Introduction
The narrative of Taksim Square began with the construction of a modest infrastructural building in the 18th centuryknown as Taksim Maksemi. Since then, the square has undergone numerous transformations, becoming a focal point in the Ottoman Empire's Westernization efforts, shaping its present condition. These modernization attempts aimed to provide a new image of the monarchy with a nationalist and military-oriented agenda while creating new urban links for foreign investors, as concerns grew about the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) being overtaken by Western nations. Alongside these new infrastructure routes, the heart, and density of the city began to shift outside the historical peninsula. It was during this period that Taksim Square first imprinted itself onto the collective memory as a gathering space.
During the period of the new republic (1923-present), the square evolved beyond a mare urban space, gaining its current political meaning. It has transformed into a hub of political protests, bearing witness to the imprint of governing forces on both architectural and urban scales. This political dialogue between the people and authority resembled the social characteristics of public spaces in Istanbul’s Historical Peninsula before the modernization interventions that shaped Taksim Square.
Mirrors the social characteristics of public spaces in Istanbul’s Historical Peninsula before the modernization interventions that shaped Taksim Square. In earlier periods, these public spaces were primarily found within the courtyards of large Ottoman religious and governing complexes, such as Süleymaniye Mosque, Blue Mosque, and Topkapi Palace, where people gathered to voice their concerns. Although Taksim Square was created with a modern intention and was not affiliated with a single building but rather with axes and large urban links, the collective memory of using public spaces for political expression persisted.
In earlier periods, these public spaces were mostly within the courtyards of large Ottoman religious and governing complexes like Süleymaniye Mosque, Blue Mosque and Topkapi Palace, where people gathered to be voice their concerns. Even though the intention for creating Taksim Square was modern and was not affiliated with just one building but rather with axes and large urban links, the collective memory of using the public spaces for political expression persisted.
A similar attitude to that of the late Ottoman Empire period, where the governing powers utilized urban space interventions to transform the nation’s image, could also be observed during the Republican period. The purpose of the interventions was to create the image of a new, secular and modern nation-state.
Castells states that the actions of people create spatial forms, and they will possess the intensions of the dominant class according to a given mode of production. 1 Taksim Square exemplifies this statement, as every intervention in the square throughout history has carried the intentions and the ideals of the prevailing political. This article focuses on two critical turning points, selected based on significant shifts in political and social perspectives.
- The first one is 1923, which is the foundation date of the New Republic of Turkey. It is a significant change in who rules the country, a switch from monarchy to democracy. When the square became an instrument to be utilized in the modern Republic of Turkey.
- The second breaking point is 1980. It is the date that the country switched to a liberal economy, allowing privatization to take its part in forming the square.
By establishing these two dates as critical points, the aim is to categorize interventions in Taksim Square according to the relevant political power during each period.
A Brief History of the City and the Square
Taksim, a Turkish word meaning “allocation,” refers to the historical water distribution system in the local region, which was constructed in the mid-1700s and completed in 1839. This infrastructural unit is one of the architectural elements that still exist in Taksim Square. 2 The area’s transformation into a square, dates to the late 1800s, when the Ottoman Empire sought Westernization due to the advancement of European countries. Historically, the heart of Istanbul and the Empire lay within the Historical Peninsula, where most of the Byzantine and Ottoman cultural heritage is located. However, in the late 1800s, Empire extended its to outer districts which were initially founded by the people of Genoese, Galata and Pera. Non-Muslim citizens mostly populated these districts, which were highly valued in terms of their cultural and everyday presence. Baykan states that the establishments for the Western governments, such as banks, hotels, and embassies were comprising the heart of Galata and Pera, and they were following the route of Grand Rue de Pera (current İstiklal Street) leading to Taksim Square. 2 The Ottoman Empire utilized these existing connections to modernize its ruling mechanisms, including military buildings and palaces. It was only after the building of the Taksim Artillery Barracks (used to be located in the current Gezi Park plot) and with the courtyards of the building that the square started to gain its meaning in the collective memory.
Development of the Square & Breaking points
An Attempt of Westernization, the Period between 1800s-1923
The historical water reservoir, known as “Taksim Maksemi” in Turkish, was the first intervention in the area. The construction was completed in 1731, and it aimed to build a water infrastructure network for the growing local non-Muslim neighborhoods. The water reservoir building still stands in the square today, repurposed as an art gallery.
The intervention, though minor, was crucial in shaping the city’s development. Despite being a small infrastructural unit in a relatively suburbanized area, it allowed the city to extend towards Grand Rue de Pera, establishing an endpoint. This endpoint identity facilitated the growth of the urban fabric around Taksim Maksemi, eventually leading to the formation of Taksim Square as an urban void with its own distinct identity.
Taksim Artillery Barracks is the second intervention in the square. Initially, the construction of the building was finalized in the early 1800s; however, the building was rebuilt and renovated a couple of times until it was ultimately demolished. During the first world war it was in an abandoned condition and after the war, the courtyard was turned into a stadium and İnönü Gezisi (Gezi Park) replaced the building in 1940. 2
The Ottoman Empire monarchy presents its modernization attempts through military buildings situated on the extensions of the Historical Peninsula. Taksim Military Barracks, in this sense, stands out. It holds a powerful position regarding the urban development of the square because it was the first building that offered an open space scenario that is in dialogue with the military presence of the building in the local context. This presence then also witnesses various uprising attempts within the military; leading the dialogue into the idea of a “gathering space” in the collective memory.
An Attempt of Modernization, the Period between 1923-1980
After its foundation in 1923, the Republic of Turkey aimed to build a modernized nation, with a focus on developing symbolic urban spaces. Taksim Square in this aspect was one of the projects. The primary urban space that was in the collective memory, was the Beyazıt Square in Historical Peninsula in the 1920s. Kuban states that the previous attempts to come up with a better urban square were directly aligned with the traffic issues, rather than dealing with planned architectural schemes with aesthetic considerations. 2
The modernization of Istanbul began in 1924, but the first significant step was taken in 1933 when Henri Prost, the French architect and planner and head of the PARP (Le Plan d’Aménagement de la Région Parisienne), was invited to create a plan for the city’s modernization. Prost’s plan focused on developing Istanbul’s infrastructure and creating large urban parks. 7 Taksim square was the key node in this infrastructure networks, and the interventions in the square were mostly about enlarging the street sections and creating a vast urban park for people to use. One of these interventions was about the destruction of the Taksim Military Barracks and the construction of İnönü Park (currently known as Gezi Park). Even though the plan of Henri Prost was never fully applied as he was relieved from his duties in 1951, it is still the spatial intervention that shaped the urban form of Taksim Square.
One other example of the nation-state ideals of the republic and its symbolism in Taksim Square is the Ataturk Cultural Center (AKM). Envisioned by Henri Prost as an opera house that would culturally vitalize the area, construction started in 1946 but, was delayed due to the financial difficulties until its completion in 1970. Following a fire hazard and renovation in 1978, the building’s purpose shifted, and it was renamed the Ataturk Cultural Center. In 2007, the AKM was officially certified as a cultural heritage site, though this certification’s validity fluctuated until the final renovation in 202. 4
Through the Liberal Economy, the Period Between 1980-2022
In 1980, the Turkish republic transitioned from a mixed economy to a liberal economy and privatization, largely due to the global impact of the 1970s oil crisis. This shift created new opportunities for real-estate capital and led to the emergence of urban transformation projects. 6 The most significant of these projects was opening the Tarlabaşı Boulevard in the early 1980s, which was advertised as the revitalization of Beyoğlu district. However, the project ultimately led to the alienation and subsequent gentrification of Tarlabaşı neighborhood.
During this period, the square underwent significant symbolic changes, primarily through the construction of two key structures: the Taksim Mosque and the new AKM building. The idea of building a mosque in Taksim originated in the late 1970s but was not realized until the end of the 2020s due to the proposed site’s proximity to a preserved building, Taksim Maksemi. 3 The mosque’s construction was justified by the need for a spacious prayer area to accommodate the increasing number of Middle Eastern tourists visiting the area.
The other symbolic intervention in the square is the new AKM building. As mentioned above in the previous chapters, this building’s identity as a cultural heritage was one of the most debated topics in the past 20 years. The discussions went beyond the architectural scale because the building became a symbol for the Gezi Park protests of 2013. Under these discussions, the new project was assigned to the son of the original architect (Hayati Tabanlıoğlu) Mehmet Tabanlıoğlu. 4 Although the building is new, the main façade of the building is rebuilt as its predecessor. The interior, however, is arranged for today’s demands.
Public Space, Program & Functions of Today
Taksim Square, a central hub in Istanbul, features a large open space that serves as the primary gathering area. The square is equipped with multiple metro exits and elevators, and Gezi Park to the north providing an urban green space. The square is surrounded by mixed-use buildings, with mostly retail stores on the ground floor. In terms of public accessibility, these stores are only in service for the consumer; therefore, the ground floor usage of the square does not present itself as fully accessible. The central part of the square is mainly used as transition due to limited ground floor activity. The art space within the Taksim Maksemi and the Ataturk Cultural Center are the only buildings with public functions on the ground floor without a primary profit agenda. However, even with these buildings and Gezi Park, the square is primarily used as a transition zone, as the true spatially defined public area is significantly smaller than the rest of the square.
Taksim Square as Political Space
Lefebvre argues that the production of space not only deals with the physical space itself, but also defines a notion covering social and political dimensions. 5 In the light of this statement, we could deduce that every mechanism in the production of urban space carries more than its spatial aspects. In the case of Taksim Square, this is undoubtedly traceable. Under the categorization of the political breaking points, the interventions in the square could be summarized as:
- The period of 1800 – 1923. In the first period, Taksim Square gained its initial protest meaning in the late Ottoman Period with Taksim Artillery Barracks. The political intent of the dominant class (monarchy) was about keeping the power at hand through modernization acts.
- The period of 1923 – 1980. The second period is about creating a new image of the modern Republic of Turkey through the hands of planning. The political power here was trying to impose the new ideals onto the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
- The period of 1980 – 2022. The final period covers the creation of a speculative real estate economy with symbolic changes in the silhouette and the image of Taksim Square.
Every intervention in the square brought along its political intent and ideal. Even though these ideals were brought up by those in charge, they represent a particular image in the minds of people. In the case of Gezi Park protests (2013), the people were uprising against the destruction of the park which symbolizes a secular and modern Turkey, in favor of rebuilding the Taksim Military Barracks, representing the governing force's conservative populist. By the same token, the new Ataturk Cultural Center building takes upon the mission of recreating the image of a previous public building which was a big part of the Gezi Park protests; the main façade of the original AKM building was used for hanging up large-sized posters. Even though the image transformation was milder compared to the examples mentioned above, the construction of Taksim Mosque is also relevant because it represents a new religious image (with traditional architectural features) in the square’s silhouette composition. This contrasts with secular ideals and indicates where the current political power stands with all its might, which was especially important after the Gezi Park protests. This discussion between the driving force of space production (political power) and the people are visible in each given case within the square. Similar public spaces with political identities showcasing the power of the ruling force exist within other countries, like Pariser Platz in Berlin and Place Charles de Gaulle in Paris. In Taksim Square, the political identity emerges not only from the ruling force’s action, but also from the people reacting to them.
Autor*innen
Quellen
- „İstanbul Özel Sayısı“. In: Henri Prost ve İstanbul'un ilk Nazım Planı, Vol. 1, P. 35ff, 1987
- Lefebvre, Henri: The Production of Space, Blackwell 1991
- Castells, Manuel / Cuthbert, A.R. (Hg.): „The New Historical Relationship Between Space and Society“. In: Designing Cities, P. 59ff, Oxford: Blackwell 2003
- Baykan, Aysegul / Hatuka, Tali: „Politics and culture in the making of public space: Taksim Square, 1 May 1977, Istanbul“. In: Planning Perspectives, 25, P. 53, 52, 54, 2010
- Goncuoglu, Suleyman Farik: „Yeni Fikir Dergisi“. In: İstanbul’un Tepesi; Bir Meydan’ın Hikâyesi: Taksim, 6.13, P. 24, 2014
- Yildirim, Aslihan: „“. In: Kültür varlıklarının korunması bağlamında toplumsal bellek: meydanlar (taksim meydanı örneği), P. 86, 2018
- Yildirim Okta, Birge / Akpinar, Ipek (Hg.) et al.: „Taksim Square after 1950“. In: Transformations of Public Space, 24, P. 110, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul 2021
- Headimage: Bao, Tinuo: Taksim Square after a unexpected rain storm. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinou/229056481/in/photostream/, 13.08.2022
