Gezi Park: A Space of Resistance - The Formation of the Gezi Commune in Istanbul, Essays (university) of Urban planning

Download Gezi Park: A Space of Resistance - The Formation of the Gezi Commune in Istanbul and more Essays (university) Urban planning in PDF only on Docsity!

Contemporary Urban Affairs

2017, Volume 1, Number 2 , pages 1 – 10

Oeuvre vs. Abstract Space:

Appropriation of Gezi Park in Istanbul

Dr. Senem Zeybekoglu Sadri *

Department of Architecture, Girne American University, Turkey E mail: senemsadri@gau.edu.tr

A B S T R A C T

The Gezi Park incidents of summer 2013 in Istanbul have marked a turning point in

the political life and democracy in Turkey. The peaceful environmentalist protestations

in central Gezi Park have turned into a countrywide upheaval against the neo-liberal

and conservative policies of the government, pouring millions of people into streets in

different cities. It was a time that Turkey witnessed the formation of a new type of public

sphere that encompasses a variety of counter publics, and its spatial incarnation – the

Gezi Commune-, reclaimed, created, shaped and inhabited by the free will of people.

This was the instant creation of oeuvre through appropriation of the urban space, and

a spatial manifestation of reclaiming the right to the city. This article is a reflection on

possibility of creation of oeuvre in contemporary society, and a new way of

architectural thinking and practice that can pave the way for it.

CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2017) 1 (2), 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2017. www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There is a strong relationship between city spaces, the way they are produced and social relations taking place in those spaces. Spaces are adapted by people through their diverse economic, political, social and cultural activities. All personal or common lived spaces make place for these dwelling practices of people (Sadri & Zeybekoğlu Sadri, 2012). The way that spaces are formed determines how we access to those spaces, how we use them and how we exist in them. Under the domination of state, capital, and institutional knowledge, spaces are produced as commodities (Sadri & Zeybekoğlu Sadri, 2012). Accordingly they reflect the order of a ruling power, and they start to cause exclusions of certain groups of people and their diverse dwelling practices, which do not fit into the norms defined by the ruling power. Henri Lefebvre distinguishes between space as “ oeuvre ” and space as “ product ”. Space as

A R T I C L E I N F O:

Article history: Received 29 March 2017 Accepted 21 April 2017 Available online 24 April 2017 Keywords: Gezi Park; Collective architecture; Right to the city; Oeuvre; Appropriation.

• Corresponding Author: Department of Architecture, Girne American University, Turkey

E-mail address: senemsadri@gau.edu.tr

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0. "CC-BY-NC-ND"

oeuvre occurs as a result of collective creation, praxis. The French word oeuvre refers to lifetime “works” created by an artist. Since space as oeuvre is an outcome of collective creation of different generations during a long period of time, it is the accumulation of all works done by inhabitants of a city during its city’s history. Thus, space as oeuvre embodies peace and co- existence. However space as product is produced by forces of production such as nature, labour, division of labour, and instruments of labour. Nature is commodified, labour is exploited, division of labour is organized and instruments of labour such as knowledge and technology are estranged and controlled by power. Furthermore designed and produced spaces have been invaded and organized by the state, capital and institutional knowledge, particularly architecture and planning. While space as oeuvre is formed in accordance with the needs of different generations, through a collective of lives over a lot of people during a long period of time; space as product is designed and constructed within the domination of ruling power and as an outcome of collaboration between the state, capital and institutional knowledge (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre defines designed and produced spaces as abstract things and commodities. He associates the abstract space with social hierarchical order, social norms and social factions. Abstract space creates social hierarchical order through limiting the access to and use of space. Abstract space also dictates social norms through homogenizing the potential uses of space by limiting those uses to particular functions inside defined architectural forms and accordingly restricting the everyday life of people. And finally, abstract space renders social factions as the systematic method for controlling daily life and its practices through fragmenting the collective and cooperative practices of people (Lefebvre, 1968; Purcell, 2003; Lefebvre, 1991; Gottdiener, 1993). Against hierarchical order, social norms and social fragmentation, intrinsic to the abstract space, Lefebvre celebrates the idea of «right to the city» to protect diverse dwelling practices of people and promote oppressed groups. The right to the city is the right of inhabitants of the city to dwelling, existing and co-existing within the space during the process of formation and use of space. Consequently Lefebvre divides the right to the city into two interdependent rights: the right to oeuvre and the right to appropriation. While the former is more related to the praxis of creation of space, the latter is more concentrated on free life and co-existence in space (Lefebvre, 1968). During Gezi protestations, Taksim Square and Gezi Park in Istanbul were appropriated by Istanbulites, and the park was transformed into a communal space through a collective praxis of protestors. With several dwelling practices that it housed, such as protection from police attacks, political discussions, artistic production, health services, eating and cleaning, the commune was the instant creation of oeuvre, which was made according to its inhabitants’ visions and desires. It was representing the free will of people co-existing inside the commune, against social hierarchical order, social norms and social factions dictated by abstract space of ruling power and capital. This article aims at unfolding the spatial history of Gezi Resistance as a right to the city movement, through evaluation of spaces of resistance that emerged and disappeared throughout the days of protestations and reflecting on a new way of thinking with practice that can pave the way for a new architecture of resistance.

2. Production of abstract space in Istanbul Starting from the mid-1970s, world cities have been changing under the impacts of neo-liberal economic developments, which have been manifested in new spatial organization of production, developments in communication and transportation technologies, and the declining control of nation states over economic activities (Van Kempen & Marcuse, 1997; Sassen, 1998; Giddens, 1999). World cities started to

established in the neighbourhood (İslam & Enlil,

As a result of such market oriented transformation of the city, the abstract space is produced through hierarchical division of the urban space, enforcement of social norms and social factions. The nature is destroyed and environment is polluted in an irreversible way. Public spaces are privatized and closed off to the use of the public. The urban space is fragmented into pieces through gated communities, and any encounters with differences are avoided for security reasons. Consumerism is celebrated and shopping has become the new urban recreation. Urban poor is marginalized and displaced. History and memory of the city is demolished while being re- written. The decisions regarding the urban space are given by central government, city administration and contractor firms without any public consent. The projects are implemented with an ignorance of scientific research and humanitarian values, with laws and regulations manipulated in order to eliminate any legal barriers in front of the projects.

3. Taksim Square and Gezi Park Taksim Square and the adjacent Gezi Park in the center of Istanbul constitute a major public space not only in Istanbulites’ lives but also for the whole of Turkey. The square and the park are located in Beyoğlu district of Istanbul on the European side of the city (Figure 1). Beyoğlu can be considered as one of the most central locations of the city, with a high number of cultural activities, and ease of access through over and underground systems connecting at the square. The square lies on a hilltop which overlooks the Bosphorus on the east and Haliç on the southwest, at the intersection of İstiklal, Sıraselviler, Cumhuriyet, İnönü and Mete Streets and Tarlabaşı Boulevard (Figure 2). The most significant structure giving the square its characteristic is Taksim Republic Monument completed and opened in 1928 (Figure 3). Other major urban elements surrounding the square are Maksem Building on the west, Atatürk Culture Center (AKM) on the east (Figure 4), the Marmara Hotel on the southeast and Gezi Park on the northwest which lies between Cumhuriyet and Mete Streets (Figure 5). The square takes its name from the Maksem building, a big water reservoir, built in 18th century as a part of a bigger water distribution network that served to Beyoğlu and its surroundings (Akın, 2011). As the water distribution center, Taksim (an Arabic word meaning distribution) took its name from this new function of distribution (Kuban, 2010). Figure 1. Location of Taksim Square in Istanbul, map reproduced by the authors from Istanbul Greater Municipality’s City Map (Istanbul Greater Municipality, n.d.). Figure 2. Taksim Square and Gezi Park, map reproduced by the authors from Istanbul Greater Municipality’s City Map (Istanbul Greater Municipality, n.d.).

Figure 3. Taksim Republic Monument (authors' archive, May 2013). Figure 4. Atatürk Cultural Centre (authors' archive, May 2013). Figure 5. A view from inside the park, with the Marmara Hotel on the background (authors' archive, October 2013).

4. Appropriation of Gezi Park In June 2011, the Prime Minister of the period announced the Taksim Square Pedestrianization Project (Demirkan, 2011). The project which envisioned the pedestrianization of the square by directing the traffic flow of streets surrounding Taksim Square towards an underground, through huge tunnels, removing bus stops from the square, and re-constructing the Artillery Barracks building over the location of Gezi Park (Figure 6) was approved by the Istanbul Greater Municipality Council in September 2011, and 1/5000 and 1/1000 scale Preservation Master Plans of Beyoğlu including this the project were amended (Council Decisions, 2011). Additionally, the non-existent Artillery Barracks was announced as a registered building by the decision of Istanbul 2nd^ Directorate of Cultural Heritage Conservation District Board on 09.02.2011 (Taksim Dayanışması Güncesi, 2015). Figure 6. A scene from the video of Istanbul Greater Municipality’s directing Taksim traffic underground and redesigning the square project (Yapı Haberleri, 2012) The project aroused several objections among civil society organizations due to its top-down application process (Bayhan, 2012; Özkarkal, 2012). It was seen as a neo-liberal urban intervention project imposed by the government, combining all the above mentioned aspects of urban transformation in Istanbul. From destruction of nature, to loss of public space, from commodification of space to manipulation of laws and regulations, this project was a representation of what has been going on Istanbul, and in other big cities in Turkey for years (Figure 7).

Figure 8. Facilities inside Gezi Commune, map reproduced by the authors from Istanbul Greater Municipality’s City Map (Istanbul Greater Municipality, n.d.) and sketches in Historical Atlas of Gezi Park (2013). 5. Gezi Resistance as a Right to the City Movement The Gezi Resistance was a large scale uprising for the right to the city in its two aspects: right to oeuvre - a claim for democratic participation in the making of the city- and right to appropriation

• a demand for peaceful co-existence in the city. First, it was a claim for right to oeuvre which was realized in the self-autonomous character of Gezi Commune, a voluntary, participatory, temporary habitat, where all inhabitants had a voice and contribution in the creation and re- creation of the spaces of the commune. As a temporary settlement, this communal space provided diverse dwelling practices for people from sheltering to social gathering, from health services to education, from worshipping to artistic production, and all the services and maintenance was provided voluntarily on a regular basis as a part of communal living. Although there was no city administration and no ruling class to ensure order and security, solidarity among people created harmony and safety inside the commune area. This was the realization of oeuvre through collective praxis of inhabitants of the city. The Resistance was also a demand for right to appropriation, for peaceful co-existence in the city without exclusion and discrimination. The Gezi Commune provided an arena of visibility and co-existence for various groups and individuals representing different (sometimes opposing) political views, cultural/ethnic/religious identities, and social interest organizations. Those differences did not become a matter of discrimination and inequality, but led to mutual respect and solidarity among different groups. Rather than being a unifying and homogenizing public sphere, Gezi Commune became an arena of dialogue, mutual understanding and trust and a public space where all differences could peacefully co-exist, without exclusion and discrimination. In addition to gathering different groups and identities together, Gezi Resistance provided “a spatial and bio-political ground of existence for those groups and identities that lost their visibility in the public sphere” (Türkkan, 2013). The Gezi commune, described as a temporary autonomous zone with reference to Hakim Bey (Altay, 2013), was physically short lived, but its impacts endured much longer. With the police attacks on the 11th^ of June 2013, the commune was ceased. After the massive protestations ended, the resistance has continued in different spatial forms and scales at different locations: painting the city staircases with different colours; gatherings in neighbourhood park forums (Özlüer, 2013); occupation of an abandoned house as a neighbourhood solidarity home, and formation of umbrella organizations bringing together several urban and ecological resistance groups. Throughout the protestations, two important questions were raised: first, what kind of a city we want to live in? second how we can make it? and the Gezi Commune was one answer to both questions. The commune was a claim for a city

of democracy, peace and co-existence and illustrated “what kind of social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire” (Harvey, 2008). It was claimed, instantly created, maintained, and re-created again by collective efforts of protestors and the technical knowledge of production of abstract space was replaced with the common sense of collective praxis of place making. At this point, architectural thinking and practice, and the roles of architects need to be re-considered. As Çetin frames it clearly, “architecture as a professional field of practice, which serves macro-scale cities planned in a monopolistic manner, can transform into a field of knowledge which provides spatial devices of a micro-scale, organic city” (Çetin, 2013; 8). This transformation is possible through a re-definition of architects as well. Rather than master builders who design abstract spaces for capitalist reproduction, architects also need to transform into social agents contributing to place making through sharing their expertise on construction and building. 6. Conclusion As much as Taksim Square and Gezi Park were abstract spaces with the ways they were imagined, designed, organized and produced by power and capital, they also gained an identity of oeuvre in the sense that they were owned, used, lived and appropriated by people through various dwelling practices ranging from daily life activities to massive protestations taking place in them like a Gezi Resistance. Gezi incidents created a new language of resistance, solidarity and mutual trust among people, and it opened the discussion for possibility of new ways of making politics, and architecture as well. As much as Gezi Resistance was an uprising against conservative, discriminatory and oppressive policies of the government, it was also an opposition against the new spatial order dictated by the neo-liberal production of space through architecture. The Gezi Resistance was also a discontent with this architecture which is under the service of power and capital, dictating social hierarchy, norms and fragmentation and transforming the history, nature and culture of the city into commodity. Therefore, The Gezi Commune was created as the spatial reflection of the common will of the protestors, who desire peace and co-existence. The creation of Gezi Commune could not be possible with the architecture of power, which is based on consumption, discrimination and fragmentation. The Commune was a challenge against architecture as an abstract entity, defined by sharp disciplinary boundaries as a profession and under the hegemony of architects. The making of the Commune as an oeuvre was only possible through collective praxis of all people participating in the resistance, and its construction was based on a collective field of knowledge on place making which was created, shared and then re-created again by protestors. Rather than an architectural product, the Commune was the physical manifestation of the soul of resistance. Therefore, it was a resistance against the production of abstract space which is the embodiment of hegemony, hierarchy, norms and orders, and was a call for right to the city. 7. References Akın, N. (2011). 19. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galatave Pera. İstanbul: Literatür. Altay, C. (2013, June 14). Here We Are: The Imagination of Public Space in Gezi Park. Retrieved May 04, 2015, from http://creativetimereports.org/2013/06/ 4/here-we-are-the-imagination-of- public-space-in-gezi-park/ Avcı, A. (2013, December 30). “Ütopya Açlığı” Olarak Gezi’nin Mizahı. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.e- skop.com/skopbulten/%E2%80%9Cutopy a-acligi%E2%80%9D-olarak-gezinin- mizahi/ Bayhan, B. (2012, February 28). Peyzaj Mimarları Odası Istanbul Şubesi'nin Taksim Projesi Üzerine Görüşü. Retrieved April 05, 2017,

from http://www.milliyet.com.tr/taksim- projesi-mimarlari-boldu-gundem- 1508065/ Özlüer, F. (2013, June 22). Yerel Yönetimler, Doğrudan Demokrasi Yönüyle Park Forumları. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.yenicag.com.cy/yenicag/ 013/06/yerel-yonetimler-dogrudan- demokrasi-yonuyle-park-forumlari-fevzi- ozluer/ Paddison, R. (1993). City Marketing, Image Reconstruction and Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies , 339-350. Post Modern Protesto Gezi Parkı Olayları. (2013, July). Retrieved May 04, 2015, from http://www.siyasetdergisi.com.tr/Haber/ POSTMODERN-PROTESTO-GEZI-PARKI- OLAYLARI/ Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 564-590. Roberts, P. (2003). The Evolution, Definition and purpose of Urban Regeneration. In P. Roberts, & H. Sykes, Urban Regeneration a Handbook (pp. 9-36). London: Sage. Robins, K., & Aksoy, A. (1995). Istanbul Rising: Returning the Repressed to Urban Culture. European Urban and Regional Studies , 223-235. Sadri, H., & Zeybekoğlu Sadri, S. (2012). The Right to Appropriation: Spatial Rights and the Use of Space. Tirana Architecture Week Re-appropriation of the City (pp. 92-93). Tirana: Botime Afrojdit. Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York: New Press. Sadri, S. Z. (2017). The Scale of Public Space: Taksim Square in Istanbul. Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 1(1), 67 - 75. Doi: 10.25034/1761.1(1)67- 75 Sönmez, M. (1996). İstanbul'un İki Yüzü: 1980'den 2000'e Değişim. Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi. Taksim Dayanışması Güncesi. (2015, November 23). Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.mimarist.org/taksim-gezi- parki-guncesi.html Taksim Meydanı Çevre Düzenleme İnşaatı. (2015, October 10). Retrieved April 05, 2017, from https://ibbqr.ibb.gov.tr/taksim- meydani-cevre-duzenleme- insaati/#fotolar Taksim'e Cami de Yapacağız. (2013, June 02). Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/ha ber/849452-taksime-cami-de-yapacagiz- chpye-ve-birkac-capulcuya-soracak- degiliz Türkkan, S. (2013, July/August). Öyle Değil Böyle Açılım. XXI , p. 29. Van Kempen, R., & Marcuse, P. (1997). A New Spatial Order in Cities. American Behavioral Scientist , 285-298. Yalçıntan, M. C., Çalışkan, Ç. O., Çılgın, K., & Dündar, U. (2014). İstanbul Dönüşüm Coğrafyası. In C. Özbay, & A. Bartu Candan, Yeni İstanbul Çalışmaları Sınırlar, Mücadeleler, Açılımlar. İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık. Yapı Haberleri. (2012, February 22). Taksim Meydan Düzenlemesi. [Video File] Retrieved April 05, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro 52Ms9Kyc Zileli, Z. (2013, June 13). Why Turks are Good at Protesting. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opin ion/2013/06/201361113388747184.html