Architectural Production in State Offices
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTION IN STATE OFFICES: AN INQUIRY INTO THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE IN EARLY REPUBLICAN TURKEY Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof . ir. K.Ch.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 15 juni 2010 om 10.00 uur door Bilge İMAMOĞLU Master of Arts (Middle East Technical University, Turkije) geboren te Edirne, Turkije Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. dr. F. Bollerey Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector Magnificus, voorzitter Prof. dr. F. Bollerey, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof. D. Arnold, University of Southampton, UK Prof. dr. A.D. Graafland, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. dr. B. Nicolai, Universitat Bern, Zwitserland Prof. ir. S.U. Barbieri, Technische Universiteit Delft Ass. prof. dr. E.A. Ergut, Middle East Technical University, Turkije Ass. prof. dr. G.A. Sargın, Middle East Technical University, Turkije CIP gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek Den Haag Publikatieburo Bouwkunde ISBN 978 90 5269 382 8 2 CONTENTS II.2.2. Foreign Architects ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS___________________ 5 Working in Turkey_____________ 41 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION_______________ 7 II.2.3. The Turkish I.1. Description of the Aim and Scope of the Study, Architectural Communit_________ 52 Problem Definition and the Hypothesis; Method II.2.3.1. On Builders and Structure________________________ 7 and Engineers___________ 56 I.1.1. Aim____________________ 7 II.2.3.2.On Foreign I.1.2. Scope___________________ 9 Architects______________ 58 I.1.3. Problem Definition II.2.3.3.On Public and the Hypothesis_____________ 11 Service_________________ 61 I.1.4. Method and Structure______ 12 II.2.3.4.In Practice________ 65 I.2. Literature Review_________________ 14 CHAPTER III: BUREAUCRACY, PUBLIC SERVICE IN I.2.1. Literature Review on THE PRODUCTION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Architectural History of AND THE MINISTRY OF Early Republican Turkey ________ 14 PUBLIC WORKS____________________________ 70 I.2.2. Literature Review III.1. The Bureaucratic Tradition__________ 70 on Professionalization, III.2. Public Services and Technical Western Cases_________________ 18 Expertise in CivilService________________ 76 I.2.3. Literature Review III.2.1.Ottoman Reforms__________ 76 On Professionalization, III.2.2. Early Republican Period____ 79 Turkish Cases_________________ 23 III.2.2.1. State Institutions in the CHAPTER II: MODERNIZATION AND MODERN Production of the Built ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY________________ 25 Environment_____________ 81 II.1. Social, Political and Cultural III.3.The Ministry of Public Works________ 83 Context in Turkey_____________________ 25 III.3.1.History and Legal Organization_83 II.1.1. The Legacy of III.3.2.Production________________ 86 the Ottoman Past_______________ 26 III.3.3. Human Resources and the II.1.2. Turkey between the years Professional Life_________________ 89 1923-1950____________________ 31 III.3.4. Disciplinary Knowledge II.2. Architecture’s Role in and Its Circulation: Library, Modernization and the Modernization Seminars and Publication__________ 92 of the Architectural Profession___________ 36 III.3.4.Epilogue to the Chapter _____________ 99 II.2.1. The Initial Years; Ankara___ 37 3 CHAPTER IV: THE PRODUCTS; ARCHITECTURAL BIBLIOGRAPHY___________________________ 181 AND PLANNING WORKS___________________ 101 LIST OF FIGURES__________________________ 191 IV.1. The Production of the Ministry of APPENDIX________________________________ 203 Public Works_________________________ 101 Nederlandse samenvatting_____________________ 226 IV.1.1.Administrative Buildings____ 106 Curriculum Vitae____________________________ 228 IV.1.2.Educational Buildings______ 117 IV.1.3.Healthcare Buildings_______ 124 IV.1.4. Buildings for Communications Services_________ 127 IV.1.5. Buildings for Transportation__ 130 IV.1.6. Security Buildings _________ 130 IV.1.7.Buildings for Agriculture and Animal Husbandry____________ 132 IV.1.8. Buildings for the Republican People’s Party___________________ 135 IV.1.9. Residences and Housings for the Civil Servant______________ 139 IV.1.10. Parks___________________ 141 IV.1.11. The Office of Railroad Construction____________________ 146 IV.1.12.Industrial Buildings________ 148 IV.1.13. Town and City Plans______ 151 IV.2. Other State Offices of Architectural Production______________ 156 IV.2.1.Municipalities_____________ 156 IV.2.2. General Directorate of State Monopolies________________ 160 IV.2.3. Others___________________ 161 IV.3. A General View of the Architectural Approach of the Ministry of Public Works_______________________ 164 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION__________________ 167 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people to whom I am greatly thankful for their support and help in making this work possible. Among them, I should firstly express my gratitude to my professor Franziska Bollerey, for giving me the opportunity to conduct and complete this study in IHAAU, as well as for her insightful guidance and supportive attitude. Her interest in my work and her confidence in its potential were as inspiring for me as her profound scholar supervision. I am equally grateful to Elvan Altan Ergut, who similarly contributed to a great extent to the earlier phase of the study in METU. I also owe a lot to Güven Arif Sargın, for encouraging and helping me to convey my study abroad and bring a new perspective to it, and hence to me. Finally I thank to my wife Özge Şahin İmamoğlu. The support that her mere existence created requires a greater acknowledgement than mentioning her laborious assistance throughout the study, including the preparation of this book. 5 6 CHAPTER I: consensus on the very character of this history which can justifiably be depicted as a ‘paradigm’. This paradigm can be designated as the ‘nation building paradigm’, referring to INTRODUCTION the title of Sibel Bozdoğan’s book published in 2001; Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic1, which is one of the very few broad and detailed studies on the subject to be published for an international audience. Bozdoğan’s approach in this book portrays a neat example to the model applied in many recent efforts in theorizing the cultural modernism of the Republican period of Turkey2. This approach is based on the reciprocal relationship between the set of transformations in the social, political and cultural fields that the Republican revolution brought and the ideological frame that accompanied. The nation building paradigm argues that, the modernizing elites of the Republican Turkey, on the one hand, instrumentalized a constructed nationality and a nationalist ideology in the project of transforming the Ottoman social structure based on traditional religious identifications to the social structure of a modern and secular nation state in the western sense, and on the other hand, the transformation and its practices (such as modern architecture and urbanism) also helped shaping and were shaped by the definition of the national identity in an ideological level. Illustrating this formulation, Bozdoğan I.1. Description of the Aim and Scope of the Study, in her book refers to a large body of contemporary sources Problem Definition and the Hypothesis; Method and both from the political and architectural mediums, in order Structure to provide a reading of the ideological role that the architectural culture in Turkey from the 1920s to the 1950s I.1.1. Aim took on and internalized in the grand mission of producing a national identity proper for the modern nation state. For a couple of decades now, the international body of scholarly studies that describes, narrates, analyzes and th interprets the history of modernization in Turkey in the 20 1 Bozdoğan, S. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural century, and especially the subtitles of this history that are Culture in the Early Republic. Seattle and London: University of relevant to the social processes taking place dominantly in Washington Press, 2001. the field of cultural politics such as architectural history, 2 A broader discussion on the ‘nation building paradigm’ will be given have been presenting the reader an unanimous theme; a below, in I.2.1 Literature Review on Architectural History in Early Republican Turkey. 7 Introducing a narration on the formation of a changes in the forms of knowledge (both in terms of the national identity with the theoretical insight provided by a production of knowledge and of education), and changes in reading of the cultural politics of nationalism, all the studies the general forms of production and consumption. Though that exemplify the nation building paradigm that precede or it is hard to deny that architecture is first and most of all a follow Bozdoğan’s study, represent a significant enrichment cultural practice, it is equally hard to overlook the fact that and progress brought to the studies of the architectural the field operates in strong relation to other elements of historians of the previous generation, whose evaluations modern society. For instance, when considered for the 20th were mostly based on periodizations specified through century history of Turkey, one should insistently remind stylistic reflections of binary concepts of that modernization of the field of architecture per se, both national/international and traditional/modern. On the other in terms of the modernization of the discipline with its body hand