November 2023 | People
Conversation about architecture with Ece Ceylan Baba
words Onur Baştürk
Our first face-to-face conversation with Yeditepe University Faculty of Architecture Dean Ece Ceylan Baba took place under a "tree of life". That “tree of life” was in a familiar place. A Ficus Australis, the symbol of Yuzu Garden, which opened in 2020 within Paloma Finesse in Antalya-Side. We met with Ece in that delightful garden at the beginning of the summer and talked about sustainable architecture and architectural approaches that are expected to dominate the world in the near future. Of course, not every topic could fit into our conversation that day as part of "Yuzu Weekend". That's why I wanted to publish here the long interview we had after that conversation. Because what Ece has to say concerns us all!
ONE IS UTOPIA, THE OTHER IS DYSTOPIA
How do you view architects’ projects aimed at “saving” or “healing” the world? For example, BIG’s Bjarke Ingels’ “Masterplanet” project or Liam Young’s fictional film “Planet City.” Can architects really make a difference in saving the world?
The argument of saving or healing the world is quite ambitious for a single profession. However, I believe in the transformative power of space. People are influenced by the spaces they inhabit, and spaces, in turn, are influenced by people. They co-evolve like two living organisms contributing to each other. From this perspective, the impact of architecture on human life is significant. While the world’s resources are depleting, the universe has the ability to heal itself. Nevertheless, our era is marked by various crises, and various professionals are taking numerous measures to postpone the possible end of humanity. In the field of architecture, principles of sustainable design, energy efficiency, and the use of environmentally friendly materials have gained importance in the 21st century.
Approaches like Masterplanet and Planet City have different arguments in this regard. We can describe them as a kind of duality, one being utopia and the other dystopia, two visionary works.
BIG’s Masterplanet project envisions a world that comprehensively addresses the climate crisis and foresees a world where the entire global population lives in similar ideal urban spaces. The project proposes a masterplan for the world and resembles a utopia in some aspects. It approaches environmental issues with a comprehensive solution and places technology at the center of the project. It suggests a design action on a planetary scale, highlighting the inadequacy of current building and even city-scale measures in addressing the climate crisis. The project has a pragmatic architectural approach and offers a critical perspective on local climate crisis measures.
In the film “Planet City,” Liam Young explores a dystopia that reinterprets the strong relationship between colonization, globalization, and the economy through metropolises, challenging conventional thinking. It narrates events in an imaginary city where approximately 10 billion people live, and the rest of the world is handed over to the wild nature by a collective decision. The speculative science fiction film suggests that climate change is not just an environmental issue but a political and ideological problem.
Both projects are produced by architects and are not intended to be realized; they aim to draw attention to the climate crisis with their manipulative features and question the possibilities of architecture beyond conventional ideas about cities, urban life, the environment, and even the planet’s scale.
Do you think the homes of the future will be completely independent from city grids and self-sufficient? What are your thoughts? Or will efforts in this regard remain largely individual?
A city exists with its built environment, unbuilt environment, and the lives of the people within it. This situation forms a complex pattern and inherently does not contain uniqueness. The concept of self-sufficient home(s) is bound to eventually evolve into a network of similar lifestyles. Therefore, I believe that cities in the future will enable a non-individual, community- oriented way of life.
SLA'S STRUCTURE IN COPENHAGEN IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE
SLA’s structure in Copenhagen is quite a good example with its emphasis on greenery, even making it the centerpiece of architectural design. Creating organic farming areas and mini-parks on the rooftops of buildings, for instance. The most striking example is the landscape design on the steep roof of the energy plant in Copenhagen, designed by SLA. Do you think all of this is sufficient, or is it merely “greenwashing”?
Sustainable design approaches in architecture are a multidisciplinary and holistic subject that involves various stakeholders. It encompasses different areas such as material selection, the presence of adaptable and functional programs, the relationship of the building with its geographical location, energy efficiency, and the use of eco-friendly construction technologies.
We cannot return a piece of land taken from the city to wild nature by placing limited greenery on the facade or roof of a massive building. Nor can we make an unsustainable building sustainable by adding some green touches later, just to use it as a marketing argument with a “green building” certificate.
This subject should involve a process that starts from the initial stages of design, continues with the involvement of users, and becomes a cyclical, living, and holistic process within life. Anything outside of this framework has the potential to become a form of greenwashing. SLA’s structure in Copenhagen, which I had the opportunity to observe on-site recently, is an excellent example due to its location in the city and its design approach. It successfully integrates the building’s non-public rooftop with the city, eliminates barriers safely, and presents an original idea.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DELIVERY THE WORLD TO WILD NATURE
Can we control further green degradation in the next decade? Are you optimistic about this?
Research indicates that the world’s population will continue to grow, and consequently, the urban population is expected to increase relative to the rural population. Urban life still seems attractive and maintains its appeal. Therefore, we can say that the need for construction in cities will increase in the next decade. I would like to emphasize one point: repurposing the idle building stock in cities can help control further green degradation unless there is a real need for more green destruction. I am not optimistic about this if methods like improving the efficiency of existing buildings and developing policies that support shared space usage are not adopted.
Is it really necessary for us to return a significant part of the world to wild nature? Is this our salvation? What are your thoughts?
In fact, I addressed the answer to this question in the previous one. I do not believe it is possible to return a significant part of the world to wild nature. The urbanization trend is expected to continue as the population increases, and the current approach to construction, driven by the capital-focused system we live in, exacerbates this situation, creating environmental problems. One of the reasons for this is the strong appetite for producing mega-scale projects. In my 40s, I learned the power of imperfection.
IN MY FORTIES, I HAVE LEARNED THE VALUE OF IMPERFECTION
When you were just starting out, in your twenties, how did you view the world, cities, and your profession? What has changed in your vision over the years, and what has remained the same?
That’s a wonderful question! In the early years of my professional life, I used to work with the aim of perfection in a project, research, building, or text. I believed it could be achieved, and I dreamed of the possibility of achieving this with proper planning. Years later, especially as I delved into the search for ideal spaces and ideal cities, I confronted the fact that the idealized space being strived for was closed to development, totalitarian, and stagnant. Yet, people are evolving beings, and so are spaces. There is a symbiotic relationship between them. Today, in my forties, I have learned the value of imperfection. I realized how valuable the reality with its flaws is, not the idealized one. I believe that the world and cities continue to evolve with their imperfections, and this is what makes them unique and allows them to differentiate and progress from one another.
