THE CITY OF BORDERS

Duygu Ovack (Erciyes University)

Demet Diner (Istanbul Kultur University)

AbstractToday, metropolitan cities cannot be defined with a fixed point of view, including the previous meanings of the urbanism concepts. Cities can not be taken as a grounded surface without levels which includes an understanding of a straigt line-generalization . Within the concepts of Sennett -edge, borders and boundaries, the article aims to make a reading on Istanbul with its physical conditions and problems; not as a grounded surface but different fragments with its parts of different spaces and places.

In todays world, the cities are the combinations of izolated fragments which make the city more fragile, more changable and more problematic. The combination is not a homogenous and peaceful coming together any more; and the city, with its borders, edges and boundaries, is always in construction.

Edge, border and boundary are dynamic and invisible lines, which are the potentials for both interactions and divisions in city life. Thus, the edges, borders and boundaries in the cities are significant places which transforms todays world. So we should question how the edges, boundaries and borders occur, how they relate with the social life and what kinds of effects they have on architecture.

Keywords: edge, border, boundary, fragment, urban space.Contact: duyguovacik@gmail.com

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to explain the mode of formation, qualities and consequences of edges which are results of social and spatial processes in todays cities. In that sense, the concept of edge is treated as both boundary and an interface having the potential to be an area of interaction between things standing side by side.

Accordingly, the definitions of the concept of edge are put forward at first. As a result of social and spatial transformations, potentials of being boundary or porous will be defined. Later, causes, nature and consequences of the phenomenon of edge which generally comes out as boundaries in todays cities that are distinguished from earlier settlements because of economic, social and spatial transformations will be suggested through a reading made over the city of stanbul. With the thought that social and spatial processes are reason and consequence of each other, the vital significance of the concept of edge in cities will be underlined and the possibilities of turning edges-as-boundary into porous edges will be analyzed.

1. The Concepts: Edge, Border And BoundaryEdge is literally concerned with two or more things which have been torn apart somehow. In case the

second thing (the outer one) is a nullity or is undefined, edge describes an end, a limit. Edge, apart

from being a limit, can exist as an interface which permits interaction between different things

standing side by side or as a boundary which prevents interaction.

Sennett (2008) mentions two different kinds of edge1;

mailto:duyguovacik@gmail.com

One spatial distinction which helps us engage actively with the changing context of time lies in the difference between borders and boundaries. This is an important distinction in the natural world. In natural ecologies, borders are the zones in a habitat where organisms become more inter-active, due to the meeting of different species or physical conditions. The boundary is a limit; a territory beyond a particular species does stray. So these are two different kinds of edge. According to Sennett who finds this distinction very significant in the natural world, the borders at

which different territories and different conditions meet designate life whereas the boundary is a limit.

For instance, the border-edge where the shoreline of a lake meets with solid land is a porous edge.

Living beings which belong to different habitats interact with each other in this border-edge which is

an active zone of exchange. The same is true of temperature layers within a lake. The zones where one

layer meets another are zones of the intense biological activity. However, boundaries are the edges of

territories guarded by packs of wolves or animals which are strong such as lions.

The condition of edge-as-boundary which does not permit interaction establishes closure by things not

happening; it reveals fragments. On the other hand, border means more events in time. Sennett

explains this distinction by relating it to the difference between cell wall and cell membrane. There is a

basic difference between cell membrane and cell wall; whereas the cell wall's function is that of a

container holding things in, the membrane is at once porous and resistant, letting matter flow in and

out of the cell, but selectively, so that the cells need for nourishment can be met. Yet a wholly-sealed

wall would cause the cell to die. Openness which allows exchange for different conditions is

important. The combination of resistance and porosity in the cell membrane is the indication of the

experience organisms have ecologically at the borders edge.

This combination of porosity and resistance provides an important example for urban design. While

giving walls around traditional cities as an example for the boundary, Sennett on the other hand

defines highways as invisible boundaries in the case of modern cities. Urban fabric is torn down with

big highways that are perilous to cross through. The sides of highways in cities tend to become

withered spaces. According to Sennett, here an invisible wall separates different social structures from

each other; territories are marked off this way.

Apparently, the issue of borderline is not only a spatial issue but also a social one. In that sense, the

concept of edge which includes deterioration in different levels in its meaning finds one of its

important counterparts in the social life of the city. Marcuse (1997), states that all borderlines suggest

divisions between individuals and activities, within the society, between societies or between

individuals and groups2. Simmel (1997), points out that borderline is a sociological reality, rather

than being a spatial reality. According to Simmel, spatial borderlines are spatial shapes of sociological

borderlines3. According to Vidler (1982) as well, most borderlines are not visible in the urban fabric4.

Invisible borderlines created by disintegrations in the social structure can be made visible later by

marking off while also a space can be framed with a visible borderline from the very beginning. This

situation, according to Marcuse (1997), triggers social unrests5. The reason for the bordering can be

protection from the other/stranger, in other words an unknown, as well as the representation of an

identity/ a status. The representation and sustainability of the social identity are ensured through

framed spaces. Borderline is not only an invisible boundary which separates social differences but also

a spatial consequence which shatters urban fabric. Simmel (1997) draws attention to borderlines as

they initiate conflicts between differences instead of their preventing those conflicts6.

As a result of global trends some social groups and social stratifications come into existence in todays

cities which are exposed not only to local dynamics but also to global effects. As a reason of this

disintegration, which asserts itself on the social and physical fabric, internal migrations and

immigrations cities attract and the spatial transformation as a result of global trends can be put

forward. Cities as a result of migrations they receive acquire diversity in terms of ethnic and religious

origins which feed cosmopolitan city culture, but also they witness a kind of disintegration. Social

problems are gradually increasing in metropolises such as New York, Bombay and stanbul where

income inequality is high. One of the most important social problems in cities is the problem of trust.

Social disintegration within the society, borderlines and conflicts between groups, zones into which

some groups can not enter, decaying areas where crime rates are high can be observed in the spatial

fabric of cities like disintegrating social spaces. These transformations in cities and the phenomenon of

the edge introduce new forms of expression in todays global cities (Ovacik, 2010)7.

Edge is literally concerned with two or more things which have been torn apart somehow. The meeting

place of two or more different things. We can define the concept of edge as both an impermeable

boundary and a meeting place which allows interaction. Talking about an edge is also talking about

fragments although its quality undergoes change. In any way, we are speaking of a concept which

makes fragment out of a whole or infinite. When the issue is urban whole, spatially visible borderlines

can be the consequence of social disintegration which is fictionally created as well as of disintegration

which arises within the social structure.

The relation between the social life and the spatial structuring of the city is mutual. We can say that, all

borderlines that arise within the city are both reasons and consequences of social transformations.

There may be physical indications of those borderlines or there may be not.

2. Todays cities stanbul and its edges-as-boundaryTodays cities which are exposed not only to their internal dynamics but also to global impacts have become objects of a multiple transformation around the world. This rapid transformation in economic, social and spatial areas manifests itself in almost all cities. In the process, global actors are also involved in the network of local relations and this increases multi-layeredness and heterogeneity. Multi-layeredness and heterogeneity in question manifest themselves in many areas from social structure to architectural identity. With these transformations observed in cities, edge confronts us not as borders which are porous and which generally allows exchange, but as harsh boundaries which shatters urban fabric. Todays cities which have been gradually losing its flexibility due to already-completed projects and urban fragments appear to be more fragile.

Such as stanbulIt is possible to follow all these social and spatial transformations also in stanbul which witnesses all dimensions of todays urbanization dynamics. stanbul, gradually growing as a result of both its internal dynamics and global trends, is losing its borderlines in urban fringes while also getting internally fragmented and having fragments which have been totally differentiated from each other.

The end of the Second World War was a turning point for stanbul just like in most of periphery countries. In the 1960s, transformation from agricultural economy to industrialization started and domestic production was promoted. The significance of stanbul in the liberalization process in Turkish economy since 1990s initiated the process of dealing with citys connection with global networks in a more serious and conscious way.

While in the city developments on national level were proceeding this way, the new world order of fin de sicle transformed Turkey and stanbul into an important center of service and specialty. According to Sassen (2009) who defines stanbul as unchangeable crossroad of an immense dynamism, finance and service sectors are developed in stanbul which is standing in the middle of the geography of capital flow stretching to both East and West and the city has returned into a magnet drawing man and capital8.

Apartments which took their place in avenues with 1950 planning decisions, ili, stanbul (Urban Age, 2009).- From 1980s up to now shacks have been replaced by apartments or housing estates (Konstantinou, 2009).

Charts showing the state of growth of the city between the 15th century and the year 2000 (Urban Age, 2009).

Invisible BorderlineEvery step taken in the process of globalization the city has been experiencing from 1994 up to now has been shaping the culture of the city through circulating through the daily life. As a result of global trends some social groups and social stratifications have arisen in the city. Immigration, emigration and global economic system can be shown as a reason for this fragmentation which highly manifests itself in the social and physical fabric.

Social problems have been gradually increasing in cities such as stanbul where income inequality is high. The rise in the phenomenon of the unknown in the city has made individuals want to live within the social class which has the same status with them. Thus, social borderlines reflect to urban fabric as well and groups having different socio-economic structures have made up different residential areas. Social fragmentation within the society, borderlines and conflicts between groups, zones into which some groups cannot enter, decaying areas where crime rates are high can be observed in the spatial fabric of the city like fragmenting social spaces.

Invisible getting VisibleDisintegration in the social structure can cut the city into fragments through becoming visible in the urban space. These fragments can be sometimes big settlements on neighborhood scale which are separated from each other by borderlines like highway and sometimes they can be on isolated building scale. Settlements where luxurious housing belonging to high income groups are found and shack towns are areas that can exemplify both situations.

Increasing gated communities are one of the most extreme examples of this kind of disintegration. Gated communities which have emerged in stanbul since 1980s have amounted to both the growth and transformation of the city. Old agricultural areas at the urban fringe have been turned into housing areas by property entrepreneurs and this process has changed the urban and architectural structure of the city. The borderlines of gated community settlements which reject the city are also completely impermeable. It is not always a wall, camera or other security systems which lead to this impermeability, but also a consciousness that forbids entrance into there or more precisely crossing the borderline. Gated communities are spatial product of invisible borderlines and they are also residual consumption object. This kind of architecture is just what Sennett means when he speaks of edge-as-boundary.

Another version of the edge in the example of gated community at the urban fringe is settlements in the city centers which have no gates but witness lifestyles as if there is one. Today, with the increase of rent thanks to the advantages of their location, these kinds of areas are exposed to gentrification under the title of transformation projects.Its one of the most current examples is Tarlaba in Taksim. Tarlaba which was inhabited by Rums and Armenians in the past was abandoned with the emigration of the minorities in 1940s. At first, in the industrialization period agricultural immigrants coming from Anatolia and after the 1990s illegal immigrants coming from the East were settled in the neighborhood. In the 1980s, while stiklal Avenue was being gentrified with the opening up of Tarlaba Avenue, its relation with Tarlaba was broken off and Tarlaba has become the place of crime. Today, Tarlaba is a place at the center of the city, yet totally disintegrated from it. Perpendicular streets of Tarlaba which opens to the Avenue turn in on themselves with invisible borderlines. Today, Tarlaba is being restructured as part of urban transformation project. Cihangir defined by its proximity to Tarlaba and as a neighborhood inhabited by artists today is one of the examples undergoing gentrification.

Visible Edge;Public areas in stanbul are turning into commercial spaces defined by consumption and entertainment. Together with shopping malls opened up one by one in the center and the periphery, urban area has been incorporated in consumption culture. Considering the recent history of shopping malls, it can be seen that this different typology which was experimented in the periphery of cities have moved into the city center in the course of time. Shopping malls in the city was at first designed as totally closed units. The quantitative increase in these closed masses necessitated pursuing a new course and structures involving semi-open or open social spaces have become widespread. After closed shopping malls such as Galleria, Akmerkez, Carousel, Profilo, with new centers like Kanyon, stinye Park, Meydan and Forum stanbul the structures have been less closed and shopping corridors have been integrated through more open or semi-open spaces (Diner, 2010)9.The physical qualities of Galleria Shopping Mall which is the first example in stanbul show that it is the product of a goal of creating a totally closed social center. The structure is introverted as a typical example of closed shopping mall typology. The structure located as a part of Ataky shore band urban planning of which is being made today and of its vicinity does not have a connection with sea. Pedestrian access to the structure is broken off by the highroad, hence it can be provided by passages. Entries into the building are controlled by a firewall. Other shopping malls appeared later in the city center have also an introverted spatial organization like in Galleria Shopping Mall and their relation with the city is reduced to transportation. Today, many shopping malls can be entered into through subway.As a result of the competition between shopping malls quantitatively increased, not only stores in the buildings and consuming classes they address have differentiated, but also architectural qualities in the design have deserved more attention. Besides, seeking for a different concept in new shopping malls can be observed. Thus, introverted space structures which create a world in itself since the first examples of buildings dedicated to the function of shopping, are now treated with the quest for a concept which is more related with the out.

The most famous example of the situation in question is Kanyon Shopping Mall. In the complex which was completed in the year 2006, entry and exit are provided in a controlled manner. Although it has a semi-open plan it is an introverted space. Beside its lack of relation with Gltepe, the neighborhood where it is located, a closed shopping mall system is implemented; hence openness is used just as a physical quality (Diner, 2010)10.

The Relation of the Physical Space with the User

Physical Relation of the City with the Structure

The example of Kanyon is a different interpretation from other examples in terms of open shopping mall design, however since it protects invisible and visible borderlines (such as

guarded entrance gates) it has with the city and since it does not enable change, it can be shown as an example for edge-as-boundary. stinyepark, on the other hand, targets a different consuming class. Shopping space is planned as closed. Another shopping space plan, Markalar Soka which is designed through inspiration from shopping avenues and squares, as an open area has an extroverted plan. On the other hand, extroversion can be open to dispute considering the control made on the cars entering into this area. However, in general terms, structure is considered as both introverted and extroverted because of its many shopping areas (Diner, 2010)11. The physical space does not have transformable flexibility.

Meydan mraniye Shopping Mall is designed as a more open physical plan taking the name of square with the idea of creating a completely open public realm. Stores constitute closed masses, but in respect of general concept settlement is designed as open. Completely green roofs display an extroverted plan structure in terms of creating a public space by withdrawing buildings from place to place. Public spaces can be used by all visitors. It has an introverted plan structure with closed shopping areas. In addition to stable staff, it can be changeable with outdoor activities. The activity named New Year Square taken place in its opening year 2007 can be put as an example for this. New Year Bazaar involved shacks specially designed with a concept reminiscent of city squares in Europe.

In-visible InteractionJust like social edges reflect to spatial edges, spatial edges reinforce social edges. Although Gltepe where Kanyon Shopping Mall is located was a neighborhood inhabited by lower income group and small industry enterprises, it is today becoming a neighborhood being shaped by the arrival of shopping mall and where luxurious residences are located. The designed transformation attempted in Tarlaba is developing in this area on its own accord.

According to Sennett, dissolving rigid boundaries that cause the exchange between different racial, ethnic and class-based communities to decline or to disappear is possible through opening doors between communities. There are simple and complex ways of turning boundaries into porous borders. In this sense, creating new areas similar with streets which were public spaces that directed pedestrian activities in the old cities, and witnessed transportation and dynamism as well as communion would be promising. Whereas in traditional cities, street was a porous outside as a space between the private and the public, it was eliminated within the planning reason of the end of war of the last century and streets which brought everything under a singular form were replaced by highways belonging to vehicle traffic. Today, areas which have no streets are being built all over the world. In this sense as a simple solution, pedestrianisation can be realized through sending traffic away. In avenues where vehicle traffic is inevitable, equipped barriers that can be opened and closed when necessary can be used with the help of technology. It is an example of how in the future technology can be used in the transformation of boundaries within the city into porous borders (Sennett, 2008)12.

As in the example of Tarlaba, new community resources can be located at the edges between communities in order to open the gates between different racial and economic communities which stand side by side rather than one within the other within the places that are enclosed by invisible edges (Sennett, 2008)13. In this sense, in addition to the approach of planners valuing the center for the social life, the integrating value of the border has gained importance. On the other hand, technological facilities can be used in order to create areas more open to public, not isolated from its surroundings.

It can be seen that together with Kanyon Shopping Mall and in later examples of stinye Park and Meydan, a difference plan was tried after closed shopping malls. New approaches allow for porous borders compared with the past. This situation shows that in a sense structures having impermeable boundaries lacking relation with the city do not comply with the DNA of the city and are required to change. Meydan Shopping Mall can be put as a positive example in the sense of its using different technologies.

Today, edges show very rigid and unchangeable qualities rather than being areas of interaction. In cities, fragmentation which arises out of fears what or whom of which are not really known, paradoxically constitutes a source for these fears. Undoubtedly, unknowing which has been there first of all amounts to such communalization. Whether the risks entailed in interaction are more than those of social fragmentation is not known. Being resistant and porous means that communities have to decide what they cant share with others as well as what they can (Sennett, 2008)14.

ConclusionThe concept of edge which literally involves division stands at a critical point with its potential of being an end or an intersection as an area of interaction. In any case, the quality of edges cutting a whole into fragments can have important consequences when the urban fabric is in question. Whereas edges which cut off relation between in and outside and destroy interaction and potentials are defined as boundary, edges allowing social exchange are defined as borders.

Edges in cities are not only spatial indicators but also consequences of social ruptures. In this sense, economic and social transformations todays cities undergo bring forward new definitions of edge. Different edges are being constituted in cities ranging from singular building scale to settlements separating off groups with different characters. These edges confront us generally as impermeable and rigid in todays circumstances. Cities, with these aspects, appear more as a combination of unrelated rigid fragments than a whole. And maybe

a heap consisted of containers As Sennett puts it, these constructed objects points to a more general fragility within the society and make cities more fragile. There is social fragmentation/disintegration in todays globalizing cities. This disintegration divides todays society into internally homogenous groups and a fragmental structure emerges. Groups marginalizing each other communalize. This fragmental social structure manifests itself in urban space as well. So much so that, settlements as well as leisure activities of these groups are places and activities which involve those people similar to them. The sociological segmentation in question brings along also physical or non-physical edges or visible or invisible edges where statuses are embodied. Social classes which make up the users of the metropolis tend to define areas of hegemony, to emphasize group identities and to create borderlines in order to ensure their intimacy. The space divides into sub-units through embodying differences with borderlines. The constitution of edges within the space derives from the desire of the users to realize a controllable interaction via architectural elements. The most widespread examples of this situation are gated communities, collapsing districts. The relation of these areas, having rigid zones within themselves, with the outside has the characteristics of boundary. In other words, there is an inside and an outside. These edges coincide in public areas; but the intersection in question does not involve interaction or communion. When users do not become parts of a common activity on a street where a gated community is located on the one side whereas a shantytown on the other, street loses its publicity and turns into an area enclosed by edges of different groups. At this point, we can say that the concept of the edge confronts us in the city with forms of expression peculiar to modern period. Modern cities are planned as a war waged against the other15; relations between differences are arranged by boundaries which are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible and which are abstract lines. Cities, with these aspects, appear more as a combination of unrelated rigid fragments than a whole.Even though edges are spatial manifestation of social problems, the mutual relation between social life and spatial structuring of the city shows that edges spatially planned can be the reason of social disintegration. In other words, it is a mutual interaction. It is not possible to make a one sided consideration based on a belief in one situation causing another. At this point it seems necessary for architects, urban designers, planners and even users and governors to produce solutions that would transform boundaries into intersections which allow interaction. Only in this way cell can protect its vitality and organism can pursue its life At this point, design of edges at the architecture and city planning scale appears to be a significant criterion. We should read the DNA of cities and put DNA of forms into cities so that they can take shape.

Notes1 Sennett R., (2008), The Public Realm, 2 Marcuse P., (1997) Walls Of Fear And Walls Of Support, In Architecture Of Fear, pp.102,3 Simmel G., (1997) The Metropolis and Mental Life, in Rethinking Architecture, pp. 69,4 Vidler A., (1992) The Architectural Uncanny, Essays In The Modern Unhomely, 5 Marcuse P., (1997) Walls Of Fear And Walls Of Support, In Architecture Of Fear, pp.102,6 Simmel G., (1997) The Metropolis and Mental Life, in Rethinking Architecture, pp. 69,7 Ovack, D., (2010). The Influence Of Contemporary Global Relations On Processes Of Urbanization And Urban Space, Master Thesis,

8 Sassen, S., (2009). Usuz Bucaksz Bir Hareketliliin Deimez Kava, Urban Age Conferences 2009 Istanbul Newspaper-stanbul Kesiimler ehri, pp. 59 Demet, D. (2010). An Evaluation Of The Interaction Between Public Spaces And Shopping As A Function, Master Thesis,10 Demet, D. (2010). An Evaluation Of The Interaction Between Public Spaces And Shopping As A Function, Master Thesis,11 Demet, D. (2010). An Evaluation Of The Interaction Between Public Spaces And Shopping As A Function, Master Thesis,12 Sennett R., (2008), The Public Realm, 13 Sennett R., (2008), The Public Realm, 14 Sennett R., (2008), The Public Realm, 15 Bauman Z. (1998) Globalization: the human consequences

ReferencesBauman Z. (1998) Globalization: the human consequences (Kreselleme: Toplumsal Sonular, Translator: Abdullah Ylmaz, Ayrnt, stanbul, 1998), Columbia University Press, Columbia.Demet, D. (2010). An Evaluation Of The Interaction Between Public Spaces And Shopping As A Function, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineering And Technology.Marcuse P., (1997) Walls Of Fear And Walls Of Support, In Architecture Of Fear,Ed. N. Ellin, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.Ovack, D., (2010). The Influence Of Contemporary Global Relations On Processes Of Urbanization And Urban Space, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineering And Technology.Sassen, S., (2009). Usuz Bucaksz Bir Hareketliliin Deimez Kava, Urban Age Conferences 2009 Istanbul Newspaper-stanbul Kesiimler ehri, Urban Age Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.Sennett R., (2008), The Public Realm, http://www.richardsennett.com, 17.09.2011.Simmel G., (1997) The Metropolis and Mental Life, in Rethinking Architecture, Ed. Leach, N., Routledge, London and New York.Vidler A., (1992) The Architectural Uncanny, Essays In The Modern Unhomely, TheMIT Press, London.

http://www.richardsennett.com/site/SENN/Templates/General2.aspx?pageid=16