CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL TOPOGHRAPHY OF ANKARA TURKEY

CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL TOPOGHRAPHY OF ANKARA TURKEY

Esin Boyacıoğlu
Gazi University
Faculty of Architecture
Department of Architecture

The main objective of this paper is to read the recent architectural
topograohy of Turkey's capital, Ankara. To manage this, it is of import to
trace the story of Ankara becoming a capital city and its architectural
development. Thus it is after giving a brief history of Ankara that I will
introduce the conceptual framework of how I am going to look at the
contemporary architectural intentions or postures in Ankara.

The foundation of Turkish Republic was realized as a modernization project.
The humanist and liberatory values within which the foundation of the
Enlightenment philosophy is based, are in actuality the very starting point
of modern thought. These values, having achieved egalitarian and
participatory properties, make up the essence and content of modernity
(Bozdogan, 1998: 119).
That there was a modernization project in existence during the foundation
of the Turkish Republic, and that the intend existed to form this new
nation state through this project, is widely accepted and discussed. The
difference of this project from the modernization movement established
during the Ottoman period is that it took upon itself the mission of
spreading the modernization movement throughout Anatolia. One can say that
all of modernity's tools were engaged so that this spreading would be easy
as well as continuous. Such as the wish to begin a wide spread campaign of
education for the creation of a body of citizens equipped with rational
thought and scientific knowledge, or the wish to establish through the
state an industry, one of the important conditions of modernity and this
was non-existent in Anatolia. During this process, that also encompassed
the declaration of Ankara as the capital city as well as its construction,
Ankara was accepted as a stencil for the urban planning of Anatolian
cities, and occupied the architectural agenda. Through the foundation of
Ankara and the following period, the ideals of the young republic
overlapped with the understandings of radical rupture and progressive
objectives of modernity and one of its reflections, modern architecture,
was also promoted as a way of life. In this process of modernization many
foreign[1] and native architects took place in planning and constructing
Ankara. Nationalism, having effected the whole of Europe by the end of the
1930s, also found a response in Turkey. In this period the architectural
tendencies swayed between the extremes of national and international.[2]
The modernization project, attempted to be maintained in its initial form
until about the 1950s, changed considerably in its content and direction
after this period. The Americanization dominant within the whole of Europe
after WWII, was similarly dominant in Turkey. In this period the
modernization project itself, its priorities and contents, changed. The
wide spread education model was terminated; Industry grew only in specific
regions, accumulating there. The foundation of the private enterprise
system was laid. The continued existence of feudal relations and
mechanization within the agricultural sector, increased the flow of
population into large cities like Istanbul, Ankara etc; the result was
uncontrolled huge quarters of slums.
Following the escape of modern architecture from Europe to America and its
resultant activities in America to legitimize itself, Americanization
established itself in the architectural field through international style.
Though the architectural scene did initiate a quest for eligible
architectural products through the large number of realized competitions in
this period, it was shaped, more so in the case of public buildings, by the
pressures exerted on the formal language of architecture by the Ministry of
Construction. The architectural products of this period, ironically
referred as the 'ministry style' (Balamir, 2003:18), caused for an extended
period, the existence of a cliché architectural environment. Subsequent to
World War II, the nationality emphasis within the discussions concerning
identity, stirred away from its political denotation. Thus the continued
discussions focused on an understanding of identity that was closely
connected to geographical conditions, regional and local characteristics
and traditional architecture. Post 1980 was a period when the modernization
concept was generally analyzed with a critical approach, mostly referred as
Postmodernism. In Turkey too the effect of this criticism was striking as
well as extensive, especially in the formal language of architecture.
When the architectural competitions of the period are taken into
consideration one can observe that the number of examples, striving become
striking and prominent by savoring the formal freedom and postmodern
discourse, increases considerably. Especially the attempt to forge a
connection between tradition and history can be seen spreading like a wave
over the architecture of the '80s. All these developments were also
supported by the liberal economy spreading throughout the world and Turkey.

In this period,[3] two tendencies are apparent within the prominent
architectural examples. One is a contextual architectural language that
reevaluates history through a neo rational,[4] and normative perception,
the other is a less normative, and an eclectic approach discussing popular
culture.[5] The reflection of these developments on the majority has
effected the layout as well as the visual presence of cities irreversibly.
An important result of this period is the gradual decrease in the
significance of Ankara, especially economically. As the headquarters of
banks or big firms moved to Istanbul, Ankara, a city of great architectural
import in the period of the early republic, has lost its precedence to the
"world city" Istanbul, be it in the architectural arena or others.
In this sense, another observation is also significant; the position of the
state, or political power, in the foundation of Ankara changed
significantly, starting from 1950s, especially after 1980s. In the present
the state has almost completely retreated from the public space production
that is now under constant modification with vast varieties present. The
void left by the state has been filled by the private entrepreneur.

After this brief overview, it should be clear that Ankara is one of the
early designed Capitals (Vale, 1992), and that modernity had played a major
role with its social and aesthetical canons. Even though this attempt to
shape a capital city was the result of the will of its designer, M. Kemal
Atatürk, one can easily argue that a cultural transfer or a "cross-border
culture" as Sassen (2000: 259) asserts, can be identified at this point,
in this geography already in the beginning of the 20th century but of
course in the comparable speed of the steam transatlantic and locomotive as
well as within the capacity of telegram and telephone. Additionally there
were also demographic changes but those were mostly within national
borders. Since modernity itself was not satisfied with the geography of its
birth, it proliferated in diverse geographies and cultures and established
its own manifold manifestations, as was the case in Turkey.
Different than this slow proliferation of cultures, sociologists and
economist claim that for about the last 30 years a new form of this
fluidity, labeled globalization, now threads the world. A concept which
according to Harvey is a result of the habit of capitalism to seek new
spatial solutions; which he states is a new version or a new stage of
imperialism, one that has an enormous power to transform (Harvey, 2002:
54). A wide shared concern on the issue of globalization is its power to
transform, to similarize different cultures, to erase unique
characteristics, to dissolve different precious identities etc. On the
other hand as Sassen (2000: 260) puts it, globalization will alter our
traditional concept of contextual orientation, and displace it with
internal transactions and its cross-border as well as transnational
orientation. She disputes that global is itself constituted through a
multiplicity of locals.[6] In a different angle Harvey states that to
reduce the impact of globalization to just the homogenizing effect of
global culture would be an extreme reductionist approach. He argues that
there are enough indicators such as cultural reflexes that resist such a
homogenization (Harvey, 2002: 67). It is easy to see that there is no
consensus about the issue and nor is one to be expected.

When the focus is narrowed on a single city and even more, on the changes
that occurred within the architectural scene of Ankara that surfaced from
the 90s on, a conceptual framework should be constructed. Two concepts in
the debates of globalization, but as well as that from the beginning of
modern architecture's practice till the present, have always posed reason
for discourse, in which tendencies at times are pulled to the polarities;
two concepts wherein the relationships between architecture and time, and
architecture and geography are constructed. Thus I will build my framework
on the relation of architecture with 'time' and 'geography', that is,
place/space
The polarities of both concepts reach towards opposing directions becoming
the representatives of differing ideological positions. Modernity's
perception of 'time,' with its aspiration to use 'Zeit Geist' as
propulsion, is among the main subjects that the criticisms focus on. Though
this is a still valid debate concerning time, the discussions on geography
have adopted a different jargon than national and international. As we
discussed above the contemporary debates on geography are mostly based on
concepts such as global and local.

The relationship of architecture with 'time' is connected to the reference
of the building to time itself. This response thus can be discussed under
three very well-known wide-ranging headings: future, present, past.
The attempt to create the formal language of the future can be portrayed as
a trial at being speculative as well as provocative, using these traits to
construct the formal language and technology, a quest for the non-existent,
and its exploration. Thus this tendency may well be categorized under the
concept of Avant-garde.
Connecting with the present on the other hand can be portrayed as a
fulfillment of the becoming contemporary, be it through the usage of
contemporary technology, material or formal relationship; that is, in a
sense attaining the spirit of the era.
The other aspect of the 'time' concept, that is, the connection with the
past, can harbor within it a cluster of differing conceptual backgrounds,
aspirations, intends; it can also follow paths such as the utilization of
the formal grammar or technology residing within history through tools such
as nostalgia and continuity.
I believe that once the concept of time is interpreted through the contrast
between future and past, so too must one interpret the concept of geography
over the Global / local dichotomy. At this point I want clarify some of the
discussion and move away from the rather vague realm of the concept
'global'. As discussed above, global space is multilayered and has too many
parameters. Roughly put, economical (fluidity of capital), cultural
(fluidity of cultures) and demographical (fluidity of people) are only a
few of these parameters. The economical impact of the 'global' is major. In
order to establish a systematical overview and to focus solely on the
discourse of architecture the utilization of the concept of 'universal'
seems to be more accurate. To be able to understand architecture through
geography, I will use a more lucid concept, "universal", which has a rather
more positive implementation when compared to the global. From an
epistemological perspective the meaning of Universal comprises of a
relating to, extending to, or affecting of the entire world or all within
the world; worldwide, comprehensively broad.[7] Or, something that may be
applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an
entity that can be in many places at the same time.[8] In the architectural
realm we can state that the universal may be accepted in every geography
with its allover compatibility, its readable, understandable values. In
this sense we can assume a more positive nuance, than global. Thus between
the dichotomies universal and local, it is clear that there can be many
postures in between the universal and the local. On a wider perspective,
one extreme of this dichotomy, would be the creation of a brand new
architectural understanding, that criticizes the architectural culture on
a whole, be it universal or local, embarking on a quest for the non-
existent. This approach thus falls under the description of the avant-
garde, as it was discussed in relation with the concept of 'time'.
In this case, the posture identified as Universal, can be categorized as
the usage of the formal grammar which would be accepted worldwide as
universal as its building language, as well as the capture of said
universal value.
Another posture would be the juxtaposition of the local, the spatial
constructs caused by its climate and its formal grammar through a universal
language, transplanting the local onto a universal platform and ensuring
the discussion of the local on this platform. The other end of this
category is the usage of the traditional formal language of the local as it
is, and ensuring that this language is perceived to be continuous. Here
too, as was the case with the concept of 'time', there can be a great many
postures as well as hybridizations in between the two polarities.
One can see that the resultant range between the two polarities in
geography and time, that is, between the present and the past / History and
between the universal and the regional / local, overlap. Both the array
ranging from the Universal to the local and that ranging from the
contemporary to the past / History, display similar conduct, that often
overlaps and intersects.
In this conceptual framework, the formal language, technology, layout and
material used in these buildings are to be used as assisting parameters in
the reading of the main polarities as well as the postures located in-
between.
Thus in this article, the avant-garde make up the first, the
present/contemporary and universal the second and those that connect with
the past/history, tradition and the local the third category.

I believe that original examples of the first category, that is, the avant-
garde, those that aspire to pioneer, searching for an architecture beyond
the universal, or the future, are non-existent in Ankara. The discussion as
to why there is such a lack will be approached within the conclusion of
this presentation.
Thus the second category which will be presented here is made up of those
that possess a contemporary and universal architectural language.
These are the examples that are contemporary in nature, with their
connection to contemporary technology, their usage of it even in cases when
nothing new is added to said technology, and attempt to reflect this usage
in their building language, their ability to capture the universal code
with their spatial properties, present in their facades constructed with
the contemporary technological materials as well as in their general
constructions. These examples manage to immaculately connect to the
present. Examples that follow many of the pioneering, new architectural
understandings existent in the world, and could in a sense be taken as
their extensions, are also included in this category. Since they too can be
acknowledged as an extension of the discussions on the contemporary. These
buildings, wherever they are located in the world, possess properties that
distinguish them from the common.
Of these buildings from the qualitative minority only a select of few
examples will be presented due to the restrictions in space. Those are
selected from the outcomes of architectural competitions, architectural
publications and those I personally believe to be distinguished.[9]

As is natural, the buildings collected under this category, do have to be
classified into subcategories; the first being buildings that carry a
relatively prominent emphasis on contemporary technology within their
architectural language.
The classification of technological emphasis has been used for examples
that generally posses an appearance predominantly metal or glass in nature,
or those that in cases posses a steel structure, wherein this structure is
readable from the outside, or those that posses a reinforced concrete
structure, however leaving no clue on their façade, as to this fact
choosing mainly light weight, transparent or composite materials. Ankara
Airport Ercan Coban, et al, METU Modsim Yazgan Design Architecture (2007),
METU Research center Boran Ekinci Architects (2004), METU Technology Museum
Aysen Savas, Baris Yagli (2005), A media center, Tabanlioglu Architects
(2007), However it is important here to state that, the last example is to
be distinguished by its approach especially in the facades and materials
that questions the rote, does away with the habitual customs, and seeks out
the alternative.
The second such classification is made up of the examples that maintain the
universal language of modern architecture and emphasize the usage of
concrete. Here the examples mostly have the hint of the modern spirit, be
it Bauhaus, De Stijl, Purism, or le Corbusier himself. A therapy center, An
office Building, Siemens Headquarters of Ankara, A Broadcasting Center, An
office building H. Guner and H. Butuner (2000), A Private House, A Kinder
garden, Mursid Gunday (2003) A University building.
The continuation of this classification; examples that carry a relative
reductionist approach in geometry and material: METU Preparatory Building
Boran Ekinci Architects (2007), A Weekend House A&Z Aksu Architecture
(2005).
And those examples that try to enrich themselves with the usage of complex
geometries and advanced technological materials: A Condominium Complex
(1997 – 2002), Ankara Industry Chamber (2008) Hulya Salk and Mustafa
Yucesan,
Among those that attain let's say global language through their usage of
curtain wall materials. These in a sense practice architecture through the
curtain wall material, constructing their façade organization as an
exhibition of materials. It is doubtless that among these those that are
qualitative in their design and language exist. In a very global
programmatic and visual manner a specific building group comes up quite
frequently; the Malls. E. Oncuoglu A. O. Ozturk

Those that are connected to history, tradition and the local form the third
main category. Doubtless, the way this connection is established is
enriched through countless approaches that bring forth syntheses as well as
hybridizations on the range from the Universal to the local, from the
present (the contemporary) to the past (history). I have attempted to list
these examples on a line leading from the universal and the contemporary to
the local history and tradition. Here we can start with the examples that
interpret the past cultural accumulation, existent in the memory of a
region, through contemporary technology and a universal language that is
visible within their programme interpretations and layouts as well as their
abstract languages. Union of Notaries S. Velioglu, U. Iyigun, O. Ozuer, M.
Aksu (2008) Galyum Block METU A. Cirakoglu (2007).
The following examples seek a multi-coded expression through properties
such as the combined usage of contemporary universal language and local,
traditional language as well as natural materials. These codes can present
expressions from history or region that can either be direct or indirect.
Metu Social Center S. Teber (1999), Bilkent University Amphitheater E.
Sahinbas, A. Guleyen (1999), METU Research Center S. Teber (1999).

The next approach as garnered many examples, especially in the 80s and
early 90s. These examples have been especially affected by Mario Botta, and
the discourse within Aldo Rossi's book 'Architecture of City'. A hospital
annex S&O Uygur (1998)
The continuation of this category is made up of examples that are
contemporary but put more emphasis on traditional values, shapes and try to
construct a contemporary way of life through these properties,
concentrating on the concepts of place, and region. A mass Housing Complex.
These examples make up a building group that seeks alternatives in the
transfer of different environments, identity, traditional, and regional
values to the present, attempt to synthesize the local/ regional
architectural concepts with the stance of contemporary architecture.
Eryaman 3 Social Housing T. Cavdar 1993,

Those that reject the present and wish to transfer the architectural
language of the past to the present. These buildings completely disregard
the concept of modernity, and turning their backs to the progressive
approach, act as though they belong to another period. It is also definite
that these reference tradition and the local/region at the same time. These
building also have ideological convictions that they want to convey: the
past was better than the present. Apartment blocks (anonym),
The next examples use the opportunities of contemporary technology in their
quest to become buildings belonging to another time, indeed to another
place, acting as if they belonged there. This behavior is part of a
superficial, stick-on neoclassic quest that has spread over the last few
years. Some constructed by recognized architects others belonging to the
common building stock; these examples are constructed through contemporary
methods, such as reinforced concrete skeleton system, the facades of which
are then covered with elements of the classical order. These decorations
are used similarly to curtain wall. These examples wish to rewrite a
history for Ankara that it does not posses. Mostly office buildings,
department stores, party headquarters, hotels, etc It is difficult to gauge
whether this is due to a pressure exercised by the employer but one has to
state that building by architects also listed in the categories above also
have buildings that fall within this category. Beymen Showroom A. O. Ozturk
(2006)
To this point the examples given were those that stood out of the majority,
a selection of the qualitative minority. Those belonging to the qualitative
minority category, distinguish themselves through the intellectual
accumulation forming the foundation of the design and existent in the
background of the building. However the buildings that make up the building
stock of a city can be roughly divided into two categories: the qualitative
minority and the common majority.

The examples given from the common majority, that in most cases is not
recognized by the architectural arena, are limited in this study.
The common majority today mentions the applications of the stencil like
(stamp-like) high rise housing projects produced to transform gecekondu
areas.[10] Those areas are transformed with the pressure asserted by the
local governments. TOKI, an institution that at the start of the 90s was
practicing qualitative pursuits, actually did produce examples that led to
hope in this aspect. Especially the third and fourth stages of Eryaman,[11]
have displayed an exemplary development in this aspect. However when it is
examined today the regions in question transformed in the fringed of the
city, host an unquestioned combination of apartment typology with the tower
block typology, producing examples that bring nothing to the concept of
dwelling, encompass no pursuits or novelty whatsoever, offering to the
people dwellings that are extremely stenciled, uniform, devoid of character
and present no prospect of claiming. They lack architectural and
environmental quality, creativity in their presence, multiply themselves in
huge amounts and additionally ruin the uniqueness of cities.
What is more, these examples are offered to the market as though they are
the best choice, and there are no other alternatives.

Now I will mention are those that jumped out at me from among the
constantly increasing building collection of the city that is those that
distinguish themselves in my opinion from bad to kitsch with their lack of
design.

I find the ordinary appearance existent in the crowded neighborhoods
frightening. On the other hand, the common majority that creates a stick-on
identity language that seems to be an anonymous language existent in
individual designs that lack formation or architectural talent but is in
reality created mainly through neighborhood intimidation, and the pressure
of local administrations. It has come to attention that this approach plays
a great role within the majority that makes up the countenance of the city.
This approach similarly interprets the connection to history simply
through the decoration format, reducing it to mere texture. For a period
those in municipal power tried to use this approach as an ideological flag
(Aydın, Bayraktar, Tekkaya, 2003: 56-59).
Another manifestation of the neighborhood pressure can be perceived in
action in a new and current situation located on the Aydinlikevler axis, en
route to the Esenboga Airport of Ankara. Here, the said uniform of
decoration is placed only on the front facades of the buildings facing the
road, furthering even more its properties of uniformity, bestowing a
'contemporary' appearance to the buildings. This is an approach that
perceives architectural products (works) and covering materials as
equivalent. This development causes the perception of architecture as a
décor, clothing or a two dimensional object to come further to the fore.
Another frightening aspect of this recent development is the blatant
neglect visible in the details and finishes.
In addition to all these, there are those building that cannot be
classified into any category. The result of a lack of formation, these
building strive to stand out through a mentality that argues anything is
acceptable to the limits of kitsch: Tuzlu Çayır Mosque, Rock House, Castle
of Estergon, Keçiören Clock Tower, Waterfalls, mayors who perceive the
city as their own dwelling to decorate, the city aquariums!, public
barbeque areas. These examples encompass approaches that do not discuss any
aspect of universality, culture, place, or region, and include no
intellectual accumulation whatsoever.


I would like to add a few short words as a conclusion,
As indicated the one situation not represented within all these
photographs, what modernity refers to as disengagement, the ability to act
independent from existent place and architectural understandings, that is
the avant-garde, encompassing the doing what has never been done before,
exploration, leading the ambience, the very thing that has ignited the
evolution of modern architecture is missing here. Even in the most bold,
and out-standing buildings, one can perceive that the existent
architectural ambience prefers to follow the known and discussed, that is
the familiar, the established, that which is through practice perfect and
avoid falling contrary to it.
The connection to history (the past) and the local/regional, covers a great
variety of approaches. While some of the examples simply try to sustain
cultural values through an abstract association, some reference history
through the usage of form and materials. Others establish this connection
through quotation. Still one other group tries to rewrite a non existent
history for Ankara; it is possible to state that there has been a rise in
the number of building subscribing to this approach. While others want to
clearly reflect a nostalgia for the past, emphasizing that the past was
better than the present.
As one can see, contemporary and universal examples with their formal
expressions, and formal languages that could be identified as the extension
and the following of architectural approaches in the avant-garde, new
category in the world, are sufficiently represented here.

The contemporary and universal examples presented here could be located
anywhere in the world and be counted among qualitative architectural
products (Tanyeli, 2004: 17-22). However it is unclear whether these
examples actually contribute anything to world architecture. These examples
are actually the manifestation of their qualitative contemporary
antecedents, in this geography. Still they are of great value in this
sense; in an environment where the city architecture is as common and non-
qualitative as it is, these examples gain value and contribute to the
environment they exist in. Thus even though their contribution to world
architecture may be minimal at best, their contribution to Turkish
architecture is great. The very existence of these buildings allows us to
nurture hope concerning the future. We all know that architecture is an
area of activity that is formed through the contribution of many
components. When the actors of architecture are taken into consideration,
the architect, the employer and the user prove themselves to be
indispensable. It is without doubt that for there to be an architecture
that questions the existent, the architect and his formation are principal,
however a similar formation is necessary for the other actors as well. The
employer too has to display a profile as courageous and questioning as that
of the architect. In this sense, I believe that Ankara needs qualitative
employers and users as much as it needs qualitative architects.

REFERENCES
Architectural Annuals of 2000, 2004 Koleksiyon, Books, 20
Aydin O., Bayraktar N., Tekkaya E. (2003), "Cumhuriyet Baskentinde Aykiri
Bir Ilce: Kecioren", Mimarlik 309, Ocak – Subat, pp. 56- 59

Balamir A. (2003), "Mimarlik ve Kimlik Temrinleri – II: Turkiye'de Modern
Yapi Kulturunun Bir Profili" Mimarlik, 314, Kasim-Aralik, p. 18

Bozdogan S. (1998), "Turk Mimari Kulturunde Modernizm: Genel Bir Bakis", in
S. Bozdogan, R. Kasaba, (ed), Turkiye'de Modernlesme ve Ulusal Kimlik.
Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yayinlari, p. 119

Harvey D. (2002), Spaces of Hope, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh,

Cengizkan M. (ed) (2008), National Architecture Exhibition and Awards, XI,
Buildings Projects Ideas (Catalogue), Ankara: Mimarlar Odasi Yayinlari.
Tanyeli U. (1998), "1950'lerden bu yana Mimari Paradigmalarin Degisimi ve
"Reel" Mimarlık", in Y. Sey (ed), 75 Yılda Degişen Kent ve Mimarlik,
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari, p. 247
Tanyeli U. (2004) "Guncel Türkiye Mimarligi: Katilim ile Elestirel
Konumlanma Arasinda", in M. Kazmaoglu, (ed), Mimarlik Yilligi 2. Istanbul:
Koleksiyon Yayinlari, pp. 17- 22.
Vanli S. (2006) Mimariden Konusmak, 20.Yüzyil Turk Mimarligi, Ankara: Sevki
Vanli Mimarlık Vakfi Yayınları, 1, 2, 3.
,. Yüzyıl Türk Mimarlığı, Ankara Rehberi TSM, National Architectural
Competitions, published in Mimarlık, Arrademento Mimarlık, Yapı, XX1,
Tasarım Jurnals, were the sources to render the examples.


Sassen S. (2000), "The Global City: The Denationalizing of Time and Space"
in J. Ockman (ed). The Pragmatist Imagination, New York Princeton:
Architectural Press. , p. 260.


Vale J. (1992), Architecture, Power and National Identity, Yale University
USA,


-----------------------
[1] Ernst Egli, Clemens Holzmeister, Herman Jansen, Bruno Taut, Martin
Elsasser, Paul Bonatz are only few names to mention some of them were also
influential in architectural education.
[2] For this period's architecture there are many valuable researchs
Aslanolu 0. 2001, Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimar Aslanoğlu İ.
2001, Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı 1923 – 1938, Ankara: ODTU; İlhan
Tekeli "Türkiye'de Mimarlığın Gelişiminin Toplumsal Bağlamı", Y. Yavuz, S.
Özkan, "Ulusal Bir İfade Bulmak: Birinci Ulusal Uslup", A. Batur, "Modern
Olmak: Bir Cumhuriyet Mimarlığı Arayışı", Ü. Alsaç, İkinci Ulusal Mimarlık
Dönemi Modern Türk Mimarlığı 1900 1980, ed. Renate Holod, Ahmet Evin, Suha
Özkan, 2007,Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası; Tankut G., Bir Başkentin İmarı,
Ankara ODTU, 1990, Nicolai B. 1998,Moderne und Exil,Berlin: Verlag Für
Bauwesen. Bozdoğan S., "Türk Mimari Kültüründe Modernizm: Genel Bir Bakış",
Türkiye'de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik. Ed. S. Bozdoğan, R. Kasaba,
İstanbul, 1998, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları; Sey Y (ed)., 1998, 75 Yılda
Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı; Bozdoğan S., 2001,
Modernizm and Nation Building, Seattle:The University of Washington Press,
Dogramaci B., 2008, Kulturtransfer und Nationale Identitaet, Berlin: Gebr.
Man Verlag; Cengizkan A., 2002, Modernin Saati, Ankara: Mimarlar Derneği;
Are some of them.

[3] Uğur Tanyeli refers to this tendency as 'regionalism'. Tanyeli U.,
"1950'lerden bu yana Mimari Paradigmeların Değişimi ve "Reel" Mimarlık", 75
Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, ed. Yıldız Sey, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yayınları, p. 247

[4] The publications and designs of Aldo Rossi and Oswald Mathias Ungers
have influenced the architectural agenda in Turkey both in architectural
discourse and practice in this matter
[5] The publications and architecture of Venturi, Scott Brown and Izenour
and others as well have also great impact on Turkish architecture during
said period.
[6] For this Sassken gives the example of immigrant workers operating in
contexts at the same time local and global.
[7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universal
[8]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universal
[9] National Architecture Award Catalouges and web pages, Architectural
Annuals of 2000, 2004 Koleksiyon, Books, 20. Yüzyıl Türk Mimarlığı, Ankara
Rehberi TSM, Şevki Vanlı, Mimariden Konuşmak, 20.Yüzyıl Türk Mimarlığı,
Şevki Vanlı Mimarlık Vakfı Yayınları, 2006, Ankara 1, 2, 3, National
Architectural Competitions, published in Mimarlık, Arrademento Mimarlık,
Yapı, XX1, Tasarım Jurnals, were the sources to render the examples.

[10] Gecekondu is an illegal residential building, built "by night" on a
state property, built illegally by the migrated population, located mostly
on the peripheries of the cities.

[11] Cengizkan A, "Bir Tasarım Deneyi: TOKİ Eryaman", XXI, September –
October 2000, 4, pp.136 - 143