CITY CENTER DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
MARCH 2020
iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.
This study focuses on Sakarya Government House, which was built as a result of a
national competition organized by the Ministry of Public Works in 1955. Sakarya
Government House constitutes a significant example both in terms of reflecting the
conditions and architectural approaches of the period, as well as its strong relationship
with and contributions to the development of the city of Adapazarı. Examining the
design of the building by architects Enis Kortan, Harutyun Vapurciyan, Nişan
Yaubyan and Avyerinos Andonyadis as well as its life span from its opening in 1960
until it was demolished in 2003 after the 1999 Adapazarı Earthquake, the study
attempts to discuss its role in the transformation of the city center during the second
half of the twentieth century. As such, the Sakarya Government House complex will
be discussed in two main contexts, firstly on the building scale by referring to its
architectural features and secondly on the wider city scale by focusing on the
interaction of the complex with the city, mainly the center of Adapazarı that went
through a considerable transformation by means of this building complex.
Keywords: Sakarya Government House, Adapazarı, modern architecture, public
buildings, public space
v
Bu çalışma 1955 yılında Bayındırlık Bakanlığı tarafından düzenlenen ulusal bir
yarışma sonucunda inşa edilen Sakarya Hükümet Konağı binasına odaklanmaktadır.
Sakarya Hükümet Konağı, hem dönemin koşullarını ve mimari yaklaşımlarını
yansıtması, hem de Adapazarı şehri ile olan güçlü ilişkisi ve gelişimine katkıları
açısından önemli bir örnek teşkil etmektedir. Çalışmada, Enis Kortan, Harutyun
Vapurciyan, Nişan Yaubyan ve Avyerinos Andonyadis tarafından tasarlanan bu
binanın, 1960 yılında açılması ve 1999 Adapazarı depreminde aldığı ciddi hasarın
ardından, 2003 yılında yıkılmasına kadar olan süreçte, şehir merkezinin
dönüşümündeki rolü incelenir. Bu doğrultuda, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı kompleksi
iki temel bağlamda tartışılacaktır; öncelikle mimari özellikleri incelenerek bina
ölçeğinde, ikinci olarak da kompleksin kentle, özellikle bu yapı sayesinde önemli bir
dönüşüm geçiren Adapazarı şehir merkeziyle etkileşimine odaklanarak daha geniş
şehir ölçeğinde incelenecektir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sakarya Hükümet Konağı, Adapazarı, modern
mimarlık, kamusal yapılar, kamusal alan
vi
To my dear family…
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I owe a dept of gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. T.Elvan Altan
for her endless support and trsut in me throughout this process. She not only broaden
my horizon with her deep knowledge but also with her positivity and kindness,
encoureged me to keep on working. It has been a great pleasure and honour to be her
student.
I would also like to thank my examining jury members Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı
Arslan and Assist. Prof. Dr. Bilge İmamoğlu for their crucial advices and valuable
comments.
I am also greatful to Mr. Enis Kortan and Mr. Nişan Yaubyan, for their time in sharing
their exemplery career stories with me. Their contributions in the research process of
this thesis were very valuable. I would also like to thank to Mr. Resul Narin for sharing
his personal archive with me. I also thank to my administrator and colleagues for their
understanding and support through this process.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the strongest woman I know, my mother
Nuray, my sister Handan, my brother Fatih and my uncle Ahmet, for their endless love,
support and belief in me. The meaning and joy you brought to my life is beyond words,
I feel very lucky to call you my family.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM………………………………………………………………………iii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………iv
ÖZ……………………………………………………………………………………v
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………...vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………..viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………......x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….…..1
1.1. Aim and Scope…………………………………………………………....1
1.2. Research Methods and Organization………………………………….….7
2. THE CITY OF SAKARYA…………………………………………………...13
2.1 Sakarya in the Late Ottoman Period…………………………………...14
2.2 Sakarya As a Province of the Turkish Republic……………………….20
2.3 The Formation of the Administrative Center of Sakarya……………...29
3. SAKARYA GOVERNMENT HOUSE……………………………………..35
3.1 Government Houses………………………………………………..….35
3.1.1. Late Ottoman Period………………………………………..…..36
3.1.2. Republican Period………………………………………..……..42
3.2 The Design of Sakarya Government House…………………………...49
3.2.1. The Competition and the Proposed Projects……………….…...50
3.2.2. The Winner Project………………………………………….….62
3.2.2.1. Architects……………………………………………….….62
3.2.2.2. A Modern Building………………………………………...70
4. THE RELATION OF SAKARYA GOVERNMENT HOUSE WITH THE
CITY………………………………………………………………………...91
ix
4.1 Urbanization of the City Center……………………………………….91
4.1.1. The Transformation of the Administrative Center and the
Formation of Adapazarı City Square………………………….……....92
4.1.2. The Development of New Commercial and Residential Areas
Around the CityCenter.........................................................................107
4.2 The Public Use of the City Center……………………………………111
5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….123
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………...132
APPENDICES
A. TÜRKÇE ÖZET / TURKISH SUMMARY.................................................142
B. TEZ İZİN FORMU/THESIS PERMISSION FORM……………………...150
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 The research area, marked on the map of Adapazarı of 1977……………6
Figure 2.1. The chart showing distribution of the population according to ethnical
background of the people living in Adapazarı, 1913. ………………………..16
Figure 2.2. The map of Adapazarı region, 1921…………………………………….17
Figure 2.3. Kocaeli province, around the1940s……………………………………..19
Figure 2.4. The population distribution by districts of Kocaeli, 1831……………....21
Figure 2.5. The population growth of Adapazarı and İzmit distrcits according to
census in 1906 and 1904……………………………………………………...22
Figure 2.6. Demographic development of Adapazarı by years……………………..24
Figure 2.7. The map of Sakarya, 1954, showing Adapazarı as the central district....26
Figure 2.8. December 1, 1954, the date when Sakarya became a province.
People of Adapazarı gathered in Gümrükönü to welcome the first mayor
Nazım Üner…………………………………………………………………...27
Figure 2.9. The news announcing that Adapazarı will be the center of Sakarya.
Sakarya, March 13, 1951……………………………………………………...28
Figure 2.10. The news announcing that the newly established city will be named
as Sakarya and Adapazarı will be its center. Milliyet, June 15, 1955……..…...28
Figure 2.11. Sakarya Province Establishing Association (Sakarya İli Kurulma
Derneği), visiting the prime minister Adnan Menderes, 1952………………..28
Figure 2.12. Adapazarı Government House, 1890s………………………………....31
Figure 2.13. Adapazarı Government House, 1930s………………………………....31
Figure 2.14. Adapazarı Government Street, 1901. From the right, Municipality
Coffe House and Hotel, Government House and Gendarma
Command……………………………………………………………………..33
Figure 2.15. Administrative center of Adapazarı, 1940s. From the left; Municipality
Building, Gendarme Command, the prison and Courthouse Building………..33
Figure 2.16. Gümrük Street, 1930s. The road from Yeni Camii to Orhan Camii.
From the right: Fire Department, the prison and Government House...33
Figure 3.1. Trabzon Government House, beginning of the 20th century …………..38
xi
Figure 3.2. The Government House of Söğüt District of Bursa, 1907-1908………..41
Figure 3.3. The Government House of Yenişehir District of Bursa, 1907-1908…....41
Figure 3.4. The Government House of Bilecik, 1907-1908……………….………..41
Figure 3.5. The announcement about the project competition in Milliyet, 1955…...54
Figure 3.6. Top view of Elazığ Government House, 1955. ………………………...56
Figure 3.7. Top facade of Elazığ Government House, 1955. ……………………....56
Figure 3.8. Mass organisation and perspective view of Elazığ G. House, 1958……56
Figure 3.9. The analysis showing the transformation of evaluation criteria in
architecture competitions in Turkey between 1930 and 1980………………..58
Figure 3.10. Nişan Yaubyan and Harutyun Vapurciyan as classmates at İstanbul
Technical University, 1950’s…………………………………………………64
Figure 3.11. Sünbül Apartment, Nişantaşı, 2016…………………………………...65
Figure 3.12. A proposed project for General Directorate of Highways, 1955……...68
Figure 3.13. The site plan of the Ministry of National Education, 1962……………68
Figure 3.14. A proposed project for General Directorate of Highways, 1955……...69
Figure 3.15. Sakarya Government House, 1962…………………………………….71
Figure 3.16. A perspective of Sakarya Government House, 1956………….………72
Figure 3.17. Site plan of Sakarya Government House, 1956……………………….72
Figure 3.18. Elevation drawing of the project of General Directorate for Office of
Agricultural Products…………………………………………………………73
Figure 3.19. The site plan of the General Directorate Office of Agricultural
Products………………………………………………………………………73
Figure 3.20. The shaft of the building designed in a sculptural form. ……………..74
Figure 3.21. The fountain located in the courtyard of the complex designed in a
sculptural form. ……………………………………………………………....74
Figure 3.22. A perspective drawing of Sakarya Government House. ……………...76
Figure 3.23. The site plan of the complex. ………………………………………....77
Figure 3.24. A closer view of Sakarya Government House, 1960s. ………………..78
Figure 3.25. A view showing the vertical elements on the façade of Sakarya
Government House……………………………………………………………78
Figure 3.26. İstanbul Municipality Palace designed by Nevzat Erol, 1953…………81
Figure 3.27. Büyükada Anatolian Club, 1950. ………………………………………83
xii
Figure 3.28. Turkish Pavilion in the Brussels Expo, 1956………………………......83
Figure 3.29. The pilotis on the ground floor, Sakarya Government House, 1960s.....84
Figure 3.30. Curtain wall details of the complex……………………………………85
Figure 3.31. A news in the Milliyet Newspaper announcing the construction
ofSakarya Government House, 1954……………………………………….....89
Figure 3.32. Enis Kortan and Nişan Yaubyan controlling the construction of
Sakarya Government House, 1959……………………………………...…………..90
Figure 4.1. A view of the old city center, Uzun Çarşı to Çeşmemeydanı, 1940s…...93
Figure 4.2. A view of the city, 1935. Tozlu Mosque in the middle and traditional
Adapazarı houses……………………………………………………………...93
Figure 4.3. A view of Uzun Çarşı, 1920s. …………………………………………..94
Figure 4.4. A view of Uzun Çarşı, 1940s…………………………………………....94
Figure 4.5. A view of the administrative center of the city, 1932. Post Office
building on the left bottom, Halkevi under construction, Messeret Hotel in
the middle, Gendarme Command on the right and Security Chief Office. …...94
Figure 4.6. Administrative buildings of Adapazarı,1940. From the left; Security Chief
Office, Fire Station, Gendarme Command, Courthouse and
Government House. …………………………………………………………..94
Figure 4.7. Gümrükönü, the entrance to Uzun Çarşı at the beginning of the 1950s...95
Figure 4.8. Newly forming Çark Street, 1940s……………………………………...97
Figure 4.9. Adapazarı city plan, 1953……………………………………………….99
Figure 4.10. A view of the Adapazarı city center, 1960s. Sakarya Government
House and the new city square. ……………………………………………..100
Figure 4.11. The map of Adapazarı, 1957. ………………………………………....101
Figure 4.12. The map of Adapazarı, 1977. ………………………………………....102
Figure 4.13. Adapazarı city center, 1970s. Bus stations in front of the square
of Sakarya Government House. ……………………………………………………103
Figure 4.14. Adapazarı city plan, 1957……………………………………………..104
Figure 4.15. Adapazarı city center, 1963. ………………………………………….106
Figure 4.16. Coppersmiths (Bakırcılar) in Adapazarı, 1940s…………………….....109
Figure 4.17. Government House Square, 1973. A view from the Sipahiler Office
Block. …………………………………………………………………….....109
xiii
Figure 4.18. Atatürk Boulevard, 1973. …………………………………...….……109
Figure 4.19. Top view of Atatürk Boulevard, 1960s. ……………………….…….109
Figure 4.20. Atatürk Boulevard, 1994……………………………………………..109
Figure 4.21. Şemsiyeli Bahçe, 1964……………………………………………….114
Figure 4.22. Sakarya Government House under construction, 1959. Fitaş, Saray
and Halkevi Cinemas located right across the complex. …………………..114
Figure 4.23. Sakarya Government House inner courtyard, 1960s. ………………..115
Figure 4.24. Sakarya Government House and its square in the front. …………….115
Figure 4.25. A perspective drawing of Sakarya Government House and
the square in its front. ……………………..…………………………………….....116
Figure 4.26. The near surroundings of Sakarya Government House and the square
marked on the map of 1977……..….…………………………………….......117
Figure 4.27. Sakarya Government House and Atatürk statue……..….…………....118
Figure 4.28. The sculptural fountain among the pilotis…………………………….118
Figure 4.29. President K. Evren making a speech in front of the building, 1982.…121
Figure 4.30. Sakarya Government House during the celebrations of 75th
anniversary of the Republic, 1998………………………………………….121
Figure 4.31. Atatürk Boulevard during celebrations, 1960s. ……………………....121
Figure 5.1. Sakarya Government House and its square, 1990s…………………….126
Figure 5.2. After the earthquake of 1999, Government Office Block still standing while
the surrounding buildings were completely destroyed.…………….………...128
Figure 5.3. Current situation of the area, 2017……………….…………………......130
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Aim and Scope
This study focuses on Sakarya Government House, which was built as a result of a
national competition organized by the Ministry of Public Works in 1955. Examining
the design of the building by architects Enis Kortan, Harutyun Vapurciyan, Nişan
Yaubyan and Avyerinos Andonyadis as well as its life span from its opening in 1960
until it was demolished in 2003 after the 1999 Adapazarı Earthquake, the study
attempts to discuss its role in the transformation of the city center during the second
half of the 20th century. As such, the Sakarya Government House complex will be
discussed in two main contexts, firstly on the building scale by referring to its
architectural features and secondly on the wider city scale by focusing on the
interaction of the complex with the city, mainly the center of Adapazarı that went
through a considerable transformation by means of this building complex.
Taking the second half of the 20th century architectural context as the background,
this study aims to evaluate the architectural design of the Sakarya Government House
complex in relation to the modernity debates of the period. As Colquhoun claims,
modern architecture is quite an ambiguous term itself and involves architectural
practices of almost all of the 20th century.1 It is open to interpretations and could refer
to all buildings of the period irrespective of their ideological background. In other
1 Colquhoun, 2002, p.10-11.
2
words, as Drexler states, it is doubtful that anybody will be able to offer a description
of modern architecture without exceptions.2 In this study, the terms “modern
architecture” and “modernity” refer to the architectural practice in Turkey mainly in
the 1950s, when Sakarya Government House was designed. With the pioneering
examples such as İstanbul Hilton Hotel, the architecture of the period was produced
by utilizing the opportunities provided by new technology, and by using geometric
forms. In this respect, it was modern architecture that was produced in Turkey during
the second half of the 20th century.
1950s’ modern architecture is defined in literature as the International Style, which
originated in the United States of America and spread around the world with the same
basic principles albeit showing local differences. 3 In the 1950s, the construction sector
was on the rise in Turkey, and developing communication means gave architects
opportunities to follow foreign products. Thus, they got acquainted with new trends
by seeing foreign examples and followed the applications in the world from the
architecture press.4 In the same period, architectural competitions that were organized
by the Ministry of Public Works met with huge interest among the young, newly
graduated architects. As a result of competitions, architects had the opportunity to
establish frequent dialogues with other architects, official institutions and universities.5
As Bozdoğan specifies for the period, a younger generation of architects were engaged
into their own practices out of state patronage and produced examples that reflected
2 Drexler, 1979, p.3.
3 Joedicke, 1969, qouted in Kortan, 1973, p.31.
4 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960” in A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey during
the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.69.
5 Karaaslan, Merih, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları.” Mimarlık, 203 (1984), p.7.
3
the understanding of the modern International Style of the world6 by also interpreting
the canonic approach of contemporary modern architecture in relation to the contextual
determinations.
Sakarya Government House was the product of such a period, constituting a significant
example of the architectural context in Turkey. It was the product of a competition
project, designed with an innovative architectural approach in the modern, rational
architecture of the International Style that was widely followed throughout the world
at that time. Although this period has recently been the topic of analysis by
architectural historians, it is noteworthy that literature has limitations regarding
chronological and spatial aspects. Architectural historiography on the 20th century is
generally restricted by focusing on the early period of the Republic and the built
environment of the new capital city Ankara. In this regard, Altan points out that, due
to the emphasis on the modernization process that accelerated with the establishment
of the Republic, priority was given to urban planning and architecture in the
metropolitan cities, especially Ankara, which experienced the greatest change in the
first place and was expected to serve as an example for other regions.7 In recent
decades, these limitations of historiography started to be overcome and besides
Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir have been brought to the agenda, which later on gradually
spread to cases throughout the country.8 Although the spatial limitation began to
disappear over the years, the city of Sakarya, its physical environment, its architectural
6 Bozdoğan, S. and E. Akcan, Populist Democracy and Post-War Modernism in Modern Architectures
in History, İstanbul, 2012, p.117.
7 Altan-Ergut, Elvan. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar.” Türkiye
Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 13 (2009a), p.124.
8 Altan-Ergut, Elvan. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar.” Türkiye
Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 13 (2009a), p.124.
4
production or its urban transformation have never been at the center of architectural
historiography.
However, Sakarya Government House, designed in 1956, was one of the pioneering
works for modern architecture of the period in Turkey with reference to its innovative
design approach, by applying details and materials that had not been commonly used
in the country before. Kortan draws attention to this point, indicating that Sakarya
Government House is not known much among the architectural community, often
overshadowed and stayed in the background because of the lack of enough
publications about it.9
In fact, in the publications about the architecture of the period, the building was either
not mentioned at all or not discussed in detail, which constitutes the starting point of
this study. This study attempts to reevaluate the widely discussed and studied debates
on modern architecture of the 1950s, yet this time, through a rather overshadowed
case, which is still one of the most successful examples of the period with all its
aspects.
On the other hand, apart from the architectural history literature, there is a multitude
of studies about the city of Sakarya, primarily pioneered by Sakarya University. In this
context, the determination of the areas where the knowledge is concentrated regarding
the city, is considered important in terms of creating new investigation areas. Studies
on the central district of Sakarya, Adapazarı, have been foremost in the focus of
earthquake researchers for many years, due to its geographical location being in an
earthquake region and having three devastating earthquakes in every thirty years
during the last century, i.e. in 1943, 1967 and 1999. The researches on this subject
have been substantially diversified and the subject has been handled with from a
9 Kortan, E., 2003, “Soruşturma 2003: Mimarlık Geçmişini Değerlendiriyor” Üzerine Bir Deneme, Enis
Kortan. Mimarlık, no. 314. Retrieved from:
http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=26&RecID=257
5
number of different aspects related to the built environment, such as the geotechnical
and engineering performance of the building stock in the district, fault line
investigations on structural damages observed after the earthquakes, engineering
analyzes of the destroyed buildings, and the effects of earthquakes on construction
economy. Apart from these, it could be argued that there are various researches
regarding the vegetable and fruit growing and agricultural activities, which constitute
the main source of income of citizens. The impact of Sakarya University and its
contribution to and interaction with the city and citizens has been another subject that
is highly studied. Despite this existing literature, architectural studies concerning the
city are quite few. There is a study investigating the religious architectural production
of the Ottoman period in the city. However, a number of other studies on the urban
scale and regional planning evaluates the city once again in the context of
earthquakes.10
This study aims to contribute to the literature on architectural and urban context of
Turkey during the 20th century by studying the case of Adapazarı to enhance
information about places beyond big cities such as Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir.
Focusing on the case of Sakarya Government House, the study also aims to contribute
to the limited literature on architectural and urban development of Adapazarı during
the period in terms of the relation between the architectural features of the building
complex and its role in the transformation of the city center.
Adapazarı, which had been a small town in the early years of the Republic, retained
its traditional character to a great extend until the mid-twentieh century. In 1954, due
to the fact that the city became a provincial center, it began to undergo a major urban
transformation and its traditional character changed in time. As a result of this change
10 Two of the publications that previously examined Adapazarı on an urban scale analyzes the city as a
case study and merely in relation with the earthquakes. See: Bayhan, Fikret. Impacts of Planning
Decesions in Earthquake Vulnerable City, The Case of Adapazarı, METU, 2010, Ankara.; Mestan,
Çiğdem Cemile. The Role of The Physical Planning In The Reduce Of The Earthquake Damages,
Example of Adapazarı Settlement, Gazi Uni., 2005, Ankara.
6
affecting the general urban context, it is noteworthy that several public buildings were
constructed from the mid-20th century onwards.11 In this context, as a result of the
powerful interaction of Sakarya Government House with the city, the complex acted
as one of the most influential factors in the formation of a modern administrative center
in Adapazarı; and together with its architectural value, it gained a place in the civic
memory. Thus, this study examines the transformation of the city center of Adapazarı
at the time and intends to evaluate Sakarya Government House in this context.
Starting from the design of Sakarya Government House in the 1950s, expanding until
it was seriously damaged in the 1999 Adapazarı Earthquake and finally when it was
11 Narin, Resul. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü in Arşiv ve Tarihçiliğe
Adanmış Bir Ömür Prof. Dr. Atilla Çetin’e Armağan, Sakarya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal
İşler Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2006, p.265.
Fig.1.1: The research area of the study, marked on
the map of Adapazarı of 1977.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Development
and Urban Planning Department.)
7
demolished in 2003, the study examines the change of the urban context by the
formation of squares, and streets, and the consequent administrative, commercial and
housing areas in and round the center of the city in relation to the Sakarya Government
House complex. As Altan points out the developing comprehensive perspective and
interdisciplinary approach in architectural historiography, also in this study, instead of
focusing exclusively on singular buildings, the production of the built environment
will be analyzed in a holistic way.12 Sakarya Government House, in this research, will
be interpreted by examining architectural production in relation to social processes
instead of solely focusing on the building. In other words, not only the building as the
final product of architecture, but also how and why it was designed, built and used will
be the focus of discussion.13
For all these reasons, Sakarya Government House, which is the prominent public
structure in the formation of the modern city center of Adapazarı, will be examined in
relation to its architectural features that make it unique on one hand, and on the other
hand, its spatial contributions to the city will be evaluated.
1.2.Methodology and Organization
A comprehensive literature survey was the first step of the study to examine the related
national and local sources, and this research was shaped around three main topics. In
order to better illustrate the transformation of the city and the contribution of Sakarya
Government House to this change, the sources that concentrate on the historical and
physical development of the city of Sakarya and its district of Adapazarı formed the
first of topics. Secondly, regarding the architectural analysis of Sakarya Government
12 Altan-Ergut, Elvan. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar.” Türkiye
Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 13 (2009a), p.122.
13 Altan-Ergut, Elvan. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar.” Türkiye
Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 13 (2009a), p.123.
8
House and in order to make more accurate determinations about its place in the
architectural production of the period, the sources about the architectural context of
the second half of the 20th century should also be extensively studied. Third and lastly,
in order to more accurately interpret the impact of this building complex on the urban
context of the Adapazarı city center, a number of readings regarding the concepts such
as public buildings, public space, public use and public squares were made. Regarding
the history of the city of Sakarya and specifically Adapazarı, the main source has been
the article that was presented at the Sakarya Symposium,14 which comprehensively
examined the written literature about the history of the city. Basically, in accordance
with the information obtained from this source, the proposed encyclopedias were
examined in order to give a general idea about the district respectably. In addition to
this, the proceedings of the symposiums organized and hosted by Sakarya University
in order to contribute to the historical accumulation of the city and published as books
later on, form an important part of the resources.15
Another significant resource for the study was formed by the works and the personal
archive of Resul Narin, which include a great number of historical documents and
photos of Sakarya concentrating on the region in its many aspects such as its
administrative and social structure and economy when it was a district of the Kocaeli
province.
14 Uslu, Dilara. “Sakarya Şehir Tarihi Hakkında Yazılmış Eserlerin İncelenmesi” in Geçmişten
Günümüze Sakarya Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Sakarya, 2017, p. 728.
15 Organized collectively by Adapazarı Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Sakarya University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, the symposium is specified to undertake the role to
serve as a model for the symposiums that will be held afterwards. Named as “Dünden Bugüne
Adapazarı”, this symposium evaluates Adapazarı after the 1950s under the sessions of Environment and
Urban Planning, Social Structure and Education, Financial and Business Life. It has an important place
among the studies on the city of Sakarya and it is one of the most comprehensive and versatile researches
regarding its historical development.
9
In addition to the research works, archival documents and publications such as
periodicals and newspapers were scanned and related news and information were
included in the research.16 Moreover, the investigation of maps, which are concrete
documents of the development of the city, constituted an important part of the research.
In this context, the maps shared in the book Dünden Bugüne Adapazarı and the maps
taken from the Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Directorate of Reconstruction and
Urbanism were also used in the study.
In order to understand the architectural context of the production of Sakarya
Government House itself, studies on the architecture of the 1950s form the basis of
evaluation.17 More significantly, personal interviews with the architects of the
16 The Archive of Milli Kütüphane, the Presidential Archives of Ottoman and Republican periods,
Milliyet newspaper archive and the personal archive of Resul Narin are among the mostly utilized.
17 For the main sources on the architecture of the 1950s, see: Colquhoun, A. (2002) Modern
Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford; Curtis, W. J. R. (1982) Modern Architecture since 1900.
Prentice-Hall, Inc; Davies, C. (2017) A New History of Modern Architecture. Laurence King
Publishing; Doordan, D. (2002) 20th Century Architecture. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers;
Frampton, K. (1980) Modern Architecture A Critical History. Oxford University Press, New York and
Toronto; Goldhagen, S. W. ve R. Legault (der.) (2002) Anxious Modernisms. Experimentation in
Postwar Architectural Culture. The MIT Press; Ockman, J. (ed.) (1993) Architecture Culture 1943-
1968. Rizzoli International Publications; Pendlebury, P., E. Erten, P. J. Larkham (eds.)
(2015) Alternative Visions of Post-War Reconstruction: Creating the Modern Townscape. Routledge.
For the main sources on the architecture of the period in Turkey, see: Alsaç, Ü. (1976) Türkiye’deki
Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemi’ndeki Evrimi. KTÜ Baskı Atölyesi; Batur, A. (2005) A
Concise History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century. Mimarlar Odası, Ankara; Bozdoğan,
S. and E. Akcan, (2012) Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, Reaction Books; Bozdoğan, S.
(2008) “Democracy, Development, and the Americanization of Turkish Architectural Culture in the
1950s“, in S. Isenstadt & K. Rizvi, eds. Modernism and the Middle East Architecture and Politics in
the 20th Century. University of Washington Press; Gürel, M. (ed.) 2016. Mid-Century Modernism in
Turkey: Architecture across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge; Holod, R. & A. Evin (eds.)
(1984) Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press; Kaçel, E. (2011) “This is not
an American House: Good Sense Modernism in 1950s Turkey”, in Duanfung Lu (ed.), Third World
Modernism: Architecture, Development and Identity. New York, NY: Routledge; Sözen, M. and M.
Tapan (1973) 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul; Vanlı, Şevki
(2006) Bilinmek İstenmeyen Yirminci Yüzyıl Türk Mimarlığı. Eleştirel Bakış. Şevki Vanlı Mimarlık
Vakfı, Ankara.
10
building, Enis Kortan and Nişan Yaubyan, as well as the books and articles written by
these architects on the subject were the main references.18
Following the literature survey, the primary method used in the study was to bring
together all the obtained documents on the urban scale for the city of Adapazarı and
on the building scale for Sakarya Government House with an interdisciplinary and
holistic approach, in order to accurately interpret the production of the building and its
impact on the transformation of the city center. In this way, the attempt is to
demonstrate that Sakarya Government House initiated the formation of a new
administrative center by the transformation of the previous city center by creating a
modern, alternative attraction point in the city.
In accordance with this purpose, the comparison method was equally important and
frequently used in the study. In order to explain both the impact of Sakarya
Government House on the transformation of the city center and to interpret the
formation of a new public square in the city, the “old” and the “new” configurations
and appearances of the city were compared. This method was crucial in order to clarify
the suggested transformation of the city from a small, classical Ottoman city to a
modern Republican center.
In this respect, following the introduction, the study is organized around three main
chapters. Starting with a general overview of the city, Chapter Two reviews the
historical development of Sakarya by examining the city starting from its existence as
a village in the earlier centuries, and a district in the late Ottoman period to its
18 In various articles and publications, Enis Kortan mentions the design and construction process of
Sakarya Government House. See: Kortan E. (1973). Türkiye’de Mimarlık Hareketleri ve Eleştirisi 1950-
1960, Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi; Kortan E. (1973). Türkiye’de Mimarlık Hareketleri ve
Eleştirisi 1960-1970, Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi; Kortan, E. (2003). “Soruşturma 2003:
Mimarlık Geçmişini Değerlendiriyor” Üzerine Bir Deneme, Mimarlık, sayı:314; Kortan, E. (2012).
Hümanist Bir Mimarlığa Doğru Enis Kortan Proje ve Uygulamalar, 1952-2005. Ankara: Boyut Yayın
Grubu. In addition, for the assesment of Nişan Yaubyan about the project, see: Yaubyan, Nişan.
"Mesleğine Tutkun Bir Mimar." Interview by Erhan Demirtaş. Mimdap, January 21,2019; Mimarlığa
Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
11
transformation into an independent province of the Turkish Republic in the mid-20th
century. At this point, the historical administrative center of the Ottoman period with
the government building of Adapazarı is examined in order to strengthen the
evaluation of the new administrative center of the city in the mid-20th century.
Chapter Three focuses on the Sakarya Government House. Following the introductory
section, which describes the functional, symbolic and stylistic features of government
houses in general both in the Ottoman and Republican periods, the second section
examines the design process of Sakarya Government House, beginning with its
architectural project competition and focusing on the jury reports as well as examining
other proposed projects for the same competition. The following section presents the
architects of the winning project and their general architectural approaches with
specific examples in order to comprehend their decisions related to the design of
Sakarya Government House. In the next section, the design and construction phases of
the building are discussed in the context of the production of modern architecture
during the period in Turkey.
Chapter Four discusses the building within its extended urban environment by
interpreting two different scales of the city and the building complex together. In order
to evaluate the building from a larger perspective, the urbanization of the city center
will be evaluated by examining the new streets as the emerging axes and mainly the
reorganization of Atatürk Boulevard as effective in the formation of a new attraction
center for the city. In this framework, in relation with Atatürk Boulevard and the
Station and Government Squares, the transformation of the administrative center as
well as the development of THnew commercial and residential areas around the city
center are examined. In the following section, by focusing on the square provided in
front of Sakarya Government House and other open public spaces around, the
dimension of the interaction that the building complex established with the citizens is
explored by discussing how and for what main purposes it was used, and its place in
the urban memory.
12
By bringing together the architectural aspects of Sakarya Government House in its
own scale and the city of Sakarya in a wider perspective, the aim is to produce new
knowledge on Adapazarı and Sakarya Government House during the second half of
the 20th century, which have hitherto not studied as part of the related literature. The
analysis is also significant as the Sakarya Government House complex was demolished
in 2003 after the damage caused by the 1999 Adapazarı Earthquake.
13
CHAPTER 2
THE CITY OF SAKARYA
Sakarya settles in the midst of a fertile and wide plain formed by the Sakarya River
through centuries which crosses the Geyve Strait after passing through Eskişehir,
Ankara and Bilecik provinces on the northern slopes of Samandağ and Keremali
Mountains. 19
Tracing back the historical evaluation of the city, according to the oldest findings, the
region was under Byzantine domination between 395-1326. During this period, the
city gained a number of important work in terms of architectural production, such as
Justinianus Bridge. In 1326, the region came under the Ottoman rule that would last
for years. In the following period, in 1536, Ada Village was established in the region
and found a place in official records.20 (Fig.2.1) Likewise, it is noteworthy that
important Ottoman voyagers in their travel books, such as Katip Çelebi in his
Cihannüma and Evliya Çelebi in his Seyahatname briefly mentioned the region and its
surroundings.21
19 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.2.
20 Further information can be obtained from Agah Yönsel’s article, Adapazarı Tarihine Ait Belgeler,
which traces the word “Ada” in historical documents. Please also refer to Ada Kariyesi’nden Sakarya
Vilayetine of Hasan Balcıoğlu and Temettuat Defterlerine Göre Ada Kazası of Resul Narin for extensive
information regarding the changes in social and administrative strcutre of the city.
21 Çelik, Abdullah, 2007.
14
On the other hand, by the end of the 18th century, important structures such as Orta
Mosque and Ağa Mosque, which constitute the core of the city, had already been added
to the architectural environment of the city. Therefore, following the period after the
establishment of Adapazarı as a village, namely the Ada Village, this chapter aims to
explain the evolution and progress of the city from a late developing city of the late
Ottoman period into a significant city in the Republican period.
2.1. Sakarya in the Late Ottoman Period
Adapazarı, which had been founded as a village in the 16th century, functioned as a
market for the surrounding cities.22 As its name indicates, the fertile land of the plain
became an important market for many cities nearby. The city which had been
established as a market place since the Ottoman conquest, maintained this feature
throughout its history.23
As such Adapazarı has been a city developed by means of trade.24 The village, which
became a sub-district (nahiye) of Kocaeli in 1746, was an economic and social center,
and has continued to constitute the core of the city until today. Every week, the market
was organized as the place where the people of the surrounding villages and nomadic
tribes as well as its own inhabitants came and sold their crops.25 This socio-cultural
interaction and exchange between people and different communities gradually made
Adapazarı a lively center and prepared the ground for its rapid development. Thus,
22 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.3-4.
23 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.3-4.
24 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.263.
25 Eröz, Mehmet. Adapazarı’nın Teşekkülü, 1966, pp.61-70.
15
analyzing the phonetic background of its name, Narin remarks that the word
“market/bazaar” (pazar), which forms the root of the word Adapazarı, explains the
importance of the market organized in the region from the earliest times of the city.
Therefore, this market had a great effect on the transformation of the structure of the
region from a small village to a city center.26
Towards the 19th century, this function has begun to transform the city into a
commercial center. As a result, as the plain processed, the population increased
rapidly.27 According to the census records of Temettuat Defterleri, in 1844, there were
seven neighborhoods in the center of Adapazarı District, which take their names
mostly according to their commercial functions; Bağcılar, Hocaoğlu, Kuyumcu,
Mehmet Efendi, Pabuççular, Tekeler and Yahyalar.28 Consisting of a total of 267
households residing in these seven neighborhoods, the estimated population of the
region for the period was approximately 1335.29
As can be seen from Fig. 2.2, Adapazarı was one of the places that reflected the
cosmopolitan structure of the Ottoman Empire quite well. It was a rather rich place in
terms of multi-ethnicity consisting of Muslims, Rumelia immigrants, Laz and
Georgian, Circassian and Abkhazian, Yoruk tribe, Armenian, Greek, Jewish and
Kurdish groups all together.30
26 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.270.
27 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.4.
28 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.6.
29 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.6.
30 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.260.
16
As a summary, the city of Adapazarı constitutes an important example of how
economic/financial factors affect the formation of a city.31 The market established in
the region was even instrumental in the formation of the name of the city. Likewise,
with the effect of this market, the region developed and became the center of the
district. (Fig.2.2)
As mentioned, the settlement and habitation in the plain initially started during the
Ottoman period and settlers started to process the fertile soil. On the other hand, in
terms of demographic analysis, as the plain was cultivated well, the population
consequently increased and, as a result Adapazarı turned into a central district (merkez
kazası) of Kocaeli, in 1852.32
Following this, after the establishment of the municipal organization in 1861, in
addition of being a commercial center, the city gained an administrative function as
well. After Adapazarı became a municipality in 1865, it was endeavored to be
31 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.260.
32 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.45.
Fig.2.1: The chart showing distribution of the population according to
ethnical background of the people living in Adapazarı, 1913.
(Prepared by the author)
17
managed and modernized in accordance with the demands of the Tanzimat
bureaucrats.
During this period, the administrative center, which will be explained in the following
chapters, began to be formed with the construction of new structures. Meanwhile,
services in many fields such as education, health and industry, which were transformed
by the state with the aim of modernization, also started to transform the built
environment of the city with the rapid rise in the construction of buildings such as
schools, hospitals, factories and cultural facilities.33 In 1899, the arrival of a 9 km line
from Arifiye on the 133th kilometer of the Haydarpaşa-Ankara railway line to the city
33 Dünden Bugüne Adapazarı, 2008, Sakarya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, p.48.
Fig.2.2: The map of Adapazarı region, 1921.
(General Directorate of Military Maps)
18
accelerated its development rapidly.34 With this modern means of transportation,
Adapazarı enriched economically and had the opportunity to market its products in
larger market places, such as İstanbul.35 (Fig.2.3) From the rare contemporary
photographs and the memories of the people, it is seen that, when it was first
constructed, there were not many buildings but empty lands existed around the
station.36 However, in the following years, many buildings with different functions
were developing in this new area and an alternative attraction point of the city to the
old city center constitute of the previously mentioned bazaar and mosques, was being
formed.
In the mid-19th century, regarding the demographic structure of Adapazarı, it could be
argued that the majority of its population was still living in villages. In parallel with
village life, the main economic activities were agriculture and livestock breeding.
From the mid-19th century on, as a result of this aforementioned evolution, Adapazarı
entered a rapid urbanization process. One of the most important indicators of the
urbanization of the city was the banking activities in the region. The first bank of
Adapazarı, the Adapazarı Islamic Trade Bank (İslam Ticaret Bankası), was established
in this period.37
34 65 km long Haydarpaşa-Ankara railway had seven stations. This railway, connecting İstanbul to
Ankara and other Anatolian cities, was passing through the Sakarya province. Starting from
Haydarpaşa, until 10 km east of İzmit, it was extending in parallel to today’s D-100 highway, turning
north in Derbent province and reaching the Arifiye Station by following the southern part of Sapanca
Lake. It was separated from the main line in Arifiye Station and, after a 8.4 km distance, it ended at
Adapazarı Station. The main railway that was reaching from Arifiye to the south was following today’s
Arifiye-Eskişehir highway and reaching Ankara as the final destination of the line during the late
Ottoman period.
35 Narin, Resul. “The Times’ın Penceresinden 19. yy Adapazarı’na Bakış.” Müteferrika, sayı:37 (2010):
190.
36 Kent ve Demiryolu. (2014, December 29).
37 It is known that Adapazarı Islamic Trade Bank was established as a private bank by Bosnian Hacı
Ademzade İbrahim Efendi and his friends with a capital of 100000 Turkish Lira of the period. For
19
In addition, two of fourteen national banks throughout the country, which had been
established during the Ottoman Empire and were able to continue to exist through the
Republican period, were opened in Adapazarı. The establishment of Ziraat Bankası in
1889 and Osmanlı Bankası in 190738 which later followed by Adapazarı Emniyet
Bankası in 1919 and İş Bankası in 1924 were among important financial progress for
the city.39 Although these afore-mentioned banks were either branches of national
banks or regionally established banks which became national banks in time, such as
further information please refer to Subaşı, T. (2005). I. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Adapazarı’ndaki Sosyal
Hayat Hakkında Bazı Gözlemler, Sakarya İli Tarihi, SAÜ Yayınları, Sakarya, p.409-448.
38 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 485.
39 Subaşı, Turgut. I. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Adapazarı’ndaki Sosyal Hayat Hakkında Bazı Gözlemler.
SAÜ Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005, p.433.
Fig. 2.3: Kocaeli province, around the1940s.
(Resul Narin Archive)
20
Adapazarı Islamic Trade Bank later on, which also became one of the few banks that
would survive in the Republican period and open branches around the whole
country.40 Therefore, the fact that banking business was that much developed in the
region reflects the urbanization process and gives important clues about the economic
situation of the city.
Another significant indicator of the urbanization of the city was related to the opening
of factories. The industrialization efforts, such as the establishment of Flour Factory,
Wagon Factory, Iron and Wood Factory (Demir ve Tahta Fabrikası) and Silk Factory,
were among important initiatives noticeable in the city during the 19th century.41
Considering all these developments, the 19th century was a considerably effective
period in terms of the socio-economic development of Adapazarı. As Narin suggests,
the accumulation gained in this century made Adapazarı a center of attraction in the
beginning of the 20th century.42
2.2. Sakarya as a Province of the Turkish Republic
Adapazarı entered the 20th century with a significant economic accumulation.
Beginning from the end of the 19th century, it became a lively center that grew year
by year both in terms of population through external migration and, as mentioned, with
a rapidly developing economy. Regarding this, being one of the most important
commercial cities of its time by means of its geographic location, Adapazarı was also
40 The bank could survive even until the 2000s under the name of Turkish Trade Bank (Türk Ticaret
Bankası). For further information please see: Narin R, (2017), Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı
Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler, Geçmişten Günümüze Sakarya Uluslararası Sakarya Sempozyumu
Bildirileri, ed. Ertaş M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. pp. 477-497.
41 Selvi, Haluk. II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Adapazarı ve Çevresi (1908-1918), SAÜ Yayınları, İstanbul,
2005, p.477.
42 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.270.
21
the brightest city of Kocaeli province in terms of economic and socio-cultural aspects.
43 The economic accumulation taken over from the Ottomans was considerably
developed during the Republic period as well and Adapazarı continued to be a center
of attraction throughout years. Despite all these developments, in the first quarter of
the century, Adapazarı was still a district of İzmit. According to 1918 demographic
data, İzmit province consisted of seven districts. When the population distribution of
these districts in 1831 is examined, it is understood that the highest number belonged
to the Adapazarı district with a population of 102,051. Moreover, with a population of
71,349, the central district of İzmit, which gave its name to the city, lagged behind
Adapazarı. These were followed respectively by the other districts; Karamürsel,
Kandıra, Geyve, Yalova and İznik.44 (Fig.2.4)
43 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 490.
44 Çam, Yusuf, 2014, p.150.
Fig.2.4: The population distribution by districts of Kocaeli, 1831.
(Prepared by the author)
22
By the early 1900s, the conjuncture of the city was not much different. As summarized
in Fig. 2.6, according to the 1906 census, 97,425 people lived in Adapazarı; and in
1914 census this number rose up to 102,051. On the other hand, 64.927 people were
living in the city center İzmit according to the 1906 census; and according to the 1914
census, this number slightly increased to reach 70.887.45 The population data also
show that Adapazarı had almost 50% more population than İzmit, the central district
of the province.
Aside from economic and demographic situation of the city, a number of social and
cultural developments were noticeable in the city during the early 20th century. In
1918, Sabiha Hanım Primary School was established in the city and in the following
year a daily Adapazarı newspaper started to be published. In addition, the first private
hospital of Kocaeli Province was established in 1926. (Fig.2.5)
During the following years, the establishment of the Seed and Breeding Trial Station
(Adapazarı Tohum Islah İstasyonu) and supply of the first electricity to the city from
the engine producing electricity by the Wood and Iron Factory (Tahta ve Demir
Fabrikası) , as well as the establishment of new public hospitals and schools right next
45 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 488.
Fig.2.5: The population growth of Adapazarı and İzmit districts
according to census in 1906 and 1904.
(Prepared by the author)
23
to the city center, which will be examined profoundly in the next chapters, were among
important progressive interventions in the center.46 Considering all this, it could be
argued that Adapazarı was the most developed district of İzmit in terms of sociocultural
progress as well as production, economy and demographic aspects. At this
point, Çam emphasizes the level of development of Adapazarı from a different point
of view. He points out that, due to the fact that Adapazarı was the mostly developed
district of İzmit, the governors to be appointed here were considered very important
and selected carefully especially when compared to other districts. Therefore, it could
be seen that the people who served as the governor of Adapazarı undertook important
duties in later periods of their careers.47
At the end of the First World War, the city was occupied by the Greek forces, and later
during the years of the national struggle, it was taken by the Turkish forces in 1921.48
During this period, a number of significant events occurred regarding the sociocultural
life of the city. For instance, while the Armenians had an important position
in Adapazarı city life, due to the war conditions, they had been deported and migrated
to places far away from the city. The capital owners in the city purchased the
enterprises of the outgoing Armenians and continued to operate these businesses.49
Following the victory of the national struggle, with the proclamation of a new regime,
the Turkish Republic, Adapazarı also entered into a new process. In this respect, Narin
argues, despite all the difficulties and circumstances of the period, local people of
46 Çelik, Abdullah, 2007.
47 Çam, Yusuf, 2014 ,p.204.
48 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.48.
49 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 490.
24
Adapazarı were able to continue their economic activity and carried the rich legacy
from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic.50
As a summary, the productivity of the region, fertility in agriculture and, as a result,
being an important trade center mainly between İstanbul and Anatolia, as well as
having various industries such as sugar factories and wagon repair factories,
accelerated the development of the city gradually.51 As a consequence, through the
decades of the 20th century, the population of the city rapidly increased. The
population, which was 83,093 in the first census of the Republic in 1927, approached
297.108 in the 1950s.52 (Fig.2.6)
50 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 492.
51 Narin, Resul. Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair Tespitler. Edited by Ertaş
M., Aydın M., & Bilgin A. Sakarya, 2017, p. 492.
52 The population first exceeded 100.000 in 1970 and exceeded 150.000 in the 1985 census.
Fig.2.6: Demographic development of Adapazarı by years.
(Prepared by the author)
25
Finally in 1954, Adapazarı was separated from Kocaeli and became the center of the
province of Sakarya. 53 54 (Fig.2.7) The law on the establishment of the Sakarya
Province was published in the official newspapers on Tuesday, June 22. According to
the law, the newly established Sakarya Province was composed of five districts;
Akyazı, Hendek, Geyve and Karasu along with the central district of Adapazarı.55 On
December 1, 1954, the sign of the district governorship replaced the province sign with
an active participation of large crowds.56
Governor Mehmet Nazım Üner, who was appointed as the first governor of the
Sakarya Province, explained his arrival to Sakarya as follows:
06 December 1954… I will never forget that day. I was appointed as the first
governor of Sakarya. The people of Sakarya came until Düzce to meet me.
They accompanied us to Adapazarı. The enthusiastic welcome of the people
of Adapazarı impressed me and my friends a lot.57 (Fig.2.8)
53 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.270.
54 “Sakarya” had not been used as the name of the province until 1954. From the beginning, Adapazarı
existed as a district of the Kocaeli province. When it was taken by the Ottomans in 1337, the Kocaeli
province had been named as İznikmid (İzmit). After being an independent district (sancak) in 1888, the
region was named as Kocaeli. Later in 1924, Kocaeli became a city and İzmit became its central district.
In the meantime, together with İzmit, Adapazarı was a district of Kocaeli as well. Later, as a result of
its rapid development as explained below, in 1954, Adapazarı was seperated from Kocaeli and became
the central district of the newly established city of Sakarya. For further information regarding the
administrative structure of these cities, please refer to: Narin, Resul, Ada’dan Pazara Sakarya, Sakarya
Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2015.
55 Çelik, Abdullah, 2007.
56 Çelik, Abdullah, 2007.
57 See: http://www.sakarya.gov.tr/tarihce (Retrieved: December 8, 2019)
26
Within this period, the whole process regarding the transformation of Sakarya from a
small district of Kocaeli to an independent province received widespread attention
from media. A local newspaper of the period named Demokrat Sakarya, reported that
almost tens of thousands of people attended the ceremony and even a committee from
the capital Ankara came to celebrate.58 Additionally, Sakarya newspaper published
58 Çelik, Abdullah, 2007.
Fig.2.7: The map of Sakarya, 1954, showing Adapazarı as the central district.
(Resul Narin Archive)
27
on March 13, 1951 the news regarding Sakarya’s transformation into an independent
province and Adapazarı being the center of this province.59 (Fig.2.9)
Moreover, in addition to this local news, the transformation of Adapazarı found a place
in national newspapers as well. For instance, Milliyet newspaper reported on June 1954
that Adapazarı would be the new center of the province. (Fig.2.10) The article also
announced that this decision was notified to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and a
society called “Sakarya Province Establishing Association” (Sakarya İli Kurulma
Derneği) would be established soon in order to accelerate this process.60 (Fig.2.11)
In consequence of all these developments, after the official transformation of
Adapazarı into the central province of Sakarya, the construction of Sakarya
Government House in this new center was another important cornerstone for the city.
As a result of a competition project was organized by the Ministry of Public Works, in
1956 in order to construct a building for Sakarya Government House building was
decided to be constructed. Sakarya Government House building which constitutes the
core element of this thesis, and will be examined in the following chapters in terms of
59 Sakarya, 13 Mart 1951, “Adapazarı Vilayet Merkezi Oluyor”.
60 Milliyet, 15 Haziran 1954, “Adapazarı ve Adıyaman Kazaları Vilayet Oldu”
Fig.2.8: December 1, 1954, the date when Sakarya became a province. The people of
Adapazarı gathered in Gümrükönü (the center of the city at the time) to welcome the
first mayor M. Nazım Üner.
(Mustafa Bilgin Archive)
28
its architectural style as well as its huge impact on the transformation of the city center
and its place in urban memory will be discussed extensively in the following chapters.
Fig.2.9: The news announcing that
Adapazarı will be the center of Sakarya.
Sakarya, March 13, 1951.
(Şahin, 2005, p.201)
Fig.2.10: The news announcing that the
newly established city will be named as
Sakarya and Adapazarı will be its center.
Milliyet, June 15, 1955.
(Milliyet Newspaper Archive)
Fig.2.11: Sakarya Province Establishing Association (Sakarya İli
Kurulma Derneği), visiting the prime minister Adnan Menderes, 1952.
(Mustafa Erkaya Archive)
29
Indeed, there was a considerable transformation in the spatial organization of the city
from the mid-20th century onwards. Mainly with the reshaping of Atatürk Boulevard,
the rapidly constructed schools, hospitals, factories and shopping and business areas
around the new city center together with the new public park and garden arrangements,
the physical environment of Adapazarı began to transform. The urban transformation
in the city silhouette of Adapazarı from a small, historical Ottoman district to a strong,
developed Republican center will be discussed widely in the following chapters.
2.3. The Formation of the Administrative Center of Sakarya
Adapazarı, which had been founded as a village, and developed to turn firstly into a
town, and then a district, and finally a provincial center, has undergone a great urban
transformation. The transformation of Adapazarı, from a small district into a city
center and the reflections of this change on the wider architectural context in relation
to economic and socio-cultural development are worth investigating. The following
part of the thesis, will analyze Sakarya Government House, which constitutes a
significant part of this transformation of the city center and its architectural aspects as
well as its impact on the transformation of urban space will be widely discussed. In
order to fully understand the role of Sakarya Government House on the administrative
and spatial transformation of the city, the previous administrative center of Adapazarı
will be examined in this part in terms of both the administrative building it represents
and its location in the city.
Until the 19th century, there had not been separate public buildings constructed or
allocated for management purposes.61 As mentioned before, until the Tanzimat period,
administrative buildings had not yet been defined and separated. For this reason, the
building where kadı, the muslim judge who was in charge of administrative issues in
61 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. “Trabzon Örneğinde Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Hükümet Konağı Binaları.”
Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1/5 (2008), p.951.
30
earlier Ottoman periods, accommodated with his family, private servants and guards,
was accepted as the administrative center of the city.
The comprehensive reforms carried out during the Tanzimat period brought significant
changes to the administrative and institutional structure of the Ottoman Empire. As
Avcı mentions, these changes that occurred with the Tanzimat reforms were directly
reflected in the physical structure of the Ottoman city as well as the typologies of the
buildings in the architectural repertoire.62 Likewise, the administrative structure of
Adapazarı underwent such fundamental changes in the 19th century. Thus, in 1890, the
Sanjak of Izmit had 4 districts, 12 sub-districts and 606 villages, and one of those four
districts was Adapazarı. Interestingly, as Odabaş mentions, although Adapazarı was a
district of İzmit at that time, according to the registers of Temettuat Defterleri of
Tanzimat, which recorded the personal assets of people, a kadı was not yet assigned
for the Adapazarı district. However, there were a considerable number of other public
officers in the district, and as of 1844, the number of public officers serving in
Adapazarı was eleven with seven mukhtars, one court clerk, one polling officer and
two police officers.63 In fact, Adapazarı had an administrative building, namely a
government house, which was built in 1892 by Nüzhet Paşa who was the first district
governor of Adapazarı. This old Government House of Adapazarı was a three storey
wooden structure, which had rectangular framed, frequent and symmetrically arranged
window openings on its facade. (Fig.2.12, 2.13) The spiral staircase placed between
two high columns at the entrance of the mansion together with the fourth storey
resembling a crown on the roof, gave the building a prestigious, monumental and
respected appearance.
62 Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017, p.18.
63 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.66.
31
Regarding the architectural style, Yazıcı claims that Ottoman government houses, just
like other public buildings of the period such as hospitals, schools, etc., were rather
plain buildings with an emphasis by decorations on their facades.64 Avcı states that the
empirical style and neo-classical understanding prevailed in most of the administrative
structures of the late Ottoman period, which provided a distinct monumentality and
form to administrative buildings in regard of simplicity, structural balance and
symmetry of design. As such, they also represented an ideological approach to
emphasize the central role of the empire and stood as concrete evidences that the state
reached every corner of the empire. Apart from this, the government houses of the era
mostly included a number of units serving for governmental functions such as
courthouses, zaptiahs, as well as management, council and financial offices.65
Similarly for the Government House of the Adapazarı district, according to the
archives of the General Directorate of Foundations, justice works were carried out in
the court established in a room of this governmental mansion.66
64 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. “Amasya’daki Hükümet Konağı Binaları.” Sanat Dergisi, 18 (2010), s.96.
65 Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017, p.240.
66 Narin, Resul. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü, 2016, p.263.
Fig.2.12: Adapazarı Government
House, 1890s.
(İstanbul University Library, no:90578)
Fig.2.13: Adapazarı Government House, 1930s.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
32
On the other hand, government houses of the Ottoman period, which will be more
widely discussed in the following chapter, stood together with a number of other
official buildings of similar administrative functions, such as barracks, schools,
courthouses, constabulary buildings, city halls, post offices and even prisons in some
cases prisons.67 Positioning prison structures inside the immediate surrounding of
government houses seems to be an interesting approach. Avcı interprets that, as prisons
represented and reinforced the sanctioning power of the governor as a place of
execution, such a choice is not surprising.68 In addition, for postal and telegraph offices
that were also mostly located in administrative centers of cities, Avcı remarks that
these structures, which strengthened the control of central government over provincial
governments, were always ensured to be located as close to the government houses as
possible. Similarly, archive buildings, which represented the supervision and
disciplinary power of the state and reflected the passion of recording, filing and listing
of the period, were also indispensable components of this administrative context of the
late Ottoman period.69
Likewise in Adapazarı, the Government House of the Adapazarı district stood together
with a number of other similar buildings of administrative functions, such as telegraph
office, custom house, municipality hotel and office, constabulary building, fire house
and prison. (Fig.2.14, 2.15, 2.16) These administrative units, together with the
aforementioned market area (pazar) and the central mosques, were located right at the
central street of the time, Gümrükönü. The city center of that time, with the mosques
at the center, the bazaars surrounding them and the residential areas surrounding
bazaars, was that of a typical small Ottoman town. However, initially with the arrival
67 Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017, p.235
68 Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017, p.235.
69 Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017, p.20.
33
of the railway and rapid development of built environment by means of it, Uzun Çarşı,
Orhan Mosque and surroundings that used to be the center of the city, began to lose
their central character and the center shifted towards the station area.
In the meantime, the administrative center started to transform as well. The
administrative buildings of the late Ottoman period continued to function after the
Republic was founded. However, with the beginning of the transformation of the
administrative center of Adapazarı, the city in the mid-20th century, all of these
aforesaid buildings were demolished during the period of Mayor Ali Necdet Güven,
who served between 1955 and 1960. These public buildings were demolished with the
Fig.2.14: Adapazarı Government Street, 1901. From the right,
Municipality Coffe House and Hotel (Belediye Kıraathanesi ve Oteli),
Government House and Gendarma Command.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
(İstanbul University Library, no:90578)
Fig.2.15: Administrative center of Adapazarı,
1940s. From the left; Municipality Building,
Gendarme Command, the prison and Courthouse
Building.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
Fig.2.16: Adapazarı Gümrük Street, 1930s. The
road from Yeni Camii to Orhan Camii. From the
right: Fire Department, the prison and
Government House.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
34
purpose of opening a wide boulevard, to be named as Atatürk Boulevard later and will
widely be mentioned in following chapters, in between 1958 and 60, which coincided
with the construction of Sakarya Government House.
Thus, in this respect, the construction of a new modern building as Sakarya
Government House, after the official establishment of the Sakarya province, its
innovative architectural features as well as its relationship with the transformation of
the administrative center of Adapazarı, will be analyzed in the following chapters.
35
CHAPTER 3
SAKARYA GOVERNMENT HOUSE
This chapter focuses on the Sakarya Government House. In this direction, first of all,
the emergence of and changes that the government house structures have undergone
in the late Ottoman period and then in the Republican period will be explained.
Following part will focus on the Sakarya Government House and evaluate its design
and construction process mainly in the context of the architectural production in the
country, in the second half of the 20th century.
3.1. Government Houses
This chapter aims to examine the evaluation of government houses between the periods
beginning from the 19th Century until the mid-20th Century, mainly in the context of
their relation with and contribution to the development of urban space that they
interact, as well as their architectural features and representative meanings as symbols
of administrative power.
In accordance with this objective, the concept of government houses of the late
Ottoman period from the late 1800s until the beginning of the 1900s will be briefly
discussed in the first place, by concentrating mainly on their distinct design features
and representative meanings. Afterwards, government houses will be examined for the
Republican period from the 1920s until the end of the 1980’s by focusing once again
on their architectural features and symbolic interpretation as well as their relationship
36
with the city scape and their contribution on the development of the modern urban
context of the era.
3.1.1. Late Ottoman Period
The identity of cities is determined, recognized and introduced by a number of
elements. Among these elements, buildings take the foremost place as concrete
indicators of the conditions of the period they were built. Comprehensive reforms
carried out during the Tanzimat period brought about significant changes in the
administrative and institutional structure of the Ottoman state. Avcı explains that these
changes were reflected in the physical structure of the Ottoman cities and new building
types that had never been built, emerged during this period.70 Likewise, in the last
period of the Ottoman Empire, a number of structures such as clock towers,
municipality and government houses were included in the building repertoire and cities
were tightly integrated with these architectural elements.71 In this context, government
houses could be considered as significant examples of the prestige structures of cities
that symbolized the presence of the state authority where they stood. Tracing back the
historical development of government house complexes, it is only possible to come
across independent buildings designed to serve such specific functions of
administration and financial control, in the Tanzimat Period, during the late 1870s.
Ortaylı indicates that, for older and similar administrative units that used to serve for
similar functions such as the offices of muslim judges and financial control offices of
Ottoman period, namely kadılık and defterdarlık, the intention to search for a single and
70 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 18.
71 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. Son Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığının Başyapıtları: Hükümet Konakları. Edited
by A.Budak & M.Yılmaz. İstanbul, 2019, p.245.
37
independent building dedicated merely for this purpose was unavailing.72 Until the
19th century, such administrative buildings like government houses, ministry,
courthouse or land registry offices had not existed in Ottoman cities, and even in the
capital city İstanbul as the most developed city; related works were carried out at
managers’ houses where they accommodated. Therefore, in the period, an established
court building, a municipality or a government mansion specifically functioning for
the Ottoman administrators had not been established yet. Thus, while the residential
units of executives had functioned also as the places where state affairs had been
managed, a spatial separation of these different functions became evident towards the
end of the 19th century. It could be argued that a number of old mansions, which had
previously served for different purposes, were initially rented to serve as government
houses, and only in the following years independent buildings were assigned for
administrative and financial operations. In this respect, Ortaylı suggests that for the
first time with the Tanzimat Period in İstanbul and other Ottoman cities, a number of
anonymous and individual buildings apart from private properties of officers were
engaged as government offices.73
Thus, the emergence of local governments in the modern sense coincides with the
Tanzimat period. The attempts to establish the first municipal administration as a local
government emerged in the years following the Tanzimat and especially after the
increasing relations with the Western countries during the Crimean War of 1854-
1856.74 Avcı indicates that, the first examples of government houses were realized in
the 1860s, in which important administrative and financial arrangements were made
72 Ortaylı, İlber. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları.” Mimarlık, 203 (1984), p.4.
73 Ortaylı, İlber. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları.” Mimarlık, 203 (1984), p.5.
74 Ünal, Feyzullah, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Yasal ve Yapısal
Dönüşümü.” Dumlupınar Üni. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sayı: 30 (2011), p.243.
38
to reorganize the Ottoman provincial administration.75 On the other hand, the
enhancement and popularization of government house buildings put forward their
architectural features, which brought together a symbolic meaning attributed to them.
Before focusing on the architectural symbolism of these structures, distinct
architectural aspects will be examined.
In the Ottoman period, government houses were simple and functional structures. As
also seen in other public buildings of the period, most of the government houses were
masonry, horizontal and rectangular buildings which usually had a quite simple plan
scheme that was basically developed around a central corridor and a central courtyard.
(Fig.3.1)
When interior plan layout of this typology is examined, Avcı claims that it fits the
layouts seen in traditional Ottoman mansions.76 The first floor of these buildings is
75 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 234.
76 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 235.
Fig. 3.1: Trabzon Government House, beginning of
the 20th century
(Metin, 2008, p.958)
39
reserved for prison and police officers, while the second floor consists of a director's
room, a clerk's room, and other local administration offices, including a divan room
and a room for treasurer. Avcı remarks that this plan typology, schematized by the
central government, indicates the existence of an accepted pattern.77 In addition, the
facades of these buildings strongly present the features of the architectural styles of
the time when they were constructed. Avcı associates these with centralistic
inclinations of the period. She claims that, in accordance with the centralist tendencies
of the Tanzimat period, for the construction and repair of these state-owned buildings,
the sultan's order was required. Thus, this explains the fact that government mansions
and other public buildings in various cities were built in similar architectural styles.78
In terms of facade formation and architectural language, as for most of the
administrative structures of the Tanzimat, for government houses as well, empirical
style and neo-classical understanding was evident.79 It could be argued that this
architectural order gives such administrative buildings a certain monumentality and
formality by means of its simplicity, structural balance and symmetry. (Fig.3.2,
Fig.3.3) Besides, as seen in the example of Bilecik Government House which was built
in 1907, a monumental gate emphasizes the power and authority of the state. (Fig.3.4)
On the other hand, these buildings, which were constructed rapidly in every
administrative unit of the Ottoman geography from provincial centers to rather small
town centers, carried another meaning in addition to their architectural functionality,
77 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 235.
78 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 234.
79 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 234.
40
in terms of representing the power of state. Over the years, beyond need, government
houses became strong evidences of the presence of state authority for public. In this
context, Yazıcı indicates that government houses are the most prominent architectural
examples in some regions where the existence and strong image of the state authority
should be shown more intensively through architecture, for example in Dersim, where
the events of the bandits were quite widespread in the late Ottoman period.80 Yazıcı
argues that giving service at rental residences was interpreted as state’s using
“someone else’s place” rather than its own, private, dedicated building, which was
criticized as a situation as contradictory with the state authority.81 In this direction,
Avcı argues that these structures clearly show that, following the Tanzimat period,
there occurred a significant change in the legitimacy of political power, the methods
of incarnation of the state and the means of public control.
Besides, the presence of a government house was counted as a measure of development
and strength. Likewise, in the Ottoman period correspondences, government houses
are referred to as “perfectly suitable for a developed city” or “a sign of development”.
In this regard, government houses should not be regarded merely as the emergence of
official buildings in history. Hence, as Avcı states, this phenomenon in fact, constitutes
the basis of the extensive discussions about modernity and transformation of the
period.82
80 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. Son Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığının Başyapıtları: Hükümet Konakları. Edited
by A.Budak & M.Yılmaz. İstanbul, 2019, p.301.
81 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. Son Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığının Başyapıtları: Hükümet Konakları. Edited
by A.Budak & M.Yılmaz. İstanbul, 2019, p.301.
82Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki ve
Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 239.
41
On the other hand, over the years, government houses with all the aforesaid features,
started to be decisive for cities from another perspective as well. In this context, Avcı
remarks that government houses, being one of the consequences of Tanzimat in terms
of urban space, could also be regarded as buildings that concretized the renewed image
of the state and state authority, along with the other public buildings around it.83
Government houses often stood together with a number of other buildings of similar
administrative functions, such as barracks, schools, courthouses, constabulary
buildings, city halls, post offices and even in some cases prisons.
83 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 239.
Fig.3.2: The Government House of
Söğüt District of Bursa, 1907-1908.
Avcı, 2017, p.70
Fig.3.3: The Government House of
Yenişehir District of Bursa, 1907-1908.
Avcı, 2017, p.71
Fig.3.4: The Government House of
Bilecik, 1907-1908.
Avcı, 2017, p.70
42
Avcı states that these structures usually came together around a government house in
order to form a new “public site” called the government square.84 So, throughout the
period following Tanzimat, as in the example of Adapazarı, government houses
provided a new type of city center and a new model of public space. In addition, Ünal
states that government houses, which were the most important symbolic structures
representing the civil administration and the administrative center, were generally the
leading components of creating a new and modern urban atmosphere.85
In summary, towards the Republican era, government houses became prominent as
strong, independent, developed and authoritarian structures and this increased their
impact on the city scape in a wider, urban scale, which will be examined in the
following chapter.
3.1.2. Republican Period
By the beginning of the 20th century, almost every city had its own institutional
government house. Some of them were still serving in rented or purchased households
and mansions, while some were still using converted buildings that used to serve for
different functions. As Yazıcı states, in 1902, the state requested that, in every city
where there was no government house or a building that was functioning as such, the
construction of a masonry building and its completion in a period of six months.86 Yet,
even after the Turkish Republic was founded, it was seen that a considerable amount
84 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 234.
85 Ünal, Feyzullah, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Yasal ve Yapısal
Dönüşümü.” Dumlupınar Üni. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sayı: 30 (2011), p.244.
86 Ünal, Feyzullah, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Yasal ve Yapısal
Dönüşümü.” Dumlupınar Üni. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sayı: 30 (2011), p.244.
43
of cities were still using former administrative units in lieu of a new building until the
1930s. From 1934 to 1940, especially in small districts and in a few city centers, new
government houses were built more frequently. Thus, it could be argued that, in the
early Republican period, the reforms in the administrative field, which started with the
modernization process, defined the state bureaucracy in a spatial sense for the first
time.
During the World War II, as construction declined rapidly and even almost stopped in
all fields in the whole country, the construction of government houses was also
stagnated. Aslanoğlu argues that, between 1941-43, repairing and renovation work
outweighed and dominated the field rather than construction of new buildings.87
Afterwards, starting from 1943 until 1960, there appeared a considerable increase in
the number of government house buildings, at first slightly but then gradually.
Moreover, there was also a noteworthy increment in the number of typical government
house projects.
When the distinctive units of the government houses both in Ottoman and Republican
period are examined, in terms of function, it could be argued that the use as a
courthouse had the leading role. Ortaylı attributes this to the newly started field
specialization of the period.88 The second most common function is the zaptieh
(zaptiye). As an architect of government houses in later decades, Karaaslan states that
spaces for the police force was definitely involved in these buildings.89 Besides these,
a number of other units were also included inside government houses, such as public
87 Aslanoğlu, İnci. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları.” Mimarlık, sayı:203 (1984), p.7.
88 Ortaylı, İlber. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no. 203 (1984), p.7.
89 Karaaslan, Merih. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no. 203 (1984),
p.9.
44
works (umur-u nafia), trade and agriculture, knowledge and culture and revenue
offices. In summary, it could be argued that the so called government offices were
located inside government houses, while buildings for justice courts and finance
offices were separated.
Concerning the structure of the buildings of the Republican government houses,
reinforced concrete skeleton construction was usually used, but stone cladding was
also applied on facades in line with the stylistic approaches of different periods.90 The
roofs are usually inclined and covered with tiles. . As such, regarding the architectural
style of these buildings in the Republican period, it could be argued that, as in other
public buildings, government houses also expressed the approach of the era. Between
1930-1940, the architecture in Turkey was dominated by the rationalist approach of
modern architecture on one hand, while on the other hand by the neo-classical style
that symbolized a more nationalistic approach during the 1940s. Koca remarks that,
especially noticeable after the 1937, western neo-classicism became more effective
particularly in administrative buildings in Turkey. At the time, the order of high pillars,
as in the examples of Muğla and Artvin Government Houses, was used as expressing
strength, seriousness and monumentality.91
Moreover, Yazıcı claims that the examples of government houses in the provincial
centers or port cities were more ostentatious and larger in size, which is also reflected
on facade designs.92 Thus, it could be suggested that the importance of the district was
90 Aslanoğlu, İnci, 1984, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no. 203
(1984), p.9.
91 Koca, Feray. “Muğla’da Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete İdari Merkezin Sembolü: Hükümet Konakları,”
Mimarlık, no.389, p.63.
92 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan, Son Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığının Başat Yapıları: Hükümet Konakları,
A.Budak, M.Yılmaz, Osmanlı Sanatında Değişim ve Dönüşüm, İstanbul, 2019, p.286.
45
also decisive for the size and appearance of government house buildings. Besides,
Sayar claims that buildings of the state should have an official and national character.93
A police station, for instance, a revenue and finance office, or a courthouse should
have an architecture that would express the authority that they represented.94 Hence, it
could be claimed that, from such functioning buildings of the Republican period, a
strong, serious and monumental character that would reflect the authority of the state
was expected in the first place.
Similarly, Yazıcı argues that particularly government houses of the Republican era
were the leading structures to be built by the state in every province and district.95
These buildings, which represented state authority in every corner of the country and
infused respect and loyalty for the state authority to the community, were expected to
carry a staid and serious expression and to have an architectural value equivalent to
the cultural level of the Republic. In the same context, in Bayındırlık İşleri Dergisi of
the Ministry of Public Words, the following lines were noticed:
One of the most important working areas [of the Ministry] is government
mansions and finance buildings. During the last year, thirty government
houses and four financial buildings in many different cities have been built, in
addition to twelve government mansions and financial buildings that have also
been repaired. By these means, these buildings, which are the symbols of
power and force of the republican regime, have joined among the national
structures with the knowledge and architectural taste of Turkish architects and
engineers.96
93 Sayar, Zeki. “Kiracı Devlet Müesseseleri,” Arkitekt, no.33 (1938), p.30.
94 Aslanoğlu, İnci, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no:203 (1984), p.10.
95 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan, Trabzon Örneğinde Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Hükümet Konağı Binaları,
Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, No:1/5 (2008), p.953.
96 Aslanoğlu, İnci, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no:203 (1984), p.6
46
Overall for the Republican Period, as Hamamcıoğlu suggests, the tendency to design
monumental architectural spaces was a quite common approach. In 1946, in another
article in the same journal dedicated to celebrate the 23rd anniversary of the Republic,
government houses and revenue offices were mentioned as the structures to show the
state authority of Turkey, to perform public works in safety and order, and to always
create a feeling of strength among the citizens.97 In line with this objective, as in many
other buildings of the period, elevated ground floors and slightly raised floor heights
were maintained in public buildings as well.98 Thus, the exaggerated entrances with
monumental stairs and pillars were noticeable as typical architectural features of
government house buildings. Yatman states that pillars even reached up to roofs.99 As
mentioned above, monumental, and neo-classical understanding of the column layout
was preferred until the 1950s.
In the 1960s, more dynamic plan types emerged. Until the end of the 1940s,
government houses had been settled in a single rectangular block, while in the 1960s
the buildings were mostly located on larger areas. In addition, it could be claimed that
the need program of government houses of the period was handled quite differently
compared to the former examples. For instance, finance and birth registration offices
were separated, while the office of the governor was turned into a separate department
and was emphasized more on its own. On the other hand, the general expression of
these structures still had a serious, monumental and powerful stance, which refers to
the symbolic meaning attributed to them.
97 Aslanoğlu, İnci, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no:203 (1984), p.8.
98 Hamamcıoğlu, Mine, Cumhuriyete Geçişle Yeniden Kurgulanmış Olan Bir Kentsel Mekandaki
Dönem Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara,
2010, p.133.
99 Yatman, Affan. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no. 203 (1984), p.10.
47
On the other hand, during the following years, government houses started to form their
own physical environment with their own monumental expression on one hand and as
a result of their strong interaction of their immediate surroundings. At this point, the
impact of these structures on cities broadened up to reach an urban scale, and by
forming a republican square, their effect became even more evident. Considering that,
in the Ottoman period, public spaces in cities were limited to economic and religious
areas such as bazaars, courtyards or the surrounding areas of religious structures, it is
possible to describe the new government squares as a new type of public space in a
modern sense, which completely outweighed the administrative and political character
of cities. This issue will be discussed extensively by focusing on the transformation of
the old Adapazarı city center by means of the newly built government house.
Above all, in the Republican period, it could be argued that there appeared a number
of concerns regarding the definition of urban open spaces. İnan questions the concept
of a city square in Turkish cities, whose existence or non-existence has always been
the subject of discussion.100 With a similar approach, Gurallar argues that the
transformations in urban areas, which began to emerge from the early 19th century on,
point to the existence of different and sometimes contradictory definitions in the
understanding and reshaping of these areas.101 In this period, mostly the contradiction
between the concepts of “parks” and “squares” is encountered in defining open urban
spaces. In this context, Gurallar once again emphasizes this contradiction in the early
Republican period, by pointing out the expressions of “a square shaped garden” in the
records of the 19th century, when a Republican city image was reformed.102 Thus, as
100 İnan, Umut. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no:203 (1984), p.10.
101 Gürallar, Neşe. Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park? Kamusal Mekanın
Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı in Cumhuriyet’in Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara, p.55.
102 Gürallar, Neşe. Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park? Kamusal Mekanın
Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı in Cumhuriyet’in Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara, p.55.
48
a result of these discussions, İnan concludes, a city is not possible without a square; at
least, there is always a place in every city that necessarily functions as a square. A
square that is physically very close to the administrative center in the first place, the
barracks or the largest market of the city in some cases, is so called as the government
square during the Republican era.103
Regarding this, Koca claims that, apart from the neighborhoods that constituted the
organic fabric of the Ottoman cities, government houses also led to the creation of a
new neighborhood and a square with their intense interaction with surrounding public
buildings.104 With a similar approach, as a part of the modernization project during the
Republic period, the idea of creating a republican square was put forward by placing
the administrative buildings around a central square. Thus, it could be argued that
Republican squares became the new administrative centers of the Turkish Republic
and government houses showed themselves as iconic buildings representing the
administration and power. Yatman argues that most of the government houses of the
Republican period, even on the scale of rather smaller cities, have large squares and
gardens, and are composed of units that contain quite large spaces compared to the
spaces around them.105
In conclusion, as İnan suggests, the privilege of the buildings of government houses in
comparison to other types of buildings is the fact that a number of emotional
approaches have shaped them.106 These buildings incorporate emotional relations of
both the administrator and the administered. Administrator believed that the building
103 Ortaylı, İlber. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no:203 (1984), p.5.
104 Koca, Feray, “Muğla’da Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete İdari Merkezin Sembolü: Hükümet Konakları,”
Mimarlık, sayı: 319 (2016), p.61.
105 Yatman, Affan, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no.203 (1984), p.12.
106 İnan, Umut. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no.203 (1984), p.9.
49
would emphasize the power of the government and increase its influence on the
citizens. Reciprocally, administered felt the presence of the state, laws and regulations
via the building, and regarded the structure as a solid document of national
sovereignty. Over the years of the Republic, government houses have always been the
indicators of development and modernity, which also have the mission of representing
the state in their settlements. Likewise, İnan has an interesting remark by comparing
the government house in a city with the bastion of a castle where the flag is hung.107
3.2. The Design of Sakarya Government House
After the official transformation of Adapazarı into the central province of Sakarya in
1954, the construction of a building to be used as Sakarya Government House in this
new center of the city was an important cornerstone in terms of both the symbolic
meaning that it carried by means of its architectural style and the effect that it had on
the urban scale of the city.
Sakarya Government House building was constructed according to the project chosen
in the architectural competition organized by the Ministry of Public Works in 1955.
This chapter focuses on Sakarya Government House and aims to understand the
building, mainly in terms of its architectural characteristics, which affected its
environmental impact and place in urban memory that will be discussed in the next
chapter. In this regard, this chapter focuses on the design of Sakarya Government
House. First, the competition process will be studied by examining the submitted
projects, and their evaluation in the jury report. Afterwards, focusing on the winner
project, initially its architects and their architectural approach, and then the building
itself with its architectural features, innovative style and hence place in the history of
architecture in Turkey will be discussed.
107 İnan, Umut, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, sayı 203 (1984), p.9.
50
3.2.1. The Competition and the Proposed Projects
The building of Sakarya Government House was constructed as a result of the national
architecture competition organized in 1955 by the Ministry of Public Works. In
conjunction with this, and in the context of the Republican period, it is significant to
note that architecture competitions played a crucial role in architectural production and
urban design of cities after new regime. Regarding the period following the
proclamation of Republic, the role of competitions was especially crucial and thus they
are worth to be the subject of an extensive research by themselves. As Sayar argues,
architectural competitions in Turkey between 1930-1950 played a fundamental role
in the continuation of the professional practice of Turkish architects.108 In almost every
issue of the Arkitekt magazine published in between 1950 and 1960, the documents of
the awarded and other participated projects of competitions were published, in addition
to an announcement for the latest competitions. When the participant projects for the
same competition are examined, it could be argued that they had strikingly parallel
approaches in their design programs. In this context, the fact that the projects
participating in a competition were similar, and that the projects that won different
competitions had similar architectural characteristics, suggest that competitions were
the mediums where the general tendency of the period could be followed.109
On the other hand, those competitions were considered as critical opportunities for
architects in order to take a first step to architecture business after education and
achieve a certain fame out of success. In this context, Doğan Tekeli describes those
years as quite distressed periods and states that the main possible source of economic
income for young architects was to participate in project competitions across the
108 Sayar, 1998, p.117.
109 Şık, N. “Uluslararası Mimarlığa Açılış”, Mimarist, no:21 (2001), p.53.
51
country. Regarding the competitions of those years leading the way of their office into
architecture business, he continues:
We won a second award for Sakarya Government House Project. Then, we
won the first place in Konak urban design competition in İzmir. This first place
brought us the consultancy position at İzmir Municipality, where we worked
for almost a year. In the meantime, we were entering other competitions in
İstanbul. From 1954 to 1966, we participated in approximately 65-66
competitions. We worked day and night consistently, some nights even without
sleep, and won competitions.110
In addition, Yaubyan admits that, as newly graduated architects, winning the
competition for the project of Sakarya Government House was quite an opportunity
for him and his colleagues in the team to enter the profession. He continues:
That's our job. You are a newly graduated architect, they also give you a
diploma. Now maybe not so much, but there were quite a lot of competitions
at our time. Competitions were maybe even the only occasion for us to enter
the profession.111
Yaubyan once again emphasizes the importance of competitions as follows:
It was such a period when there was no job at all. In fact, we made a living by
competitions in those times. In one of those competitions, we even submitted
three projects at once.112
During the period between 1930 and 1980, a great number of competitions were
organized by the Ministry of Public Works, which included almost every type of
110 Tekeli, D. (2001). Interviewed for Yalıtım, January-February. Available at:
http://www.yalitim.net/yayin/406/dogan-tekeli_11269.html#.XffFqS3BJAY (Accessed: December 1,
2019)
111 Yaubyan, N. (2019). Interviewed by Erhan Demirtaş for Mimdap. Available at:
http://www.mimdap.org/?p=222649 (Accessed: December 1, 2019)
112 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. İstanbul, 2017.
52
buildings from private apartment units and hotels to banks and university buildings
and campuses. Official buildings such as court houses, palaces of justice and
government houses as well, took an important place among these competitions.113
Moreover, throughout the period, with the purpose of meeting the growing
requirements of bureaucracy, there was a substantial increase in the number of
buildings with administrative functions such as ministerial and general administrative
buildings and municipal palaces in addition to a rapidly growing number of
government houses in a considerable number of cities.114 Between 1950-80, it is
noteworthy that many public buildings were obtained as a result of the competition
process.115 In this context, especially after the 1950s, a tradition of constructing
government houses through architecture competitions started. Indeed, 39 competitions
were held in total for constructing government houses during the Republican period.116
All of these competitions were organized by the Ministry of Public Works and
interestingly enough, almost all of them have been constructed afterwards. For
instance, Tekeli remarks that, among all the competitions they attended, Adıyaman
Government House competition was important in terms of economic return as it was
the most profitable project of that period.117 On the other hand, as Özbay draws
113 Şık, N. “Uluslararası Mimarlığa Açılış”, Mimarist, no:21 (2001), p.51.
114 Batur, 2005, p.50.
115 Altan and İmamoğlu, 2007, pa.6.
116 Elazığ (1955); Adıyaman, Bitlis, Kırşehir and Urfa (1958); Adıyaman (1959); Aydın (1960); Edirne
(1964); Artvin, Kars (1968); Gümüşhane (1971); Hatay, İzmir and Kocaeli (1972); Antalya, Kütahya,
Sinop and Sivas (1973); Bingöl, Çankırı (1975); Afyon, Erzurum (1980); Aliağa/İzmir, Nevşehir and
Samsun (1983); Aydın, Gaziantep, Gaziosmanpaşa/İstanbul, Mardin and Zonguldak (1984); Erzincan
(1985); and Adana, Giresun (1986) were among other competition projects organized fort he projects
of government houses in these cities from the begining of the 1950s until the end of the 1980s. TMMOB
Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, Yarışmalar Dizini 1930-2004. Retrieved from:
http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/yarismalardizini/
117 Tekeli, D. (2001). Interviewed for Yalıtım, January-February. Available at:
http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/yarismalardizini/ (Accessed: 1 December 2019)
53
attention, although the first architectural competition was held at the beginning of the
1930s and many municipal service buildings were realized after competitions, it was
only after 1955 that a competition was opened for the first time for a government
house.118 The first competition to build a government house was organized for Elazığ
in 1955, and this was followed by the Sakarya Government House competition in the
same year, which constitutes the main subject of this thesis.119
The competition for the government house building to be constructed in Sakarya
received widespread media attention in national newspapers. For instance, according
to Milliyet newspaper archives, news dated to July 13, 1955 announced that a
competition was opened for the projects of Sakarya Government House building and
that it would last until October 17, 1955.120 (Fig. 3.5) According to this announcement,
two conditions of participation in this competition were specified as being a Turkish
citizen and being a master architect or engineer. After the names of the jury members
and the awards to be given to the degree receivers were listed, it is indicated that the
regulations of the former architecture and urbanism competitions would be valid for
this competition and the specifications and documents of the competition could be
obtained from the Ministry of Construction and Public Works.
118 Özbay, Hasan. “Kadı Konağından, Kent Merkezi Planlamasına Evrimin Son Halkaları: Bitlis ve
Denizli Hükümet Konağı Yarışmaları,” Serbest Mimar, no.04 (2009), p.57.
119 Özbay, Hasan. “Kadı Konağından, Kent Merkezi Planlamasına Evrimin Son Halkaları: Bitlis ve
Denizli Hükümet Konağı Yarışmaları,” Serbest Mimar, no.04 (2009), p.57.
120 Milliyet. (1955, 10.17). Nafia Vekaletinden: Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası.
54
However, particularly for the Sakarya Government House project, a specification,
contest schedule or need program cannot be reached. Despite that, Enis Kortan, one of
the architects of the building, recalls a number of specific requirements for the design,
which in his words were described as the most important needs of the city at that time;
i.e., a separate working unit for the governor, a courthouse and a finance building.121
Likewise in the winning project of Kortan and his colleagues, a similar fragmented
approach is visible, in which these units were positioned independently, while still in
relation with each other. Indeed, this type of a multipartite plan arrangement was the
most followed model in the project competitions of the 1960s.122
In this respect, focusing on the Sakarya Government House project competition, the
architectural approaches in terms of both the aforesaid functioning and architectural
style of the building as well as different suggestions from different participated
121 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
122 Sayar, Yasemin. “Türkiye’de Mimari Proje Yarışmaları 1930-2000: Bir Değerlendirme,” Mimarlık,
no: 320 (2004), pa.20.
Fig.3.5: The announcement about the project
competition in Milliyet, July 13, 1955.
(Milliyet Newspaper Archive)
55
projects will be examined in more detail in the following pages. Still, an initial
examination of other projects of the period will provide the basis to evaluate the case
of Sakarya in relation to similar approaches that were visible in the projects prepared
specifically for government houses in different cities. For instance, in the winning
project in the competition for Elazığ Government House, which was the first
government house competition in the country, a similar plan typology consisting of
fragmented units for different functions were used. (Fig.3.6) This feature of the
building, together with the order, rhythm and material of its facade, were specified
among the positive aspects of the project, in terms of providing harmony with its urban
context as well as the functioning and arrangement of the masses.123 (Fig.3.7) In the
same manner, in the winning project for Urfa Government House of 1958, the jury
found considerably positive the design of three different masses in different heights
that combined the government offices with the courthouse and finance departments
under a single roof, which is reminiscent of Sakarya Government House. (Fig.3.8)
Aside from government house competitions, this typology is evident in a number of
other projects for different functions such as Middle East Technical University (1961),
the Ministry of National Education (1962), Gülhane Military Medical Academy (1964)
and Antalya District Museum (1964).124
Therefore, at this point, examining the evaluation criteria of competitions from a larger
perspective for a general analysis of the period from 1930 to 1980, could help make a
more accurate assessment. The purpose of this analysis is to better understand and
evaluate the design of Sakarya Government House, which is the main focus of this
study. For this reason, the researched competition projects were limited to the
historical periods between 1930 and 1980, in order to analyze the process prior to the
123 “Elazığ Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası,” Arkitekt, 03(1956), p.110.
124 Batur, 2005, p.53.
56
construction of Sakarya Government House as well as the subsequent process of its
production. In this fifty-year period, there occurred significant changes in the
evaluation criteria of competition projects, which give important clues for the
transformation of architectural taste.
In this direction, the analysis in Fig. 3.9, shows the transformation of evaluation
criteria of competitions, by dividing the period into three to span years as 1930-40,
1940-50 and 1950-80. The main data is taken from an investigation on architecture
Fig.3.6: Top view of Elazığ
Government House, 1955.
(Elazığ Hükümet Konağı Proje
Müsabakası, p.110)
Fig.3.7: Front facade of Elazığ
Government House, 1955.
(Elazığ Hükümet Konağı Proje
Müsabakası, p.109)
(Milliyet Newspaper Archive)
Fig.3.8: Mass organisation and perspective view of
Elazığ Government House, 1958.
(Elazığ Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası, p.110)
57
competitions between 1930 and 2010.125 This figure is generated by noting the mostly
used words in the competition specifications and jury evaluation reports of related
projects as per year groups. Accordingly, it is seen that some concepts are common for
all three year groups, frequently mentioned and maintained their importance every
year, such as suitability to need program and climatic conditions of the region as well
as functionality, feasibility, economy, suitability to the program and figurativeness. On
the other hand, the conditions and architectural approaches of each era is also reflected
in architectural project competitions. For instance, in the first ten-year span between
1930 and 1940, the concepts such as emphasizing the Republic and Turkish character
came into prominence as different from the other periods in line with the fact that the
decade was the formation period of the new nation state in Turkey. On the other hand,
in the second ten-year span between 1940 and 1950, the concepts such as
monumentality, massiveness, traditionalism and permanence were used more
commonly in line with the nationalist approach of the Second World War period. The
common concepts of nationality and Turkish identity emphasized from 1930 to 1950
show the continuing effect of the process of identity formation in Turkey and
architecture as a declaration of identity in these early Republican decades.126
Architects began to introduce the traditional Turkish architecture as the suitable
architecture of the Republic that carried not only the national expression but also, being
in line with the modern concepts such as the rationality, functionality and the
simplicity.127
125 Meltem, Aydın. “1930-2010 Arasında Türkiye’de Yapılmış Mimari Yarışmalardaki Değerlendirme
Kriterlerinin Değişimi,” Yarışmalar ve Mimarlık Sempozyumu 2013, pp.18-28.
126 Bozdoğan, 1995, p.437-438.
127 Bozdoğan, 2002, p.19.
58
In all periods, the concepts of functionality, feasibility, economy, and suitability to
program were seen, showing that the functionalist approach of modernist architecture
prevailed as an important factor in architecture and excessively emphasized in the jury
reports from the early Republican decades onwards until the 1980s.128
Between 1950 and 1980, on the other hand, the concepts of construction, horizontality,
flexible plan, human scale, lightness and technology came to the fore as different from
the earlier decades as modernist applications became widespread and created multiple
results at the time.129 The architectural activities that started under the influence of the
128 Bozdoğan, Akcan, 2012, p.182.
129 Meltem, Aydın. “1930-2010 Arasında Türkiye’de Yapılmış Mimari Yarışmalardaki Değerlendirme
Kriterlerinin Değişimi,” Yarışmalar ve Mimarlık Sempozyumu 2013, p.23.
Fig.3.9: The analysis showing the transformation of evaluation criteria
in architecture competitions in Turkey between 1930 and 1980.
(Prepared by the author based on Aydın Meltem’s article of 2013)
59
International Style in the early 1960s have gradually turned into a pluralistic
environment.130 The diversity of thoughts has also been reflected in architectural
approaches and the concepts of human scale, adaptation to the environment and
fragmented forms came to the fore.131 Consequently, for the post-war period between
1950 and 1980, which is in the focus of this thesis on Sakarya Government House of
the 1950s, it could be argued that lightness was preferred; minimum height and
horizontality were accepted as positive features; traffic solutions, public access and
harmony with the city gained importance; and human scale and being welcoming are
emphasized.
Focusing on Sakarya Government House again, although the specification or need
program of the project is not available today as mentioned earlier, it could be stated
that the building reflects all the features presented in architectural competitions of its
era. Indeed, neither in the analysis made by Meltem, which constitutes the main data
of the table above, nor in the jury report of Sakarya Government House, the word
“modern” is not specified. However, by looking at its prominent architectural features
representing the International Style, which will be discussed in the next part, the
building can be defined as an example of postwar modernism as later specified in
architectural historiography.132
130 Sibel Bozdoğan, "Turkey's Postwar Modernism: A Retrospective overview of architecture, urbanism
and politics in the 1950's", pp. 9-26, in Meltem Ö. Gürel (ed.) Mid Century Modernism in Turkey,
Routledge, 2016; p. 15.
131 Sey, Yıldız, 1998, p.31.
132 Sibel Bozdoğan, "Turkey's Postwar Modernism: A Retrospective overview of architecture, urbanism
and politics in the 1950's", pp. 9-26, in Meltem Ö. Gürel (ed.) Mid Century Modernism in Turkey,
Routledge, 2016; p. 14.
60
In this respect, it is important to investigate the winning project of the government
house of Sakarya in terms of both its functional program and architectural style, which
will be the focus of the next part of this chapter. In addition, the other proposed projects
for the same competition should also be examined in order to observe different
approaches and solutions for the same project.
In the jury evaluation report, five other proposals were discussed and their positive and
negative sides were briefly mentioned. Yet today, apart from the winning project, the
architectural drawings of the proposed projects are unfortunately not available.
Considering this, the Arkitekt journal published a note as follows: “As the Ministry of
Public Works (Nafıa Vekaleti) informed our journal from their project office, only the
documents of the first degree project of this contest were sent to us because there was
no photographic material [for the others]. We apologize to our readers for not being
able to publish the projects of other degrees.”133 Nevertheless, the jury report gives a
general idea of different suggestions for the competition. Thus when the jury report is
taken into consideration, it is understood that the projects that received the second and
third awards and the first mention offered solutions that disintegrated the buildings
into small units and assigned completely separate functions for each of them, which,
in this case, were the government office and the courthouse functions. In this sense,
through this period, the design approaches to reduce the impact of the masses by
breaking them up to smaller sizes, to search for low rise solutions, to spread the masses
in the site and to use internal and external courtyards instead of corridors inside the
buildings, became increasingly common among the architects of the period.134
Likewise in the winner project, which will be discussed in the next part, a similar
disintegration and multi-partite plan typology is quite evident.
133 “Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası,” Arkitekt, 03(1956), p.107.
134 Sayar, Yasemin. “Türkiye’de Mimari Proje Yarışmaları 1930-2000: Bir Değerlendirme,” Mimarlık,
no: 320 (2004), pa.20.
61
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that, in every award winning suggestion of the
period, a square was planned in front of the complex of buildings. In this respect, it
could be argued that establishing a relationship between the complex and the city was
a dominant approach in every project, for both the architects and the jury. In this
regard, for instance, concerning the project that was awarded with the second prize, it
was specifically indicated that the arrangement of the square was found successful.
Hence, the other projects were criticized because of the less depth of the squares that
they suggested, while the positioning of the buildings in relation to the square was also
found problematic.135 On the other hand, according to jury reports, it is seen that the
plan solutions of the proposals were also taken into consideration. The buildings were
evaluated in terms of usage, functioning and mass volumes; for instance, for some
projects the staircases, and for some others specific rooms or corridors were indicated
as in need of etudes.
Another important factor in jury reports was the interpretations regarding the facades
of the proposed projects. For instance, for the projects numbered 2, 3 and 25, it is stated
that the façades were found immature, and unstable, and their forms were not found
well. Similarly, for the project numbered 7, it was stated that the facade lacked an
official and serious expression and character, which was not approved by the jury
members. As mentioned earlier, this was a decision that emphasized the symbolic and
representative meaning that was attributed to government house complexes. Taking all
these into consideration, the project numbered 31 was chosen in the competition to be
constructed. In the next part, this winning project will be widely covered both in terms
of its architects as well as the entire architectural style and design ideas of the complex.
3.2.2. The Winner Project
135 “Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası,” Arkitekt, 03(1956), p.108.
62
Following the evaluation of the jury, whose report was described above, the project
number 31 was announced as the winner of the competition. After three years of
construction, in 1960, the complex was ready for the use of the public. This chapter
focuses on the Sakarya Government House. In the first part, the architects of the
building will be examined with reference to their architectural approaches by referring
to a number of their other projects. Then, in the second part, Sakarya Government
House will be analyzed in terms of its function, architectural style and its design in
relation with the surrounding as well as its place in the history of architecture in Turkey
with these features.
3.2.2.1. Architects
In 1956, the group of Enis Kortan, Harutyun Vapurciyan, Nişan Yaubyan and
Avyerinos Andonyadis won the project competition of Sakarya Government House.136
Enis Kortan was born in Vidin, Bulgaria, in 1932 and completed high school education
in Ankara and İstanbul. After he graduated from İstanbul Technical University as an
architect in 1953 he went to the United States of America where he worked at the
offices of a number of architects including Marcer Breuer Studio and SOM Group.
After he came back to Turkey in 1964, he started to teach at Middle East Technical
University, and continued to work there until he was retired in 1999. Nişan Yaubyan
was born in 1931 in İstanbul. After his education in Armenian High School, he
graduated from İstanbul Technical University in 1953. After a master’s degree in urban
design at the University of Michigan, he worked at the offices of Eero Saarinen and
Minoru Yamasaki in the United States of America. After he settled in İstanbul, he
worked as an instructor at Yeditepe University for almost ten years between 1997 and
136 Sakarya Government House was tendered for 5 million 738 thousand Turkish Lira, according to the
Law No. 9712 by the Ministry of Public Works with an announcement in the official newspaper dated
September 21, 1957. Nişancık, İrfan, “Mimari Rasyonalizmin İlk Eserlerinden Sakarya Hükümet
Konağı 51 Yaşında.”. Retrieved from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101222223728/http://sakaryayenihaber.com/koseyazilari/1298/-mimarirasyonalizm-
in-ilk-eserlerinden--sakarya-hukumet-konagi--51-yasinda.aspx
63
2005. Harutyun Vapurciyan was an Armenian citizen of Turkey. After his graduation
from İstanbul Technical University in 1953, he worked together with the group
between 1955 to 1957. Later on, he went to the US in 1957, educated in the University
of Michigan between 1963-64137 and lived there until his death. Avyerinos Andonyadis
was a Greek citizen of Turkey. He graduated from İstanbul Technical University in
1953 and worked with Kortan and Yaubyan from 1955 to 1957. In 1959 he went to the
Washington, USA where he still lives and work as an architect.138
So, this group of architects studied together at the Faculty of Architecture of İstanbul
Technical University from 1948 to 1953. Yaşar Marulyalı, one of their clasmates,
described their class as a reflection of the population of İstanbul at that time because
it consisted of students from different minority groups living in İstanbul at the times
such as Armenians, Greeks, Kurds as well as those from different regions of Anatolia.
Yaubyan and Vapurciyan were among the Armenian students and Andonyadis the
Greek students of the class. Levent Aksüt, another classmate, remembered Vapurciyan
and Yaubyan as two enthusiastic, curious and eager students.139 (Fig.3.10)
In fact, Yaubyan and Vapurciyan were friends from high school and went to the same
faculty together in the following years. After they graduated from İTU in 1953,
Yaubyan and Vapurciyan established an architecture office in İstanbul, which
Yaubyan described as a bit strange and courageous endeavor for two newly graduated
architects at that time.140
137 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
138 Yaubyan Nişan, Interview with the author, January 20, 2020.
139 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
140 Yaubyan Nişan, interview with the author, December 20, 2019.
64
After they completed their first project, which was the Sünbül Apartment in Nişantaşı,
this building attracted great attention especially with its carvings beneath the window
parapets, which were made by a famous sculptor of the time, Kuzgun Acar.141
(Fig.3.11) Being profoundly different from classical apartment types of the time,
Marulyalı emphasized its innovative approach by indicating that this kind of an
apartment had never been built in İstanbul before. Yaubyan defined that building as an
adventure for them, in which they intended to design every detail in a different and unattempted
way.142 Kortan also argued that, with this apartment, they proved themselves
in the modern architectural field for the first time.143
141 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
142 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
143 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
Fig.3.10: Nişan Yaubyan and Harutyun Vapurciyan as
classmates at İstanbul Technical University, 1950’s.
(Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by
Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.)
65
At this point, Yaubyan states that competition projects had an important role in the
continuation of the architectural office that they established with Vapurciyan. After
Sünbül Apartment, he recalls, they came together with their friends from the
university, Kortan and Andonyadis, to participate in competitions together.144 As a
result, in 1955, with the involvement of Kortan and Andonyadis, this team of architects
participated for the first time in the project competition organized by the Ministry of
Public Works for the General Directorate of Highways, in which they received a
mention. Kortan recalled that this competition helped them feel confident and trust
themselves. Thus, with the same group, they also attended the competition of Sakarya
Government House in 1955, in which they received the first price. Marulyalı expressed
that this first price in an important competition and the chance to execute the building
was a great success in terms of improving their careers.145
144 Yaubyan Nişan, interview with the author, December 20, 2019.
145 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
Fig.3.11: Sünbül Apartment, Nişantaşı, 2016.
Yaubyan, Nişan. "Mesleğine Tutkun Bir Mimar."
Interview by Erhan Demirtaş. Mimdap, January 21,2019.
66
In fact, as described above, the 1950s was a period of competitions, by which architects
could get jobs. For instance, Kortan remarked that, during the period of the competition
for Sakarya Government House, there were quite a number of other competitions
specifically organized for the designs of government houses in many cities like
Adıyaman, Kars and Elazığ. Hence, he argued that they were not able to take part in
them because the group was busy working on the project of Sakarya Government
House. Furthermore, Kortan stated that the architecture of the 20th century was quite
tiring in this respect. He claimed;
You should work very hard, yet still you could get success only from time to
time. You couldn’t always get paid for the work. The architecture of the 20th
century, what we call modern architecture today, was developing so quickly
that, so to speak, the whole world was boiling.146
Regarding the 1950s’ generation, Bozdoğan claims that those young architects were
eager to learn and practice what was beyond what they had learned in the school, which
in that period was the aesthetics of the International Style.147 In the same manner,
Kortan argued that his instructors of that time in his university were not only unaware
but also uninterested about all the developments that existed in the entire world. Thus,
as will be mentioned below, he claimed that the architectural publications of that time,
namely the buildings in the USA that were published in professional journals, were
their primary sources of inspiration.
Concerning the main inspiration sources of this generation of architects, Bozdoğan
mentions that American corporate modernism was in the first place, particularly the
glass curtain wall of Mies van der Rohe in the Seagram Building, which had
146 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
147 Bozdoğan, S. and E. Akcan. “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism” in Modern Architectures in History,
Reaktion Books, 2012, p 14.
67
widespread coverage in the architectural publications of the time.148 Likewise, Kortan
remarked how he was mesmerized by his encounter with Mies van der Rohe’s
Farnsworth House by means of architecture magazines, and how they tried to liken all
details of the building of Sakarya Government House to his design of the Seagram,
which will be discussed in more detail in the next part that will focus on Sakarya
Government House. Following the success in the Sakarya Government House
competition, this group of architects participated in other competitions, including those
for the Brussels Exhibition Pavilion of Turkey (1956), and Kocatepe Mosque
(1957).149 In each of their designs, they came to the fore with their innovative approach
and enthusiasm, and were thus mostly awarded. For this reason, they have left their
mark in the modern architecture of the 20th century.
Enis Kortan pointed out that, in the design process of each of their projects, one of the
most important features to be considered was the search for solutions without losing
the human scale. In this respect, the mass of a building was one of the most important
issues to be regarded. As such, instead of a single massive building, the disintegration
of the building into smaller masses was a distinct feature of their designs as seen in
most of the other buildings of the period.150 (Fig.3.12, Fig.3.13)
148 Bozdoğan, S. and E. Akcan. “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism” in Modern Architectures in History,
Reaktion Books, 2012, p 115.
149 Followings are the competitions that these architects have joined. Since at the period, collaboration
and partnership between the architects were quite popular, aside this list also includes some projects
that these architects have collaborated with different partners as well. In chronological order; General
Directorate of Highways (1955), Brussels Exhibition Pavilion of Turkey (1956), the Turkish Language
Institution Building (1956), Kocatepe Mosque (1957), Urfa Government House (1957), Diyarbakır
Government House (1957), Ankara University and High Schools Student Dormitory (1958), Milli
Eğitim Bakanlığı (1962), Beyoğlu İşçi Hastanesi (1963), Niğde Devlet Hastanesi (1970), Erzurum
Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Teknolojisi ve Ev Economi Binası (1972), Kırşehir Devlet Hastanesi (1974).
150 Yücel, 1984, p.136.
68
In this context, for example, for the project of the General Directorate of Highways in
1955, Kortan explained that they intended to design the complex with a similar
sensitive approach by considering the environment in which human beings could
perceive psychologically and establish relationships on micro and macro scales.151
(Fig.3.14)
Regarding this project, which was also designed by avoiding high-rise structures and
including instead three blocks of four-storey buildings, Kortan explained their point of
view as follows:
When you look from Anıtkabir, the kiosk of Atatürk in Çankaya would appear.
We thought of that. We tried to let that axis remain open… It was a matter of
respecting the environment and appreciating it.152
151 Kortan, 2012, p.178.
152 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
Fig.3.12: A proposed project for General
Directorate of Highways, 1955.
(Kortan, 2012, p.178.)
Fig.3.13: The site plan of the Ministry of
National Education, 1962.
(Kortan, 2012, p.180.)
69
The story of the project for Kocatepe Mosque, on the other hand, was an interesting
one. In 1957, Yaubyan and Vapurciyan, together with Bedrus Küçük, participated the
competition for Kocatepe Mosque and they received the third price. Yaubyan argued
that they were actually the winners of the competition; however, the financing of the
building was supposed to be provided from the Muslim countries whereas their team
was consisted of three non-Muslim architects. Thus Çalıkman argues that, since the
financing would be harder to be found for a project of this group, they were put in the
third place and the modernist design of Vedat Dalokay was chosen as the winner of
the competition,153 which would later be cancelled and its foundations were dynamited
as a result of the reactions of the right-wing religious ideology.154
The projects of this group of architects were in line with the modernist approach of the
post-war period. On the other hand, they were meticulously designed, showing the
level of architectural production at the time. Indeed, Kortan defines himself as an
153 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
154 Çakıcı, 2019, p.38-39
Fig.3.14: A proposed project for General
Directorate of Highways, 1955.
(Kortan, 2012, p.177.)
70
architect who aims to stay away from the temporary fashionable trends of a certain
time and instead to create permanent, timeless and humanist architecture in each of his
designs.155 Yaubyan, on the other hand, attached great importance to details in every
project and designed them with precision.156 In this respect, Kortan states that Yaubyan
produced extraordinary details in his works and believes that Walter Gropius’
definition about Mies van der Rohe by saying that “He seeks God in the details” suits
for Yaubyan as well.157
3.2.2.2. A Modern Building
Sakarya Government House, with its pioneering architectural approach, has remained
on the architectural agenda for a long time. Thus, in this chapter, this building complex
will be evaluated in terms of its style, functional solutions and mass organization as
well as its innovative and even un-attempted ideas. By focusing on the building of
Sakarya Government House, it is aimed to understand the general transformation of
the 20th century architecture throughout the country in the background as well as to
unfold where this structure stands in the modern debates of the period.
Sakarya Government House, also known among the public as the Provincial Complex,
attracted considerable attention throughout the architectural community of the country
when it was constructed in 1962 with its architectural style and innovative approach.
As a product of the architectural competition organized by the Ministry of Public
Works, Sayar, in her evaluation of architectural design competitions in Turkey
155 Kortan, 2012, p.34.
156 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
157 Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul, 2017.
71
between 1930 and 2000, mentions this building as one of the most remarkable products
of its period.158 (Fig.3.15)
Sayar summarizes the building by specifying that the structure, which had the traces
of Le Corbusier’s understanding and was completely manufactured with local
materials and traditional hand workmanship, made a tremendous impact in its time
with its light panel walls that provided flexibility in the plan and glass-metal curtain
walls applied on its facade. Similarly, in an article based on the public space initiatives
in Sakarya, Government House was defined as pioneering, principled and assertive in
architectural modernity debates of its time, which will be discussed in detail below.159
Hence, before investigating the discussions of the architectural style of the complex,
in the context of modern debates of its time, the functional solutions for the requested
program of each unit will be covered firstly. As mentioned before, the competition
project required three main units that were specified as the most urgent needs of the
158 Sayar, Yasemin, Türkiye’de Mimari Proje Yarışmaları 1930-2000: Bir Değerlendirme, Mimarlık,
sayı: 320 (2004). Retrieved from:
http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=38&RecID=838
159 “Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
Fig.3.15: Sakarya Government House, 1962.
(Hüdai Ülker Archive)
72
city; i.e. working unit for the government, a courthouse and a finance building. In the
proposed solution, a fragmented plan type was used and these three structures
expressed themselves as three different units, yet still in a consistent harmony and
beyond the understanding of a public space of the day.160 At this point, one of the
architects of the building, Kortan explains that the design was initially considered as a
single mass to include the three functions defined in the need program given to the
competitors. However, after the examinations and analysis, assigning three separate
units for three different functions was found more appropriate.161 (Fig.3.16, Fig.3.17)
The courthouse and the finance building aside, Kortan describes the last and the
highest unit, the Governor’s Office, where the governor and other civil and
administrative personnel would work, as designed to be the most important structure
of the city in terms of its psychological affect as well. Considering this architectural
period in Turkey generally, Batur claims that solving the structures by dividing them
into smaller pieces as well as spreading them to the site, creating internal and external
160 Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
161 Kortan, 2012, p.169.
Fig.3.16: A perspective of Sakarya
Government House, 1956.
(Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje
Müsabakası, p.106)
Fig.3.17: Site plan showing the mass
organisation of Sakarya Government
House, 1956.
(Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje
Müsabakası, p.106)
73
courtyards, was a prevalent approach among Turkish architects at that time.162 For
instance, General Directorate for Office of Agricultural Products built in 1964 in
Ankara, was another pioneering application in dividing the units into small pieces to
have separate functions. (Fig.3.18, Fig.3.19)
Also for Sakarya Government House, Kortan remarks that, considering the fact that
the large singular masses widely used in the country at the time were not appropriate
to human scale, the disintegration of the mass and the formation of smaller units more
appropriate for human scale was preferred.163 As such, the three units of the complex,
which were different in terms of both quantity and quality, expressed themselves as
three different buildings. Thus, at this stage, it was an important decision to divide and
disintegrate the buildings into three smaller units. It could be argued that the main aim
of the design was to ensure that the complex would be welcoming instead of imposing
162 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.63.
163 Kortan, 2012, p.168.
Fig.3.18: Elevation drawing of the project of
General Directorate for Office of Agricultural
Products
(http://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/toprakmahsuller-
ofisi-genel-mudurluk-binasi/3234)
Fig.3.19: The site plan of the General
Directorate Office of Agricultural Products
(http://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/toprakmahsuller-
ofisi-genel-mudurluk-binasi/3234)
74
by finding the right sizes and proportions for each building. Kortan explains this as
follows:
All three of these buildings do not scare people, they invite people in.
Especially the tall building, the governor’s office, stands on columns. Its
ground floor is empty; people can walk through it, and there is also an inner
garden with a small pond. It was designed for people to walk around.164
This principle designing a welcoming structure was followed consistently in the
project and even the radiator shafts were included independently in the overall
composition and designed in a sculptural form, as in Kortan’s words, enhancing the
appearance of the buildings with their own plastic values.165 (Fig.3.20)
164 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
165 Kortan, 2012, p.170.
Fig.3.20: The shaft of the building
designed in a sculptural form.
Kortan, 2012, p.173.
Fig.3.21: The fountain located in the courtyard of
the complex designed in a sculptural form.
Kortan, 2012, p.171.
75
In addition, the sculptural fountain located alongside the columns on the ground floor,
in the inner garden between the finance and government office buildings, is another
thoughtful and welcoming aspect of the complex for the public. (Fig.3.21) Concerning
this, in the jury report, the overall architectural composition of the project, which
consisted of three different blocks of different functions, was found to be profoundly
mature in both general aspects and in details.166 Each of the three blocks had
rectangular plans, and in the overall layout plan, those three units were also designed
in a rectangular composition. The shapes of those blocks, on the other hand, were also
pure, uninterrupted, rectangular prisms. This formal understanding reflects the purist
design approach of modernism. In this context, Kortan argues that, in the composition
of the government, courthouse and finance blocks, the form of the structures was
decided as rectangular prisms at the beginning. However, the final shapes and sizes of
the blocks were designed as a result of the deductive method, according to which
intended functions of the blocks led the design process. Hence, “form followed
function”167 as the design method applied in the project, in line with the famous motto
of functionalist principle of modernist architecture.
With regard to this, Kortan also explains that these three blocks were designed
differently in terms of not only functional, i.e. practical and mechanical features, but
also by considering their psychological, social, symbolic and representative meanings.
Thus, for an overall analysis of these three blocks, starting with the first block that
housed the office of the governor, it could be argued that it was intended to be the
highest structure of the complex, and positioned through the ceremonial square behind
as a result of its intended psychological and symbolic functions. In addition, the block
was raised above columns, leaving the ground floor empty, which indeed referred to
the design principles of Le Corbusier, which will be discussed in detail below. Kortan
166 “Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası” Arkitekt, 03 (1956), p.106.
167 Kortan, 2012, p.163.
76
explains that, in the design of the interior space, in order to fully meet the practical
requirements, the interior walls separating the office rooms were made in the form of
removable partition panels, which were the first application of its kind in the country
and thus the flexibility through interior space was provided. In addition, all the
electrical components of the building were solved within these walls. Other pioneering
features of the building compared with its contemporaries include the glass curtain
walls that were used in exterior facades of the building, the terrace roof at the top and
cross ventilation system used for air conditioning.168 (Fig.3.22)
Unlike the governor's office block, the courthouse had no direct connection to the
ceremonial square, and it was instead conceived in its own entirety. The halls where
the hearings were held received the northern light from the ceiling and showed their
own forms within the whole mass with dynamic units. In a similar manner, the finance
office block also consisted of the relevant offices gathered around a hall that received
northern light from the ceiling. (Fig.3.23) In addition, for all three buildings, the
workmanship and all materials that were used in the construction were native products.
Exterior colors of the buildings were intended to be in relation with their functions and
168 Yaubyan Nişan, interview by the author, December 20, 2019.
Fig.3.22: A perspective drawing of Sakarya
Government House.
(Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan)
77
to have representative meanings: the artificial stone cladding in white color was used,
the metal parts were in gray-blue and only the vertical elements were emphasized with
dark gray paint. (Fig.3.24 & 3.25)
In this context, in an article about the public space initiatives in Sakarya, it was
indicated that, with Sakarya Government House Complex, for the first time in the
country, significant architectural concepts and models such as glass curtain walls,
flexible plan layouts and natural ventilation were applied in a building. The comment
continues;
The project of this building was prepared in 1956 and the number of the
architects who were familiar with these principles in our country at that time
was not too many. With its glass curtain walls applied on the facades and light
panel walls that provided flexibility in the plan, it was one of the pioneering
structures of its period. 169
Indeed, at the time when Sakarya Government House was experiencing significant
changes both in the country and around the world. The war was over and the cities
were being recreated in relation to this; and in the world of architecture, the modern
169 “Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
Fig.3.23: The site plan of the complex.
(Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası, p.106)
78
debates were being held. As Doordan explains, in the mid-20th century, the modernist
philosophy emerged as the dominant force in architectural practice and education.
Traditional philosophies persisted, but within the architecture community they held
minority roles.
The end of the World War 2 provided architects with new opportunities to work in
both the social and physical rebuilding of war-torn cities, but what it meant to be
modern remained an open-ended issue.170 Similarly in Turkey, the period between
1950 and 1960 could be regarded as an optimistic period. The country now belonged
to the Western bloc and in addition had the interest and support of a strong country,
170 Doordan, Dennis “Writing History: Reflections on the Story of Mid-Century Modern Architecture”,
in T. Parker, et.al. (eds.) Sanctioning Modernism: Architecture and the Making of Postwar Identities.
U. of Texas Press, 2014, p.3.
Fig.3.24: A closer view of
Sakarya Government House,
1960s.
(Kortan, 2012, p.173)
Fig.3.25: A view showing the vertical elements on
the façade of Sakarya Government House.
(Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan)
79
the United States of America.171 Kortan argues that, in such a case, it was tried to be
shown that the practice of architecture in the country was quite similar to the Western
examples in terms of both the understanding and technological opportunities.172 Thus,
in this period, rather than the evaluation of architectural works, architects turned
towards practice.173 In this regard, Bozdoğan remarks that architects played a crucial
role in the post-war world in the reconstruction of cities and were seen as specialists
for scientific and technical approaches to urbanization, housing and infrastructure
problems.174
All these developments brought new tasks to architects. As Alsaç argues, at that time,
many new architectural functions such as schools, hospitals, factories etc. as well as
the new administrative structures such as governmental and municipal buildings were
expected to be provided.175 On the other hand, by means of the increasing
communication throughout the world, architects in Turkey had a chance to get better
acquainted with the Anglo-Saxon world. In this context, Batur argues, architects in
Turkey tended to break all ties with the past, began from the point where form was
supposed to follow function and involved into a logical, objective and therefore
171 Tanyeli, 1998, p.238.
172 Kortan, Enis, Türkiye’de Mimarlık Hareketleri ve Eleştirisi 1960-1970, Ankara, 1974, p.67-68.
173 Sayar, Yasemin. Türkiye’de Mimari Proje Yarışmaları 1930-2000: Bir Değerlendirme, Mimarlık,
sayı: 320 (2004).
174 Bozdoğan, Sibel. 2016. “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism: A Retrospective Overview of Architecture,
Urbanism and Politics in the 1950s”, in M. Gürel (ed.) 2016. Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey:
Architecture across Culture in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge, p.14.
175 Alsaç Üstün “Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi, Mimarlık, Sayı 11-
12, Kasım-Aralık (1973), p.13.
80
universal definition of architecture.176 Therefore, reflecting the national character
through architecture was no longer an urgent need as it had been during the war period,
and moreover, this idea was replaced by the need to embrace the international language
of modernism.177 İstanbul Hilton Hotel designed by Eldem and SOM collaboration,
for instance, became the main typology in this regard and its stylistic features such as
the usage of pilotis to create a transparent ground floor, which was inspired by the
work of Le Corbusier, became the paradigm of modernism also in Turkey as constantly
repeated in a number of structures of the time, including Sakarya Government
House.178 On the other hand, as mentioned before, the changes in the expressions of
jury reports in architectural competitions also show that a new set of ideas was taking
action in architecture in Turkey.179
After the World War 2, the source of the modern shifted from Europe to America
where important modernist architects of the earlier decades like Mies van der Rohe
moved and produced significant works. The ideals of modernist architecture were
largely drawn from their works as well as the works of Le Corbusier who began to
design worldwide at the time.180 Le Corbusier, who defined geometrical forms
176 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.69.
177 Bozdoğan, Sibel. 2016. “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism: A Retrospective Overview of Architecture,
Urbanism and Politics in the 1950s”, in M. Gürel (ed.) 2016. Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey:
Architecture across Culture in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge, p.19.
178 Bozdoğan, Sibel. 2016. “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism: A Retrospective Overview of Architecture,
Urbanism and Politics in the 1950s”, in M. Gürel (ed.) 2016. Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey:
Architecture across Culture in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge, p.19.
179 Alsaç Üstün “Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi, Mimarlık, Sayı 11-
12, Kasım-Aralık (1973), p.17.
180 Alsaç Üstün “Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi, Mimarlık, Sayı 11-
12, Kasım-Aralık (1973), p.17.
81
referring to ancient Greece as the most beautiful forms and called the architecture
designed by using them as timeless architecture, gradually created the ideology of
Purism. In a similar way, Mies van der Rohe also used these forms in his architecture,
in addition to applying classical rules such as axial symmetry, proportions, etc. in plan
of a total space and mass organization together with the modern materials such as steel
and glass. Thus, this new understanding of architecture spread throughout the entire
world including Turkey. In this direction, in Turkey, by the beginning of the 1950s,
the first local examples of the International Style began to appear. Batur explains that
separate rectangular prisms or prism groups of a few stories were typical of its
applications in Turkey.181 In addition, transparency and lightness provided by wide
glass windows on facades became quite widespread. For instance, the building of
İstanbul Municipality Palace, designed as a result of a national project competition
organized in 1953, was an important example of this tendency in the country. Batur
claims that this structure, showing the influences of architectural approaches of Le
Corbusier, attracted a great attention and became the pioneer of bureaucratic
architecture Turkey.182 (Fig.3.26)
181 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.48.
182 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.48.
Fig.3.26: İstanbul Municipality Palace designed by
Nevzat Erol, 1953.
(İstanbul Belediye Binası Proje Müsabakası, p. 74)
82
For the government house structures specifically, in the 1960s, dynamic plan types
emerged and in the majority of the examples, finance and justice buildings were
detached and government building turned into a separate, symbolic structure of the
complex.183 In this respect, Sakarya Government House carries similarities with the
contemporary government house buildings not only with its fragmented plan typology
but also regarding the façade organization. For instance, the glass framed, vertical
articulation of the facades of Edirne, Urfa and Elazığ Government Houses resemble
the façade of Sakarya Government House to a great extent. From these aspects,
Sakarya Government House is both an important example of both the International
Style and reflects all the prominent features of the government house complexes of its
time.
Moreover, Şık evaluates that every structure built after 1950 can be placed within the
boundaries of a Western movement or understanding without much deliberation.184
Indeed, the reflections of the modern international architecture started to be widely
spread and became visible in a number of other examples in the country. For instance,
besides the pioneering examples such as İstanbul Hilton Hotel and İstanbul
Municipality Palace, Büyükada Anadolu Club, General Directorate of State Water
Works, and Turkish Pavilion at the Brussels World Exhibition were among the other
typical examples of the same newly emerging understanding of modern architecture.
(Fig.3.27, Fig.3.28)
Besides, in the 1950s, a younger generation of architects started practicing and creating
works that embodied the aesthetic understanding of the contemporary International
183 Karaaslan, Merih. “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık, no. 203 (1984),
p.9.
184 Şık, Neslihan, “1950’ler: Uluslararası Mimarlığa Açılış.” Mimarist, 3 (2001), p.56.
83
Style. As Bozdoğan and Akcan argue, this new understanding of modernism
predominantly manifested itself in educational buildings, cultural institutions and
especially administrative units such as government structures, as clearly seen in
Sakarya Government House.185 Thus, Sakarya Government House met with great
interest at the time with its architectural characteristics. In this respect, being an
important example of rationalism in Turkey and the first example of the International
Style built in Sakarya, it has a significant place in the history of architecture in Turkey
as well as in the history of the city itself.
As Doordan suggests, throughout the world and specifically in Turkey, what it meant
to be modern was still an open-ended issue at the time. For instance, for Sakarya
Government House, Kortan himself argues that these buildings did not have the
language of modern architecture as proposed, for example, by Bruno Zevi; on the
contrary, the effects of Mies van der Rohe's understanding of modernism and form
were visible. He claims that these structures were rational rectangular prisms; they
were symmetrical and static, their forms were the ideal Platonic forms, and their
structures had a logical and rigid order as a requirement of a prerequisite. For these
reasons, architectural understanding of Mies van der Rohe was expressed in the design
of Sakarya Government House by means of a certain logic that might not be considered
185 Bozdoğan, S. and E. Akcan, Populist Democracy and Post-War Modernism in Modern Architectures
in History, p.108.
Fig.3.27: Büyükada Anatolian Club, 1950.
(http://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/anadolu-kulubuistanbul-
buyukada-subesi-/9578)
Fig.3.28: Turkish Pavilion in the
Brussels Expo, 1956.
(1958 Brüksel Beynelmilel Sergisi
Türk Paviyonu, p.65)
84
as modern by some others such as Zevi. As mentioned, the design of the complex also
utterly reflected the characteristics of the international architecture and the design
philosophy of Le Corbusier. The pilotis, for instance, which is the first design principle
of Le Corbusier, was clearly represented in the building. (Fig.3.29)
The structure stood on the colonnades that left the ground floor empty, which on the
other hand, strengthened the relationship of the building with the square as well as the
city itself. The design of the load bearing system independent from the partition walls
of the building, was another direct reflection of the principles of Le Corbusier. At this
point, Kortan emphasized that the building was constructed with the load bearing
system and the partition walls inside the building were completely working
independent from each other.186 In addition, as Kortan indicates, these partition walls
were made of lightweight denotable chipboards that allowed flexible floor plans,
which again refers to the main design principles of Le Corbusier.
186 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
Fig.3.29: The pilotis on the ground floor, Sakarya Government House, 1960s.
(Kortan, 2010, p.170)
85
As Batur argues, for that time in Turkey, following the projects and applications from
the architectural magazines of the period was a quite significant way for architects in
order to get acquainted with new trends throughout the world.187 Similarly, for Sakarya
Government House, Kortan states that they applied the same details of the Seagram
Building of Mies van der Rohe, to which they encountered in an architectural magazine
of the period. 188 (Fig.3.30)
Moreover, as Batur claims, the practice of the International Style in Turkey was a kind
of regional model due to the lack of experience and insufficiency in the production
technologies.189 In this context, Tanyeli also states that the inadequacy was particularly
evident in the technological field but in a country where the building industry was still
187 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.48.
188 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
189 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.48.
Fig.3.30: Curtain wall details of the complex.
(Kortan, 2010, p.175)
86
in its infancy and the workforce was not sufficient for the escalating construction
activities, the architects of Sakarya Government House, for example, were attempting
to produce Mies van der Rohe’s curtain walls by welding steel profiles190 In this
context, it should be remembered that the glass curtain walls were used in the facades
of Sakarya Government House, which was the first example of its kind in Turkey. In
addition, apart from the glass curtain walls, Kortan indicates that, instead of classical
construction techniques like columns finished with plaster, modern and new
techniques such as the coverage of the whole building with one or two millimeters
thick sheet metals were used. Regarding this, Kortan recalls;
We were very young architects and we did not have enough books at that time.
We found the details of the Seagram Building of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in
a magazine. We drew the details of this building by resembling those details.
Pointing at the curtain walls on the facade of the Seagram Building, he continues:
These elements were I-shaped elements made of special bronze material. At
that time with the technology in Turkey, it was impossible for us to do the same.
But instead, we used ordinary iron girders. We even found a good master there
in Adapazarı, and I still remember that his name was Cemal Usta. However, of
course, these [at Seagram] were very special smooth materials, hence our
girders were crooked. Yet, Cemal Usta, with his knowledge and devotion to his
profession, made such a beautiful façade that there was hardly any difference
with Seagram. He shaped these irons not with a classical method of using a
hammer, but instead, he shaped them by heat and expansion. It was with his
knowledge and neat craftsmanship; I also didn’t know it at that time. He made
a very beautiful facade.191
These vertical elements on the façade are non-structural elements, which were added
with the intention of enhancing its aesthetic appearance. Moreover, the similarity
190 Tanyeli, Uğur, “1950’lerden Bu Yana Mimari Paradigmaların Değişimi ve Reel Mimarlık” in 75
Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, Bilanço ’98 Yayın Dizisi, İstanbul, 1998,
p.238.
191 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
87
between Sakarya Government House building and the Seagram building is not only
limited with above mentioned solutions inside and outside but the relationship of the
façade and the square in the front is another crucial resemblance to Seagram. One of
the most prominent features of the Seagram building is the strong relationship between
its façade and square. The Seagram building stands behind the line of the street on
which it is located, and thus creates a public square in its front delimited with its façade
acting as a public/urban wall. Similarly, the façade of Sakarya Government House
defines the square in its front and functions like a public/urban wall; and with the
character of its façade, the building and the square become the new public interface of
modernism.
In addition, like in Seagram, the ground floor of Sakarya Government House was
designed as a continuation of the square in the front, leaving the ground floor empty,
which strengthens the façade-square relationship of the building. In other words, the
squares in the front open spaces of both buildings, actually render their façades more
visible. Ulus Office Block in Ankara and İstanbul Municipality Palace are other
important contemporary examples in Turkey whose facades similarly emphasize the
squares in their fronts.
To sum up, regarding both the layout of the site plan, the specific solutions within the
blocks as well as all the details of the façades, Kortan argues that the complex with the
governor building, the courthouse and the finance building, was the representative of
classical, rational, geometric and purist “box” architecture and was successfully
achieved through the consistent application of the ideas and principles of Ludwig Mies
van der Rohe and Le Corbusier. Özorhon and Uraz, in their article evaluating the
period when this building complex was designed, claim that this period is evaluated
by some critics of architecture as the time when a formal transfer from western
architecture took place and architecture in Turkey was merely fed with external
publications and influences. However, as they indicate, these seem easy criticisms
because a number of architectural products strongly reflected originality with their
88
rational manners, spatial organization and material technology. In this respect, Sakarya
Government House was a product of a very careful and sensitive design work not only
in terms of its mass ratios and the outdoor spaces between these masses, but also in
terms of its facade design and details. Kortan points out that there were modern and
visionary architects who supported the attempt to produce such modern buildings in
Turkey at the time, and the role of architects at public offices seem important in these
terms. As Kortan emphasizes;
The Ministry of Public Works had progressive, modern architects that would
allow such buildings to be built at that time. Neriman Birce, Adnan
Kocaaslan… They responded to our design very positively. They could have
told us that this building was not for Turkey, that we should do one of the
traditional buildings. They did not say such a thing, they did not discourage us,
we owe them gratitude…192
The construction phases of this complex, on the other hand, were also widely reported
in the local media, showing the local interest and support. For example, the newspaper
Adapazarı dated 1954 reported that, for the construction of Sakarya Government
House, two certified engineers measured the site where the buildings would be built.
Afterwards, it is indicated that the government house would be one of the few most
beautiful buildings of the country and that some of the important statesmen would
come to the opening ceremony to be held soon.193 (Fig.3.31)
While the project was still in progress, Kortan went to the United States of America,
where he worked in the studio of Marcer Breuer and the SOM Group for three years.
During this period, Yaubyan, together with the two other architects of the group,
continued working on the architectural details of the building. When Kortan returned
to Turkey, the architectural project was completed and the construction started. This
192 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
193 Milliyet, Kasım 1954, Sakarya Vilayet Konağı İnşa Ediliyor.
89
time, Yaubyan went to the United States of America, where he worked in the offices
of Eero Saarinen and Minoru Yamasaki. During this period, Kortan took control of the
construction. He recalls these days as follows:
One day a week I was visiting Adapazarı. At that time, I was living in Istanbul.
According to our contract for the project, I was supposed to be there three days
a week. For the other two days we had an agreement with a technician in
Adapazarı, we gave him a certain fee, and he was visiting the site and reporting
us. This was our system during the construction.194
While the project was still in progress, Kortan went to the United States of America,
where he worked in the studio of Marcer Breuer and the SOM Group for three years.
During this period, Yaubyan, together with the two other architects of the group,
continued working on the architectural details of the building. When Kortan returned
to Turkey, the architectural project was completed and the construction started. This
time, Yaubyan went to the United States of America, where he worked in the offices
of Eero Saarinen and Minoru Yamasaki. During this period, Kortan took control of the
construction. He recalls these days as follows:
194 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
Fig.3.31: A news in the Milliyet Newspaper announcing the construction
ofSakarya Government House, 1954.
(Milliyet Newspaper Archive)
90
One day a week I was visiting Adapazarı. At that time, I was living in Istanbul.
According to our contract for the project, I was supposed to be there three days
a week. For the other two days we had an agreement with a technician in
Adapazarı, we gave him a certain fee, and he was visiting the site and reporting
us. This was our system during the construction.195
In this direction, all the drawings of Sakarya Government House were completed in
1957, and after a three year of construction period, the complex was completed in
1962. (Fig.3.32)
As a result, this modern and pioneering building, which was designed and built using
all the technological possibilities of the period as carefully thought with all the details,
served the people of Sakarya for many years with success and has left its mark in the
city of Sakarya as well as in Turkey in general by successfully exemplifying the
architectural understanding of the period.
195 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
Fig.3.32: Enis Kortan and Nişan Yaubyan controlling the construction of
Sakarya Government House, 1959.
(Kortan, 2010, p.173)
91
CHAPTER 4
THE RELATION OF SAKARYA GOVERNMENT HOUSE WITH THE CITY
After its construction had been completed and put into service in 1960, Sakarya
Government House became one of the most decisive factors in directing the
development of the city. Attracting the city like a magnet, it played a critical role not
only regarding the redetermination of a new city center and square of Adapazarı, but
also transformed the public use in its periphery to a great extent. In this context, by
looking at the city from a wider perspective, in the following part of the study, the
urbanization of the city center and thus the constitution of a new administrative center
and the Sakarya city square in relation to Sakarya Government House complex will
initially be analyzed. Secondly, by focusing on the open public spaces and the
Government Square (Vilayet Meydanı) formed in relation to Sakarya Government
House, the dimensions of the interaction it established with the citizens will be
explored, how and for what main purposes it was used, and its place in the urban
memory will be discussed.
4.1. Urbanization of the City Center
With the construction of Sakarya Government House in 1960, the new (administrative)
center of the city began to evolve. This transformation not only included the rapid
increase of a great number of buildings of different functions around the periphery of
the complex but also implies a larger scale change that affected the structure of the
city. Thus, first of all, Atatürk Boulevard together with the Sakarya Government House
became the new center of attraction for Adapazarı as related to the opportunity of easy
92
access to the area by means of the neighboring train station, as well as to the rapid
increase in public buildings and spaces such as schools, social facilities, park
arrangements, etc. in the vicinity. The establishment of Sakarya Government House
complex led to the re-embodiment of the physical arrangement of the city, which
mainly included the new emerging road axes, and thus the re-configuration of Atatürk
Boulevard. In the following process, the emergence of a number of different
functioning units, especially new residential and commercial buildings, in relation
with this rapid urbanization around the new administrative center of the city will be
analyzed.
4.1.1. The Transformation of the Administrative Center and the Formation of
Adapazarı City Square
This section focuses on the determination of the new administrative and commercial
center of Adapazarı and the formation of the new city square together with the opening
of Sakarya Government House in 1960. This transformation was rather a long process
that spans years, not a sudden change; yet, it became quite evident following the
construction of the Government House complex. With this objective and in order to
evaluate the background of this transformation, the previous spatial organization of the
city center of Adapazarı will be analyzed in the first place by emphasizing the
emerging road axes and the shift of the city center in relation to this new city square.
19th century Adapazarı had a typical urban structure of an Ottoman city. Avcı indicates
that, in the spatial organization of a classical Ottoman city, the most distinct unit that
constituted the city center was the bazaar.196 The bazaar was not merely an area of
trade activities, but also a place where a number of different functions of
accommodation, social and administrative units were gathered around. In addition, one
196 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 18.
93
of the most important and monumental buildings inside bazaars were grand mosques,
which were usually the main focus of their neighborhoods. Since daily life activities
and working time were arranged according to the prayer time, bazaars and mosques
were generally placed close to each other.197 Within the light of these, similarly, until
the end of the 19th century, Adapazarı was a typical Ottoman city with its bazaars
clustered around Tozlu Mosque (1837), Orta Mosque (1752), Ağa Mosque (1774) and
Orhan Mosque and the neighborhoods were clustered around these bazaars.198 (Fig.4.1
and Fig.4.2)
In the old city center of Adapazarı around the mosques, which was called as
Gümrükönü, there was Uzun Çarşı (Long Bazaar), which could be regarded as the
heart of the city. 199 Long Bazaar was the transaction point of the city, embracing a
large number of local and immigrant tradesmen and their shops including drapers,
herbalists, dry coffee shops etc. (Fig.4.3, 4.4)
197 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 18.
198 Sakarya Yeni Haber 2011, August 7.
199 Doldur, H. “A City on Plain: Adapazarı From Agriculture to Industry.” İstanbul, 2003, p.114.
Fig.4.1: A view of the old city center, from
Uzun Çarşı to Çeşmemeydanı, 1940s.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
Fig.4.2: A view of the city, 1935. Tozlu
Mosque in the middle and traditional
Adapazarı houses.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
94
On the other hand, a number of administrative buildings were also placed around the
surrounding of the old center, Gümrükönü, which included the former government
house building together with the telegraph office, custom house, municipality office
and constabulary building. (Fig.4.5, 4.6) Thus, in the early 20th century, this building
group, interacting with the old trade center with Uzun Çarşı on the one end, formed
the first administrative center of Adapazarı.
Fig.4.4: A view of Uzun Çarşı, 1940s.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
Fig.4.5: A view of the administrative center
of the city, 1932. Post Office building on the
left bottom, Halkevi under construction,
Messeret Hotel in the middle, Gendarme
Command on the right and Security Chief
Office.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
Fig.4.6: Administrative buildings of
Adapazarı,1940. From the left; Security
Chief Office, Fire Station, Gendarme
Command, Courthouse and Government
House.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
Fig.4.3: A view of Uzun Çarşı, 1920s.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
95
Özdil, Vejre and Bilsel refer to these areas of cities as the first public squares of the
Republican time, surrounded with government buildings.200 Therefore, at the
beginning of the 20th century, Uzun Çarşı, together with Gümrük Street, constituted
the commercial and administrative center of the city, which did not completely lose
their centrality until the end of the 1930s. (Fig.4.7)
Prior to the construction of the Government House complex, in the early 20th century,
the first initiatives in order to modernize the city had already began, which could be
interpreted as the understanding of the period that accepted urban transformation and
modernization as the evidence of the success of the Republic. In other words, as Özdil,
Vejre and Bilsel suggest, the fulfillment of the Republican regime was regarded as
corresponding to the success of the urban planning initiatives because the physical
environment of cities would represent Turkish modernization.201 Likewise in
200 Özdil, N. C., H. Vejre, C. Bilsel, "Emergence and Evolution of the Urban Open Spaces of Ankara
within the Urban Development History: 1923 to Present", Journal of PlanningHistory, Vol.19(2019),
pp.43.
201 Özdil, N. C., H. Vejre, C. Bilsel, "Emergence and Evolution of the Urban Open Spaces of Ankara
within the Urban Development History: 1923 to Present", Journal of PlanningHistory, Vol.19(2019),
pp.43.
Fig.4.7: Gümrükönü, the entrance to Uzun
Çarşı at the beginning of the 1950s.
(Nurettin Muhtar Archive)
96
Adapazarı, there were already a number of factors pointing at the transformation
throughout the city, which indeed could be argued to be effective also in the choice of
the location of Sakarya Government House later on. At this stage, the transformative
feature of the railway station should be emphasized. The railway at that time was a
medium of the state to spread the revolutionary ideas to the cities beyond its initial
function of being a mode of transportation.202 Similarly in Adapazarı, the station
building was built in 1898 and had an important role not only in the modernization and
development of the city in the first place, but also in the formation of the new
(administrative) center of Adapazarı in the following years.203 In the early Republican
period, station streets were among the initial means of bringing the modern geometric
discipline to Anatolian cities and urban life.204 Moreover, railways were integrative
structures that not only brought new activities to the city205 but also brought together
other buildings that were symbols of the ruling power. 206 In this regard, the newly
formed Station Street of Adapazarı, on which public buildings of new functions such
as education, trade and management were located, created an alternative center of
attraction and contributed to the historical and functional multi-layering of the urban
context by bringing together the structures of different periods. Moreover, as Sönmez
and Selçuk state, the settlements of cities usually developed towards the area where
202 Sibel Bozdoğan. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early
Republic. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 119.
203 After the opening of the Train Station in 1898, Adapazarı became one of the few Anatolian towns of
the late 19th century that had railway connection to the center, i.e the capital city of İstanbul. In this
respect, the contribution of the train station to the transformation of the city center of Adapazarı in the
larger scale examined in this thesis is undeniable and even effective enough to be the subject of another
study. Therefore, it is often referred to the Station Square where this transformation is described.
204 Tanyeli, 1998, p.105
205 Başar, M. Erdoğan, A., “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de Tren Garları”, p.11.
206 Batur, 1998, p.217
97
their stations were located and this area would often open to a large street that took its
name from the station itself. Passenger transport and distribution also occurred in this
area.207 Likewise in Adapazarı, in the following process, the formation of a new city
center became more evident with the emergence of the new urban axes in relation with
this newly developing area. On the other hand, Çark Street started to develop as an
alternative market to Uzun Çarşı and merged with Atatürk Boulevard to create a new
attraction point towards the station building. (Fig.4.8)
Deniz Ataman, one of the old tradesman of the city, tells the story of his business in
Uzun Çarşı, emphasizing the changing attraction point of the city as follows:
Uzun Çarşı is one of the oldest shopping places of Adapazarı. It is the
beginning, perhaps the first example of the modern shopping malls, with its
Coppersmith Bazaar, Shoemakers’ Bazaar, Fishermen’s Bazaar and so on.
However, after the Çark Street, it is a fact that its customers decreased in
number. We’re still fighting to turn back to its good old days.208
207 Sönmez Filiz. & Selçuk Semra, “Kayseri Tren İstasyonu ve Çevresinin Kentin Modernleşme
Sürecine Katkısı Üzerine Bir Okuma.” Megaron, 14 (2019), p.94.
208 Odabaş, Fatih. 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı'nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, 2007, p.12. Çark Street takes its
name from the historical wheel built in 1894 on Çark Stream in order to supply water to the city center.
In the 1940s it developed and was reconstructed rapidly in relation to Ankara Street and Atatürk
Boulevard and became an alternative urban axis and shopping area to the old Uzun Çarşı. Eröz, Mehmet,
Adapazarı’nın Teşekkülü,53. İstanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 2011, p.65.
Fig.4.8: Newly forming Çark Street, 1940s.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
98
Thereby, the axis following Station Street together with Çark and Ankara Streets and
Atatürk Boulevard, many public buildings with different functions were constructed
with administration and commercial buildings being in the first place. Although, in
the period, some institutions that marked the development and modernization of the
city, such as Ziraat Bankası (early 1900s) İslam Ticaret Bankası (1913), Adapazarı
Emniyet Bankası (1919), Adapazarı Ayakkabıcılık Türk Tevaün Şirketi (1924) and
Yapı ve Kredi Bankası, still stood near the old city center of Gümrükönü, a number of
other facilities started developing around the newly determined attraction point. For
instance, a great number of industrial facilities such as Flour Factory (1910), Iron and
Wood Factory (Demir ve Tahta Fabrikası) (1915) and Silk Factory (1930), were built
along the axis following the railway. (Fig.4.9) Especially after the 1950s, the city
began to develop in relation to this region, mainly towards the axes following Çark
Street and through Atatürk Boulevard. In 1960, the construction of the Government
House right next to the Train Station entirely changed the spatial perception of the city
and the transformation of the city center became more visible. (Fig.4.10)
Government houses, which are the most important symbolic structures representing
the civil administration and the administrative center, have been the pioneering
components of creating new and modern cities as well as their new city squares.209
Likewise, with the construction of Sakarya Government House and as a result of its
symbolic meaning, the part of the city where it was located gained a bureaucratic and
official character and became the modern and new face of Adapazarı. Hence, the
square in front of Sakarya Government House became the new administrative center
of the city and the government building became the symbolic structure representing
the administration in this center.
209 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 18.
99
This new square of Adapazarı led to the formation of another square right next to it.
In the map of the city in 1957, while the Government Square was still under
construction, and the train station square was not yet well defined and did not manifest
itself as an important component of the urban context. However, after the formation of
Sakarya Government House and Square, as seen in the map of 1977, the railway station
Fig.4.9: Adapazarı city plan, 1953.
(Balcıoğlu, 1953, p.49)
100
square was now more distinct, determined and arranged more precisely. Besides, after
the regulation of the Station Square in the 1960s, the Government Square and the
Station Square, standing next to each other, began to completely dominate the urban
context of the city and re-defined the city center. Therefore, the interaction of the train
station and the government house in the urban scale played an important role in the
centralization process of the region later on. (Fig.4.11, 4.12)
Thereby, this led to the transformation of Atatürk Boulevard in time. Uzun Çarşı,
Orhan Mosque and the surroundings, which used to be the center of the city, began to
lose their central role and the center shifted towards this new area especially with the
expansion of Atatürk Boulevard in 1964. Besides, considering the phaeton stops at
first, and then the bus stations positioned between the Station Square and the
Government Square, it could be argued that this new region started to become a center
for transportation services as well.210
210 Artırma, 2007, p.14.
Fig.4.10: A view of the Adapazarı city center, 1960s.
Sakarya Government House and the new city square.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
101
In most of the cities that were re-organized in the Republican Era, a main axis that was
planned in line with the modernist urban planning approach, links the administrative
buildings and squares with the city, which was intended to be used by all citizens, men
and women, for a number of different functions.211 Bayraktar exemplifies the case of
Ankara and emphasizes the mission of this new boulevard, Atatürk Boulevard,
connecting the old and the new centers, starting from the historical city center of Ulus
and reaching up the new center of Kızılay.212 Quite similarly, following the
211 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.318.
212 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.318.
Fig.4.11: The map of Adapazarı, 1957.
(Archive of Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Development and Urban Planning Department)
102
construction of the new Sakarya Government House in 1960, the old government
building standing in Gümrükönü was demolished in order to expand Atatürk
Boulevard on one hand and to create a new public green space on the other. By this
way, as in the example of Ulus and Kızılay in the case of Ankara, Atatürk Boulevard
of Sakarya became the main axis that starts from the historical city center of
Gümrükönü and extends to the development direction of the city, towards the new
administrative center and the square of Sakarya Government House. (Fig.4.13)
Fig.4.12: The map of Adapazarı, 1977.
(Archive of Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Development and Urban Planning Department)
103
In fact, in 1957, in the same period when the Sakarya Government House competition
was held, another competition was opened by the Ministry of Public Works for the
urban development plan of Adapazarı. Although detailed information or documents
could not be found about this competition, in the report organized by Ali Topaloğulları,
Melahat Topaloğulları and Bülent Berksan who won the competition, the
determinations regarding the population and the development direction of the city in
the long term were included.213 The report mainly drew attention to the geological
structure and thus the earthquake risk of the city, and this concern is at the center of
the suggestions given about the development of the city.214 In the suggested plan,
which remained in effect until 1985 with various changes, the areas where soil is
stronger were designated to reduce the earthquake risk and it was emphasized that the
floor heights of the buildings should not be more than three.215 In the plan, the axis
213 Mestan, 2005, p.101.
214 Mestan, 2005, p.101.
215 Bayhan, 2010, p.53.
Fig.4.13: Adapazarı city center, 1970s. Bus
stations in front of the square of Sakarya
Government House.
(“Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008)
104
following the Atatürk Boulevard was emphasized as the main artery of the city and the
density of commercial structures along this axis was noteworthy in the first place. In
addition to the commercial structures which were highlighted in red, the residential
structures which were highlighted with yellow also concentrated in the area where
Government House was also constructed. (Fig.4.14)
Moreover, another report was prepared in 1966 by Orhan Göçer on the physical
planning of Adapazarı216
that included his determinations in terms of the physical
characteristics and other numeric data of the city. In this report, he mentioned Atatürk
Boulevard as the main artery and the only street of the city. The following definitions
were also included in the report:
216 The report was prepared within the 56th ITU Sociology Conferences. For further information please
see: Göçer O. (1966), Adapazarı Fiziki Planlaması, ITU 56.Sosyoloji Konferansları.
Fig.4.14: Adapazarı city plan, 1957.
(Bayhan, 2010, p.51)
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
105
This road, with its strong connection with the administrative buildings, is a
commercial street where stores and entertainment facilities are gathered, a
sightseeing road with its green character in the middle and a ceremony street
where official holidays are held.217
On the other hand, regarding this period, Alsaç mentions a new awareness among the
architects and claims that the process following the Republic brought an acceleration
in the industrialization and urbanization movements, and thus the ideas of urbanism
developed and led to the change of the traditional Turkish-Islamic structure of the
cities in Turkey.218 Therefore, this brought not only new architectural functions for
buildings but also interventions in the urban contexts and led to the development of
the idea of urban design as a part of architectural practice.
In fact, as mentioned above, the Government House complex itself had a quite strong
interaction with the city. As Kortan also states, this complex was designed to be in
relation to its surroundings and especially to the square in its front and the inner garden
between the blocks for the finance and governmental offices, and it was intended to
establish a strong relation with the city and the citizens.219 As Zucker defines, public
squares are the heart of their cities;220 and this public space created in front of the
Sakarya Government House complex became the main square of Adapazarı.221
(Fig.4.15)
217 Göçer Orhan, 1966, p.173.
218 Alsaç Üstün “Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi,” Mimarlık, Sayı 11-
12, Kasım-Aralık (1973), p.11-12.
219 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
220 Zucker, 1959. Quoted in Bayraktar, Nuray, “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus
and Kızılay Squares in Ankara, Turkey,” Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), pp.319.
221 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey,” Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.320.
106
However, at this point, it is important to describe what this public space means, as
public spaces come into existence in many different contexts and diversify regarding
their physical properties, intended purposes and symbolic messages that they aim to
give. Regarding this, Uzun argues that addressing the needs of the public is the
principle priority in some cases, while in some others, symbolic meanings may
additionally be crucial.222 In this regard, the square of the governmental complex
evolved within its own context as exemplary of the fact that open urban spaces of any
type are related to their surrounding structures.223
222 Uzun, İnci. “Kamusal Açık Mekan: Kavram ve Tarihe Genel Bakış.” Ege Mimarlık, 4 (2006), p.59.
223 Erdönmez, E. & Akı, A. “Açık Kamusal Kent Mekanlarının Toplum İlişkilerindeki Etkileri.”
Megaron, 1 (2005), p.73.
Fig.4.15: Adapazarı city center, 1963.
Atatürk Boulevard in the middle, Adapazarı Merkez Ortaokulu in the
left middle, Sakarya Government House in the upper left.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality Collection)
107
In summary, the interaction between Atatürk Boulevard and the Government House
complex became even more visible mainly by means of the governmental square.
Hence, the square that was connected to the widest boulevard of the city, Atatürk
Boulevard, together with the Government House complex with its pioneering
architectural approach that was explained in the previous chapter, resolutely
determined the new administrative center of Adapazarı.
4.1.2. The Development of New Commercial and Residential Areas around the
City Center
The change in the city center described above was not only limited with the square in
front of Government House and the administrative center, but rather affected the
commercial and residential areas in the vicinity. Indeed, intensive trade activities have
been among the constant features of Adapazarı throughout its history; and during the
Ottoman period, the locations of commercial and residential areas in the city remained
continuous. As Alsaç indicates, in Ottoman cities, neighborhoods did not differ
according to social classes but according to ethnic origin, professional partnership or
religious affiliation that determined belongings in social organization.224 Likewise in
Adapazarı, commercial life and residential areas had a reciprocal relationship and
commercial, therefore professional communities also identified the settlement areas in
the city.
The Ottoman Adapazarı was basically formed by the merge of the villages established
by craft guilds. Therefore, in addition to the settlement around Uzun Çarşı as
mentioned, the main residential areas in the old city texture were established in the
places where these craftsmen first settled and the names of the neighborhoods were
224 Avcı, Yasemin. Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki
ve Temsili. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017, p. 13.
108
generally given with reference to the guilds of professions such as Tığcılar, Semerciler,
Hasırcılar, Yağcılar, Pabuççular, Bakırcılar, etc.225
Hence, the formation and rapid growth of Çark Street as an alternative commercial
center to Uzun Çarşı, impacted the aforementioned shift of the city center. Besides, as
explained above, this transformation that began with Çark Street and the Train Station
in the first place and became evident with Sakarya Government House and its
interaction with Atatürk Boulevard during the 1960s, led to the emergence of
numerous buildings with especially commercial and residential functions around this
newly formed (administrative) center of the city. On the other hand, this transformation
of the city over time, led to the differentiation of the concept of commercial structure
in the city. In addition to artisans' structures such as the bazaar and the market, banks
and business office blocks were added to the architectural agenda as new commercial
buildings. As Hamamcıoğlu explains, in the modern period, the number of office
blocks rapidly increased and began to occupy a significant part of urban space.226
Likewise in Adapazarı, the number of the office blocks considerably increased mainly
in relation to Atatürk Boulevard and the new city square that was formed in relation to
the Government House complex. Municipality Office Blocks, private office blocks
such as ÇEK 2 İş Hanı, Akkoç İş Hanı, Messeret İş Hanı, Sipahiler İş Hanı, Erman İş
Hanı and Türkoğlu İş Hanı as well as the post office and Adapazarı Chamber of
Commerce and Industry buildings, were among important commercial structures that
settled around the region.227 (Fig.4.16, 4.17)
225 Narin, 2007, p. 45.
226 Hamamcıoğlu, Mine, Cumhuriyete Geçişle Yeniden Kurgulanmış Olan Bir Kentsel Mekândaki
Dönem Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi in Cumhuriyetin Mekânları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara,
2010, p.130.
227 Sugar Factory (1952), Vagoon Factory (1952) and Cocoon Factory (1962) were added to these
structures in the later periods, which were equally important in development and industrialization of
Adapazarı, but located rather far from the new city center.
109
Moreover, in the process following the construction of Sakarya Government House,
the residential structures also increased due to the acceleration of the above mentioned
commercial activities and buildings of office blocks with the rapid urbanization and
the reformation of the city center in its vicinity. (Fig.4.18, 4.19) In this respect, when
Fig.4.16: Government House Square, 1973.
A view from the Sipahiler Office Block.
(Hüsnü Gürsel Archive)
Fig.4.17: Atatürk Boulevard, 1973.
A view from the post office building. Former
High School of Commerce on the left, Messeret
Office Block and Dilmen Hotel.
(Hüsnü Gürsel Archive)
Fig.4.18: Top view of Atatürk Boulevard,
1960s.
Silk Factory on the right bottom, Lale
Cinema right next to it. The courthouse and
the prison buildings were not demolished
yet.
(Atilla Orhun Archive)
Fig.4.19: Atatürk Boulevard, 1994.
Train Station Square and Government
Square. Adapazarı Chamber of Commerce
Industry building in the middle.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
110
the maps of the city in 1957 and 1977 were analyzed reciprocally, the shift of the city
center and constitution of the new Sakarya city square could be observed clearly. As
seen in the map of 1957, there were few housing units around the region at the time,
whereas the map of 1977 shows the rapid development of residential areas, which were
mainly concentrated around the new city center. As Hamamcıoğlu suggests, as a result
of the development of building technologies, building scales changed considerably and
usually the number of floors of buildings in the newly formed city centers increased
accordingly compared to the old centers.228 Thus, numerous residential buildings,
including the Railway Station Housing (Gar Lojmanları), Dilmen Hotel, and Messeret
Hotel were constructed mainly along the axis following Atatürk Boulevard while also
the number of the floors of existing residential buildings in the periphery of the
Government Square increased substantially.229
In addition, the two maps of the region dated to 1957 and 1977 (Fig.4.11, 4.12) show
that there is a substantial increase also in the number of public buildings around the
newly developed residential and commercial buildings. In addition to a number of
social and cultural facilities that already existed there such as Adapazarı Municipality
Hospital (1935), Secondary School (1936), and Adapazarı High School of Commerce
(1940’s), as seen in the map of the city in 1977, social and cultural facilities also
developed in the area such as Mustafa Kemal Paşa Primary School and Secondary
School (1960’s), although few in number. As such, public constructions were part of
the development of the city center and its surrounding along with the construction of
administrative buildings, commercial buildings and housing.
228 Hamamcıoğlu, Mine, Cumhuriyete Geçişle Yeniden Kurgulanmış Olan Bir Kentsel Mekandaki
Dönem Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara,
2010, p.133.
229 Narin, Resul, interview with the author, January 16, 2019.
111
4.2. The Public Use of the City Center
In this section, by focusing on the open public spaces and the Government Square the
relation of Sakarya Government House with and the main purpose of its use by the
public, and thus its place in the urban memory will be evaluated.
Başar and Erdoğan argue that urban modernization and change should be considered
not only as a change of the appearance of the city, but also as a fundamental change in
the rhythm of the lives of inhabitants.230 In this context, in this section, how this newly
formed city center and square was used by the public and to what extend the
transformation of the city center affected the lives of citizens as well as the spatial
reflections of daily life activities of the people of Adapazarı, will be examined.
In that, once again, the primary effect of the railway station is undeniable. Station
streets in general have hosted many activities ranging from educational activities to
national festivals that reflect the visibility and power of the state.231 Likewise, newly
developed functions around Adapazarı Train Station mainly in the 1930s, which would
later take place at the Government Square, had already started to change the life style
of the citizens. After its construction in the early 20th century, the Train Station had
become the venue of the most crowded times with overflowing passengers and
peddlers for more than a hundred years until it was seriously damaged in 1968 by the
earthquake.
After the construction of the government house, especially in the 1960s, new
architectural approaches as described in the previous chapter as well as the new open
230 Başar, Mehmet Emin and Erdoğan, Hacı Abdullah. “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Tren
Garları”, S.Ü. Mühendislik.‐Mimarlık Fakültesi .Dergisi, c.24 (2009), p. 11.
231 Atmaca, 2009, p.13.
112
urban spaces were introduced to the public around it. First of all, the foundation
provided by the demolition of the old government house and the expansion of Atatürk
Boulevard were important in these terms because İbrahim Bey Park, built in 1904 in
the area between the to-be built Government Square and the Meserret Office Block,
had been the only public green space of Adapazarı until 1950.
Regarding the reorganization of the cities in the Republican period, new boulevards
such as statin streets and public buildings all connected to city squares, both
rationalizing the new urban environment and turning it into productive common spaces
for socializing the people.232 The first steps in providing Adapazarı with boulevards,
parks and green areas, i.e. public open spaces appropriate for the socialization of people,
started in the 1960s mainly in relation with the Station and Government Squares. As
Rapoport defines, such spaces, by nature, set a basis for the communication of people
in a city.233 As Erdönmez and Akı also specify, the most vital characteristics of public
spaces are their accessibility by every resident and free circulation in order to create a
social life among the buildings, and thus shape a shared identity.234 In this sense, this
kind of public spaces became sites to gather around this newly forming center of
Adapazarı. Cevat Güngör, for instance, in his article in Sakarya Yenigün newspaper,
mentions a landscape design in the Station Square itself: “Another beautiful pool in
Adapazarı was the pool in the garden of the historic station building. This was a huge
pool between two large plane trees and colorful fishes inside. While waiting for the
232 Arıtan, 2008, p.51
233 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.320.
234 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.320.
113
train to İstanbul, people used to sit at the tables around the pool to drink tea and have a
talk.”235
Moreover, a few years after the opening of Sakarya Government House, the old
government building, the courthouse, the finance and the fire brigade buildings in the
area that had defined the old government square were completely demolished. In
addition, Atatürk Boulevard was expanded to meet with the new administrative center
of the city, and a green park known as Şemsiyeli Bahçe (Garden with Umbrellas) was
established on the other side of the boulevard that redefined the public use in the region
and was an essential step for the socialization and modernization of the people.
(Fig.4.20). On the other hand, Arzu Cinema, Feza Cinema, Fitaş Cinema and Lale
Cinema were among the other social facilities that developed in relation to the new
city center as located right across the Government House complex and the train station.
They were quite active until the last train service at 24.00 to Mithatpaşa, Arifiye and
Sapanca. "The most modern, most beautiful cinema in Adapazarı at that time was Fitaş
on the boulevard. The chairs of other cinemas were wooden and low, but those of Fitaş
were covered in fabric,” recalls 72-year old Burçak Evren.236 (Fig.4.21)
Besides, as mentioned above, the Government House complex was itself planned to
have a strong interaction with the city itself. As Kortan indicates, the complex was
designed in relation to its environment, which is reflected in the site plan by the inner
axis following the market and bazaar areas behind.237 Together with its square in front
of the complex that became the main square of the city in years on one hand, and its
inner garden between the finance and government blocks that were raised on pilotis to
235 Güngör Cemal, Eski Adapazarı’nın Simgeleri, 2014.
236 Tuna,Fahri.(March, 2008), 1950’lerin Adapazarı, Interivew with Burçak Evren.
237 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
114
provide more open space in their ground floors on the other hand, the complex was
planned specifically for the public use. (Fig.4.22, 4.23) At this point, Batur claims that
the understanding that architecture did not begin or end with a single building and that
it should be handled on urban scale became prominent at the time.238 In this sense,
Sakarya Government House constitutes a successful example with its strong intentions
to invite the people. In this regard, it is important to mention what conditions and
properties determine whether a square is integrated with the city or not. Bayraktar
suggests that the form, size and width of an open area, its interaction with the
surrounding buildings as well as its components such as statues, fountains, etc. are the
factors that are essential to define an open public space.239
238 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.69.
239 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.313.
Fig.4.20: Şemsiyeli Bahçe, 1964.
In the background from the left; Ziraat
Bank, Ç.E.K.2 Office Block, post Office
and Municipality Office Block.
(Altan Balcıoğlu Archive)
Fig.4.21: Sakarya Government House
under construction, 1959. Fitaş, Saray
and Halkevi Cinemas located right
across the complex.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
115
As mentioned, the square in front of the Government House complex, which later
became the administrative center of the city and the main city square, was a
consciously defined and limited open space. On the other hand, publicness is another
characteristic that could be attributed to the square formed by the Sakarya Government
House complex. Discussing the concepts of public, public space, public buildings, and
public environment, Gurallar points out “accessibility” as the key factor for publicity
and claims that, whether indoor or open urban space, public space means accessible
building groups or urban open spaces that allow general use.240 Moreover, among
public spaces that are open to the use of all people from different social groups, squares
are the most prominent examples as places where citizens can gather together for a
number of cultural and political activities.241 In light of this discussion, the square that
was provided by the Government House complex could be argued to provide the
citizens with all the above mentioned functions of an open public square.
240 Gurallar, Neşe. "Kamu-Kamusal Alan-Kamu Yapıları-Kamusal Mekan: Modernite Öncesi ve
Sonrası için Bir Terminoloji Tartışması", Mimarlık, 2009, p. 350.
241 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.314.
Fig.4.22: Sakarya Government House inner
courtyard, 1960s.
(Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan)
Fig.4.23: Sakarya Government House
and its square in the front.
(Kortan, 2010, p. 172)
116
The northern side of the square was determined by a series of trees whereas the
southern side with a low wall. The fact that the square was defined and limited in this
way was mentioned in the jury report as a positive feature of the design and this issue
was explained as follows: (Fig.4.24)
In the composition in front of the building blocks, in addition to its connective
role, the square establishes a strong external relationship between the
architectural masses and the public, which is designed for their use. The
relationship and continuity between the indoor and outdoor spaces by means
of the square, especially on the ground floor, is highly successful. The whole
architectural problem is solved as a matter of the interrelation between volume
and space.242
The square had a formal stance due to the function of the building in the first place and
was surrounded by other official as well as commercial buildings. The Train Station
and Square, together with the ATSO building in one side and Ziraat Bank facing
towards the square on the other side, are some of the important buildings limiting the
new city square. On the opposite axis, following the Atatürk Boulevard, commercial
business blocks such as Sipahiler, Ç.E.K. 2, Erman and Türkoğlu were lined up. As
242 “Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası” Arkitekt, 03 (1956), p.107.
Fig.4.24: A perspective drawing of Sakarya
Government House and the square in its front.
(Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası, p.105)
117
such, the public identity of the area that was defined by the square in front of the
Government House was enhanced by the surrounding public buildings. (Fig.4.25)
In addition to the square in the front, the axis in the site plan was designed to establish
relations with the city and intended to be suitable for public use, to invite people and
to pedestrianize the square as much as possible. Regarding this, Kortan states:
For example, a market was being organized just behind these buildings, with
tents… These buildings were connected to it. We were aware of it. Those axes
(pointing out the layout plan) were opening up to that market. We tried to
establish as much pedestrian access as we can. And of course the public square
Fig.4.25: Sakarya Government House, the square and
other public buildings around marked on the map of
1977.
(Archive of Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Development and Urban Planning Department)
118
in front of it… Afterwards they even made some beautiful sculptures for this
square…243
On the other hand, in addition to the sculptural fountain that was designed and placed
in the inner space in between the justice and finance office blocks, a number of other
sculptures were added to the square in the front of the complex around the end of the
1960s. The statue of Atatürk being in the first place, which was built a short time after
the government complex, the new additions strengthened the symbolic meaning and
the official character of the complex and rendered the square as a more defined public
space. (Fig.4.26, 4.27)
Gurallar argues that the problem related to the definition of an open urban space that
also affects its legibility, is embodied by the dilemma of the definitions of a square and
a park.244 In this respect, among many others, she refers to two prominent suggestions
regarding what describes an open urban space. According to the definition of Haluk
Şehsuvaroğlu, a city square is an organized area where nature and the public meet:
243 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
244 Gürallar, Neşe, “Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park? Kamusal Mekanın
Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı” in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara, 2010, p.55.
Fig.4.26: Sakarya Government House and
Atatürk statue standing in the square.
(Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan)
Fig.4.27: The sculptural fountain
among the pilotis.
(Kortan, 2010, p.171)
119
We are a nation who likes to sit under big trees in our squares, listening to the
water buzzing. Within this square, only the restoration of the existing green
area or the construction of a new pool in accordance with it could be
considered.245
Reşat Ekrem Koçu on the other hand, with a more political tone, defines the physical
qualifying conditions of a city square as follows:
It should not be forgotten that the square somehow should be an uninterrupted
space that could gather the inhabitants. A square of a city is an unwalled and
roofless saloon, which could convene thousands of people for numerous
political demonstrations. For this reason, despot administrations have never
liked squares, and thus under the name of beautification they tried to interrupt
and decrease its area with pools, trees, etc.246
Nevertheless, these contradictory approaches between the concepts of park and square
cannot limit the use of the citizen of these urban spaces. Whether it is intended as a
park or a square in the minds of those who take part in the process of design including
architects or regional planners, daily life in these open urban spaces develops within
the context of the specific city and its own unique conditions.247 In this context,
Bayraktar claims that squares are the most efficaciously used spaces among the open
public spaces;248 and Lynch defines city squares as the hubs of excessive activities
245 Şehsuvaroğlu, 1959, quoted in Gurallar, Neşe, “Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da
Park? Kamusal Mekanın Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı” in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları
İnsanları, Ankara, 2010, p.55.
246 Koçu, 1960, quoted in Gurallar, Neşe, “Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park?
Kamusal Mekanın Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı” in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları,
Ankara, 2010, p.61.
247 Gurallar, Neşe, “Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park? Kamusal Mekanın
Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı” in Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları, Ankara, 2010, p.61.
248 Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay Squares in
Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.323.
120
within the city.249 Similarly, as Calhoun states, the value of a public sphere is its
capacity for social integration, which plays a significant role in communicative
action.250 In summary, squares are public areas that are “channels of communicating
among members of a society”251 and intended to be used by all citizens for a number
of social, cultural and political purposes and activities. The characteristics of squares
differ in relation to different contexts and development of specific cities. As Lefebvre
says every society with its own sub-variants produces its own space.252
For the city of Adapazarı, this process developed in the same way and the public
decided in time how to use this newly formed city square within its own context.
Together with the Station Square right next to it and Atatürk Boulevard, the
Government Square became the main meeting site for the citizens of the city. As the
site of administration, it was significant primarily with its emphasis on power, and
hosted gatherings for national celebrations as well as rallies and political
demonstrations. For instance, Kenan Evren, the president after the military
intervention in 1980, came to the city in July 1983 and addressed the people in the
square in front of Sakarya Government House. (Fig.4.28, 4.29) On national days and
festivals, the walking axis for the celebrations in the city usually started from the
beginning of Atatürk Boulevard, followed the street and reached the Government
Square, which was convenient for remarking the conclusion of celebrations. Besides,
this square also became a main meeting point for organized school trips where busses
departed from. (Fig.4.30, 4.31)
249 Lynch, 1961, quoted in Bayraktar Nuray. “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus
and Kızılay Squares in Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), p.324.
250 Calhoun, “Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere,” pp. 6–7.
251 Stephen Carr, 1992, quoted in Avcı, p.18.
252 Lefebvre, 2009, quoted in Avcı, p.19.
121
On the other hand, another common public use of the square was its use as a gathering
area for emergencies. In the two major earthquakes of Adapazarı in 1967 and 1999,
the Government Square served as an urban emergency gathering space for the people.
In particular, the Sakarya Government House complex and the square in its front
managed to survive the massive destruction of both earthquakes, while more than half
of the buildings in the whole city collapsed, embracing the citizens in these difficult
days. In all these aspects, Sakarya Government House was adopted by its users quite
powerfully. Although the complex was demolished after the 1999 Earthquake in 2005,
Fig.4.28: President Kenan
Evren making a speech in front
of the building, 1982.
(Hüsnü Gürsel Archive)
Fig.4.29: Sakarya Government House during
the celebrations of 75th anniversary of the
Republic, 1998.
(Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality
Collection)
Fig.4.30: Atatürk Boulevard
during celebrations, 1960s.
(Altan Balcıoğlu Archive)
Fig.4.31: Atatürk Boulevard
during celebrations, 1960s.
(Altan Balcıoğlu Archive)
122
even after years of its collapse, the area of the building and the square continued to be
known as “the area of the former Government Building” until the end of the 2000s.
123
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the place of Sakarya
Government House both in the context of the architectural production in Turkey and
in the transformation of the urban context of Adapazarı in the second half of the 20th
century.
Sakarya Government House has generally been overshadowed in the publications
about the architecture of the period; it was either not mentioned at all or not discussed
in detail. Nonetheless, in Turkey, it was a pioneering example of the modern, rational
architecture that was widely followed throughout the world in the second half of the
20th century. Hence, with this study, the aim was to reevaluate the period, this time
through an untouched yet a strong example of its time and thus to contribute to the
related literature.
By the beginning of the 1950s, the first local examples of the International Style of
modern architecture began to appear in Turkey.253 Sakarya Government House
successfully exemplifies the architectural understanding of the period with its
innovative ideas in the layout of the site plan, the specific solutions within the blocks
as well as its details achieved through the consistent application of mainly the
principles of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier.254 Being an important
253 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960”, “Searching for the New: 1960-1980” in A Concise
History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.48.
254 Kortan, 2012, p.170.
124
example of rationalism and modernism in architecture in Turkey and the first example
of the International Style built in Sakarya, it has an important place not only in the
history of architecture in Turkey but also in the history of the city itself. Moreover, the
process of the formation of Sakarya Government House, is a good example that reflects
the transformation process of the government house complexes, which used to function
as a part of an official building, but over time, were separated to transform into the
most important public buildings of their cities with their symbolic value. So, in
addition to reflecting the architectural understanding of the period through such a
public and symbolic structure, its contribution to urban development and
transformation into a new and modern city is an important issue within the history of
government house complexes as well. In this respect, this study aimed to unfold the
design and construction process of Sakarya Government House and emphasize the
context of its production as a modern building of the mid-20th century.
On the other hand, the discussion was also based on a second perspective. Evaluating
the building from a wider scale, its transformative effect on Adapazarı is very distinct
in comparison to the former appearance and characteristics of the city center. In this
sense, according to the analysis undertaken in this study, it could be argued that
Sakarya Government House, after its construction in 1960, created an alternative point
of attraction for the daily use of citizens, and with the public space that it provided,
contributed to the transformation of Adapazarı from a small Ottoman town to a modern
and defined Republican city in the second half of the 20th century.
The establishment of the Sakarya Government House complex led to the reconfiguration
of the physical arrangement of its vicinity, which mainly included the
new public square and the emerging road axes with Atatürk Boulevard as the most
significant among them. Thus, the construction of the complex in 1960 accelerated the
formation of the new administrative center in the city. This change in the city center
was not only limited with the formation of a new administrative center, but also led to
the development of new commercial and residential areas in the vicinity. In this sense,
the comparison of two maps of the region that were produced twenty years apart was
125
quite essential in terms of understanding the change in the urban context of the city.
In fact, a comparative analysis of 1957 and 1977 maps clearly summarizes the
transformation and development direction of the city towards the new city square in
front of the Government House complex. This new city square, together with the
Station Square right next to it and Atatürk Boulevard, became the main meeting and
gathering point for the citizens, and hence witnessed many national days, festivals and
political speeches for years as the main public space of the city.
Yet, the factors that affect the appearance of cities and buildings are the conditions and
consequences of different historical contexts. Likewise, after evaluating its 45 year
long life and contributions to the city, the study will be concluded with the narrative
of its dramatic ending.255
Two critical earthquakes 30 years apart, first in 1967 and then in 1999, caused major
physical changes in the history of the city, and consequently led to the ultimate
demolition of the building complex. Indeed, Sakarya Government House survived
both of these major earthquakes. Seven years after it was opened in 1960, it was shaken
by the 1967 earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8. Although the finance and courthouse
office blocks survived without any damage from the earthquake, the governor’s office
block, designed as the third and the highest of the complex, was moderately damaged
due to the infirmities of its static project, even though it settled 36 km away from Bolu,
the epicenter of the earthquake.256 Kortan explains the damages in the governor's office
and their causes after the 1967 earthquake as follows:
At the center of this building was a concrete box that we call the core and the
stairs; elevators and toilets were located there. It was intended to be a protective
255 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
256 Arıoğlu E., Anadol K., Arıoğlu Ü., (2007), Uluslararası Deprem Mühendisliği Açısından Önemli Bir
Olgu ve Kayıp: Güçlendirilmiş Adapazarı Vilayet Binası, Tarihi Eserlerin Güçlendirilmesi ve Geleceğe
Güvenle Devredilmesi Sempozyumu-1, pp.241-253.
126
box for the building from both the vertical and horizontal loads. However, since
this box was not placed symmetrically in the project, for certain reasons, but it
was located eccentrically, the building tried to bend due to the impact of the
torsional loads of the earthquake. In the reinforced concrete wall around the
core, the cracks of that rotation were clearly distinctive as the earthquake tried
to turn the building very prominently. But of course it is difficult to construct
buildings in Adapazarı, it is a city of earthquakes.257
After this devastating earthquake in 1967, the building was proposed to be demolished
and rebuilt, but a very comprehensive fortification work was carried out instead.258
Hence, the first major physical change that the building underwent came with the
consolidation works at that time. First of all, on both sides of the building, symmetrical
reinforced concrete towers were added. Secondly, the ground floor was closed, losing
the open space there that had been designed to comprise of the colonnades in
accordance with one of the symbolic and main architectural decisions of the building.
(Fig.5.1)
257 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
258 The governor’s office block was fortified by Ersin Arıoğlu Construction Company. Arıoğlu, a
certified engineer graduated from Istanbul Technical University, summarized their reinforcement and
repair works at this point by indicating that the wrenching irregularities of the building were minimized,
the axes of the center of gravity and stiffness were overlapped, and the columns were reinforced.
Arıoğlu, Anadol, Arıoğlu, 2007, pp.244, 248.
Fig.5.1: Sakarya Government House and its square, 1990s.
(“Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008)
127
Following this fortification and restoration project, the governor’s office block, and
the courthouse and finance office blocks, were opened for service again eight months
after the earthquake. However, 30 years after the 1967 earthquake, this time in August
17, 1999, there was an even more severe earthquake. The epicenter of this earthquake
of 7.7 magnitude was Gölcük, Kocaeli, which is even closer to Adapazarı. After this
earthquake, more than half of the buildings in the city either collapsed or were
seriously damaged. The governor’s office block of Sakarya Government House was
one of the few buildings in Adapazarı that survived the earthquake with almost no
damage as a result of the aforementioned fortification works following the 1967
earthquake even though the fault line was only 7 km away from it.259 However, this
time, the two other main blocks of the complex where the finance and courthouse
offices were located, which had survived the 1967 earthquake without any damage,
were completely destroyed. (Fig.5.2) Regarding this issue, Kortan indicates:
There are some building forms, earthquake-resistant forms; for example, the
courthouse is actually a square form. This should not have been destroyed in
the earthquake. At that time, we gave an earthquake expert named Adnan
Çakıroğlu, the job of making calculations. We didn't do the calculations as an
architect. We trusted this expert. But when these two buildings collapsed, our
earthquake specialist civil engineer friends from Middle East Technical
University went there. When they returned, I asked them the reason of the
demolition. The answer they gave me was that all the buildings constructed
with the old concrete specifications were demolished. Therefore, new
259 Anadol, K. “Adapazarı Vilayet Konağı neden ve nasıl yıktırıldı?” Yapı, No: 292 (2006), p.11. In fact,
the performance of the Adapazarı Governor’s Office Block was evaluated by a report prepared by
academicians of the Civil Engineering Department of Berkley University, California, which is
considered as the authority in the international earthquake engineering literature, and was also published
in the scientific journal of Earthquake Spectra, issued on December 2000, Volume: 16, pp.268-270.
Kortan also pointed out that Arıoğlu and his team strengthened the building so successfully that he gave
presentations at a great number of seminars and thus, showed and introduced the buildings on such
national and international platforms. Kortan, Enis, interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
128
reinforced concrete specifications were regulated after the earthquake, which
is still valid today.260
As the Governor's Office Block showed a very successful seismic performance, the
building was used as a crisis management center for three to four months following
the earthquake.261 Similarly, the square in front of it was transformed into an area
where the institutions communicated and coordinated during this disaster.262
Following this period, after this thriving performance of the building, Yapı Merkezi
initiated a campaign in 2000 for the protection and preservation of the structure and its
transformation into a museum of earthquakes, which was signed up by tens of
academicians and bureaucrats.263 However, this suggestion that would include the
photographs and information of the disaster, remained inconclusive.
260 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
261 Arıoğlu, Anadol, Arıoğlu, 2007, p.250.
262 “Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
263 Arıoğlu, Anadol, Arıoğlu, 2007, p.252.
Fig.5.2: After the earthquake of 1999, Government Office
Block still standing while the surrounding buildings were
completely destroyed.
(“Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008)
129
Unfortunately, in the ongoing process, the municipality decided to demolish the
building together with the Atatürk statue in the front, within the scope of the
development initiatives and to build an underground car park together with a green
open space on the land level. In addition, in the meantime, a forge damage report for
the building was received in order to justify the reasons for this action, although the
reports that were received from Yapı Merkezi demonstrated the opposite for the
structural condition of the building.264
Consequently, despite all the objections of the Adapazarı local press and people, the
building was demolished by the municipality in April 2005. In addition to its
architectural value, the only building of the city with a public identity that witnessed a
history of almost 50 years was thus destroyed despite its thriving performance in
various earthquakes.265 Kortan explains his thoughts about the demolition as follows:
Of course, this is very sad… A building, even the most important building of
Adapazarı… This building, which had been revived with such a successful
strengthening by an expert engineering team, was demolished by a man
deciding on his own.266
The Governor's Office Block was actually demolished with the idea of creating a larger
city square. However, as Erdönmez and Akı suggest, the quality of public space,
especially that of squares, plays a very important role in establishing the identity of a
264 Anadol, K. “Adapazarı Vilayet Konağı neden ve nasıl yıktırıldı?” Yapı Dergisi, No: 292 (2006),
p.13.
265 With the decision taken by the municipality and its realization, the technical stances were ignored
and a scientific and historical document was extinguished. As Arıoğlu specifies, Turkish technicians
and scientists of the future, despite the insistent warnings and requests of the authorities, were deprived
of such a valuable document and this significant structure that the earthquakes could not have damaged
was destroyed for political whims. Arıoğlu, Anadol, Arıoğlu, 2007, p.250.
266 Kortan, E., interview with the author, December 6, 2019.
130
city.267 In this respect, the square, which had been formerly confined by all the external
elements of the complex, such as the eave in the front, the sequence of trees, and the
low wall in front of Sakarya Government House, was left as a completely unidentified,
unlimited and huge empty area for years. Although the underground level of this area
began to function as a car parking area for 370 vehicles, the square is evidently off
scale and even lacks basic landscape elements such as lighting, social space and green
area arrangements. Kent Meydanı (City Square), which was designed with a disasteroriented
approach to be used as shelter, gathering and storage area in times of potential
earthquakes, currently has a wide open area of 10 thousand square meters. The square
has become much larger than the old one as empty space right in the center of the
city.268 (Fig.5.3)
For Adapazarı, which has always carried the risk of earthquakes, leaving such a large
open space in the middle of the city could be necessary as an emergency strategy;
however, its current position without involving other functions deprives it of being the
site of daily life of the city. Thus, as a matter of fact, there are very few people in the
267 Erdönmez, E. & Akı, A. “Açık Kamusal Kent Mekanlarının Toplum İlişkilerindeki Etkileri.”
Megaron, 1 (2005), p.79.
268 “Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
Fig.5.3: Current situation of the area, 2017.
(“Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008)
131
square during normal days, and except from the large hard floor covering and a few
water elements that are almost unrecognizable within the huge scale of the area, any
arrangements to define and determine the usage of the square has not yet been made.269
Thus, the destruction of the Sakarya Government House complex, which witnessed
and affected the 50-year history of the city unlike today’s isolated area, is a serious
loss for Adapazarı. In addition to its historical and architectural value, the
disappearance of the places where the citizens spent their lives created significant loss
of memory for the city.270
To conclude, Sakarya Government House constitutes a significant example both in
terms of reflecting the conditions and architectural approaches of the period, as well
as its strong relationship with and contributions to the development of the city of
Adapazarı. In that sense, this study aimed to bring together these two not much studied
topics; the architectural history of the city of Adapazarı during the second half of the
20th century and Sakarya Government House as a significant example of the
architectural products of the period. In this sense, the reciprocal analysis of these topics
in this study is expected to provide a basis for related future studies in order to evaluate
architectural production in relation to the use and the meaning of buildings in their
urban contexts.
269 “Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri,” 2008.
270 The building of Sakarya Government House was brought to agenda in the Poster Presenatations of
DOCOMOMO Turkey, which was established in 2002 for documenting and preserving the modern
architectural production of the 20th century. For Sakarya Government House as well, the accumulation
of knowledge plays an important role in the evaluation and interpretation of its architecture. See: Hande
Savaş, Gürkan Okumuş, Gökhan Okumuş, “Sakarya Government House”, DOCOMOMO Turkey
Poster Presentations, Abstract Book, Tekirdağ, 2019.
132
REFERENCES
Adapazarı, Sakarya: Sakarya Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Dünden Bugüne Adapazarı,
2008. Retrieved from: https://issuu.com/sakarya/docs/dundenbuguneadapazari
Aktüre, Sevgi, “Osmanlı Devletinde Taşra Kentlerindeki Değişimler”, Tanzimat’tan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol.4 (1985), pp.891-904.
Aktüre, Sevgi, 19. Yüzyılın Sonunda Anadolu Kenti Mekansal Yapı ve Çözülmesi,
Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi, 1978.
Alsaç, Üstün. Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemi’ndeki Evrimi.
KTÜ Baskı Atölyesi, 1976.
Alpargu Mehmet, Şahin Erol, eds. Sakarya İli Tarihi. 2 volumes. Sakarya: Sakarya
Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Yayınları, 2005.
Altan Ergut, Elvan, "Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar",
Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7:13, 2009, pp.121-130.
Anonymous, Elazığ Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası. Arkitekt, 03 (1956), pp.109-
113.
Anonymous, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı Proje Müsabakası. Arkitekt, 03(1956), pp.105-
108, 117.
Anonymous, Kocaeli Hükümet Konağı Mimari Proje Yarışması. Arkitekt, 351 (1973),
pp. 151-157.
Anonymous, Sakarya’da Kamusal Alan Girişimleri, Mimdap, December 20, 2008.
Anonymous , “Adı Ada Ekspresi Ama Adaya Gitmez,” Kent ve Demiryolu, 2014,
December 29.
133
Artırma, Aygül, Adapazarı Kentsel Sit Alanının Tarihsel Süreç İçindeki Değişiminin
İncelenmesi Ve Bölgenin Günümüze Yeniden Kazandırılması. (Master’s Thesis).
İstanbul: Maltepe University, 2007.
Aslanoğlu, İnci, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları,” Mimarlık,
no.203 (1984): pp.3-15.
Avcı, Nihan. The Role of Mimarlar Odası and Mülkiyeliler Birliği in the Formation of
a Public Place: Yüksel-Konur Intersection, 1960s-1980s (Master’s Thesis). METU,
Ankara, 2018.
Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükûmet Konakları: Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında
Devletin Erki ve Temsili. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2017.
Balamir, Aydan, “Mimarlık ve Kimlik Teminleri II: Türkiye’de Modern Yapı
Kültürünün Bir Profili”, Mimarlık, 2003.
Balcıoğlu, Hasan, Ada Kariyesinden Sakarya Vilayetine, İstanbul: Adapazarı Şehrini
Kalkındırma ve Güzelleştirme Derneği Yayınları, 1953.
Başar, Mehmet Emin & Erdoğan, Hacı Abdullah, “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e
Türkiye’de Tren Garları,” Selçuk Üniversitesi Müh.-Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 24:3 (2009),
pp. 29-43.
Batur, Afife, A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century.
Mimarlar Odası, Ankara, 2005.
Batur, Afife, “1925-1950 Döneminde Türkiye Mimarlığı”, 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve
Mimarlık, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1998, pp. 209-234.
Batur, Afife. “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture.” In Modern
Turkish Architecture, (eds.) Renata Holod, Ahmet Evin, and Süha Özkan,
69–96. Ankara: Chamber of Architects of Turkey, 2005.
134
Batur, Afife, “Batılılaşma Döneminde Osmanlı Mimarlığı”, Tanzimat’tan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol.4 (1985), pp.1038-1067.
Bayraktar, Nuray, "Başkent Ankara'da Cumhuriyet Sonrası Yaşanan Büyük Değişim:
Modern Yaşam Kurgusu ve Mekanlar", Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi. 4(1), 2016, pp.
67-80.
Bayraktar Nuray, “Withdrawal of Public Space Meanings of Squares: Ulus and Kızılay
Squares in Ankara, Turkey”, Space and Culture, Vol.20 (2017), pp.315-328.
Binici, Özden. İzmit’te 1936-1966 Yılları Arasındaki Yapı Üretiminin Kentin
Gelişimine Etkileri, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) Kocaeli: Kocaeli Üniversitesi,
2012.
Bozdoğan, Sibel, “Democracy, Development, and the Americanization of Turkish
Architectural Culture in the 1950s“, in S. Isenstadt & K. Rizvi, (eds.) Modernism and
the Middle East Architecture and Politics in the Twentieth Century. University of
Washington Press, 2008.
Bozdoğan, Sibel & Akcan, Esra, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, Reaction
Books, 2012.
Bozdoğan, Sibel, “Turkey’s Post-War Modernism: A Retrospective Overview of
Architecture, Urbanism and Politics in the 1950s”, in M. Gürel (ed.) Mid-Century
Modernism in Turkey: Architecture across Culture in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge,
2016.
Colquhoun, Alan, Modern Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
Curtis, William. J. R, Modern Architecture since 1900. Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1982.
Çakıcı, F.M. (2019). Kocatepe Camisi Projelendirme ve Yapım Süreci. In N.
Bayraktar (Ed.), Ankarada İz Bırakan Mimarlar: Vedat Dalokay, Nejat Tekelioğlu (25-
47).
135
Çam, Yusuf, Milli Mücadelede İzmit Sancağı (Koaceli-Sakarya-Yalova İlleri).
Kocaeli: Kocaeli Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Daire Başkanlığı
Yayınları, 2014.
Çelik, Abdullah, Adapazarı’nın-Sakarya’nın Geçmişi, 9 Şubat 2017, Yenigün
Gazetesi.
Çetin, Yusuf, Sakarya ve İlçelerinde Türk Dönemi Sivil Mimari Eserleri (Doctoral
dissertation), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, 2006.
Çetin, Yusuf, Sakarya’nın Kültürel ve Tarihi Mirası, Sakarya: Sakarya Valiliği
Yayınları, 2010.
Davies, Colin, A New History of Modern Architecture. Laurence King Publishing,
2017.
Doldur, Hasan, Tarımdan Sanayiye Bir Ova Şehri: Adapazarı (Doctoral dissertation),
İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2003.
Doordan, Dennis, Twentieth Century Architecture. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers,
2002.
Erdoğan, Nevinhal, Ayyıldız Sonay, & Özbayraktar Mehtap, Tarihi İzmit Kent
Merkezi: Mahalleler, Sokaklar, Mimari Eserler. Kocaeli: Kocaeli Büyükşehir
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2011.
Erendil, Muzaffer, Türlü Yönleriyle Sakarya, Nur Ofset Matbaa, İstanbul 1982.
Erol, Özden, Tarihsel Süreçte İzmit Hükümet Vilayet Konakları ve İktidarın
Temsiliyetindeki Değişim, Tarih ve Uygarlık İstanbul Dergisi, 06 (2014), pp.143-165.
Erol, Özden, Kocaeli’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemi Kayıpları, Arkitera, 2017. Retrieved
from: https://www.arkitera.com/gorus/kocaelinin-cumhuriyet-donemi-kayiplari/
136
Eröz, Mehmet, Adapazarı’nın Teşekkülü, İstanbul Sosyoloji Konferansları, Vol 0 (7),
1966, pp.61-70.
Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture A Critical History. Oxford University Press,
New York and Toronto, 1980.
Goldhagen, S. W. ve R. Legault (eds.) Anxious Modernisms Experimentation in
Postwar Architectural Culture. The MIT Press, 2002.
Göçer, Kenan, “Şark Ticaret Yıllıklarına Göre Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e
Adapazarı’ndaki İşletmecilerin Değişimi,” Uluslararası Sakarya Sempozyumu
Bildiriler, 2018, pp.251-269.
Göçer Orhan, Adapazarı Fiziki Planlaması, ITU 56.Sosyoloji Konferansları, 1966.
Güler, Koray & Bilge, Ayşe Ceren, “Modern Mimarlık Bağlamında Artvin Hükümet
Konağı’nın Değerlendirilmesi,” Megaron, 11(1), 2016, pp.15-34.
Güngör, Cemal, “Tarih Olan Havuzlarımız,” Sakarya Yenigün, November, 2018.
Gürallar, Neşe, “Bir Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tartışması, Meydan ya da Park? Kamusal
Mekanın Dönüşümü: Beyazıt Meydanı,” In Altan Ergut, Elvan, İmamoğlu, Bilge.
(Ed.), Cumhuriyet’in Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları (pp.53-69). Ankara: Dipnot
Yayınları, 2009.
Gürallar, Neşe, "Kamu-Kamusal Alan-Kamu Yapıları-Kamusal Mekan: Modernite
Öncesi ve Sonrası için Bir Terminoloji Tartışması", Mimarlık, no.350, 2009.
Gürel, Meltem. (ed.) 2016. Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture across
Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge.
Hamamcıoğlu, Mine, Cumhuriyete Geçişle Yeniden Kurgulanmış Olan Bir Kentsel
Mekandaki Dönem Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi, In Altan E., İmamoğlu B. (Ed.),
Cumhuriyetin Mekanları Zamanları İnsanları (s.125-141), Ankara, Dipnot Yayınları,
2010.
137
Hasol, Doğan, 20. Yüzyıl Türkiye Mimarlığı, İstanbul: YEM Yayın, 2017.
Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet (eds.) Modern Turkish Architecture. University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
İnan, Umut, Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları, Mimarlık, vol.203
(1984), p.3-15.
Kaçel, Ela, “This is not an American House: Good Sense Modernism in 1950s
Turkey”, in Duanfung Lu (ed.), Third World Modernism: Architecture, Development
and Identity. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.
Kırlı, Engin, Sakarya-Düzce-Ereğli Demiryolu Projesi, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi,
v.38(65), 2018, pp. 327-360.
Koca, Feray, Muğla’da Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete İdari Merkezin Sembolü: Hükümet
Konakları, Mimarlık, no.319 (2016) p.59-65.
Konukçu, Enver, “Sakarya’nın Tarih Coğrafyası”, (Eds.) Alpargu M., Şahin E.,
1.Sakarya ve Çevresi Kültür ve Tarih Sempozyumu, Adapazarı, pp.111-168.
Kortan, Enis, Hümanist Bir Mimarlığa Doğru Enis Kortan Proje ve Uygulamalar,
1952-2005. Ankara: Boyut Yayın Grubu, 2012.
Kortan, Enis, “Soruşturma 2003: Mimarlık Geçmişini Değerlendiriyor” Üzerine Bir
Deneme, Mimarlık, sayı:314, 2003.
Kortan Enis, Türkiye’de Mimarlık Hareketleri ve Eleştirisi 1960-1970, Ankara: ODTÜ
Mimarlık Fakültesi, 1973.
Kortan Enis, Türkiye’de Mimarlık Hareketleri ve Eleştirisi 1950-1960, Ankara: ODTÜ
Mimarlık Fakültesi, 1973.
138
Kula Say, Seda, “Belgeler Işığında 19.Yüzyıl Sonu-20.Yüzyıl Başı Türk Mimarlığında
Teknik İçerikli Tartışmalar”, in G. Çelik (ed.) Geç Osmanlı Döneminde Sanat,
Mimarlık ve Kültür Karmaşaları, pp.161-191. T. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2016.
Kutluata, Münir, “Sakarya’da Bankacılık ve Türk Ticaret Bankası”, Sosyoloji
Konferansları Dergisi, vol.11 (1970), pp.55-106.
Meltem, Aydın, “1930-2010 Arasında Türkiye’de Yapılmış Mimari Yarışmalardaki
Değerlendirme Kriterlerinin Değişimi”, Yarışmalar ve Mimarlık Sempozyumu, 2013.
Retrieved from: https://issuu.com/arkitera/docs/sempozyum_2013_tr_web
Mimarlığa Doymayan Adam: Nişan Yaubyan. Directed by Atom Şaşkal, İstanbul,
2017.
Narin, Resul, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Ticaret Şehri: Adapazarı ve Gümrüğü,” Arşiv
ve Tarihçiliğe Adanmış Bir Ömür Prof.Dr. Atilla Çetin’e Armağan, Sakarya
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2016, pp.259-272.
Narin, Resul, “The Times’ın Penceresinden 19.yy Adapazarı’na Bakış,” Müteferrika,
37 (2010), p.185-192.
Narin, Resul, “Cumhuriyet’in İlk Yıllarında Adapazarı Ticari Hayatına Dair
Tespitler,” Uluslararası Sakarya Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 2018, pp.477-499.
Narin, Resul, 19.Yüzyılda Adapazarı’nda Yabancıların Ekonomik ve Sosyal Yaşama
Etkileri, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Sakarya: Sakarya University, 2007.
Narin, Resul, 19. Yüzyılda Adapazarı. Sakarya: Sakarya İl Kültür Turizm Müdürlüğü,
2011.
Narin, Resul, Ada’dan Pazar’a Sakarya. Sakarya: Sakarya Ticaret Odası Yayınları,
2015.
139
Narin, Resul, Satso İle 1 Asır, Sakarya: Sakarya Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası Yayınları,
2017.
Narin, Resul, “Temettuat Defterlerine Göre Adapazarı”, SAÜ Fen Edebiyat Dergisi,
2008, pp.221-231.
Nişancık İrfan, “Mimari Rasyonalizm"in ilk eserlerinden "Sakarya Hükûmet Konağı
51 yaşında.” Sakarya Yeni Haber, December 22, 2010.
Odabaş Fatih, 19.yy’da Adapazarı’nın Sosyo-ekonomik Yapısı (Unpublished Master’s
Thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul, 2007.
Okday, İsmail, Adapazarı Gazeteleri, Sakarya: Tefeyyüz Matbaası, 1937.
Özbay, Hasan, “Kadı Konağından, Kent Merkezi Planlamasına Evrimin Son
Halkaları: Bitlis ve Denizli Hükümet Konağı Yarışmaları”, Serbest Mimar, ANBA
Anadolu Basın Ajansı, Ankara, 2009, pp.56-68.
Özdemir, K, Adapazarı/Sakarya’da Siyasi Hayat (1946-1960) (Unpublished Master’s
Thesis), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, 2011.
Özdil, N. C., H. Vejre, C. Bilsel, "Emergence and Evolution of the Urban Open Spaces
of Ankara within the Urban Development History: 1923 to Present", Journal of
Planning History. 19 (1), 2019, pp. 26-51.
Özorhon, İlker Fatih, Mimarlıkta Özgünlük Arayışları: 1950-60 Arası Türkiye
Modernliği, (Doctoral dissertation), Istanbul Technical University, 2008.
Ockman, Joan. (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968. Rizzoli International
Publications, 1993.
Ortaylı, İlber, Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları, Mimarlık, 203
(1984), p.3-15.
Parker, Timothy. Penick Monica, Kulic Vladimir. (eds.) Sanctioning Modernism:
Architecture and the Making of Postwar Identities. University of Texas Press, 2014.
140
Pendlebury, John, Erten, Erdem, P. J. (eds.) (2015) Alternative Visions of Post-War
Reconstruction: Creating the Modern Townscape. Routledge.
Sayar, Yasemin, “Türkiye’de Mimari Proje Yarışmaları 1930-2000: Bir
Değerlendirme,” Mimarlık, sayı: 320, 2004.
Sayar, Zeki, Kiracı Devlet Müesseseleri, Arkitekt, 01 (1938), p.29-30.
Savaş, Hande; Okumuş Gürkan; Okumuş Gökhan, “Sakarya Government House”,
DOCOMOMO Turkey Poster Presentations, Abstract Book, Tekirdağ, 2019.
Hande Savaş, Gürkan Okumuş, Gökhan Okumuş, “Sakarya Government House”,
DOCOMOMO Turkey Poster Presentations, Abstract Book, Tekirdağ, 2019.
Selvi, Haluk, “II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Adapazarı ve Çevresi (1908-1918)” Sakarya
İli Tarihi, Vol.1, 2005, İstanbul.
Sey, Yıldız, “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türkiye’de Mimarlık ve Yapı Üretimi”, 75
Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, İstanbul: TC İş Bankası ve Tarih Vakfı Ortak Yay,
1988, pp. 25-39.
Sözen, Mehmet, Tapan, Mehmet, 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, İstanbul, 1973.
Subaşı, Tutgut, “I. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Adapazarı’ndaki Sosyal Hayat Hakkında
Bazı Gözlemler,” Sakarya İli Tarihi, SAÜ Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005, p.409-448.
Şahin, Erol, Kronolojik Adapazarı-Sakarya Tarihi (1923-2004), Adapazarı: TC
Sakarya Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2005.
Şahin, Erol, Sakarya Basın Tarihi: 1919-2004, Sakarya Gazeteciler Cemiyeti Yayını,
Sakarya, 2005.
Şenyurt, Oya, 1923-1960/İzmit Cumhuriyet’in Tanıkları Binalar ve Kentten Haberler,
İstanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Kocaeli Şubesi, 2010.
141
Tütengil Cavit Orhan, Sakarya Basını, İstanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1968.
Şık, Neslihan, “Uluslararası Mimarlığa Açılış”, Mimarist, Mimarlar Odası İstanbul
Büyükkent Şubesi, İstanbul, 2001, pp. 51-54.
Tanyeli, Uğur, “1950’lerden Bu Yana Mimari Paradigmaların Değişimi ve ‘Reel
Mimarlık’, 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, pp.235-254, Ed. Sey, Y., Tarih Vakfı
Yayınları, Bilanço ’98 Yayın Dizisi, İstanbul, 1998.
Tanyeli, Uğur, “Türk Modernleşmesinin Kentsel Sahnesini Yeniden Düşünmek”,
Arredamento Dekorasyon, vol.90 (1997), pp. 81-82.
Tekeli, İlhan, “Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Kentsel Dönüşümler”, Tanzimat’tan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol.4 (1985), pp.878-890.
Tekeli, Doğan. Interviewed for Yalıtım, January 2001. Available at:
http://www.yalitim.net/yayin/406/dogan-tekeli_11269.html#.XffFqS3BJAY
(Accessed: 1 December 2019)
Uslu, Dilara, “Sakarya Şehir Tarihi Hakkında Yazılmış Eserlerin İncelenmesi,”
Uluslararası Sakarya Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 2018, pp.721-731.
Ünal, Feyzullah, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Yasal ve
Yapısal Dönüşümü,” Dumlupınar Üni. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol.30 (2011), p.241-
248.
Vanlı, Şevki, “20. Yüzyıl İ kinci Yarının İlk Otuz Yılında Türk Mimarlığı”, Bilinmek
İstenmeyen 20. Yüzyıl Türk Mimarlığı. Eleştirel Bakış , Şevki Vanlı Mimarlık Vakfı
Yayınları, Ankara, 2006, pp.205-344.
Yatman, Affan, Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları, Mimarlık, vol.203
(1984), p.3-15.
Yaubyan, N., (2019). Interviewed by Erhan Demirtaş for Mimdap. Available
at:http://www.mimdap.org/?p=222649 (Accessed: 1 December 2019)
142
Yavuz, Didem. “Mimarlık Sanat Birlikteliğinde 1950-70 Aralığı,” Mimarlık, sayı:344,
2008.
Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan, “Trabzon Örneğinde Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Hükümet
Konağı Binaları,” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(5), 2008, p.943-959.
Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan, Amasya’daki Hükümet Konağı Binaları, Sanat Dergisi, vol.18
(2010), p.91-105.
Yazıcı Metin, Nurcani, Son Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığının Başyapıtları: Hükümet
Konakları, In A.Budak, M. Yılmaz (Ed.), Osmanlı Sanatında Değişim ve Dönüşüm,
2019, p.234-315, İstanbul: Literatürk Academia.
Yazman, Derya, Geçmişin Modern Mimarisi-7: İzmit, Arkitera, 2013. Retrieved from:
https://www.arkitera.com/haber/gecmisin-modern-mimarisi-7-izmit-kocaeli/
Yetim, Fahri, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Son Dönemlerinde Adapazarı ve çevresinde
Eşkıyalık Olayları ve Asayiş Sorunları,” Uluslararası Sakarya Sempozyumu Bildiriler
2018, pp.281-291.
Yücel, Atilla, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”,
Renata Holod, Ahmet Evin, ed. (1984) Modern Turkish Architecture, pp.105-152.
143
A. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
SAKARYA HÜKÜMET KONAĞI VE 20.YÜZYILIN İKİNCİ YARISINDA
ŞEHİR MERKEZİNİN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ
Bu çalışma, 1955 yılında Bayındırlık Bakanlığı tarafından düzenlenen ulusal bir
yarışma sonucunda inşa edilen Sakarya Hükümet Konağı binasına odaklanmaktadır.
Çalışmada, Enis Kortan, Harutyun Vapurciyan, Nişan Yaubyan ve Avyerinos
Andonyadis tarafından tasarlanan bu binanın, 1960 yılında açılması ve 1999 Adapazarı
depreminde aldığı ciddi hasarın ardından, 2003 yılında yıkılmasına kadar olan süreçte,
şehir merkezinin dönüşümündeki rolü incelenir. Bu doğrultuda, Sakarya Hükümet
Konağı kompleksi iki temel bağlamda tartışılmıştır; öncelikle mimari özellikleri
incelenerek bina ölçeğinde, ikinci olarak da kompleksin kentle, özellikle bu yapı
sayesinde önemli bir dönüşüm geçiren Adapazarı şehir merkeziyle etkileşimine
odaklanarak daha geniş şehir ölçeğinde incelenmiştir.
1950'lerin modern mimarisi, literatürde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nden doğan ve
yerel farklılıklarla da olsa aynı temel ilkelerle dünyaya yayılan Uluslararası Stil olarak
tanımlanmaktadır.271 1950'lerde Türkiye'de inşaat sektörü yükselişteydi ve gelişen
iletişim araçları mimarlara yabancı ürünleri takip etme fırsatı verdi. Böylece yabancı
örnekleri görerek yeni eğilimlerle tanıştılar ve dünyadaki uygulamaları mimarlık
basından takip ettiler.272 Aynı dönemde Bayındırlık Bakanlığı tarafından düzenlenen
mimari yarışmalar genç, yeni mezun mimarlar arasında büyük ilgi gördü. Yarışmalar
271 Joedicke, 1969, qouted in Kortan, 1973, p.31.
272 Batur, Afife. “The Post-War Period: 1950-1960” in A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey
during the 20th Century, İstanbul, 2005, p.69.
144
sonucunda mimarlar, diğer mimarlar, resmi kurumlar ve üniversiteler ile sık sık
diyalog kurma fırsatı buldular.273 Sakarya Hükümet Konağı, Türkiye'de mimari
bağlamın önemli bir örneğini oluşturan böyle bir dönemin ürünüdür. Uluslararası
üslubun modern, rasyonel mimarisinde yenilikçi bir yaklaşımla tasarlananmış ve 2003
yılında yıkılıncaya dek halka başarıyla hizmet etmiştir.
Her ne kadar bahsedilen bu dönem sıklıkla mimalık tarihçilerin analiz konusu olsa da,
ilgili literatürün kronolojik ve mekansal yönlerden kısıtlamaları olduğu dikkat
çekicidir. Bu bağlamda Altan, Cumhuriyet'in kurulmasıyla hızlanan modernleşme
sürecine yapılan vurgu nedeniyle, metropoliten kentlerde, özellikle de ilk ve en büyük
değişikliği yaşayan başkent Ankara'nın kentsel planlama ve mimari değişimine öncelik
verildiğini belirtir. Fakat son yıllarda, mimarlık tarih yazımında bu sınırlamalar
aşılmaya başlanmış ve Ankara, İstanbul ve İzmir gibi büyük şehirlerin yanı sıra, ülke
genelindeki örnekler incelenmiş ve yapılan yayınlarla gündeme getirilmiştir.274
Mekânsal sınırlama yıllar geçtikçe ortadan kalkmaya başlasa da Sakarya kenti, fiziksel
çevresi, mimari üretimi veya kentsel dönüşümü hiçbir zaman mimari tarihçiliğinin tam
anlamıyla merkezinde olmamıştır.
Ancak, 1956 yılında tasarlanan Sakarya Hükümet Konağı, daha önce ülkede yaygın
olarak kullanılmayan detaylar ve malzemeler uygulanarak yapılmış yenilikçi tasarım
yaklaşımı ile Türkiye'de dönemin modern mimarisi için öncü çalışmalardan biriydi.
Kortan bu noktaya dikkat çekerek, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı'nın mimari topluluk
273 Karaaslan, Merih, “Söyleşi: Osmanlı’dan Bugüne Hükümet Konakları.” Mimarlık, 203 (1984), p.7.
274 Altan-Ergut, Elvan. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar.” Türkiye
Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 13 (2009a), p.124.
145
arasında çok fazla bilinmediğini, bu konuda yeterli yayın bulunmaması nedeniyle
genellikle gölgede ve arka planda kaldığını belirtir.275
Buna paralel olarak, bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Ankara, İstanbul ve İzmir gibi büyük
şehirlerin ötesinde, ikinci planda kalmış küçük şehşirler ve buralarda üretilmiş önemli
yapılar hakkında bilgi geliştirmek amacıyla, Adapazarı örneğini inceleyerek 20.
yüzyılda Türkiye'nin mimari ve kentsel bağlamı üzerine literatüre katkıda
bulunmaktır. Sakarya Hükümet Konağı örneğine odaklanan bu çalışma, Adapazarı'nın
dönem boyunca mimari ve kentsel gelişimine ilişkin sınırlı literatüre, yapı
kompleksinin mimari özellikleri ile kent merkezinin dönüşümündeki rolü arasındaki
ilişki açısından katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Bu bağlamda, girişin ardından, çalışma üç ana bölüm etrafında düzenlenmiştir. Şehrin
tarihsel gelişimine genel bir bakış ile başlayan ilk bölümde, küçük bir köy olarak
kurulmasını takip eden süreçte, Adapazarı’nın mütevazi bir Osmanlı kasabasından,
Cumhuriyetin kuruluşunu takip eden süreçte 20. yüzyılın ortalarında, bağımsız bir ile
dönüşümü detaylı bir şekilde incelenmiştir. Bu noktada, çalışmanın esas konusu olan,
20. yüzyılın ortalarında kentin yeni yönetim merkezinin değerlendirilmesini
güçlendirmek amacıyla, şehrin Osmanlı dönemindeki tarihi yönetim merkezi olan eski
Adapazarı Hükümet Konağı da detaylıca incelenmiştir.
Üçüncü bölümün ilk kısmında odaklanılan, Osmanlı’dan cumhuriyete hükümet
konaklarının geçirdiği değişim ve bu binaların işlevsel, sembolik ve üslupsal
özelliklerinin tartışıldığı bölüm, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın oluşum sürecini ve
Adapazarı’nın yapılı çevresini dönüştürmesini anlamak adına önemli bir yere sahiptir.
Esasen 19. yüzyıla kadar, yönetim amacıyla inşa edilmiş veya tahsis edilmiş ayrı kamu
275 Kortan, E., 2003, “Soruşturma 2003: Mimarlık Geçmişini Değerlendiriyor” Üzerine Bir Deneme,
Enis Kortan. Mimarlık, no. 314. Retrieved from:
http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=26&RecID=257
146
binaları yoktur.276 Tanzimat dönemi yenilikleri ile yapı repertuarına eklenen Hükümet
Konakları, zaman içinde devletin gücünü ve otoritesini simgeleyen, çevresinde yer
alan idari fonksiyonlu diğer binalar ile birlikte kentlerin en önemli kamu yapıları haline
dönüşmüşlerdir.
1892 yılında inşa edilen, Adapazarı’nın ilk Hükümet Konağı, çevresindeki telgraf
ofisi, gümrük evi, belediye otel ve ofisi, polis binası, itfaiye binası ve hapishane gibi
diğer benzer idari fonksiyon binalarıyla birlikte bir idari merkez oluşturuyordu. Söz
konusu idari birimler, şehrin ticari merkezi olan pazar alanı ve merkez camilerine
yakın konumlandırılmıştı. O zamanki şehir merkezi, merkezdeki camiler, onları
çevreleyen çarşılar ve çarşıları çevreleyen yerleşim alanları ile tipik bir küçük Osmanlı
kasabasıydı. Bununla birlikte, öncelikle demiryolunun gelişi ve bu sayede yapılı
çevrenin hızla dönüşümü ile kentin merkezini oluşturan çevre, merkezi karakterini
kaybetmeye başlamış ve Sakarya’nın bağımsız bir ile dönüşümü ile ulusal bir yarışma
sonucu Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın inşası ile şehrin yeni idari merkezi şekillenmeye
başlamıştır.
Üçüncü bölümün ikinci kısmı, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın tasarım ve inşa sürecine
odaklanmaktadır. 1954 yılında Sakarya’nın bağımsız bir il olmasının ardından
düzenlenen mimari proje yarışmasından başlayarak, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı'nın
tasarım sürecini, jüri raporları ve aynı yarışma için önerilen diğer projeleri de göz
önünde bulundurarak inceler.
Bu noktada, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın üretildiği dönemde, ülke çapında sıklıkla
düzenlenen mimari proje yarışmalarının değerlendirme kriterlerinin daha geniş bir
perspektiften incelenmesi, binanın üslubunu anlamakta yardımcı olacaktır. Bu sebeple,
276 Yazıcı Metin, Nurcan. “Trabzon Örneğinde Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Hükümet Konağı
Binaları.” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1/5 (2008), p.951.
147
Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın inşa edildiği dönemi, öncesinin ve sonrasının mimarlık
ortamını irdelemek adına, 1930 ve 1980 yılları aralığında açılan yarışma projelerinin
bir analizi yapılmıştır.
Analiz sonucunda kısaca, tüm dönemlerde, modernist mimarlığın işlevselci
yaklaşımının mimarlıkta önemli bir faktör olduğunu ve Cumhuriyetin ilk yıllarından
başlayarak jüri raporlarında çokça vurgulandığını gösteren işlevsellik, fizibilite,
ekonomi ve programa uygunluk kavramları dikkat çekicidir.277 Ek olarak, Sakarya
Hükümet Konağı’nın inşa edildiği, 1950 ve 1980 yılları aralığında, yataylık, esnek
plan, insan ölçeği, hafiflik ve teknoloji kavramları diğer dönemlerden farklı olarak ön
plana çıktığı gözlemlenmiştir.278
Öte yandan, dönemin her ödüllü önerisinde, bina kompleksi önünde bir açık alan
planlanması dikkat çekicidir. Bu bağlamda, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı tasarımının da
en önemli ögelerinden biri olan, bina ile şehir arasında bir ilişki kurmanın hem
mimarlar hem de jüri için her projede baskın bir yaklaşım olduğu söylenebilir.
Bunlar dışında, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın tasarım kararları, mimarlarının
yaklaşımları ve ürettikleri diğer yapıları ile karşılaştırmalı analizleri ile dönemin
Türkiye’deki rasyonel mimarlık üretimi bağlamında detaylıca incelenmiştir. Hükümet
Konağı, Adliye ve Maliye olmak üzere üç farklı fonksiyonun üç farkı yapı ile ifade
edildiği tasarım, plan çözümlemesindeki hafif bölücü duvarları ile sağlanan esneklik,
taşıyıcıdan bağımsız kurgulanan cam metal cephesi, önünde tasarlanan meydanı,
pilotiler ile yükseltilerek zeminin boş bırakılması ve bunu takip eden iç bahçesi ile
Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe ve Le Corbusier ilkelerinin uygulandığı, dönemin
rasyonel ve modern mimari anlayışını başarıyla yansıtan bir tasarımdı.
277 Bozdoğan, Akcan, 2012, p.182.
278 Meltem, Aydın. “1930-2010 Arasında Türkiye’de Yapılmış Mimari Yarışmalardaki Değerlendirme
Kriterlerinin Değişimi,” Yarışmalar ve Mimarlık Sempozyumu 2013, p.23.
148
Dördüncü Bölüm, kentin ve yapı kompleksinin iki farklı ölçeğini birlikte
yorumlayarak binayı kentsel ortamı içinde ele almaktadır. 1960 yılında Sakarya
Hükümet Konağı kullanıma açılmasının ardından, kenti bir mıknatıs gibi kendine
çekmiş ve şehrin gelişim yönünde belirleyici rol oynamıştır. Bu gelişim öncelikle,
Çark Caddesi ve devamında Atatürk Bulvarı gibi ortaya çıkan yeni kent eksenlerinin
oluşması ile kendini göstermiş ve eski çarşı ve camiler etrafında kurgulanmış şehir
merkezine alternatif bir çekim noktası olarak hızla gelişmiştir.
Bu çerçevede, dördüncü bölümün ilk kısmında, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın
inşasının ardından kentin yeniden belirlenen idari merkezi ve bu merkez odağında
hızla gelişen ticari, idari ve yerleşim alanları detaylıca incelenmiştir. Bu noktada
kentin yirmi yıl aralıklarla oluşturulmuş 1957 ve 1977 yıllarına ait iki haritasının
karşılaştırmalı analizi kentsel bağlamda yaşanan dönüşümü özetler niteliktedir. Bu
süreçte, büyük ölçüde Atatürk Bulvarı ve Hükümet Konağı kompleksiyle ilişkili olarak
oluşturulan yeni şehir meydanı odağında, Ziraat Bankası, ATSO gibi resmi binaların
yanı sıra, Belediye Ofis Blokları, ÇEK 2 İş Hanı, Akkoç İş Hanı, Messeret İş Hanı,
Sipahiler İş Hanı, Erman İş Hanı ve Türkoğlu İş Hanı gibi ofis bloklarının sayısında
önemli bir artış gözlenir.
Sakarya Hükümet Konağı'nın mimari duruşu ve sembolik anlamının bir sonucu olarak,
bulunduğu şehrin bir kısmı bürokratik ve resmi bir karakter kazanmış ve Adapazarı'nın
modern ve yeni yüzü haline gelmiştir. Şehri bir mıknatıs gibi çeken Hükümet Konağı,
sadece yeni bir şehir merkezinin ve Adapazarı meydanının yeniden belirlenmesinde
değil, aynı zamanda çevredeki kamusal kullanımın dönüşümünde de etkili rol
oynamıştır. Bu bağlamda, dördüncü bölümün ikinci kısmında, öncelikle önündeki
meydana odaklanarak Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın kamusal kullanımı, vatandaşlar
ile kurduğu etkileşimin boyutları, nasıl ve hangi amaçlarla hizmet verdiği ve tüm
bunlar dolayısıyla kentsel hafızadaki yeri tartışılmıştır.
149
Zamanla kentin yönetim merkezi ve ana kent meydanı haline gelen Hükümet Konağı
kompleksinin önündeki meydan, bilinçli olarak tanımlanmış ve sınırlandırılmış bir
açık alanı tanımlar. Vaziyet planında belirlenen ana eksen şehirle ilişkili olarak, halkın
kullanımına uygun olmak, insanları davet etmek ve meydanı olabildiğince
yayalaştırmak için tasarlanmıştır. Bunlara ek olarak, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın
yıllar içinde, sayısız kutlamalara, törenlere ve siyasi konuşmalara ev sahipliği yaptığı
ve şehrin 1967 ve 1999 yıllarında geçirdiği iki büyük depremde bir toplanma alanı ve
kriz yönetim merkezi olarak hizmet verdiği belirtilmiştir.
Çalışma, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı’nın 45 yıllık ömrünü ve şehre katkılarının
değerlendirdilmesinin ardından, binanın trajik sonunun ele alınması ile
sonuçlandırılmıştır. Depremlerin yarattığı hasarlar sonucunda geçirdiği fiziki
değişimler ve 2005 yılında Adapazarı yerel basınının ve halkının tüm itirazlarına
rağmen yıkılışı aktarılmış ve uzun süreler aktif olarak kullanılan kent meydanın aksine,
günümüzdeki ölçeksiz ve atıl durumu değerlendirilmiştir. Bugünün izole alanından
farklı olarak şehrin elli yıllık tarihine tanıklık eden Sakarya Hükümet Konağı
kompleksinin yıkılması Adapazarı için ciddi bir kayıptır.
Sonuç olarak, Sakarya Hükümet Konağı, hem dönemin koşullarını ve mimari
yaklaşımlarını yansıtması, hem de Adapazarı şehri ile olan güçlü ilişkisi ve gelişimine
katkıları açısından Türkiye’nin 20.yüzyıl mimarlık ortamı için önemli bir örnek
oluşturmaktadır. Bu anlamda, bu çalışmanın, çok fazla incelenmemiş bu iki konuyu,
Sakarya Hükümet Konağı ve Adapazarı kentsel gelişim tarihini bir araya getirerek,
binaların kentsel bağlamlarında incelenmesi ile ilişkili gelecekteki çalışmalar için bir
temel oluşturması beklenmektedir.
................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
2. Tez iki yıl süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for
patent and/or proprietary purposes for a period of two years. *
3. Tez altı ay süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for
period of six months. *
* Enstitü Yönetim Kurulu kararının basılı kopyası tezle birlikte kütüphaneye teslim
edilecektir.
A copy of the decision of the Institute Administrative Committee will be delivered to
the library together with the printed thesis.
Yazarın imzası / Signature ............................ Tarih / Date …………………………
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder