|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
reklam |
|
|||
(click to see the list of competitiors) FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTORY REMARKS In the original brief, the aim of the competition was defined as to obtain preliminary ideas on the development of the site and the character of urban space and architecture, to enhance the contemporary image of the city and create a new city center around the port area in the emerging international status of İzmir. The projects submitted and selected are considered as representing ideas and images and containing suggestions to be worked upon by the planners of the Municipality. The Jury wants to emphasize that the projects presented by the participants are not finalized plans. Some of the entries are only suggested sketches. With this understanding the deliberation of the Jury consisted of a comprehensive discussion of the potentials of the site through the interpretations of the participants. While the participants sometimes failed to fulfill certain formal requirements, all of them answered the basic aims of the competition, namely spatial and architectural character of the site, image for the future İzmir and directions for land use and planning. In addition to the multiple requirements of the brief, the Jury has considered possible economic viability of the proposals, which included both the potential of the built up area, and the remunerating activities proposed in the area. Since the urban development of the area will take decades to be completed, the possibility of phasing the development of built areas and the flexibility of proposals to allow this long-term development have also been considered. Since the site will gradually take shape in the context of the city of İzmir, the concept of contextuality in all its dimensions, physical, social, economical and cultural as well as historical (in both forward and backward looking) was an important point in the evaluation. In this context, the conservation of the historical buildings and the symbolic and cultural significance of the future of Old Smyrna was expected to be evaluated by the participants. The projects needed to carry ideas for a twenty first century city. The urban
form suggested by the projects pointed out to the middle of the twenty first
century. These physical features will correspond to a period in which Turkey
will be a member of European Community and a major component of the
Mediterranean. Thus all aspects of the site's development have to be related to
this vision of the future and not to the coming years with myopic local
expectations. 1. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN The Jury met after a tour of the Competition Area and elected Doğan Kuban as the Chairman of the Jury. The Chairman announced that Jordi Farrando and Romi Khosla have been appointed as the Jury members in place of Charles Correa and İsmail Serageddin. All jury members declared that they have not seen or been involved in the
projects before the day of adjudication. THE COMPOSITION OF THE JURY MEMBERS JURY MEMBERS CHAİRMAN DOĞAN KUBAN Architect, Professor of Architectural and Urban
History, Emeritus DEPUTY JURY MEMBERS CONSULTANT MEMBERS THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT REPORTERS This new jury panel was approved by the UIA representative. The technical consultant reported that 4 projects have been received after November 20, 2001, the deadline for submission. The jury agreed unanimously to disqualify these projects. The technical consultant Cengiz Türksoy reported that after disqualification
of the 4 projects, 136 projects would be presented for evaluation. A schedule for the evaluation of the projects has been discussed and adopted as follows: afternoon 13th of December ……… individual evaluation The agreed general criteria for evaluation was discussed as follows: On December 13, 2001, after the first round, 25 projects were eliminated. The eliminated projects are: PROJECTS ELIMINATED IN THE SECOND ROUND On December 14, 2001, after the second round evaluation, 70 projects were eliminated. The eliminated projects are: As a result of the evaluation made, a total of 41 projects have been recommended for presentation to the 3rd round. PROJECTS ELIMINATED IN THE THIRD ROUND On December 15, 2001, the evaluation was made with special emphasis given to the following criteria: 1. Economical viability All 41 projects were evaluated for their general merits as well as their ability to meet these five criteria and they were marked accordingly. On December 16, 2001, the below-stated projects were discussed. The projects are as follows: Project No. 1 Project No. 2 The project is schematic. It has very formalist approach. It has a potential
for using green space. The project proposes to transform the existing
infrastructure. It interferes too much with the existing infrastructure. The project has zones, which are separated by green and are clearly defined. It is interfering with the coastal line. All the energy seems to be spent for shaping the coast like this. Contextuality of the project is difficult to justify in this sense. The scheme is one that is composed of fragmented parks. Connections/parks with each other seem to be questionable. There is no major generator activity in the project. Project No. 5 This project has certain merits. The Bayraklı - Kadifekale axis can be given
as an example of this as it provides for a certain definition of the given
problem and extends beyond the boundaries of the area. However, there are some
deficiencies: Definition of the green is not morphological. Investment
generating activities lack. There is no strong element, which suggests
meaningful priority in phasing. In terms of scale, the spaces and elements are
not consistent with each other. All are out of scale. Project No. 7 The historical axis is well characterized. The location of the passenger port is evaluated as unrealistic and inappropriate. Project No. 20 The competitor solves what is proposed. The project subsidizes itself. There is no further intention to solve the transportation problems etc. So it is a very simplistic idea. It has a very refined language. The relationship of the edge: the statement of the project is very sensitive for the development on the edges and the continuity of the connections. The project has permeability. It shows how this edge does not become a "wall". This is an important concept. The project attaches character to the green public spaces. It has an avant-garde approach. The forest concept is considered as a metaphor. Project No. 26 The project has committed itself to a major park idea. The idea is recommendable, but the way it is handled is questionable. It may be considered flexible, yet there is no strong point to start investing. Project No. 31 The coastline is too monotonously designed. Hiding roads in parks is not a bad idea. There are peripheral questions, which are not clearly solved. The proposal appears more as a housing design than an urban plan. There is no attracting point to start with. Project No. 34 The projects can be considered in terms of connectors, axes, spaces, or squares instead of just buildings. The coastal area is a leftover strip taken from the sea. It is not an inspiring project to generate future activities. Bayraklı axis may be an attractive point. The proposal creates a series of independent units. Fragments, however, do not create an urban character. Project No. 42 The project does not combine proposals with the existing historical building
stock. It just starts the design and goes on. The coastline is negatively
handled. The connections with the neighbouring districts are well-done. The coastline divides the area into two. The question is the quality of such a park. There are no activity poles at the coastline. The street pattern is extended in a positive way. Articulations with the neighbouring tissue is not satisfactory. There are no dominant greens. Project No. 49 There are the pedestrian crossings over the vehicular road and greens are in corridors though they are too weak. Connections with the existing city are insufficient. The proposed building blocks look out of scale. It is a clear scheme. Project No. 52 Connections with the existing urban tissue is negative. The quality of the green space is not satisfactory. Project No. 53 It is a project with low rise, but high density. The scheme is clear. The waterfront development is found positive. Project No. 55 It has clarity defining the development. The zones of building are clearly structured. Coastline has a certain linear park characteristic. Not just a left-over place. Green continuity is another merit. The project keeps seafront free. The location of the marina is positive. It has continuity problems with the existing tissue in terms of scale of blocks and infrastructure. Project No. 58 The project has a sensitive approach. It allocates space for the waterfront. The seafront - green - other uses make up a very clear structure. The public spaces provide space for the perceivability of the historical buildings. A pleasant place of pedestrians has been provided. There is insufficient volume of buildings for the structuring of the site. The volume of building may not make the project viable. Intervention of the coastline is too costly and unjustified. The project lacks any treatment of the entire bay to include an energy-generating function that is to make the area a vibrant place. Project No. 63 This project takes the area as a park. The imagery of the whole thing is positive. The frequency of the spaces in between is interesting. The built-up area as a wall between the park and the city is poorly designed. Project No. 64 The elements are just presented in the project as signs. Built forms correspond to the strategies of urban design in terms of continuities, directions and openings toward the sea. There is successful integration with the existing structure. Project No. 79 The project has tried to put a layer of time into a scheme. But this is more
of a policy and strategic scheme and does not necessarily correspond a spatial
development. The key element is the structure of the public space. It tries to
integrate the old and the new public space, and it is a good idea. The idea is
there, but only as a strategic drawing. A lot of area has been allocated to the Port area. There is successful articulation with the direction to Bayraklı. There also is a sufficient density to support the economical viability of the project. The urban park is fragmented with no attractivity. Commercial development seems to be weak along the metro line. Project No. 86 The green areas form corridors towards the inner areas. The only originality is the axis towards the sports area. Articulation with the existing city is negative and out of scale. Project No. 88 It looks more of a site plan than an urban design project where the urban strategies are expressed. One problem is to allocate all the pier area into an open green area. This is found non-realistic since it lacks a generating- and attracting-activity. Project No. 89 Good points of flexibility. A positive cultural approach. The images provide for an acceptable Mediterranean environment. There is no major park. All greens are leftover spaces. Articulation with the existing tissue is not satisfactory. Project No. 98 The connections to the inner areas of the city are strong, but not all in the right scale. The green area lacks a unifying role and quality. Project No. 100 The project is concerned with the street idea. There is an eccentric strong idea. Though the developments are mechanic, the spaces have been designed very eccentric. Image of the future is interesting. It is more of a directing plan, showing a system that might be adapted. It suggests a tissue of urbanity. It may constitute one of the projects to be reconsidered. Project No. 102 It is an expensive project filling the sea in an excessive way. Therefore, it is economically unfeasible. The scheme is geometrically over-simplified. Project No. 106 The project is flexible. Its architectural ambitions are acceptable but lack strong points with a regional impact. The park between the sea and the areas on the back is well-designed. The densities are consistent. The nature of design is the same for every part of the project. Different functions with the same morphology. Project No. 111 The project does not have a very rigid zoning. All elements of space are sufficiently organized. The sizes are not very huge. The distribution of green is well. It has an urban village garden quality. The visual attractivity is well-designed. There is a scale problem for there are too many vast areas. But is more realistic than the other projects. The project proposes some positive solutions for the traffic movement. It is also feasible. Project No. 124 Not economically viable, but has a radical image. A completely radical project that changes everything. Giving the park to the citizens of Izmir and making them pay for the city. The implication of making a park is very clear here. It is an absolutely new image. The connection to Bayraklı and the forest idea are the two issues that deserve some thought. Project No. 130 The project is an elegant utopia. The project has the character of a resort place. The logic is to build a core. It would work financially though it is a dream. In its present state it is undeveloped. In contextual terms, it is a beginning. It is out of scale. In terms of building form, it takes all sides as the park and leisure area. It is an alternative built form of an urban park project. It has a local character. There is quite a skill in terms of volume and buildings etc. Project No. 135 The quality of urban development is interesting. If the urban implications
are analyzed, they can provide a quality of space. The expression is different,
but there is a little bit beyond. There is a shock, kind of taking Izmir to a
different destination. It proposes a certain homogeneous tissue. There are
different possibilities of extension to different nodes, so there is
flexibility. But it is a non-realistic project. It is clearly explained in the
report. It is highly futuristic, generating future ideas for Izmir. To produce
totally radical things is a tradition of in architectural thinking. As a result of the evaluations made, the Jury voted and selected 9 projects for the final round. The projects are as follows: Projects numbered as 1, 20, 48, 53, 55, 64, 81, 106, and 111. From the 9 projects, the Jury voted and selected the three prize-winners as follows: Project no.111 was awarded the first prize. Project no.64 was awarded the second prize. Project no.53 was awarded the third prize. The remaining 6 projects (projects numbered 1, 20, 48, 55, 81 and 106) have been awarded Honourable Mentions. The Jury comments on the prize-winning projects are as follows: ENTRY 111 The entry 111 opens the way for the realization of a model site for the future of Izmir. It creates a vision of viable density of building with high-rise development and also providing large open spaces for public use. This building development will alleviate the pressure on the historical city core by attracting building activity to this area. The second and very important contribution of the project is the development around the archeological site of Bayraklı (old Smyrna). The 111th entry offers the opportunity of a starting point for the urban development of a symbolic site, which, by emphasizing Bayraklı, has an important status in the Archeology of Western Anatolia. Here, the potential is to be realized easily. Besides these two points, there is a network of pedestrians and cyclists and parks of a larger communication system. Buildings are directed towards the prevailing wind direction. The existing sport facilities and the new facilities at their extensions are composed as an Olympic park. All the administrative functions are composed around a forum, which, as a representative place, is connected with Bayraklı both physically and symbolically. Entry 111 has professionally presented these ideas and has been selected as
the first prize-winner. This project proposes to provide a scheme of reference for the transformation of the city, consisting of structural network, constituents, elements, selection of communal zones and proper space organization. Theme parks as urban activity centers are designed to create the continuity of open spaces, such as nature parks, archeological parks, and technoparks. The park system is found as a feasible organization of space. The prevailing wind was a decisive factor. The project has a good sense of scale. It also displays necessary flexibility to absorb the future changes in the programme. In the orientation of building blocks, the industrial archeological park is where the major conservation area stood. The freight port also called as sea park, is organized as leisure and touristic area. Entry 64 judiciously and professionally presented these ideas and has been selected as the second prize-winner. ENTRY 53 This project has a strong urban character. Dense, yet low-rise urban developments suggested for the Port and Salhane districts are evaluated positively. The quality of public open spaces, concern for rehabilitation and conservation of cultural heritage are other attributes. Particular emphasis on "Old Smyrna" by providing an adjacent public open space (park) is a valued strategy. The lack of significant public investment that would contribute to the economic viability at the docks, however, is a weakness. The clear definition of parts and the simplicity of organizing principle of the whole contributing to the overall flexibility of the scheme are recommendable. Entry 53 has therefore been selected as the third prize-winner. It is a project, which develops the inner traffic system as activity generating goals. The project is criticized in terms of having used every bit and piece of land such that there is no public open space left. The waterfront hotels imply a very dense urban character, which is found positive. The Marina activities might also constitute an economical important potential. But the way it is dispersed does not make it convincing. There is a search in architectural quality and futurist architectural language. The zone between the governmental center and the triangle is left on its own, without decision. That is the weak pint of the scheme. Entry 1 has been awarded the honorary mention. ENTRY 20 The project has a very refined urban design language. The relationship of the edge: the statement of the project is very sensitive for the development on the edges and the continuity of the connections. The project has permeability. It shows how this edge does not become a "wall". This is an important concept. The project attaches character to the green public spaces. It has an avant-garde approach. The forest concept is considered as a metaphor. Although the project has a poetical dimension, it is found simplistic and schematic to tackle the complexity of the problem. Entry 20 has been awarded the honorary mention. ENTRY 48 The project is characterized by two distinct zones, which are separated by the park. This clarity is appreciated by the Jury. The question is the quality of such a park. There are no activity poles at the coastline. The street pattern is extended in a positive way to the existing streets, though in terms of spaces and uses it is not fully satisfactory. Articulations with the neighbouring tissue are not satisfactory as well. There are no dominant greens. Entry 48 has been awarded the honorary mention. ENTRY 55 In this project, what is appreciated is the unifying role of the coastline. It has a certain linear park characteristic. Not just a left-over place. The project keeps seafront free. The location of the marina is positive. The scale of the blocks and the spaces with the existing tissue is not very satisfactory. On the other hand, the treatment of the existing historical buildings with the buildings, their connections with arcades and architectural language is positive. The traffic proposal made needs to be developed. Relationship with the Bayraklı site is negative. Entry 55 has been awarded the honorary mention. ENTRY 81 This project is appreciated by the quality of its solution in terms of orientations and scale. A lot of area has been allocated to the Port area. There also is a sufficient density to support the economical viability of the project. The negative point is that the park has no unifying as a generator of activities. The urban park is fragmented with no attractivity. Commercial development seems to be weak along the metro line. Articulation with the existing tissue is not very satisfactory. The connection to the Bayraklı site is positive. Entry 81 has been awarded the honorary mention. This project is appreciated by its three morphological units. It applies a kind of activity zoning. Each zone is flexible in itself, but the overall flexibility is questionable. Its architectural ambitions are acceptable but lacks strong points with an activity generating force. The park between the sea and the areas on the back is well-designed. Connection with the Bayraklı site lacks force. Entry 106 has been awarded the honorary mention. "The democratic principle of selecting the prize-winners by majority vote has been well established by the jury proceedings. This note of dissent therefore, does not in any way question the majority decision of the jury. On the contrary, it simply records my personal disagreement with awarding the first prize to entry no 111. It is my contention that the first prize should have been awarded to entry no 1. This contention is based on three fundamental aspects, which determine the future potential of the site: 1. İzmir could use the potential of the site to transform itself from a
Turkish city to a European regional level urban centre that makes it an
important trading and cultural centre for the future European Union. No other
city in the Aegean has this historic opportunity of having 500 hectares of
vacant land in its heart. It is my view that entry 111 does not adequately address these three aspects and that entry no 1 addresses them all. Entry 111 creates a major focus on the archaeological site, it proposes extensive land fill in the bay and places its islands of urban development within a background of a green tone that implies tower blocks set within gardens. However it is not very clear how this green background will be affected once the roads and large parking places are provided on the ground to service the multi-storey blocks. Entry no 1 on the other hand visualizes an international future for İzmir,
providing spaces for international institutions, a modern transport system as
well as dense urban development. Its proposals for developing the coast line
with a wide range of cultural and commercial facilities recognizes the live
potential of the bay and its architectural language is clearly addressing the
future." After the Jury's award the envelopes containing the identities of the participants were opened and the authors of the awarded projects are as follows: 1st Award - Project no. 111 2nd Award - Project no. 64 3rd Award - Project no. 53 Honorary Mention No. 106 Honorary Mention - Project No. 81 Honorary Mention - Project no. 48 Honorary Mention - Project no. 20 Honorary Mention - Project no. 1 Honorary Mention - Project no. 55 § The international jury emphasizes the importance of the vision of İzmir
as an internationally competitive commercial, cultural, technological and
tourism center not only in Turkey, but also in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
The port area and its surroundings offer great potential for urban
transformation and development on this score, besides providing for the more
immediate social and economic needs of the metropolitan area. RACİ BADEMLİ HANDE SUHER AHMET GÜLGÖNEN JORDI FARRANDO ROMI KHOSLA |
|
Copyright © 2000-2002 Arkitera Bilgi Hizmetleri [email protected]
