Revisions of modernism in Turkey's architecture (1960-1980)

The present study, focusing on architectural production in Turkey between 1960 and 1980, aims to situate that period's approaches to design and its architectural discourses within a more global architectural context. There are two main reasons for the focus on the 1960-1980 period in this thesis: first, the emergence of new architectural approaches after the Second World War, and second, the fact that the multifaceted process of transformation undergone by Turkey during that period was reflected in various ways in architectural production. The introductory chapter, providing an outline of this thesis and presenting the literature on the subject, is followed by chapters dealing with case-studies of architecture from the aforementioned period, both in Turkey and elsewhere in the world. The theoretical side of the research is structured around revisionist approaches to Modern Architecture. After the Second World War, mounting reactions to Modern Architecture were accompanied by new approaches, and there was a pronounced emphasis on pluralism and diversity of form. The second chapter of this thesis deals with criticisms of Modern Architecture as well as the proceedings of the Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne (International Congresses of Modern Architecture or CIAM) and the solutions proposed in its congresses. In this chapter, new architectural discourses, formal strategies, and debates concerning localism and identity have been examined on the axis of revisionist approaches; this has been followed by a discussion of how these approaches can be considered within their cultural conjuncture and why they have met with such widespread acceptance. Among these various approaches, Brutalism is considered to occupy a special place. The present study pays particular attention to Brutalism, regarded as a new aesthetic vehicle and formal strategy as well as an ideology striving after a mode of aesthetic expression in which material and structure are employed "as is." Brutalism emerged at a time when the demands of form had increased but could not be met by the formal idiom of modernism with its strict rules; it was put forth as a new aesthetic understanding defined as "the aesthetics of the coarse." This new aesthetic understanding allowed for the diversification of formal strategies, with various Brutalist approaches emerging as a result. This thesis has devoted separate section headings to an examination of Structuralism, which presented new urban and structural morphologies; Regionalism, which arose as a reinterpretation of regional architecture; and other revisionist approaches. In the process, prominent instances of all of these styles from different parts of the globe have also been included. The third chapter, which focuses on architectural production in Turkey, is also structured around these revisionist approaches. This chapter has sought to examine how significant political and economic developments between 1960 and 1980 were reflected in the architectural atmosphere of the period and to identify that era's most influential architectural approaches. The years 1960 and 1980 represented important turning points in terms of political and economic developments. In parallel with these developments, new actors emerged to influence architecture, in addition to new employers and new needs. In parallel with the country's transition to free market economics, the development of industry, and increased investment, architectural structures of different scales and serving diverse functions were created with various approaches. Factors such as innovations in construction technologies and diversification of material resulted in greater diversity in architectural approaches. Careful perusal of the literature on the subject and an examination of various structures led to the discovery of many notable projects highlighting this diversity. This prolific period, in which many novel architectural structures were devised, can be regarded as a time of experimentation. Factory buildings, in particular, constituted significant examples of how innovations in construction technologies were reflected in architecture. However, among the projects which were actually realized, few were brave enough to push the boundaries of construction technologies; most of the projects which could be described as "brave" remained on paper. In this respect, architectural production in Turkey – in comparison with its counterparts elsewhere in the world – was quite "cautious." Following the present study's attempt to create a general framework concerning architectural production in Turkey between 1960 and 1980, the fourth chapter aims to use structural analyses to carry out a thorough examination of architectural production during that same period. Three building complexes which, by virtue of their architectural characteristics, are held to occupy an important place in architectural production in Turkey, have been selected with the aim of analyzing the entire process of their design and implementation: the İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı (Istanbul Textile Traders' Market or İMÇ); the campus of Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi (Middle East Technical University or METU); and the Demir Evleri (Demir Holiday Village). These building complexes have been dealt with under three separate sub-headings. The first of these buildings, the İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı, designed by Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, was built in Istanbul between 1960 and 1967. The METU campus, bearing the signature of Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, was built in Ankara almost exactly contemporaneously with the İMÇ. The third building complex chosen for this study, the Demir Evleri in Bodrum, was designed and implemented by Turgut Cansever at a later date than the other two, i.e. in the late 1970s. These three building complexes, regarded as authentic reflections of the spirit of the era and its architectural tendencies, are found in three different cities, in three different contexts. All three, possessing different functions, highlight the various design strategies in the diverse architectural discourses of the period. Situating these three case-studies in their global context, examining in detail both the projects which were designed and the architectural discourses behind them, and carrying out a comparative study of contemporaneous structures, has been a key goal of this thesis. These three structures do not represent the entirety of architectural production in Turkey. Needless to say, one could employ an even greater number of case-studies to perform an analysis of the period. Nonetheless, the present study has aimed to establish a framework including as many post-1960 pluralist discourses as possible and to consider the multiplicities contained therein. As the research proceeded, similarities among the different building complexes and among their architects' approaches – as well as links between the structures in question – became more visible. The conclusion, taking a comparative approach to architectural production both in Turkey and elsewhere, serves as a critical evaluation of the research, seeking to impart significance to the findings obtained thereby. In examining these architectural structures, an important part of the research has been to try to comprehend the spirit of the era (Zeitgeist), the architects responsible for these projects, and their views on design. In fact, the aims of this thesis have been twofold. On the one hand, this thesis has attempted to grasp this Zeitgeist and to establish similarities between all the architectural approaches considered here, stating what they share in common. On the other hand, the present study has attempted, in analyzing these structures, to determine what their unique features are. To seek to understand the predominant characteristics and tendencies of the era by examining these works of architecture, methods of approach, and discourses, has been one of the chief goals of this thesis. One unforeseen outcome of the research was seeing just how many points in common there were among the various methods of approach. These approaches proceeded from similar goals, then diverged in their techniques; yet, when one considered their end products, it became apparent that what at first seemed like dissimilar approaches actually possessed quite similar features. This underscores the problematic nature of critical evaluations which merely attempt to link an architectural structure with a given style. The present study's evaluation of the İMÇ, for example, has particularly focused on the concept of "mat-building" while special attention has been paid to Brutalism in the case of METU and Regionalism in the case of the Demir Evleri. However, these three structures bear traces of other approaches as well. In the course of the analysis, similarities of approach were discovered both among the well-known examples dealt with in the first few chapters and in the three building complexes on which this thesis has focused. Another point the latter had in common was that their proposals all made reference to elements of local architecture. While such comparisons are not unfounded, it was nonetheless thought-provoking that these structures – regarded as important instances of Modern Architecture – should be linked, in large part, with the local. Throughout all the chapters of this thesis, there has been a discussion of how the approaches termed "revisions of Modern Architecture" have been applied in the instances selected for the present study, and what role they have played in the era in question. This has been accomplished through a perusal of the relevant literature and analyses of the chosen structures, comparing them to works of architecture which possess similar approaches. This thesis will thus provide a groundwork of research serving to illuminate the defining characteristics and distinctive aspects of the period.