Читать книгу The Borders of Europe - Группа авторов - Страница 9

From this foundation grew what architectural historians have since dubbed “the First National Style”, a style referred to at the time and by Turks themselves as “Neo-classical Turkish Style” or the “National Architecture Renaissance”. Vallaury taught at the Art Academy (Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi), and Jachmund at the School of Civil Engineering (Hendese-i Mülkiye), both in Istanbul. Kemalettin Bey (1870-1927), who had studied under Jachmund and at the Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule in Berlin, would be central in shaping this first national trend in architecture in Turkey. Kemalettin Bey and his fellow countryman Mehmet Vedat Bey (1873-1942) also exerted considerable influence on architectural developments through their teaching at the same schools. Vedat Bey is considered to be the first Turk to undergo formal training as an architect in Turkey and also the first Turk to teach architectural history at the art school starting in 1900 (Yavuz and Özkan: 41).

The architecture that was created in the early decades of the 20^th century employed an aesthetic that was clearly indebted to the characteristic features of Ottoman architecture. For centuries Ottoman culture had dominated the geographical region that would become the Republic of Turkey. Mosques, hammams and wooden buildings sported structural and visual features that one immediately associates with the building culture of the Ottoman Empire, a building culture that was clearly hegemonic with regard to the region’s architecture, and which cut across the many ethnic divisions in the population.

The foundation of the stylistic vocabulary seen in the National Architecture Renaissance was established in an architectural treatise from 1873, The Principles of Ottoman Architecture (Usul-i Mimari-yi Osmania), written by Ibrahim Edhem Pasha (1819-1893) on the occasion of an international exhibition in Vienna in 1873. The principles were developed on the basis of systematic studies and documentation of classical Ottoman buildings, monuments and decorative details. The theoretical models, analytic methods and representational techniques were unmistakably European, and were particularly influenced by the methodology used in the French academies. Both Edhem Pasha and the other Ottoman artists and intellectuals who contributed to the work were educated in France, and this kind of ambivalence between self-identity and an international mindset seems highly characteristic of the nationalism associated with many newly established political systems in non-Western contexts after 1900. The rule set had to be based on architecture that was deemed to possess national characteristics, but it also had to provide the basis for an architecture that could be described as “modern”. The authors of the treatise wanted to restore the dignity of the Ottoman architectural culture, while at the same time demonstrating that it was no less worthy than that of Europe (Bozdoğan: 23-24).

Fig. 2. Ismail Hasif Bey et.al.: The regional centre for the Commitee of Union and Progress/The first Parliaments building in Ankara, 1917-23. Author’s photo, 2009.

The city of Istanbul was closely associated with its Ottoman past, yet was also profoundly marked by centuries of communication with the West and the rest of the world. This partly explains why the capital of the newly established Turkish nation was moved to the area around the town of Angora in Anatolia, which did not have this historical background. The national army had its headquarters during the war of independence here, and, on a more pragmatic level, Angora was centrally situated in what remained of Ottoman Turkey after World War I. Consequently, the regime focused its architectural interests largely on the town that would duly become known as Ankara, which is where we find many of the most characteristic and seminal examples of the architecture that developed in the 1920s.

Fig. 3. Mehmet Vedat Bey: Headquarters for The Republican People’s Party/The second parliament building in Ankara, 1924-26. Author’s photo, 2009.

The first building to be erected here to serve national interests was a modest, single-storey building designed by Ismail Hasif Bey (1878-1920), on which work began in 1917. It was intended as a regional centre for the Committee of Union and Progress, but was put to use as the new nation’s first parliament building as early as 1920. The building had outer walls of natural stone and a low-pitched hipped roof. The wide eaves are heavily cantilevered and covered with decoratively patterned wood panelling underneath. The layout is symmetrical despite comprising a number of volumes, and the windows are high with pointed arches. If we compare this with the wooden building on p. 32, it is evident that many features of Ottoman architecture have been incorporated in this central building of the new nation. Today it houses a museum commemorating the war of independence.

Just one year after the first parliament building was inaugurated, the architect Vedat Bey was summoned from Istanbul to design two important buildings in the new city: a new and larger building for the national assembly, and the Ankara Palas Hotel. The buildings would stand facing each other near the city’s new main traffic artery, Atatürk Boulevard, which runs from the railway station to the old citadel. The second parliament building was initially conceived as the headquarters for the Republican People’s Party, but it was decided that it was more suitable as a parliament building (Yavuz and Özkan: 53). The building is a two-storey, rectangular volume, set side-on to the street. The main façade with the entrance faces a garden that has an elongated fountain on its central axis. The garden slopes down towards the west, culminating in an oval pond with water lilies. The building’s strict symmetry is reinforced by the fact that the entrance is projected forward and capped with a different kind of roof. Above the entrance portal is a loggia with three pointed-arched openings, which serves as a tribune at public events. The building is simple and rustic in style, and is clad in local, pinkish stone with details of glazed brick. The main hall was surrounded by offices on two floors. Here we also find some of the stylistic features that can be traced back to the old wooden architecture: a series of hipped roofs, overhanging eaves, and volumes organised along a symmetrical axis. Although it became clear as early as the late 1930s that the building did not meet the state administration’s rapidly expanding needs, it remained the seat of the National Assembly for the next 30 years. Today, the building houses the Museum of the Republic.

On the opposite side of Atatürk Boulevard, Vedat Bey erected his second building in Ankara, the Ankara Palas Hotel. Construction began in 1924, but within a year the commission was passed on to Kemalettin Bey, who was brought in from Jerusalem to help build the new capital. His first task was to design a stately portal for the new parliament building, which he embellished with deep mouldings, decorative figures, and an ornamental cornice. In parallel he continued work on the Ankara Palas Hotel, a building that was originally meant to house the health ministry. However, representative accommodation for guests of the government administration was given priority. Outwardly, the hotel’s architectural style seems somewhat anachronistic for 1927, although it tells us a lot about the enduring status of the Ottoman architectural heritage. The main façade is symmetrically arranged around an imposing entrance, which is decorated with elegant tiles and a lavishly ornamented cornice. The entrance portal is crowned with a timber-framed onion dome. The earliest sketches show a more coherent treatment of volumes, although the ultimate design enhances the three main elements of the exterior: the central portal with its onion dome, and the pronounced, square corner towers with their wide overhanging eaves. The two-storey side wings between the central section and side towers are set back. The first-floor balconies and the high arched windows on the ground floor are fronted with carved marble balustrades. The hotel was designed as a two-storey, rectangular building with a large ballroom at its centre. The spaces on the ground floor were assigned to functions such as a restaurant, a tea salon, and administrative offices, while the rooms for guests were situated on the upper floor. The original plans indicate that many of the guest rooms were conceived as small, single rooms. In many ways, the organisation of the rooms is reminiscent of Ottoman guesthouses, with a central courtyard surrounded by rooms on two floors. The design of the main façade demonstrates what one might call Ottoman nostalgia. The exaggerated dimensions of the building’s central section and side towers give the construction the appearance of exhibition architecture, a staging of the nation that employs imaginative interpretations of national architectural characteristics.

When it opened in 1927, the hotel was praised as a symbol of modern civilisation, albeit mostly on account of the technical facilities with which it was equipped. Ankara Palas was a meeting point and social hub for both Turkish statesmen and foreign diplomats. Here Western lifestyles and dress codes were flaunted; dancing in couples and Western hairstyles and fashion were seen as symbols of modernity and republican westernisation (Bozdoğan: 212). The form in which this Western lifestyle was packaged was, however, both romantic and exotic, and soon it would have to give way to a more modernist public architecture. When both the parliament and the central business district moved further south in the 1950s, attention turned to other architectural ideals. Ankara Palas fell into disrepair, although in 1983 the hotel was restored by the architect Orhan Akyurek and re-emerged as the Neva Palas Hotel Ankara.

Different versions and combinations of Ottoman influence are apparent in several public buildings erected in Ankara in the first decade of the republic. Certainly, they were constructed in part of modern materials, such as reinforced concrete, and were fitted out with modern facilities such as electric lighting, pressurised water systems, and efficient heating systems. Nevertheless, the formal idiom chosen for central institutions, especially those that would serve as the nation’s face to the outside world, clearly testify that the crucial aspects of Ottoman architecture still held a hegemonic position. Just as Ottoman culture was repackaged as Turkish culture, the National Architecture Renaissance was defined as a specifically Turkish national style, according to Sibel Bozdoğan (Bozdoğan: 21). In her view, it was this “Turkification” of Ottoman architecture that enabled it to survive to a certain degree in the Kemalist architecture of the Republic.

The style of the National Architecture Renaissance was employed primarily in public buildings. But there are exceptions, including a number of apartment buildings in Istanbul by Kemalettin Bey from 1919-22, the Harikzedegân apartments, which also offer one of the earliest examples of the use of reinforced concrete in Turkey; and Vedat Bey’s own house in Nişantaşı, Istanbul. Critics have argued, however, that the buildings that used this architectural idiom came across as parodies of mosques, and that the only thing they lacked was the minaret on the outside and the mihrab on the inside (Tekeli: 15). The first National Architecture Renaissance also constitutes a trend that found expression primarily in the style and treatment of the exterior, while the building’s internal organisation was determined by the demands of modern functionality.