When is architecture care? When is it encroachment? When is it temporary? When, or how, does it become permanent? When is it solemn, and when, is hope? The threshold between these transformations is arguably sparse, even abstract perhaps, and definitely liminal, undefined in a singular state. In the previous enquiry, along temporal lines, the threshold presented itself as a crucial moment in the present bifurcating immediacy along the rather immediate past and the future through ‘before’ and ‘after’ imagery. Agencies were examined, and the viewer’s gaze was called into question. The same threshold, when discussed along spatial lines, while serving a metamorphic purpose, more often than not points to architectural ‘wealth’ that is more public than private, more a part of common than personal reserve. On a more poignant, affecting scale though, one that is built on personal experience—like the lived reality of the people of Hatay—the same threshold is elastic and gravely expanded. It is the wistful gestation that manifests architecture and wills it into concrete existence, measured in (partly) time, resources—both human and economic—and even tangible lives. The slowness of architecture is violence itself. That affecting thought and the expansion of the defining threshold along spatial and humane lines is what drives the second chapter in this two-part enquiry. 

Now, by shifting the lens of the enquiry—from an epistemological one to a mode of questioning that is dialogical—the idea is also to shift agency, accountability and the gaze with which the reconstruction efforts at Hatay, helmed by the Türkiye Design Council and Foster + Partners, along with pilot projects by the larger TTV Hatay Design and Planning Collaboration Group are examined. The top-down point of view afforded by satellite imagery remains a potent signifier of change for multiple ‘before’ and ‘after’ avenues. But what drives, what catalyses that change on the ground? The answer to that question develops along multifarious directions, albeit several of them converge at and diverge from ‘units’ composed of singular or multiple intertwined networks of humans – individuals, families, clusters, communities, neighbourhoods, districts and so on. While the human occupies but a granular presence in aerial ‘before’ and ‘after’ views, often drawn up to assess impacts over extended periods or geographies, each of the ‘units’ on the ground mobilises to power the next. This staidly horizontal point of view aspires to supersede a fundamental architectural folly in that way, that of the grandest of masterplans being orchestrated from the skies instead of the ground. The text above also essentially doubles up and back on theorising solidarity across all levels as a basal means for any kind of reparations.

The inversion of that gaze and its propagation along the horizontal plane also implies that the perspective is multiplied manifold. What was a unidirectional relationship between a single viewer and invisible ground entities may now be perceived (like solidarity) to be multimodal and multidirectional, with both the gazer and gazed shapeshifting continually, essentially negating its often perceivably harsh intensity. In the case of Hatay and the rebuilding efforts in tow, that manifests through the multiple stakeholders responsible for designing and enacting the vision for the rebuilding and eventual prosperity of the area, envisaged to take place over decades altogether. For instance, the consortium of architects and planners that will be carrying out chief works for the masterplan over the next few years comprises over 20 practices—most of them local, a handful from Istanbul, and fewer international ones—working closely with each other to deliver a more or less cohesive vision. International practice Foster + Partners, enlisted for their larger vision on the master plan, are operating in close collaboration with Buro Happold for the structural integrity of future settlements and MIC-HUB for mobility planning. Along similar lines, the consortium has come up with its vision for the masterplan after being in extensive consultation with the local people and communities, many of whom may not even use the ‘delivered’ architecture the way it is currently intended. Solidarity, in that way, is not just multidirectional, but also adamantly exceeding the individual and the immediate, even if the need that beckons it is exactly that.

An NGO like the Türkiye Design Council being at several of the intersections of these intertwined networks and shared solidarities is both essential and causal. Acting as both facilitators as well as mobilisers for works of this nature and scale, the TTV faces immense choices and questions, along with the weight of innumerable expectations, voices and aspirations that they carry at the helm of the revitalisation of Hatay. Interestingly, several of these questions tend to dwell on the social responsibility of the initiative, while the primary need for refuge for tens of thousands of people persists. The reflections above, flawed, fluid and transversal as they may be, are both primers to and derivations from the conversations that follow – the dialogic part of this parable as suggested. Over months since my visit to Hatay, these conversations with chief stakeholders from Türkiye Design Council and Foster + Partners including Mehmet Kalyoncu, Founder and the Chairman of Türkiye Design Council, Bünyamin Derman, Founder at DB Architects, Bruno Moser, Senior Partner and Head of Urban Design at Foster + Partners and Nicola Scaranaro, Partner at the globally renowned firm, have conspired over disparate pockets over months; gestated, festered, lingered and finally exchanged in part over email, in-person and over more casual chats, the conversations set the stage for what is to come along with a solemn reflection of what was.

Anmol Ahuja: There is a lot of heft associated with a project of this nature - stemming from the solemn and tragic nature of the earthquake. As was pressed on during the presentations, it is quite literally the process of rebuilding lives. How would you say that heft influenced your decision-making and process to arrive at the masterplan?

Mehmet Kalyoncu and Bünyamin Derman: Our approach is significantly influenced by the scale of the earthquake's impact, leading to a focus on safety, diversity, understanding of culture, long-term viability and sensitivity. Our vision focuses on considerable emphasis on seismic-resistant designs, psychological support and community engagement. It respects heritage with adaptive redevelopment and historical conservation. We ensure an extensive recovery by engaging the support of multidisciplinary consultants and urging NGOs, central administrations and public opinion platforms. This master plan aims to empower individuals to heal the region and establish it as a resilient, vibrant community for the years to come.

Anmol: A term that really intrigued me during your presentations and used quite often, was "opportunity". How would you say the proposals toed this line between the "opportunity" to rebuild Hatay and addressing its faults and perceived urban failures, while also rebuilding to secure the futures of Hatay's people?

Mehmet and Bünyamin: The proposals balanced the "opportunity" to revive Hatay by addressing its faults and failures while securing the future for its people. We considered the earthquake recovery as an opportunity to strengthen infrastructure, make improvements for earlier urban planning inaccuracies and integrate resilient, environmentally conscious designs. We put equal weight on the community's immediate needs and prospective objectives, emphasising matters like safety, heritage preservation and economic growth. By recognising past mistakes and designing for a sustainable future, this strategy aimed to establish a city capable of not only bouncing back from difficulties but also representing an indicator of positive, lasting improvements.

Anmol: There is a strong focus on community engagement and rebuilding "lives" instead of just the city and its buildings. How would you say the designs come to reflect that in more spiritual terms (apart from the physical creation of public squares, courtyards, etc)?

Mehmet and Bünyamin: By incorporating intellectual and social elements, the designs intend to revive not only the actual city but also the community's personality. This involves safeguarding a legacy, fostering reflecting areas and encouraging traditions of culture. Participation of the community in the design process ensures that moral necessities are fulfilled, while representations of resilience and natural elements contribute to an empathetic environment. Multipurpose hubs, educational facilities and recreational areas provide possibilities for contemplation, growth and engagement. These endeavours foster a sense of belonging, resilience and hope for the future, assuring that the recovered city is a place where people can thrive.

Anmol: The need for an urban renewal project of this nature is perhaps amongst the most urgent in Hatay today than elsewhere in the world. It would be useful to know how you are mobilising to meet the current targets and timelines?

Mehmet: We united actively to meet Hatay's pressing urban regeneration requirements. From the first day, developing local capacity was one of the most important targets for us because we knew rebuilding would take years and the people of Hatay should be able to lead the process in the future. That is why collaboration with local NGOs and architects was essential and this enabled us to mobilise fast. A multi-disciplinary task force and public-NGO's partnerships secure necessary funding and expertise. Community involvement through meetings and surveys ensures resident needs are central to the plan. Our local office serves as a space for local architects and planners, but it also became a community centre. Regular progress reviews and adaptive strategies ensure we stay on track. Transparent communication keeps the public informed and engaged, ensuring a resilient, thriving future for Hatay.

Anmol: Could you also perhaps shed light on the role of bureaucracy, like liaising with government bodies, statutory permissions, etc. in making such projects a reality? Any particular roadblocks that you can recount?

Mehmet: Early engagement with authorities and participants, direct communication and adaptability to regulatory changes are essential. I think our success lies in the reasons that we collaborated with government bodies as real partners rather than seeing them as a sort of “client”. We asked the right questions at the right time so that decisions were faster. We wanted to understand their goals and made sure that they were not facing problems achieving them and our understanding of the problem made it possible for them to understand our initiative, thus supporting us. By encouraging collaboration and proactively addressing issues, projects can overcome barriers and achieve goals. This approach assures efficient implementation, complying with regulations and, eventually, the successful realisation of significant urban revitalisation efforts.

Anmol: Apart from the master planning and overall urban design, you have also divided your intervention into distinct urban blocks. To me, it speaks to representation, a local spirit, shared responsibility and division of labour. What are your thoughts on this?

Bünyamin: The decision of organising the urban intervention into unique urban blocks is centred on a variety of strategic ideas that aim to enhance the neighbourhood’s functionality along with community togetherness. By fragmenting the intervention into blocks, each block could be improved according to the unique requirements and preferences of different demographic groups in the community. This ensures that our design is welcoming and responsive to the diverse needs of inhabitants and stakeholders.

We encourage the growth of a sense of community. Each urban block is intended to represent and embrace its own unique identity, culture and heritage of its surroundings. This approach not only preserves local individuality but also fosters a sense of belonging among residents. Dividing our intervention into distinct urban blocks enables us to establish an integrated and inclusive urban design that respects the regional context, inspires community interaction and improves practicality for current as well as potential individuals. It is an overall plan that balances creativity and functionality, to accomplish long-term sustainability and strengthen the community's quality of life.

Anmol: Quite a sizeable bit of the master plan involves housing. Is the impetus simply on rehousing the current displaced population, or also to attract people from other cities and perhaps investment? Seeing as housing (or the lack of it) is a major global challenge, have you charted out a vision for the kind of housing you wish to have in place?

Bünyamin: The primary focus of the masterplan for housing is to address the urgent need for rehousing the current displaced population. The immediate priority remains accommodating and supporting the existing population through thoughtful housing initiatives. These initiatives include integrating green spaces to enhance the quality of life and promote environmental sustainability within the community. However, the master plan also considers broader objectives beyond rehousing. It involves planning for a variety of housing types to cater to different socioeconomic groups and needs. The master plan aims to foster a vibrant and sustainable community where residents can live, work and thrive. This approach not only addresses the immediate housing crisis but also lays the foundation for long-term urban development that is resilient and equitable.

Anmol: Something I found interesting in your presentation was how you used the surviving structures as a starting point for where we go next from here. Could you tell me what kind of sociological imprint would you draw from the surviving structures, for planning for the future in a way?

Bruno Moser: I think there is a sort of seismic question which we're not experts for. Buro Happold, who is working with us, did an analysis and they were looking at how different buildings perform in earthquakes. In terms of the memory however, I think it was incredibly important given the scale of the destruction that happened that whatever piece you could salvage would be celebrated again, as a memory of what was there once. And even if you'd fly over the area, you won’t necessarily see the same roads anymore, but I think we're very keen to bring these patterns and these scales. I think that's what people will ultimately remember of the place.

Nicola Scaranaro: As we said before, the engagement with the stakeholders was fundamental at the beginning of the process. That was done digitally through our colleagues and our local architects who did interviews. Through that, we learned we could map the experience of the city following some key findings. So it was immediately important for us to preserve that - the structure of the city.

There were also these secondary elements, pedestal elements, spaces almost, that we would usually define as residual within the building, which we wanted to preserve. That led to a little pocket park, a little space. We wanted to keep all these elements so that people would come back to the city and recognise a kind of familiarity there. In the boulevards too, it's a sequence of spaces which we learn about—and how they work, anecdotal details—like how you would always find a baker and a butcher next to each other because they shared the same oven. So, as you start designing your boulevard, you also have to design spaces for retail. They follow the same scale. And if you do that, people will find familiarity in the city. The team did a lot of work learning from the past, benchmarking against what was done well and not so well in the past. There were some cases, around 50 years old, where we were able to go back to see what happened in Tempe, Sicily, in the village areas, where people decided to start as a tabula rasa. They moved the new town to the opposite side of the crest of the hill. What it did was that it monumentalised the whole town as a memorial to the people who lost their lives. Years later, if you speak to the people growing up there, they stated they felt like immigrants only a few kilometres from their homes. So for us, it was a clear message coming through, both from the local stakeholders and the case studies we led, that the memory of the city itself was a key element.

Bruno: I think it's also an incredibly complex process. Whatever we draw up isn't hopefully what's going to be built. So, as the city gets built back, with every, block or with every neighbourhood that you build, I think this process has to continue. Who are the people who are going to be there? What are their needs, etc? So I’d say it's really a master plan. It's a high-level, long-term vision and a blueprint of where we want to go. As you build it out, I think this engagement will become an ongoing process for the next 10 years.

Also read - Part One: An Instigation

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of STIR or its editors.)