URBAN - PUBLIC AREA ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY: ANKARA EXAMPLE

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3, 47 - 67, 01.02.2018

Selın Karaıbrahımoğlu Ayhan Usta

Öz

Ideology is accepted in many studies as a notion, which tallies one-to-one with politics. That’s because politics points out a situation that is instrumentalised by the ideology for the implementation. The governing power implements its own ideological structure with political decisions. And the objectivation of these political decisions in the public area, its transmission to the society and the individual is performed through architecture. Tanyeli 2015 explains the relation between architecture, politics and ideology as follows; ”The habitual historiographic approach is that first definitions are brought forward on the ideological and political platform and architecture establishes spaces based on these”. Considering the fact that the general fiction of architecture is built on the space; then is the space, particularly the public space, a stage, where the political ideologies of the government are presented. The government applies on this stage the architectural style it has created and supports this style with laws. In this context, when we examine the Turkish political history attract the 2000s the attention as a period, where the efficiency of political ideologies were felt intensively. That’s because the 2000s point on a period, where the modernist republican ideology was intensively criticized and a relative break from the republican ideology was experienced by time. This period has a more differentiated appearance compared with previous period in political, economic and socio-cultural aspects. These differences are lead by the policies applied since more than ten years by a political party, which describes itself as conservative democrat but is associated by some researchers with the idea of Political Islam and has an Islamic and conservative approach. And the attention attracting feature of the policies in question is that it prefers a historicist and able to be defined as Neo-Ottoman approach instead of the modernist republican ideology. These preferences, able to be seen intensively in the social and cultural area, can also clearly be seen in the architectural character of the public spaces. The policies in question are being intensively observed particularly in Ankara, which is the urban, public space of the republican ideology. Ankara is a republic city; it is planned according to the policies of the modern republican ideology. It attracts the attention with its urban-public spaces, where the reflections of the political ideologies of every period on architecture are intensively and primarily observed. While this trend was followed from the planning of the whole city to the design of public buildings with the modernist ideology during the first years of the republic, the construction of the first commercial skyscraper building, the Emek Building 1950 , representing a Turkey with changing expectations and world-view with the transition to the multi-party period can be shown as a sample for this situation. Therefore, the study aims to examine the urban-public space architecture as an object of the political ideology specific to Ankara. It will be dealt with the evolutional process Ankara experienced from the modernist republican ideology until present and what changes the ideologies dominating the last period caused on the architecture of the public space. The study in question includes a two-dimensional assessment of the change of the urban-public space. The first of these is the examination of the architectural attitude dominating the public buildings of the last period, and the second is the assessment of the background of the destruction of modernist building, of which the most were constructed during the first years of the republic. It will not dealt here with the central and local administration dimension of the implementations. That’s because the same conception is dominating the process in question. It will be tried as a result of the conducted assessments to determine the changes to the architectural features of the urban-public spaces and policies in Ankara and evaluations regarding the future of the city in social, cultural, economic and political terms will be made

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ideology, politics, architecture, Turkey, public buildings, with 2000

Kaynakça

• Atay, F.R., 1935. “Ankara’mızın Yıldönümü”, Ulus Gazetesi, s:1, 12.11.1935
• Aslanoğlu, İ., 2011. ”1928-50 Arası Türkiye’de Mimarlık Gelişmeleri”, Cumhuriyetin Mimarlık Mirası Sempozyumu, TBMMO Mimarlar Odası Yayını, Ankara, 35-45.
• Balamir, A., 2003. “Mimarlık ve Kimlik Terimleri I: Türkiye’de Modern Yapı Kültürünün Bir Profili”, Mimarlık, 313, TMMBO Mimarlar Odası Yayınları, Ankara, 19-25.
• Batuman, B.,2012. “Mekan, Kimlik, Sosyal Çatışma:Cumhuriyetin Kamusal Mekanı Olarak Kızılay Meydanı”, Başkent Üzerine Mekan-Politik Tezler, der.Güven Arif Sargın,İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 41-77.
• Bozdoğan, S. ve Kasaba R., 2010. “Dördüncü Basıma Önsöz” Türkiye’de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik, ed. Bozdoğan, S., Kasaba, R., Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları 55, İstanbul, 1-8.
• Çağlar, N., 1986. 1923-1943 Yılları Arasında Ankara’da Var Olan Bazı Açık ve Yeşil Alanların Bugünkü
• Durumlarının İncelenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara
• Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Ankara, 1986.
• Çağlar,N., Uludağ, Z. & Aksu, A., 2006. Hürriyet Meydanı: Bir Kentsel Mekanın Yenilik Ve Dönüşüm Öyküsü
• Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Der., Cilt 21, No 1, Ankara, 177-182.
• Çalıkoğlu, L., 2008. “90'lı Yıllarda Türkiye'de Çağdaş Sanat”. L. Çalıkoğlu (Dü.). içinde Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Erzen, N.J., 2016. “Sanat,Güç ve Direniş”, Dosya 37 Sanat ve Politika Ekseninde Mekan, TMMBO Mimarlar Odası
• Yayınları, Ankara, 16-24.
• Güzer, A. ,1996. “Türkiye Mimarlık Haritası”, Mimarlık, 272, TMMBO Mimarlar Odası Yayınları, Ankara, 44-47.
• Özorhon, İ. F., 2008. “Mimarlıkta Özgünlük Arayışları: 1950–60 Arası Türkiye Modernliği”, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Peker, A. U., 2015. AKP Döneminde Rövanşist Mimari, Mimarlık, 386, TMMBO Mimarlar Odası Yayınları, Ankara.
• Sey, Y., 2007. “Yeni Vatandaşların Barındırılması: Konut Politikaları ve Toplu Konut”, Modern Türk Mimarlığı, ed.
• Holod, R., Evin, A., Özkan, S., Yalçın Matbaacılık, Ankara, 157-181.
• Tankut, G., 1988. Ankara'nın Başkent Olma Süreci, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi,Cilt:8, No:2,Ankara, 93-104.
• Tanyeli, U., 2015. “Politika mı Mimarlık Üretir? Mimarlıkla Politika mı Üretilir?, Altüst Dergisi, Sayı: 14, İstanbul, 30-33.
• Tapan, M., 2007.” Uluslararası Üslup: Mimarlıkta Liberalizm”, Modern Türk Mimarlığı, ed. Holod, R., Evin, A.
• Özkan, S., Yalçın Matbaacılık, Ankara
• Tekeli, İ., 1998. “Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet Döneminde Kentsel Gelişme ve Kent Planlaması”, 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, ed. Sey, Y., Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 1-24.
• Tuncer, M.,2011.Cumhuriyet’in Mimari Mirasının Planlama Aracılığı ile Korunması: Ankara Örneği,Cumhuriyetin Mimarlık Mirası Sempozyumu, TBMMO Mimarlar Odası Yayını, Ankara, 157-169.
• Uluğ, H. , 2004. Yeni Başkentler, Tasarım ve Siyasi İktidar, Planlama Dergisi, Şehir Plancıları Odası, Sayı:2004/1, Ankara, 39-57.
• URL 1 http://www.arkitera.com/haber/13991/gecmisin-modern-mimarisi--ankara---1, 22 Eylül 2017.
• URL 2 http://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/ankara-ataturk-kultur-merkezi/6289, 20 Eylül 2017
• URL 3 https://www.dunyaticaretmerkezi.com.tr/ ,20 Eylül 2017.
• URL 4 http://www.akparti.org.tr/site/akparti/parti-programi, 15 Temmuz 2014.
• URL 5 http://sahatasarim.com/dosya/kentgiriskapilari.pdf, 23 Eylül 2017.
• URL 6 http://www.gazetehabervaktim.com/dunyaya-model-okul-12656h.htm, 20 Eylül 2017.
• URL 7 http:// www.moblogankara.org/mimarlardan/2014/12/16/okul-cephelerinden-cumhurbakanl- sarayna- mimari-temsil-olarak-osmanl-seluklu-ve-ulusun-millet-olarak-yeniden-nas, 25 Eylül 2017
• URL 8 http://hisarinsaat.com.tr/language/tr/estergonturk-kultur-merkezi/, 22 Eylül 2017.
• URL 9 http://www.mesutakgul.com.tr/Proje/44-necip-fazil-kisakurek-genclik-ve-kultur-merke, 17 EYLÜL 2017.
• URL 10 http://www.haberankara.com/gokcek-mahkeme-karar-verdi-2010-ankapark-plani-gecerli/55676/, 15 Eylül 2017.
• URL 11 http://www.ortaokullar.com/ankara, 20 Eylül 2017.
• URL12 http://www.izka.com.tr/ankara-maliye-bakanligi-ek-hizmet-binalari-insaati/, 21 Eylül 2017.
• URL13 http://www.ansayapi.com/portfolio/yildizlar-grup-ankara-bilim-sanayi-ve-teknoloji-bakanligi/, 20 Eylül 2017
• URL 14 http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=48&RecID=1174, 18 Eylül 2017
• URL 15 https://www.politikyol.com/ankarada-cumhuriyetin-yapilari-birer-birer-yok-ediliyor/, 19 Eylül 2017.
• URL 16 http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/geb/ind/was/trindex.htm, 18 Eylül 2017.
• Yavuz, Y.ve Özkan, S, 2007. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Son Yılları”, Modern Türk Mimarlığı, ed. Holod, R., Evin
• A., Özkan, S., Yalçın Matbaacılık, Ankara , 37-53.
• Yücel, A., 2007. “Tarihsellik Üzerine 1+1 Yazı”, 2000’lerde Türkiye’de Mimarlık: Söylem ve Uygulamalar, ed. Korkmaz, T., Yalçın Matbaacılık, Ankara, 183-187.