İki şehir arasında bir mimar: Constantinos Panagiotis Kyriakıdes
An architect between two cities: Constantinos Panagiotis Kyriakides
Yazar: MERVE ÇİZMECİOĞLU YÜCETÜRK
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. BİLGE AR
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Mimarlık Tarihi Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2023
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture

Özet:
19. ve 20. yüzyılların kaygan politik ve mimari ortamı, mimarların üretimlerinin şekillenmesinde önemli etkenlerdir. Batılılaşmaya çalışan Osmanlı Devleti'nde Tanzimat ve Islahat Fermanları ile her alanda yapılan yenilikler; yeni bina tiplerinin de ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Bu sürecin ilk ürünleri Pera bölgesinde kendini göstermiştir.
Constantinos Panagiotis Kyriakides, 20. yüzyılın ilk çeyreğinde özellikle Beyoğlu ve Pera bölgelerinde önemli yapılara imza atmış olmasına rağmen adı günümüzde çok duyulmamış bir figür olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Tez çalışması kapsamında, mimarın yaşamı ve mimarlık pratiğini içeren arşiv ve literatür araştırmalarının yanı sıra, Atina'daki meslektaşları ile yapılan sözlü tarih çalışmalarına dayandırılmıştır. Göçmen mimarın üretimleri, dönemler ve kentler bağlamında incelenmektedir.
1881 yılında İstanbul'da yüksek gelirli bir ailenin içine doğan Kyriakides, mimarlık eğitimini Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi'nde birincilikle tamamladıktan sonra Ecole Speciale d'Architecture'de bir yıl okumuştur. Yaşamının büyük bir kısmını Osmanlı Devleti topraklarında geçirmiş olan mimarın, saray erkanı için tasarım yapmamış olduğu göze çarpmaktadır.
Aynı zaman diliminde özellikle Pera bölgesinin mimarisinde süregelen Batılı anlamdaki önemli değişiklikler, yeni ortaya çıkmakta olan burjuva sınıfı için gayrimüslim mimarların-kalfaların, yer yer mülk sahibinin isimleriyle anılacak olan yapıların tasarım ve inşa süreçlerinde önemli roller üstlenmelerine tanıklık etmiştir. Bu dönemde, İstanbul'da özellikle inşa ettiği apartmanlar ile yaşadığı çevrede şöhret kazanmış olan Kyriakides'in, tasarladığı birçok yapıda adı, ortağı Alexandros Dimitrios Yenidunia ile birlikte anılmaktadır. İkilinin İstanbul'daki bilinen projelerinden bazıları; Frej Apartmanı, Ravouna Apartmanı, Vernudaki Apartmanı ve Türkiye Hanı'dır.  Kyriakides daha sonraları Yenidunia ile ortaklığını sonlandırarak kendi bürosunu kurmuştur.
1926 yılında, 45 yaşında iken diğer mültecilerin kaderini paylaşarak Atina'ya göçmüş olan Kyriakides, 16 yıllık ikinci kariyeri esnasında iki dünya savaşı arası dönemin aktif mimarlarından biri haline gelmiştir. Bu süre zarfında ürettiği önemli yapıların bazıları, Benakio Okulu, Lykiardopoulos Apartmanı, Mavrommati Apartmanı'dır. İstanbul'daki çoğu yapısının aksine, Kyriakides'in Atina'da tek başına çalışmayı seçtiği görülmektedir.
Zorunlu göçmen bir mimarın, mimari pratiğine iki dünya savaşı arasında kimlik oluşturma çabası tez çalışması kapsamında kentlerin sosyopolitik durumu, dönem mimarisi ve mimarın işverenleri bazında incelenecektir. Kyriakides'in İstanbul ve Atina'daki yapılarının detaylı bir çözümlemesi yapılarak İstanbul ve Anadolu'dan Atina'ya mimari pratik bağlamında neleri taşıdığı ve taşıyamadığı da tez kapsamında tartışılmıştır. Bu süreçte mimarın, dönemin bürokratik tavrını mı, yoksa bulunduğu ülkelerdeki burjuvazinin isteklerini mi tasarım anlayışına yansıttığı, yapıları incelenirken öne çıkan önemli bir soru olmuştur. Atina'da da İstanbul'da olduğu gibi apartman tasarımları ile öne çıkan Kyriakides, döneminin kamusal tavrını değil; iki farklı ve yeni kurulan ülkenin burjuvasinin isteklerini mimariye taşıdığı söylenebilir.
Tez çalışmasının bir diğer sorusu, mimarın yapılarının inşa tarihlerinin birbirlerine yakınlığı düşünüldüğünde; Kyriakides'in tasarımcı, uygulayıcı ve yüklenici gibi farklı rollerden hangilerini daha çok benimsediğidir. 
Mimarın ayakta kalmış eserlerinin tarihçeleri, kullanıcıları, iç mekân özellikleri, bugünkü durumları ve geçirdiği restorasyonlar detaylı bir biçimde incelenmiştir. Tez kapsamında, Kyriakides'in mimarlığı, iki kent üzerinden karşılaştırılarak mimarın üretiminin, kent hafızaları üzerindeki varlığı sorgulanmıştır.
Tez çalışması süresince, mimarlık tarihi yazımında ön plana çıkmamış figürlerden biri olan Kyriakides'in mimari üretimi, dönemin siyasi kırılma noktaları üzerinden ele alınarak ortaya konulmak istenmiştir.

Abstract:
The slippery political and architectural environment of the 19th and 20th centuries were important factors in shaping the works of architects. Innovations made in every field with the Tanzimat and Islahat Edicts in the Ottoman Empire, which were trying to westernize; also led to the emergence of new building types in the country. The first products of this process appeared in Pera region.
Although Constantinos Panagiotis Kyriakides built important structures especially in Beyoğlu and Pera regions in the first quarter of the 20th century, his name doesn't appear among the frequently mentioned figures. Within the scope of the thesis, the works of an immigrant architect are examined in the context of periods and cities, based on the oral history studies conducted with their colleagues in Athens, as well as archive and literature research involving the architect's life and architectural practice.
While creating the monograph of Kyriakides, the effect of geography on the architect's designs was discussed by comparing the architectural and political environments of the two cities where the architect realized his works.
In Athens, from the mid-1870s until the Asia Minor Disaster, a unique historical eclecticist architecture was born, combining Ancient Greek elements with the Vienna Historicist style, under the influence of Beaux-Arts pro-German-Austrian architects in the city.
In Istanbul, from the beginning of the 1910s, Ottoman architecture was desired to be systematized according to the West. First National Architectural Movement, which blends Neo-Renaissance elements with Ottoman and Seljuk architecture, emerged in 1908. This situation reveals that although the architecture of Athens and Istanbul are structurally similar in this period, the ideology behind them is different from each other. The emphasis on nationalism behind the architectural movement that started to shape Istanbul has been a situation that has existed since the establishment of the new state in Athens.
The reason why modern forms following the International style were imported into both cities in the 1930s, without changing, was the fact that the structures of the Modern Movement were cheaper, together with their defense that the forms of the Modern Movement were the most appropriate expression of the rationalist ideals of the period.
Second National Architectural Movement, which emerged in the 1940s, is in an effort to create a unique architecture instead of using the forms imported from Europe. In this period, the works inspired by the Turkish House and considering it modern are parallel to the idea that the houses in the Cyclades, which were put forward by Metaxas in the same period, are the ancestors of modern architecture. However, unlike the process in Athens, the Turkish House influenced the products given in the period in terms of form.
Another reason for the reference to the Turkish House is the effort of Turkish architects to show their reaction to foreign architects in this period. It is not possible to mention the significant mass of foreign architects working in Athens at the same time.
In general, when the architectural transformation of the two cities is observed, it can be said that they went through a similar process. However, the use of different discourses by these cities while importing styles from the West constitutes one of the most important differences between them. While Greece argues that it is the original owner of the forms reproduced in Europe, since the roots of Western civilization belong to itself, and therefore it does not import these forms, the Ottomans do not hesitate to state that these forms were imported; on the contrary, it is proud to show its approach to the West. One of the most important examples of that manner is that Art Nouveau movement in Istanbul was copied from Europe together with other movements, regardless of its subtext, while in Athens only the neoclassical style was used under the name of returning to the roots. Other important movements taking place in Europe during this period did not affect the architecture of Athens.
By the 1910s, the search for a style aimed at displaying the Turkish identity in Istanbul was not needed in Athens for the same reason.
Of the two cities, where attempts to integrate their deep-rooted pasts into architecture, Athens stood out as the creator of Western civilization, the attempts to systematize the Seljuk and Ottoman forms in Istanbul by reconciling them with the West caused the architecture of the two cities to progress depending on different styles. In this respect, it can be said that while the architecture of Athens witnessed a more stable change in the company of neoclassical elements, radical changes were seen in Istanbul in every period.
It is seen that there were significant changes in the architecture of both cities during the period when Kyriakides lived. For this reason, it is valuable to read the works of the architect through these changes.
Born into a high-income family in Istanbul in 1881, Kyriakides completed his architectural education at Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi and studied at Ecole Speciale d'Architecture for a year. It is striking that the architect, who spent most of his life in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, did not design for the members of the court.
In the same period, the Western sense changed the architecture of especially Pera region, which witnessed that non-Muslim architects and master-builder played an important role in the design and construction processes of the buildings that will be mentioned with the names of the owners of that emerging the new bourgeois class. During this period, Kyriakides, who gained fame in the neighborhood where he lived, especially with the apartments he built, is mentioned with his partner Alexandros Dimitrios Yenidunia in many buildings he designed. Some of the known projects of the duo in Istanbul; Frej Apartment, Ravouna Apartment, Vernudaki Apartment, and Türkiye Hanı. Kyriakides later terminated his partnership with Yenidunia and established his own office.
Kyriakides had immigrated to Athens in 1926, at the age of 45, and shared the fate of other refugees. In this city, he became one of the active architects of the interwar period. During his second career of 16 years, he designs many apartments and public buildings. Some of the important buildings he produced during this time are the Benakio School, Lykiardopoulos Apartment, and Mavrommati Apartment. Unlike most of his collaborative works in Istanbul, Kyriakides seems to have chosen to work alone in Athens.
The effort of a forced immigrant architect to create an identity in his architectural practice between the two world wars will be examined based on the socio-political situation of the cities, the architecture of the period, and the architect's employers within the scope of the thesis. A detailed analysis of the structures of Kyriakides in Istanbul and Athens was made and what he could and could not carry from Istanbul and Anatolia to Athens in the context of architectural practice was also discussed within the scope of the thesis. In this process, whether the architect reflected the bureaucratic attitude of the period or the wishes of the bourgeoisie in the countries he lived in, has been important questions that came to the fore when examining the structures. Kyriakides, which stands out with his apartment designs in Athens as well as in Istanbul, carries the wishes of the bourgeoisie of two different and newly established countries to architecture.
Considering the closeness of the construction dates of the architect's buildings; shows the different roles Kyriakides adopts, such as designer, implementer, and contractor. 
The history of the surviving designs of the architect had been examined by their users, interior features, current conditions, and restorations in detail. Within the scope of the thesis, the architecture of Kyriakides was compared over two cities, and the existence of the architect's production on urban memories was questioned.
During the thesis work, one of the figures who did not come to the fore in architectural historiography, Kyriakides's architectural production tried to be revealed by considering the political breaking points of the period.