400

 CULTURAL SPACES FOR NATIONAL AND LOCAL IDENTITIES
FROM THE 20TH TO THE 21ST CENTURY IN İZMİR-TURKEY


In this study, the production of collective identities, both national and local, and the
role of culture and heritage to this end in the production of spaces, will be evaluated
in the context of the Republic of Turkey and the case of the city of İzmir. The
construction of local identity by the local government’s interventions in cultural spaces
at the turn of the 21st century, will be analyzed as an alternative to the construction of
national identity in cultural spaces produced by the state during the 20th century. In
other words, how the nation-building process of the state was expanded to the local
identity building process will be studied. Thus, this thesis will analyze the relationship
between politics of culture and space by examining the cultural spaces established by
the state and the local government. The main goal is to understand the cultural politics
of central and local governments in a comparative frame by examining the spaces of
cultural institutions established in İzmir from the early 20th to the early 21st century.
Keywords: cultural space, identity, national, local, İzmir

Bu çalışma yerel ve milli olmak üzere kolektif kimlik üretimini kültür ve miras
mekanları üzerinden incelemektedir. Kültür ve miras mekanlarının kimlik oluşumu
üzerindeki rolü Türkiye bağlamında ve İzmir şehri örneği üzerinden
değerlendirilecektir. 20. yüzyıl boyunca devlet tarafından oluşturulan kültürel
mekânlar ulusal kimlik inşasını hedeflemekteydi. 21. yüzyılın başında ise yerel
yönetimler kültürel mekanlara müdahale etmeye başlamış, ulusal kimliğe alternatif
olabilecek yerel kimliklerin arayışına girmiştir. Bu tez devletin ulus inşa sürecinin
nasıl yerel kimlik inşa sürecine dönüştüğünü incelemektedir. Başka bir değişle bu
çalışma devlet ve yerel yönetim tarafından kurulan kültür mekanlarını inceleyerek
kültür ve mekân politikaları arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Temel
amaç İzmir’de 20. yüzyılın başından erken 21. yüzyıla kadar kurulan kültür
mekanlarını inceleyerek merkezi ve yerel yönetimlerin kültür politikalarının
karşılaştırmalı bir çerçevede anlamaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: kültürel mekân, kimlik, milli, yerel, İzmir
iv
To my lovely parents, Nur and Tevfik Tozkoparan, who have supported me
throughout my entire life…
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to those who have contributed to the
completion of this thesis. Their support, guidance, and encouragement have been
invaluable throughout this academic journey.
I am deeply indebted to my thesis advisor, T. Elvan Altan, for her unwavering support
and exceptional mentorship. Her expertise, constructive feedback, and dedication to
my research have been instrumental in shaping this work.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my thesis committee members, Pelin
Gürol Öngören and Ekin Pınar, for their valuable insights and recommendations.
I extend my thanks to my parents whose mentorship and wisdom have been a source
of inspiration and guidance during this research.
Lastly, I appreciate the academic resources, facilities, and opportunities provided by
Middle East Technical University and the Department of History of Architecture that
contributed to the successful completion of this thesis.
Thank you all for your contributions and support.
v i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM.............................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... ii
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... viii
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Aim and Scope ................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Literature Review and Methodology ............................................................... 4
1.3 Structure of the Study ...................................................................................... 5
2. CULTURAL SPACES BY THE STATE IN THE 20TH CENTURY .................. 8
2.1 Culture and Space for National Identity in Turkey ........................................ 12
2.2 Cultural Spaces by the State in İzmir ............................................................. 18
2.2.1 Constructing a New Cultural Space in the Early 20th Century:
Kültürpark (1936) .......................................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Cultural Spaces by the State in İzmir .................................................... 27
2.2.2.1 Museum of Painting and Sculpture (1967) ............................... 29
2.2.2.2. Museums of Archaeology (1984) and Ethnography (1984) ... 34
2.3 Concluding notes on Cultural Spaces by the State ....................................... 44
3. CULTURAL SPACES BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE 21ST
CENTURY ............................................................................................................... 46
3.1 Culture and Space for Local Identity in Turkey ............................................ 47
3.2 Cultural Spaces by the Local Government in İzmir ....................................... 51
3.2.1 Cultural Politics of Local Governments ............................................... 52
3.2.2 Re-Functioning Built Heritage as Cultural Spaces ............................... 62
vi i
3.2.2.1 From Culture Pavilion to History and Art Museum (2004) ..... 65
3.2.2.2 From Fire Station to City Museum and Archive (2004) ........... 73
3.2.2.3 From Coal Gas Factory to Cultural Center (2007) ................... 90
3.2.3 Constructing a New Cultural Space: Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art
Center (2008) ................................................................................................ 103
3.3 Concluding Notes on Cultural Spaces by Local Governments ..................... 113
4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 121
APPENDICES
A. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS LISTED IN THE MUNICIPAL
BOOKLET: Cultural Values and Urban Aesthetics …………………….. 131
B. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS LISTED IN THE MUNICIPAL
BOOKLET: Culture and Arts …………………………………………... 132
C. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET ............................................... 134
D. THESIS PERMISSON FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU ............................... 143
vi ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the case studies. Google maps, 2023 ...................................... 6
Figure 2: Arial photo of Kültürpark, Mimarlık, January-February 2016 ................ 24
Figure 3: Press release on Behçet Uz’s studies on cultural parks in Moscow.
Uz, 2011 ……………………………………………….……………….. 25
Figure 4: Kültürpark, plan, 1938. İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları ............ 26
Figure 5: İzmir Kültürpark project, 1990s. Architects: Merih Karaaslan,
Mürşit Günday, Şükrü Kocagöz. Source: Öztan, Mimarlık, 254 . .......... 27
Figure 6: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: google maps (2023) . 30
Figure 7: Plan of the Painting and Sculpture Museum on location.
Source: Arkitekt, 1977-02, p.53. .............................................................. 31
Figure 8: General plan of the museum. Source: Arkitekt, 1977-02, p.55. ............... 31
Figure 9: İzmir Museum of Painting and Sculpture in Konak (1973).
Source: Uhri, 2018, p.1889. .................................................................... 32
Figure 10: Exterior image of the current İzmir Archaeology Museum, Konak. Source:
Photos by the author, 2023. ..................................................................... 36
Figure 11: Interior image of the current İzmir Archaeology Museum, Konak.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023. ........................................................ 36
Figure 12: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: Uhri, 2018, p.130. .. 37
Figure 13: Interior of the museum, details. Source: Photos by the author, 2023. .... 38
Figure 14: Interior of the museum, details. Source: Photos by the author, 2023. .... 38
Figure 15: Interior of the museum, details. Source: Photos by the author, 2023. .... 38
Figure 16: Entrance Hall and exterior space. Source: Photo by the author, 2023. .. 39
Figure 17: Entrance Hall and exterior space. Source: Photo by the author, 2023. .. 39
Figure 18: Nr.116 - Józef Abajoli, İzmir 1929. A black and white postcard featuring
the historical building of the orphanage, constructed in the 19th century in the
neoclassical style; and the panoramic view of Kadifekale hills, currently
serving as the İzmir Ethnography Museum. Source: APIKAM Archives,
ix
https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/ArsivHizmetDetay/3249 .................................... 41
Figure 19: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: Uhri, 2018, p.138. ... 42
Figure 20: Details of İzmir Ethnography Museum, façade. Source: Photos by
the author, 2023. ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 21: Details of İzmir Ethnography Museum, façade. Source: Photos by
the author, 2023. ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 22: Images from the İzmir Ethnography Museum display.
Source: Online catalogue ......................................................................... 43
Figure 23: Images from the İzmir Ethnography Museum display. Source:
Online catalogue ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 24: Details, İzmir Ethnography Museum display. Source:
Online catalogue ...................................................................................... 44
Figure 25: Details, İzmir Ethnography Museum display.Source:
Online Catalogue…………. ……………………………………………44
Figure 26: Details, extensions added on the original edifice (air conditioners,
fire straits etc.). Source: Photos by the author, 2023. .............................. 44
Figure 27: Details, extensions added on the original edifice (air conditioners,
fire straits etc.). Source: Photos by the author, 2023. .............................. 44
Figure 28: Culture Pavilion, 1939. Translation [by the author] of the
text: “This pavilion, built at the fair by the Ministry of Education,
was constructed by the Ministry of Education office under the
supervision of Bruno Taut, who passed away last year.”
Source: Arkitekt 9-10 / 1939, p.202. ....................................................... 67
Figure 29: Culture Pavilion, façade. Source: Ardizzola, 2010, p.13. ....................... 68
Figure 30: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: Uhri, 2018, p.150 .... 71
Figure 31: İzmir History and Art Museum, entrance. Source: Online catalogue ..... 72
Figure 32: Ahmet Piriştina during the groundbreaking ceremony for IKEMA.
Source: https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/Apikam-Arsiv/1/29?tab=64 ......... 75
Figure 33: A view of the Fire Station building, 1932.
Source: https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/Apikam-Arsiv/1/29?tab=64 ......... 78
Figure 34: Fire Station Building, facilities. Source: İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir
Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, Mart 2002. ...................................................... 79
x
Figure 35: Fire Station Building, designed by Mesut Özok.
Source: http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php ?p=8570199 ........ 80
Figure 36: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: google maps,
2023 ......................................................................................................... 81
Figure 37: Fire Station tower seen from the courtyard. Source: Photo by the
author, 2023. ............................................................................................ 81
Figure 38: Fire Station tower seen from the courtyard. Source: Photo by the
author, 2023. ............................................................................................ 81
Figure 39: Exterior view from the street and details of the building. Source:
Photos by the author, 2023. ..................................................................... 82
Figure 40: Exterior view from the street and details of the building. Source:
Photos by the author, 2023. ..................................................................... 82
Figure 41: Plan of the Exhibition Hall in APIKAM. Source: Kutlu, 2007. ............. 83
Figure 42: Plan of the second floor. Source: Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002, p.29. .......... 84
Figure 43: An exhibition proposal and architectural plan. Source:
Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002, p.26. ................................................................. 84
Figure 44: The initial restoration plan of the archive. Source:
Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002. .......................................................................... 86
Figure 45: The initial restoration plan of the archive. Source:
Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002. ......................................................................... 86
Figure 46: Interior view of the current building. Source: Photos by the
author, 2023. ............................................................................................ 87
Figure 47: Interior view of the current building. Source: Photos by the
author, 2023. ............................................................................................ 87
Figure 48: Map of the urban expansion of İzmir in the 19th century.
Source: Source: Zandi-Sayek, 2012, p.26. .............................................. 92
Figure 49: Historical view of İzmir Port Hinterland. Source: İzmir Industrial
Heritage İnventory, n.d., p.15. ................................................................ 93
Figure 50: Industrial Heritage Map of İzmir Port Hinterland (Darağaç).
Source: İzmir Industrial Heritage Inventory, n.d., p.14. ......................... 94
Figure 51: Historical view of the Coal Gas Plant. Source: İzmir Industrial
Heritage Inventory, n.d., p.34. (courtesy of the R. Bayam Archive,
x i
2006) ............................................................................................................. 95
Figure 52: The Coal Gas Plant. Reconstructions after earthquake. Source:
APIKAM Archives (courtesy of Hughes family Archive, 1928). ........... 96
Figure 53: The Coal Gas Plant. Reconstructions after earthquake. Source:
APIKAM Archives (Courtesy of Hughes family Archive, 1928). .......... 96
Figure 54: The Coal Gas Plant. Reconstructions after earthquake. Source:
APIKAM Archives (Courtesy of Hughes family Archive, 1928). .......... 96
Figure 55: Complexes of the Coal Gas Factory. Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3-70..97
Figure 56: Map showing the vicinity of the center. Source: google maps, 2023 ..... 98
Figure 57: 1966 plan; site plan of 2008. Source: İzmir KTVKK Archive no. 1;
Ege Mimarlık 2009/ 3 70. p.33. ............................................................. 100
Figure 58: General view. Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70 ................................... 100
Figure 59: Map showing the vicinity of the museum. Source: google maps
(2023) ..................................................................................................... 105
Figure 60: Details from the old Trolleybus Garage site. Source: “Ahmed
Adnan Saygun Art Center Architectural Project Competition
Report”, January 2000. .......................................................................... 105
Figure 61: Details from the old Trolleybus Garage site. Source:
“Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center Architectural Project
Competition Report”, January 2000. .................................................... 105
Figure 62: Needs program of the municipality. Demanded facilities for the art
center. Source: “Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center Architectural
Project Competition Report”, January 2000. ......................................... 106
Figure 63: General view, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center. Source:
Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.37. .............................................................. 108
Figure 64: General view, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center. Source:
Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.37. .............................................................. 108
Figure 65: Layout Plan, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center. Source:
Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.38. .............................................................. 109
Figure 66: Floor plans, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center. Source:
Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.38. .............................................................. 110
x ii
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
… to change life, however, we must first change space.1
How can one perceive and experience the sense of space through the built
environment? Over the centuries, the concept of what a built space is and how it affects
human experience have been defined in relation to different needs. Primitively, a built
space could be understood as the answer to the basic need of a shelter in which one is
protected. In that sense, culture is a modern invention as it is far from being a basic
human need. Grand socio-economic changes like industrial revolution, economic
expansion, modernization, nationalism, globalism, and locality in recent history have
transformed the perception and the formation of the concept of space. Thus, cultural
appropriation found a new place in the urban culture since the new modern needs like
status, social engagement, acculturation, and active participation in the urban
environment grew out of the need to socialize. In other words, space needs to evolve
alongside human experience.
The developing relationship between culture and space, as in spaces of culture and
cultural spaces in the built environment, has evolved around this change in cities and
with the consequent birth of the new urbanite identity. As Lewis Mumford emphasized
the emergence of the city and its correlation with the changing needs, from sheltering
to social interactions: “Cities arise out of man’s social needs and multiply both their
modes and their methods of expression.”2 Mumford even refers to the city as a form
1 Lefebvre, Henri, The Production of Space, (1974) Blackwell. Translated by Nicolson-Smith, Donald,
England. 1991, p.190.
2 Mumford, Lewis, The Culture of Cities, Harvest HNJ Book, 1938, p.4.
2
of art which embodies the undeniable connection of the new modern “space” with
“culture” in the form of art, history, and heritage. For Mumford, the city is a conscious
work of art where space is “artfully reorganized … in boundary lines and silhouettes,
in the fixing of horizontal places and vertical peaks, in utilizing or denying the natural
site, the city records the attitude of a culture and an epoch to the fundamental facts of
its existence … with language itself, it reminds man’s greatest work of art.”3 In this
respect, it can be said that culture (in the form of arts and heritage) is collected,
confined, preserved, and reshaped within urban space.
The relationship between culture and space has become stronger with the emergence
of the modern city, especially in the 20th century. In that regard, what is meant by
culture in this context needs further explanation: “culture relates to different forms of
human life, it confers identity, meaning, worth, aspirations and a sense of place.”4
Thus, the sense of the word “culture” can vary in definition. This research uses the
concept to specify following policies: acknowledging historical heritage, being
involved in arts and creative fields, educating, and creating a sense of belonging. As
for spaces of culture, museums with the aim of educating the public (especially the
nation as a whole), and arts and culture centers with the aim of involving the public in
artistic and cultural activities to create a sense of belonging (especially for the locality)
will be discussed in following chapters.
The place began to be understood in relation to a specific urban context as new actors
were developing in opposition to the central authorities in the late 20th century, i.e.
around the turn of the 1980s. During the 1970s, in most European countries and
especially the ones that had a political sensibility for culture, like France per say, new
ways were sought for to develop cultural affairs through decentralization of cultural
activities and edifices. Towards the 21st century, the relationship of culture and
urbanism developed as culture was no longer only a product of the nation-state but it
3 Ibid.p.5.
4 Papazoglou, Grammatiki, “Society and Culture: Cultural policies driven by local authorities as a factor
in local development - The example of the municipality of Xanthi Greece,” Heritage Case Report
Department of Social Policy Panteion University, 5 September 2019.
3
could be understood in a much narrower and local sense.5 Decentralization movement,
which shifted the empowered authorities from central to local government, resulted in
an increase of cultural organizations and edifices initiated by local authorities. This in
fact proves in a way that culture can function on the local arena to ameliorate the nation
because the global cannot function without the local6 as cities become the core
parameters of politics, economy, and culture in a society. Understanding the
proliferation of culture in the urban scene, politics and strategies around heritage and
conservation need to be discussed as preserving heritage is the main motive behind
cultural appropriation which reflects itself through cultural institutionalization.
1.1. Aim and Scope
Gönül Tankut stated that, “in the 21stt century, the ability and success of countries to
preserve their natural and historical environments is prominent not only as natural and
cultural wealth but also as a political power and source of prestige.” In that regard,
this thesis analyzes the relationship between politics of culture and production of space
by examining the cultural spaces established by the state and the local government,
İzmir Metropolitan Municipality. The exemplary cases of these so-called cultural
spaces are chosen in their ability to display national and local culture. In other words,
this study will first focus on state-initiated museums in terms of their role in national
identity building through the display of national heritage. Secondly, other spaces
alongside educative museums such as culture centers, and exhibition areas alongside
local museums will be evaluated for another identity building process, which will
focus on locality instead. The main goal is to understand the cultural politics of central
and local governments in a comparative frame by examining the spaces of cultural
institutions established in İzmir from the early 20th to the early 21st century.
The production of collective identities, both national and local, and the role of culture
and heritage to this end in the production of spaces will be evaluated in a broader
5 Anheier, Helmut K and Raj Isar Yudhishthir, The Cultures and Globalization Series 1: Conflicts and
Tensions, Sage Publications, 2007, p.4.
6 Babaie, Susan, “The Global in the Local Implicating Iran in Art and History,” in Dissonant Archives:
Contemporary Visual Culture and Contested Narratives in the Middle East, ed. Anthony Downey, I.B
TAURIS London, 2015, p.253.
4
sense. The construction of local identity by the local government’s interventions in
cultural spaces at the turn of the 21st century, will be analyzed as an alternative to the
construction of national identity in cultural spaces produced by the state during the
20th century. In other words, how the nation-building process of the state was
expanded to the local identity building process will be studied. The political agendas
of the state and the local governments, from the 1930s to the early 2000s, will be
compared to evaluate their relationship with culture through their use of space.
1.2. Literature Review and Methodology
The research initially focuses on the relationship of politics, culture, and space. Thus,
cultural politics will be introduced in relation to urban space as formed with the aim
of forming national and local identity. For these purposes, the literature on the relation
between cultural politics and space (architectural and urban) has been used to
understand the general scope with an emphasis on cultural politics in local contexts.7
In addition, cultural politics, and the use of museum spaces in nation building from
the Ottoman period to Republican period is evaluated to understand how museums
were depicted as tools in public education and the formation of a national identity.
Moreover, the use of heritage and the display of heritage is evaluated within the use
of museums for nation building processes.8 The second main literature is formatted
7 For detailed information on cultural politics and space see: Anico, Marta, “Representing identities at
local municipal museums: Cultural forums or identity bunkers?” p.66-67 in Heritage and Identity, ed.
Elsa Peralta and Marta Anico, Routledge, 2009; Babic, Darko. “Bridging the Boundaries between
Museum and Heritage Studies,” Museum International 68: 1-2, 2016, p. 15-28; Ed. Macdonald, Sharon,
and Fyfe, Gordon, Theorizing Museums: Representing identity and diversity in a changing world,
Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, 1996; Ed.Bozdoğan Sibel, Kasaba Reşat, Modernism
and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic, University of Washington
Press, 2001; Papazoglou, Grammatiki. “Society and Culture: Cultural policies driven by local
authorities as a factor in local development - The example of the municipality of Xanthi Greece,”
Heritage Case Report Department of Social Policy Panteion University, 5 September 2019; Uysal,
Yusuf & Atmaca, Yıldız. “Evaluation of Central and Local Government Relations in Turkey Within
The Framework of Governance Model,” Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 3, 2018,
p.411-424, Yarışması. Unpublished Competition Report, January 2000; Üstel, Füsun. Kültür
Politikasına Giriş: Kavramlar, Modeller Tartışmalar, İletişim Yayınları, 2021.
8 For detailed information on the use of museum and heritage for building a national identity see: Ergut
(Altan) T.Elvan, “The Forming of the National In Architecture,” METU JFA, 1999; Gürol-Öngören,
Pelin, “Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from the Late Ottoman
Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical
University, June 2012; Özge Sade, Fatma, “Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,” Unpublished
Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, May 2015; Shaw, Wendy, “Museums and Narratives of
5
around the architectural and urban development of İzmir with an emphasis on the use
of cultural spaces - museums, exhibition areas, cultural parks and culture & art centersby
the central government and the local authorities. A general municipal history and
the architectural development of İzmir from the early Republican period to the latest
formation of cultural spaces is surveyed.9 The development of cultural spaces initiated
by the municipality of İzmir is analyzed through a literature survey on the
municipality’s publications, APIKAM archives, the architectural reports and critical
writings on the analyzed case studies [in architectural magazines like Arkitekt and Ege
Mimarlık], survey’s written on the reception of these buildings, and periodicals
published on İzmir’s cultural buildings. Through these findings, an evaluation on the
outcome of these municipal initiations has been made to detect whether the formation
of a local identity could be seen as an alternative following the national identity
building of the 20th century. Furthermore, following the exemplary cases, the use of
the cultural spaces in local political agenda has been questioned through the
municipality’s understanding of architectural and urban development.
1.3. Structure of the Study
The study is divided into two chapters, focusing on the changing chronological frame
of analysis from the 20th to the 21st century. (Fig.1) Following Chapter 1,
“Introduction”, Chapter 2 analyzes “Cultural Spaces by the State in the 20th Century”.
The initial part of the chapter will delve into the relationship between cultural politics
and the utilization of cultural spaces in shaping a national identity in Turkey. This
exploration will assess the intersection of space and culture within the context of stateinitiated
cultural spaces, by examining in the next part of the chapter the establishment
Display from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic,” Muqarnas, 2007. vol.24 p.253 in
History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the Lands of Rum, 2007.
9 For detailed information on the architectural and urban history of İzmir see: Anon. 150.Yılında İzmir
Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017; Anon. 1999-2003 İzmir
Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı, 15.04.2003; Anon. 2000’de İzmir’de Neler
Oldu? İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2000; Ed. Serçe, Erkan. 150.Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-
2017). Cilt I & Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2018; Ed. Yılmaz Ahenk, Kılınç Kıvanç and Pasin,
Burkay, İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları, İletişim, 2015; Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde
2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi,Akdeniz
Akademisi, 2018ü, p.24; Uz, Behçet, der. L.Ece Sakar, Atatürk’ün İzmiri: bir kentin yeniden doğuşu,
Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011.
6
of Kültürpark (Culture Park) and the construction of the state museums, i.e., Museum
of Painting and Sculpture (1967), Archaeology Museum (1984), and Ethnography
Museum (1984).
Figure 1: Location of the case studies.
1. İzmir Museum of Painting and Sculpture (1967)
2. Left: İzmir Archaeology Museum (1984) /
Right: İzmir Ethnography Museum (1984)
3. İzmir History and Art Museum (2004)
4. Ahmet Piriştina City Museum and Archive (2004)
5. Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center (2008)
6. İzmir Historical Gas Station Building and Cultural Center (2008-2009)
Source: Marked by the author on the screenshot from google maps, 2023.
Chapter 3 analyzes “Cultural Spaces by the Local Government in the 21st Century”.
The initial part of the chapter will introduce the utilization of culture and space for the
formation of local identity. The next part of the chapter will concentrate on the cultural
spaces in İzmir initiated by the local government, following an introductory section
on the development of the İzmir municipality in order to understand the cultural
7
politics of the local government. The next section will discuss different strategies of
re-functioning-built heritage as cultural spaces, as in the cases of History and Art
Museum (2004), Ahmet Piriştina City Archive and Museum (APIKAM) (2004), Coal
Gas Factory Cultural Center (2007), or constructing new cultural spaces as Ahmed
Adnan Saygun Art Center (2008), employed in shaping local identity of İzmir by
fostering a desired connection between the city and its residents.
8
CHAPTER 2
CULTURAL SPACES BY THE STATE IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Studying the relation between cultural spaces and state politics, heritage becomes a
main focus of analysis. According to UNESCO’s definition, cultural heritage is “in its
broadest sense, both a product and a process, which provides societies with a wealth
of resources that are inherited from the past, created in the present and bestowed for
the benefit of future generations.”10 Accordingly, in order to evaluate cultural spaces,
this study begins by asking why there is a need to preserve heritage, and furthermore,
why it is displayed. Heritage is related to the attempt to remember a past time.11 In
fact, architectural space, and its preservation, is indeed related to a certain spatial
nostalgia, which triggers remembrance of the past.12 Thus, selecting certain elements,
objects, buildings, or spaces of historical heritage, could create a nostalgic feeling to
glorify certain historical elements. This element of nostalgia could be seen as an inner
trigger in building identity as it glorifies a certain past over the intolerable presence.
Political ideology and a deliberate selective narrative were dominant in building
identity especially for nation-states, and heritage was the main tool. The notions of
nostalgia and remembrance through preserved space reflect themselves as different
10 https://artcultureinside.wordpress.com/2020/12/28/lets-talk-about-cultural-heritage/
11 Preserving and transferring a remainder of a past life has a romantic meaning alongside the historical
value. Giorgio Vasari mentions, in his famous book about the lives of the artists, Lives of the Most
Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, that the very first motive of an artist was the need of
remembrance: ‘‘… nor could the humble fortunes of many prevent their energies from attaining to the
highest rank, whether in order to live in honor or to leave in the ages to come eternal fame for all their
rare excellence.’’ The artists wanted to leave an eternal heritage, after their passing, to future
generations. That way, their lives and their creations would leave a trace of their so-called ‘‘rare
excellences.’’ Vasari, Giorgio, Les vies des plus excellents peintres, sculpteurs et architectes,Paris, éd.
Dorbon-Ainé, Tome I, trad.Charles Weiss.1550.1900: 3, English quote from: Newly Translated by
Gaston Du C. De Vere, Macmillan and CO LD & The Medici Society, LD. 1550. 1912-14.
12 Nostalgia is ‘‘a shaping of history according to subjective interest and desires.’’ Magagnoli, Paolo,
‘‘Critical Nostalgia in the Art of Joachim Koester,’’ Oxford Art Journal vol.34 no.1, 2011, p.99.
9
tactics of spatial commemoration. John Urry emphasizes that the past is being
“continually recreated” by different societies to create a sense of “nationality” around
the remembrance of the glorious past as “a certain view of the past is necessarily
conservative and deflects attention from the possibilities of change in the future.”13
For Urry, heritage merged with nostalgia could be a coping mechanism for some
nations who are on the verge of change as the past is converted into “simple narratives
and spectacles” and “history is turned into heritage and made safe.”14 In other words,
with triggers like nostalgia and remembrance, heritage thus functions as ideology.
Societies use remembrance through constructed space and re-using historical
buildings according to their ideologies and strategies of constructing a collective
memory.
Darko Babic explains that heritage is usually discussed around dual terms, one as
related to usage and the other to consumption, divided into socio-political and
economic levels.15 On the one hand preserving and displaying heritage through
institutionalized space provokes an identity building of different nations, and on the
other hand it brings economic assets through tourism. In that regard, it might be
possible to discuss heritage as a possession triggering contemporary political strategies
for changing societies in the name of globalism. Babic underlines the power of
heritage as a socio-political tool, saying that “another important dimension of heritage
lies in its being quite a powerful cultural and socio-political resource.”16 Through the
deliberate use of heritage, it is possible to “create and influence socio-political
relations and dynamics to forge (and manipulate) a diverse range of important relations
within a given society.”17 In the hands of different nations, heritage could become a
powerful medium in shaping societies through the concept of representation and
selective narration. In that regard, the spaces where culture is exhibited and mainly
13 Urry, John, ‘‘How societies remember the past,’’Ed. Macdonald, Sharon, and Fyfe, Gordon,
Theorizing Museums: Representing identity and diversity in a changing world, Blackwell
Publishers/The Sociological Review, 1996, p.53.
14 Ibid.p.52.
15 Babić, Darko, ‘‘Bridging the Boundaries between Museum and Heritage Studies,’’ Museum
International 68: 1-2, 2016, p.17-18.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
1 0
museums among these spaces become an important tool in building identity. Cultural
spaces of display convey representation of different nations, through national
narratives of heritage and history. These spaces, initially museums but also cultural
centers, institutions, gallery spaces and art platforms, play a key role in building
national/social identity by shaping through education. Culture becoming the main
focus for this process of nation-building correlates with the increase of museums
around the world in the 19th century while the idea of nation-state was thriving. In
other words, museums became the apparatuses for public education in the formation
of collective memory and national identity and their transference and presentation to
the public in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The concept of museums, in the sense of displaying collections, artifacts and objects
that reflect certain curiosity, was initially realized in the 16th-17th centuries with
cabinets of curiosity as the most well-known example in Western history. The
institutionalization of museums and museum-like institutions evolved around the
enlightenment era and developed in the 19th century. Then, museums became socially
and politically engaged entities, especially after the French Revolution when the
former Louvre Palace was converted into a public museum. Peter Vergo in his book
The New Museology emphasized the political dimension of museums by stating the
following: “The very act of collecting has a political or ideological or aesthetic
dimension which cannot be overlooked.”18 Whatever the reason for collecting or
displaying is, according to Vergo, will always have a political reasoning. He argues
that every motive around museum and display derives from a certain “construction
upon history.”19 Thus, it might be possible to state that museums and cultural
institutions are undoubtedly political components. Consequently, museum spaces
could be regarded as social and political environments which form a bridge between
past, present and future. In Lewis Mumford’s words, museums give the individual “a
means of coping with the past, of having significant intercourse with other periods and
other modes of life without confining our own activities to the molds created by the
18 Ed.Vergo, Peter, The New Museology, Reaction Books, Intro.p.2.
19 Ibid.
1 1
past.”20 According to Prösler, museums are particularly important in nation-states as
their function is to “strengthen cultural identity and consciousness in the face of rapid
and world-wide cultural change; to strengthen national identity within an international
system of states; and to make use of the educational potential of museums in the
context of development.”21 Museums are important for the building of the nationstates
in their attempt of forming a common identity. In other words, the idea of a
“common culture rooted in a common history,”22 deriving from nationalistic ideals,
was reflected in museology and cultural institutionalization.
Cultural spaces could be defined as places where heritage, as buildings and artifacts,
is displayed. How can the state and local governments define culture and heritage, and
use space to display these in built form? This chapter will initially focus on the broader
sense of the use of heritage and the cultural space to build a national identity and a
new sense of nationhood in Turkey. While heritage becomes an important tool for
nation-states like Turkey, museum space becomes an important element in displaying
this heritage through a selected narration. The first part of the chapter will try to
understand, in a comparative perspective with the European cases, museums becoming
a tool for nation building in Turkey. Then, in the second part, the approach of the state
to museum-formation will be analyzed in a more local context through the example of
İzmir, and the correlation between nation-building, identity shaping, and the
development of museums and other cultural spaces will be evaluated. A broader
understanding of the topic in the national context, as well as a specific understanding
in the local context, will help the reader to better understand the consequences of the
attempt to relate culture and space.
The second main focus on İzmir during the 20th century will analyze cultural spaces
including the first state museums in the city. Cultural politics and the establishment of
different cultural spaces including museums, culture parks, exhibition and gallery
20 Mumford states that especially the art museum offers a selective preservation of “the memorials of
culture.” Mumford, Lewis, The Culture of Cities, HBJ Books, London, Intro.p. 4.
21 Prösler, Martin, “Museums and Globalization,” in Theorizing Museums, ed. Sharon Macdonald and
Gordon Fyfe, Blackwell Publishers/ The Sociological Review, 1996, p.22-23.
22 Ergut, T.Elvan, “The Forming of the National in Architecture,” METU JFA, 1999, p.32.
1 2
spaces initiated by the state in İzmir will be explained in this part in order to
comprehend the cultural development of the city of İzmir.
2.1. Culture and Space for National Identity in Turkey
Through the material fact of preservation, time challenges time, time clashes with
time; habits and values carry over beyond the living group, streaking with different
strata of time the character of any single generation. Layer upon layer, past times
preserve themselves in the city until life itself is finally threatened with suffocation:
then, in the sheer defense, modern man invents the museum.23
In the early Republican period, the spatial definition for culture is being reflected,
mostly, on museum edifices and display of historical, archeological, and ethnographic
collections. For the central government, following the republican revolutionary
agenda, culture was another means for education and legitimization of the national
identity. Thus, museums established by the state were the main cultural spaces of the
20th century, from the early Republican period until about the end of the 1980s.
The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, founded in 1982 following the 1971 Ministry
of Culture24, defines “Turkish culture” as “a comprehensive concept which
encompasses both material and spiritual values that bestow a distinct identity upon a
society. … Culture fosters a sense of solidarity and unity among individuals, while
also serving as a mechanism for maintaining order within the community.”25 This
definition of culture explains the initial motive and the place in which Turkey stands
in cultural politics. Even the definition of culture itself is seen as an “identity
provider.”26 The Republican approach to culture followed this definition and used the
23 Mumford, Lewis, The Culture of Cities, HBJ Books, London, Intro.p. 4.
24 The fact that the Ministry of National Education was responsible for museums until the foundation
of the Ministry of Culture in the 1970s, is also telling of the relation established between nation and
culture through most of the decades of the 20th century.
25 Definition of Turkish Culture by the Ministry of Culture & Tourism: “Kültür topluma bir kimlik
kazandıran, dayanışma ve birlik duygusu verdiği toplumda düzeni de sağlayan maddi ve manevi
değerlerin bütünüdür.” https://www.ktb.gov.tr/TR-96254/kultur.html
26 Ibid.
1 3
museum to instrumentalize cultural spaces in building identity. Museums and the
institutionalization of culture during the early Republican era was strictly related to
the central government and this situation did not change up until the 1980s when the
first private museums began to open. Fatma Özge Sade in her thesis underlines the
fact that, during these early years, “… museums were - just like institutions such as
Academy of Fine Arts, Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and Turkish General
Staff - under governmental authorities."27 She continues stating that the very first
private sector museums had to wait until 1981 to be established without governmental
interventions when the law which enabled the foundation of private museums was
passed.28 In this context, in Turkey, museums were generally state driven institutions
up until the 1980s when the governmental policies changed after the military coup and
museums diversified.
Although every state, nation and culture responded differently to developments in
museology occurring around the world, a similar attitude has been valid for the
emergence of museums. Exhibiting cultural heritage and artifacts through institutional
museums developed in a comparative process with the European cases. Pelin Gürol
Öngören states in her thesis that the "first Ottoman museums could be deemed to have
utilized a similar strategy in functioning as vehicles for the construction of a collective
identity."29 For Ottomans this attempt, of amplifying collective and national identity
through museums, started in the late 19th century, i.e. the period of the revolutionary
atmosphere in the Ottoman Empire. Tanzimat reforms and evolving nationalistic ideas
resulted in multiple visits to Europe which attracted the Ottoman bureaucrat’s
attention to museums and strategies of display. Gürol highlights the importance of an
identity reclaim by stating that the museums emerged not only because of an extension
of modernization attempts but Ottomans understood the importance of claiming one’s
own identity through heritage; “Ottomans … were also processing nationalist ideals
27 Özge Sade, Fatma, ‘‘Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,’’ Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, May 2015, p.48.
28 Ibid.
29 Gürol-Öngören, Pelin, ‘‘Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from
the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,’’ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle
East Technical University, June 2012, p.45.
1 4
aspiring to stake out a claim of their national heritage to be utilized in search of tracing
their roots and forming collective identity of the Ottoman Empire.”30
Wendy Shaw believed museums and culture display in non-West countries does not
fit under the Hegelian model of history, nevertheless museums in these countries were
an institutional response to legitimize themselves through “national strength and
ownership of the legacy of civilization.”31 She highlights the function of museums in
the Ottoman Empire which was not an acculturation or an artistic motive but a
territorial one. Through museums, the 19th century Ottoman Empire sought a
territorial reclamation of the Ottoman identity to create a narrative of territory which
differentiated the use of cultural institutions from Western counterparts.32 This
differentiation is highly important as it defines different roles of cultural
institutionalization and sets aside the example of Turkey not just from Europe but also
from different non-Western (post-colonial) nation-states. Moreover, this
differentiation underlines the Ottomans’ initial perspective on heritage which would
have a direct effect on Turkey’s strategies on displaying heritage after the foundation
of the Republic. Just like the Ottoman Empire, Turkey continued to see heritage as
means of building national identity through a selective narrative. This in a way
confirms the notion that Raphael Samuel stated in 1994: “there are in any society
different theaters of memory”33 and this assumption might be applied to museum
spaces as well as other cultural institutions and their reflections in each society, nation
and even a local city. In another sense, the Republican ideal of forming a new
30 Ibid.p.59. Wendy Shaw differentiates the use of heritage and the use of arts in the Ottoman Empire
which is a significant element considering that all museums do not bring heritage and arts together. As
for museology, the most important difference, according to Shaw, between the Western countries and
the Ottomans, and also the Turkish Republic afterwards, is the correlation of museums with art history
and identity. In other words, the motive behind the development of museums is different: ‘‘… the
European model of the museum developed concurrently with the discipline of art history. In contrast,
in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, museums developed not in alignment with a
discipline focusing on the visual but rather in direct association with narratives of territoriality, ethnicity
and nationhood.’’ Shaw, Wendy, ‘‘Museums and Narratives of Display from the Late Ottoman Empire
to the Turkish Republic,’’ Muqarnas, 2007, vol.24, p.253 in History and Ideology: Architectural
Heritage of the Lands of Rum, 2007.
31 Shaw, p.256.
32 Ibid. p.258.
33 Urry, John, “How societies remember the past,” Ed. Macdonald, Sharon, and Fyfe, Gordon,
Theorizing Museums: Representing identity and diversity in a changing world, Blackwell
Publishers/The Sociological Review, 1996, p.47.
1 5
nationhood and the important role of cultural institutions could be understood in this
regard. The motive was similar although the strategy of selecting a narrative which
would highlight the chosen identity was different.
That is why it is not surprising to depict the importance of archaeology and
ethnography in early Republican museums. Heritage studies around this period
revolved around finding a root for the new Turkish identity which would go far beyond
the Islamic and Ottoman heritage. New Turkey was in search of a new national
heritage line which would align better with the ideology of the newly founded Turkish
Republic.
… Turkey as the country entered a new era, arguing that it was now
no longer a question of instructing individuals how to walk,
talk and read like a secular citizen of the modern world,
but of how to consume culture like one.34
The Turkish History Thesis could be a primary source in depicting the strategy
towards heritage studies in the early Republican period. Ali Artun explains the
perspective towards heritage and the outcomes on museumification by referring to the
thesis that, "by skipping Ottoman and Islamic history and instead quipping museums
with the universal civilizations of European modernity, it seemed possible to awaken
a past rooted in the same origins."35 Artun continues saying that the Turkish History
Thesis defined how Turkish museology and history writing was rationalized. This
nation building process was seen as the main component of progress during the early
Republican period; as T. Elvan Altan highlights, “It must also be remembered that the
desire to have a ‘national identity’ itself is something that is related to ‘nation-state
formation as a modern phenomenon with its specific aim of progress.”36 According to
Altan, the national identity and the “national in the historiography are characterized
by a search for roots, especially in terms of traditional architectural forms and
34Smith, Sarah-Neel, “The Semiperipheral Art Gallery: A Case Study in 1950s Istanbul,” Third Text,
Routledge, May 2020, p.20.
35Artun, Ali, Mümkün Olmayan Müze: Müzeler ne gösteriyor? İletişim, 2017, p.58.
36 Ergut, T.Elvan, “The Forming of the National in Architecture,” METU JFA, 1999, p.32.
1 6
styles.”37 In that regard, this search for roots could be traced through cultural spaces
and especially museums being built around Turkey and the focus on archaeology and
ethnography - especially around the early years of the Republic - becomes even more
evident.
Museums and heritage places became especially important in the Republican era as
the main goal was to define the national identity by breaking free from Ottoman
cultural heritage. New cultural institutions were needed as “they play an important
role in characterizing the shared culture of the nation.”38 In Gürol-Öngören’s words,
“the goal of the newly founded state of Turkish Republic was to find the best
representation of a ‘modern’ and secular ‘nation’, and to create a new Turkish identity
and Turkish image which required new symbols to support the revolutionary
program.”39 Thus, museology and conservation and preservation as strategies of
displaying heritage developed in the Republican era. Building a new identity required
a complete break from the Ottoman heritage which brought upon a selective narrative
around culture and heritage. Similarly, Ali Artun quotes Benedict Anderson while
talking about museum spaces in the Early Republican period: “According to Benedict
Anderson [the writer of Imagined Communities], you need three notions to
institutionalize the idea of a nation: a population, a map and a museum.”40 Artun
highlights the importance of archeological museums in nation building and firmly
believes that museums are the main instruments in nation building. According to Artun
the Early Republic used museums and archaeology to historicize the national identity
and the Hittite Museum41 (now the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations) founded in
1921 in Ankara is the very first proof of this governmental ideology.
Zeynep Kezer also examines the identity building process that aimed at a selective
display. She gives the example of a particular exhibition, the Turkish History
37 Ibid.
38 Shaw, p.264.
39 Gürol-Öngören, Pelin, p.147.
40 Artun, p.54.
41 Gürol-Öngören, Pelin ‘‘Ersnt A.Egli’nin Ankara’da inşa edilecek Milli Kütüphane, Akademi ve
Müze Projesi,’’ Mimarlık Ocak-Şubat 2016.
1 7
Exhibition inaugurated in 1937 in Dolmabahçe Palace, which could be regarded as a
perfect example of the selective narrative that the new regime reflected. The main aim
of such a display was to educate people and to create this “profound myth” by inserting
a “proud sense of shared history and common destiny as a unified nation.”42 After the
long tale of the Independence War and its traumas, the Turkish Republic was
represented as a Phoenix rising from the ashes. In other words, “The early Republican
period employed the practice of exhibiting in such a way by representing a selected
version of material culture to construct a certain frame of collective identity.”43
Museums and cultural institutions, thus, functioned as a tool for the state to reflect the
new republican project of building the nation with different roots and breaking away
from the Ottoman heritage. The very first museums and institutions in Turkey were
state driven.44 Thus, it might be possible to state that heritage and museology in Turkey
were highly ideological and developed in line with the process of national identity
formation. As for identity building, museums, especially archaeology and
ethnography museums that provide the relation with heritage, i.e. the past of the
nation, were the main instruments for forming this new nationhood.
Following the early Republican period, in the 1950s, the Democrat Party (Demokrat
Parti - DP) took over the authority from the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet
Halk Partisi - CHP), which was the founding party of the Republic. This meant a
change in the political scene as well as the policies followed. Özge Sade explains this
transition as a result of the change in power, stating, “… it should be noted that the
number of museums established increased rapidly until 1950, but between 1950 and
1960, this growth slowed down. This can be attributed to the fact that the Democrat
42Kezer, Zeynep, Building Modern Turkey: State, Space, and Ideology in the Early Republic, University
of Pittsburgh Press, 2015.
43 Gürol Öngören, Pelin, “Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from
the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle
East Technical University, June 2012, p.147.
44 Gürol-Öngören classifies the very first institutions founded in the early Republican era under three
categories: state museums, institutions established by local authorities and depots. While many
museums were established, old edifices such as Ottoman palaces were also converted into museums in
the early Republican years, Ankara Ethnography Museum and the Hittite Museum, later Anatıolian
Civilizations Museum, are significant examples of the first museums of Turkey. Gürol-Öngören, p146.
1 8
Party, which assumed power in 1950, held different political perspectives from the
previous government.”45 This suggests that there was a shift in priorities regarding
cultural politics.The period between the 1960s and the 1980s was defined by the
military coups of May 27, 1960 and September 12, 1980. In between these coups,
Turkey witnessed political, military and economic tensions. In this period, many
museums were initiated by the state in Turkey. After the first coup in 1960, the state
initiated the National Development Plan which included culture among other fields.
Özge Sade points out the importance of the museums after the 1961 constitution: “The
1961 constitution possessed a more liberal and democratic framework. Therefore, we
can attribute the foundation of cultural institutions, such as museums, during this
period to the conductive environment facilitated by this new constitution.”46
During the 1960s and the 1970s cultural institutions of the time were usually state
museums founded by the central authorities, and new private galleries began to be
opened in İstanbul and Ankara, albeit few in number. The foundation of the Ministry
of Culture, in 1971, was a milestone in Turkey’s cultural politics. Museums and
cultural spaces gained more importance after this as they were important tools both
for education and for touristic (and thus economic) achievements. In other words, in
Turkey, “the late 1960s and early 1970s can be primarily seen as preparatory periods
for the cultural and artistic environment that emerged after 1980,”47 to be examined in
the next chapter. The next part of this chapter, on the other hand, will center on the
transformations that took place in İzmir and how the Republican approach to state
museums manifested itself within the city.
2.2. Cultural Spaces by the State in İzmir
The city of İzmir has been defined by many names over the centuries, i.e. a small
Aegean province, a port city, the trade capital of the Ottoman Empire, “Paris of the
45 Özge Sade, Fatma, ‘‘Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,’’ Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, May 2015, p.48-49.
46 Translated by the author. Özge Sade, Fatma, ‘‘Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,’’ Unpublished
Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, May 2015, p.68.
47 Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, ‘‘1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,’’ Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.11.
1 9
East,” “Pearl of the East Mediterranean,” cosmopolitan Smyrna, a modern metropole,
“Gavur [infidel] İzmir”, etc. In addition to all definitions, the 1922 fire and the
founding of the new Republican state can be seen as a turning point for the
transformation of the identity of İzmir. The 1922 fire was, in a way, the end of
historical Smyrna and the birth of Turkish and modern İzmir. “It [İzmir] was known
as gavur (infidel) İzmir by Muslims during the Ottoman period (…) not only because
so many of its inhabitants were non-Muslims, but also because of the dominance in
the city’s economic and socio-cultural life of the ‘Levantines’ or ‘Franks’ - foreigners
of European origin - and the centrality and importance of their districts in its urban
geography.”48 The Turkish-Greek war, the fire, and the population exchange between
Turkey and Greece following the foundation of the Republic, all of these
developments drastically changed the nature of the population in İzmir. The city went
from mostly a non-Muslim, and European Smyrna to mostly Muslim, Turkish İzmir.
Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis points out another aspect of this demographic change, and
she underlines the disruption of the collective way of living amongst these different
populations; “Gavur İzmir, meaning the city which had a majority of non-Muslim
population since the 19th century, no longer exists. As a result, the proposed model of
coexistence for the city’s residents ceased to exist.”49 İzmir had to rise upon the ashes
of its former self as the city was literally demolished and abandoned after the fire.
The city was facing many problems in both social and spatial terms. At the same time,
a blank canvas presented itself: politically, physically, and culturally, the city was
about to be re-invented so as to create a new identity; and cultural spaces played an
important role in this new invention. With the Republic, the transformation of the
country along the lines of the nationalist and modernist processes of the state was the
core element of the state program. Therefore, like other cities, İzmir had to be restored
and recreated not only because the fire devoured the city but because there was a new
state that aimed at a new identity for the public. Cana Bilsel highlights the importance
of a thorough transformation during the republican modernization: “It aims to not only
48 Kolluoğlu Kırlı, Biray, ‘‘Forgetting the Smyrna Fire,’’ History Workshop Journal, Oxford University,
2005.
49 Bilsel, Cana, ‘‘Yangın, Bir Yaşam Modelinin Sonu,’’ in İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent Mi?
Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İletişim Yayınları, 2008, p.236.
2 0
change institutions but also reference systems, lifestyles and particularly mindsets.”50
Bilsel defines this modernization which became effective in İzmir especially in the
1930s as a “comprehensive yet accelerated” process.51
This part of the chapter will examine the resultant formation of cultural spaces by the
state in İzmir starting from the early 20th century and continuing during the second
half of the 20th century. The first section focuses on the development of Kültürpark
(Culture Park) in İzmir, which is regarded as the most important governmental
achievement of producing a cultural space during the early Republican period. It was
constructed on a zone particularly important for the Republic, a district which had
formerly been known as the European quarter and was destroyed by the fire.
Kültürpark is the first social, economic and cultural initiation of the new state in İzmir
and it had national importance as well as an international recognition of its time with
the fairs organized on this site. The very first state museum of the new İzmir was
established in Kültürpark. In addition, the park itself was designed to become an area
of display of İzmir’s and Turkey’s achievements in social, industrial, and economic
developments. The park held educational values as well as cultural ones and was
initiated by the state itself when central and local authorities were not divided up until
the second half of the 20th century. The second section of this part will focus on the
exemplary cases of the establishment of the Archaeology and Ethnography Museums
in İzmir as state institutions, and the construction of their buildings by the state. Thus,
this part of the chapter will evaluate the meaning of museums and cultural spaces
established by the state in İzmir as a local case during the 20th century.
2.2.1. Constructing a New Cultural Space in the Early 20th Century: Kültürpark
(1936)
After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, new models for cities were
being looked for in European countries. French experts like Henri Proust and Rene
and Raymond Danger were being consulted for İzmir. Nonetheless, the new urban
50 Ibid.p.249.
51 Ibid. p.250.
2 1
plan of İzmir would be partly followed and abandoned towards the end of the 1930s
by the İzmir Municipality. Bilsel argues that one of the main reasons why the Danger-
Proust plan was only partly realized and mostly abandoned was the tension between
the inclination of a complete re-building versus the desire to protect the historical
values of Smyrna.52 While the state was undertaking efforts to plan İzmir, in 1931, the
prominent figure of Behçet Uz, who was a doctor, was appointed as the
governor/mayor53 in 1931 to serve İzmir for ten years after his election. Some of the
urban developments that were realized under Uz’s municipal term were the following:
Instead of the governmental center foreseen by Proust and Danger, a new town square
was built and named Cumhuriyet Meydanı (Republican Square); an Atatürk bust was
placed on the center of the square to maintain the nationalistic spirit of the newly
founded Republic; new streets and boulevards were built and named after great
victories and figures of the Independence War; new neighborhoods and housings were
built for the working class which had not been suggested by Proust but made possible
by Behçet Uz; new public gardens were initiated and more green areas were tried to
be provided in İzmir’s urban plan; Kordon (shoreline where the Frenk Street used to
be) was reunited with city dwellers; and finally a vast park named as Kültürpark
(Cultural Park) was established in the core of the city.
Oh, no… nobody pays attention to such things in our country.
We had organized an exhibition with our own attempts,
but we could not even sustain that. There will be a time for such matters
in the future. For now, let’s not bother with such things.54
Although criticized by some people like Hakkı Bey, the president of İzmir Chamber
of Commerce at the time, the significance of Kültürpark in local and national contexts
of the early Republican period was accepted by the authorities. The period of the 1930s
was important in terms of the modernization process of the new state, and it
52 Bilsel, Cana, ‘‘Bir Şehir Küllerinden Yeniden Doğuyor: Cumhuriyet Smyrna’sının Kuruluşu,’’ in
İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi? Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen
Smyrnelis, İletişim, 2006, p.254-55.
53 Until the 1950s, cities were administered by governors/mayors appointed by the state.
54 Quoted by Behçet Uz, der. L. Ece Sakar, Atatürk’ün İzmiri: bir kentin yeniden doğuşu, Türkiye İş
Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011, p.58.
2 2
incorporated the important aspect, which this thesis hopes to emphasize, of the
development of cultural spaces during this period. In this nation-building period,
Turkey ought to legitimize and strengthen national identity, the new nationhood,
through many aspects including the cultural, and building spaces for displaying culture
played an important role in that. More specifically, the first museums and collections
established in the Republic of Turkey served this common goal: to define a new
Turkish identity and educate the public about this new sense of nationhood. Sarah Neel
Smith mentions the role of culture in this modernization period during the republic by
emphasizing that the founder of the state “… Mustafa Kemal Atatürk …insisted upon
the importance of arts and culture in shaping a collective sense of nationhood.”55 As
for İzmir, the early Republican reforms and their reflections in the transforming city
were embodied with cultural spaces which were initiated with the common efforts of
the central government, and supported by the governor/mayor who was a state person
himself. On that aspect, Kültürpark deserves an honorable mention as it was the very
first economic, social, and cultural initiation of the new İzmir.
Kültürpark was founded on the ruins of the “Frank” neighborhood, which had been
burned to the ground in the 1922 fire (Fig.2). The area itself symbolized the ruin of
the past life of Smyrna. The parcel, for a long while, stood like an ashtray in the center
of the city. Inspired by Danger and Proust’s plans, and by a visit to Gorgi Park in
Moskov, Behçet Uz and his municipal team approved a plan to build a cultural park
on the deserted area (Fig.3-4). By many municipal figures, culture was seen as a
secondary field while more important infrastructural problems were evident in İzmir.
After all, the Republic was new, and the city had been through wars, fires, and
catastrophes. Another problem was the financial shortage; the young municipality was
poor as the rest of the country. Behçet Uz’s vision, enriched with his beliefs in
Atatürk’s reforms, explains the importance put on culture in re-building and reshaping
the new society. Against people who called the project of the park “clunker”56,
Uz believed that “both in terms of aesthetics and its botanical gardens, just like in other
55 Smith, Sarah-Neel, “The Semiperipheral Art Gallery: A Case Study in 1950s Istanbul,” Third Text,
Routledge, May 2020, p.5.
56 Pun intended between the Turkish words kültür and külüstür, Uz, Behçet, der. L.Ece Sakar,
Atatürk’ün İzmiri: bir kentin yeniden doğuşu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011.
2 3
foreign countries, [Kültürpark] resembles a public university and appeals to aesthetic
senses while providing educational services.”57
The initial plan for the green area of Kültürpark, was to build an international fair for
the city of İzmir. Hence, the park itself would not only serve as an education,
acculturation, and leisure place but also as an internationally recognized fair which
would gather multiple display areas that would aim to enhance the economy of the
city. Bilsel and Zelef explains the transformation of the fair by stating that it was born
out of a national event, an attempt to revitalize the commercial activity of the city and
to “support the local production of its region.”58 Later, the fair became international
in the early 1930s. The inspiration of the Gorky Park in Soviet Russia implemented
the idea of including culture among the functions of İzmir Fair. The program consisted
of several facilities inside the park such as sport facilities, large open areas,
amphitheaters, swimming pools, open area for circus, theaters, cinemas and a
parachute tower. In fact, the parachute tower – one of the tallest structures of its time
in İzmir - to this day is seen as a landmark from the Fair’s early days. Comprehending
Kültürpark as an entity formed by two main components, i.e., Fair and Culture, is
crucial to understand the main essence of the project. In other words, Kültürpark not
only symbolizes the cultural space of İzmir but also the main economic fuel of the city
from the early Republican years. Thus, the idea of educating the public did not rely
solely on museums and the display of historical and cultural heritage but also
encouraging the people of İzmir in engaging in industrial, technological, financial, and
economic developments of the nation and other countries.
Kültürpark consisted of different types of buildings in various architectural styles,
from fair pavilions to public facilities. Important examples of modern architecture in
Republican İzmir can be found inside the park and the museums that fulfilled the
educational mission of the park were among these examples. The incorporated
recreational and cultural facilities and consisted of various museums as follows:
57 Gerek estetik açıdan, gerekse tıpkı dış memleketlerde olduğu üzere, adeta bir halk üniversitesi gibi
olan botanik bahçeleriyle hem eğitim hizmeti vermekte, hem de güzelliği ile estetik duygulara hitap
etmektedir. Behçet Uz. Ibid. p.69.
58 Bilsel Cana, Zelef Haluk, “Fairy Tales: Turkey’s Prospects for World Fairs Projects for İzmir and
İstanbul,” Le Culture della Tecnica, vol.25, p.204.
2 4
Agriculture Museum, Archaeology Museum, Atatürk Revolution Museum, Health
Museum and Science Museum. The 1939 issue of the Arkitekt journal, announcing the
İzmir International Fair (İzmir Beynelmilel Fuarı), which had international pavilions
of many Western countries and an exhibition house as the center of the fair, defines
these museums as follows:
Bunlardan başka İnkılâp Müzesi, Ziraat, Sıhhat ve İçtimai muavenet
Vekâletlerinin müzeleri bir blok teşkil ediyor. Aralarında husule gelen
meydanda Milli Şefin ayaktaki heykeli bu blokun ilmi ve fenni ciddiyetini
tebarüz ettiriyor.İnkılâp müzesinin resim heykel ve neşriyattan ibaret
muhteviyatı Ziraat müzesinin ziraî hastalıklar, ziraat hayvanları ve bunlara ait
gösterdiği filimlerle Fuarı gezenleri kendilerine celbediyorlar. Sıhhat Müzesi
de bu alakada hissedarlık gösteriyordu.59
Figure 2: Aerial photo of Kültürpark, 1936.
Source: Mimarlık, January-February 2016.
59 “In addition to these, the Museums of the Atatürk Revolution, Agriculture, Health, and Social
Assistance Ministries form a block. In the square that emerged among them, the standing statue of the
National Leader reflects the scientific and technical seriousness of this block. The content of the
Revolution Museum, consisting of paintings, sculptures, and publications, attracts visitors to itself,
while the Agriculture Museum, with its agricultural diseases, livestock, and the films it displays,
captivates those who visit the Fair. The Health Museum also demonstrated its involvement in this
regard.” (translated by the author), Orel, Ferruh & Çeçen, Cahit, “1939 İzmir Beynelmilel Fuarı,”
Arkitekt / 1939-09-10, p.198.
2 5
On a further note, Kültürpark was in fact the very first cultural space of the new İzmir,
given the name meant Culture Park itself (Fig.5). The early years of the Republic were
marked by a general governmental initiation since Turkey was a newly founded
nation-state.
Figure 3: Press Release on Behçet Uz’s studies on cultural parks in Moscow.
Source: Uz, 2011.
Thus, Uz emphasized that the project was built with the aid of the government.
Moreover, the importance given to museums established inside the park was
mentioned with these following remarks: “İsmet İnönü, during one of his visits, was
highly pleased with initiated projects for Health, Agriculture and Atatürk Revolution
museums alongside sport facilities which were in the prepared project. He engaged in
discussion with relevant parties aiming to expedite the completion of the tasks at hand.
Moreover, in order to initiate the construction of the Atatürk Revolution Museum,
İnönü personally phoned deputy Saffet Arıkan and without delay, an architect was
thus appointed, and the construction of the building began.”60
Kültürpark was also a place of exhibitions both inside and outside of museum spaces.
These exhibitions were instruments in educating the public and reunite them around a
unified nation. T. Elvan Altan writes that the education of the public with exhibitions
60 Personal translation. Uz, Behçet, der. L.Ece Sakar, Atatürk’ün İzmiri: bir kentin yeniden doğuşu,
Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011, p.68.
2 6
is among the common practices of states61 and she continues on saying: “Especially
in newly founded nation-states like the Republic of Turkey, the foundation of national
unity around a shared national identity necessitates the coexistence of the state and the
people.”62 Inspired by Tony Bennet, she continues saying that “Exhibitions play a vital
role in actively shaping the public’s understanding of an alignment with the state’s
defined national identity by educating them within boundaries set by the state.”63
Nonetheless, as Nur Saatçıoğlu-Tozkoparan, an archaeologist who grew up in the city,
remembers, museums were not the main attractions in Kültürpark; buses were
organized from various parts of the city to transport the people of İzmir to the Fair,
where they could visit exhibitions, concerts, theaters, and engage in numerous other
activities.64 As such, national identity was defined by the government and the attempt
of the state was to make it accepted by the people through cultural spaces such as
Kültürpark established in İzmir, as in other cities in the country, required the people
to experience them as part of the urban life.
Figure 4: İzmir Kültürpark, plan, 1938.
Source: İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları…, p.89.
61 Altan, T. Elvan, ‘‘İzmir Fuarı, Kültürpark ve Türkiye’nin inşası,’’ in İzmir Kültürpark’ın
Anımsa(ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler. Ed. Ahenk Yılmaz, Kıvanç Kılınç, and Burkay
Pasin. İletişim. 2015, p.169.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Personal interview.
2 7
Figure 5: İzmir Kültürpark project, 1990s.
Architects: Merih Karaaslan, Mürşit Günday, Şükrü Kocagöz
Source: Öztan, Mimarlık, 254.
2.2.2. Constructing Museums in the Second Half of the 20th Century
It has been mentioned that the project of Kültürpark, was the initial project of the state
developed in the early Republican period İn İzmir, and it consisted of different
museum and gallery spaces. After all, besides the fairs, commercial exhibitions, and
the desire of economic recognition, Kültürpark was a cultural project.65 With the
changing atmosphere in the mid-20th century, Kültürpark adopted many roles. For
instance, in the 1950s, the use of İzmir's cultural space, Kültürpark, transitioned into
showcasing the nation's products and strengthening international relations through
industrial exhibitions and fairs. Emre Gönlügür underscores the change in government
policies and the utilization of the cultural park by highlighting the evolving dynamics
of the ruling party: “The foreign and economic policies of the Democrat Party
65 For more on the International Fair of İzmir see: Bilsel Cana, Zelef Haluk, ‘‘Fairy Tales: Turkey’s
Prospects for World Fairs Projects for İzmir and İstanbul,’’ Le Culture della Tecnica, vol.25, 2014,
p.201-220.
2 8
government represented a dramatic shift from a protectionist trading system to a more
liberal one. Coinciding with the new administration’s efforts to create a consumer
economy in Turkey, the İzmir Fair became one of the portals through which the flow
and exchange of imported goods, ideas, and technologies were negotiated.” Due to the
influence of changing government policies, İzmir's most significant cultural space,
Kültürpark, transformed from being merely a public university where the people of
İzmir could engage with culture, sports, national arts, and leisure, into “a large
showcase where consumer goods from different countries were put on display side by
side.”66
In line with the developments in the field of culture from the 1960s onwards, new
museum projects were realized also in İzmir. One of them was the Painting and
Sculpture Museum, which had initially taken place in a gallery inside Kültürpark that
was opened on September 9, 1952. The Republican state established three major
Painting and Sculpture Museums in İstanbul (1937), İzmir (1973) and Ankara (1980),
representing the relationship of politics with culture in the country. These museums,
in Semra Germaner’s words, represent the desire "to turn towards universal values and
integrate with the contemporary world in the fields of science and art, which are
fundamental principles of the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. … [This] has
led to the state taking on the role of art patronage, creating institutions, and striving to
establish an artistic environment, starting from the early years of the Republic.”67
The Republican state, according to the revolutionary program, took the role of “art
patron”68 for the public to educate them in arts, culture and the history which would
gather the public under a collective nationhood. The most important tools for these
purposes were museums. The following subsections will study the museums in İzmir
established, and whose buildings were constructed in 1967. Among these was the
66 Gönlügür, Emre, ‘‘Exhibiting American domestic modernity at the İzmir International Fair,’’ in Mid-
Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s, ed. Meltem Ö.
Gürel, Routledge, 2016, p.88.
67 Germaner, Semra, ‘‘Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi Resim ve Heykel Müzesi Kuruluşu ve Bugünü,’’
p.118-121 in Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, ‘‘1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,’’ Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.377.
68 Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, ‘‘1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,’’ Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.377.
2 9
Museum of Painting and Sculpture, which was established to educate the public on
“Turkish arts”. By establishing art institutions such as museums of painting and
sculpture in important cities like İzmir as well as Ankara and İstanbul, the state acted
as the provider of art for the general public. The other museums of the second half of
the 20th century were the Museums of Archaeology (1984) and Ethnography (1984)
that aimed to display the collective/national memory in İzmir.
2.2.2.1. Museum of Painting and Sculpture (1967)
İzmir Painting and Sculpture Museum used to be located in a gallery in Kültürpark.
Turgut Pura, a famous sculptor at the time, was assigned to the gallery’s directorate
and he was the one who first initiated the idea to turn the gallery into a permanent
museum. In 1967, following the initial attempts and works of Pura, a new building
was designed for the museum and the gallery moved to its new museum building in
Konak in 1973, the center of the city where other cultural buildings would later find
places for themselves.
The newly constructed building of the museum is located in Konak between the press
club [Basın Klübü] and the Army Officer’s club [Orduevi] (Fig.6). The building was
built next to the cultural center of Ege University which was designed by Muhlis
Türkmen and İnal Göral.69 The construction of the museum was initiated in 1967 with
a preliminary project and then it was put out for tender by the İzmir Provincial
Directorate of Public Works. Material facilities of the building like the lighting and
reinforced concrete heating were carried out by the contractor and the project
continued until 1972 without any real architectural supervision. Therefore, due to the
lack of proper execution and workmanship the project could not be finalized in 1972
and had to wait until 1973. The Ministry of Public Works took over the situation, and
renovations, installations, space arrangement projects and implementations were made
according to the obtained principles.70
69 The construction of the Ege University city cultural center building continued beyond the initial
designers, Göral, İnal and Türkmen, Muhlis, ‘‘Resim ve Heykel Müzesi İzmir,’’ Arkitekt / 1977, p.53.
70 Arkitekt /1977, p. 53.
3 0
Alongside concrete heating and lighting, a natural ventilation was tried to be achieved
in the initial plan of the building. The open plan settlement was aligned with the cool
wind of İzmir, called imbat [etesian winds], which would serve both the terrace and
the art street in front of the building. The building consists of a ground floor,
mezzanine and a first floor. When these floors with different heights, forms, and
widths are stacked on top of each other, a very dynamic structure was created.71 The
building’s entrance is between the Ege University Cultural Center and Mithatpaşa
Avenue, where visitors can enter the museum through an entrance canopy. When
entered, the temporary exhibition spaces can be seen through different heights. The
building could be analyzed from two perspectives, the side looking to the Army
Officer’s club (south-west) and the other side looking to the Cultural Center (northwest).
The south-west facing the Club, consists of the ground floor and the second
floor. The ground floor has heating rooms and book depository whereas the secondfloor
houses residences for the directory. The residence floor is pulled outwards,
detached from the museum mass, and in the space in between, terraces and an inner
courtyard are created. On the side of the building facing the Cultural Center
(northeast), there are painting and sculpture workshops with a roof used as a terrace.72
(Fig.7-8)
Figure 6: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: Google Maps, 2023.
71 Özge Sade, Fatma, ‘‘Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,’’ Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, May 2015, p.89.
72 Ibid.
3 1
Figure 7: Plan of the Painting and Sculpture Museum on location.
Source: Arkitekt, 1977-02, p.53.
Figure 8: General plan of the museum.
Source: Arkitekt, 1977-02, p.55.
3 2
Figure 9: İzmir Museum of Painting and Sculpture in Konak (1973).
Source: Uhri, 2018, p.1889.
Museum has a gallery, art studios for art workshops, a library and restoration
departments as well as exhibition areas. The collection of the museum starts with the
Tanzimat period and includes 403 works: 342 paintings, 25 sculptures, 12 ceramics
and 24 prints belonging to the Ottoman and Republican periods.73 With various books
on art history, albums, catalogs or artists, its library and exhibition spaces, the museum
aims to educate the public as well as researchers and scholars.
In the architectural magazine Arkitekt, the building’s goal was stated as to become an
important tool both in learning and in being a useful art center for İzmir: “This
complex will be a beneficial art and culture center for İzmir. The museum, located in
a highly valuable corner of the city, has been designed with the goal of achieving
maximum usable space and reaching the most economical solution within a
constructive simplicity. Visual transitions between the ground, mezzanine and the first
floors have created a spatial integrity and organization within the building"74 The
museum’s aim was to educate the public about the arts and to make İzmir an important
73 Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, ‘‘1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,’’ Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.388.
74 Arkitekt: p.53 : “Bu kompleks İzmir için yararlı bir sanat ve kültür merkezi olacaktır. Şehrin çok
değerli bir köşesine yerleşmiş bulunan müze, maksimum kullanma sahasın elde etmek ve konstrüktif
bir sadelik içinde en ekonomik çözüme ulaşmak gayesiyle projelendirilmiştir. Zemin, asma ve birinci
katlar arasında oluşan görsel geçişler ile yapıda bir mekan bütünlüğü ve düzenleme sağlanmıştır.”
3 3
and useful center for arts and culture. It aims to exhibit important artifacts and
examples of plastic arts from the Tanzimat to the contemporary period, in order to
introduce the “Turkish art” to the public. Another goal was to encourage artists to
exhibit their works and give them a platform. It is understood that once again the
museum’s initial goal was to educate instead of promoting arts and culture to the
public. The building itself was seen as a public service and this understanding is
dominant in state driven museums across the country, including the city itself as the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism refers to this establishment in its official website as
“The first mission, in the field of art, of the state of İzmir.”75 The building, alongside
many other state museums, was seen in fact as a state mission, a state service for the
public in the means of educating the public about a national culture, a national identity
on local borders. (Fig.9)
In the early 2000s, the museum, following technical examinations, was decided to be
moved to another location due to the fact that the building was not strong enough to
survive earthquakes. The new location for the museum introduces an interesting
relationship between the central government and the İzmir Municipality with then
mayor Ahmet Piriştina. Hence, in 2002, the Painting and Sculpture Museum, which
was determined to be non-resistant to earthquakes by the Ministry of Culture, was
restored as part of İzmir Metropolitan Municipality's Culture Park renovation project
and reopened in the building known as the Eski İtalyan Pavyonu (Old Italian Pavilion).
In this process, it is possible to depict a tension between the municipality and the
central government through the history of the Painting and Sculpture Gallery space.
Kültürpark is governed by the municipality, and the İzmir Museum of Painting and
Sculpture was established in one of the pavilions in the park in 1952. Later, in the
1990s, a protocol was signed about the use of the İzmir Museum of Painting and
Sculpture building by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, when the central
government and the municipality was under the same party, i.e. Democratic Leftist
Party (DSP - Demokratik Sol Parti). Thus, the protocol was signed to encourage
multiple exhibitions and art organizations that would be organized in Kültürpark by
75 The official website of The Ministry of Culture & Tourism: İzmir İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürliğü
resmi websitesi. “Resim Heykel Müzesi (...) plastik sanatlar alanında devletin İzmir’e yaptığı ilk
hizmettir.” https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/TR- 77102/resim-ve-heykel-muzesi.html.
3 4
the ministry. On the other hand, when Ahmet Piriştina was elected the second time,
the same party was no longer in the central government. As a result, this building
symbolizes an interruption of the municipal continuity in cultural space as the
municipality could not use its gallery space although the building was in a property
that belonged to the municipality itself. On the other hand, according to Burcu
Pelvanoğlu, the Painting and Sculpture Museum in İzmir did not remain closed even
after the decision that the building was not safe for earthquakes. Unlike Ankara and
İstanbul, the space found a continuation and went back to its initial site inside
Kültürpark, which portrays an interesting journey between state and municipality
support. Nevertheless, Pelvanoğlu underlines the political interactions on the cultural
space through this particular example by stating that, since the 1980s the presence of
opposing political ideologies showed themselves through the management of the
museum. Through the example of Painting and Sculpture Museum building in Konak,
in Pelvanoğlu and Ergüven’s words, with “the exclusion from cultural politics and the
misuse of the bureaucracy,” it is possible to depict museums in Turkey, especially
Painting and Sculpture Museums of the state such as the one in İzmir, are tangible
cases where the lack of the state’s culture and art politics are clearly seen.76
2.2.2.2. Museums of Archaeology (1984) and Ethnography (1984)
In the 1980s, as briefly mentioned in previous chapters, museums in Turkey, and in
İzmir as well, already started to have the function of education. Nonetheless, the aim
of education was still for a national identity and national culture expanding throughout
the country. The idea to return to the roots as one of the key elements of nationbuilding
should be underlined here. As Sibel Bozdoğan stated, "… Kemalism sought
to legitimize the idea of a unified Turkish nation. Many historians and scholars of
nationalism talk about the need for all nationalist claims to ground themselves in some
preexisting, pure and timeless identity – a mythical origin in a remote past."77 This
was exactly the case for museumification during the Republican period, and the desire
76 Mehmet Ergüven, “Sorunlu Bir Kurum: İzmir Devlet Resim ve Heykel Müzesi”, p.28 in Pelvanoğlu,
Burcu, “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Mimar
Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.390.
77 Ed.Bozdoğan Sibel, Kasaba Reşat, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture
in the Early Republic, University of Washington Press, 2001, p.241.
3 5
to establish archaeology and ethnography museums in different cities was related to
this understanding. Bozdoğan and Kasaba continues highlighting the importance of
such museums in Turkey: "Not unlike other nationalisms that have mobilized
archaeology, philology, and museology in support of narrating and imagining the
nation, the republican regime actively promoted archeological excavations and the
establishment of museums, claiming the prehistoric and pre-Islamic heritage of
Anatolia as national treasures."78 In line with these approaches, İzmir saw the
establishment of archeology and ethnography museums.
İzmir Archaeology Museum (1984)
The initial idea for establishing an archaeology museum in İzmir was revealed in 1923.
The idea was born out of the continuation of an already existing archaeological
collection; thus, in a way the museum [its collection and display] dates back to the
establishment of the Republic. Originally, this collection belonged to the İzmir
Evangelical Greek School which had been founded in 1888. In fact, the museum was
called, before the establishment of the Turkish Republic, Archeological Museum of
the Greek Evangelical School of Smyrna, which consisted of eight sections of
significant collections of artifacts and objects collected from Asia Minor.79 The Greek
Evangelical School’s building space still remains today as Namık Kemal Lisesi in
Alsancak close to Kültürpark with some remains left of the original edifice. The
collection, consisting of artifacts and objects originating from the Aegean soil, was
affected by the fire in 1922.80 “Many artifacts were recovered from the school’s
remains in 1923 and collected at the Agios Voukolos [Saint Vukolos] Church.”81
Moreover, other objects and pieces collected from İzmir region such as architectural
elements, sculptures, reliefs from the Temple of Dionysos in Teos and other artifacts
78 Ibid. p.243.
79 Merrillees, Robert S., ‘‘Cypriote antiquities in Late Ottoman Istanbul and Smyrna -II-, Cypriote
antiquities in the Greek Evangelical School Museum and their Trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna
(Modern İzmir),’’ Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 47, 2017, p.125.
80 Ed. Uhri, Ahmet, Museums in İzmir: The Cultural Background of a Mediterranean City / Museums,
Permanent Exhibitions and Collections in İzmir, İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Mediterranean
Academy, December 2018, p.130.
81 Ibid.
3 6
found in Nysa (Sultanhisar) were stored in the garden of İzmir İdadi Mektebi [I. Sultani
Mektebi] (İzmir High School), whose building would later be transformed into a
courthouse.82
İzmir Archaeology Museum, then called İzmir Âsar-ı Atika Müzesi, was established
in 1924 and opened its doors in 1927 in Aya Vukla Church, the former Greek
Orthodox Church of Agios Voukolos, located on Basmane Street. In 1951, the
museum, due to the drastic increase of artifacts collected from all around İzmir
region83, moved to another space inside Kültürpark, and the previous Health Museum
began to be used as the İzmir Archaeology Museum consisting of a vast collection.
The current building which took the name İzmir Archaeology Museum had to wait
until 1984 to be built on its current location in Bahribaba Park, in Konak (Fig.10-11,
12).
Figures 10-11: Exterior and interior images of the current İzmir Archaeology
Museum, Konak.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
82 Ibid.
83 The locality of the museum collection can be seen geographically as the initial collection was from
artefacts collected from the İzmir region. The museum building opened by the state in 1984 however
could be seen as a state mission more focused on seeing the collection as a national treasure and a local
extension of this national heritage.
3 7
Figure 12: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: Uhri, 2018, p.130.
Museums in İzmir, a guide published by the municipality, describes the Museum of
Archaeology as “a true museum that conserves, restores, stores, archives and exhibits
ancient objects.”84 The museum exhibits numerous terracotta, glass, ceramic, stone
and metal finds and bronzes dating back from prehistory to Byzantine Period. It
should be noted that Merrillees reminds the lack of mentioning the Greek routes of the
Museum. Merrillees examines Melania Savino’s work on the foundation of Âsar-ı
Atika Müzesi and the contributions of A. Ogan with a thorough description of his
catalog of the museum; and he states that there was not any mention either by Ogan
or Savino about the earlier Smyrne Museum of Archaeology.85 Likewise, he continues
on mentioning other resources which similarly overlook the Greek origin of the
collection,86 and explains it in a way that Smyrna and İzmir might have been regarded
as two different cities since the city went under a drastic change with the foundation
84 Ibid.
85 According to Robert S. Merrillees, in the 1930s both İzmir and Smyrna were in popular use; …nicely
demonstrated by Aziz (Bey) Ogan’s guide to the new Archeology Museum published in 1927. The
Turkish edition was published in ‘‘İzmir’ and the French version in Smyrne’’ in Merrillees, Robert S.,
‘‘Cypriote antiquities in Late Ottoman İstanbul and Smyrna-II, Cypriote antiquities in the Greek
Evangelical School Museum and their Trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna (Modern İzmir),’’ Cahiers du
Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 2017, p.47.
86 While it could be argued on technical grounds that the first archaeological museum in İzmir as
opposed to Smyrna was opened to the public on 15 February 1927, as Rous, Laugier and Martinez have
done, it again overlooks the existence of the one in the Evangelical School, about which Shaw as well
has nothing to say in her survey of “Museum Enterprises outside of Istanbul” in Ottoman times. p.129.
Marrillees.
3 8
of the Turkish Republic. Along these lines, the Republican ideals and the desire to
create a national identity form the basis of the museum’s formation as a Republican
establishment; as Pelin Gürol Öngören explains, "The goal of the new nation-state was
to create a new Turkish historical past, which depended upon new symbols. And the
past was attempted to be designated as neither Ottoman nor Greco-Roman, but rather
Turkish, that was constructed with reference to Anatolia (that corresponds to the
national borders of the Turkish Republic) and Anatolian civilizations, mainly the
Hittites -a culture that had established its empire in Anatolia (2000-1000 B.C)- and
other cultures settled in Anatolia such as the Phryrigian, Lydian, and Urartian
cultures."87 (Fig.13-15)
Figures 13-15: Interior of the museum, details.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
Unfortunately, the recent state of the building, which was built in 1984, Shares a
similar fate with the Painting and Sculpture Museum, being left almost deserted with
87 Gürol-Öngören, Pelin, “Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from
the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle
East Technical University, June 2012, p.186.
3 9
its collections and exhibition spaces with so little supervision and explanation of the
exhibited artworks (Fig.16-17). Instead of being a "true museum" with conservation,
restoration, scientific facilities and a purpose of education, the museum remains as a
state building with a display of important goods of different civilizations in order to
legitimize a national identity which points to an archeological richness. Nevertheless,
the display and the visitor frequency proved otherwise after the early 2000s.
Figures 16-17: Entrance Hall and exterior garden space.
Source: Photo by the author, 2023.
İzmir Ethnography Museum (1984)
Building ethnographic museums, just like the archeological ones, were among the
fundamental works of Republican Turkey as the very first museum built right after the
foundation of the Republic was an ethnography museum: Ankara Ethnography
Museum (1925-27). This museum in Ankara “was not only the first ethnographic
museum in Republican Turkey’s history but also the first purpose-built museum in
Ankara after the establishment of the Republic.”88 Ankara Ethnography Museum, as
Gürol-Öngören writes, was “exclusively devoted to ethnography” as “most of the
museums founded in that period in Turkey also contained ethnographic sections such
88 Gürol-Öngören, Pelin, ‘‘Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from
the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,’’ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle
East Technical University, June 2012, p.158.
4 0
as the museum in Adana (1935) and Edirne (1936)”89 and in İzmir later on in the
second half of the 20th century.
As discussed in the previous case study, İzmir Archaeology Museum, archeological
and ethnographic collections, goods and artifacts were elements in legitimizing the
roots of the Turkish nation which helped the foundation of the new nationhood.
Atatürk’s goal with the ethnographic museum in Ankara might be paralleled with the
İzmir Ethnography Museum since the goals of this state museum is a shared common
goal of the Republican Turkey, i.e. educating people on history of the “Turkish soil”
as well as to make the nation remember a selective past; “His [Atatürk’s] goal for
Ankara Ethnography Museum, was to ensure the people not to forget about old arts,
clothing, and customs of the people, which might likely disappear after the
revolutions. The historical background was neither destroyed nor ignored. However, it
was utilized in such a compatible way with the official ideology.”90 Although the
museum in İzmir was established towards the end of the 20th century, decades after
the Republic was founded, it still continued the Republican ideals. In addition, the
museum building signifies a portion of the history of İzmir before the Republic, thus,
the building itself is a part of İzmir’s history. According to the catalogue Museums in
İzmir, the speculations about the old edifice have been proven wrong. The book claims
that various sources wrote that the original building, which is believed to be
constructed in 1831, was used by the French as St. Roch Hospital was repaired by the
French in 1845, and converted into a nursing home for poor Christian families.91 The
origins of the neo-classical building remaining from the 19th century is not certain to
this day, nevertheless, it is believed that the original building was not constructed in
the 1830s but rather in 1917 by an Ottoman architect. Architect Tahsin [Sermet]
prepared a maternity hospital project in 1917 on the Jewish Cemetery; however, after
the Greek occupation the building was not finalized by the architect, but the Greeks
took upon the construction. This might in fact explain the neo-classical influence one
89 Ibid., p.157.
90 Ibid., p.162.
91 Ed. Uhri, Ahmet, Museums in İzmir: The Cultural Background of a Mediterranean City / Museums,
Permanent Exhibitions and Collections in İzmir, İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Mediterranean
Academy, December 2018, p.139.
4 1
can depict on the architecture of the building. The monumental design was set to
become the housing facilities for the lecturers and professors for an Ionian University.
This plan could not be realized when İzmir was liberated from Greek occupation.
During the Republican period, as planned before, the building was used for health
facilities such as a maternity hospital and a health directorate.92 (Fig.18). The tower
type stone structure which is elevated on a terraced floor is ornamented with Byzantine
period marble columned doors. The arched windows on four sides of the building
help the light reach the interiors and the marbles of the spiral stairs were brought from
Ephesus.93
Figure 18: Nr.116 - Józef Abajoli, İzmir 1929. A black and white postcard
featuring the historical building of the orphanage, constructed in the 19th century
in the neoclassical style; and the panoramic view of Kadifekale hills,
currently serving as the İzmir Ethnography Museum.
Source: APIKAM Archives,
https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/ArsivHizmetDetay/3249
Ethnographic collections were not being exhibited in this building around the 1970s;
in fact, in 1978 the collections of ethnographic goods were being displayed in the
Atatürk Museum located in Kordon, Atatürk Boulevard. The museum was called, in
92 Ibid.
93 Ed. Uhri, Ahmet, Museums in İzmir: The Cultural Background of a Mediterranean City / Museums,
Permanent Exhibitions and Collections in İzmir, İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Mediterranean
Academy, December 2018, p.139.
4 2
1978, İzmir Atatürk and Ethnography Museum, and the ground level floor displayed
the ethnographic goods of İzmir. In 1984, Atatürk and Ethnography Museum changed
its name to Atatürk Museum as the ethnography collection found a new home, the old
neoclassical building originally designed by architect Tahsin and completed by the
Greeks (Fig.19) On December 2, 1984, the building was handed to the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism to be properly established as an ethnography museum. The
collection, thus, was moved to this building and the building began to function as İzmir
Ethnography Museum. The first and second floors of the building consisted of
ethnographic exhibition spaces and the third floor was used for administrative offices
of the İzmir Provincial Culture and Tourism Directorate. (Fig.20-21)
Figure 19: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: Uhri, 2018, p.138.
The Museum, according to the online catalog, consists of works and ethnographic
goods related to the daily life, customs, and traditions of the Turks of İzmir.94 The
usage of the "Turks of İzmir" in the museum catalog, instead of people living in İzmir,
already explains the desired national identity and a national history of a shared,
common, Muslim nationhood shared by the state initiatives since 1923. The museum
equally contains materials related to handicrafts very few artisans left scarce today,
the exhibitions tend to showcase how these rare handicraft materials are being
produced. The educative aim is evident in the museum, nonetheless, the display and
the almost non-existent supervision while visiting the museum legitimize in a way the
94 https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/9644,etnografya-sayfalarpdf.pdf?0
4 3
lack of cultural politics and the change in cultural approaches amongst state museums
of the 1980s. The execution and the display are very poor inside the museum as shown
in the images below (Fig.22-25). Moreover, the additions made on the existing
historical building such as annex materials and air conditioning units, and some parts
of the building which clearly need supervision and renovation, give an impression that
the state left the museum to its own fate (Fig.26-27).
Figures 20-21: Details of İzmir Ethnography Museum, façade.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
Figures 22-23: Images from the İzmir Ethnography Museum display.
Source: https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/9644,etnografya-sayfalarpdf.pdf?0
4 4
Figures 24-25: Details, İzmir Ethnography Museum display.
Source: https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/9644,etnografya-sayfalarpdf.pdf?0
Figures 26-27: Details, extensions added on the original edifice
(air conditioners, fire straits etc.).
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
2.3. Concluding Notes on Cultural Spaces by the State
One cannot help but wonder if these state museums, mostly opened in the 1980s in
İzmir, are symbolic continuation of a Republican ideal which was once stronger. With
the changing paradigms and political inclinations in central governmental authorities
and local municipalities, these museums seem to represent a national culture which is
left in the past or which symbolically remains without functioning. Especially with the
4 5
liberal economies followed by foreign or private investors emerging in the 1980s, the
central political authorities forgot, in Pelvanoğlu’s words, the importance of the state
museums and rather turned their focus on private capitals in terms of cultural spaces;
politicians, on the other hand, who seem to be unaware of the existence of state
museums have found prestige in museums established by private capital.95
Staff and management problems, rising political tensions between opposing parties,
the increasing urbanization with new migrants to the city that have changed urban life,
and the consequent change in the needs of urban life together with municipalities
gaining power towards the end of the 1990s, in a way prepared the arts and culture
world to be shifted and made the way for the private sector alongside local municipal
approaches to be flourished towards the end of the 20th century.96 The ideal of thriving
with national culture and a national identity was transformed throughout the years
following the early Republican modernization program. The changing socio-political
atmosphere in Turkey with opposing political parties and relationships between the
central and local authorities, whether collaborating or opposing tensions, gave birth to
new needs in urban life and new identity formations in local scenes. This in fact, points
out another shift in terms of cultural spaces; state museums were, after the 1980s, no
longer the bassets of an identity formation nor a public education. New cultural spaces
were needed in metropolitan cities like İzmir as state museums were no longer seen as
sufficient. From the 1980s and onwards, with local authorities gaining more power in
cities and the shifting policies around culture and urbanism, museums could no longer
be the only means for education, acculturation and identity formation. New gallery
spaces, cultural centers, art centers and locally initiated museums began to flourish in
İzmir as well, especially with the change in local municipality, from Özfatura to
Piriştina.
95 Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,” Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009, p.391-91.
96 Sade explains these problems as follows in her thesis about archeological and ethnographic museums
in Turkey: “While the quantity of museum buildings was impressive, their quality was poor. Their
maintenance was not pursued and they ended up becoming empty spaces with poorly designed displays.
The ambitions for structuring an administrative model based on a central organization proved to be
impossible”. Özge Sade, Fatma, “A Fragmented Memory Project: Archeological and Ethnographic
Museums in Turkey 1960-1980,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, 2012,
p.177.
4 6
CHAPTER 3
CULTURAL SPACES BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
İzmir’s so-called difference or the desired uniqueness reflects itself even in the
common language to begin with. The classic Turkish bagel being called simit
everywhere else in Turkey and gevrek in İzmir alongside many quirky ways of naming
goods: bardacık instead of incir [fig], çiğdem instead of çekirdek [sunflower seeds],
klorak for çamaşır suyu [bleach] and so on. Likewise, the local government and the
atmosphere in İzmir embraced this uniqueness as a “local identity” to such an extent
that the old saying of “gavur [infidel] İzmir” has even been appropriated as a positive
significance to emphasize the rebellious and different character of the city.
On the other hand, İzmir is also a city of significance for the Turkish Republic founded
after the Independence War that had been finalized with victory, in which İzmir had a
very important role. This “national identity” of the city was also strengthened during
the transformation of the national territory with the Republican modernization project,
in which industrialization became a key point in the development of urbanization.
Even though urbanization had begun in the second half of the 19th century, it
accelerated in the Republican period, especially after the Second World War, i.e.
during the 1950s and onwards.97 The development of other big cities besides the new
capital of Ankara became more evident during this period and İzmir was one of the
largest three cities in Turkey together with Ankara and İstanbul. Tekeli differentiates
three major periods in İzmir’s history: from the 19th century to the second half of the
20th century would be the first, the second being between the Second World War and
97 İlhan Tekeli, İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Dönemi’nin Öyküsü, İzmir Modeli 1.kitap, İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Basımı, Kasım 2018, p.10.
4 7
the 1980s, and lastly the third period being between the post-1980s and the 2000s.
Starting from the late Ottoman period, and being the main focus of the Republican
agenda, modernization was the main process in the first two periods, led mainly by the
efforts of the state. This process of the newly founded Turkey was the major key of
urban development and educating the urban public through cultural spaces was a major
component of this modernization program that also aimed at forming a unified national
identity. The last period, on the other hand, witnessed the increasing effect of
globalization, and the increase in the emphasis on the locality as a result, whereby the
local governments gained importance in shaping the urban space and life, affecting
the formation of local identities again through cultural spaces.
This chapter examines and evaluates the changing process of producing cultural spaces
in İzmir that began to emphasize the local identity in the early 21st century. The first
section will concentrate on the relationship between cities and culture, highlighting
how culture emerged as a pivotal element in the development of local identities of
cities in Turkey towards the close of the 20th century. The shift from state museums
to local initiatives in producing cultural spaces will be discussed by initially
understanding the cultural politics of local governments, then examining the birth of
alternative cultural spaces such as city museums, private and governmental gallery
spaces, exhibitions areas and locally initiated culture and art centers. The cultural and
political exchange extended at the time to local municipalities, as they began to
integrate local identity and culture, will be exemplified in the case of İzmir.
3.1. Culture and Space for Local Identity in Turkey
Before discussing the culture and the cultural spaces emerging in local contexts of
cities, it will be helpful to give brief information about the cultural scene in Turkey
towards the end of the 20th century. Turkey had faced various problematic periods
from the 1960s to the 1980s with multiple coups and economic crises. The art scene
of the period continued to be marked by a search for identity: "The debate about
whether identity will be overcome by turning to national resources or by turning to
universal values” were defining the second half of the century, as the early Republican
4 8
decades.98 The debates on the dichotomies of the national versus the international, or
the local versus the universal, would not cease to exist but will continue even in the
21st century, albeit this time the local would contract with the global.
During the 1980s, the sense of place began to be in the focus of discussions, but this
sense inevitably brought with it the ideology of locality, a power struggle to determine
who the true owner of the local was.99 Thus, this affected the development of the
cultural space as well by making way for private galleries and exhibition spaces as
well as changes in display methods of already existing state museums, which partially
lost their importance that they had had during the earlier decades of the Republic. The
1980s and 1990s in a way filled a gap in cultural spaces left by the central authority in
the field: "Starting from the 1970s, it can be observed that the neglect of museums,
which play an important role in the formation and preservation of artistic memory, and
the failure of the state to support art in Turkey, have been criticized and discussed. In
major cities such as İstanbul, Ankara, and İzmir, the function of supporting art has
increasingly been taken on by a growing number of galleries."100
The 1990s and 2000s were the periods when the art world and cultural spaces opened
internationally with biennials and fairs as well as multiple museums and galleries
increased in cities. A new concept of museums also emerged in the 1990s that
emphasized the locality: city museums. In fact, the concept which had initially
developed in the 1970s had to wait until the 1990s to be fully developed with
organizations like Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Cultural Heritage
(Çevre ve Kültür Değerlerini Koruma ve Tanıtma Vakfı-ÇEKÜL).101 With the project
Environmental Culture Houses (Çevre Kültür Evleri), from the 1990s to the 2000s,
they promoted the idea of “one city museum for each city”. They also founded the
Historical Cities Association (Tarihi Kentler Birliği) the same year in 2000. Another
98 Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,” Doctoral Thesis, Mimar Sinan
University, Istanbul, 2009, p.12.
99 Ibid.
100Ibid.p.40.
101 Kent Müzeleri ve Arşivleri, ÇEKÜL Vakfı-Tarihi Kentler Birliği Yayınları, Kılavuz Kitapçık Dizisi
2, 2013.
4 9
institution, this time international, which made an emphasis on city museums and
renovation projects is the International Committee for the Conservation of the
Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), which was reorganized by the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 2003. Overall, in the world and in Turkey as well,
while cities were becoming the new benchmarks, city museums became a part of the
new political agenda of local municipalities. Moreover, the period of the 2000s, in
Turkey, is marked by a general increase in museums around the country but especially
in İstanbul since the city had multiple international connections. Most museums in
İstanbul that are popularly known today such as İstanbul Modern, Pera Museum and
Sakıp Sabancı Museum opened their doors in early 2000s. The foundation of other
galleries, exhibition spaces and cultural centers supported by private initiative or local
government thus became a phenomenon of the 21st century.
Pelvanoğlu’s following statement, in a way, summarizes the transition of cultural
politics and the different strategies followed by local and central governments in the
name of culture: "When the 1980s are defined as the stages of formation and the 1990s
as the stages of embracing this formation (the collective spirit of the 1990s can also
be explained in this way), it is possible to characterize the 2000s as the stages of
institutionalization."102
It [the city] represents the maximum possibility of humanizing the natural
environment and of naturalizing the human heritage: it gives a cultural shape to the
first, and it externalizes in permanent collective forms the second.103
Mumford refers to the cities as macro centers where all authorities and concentrations
are gathered and centered. This assumption gives sense to why societies show
importance to decentralization especially for cultural spaces as the city could be seen
as an “academy of learning”.104 Thus, especially around the 1980s, new
decentralization movements began to show themselves in the field of culture and local
initiations in cultural spaces became more common in the 21st century. With the rise
102 Pelvanoğlu, p.45.
103 Mumford, Lewis, The Culture of Cities, HBJ Books, London, p.6.
104 Mumford. Ibid.
5 0
of the post-Fordist economy since the mid-1960s, the city began to change both
economically and culturally. Hamnett and Shoval explain this shift with these words:
“With the disappearance of local manufacturing industries and periodic crises in
government and finance, culture is more and more the business of cities: the basis of
their tourist attractions and their unique competitive edge.”105 This in fact had an
impact in the relationship between national and local authorities as a shift to locality
and regionality was evident. UNESCO defines this movement towards locality as
following: "The decentralization process, in particular, has profoundly impacted the
field of culture, leading notably to the reinterpretation or redistribution of competences
between national and local authorities in different ways and to differing degrees."106
The 1980s, however, defined a breaking point for decentralization of cultural
institutions. France is a tangible example for such developments in Europe as they
spatially decentralized cultural centers to create new hubs for culture. “Therefore, it is
necessary to complete the cultural decentralization, which was only barely -
prematurely - outlined in 1982 and hastily done in 2004, in order to fully empower
local authorities.”107 Centre Pompidou Metz (2010) is a recent result of cultural
decentralization and the organization explicitly declares this notion in their official
website: “Centre Pompiou Metz is the first original decentralization of a national
public cultural institution, the Centre Pompidou.”108
Apart from the decentralization, the 20th century in general was a scene of changes
when the world, as Marshall McLuhan indicated, became a “global village” and the
time was “of crossing barriers.”109 Hence, local cultural appropriation and an attempt
to intensify a local identity argument being more common in the turn of the 21st
century is, in fact, not a mere coincidence. Marta Anico explains the close relationship
of local identities to heritage and culture places with the changing economies and
105 Hamnett, Chris and Shoval, Noam, “Museums as Flagships of Urban Development,” chapter 12. in
Cities and Visitors, Regulating People, Markets and City Space ed.Lily M. Hoffman, Susan S.Fainstein
and Dennis R.Judd, Blackwell Publishing 2003.
106 https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/cutting-edge-culture-and-city-forging-place-based-peoplecentered-
public-policies
107 Béghain, Patrice, “Décentralisation culturelle: l’urgence, ” L’Observatoire 2013/2 (N.43), p.26.
108 https://www.centrepompidou-metz.fr/en/centre-pompidou-metz/the-institution
109 McLuhan, Marshall et Fiore, Quentin, The Medium is the Massage, (1967), Penguin Classics, 2008.
5 1
population in the cities over the years; “Rapid population growth, multiculturalism,
and the restructuring of local economies triggered by social and economic decline are
some of the forces that frequently lead to heritage activation processes.”110 Therefore,
in a time of “crossing barriers” claiming a local identity became more and more
important especially in the eyes of municipalities and cities which brought their own
local cultures into the circle of cultural and political exchange. “It is precisely when
identity boundaries become increasingly weak, indistinctive, and fluid that the effort
to assert the ‘authenticity’ and ‘distinctiveness’ that enables cultural validation of
identity and political claims of all kinds escalates.”111 In parallel to an expansion in
culture through the cities, it is possible to mention a dual relationship between local
and central authorities. From one point, local identity is formulated through the
initiations of municipalities who seek to create local cultural spaces such as cultural
centers, city museums and city archives. On the other hand, museums and galleries
founded by central authorities continue to nourish national culture.
3.2. Cultural Spaces by the Local Government in İzmir
Urbanization of the cities was a big part of the modernization process embarked by
the Republican state. As discussed in the previous chapter, beginning with the new
capital Ankara, Turkey went into an urban modernization which became more evident
from the 1950s onwards. Developing cities around Turkey, especially big cities like
Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir, brought the question of the urbanite as a new component
in Turkey’s national identity.
Local governments took the responsibility to transform the city to a livable urban
environment and to promote the common identity of the urbanite through their
administrative management. It was stated that the memory could be restored through
cultural institutions. How did these local governments use cultural institutions and
local archives to accentuate the notion of citizenship and the sense of belonging to the
city? What was the role of city museums and city archives in forming a local identity
110 Anico, Marta, “Representing identities at local municipal museums: Cultural forums or identity
bunkers?” in Heritage and Identity, ed. Elsa Peralta and Marta Anico, Routledge, 2009, p.66-67.
111 Ibid.p.67.
5 2
and a collective urban memory? How did local governments add city museums to their
political agenda and what was the main reason for such an inclusion? Cultural
developments and the creation of new spaces encouraged by the municipality
increased drastically in the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s. The most
important cultural centers and buildings which can be enlisted as İzmir’s firsts
coincide around the same time periods and the change in the municipal mindset
inaugurated with Ahmet Piriştina, the Mayor between 1999 and 2004. To discuss the
cultural spaces created by the municipality of İzmir and its new cultural politics,
İzmir’s municipal past from the 1980s to the election of Piriştina in 1999 and further
into the early 2000s will be analyzed.
This part of the chapter will thus provide an overview of İzmir's municipality, aiming
to comprehensively grasp cultural developments and the pressing need for new
cultural spaces. The discussion will span from 1984, marking the onset of significant
municipal changes, through the early 2000s, segmented across different municipal
periods. Particular attention will be directed toward Ahmet Piriştina's period, during
which cultural development emerged as a prominent component of municipal policy.
Piriştina's municipality, followed by the subsequent Kocaoğlu era, predominantly
employed two strategies: re-functioning existing heritage structures and constructing
new arts and culture centers. These practices will be subject to analysis, shedding light
on the motives behind integrating cultural spaces into municipal developments.
Selected case studies will be employed to evaluate these motives further.
3.2.1. Cultural Politics of Local Governments
After the military coup of 1980, a general election was held finally in November of
1983. Even though the strict rule was officially over, the atmosphere it brought
lingered in the political scene, and local authorities could not go back to the democratic
order up until 1984. "The strict regime of September 12, which removed all locally
elected administrative bodies from the office, demonstrated its state-centered
bureaucratic and authoritarian approach, extorting its influence on local
5 3
administrations as it did in all other areas."112 As a result, being influenced by such an
atmosphere, the elected municipalities were more inclined to a prohibitive approach
which did not support autonomous ideas. In 1981, with the new Unification Act, the
governance of small provinces, small towns and local centers were taken under the
municipalities of major cities, meaning the beginning of metropolitan municipalities.
Hence, İzmir also became a Metropolitan Municipality, which was responsible for at
least thirteen municipalities and five villages. The Metropolitan Municipality practices
were first initiated in İzmir, which became a pioneer of such governance in Turkey.
The biggest problem that the metropolitan municipality of İzmir was focusing on,
alongside the housing problems caused by the increase in population, was the cleaning
of the İzmir gulf and the big water project.
1984 marks an important development in municipalities, as their authorities were
increased, and new duties were assigned to the metropolitan municipalities. According
to the Metropolitan Municipality Decree of March 23, 1984, the following duties for
metropolitan municipalities were listed as follows:
- Preparing, commissioning, and applying structural master plans while
approving and monitoring the implementation of these plans prepared by district
municipalities,
- Constructing squares, boulevards, streets, avenues, and main roads within the
metropolitan area, ensuring their maintenance and repairs as well as
implementing traffic regulations,
- Constructing and commissioning passenger and freight terminals, operating
and managing these terminals,
- Providing, commissioning, and managing water supplies, sewage, natural gas,
central heating, public transportation, and any other infrastructural planning,
- Protecting the environmental health,
- Establishing parks, gardens, and green areas, accomplishing social and cultural
services, creating laboratories to monitor food and beverage analysis for the
public health,
112 Anon. 150.Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017.
5 4
- Fostering collaboration and coordination among the district municipalities
within its jurisdiction,
- Undertaking services that require joint financing at the metropolitan level.113
Furthermore, with the law no. 3030114 about metropolitan municipalities, the
autonomy of the local governments increased. Municipal governments saw a budget
increase with the inauguration of this law. Housing problems, infrastructure problems
and city planning issues were being discussed by local authorities. “Özal’s
government, by increasing the resources and powers of the municipalities in order to
solve urban problems, saw the solution in strengthening the local governments.”115
İzmir was governed by different municipalities and mayors from 1984 to the early
2000s. What stands, according to Piriştina, as a major difference between his
government and the municipalities before was the democratic inclination of his
approach. In other words, Piriştina’s election campaign revolved around democratic
participation of the habitants of İzmir. He wanted the people of İzmir to be active in
municipal decisions which will ultimately affect their lives. The most prominent
reflection of such a desire showed itself through preserving historical heritage and the
appropriation of culture. To highlight how İzmir’s municipality will, in their beliefs,
stand out and be different, earlier Özfatura and Çakmur periods should be briefly
mentioned. With this brief municipal history, the evaluation and the mentioned
‘difference’ of İzmir could be seen clearly as well as the emphasis on culture could be
discussed more profoundly. İlhan Tekeli states that the period between 1984 and 1999
in İzmir’s municipal history is important in terms of implications and practices done
by the municipality; this period emphasizes and indicates also another important
aspect in İzmir’s municipal life by demonstrating what cannot be imposed on the
people of İzmir and to what they are unwilling to accept.116
113Anon. 150.Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017.
114 Ibid.p.9.
115 Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.14.
116 Özellikle 1984-1999 yılları arasında İzmir belediyeciliğinde yaşananlar, yapılan uygulamalar
kadar, İzmir halkına nelerin kabul ettirilemeyeceğini göstermesi bakımından da öznel bir öneme sahip
olmuştur. Ibid.p.10.
5 5
The First Period of Burhan Özfatura, 1984-1989
Burhan Özfatura was elected two times in İzmir, the first time in the 1984 elections,
the second time in 1994 after Yüksel Çakmur’s term in between. Then Özfatura lost
his position to Ahmet Piriştina in 1999. As Tekeli implied in the İzmir Modeli book,
Özfatura period exemplifies the political intentions of the period as well as how
significant the İzmir voter profile was, and how active or passive İzmirians were to
the municipal activities surrounding them. Even though, back in the day İzmir was
facing similar urban problems with the rest of the county, i.e. overpopulation,
unstoppable slum situations, and housing problems, the city was dealing with its own
specific problems as well. Thus, when Özfatura was elected in 1984 as the candidate
of the Motherland Party(Anavatan Partisi - ANAP, a center right neoliberal party), the
major problems that the municipality had to tackle with included problems about the
gulf (environmental issues and water problem) and housing problems including the
vast open area of Konak square which was referred as tarla, field because it was like
an open field and a void in the heart of İzmir, which needed planning. At the same
time, the over population in the city and the build-and-sell system of contractors was
ruining the historical texture of the city as well as causing urban planning deficiencies.
Following the center-right neoliberal party’s ideas, Özfatura’s municipal policies
included large numbers of joint stock companies with foreign partners. Therefore, in
his first year, a lot of foreign joint companies were established in İzmir.117 The first
skyscraper of İzmir, Hilton, was built during his time in 1986, and TANSAŞ (Tanzim
Satışları A.Ş.), a sales company founded by the municipality in the 1970s, was turned
into a chain of stores in this period as the first real modern retail stores that were
established in the country and İzmir is thus considered as the pioneer of such stores.118
On the other hand, following the municipal records and publications, culture was not
the first and the most important aspect in the municipal agenda of the period.
Nevertheless, the new urban plans and the changing structure of the city had a
117 Arap ve İzmir Belediyesi Turizm, Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (ARİZKO), İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi
Beton Asfalt Enerji Üretim Dağıtım Tesisleri Su Kanalizasyon Ticaret ve Sanayii Anonim Şirketi
(İZBETON), İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi İç ve Dış ticaret Anonim Şirketi (TANSAŞ), İzmir İmar
Limited Şirketi, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Ege Şehir Planlaması Teknolojik İşbirliği Merkezi A.Ş,
İzmir Enternasyonel Oteli A.Ş (Hilton), Düksaş Düktil Döküm Sanayii A.Ş vb. (Tekeli.p.17).
118 Yüksel Çakmur, however, when elected in 1989, will question the credibility of Tansaş stores and
will use the store as an exemplary situation to criticize Özfatura’s municipality. (Tekeli, p.18)
5 6
significant effect on the historical texture of the city as Tekeli writes: “during Özfatura
period eight-story buildings were allowed along Cumhuriyet Boulevard and the
connection between the historical fabric of the city to the sea was severed.”119
The Period of Yüksel Çakmur and the Second Period of Burhan Özfatura, 1989-1999
Each municipal period was born out of a critic brought upon the former mayor and his
visions. Yüksel Çakmur was elected in 1989 through the criticism he brought on
Özfatura and his initiations. While ANAP was losing credibility in İzmir, Çakmur,
elected from Democratic Leftist Party (Demokratik Sol Parti - DSP), promised a
livable İzmir to fellow İzmirians. While criticizing the Özfatura period, Çakmur
nevertheless continued some of the projects initiated by Özfatura such as the The Great
Canal project and environmental projects like increasing the green areas in Kültürpark.
Some of the developments in the 1990s, established by Çakmur period, included the
opening of an architecture competition to increase the green in Kültürpark,120 the
establishment of İZFAŞ (İzmir Fuarcılık Hizmetleri Kültür ve Sanat İşleri Anonim
Şirketi – İzmir Fair Services Culture and Art Affairs Joint Company) to elevate the
infrastructure of Kültürpark. During his term, new transportation vehicles were
bought, Ahmet Piriştina was appointed as the head of TANSAŞ and the shares of the
company were sold to the public, and housing problems tried to be dealt with the
establishment of new neighborhoods of EVKA and EGEKENT.The following
elections in 1994 was marked by the return of Özfatura, nevertheless the public
support was much less. TANSAŞ was privatized and sold to the Doğuş group. İlhan
Tekeli defines this second period of Özfatura as ‘an imposition’ to the people of İzmir,
which received strong criticism that reflected itself during the next 1999 elections.
Two important events happened in İzmir in the period of Çakmur and the second
period of Özfatura; one was the Galleria Mall project in Konak square and the other
highway project on Mustafa Kemal Boulevard on the seashore, which meant the
119 Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.17.
120 The aim was to increase the existing 26% green area to 60%. The project by Merih Karaaslan, Şükrü
Kocagöz and Mürşit Günday was awarded in the competition.
5 7
destruction of the Kordon. These two sanctions were criticized by the people of İzmir
as well as the Chambers of Architect, demanding the preservation of the historical
connection of the city both with its past and the sea. İlhan Tekeli describes this attitude
as ‘emrivaki [fait accompli]’, meaning these decisions were being imposed on the
people of İzmir without their consent. These made both Çakmur and Özfatura lose
their credibility in the eyes of the people of İzmir. In fact, the insistence of Özfatura
on filling Kordon with concrete to make way for a highway that would pass from
Alsancak to Konak and all the way to Çeşme, was the last straw for the people of
İzmir, the city’s intellectuals, universities and the Chamber of Architects.
The filling of Kordon shore with concrete was banned following the decision of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage Preservation Board through the 7089 asset, decided on
February 27, 1998. According to the decision, the area covering Kordon, Cumhuriyet
Square and Alsancak were parts of the historical site which cannot be touched.
“Despite the decision, the municipality [Özfatura] continued the project. These
emrivaki implementation efforts will play a key role in Burhan Özfatura’s loss of the
1999 municipal elections against Ahmet Piriştina.”121
The Period of Ahmet Piriştina, 1999-2004: “Democratic Inclusion to Local
Government”122
As Ahmet Piriştina, I firmly believe that within the framework of
the program's principles, I will serve as the conscience and
the voice of İzmir in the management of the city in the upcoming period.
I wholeheartedly believe that I will bring a service distribution
to İzmir and its residents [İzmirians] that is worthy and just.123
121 Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.23.
122 Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.24.
123 Ahmet Piriştina olarak ben, programın ilkeleri çerçevesinde önümüzdeki süreçte İzmir’in
yönetiminde İzmir’in vicdanı ve sesi olacağım. İzmir’e, İzmirlilere layık ve adaletli hizmet dağılımı
getireceğime yürekten inanıyorum. Özsüphandağ Yayman, Duygu, Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü:
Nergis Kokar mı İzmir’in Sokakları? İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51, March 2007,
p.108.
5 8
Ahmet Piriştina was born in İzmir on April 8, 1952. His family migrated to İzmir from
Kosovo after the Second World War. Educated in well-established schools like Saint
Joseph College and İzmir Atatürk High School, Piriştina was a known name in the city
after being assigned as the head of TANSAŞ by Yüksek Çakmur in 1994. Following
his success with TANSAŞ, he was the one who established KİPA (Kitle Pazarlama
A.Ş. - Mass Marketing Trade Logistics and Food Industry Stock Company) as an
important supermarket chain in İzmir.
In 1999, Ahmet Piriştina was the candidate of Democratic Leftist Party (Demokratik
Sol Parti - DSP) for the mayor of İzmir. His election campaign revolved around the
idea of a more inclusive democracy as it was explicit from Piriştina’s own words: "For
a democratic, participatory, secular, contemporary city administration, I have declared
my candidacy - from DSP - for the mayor of İzmir Metropolitan Municipality."124 The
slogan was "Ecevit for Turkey, Piriştina for İzmir",125 meaning a social and more
democratic approach was embraced.126 The biggest change that Piriştina believed that
he would bring to the municipal agenda was a renewal of mindset. The theme of his
campaign was the "collective mind",127 meaning a more inclusive, participatory
democracy.
Piriştina stated: “The biggest project in our municipal program is the renewal of the
mindset. What we mean by this expression is the reorganization of the municipality’s
internal and external structures as well as the relationship established with the citizens
and to address it with a new spirit and a new perspective.”128 He believed in a socialist
municipality where the people of İzmir could be active participants in the municipal
124 Anon. 150.Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017,
p.105.
125 Ibid.
126 Bülent Ecevit is the former Prime Minister of Turkey who actively participated in politics especially
between 1974 and 2002. He was the chairman of the Republican People’s Party and later on, after 1987,
he became the chairman of the Democrat Leftist Party. The correlation between Piriştina and Ecevit
comes from their socialist backgrounds and their belief in a common democracy as well as their
inclination towards the importance of arts and culture in urban politics.
127 Özsüphandağ Yayman, Duygu, Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü: Nergis Kokar mı İzmir’in Sokakları?
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51, March 2007.
128 Ibid. p.162.
5 9
activities. During his election campaign he talked about several problems of İzmir that
needed to be addressed such as infrastructure problems, new transportation routes,
averting floods and water problems, improving railroads and water transportations,
providing almost all neighborhoods with a metro line, saving the gulf and cleaning the
shorelines, and improving the city plan to achieve a contemporary modern metropole.
More importantly, Piriştina’s government was explicitly talking about arts and culture
and their importance in achieving a modern contemporary city. İnsisting on the
importance of such spaces in İzmir, “he stated that it is necessary to bring new prestige
spaces to the city such as congress halls, fairs and art centers. It was not common to
see a mayoral candidate seeking support from the public by promising opera
houses.”129
The Period of Aziz Kocaoğlu, 2004-2019
Piriştina went into the 2004 elections with a second plan for İzmir aiming for the
acculturation and amelioration of the city with multiple projects, including the hosting
of the Universiade 2005 in İzmir, the establishment of a Disaster Preparedness and
Earthquake Research Center after the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey, the undertaking of
an E-Municipality project, the establishment of an Urban Institute based on the idea
of İzmir and İzmirian identity (İzmirlilik), which will ensure the formation of an urban
consciousness and public education and continuation of cultural projects for this urban
identity formation.130
Piriştina did win the second election. Nevertheless, unfortunately, a short time later he
passed away leaving the people of İzmir shocked and saddened. In ten days, the
Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi - CHP), Piriştina’s party, had to
select a name from the municipal council. With a democratic election with the council
consisting of the members of the opposing parties and Justice and Progress Party in
power (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi - AKP), Aziz Kocaoğlu, then Bornova district
deputy chairman of CHP, became the new mayor of İzmir. Kocaoğlu was aware of the
129 Ibid.p.108.
130 Tekeli, İlhan, İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.33.
6 0
task that he had undertaken as Piriştina was loved by many İzmirians and was taken
so suddenly away from his duties. Kocaoğlu’s first declaration after being elected
shows his awareness of taking over an İzmirli legacy: “I will be impartial and fair. I
will work tirelessly to serve all İzmir and its residents without discrimination and with
no personal interest. I will do my best to realize the vision outlined for İzmir by Mr.
Piriştina and will complete all the unfinished projects.”131
According to İlhan Tekeli, even though Kocaoğlu took over an existing municipal
agenda, he proved himself by following his own municipal vision and won future
elections with his accomplishments.132 Two important aspects were urgent for
Kocaoğlu’s actions: to fix the financial situation and completing all the debts that the
municipality had, and to host the Universiade 2005 in İzmir. Kocaoğlu’s financial
vision was the most important novelty he brought to the municipality when there was
an evident tension between the central governmental party and İzmir’s municipality’s
party in opposition.
As Aziz Kocaoğlu argued, İzmir’s progressive qualities which differentiates the city
amongst others come from the port itself: “If we have reached different values than
other Anatolian cities with our modernity, intellectuality, nourishing culture of
democracy and reconciliation, quality of life, awareness of urban life and social
structure, it is due to our early encounter with the Western culture, we owe it to the
coexistence of different people, different languages, beliefs and ethics and how we
bring them together. That is to say, we owe it to our port”.133 Apart from its port, the
distinctive characteristic that grants İzmir its uniqueness is its continuous oppositional
stance and the dualities that it had acquired over the years. “Central government versus
131 Translated by the author, Tekeli, İlhan, İzmir Modeli p. 36, Aziz Kocaoğlu’s words: “Tarafsız ve adil
olacağım. Bireysel çıkarlara yönelik değil, ayrım yapmak- sızın tüm İzmir ve İzmirlilere hizmet
götürmek için çok çalışacağım. Sayın Piriştina’nın İzmir için çizdiği vizyonun ve yarım kalan projelerin
gerçekleştirilmesi için elimden geleni yapacağım.”
132 Tekeli, İlhan, İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli Kitap 1. İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018, p.37.
133 Eğer çağdaşlığımız, aydınlığımız, gelişen demokrasi ve uzlaşma kültürümüz, yaşam kalitemiz,
kentlilik bilincimiz ve toplum yapımızla diğer Anadolu kentlerinden daha farklı değerlere ulaşmışsak,
bunu Batı kültürüyle erken tanışmamıza; farklı dil, din ve ırka mensup insanları buluşturup
kaynaştırmamıza borçluyuz. Yani limanımıza. In Anon. 150.Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-
2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017, Introduction by Aziz Kocaoğlu.
6 1
local administration, central tax system versus resistance to tax collection, sustaining
the capital city versus international trade or smuggling, traditions versus modernity,
statism versus liberalism …. The city likes to keep a distance from the rest of the
country. The regional identity of İzmir, even though it is not cosmopolitan in nature,
goes hand in hand with its international and pluralistic identity.”134
This myth of İzmir’s so-called “uniqueness” reflected itself differently throughout the
years as the city was seen as more progressive and almost rebellious. Having a port
had brought about different lifestyles together and created an atmosphere of duality,
understanding and coexistence. Even after the republic, while most of the non-muslim
population moved away from İzmir and the city was left with a majority of Muslim
Turks, it may be argued that this understanding continued to exist in the Turkish
mindset. The city has always been associated with different dualities, East-West,
progressive-traditionalist, left-right, secular-conservative etc. One thing was common,
the emphasis on being different. As popularly argued, “… İzmir’s color has always
been different. It is the color that gives the city modernity, civilization, citizenship
awareness, enlightenment and culture that the city embodies.”135
The periods of Özfatura, Çakmur, Piriştina, and Kocaoğlu from the late 1980s to the
early 2000s, show that the starting point of each municipal campaign revolved around
what İzmirians would accept and not accept, and how they would participate in local
politics. The term "livable İzmir" could be questioned here. What did it mean? Why
did the participation of the people living in İzmir mattered that much and what made,
in the eyes of the politicians and the public, İzmir different? Was İzmir truly different;
if so, what factors made İzmir stand out? The local governance of Piriştina and that
of Kocaoğlu following it aimed at emphasizing İzmir's difference and uniqueness by
embracing its history and culture through restoration and renovation projects as well
as the establishment of new cultural spaces in İzmir. The next sections will expand the
134 Yücel Kaya, Alp, “Şehir Senin Peşini Bırakmayacak,” in İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent Mi?
Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İletişim, 2020, p. 258.
135 Bekir Coşkun’s words written in Hürriyet Gazetesi after the passing of Piriştina: Özsüphandağ
Yayman, Duygu, Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü: Nergis Kokar mı İzmir’in Sokakları? İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51, March 2007, p.176. While indicating on İzmir having a
different color, Coşkun talks about the social party İzmir keeps electing during elections in Turkey
which shows how the city reflects the opposition party in the country.
6 2
notion of building cultural spaces by the municipality with selected examples, each
unveiling different strategies of renovating and re-functioning historical heritage and
constructing new ones. The shift from state museums to new cultural art centers,
exhibition places, city archives and museums by the local government will be
discussed in these cases.
3.2.2. Re-Functioning Built Heritage as Cultural Spaces
When shaping the present and the future, an indispensable aspect that cannot be
looked away is the historical dimension of the cities. As Tanpınar eloquently puts it,
it’s the ‘second time’ that exists within the city.136
During his municipal governance Piriştina kept highlighting the importance of arts,
culture, history and preservation in İzmir. He believed citizens of İzmir should
participate in local governance as they were the ones living in the city, and he was
aiming for İzmir to be a “Cultural Capital (kültür başkenti)”. Culture was essential for
Piriştina as he wanted to embrace a local management with “high aesthetic
sensibility."137 In that regard, the common comparison of Piriştina to the leader of his
party Bülent Ecevit can be understood through their connection to arts and culture.
"Ecevit’s contention was that Turkey’s future depended in significant ways upon a
revolution in the popular appreciation of art and upon individuals’ contributions to a
national cultural sphere free from the involvement of the state.”138 Likewise, Piriştina
took great care for arts and culture and the involvement of the people of İzmir in the
process.
Piriştina’s collaboration with intellectual and prominent figures for city planning,
architecture and cultural affairs could be seen as a proof for his care of competency in
municipal work. İzmir municipality working with the Chamber of Architects to put
136 Özsüphandağ Yayman, Duygu, Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü: Nergis Kokar mı İzmir’in Sokakları?
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51, March 2007, p.162.
137 Ibid.
138 Neel-Smith, Sarah, “Introduction to ‘Artistic Awakening in Ankara,’ ‘The Artist and the Politics,’
and ‘The Burden of the Intellectual,’ by Bülent Ecevit,” ARTMarhings and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, ARTM/2016, p.109.
6 3
an end to the imposed filling of Kordon to build a road can be seen as a result of this
sensibility. Moreover, the choice of architectural historian and conservation expert
Doğan Kuban as the advisor to the municipality increased restoration and conservation
projects all around the city. Piriştina believed the preservation of the past, educating
the public about the historical and cultural consciousness, and creating new cultural
spaces are essential for the city as well as for establishing an “İzmirian” identity139.
The root for this identity was developed from İzmir’s unique qualities and the foreseen
quality of life of the people of İzmir.
Thus, Piriştina stated:
The sum of distinctive elements that sets our city apart from others, in other
words the identity of İzmir, is a quality that we must carefully preserve when
planning the future. In every significant decision concerning the future of the
city, we have sought a synthesis between the past, the present, and the future,
acknowledging their interconnectedness. The greatest assurance for
preserving the city's historical heritage and identity lies not only in the
approach taken by administrations but also in the widespread awareness of
such values among a diverse urban population. While ensuring that our
solutions are in harmony with the identity and history of the city, we also
placed importance on creating cultural spaces and organizing events that
would instill these values in the residents of the city.140
As a result, a part of Piriştina’s municipal plan consisted of aesthetical renewal,
meaning cultural developments and conservation-restoration of cultural and historical
139 In fact, the term İzmirlilik, “İzmirian identity”, was commonly used by municipal officials
themselves in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is observed that Piriştina and Kocaoğlu used this term
on numerous occasions to foster a sense of local belonging. Etymologically speaking, this word could
be interpreted as a description for the city's residents, whether they were born there or chose to live
there, similar to the use of “Smyrniot” for the former name of the city, which was employed to describe
native inhabitants of Smyrna. Nevertheless, as that of any other city, the İzmirian identity cannot be
singular. This is more of the case in İzmir; the city’s history is enough to comprehend that İzmir had,
has, and will have multiple identities, ethnicities, and cultures. The main motive behind the utilization
of this term, as evaluated in this thesis, is the desire of local authorities to emphasize a local emphasis
by incorporating invented terms such as the “İzmirians”, although what is meant by İzmirian still needs
deeper questioning which could inspire further research.
140 Preface by Ahmet Piriştina in Anon. 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi,
15.04.2003.
6 4
heritage. The main reason was what Doğan Kuban stated about the connotation of
aesthetics with the metropolitan vision: “Preparing major cities for the future should
go beyond implementing a technical modernization project but it should be driven by
a vision of civilization. This vision is determined not only by the content of activities
but also by their aesthetic presence.”141 In addition, the presence of multiple cultural
developments which were accomplished during Piriştina’s municipal period proves in
a way this aesthetic presence. The booklet that the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality
published, 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor [1999-2003 İzmir is Changing],142 gives a
through list of these developments.143
Tekeli highlights the importance of identity within cultural politics by stating that, in
this changing world from the industrial society to society of knowledge, from nationstates
to globalism, from modernism to postmodernism, the approach to culture
changed drastically and the main concern revolved around the formation of identity
amongst different societies. Furthermore, Tekeli continues stating that cultural politics
of conservation and preservation can be explained in four motives: providing a
historical consciousness and a reflex for sustainability to the inhabitants of a city or a
nation by preserving historical heritage; using conservation and preservation to build
a new identity amongst urbanites; protecting arts, history, and culture; and lastly
profiting economically by ameliorating tourism.16 Piriştina's cultural initiations
between 1999 to 2003 briefly listed above can be understood in this regard. Cultural
activities and spaces, hence, were seen as elements to ameliorate the life quality of
İzmir and to develop a new İzmirian identity that was aimed to be more inclusive and
democratic when compared to former municipal governments. Moreover, cultural
spaces and the recognition of the historical texture of the city as well as the creation
of art galleries, museums and cultural activities were seen as prominent figures in
turning İzmir into a ‘livable’ city, a cosmopolitan and contemporary metropolis. For
national and international recognition as well as tourist attraction, cultural spaces were
necessary, but above all, an idea of an İzmir urbanite was tried to be achieved since
141 Özsüphandağ Yayman, Duygu, Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü: Nergis Kokar mı İzmir’in Sokakları?
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51, March 2007, p.120-121.
142 Anon. 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 15.04.2003.
143 For more information, see Appendix A.
6 5
Piriştina’s own dialogues reflected this desire: “Protecting a historical place and
prolonging the lifespan of the historical building is correlated with its function.
Besides developing arts and culture, creating an urban consciousness is also the duty
of local municipalities. Our citizens who own their urban culture and benefit the urban
consciousness will equally contribute to the triumph of İzmir.”144 Piriştina clearly
stated the importance his municipal team put upon culture and conservation. Although
a lot of different renovation and foundation of cultural centers occurred as the listed
edifices, some of these examples reflect this identity and urban consciousness building
process for İzmir. Three specific examples which best embodied what was wanted to
be achieved by the Piriştina municipality, and Kocaoğlu municipality which followed,
will be evaluated specifically. Each of these exemplary cultural spaces of a museum,
a museum and archive, and a cultural center, will portray the processes: of restoring,
and re-using and re-functioning architectural heritage.
3.2.2.1. From Culture Pavilion to History and Art Museum (2004)
Kültürpark is one of the most prominent public spaces in İzmir, engraved in the
memoires of the people with fairs and events that it hosted. Cultural spaces inside the
park define the ‘culture’ in Kültürpark, literally named as Culture Park. While some
buildings were included in the cultural project of the planning of the park, others have
an architectural significance in their design which could be regarded as architectural
heritage of the 20th century. Afterall, Kültürpark signifies itself that architecture and
design can be a means to recreate something new. As said by Abidin Kusno, "The
interplay between memory and the city is particularly central to countries undergoing
profound social and political transformation."145 Thus, the new Turkish Republic built
this park on the burnt ground of the city and tried to give the people of İzmir a space
for international recognition – fairs and global exhibitions - as well as an urban public
space for education, leisure, and cultural activities.
144 Piriştina from his speech during the opening of the restoration in 2002: “Tarihi bir mekânı korumak
ve o binanın yaşam ömrünü uzatmak, üstlendiği işlev ile doğrudan ilintilidir. Kültür- sanatı
geliştirmenin yanı sıra, kentlilik bilinci yaratmak da yerel yönetimlerin görevidir. Kentlilik kültürüne
sahip çıkarak, bu bilinçten yararlanan hemşerimiz de İzmir'in yükselişinde etkili olacaktır.”
https://www.izmir.bel.tr/tr/Haberler/turkiyenin-ilk-kent-muzesi-ve-arsivi-izmirde-kuruluyor/548/156
145 Kusno, Abidin, The Appearances of Memory: Mnemonic Practices of Architecture and Urban Form
in Indonesia, Durham, London, Duke University Press, 2010, p. 11.
6 6
İzmir History and Art Museum is one of the most important cultural "memory
spaces"146 of Kültürpark since the building’s design itself tells an architectural story
on its own. Kıvanç Kılınç, Ahenk Yılmaz and Burkay Pasin define the museum as
"the embodiment of the Kültürpark’s memory."147 The building’s transformation over
time could be seen as a macro urban transformation: "The museum- with its allsemantic
shifts, identity transformations, erased and rewritten traces, its forgotten
spatial story, purpose of representation and its actors- is almost like a crystalized
example of Kültürpark’s memory."148 The museum building was designed as a
separate space from the fair areas. The idea to build an independent museum inside
Kültürpark was achieved with this building which opened its doors under the name of
İzmir History and Art Museum in 2003.149
Beginnings of the İzmir History and Art Museum: Culture Pavilion
In 1936, the construction of Kültürpark, with the help of the mayor Behçet Uz at the
time, was still continuing. As there was a lack of efficient architects and engineers
during this period of state-formation in Turkey, European architects were invited to
develop urban plannings and design new projects in contemporary style. Bruno Taut
was one of the architects who fled the Nazi Germany as a Jewish architect, and was
exiled to Japan before settling in Turkey in 1936.150 “Taut was one of the very few
modernists who was confronted with the task of creating a new ‘architecture parlante’
to represent the new Turkish society.”151 Having the chance to experience his new
146 Ed. Yılmaz Ahenk, Kılınç Kıvanç and Pasin, Burkay, İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları:
Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler, İletişim, 2015.
147 Ibid.
148 Ibid.p.13.
149 İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa (ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler says that the museum opened
its doors on 2003 whereas Museums in İzmir: The cultural Background of a Mediterranean City dates
the opening date as 2004. Although municipal publication 1999-2003 İzmir değişiyor confirmed that
the project was nearly done in 2003.
150 Nicolai, Bernard, “Bruno Taut and the Changed Conception of Modernism on the Eve of World War
II,” architectura/2 2016, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst Journal of the History of Architecture,
2016.
151 Nicolai, Bernard, “Bruno Taut and the Changed Conception of Modernism on the Eve of World War
II,” architectura/2 2016, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst Journal of the History of Architecture,
2016, p.162
6 7
ways of altering modernist representations in Turkey, Taut built many buildings
especially in Ankara.152 The building of Ankara University Faculty of Letters, History
and Geography, designed in 1937, could be regarded as one of the most important
designs by Taut in Turkey. Taut was commissioned to design the Culture Pavilon of
the Ministry of Education in Kültürpark, Maarif Vekaleti Kültür Pavyonu, in 1938.
However, with his untimely death on Christmas of 1938, the building had to be
completed by the architects of the Ministry of Education in 1939 (Fig.28-29). Paola
Ardizzola believes that the Culture Pavilion reflects Taut’s understanding of
architecture that he wrote in Lessons on Architecture, published in Turkey, in which
he said that “proportion is composed of balance and beauty, simplicity, legibility and
function.” This, in fact, is evident, according to Ardizzola, in the design of the Culture
Pavilion: “The pavilion … realized by Taut for the International Fair of İzmir in 1938,
in collaboration with H. Grimm and F. Hillinger, offers evidence of this poetic.”153
Both Nicolai and Ardizzola repeated that the design of the pavilion was rather close
to Taut’s expressionist period that he experimented between the years 1910 to 1920,
before the war conflicts and his exile.
Figure 28: Culture Pavilion, 1939.
Translation [by the author] of the text: “This pavilion, built at the fair by the
Ministry of Education, was constructed by the Ministry of Education office under the
supervision of Bruno Taut, who passed away last year.”
Source: Arkitekt 9-10 / 1939, p.202.
152 Ibid.p.163.
153 Ardizzola, Paola, “La linea eterodossa di Bruno Taut in Turchia, ovvero una possibile conciliazione
fra tradizione e modernità, ” Fondazione Bruno Zevi via Nomentana 150 Roma, 2010, p.14
6 8
Figure 29: Culture Pavilion, façade.
Source: Ardizzola, 2010, p.13.
The reason for this assumption is somewhat evident in the façade and the plan of the
building as one can perceive geometric and symmetrical elements. Moreover, Nicolai
justifies this inclination towards a more expressionist early inspirations while
contrasting two of Taut’s design, Culture Pavilion in İzmir Fair and Trager-Verkauuf-
Kontor in Berlin Fair of 1910. Both structures have similar terraces and openings;
nevertheless, what was new with this building does not rely on its architecture but on
the representation.154 In other words, the design had similarities to Taut's German style
modernist past in terms of design, plan, and materials.
The representation and the function of the building, what the pavilion meant for
Kültürpark as well as for İzmir, was the novelty that Taut tried to achieve. Combining
the Western values on a newly built local park in which cultural space was invented,
the pavilion in a way was reflecting Taut’s ideal of bringing East and West together
and to “get to know the foreignness in one’s nature.”155 The building represented the
ideal of the new Turkish Republic as well as the transformation of the modernist
architecture in a non-western country. “What was new here must be the words spoken
154 Ed. Yılmaz Ahenk, Kılınç Kıvanç and Pasin, Burkay, İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları:
Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler, İletişim, 2015, p.19.
155 Akcan, Esra, Architecture in Translation, Germany, Turkey & the Modern House, Duke University
Press, Durham & London, 2012, Chapter 5: "Toward a Cosmopolitan Architecture," p.280.
6 9
in the cultural sphere of the Republic”.156 Taut wanted to express a new modernism
with the former influences he had from Germany and Japan, in a newly founded, nonwestern
nation-state. That was the ‘new’ in Taut’s understanding of modernist
architecture. Taut’s building, with the use of vast glasses, the relation to the square
and water in front of the pavilion, with the use of light, space, glass to create a
transparency, and geometrical symmetry, could be taken to symbolize the new identity
building desires of the Turkish Republic.
The contemporary aim was to express the new Turkish identity through the
relationship with the cultural space which would enhance international recognition,
and the reunion of east and west motifs on a local background. In a way, the attempt
to be “Western in spite of the West”157 might manifest itself through fairs, exhibitions
and culture spaces like the Culture Pavilion since representation was the key in
achieving international recognition and an internalization of the new Turkish identity.
The Museum Complex: Culture Pavilion turning into İzmir History and Art Museum
The Culture Pavilion, designed by Taut and completed by the Ministry of Education
in 1939, was constructed in the place of the Revolution Museum which had been
planned but could not have been realized. The building was re-used throughout the
years as the venue for different exhibitions, including those by different countries; for
instance, in one of the İzmir Fairs, the building was used by the People's Republic of
China. Multiple annexes to Taut’s original design were added to give space for
multiple exhibition areas.
In 1937, before the completion of Taut’s building, a building for exhibitions of
precious artifacts was constructed as designed by architect Fuat Saydam, which was
used for the Museum of Health of the İzmir İnternational Fair of 1938-39.
Additionally, the stone artifacts were exhibited in a rather new addition which was the
pavilion for The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Afterwards, this pavilion was
156 Ibid: Burada ‘yeni’ olan, Cumhuriyet döneminde kültürel alanda söylenen söz olsa gerektir.
157 Bozdoğan Sibel, Kasaba Reşat, ed. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture
in the Early Republic, University of Washington Press, 2001, p.29.
7 0
added to the Museum complex that was finally formed of three buildings, and the long
pool-like structure was added later to the entrance of the building. The museum is
defined as the only true achievement of implementing museums as a part of the
Kültürpak experience alongside exhibitions and fairs. It is accepted that the museum
fits perfectly to Behçet Uz’s idea of ‘an open-popular university’ with its vast
historical artifact collection dating almost 9500 years.
The stone section consisted of stone, ceramic, glass and metal findings excavated from
Ulucak Höyük, Limantepe, Baklatepe, Agora and Ancient Smyrna. The second section
of the museum covered sculptures and findings from Archaic, Hellenistic, Classic and
Roman periods whereas the precious artifacts section consisted of coins, terracotta,
bronze and glass objects and lastly the ceramic section had various findings from
different excavations from İzmir and its environs.158
The most important and significant quality of the museum is that the building was
realized through multiple designs and constructions. Different architects took roles in
the design of this multilayered complex building and over the years the function of the
space was altered by different municipal periods. That is precisely why the building
was regarded as an embodiment of the urban and collective memory. Additionally, the
museum is already an architectural heritage for the city of İzmir carrying different
layers of the municipal history as well as being the embodiment of the museumization
of Kültürpark.
Multiple museums were planned to be opened inside the park in the 1930s. Behçet Uz
wanted to initiate a Museum of Reform, Health Museum, Archeological Museum,
Museum of Agriculture, and İzmir City Museum. These museums were considered as
“indicators of the erection of identity and nationhood”159 for the city of İzmir on the
brink of a modernization period. However, only two museums could have opened
their doors: Museum of Health and Atatürk Museum of Reform. Both of these
158 Ed. Uhri, Ahmet, Museums in İzmir: The Cultural Background of a Mediterranean City / Museums,
Permanent Exhibitions and Collections in İzmir, İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Mediterranean
Academy, December 2018, p. 151.
159 Ibid. p.49.
7 1
museums came to life with the İzmir History and Art Museum’s initial building:
Culture Pavilion, together with the two annexes built by Turkish architects for the
Health and Reform Museum. The Health Museum was later shut down and the Reform
Museum became the Archeological Museum. These museums continue to house the
ceramics and precious works section of the İzmir History and Art Museum. Today’s
İzmir History and Art Museum is an important architectural heritage for İzmir as well
as the spatial continuation of the grand ideal of the museumification of Kültürpark
(Fig.30-31).
As a port city as well as a trade capital, İzmir wanted to diversify its ideals, with the
Republic, through culture, and Kültürpark, an open education, leisure, and
acculturation space, is a vivid example for this desire. Multiple museum initiations
failed, nonetheless, İzmir History and Art Museum and the building itself is a
crystalized example of İzmir’s achievement in diversifying Kültürpark’s function.
İzmir was not a mere trade city anymore but the new metropole of the Republic with
its aesthetic and cultural qualities. Piriştina’s government in the early 2000s wanted
to return to this ideal of cultural advancement and this important building, İzmir
History and Art Museum, was renewed to open its doors again.
Figure 30: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: Uhri, 2018, p.150.
7 2
Figure 31: İzmir History and Art Museum, entrance.
Source:
https://muze.gov.tr/s3/MysFileLibrary/İzmir%20Tarih%20ve%20Sanat%20Müzesi-
23f4743b-4510-4f20-bfa6-ea64c2926bf4.pdf
Piriştina wanted to, in a way, reinitiate the ‘culture’ in the name of Kültürpark.
“Kültürpark will turn into Turkey’s biggest open-air cultural center.”160 The
particularity of this initiation was not just the attempt to reunite the Culture within
Kültürpark, but it is also a cultural collaboration with the central government. The
municipality initiated the restoration and renewal of the exhibition spaces, but they
also gave the "key" to the central government for the management of the space, which
displays an important aspect as a museum being run by the central government on a
site which belongs to the İzmir Municipality. “Residents of İzmir and visiting tourists
will have the opportunity to see Turkey's largest coin collection, the famous Homer
Statue, and many other rare artifacts in the museum that we handed over to the
Ministry as a ‘turnkey’ project. Additionally, newly acquired artifacts from the
Tepekule and Agora excavations will also be exhibited here for the first time. Homer's
head was in the Selçuk Ephesus Museum, and his torso was in the İzmir Archaeology
Museum. Here, we are reuniting Homer. The three buildings located within the
fairgrounds were renovated to become sections for stone artifacts, ceramic artifacts,
and valuable artifacts.”161 It was discussed with the example of the Painting and
160 Piriştina in Anon. "İzmir Tarih ve Sanat Müzesi Açıldı," Arkitera, March 13th 2004:
https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2004/03/13/izmir2.htm
161 İzmirliler ve kente gelen turistler, Bakanlığa ‘anahtar teslimi’ teslim ettiğimiz müzede, Türkiye’nin
en büyük sikke koleksiyonunu, ünlü Homeros Heykeli’ni ve pek çok nadide eseri görme olanağı
bulurken, Tepekule ve Agora Kazıları’ndan elde edilen yeni eserler de ilk kez burada sergilenecek.
Homeros’un başı Selçuk Efes Müzesi’nde, gövdesi İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeydi. Biz, burada
Homeros’u da birleştiriyoruz. Fuar içinde bulunan 3 bina yenilenerek, taş eserler bölümü, seramik
7 3
Sculpture Gallery inside Kültürpark which reflected a municipal discontinuity in a
cultural space. Similarly, the History and Art Museum’s management was transferred
to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in 2004, but this time the central government
and the municipality were from different political parties. This fact would in fact
interrupt the cultural activities shared by the local government and the central
government when later on such buildings and galleries would be used separately from
the municipal intentions in the mid-2000s.
3.2.2.2. From Fire Station to City Museum and Archive (2004)
Early 2000s in Turkey, and also in İzmir, is marked by a re-functioning and restoration
of industrial heritage buildings. Emel Kayın categorizes this industrial heritage
through two different lanes: the first heritage group dates to the 19th century Ottoman
modernization whereby European and non-Muslim investors were investing in
modern metropoles like İzmir. As a result, many buildings were established in these
cities forming the first heritage group. The second heritage group was found in small
Anatolian cities which developed with the modernization project of the Republic.162
The example of IKEMA, (İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivi - City Museum and Archive),
which later took the name of APIKAM (Ahmet Piriştina Kent Müzesi ve Arşivi - City
Archive and Museum), belongs to the second industrial heritage group and was one of
the most important achievements of the İzmir Municipality in the early 2000s.
Re-organizing cultural edifices as well as opening new municipal cultural spaces was
important for Piriştina’s municipality to serve the ideal of turning İzmir into a
“Cultural Capital” and to reinitiate an urban consciousness amongst İzmirians to
emphasize the uniqueness of the city. Piriştina’s vision of culture was very much
related to the understanding of historical heritage. The formation of an urban
consciousness which derived from cultural and historical awareness is one of the most
important differences of Piriştina’s municipality which reminded early Republican
eserler bölümü ve kıymetli eserler bölümü oldu in Anon. "İzmir Tarih ve Sanat Müzesi Açıldı," Arkitera,
March 13th 2004: https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2004/03/13/izmir2.htm
162 Kayın, Emel, ‘‘Tasarımdan Onarıma Endüstri Mirası: Uygulamalar, Sorunlar, Öneriler,’’ Ege
Mimarlık/ 2009/3 70, p.9.
7 4
cultural vision on a more local spectrum. İzmir was in need of a city archive/museum
to internalize such awareness. The project of the city museum is one of the most
important projects of Piriştina’s government.163 For the initiation of the project, the
former Fire Station building was selected. The selection was intentional for many
reasons. First, historical importance was almost a tangible reflection of the desired
cultural and historical consciousness as Piriştina states: “the building is the first public
service building constructed by the Turkish Republic, and in this regard, it symbolizes
a transformation. By transforming the building which is also an historical archive of
the city itself, we aimed to embody the space with its new function.”164 Secondly, the
choice underlines Piriştina’s critical approach to former municipalities which had
been, according to him, not inclusive enough in their municipal decisions. Özfatura
municipality, before Piriştina’s election in 1999, wanted to build a shopping mall or a
skyscraper in the place of the Fire Station, which meant a serious interruption of urban
historical continuation. By preserving the initial building and turning it into an
archive/museum, Piriştina aimed to continue the historical heritage of İzmir by simply
changing its function and status according to the new needs of the city, which was to
preserve the cultural identity of İzmir.165
İzmir City Archive and Museum
İzmir is preparing for the future with the light of
its thousands of years of history.166
İzmir City Museum and Archive opened its doors to the public on January 10, 2004.
The project was an element of Ahmet Piriştina’s politics for İzmir while he was
163 After Piriştina’s unexpected death at an early age, the organization took the name Ahmet Piriştina
City Archive and Museum and remained as a symbol of his cultural achievements.
164 Ahmet Piriştina Preface, p.5: "Çünkü bina, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin itfaiye istasyonu olarak inşa
ettirdiği ilk hizmet yapısıdır ve bu açıdan bir dönüşümü simgelemektedir. Kentin geçmişi hakkında
kendisi de bir belge olan binayı kent müzesi ve arşivine dönüştürerek, mekânı yeni işleviyle
bütünleştirmeyi hedefledik." İn Dr. Sabri Yetkin & Dr. Fikret Yılmaz, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent
Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, March 2002.
165 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor: İzmir binlerce yıllık geçmişinin ışığıyla geleceğe hazırlanıyor. IKEMA,
p.141.
166 Ibid.
7 5
preparing for the 1999 elections. The building chosen for such an occasion did hold a
place in the city’s memory as it was the former Fire Station building founded in 1932
and designed by architect Mesut Özok167 (Fig.32). Piriştina, during his speech on the
day of the beginning of restorations, emphasized the importance of restoring an
identity and a sense of belonging amongst İzmir dwellers. Piriştina was highlighting
the importance for the need of a city museum and archive by pointing out once again
the significance of urban memory in shaping the identity of the urbanite. A public
recognition, nation-wide and international, was also aimed at with this city museum
and archive which was considered as one of the first complete examples of such an
institution in Turkey. The project could be seen, in a way, as a self-promotion of the
city of İzmir as well as the Piriştina administration which aimed to make İzmir a
universal and national brand.168
Figure 32: Ahmet Piriştina during the groundbreaking ceremony for IKEMA.
Source: https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/Apikam-Arsiv/1/29?tab=64
167 Güner, Deniz, ‘‘Kültürpark’ın bilinmeyen tasarımcısı Mesut Özok: Bir otobiyografik yapı-söküm
ve biyografik yeniden-inşa denemesi’’ in İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar,
Aktörler, der. Ahenk Yılmaz, Kıvanç Kılınç, Burak Pasin, İletişim, 2015, p.283.
168 The concept of “Marka Kent” (Brand City) refers to some local cities which are more known than
capitals. The term is more developed during the second half of the 20th century, especially for local
administrations. For İzmir, the desire of becoming a brand city showed itself through different municipal
activities in increasing local and international investment into the city. Culture and cultural assets play
key roles in making İzmir a part of the Brand Capital cities.
7 6
Piriştina firmly believed that city museums, by building a bridge between past, present
and future, contributed directly to the shaping of urban consciousness. This
consciousness and the sense of belonging to the city was seen as a key element to
make İzmir a brand of its own. Well-adjusted citizens claiming their environment by
embracing their past will benefit the future of the city itself and will accentuate the
autonomy of local governments. As a result, the initiative of a city museum was seen
as a governmental institution embedded in local politics. In Piriştina’s words:
"According to the contemporary local government’s approach, the museum and
archive are equally regarded as an urban institution like other basic service units, and
even though the results are not seen immediately, their permanent contributions to
urban life are well known. Acting on this local governmental approach, we decided
that it would be a meaningful initiative to accomplish a first in Turkey for İzmir and
we started the implementation works.”169
The liberal approach adopted by nation-states like Turkey, turned their attention to
cities rather than central governments towards the end of the 20th century because the
power of the local as a political tool was understood.170 City museums were not only
a tool to foster urban consciousness and urban memory, but they were also political
tools to brand the city. Nur Şenel Fidangenç explains this connection of city museums
with local politics by saying that “… to establish a city museum [was] defined as one
of the missions of the municipalities, which led the city museums to become
widespread in Turkey.”171 Likewise, Piriştina believed İzmirians172 needed to embrace
their own local identity, history and culture. Embracing the city, welcoming anyone
169 Ahmet Piriştina Preface: "Çağdaş yerel yönetim anlayışına göre, müze ve arşiv, diğer temel hizmet
birimleri gibi kentsel bir kurum olarak kabul edilmektedir ve sonuçları hemen görülmüyor olsa bile,
kent yaşantısına yaptığı kalıcı etkiler bilinmektedir. Bu yaklaşımın belirlediği bir yerel yönetim
anlayışından hareket ederek, Türkiye’de bir ilki İzmir için gerçekleştirmenin anlamlı bir girişim
olacağını kararlaştırıp, uygulama çalışmalarına başladık." in,Dr. Sabri Yetkin & Dr. Fikret Yılmaz,
İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, March 2002,
p.5.
170 Şenel-Fidangenç, Nur, “Discourse Analysis of City Museums in Turkey Since 2000,” Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, December 2018.
171 Ibid.p.21.
172 Personal word play on İzmirli in Turkish which signifies to the dwellers living in İzmir. Like
Parisians. This paper will use İzmirians as a method to highlight İzmir’s urbanite identity. The use of
İzmirians refers to in this paper: citizens born and raised in İzmir and citizens who moved to İzmir and
felt a part of the city.
7 7
who wished to live in İzmir, was the key to make the city a national and international
“Culture Capital”. The emphasis on culture might have been increased more and more
due to the attempts of joining EXPO in 2015 and making İzmir the new brand on the
international platform. For this to happen, İzmirians must embrace the city and reshape
their urban memory. As Piriştina himself declared in his election policy: “Ensuring
that İzmir takes its place in the contemporary world by engaging in an urban
development which re-emphasized İzmir’s historical identity.”173 The city’s history
and culture are its memories. Thus, İzmir had to have its own city museum and a city
archive.
From Fire Station to City Museum: A building with historical significance
For the İzmir City Museum and Archive, we thought it would be meaningful
to rearrange the former Fire Station building, an Early Republican structure
that served the country as a traditional service institution for seventy years,
in a different sector with a different function where a new urban institution
will take place.174
The choice of restoring the Fire Station building reminds ÇEKÜL’s175 “7 regions 7
cities” project developed in the 1990s which aimed to transform historically important
buildings into an Environmental Culture House to portray the urban heritage of the
city.176 The history of the Fire Station building is controversial and reflects a great
dimension of İzmir’s history and urban memory. The building highlights the tragic
portion of İzmir’s history: the battle with fire. As the catalog implies: “İzmir’s history
173 Tekeli Ibid.p.30; “İzmir’in tarihten gelen kimliğini yeniden öne çıkartan bir kentsel gelişme içinde
çağdaş dünyada daha güçlü olarak yer almasını sağlamak.” (Piriştina)
174Ibid. Ahmet Piriştina Preface, p.5: “İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivi için, geleneksel bir hizmet
kurumunun yetmiş yıl hizmet verdiği erken Cumhuriyet dönemi yapısı olan itfaiye binasını
düzenleyerek, farklı bir alanda ama bu kez yeni bir kentsel kurumun ter alacağı işleviyle İzmirliler için
hizmete devam etmesinin anlamlı olacağını düşündük.”
175 ÇEKÜL: Çevre ve Kültür Değerlerini Koruma ve Tanıtma Vakfı, The Foundation for the Protection
and Promotion of Environmental and Cultural Values.
176‘‘1990 yılında kurulan ÇEKÜL Vakfı’nın 7 Bölge 7 Kent projesi kapsamında, kimliğini koruyan
kentlerde, kültürel sürekliliği vurgulamak amacıyla önce, özelliklerini yitirmemiş̧ bir geleneksel konut,
Çevre Kültür Evi olarak onarılıp değerlendirildi.’’ in Kent Müzeleri ve Arşivleri, ÇEKÜL Vakfı-Tarihi
Kentler Birliği Yayınları, Kılavuz Kitapçık Dizisi 2, 2013, p24.
7 8
means İzmir’s fires”177 From the end of the15th century to the early 20th century İzmir
dealt with multiple fires which damaged the city drastically. The most known was
perhaps the 1922 fire that occurred on September 13, which destroyed 2,600,000
square meters of land, mostly of houses.178
The inadequacy of the Fire Department and local municipalities were seen as the
causes of the inability to control the fires. A new Fire Station located in the center was
a necessity. The Fire Department went under the administration of the municipality.
Nevertheless, due to the lack of budget and the upcoming financial crisis (1929-30)
and shifts in local politics, the construction could never be started. In the end, this
major delay for such a necessity became a national problem and the central
government decided to help the İzmir municipality. Discussions and demands about
the construction of the Fire Station started in 1924 and the building was finalized in
1932. Finally, after a long wait, İzmir got a new central Fire Station (Fig.33).
Figure 33: A view of the Fire Station building, 1932.
Source: https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/Apikam-Arsiv/1/29?tab=64
177 Dr. Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz, Fikret, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, Mart 2002, ‘‘İtfaiye Binası Yangınlar ve İzmir,’’ p.7-19.
178 Ibid.
7 9
The building served İzmir for seventy years, from 1932 to 2001. It was designed by
Mesut Özok who was an important architect of İzmir’s history. Özok is a figure who
witnessed the historical İzmir fires, especially the 1922 fire, and he worked in İzmir
Municipality (Fen Heyeti) from 1925 to the 1930s.179 Özok was an important architect
who worked in public service, taking roles in the modernization process of Kültürpark
and the urbanization of İzmir during the early years of the Republic. The İzmir Fire
Station building that Özok designed represents an architectural style shift in Turkey:
from traditional to a modern form (Fig.34-35). The so-called First National
Architecture and Art Deco standards began to be abandoned for simpler forms in the
1930s, which were considered more modern; and the Fire Station building is a
representative of this type of modernism of the 1930s.180
Figure 34: Fire Station Building, facilities.
Source: İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, Mart 2002.
179 Güner, Deniz, “Kültürpark’ın bilinmeyen tasarımcısı Mesut Özok: Bir otobiyografik yapı-söküm ve
biyografik yeniden-inşa denemesi" in İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa (ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar,
Aktörler, der. Ahenk Yılmaz, Kıvanç Kılınç, Burak Pasin, İletişim, 2015. p.283.
180 In the 1950s, an additional heating system was added to the building but during the restoration
process this additional part was subtracted to give the building its initial form. Ibid., p.301.
8 0
Figure 35: Fire Station Building, designed by Mesut Özok.
Source: http ://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php ?p=8570199
Transforming instead of re-building
… The building is the first public service building constructed by the Turkish
Republic and in this regard, it symbolizes a transformation.
By transforming the building which is also an historical archive
of the city itself, we aimed to embody the space with its new function.181
The construction project for the city museum and archive was opened to bid in
December 2001. Out of 80 firms that participated in the bid, İzka İnşaat won with 549
billion 193 million Turkish Lira.182 The construction for the restoration started in
2002.183
181 Ahmet Piriştina Preface, "Çünkü bina, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin itfaiye istasyonu olarak inşa ettirdiği
ilk hizmet yapısıdır ve bu açıdan bir dönüşümü simgelemektedir. Kentin geçmişi hakkında kendisi de
bir belge olan binayı kent müzesi ve arşivine dönüştürerek, mekânı yeni işleviyle bütünleştirmeyi
hedefledik." İn Dr.Sabri Yetkin & Dr.Fikret Yılmaz, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine,
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, March 2002, p.5
182 Arkitera, March 20th 2003: https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2003/03/28/izmir.htm
183 Dr.Fikret Yılmaz and Sabri Yetkin wrote in the catalog of IKEMA that the reason for choosing the
current Şair Eşref Boulevard was the centrality of the parcel. They said that the İzmir municipality, on
24 August 1924, chose the location of the Fire Station according to the fourteenth parcel of the burnt
districts. The location was chosen because it was closer to the endangered districts and it was the center
of the city in the 1920s. Today, APIKAM is still on the same parcel which is located on Çankaya A 1,
Şair Eşref Bulvarı. Dr. Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz, Fikret, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve
Arşivine, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, March 2002.
8 1
Figure 36: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: Google Maps, 2023.
The project consisted of an area of 3.592 m2 and 1.024 m2 was depicted for the use.
The three floored building consisted of a ground floor with an entrance hall on the
right, an inquiry and operator room, a music room, a video room, a drama room and
backstage with restrooms. The ground floor would also be equipped with the
exhibition space consecrated for the museum as well as an administrative office. The
exhibition space would be organized on a 434 square meters area with high ceilings.
There would be a depo and storage unit behind the exhibition hall.184
Figures 37-38: Fire Station tower seen from the courtyard.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
184 Ibid. https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2003/03/28/izmir.htm
8 2
Figures 39-40: Exterior view from the street and details of the building.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
The first and second floors of the building would be equipped with two book storage
rooms, a study room of 350 m2, administrative rooms for the staff, secretariat and
waiting room, microfilm and digital registration room alongside a data processing
room and restrooms. The second floor was reserved for the archives. The courtyard,
which was initially designed for the fire station’s equipment room, was located on the
back of the building with an entrance from the garage (Fig.36-40). This courtyard was
reorganized as İzmir Culinary Restaurant, which would have a storage room with
coolers and a kitchen to be prepared for small parties.185
The restoration of the building ended in 2004 and the institution was opened on
January 10. According to the museum catalog of 2002, İzmir City Museum and
Archive was the first example of its kind in Turkey. ÇEKÜL’s official catalog gives
information about previous city museums in the country as the ones in Kemaliye
(1999), Edirne (2001), Kastamonu (2002), Bursa (2002) and finally İzmir (2004).186
Thus, İzmir City Museum and Archive was not the first city museum but the first city
185 Ibid. https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2003/03/28/izmir.htm
186 Kent Müzeleri ve Arşivleri, ÇEKÜL Vakfı-Tarihi Kentler Birliği Yayınları, Kılavuz Kitapçık Dizisi
2, 2013, p.27.
8 3
museum incorporating the city archive alongside the museum with technologically
equipped materials to support the archival system. 187
The building was restored and transformed to attribute two new functions: a museum
and an archive. The City Archive section of the building is located on the second floor
of the original fire station building whereas the city museum with its exhibition hall is
located on the ground floor through the entrance. There is also an old archives section
right in the courtyard accessible from the entrance and the ground floor. The institution
consists of a city library called İzmir National Library inside the archive room on the
second floor and on the ground floor next to the exhibition area (Fig.41-42). The City
Museum in APIKAM’s constitution is located on the first floor of the building (ground
floor to be more precise) with its exhibition area (Fig.43).188 This ground floor has two
openings, an entrance door from the street and another opening to the courtyard where
another archival research room and a City Library is located.
Figure 41: Plan of the Exhibition Hall in APIKAM.
Source: Kutlu, 2007.
187 In addition, ÇEKÜL considers APIKAM as one of the firsts in their ilk örnekler listesi (first examples
list) and marks that APIKAM is the first city museum with an advanced technology compared to others.
Ibid.
188 The exhibition area and the current exhibitions alongside the permanent ones can be visited virtually
through APIKAM’s website which provides a 3D virtual experience of the exhibition space. According
to the institution’s official website, so far, the following exhibitions were exhibited in this L shaped
space: "City and Commerce Exhibition" (2005-2007), "City and Health" (2007-2016), "City and
Transportation" (2016- present day). The latter, "City and Transportation" is open to visitors both on
site and via the 3D virtual tour offered on the website alongside background music which aims to
intensify the virtual tour. The visitors of the website are free to either let the tour begin on its own or
move around the space by virtually walking around at their own pace.
8 4
Figure 42: Plan of the second floor.
Source: Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002, p.29.
Figure 43: An exhibition proposal and architectural plan.
Source: Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002, p.26.
Archive materials are crucial for the institution as they offer insight about the city’s
past but equally provide academic connections. The archives, as mentioned by the
APIKAM on their website and official manual, was not merely documentations but an
active research mechanism which benefits academicians, writers, researchers, and
curious citizens. The main goal was not to document all the archives related to İzmir’s
past but to make them available to researchers with computer technology.189
189 Dr. Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz,Fikret, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, Mart 2002, p.26.
8 5
İzmir’s rich past was seen as an important contribution to interdisciplinary practices
around the globe such as archaeology, history, ethnography, social sciences, art history
and architecture. Through an access to the documents on the city’s history,190 the
intuition aimed to make international and national academic connections as well as
commercial ones “because in today’s world, even commercial trades rise upon cultural
ground.”191
This archives include both visual and written documents Periodicals (newspapers,
bulletin, magazine, annuals, yearbooks, calendars), Notebook (public documentations,
municipal minutes, court records, parliamentary minutes, personal
diaries/writings/letters etc.), Manuscripts and Rare Documents (handwritten
manuscripts about religion, science, culture and arts etc.), Documents (visual,
audiovisual, cartographic and written documents), Visual Documents (engravings,
brochures, postcards, photographs, albums, paintings and all sorts of visual materials)
190 APIKAM’s archives include both visual and written documents categories as such: Periodicals
(newspapers, bulletin, magazine, annuals, yearbooks, calendars), Notebook (public documentations,
municipal minutes, court records, parliamentary minutes, personal diaries/writings/letters etc.),
Manuscripts and Rare Documents (handwritten manuscripts about religion, science, culture and arts
etc.), Documents (visual, audiovisual, cartographic and written documents), Visual Documents
(engravings, brochures, postcards, photographs, albums, paintings and all sorts of visual materials) and
Books (donated or purchased books, encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. which are about İzmir). According
to the plan, the second floor of the original building consists of an archival room with study desks and
computers as well as offices for the staff and professionals who would conduct projects within the
institution. This archive-study hall includes a library full of books and written documents about İzmir
accessible to researchers and interested visitors. Since the İzmir City Archive was aimed to be organized
as a technologically advanced system, the interior was designed in movable systems. In other words,
computers in the multi-purpose archive room are placed on movable ground ready to be inserted in the
tables in case of converting the archive room into an auditorium. Card-index wardrobes are used to
preserve microfilm catalogs and books. Open shelf system for a mini library inside the multi-purpose
room is designed to make the books accessible to visitors and researchers. Hybrid camera system is
purchased to preserve most of the archives in digital platforms and microfilms. This technological use
aimed to make the documents more accessible to its users, in addition the cold light and optic
registration technique of the hybrid camera is to make the preservation of the original documents easier.
APIKAM also developed, more and more over the years, its technical abilities to acquire a digital
documentation of its archives. APIKAM’s digital inventory is accessible through the database found in
the computers in the main archive-study room. Plus, APIKAM’s website makes this digital inventory,
minus some rare documents, accessible through their website from all around the world without any
additional charges. City archives in APIKAM’s collection are being protected by advanced conservation
and preservation technologies as well. The right temperature and climatization is achieved through steel
storages to control humidity to preserve the documents with highest protection.
https://www.apikam.org.tr/tr/Apikam-Arsiv/1/30?tab=74
191 Ibid.p.26: “Çünkü günümüz dünyasında ticaret bile kültürel ilişki zemininde yükselmektedir.”
8 6
and Books (donated or purchased books, encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. which are
about İzmir).
APIKAM was realized as a governmental restoration and transformation project held
by the municipality. It was a part of Piriştina’s local administration agenda to raise
awareness about the city’s history as well as to accentuate the urban memory of İzmir.
Another goal of APIKAM towards the years following its opening in 2004 was to have
an historical archive on İzmir’s municipal history and a chronological survey of the
local government; this project is still trying to be restored today. Plans and
architectural organization of the archive section can be found in the 2002 manual with
architectural plans (Fig.44-45).192
Figures 44-45: The initial restoration plan of the archive.
Source: Yetkin & Yılmaz, 2002.
The main goal for APIKAM’s design was to keep the original design of Mesut Özok
by restoring the building. Nevertheless, as for the interior arrangement of the archive
rooms, offices and storage, a new function of the building as a city archive was
considered (Fig.46-47). The building’s function was re-shaped through architectural
and institutional re-arrangement. However, this architectural touch was only made
through interior re-organization and addition of advanced technology. In the
192 Dr. Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz,Fikret, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, Mart 2002.
8 7
institution’s official catalog of 2002, the main purpose of the city archive and the city
museum was more emphasized rather than the architectural organization or the
building itself and its sections. For the city archive department, the interior
organization was mentioned through a focus on technological advancements and the
accessibility for researchers. As for the museum, the discourse and concept around the
idea of a city museum and the "new city museum" figure was highlighted instead of
the architecture.
Figures 46-47: Interior view of the current building.
Source: Photos by the author, 2023.
The museum was aimed to be designed in a way outside the traditional museology
norms as Dr. Sabri Yetkin193 and Dr. Fikret Yılmaz explained in the catalog. They
claimed that İzmir City Museum was designed as “a key of the past”, reflecting how
İzmirans lived in the past and an engagement with İzmir citizens was previewed with
“We’re Opening Up Our Chest, We’re Owning Our History” campaigns.194 Thus, the
contribution of the citizens living in İzmir, through donation, was encouraged. Values
193 Fikret Yılmaz is an historian and also one of the founders of APIKAM. He has contributed to the
writing of the project’s initiation process and the building’s history with Sabri Yetkin - Dr. Sabri Yetkin
& Dr. Fikret Yılmaz, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi
Kitaplığı, March 2002, p.26.
194 Ibid.p.37.
8 8
from the past and present were aimed to be presented in various documents from
written to visual elements. Two reasons can be taken out of this focus on the theme
and conceptual organization emphasized in the catalog: first, İzmir City Museum and
Archive is a political initiation of the local government. Instead of the architect of the
original building of 1932, Mesut Özok, the focus was on the local municipality,
specifically Piriştina’s administration, who took the building and restored it as a
municipal cultural project. The main architects and other actors of this restoration
project are not mentioned, except Arkitera mentioning İzka İnşaat in a web
document195, but the building is being commemorated with Piriştina’s municipality.
Renaming the institution after Ahmet Piriştina was a method of commemorating and
respecting the legacy of a mayor who passed before his time; however, this might be
seen as a symbol of the fact that İzmir municipality sees the project as its own. This
reality indicates a shift in Turkey’s architectural history: the architect’s name was
replaced by an actor from a governmental organization but this time the central
government was not the main actor, but a local government was.
The City Museum and Archive was aimed to be the public tool for restoring the urban
identity of İzmir and to be a cradle of cultural heritage for national and international
researchers. One of its goals was to “encourage the comprehension and enjoyment of
İzmir’s historical and present culture.”196 Then, in what level was the City Museum
and Archive embraced by fellow İzmirians? Did the building fulfill its goal of being
the key for İzmir’s history? A survey measuring the awareness about APİKAM
conducted eight years ago does give an insight about how İzmir dwellers perceive the
City Museum and Archive. 568 citizens participated in the research, and these
participants were chosen from various districts in İzmir by 5000/1 representation rate.
197 According to the survey, 61,2% of the participants did not know the City Museum
195 https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2003/03/28/izmir.htm
196 Dr. Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz, Fikret, İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine, İzmir
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, Mart 2002, p.38: “Tarihi ve bugünkü İzmir’in kültürünün
anlaşılmasını ve bundan zevk alınmasını teşvik etmektir.”
197 For more statistical information see: Akkaya, Mehmet Ali, “Türkiye’nin İlk Örneği Olarak Ahmet
Piriştina İzmir Kent Arşivi ve Müzesinin (APİKAM) Şehirdeki Bilinirlik Düzeyine İlişkin Bir
Araştırma,” Türk Kütüphaneciliği 29, 499-514, 2015. The article is an expanded and reviewed text that
8 9
and Archive, 71,7% of the general attendants out of 568 citizens, chosen from all over
İzmir with different districts and age and education, said that they did not visit the City
Museum and Archive even if they knew the institution and only 28,3% said that they
did. Akkaya claims, by the numbers he gathered, that "When it is considered with the
other participants who do not know the concept of city archive and or city museum, it
can be said that four out of every five city-dwellers (79,4%) have never seen the
institution."198 The awareness rate according to the survey is only 38,2%. In that
regard, this survey has concluded that the goal of the City Museum and Archive in
raising awareness on urban consciousness by knowing and embracing the past of İzmir
has not been accomplished.199
Architecturally and historically the building signifies turning points in İzmir’s history.
Multiple transformations have occurred with this edifice: from the first public service
building of the early Republican period to one of the firsts in city museum history.
From a controversial building which could not be constructed for many years, i.e. the
Fire Station, to a municipal triumph for the urban memory, the City Museum and the
Archive. Nonetheless, in today’s problems of preserving architectural heritage of the
20th century, the City Museum and Archive should be seen as an architectural and
historical gain. The old Fire Station, which was a significant element of İzmir’s
history, was re-functioned following the needs of the İzmir of the 21st century.
The building is a national heritage itself and the original architecture can still be
explored in the center of the city with its new function. The building’s history and the
tale of İzmir and its battle with fire can be read through the archives available in the
institution. Preserving the building’s originality and attributing a new function to an
existent heritage is an important step to follow. In the face of the recent decision to
was presented on ‘‘Protection Congress of International Cultural Heritage and Cultural Storage
Institutions in Ottoman Empire Archives by URLA,’’September, 2014, p.17-20.
198 Ibid.p.509.
199 From a researcher’s perspective it is possible to say that the historical written and visual documents
about İzmir are available both virtually and in place via site visit. Anyone who wants to conduct research
or a simple reading about the city’s history is welcome by the institution. Nevertheless, from a personal
point of view, the organization as well as the related publications about such an institution seemed
inadequate from firsthand experience. When asked about the building’s history, the staff could not find
enough sources other than the 2002 catalog.
9 0
demolish the İzmir Municipality building,200 the City Museum and Archive is an
achievement for İzmir’s cultural memory.
3.2.2.3. From Coal Gas Factory to Cultural Center (2007)
The re-functioning of the built heritage is classified generally in two contexts of the
Ottoman and Republican periods. The next example to be analyzed in this study, İzmir
Coal Gas Factory, belongs to the Ottoman context, and introduces industrial heritage
for evaluation. The building was restored, re-functioned and turned into an arts and
culture center during the municipality period of Aziz Kocaoğlu in 2007. In fact, the
Coal Gas Factory is a part of the renewal project of the port’s hinterland. Many
different industrial heritage buildings are found in the hinterland area, and most are
remaining of European and non-Muslim initiations during the second half of the 19th
century. To understand the meanings behind the transformation of the building and
the re-structuration of a heritage site into a cultural space, the history behind the area
and its importance for İzmir need to be initially understood. Then, the municipal
change which led to the restoration of the building and the choice of turning it into a
cultural space will be evaluated briefly through an understanding of the approach of
the municipality of Aziz Kocaoğlu. Lastly, the restoration process, the foundation of
the cultural center and its reception by the people of İzmir will be evaluated through
the question of identity.
What did Kocaoğlu continue as cultural spaces and renovation projects that Piriştina
envisioned? First, proving that İzmir was a livable city with sustainability was crucial
as Kocaoğlu’s municipality was preparing for EXPO 2015 and wanted to present İzmir
as an EXPO candidate in 2006. Besides infrastructural improvements, environment
and transportation, culture was a key element to prove İzmir as a modern metropole.
Two major progress was planned: ameliorating Kültürpark to regain İzmir’s reputation
200 İzmir Municipality building is an important part of İzmir’s urban heritage. The building was the
winner of 1966 Architectural Concours and was designed by Özdemir Arnas, Altan Akı and Erhan
Demirkök. The construction began in 1968 and was accomplished in 1981. The building has been an
important part of İzmir’s history since. The decision of tearing it down, by the recent municipality, has
sparked debates amongst the Chamber of Architects. To see the declaration of the Chamber of
Architects visit: https://www.ekonomiege.com/mimarlar-odasi-izmir-belediye-binasinin-yikilmasinakarsi/
2543/
9 1
of being the city of fairs and exhibitions, and forming new cultural spaces and
activities in İzmir. Moreover, the historical connection of İzmir was tried to be reestablished;
historical textures of districts like Kemeraltı, for example, were taken
under consideration with the help of the Chamber of Architects. Excavations like
Agora ancient city and Kadifekale, ancient theater etc. were funded by the
municipality. Local cultural centers in areas like Bornova, Çiğli and Güzelbahçe were
established as well. Amongst these developments and projects, two most important
examples were the restoration and re-functioning project of the historical Coal Gas
Factory and the construction of İzmir’s first art center, Adnan Saygun Arts Center.
Both projects were realized towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s and both
were regarded as important cultural leaps for İzmir.
The Coal Gas Factory: A remnant of a historical past
During this period, the most significant implementation in terms of incorporating
historical venues into cultural activities has been the restoration and transformation
of the former Gas Factory into a cultural center.201
The Coal Gas Factory in İzmir is one of the many industrial complexes situated on the
port hinterland which had once been İzmir’s industrial heart. The restoration of the
building is one of the rare re-functioning projects in İzmir. The building exemplifies a
vast historical past, and the spatial history needs to be mentioned in order to highlight
the importance of preserving such an edifice. While considering the restoration plan
in 2009, the complex relationship of the building with its history, its relationship with
the environment, the urban memory that the building hold with its site, its status within
the history of technology, the characteristics of the existing industrial landscape, and
the architectural identity and uniqueness of the structures were equally important.202
Hence, the building's past and its significance within history is crucial to understand
the place that the edifice holds for İzmir. Only then, the building's new functioning
201 “Bu dönemde tarihsel mekânların kültürel faaliyetlere kazandırılması bakımın- dan gerçekleştirilen
en önemli uygulama, eski Havagazı Fabrikası’nın restore edilerek bir kültür merkezine dönüştürülmesi
olmuştur,” Tekeli,İzmir Modeli, p.57.
202 Kayın, Emel and Şimşek Eylem, ‘‘İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
Düşünmek,’’ in Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.16.
9 2
with the new needs of İzmir of the 2000s could be comprehended. During the second
half of the 19th century, İzmir was the most active Ottoman city in terms of industrial
activities. European companies, by using privileges given by the Sultan, opened
various factories and industrial buildings in the hinterland area of the port. This
location was chosen mainly because it was close to new railroads and the main port.
Apart from previous periods, especially the second half of the 19th century marked an
emergence of Western influenced industrial buildings and urban structure as the
investors were European capitals (Fig.48).
Figure 48: Map of the urban expansion of İzmir in the 19th century.
Source: Source: Zandi-Sayek, 2012, p.26.
“İzmir's physical transformation in the late 19th century was financed principally by
foreign investors, made bold by the Ottoman concessions of railroad, streetcar, natural
gas, tobacco, and other monopolies to American, British, French, and German
companies.”203 Amongst these new industrial initiations there were Alsancak Train
Station (1858), tramway lines, a new and a wider port (1875) and a new pier in
Pasaport (1880). Many buildings were constructed by European capital, and these
investors' first focus was to ameliorate İzmir’s transportation routes to make the city
203 Goffman, Daniel, Chapter 2, “İzmir: from village to colonial port city”, in The Ottoman City between
East and West, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.130.
9 3
more accessible within and beyond. Meanwhile, the hinterland of the port was growing
as a new industrial zone with the activities of European investments, and
neighborhoods developed for the non-Muslim population of the Empire (mostly
Levantines and Greeks) and for the working-class. Many factories were established
between Punta and the port’s hinterland including olive, flour, soap, cement, and gas
factories.
"By the 1850s new building allotments were being opened at the Point while small
industrial plants, including a silk-winding factory, a distillery, a modern olive and
sesame oil press, steam-powered flour mills, a paper mill, and gasworks, were spurting
up between the Point and the estuary of the Meles River."204 Factories like the Flour
Factory, Tile Factory and the Coal Gas Factory were important industrial heritage sites
that remained from the second half of the 19th century to the 21st century. The Coal
Gas Factory is one of the very first important industrial heritage sites remaining today.
Although the function has been changed, what it represents prevails as an important
figure of İzmir’s first industrial zone. The port’s hinterland, consisting of many
storages and factories, soon became the industrial hub of İzmir: “when British and
French investors enhanced the transport infrastructure in İzmir, the Punta (Alsancak)
Compound, which was the starting point of Turkey’s first railway between İzmir and
Aydın, the Port area and its Hinterland became a new industrial hub filled with factory
buildings and storage areas.”205 (Fig.49-50)
Figure 49: Historical view of İzmir Port Hinterland.
Source: İzmir Industrial Heritage İnventory, n.d., p.15.
204 Zandi-Sayek, Sibel, Ottoman İzmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port, 1840-1880,University of
Minnesota Press, 2012, p. 25.
205 İzmir Industrial Heritage Inventory..., İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı, n.d., p.12.
9 4
Figure 50: Industrial Heritage Map of İzmir Port Hinterland (Darağaç).
Source: İzmir Industrial Heritage Inventory, n.d., p.14.
İzmir Coal Gas Factory: Development of a modern capital
Owing to its remarkably enterprising merchants and dominant position
as a transshipment hub, İzmir was the first Ottoman city (outside İstanbul)
to acquire a broad range of public works, from railroads
and port facilities to streetlights.206
The İzmir Coal Gas Factory was built in the 19th century by European investors. The
need for such a factory was discovered in 1856-57 by a French entrepreneur Andre
Marchais207 in the name of the Paris Gas Company. Marchais demanded an
authorization from the Ottoman Empire to build a gas plant in the hinterland.
206 Zandi-Sayek, Sibel, Ottoman İzmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan…p.25.
207 Sources on the inauguration of the factory and the elaboration of the idea of building a gas plant in
İzmir are very restrictive and primary sources are not given while citing the historical foundation of the
building. The name, for instance, of the French entrepreneur appear in two different versions: Marchais
or Morchais. And the name of the English journalist Edwards only appear as either Edwards only or
with A.Edwards without precision.
9 5
Nevertheless, when he passed away his application became invalid. This time a British
journalist called A. Edwards applied for a license to build a Coal-Gas plant. The
Empire gave his license in 1859, which enabled Edwards to establish and run the Gas
Factory for forty years. As for the location of the factory, wind was important since
the accumulation of coal and dust should be avoided; therefore, Alsancak Darağacı
was chosen because wind velocity was favorable there. Correspondence with other
countries (especially Germany and England which helped with construction
equipment) continued, and due to political reasons, the construction of the building
had to wait until 1862. The factory constructed by Lanloux and Sons (a company based
in Glasgow) was finally opened and started operating in 1867 (Fig.51-52).
Figure 51: Historical view of the Coal Gas Plant.
Source: İzmir Industrial Heritage Inventory, n.d., p.34. (courtesy of the R. Bayam
Archive, 2006)
Şeniz Ergeçgil Çıkış indicates that industrial edifices from the second half of the 19th
century carry European architectural styles (Fig.53-54). She claims this industrial
transition was a European centered transition in terms of architecture as almost all
these buildings were initiated and constructed by European capital like that of French
and English investors. Çıkış states that the second half of the 19th century is a scene
of multiple building projects which were prepared abroad.208 Polygonal stone
208 Çıkış, Ergeçgil Şeniz, ‘‘Bir Ticaret Şehrinde Sanayi,’’ Ege Mimarlık 1999/31, p.18-20.
9 6
masonry, cut stone workmanship, cast columns, and beam floors were seen often in
such industrial dwellings; “Neoclassical style, simple and rational forms shape the
texture of industrial constructions of the 19th century.”209
Figure 52: The Coal Gas Plant. Reconstructions after earthquake.
Source: APIKAM Archives (courtesy of Hughes family Archive, 1928).
Figures 53-54: The Coal Gas Plant. Reconstructions after earthquake.
Source: APIKAM Archives (Courtesy of Hughes family Archive, 1928).
209 Ibid.p.19.
9 7
The Coal Gas Factory had European styles in its architecture such as the use of tile,
the design of the roof, low arched windows, open spaces, and roof trusses.210 Before
the restorations of the 20th century, after the Republic, the factory had multiple
functioning complexes as foundry, engine rooms, administration building, numerator
room, warehouses, ateliers, water tank, chimney, lodgings, repair shops and water
purification buildings etc. (Fig.55)
Figure 55: Complexes of the Coal Gas Factory.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3-70, p.17.
The building remained open even after the foundation of the Turkish Republic and
served as a gas lighting factory until the 1930s. With the changing needs of the city
and the advancement of electricity, the factory lost its importance in terms of its
function. In 1935, the building was under the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality;
nonetheless, the factory was barely functioning due to becoming old. With
rehabilitation works and some renovations, it stayed open until 1994. On September
1, 1994, with the municipal call of 5195, the Coal Gas Factory closed its doors.
Towards the year 2000, the building that still belonged to İzmir Municipality was
210 Kayın, Emel and Şimşek, Eylem, “İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
Düşünmek,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3-70, p.16-17.
9 8
being used by ESHOT (Municipal Directorate responsible for works of electric, water,
gas, bus and trolleybus) as a waiting and repairing area for public buses. However,
alongside other historical industrial buildings, it was registered in 1998 as an industrial
heritage site. The municipality of Piriştina, alongside many renovation projects,
wanted to give the port’s hinterland its former centrality again. Therefore, a vast
transformation of the hinterland was planned by the municipality, and in 2001, an
international architectural idea competition was held for the hinterland.211 In 2003, a
cultural center was proposed for the Coal Gas Factory building and in 2005 the project
was initiated (Fig.56). In 2008, during the Kocaoğlu period, the implementations
began and finally in 2009, the complex opened with the name of İzmir Historical Gas
Factory Cultural Center (Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası Kültür Merkezi).
Figure 56: Map showing the vicinity of the center.
Source: google maps, 2023.
Renovation and Re-Functioning: Historical Gas Factory Cultural Center
Re-functioning projects do not simply aim for a building’s restoration but attempts to
provide a new function while maintaining a connection with the historical past and the
significance of the building. For the re-functioning of the factory into a cultural center,
211 Kayın, Emel and Şimşek, Eylem, “İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
Düşünmek,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3-70, p.16-17.
9 9
after the restitution and survey works on the buildings site, Es Yapı architectural firm
that was the contractor212 prepared an initial project which foresaw the demolition of
some of the buildings while preserving eight of the registered edifices. According to
the project the refinery building was planned to be used as the main cafeteria whereas
other buildings would be used for a workshop, exhibition galleries, administration
offices, a reading hall and sales units. One of the non-registered concrete buildings
would be used as the restaurant instead of being demolished. A great emphasis on the
preservation of the symbolic factory tower, 46.30 m high, was shown, and the water
storage buildings were kept as a part of the restoration process.
The entire area of the building’s original site was planned to be openly used and the
main aim of the project was to transform the building through a redevelopment project
(Fig.57-58). This transformation aimed to add new meanings and values to the city of
İzmir.213 The aim was to achieve a coherence between the historical buildings and the
new construction by using natural materials like brick, granite, wood and metal
constructions, and to provide connection between the outer spaces and the inner
spaces. Even from the street, the building facilities can be briefly seen in an inviting
manner. The green area was planned as an open theater for open-air cinema screenings,
concerts, conferences, and socio-cultural activities. A membrane sunshade was used
to prevent the sun for events during the day, welcoming groups, and a counter would
be placed under this area. The exhibition hall was located next to the green area.
Following the historical archives, two gasometer constructions were depicted and
some of the remaining material elements proved the existence of these dwellings on
the factory area; this small gasometer was partly restored and re-used as an open
exhibition area.214 The project initiators from İzmir Metropolitan Municipality215
underlined the project’s respectfulness to the heritage and the history of the area and
212 Es Yapı Urbanism Architecture Restoration Industry Trade LC.
213 Çelikoğlu, Işık; Baylan, Sedat; Dikmen, Ertan and Köran-Kandilci, Ebru, “Fabrika ve Kahve Keyfi:
Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası Restorasyonu ve Çevre Düzenlemesi ile İzmirlilerin Kullanımında,” Ege
Mimarlık 1999/31, p.33.
214 Ibid.p.34.
215 In 2009, the team at the municipality was formed of Işık Çelikoğlu (Head of IMM Support Services
Department), Sedat Baylan (Head of IMM Survey Project Department), Ertan Dikmen and Ebru
Kandilci Köran (IMM Survey Project Managers).
10 0
details of the project were "aiming for the site to be a vibrant and modern space which
does not remain idle and is a living area instead"216. Nonetheless, in the same issue of
Ege Mimarlık that published an article that defines the project, another article brought
up a criticism alongside the many benefits of the re-functioning project.
Figure 57: 1966 plan; site plan of 2008.
Source: İzmir KTVKK Archive no. 1; Ege Mimarlık 2009/ 3 70. p.33.
Figure 58: General view.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.35.
216 Ibid.
10 1
Kayın and Şimşek, while explaining the historical background of the edifice and
proposed strategies for the restoration project, stated that the biggest problem of refunctioning
an industrial heritage like the Gas Factory was the disconnection of the
material building with its historical significance.217 The project focused more on the
material restoration of the building instead of building a connection with the historical
past and the original character of the factory; thus, the knowledge transformation with
the new visitors of the 21st century İzmir would be disrupted. This rupture between
the past and the present building could cease the transformation of not the function but
the identity formation which was aimed by the local authority. For her thesis on the
Coal Gas Factory and its restoration project, Çiğdem Çetinaya made a survey in 2015
on the reception of the building by visitors of İzmir. Her vast survey made it clear that,
although most İzmirians had embraced the building and found it pleasing in terms of
aesthetics, they did not frequently visit the place unless for special occasions and
events.
Another critique was about the traffic and the current vehicle flow on the main road
in which the building was situated; thus, the accessibility of the building weakened
due to the lack of a wider sidewalk and the main vehicle road interrupting the entrance
of the building. Çetinkaya writes: “The perception of spaces, especially public spaces
which belong to the urban residents, is closely related to their patterns of usage.”218
She also states that, according to her surveys, the visibility of the Coal Gas Factory
Cultural Center was not sufficient enough, which negatively affected the idea
envisioned for the site to be a landmark. Moreover, the building was not found
accessible enough by personal car or walk, although, by public transportation and
private transportation like taxis were more preferable. The most important part of the
survey was the discontinuation of the building’s restoration with its past as almost half
217 Kayın, Emel and Şimşek Eylem, ‘‘İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
Düşünmek,’’ in Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.14-19.
218 Mekânların, özellikle kamu kullanımı için yapılmış kentliye ait mekânların kentli için algısının
oluşması, kullanım yoğunluklarıyla ilişkilidir. in Çetinkaya, Çiğdem, ‘‘Yeniden İşlevlendirilen
Endüstriyel Mekanların Görsel Algı Değerlendirmesi: İzmir Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası,’’ Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Ege University, Agusut 2015, p.92.
10 2
of the visitors were not aware of the history of the building and the former function of
the building could not be understood easily after its restoration.219
The importance of this building's re-functioning resides in its location because this
zone is an intersection between Alsancak, Bornova, Buca and Karşıyaka, the main
districts of İzmir. As the port’s hinterland was the historical city center and the
industrial hub of İzmir,the municipality, by turning this Gas Factory building into a
cultural center, might have aimed for the building with its historical tower, to become
a cultural landmark for the city of İzmir. For this to be realized, the past of the building
and its coherence with the present-day use should have been strictly analyzed and
adapted.
Furthermore, such a building with an important historical role in the city could serve
as a means for the people of İzmir to identify themselves with the site, being aware of
all the past stories as well as being culturally, socially, environmentally, and
economically engaged with the city. On another note, the municipality of Kocaoğlu,
following similar principles with Piriştina in terms of culture, pointed out that the
municipality was serving to preserve the city’s history by re-functioning them and
regaining them for the city of İzmir instead of opening these important buildings for
construction and rent. Nevertheless, the criticism about the project and its reception
by the residents of İzmir show that the welcoming and the internalizing character of
the cultural center also had some difficulties. Enhancing the urban consciousness and
the fortification of the İzmirian identity by the municipality and political agendas
needs further re-functioning other than material preservation and restoration.
Cultural spaces created through re-functioning of heritage sites should go beyond the
material. As stated by Kayın and Şimşek, “The necessary care should be taken to
ensure that the city's historical industrial memory is not only interpreted as mere
building shells but also as a vanished "production process" and an "urban story" that
can be understood and conveyed.”220
219 Ibid.
220 Kayın, Emel and Şimşek Eylem, "İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
Düşünmek," in Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.19.
10 3
3.2.3. Constructing a New Cultural Space: Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center
(2008)
İzmir is gaining a new cultural center…221
Gürhan Tümer, architect and professor in Dokuz Eylül University (İzmir), opened his
interview in İzmir Kent Kültürü (İzmir Urban Culture) magazine with the words
above. Talking about İzmir’s new cultural center, Tümer underlined the importance of
urban culture and how the concept was even more important for a nation-state like
Turkey, and how Piriştina’s municipality showed great importance for it. Tümer asked
if cultural activities were so important to İzmir, why was there not a cultural center
worthy of this city? Hasan Topal, then planning manager of the İzmir Metropolitan
Municipality, answered this question by reminding the municipality’s approach for
spaces of culture. Topal meant that the local government was in the search of new
ways to detect and develop the city’s identity formed over the years with its
multiculturalism, its history and social life. What kind of contributions could be made
to this identity and development was one of the main concerns of the municipality:
"Although our city possesses a rich historical and cultural heritage, today, different
cultural spaces in our city are extremely inadequate to sustain various cultural and
artistic activities"222
Alongside many experts, Piriştina also aimed to provide an answer to this question by
building new cultural spaces for İzmir. In fact, turning İzmir into a “Culture Capital”
was an important element of his local political agenda. The municipality intended to
use its land opportunities to create new cultural spaces as Topal clearly stated that one
of the main policies was to transform and use many areas and estates belonging to the
municipality to build and initiate cultural venues. The project of Ahmed Adnan
221 Tozkoparan, Tevfik; Tümer, Gürhan and Topal, Hasan, ‘‘İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi
Kazanıyor…" interview, İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi- November 2000/2nd issue, p.167-173.
222 Kentimiz çok zengin bir tarihsel, kültürel mirasa sahip olmasına rağmen, günümüzde çeşitli
ölçeklerde son derece yetersiz kültür mekanlarına sahip," Hasan Topal, İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi,
November 2000, 2nd issue, ‘İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi Kazanıyor… p.167.
10 4
Saygun Art Center was born out of such a decision, turning an old site into an art
center.
Cultural activities were of priority for Piriştina’s municipality as they were key
strategies to install a new urban identity which would be the landmark of his municipal
period. To create new cultural spaces, Piriştina’s municipality followed two different
strategies, one being, as mentioned with the previous chapters, the restoration of
already existing historical and historical buildings and re-function them as cultural
spaces. The second strategy was to build new spaces with high architectural quality
and elevated standards to ensure the highest level of cultural and artistic activities; this
strategy gave birth to the Adnan Saygun Art Center project. To enact İzmir’s first arts
and culture center, Ahmet Piriştina sent out an invitation letter for an architectural
competition on January 6, 2000. He wanted to create a cultural landmark for the city
and the location would not be the usual central parts of the city such as Kültürpark,
Şair Eşref Boulevard, Konak square, Basmane or the port’s hinterland; this time, the
old trolleybus station in Güzelbahçe on Mithatpaşa Avenue was chosen.
The old Trolleybus Garage had been used for public transportation until the 1990s.
Since 1994, a project, either for a mall, a residence, or a cinema, was being discussed
to be constructed in this area. However, the presence of old buildings prevented the
purchase of the site. For many years the dwellers of İzmir could not believe that the
area would be used since Poligon Stream nearby was polluted and Mithatpaşa Avenue
was over-constructed with many buildings. In 1994, the Cultural and Natural Heritage
Preservation Board registered the site since some of the buildings remaining from the
old Trolleybus Garage held historical value. As for the art center project, small
remaining dwellings were planned to be restored while the main building was to be
constructed after a new design (Fig.59-61). The reason for choosing this site is
explained in two parameters: first, with the beginning of the 1990s, Piriştina’s
municipality was in search of lands to build cultural spaces and this parcel was the
biggest they had at the time. Secondly, the location is the intersection between multiple
transportation axes and was close to the city center; thus, accessibility was an
important factor.
10 5
Figure 59: Map showing the vicinity of the museum.
Source: google maps, 2023.
Figures 60-61: Details from the old Trolleybus Garage site.
Source: “Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center Architectural Project Competition
Report”, January 2000.
The architectural project report and the envisioned "needs" program was given to the
participant architecture offices. The file included the following facilities demanded by
the municipality: an entrance, foyer, big concert hall, annex spaces for the big concert
10 6
hall, small concert hall, offices, artist rooms, stage area and surroundings,
administration, technical maintenance department, technical services, closed garage,
parking garage, and circulation areas (Fig.62).
Figure 62: Needs program of the municipality. Demanded facilities for the art center.
Source: “Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center Architectural Project Competition
Report”, January 2000.
A total construction site was declared as 24.372 m2. The exact location is the site of
the old Trolleybus Garage, limited by the 18th and 19th Streets and Mithatpaşa
Avenue, and 5 kilometers away from the city center. The set goal for the art center
was declared in the municipality report as following: “The aim of the competition is
to reach unique solutions that reflect today’s architecture, engineering, and artistic
understanding to promote fine arts for a multifunctional art center capable of
accommodating theater, concert, and conference functions while reflecting the highest
standards of design and functionality.”223
223 Personal translation, Yarışmanın amacı, tiyatro, konser ve konferans işlevlerini karşılayacak çok
işlevli bir sanat merkezi için günümüz mimarlık, mühendislik ve sanat anlayışını yansıtan özgün
10 7
Winning Project and The Construction of the Building
Let us lend an ear to the muted voices hidden
in the niches of İzmir’s deaf walls.224
To build an important art center like this one in a city for sure carries
a great meaning in terms of raising the level of artistic activities in that city.225
The architectural competition opened for the first art center of İzmir was won by
Tozkoparan Architectural Office with a project of architect Tevfik Tozkoparan.
Tozkoparan’s design included new solutions as well as restorations of some remaining
old trolleybus buildings at the entrance area (Fig.63-64). For sounds and acoustics, the
internationally renowned Arup Company was collaborated, and throughout the project
many other American and English professionals were consulted. As for the project,
Tevfik Tozkoparan states that their main inspiration was the new urban culture that
was flourishing during the early years of 2000. The municipality’s choice of using this
old trolleybus garage site not for something else but for an art center proves this urban
culture consciousness being developed within the municipality. Tozkoparan states
that, following this urban culture consciousness, his design aimed to be a part of the
city culture as “cities are the homeland of culture.”226 The building, designed to
become the art center of the urbanite, was planned to make way for activities engaged
in visual communication as well as providing spaces where the people of İzmir could
have continuous interaction with art in their daily lives. Following this principle, a
communication with art through the urban cultural space, the square, the outer space,
çözümlere ulaşmak ve güzel sanatları teşvik etmektir, in İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Ahmed Adnan
Saygun Art Center Architectural Project Competition Report, January 2000.
224 “Seyir Defteri”, AASSM/2008.
225 Bir kentte böylesine önemli bir sanat merkezi binasının yapılması, tabiki sanat faaliyetlerinin
düzeyinin yükseltilmesi bakımından çok büyük bir anlam taşımaktadır in Tekeli, İlhan, İzmir
Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü - İzmir Modeli Kitap 1, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi
Akdeniz Akademisi, Kasım 2018. p.58.
226 Tozkoparan, Tevfik; Tümer, Gürhan and Topal, Hasan, "İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi
Kazanıyor…" interview, İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi- November 2000/2nd issue, p.169.
10 8
and the cultural platforms of the building were designed in a way to provide an active
communication between the urban dwellers and the city itself.
Figure 63: General view, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.37.
Figure 64: General view, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.39.
10 9
Project details
The total construction area of the project is 23.448 m2. The project consists of two
concert halls, the big hall with a number of 1100 audience capacity and the small hall
with 250 audience capacity. Facilities designed for the building and shown in the
image below are listed as following: Entrance Hall, Foyer, Cloakroom, Big Concert
Hall, Small Concert Hall, Exhibition Area, Administration, Artist Departments,
Coulisse/Backstage, Concert Hall Technical Support Department (light/sound etc.),
Press-Telecommunication-Broadcasting, Meeting Rooms, Music Library, Sales Area,
Depot, Wet Area, Technical Service Areas, Artist’s Club, Terrace, Public Square,
Platform, Parking Garage, Service Garage (Fig.65).Besides the facilities inside and
the outside of the building, the remaining two old buildings on the site were to be
restored and prepared as book shops and cafes. The building was not designed by the
architect to be a mere concert hall but a vivid art center with cultural, artistic and
leisure activities presented to the dwellers of İzmir.
Figure 65: Layout Plan, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.38.
11 0
Figure 66: Floor plans, Ahmet Adnan Saygun Art Center.
Source: Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.38.
The building was envisioned as the culture center of the urbanite and the architect tried
to ease the structure in a coherent way to the topography of the area (Fig.66). The
edifice, which would eventually be a cultural landmark according to the municipality,
was not designed in a way to rupture the existent texture of the Mithatpaşa Avenue;
on the contrary, the aesthetics was aimed to go easy on the eye of its visitors amongst
various high floored buildings on the street. Ufuk Ersoy defines the building as an
open breather amongst a monotonous urban wall of buildings: “It [the building] stands
out from the towering skyscrapers designed to be seen from afar and the bustling
shopping and entertainment centers that scream for attention. It captivates with its
distinctiveness, deviating from the norm, and its silence demands attention. It aspires
to be a window opening to the art world that questions contemporary life, rather than
being a mere logo.”227
227 Ufuk Ersoy: Şehrin siluetini çizen uzaktan görülmek için tasarlanan gökdelenlerden, ben buradayım
diye haykıran alışveriş ve eğlence endüstrisi merkezlerinden farklı, sessizliğiyle dikkati çeker. Bir logo
11 1
The architect of the building, Tevfik Tozkoparan, continued stating that the key
concept which inspired his design was the public square: "The square was a key word
for us since the public square is the space where life and art meets … the square is an
empty space, where the purpose will be filled by the user. It is a positive void, free
from concrete specifications, open to new scenarios."228 Tozkoparan underlined the
vast void on the given parcel and expressed how that grand space, which they called
the "chaotic space", inspired their team. Thus, the building was not too high, on the
contrary the edifice was pulled back to reunite the urbanite with the vast openness of
the entrance.
The goal, as stated by the architect himself, was not to create a building with high
walls and no connection to the street and to the city and call it an art center. The goal
was to enhance curiosity and openness with the visitors, the goal was to create a living
space not just for the city but for the people living in it; a space where they could
engage with each other, with culture, with arts, with their city and with the
environment surrounding them.229
Cultural center of the culture capital
One of the significant contributions that an architect can make to society
is the realization of public structures that can serve as a source of inspiration
for the city. Such contributions rely on the leadership of
urban administrators and the bureaucratic dimensions.
It is essential for intellectuals with this authority to come to the forefront.230
olmak yerine güncel yaşamı sorgulayan sanat dünyasına açılan bir pencere olmak ister. in Ege
Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.40.
228 Tozkoparan, Tevfik, ‘‘İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi Kazanıyor…’’ interview, İzmir Kent Kültürü
Dergisi- November 2000/2nd issue, p.172.
229 Ibid.
230 Quoted by Tevfik Tozkoparan: Bir mimarın topluma verebileceği en büyük katkı, kenti için ilham
kaynağı olabilecek kamu yapısı gerçekleştirmektir. (...) Bu tür katkılar, kent yöneticililerinin liderliğine
ve bürokratik boyutlarına bağlıdır. Bu yetkiye sahip aydınların öne çıkması gerekir. In "İzmir Yeni Bir
Kültür Merkezi Kazanıyor…" interview, İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi- November 2000/2nd issue, p.168-
69
11 2
Tozkoparan, the architect of the project, repeatedly stated that, for the project to work,
construction was not enough to connect the urbanite, art, and space all together. In
other words, the formation of an identity through the merge of culture and the
metropolitan way of living in İzmir of the 2000s, management and municipal support
were crucial. In the past, the major problem was not the building of cultural edifices
but their continuation as well as reception by the people of İzmir. İlhan Tekeli shares
this common concern as well and states as follows: “However, the mere completion
of a building is not sufficient on its own. For this Center to contribute significantly to
a city's artistic activities, it must be operated in a creative and enthusiastic manner.
Achieving this level of proficiency is not an easy task.”231
A cultural center aimed to become a landmark for the city surely needs to be welldesigned;
nonetheless, it also needs proper planning and proper management. Identity
building processes have always used museums and other cultural spaces to convey the
proposed identity with triggers of history, and heritage in collective memory spaces.
However, material space is not enough to sustain this identity building process, and to
create the sentiment of belonging to the place in city dwellers. This is the place where,
like most local authorities, the İzmir Municipality struggled. Tevfik Tozkoparan
believed that if the urban space with its entity could be treated as an artwork, an art
center, only then the space can reunite with the people living in it: “Giving the city an
aesthetic form does not simply mean using urban structures as decorative elements,
nor is it limited to the restoration of historical buildings. On the contrary, the intended
goal here is to perceive the city as a comprehensive work of art; for the contemporary
individual knows that they cannot find their essence solely in the dim spaces of
museums or galleries.”232
This phenomenon, however, goes beyond the municipal vision; at least with buildings
like the new art center, İzmir municipality under the mayorship of Piriştina and later
231 Ancak, bir binanın yapılmış olması da tek başına yeterli değildir. Bu Merkez’in, bir kentin sanat
faaliyetlerine yüksek düzeyde katkı yapabilmesi için yaratıcı ve coşkulu bir biçimde işletilmesi
gerekmektedir. Bu becerinin hare- kete geçirilebilmesi ise o kadar kolay olmamaktadır. In Tekeli, İlhan,
İzmir Modeli…, p.58.
232 Tozkoparan, Tevfik, in ‘‘İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi Kazanıyor…’’ interview, İzmir Kent
Kültürü Dergisi- November 2000/2nd issue, p.173.
11 3
Kocaoğlu attempted to provide this result. How successful their attempts were and
what these cultural spaces signify today as well as their questions about their
receptions are a matter of debate.
3.3. Concluding Notes on Cultural Spaces by Local Governments
İlhan Tekeli points out that cultural politics of conservation and preservation can be
explained in four motives: providing a historical consciousness and a reflex for
sustainability to the inhabitants of a city or a nation by preserving historical heritage;
using conservation and preservation to build a new identity amongst urbanites;
protecting arts, history and culture; and lastly profiting economically by ameliorating
tourism.233 These reasons were also the main concerns of the İzmir Municipality
during the early 21st century, and were seen as elements to ameliorate the life quality
of İzmir and to develop a new İzmirian identity that was aimed to be more inclusive
and democratic when compared to the periods of former municipal governments. As
a result, conservation, restoration and preservation of cultural heritage became more
accepted, and local heritage became a prominent factor in preserving and initiating
culture. This consciousness of preservation and conservation, as UNESCO indicates
as well, could not be provided as a collective sensibility but a personal one. Hence, in
cultural activities, the shift from centrality to locality could be understood. In a
modernizing world, personal time is spent on intellectual activities and especially in
art advances. Therefore, cultural activities increase in number and quality of life
depends more on culture in modern metropoles. In other words, cultural politics of a
country and of a city can be understood in three parameters: conservation, cultural
activities (arts mostly) and culture tourism (thus, economic aspects of cultural
politics). These, on the other hand, were elaborated through space. Afterall, the
(re)creation of an İzmirian urbanite identity required not only cultural activities, but
also the building and the space itself became a crucial part of the identity building
process. In parallel to the early republican considerations of museum and cultural
spaces shaping the new national identity, local cultural spaces could indeed shape local
233 Tekeli, İlhan, Kültür Politikaları ve İnsan hakları Bağlamında Doğal ve Tarihi Çevreyi Korumak,
İlhan Tekeli Toplu Eserler-5, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Temmuz 2009, p.94.
11 4
urban identities.234 Nevertheless, the criticism surrounding the management and the
reception of these buildings, especially the different outcomes of some of these
institutions, are points to discuss not only as a historian or an authority but from the
point of a habitant of İzmir as well.
Erecting a building as a municipal initiation, either simply constructing a gallery, a
museum space, or a cultural center, is the first step of building a cultural space which
could accomplish some of the elements mentioned above; however, this will not be
enough without the proper management and without the reunion between the people
of İzmir and these cultural spaces. It has been made clear that all of the case studies
initiated by the local government examined in this chapter were built to differentiate
and accentuate the urban identity of İzmir; nonetheless, they all faced criticism on their
reception, their connection to the past and their recent use. The fact that İzmir History
and Art Museum could not be used by the municipality likewise the Painting and
Sculpture Gallery inside Kültürpark might be given as examples to enhance the
discussion. Another example of problematic management would be APIKAM’s
reception as discussed in that section where the analysis of the City Archive and
Museum took place with given surveys on its use and the current state of the
management as seen by the author of this thesis as well. For the Coal Gas Factory
Cultural Center, most of the criticism was brought to the discord between the historical
character of the complex and the recent restoration elements. Nonetheless, the public
reception of the building was also found problematic. As for the Adnan Saygun Art
Center, as the architect of the project himself stated, the proper management of the
municipality is crucial in continuing the use of the cultural spaces by the citizens of
İzmir. Cultural spaces created through renovation and re-purposing of historical
heritages examined in this study, were the result of the critics brought upon former
municipalities, and symbols of current local authorities’ activities in shaping İzmir and
its historical, urban, and cultural consciousness. Nonetheless, material reenactments
are not enough to spin the wheel of such desires. The reception of the building, both
material aesthetics and social engagement are equally important.
234 Aykaç, Pınar. “Musealisation in the Urban Context: Transformation of the Sultanahmet District into
a Museum Area,” Türkiye bilimler Akademisi Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, 2020.
11 5
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
The establishment of museums emerged primarily as a pivotal notion in nationbuilding
from the 18th and 19th century onwards, particularly with the emergence of
archaeological and ethnographic museums that traced heritage for nationalistic
significance. With evolving societal needs in the 20th century, particularly as a result
of urbanization, museums adopted new functions. In addition to educational purposes,
these spaces also began to serve as venues for leisure. While museums functioned in
line with the nation-building processes, the notion of cultural spaces, encompassing
galleries, display areas, art centers and cultural centers, developed in time with the
formation of a vibrant cultural scene within the local contexts of cities, progressively
gaining importance in terms of the economy and enhancing the quality of life. As
indicated in the “Cultural Planning for Local Authorities” report by İKSV İstanbul
(February 2016), culture began to assume a significant role in the dynamics of
communal living, contributing to “enhancing welfare.” Furthermore, the potential of
local authorities in Turkey was recognized in their “active role in facilitating dialogue
among citizens, non-governmental organizations, the central government, and
international networks.”235 However, despite their potential, the roles and significance
of local authorities are, as also noted in the report, “relatively limited,” given that “full
decentralization has yet to be implemented in practice with regards to resource
allocation and power delegation.”236
For the case of İzmir in this context, it has been examined in this study that the state
introduced cultural spaces in the city, as in other cities of Turkey, with the aim of
235 IKSV, ‘‘Cultural Planning for Local Authorities,’’ Annual Report, February 2016, p.12.
236 Ibid.
11 6
fostering the national identity from the early 20th century onwards with the foundation
of the Republic; and that the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality aimed to manifest the
decentralization of culture at the turn of the 21st century through the establishment of
new cultural spaces with the objective of cultivating the local identity of İzmir. This
emphasis on having a local identity especially through public places like art centers
and museum and archive buildings fostering the interaction between the past, present
and the future through cultural heritage is also related to the desire to have a national
and international recognition. In other words, it might be stated that, just like similar
cases around the globe, in the 21st century, the İzmir municipality saw city branding
as a local management tactic to boost the economy around culture and local identity.
Towards the end of the 1990s, culture was seen by the local government as a key
element in engaging an open relation with the residents of the city. Increasing the
quality of life, acculturation of the people of İzmir, democratic inclusion, adopting a
metropolitan lifestyle, connecting with the city’s past, preserving and renovating
history, turning İzmir into a “Culture Capital”, and interconnecting the urbanite with
the city they live in, would be achieved with the formation of a new İzmirian identity,
and culture would be the key for this transformation. Müge Riza discusses city
branding by linking local authorities with the role of a business manager who uses
culture as an economic and tourist attraction.237 She also suggests that this approach
to city branding places a strong emphasis on creating “authentic metaphors.”238
The local government's somewhat casual use of the “İzmirian” identity, which, in
reality, is a more complex concept requiring further examination, may be seen as an
attempt to create the desired authentic metaphor sought by the municipality. This
metaphor was pursued through various means, including the physical environment
itself, encompassing museums, parks, city museums, exhibition spaces, fairs, theaters,
and art centers. Thus, with the changing needs of the city, governmental museums
established in the 20th century would no longer suffice. İzmir needed its own cultural
centers which were seen as more suitable for the new way of life.
237 Riza, Müge, “Culture and City Branding: Mega-Events and Iconic Buildings as Fragile Means to
Brand the City,” Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, p.270
238 Ibid.
11 7
To comprehensively grasp the intricacies of the local attempts concerning identitybuilding
within the context of cultural space, it becomes essential to scrutinize the
municipality's perspective on architecture and urban planning by analyzing the
objectives that each period of the municipality pursued from the latter half of the 20th
century until the first decade of the 21st century. For example, while some argued for
the preservation of the original walls around Kültürpark rather than their demolition,
others focused on dismantling the metaphorical intangible barriers within the park.
Understanding such details of the cases of cultural spaces in İzmir have provided the
basis to discuss identity formation in and beyond the confines of municipal/local,
governmental/national frames as well as political and material constraints.
Although “cultural spaces” could be defined in a broad spectrum, and İzmir boasts
various culturally significant venues beyond museums and art centers, this study has
sought for more specific examples that could help trace administrative strategies of
central and local governments in city branding and local identity building. Examining
the selected case studies, the issue of cultural spaces being constrained by physical
limits arises. Recalling the primary criticisms raised in each case study provides
insight into the lived experience of these buildings and why they might be struggling
to remain sustainable. State museums, as highlighted during the analysis of the İzmir
Museum of Painting and Sculpture, were initially conceived as public services for
education, promotion, and governmental missions. The lack of supervision and the
appearance of deserted exhibition areas in both Archaeology and Ethnography
Museums, for example, underscore the discontinuation of the museums' missions in
terms of their connection with and sustainability within the city and among its
residents. The relocation and reassignment of these museum spaces can be seen as
shifts brought about by local governments, which, in some cases, highlight tensions
between central government initiatives and local efforts. Examples of museum spaces
and gallery spaces, such as the İzmir Painting and Sculpture Gallery within
Kültürpark, symbolize such tensions, as the usage of the space is controlled by the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the İzmir Municipality can no longer utilize the
building without permission. These examples once again emphasize the discontinuity
in the usage and purpose of these buildings, which were originally intended to fortify
11 8
certain national and local identities through cultural spaces and to maintain an active
relationship with both the spaces they occupied and the people who visited them.
Consequently, the cultural aspect and continuity of these spaces appear to be restricted
by physical constraints that serve a governmental purpose.
Similar critiques can be directed toward local government cultural spaces, primarily
initiated during Piriştina's administration and continued by that of Kocaoğlu in the
early 2000s. Through the analysis of the case studies of the İzmir History and Art
Museum, Ahmet Piriştina City Archive and Museum, Historical Coal Gas Factory Art
Center, and Ahmed Adnan Saygun Art Center, it has been discussed how the local
government sought to establish a connection between the city and its residents through
the preservation of historical and architectural heritage, as well as the creation of new
spaces within unused governmental sites. However, a similar critique can be applied
to the reception and sustainability of the intended purposes of these buildings. While
an effort was made to forge a new İzmirian identity, upon evaluating these structures,
their architectural evolution, and the government's objectives surrounding them, in
conjunction with critiques from art historians, architects, written surveys, and
interactions with a limited circle of İzmir residents, it becomes apparent that a
disruption occurred in the internalization of this identity. Problems related to
management, accessibility, recognition, continuity, and public awareness of activities
within these new cultural art centers cast doubt on the formation of a local identity
which could be pertained and continued.
Moreover, a further inquiry on this local identity is needed. Questioning the meaning
behind the local identity and assessing how inclusive this identity truly is, especially
concerning the public reception of these cultural buildings, is essential. The municipal
focus on local identity often overlooks the presence of multiple ethnicities. Earlier
museum collections, especially those of state museums, reflect the inadequacies of the
situation in a way. This has attempted to ben overcome by recent developments in
İzmir, such as the proliferation of art galleries and foundations in the Urla district,
which promote cultural exchange and contemporary art, such as the BEYETAV Art
Foundation located in a Levantine villa, BE Contemporary Art Gallery, and ARKAS's
new collection displayed at the Mattheys Mansion. The repurposing of old Levantine
11 9
villas into art and gallery spaces also presents intriguing possibilities for future
research into the multiple identities of İzmir's cultural spaces.
As a young woman born and raised in the city, and an art historian who has a personal
interest and awareness for cultural institutions, I have come to the conclusion that there
is a common misunderstanding in İzmir that cultural achievement could be limited
with construction. Similarly, Sancar Maruflu, a leading actor in the life of İzmir who
also worked at the municipality, emphasizes that the true reconnection with the people
of the city through culture did not solely depend on cultural activities or cultural
buildings but it relies on public and civil democratic organizations.239 In other words,
constructing new buildings, and re-functioning historical buildings, can only be a
starting point. However, mere material accomplishments cannot establish a
meaningful connection with the city and its residents. Local government involvement
should be followed by finding ways for the public to experience these buildings in
order to connect these cultural spaces into the city's life. Thus, the primary issue lies
in the inability to foster a relationship with the city itself and its inhabitants. Otherwise,
architecture becomes confined to materiality, not producing lived spaces.
As exemplified by the recent relocation of İzmir Archaeology and Ethnography
Museums into the new venue initiated by the central government (Ministry of Culture
and Tourism), authorities, central or local, generally tend to perceive cultural spaces
as tactical or strategic rather than as elements that foster connections between the city,
its history, and the public. The inability in managing these cultural spaces also hinders
the realization of the aims of identity building, national or local, through cultural
spaces examined in this study. As stated in the first catalogue of the City Museum and
Archive, for instance, the aim of building a bridge between İzmir’s history and its
present-day reception was more thorough. The preface written by Piriştina himself
proved in a way that the project was well-thought, well-organized and precise. The
later management problems in this institution and others examined in this study point
at the need for further research on the relations of cultural spaces with the public. This
study has hopefully presented a ground to comparatively discuss cultural spaces in
239 Interview with Sancar Maruflu, Bizim İzmir Magazine, September 2019:
http://www.bizimizmirmagazin.com/sancar-maruflu-roportaji-5
12 0
relation to national and local identities attempted to be formed by central and local
authorities from the early 20th to the early 21st century. Currently, the Historical Coal
Gas Factory Art Center, re-functioned by the municipality in 2009, is located next to
the İzmir Culture Factory240, Alsancak Tekel Factory re-functioned by the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism in 2023, posing new questions, and clarifying that there is still a
need for further research to explore and understand cultural spaces in terms of the
relation between the local and national politics.
240 https://izmirkultursanatfabrikasi.gov.tr/
12 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akay, Hale. Yerel Yönetimlerde Katılımcı Mekanizmalar ve Süreçler, Türkiye Avrupa
Vakfı Yayınları, 2015.
Akcan, Esra. Architecture in Translation, Germany, Turkey & the Modern House,
Duke University Press, Durham & London, 2012.
Akurgal, Ekrem. Türkiye’nin Kültür Sorunları ve Anadolu Uygarlıklarının Dünya
Tarihindeki Önemi, Bilgi Yayınları, Özel Dizi:37, 1998.
Altan, T. Elvan, “İzmir Fuarı, Kültürpark ve Türkiye’nin inşası,” p.169, in İzmir
Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler, Ed. Ahenk
Yılmaz, Kıvanç Kılınç, and Burkay Pasin. İletişim, 2015.
Anheier Helmut K. and Raj Isar Yudhishthir. The Cultures and Globalization Series
1: Conflicts and Tensions, Sage Publications, 2007.
Anon. “Introduction,” Culture Futur Urbain, Résumé. Rapport Mondial sur la Culture
pour le développment urbain durable, UNESCO Publications, 2016.
Anon. 150. Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), Cilt II, İzmir Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, 2017.
Anon. 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı,
15.04.2003.
Anon. 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 15.04.2003.
Anon. 2000’de İzmir’de Neler Oldu? İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2000.
Anon. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Adnan Saygun Sanat Merkezi Mimari Proje.
Anon. İzmir Industrial Heritage Inventory, İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı, n.d., p.12.
Anon. İzmir Kent Ansiklopedisi Mimarlık. Cilt I & Cilt II. İzmir Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, 2013.
12 2
Anon. İzmir Kent Ansiklopedisi Sanat. Cilt I & Cilt II. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi,
2017.
Anon. İzmir’de 6. Bin Yıla Girerken 1999-2002: Tarihsel Çevre, Kültür ve Sanat
Çalışmaları, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı, 09.09.2002.
Ardizzola, Paola. “La linea eterodossa di Bruno Taut in Turchia, ovvero una possibile
conciliazione fra tradizione e modernità,” Fondazione Bruno Zevi via
Nomentana 150 Roma, 2010.
Artun, Ali, Mümkün Olmayan Müze: Müzeler ne gösteriyor? İletişim, 2017.
Aykaç, Pınar. “Bellek, Kolektif Bellek ve Koruma,” Mimarlık, n.423, Ocak-Şubat
2022.
Aykaç, Pınar. “Musealisation in the Urban Context: Transformation of the
Sultanahmet District into a Museum Area,” Türkiye bilimler Akademisi
Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, 2020.
Babaie, Susan. “The Global in the Local Implicating Iran in Art and History,” in
Dissonant Archives: Contemporary Visual Culture and Contested Narratives
in the Middle East, ed. Anthony Downey, I.B TAURIS London, 2015.
Babic, Darko. “Bridging the Boundaries between Museum and Heritage Studies,”,
Museum International 68: 1-2, 2016.
Béghain, Patrice. “Décentralisation culturelle: l’urgence,” L’Observatoire N.43, 2013
Biard, Jean-Louis & Bonnin, Jean Louis. “Les Villes et l’administration de la culture,”
L’Observatoire n.32, Tribune, 2007.
Bilsel, Cana & Haluk, Zelef. “Fairy Tales: Turkey’s Prospects for World Fairs,
Projects for İzmir and İstanbul”, Le Culture della Tecnica, vol.25, 2014.
Bilsel, Cana. “Bir Şehir Küllerinden Yeniden Doğuyor:Cumhuriyet Smyrna’sının
Kuruluşu,” in İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent Mi? Bir Osmanlı
Limanından Hatıralar, ed.Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis. İletişim Yayınları,
2008.
Bozdoğan Sibel, Kasaba Reşat. ed. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish
Architectural Culture in the Early Republic, University of Washington Press,
2001.
12 3
Çakıcıoğlu, Oban-Raziye. İzmir’in Eski Kentsel Dokusunun Korunması ve Turizm
Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, İzmir 2006.
Çelik Efşan, Nur, and Yılmaz,Vedat. “Yerel Yönetim Birimi Olarak Belediyelerin
Kentlerin Yerel Kalkınmasındaki Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir
İnceleme,” Akademik İzdüşüm Dergisi, 2021.
Çelikoğlu, Işık, Sedat Baylan, Ertan Dikmen and Ebru Kandilci Köran. “Fabrikada
Kahve Keyfi: Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası Restorasyonu ve Çevre Düzenlemesi
ile İzmirlilerin Kullanımında”, Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70, p.32-35.
Çetin. Çiğdem & Küçükerbaş Vecdi Erhan. “Evaluating Different Dimensions of the
Interior by Re-Functioning: İzmir Coalgas Cultural Center,” Research
Article, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design,
Yaşar University, İzmir, 05.04.2022.
Çetinkaya, Çiğdem. “Yeniden İşlevlendirilen Endüstriyel Mekanların Görsel Algı
Değerlendirmesi: İzmir Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası,” Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Ege University, August 2015.
Çıkış, Şeniz. “Endüstriyel Bir Miras Alanında Dönüşüm: İzmir Liman Arkası
Bölgesi,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70.
Dağıstan Özdemir, Melike Z. “Türkiye’de Kültürel Mirasın Korunmasına Kısa bir
Bakış,” Planlama, Şehir Plancıları Odası Yayını, Sayı 31, 2005/1.
Ergeçgil Çıkış, Şeniz. “Bir Ticaret Şehrinde Sanayi,” Ege Mimarlık 1999/31.
Ergut (Altan), T. Elvan. “The Forming of the National In Architecture,” METU JFA,
1999.
Gibson Liane, and Stevenson Deborah. ‘‘Urban Space and the Uses of Culture,’’
International Journal of Cultural Policy, March 2004.
Göral İnal, and Türkmen Muhlis. “Resim ve Heykel Müzesi İzmir,” Arkitekt / 1977:53.
Güner, Deniz. “Kültürpark’ın bilinmeyen tasarımcısı Mesut Özok: Bir otobiyografik
yapı-söküm ve biyografik yeniden-inşa denemesi”, in Ahenk Yılmaz, Kıvanç
Kılınç, and Burak Pasin (eds.) İzmir Kültürpark’ın Anımsa(ma)dıkları:
Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler. İletişim, 2015.
12 4
Güner, Deniz. Ed. İzmir Architectural Guide 2005, İzmir Branch of Chamber of
Architects Press, 2005.
Gürol Öngören, Pelin. “Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity:
Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early Turkish Republic,”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, June
2012.
Hamnett, Chris and Shoval, Noam. “Museums as Flagships of Urban Development,”
chapter 12 in Cities and Visitors, Regulating People, Markets and City Space
ed.Lily M. Hoffman, Susan S.Fainstein and Dennis R.Judd, Blackwell
Publishing 2003.
Harrison, Rodney. Heritage, Critical Approaches. Routledge, 2013.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/cutting-edge-culture-and-city-forging-placebased-
people-centered-public-policies
İKSV, “Cultural Planning for Local Authorities,” Istanbul Foundation for Culture and
Art’s annual report, February 2016.
İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Press. “İzmir, Yeni Bir Kültür Merkezi
Kazanıyor…” İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi, interview with Tozkoparan
Tevfik, Tümer Gürhan, and Topal Hasan, 2nd issue, November 2000.
İzmir’de 6. Bin Yıla Girerken 1999-2002: Tarihsel Çevre, Kültür ve Sanat
Çalışmaları, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı, 09.09.2002.
Karadağ, Arife & İncedere, Leman. “Kentsel Belleğin Sürdürülebilirliği Açısından
İzmir’deki Endüstri Miras Alanlarının Önemi: Alsancak Liman Ardı Bölgesi
Örneği,” Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 29 (1), 2020.
Kayın, Emel and Şimşek Eylem. “İzmir Havagazı Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi
Üzerine Yeniden Düşünmek,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70.
Kayın, Emel. “Tasarımdan Onarıma Endüstri Mirası: Uygulamalar, Sorunlar,
Öneriler,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70.
Kezer, Zeynep. Building Modern Turkey: State, Space, and Ideology in the Early
Republic, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015.
12 5
Kıyar, Neslihan. “Türkiye Sanat Ortamında 80’ler ve Değişim Sürecinin
Düşündürdükleri,” European Journal of Managerial Research Dergisi, Cilt 2.
Sayı 2, 2018.
Kolluoğlu Kırlı, Biray. “Forgetting the Smyrna Fire,” History Workshop Journal,
Oxford University Press, 2005.
Köksal, T. Gül. “Medeniyetin Hamuru’nu üreten İzmit SEKA Fabrikası’nın Kültür
Havzasına Dönüşümü,” Mimarlık, n.423, Ocak-Şubat 2022.
Kraemer, Kristina. “Representing Home? City Museums and Concepts of Identity,”
The 7th Euroacademia International Conference, 2018.
Kusno, Abidin. The Appearances of Memory: Mnemonic Practices of Architecture and
Urban Form in Indonesia, Durham, London, Duke University Press, 2010.
L. Zolberg, Vera. “Museums as contested sites of remembrance: the Enola Gay affair,”
Theorizing Museums, Ed. Macdonald, Sharon & Fyfe, Gordon, 1996.
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space, (1974) Blackwell. Translated by Nicolson-
Smith, Donald, England, 1991.
Maalouf, Amin. In the Name of Identity (1996) translated from the French by Bay,
Barbara, Penguin Books, 2000.
Macdonald, Sharon & Fyfe, Gordon. ed. Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity
and Diversity in a Changing World, Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Madran, Burçak. “Mekanın Belleği, Belleğin Mekanı: Mekan İşgalcileri Olarak
Müzeler,” Mimarlık, n.423, Ocak-Şubat 2022.
McLuhan, Marshall, and Quentin Fiore. The Medium is the Massage.1967. Penguin
Classics, England, 2008.
Mehmet ERGÜVEN. “Sorunlu Bir Kurum: İzmir Devlet Resim ve Heykel Müzesi”,
s.28, quoted in Pelvanoğlu, Burcu, “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat:
Dönüşümler,” Doctoral Thesis, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009.
Mercanoğlu, Cansin. “Relationship Between Sense of Belonging and Social
Production of Space: Analysis of Hasanoğlan High Village Institute,”
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, METU, 2019.
12 6
Merrillees, Robert S. “Cypriote antiquities in Late Ottoman Istanbul and Smyrna -II-,
Cypriote antiquities in the Greek Evangelical School Museum and their
Trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna (Modern İzmir),” Cahiers du Centre
d’Études Chypriotes 47, 2017.
Mumford, Lewis. The Culture of Cities, HBJ Publishers, 1970.
Neel-Smith, Sarah. “Introduction to ‘Artistic Awakening in Ankara,’ ‘The Artist and
the Politics,’ and ‘The Burden of the Intellectual’ by Bülent Ecevit,”
ARTMarhings and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ARTM/2016.
Nicolai, Bernard. “Bruno Taut and the Changed Conception of Modernism on the Eve
of World War II,” architectura/2 2016, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der
Baukunst, Journal of the History of Architecture, 2016.
Orel, Ferruh & Çeçen, Cahit. “1939 İzmir Beynelmilel Fuarı,” Arkitekt / 1939.
Özbakan, Feyzal Avcı. “Oluşum, Çözülme ve Yeniden İnşa: İki Asırıdır
Tanımlanamayan Konak Meydanı,” Mimarlık, n.423, Ocak-Şubat 2022.
Özdemir Anıl, Ürün. “Urban and Spatial Organization in the Context of Culture,”
Yalova Sosyal bilimler Dergisi, 2nd issue, April-September 2011.
Özge Sade, Fatma. “A Fragmented Memory Project: Archeological and Ethnographic
Museums in Turkey 1960-1980,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Washington. 2012.
Özsüphandağ Yayman, Duygu. Ahmet Piriştina Yaşam Öyküsü: Nergis Kokar mı
İzmir’in Sokakları? İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı Dizisi n.51,
March 2007.
Paolo Magagnoli. “Critical Nostalgia in the Art of Joachim Koester,” Oxford Art
Journal, vol.34 no.1, Oxford University Press 2011.
Papazoglou, Grammatiki. “Society and Culture: Cultural policies driven by local
authorities as a factor in local development - The example of the municipality
of Xanthi Greece,” Heritage Case Report Department of Social Policy
Panteion University, Athens, 5 September 2019.
Pelvanoğlu, Burcu. “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Sanat: Dönüşümler,” Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009.
12 7
Peralta Elsa, and Anico Marta. Heritage and Identity, Engagement and Demission in
the Contemporary World. Routledge, 2009.
Pırnar, İge, and Sinem Kurtural. “Kent Markalaşmasında Müzelerin Rolü ve İzmir
Mega Müze Projesi,” Uluslararası iktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi,
19.20.2017.
Poirrie, Philippe. “La Politique Culturelle,” Vie République, 20 August 2018.
Prösler, Martin. “Museums and Globalization,” in Theorizing Museums, ed. Sharon
Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, Blackwell Publishers, The Sociological
Review, 1996.
Prösler, Martin. “Museums and Globalization,” Theorizing Museums, Ed. Macdonald,
Sharon & Fyfe, Gordon, 1996.
Sade, Fatma Özge. “Türkiye’de Tasarlanmış Müze Yapıları,” Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mayıs 2005.
Serçe, Erkan, ed. 150. Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017). Cilt I & Cilt II,
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2018.
Serçe, Erkan. Ed. 150. Yılında İzmir Belediyesi Tarihi (1867-2017), İzmir Büyükşehir
Belediyesi Baskısı. Vol II, 2018.
Shaw, Wendy. “Museums and Narratives of Display from the late Ottoman Empire to
the Turkish Republic,” Muqarnas, Vol. 24, History and Ideology:
Architectural Heritage of the "Lands of Rum", 2007.
Smith, Sarah-Neel. “The Semiperipheral Art Gallery: A Case Study in 1950s
Istanbul,” Third Text, Routledge, May 2020.
Smyrnelis, Marie-Carmen. İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent Mi? Bir Osmanlı
Limanından Hatıralar, İletişim Yayınları, 2008.
Şenel Fidangenç, Nur. “Discourse Analysis of City Museums in Turkey Since 2000,”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, İzmir Institute of Technology, December
2018.
Tankut, Gönül. “Doğal ve Tarihi Çevrenin Korunması: Sorunlar ve Olası Çözümler,”
Planlama 2005/1, TMMOB Journal of the Chamber of City Planners, 2005.
12 8
Tankut, Gönül. Doğal ve Tarihi Çevrenin Korunması: Sorunlar ve Olası Çözümler,
TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yayını, Journal of the Chamber of City
planners, N.31, 2005.
Tekeli, İlhan. Anniversary for the 150 years since the institutions of the İzmir
Municipality International Symposium: Local government Democracy and
İzmir, Proceedings, commencement speech, İzmir Mediterranean Academy,
November 2018.
Tekeli, İlhan. Cumhuriyetin Belediyecilik Öyküsü (1923-1990). Tarih Vakfı Yurdu
Yayınları, 2009.
Tekeli, İlhan. Ideal Kent İlhan Tekeli ve Şehircilik, Cilt 11 sayı 29, Adamor, 2020.
Tekeli, İlhan. İzmir Belediyeciliğinde 2004-2018 Döneminin Öyküsü. İzmir Modeli
Kitap 1. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Akdeniz Akademisi, 2018.
Tekeli, İlhan. Kültür Politikaları ve İnsan Hakları Bağlamında Doğal ve Tarihi
Çevreyi Korumak, İlhan Tekeli Toplu Eserler-5, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,
Temmuz 2009.
Topal, Hasan. “İzmir’in yüzyıllık mimarlık öyküsü (I-5),” Yenigün, 15.09.2022 -
13.10.2022.
Tozkoparan, Tevfik and Emre Ulaş. “Sanat Merkezi ve Performans (Ahmed Adnan
Saygun Sanat Merkezi,” Ege Mimarlık 2009/3 70.
Tozkoparan, Tevfik; Tümer, Gürhan and Topal, Hasan, “İzmir Yeni Bir Kültür
Merkezi Kazanıyor…” interview, İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi- November 2nd
issue, 2000.
Tümer, Gürhan, Hasan Topal, and Tevfik Tozkoparan. “İzmir, Yeni Bir Kültür
Merkezi Kazanıyor,” İzmir Kent Kültürü Dergisi, İzmir Büyükşehir
Belediyesi Yayını, November 2nd issue, 2000.
Uhri, Ahmet. ed. İzmir Müzeleri: Bir Akdeniz Kenti’nin Kültürel Arka Planı / İzmir
Müzeleri, Sürekli Sergi ve Koleksiyonları / Museums in İzmir: The Cultural
Background of a Mediterranean City / Museums, Permanent Exhibitions and
Collections in İzmir. İzmir Akdeniz Akademisi, Aralık / December 2018.
12 9
UNESCO, Heritage: Heritage Sustainability, Index of development of a
multidimensional framework for heritage sustainability, UNESCO culture for
development indicators report. Methodology Manual:
https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/cdis/heritage_dimension
.pdf
Unpublished Competition Report, Adnan Saygun Sanat Merkezi, İzmir Metropolitan
Municipality, January 2000.
Urry, John. “How societies remember the past,” ed. Macdonald, Sharon, and Fyfe,
Gordon, Theorizing Museums: Representing identity and diversity in a
changing world, Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, 1996.
Urry, John. “How Societies Remember the Past,” Theorizing Museums, Ed.
Macdonald, Sharon & Fyfe, Gordon 1996.
Uysal, Yusuf & Atmaca, Yıldız. “Evaluation of Central and Local Government
Relations in Turkey Within The Framework of Governance Model,”
Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, Vol.1, N.3, 2018.
Uz, Behçet, der. L. Ece Sakar. Atatürk’ün İzmiri: bir kentin yeniden doğuşu, Türkiye
İş Bankası KültürYayınları, 2011.
Üstel, Füsun. Kültür Politikasına Giriş: Kavramlar, Modeller Tartışmalar, İletişim
Yayınları, 2021.
Vasari, Giorgio. Les vies des plus excellents peintres, sculpteurs et architectes
(1550),Paris, éd. Dorbon-Ainé, Tome I, trad.Charles Weiss, 1900, English
quote from: Newly Translated by Gaston Du C. De Vere, Macmillan and CO
LD & The Medici Society, LD. 1912-14.
Vergo, Peter, ed. The New Museology, Reaction Books, 1989.
Yaranga, Olaf, trad.Gürhan Tümer. XIX.Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Fransız Gezginlerin
Anlatımlarında İzmir, İBB İzmir Yayıncılık, 2002.
Yetkin, Sabri & Dr. Yılmaz, Fikret. İtfaiye Binası’ndan İzmir Kent Müzesi ve Arşivine.
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, Mart 2002.
13 0
Yılmaz, Ahenk, Kılınç Kıvanç and Pasin, Burkay, “Hatırlamanın ve unutmanın kentsel
sahnesi olarak Kültürpark’ın belleği,” in İzmir Kültürpark’ın
Anımsa(ma)dıkları, İletişim, 2015.
Yılmaz, Ahenk, Kılınç Kıvanç, and Pasin Burkay. İzmir Kültürpark’ın
Anımsa(ma)dıkları: Temsiller, Mekanlar, Aktörler. İletişim, 2015.
Yücel Kaya, Alp, “Şehir Senin Peşini Bırakmayacak,” in İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş
Bir Kent Mi? Bie Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen
Smyrnelis, İletişim, 2020.
Yücel Kaya, Alp. “Sondeyiş: Şehir Senin Peşini Bırakmayacak,” İzmir 1830-1930
Unutulmuş Bir Kent Mi? Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed.Marie-
Carmen Smyrnelis. İletişim Yayınları, 2008.
Yücel, Şebnem. “İzmir bu Yaz ‘tasarım ile’ Hareketlendi,” Mimarlık, n.423, OcakŞubat
2022.
13 1
APPENDICES
A. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS LISTED IN THE MUNICIPAL
BOOKLET: Cultural Values and Urban Aesthetics
(Source: 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı,
15.04.2003)
Historical texture and environmental re-arrangements: Renovating excavation sites
like Agora ancient city which was turned into an archeological park, re-arranging
Kadifekale and Bayraklı to enhance the historical importance of the site, preparing
the İzmir Urban Conservation Master Plan for İzmir Konak Kemeraltı and
Surroundings.
Evlere Şenlik: The project was aimed at the amelioration of buildings holding
historical-cultural values. Many buildings and old İzmir houses in Alsancak,
Karşıyaka and Mithatpaşa were renovated with this project.
Restoration of historical schools and mansions: Many schools of historical value
(Atatürk Lisesi, Namık Kemal Lisesi, İzmir Kız Lisesi, Fevzipaşa İlkokulu, Konak
Cumhuriyet Kız Meslek Lisesi, İzmir Ticaret Meslek Lisesi, etc.) were renovated.
Mansions and Levantine houses in Buca and Bornova were renovated as well as
historical buildings such as Alsancak Train Station which was built in the 19th
century.
Coloring the façades (for instance coloring the grand concrete silos of Tarım
Mahsülleri Ofisi - Soil Products Office in the port hinterland area), and examining
the use of billboards, café’s, streets etc. with initiations like Kent Estetiği Masası
(Urban Aesthetics Desk) and The Regulation and Speculation Agreements of the
Kordonboyu promenade.
13 2
B. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS LISTED IN THE MUNICIPAL
BOOKLET: Culture and Arts
(Source: 1999-2003 İzmir Değişiyor, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı,
15.04.2003)
Regulations, foundation, and restoration of cultural spaces in İzmir such as:
İzmir Sanat (İzmir Art, art and culture center): The building had formerly been
founded as Ege Television building, and in 2000, the building was re-functioned
and restored as an arts and culture center, including a conference hall, theater and
cinema hall holding a capacity of 300 people, auditorium for 80 sittings, cafes,
exhibition halls and a ballet hall.
İzmir History and Painting Museum: The İzmir municipality reserved an area of
14.500 m2 (4.200 m2 indoor and 10.300 m2 outdoors) inside Kültürpark to initiate
this museum edifice. The collection would include stone artifacts, ceramics and
valuable historical objects & artifacts as well as an exhibition space for
contemporary art practices.
Karataş Art and Culture Center: The former building built in the 1880s had been
used as a Meter Workshop and was renovated as an arts and culture center for kids
in the ages between 6 to 18. The building was built to provide dance, music and art
education for the kids, including exhibition and performance facilities for at least
80 audiences.
Painting and Sculpture Gallery in Kültürpark: following a report on the risks of
damage after several earthquakes, the building in Konak (building inaugurated by
the Ministry of Tourism and Culture) was moved to Kültürpark by Piriştina’s
municipality. The new building chosen inside Kültürpark was the renovated area of
the former İtalian pavilion. The new Painting and Sculpture Gallery opened its doors
on August 6, 2002.
İnönü Cultural Center: The building was renovated and prepared as a music hall and
performance center. The 860 people capacity was upgraded to at least 1200
audience capacity.
13 3
An architectural competition for the Adnan Saygun Cultural Center was opened in
2000 for the area of the old trolleybus center in Güzelyalı. Tozkoparan Mimarlık
won the competition and the project officially started.
- The foundation of İzmir’s first City Archive and Museum by restoring and
re-functioning the old Fire Station building originally designed by Mesut
Özok in 1932.
13 4
C. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
Yüzyıllar boyunca tasarlanmış veya inşa edilmiş mekân algısı insanların bazı temel
ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda meydana gelmiştir. Örneğin ilkel bir açıdan bakıldığında
inşa edilmiş bir mekân bir kişinin korunabildiği bir barınma ihtiyacı olarak
anlaşılabilir. Öte yandan kültürün temel bir insan ihtiyacı olmadığı ise aşikârdır. Bu
bağlamda bakıldığında kültür mekanlarının modern bir buluş olduğu söylenilebilir.
Sanayi devrimi, ekonomik yayılma, modernleşme, milliyetçilik, küreselleşme ve yakın
tarih gibi büyük sosyo-ekonomik değişimler mekân kavramının oluşumunu ve bu
kavrama karşı gelişen algımızı dönüştürmüştür. Öte yandan kültür ve gelişen şehir
hayatı kentliye barınma ve gıda gibi temel ihtiyaçları karşılamaktan fazlasını
sunmaktadır. Kültür kavramının insanlar ve kentsel mekanla buluşması ise yeni kentli
gereksinimler ışığında- statü sahibi olma, toplumsal katılım, kültürleşme, kentsel
çevreye etkin katılım gibi - meydana gelmiştir. Diğer bir değişle mekânın insan
deneyimiyle birlikte evrim geçirmesi kültür mekanları gibi kavramları ortaya
çıkarmıştır.
Kültür ve mekân arasında gelişen ilişki kentlerdeki değişim ve bu değişimin
sonucunda ortaya çıkan kentli kimliğinin etrafında gelişmiştir. Tıpkı Lewis
Mumford’ın vurguladığı gibi insanların sosyal ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda ortaya çıkan
kentler, yoğunlaşmanın ve otoritelerin tek bir yerde toplandığı makro merkezler haline
gelmiştir. Kentler, insanların yaşam tarzlarını etkilediği kadar ifade biçimlerinin de
etkiler. Öyle ki, Mumford kentin kendisini bir sanat eserine benzetir ve bu yeni ve
modern mekan ile kültür arasındaki kuvvetli bağı sanat, tarih ve miras gibi kavramlar
üzerinden anlamaya çalışır. Dolayısıyla çevresel mekânın tasarısı sosyal ihtiyaçlarla
olduğu kadar sanatla, tarihle ve korunması gereken milli ve yerli miraslarla birlikte
şekillenmektedir.
Mekan ve kültür arasındaki bağlantı 20.yüzyılda modern kentlerin ortaya çıkışıyla
beraber daha da önemli nitelik kazanmıştır. Müzeler ulus kimliği ve aidiyet inşasında
önemli rol oynamaya başlar. Özellikle ulus-devletler için müzeler ayrı bir önem teşkil
13 5
ediyordu çünkü bu devlet için müzeler değişen küresel düzende ulusal kimliklerini
güçlendirmek, halkı eğitmek ve milli bilinç oluşturabilmek açısından stratejik
görülmekteydi. Türkiye gibi ulus devletlerin kendilerine ait bir kök arama istekleri ve
milli değerleri kuvvetlendirme arzusu kültür alanında kendini devlet müzelerinde
göstermektedir. Gürol Öngören’in de ifade ettiği gibi Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ilk
kurulduğu yıllarda modern, laik ve kültürün en iyi temsilini oluşturacak yeni
temsiliyetler aramaktaytı. Yeni ulusun kimliğini ve Cumhuriyet devrimi programını
desteklemek adına yeni semboller gerekiyordu ve müzeler bu temsillerin en önemli
adımlarını oluşturuyordu. Dolayısıyla tezin ilk bölümünde kültür mekanları olarak
müzelere odaklanılmış, müzelerin Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyetin ilk yıllarına kadarki
ulus inşasındaki rolü öne çıkarılmıştır. Bir diğer yandan kimlik inşası içerisinde tarihi
mirasın sergilenmesi ve halkla belirli bir tarih arasında kurulmaya çalışılan bağa
değinilmiş; müzeler üzerinden miras, tarih, eğitim ve milli kimlik kavramlarına
değinilmiştir.
Bu araştırma genel hatlarıyla kültür politikaları, mekan ve kültür mekanlarına
odaklanmaktadır. 20.yüzyıldan 21.yüzyıla varan kronolojik çerçeve iki bölüme
ayrılarak anlatılmıştır. Yukarıda da belirtildiği gibi kültürün temsil mekanları ulus
kimliği inşası ile başlanarak anlatılmıştır. Girişin ardından gelen ilk büyük bölüm
‘‘20.Yüzyılda Devlet Tarafından Oluşturulan Kültür Mekanları’’ başlığı altında
verilmiş, öncelikle tarihi miras kavramının ulus inşasındaki rolü işlenmiştir. Tarihi
miras kavramı Türkiye gibi ulus devletler için önemli bir araçtır. Müze mekanı ise bu
mirasın, bir anlamda seçilmiş bir mirasın, topluma anlatılması ve sergilenmesi
açısından önemlidir. Araştırmanın ilk büyük bölümünde kültür mekanı olarak belirli
kültür yapıları ve müzeler seçilmiş, bu yapıların ulus inşası adına araç haline
gelmelerine değinilmiştir. Ulusun kimlik inşası süreçleri, Avrupa’dan Türkiye’ye
uzanan genel hatlarıyla tarihi miras ve müzecilik kavramları üzerinden işlenmiştir.
Bölümün ilerleyen kısmında ise İzmir’e vurgu yapılmaktadır. İzmir kentinin kültürel
gelişimini kavramak amacıyla bu bölümde kültürel politikalar ve devletin İzmir'de
başlattığı müze, kültür parkları, sergi ve galeri mekanları gibi farklı kültürel
mekanların kurulması anlatılmıştır.
13 6
İzmir kentinin kültür mekanları ve ulus inşası sürecinde ilk değinilen önemli aktör
Kültürpark’tır. Kültürpark’ın ilk ortaya çıkışı kültürden çok fuat niteliğiyle
belirtilebilir. İzmir Fuarı olarak ortaya atılan Kültürpark düşüncesi ilk dönemlerin
ekonomik ve ticari kaygılar çerçevesinde gelişmiştir. Başka bir değişle Kültürpark,
İzmir Fuarı, düşüncesi ulusal bir ihtiyaçtan doğmuş, kentin ticari faaliyetlerini
genişletmeyi amaçlayan bir oluşumdur. Bölgenin yerel üretiminin desteklenmesi
amaçlanmakla beraber enternasyonel ülkelerin katılımıyla İzmir’i ve dolayısıyla
Türkiye’yi dünyaya tanıtma amacı da hedeflenmiştir. Sovyet Rusya’nın Gorki
Parkından ilham alınan proje İzmir Fuarı’na kültürün de dahil edilmesini sağlamış,
park genelinde çeşitli kamusal alanların ve binaların ortaya koyulmasını sağlamıştır.
Park içerisinde geniş yeşil alanlar, spor tesisleri, tiyatrolar, paraşüt kulesi, sergi alanları
ve müzeler gibi pek çok halkı eğitimle, kültürle ve doğayla buluşturmayı amaçlayan
tesisler inşa tasarlanmıştır.
Kültürpark’ın müzeleri İzmir kentinin ilk devlet müzeleri olarak görülebilir. Bu
müzeler aynı zamanda Cumhuriyet döneminin önemli modern mimari örnekleridir ve
halkı eğitme misyonunu üstlenmeyi amaçlamaktadırlar. Müzelerin isimleri ise
Cumhuriyet devriminin ulus inşası ve halkı eğitme misyonlarını tanımlar niteliktedir.
Bu müzeler: İnkılap Müzesi, Ziraat, Sıhhat ve İçtimai muavenet Vekâletlerinin
müzeleri, Arkeoloji Müzesi, Sağlık Müzesi ve Bilim Müzesi olarak sıralanabilir.
İzmir’in ve Türkiye’nin kültür politikaları ve milli kimlik inşası gibi kavramları
örneklendirmek açısından belirli müzeler ayrıca işlenmiştir ve Kültürpark’ın
içerisindeki Resim ve Heykel Müzesi bunlardan biridir. Diğer örnek yapılar sırasıyla
şu şekildedir: Resim ve Heykel Müzesi (1967), Arkeoloji Müzesi (1984) ve
Etnografya Müzesi (1984). Bu kurumlar İzmir’in kültür politikalarında devletin
kurduğu en ileri gelen örnekleri teşkil ettiği için seçilmiştir.
İzmir Resim ve Heykel Müzesi 1967’de Kültürpark’ın içerisinde bir galeri olarak
açılmıştır. Daha sonra, o dönemin ünlü heykeltıraşlarından Turgut Pura’nın da
girişimleriyle müze binası olarak tasarlanmış ve 1973’te Konak’taki yeni yerine
taşınmıştır. Ülke genelinde açılan Resim ve Heykel müzelerinin bir uzantısı olan İzmir
Resim ve Heykel Müzesi Cumhuriyet devrimi programı gereğince halkı sanat, kültür
ve tarih konusunda eğitmek ve ulusal kolektif bir kimlik etrafında bir araya getirmek
13 7
açısından devletin üstlendiği misyonlardan biridir. Benzer yönelimlerden yola çıkılan
bir diğer müze grubu ise Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Müzeleridir. Bu müzeler yeni Türk
milleti kimliğinin altını çizmenin yanı sıra vatandaşlara ulusun geçmişini ve tarihi
mirasını hatırlatmakta, seçilmiş bir hikaye üzerinden ulusun köklerini aramaktadır. Bu
müzeler Türkiye’deki kentsel gelişmenin önemli anahtarlarıydı. Kültürel mekanlar
tarafından halkın eğitilmesi ve ulusal bir kimlik etrafında birleşmenin yanı sıra ülkenin
farklı kentlerinde açılan bu gibi müzeler kentlerin çekim merkezleri olmayı da
amaçlamış olabilir, ne kadar başarılabilmiştir bu husus ayrı bir sorgulamayı gerektirir
ki bu çalışma kapsamında bu yapıların halk ile iletişimine değinilmiştir.
Şehirlerin yerelden yola çıkarak ulusal ve evrensel değerlerin yayılması ve anlaşılması
hususunda önemi bu yüzyılda iyice anlaşılmıştır. Özellikle 1980’lerden itibaren kültür
alanında adem-i merkeziyetçilik kavramları kendini göstermeye başlamış, 21.yüzyılda
ise kültürel mekanlarda yerel girişimler hız kazanmıştır. UNESCO yerelliğe yönelik
gelişen bu hareketi ise şöyle tanımlıyor: ‘Ademi merkezileşme süreci özellikle kültür
alanını derinden etkilemiş, ulusal ve yerel otoriteler arasındaki yetkilerin farklı
şekillerde ve farklı derecelerde yeniden yorumlanmasına veya yeniden dağıtılmasına
yol açmıştır.’
Tüm bu kültür tartışmalarına istinaden, kullanılan kültür kavramının açıklanması bu
çalışma bağlamında oldukça önemlidir: ‘Kültür farklı insan yaşam biçimlerine ilişkin
bir kavramdır; kimlik, anlam, değer, hedefler ve bir yer duygusunu içerisinde
barındırır.’’ Dolayısıyla kültür kavramı kendi içerisinde çoğul anlamlar taşır. Bu
araştırma kapsamı içerisinde kullanılan kültür kavramı betimlenen tanımlar içerisinde
tartışılmıştır: tarihi mirasa sahip çıkılmak, sanat ve yaratıcı alanlara dahil olmak,
eğitmek ve belirli bir aidiyet duygusu yaratmak. Bu tezdeki kültürel mekan tartışmaları
göz önüne alındığında iki ana mekan biçimi göze çarpmaktadır: ulusu eğitmeyi
amaçlayan ulusal müzeler ile halkı kültürel etkinliklere dahil etmeyi amaçlayan yerel
kültür-sanat merkezleri ve farklı yerel kültür mekanları. Tezin farklı bölümlerinde bu
iki olgu farklı örnekler ile tartışılmış ve kimlik yaratım süreçleri irdelenmiştir.
Yerel vurgusu bu araştırma için önemli bir yer taşımaktadır. Farklı kültür mekanları
üzerinden milli aidiyet ve kimliğe alternatif olarak gelişen yerellik vurgusu yerel kültür
13 8
mekanları üzerinden anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Yerelin mekân özelinde gelişimi ise
1980’lerin sonlarına doğru merkezi otoritelere karşı gelişen yeni aktörler ile anlaşmaya
başlanmıştır. 1970’ler boyunca Avrupa’daki birçok ülkede ve özellikle Fransa gibi
kültüre duyarlı ülkelerde kültürel ve sanatsal etkinliklerin, binaların ademimerkezileştirilmesi
kavramları görülmektedir. Kültürün yerel üzerinden gelişmesi ve
içselleştirilmesi için yeni yollar aranmıştır. 21.yüzyıla doğru ise kültür ve kentlilik
kavramları artık yalnızca ulus-devletlerin bir ürünü olmaktan çıkmış, yerel anlamda
anlaşılabilir hale gelmiştir. Otoritenin merkezden yerele doğru kayması ve ademi
merkeziyetçilik hareketleri yerel yönetimlerin başlattığı kültürel organizasyonların ve
yapıların artmasına neden olmuştur. Bu durum bir bakıma kültürün yerel alanlarda da
ulusa fayda sağlayabileceğini doğrular niteliktedir. Şehirler bir toplumdaki siyasetin,
ekonominin ve kültürün temle parametreleri haline geldiğinden beri yerel olmadan
küresele ulaşılamayacağının ayırdına varılmaktadır.
Gönül Tankut’unda belirttiği gibi ’21.yüzyulda ülkelerin doğal ve tarihi çevrelerini
koruma becerisi ve başarısı sadece doğal ve kültürel zenginlik olarak değil, aynı
zamanda siyasal bir güç ve prestij kaynağı olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu kültür
değerlerinin yansıma düzlemleri de kuşkusuz kentler olacaktır.’ (p.9). İşte bu
bağlamda düşünüldüğünde bu tez, devletin ve yerel yönetimin oluşturduğu kültürel
mekanları inceleyerek kültür ve mekan arasındaki ilişki politikalarını analiz
etmektedir. Tüm bu tartışmaları ise İzmir kenti üzerinden gerçekleştirmeyi
amaçlamaktadır.
İzmir’in tarihi ve kültürel geçmişi ele alındığında kültür ve mekan ilişkisini incelemek
adına önemli bir örnek olduğu aşikardır. Öte yandan merkezi yönetimlerin ötesinde
özellikle 21.yüzyılın başındaki yerel yönetim anlayışının kültür ve sanat mekanlarının
çoğaltmak hususundaki tutumu bu tezin esin kaynağını oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın
ana amacı 20.yüzyılın başlarından 21.yüzyılın başlarına kadar İzmir’de kurulan belirli
başlı kültür mekanlarının incelenerek merkezi ve yerel yönetimlerin kültür
politikalarını karşılaştırmalı bir çerçevede aydınlatmak, ve farklı kimlik oluşumlarını
irdelemektir. Ulusal ve yerel kolektif kimlik üretimi ve bu doğrultuda kültür ve mirasın
mekan üretimindeki rolü daha geniş anlamda değerlendirilmiştir.
13 9
20.yüzyıl boyunca devlet tarafından oluşturulan kültürel mekanlar ulusal kimlik
inşasını hedeflemekteydi. 21.yüzyılın başında ise yerel yönetimler kültürel mekanlara
müdahale etmeye başlamış, ulusal kimliğe alternatif olabilecek yerel kimlikler
arayışına girmiştir. Bu tez devletin ulus inşa sürecinin nasıl yerel kimlik inşa sürecine
genişlediğini incelemektedir. Devletin ve yerel yönetimlerin 1930’lu yıllardan 2000’li
yılların başlına kadar olan siyasi hikayeleri karşılaştırılarak mekan kullanımların
üzerinden kültür ile ilişkileri değerlendirilmiştir.
Türkiye’de değişen sosyo-politik atmosfer, karşıt siyasi partiler, merkezi ve yerel
yönetimler arasındaki ilişkilerin değişen doğası - işbirlikleri veya gerilimleri- kentsel
yaşamda yeni ihtiyaçların doğmasına ve yerel sahnelerde yeni kimlik arayışlarına yol
açmıştır. Bu gibi dönüşümler kültürel mekaları da kapsamaktadır.1980’lerden sonra
devlet müzeleri bir kimlik oluşumunun veya kamusal eğitimin temelini
oluşturmuyordu. Devlet müzelerinin atıl bırakılması veya önemini bir ölçüde yitirmesi
İzmir gibi büyükşehirlerde yeni kültürel ihtiyaçları doğurdu. Öte yandan global
dünyada kentlerin markalaşma çabaları özellikle kültür-sanat gibi ilgi çeken ve
farklılık kavramların mekanlaşmasının önünü açıyordu. İzmir yeni belediyecilik
anlayışıyla markalaşmak ve kültür kenti olmak için kenti mekanlarını oluşturmaya
ihtiyaç duyuyordu. Özellikle Özfatura’dan Piriştina’ya kadar yerel belediyelerin
değişmesiyle birlikte yeni galeri alanları, kültür merkezleri, sanat merkezleri ve yerel
yönetimlerin ön ayak olduğu müzeler İzmir’de çoğalmaya başladı. Tam bu noktada
tezin ikinci ana bölümü, üçüncü bölüm, 21. Yüzyılda İzmir’de açılan kültür
mekanlarına odaklanmaktadır: “21. Yüzyılda Yerel Yönetimlerin Kültürel
Mekanları”.
Bu kısım İzmir’de yerel kimliğin oluşması için kültür ve mekânın kullanılmasına
odaklanırken İzmir belediyesinin gelişimini daha iyi anlayabilmek 90’lar sonu
2000’ler başı olmak üzere İzmir belediyesinin ve belediye başkanlarının politikalarına
değinen bir giriş bulundurmaktadır. Ahmet Piriştina’nın belediyesine özellikle vurgu
yapılmaktadır çünkü kültür binaları ve var olan tarihi mirası koruma gibi kavramlar
Piriştina’nın belediye programının önemli bir bölümünü oluşturmaktaydı. Piriştina
halkın tarihsel ve kültürel bilincinin oluşması için tarihi mirasın korunması gerektiğine
14 0
inanmaktaydı. İzmir için daha yerel bir kimlik oluşturmanın ve kentlinin kültür,
tarihsel çevre ve sanat adına ortak bir bilinç oluşturması açısından tarihle bağını
koruyan yeni kültür mekanlarının yaratılmasının önemli olduğuna inanıyordu.
Piriştina’nın döneminde tarihi binaların yeniden işlevlendirilerek kültür mekanlarına
dönüştürülmesi ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bu bölümde belediyenin stratejileri ışığında
spesifik örneklere yer verilmiştir. Bu örneklerden ilki önemli bellek mekanlarından
biri olan İzmir Tarih Sanat Müzesidir. İzmir Tarih Sanat Müzesi’nin binası İzmir’in
mimari miraslarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Orijinal bina Bruno Taut’un tasarımıdır.
Taut tarafından Kültürpark içerisinde Reform Müzesi’ne alternatif olarak Maarif
Vekaleti Kültür Pavyonu olarak 1939’da tasarlanan bina Taut’un ani ölümü
dolayısıyla yönetim kurumu mimarları tarafından tamamlandı. Öte yandan farklı
mimarları barından tasarım Fuat Saydam tarafından Sağlık Müzesi olarak düşünülen
bir kısmı da bulundurmaktadır. Kültür pavyonu, gerçekleşemeyen Inklap Müzesi,
KKTC köşkü gibi bir çok işlev için düşünülmüş ve toplamda üç farklı yapıdan oluşan
bina Kültürpark içerisinde Müze inşa edilmesi fikrinin vücut bulmuş hali olarsak 2004
yılında İzmir Tarih ve Sanat Müzesi adını alarak açılmıştır. Kültürpark bünyesi
içerisinde bağımsız bir müze olarak kurulan Tarih ve Sanat Müzesi barındırdığı önemli
arkeolojik koleksiyonu ve Kültürpark içerisinde tarihinden bu yana temsil ettiği
olgularla birlikte İzmir’in ileri gelen bellek mekanlarından biri olmayı sürdürüyor. Öte
yandan binanın kullanımı konusundaki hususlar yerel ve merkezi otoriteler arasındaki
ilişkiyi mekânsal boyutta sorgulatıyor.
Yerel yönetimlerin tarihi mirası yeniden işlevlendirme projelerine örnek olarak iki
önemli yapı daha ele alınmaktadır. Bunlardan birisi İzmir’in hem kent müzesi hem de
kent arşivi özelliğini elinde bulunduran ilk binası olan Ahmet Piriştina Kent Arşivi ve
Müzesi’dir. Bina, 1932 yılında Mesut Özok tarafından tasarlanan İtfaiye Binası’nın
yeniden işlevlendirilerek kent müzesi ve arşivine dönüştürülmesiyle gerçekleşmiş bir
projedir. İzmir Kent Arşivi ve Müzesi adıyla 2004’te hizmete açılan bina Piriştina’nın
vefatı ile Ahmet Piriştina Kent Arşivi ve Müzesi ismini alarak İzmirlilere tarih ve kent
bilinci aşılamak amacıyla kurulmuştur. Öte yandan müze ve kent arşivi misyonlarını
birlikte üslenen önemli bir merkez olma niteliği ile hem ulusal hem evrensel tanınırlık
amaçlanmıştır. Cumhuriyet döneminin önemli hizmet binalarından biri olan İtfaiye
binasının belediye tarafından kültür mekanına dönüştürülmesi dikkate değer bir
14 1
olgudur. Bu proje ile gerçekleştirilmek istenen kentlilik bilinci ve bu hususta müzearşiv
ve kültür mekanının tarihle ilişkisi APIKAM örneği üzerinden incelenmekte,
mekanın kentliyle kurabildiği veya kuramadığı iletişim sorgulanmaktadır. Bir diğer
yeniden işlevlendirme projesi olarak ise Piriştina döneminde temelleri atılmış ve Aziz
Kocaoğlu döneminde tamamlanmış Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası binası örnek
verilmiştir. İzmir Tarihi Havagazı Fabrikası’nın restorasyon projesi ortaya atıldığı
günden bu yana, 2005’te proje duyurulmuş ve 2008 sonunda tamamlanmıştır; gerek
mimarlar gerek yerel yönetim gerek de İzmirliler tarafından eleştirilmiş ve yankı
uyandırmıştır. Öte yandan bina 19.yüzyıldan kalma önemli bir miras alanıdır. Bu miras
alanının tarihle bağı korunarak kültür ve sanat merkezi olarak İzmirliler ile
buluşturulma çabası bu tezin kapsamında incelenmiş ve sorgulanmıştır.
Bir başka proje ile ise tarihi miras binalarının kültür mekanlarına dönüştürülmesinin
ötesinde İzmir’e yepyeni bir sanat merkezi kazandırılması ön plana alınmıştır. 2000
yılında Piriştina tarafından duyurulan mimari yarışma ile İzmir’in ilk sanat merkezinin
projesine karar verilmiştir. Tevfik Tozkoparan’ın tasarımıyla gerçekleştirilen Ahmed
Adnan Saygun Sanat Merkezi ile birlikte İzmir’in kültürel alanlarına bir yenisini
eklemenin ötesinde, kentin yetersiz görülen sanat faaliyetlerini gerçekleştirecek
mimari düzeyi yüksek ve sembol niteliğinde bir proje gerçekleştirilmek istenmiştir.
Bu proje ile birlikte yalnızca kültür binası tasarlanmasının yanı sıra kentli ile bir
iletişim kurulmak istenmiş ve dünyadaki diğer kent örneklerinde olduğu gibi modern
bir metropol olmanın şartı olarak görülen sanat merkezlerinin İzmir için önemi
vurgulanmıştır. Öte yandan gerek projenin mimarının gerek kent plancılarının
belirttiği üzere yerel yönetimin aktif katılımının ve bilincinin önemine dikkat çekilmiş,
yalnızca bina yapmanın yeterli olmadığının altı çizilmiştir.
Bahsedilen bina örnekleri merkezi ve yerel yönetimlerin belirli doğrultulardaki
stratejilerini takiben seçilmiştir. Her bir örnek kültür mekanları ve merkezi/yerel
politikaların ilişkisini farklı açılardan sorgular niteliktedir. Araştırma boyunca kültür
mekanları ile kimlik oluşumu arasındaki bağ sorgulanmış, yeni araştırma ve önerilere
kapı açılmıştır. Tüm bu örnekler ışığında İzmir Büyükşehir Belediye’sinin kültür
mekanları ile elde etmek istediği milli, yerel ve enternasyonal tanınırlık, milli kimliğin
ötesinde yerele yapılan vurgu ve bu binaların kültür ve mekân ilişkisi açısından neleri
14 2
temsil ettiği anlaşılmaya çalışılmış, bu binaların kent ve kentli için ne gibi anlamlar
ifade ettiği veya etmediği irdelenmiştir. Binaların kentli tarafından ne kadar
benimsendiği ve belediyelerin arzu ettikleri amaçlardan ne kadarının ne derecede
başarılabildiği eleştirel bir dil ile tartışılmaya çalışılmıştır. Diğer yandan yerel
yönetimlerin yalnızca kültürel mekanların temsillerine değil mimarinin kendisine olan
bakış açıları değerlendirilmiştir. Bir başka değişle yerel yönetimlerin mimariye bakış
açısı ve kültür mekanları ile olan ilişkisi ele alındığında kentsel tasarımla ilgili bir
takım sorunlar çıktığı görülmüştür. Bu sorunların temel nedeni, yerel yönetimlerin
kentsel tasarımı kendi sınırları içinden değerlendirmesidir. Belediye mimariyi sadece
bina inşaatı olarak görmektedir. Aksi iddia edilmeye çalışılmış olsa dahi yerel
yönetimin oluşturduğu kültür mekanları ve sanat merkezlerinin kentle olan ilişkisizliği
ve sürdürülemezliği, bu mekanların parsel bazında veya kentin sınırları içinde
düşünüldüğünü işaret etmektedir. Bu durum, kültür mekanlarının geçmişleriyle,
şimdiki zamanlarıyla ve gelecekleriyle iletişim kuramamasına neden olmaktadır.
Sonuç olarak, milli veya yerel kimlik sorgulamalarının ötesine geçilmiş, gerçek
anlamda içselleştirilmiş bir kentli kimliği maalesef oluşturulamamaktadır. Bu
araştırma ve incelenen örnekler benzer bir irdelemeyi teşvik etmek istemektedir. Öte
yandan gelişmeye devam eden galeriler, sanat merkezleri ve restorasyon çalışmaları
incelenmeyi bekleyen yeni konular ve araştırma konularına dikkat çekmektedir.
14 3
D. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU
(Please fill out this form on computer. Double click on the boxes to fill the)
ENSTİTÜ / INSTITUTE
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Social Sciences
Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Applied Mathematics
Enformatik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Informatics
Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Marine Sciences