ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • 99-114 Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in

Berna YAYLALI1, Ela CIL2 1 [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey 2 [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey

Received: September 2019 • Final Acceptance: August 2020

Abstract Universities have crucial importance in producing and transmitting knowledge, and formulating an effective and critical public sphere that meets the public with the university population. Their spatial characteristics of universities also refer to an important position within the urban fabric: with dense students’ and academi- cians’ population, they occupy a considerable amount of spaces in cities. Their spa- tial formations change over time as new buildings are added and student numbers increased. In that respect, this article seeks to explore how the spatial configurations of uni- versity campuses have evolved over time in Turkey. In order to explore the changes in spatial layout of university campuses, especially the organization of public spaces and their relations with the campus buildings, we have narrowed our focus through a chronological reading. Two methods of collecting data are used: First, we reviewed design articles about university campuses in architectural periodicals and online architecture databases. Second, the Five Year Development Plans of Turkish State Planning Organization (DPT 5 Yıllık Planları), have been examined to follow the governmental considerations. In addition, we made interviews with some of the ar- chitects who took part in the campus planning process of the cases that are select- ed for this article. In conclusion, analysis of the spatial configuration of campuses in Turkey reveals some unexpected insights about particular design approaches of universities. The analysis of specific campuses in chronological order shows that it is possible to trace specific campus design tendencies that are peculiar to specific periods.

Keywords doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2020.03789 doi: Campus design, Competitions, Youth, Public space, Turkey. 100

1. Introduction usually on the outskirts of cities. This Universities play complex roles in reflected the changing understanding defining the public realm: on the one of the ideal educational institution as hand, in their traditional role they pro- an inward-focused learning communi- vide specific environments for teaching, ty with a distinct spatial organization learning and research, while on the oth- that in time would come to be referred er hand housing a variety of spaces and to as a campus. The word “campus” first cultural and social facilities for students, started to be linked to universities in the academicians, staff and the greater ur- 18th century, with its origins attributed ban populations (Gumprecht, 2007). first to Princeton’s University campus, The dominance of young people in their the main space of which was a sort of populations cultivates a dynamic public village green (Turner, 47). This kind of environment in which fun and educa- spatial organization was also seen in the tion intersect on the same ground as University of Virginia, built in 1817 by where the public realm is produced and Thomas Jefferson, where the idea was shared. Furthermore, the spatial charac- to create an academic village in which teristics of universities differ from other students and academicians could study districts in the city. Universities occupy and concentrate, far from the distrac- a considerable amount of space in cit- tions of city life (Turner, 12). The cam- ies, hosting green areas with less noise pus layout was simple, featuring a wide, and pollution, as well as slow traffic tree-lined central space surrounded by (Bender, 1998; Gumprecht, 1993). Their the professors’ rooms and classrooms. spatial formations change over time as The third model, which emerged after new buildings are added and as student World War II, was the mega-structure, numbers increase, or they may spread designed either as single large buildings, to different spaces inside the city, ex- or as a group of interconnected build- pand beyond the original site be added ings integrating the different functions to with new campuses. In this respect, within a continuous structure (Davis the spatial organization of universities and Davis 1990, 43). Many of the uni- requires a chronological and critical versities established in the late 1960s, reading in urban design studies. such as the Universities of Essex, Scar- In the development of universities borough, Simon Fraser (Figure 7) and and their physical imprints, only three East Anglia, can be considered early ex- countries matter: the United Kingdom, amples of mega structures. Germany and the United States (Muthe- The university campus model is a sius 2000, 12). The number of studies relatively recent addition to the educa- considering the rest of the world, on tional milieu when compared to other the other hand, is rather limited. Start- countries, and surprisingly, its history ing in the 12th century these countries in Turkey has received little attention spearheaded major changes in the de- from an architectural history perspec- velopment of university profiles, be- tive. Although there have been several coming role models for the rest of the studies focusing on the institutional world. In the history of campus design, changes witnessed in higher education universities have been categorized into (Tekeli, 2010, Dölen, 2010, Hatiboglu, three types: city campuses, the Ameri- 1998), there have been very few ad- can campus model and mega structures dressing the physical and spatial de- (Turner, 1987; Davis and Davis 1990; velopment of campuses (Kortan, 1981; Hashimhony and Haina, 2006). The Türeyen, 2003). As such, this article world’s first universities, established in explores the spatial principles behind Bologna and Paris in the 12th century, campuses. Rather than presenting an were founded and firmly embedded in analysis of the architectural styles of the urban context. They were city uni- universities, the intention here is to take versities that were dispersed organi- a narrower focus by examining the de- cally in different locations (Brockliss, fining moments in different periods to 2000, 165). However, from the 19th explore the changes in spatial layout of century onwards, universities in the university campuses. Previous studies United States started to be established (Hashimhony and Haina, 2006; Kru- in green and natural surroundings, shwitz, 2010; Larkham, 2000) discuss-

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 101 ing the spatial models of campuses in In this article we focus on specif- relation to some basic parameters are ic state universities for which archival important in evaluating campuses as data is available, with emphasis on the distinct urban forms, as Larkham states. analysis of campus designs that result- Similar to Larkham, Kruschwitz defines ed from competitive tenders. To clarify three different forms describing the re- the various approaches to campus plan- lationship between campuses and cities, ning, we review planning and design being 1.) integrated urban settings 2.) articles relating to university campuses affiliated urban settings and 3.) self-suf- published in architectural periodicals ficient settings (Kruschwitz, 2010, 3-4), and online architectural databases, in- and then went on to define the spatial cluding Mimarlık, Arkitekt and Arrade- compositions of built and un-built en- mento, as significant resources in this vironments as 1) compact; 2) spacious; respect, reflecting on the dynamics of and 3) laminar the particular eras of campus planning. In the present study, we make use of In addition, the 5-Year Development some spatial parameters in an evalu- Plans of the Turkish State Planning Or- ation of campus models and compare ganization (DPT 5 Yıllık Planları), and them with each other through a mor- the Report for Strategic Directions for phological analysis. The design ap- Higher Education in 2007 are examined proach of each campus will be evaluated to identify the governmental decisions according to: that influenced the spatial planning 1. The spatial compositions of the practices of universities. The identified built and un-built environment campuses are examined in chronolog- 2. The functional zones ical order according to their dates of 3. The formal character of the gather- establishment, and an analysis is made ing spaces and their locations of the planning principles applied at the 4. The circulation networks time of the first universities. Universities in Turkey are increasing in quantity. As of 2018, the total number 2. Historical overview of universities of public and foundation universities in Turkey was 206, of which 119 were public in- The “Darülfünun” was the first high- stitutions. Considering the relationship er education institution in the Ottoman between universities and cities, Turkey Empire. Dating back to the 1850s, the has examples of all three campus mod- Darülfünun was planned as a state-spon- els, although self-sufficient campus- sored college where students both lived es have gradually come to dominate in and studied, and was housed in a gi- over the years. Universities, both new gantic building in the center of İstanbul and old, prefer to move to public lands (İhsanoğlu, 1993, 561). The advent of outside the city due to the lack of, or modern universities in Turkey coincid- high price of land inside the city (Erk- ed with the proclamation of Republic in man, 1990). Today, 59 of the 119 state 1923 (Gürüz, 2001). In parallel to the universities in Turkey are considered rise in national aspirations among the as single entities, and most of the new nation states, the creation of a young universities founded since 2000 have generation instilled with the ideologies been established on single campuses. of the new Republic became the main Uludağ University, the Izmir Institute purpose of higher education (Demir, of Technology (IYTE), Gaziosmanpaşa 2012, 91). The Higher Education Law University and Karamanoğlu Mehmet entered into force in 1933, defining Bey University are examples from dif- universities as places of research and ferent periods of universities designed teaching, with being from the outset as single campuses. the first university in modern Turkey to While , KTÜ and METU introduce the German research institu- were all originally designed as self-suf- tion model. ficient settings, over the years they have After World War II, Turkey witnessed become merged into the surrounding a rapid growth in population, and an districts, becoming affiliated campuses inevitable increase in literacy rates. Fol- models within walking distance of the lowing the arrival of the multi-party neighboring city districts. system, the Democratic Party came to

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 102 power and increased at Turkey’s con- cant problems in creating an appropri- tacts with the West. Aiming to better ate environment for learning, studying satisfy the need for highly qualified and living. Only Yüzüncü Yıl University technical personnel (Şimsek, p.1005), was founded from scratch, free of the the new government founded four new hindrance of preexisting faculties or in- universities: Ege University, Karadeniz stitutions. Technical University (KTU), Ataturk In 1992, a sudden increase was seen University and Middle East Technical in the number of universities, with 21 University (METU), where new fields public universities and two technology of higher education were offered, such institutions opening on a single day – as urban planning, architecture and ad- most in the west of Turkey. Unlike the ministrative sciences. universities of the 1980s, most of those The student movements of the 1970s that opened in the 1990s were founded became a major force for change in the in small or medium sized cities (Toprak, organizational and physical structures 2012, 12). Enhancing university-in- of Turkey’s universities. Student activ- dustry partnerships in professional re- ism increased in the form of occasional search, and providing incentives to the boycotts, sit-ins, conference attendance private sector (Sixth 5-Year Develop- and regular political discussions on uni- ment Plan, 1990) were defined as solu- versity campuses. Eventually, the 1971 tions contributing to the establishment military coup brought about a sudden of new universities. Furthermore, the end to political movements within uni- Ninth 5-Year Development Plan sug- versities, and the Council of Higher Ed- gested building techno parks inside or ucation (Birinci YÖK) became the main close to universities, which was present- coordinating body for the supervision ed as a way of developing the physical of and intervention in the administra- infrastructure of the universities. The tion of universities. “Spreading univer- opening of such technological institu- sities to the different regions” to redress tions was clear evidence to the State’s the established social and economic im- intention to boost industry-based re- balance emerged as a theme at the be- search. ginning of the 1970s, having first been Between 2006 and 2008, 41 new uni- highlighted in the Higher Education Re- versities were founded as part of the gov- search Report of the DPT in 1968 (Yük- ernment policy to establish a university seköğretim Araştırması Raporu). The in every city, and the pledge that “There proximity of universities to developing will be no city without a university” was areas in each region was an important reiterated in the 58th Government Plan criterion for the selection of locations,1 (2002). According to the policy, univer- and based on these considerations, the sities should play a significant role in the 10 new universities that were founded at economic development of cities, and so the time were all in smaller cities. some universities became scientific and The liberal policies in the 1980s fo- technological institutions.3 Howev- cused particularly on the economy, er, those founded in the smaller cities transportation and higher education, came to experience serious problems in with the aim being to change the face the creation of an appropriate physical of the country (Şimsek, 966). The re-es- environment, and it became a struggle tablishment of the Council of Higher to complete the physical infrastructure Education was an important outcome and faculty programs of most new uni- of the new government’s activities, al- versities. Furthermore, the built envi- though the most important change was ronment did not meet the social needs the unification of the previously-estab- of the campus community. From 2010 lished separate academies and vocation- to the present day, many universities al schools within the faculties of new have been founded in such economi- universities.2 The Fourth 5-Year Devel- cally and culturally developed cities as opment Plan (19791983) set out a policy Istanbul, Ankara, Kayseri and Konya designed to increase academic collabo- (Sargın, 2007). Opening new univer- ration and to reduce the differences in sities in cities with old and well-estab- status of different institutions, as many lished universities has been linked to universities were experiencing signifi- the policies of the current government

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 103

to promote “the construction of tech- the spatial organization of universities no-cities” promoted in the 9th Higher changed in Turkey after World War II, Education Redevelopment Plan and the similar to the changes seen around the Law on Technology Development (Te- world. In the 1950s, universities started knoloji Geliştirme Yasası - 2001). to cover large expanses of land with the Reviewing the cases, it is possible to creation of self-contained campuses, assume that changes in the history of with METU, Ege University and KTU higher education in Turkey were most- in the 1950s being the first campus uni- ly oriented by state policies. These pol- versities designed according to formal icies furthermore, were developed in master plans. These institutions priori- response to the occurrences at national tized the movement of pedestrians, with level. The public universities still lack campuses designed as self-sufficient set- their own strategic governance since tings, isolated from the city, where all they are financially supervised by the the main functions needed by students government. It is surprising however, to and academicians in everyday life were realize that guidelines that would lead located in a single and introverted loca- physical and environmental improve- tion. ment in the universities are neither All of these three campus designs, present in the plans. Once developed, among others, resulted from architec- such guidelines would open a way for tural design competitions. Altuğ and reforms which can be adapted to a va- Behruz Çinici’s design won first prize riety of situations at several campuses. in the METU campus planning compe- tition in 1959, while Ataturk University 2.1. Early campuses between was created on the basis of a winning 1950 and 1970s design (1956) by Enver Tokay, Hayati The first modern universities (İstan- Tabanlıoğlu, Ayhan Tayman and Beh- bul University, ITU and Ankara Uni- ruz Çinici. Perran Doğancı and her team versity) lacked campuses in their ini- won the first prize in the Ege University tial forms, having been founded in old campus planning competition (1959), buildings in the city centers, as was the and Mustafa Polatoğlu and Nihat Güner case in several European city univer- won the KTU campus design competi- sities. However, the understanding of tion (1962). Most campuses were built based on the main spatial designs of the winning projects. These architectural and planning competitions were public- ly announced, and the winning projects and jury reports were extensively pub- licized in architectural journals such as Mimarlık and Arkitekt. All of the above were conceived fol- lowing the inward focused and self-suf- ficient settings seen in the campus mod- els of the United States and Western European, with facilities gathered in a single location to create a space devoted not only to learning, but also to living and recreation. In Turkey, the METU campus is the most obvious example of this campus model from this period. The campus is located in the south-west of the city along the Eskişehir Road, five kilometers from the new parliament building. Built on formerly barren land, the site was cleared for landscaping and the construction of buildings (Sargın and Savaş, 2013, 97). In reference to the Kruschwitz definition, the academic Figure 1. Initial site plan of the METU campus; the alley zone was compactly arranged around is marked by grey (Source: Mimarlık Journal, vol 43). Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 104 a central alley, and the whole configu- ration as arranged spaciously. The alley (pedestrian road) between the faculties was isolated from the vehicular access as a linear, pedestrian-friendly environ- ment. All facilities, including the dorms and faculties, were within a 20-minute walk, and the alley was supported by a variety of landscape elements, such as small pools, lawns, and spaces for sit- ting and socializing. Open spaces of different sizes were well-defined, mostly around the academic buildings, serv- Figure 2. Winning project for Atatürk University campus by ing as focal points for social and leisure Tabanlıoğlu Tayman and Çinici. activities (Figure 1). The main compo- nents of the campus were located within mirroring that of METU, a pedestrian three main zones, for the faculties, resi- alley, free of traffic, was suggested as a dences and social amenities. The social linking spine, giving access to the sur- amenities included a shopping center, rounding buildings (Çinici and Çinici, cinema and small market (Çinici and 19). The project featured a monumen- Çinici, 1965). The jury report stated tal alley that was described as a key that the two most notable aspects of element in the production of a “the the project were the utilization of the university aura”. The intention was for site in accordance with main conceptu- social interactions in the community al principles of the university commit- to be promoted as a result of informal tee, and the production of architectural interactions in the alley, while three unity (Arkitekt, 1965, V. 3). different zones were defined, being The other three campuses were academic, residential and social, while based on similar design principles, the main traffic road was structured including the creation of open spaces to intensify the zoning of different close to the faculties, as the most ob- functions. The campus has a spacious vious spatial characteristic of the win- composition, with buildings located ning projects of later campuses in the around the edge of the area and along 1950s. For example, for the Ataturk a ring-road system. The physical re- University campus design (Figure 2), lationship between the Ataturk Uni-

Figure 3. Winning project for Ege University campus by Doğancı (Source: Arkitekt 3, 1959).

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 105

versity campus and the city, however, buildings reflected the social charac- was interpreted differently to the oth- ter of the design, prioritizing student er three campuses, being located on interaction and communication in a flat area within walking distance of public spaces (Kayın and Özkaban, the city center. The winning design 2013, 241). showed the central vehicular traffic The campus of KTU has laminar route extending to the historic city composition, similar to that of the center, providing a “promenade for Ege campus. The KTU campus sits the city’s residents.” Unlike the other on two hillsides, with student dormi- campuses, the intention was for Atat- tories arranged on one and the aca- urk University to be integrated into demic facilities on the other. Like the the urban setting. other three campuses, walking dis- The Ege University campus is locat- tances have been maintained, and the ed just outside the Bornova district of main circulation is based on a linear İzmir, and was designed as two sepa- vehicular road that extends to main rate zones, with the hospital and med- gate and connects to the sports hall ical faculty buildings in the west part and faculties (Figure 4). Open terrac- isolated from the academic facilities es built around the academic build- and library building in the east part. ings are the main gathering points, The campus has a laminar arrange- as “public spaces that students can ment, with buildings and open spac- get around and hang out” (Mimarlık, es located around a grid road system, 1965, 31-32). Unlike the alley in the intensified with secondary roads. The METU campus, the terraces in KTU major educational precincts are ar- are intended to be visible and accessi- ranged as enclaves, and are connected ble from the vehicular access road and to each other by long pedestrian ac- the main gate. cess routes and vehicular roads. Open The current layouts of these four spaces in the form of quadrangles and campuses (Figure 5) reveal that the plazas were established close to the main spatial principles of the ini- faculty buildings (Arkitekt, 1959, V.3, tial plans, including the main zones, 109). As stated in the jury report, the vehicular access roads and singular plazas were kept to a human scale and public spaces around the academic the faculty buildings were directly units have been maintained as origi- connected to other important spac- nally planned, other than for the new es, such as the dining area and library additions. The educational buildings, (Figure 3). The inner courts of faculty residences and techno-cities in four

Figure 4. Winning project for Karadeniz Teknik University campus by Güner and Polatoğlu (Source Mimarlık 1, 1971).

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 106

Figure 5. The current layouts of these four campuses after new buildings added. These images are coloured by the author. campuses face inward, and while the versity was designed as mono-structure academic units are fragmented and grid, in which all buildings were under clustered around open spaces, the one roof. Such a spatial layout resembles dormitories generally appear to be in- more those of post-war university cam- dependent buildings. The techno-city puses, such as Simon Fraser University in METU and the dormitory units in in Canada. The main principle was pro- KTU have been located far from the duction of inner courtyards between main campus, and are somewhat isolat- different facilities to promote the inter- ed. Similar to the METU techno city, the actions between them. hospital units in the southern part of the The Diyarbakır University campus Ataturk University campus are isolated (Figure 6) is located 3 kilometers from from the main campus, and are acces- central Diyarbakır on the Dicle Plain, sible via a second campus entrance. The and was planned as self-sufficient set- other key change in the current design ting. According to Kruschwitz’s defini- of these campuses is the dormitory ac- cess. In all of the universities other than METU, the dormitories are surrounded by fences with security points. In the 1970s, the architectural com- petitions for the design of university campuses influenced the organization of the new campuses of already exist- ing universities. The Ayazağa campus of ITU, the campus of Diyarbakır Ziya Gökalp University and Bursa Universi- ty campus were all designed as grids in which different facilities were connect- ed under one structure. Taking a similar Figure 6. Project for Diyarbakır Ziya Gökalp approach to the new ITU campus, the campus by Kemal Ahmet Aru; image is campus of Diyarbakır Ziya Gökalp Uni- coloured by the author (Source: Arkitekt, 342). ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 107

tion, the university features four zones reduces vehicle trips between essential (educational, administrative, residen- functions, as one of the most practical tial and hospital), clustered in compact aspects of the campus design, allow- form. The gathering spaces take the ing students to move quickly between form of inner courtyards, directly con- buildings in breaks between lectures. nected under one huge roof to promote connections across the university. The 2.2. Campuses in the 1980s compact form encourages walking and During the 1980s, an extensive re- organization of higher education took place, with certain provisions resulting in changes to the physical and academ- ic organization of the nation’s univer- sities. Surprisingly, very little has been published about the design of campus- es in the 1980s (Bilgin, 2006; Erkovan, 2013), with one of the few exceptions being a study of Gaziantep Universi- ty (Figure7), which was designed by a team of Enis Kortan and founded in 1982. The campus, which lies 5 kilometers outside Gaziantep city center, was de- signed in a compact form. All buildings are located within a 1 km radius, with the vehicular access roads mark the edge of the area, with the aim being to ease pedestrian circulation. The cam- pus is divided into three zones (Fig- ure 9): the academic zone, the central zone and the residence zone (Bilgin, 2006, 103). The academic buildings are Figure 7. Proposal of Enis Kortan for the master plan of grouped around the central facilities, ; the central main axis and the central with sizes in proportion to the human plaza is marked by grey (Source: Kortan, 1981). scale at street level. The University’s central buildings are aligned with the main pedestrian axis and divide the campus into two parts. In contrast to the layouts of previous campuses, the main gathering area is a plaza in a cen- tral location, designed to host such cer- emonial events as semester openings and graduation marches. This differs from the design approaches of the pre- vious period that prioritized the design of open spaces at different scales to encourage student interaction close to the academic facilities. Here, the cen- tralized ceremonial square, surround- ed entirely by administrative buildings, evokes a sense of control and authority in students. It can be seen from the current cam- pus plan of Gaziantep University that the organization of the architectural program suggested previously by Enis Kortan materialized, to a certain extent (Figure 8). The social and administra- Figure 8. Current plan of Gaziantep University (Source: tive functions are arranged in a central Gökcek, 2009). Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 108 area surrounded by the academic facil- ities; however, the main axis that con- cludes with a social center, which was designed with the purpose of stimulat- ing social interaction, ended up being a weak and insignificant road. In short, the buildings are separated by a long axis, while the vast open areas in the design serve no social purpose at all. In the 1990s, most of the new univer- sities were constructed far away from the city centers. , Mustafa Kemal University, Niğde Uni- versity and IYTE were built on large, empty tracts of land outside the urban fabric. An analysis of the campus plans from the 1990s reveals an important factor in their spatial organization: in the 1980s it was common to construct a central square that was surrounded with administrative functions, and this would influence the campus model to such an extent that in 1992, most cam- puses built from scratch mimicked this Figure 9. The project for Mersin Çiftlikköy campus. The image is derived from archive centralized structure.⁴ While some de- and modified by the author. signs featured a centralized ceremonial plaza for the hosting of formal gath- has maintained Şahinbaş’s main spatial erings, others were designed with ad- principles and has adopted a holistic ministrative functions at the core of the approach for the later additions. For campus. In such spatial arrangements, example, in the original plan, Şahinbaş the academic units and residences are proposed a connection between the pushed out to the campus periphery. dormitory units and main axis through Mersin University’s main campus in social units and a pool that would be Çiftlikköy was designed in accordance constructed later. with a centralized structure concept.⁵ The priorities of the University admin- 2.3. Campuses in the 2000s istrators for the planning of the cam- Around the world, identifying an pus were typical, calling for harmony overarching approach in campus plan- with the topography, separation of pe- ning after the turn of the millennium destrian roads from vehicular access is challenging. The most prominent roads, the arrangement of buildings in trend in campus design has been the physical proximity to each other, and construction of landmark individu- pedestrian walkways forming the spine al buildings that transform campuses of the campus. In the compact campus into architectural showpieces (Coulson design, the faculties are linked by a cur- et al., 2010, Deplazes, 2007). The cam- vilinear spine, while the administrative puses of such institutions as Prince- buildings are concentrated at a central ton, Yale, the University of Cincinnati, location (Figure 9). Functions have MIT and the University of Chicago all been defined in three zones: academ- sought out famous architects for the ic, social/administrative and residen- construction of landmark buildings. tial. Geometrically located at the very The Simmon Hall dormitory of Steven heart of the campus is a square that Holl at MIT, and the Educaatorium by was intended to serve as a gathering Rem Koolhaas at Utrecht University space, featuring a variety of social fa- stand as examples of such projects in- cilities such as a cinema and a market, tending to support the identification although it functions more as ceremo- of the university as a brand institution. nial space for formal gatherings, with With a vision in which campuses are the rectorate building. The university viewed as outdoor museums of archi-

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 109 tecture, priority has been given to the spaces that bring the public together symbolic meaning of buildings, while with the university population. It was campus has transformed into a mere considered as public spaces of the cities background that holds all the units to- and some social and cultural activities gether. were planned in the university campus The current approach to campus programs. planning in Turkey has witnessed For example, Abdullah Gül Univer- a major departure from that of the sity was planned as two city campuses 2000s. The production of campuses as that would be integrated with public integrated urban settlements to allow environments for the use of not only integration with the social and phys- the students, but also the city residents. ical fabric of city has become an im- Founded in 2010, the young universi- portant aspect of campus design. The ty is spread across two campuses – the Adana Science and Technology Uni- Sümer Campus and the Mimar Sinan versity (2011 - Adana Bilim ve Tekno- Campus – of which the former is set- loji Üniversitesi) was planned as a city tled on the former site of the Sümer university. Despite these trends, there Textile Factory Complex that was built is still a tendency among some uni- in 1933.⁶ The factory played a key role versities to construct their campuses in the development of Kayseri and the as a single entity far from the center. Turkish national economy, and was For example, Muş Alpaslan University, built as an industrial setting that fea- , , tured all necessary components for the Yıldırım Beyazıt University (Ankara) workers’ lives. When planning the cam- and Türk-Alman University (İstan- pus, the old buildings and open spaces bul) all promote the concept of seclu- were retained, preserving the original sion and isolation from the city. “From spatial principles, with only the new the university in the city to a campus educational functions redefined. The university” has emerged as a popular academic and administrative buildings slogan in the introductory pages of are clustered in compact form around university promotional material. Some a central courtyard, while the residenc- older universities have moved away es of the workers in the original plan from the inner city due to the inade- were defined as student dormitories in quacies of the existing buildings and a separate area. the growing student populations. For The Mimar Sinan Campus plan was example, , one of designed by Alişan Çırakoğlu (Figure Turkey’s most successful higher edu- 10). Located at the periphery of the city cation institutions, planned to sell its the intention was to promote interac- land in the city of Istanbul and move tion between the university population into a new more peripheral unified site and the city residents. The campus located outside the city. serves as “a bridge that connects two Campus planning and design have edges: nature and the city; science and gained importance in this period, life; technology and art” (Interview with a group of architects committing notes, 2014). The campus was original- themselves to the development of cam- ly conceived as being open to public pus plans. Many plans and discussions and easily accessible. In addition to a related to such projects can be found in planned public transportation network the Arkitera and Arkiv databases. between the city and the campus, a va- The campuses of Abdullah Gül Uni- riety of recreational, cultural and social versity in Kayseri and Adana Science facilities help create a sense of open- and Technology University in Ad- ness to the outside world. With its two ana were built following architectural campuses, the university was intended competitions, having been designed to serve as a public space for the city. as integrated city campuses, and these The Mimar Sinan Campus has lam- examples allow an understanding of inar composition in an affiliated urban how universities explore the idea of setting, with a layout formed through publicness in their spatial organiza- the juxtaposition of two zones. The first tion. In contrast to the previous peri- is the bridge that contains the cultural ods, campuses are today idealized as and social facilities – the library, science

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 110 center, rectorate, museum, convention center, main cafeteria and a mosque – while the second is a Z-shaped alley that connects to the academic units. The bridge, elevated over an artificial water source, is an open space designed for pedestrian circulation, while vehicular circulation is pushed out to the periph- ery of the campus to minimize interac- tions with the pedestrians. The campus is planned as an urban park, featuring extensive green areas where society and the campus community mingle. Anoth- er important aspect of the project is the design of multifunctional open spaces in the form of courtyards and quads, dispersed across different parts of the campus. When combined, these aspects both promote the social encounters and cultivate a campus life experience that is accompanied by nature. This reflects an architectural perception that idealizes the campus as a space of living, beyond the research and education. By the 2000s, the design of landmark buildings on campuses had emerged as an alternative to the creation of long- term campus development plans. Most of the universities favored a single icon- ic building, designed and construct- Figure 10. The proposal of Alişan Çırakoğlu for Mimar Sinan ed by a famous architect, examples of campus of Abdullah Gül University. which can be found in other parts of the world. These buildings are thought glass cladding to the façade. The build- to contribute to attracting new students ing, close to the city, has a distinct and and providing recognition, rather than remarkable appearance with its bright supporting the educational content. The massive form. library building of Uşak University, the main laboratory building of Namık Ke- 3. Conclusion mal University (Tekirdağ) and the hos- This article focuses on understand- pital emergency building of Ege Univer- ing of design and campus planning in sity are examples of this. Turkey with the purpose of exploration The library building of Uşak Univer- of spatial strategies of campuses that are sity (2006), designed by Ahmet Tercan, built in different periods. This paper was nominated for a 2014 National Ar- aims to evaluate the basic spatial prin- chitecture Award, and has been the sub- ciples of campus as a single entity and ject of various debates in the local press. explore if there are changes in spatial Although there is no information about layout of university campuses, the or- the spatial organization of the campus or ganization of built environment and its facilities on the university web page, their relations with the urban fabric the library building has generated head- through a chronological reading. In or- lines in the local press. Referring to its der to make a critical evaluation about library, the university introduces itself different campus models, this paper with the pre-eminent campus design. uses some morphological parameters The new Emergency Hospital building questioning 1.) spatial compositions of of Ege University may well be similarly the built and un-built environment 2.) evaluated. After the demolition of the functional zones 3. Formal character of old building, a new monumental struc- gathering spaces and their locations 4.) ture was created with black translucent circulation networks.

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 111

Analysis of the spatial configuration ic world where students and academi- of campuses in Turkey reveals some cians study far from the distractions of unexpected insights about particular city life. Only, Atatürk University cam- planning approaches of universities: pus is close enough to Erzurum to ac- This provided unexpected information cess the students’ needs in city. about campuses: the chronological During 1970s, there was a change in evaluation gave some insights about spatial formation of campuses. The uni- spatial considerations of specific eras. versity campuses that were designed in It is observable that campuses reflect this period had mono-functional and specific spatial understanding of their huge gridal forms. Ayazağa campus period. In that respect, we reviewed of ITU, campus of Diyarbakır Ziya the campus projects in reference to Gökalp University and Bursa Universi- three important periods in Turkey. For ty campus were designed according to example, campuses that were built be- such design approaches. All buildings tween 1950s and 1970s focus on design were joined under big structures to of public spaces to create social envi- promote interaction across the univer- ronments for university population. By sity. Yet, the design of open spaces near 1980s, it is possible to observe a change to academic facilities was important in in the spatial compositions of the this period as seen in the campuses of campuses. Most of the campuses were 1950s. Specific physical approach of evolved around the idea of centralized each period, that determines the rela- structure. In the 2000s, the change in tions between built environment and the campus planning is related with open spaces, is also mimicked by some the location of campuses in cities. With other campuses in the later period. the purpose of involvement with social However, we see that such kind of and physical fabric of city, universities spatial understanding change into new have prioritized becoming public spac- spatial configuration in 1980s. The es of the cities. Additionally, specific buildings in the campus were rather physical approach of each period, that arranged in a centralized order. The determines the relations between built governance of universities with a new environment and open spaces, is also central institution, HEI, reflected its mimicked by some other campuses in imprints on the spatial organization the same period. of universities. The idea of previous Universities built within the period period, prioritized allocation of public between 1950s and 1970s are import- spaces in different parts of the campus ant cases because they are first campus totally disappeared. Instead of well-de- universities and they have self-con- signed open spaces bonding the vari- tained campuses that all facilities lo- ous facilities in different parts of the cate in a single setting. The architects campus, locating one central monu- that design four campuses in this pe- mental square next to administrative riod give a special emphasis to the de- functions was the main design theme sign of public spaces. Public spaces in in this era. Gaziantep University and the form of alley, court yard or green Mersin University campuses are exam- areas, where students could socialize ples to this. Changes in the spatial or- and relax, are located near to academ- ganization of open spaces in relation to ic facilities. Some are green, inciting built environment have left campuses people to sit or lie down while others with a different proposal for the public are designed right next to classes with life inside the campus. And it is possi- a purpose to increase students’ chance ble to claim that favoring a centralized to socialize via spontaneous encoun- structure can be taken as a reflection of ters between classes. In addition, open changes in Turkish political system fol- spaces rather than buildings structured lowing the military coup of 1980. the spatial layout of the campuses. Es- During 2000s, universities that were pecially, METU and Ege University discussed in this paper gave special campuses are examples of campus de- emphasis to produce their campuses sign that prioritize student interaction. either as inner-city settlements or cam- Also, the campuses of 1950s are located puses in the peripheries of cities. The at outside of cities to create an academ- purpose was clear: to provide involve-

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 112 ment with social and physical fabric of tations both of the state and the uni- city. For example, Mimar Sinan campus versities. However, it is important to of Abdullah Gül University (Kayseri) consider how the change in the spatial and Adana Science and Technology organization in a campus setting influ- University (Adana) were designed as ences the development of public life. urban parks that connect the campus Understanding the outcomes of design community with the public. A variety tendencies of campus projects that are of recreational, cultural and social fa- peculiar to specific periods might help cilities are designed in purpose of pro- focusing on the production of lively viding access from outside world into student life in new campus projects. the university. Campus is designed not only for the campus community but Endnotes also for the city population. Entrance 1 The specific criteria for the selec- controls are relatively vague; buildings tion of sites are presented in the report: are rather planned to incite people to “being a focal point for service, student access easily. population, the adequate infrastruc- Despite the spatial varieties of differ- ture for the development of a campus ent campuses, it is possible to explore settlement and a supportive socio-cul- some distinct features of the campus tural environment” (Sargin, 2007). design in Turkey. The first is their dis- 2 Some higher education institu- tances from the urban fabric. Most tions were brought under the roof of of the campuses designed outside the nine new public universities. While the cities aim to create self-contained and Mimar Sinan, Marmara, Yıldız Techni- introverted environments. In other cal, Trakya and Akdeniz Universities words, the idea is to produce knowl- were reconstituted through mergers edge “in the midst of the nature for a of different schools and academies, maximum quietness and concentra- was converted from tion” (Christiaanse 2007, 46). Pictur- the Gazi Education Teacher Training esque sceneries that unite the build- Institute. Furthermore, many faculties ings along the green sites supported of Ege University became affiliated to such kind of withdrawal from distrac- Dokuz Eylül University. tions of city life and concentration for 3 The Bursa Technical University, studying. Such kind of isolation from Erzurum Technical University, Abdul- city life required self-contained set- lah Gül Üniversitesi, Adana Science tings with all necessary functions for and Technology University and Turk- everyday practices. Another common ish- German University were seen spe- feature of campus design is based on cifically as research institutions, where for the production of communities and the intention was to promote collabo- their public spaces. As the space for rations with technology-based organi- academic community, campus reflect- zations (Toprak, 2012). ed the embodiment of creating a total 4 During this period, 23 public uni- environment like a city. In that respect, versities were founded, although the creating a variety of public spaces in campus plans of some universities are the campus was important to build- unavailable even on the university web- ing an academic community, the early sites. An analysis of 11 campus maps campuses of 1950s are examples of this (Dokuz Eylul University – Tınaztepe understanding. campus, Abant İzzet Baysal Universi- As a consequence, it is difficult to ty, Adnan Menderes University, Afyon generalize these approaches as overar- Kocatepe University, Dumlupınar Uni- ching concepts of those eras. The needs versity, Gaziosmanpaşa University – and expectations to shape the campus Çiftlikkoy campus, İztech, Sütçü İmam design process are not one; they are University, – Umut- various and many. Deciding the cam- tepe campus and Niğde University) re- pus location and its proximity to the veals that they were designed around city, the relation between the campus the idea of a centralized structure. buildings and the organization of the 5 The campus was launched after a overall pattern are driven by a complex project competition in the 1990s. A interplay of interests, needs and expec- competition was held in which only

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil 113 three invitees took part in 1995; Turgut Erkman, U. (1990). Büyüme Cansever, Kaya Arıkoğlu and Erkut Şa- ve Gelişme Açısından Üniversite hinbaş. The main principles of the con- Kampüslerinde Planlama ve Tasarım ceptual project of Şahinbaş were ad- Sorunları. İstanbul: İTÜ Mimarlık opted for the current campus project. Fakültesi. 6 The master plan was designed by Erkovan, E. 2013. “Evrensel Tasarım Burak Asil İskender and Nilüfer Ba- İlkeleri Kapsamında Bir Kamusal Alan turoğlu Yöney. A new building with Olarak Akdeniz Üniversitesi administrative functions that was de- Kampüsünün İncelenmesi.” (Master’s signed by Emre Arolat won the Nation- thesis). Bahçeşehir University, İstan- al Architectural Award in 2016. bul. Giliberti, M. (2011). The Campus References in the Twentieth Century: The Urban Ankara’da Orta Doğu Teknik Campus in Chicago from 1890 to 1965. Üniversitesi (1965) Arkitekt 3(320) Urbani Izziv 22(2), 77–85. 108-114 Hashimhony, R. and ,J. Haina. Bilgin, A. (2006). Doğu Akden- (2006). Designing the University of iz Bölgesi ve Çevresinde Üniversite Future. Planning for Higher Education Kampüs Planlaması Üzerine Bir İnce- (3), 5–19. leme (master’s thesis). Cukurova Uni- Hatiboğlu, T. M. (1998). Türki- versity, Adana. ye Üniversite Tarihi. Ankara: Selvi Brockliss, L. (2000). Gown and Yayınevi. Town: The University and the City in Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Europe 1200-2000. Minerva 38, 147- (1965). Mimarlık (15), 31-32. 170. Kayın, E. and F. Özbakan. (2013). Christiaanse, K. (2007). “Campus to İzmir Kent Ansiklopedisi-Mimarlık V. 2. City: Urban Design for Universities”. In İzmir: İBB. Campus and the City: Urban Design for Kortan, E. (1981) Çağdaş Üniversi- Knowledge Society, Zurich: gta Verlag te Kampüsleri Tasarımı, METU Press, Coulson, J., Paul R., and Isabelle T. Ankara (2010). University Planning and Archi- Larkham, P. (2000). Institutions and tecture: The Search for Perfection. New Urban Form: the Example of Universi- York: Routledge. ties. Urban Morphology 4(2),63-77. Çinici, A. and B. Çinici. (1965) Or- Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi tadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Mimarlık (1967) , Mimarlık Journal 43, V.5 15(1) 18-22. Perry, D. and W, Wiewel. (2005). The Davis, M, and T. Davis. (1990) An University as Urban Developer: Case Urban Design Proposal for the Uni- Studies and Analysis. Cambridge, Mass versity of Miami Campus Master Plan. : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Competition Journal of Architectural Sargın, G. A. and A, Savaş. (2013). Education, 43(4) 8–15. A University is a Society: an Environ- Deplazes, A. (2007). The Campus mental History of the METU Campus. as Location and Strategy: Thumbnail The Journal of Architecture 18(1), 79- Sketches of Science City. Campus and 106. the City: Urban Design for Knowledge Sargın, S. (2007). Türkiye’de Üniver- Society 35-43, ed. by Kees Christiaanse. sitelerin Gelişim Süreci ve Bölgesel Zurich: gta Verlag. Dağılımı. SDÜ Sosyal Bilimler En- Diyarbakır Üniversitesi Kampüs stitüsü Dergisi 3(5), 133-150. Planlama Yarışmasında 1. Ödülü Ka- Şimşek, H. (2007). “Turkey,” In In- zananlar. (1971). Arkitekt 342, 67-77 ternational Handbook of Higher Edu- Dölen, E. (2010). Türkiye Üniver- cation, eds. by James Forest and Phil- site Tarihi: Özerk Üniversite Dönemi ip Altbach, 1003-1018. Dordrecht: 1946-1981. İstanbul : Bilgi Üniversitesi Springer. Yayınları Tekeli, İ. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı Ege Üniversitesi Şehircilik Proje İçinde Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimin ve Müsabakası Jüri Raporu Özeti. (1959). YÖK’ün Tarihi. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Arkitekt 3(256), 101-109. Yayınları.

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey 114

Toprak, M. (2012). Mekansal Plan- Türeyen, M. (2003). Yükseköğre- lama Politikalari ve Kentlerin So- tim Kurumları- Kampüsler. İstanbul: syo- Ekonomik Durumu Işığında Tasarım Yayın Grubu. Kentleşme Süreci. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi 21(2),1-23. Turner, P. V. (1987). Campus: An American Planning Tradition. Cam- bridge, Massachusetts and London: MIT Press,

ITU A|Z • Vol 18 No 1 • March 2021 • B. Yaylalı, E. Cil