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