Authors: Aslı Selin Özzade, Selinnaz Abdik
Abstract
This study examines Güvenpark, which is one of the important centers in Ankara from the day it was built in 1933. Within the scope of the project, the construction process of Güvenpark, the monument "Güven”, and the ideology behind these is explained, the park was analyzed in terms of urbanism and architecture, the role of Güvenpark in political gatherings from the 50s to the 80s, the change of ideologies represented by Güvenpark in this process and the effect of this change on the park is researched. Although there are many valuable resources written for Güvenpark in terms of urbanism, the sources that directly focus on the relationship between Güvenpark and political ideologies are not sufficient in the literature. In addition to resources such as books, articles, newspaper reports, documentaries for research, personal memories/witnesses are also significant.
Keywords: place of protest, political ideologies, Atatürk, modernization, nationalism, security
1. Introduction
Sometimes urban spaces such as parks, squares and streets are associated with a certain ideology at the time they were built. The ideological phenomenon that the urban space has - and reflects - changes according to the changing economic, social and political events in the process. Güvenpark, which was completed in 1933 and is one of the important urban public spaces representing the early republican period, has not only reflected different political ideologies throughout history, but also has the characteristic of being a park whose urban value and meaning have changed over time and witnessed many political and cultural events. This research examines the urban value of Güvenpark and the political ideology behind establishment of Güvenpark and the change of it between the years 1950-1980, called by Tarık Şengül as "the period of foundation and reorganization of the republic, a statist economy, and the construction of Yenişehir, where Güvenpark is based", were examined.
2. Ideology of Modern Ankara
The proclamation of the republic and the economic, political and social reforms represent the new formation of the modern Turkish republic and this restructuring process continued until the 1950s. The election of Ankara as the capital is one of the most important decisions taken in this formation. Despite the economic and political difficulties, the new republican government continued to develop within the framework of Kemalist ideology and succeeded in the social and spatial reconstruction of the whole country.[1]
"The election of Ankara as the capital", which is a proof of Turkey's national transformation, has become the harbinger of a new life and regime in the country. For this reason, it is aimed that Yenişehir[2], which will be established, reflects the ideology of the new Turkish Republic, the modern Turkey. It is thought that modern urban tools -such as boulevards, wide streets, theaters and parks- that reflect this ideology will also modernize people and a new bourgeois class is created. Besides the capital planning project provides the necessities of modern life, it allows the republican ideology to be reflected. It is possible to observe the ideology of being a modern European city, especially in the green areas, parks and streets of Ankara.[3] In the process of creating modern Ankara, the Löcher plan and the Jansen plan are prepared. In both plans, it is possible to see green city approaches with a central axis.
While the bureaucratic and political center of Ankara is Ulus from the establishment of the republic to the 1930s, Kızılay -or Yenişehir- became a bureaucratic and political center with the ministry buildings built especially after the 1950s. As a result, Kızılay Square and especially Güvenpark became a public space for the new residents of Ankara, usually bureaucrats.[4]
3. Construction of Güvenpark
Güvenpark, completed in 1933 and opened in September of the same year, was designed by the Austrian architect Clemenz Holzmeister. The park has become an urban space where the ideology of the republic is reflected, as well as being designed for the employees of the ministry and their families to spend time.[5]
One of the spatial elements addressed in Ankara's becoming the capital is in Güvenpark, a public green space in modern Yenişehir, in modern Ankara. According to Jansen's urban plan, Güvenpark was an important place in terms of ensuring the continuity of green space, which is one of the main approaches of the plan. Güvenpark is designed as a reputable park, located on Atatürk Boulevard -one of the most important axes of the city-, and it is one of the focal points of the city by defining the city center spatially and integrated with government buildings. Güvenpark, a transition space between government buildings and public space, has the power to unite the public space and the bureaucracy with the pedestrian axis it has on it. This unifying factor is compatible with the governing approach of the new Turkish Republic. According to this understanding, the bureaucracy is elected by the people and all of them are within the urban spaces such as Güvenpark. In both Jansen's and Löcher's plans, it is possible to see that Güvenpark is at the end of the area where the government buildings are located. With these approaches, Güvenpark represents Ankara's becoming a modern city, the transition from the old to the new, and an attitude that is stronger and more determined than the old one.
Güvenpark also represents the strong bureaucracy of the new Turkish republic. However, since the day it was founded, Güvenpark has lost its feature of being a strong axis in Jansen's plan due to some interventions.
4. Monuments in Güvenpark focusing on “Güven” monument
The "Security Monument Project", designed by the architect Holzmeister, was built between 1931 and 1935. ‘Hakimiyet-i Milliye’ mentioned the monument by using the words "the first work of art that will gain international importance in Turkey". With this project, Kızılay Square became the focal point of the city, Güven Monument became an important symbol of Ankara and Güvenpark gained a public identity.[6]
4.1 Construction of the Monument
Since monuments are structures, a suitable monument had to be built in Güvenpark, the new civilian city of the Capital Ankara. On December 2, 1929, an article was published in the Hakimiyeti Milliye newspaper that a 'police monument' would be built by the pool in Yenişehir.[7] “The monument will be described by a peaceful and happy family and the police forces surrounding and protecting them”.[8] The Güvenpark monument can be expected to be inspired by the civil bourgeoisie because while Ulus was the symbolic place of the state, the new city in Yenişehir was designed to be the symbol of the civil bourgeoisie. But the monument erected was not a symbolic representation of the peace and security of the civic bourgeoisie, but a strong male figure. The monument, which represents the law enforcement forces that will protect the citizens, creates the image that the people of Yenişehir are constantly watched by the state.[9] In other words, it is the state, not the civil bourgeoisie, represented on the monument. In 1935, the “Güven” Monument, which overlooks the ministry area, was completed and became one of Ankara's new reference points in all its glory.
5. Güvenpark and political gatherings
5.1 Güvenpark Occupation in the Period Between 1950-1980
Güvenpark, which was built to represent the republican ideology, began to deform after the 1950s. With the transition to the multi-party system, which was one of the most important events of the 1950s, the transition to the import substitution economy and the problems that emerged as a result first affected the big cities. Migration from rural to urban areas has brought employment and housing problems. In this period, when Jansen's plan was no longer sufficient, Yücel Uybadin's plan was attempted in 1957. However, this was not a solution either; Ankara continued to grow unevenly and take shape according to the speculative structure.[10] Ankara has maintained its importance as an administrative and service center. Half of the working population is employed in ministries and related institutions.[11] While the Democratic Party was in power, political chaos turned city centers into battlefields. In the 1960s, city centers were used as areas for leftist protests. In the face of these social movements, the police began to be visible in urban spaces as an active actor, and conflicts took place between the police and the public. Public spaces designed as prestige spaces became arenas of social conflicts; meaning, function and spatial forms have changed in the context of publicity.[12] In fact, these spaces like Güvenpark have found their own meaning as the democratic public spaces. With the coming of the 1960s, the economic problems in the country also increased the political tension. There was serious opposition to the Democratic Party. Güvenpark and the monument became the center of demonstrations together with Kızılay Square over time. In 1962, a mass labor protest was held for the first time in Kızılay Square. In May 1960, the military college students' march, the students' harassment of Menderes, and the 555K rally all took place in this public space.[13]
6. Reflections of political ideologies to Güvenpark
In the 1930s, the understanding of "for the people despite the people" was dominant in the construction process of the new Turkish Republic, but in the 1970s, the understanding of "for the people, with the people" became a municipal policy. They tried to implement a policy that recognizes all classes.[14] The socialist perspective at that time consisted of municipalism, urbanism and planning. The working class constituted a large part of the society and the process of rebuilding the urban space was tried to be translated to the benefit of this class. The common areas for the city residents were arranged considering the interests of everyone, not just the upper income groups.
Having weakened as a bureaucratic and political center after the 1980s, Kızılay lost its cultural centrality with the opening of shopping centers, but preserved its financial and commercial importance. During this period, Kızılay Square was transformed into a traffic intersection and Güvenpark was transformed into a pedestrian crossing area and a bus stop, thus losing its prestige and publicity at the beginning. Güvenpark was deformed physically, functionally and conceptually in the 1980s. On the other hand, in the context of publicity, the use of this important urban space as a protest area for the democratic demands of the society should be considered as an important step towards democratization.
7. Conclusion
Since urban parks are used as a social behavior, they allow the formation of publicity. In addition, these areas are preferred and gain value with the benefits such as social communication, psychological relaxation and increasing environmental quality in the urban space. Few people perceive parks as wasted urban spaces. Making these areas usable and accessible to people from all walks of life and from all classes is an inevitable condition for increasing urban life, publicity and environmental quality. If these areas cannot fulfill the task of establishing relations between people, there can be no communication between the citizens and the city. Therefore, in order to be a participatory urban citizen in urban life, these areas should be freely used by individuals from all walks of life. Otherwise, the citizens will try to find new places that can fulfill these wishes. Today, the goal of planners and designers is to create spaces where spatial communication and socialization can be controlled.
Figure 1: Güvenpark Axis and Zonning. Aerial View of Güvenpark 1957.
Source: T.C. M.S.B Harita Genel Komutanlığı, Sayısal Hava Fotoğrafı.
Figure 2: Güvenlik (Security) Monument in Güvenpark. (Design of block by Clemenz Holzmeister. The design of the statue and reliefs by Anton Hanak, 1931- 1934; monument finished by Josef Thoroak, 1934-1936) Source: Personal archive of Çağatay Keskinok.
Figure 3: Kızılay Square and Güvenpark in the 1980s.
Source: http://wowturkey.com/tr687/k_Hamza_BASYURT_kizilay.jpg)
Figure 4: Güvenpark Renovation Project
Source: http://dergi.mo.org.tr/dergiler/4/535/7887.pdf
Figure 5: Schema of current situation of Güvenpark 2015
Aerial view of Güvenpark in different years
1923-1950
1950-1980
1980-2011
2011-…
Contextual diagram of Güvenpark and its surrounding
1923-1950
1950-1980
1980-2011
2011-…
Sources: [1]Gönül Tankut, Bir Başkentin İmarı Ankara:1929-193 (İstanbul:Anahtar Kitaplar,1993. [2] Yenişehir is the name given to Kızılay. [3] Kıvanç Kılınç, “Öncü Halk Sağlığı Projelerinin Kamusal Mekanı Olarak Sıhhiye”, Ankara’nın Kamusal Yüzleri, Başkent Üzerine Mekân-Politik Tezler (derleyen Sargın, G. A.), İletişim Yayınları, 2002. [4] Bayraktar, Nuray, “Tarihe Eşzamanlı Tanıklık: Ulus ve Kızılay Mekanlarının Değişim Süreci,” Ankara Araştırma Dergisi, Haziran, 2013, 20-35, 2013. [5] Can Ertuna, “Kızılay’ın Modernleşme Sahnesinden Taşralaşmanın Sahnesine Dönüşüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı”, Planlama 34, 2005, 6-15. [6] Can Ertuna, “Kızılay’ın Modernleşme Sahnesinden Taşralaşmanın Sahnesine Dönüşüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı”, Planlama 34, 2005, 6-15. [7] Ibid. [8] Bülent Batuman, Mekan, Kimlik ve Sosyal Çatışma: Cumhuriyet’in Kamusal Mekanı olarak Kızılay Meydanı, Ankara’nın Kamusal Yüzleri, 122 Başkent Üzerine Mekân-Politik Tezler (derleyen Sargın, G. A.), (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002); Can Ertuna, “Kızılay’ın Modernleşme Sahnesinden Taşralaşmanın Sahnesine Dönüşüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı”, Planlama 34, 2005, 6-15. [9] Bülent Batuman, Mekan, Kimlik ve Sosyal Çatışma: Cumhuriyet’in Kamusal Mekanı olarak Kızılay Meydanı, Ankara’nın Kamusal Yüzleri, 122 Başkent Üzerine Mekân-Politik Tezler (derleyen Sargın, G. A.), (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002). [10] Can Ertuna, “Kızılay’ın Modernleşme Sahnesinden Taşralaşmanın Sahnesine Dönüşüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı”, Planlama 34, 2005, 6-15. [11] Ayda Eraydın, ve Bilge Armatlı Köroğlu. “Ankara’nın Yeni Gündemi: Ulus Devletin Başkentliğinden Küresel Ekonominin Düğüm Noktası Olmaya Uzanan Yapısal Dönüşüm Çabaları,” derleyen Şenyapılı T., ODTÜ Geliştirme Vakfı Yayıncılık ve İletişim A.Ş.Yayınları, Odtü Yayıncılık. [12] Yasemin İlkay, “The Political Struggle on and at Public Space: The Case of Kızılay Square, Master of Science in Urban Policy Planning and Local Governments,” METU, 2007. [13] Ibid. [14] Ulaş Bayraktar, ve Mehmet Penbecioğlu, “Başka Bir Kentsel Gelişme Tahayyülü Mümkündür! Özgün Bir Yerel Liderlik Tecrübesi Olarak 1977-1980 Arası Ankara Belediyesi Ali Dinçer Dönemi,” Mülkiye, 2008.
Further Reading
Arslan, Mükerrem. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ankara Kenti Park Ve Bahçelerin Değişim ve Dönüşüm Süreci.” ISUEP2018 Uluslararası Kentleşme ve Çevre Sorunları Sempozyumu: Değişim/Dönüşüm/Özgünlük, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, June 28-30, 2018.
Batuman, Bülent. “Mekan, Kimlik ve Sosyal Çatışma: Cumhuriyet’in Kamusal Mekanı olarak Kızılay Meydanı”, Ankara’nın Kamusal Yüzleri, 122 Başkent Üzerine Mekân-Politik Tezler (derleyen Sargın, G. A.), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2002.
Bayraktar, Nuray. “Tarihe Eşzamanlı Tanıklık: Ulus ve Kızılay Mekanlarının Değişim Süreci.” Ankara Araştırma Dergisi, Haziran 2013 (20-35) Journal of Ankara Studies, 2013.
Bayraktar S.U., Penbecioğlu, M. “Başka Bir Kentsel Gelişme Tahayyülü Mümkündür! Özgün Bir Yerel Liderlik Tecrübesi Olarak 1977-1980 Arası Ankara Belediyesi Ali Dinçer Dönemi.” Mülkiye 2008 Cilt: XXXII Sayı: 261, 2008.
Ekinci, Zülal, and Sağlam, Hakan. “Meanings and Social Roles of the Republic Period Urban Parks in Ankara.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 216, (2016): 610-621.
Eraydın, Ayda, ve Köroğlu, Bilge Armatlı. “Ankara’nın Yeni Gündemi: Ulus Devletin Başkentliğinden Küresel Ekonominin Düğüm Noktası Olmaya Uzanan Yapısal Dönüşüm Çabaları.” Cumhuryet’in Ankarası, derleyen Şenyapılı T., ODTÜ Geliştirme Vakfı Yayıncılık ve İletişim A.Ş.Yayınları, Odtü Yayıncılık, 2005.
Erim, Aydan. “Güvenpark Güncesi. Journal de Güvenpark.” Planlama 11, 10-12, 1988.
Ertuna, Can. “Kızılay’ın Modernleşme Sahnesinden Taşralaşmanın Sahnesine Dönüşüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı.” Planlama 34, (2005/4): 6-15.
Güneş, Meltem, and Şahin, Şükran. “Yeşil Altyapı ve Kent Kimliği İlişkisi: Ankara Kent Merkezi Örneği.” 1. Ulusal Ankara Üniversitesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Kongresi, Ankara, October 15-17, 2015.
İlkay, Yasemin. The Political Struggle on and at Public Space: The Case of Kızılay Square, Master of Science in Urban Policy Planning and Local Governments, METU, 2007.
İnan, Simay, Güldürür, Ali Kıvanç, and Çetiner, Ogün Can. “Yeni Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Vitrini: Güvenpark ve Güven Anıtı (1925-1935).” İ.D. Bilkent University, HIST 200.
Kavlak, İlter, Tüter Batuhan, Ganioğlu, Buse Deniz, and Eskin, Arca. “Kızılay’da Bir Buluşma Noktası: Güvenpark.” İ.D. Bilkent University, HIST 200.
Kaymaz, Işıl, Belkayalı, Nur, and Akpınar, Nevin. “Payzaj Mimarlığı Kapsamında İşitsel Peyzaj Kavramı: Ankara Kent Parkları Örneği.” Peyzaj Mimarlığı 5. Kongresi, Adana, November 14-17, 2013.
Kaymaz Çakcı, Işıl, Akpınar, Nevin, and Belkayalı, Nur. “User Perception of Soundcapes of Urban Parks in Ankara.” AESOP 26th Annual Congress, METU, Ankara, July 11-15, 2012.
Kılınç, Kıvanç. “Öncü Halk Sağlığı Projelerinin Kamusal Mekanı Olarak Sıhhiye”. Ankara’nın Kamusal Yüzleri, Başkent Üzerine Mekân-Politik Tezler (derleyen Sargın, G. A.), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2002.
Özdemir, Aydın. “Katılımcı Kent Kimliğinin Oluşumunda Kamusal Yeşil Alanların Rolü.” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 1, (2009): 144-153.
Sarıkulak, Selen. “Changing identity of public spaces: Güven Park in Ankara.” MS thesis. Middle East Technical University, 2013.
Tankut, Gönül. Bir Başkentin İmarı Ankara: 1929-1939, Anahtar Kitaplar, Istanbul, 1993.
Tümer Ergün, Ece. “A Research on Resilience of Urban Public Spaces: The Case of Güvenpark, Ankara.” MS thesis. Middle East Technical University, 2015.
Yerli, Özgür, and Sertaç Kaya. "Tarihe Not Düşülmüş Bir Kent Parkı: Güvenpark." Bildiriler Kitabı-I (2015).
Yılmaz, Aslıhan. “Changing Publicness of Urban Parks Through Time: The Case of Güvenpark, Ankara.” MS thesis. Middle East Technical University, 2015.
Yolalan, Necmiye Seçil, and Çelen Öztürk, Ayşen. “Kolektif Bellek Mekanı Olarak Meydanların Zihin Haritaları Üzerinden Analizi: Ankara Kızılay Meydanı.” Eksen Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 2, (2021): 1-15.
Comments