CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND URBAN DESIGN: TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURAL THEORY

Abstract

Between the 1950’s and early part of this century gecekondular grew around every large city in Turkey. Despite lacking formal political opportunities, and being marginalized as “rural others,” the gecekondulu were able to mobilize within close social networks to claim their “right to the city.” Architects in Turkey remained mostly silent during this period or echoed the rhetoric of the elites who saw them as a threat to Turkey’s modernity. The gecekondu phenomenon was an example of a social nonmovement. Social nonmovements, as defined by Asef Bayat, are everyday acts of widespread, mundane disobedience that lead to incremental, tangible benefits. As architectural theorists and practitioners become more involved in social engagement, more scholarship is needed to recognize the role of architects in social movements. To this end, I reviewed literature on gecekondu and the surrounding discourse on politics of space. It is apparent through this literature that social movements have an urban ecology, but how are they helped or hindered by urban form? How should architects approach social engagement in light of the role architecture plays in contentious politics? The literature on politics of space in Turkey deals primarily with two themes: 1 the conflict and negotiation of binary paradigms within Turkish society, and 2 the use of clientelism and co-optation within the built environment to maintain power. Both phenomena are within the purview of the discipline of architecture because they deal with public space and housing. They offer a theoretical point of departure for understanding architects’ role in contentious politics. With this knowledge, design professionals can become a force for democratizing the built environment through social engagement. However, we must first engage in critical scholarship about our role in the politics of space to develop new theories that will help shape architectural education and practice

Kaynakça

1. Articles: Abercrombie, P. 191. ‘The new capital city at Delhi’. The Town Planning Review 4. Liverpool University Press. doi: 10.2307/40100052. 185-187
2. Bayat, A. 2013. Life as politics how ordinary people change the Middle East. 2nd ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,.
3. Bellin, E. 2012. ‘Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab
4. Spring’. Comparative Politics, 44(2), 127-149. Bozdoğan, S. 1997. ‘The predicament of modernism in Turkish arhitectural culture’. In S. Bozdoğan, & Kasaba
5. R. (Ed.), Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey (pp. 133 - 156). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Çinar, A. 2005. Modernity, Islam, and secularism in Turkey: Bodies, places, and time (Vol. 14). U of Minnesota Press.
6. Del Rio, V. 2008. Sustainability and Contemporary Urbanism in Brazil. Paper presented at the Semana
7. Internacional del Urbanismo. XI Congreso de la ANPUD/VIII Congreso del ALEUP. Erman, T. 2001. ‘The politics of squatter (gecekondu) studies in Turkey: the changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse’. Urban Studies, 38(7), 983-1002.
8. Gregory, D. 2013. ‘Tahrir: Politics, publics and performances of space’. Middle East Critique, 22(3), 235-246.

9. Haarhoff, E. 2011. ‘Appropriating modernism: Apartheid and the South African township’. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. 8(1):184-195 2011
10. Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA
11. Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
12. Karpat, K. H. 1976. The Gecekondu: Rural migration and urbanization: Cambridge University Press.
13. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space (Vol. 142): Oxford Blackwell.
14. Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge Mass.: Technology Press.
15. Mardin, Ş. 1991. The just and the unjust. Daedalus, 113-129.
16. MARSCHALL, M., AYDOGAN, A. & BULUT, A. 2016. ‘Does housing create votes? Explaining the electoral success of the AKP in Turkey’. Electoral Studies, 42, 201-212.
17. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1996. ‘Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements’. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 1-20.
18. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. 2009. ‘Comparative perspectives on contentious politics’. Comparative
19. Politics Second Edition, 260. Meeker, M. 1997. ‘Once there was, once there wasn't’. In S. Bozdoğan & R. Kasaba (Eds.), Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey. (pp. 157 - 191). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
20. Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city : social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guilford Press.
21. Mitchell, T. 1988. Colonising Egypt. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Morenas, L. A. 2010. Planning the city of Djinns: Exorcizing the ghosts in Delhi's post-colonial development machine (Doctoral dissertation, RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE).
23. Nalbantoglu, G. B. 1997. ‘Silent interruptions, urban encounters with rural Turkey’. In: BOZDOĞAN, S., &
24. KASABA, R. (ed.) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Öncü, A. 1999. ‘Istanbulites and Others’. Istanbul: Between the global and the local, 95-119.
25. Spector, T. 2001. The ethical architect: the dilemma of contemporary practice. Princeton Architectural Press.
26. Southworth, M., & Ben-Joseph, E. 1995. ‘Street standards and the shaping of suburbia’. Journal of the American
27. Planning Association, 61(1), 65-81. White, J. B. 2002. Islamist mobilization in Turkey: A study in vernacular politics: University of Washington Press.
28. Young, W., Jr. 1968. KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE 1968 AIA CONVENTION IN PORTLAND, OREGON. Speech presented at AIA Convention in Oregon, Portland. Images
29. Google Maps (n.d) [Ave Habib Bourguiba, Tunis] Google Maps (n.d) [Euromaidan, Kiev] Google Maps (n.d) [Pearl Roundabout, Manama ] Google Maps (n.d) [Taksim Square, Istanbul] Google Maps (n.d) [Tahrir Square, Cairo] Films: Azem, I. (Director). 2012. Ekümenopolis: Ucu olmayan sehir [Motion picture]. Turkey: Filmförderung Hamburg Schleswig-Holstein.
30. Joudan, B. (Director). 2013. Taksim Commune: Gezi Park and the uprising In Turkey [Motion picture]. Global Uprisings.
31. Noujaim, J. (Director). 2013. The square [Motion picture]. Egypt: Noujaim Films. Worldview Entertainment. Websites
32. TOKİ > Background. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.toki.gov.tr/en/background.html Whitney M. Young Jr. Award - The American Institute of Architects. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aia.org/practicing/awards/AIAS075330
33. Taksim Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.taksimplatformu.com/english.php