Final Master Thesis of Duygu Kaban by Duygu Kaban

EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN PUBLIC SPACES Gezi Park as Case Study

Winter Semester 2014 Bauhaus Universität Weimar Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism Study course Advanced Urbanism Master Thesis by B. Scn. Duygu Kaban 1st examiner: Prof. Dr. Frank Eckardt 2nd examiner: Dr.-Ing. Zeynep Günay Weimar, 2014

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Aim of The Study 1.2. Research Content 1.3. Research Methodology

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. Executive Control 2.1.1. Power | Governance 2.2. Bio-Power | Bio-Politics 2.2.1. Norm | Normalization 2.2.2. Panopticon: Obedience 2.2.3. Power of Knowledge 2.3. Executive Control in Public Spaces 2.4. Conclusion 3. PUBLICNESS OF PUBLIC SPACES IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKISH PLANING 3.1. Executive Control and Bio-Power in Public Spaces 3.2. Planning and Public Spaces in Turkey 3.3. Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning 3.3.1. Transformation of Public Space and Bio-Power 3.4. Conclusion

4. GEZI PARK AS CASE STUDY 4.1. Historical Background 4.1.1. Before Republic Period (Westernization Period) 4.1.2. Early Republic Period 1923-1950 (Turkification Period) 4.1.3. Multi Party Regime and Coup d’états Period 1950-1980 (Political Square) 4.1.4. Post-national Period 1980-2003 (Economic Liberalization Period) 4.1.5. Neoliberal Conservative Period 2003-2014 (Neo-Ottoman/Erdoğan Period) 4.2. Gezi Park Occupy Movement 4.2.1. Taksim Square Project 4.2.2. Occupy Gezi Park 5. CONCLUSION 5.1. Current Situation and Uncertainty APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY

â&#x20AC;&#x153;None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believed they are free.â&#x20AC;?

Goethe

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I would like to thank to the Bauhaus European Urbanism Faculty for giving me the opportunity of the great experience both in China and Germany. I am also grateful to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Frank Eckardt and Dr.-Ing. Zeynep Günay for their time, advice and supports. My special thanks goes to the Weimar and China family to make this experience unique. Especially, I am very grateful to the all KL4 members and to Duygu Atceken, never let me down during this research process. Additionally, I would like thank to everyone who takes part to fight for Gezi. Finally, my grates gratitude goes to Müşerref Kaban, Ahmet Kaban and Doğan Kaban for their continuously support and love.

TERMINOLOGY

Abdullah Gül: 11th President of Turkey. He

also served four months as prime minister from 2002 to 2003. Adnan Menderes: The first free elected Prime Minister of Turkey. He rved as prime minister in 1950 and was overthrown and executed in 1960 from the military coup. Alevi: Known as Alevi-Bektashiyyah tariqa, bātenī school of Islamic theology, and also has some Sunni elements. It makes up the quarter of the population in Republic of Turkey. Ankara: The Capital city of Republic of Turkey. Ataköy: The model town situated west Istanbul. Built as one of the Menderes Operations. Beyazıt Square: Situated in the European part of Istanbul, Turkey, is a square in the district of Fatih. Bedrettin Dalan: First major of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality between 1984 and 1989. Bosphorus Bridge: Known as Boğaziçi Köprüsü or First Bosphorus Bridge. Built in 1973. Cemevi: A place of fundamental importance for Turkey’s Alevi-Bektashiyyah tariqa populations and traditions. According to Presidency of Religious Affairs of Turkey, it is not a place of worship Cemil Topuzlu: Known as Cemil Pasha, was a leading surgeon in late Ottoman and early re-

public period. Open-air theatre in Harbiye later on named Cemil Topuzlu. Çapulling: A neologism originating in the Gezi Park protests in Turkey, coined from Prime Minister Erdoğan’s use of the term çapulcu (roughly translated to “looters”) to describe the protestors. Çapulcu was rapidly reappropriated by the protestors, both in its original form and as the anglicized chapuller and additionally verbified chapulling, given the meaning of “fighting for your rights”. Chapulling has been used in Turkish both in its English form and in the hybrid word form çapuling. Divan Hotel: Second hotel in Taksim district, built in 1956. Dolmabahçe: Located in Beşiktaş district in Istanbul, served as the main administrative center of the Ottoman Empire from 1856 to 1922. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge: Known as the Second Bosphorus Bridge. Built in 1988. Galata: Located at the northern shore of the Golden Horn. The medieval citadel of Galata was a colony of the Republic of Genoa between 1273 and 1453. The famous Galata Tower was built by the Genoese in 1348 at the northernmost and highest point of the citadel. At present, Galata is a quarter within the borough of Beyoğlu in Istanbul, and is known as Karaköy. Gecekondu: Gecekondu, in Turkish means over night settlement. In common usage, it refers to the low cost apartment buildings or houses that were constructed in a very short time by people migrating from rural areas to the outskirts of the large cities. The gecekondu phenomenon is directly linked with the problems of unemployment and poverty in the rural areas of Turkey, especially in the east of the country. Gezi Park: An urban park next to Taksim Square, in Istanbul’s Beyoğlu district (historically known as Pera.) It is one of the last green spaces in Beyoğlu and one of the smallest parks of Istanbul. In May 2013, plans to replace the park with a reconstruction of the former Taksim Military Barracks (demolished in 1940) intended to house a shopping mall sparked the nationwide

2013 protests in Turkey. Golden Horn: Haliç, a major urban waterway and the primary inlet of the Bosphorus in Istanbul, Turkey. Gümüşsuyu: A district between Taksim and Beşiktaş, Today it hosts several consulates, Istanbul Technical University Gümüşsuyu Campus, Gümüşsuyu Pak, and neighbor of Dolmabahçe and Inönü Stadium. Gümüşsuyu Barrack: Today serves as a part of Istanbul Tachnical Univarsity. Built in 1861. Halil Pasa Artillery Barrack: The former Taksim Military Barracks (demolished in 1940) intended to house a shopping mall sparked the nationwide 2013 protests in Turkey. Harbiye: A district of Şişli, Istanbul. Among the other important buildings located in Harbiye are Istanbul Radio House, the Cemal Reşit Rey Concert Hall and the Cemil Topuzlu Open-Air Theatre, all republican era architectural assets of Turkey. Henry Prost: French planner, who worked for Istanbul from 1936 to 1950. The Republican era city was shaped according to the design of him. Hilton Hotel: First hotel in Taksim district, built in 1956. Built in 1952. Historical Peninsula: The center of ancient Istanbul. Four major empires had been ruled from this point. As you can guess, there are many historic places on the Historic Peninsula like mosques, churches, palaces, etc. İktidar: Capability to do work, man, sovereign; achievement of authority to do work; the possession of the power of government power or government disposition; people or institutions who have the possession of this power. İnönü Stadium: A football stadium in Istanbul, Turkey and the home ground of the football club Beşiktaş J.K.. Previously the ground had also been shared with Galatasaray S.K. and Fenerbahçe S.K. The ground was located in Dolmabahçe, close to the Dolmabahçe Palace in the district of Beşiktaş. Today under constraction to increase the capacity. İsmet İnönü: The second man of Kemal

Atatürk; the first prime minister of Republic of Turkey; the second president after the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Istanbulite: A person from or living in Istanbul. İstiklal Caddesi: Situated from Taksim Square to Tünel. Known as Grand Rue de Péra or Cadde-i Kebir in Ottoman era. Kamusal: Belong to the state, public. Also see ‘Özel’. Kanlı Pazar: Second military intervention has aimed to stop the student movement in Beyazit Square and Taksim Square (Kanlı Pazar) in 1969. In English; Bloody Sunday. Karaköy: The modern name for the ancient Galata, is a commercial neighborhood in the Beyoğlu district of Istanbul, Turkey, located at the northern part of the Golden Horn. Kemalist: The founding ideology of Turkey, also refers Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s status quo. Lahmacun: One of the characteristic foods of southeastern Turkey, identified with Arab cuisine, lahmacun became popular fast food among the new migrants into Istanbul and simultaneously an expression of resentment among middle and upper classes in the city. Levent: A neighbourhood and one of the main business districts of Istanbul, a project of Menderes. Lütfi Kirdar: Long-term Governor and Mayor of Istanbul between 1939 and 1949. During his term as governor and mayor, important buildings were constructed in Istanbul, among them Sport and Exhibition Center (renamed later Istanbul Lütfi Kırdar Convention and Exhibition Center), Cemil Topuzlu Open-Air Theatre, Mithat Pasha Stadium (renamed later BJK İnönü Stadium), Taksim Square and Atatürk Boulevard, which connects Golden Horn with Aksaray in Fatih district. Maçka Barrack: Today serves as a part of Istanbul Tachnical Univarsity. Built in 1825. Maçka Park: Also known as Maçka Democracy Park, located between Dolmabahçe, Maçka, Nişantaşı and Harbiye. The Marmara Hotel: Located on the southern part of Taksim Square, former Istanbul Interconti-

nental and Marmara Etap Hotel. Planned in Henry Prost era, built in 1972. Marshall Aid: Officially the European Recovery Program, ERP, was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. Mecidiye Barrack (Taşkışla): Today serves as the main building of Architecture Faculty of Istanbul Tachnical Univarsity. Built in 1849. Meclis: Parliament, assembly. Mekteb-i Harbiye: Today serves as a Turkish Military Academy. Built in 1862. Menderes Operations: Reconstruction Plan of Istanbul, declared by Adnan Menderes in 24th of September 1956. In Lütfi Kırdar era the first stage materialized. Later, it emerged in depth as a huge operation. Marshall Aid was used to build huge high ways and most of the heritage buildings on the shore were demolished for opening of highways. Automobile usage was encouraged. This era is beginning of the gecekondu settlements. There is almost no improvement of public transportation as well as no precaution to avoid gecekondu settlements. Millet (Nation) Boulevard: One of the biggest avenues in Historical peninsula. Built as one of the example of Menderes operation. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: Founder of Republic of Turkey. Necmettin Erbakan: Founder of Islamic Welfare Party. He served as Prime Minister of Turkey from 1996 to 1997. He was pressured by the military to step down as prime minister and was later banned from politics by the Constitutional Court of Turkey for violating the separation of religion and state as mandated by the constitution, a ban that was later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Nurettin Sözen: Former mayor of Istanbul between March 28, 1989 until March 27, 1994. Özel: In an English-Turkish dictionary from 1860s, the translation of the word private is given

as: peculiar to being secluded, special, proper to – secret, concealed, hidden, intimate – that which is not official and administrative, that which is related to the units of people, concerning individual affairs. The meanings of the word public as an adjective are: that which is spread to people, common, general, that which belongs to the state, administrative, at the service of state. In the 150 years since these definitions numerous new ones have been made but we can still say that the word ‘özel’ in Turkish does not fully correspond to the word ‘private’ in English. These translations demonstrate that the users of this language could only grasp these foreign concepts within their own mental and linguistic conventions. They could only imagine the meaning of the word private in relation to the familiar social practices such as those, which were supposed to be kept from other’s eyes and ears, the utmost personal secrecy. But what is more interesting is that the word public defines that which is related to the people, to the nation, and particularly to the state. What is all more striking is the translation of private into Turkish as ‘has’. In common classical Ottoman usage this term qualifies not private but that which belongs to the sultan. In short, the word ‘has’ was also used to imply public use created by the sultan. So the dilemma reveals itself. Does it mean public or private? This answer is neither of them. Pangaltı: One of the four neighbourhoods (together with Teşvikiye, Maçka and Osmanbey) within the Nişantaşı quarter of the Şişli district in Istanbul. Park No. 2: Prost’s master city plan, which came into force in 1939, provided for a much larger Taksim Gezi Park with continuous green space, which he called Park No. 2, covering an area of 30 ha (74 acres) between the neighborhoods of Taksim, Nişantaşı and Maçka extending to Bosphorus including the Dolmabahçe Valley. The larger park was intended to offer green space for recreation to Istanbul’s residents and tourists, but it has never been completely realized.

Pera: Ancient name of Beyoglu district. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: 12th and current

President of Turkey. He also served as prime minister from 2003 to 2014 and as the Mayor of İstanbul between 1994 and 1998. Sedat Hakkı Eldem: A Turkish Architect. One of the pioneers of nationalized modern architecture in Turkey. Sıraselviler: A street, which connects Taksim Square to Cihangir district. Sultan Abdülmecit: The 31st Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and 110th Caliph of Islam, his biggest achievement was the announcement and application of the Tanzimât (Reorganization) reforms which were prepared by his father Mahmud II and effectively started the modernization of Ottoman Empire in 1839. Sultan Mehmet: Fatih Sultan Mehmet or known as the conqueror of Istanbul, the 7th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and Qayser-i Rûm. Süzer Plaza: Commonly known as Gökkafes; ‘gök’, described as sky; ‘kafes’ described as cage. Construction phase had a large sensation. Afterwards with the help of current prime minister the municipal frontier has changed. Built in 1999. Şişhane: A district of Beyoğlu, Istanbul. Located on the western shore of Golden Horn. Taksim Square: Located in the European part of Istanbul, Turkey, a major tourist and leisure district famed for its restaurants, shops, and hotels. It is considered the heart of modern Istanbul, with the central station of the Istanbul Metro network. Taksim Square is also the location of the Monument of the Republic (Turkish: Cumhuriyet Anıtı), which was crafted by Pietro Canonica and inaugurated in 1928. The monument commemorates the 5th anniversary of the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, following the Turkish War of Independence. Talimhane: A district of Beyoğlu, Istanbul; ‘talim’, described as a training field; ‘hane’ described as section. Tanzimât: Reorganization of the Ottoman Empire; it was a period of reformation that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era

in 1876. Began with the declaration of Tanzimat Fermanı. Tanzimât Fermanı: Rescript of Gülhane. Tarlabasi Boulevard: Located on the Taksim-Şişhane axis. Widened with the extrajudicial demolition of the 386 buildings, also some of them were examples of civil architecture from 1986 to 1988. Turgut Özal: 8th President of Turkey. He also served as prime minister from 1983 to 1989. Famous with economic liberalization and privatizations. Vatan (Country) Boulevard: One of the biggest avenues in Historical peninsula. Built as one of the example of Menderes operation. Yenikapı: A port and a quarter in Fatih, Istanbul and the underground mass rapid transit terminal of the new Marmaray railway link connecting the Asian and European sides of the city through a new tunnel under the Bosporus. During the archaeological excavation at the Yenikapı Marmaray construction site, it has been learned that Istanbul’s history dates back further than was previously thought, some 8,500 years. The new alternative demonstration space is also located in this district.

ABBREIVALS

AKM (Atatürtk Kültür Merkezi): Ataturk Cultural Center AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi): Justice and Development Party CCTV: Closed Circuit Television MOBESE (MOBil Elektronik Sistem Entegrasyonu): Mobile Electronic System Integration RP (Refah Partisi): Islamic Welfare Party TDK (Türk Dil Kurumu): Turkish Language Association TRT (Türkiye Radyo Televizyon Kurumu): Turkish Radio and Television Cooperation

1.1. The Aim of The Study

Public spaces, as the gathering points for a democratic interaction between strangers are a testing ground of political ideologies and pure symbolic actions.

The aim of the study is to understand the relation between bio-power and urban public spaces, how publicness can be established and the capability of the ‘ruler’ to control bodies through it. While public spaces are expected to offer free access its users, surveillance systems, undercover police officers, media access control, etc. show us actually the extent to which the user of the space is not free as assumed. The main focus of the research is to unfold Turkish planning system in the content of ‘governmentality’ and the public space as a tool of the bio-power, which means the massifying capture of life by political power. It is neither sovereignty over subjects, nor discipline over individualized bodies (Theophanidis 2013).

In last decades, Republic of Turkey and especially Istanbul is undergoing a rapid as well as brutal transformation for the sake of political ideologies under the neo-liberal urban planning direction with its profit-oriented roots and increasing consumerist dimension. Citizen’s role, which supposes to be the role of the actual users of the space, underestimated for many decades.

Gezi Park occupation, as the main focus of this study, is the last witness exposing the power of the ‘ruler’. In the broader context, three different strategic points, a main boulevard and a historic street surround Taksim Square. Amongst square’s surroundings, The Marmara Hotel is a private building and AKM (Ataturk Kultur Merkezi) is closed and under the danger of privatization.

1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction

It’s believed that privatization is a tool of governmental control over the space (Salamon & Lund 1989). The planned shopping mall in Gezi Park, with its strategic location, is another point helping the government to control and depoliticize the square. Besides all, the new demonstration space dictated by the government in Yenikapı has no symbolic or historic components encouraging the gathering of masses. Restricting people’s right of Demonstration in a ‘democratic country’, such as Turkey, shows how the government uses the space as a tool of control under the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. Historically, Ataturk is accepted as the founder and the only leader of Turkish society. In many public and institutional spaces Ataturk sculptures and posters stand out. This ‘holly image’ affects human memory, developing an auto control, which is evident in many countries with a dictatorship regime. On the other hand, Recep Tayyip Erdogan - current president of Turkey, former Prime Minister of Turkey (2003-2014) and the former chairman of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) - represent the latest incarnation of a once-banned Islamist movement with a majority in the

Assembly, or Meclis, forming the first non-coalition government in Ankara for fifteen years. Being the only power in the country after a long time reviles the role of Ataturk changes and Erdogan becomes more powerful every passing day. In this sense, there are many such examples around the world, where the symbolic and political features of a public space were destroyed, in order to make room for touristic and consumerist aims via privatization or militarization of the space (i.e. Tiananmen Square, Wenceslas Square). In Gezi Park occupation, a kind of the new social movement, unprecedented in Turkey was the conspicuous reaction of the rising masses against the hegemony of the power (iktidar1). Eventually, in terms of bio-power and bio-politics over urban public spaces, similarities are occurred between the discipline of urban planning itself and bio-power. According to Köroğlu and Yılmaz (2004), the discipline of urban planning has the role of regulator and controller since it intervenes in the process of society, space, and economy (Köroğlu & Yılmaz 2004). However, the 1 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Introduction

discipline of urban planning has no interest to create a “pure community” or “disciplined society”. If the goal of planning theorists is to create a strong civil society, which is free from domination and more democratic, as Flyvbejrg (2002) argues, then the first task should be to understand the realities of the power and the power of knowledge, rather than the utopia of communicative rationality (Flyvbjerg, 2002). I hypothesize that new occupy movements help us to understand the reaction of masses against sovereignty; regarding to transforming public spaces with the increasing consumerist dimension as a tool of bio-power. 1.2. Research Content This research contains five different chapters. In the introduction part aim of the study, content and methodology are evaluated. In the second part, as theoretical background, Foucauldian theory is adopted to be able to create the structure and to understand the background of Gezi Park occupation. In this sense, “executive control”, “bio-power” and “executive

control in public spaces” are unfolded. In the third part, as the following part of the theoretical base, the perception of publicness of public spaces in the context of Turkish planning and transformation of public spaces due to shift of power relation are argued. To what extend one can experience iktidar’s power in public spaces is discussed. In the fourth part, case study is evaluated. At first, the historical background is analyzed to grasp the symbolic meaning of the space. Afterwards, triggering factors of the Gezi Park occupation is discussed. Finally, the occupation itself is described. In the final part, as a conclusion “the current situation and uncertainty” is discussed. Possible future scenarios and hopes are argued. 1.3. Research Methodology An ethnographic study on one case study organization is the main focus. In this inductive research, phenomenological approaches are used. An interpretive model is introduced. Additionally, supporter anonym and personal narra-

Introduction

tives are described as well as maps and plans of the periods provided. Challenges, risks and assumptions faced by the research is discussed in detail, including issues of situated knowledge, access to data, reflexive considerations, ethical considerations around data collection and limitations to data availability.

Research Question

• Use of secondary sources (governmental agenda, planning law) from the case study;

• Why and to what extent does Istanbul have an impact on national rather than local- governmental urban development agenda in terms of symbolic urban public spaces?

• Use of primary sources (semi structured interviews and observation); • Use of scholarly literature. Different analysis methods is used in the research such as possible site visit, interviews, questionnaires and data collection with the experts and actual users of the space to reflect the uncertainty and conflict of the space; politics trough bodies and surveillance systems in the urban public space in Turkey through history. Since the selected case study is of very recent origin, to be able to understand and to anticipate the future dynamics is the main challenge of this research.

• How and to what extent has governmentality historically affected the Turkish planning system regarding urban public spaces in Taksim Square? Additional Questions

• How can publicness be established in terms of conflict and power?

2.1. Executive Control

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, it is aimed to unfold the following terms in the context of urban planning: power, iktidar2, governance, bio-power, control, obedience and relative terms. These terms have already been studied by many social and political scientists and philosophers. The effect of power and control, in previous decades, was considered to be one of the important issues. It still is to date. So, it would make sense to ask these questions to understand the importance: • What is control? • Who controls whom? • Is it necessary? • Is it wrong? • Is it a punishment or a way of disciplinary action? • Who defines it?

The definition of executive control is a top-down system that manages and controls other cognitive processes, allowing goal-directed behavior. It is applied in practice with an authority to enforce orders and to ensure they are carried out as intended.3 The Executive is the part of government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state.4 The executive branch executes or enforces the law. The division of power into separate branches of government is central to the idea of the separation of powers.5 The separation of powers system is designed to distribute authority among several branches - an attempt to preserve individual liberty in response to tyrannical leadership throughout history.6 The executive officer is not supposed to make laws (the role of the legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system. The executive can be the source of certain types of law, including decree or executive order. Executive bureaucracies are commonly the source of regulations. 2 See the chapter “Power/Governance”. 3 Business Dictionary. Executive Power. (2014). at <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/executive-power.html#ixzz3BPNuaA1> 4 Dictionary Reference. Executive Branch. (2014). at <http://dictionary. reference.com/browse/executive branch?&o=100074&s=t> 5 Reference. Separation of Powers. (2014). at <http://www.reference.com/ browse/separation of powers> 6 Madison, J. The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. Const. Soc. The Federa, (1788).

Theoretical Framework

In a parliamentary system, i.e., Turkish parliamentary system, a cabinet minister responsible to the legislature is the head of government, while the head of state is usually a largely ceremonial monarch or president. 2.1.1. Power | Governance Governance refers to “all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language.” (Bevir 2013) I would rather use the term ‘iktidar’ instead of ‘power’ as the dictionary of Turkish Language Association (Türk Dil Kurumu-TDK-) explains it; “capability to do work, man, sovereign”, “achievement of authority to do work”, ”the possession of the power of government power or government disposition”, “people or institutions who have the possession of this power”.7 Another reason to choose the term ‘iktidar’ is the representation of male domination. The term of ‘iktidar’ is used in English language simply as ‘power’.

For Anthony Giddens, ‘power’ is a fundamental concept in the social sciences says Weber (2001). By ‘power’ Giddens means ‘transformative capacity’; in other words, the ability to make a difference in the world (Weber 2001). In Giddens’s view, whenever an individual carries out a social action – by which we understand any action with an intention behind it – that individual makes a difference in the world. The consequences of a social action may go against many other individuals’ vested interests. We all carry out social actions, so it follows that we all have power. However, the amount of power an individual has is related to ‘resources’. Weber also adds, that Giddens outlines two distinct types of resources: • allocative resources- control over physical things such as owning a factory, • authoritative resources - control over the activities of people; for example, by being high up in an organization like the civil service (Weber 2001). The starting point of Weber’s political analysis was the important difference between power as authority and power as coercion. For Weber (2001), author7 Translated by the author.

Theoretical Framework

ity is the legitimate use of power. Individuals accept and act upon orders that are given to them because they believe that to do so is right. In coercion, on the other hand, others force people into an action, often by the threat of violence, and this is always regarded as illegitimate (Weber 2001).

are immune from the law. That desire is largely motivated by the perception that political corruption is widespread and that parliamentary immunity only serves to obstruct the fight against it (Koçan & Wigley 2005).

The term of ‘iktidar’ or ‘power’ could change by different disciplines of different time period. For example, the perspective of Nietzsche (1968) to ‘The Will to Power’ is “Man’s most horrible and most fundamental demand for power is his own motive.” and he claims that this is an error (Nietzsche 1968).

Bio-power was first used by Foucault’s ‘Society Must Be Defended’ lecture series at the Collège de France in 197576. He calls “biopolitics” the massifying capture of life by political power. It is neither sovereignty over subjects, nor discipline over individualized bodies (Theophanidis 2013).

In a power relationship, in the nature of ‘iktidar’ there is always ‘inequality’, such as bureaucracy, in terms of who rules the regulations and who adheres to the regulations. Another example of the power relation is the parliamentary immunity. In many countries parliamentary immunity comes existence into two forms as ‘immunity to jurisdiction’ and ‘immunity from execution’.

Body could be an indicator of people in the social and political structuring. The formatting of the society is formed by position of the body, gestures and differentiation of communication with any other person via biological differences. The controller of the bodies become skilled on recognize the body gestures, positions and etc. to define humans with a political technology. In this point, it could be difficult to see the controller’s outstanding oppression or atrocity. As Renata Salecl (2014) mentions, in this capitalist era, it is possible to see the

As an example, in Turkey there is currently a widespread public desire to narrow the extent to which parliamentarians

2.2. Bio-Power | Bio-Politics

Theoretical Framework

traces that we think; we choose our own path through our own desires without any external effect. This is only an illusion.8 Accordingly, iktidar9 could make individuals feel appreciation. However, because, iktidar does not show itself as highhanded, a killer or excluder. It controls, disciplines ‘norm’alizes and spies on individuals or masses without showing himself. This is because is actually everywhere somehow in a divinized way. According to Foucault, iktidar does not stay in its central level in government as a monopoly, it sprawls via bio-power trough the bodies. By “power”, Michael Foucault does not mean a centralized system in a form of any kind of “state”, “government” or “system”. He was quite clear by this definition, “By power, I do not mean “Power” as a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizens of a given state. [...] Finally, I do not have in mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a system whose effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social body. The analysis, made in

terms of power, must not assume that sovereignty of the state, the form of the law, or the over-all unity of a domination are given at the outset; rather, they are only the terminal forms power takes.” (Foucault & Hurley 1990) By the present day, Discipline and Punishment methodology have changed from outstanding visual image to hidden indoor spaces. Iktidar is no longer a punisher or lethal. Rather its aim is to discipline, control and ‘norm’alize and aim to build a system of production. As an example of pragmatic view of power, Samuel Gompers’ Maxim, often paraphrased as, “Reward your friends and punish your enemies”, hints at two of the five types of power recognized by social psychologists; incentive power (the power to reward) and coercive power (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two: Legitimate power, the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by a fine or other penalty. 8 RSA Animate. The Paradox of Choice. (2011). at <https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=1bqMY82xzWo> 9 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Theoretical Framework

Foucault called the “biopolitics of the populations”, political systems asserted control over human bodies.10 Thus, biopolitics could spread from individual to population. 2.2.1. Norm | Normalization Generally speaking, as Foucault argues, all authorities are exercising individual control functions according to a double mode; that of division and categorization (mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal); and that of coercive assignment of differential distribution (who he is; where he must be; how he is to be characterized; how he is to be recognized; how a constant surveillance is to be exercised over him in an individual way, etc.) (Foucault 1995). Foucault identifies two major metaphors of power through which discipline is exercised. The first is the management of the plague and the treatment of lepers, aimed to regulate the population. The abnormal/normal are defined through these two elements. “The constant division between the normal and the abnormal, to which every individual is subjected, brings

us back to our own time, by applying the binary branding and exile of the leper to quite different objects; the existence of a whole set of techniques and institutions for measuring, supervising and correcting the abnormal brings into play the disciplinary mechanisms to which the fear of the plague gave rise.” (Foucault 1995) The power relation in the urban public spaces combines both forms. The management of the plague and the treatment of lepers aimed to accomplish two political dreams; the first is the disciplined society and the second is the pure community. In the case of the leper the traditional sovereign power operates on the bases of exclusion, while in the case of the plague the disciplinary and governmental power intervenes to regulate and organize the whole social and political body. Thus, top-down approaches operate through a triangle of sovereign-disciplinary-governmental power. Eventually, it tries to create “pure community” on the one hand while creating a “disciplined society” at the other (Foucault 1995; Ozguc 2010). Social sorting creates extra place for ik10 Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collè ge de France, 1978-1979, translated by Graham Burchell, edited by Arnold I. Davidson (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008

Theoretical Framework

tidar11 to control the population. Iktidar finds itself in charge of supervision and correcting the abnormal, as curing the leper. Abnormal is non-tolerated. 2.2.2. Panopticon: Obedience The Panopticon is a dominant metaphor in critical studies of security, confinement, surveillance and social control (Ozguc 2010). The architect Samuel Bentham designed a building that was actually a ‘surveillance machine’ in the late 18th century. Its optics was such that a single “inspector” could observe every occupant simultaneously. His brother, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, calls Samuel’s invention as a technological fix for society by a simple idea in Architecture (Bozovic & Bentham 1995). He called it the “Panopticon” (all seeing). It was, he said, “A new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example. … Such is the engine: such the work that may be done with it” (Bozovic & Bentham 1995; Dobson & Fisher 2007). Michel Foucault called it “a cruel, ingenious cage” (Foucault 1995). It is clear that Foucault is not interested in the Panopticon as a building, but rath-

er as a combination of lines of visibility that form relations of power between the individuals affected by these lines (Lambert 2013). He viewed it as an instrument for enforcing discipline and punishment and a means of defining power relations in everyday lives (Dobson & Fisher 2007). According to two geographers Fisher and Dobson (2007), later developed Foucault’s Panopticon paradigm, surveillance technology has advanced in three major spurs, each of which triggered a new episode. In the fist instance the instrument of surveillance was a specially designed building; in the second, a tightly controlled television network; and today, an electronic tracking service. Each had its own distinctive rationale: first the utopian perfection of society; second, enforcement of absolute tyranny; today, safety and security. Functionally, however, their root functions are the same –total surveillanceand they are indeed three successive generations of Panopticons (Dobson & Fisher 2007). They are called: • Panopticon I (Bentham’s building) • Panopticon II (Media) • Panopticon III (GIS systems) 11 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Theoretical Framework

Panopticon I The Panopticon is a type of architectural surveillance machine that is comprised of an annular building with individual cells facing towards a central watchtower (inspector house). This surveillance machine is governed by one simple principle: the inspector’s invisible existence creates an illusion of constant surveillance in the minds of inmates. The cell of each prisoner is backlit making him or her all the time visible. However, the watchtower is dark. Therefore, prisoners cannot know whether or not they are being watched. But they know that the threat of being watched is ever present (Ozguc 2010). The whole purpose of the Panopticon is to ensure that the unseen gaze of the inspector creates an illusion of constant surveillance, which would discourage abnormal behavior and discipline to normalize individual bodies. This is a very effective system in a sense that there is no need for inspector’s presence. Bentham’s utilitarian aim was to create the most effective surveillance apparatus with the lowest cost. As Jeremy Bentham writes, in the Panopticon the inspector is like a God; he/she creates

a God-like effect. In this sense, he argues, the Panopticon is not a real, but an artificial body. It creates a stage effect of punishment, but is not the real punishment (Bozovic & Bentham 1995). Panopticon should not be understood as a building. The question should not be the discipline of architecture. It was Bentham’s utopia of creating a ‘perfect society’ and ‘technological fix for society’. It is not only for prisoners, but also for each individual in society. Bentham is seen as a doctor who uses architecture as a technology to repair the abnormal. The Panopticon categorizes, frames and polices people, their identities, souls and dreams—not necessarily through direct punishment/or violence, but through controlling them, demarcating normal from abnormal, and through investing its own institutions and technologies (Ozguc 2010). Panopticon II In the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a new sort of electronic Panopticon, which would be less expensive to implement and would extend beyond physical space such as buildings, streets and other public spaces (Orwell 1949). He called it “Big Brother” and permanent-

Theoretical Framework

ly cast it as an enabling technology for totalitarian government. In popular culture it was associated almost exclusively with communism. Orwell’s vision encouraged fear, and the term itself became a rallying cry for those who opposed surveillance of any sort, especially surveillance as an instrument of tyranny(Dobson & Fisher 2007). Today technology is more developed than before and cheaper than before. CCTV systems or MOBESE (Mobile Electronic System Integration) in Turkey could reach anywhere outside of our apartments. On the other hand, some parents are using surveillance systems to monitor their children in case of accident or lack of trust for the nursemaid. Panopticon III According to Dobson and Fisher, recently, Panopticon has been developed and has become a catchphrase for all sorts of electronic surveillance from video coverage of the city to ‘total information awareness” of such as library checkouts, credit card transactions, barcodes or geographic information systems. Panopticon III represents mostly the human tracking systems. They re-

fer to it as “geofencing” or “geoslavery” (Dobson & Fisher 2007). William Herbert argues about the United States, “a reasonably strong argument can be made that Congress does have the constitutional power under the remedial provision of the Thirteenth Amendment to ban the use of tracking devices to dominate and control the location of others. Imposing restrictions, control and monitoring over another’s location constitutes a vestige and incident of slavery” (Herbert 2005). At the very least, Panopticon III constitutes, to use Jeremy Bentham’s words, “A new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example” (Bozovic & Bentham 1995; Dobson & Fisher 2007). We can augment the categorization of the Panopticon paradigm in our era. These include ID numbers, CCTVs, censorships, barcodes, fingerprint detectors… etc. in the name of technology and simplification of our daily life, they are storing a lot of information.

Theoretical Framework

2.2.3. Power of Knowledge Among those entire Panopticon paradigms, we could talk about huge amount of information storage for every single individual. The surveillance systems require accommodation of oneself to circumstances. Literally, surveillance means to ‘watch over’ and often unthinkingly in everyday practice, which human beings engage routinely. Parents watch over children, employers watch over workers, police watch over neighborhoods, guards watch over prisoners and so on (Lyon 2007). “And the analysis of self-discipline, induced by the uncertainty and fear associated with unseen observers, within a closed environment such as a prison, but also in more public venues, does give the Panopticon considerable credibility.” (Lyon 2007) In the late twentieth century the idea of ‘information societies’ became popular in the making, wherever computer and telecommunication technologies are formed as essential infrastructures for administrative and organizational life,

and also in our daily lives (Lyon 2007). To know ‘what the others do’ has become a need. Some kinds of surveillance knowledge are produced that are used to mark the individual, to locate him or her in a particular niche or category of risk tendencies, and to assign social places or opportunities to the person according to the ruling criteria of the organization. Classification may be innocent and humanly beneficial but it can also be the basis of injustice and inequity (Lyon 2007). This is because certain sets of criteria also bring ‘social sorting’. However even if there are many scientists who argue the danger of surveillance systems, a different set of authors see them as something to celebrate, or at least to not lament. Such as, Scott McNealy, of Sun Microsystems, most famously declared, “Privacy is dead. Get over it!”12 Growing e-commerce and the consequent mass of personal data circulating is seen as an opportunity by people who use this data in favor of their business. The problem of surveillance systems is social sorting, as Lyon arguments, 12 Sprenger, P. Sun on Privacy: “Get Over It.”Wired (1999). at <http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538>

Theoretical Framework

“But large and urgent questions about social sorting remain; even after privacy and data protection policies and laws have done their work. It is quite possible for negative discrimination to be carried out, automatically and systematically, against ethnic (such as categories relating to the likelihood of terrorist involvement) or social-economic (such as those living in low-income districts of cities) minorities, despite having such policies and laws in place. The codes by which persons and groups are categorized are seldom under public scrutiny (and if they relate to ‘national security’ they may well be veiled in official secrecy) and yet they have huge potential and actual consequences for the life chances and the choices of ordinary citizens.” (Lyon 2007) In addition, surveillance grows because of certain economic and political priorities. Information and knowledge in the name of surveillance are needed for planning, prediction, pre-emption, permitting, and all these and more goals, most of the time in favor of these economic and political priorities.

On the other hand, with the enormous usage of social media and web, there are examples of counter-hegemonic social movements. Notwithstanding, all kinds of Panopticons are designed for the favor of sovereignty; this also helps the masses in their disobedience against sovereignty. 2.3. Executive Control in Public Spaces The simplest definition of public space is as a place where strangers meet. According to Sennett (2010), the difference between public and private lies in the amount of knowledge one person or group has about others; in the private realm, as in a family, one knows others well and close up, whereas in a public realm one does not; incomplete knowledge joins to anonymity in the public realm (Sennett 2010). Here in modern times there have been three schools of thought seeking to make sense of the public realm. Among these three schools, as the representative of the first school, Arendt emphasizes the political dimension of the public space in her Human Condition book. As the representative of the second school,

Theoretical Framework

Habermas questions the class and economic interest and also public space is not necessarily tied to town center in his Knowledge and Human Interests book (Onat 2013). Finally as the representative of the third school, Sennett (2010) explains the shift of public spaces from ‘performance space’ to ‘control space’ (Sennett 2010). Among all these explanation of public space, the common thing is the interaction and knowledge exchange between strangers. Today virtual space is accepted as public space as much as town squares are. The approach of iktidar13 to the public spaces is to control over people, rather than for people because of the fear of the masses. How governmentality creates the need for control and to know where the other is and what the other does, is complex as well as scary. In our daily life there is no escape to our own private space. We are willing to share our private life with strangers through social media, because we feel the need to do so. In physical public spaces there is no escape from security cameras. The technology of mobile phones could also tell where exactly we are. We also don’t

always know who controls or shares the information of every individual. Censorship is a good example to analyze the control system. Power takes the information and decides whether distribute it or block it with its mechanism. Censorship, journalist prisoners and ban of freedom of speech are evident in many countries with a dictatorial regime. When iktidar becomes more powerful, control becomes more evident in every stage of life. 2.4. Conclusion In this chapter, the complexity of power relations in daily life is argued as the theoretical base of the research. To what extend one can experience iktidar’s power is tricky as well as hard to accept because of one’s educational background and one’s habitat. Many channels of one’s personal development from the educational instruments to the media are censored due to iktidar’s authority or its own fear. Foucauldian theory is adopted for this research to understand the background of Gezi Park occupation. The oppression of the authority could cause the reaction of oppressed as we experience 13 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Theoretical Framework

many times in Turkish examples as well as in the global context. The research will follow the perception of publicness of public spaces in the context of Turkish planning and transformation of public spaces. It is aimed to unfold the power relations during the time in the production of public spaces. In conclusion, it is important to grasp the power relations in the theoretical base as much as the perception and the production of public spaces in Istanbul to analyze the Gezi Park occupation.

cially in urban public spaces, directly reflects social emotions (Lefebvre, 1991). Foucault emphasizes this meaning by saying that architecture is not a simple physical element but rather a “plunge into a field of social relations in which it brings about some specific effects” (Özgüç 2010).

3. PUBLICNESS OF PUBLIC SPACES IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKISH PLANNING Executive power and space highly related to each other. Iktidar14 uses its power to regulate the population especially via public spaces. This chapter analyzes what does public space mean in Turkey and the transformation of public spaces due to shift of power relation. How publicness of public spaces is perceived by the Turkish population is argued on the following. 3.1. Executive Control and Bio-Power in Public Spaces Lefebvre (1991) argues that space is a social, political and ideological construct, in which every society has its own spatial practices that form the city itself. Thus, the built environment, espe-

Eventually, in terms of bio-power and bio-politics over urban public spaces, similarities occur between the discipline of urban planning itself and bio-power. According to Köroğlu and Yılmaz (2004), the discipline of urban planning has the role of both regulator and controller since it intervenes in the process of society, space, and economy (Köroğlu & Yılmaz 2004). However, the discipline of urban planning has no interest in creating a “pure community” or “disciplined society”. If the goal of planning theorists is to create a strong civil society, which is free from domination and more democratic, as Habermas (1990) argues, then the first task should be to understand the realities of the power and the power of knowledge, rather than the utopia of communicative rationality (Habermas 1990; Flyvbjerg, 2002). The main focus of the urban planner should be ‘what, actually, should be done?’. 14 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

3.2. Planning and Public Spaces in Turkey In the early republic period, planning and space was the experiment of modernization. It has been used again as a tool of government to cure society as well as remove the traces of the Ottoman Empire as much as possible. Since the Republic of Turkey is based on western ideology, western experts were invited to create the new identity of modern Turkey. Public spaces chiefly became an arena of symbolism. With the new republic, women became equal to men and could vote and have the same standards as men. Public spaces became the examination board for the citizens regarding how they should act in public. This dictation from above became the status quo without question.

After economic liberalization in especially 80s, space became another tool to generate money. Piece by piece, land and public institutions were privatized. This privatization trend started with the Menderes period, continued with Özal and was finalized with Erdoğan.15 Liberalization and populist concerns encouraged another new type of religious group, paying lip service to Atatürk. The main stance against the cult of Atatürk was the saying “secularism can not compete with religion”. In such a society, which became a guinea pig of oppression transparency or participatory planning has never been an option. Yilmaz (2003) explains the vision of planning in Turkey with these sentences, “Conventional planning for national development took shape in the context of simple modernity characterized by positivist social science, nation state and capitalism. It is state and expert centered, and based upon instrumental rationality. Parallel to new epistemological debates and globalization processes, conventional planning has gone into a crisis. Today, there is a “communicative turn” in planning theory that 15 See the chapter “Historical Background”.

fig.1. public behavior poster http://www.ihaphulusi.gen.tr/calismalar.html

fig.2. religious marrige & secular marriage poster http://issuu.com/gdfb/docs/gdfb2012_poster_project

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

entails competition among multiple rationalities within a broader and multi-layered public sphere. As a developing country that has used planning extensively in its modernization process, Turkey faces a similar crisis in planning. Conventional planning in Turkey reached to its limits towards the end of 1970s. However, neoliberal discourse, replacing planning since 1980, could not deliver to the mounting problems of efficiency and democracy either. In that context, Turkey needs to go beyond a simple market versus state dichotomy and should generate a genuine communicative planning in its development process.” (Yılmaz 2003) Radical modernity particularly affected planning discourse. Planning approaches were based upon a broader conception of rationality, mainly defined in communicative terms, within a new environment characterized by erosion in the capabilities of the nation state, visà-vis local and global processes (Yılmaz 2003). As Keyman (2000) argues, the result of such processes, classical conceptions like absolute sovereignty of the state, inside/outside distinctions, etc. become largely obsolete and/or de-

mand new interpretations or re-formulations in the planning system (Keyman 2000). 3.3. Publicness of Public Space in the Context of Turkish Planning The definition of Ottoman cities is different than European cities. According to Locci & Yücel (2011) when confronted with classically evolved theories of rational planning, the development of an Ottoman city is seen as an alternative model based on the idea of transformation, openness, community, non definition and crisis (Locci & Yücel 2011). The movements of people (nomadism, eradicated population, immigration, etc.) were definitely the most relevant factors that shaped the urban form until the Ottoman westernization period. One of the signs of the non-existence of sharp urban boundaries is that until the second half (Tanzimat16) of 19th century, the Ottomans did not create a concept of public and private.17 They did not feel the need and did not produce the architectural urban realities represented by this conceptual dichotomy until the society became integrated into the Western economy (Feger & Stumpf 2011). 16 The Tanzimât, literally meaning reorganization of the Ottoman Empire, was a period of reformation that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. (William & Bunton 2009) 17 In an English-Turkish dictionary from 1860s, the translation of the word private is given as: peculiar to being secluded, special, proper to – secret, concealed, hidden, intimate – that which is not official and administrative, that which is related to the units of people, concerning individual affairs. The meanings of the word public as an adjective are: that which is spread to people, common, general, that which belongs to the state, administrative, at the service of state. In the 150 years since these definitions numerous new ones have been made but we can still say that the word ‘özel’ in Turkish does not fully correspond to the word ‘private’ in English. These translations demonstrate that

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

After the Tanzimat period, movements towards westernization continued with the founding of a Republic of Turkey in 1923. Adoption of laws and regulations from the western world also shaped the cities. Despite the public-private definition in Turkish language, the need of public spaces only occurred in cities in the republic period. However, the difference of understanding of ‘public’ still remains the same between European and Turkish cities. Public still belongs to the state in Turkey. Amanda Burden (2014) explains the power of public spaces in these sentences, “Public spaces have power, it is not just a number of people using them, and it’s even greater number of people who feel better about their city just knowing that they are there. Developer sees only costumer it will be a mall not a park. Public spaces can change how you are living in a city, how you feel about your city, whether you choose one city over another. Public spaces are one of the most important reasons why you are living in a city.18” (Burden 2014)

Taksim Square, which has gained political, historical and symbolic meanings over time, is a great example of the difference between public in English and ‘kamusal’19 in Turkish. When even language and the tradition emphasize the importance of the power of the state as well as iktidar20, it is even more difficult to stand against iktidar. On the other hand, an elite mentality, which occurred in the 50’s with mass immigration to big cities and continued in the 80’s with economic liberalization21, changed in urban spaces. Middle and upper-middle Istanbulite classes tend to isolate themselves from the rest. Beginning with AKP period the isolation of middle and upper-middle class accelerated. In addition, the global gated community housing market affected Turkish housing market. As Davis (1992) explains the situation in Los Angeles, there are many similarities to the Turkish elite as well, “the pleasure domes of the elite Westside rely upon the social imprisonment of a third-world service proletariat increasingly repressive the users of this language could only grasp these foreign concepts within their own mental and linguistic conventions. They could only imagine the meaning of the word private in relation to the familiar social practices such as those, which were supposed to be kept from other’s eyes and ears, the utmost personal secrecy. But what is more interesting is that the word public defines that which is related to the people, to the nation, and particularly to the state. What is all more striking is the translation of private into Turkish as ‘has’. In common classical Ottoman usage this term qualifies not private but that which belongs to the sultan. In short, the word ‘has’ was also used to imply public use created by the sultan. So the dilemma reveals itself. Does it mean public or private? This answer is neither of them. (Feger & Stumpf 2011) 18 Burden, A. & TED. How public spaces make cities work. (TED, 2014). at

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

ghettos and barrios.” (Davis 1992) Although to a lesser extent immigration problems as today the Turkish elite has the same pleasure of social imprisonment and social segregation. In addition, ‘Turkish identity’ has always been discussed. The comparison of ‘who is more Turkish than the other’ is part of the representation of each individual or groups. Mostly this comparison is based on ‘authenticity’ and ‘the modern Turk’ (Navaro-Yasin 1999). We see that by Islamist groups, westernization is understood as assimilation but by secular Atatürk groups, authenticity is understood as backwardness. The biggest dilemma between assimilation and backwardness lead the huge segregation. Whoever is in power wants to leave the trace of his/her ideological approach in a very oppressive way. In the end, the oppression becomes totally normal. 3.3.1. Transformation of Public Space and Bio-Power Since the ‘insecurity of urban space’ rumor is mentioned many times, numerous families preferring to live in strictly functional compartments under the

gaze of private police forces. Being able to afford an apartment in a gated community is the new fashion. As Negri discusses (2009) today the common is the name of capitalism: capitalism today is capitalism of the common. People who insist on private property today are actually talking about the private property of capital, which is the common of capital against the property-less (Negri 2009). In other words, as far as one can earn money one can survive in this society without paying so much attention to how to earn money. Ignorance on ethics of marketing even though in a conservative era, which supposes to be more religious, is acceptable. On the other hand, too little money could sharply define the ones social status. And, isolated elite lifestyle is the dream of the urban poor. Such as, today spending more than 2 hours to go to school with a school bus, which directly comes to the entrance of the apartment for a school age child, is regular in Istanbul.22 Either private car or private shuttle bus is the necessity for any kind of need outside of the compound now. However during the long trip from home to school or from home to office does not necessarily mean one <http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_burden_how_public_spaces_make_cities_work?language=en#t-2137> 19 Belong to the state, public. Also see the footnote 17. 20 See the chapter “Power/Governance”. 21 See the chapter “Historical Background”. 22 World, A. J. Escape in Istanbul. (Al Jazeera English, 2014). at <https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzr806nxkbI>

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

must interact with another social class. On the contrary, this is a way of marginalizing others (abnormal)23 and avoiding interaction is encouraged by the media, advertising and social pressures. Middle and upper-middle classes prefer to isolate themselves and use private services instead of state services. In this instance, state services become poorer because the user of these services becomes poorer. Cağlar Keyder rationalize the situation with the following speech he gave to Al Jaazera World for Escape in Istanbul documentary, “In last ten years, the crime rate has dropped in big cities. But when you see the media you’d think the opposite. They are creating a false sense of fear and unease. In a climate of fear society becomes segregated and people more isolated. So demand for these gated communities increases. The beauty of Istanbul is the mix of people. They are all different from one another. It is the richness of the city. It’s great living among different kinds of people. But projecting yourself from outsid-

ers in an isolated lifestyle is against the very essence of living in cities. People in gated communities only want to live with others like them. They want to raise their kids in compounds and create separate groups. It is a great shame. On a compound, garbage collection, gardening and water supply are provided by the management. In cities these public services are provided by local municipalities. This could lead to the privatization of public services elsewhere. This is a dangerous trend. If these public services aren’t needed by the middle class but only by working class, they might soon disappear. Private services are an advantage for some but not for people living in the city.24“ (Keyder 2014) In addition to the danger of segregation and possible increase of social service quality, to be able to success or to survive in society, finding job is getting more complicated, surprisingly in an increasing economy. Criteria for getting a regular job is becoming more problematic in state organizations. As an example, KPSS (public personal 23 ‘Others’ or ‘abnormal’ refers in this sense to the low income as well as marginalized groups. 24 World, A. J. Escape in Istanbul. (Al Jazeera English, 2014). at <https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzr806nxkbI>

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

selection examination) is an examination, which takes place over the entire country at the same time for everybody under the police escort. The examination system is centralized by the higher education council. Questions, examination length, results and organization are defined by the same council. Any kind of personal equipment including keys, watch, school supply equipment, except a bottle of water (stripped of the brand) is forbidden. In some streets, where the examinations buildings are defined, it is forbidden to honk during the examination period. Despite of the entire security countermeasures, examination questions have been stolen many times before the exam or cheated.25 The results are calculated by the same council and announced once. After the point scoring system, each institution defines its own employee with an interview. Especially potential teachers have to deal with the stress and to pass this exam to be able to assign. There are many rumors say that most of the successful candidates from some institutions are surprisingly graduates from religious high schools. We can augment the examples as, the exclusion between the personals who go to the friday prayer and those who do not, as well as who

those who consume alcohol and those who do not. Besides the corrupt system for finding a job, especially after the election on March 27, 1994, the Islamist Welfare Party won the municipality elections in Istanbul and a majority of the other cities throughout Turkey (Navaro-Yasin 1999). This brought huge rumors at first, later on a drastic change and fear in the public and an ‘Islamic order’ started to be mentioned many times on the daily life. In terms of the public presentation of life worlds, Islam’s challenge of secularism focuses on the position of women (Navaro-Yasin 1999). How women should act or dress in public spaces became a huge polemic. As Ze’evi (2013) argues, “previous governments with an Islamist agenda had tried to challenge Turkey’s political order and change its basically secular legal system. … In the last such incident, popularly known as the “post-modern coup” of 1997, Islamist Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan was forced to step down, and his Welfare Party was disbanded and outlawed.26” (Ze’evi 2013) 25 KPSS soruları çalındı mı? Haber Turk (2012). at <http://www.haberturk. com/gundem/haber/757174-kpss-sorulari-calindi-mi > KOTAN, B. KPSS’de kısmi iptal kararı: Yeni sınav 40 gün içinde. Radikal (2010). at <http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/kpssde_kismi_iptal_karari_yeni_ sinav_40_gun_icinde-1019545> 26 The coup was first designated “post-modern” by Admiral Salim Devrişoğlu, commander of the Turkish navy—mainly because, unlike prior military coups, it was achieved through political discourse and psychological warfare—and only the threat of military power (Ze’evi 2013).

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

Municipal elections in 1994 were the breaking point between secular and Islamist groups. The secular group saw the municipal election seen as loosing and returning back. However, even if the election brought about the transformation of the public spaces, Turkish population has always been a playground for political parties to take shape. As an example, Robins (1996) writes, “As much as it has been shaped by the assimilation of western culture, modern Turkish identity ‘is also a product of various negations’: Turkish society became practiced in the art of repression.” (Robins 1996). In this direction, any kind of power shift brings another repression between the different social groups to each other. After, the Islamic Welfare Party lost its power and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) materialized. Afterwards, the AKP won a decisive electoral victory in 2002. Ze’evi (2013) argues that, gaining slightly more than a third of the vote (the 10 percent threshold left most parties excluded from Parliament), many expected it to go down the same path as its predecessors and try, follow-

ing the route of Islamic Welfare Party, to return the state back to an Islamist and anti-Western agenda (Ze’evi 2013). He continues, the ultimate target is thus often blurred; those who oppose the government cannot muster public support for their opposition, and the transformation of the public sphere proceeds very fast (Ze’evi 2013). On the other hand, AKP had changed many things not only in the public sphere, but also in the education system, media, alternative dress codes and so on. Ze’evi (2013) sees it as a bolder attack on the secular foundations of the Kemalist27 state (Ze’evi 2013). After the dramatic coup d’état in 1980, many parents were complaining about lack of tradition and religion education in school system (Ze’evi 2013). The AKP took the opportunity to encourage religious schools. According to the Ministry of National Education agenda, compulsory education duration decreased with a 4+4+4 system and religious high schools (in Turkish Imam-Hatip) will be offered from the 5th grade from onwards.28 In addition, religious classes based on Sunni beliefs became compulsory from 4th grade until graduation. This change was in reaction to the Alevi 27 This refers Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s status quo. 28 12 YIL ZORUNLU EĞİTİM SORULAR - CEVAPLAR. T. C. MİLLÎ EĞİTİM Bakanl. (2012). at <http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/duyurular2012/12Yil_Soru_Cevaplar.pdf>

Publicness of Public Spaces in the Context of Turkish Planning

group, which makes up the quarter of the population. In addition, Walton (2010) explains, as the iconography of Kemalist secularism remains a crucial means of invoking one hegemonic mode of publicness in contemporary Turkey. He continues, while this is especially true of such spaces as government buildings, universities, and city squares, it is also noticeable in less institutionalized venues of publicness, spaces where the very distinction between public and private is a matter of debate and conscious practice (Walton 2010). Cityscapes planned in the 1930s and 1940s with a sense of secular, modern culture must now be transformed into a space in which religion is symbolically much more prominent (Ze’evi 2013).

3.4. Conclusion In this chapter, the perception of publicness of public spaces in the context of Turkish planning and transformation of public spaces are argued. To what extend one can experience iktidar’s power in public spaces is discussed. The research will follow with the case study. First, the historical background will be analyzed to grasp the symbolic meaning of the space. Afterwards, triggering factors of the Gezi Park occupation will be discussed. Finally, the occupation itself will be described. In conclusion, it is important to identify the publicness of public spaces in the context of Turkish planning and the production of public spaces in Istanbul to analyze the Gezi Park occupation.

In another words, each time a different ideology takes power, iktidar29 tries to oppose its own symbolism in competition with the previous one. On different levels of society, in order to survive, it is required that one either adapts to the current ideology or hides their lifestyle from the others. These unspoken ‘norm’s’ are permeate daily life especially in public spaces. 29 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

which residences of the elite Levantines of the Ottoman era were concentratedjoins the Square at one end (Polvan & Yönet 1998).

GEZI PARK AS CASE STUDY

Gezi Park has become an issue in last years with the significant effects of Taksim Square. Taksim Square is indeed the heart of present day İstanbul, as the main center of many kinds of activities and of the city’s transportation system as well as its political meaning (Polvan & Yönet 1998). The Atatürk Monument in the middle of Taksim Square, as the symbol of the modern Turkish Republic, gives it this representational dimension. Taksim Square hosts meetings, demonstrations, celebrations and concerts attracting a considerable section of people from Istanbul as well as an international population. One of the city’s main avenues- today’s “İstiklal caddesi” (Avenue of Independence), the former “Grand Rue de Péra” or “Cadde-i Kebir” along

Taksim Square and surroundings have always been on the agenda of the current iktidar30 because of its historical and local dynamics. Planned mosque, pedestrian project and Atatürk Cultural Center, etc. were discussed especially in 80s and 90s. Today Taksim Square project became on the agenda again with a pedestrian and tunnel as well as a planned shopping mall project. The planned shopping mall in the shape of an old barracks in Gezi Park had the trigger effect of gathering masses against the oppression of the government. The history of the park and Taksim Square, with its political dimensions, will be tackled in the following chapter: How Turkish politics has been affecting the square’s physical dimensions and how Taksim Square itself has been affecting breaking points of Turkish history will be evaluated. With the significant impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement in recent years, new occupy-like protests have arisen 30 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Gezi Park as Case Study

around the world in both small and large scales. Occupation in Taksim/Gezi Park was one of the examples of these occupy-like movements beginning in Istanbul in May, 2013, and eventually spreading to 80 out of 81 provinces of Turkey and involving more than three million protesters (Ministry of Interior, 2013). 4.1. Historical Background Istanbul has served as the capital city of the east Roman Empire (330-395), Byzantine Empire (395-1204 and 1261-1453) and Ottoman Empire period (1453-1922) more than 1500 years. The city and the spaces beneath were shaped under the influence of many different civilizations; therefore, the understanding, the use and the role of public space had been highly influenced by the legacy of different cultures, religions, politics and recently, new trends of economic development. With the archeological finds in Yenikapi it can be proved that the history of Istanbul is older than before thought.31 Historical background of Istanbul is analyzed in five different eras. Those eras are defined by the political, economic and social changes. Many political and

social scientists describe these periods as the same time structure (Bora 1999; Keyder et al. 1999; Bozdogan 2001; Göktürk et al. 2010; Gül 2009). 4.1.1. Before Republic Period (Westernization Period) Taksim and the surroundings being one of the most important centers of Istanbul today, was previously on the edge of the city until the early republican period. Until the 18th century, this historical peninsula was the residential district of Muslims and Pera (old name of Taksim region) hosted by a non-Muslim population. In this region, there used to be Muslim, Armenian, catholic and protestant cemeteries. The very first settlements started with: • Immigration of Emirate of Granada to Galata in 15th century • The conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants and relocation of some non-Muslim families from Galata to Pera. (Göğüş 2014) The area kept growing with the opening of the water distribution center (Taksim Maksemi) in 1732. Cadde-i Kebir or alias Grand Rue de Pera (today Istiklal 31 YENİKAPI EXCAVATIONS. Istanbul Archaeol. Museums at <http://www. istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/32-238-1-1/muze_ _en/museum/announcements/yenikapi_excavations>

Gezi Park as Case Study

3 4 2 1

1. 1732 – Construction of Cistern (Maksem) 2. 1806 – Construction of Topcu (Taksim) Barrack with its training area (Talimhane) 3. 1849 – Construction of Mecidiye Barrack (Taşkışla) 4. 1854 – Construction Dolmabahçe Palace 5. 1869 – Construction of an avenue, which connects Taksim and Harbiye including two walkway 43

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.3. Taksim Square bird view http://www.degisti.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taksim_meydani_ve_topcu_kislasi_eski_.jpg

fig.4. Taksim Artillery Barrack http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3915&start=0

fig.5. Taksim Artillery Barrack http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3915&start=0

Gezi Park as Case Study

Street) was extended to the water distribution center (Özsavaşçı 2005). With the declaration of the Republic on October 29, 1923, the avenue’s name was changed to İstiklal (Independence) for commemorating the triumph at the Turkish War of Independence. The name of ‘Taksim’ comes from distribution in the Turkish Language Association dictionary. The late Ottoman period in the 19th century was the beginning of a ‘westernization fashion’. In this sense, as one of the important examples of westernization, Sultan Abdülmecid moved the sultanate from Topkapi Palace to Dolmabahçe Palace which is located on the other side of the historical peninsula, where Pera is located. Baroque style architecture of Dolmabahçe Palace is also another example of westernization. In this direction, in the Pera region the surrounding army barracks were built in the process of the westernization of the Ottoman army. The very first and the biggest barrack was Halil Pasa Artillery Barrack or alias Taksim Artillery Barrack built in 1806. After the pioneer of Taksim Artillery Barrack, the other barracks were built in the surroundings of Maç-

ka Valley, respectively Maçka Barrack (1825), Mecidiye Barrack (Taşkışla, 1849), Gümüşsuyu Barrack (1861) and Mekteb-i Harbiye (1862). Another example of westernization was Rescript of Gülhane (Tanzimat Fermani) in 1806. This rescript allowed non-Muslims to own a territory. Afterwards, in 1856, Pera has been declared a pilot neighborhood to examine the western municipal model because of its non-Muslim population (Oktay 2005). Accordingly, the 6th Department was established to produce policies for Pera and the surroundings. Some of the policies and developments were found with western principles: • Removal of the cemeteries between Taksim-Pangalti axis and zoning for construction. Allowance of consulate buildings, foreign schools, etc. in this area (1839), • Design of Taksim Municipality Garden according to Beaux-arts principles (1865), • Opening a new avenue with large pedestrian ways in two sided between where Taksim Square is located today and Harbiye axis (1869), • Funicular construction between

Gezi Park as Case Study

Karaköy and Şişhane (1873), • Tram line construction between where Taksim Square is located today and Harbiye (1913) (Özsavaşçı 2005; Göğüş 2014). These developments increased housing density. By the beginning of the 20th century, with the first electric tram and the increasing number of the cars used in the city, the Taksim area became more central and the main activity moved along Galata-Beyoglu area to Taksim (Sarlak 2012). Istanbul remained the capital city of the Ottoman Empire until the Allied occupation from 1918 to 1923. After the Turkish war of independence (1923), the non-Muslim population left the city in large numbers. Also because of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Galata, Pera and Taksim districts lost most of their inhabitants. The Taksim Artillery Barracks and the training area in front, which is called “Talimhane” -‘talim’, described as a training field; ‘hane’ described as section- no longer carried a function because of the security reasons and remained empty

fig.6. Taksim Artillery Barrack | Konstantin Kapidagli, ‘Enthronement ceremony of Selim III’ (‘III. Selim’in Cülüs merasimi’), circa 1789, Topkapi Saray Museum. Selim III ordered the building of the barracks https://mechanicalturk.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-history-of-taksim-military-barracks-two-military-coups-allied-powers-occupation-camp-football/

under the control of the Entente powers during the WWI (Sarlak 2012). The years of the occupation brought foreign soldiers and their acquaintances to the city and according to some official documents, they used “Talimhane” as a stadium for different sports activities (Uzumkesici 2010). After the decision of the barracks would no longer accommodate soldiers, it decided to sell the army barracks and also the “Talimhane” area in 1913. As a result, a vacant space occurred in one of the most important parts of the city, and because of its convenient physical characteristics the barracks and Talimhane served for sports activities. A stadium built for the competitions between the British and the French soldiers football games became a common interest among the local inhabitants in the area. After having a vacant period, Talimhane and Artillery barracks had a more lively period even during the occupation of the city (Uzumkesici 2010). The stadium remained in use even after the occupation until 1940, the year it was demolished (Sarlak 2012).

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.1.2. Early Republic Period 1923-1950 (Turkification Period) The newly founded Republic of Turkey has a significant impact on the entire county, especially Istanbul. Istanbul was imagined as an old and dusty cosmopolitan and decadent, while Ankara was new and clean – a model of the new Turkey (Bozdogan 2001; Göktürk et al. 2010). One of the most important interventions of urban design in the years immediately following the establishment of the Republic was the reorganization of Beyazit Square, and the opening of the Atatürk Monument in the middle of Taksim Square. After a decade of relative ‘neglect’, the Republican era city was shaped according to the design of French planner Henri Prost who worked for Istanbul from 1936 to 1950 (Gül 2009; Göktürk et al. 2010). The financing of the monument was a big issue for the new republic that had a shortage of financial sources. But afterwards, they established a commission, which was in charge of the construction of the monument. The commission had chosen Italian Pietro Canonica to build

the monument in 18 months period. Also another Italian, Mongeri, was responsible for designing the base of the monument and the landscape around it (Sarlak 2012). The statue of Ataturk is surrounded by his friends in the war of independence. The features of the monument were influenced by that period’s restrained monumentality. Furthermore, the arrangement of the tramway route encircling the Monument drives attention to the centrality of the monument. The square was named “Taksim Republican Square” after the erection of the monument. One can tell Canonica and Mongeri’s design of the square is on lines of a baroque Italian piazza with the colorful marbles, the ornaments and the arcs and the movements used in the design of the monument. At this point Gülersoy (1986) emphasizes, the monument itself doesn’t really represent a revolutionary, vigorous vision because of its form. Because ‘it is not actually from us’, “at the end this is all because the monument is a piece that is formed by a foreign artist’s hands who was not involved in the war of independence, if we had a local artist who

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.7. Republic Monument, Maksem and Taksim Artillery Barrack http://www.hayalleme.com/taksim-cumhuriyet-aniti/

Gezi Park as Case Study

had experienced the war of independence and wept from pride and sadness, the Taksim Monument would be more from us… So we are attached to it not because of its artistic value but its meaning.” (Gulersoy 1986) There is no doubt that Taksim gained a “city square” character after the construction of the monument. In addition to, its character, it gained a political, social meaning, which represents the glorious period of the new republic (Sarlak 2012).

racks were demolished to reorganize Taksim Square to make a way for the promenade (the area of 26.000 square meters thus obtained) and Talimhane32 (Göktürk et al. 2010; Sarlak 2012). In his plans, Henry Prost envisioned Taksim as an exclusive quarter, with narrowed functions, which was unlikely as it was aimed on the other hand to be the historical area of the city favored for public ceremonies (Baykan & Hatuka 2010).

In the first years of the republic, the republican monument had been built in the square but there was no other arrangement regarding to its surroundings. The Artillery barrack was standing abandoned behind the monument. The applique of the modernism project reflected itself on the changes in the physical form, architectural style and planning of Istanbul.

Most notably, Turkey’s new role in the post-war international order, a new era of American influence in the ruling political ideology, dictates of the liberal world that Turkey had become part of and the internationalist style of architecture reflected in the Taksim Square. The construction of the biggest open-air theatre, Harbiye (later on named Cemil Topuzlu), in the lines of Henry Prost’s plan, was completed in 1950 with the last changes.

Between 1939-49, a decade under the mayorship of Lütfi Kırdar, Henry Prost was invited to plan the extension of the Taksim Square area. In the early 1940s, his plans were applied, the Artillery bar-

Inönü Stadium of Prost, TRT building (Turkish Radio and Television Cooperation), open-air theatre, sport and exhibition hall and similarly modernist buildings were located between 1940-47. 32 See the chapter “Before Republic Period (Westernization Period)”.

Gezi Park as Case Study

160.000 m2 sized area were afforested (Özsavaşçı 2005; Göğüş 2014). Following that, building of the Hilton Hotel in 1952 at the edge of the Park, designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill in collaboration with Sedad Hakki Eldem, a highly regarded Turkish architect, and the building of the Divan Hotel in 1956 are very symbolic in the sense that they introduced a location to these new appropriations (Baykan & Hatuka 2010). Beginning with the Hilton Hotel, personal benefits started on urban planning. It was the end of Prost and his friends’ era in Istanbul municipality (Boysan 1999). Another notable transformation of the era is the construction of the new highways and car based inner city transportation. That transformation changed the proportions of the old city streets to wider boulevards across the historic area, with no consideration for its historical significance. fig.8. & fig.9. Demolition of Taksim Artillery Barrack & Gezi Park http://taksimdenelinicek.org/1940-2000-arasi

Gezi Park as Case Study

2 1

1. 1926 – 1928 – Installation of the Atatürk Monument in Taksim Square 2. 1939 – Demolition of Taksim Barrack 3. 1940 – Re-opening of Municipal Garden in Taksim 4. 1946 – 1949 – Construction of TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Cooperation) 51

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.1.3. Multi Party Regime and Coup d’états Period 1950-1980 (Political Square) Until 1946, the single-party ruled how Turkey was to be planned. After the elections in 1950, with the multi party regime and their liberal approach, Istanbul’s population nearly doubled between 1950-60s, approaching two million. The political ideology of space did not mean to symbolize the new, modern nation at that period, but cared about it as an economic resource for liberal interests. Likewise in the 1920s, the discourse of political power in the 1950s erased Taksim’s representational form once more (Baykan & Hatuka 2010). 1950s started for the first time multi party regime with the prime ministership of Adnan Menderes. Menderes period is known for Marshall help, rapid urbanization, the beginning of a consumer society, constructions of highways, dramatic urban interventions on heritage sites, increasingly visible settlements and speculative housing development. Ismet Inönü, who was the previous prime minister and also the second man of Kemal Atatürk, signed the Marshall

Plan in 1947. The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism (DeConde 2002). Despite Turkey not participating in WWII, she was able to gain the aid because of her strategic position and ability to strengthen relations between Turkey and United States as well as western block. The help of the Marshall Plan was put into action in Adnan Menderes period. Turkey increasingly found herself turning towards the U.S. for military as weII as economic aid as a result of difficulties (Üstün 1997). Therefore, the Turkish Army Infantry Brigade served under United Nations command during the Korean War between1950 to 1953. Beside military relations, the Marshall Plan was used on agricultural mechanization. Agricultural mechanization had significant effects on urbanization and immigration. In particular, Istanbul hosted numerous immigrants from the

Gezi Park as Case Study

countryside during this period. Increasingly visible settlements and speculative housing developments have changed Istanbul’s silhouette. Gecekondu33, in Turkish gece: night; kondu: settle, settlements mushroomed on the outskirts of the city center. Immigration also affected an Istanbulite’s profile. Security problems emerged. Keyder (1999) explains the situation with an older man, who comes from a well-known Istanbul family, with a description the change, “Istanbul was conquered again in the 1950s, five hundred years after Sultan Mehmets victory, by the Anatolian invasion. These people brought their own civilization to my city, instead of trying to adapt to ours. I am sure none of these people have ever been to an exhibition in their lives; all they think about is getting enough money for a summerhouse. We became a nation of lahmacun34 eater. Fifty years ago no one in Istanbul knew what lahmacun was, or, if we did, we called it pizza.” (Keyder et al. 1999) Meanwhile, several new investments such as Hilton Hotel in Maçka Park, the first garden suburb of Levent to the

north, the model town in Ataköy to the west, along with new boulevards Vatan (Country) and Millet (Nation) in historical peninsula became showcases for the government with the demolition of many heritage buildings. This era is known on urbanization as “Menderes Operations”. The Menderes period was the beginning of consumerist society and the ignorance of emerging social problems without any doubt. Therefore, the first coup d’état in the Republic of Turkey was overthrowing the Menderes period in 27th of May 1960. The following year, Adnan Menderes was executed with the new military regime. Military power took the governance for one year and changed the basic law. In addition, neoliberal politics and globalization have continued to effect Istanbul’s silhouette with the opening of the first Bosphorus Bridge (Boğaziçi Köprüsü) in 1973. The opening of the Bosphorus Bridge increased highway development and motor vehicle usage. Modernization during the Atatürk era on railway development was interrupted with increasing motor vehicle usage. Oil dependency became an important issue. 33 Gecekondu, in Turkish means over night settlement. In common usage, it refers to the low cost apartment buildings or houses that were constructed in a very short time by people migrating from rural areas to the outskirts of the large cities. The gecekondu phenomenon is directly linked with the problems of unemployment and poverty in the rural areas of Turkey, especially in the east of the country. 34 One of the characteristic foods of southeastern Turkey, identified with Arab cuisine, lahmacun became popular fast food among the new migrants into Istanbul and simultaneously an expression of resentment among middle and upper classes in the city (Keyder et al. 1999).

Gezi Park as Case Study

On the other hand, because of the increased reactions against the economic classes and changing power relations, during the 1970s, Taksim became the focal point for the protests, demonstrations and public speeches in Istanbul with increased transport opportunities. The May Day celebrations always had an important relation with the square and extended Taksim’s geographical boundaries by gathering demonstrators from Gümüşsuyu, Sıraselviler and Harbiye.

Taksim certainly has a key meaning for many parts of society and labor organizations to express their political identity in a public place, which has a contested history like Taksim. On the other hand, today, the approach of the mayor and the government to the square is neither restricting nor expanding. But one can say, on a grey line, municipality is controlling the gatherings on the square by devaluing the content of the gatherings into nonpolitical gatherings such as new years celebrations and festivals.

However, the May 1st celebrations in 1977, are embedded into the memory of the people as a tragedy, because of the death of 34 people and countless injured,in Turkish ‘1 Mayis Katliami’ (Baykan & Hatuka 2010; Sarlak 2012).

Beginning on May Day 1977, the Taksim Square Massacre, political instability continued until the second coup d’état and the third military intervention35 in the Republic of Turkey and the current president was overthrown. Military power took governance for second time on 12th of September 1980 and changed the constitution to stabilize the conflicts. Any kind of political act became a huge fear in the society. Martial law ruled the entire country for seven years.

Each year the May Day gathering in Taksim Square used to be a topic of debate between the NGOs, labor organizations, municipality and the governors.

35 Second military intervention has aimed to stop the student movement in Beyazit Square and Taksim Square (Kanlı Pazar) in 1969.

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.10. Marshall Aid Poster http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ imagecollection/erp-whatever-the-weather-we-must-move-together/ fig.12. Military Coup 1980 http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/our-boys-didit---bizim-cocuklar-yapti-/Blog/?BlogNo=428781

fig.14. & fig.15 & fig.16 May Day Massacre newspapers http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/1-mayis-ta-neler-olacak-/Blog/?BlogNo=105886 http://fotoanaliz.hurriyet.com.tr/galeridetay/68425/4369/15/1-mayis-1977-olum-tuzagi http://www.bianet.org/bianet/toplum/146248-1mayis-1977-neden-ve-nasil-kana-bulandi

fig.11. Menderes controling projects http://v3.arkitera.com/UserFiles/Image/news/2010/06/04/adnan.jpg

fig.13. Poster of Millet Boulevard as Menderes Operations http://emlak.ensonhaber.com/istanbula-vurulan-darbeler.html

Gezi Park as Case Study

4 5-7

1. 1947 – Opening of open-air theatre 2. 1947 – Opening of Inonu Stadium 3. 1954 – Opening of Hilton Hotel 4. 1956 – Opening of Divan Hotel 5. 1959 – Demolition of Municipal Garden in Taksim 6. 1969 – Opening of Atatürk Cultural Center (AKM) 7. 1975 – Opening of Sheraton Hotel (Ceylan Interconti56

nental) in demolished municipal garden area 8. 1975 – Opening of Atatürk Library 9. 1975 – Opening of Etap (The) Marmara Hotel

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.1.4. Post-national Period 1980-2003 (Economic Liberalization Period) The most important elements of the era, after 1980s are known as private space oriented urbanization and the economic liberalization fashion. However, the roots of these elements come from the 1950s. Multi party regime, post-war international order and development of international relations highly affected the Turkish economy, politics and urbanization. After martial law, 80s were perceived as a welfare era with drastic twists to consumer society. According to Keyder (1999), coinciding Turkey’s aperture in 1980s, Istanbul seemed poised to recapture its regional role which had been largely forgotten during the heyday of national development (Keyder et al. 1999). Large-scale public spaces of Henri fig.17. Park No. 2 plan at1/2000 scale (plan elaborated in 1940s) (Istanbul Ataturk Library

Prost were privatized and 5 star hotels and casinos occupied these spaces in Park No. 2, such as the Swisshotel (1991), the Hyatt Regency Hotel (1995) and the Ritz Carlton in Süzer Plaza (1999). Decision makers, despite the Prost plan, have encouraged tourism usage instead of locals. The first one is the law for the encouragement of tourism (number 2634) that went into effect in 1982. With this law, private investors could rent the public land for 49 years and that atmosphere created the legal frame to bring more foreign currency into the country whilst increasing the total bed amount. The reflection of this law in Istanbul was combined with the motto of “Historical city Istanbul that opens out the world with tourism” by mayor of Istanbul, Bedrettin Dalan (1984-89) and was embodied as Süzer Plaza (Gokkafes) and Intercontinental hotels (Sarlak 2012; Sönmez 2007).

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.18. Karakรถy, Galata http://www.degisti.com/index.php/archives/19135/1965_galata_karakoy_eski_istanbul fig.19. Tarlabasi Boulevard constructions http://www.selmancelik.info/2013/04/24/taksim-square-a-spatial-centre-of-the-political-conflicts-in-turkey/

Gezi Park as Case Study

With the boom of economic liberalization, Istanbul became the focus of being a world city36 as the representation of Turkey’s global reputation. In this era Istanbul’s dusty, old image disappeared and an ‘imperial capital’ image were remembered again,

reasons of the sprawl of Istanbul to the north with the new CBD (between Levent and Maslak) destinations. As a remark the length of the bridge was an issue, when completed in 1988, it was the 5th longest suspension bridge span in the world; today it is the 19th.

“Unlike the other global cities, Istanbul has always been a world city: an imperial capital for more than fifteen hundred years, its splendors were stuff of legends, attracting the jealous gaze first of Europe then of the Balkans and the Middle East.” (Keyder et al. 1999)

Consequently with the huge investments on Istanbul’s representative face there was a redoubling of the population. Sprawl has dramatically changed Istanbul geography and the population reached its limits already in 1980s.

This global city concept was understood as luxury, upper-income neighborhoods, shopping malls, fashionable expatriate restaurants and mushroomed fastfood chains. On-line currency trading, electronic transfers and ATM machines quickly followed (Keyder et al. 1999). The opening of the second Bosphorus Bridge in 1988 followed the boom as a competitive city in a global context. The Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge, also known as the Second Bosphorus Bridge (in Turkish: Fatih Sultan Mehmet Köprüsü) became the one of the most important

Following that, another important event was the widening of Tarlabasi Boulevard from 1986 to 1988, the extrajudicial demolition of the 386 buildings -also some of them were examples of civil architecture- created a socially and spatially segregated neighborhood on one side of the Taksim Square (Sarlak 2012). Since then, the user profile has changed from the middle class non-Muslim Levantines to rural migrants, so the recent history of the district has been deleted spatially and that has caused alienation of the new inhabitants (Sarlak 2012). 36 A global city (also called world city) is a city generally considered to be an important node in the global economic system.

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.20. CBD Levent-Maslak Axis http://inuraistanbul2009.wordpress.com/workshops/the-generic-interventions-grand-projects/

Gezi Park as Case Study

On the other hand, the global city project has been reflected in international cultural events, such as the Istanbul Biennale that begun to occupy a place in the international exhibit calendar since 1987. Annual international festivals of film, opera, classical music and jazz started happening in Istanbul. International magazines and newspapers such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times as well as radio and TV channels such as CNN, BBC, Eurosport, NBC in addition the other German, French, Italian channels have opened their permanent bureaus in Istanbul (Keyder et al. 1999). Meanwhile, pollution in the Golden Horn after the 1950’s had been taken under control thanks to the efforts undertaken since 1980 under Bedrettin Dalan period. The industrial area was decentralized and the Golden Horn was encouraged into being a cultural center. According to governorship of Istanbul from Bedrettin Dalan period until the recent years, over four thousand buildings on the shores of the Golden Horn have been demolished, the businesses moved to new centers outside the city, the shores turned into parks and gardens, and wastewater treatment plants involving vast canal systems and collectors constructed.37

Accordingly, Habitat II, the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements was held in Istanbul, Turkey from June 3–14, 1996, twenty years after Habitat I held in Vancouver in 1976.38 Popularly called the “City Summit”, it brought together high-level representatives of national and local governments, as well as private sector, NGOs, research and training institutions and the media. As a result of Henri Prost’s plan ‘the recreation and cultural valley’ became ‘congress valley’ after UN Habitat II conference. For the time being, the current mayor of Istanbul Nurettin Sözen’s party in the 1994 elections; instead they nominated a well-known intellectual with impeccable global aspirations but no political or administrative experience (Keyder et al. 1999). On the 27th of March 1994 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a candidate of Islamic Welfare Party with %23 of the plurality became mayor of Istanbul despite his stance against Istanbul’s global city project. Erdoğan was seen for the first time in political arena. Islamic Welfare Party created a great fear especially to the secular group at first. Afterwards, in a few instances it is 37 English Istanbul. THE GOLDEN HORN. English Istanbul at <http://english.istanbul.gov.tr/Default.aspx?pid=352> 38 Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements – United Nations Habitat II

Gezi Park as Case Study

banned by the army because of its radical islamist approach. However, Islamic group has escalated during the time until now. Erdoğan expressed his ideas right after the election in March 1994 issue of Yeni Zemin, “This is the point of attraction of Istanbul’s tourism. The person who comes there should be able to tell that he has arrived in an Islamic city. …As we succeed in uncovering the historical and cultural texture of our city, its Muslim character will become apparent to the visitors.” (Bora 1999) in this direction, the global city project of Istanbul was interrupted by AKP’s Islamic ideology. As Ze’evi (2013) argues, “previous governments with an Islamist agenda had tried to challenge Turkey’s political order and change its basically secular legal system. … In the last such incident, popularly known as the “post-modern coup” of 1997, Islamist Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan was forced to step down, and his Welfare Party was disbanded and outlawed.39” (Ze’evi 2013)

After Islamic Welfare Party lost its power and AKP materialized. Afterwards, the AKP won a decisive electoral victory in 2002. Ze’evi (2013) argues that, gaining slightly more than a third of the vote (the 10 percent threshold left most parties excluded from Parliament), many expected it to go down the same path as its predecessors and try, follow the route of Islamic Welfare Party, to return the state back to an Islamist, anti-Western agenda (Ze’evi 2013). For that time, under the direction of Prost Plan, the public space was privatized piece by piece. Gezi Park remained the last piece of Prost’s public space. However, it was neglected and left to the marginalized groups until the Taksim Square Project. In addition, during Erdogan period military power of policemen in Beyoglu and futuristic surveillance technology has developed. Technopolice are successfully based on Istiklal Street with Mini Cooper police cars. Taksim Square and Galatasaray Square police occupation in case of any intemperance became a part of daily life.

39 The coup was first designated “post-modern” by Admiral Salim Devrişoğlu, commander of the Turkish navy—mainly because, unlike prior military coups, it was achieved through political discourse and psychological warfare—and only the threat of military power (Ze’evi 2013).

Gezi Park as Case Study

4 3

1. 1989 – Opening of Cemal Reşit Rey Exhibition and Concert Hall 2. 1991 – Opening of Swisshotel 3. 1994- Talimhane Hotel District 4. 1995- Hyatt Regacy Hotel 5. 1999 – Opening of Süzerplaza (Gökkafes) 6. Tarlabaşi Demolition 63

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.1.5. Neoliberal Conservative Period 2003-2014 (Neo-Ottoman/Erdoğan Period)

fig.21. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/128476280

The most important element of this era is the application of neo-liberal fashion. However the roots of the globalization come from the previous eras, in Erdoğan era finally it is applied. AKP gained slightly more than one third of the chairs in the parliament in 2002. At first Erdoğan was porhibited to join to the election under the article 312/2 of the Turkish penal code because of a poem, he read public, which includes radical islamist elements. He could not became a prime minister right away. In December 2002, the Supreme Election Board canceled the general election results from Siirt due to voting irregularities and scheduled a new election for 9 February 2003. By this time, party leader Erdoğan was able to run for Parliament thanks to a legal change made possible by the opposition Republican People’s Party. The AKP duly listed Erdoğan as a candidate for the rescheduled Siirt election, and he won, becoming prime minister after Abdullah Gül subsequently handed over the post.40

40 Turkish PM quits for Erdogan. CNN World (2003). at <http://edition.cnn. com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/11/turkey.elections/>

Gezi Park as Case Study

Afterwards, the votes of AKP never decreased until today. Despite his authoritarian attitude, his presidency stabilized the economical development. Of course as Republic of Turkey has experienced many times on the political arena, he has been using the developments for his own political benefits as well as his ideology similarly to the previous iktidars. Despite of the interruption of global city project of Istanbul, Turkey entered a period of impressive rapid economic growth, while at the same time civil society was empowered by talks on amending the constitution and progressive legal reforms (Gökay & Xypolia 2013). Turkey has managed to swiftly recover from the 2001 crisis by adopting fiscal and financial reforms (Macovei 2009). Macroeconomic stabilization and structural reforms resulted in a stable GDP growth up until the outbreak of the global crisis. Turkey succeeded to make her final payment on its IMF debt in May 2013 just few weeks before the outbreak of the demonstrations (Lewis 2013). Turkey’s economy has performed remarkably well amid a global financial crisis. During this period Turkey has

generated high annual growth rates. The good economic performance of the past decade has dramatically improved the income and the living standards of the vast majority of Turkish citizens (Xypolia 2013). Additionally, according to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Istanbul has %23 capacities on national income gross.41 Economic improvement and stability are the main reasons of increasing vote percentage of AKP. Though the AKP government has taken important steps towards democratic reform, the electoral 10% threshold was designed to prevent a proper Kurdish representation in Ankara. Kurdish channel established for the freedom of minority language (Gökay & Xypolia 2013). However the restriction of freedom of speech is still a key issue in Turkey illustrated with the tight control of the media, on imprisoning journalists, especially those who express views critical of the authorities on the Kurdish and Armenian issue. It is indicative that in the 2013 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index Turkey has fallen on 154th.42 In addition, abortion rules, regulation of alcohol consumption, refusal to grant place of worship status to Cemevi- Alevis’ place of worship were 41 O.karabacak. Sayılarla İstanbul. Avrupa Kult. Baskenti (2009). at <http:// www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/tr-TR/0-Istanbul-Tanitim/konum/Pages/Sayilarla_Istanbul.aspx> 42 Reporters Without Borders. 2013 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX: DASHED HOPES AFTER SPRING. (2013). at <http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html>

Gezi Park as Case Study

another problematic increasingly dictating and polarizing Erdoğan iktidar43. Against this background, new middle classes have arisen. The new generations of young educated and employed middle class with expanded expectations who is seeking for a democratic change. In the past decade the urban middle class in Turkey has enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity but it was restricted by authoritarian politics and rigid morality (Xypolia 2013). Turkish modernization was, and still is, an attempt to introduce as many modern elements as the national elite deemed necessary and useful, while, at the same time, repelling those it deemed harmful and dangerous. The Turkish nation had to be modern, but at the same time obedient to the national elites. For that reason people voting Erdoğan were actually hoping of not establishing a new hegemony against the old, the Kemalist one, but with a task in the name of democracy and for that reason, it was against the Kemalist hegemony and its guardian, the army (Christofis 2013). Meanwhile the shift to Islamic ideology bothered army and caused the final

army intervention in 2007. It is called as e-memorandum. Although AKP managed to bring a significant blow to the Turkish Armed Forces, which were protected in large extent by the 1980 regime, it seems that they were replaced by the police and passed on to them the role of the guardian of the state (Christofis 2013). That’s why e-memorandum had not a significant effect. The opposite way round army started to loose its power. Beside all of these, construction sector boomed but not for the public benefit, for the private benefit instead. The change of 5366 numbered law44 in 2005 helped for these private investors who supports the government. In that case, 5366 numbered law based on the use and protection of cultural and historical properties by renewing, especially in the historical areas of the cities. However the development on construction sector, infrastructure of Istanbul could not took her part of the successful economic development. As new projects during this period, new railway systems, Marmaray and Metrobus are still not enough for Istanbul’s capacity. There is still a saying “when it rains, life in Istanbul stops”. 43 See the chapter “Power/Governance”. 44 http://www.mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/html/1509.html

Gezi Park as Case Study

In addition, green space is another major issue in a megacity like Istanbul. In Turkey, 33% of people feel they lack access to green spaces, much more that the 12% average of OECD European countries (Xypolia 2013). The new middle class has been bothered by the lack of greenery as well as many other missing elements, which define the quality of life index. On the other hand, Istanbul affected dramatically by all these change. Even the government party itself calls “crazy projects” to the new developments.45 Many gated communities and shopping malls increased significantly. Despite of stance against of many experts, 3rd Bridge on the northern edge of Istanbul has been building. Canal Istanbul and 3rd Airport took place of governmental agenda. 3rd Airport is going to be the biggest airport in Europe and Canal Istanbul will be hosted 8 million more inhabitants on top of 17 million over capacity population. Artillery Barrack Project was only one among these crazy projects. Erdoğan’s stance against the global city project of Istanbul occurred the boom and Istanbul has become “Mega City”

or “Third World City”. Asymmetric ignorance has been, and still is, causing many problems. However, 2010 Istanbul European Cultural Capital helped a lot to remember and study on this arena. Furthermore, AKP government consists many contradictions. While economy improvement based on construction sector, there is lack of infrastructure. While the first Kurdish channel started to broadcast on national televisions, there are many censorships sabotage the freedom of speech. While being against to the global city project and western ideology, there are many other progresses on the international relationships. It is difficult to analyze AKP’s politics, which gives something with one hand and take it back with the other. Finally, in August 2014, Erdoğan insisted his hubris syndrome and finally became the president of Republic of Turkey. Despite of the referendum in 2010 of changing the constitution resulted in AKP’s favor, Erdoğan’s planned change from prime ministry to presidency did not work. And he had to leave the prime minister chair to Ahmet Davutoğlu.

45 CİHAN. AK Partililere göre “Çılgın Proje”, 2023 vizyonu. Zaman (2011). at <http://www.zaman.com.tr/politika_ak-partililere-gore-cilgin-proje-2023-vizyonu_1122396.html>

Gezi Park as Case Study

Summary I would like to summarize the historical background until Gezi Park project with Robins’ words (1996) once again, “As much as it has been shaped by the assimilation of western culture, modern Turkish identity ‘is also a product of various negations’: Turkish society became practiced in the art of repression.” (Robins 1996) From the Ottoman Empire era until today, Turkish identity has been a playground of politics. Huge complaints of the unenlightened citizens of Republic of Turkey created a gap between oppressor and oppressed. Many kinds of symbolic urban intervention had the top-down approach. Yaşar Kemal (1974), the first Nobel Prize candidate of Turkey, explains the understanding of the Turkish politics with these sentences in his Salty Honey book,

stay blind and deaf. Turkey did not experience the idealized world of bourgeoisie. On purpose, executive squad pressed against people. For them, people are the servant community. People are production machine to milk. I know how the executive squad behaves to people, because I am one of them (refers the people). For the Atatürk revolutions, it is asserted as ‘despite of people for the people revolutions’, ‘that’s why it was bloody.’ 46” (Kemal 1974) In addition, urban participation has been heavily discussed during my bachelor education. However, the common understanding from the people could be explained with this narrative, “if you are studying urban planning47, why are you asking me your job? I am not as educated as you are.” Accordingly, how power, titles and status are important for Turkish population stands clearly out.

“…Is it despite of people for the people? People fall into disuse poor. They stay uneducated. On purpose, they stay in the darkness. They 46 Translated by the author. 47 This refers the bachelor degree of Urban and Regional Planning in Turkish educational system.

Gezi Park as Case Study

1. 2006 – Opening of Taksim Residence Hotel 2. 2009 – Opening of Istanbul Congress Center 3. 2012 – Taksim pedestrianization project

Gezi Park as Case Study

1926 – 1928 – Installation of the Atatürk Monument in Taksim Square

1732 – Construction of Cistern (Maksem) in order to distribute water. Extension of Cadde-I Kebir (Istiklal Street) to Taksim with the effects of cistern and emerging density of construction due to this extension (Ozsavasci, 1999)

1947 – Opening of open-air theatre

1947 – Opening of Inonu Stadium

1939 – Demolition of Taksim Barrack 1940 – Re-opening of Municipal Garden in Taksim

1954 – Opening of Hilton Hotel 1956 – Opening of Divan Hotel

1806 – Construction of Topcu (Taksim) Barrack with its training area (Talimhane) 1854 – Construction Dolmabahçe Palace 1869 – Construction of an avenue, which connects Taksim and Harbiye including two walkway

1959 – Demolition of Municipal Garden in Taksim 1946 – 1949 – Construction of TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Cooperation)

1969 – Opening of Atatürk Cultural Center (AKM) 1975 – Opening of Sheraton Hotel (Ceylan Intercontinental) in demolished municipal garden area 1989 – Opening of Cemal Reşit Rey Exhibition and Concert Hall

Gezi Park as Case Study

1975 – Opening of Atatürk Library 1975 – Opening of Etap (The) Marmara Hotel

1991 – Opening of Swisshotel 1989 – Opening of Cemal Reşit Rey Exhibition and Concert Hall 1994- Talimhane Hotel District

1995- Hyatt Regacy Hotel

Tarlabaşi Demolition

2006 – Opening of Taksim Residence Hotel

2009 – Opening of Istanbul Congress Center

1999 – Opening of Süzerplaza (Gökkafes)

2012 – Taksim pedestrianization project

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.22.-fig.26. Illustrations for reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and Taksim Square Pedestrian Projects http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/topcu_kislasi_erdogan_stadyumunun_yerine_ yapilsin-1107594

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.2. Taksim Square Project Taksim Square and surroundings have always been on the agenda of the current iktidar48 because of its historical and local dynamics. Planned mosque, pedestrian project and Atatürk Cultural Center, etc. were discussed especially in 80s and 90s. Today Taksim Square project became on the agenda again with a pedestrian and tunnel project. Before, with the environmental plan scaled 1/100.000 declared this region as cultural oriented tourism area in 2009. In addition to that project reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack in Gezi Park has been declared on 12th of June 2011 just before the elections. After the elections, to be able to put the project into reality, 1/5000 and 1/1000 master development plan and implementer development plan has been developed. The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality has approved the plans by unanimous vote on 16th of September 2011. Afterwards, Istanbul Number II Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection and Conservation has approved the plans on 4th of January 2012.

This decision attracted a great opposition by experts, academics, professional chambers and nongovernmental organizations. Especially Taksim Platform, Taksim Solidarity (Taksim Dayanismasi) and Architecture for All (Herkes Icin Mimarlik) prosecuted the project decision and published many declarations against it. Meanwhile, visuals of the project published on the media. In 24th of September 2012 phase-by-phase tendered pedestrian project has started with the tunnel. On the other hand, on 11th of December 2012 the reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack has been canceled by Istanbul Number II Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection and Conservation with the justification of there is no document or information about the original barrack on the site. However, with the pressure of the government, on 27th of March 2013 Cultural and Natural Heritage Preservation High Council has refused the cancel of the project. At the end the project has been approved once again. The approval of the project by the high council created bigger reaction because of the obvious government pressure. Afterwards, on 28th of May 2013 the first tree in Gezi Park has been 48 See the chapter “Power/Governance”.

Gezi Park as Case Study

removed. This created the trigger effect to attract the reaction of environmentalist groups at first, and then many other different groups. Finally, on 6th of June 2013 reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and the pedestrian projects have been cancelled once again by Istanbul Administrative Court Number I with the decision of the lawsuit, which proceeded by Union of Chambers of Turkish Architects and Engineers.49 Similarly to the previous rumors about Taksim projects during especially 80s and 90s, for the reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and the pedestrian projects also had many rumors. The function of the Taksim Artillery Barrack neither was clearly declared nor disposed a participatory request. During the process, shopping mall, urban museum, hotel, residential function and even an ice-skating ring were defined as the functions by the political authorities and the decision makers (Göğüş 2014). Additionally, the architect of the reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack, Halil Onur made a statement to the press50, which says,

“There wont be any mosque in the barrack building. It will be cafés, restaurants, bookstores and, an exhibition hall on the side of AKM51. We don’t have any proposal to shut down Gezi to the public. But we need to bring an order to the area. That’s not true to say everybody can simply go to a café or a restaurant. Can everyone enter everywhere?52” In this direction, the profile of the users is clearly not inclusive and the building will be under the gaze of either a public or a private security control. The pedestrian project, which the roots come from the 80s, is finally materialized even though, the reconstruction project of Taksim Artillery Barrack has been cancelled. Accordingly, there is always a possibility of the reconstruction project of Taksim Artillery Barrack to rise again in a different form. Hence, the question of publicness remains same on the agenda.

49 All the details of the Taksim Artillery Barrack and pedestrian projects have been taken from Union of Chambers of Turkish Architects and Engineers’ Taksim Solidarity Diary’. Taksim Dayanışması Güncesi. Union Chambers Turkish Eng. Archit. (2013). at <http://www.mimarist.org/2012-08-13-16-09-05. html> 50 İNCE, E. Gezi Parkı buz kesti! Radikal (2012). at <http://www.radikal.com. tr/turkiye/gezi_parki_buz_kesti-1107013> 51 AKM (Atatürk Kültür Merkezi), in English Atatürk Cultural Center 52 Translated by the author.

Gezi Park as Case Study

Neglecting Gezi Park Gezi Park is located right next to Taksim Square. Despite of Taksim Square’s accessibility and the centered position, Gezi Park has been neglected for many years. Accessibility of the park is highly limited for users especially handicaps, elderlies and children. The stairs from Taksim Square to Gezi Park and the high traffic block the access of many users. Accordingly, security became an issue in the area. Drug dealers, transvestites, gypsies, baggers and many other marginalized groups used to lounge in the space. In this direction, aiming of curing and purifying the society is obvious why Erdoğan wants to leave his signature. The signature represents the power right in the middle of the Taksim, which is indeed the heart of present day İstanbul, as the main center of many kinds of activities as well as many international users.

fig.27.-30. one scene in Gezi Park in the movie ‘Distance’ by Nuri Bilge Ceylan Main character follows a lady until Gezi Park. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_rETJduYt8

53 Özyurt, O. AKM için çözüm üretildi. Sabah (2012). at <http://www.sabah. com.tr/medya/2012/02/16/akm-icin-cozum-uretildi> 54 TALK BY MURAT TABANLIOĞLU AKM: CONVEYING THE 20TH CENTURY BUILDING TO THE 21ST CENTURY. Saltonline (2012). at <http:// saltonline.org/en/444/konusma-murat-tabanlioglu> 55 SANYER, R. 30 yıl sonra kanlı 1 Mayıs (2). Radikal (2007). at <http:// www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=219881v>

Gezi Park as Case Study

AKM Beside the reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and the pedestrian projects, with the same intend Atatürk Cultural Center has been justified decision of to be completed its life in 2005. At first the Minister of Culture and Tourism of the time, Atilla Koç has proposed to demolish the building. Later, public opinion similarly had a great reaction against the project as Taksim project, however to the lesser extend significations. The demolition of AKM has been canceled by Istanbul Number II Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection and Conservation and recorded as cultural assets class I.53 Afterwards, it has been shut down with the reconstruction project in 2008. Many times, it has been announced to open it in a symbolic day such as national holiday. However it still remains as closed. Originally, AKM was named ‘Istanbul Cultural Palace’ in 1946. However, similarly to the other public monuments, it

has renamed again as Atatürk Cultural Center with the reconstruction after the fire in 1977.54 The construction and the completion have been instable the emphasizing of the symbolic dimension. Another symbolic dimension it has gained on May Day 1977, known as the Taksim Square Massacre. The posters hanging on AKM building by the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey had a great impact on public’s memory.55 In this direction, to damage the modernist Kemalist and the labor symbols in Taksim Squre could be another way to liquidate the previous ideology and replace the current ideology. Additionally, reconstruction of AKM is as complex as the reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and the pedestrian projects. However even if there are many similarities and it helps to analyze the actual case study, it is not the main aim of this research.

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.31. Public Speech on May Day 1977 http://www.haberlink.com/haber.php?query=48517#.VFRXnPTF_fg fig.32. Occupy Gezi Park demonstrationd in 2013 https://direnisteyiz.org/haber/gezi-direnisi-iddianamesinde-suc-orgutune-ikinci-kez-ret/ fig.33. Taksim bird view http://m.milligazete.com.tr/haber_detay.php?id=317962

Gezi Park as Case Study

fig.34. brutal polis intevention to the protesters at Taksim in 2013 http://www.archdaily.com/382096/turkey-fighting-for-freedom-of-speech-and-freedom-of-space/

Gezi Park as Case Study

4.2.1. Occupy Gezi Park The summer of 2013 was witness to an unexpected turn of events in the history of Turkey. The escalation of Gezi Resistance, from the desperate efforts of a handful of activists and concerned citizens campaigning for the park’s integrity, to massive demonstrations that spread like wildfire all across the country, took only a few days. The protests became an epic struggle that questioned the top-down administration and regulation of public spaces (Scotini 2014). In a purely symbolic act the protests started exactly a month after the suppression of the First of May demonstrations (Gökay & Xypolia 2013). Thousands of teargas and water canon against demonstrators have been reported (Theophanidis 2013). In this movement, the trees of Gezi Park, despite of their apolitical image, became the main symbol. That’s why, many say the reaction started as an environmentalist movement and emphasize this direction (Moudouros 2014). The symbolic dimension of the trees of Gezi Park had a coalescing effect encouraging many different social groups to assemble together in a very short

time. Therefore, this new social movement was in the center of attention for many social and political scientists due to its remarkable impact. Gezi Park occupation was the movement against authoritarian regime, which has been experienced brutally hundreds of times from Ottoman Empire to Atatürk Era later to the republic era with four coup d’états and now in Erdoğan’s sultanate. AKP’s success in political arena and economy mobilized ordinary citizens located in the periphery to move towards to the center threatened the status of traditional elite. Members of the traditional elite attempted to take advantage of Gezi Protests either in direct or indirect ways to be able to debilitate AKP government that couldn’t be beaten through elections (Erkoc 2013). AKP has adopted an increasingly authoritarian attitude that threatens to control basic freedoms of the Turkish citizens. The latest measures that were undertaken by the Turkish government included the restriction of selling alcohol and the kiss in the metro. The decision to demolish one of few green spaces in the

Gezi Park as Case Study

City and to build Ottoman barracks was the last drop. It is worth noting that a lot of analyses fall into the trap of attributing this turmoil only to the long-standing conflict in the Turkish society that has its roots in the late Ottoman era (Xypolia 2013). Unfortunately, these accounts only scratch the surface, as these social cleavages cannot fully explain the dynamics of the recent events. The government made the distinction calling certain protestors peaceful while the rest marginal, extremisms and terrorists (Xypolia 2013). From the very early days of the protests, he has been inclined to evaluate the protests as a coup towards himself as well as developed a pejorative rhetoric to the protestors by defining them as çapulcular56 that literally means ‘looters’57. Governments’ initiatives aimed at discrediting the protests. Erdogan warned protesters to leave the Gezi Park and tension rose after Erdogan counter-rally.58 Additionally, ‘The Turkish spring happened on 3rd November 2002’, Erdoğan exclaimed before the crowd gathered at Ankara airport to support him during the resistance of Gezi (Moudouros 2014). ‘Those who do not respect the power of

this nation will pay the consequences’59 as well as ‘Taksim is not Turkey’60 said Erdoğan to the crowd, which is obvious that demands and requests of society are not tolerated. Although, the main important features are the spontaneous character of the protest and also a lack of central leadership. These forms of collective action have not been initiated by a clear leadership figure. In Gezi Park the vast majority of the participants were not a member of any political party or association.61 The protestors are highly educated62 with the attendance of many social groups including from Kemalists to leftists to environmentalists to LGBT to Kurds to football team supporter, even Islamists who had supported AKP but no longer agree with its policies. Turkey has invested in the educational system in order to strengthen its human capital. This polyphony shows us, Turkey cannot stay under one authority or one ideology. One power does not mean to marginalize the other ideologies. Especially educated new middle class does not want to be shaped by the authoritarian regime. Presence of the different groups is the color of the culture. Igno56 A neologism originating in the Gezi Park protests in Turkey, coined from Prime Minister Erdoğan’s use of the term çapulcu (roughly translated to “looters”) to describe the protestors. Çapulcu was rapidly reappropriated by the protestors, both in its original form and as the anglicized chapuller and additionally verbified chapulling, given the meaning of “fighting for your rights”. Chapulling has been used in Turkish both in its English form and in the hybrid word form çapuling. 57 AFP. “Chapulling”: Turkish protesters spread the edgy word. Tribune (2013). at <http://tribune.com.pk/story/560640/chapulling-turkish-protesters-spread-the-edgy-word> 58 bbc Europe. Turkey unrest: Mass rally for Erdogan amid new clashes. BBC News (2013). at <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22925619>

Gezi Park as Case Study

rance causes pain and backwardness. In addition, the hegemonic and patriarchal model that Erdoğan represents has been criticized by Turkish feminist groups. The public sphere is male dominated and it is reflected on the slogans of the resistance. Graffiti and slogans from the protestors often deploy a sexist and masculine language. However, there is an attempt by feminist and LGBT activists to reinvent the ‘language of resistance’. Feminist and LGBT activists for instance covered sexist graffiti attacking the Prime Minister. They even wore T-shirts calling to resist without swearing.63 When Gezi was occupied, educational operations, infirmaries, kitchens, libraries, vegetable gardens, exhibitions, open-air cinemas and other necessities of life popped up. Everyone was a volunteer and the park was shared collectively and cared for the first time in its history. The lived experience, which lasted less than two weeks, transformed all those who opened themselves to become involved (Scotini 2014). During the occupation, Gezi Park was finally used as a real park with its inclu-

sive factors to underline that this polyphony could be exist. Different social groups should not necessarily fight with each other. In the other way round, they could find a space to show their presence, as they have been existed for many years already. Social media in case of Turkey played an important role in the mobilization and the communication of the demonstrators. Erdoğan blamed social media as ‘the menace to society’.64 It is the police and the media, to name just two of the institutions that played a key role in recent events in Taksim Square, that AKP employed, as other governments before did to suppress opposition (Christofis 2013). The once-popular leader was turned into another sultan – or a “democratic dictator” as Ahmet Insel observed65 or “oriental despot” as Ömer Şener described66– who considers suppression as the only possible way to silence millions of opposition voices. According to Hammond (2014), common narratives are about the ‘conspiracy’ in any disobedience move in Turkey (Hammond 2014). The common tendency is changing by time but with the same mentality. 59 ERDOĞAN: TÜRK BAHARI 2002’DE OLDU. Aktif Harber (2012). at <http://www.aktifhaber.com/erdogan-turk-bahari-2002de-oldu-802085h. htm> 60 Haber, A. SON DAKİKA- MİLLİ İRADEYE SAYGI MİTİNGİ İSTANBULBaşbakan Erdoğan“Türkiye taksimden ibaret degil.”(2013). at <https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=y8zeH5tQRsI> 61 | 62 “Gezi Parkı direnişçilerinin yarısı polis şiddeti olduğu için eyleme katıldı!”T24 (2013). at <http://t24.com.tr/haber/konda-gezi-parki-anketi-cikardi,231889> 63 Zeynep Kurtulus Korkman & Aciksoz, S. C. Erdogan’s Masculinity and the Language of the Gezi Resistance. Jadaliyya (2013). at <http://www. jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12367/erdogan’s-masculinity-and-the-lan-

Gezi Park as Case Study

It is in these circumstances, the Erdoğan has led the discursive counter attack on the protesters by calling them mere tools in the hands of “the interest lobby” (Tarim 2013). We could say that the movements changed from ‘conspiracy of the interest lobby’ to ‘jealousy’ darkly with Erdoğan’s over self-confidence. According to Erdoğan ‘interest lobbies’ seeking to take advantage of Turkey’s economy. As an example, jealousy at Turkey’s recent success in paying back the last of its loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was taken as a motive for planning these events; others fingered German jealousy at the planned construction of a third airport in Istanbul, one that would ostensibly draw away air traffic from German airports (Hammond 2014). Additionally, there is of course no doubt that the international actors are excited to shape the political structure of Turkey by abusing the Gezi protests, nonetheless internal political and sociological aspects/dynamics of it can’t be underestimated either (Erkoc 2013). This had a negative effect to Erdoğan who does not really internalize western roots. And, most of the international actors despite were western scholars.

Butler (2011) discuss about the occupy alike movements with these sentences, “When bodies gather as they do to express their indignation and to enact their plural existence in public space, they are also making broader demands. They are demanding to be recognized and to be valued; they are exercising a right to appear and to exercise freedom; they are calling for a liveable life.” (Butler 2011) As Butler argues, in Occupy Gezi Park movement, the gathering of masses was of course not only against the planned shopping mall. The shopping mall created the trigger effect thankfully for this historical awakening. It was the democratic right to ask a better life. However, it is completely misunderstood by the sovereignty and people were pushed away because of the disobedience in a very inhuman way. The demonstrations in Taksim Square, as well as throughout Turkey, were not perceived as a democratic process but as a coup (Moudouros 2014). AKP has been in power for over a decade. These protests are a wakeup call for AKP. Politically engaged and vociferous citizens are an asset for the democracy. Democratic reform to inguage-of-the-gezi> 64 Letsch, C. Social media and opposition to blame for protests, says Turkish PM. Guard. (2013). at <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/02/ turkish-protesters-control-istanbul-square> 65 İnsel, A. Tayyip Erdoğan Diktatör müdür? Birikim (2013). at <http://www. birikimdergisi.com/birikim/makale.aspx?mid=966&makale=Tayyip Erdogan Diktator mudur> 66 Şener, Ö., 2013. The Gezi Protests, Polyphony and ‘Carnivalesque Chaos’. Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey.

Gezi Park as Case Study

corporate the concerns of the protestors are needed.

not enough to create only one solution because of the complexity of the power relations. 5.1. Current Situation and Uncertainty

5. CONCLUSION

As a conclusion it is important to remember Flybjerg’s arguments, “The focus of modernity and of planning theory is on ‘what should be done’. We suggest a reorientation toward ‘what is actually done - towards verita effettuale. In this way we may gain a better grasp - less idealistic, more grounded - of what planning is and what the strategies and tactics that may help change it for the better.” (Flyvbjerg 2002) The chosen theory for this research is important to grasp the key components of the ideological background, as well as the standards developed by the AKP and the previous iktidars. However, it is

Currently, there is no more than shapeless concrete pavement without any function on Taksim Square as an issue shelved. As the Cultural and Tourism Minister published the tourism development plan projected 2023, Turkey aims to develop the touristic dimension of Istanbul as well as many other touristic cities. To start up a touristic business is much easier than before with the subsidies. Accordingly, the significant effect of the demonstrations attracts many tourists to the site despite its shapeless and unattractive appearance. Additionally, many art galleries and cultural centers have supported, still are supporting, the political artists with the occupation movement effect and the war in Syria especially in Beyoğlu district. The documentation of the occupation is held by many NGOs with the help of respected galleries and cultural centers. Taksim district still remains as the heart of Istanbul present day.

Conclusion

Furthermore, many Turkish academicians, who stay in homeland or abroad, feel the emotional attachment to the Gezi Park demonstrations. Even though, the occupy movement remains fresh, many academic research have been studied to analyze different dimension of the movement. However most of the studies are not enough to project the future in this complexity. For that reason, any kind of design approach could be another trigger effect for intemperance and brutal interventions. To be able avoid the unwanted situations; there must be different, inclusive, small and constructive involvements such as workshops, meetings, cultural events to show that another life style can be exist. Any kind of event does not necessarily be a provocateur to marginalize one group to another. However, since the occupy movement remains fresh, it is difficult to find a solution right away. Accordingly, as an example one year after the occupation in 2014, on May Day, the life on the surroundings of Beyoğlu district just stopped not only on the neighborhoods but also the surrounding towns. In some hours it was impossible to go to

European side from Asian side. Metro, metrobus, bus and other transportation systems stopped working during the possible demonstration hours. This had a huge negative effect on people who wants to go to work or school. Besides that, traffic shut down with the police barricades. Me personally stayed over the night in a neighborhood of Beyoğlu district. Next day, the narrow street had been covered by the police barricades as 4 layers and there were around 20 polices but no civilians. Whenever I wanted to visit a local shop for grocery, I asked to the police if I could go to the other side of the barricade to buy tomatoes. His reaction was, ‘If you don’t want to be beaten by tear gasses just stay at home. I cannot see any mask to protect you. I am responsible of your life.’ I said, ‘if you want to protect me, don’t throw tear gasses.’ He just laughed at me and I could only watch what was happening on the television at home, meanwhile hearing the bombs outside. However, on the television there was no brutal news except couple of TV channels. Many of the channels broadcasted ‘the peaceful May Day celebrations’.

Conclusion

In this direction, with the election of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, it seems this tension will be continued. Many AKP developments are projected until the 100th anniversary of Republic of Turkey (2023). Regarding the Turkish presidency election happening each five years, it seems Erdoğan presidency will be continued for another term if there won’t be any other national intemperance. However, the biggest hope is for more tolerant and inclusive policies to each of every different group, which tries to survive. Therefore, as Moudouros (2014) agrees the challenge of comprehending the current affairs of June 2013 in Turkey requires the observer’s detachment from the anachronistic mode of explanation of ‘Kemalism against Islam’ to be able to stop future damages (Moudouros 2014). Facing such changes, the challenge of comprehending as much as possible necessitates the activation of a holistic approach Rethinking Islamic Hegemony in Turkey through Gezi Park that will show unseen aspects of the social dynamics in the country.

sequences of the symbolic actions are analyzed. With the arising young, dynamic and increasing educated generation, there is a big hope to stamp out the anachronistic fight and to build a better environment avoiding the western and Islamic obsessions. To accept and to learn from the mistakes have been done so far are challenging but not impossible. Many thought more democratic platform could be possible in another environment but not in Turkey. However, thanks to Gezi Park occupation, Turkish population also experienced to ask a better life in a peaceful environment in the heart of Istanbul. Despite of the brutal police intervention, the young generation could find a place to make fun of the absurdness of the current sultanate.

In the direction of this research bio-power in the Turkish Context and the con-

APPENDICES

Politics of Turkey takes place in a framework of a strictly secular parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister of Turkey is the head of government, and of a multi-party system (Çarkoğlu 2004). The President of Turkey is the head of state who holds a largely ceremonial role but with substantial reserve powers. Turkey’s political system is based on a separation of powers. Executive power is exercised by the Council of Ministers. Legislative power is vested in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

List of Figures p.32 - fig.1. public behavior poster | http://www.ihaphulusi.gen.tr/calismalar.html p.32 - fig.2. religious marrige & secular marriage poster | http://issuu.com/gdfb/docs/gdfb2012_poster_project p.44 - fig.3. Taksim Square bird view | http://www.degisti.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taksim_meydani_ve_topcu_kislasi_eski_.jpg p.44 - fig.4. Taksim Artillery Barrack | http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3915&start=0 p.44 - fig.5. Taksim Artillery Barrack | http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3915&start=0 p.46 - fig.6. Taksim Artillery Barrack | Konstantin Kapidagli, ‘Enthronement ceremony of Selim III’ (‘III. Selim’in Cülüs merasimi’), circa 1789, Topkapi Saray Museum. Selim III ordered the building of the barracks | https://mechanicalturk.wordpress. com/2013/06/03/the-history-of-taksim-military-barracks-two-military-coups-allied-powers-occupation-camp-football/ p.48 - fig.7. Republic Monument, Maksem and Taksim Artillery Barrack | http://www.hayalleme.com/taksim-cumhuriyet-aniti/ p.50 - fig.8. & fig.9. Demolition of Taksim Artillery Barrack & Gezi Park | http://taksimdenelinicek.org/1940-2000-arasi p.55 - fig.10. Marshall Aid Poster | http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/imagecollection/erp-whatever-the-weather-we-mustmove-together/ p.55 - fig.11. Menderes controling projects | http://v3.arkitera.com/UserFiles/Image/news/2010/06/04/adnan.jpg p.55 - fig.12. Military Coup 1980 | http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/our-boys-did-it---bizim-cocuklar-yapti-/Blog/?BlogNo=428781 p.55 - fig.13. Poster of Millet Boulevard as Menderes Operations | http://emlak.ensonhaber.com/istanbula-vurulan-darbeler. html p.55 - fig.14. May Day Massacre newspapers | http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/1-mayis-ta-neler-olacak-/Blog/?BlogNo=105886 p.55 - fig.15. May Day Massacre newspapers | http://fotoanaliz.hurriyet.com.tr/galeridetay/68425/4369/15/1-mayis-1977-olum-tuzagi p.55 - fig.16. May Day Massacre newspapers | http://www.bianet.org/bianet/toplum/146248-1-mayis-1977-neden-ve-nasil-kana-bulandi p.57 - fig.17. Park No. 2 plan at1/2000 scale (plan elaborated in 1940s) (Istanbul Ataturk Library p.58 - fig.18. Karaköy, Galata | http://www.degisti.com/index.php/archives/19135/1965_galata_karakoy_eski_istanbul p.58 - fig.19. Tarlabasi Boulevard constructions | http://www.selmancelik.info/2013/04/24/taksim-square-a-spatial-centreof-the-political-conflicts-in-turkey/ p.60 - fig.20. CBD Levent-Maslak Axis | http://inuraistanbul2009.wordpress.com/workshops/the-generic-interventions-grand-projects/ p.64 - fig.21. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan | http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/128476280 p.72 - fig.22.-fig.26. Illustrations for reconstruction of Taksim Artillery Barrack and Taksim Square Pedestrian Projects | http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/topcu_kislasi_erdogan_stadyumunun_yerine_yapilsin-1107594 p.75 - fig.27.-30. one scene in Gezi Park in the movie ‘Distance’ by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Main character follows a lady until Gezi Park. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_rETJduYt8 p.76 - fig.31. Public Speech on May Day 1977 | http://www.haberlink.com/haber.php?query=48517#.VFRXnPTF_fg p.76 - fig.32. Occupy Gezi Park demonstrationd in 2013 | https://direnisteyiz.org/haber/gezi-direnisi-iddianamesinde-suc-orgutune-ikinci-kez-ret/ p.77 - fig.33. Taksim bird view | http://m.milligazete.com.tr/haber_detay.php?id=317962 p.78 - fig.34. brutal polis intevention to the protesters at Taksim in 2013 | http://www.archdaily.com/382096/turkey-fighting-for-freedom-of-speech-and-freedom-of-space/

Bozovic, M. & Bentham, J., 1995. The panopticon writings. , (June), pp.1– 43. Butler, J., 2011. For and against precarity. Tidal: Occupy Theory, Occupy Strategy, 0, pp.10–11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baykan, A. & Hatuka, T., 2010. Politics and culture in the making of public space: Taksim Square, 1 May 1977, Istanbul. Planning Perspectives, 25(1), pp.49–68. Bevir, M., 2013. A Theory of Governance. Bora, T., 1999. Istanbul of the Conqueror The “Alternative Global City” Dreams of Political Islam. In Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Boysan, B., 1999. Aron Angel ile İstanbul , Prost ve Planları Üzerine Söyleşi. Mimarlik, 285, pp.30–39. Bozdogan, S., 2001. Modernism and nation building: Turkish architectural culture in the early republic,

Christofis, N., 2013. Gezi Park: the powerfully symbolic chance to act together! Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. Cleveland, William L & Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East: 4th Edition, Westview Press: 2009, p. 82. Çarkoğlu, Ali (2004). Religion and Politics in Turkey. Davis, M., 1992. Fortress Los Angeles: the militarization of urban space. Variations on a theme park. DeConde, A., 2002. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American foreign policy (2002) Volume 1 p. 95 Dobson, J.E. & Fisher, P.F., 2007. THE PANOPTICON’S CHANGING GEOGRAPHY. , 97(3), pp.307–323. . Erkoc, T., 2013. Taksim Gezi Park Protests: Birth and Backlash of a Political Sphere. Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. Feger, A. & Stumpf, B.F., 2011. PUBLIC

IDEA - Artistic Approaches to the Urban Sphere of Istanbul. Flyvbjerg, B., 2002. Planning and Foucault. Planning futures: …, pp.1–28. Foucault, M., 1995. Discipline & Punish (1975), Panopticism. , (1975). Foucault, M. & Hurley, R., 1990. The History of Sexuality. Göğüş, Y. B., 2014. Küreselleşen Kentlerde Kamusal Mekanın Dönüşümünün Sosyo-Mekansal Ayrışma Bağlamında İncelenmesi: Taksim Gezi Parkı Örneği. İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ. Gökay, B. & Xypolia, I., 2013. Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. Göktürk, D., Soysal, L. & Türeli, I., 2010. Orienting Istanbul: cultural capital of Europe? Gül, M., 2009. The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City. Gulersoy, C., 1986. Taksim: Bir Meydanın Hikayesi. Istanbul, Turkey: İstanbul Kitaplığı. Hammond, T., 2014. The Past Present : Turkey, Erdoğan, and the Gezi Protests. , pp.1–9.

Herbert, W., 2005. No direction home: Will the law keep pace with human tracking technology to protect individual privacy and stop geoslavery. ISJLP, (July). Kemal, Y., 1974. Baldaki Tuz. Keyder, Ç. et al., 1999. Istanbul: between the global and the local. Keyman, E. Fuat. Türkiye ve Radikal Demokrasi [Turkey and Radical Democracy]. İstanbul: ALFA, 2000 Koçan, G. & Wigley, S., 2005. Democracy and the politics of parliamentary immunity in Turkey. New perspectives on Turkey, 33(33), pp.121– 143. Köroğlu, B.A. & Yılmaz, G., 2004. Yeni Bir Planlama Anlayışı/Arayışı. PLANLAMA, Journal of the Chamber of City Planners. Lambert, L., 2013. THE FUNAMBULIST PAMPHLETS Volume 02, Lewis, M., 2013. International Monetary Fund Turkey, Locci, M. & Yücel, M., 2011. Beyond The Public; Istanbul’s Plural GEnesis. In PUBLIC IDEA - Artistic Approaches to the Urban Sphere of Istanbul. Lyon, D., 2007. Surveillance, Power and Everyday Life. Handvbook of

ICTs, pp.1–37. Macovei, M., 2009. Growth and economic crises in Turkey: Leaving behind a turbulent past? Moudouros, N., 2014. Rethinking Islamic Hegemony in Turkey through Gezi Park. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(2), pp.181–195. Navaro-Yasin, Y., 1999. The Historical Construction of Local Culture Gender and Identity in the Politics of Secularism versus Islam. In Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Negri, Antonio. “On Commonwealth.” in: Gothenburg. 2009. (English). Nietzsche, F., 1968. The will to power, Oktay, T., 2005. Osmanlı Belediye Tarihi Araştırmaları ve Kaynak Malzeme Üzerine Notlar. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, pp.257–281. Onat, N., 2013. Kamusal Alan ve Sınırları Hannah Arendt ve Jürgen Habermas’ın Yaklaşımları, Durakİstanbul. Orwell, G. [1949] 1950. 1984. New York Signet Classic. Ozguc, U., 2010. Beyond the Panopti-

con : The Separation Wall and paradoxical nature of Israeli security imagination. Özsavaşçı, A., 2005. Kentsel Değişim ve Dönüşüm Sürecinde Taksim-Maçka Yeşil Alanı. http://www.hkmo.org.tr/, pp.50–55. Polvan, S. & Yönet, N.A., 1998. Story of Taksim Square’s Transformation:” From Death’s Stillness to Life’s Hubbub. , pp.1–7. Robins, K., 1996. Interrupting Identities: Turkey/Europe. In Questions of Cultural Identity. Salamon, L.M. & Lund, M.S., 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action, Urban Institute Press. Sarlak, G., 2012. In the Search of Public Space Exploration of the History and the Making of Taksim Square, Istanbul in the Perspective of Contemporary Urban Planning. Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. Scotini, M., 2014. İtaatsizlik Arşivi (Park) / Disobedience Archive (The Park). Sennett, R., 2010. The public realm. The Blackwell City Reader, pp.1–11. Sönmez, F., 2007. Seksenler İstanbul’u kentsel söylemini popüler yazılı medya üzerinden okumak.

Tarim, E., 2013. The invisible hand in Gezi Park protests? Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. Theophanidis, P., 2013. CAUGHT IN THE CLOUD : THE BIOPOLITICS OF TEAR GAS WARFARE. Üstün, S., 1997. Turkey and the Marshall Plan: Strive for Aid. Turkish Yearbook of International Relations. Uzumkesici, T., 2010. “The Historical Transformation of Taksim Artillery Barracks and Its Close Environment” Walton, J.F., 2010. Practices of Neo-Ottomanism: Making space and place virtuous in Istanbul. Orienting Istanbul: …, pp.88–103. Weber, M., 2001. Power, Authority and the State. corwin.com, pp.6–39. Xypolia, I., 2013. Turmoils and Economic Miracles: Turkey “13 and Mexico ”68. Reflections on Taksim-Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. Yılmaz, C., 2003. Planning for Complex Modernity: The Turkish Case. Bilkent University. Ze’evi, D., 2013. The transformation of public space in Turkey. Middle East Brief, (69).

I hereby affirm that the Master thesis at hand is my own written work and that I have used no other sources and aids other than those indicated. All passages, which are quoted from publications or paraphrased from these sources, are indicated as such, i.e. cited, attributed. This thesis was not submitted in the same or in a substantially similar version, not even partially, to another examination board and was not published elsewhere.

WEIMAR, 2014

DUYGU KABAN