modalities of the spontaneous
Transkript
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