Change, Continuity and Identity of the Ataturk Boulevard, Ankara

DOI :10. 5281/ z en odo. 13969541 EDITOR Prof. Fürüzan Çelik, Ph.D. Publisher Platanus Publishing® Editor in Chief Prof. Fürüzan Çelik, Ph.D. Cover & Interior Design Platanus Publishing® Editorial Coordinator Arzu Betül Çuhacıoğlu The First Edition October, 2024 Publisher’s Certificate No 45813 ISBN 978-625-6634-32-9 ©copyright All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the publisher. Platanus Publishing® Address: Natoyolu Cad. Fahri Korutürk Mah. 157/B, 06480, Mamak, Ankara, Turkey. Phone: +90 312 390 1 118 web: www.platanuskitap.com e-mail: platanuskitap@gmail.com CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................... 5 Spatial Configuration Experiments in the Architectural Design Process Tuğba Düzenli & Serap Yılmaz CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................... 17 Evaluating the Relationship Between Wood Composıte Materıals And Life Cycle Assesment (Lca) in Sustainable Architecture Using Bibliometric Analysis Leyla Senem Görgülü & İdil Ayçam & Sevilay Akalp CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................... 47 Cultural Context in Architectural Design: A Comparative Study of Global Contemporary Museums Hatice Fulya Cebecioğlu Avcı & Dilek Yasar CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................... 71 Change, Continuity and Identity of the Ataturk Boulevard, Ankara Nurşah Karan & Gamze Kaymak Heinz CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................105 Studies On Developing A Smartphone Application (Quesus) to Increase Sustainable Design Knowledge Meryem Geçimli & Kemal Köksal CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................123 Integrating The Pre-School Learning Spaces With Biophilic Design Elements Fürüzan Çelik & Oğuz Ateş & Engin Kabataş CHAPTER 7 ......................................................................................145 Comparative Analysis of Literary and Cinematic Representations of Artificial Intelligence and Visual Storytelling Barış Barış & Mensure Kubra Müezzinoğlu CHAPTER 4 Change, Continuity and Identity of the Ataturk Boulevard, Ankara Nurşah Karan1 & Gamze Kaymak Heinz2 1 2 M. Arch., Istanbul Beykent University, ORCID: 0009-0006-0821-7556 Assoc. Prof. Dr., Istanbul Beykent University, ORCID: 0000-0001-9667-0858 1. Introduction Architecture is the most visible representation of the cultural, aesthetic, ideological and technological choices that societies have reached. In this representation, the facades of buildings are the most visible and reflective tools of preferences, as they are perceived by more people than the interiors. The 19th century was a period in which Historicism, also called western architecture, was at the forefront and preferred in important spaces. In Turkey, on the one hand, the western understanding of architecture was influential, and on the other hand, the search for essence in architecture began due to the increasing reactions from the “inside”. The architectural movement that emerged in the last periods of the Ottoman Empire with the effect of nationalism that started with the Second Constitutional Monarchy (1908) is characterized as the I. National Architecture and it is stated that the ideology of Turkishness affected architecture as well as many other fields (Ulubay, 2009). Turkish Eclecticism was born with this architectural understanding that tried to build on the old without ignoring it (Sözen, 1984). In this style, where stone is preferred as a material, wide eaves, symmetrical facades that project outwards, Turkish triangular and muqarnas capitals, traditional geometric and floral motifs are frequently used. In the planning of Ankara, which was chosen as the new capital, an architectural understanding that reflected a new life and administration in accordance with the revolutions of the Republic was adopted. Bozdoğan, who considers Ankara's architectural structures as symbols of the revolution, refers to this as “giving shape to the revolution” (2015, p. 71). 1.1. Hypothesis of the Study The cultural, ideological and economic changes of societies affect spatial practices and transformation is realized through spaces. As a continuation of the modernization initiated in the Tanzimat Period in the Ottoman Empire, the modernization efforts in the Republican Era, which were continued and accelerated, aimed to construct the modern city in the context of national identity. With the declaration of Ankara as the capital city, Atatürk Boulevard, as one of the spatial practices of both Republican ideology and national architecture, became the first example of change and is therefore the subject of the case analysis of the research. 1.2. Methodology The study has two stages: conceptual framework and case analysis (Figure 1). In the first stage, the concepts of change, continuity and identity were discussed in detail with their sub-headings by utilizing historical documents, academic articles, scientific books and book chapters, and literary novels dealing with the period, and the conceptual framework of the study was formed. The second stage of the study consisted of a field research in which the facades of the buildings on Atatürk Boulevard, which was selected as the sample area, were examined. The facades of the buildings were examined on site with elements such as entrances, window and wall layout, decorations, eaves, column elements with documentation methods such as photography and description. The data obtained in the field were transformed into tables suitable for interpretation, the findings were interpreted and transferred, and the basis for the results of the study was prepared. Figure 1. Methodological scheme of the study (Developed by 1. Author). 2. Change, Continuity and Identity in Architecture The concepts of change, continuity and identity are discussed with their subheadings in order to be inclusive before the beginning to the façade analysis of the buildings, which are accepted as indicators of the cultural, political, aesthetic and technological level of the society at the time they were built. 2.1. The Concepts of Change The phenomenon of change, which has “differentiation” at its core, can be explained socially and culturally through interactions on architectural styles influenced by different cultures, or through technological advances in which new materials and construction techniques affect architecture, or through definitions of modernization and globalization in which transition processes from traditional architecture to modern architecture are observed. 2.1.1. Social and Cultural Change Culture is a complex concept that includes knowledge, art, beliefs, traditions and customs (Turan, 2000). Marx defined culture as everything that people produce outside of nature (Erez, 2003). Yazıcı (2013) emphasizes that in order to understand change, it should be handled together with political, economic and geographical conditions. Aydınlı (1992) points out that cultural components transform into symbols over time and manifest themselves in architectural structures. Another cultural change manifests itself through modernization efforts. According to Aslan and Alkış (2015), the modernization effort emerged from the phenomenon of “backwardness”. Westernization efforts initiated with the Tanzimat Edict became a state policy and modernization began to be carried out with Western methods and tools. In his novels, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu (1995), one of the literary figures of the Republican Era, drew attention to the gap between the Turkish intellectuals and the public, and discussed the fact that the public was far from adopting modernization, to the extent of rejecting or even hating it. Mardin (2013) explains this social resistance to modernization with the existence of two major obstacles: traditional structures and religion-based education. 2.1.2. Ideological Change The modernization efforts in the field of architecture in Turkey began with foreign experts from the West who constructed buildings in accordance with the knowledge and experience of their home countries, an element that Sedad Hakkı Eldem, one of the leading architects of the 20th century, considered to be overlooked by the government, which was trying to become a modern nation “rapidly”. Eldem (1939; 1940) claims that foreign architects constructed buildings in various parts of Ankara with their own architectural styles, which harmed the search for style. Bozdoğan (2002), on the other hand, cites Ernest Egli's “Sinan, the Architect of the Ottoman Golden Age” and Bruno Taut's Süleymaniye studies as examples of foreign architects studying architectural works in Anatolia both during and after the Early Republican Period. Bozdoğan (2009) interprets the approaches of Josep Lluis Sert, Ernesto Peresutti and Sedad Hakkı Eldem to use modern developments by blending them with tradition instead of taking them directly as an indicator of rising nationalism, especially in Europe. Akçan (2013) states that by the 1925s, the young Republic was striving for rapid modernization and the creation of a new “origin”, so a conscious attitude of not establishing a similarity and connection with the old was displayed, and that this rupture was related to the historiography and the perception created by the period. Tanyeli (2011), who reads the nationalist attitude of the period through Foucault, explains change and modernization through the concepts of “self” and “other”. Tekeli (1998) states that Ankara's construction was based on contemporary living patterns, and that elements such as functionality and practicality were given importance while forming the basis of the modern city. In the same vein, Adam (1985) argues that the reconstruction of Ankara was in line with Republican values and was a mirror of the Republic. Diktaş (2001) points out that the politicization of space over time is mostly seen in public buildings and states that this is an indication that architecture serves state policies. Erdönmez (2014) states that the political power has visualized its ideology through architectural structures, especially by expressing it through easily remembered symbols, and that this visuality placed in the memory of the society makes it even more powerful. In short, ideology not only influenced architecture, but was symbolized through architecture itself. With state policies based on the West and modernization, building wide avenues and boulevards in the capital as in Europe was the first example of this understanding (Kılınç and Alkan, 2023). 2.1.3. Economic Change Like many other areas, how and in which direction urbanization can develop is linked to the economy. The means of production affect change and the forces of production accelerate social change (Erkan, 2019). Polanyi (2009) evaluated the economy, which after the 19th century began to exist only for itself, in his book “The Great Transformation”, first published in 1944. According to him, the economy needs its own laws and these laws need state protection. List (1959) explained the relationship between the state and the economy with the example that a nation is strong as long as it can produce. Lefebvre (1995), who stated that capitalism plays an important role in shaping class statuses, emphasized that capital not only determines status such as rich and poor, but also affects every aspect of daily life. According to him, spaces that change and transform, especially with capitalism, cannot be considered independent of economic development and related policies. 2.2. The Concept of Continuity Architectural continuity is the ability of buildings to still meet expectations according to social, cultural, economic, political, religious and aesthetic preferences. Continuity can sometimes be achieved through architectural practices; through the continuity of the use of traditional building techniques and materials. At other times, the problem of use may be encountered only due to the obsolescence of the material. In this case, conservation and renovation can be a method to ensure continuity. The desire to keep buildings alive through conservation and renovation can be seen as a reflection of a society's cultural and political preferences and education. The maintenance of cultural and historical identity through architectural structures is related to the concept of cultural heritage, which may or may not be embraced in society. 2.2.1. Functional Continuity Hillier and Leaman (1974), in their article “How is Design Possible?”, rediscussed function, especially in relation to form, and analyzed it in four categories. These are spatial organization, climate regulation, symbolic and economic function. Function, which can be categorized under four main headings, has a multifaceted structure:  Aesthetic function; the ability of a building to arouse pleasure in the user and to carry an artistic meaning.  Pragmatic function; the relationship between space and the user.  Social function; the relationship between the city and society.  Technical function; static needs in spaces due to the development of engineering.  Political function; the relationship between space and political power.  Economic function; minimizing the cost.  Ecological function; the ecological balance of space.  Environmental function; observing the harmony of the space within the city.  Psychological function; the construction of the space according to situations such as trust and sense of belonging.  Socio-cultural function; the relationship of the building with tradition and the culture of the society.  Socio-economic function; the contribution of the building to the city.  Symbolic function; what the building represents.  Pragmatic function; the building facilitates human actions 2.2.2. Economic Continuity With the establishment of the Republic, efforts were made between 1923 and 1929 with the approach that 'economic independence is necessary before political independence'. However, during this period, industrialization was almost nonexistent and savings were insufficient (Ertuna, 2004). In 1929, like many other countries, Turkey was also affected by the world economic crisis, investments came to a standstill and production capacity decreased. This led to an increase in unemployment, bankruptcy of many firms and a decrease in public expenditures (Parasız, 1998). This period was followed by the unfavorable economic conditions brought about by World War II. Although Turkey did not enter the war, it was also negatively affected economically. These conditions led to the enactment of a law in the 1940s that expanded the powers of the government in foreign trade and further nationalization in the statist economic plan (Kayıran and Metintaş, 2007). Therefore, the efforts to organize Ankara, which was chosen as the capital, as a modern city continued despite economic setbacks. The fact that public buildings constructed in that period are still in use today is an indication that they provided economic continuity. 2.2.3. Aesthetic and Stylistic Continuity Style refers to both the functional and artistic aspects of a building. The cultural structure of the society, the dominant understandings of the period, traditions, creativity and technological possibilities can be listed as factors that play an important role in the formation of style. The stylistic and aesthetic studies in Ankara during the Republican Era are generally divided into two periods with the approaches of “National Style” or “National Architecture”. The period between 1900-1930, when the Ottoman and Seljuk styles were more influential, is the I. National architecture period. The period between 1930-1950 is the period in which the II. National architecture movement was represented (Alsaç, 1976). The first period is the period of national style conflicts arising from the differences between the heterogeneous structure of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic's understanding of the nation. The second period, on the other hand, is the period in which an international understanding of style with geometric structures that do not prioritize aesthetics, especially with the increase in the number of foreign architects, is adopted (Bozdoğan, 2001). The emphasis on the entrance area on the façades, the use of marble columns, tiles and ornaments, and the preference for capitals with diamonds or muqarnas on marble columns are traces of the Ottoman tradition (Ertuğrul, 2007). Vedat Tek's Second Parliament Building, built in 1924, set an example for many public buildings (Alsaç, 1976). 2.3. The Concept of Identity The international architectural style employed in the construction of Ankara as a modern city in the Republican Era reflects Turkey's efforts to modernize and find its place in the international arena. This is because the international architectural style emphasizes elements compatible with the Republic's modernization ideals such as modernity, functionality and conformity to international standards. As a city, Ankara has had the goal of having many identities such as being a capital city, a city of education, a center of economy and finance, a center of agriculture-production-education, a city of culture and art. While shaping the physical environment in which they are built, buildings give information about their function, cultural symbols and the identity of the society through architectural details, most notably through their facades. Rasmussen (1994) states that facades make associations related to cultural meaning. In this sense, the buildings on Atatürk Boulevard are obliged to reflect these multiple objectives with their facades. 3. Analysis of Atatürk Boulevard in Ankara in the Context of Change, Continuity and Identity The buildings on Atatürk Boulevard are shown on the plan with their locations and names (Figure 2). In the Figure 3, based on the plan in the Figue 2, the buildings were grouped according to the year of their construction. Table 1 Table 16 show data and observations about the buildings on the boulevard. Figure 2. Route of the Field Study (Developed by 1. Author). Figure 3. Buildings on Atatürk Boulevard and their construction dates (Developed by 1. Author). İşbank Economic Independence Museum Table 1. İşbank Economic Independence Museum (1929) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect Styl 1929 – Giulio Mongeri I. National Architecture Türkiye İş Bankası Administration Center Original Function Museum Current Function Plan Features: In its original form, the entrance of the building, which has five floors from the ground up, is in the form of an isosceles triangle with rounded ends in the plan in accordance with the fact that it is a corner parcel facing Ulus Square. Facade Features: In harmony with the symmetrical layout of the building, the entrance is emphasized with an arched door and an elevenstep staircase made of white marble. Above the entrance door, there are three pointed arched windows separated by thin columns. Between the first and third floors, there are moldings extending along the facade. The glass canopy on the facade reflects the Art Nouveau style with its curved structure. Ottoman and Seljuk influences can be seen on the entrance façade, which is more ornate than the other parts. Decorations The railings are decorated with Seljuk geometric patterns. The influences of Western and Ottoman architecture are seen together. Ankara University of Social Sciences Table 1. Ankara University of Social Sciences (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1937/1938 – Martin Elsaesser Styl I. National Architecture Original Function Sümerbank – Bank University Building Current Function Plan Features: The building, which originally had six floors from the ground, consists of five office floors and three vertical sections. The upper floor, which was half open in its original state, is closed today. Facade Features: The building has a trapezoidal form. The entrance is elliptical and conforms to the symmetrical layout of the building and the entrance door is reached by a seven-step staircase. The front part is even lower and has a structure that gradually expands towards the back. The windows are single, triple and quadruple. The convex eaves contrast with the concave ones. The main entrance on the axis of symmetry has rounded corners and brass columns. Decorations: The wide eaves with wooden beams are reminiscent of the II. National Architecture movement. The low mass in front is made of Ankara stone. Ankara Victory Monument Table 3. Ankara Victory Monument (1927) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1927 Heinrich Krippel Styl I. National Style Original Function Monument Current Function Monument Features: The statue placed on a marble base has preserved its original form. It was made as a symbol of the National Struggle. Mustafa Kemal is on his Sakarya horse. On the front side of the marble, there are statues of a woman carrying a cannon shell and two soldiers. The directions of the soldier sculptures are in the same axis as the battle fronts. The statues are made of bronze and the marble is made of Ankara stone (andesite). A civilian woman working behind the front line shows that the War of Independence was a people's war in solidarity. On the back of the statue is a fallen plane tree and a sprouting tree of life. These can be said to represent the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. The fallen plane tree represents the disintegrating Ottoman Empire and the sprouting tree of life represents the newly established Republic of Turkey. Decorations are provided with the use of concrete and steel. Ulus Business Center Table 4. Ulus Business Center (1952) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1952 – Orhan Bolak, Orhan Bozkurt, Gazanfer Beken Styl Modern International Style Original Function Ministry of Education - Public Building Ulus Business Center Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has five storeys from the ground up, was planned in the form of rows of shops with a bazaar characteristic and with storeys. Facade Features: The building, which has a long glazed facade, was built in accordance with the architecture of its era. Accordingly, symmetrical layout, functional structure, elongated vertical glazing and abundant windows were used in the building. The floors and between the windows are made distinct with moldings. Decorations The ornaments generally have a glass appearance. Horizontal and vertical registers draw attention. Akbank Ulus Branch Table 5. Akbank Ulus Branch (1924 - 1928) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – 1924/1928 – Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey Architect I. National Architecture Styl Lausanne Palace - Hotel Original Function Bank Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has four floors from the ground up, is based on a rectangular plan with cut corners. Facade Features: A large and ornamented door was designed. The building, which shows I. National Architecture features, was purchased and renovated by Akbank in 1946. After the restoration, the ornaments were made simpler and it has a broken roof. There are balconies on the second floor. The plan was preserved by raising the corners by one axis and the windows were simplified. Four carriers are prominent on the façade. The balconies no longer extend outside, but remain inside. Decorations: The structures and ornaments used in the Ottoman period were used on the façade. The decorations are simpler after the renovation compared to the original. The arches in the old structure have been replaced by quadrilateral sections in the new structure. Ulus Post Office (PTT) Building Table 6. Ulus Post Office (PTT) Building (1925) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1925- Vedat Tek / 1974 Renewal Styl International Modern Style Original Function Ankara Post and Telegraph Center Public Building Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has ten floors from the ground up, is based on a square plan. It was demolished in 1974 and a new building was constructed. Facade Features: It has a symmetrical façade with glazed windows on the inside, dividing the building into three, with the carriers visible. The entrance is provided with a three-step white staircase in accordance with the symmetrical layout of the building. The windows are arranged in the form of 6-6-6 so as to remain inside and are clearly separated in the two carrier centers. There are no moldings separating the floors. It is aimed to create a simple facade. Decorations: 2 storey high green rectangular form makes the entrance prominent and the signboards are placed in this form. Wall coverings were made with white composite material at floor height. Table 7. Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School (1872) (Developed by Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1872 - Unknown. Styl Ecolé des Beaux-Arts Original Function Ankara Industrial School School-Education Current Function Plan Features: The building, which originally had two floors from the ground up, was built with a square plan and a courtyard in the center. This planning was done in order to optimize the educational processes of the school and provide the most suitable environment for the students. With three prominent sections, the building was given movement and a symmetrical layout. Facade Features: The building, which has a long facade, has a simple facade in accordance with the architectural understanding of the period. The entrance door is reached by a twelve-step staircase. Decorations: The corner and cut stones (rustika), which contrast the painted façade, and the moldings separating the floors are dark colored. This contrast gives mobility to the facade. Porous stone texture is used on the window edges. Yunus Emre Institute Table 8. Yunus Emre Institute (1928) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect Styl Original Function 1928 – Giulio Mongeri I. National Architecture Chief Directorate of Excise and Monopoly Yunus Emre Institute Current Function Plan Features: In its original form, the building has three storeys from the ground floor and its masses are arranged in L-shape. The entrance is diagonal. The octagonal diagonal elevation on the top floor can be interpreted as a reference to the monument architecture. A lead-covered dome was placed on top, thus giving the appearance of a tower. The basement was planned as a warehouse, cellar and coal cellar. The ground floor was built as sales offices. Facade Features: One of the axes next to the three central parts of the facade facing the street is carried out. The first floor and the other floors are separated from each other by precise lines consisting of moldings. They are supported by stone supports at the bottom and are characterized by extensions formed with hatayi style reliefs at the top. The windows are joined by pilasters extending across the two floors. Other windows are finished with pointed arches. Decorations: The ornamentation is made with Hatayi style reliefs. Geometric patterns, plant patterns, intricate plaster decorations and stone rosettes used in the Ottoman Empire were used. PTT Stamp Museum Table 9. PTT Stamp Museum (1933), (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect Styl Original Function 1933 – Clemens Holzmeister Neo-Classical Emlak Eytam Bank PTT Stamp Museum Current Function Plan Features: The building, which originally had three floors from the ground up, has a rectangular form with a prominent entrance section. Facade Features: As in the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Holzmeister's Neo-Classical influences are observed. Seven axes protrude from the center section in the front. The entrance door is reached by a six-step white marble staircase. On the first floor, the overflow is designed in the form of a balcony. The seven axes are carried by seven columns in the form of a circle. High columns are a style often seen in public buildings. The exterior surface is reinforced concrete. Mostly Ankara stone (andesite) was used in the building. The roof is designed in a sloping shape. Decorations: Iron railings are used on the first floor windows. Stone carvings, decorative ornaments and wooden panels were used. Garanti Bank Table 10. Garanti Bank (1926) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – 1926 – Giulio Mongeri Architect I. National Architectur Styl Ottoman Bank Original Function Garanti Bank Current Function Plan Features: In its original form, the building, which has three floors from the ground, resembles the İş Bank in plan. The plan has the appearance of an isosceles triangle with rounded ends. Facade Features: Although the entrance is on the side and sloping, an attempt was made to create a symmetrical order on the facade. Elements are repeated on both sides of the symmetry axis. There are facade projections with bay windows. It is covered with combed Ankara stone (andesite). Window arrangements are taken from the Ottoman style and placed in a simple style. The first floor windows, enclosed in thin stone frames, have penci arches. The stone flooring used in the basement gives the impression of a carrier. There is only a molding separating the attic from the other floors. Decorations: Honeycomb patterned irons were used inside the arches. There are embroidered rosettes. Inside the arches are decorated with plant patterns and geometric patterns of the Seljuk Period. General Directorate of Foundations Table 11. General Directorate of Foundations (1935) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect Styl 1935 – Sami Arsev Modern Architecture Original Function First Etibank - Bank General Directorate of Foundations Current Function Plan Features: The building, which was originally three storeys from the ground, is in two masses. The front mass consists of a single storey and the rear mass consists of three storeys. These two masses are joined by the front mass in a circular rotation. Facade Features: The entrance is in a recess with rounded corners. Dark colored horizontal stone elements are used. The size of the windows and side balconies give the building the appearance of an apartment. There are no moldings between the floors and it has a simpler appearance. The windows are divided as three-one-three, the entrance is on the left and not in a symmetrical order. On the edges of the windows, a border was turned to cover two floors. The second floor windows are oval shaped and animated with vertical borders. Decorations: Horizontal stone elements, horizontal borders and Ankara stone (andesite) were used. Other exterior surfaces are sprinkled plastered. Ziraat Bank Museum Table 12. Ziraat Bank Museum (1925 - 1929) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – 1925/1929 – Giulio Mongeri Architect I. National Architecture Styl Ziraat Bank Original Function Ziraat Bank Museum Current Function Plan Features: It is built on a rectangular plan. It has three floors starting from the ground floor. It consists of a high floor, a mezzanine and a roof. Additions were made at the rear. Facade Features: The corners are raised to give a tower appearance. Wide eaves are used. Elements of different sizes on the facade are combined in vertical recesses. There are arched windows with different openings on each floor. The entrance door is reached by a staircase with three steps. The prominent entrance door has a vestibule and flat arches and there is a balcony on the upper part. Decorations: It is decorated with stone rosettes, relief Ottoman motifs, balcony railings with geometric patterns carved from marble, column capitals with baklava, and cornices with muqarnas. The upper cover has an iron structure and is decorated with stained glass. The pointed arched arcades have balustrades with Seljuk star motifs. Ziraat Bank, Ulus Branch Table 13. Ziraat Bank, Ulus Branch (1981) (Developed by 1. Author). 1981 Mahmut Tuna Construction and Construction Date – Eng. Investment Inc.Architect International Modern Style Styl Ziraat Bank Original Function Bank Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has three floors from the ground up, is designed in a rectangular plan. Additions were made to the plan at the back by constructing additional buildings. It is connected to the Ziraat Bank Museum on the side with a bridge. A plan was prepared by Giolio Mongeri in the 1930s to turn the building into a garden and then a bank, if needed, on both sides of the building. The entrance is foregrounded and has three floors at the rear. Facade Features: Stone and concrete are generally used on the facade. It has a large and symmetrical facade layout. The entrance sign is vugular and stone pavements are dominant. There are moldings between floors and windows on the facade. Decorations: Vertical stone elements, horizontal borders and Ankara stone were used. Other exterior surfaces are plastered with gray sprinkling. Table 14. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (1931-1933) (Developed by 1. Aut- Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey hor). Construction Date – 1931/1933 – Clemens Holzmeister Architect Neo-Classical Styl Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Original Function Bank Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has five floors from the ground up, was designed to sit on a rectangular floor. After the need, an additional building was constructed at the back of the building. Facade Features: The façade has a symmetrical layout, the monumental entrance is designed, the stone cladding exterior surfaces are planned in the form of simple window rows of equal size and the roof has a hidden structure ending with a thin border. The entrance door is reached by a staircase with seven steps. A wide eaves was built above the entrance and the three middle floors corresponding to it were recessed. This added depth to the building. The carriers were raised three floors and a three-span, two-legged arrangement was created. This feature is frequently seen in public buildings created with the Neo-Classical movement of the 1930s. There is no separating wiping between the floors on the façade. The axes are separated from each other by a strip to increase the vertical effect. The two-storey high overhangs covered with marble in the front recess bring movement to the building. Single guillotine windows are used. Decorations Abundant use of marble is a characteristic of the period. Ankara stone (andesite) was used on the facade. Ulus 100th Year Square Table 15. Ulus 100th Year Square (2024) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect Demolition 2017 /2024 – Ankara Metropolitan Municipality Styl Original Function Modern International Style Ulus Bazaar Square-Public Space Current Function Characteristics: Dating back to the Republican Era, the historic square has undergone changes over the years. The square has become a financial, cultural and commercial center within the political atmosphere. A green area was created for the new square, cafeterias and underground parking lots serve as a solution to the problem. With a total area of 2000 square meters, the square has become the breathing point of the street with its landscape areas. Decorations: No decoration was used. War of Independence Museum Table 16. War of Independence Museum (1915) (Developed by 1. Author). Construction Date – Architect 1915 – Mimar Salim Bey Styl Original Function I. Ulusal Mimarlık Akımı Birinci TBMM Müze – Değişen İşlev Current Function Plan Features: The building, which has two floors from the ground, consists of rooms organized around a courtyard. It reflects the Turkish architectural style. Facade Features: The front façade of the building is characterized by three prominent parts, creating a lively and symmetrical appearance. Since the building is a single-storey building, the front facade was not touched and the entrance was provided from the side facades. Although it is located on a sloping land, it is seen that it is emphasized in a symmetrical order. Ankara stone (andesite) was used on the facade. Arched windows were used, and the molding between the basement and ground floor was made prominent. It contains elements of traditional Ottoman and Republican Period Architecture. The stone flooring used in the basement gives the impression of a carrier. Decorations: The façade reflects the architectural features of the period, especially the star motifs, the arches, the eaves, the areas with tiles in places, except for the crown door and some parts that were arranged later. 4. Findings and Evaluations The oldest dated building on Ankara Atatürk Boulevard is the Ulus Vocational Technical and Anatolian High School, built in 1872. In the years 1920-1930, it is observed that the construction mainly focused on the function of a bank. With 4 buildings between 1930-1940, 1 building between 1950-1960, 1 building between 1980-1990 and 1 square arrangement in 2024, the boulevard witnesses a change of approximately one hundred years (Table 17). Table 2. Years of Construction of Buildings on Ataturk Boulevard (Developed by 1. Author). Years of Construction 1872 1910 – 1920 1920 – 1930 1930 – 1940 1950 – 1960 1980 – 1990 2024 Buildings Ankara Industrie School (Ulus Vocational Technical and Anatolian High School) First Parliament (War of Independence Museum) Türkiye İş Bankası Administration Center (Türkiye İş Bankası Economic Independence Museum) Ankara Victory Monument, Lausanne Palace (Akbank Ulus Branch), PTT Building Chief Directorate of Excise and Monopoly (Yunus Emre Institute), Ottoman Bank (Garanti Bank), Ziraat Bank (Ziraat Bank Museum) Sümerbank (Ankara Social Sciences University) Emlak Eytam Bank (PTT Stamp Museum) First Etibank (General Directorate of Foundations), Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Education (Ulus Business Center) Ziraat Bank Ulus Branch Ulus 100th Year Square İşbank of Turkey Headquarters (İşbank of Turkey of Economic Independence Museum), Sümerbank (Ankara Social Sciences University), Ministry of Education (Ulus Business Inn), Lausanne Palas (Akbank Ulus Branch), Emlak Eytam Bank (PTT Stamp Museum), Ziraat Bank (Ziraat Bank Museum) and First Grand National Assembly of Turkey (War of Independence Museum) have not preserved their functional continuity and serve a different function (Table 18). Table 3. Functional Analysis of Buildings on Atatürk Boulevard (Developed by 1. Author). Original Name İşbank of Turkey, Administrative Center Sümerbank Ankara Victory Monument Original Function Bank Bank Lausanne Palace Ankara Post and Telegraph Center Monument Public Building Hotel Public Building Ankara Industrial School School Ministry of Education Chief Directorate of Excise and Monopoly Emlak Eytam Bank Ottoman Bank First Etibank Public Building Ziraat Bank Ziraat Bank Ulus Branch Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Ulus 100th Year Bazaar First Parliament Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bazaar Parliament Current Name Türkiye İş Bankası Economic Independence Museum Ankara Social Sciences University (ASBU) Ankara Victory Monument Ulus Business Building Akbank Ulus Branch Ulus PTT Building Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School Yunus Emre Institute Current Function Museum University Monument Bazaar Bank Public Building School School PTT Stamp Museum Garanti Bank General Directorate of Foundations Ziraat Bank Museum Ziraat Bank Ulus Branch Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Ulus 100th Year Square War of Independence Museum Museum Bank Administration Museum Bank Bank Public Space Museum Among the buildings on Atatürk Boulevard; Ankara Sanayi Mektebi is an education center and although its name has changed to Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School, it continues to exist as a school. The buildings of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Ziraat Bank, Ottoman Bank and PTT Headquarters are also examples of continuity as they continue to function today. The Ankara Victory Monument is an example of continuity by preserving its location and symbolism (Table 19). Table 4. Identity and Style Analysis of Buildings on Atatürk Boulevard (Developed by 1. Author). Original Building Name (Identity) Architectural Style İş Bank of Turkey Administrative Center (1929) Sümerbank (19371938) I. National Architecture I. National Architecture Original Building Name (Identity) İşbank of Turkey Museum of Economic Independence (2019) Ankara Social Sciences University (2013) Ankara Victory Monument (1927) I. National Architecture Ankara Victory Monument (1927) Ministry of Education (1924) I. National Architecture Ulus Business Center (1952) Lausanne Palace (1924-1928) Ankara Post and Telegraph Center (1925) Ankara Industrial School (1872) I. National Architecture I. National Architecture Akbank Ulus Branch (1946) Ulus PTT Building (1974) Ecolé des Beaux-Arts Directorate of Excise and Monopoly (1928) Emlak ve Eytam Bank (1933) Ottoman Bank (1926) I. National Architecture Neo-Classical Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School (1972) Yunus Emre Institute (2009) PTT Stamp Museum (1980) Garanti Bank (1996) First Etibank (1935) Ziraat Bank (19251929) Ziraat Bank Ulus Branch (1981) Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (1931-1933) Ulus 100th Year Bazaar (1980) First Parliament (1915) I. National Architecture Modern Architecture I. National Architecture International Modern Style Neo-Classical Style International Modern Style I. National Architecture Movement General Directorate of Foundations (1938) Ziraat Bank Museum (2003) Ziraat Bank Ulus Branch (1981) Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (1931-1933) Ulus 100th Year Square (2024) War of Independence Museum (1961) Stylistic Change I. National Architecture I. National Architecture I. National Architecture Modern International Style Neo-Classical Regenaration Ecolé des Beaux-Arts I. National Architecture Neo-Classical I. National Architecture Modern Architecture I. National Architecture International Modern Style Neo-Classical International Modern Style I. National Architecture The use of the buildings on the boulevard by maintaining their original functions or changing their functions shows that it maintains its existence as an important center of urban development, change, transformation and continuity (Figure 4). Figure 4. a) Functional Analysis, b) Identity and Stylistic Analysis of the Buildings Analyzed on Atatürk Boulevard (Developed by 1. Author). 5. Conclusions Atatürk Boulevard was shaped in parallel with the development and modernization of Ankara during the Republican Era. Atatürk Boulevard has also been the financial center of the great urbanization efforts. The buildings on Atatürk Boulevard in Ankara are symbols of Turkey's modernization efforts. The historical and architectural significance of the boulevard comes from the fact that it witnessed the transformation of Turkey during the Republican Era and the development of Ankara as a modern city. Following the Lörcher plan (Cengizkan, 2004), which was the first plan of Ankara in 1924-1925 and many of the envisioned buildings were not realized (Cengizkan, 2004), Atatürk Boulevard was designed by Jansen as the main spine of the city (Yavuz, 1981), and it is seen that main roads, secondary roads, squares and green space arrangements, and functionally; culture-art, finance, administration and education institutions are located together. Thus, diversity and the integrity required for modern life were provided on the boulevard. Architectural plans, projects and competitions show that Atatürk Boulevard was shaped on a state scale and in line with state policy. Some buildings on Atatürk Boulevard have been converted into museums (Emlak Eytam Bank, First Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Türkiye İş Bankası Administration Center, Ziraat Bank), while others have been transformed into different institutions (Lozan Palas, Ministry of Education). Some buildings on or near the boulevard (Bank of Provinces, Belvü Palas, Foundation Houses, Tekel General Directorate Warehouse and Manufacturing Plant) have been demolished and are now lost cultural assets that can only be traced from the literature (Culture Inventory, 2023). Ulus Business Inn is located where Dar-ül Muallim used to be, Melike Hatun Mosque is located where Iller Bank used to be, and the Palace of Justice is located where Tekel General Directorate Warehouse and Manufacturing Plant used to be (Culture Inventory, 2023). Türkiye İş Bankası Economic Independence Museum (Türkiye İş Bankası Administration Center), Ankara University of Social Sciences (Sümerbank), Ankara Victory Monument, Ulus Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School (Ankara Sanayi Mektebi), Yunus Emre Institute (İnhisarlar Tekel Chief Directorate), PTT Stamp Museum (Emlak ve Eytam Bankası), Garanti Bank (Ottoman Bank), General Directorate of Foundations (First Etibank), Ziraat Bank Museum (Ziraat Bank), T. C. Central Bank (Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey), the War of Independence Museum (First Grand National Assembly of Turkey) and many other buildings have been restored in accordance with their original structure, which also provides information about stylistic continuity. The PTT Stamp Museum and the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey were built in the Neo-Classical style, while the other buildings were constructed in the I. National Architecture style. The Neo-Classical style can also be interpreted as an indication that change in society is not so easy and that identity is embraced. With the proclamation of the Republic, especially in a symbolic space such as Atatürk Boulevard, the increasing influence of the I. National Architecture movement is one of the important indicators of change. The buildings constructed on Atatürk Boulevard, especially in the first years of the Republic, were designed in the I. National Architecture to reflect the identity and values of the modern Turkish nation by differentiating from the traditional Ottoman architecture. The main characteristics of this movement include an emphasis on symmetry, simplicity and functionality, while at the same time combining Western Neo-Classical influences with Turkish motifs. The use of Ankara stone as a material, some sections being carried to the outside, symmetrical order, divided facades, Seljuk geometric shapes, plant motifs, wide eaves, Turkish triangle, muqarnas capitals, columns with baklava are seen as the prominent features of the I. National Architectural movement. This is a result of the effort to create a national stylistic understanding. The realization of this stylistic understanding by the state in the Republican Era made Atatürk Boulevard a place of political representation of the period. Ulus Bazaar (Ministry of Education), PTT Headquarters (Ankara Post and Telegraph Center) and Akbank Ulus Branch (Lozan Palas) are buildings that failed to preserve stylistic continuity. Ulus Business Inn, formerly known as Dar'ül Muallim, was rendered useless by a fire in 1947. In 1952, it was reconstructed by Orhan Bozkurt, Orhan Bolak and Gazanfer Beken, whose projects were selected in the Competition for the Design of Ulus Square, in accordance with the international style of the period (symmetrical, flat roof, thin rows of vertical glass windows). Akbank Ulus Branch, formerly known as Lozan Palas (1924), is the other building that was not renovated in accordance with its original structure. Acquired in 1946 by Akbank, the building was renovated from a hotel to a financial center. The building's I. National Architecture exterior appearance was changed, ornaments were removed and it was restored in a simple style. In fact, the building, which is a cultural asset, could not be preserved and it became difficult to see the traces of the architecture of the Republican Period. Therefore, stylistic continuity did not continue. Another building that has been subjected to change without continuity is the PTT Headquarters. Built in 1925 by Vedat Tek in the I. National Architectural style, the building was redesigned in 1974 as a multi-storey building with the functional, symmetrical, artificial, vertical lines used in public buildings of the period. Thus, it is no longer possible to read the traces of the architecture of the Early Republican Period. As a result, through the façade arrangements of buildings that have changed, transformed and survived to the present day or not, and whose traces can only be traced from the literature, the preferences of the society in terms of change, continuity and the search for identity can be determined. Even in cases of sharp changes and transformations, such as revolutions, on the one hand, “what is wanted to be” is reflected, and on the other hand, there is a tendency to be unable or unwilling to break away from traditions. Therefore, Atatürk Boulevard today has the appearance of a living “museum” that is highly instructive. Acknowledgment This paper is derived from Nurşah Karan's master's thesis entitled; “Change, Continuity and Identity in Architecture: The Case of Atatürk Boulevard in Ankara”. The advisor was Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gamze Kaymak Heinz. Referenses: Adam, M. (1985). Ankara'da Kentsel Yaşam. Mimarlık Dergisi, 23(2-3), 28-30. Akçan, E. (2013). Bir cepheyi paylaşmak: Parflömen olarak AKM ve Toplumsal Bellek. Mimarist, vol 13, no. 48, pp. 85-92. Alsaç, Ü. (1976). Türkiye'deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. Aslan, S. ve Alkış, M. (2015). Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Geçişte Türkiye’nin Modernleşme Süreci: Laikleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik İnşası. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 6(1), 18-33. Aydınlı, S. (1992). Mimarlıkta Görsel Analiz. İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul. Bozdoğan, S. (2002). Modernizm ve Ulusun İnşası Erken Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinde Mimari Kültür. Metis Yayınları: İstanbul. Bozdoğan, S. (2009). Unutulmuş Bir Başka Sedad Eldem Çizgisi: Makine Çağına Karşı Lirik Bir Anadolu/Akdeniz Modernizmi. Editörler: Bülent Tanju, Uğur Tanyeli, Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları: İstanbul. Cengizkan A. (2004). Ankara’nın İlk Planı 1924-1925 Lörcher Planı, Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı Yayınları: Ankara. Diktaş, O. (2001). Mimarlık Bilgisi, İdeoloji, Söylem, Eleştiri İlişkisi ve Türkiye Mimarlık Yazınından Örneklerle İncelenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir. Eldem, S.H. (1939). Milli Mimari Meselesi. Arkitekt, 09-10, 220-223. Eldem, S.H. (1940). Yerli Mimariye Doğru. Arkitekt, 3-4, 69-74. Erdönmez, M. E. (2014). Kamusal Alan ve Toplum. Esenler Belediyesi, Esenler Düşünce Merkezi Şehir Yayınları, İstanbul. Erez, H. (2003). Kültür-Mekan Etkileşimine Bağlı Şehirsel Doku Farklılaşmaları: Kumkapı Süleymaniye Örneği. İ.T.Ü Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul. Erkan, Ü. (2019). Pozitivist Ve Liberal Sosyoloji Görüşleri: Ahmet Rıza Ve Sabahattin Bey’in Görüşlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(11), 75-84. Ertuna, Ö. (2004). 1923'ten Bugüne Türkiye Ekonomisi ve 2023'e Doğru Hedefler. MUFAD Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 21, 6-17. Hillier, B., Leaman, A. (1974). How is Design Possible? Journal of Architectural Research and Teaching, 3, 4-11. Karaosmanoğlu, Y. K. (1995). Yaban. İletişim Yayınları: İstanbul. Kayıran, M. and Metintaş, Y. M. (2007). Refik Saydam Hükümetleri Döneminde Türkiye’nin Ekonomi Politikası(1939-1942). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 155-184. Kılınç, G. ve Alkan, M. F. (2023). Modernizmden Postmodernizme Geçiş Sürecinde Kentsel Kimlik ve Mekânın Değişen Anlamı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 104-123. Lefebvre, H. (1995). The Production Of Space. Çev. Donald Nicholson Smith, Oxford, Blackwell. List, F. (1959). Das nationale System der politischen Ökonomie. Kyklos Verlag & Mohr: Basel / Tübingen. Mardin, Ş. (2013). Türk Modernleşmesi. İletişim Yayınları: İstanbul. Parasız, İ. (1998). Türkiye Ekonomisi, 1923’den Günümüze İktisat ve İstikrar. Ezgi Kitabevi: Bursa. Polanyi, K. (2009). Büyük Dönüşüm. Çağımızın Siyasal ve Ekonomik Kökenleri. [The Great Transformation] (Trans. Ayşe Buğra)), İletişim Yayıncılık: İstanbul. Sözen, M. (1984). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları 110: Ankara. Tanyeli, U. (2011). Modernizmin Sınırları ve Mimarlık. Modernizmin Serüveni, 63-71. Tekeli, İ. (1998). Türkiye'de Cumhuriyet Döneminde Kentsel Gelişme ve Kent Planlaması. Tarih Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul. Turan, Ş. (1990). Türk Kültür Tarihi: Türk kültüründen Türkiye Kültürüne ve Evrenselliğe. Bilgi Yayınevi, Ankara. Ulubay S, (2019). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye’sinde ‘Moderni Millileştirme’ Çabasının Sorgulanması. Kent Akademisi, 12 (2): 387- 396. Yavuz F, (1981). Başkent Ankara ve Jansen. O.D.T.Ü Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 51-56. Yazıcı, M. (2013). Toplumsal Değişim ve Sosyal Değerler. Journal of Turkish Studies 8(8): 1489-1489.