Urban Gateway: Just A Symbol, or More? (Reappraising An Old Idea in The Case of Ankara)

Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15. No.
1, 91–122, February 2010
Urban Gateway: Just a Symbol, or More? (Reappraising

an Old Idea in the Case of Ankara)
OLGU ÇALIŞKAN
Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, Tu Delft, Delft, The Netherlands; Department of
City and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, METU, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT Physical planning and design literature is heavily dominated by the

contemporary discourse on ‘urban sprawl’, ‘elusive metropolis’ or ‘edgeless cities’. One
consequence is that many conventional notions of urban form now tend to be considered
Downloaded By: [TÜBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:35 27 January 2010
outmoded for contemporary urban strategies, such as urban gateway. The main aim of this
paper is to elaborate on this view and to explore possibilities for updating the meaning of
the concept in the current urban context. The paper examines the transformative
connotations of the city gate as both artefact and idea. The concept is then related to the
developmental history of Ankara, in order to develop a critical redefinition in a real case.
The case discusses the emerging role of the urban gateway concept as popular discourse for
a ‘radical urbanist’ approach within the capital city of a rapidly transforming country,
Turkey.
The Idea of Gateway in Urban Space

The ‘gate(way)’ concept represents one of the most sophisticated archetypes ever
to be reproduced throughout the different periods of human civilization. The state
of flow is the foundation for the condition of gate-ness. A break in the continuity of
the act of passage constructs the meaning of gate itself. This break occurs as the
individual perceives the experience of going through the passage. Cullen uses the
concepts of ‘here’ and ‘there’ to explain the reason for this perceptual stimulus:
“Man-made enclosure, if only of the simplest kind, divides the environment into
HERE and THERE. On this side of the arch, in Ludlow, we are in the present,
uncomplicated and direct world, our world. The other side is different, having in
some small way a life of its own . . . ” (Cullen, 1998, p. 183). The perceptual
differentiation of ‘here’ and ‘there’ allows some form of meaningful interruption
through ongoing flow within an undefined environment: “ . . . Consequently
instead of shapeless environment, based on the principle of flows, we have an
articulated environment resulting from the break-up of flow into action and rest”
(Cullen, 1998, p. 182).
Although Cullen’s (1998) phenomenological explanation of the concept of
gateway provides a definite idea about the nature of transmission in space, it is not
sufficient to conceive the role of gate within a socio-spatial context. At this point,
Correspondence Address: Olgu Çalişkan, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture,
TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands. Email: o.caliskan@tudelft.nl
1357-4809 Print/1469-9664 Online/10/010091-32 q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13574800903424226
92 O. Çalışkan
the term control (in its basic definition as ‘barrier’) is the key to comprehending the
meaning. At this point, we can conceptualize ‘here’ as a controlled spatial entity,
while the ‘outside’ is equally out of control. This view subsequently leads to the
point of ‘territoriality’. Derived from certain motivations, including the
appropriation of a place and the personalization of an area (Altman, 1975, cited
in Artar, 2000, p. 4), territoriality manifests itself in a variety of levels, ranging
from micro-space (the personal level) to macro-space (urban scale) (Porteus, 1977).
In this sense, the concept of urban gateway can be addressed in symbolic,
psychological and political terms as a macro-level territoriality figure.
From the macro perspective, Deleuze and Guattari detect the role of the State
in the process of territorialization. They argue that the state engages large-scale
projects as spatio-political tactics. It establishes sovereignty through such projects
by controlling the flow of migration within the zone of rights across an entire
‘exterior’. It appropriates the localities that constitute ‘primitive society’, which
are not in close contact with the state at the periphery. The state thus makes itself
recognizable within the limits established by the poles of the striated space,1 and it
imposes its order of reason on space. This process is called the “internalization of
the exterior” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 385– 387), and it is realized mainly by
defining (or redefining) the concepts of flow and gateway in space.
Apart from its spatio-political role in modern society, the gateway concept in
urban space finds its collective meaning in history. Few architectural objects have
been as rich in civic meaning as the city gate. According to Gobel, despite
differences in its functionality through time, the gate has always represented
symbolic power, from the pre-industrial era through all the political, demographic
and technological changes of nation states:
The city gate stood for and before the city, confronting that which was
outside itself, from monarchs and prelates to foreigners and peasants It
served as an instrument of war, justice, commerce, and ceremony. It was
a place of political and economic negotiation, a nexus of worlds—as
any port must be. Frequented by elders, judges, officials, vendors,
pilgrims, refugees, and charlatans, city gates were often centres of
residential neighbourhoods as well. The gate was both edge and centre.
(Gobel, 2000).
In Roman times, the process of defining a settlement boundary and gates by
ploughing was a sacred ritualistic experience, “a holy marriage by which earth
and sky were united”. The pomerium strip of land built within the wall ensured
the location of the gate whenever the plough was raised. Entering through the gate
was a religious practice, representing a contract with those inside the walls
through which the gate led. For this reason, a gate was a complex structure, with a
vault, hinges, panels and threshold under the protection of divinity (Rykwert,
1989, pp. 133 – 139).
Gateway was a structural element in the village settlements of primitive
communities, particularly in African countries, India and Indonesia. The
settlement system was based on the central clustering of small groups with
definite boundaries and entrance points.2 In these communities, gateways were
organized primarily according to religious attitudes (Fraser, 1968, p. 17). The
number and type of settlement doorways in the primitive world was highly
dependent on the control system, defence considerations and human mobility
patterns.
Urban Gateway: Just a Symbol, or More? 93
Figure 1. Janus, the god of all beginnings and openings and the guardian of the Roman gates. Source:
Rykwert (1989, p. 139); http://csrg.cs.memphis.edu.
In pre-modern human settlements, city gates were part of the fortification

walls that shaped the city. Closed/fortified spatiality helped to meet the need for
proximity among independent artisans, thereby improving their ability to serve
dispersed rural settlements. This tendency, which derived from defence and
power incentives, reflects the emergence of the soul of centrality that has
traditionally characterized urban settlements, which were connected to their
surrounding environments through their city gates (Sherlock, 1996, p. 289). Like
the ancient cities, the medieval city of Europe was also known for its city gates.
More than an urban engineering tool, these gates were an elementary factor in the
form of city. Each gate served as a marker of entry to and departure from the city,
and it was mentioned along with the connecting roads from other cities as a
destination point. While fortifications were extended to include the outer
extensions in the unsafe countryside, the city grew within the parallel series of city
walls. The neoclassic city elaborated on this inherited urban structure while
introducing piazzas and boulevards into existing compact surfaces. This urban
condition existed until the emergence of the baroque city, which expanded
through open areas of the countryside (Gallion & Eisner, 1980, pp. 31 – 45).
The most prominent function of the city gate was to facilitate military and
economic protection. Before the modern border definition of nation-states, city
gates served as checkpoints for access to the city and as instruments for customs
collection at financial borders. In the ancient Middle East, a gate formed a type of
centre at the periphery. Judicial authorities or governors would meet at the gates
and markets were often located near them. In Rome, the retained gates were
channelled and regulated incoming traffic to the city at the convergence of
interior streets (Kostof, 1992, pp. 16, 36 – 39). This is consistent with the Deleuzian
description of the gateway as an apparatus used by the state to control the speed
of ‘outsider’ flow (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 385 – 386).
Because of their central value at the periphery, city gates have always been a
point of architectural interest. The triumphal arch became a prominent component
of urban architecture in Europe beginning in the 17th century. When the city walls
94 O. Çalışkan
Figure 2. Five urban gateways located on the fortification walls of the city of Delft (gravure by van
Frans Hogenberg, 1580). One of these gates has been preserved as a townscape element within the inner
city. Source: TU Delft Faculty of Architecture Map Archive (2007); personal archive (2007).
were demolished, the gates were preserved and became monuments within the
extended urban fabric (Kostof, 1992, p. 37)—see Figure 2.
As a social-reformist architect in the pre-revolutionary period of France—the
heritor of the Roman triumphal arch—Claude-Nicolas Ledoux is one of the key
figures in the design of city gates in urban architecture. State control of urban
space played a key role in his ideal social model. For this reason, he assigned
particular importance to the design of city gates the barriéres. In the early 1870s, the
plan of forming a continuous outer wall around the city of Paris designated
Figure 3. The Barrieres. The Parisian city gates of Ledoux—engravings from Gaitte, Recueil. Source:
Vidler (1990, p. 219).
96 O. Çalışkan
45 different points as access locations. The barriéres were designed to maintain a

clear line of sight between city and country (Vidler, 1990, pp. 209 –217). One
original aspect of the plan was that the barriéres represented the idea of the ‘public
sublime’ and the ‘architecture of sublimity’. In their design, Ledoux developed a
distinctive style of grandness and purity, which gave a certain impression of
passage (Vidler, 1990, pp. 147– 149). In this example, the gate made a sensational
impact by signifying the authority of state at the edge of its own territory.
More than a century after Ledoux, the idea of gateway has not lost its original
instrumental socio-spatial basis of existence in today’s urban context, even though
the mode of representation has evolved over time. In an iterative way, gateways
are manifest at physical margins, the boundaries around the space of sovereignty
(Wainwright & Robertson, 2003). The gateway remains closely related to the
notion of territoriality because of its categorical positioning at the boundary, the
limit of the interior. In their account of the social resistance of a local community
toward a state highway project in Minneapolis, Wainwright and Robertson (2003)
define territoriality as the separator of ‘us’ from the ‘others’, extending the notion
beyond spatial organization within a demarcated boundary. In this sense, a

territory is an area of sovereignty, fundamentally coded by the nation-state within
a hegemonic spatial organization. Brenner (1999) provides a similar character-
ization of territoriality in the 20th century: “the notions of state, society, economy,
culture, and community . . . had come to presuppose this territorialization of
social relations within a parcelized, fixed, and essentially timeless geographical
space” (Brenner, 1999, cited in Wainwright & Robertson, 2003, p. 201).
Deleuze and Guattari describe the relationship between the gates of a city and
its political power with reference to Virilio’s (1986) analysis of speed. In this
regard, city gates are defined as “the instruments of such a barrier filtering the
fluidity of the masses, against the penetration of the migratory actors, people,
animals or goods”. In this sense, the state uses gates to compose, recompose,
decompose and transform movement and speed (Virilio, 1986, pp. 12– 13, cited in
Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 386).
The Relevancy of Urban Gateway in Contemporary Urbanism

It is difficult to claim that the urban gateway is currently a prominent design
concept in the discourse and practice of contemporary city planning. Erasing such
a deeply rooted artefact in the production of space and replacing it with another
spatial concept lacking any connotation of ‘managing the movement’ seems
difficult as well, particularly within the current condition of ‘space of flows’. For
this reason, it would be worthwhile to consider the transformation of urban form
with reference to city frontiers, in order to reveal the new form of the gateway in
urban space.
In western societies, the early 1930s represent the initial stage of dependency
on the automobile. This dependency triggered a form of independence in which
human mobility was exempted from fixed routes of previously developed mass-
transit infrastructure. The automobile allowed the flexible mobilization of the
masses in all directions of the geography. The internal-combustion engine rapidly
transformed conventional patterns of mobility and emerging processes of mass
production, resulting in the massive dispersion of urban fabric within a short time.
The automobile served as a centrifugal force in favour of ‘open urbanization’.
This was the prominent dynamic of urban form, which lost its legible boundaries
at the edges (Risse, 1992, p. 2; Bernick & Cervero, 1997, pp. 15– 32).
At the beginning of the 21st century, cities and regions are in a process of
dynamic development and transformation. Nijenhuis (1994) identifies the new
phase as the end of the former opposition between city and land or between centre
and periphery. While walls had been instrumental for obstructing passage and
gates had served as regulators of entry whereby ‘strangers’ were excluded from
the city, emerging socio-political regimes based on information, power, speed and
time were constructed upon the notion of democracy. A new conception of
democracy is being realized according to the principles of an evolving mobility
pattern, in which everything is mobilized: bodies, earth, field of perception. The new
regime is known as ‘dromocratic society’ (Nijenhuis, 1994, p. 16). In most
developing countries, the process is being produced (or reproduced) in the form
of agglomeration within primate mega-cities. In developed cities, the most
common situation involves the conurbation of several metropolises that are
relatively close to each other. In Europe, where there is a powerful trend towards
the formation of large-scale distracted and multi-nodal conurbations, the average

speed of personal transport increased by thirty per cent within the space of 15
years (Ascher, 2002, p. 5). In this condition, the limits and distinctions between the
city and the periphery become unclear. The process, which has been observed
since the mid 1900s, made the control of the city frontier within definite borders
and thresholds a serious concern. Instead of controlled and legible functional
zones and entrance zones, the urban peripheries of the contemporary metropolis
are now characterized by highly dynamic fragmentary development patterns.
The conventional understanding of the urban gateway as a fixed artefact does
seem applicable to the spatial connotations of communication systems and the
distinctive development patterns, which are based on limitless or dynamic urban
forms with no boundaries. If our claim does not rest upon accepting the complete
disappearance of the notion of gateway, we must answer the following question:
Which new forms are urban gateways currently taking, and what forms may they
take in the near future?
As in the beginning of the 20th century, when the city frontier began to
disappear and urban planning emerged as a autonomous discipline apart from the
profession of architecture, contemporary urbanism must sustain its legitimacy,
based on the capability of steering the dynamic boundaries of the cities. The answer
to the question above is therefore closely related to the disciplinary agenda of urban
planning and design. If the “contemporary city does not radiate from the city
[centre] but is formed from the boundary [periphery]” (Nijenhuis, 1994, p. 15), then
planners must define the new border conditions and structure of the flow channels
in contemporary city regions.
Even though it is losing its conventional symbolic meaning and forms, the
urban gateway has yet to be formulated in terms of urban formation. In light of
ongoing trends in metropolitan development, any new definition must be
founded on the concept of ‘threshold’. The concept itself represents a special
phase, in which focalities emerge throughout the flow. Although such focalities
may not take the form of nodes, within areal or regional definitions, they exist
according to the notion of striated space, which is projective and topological. We
therefore prefer to use the term ‘gateway’ rather than ‘gate’ in order to reflect this
broader meaning. There is no artefact within the new content of urban gateway,
but a milieu of spatial performance based on transfer and transmission. The concept
98 O. Çalışkan
of terminal depicts the modal change in flow and has the potential to represent the
emerging dynamic notion of urban gateway.
Such a conceptual framework for urban gateways can be supported by
arguments made by Virilio in an examination of the speed-based transformation of
cities. Virilio asserts, “ . . . despite the wishes of postmodern architects, the city from
here on is deprived of gateway entries; it is because the urban wall has long been
breached by an infinitude of openings and ruptured enclosures” (Virilio, 1991,
p. 384). He calls for the development of a new gateway concept within the milieu of
electronic virtual environment. To Virilio, the question of access to the city
(understood as ‘going into the city’) cannot be resolved by classical understandings
of urban formation. This is because the notion of being inside or outside no
longer has any meaning: “we abide forever within”. In addition, cities are no longer
organized into axial estates along which gates are located (Virilio, 1991,
pp. 382 –383). Virilio does address the airport as “the last gateway to the State”.
This is quite relevant for cities that are developed according to airport-based
strategies in order to connect to global networks.3 As hubs in such networks, high-
tech and high-capacity airports are designed as nodal concentrations around

metropolitan agglomerations and new specialized settlement areas (Conway, 2000,
p. 97). Within this context, international airports represent the most appropriate
option to serve as terminal points. In this regard, they currently function as a new
form of urban gateway. Airports and their interaction with urban bodies currently
signify the new version of the urban problématique of gateway, which are to be
(re)defined and coded by planners and designers.
From Fort to Airport: The Evolution of Urban Gateways in the Case of Ankara
The city of Ankara, the capital of Turkey, and its historical transformation of urban
form provide rich argumentation that can help to clarify the discussion about
changing the typology of urban gateways. With a current population of about four
million, Ankara has experienced a pattern of development quite similar to that of
other European metropolitan cities, albeit by in different phases. Similarities in
characteristics of formation derive from the basic motivations of development,
technological, economic and political factors. A brief history on the development
of the city can reveal the evolution of the urban gateway concept through time in
relation to macro-urban development trends and tendencies.
Gate of a Fortified City: The City Protected

In ancient times, the Royal Road, which led from Susa-Mesopotama to Susa in
Aegean, passed through the city of Ankara. This road was the greatest logistical
artery for armies, merchants and sheer news for ages. Until 270 AD, Ankara had
been an open city. In the days of Roman decline, the city was unable to defend
itself against the Persian influx, and the first ring of city walls was raised (Aktüre,
1984, p. 14). The city was ruled by Byzantium until 1073. The early Arab incur-
sions into Byzantine territory forced people to leave their land and migrate to the
major central Anatolian cities such as Ankyra (Ankara). This increase in
population resulted in the city growing outside the citadel and the erection of
new city walls. In this period, the entrances to the city were defined by cereal
depots, storehouses and public baths. Until the Seljuk era, the city had been on the
route of Christian pilgrims bound for Jerusalem. During the Seljuk period
(between the 11th and 12th centuries), the city remained important as a military
town on the frontier. The city walls were therefore fortified during this period.
The city with its fortification was known as ‘Dar-ül-Hısn’ (Place of Sturdiness)
among the Seljuks (Börtücene & Saǧdiç, 1993, pp. 11– 15; Aktüre, 1984).
In the Ottoman period, the city retained its military significance as a staging post
for the sultans and the imperial army during the eastern expeditions. In the
beginning of the 17th century, when the social uprisings were emerging in Anatolia,
another outer city wall was constructed for defensive purposes. This was the city’s
second response to the ‘uncontrolled outside’. Although there is no specific
information about the gates of the city after the construction of the outer fortification,
city registries do show that there were at least three gates, each of which was defined
by a specialized market place (Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı et al., 1987, pp. 56–60).
In the 18th century, although the city was not threatened from outside, the shift
of main trade routes away from the Anatolian transit ways to the great oceans caused
economic decay. At the end of the 19th century, the city was an undeveloped middle-
Anatolian town. The German travellers C. Humann and O. Puchstein tell that the
outer city walls were being demolished in 1882 (Börtücene & Saǧdiç, 1993).
Train Station: Gateway to the Early Modern Capital of a Nation-State

The development of Ottoman railway system towards the middle of Anatolia
marked a turning point for the city. In 1892, the railway line was extended to
Ankara, making the city a real terminal point (Müderrisoğlu, 1993, p. 27).
Figure 4. Fortified edge of Angora and its periphery. Oil colour on canvas by an anonymous artist in the
18th century. Source: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlıǧı: Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüǧü et al. (1987).
100 O. Çalışkan
Figure 5. The early train station of the city and the connection road to the city centre in the 1920s. Source:
Bort
€ ucene
€ & Saǧdiç (1993).
Although the train station and the city centre were separated by a distance of
only 800 m, they were entirely separate entities. The road connecting the station to
the city centre was narrow, paved with damaged macadam and surrounded by
swamps and agricultural areas.
Despite its off-central positioning at the fringe, the train station became the
new gate to the city. For the first time, an attraction point had been constructed
outside the area of the city walls. Shortly thereafter, new depots were built around
the station, which was to become a regional transfer node for agricultural
production. In those years, the periphery of the city consisted of cemeteries and
swamps (Aktüre, 2001, p. 53; Müderrisoğlu, 1993, p. 27).
The early years of the Turkish Independence War proves the political
importance of the urban periphery and gate. After a series of congresses, Ankara
Figure 6. The city map by Von Vincke (1839) and Ankara in 1924 after the arrival of the train station in
the west of the region (Akture,
€ 1984, p. 29; Gunay,
€ 2005, p. 5).
Figure 7. View from the periphery of the city in the beginning of the 20th century. Source: Bort
€ ucene
€
(1993, p. 64).
was designated as the centre of the war of independence led by M. K. Atatürk, the
founder of modern Turkey, and his revolutionist team in 1920. When they came to
Ankara to coordinate the war, they set up headquarters in the Agriculture School
in the northern entrance of the city.4 The location was both accessible and secure.
Atatürk later transferred his headquarters to another entrance point to the city:
the train station, where the English army officers had previously been located
(Müderrisoğlu, 1993). This indicates the critical political power position of
the station in the attempt to ensure absolute control over the surrounding
geography.
Until that time, the city of Ankara had always shown the characteristics of a
commercial and agricultural town, and the formation of the city’s structure and
the gateways were determined by this identity. The town became a bureaucratic
city following the 1923 Turkish Revolution, when the city developed within a new
structure of access, emerging as the new administrative centre of the young
republic. The communication of the capital city with other Turkish cities was
based prominently upon railway infrastructure. A high-capacity terminal
was therefore required. In 1937, the new terminal was built in the same place.
It welcomed newcomers from other Turkish cities, as well as foreign visitors to the
Figure 8. The new train station built in 1937 and the ‘Station Boulevard’ developed after the republic in
the 1930s. Source: Bort
€ ucene
€ (1993, pp. 27, 29).
state. With its large restaurant, the station soon became a social centre for
bureaucrats, politicians and the social elite. At the same time, the connection
between the station and the city was renewed by building a tree-lined avenue with
a city park alongside it (Börtücene & Saǧdiç, 1993, p. 26). This spatial organization,
İstasyon Caddesi (Station Boulevard), would become a model of urban design for
other Turkish cities with train stations.
The first plan of the city, which was prepared by the German urbanist
H. Jansen in 1932, did not propose the development of the city centre around the
terminal, as in many European cities. This development was due to the direction
of politicians who wanted to develop city apart from its historical core, thereby
creating a new centre (Jansen, 1937). The separation of the train station (as the gate
to the city) from the urban core was quite different from the approach of
traditional European urbanism (Günay, 2005, pp. 63, 75).
Figure 9. The first master plan schema of Ankara by H. Jansen (1937), and the location of the
train station.
Terminal: Gateway to the Growing Motorized City

In the 1950s, almost all Turkish cities entered a new phase, with an emerging
mobility pattern based on the automobile. After the Second World War and with
the aid of the American Marshall Plan, the Turkish central government introduced
a new policy encouraging automobile use and constructing new highways in and
between the cities. As a result, almost all Turkish cities experienced a process of
haphazard fringe development through the motorways. This process paralleled a
new phase of social mobility in Ankara and other Turkish metropolitan cities.
Shortly after becoming the capital, Ankara attracted a flow of rapid migration
from the underdeveloped eastern part of the country. In the late 1940s, peripheral
areas of the city were occupied by squatter areas, giving an original character to
the frontier of the city, which would wait decades for transformation.
Squatter areas were clustered around the eastern, northern and south-
western parts of the city, where the city’s main entrance corridors are located
(Şenyapılı, 1981, p. 170; Yörukhan, 1968). These unauthorized and unplanned
immigrant settlements were built up through the main arteries and crossroads,
which were more accessible and affordable because of their close connection to the
Figure 10. The squatter districts in Ankara on the main outer arteries of the city in the year of 1966
(Yörukhan, 1968).
employment centres for low-income families.5 Because the northern and eastern
entrances of the city were blocked by unauthorized building sites, the gateway
arterials were conceived as the ‘margin’, both physically and socially, in the
late 1970s.
The main structure of the city was shaped by the city’s second master plan in
1957 (Uybadin & Yücel, 1953). In response to the urgent need to control the rapidly
developing city, the plan did not produce a radical response to its unauthorized
development. However, the plan schema did rearrange the transport network and
the structure of the city’s outer connecting roads. This enduring structure is valid
even today. Six connection roads were constructed according to the plan. These
major roads served as the main entrances to the city by automobile. The main
proposal concerning access to the city was based on a central terminal point for
buses, and the need to facilitate fluent, direct and rapid entry to the city by
motorway. The plan considered the new bus terminal as a city gate. In the plan
proposal, new hotel facilities were not located in the city centre, which was
relatively close to the train station. Instead, they were proposed in the area directly
adjacent to the new bus terminal (Uybadin & Yücel, 1953, p. 6). This can be
considered as a modern interpretation of the traditional understanding of city
entrances in Turkey, which had formerly consisted of public baths and caravanserai
(roadhouses).
To manage the increasing traffic volume in the inner cities, early Turkish
planning authorities developed a network system based on ring roads to
bypass the centre. At that time, the new transport system transformed the
notion of the ‘terminal point’ of the city from a symbolic to a functional urban
gateway. Bus terminals shifted the traditional conception of terminal, which
had previously focused on the train stations. Bus terminals became the new
entrance points to the city for newcomers. In the mid 1980s, another terminal
project was placed on the agenda, in response to emerging problems with the
Figure 11. Structure of the city of Ankara in the 1950s, and the six major entrances to the city
(Cengizkan, 2002, p. 199).
old terminal, which was generating significant levels of traffic within

the city’s limited area of enlargement (Ankara Büyük Şehir Belediyesi, 1985,
pp. 28– 30).
The latest intercity bus terminal was constructed according to the winning
design in a competition organized by the metropolitan municipality in 1985.
Although the competition contract made no mention of an urban gateway, the
first-prize project did envisage the terminal as a gate. According to the architect,
the terminal was “a transmission point of the city to be handled. It is a threshold;
it is a gate” (Eşkinat, 1985, p. 57).
The new terminal (AŞTİ) is located at the intersection of the west, north and
south axes. Despite its central location within the city fabric, the terminal is
‘peripheral’ enough to be a gateway. Although it is in the city, it is on the edge.
Access to the terminal is transitive and relatively separated from the ‘urban body’.
Its coverage area makes AŞTİ one of the largest terminals in Turkey. With a daily
service capacity of 125 000 passengers, AŞTİ currently serves as a significant
entrance point to the city for people coming to the city by bus, which remains the
dominant mode of intercity transport in Turkey.
‘Corridor’ as the Gateway of a Planned Automobile City: A Compelled Shift in

Paradigm
In the late 1970s, the third master plan, Ankara 1990, was seen as a way to
transcend the geographic and social thresholds of the overly compact city. The
new master plan introduced a new concept based on the development of corridors
to the west (Ankara Metropoliten Alan Nazım İmar Bürosu, 1977). Since the main
land-use proposals in the plan were consistent with population projections, many
development areas were realized according to the planned corridor extension up
to the mid 1990s. Because the plan lacked design policies, however, the low spatial
quality of the urban image of the planned western corridor was unsatisfactory.
No systemic urban code was offered for the visual character of the axis, which was
the most important western entrance to the city (Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi,
1991, p. 16).
To address this problem, the municipality announced a series of design
competitions for the city entrances (the ‘Beautiful Ankara Project’) almost 10 years
after the plan had been initiated for implementation. Although none of the
selected projects on the city gateway were ever implemented, the projects are
worthy of note in this context, as it represents the first time that a local government
in Turkey had worked with planning and design professionals to consider the
issue of urban gateways systematically. The first design competition, entitled “The
City Entrance Regulation—İstanbul Entrance Project”, was held in 1990. The
competition announcement clearly reflected the new understanding of urban
gateway: “the concept of entrance cannot be reduced to one static point; rather, it
should be coded throughout whole of the corridor” (Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, 1990, cited in Mimarlık, 1990, p. 58). By assigning names to each
entrance corridor, the jury attached specific thematic meanings to the entrances.
The themes, which included nature, human, independence, history, universality,
civilization, industry, technology, culture, art and science, were intended to reflect
the new symbolism of the gates and the abstract notions to be represented by
visual images. The entrance to the city was to be handled as a figure, in a manner
identical to the historical meaning of city gates. The competition emphasized that
Figure 12. AST_I Ankara Intercity Bus Terminal—the model and its bird’s-eye view (Sources: Yılmaz,
2004; GoogleEarth, Image q2007 Digital Globe).
the concept of ‘gateway’ could not be limited to the image of sculptural elements.
It was necessary to conceive it as a dynamic entity symbolizing access to the city
(Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1990, cited in Mimarlık, 1990).
The first-prize project was appreciated for its simple style and the original
character, which lent symbolic significance to the entrance. The synthesis
between verticality and horizontality and its scale provided the figure with the
Figure 13. Location of the intercity bus terminal—AST_I—in the city of Ankara.
capacity to serve as both a node and a district at the same time. Its symbolism
was abstract and contemporary (Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1990, cited in
Mimarlık, 1990).
After the competition, the jury formed the opinion that the Turkish planners
and the Turkish planning system were not quite familiar with the concept of
gateways to a city. For example, Çinici and Demirtaş (1999), whose design
proposal was awarded honourable mention by the jury, speculated about the idea
of a gate nine years after the competition. According to Çinici, the use of the
metaphor of a house to describe a city had given rise to such a concept as the ‘door
to the city’. Nevertheless, the gate problematic cannot be solved with a static
conception of ‘space-dependency’. The concept is no longer dependent on a
specific site. It must reveal the araçsal (the Turkish word for both ‘instrumental’
and ‘vehicular’) essence of the road. Once the road is freed from its araçsal
(i.e. instrumental) nature, it can then evolve into a building (Çinici & Demirtaş,
1999, p. 49).
The second in the series of competitions, which spanned a three-year period,
introduced another concept regarding the main title of city entrance: the spine.
“The Urban Design Competition of the Northern Part of The City Spine” asked
competitors to re-evaluate the concept of gateway with reference to the entire strip
running from the furthest crossroad in the north away from the inner city. The aim
of the competition was to consider the concept of entrance as a continuous section
of the axis as a corridor, rather than as a fixed point. This would ensure a specific
urban identity and environmental quality through the spine by means of a new
image of urban façade. One of the aspects emphasized by the jury was the new vista
points to designate the rural and urban visual corridors of the surrounding
environment using the dynamic character of the terrain (Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, 1991).
Figure 14. Design schemas of the first prize project of the national urban-gateway competition in 1990
by S. Teber and F. Teber (Mimarlık, 1990, 5(6)).
After the final competition in the “Beautiful Ankara Project” series, the jury
made an overall evaluation of their experiences. They indicated that the proposals
had not been of the desired level. The main reason might have been that the
concept of gateway design was a relatively new issue within Turkish urban
planning and architectural practice. The issue had not been conceived properly.
The emphasis on the figurative artefact was a sign that the conception of a
contemporary city gate had been misinterpreted. The main issue was a
comprehensive design approach that involved handling the idea within a broad
framework, rather than to produce an architectural sculpture as the gate
(Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1992, p. 25). In this sense, the perspective of the
competition jury represents an important paradigmatic shift away from the nodal
symbolism, with its single architectural elements, towards the holistic approach
encoding the entire area according to the notion of the urban gateway.
‘Kitsch’ as a Gate: Historicist Search for the Gates of a Dispersed City

Although it was not approved by the ministry for legal-procedural reasons, the
Ankara 2025 Master Plan Scheme reflects the current planning approach to the
development of the capital since the mid-1990s. Extensive peripheral dispersion is
the dominant growth policy envisioned in the plan. This vision was not
constructed upon the binding conditions of actual thresholds, whether functional
in the 1990 Ankara – _Izmir Entrance

Figure 15. The design proposal of C. Çinici and S. Konyalıoglu
Project (http://www.arkitera.com).
or physical. The city structure emerged as the final product of the partial
fulfilment of market demands, which cannot exceed the ‘whole of the fragments’.
Within this framework, it is difficult to formulate a clear conception about the sub-
centres, border condition and segments of development.
The local government, which was the author of the Ankara 2025 plan, has
been governing the city since the 1994 elections.6 Just after the elections, one of the
first controversial decisions of the new conservative mayor concerned the
gateways of the city, which were to be implemented by the previous social
democratic administration. The mayor declared the previous projects invalid and
announced that the new ones would be placed onto the agenda without any
Figure 16. The Master Plan Schema for Ankara 2025, and the proposed built tissue.
Figure 17. The models of the five city gates designed in 1997 (Personal archive, 2006).
design competition or public debate. He then introduced a new city-gate project

designed in 1994 by a commissioned architect: “The Capital Ankara Entrance
Complexes”.
The architectural programme of the new city gates was quite different from
those of the previous projects generated by the competitions. Their style reflected
a clear symbolism. The functional programme (which included a monumental
mosque complex, villas and high-rise housing, an area for hospital, social housing,
dolphinarium and aviary, recreational and sport fields) was not compatible with
the symbolic meaning to be achieved. Unlike the abstract design proposals, which
had been preferred by the jury committee of the City Entrance Competitions
arranged by the previous social-democratic administration, the city gates of the
new municipality were highly stylized. They clearly exposed a certain ideological
aesthetic representation, which was based on the eclecticism of Turkish-Islamic
codes of aesthetics. The most unusual feature was that such a conservative
architectural representation inevitably remained at odds with the real context of a
metropolitan capital of the Republic. Although the projects were not implemented
by the local government in time, they remained as ideological symbols that
Figure 18. The airports serving the city of Ankara: aerial gateways to the city.
declared resistance within the ‘political territory’ of republicans. In this way, the
idea of urban gateway manifested its intrinsic symbolic character signifying a
political discourse for the first time in Turkey.
Airport: Generator of a New Urban Gateway for a Metropolis Trying to Connect

a Global Network
As the capital of Turkey, an emerging economy that has been under the influence
of neo-liberalist discourses based on a fervent desire to integrate into global
markets since the 1980s, Ankara is undergoing a transformative process from
being the capital of a nation-state to becoming an international node within
the global network (Eraydın & Armatlı-Köroĝlu, 2006). This vision emphasises the
importance of the airport as a key factor for the city of Ankara. The first signals of
this transformation can be observed in the sense of paradigmatic shifts in the
notion of urban gateway.
Especially given the intensive bureaucratic and political traffic and the
dominant service sector specialization in Ankara, the city entrance policy is likely
to be revised with regard to the airport issue in the near future. Constructed in
Figure 19. The projects of the national architectural design competition for new international terminal
in 1998—E. Çoban, E. Esirgen, S. Bayrak and A. Yertutan (first prize) and F. Esim, B. _Idil
for Esenboga
€
and H. Ozbay (http://www. arkitera.com).
1955, Esenboğa is the city’s only international airport. At the node of national and
international airway traffic, the airport serves four million people each year. The
fact that eight of the 12 routes in the country currently pass from this airport
clearly illustrates the importance of the Esenboğa airport7 (CP 401 Ankara and
Environs Planning Studio, 2002, p. 511).

In light of the increasing necessity of a new airport, the Turkish General Office
of Airport Management announced an architectural8 design competition in 1998.
This design competition represented a new conception of the entrance point of the
city. In contrast to the bus terminal, the airport was intended as an aesthetically
pure design figure of a ‘gate’.
The Esenboğa Airport and its relation to the city have been gaining in
importance for both central and local government in recent years. The emerging
attention to the airport as the new gateway to the city entered a new phase in 2004.
For the first time, the National Assembly of Turkey approved a law that was
drafted especially for a specific urban project: The Law of Urban Transformation
Project for the Northern Entrance to Ankara (TBMM, 2004).
This law specifies an urban transformation on 3.6 million m2 of urban land
along the Esenboğa Road, the northern axis of the metropolitan city. For years, this
land has been almost completely occupied by squatter areas. Although the
motivation behind the project idea was not stated in the text of the law, the Prime
Minister of Turkey and the Mayor of Ankara have expressed the leading motive of
the project as follows: “ . . . with the project, hoped to be completed within 3 years;
after the demolition of squatter areas on the Esenboğa Road, which is the interface
of Turkey opening to outside, this site will display the contemporary face of the
capital with the recreation areas, commerce centres and luxury housings”
(Büyükşehir Ankara, 2006, 61, p. 4).
The law specifies that the Greater Municipality of Ankara as the sole
authority, which may not be restrained by the other small municipalities that have
legal rights in the area. Additionally, the municipality has been allowed to utilize
the central national budget to finance the project. This gave a clear signal that
the airport was not a local matter, but a national urban project in the sense of the
entrance to the Capital.
At the time the law was passed, there were 6760 unauthorized houses in the
project area. At the end of the project, 12 000 new houses will be built within the
same area, including a 25-storey smart-housing complex in the former squatter zone.
These luxury houses will constitute a kind of gated community for about 32 000 new
residents. The project’s programme also includes a hotel building and a 650 000 m2
Figure 20. The location of airport and the urban project area at the edge of the city. Source: GoogleEarth,
Image q 2006 Digital Globe.
recreation centre (Büyükşehir Ankara, 2005, 36). Since July 2005, the starting date of
the project implementation, 2600 squatter dwellings have been demolished.
Priority has been given to the houses located on the visible outskirts of the site
(Büyükşehir Ankara, 2005, p. 16). According to the plan, the reclaimed valley will
provide a two-sided vista along the entire motorway to the airport. The plan
conceives the whole area as the ‘gate’ to the city, and it aims to transform the old
traditional low-rise fine-grained ‘rurban’ environment into a spectacular, modern
high-rise urban fabric.
Such a transformation is programmed with an implementation process based
on specific consensus between the local government and local people, who are the
de facto owners of the land. The municipality made a contract with the families who
had obtained titles after the state amnesties. According to the contract, shareholders
are to receive a new house according the existing proportion of their land holdings
(Büyükşehir Ankara, 2005, 57, pp. 4– 7). It is unlikely, however, that these families
would be able to afford to live in such a gentrified urban environment in the
near future.
In this phase of the city’s development, for the first time, the idea of gateway
has been conceived as an urban territory with relation to the airport. In this
context, the term ‘territory’ does not refer only to a designed physical entity; it also
refers to a socio-politically controlled unit in Deleuzian term. As a new urban
gateway, the project area is a pure ‘gated’ community, free of squatter settlers
Figure 21. The site plan of the project. Source: Ankara Büyük Şehir Belediyesi (2006).
(the outsiders). The new urban gateway thus serves as an inclusive interface,
transforming the uncontrolled outside (there) into a part of the inside (here) by
means of an urban territorialization operation.
The main incentive behind this radical urban make-over project stems from
an newspaper announcement from 1941: “Due to the arrival of the new Anatolian
Train in Ankara, Abidin Pasha, the city governor, is requiring all houses facing the
railway line to be painted white in order to appear clean” (Tasvir Gazetesi, 11 April
1941, cited in Galanti, 1950, p. 129).
While the state is recoding the entrance of the city with its own programme,
taste and concept of space, it also intends to regulate movement and flow from
outside, throughout the gateway to the centre. While transforming the overall
urban landscape in the area, the government modernized the axis by improving
its line capacity and the quality of its traffic design in order to accelerate the flow
from the gateway along the main spine. In contrast to the Roman case discussed
earlier, the gateway in Ankara has been transformed into a mechanism to
guarantee flow towards the inside, rather than a barrier for filtering outsiders. In
Figure 22. The area before the implementation of the plan (above) and the current condition of the site:
devastated housing district, which was formerly a squatter area (below). Source: Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi (2006).
Deleuzian terms, it remains a state apparatus for composing movement and speed
(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 426). In this case, however, the aim is to improve
access, rather than control access.
It should be also noted that the notion of state is currently much more
relevant within this context. For the first time since the one-party regime of the
Figure 23. Concept designs of the housing and recreation areas within the urban transformation project:
Pure spectacle of the simulated environment. Source: TOBAS (2007).
early republican period, the city of Ankara is being governed by long-serving local
and central authorities that share the same ideology (i.e. neo-liberalist moderate
Islamism). Despite the decentralization process experienced after the 1980s, the
ongoing political coalition of local and central government resulted in a high
degree of de facto centralism in governmental level. Such a trend resulted in a kind
of pure radicalism in urban policy, which was reflected spatially in the notion of
urban gateway in Ankara.
Conclusion
Returning to the argument about the legitimacy of urban planning and design,
which was constructed in the early 20th century, it is not simplistic to assume that
the discipline is likely to be facing another legitimization phase in an era when the
cities are being shaped from outside. Within the prevailing process of reconfiguring
fragmented and multi-nodal urban extensions of the world metropolises, it
becomes impossible to define clear totalities (Pinzon Cortes, 2005), and an old
notion of urbanism is becoming worthy of reconsideration within the new context
of legitimacy: the urban gateway.
The case of Ankara illustrates how the concept of gateway has always been
applicable in different periods, despite its changing functionalities. Because of its
deeply structured and socially constructed political and symbolic meanings, the
idea of gateway has preserved its validity across various spatio-temporal contexts.
One non-durable component of urban history is the form and production mode of
the artefact itself. Formally, the notion of urban gateway has evolved from a
sculptural figure to a kind of a spatial surface entity. If we consider the current
dynamism of contemporary urbanization patterns, which have no robust growth
limits, the new ‘definition’ of the gateway can be better understood. In this way,
the urban gateway of today’s city can no longer be regarded as a gate; it is a
territory, a sub-region or a strip in the name of ‘threshold’. This condition is well
suited to the contemporary dynamism of 21st century cities and their current
tendencies towards outward development.
Similarly, such conditions require an original approach that designates new
gateway formation through much more dynamic and comprehensive planning
and design solutions. The new approach to urban gateways must respond to the
ever-changing nature of flow in space at the macro level. This is because the
transformation of the relational structure of global, national and regional
economies are inevitably structured by the new dominancy of transportation and
communication modes. It directly influences both the nature of flow and the
operation of passage in the broad sense. In this case, although its permeability and
capacity have changed over time, the notion of gateway with reference to the
concepts of controlled opening and entrance remains relevant within the city-
regional scale. Its relevance is ensured by the very basis of the socio-space that
constitutes ‘territoriality’. Without disregarding the influential integrative
diffusion of global network systems through the mobility of people and
commodities, territorial definitions remain valid and determinant within macro-
space. This is the main factor that allows the formation of the limits of interior and
the designation of gateways, even those with a much more elusive character. This
is the historical instrumental condition of the gateway, which demarcates the area
of sovereign authority, the state.
Nevertheless, controlling the area of sovereignty with reference to the idea of
gateway does not necessarily and categorically connote a closed spatial
organization. In the Ankara case, the emerging discourse of urban gateway has
been constructed upon an open rather than a closed spatial system. The new
approach to the urban gateway derives from economic and political priorities,
rather than controlling access and entry. In this context, threshold is an outset
rather than a limiting factor. Within this framework, the urban gateway is
transformed into a kind of interface by returning to the symbolic connotations of
the idea itself. This is especially true for developing semi-peripheral countries that
are compelled to global integration by neo-liberal state policies, as illustrated in
the example of Ankara, the capital of Turkey.
When the state reappraises the idea of urban gateway as a tool for
promoting global integration, significant amounts of capital accumulation can be
directed to the new gateway zones and radical operations for the panoramic
arrangements of cityscape can be initiated. A risky condition is thus embedded
within the emerging notion of the urban gateway. Because the new mode of
relations is performed on higher-level networks, which currently tend to be
either continental or global, the externality of the new version of gateway at the
urban level has a real tendency to be implemented through much more radical
Figure 24. The early results of the image-building process are observed, as desired. British Prime
Minister Blair’s comments on the Esenboga Entrance, published in propaganda bulletin of the
municipality after his visit to Ankara in December 2006: ‘Compliment from Blair: “What has been
done on Esenboga Airport Road and the works throughout the axis prove the rapid change and
development in Turkey”’ (Buy € uk
€ sehir Ankara, 2006, 101; 2006, 109).
spatial transformations than ever before. Once the new functionality of urban
gateways coalesces with its historical symbolism, the spatial impact of the
formation of gateway tends to increase in practice. For developing countries with
a severe political propensity for integrating into the global economy, the course is
experienced by more radical urban approaches, involving large-scale urban
surgeries that change the entire historical context of the periphery, replacing it
with a new one. As observed in the Ankara case, such a gateway formation
synchronically goes on with a new definition of territoriality in the promoted
gateway areas through gentrification processes and aesthetic operations for
image making as well. In the era of the “city of spectacle” (Boyer, 1994), when the
parts of the cities are being transformed into new visual spectacles and
revitalized theatrical decors, this can be quite a common urban condition for
other developing cities. In this sense, the old idea of city gate seems to have
become one of the major aspects to be redefined by contemporary urbanism and
its current basis of legitimacy: as a décor or more.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Inst. Namık Günay Erkal, to whom a draft
version of this paper was submitted as a part of his seminar course at METU,
and to Assistant Professor Dr Anlı Ataöv for their valuable comments on
this paper.
Notes
1. In the sense of ‘flow’, Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) conceptualizations of smooth and striated space
provide another argumentation regarding the idea of a gateway. Within an abstract definition,
‘smooth space’ is a kind of vectorial, projective and topological space, which is “occupied without
being counted”. Unlike striated space, it is not homogenous. It tends to expand in all directions, and
it is produced by local vectorial operations whose orientation and direction vary endlessly. In
contrast, ‘striated space’ signifies a metric space that must be “counted in order to be occupied”
(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 474–500).
2. For example, the Bushmen, who once inhabited eastern Africa, oriented all of the entrances to their
barracks and settlements toward the east. They believed that the supreme god lives in the east and
that “the god of initiation” rite comes from this direction. In contrast the location of entrances to the
camp and the huts of the Mbuti pygmies in the Congo signified social harmony and group cohesion
(Fraser, 1968, p. 17).
3. For further information about the importance of airports in the development strategies of
contemporary urban regions, see Batten (1995).
4. This school could be the monastery that is quoted in the memoirs of the Polish traveller Simenon.
According to this account, it was located a quarter mile away from the city centre (Müderrisoğlu,
1993, pp. 8– 9). This site is known as a ‘sanatorium’ today.
5. This is actually a basic feature of the physical formation of underdeveloped metropolises that
develop haphazardly through their traffic corridors (see Kıray, 1998).

6. After the local elections of 1994, the representatives of the conservative party replaced the social-
democratic governments in the metropolitan cities throughout Turkey. One of these cities was
Ankara where the neo-conservative politician İ. M. Gökçek became the new mayor of the
capital.
7. After the introduction of the new terminal in 2006, the service capacity of Esenboğa Airport was
increased to 10 million passengers each year. See Cumhuriyet, Esenboğa Havalimanı Açılıyor,
12 October 2006.
8. The recreation area will include an artificial lake, a reception hall for foreign visitors (in Ottoman
architectural style), the largest conference centre in Anatolia, restaurants and fast-food courts,
centres for women and the elderly, hobby gardens and two hotels, one of which will be in the form
of a huge Boeing aircraft (Öztürk interview, 2006).
References
Aktüre, S. (1984) 16. Yüzyıl Öncesi Ankara’sı Üzerine Bilinenler, in Tarih İçinde Ankara: Eylül 1981
Seminer Bildirileri (Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi).
Aktüre, S. (2001) 1830’dan 1930’a Ankara’da Günlük Yaşam, in: Y. Yavuz (Ed.) Tarih İçinde Ankara II
(Ankara: ODTÜ, Ankaralılar Vakfı, Ankara Sanayi Odası, Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı).
Altman, I. (1975) The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding
(California, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company).
Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (1985) Şehirlerarası Otobüs Terminali Proje Yarışması Şartnamesi (Ankara:
Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (1991) Güzel Ankara Projesi Kent Omurgası Kuzey Bölümü Kentsel Tasarım
Yarışması (Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (1992) Güzel Ankara Projesi Kent Girişleri Düzenlemesi İzmir Girişi
Yarışması (Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (2006) Kuzey Ankara Girişi Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesl, slide presentation
(Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Ankara Metropoliten Alan Nazım İmar Bürosu (1977) Ankara Nazım Plan Şeması Raporu (Ankara:
Yüksek Teknik Öğretmen Okulu Matbaa Atelyesi).
Artar, N. (2000) City gates: inside and outside, unpublished MSc Thesis (Ankara: Middle East Technical
University, Department of City and Regional Planning).
Ascher, F. (2002) The third urban revolution of modernity, Urban Planning Forum, no. 141, pp. 20–24.
Batten, D. F. (1995) Network cities: creative urban agglomerations for the 21st century, Urban Studies,
32, pp. 313–327.
Bernick, M. & Cervero, R. (1997) Transit Villages in the 21st Century (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Börtücene, D. & Saǧdiç, O. (1993) Bir zamanlar Ankara [Once upon a Time in Ankara] (Ankara: Ankara
Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Boyer, M. C. (1994) The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments
(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
Brenner, N. (1999) Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization,
Theory and Society, 28(1), pp. 39–78.
Büyükşehir Ankara (The Weekly Bulletin of the Municipality of Greater Ankara) (2005, 2006) volumes 36,
57, 60, 61, 101 and 109.
Cengizkan, A. (2002) Bağ Evi’nden Villa’ya: Ankara Keçiören Bağ Evleri ve Kent Konutu Tipolojisinde
Dönüşüm, in: A. Cengizkan (Ed.) Modernin Saati (İstanbul: Boyut Yayınlar).
Conway, M. (2000) The supercities of the future, domus M, 7, pp. 97–98.
CP 401 Ankara and Environs Planning Studio (2002) Analysis Report, Unpublished report, METU:
Department of City and Regional Planning, Ankara.
Cullen, G. (1998) The Concise Townscape (Oxford: Architectural Press).
Çinici, C. & Demirtaş, A. (1999) Şehri Yeni’den Kurmak, in: Anytime, konferans bildirileri kitabı
(Ankara: Mimarlar Derneği).
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press).
Eraydın, A. & Armatlı-Köroğlu, B. (2006) Ankara’nın Yeni Gündemi: Ulus Devletin Başkentliğinden
Küresel Ekonominin Düğüm Noktası Olmaya Uzanan Yapısal Dönüşüm Çabaları, in: T. Şenyapılı
(Ed.) Cumhuriyertin Ankara’sı (Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık Kültür Yayınları Dizisi).
Eşkinat, D. (1985) Ankara Şehirlerarası Otobüs Terminali, Mimarlık, 85(2), pp. 56–57.
Fraser, D. (1968) Village Planning in the Primitive World (New York: George Braziller).
Galanti, A. (1950) Ankara Tarihi (İstanbul: Tan Matbaası).
Gallion, A. B. & Eisner, S. (1980) The Urban Pattern: City Planning and Design (New York: D. Van
Nostrand).
Gobel, D. W. (2000) The City Gate: Negotiation and Nexus. Available at http://eauh2000.tu-berlin.de/
sessions/special/sp_9.html (accessed January 2006).
Günay, B. (2005) Ankara Çekirdek Alaninin Oluşumu Ve 1990 Nazim Plani Hakkinda Bir
Değerlendirme, in: T. Şenyapılı (Ed.) Cumhuriyertin Ankara’sı (Ankara ODTÜ Yayıncılık Kültür
Yaınları Dizisi).
Jansen, H. (1937) Ankara İmar Planı (İstanbul: Alaeddin Kıral Basımevi).
Kıray, M. (1998) Azgelişmiş ülkelerde metroplitenleşme süreçleri (Metropolitanization processes in
underdeveloped countries), in: Y. Sey (Ed.) 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık (İstanbul: Türk Tarih
Kurumu ve Türkiye İş Bankası Ortak Yayını), pp. 41–64.
Kostof, S. (1992) The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History (London: Bullfinch
Press).
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlıǧı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüǧü & Altındaǧ Belediyesi (1987)
Ankara Kalesi Koruma Geliştirme İmar Planı Projesi [Improvement and Restoring Project of Ankara
Castle], A. Dinçer & S. Ayan (Eds) (Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaacılık Sanayii A Ş).
Mimarlık, Dergisi (1990) Ankara Büyük Şehir Belediyesi, ‘Güzel ankara’ projesi-kent girişleri
düzenlemesi, İstanbul girişi proje yarışması, 5(6), pp. 58–63.
Müderrisoğlu, A. (1993) Kurtuluş Savaşı’nda Ankara (Ankara: Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi).
Nijenhuis, W. (1994) City frontiers and their disappearance, AD, 64(3/4), pp. 12–17.
Pinzon Cortes, C. (2005) Urban form in the metapolis, in: A. Nes (Ed.) 5th International Space Syntax
Symposium, pp. 1–6 (Amsterdam: Techne Press).
Porteus, J. D. (1977) Environment and Behavior: Planning and Everyday Urban Life (Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley).
Risse, E. M. (1992) The American Settlement Pattern of the 21st Century: Where Are the “Sub”urbs Going?
Available at www.smartgrowth.org/library/risse.html (accessed January 2006).
Rykwert, J. (1989) The Idea of Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Şenyapılı, T. (1981) Gecekondu ‘Çevre’ İşçilerin Mekanı (Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi).
Sherlock, H. (1996) Repairing our much abused cities: the way to sustainable living, in: M. Jenks,
E. Burton & K. Williams (Eds) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (London: E & FN Spon).
TBMM (2004) Kuzey Ankara Girişi Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesi Kanunu. Available at http://www.tbmm.gov.
tr.kanunlar_k5104_html.htm (accessed January 2006).
TOBAŞ (2007) Website, available at: http://www.tobas.com.tr/index.asp (accessed May 2008).
Uybadin, R. & Yücel, N. (1953) Ankara İmar Planı İzah Notu (Ankara: Şehri İmar Komisyonu).
Vidler, A. (1990) Claude-Nicolas Ledoux: Architecture and Social Reform at the End of the Ancien Régime
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Virilio, P. (1986) Speed and Politics, M. Polizzoti (Trans.) (New York: Semiotext[e]).
Virilio, P. (1991) ‘The Overexposed City’ in The Lost Dimension (New York: Semiotext[e]).
Wainwright, J. & Robertson, M. (2003) Territorialization, science and the colonial state the case of
Highway 55 in Minnesota, Cultural Geographies, 2003(10), pp. 196–217.
Yılmaz, Z. Ö. (2004) Yarışmalar Dizini 1930–2004 (Ankara: Mimarlar Odası Genel Merkezi ve TMOBB
Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi).
Yörukhan, T. (1968) Gecekondular ve Gecekondu Bölgelerinin Sosyo-Kültürel Özellikleri (Ankara: İmar ve
İskân Bakanlıǧı).
Interview
Öztürk, F. (2006) Personal interview at the project coordination centre on 7 January 2006, Ankara.
Websites
http://www.arkitera.com
http://www.tobas.com.tr
http://maps.google.com

Urban Gateway: Just A Symbol, or More? (Reappraising An Old Idea in The Case of Ankara)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Urban Gateway: Just A Symbol, or More? (Reappraising An Old Idea in The Case of Ankara)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15. No.

1, 91–122, February 2010

Urban Gateway: Just a Symbol, or More? (Reappraising

ABSTRACT Physical planning and design literature is heavily dominated by the

The Idea of Gateway in Urban Space

1357-4809 Print/1469-9664 Online/10/010091-32 q 2010 Taylor & Francis

In pre-modern human settlements, city gates were part of the fortification

45 different points as access locations. The barriéres were designed to maintain a

beyond spatial organization within a demarcated boundary. In this sense, a

The Relevancy of Urban Gateway in Contemporary Urbanism

the formation of large-scale distracted and multi-nodal conurbations, the average

tech and high-capacity airports are designed as nodal concentrations around

Gate of a Fortified City: The City Protected

Train Station: Gateway to the Early Modern Capital of a Nation-State

Terminal: Gateway to the Growing Motorized City

old terminal, which was generating significant levels of traffic within

dominant mode of intercity transport in Turkey.

‘Corridor’ as the Gateway of a Planned Automobile City: A Compelled Shift in

‘Kitsch’ as a Gate: Historicist Search for the Gates of a Dispersed City

in the 1990 Ankara – _Izmir Entrance

design competition or public debate. He then introduced a new city-gate project

Airport: Generator of a New Urban Gateway for a Metropolis Trying to Connect

Environs Planning Studio, 2002, p. 511).

develop haphazardly through their traffic corridors (see Kıray, 1998).

S-ar putea să vă placă și