368

Summary
This dissertation will argue that the architecture of Ankara accompanied
and acted as a tool for the social and political changes brought by the new
Turkish Republic that was formed following the Turkish War of
Independence. Ankara became the new capital of the a new Republic and
it symbolically replaced the imperial capital of Constantinople to serve as
the 'ideal city' of an 'ideal' Turkish state led by an increasingly
authoritarian single-party dictatorship in the early republican era (1923 -
1950). The modernization program went hand in hand with
Westernisation under the new regime and this was visually presented to
the people through state sponsored architecture.
2
Candidate Number: 102487
Table of Contents
Summary............................................................................................................................................2
List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................... 4
List of Illustrations and Maps............................................................................................................ 5
Preface............................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction........................................................................................................................................9
Chapter 1: Architecture in Relation to Modernization during the Late Ottoman Empire...............12
Chapter 2: Ankara, a New Capital .................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 3: Ankara, the City of the Future........................................................................................26
Chapter 4: Kemalist Ankara, an Authoritarian Beginning...............................................................36
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 43
Illustrations and Maps......................................................................................................................44
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................... 65
3
Candidate Number: 102487
List of Abbreviations
CUP: Committee of Union and Progress (An underground organization which took control of the
state over time and turned into a political party. Turkish: Ittihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti)
GNA: Grand National Assembly of Turkey (The national parliament which was founded in 1920.
Turkish: Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi)
RPP: Republican People's Party (Mustafa Kemal's political party which founded the Republic in
1923. Turkish: Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi)
4
Candidate Number: 102487
List of Illustrations and Maps
Figure 1: Topkapi Palace, Istanbul, Photo: Tatil-Mekan
Figure 2: Balyan Family, Dolmabahce Palace, view of the central building from the sea, Istanbul,
1856, Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Figure 3: August Jachmund, Istanbul Sirkeci Terminal, Istanbul, 1890, Photo: Wikimedia
Commons
Figure 4: Vedat Tek, Central Post Office, Istanbul, 1909, Photo: Wikipedia Commons
Figure 5: Ezilion Maps, Political Map of Turkey in 2013,
http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/europe/road-map-of-Turkey.gif [accessed 12 August 2013].
Figure 6: Hafi Bey, Union and Progress Party Headquarters, later the first Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Ankara, 1917-1923, reproduced in Y. Yavuz and Suha Ozkan, 'Finding a
National Idiom: The First National Style', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by R. Holod and A.
Evin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 52, Figure 29.
Figure 7: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Southeastern facade, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 8: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Northeastern facade, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 9: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, the assembly hall, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 10: Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, Ankara Palas, Ankara, 1927, Photo: Yaman Kayabali
(2013)
Figure 11: Giulio Mongeri, Is Bankasi Headquarters, Ankara, 1928, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 12: Arif Hikmet Koyunoglu, Museum of Ethnography, Ankara, 1926, Photo: Yaman
Kayabali (2013)
Figure 13: Hermann Jansen, Ankara City Plan, 1927 (Image: Vikipedi)
5
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 14: Theodor Jost, Ministry of Health, Ankara, 1927, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 15: Theodor Jost, Bacteriology Institute (Hifzissihha Enstitusu), Ankara, 1929, Photo,
Goethe Institut (2010)
Figure 16: La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 3, October, 1934, pp. 4-5.
Figure 17: Clemens Holzmeister, Ministry of National Defense, view from the northeastern corner
Ankara, 1931, Photo: Goethe Institut (2010)
Figure 18: Clemens Holzmeister, The Third Grand National Assembly of Turkey, frontal view,
Ankara, 1928 - 1963, Photo: TBMM
Figure 19: Joseph Vago, Competition Entry for the building of the third parliament, 1937,
reproduced in S. Bozdogan, Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the
Early Republic (Washington: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 282, Figure 6.22.
Figure 20: Martin Elsaesser, Sumerbank, later Sumer Holding, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali
(2013)
Figure 21: La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 1, 1934, p. 7.
Figure 22: Ernst Egli, Ismet Inonu Girls' Institute, Ankara, 1931, Photo: Goethe Institut
Figure 23: Bruno Taut, Ankara University, Language, History, Geography Faculty, Ankara, 1937,
Photo: ITU Sozluk
Figure 24: Hermann Jansen, A Garden House, Ankara, Photo: Goethe Institut
Figure 25: Hermann Jansen, Garden Houses, Ankara, reproduced in La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 47,
1943, p. 9.
Figure 26: Sekip Akalin, Ankara Railway Station, Ankara, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 27: Bedri Ucar, Ministry of Transformation, later the State Railways General Directorate,
Ankara, 1941, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 29: Bedri Ucar, Ministry of Transformation, later the State Railways General Directorate,
detail of the main facade, Ankara, 1941, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 30: Nazi Coat of Arms, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_(
6
Candidate Number: 102487
1933–1945).svg
Figure 31: Cover page, Cumhuriyet, 27 May 1932,
http://t24.com.tr/media/editorials/kemalisttürkiyemanlşetiET-22_05.jpg
Figure 32: R. Tahir Burak, Ergenekon 2, oil on canvas, Ankara Resim Heykel Muzesi, Ankara,
Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 33: Joseph Thorak, The Rear (Southern) Facade of the Security Monument, Ankara, 1935,
Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 34: Bruno Taut, Ankara University, Language, History, Geography Faculty, detail of the
front facade, Ankara, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 35: Turgut Cansever, Turkish History Society, detail of the southern facade, Ankara, 1966,
Photo Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 36: Emin Halid Onat and Ahmet Orhan Arda, Anitkabir, Ankara, 1953, Photo: Wikimedia
Commons
7
Candidate Number: 102487
Preface
The main argument of this work will that, Ankara, the new capital of the new Turkish Republic, was
chosen and built in order to create an ideal city which would reflect, reinforce and create a new
republican identity that was modern, developed and European. Under the rubric of this argument,
architecture of Turkey, starting from the Late Ottoman era will be examined in relation to the social
and political thoughts at the time. The developments in the final years of the Ottoman Empire are
essential to investigate in order to understand the architecture in the early years of the Republic of
Turkey since there has been a direct continuation between the two states in terms of geography,
people and more or less the ruling group. It is anticipated that the continuation between to the states
will not result in an essentially different architecture in the early years of the Republic. What is
important will be to look at the breaking points of change in architecture. How did the architecture
change in the Republic, and why? Moreover how was architecture used by the political regime?
Was the regime aware of architecture's power of manifestation of ideas, or was the change of style
in architecture a bi-product of the modernization movement? What was architectures role in the
radical modernization program set out by the Republic? It can be said that architecture, with its
unique power to occupy public spaces and express feelings or ideas through its forms, has been put
to very efficient use in the early republican Ankara when considering the significant project of
building a new capital from a war-torn country. It is anticipated with this work that, an examination
of the architecture of early republican Ankara in relation to the political situation at the time, will
highlight the government's ambitious plan in creating the ideal city for the present and future
generations of the Turkish nation.
8
Candidate Number: 102487
Introduction
The visualisation of politics through architecture in Turkey is a very relevant subject today.
Although the Turkish cities are blotted by an extreme amount of unregulated construction and they
have failed to develop metropolitan cities with proper city planning principles, architecture is still
relevant in the political discourse. The ruling governments try to leave their marks on major cities
by highly symbolic building projects. It is possible to search for the roots of this mentality in the
early Republican era, when a new capital was chosen for the new Republic. This new capital was
Ankara which was a small insignificant city in the heart of the lands that were left to Turkey
following Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I. This dissertation will try to show that the a new
capital was chosen to create a new republican identity through architecture and city planning that
would reflect and reinforce the ideals of the new regime which was a constitutional, secular
Republic. A close survey of the architectural program of the early Republican Ankara will be done
in order to support this argument.
Chapter 1 of this dissertation gives a very brief account of classical Ottoman architecture
and continues on to explain how the Empire was influenced by Western countries and how this
reflected as a change in architecture. It is essential to look at the developments in the Late Ottoman
era before setting out to examine early republican architecture because there has been a direct
continuation between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey in terms of their
geographical, cultural and political ties.1 The Republic emerged as the successor state of the
Ottoman Empire which crumbled following its defeat in World War I. Because of this continuation,
it was possible to see the same style of architecture that was implemented in early 20th century
Constantinople, in Ankara during the first years of the Republic.
Chapter 2 will discuss the continuation of the architectural style from Empire to Republic
and the reasons for this continuation. However before setting out to investigate the architectural
forms, a brief account of the War of Independence will be given in order to explain several reasons
why Ankara was specifically chosen as the new capital from which to rule the Republic. Although
1 Y. Yavuz and S. Ozkan, 'The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by R. Holod
and A. Evin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 34.
9
Candidate Number: 102487
the fact that Ankara is the capital is taken for granted today, it was a very radical decision to do so
back in 1923 and the reasons for decision will highlight the importance of such a move. Chapter 3,
will start by looking at how the links with an Ottoman past was severed and a whole new
architectural idiom came to dominate the city of Ankara. The new architectural program for which
was modernist in style will be put in context by looking at the social and cultural reforms initiated
by Mustafa Kemal. The radical and revolutionary mission of transforming the society initiated by
the political regime was reflected in the new architecture of Ankara. Modernist and Western forms
were embraced whereas an Ottoman revivalist style was strictly opposed. Chapter 4 will discuss
another turn in early republican architecture which was influenced by the authoritarian nature of the
political regime in Turkey and in Europe in the 1930s. Moreover, the influences of the single-party
dictatorship under Mustafa Kemal, over architecture will be investigated. This chapter looks at the
architecture roughly between 1923 and 1927.
Formation of the new Turkish Republic and its implementations have been quite problematic
and controversial subjects in the modern history of Turkey. Unlike Western European countries
which were very advanced in terms of economic prosperity, education, industry, etc. compared to
the Ottoman Empire, the newly founded Turkish Republic had a population which was rural,
extremely poor and uneducated. Among other problems, the underdeveloped nature of the country
did not allow a serious intellectual or physical opposition to be created against the government of
Mustafa Kemal, which had successfully waged the War of Independence. The war was won in 1922
and by 1927, Mustafa Kemal was able to create a single-party dictatorship under his rule. This was
followed by a personality cult of Mustafa Kemal which did not die but even increased after his
death in 1938. As a result of this, an orthodox state ideology was formed and Mustafa Kemal's cult
strengthened it. The main problem caused by with is that, historians who were trained in institutions
that have been developed and controlled by this state ideology, created a modern Turkish
historiography that solely focused on praising Mustafa Kemal and his achievements.2 This was
particularly important to keep in mind during research phase of this dissertation in order to have as
much objectivity as possible when looking at the political history of the Republic. This chapter
looks at the architecture roughly between 1927-1938.
My fieldwork for this project consisted of going to Ankara and visit the buildings mentioned
here on site. The two main reasons for these visits were to examine the buildings up close and to
2 For a detailed account of the problems in modern Turkish historiography see A. Kansu, 1908 Devrimi (Istanbul:
Iletisim Yayinlari, 1995), pp. 1-34.
10
Candidate Number: 102487
take photographs of them to use in the following pages. The most annoying problem was that I was
not allowed to photograph several government buildings such as the Ministry of National Defence
even from the public street due to strict rules. I mitigated this problem thanks to Goethe Institut's
very successful and useful website project that presents photographs of nearly all the buildings that
were designed by Germans and Austrians in the early Republican era. Since I was not a native of
Ankara, it was very instructing to examine the city's plan and its architecture after having done
research about it. The urban planning of the city that divides it into two halves as the old city and
the new can still be felt. I am saying 'felt' because unfortunately it cannot be seen. Like rest of the
major metropolitan cities in Turkey, Ankara developed regardless of any city plan in the past fifty
years and has been proliferated with very ugly buildings which have overrun the properly executed
city plan that was created in the late 1920s. Today, a project of this kind in Ankara feels as if one
goes to Rome to examine ancient Roman buildings among the rest of the city which was built on
top of the ruins over time. This became more evident during my research on primary sources when I
looked at all 47 issues of La Turquie Kemaliste, a magazine published by the Turkish state in
French, German and English, which was used to advertise Turkey. Among the photographs featured
in La Turquie Kemaliste, it can be observed that the Ankara of 1920s and 1930s was indeed a much
more carefully planned and developed city than it is today. Hopefully, this dissertation will be able
to provide the reader with enough understanding of the architectural and urban planning of early
republican Ankara regardless of what it looks like today.
11
Candidate Number: 102487
Chapter 1: Architecture in Relation to Modernization during the Late Ottoman
Empire
Ottoman Empire was a significant power in Eastern Europe, Northeastern Africa and in the region
that is defined as the Middle East today3 between the 16th and early 20th centuries. Ottoman Empire
was an Islamic empire with a predominantly Islamic population. The architectural heritage of the
Ottomans mainly came from major sources of influence from Asia Minor (Anatolia) such as the
previously dominant Seljuk architecture. Conquest of former Byzantine lands by the Ottomans,
undeniably left a Byzantine influence on Ottoman architecture.4 The most obvious example for this
has been Hagia Sophia, the magnificent imperial cathedral in Byzantine Constantinople, which
became a model for future Ottoman mosques for centuries to come. At the height of its power,
classical Ottoman architectural forms included domes, pointed arches, tile decorations, stalactite
column capitals, red-white stone combinations and, minarets as we can see in Ottoman mosques or
state buildings such as the Topkapi Palace (Fig. 1), home to the Ottoman ruling dynasty for
centuries.5 Starting from the late 18th century, Western European influences started to penetrate
Ottoman architecture. It is possible to say that this development was a result of the changes of
power structures in Central and Eastern Europe.
The Ottoman Empire sought to undertake a series of reforms after serious military defeats
during the late 17th and early 18th century in Eastern Europe, which could no longer be sustained.
The decreasing ability of the empire to compete militarily and economically with its continental
rivals was cause for considerable alarm.6 Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), signed between Austria,
Ottoman Empire and Russia following the Ottoman defeats against the Holy League spearheaded
by the Habsburgs, has long been considered a symbolic albeit significant date for the end of the
Ottoman supremacy in Eastern Europe. With Russians advancing from North and Habsburgs from
3 The term Middle East is quite problematic because it is rooted in geopolitics, not geography. The term is Eurocentric
and it is preferable that in the future another term will be developed in its stead just as East Asia replaced another
Eurocentric term, Far East.
4 R. Ousterhout, 'The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture', Gesta, Vol. 43,
No 2, 2004, pp. 170.
5 G. Necipoglu,The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London, Reaktion Books, 2005), p.
518.
6 S. Hanioglu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008), p.
6.
12
Candidate Number: 102487
West, the Ottoman Empire entered the 18th century in a precarious position. Consequently, a reform
movement began in the army that was initiated with 'enthusiasm and great interest' in order to
regain military superiority and prevent defeats.7 The main idea of the military reforms was to adopt
the European military structures in order to achieve some kind of balance in forces.This was a
clearly pragmatic move by the state and paved the way for an education system based on European
principles. However these principles were applied solely in the military during the 18th century as
there was no obvious demand for some kind of education in other fields that was based on Western
science. The main emphasis was made on educating bombardiers, sappers and artillerymen who
would be taught theoretical lessons such as geometry, trigonometry, ballistics and technical
drawing.8 The process of educating a 'new kind' of military was facilitated by importing mainly
French instructors and the same process continued well into the 19th century with an increasing pace
as the state needed further improvement compared to European developments in warfare.
The desire and initiation to reform the military was not enough to achieve sound
development. Economic income was also essential in order to create a new army that would be able
to compete with its European counterparts. The traditional army of the Ottomans, Janissary corps,
was clearly no match for modern armies. Early 19th century was a turbulent time in the Ottoman
history when the modernization movement gained momentum and the Janissary corps were
completely disbanded after a serious rebellion attempt.9 This paved the way for the new military
cadre, whose members received a modern training by Europeans, to occupy influential
administrative positions. The modernization and Westernisation of the Empire was a gradual
transition that started in the late 18th century which moved into the 19th century with greater pace. In
time, the intellectual cement of modernization that was being imported from Western European
countries such as France, paved the way for a larger social and cultural transformation that
incorporated Westernisation to the Ottoman modernization process. The traditional living style of
the Ottoman court such as eating meals on the floor, or sleeping on floor mattresses at night gave
way to a European way of living. This necessary in order for the Ottomans to psychologically
compete with their European counterparts. They felt the need to be on an equal footing in social and
cultural aspects. This change of mind was a development that happened in a context in which the
7 E. Ihsanoglu, 'Ottoman Educational Institutions during the Reform Period', Foundation for Science Technology and
Civilisation, April, 2004, http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/ReformOttomans.pdf [accessed 4 August 2013],
p. 2.
8 Ibid. p. 3.
9 P. Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (London: Cape, 1977), pp. 456-457.
13
Candidate Number: 102487
Ottoman court received European education as well. The traditional, stagnant, underdeveloped
'oriental' image that was being depicted in the Western European intellectual thought in the mid 19th
century was challenged by the Ottoman court by showing that it is just as modern as another the
Western European power. The physical manifestation of this was the Dolmabahce Palace (Fig. 2)
that was constructed in 1856. It defied the depictions of the European orientalist painters, novelists
and travellers by projecting an Ottoman image through architecture that was very much European.
Ottoman architectural elements left the way for a French-influenced palace that would be the main
residence of the Ottoman court until the end of the Empire.10
The modernization period of the Late Ottoman Empire came to be collectively known as the
Tanzimat (Reorganization) era which roughly started in 1839. Immediately thereafter, significant
reform measures began to be implemented in the judicial, educational and financial spheres, and the
administrative structure of the state was transformed.11 The Tanzimat reforms were formulated by
the ruling elite with a Western orientation and constituted the first far-reaching and coherent
program of adopting European institutions as models. Educational reforms, pursued continually
throughout the rest of the century, served to swell the ranks of the Westernised intelligentsia who
contributed to the momentum of the reform movements by taking positions in the bureaucracy and
later led to the creation of elite professional classes. Secure in their position and immensely well
paid, the Tanzimat elite became a self-perpetuating group. Some of its members behaved
ostentatiously and displayed a pattern of conspicuous consumption and Westernised manners
resembling the ways of a Western haute bourgeoisie. Reaction against these elites came from the
younger intelligentsia who viewed them as an obstacle to their own promotion to the highest offices
and as a group subverting the ideals of the Tanzimat. This group created the secret Young Ottoman
Society in 1865 which led to the proclamation of the short-lived parliamentary regime and the first
constitution in 1876. Abdulhamit II (r. 1876-1909), the Ottoman sultan at the time, abolished the
parliament within a few months of its inception using the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 as the pretext.
The state turned back into an autocratic monarchy which resulted in a highly repressive regime. In
the increasingly oppressive atmosphere of the next three decades, intellectuals and professionals
had to choose between avoiding political activity or joining the underground opposition. This
followed the creation of the CUP which later on led a revolution in 1908 and reopened the
10 A brief interval was between 1887 and 1909 when the court moved to the Yildiz Palace, another residence that was
built in a European style which was designed by the Art Nouveau architect Raimondo D'Aronco.
11 R. Holod and A. Evin, 'Introduction', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by R. Holod and A. Evin (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 4.
14
Candidate Number: 102487
parliament while initiating a multi-party parliamentary democracy under constitutional monarchy.
CUP would come to dominate Ottoman politics in the following years and its rule would effectively
end in 1919 after the Ottoman surrender in World War I.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, European architects were employed in Constantinople to
accommodate the increasing demand in Western-style buildings. One of the more influential
architects at the time who practiced his trade in Constantinople was August Jachmund. He was
employed at the new School of Civil Engineering as an instructor, and was officially appointed to
design and build the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal (Fig. 3) which was completed in 1890.12 With its
arabic arches, minaret-like towers, rose window, Central European-style roof, red bricks and
oriental ornamentations, the building has an eclectic design which tried to blend in East and the
West. While also designing purely Central European buildings as well, other designs of Jachmund
also featured similar eclecticism. He was joined in this style by a fellow architect also working in
Constantinople, Alexander Vallaury who designed buildings in both European and eclectic styles.
Although there were other architects working in the capital such as Raimondo d'Aronco, Otto Ritter
and Helmuth Cuno, ultimately it was Vallaury and Jachmund who shaped the new imperial style
since they received a significant amount of commissions. Along with their building work they held
influential academic positions which allowed them to train young native13 architects.
The first Turkish architect to receive a formal education in architecture in the Late Ottoman
era was Vedat Tek.14 He was trained as an architect in Ecole Nationale de Beaux Arts in Paris. Upon
his return to Istanbul in 1899, he was employed as an architectural historian in the School of Fine
Arts in Constantinople. During his time as an architect, especially before the 1908 revolution which
re-established a multi-party parliament under a constitutional monarchy, several ideologies
competed in the Ottoman intelligentsia. Considering Ottoman Empire's size and its demographic
complexities, these ideologies varied from Pan-Ottomanism and Pan-Islamism to Turkish
nationalism. However all of their point of departure was the aim to stop the decline of the Empire.
This resulted in a highly politicized intellectual atmosphere with a patriotic rhetoric. The visual
representation of this ethos was based on a historicist interest in the cultural and artistic heritage of
12 Yavuz and Ozkan, 'The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire', p. 36.
13 I refrain from saying Turkish here because at the turn of the century Constantinople was inhabited by a significant
amount of Greek, Jew and Armenian population who were natives of the city. The term Ottoman does not also work
to define the people living in the Empire since they did not use the term. The idea of being an Ottoman citizen did
not exist.
14 Ibid. p. 41.
15
Candidate Number: 102487
the Empire which was now held so dearly in the face of growing decline and territorial loss in
Eastern Europe.15 Vedat Tek designed the Central Post Office (Fig. 4) in this context and the
building became the first example of the First National Style in architecture. The style was known
to its contemporaries as the 'National Architectural Renaissance' because just like the artists in the
Italian Renaissance were looking back at Rome and Greece, Vedat Tek drew his inspiration from the
classical architecture of the Empire's golden age. Unlike Jachmund and Vallaury's eclecticism which
employed orientalist imagery such as arabesque arches, Tek's designs directly referred to the
Ottoman classical buildings. The use of Ottoman capitals, decorative domes and tiled decorations
became the hallmark of the First National Style which was embraced by other architects in the last
years of the Ottoman Empire as well as in the early years of the Republic. Furthermore, his use of
European forms would decrease over time which gave his later buildings an even more distinct
form. Ironically, this would put him at odds with the Republican leaders in the late 1920s when the
political discourse changed from patriotism to Turkish nationalism with a strictly modernist agenda
that embraced radical transformation through Europeanization.
15 S. Bozdogan and E. Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History (London: Reaktion Books, 2012), p. 7. The
original text was published in I. H. Baltacioglu, Demokrasi ve Sanat (Istanbul, 1931) p. 21.
16
Candidate Number: 102487
Chapter 2: Ankara, a New Capital
The selection of Ankara as the new capital had pragmatic and symbolic reasons which are essential
to point out before moving into a lengthy discussion on its visual construction. The pragmatism
behind the choice of Ankara stems from the obvious fact that the Ottoman imperial capital,
Constantinople (officially named Istanbul in 1930), was occupied by invasion forces16 starting from
November 1918. Moreover, an invasion was carried out by Greek forces which landed on Smyrna
(officially named Izmir in 1930), an economically important coastal city in Western Anatolia, as
early as May 1919 while French forces moved in to occupy major cities on the Syrian border in
Southwestern Anatolia (Fig. 5).17 Ankara was relatively close to Constantinople, yet it was also safe
from the Western front which was the theatre of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922. It will be
useful to briefly look at the political situation during the War of Independence in order to
understand the tension between Ankara and Constantinople which is also relevant with the reasons
behind choosing Ankara as a capital.
Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Constantinople was occupied
by Entente powers and the British became the de facto ruler of Constantinople. As the Ottoman
court cooperated with the British in order to quell the Turkish resistance, it was made impossible for
a resistance movement to convene in Constantinople, so the elements of resistance began to gather
in central Anatolian towns. After a series of congresses held in different towns of central Anatolia,
the Representative Committee (Heyet-i Temsiliye in Turkish, the governing body of the central
independence movement prior to the foundation of GNA) moved to Ankara and founded the GNA
in 23 April 1920 following an election. From this time onwards, Ankara became the centre of
political power in Turkey despite its continuing political conflict with the fledgling Ottoman
government and court in Constantinople. Although relatively weak, Constantinople carried a certain
amount of political power to launch attacks against the Nationalist forces of Ankara by supporting
and giving consent to anti-nationalist rebellions. As the Nationalist armed forces thwarted and
16 The invasion armies consisted of Britsh, French, Italian and Greek forces, all of them belligerents of World War I as
part of the Entente Powers.
17 M. Tuncay, 'Siyasal Tarih (1908 – 1923)', in Turkiye Tarihi: Cagdas Turkiye 1908-1980, v. 4, Mete Tuncay et al.
(Istanbul: Cem Yayinevi, 1997), pp. 68-69.
17
Candidate Number: 102487
suppressed the rebellions, the court lost most of its power and retained itself more as a symbolic
entity. Following the defeat of the Greek army by the nationalist Turkish forces, an armistice was
signed between the Ankara government, Britain, France, Italy and Greece on October 15, 1922.
Then, with a radical move the sultanate was abolished by the GNA on November 1 and
consequently, the Ottoman government in Constantinople resigned on November 4, which
effectively ended the political power of Constantinople.
Although the Ankara government gained control of Constantinople on November 4, 1922,
the GNA did not decide to name it as the capital and instead Ankara was officially made the capital
on October 13, 1923, just a couple of days before the foundation of the Republic. This was a very
radical move at the time considering the fact that Constantinople had been an imperial capital in the
region since more than 1,500 years. Furthermore, Constantinople was a well established city which
had the basic and essential facilities and institutions that were needed to run a state, such as the
ministries and various bureaucratic offices. Ankara, on the other hand, was virtually a village with
no significant history and it lacked the very basic infrastructures of a state capital.18 It was an
insignificant central Anatolian town of some 20,000 people, with 'narrow, winding streets and
simple mudbrick houses clustered around an impressive, ancient citadel on top of a steep hill.'19
Clearly not an ideal place for a capital in terms of its infrastructural qualities, there were
other reasons in naming Ankara as the new capital. After the War of Independence and the Treaty of
Lausanne that ensued it, Ankara was situated in a much more geographically central position
compared to Constantinople under the newly defined borders of the Turkish Republic. It was also
the city which hosted the GNA, members of parliament and every the other major figure in the
national resistance movement during the War of Independence. It was the city from which the war
was directed. Consequently, it was also the city which defied the imperial capital, Constantinople.
However Ankara's symbolic power does not only come from its defiance against a city which was
subservient against the invading armies. The modernist rhetoric of the new Republic under the
authoritarian leadership of Mustafa Kemal portrayed Constantinople as the capital of a declining
and failed state which was also the centre of corruption and backwardness that led the country to
disastrous results before and during the World War I. Ankara, on the other hand, was a blank slate
on which to create a new nation with a new capital. According to Arnold Toynbee's analysis,
18 The city was well connected with railroads to the other parts of the country as well Constantinople but this was the
only exception in terms of infrastructure.
19 Y, Yavuz and S. Ozkan, 'Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by
R. Holod and A. Evin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 51.
18
Candidate Number: 102487
Ataturk deliberately chose a site for the capital of the Empire's Anatolian Turkish successor-state
that was far removed from the original nucleus of Ottoman rule, 'in order to signify that the new
Turkey was the common national patrimony of the whole of its now predominantly Turkish
population.'20 This central Anatolian base was essential, he claims, since the great majority of the
present Turkish population of Anatolia are not descendants of the original Ottoman rulers. They are
instead descendants of the Turkish population of other Anatolian Turkish principalities that the
Ottomans conquered in the fourteenths and fifteenth centuries; as such, these non-Ottoman
Anatolian Turks, like the Greeks and Bulgars and Serbs, had been subjects of the Ottomans for
almost five hundred years.21 In this view, the transfer of the capital from Constantinople to Ankara
was again a symbolic act because it was a signal to the Anatolian Turks that they had ceased to be
Ottoman subjects and had become citizens of a Turkish nation state.
When the decision to select Ankara as the capital of a modern nation-state was taken in the
1920s, it represented the reinvigoration of a small town that had been inhabited continuously since
the twentieth century B.C.22 It is frequently claimed in Ankara that the first settlers of the place may
have been Hittites, a people who had transformed the Middle Bronze Age into a kind of early
Anatolian Golden age. Whether or not this people actually made their home in the place that
eventually became Ankara, there has been strong attempt to advocate assumed blood ties to this
group, thereby giving contemporary Turkish citizens in the capital a suitably non-Hellenic ancestor
rooted deep in the past.23
La Turquie Kemaliste, an official magazine of the state which was advertising the new
Republic to the West, wrote some 20 years after the foundation of the Republic, 'Ankara is the city
of the future. Istanbul is a city of the past.'24 The idea of creating a new capital which will reflect the
future was not limited to the construction of a city. The new Republic set out to engineer and
transform the Turkish society from the traditional to modern. A group of members of parliament
suspected Mustafa Kemal's future intentions of radically transforming the Turkish society as early
as 1924.25 This suggests that Mustafa Kemal deliberately chose Ankara as the capital since he would
have open grounds to construct a modern city that could be juxtaposed against the old, corrupt
20 A. Toynbee, Cities on the Move (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 97-98.
21 Ibid, pp. 07-98.
22 L. J. Vale, Architecture, Power, and National Identity (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 98.
23 Ibid. p. 98
24 La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 47, 1943, pp. 38
25 Kocak, 'Siyasal Tarih (1923 – 1950)', p. 98.
19
Candidate Number: 102487
Constantinople. In other words, the new city would also reflect the new, emerging, modern and
Western state. The once glorious remnants of a failed Empire would not haunt the emerging
Republic of the future in Ankara.
The pivotal figure that spearheaded the Turkish modernization program was Mustafa Kemal
who was the leader of the Turkish war effort during the War of Independence. After the war, he also
became the first president of the Turkish Republic. Although the Republic did not born as an
authoritarian single-party dictatorship, it slowly turned into one.26 The democratic and pluralistic
structure of the GNA was soon exterminated by political purges in the parliament and by 1926,
Mustafa Kemal and RPP were unopposed by any kind of political group in the parliament. This
resulted in Mustafa Kemal's personal rule of the country until his death in 1938. The construction of
Ankara as a Western and modern city followed a modernist trajectory that was led and enforced by
Mustafa Kemal starting from 1927 onwards. The difference between the architectural styles of
buildings designed and constructed in 1923-1927 and 1927-1950 result from the political situation
of the respective periods.
The post-war nation building effort presented the republicans with the opportunity to 'sweep
away' the Ottoman institutions which the Sultans had not dared to touch.27 A series of revolutionary
and radical reforms were initiated in the early years of the Republic and they came to be known as
Ataturk's28 reforms. It is useful to look at some of these reforms in order to understand the
modernization process spearheaded by Mustafa Kemal. One group of reforms were aimed at
suppressing religious institutions since they were seen as reactionary forces which did not allow the
Turkish state to modernize. Although this idea was discussed in some circles well before the
formation of the Republic, never before it became an essential part of state ideology as in the early
republican era. As part of the group of reforms about religion, Islamic lodges, monasteries and
shrines were closed. Religion classes were removed from secondary schools' curriculum. Ezan (the
muslim call to prayer) was to be done in Turkish whereas it has always been done in Arabic. These
reforms were joined by another group that aimed to change the social, political and cultural aspects
of the Turkish state and citizens. Measures were taken to prohibit turbans and fezzes and to
26 C. Kocak, 'Siyasal Tarih (1923 – 1950)', in Turkiye Tarihi: Cagdas Turkiye 1908-1980, v. 4, Mete Tuncay et al.
(Istanbul: Cem Yayinevi, 1997), p. 85.
27 G. Ersan, 'Secularism, Islamism, Emblemata: The Visual Discourse of Progress in Turkey', Design Issues, vol. 23,
No. 2, 2007, p. 68.
28 As part of his reforms, Mustafa Kemal initiated a law that required all citizens of Turkey to adopt Western-style
surnames. The surname 'presented' to him was Ataturk, which literally means the Father Turk.
20
Candidate Number: 102487
discourage the wearing of veils by women while wearing Western-style clothing was encouraged
and also imposed at times.29 Gregorian calender was adopted instead of the Islamic calender which
was an important move in terms of international synchronization. Laicism became a part of the new
constitution which effectively put religion under the control of the state. A striking and important
feature in many of the reforms was their emphasis on the West. This emphasis stems from the
problematic nature of the Ottoman modernization discourse starting from the 19th century. Should
modernization also entail Westernisation? Some defended that it should and some did not in the
final decades of the Ottoman Empire, but what is possible to see from Mustafa Kemal's reforms is
that, the new Turkish Republic aimed not only to modernize but also to Westernise a predominantly
traditional and muslim population. The reforms that aimed to transform the society were introduced
as a result of this aim. One of the most radical reforms was officially adopting the Latin alphabet
while abandoning the Arabic script. Similar reforms or bans such as closing down conservatories of
traditional music were made to ensure that the desired and ideal Turkish youth would be modern,
secular and European rather than traditional, religious and Eastern. The making of a new capital
was an integral component of these comprehensive reforms, and Ankara was forever transformed by
this process.30
Visuality and architecture was an essential part of this Westernisation/modernization
process. After all, construction of new buildings with the older Ottoman style would be inconsistent
with the republican leaders who wanted to rid themselves of both Ottoman and Islamic images.31
Just like using the Latin alphabet and wearing European clothing, the buildings were supposed to
look Western which in turn reflected a modern way of life in the dominant political way of thought
at the time. However the translation from Ottoman to European architecture did not happen in the
first years of the Republic. In fact, the first place where the GNA assembled in 1920 was a very
modest building (Fig. 6) which was previously the Union and Progress Party Headquarters. 'Its wide
wooden eaves, well-proportioned arched windows and symmetrical planning' are hallmarks of the
First National Style.32 Although this building was designed around 1917, before the dissolution of
the Ottoman Empire, it serves as an example to understand the visual setting of the political arena in
Ankara during the early stages of the Republic. This building was replaced by the second
29 Yavuz and Ozkan, 'Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style', p. 51.
30 Z. Kezer, 'Contesting Urban Space in Early Republican Ankara', Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol.
52, No. 1, 1998, p. 11.
31 I. Tekeli, 'The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by
R. Holod and A. Evin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 15.
32 Yavuz and Ozkan, 'Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style', p. 52.
21
Candidate Number: 102487
parliament building (Fig. 7) designed by the renowned architect Vedat Tek who was recruited from
Constantinople. The new building was in fact designed as the headquarters of the RPP was
completed in 1924. Apparently it was found more suitable for a parliament. Considering that the
first parliament building was much smaller in size, it was important to move to a larger, more
proper site. According to Yavuz and Ozkan, the building's rustic character on the exterior which
comes from the rubble walls built in pink-coloured local stone, was due to the limited budget given
to the building project.33 This is highly possible because Vedat Tek's previous buildings do not
feature a stylistic form of this kind. The pointed arches on the projecting central bay of the building
and the decorative turquoise rectangles that are symmetrically placed on the facade follow the
norms of the First National Style. The red and white pattern of the arches is reminiscent of the ones
that can be found in Istanbul's imperial mosques. Although the building's main facade that opens up
to the boulevard looks relatively small, the buildings stretches to the Northwestern direction and it
is actually double the size of the first parliament (Fig. 8). In terms of its architectural style, it is
possible to say that the building follows the conventional pattern of Ottoman architecture. The
interior of the building (Fig. 9) with its curvilinear balcony reflects the European baroque style
which very much influenced the Ottoman architecture in the early 19th century. The decorative
scheme of the ceiling on the other hand, is reminiscent of the European neo-classicism which was
influential in Turkey starting from early 19th century. These forms, although European in style, did
not strictly reflect a European outlook since they have been absorbed in to the Ottoman architecture
in 19th century. Therefore it is possible to say that the interior of the second parliament was very
much Ottoman in its outlook.
Right across the new parliament building, another one was commissioned from Vedat Tek,
which was built as an hotel (Fig. 10) called Ankara Palas. This was urgently needed in the new
capital which lacked decent housing and proper hotels to serve visiting officials and dignitaries.34
However Vedat Tek was compelled to leave the project after various disputes, and another wellknown
architect of the First National Style, Kemalettin Bey was invited to continue on the project.
In fact, after he came to Ankara, he was also commissioned to design a stately portal for the
entrance of the parliament which he did with mixed success. The portal that can be seen today (Fig.
7) blocks the central loggia and somewhat damages the integrity of the facade. Ankara Palas in the
other hand, did not suffer from a later addition and has a structural unity. The building featured a
33 Yavuz and Ozkan, 'Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style', p. 53.
34 Ibid. p. 54.
22
Candidate Number: 102487
ballroom, restaurant, tea room, administration office and central courtyards surrounded by guest
rooms on two floors. When it was opened in 1927, the hotel was popularly acclaimed as the symbol
of modernity and civilisation with its pressurized water and central heating systems, its Western
type toilets and bathtubs and its powerful electric generator which was a unique feature in this rural
Anatolian town accustomed to dim kerosene lamps.35 Ironically, in spite of the modern services it
offered, its architectural style was strictly influenced by Ottoman heritage like other buildings of the
First National Style. Ankara Palas has a symmetrically arranged front facade with tile decorations
and pointed arches. The entrance portal is crowned by an onion-shaped dome, a typical feature of
the First National Style. Kemalettin Bey also designed the Second Vakif Apartments which was the
first prominent residence building in the city where members of parliament and other administrative
personnel could stay in the city. It also featured double-storey shops on the ground level and a
sizeable auditorium for performing arts which was located in the centre of the building. The
auditorium is still used by the State Theatre as a venue. His final design for Ankara was the Gazi
Teachers' College, built in 1930. It would supply the new Republic with what was needed mostly:
republican, modern, secular teachers.
By the end of 1925, the tempo of building activity in Ankara quickened.36 The architects
working in Ankara were the already mentioned Vedat Tek, Kemalettin Bey and, Arif Hikmet
Koyunoglu and Giulio Mongeri. The latter was a Levantine architect who had been working in
Turkey since before World War I and he was involved in various major building projects in
Constantinople. He designed the Turkish Is Bankasi (Fig. 11) building which was built in 1928. Is
Bankasi was a state owned bank that was founded to encourage private enterprise in order to
generate a liberal capital economy. The building is located in close proximity to the parliament and
the main business district of the 1920s. Like other buildings of the First National Style, the
building's exterior has a decorative scheme based on Ottoman forms. Two columns with Ottoman
capitals flank the entrance and just above them, there are two lamps that resemble the kind of
lighting used in medieval mosques. Pointed arches are also very predominantly placed on the
facade. Other buildings by Mongeri were the General Directorate of the State Monopolies built in
1928 and Turkish Agriculture Bank (Turkiye Ziraat Bankasi in Turkish) in 1929 which were also in
the city centre and in close proximity to the Is Bankasi Headquarters.
On a nearby hill that overlooks the city centre where the previously mentioned buildings are
35 Yavuz and Ozkan, 'Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style', p. 56.
36 Ibid. p. 58.
23
Candidate Number: 102487
located, the Museum of Etnography was built in 1926. It was designed by Ahmet Hikmet
Koyunoglu and it featured the similar stylistic characteristics of the First National Style. The goal
was to have a place in which the rich collection of Anatolian folk art could be displayed. This was
particularly important because the official state ideology was to point out a rich Anatolian history
that was very much alive before the advent of Islam and the Ottoman Empire.37 The idea behind this
way of thought was to create a national consensus that the Turks had an important cultural heritage
well before Islam and Islam was present in the Turkish history for only a period of time which
resulted in the decline of the Turkish nation under the Ottoman Empire. Ironically, the building
presents a visual outlook that is Ottoman, Islamic and traditional in essence. It features a palatial
entrance, a dome, pointed arches and tiled decorations. Koyunoglu built two more buildings. One
was the Turkish Hearth (Turk Ocagi in Turkish) which was the national centre of cultural activities
about Turkish history and culture. The idea was to promote Turkishness to the nation which hitherto
united under the umbrella of Islam rather than a nationality. Mustafa Kemal however, desired to
curb out Islam from collective consciousness since his ideology defended that Islam was the reason
why the Ottoman Empire lagged behind the Western states. Thus, the institutions would try to inject
a sense of Turkishness to the nation while trying to suppress pious feelings. In many ways, the
ideological position of Turkish nationalism in the guise of the political doctrine of Kemalism was in
this respect meant to replace the religion of Islam as the binding force fashioning a unitary and
homogeneous state.38
These early buildings are representative of the city's dire need of basic institutions such as
hotels, banks, schools and administration offices. However as previously mentioned none of these
buildings reflect the revolutionary modernization agenda of Mustafa Kemal and fellow party
members. Koyunoglu's Museum of Etnography (Fig. 12) could have been mistaken for a mosque
only if it had a minaret. The Is Bankasi Headquarters (Fig. 11) look just like another office building
in Constantinople commissioned by the early 20th century Ottoman administration. Tek and
Kemalettin's Ankara Palas is reminiscent of an Ottoman military barracks while the second GNA
building's assembly hall could have been mistaken for a ballroom in Constantinople. Although at
first glance the visual characteristics of the First National Style simply do not fit with the social,
cultural and educational reforms that were initiated by the Republic, it is critical to remember the
37 Ersan, 'Secularism, Islamism, Emblemata: The Visual Discourse of Progress in Turkey', pp. 68-69.
38 C. Erimtan, 'Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Agaoglu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist Construction of Nationhood in
Anatolia', Anatolian Studies, Vol. 58, 2008, p. 142.
24
Candidate Number: 102487
changing political power of Mustafa Kemal in the first years of republican rule. Even though the
intelligentsia, members of parliament and the major figures of the military cadres that led the War of
Independence supported Mustafa Kemal with his ideas to form a parliament, then to abolish the
sultanate and to found a Republic, many did not want him to have too much power. Some were
afraid that he would try to radically transform the society by Europeanization while some simply
expected a democratic government in which one man should rule without consent or being
accountable to the parliament. These were the reasons why Mustafa Kemal precisely wanted to
destroy the political opposition. After the political purges in the parliament in 1926, Turkey turned
into an authoritarian single-party dictatorship under Mustafa Kemal as the political opposition was
eliminated, no other parties were allowed to be formed, oppositional press was suppressed and
Kemal had complete authority over his party.39 Under these circumstances, another Ankara was
started to be designed and built.
39 A. Kansu, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir” ya da Siedlung: “Bahceli Evler Yapi Kooperatifi”',
Toplumsal Tarih, Sayi 187, Cilt 32, 2009, p. 57.
25
Candidate Number: 102487
Chapter 3: Ankara, the City of the Future
If the official state ideology was to make Turkey a modern and European country, then the most
pragmatic choice would be to recruit modernist European architects to design new buildings for the
new capital. And that's what Mustafa Kemal did. Various architects and city planners were invited
to the capital to construct a modern city. On the other hand, as Tekeli points out, the problem of the
First National Style did not only rise from its stylistic features. The Movement dealt mainly with
formal and stylistic issues, and had not developed city planning capabilities.40 This meant that a
proper city plan was needed. As long as Ankara stood against everything that Istanbul stood for
under the Kemalist ideology, the city had to be built out of scratch diligently. Moreover, the city
planner was supposed to be in line with the ideals of the new regime in addition to the planning
qualities a city planner could possess.41 Ankara was to be an example in every area for other Turkish
cities as 'the model city, model society and model living' by embodying nationalism and
modernization in itself.42
A prominent early republican intellectual, educator and art critic Ismail Hakki Baltacioglu
explained the urgent mission of national-building (both physically and metaphorically) in Turkey, in
1931 publication:
After attaining new culture and a new civilization, the new Turkey wants a new container
for its life – a new envelope for its ideals. The new Turk wants new cities, new roads, new
houses, new schools and new work but does not yet know what the new is all about... The
excitement of revolution and the passion for democracy are edifying the souls; but we are
not yet able to build the outer shell of an egalitarian and individualist country that will edify
the bodies, families and people of Turkey.43
The 'new container' and the 'outer shell' of the country was designed by European architects and
planners who were invited to Ankara in the 1920s and 1930s. The first master plan for Ankara was
40 Tekeli, 'The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey', p. 15.
41 Kansu, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir” ya da Siedlung'', p. 59.
42 A. Cengizkan, 'Turkiye icin Modern ve Planli bir Baskent Kurmak: Ankara 1920-1950', Goethe Institut, 2010,
http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/geb/sta/trindex.htm [last accessed 20 August 2013].
43 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 7. The original text was published in I. H.
Baltacioglu, Demokrasi ve Sanat (Istanbul, 1931) pp. 11-12.
26
Candidate Number: 102487
designed by the architect and planner Carl Christoph Lorcher between 1924-25. Although his plan
was not implemented, it played a 'seminal role in creating the basic outline of the new city.44
According to Lorcher's plan, two major stages were highlighted for the development of Ankara. The
old city around the Citadel would be rehabilitated because of its historical significance and its
dominant presence in the city's skyline.45 All the previously mentioned buildings of the First
National Style was built in this old city where the parliament and the business district was located.
The second stage of Lorcher was to construct a new city to the south for a projected total population
of 150,000 to 200,00 inhabitants.46
In 1928 a major international competition was held by the Turkish government to sketch
another master plan for the city. Interestingly enough, Lorcher was not invited to this competition
and it is unclear why. What is known however is that, Hermann Jansen, a renowned architect and
city planner from Berlin, subtly implemented Lorcher's plan into his own and won the
competition.47 Jansen's plan (Fig. 13) continues Lorcher's idea of creating the city with a main
north-south axis. A main boulevard starts from the old city of Ankara, which is located just to the
northeast of the large park in the centre of the plan, and it continues south, passing by the park until
it reaches a plot that is shaped like an upside down V. It is possible to divide that north-south axis
from the middle where the boulevard reaches the park and above it was the old city and below
would be the new city. The plot of land that is designed as an upside down V was in fact, the
grounds where the ministries and other governmental offices would be built. The buildings in that
V-shaped plot were built in the 1930s and at the end of the open end of the V, the third parliament
building that was planned to be much larger than the previous ones, would be built starting from
1939.
The first 'new' building of the Republic, the Ministry of Health (Fig. 14), was constructed in
1927, just to the south of the park in the centre (Genclik Park), by the main boulevard (which was
named Millet or nation – the name of the boulevard would be changed to Gazi and then to Ataturk
as the political ideology would change) on the north-south axis. Institutions for health and hygiene
ranked high in the state's priorities. It is possible to consider that building as the starting point of the
new city both in symbolic and material terms. The building was drastically different than its
counterparts at the time in Turkey let alone Ankara. With its flat roof, undecorated facade,
44 Ibid. pp. 11-12.
45 Cengizkan, 'Turkiye icin Modern ve Planli bir Baskent Kurmak: Ankara 1920-1950'.
46 Ibid.
47 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 300.
27
Candidate Number: 102487
rectangular windows and lack of any Ottoman or Middle Eastern architectural influences, Jost's
building became the first building for the new Ankara and new Turkey. Its projecting central bay
and rigid, straight structure imposes a sense of cold monumentality. Mustafa Kemal's and other
republicans' desire to build a modernist building in Ankara was grounded in their ideological
mission to modernize the Turkish nation as previously mentioned. Thus, the intellectual circles had
were well aware of the architectural modernist movement in Europe and beyond. An article in a
newspaper dated July, 4, 1927 gives a contemporary commentary on the building:
The Ministry building has really been the most contemporary building of Ankara. It looks
like the latest and most modern buildings in Europe. It also has an additional value since it is
built in Yenisehir [New Town]. We had agreed as a principle to build great and monumental
buildings on the Gazi Boulevard. The Ministry of Health has been the first to achieve this
and it will serve as a model in the construction of Yenisehir.48
Modernism, a European visual aesthetic that emerged in the early 20th century which became more
complex in time and gained a theoretical framework, was employed by Turkish republicans. This
practice could very well lead to the speculative question of 'what would happen if the Republic was
founded in the late 19th century?' Although it is impossible to find an exact answer for this, an
educated guess would be to assume that the late 19th century Republic would be just as well
satisfied with a building designed by a late 19th century European architect who had embraced the
latest style that was in fashion. The main reason behind this speculation is that, there are no clear
stylistic guidelines set out by the republicans when commissioning new state buildings. It seems
that they knew what they did not want in their new buildings: elements of the First National
Movement like domes etc. and anything that resembled Ottoman or Islamic forms. However, one
thing is clear. As Sibel Bozdogan and Esra Akcan point out in their book, 'the early republican quest
for modern form in Turkey coincided historically with the rise of the Modern Movement in interwar
Europe and initially found an appealing answer in the progressive discourse and abstract aesthetic
of the latter.'49 Modernist movement in Europe was a radical transformation in its own area and this
was visible in the modernist aesthetic. The idea of breaking up with the past did not only happen on
a macro level. Ankara would look very modern and European compared to Istanbul but it also
presented this breaking up with the past in itself. With the old town hosting the First National Style
buildings, the new town that housed the modernist buildings becomes an even greater symbol of
48 Goethe Institut, 'Saglik Bakanligi', http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/geb/geb/ges/trindex.htm [last accessed 10
August 2013].
49 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 7.
28
Candidate Number: 102487
radical and rapid modernization.
Another early modern building in Ankara was by Jost. It was the Bacteriology Institute (Fig.
15) which was opened in 1929 and it became an important landmark of architectural modernism.50
The building promotes a sense horizontality through its wide and flat elevation and, through the use
of white bands that run along the building parallel to the horizontal placement of the windows. Only
the central bay which projects as the centrepiece of the building, has a flat-roof. Perhaps its most
interesting and striking feature is the nude sculpture of Hygiene by the Austrian sculptor Wilhelm
Frass, who depicted the Greek goddess Hygieia, the daughter of Asclepius, the god of healing, and
granddaughter of Apollo. The relief of a nude woman on one of the new regime's earliest public
buildings in a country where no figurative public sculpture previously existed, was definitely a
revolutionary gesture, hinting at the changes to come not only in the sphere of health but also in the
making of the new Turkish woman.51 The sculpture also shows the relation between hygiene,
disciplined bodies and modernism which was very much evident in other authoritarian regimes at
the time. In the modern world, human bodies were to be as healthy, clean efficient and reliable as
machines. Like other authoritarian states in the interwar period, Kemalism utilized sports spectacles
on such occasions as the Youth and Sports Day to emphasize the importance of healthy, sportive and
disciplined bodies, and especially unveiled female bodies, for the making of the modern nation.52
Among other things, health institutions were regarded as indicators of civilization, modernization
and progress. Thus the new regime took great pride in such institution and Jost's building was
featured among other health institutions in La Turquie Kemaliste (Fig. 16).53
Clemens Holzmeister is probably one of the few architects in the world to have design all
the administrative buildings of a capital city.54 His works included, the Ministry of National
Defence (Fig. 17), the General Staff Headquarters, Presidential Palace, the Ministry of the Interior,
the General Directorate of Security and Gendarmerie, the Ministry of Public Works, the Court of
Cassation, the Ministry of Commerce, Central Bank and Real Estate and Credit Bank (Emlak Kredi
Bankasi). The characteristic features of Holzmeister buildings are 'rectangular plans with central
courtyards or classical U-shaped schemes' symmetrical axial plans and elevation arrangements; and
50 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 57.
51 Ibid. 57.
52 Ibid. 57.
53 La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 3, October, 1934, p. 4.
54 A. Batur, 'To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture', in Modern Turkish Architecture, ed by R. Holod
and A. Evin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 78.
29
Candidate Number: 102487
extended block units without joints.'55 Protruding blocks in his designs are also present in the
Ministry of Defence. Unlike Jost's Ministry of Health, Holzmeister's design avoid a monumentality
through the use of its extended blocks. Having been studied and taught at Vienna, Holzmeister's
style came to be known as 'Viennese cubic architecture'.56 However not all his buildings were
designed in this 'cubic' style. On January 28 1938, a competition was held to design a third, much
grander parliament building. Fourteen projects were presented to competition and the jury chose
three projects to be the first among others. Holzmeister's design was personally selected by Mustafa
Kemal as the winner. The building (Fig. 18) was designed in a monumental modernist a neoclassical
style. This was also one of the trends of the architects who worked in the early republican
era. Although Holzmeister's design was approved in 1938 and construction began by then, after
World War II broke out, the construction came to a halt. Turkey did not participate in the war but
due to military mobilization, the economy was seriously strained and economic priorities changed.
Thus, the third parliament building could not be completed and opened with other economic
problems underway after the world war until 1963. Compared to the early parliament buildings, the
third one would come to be the first proper building both in its style and size for the new Republic.
When looking at the second parliament by Vedat Tek (Fig. 7), it is possible to argue that the
architectural style of the building indeed became problematic due to the discourse of modernization
among the republicans. While rest of the country and more specifically Ankara was constructed
with a strictly modern and European style, the Ottoman revivalism of the First National Style of
Tek's building was probably an eyesore for Mustafa Kemal and his fellow members of the
parliament. In any case, when we consider the fact that no effort was done to commission a new
parliament building until 1937, it is possible to say that the building program ran by the government
had a certain rationale and did not make unrealistic use of its limited economic means by
commissioning a new building just because its style was improper. Especially in a time when much
had to be built, this is an important note to remember.
Holzmeister parliament design (Fig. 18) does not have Ottoman style decorations, motives
or other architectural elements as it was designed in compliance with the expectations of the new
political regime. However there have been some reservations about the degree of 'modernity' of the
design.57 It is possible to say that the building's style indeed resembles the stylistic neoclassicism of
55 Batur, 'To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture', p. 78
56 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 54.
57 L. K. Alpagut, 'III. Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi Binasi Yarisma ve Yapim Sureci', Mimarlik, no. 296, 2000, p. 55.
30
Candidate Number: 102487
Germany at the time rather than a Bauhaus style of modernism. Nevertheless, considering the
deisng in the Turkish context, it was undeniably modern in the sense that, non-functional decorative
elements such as a dome were removed from the design, geometric symmetry and architectural
order was espoused and, a flat roof was used. More importantly, like the rest of the buildings
designed from 1927 onwards, it did not look Ottoman which would clearly be infused with the idea
of republican modernization at the time. They were modernist in another sense, bringing together
representations of technological progress and novelty with monumental expressions of state power
and authority. Contemporary accounts by architects and critics perceived these buildings as marking
the 'beginning of a new era', especially compared to the Ottoman revivalism of Mongeri, Vedat and
Kemalettin.58 An incident during the competition for the parliament building in 1938 is a clear
example of this. Joseph Vago's design (Fig. 19) for the competition incorporated a domed assembly
hall and two minaret like towers to the parliament building and it was immediately deemed
inappropriate for the project. The jury characterized this design as a 'fantasy that lacked an overall
coherence.'59 The competition defined the plot of land where the parliament was going to built as the
large, opening section of the triangular government complex which was previously mentioned when
discussing Jansen's city plan (Fig. 13). The triangular plot of land that resembles an upside-down V,
would house the parliament building in its largest section, perhaps a symbol that alludes to the
national motto: “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation.”
One of the most distinct designs of the early republican era was by Martin Elsaesser who
designed the national headquarters of Sumerbank (Fig. 20). Like rest of the financial institutions of
the 1920s and 30s, Sumerbank was created to initiate national industrialization which was very
weak at the time compared to major European countries. The building was finished in 1937. An
interesting choice about the building was where it was built. It was in the old city quarter where the
earlier First National Style building were built and occupied a very prominent position right by the
square. According to Bozdogan and Akcan, the building was a technological milestone in Turkish
construction industry because of its structurally challenging reinforced concrete mushroom
columns, circular skylights and large spans designed by the German structural engineer Kurt
Bernhard.60 The design has an unprecedented use of a smaller entrance block that is much darker in
colour than the larger office building attached to the rear which is much lighter in colour. Both parts
58 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 55.
59 S. Bozdogan, Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Washington:
University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 282.
60 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 59.
31
Candidate Number: 102487
of the building have somewhat curvilinear roofs that tend to rise at the top corners of the buildings.
The distinct style of this building suggest the fact that Ankara buildings did not stick to one
particular form and different architects were given the change to practice varied styles as long as
they sticked with a modernist line.
In addition to focusing on economic development, one of the most important areas for the
new political regime was education. Revolutionary changes by taking place and these changes were
consolidated through legislation but in order to make them last, people should be changed or rather
educated as well. Education was in an extremely poor situation in the early years of the Republic
with seriously low percentage of literacy. It also telling that La Turquie Kemaliste's very first edition
starts by praising the education system of the Republic.61 The magazine boasts about the success of
the regime in terms of education and specifically emphasizes on the fact that religious institutions
and schools are closed down and the education is solely done by the state with a secular focus.
Among other things the magazine praises the Turkish educations system because of its success in
providing 'mixed' classrooms where boys and girls are taught together (Fig. 21). The rhetoric goes
on to say that the Turkish Republic achieved what the American and European countries could not
in terms of having mixed classrooms. There are also references to the Ottoman era which is highly
criticized due to being backwards about separating men and woman in the society because of a
religious mindset. While doing this, the magazine refers to the ancient Turkish practices before the
Ottomans and Islam and tells that it was perfectly for Turkish men and women to spend their time
together in older Turkic societies. But there were also schools specifically tailored for girls and
women which aimed at teaching 'women's professions.' An important example for these institutions
is Ismet Inonu Girls' Institute (Fig. 22) designed by Ernst Egli. Such institutes were introduced
starting from 1928, with the suggestion of education professionals such as the American educator
John Dewey who was invited to Turkey for consultation.62 This was particularly important because
the goal of the regime was not only to educate but it was also to Europeanize the nation. An
essential factor on the road to Europeanize was to incorporate women into the society by giving
them the same right as men while making education accessible to girls as well. In this context,
Egli's building was very important but retrospectively it is also an intriguing building to consider in
terms of its style. With Egli's use of continuous window sills, carved-in terraces and rounded corner
balconies in addition to flat roofs and unornamented facades, the design looks much more in line
61 La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 1, 1934, pp. 4-9.
62 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 59.
32
Candidate Number: 102487
with the high modernist buildings espoused by the Bauhaus in Germany.
Yet another German who came to Ankara was Bruno Taut. In fact, he replaced Ernst Egli's
positions in the Ministry of Education and the Academy of Fine Arts after his leave. A leading
architect of German Expressionism during the 1910s and of Berlin's social housing program
between 1924 and 1933, Taut fled from Germany as early as 1933 and arrived in Turkey in 1936
after spending three years in Japan.63 Like Egli, he was entrusted with designing some of the
educational institutions. One of his famous buildings was the Language, History, Geography
Faculty of Ankara University which he designed in 1937. Unlike with other modern buildings in
Ankara, with this one, Taut makes use of the tactile qualities of the construction material and
instead of a whitewash or plaster layer, he leaves the surface exposed. The slight pinkish colour of
the building comes from the local stone that was used in many of the buildings in Ankara at the
time. This colour also reflects on buildings that were constructed using reinforced concrete which
were later on painted pink like the previously mentioned buildings by Jost, Holzmeister and Egli.
Perhaps Taut's choice of exposed stone comes from his theories on architecture that signify the
universal importance of the natural conditions around a certain building and also the importance of
the architectural traditions of the region.64 It is possible to say that Taut's building was one of the
first examples of a synthesis between Central European tradition and Turkish regionalism as the
building makes use of both while rejecting the cubist principles or modern neo-classical styles
previously designed in the new capital.65 He himself labels his gestures as 'fighting against' the
architectural approach 'labelled as cubic' in Turkey as he expressed in his letters.66 He had theorized
the basic dilemma of modernism outside Europe which struggles between 'slavish imitation of
foreign styles' and 'uninspired nativism.'67 His ideas would be very influential on the next generation
of architects such as Sedad Hakki Eldem who later on became arguably the most important architect
of the Republican era.
The new architectural order embraced by the Turkish state worked in accordance with a new
urban planning. In fact, the notion of urban planning was itself a novel enterprise for the Turkish
society which hitherto lacked in the major cities of the Ottoman Empire. Previously mentioned
63 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 63.
64 E. Akcan, 'Towards a Cosmopolitan Ethics in Architecture: Bruno Taut’s Translations out of Germany' New German
Critique 99, Vol. 33, No.3, 2006, p. 31.
65 Goethe Institut, 'Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi', Goethe Institut,
http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/geb/bil/phi/trindex.htm [last accessed 19 August 2013].
66 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 65.
67 Ibid. p. 65.
33
Candidate Number: 102487
Jansen Plan (Fig. 13) was the main component of the new capital's urban development. As part of
the plan new housing projects were initiated to provide dwellings for the increasing population of
Ankara. This was particularly important because a Turkish middle class, which came to prominence
in Constantinople during the bureaucratization of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, started
moving to Ankara to take their positions in the new institutions of the Republic. According to
Bulent Batuman, the arrival of this middle class to Ankara was an important part of the Republic's
desire to create a national bourgeoisie68 which would reflect and live the modern family life
espoused by the new regime.69 However the idea of modern living does not have a single given
model from which to construct urban housing project. After a century of serious industrial
development and urban migration, various housing projects were formulated in the early 20th
century. Among one of these projects was the one put forward by Ebenezer Howard. He described a
program that intended to replace the 'creeping metropolis' with a cluster of garden cities linked to
the city centre by railroad, each with a population whose size would be strictly limited.70
According to Aykut Kansu, Jansen was clearly influenced by the 'garden city' concept and
tried to implement it in his Ankara plan.71 Furthermore, he was strictly against the large, straight
boulevards that nearly crossed whole city and, the grid structures that were in place in modern
metropolises such as New York, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Chicago and Buenos Aires.72 Jansen
advocated a city plan that nurtured an organic city structure that was against straight and long
streets. As part of the urban development project, a housing plan for the middle-classes were
initiated which was literally named Garden Houses (Bahcelievler in Turkish). These Garden Houses
(Fig. 24) were situated in a plot of land which was large enough to accommodate a one family
house and a garden around it.
The political regime was aware of the urban planning developments in Europe and the
regime's plans for city development were manifested in La Turquie Kemaliste:
68 Prior to the Republic, the bourgeoisie mainly consisted of non-muslim population of the Ottoman Empire such as
Armenians, Greeks and Levantines. With the ascendancy and dominance of Turkish nationalism, an urge to create a
'national' bourgeoisie was born. In the following years various state-sponsored tragic events would come to happen
which aimed to the transfer of the capital from the non-muslim population to the newly emerging Turkish middle
classes.
69 B. Batuman, 'Identity, Monumentally, Security: Building a Monument in Early Republican Ankara', Journal of
Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 59, No. 1, 2005, p. 35.
70 J.-L. Cohen, The Future of Architecture Since 1889 (London; New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2012), p. 77.
71 A. Kansu, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir” ya da Siedlung: “Bahceli Evler Yapi Kooperatifi”',
Toplumsal Tarih, Sayi 187, Cilt 32, 2009, p. 62.
72 Ibid. 63.
34
Candidate Number: 102487
Another development is that the Turkish state has chosen low-rise housing developments.
While there cannot be buildings higher than three storeys in cities that have a population
less than fifty thousand, in larger cities taller buildings are only allowed on certain
boulevards. Buildings that will pass five storeys will definitely have to ask for the
ministry's approval. Apparently, Turkey tries to defend its land from the tenements73
which drove Europeans to despair and chaos. As rest of the world knows, Turkey
consulted the world's leading experts in urban development for its city planning projects...
For the country's third largest city Izmir, the famous Swiss architect Le Corbusier was
foreseen but the breakout of the war has forced this to standby.74
As the quote above suggests, a conscious and deliberate attempt was initiated in urban planning by
the Republic. The reference to the tenements is particularly important since Jansen strictly espoused
the ideals of a garden city that protected the inhabitants of a city from the industrial sprawl which
threatened people with clustered buildings that denied a human interaction with nature. The ideal
life that the Garden Houses presented the citizens of Ankara was promoted through images in La
Turquie Kemaliste (Fig. 25). This ideal way of living would bring a proper degree of sanitation as
well as keeping the social structure of the society in balance.75 The idea of middle class citizens
living in the same tenement with low income citizens was frowned upon. Ideally, they would live in
different quarters of the city. Similar housing developments were planned and developed for
workers as well. The root of the garden city ideal came from a harsh criticism of capitalism.
According to the discourse that developed around the garden city, modernity destroyed humans'
link to nature due to the proliferation of industrialization. According to Kansu, the garden city ideal
developed under the rubric of anti-modernist and anti-urbanist ideas which was born in
conservative urban planning circles.76 Later, this ideal was brought up in totalitarian and fascist
regimes as well. In fact, the garden city idea became the main city planning theme in Nazi
Germany, due to its reaction against the modern and its nostalgia for pastoral and slow living of the
past. This was in fact very ironic considering the fact that Turkey aimed to rapidly modernize after
decades of underdevelopment. It is possible to argue that this vague development happened due to
the importation of a European city planner like Jansen whose ideas were formed in the context of
his native country, Germany. Although the garden city ideal does not necessarily have impose a
73 This is translated from the German word mietskaserne which literally translates into English and Turkish as rental
barracks.
74 La Turquie Kemaliste, No. 47, 1943, p 15.
75 Kansu, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir', p. 63.
76 Ibid. p. 54.
35
Candidate Number: 102487
political meaning, other such imports did. Architects that were invited from Germany and Austria
brought with them an architectural style that would create new buildings in Ankara that are similar
to those in Nazi Germany.
Chapter 4: Kemalist Ankara, an Authoritarian Beginning
According to Akcan and Bozdogan, the complex impact of foreign architects on the new Turkish
Republic needs to be conceptualized as multiple forms of 'translation'.77 This translation occurs
when the foreign architects try to respond to the local conditions of the region in which they work,
with the academic and practical knowledge they have gained elsewhere. In our case, the architects
were mostly of German and Austrian origin who were trained in those countries. When architects
such as Egli and Taut took up academic positions in Turkish universities, they had certain influences
on Turkish students. Another such translation occurred when young Turkish architects went to
Germany and France to continue their professional education with state fellowships. However the
major problem Turkish architects faced in Ankara was the bare fact that they were not given state
commissions and thus, could not compete with their European counterparts. In 1931, they started a
professional magazine with which to promote their ideas and struggle for the legitimacy of modern
Turkish architects. The magazine was title Mimar, which literally meant architect. Most of the time
they evoked the rationalist/functionalist doctrines and the scientific/technocratic claims of the
Modern Movement at large as the basis of their eligibility for public commissions.78 At other times
though, they promoted nationalist ideas and defended that the regime should prefer Western in
technique but national in spirit. Until around 1937, only three major buildings were designed and
built by modern Turkish architects. By that time however, the aesthetic preferences of the state was
starting to shift in the direction of a more monumental and classicized modern architecture, like the
previously discussed Holzmeister's parliament building (Fig. 18), reflecting the increasingly
nationalist politics of the time.
As stated earlier, Turkish Republic did not born as a single-party dictatorship, but it turned
into one in time. Political manoeuvres of Mustafa Kemal following the foundation of the Republic
77 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 66.
78 Ibid. p. 66.
36
Candidate Number: 102487
in 1923, turned into purges in the political arena in 1926 and 1927. Political opposition was
eliminated through staged trials, executions and exiles. Free press faced a similar suppression. This
followed a modernist trajectory that aimed to radically transform the society. Gaining supreme
power through oppression Mustafa Kemal created a single-party dictatorship around 1927. This was
further augmented into a corporatist regime in 1930 as Kansu states in his work.79 Corporatism was
an economic and political system which aimed to run the state through a ruling elite which also
controlled the means of production. Although this was pretty similar to the developments in Fascist
Italy and Nazi Germany, the Turkish case was inherently different. Mustafa Kemal's main goal was
to industrialize the country while achieving a social and cultural modernization through
Europeanization. The means to that was not necessarily had to be corporatism. In fact, in the early
years of the Republic, liberal economy was promoted and private entrepreneurs were encouraged to
set up enterprises. However after the Great Depression in 1929, it was concluded that liberal
economy would not be suitable for Turkish industrialization and thus, corporatism was embraced. It
was a system in which the means of production was owned by the state and all economic
development was dependent on state policies. RPP, which was the single-party of the period, had 6
main principles: Republicanism, Populism, Nationalism, Laicism, Reformism and, Statism. These
were added in the Republic's constitution in 1937 which literally amalgamated the party with the
state. These principles reflect the political understanding of the regime at the time. The goal was to
maintain the Republic while appealing to all social and economic classes80, to emphasize Turkish
nationalism, impose Laicism while continuing modernizing reforms and all of this would be done
by the state. Simply put, the state became a centre of power which radically transformed the society
and imposed changes on people. This meant that the state itself had to establish an authority on the
citizens. The desire to establish authority was reflected on architecture.
Ankara Terminal (Fig. 26) was designed by a Turkish architect, Sekip Akalin and it was built
in 1937. It has an imposing symmetrical facade with a tall colonnaded entry flanked by round
projections on either side and it resembles the monumentality of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.
This style, far from trying new forms like Egli did with his design for the Girls' Institute (Fig. 22),
was a modernized version of classical European architecture. Rather, the building displays a visual
79 Kansu, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir', p. 60.
80 The principle of Populism intended to show that Turkey was a classless country and that the state appealed to
everyone just the same.
37
Candidate Number: 102487
authoritarian rhetoric through its colour, style and imposing size.81 The building also gained a
symbolic meaning by the virtue of its function. As the main train terminal of the city, anyone going
in and out of the town would have to go through the building: it was the gateway to the capital.
Every visitor to the city would witness the buildings and thus, the state's authority. The new
terminal along with the new restaurant attached to it and the boulevard leading to the city centre
was featured in La Turquie Kemaliste's April 1938 issue (Fig. 28). The modernist aesthetic of
Ankara was displayed in numerous occasions as a special section in the magazine, under the title
'Ankara Contruit' which talked about new buildings in Ankara and modern architecture. Another
building was designed for a site very close to the Ankara Terminal which became the Ministry of
Transformation (Fig. 27) and it was designed by Bedri Ucar. The building imposes a similar
monumentality, with an entrance hall preceded by a simple colonnade. Rest of the building has a
rigid, plain, cold facade that emphasises order and symmetry. A closer examination of the front
facade reveals something more interesting. The insignia inscribed on top of the facade (Fig. 29)
looks strikingly similar to the stylized eagle of the Nazi coat of arms (Fig. 30). Today, the insignia
on the building is used as part of the logo of the State Railways as the plaque attached right above
the facade suggests. Although a possible Nazi influence shall remain speculative unless reinforced
by a primary source, there is an undeniable similarity between the two insignias.
Despite Turkey's success in remaining neutral and uninvolved until the very last months in
the Second World War, its arts, architecture and politics became increasingly resembling those of
Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Especially before to the war both states were seen as having strong
regimes that efficiently modernize their countries. Various aspects of Fascism was borrowed such as
enacting disciplined youth parades in stadiums. The cover page of a pro-government newspaper,
Cumhuriyet, in 1932 (Fig. 31) features the story of the Turkish Prime Minister Ismet Inonu's
departure to Italy for a meeting with Italian officials. The headline of the issue was, 'Greetings From
Kemalist Turkey to Fascist Italy!'82 and an insignia that places the Turkish flag inside the Fascist
emblem with fasces in the middle, was prominently displayed along with photos of Mussolini and
Inonu. A gesture of friendship and sympathy was predictable and natural in the context of the
political situation in 1932. Republic of Turkey was a newly found state and Mediterranean allies
were necessary in the case of future conflicts. Yet, fascination with Fascism did not only had a
81 For a discussion about rhetorics of architecture, see D. Hattenhauer, 'The rhetoric of architecture: A semiotic
approach', Communication Quarterly, 32:1, 2009.
82 T24, Cumhuriyet, 22 Mayis, 1932, http://t24.com.tr/media/editorials/kemalisttürkiyemanlşetiET-22_05.jpg.
38
Candidate Number: 102487
political dimension. There were proponents of Fascism in art and architecture publications as well:
The greatest virtue of modern art is its national character... Fascist Italian art is growing
with giant steps in the hands of young Italian artists who are supported by their state.
Italians have created a Fascist Architecture. The Turkish nation has achieved a much
greater revolution than what the Fascists of Rome call their change in regime. But our
Revolution lacks an important feature. It has not been monumentalized.83
Aptullah Ziya's words above in a 1933 issue of Mimar gives a glimpse of the Turkish
fascination with Fascist monumentality. In this context, monumental buildings designed by
Akalin and Ucar (Fig. 26, 27) would have been seen as triumphent successes since they are
both monumental buildings that are designed by Turkish architects. However Turkey's
relation to Fascism was not limited to such developments. A more fundamental similarity
enjoyed by Italian, German and Turkish regimes of 1930s was their leaders. Each regime
created a personality cult around their leaders in Max Weber's use of term. Mussolini was
hailed as Il Duce, Hitler as Fuhrer, and Mustafa Kemal as Ulu Onder (still in use) which
literally meant the great leader.84
The personality cult built around Mustafa Kemal was similar to that of Hitler's and
Mussolini's in the sense that he was promoted as the only leader who could lead his country
to a better future. The political regime allowed the cult to develop since Mustafa Kemal
dominated the political arena of Turkey as the leader of the ruling political party in a
single-party Republic. His role in building a new capital was also promoted through arts.
Tahir Burak's (1903-1977) painting, Ergenekon 2 (Fig. 32) that is prominently hung in the
entrance hall of the state-run Ankara Painting and Sculpture Museum (Ankara Resim
Heykel Muzesi), depicts peasant standing in a city ruins, looking towards the horizon.
There is a 'future' city in the horizon with skyscrapers, factory chimneys and airplanes. The
ruins of the city on which the peasant stands allude to an Ottoman past. Ground is littered
with Ottoman tombstones that are either broken or torn apart. There is a traditional
Ottoman house just beneath huge pedestal of the statue, standing next to an Ottoman dome,
83 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 70. Originally published in Aptullah Ziya,
'Inkilap ve San'at', Mimar, III/9-10, 1933, pp. 317-318.
84The personality cult of Mustafa Kemal is still relevant in Turkey. Among other things, primary school students do get
homework questions such as 'How would you explain your love towards Mustafa Kemal?'
39
Candidate Number: 102487
probably covering yet another tomb. Part of the city is left in ruins while there are some
old-fashioned, traditional agricultural tools in the foreground. These stand in clear
opposition to the tractor that is engaged with the land just in front of the future city. The
prophetic figure on the pedestal is Mustafa Kemal and he points towards the future city
which the peasant is looking at. Although full of symbolism, it is quite easy to understand
the painting's meaning. Simply put, it shows an Ottoman past in ruins on which the peasant
lives but he is being led to an industrial, modern 'future city' by Mustafa Kemal who is the
great leader of the nation. The fact that the person being led is a peasant is a populist choice
which means that even the lowest strata of the society follow the great leader (in the
Turkish case middle and upper classes were more or less in line with Kemal's ideology
whereas low income classes were considered reactionary and conservative). Perhaps the
most interesting feature of the painting is that Mustafa Kemal is not represented as a living
figure but as a statue. This may be due to the fact that he was not alive when the painting
was done but this is unlikely since the painting does not convey a sense of time and it
would not have mattered he would be alive or dead when the painting was done. It more
likely refers to the fact that Mustafa Kemal became something more than a mere human
and that his ideals as well as his guidance is beyond human life. Thus the peasant or the
Turkish nation does not need him in person to guide them but to follow his principles since
they would lead the nation to a better future. The fact that the city in ruins is depicted in
Ottoman architecture is very meaningful since its left in ruins and the peasant looks
forward to the city of the future which is depicted as having Western-style skyscrapers. The
painting is titled Ergenekon 2, as there is another painting by the same painter titled
Ergenekon which depicts the story a famous legend. Ergenekon is the name of a Turkish
legend in which a white wolf (the symbol of Turkish nationalists even today) shows a
secret passage through the mountains to Turkish nomads which eventually lead to their
future home. Ever since then, the Turks have embraced the white wolf as their leading
nationalist symbol. In Ergenekon 2, the setting and characters change but the same story
continues and Mustafa Kemal is hailed as the next legendary leader of the Turkish nation.
Portrayal of Mustafa Kemal as the supreme leader was represented in public spaces
as well. Anton Hanak and Joseph Thorak's Security Monument (Guvenlik Aniti in Turkish)
stands in the principle square of the 'new city' party of Ankara that was designed and
40
Candidate Number: 102487
populated with modern architecture. The rear or the southern facade of the the monument
(Fig. 33) displays Thorak's sculpture (or relief) of Mustafa Kemal and his followers. Upon
the government's request for reliefs depicting 'Gazi' (Mustafa Kemal's official title which
was a traditional Ottoman title that meant war veteran), 'the Republic' and 'the Turkish
people at peaceful work', Thorak, created a composition that resembled a family, protected
and embraced by Mustafa Kemal.85 He wears a robe that conceals his body and he is
considerably larger than the figures standing next to him. 'The Turkish people at peaceful
work' was depicted as a relief beneath the pedestal of the main sculptural group. The idea
of sculpture was completely new for the Turkish society since the Ottoman Empire never
produced sculptures let alone displaying them. In fact, the idea of sculptures were literally
introduced by Mustafa Kemal to the Turkish society when a sculpture of himself was
installed as a monument in 1927, just in front of the old Ottoman palace by the sea. It was
probably the first time a sculpture was displayed in public in the region since the conquest
of Constantinople in 1453 by the Ottomans. Many such monuments and sculptures
depicting Kemal followed suit as Thorak and Hanak's monument was one of them. The
authoritarian dictatorial nature of the regime was not only reflected through public
monuments and sculptures. Architecture itself became a tool in promulgating Mustafa
Kemal's leadership and his messages to the Turkish public. The previously discussed
Ankara University's Language, History, Geography Faculty designed by Taut, also
manifested the single-handed political power of Mustafa Kemal as well as his role as the
leader of the nation (Fig. 34). A phrase by Mustafa Kemal is inscribed just below the roof
level that says 'the greatest guide in life is science'. Kemal's name is inscribed as 'K.
Ataturk' in the right bottom corner of the phrase to make sure that the passersby would
know to whom the words belong. The fact that his words appear on a university building
was not out of context considering his self-given title, the head teacher of the nation.
Various buildings were designed in Ankara and Turkey in general that promoted Kemal in
similar ways that include the installation of his bust on empty facades such as Turgut
Cansever's Aga Khan Award for Architecture winning design for the Turkish History
Society's southern facade (Fig. 35). The deification of Mustafa Kemal reached its apogee
when a mausoleum was constructed for him nearly after fifteen years of his death.
85 Batuman, 'Identity, Monumentally, Security: Building a Monument in Early Republican Ankara', p. 38.
41
Candidate Number: 102487
Mustafa Kemal's mausoleum is called Anitkabir which literally means a monument
tomb in Turkish. It was designed by Emin Halid Onat and Ahmet Orhan Arda after they
won an architectural competition for the project and the building could only be finished in
1953 (Kemal died in 1938). Upon its completion Anitkabir became the ultimate state
monument of the Republic. Kemal's body was mummified for fifteen years like Lenin
(though Kemal's body was not open for public view), until it could be buried in Anitkabir.
As Akcan and Bozdogan point out, Anitkabir gives a profound spatial expression to the
conceptualization of nation as a secular religion. Kemal's monumental tomb become a
nationalist substitute for a space of religious ritual, prayer and spirituality.86 The
mausoleum occupies a very central and prominent hill in Ankara which emulates the
ancient examples of Greek acropolises. Likewise, the design of the building is a highly
stylized and modern version of a Greek temple. This was a symbolic move that aimed to
part the ways of the new Turkish nation with the Ottoman past. Ottoman rulers would be
buried in distinct, octagonal mausoleums that would be architecturally Ottoman as well.
Whereas the great leader of the new Turkish Republic is buried in a monument that reflects
the past of the region by referencing a Greek temple, rather than emphasising on an Islamic
Ottoman past. The decorative program of the building manifested the Turkish history thesis
(the official historiography of the state that was mostly fabricated) which extended the
history of the Turks to pre-Islamic Anatolia and connected it to the classic roots of Western
civilisation which was Greece. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the use of colonnades and
monumental forms were favoured in the late 1930s with increasing German and fascist
influences. Anitkabir became a monument that conjoined the political nature of the regime
with its architectural program. In the end, a huge mausoleum in a highly stylized Western
form was built for the 'great leader' of the nation that overlooks the city he built. The
single-party dictatorship of a radical, revolutionary regime that imported Western forms to
create the city of the future, monumentalized once again in Mustafa Kemal's mausoleum
which became a site of pilgrimage for the future generations to come.
86 Bozdogan and Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History, p. 73.
42
Candidate Number: 102487
Conclusion
The modernization movement that was initiated in the Ottoman Empire turned into a radical
transformation of the society after the foundation of the Republic. Architecture played an essential
role in presenting a new, modern city that would reflect the ideals of the new political regime.
Ankara was chosen as the capital of the new Turkish Republic in order to create an ideal city which
would reflect, reinforce and create a new republican identity that was modern, developed an
European. Architecture actively participated to this program since it would come to present a city
that looked modern through the use of modernist architecture. This could only be achieved after the
initial problems of the Republic was solved and the political opposition purged. Until 1926, the
architectural forms of Ankara followed those of Constantinople of the Late Ottoman Empire.
Ottoman revivalist buildings under the name of the First National Style came to be the first
Republican buildings. In time, such an architecture was seemed unfit for the goals of the new
regime and with the political opposition gone, Mustafa Kemal's authoritarian rule initiated a new
program for architecture that refused Ottoman forms and embraced a modern European style. These
developments happened under the the rubric of a large modernization movement that aimed to
radically transform the society from being Islamic and traditional to a secular and modern society.
New architectural idiom of the Republic was joined by a modern urban plan that was influenced by
the garden city ideals of the early 20th century. The authoritarian nature of the single-party
dictatorship that came to dominate the early Republican era was also reflect in the architecture. Late
1930s saw the rise of monumentalism in Ankara which aimed to reinforce and assert the authority
of the state. The personality cult around Mustafa Kemal was also displayed through architecture and
monuments in public spaces. As a final thought, it is possible to say that architecture, with its
unique power to occupy public spaces and express feelings or ideas through its forms, has been put
to very efficient use in the early republican Ankara when the project to construct a new capital was
established. Architecture of early republican Ankara was employed to create the ideal city for the
Turkish nation which was being transformed by the political regime. The ambitious plan to
transform the previously Islamic and conservative society to a secular and modern one, happened
on the architectural level by creating a modern setting for the society in which they were expected
to adapt to the 'new look' of their political regime.
43
Candidate Number: 102487
Illustrations and Maps
Figure 1: Topkapi Palace, Istanbul, Photo: Tatil-Mekan
Figure 2: Balyan Family, Dolmabahce Palace, view of the central building from the sea, Istanbul,
1856, Photo: Wikimedia Commons
44
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 3: August Jachmund, Istanbul Sirkeci Terminal, Istanbul, 1890, Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Figure 4: Vedat Tek, Central Post Office, Istanbul, 1909, Photo: Wikipedia Commons
45
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 5: Ezilion Maps, Political Map of Turkey in 2013
Figure 6: Hafi Bey, Union and Progress Party Headquarters, later the first Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Ankara, 1917-1923
46
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 7: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Southeastern facade, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 8: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, Northeastern facade, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
47
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 9: Vedat Tek, People's Republican Party Headquarters, later the second Grand National
Assembly of Turkey, the assembly hall, Ankara, 1924, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 10: Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, Ankara Palas, Ankara, 1927, Photo: Yaman Kayabali
(2013)
48
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 11: Giulio Mongeri, Is Bankasi Headquarters, Ankara, 1928, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 12: Arif Hikmet Koyunoglu, Museum of Ethnography, Ankara, 1926, Photo: Yaman
Kayabali (2013)
49
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 13: Hermann Jansen, Ankara City Plan, 1927
Figure 14: Theodor Jost, Ministry of Health, Ankara, 1927, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
50
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 15: Theodor Jost, Bacteriology Institute (Hifzissihha Enstitusu), Ankara, 1929, Photo,
Goethe Institut (2010)
Figure 16: La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 3, October, 1934, pp. 4-5.
51
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 17: Clemens Holzmeister, Ministry of National Defence, view from the northeastern corner
Ankara, 1931, Photo: Goethe Institut (2010)
Figure 18: Clemens Holzmeister, The Third Grand National Assembly of Turkey, frontal view,
Ankara, 1928 - 1963, Photo: TBMM
52
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 19: Joseph Vago, Competition Entry for the building of the third parliament, 1937
Figure 20: Martin Elsaesser, Sumerbank, later Sumer Holding, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali
(2013)
53
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 21: La Turquie Kemaliste, no. 1, 1934, p. 7.
Figure 22: Ernst Egli, Ismet Inonu Girls' Institute, Ankara, 1931, Photo: Goethe Institut
54
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 23: Bruno Taut, Ankara University, Language, History, Geography Faculty, Ankara, 1937,
Photo: ITU Sozluk
Figure 24: Hermann Jansen, A Garden House, Figure 25: Hermann Jansen, Garden Houses,
Ankara, Photo: Goethe Institut Ankara
55
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 26: Sekip Akalin, Ankara Terminal, Ankara, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 27: Bedri Ucar, Ministry of Transformation, later the State Railways General Directorate,
Ankara, 1941, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
56
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 28: La Turquie Kemaliste, nos. 25-26, 1938, pp. 28-29.
Figure 30: Nazi Coat of Arms
Figure 29: Bedri Ucar, Ministry of Transformation,
later the State Railways General Directorate, detail
of the main facade, Ankara, 1941, Photo: Yaman
Kayabali (2013)
57
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 31: Cover page, Cumhuriyet, 27 May 1932
Figure 32: R. Tahir Burak, Ergenekon 2, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
58
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 33: Joseph Thorak, The Rear (Southern) Facade of the Security Monument, Ankara, 1935,
Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 34: Bruno Taut, Ankara University, Language, History, Geography Faculty, detail of the
front facade, Ankara, 1937, Photo: Yaman Kayabali (2013)
59
Candidate Number: 102487
Figure 35: Turgut Cansever, Turkish History Society, detail of the southern facade, Ankara, 1966,
Photo Yaman Kayabali (2013)
Figure 36: Emin Halid Onat and Ahmet Orhan Arda, Anitkabir, Ankara, 1953, Photo: Wikimedia
Commons
60
Candidate Number: 102487
Bibliography
Primary Sources
 La Turquie Kemaliste (facsimiles are published online by Boyut Publishing Group), No 1-
47, 1934-1948, http://www.boyut.com.tr/ltk/book.asp?k=4 [last accessed 24 August 2013].
Secondary Sources
• Akcan, Esra, 'Towards a Cosmopolitan Ethics in Architecture: Bruno Taut’s Translations out
of Germany' New German Critique 99, Vol. 33, No.3, 2006, pp. 7-39.
• Alpagut, Leyla K., 'III. Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi Binasi Yarisma ve Yapim Sureci',
Mimarlik, no. 296, 2000, pp. 51-55.
• Batuman, Bulent, 'Identity, Monumentally, Security: Building a Monument in Early
Republican Ankara', Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 59, No. 1, 2005, pp.
34-45.
• Bozdogan, Sibel, Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the
Early Republic (Washington: University of Washington Press, 2001).
• Bozdogan, Sibel and Esra Akcan, Turkey: Modern Architectures in History (London:
Reaktion Books, 2012).
• Cohen, Jean-Louis, The Future of Architecture Since 1889 (London; New York: Phaidon
Press Limited, 2012).
• Erimtan, Can, 'Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Agaoglu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist
Construction of Nationhood in Anatolia', Anatolian Studies, Vol. 58, 2008, pp. 141-171.
• Ersan, Gokhan, 'Secularism, Islamism, Emblemata: The Visual Discourse of Progress in
Turkey', Design Issues, vol. 23, No. 2, 2007, pp. 66-82.
• Ersoy, Ahmet, 'Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Tanzimat Period',
Muqarnas, Vol. 24, 2004, pp. 117-139.
• Goethe Institut, 'Bir Baskentin Olusumu: Avusturyali, Alman ve Isvicreli Mimarlarin
Ankara'daki Izleri', GoetheInstitut.de, 2010,
http://www.goethe.de/ins/tr/ank/prj/urs/geb/mil/kas/trindex.htm [accessed 10 August 2013].
• Hanioglu, Sukru, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton; Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2008).
• Hattenhauer, Darryl, 'The rhetoric of architecture: A semiotic approach', Communication
61
Candidate Number: 102487
Quarterly, 32:1, 2009.
• Holod, Renata and Ahmet Evin (eds), Modern Turkish Architecture (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984).
• Ihsanoglu, Ekmeleddin, 'Ottoman Educational Institutions during the Reform Period',
Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation, April, 2004,
http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/ReformOttomans.pdf [accessed 4 August 2013].
• Kansu, Aykut, 1908 Devrimi (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari, 1995).
• Kansu, Aykut, 'Jansen'in Ankara'si Icin Ornek Bir “Bahce Sehir” ya da Siedlung: “Bahceli
Evler Yapi Kooperatifi”', Toplumsal Tarih, Sayi 187, Cilt 32, 2009, pp. 54-65.
• Kezer, Zeynep, 'Contesting Urban Space in Early Republican Ankara', Journal of
Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 52, No. 1, 1998, pp. 11-19.
• Kinross, Patrick, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (London:
Cape, 1977).
• Necipoglu, Gulru, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London,
Reaktion Books, 2005).
• Ousterhout, Robert, 'The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman
Architecture', Gesta, Vol. 43, No 2, 2004, pp. 170.
• Toynbee, Arnold, Cities on the Move (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
• Tuncay, Mete, et al., Turkiye Tarihi: Cagdas Turkiye 1908-1980, v. 4, (Istanbul: Cem
Yayinevi, 1997).
• Vale, Lawrence J., Architecture, Power, and National Identity (New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 1992).
62