Center and Immediate Surroundings National Architecture and Urban Design Idea Project Competition Specification, 2012. Pages 4-5.

9 Municipality City Center and Immediate Surroundings National Architecture and Urban Design Idea Project Competition Specification, 2012. Page12 10 Team assistant City Planner Arzu Eralp.

preferred a defined square surrounded with buildings.7 In order to realize that, they proposed a public building at the place of the Ödemiş Municipality building which is demolished today (it was still active during the competition in 2012). Similarly, they proposed an additional planned building in Tayyare Park that would dominate the park. This proposed building would be constructed as THK Building afterwards. It is correct that today planning competitions are not organized. However, this example shows us that, in fact, the concepts used in both urban design and planning fields have changed. Planning has wriggled out of the point of view based on “public works”, new city blocks and settlement codes determination functions have become blunt and, instead, an expectation and a response of an urbanism point of view which is rather fictional has emerged as the basis.

In the 2012 competition, the specification and scope have expanded to such an extent that it has started to cover a design range from 1/5000 urban macroform approaches to 1/100 underground parking lot solutions and 1/10 urban furniture details. Therefore, Hükümet Square and its surrounding together with the underground parking lot, which were the main expectations of the municipality, have become solely an element within all the scales and areas to be designed. Even though the specification claims that; “Tayyare Park, registered Turkish Aeronautical Association Building, the existing Municipal Services Building, registered Police Headquarters Building, Tax Administration and District Governorship buildings, the ceremonial area in front of these buildings and the New Municipal Square, and the Police Station and Lodging which are located on the east of these buildings are the main focus of the competition area,”8 There is such an extensive “urban design idea competition” that the competitors can understand that the underground parking lot and the ceremonial area above it constitute the main need only by reasoning and with instincts: a parking lot plan with a scale of 1/100 and a concrete reinforced block with a scale of 1/200 are requested from the competitors in a competition held under the name “idea competition”.9 While the 34 teams that participated in the competition delivered their projects in the middle of May, the jury evaluations were carried out at the beginning of June and the project with no.33, prepared by the team of Devrim Çimen, Sertaç Erten, Enise Burcu Karaçizmeli was awarded the first prize.10 Thus a new “post-competition process” starts with omissions, ruptures and continuities in it. Before studying this process in depth, it would be appropriate to comprehend the competition project approach of the team that received the first prize. In this way, the evolution that ideas go through in competitions, and especially in urban design competitions, in terms of scale and scope while being implemented may be understood more clearly.

Competitions and Architecture 66 Symposium

Figure 8. Yesterday / Today / Tomorrow proposal envisagement of the team receiving the 1st prize and the hooks idea. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

The design approach of the team that was awarded the 1st prize11

General approach / Macro Approach. The historical-cultural heritage value of the Project area and the urban development dynamics of Ödemiş were influential on the formation of the project’s general approach. Within this context, two basic principles have been guiding for the design: within the framework of sustainability, general acceptance, and decreasing, or if possible eliminating the threats on the area were one of these guiding principles. At this point, the issue the most emphasized was re-organizing the traffic flow, which creates a lot of pressure on the space, and reshaping it in line with the approach of associating and positioning with the whole

Figure 9. The scheme where the Urban development of Ödemiş is conceptualized by the 1st prize winner team, 2012 (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

11 Compiled from the project report of the team which was granted the first prize (Source: Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen archive)

67 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

city. The principle of improvement and functioning was another starting point; within this framework, ensuring that the space would be re-functioned in line with current needs by considering its efficient role in the development of the whole city and its character as a frequented “market place” was aimed.

Therefore, the main approach was determined as “hooks” that connect the past, today and future (Figure 8). Spatial and social continuity would be ensured with spatial arrangements to be made on these hooks. With the demolishment of the municipality building, arrangements that would enforce the spatial perception in area from the THK building up to Hükümet Square were carried out. The first hook consists of the arrangement that proceeds along Savaş Street from the Central Gürcüzade Mosque and which continues up to Hükümet Square by also covering the THK building. The second hook is the arrangement that proceeds from Hükümet Square towards the new Culture and Arts Center and which surrounded by linear water elements in both squares.

As it can be seen, the competitor team tried to build a strategic basis for the whole Ödemiş. While the principles as to transportation are determined for the whole city, the yesterday/today/future vision of the city, which the specification attaches importance and emphasized by underlining, is spatialized by analyzing the growth structure of Ödemiş from the Ottoman period until today and the idea of hooks emerged (Figure 9).

The Competitor team also proposed the below approaches for the following subtitles: Transportation decisions. The first decision of the planning approach developed in relation to the project area is about the transportation-circulation systematic. In our era, traffic pressure is the primary most important element that threatens the urban archeological sites and urban cores. This is also applicable to the urban archeological site of Ödemiş and the competition area, which related with that site. İzmir Street, which passes right in front of Central Grand Mosque and traverses the city on the east-west axis and the following Atatürk Avenue create a heavy traffic pressure on the urban core. Therefore, it is proposed that a “traffic restricted region”, as an upper scale intervention to decrease the traffic pressure on the city center, would be created primarily and transportation policies which prevent all the traffic flowing from outside the city from passing through this axis would be developed (Figure 10).

The improvement aimed at in cities like Ödemiş is not purging all urban cores from vehicle traffic completely, but it should be creating situations where vehicle-human collocation can be provided. In this context, spatial arrangements such as locating the street under the ground or completely pedestrianizing a large region are not preferred Competitions and Architecture 68 Symposium

Figure 10. The spatial strategic scheme with a scale of 1/2000, developed by the 1st prize winner team in 2012 competition ( Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

69 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 11. Steps to the underground parking, proposed in the competition. The only detail that is transferred to the construction drawings from the competition project (Resource: Personel Personel Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

in this project. The studies show that, in areas used by pedestrians intensely, if also the tracks reserved for vehicles are limited, vehicles drive more cautiously and slow and, thus, more secure avenues and streets are created.

Urban design and landscape decisions. The urban design and landscaping approach of the Project are based on two principles. The first principle is to connect the substantial green axis of the city to each other and to reinforce this connection on the north-south axis. It is envisaged that the railway, which is transformed into recreational usage with the transfer of the train terminal to the new bus terminal area, plays an important role in the future of the city. This corridor, which is determined as the development direction of the city in the zoning plan by covering the stadium in the north line and which extends to northeast, constitutes the landscaping spine of Ödemiş. Heading towards the new city by covering also the old industrial buildings, the symbolic bus terminal, important education institutions and the stadium of the city, this corridor is connected to the grand city park envisaged in the zoning plan.

The determinant in the sub scale landscaping approaches is the hook system, which forms the main concept and settlement scheme of the project. This system connects the historical center to the new city square where the new municipality Competitions and Architecture 70 Symposium

Figure 12. Proposed Hükümet Square in the competition. The area shown in dashed lines is the proposed parking lot area. İzmir-Birgi road in the south, is developed as a pedestrian-superior section because of remaining in the area with limited traffic as explained in the proposed scheme with scale of 1/2000. As for the underground parking, has been taken in from north, the direction of Pazaryeri in order to protect the continuity of the square on the western edge. In addition, the hooks idea developed in Figure 8, is now spatialized with seating areas and green use.

Thus, as it was done in in 1944 competition, a landscape instead of a building is the element creating the feeling of closeness-border sense (Resource: Personel Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 13. Sections of the project proposed for The Hükümet Square and the underground car park in the competition (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 14. Proposed spatial organization for the Hükümet Square in the 71 Competitions andErten Architecture competition. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç & Devrim Çimen).

Symposium

Figure 15. Post-competition process: Transformation phases of urban strategy project into a parking lot construction drawings (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

building, and culture and arts center will be located and which will constitute the contemporary aspect of the city. While the Pinus texture and palm trees located on the main axis follow a linear route within the system, continuous landscaping sections emphasize this pedestrian route by extending from Tayyare Park to the New City Square. These are drops of greens, which accompany the hooks, and they refer to the new botanical and constructional arrangements to be made under the palm and pine trees that lay along the existing route.

The long and narrow rectangular area which covers the THK Building and to which the hook is attached is an area where firm soil arrangements prevail and the “green” is provided with the wide crowns of the pine trees above. There will be usage areas such as tea gardens, freely used market places, buffets and taxi ranks in this area.

The north of the park is organized as a more intense green space. Playgrounds for children and narrow walking paths will be available in this region.

Hükümet Square decisions. The “swashbuckler” figure, which has identified with Ödemiş is envisaged as constructional landscape elements on the exit points of the underground parking lot in the square. Between these mat metal laser-cut figures with 3mm + 3mm double skin, semipermeable perforated metal elements will be used.

While they contribute a symbolic character upon the city square, they will constitute a significant constructional structure of the landscaping in this area.

Briefly, the ideas developed for the competition have given rise to considering designs in a wide range from urban scale to urban furniture details not only for the winner team but for all participant teams. The winner team of the first prize, which will become the project owner afterwards, has proposed a ceremonial area arrangement for the area which constitutes the main project need of the municipality and developed a square project together with the underground parking lot (Figures 12-13-14).

Post-: First Meeting and First Rupture

The competition process terminated with the declaration of the award-winner teams at the beginning of June in 2012. At this point, the members of the jury separated from the process on the colloquium day. Afterwards, the municipality made the first contact with the team to become the “project owner” in the month of July. However the first meeting constituted a rupture. The team, which was invited to the municipality approximately one month after the competition, was encountered unfavorably on the grounds that their price offer is too high. The negotiations stopped; then about one month later, they came together once again and the negotiations restart.

Figure 16. Models produced after the competition / before the contract process: models of the only detail left from the competition ideas; the swashbuckler wall (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

73 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

From the Competition project to the implementation project: Return to roots

The matter, which is better realized by the project owner while the relationship between the Project owner and the administration was re-established, is as follows: In fact, the municipality desires to solve the existing spatial problems related with Hükümet Square rapidly and practically. The primary problem is the fact that the square is used as a parking lot and is deprived of any qualification. The second problem is that the market place between Hükümet Square and District Police Headquarters constitutes the economic backbone of the city and a serious parking lot need arises on the days when the market place is active. The third problem is as follows: the building currently used by the municipality will be demolished; so, in this case, would it possible to design an underground parking lot as a second stage also under that construction projection? Additionally, there are tall palm trees and coniferous trees with abundant shadow in the area. Therefore would it be possible to build an underground parking lot of which the capacity would not decrease too much by also protecting these trees?

During the negotiations, the priority of the underground parking lot was emphasized and it was specified that its neighbor in the west, Tayyare Park, should be re-arranged and that this could be another stage to follow the first project. Therefore, it was expected from the project owner that a spatial design which includes both the park and Hükümet Square and of which the staging is solved. In parallel, the project owner team attended each meeting by considering these data and by contemplating more comprehensively and planning the timing (Figures 15-16). As a result of all the meetings, the first contract was concluded for the area of approximately 2,500 m2, namely Hükümet Square.

Is it possible to separate the underground parking lot and the square?

As it can be followed up from the Figures 15 and 16, the proposals made in the competition about the square were tried to be maintained by the project owners.

However, within the process, they encountered the fact that the municipality cannot allocate the sufficient budget for the superstructure, and for that reason, “for now”, it can only buy services for the underground parking lot project. This dragged the project owners into a process, which resembles drawing a house without a roof. Although, in the beginning, designs based on a scenario “if the square project is realized in the future” were emphasized, eventually, a parking lot with maximum vehicle capacity problematic prevailed and the administration attached a great importance to this technical issue.

Competitions and Architecture 74 Symposium

Figure 17. 3d image of the construction drawings. Ideas about square in the competition project have disappeared, project subject turned to a technical parking lot issue. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Finally, the “wall with swashbuckler figure”, which defined the descent to the underground parking lot, survived the 2012 competition project as an idea.

The aftermath of the conceptualized underground parking lot of 2,500 m2 and the “plane” above it, where no arrangement is carried out, is indistinct for now. Although the projects are delivered, the developments such as the municipality of the county investigating the possibility to have the metropolitan municipality carry out this service, the subsequent local elections in March 2014 and the political change of power in the local administration render the “construction / implementation” part of the process for the present.

Conclusion

This story summarizes a few important matters for us. First of all, it can be claimed that an extremely specific and daily need has got out of the control of the municipality and it has changed dimension and plane. This process consists of the jury’s expanding the scope and limits of the competition too much, the municipality’s returning to what was on its mind after the completion of the competition process and therefore the ideas’ and designs’ breaking off with their context in the competition process.

75 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Secondly, the municipality responded positively to the horizon-widening and scope-expanding visionary project appeal of the non-municipal consultants and other similar actors only during the competition process. The municipality accepted the idea of a competition, issued press statements, and praised the process and contributors with its positive messages on the colloquium day. In the aftermath of the competition, these wide frameworks hardly came to the fore and the municipality kept its distance to the motive of drawing a future vision for the city it administrates, or having it drawn, or embracing what is drawn for it. An intermediary mechanism (such as the competition jury), which would ensure the municipality to follow up or re-discuss and propose revisions to this framework, does not exist anymore.

Finally, a general assessment would be appropriate: if there is an actor, which is torn between the other two in the triangle formed by the actors of the competition, it is the Competitor. When the “Competitor” identity meets the “project owner” identity, it creates conflicts and ruptures in the inner worlds of the individuals and teams. The teams, which develop ideas about, and details a whole, may not easily wriggle out of the idea of controlling the whole and the whole functioning together. Maybe the solution lies in communicating with the Competitors that, if they are granted the first prize, they should prepare themselves for any kind of developments and they should not fall into melancholy by already knowing that they will remain alone.

Competitions and Architecture 76 Symposium

References

Figure 1. Award-winning projects of the Ödemiş Planning Competition, 1944. In the competition where no first prize was given, as K. Ahmet Aru team and Selman Yönder team were awarded the 2nd prize, Necmi Ateş team and Asım Kömürcüoğlu team were awarded the 3rd prize. Sabri Oran team received procurement award. (Resource: “Ödemiş City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt 3-4, 1945) Figure 2. The project of Kemal Ahmet Aru, Orhan Sefa and Celile Berk which was awarded 2nd prize in the planning competition launched in 1944.

This project, has shaped later on, the growth scheme of the city and future development activities (Resource: “Ödemiş City Plan Competition Jury Report Summary”, Arkitekt 3-4, 1945).

Figure 3. A base map of Ödemiş in the year of 1927: The frame around the map points the area in the Figure 1 (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012). In the district with a typical Ottoman urban morphology, dead-end streets, organic and non-hierarchical road network is seen. the new core of the city is no longer the traditional trade center marked with dark colors, but east-west corridor which passes by the southern edge of the large open area with a star and crescent and meets with the Station Square and the Bus terminal.

Figure 4. The development plan in force shows the designated project area borders of the competition. As the red border shows expected spatial strategy diagram with a scale of 1/2000, the green border shows the urban design area with a scale of 1/500 and the pink border shows the urban square arrangement area with a scale of 1/200 (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012).

Figure 5. Superposed map of the Kemal Ahmet Aru and his team’s competition project designed in 1944 and the area that is designated as landscaping area with a scale of 1/200 in the competition of 2012.

Figure 6. The base map, which is among the required plans from competitors, shows urban square landscaping area border with a scale of 1/200: The building shown with dark color is Ödemiş Municipality (Resource: Competition Documents, 2012).

Figure 7. While the Hükümet Square was demolished during the 2012 competition; the Ödemiş Municipality building was demolished after the competition, the documents given to competitors were moved to their indicated new location (Resource: Contest Documents, 2012) Figure 8. Yesterday / Today / Tomorrow proposal envisagement of the team receiving the 1st prize and the hooks idea. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 9. The scheme where the Urban development of Ödemiş is conceptualized by the 1st prize winner team, 2012 (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 10. The spatial strategic scheme with a scale of 1/2000, developed by the 1st prize winner team in 2012 competition (Resource: Personal Archive ofSertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 11. Steps to the underground parking, proposed in the competition. The only detail that is transferred to the construction drawings from the competition project (Resource: Personel Personel Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 12. Proposed Hükümet Square in the competition. The area shown in dashed lines is the proposed parking lot area. İzmir-Birgi road in the south, is developed as a pedestrian-superior section because of remaining in the area with limited traffic as explained in the proposed scheme with scale of 1/2000. As for the underground parking, has been taken in from north, the direction of Pazaryeri in order to protect the continuity of the square on the western edge. In addition, the hooks idea developed in Figure 8, is now spatialized with seating areas and green use. Thus, as it was done in in 1944 competition, a landscape instead of a building is the element creating the feeling of closeness-border sense (Resource: Personel Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 13. Sections of the project proposed for The Hükümet Square and the underground car park in the competition (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 14. Proposed spatial organization for the Hükümet Square in the competition. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 15. Post-competition process: Transformation phases of urban strategy project into a parking lot construction drawings (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 16. Models produced after the competition / before the contract process: models of the only detail left from the competition ideas; the swashbuckler wall (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

Figure 17. 3d image of the construction drawings. Ideas about square in the competition project have disappeared, project subject turned to a technical parking lot issue. (Resource: Personal Archive of Sertaç Erten & Devrim Çimen).

ON THE UŞAK MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING PROJECT COMPETITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Burak Mangut

Introduction

The use of architectural competitions as a method for the production of public buildings in Turkey begins with the republican period. Along with the newly established regime, the modern architecture as a reflection of the modern lifestyle, which was starting to become valid in the world, was used as a political tool to spread this way of living throughout the country. In line with this policy, especially

Figure 1. The Uşak City Center And The Urban Transformation Area

Competitions and Architecture 78 Symposium

the public buildings became the buildings that the tracks of the modern architecture could be easily followed in Turkey. The competitions were chosen to be use as the most appropriate method towards this goal. Especially the Government’s Offices and the Municipal Buildings were the public buildings those architectural projects were obtained mostly with competitions as the preferred method. [1] During the period from the 1930’s to the present day, over fifty architectural competitions of municipal buildings and government offices have been organized.

The Municipality of Uşak preferred to obtain their public building projects with competitions by opening four architectural and urban design competitions in the years of 2011 and 2012. [2] The Municipality of Uşak service building project competition that was announced on the December 10th, 2012 and the construction process of the first prize-winning project by Selim Velioğlu and his team will form the subject of this paper. In line with my observations as an architect that took part in the application team, the competition and its post-process will be discussed in the framework of contemporary architectural project competitions atmosphere in Turkey.

1. The Competition Process

The competition site is located in the old industrial area in the southeast of the city center of Uşak. The municipal service building, being constructed as part of gentrification works of the area, is the first leg of the urban transformation project, will be located between the city center and the transformation area. The Municipality

Drawing 1. The Urban Transformation Area And The Location Of The Municipality Building

79 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Drawing 2-3. Site Plan

Service Building, as of its location, is expected help setting the bond between the area and the city and trigger the transformation by creating its own internal dynamics.

With participation of 183 projects, the evaluation process of the Uşak Municipal service building architectural project design competition was organized around five main criteria by the competition jury¹: “Upper-scale outdoor space urban continuity”, “context, neighborhoods, relationship with the immediate environment and place attachment”, “architectural tectonics, the spatial organization according to the main idea​​ ”, “predecessor attitude, representativeness”, “compliance with the building requirements”. 3 awards, 5 honorable mentions and 6 procurement awards were given in the competition where Selim Velioğlu and his team² received the 1st prize as the result of four eliminations in the evaluation process. [3] The project is designed as a focal point within the framework of city centerurban transformation area connection to nourish the urban outdoor experience on daytime, nighttime and on the weekends with the functional and spatial characteristics it contains. The scenario is to spatially integrate with the “green spine” along the area.

The multi-purpose hall, which is open for urban use, supports the outdoor life along with the “front yard”, the “covered yard”, the “central courtyard”, the “upper courtyard” and the “events deck”. Being the first building to be constructed in the area of urban ​​ development and determining the relationships to be established with its environment in accordance with its own internal dynamics and the building not being located in a complex built environment are the difficulties that have been encountered in the process of the competition. In this context, the building organized the outdoor life around the scenario it created and it is been aimed to contribute to the empowerment of the

Figure 2. Elevation Of The Activity Deck And the Municipality Building From the Recreation Area

81 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 3. West elevation of the project site

environmental identity; physically and functionally in urban coherence. The project, supporting the connection between the city center and the urban transformation area, nourishing the urban outdoor space experience with the functional and spatial characteristics it embodies and the building being clean, simple and functional were found positive by the competition jury.

The Uşak Municipal Service Building Project Competition has importance in terms of being an architectural project competition with high level of participation that is held in Turkey’s contemporary architectural project competition setting and the evaluation criteria. The competition with the participation of a total 183 projects was finalized with a three-day evaluation process carried out by the jury of the competition.

[4] It is emphasized that despite the high participation, the evaluation process was kept short thanks to the definitive attitude of the jury and the criteria they established. The project that was granted the first prize managed to stand out in the evaluation process due to being humble both in the building design and the expression of the project, being simple and avoiding exaggerated sizing. In the context of the competition, the project is presented with the least possible drawings, not including unnecessary narrations. In this context, a project standing out with its simplicity has importance in the development of competition culture in Turkey in contemporary architectural competitions environment. At the same time, the jury’s emphasis on building’s simplicity and its minimalist stance is noteworthy as a anachronistic repetition of the use of modern architecture in public buildings as a policy sustained in the first years of the republic.

Thanks to the willing work of the Municipality of Uşak, the agreement was made in the post-competition process with the authors of the first prize-winning project Selim Velioğlu and his team signed the contract with the Municipality of Uşak in May 2013.

2. The Construction Process

The competition process that had resulted with colloquium was followed by the changes on the building requirements program that was specified in the competition brief at the request of the municipality. During the process until the contract is signed, the negotiations have continued between the team and the municipality, the current municipal building was analyzed by the team, the spaces used in the present situation and new demands of the municipality were examined. The building requirements program prepared for the competition and organization scheme not meeting the needs of the municipality directly emerged as a significant problem in this process. In the building which consists of two main parts, the social and cultural units which also 83 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Drawing 4. Ground Floor and Second Floor Plan

Drawing 5. Sections

include the multi-purpose hall, were influenced the least from the change of demands thanks to flexible planning. The municipal service building, on the other hand, has an inflexible planning principle in accordance with the functional requirements. The open office layout was applied in order to run municipal functions most effectively and by designing the building with steel structure it was intended to integrate the building with this working arrangement. The basement floor consists of reinforced concrete structure and the four floors above the ground floor consist of steel structure. The Selection of mixed structure was evaluated positive by the municipality in terms of the building to be built is in an earthquake zone and the shortening of the construction process, on the other hand the transmission of the changes made in the program and the spatial organization to the construction drawings caused problems and it led to a longer process.

The recreational strip that is located in the transformation area creates the covered courtyard by passing between the two main parts of the building. The structure of the eaves, which will partially protect the courtyard from the climatic factors and at the same time create the perception of the buildings group as a whole by completing mass composition, was deliberately ignored in the competition phase and therefore was discussed again in the construction process. In this process, the eaves forming the image of the project and providing continuity of the mass could not be manufactured in desired sections due to the climatic and topographical features of the area and that created a negative impact in terms of protecting the image of the resulting product after the competition.

Uşak Municipality’s willing work during and after the competition had a positive effect on the building’s construction drawings preparation process. After the process of competition that resulted in colloquium, having reached an agreement with the team right away and the signing of contracts, the preparation of the construction drawings to begin immediately, the opportunity to work without having time constraints have contributed to a more qualified state in the preparation of the construction drawings phase of the building.

3. Anticipations for the Public Use after the Construction

When the project is evaluated in the context of the transformation area it is located and the public life it creates, the problems that might occur after the construction were predicted. In this context, diversity of primary use of the transformation area will help the organization of the area as a whole. Users with different daily routines (residential, office, commercial functions) will ensure the public open spaces being used and monitored constantly, day and night and on weekends, will increase the feeling 85 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 4. Project render

Figure 5. Project model

of security. In this regard, the Municipal building will positively affect the outdoor life with its functional and spatial characteristics. Having said that, not allowing the mixture of small and large businesses in the commercial functions taking place in the area poses an obstacle for its diversity in social aspect.

The Municipal building is physically eccentric due to its functional difference within the context it is located. This difference will support the building in future use as a reference point. However, especially building’s uniformity horizontally and its monotony on the ground floor create a negative impact when evaluated in the context of the edge effect as a factor of the public life. Having nothing to watch in the covered courtyard and not bearing any potential for creating activity, the monotony and length of the ground floor façades and not having any niches and indentations that would allow users to wait or stop are the obstacles for an active public life. In this context, it is been predicted that physical structure that the building will create in the environment it is located will be strong whereas some weaknesses will occur in its social structure.

4. Conclusion

After approximately one year from the date of opening of the competition, the Uşak Municipal Service Building Projects’ construction drawings have been delivered; the project is at the tender preparation stage. The positive approaches of the Uşak Municipality from the beginning of the process; choosing to achieve the project with a competition, the relationship it established with the team of authors, have ensured the positive continuity of the process. The architectural product obtained after the competition waits the construction phase with minimal interventions and changes.

87 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

[1]. Chamber of Architects “Arkitekt” Database, http://dergi.mo.org.tr/detail.php?id=2 [2]. “2012 Competitions Report”, Yarışmayla Yap , http://www.arkitera.com/files/haber/12397/yarisma-raporu-2012-baski.pdf [3]. “Uşak Municipality Service Building Project Competition” results, “Uşak Belediyesi’nin yeni yüzü belli oldu”, http://www.arkitera.com/haber/ index/detay/usak-belediyesi-nin-yeni-yuzu-belli-oldu/12505 [4]. “Uşak Municipality Service Building Project Competition” jury report, “Uşak Belediyesi Hizmet Binası Yarışması sonuçlandı”, http://www. mimdap.org/?p=111408 [5]“Mimarlık Journal Digital Archive”, http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=arsiv CARR, Stephan; 1992, “Public Space” Cambridge University Press, 1995, New York.

EYÜCE, Ahmet; 2011, “Modernism and Modern Architecture in Turkey”, “Mimarlık” Journal 361. Issue.

GEHL, Jan; 1971, “Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space” Island Press, 2011, çev. Jo Koch, NW Washington DC. GEHL, Jan; 2010, “Cities for People” Island Press, 2010, NW Washington DC. JACOBS, Jane; 1961, “Life and Death of Great American Cities”, Metis Publishing, 2011, İstanbul.

MELTEM, İ. Aydın; 2013, “Change of the Evaluation Criteria in the Architectural Competitions in Turkey between 1930-2010, “Competitions and Architecture Symposium 2013”, http://issuu.com/arkitera/docs/sempozyum_web .

VELİOĞLU, Selim; 2013, “Place as an Opening”, Yem Publishing, İstanbul.

Competitions and Architecture 88 Symposium

THE EFFECT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMPETITIONS IN FORMATION OF THE URBAN IDENTITY: The Case of Gaziantep Mehmet Uysal1, Tuฤ ba Deringรถl2

Ass. Prof.1, Research Ass.2 Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Selรงuk University, Konya

Abstract

While cities were being re-shaped in the Republican period, urban-scale projects were prepared in order to create a new urban identity that suits the new regime; changing living conditions, the technology and new buildings were built to meet the required needs of the period. The reason for preferring competitions as the method of obtaining projects was to pave the way for the few Turkish architects those grew up with the ideology of the new regime and to ensure that modern designs were introduced in the cities.

From the 1940s onwards, the buildings constructed with competition projects gave the city a modern look, created landmarks and contributed to the issue regarding the connection the old and the new town properly. In the city of Gaziantep, where the number of competitions was proportionally parallel with the project competitions in the other cities of Turkey over the years, very few buildings were realized via compeititons. Although, there were 2-3 competitions organized in the 40s, the 80s and the 90s, there were also years with no competition opened.

In our study, the processes of the project competitions opened since the 1940s in Gaziantep, which is a major industrial and cultural city today, the marks of those competition projects and the gains are intended to be analyzed. In consequence of, Gaziantep being a city rapidly evolving, growing and receiving migration, new public buildings are built instead of the inadequate old ones, large shopping malls and hospitals are constructed and new residential areas are opened for construction. The projects for many of these buildings and urban scale projects forming the identity of the city are not designed with competitions, only a few are announceds as invited competitions and even then only a part of these projects not realized. Investigation of the impacts of this situation on the city, detection of the factors for opening up a competition of architectural projects and administrative deficiencies during the times

Competitions and Architecture 90 Symposium

with no architectural competitions organized are intended to be analyzed. In this study, architectural project competitions that are opened in Gaziantep city handled in chronological order; the stories of opening competitions and their realization processes, whoever opening up the competitions, whether the projects were realized were investigated. Analyses of the relationships the competition projects establish with the city and the place by probing the architectural features was performed. In the end of the study, it can be said that, parallel processes were followed in Gaziantep in the historical process, with the other cities across the country, insufficient number of competitions were organized, particularly the competition projects acquired in the 1980s and 1990s were realized and that they were effective in formation of the urban identity.

Keywords: Republican Era, Urban Identity, Architectural Design Competitions, Gaziantep

1. Introduction

Along with the westernization movements beginning with the Tanzimat reform era, many public buildings have begun to articulate to the Ottoman cities and the stylistic changes became apparent in the urban areas. Later on this process, with the proclamation of the Republic, the changes of the regime had penetrated into all areas of life, a new wave of change had also started in architecture and the cities. During the time starting from the 19th century until the second half of the 20th century, due to shortage of trained personnel, foreign architects were considered to be effective in the building production processes. It would not be wrong to say that architectural project competitions were the instruments of the educated Turkish architects to come into prominence in this process. Besides, architectural competitions begining to appear after the 1930s is actually another result of the new management mentality and also can be read as a manifestation of polyphony, voting, selecting and equal opportunities for everyone. It can be said that, during this period, architectural project competitions were used particularly in provision of projects for the public buildings and for the campuses for workers. In the processes later on [until the second half of the 20th century] depending on the understanding of the regime, architectural competitions sometimes came to the fore, sometimes were pushed into the back and sometimes issues such as not being constructed or not making any progress in a controlled manner emerged due to the managerial and organizational deficiencies. It is observed that before and post stages of the architectural project competitions remain to be an 91 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

issue for discussion in the field of architecture and sometimes in all the community segments.

Antep was separated from the city of Aleppo after the First World War, becoming an important border city. For the city of Antep, which was rapidly progressing towards urbanization, the idea of the first development plan emerged in 1891. After Ataturk’s visit to the city in 1933 and his admiration for the location, the sophistication and the formation of the city, Hermann Jansen was brought to Antep in 1934, to make the first development plan. In order to, give Gaziantep the identity of a republican city, new squares were created, new axises and streets were opened all according to the Jensen Plan. The city met with a project competition for the first time in 1945 and later on some competitions were opened in certain periods but it can be understood that a culture of competitons were never formed due to lack of constructed projects.

Gaziantep City Architectural Design Competitions and Their Reflections on Urban Identity

Today, it can be argued that many cities of our country lose their identities, which come from their historical accumulation, as a result of rapid population growth, uncontrolled urbanization, cultural corruption, improper planning and constructions.

They resemble each other as a result of having constructed / articulated unqualified buildings in the city and that they are in identity crisis. Although many new buildings are constructed along with the speed of the population growth and urbanization, buildings cannot integrate with the citizens and cannot contribute to the identification of the city. At this stage, although competitions are promising, citizens sometimes cannot perceive the importance of this issue. The competitions, for accessing the information, blend the teamwork method with the project process, the competitors first try to understand the lifestyle of the users / citizens, their culture, the urban identity, the surrounding area the design going to be articulated on, then later they try to design spaces and buildings serving this. Because this team consists of competitors

Figure 1. Competitions opened in Turkey according to years (Meltem, Ä°.A, 2010) Competitions opened in Gaziantep according to years

Competitions and Architecture 92 Symposium

coming from the city and out of the city, the jury members, the municipal employees, the employers and the people at the same time; they are trying to make a mark on the city with a brainstorming on the city and the place.

In the projects, which have been obtained with competititons, it has been tried to find the origin of the problems in a contemporary way and it has been put in effort to understand the local people and the historical accumulation of the city. In Today’s Gaziantep, a bond between the old and the new urban fabric has not been established well. For the city of Gaziantep, in the competition projects, it is observed that the approaches to the old city fabric has been much more careful and it is been tried to take lessons from it. This lack of interest in competitions in Gaziantep, the buildings / surroundings to join the city fabric are up to the dreams and desires of the administrators, which had caused contributions remaining limited to a few interventions in the city. In the historical process the rate of the competitions across the country are approximately in line with the competitions held in Gaziantep (see Figure 1). For this reason, it can be said for Gaziantep that the competitions were opened during the times competitions come into fashion or during the increased pressure of the Chambers (Table 1).

Another important competition that has affected the city other than the other architectural project competitions is the Gaziantep City Development Plan competition (Anonymous, 1973/05). In 1973, the third development plan for the rapidly growing city of Gaziantep was decided to be prepared. In 1995, the project was opened for competition targeting population of one million. 18 teams participated in the competition, which was held by the Bank of Provinces and administrators, architects and city planners were included in the process. The project team comprising of Zühtü Can, Yalçın Alaybeyoğlu, Abdullah Dellaloğlu, Müzeyyen Can, Haluk Anıl was granted the 1st prize in the competition (Anonymous, 1973). The project was realized but as it got closer to the 90s, the urban population and its needs have increased rapidly and some off-plan developments took place.

Figure 2. Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 1st Prize, Nezih Eldem his team, Perspective and 1st Floor Plan (Anonymous a, 1945)

93 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

1- Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry (1945), 2- Gaziantep State Hospital (1957), 3- Gaziantep Martyrs Monument and the War Museum 4- Gaziantep Government House (1984), 5- Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipal Services Building (1984), 6- Urban Design of the Centenary AtatĂźrk Culture Park and its Surroundings (1989), 7- GAP Center for Culture and Arts (1993), 8- Gaziantep Construction Industry Center (1993), 9- Urban Design of the Gaziantep Vegetable Market (Hal) Area (1996), 10- Southeastern Association of Exporters Service Building (2006), the historical Silk Road (Sani KonukoÄ&#x;lu Avenue), the streets opened or organized according to the Jensen Plan (1934) ( Google Maps, 2014)

Table 1. Competitions opened in Gaziantep

2.1 Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry

National Architectural Design Competition of the Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry was opened in 1945 by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Anonymous, 1945). During that time, project competitions were opened frequently by the state, giving many architects the opportunity to make studies on various topics. In this competition, the Chamber left the administration and selection of projects entirely to the architects. The Union of Architects handled the process with great success and the results satisfied both the architects and the chamber (Anonymous a, 1945) (Anonymous b, 1945). In the competition, the project of the team comprising of Nezih Eldem, Ayet Uluboy and Muammer Erselçuk was awarded the first prize and the project was constructed. This building located on the Maarif Square, on the opposite of the statue of Atatürk (Figure 2), became insufficient over time and after the Chamber moved to its new building; the old building was unfortunately demolished.

2.2. Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce

In 1949, Fikret Kılıççöte and Erdem Erkan won the competition, which was organized by the Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce (Anonymous, 1949). The project was not realized and the reasons could not be found.

2.3.Gaziantep State Hospital (with 400 beds)

In 1957, The Ministry of public works, refered as the Ministry of Public Works Building the Directorate of Works at the time, opened up a competition for Gaziantep State Hospital with 400 beds to be held among the Turkish architects and engineers (Anonymous, 1957). No results have been published about this competition. However, the project was realized according to the information received in the interviews (Uzak, E., 2013).

2.4. Gaziantep Martyrs Monument and the War Museum

Yusuf Ergüleç and Fikret Cankut won the project competition, which was organized by the Municipality of Gaziantep in 1957 (Anonymous, 1957). Having failed to reach people taking part in the competition process, the project does not appear to be built accurately. On the other hand, the general decisions suit to the result of the competition project (see Figure 3).

The War Museum is situated on the Ataturk Boulevard, which was opened with the Jensen master plan. During the French occupation of Gaziantep, there were graves of martyrs located in the area in the center of the defense; and it was wished to embalm Competitions and Architecture 96 Symposium

its memory. Therefore, a square was designed in the project for the commemorations and the museum was built under the monument. Altohugh, the entrance to the museum was designated from the square in the competition, in application it was from the street. This green area which was designed between the Kendirli Church and the Mosque of Çınarlı, integrated with the historical fabric it is located by and has become a place that lives with it.

Figure 3. The Monument and the Museum (http://wowturkey.com/forum/imagetopic.php?t=54357)

2.5. Gaziantep Government House

Gaziantep Government House Building Architectural Design Competition was opened by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement in 1984. The team formed

by Kürşat Aybak, Hüseyin Keçeci, Mete Öz, Hasan Öztürk, Mehmet Soylu and Reşat Umutlu, won the first prize and the project was realized (Anonymous, 1984).

Figure 4. Gaziantep Government House Competition, 1st Prize, Site Plan (Anonymous, 1984), Front Elevation

97 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Gaziantep Government House is an important landmark in the city center (see Figure 4). Metropolitan Municipality is one of the elements that constitute the new urban fabric in conjunction with the Foundations, the Police Department, the Centenary Park and the Democracy Square. It has shown that having city’s public buildings constructed with competition is a prosperty. The building, which integrates properly with the square in the site plan, probably because it is designed by ​​ a young team, comprises some difficulties in the planning of spaces (Uzak, E., 2013). At times, these issues emerging due to the jury members’ not holding to the specifications, result in people working in public buildings and those are effective in opening architectural projects seeing the deficiencies of competition projects and jumping to the conclusion that the project designs acquired with competitions are not functional. Similar to this, some problems occurring in the execution and the process, cause these people lose faith in the projects constructed with competitions and also cause them not prefering this method. Nowadays, a governor rejecting the competition project proposals brought before him, because the governor found the building design insufficient is a situation that can be hold up as an example for this (Uzak, E., 2013).

2.6. Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality Service Building

Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipal Service Building was projected with a competition held by the same institution in 1984. The team of Hasan Özbay and A. Tamer Başbuğ was granted the first prize (Anonymous, 1987). The building is located on an important artery, right outside the historical city center and in the development area of the city. Due to being at the center of the city, the building providing the opportunity of transportation to all around the city, continues to be admired by its users and due to its success in its space planning, the building pursues its mission even today (Figure 5, 6).

Designers describe the project in their architectural report as follows: “The main setup of our design consists of elementary structural units that constitute a whole around the parliament building. A rising platform in the east-west axis ends with the parliament building, beneath the assembly hall is also described as the main entrance. This axis unites with the park in the west creating urban continuity, in the east it is directed to the historic Gaziantep Castle. Thus, the building does not merely remain within the boundaries of the parcel but integrates with the environment, becomes a part of it.”

Competitions and Architecture 98 Symposium

The project was applied accurately; as a modern building that reflects the architecture of the period, it has contributed to the city’s new emerging face.

Figure 5. Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality Service Building Competition, 1st Prize, Site Plan and Model (Gaziantep BB, Anonymous, 1987)

Figure 6. Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality Service Building Competition, front and back Façades

2.7. Gaziantep Centenary Urban Design Project for the Atatürk Culture Park and its Surroundings

The subject of the competition is landscaping of the surroundings of the Allaben stream, which is running through the city of Gaziantep in east-west direction.

Competition area is defined as the axis starting from the Station Street on the west of the Gaziantep Castle westward along the Alleben creek, shrinking and expanding on its way and ending with the university area in the west of the city (Figure 7). It was aimed to develop existing uses in the area, creating a green corridor where the city can 99 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 7. Gaziantep Centenary Urban Design Project for the Atatürk Culture Park and Surroundings, 1st Prize (Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality Library resources)

breathe, mainly by making green and open space arrangements. Before the project, there used to be some private property, fields, abandoned buildings in this area and the representative council of the chamber of architects convinced the Municipality that a green area and a square that can held cultural events are needed in the center of Gaziantep City (Küçükkömürcü, A.M., 2013).

Figure 8. Gaziantep Centenary Atatürk Culture Park (Google Maps image)

Figure 9. GAP Center for Culture and Arts Project Model (Mimarlık, 1993/254, P.51)

The Bank of Provinces opened up the project for competition, which is precisely located at the heart of the city, where the old city meets the new, for a competition in 1989.

The author of the project became Ayça Bilsel (Anonymous, 1988). The construction drawings of the project had ben prepared and the construction had started. Some changes occurred in the prolonged process, sometimes it was also digressed from the project but the original project had been adhered to as a general principle. The green fabric formed in the concentrated fabric of city provided opportunity for the ease of the surrounding environment, socialization of the habitants and the city has gained new plazas. The urbanites already using the surrounding area of the Alleben creek now enjoy a park enriched with cultural activities, where sports and entertainment venues are located (Figure 8).

Competitions and Architecture 100 Symposium

2.8. GAP Center for Culture and Arts

Özgün yaklaşımını yöreden alan bu proje, kent ve yakın çevre ile bütünleşmedeki çağdaş yorumu ile başarılı bulunmuştur.

This project taking its authentic approach from the locality was found successful with its contemporary interpretation of the integration with the city and the inmediate environment. Its success in the evaluation of the relationship between the city and the culture park and its balanced success in human dimensions; provided integtrity and ingenuity in open-close space relationships; its sensitivity in corresponding to the climate data are found positive. Having both pedestrian axis, in directions of City - Culture Park and the North-South, joining as a meeting point in a living middle iwan is very successful. The Project’s contribution of successful interpretation to the urban plastic by using interesting perspective features at different points is important (Anonymous, 1993) (Figure 9).

The project can make an example that can bring positive environmental values once more to the Anatolian cities, which have lost their personality during the Republican period imitating the capital’s modern architecture (Yavuz, 1993). The competition was opened by the Ministry of Culture in 1993, Özkan Sunar and Cem İlhan’s project was granted the 1st prize. But the project was not realized. This space that is referred as the Democracy Square with a monument within, never could go beyond an urban void.

Figure 10. Construction Industy Center, 1st Prize (Mimarlık, 1994/02, P.41-47)

2.9. Gaziantep Construction Industry Center (YASEM)

YASEM was born from a request of engineers and architects to have a clubhouse.

However, the idea has advanced by time and became a ‘Professional Activities Center’.

With YASEM’s board chairman Necati Kanalıcı’s outstanding efforts in deciding upon the idea of competition, ​​ he demanded a work of excellence that will mark the 2000s in Gaziantep. To this end, 45 projects participated in the competition that is opened in 1993 and the team consisting of Özgür Ecevit, Azize Ecevit and Turgut Soğancı,

Figure 12. Section of the Construction Industy Center (Mimarlık, 1994/02, P.41-47)

Figure 11. Ground Floor Plan and the Site Plan (Mimarlık, 1994/02, P.41-47)

101 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

due to their success of the project planning solutions, was appreciated by the jury and granted the 1st prize. (Yardımoğlu, 1994) (Figure 10,11,12) Application of the project was conducted by a group of tradesmen; a union that has been formed in partnership with 230 architects and engineers. In the project, which had started in cooperative system, economic difficulties began to be experienced, after starting the construction and building two basement floors, the partnership system was broken due to financial difficulties and the building remained that way for years.

In this process, the members changed their demands, cost-increasing social fields were abandoned, furthermore the seismic codes and the static projects were changed with the Istanbul earthquake. Necati Kanalıcı’s board that made a great effort for this project was not reselected in the new administration. The project author, due to its copyrights, did not allow the project to be changed or he claimed astronomical fees for any kind of change. After being able to get the permissions, a new project had been drawn and the construction began in 2009 (Mıhcıoğlu, E., 2013).

2.10. Gaziantep Central Market Area Urban Design

JHan’s district containing the Shera Han, Berry Han and Salt Han is located on the Inonu Street, which was opened with the Jensen Plan, was named ‘Vegetable Market region’ (Haller Bölgesi) because of the market’s location (see Figure 13). In 1996, along with the idea of moving the vegetable market located the city central to outside of the city; the idea of reorganization of this area has been raised.

President of the Chamber of Architects of the time, Ahmet Muhtar Küçükkömürcü stated that the projects should not be discussed against the initiative of the municipality, these projects were designed out of administration of the Chamber of Architects and trade assosiacions, and thus the projects are not legitimate. It was argued that the urban landscaping, environmental design and important public buildings should be projected with competitions, the project specifications were prepared in cooperation with the municipality and the project was opened for competition (Küçükkömürcü, A.M., 2013).

The team consisting of Dilek Topuz Derman, Bünyamin Derman, Yılmaz Erdoğan, and Canan Uşdu has won the competition (Anonymous, 1996). The resulting project had taken up hans inside, proposed removal of the vegetable market along with the conservation and development projects. The project consists of buildings that have the characteristics of the traditional Gaziantep architecture and that are proportionate to the local scale and it consists of low-rise buildings. However, as the outcome of many competitions, this project was also not realized. Because, it was considered that the prepared project could not respond to Municipality’s request to provide income by obtaining a high-rise project.

Competitions and Architecture 102 Symposium

Figure 13. Gaziantep Central Market Competition Project Area (Google Maps image, 2014)

Figure 14. Photos from the Gaziantep Central Market Competition Project Area

Even if the results are negative in competitions, competitions open up new horizons for the participating teams in the competition process, develop their perspectives and perceptions. In this phase of the competition, the project was unclaimed due to reasons such as the prolongation of the process and change of the management of the Chamber, yet the specification is complied with the design of the winning project, so the buildings that were built and the arrangements that were made meeting the criterias of the competition project. (Ay, Y.S., 2013) (Figure 14)

2.11. Southeastern Anatolia Exporters Union (GAIB) Service Building

The management of the Southeastern Anatolia Exports Union (GAİB) received several project proposals for a service building and asked Ahmet Muhtar Küçükkömürcü to help them choose one among those projects. Ahmet Muhtar prepared a report for each of these projects. Nevertheless he also submitted a proposal to the management along with the reports. He had stated that opening a competition for a significant building in such critical position would give more accurate results, and so the competition for the project was announced in 2006. Due to the long 103 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Figure 15. GAİB Service Building

processes of the national competitons and their high cost, also due to short period of time, a regional competition was opened only covering architects those are registered to the Gaziantep Chamber of Architects. Chamber of Architects and the university formed a five-person jury and Ahmet Muhtar Küçükkömürcü became the advisor of the competition. Cemal Ercan and Murat Parlak were granted the first prize and the project is realized accurately (Küçükkömürcü, A.M., 2013). The building that is made of reinforced concrete and steel became one of the designs forming the contemporary face of the city with its modern design within this newly emerging region (Figure 15).

Conclusion

As a result of the studies conducted and the interviews made with employers, managers, authors, the Chamber, with reporters, number of opinions were formed on the reason why there were so few projects constructed with competitons in the city of Gaziantep. At times, the processes to be managed with joint studies, opinions and

Competitions and Architecture 104 Symposium

teams were attempted to be managed in monopoly of the administrators, employers, authors and juries. The problems stemming from this imbalance posed an obstacle for opening competitions. The process of Competitions in Gaziantep has started around the same time with the other Anatolian cities, but later in the process, especially until the 1980s and 1990s, almost no competition was opened. However, it must be said that the competitions opened and realized in this period (the Government House and the Municipality Building) made a significant contribution to the urban identity.

It can be argued that after this period, particularly due to the city’s rising economic power, competitions were opened by private investors and realized correspondingly.

However, it is important to state that there has been no important architectural and urban design competition organization contributing to the city recently. Gaziantep, today, as a city with continuous migration and an uncontrolled growth, it is obvious that there is a necessity of making some changes in the city with competitions.

105 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

Anonymous, “TMMOB, Ankara Competitions Index 1930-2004” Anonymous, “Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry Competition Project”, Arkitekt, 9-10, p.195-199, 1945 Anonymous a, “Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry Competition Project”, Mimarlık Journal, 01, P.35, 1945 Anonymous b, “Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce and Industry Competition Project”, Mimarlık Journal, 04-05, P.21-25, 1945 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce”, Mimarlık Journal, 02, P.12-14, 1949 Anonymous, “Gaziantep State Hospital (w/ 400 beds)”, Arkitekt, 02, p.81, 1957 Anonymous a, “Gaziantep Şehitler Abidesi ve Harp Müzesi Proje Müsabakası”, Mimarlık Journal, 223, 1957 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Kent Bütünü İmar Planı Yarışması”, Mimarlık Journal Haberler, 05, p.6, 1973 Anonymous a, Gaziantep Kent Bütünü İmar Planı Yarışması Jüri Raporu, Şartnameler, Arkitera, 1973 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Hükümet Konağı Yarışma Projesi”, Mimarlık Journal, 05, p.35, 06, p.4, 10, p.17, 1984 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipal Services Building Competition Project”, 03, P.72-73, 1987 Anonymous, “Urban Design of the Centenary Atatürk Culture Park and Surroundings”, Mimarlık Journal, 03, p.26-27,1989 Anonymous, “GAP Center for Culture and Arts Competition Project Jury Report”, Mimarlık Journal, 253, sf.29-36, 1993 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Construction Industry Center Competition”, Mimarlık Journal, 255, p.13, 1993 Anonymous, “Gaziantep Vegetable Market Area Urban Design Competition”, Mimarlık Journal, 269, sf.4, 1996 Ay, Y.S., “Planning Overview of Gaziantep”, TMH, 415, sf 5, 2001 Cansever, T., ““Why do we compete?” “How should we compete?”“ Mimarlık Journal, 252, p.20-23, 1993 Karabey, H., “The competitions are used as architectural profession’s fake employment tool!”, Mimarlık Journal, 252, p.19,1993 Meltem, İ.A., “Investigation of Architectural Design Competitions as a Method of obtaining projects in Turkey between the years 1930-2010”, Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Scinces, Master Thesis, İstanbul, 2010 Türkeri, İ., ”the Impacts of the Urban Design Competitions on the field of Architecture and Urban Environment after 1980”, University of Kocaeli, Institute of Scinces, Master thesis, Kocaeli, 2011 Yardımoğlu, M. A., “A Competition Story: YASEM”, Mimarlık Journal, 256, p.41-47, 1994 Yavuz, Y., “Opinions on the GAP Culture and Arts Center Competition”, Mimarlık Journal, 254, p. 51-52, 1993 Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality Library Resources KUDEB Resources Ay, Y.S., Personal Interview, 2013 Uzak, E., Personal Interview Personal Interview, 2013 Küçükkömürcü, A.M., Personal Interview, 2013 Mıhcıoğlu, E., Personal Interview, 2013 http://kurumsal.kulturturizm.gov.tr/turkiye/gaziantep/gezilecekyer/100-yil-ataturk-kultur-parki http://www.arkitera.com/proje/index/detay/2odul-gaziantep-fuari-ve-kentsel-tasarim-ulusal-mimarlik-ve-kentsel-tasarim-yarismasi/1955 Google Maps, https://maps.google.com/, 2014

Competitions and Architecture 106 Symposium

ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTION via LEISURE: SOME CONTRADICTIONS Berna Göl

Phd. Candidate in Istanbul Technical University, Architectural Design Program

Introduction

1 According to the well known C.I.A.M. approach, the city would consist of four group of functions: housing, work, recreation and traffic (service/ transportation). Komossa in her book ‘The Dutch Urban Block’ talks about various criticism of this enforcing division of functions as she contextualizes the urban block in contemporary Europe of today (Komossa, 2010).

Leisure and its spatial attributes have a very important place in architectural production. Narration of architecture would not be the same without referring to Crystal Palace of the 19th century or without Rem Koolhaas discussing Coney Island of the early 20th century in his book Delirious New York. The modernist approach to city space could not be without the ‘recreational’ zone among the four functions of a city.1 The 20th century nation-state could not be built without leisure architecture, where the state would re-testify itself through opera houses, cultural centers, music halls, public parks…etc. It is not a coincidence that architectural production turns to leisure so often. Leisure is widely taken to be as something freeing, something that promises people freedom to do what they want. It is taken as something ‘positive’, something that everybody wants and everybody needs. Yet, as -a relatively new field‘Leisure Studies’ investigate, leisure is not necessarily a ‘freeing’ concept, but rather it can be taken to be a social construct. It is a concept through which many relations are configured, organized, reorganized, produced and reproduced. And architectural production is not immune to any of these processes. On the contrary, architectural production is one of the most important instruments of ‘leisure production’, while reciprocally it refers to the idea of leisure when formulating a discourse of its design, on the decisions involved and its ‘final product’.

The extent of criticism or evaluation of architectural production may mostly remain inside the boundaries of the “architectural world”. Yet, this provides the necessary ground for the justification of any architectural project and this happens via eliminating many potential discussions, skipping important questions. Architectural competitions surely play a very crucial role in this process of justification, which eventually endangers architecture’s ‘validity’. In other words, architecture to be produced via design competitions cannot be advocated properly unless a mode of criticism that encapsulates what is also outside of architecture.

Competitions and Architecture 108 Symposium

To be able to formulate a more extensive criticism of architectural production (and architectural competitions), different ways of how these acts of justification work should be pointed out and new questions should be formulated. In order to do this, this paper takes to the center a concept - leisure, which stands right in the middle of the practice of architectural production and everyday life. Via leisure, and studying how it is used to validate architectural projects via two competition projects, it aims to find out how architecture is legitimized in production of leisure spaces.

Leisure as desire and its production of space

The idea of leisure may mean many things such as a division of time or an attribute of space. Inarguably one of the things it connotates in the world of architecture is a group of ‘functions’ that belong to an architectural program. The constitution of such a program itself is some decision making and therefore directive. The design is to direct the inhabitants on how to engage with certain activities. The work time is separated from the leisure time just as much. The spaces of leisure are proudly presented as the ‘face’ of the architectural project in which leisure is presented as something that is desired unconditionally. The criticism in the context of this paper is to be founded on this, so to speak ‘unconditional’ desire produced via the idea of leisure and its spaces.

Once architecture is defined as another kind of production within the social context, it is possible to draw parallels between the production of desire and leisure spaces. Usually leisure facilities are presented to be public, enhancing urban life. This is mostly done via outdoor or semi-outdoor facilities that are enriched by retail and other commercial facilities. The contradiction stems from the fact that so called leisure spaces are not always open to the all of the public, where issues of accessibility cannot be avoided; ones that cannot be customers of these commercial facilities are likely to be left out.

Two Projects: National Reassurance Building and Zorlu Center

Having this concept of leisure at the center, two competition projects that were actually built will be examined; Zorlu Center (Emre Arolat Architects – Tabanlıoğlu Architects, 2007) and National Reassurance Building (Sevin ve Sandor Hadi, 1985), both of which are in İstanbul. Even though these projects belong to different time periods and they seem to be quite different in terms of scale, there are many similarities between the two projects. The most important would be that they are both multifunctional complexes that come to the fore with a discursive tone regarding city space.

National Reassurance Building (NRB) is seen as one of the most important 109 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

2 Günkut Akın discusses NRB with relation to its historical neighbor. In the text, he refers to the idea of megastructures and their urban context; he emphasizes how the project was appreciated without an extensive evaluation of the building and its design (2006).

3 Dündaralp’s article discusses Günkut Akın’s detailed criticism on NRB throughly (2006).

4 Panopticon here is as a metaphor that Michel Foucault mentions, but can also be explained further with Deleuze’s article ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control’, where he talks about people start to become part of something where they involuntarily start to control each other.

buildings to be designed and constructed within the last few decades in Turkey.

Neighboring Maçka Palas (Guilio Mongeri, 1922), a well-known a century year old building with a prominent façade, the NRB building is located in one the busiest avenues of İstanbul. The building carefully chooses to remain within the same level with its historical neighbor.2 One cannot miss the volumetric novelty of the building.

It draws itself back from street creating this void that extends the volume of the street, while on the top two floors it aligns with its neighbor and therefore covers the void created below. Apparently, the building has been praised mostly for the carefully divided smaller volumes for two major reasons: the careful ‘dialogue’ created with its neighboring historical building, and secondly that it presents a public arcade and extends the city space with the passage on its ground level.

Both of the statements above should be reconsidered. According to Akın (2005) there is a big controversy in terms of forming a relationship with the historical building; the NRB adopts a ‘modernist’ approach via which it tends to obliterate the historical, while it seemed to advocate to be doing the opposite. Especially in the 90s, when the project was built and started to be taken as a ‘model’ of intervention by other architects, this started to be even more problematic.3 Secondly, as another controversy, what the building has inspired or encouraged many architects was also the public arcade (or passage way) that was connecting two big avenues in the busy district of Nişantaşı. It created this void with the help of both the volumetric design and the passage itself that was open to ‘everyone’. Neither the entrance from the sides or the passage is really open to all, nor the Art Gallery on the ground floor that was positioned to create some ‘harmony’ with the shop window alignment of this commercial district is (not to mention that this passage is under constant surveillance). Instead, what this void has served to do was to indirectly emphasize the institution’s presence, creating a panopticon4 like space, where everyone involuntarily start to watch each other, but under the pressure of a corporate-like institution. In other words, the idea that the leisure space created is not for everyone and even when it is, it is nothing more than an illusion that ‘everything is just fine’.

The second competition project that has been regarded as one of the most important architectural productions is Zorlu Center in Zincirlikuyu by Emre Arolat Architects and Tabanlıoğlu Architects. The building complex consists of residences, offices, a shopping mall, and a very big performance center. The project offers terraces and viewpoints in various levels just like a huge courtyard. The massive building is divided into volumes. The project is presented and praised for its open space that ‘welcomes’ the city. In Emre Arolat Architects’ website, it is stated that: “In the general formation of the complex, instead of using the recent grandiose

Competitions and Architecture 110 Symposium

and gleeming architectural tendency that has been dominant over such big investments of the modern world, an approach that derives its power from public motivations and keeps itself away from the habit of “society of spectacle” has been embraced.”5 The contradiction in the context of this paper stems from the fact that Zorlu Center is -even more than the NRB- not likely to welcome people. The terraces and the void it is proud to have are ironically more loaded and directive. If leisure means the time that is free from responsibilities, it could also be seen as something that sustains the ‘have to’s. Then the void included in an architectural design may serve as something more loaded than the actual volume that surrounds it in many respects. In addition to that, the huge amount of various plants that are to introduce nature into the complex serve as part of an illusion. The terrace and the void, instead of creating a social life that belong to the public, creates an artificial space that reminds people of the heaviness of the commercial facilities.

In his article “Money and Meaning: The Case of John Portman”, Reinhold Martin points out how Portman talks about his own take on architecture and creating space.6 Among Portman’s work there are innumerable hotels, office buildings, and residences, which tend to embody atriums with potted plants; they are ‘naturalized’ and the corporate is ‘humanized’. According to Martin, this is how within these massive scaled buildings, most of which belong to an urban context, can ‘rather than machine-like and inhuman, in the atrium, capital –and power- begins to look friendly, warm and natural’.

On the other hand, Portman says his design embraces many lessons from modernism’s errors; unlike some monumental architecture “which failed to communicate with the people”, his architecture was for people and not for things. Martin points out how Portman and his way of architectural production commodifies even the public space –and turns it into an atrium- and how he naturalizes this environment with potted plants. From around the 70s on, atriums and its accessories become the indispensable elements of this kind of architectural production (Martin, 2009).

The location of the Zorlu Center makes it even harder for the public life to be extended into the building as it is situated right next to one of the major in-city highways of Istanbul and another major busy artery. It does not neighbor any existing organic city space. In other words, the architectural production of Zorlu Center attempts to justify its own design via ideas that contradict with its own existence. It tries to embody a discourse that cannot belong to such a massive private enterprise.

Conclusion

Today, the autonomy of the practice of architecture seems to be a very delicate subject, the quest for a criticism of such is widely seen as unnecessary if not irrelevant.

5 EAA, website (2014).

6 In the very beginning of the article Martin openly says that he does not mean to show Portman as a role model.

According to Martin, “Portman’s work is symptomatic, not exemplary.”

111 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

Yet on the other hand, this is exactly how architectural production justifies itself and tends to conceal its contradictions and therefore it is time to ask new questions.

Competitions and Architecture 112 Symposium

References

Akın, G. (2005) “Mongeri’nin Komşuları”, Afife Batur’a Armağan, Literatur, İstanbul.

Deleuze, G. (2001). Postscript on the Societies of Control, in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Leach, N., trans by ?, Routledge, London.

Komossa, S., (2010). The Dutch Urban Block and the Public Realm: Modesls Rules Ideals, Vantilt, Nijmegen.

Martin, R., (2009). Money and Meaning: The Case of John Portman, in Hunch, No:12, p. 36-51, Berlage Institute Report on Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape, NAi Publishers, Amsterdam.

URL-1 Dündaralp, B. (2006). http://bogachandundaralp.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/med-millireasc3bcransmetnibdsr.pdf URL-2 EAA. (2014). Zorlu Center http://www.emrearolat.com/2008/01/01/zorlu-center-istanbul-turkey-2008/#

113 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

A NEW MODEL PROPOSAL FOR DIALOG BASED COMPETITIONS Görkem Rabia Evkaya

Figure 1: Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral (URL-1)

After the Persian War in 448 BC, the government of Athens wants to build a war memorial at the Acropolis and chooses a path for it that is quite safe. An exhibition of several artists’ proposals is presented to the public for ten days. In the end of ten days, the Athenians decide the winner with a public voting. It is obvious why the Government of Athens chooses such a method. It is quite a radical step to construct a building that will have a long-lasting effect on the city with a symbolic value and its surroundings. The Government of Athens secures its position by allowing the public express their opinions on the war memorial to be built.

Competition is the ideal method for the clients for finding the right designer and being able to see a combination of many different proposals (Haan, Haagsma, 1988). Acropolis is not the only example of a war memorial in the distant past. In 1401, in Florence, a competition was announced for the bronze doors of the Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral. Lorenzo Ghiberti won the competition where the goldsmith Brunelleschi was also an attendant. In 1419, another competition was opened for the dome of the same cathedral. Brunelleschi’s winning also becomes an occasion for him to meet architecture. Unlike in Athens, an appointed jury made the decisions, not the Florentines.

Having a jury that is impartial and fair is indisputable but the competitions have gone through all kinds of injustice until it reached today. In the second half of the 16th century, The King Philip II wanted to get a monastery built in Escorial and opened a competition with Giacomo Barozzi as the judge. At the end of the contest where twenty-two of the architects participated, Vignola takes some features from each project he liked and presented this new project he created to the King. The king embraced this new proposal, but the building was never built. This event is an indication that competitions do not work the way they are idealized from time to time (Haan, Haagsma, 1988).

Competitions and Architecture 114 Symposium

History of competitions is filled with dissimilar situations and events. Another story takes place during the expansion of the Louvre. Louis XIV desires to be surrounded by wonderful buildings. And to fulfill the request he assigns Jean Baptiste Colbert. Colbert’s suggestion is the completion of the Royal Palace of Louvre. The construction of the palace had been ongoing since 1546 and an impressive finish for the eastern façade was expected.

Then on, Colbert organized some kind of competition and sent all the proposals to Rome to be presented to the Italian architects. Contrary to expectations, rather than an evaluation, the jury sent their individual project presentations back to Paris. Even worse, Colbert invited Bernini to Paris for the application of the project. However, participating French architects’ - especially Pierre Perrault’s- response was quite harsh.

Fortunately the uprising worked and Louis XIV rejecting the Bernini’s proposal, commissioned the design of the east wing to three French architects: Louis Le Vau, Charles Lebrun and Claude Perrault.

Figure 2. East Wing of the Louvre Museum (URL-2)

Throughout the history but especially in the years of revolution, French architects’ growing opposition played an important role in the formation of the modern competitions (Haan, Haagsma, 1988).

With the fire of the French Revolution, Architects’ increasing quest for rights succeeded to have a voice on the competitions yet had not been able to overcome the negativity that was imposed on them.

It is not surprising that competitions in the world of architecture are announced controversial and unreliable within a short time. According to Lipstadt, architectural 115 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

competitions are perceived as experimental approaches (Lipstadt, 1989). Kreiner considers this approach as investments made for the exploration of new ideas (Kreiner). In the past, it was considered wasteful to have many people work for the same subject for alternative solutions running in parallel time when it was known that only one of them would be applied, now this extravagance is considered a necessary investment in the name of creativity in the architectural competitions. However, the autonomy of competition or deceptive image of its economic size cannot be thought independently. Even in 1899, William Robert Ware (Bergdoll, 1989) expressed his opinion on this issue as follows: “Each competition with the most comprehensive form would cost the profession hundreds of thousands of dollars, most of it is up to the architects who can forcibly meet this loss. Having approximately fifty or a hundred projects delivered and yet only one project getting the job and only of half a dozen projects to be taken seriously in the continuation of the process is so cruel and heartbreaking ... Thus the profession, which is forced to race, grows with the agony and the aches of the victims. There is no doubt that this competition system had turned into a kind of nightmare, an incubus that chokes the professional life and a vampire that sucks its blood”.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, in his book The Poverty of Philosophy, defends the idea that competition inhibits competitiveness (Proudhon, 2012). If competiveness is necessary and a prerequisite of the production, how can it be so devastating? And if the most definitive statement of it is the misery of people dragged behind, how can it beneficial? Because, the following disadvantages, as just as its benefits, are not caused by people: Logically, each of which results from a principle and they maintain their existence vis a vis.

Kristian Kreiner’s dialogue-based competition proposal has been constructed over creativity and skill requirements, efficiency and justice, which are the three balance elements of the competitions. A good process of competition only can be experienced in an environment where these three concepts can exist. Proposed competition model while being based on dialogue-based competition model, seeks for more democratic ways on behalf of the architects and the public. While moving the election of competing architects to a platform that is considered fairer, it also gives the public a say in determination of the winner.

Proposal for a New Model

Jack Nasar emphasizes that when investor is developing its proposal for competitions, he primarily should consider the suitability of the competition (Nasr, 1999). The question investor should be asking itself is “Am I doing a right investment?”

Competitions and Architecture 116 Symposium

After the investor settles on competition, he should decide the subject and the type in line his expectations. If the expectation is focused on an idea or a simple project with a strong artistic side, open competition will be the most efficient method. But if the aim is to obtain a more complex building, then an invited competition is considered as a more appropriate approach. At this stage unlike the open competitions, participating architects are selected. This critical step, which is one of the three balance elements of the competitions, becomes one of the most important factors in ensuring justice.

Based on the identity confidentiality in the competitions, it is not allowed for participants, judges and the client to have a dialogue, yet this situation is exposed to criticism by many. In particular, the investor not having the power of choice can lead to more critical situations. Jury’s selection of projects that cannot respond to the requests and the needs of the investor, later cause competition projects not getting realized.

Sometimes it’s the opposite that happens and the investor may lead to the selection of the project that he desires by putting pressure on the jury. Both of these cases a lot of negativity is inherent. However, competitions can exist between the architect and the investor. It seems to be a more efficient method to establish dialog in the process and produce projects in that direction rather than having hundreds of projects produced to explore the needs and the tendencies of the investor. Most valuable phase of the architectural design process is the meetings of the architect and the investor to designate the needs of the investor. The investor and the architect can be two team members who are working in synergy (Nasr, 1999).

If an investor is willing about competition, the best chance of success is increased by a competition that is well prepared and well supervised. According to an information given by a competition consultant in Germany, a well prepared competition costs to the investor 1.5-2 times the calculated budget, but the investor is able to compensate this cost with a budget saving that will be held with the winning design. The three phases indicated in Table 1 is recommended for a successful competition that ensures creativity and skill requirements, productivity and the balance of justice. In this sense, a good competition requires a sound and a carefully crafted program, a fair pre-selection and a well set-up evaluation process. Actions indicated in the table may vary according to the type of the competition. For example, in open competitions, a different path can be followed than searching for a more complex and sophisticated design.

117 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

PROGRAM • Preparing a detailed Program PREQUALIFICATION • Choosing a professional consultant • Creating a participants list out of architects from different scales and infrastructures • Creating a list of participants out of architects with different scales and infrastructures DESIGNING THE EVALUATION PROCESS • Bringing together the jury, the client and the participants • Organization of the workshops • Evaluation and submission before the Jury meeting • Open panel and declaration of the evaluation results Table 1.1. Steps of the proposed model

Phase 1: Program

A competition needs a detailed schedule in order to assess the feasibility of the plot, the needs of spatial planning and the compliance of these two. The success of a competition, substantially, depends on the formulation of the program and the care in its writing. According to a survey conducted by Nasara, the vast majority of architects’ decision whether to enter a competition depends on the presence of a whole and a clear program (Nasar, 1999). There must be a clear purpose and moral obligation in the writing of the program and fulfillment of it and the evaluation must be under the same conditions. Inadequate programs often result in projects that are not carried out.

Planning the Program Designating the goals of the program Designating the content of the program Designating the information needed Designating the process, the index, the rules, the responsibilities together with the investor Designating the primary information sources Understanding the organization and the philosophy of the investor • Nature of the organization, the appearance and the philosophy • Function of the organization and communication process • Satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the ongoing process • Designating the aim of the user

Competitions and Architecture 118 Symposium

Building the goals of the Project • Functional goals • Goals related to form • Goals related to time

Organizing the data research

• Collecting and organizing the cases about the project • Survey and personal interviews • Literature review • Observation of ongoing operation and cases • Background information from the Investor

Review of similar buildings and processes Collecting cases related to the building function Collecting cases related to the building form Collecting cases related to the building economy Collecting cases related to the time (historical, present, future) Analyzing the information

• Analyzing the collected cases • Standards for functional spaces • Listing spatial needs • Spatial diagrams • Interaction patterns between activities • Written definitions of functional units

Developing a Concept

• Searching out for conceptual alternatives, testing and developing them • Developing functional concepts • Developing concepts depending on form, economy and time

Designating the problems and needs depending on the budget • Functional needs • Formal needs • Economical needs

Considering the project impact

• Impact of the investor on its organization and operation • Social and ecological impacts

Revising the program and fixing the mistakes Table 1.2. Mixed list of the program model (Nasar, 1999)

Each step that is mentioned on the list can be combined in different ways for different competitions. The program elements may vary depending on the need of the competition. The specifications and the program, which creates the first interaction area of the architect with the competition, have the power to give the architect the right

119 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

guidance when prepared accurately. Therefore, handling all aspects of the competition in the preparation of the program is the most necessary need.

Reducing the program to only a list of needs is an indication that in the later stages of the project there will be a lot of negativity.

Phase 2: Prequalification

Determining the participating architects in the invited competitions varies from competition to competition. This action that has no standard or rule, can be described as the selection of architects not projects. Sometimes, by organizing invited competitions with two-phases, the institution organizing the competition can refer to the method of open competition where in the first phase is they are able to do an evaluation over the projects. Particularly, in the competitions opened for the reconstruction of Berlin, while some architects that would compete in the competitions were designated, open competitions and drawing of lots before a notary were arranged for the open quota in order to give chance to the local and the inexperienced architects. Another method, as implemented in France is designating the invited architects by their previous experiences and the portfolios. However, the reason this method received much criticism stems from the fact that it gives no chance to the young and in inexperienced architects.

Jack Nasar emphasizes the need to take professional consulting services in competitions (Nasr, 1999). The model proposed in this thesis underlines the fact that the pre-selection must be done by professional consultants. In our country, several different institutions have their own regulations of competitions. But the most profound knowledge and experience in this issue belong to the Chamber of Architects. The Chamber of Architects’ unbiased attitude about the competitions is satisfactory in terms of reliability. In addition, President of the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) George Pendle argues that there should be an agreement among architects, potential participants and investors and this agreement could only be made by the representative organizations and the organizations (Pendle, 2012). It is been anticipated that an independent body of “competition group” created in The Chamber of Architects could provide consulting services in preparing program for the investor, selection of participating architects, organization of workshops and the evaluation phase. This group bears a great responsibility especially in the selection the participant architects. One must be careful about the creation of equal conditions among the architects in terms of ensuring justice and the equality for all to have the same chance to compete, not to be in position precedence over the other.

In the proposal competition model, the architects who want to enter the Competitions and Architecture 120 Symposium

competition will apply to the competitions group with a portfolio. Competitions group will collect the applications in three pools. These pools will be created according to number of awards applicant teams received previously, the scale of the architectural services and duration of the profession. More uncertain and more dynamic groups are expected to be created according to categorization based only on the scale of offices out of these three factors. In the next stage there will be lots drawn up from these pools before a notary according to the requirement of specified number of participants in the competition. Another method proposed by Nasar is having very young teams paired up with more experienced teams. The same method applies for the model proposed in the thesis. During the categorization, competitions group will have the opportunity to do the pairing if seen necessary. In this system in which the purpose is ensuring the most democratic environment possible for the competitions, it is aimed to protect every architect’s right of compete.

Phase 3: Designing the Evaluation Process

In the evaluation phase of the new competition model, DTY rules will apply to a large extent. The evaluation phase, which consists of a series of meetings, unlike the ongoing competitions will not be at the end of the design process but it will be proceeding concurrently with the design process. At this stage where the competitive dialogue is dominating, the competitors, the investors and the jury will be in a controlled communication. The proposal that aims to have all parties work in collaboration informs the public of the projects in favor of protecting its democratic side and leaves the final choice to the public. Evaluation process steps is stated in the following table: Introduction Meeting The jury members, the client and all the participant teams come together.

Workshop 1 First sketches presented by the participation of all teams. Feedbacks are given.

Workshop 2 (the number of workshops can be increased depending on the scale of the project) All participant teams present more detailed plans. Feedbacks are given.

Evaluation and Submission before the Jury meeting All the teams hand in their submissions and make presentations on a seminar.

Open panel, exhibition and public voting Public voting held as a public activity and competition results are announced.

Table 1.3. Steps of the evaluation process

121 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

The evaluation process of the proposal competition model starts with an introduction meeting of the jury, investors and participant architects. This meeting is important in terms of the architect understand the jury’s and the investor’s approach.

In this meeting, which is designed in a similar manner with a Pre-colloquium, the expectations are reciprocally disclosed. After having built their first ideas with the help of the hints from the introductory meeting, teams share their work with the jury, the investors and the other teams. The circumstance of ongoing data collection with the investor’s demand and received feedback plays an important role in the formation of ideas of the competitors beside the workshops. The experts and third parties taking part in this study can have a say according to their areas of expertise for the development of the design. Depending on the scale of the project, after the first workshop contestants detailing their designs can come together in a second workshop if seen necessary. In a manner similar to the previous one, in this study, the detailed projects are shared and the investors’, the jury’s and the experts’ opinions are taken. After this workshop the teams continue with their individual work and prepare their final projects. In the next step the teams carry out a presentation of their final submissions. This presentation is recognized as a pre-assessment before the jury evaluation.

After the submissions, the jury’s independent evaluation is very important. The investor who had a voice as a guide in the formation of designs, at this point has to respect the jury’s decision. Two finalists are selected during the jury evaluation.

Immediately after the jury’s evaluation the results are to be announced in the form of an open panel. In the event, held with the participation of the people, the teams get the opportunity to promote their projects. The two finalists that are chosen by the jury are submitted for public voting and this way the winner is determined. The results are announced at the event where the people stands as a voter and an overall evaluation is held.

Competitions and Architecture 122 Symposium

Table 1.4. Table of Proposal Model Process

123 Competitions and Architecture Symposium

References

Bergdoll, B. (1989). The Experimental Tradition. Essays on Competitions in Architecture, H. Lipstadt. Competing in the Academy and the Marketplace: European Architecture Competitions 1401-1927, New York, Princeton Architectural Press: 21-45 Haan, de Hilde ve Haagsma, Ids (1988), Architects in Competition: International Architectural Competitions of the Last 200 Years. New York, Thames and Hudson: 59-62 Kreiner, Kristian (t.y.), Paradoxes of Architectural Competitions: The Competition Between Efficiency, Justice and Creativity Adres: http://www. arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2010-0441-0450_Kreiner.pdf Lipstadt, H. (Ed) (1989). The Experimental Tradition. New York, Princeton Architectural Press: 33-45 Nasar, L. Jack (1999). Design by Competition: Making Design Competition Work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 15-60 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (2012). System of Economical Contradictions or The Philosophy of Poverty. İstanbul, Kaos Publishing: 146-148 Url-1 http://en.wikiarquitectura.com, last checked: 12.10.2013 Url-2 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre__Fa%C3%A7ade_est_d’apr%C3%A8s_Claude_Perrault.jpg, last checked: 12.10.2013

Competitions and Architecture 124 Symposium

Notes

Notes

Notes