THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF SPACE:

OCCUPATION, APPROPRIATION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE DWELLING

IN THE CASE OF RGP

BY

EREN ADA BLG

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

LAUD 404 SENIOR DESIGN RESEARCH

INSTRUCTOR: S. Ayegl TOKOL

MARCH 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope and Aim of the Research

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Lefebvres Production of Space

2.1.1 Lefebvrian Approach to Space

2.1.1.1 Physical Space

2.1.1.2 Mental Space

2.1.1.3 Sociological Space

2.1.2 Conceptual and Spatial Triads

2.1.2.1 Spatial Practice

2.1.2.2 Representation of Space

2.1.2.3 Representational Space

2.1.3 Transformation of Spaces

2.2 Social Space and Social Product Relationship

2.2.1 Social Relations in the Production of Space

2.2.2 The Relations of Production

2.2.2.1 State and Space

2.2.2.2 Property Relations

3. RGP, NEVEHR, THE PLACE AND ITS HISTORY

3.1 Research Methodology of the rgps Social Production

3.2 The Case of rgp

3.2.1 The History of rgp

3.2.2 rgp in the Collective Memory

1

4. READING RGP IN TERMS OF LEFEBVRE

4.1 rgp as a Social Production

4.1.1 Social Relations in rgp

4.1.1.1 District as a Semi-Private Unit

4.1.1.2 Cave Houses and Social Life (Living, Storage and Stable Spaces)

4.1.2 Production Types in rgp

4.1.2.1 The Economical Basis of rgp

4.1.2.2 Property Relations in rgp

4.2 State and Space in rgp

5. CONCLUSION

6. REFERENCES

2

TO MY FAMILY

3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Aim of the Research

Day by day, with the developments in the world, some relationships (economic, social or

physical) are getting more complicated. Nowadays, the space which we live in is also product

of the present space. In accordance with this, this kind of space must be analayzed within

todays production and social relations.

Lefebvre who discusses with space as a production shows us that (social) space is a (social)

product. (Lefebvre 1991, 26) So, this interaction has been getting a part of in all

communities in history. Lefebvre explained this interaction as;

every society and hence every mode of production with its subvariants create their own spaces (Lefebvre 1991, 31).

In doing so, rgp district in Nevehir was chosen for the case study for its valuable and

strong relations of social production. In these meetings the present case of natural

demolishing will be criticized and some parameters and alternatives will be discussed in this

thesis.

4

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND

In the study of considering everyday life, space is not only a production of material, but also a

production of space which is affected by many parameters such as place, material, culture,

space and so on. The theoretical background of the research is constructed of French

sociologist Henri Lefebvres (1974) analysis on space production. In this context, the city of

rgp will be analyzed.

The inception of the problem was the spaces that can be seen on streets, our houses, forest and

so on. Lefebvre has approached this problem in accordance with the term of everyday life.

According to Lefevbre (1971), the notion of everyday life was described as;

The study of everyday life affords a meeting place for specialized sciences and

something more besides; it exposes the possibilities of conflict between the rational and

irrational in our society and in our time, thus permitting the formulation of concrete

problems of production (in its widest sense): how the social existence of human beings

is produced, its transition from want to affluence and from appreciation to depreciation

(p. 23)

2.1 Lefebvres Production of Space

For Lefebvre, space is also explained as a living organism rather than a technical object.

Henri Lefebvre (1991) classified the fields into three parts;

The fields we are concerned with are, first, the physical- nature, the Cosmos; secondly,

the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and, thirdly, the social. In other

words, we are concerned with logico-epis- ( p. 11 ).

5

Lefebvre analyzed the space production with notions that he created such as; physical space,

mental space and sociological space.

2.1.1 Lefebvrian Approach to Space

As mentioned above, the space can be classified with three parts which are physical, mental

and social. Lefebvre described that the mental space and the real space are placed on the

opposite sides of an abyss, which are explained as mental space on the one side and physical,

social spaces on the other side.

2.1.1.1 Physical Space

Physical Space was explained by Henri Lefebvre as inception point or root. It is the space

which is occurred by nature. Lefebvre (1991) emphasized this notion as; Nature creates and

does not produce; it provides resources for a creative and productive activity on the part of

social humanity; but it supplies only use value, and every use value that is to say, any

product in as much as it is not exchangeable either returns to nature or serves as a natural

good. ( p.70 ).

At this point, a tree, a flower, or a fruit is not a product. It is important to say that, nature

creates the uniqueness, in contrast with human beings.

6

2.1.1.2 Mental Space

Mental space is placed on the opposite side of the real space. It was explained as logical and

formal abstractions by Henri Lefebvre. In accordance with the branch of philosophy,

theoretical practice produces mental space. The notion of mental space takes its roots from

knowledge La Sapienza.

2.1.1.3 Sociological Space

This research is going to focus on this space type, sociological space. Sociological space is the

third and the last field of the concern. It was explained as logico-epis by Henri Lefebvre.

In other words, it can be defined as lived space. According to Canadian geographer Edward

Relph (1987), existential space is described as an active space to be experienced and created

by these experiences and furthermore recreated by the activities.

2.1.2. Conceptual and Spatial Triads

It is proposed by Lefebvre (1973) that social space is where the relations of production are

reproduced and that dialectical contradictions are spatial rather than temporal (p. 17-19).

According to him, social space should be analyzed in two parts; conceptual and spatial. Also,

he sees these parts of societal production are dialectically interacted by three factors, which

are; Spatial practice, Representation of space and Representational spaces (Figure 2.1)

7

Figure 2.1 The triangle of the produced Social Space

To summarize, all these factors interact in social spatialization which is always in progress but

with structuring effects and also multi scaled (bodies fitted to built environment, landscape

and nature created). Moreover, it is physical but also conceptual and imagined.

2.1.2.1 Spatial Practice

In Lefebvres view (1991), space is constituted by spatial space which is produced in

everyday life with particular locations and spatial sets of every individual in society. He

observed this factor empirically since this type of space is alive and dynamic; also Lefebvre

(1991) defined the spatial practice of society secrets that societys space; it propounds and

presupposes it, in a dialectical interaction; it produces it slowly and surely as it masters and

appropriates it (p. 38).

Thus, as well as representing the space of real life, spatial practice is a result of spatial

production directly affected and dominated by everydayness market with appropriate places.

Also, spatial practice with all its contradictions in everyday life, space perceived in the

commonsensical mode, ignored one minute the next.

8

2.1.2.2 Representation of Space

Another factor introduced by Lefebvre is representation of space, which is defined as the

space developed by cognition. The core idea of the factor is knowledge since this factor is

also seen as a concrete abstraction which encircles the core. Lefebvre (1991) stated that;

representation of space is a conceptualized space, the space of scientists, planners, urbanists,

technocratic sub dividers and social engineers, as a certain type of artist with a scientific bent-

all of who identify what is lived and what is perceived with what is conceived (p. 38).

According to the definition, it can be deduced that the space is first planned then produced by

some authorities who are competent. Similarly, these authorities can built this space in two

dimensions; the first dimension is ideologies while the second one is potentials for repression.

In other words, space reflects some masculine characteristics with repressive behaviors; for

instance, as Lefebvre (1991) exemplifies as, it is imposed relations between production to

knowledge, signs, codes and frontal relations (p. 33).

Thus, representations of space (discourses on space) are the discursive regimes of theories,

spatial and planning professions and expert knowledge which conceive of space.

2.1.2.3 Representational Space

The last factor stated by Lefebvre is the representational spaces which mean complex

symbolizations and ideational spaces. He (1991) defined them as, embodied complex

symbolisms, sometimes coded, sometimes not, linked to the clandestine of underground side

of social life (p. 33). Referring to this statement, complex relations can be observed within

9

these spaces as well as experience is shared passively as a result of these relations (Lefebvre,

1991, p. 38 39). What is more, these relations are grasped tightly by the historical

accumulations; thus, Lefebvre (1991) stated this space according to these historical relations

as history of space (p. 42).

Thus, representational space (Discourse of Space; spaces of representation) is space with

memory as it might be, fully lived space moments of presence. It is surrealist; that is, it

shocks people into a new conception of the spatialization of social life.

2.1.3 Transformation of Spaces

Transformation of spaces was classified as three different spaces which are absolute space,

abstract space and differentiated space.

The origin of absolute space was defined in accordance with users by Henri Lefebvre (1991);

The cradle of absolute space its origin, if we are to use that term is a fragment of agro-

pastoral space, a set of places named and exploited by peasants, or by nomadic or semi-

nomadic pastoralists (p. 234). Absolute space has the potentiality of being close to nature and

organic structure. It also belongs to space of death with the dominance of the living creatures,

such as, graves and funerary monuments. It is little-bit hard to distinguish from abstract and

differentiated spaces; however, Lefebvre (1991) has a description about this problem;

10

absolutely absolute space is located nowhere. It has no place because it embodies

all places, and has a strictly symbolic existence. This is what makes it similar to the

fictitious/real space of language, and of that mental space, magically (imaginarily) cut

off from the spatial realm, where the consciousness of the subject or self-

consciousness takes form. (p. 236).

Absolute space is also a matter consisting two major mechanisms that are imitation and

identification. In accordance with that religious and political spaces can be defined as absolute

space. These spaces can be exemplified as sacred or cursed locations, such as, palaces,

funerary monuments, commemorative monuments and temples.

Secondly, abstract space does not indicate what it contains. It is explained as specific

imaginary elements: fantasy images, symbols which appear to arise from something else. It

can be easily said that, abstract space can be a mediator for power. About this symbol,

Lefebvre (1991) described as;

The ruling classes seize hold of abstract space as it comes into being (their political

action occasions the establishment of abstract space, but it is synonymous with it), and

they then use that space as a tool of power, without for all that forgetting its other uses:

the organization of production and of the means of production in a word, the

generation of profit (p. 314).

The artists, architects or city planners can use their work for legitimating ideology, which

can be discussed with by the notion of abstract space. In the abstract space, homogeneity of

space is important, Lefebvre explained that (1991);

Abstract space is not homogeneous; it simply has homogeneity as its goal, its orientation, its lens. And, indeed, it renders homogeneous. But in itself it is multiform. (p. 287).

11

2.1.3.3 Differential Space

Differential space does not differ from the abstract space, but it is occurred from the abstract

space. It is created by counter culture or alternative culture.The notion of differential space

(counter space) is;

we can see how a counter-space can insert itself into spatial reality: against the Eye

and the Gaze, against quantity and homogeneity, against power and the arrogance of

power, against the endless expansion of the private and of industrial profitability; and

against specialized spaces and a narrow localization of function. (pp. 381-382).

For differential space (counter space), the importance is given to the serve of architecture,

instead of the power of capital. According to Henri Lefebvre, abstract spaces transform into

differential spaces.

2.2 Social Space and Social Product Relationship

The spatial turn is well established through the work of Lefebvre in which he describes space

in this sense is socially constructed. (Social) space is a (Social) product the space thus

produced also serves as a tool of thought and action; that in addition to being a means of

production it is also a means of control, and hence of domination, of power; yet that, as such,

it escapes in part from those who would make us of it (p. 26), said Lefebvre (1991).

Focusing on the first phrase, Lefebvre (1991) meant that, social space is produced with the

collection of things, an aggregate of (sensory) data or by a void packet like parcel with

various contents (p. 27) which stated construction of space included more complex

dialectics. In other words, physical spaces are built within a complex dialectic relationship

12

with the societies that inhabit them. He argues with the first phrase that no one can reduce the

social space to only a basic form. To put it more simply, Lefebvre considered space as a

complex social product but a form and opposes the classical approach to space concept.

In classical approach, the analytic concepts of space are;

Form and formal analysis composition,

Function construction,

Structure proportion, scale, rhythm, the various orders (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 159).

Form, function and structure concepts are interrelated; in addition, they can be reanalyzed as

new concepts such as identity, reciprocity, recurrence, repetition (iteration), and difference

(Lefebvre, 1991, p. 149) . In addition to these enlarged concepts, space has attributes in itself

as follows;

Space; is result and cause,

Product and producer,

Stake,

The locus of projects and actions,

Deployed as a part of scientific strategies,

The object of wagers on the future (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 143).

13

Moreover, space is used as an apparatus of thoughts and activities (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 26).

Rather, power uses space as a controller or repression device in some value. This value of

space is classified in two groups;

Social relations of production of space (Body space relations, identity)

The realm of production relations (State and space, property relations)

As it can be derived from the statement above, social relation of production deals with realms

of body space relations and identity. In the following chapters (chapter 2.2.1. and chapter

2.2.2.), however they are interrelated so closely, they will be classified into two different

groups and analyzed as social relations in the production of space and the relations of

production.

2.2.1. Social Relations in the Production of Space

Social relations do not produce space only, but also reproduce social space. Society can be the

inception when social space is dealt with. According to points of Marxist theories, society can

be specified as three basic materials, which are:

1. Economical basis: Producing material objects, wealth, labor and organization of

labor.

2. Social Structure: Social relations are, of course, structured and structural and they

are determined by the basis and determining relations of ownership.

3. Superstructure: Acts/Laws, institutions and ideologies (Lefebvre 1971, 31).

These three bases have influences on the production of space. On the other hand, production

of society is combined with production of space.

14

In accordance with the development of social spaces, the new ones generally do not

preponderate against the others. However, it changes them. Lefebvre described this surpassing

as;

Social spaces interpenetrate one another and/or superimpose themselves upon one

another. They are not things, which have mutually limiting boundaries and which

collide because of their contours or as a result of inertia. (Lefebvre 1991, 86).

Because of this, we can easily say that, social space keeps on reproducing itself by the present

interactions. In accordance with this, the interaction can be associated by social locus.

Last of all, the relationship of body and space, social group and space or identity can be also

dependant on time. The relations of body and space or the notion of identity will be wxamined

as a social production of space.

2.2.2. The Relations of Production

As mentioned earlier, forces of production do not effect production of space only, but also

reproduction of space.

Space is defined as result of social superstructures(Lefebvre 1991, 85).

It is also, bound up with the forces of production.(Lefebvre 1991, 95)

These production of properties must be described as the productive forces and can not be

separated.

15

2.2.2.1. State and Space

There are an important relationship between state and the relations of productions, and also

contradictions between classes. As a result, state can be mentioned to legitimate the resource

of force and lays claim to a monopoly on violence (Lefebvre 1991, 280).

State can be described as power for Lefebvre. He explained the concept as;

The state was The state was constituted as an imaginary and real, abstract and concrete being which recognized no restraints upon itself other than those deriving from relations based on force (its relations with its own internal components, and those with its congeners -

invariably rivals and virtual adversaries (Lefebvre 1991, 279).

In accordance with this, space can be reproduced by each new form of political power which,

introduces its own particular way of partitioning space, its own particular administrative

classification of discourses about space and about things and people in space. This

reproduction is occurred in order to reproduce social relationships. In addition, Lefebvre

points out that;

There is dependence between ideology and political power which earth, labor and capital are under the control of the state. Moreover, it can be emphasized that, with

this power, the ideology of this power can be applied spatial, social and economical

formation of space (Lefebvre 1991, 327).

2.2.2.2. Property Relations

Production relations generally influence on the production of space. In this realm the

formation of space can be examined in terms of property relations.

The importance of real property has changed with the capitalism. Moreover, neo-capitalism

also creates its own spaces. In classical forms of production, real property has a small role,

however, with the capitalist ideology, it has exchange value. Private property is an important

16

component of the hegemony in the capitalist system (Lefebvre 1991), as it is used for

investment object. Prof. Dr. Gven Arif Sargn explains the effects of neo-capitalism as;

Today, with neo-capitalism, city is becoming a commodity which is used in marketing. And creates its own spaces. (Sargn 2007).

Additionally, producing a thing, money making is done with increasing the value of property.

And as the value of properties increase with minimum costs, more money can be made.

The influences of property relations in relation to space can be analyzed via the differences

between dominated space and appropriated space.

a. Dominated Space

Dominated spaces can be explained as transformed and mediated by technology, by

practice. (Lefebvre 1991, 164). Their origins refer to power. For instance, military

architecture, fortifications and ramparts, dams and irrigation systems can be examples.

Lefebvre explained the relationships of outside and inside of the house or public space as; the

outside is dominated space and inside is appropriated space (Lefebvre 1991, 166).

b. Appropriated Space

Appropriated space looks like work of art, as it has a value of being natural and it changes

according to needs of the group who appropriates that place. Although appropriation has the

meaning of excluding the others.

E. Alanyal gives us a difference in her thesis to solve the problem between possession and

appropriation;

17

A possessed space may be appropriated and reappropriated for several times during the period that it is being possessed (even by the same person). On the other hand,

every appropriated space is not necessarily possessed. (Alanyal 2003, 19).

This difference presents us that; appropriaton space has social, individual may be

psychological characteristics of owning a place.

18

CHAPTER III

RGP, THE PLACE AND ITS HISTORY

In chapter 3, the research methodology of the study is described in accordance with

conceptual and the spatial limitations. Furthermore, the historical and memorial information

about rgp is tried to be given.

3.1 Research Methodology of the rgps Social Production

The afformentioned case study aims to describe and discuss the space at rgp, in Nevehir

as a production which belongs to many parameters. The analysis is going to be covered with

consideration of these factors by understanding the social production of space. The

importance of conserving the cultural and natural diversity with several identities in the rgp

must be underlined which is linked with newly developing residential areas, which are

products just for accomodation and commercial.

The theoretical background is constructed on Lefebvres production of space in order to

analyze space as a value for the experience urban life. The main argument is that the space

should be considered to be a production that Henri Lefebvre gave an importance as (social)

space is a (social) production.

In the underlined study of theoretical background, rgp is going to be analysed as a case of

the social production of space. The framework of the study is limited to the discussion of

space as a social product with by the keywords of occupation, appropriation and boundaries

within the rgp city. A social space rgp and its districts, such as, Temenni, Eskirgp

19

and so on has an important value which contains the spatialization of inner anatolian culture

within an exceptional, attractive and unlimited geographic environment.

3.2 The Case of rgp

rgp was chosen as a case study area, because of that, It is one of the Nevehirs first

historic residential areas. Temenni, Eski Greme and Kayakap neighborhood is located

within the boundaries of Greme National Park and the Cappadocia Rocky Areas which

were included in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

rgp city has 19,116 people in its urban area and 35,000 people on district. During

the summer period, this population reaches 100,000 and over in urban area.

(Yldz 2013).

This population density shows us that rgp and Cappadocia district also have touristic value.

Urban sprawl (Figure 3.1) in rgp city firstly started on the surface of natural forms.

Kayakap and Temenni neighborhoods carry an important source of social production because

of being integrated with natural forms. As a result of these developments (urban sprawl,

population, etc.), with half-ruined buildings and natural elements, the present rgp

neighborhood, has become a mysterious texture.

20

Figure 3.1 rgp Urban Texture from Yandex Satelite System

3.2.1 The History of rgp

rgp is one of the most important tourism centers of Cappadocia regions. It has magnificent

historical texture with greater, more central Anatolian region. rgp has drawn on its

prehistory and constantly developing culture as means through which to define present

identity.

Archeological excavations in rgp and the surrounding area have uncovered walls and

floors to houses, investigations that have exposed an ancient culture in the region with a

relatively large population that used advanced tools and possessed much architectural

acumen.

After Assyrians, Persians and Hittites, the Byzantine empire would come, see, and conquer

next, infusing the region with Iconoclastic Christian worship. The predominant faith until

21

Seljuk and Ottoman people entered, bringing with them the Islamic religion and roots that

characterize Urgp to this day. The district governorship of rgp (2009) describes

accommodation features of Kayakap duing the Ottoman period as;

The Neighbourhood took the architectural form of today in the 18th and 19th Centuries

following the Tulip Era marked by Damat Ibrahim Pasha of Nevsehir, the Grand Vezir of

the Ottoman Empire. During this period, Kayakap also known as "Landowners

Neighbourhood" in rgp, was adorned by large mansions of the five Aghas (Landowners)

who prospered thanks to iltizam (privilege of collecting taxes on behalf of the Emperor) and

their families.

Figure 3.2 Kayakap neighborhood from an old-Greek Source

Although being a Muslim and Christian neighborhood (Figure 3.2), the area hosts elements,

which have great value for the Orthodox population in the then cosmopolitan city of rgp.

Hosts elements of that area include the rock churches which give rise to thought that there

may have been Christian life in the area much earlier periods, plus the structure whose original

name was Eset Aghas Mansion, also known as House of Saint John the Russian, referring to a

Greek folk saint (The Governorship of rgp, 2009).

Temenni, Eskirgp, Kayakap, and House of Saint John the Russian, is today one of the

stops of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul at his annual visit to Cappadocia.

22

3.2.2 rgp in the Collective Memory

rgp which has been established at the outskirts of the hill named as hill of whishness

founded at 20 km in north of Nevehir province in one of the first settlement areas of

Cappadocia region.

As mentioned before, rgp has well-known texture with its culture, form and its history.

rgp belongs to the municipality of Nevehir city and it consists of 51 neighborhoods such

as Sofular, Bahelievler, 370Evler, Temenni and Yenicami etc.

Until the first year of the republic was called rgp, rgp was the patriarchate centre of the

Cappadocia region (Yldz 2011, 1). The zml Church, Cambazl church and Sarca

Church in Ortahisar which was one of the villages of rgp are the oldest rock churches from

the region (The governorship of rgp 2011). Furthermore, Church of Saint Basileious and

Tavanl Church are the spectacular places. rgp also has famous cave hotels which are

integrated with natural rocky forms, special wines and hand-made carpets. It is the most

important tourism center of the Cappadocia Region. The old cave houses have been restoring

as a touristic cave hotel without damaging their historic texture and structure. Among the cave

hotels some of the caves have been restores as a distraction place as discos, bars, restaurants

and entertainment places.

23

Figure 3.3 Kayakap Fountain before and after

Generally, neighborhoods which consist of religious centered squares or a fountain reflect the

unique feature of settlements (Figure 3.3). Streets accord with topographical forms and proper

for mounts and people together with. These organic shaped streets sometimes carry wooden

or stone shores (Figure 3.4). Also, we can see garden fences and courtyards little bit.

After 1950s (The governorship of rgp) city centre and some commercial zones spread on

spatial reservoir which is occurred by natural hills like Temenni Hill.

24

Figure 3.4 Stone buttress on rgp traditional house

25

CHAPTER IV

READING RGP IN TERMS OF LEFEBVRE

This chapter contains the concentrated analysis that are done on account of the thesis. In

general the chapter will be divided in two topics. The first topic consists of the social

production of rgp. The second topic discuss with the relationship between rgp and the

State.

4.1 rgp as a Social Production

The acknowledgment of this research is that rgp is an important instance of a social

production. In consideration of analyze the social production of rgp, the formation of this

process is going to be analyzed with strongly connected parts. In accordance with that, the

main seperation will be the different layers of the social interactions, the relationships of

social production and the state relationships in rgp.

4.1.1 Social Relations in rgp

In accordance with the information of rgp is given above, rgp is a living place.

Moreover, it is the physical appearance dependants on this. First of all the integral part that

the social space of rgp is formed in centuries with pass through social spaces that is named

anonymous space. Most of the accomodations have been living there for a long time.

According to some community dwellers approximately %90 of the residents has born in

rgp. Moreover, some of dwellers in old neighborhoods are relatives.

26

Dwellers from rgp also have remarkable social features which separate the people from

other Anatolian people. By the gestures, accent, mimics and body movements rgp has been

forming with the interactions and actions that are coding as organizational.

Additionally, the social production can be differing with the dimensions of houses, the houses

integrated with rocky nature, usage of the streets, age of buildings, and even colors of the

houses. Also, the neighborhoods of rgp such as Eskirgp, Kayakap, Temenni,

Bahelievler, etc can be explained with the Henri Lefebvres term of representational space

or lived space. In Lefebvres spatial triad as rgp is reproduced in the inhabitants minds

in accordance with the memories, stories and experiences of dwelling. In other words, some

of rgp neighborhoods consist of many tales of its dwellings for hundreds of years.

For instance, the following figure (Figure 4.1) was taken in Temenni neighborhood, rgp. It

is not hard to define this view from rgp, with the culture of anatolia, inhabitants realize

social production on terrace of a typical rgp house by cheating, making common works and

so on. With these traces and symbols, rgp has been formed in collective memory as a

mental space.

Figure 4.1 rgp dwellers while talking and sharing works on terrace

27

Unfortunately, there is an important problem that the dwellers must deal with. According to

the renewal project of Kayakap in rgp,

In 1969, Kayakap, Temenni, Eski rgp Neighbourhoods were also subject to the disaster area announcement, which was a general policy adopted by the Turkish Government at that

times. As a result of the policy evacuation process followed and was completed in 1984, the

majority of the population in the neighbourhood were settled in the "Disaster Houses",

founded on the east bank of Damsa Creek, passing through the city. As a result of these

developments, with half-ruined buildings and natural elements, the present Kayakap Neighbourhood, has become a mysterious texture in the memory of the city on one hand and

on the other hand it has entered into the process of gradually becoming extinct. (Kayakap, Premium Caves, 2009)

Although some problems that they must deal with, they have been managing to live and

survive with their social formations until today. We can be easily observe their cultures and

social habits during the wedding or funeral ceremonies. Surely, it shows that social space

must be differed in related with changing conditions or interwinning with other social spaces

like the social spaces of the german turks (Ylmaz, 2013) that settled down in rgp. As cited

before the traces of their communal life can be seen in the housing units, street and urban

memory. These can be analyzed in three scales which are district scale, living-storage-space

scale and cave houses scale. With by district scale the dwellers use the district as semi-private

unit. The other scales consist of small living organisms metaphorically surrounded a court. All

scales will be analayzed with the terms of social production of space.

28

4.1.1.1 District as a Semi-Private Unit

In general, public space can be described as dominated space and private space can be

described as an appropriated space. In rgp there are some varietes about this sample. Sharp

boundaries between outside and inside do not exist because of alterations of natural forms.

Figure 4.2 A view of semi-private space among the rgp houses

District can be defined as semi-private space in rgp. The district must be a social space for

economical interdependence and security. Streets and rock houses that are the main

components of the texture of rgp have their own pattern and character (Figure 4.2). On the

terrace of houses and at the streets children who play each other and people who talk each

other or do some works like repairs. In addition to that with some furniture in front of the

doors, we can comprehend that people talking during the day. All of these show us that,

dwellers have a strong representing place of their identity.

29

4.1.1.2 Cave Houses and Social Life (Living, Storage and Stable Spaces)

As mentioned above, belonging to its district texture, rgp has own neighborhood

typologies. These sort of typologies have been formed according to inhabitants communal

life.

Figure 4.3 A view from entrance hall in a cave house

Generally, plan of an rgp house occurs an entrance hall and some minimalistic rooms

(Figure 4.3) which surround to this hall. Plan and type of the house is specified by entrance

hall, because entrance hall is dominantly variable, but room dimensions and typologies are not

variable in rgp traditional houses. Urban crowded and lands increasing in value have

necessitated withdrawn planning. In traditional rock houses desiring of more comfortable life

style and beware of cold and dusty conditions are important social reasons to choose this

entrance-hall-centered typology. This symmetrical plan type gives place to more amount of

room and it realizes spatial economy.

30

Figure4.4 An outside view of a traditional cave house in Temenni neighborhood

The interior plan of traditional cave houses is withdrawn. However, It can be seen that,

outside of traditional rgp houses depend on social relations, pigeon culture, stable and

storage places and working areas which are for making rug, pottery and carriage (Ylmaz,

2013). Garden of houses consists of a courtyard and usually courtyard consists of pigeon

holes, stable and storage (Figure 4.4). Pigeon holes are made to produce fertilizer by

sustaining Seljuk traditions (Telliolu, 2012). Except working areas and stables, courtyards

are totally used for social production (Figure 4.5). Practical, functional and environment-

friendly courtyards connect to mini-squares and streets.

31

Figure 4.5 A view from a courtyard with its usage spaces

Eventually, the courtyard is applicable to collective use such as working, sharing social

products or maintaining traditions like pigeon fertilizing. The rooms are opening to entrance

hall and entrance hall is opening to courtyards. In accordance with this, courtyards are living

rooms of a traditional rgp house. It can be seen that the inhabitants occupy their spaces

with their living way. These kinds of spaces can be analyzed within the terms of appropriation

and spatial practice as forming in accordance with usage rather than creating a life according

to formation of space.

4.1.2 Production Types in rgp

As reported by Marxist ideology social relations are the integral part while forming the social

space. Lefebvre accentuated that the productive forces of the period effects social space

(Lefebvre 1991, 76). As mentioned above, social places economical basis deals with the

production types.

32

Also in the sample of rgp same concepts can be analyzed. The dwellers created their own

spaces with the economy of occupation, moreover they used to do that in a collective way.

However, there are also lots of stores in districts like rug store, tool shop, grocery and even

tailor. It is easy to realize that crafitng and agriculture are the main sector in the economy of

rgp. So, the disappearance of traditional rgp houses has started with the demolition of

these spaces.

4.1.2.1 The Economical Basis of rgp

As mentioned above until the early history, rgp inhabitants have been laboring with

agriculture and craft. Also in last century, they deal with tourism sector (Ylmaz 2013). The

structure of the labor of these houses has been formed by the families. For instance, a person

can carry the responsibility of a craft such as pottery or making rug since she/he is young.

It can be seen that agriculture is an integral part of rgp economy. Mustafa Kaya explained

the importance of agriculture in his book as;

Agriculture sector constitutes 70% of rgps economy. The volcanic structure of the zone consists of an extraordinary earth which is called as tf. This earth type provides the city with valuable vineyards. (Kaya 1994, p. 36)

The vineyards of rgp city (Figure 4.6) also provides a huge wine sector. According to data

of governorship, 90% of these grapes are collected by wine factories. One of these wine

factories belongs to TEKEL, three of them belong to private sector. Moreover there is also a

molasse factory which is located on Aksalur Vilage. (The governorship, 2010).

33

Figure 4.6 A vineyard among the natural forms of rgp

Additionally there are some fruit and cereal productions. (Figure 4.7). For example, potato

exportation, and apricot and apple cultivation are other parts of rgp agriculture sector.

Figure 4.7 Table of agricultural products in rgp

Another integral part of rgps economical structure is crafting. As mentioned above lots of

inhabitants in rgp can deal with a craft. Incontestable one of these necessary crafts is

pottery which is integrated with tourism (touristic trips to pottery workshops) and even

34

culinary (testi kebab or kurufasulye). Rug stores and workplaces (Figure 4.8) are also

important structure elements of rgp city. Making rug is the oldest craft in rgp because of

Anatolian and Seljuk artisan culture. (Bilgi, 2013)

Figure 4.8 Women artisans making traditional rug in an atelier

In this manner, it is easy to say that these economy forces of rgp, reveals rgps spatial

formation as an important district. In accordance with this, the property relations can have

definitive part to analyze the space within social end economical relations.

4.1.2.2 Property Relations in rgp

Property relations are generally described as the consequences of social relationships and

production relationships. rgp carries an important value of a unique texture character. As

mentioned before, in district layer and housing layer, there are different stages of

appropriation in the city of rgp.

35

As mentioned earlier in district scale, rgp can be read as an appropriated space. The

dwellers have important and old roots in there. The relativity between inhabitants can be seen

in all around the district. In accordance with this, It can be said that people of rgp have

strong and structural connections with their products, some animals and even plants. They live

in one storey houses and they used other floors as a storage place or stables. Some of them

keep animals like chickens, cats, dogs or even horses as a pet. They nurture horses and

donkeys to make easy some carrying works. Some of them have strong relations and they are

relatives and live together. Such a social structure can not be separated from its pattern which

is context of culture, place and people triangle.

Figure 4.9 Children playing with a dog on the street

Initially, according to some inhabitants of Temenni neighborhood, the records of land

registers are in mixed situation like one house belongs to multi shareholders. Also one of

them belongs to dwellers grandfather but it was arranged before law of family names,

because of that they can not prove that land register had inherited to the dwellers

36

(Anonymous, 2013). Moreover, lots of dwellers are tenants in Eskirgp, Temenni and

Altkapl neighborhood. As mentioned above, the relativity of social relations can be seen in

many street, courtyard or mini-square.

It can be seen that, the appropriation relations can be also interfering to each other as building

subdivisions are done according to portion that refers to its usage. In accordance with this, It

can be seen that some problems exist about appropriation in the adaptation process during the

demolishing traditional houses.

4.2 State and Space in rgp

Space is reproduced by the new political power and this situation contains its ideologies in

itself. Every political power creates its own space (Lefebvre 1991). As exemplified before,

some neighborhoods of rgp city are in dangerous about demolishing with by natural ways.

(Figure 4.10) Surely, Temenni neighborhood is not in good condition, many people are living

in there under the poverty situations. However with the moving to new neighborhoods or in

the future, moving to TOK residents can not be changed. They have to move peripheries of

their own neighborhoods. The district which belongs to dwellers is very important place. It is

located at the historical hill. Unfortunately, these migrations and carrying the houses can be

used by upper income families. The physical features will be changed, the conditions of

dwellers will not be better.

37

Figure 4.10 An rgp house which is about demolish

Moreover, there is an important value of the location of Temenni, Eskirgp and Kayakap

neighborhoods. In accordance with this, being on the historical-hill and geologically eligible

lands, Kayakap, Temenni and Eskirgp neighborhoods have the potential high values, but

this situation brings negativity with it. Appropriately, the case of these neighborhoods fit the

term of strategic location, explained by Lefebvre as;

Strategic space makes it possible simultaneously to force worrisome groups, the

workers among others, out towards the periphery; to make available spaces near the

centres scarcer, so increasing their value; to organize the centre as locus of decision,

wealth power and information; to find allies for the hegemonic class within the

middle strata and within the elite; to plan production and flows from the spatial

point of view; and so on (Lefebvre 1991, 375).

In accordance with this definition the existing situation can be observed in historical

neighborhoods as an upset situation.

38

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

All around the research paper, social production of space is discussed and examined with case

study of rgp and its historical neighborhoods, by focusing on the notions of

appropriation, ownership and occupation. The reason behind this case study is the

potentially of rgp to explain in detail the spatial formations of cultural, economic and

social relations.

The conceptual framework of the study based on Henry Lefebvres production of space,

producing space can be analyzed by inspecting its components which are described as

cultural, social and economical (depending on production relationships). The structure and

framework of this study is Henri Lefebvres production of space.

Therefore, depending on the analyses, it is important to show that rgp and its

neighborhoods are unique for sample for social and physical formation, which has a different

character of an urban texture. rgps collective life has been formed in accordance with

production and social relations that were analyzed.

As mentioned above, unfortunately important districts of rgp such as Temenni,

Bahelievler and Eski rgp are in case of demolishing due to changing natural form. These

changes push the dwellers to move other dwellings which are not applicable for social

production. For instance, Altkapl or Fatih neighborhood was constructed in 1990 (Yldz,

2013) and they do not carry any risk like demolishing. However, these neighborhoods do not

have courtyards, stable places or any spaces in front of their doors to talking neighbors. They

39

are four or five storey and they are opening to wide avenues or big streets which are full of

cars, trucks and many vehicles. Moreover, state or governorship does not push the button for

the dwellers which carry valuable potential of social production.

Figure 5.1 Kayakap Houses during the restoration

In 2002, a urban restoration project has been started with a high amount of budget. This

project is called as Kayakap Project Premium Caves. According to this project, old and

dangerous houses, storage places and stables have been bought from their owners. Then, these

structures have been restored, expand and design with expensive decorations (Figure 5.1).

(Kabaolu, 2006) It is easy to say that, this urban restoration project can be applicable. We

can talk about aesthetic view of Kayakap, restoration projects of a historical value or natural

integration of traditional skyline of rgp. However, it is important to point that, this project

does not carry features of social production. (Figure 5.2) Traditional cave houses of Temenni,

Eski rgp or Kayakap are belonging to rgp dwellers which are traditionally productive.

Moreover, they are not upper-class inhabitants. So, dwellers will not look for luxury cave

houses after natural demolishing.

40

Figure 5.2 A interior view of a Kayakap Houses which is restored with high budget

There is a better urban design proposal which was generated by me. This project aimed

Temenni neighborhood, its cave houses, historical and social heritages and sustaining of the

social production. It involves mini-square, social centre and fountain elements integrated with

traditional cave houses and social production areas. (Figure 5.3) It contains many elements to

sustain social production of space in accordance with occupation and appropriation values of

dwellers.

41

Figure 5.3 An urban design proposal for Temenni neighborhood which was generated by E.ada Bilgi

42

Thus, from start to end, the point of view of the thesis, rgp is a social product and there are

many dynamics and parameters waiting to use in that space, which creates that space. These

dynamics can be analyzed from district scale to building scale. The study can prove that for

places like rgp, where the cultural, economic and social relations have interwoven a place

as a social product.

43

REFERENCES

Alanyal, E. (2003). Leftover Space as a Value and Potentiality for the Public realm in the City. Unpublished PhD Thesis in Architecture. METU Faculty of Architecture, Ankara.

Anonymous. (2011) History of Kayakap Retrieved 2011, from, http://www.kayakapi.com/tarihce.aspx

Anonymous (2011) Urgup Cappadocia Turkey, facts and history Retrieved February 24, 2011, from,

http://travel-turkey-advisory.com/nevsehir-urgup-goreme/urgup-cappadocia-turkey-facts-and-

history.html

Anonymous (2001) Nevehir, rgp Mahalleleri Retrieved 2001, from, http://www.e-sehir.com/turkiye-haritasi/nevsehir-urgup-mahalleleri.html#.UZv4R7X_Dy9

Anonymous (2001) Bilinmeyen Kapadokya/rgp Retrieved 2001, from, http://www.urgup.gov.tr/default_B0.aspx?content=186

Germen, M. Oykut, C. Bilgin, M. (2011). La Production de LEscape: Kent zerine Bir Sergi. , from, http://alanistanbul.com/turkce/gecmis/la-production-de-lespace-kent-uzerine-bir-sergi

Kaya, M. (1994). Gemiten Gnmze rgp. Kaya Yaynlar, stanbul.

Kabaolu, C., Yldrm, A.E. Kayakap Projesi ve rgpte Kentsel Dnm. May, 2006, from, dosya kentsel dnm

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (N. S. Donald, Translated). Blackwell

Publishing, London.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings On Cities (E. Balabanllar, Translated). Blackwell Publishing, London.

Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday Life in Modern World (S. Robinovitch, Translated). Allen

Lane, London.

Merrifield, A. (2002). Metromarxism, A Marxist Tale of the City. Routledge, New York.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion, London.

Sargn, G. A. (2007). Kent zerine Notlar. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from, http://www. Arkitera.com/v1/koseyazisi/guvenarifsargin/yazi1.htm

Telliolu, M. (2011). Kapadokya Gzel Atlar lkesi Retrieved September 18, 2011, from, http://murattellioglu.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/kapadokya/

Trkmen, Kemal Talih (1999). Bilinmeyen Kapadokyadan bir kesit: rgp. rn Yaynlar, stanbul.

44