A reading of spatial memory through urban artefacts: Ataturk Cultural Center (AKM)

Establishment and sustainability of memory depends on the processes defined by the concrete objects. Objects turn into mental images when they get associated with experiences. Individuals or societies can't remember without the realm of objects surrounding them. Objects that constitute our physical environment are a part of our world, whether they are personal items that reflect one's personality or concrete spaces that constitute our built environment. Space itself becomes an object or a context (structure) that houses these physical objects. Production of spaces in a physical manner is an act of architecture, and architecture itself -through this production- acts as a trigger for memory processes. Buildings, as architectural products, are also one of the constitutive elements of the city. These buildings within the urban landscape -as constitutive objects-, not only denote a certain physicality, but also represent a body of relations. Through this body of relations, one can assign meaning to the urban constructions. This approach is important to understand individuals and communities, and their relations with their neighbourhoods and cities. These urban places transform into images for the individuals and the communities, and they define their sense of belonging and commitment. City, in this sense, is an aggregate of the images of the communities it houses; it is also a living entity that has its own memory. With this, concept of "urban memory" becomes relevant; it defines both the city's and the city dweller's own memory. City is not only a physicality, produced through its built environment, but it is also a process. Physical structure of the city defines an actuality, but to understand this actuality, one must appreciate the relation between the physical built environment and the memories and experiences of individuals and communities. Physical built environment, on its own, is not enough to comprehend the city. City turns into a phenomenon through the collection of certain recollections and stories within the collective memory. This phenomenon is not only established through form, but it is also established through events; city, through the accumulation of experiences defined by events, goes beyond its physical dimensions, and re-establishes itself as a mental image within the collective memory. This chain of events articulates itself with the physicality of the city; through this, collective urban memory becomes transferable through generations. City is a collective phenomenon because it is defined by its inherently collective artefacts. Buildings, as the most easily distinguishable products of architecture, become the conveyors of the collective memory and identity through their relative permanence. These architectural constructions, with their collective images, get reconstructed mentally. These structures, become constituent and signifier elements within the city through the memories, experiences, and stories they get incorporated into. As Aldo Rossi states, these aforementioned signifier elements are "urban artefacts." Urban artefacts are open works; they are a part of the urban environment through their formal and functional qualities, and they are constantly re-interpreted and reconstructed as images by the urban communities. These communities, interpret, re-image, and reconstruct these urban artefacts mentally. It is important to examine the relationship between these urban artefacts and the collective urban memory. This way we can understand the urban conditions these urban artefacts are facing, such as deterioration and/or disappearance. Sad as it might be, watching these aging artefacts within the urban space might provide us insights about these conditions. These aging structures seem more significant than ever, and the collective memories they incorporate seem brighter than ever. Within the city, the demolition processes these structures are facing -whether it is natural or not-, creates certain traumas and disruptions within the collective memory; on the other hand though, these structures -while decaying- stimulate the collective memory with its every single image as monuments. Sustainability of collective memory depends on the image of the monument and the act of demolition. Processes of aging, decay, and complete collapse -whether they are natural processes or not- cause a disruption within the continuity of our collective memory regarding monuments, urban artefacts, and the city in general. The economic life of an architectural product defines an era where the structure sustains its projected functions. This economic life ends with the exhaustion of the space -mostly- through human acts; as a consequence this architectural product becomes unable to sustain its foretold function. It is easier to examine this state of functional exhaustion through public spaces; sometimes these public spaces cease to exist mainly because of the city dweller's and governor's expectations and demands, and not because of the organic processes. Atatürk Cultural Centre (AKM) as one of the symbolic examples of the modern architecture in Istanbul, and one of the most important conveyors of collective urban memory, faces a similar functional disruption: Since its opening to public as the "Istanbul Cultural Palace", AKM has been one of the main signifier elements and centres of cultural life in Istanbul and Taksim; today though, after a rather painful process started in 2005, it seems more like it is the ghost of Taksim. Henri Prost, in his proposed master plan for Istanbul in the 1930s, tries to actualize the young republic's manifesto, and aims to establish a cultural focal point in Taksim, through the cultural reforms of the era. We first encounter the idea to build an opera house on Istanbul Taksim Square in this plan. One could say that this is a modern leap: "Cultural palace" is the space of a new national identity; it is an identity, which is established through the political agenda of the young Turkish Republic. Building, in 1969, after a construction process that spans 23 years, opens as a product of a modern and rationalistic approach, and starts to define "the most distinguished place in Istanbul." Beyond being a cultural focal point defining one of the most important places in Istanbul, AKM also establishes a place for itself in the collective memory. Structure, as a signifier of the westernising program of the republic, becomes a conveyor of the collective memory through its historical testimonies. AKM is also a decor for the social events and uprisings: "Chained worker" banner or the "Bloody May Day" hangs from its façade facing the Taksim Square; one can easily read the 2013 Gezi Resistance through AKM and its façade. It is a place of memory for both the users and the city dwellers. These users and city dwellers collect urban and social experiences through it. Today, Atatürk Cultural Centre seems to face a determined stance favouring its demolition -by the current political power-, despite its significance in the Turkish architectural history, and its symbolic value. The building is examined within several academic studies because of its importance within the modern architectural history, and its symbolic value. This study aims to examine the building's current state within the context of the continuity of the collective memory, and intends to contribute to the discussions and uncertainties concerning the building's future by setting up a theoretical discussion concerning the concepts such as place memory, urban memory, monument, and urban artefact.