Publications & Papers
STORY OF THE ARCHER’S LODGE
To write how a building, particularly a building that I have designed, was conceptualized and constructed has always been difficult for me. How does one conceptualize and construct a building? It takes a proper architectural education, broad knowledge of construction, cultural accumulation of many years, intensive study, a non-exhaustive working process, and hundreds, even thousands of outside inputs. Furthermore, we try to blend and transform all these elements into a place to live and walk around. I sometimes have trouble answering when one asks me how I build a structure, and I wonder. What kind of answer is expected when one asks an artist how and for what reason they draw a picture? Why does one draw? Apparently, they want to express their thoughts in this manner. Or, why does a writer write a novel, why does a poet write a poem? I think, they are putting their thoughts on paper. How right is it to ask or except one to re-explain what they have already explained or have tried to explain?
In short, when I am asked to describe a structure that I have built, I think that I need to talk about its building phases, rather than its contribution to the era that we live in; and I expect the visitors or users of the building to evaluate it. When Iwas asked to write an article on the buildings of the Archer’s Lodge, I had the same feelings, and I wanted to tell you the story of building Archer’s Lodge, instead of how I built it. I preferred explaining the challenges, the bureaucratic hindrances that many colleagues who will design such buildings in the future will face, and some incidents that I experienced. It is relatively easier for persons who received proper architectural education, and trained themselves on this, to build a structure. What is important is not building a structure, but the process that one needs to pass through in order to build it-particularly if it is a cultural asset that needs to be protected.
During the last phases of the 1940s, -partly due to the economic hardships experienced during the World War II- Istanbul received immigrants, and it was caught unprepared for this influx. Sufficient building plots were not produced because the existing development plans were for a city that could accomodate a population of two million. While the population was 991,237 in 1940, it increased to 1,116,477 in 1950. The diffrence is 125,240. There was an additional increase of 766,000 people, which lead to a population of 1,822,477 in 1960. Some of the newcomers of the city found their places in the existing buildings. However, a great number of them constructed buildings in order to have a shelter wherever they could find it.
It is not the first time this has happened in Istanbul. Pursuant to the conquest of Istanbul, Memed the Conqueror issued a decreethat reads “All the vacant buildings shall be the property of those who keep it”, but when it was understood that almost everyone laid claims to more properties than they could keep (more than they needed), a new decree was issued. Muqata’ah was established on all of these properties and it was ensured that people own oly the property that they can practically keep (Tursun Bey 1977, 67-69). However, it was not possible to take the similar precautions in the term when the multi-party regime was recently established. Therefore, everyone claimed the place that they kept as their property. This new building phenomenon lead to the invention of a new word in Turkish: “gecekondu” (squat) (Ayverdi 2005, 1013).
Like many other neighbourhoods of Istanbul, Okmeydanı too received its share from this squatting trend. A large area, which existed as an endowmentfor almost five centturies, was filled with irregular settlements in a short period of time. A free space where several milestones existed in a photo from 1963 appears with a limited number of buildings in another photo from 1952, and finally it is completely occupied with structures in a photo from 1964. Structures built in this area in a short time with unplaned roads, turn into an uncontrolled and irregular settlement with no trees and no social reinforcements.
There were no cadastral surveys in and around Okmeydanı at the time when this settlement was being formed. A document issued by the Title Deed Registry Office of Şişli stated that and the aforementioned area was surveyed in 1952, and continued; “The area that covered 2,901 m2 in Şişli, Kaptanpaşa Neighbourhood, Okmeydanı Street, in 257 sheet, 1454 square, 3 parcel number, including the dervish lodge plot with two stone houses and a well, are registered to Fatih Sultan Mehmed Foundation.” In another document by the same institution, dated 6.12.1983, it was stated that the adjacent “plot of the mosque with stone minaret” which covers an area of 1,144 m2 at 257 sheet, 1454 square, 2 parcel number was “registered in full to Sultan Mustafa Han Foundation, by means of cadastral survey.” There is alson an annotation on this registry. According to the information in the statements section of the land register, “the barrack ruins in this parcel belong to Mustafa Fahri Yılmaz.”
The records of our goverment are massive; the goverment which could not protect the land registered to Sultan Mustafa Han Foundation, did not neglect placing an annotation for the barrack ruins that belonged to Mustafa Fahri Yılmaz. Then, however, a discrepancy occurs; a discrepancy that we cannot understand. In a document issued by the 1st Region Title Deed Registry Office of Şişli, not only were the sheet and square numbers changed, but also the parcel sizes. It was stated that the open-air masjid with 406 m2 space on 266/1 sheet, 3187 square and 1 parcel numbered plot, and 2 parcel numbered plot was registered to Fatih Sultan Mehmed Foundation, while the 2826/4429 share of the 3187 square and 3 parcel numbered 4,429 m2 plot was also registered to the same Foundation. The 1,115/4429 share was registered to Sultan Mustafa Han Foundation, and the remaining 488/4429 share was registered to Beyoglu Municipality (Inter alia, Okmeydanı Lodge is now within the boundaries of Kadı Mehmet Neighborhood, by means of a new regulation).
Dr. Kadir Topbaş visited Nusret Bayraktar, the newly elected mayor of Beyoglu, in 1994, and told him about the history of this area, and that some areas should be cleared of squatter houses. Despite the fact that Nusret Bayraktar made some attempts, they yielded no results. Despite tha fact that Dr. Kadir Topbaş, who was elected as the mayor of Beyoglu in 1999 (1999-2004) made intensive efforts to re-arrange this area where he spent his childhood, he was not quite successful doing so. When he was elected the Mayor of Istanbul, he took action once more, and demolished the 16 squatter houses and 52 detached sections within the 3 parcels in 2005 through paying 1,134,091.00 Turkish Liras as the debris compensation, and allocating 32 apartments of the social houses in Eyüp district.
During one of our conversations, he said that he would like to transform this area into a park through protecting the semi-demolished minaret, water reservoir, and the well curb. I said that there was a dervish lodge and a group of structures from old times, and if a research was conducted, these structures could well be revived. During our research, we obtained many visual and written documents from the album prepared by Matrakçı Nasuh in 1537, on the occasion of the Iraq Campaign of Suleiman the Magnificent.
Two sports club existed in the history of Istanbul. These are the Achers’ and Wrestlers’ Lodges. One of them is located next to Şeb-i Sefa Fatma Hatun Mosque in Unkapanı, and the other one is in the Okmeydanı neighborhood. Both lodges, which have a history of many centuries, have disappeared in the process when Istanbul was changing its identity. These institutions known as Archers’ and Wrestlers’ Lodges, despite having religious identities, cannot be characterized as dervish lodges in the classical sense; as they are known to have served as the sports clubs of the era. Evliya Chelebi explained the reason for building the Archers’ Lodge as the “need for a place to rest and to socialize for the archers” in the lodge (Evliya Çelebi 2003, 381).
It is supposed that Mehmed the Conqueror established his military camp in this area -which was then called Okmeydanı- during the preparations of the conquest of Istanbul, and stationed the rear forces in this area (Ayverdi 1973, III, 480). The grand victory celebrations are also thought to have taken place in Okmeydanı, lead by Akşemseddin. Despite the claims that Mehmed the Conqueror commissioned a majid in the area, no information on its existence has been found during the excavation works carried out so far (İşli 2004, I, 255). No information on the area, which is also known as “Okmeydanı”, “Meydan-ı Tir” or “Dergahı Tirendezan”, was found in the Hagia Sophia Endowment Charter of Mehmed the Conqueror.
It is known that Okmeydanı was later registered by Sultan Bayezid II (1481-1512) to the foundation of his father (Uzunçarşılı 1984, I, 332; Ayverdi 1973, III, 480). Okmeydanı Lodge must have been built during the last part of the XV. century or at the beginning of the XVI. century, in parallel with the Turkification of Istanbul. In some sources, it is claimed that there was a covered structure in this square, known as Sorkun (Sivrikoz) Pavillion, at the beginning of the Sultan Bayezid II era, and that Iskender Pasha, Governor of Bosnia, demolished this structure. When he was later aggrieved by what he did, Paşa commissioned construction of a masjid and a lodge in there (Ayvansarâyî 2001, 413).
The first of the group of structures that consist of structures like Kasr-i Humayun, or the Sheikh’s Room, masjid, kitchen, and storehouse, is the building that we see in the miniature by Matrakçı Nasuh. The well curb that has survived till the present day demonstrates how realistic Matrakçı Nasuh was in reflecting his observations (Matrakçı 1537, 8b-9a). In 1505, the management of the lodge was assumed by Hamdullah Efendi, one of the most prominent names in Turkish calligraphy. A milestone bearing the words from his personality, who was known as “Sheikh Hamdullah” reads, “Owner of this range, Hamdullah, son of the Sheikh, Chief of the Calligraphers, sheikh of archers.” It is dated 911 in the Islamic Calendar (1505-1506 A. D.), was found during the research excavation, and is now displayed in the entrance of the newly-built museum.
Some accounts state that the masjid of this sports facility commissioned during the Sultan Bayezid II period had a minaret can be seen in the drawing by Matrakçı Nasuh. Some sources claim that part of these structures are built by Sinan the Architect, but such activity is not mentioned in the list of structures of Sinan (Kuran 1986; Meriç 1965). Gürcü Mehmed Pasha commissioned repairs of these structures which were damaged in time, in the Hijri year 1034 (1624-1625 A. D.), and added a mimbar into the masjid, and converted this area into a military winter quarters (Ayverdi 1973, III, 480; Ayvansarâyî 2001, 413). Lasltly, Ebubekir Ağa, added a minaret to the structures, which were renewed once again in Sultan Ahmed III era (1703-1730) (Levnî 1720). They can be seen in the Surname-i Vehbi album in 1720-12 in the Hijri year 1184 (1770-1771 A. D.).
It is understood that, Archers’ Lodge Masjid did not have a minaret, like many other neighborhood majids until the third quarter of the 18th century. Archers’ Lodge was heavily damaged by a sudden storm that occured on 5 Safer 1236 (12 November 1820), and its minaret completely collapsed. It was throughly repaired, once again, by Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) (Şânîzâde 2008, 1009). A drawing that probably belongs to a period before this repair is found in the 1820 dated album of Carl Gustaf Löwenhielm, Ambassador of Sweden (Löwenhielm 2003, 65).
A two-story and two-section structure in a wide rectangular yard, surrounded by high walls are probably the lodge structure and the sheikh’s room. There is also a single balcony, and a thin and long minaret with a lead cone at the back. To the north, a one-story structure is visible, right behind the yard wall. The yard had three entrances; one under the sheikh’s room, and the others on the right side. The surroundings of the structure are completely empty, and some gravestones are visible under the big cypress tree to the north. It is claimed that these graves belonged to Kukacı Dede and some major archers (İşli 2004, I, 260; Pakalın 1983, 722).
The aforementioned drawings give some ideas about the characteristics of these structures, and the original lead cone of the minaret. Because, in each of the other three photos taken afterwards, the minaret has a stone cone in imperial style. Appearently, this cone renewal process, which we observe in many mosques and masjids in Istanbul in the 19th century, was applied in Archers’ Lodge masjid as well. The only photo where the Sheikh’s Room and other structures are partly visible is taken by Architect Hikmet (Koyunoglu).
There are significant similarities between this photo and the drawing of Löwenheilm. However, while the space over the entrance gate in Löwenheilm’s drawing was an arch consisting of stones of two colors; it is straight and wide framed in this photo. In another photo from 1930, another stone structure is visible on the southeastern corner of the yard. At the time when this photo was taken, the Sheikh’s Room and its annexes must have been burnt or collapsed, as the stone water resercoir (vault) under the Sheikh’s Room is visible at the back of the structure. The stone cone in the imperial style, built to replace the thin, elegant lead cone is also in this frame.
There is also a three-dimensional restitution study of the Archers’ Lodge made by Keramet and Metin Nigar. However, significant diffrences attract one’s eye between the Sheikh’s Room in this study, and the photograph by Architect Hikmet (Koyunoglu). Here, we would like to stress that, despite the lack of sufficient information on it, the mimbar of the open-air masjid in this area was one of the oldest classic Ottoman structures, and the pre-repair condition of this mimbar is a shameful example of the negligence towards the cultural assets that needs to be under protection (Genim 1976, 147-155; Genim 1978, 339-345; Tiryaki 2004, I, 415-420).
The area that contains Okmeydanı was declared a Historical Site, by virtue of the 10.01.1976 dated and 8885 numbered resolution of the Higher Council on Immovable Antiquities and Monuments. However, it was too late and almost all of the area was inhabited with illegal structures. Despite the resolution on registration paper, it is not possible to clear such a large area of illegal structures. 10 years passed after this resolution, and the members of the Istanbul III Numbered Council on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets made a site survey on 28.08.1988. The Council resolved with its 02.09.1988 dated and 714 numbered resolution that the project which covers protecting and renovating original parts of the existing open-air masjid, would be prepared by the General Directorate of Foundations, and the restoration would be made depending upon the approval of the Council. Furthermore, it requested that its surrounding should be covered with grass ans used in sports activities. Despite the time that passed, and the increasing damage, nothing changed and the illegal structures in parcel 3 were removed, as we have specified above, and the parcel in Okmeydanı Archers’ Lodge was emptied.
As a result of the 2014 local elections, Dr. Kadir Topbaş was elected as the Mayor of Istanbul, while Ahmet Misbah Demircan was elected as the Mayor of Beyoglu. Preparations for a concept project were initiated for these structures, with the support of Ahmet Misbah Demircan. The relevant Commission for Protection was appealed, and registration of the evacuated area was sought. With the resolution dated 07.02.2007 and numbered 840, the plots registered iğn 266 sheet, 3187 square numbers (formerly 1454 squares, 2 and 3 parcels) was registered as a cultural asset that needs to be protected. Excavation works were carried out in 2007, with the support of Beyoglu Municipality, and the reliefs of the foundation ruins were found during the excavation. The 05.10.2007 dated report prepared by the experts of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Art, and the restitution project prepared in line with this information, together with the restoration concept project, were submitted for the opinion of the Protection Council.
The resolution of the council, dated 28.11.2007 and numbered 1400, taken after examination of documents submitted, is worth examining and is quite examplarly in terms of producing solutions for the future. This resolution calls for conducting more research, without proper assesment of the report of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, and a 1/20 scale relief (3.50 x 3.50 meters drawing) of the 70.00 x 70.00 meter excavation area. Membership of the protection Council requires some real knowledge background; members of the protection councils must be persons who have attained expertise on their branches of science, whose resolutions are well respected. The reasoning their decisions must not be disputable and they should not include requests that are practically impossible. Furthermore, the 11.11.2004 dated letter from the General Director Nadir Avcı, states that it is not possible for the Protection Councils to find drilling works carried out by the Museum experts insufficient, and to call for a new reports; both institutions are operating under the same ministry, and they should respect the scientific options of each other.
At this juncture, I would like to state that the relief, restitution, and renovation projects that were prepared by us were prepared free of charge, as a complimentary service to Istanbul. This consideration was also specified on the prepared project. Bureaucratic obstacles created before us for a study that we initiated with goodwill, disturbed us. It made us upset to see that ou studies were not supported, but blocked, while there was no progress in terms of implemantation, since the resolution taken in 1976. We filed an objection to the resolution of the Protection Council of the Cultural and Natural Assets, under five points, annexing the 06.04.2008 dated reports of Architect/Art Historian Prof. Dr. M. Baha Tanman on the topic, to the resolution numbered 1400.
After more than one year, as of the 28.11.2007 dated and 1400 numbered resolution, the relief, restitution, and renovation projects that we had submitted were approved with the 22.12.2008 dated and 2295 numbered resolution, annuling the basement dloor that was shown as Earthquake Disaster Center. What had changed in our initially submitted project, that the same members understood that the remarks they made in the 1400 numbered resolution were wrong, and approved our projects? The resolution on the Eartquake Disaster Center that is in the basement floor is miserable. It was envisaged to perform restoration on the mimbar in the adjacent parcel number 1, during the preparation of the restoration projects for the lodge area.
We thought of what new functions could be given to the area after renovation of these structures, and it was understood that annexing the adjacent 3 parcels, where football matches are held, into the project and holding archery competitions again in this area would be helpful. This area where official footbalo matches could not be held due to its insufficient size was annexed into the project area. Since 2 parcels were lower than the lodge area, some adjustments needed to be made and this area needed to be filled. Therefore we proposed to build a car park under the level which could be re-arrenged as an archery range. However, it was stated in the 28.11.2007 dated and 1400 numbered resolution that, it was not suitable to build a car park here, since it would increase the density.
Then, we proposed to build an Earthquake Disaster Center here, instead of the car park, which we had initially proposed to meet the car parking needs of this area, where many visitors would come in the future. This proposal too was rejected, having been evaluated as “causing density increase” which I have not been able to understand for all these years, despite the fact that there was no possibility to come across any findings. How come a car park, in a city like Istanbul, with very dense vehicle presence, could be rejected for ‘causing density increase’? I still do not understand.
The relief and restitution projects, as well as the concept project had cost two years for us. We did not give up; we submitted these implementation projects that we have prepared to the approval of the relevant council, and our project was approved after a long examination and with some adjustments with 07.04.2010 dated and 3,389 numbered resolution. However, in spite of all our explanations, it was decided that the minaret would be renovated in its stone cone, imperial style version, which was probably built in the post Sultan Mahmud II period, instead of its original (lead cone) look.
The project and bureaucratic journey that we started in 2004, had finally ended after six years. After long years, things got a little faster, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality decided on 19.01.2011 that the project would be realized by KİPTAŞ, based on the 22.07.2010 dated letter from the Regional Directorateof Foundations. As a result of the tender, Gür Yapı construction company was designated as the constractor on 14.02.2011, and the building permit was issued on 15.02.2011. The construction that took more than one year was finalized on 10.09.2012.
At this juncture, a news story appeared on the daily Cumhuriyet newspaper, under the title “400-Year-Old Structure Dismantled,Mimbar Dissappeared.” Despite the fact that we had specified it in our approved project, the Protection Council requested a report from us and the relevant institutions with a letter dated 15.05.2012. It was communicated to them that it was done within the framework of the approved project, but some changes needed to be made in the course of implementation at some points, dur to the structure of the terrain, and the alteration project prepared for this reason was sent to them for approval. Meanwhile, a significant number of the members of the Protection Council had changed and new members were appointed to replace them; they did not create much trouble for us. Our alteratipn project was approved with the 20.06.2012 dated and 542 numbered resolution, and it was decided that the professional inspection would be assumed by the project-owner architect.
Despite the fact that structures were completed, some problems arouse in getting the structures that span across a large area and the archery range into use. The Archers’ Federation did not want to assume this task due to lack of funds; thus Archers’ Foundation was created and got into work. It entered into service on 29 May 2013, with an opening ceremony, attended by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the then Prime Minister of Turkey. At this juncture, for the future researchers, I would like to underscore that the Okmeydanı Open Air Masjid did not have a mihrab. If it did have a qiblah stone for some time, it did not survive till the present day. We made the mimbar that we have now, as it did not exist before.
The structures in this area were constructed with modern construction materials; carrier and in part, divider systems of all the structures were built with reinforced concrete. What matters is not the material, but how they are used and what the output is. Sometimes, I receive questions on the life of concrete. Pantheon in Rome was constructed during the Emperor Hadrianus (117-138) era, in 118 A.D. Its 43.20 meter-wide and 44.00 meter-high dome is cast in concrete and has not collapsed for two thousand years. I would like to present this information for those who question the durability of concrete.
As I have tried to express above, I do not think it is useful to describe this facility in writing, consisting of various structures and areas like masjid, sheikh’s room, conference hall, museum, library, administrative sections, changing rooms,cafeteria,archery range and open-air masjid; one should visit it. You had better visit these structures and see the excitement of our youth who are being trained there, or trained and honored our country in international competitions. If you have a chance, shoot an arrow yourself.
I believe that there is no other sports facility that has a history of almost five centuries. Granting Istanbul such a sports area is the result of an effort that every one of us should take pride in. I am obliged to sincerely thank everyone who put in all their efforts to realize this facility and serve the future generations; my dearest friends Dr. Kadir Topbaş, Ahmet Misbah Demircan, İsmet Yıldırım Hasan Gürsoy, my colleagues Belma Barış Kurtel, and all those who contributed to this project.
Unfortunately, a great deal of the lifetime of an architect is not consumed by project designs and realizing them, but by the bureaucracy which tries to block almost all initiatives with its nonsense decisions. And then, we turn to ourselves and ask: How were such ugly structures created? At this point, again, the bureaucracy manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat. While we are crushed between the wheels of bureaucracy, some others construct these buildings quickly, and then we start asking each other how these structures emerged.
Note: Those who are interested in the Protection Council resolutions and bureaucratic correspondences herein referred to, and wonder how such irregular settlements were formed, may find more detailed information through appealing to the Archives of Istnabul II Numbered Regional Protection Council of Cultural Assets and the structure dossier in Beyoglu Municipality, as a reference for future solutions.
REFERENCES
Ayvansarâyî 2001
Ayvansarâyî Hüseyin Efendi, Ali Sâtı’ Efendi/Süleymân Besim Efendi (Haz. Ahmet Nezih Galitekin), Hadikatü’l-Cevâmi, İstanbul Câmileri ve Diğer Dînî-Sivil Mi’mârî Yapılar, Haz. Ahmet Nezih Galitekin, İstanbul, 2001.
Ayverdi 1973
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri 855-886 (1451-1481), III, İstanbul, 1973.
Ayverdi 2005
İlhan Ayverdi, Misalli Büyük Türkçe Sözlük, İstanbul, 2005.
Evliya Çelebi 2003
Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: İstanbul, Haz. Seyit Ali Kahraman-Yücel Dağlı, İstanbul, 2003.
Genim 1976
M. Sinan Genim, “Mihraplı ve Minberli Namazgâhlara Bir Örnek”, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 6, İstanbul, 1976, p. 147-155.
Genim 1978
M. Sinan Genim, “Mihraplı ve Minberli Namazgâhlar”, Fifth International Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 1978, p. 339-345.
İşli 2004
H.Necdet İşli, “Okmeydanı”, Geçmişten Günümüze Beyoğlu, I, İstanbul, 2004, p. 2534-28.
Kuran 1986
Abdullah Kuran, Mimar Sinan, İstanbul, 1986.
Levnî 1720
Levnî, Surnâme-i Vehbî, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kitaplığı, A. 3593.
Löwenhielm 2003
Carl Gustav Löwenhielm, Bir Zamanlar Türkiye, Haz. Engin Yenal, İstanbul, 2003.
Matrakçı 1537
Matrakçı Nasuh, Mecmua-i Menazil, İ.Ü. Kitaplığı, T. 5954.
Meriç 1965
Rıfkı Melûl Meriç, Mimar Sinan Hayatı, Eseri, Ankara, 1965.
Pakalın 1983
Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, İstanbul, 1983.
Şânîzâde 2008
Şânîzâde Mehmed Atâullah Efendi, Şânîzâde Târihî, İstanbul, 2008.
Tanman 2004
M. Baha Tanman, “Tekkeler”, Geçmişten Günümüze Beyoğlu, I, İstanbul, 2005, p. 361-388.
Tiryaki 2004
Yavuz Tiryaki, “Namazgâhlar”, Geçmişten Günümüze Beyoğlu, I, İstanbul, 2004, p. 415-420.
Tursun Bey 1977
Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-feth, Haz. Mertol Tulum, İstanbul, 1977.
Uzunçarşılı 1984
İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilatında Kapıkulu Ocakları I, Ankara, 1984.