The HISTORY OF THE hans & bvh
HANS are particular monuments designated for trade and commerce, and have their own pattern of historical development and aesthetic form. They may be divided to two basic types, the caravanserais for lodging on long distance trade routes, and the city hans for the business of the city itself. The city hans can be classified as a- with one courtyard with adjacent stables; b- with lodging and a courtyard with stables; c- hans for commerce as mostly founded in Istanbul.
Hans built in Istanbul after the city was conquered by the Turks in 1453 had a second courtyard, basements for the stables, and mosques which are characteristics distinct from the Selcuk era hans. In 17th century a third courtyard, in the 18th century a third floor were often added. With changing forms of commerce during the 19th century, the architecture also changed and arcades were built. The historical hans in Istanbul were mostly built to support the operations of the social institutions around the mosques for education and welfare. However, after the 17th century, it is possible to find independently built structures as well.
Today, the Han District is still a business district, with condensed activities of trade and small scale production. The overload of the area for these functions, coupled with tourism hinder aims to preserve the area as historical heritage. New plans are sought to remove production and whole-sale trade from the area and to open space for mixed-use development including residence, plans which are contested on legal and historical reasons.
Buyuk Valide Han stands in the Historical District of Istanbul, in the area where monumental hans are concentrated. The area is known as the Hans’ District, surrounded by Cemberlitas, Eminonu and Beyazit and is also known as the Mercan Mahallesi, the amber neighborhood (two alternative sources for the name is offered: one, amber works took place in this area, two, a renown Mercan Aga person resided here). The monument was built in 1651 by Kosem Mahpeyker Valide Sultan (the mother of sultans Murat IVand Ibrahim) to support the endowment she built in Uskudar, the Cinili Camii Kulliyesi. It is considered first of its kind by having three courtyards, with 153 cells in the first and second courtyards and 57 in the third. The section of the building to the side of the third courtyard is also known as the Kucuk Han (the small han) or as the Sagir Han. On the Northeast corner it is joined to the tower which is considered to be of Byzantine origin, measured 12 by 12 meters in widths and 27 meters in original height. Buyuk Valide Han is a city han. With two floors and many cells, it has provided for residential rooms as well as work rooms and, historically, stables area. According to Resat Ekrem Kocu’s Encyclopedia of Istanbul, a significant part of the Sagir Han collapsed first in August 1909 and again in 21 March 1926. However, it has survived until today by way of ad hoc additions and repairs.
In 1951, with the establishment of a higher council for overseeing the sites and monuments of historical value, Buyuk Valide Han was put under protection. The monument was designated an historical heritage site in 10.04.1982. In spite of all efforts, the additions to the site and alterations in the original plan to open space for new uses were not controlled. No major restoration has taken place to this day. Although dwindling in numbers, commerce and trade still take place in this location.
Boston Parks commissioner Antonia Pollak suggested last week that large grass-trampling gatherings should no longer be allowed on Boston Common, but should instead be held on the concrete-clad City Hall Plaza.
This came during a public hearing March 19, the first for the newly instated Special Committee on Boston Common, composed of City Councilors Mike Ross, Bill Linehan and Sal LaMattina.
The committee also discussed other issues like reducing property crimes and increasing drug arrests. Councilor Ross suggested commercial revenue could increase for abutting business with a lift on an alcohol prohibition placed on the area.
The proposed regulation of use of the Common, however, was a prominent issue discussed in local media, where city park officials and the Special Committee on Boston Common were urged to preserve the Common as a venue for freedom of expression and protest, for which it has been historically used.
Martin Luther King Jr. made a famous speech on the Common in 1965 after he led 22,000 people to the green in a rally starting in Roxbury. In the '60s, the Vietnam War drew tens of thousands out to demonstrate. Last year, the public grounds were host to scores of Darfur activists and antiwar protesters.
But Parks Department officials were quick to clarify claims that civil liberties would be stifled.
"This has nothing to do with free speech or antiwar protesters," Pollak said in an e-mail to The News. "In fact, there is an area specifically zoned for that purpose below the State House that requires no permit. That is also the most popular location for these groups due to its proximity to the State House. In fact, there were two rallies there this week, one both pro and con regarding casinos."
Unless the organizers of one of these events want to bring heavy staging and machinery onto the Common they will not be affected, she said.
At the meeting, the committee heard testimony from residents of the area who mentioned "concert-like" events such as Hempfest, the gay pride celebration and Shakespeare on the Common that brought in noise, litter and destroyed theOne man, who has lived on the corner of Beacon Hill and Charles Street for 20 years and is a member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association, urged the group to adopt legislation that transforms the Common into "park space rather than use space or event space."
"Historically the use of that park - the Common - there's been a tradition that it should be used for larger types of events," said James, whose last name was inaudible in the video of the hearing. "And as far as I can tell that's always been a sort of vague, mutual agreement. The issue from the perspective of those who live in the neighborhood is that large events tend to damage the Common. There have been trash issues, destruction of real estate issues and noise issues."
He concluded that it would be in the Special Committee's best interest to pressure groups to seek permits before uniting en masse.
A representative from Councilor Ross's office also offered assuaging about the proposed restrictions.
"The issue on this is certainly not a free speech issue," said Reuben Kantor, a Ross spokesperson. "We just want to make sure when big tents and large vehicles come onto the Common that there is a process for that. We want to take steps to limit [damage] with licenses and permits. We don't want events coming in and destroying thousands of feet of grassland."
Still, some local activists said compromising any rights to assemble could create problems.
"I believe that, basically, permits should be given unfettered," said Nate Goldshlag, coordinator for a local chapter of Veterans for Peace. "The Boston Common has a long history of welcoming protest and being a place where citizens' democracy is in full-view."
If the city were to stop a group on a stipulation it would be an outrage, Goldshlag said.
"Grass can be replanted and tended, our democracy is fragile and in many ways nonexistent already," he said. "Taking the Common away from protesters would just be another nail in the coffin."
For one Northeastern activist, the new proposed regulation of Boston Common use does not pose a problem.
"I could never support a move that impedes on our ability to use a venue like the Common as a rally point for our cause and other causes alike," said Sunish Oturkar, president of NUSTAND. "However, if large scale events like the Darfur rally we organized last April are actually the main contributors in the destruction of the actual Common itself, we must take the right precautions to avoid this. It's a mutual relationship: we use the Common to help us, and we should make sure that we are not damaging it in the process."
Oturkar said groups can, "in the worst case scenario," slightly modify their events to suit the proposed restrictions.
For Tali Hatuka, an architect and urban planner who has been a research fellow in Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Urban Studies and Planning, the proposal could pose a problem that is more than an issue of respecting neighbors' wishes to decrease noise and help the city maintain green space - it's a critical decision that raises questions about citizenship and civil participation.
In respect to the notion that protests should shift to locations like City Hall Plaza, Hatuka said, "[It] will redefine the culture and performance of large scale events and define hierarchical relationships between the citizen and authority, which do not exist now in the informal space of the park."
Hatuka is an expert in the study of how the urban design of an area affects the dynamics of civil demonstrations there. Her multimedia exhibition, "Urban Design and Civil Protest," is currently on display in the MIT Museum Compton Gallery until June 9.
"Protests and other large-scale events take place within physical space that represents the civic identity of that society," she said. "Thus, modifying this setting and, in particular, moving it to the City Hall Plaza would affect the way citizens negotiate with authority. We must recall that City Hall is a formal space and a constant reminder of the spatial hierarchy between the citizens and the government."
The desolate, windswept City Hall Plaza, the City Hall building and others that surround it would have a visual impact, she said, much unlike the lush, intimate Common.
"The large scale of both space and structure has an affect on the way people express themselves," Hatuka said. "Think about the scale of buildings, the rigidity feeling in space, its bareness and in particular how the latter affect the climate of space."
The formal setting of City Hall also might intimidate those considering an anti-authoritarian voice, she said.
"Like many other city halls all over the world, this space is under constant surveillance, which no doubt intensifies the dynamic of gathering in this space," Hatuka said. "At a time when the US advocates democracy worldwide, one should not disrupt the existing practices of civil participation, but instead think of new ways of engaging citizens in what is happening all over the world. Lastly, traditionally many political protests in America take place in parks."
Parks Department calls for regulation of Boston Common use, a move some activists decry as constrictive.
Issue date: 3/27/08
Out of the images, videos, and recorded sounds from rallies, marches, and protests that made up a fascinating exhibition at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in February and March, "Urban Design and Civil Protest," one keeps coming back into my head. It was one of the more mundane photographs from the show - a could-have-been-anywhere shot of a sea of backs in a public square. But one person has turned to look at the camera, nervously wondering who is taking this picture. It is in Leipzig, at one of the Monday-evening rallies that grew and spread to every city in the German Democratic Republic in the fall of 1989. The young man warily looking into the camera might well have reasoned the camera is being held by an agent of the Stasi, the East German secret police, cataloguing the perpetrators of this protest. But he and thousands of others remained and returned week after week, in the process, it is not too much to say, bringing down the East German regime.
The man's look is a reminder of the power, in Woody Allen's words, of "just showing up." Though the exhibition deftly portrayed the diversity of national traditions of protest, from China to Venezuela, it returned again and again to its central premise: the persistence and effectiveness of mass protest in public places.
The exhibition, at the MIT Museum's Compton Gallery, in Cambridge, was a visual and aural first draft of a larger work, on "the socio-spatial dynamics of protest" by its designer, the Israeli architect Tali Hatuka. Hatuka, Marie Curie Research Fellow and Fulbright Fellow at MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning, has traveled the world documenting the relationship between urban design and civil protest. The exhibition presented preliminary findings from this research, and had the refreshing feel of a work in progress, with tentative ideas offered to visitors, not finished conclusions.
The exhibition had three components. Its centerpiece was a series of case-study models - Resurrection City, on the Mall, in Washington, D.C., in 1968, Istanbul in 1977, Leipzig and Beijing in 1989, Tel Aviv in 1995, Caracas in 2002, Buenos Aires in 2006, London in 2007, and several others - each showing the venue or route of protest, and key architectural elements that defined it. The models sat atop rolling pedestals, which also contained pull-out drawers offering further glimpses and documentation of each event.
Two black-box rooms were carved out of the exhibition space, one showing video clips of different types of protest and the other - by far the more powerful - playing sound recordings from protests. In this latter room, visitors came closest to being connected to a protest, with calls for "Out of Iraq!" a mass rendition of "All we are saying is give peace a chance," and, in the case of one protest, the sounds of gunfire.
Ringing the exhibition space were graphic interpretations that began to develop a visual vocabulary for understanding the interaction of political protest and urban space. For example, to analyze the Leipzig protest of October 9, 1989, Hatuka used a Nolli-like map to mark in white the open space of the protest site, the Augustus Platz. She then inverted the map, to show the physical boundaries of the protest in white. In each case she further noted the dimensions of the protest site and provided a sectional view of it. To these she added the form of protest (e.g., a march or a rally with speakers), its voice (the means of expression), and, finally, its scale (i.e., whether it was a local or national protest and whether it was a one-off or recurrent event). The goal of the exhibition and Hatuka's larger project is to understand what she calls "spatial choreography": "an intricate juxtaposition between people - through voice and appropriation of space - and space itself."
Peripheral vs. Denied Space
The opening reception for the exhibition was highlighted by the inaugural Ross Silberberg Memorial Lecture, sponsored by the Department of Urban Studies and Planning. The event honors a former faculty member who was known for his commitment to social justice. In its first year, it was given by the University of California, Berkeley, anthropology professor James Holston, author of Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil (Princeton University Press, 2007).
Holston complicated an already multilayered topic by suggesting that we need to look not only at protest in central civic spaces but also to where the protesters come from - the peripheries of the great metropolises of the new century. "Insurgent citizenships may utilize central civic space and even overrun the center," he said, but "they are fundamentally manifestations of peripheries."
Holston went on to suggest that a focus on protests in the civic center may be misdirected, or at least misleading. Rather, the real protests - or insurgencies - begin "in the realm of everyday and domestic life taking shape in the remote urban peripheries around the construction of residence. It is an insurgence that begins with the struggle for rights to have a daily life in the city worthy of a citizen's dignity."
The department head, Lawrence Vale, brought the exhibition and talk together by suggesting that "insurgent citizenship, to be effective, needs to exploit both periphery and center." He then posed the question that Hatuka's exhibition suggested, though never made explicit: "How does a regime design public spaces that accommodate a rally but also serve daily life?" Shouldn't urban designers be able to create better spaces for the exercise of democratic protest by learning from them?
I am not so sure.
Is not the central tone of most protests an aggressive irony, a boisterous public excoriation of political hypocrisy, of the emptiness of a regime, whether it be the most closed, authoritarian police state or an open, democratic administration? As the exhibition made clear, protesters choose their sites, their routes, their rituals, and their songs to highlight the distance between a regimeâ€™s symbols and the needs and desires of the people. A protest can succeed only, I argue, if it defies the regime by occupying space usually denied it, or occupies it in a way that transforms the placeâ€™' meaning.
The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, in Argentina, chose their location - in front of the Presidential palace, in Buenos Aires - to tirelessly insist on getting final justice for their disappeared sons and daughters. In response to laws preventing demonstrations, they inventively - and as a biting critique of the repressive rules gagging free speech - "walked" in a circle around the fountain at the heart of the square, wearing their signature bandanas and carrying photographs of their children.
Anti-Iraq War protestors in London chose Trafalgar Square precisely to challenge contemporary jingoistic attitudes by tying them to those of the past, embodied in the column of Lord Nelson at the center of the square, named after the battle where he gained fame in 1805. The tension between the architecture of the regime and the call of the movement is the generating energy of the event. In a way, urban design and civil protest have to be at odds with one another.
But choosing a site filled with irony is only one element of protest. In my view, one of the central experiences of a mass protest is precisely to be part of the "mass": to find oneself in a space that is expressly out of scale with the individual, and to find that thousands, together, have filled it. In the March for Women's Lives on the Washington Mall in 2004, that vast, agoraphobia-inducing swath of grass and monuments was as packed as a New York City subway car. The space had been "appropriated," to use Hatuka's term. I suggest that it had been conquered, at least for a day - and, in the minds of the participants, forever.
Likewise, the Lincoln Memorial and its reflecting pool were not designed for the civil rights demonstration of 1963. But, surely, we cannot now imagine them without envisioning the scene there when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. That the image of a protest has supplanted the image of a monument designed in part to reunite the white North and the white South in the 1920s is in and of itself a sign of the victory of the civil rights movement.
Finally, the element that remains constant over virtually all of these protests, is this: the feeling of being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of other people who share beliefs. Most people who would participate in political protest feel themselves in the minority, besieged by forces beyond their control. Activists often suffer alone, or in small cells of likeminded sufferers. A massive rally is supremely uplifting for the protestors themselves and the movement they represent, reminding them of a simple point: you are not alone.
Michael Walzer's powerful book Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1985) ends with his summation of the power of the Exodus story in Western culture. The message of the enslaved people who rise up and defeat an invincible power and head toward the Promised Land comes down to this:
"The way to the land is through the wilderness." There is no way to get from here to there except by joining together and marching.
I am struck by the wonderful connectivity between Prof. Holston’s incisive and provocative paper and the Exhibition we have on display around the corner. More precisely, perhaps, what we have here in the Bush Room is a view from the periphery of the Exhibition. The Exhibition focuses on the outward public manifestation of political protest, strategically deployed in the centers of cities, while the talk argues forcefully that we cannot understand such places and events unless we see the sources of protest and empowerment in the insurgent citizenry of the periphery.
The Exhibition shows such places as Resurrection City (the appropriation of one side of the Washington Mall in 1968 by the Poor Peoples Campaign for Jobs and Freedom, but –at least by implication—the talk reminds us to ask ‘where did those people come from?’ and ‘why did they come?’ Many of those people came from the rural hinterlands of the American South and their motives were not so far from those of the Brazilians that Prof. Holston has met in the outer reaches of Sao Paulo.
It is a reminder that civic squares are destinations, but they do not mark the whole journey or show the full socio-spatial design. One of the strengths of the Exhibition is that it acknowledges several scales, and shows how public space is often linear and that important political action takes place outside of designated public gathering places, particularly on roads, through marches that move power through space.
Above all, though, I am struck by the fact that social movements need to be imageable. The real action may indeed be out on the periphery, but if it takes an anthropologist to find it, this means that such actions may be slow to gain the visibility they need to turn unease into genuine political change. For better or worse, to be effective, political action needs to be visualized and consumed by the media. If a protest falls on the periphery and nobody hears it, did it really happen?
What I take from tonight’s exhibition and talk is that insurgent citizenship, to be effective, needs to exploit both periphery and center. On the periphery, hardfought socio-legal rights can be pursued outside of the media limelight, away from the surveillance cameras in what Professor usefully terms a “sphere of independence.” He seems uncontestably right to observe that the “material and legal difficulties of autoconstruction politicized” the would-be citizens of the periphery. Autoconstruction is wonderful term, since it implies not just self-build housing but also construction of a political self. Yet, it is also true that the passions of the periphery need to be made visible. It is hard to imagine a world reaction to pro-democracy protests in China if they had occurred somewhere out on the 4th ringroad rather than in Tiananmen Square.
We can see this insurgent visuality both in appropriation of official space such as civic squares, but also in the more informal processes of tagging and more violent actions.
Let me conclude with a few questions that come to mind as I start to think more about how the insurgent citizens of the periphery seek to be made audible and visible in the center. I think there are some important questions that designers ought to ponder.
Is there a difference between space that is designed to control and delimit public voice and space that is intended to encourage it?
How does space function differently in an orchestrated rally versus a spontaneous protest? These days, for instance, many public spaces that have been designed for the display of official power can be disrupted by a flashmob or other form of organized resistance.
How does a regime design public spaces that accommodate a rally but also serve daily life? Places such as the Zócalo in Mexico City seem to do this, but certainly can convey a rather vast and intimidating emptiness when not wholly occupied.
Can regimes retain control over the messages of their major public spaces? Sometimes, they lose control even when not being faced with explicit forms of public unrest. In Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, for instance, it is not just the pro-democracy demonstrations of 1989 that caused a stir but more subtle things. At present, for instance one can sit in a McDonald’s opposite the southeast corner of Tiananmen Square and have a good view of the back of Mao’s tomb.
Increasingly, as cities and governments democratize and markets spread, regimes lose control over their public spaces. They cannot control the message either within the public space or on its peripheries. Even more dramatically, we are entering into a world of programmable facades, where markets control messages.
Increasingly, what I have elsewhere called the “Nationalism of Display” has come into persistent and insistent question, through the acts of the insurgent citizens that Prof. Holston documents. There has always been an ambiguity at the heart of notions of public space. On the one hand, “public” frequently means owned and operated by the state; yet “public” can also describe the collective entity rising up in opposition. Civic space is the place where these two forms of public often collide.
Spaces of civil protest are not just acts of politics but also enactments of urban visual culture. Increasingly, in an image-driven world, politics need to be seen as well as heard. Civic space helps construct the visual narratives that enable us to interpret our society.
Some of this civic realm is subject to the political designs of insurgent groups, but some of it is still fostered by the shaping of space by urban designers. I am delighted to see us considering design and social justice together, since this is exactly the convening intent of the Ross Silberberg Memorial Lecture.