modalities of the spontaneous

VENICE ARCHITECTURE BIENNALE 2014 - PAVILLION OF TURKEY
CURATED BY MURAT TABANLIOGLU
MODALITIES OF THE SPONTANEOUS
Digital Mappings | Zoe Georgiou, Ahmet Ünveren, Mete Cem Arabaci Digital Fabrication Consultant | Salih Küçüktuna
COORDINATED BY PELIN DERVIS
Alper Derinboğaz
Modalities of the Spontenous Series
by Alper Derinbogaz
1.Topography as an Actor 1:
Social Gradients Around Grande Rue de Pera
2. Topography as an Actor 2 :
The Emergence of Büyükdere Boulevard, and Two Unequal Hillsides; Levent Area
3. New Neighbors :
Plots, Infrastructure and Topography; Levent Area
4. Mutating the Subdivisions :
Intertwined Plots Levent Area
5. Territorializing the Corridors :
Diffused Fields and the Boulevard, Levent Area
“Büyükdere is a very ambiguous and recently shaped urban fragment of the city. It is very
hard to understand what’s exactly happening there since there is no real planning process
like we know… In relation to this, I looked at process patterns to understand these intricate
moments… I was trying to trace what was happening underneath this current fragmented
situation by tracing today’s notions to the past. There are various layers that have caused different situations which range from topography to social values or political maneuvers—and
which cause a lot of things to transform. As you are following these tracks you don’t even
need to mention the actors, like architects, politicians, urban planners and so on. You can
shift your perspective and look at what lies behind them, focus on the static data like topography, infrastructure and other things shaping this dynamic city. Bringing the same factors
together, the city becomes the actor itself.”
—Alper Derinboğaz
[ Derinbogaz’s reliefs produce three different types of cartographies in correlation. They propose specific readings of the urban history, today’s spontaneous fragments and they also
speculate on future scenarios.]
Excerpt from Places of Memory (Istanbul: İKSV, 2014)
Topography as an Actor
The Emergence of Büyükdere Boulevard and Two Unequal Hillsides
Bir Aktör Olarak Topoğrafya
Büyükdere CaddesiOluşumu ve İki Yamacı
Modalities of the Spontaneous
Alper Derinboğaz – Enise B. Karaçizmeli
With an introduction by Ömer Kanıpak
With special thanks to Murat Güvenç for his contributions.
Evolutionary Urbanism
Introduction by Ömer Kanıpak**
The characteristics of Istanbul’s urban texture may easily be
observed from the top of the Sapphire, the highest building of the
city located on Büyükdere Boulevard in the Levent district. The west
side is filled with a wavy sea of red-tiled roofs covering 4 to 8 stories
high apartment blocks that are almost identical in shape. The roads
harmoniously follow the contours of the steep topography and there
is hardly any large open space left among this thick blanket of red
roofs. Arbitrarily scattered mosques and schools are the only public
amenities that serve this dense population. Green, is a color hardly
seen on this side, except the large Zincirlikuyu cemetery located
further away to the south.
However on the east of the Büyükdere Boulevard we see large
chunks of green areas extending to the north, used as military bases
or university campuses. On the south, the green texture is punctured
with orderly placed low-rise houses, the first experiment of “Garden
City” in Istanbul built in 1960s. The roads align the figure of the
terrain but in a better-planned order in this neighborhood called
Levent where high-rise office blocks accompany the “Garden City”
and form the east boundary of the Büyükdere Boulevard. This
characteristic dichotomy of urban land use may also easily be
noticed along the important geographical threshold extending from
Levent to Taksim.
The contradictory nature of urban fabric on this part of
Istanbul is almost a validation of the tediously used reductive phrase:
“crooked urbanization”. The unorganized streets, the excessively
homogenous urban texture formed by badly built apartments, the
conflicting neighboring functions and inadequate public amenities
caused this cliché phrase to be used frequently to describe the
urbanization adventure of Istanbul. There has always been a political
intention to fix it but no one knows where to start within the evergrowing
chaos.
However, there is logic even in the most chaotic situations in the
universe. This also applies to Istanbul’s urbanization history as well.
Until recently the urban condition of Turkey was tried to be
deciphered through the lens of Western urban knowledge. Yet,
conventional tools or the classic Western urbanism dictionary are
insufficient to analyze the Istanbul case. The so-called “crooked
urbanization” hides a rich potential that may lead to some important
issues that need to be discussed.
The lands in Turkey have been continuously commodified since
the land ownership has been conducted by a law in mid-18th century.
By the 1950s urban land became more valuable in comparison to
the agricultural lands, a consequence of the internal immigration
from rural areas to the cities. Nonetheless, governments were unable
to regulate urban land for the increasing population that led to illegal
housing and over-fragmentation of the public land. After several
generations, private lands were also fragmented into tiny lots, which
forced landowners to build really small and awkward apartment
blocks where street life and public space quality have not been
considered as an issue at all.
The ruling class used the commodification of the urban land
ruthlessly in order to dominate the political choice of the citizens. On
the other hand, citizens were also using the benefits of this fuzzy
political atmosphere to make illegal buildings or enlarge existing ones
apart from the seizure of the public land. Over time, with the
increase of population and lack of proper regulations, the exchange
value of the properties and the urban land exceeded way beyond
their use value thus any kind of real estate property became a
stepping stone for a wealthier life for the common citizen.
The incoherent political climate and the fragile economic
situation of Turkey made people living on this land extremely sensitive
about their assurance of the future. Ownership of a real estate
property has become a unanimously appreciated way of securing the
future not only for low or middle class income people but also for the
members of the ruling elite since the social net has not been
structured well enough. The construction industry has been the
leading field of activity where enormous amounts of money have
been recycled. The political figures from mayors to prime ministers
have always been closely involved in bids of major infrastructure or
real estate projects for years, turning the country into a large
construction site. On the other hand, building an edifice or
constructing roads have always been used as a way to collect votes
since they are tangible and easy to grasp successes in comparison to
a social net formed by well-functioning health and education systems
that need a couple of decades to get proper results.
Within this environment, the genetic code of Turkey’s mindset
had been altered to appreciate the construction industry and
property ownership as a way to secure the future. The floor area
became a standard unit to evaluate any kind of property regardless
of the quality or use value at all, leading to a reductive conclusion
stating that the more square meters (or the number of the rooms) the
better always.
Even the earthquake risk was used instrumentally by politicians
to initiate urban renewal processes but ironically the most
threatened districts are still waiting for action while buildings in
districts which have the highest land and property value like Kadıköy
have started to be renewed thanks to significant increases in Floor
Area Ratios (FAR). Increases in FAR are a common expectation of
citizens of Istanbul for renewing the building stock without paying
anything at all, a distorted and biased system, which only favors
landholders and contractors. As a result the city is shaped via
processes that are insensitive to public spaces and citizen
participation.
Thinking about these adverse conditions, it is hard to agree
upon specific fundamental elements of Istanbul’s urban fabric.
History, economics, politics, infrastructure and more importantly
topography emerge as major agents that have affected—and to a
large extent continue to do so—the complex urbanization patterns of
But the feeling of insecurity embedded in the citizens’ mind
might be a more fundamental factor that shapes the city. It would
have been a challenging task to track the hints of insecurity within
the urban fabric of Istanbul. Traces of urban memory can still be
seen even in sites where functions have been altered from agriculture
to production and then to luxury residences within few decades.
Alper Derinboğaz’s project delivers a new way to read the
stratification of Istanbul in terms of social and physical thresholds,
economic developments and traces of memory on the banks of the
ridge extending from Taksim to Levent; a bold attempt to decipher
the codes of evolutionary character of Istanbul’s urbanization
adventure. Derinboğaz’s proposal is a provocative way of
experiencing the evolutionary urbanization story of the city through
2.75 x 2.75 meter sized three dimensional frames which the viewer is
urged to spend time and ponder upon these strata unlike a passive
observer of a conventional map. Moreover, Derinboğaz’s new method
of presentation argues that the old-school revolutionary approach of
modernist urbanism and its conventional analysis tools should be
challenged by new models and appropriate research tools to depict
Emerging Market Countries’ evolutionary urbanism.
(*) Ömer Kanıpak (Architect)
Aerial Photo (source: Istanbul City Guide), 1946 / Urban Sprawl, 2013
Hava Fotoğrafı (kaynak: İstanbul Şehir Rehberi), 1946 / Kentsel Yayılma, 2013
Transformation of Farmlands into Plazas
Buyukdere Avenue, Levent District / Basın Ekspres Avenue, Guneşli
Tarla Alanlarının Plazalara Dönüşümü
Büyükdere Caddesi, Levent / Basın Ekspres Yolu, Güneşli
Topography as an Actor
Buyukdere Avenue
Bir Aktör Olarak Topoğrafya
Büyükdere Caddesi
Topography as an Actor
Kağithane Area
Topography as an Actor
Levent Area
Bir Aktör Olarak Topoğrafya
Kağıthane
Bir Aktör Olarak Topoğrafya
Levent Bölgesi
+ 02
+01
03
+
Unfolding Layers Buyukdere Axis
Levent Area
Büyükdere Aksındaki Katmanlar
Levent Bölgesi
01 Levent area
02 Büyükdere Boulevard
03 Kağithane area
Modalities of the Spontaneous
Alper Derinboğaz** –
Enise B. Karaçizmeli***
The word ‘mimar’ [architect], derives from the concept of ‘imar’
[development] and means ‘the one who develops’. The verb ‘imar
etmek’ means to develop, to cause a place to flourish, or to improve.
Yet today, in Istanbul, a city witnessing rapid transformation, ‘opening
a place to development’ has come to mean dividing a territory into
smaller parts, and rendering it consumable, rather than developing
or improving it. On the other hand, although commodified, ‘place’,
having acquired various momenta during different periods in the last
century, holds together various social layers, spatial formations and
poles together with peculiar balances. There are also not
immediately perceptible patterns behind the disorder and chaos
behind the visible order. Istanbul’s uniqueness is embedded in
patterns in the imperceptible traces beyond the disorder. Traces of
the distinctive moments of the turbulent social, political and
economic history of the country are woven, at various intensities, into
the multidimensional memory of place.
“A false notion
happening”1
Bernard Cache
of
the
past
prevents
the
present
from
So is it possible to disentangle the coded patterns of the
cityscape, traces of power that are woven in spaces, its buildings,
and the story of the city’s fragmentary development, which is often
read spontaneously at first gaze? Can the traces of this story be
determined, and visualized?
Beyond the present appearance of Istanbul’s built environment,
which displays no concern for planning, and appears random, are
legible, essential patterns, inscribed into its invisible face. The
complexity that seems intractable is the outcome of the
superposition of textures that were shaped in different contexts, and
are not that illegible in their own right.
Let us leave aside for now the Historical Peninsula, that
symbolizes Istanbul in literature or memory, but where only a small
fraction of the city’s population lives today. The traces of these
formations, their latent patterns are concealed behind ordinary
cityscapes, which Istanbul lovers do not really take any pleasure from
looking at. However, it is necessary to discover the hidden pattern
beyond this sea of buildings.
Readings and detections, layers distinguished while mapping
areas, turn into stories, and stories turn into layers. Modalities of the
Spontaneous, seeking to understand and explain the essence where
variables interlace, is an attempt to look at Istanbul through three
different filters. Within this scope, in the first part titled Topography As
An Actor, it looks at the defining role of topography in the upperscale
of the city, then, in Thresholds as Infrastructure, at how
infrastructure projects manage the developmental orientation of the
city, and in New Neighbors, the third part, at unforeseeable
adjacencies, ultimately explaining in Territorial Recipes for Istanbul
how one might utilize these different methods of perception as
repetitive readings.
1. Topography As An Actor (Levent-Gültepe)
Although it does not represent the current situation, the
matchless silhouette of Istanbul that has become its registered
trademark must be interpreted via the assemblage of urban texture
and topography.2 Does this visual combination, almost forgotten,
have a meaningful counterpart today? If it does, how can this visual
combination be read? We will try to scrutinize this question via the
Levent cityscape, which symbolizes the hegemony of human beings
(neoliberal economy) over nature.
Büyükdere Boulevard, which emerges as the only continuous
element of this cityscape, follows the topographical ridge upon which
the canals3 that in the 1730s brought water to the city, from the
Belgrade forests to Taksim and the Grand Rue de Pera. Along the
same route, on the west- and east-sides three different textures and
three different spatial formation processes appear. We observe this
differentiation in the cross section that completely overlaps with the
social geography4, in the West, in former shanty houses that have
been transformed into organized housing, and on Büyükdere
Boulevard, former factories, and present-day Shopping Center lots
that have the highest real estate value in the city, and in the East, as
the modernist texture of the Levent neighborhood. The ridge of the
topography hosts the highest-quality office towers of Istanbul, and its
eastern side that descends towards the Bosphorus, the most
luxurious residences. As the rapidly gentrifying west-side is being
transformed into offices, residences and lofts, the east-side presently
retains its general character. What’s more, these cross-sections that
disentangle and render comprehensible the housing texture of the
city which at first impression seems intractable, are not unique to
place, or region. In contrast, the İstiklal and Cumhuriyet streets, and
both sides of these streets display similar patterns.
In the Levent example, the Central Business Zone of the city,
located at the inflection point of these cross-sections, is formed of
the juxtaposition of segments in different architectural styles
contiguous to each other along this route.5 One can clearly observe
that this intermittent development process is triggered by large-scale
transport investments. The mechanisms that orient, and
architectures that shape the development process (as one can see in
the Tünel Maslak frieze of the Istanbul 1910-2010 exhibition)6 are not
spontaneous. In this context, the north-trending urban development
can be described as a process oriented by public investments in the
topographic framework. The cityscape may be conceived at this
point as an outcome in the short term, and a framework that defines
environmental conditions in the long term. From this viewpoint, we
can see the diverse topography of Istanbul as an effective actor in
historical process rather than a screen or a surface shaped by
architectures. Urban fabric, taking shape upon its topography, can
be interpreted as an active social-spatial formation that provides
guidance as to what might be possible, difficult or even impossible in
time, but is not defining.
2. Thresholds as Infrastructure
The sharpest threshold of many different examples across the
Istanbul landscape is Büyükdere Boulevard, with the almost
20-kilometer-long Tünel-Maslak route, the water parting of the
Beyoğlu side and the historical transport backbone. However,
although not fully an infrastructural element of Istanbul topography,
which is exceedingly impoverished in terms of flat areas, this route
quantitatively and qualitatively orients the formation of the Central
Business Zone and the urban development process. Thus, during its
formation, the Tünel-Maslak route intermittently guided the urban
development and the Central Business Zone to the north. Tünel,
which opened in 1875, oriented the development trend in Kuledibi
that showed signs of stalling to the Grande Rue de Pera of the
period; the electrification of the streetcar (1914) pushed the
boundary of the settled zone up to Şişli; the opening of the
Bosphorus Bridge (1973) to Mecidiyeköy, and finally, the opening of
the second bridge (1988) to the Ayazağa-Maslak area. The extension
of the underground that followed the same axis first to Levent and
later to 4. Levent in the 2000s, led to an 11-fold increase in real
estate
prices
in
the
area.7
Following these developments, the area between Levent and 4.
Levent turned into a new business center, with a concentration of
management, control and coordination functions and finance
institutions, and the Central Business Zone functions in Karaköy and
Beyoğlu were extended to Zincirlikuyu, Maslak and Ayazağa via the
Mecidiyeköy-Beşiktaş axis. The cityscape along both sides of
Büyükdere Boulevard took shape during this process, becoming the
area with the greatest business volume in Istanbul. On the Anatolian
side, despite attempts at forming planned centers as in examples like
Ataşehir, we observe that they have failed to reach the potential, and
more importantly, the real estate value of the Levent area. As it is,
this special threshold has become the infrastructure and conveyor of
the city, and an actor in speculation in its own right.
The vertical and condensed perspective creates the impression
that this is a business center in the full meaning of the term as one
progresses along the street; however, when we look back from the
tower blocks, the crumbled state of the same structural mass makes
us think we are in the middle of a theatre set. On the other hand, on
the elongated, narrow plots that vertically cut the road, some rarely
encountered hybrid architectural forms, that could be termed tailed
tower blocks, have sprung up, where the vertical tower form of the
street façade is complemented with a horizontal shopping center
extending towards the rear-end of the plot. The formation of this
typology, and the texture behind it suggest that they came about not
by way of a specifically implemented development plan, or upon a
designed plot mark, but through various, entirely different influences.
A look at the recent past reveals that narrow and tall industrial
buildings8 used to occupy the plots where tower blocks stand now.
This might make one think that the tailed tower block typology
inherited a previously-existing settlement model, but we know that
the same plots were, until the 1950s, arable lands that belonged to
non-Muslims. The elongated landform both made it easier to plough
the land, and was shaped so that it faced the water channels, an
important infrastructural technology of the period, and a route that
would define the fate of Istanbul’s development.9 These plots of land,
shaped according to the direction of water supply, rested on
Büyükdere Boulevard. Looking at the same ‘moment’ or ‘fragment’ at
different periods, we can see that this threshold, Büyükdere Boulevard,
has in fact been used as an infrastructural tool in various ways.
3. New Neighbors
During the early years of the Republic, the Levent area and
Büyükdere were full of imperial estates, arable fields and foundation
properties that belonged to non-Muslims; following the increase in
population, these were replaced by detached suburban houses,
pharmaceutical plants and shanty houses. Along with sudden
demographic changes, the east-side of Büyükdere, thanks to a
relatively controlled development plan, did not, on appearance,
make too many concessions from its architectural environment. As
for the west side, neighborhoods like Gültepe and Emniyetevler,
adjacent to new plaza buildings, formed ideal bases for political
economy due to their informal structure, and were time and again
inflated with new precedent values. As their value increased, these
neighborhoods witnessed an intensification of spontaneous
settlement.
On the east side of Büyükdere Boulevard, the 1. Levent housing
estate that resembles a garden-plan middle class family settlement,
and the towers positioned in park areas between this neighborhood
and the main street almost resemble an ‘urban mutant’. The scene we
encounter when we begin to wander between these garden houses is
a world independent of this pastoral landscape and rigid structural
environment. Today, with car parks, reception and even meeting
rooms of privileged professions such as advertising agencies,
investment companies and cosmetic specialists located in the area,
it has become the reflection of an industrial dynamics that is bursting
at its seams. This attempt at planning that has a defined form when
viewed from the upper scale, would come to be known, by the next
stage, as the Etiler neighborhood which would often host members of
the ruling party of the period.
As for the west side of the street, as one walks past the tailed
tower blocks lining the street, the indecision that dominates the
pavement which is diversified at times with the appearance of a
square, and at other times with scattered security huts, makes one
feel once again that this area is not part of the upper scale plan,
neither as a Central Business Zone, nor as an open area. A street
back, the apartment blocks behind the tower blocks converted from
shanty houses, form a mega structure resembling a piece of felt
rather than some structural texture along the ridge that extends as
far as Kağıthane River. The transformation of arable fields on
Büyükdere into industrial areas, thus triggering a need for cheap
housing, led to the swift transformation of former foundation
properties into shanty houses, and with the later introduction of new
legislation, into apartment blocks. Former riverbeds form the main
streets, and the few open market places the multi-functional social
facility zones in the felt-like texture of this urban fabric, as the
repeating cycle of cornershops, pharmacies, hardware stores,
bakeries, water vendors and then again cornershops, form a local
market. This irregular systematic (unstructured structure) that is able
to repeat itself as much as necessary, or possible, multiplies itself via
repetition along the ridge, without feeling the need to allow for any
gaps, extending as far as the Kağıthane River, another surface
threshold.
These three different textures that have formed in the Levent
area, (tower blocks, apartment blocks converted from shanty houses,
and an area with suburban detached houses and upper class lines of
business), is an assemblage which indicates a rarely encountered
relationship of neighborhood. The contiguous life styles of different
groups in the area which nevertheless do not come into contact,
express themselves via contiguous yet disparate property textures.
Incongruent textures are symptoms of lives that are adjacent, but do
not touch each other. This contiguity and intensification has reached
the highest level. As long as traffic islands and pavements are not
taken into account, there is no public space here.
What lies beneath demographic difference in the Levent area,
is reminiscent of what Tekeli has called the planning style of “shy
Ottoman Modernism” and has repeated itself since the attempt
during Ottoman times to plan fire zones although it is new in terms of
planning diversity and form in the built environment. “Opportunistic
Planning” is the term Uğur Tanyeli coins for this reflex of rather than
realizing plans in the city center, finding empty plots for plans that
are realizable, and planning them piece by piece, as suitable
situations arise.10 The planimetric tangram in the aforementioned
area is also reminiscent of forms brought together in different periods
by “light planning” processes.
Territorial Recipes for Istanbul
Although the Taksim-Karaköy interval, another work area
determined within this scope, is quite different from Levent in terms
of the period the general urban fabric took shape, both its spatial
distribution and story of development display specific similarities.
Despite the fact that its architectural environment appears
different, an observation based on ratio and function reveals
interesting similaritiesIstanbul’s spatial fabric.
The development that changed Beyoğlu’s fate, was the opening
of the funicular in 1874, the second underground public transport
system in the world after London’s. The 573-meter connection, linked
the city centre based in the triangle of Perşembe Pazarı [Perşembe
Market], Bankalar Caddesi [Bankalar Street] and Karaköy Harbor to
Tünel Square, the highest point of the area, thus extending the
dynamism of Galata along İstiklal Caddesi. This opening pioneered
the developments that resulted in İstiklal Caddesi, the longest
promenade of Istanbul, extending towards Taksim Square, and
becoming the backbone it is today. It is also the first section and first
example of the Büyükdere axis, which, to use Murat Güvenç’s phrase,
is the “architecture museum of the city”, and today extends from
Taksim to Şişli, from Şişli to Zincirlikuyu, and from there to Levent
and Maslak.
Triggered by the Tünel connection, İstiklal Caddesi became,
from the late 19th century on, both the business center and the
social lifeline of the city. Its topographic ridge, or in other words, the
axis that follows the highest point of the area to reach Taksim
Square, precisely like in the continuation of Büyükdere, places its
western and eastern slopes in its center. The eastern slope facing the
Bosphorus, more advantageous because of its proximity to the coast
and to Salı Pazarı [Salı Market], forms the more attractive section of
the ridge. On the other hand, the western slope facing Kağıthane
Valley, in other words, the sloped area which today descends into
Kasımpaşa via Tarlabaşı and forms the other part of the topographic
trajectory, has a less advantageous position in terms of
acclimatization and is home to the lower-middle class. These two
slopes of a hill with the same incline are thus differentiated in terms
of physical conditions, and also become the scene of a visible social
differentiation. The eastern slope is the center of attraction, while the
western slope is secondary in terms of demand. The outcome of the
difference in demand triggered by geographical conditions indicates
the divide that is still visible today. We encounter the ratio of the
façade facing the street and the side façade along the Büyükdere
route, on İstiklal Caddesi as the ratio of a narrow façade and deepset
width. Thus, it is possible to read as an urban definition the
repetitions produced by the central axis and the echelonment it
forms towards lower elevations, which we observe in Levent, and see
once again on İstiklal Caddesi.
Juxtaposition; spatial textures we encounter in settlement plans
and sections of plans; and infrastructural decisions that determine
the thresholds of the city stand out as concepts repeated in all three
chapters. When we hold the lens provided by inferences made in
Büyükdere to various other parts of the city, as we did in the
topography and thresholds section, we come across similar
organizations. In the final chapter, the counterpart along the TaksimKaraköy route of this chart that was obtained with this lens is
examined, and this once again reveals the order of what appears
disorderly.
Today, in cities like Istanbul which continue to develop, the
formation of the architectural environment is controlled by
contemporary dynamics such as neoliberal policies, global capital
and the privatization of public space. This urban environment,
shaped by various deals and balances of power, and sometimes
coincidences, might create the impression of a development so out of
control that it creates disquiet. However, a different viewpoint is
possible if we expand the spatial scale and historical scope we focus
on. Within this scope, beyond the visible factors that trigger the
formation of momentary operations, and independently of such
characters, it is important to remind of the existence of essential
actors, like the multidimensional memory of space, that weave
together the past and present, and architecture and the city.
(**) Alper Derinboğaz (Architect, Lecturer, Istanbul Bilgi
University Faculty of Architecture. Founding partner of Salon
Architects)
(***) Enise B. Karaçizmeli (Landscape Architect, Praxis
Landscape)
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
New Neighbors
Levent Area
New Neighbors
Levent Area
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Yeni Komşular
Levent Bölgesi
Yeni Komşular
Levent Bölgesi
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
Ownership Borders Generate Topographical Data
Levent Area
Expansions to the Existing Buildings
Levent Area
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Topografyaya Hizalı Mülkiyet Sınırları
Levent Bölgesi
Mevcut Binalara Ek Yapılar
Levent Bölgesi
New Neighbors
Substracted Buildings with Interconnections
Levent Area
Ownership Borders Generate Topographical Data
Levent Area
Layers of Infrastructure, Topography, Geography
Levent Area
Yeni Komşular
Arabağlantılarıyla Çıkartılmış Binalar
Levent Bölgesi
Topografyaya Hizalı Mülkiyet Sınırları
Levent Bölgesi
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Layers
Infrastructure, Geography and Topography
Levent Area
Katmanlar
Altyapı, Coğrafya ve Topografya
Levent Bölgesi
Water Canals - Kazım Çeçen-1992
Karakoy Taksim Area
Infrastructure
Karakoy Taksim Area
Water Canals
Su Kanalları
Water Canals 02
Karakoy Taksim Area
Infrastructure
Karakoy Taksim Area
Infrastructure
Altyapı
Topography 02
Karakoy Taksim Area
Topography 01
Karakoy Taksim Area
Topography
Progress Variations
Karakoy Taksim
Gelişim Çeşitleri
Karaköy Taksim
Topografya
Social Gradients Around “Grande Rue de Pera“
1913-1914
“Grand Rue de Pera” Çevresinde Sosyal Kademelenme
1913-1914
VERSION 02
Social Gradients Around “Grande Rue de Pera“
1913-1914
“Grand Rue de Pera” Çevresinde Sosyal Kademelenme
1913-1914
Panel Arrangement
Pano Düzeni
Extensive Studies
Infrastructure
Levent Area
Public Spaces
Levent Area
Soft Infrastructure
Levent Area
Altyapı
Levent Bölgesi
Kamusal Mekanlar
Levent Bölgesi
Hafif Altyapı
Levent Bölgesi
New Neighbors
Levent Area
Yeni Komşular
Levent Bölgesi
Ownership Borders
Taksim Area
Mülkiyet Sınırları
Taksim Bölgesi
Soft Infrastructure
Taksim Area
Hafif Altyapı
Taksim Bölgesi
Social Gradients Around “Grande Rue de Pera“
“Grand Rue de Pera” Çevresinde Sosyal Kademelenme
Public Open Spaces
Taksim Area
Kamusal Açık Mekanlar
Taksim Bölgesi
Typologies in Scale
Various Patterns in Levent Area
Ölçekli Tiplojiler
Levent Bölgesinden Çeşitli Dokular
Ownership Borders
Levent Area
Mülkiyet Sınırları
Levent Bölgesi
A Moment of “Spontenous”
Gültepe - Levent Area
“Gelişigüzel” Bir An
Gültepe - Levent Bölgesi
Topography Fragment
Kağıthane
Topografya Parçası
Kağıthane
+ 02
+
01
+ 03
+
+
+
Layers
Karakoy Taksim Area
Katmanlar
Karaköy Taksim Bölgesi
01 Taksim
02 Tunel
03 Dolmabahce
TALİMHANE
TAKSİM KIŞLASI
CHURCH
HOSPİTAL
CHURCH
SCHOOL
CHURCH
SCHOOL
MADRASAH
SCHOOL
HOSPİTAL
SCHOOL
CHURCH
HOSPİTAL
CHURCH
MOSQUE
MOSQUE
CHURCH
EMBASSY
FRENCH
TELEPHONE
CHURCH
MOSQUE
EMBASSY
ITALIAN
SCHOOL
HOSPİTAL
GOVERNORSHIP
TUNNEL
MOSQUE
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
CHURCH
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
TOPHANE
SCHOOL
GALATA
TOWER
SYNAGOGUE
CHURCH
CHURCH
SCHOOL
MOSQUE
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
SYNAGOGUE CHURCH
SCHOOL
Infrastructure and Soft Infrastructure
Karakoy Taksim Area
(Alman Mavileri 1913-1914 , Jacques Pervititch )
Altyapı ve Hafif Altyapı
Karaköy Taksim Bölgesi
(Alman Mavileri 1913-1914 , Jacques Pervititch)
MECLİS-İ
MEBUSAN
Scenario of Extraction
Levent Area
Çıkarma senaryosu
Levent Bölgesi
GSPublisherEngine 0.1.100.100
Informal Expansions Originally Suburbian Housing
Levent Area
Banliyö Evlerine Düzensiz Ek Yapılar
Levent Bölgesi
Topography as an Actor
The Emergence of Büyükdere Boulevard and Two Unequal Hillsides
Bir Aktör Olarak Topoğrafya
Büyükdere CaddesiOluşumu ve İki Yamacı
1.Topography as an Actor 1:
Social Gradients Around Grande Rue de Pera
2. Topography as an Actor 2 :
The Emergence of Büyükdere Boulevard,
and Two Unequal Hillsides; Levent Area
3. New Neighbors :
Plots, Infrastructure and Topography; Levent Area
4. Mutating the Subdivisions :
Intertwined Plots Levent Area
5. Territorializing the Corridors :
Diffused Fields and the Boulevard, Levent Area