Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20

Download by: [Tarbiat Modares University] Date: 05 November 2017, At: 21:53

Journal of Urban Design

ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

‘Evolving’ or ‘lost’ identity of a historic publicspace? The tale of Gençlik Park in Ankara

Müge Akkar Ercan

To cite this article: Müge Akkar Ercan (2017) ‘Evolving’ or ‘lost’ identity of a historic publicspace? The tale of Gençlik Park in Ankara, Journal of Urban Design, 22:4, 520-543, DOI:10.1080/13574809.2016.1256192

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1256192

Published online: 09 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 178

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Journal of urban Design, 2017Vol. 22, no. 4, 520–543https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1256192

‘Evolving’ or ‘lost’ identity of a historic public space? The tale of Gençlik Park in Ankara

Müge Akkar Ercan

Department of City and regional Planning, Middle east Technical university, ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACTThis research, focusing on the issue of place identity in historic landscapes of contemporary cities, explores the current identity problem of a historic urban park in Ankara, Gençlik Park, within contextual and evolutionary perspectives. After setting a theoretical framework on the identity of urban space, it analyses systemically the historically specific intersections between Gençlik Park’s identity and the spatial, political, economic and historical contexts of Turkey and Ankara over the past 90 years. It depicts how the Park’s identity has been (re)configured (or has evolved) through different temporalities looking at three metrics of urban identity. It shows that place identity is evolutionary and contextual in character within a space-time continuum.

Introduction

Place identity is critical for people, societies and cities (Lynch 1972; Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983; Lowenthal 1985). In an increasingly unstable and uncertain world, place identity can help people construct and preserve their own identity and create a sense of place attachment (Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983; Massey 1995; Yuen 2005). Built heritage in particular greatly contributes to the generation, enhancement and promotion of local identity. As a constructed narrative linked to an ‘idealized’ past, it evokes the city’s past and traditions and renders the unfamiliar environment familiar (Lowenthal 1985). Acting as stable references that connect the past, present and future, historic environments help people create senses of continuity and place attachment (Lynch 1972). They are rich sources for understanding cultural diversity, creating a sense of place, and building social solidarity and national identity (Al Sayyad 2001). The ‘nation’ as an ‘imagined community’ is produced through the interconnections and circulations of people, practices and discourses across a territory (Anderson 1983). Built heritage, containing tangible and intangible reminders of those interconnections in a distinct or unique urban landscape, instils a sense of belonging to a broader community of individuals connected through vicarious interactions. Therefore, historic environments spatially synchronize all of the different social, cultural and economic groups and help generate new social solidarities among inhabitants related to their common and/or individual future.

© 2016 informa uK limited, trading as Taylor & francis group

CONTACT Müge akkar ercan akkar@metu.edu.tr

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 521

Along with globalization and neoliberal urbanism, contemporary cities have undergone significant economic, social and spatial restructuring over more than three decades (King 1995; Graham 1998; Madanipour 2013). Although this change has led to the generation of a postmodern face for many cities with a global urban identity through homogenization, standardization or hybridization of cultures and places, it has also had a detrimental impact on local cultures and place identities (Pieterse 2006; Carmona et al. 2010). One of the responses to the identity crisis of cities is the resurgence of interest in historical and cultural heritage as a strong agent to reinforce place identity. Several city governments in the world have effectively used urban heritage as a means of place branding and marketing to increase their competitive capacities in global markets, attract mobile capital, professional workers, tourists and visitors for economic growth, generate civic pride and foster a sense of empow-erment (Hewison 1987; Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Kearns and Philo 1993; Harvey 2005). In the era of postmodern societies, built heritage is used as a place identity generator to create a sort of social solidarity among members of a nationstate-oriented urban society by referring to both the national identity and the city’s tradition and to promote the economic development of cities by adding to the city’s image and physical form (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996; Graham 1998; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000).

Place identity derived from heritage in contemporary cities embodies internal contradictions. First, historic environments are at risk of either being mummified and turned into museums or being replaced with the monotony of global capitalism (Handal 2006). In our postmodern, mul-ti-ethnic and multi-cultural urban societies, manipulations in the production of built heritage, especially in European cities, have rendered the conserved urban landscape as an entity that is, in most cases, nationally identified and even morphologically standardized and, therefore, insuf-ficient as a means of establishing and consolidating place identity (Graham 1998; Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000). Ashworth (1998) notes that by ‘eradification’ and ‘museumization’, built heritage in contemporary cities has been ‘filtered’ over a long period of time, and consequently much of what currently exists as conserved urban land-scape is reduced in meaning. Second, historic sites and values, which are turned into means of cultural and economic consumption via strategies of economic regeneration and place promo-tion, are commodified and commercialized (Massey 1984; Handal 2006). Commercialization and commodification processes whereby traditions, rituals, beliefs and ‘ways of life’ are packaged, imagined and transformed into saleable products for tourists, visitors and consumers, brings along not only trivialization of cultural heritage elements (ethnic groups, their cultural practices and traditions) but also inter-cultural conflicts (Handal 2006).

In a globalized world, governance approaches to heritage sites also play significant roles in (re)building, managing or conserving the place identity (Handal 2006). In centralized and hierarchical systems, major decisions are made at national or international levels in centres of power and investment to mainly serve the needs of governments and the vested interests of powerful individuals, development experts and large commercial enterprises, while excluding the array of local community groups from the decision-making process (Hamdi and Goethert 1997). The consequence of centralist, hierarchical and highly exclusive gov-ernance of heritage sites is the missing opportunity to negotiate, to co-operate, to build incrementally, and to express cultural/religious beliefs and political associations in urban forms and lifestyles, which is vital to the health and survival of identity, sense of belonging, ownership and cultural continuity of those communities (Handal 2006). In reproducing the built heritage to meet the expectations and preferences of the ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry 1990), the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

522 M. AKKAR ERCAN

elements of placeness, continuation, evolution, stability and familiarity are eroded, thereby bringing about gentrification and changing property ownership.

Following the recent debates on the identity crisis of contemporary cities, this paper questions the current identity problem of a 90-year-old urban park in Ankara, ‘Gençlik Park’ (GP). Ankara’s political economic, social and spatial restructuring over the last 30 years along with the globali-zation exhibits commonalities and differences with its counterparts. Rapid urbanization driven by large-scale urban transformation schemes has led to the creation of ‘postmodern’ face of Ankara with a ‘global’ city identity (Figure 1). Similar to many contemporary cities, Ankara’s new urbanscape shows the characteristics of homogenization, standardization and hybridization. However, different from its counterparts, the built heritage sites, especially those from the ear-ly-Republican period as inevitable components of Ankara’s identities, have been undermined, devalued and even lost by Ankara’s metropolitan municipality over the last 20 years. Whereas promoting local identity through the city’s past and tradition has become an urban strategy for many cities to build social solidarity and national identity grounded in economic prospects, the more recent urban strategy of the local authority is rather controversial. This research, focusing on GP, elaborates this controversial situation by posing the question of whether the recent regen-eration project has caused the loss or evolution of the Park’s identity.

The paper is organized in four main sections. The first section introduces the notion of place identity and explains the interplay between place identity and conservation. The sec-ond section presents the research method. The third section explores the path by which the place identity of GP has evolved or been reconfigured over 90 years regarding three metrics of ‘place identity’ within contextual and evolutionary perspectives. Based on the research findings, the final section underlines the commonalities and differences of GP with other historic sites of contemporary cities and discusses the wider factors impacting the place identity and conservation.

Figure 1. ‘Postmodern’ face of ankara with a ‘global city’ identity. source: Tolga sönmez 2015 (above); akkar ercan 2015 (below).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 523

Place identity and conservation

Identity is a distinguishing character or personality of an individual, object or space that allows it to be differentiated from others (Erikson 1959; Relph 1976). Place identity includes special characteristics or qualities that provide a place with individuality or distinction as a separable entity from other places (Lynch 1960). Relph (1976) identifies physical setting, activities and meanings as the three basic metrics of place identity. ‘Physical setting or appearance’ means natural or man-made physical features that contribute to the legibility of places so that they become identified, organized and navigated by people (Ujang 2010). ‘Activities’ refer to observable functions for which the space is used, and ‘meanings’ indicate ‘what the urban environment meant to people and how they felt about it’ (Carmona et al. 2010, 92).

Place meaning is a critical metric for defining place identity. It is created in the individual’s mind by ‘place images’, which are a holistic collection of beliefs, ideas, opinions and emotions the recipients have about the place (Kotler, Haider, and Rein 1993). Place images are partial (not covering the whole place), simplified (omitting much information), idiosyncratic (each individual’s place image is unique), and distorted (based on subjective, rather than real, distance and direction) (Procock and Hudson 1978). Florek, Insch, and Gnoth (2006) underline two perspectives to consider in the construction of place image and place identity: the ‘sender’s perspective’ and the ‘receiver’s perspective’. Place identity is viewed as the sender’s perspective, whereas place image is examined from the receiver’s perspective, and this is ultimately the result of communication or language. Although place images can vary signif-icantly between individual receivers, there exist ‘public images’ that are formed by common mental pictures of large numbers of individual receivers who share a common culture and common mind construction of memory (Lynch 1960; Relph 1976). Lowenthal (1961, cited in Relph 1976) names such images ‘group or community images of place’. Similarly, Relph (1976) defines two forms of identity. The first is ‘public identities’, i.e., common identities on physical features and other verifiable components of places by various communities of par-ticular society that are developed through a consensus with the free opinions and experi-ences of groups and individuals. The second is the ‘mass identity of places’, which is developed and provided by opinion makers as ready-made ideas, beliefs and emotions for the people rather than from the free opinions of a group and individual. The definition of public identities is very close to the notion of ‘public images’, reflecting the ‘receiver’s perspective, whereas that of mass identity coincides with place identity, reflecting the sender’s perspective.

Place meanings are not fixed; they can change and be transferred according to both objects and observers. According to Knox (1984, italics added), much of the built environ-ment’s social meaning depends on (public or private) owners/producers via designers (i.e., the senders) and the users/consumers of the space (i.e., the receivers). The senders have the power to shape the space by imposing ‘signs’ to the space and their ‘intended messages’, whereas the receivers perceive the ‘received messages’ (Knox and Pinch 2010). Knox and Pinch (2010) note the gap between the intended and received messages of architecture and architectural (or environmental) symbolism. For Barthes (1968, italics added), although an image, a word, an object or a work of architecture carry a fixed message by the author (the sender), the reader (the receiver) inexorably constructs a new text in the act of reading. Reading an environment involves understanding how it comes to mean to different people and how meanings change. Likewise, meanings attached to the built environment become modified as social values evolve in response to changing patterns of socio-economic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

524 M. AKKAR ERCAN

organization and lifestyles (Knox 1984). Place meaning is therefore built and rebuilt in a space-time continuum on the basis of emotive forces ‒ the heart ‒ as formed and reformed by the flow of rational forces or the ‘head’ (Handal 2006).

As the change in urban spaces is inevitable, the qualities of place identity change and evolve in time in relation with the local and global contexts. This premise underlines two aspects of place identity in a space-time continuum: contextual and evolutionary. Place identity attribution is ‘contextual’ in that the characteristic contexts of places and how they vary from one city to the next determine the qualities of place identity (Huigen and Meijering 2005). In addition, it is the indirect reflection of the society, culture and political economy from which it originates. It is not autonomous and self-referential but interrelated with spatial, social, cultural and political economic contexts in meaningful ways as aspects of a larger assemblage. The ‘spatial or locational context’, including the distinguished features of places, such as their urban fabric, morphology, natural invariants and the characteristics of their surroundings, identifies the qualities of place identity. The changes in these features in time also impact the place identity. The ‘political economic context’, i.e., the political institutions, the political environment and the economic system of a society, influences the physical form of space, in addition to its design, development, management, control and use processes (Carmona 2014). Similarly, changes in society and culture, the economy and the prevailing politics in a city can impact the qualities of place identity. Finally, the qualities of place identity are (trans)formed within a ‘historical context’; they can be shown and communicated through the history that has shaped them, requiring continuous interpretative mediation. Hence, we have to look at the place identity within a historical continuum, which begins with a look to the past. These qualities are shaped and changed by an accumulated history of experience and practice, and the changes in these qualities depend on local and global contexts. Despite globalization, this change sometimes is very place dependent (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The abstract representation of the place identity attribution that is contextual in a space-time continuum; i.e. the qualities of place identity are determined within, and characterized by, particular contexts which are locational (spatial), political-economic and historical.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 525

In addition, place identity is evolutionary in character; it acquires a continuously evolving process. As Relph (1976) claims, identity is not static and unchangeable but instead varies as circumstances and attitudes change. In addition, it is not uniform and undifferentiated but rather has several components and forms. Hence, place identity is a ‘dynamic’ concept; it is constructed and re-constructed constantly by people and ever-changing social relations in time (Massey 1994; Madanipour 1996; Ashworth and Graham 2005). It evolves continually, but at the same time established components of identities are confirmed (Huigen and Meijering 2005; Carmona et al. 2010). Thus, place identity has a ‘plural’ character that appears through a ‘time’ perspective (Madanipour 1996). As different actors interpret representations of places differently, there can be different identities for the same place. The plural character of place makes place images ‘user-determined’, ‘polysemic’ and ‘unstable’ through time (Ashworth and Graham 2005). The process of constructing and reconstructing place identity follows a certain path over time. Along this path, there are several chronological ‘layers’, identity markers, characteristic objects and events that define the evolution of that place identity (Huigen and Meijering 2005). Although change in a place identity is inevitable, a place maintains its identity for a certain period of time, as explained below:

Stabilitas loci is a necessary condition for human life. How then is the stability compatible with the dynamics of change? First of all we may point out that any place ought to have the ‘capacity’ of receiving different ‘contents’, naturally within certain limits. A place which is only fitted for one particular purpose would soon become useless. Secondly it is evident that a place may be ‘interpreted’ in different ways. To protect and conserve the genius loci in fact means to concretize its essence in ever new historical contexts. (Norberg-Schulz 1980, 18)

Preserving historic heritage raises the questions of how much should be conserved and what facets of the city’s past (or place identity) should be conserved. In a space-time con-tinuum where society, culture and politics change and transform, the invariants of places, specifity and intrinsic values, should be preserved while allowing the spaces to change and adapt to contemporary and future situations and conditions. One can establish an affective, sustainable local innovation process on these specificity and intrinsic values (history, culture, nature); in this way, they can become a source of collective identity, a tool of communication between generations and a means of maximizing opportunities (Carta 1999, cited in Sepe 2013). To capture place identity, it needs to establish a deeper engagement with place and local life, and the social, economic and cultural processes that affect its natural evolution (Southworth and Ruggeri 2010). Because people’s place sensitivities and involvement in the planning process are intrinsic parts of the place-making methodology, urban conservation must increasingly employ not only expert opinion but also the opinion of lay people, such as residents, users and stakeholder groups. Therefore, public participation is an essential mode for enhancing a better ‘fit’ between the built form and social life, although it requires the investment of time and energy (Yuen 2005). Because participation allows the images and meanings of places to develop from the bottom up (Rapoport 1969), a provocation to greater participatory and community-based processes for the design and development of places in turn enhances local ownership and tolerance of urbanity (Yuen 2005).

Research method

This research examines how the Park’s identity has been produced and evolved under four major historic periods (1925–1950, 1950–1980, 1980–2005 and post-2005). It aims to show

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

526 M. AKKAR ERCAN

how the Park’s identity in every historic temporalities changed regarding its physical setting, activities and meanings, and in relation to spatial, political economic and historical contextual shifts in the history of Turkey and Ankara; to reveal the changes in the GP’s identity from both the senders’ and receivers’ perspectives (i.e., mass identity and public identities); to highlight the commonalities and differences of GP with other historic sites of contemporary cities; and to discuss the wider factors influencing on the place identity and conservation.

This research, employing a single-case study method, relies on multiple sources of qual-itative and quantitative evidence, involving a mixture of primary and secondary data. Archival documents were used to understand the changes in the physical setting, activities and meanings from the birth to GP’s current state and to reveal the mass identity and public identities of GP, as well as the changes in the spatial, political economic and historical con-texts of Turkey and Ankara over the last 90 years. Direct observations carried out during April and May 2012 were used to observe the user profile, their frequencies, the current organi-zation and features of the Park by recording in a research diary and taking photos. A survey of 180 questionnaires was conducted in 2012 to identify the user profile and to understand the identity qualities of GP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in July 2014 with 16 park ex-users to reveal the past and current meanings and memories of the people about GP and the reasons why they do not use it anymore. Spatial analyses (by mapping) were used to show the changing identity components of GP in different historic periods. Investigating the mass identity and public identities of GP for each historic period is not an easy task. Primary, secondary and indirect data were used to reveal both types of identities. It is mostly possible to trace the changes in the mass identity of GP developed by the political authorities via designers over the last 90 years. Despite the use of a variety of data, it was not possible to shed light on GP’s public identities for the earliest period.

Evolving identity of Gençlik Park (GP) within the contextual perspective

GP is a 27.5-hectare park located at the southwest of the historic city centre of Ankara, namely ‘Ulus’. The Park is surrounded by important landmarks of the city: the Central Station to the southwest, large sports complexes and Ataturk Culture Centre to the northwest, the Opera House and Symphony Hall to the south, public and government buildings and Ulus Bus Station to the east, the Central Bank, the Radisson Hotel and the famous ‘Vakıf Apartment’ building with two theatre halls to the north (Figures 3 and 4). The history of GP goes back to the mid-1920s.

Creating a ‘revolutionary park’ of the new capital city (1925‒1950)

Following the proclamation of the newly founded Republic in 1923, Turkey underwent a radical transformation in every aspect of life. The country’s history of modernization and Westernization, extending back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, culminated in the Kemalist ‘modernity’ project, which represented a transition from an ‘empire’ to a ‘nation-state’ (Kasaba 1997). The Republican People’s Party (RPP) government, which dis-sociated itself from the Ottoman heritage depicted as ‘religious’, ‘traditional’ and ‘oriental’, tried to restructure the state on the basis of Western civilization and culture with all its institutions and relations (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997). Under the single-party rule, Ankara was announced as the new Republic’s capital. As a part of this modernity project with a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 527

strong emphasis on Turkish nationalism, Ankara was built to represent the new Turkish identity, to symbolize modernization, secularization and Westernization with its institu-tions, socio-cultural practices and spaces similar to its European counterparts, and to be an ‘urban development’ model across Turkey (Tankut 1993; Kezer 2015). Following a com-prehensive, state-sponsored building programme, the emerging urban architecture of this period conveniently complemented the Kemalist ‘revolution’ (Bozdoğan 1997; Türkoğlu Önge 2007).

Figure 3. The location of gençlik Park in the macroform of ankara between the years 1930–2009 (Yaşar 2010, 56).

Figure 4. gençlik Park and its surroundings in 2015.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

528 M. AKKAR ERCAN

During this period, GP was designed by foreign architects and designers under the hegem-onic power of the early-Republican ideology through a top-down approach. The RPP gov-ernment conceived of recreation as a ‘green revolution’ for the re-invention of the new modern society (Memlük 2004). As a park, GP would be a place to spread modernization, Westernization and secularization efforts to a wider section of the population, to create a sense of community and to support cultural enlightenment by raising awareness of being urban citizens (Memlük 2004; Demir 2006; Özdemir 2009). The first design ideas of GP were developed in 1925 by Carl Christoph Lörcher, who envisaged a park as a part of a green recreational corridor along Incesu Valley, near the city centre. Stemming from these ideas, Herman Jansen (1937), a German architect and planner, proposed an urban park near the train station characterized by shady greenery areas, a large pool (called ‘the Lake’) with water cascades, the beautiful scenery of Ankara Citadel and newly built Republic buildings. A French architect, Theo Leveau, completed the master plan in 1936 by keeping the main design principles of Jansen’s plan but making some alterations in the form of the pool and gardens (Akansel 2009) (Figure 5). The construction of GP started in 1938, and it was opened to the public in 1943.

Throughout these years, despite its deliberately configured design and identity by the centralist and authoritarian power with no public consultation, GP operated as a modern, secular and Western-style urban park, and an inclusive and democratic public space. The Lake was used as a calming feature and a place for quiet sport activities, such as ice skating, rowing and swimming, generating a modern, secular and Westernized identity for the Park (Uludağ 1998; Akansel 2009). As a cooling down feature in a terrestrial climate of Ankara, it was an attractive place for all men and women, poor and rich, old and young longing for water (Jansen 1937; Demir 2006). A rich variety of sports, cultural and recreation activities in the Park (ice-skating, swimming, rowing, exhibition hall, open-air theatre, playgrounds, a child-care centre) used to bring people from different social classes, genders, ages and ethnic groups together for interacting and mingling, thereby spreading modernization efforts to a wider section of the population (Demir 2006; Özdemir 2009; Cantek Şenol 2012) (Figure 6). National ceremonies were held in GP to support the government’s policy to create a Turkish secular and modern nation and a sense of community. By having an attractive setting, a central location in Ankara, and high accessibility by walking and by being free of charge, safe, welcoming and comfortable for all, this ‘revolutionary park’ was a highly democratic

Figure 5. The gP Master Plan of leveau dated 1935 (sarıaslan 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 529

and inclusive public space (Demir 2006) (Table 1). These qualities of GP’s mass identity argu-ably led to the creation of social bonds between the Park and its users, thus strengthening public attachment to this place.

Transforming into an ‘amusement and recreation park’ of the ‘dual’ city (1950‒1980)

From the 1950s to the 1980s, when the country underwent structural economic and political changes with the adaptation of liberalization policies and the transition from a single-party

Figure 6. The changing physical setting and land-use activities of gençlik Park regarding the leveau’s plan of 1935 (a); the 1956 revision Plan (b); the 1976 revision Plan (c) and the 2009 regeneration Plan, representing the identity changes of gençlik Park.

Table 1. evolving mass identity of gençlik Park (1925–2015).

A ‘revolutionary’ park (1923‒1950)

• Modern, secular and Western-style park• Inclusive and democratic park for all

an ‘amusement & entertainment’ park (1950‒1980)

• Modern, secular and Western-style park• More inclusive and democratic park for the republican élites, middle and upper classes• less inclusive and democratic park for new urbanites (i.e., rural migrants and squatter

dwellers)

a ‘downgraded’ park with a ‘blurred’ identity (1980‒2005)

• less modern and Western-style park, but still a secular park• less inclusive and democratic park for high- and middle-income groups• More inclusive and democratic park for low-income classes, squatter dwellers and marginal

groups

a ‘brand-new’ park (Post-2005)

• ‘Modern’ park in global meaning, but less secular and Western-style park• less inclusive and democratic park for its old users and visitors, ‘new’ middle-classes• More inclusive and democratic park for low-income and low middle-income classes,

conservative groupsDow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

530 M. AKKAR ERCAN

democracy to a multi-party democracy, Ankara experienced a ‘dual urban development’ as a result of an enormous amount of rural migration (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997). While the city experienced a lessened impact of the early-Republican ‘modernity project’ on its urban architecture, blurring Ankara’s symbolism, the proliferation of poor squatter neighbourhoods alongside the modern city signalled the emerging clash between rural and urban life, tra-ditional and modern value systems, legal and illegal development, and formal and informal sectors, representing the initial inequalities within urban society (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997; Kezer 2015).

Within the newly emerging urbanscape of Ankara in these years, the 1956 Revision Plan transformed this quiet, relaxing and peaceful green space with recreation, sports and cultural activities into an amusement and entertainment park with a funfair, pavilions, tea gardens, restaurants, a beer garden, mini trains and a mini-golf club (Uludağ 1998; Demir 2006) (Figures 6–8). GP’s careful reconfiguration from a ‘revolutionary park’ to an ‘amusement and recreational park’ did not damage its modern, secular and Western-style character but paved the way of its commercialization and privatization. The protectionist attempt of the local authority on the Park’s ‘decent’ image for upper and middle classes against rural migrants as threats particularly revealed the collision between rural and urban life, and traditional and modern value systems. With the introduction of an admission fee, exclusive venues for Western-style music shows and entertainment, a funfair, mini trains, rowing boats and peda-los, GP started to operate as a more exclusive public domain that fulfilled the recreational needs of Republican élites, middle- and high-income citizens, while generating a less inclusive and democratic park identity for ‘new urbanites’, i.e., rural migrants and squatter dwellers (Uludağ 1998; Demir 2006).

Figure 7. gençlik Park in the 1960s and the1970s with a funfair, mini trains and teahouses. source: Mimdap 2009a.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 531

Nevertheless, until the mid-1970s, GP’s inclusive and democratic character was main-tained through its attractive, safe and comfortable park setting, its central location and easily accessible position within the compact city through walking, public transport and cars (Demir 2006; Akansel 2009) (Figure 7). Likewise, special sessions of an open-air theatre, Lake Pavilion and other ‘family pavilions’ that used to attract women and low-income groups enhanced its democratic and inclusive identity (Cantek Şenol 2012). Whereas the patisserie and beer garden appealed to young people and couples, families and children spent time in the new playground, the theatre, the library or the child-care centre (Demir 2006). Hence, GP still served cultural and educational purposes, as well as entertainment and amusement functions, for the envisaged ‘modern’ urban society conforming to the targets of the ear-ly-Republican modernization ideology. Particularly the newly emerging middle class, includ-ing government officers, their families and the flourishing bourgeoisie of Ankara, not only embraced the entertainment culture of the Western-style modern society but also adopted their own social and cultural ingredients for this newly developing recreation culture (Demir 2006).

Towards the evening, many families used to go to GP, which was well-known with its landscape, decency and elegancy. We used to go for boat trips in the Lake …, which seemed to be an ocean for a child who was brought up in Ankara … You could hear people talking about the great voice of Zeki Müren who used to perform in Lake Pavilion … and the fragrance of tea coming from the tea gardens served with teapot placed on a samovar. (Uzuner 1998, 12)

In these years, the Lake, with its fountain, rowing boats and pedalos, Lake Pavilion, tea gar-dens, family pavilions, funfair and mini trains, often played an instrumental role in making great memories for the middle and upper classes. However, with its Western and modern identity, it was far from fulfilling the recreational needs of ‘new urbanites’ that primarily comprised rural migrants who lived in squatter neighbourhoods and worked in the informal sector.

A ‘downgraded park’ with a blurred identity in Ankara transforming into the international node (1980–2005)

Following a period starting from the economic crisis of the 1970s, which led to social and political unrest and ended with the coup d’état of 1980, GP’s ‘amusement and entertainment park’ identity ‘blurred’ throughout the 1980s and 1990s. These years represented a turning point in the Turkish modernization trajectory, leading to postmodern Turkey. Along with globalization and neoliberal urbanism, the period is characterized by increasing cultural heterogeneity, the rising popularity of Islamist parties in the local and national politics, and the growing reactions to the official ideology, cultural norms and attitudes of the old Republican élite and traditional left from several groups (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997). While Ankara transformed from the nation-state capital to an international node within a global network, the cityscape has been shaped through clashes between globalism and localism, nationalism and Islam, modern and tradition, and secular reason and religious faith. With iconic residential and office towers, shopping malls, multiplex complexes, highly controlled gated communities in suburbs and the inner city, gentrified neighbourhoods and large-scale transportation infrastructure investments, Ankara’s new cityscape has started to show sim-ilarities with the postmodern urbanscape of world cities. In addition, the urban scene has been reconfigured by Islamic symbolism (Figure 8). New buildings and urban gateways with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

532 M. AKKAR ERCAN

architecture merging Islamic and modern codes, artwork in public spaces with Islamic figures and motives, and new types of buildings combining mosque-shopping complexes have contributed to this ‘new’ urban identity. While the ‘new’ mass identity of Ankara has been emerging, the built heritage forming its early-Republican identity has been undermined, destroyed and devalued systematically since the mid-1990s.

From the mid-1970s onwards, GP started to acquire a ‘downgraded and unsafe park image’ among the middle and upper classes owing to the degeneration of the historic city centre, high crime rates, unsafe and unappealing look and perception (Mimdap 2009a).

When I was young, we used to go to GP together with our families, friends and acquaintances … in the 1960s, there were very decent pavilions … I got married in Ankara and had my children. We used to take our children to the fun fair over the weekends, for celebrating the success of children or having fun on holidays. After the 1980s, we stopped going there. Life changed, but the Park changed too … it wasn’t a decent family park anymore. … not safe really to go as a family. (73-year-old lady living in Ankara for 56 years)

A ‘downgrading and unsafe park’ became the rising public image of GP, making it unpop-ular among previous users (Uludağ 1998; Demir 2005, 2006). With the demolition of the park wall and the abolition of admission fees, GP started to be occupied by low-income groups, mostly from squatter and historically impoverished neighbourhoods, and marginal groups. From the 1980s to 2005, it lost some of its authentic functions, such as ice skating, swimming,

Figure 8. new Presidential Palace (top) and one of the new city gates as the examples of ottoman-seljuk symbolism in the new urban landscape of ankara. source: akkar ercan 2015.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 533

pedalos, rowing boats, middle-class pavilions, and cultural and educational activities (Mimdap 2009a). After the 1994 local election, when the Islamist Party became dominant in local politics, GP was deliberately left to decay by the metropolitan municipality to devalue it as a ‘green revolution’ symbol of the early-republican ideology (Mimdap 2009a). Along with the domination of low-income squatter dwellers, unemployed, male and homeless people, a new recreation culture rooted in the arabesque became dominant in GP (Demir 2006). Indeed, GP did not convey its past public identities; instead, it acted as a social milieu for the generation of new ones. GP became less modern and Western in style but was still secular in this period. Its public images were less inclusive and democratic, less modern and Westernized for high and middle-income classes, but more liberated, inclusive and demo-cratic for those who did not fit into the definition of the ‘imagined society’ of Kemalist ‘moder-nity’ project. By the late 1990s, GP was far from being a public space that created place attachment or a sense of continuity or enhanced social unity and cohesion for its ‘older’ users. However, by losing its original character, it perfectly operated as a means of generating senses of place attachment and continuity, enhancing social unity and cohesion for its ‘new’ users.

GP re-emerging as a ‘brand-new’ park of postmodern Ankara (post-2005)

Following a long period of decline, the metropolitan municipality from the Justice and Development Party (JDP) decided to regenerate GP in 2005 (Figure 9). After the completion of the project prepared by a Turkish architect, Öner Tokcan, GP was re-opened to the public on 30 August 2009 (Mimdap 2009a). Tokcan claimed that they primarily aimed to regenerate GP to a higher quality by adding a ‘modern visage’ without damaging its historic qualities (CHA 2009) (Figure 10). The recent plan changed the unappealing look of the Park, making

Figure 9. gP after the 2005 regeneration project, showing new Cumhuriyet square and Park square. source: akkar ercan 2015.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

534 M. AKKAR ERCAN

it visually attractive for its potential users. Although GP has lost its central position within the expanded boundary of the city, its inclusive and democratic character has been strength-ened by its high accessibility for public transport passengers and car users, its improved safety and comfort due to rising measures of control on the public space, such as improved lighting, security guards and CCTVs (Memlük 2012) (Figure 11). Being free of charge is another feature that enhanced GP’s inclusive and democratic identity. With the recent scheme, the

Figure 10. increasing control measures for gP following the 2005 regeneration scheme: CCTV cameras, security guards and the police station at the ulus gate. source: akkar ercan 2012; 2013.

Figure 11. The old low height, modest-looking gate (a) and the newly-designed monumental ulus gate (b); the new gate from the direction of the Central station (c) and the new artwork on Cumhuriyet square obstructing the view of ankara Castle (d). source: akkar ercan 2015 (a, b); 2013 (c, d).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 535

funfair site was enlarged; the cultural, education and recreation functions were renewed; new cafés and kiosks serving inexpensive fast foods and non-alcoholic beverages were opened. Although the current design has expanded commercial areas in GP, all of these activities, being affordable, have begun to attract the public and brought economic vibrancy back to the Park, thereby improving its inclusive and democratic character.

GP still performs its earlier functions, except for sports activities. According to the recent survey results, people still come to GP mostly for relaxing (65.2%), enjoying open-air facilities (64.9%), having fun (64.4%), meeting friends and acquaintances (53.4%) and enjoying cafés (37.6%), whereas only 18.6% of the park users visit the culture and youth centres (Memlük 2012). Thus, the new park is predominantly used for recreation, entertainment and con-sumption purposes, and its cultural and educational functions are currently the least favourable.

Emerging through the clash between globalism and localism, nationalism and religion, secular reason and religious faith, modern and tradition, state and society, the regeneration scheme deliberately changed the original Republican characteristics, symbols and heritage values of the Park. Under the claim of building a ‘modern’ park, the recent physical and symbolic remaking of GP can be interpreted as a part of wider attempts by the local authority to re-configure the Park’s mass identity as a symbol of the new ‘imagined society’ for Ankara through the faith ideology. The project has configured a ‘new’ identity for the Park, accom-modating both global and local symbols, accompanied by Islamic and modern codes, and representing postmodern-space features. For example, cascades with new sprinklers were rebuilt with an entirely different design quality, and the original design of the pedestrian bridge was changed. With highly technological new lighting and water schemes, the Lake was turned into a noisy and luminous show stage. Two new squares, namely Cumhuriyet (Republic) and Park Squares, positioned at the west and east ends of the Lake, respectively, have changed the original form of the pool (Figure 9). The axial relationship between the Central Station and Ankara Castle were obstructed by the new monumental gates and the artwork on Cumhuriyet Square (Figure 11). The railways of mini trains, public artwork (e.g. Atatürk board at the Ulus entrance, the sculptures of Roman Girl and Boy), park furniture and old trees with heritage and symbolic values, were removed from the Park or changed

Figure 12. The old atatürk board at the ulus entrance as one of the symbols of gP that used to be lit at night (a); the statue roman girl, moved from its location by the cascade (b) to the garden of the gP’s administrative building (c). sources: Virtual Tourist member suvanki 2012 (a); soyak no date (b); akkar ercan 2015 (c)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

536 M. AKKAR ERCAN

in their position (Figure 12). Some new public artwork added new symbolic values to the Park’s identity, such as the statue of Buhurizade Mustafa Itri, an Ottoman musician (1640‒1712) regarded as the master of Turkish classical music, and new European Union woodland (Figure 14). The old tea gardens, pavilions and restaurants were knocked down; new cafés with simple glass structures were placed further away from the Lake, promoting a new café culture (Figure 13). The gardens are shaded by tulips or cone-shaped white sun-shades, or shade sails, giving the impression of a maritime environment. The old Lake Pavilion, renamed as Şehr-i Ahter, meaning ‘star of the city’ in the Ottoman language, was restored to function as a wedding hall (Figure 14). The open-air theatre, an original feature of the Park, was replaced by a theatre building. The architectural style of the new culture centre and theatre building is eclectic, the amalgamation of Seljuk and Ottoman architecture (CHA 2009). The new Ulus gateway, with its modern interpretation of Seljuk-style decorations, creates a contrasting scene with the original modest-looking modernist-style gateway (CHA 2009; Peyzajist Landscape Architecture and Urban Design (LAUD) 2009). All these changes have caused GP’s early-Republican mass identity and its associated public identities to be lost, reducing the Park’s capacity to create senses of place attachment and continuity for citizens and visitors, and strengthen social unity and cohesion.

Following its regeneration, the consumption of alcoholic beverages in cafés has been banned in GP. This new regulation, seeing those having a drink and enjoying the Park as ‘uncomforting’ for conservative sections of the society, has led to the exclusion of such social groups from the Park. GP has become a public space particularly for the celebration of reli-gious holidays rather than national holidays. Public concerts, organized for some special

Figure 13. new cafés with corn and tulip-shaped tent design away from the lake (a, b); the vast pedestrian paths and sitting clusters with no shade. source: akkar ercan 2013.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 537

nights and days, especially during religious festivals, attract mostly conservative parts of society. The current management policies, depicting a new identity based on the users’ faith and lifestyle, ultimately adversely impinge its inclusive and democratic identity, as well as the wider functions of the public space. At the expense of improving the Park’s inclusive identity for some conservative groups, the secular character of the public space has been compromised. With its new symbols, activities and management, the ‘brand-new’ GP has come to act as a means of strengthening the Islamist networks within society, thereby enhancing social segregation, exclusion and polarization, undermining the inclusive char-acter of the built heritage and public space.

The new park, being stripped of its original character, heritage values and functions, does not appeal to its old users, especially secular segments of the Ankara population and ‘new’ middle class. As some previous park users claimed, they no longer visit the Park because they cannot find the old GP in their memories, which would anchor their sense of continuity:

It was the symbol of the Republic. For us, the Park was the symbol of modernization and democratization, solidarity and togetherness, and equality. Nothing is left from its early years… (76-year-old man)

I don’t go to GP because there are no proper types of people who suit its old glorious days. It is now full of police. The Park has become a police station, so I don’t feel comfortable in there. (64-year-old woman)

It is not the old GP: it gets crowded; green areas are smaller; the Lake is not the old lake; and there are no decent tea houses and pavilions. I don’t go there anymore. (59-year-old man)

Figure 14. The recently restored building of lake Pavilion with its new brand ‘Şehr-i ahter’ (a, b); the new eu woodland (c) and the new statue of itri. source: akkar ercan 2015 (a, c, d), 2012 (b).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

538 M. AKKAR ERCAN

It is not like a park; a few green areas with full of cafés and a crowd … I prefer to sit in a concrete place rather than sitting in the crowded concrete park. Also, I don’t like the people profile in the park. (28-year-old woman)

Hence, the public image of GP has changed for its users. The recent regeneration scheme, which has re-invented GP with a totally new identity, has acted as the last cracks in the GP’s republican identity. According to a survey conducted in 2014 among 731 people from all districts of Ankara, although the historic heritage from the early-Republican period and historic urban parks are the prominent places that constitute public identities regarding this city, GP is in eighteenth place among all city parks (Eraydın 2014). The Park predominantly serves low-income and low middle-income citizens,1 people between 18 and 45 years old (76.1%), and primary and high school graduates (65.3%). Female users (52.2%) are slightly more abundant than male users (47.8%) (Memlük 2012). Thus, GP, with its new design, sym-bols and management, represents a ‘new’ type of ‘modern’ park with less secular and Western-style characteristics. It operates as a less inclusive and democratic public space for its older users, visitors and ‘new’ middle-classes but serves as more inclusive and democratic for low- and middle-income conservative communities.

Participatory planning has not been adopted since the early years of GP, acting as a factor impoverishing its inclusive and democratic identity. A public survey was conducted only for a $2.7 million lighting and water show scheme in 2010. The municipality also did not consider public objections regarding the removal of some significant symbols of the Park (Cumhuriyet Ankara 2009; Mimdap 2009a, 2009b). After 90 years, the Justice and Development Party local government, which has not carried out any comprehensive public consultation, has shown similar authoritarian and centralist intentions of decision making on historic spaces (Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (ABB) 2007; Mimdap 2009a, 2009b). This clearly shows the intention of the local authority to use the tools for public participation not to uncover the specificity and intrinsic values, advance the local democracy, increase community engagement for the crea-tion of a sense of belonging and enrich people’s experience of art, design, heritage and public education but as a means of legitimizing this highly expensive municipal project in the eyes of the public (Cumhuriyet Ankara 2010). These examples also reveal that the mass identity of GP is limited by the understanding of democracy endowed by the local authority.

Conclusions

Focusing on the issues of place identity in historic landscapes of contemporary cities, this research has found that GP’s identity trajectory has been shaped by both its global and local contexts with different strength or intensity. In every historical temporality, the Park’s identity has changed in relation with the spatial, political economic and historical contexts, and in conformity with the shifts in its physical setting, activities and meanings. The analysis has shown that every time GP was renewed, the original cultural and historic values, symbols and the public identities regarding the Park have been compromised and eroded to an extent, whilst new symbols and associated meanings have been introduced. Different from earlier planning, design and management interventions, the recent scheme and the current management of GP have had distinctive impacts on the Park’s identities. By re-configuring its identities through a process of ‘creative destruction’, the new landscape meanings were fashioned from a denial of the original built form, activities and symbols, while new memories have been established through a strategic networking of the built landscape, events and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 539

public art associated with the place. The result is the loss of the specificity and intrinsic values of the identities of GP, which were expected to be protected in every new temporality.

The analysis of the changes in the identities of GP has revealed that, unlike its counterparts in contemporary cities, the current scheme has neither mummified nor completely eradi-cated GP. Its heritage values have not been commercialized or commodified and neither has it been trivialized or become a focus for inter-cultural conflicts. However, similar to many cities’ governance model, the centralist and hierarchical planning and design approaches of the local authorities in Ankara have excluded the public from the decision-making processes of heritage sites.

The analysis of GP’s reconfigured identities within contextual and evolutionary perspectives leads to several conclusions. First, the GP analysis shows that the city is not simply an output or resultant formation but is subject to on-going changes where place identity is (re)configured through moments in which multiple agents ‒ both contextual and evolutionary ‒ come together as interplays of spatial, political economic, socio-cultural and historical processes of place formation. The evolution of place identity is dependent on the context, historical forma-tions, contingencies and unexpected emergent. It is continuously reconfigured deliberately and unwittingly through these emergents and contingencies during different temporalities. As noted in the GP case, mass identity qualities, which are the place’s symbolic functions (i.e., modern, secular, Western-style, inclusive and democratic), continue to exist within a space-time continuum with different strength or intensity, based on evolving conceptualizations of these qualities by politicians and owners/producers via designers (i.e., the senders) (Table 1). They have not disappeared in time, but the extent of these qualities has fluctuated through different temporalities under the impacts of political economic, spatial and historical contexts. What has changed on the ground is the ‘public identities’ due to changes in the architectural and functional codes, design details, artwork, i.e., the specificity and intrinsic values, and their associated meanings, values and memories given by the publics.

Second, as GP exemplifies, the causes and issues regarding the identity attribution of urban spaces are rather complex; they are not only ‘multiple’ and ‘interrelated’ but also ‘site specific’. This research reveals that, beyond the ‘global factors’ (e.g. globalization), the ‘local’ dynamics, which may be unique, intrinsic and peculiar and are shaped by particular contexts within space that is set and bounded, also greatly impact the identities of historic spaces.

Third, this research has revealed that, in addition to the economic and social factors, political motivations at the local and global levels are also very influential in conservation practices of heritage sites. As the GP case illustrates, the political parties in power in the local (or central) government, based on their political views or ideological stands, are significantly capable of shaping the mass identity of places. Further, decisions on what should be pre-served, to what extent it should be preserved and what facets of the city’s past (or place identity) should be preserved have been prescribed dominantly by the political agencies in power. The place identity is created, (re)configured and/or dissolved through the contesta-tion and reformulation of these (architectural or environmental) symbols and their values and meanings (i.e., public identities). This occurs through power conflicts and contestations between different political ideologies.

However, it should be noted that there is a narrative history behind architectural or envi-ronmental symbols. The destruction/loss of these symbols is a deliberate attempt to eradicate this part of history. Political authorities have to be more conscious and sensitive when they manipulate symbols in heritage sites and their higher values and meanings. In addition, they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

540 M. AKKAR ERCAN

should promote collective decision making and interaction between government and non-government institutions at the global and local levels, in private and voluntary sectors, and for all segments of the community in localized networks. As the GP case shows, the inclusive governance process, as the ‘binding element’ among multiple chronological layers, processes and actors, is essential in heritage conservation and place identity (re)-configu-ration. As place identity evolves continuously, the conceptualization of place identity as a dynamic term is critical. In contemporary cities, the pendulum of place identity (re)config-uration oscillates between eradification and museumization of built heritage, both of which are seen as negative outcomes of contemporary urbanization. However, the ideal condition can be the accumulation of both old and new: to conserve the invariants of urban space and to provide possibilities to generate new ones. The evolution of place and its identity would be more sustainable and just if the space had the capacity to keep the specificity and intrinsic values of the moments, while allowing the generation of new values by adapting to space in accordance with the new seeds and aspirations of urbanization, society and communities.

Note

1. Analysis of the recent survey shows that of the respondents 56% are from low-income groups with a monthly family income less than $1070, 34.6% are from low middle-income groups with an income between $1070-2675, whereas only 5.6% can be considered high middle-income groups with an income between $2675-4275 and 3.8% can be considered high-income groups with an income higher than $4275 (Memlük 2012).

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to the interviewees of this research’s fieldwork programme, and Tolga Sönmez, Ceren Gamze Yaşar, MIMDAP Editor Hasan Kıvırcık, Virtual Tourist member Suvanki, Tugay Kartal (the website coordinator of Kent ve Demiryolu), and Ahmet Soyak (Panoramio website) for granting copyright permission of some visual documents in this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding

This work was supported by the funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme funded Planning, Urban Management and Heritage (PUMAH) [FP7/2012–2016] under the grant agree-ment no [295045].

References

Akansel, Can. 2009. “Revealing the Values of a Republican Park: Gençlik Park Deciphered in Memory and as Monument.” MSc diss., Middle East Technical University.

Al Sayyad, Nezar. 2001. “Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism, Manufacturing Heritage, Consuming Tradition.” In Consuming Tradition Manufacturing Heritage, Global Norms and Urban Forms in The Age of Tourism, edited by N. Al Sayyad, 1–34. London: Routledge.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 541

Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (ABB). 2007. The website of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. Accessed November 18, 2012. http://www.ankara.bel.tr/AbbSayfalari/Projeler/rekreasyon_cevre_parklar/cevre/resim_cevre/genclik1.jpg.

Ashworth, Gregory J. 1998. “The Conserved European City as Cultural Symbol: The Meaning of the Text.” In Modern Europe. Place, Culture, Identity, edited by B. Graham, 261–286. London: Arnold.

Ashworth, Gregory J., and John E. Tunbridge. 1990. The Tourist Historic City. London: Belhaven.Ashworth, Gregory J., and Brian Graham. 2005. Senses of Place: Senses of Time. Aldershot, Burlington:

Ashgate.Barthes, Roland. 1968. “The Death of the Author.” In Image-Music-Text, edited by Roland Barthes (1977),

142–148. London: Flamingo.Bozdoğan, Sibel. 1997. “The Predicament of Modernism in Turkish Architectural Culture: An Overview.”

In Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, edited by Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba, 133–156. Seattle: University of Washington.

Bozdoğan, Sibel, and Reşat Kasaba. 1997. Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington.

Cantek Şenol, Funda. 2012. Cumhuriyetin Ütopyası: Ankara [Utopia of the Republic: Ankara]. Ankara: Ankara University Press.

Carmona, Matthew. 2014. “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 2–36. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.854695.

Carmona, Matthew, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, and Steve Tiesdell. 2010. Public Places—Urban Spaces. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.

CHA. 2009. GP is Turning Back to Life in Spring. Accessed December 26, 2012. http://emlak.sabah.com.tr/guncel/genclik_parki_baharla_birlikte_yasama_donuyor.html

Cumhuriyet Ankara. 2009. No More Like the Old State. Accessed December 27, 2012. http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/eski-halinden-eser-kalmadi_72693.html

Cumhuriyet Ankara. 2010. ‘Sprinkler Dance’ for 6 Million. Accessed December 28, 2012. http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/6-milyona-fiskiye-dansi_84361.html

Demir, Erol. 2005. “Park kullanım kalıpları: Gençlik Parkı ziyaretçileri üzerine bir araştırma [Use patterns of a park: A research on the users of Gençlik Park].” Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler [Contemporary Local Governments] 3 (14): 19–42.

Demir, Erol. 2006. “Toplumsal değişme süreci içinde Gençlik Parkı: Sosyolojik bir değerlendirme [Gençlik Park in the process of social change: A sociological evaluation].” Planlama [Planning] 4: 69–77.

Eraydın, Zeynep. 2014. The Global Image of the City: Impacts of Place Branding on the Image of Ankara. PhD Diss., Middle East Technical University.

Erikson, Erik. 1959. Identity and the Life Cycle, Selected Papers. New York: International Universities Press.Florek, Magdalena, Andrea Insch, and Juergen Gnoth. 2006. “City Council websites as a means of place

brand identity communication.” Place Branding. 2 (4): 276–296.Graham, Brian. 1998. “The Past in Europe’s Present: Diversity, Identity and the Construction of Place.” In

Modern Europe. Place, Culture, Identity, edited by B. Graham, 19–49. London: Arnold.Graham, Brian, Gregory J. Ashworth, and John E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power,

Culture and Economy. London: Arnold.Hamdi, Nabeel, and Reinhard Goethert. 1997. Action Planning for Cities: A Guide to Community Practice.

Chichester: John Wiley.Handal, Jane. 2006. “Rebuilding City Identity Through History: The Case of Bethlehem-Palestine.” In

Designing Sustainable Cities in the Developing World, edited by Georgia Butina Watson and Roger Zetter, 51-68. Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate.

Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hewison, Robert. 1987. The Heritage Industry. London: Methuen.Huigen, Paulus P. P., and Louise Meijering. 2005. “Making Places: A Story of De Venen.” In Senses of Place:

Senses of Time, edited by Gregory J. Ashworth, and Brian Graham, 19–30. Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate.

Jansen, Herman. 1937. Ankara İmar Planı [Ankara Development Plan]. Istanbul: Alaeddin Kral Press.Kezer, Zeynep. 2015. Building Modern Turkey: State, Space and Ideology in the Early Republic. Pittsburgh,

PA: Pittsburgh Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

542 M. AKKAR ERCAN

King, Russell. 1995. “Migrations, globalization and place.” In A Place in the World? Place, Cultures and Globalization, edited by Doreen Massey and Pat Jess, 6–44. Oxford: Open University/Oxford University Press.

Kasaba, Reşat. 1997. “Kemalist certainties and modern ambiguities.” In Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, edited by S. Bozdoğan and R. Kasaba, 15–35. Seattle: University of Washington.

Kearns, Chris, and Gerry Philo. 1993. “Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling Places.” In Selling Places, edited by Chris Kearns and Gerry Philo, 1–32. Oxford, New York, Seoul, Tokyo: Pergamon Press.

Knox, Paul L. 1984. “Styles, Symbolism and Settings: The Built Environment and Imperatives of Urbanised Capitalism.” Architecture et Comportment 2: 107–122.

Knox, Paul, and Steven Pinch. 2010. Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. 6th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.Kotler, Philip, Donald Haider, and Irving Rein. 1993. Marketing Places. New York: Free Press.Lowenthal, David. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Lynch, Kevin. 1972. What Time is This Place?. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Madanipour, Ali. 1996. Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process. Chicester, New

York, Brisbane: Wiley and Sons.Madanipour, Ali. 2013. “The Identity of the City.” In City Project and Public Space, edited by Silvia Sereli,

49–63. Urban and Landscape Perspectives 14. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Massey, Doreen. 1984. Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and Geography of Production. London:

Macmillan.Massey, Doreen. 1994. Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Massey, Doreen. 1995. “The conceptualization of place.” In A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and

Globalization, edited by Doreen Massey and Pat Jess, 45-85. Oxford: Oxford University, Open University Press.

Memlük, Nihan Oya. 2012. “Inclusivity of Public Space: Changing Inclusivity of an Urban Park, Gençlik Parkı, Ankara.” MSc Diss., Middle East Technical University.

Memlük, Yalçın. 2004. “Yakın geçmişten geleceğe peyzaj oluşumları [Landscape formations from the recent past to the future].” Paper presented at 2. Congress of Landscape Architecture, 188–197. Ankara: Chamber of Landscape Architects Publishing.

Mimdap. 2009a. “Gençlik Parkı from the past to today.” Mimdap Accessed December 27, 2012. http://www.mimdap.org/?p=28423

Mimdap. 2009b. “Critics on Gençlik Parkı.” Mimdap. Accessed December 27, 2012. http://www.mimdap.org/?p=28423&page=2

Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1980. Genius Loci. New York: Rizzoli.Özdemir, Aydın. 2009. “Katılımcı kentli kimliğinin oluşumunda kamusal yeşil alanların rolü: Ankara

kent parkları örneği” [The role of public green areas in the process of participatory citizen identity: The case of Ankara urban parks]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi [Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Forestry] 1: 144–153.

Peyzajist Landscape Architecture and Urban Design (LAUD). 2009. “Here is the New Face of Gençlik Parkı.” Peyzaj Mimarlığı ve Kentsel Tasarım Portalı. Accessed December 28, 2012. http://www.peyzajist.com/iste-genclik-parkinin-yeni-yuzu.html, http://www.peyzajist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/ 09/17737.jpg.

Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2006. “Globalisation as Hybridization.” In Media and Cultural Studies, edited by Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, 658–681. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Procock, Douglas, and Ray Hudson. 1978. Images of the Urban Environment. London: Macmillan.Proshansky, Harold M., Abbe K. Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff. 1983. “Place Identity: Physical World

Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3: 57–83.Rapoport, Amos. 1969. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.Sarıaslan, Umit. 2008. “Küçüklüğümüzün Gençllik Parkı’ndaki büyük köprüsü yıkıldı!.” [The big bridge

of Gençlik Park in our childhood was torn down!]. Kent ve Demir [City and Railway]. Accessed July 22, 2015. http://kentvedemiryolu.com/icerik.php?id=317

Sepe, Marichela. 2013. Planning and Place in the City. London, New York: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 543

Southworth, Michael, and Demi Ruggeri. 2010. “Beyond Placelessness, Place Identity and the Global City.” In Companion to Urban Design, edited by Tridib Banerjee and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, 495–509. London, New York: Routledge.

Soyak, Ahmet. no date. “Panoramio.” Accessed July 22, 2015. http://www.panoramio.com/user/1346054/tags/Gen%C3%A7lik%20park%C4%B1.

Virtual Tourist member Suvanki. 2012. “Gençlik Park.” Virtual Tourist. Accessed December 25, 2012. http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/1687a8/.

Tankut, Gönül. 1993. Bir Başkentin İmarı [Construction of a Capital City]. İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar.Tunbridge, John E., and Gregory J. Ashworth. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as

a Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.Türkoğlu Önge, Sinem. 2007. “Spatial representation of power: Making the urban space of Ankara in the

Early Republican Period.” In Power and Culture: Identity, Ideology, Representation, edited by Jonathan Osmond and Ausma Cimdina, 71–94. Pisa: PLUS-Pisa University Press.

Ujang, Norsidah binti. 2010. “Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity.” Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies 5: 61–76.

Uludağ, Zeynep. 1998. “The Social Construction of Meaning in Landscape Architecture: A Case Study of Gençlik Parkı in Ankara.” PhD Diss., Middle East Technical University.

Urry, John. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Uzuner, B. 1998. Şehir Romantiği’nin Günlüğü [Diary of an Urban Romantic]. Istanbul: Everest Yayınları.Yaşar, Ceren Gamze. 2010. “Politics of Urban Sprawl.” MSc Diss., Middle East Technical University.Yuen, Belinda. 2005. “Searching for Place Identity in Singapore.” Habitat International 29: 197–214.

doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.07.002.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

biat

Mod

ares

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:53

05

Nov

embe

r 20

17