CC BY
84АРХИТЕКТУРА
ARCHITECTURAL-URBAN PLANNING FEATURES DEVELOPMENT
OF ANKARA CITY
1 2 Donchenko SA. , Samoilov K.I.
1Donchenko Semen Alexandrovich - Bachelor of Arts (Architecture), Post Graduate Student;
2Samoilov Konstantin Ivanovich - Doctor of Sciences (Architecture), Professor, ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT, KAZAKH NATIONAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER K.I. SATPAYEV, ALMATY, REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
Abstract: the article describes the stages and patterns of the formation of urban and iconic buildings using the example of the Turkish capital Ankara.
Keywords: architectural style, national style, the formation of architectural appearance, national motifs, new forms of identity, new styles, the image of the capital city.
Violent historical changes in many states after the end of the First World War influenced the formation of new states.
The transfer of the capital of the young Republic of Turkey from Istanbul to Ankara occurs at this time. Previously, a provincial city with a history dating back to antiquity acquires the capital status [1, 6]. What fundamentally affects the development of the architectural appearance of the new capital.
The city under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk hosts the Turkish Grand National Assembly, at which the national government was formed.
In the late 1920s - in the 1930s, Ankara became the predominant object of attention and investment of the new authorities, it was to embody ideal Turkey and at the same time be an urban model, representing buildings and public spaces, suggesting new forms of identity and collective behavior [7].
Gradually, the formation of new architectural ensembles begins, betraying the city the status and appearance corresponding to the metropolitan. The first serious attempt at introspection was the preparation for the 1873 World Exhibition in Vienna of the work "Fundamentals of Ottoman Architecture," which was rated as a manifesto of the official program for finding national landmarks [8, p. 60]. The concept of urban space development is evolving gradually, the stages of construction of various ensembles and detached buildings of urban development can be divided into several stages:
The first stage is characterized by the use of traditional, national motifs in architecture, characteristic of the period of Ottoman architecture. The popular idea of national revival contributed to the rapid emergence of a generation of actually Turkish architects who led the so-called First National Architectural Movement, which, oddly enough, spilled into the neo-Ottoman style, represented primarily by the buildings of M. Vedat Tek and A. Kemalettin. [8, p. 61]. The neo-Ottoman style was expressed in the sustainable use of a limited set of archaic decorative elements, declared inalienable features of Turkish national architecture, in completely modern architectural designs that reproduce the images of Ottoman buildings. Such elements were domed porticoes, tray arches, lancet arches, remote cornices on wooden brackets, stalactite filling of niches, tiled panels [8, p. 61].
The second stage is conditionally a transition from traditional elements of Ottoman architecture to the so-called "synthesis" when the characteristic features and elements of Ottoman architecture are combined with elements of classical European architecture (using, for example, symmetry, and more decorative elements in the design of buildings).
The third stage can be called the use of fundamentally new styles for Turkish architecture, at the turn of the 1920-1930s. revived Ottoman forms were declared obsolete.
The government has proclaimed a course towards the introduction of fundamentally new (for Turkey) architectural forms that are more consistent with the republican renewal of the country, a break with the values of the past and an appeal to the future associated with Europeanization - yeni mimari, the "new architecture", for which the model
European Art Nouveau [8, p. 62], but in the framework of combining them with national motifs and architectural elements characteristic in general for the architecture of the Mediterranean countries [1, 2]. This movement was led by architects Vedad Bey and Kemalettin Bey. In the 1930s The Architect magazine (founded in 1931), around which young architects were grouped, began to fight for new forms that would combine national motifs with the achievements of modern Western architecture. These architects included Orkhan Vozkurt, Affan Kyrymly, Sedad Eldem, Feridun Kunt, Selchuk Milyar, Nevzat Erol et al. [9, p. 51].
Architects of the 1930s designed public buildings in order to meet the needs of the main Anatolian cities after the Revolutionary War. These architects, who may have borrowed certain elements from the Seljuks and Ottoman architecture, emphasized facades that were decorated with stone mosaics and ceramic tiles. Flat roofs were preferable to ordinary ones, facades were devoid of patterns, large windows were used, in addition, the building's functionality was given the greatest attention [9, p. 52]. These themes of decorative decoration are present in the design of the following buildings of the 1920-1930s: the Museum of the Republic (Jumhuriet Musesi), (Second Building of the Turkish Grand National Assembly) - in 1923, the architect Vedat Tek built this building for the headquarters of M.K. Ataturk, the building of the Ethnographic Museum was built in 1927 on Namazgah Tepe hill, architect Arif Hikmet Koyunoglu, the building of the Museum of Painting, which is one of the finest examples of the first national architectural movement in Turkey (1908-1930), was It is cited as the central building of the organization "Turk Ojaklary" ("Turkic Hearths"). In 1980, the building was restored and reorganized into a museum, the functionality and service of which in a very short time began to meet all the requirements of modern museology of the apartment of the People's Republican Party (NPP).
The first building of the Turkish Grand National Assembly was originally built for the headquarters of the Party of Association and Development. The building design was developed by order of Enver Pasha, an architect of Eucathus (Fund Management) named Salim Bay. The project was carried out under the leadership of the military architect Hasip-Bey, who served in the Corps.
The building, which is one of the structures of the first stage of the National Architecture, with April 23, 1920 to October 15, 1924 was used as a building VNST [2, p. 26-27].
In the first years of the existence of the Republic of Turkey, a creative search is being conducted to solve architectural problems and the stylistic design of the capital's buildings. Great influence during this period on Turkish architecture is influenced by the architecture of the national-romantic, dating back to the general style of Romanticism that existed in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. Many public buildings of Ankara in the first half of 1920 were decorated in this style, which is also similar to many buildings in some republics of the former USSR, and primarily for the architecture of the capital of Kazakhstan, Almaty, from the period 1940-beginning of 1950 of the XX century.
Ankara is developing as a metropolitan city at a fairly slow pace, since there is still no idea of a clear development and image of a new metropolitan metropolis. In fact, at the time of 1920-1930 the new capital is a city that still has a largely provincial appearance [8, p. 62], but already with separate ensembles of government and public buildings built, forming the image of a new capital city, and setting the pace for new designed buildings.
In many ways, parallels can be drawn between the metropolitan ensembles of both Kazakhstan and Turkey, and not only due to the proximity of ethno-cultural qualities and characteristics, but also in the form of new, developing states, where the expression of national ideas and the search for identity creates interesting objects, and before just in an area like architecture.
Ankara is located in a mountainous area, and various areas of the city are at different heights, but the central part of the city is located on a relatively flat plateau (850 m above sea level), surrounded by a chain of hills. Two rivers, Ankara and Chubuk, flow and join within the city. The area of the city is 1417 square meters. m., modern Ankara is considered the second largest city in Turkey.
78
The city can be divided into two parts: the old and the new city. The core of the old city is the fortress of Ankara Kalesi and the neighboring fortress of Kalemegdan, the first of which is located on a sheer cliff above the city, on the site of an ancient acropolis [2, p. 16-17]. The old, provincial town is characterized by a large number of low-rise buildings, represented mainly by 2-3-storey houses with tiled roofs and protruding "hanging" floors, which is typical of traditional Mediterranean architecture and the Balkan Peninsula. The sights of the old city are interesting: the Aladdin mosque (1231), and the largest mosque in the city is the Hadji Bayram mosque (XVI century). In 1893, a railway link between Ankara and Istanbul was laid, which also gave impetus to the development of the city [3].
The center of the modern city in Ankara is represented by several avenues and ensembles of squares. The Turkish architectural and urban model also had more ancient counterparts in the early Ottoman architecture-Kullia, which were the centers of new urban neighborhoods outside the walls of the old city. But the development of new views and requirements of the time left these traditions in the past. Thus, charitable Muslim institutions, which were multifunctional complexes - the Ottoman Kullies and their Seljuk forerunners, were deliberately used as the core of future urban development, they created the social infrastructure necessary for the growth of the settlement and should be considered as a specific factor in early Turkish urban planning, based on ideas about the necessary Islamic charity [10, p. 78]. Modern Ankara is a fairly developed city with well-thought-out infrastructure, but the integrity of the image as the capital of Ankara has not yet worked.
The conventionally listed three stages in creating the capital's image of Ankara - basically it was a continuation of the Ottoman Empire's architectural style as part of a new idea of the tasks and the formation of a fundamentally new, national-folk style, reflecting the stages of the struggle of the people of Turkey for independence and reflecting national motifs in architecture .
An example of such a stylistic display is the mausoleum of M.K. Ataturk on the hill of Razzattepe-mausoleum of Anytkabir. It is a memorial complex dedicated to the memory of M.K. Ataturk and the formation of the young Turkish Republic.
The main semantic center of the memorial complex is the building of the mausoleum itself - it is made in the tradition of restrained monumental classics, with a reference to the ancient temple complexes of antiquity, primarily from ancient Greek and Roman times [4].
According to the architects, the building of the mausoleum represents, as it were, the top of a kind of complex, like the Acropolis in Athens, respectively, the mausoleum can be compared by analogy with the Parthenon. An alley adorned with statues of militia soldiers and lying figures of lions resembling Egyptian sphinxes leads to the memorial complex, which also emphasizes the memorial purpose of this complex. On the sides of the main entrance to the mausoleum there are five symmetrically arranged vases mounted on a kind of stylobate, and symbolizing the antique sacrificial bowls for kindling fire, a symbol of the altar of the fatherland. Retaining walls (stylobate) are decorated with decorative bas-reliefs on the theme of the War of Independence in the early 1920s of the last century [4].
Examples of modern Ankara architecture are the building of the new railway station and airport. Ankara Gar Central Station, An Esenboga Airport building was built by Build-Operate-Transfer and opened in 2006 [5]. Trends in the development of modern architectural tradition at the end of the last century are clearly reflected in one of the high-rise dominants of Ankara -Atakule television tower - the height of the tower is 125 m. The tower was built in the 1980s, the style of the tower is close to the works of post-modern, on the top of the tower there is an observation deck and a restaurant, the distinguishing feature of which is rotation around its axis.
During the years 1950-1970, a wide departure from the original styles, both nationally romantic and more restrained neoclassical style in the design of building facades, and a transition to more economical and less costly styles such as modernism or post-modernism are planned. Architectural modernism
European - primarily German, Austrian and Swiss - type was declared the desired visual antithesis of the neo-Ottoman style in the framework of the revolutionary renewal of Turkish society [8, p. 62]. Although over the next time, one can notice some special cases of returning to the theme of traditional national architecture, or attempts to synthesize them with more modern
79
styles and adapt them as the example of the central cathedral mosque Kocatepe (Turkish: Kocatepe Camii), resembling the Blue Mosque in its appearance in Istanbul, and the building of the presidential palace (tour. Cumhurba§kanligi Sarayi, also the White Palace - tour. Ak Saray [5].
However, the inclusion of Turkey in the "international architecture" has intensified efforts to search for its national version. In the 1930s a number of magazines appear on the pages of which this option was discussed - "Mimar" ("Architect"), "La Turquie Kemaliste" ("Kemalist Turkey"), "La Turquie Moderne" ("Modern Turkey"). Both Turkish masters, trained by Western teachers and trained in Europe, for example, E. Onat and S. Eldem, who later headed the Second, also joined in architectural practice and in teaching architecture.
National architectural movement. In 1932 Eldem organized the Turkish House seminar at the Academy of Fine Arts, with the goal of finding the national Turkish component, which should be interpreted and apply in housing [8, p. 63].
A special example for the image of the formation of a government building is the complex of government buildings located in the Chankaya area. This is, in fact, the villa of M.K. Ataturk finalized by the architect Mehmet Vedat Bey, the building of the old presidential palace (Pink Villa), the Austrian architect. K. Holzmeister, and a glass mansion built in the early 1950s by the architect Seyfi Arkan [5]. When following international fashion in Turkish architecture of the 1st half of the 20th century. the desire for self-identification has always been preserved; only its vectors changed - Ottomanism, nationalism, modernism, regionalism - which were necessarily adjusted by foreign participation. This participation was required only for creating samples at the stage of establishing their own style and for preparing the first generation of national architects who could develop this style [8, p. 63].
Thus, the modern architecture of Ankara is in dynamic development and is an example of a successful display of the development of the state and the influence of political and ethno-cultural factors on the development of ensembles and individual buildings in the urban building fabric for the image of the capital city.
References
1. Zheltjakov A.D. Turkic digest 1978 // Publishing House Science, the main edition of oriental literature, Moscow, 1984. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.orientalstudies.ru/eng/images/pdf/journals/p_ts_1978_1984_07_zheltyakov.pdf (date of access: 29.11.2019).
2. Dogan Adjar. Ankara, the capital of the Republic of Turkey, which combines many cultures ... 2013 // Ankara, Department of Culture and Tourism, Ankara, 2013. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ankara.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/43626, ankara-russianpdf.pdf? 0 & _tag1 = 52E61F7F47194F22B1CCEA6FBB5FBB2FA0725B7D/ (date of access: 15.12.2019).
3. Bozdogan Sibel, Sedad Eldem Suha Ozkan, Engin Yenal, Hans Hollein. Architect in Turkey / Singapore: media concept; New York: Aperture, 1987. 175 p. ISBN ISBN_9971-84-605-5.
4. Godfrey Goodwin Ottoman. Turkey / London: Scorpio, 1977. 192 p.: ill.; 21 cm. (Islamic architecture); ISBN 0-905906-02-0.
5. Sedad Hakki Eldem. Turkish Architectural Works / Istanbul: Printed Binbirdirek, 1974. 376, [70] p.: ill., col. ill.; 33 cm.
6. Ankara, the meaning of the word, electronic dictionary // © 2020 "VseslovA". [Electronic resource]. URL: http://vseslova.com.ua/word/ (date of access: 05.02.2020).
7. Gul M. Emergence of Modern Istanbul. Transformation and Modernization of a City. Rev. ed. L., NY: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2012 [1 ed. - 2009] // A. Teslya; How Istanbul has become modern. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/society/2679082.html/ (date of access: 05.02.2020).
8. Kononenko E.I. State Institute of Art Studies, Moscow, Foreign Contribution to the Formation of the National Style of Turkish Architecture // Izv. Sarat. un-that. New ser. Ser. History. International relationships, 2015.Vol. 15, № 4. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/inostrannyy-vklad-v-formirovanie-natsionalnogo-stilya-turetskoy-arhitektury/viewer/ (date of access: 30.01.2020).
9. Korotko T.V. Architecture, sculpture, painting in the Republic of Turkey // Kuban State Technological University, journal Historical and socio-educational thought, 2012. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n / arhitektura-skulptura-zhivopis-v-turetskoy-respublike / viewer/ (date of access: 30.01.2020).
10. Kononenko E.I. State Institute of Art Studies in Moscow, Islamic Philanthropy Factor in Turkish Urban Planning // Islam and Culture // [Electronic Resource] URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n7faktor-islamskoy- blagotvoritelnosti-v-turetskom-gradostroenii / viewer/ (date of access: 30.01.2020).
ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN CONSTRUCTION FEATURES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF THE CANBERRA Donchenko SA.1, Samoilov K.I.2
1Donchenko Semen Alexandrovich - Bachelor of Arts (Architecture), Post Graduate Student;
2Samoilov Konstantin Ivanovich - Doctor of Sciences (Architecture), Professor, ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT, KAZAKH NATIONAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER K.I. SATPAYEV, ALMATY, REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
Abstract: the article describes the formation of the new capital of Australia, the city of Canberra, describes the stages of the city's construction, and analyzes its development from manifestation to modernity as a major metropolitan metropolis.
Keywords: image of a new city, "ideal" city, zone structure, Australian community, "forest capital", "parliamentary triangle."
The development of new theories in urban planning practice at the beginning of the 20th century marked the emergence of ideas about more progressive and comfortable urban agglomerations, where the entire infrastructure is maximally adapted to the ergonomic needs of a person, and would correspond to his needs.
These ideas are not new in themselves; their prototypes have been known since the end of the 16th century [6, p. 95]. Australia, as a colony of the British Empire, has existed for many decades, and the rapid growth of industry and production as well as political influence on this continent justified the need to build a new political, economic and cultural center of the Australian Commonwealth - the choice was made in favor of a completely new city, which was supposed to be built on new place. The new city was equidistant from the two economic and cultural centers of Australia-Sydney and Melbourne, which led to parity between the two centers. The new capital was named Canberra. The name Canberra comes from the language of the aborigines and means "meeting place." The first European settlers in this territory were back in the 1820s [1]. Several competitions took place for the development of a master plan and a concept for the development of a new city with the notions inherent in that time about the most comfortable urban environment — this was expressed primarily in a large number of parks, squares, and in general the wide landscaping of most territories. Most cities in Australia are located along the coast of the ocean, due to environmental and climatic factors. Australia's second largest city, Sydney, is located on the coast, but it serves as a cultural and economic center.
In 1908, a competition was held for the best project of the capital city of the Australian Union, and in 1913 the project of Chicago architects Walter Burley and Marion Mahoney Griffin was adopted, which is why Australians called the capital "bush capital" (translated from English as "forest capital").
