The Fake City

Yagmur Kaptan

Like in most cities of the world, capitalism has profoundly impacted Istanbul, propelling projects of increased density, scale, and height. Investors, driven by the incentive of maximized profits, are the primary drivers of Istanbul’s transformation. Their actions are facilitated by a unique local condition - what I call rant urbanism – rant is a Turkish word for acquiring unearned income. In Istanbul, rant urbanism is a process by which public and private entities conspire to enrich themselves by sacrificing the needs of the public. This project explores the potential outcomes of rant urbanism as an example of the global financial urbanism of the 21st century.

For many years large swaths of undeveloped green space owned by the government were freely accessible to the people of Istanbul. Investors have targeted these areas because most of them are highly desirable and centrally located in the middle of the city. Through corruption, bribes, and payoffs, developers are gaining access to previously protected land owned by the government. This is the phenomena by which new capital has been injected into the previously stateowned areas of Istanbul. These properties now have become very valuable and government officials have been tempted to sell off the properties in exchange for under the table payments. In fact, the government went so far as to change the zoning laws and allow development in exchange for equity in the projects. Now the government has become a partner in these capitalist ventures.

In addition to the developers and the government reaping great benefit from these projects, so do the lenders, investors, and the buyers. As property values increase everyone gains. As the cost of lending remains historically low, these projects become even more attractive as rents increase every year while cost of capital remains stagnant. In response to public opposition to the development of these lands, the government conceded by including public spaces in these new ventures. By giving this “public” space to the people, the government hides behind the appearance of doing the right thing while at the same time the public is grateful, although in reality, these spaces are not truly public but rather they are retail spaces built with the intention to further line the pockets of the developers and the government. In this sense, the government is saying to the public that as long as they give up their rights to these properties, they will get in return “fake public” places that they can only actually enjoy as shoppers and that are in fact are truly owned by private companies.

In these types of projects, we can see the emergence of new design principals. These projects rely heavily on constructed spaces that appear public but they are effectively privately-owned public spaces that can be seen in many cities today. The public, in fact, sustains the privately-owned space by spending money there. This public space serves as a kind of pedestal support or a plinth upon which the upper structures rest. These spaces at the base can include shopping malls, entertainment spaces or other retail venues, and is constructed in principal for the benefit of an artificial collective. It is in fact a place of consumerism and a generator of capital for private interests. On the roof of this public plinth there is an artificial park which in principal has the diagram of Le Corbusier’s “Tower’s in the Park”. Above the public plinth, generic residential towers emerge which serve the new wealthy elite. Even though the diagram is the same, the park in Le Corbusier’s diagram belonged to the public realm which means not only residents of the towers but also the general public had free access to this space. But in this project this artificial landscape is only accessible to private residents.

This new real estate typology relies heavily on techniques borrowed from the vernacular urban model of Istanbul in that it is a heavily mixed-use model. In the traditional model, the people who work on the street level keep the capital they earn to re-invest in their neighborhoods and where they live. In this new model, the capital does not remain local and the stakeholders do not have a stake in the locality. The other main difference is in terms of scale. There is no longer a traditional relationship between the shopkeeper on the street and the home upstairs. In the new model, the apartments are completely cut-off and detached from the street. There is no longer a relationship, neither physically nor economically.

Taking this new paradigm as a starting point, I developed a new diagram which I call “Financial Capital City”. The new diagram bears some similarities with Rem Koolhaas’s “Captive Globe” diagram because of the relationship between the plinth and the towers. But in this new typology generated by purely private speculative concerns, the diagram is completely reversed. In Rem’s post-modern idea, the ideology exists on the top, above street level, and there is a generic city underneath. This generic ground plane represents a state that belongs to the public and general infrastructure, in contrast to Koolhaas’s diagram where the globe represents the universality of all localities. The “Financial Capital City” diagram represents the notion of money as the universal engine of all cities. In this case, there is no common infrastructure on the ground plane. Instead, there is just an artificial base which provides a kind of cover for what is really taking place above. It only creates the appearance of public space and access to nature on the ground when in fact it really provides the cog to lubricate the well-oiled and cynical financial machine that continues to drive the construction of these projects.

In response to these driving forces, I embarked on a research path to understand the various different public functions and typologies that could be assembled with in the public realm. By juxtaposing different programs such as schools, hospitals, prisons, restaurants, theatres, churches, offices and other functions, I created the most extreme environment for this public use.

Everything happens underneath the artificial public space. I adopted a multicolor strategy in order to highlight that this is an artificial landscape and secondly, with all these different colors I wanted to highlight the diversity of my interior through color abstraction. Unlike the towers, which represent a generic kind of infrastructure, the plinth space is a more complex destination space, with exciting venues to attract elite clients. This public space becomes the focus of the unique and the particular. These public spaces serve the purpose of providing additional luxury venues that increase the desirability of the apartment complexes and add to their value.

Finally, on top of this artificial garden there are residential towers. I show the towers as generic even boring to accentuate the duality between the plinth and the towers. By distracting the public with the attractions of the multifunctional environments, the developers can quietly pick their pockets without them realizing. The towers are identical to each other in order to communicate the branding of these assets as high value commodities. Another reason to have them identical is, as economies become more efficient, housing becomes an investment commodity to be easily traded. By designing generic “luxury style” apartments, with all the typical high-end amenities, that look generic, “fungibility” is provided to customers that they can easily buy and sell units on line, without even the need to visit the space. Also, having all these same towers lowers the cost of design and construction.

In conclusion, by accepting and engaging these strong capital market drivers that are shaping our cities rather than trying to resist them, we can enhance these development proto-types in new and creative ways. It is always in the best interest of all parties for developments to be successful. After all, successful free markets should provide exactly what the consumer desires at exactly the right price. Everyone wins when new projects thrive. This rant-urbanism is here to stay so why not engage it and evolve it so that it can be successful for all. Failed development projects are a blight to cities and can be seen from time to time as the cyclical boom and bust cycle of real estate development plays out. By engaging mixed use spaces and balancing the needs of private and public uses, this new typology can expand and enhance cities such as Istanbul rather than detract from them.

The City of the Captive Globe

The City of the Captive Globe is a rendering of Rem Koolhaas’s intuitive approximation of the architecture of Manhattan. This drawing, according to the architect, celebrates Manhattan’s “culture of congestion,” presenting a relentless grid as Manhattan’s overriding characteristic. Within this scheme, each city block is designated to embody a different value or philosophy, among these are many avant-garde movements previously thought of as incompatible. Each block, which is itself a city, is surmounted by a structure that represents its function or identity, for example, El Lissitzky’s Lenin’s Stand, Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin, or Wallace Harrison’s Trylon and Perisphere for the 1939 New York World’s Fair. Koolhaas’s metaphor proposes an urban model in which unity accommodates heterogeneity.

Source: www.moma.org /collection/works/104696

Zorlu Center, Emre Arolat Architecture

The Zorlu Center is at the junction of the Bosphorus Bridge European connectio and the Büyükdere axis that connects the city center with the business district Maslak in Istanbul. The ground is reconstructed by a topographical interpretation, with a kind of shell that is transformed into an in-between layer for the different functions combined in the complex. The shell starts from the Boulevard Levelrising towards south and east. It is split into two arms separated by level differences, in order to overcome the dichotomy between the private and the public.

Source: www.emrearolat.com

Terrace Tema, MM Proje

Terrace Tema is a brand new development with 2 towers of 30 and 40 floors respectively. The location offers panoramic views of the sea and the lake. The project is composed by 2 accesses and 417 apartments. The project has been developed by İNANLAR.

Source: www.Terracetema.com