“Reclaiming Public Space & Sea”
Sayman Bostancı, Stefany Kim, Ayfer Şen

Pınar Gökbayrak (PG): What were your motives for registering to Zeytinburnu site? What were the appealing and challenging aspects of this site for you?
Sayman Bostancı (SB): One of the first reasons is familiarity to a certain extend with the area and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the fascination with an important geopolitical city that lies at crossroads of Europe and Asia. The growing development of Istanbul and especially of its suburbs is of critical importance in this aspect, as the city has a lot of potential and will no doubt encounter issues of a growing metropolis. These potential issues of a fast growing metropolis and its regularities were/are of general and great interest for us. The idiosyncratic history of the metropolis region Istanbul along with its geographic-political singularity made and still makes this project highly attractive.

PG: In your opinion, what is the most powerful aspect of your project?
SB: The first strategy is to implant small public spaces -squares and parks- which will in the following act as catalysts and modify the existing border areas. Apart from the implant “public space“, individual quarters will in this way be surgically replaced by new residential islands: existing old circulation systems and traditional methods of informal building -if justified- will be integrated, also to maintain identification and appreciation of the existing stock amongst the neighbourhood. The “strategy of implants“ ensures on the one hand a maximum of planning freedom and opportunities, on the other hand makes a development in stages possible that can prove nonetheless very effective. These implants of “residential islands“ (which should naturally be well connected amongst themselves and with the existing stock) and the supplementing implant “public space“ do, however, accept the fact that in the near future new settlement areas of other nature can and will develop. This strategy is also based on the acceptance that “city” as an idea can only be thought of as an incomplete and ever-growing formation.

PG: The subtheme of Zeytinburnu 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. What is your point of view regarding gentrification in cities and what was your proposal regarding this issue in your project?
SB: In our opinion the up-valuation of public spaces is an essential contribution against gentrification – especially for the neighbourhoods.

The transformation aspect -especially within the inventory and with all the neighbourhoods- will allow in our project proposal that the implant “city fields” assure a high reactivity. By this, a maximum of desired reaction possibilities are kept open. Clear and also figural unambiguous public spaces, traditionally meeting spaces/buildings for various people and religions, complement the fine-mesh fabric of ground level zones.

Or

These implants of “residential islands“ (which should naturally be well connected amongst themselves and with the existing stock) and the supplementing implant “public space“ do, however, accept the fact that in the near future new settlement areas of other nature can and will develop.

PG: The site was to be evaluated as “tabula rasa” since all the buildings had to be demolished due to an earthquake risk. But, it is clear that the site is tightly intertwined within the urban network, with its economical and productional capacity, as well as with its close proximity to infrastructural hubs, historical sites, and city center. Although the site woud be a “tabula rasa” without any references left for the transformation project, it was impossible to neglect its critical position within the entire city. Therefore it was a very challenging dilemma. How did you deal with this problem?
SB: Since we are convinced that the socio-historical context is of a decisive importance, our project proposal takes into consideration the very intensive bonding into the urban overall planning. The term “city field” can thus be discussed in a fresh way -as well as the efficient scale of such a “city field”. This strategy is of course based on the self-conception of a city that to date primarily consists of small lots, a built reality that does in fact not present a uniform whole and that in some instances even displays simultaneous inconsistencies that will need to be well linked.

To let waterside spaces turn into strong and identity supporting city spaces is an objective, however one that needs to be integrated with the city network in East-West direction. This means that the metaphor of the “net” (including short ways) is seen as a very viable matrix for the city. In order to implement these open city spaces, a “city field” typology is required that on the one hand plays with the contents of informal building, and on the other hand suggests a different density using a new typology for the individual city modules.

Given the basic rules of human settlements with their three fundamental courses of action:

- movement (mostly linear),
- occupation (mostly spreading across a surface) and
- erection (in three-dimensional space),

one has to assess and perhaps interpret anew these familiar elements of “circulation“, “parcelling-out“ and “building structure“ when confronted by our “city fields” approach.

The implanted residential areas attached (almost in a parasitic way – of course meant in a positive sense) to the existing circulation structure, accept the existing parcelling-out system in the ground level zones and further develop in the upper levels in a manner that on the one hand clearly strengthens the green areas of public city space (respecting clearly defined space borders) and on the other hand allow within the city module a limited but potential scope for private building.

The old circulation system is basically integrated into the city ground – also into the extensive green spaces- and will be superposed by a rather rough-mesh, new primary system. This layering strategy enables simple links to the existing stock within the essential circulation layer, but also represents a reference to “autonomous building systems“ of informal building theories and thus to the “engraved“ circulation systems of slow traffic. The strategy also represents a found “missing link” between the “old” and the “new“.