Ankara kent imgesi üretimi: Gökdelen ve Atakule
The production of Ankara city image: Gokdelen and Atakule
Yazar: CEREN TONKAL
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. FUNDA UZ
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Mimari Tasarım Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2018
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture
Dizin: Kolektif bellek = Collective memory

Özet:
Kentlerin anlatıları yaşanan sosyal, politik, toplumsal, yapısal kırılmalar ile değişir. Bu büyük değişiklikleri gerçekleştiren kentteki fiziksel ve zihinsel yıkım-yapımlardır. Yıkım ve yapımlar birbirilerinin neden ya da sonucu olurken aynı zamanda fiziksel ve zihinsel değişimleri bir sarmal döngü halinde üretirler. 
Kentlerin anlatısını değiştiren nirengi noktaları, yıkım-yapım döngüleri sonucu hem yapısal hem de düşünsel yönü olan temsiller doğururlar. Bu temsiller kenti, kentliyi ve her ikisini de yönlendiren güçleri temsil ederek "kent imgesi" tanımı kazanırlar. 
Kent imgesi hem fiziksel hem de zihinsel olarak üretilir. Bir fiziksel gerçeklik tek başına yapıyı imgeleştiremez. Düşünsel bir üretim onu kent imgesi değerine taşır. Çalışmada kent imgesinin çift yönlü üretimi konu edinilmiştir. Üretimi yapan siyasi ve toplumsal aktörlerin kent imgesini nasıl anlamlandırdıkları araştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın amacı kent imgesini siyasi otoritelerin amaç edindiği anlamlarından çok, toplumsal süreçlerle ulaştığı değerlerinin kent imgesini güçlü kıldığını anlatmaktır.
Çalışma kent imgesinin düşünsel ve fiziksel üretimini, Ankara kentinin peyzajında baskın olma iddiasıyla üretilmiş Gökdelen ve Atakule yapıları üzerinden anlatır. Toplum tarafından Gökdelen olarak isimlendirilen Emek İş Hanı yapısı ve Atakule, Ankara kentinin ilk planlarında kentin gelişim aksı olarak belirlenen Atatürk Bulvarı üzerindeki iki yıkım-yapım döngüsü ile üretilmiştir. Her iki yapı da siyasi otoritelerin girişimiyle üretilip toplumsal anlamlandırma süreçleri ile kent imgesine dönüşmüştür.
Ankara kentinin cumhuriyetin ilanı ile değişen kent ve kentli kurgusu bu süreçten sonra da değişikliklere uğramıştır. 1950li ve 1980li yıllarda yaşanan yapısal, sosyal, siyasi ve ekonomik değişimler iki önemli yapıda kendini göstermiştir. Atatürk Bulvarı, bu iki önemli yapının üretiminin denk geldiği değişimlerin sahnesi olmuştur. Bu yapılar dahilinde yaşanan yıkım-yapım döngüleri ile Ankara kent merkezi Atatürk Bulvarı üzerinde yer değiştirmiştir. Döngünün her tekrarı Gökdelen ve Atakule yapılarını siyasi erk tarafından bir temsil olarak ortaya koymuştur. Ancak her iki yapıyı da imgeleştiren siyasi erkin politikalarından öte toplumun onlarla kurdukları ilişkilerdir. 
Bu çalışma, kent imgesinin üretimini onu üreten aktörler olan siyasi erk ve toplum bağlamlarında iki bölümde ele alır. Bölümlerde aktörlerin yapılar üstündeki kent imgesi tanımını sağlayan kültürel, sosyal, ideolojik, ekonomik tavırlar ve gündelik yaşam temsiller üzerinden okunur. Kartpostallar ve kent rehberleri başta olmak üzere, fotoğraf, amblem, afiş gibi temsiller tezin çözümlenmesinde aracı olarak kullanılır. 
Tezde yapılan çözümlemelerin sonucunda, Gökdelen ve Atakule'nin sahip oldukları değerlere birbirileri ile aynı şekilde ulaşmadıkları saptanmıştır. Toplum onları kentin yapısal ve düşünsel bütünlüğünün farklı ölçeklerinde kabul etmiş ve anlamlandırmıştır. Günümüzde konu oldukları fiziksel ve zihinsel yıkımların ise yine toplumun kentsel pratikleri ile üreyecek bellek ilişkileri aracılığıyla aşılabileceği vurgulanmıştır.

Abstract:
Image of the city is the absolute representation of the city and the inhabitants of it. This representation expresses whole story of the city which is comprised of both intellectual and physical elements. In other words city image is the narrative of a city. In the process of time, there could be some transformations in the city narrative. Inherently, city image is changed or new elements are added according to that narration.
Narratives of cities might be changed with reference to social, political, communal and structural milestones in history of the country. Those significant transformations occur by both physical and intellectual destructions and constructions in cities. These destructions and constructions, which might be either physical or intellectual, can be the causes or effects of themselves.
Substantial changes in the cities produce specific representations which have both physical and intellectual characteristics. These representations become a part of the city image when they point out the city, inhabitants of it and also the political power which shape the city and the life in it. Reading thresholds of a city over a building makes it a city image. A building as a city image is consisted of both expression and physical presence. 
In the built environment, artifacts could signify meanings beyond their functions and physical substances. Buildings referring some districts of a city, a part of society or memory which belong to community of city could be considered as landmark buildings. Some landmarks come into prominence with referring to the whole city and all the inhabitants of it instead of parts of them. The differentiated one is called the city image.
An image of the city could be generated both physically and intellectually. Not only a single and physical presence can create an image of a building, but also an intellectual production can maintain it. In this study, bivious production of an image of the city has been chosen as the main subject. In order to understand the production of the city image deeply, it is examined in detail with its meanings developed in the city memory beside its built characteristic.
In this study, the notion of city image is handled as a building that refers to the city with not only its appearance but also –and much powerfully- its meanings which have been assigned by the actors in the city. It is asserted that the building in the city image comes into existence with acts of political and social figures in the city. 
Both political and social actors who make this production are being researched in terms of how they create the meaning of the city image. The main goal of this research is to have a better understanding of fortification over an image of the city by intellectual values of society rather than political acts and practices. 
The destruction-construction cycle, which produce intellectual and physical presence of the city image, is being repeated on different periods for new city images. Every cycle resembles each other in terms of their process. While city image produce its place, destructions and constructions occurs in both built environment and social memory. Those are not separated as physical and intellectual ones. Physical destructions could be the reason for intellectual destruction and/or constructions or vice versa.
City and citizen narratives of Ankara were redefined after being the capital of the new Republic of Turkey It has changed with many milestones too after being declared as the capital. In time periods of 1950s and 1980s, there are significant changes in both government politics and community life. The political powers of these two periods built vertically dominant buildings in order to express their strengths, get economic benefits and establish control over society. 
Social, political and economic changes which occurred in 1950s and 1980s are revealed with two important buildings in the city of Ankara. The first one of them is Emek İş Hanı building that was renamed as Gökdelen, which means skyscraper, by the inhabitants. Gökdelen is the first skyscraper in Turkey. It opens with the functions of multi divisional supermarket, luxurious terrace restaurant and open plan office block in Kızılay district. The other city image is Atakule that is one of the first shopping malls in Turkey. It is comprised of a shopping mall mass and a tower a rotating observatory and restaurant on top of it. Atakule is located in Çankaya.
This study projects the production of the city image by explaining Gökdelen and Atakule which are built with the assertion of being apparent in Ankara city landscape. These arise through two different destruction-construction processes on the main development axis of the city that was named Atatürk Boulevard according to the first governmental city plans. On Atatürk Boulevard, city center of Ankara is relocated and redefined beginning from north to south direction with Ulus being the first center after the proclamation of the republic. With 1950s politics, Kızılay emerged as the city center. After 1980s, because of the reflection of politic environment on the city, Çankaya gained center characteristic in Ankara. Therefore transposition of city center along Atatürk Boulevard axis had been completed, shortly after many more sub-centers emerged in Ankara.
Ataturk Boulevard has become the scene of significant changes in social, politic and economic environment by hosting Gökdelen and Atakule. With destruction-construction loops of those buildings ended up with transposition of the city center on the axis of Atatürk Boulevard. Every renewal of the loop pointed out Gökdelen and Atakule as a representation of the political power. However, the fact that make these two buildings as the images of the city is the mental and physical practices of the society rather than the politics. 
This study discusses the production of an image of the city in the aspects of two contextual figures which are politics and community. The main chapters of the thesis are built according to those figures. It is asserted that production of a city image is a never ending process. Even if its physical production is completed, the intellectual image always proceeds since it is based on memory. Therefore, production of the city image is continuous as there is life around it.
In the main chapters, cultural, social, ideological and economic attitudes which provide the definition of the city image are observed by the help of visual representations. Postcards, city guides are used as major resources while photos, logos and posters are used as minor resources are used to decode the subject of the thesis.
First main chapter is focused on the role of political power in the production of a city image. In this chapter, it is explained that politic actors aim to reach society with their thoughts by building a city image physically. In this chapter, transpositions of city centers, destruction and construction processes of city images are related with politic power and these are demonstrated with city guides and postcards mainly.  During this chapter, it is tried to explain that city is a representation stage in multiple ways. From city itself to the postcards that are related with city could be a way of representing an idea. How and why political powers expresses the idea of them within city is the main subject of this chapter. Creating city image by using building as a tool of expressing ideas is investigated through Gökdelen and Atakule that are associated with time of Democratic Party and Turgut Özal as politic actors in the production of them.
In the second main chapter, it is asserted that the community is powerful on production of the city image rather than politic powers. The city image is approached as a habitat in this chapter. City itself and the building as a city image are considered as habitats. City is alive with its built environments, inhabitants and the life in it. Gökdelen and Atakule are explained as part of the habitat of Ankara city. Those images of the city are interpreted irreplaceable in terms of imagery and collective memory integrity of Ankara. After that they are discussed as habitats on their own. It is investigated that the life and memory evolved in their closed habitats and the expanded border line which produces daily life of the city center.
As a conclusion of the analyses, it is inferred that both Gökdelen and Atakule have their own values that are given by the community with different aims and aspects. They earned their meanings by gaining value in different scales and contexts of Ankara. While Gökdelen creates its relations in each scale, degraded from city to building itself, Atakule has a gap between scales of city and building. However, it gives a symbolic meaning to Atakule in Ankara over being a city image. Gökdelen could not reach the same symbolic value.
Lastly, it is emphasized that city images are produced with destruction-construction cycles and these cycles are repeated continuously on those buildings. Despite the city image values of them, both Gökdelen and Atakule are being subject to those cycles in physically and intellectually. It could be said that city images gain value with the meanings evolved in memory of community. The collective memory has an important role in reaching the city image character from a building. Therefore, It is underlined that the physical and intellectual destructions, these buildings are facing today, can be overcame with memory connections that are produced from urban practices of the community itself.