Söyleşi

Interview with Sander Hazevoet

Tarih:
“Kepez Light”
Sander Hazevoet

Pınar Gökbayrak (PG): What were your motives for registering to Antalya site? What were the appealing and challenging aspects of this site for you?
Sander Hazevoet (SH):
As a regular visitor to Turkey I’m interested in the architectural development and the urban transformation in Turkey. Especially the “gecekondu’s” (squatters) and the socio-political impact of it is still an unsolved and fascinating issue.

The site in Antalya is a good example of an early phase “gecekondu” area with a charming character of its own. During the site visit I was surprised by the fact how green and inviting the area is. Compared to other developments in the three big cities, Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, Kepez, Antalya has the potential to transform into an attractive living and working neighbourhood whilst conserving its character. For me the challenge was to create a strategy and a design, which gives an answer to this transformation.

I really think that Kepez is a big chance for the municipality to start a pilot project for high quality urban transformation, which can be an example for further developments in other comparable areas.

PG: In your opinion, what is the most powerful aspect of your project?
SH:
“Kepez Light” is not a ready image or design of a finished neighbourhood but a work in process where the architect together with the municipality acts as a director (regisseur).

The project offers a simple strategy, which can be translated into a guide for future developments and where the quality aspects are fixed. Based on these quality aspects (rules), the flexible building system is developed. Easy-to-build-houses give freedom to expand and offer a spatially interesting volume where inhabitants are free to create their own space.

PG: The subtheme of Antalya site was ‘Renewal for Whom?’ An urban transformation is always a very difficult process to handle. One of the most critical issues of an urban transformation project is the risk of creating a gentrification in the neighbourhood. Kepez is at the edge of Antalya city and is not a part of the metropolitan network yet. However, since it is almost the only site for the city to expand towards North, it is probable that after the transformation project, different social groups will move towards the vicinity, as well. What is your point of view regarding gentrification in cities and what was your proposal regarding this issue in your project?
SH:
I consider a mix of social groups desirable as this represents urbanity; it brings new income and new opportunities to an area. I realize that a there is a danger of total gentrification of the area as the economical and social pressure is high on Kepez. With the proposed densification it is inevitable that new inhabitants will come to the area. This is economically an attractive development for the municipality. In exchange I think it is important that the municipality gives the actual residents of Kepez a chance to stay. This could be done by selling the people the ground for a symbolical amount, helping with the loan or even renting out the land for a generation. To guarantee a healthy development the city must offer the foundations and the infrastructure for the houses. The principle of self-build-houses would stay but then based on the designed building system and rules. Kepez should not loose its character and charm.

PG: The competition was asking for micro decisions in the transformation process of this site. Micro transformations also mean an expectation of great contribution from the local residents and have to be carried on with their willingness. And when the local residents get involved in the design, the projection of an architect may not always be fulfilled. For example, many of the residents may refuse glasshouse fruit production. In such a case, what shall be the attitude of the architect and keeping in mind this problem, do you think an urban transformation project may be succeeded via micro interventions?
SH:
As mentioned above the project is not about a definitive image, which is the product of the architect. So no one is obliged to take a glasshouse fruit production but it can generate an extra income. What happens in Kepez will always be with and for the people.

The willingness of the residents is in my opinion based on three issues: People want good infrastructure, inexpensive houses and possibilities to enlarge and design their homes.
This is translated in the idea to use the mass-produced steel structure as a simple and economically attractive skeleton. So people can get good value for their money. This building system offers enough freedom to decide about the exterior and interior of the houses. Extra stimulation is the fact that the municipality provides the foundation and the infrastructure for the new houses.

The process of urban transformation will only succeed if there is a balance between the micro and the macro interventions. Or in other words for Kepez, you need a clear definition of property boundaries, simple rules and an efficient phasing to control the micro interventions. On the other hand you need enough densification and an attractive input at the edges of the area to guarantee economically interesting macro interventions.
YorumlarYorum Sayısı: Henüz hiç yorum yapılmamışBütün yorumları forumda okuyun!
Bütün yorumları forumda okuyun!
Söyleşi Arşivi
Dönem içinde gerçekleştirilen söyleşilerin listesi aşağıdadır. Ayrıntılarına ulaşmak istediğiniz söyleşiyi listeden seçiniz.