4 Mekanın Üretimi

URBAN SPACES RE-DEF!NED !N DA!LY PRACT!
CES:
THE CASE OF N!N!BAR", ANKARA.

A THES!S SUBN!TTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPL!ED SC!ENCES
OF
N!DDLE EAST TECHN!CAL UN!vERS!T!Y

BY

DEN!Z ALTAY

!N PART!AL FULF!LLNENT OF THE REQU!RENENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF NASTER OF SC!ENCE
!N
URBAN DES!GN

SEPTENBER 200+

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Canan Ozgen
Director

! certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Naster of Science.

Prof. Dr. Ali Trel
Head of the Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Naster of Science.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gven Arif Sargin
Supervisor

Examining Commitee Members

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Baykan Gnay (NETU, CP)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gven Arif Sargin (NETU, Arch)
Assist. Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tili (NETU, Soc.)
!nstr. Sevin Osmay (NETU, CP)
N.S. Hlya Ozdil (NETU, CP)

iii

! hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with acedemic rules and ethical conduct. ! also
declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, ! have fully cited and
referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name : Deniz Altay
Signature :

iv

ABSTRACT

URBAN SPACES RE-DEF!NED !N DA!LY PRACT!CES: THE CASE OF N!N!BAR",
ANKARA

Altay, Deniz
Ns. Department of Urban Design
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gven Arif Sargin
September 200+, 159 pages

This study, preconceives space as a social phenomenon, and emphasizes the fact that
the urban space cannot be separated from its inhabitants. Accordingly, it suggests that
the investigation of both the city and its inhabitants is crucial with respect to everyday
life and practice. Hence, the study questions how inhabitants create their spaces
following their needs and demands, and how the urban space is re-defined and re-
produced through appropriation. Noreover, the study aims to understand how the
inhabitants express themselves and how they resist through the spaces they produce
in their daily practices.
With this aim, the thesis investigates a spatial activity performed by young people in
Ankara, the case of `Ninibar', for understanding the process explained as `re-definition'
of urban space. The research reveals that these spaces become possible through their
spatial characteristics. These spaces transgress the established space, yet they are
sustained due to their ephemerality, impermanency and flexibility. Furthermore these
spaces are discovered to be a medium of expression for the inhabitants.
v
!n conclusion, this study asserts an approach towards the city and explains that
through looking to the `lived spaces' rather than rhetorics, calculations and
presumptions, we can obtain a clear and actual picture about the city and the
inhabitants.

Keywords: Social space, Appropriation, Tactics, Re-definition, Resistance, Ninibar,
Tunali
vi

OZ

GUNDEL!K FAAL!YETLERDE YEN!DEN TAN!NLANAN KENTSEL NEKANLAR:
ANKARA, N!N!BAR" ORNEG!

Altay, Deniz
Y.Lisans, Kentsel Tasarim Blm
Tez Yneticisi: Do. Dr. Gven Arif Sargin
Eyll 200+, 159 sayfa

Nekani sosyal bir olgu olarak ele alan bu alima, kent mekaninin kent sakinlerinden
bagimsiz olarak dnlemeyecegini vurgulamayi amalar. Bu dogrultuda, alima
kentin gndelik yaantisi iindeki yaanan mekanlar" zerinden kenti ve kentliyi
aratirmayi nerir.
Bu alima, kentsel mekanin sadece plancilar ve mimarlar tarafindan degil, kentsel
mekan kullanicilarinin kendileri tarafindan da retilmeye devam ettigini ne sren
tartimalardan hareketle, kent sakinlerinin ihtiyalari ve talepleri dogrultusunda
mekanlarin nasil yarattildigini anlamayi amalar ve kentsel mekana dair bu farkli retim
srecini inceler. Kent mekaninin kullanicinin gndelik faaliyetlerinde uygunlatirma yolu
ile nasil `yeniden tanimlandigini', nasil yeni anlamlar kazanip, yeniden retildigini
anlamayi hedefler. Ote yandan kullanicinin yarattigi mekanlar zerinden temsiliyetlerin
oluumu, tavir ve tepkilerinin gsterimi, ve direnilerin biimi de tezin ierigini
oluturmaktadir.
Tez, bu dogrultuda Ankara sokaklarinda genlerin yarattigi bir mekani, `Ninibar'i
inceleyerek `yeniden tanimlama' olarak ortaya koydugu bu farkli retim srecinin nasil
vii
mmkn oldugu sorusunu yanitlamaya aliir. Aratirma sonulari, pratikler zerinden
tanimlanan mekanin farkli zellikler ile kendini mmkn kildigini gstermektedir. Bu
mekanlar geicilikleri, hareketlilikleri ve esneklikleri ile mevcut mekanin sinirlarini ihlal
etmelerine ragmen kendilerini srdrlebilmektedirler. Ayrica bu mekansal pratiklerin
bir ifade biimi oldugu da anlailir.
Sonu olarak, bu alima kenti anlamaya ynelik yeni bir baki aisi nerirken, bu
ekilde kentli hakkinda, sylemler, hesaplar ve varsayimlarin saglayabileceginden daha
net ve gerek bir bilgiye ulailabilinecegini gstermektedir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Sosyal mekan, Uygunlatirma, Yeniden tanimlama, Direni, Ninibar,
Tunali

viii

To my family,

ix

ACKNOWLEDGENENTS

! would like to express my gratitude to my advisor; Gven Arif Sargin, for the support
and motivation he gave throughout the study. With his stimulating and beneficial
guidance, this experience became highly educative and enjoyable.
! would also like to thank Sevin Osmay, Hlya Ozdil and Helga Rittersberger-Tili for
their advices and support. ! also owe thanks to Nurat Gven, since with his
enthousiasm and energy, he always provokes commitment for academic work. ! would
also like to thank Baykan Gnay, for providing an inter-disciplinary ground on which
many students have the opportunity to accomplish research. With all the enlightments
of these significant academicians, this study became possible.
! would also like to thank to the Ninibar participants. They were as excited as me in
this study, they supported and trusted me, and shared many of their experiences and
memories. ! especially thank Saygin, for his energy always kept me motivated.
! would also like to thank all my family for their trust and encouragement throughout
all my life. ! especially thank my brother Can Altay. He has always been for me, the
greatest support and a true friend. Finally, ! would like to thank all of my friends, and
to dear volkan. ! am very happy of being able to share everything with them.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAG!AR!SN ..................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iv
OZ ................................................................................................................... vi
DED!CAT!ON ................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGENENTS ....................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... x
L!ST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xiii
L!ST OF F!GURES ............................................................................................ xiv

CHAPTER
1. !NTRODUCT!ON ....................................................................................... 1
2. SOC!AL CONCEPTUAL!SAT!ONS ON THE URBAN SPACE ................................ 7
2.1. The Death of The Public Life .................................................................. 8
2.2. The Social Space - Henri Lefebvre' s Triad On Spatiality .......................... 12
2.3. Thirdspace" ....................................................................................... 17
2.+. The Strangely Familiar" Projects .......................................................... 18
3. UNCOvER!NG THE SPACES OF THE !NHAB!TANT: A NETHODOLOG!CAL
ACCOUNT .............................................................................................. 23
3.1. The Case Of Ninibar", Ankara - Trkiye ................................................ 23
xi
3.1.1. Ninibar As A Space Created By The City !nhabitants ....................... 25
3.1.2. A Research On `Re-Defined' Spaces ............................................... 29
3.1.3. !nvestigating Ninibar Through !n-Depth !nterviewing" ................... 32
3.1.3.1. !n-Depth !nterviewing ......................................................... 32
3.1.3.2. The !nterview Purpose ......................................................... 33
3.1.3.3. The !nterview ..................................................................... 35
3.1.3.+. The !nterview Sample .......................................................... 37
3.1.3.5. The !nterviewing Process ..................................................... 38
3.1.3.6. The Participant Profile ......................................................... 39
3.1.3.7. A Grounded Theory Analysis For Ninibar: Evaluation of The
!nterview Findings .............................................................. +2
+. N!N!BAR: THE RESEARCH ....................................................................... +5
+.1. Describing Ninibar ............................................................................... +5
+.1.1. The Location .............................................................................. +5
+.1.1.1. The Development Of Kavaklidere .......................................... +6
+.1.1.2. The Socio-Economic Profile Of Kavaklidere ............................. +7
+.1.1.3. The Land-Use ..................................................................... +8
+.1.1.+. Ninibar" ............................................................................ +9
+.1.2. The Participant Group .................................................................. 52
+.1.3. Defining Ninibar And The Re-Definition Of The Urban Space ............ 60
+.1.3.1. A Definition For Ninibar ....................................................... 60
+.1.3.2. Re-Definition Of The Urban Space Through A New Use - The
Production Of An Urban Space And Culture ........................... 63
+.2. The Spatiality Of Ninibar, Boundaries And Temporality ............................ 67
+.3. The Relation Of Ninibar With The City ................................................... 76
+.3.1. Transgressive Pratices Of Ninibar ................................................. 76
xii
+.3.2. Rivalry Relations Among Different !nhabitant Groups ...................... 78
+.+. Hidden Expressions Beyond The Re-Defined Spaces ............................. 9+
+.+.1. Participant Group And The Expression Of !dentities ........................ 9+
+.+.1.1. Youth Studies ..................................................................... 95
+.+.1.2. Youth Cultures And !dentities After The 1980s ....................... 99
+.+.1.3. Expression Of !dentities !n Ninibar ...................................... 105
+.+.2. Resistances !nhered !n Re-Defined Spaces ................................... 108
+.+.3. Conclusion ................................................................................ 115
+.5. Conclusions For The Case Study .......................................................... 118
5. CONCLUS!ON: D!SCUSS!ON ON THE SPACES OF THE !NHAB!TANT............. 123
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 131

APPEND!CES
A. NAPS AND DRAW!NGS ON ANKARA, N!N!BAR ........................................ 138
B1. THE !NTERv!EW GU!DEL!NE ................................................................. 1+6
B2. PART!C!PANT !NFORNAT!ON SHEET ..................................................... 1+9
B3. TABLES ON PART!C!PANT !NFORNAT!ONS ............................................. 150
B+. KEYWORD ANALYS!S ........................................................................... 15+
B5. THE N!N!BAR !NTERv!EW F!ND!NGS EvALUAT!ON NATR!X ..................... 157

xiii

L!ST OF TABLES

B3.1. Ankara 1990: Settled Household's !ncome - Status Differentiation Nodel
............................................................................................................. 150
B3.2. Personal !nformation on the !nterviewees ................................................. 151
B3.3. The Temporality of The Ninibar Practice ................................................... 152
B3.+. !ncome Levels, Schools and Economic Dependency. ..................... 152
B3.5. The Socio-Economic Profile Of The Districts Where Ninibar Participants Reside
............................................................................................................. 153
B3.6. Gender ................................................................................................. 153
B+.1. Keywords Used For The Definition of Ninibar ............................................ 15+
B+.2. Keywords Used For The Definition of Ninibar Participant ............................ 155
B+.3. Keywords Used !n The Definition Of The New-comers ............................... 156
B5.1. Evaluation Natrix ................................................................................... 157

xiv

L!ST OF F!GURES

F!GURE
3.1. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................... 2+
+.1. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................... 56
+.3. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................... 6+
+.+. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................... 65
+.10. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................. 8+
+.11. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................. 8+
+.12. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................. 85
+.13. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003) ............................................................. 85

xv

L!ST OF NAPS

NAP
A. 1. Ankara: Central Districts and The !ncome-Status Differentiation .................. 138
A. 2. The Central Development of Ankara (1930 - 1990) ..................................... 139
A. 3. The !ncome- Status Differentiation of Settled Households in Ankara (1985),
Gven (2001) ....................................................................................... 1+0
A. +.1. Kavaklidere land-use ............................................................................ 1+1
A. 5. Kavaklidere Transportation Scheme .......................................................... 1++
A. 6. The Ninibar Area .................................................................................... 1+5

1

CHAPTER 1

!NTRODUCT!ON

This is how space begins, with words only, signs traced on the blank
page. To describe space: to name it, to trace it, like those portolano-
makers who saturated the coastlines with the names of harbours, the
names of capes, the names of inlets, until in the end the land was only
separated from the sea by a continuous ribbon of text." (Perec, 1997: 13)
This study is an attempt to understand the different processes through which the
urban space is defined. Spaces are firstly defined in the words and thoughts, in the
visions and programs of the urban professionals. Spaces get restricted in the budgets,
manipulated in the objectives of private or public investors and consequently they are
constructed and provided to the use of the inhabitants. Then, spaces are `re-defined'
in the daily lives, uses, practices and acts, and in the imagination and creativity of the
urban inhabitants.
The study aims to emphasize that spaces cannot be seperated from the inhabitant and
that spaces are not accomplished when they are not lived. !t is the spatial
experiences, which completes the definition of a space. Therefore the urban space is
also produced in practices, in the ways inhabitants ùse' it.
This idea of production is one asserted by Nichel de Certeau, in his work The
Production of Everyday Life", where he questions the ways in which ùsers' operate.
For him the process of ùsing' is not, as it is commonly assumed, passive and guided
by established rules". (de Certeau, 198+: xi) On the contrary ùsing' should be
accepted as an act, a making and doing, an òperation'. (de Certeau, 198+) An act of
producing, a use of creativity hides in the way products are used, in what the
consumer does - makes with the product."
For the urban space, the same question is discussed through out this study, to
introduce the urban space as both the product of the designers and dwellers. !f
2
planning, design and construction are the first steps of this production; then the use,
experience, and appropriation are the following steps of it.
Able and ready to create a composition of places, of full and empty areas
that allow or forbid passage, city planners are incapable of imposing the
rationality of reinforced concrete on multiple and fluid cultural systems
that organize the living space of inner areas (apartments, stairways, and
the like) or public domains (streets, squares, etc.), and that innervate
them with an infinite number of itineararies. They concoct and map out an
empty city, and leaving it when the inhabitants come as if they are
savages who will, without their consent, turn topsy-turvy the designs they
had made." (de Certeau, 1997: 133)
Within this preliminary frame, the second chapter gives in an historical prospect the
theories that have asserted the understanding of space as a social contruct and
product, formulating it as social space" and which stress importance on the lived
spaces": the spaces formed by the inhabitant in their daily experiences.
This theoretical account introduces an approach, adapted in the study, towards the
city space. This approach places the inhabitant at the focus of urban space and it
suggests to understand the city and the inhabitant from this position. This approach
asserts that the inhabitant has the capacity to interpret the urban space and to
intertwine - interact with it in ways different than the pre-determined; and that the
inhabitant have an active role in the production of urban spaces.
The understanding of creations taking place in the daily practices of the inhabitants
challenges the idea of everyday life as reduced to a routine. This understanding helps
exploring the differences and marginalities, which exist within the society. These
differences are represented on the space through the acts of various groups. The
study emphasizes furthermore that the appropriation and re-definition of space
provides users a medium of free expression, a ground on which they can manifest
themselves. The act includes also an implicit resistance towards the established space
and its pre-determined functions, but also the space becomes a medium of resistance
against other issues concerning the inhabitant group.
Thus, the idea of a `social space' introduces urban space as a tool of investigation for
the society. (Lefebvre, 1991) The study suggests accordingly, the investigation of the
urban space, shaped within the daily practices of the inhabitant, as a tool and medium
for obtaining actual (not calculated and projected) knowledge on the inhabitant, the
society and wider cultural, economic, political processes.
3
The research is developed around this point: By looking to the `lived spaces' it is
possible to obtain a clear and actual picture about the city and the inhabitant. Two
primary problem areas are defined for the study: To uncover the process of the re-
definition of spaces through the investigation of the daily acts and practices of the
inhabitants, through the case study. Second, to investigate user groups, their implicit
expressions and resistances through the spaces produced in their daily practices -
through the urban space re-defined in their practices.
Depending on the above-mentioned approach, the research focuses on a case taking
place in the streets of Ankara, to investigate a space created in the leisure practice of
a group of young people: the Ninibar. The research study is developed for the
elaboration of the case according to the problematic. The case is part of the personal
experiences of the researcher; therefore the approach to the investigated problematic
is also formed within actual practices.
Ninibar takes place in the streets adjacent to a central avenue in Ankara, the Tunali
Hilmi Avenue. On a first glance, Ninibar reminds crowd in front of the restaurants,
cafs and bars around the district, yet it is only the crowd of dispersed youth groups,
who come to the area for their leisure practices.
These groups come to the Tunali district, gathering on the empty spaces in the streets
like the walls of the apartment blocks, the stairs, the pavements, the side of a tree
etc., to drink the beverages they have bought from the grocery shops, to chat and to
have fun.
Spending their time on the street, the Ninibar crowd, sometimes do not even enter to
the bars or cafs to perform a similar practice. The reasons behind these are the
cheaper beverage prices in the grocery shops or the friend group and lively
conversations on the street. These reasons are explored through out the research
study. Whatever the reason is `Ninibar' takes place within the nightlife of Ankara.
!t is the participant group that defines the spaces of Ninibar. !t has no construction to
set its boundaries and no administratory mechanism to set its rules of functioning.
Ninibar is the space of the inhabitants; it belongs to the `lived' moment of spatiality as
defined by Henri Lefebvre. (1991)
The case will be introduced in detail in the third chapter. !n the research study the
case is elaborated in a way to combine the more abstract theories on the urban space
with actual spatial formations. The theories get concretized in the investigated urban
4
space and elucidate the problem area: the understanding of the appropriation and re-
definition of spaces and the exploration of a user group and their hidden expressions
through the space produced in their practices.
A specific methodology has been developed in this respect. Chapter three includes a
detailed explanation on the methodology. As the research study is exploratory in
nature, aiming to find out about the re-definition of space and the nature of spaces
produced in practice, it elaborates the case in many aspects. First by providing a clear
and detailed understanding and description on the case, then by questioning the case
to reveal hidden processes about the re-defined spaces and hidden knowledges
(expressions, representations and resistances) on the participant group.
For this aim an interview study is developed, which questions the case under several
headings (location, participant group, the socio-spatial practice, the relation with other
users). Through the evaluation of the findings with the help of Grounded Theory
Nethods, the study provides a depiction on the case and also achieves to derive
further knowledge about the temporality - spatiality, power relations, expressions and
resistances hidden in the spaces and practices of Ninibar, which are explained and
discussed in chapter four.
Chapter four includes the interpretation of the research findings, with the help of
specific quotations taken from the interviews and the support of theoretical discussions
and explanations about the investigated issues. First step of this evaluation is a
descriptive one, in which the case is aimed to be understood within its actual context.
This includes first the understanding of the `location' of Ninibar: to understand the
specificity of the district and the reasons beneath Ninibar's creation in this district.
Secondly, the descriptive step includes the investigation of the participant group. This
part is important for the comprehension of the case.
Second step of the evaluation process questions how Ninibar is defined by its
participants, to find out the main components which construct this ùnconstructed'
space. The observations about the space of the inhabitant - the re-defined space
starts with this discussion. Thirdly, the research investigates the spatiality of Ninibar,
seeking the ways in which the space becomes possible in the practice of its
participants.
The space of Ninibar is physically defined by the participants themselves. First by their
temporary appropriation of the exsiting urban elements, then by their own presence.
This makes the spaces of Ninibar dependent upon its participants. The micro spaces
5
defined by the practice of `Ninibar' are not permanent. These spaces move, change
form, expand or disperse with the Ninibar crowd, hence they are mobile and
impermanent spaces. When young people gather on the streets and start to drink and
chat, a Ninibar is generated. The spatial characteristics of Ninibar indicates the
creation of un-built, transparent and permeable boundaries for the spaces of Ninibar.
However, investigating the physical limits of Ninibar, reveals the existence of
immaterial factors that physically influence the limits of Ninibar. These are the power
relations between different inhabitants. And the fourth step of investigation focus on
these relations.
The discussions on the relation of Ninibar with the city reveals at first the above-
mentioned set of power relations functioning within the everyday life of the city. This
investigation introduces Ninibar first as a `transgressive operation.' By looking at the
rivalry relations between the Ninibar participants and other users of the district a
`power play' is discovered. This includes the move towards a balanced point through
the tactical operations of different parties (the transgressive practices of Ninibar
participants, the counter-operation and reactions of the residents, the recessions by
both of them and the interventions of the police), which makes at the end Ninibar's
continuation possible.
!n the study the `lived spaces' and the daily practices of the inhabitant are introduced
as a medium of expression and resistance. Final step, includes the search for these
expressions prominent within the spaces of Ninibar. With this aim, a historical account
on `(Youth) Cultural Studies' is given, for the search of identity expressions within
Ninibar. Then recent discussions on `!dentity Politics' are given for positioning identity
expressions within the contemporary cultural context and for questioning the possiblity
of identity based expressions and resistances within Ninibar. However, the case of
Ninibar revealed the expressions and resistances, which primarily lie within the
practice itself and not within the participant group.
First of all, the act of re-defining space, resists to the established space, by practicing
an alternative use on it. Noreover, the introduced ùse' comprise resistant positions,
behind the motives initiating the practice and behind the reasons this practice is
sought and prefered. These resistances relate to the economic conditions of the
participant group and to their leisure and nightlife preferences and challlange the
accustomed practices. The exploration of these resistant attitudes indicates therefore a
search for idealised practices or conditions within the practice and the re-defined"
space.
6
Ending the investigation on Ninibar, the study aims to develop an understanding on
urban spaces re-defined in the daily practices of the inhabitant. Accordingly, it is the
inhabitants, who, in their practices, shape the `re-defined' spaces, who inscribe their
meanings, expressions and resistances to the urban space and convert it into a
medium of expression. Although these spaces are not material and permanent, they
have their spatial particularities in order to continue in time. The participant group too,
struggle and develop `tactics' in order to make their space possible. Finally, with all
these characteristics, the re-defined spaces represent a sought condition - an idealised
opinion of the inhabitant about the spaces of their daily practices.

7

CHAPTER 2

SOC!AL CONCEPTUAL!ZAT!ONS ON THE URBAN SPACE

The search for better environments has been occupying architects and town planners
for centuries. Better places are sought to be produced in a wide range of ways; from
the development of utopias, seeking idealized community livings to categorizing,
sterilizing the space, by attributing different functions in separate locations. !t is in the
practice of the scientists, professionals that the meaning of `space' has been defined
and in their calculations and imaginations in their plans and projects that the urban
space has taken form.
The notion of space that is conceptualised in the practice of various professionals has
started to be criticized after the second half of the 20th century. !n these former
thoughts and theories, `space' was considered apart from the `social practice'
(Lefebvre, 1991) that relates to it - beyond merely taking place in it.
1

Henri Lefebvre in his spectacular work The Production of Space, published first in
197+, search for a more appropriate knowledge - science of space, which unites the
physical, the mental and the social. (Lefebvre, 1991: 7) According to Lefebvre and to
many other theoreticians of space that have followed him, all previous understanding
of space overlooked this social content of it.
The aim in this chapter is firstly, to give several critiques towards the urban spaces
that are `produced' - constructed, built - through these approaches, to reveal that
space is social, and it is a social product. Secondly, to provide the theories and works
focusing on the `social space' - starting with the work of Henri Lefebvre, then
continuing with Post-Lefebvrian works, which also put the inhabitant and the everyday

1
The view of space as a container characterizes the `mathematical' understanding of space in
Lefebvre's explanations. !n this approach to space, whether the `Cartesian' or the Èuclidean' space,
there is no possibility of space related to social practices and there is no room for the notion of a
`social space', which is introduced by Henri Lefebvre in the 1970s.)
8
life at the heart of the spatial problematic, namely the discussion of Edward Soja on
`Third Space' and the important works of The Strangely Familiar projects.

2.1. THE DEATH OF PUBL!C L!FE

Following different approaches in the professional practice of city planning, the cities
in the world have been developing, growing and expanding with increasing social,
cultural and economic problems. The illnesses of city life - the metropolitan life - have
been first diagnosed as àlienation'
2
the symptoms of which were the experience of a
loneliness and threat caused by the increasingly individualized life styles emerging in
the metropolitan city. These problems are formulated by Richard Sennett as the death
of `public life' and the rise of an ìntimate society'; by highlighting the reigning belief
that community is an act of mutual self-disclosure" and the tendency to undervalue
the community relations to strangers." (Sennett, 1992: +)
These problems were the outcomes of the modernist ideologies according to Jane
Jacobs; who, in 1961 has been an important critique of city planning and design
practices dominating the first half of the 20th century. The work of Jacobs, The Death
and Life of Great American Cities", is with her expressions an attack on the principles
and aims that have shaped modern, orthodox city planning and rebuilding." (Jacobs,
1961: 5)
From beginning to end, from Howard to Burnham, to the latest
amendment on urban renewal law the entire concoction is irrelevant to
the working of cities. Unstudied, unrespected cities have served as
sacrificial victims. (Jacobs, 1961: 25)
The growing defects of the urban environment, since the industrial revolution of the
19th century, were in fact related to the changing economic and political ideologies. !n
the works of Sennett, the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19
th
century is explained
as the generator of the increasingly more individualized and self-oriented livings.
Sennett explains that under the influence of `the pressures of privatisation' aroused by
early capitalism and increasing ìnvestment on material things' as the outcome of mass
production and distribution, transformed the public life into a morally inferior
domain", hence introduced the intimate life as a refuge. (Sennett, 1992: 19-20)

2
See Georg Simmel, The Netropolis and the mental life", 1969.
9
Parallel to the growth of capitalism and the rise of modernist lifestyles, this shift
towards an ìntimate society' caused a loss of meaning in the urban space, especially
the space of the street which can be considered as the locus of public life and of social
interactions. The notion of street turned into a mere passage, where inhabitants avoid
the contact and interaction with each other. Sennett explains what the public life has
become today, under the increasing individualism, as follows:
Today public life has also become a matter of formal obligation... Nanners
and ritual interchanges with strangers are looked as at best formal and
dry, at worst as a phony. The stranger himself is a threatening figure, and
few people can take great pleasure in that world of strangers, the
cosmopolitan city. (Sennett, 1992: 3)
The development of an ìntimate society' that starts with the industrial capitalism as
Sennett puts, was further supported by the rise of `mass production' and `the welfare
state policies' after the 1930s. The rise of automobile industries dominated this era.
The mass production methods, were glorified with the production of `Ford' automobiles
in U.S.A., and furthermore had an increasing effect on the addiction of people to cars
as the type of `personal' transportation. (Cullingworth 1997, Fishman 1990)
The welfare state policies in United States, were mainly aiming to orient a wide part of
the population - especially the middle class - to the consumption of mass produced
goods. The aimed mass consumption was promoted with the image of an ideal, perfect
life, "The American dream consisting of the idea of a `modest dwelling of our own',
isolated from the problems of other people; has been the reigning metaphor of the
`good life' for a long time". (Kunstler, 1996: 33)
The rise of automobile industries, the construction of highways had also accelerated
the move of private housing constructions towards the urban fringes. (Cullingworth,
1997) This trend called as `Sub-urbanization', pushed the American cities in to an
endless ùrban sprawl' yet, created an urbanity that lacked the `real' urban essence.
Joel Garreau, in his book Edge City", describes this process of sub-urbanization as
fallowing:
Edge cities represent the third wave of our lives pushing into new
frontiers in this half century. First we moved our houses out past the
traditional ideas of what constituted a city: this was the sub-urbanization
of America, especially after World War !!. Then we wearied of returning
downtown for necessities of life, so we moved out market places out to
where we lived. This was the `malling' of America, especially in the 1960s
and 1970s. Today, we have moved our means of creating wealth, the
essence of urbanism - our jobs out to where most of us have lived and
10
shopped for two generations. That has led to the rise of Edge City.
(Garreau, 1991: +)
The car dependent life style and the urban sprawl starting from the 1930s till today
pushed many city centres, in U.S.A. and in other developed countries, into decadence.
The move to suburbs, to the fringes, to the èdge' facilitated the fall of `street life' in
the city center - `down town'. The technology of modern motion replaces being on
the street with a desire to erase the constraints of geography." (Sennett, 1992: 1+)
Schneider gives the following explanation about the relation of the increasing
individualism with the emerging life styles:
People want a secure and controlled environment. Suburban commuters
show a determined preference for private over the public transportation.
Automobiles may not be efficient but they give people a sense of security
and control. With a car you can go anywhere you want, in the comfort of
your own private space. (Schneider, 1992)
The increasing addiction to automobile accelerated the inward turn of people. A
personal car, a personal house, and later with the developing technology, a personal
computer have minimized the interaction of the inhabitants with the city and between
themselves. This is another reason put forward by Sennett for the death of public
space, and the related death of street life - the draw back of the inhabitant from the
urban space and the turn to the ìntimate' - the personal, the individual. The erasure
of the lively public space contains an even more perverse idea - that of making space
contingent upon motion." (Sennett, 1992: 1+)
This problem is also discussed in the work of Narc Aug, where he exemplifies the
`modern' understanding of space with the advertisement of an automobile: The
irresistible wish for a space of our own, a mobile space which can take us anywhere."
(Aug, 1996: +) Aug asserts the creation of `non-places' through the new kind of
spatial experience of people, implicating a strong attachment to mobility - automobile
and the experience of well planned, isolated and functionally separated spaces. He
also claims, super-modernity produces non-places". (Aug, 1996: 78)
Clearly the word `non-place' designates two complementary but distinct
realities: spaces formed in relation to certain ends (transport, transit,
commerce, leisure), and the relations that individuals have with these
spaces. (Aug, 1996: 9+)
The argument put forward by Aug, implicates that modernity, and then super-
modernity provides an abstract understanding of space, more precisely places that
have lost their spatiality. Similarly, Jacobs has also mentioned the occurrence of a
11
non-place with the increase of mobilization. Accordingly, with the changing definition
and limit of mobilization, the city character is blurred until every place becomes more
like every other place all adding up to a no-place." (Jacobs, 1961: 338)
Aug explains `non-place' as the direct opposite of place. The concept of `place' used
here, he explains, is an anthropological one. !n the formulations of Aug, the
distinction between place and non-place derives from the opposition between space
and place. For the understanding of these concepts he refers to Nichel de Certeau
(198+), the works of whom will be mentioned and discussed many times within this
study.
De Certeau, himself does not oppose `place' and `space' in the way that
`place' is opposed to `non-place'. Space, for him, is a `frequented place',
an ìntersection of moving bodies': it is the pedestrians who transform a
street (geometrically defined as a place by town planners) into a space.
(Aug, 1996: 78-9)
The concept of place used by Aug is however different than that referred by de
Certeau. Aug explains that the concept of place opposed to that of space by de
Certeau is one as an assembly of elements coexisting in a certain order." yet he,
himself refers to an ànthropological place', which includes the possibility of making
journeys made in it, the discourses uttered in it, and the language characterizing it."
(Aug, 1996: 79-83) Respectively, `non-place' oppose to a place which assures the
possibility of `making journeys in it' and which permits `social practices' to be exercised
in it. Non-place, lacks the possibility of turning into a space, in the way de Certeau
explains; it lacks the possibility of being animated by the acts of its users. Non-places,
by their very definition, which is set in the imagination and practice of `professionals',
exclude the inhabitant - the social.
The critique of Jane Jacobs too, is based on a parallel ground. She relates the failure
of modern, orthodox town planning and rebuilding (and the principles that aim to
formulate, orient and improve it) to the lack of activity and vitality in the urban
environment it produced. Today, she may be considered as the first to emphasize the
importance of the social in the urban space.
While she, herself, works out a comprehensive guide of principles, she stresses the
importance of the street life - and this is the first call for the lost, èroded' public and
social life in the city. She gives the example of her visit to the North End district of
Boston, in 1959, amazed by the little conversation she had experienced with a person
12
on the street, she discovers the lacking aspect of the spaces of modernity: this is the
liveliness.
The streets were alive with children playing, people shopping, people
strolling, people talking; had it not been a cold January there would surely
have been people sitting (Jacobs, 1961: 9)
What lack in the non-places, which have been produced under the influence of
dominant ideologies, is the `public life' as Sennett explains, human interaction and
liveliness as Jacobs finds out, `social practice' as mentioned by Lefebvre, the possibility
of being frequented and used as de Certeau puts. These critiques about spaces and
places, which are thought apart from the inhabitants who will live in it, and experience
it, reveal the difference of the space, drawn in the plans, conceptualised in the
imagination of the planners from the places that are lived - frequented, the space as it
is lived and experienced.
The important conclusion drawn from these critical observations is the fact that `space'
can never be adequately comprehended through the thinking, imagination and
conceptualisation of those who `concoct', plan, design and construct it. !t is crucial to
notice that the society, people - the inhabitants are also essential parts of this
understanding. All of these discussions indicate a radical turning point in the theory of
`space', taking place in 1970s, which accepts space as a social construct". (Nassey,
1993: 1+5) This turn rejects the traditional understanding of the spatial as an
autonomous sphere, within which spatial relations and processes take place, and
accepts it as constituted through social relations and practices as well. (Nassey, 1993:
1+5)
Following studies on space and geography have furthermore asserted that the social is
spatially constructed too. Therefore it can be seen that space and society, the city and
the inhabitant cannot be and should not be separated. Working on the space and the
practice of the inhabitant, the way we conceive and look to the city is important. The
approach that is adapted in this study is one, which includes the practice of the
inhabitant.

13
2.2. THE SOC!AL SPACE - HENR! LEFEBvRE' S TR!AD ON SPAT!AL!TY

Henri Lefebvre introduces his work The Production of Space" with a stance similar to
what is discussed so far. !n search for a wider, multi dimensional knowledge - theory
of space, he aims to reveal the social character of space and emphasizes the necessity
to think of `space' by indicating what occupies it and how it does so. (Lefebvre, 1991:
12, 27) Lefebvre introduces us three fragments into which spatial knowledge has
historically been broken." (Soja, 1996: 62) First is the physical field: the nature, the
cosmos; second is the mental field: logical and formal abstractions, and third is the
social field. (Lefebvre, 1991: 11)
(Social) space is a (social) product" is the proposition from which his ideas develop.
Through this argument, Lefebvre goes one step beyond the accepted notions of
spatiality, which were led by reductionism under the influence of what he calls the
`double illusion'. (Soja, 1996: 62) The notion of `social space' introduces a distinctively
different way of thinking about space" and an all-inclusive and radically open mode of
defining the limitlessly expandable scope of spatial imagination." (Soja, 1996: 65)
Such social space is constituted neither by a collection of things nor on an
aggregate of sensory data, nor by a void packed like a parcel with various
contents. (Lefebvre, 1991: 27)
The idea of (social) space formulated by Lefebvre is a complex one. !t accepts the
social practices and relations as part of its creation and production; hence its existence
is both socially constructed in the experience of the `subject' as well as materially
constructed by the practice of the `specialists'. Henceforth, the social space is not
simply a material construction and it does not simply contain `things'; it also contains
relations with these things and between these things and reciprocally, these social
relations construct it as well.
Social space contains a great diversity of objects, both natural and social,
including the networks and pathways, which facilitate the exchange of
material things and information. Such òbjects' are thus not only things
but also relations. (Lefebvre, 1991: 77)
Lefebvre points that the fact that space is a social product can be found in a double
illusion." These are the illusion of transparency and the illusion of opacity. These
illusions have kept apart different facets of space, for a long time. The problems and
critiques that have been mentioned previously are the outcome of these illusions.
14
The illusion of transparency reduces space to a mental space. (Temiz, 2001: +) Space
through the illusion of transparency appears as intelligible. All qualities of space are
accepted as thought by means of a design. Design serves as a mediator. between
mental activity (invention) and social activity (realization); and it is deployed in space."
(Lefebvre, 1991: 28) Edward W. Soja adds that this kind of reductionism keeps aside
the actual social and spatial practices, the immediate material world of experience and
realization, except through the medium of subjective `design.' (Soja, 1996: 63)
The `realistic illusion', the illusion of opacity has an empiricist and objectivist approach
towards spatiality. (Temiz, 2001: +) !t reduces spatiality to `things in space'. Soja
explains, The `real' in this realist illusion is reduced only to material or natural objects
and their sensed relations; the ìmagined' is unseen, immeasurable, and therefore
unknowable.
Social space is not a thing among other things, or a product among other
products, rather it subsumes things produced, and encompasses their
inter-relationships in their coexistence and simultaneity. !t is the
outcome of a sequence and set of operations therefore cannot be reduced
to the rank of a simple object. (Lefebvre, 1991: 73)
Through the critique of these illusions, which have dominated all previous thoughts
and practices related to space, Lefebvre formulate a `tripartite' understanding of
(social) space. (Lefebvre, 1991: 32) Accordingly space comprises three inter-relational,
separate but connected moments: Spatial practices, Representations of space and the
Spaces of Representation - Representational spaces.
Spatial Practice; is the space within the material and economic reality. !t encompasses
the daily reality of city (the daily routine), and the urban reality. Spatial practice
produces the material form of spatiality. !t is the space, as it is perceived. !t is the
traditional focus of attention in spatial disciplines. (Lefebvre, 1991: 33-8; Soja, 1996:
66-7)
Representations of space are the conceptualised space. !t is the space of the
specialists - the scientists, the planners, urbanists, technocrats, and social engineers -
of all who identifies what is lived and perceived with what they conceive. !t is the
space defined and abstracted by them. !t is the space of the professionals.
Representations of space include the specialized knowledge necessary for the
realization of spatial practices; hence it is an intellectual expression. !t comprises, as
mentioned by Lefebvre, concepts without life." !t is the dominant space in any society
or in any mode of production. (Lefebvre, 1991: 33-+2; Soja, 1996: 66-7)
15
Finally and most importantly, Spaces of Representation is the space as directly lived
through its associated images and symbols. !t is the space of ìnhabitants' and
ùsers'." (Lefebvre, 1991: 39) !t is the dominated hence passively experienced space,
which the imagination seeks to change and appropriate. !t overlays the physical space
by making symbolic use of its objects. Spaces of Representation tend towards
coherent systems of non-verbal symbols and signs. Representational space is alive: it
speaks." (Lefebvre, 1991: +2), it obeys no rules. !t is the lived space: Life Without
concepts." (Lefebvre, 1991: 33-+2; Soja, 1996: 66-7)
This triad of the perceived, the conceived and the lived reflect the different facets of
space, which are important in the understanding of social spaces. The triad does not
include oppositions within it; rather it is formulated to avoid such contrasts. As
explained in one of the works of the Strangely Familiar group, The Unknown City,
taken together, representations of space and spaces of representation provide the
conceptions and images necessary for spatial practice to operate." (Borden, Kerr,
Pivaro, Rendell; The Unknown City, 2001: 7)
This sophisticated conceptualisation of the various possible arenas for
space not only allows for ideas of space (verbal, visual, conscious,
unconscious, real, imagined) but also situates those ideas in an overall
notion of spatiality without reducing them to either aberrant
misconception or irrelevant abstraction. (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell;
The Unknown City, 2001: 7)
This triad is important with revealing the spatial sphere in which the inhabitant live,
experience and have the possibility to interpret and create. !ntroducing the idea of
`lived spaces'; incorporate a social understanding, a social concern into the notion of
spatiality; and save it from the forceps of the `double illusion.' This is considered to be
the greatest novelty brought to the theory of space. The conceptualisation of social
space; hence, provides a more comprehensive, inter-connected, complex and in
relation a more `real' idea of space.
Related to the recognition of the inhabitant and the user, give birth to the
understanding of urban space, not only as the product of professionals or `specialists'
in Lefebvre's terms; but also as the product of its users as well. This product is
obtained through the relation the inhabitant have with the urban space, in their daily
lives - the socio-spatial practice.
Social space is above all an appropriated space; it .ìncorporates' social actions, the
actions of subjects both individual and collective." (Lefebvre, 1991: 33) !t is in this
space that they develop, give expression to themselves, and encounter prohibitions;
16
then they perish, and that same space contains their graves." (Lefebvre, 1991: 33)
Noreover, due to this relation - connection between the (urban) space and the
inhabitant, as Lefebvre emphasize, social space works as a toll of analysis of society."
(Lefebvre, 1991: 33) This argument constitutes the heart of this study.
This way of thinking on space is similar to the way de Certeau explained space: às a
frequented place'. (de Certeau, 198+) Here, if `place' is considered to be a physical
setting, a material construction; then only when it is practiced, lived and experienced
that it becomes a space and takes life. De Certeau's understanding of space is
therefore a social one too. The assertions of Aug on place too, intersect with the idea
of a social space introduced by Lefebvre. While he gives a more contemporary
definition to the concept of space, elaborating it as a more abstract thing, his view of
place is not just a physical one but also as a fertile locus for the generation of (social)
spaces. All of these approaches matches with Lefebvre's theories.
!tself the outcome of past actions, social space is what permits fresh
actions to occur; while suggesting others and prohibiting yet others.
(Lefebvre, 1991: 73)
Especially the approach formulated by de Certeau is parallel to Lefebvre. The theory
worked out by Lefebvre, focus mainly on the production of space. !f we can no longer
think of objects in space", then we should think of the actual production of space."
(Lefebvre, 1991: 37) Space is not produced in the way simple objects are produced.
Lefebvre asserts that space is produced in every moment of the spatial triad.
(Lefebvre, 1991: 37)
!t is reasonable to assume that spatial practice, representations of space
and representational spaces contribute in different ways to the production
of space according to their qualities and attributes, according to the
society or mode of production in question, and according to the historical
period. (Lefebvre, 1991: +6)
Nichel de Certeau, in his work The Practice of Everyday Life, focuses on the practices
of the subject: the ùser' when products are concerned, and the ìnhabitant' when the
city space is concerned. According to de Certeau, the (daily) practices - the
experience of the user with the provided products include a creative and productive
process as well. Therefore, similar to what Lefebvre mentions for the urban space,
there does not exist a one-sided provision (production) and use (consumption) relation
in the act of ùsing'. Rather, the production continues in the use of the provided
object, hidden in the way it is being used; just as in Lefebvre's formulation, the
17
(urban) space is also produced in the spatial experience and practice of the
inhabitants, in the way they are used.

2.3. TH!RDSPACE"

!n the social space, the lived space is the `real' space of the city inhabitant. !t is the
space as lived and appropriated by them. That is why it is in this moment of spatiality
that differences, resistances, struggles, subversions, criticisms can be found. The work
of Edward W. Soja (1996) is necessary to be mentioned here. Soja' s thoughts on
space depend on the theories of Henri Lefebvre. He discusses the `lived space' through
the conceptualization of Thirdspace", a concept he develops. The concept of
Thirdspace, depending on the spatial theory of Lefebvre, emphasizes the `thirding as
othering' embedded in the space of representations, Soja points out that the lived
space is the space of others, of those who are different and marginal. Soja defines
Thirdspace as follows:
A knowable and unknowable, real and imagined life world of experiences,
emotions, events, and political choices that is existentially shaped by the
generative and problematic interplay between centers and peripheries, the
abstract and the concrete, impassioned spaces of the conceptual and the
lived, marked out materially and metaphorically in spatial praxis, the
transformation of (spatial) knowledge into (spatial) action in a field of
unevenly developed (spatial) power. (Soja, 1996: 31)
According to Soja, the lived space is the space including all kinds of simultaneities,
possibilities and perils. !t is the `space of radical openness' and also the space of social
struggle. These spaces are also filled with politics and ideology, with real and
imagined intertwined with capitalism, racism and other material spatial practices that
influence the social relations of production, reproduction, exploitation, domination,
subjection." (Soja, 1996: 68)
Soja continues his discussion with the discovery of the Thirdspace as the `spaces that
difference makes.' (Hooper and Soja, 1993; Soja, 1996) He says that under the
influence of post-modern culture there emerged the new cultural politics of differences
and identity. Post-modernity, by accepting that the society is heterogeneous,
embraces all kinds of differences as class, race, gender etc. According to Soja, along
with the new cultural politics, the symbolic spaces of representation are reawakened.
18
The new urban scene started to host struggles over the right to be different. (Soja,
1996: 83-6)
Soja discusses the spaces of differences in a political context and he examines the
formation of `communities of resistance' and the creation of counter-hegemonic
cultural practices within the city in this context. The new cultural politics include, as
explained by Soja, the intersection of spacefpowerfknowledge discussed by Nichel
Foucault. Accordingly, power - and in a way the cultural politics - is contextualized in
the (social) production of the (social) space like every social relation. (Soja, 1996)
The main argument of Soja is that the confrontation of the hegemonic and counter-
hegemonic is reflected to the urban space and produces the spaces of difference, the
spaces of identity. The authority manipulates the differences existing in the society,
produce and reproduce differences to its own advantage. The Subject, either accept
the imposed differentiation and social division, or gets mobilized to resist to emphasize
and to defend their òtherness'. (Soja, 1996: 87)
!n the work of Soja, the `spaces that difference make', or the `spaces of otherness' are
mentioned to include a resistance to the hegemonic powers dominating over the
society. Soja develops his ideas on the `lived spaces' through this political perspective.
He explains that the appropriation and use of spaces are political acts. (Hooper and
Soja, 1993: 190) He investigates the radical differences reigning over the urban
society, the marginal practice of the oppressed inhabitant groups, their fight and
resistance; yet the differences to be explored in the urban space and the marginal
practices of inhabitant groups that produce and define these spaces may as well be
situated in a less political context; the resistances to be observed in the lived space
may as well be simply quotidian and less radical. These forms of daily practices,
operations and resistances, and the spaces they produce reveal the different identities
and positions within the society too; but those of a less political, or even, àpolitical'
nature.

2.+. THE STRANGELY FAN!L!AR" PROJECTS

!n the 1990s, a group of professionals and theoreticians, gathered around the same
discourse, created the Strangely Familiar" project. Their understanding of space
depends on the spatial theories of Henri Lefebvre. Edward W. Soja has also
19
contributed to the projects of the group, sharing the same approach with them. Their
starting point was to find new ways of thinking about the capitalist space and
architecture, and to develop ways of resisting it. The aim was to question the way
everybody understands the city - the conventional definitions of space following
Lefebvre's theories:
!f you dig beneath the surface, then you discover the unexpected. This
process can reintroduce the city to the urban dweller, offering an
opportunity to discover something new and through their own agendas
and perspectives find a new mapping and a way of thinking about cities.
The strange becomes familiar and the familiar becomes strange. (Borden,
Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; 1996: 9)
To do so one should listen to the `real' stories told by `real' places. (Borden, Kerr,
Pivaro, Rendell; 1996: 9) The approach of the Strangely Familiar group emphasizes
that architecture and cities are matters of production and re-production involving more
than the design practice. One strategy to engage with the city is to look at the
resistance and appropriation in the city space. (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; 1996:
12)
One of the following works of Strangely Familiar, Occupying Architecture (1998),
focuses on the relationship between the architect and the user. They set out three
major aims for this project. First is a detailed investigation between the architect and
the user, between the design and the experience, searching how and why architectural
discourse and production ignores the ùser'. Second is an attempt to redefine these
relations. Third, is to challenge the separation of the architect and the ùser'. This
separation should be challenged because they both produce architecture: one by
design, one by use." (Hill, 1998:3) This discourse is totally relevant for the urban
planner and designer, and the city dweller too.
Architecture and cities are far more than architects and planners often
consider them to be'. (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; The Unknown City,
2001: 23)
!n Occupying Architecture, Jane Rendell formulates the process of the `(re) production'
of the space by the user with the expressions doing it, (un) doing it, (over) doing it
yourself." (Rendell, 1998) She tells that once architects make their architecture they
don't bother with what other people do with their architecture. The (un) doing
architecture, of the user, make sweat disorder" out of what architects produce.
But we all know that architects are not the only doers of architecture.
Nost obviously, it is physically made by builders, and long after the
20
building has been made the non-architects continuously do architecture.
(Rendell, 1998:232)
Rendell, here, emphasizes what Lefebvre has first formulated with the `lived spaces'
(Lefebvre, 1991) and what de Certeau indicates as the production hidden in the
process of using (de Certeau, 198+) which is, in her terminology, the capacity of the
user, the non-architect to `do'. Rendell explains how spaces continue their production
in the user's practice after their material construction.
3

When we, as non-architects occupy a space, when we start to use it, we
start to `do-it-ourselves'. But we do this in an already occupied territory
where the activity of doing architecture has been classified and claimed.
The rules have already been established; rules about site and space,
about permanence, structure and stability, about the relation of form and
function, the design of details, the installation of services . other people
cannot do architecture, their activities can only be categorized as (un)
doing or (over) doing it. (Rendell, 1998: 232)
Rendell interprets the process of appropriation within an architectural discourse. !n the
explanations of Rendell the ùndoing' and òverdoing' acts of the user constitute an
expression of differentialities. The user, through hisfher use - way of using, resist to
the rules set by the architect and (re) produce the provided space.
Like Rendell, !ain Borden draws attention to the different ways the inhabitant can use
the city space. He starts his investigation of peculiar practices - that of skate-boarders
- by criticizing the passive way the inhabitants use the environment within which they
live.
Too often we are purely passive users of these everyday spaces and
structures, adapting our activities and movements to what has already
been designed through direct instructions (keep left, no cyclist etc.) Or
indirect conventions we are informed of, as what activities should take
place in what spaces. And too often we do exactly what we are told. .
But the city and the architecture offers us more: the potential to do much
more with our bodies than walking and driving and to enjoy urban spaces
other than by shopping and working. By using forms of pleasure like play,
festival, carnival. we can actively produce our own city experiences.
(Borden, 1996: 86)
The latest work of The Strangely Familiar, The Unknown City, introduces different
ways to `know of and engage with the city.' Their approach, in this problematic,
suggests firstly the understanding of space as Lefebvre formulated, which is the
understanding of a social space, embedding not only things but also `flows' - relations,

3
Rendell uses the expression architecture", but her ideas are also relevant for the city space, and in
this study the urban space is also accepted within the expression.
21
interactions, connections. Then, secondly they suggest the re-consideration of the
position and the capacity of the inhabitant in its relation with the urban space.
Neaning that `the ways in which we negotiate the distance between the city and self'
should move from `filters' to `tactics'. (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; The Unknown
City, 2001: 9, 13) As they mention, an understanding of the city through a series of
`filters' and ideologies, as means of thinking and enacting is a restricted way of
relating to the city. `Tactics', on the other hand, are a more proactive response to the
city." (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; The Unknown City, 2001: 9, 13)
These tactics may be words, images, or things; they may be theoretically
andfor pragmatically driven. They may be attempts to solve urban
problems with housing programs, planning policies, and political agendas;
and they may also be attempts to re-conceptualize the relation between
the city and the self. Whatever their form they differ from filters in their
intent. Tactics aim to make a difference. (Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell;
The Unknown City, 2001: 13)
The Unknown City introduces a new way of looking to the city. !n The Unknown City,
the Strangely Familiar group introduces the city space, as an infinite ground for
journeys and explorations to be made upon. Accordingly, there is more to discover in
the city space, in the everyday life then we can imagine of, and the inhabitants have
more power to `do', produce and create space and àrchitecture' then they are aware
of.
Through telling new stories the unknown, undiscovered city can be laid
open to critical scrutiny, to new urban practices, new urban subversions.
This is a geographical enterprise, about the exploration and mapping,
about cartography of hidden or unexplored places: real places in the map
of power relations that make, and are made by, city form and urban life.
The agenda is radical in its intent, but ! would like to suggest that the
unknown is not so easily known - it may all be too visible, right in front of
our eyes, buried in the underlying infrastructures of the everyday lives, so
intrinsic we hardly even feel its presence anymore. And when we do, do
we really want to know? (Pile, 2001: 26+)
Under the light of these very recent and inspiring approaches `journeys' for the
research study started in the streets of Ankara, where young people create an
unexpected and unusual space. The place is called Ninibar". At first unidentifiable to
the outsiders, Ninibar brings an alternative definition to the urban space.
This study adapts the approaches that are discussed so far for exploring the space of
the inhabitant. The main argument, on which the research is based, is the capacity of
the inhabitant to `produce' urban spaces in the sense Lefebvre and de Certeau
22
introduced: through their practices. !n addition to the inhabitant's act of producing
space, the concept of `re-definition' is introduced in this study.
This concept reveals the nature of the discussed act of `production'. The details of the
act of `re-definition' constitute the main problematic of this study, yet it is necessary to
explain here the grounds on which the concept has developed.
The urban and spatial practice of the inhabitant - their act of (re) producing space is
exercised on an already produced space. The `provided space' or the èstablished
space' as it is called in this study. This is the space planned, designed and calculated
by the `professionals' - scientists, built and constructed with the permission of
àuthority' and the capital of the state or the private investors and provided to the use
of those assigned to use it. For the case of Ninibar", this is the urban space: the
street, which is already defined within the `conceptualisations' of the specialists. The
provided space or the established space, signifies in this study represenations of
space" as defined by Lefebvre.
The `re-defined spaces' are comprised within the `lived' moment of spatiality. They are
the spaces produced" through the practices of the inhabitants, of those who
experience it, within the everyday life. The daily practice of the inhabitant takes place
in an existing, already constructed space, the urban space provided for their
(estimated) daily requirements.
The practice of the inhabitant that is mentioned in the research is a daily one. One
that is placed in the daily routine of the inhabitant, yet not necessarily a practice,
which is deliberatly developed for the production of a space. On the contrary the `re-
defined' space is an unintended production. Not planned, not designed, not calculated,
not contemplated upon, but only frequented, experienced, lived, practiced;
appropriated, interpreted and manipulated through the needs and desires of the
inhabitant.

23

CHAPTER 3

UNCOvER!NG THE SPACES OF THE !NHAB!TANT: A NETHODOLOG!CAL ACCOUNT

The ordinary practitioners of the city live `down below', below the
thresholds at which visibility begins. They walk - an elementary form of
this experience of the city; they are walkers, Wandersmanner, whose
bodies follow the thicks and thins of an urban `text' they write without
being able to read it. These practitioners make use of the spaces that
cannot be seen; their knowledge of them is as blind as lovers in each
other's arms. (de Certeau, 1999: 129)
We have developed our ideas on the city while we were drifting along its streets. We
have chosen to change our position, leaving our `designer' identity aside; we have got
`down' back to the city ground to loose ourselves among its ordinary practitioners"
(de Certeau, 198+, 1999). And we have found out more about the city life, about the
way it is actually experienced.
This study refuses to merely adhere on theories, and aims to base discussions on an
actual ground (real experiences). The aim is not to draw an abstract picture of the city
life and especially of the practices of the city dweller; on the contrary, this is what the
study opposes to. A real journey is taken in the city to think about it while actually
living it; and so did the investigation on Ninibar" start.

3.1. THE CASE OF N!N!BAR", ANKARA - TURK!YE

!f one is to walk the Tunali Hilmi avenue in Ankara (see appendix A), without purpose,
in a warm weather Saturday evening one will be drifted along by the lively crowd of
the avenue. Embraced by people moving from shops to cafs, from cafs to cinemas,
from parks to their home; by families with children, ladies with their new haircut,
24
groups of young boys and girls, one may easily fall in the middle of the Ninibar"
crowds, scattered to the back streets of `Tunali'.

Figure 3.1. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002-2003)

Ninibar" takes place in one of the very central areas of Ankara. !t is the story of
young people's nights of fun, of the residents discontents, and of the struggle between
them; and consequently of the continuous change taking place in the neighbourhood.
Ninibar" is a place where young people `hang out' as a night activity, it is also the
name given to this act. Ninibar" seems at first like a name of bar; yet it is not a
formally established bar nor a nightclub of that sort. The place called Ninibar is not a
covered, closed place; it is òpen': !t is an outside space or a place outside. The artist
Can Altay explains in the statement of his work on `Ninibars'
+
(2003):
The provided space is not an interior of a defined space. The Ninibar is
located in an in-between space; a gap; literally the space between the
buildings. (Altay, 2003: 161)
Ninibar" can also be seen as a social activity performed by a group of young people.
Participants of the Ninibar, come together out on the streets chat, drink and have fun,

+
The Ninibar Projections", installation, How Lattitudes Become Forms: Art in a Global Age, Walker Art
Centre, Ninneapolis - USA, (2003); Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo per l'Arte, Turin - !taly,
(2003); Contemporary Art Nuseum, Houston - USA, (200+ - on going)
25
sitting on the walls of buildings or in the parking lots. Zeyfang, in the catalogue text
written by himself for the works of Can Altay, interprets the case as follows:
!t is the beer bottles located in some hands that give the non-place finally
a name. The Ninibars as they are called within a certain group of people,
are defined by an agreement within this very group. Before this place here
a step, a scale, a group of plant boxes or a couple of cars, parked and
now leant against. We participate in a process of land taking, naming and
business founding - only that there are no names, the business is illegal if
ever existent, and the land disappears soon after it's discovered.
(Zeyfang, 200+)
The story of Ninibar starts with the search for cheaper beverages. The place and the
act of Ninibar initiated as a drinking stop in front of a grocery shop, which is open
until late at night. (See appendix A, map 6 for the location of the grocery shop) As it is
prohibited to enter a night place with drinks bought from elsewhere, clients of bars
and cafs have gathered in the streets and carried their leisure outdoors and called it
`Ninibar'. !n the following years, Ninibar became a very popular place. !n the last two
summers, Ninibar has got very crowded, and became a point of attraction itself like
other commercial establishments of nightlife.

3.1.1. N!N!BAR AS A SPACE CREATED BY THE C!TY !NHAB!TANTS

The study develops a discussion on the urban space, on the way the urban dweller
experiences it and on the way it is converted into a medium of free expression, or a
tool serving the needs and ends of the urban ùser'. The research, which is conducted
in this direction, aims primarily to reveal the massive potential and dynamism, down
on the `ground level' (de Certeau, 198+), the urban daily life possesses.
Ninibar" is not a constructed space and it does not exist on plans that are prepared
by the authorities. !t is a space `produced' by one group of city dwellers. !n this study
it is suggested that, when the city inhabitants start to use the urban space in their
own `ways'
5
and through their own perspectives, they start to `re-define' it to produce
their own space. This space - the `re-defined space', is neither like the space in the
conceptualisations of the `designer' - representations of space, nor like the space that
are materially constructed and produced by the authorities - spatial practices. But; it
is the space as it is actually experienced and `lived'. This space can be understood as

5
The `ways of using' of the urban user will further be discussed depending on de Certeau's studies.
26
part of the spaces of representation - the `lived spaces' as Lefebvre puts. (Lefebvre,
1991)
Ninibar is an appropriated part of urban environment, `re-defined', interpreted through
the understandings, needs and demands of the user group. To put in a different way,
Ninibar is an existing urban space `consumed' (Certeau, 198+) in a particular way,
through a `new use' developed by the inhabitant group.
A proper understanding on the idea of introducing a new use - a new `way of using'
(de Certeau, 198+) by the city inhabitant, is of crucial importance for this study,
because such an understanding illuminates the creative act of the subject and the
existence of different meanings in the daily urban practices of the inhabitant. The
conceptualisations of usage and consumption refered in this study depend on the
works of Nichel de Certeau (198+).
Nichel de Certeau explains in his work `The Practice of Everyday Life' that the
consumption of a given product is not merely a passive act. !t includes a hidden
process of production, which can be discovered in the way the product is used or
consumed, in what the ùser' do or make with the product. (de Certeau, 198+: xiii)
Ùse', as an ambiguous concept, includes besides the `stereotyped procedures, ways
and customs' of consuming, àctions that have their own formality and inventiveness,
which discreetly organize the multiform labour of consumption'. (de Certeau, 198+:
30) Hence, different `ways of using' the provided products, include an operation, the
act of `making do'. (de Certeau, 198+: 30)
The `new use' introduced by the Ninibar participants, comprise the alternative socio-
spatial practice performed in certain times, at a certain place - a place which already
has a pre-defined use and function for itself. The `new use' can henceforth be
explained as constituting an alternative to the pre-determined functioning of the urban
space.
!t is observed in this research that it is, almost always, through the practice of a new
use, that the urban space is `re-defined'. As this new use is practiced more in time, it
becomes more known and accepted by the other users of the city. Within the city
geography, this new use - practice is able to generate a space for itself; this is what is
named in this study as a `re-defined space'. For instance for the investigated case, it is
seen that, the leisure activity of a youth group is what creates the alternative spaces
of Ninibar. !t is the perpetual practice of that new use, which re-defines the space;
and it is the demand for it, which attracts new populations to Ninibar.
27
An investigation about the spaces re-defined in daily practices; should recognize above
all, that the urban user have another way of understanding and experiencing the city
than the designers and institutions that set the definitions and that materially built and
produce the urban environment. And further, it is asserted that partly because of this
difference of ùnderstanding' and partly because of their particular needs and desires,
the inhabitants seek to manipulate the urban environment in their own way and that,
within the approach of the study, it is considered to be the first and primary motive,
for the appropriation and the re-definition of an urban space, which is already
produced-constructed and in use.
The practice of Ninibar, in de Certeau's terms, àccepts' the given urban space and
`turning it into its advantage', `metaphorizes' it. (de Certeau, 198+: 31) Then, the re-
definition of a space implies an act of making - an òperation' which is conducted
through the specific ways of ùsing', and which includes a creative interpretation of the
àlready organised' space.
!n the case of Ninibar" a similar operation, which will be discussed in detail in the
forthcoming parts, is carried out by the Ninibar participants, through the `new use'
they have developed and practiced at various times, on the same locality. So the new
use belongs to one particular group minor to the rest of the city population. !t is these
users, who could have never been taken into consideration by the ones who plan the
area and who, in spite, re-define and re-produce the urban space for themselves. This
is the reason why these alternative uses and practices can only be found within the
everyday life of the city and the reason why, by their very nature, they are unexpected
and they cannot be predicted.
Remaining on the question of a `new use' developed over an established one, it can
further be suggested that behind the search for a new use and behind the need for re-
defining the space; there lies a demand, a desire for another, an alternative space;
and accordingly there is the questioning and the critique of the established. This
proposition entangles that the `re-definition' of spaces, provides inhabitants a medium
to express themselves and further, to manifest an implicit resistance. To understand
Ninibar means therefore, to uncover the needs, desires and motives people from
Ninibar carry. This helps also exploring the resistant meanings beyond Ninibar.
Depending on the observations and experiences of Ninibar made by the researcher
and relating them to different theories of `lived spaces' and to theories asserting
alternative conceptualisations of the urban spatiality, a number of aspects regarding
28
the operation performed by the inhabitants, to re-define spaces of their own, is
determined.
So far, the different aspects which promise deeper understanding on the spaces of the
inhabitant - the lived spaces, on their peculiar daily practices and also aspects which
open further paths- fields of investigation are introduced. The study asserts the
elaboration of the case of Ninibar, through out this perspective, for achieving an in-
depth understanding about the processes of appropriation and about alternative ways
of `producing'- creating spaces. For this purpose, first of all, an extensive depiction of
the case of Ninibar will be provided.
To establish an intensive understanding on the case of Ninibar, a broad definition of
Ninibar will primarily be formulated, combining the explanations given by the
participants and other explanations taken from different published and web based
documents. Then, a comprehensive discussion on the location of Ninibar" within the
city geography and also on its position within the socio-economic geography of Ankara
will be provided. And thirdly, an investigation about the ways in which the alternative
practice of Ninibar" is performed will be given. The aim of this investigation is to
explore what the re-definition of a space and the created space includes. And a further
step of inquiry is for the discovery of what such operations and spaces possibly
implicate.
The perspective adapted in this thesis, for the understanding of the city, requires the
researcher to be one of the òrdinary practitioners' (de Certeau, 198+) of the city,
which means that we should leave our position as an urbanist or as an architect; and
give up from the power we attain from it. Quickly, we are to acknowledge a completely
different set of power relations functioning in the city space. !t is these rivalry
relations and the struggle it initiates, that actually re-defines and re-shapes the space
of the user: a secondary system of production and construction emerging out of this
'power play' within the inhabitants of the city can hence be discovered.
Previously, it is discussed that the act of re-defining an urban space may potentially
include resistances against the established space and against the practices and codes
imposed upon that space. This resistance is prominent in the different way - which
challenges the existing way - of using experiencing and defining the city space.
There are further aspects of the mentioned act of `challenging' that should be
questioned. For instance, acknowledging that these alternative practices of the
inhabitant are, in a way, the representation of their different approach, and the
29
outcome of their particular needs and ends; it is not clear at first sight whether there
are èxpressions of identities' or the expressions of other concerns in Ninibar; similarly
whether the implicit resistance is related to the latter kind of expression or the other,
or whether both kinds of expression and resistance are possible in the space of the
inhabitant. These questions will be asked through out the research study.
For the moment being, a brief account of the route of study is: to provide an intensive
understanding on the `making of a space' through a first step of investigations
(location, temporality, participant group and socio-spatial practices) and then to
uncover the rivalry relations, expressions and resistances hidden in these spaces.

3.1.2. A RESEARCH ON `RE-DEF!NED' SPACES

The primary objective of the study is to understand the appropriation of spaces and to
discover how users `re-define' the existing urban space. This will bring into light the
richness and the dynamism of the `lived spaces' (Lefebvre, 1971) and the daily life of
the city proving that the built environment continues its production and transformation
through the daily practices of the inhabitants. Ninibar is such an example. Therefore,
to be able to tell the story of Ninibar will help us understand the re-definition and the
re-production taking place in the city space.
So the first task of the research is to understand the `re-defined space' from the case
of Ninibar by investigating first, the participant group who creates the space; second,
the socio-spatial and temporal forms of practice, constituting the `new use' and finally
the specificity of the location where all happens.
The second major objective of the study is to go one step further and to dig beneath
the surface" (Strangely Familiar, 1996: 9) of the micro spaces re-defined by the
inhabitant. To understand Ninibar with every aspect means to look at the process
within which Ninibar is produced. To uncover the motives and reasons initiating the
creation of an alternative space, over an existing one, and to explore the acting, the
operation, the manifestation, and the resistance of both the Ninibar users and others
using the location. Hence the second goal is to uncover the relations, tensions,
struggles and acts, the `power play' that takes part in the development of Ninibar. The
investigation aims thirdly to find out the motives behind the production of an
alternative space, to discover what the user group expresses through that space and
30
through different practices, and to explore the resistances hidden in that space. To
conclude, the research aims further to explore, how different users resist through the
space they create, what are the èxpressions and resistances' hidden in the space and
how the city inhabitants struggle spatially to reach their ends, what are the `rivalry
relations' which makes the space of the inhabitant possible.
With reference to these stated purposes, it should be made clear that it is not the
intent of this research to carry on a detailed investigation on the urban geography of
the city of Ankara - although the study depends on some knowledge on the issue for
the provision of grounded explanations. Noreover, the subject of the study is neither
the leisure and consumption geographies; nor the differentiation of the sub-centres of
Ankara, in terms of night life or leisure activities, within the city centres in general;
nor the differentiation in the socio-economic profile of the sub-centres of Ankara.
Finally and most importantly, this research is not solely about what is Ninibar?" but
the point of departure is Ninibar.
6
One other point that should be clarified is the
reason of investigation of Ninibar as the case study in this research. There are other
cases parallel to Ninibar within the city geography that can be worked on, yet the way
to reach them is the main problem. The position of Ninibar in this study, as the
investigated case, is neither a choice, nor a coincidence. Ninibar being part of the
researcher's personal experiences, introduced itself at a convenient time as the point
of departure for further thoughts on `lived spaces'.
Noreover, the case of Ninibar provides a mine of information in many issues; however
what should be focused in the case of Ninibar is that it constitutes a clear example of
`re-defined urban spaces'. Proving that, looking to the ordinary daily life of the city and
looking to the spaces of the user one can meet up with an actual and detailed picture
of the sociological, cultural, economic and geographical characteristics of the city.
!n these terms, Ninibar" is a peculiar case. !t is special to Tunali, Ankara; it especially
belongs to - it is a product of - the youth of Ankara. !t is created by them and on that
specific location. !t is necessary to define and describe it, in relation to its creators as
well as to the space it appropriates.
The scope of the discussions made in this research is not limited to the case of Ninibar
alone. As it is intended to provide broader discussions on the lived spaces, the aim is
not to theorize a singular case. Hence it is not the intention of the study to write down

6
!t is a case on which close observations and actual participation had been possible.

31
mere descriptions on Ninibar. Ninibar is accepted as a case that illuminates us about
potential spatial formations within the city. The study look through Ninibar, dig
beneath the surface" (Strangely Familiar, 1996) and understand the space of the user.
The search for a case parallel to Ninibar, should not take place in the other central
districts of Ankara, or other cities; nor should it take place in the leisure practices of
inhabitants of Ankara or different cities. Because, what gives the case of Ninibar its
`specificity', according to the approach of this study, is not its being a leisure place and
activity, but its being a space re-defined by the city inhabitant.
The case of Ninibar should be evaluated within a wider context. Thinking on why
subjects have the urge to interpret and re-define the urban space, parallel spatial
practices and re-defined spaces like Ninibar can be discovered. various spatial
appropriations and practices take place within the everyday life of the city. What are
aimed to discuss in this study, as the re-defined spaces, are the spaces created by the
inhabitants for their own needs and desires, and reached through the practice of a
`new use' introduced for these aims. Consequently, similar examples in the practice of
different alternative uses can be found within the city.
These spaces, for instance, are the streetscapes, which turn into football grounds by
the children playing `street football'. These are the streetscapes compensating for the
desired games of the neighbourhood children and require no other infra structure than
a ball, tin cans or small rocks. Nany other examples, other acts generating their own
spaces by their `countless' different ways taking place in the everyday life of the city,
of any city, cannot be easily formulated without being experienced.
That is why, other cases in Ankara or another city is not sought; and, that is why a
comparison between different sub-centres of leisure and night activities in Ankara is
not made. Before moving to the explanations about the methods of conducting and
evaluating the research study, the main research questions can be summarized as
follows:
1. How do users re-define the existing urban space?
2. How do users express and resist through the space they create? What more can be
learnt from such phenomenon?
3. How do inhabitants struggle through spatial practices (`tactical operations' and
`transgressions') to reach their ends and a space of their own?

32
3.1.3. !NvEST!GAT!NG N!N!BAR THROUGH !N-DEPTH !NTERv!EW!NG"

To explain the case in every detail, the study moves from the personal experiences
and observations of the researcher to the personal experiences of Ninibar users.
Through an appropriate interviewing method the interview aimed to ask the users their
opinions and experiences, to acquire a general knowledge on Ninibar and on a number
of issues that have been categorized depending on the preliminary formulations about
the issue, the main themes and aspects that define the case.

3.1.3.1. !N-DEPTH !NTERv!EW!NG

!nvestigating the personal experiences and memories on Ninibar by an "in-depth
interviewing" method let us find out more from the things that are unobservable
(Arksey and Knight, 1999). Each personal `narrative' (Ellis and Berger, 2003: +69)
increases the richness of data on the case and gives us the possibility to hear from
different perspectives and find out what is commonly shared and what depends on the
users' profile.
The prepared interview asks about the determined issues, both directly and indirectly.
The interview questions are re-structured after the first three interviews: the pilot
study. The pilot study let us discover which questions receive what kinds of answers
and which answers lead to deeper understandings on the case. After the pilot study,
the interview questions and the interviewing manner are revised in order to obtain the
necessary data that better fits the purposes of the research.
This research about the space of the user, adapted the Grounded Theory Analysis
methods for analysing the gathered data. !t is known that the analysis of qualitative
data, obtained through the interviews, which take hours, is difficult to cope with.
However the Grounded Theory recommend categorising the data in an analytical
manner and to make an evaluation accordingly. This method facilitates and organizes
the research process. The interview is also structured parallel to this categorising.
Kath Charmaz explains that, in grounded theory analysis, interviewers start with areas
of interest to them and form preliminary interviewing questions to open up those
areas. They explore and examine research participant's concerns and than further
develop questions around those concerns." She notes that in this way grounded theory
33
keeps researchers close to the data. (Charmaz, 2003: 312) !n this way the analytical
structure of the research develops in congruity with the interview solutions.
The data obtained through the interviews will be at a personal level, to reach the
subjective understandings of the participants. !n this research it is not aimed to make
generalizations neither on `the re-definition of spaces' nor on Ninibar, nor on what is
desired in the urban space and what is not, and as nor it is aimed to test what is good
or bad or what is right or wrong; a structured surveying method which will end up in
collecting rough data from the field, has not been preferred.
Again, ìn-depth interviewing', can be the only and the most efficient method for this
research. !nterviewing will create the possibility to discover more individualistic values,
opinions and approaches that Ninibar users have `personally' in themselves and those
they share ùnspokenly' among themselves. (Arksey and Knight, 1999) Furthermore,
in-depth interviewing as well as being the best method that fits the grounded theory
analysis helps also ùnfolding' stories of the respondents to define and explore
`processes'. (Charmaz, 2003: 31+)

3.1.3.2. THE !NTERv!EW PURPOSE

The first step of the research study was to understand and describe the case of
Ninibar as clear as possible. Depending on preliminary personal observations and
formulations four major aspects of the issue are determined and refined through the
data collection - interviewing process. These are the first group of ànalytical
categories' that will help us elaborate the case in a more systematically way. These
categories are descriptive, and as introduced above, they are: `location', `temporality',
`socio-spatial practices', and the `participant group'. These preliminary categories of
investigation will also help us in understanding the `spatiality' of this operation of the
inhabitant, which is to be elaborated.
Following, the means and tools used by such operations by investigating the effects of
the act in the locality accordingly the relations between the neighbourhood dwellers
and the participants will be questioned. After explaining the case of Ninibar, the final
step is to explore the motives and reasons in the act of re-defining an urban piece,
performed by one city inhabitant group. This necessitates the understanding of the
opinions and views of that particular inhabitant group. Through various data, gathered
34
through the interviews, the explanations and critiques existing for the case of Ninibar
will be extracted to prove that there is a resistant or expressive motive behind the act
of re-definition of a space and that the act of re-defining a space is the explicit or
implicit manifestation of thoughts and opinions that would not be expressed otherwise.
The interview is not always structured in direct congruity with the categories. The
reason for this is that, some answers cannot be attained by directly asked questions.
Asking one-way and straightforward questions risk to limit the richness of data, which
can be possibly, acquired from the interviewees. So, in the interview, there are specific
questions with immediate and clear answers and there are more general questions,
which gets answers on various issues, related to the priorities of the interviewed user.
As the Grounded Theory Analysis aims to ùnfold' stories Charmaz asserts that in
general the interviewers should start the discussion with open-ended questions
(Charmaz, 2003: 31+). !n this way a better interaction is obtained between the
interviewee and the researcher. !ntroducing them slowly to the subject with general
questions about the case, provide the interviewee time to get involved into the issue.
The interviews followed a guideline (see The !nterview Guideline", in appendix B1),
which was developed and finalized along with the pilot study. !nterviews on Ninibar
started with more general questions on the act of Ninibar", then continued with more
specific questions about the process out of which Ninibar is achieved. The order of
questions is kept parallel to the general sequence of the conversations with the
interviewees, the intent behind, was to make the conversation flow, without any
break, any jump from subject to subject.
!t was important during the interviews to achieve a friendly and relaxed atmosphere;
the outcome of which is the possibility to acquire additional data from the adventures
and stories of the interviewee and which give the study a considerable richness.
Describing this as an ìnteractive context', Ellis and Berger explains:
!n this interactive context respondents become narrators who improvise
stories in response to the questions, probes and personal stories of the
interviewer. (Ellis and Berger, 2003: +69)
Keeping in mind this opportunity, a less structured interview is preferred, to reach a
naturally developed conversation. Nonetheless, the interviews have always depended
on the guideline, to avoid missing any of the aimed information. The general attitude
adopted during the interviews was, thus, to promote dialogue rather than
interrogation" as Ellis and Berger (2003: +69) emphasize.
35
3.1.3.3. THE !NTERv!EW

The interviews, started with a general question on Ninibar, asking a personal
definition" of Ninibar (what is Ninibar, where is Ninibar?). This question is important
in providing first hand information about the user's perception and conceptualisation of
Ninibar. The obtained responds uncovered, most of the time, what are the main things
the definitions of Ninibar depends, what Ninibar signifies for the participant. !n
addition, some proportion of information about the socio-spatial practice in Ninibar, in
terms of activities and preferences, is obtained from the participant's introductory
explanations on Ninibar.
The interview continues with another general question, asking a personal historical
account" of Ninibar. This section provided first of all, preliminary information about
the user profile, then again some insights on the socio-spatial practice. But most
importantly through this group of questions to reach the reasons beyond the
emergence and creation of Ninibar has been possible.
Following questions were about the temporal definition" of Ninibar for the user.
These questions provided information about the user profile, about hisfher frequency
of using Ninibar, also about the definition of the Ninibar and a little about the
`temporality' of the act and of the practice.
After obtaining general definitions on Ninibar, the interview proceeds with more
specified questions. First group of question is about the social and spatial practices of
the Ninibar users. The related questions are grouped under three headings. Namely:
the activities, preferences, the boundaries and traces. Answers on the activities" let
us acquire information on the new use and the socio-spatial practice; and also
indicated hints on the motives lying beyond the case. The questions on the
preferences" aim to discover why Ninibar is preferred to other commercial
establishments of nightlife. This knowledge uncovers more about the activities
exercised in Ninibar. But above all, the choice made for Ninibar enlights the motives
and reasons of Ninibar's production; hence make it possible for us to understand the
attitude of the Ninibar user, their possible expressions and resistances. The final group
of questions about the socio-spatial practice (in Ninibar) is on the boundaries and
traces" of Ninibar. Through questioning the physical limits of Ninibar, the temporality
as well as the physical use and the spatiality have been discovered. Also clues about
how, why and to what extent these limits are pushed, forced, and `transgressed' have
been obtained.
36
An investigation on the ideas and formulations of the participants about the Ninibar
population in general - the participant group" follows these questions. Questions
about the participant group primarily aims to define the user profile: their socio-
economic, cultural characteristics, their shared stylistic and sub-cultural elements - if
these have any connection with the production of space - and the communication,
connection, organisation within the Ninibar population.
There is also a group of additional questions asked especially to the female
participants. These questions aim to reveal the forms of relation between different sex
groups in Ninibar. These additional questions investigate whether the female
participants feel any insecurity or discomfort because of their sex and whether there is
a threatening inequality in the acts of different sex groups.
Next questions investigate the relationship between the participant group and the
other users of the district and with the `control mechanism' - the police. This set of
question, brings into surface the power play" which influence the making of an
alternative space within the existing urban space. The practice of the youth group
creates tensions between themselves and the others. The questions on the power play
investigate the tensions and the struggle, caused by the claim of an alternative space
on one side and the defence of an established one on the other. Through this
investigation it, what extend the èxisting' is transgressed and to what extend this
transgression is tolerated by the neighbourhood dwellers; what is the role, function
and effect of the police; and how does this two or more sided struggle evolves into
more balanced relations can be discovered.
A further discussion is made about location of Ninibar within the city of Ankara in
general. This information helps clarifying the specificity of the location in the
participant's opinion, through understanding the reason why Ninibar took place in that
area, the characteristics of Tunali-Kavaklidere as a centre in the city, which provides
sustainability for Ninibar. The specificity of location also implies additional knowledge
about the user group and the act.
!n the final part of the interview, the interviewees gave their general feelings about
Ninibar, the importance of Ninibar for them, whether they have ever experienced
anything similar. And the conversation about Ninibar continued with the things the
interviewee wants to mention, with stories and opinions of the interviewee about
Ninibar.
37
3.1.3.+. THE !NTERv!EW SANPLE

Former personal connections of the researcher have been beneficial for the initiation
of the interviewing process. After the initial interview meetings with the personally
known participants, we have asked them to suggest us, if they can, one or more of
their friends that we can talk to. Therefore the already known participants of Ninibar
provided access to the following interviewees. This is what is called the Chain Referral
System". This method in interview-based researches is also called the `snowball
sampling' method. (Esterberg, 2001: 93)
The interviewing developed in two ways. First, the primary interviewees informed their
friends about our request and passed us their phone numbers if the person they
suggest accept to make an interview with us. Then a meeting is arranged between the
researcher in person (us") and the Ninibar participant. Or, second, the primary
interviewee presented us to hisfher group of friends in the field and helped us conduct
instantly arranged interviews.
As in the interviews, a more comfortable and relaxed atmosphere is aimed, the
snowball sampling method has been the preferred path in this respect. Snowball
sampling is also helpful in beginning the interviewing study (Esterberg, 2001: 93).
Personal connections and references from people they know make the relationship
between interviewee and the researcher closer for both parties. This kind of
acquaintance provided a friendlier atmosphere, which facilitated the interaction and
co-operation in the interview.
Similarly this kind of personal connection increased the trust of the interviewee
towards the researcher, of whom the trustworthiness is assured by a friend.
Additionally, through this method we succeeded to reach to Ninibar participants that
were not personally known and to which there would be difficulties to reach otherwise
- being an unknown person, without reference. Hence, the interview sample is not
limited with the people the researcher personally knows.
One important point about the sampling should be mentioned here. The primary
interviewees, the persons who refer hisfher friends, are chosen from different friend
circles. !t will be clarified in the following discussions that Ninibar population is
composed of different friend groups, which are partially connected to each other in
different ways. Friend groups know some of the other groups; they sometimes come
together when they intersect, they articulate to one other easily, however initially they
38
act separately. And on the other hand, there are friend groups that are totally
unconnected with some of the other groups.
Furthermore, reaching different friend circles was important in obtaining the different
approaches shared within friends. Common approaches within the participants of the
same friend group have been followed accordingly. These different approaches,
though not completely opposing to each other, revealed what are the things accepted
by all the groups in general and what change according to their different backgrounds,
if it does.

3.1.3.5. THE !NTERv!EW!NG PROCESS

The form of interviews was mostly òne-to-one' interviews but also `group interviews'
have been conducted (Esterberg, 2001; Arksey and Knight, 1999) two times. The
researcher interviewed at the same time two persons together, who were also
accompanied by their other friends - they didn't want to participate to the interview
but they made little comments during the interview if they have liked to; these
commends too, are taken into consideration in the formation of our ideas, which also
influenced the evaluation structure but are not added to the evaluation material.
The interviews lasted 30-60 minutes. !n general, the conversation continued after the
end of the questions, in form of an unstructured conversation. These parts are also
recorded and put into evaluation. The followed guideline for the interview helped us in
the evaluation process, in `coding' the data. But the unstructured conversations also
revealed and emphasized important issues about the case.
The interviews took place in cafs in the district: in the streets where Ninibar takes
place. Cafs provided the sufficient comfortable environment to make the interview.
The researcher has recorded the interviews with a minidisk `md' recorder Walkman, in
minidisk (md) format, in high electronic quality. These records have later been
transcribed into computer medium by the researcher. This was a difficult and time-
consuming process. The high-quality recording let the interviews flow and develop
naturally, preventing all kinds of technical interruptions. Also the instant recording
gave us the possibility to have access to and to evaluate every moment and every
word of the interview. Accordingly, it is believed that the research study, technically, is
conducted in a very professional manner.
39
Before beginning the interview, the interviewees were assured about the
trustworthiness of the study with the explanation of the determined ethical principles.
According to these principles
7
, the interviewees have been coded in numbers, their
names and personal information would not be made explicit anywhere, in any medium.
The recorded interview `tracks' and the written interview texts would not be used
anywhere, partially or as a whole, without their permission; except in the thesis study
and in other studies depending on this thesis the researcher is free to use quotations,
coded and evaluated parts of interviews, without making changes in their meanings.
The complete form (both audio and written) of interviews associated with the personal
information about the interviewees will be kept by the researcher and will not ever be
made explicit anywhere or declared to anybody, similarly this data and information will
not be used in the thesis study and it will not be declared to the thesis committee.
Therefore the research study is also believed to be an ethically professional and sound
one.
The interviews are conducted in a friendly atmosphere as it was aimed in the
beginning. The existence of a recorder has sometimes stressed the interviewees in the
beginning of the interview. The explanation of the above-mentioned principles helped
overcoming this problem. As the interview proceeded, a more comfortable atmosphere
is reached; the participants became more and more relaxed and shared many of their
stories and opinions with us. Finally, the interviewees were all excited about the study
and supported the making of a research with such an approach. This is one of the
factors, which highly encouraged and motivated the researcher.

3.1.3.6. THE PART!C!PANT PROF!LE

The population of Ninibar vary in different seasons of the year, in different days of the
week, in different hours of the day; Ninibar does not have a constant population. !t's
peak moments are spring and summer weekends, before the holiday season of families
begin starting from the evening hours until late at night. At such nights, in the last
years, Ninibar population increased nearly up to seventy people or even more.
Depending on the observations made in the field, at least +0 and up to 120 young
people in Ninibar is estimated, when the weather is warm or hot, and on different
evenings of the week. Even when the weather is cold, considering the winter season in

7
These principles are hereby declared.
40
Ankara, which is very cold, snowy and rough; one can still observe one or two friend
groups, or up to ten people in Ninibar.
The interviewing process included 16 interviews. Sixteen was not a pre-determined
number, but has been decided on during the interviewing. This decision depended to
the quality of the data that was being obtained from the interviews. !n the
interviewing process, it was possible to observe repetitious and altering trends within
the acquired explanations; hence, the interviewing process is stopped, as it is believed
to provide sufficient and satisfactory raw data, for the development of further
knowledge and assertions.
Reaching a significant population was also important in this decision. The research
accessed to a group of Ninibar participant, representing adequately, to what extent
different approaches of different friend circles deviate from each other and according
to what the participants vary or come together. Therefore, the quantity of the
interviewed participants is accepted to be significant in terms of the qualitative data it
provides.
Before working out the obtained data in scrutiny, the research followed three
preliminary steps of investigation for determining the participant profile. Depending on
the ethical principles, the interviewees will not be made explicit by their names, that is
why each interviewee is given a participant code", named as Ninibar conversation
no. 1,2,3..." and abbreviated as Nb01, Nb02, Nb03..." hence, the participant profiles
are developed under these codes.
First step of investigation, comprise a first set of personal information about the
interviewee, which is asked at the beginning or at the end of the interview. These
personal information include: age, sex, education, profession, job-working status, the
home city, the district where the participant reside in Ankara, the profession and jobs
of the parents. (See appendix B3, table 2)
Two next sets of information, both very important for the definition of participant
profiles, are gathered from the interview. First set of information is about the
temporality of the Ninibar practices, obtained by a number of questions directed within
the interview, explained in the interview guideline as the temporal definition". (See
appendix B3, table 3) These information include the participant's frequency of `going
to' Ninibar", expressed by the interviewees as days per week, converted by us to
numbers per month, also the number of years since when" the participant goes to
41
Ninibar, what hours of the day", which days of the week" and in which season of
the year" does the participant go to Ninibar.
Within this step of investigation, a major differentiation among the interviewees can
be observed. Depending on the answers given to the specific questions of temporal
definition" and supported by the explanations given by the interviewees during the
whole interview, it is seen that some of the participants are ìn' Ninibar from the
beginning and name themselves as the `founders' of Ninibar; on the other hand there
are others, although they were participating Ninibar for a long time, have started to
go to Ninibar after being informed from their friends, who are named in this research
as the late-comers". This is the most striking differentiation observed within the
participant sample. Founders" gave broader accounts about the historical
development of Ninibar, as they were able to experience the beginning and the
change of Ninibar.
!n the second set of information, important keywords and expressions from the
interview texts are subtracted. These keywords are used in the explanation and
description of Ninibar and the Ninibar participant, and they are obtained after working
over the row interview data - as the preliminary step of the evaluation work. These
keywords are the words and expressions used by the participants, first for describing
the case of Ninibar, second for describing the Ninibar participant and third for
describing an emerging group of Ninibar participants, which they take as different
from themselves: the new-comers". New-comers as explained by the interviewees,
appears to be a new group of participant, attracted by the popularity of `Ninibar',
having a totally different social-economic and cultural profile, this `new' user group, as
stated many times by the interviewees, discomfort them.
Personal information about the interviewees are subsumed according to these
explained groupings and recorded in files compiled for each participant, namely the
Participant !nformation Sheets" (see appendix B2, for the exemplar of the Participant
!nformation Sheet"). The participant information sheets provided an organised base
for the development of a comprehensive matrix and detailed tables on participant
profiles (see appendix B3, table 2, 3, +, 5, 6). The Personal !nformations on the
!nterviewees, given in appendix B3, table 2, constitutes the necessary frame for
developing further discussions on Ninibar and Ninibar population, which can be
followed in the second part of this chapter.

42
3.1.3.7. A GROUNDED THEORY ANALYS!S FOR N!N!BAR: EvALUAT!ON OF
THE !NTERv!EW F!ND!NGS

Before explaining the evaluation of the interview findings the methodological approach
can be summarized as follows. This research on the space of the inhabitants - Ninibar,
is formulated upon a number of themes, related to the subject, and which will be
helpful in maintaining the study in congruity with the aimed research questions and
with the theoretical frame. The themes, which were discussed previously, constitute
the preliminary themes of investigation" of the research study.
A convenient interviewing method is developed for the questioning of these themes.
The interviews continued while these preliminary themes have been re-formulated and
refined" into final analytical categories". (Arksey and Knight, 1999:162) The
Grounded Theory Analysis, which is the method of analysis used in this research,
asserts the development of these categories and the evaluation of the data through
these categories.
!n qualitative researches following grounded theory, the analysis starts from the very
beginning of the study. The structure of the analysis and analytical themes develop
along with the data collection process. !nterviewing is not separated from the
analytical framework that is developed for the evaluation.
Grounded theory include the following strategies: simultaneous data
collection and analysis, pursuit of emerging themes through early data
analysis, discovery of basic social processes, inductive construction of
abstract categories through comparative processes, integration of
categories into a theoretical framework that specifies causes, conditions
and consequences of the studied process. (Charmaz, 2003: 313)
!t has previously been introduced, that the preliminary themes of investigation are
categorised into two groups. First group of themes, which are more descriptive in
purpose, are the location", the participant group", the socio-spatial practice" and
temporality". Second group of themes, which are more exploratory, are the power
play" and the hidden expressions and resistances". The interview guideline has been
formulated within this framework, but also in a way to allow the exploration of further
themes and inter-relations.
The interviewing process, initiated the early steps of evaluation, just as Charmaz
mentions. The decoding of the audio interview tracks" into computer based text"
format, constitutes the preliminary step of analysis. After each accomplished interview,
43
the tracks have been immediately decoded. The immediate transcription of the
interviews was advantageous in many ways. First of all, it prevented any loss of data,
which could happen due to time or technical problems. Secondly, it provided a
preliminary overview of the gathered data depending on a very recent experience, and
gave the researcher the total control of the data at hand. Thirdly, it provided the
simultaneous data collection and analysis" that Charmaz (2003:313) was mentioning
and facilitated the development of a proper analytical structure for the evaluation
process.
The transcription of the interviews hence constitutes an introductory step to the
evaluation work. !nterviewing is one part of the research study, which is also
constituted on an appropriate evaluation of the gathered data and on connecting the
findings to broader theoretical discussions. The evaluation, as explained by Esterberg,
aims to make sense of the data" at hand (Esterberg, 2001).
The analysis should start with the organisation of the qualitative data at hand, by
producing some manageable, systematic guide to heaps of data - transcripts, your
notes and memos, perhaps other materials you have collected." (Arksey and Knight,
1999: 163) This includes, as Arksey and Knight (1999: 163) explain, indexing the data
- also referred as coding" - and retrieval".
Grouping, arranging and organizing the rough interview findings constitutes what is
called the coding" process. Coding is interpreting" as Krathwohl, says. (Krathwohl,
1999: 260) Coding is asserted to be the first analytical step that moves the
researcher from description toward the conceptualisation of that description."
(Charmaz, 2003: 315) One method for coding, suggested by Arksey and Knight and
used in this study, depends on the `cut and paste' principle, and implies the cutting out
of coded chunks of speech" and pasting them with similar items, under a category or
topic heading". (Arksey and Knight, 1999: 163) !n this respect the preliminary themes
of investigation, which have later been refined into ànalytical categories', provide a
basis for this categorisation.
Explanations about the Grounded Theory Analysis", (Arksey and Knight, 1999;
Charmaz, 2003; Esterberg, 2001) explain that the evaluation of the interview findings
comprises two major steps of coding. First step of coding is the initial or open
coding". This initial step forces the researcher to begin making analytical decisions"
as explained by Charmaz. (Charmaz, 2003: 315) Open coding is for finding patterns
and commonalities" within the data and for developing a focus" for the research in
general. (Esterberg, 2001)
44
The transcription of the interviews, as explained above, constitutes an introductory
step to the open coding; allowing also, to go one first time over the interview texts,
line by line" (Charmaz, 2003: 315) and to mark out the significant expressions and
explanations given by the participants and as a following operation, to categorize them
under the preliminary themes of investigation.
This first categorization reduced the excessive raw data and organized it into a more
compact and manageable form. The gathered data, in form of separate interview
texts, were therefore processed into a first analytical document; in other words the
interview texts have been de-composed and re-organised under a thematic structure.
After this first hand organisation of the data, the next step is mentioned to be the
selective or focused coding". (Charmaz, 2003; Esterberg, 2001) Focused coding
requires the working over of the data one more time. Charmaz explains that in the
focused coding the researcher uses the most frequently appearing initial codes, to
sort, synthesize and conceptualise large amounts of data." (Charmaz, 2003: 315) This
step of coding, as Esterberg (2001: 166) suggests, implies going through the data by
focusing on the key themes".
!n this research, focused coding started with the evaluation of the categorised data.
For each category the primary trends of answers have been sought and within each
category important explanation - expression - example groups that reveal different,
complementary or supplementary approaches and information have been determined.
Finally from these information groups, subsumed under each category, an evaluation
matrix" (See appendix B5 for The Ninibar !nterview Findings Evaluation Natrix") is
developed, to reveal the story of Ninibar, analysed through the Grounded Theory
Nethods. The matrix is the final document of the evaluation work, and it includes the
interview case study findings in their most organized and summarized form.
The following inferences and conclusions are developed; and the theoretical
discussions are constructed with reference to this matrix. The next part, in which
Ninibar will be discussed through an appropriate theoretical frame and through the
research study findings, can be followed from the evaluation matrix".

45

CHAPTER +

N!N!BAR: THE RESEARCH

+.1. DESCR!B!NG N!N!BAR

An intensive understanding on the case of Ninibar, including four descriptive steps, is
provided in the first part of this study. The development of a comprehensive depiction
on the case is crucial for the understanding of the sought process of `re-defining' and
producing space through alternative practices and for the formulation of further ideas
on the spaces of the inhabitant - the `lived spaces'; it is also important for an efficient
evaluation of the research findings and for relating them to wider theoretical
discussions.
The following discussions on Ninibar, depend on the evaluation of the research
findings through the Grounded Theory Nethods and aim to provide the necessary
explanations and definitions about the case; first by positioning it within the city by a
discussion on the specificity of its location, then by investigating the participant group,
and by examining how it is described by the participants, finally by understanding the
peculiar practice which produces the space of Ninibar. These explanations will also
reveal the observed particularities of the case, the conclusions derived from the
research study about the above mentioned issues and the explored relations and
connections within the process of `making the spaces of alternative practices'.

+.1.1. THE LOCAT!ON

The urban practices of the inhabitant cannot be seperated from the location they take
place. This work on the `lived spaces' aims to consolidate more abstract discussions by
46
elaborating the case in relation to the context and conditions that influence it. Every
urban story should be understood within its context. This place appropriated by the
user group is the outcome of the cultural, economic, politic and geographical context
within which they live, which they try to change and against which they act and resist.
The location where Ninibars" are created is significant in this sense.

+.1.1.1. THE DEvELOPNENT OF `KAvAKL!DERE'

Ninibar takes place in Ankara, the `Kavakldere' district. The geographical position of
Kavaklidere in the city can be seen in Appendix A map 1. Kavaklidere, is situated in the
southern part of the city. !n an historical prospect, the development of Kavaklidere
started after the 1930s with the Jansen" Plan that has been produced in 1932. The
historical development of the city macroform and centre is given in appendix A map 2.
!t wil not be possible to provide here the planning process of Ankara in detail,
therefore only important inputs for the understanding of the case will be emphasized.
8

The old city of Ankara and the traditional centre are today in the Ulus district. After
the declaration of Ankara as the capital city of Turkish Republic, the city developed
around Ulus and Kizilay has started to grow as the newtown (Yeniehir). !n 1930s, the
plan produced by Jansen (1932) asserted the development of the city in an axis
towards the south - ankaya, where administrative residences and instutitions are
located. (Altaban, 1986a) Kavaklidere is on this axis, as an outer district at that time,
where embassadies started to be located. One of the first housing cooperatives had
been constructed in Kavaklidere, The Gvenevler cooperative, owned by the higher
rank consecutives of `Smerbank'. (Tankut; 1993)
!n 1950s, the city develops both in districts around Kizilay and towards the southern
axis. Ulus is observed as the Central Business District (CBD) and Kizilay as a sub-
centre, at that time Kavaklidere is accepted as a minor, neighbourhood centre. After
the second plan of Ankara, The Uybadin - Ycel" plan in 1967, Kizilay becomes the
extension of the CBD. (Bademli, 1986) After the 1970s, as it can be followed from
map 2 appendix A, the city extends towards all sides and Kavaklidere now appears as
a sub-centre in the city of Ankara, sering the southern districts. (Altaban, 1986b)

8
For further reading see, Akura (1971), Altaban (1986a, 1986b, 1998), Tankut (1993), Tekeli (1998),
Sarioglu (2001)
47
Finally after the 1990s, the central character of Kavaklidere has increased and today it
can also be accepted as an extention of the CBD.

+.1.1.2. THE SOC!O - ECONON!C PROF!LE OF KAvAKL!DERE

Starting from its first development Kavaklidere and ankaya, and the southern axis
has always represented a higher socio-economic profile, due to the attribution of
higher administrative functions and uses on this axis. (Tankut, 1993; Yavuz 2001)
Today a development on the same direction can be followed. !n this respect Nurat
Gven's study provides very important findings on the socio-economic geography of
Ankara. Gven (2001) examine the incomefstatus and ethnicityfstatus differentiation
in Ankara, depending on a 5 sample, taken from the 1990 population census. The
population census includes separate information about the employment status" and
the tenure-ship" of the households. Gven mentions that in their previous studies
with !ik (Gven and !ik, 1996) the ambiguity of the information obtained under the
heading employment status" was pointed out. According to Gven, using the
èmployment status' as the only variable for the determination of the incomefstatus
differentiation in the urban geography of any metropolitan city will not be adequate in
reliability. (Gven 1998, 2001)
To strengthen this reliability, Gven and !ik have developed a joint category, which
combines the `tenure-ship' of the households with the èmployment status' they
conveyed. The employment status variable comprises the following sub-categories:
wage earner", employer", self-employed" and others". The tenure-ship variable
comprise the following sub-categories: the wealthy" as the household having the
proprietorship of two or more houses, the owner-dweller" as the household owning
one house and who resides in it, the property owner tenant" as the household owning
one house but residing as tenant in another, and finally the property-less" as the
household in possession of no house. (Gven 1998, 2001)
The joint category used for the incomefstatus analysis, is obtained through the
combination of these two variables and thus, comprises sixteen, combinated sub-
categories. Using the block model" method Gven (2001) observed three major
groups showing similar tendencies in the city geography: the low-income, the wealthy
and the wealthy employer groups.
48
The findings of the study, as conveyed by Gven, prove segregation between the
wealthy and poor groups, on a north-south axis. Accordingly, Gven observes that
the southern districts of Ankara have a wealthier profile, and that the wealthier
districts in the south are separated from the adjacent poor districts by roads or by
topographical obstacles.
Depending on Gven's findings of incomefstatus analysis through a block model
method, and applied to the Ankara population, discluding those who moved in
between the years 1985-1990, the differentiation pattern of the three major groups
include the sub-categories given in appendix-A table 1. Gven has demonstrated this
pattern on a neighbourhood-based map of incomefstatus differentiation in Ankara,
given in appendix A, map3.
!n the map produced by Gven, for the geographical representation of this incomef
status differentiation, it is seen that Kavaklidere district, which is situated in the
`southern' part Ankara - explained as the wealthier part of the city by Gven (2001) -
represent a `wealthy' profile and is encircled by the districts of similar profiles, as it
can be seen in appendix A map 3.
The examination of Kavaklidere district, on its socio-economic profile within Ankara;
exhibits that Kavaklidere is a district which includes mixed-use central activities and
which becomes increasingly an extension of the Central Business District (CBD),
towards the wealthier parts of Ankara; therefore reflects a relatively higher socio-
economic profile.

+.1.1.3. THE LAND-USE

The central character of Kavaklidere can also be observed in the land-use of the
studied area given in appendix A map +.1, map +.2. map +.3. The land-use study
comprises a building-based observation of the existing uses. The observation aims to
determine the pattern of the commercial and office uses, cultural and leisure uses, the
residential and mixed (commercial and residential) uses and other uses within the
studied zone to reveal the central character of the district. Depending on these
observations it can be observed that the Atatrk Boulevard, being the spine of the
southward development since the 1930s, have an administrative-official character,
which includes different public institutions and embassies. The Avenue parallel to
49
Ataturk Boulevard is the Tunus Avenue. On Tunus Avenue administrative, commercial
and residential uses are combined.
The main avenue where commercial activities are concentrated is the Tunali Hilmi
Avenue. Along the avenue a loose pattern of the residential uses is observed. But in
the adjacent streets, mixed-use buildings with residential and office uses together
increase in number. Therefore the first observation that can be made is the co-
existence of residential and commercial uses in Kavaklidere. This means that the
district is not deserted after the working hours and at night.
When the commercial activities are concerned, there is another observation that can
be made. !t is the intensity of leisure activities in the area. The Arjantin Avenue on the
south end of the studied zone is specialized on food and leisure (See Appendix A, map
+.3). Tunali Hilmi Avenue and the adjacent streets include these activities as well.
Especially the Bestekar Street, which is one of the streets where Ninibar takes place,
is highly specialized on food and leisure. Besides these activities the Tunali Hilmi zone
includes many cultural activities like cinemas, theatres, cultural institutions, culture
and art centres as well. These observations reveal that Kavaklidere - `Tunali' also as a
culture and leisure centre in Ankara, with a very active life taking place.
Kavaklidere have also an important position in the transportation network of Ankara.
Especially Kugulu Park is the major public transportation node where bus routes
between Kizilay - the city centre and Southern districts intersect. The main bus routes
are given in appendix A. map 5. Another important transportation point in the area is
the part of Tunus Avenue where the university service - bus stations are located.
Therefore Kavaklidere - Tunali Hilmi Avenue is also central in terms of public
transportation and on the crossroads of many pedestrian movements.

+.1.1.+. N!N!BAR

Ninibar has emerged within in this geographical context. The practice of Ninibar has
developed out of the nightlife in the area, and later became an important part of it. So
it will not be inappropriate here, to mention a bar located on Tunus Avenue, which no
longer functions. This bar is considered by the participants to be the place and the
reason that initiated Ninibar".
50
80s.90s.mmm. !t was exactly 1996. You know the old bar there, Likya?
You know the place. !t only initiated because of the high prices in that
place."
9
(Nb10)
!n deed the only aim was to drink a beer after being in Likya. You know,
for having a chat and drink outside. And then it developed by itself like
this is a bank, this is `Ninibar' and this my friend, this his friend and so
on."
10
(Nb10)
The emergence of the act of doing Ninibar" is therefore related to the leisure
activities and nightlife in the area. The simple act of drinking on the streets developed
into a practice, which has radically influenced the district. There also exist reasons
related to the location of the act, which supported the growth, popularity and
continuity of Ninibar. These factors are investigated in the interviews texts in order to
reveal the specificity of Ninibar' s location.
First is related to the leisure choices of the Ninibar participants. Kavaklidere is the
centre preferred and frequented in leisure and nightlife, over the other considerable
leisure centres of Ankara, like Sakarya and Bahelievler. Depending on the discussions
conducted on the socio-economic profile of the district, this choice can be considered
to be a signifier about the profile of the participant group. This discussion will be
carried on in the following part, but the socio-economic profile proves to be an
important factor supporting the continuance of Ninibar in time. ! mean if it happened
in another location, ! don't think it would last long..."
11
(Nb10)
All of the interviewees, except one, mentioned that `Tunali' and Kavaklidere has always
been the centre they use for many of their activities. !t is the centre that they have
been using before Ninibar and besides Ninibar for their various needs.
The explanation for this is quite easy. Because this is Tunali, ! don't
know. ! started to come to Tunali since long time. ! came, ! have met with
people and ! have seen that Tunali suits me, in terms of the places to go.
! mean it is a fact that Tunali address quite well to the people who hang
out in Ninibar."
12
(Nb09)

9
80-90.hmmm tam.1996 yilinda yaa, Likya'da u arkadaki eski Likya var ya, orada sadece biranin
pahali olmasindan dolayi kaynaklanan bireydi." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
10
...Aslinda sadece Likyadan ikita bir bira imek amali ikmi birey. Hani, diarda konualim,
ielim. Hani urasi da bi bankti bu da Ninibar, onun arkadai bunun arkadai derken kendi kendine
olumu" (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
11
Yani baka bir lokasyonda gerekleseydi bu, bu kadar uzun sreli olmayacagini dnyorum
ben..." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
12
imdi onun bence aiklamasi ok kolay yani. nk sonuta burasi tunali olmu bi kere ne bilim
garip bi ekil de insanlar. Ya ben ben yani tunali'ya ben ok eskiden beri gelmeye baladim, insanlarla
tanitim baktim ki yani tunali'nin belki biraz daha mekanlar aisindan olsun, gidilebilecek yer aisindan
51
Because Tunali is a centre in Ankara. Not like let's go to Tunali and
make Ninibar, let it be Tunali..." But because Tunali is the place where we
always come."
13
(Nb06)
Tunali is expressed to be the frequented centre of the participants. But also the
mixture of activities in Tunali with residential uses, which were explained above, is
mentioned to be one other factor that makes Ninibar possible. The liveliness of the
neighbourhood both in the morning and in the evening provides a safe environment
for the practice of Ninibar to take place outside.
The specificity of Kavaklidere - Tunali" as a transportation node, is emphasized as
another factor that make Tunali and Ninibar a frequented place. The area becomes a
stop before going home, for those coming from school or other places, from other
districts of the city.
!n general, it is on my route. For example when ! walk from Ayranci to
Kizilay, don't ask why ! walk but that's my route."
1+
(Nb05)
That is why it is easy for the participants to meet in Ninibar". Some users explain that
they just pass by Ninibar on their way back from school or work and they hang there if
they see friends around:
We are so used to walk from there, it is like a pathway. We start from
Tunali, then turn towards there, we head downwards then make a tour
and turn back to the place, we make another tour from Tunus. As it
became a habitude, it is always on my road. The only purpose is to see
people."
15
(Nb03)
!n conclusion the investigation on the location where Ninibar takes place provided an
initiatory understanding on the geographical, social and cultural context of the case.
The position of Kavaklidere, within the transportation network and within the official,
commercial, cultural and recreational activity patterns of the city introduced the lively
and active the environment within which the case takes place and the nature of
practices that are exercised in `Tunali' - Ninibar is an inseparable part of them.

olsun yani. Aslinda bu da yani bi gerek ki ite o Ninibarda takilacak insanlarin potansiyeline uygun bi
yer halinde yani." (Nb09), translated by Deniz Altay
13
Hani ankara'da bir merkez oldugu iin ne biliyim buraya yerletik yani. Oyle bir Tunali olsun,
Tunali'ya gidelim Ninibar yapalim diye degil de, sonuta geldigimiz mekan hep Tunali" (Nb06),
translated by Deniz Altay
1+
Genel rotam benim orasi ya eyden, mesela ayranci'dan kizilay'a yrrken falan, genelde
yryorum yle niye yryosun diye sorma:), rotam orasi yani." (Nb05), translated by Deniz Altay
15
Yani oradan yrmeye ok alimiiz sanirim patika gibi olmu yani baliyoruz tunali dan oraya
dnyoruz, ite aagi dogru yryoruz, belki tunus dan bi daire izip tekrar oraya dnyoruz falan.
Alitigim iin sanirim gnlk yolumun zeri olmu normalde ok da nemli biey yok yani orada. Tam
anlamiyla insanlari grmek yani ama" (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
52
Furthermore, the examination of the socio-economic profile of Kavaklidere revealed
important findings on the inhabitant groups to whom `Tunali' and Ninibar address. The
observations made show that Ninibar is part of leisure practices located in a socio-
economically progressed part of the city, relative to other districts of Ankara.
Finally, the main finding is that the specificity of the location: being a transportation
node, having a lively nightlife, having a socio-economically higher profile, and
including residential uses as well contributed to the emergence, development,
expansion and continuance of the case of Ninibar".

+.1.2. THE PART!C!PANT GROUP

!t is made apparent until now that the approach of this research accept the `space' in
relation to its users, as their own product. Therefore, this examination on Ninibar,
gives importance in focusing on the participant group" and claims to find out more
about the space of Ninibar. Discussing the Ninibar participant reveals the motives and
reasons behind the act of making space, and it will provide a better understanding on
the created space as well as on the òperation' that makes it possible.
!n the previous chapter, the ways in which we have worked to determine `the
participant profile' (see part 3.1.3.6) and the ways in which we have carried the profile
to a broader context, to reveal the general characteristics of the Ninibar population
and to prevent it from being mere descriptions on the interviewed group are
explained. The analysis on the `participant group' depends on a two-step investigation;
first, on the gathered personal information, and second on the subtracted keywords,
through which more specified knowledge on the Ninibar population is derived.
The general picture of the `Ninibar participant' can be followed from appendix B3,
table2. The first hand investigation depends on the personal information of the
interview sample. The interview sample includes 16 participants: 6 female and 10
male. The ages vary between 16 and 27; the average age of the sample is between 20
and 21.
!t can be followed from appendix B3 table 2, that the great majority of the interview
participants are university students, in both graduate and undergraduate degrees. The
interview sample includes one high school student and three university graduates.
Additionally, depending on the first keyword analysis, which can be followed from
53
appendix B+, table 2, that half of the interviewees mentioned that the Ninibar
population comprise young people or university students. Accordingly, it can be
observed in the sample, a high level of education and a young population, which can
be proved from the definitions given by the interviewees, for the Ninibar user in
general.
!t is also emphasized by the interviewees in their explanations and definitions of the
`Ninibar participant' (see appendix B+, table 2), that the `Ninibar participant' comes
from middle or high-income families. This can first be observed in the education levels
of the participants, but also an analysis on the education fees of the attended schools
(see appendix B3, table +) give us the first clues about the income levels of the
families, without necessarily leading to generalisations.
This first investigation about the income levels of the families examines whether the
school of the participant is public or private. !t should be explained here that the
public schools in Turkey have much lower fees than the private schools have, thus
education at private schools require considerably higher incomes for the parents
unless the student is supported by any scholarship.
Well, those people may look like, you know; but in general terms, if we
look, in one way, there is nobody in real hardship there."
16
(Nb09)
!n appendix B3, table+, it can be seen that 5 of the 16 interviewee attend private
schools. This proves the existence of wealthier family children among the Ninibar
participants, although no majority is observable. One other medium of investigating
the income level of families is through the neighbourhood the participant resides.
Depending on the work of Gven (1998, 2001) the socio-economic level of the
resided districts can be evaluated. According to the findings of Gven, Ninibar
participants reside in three different types of district, with different characteristics in
terms of incomefstatus differentiation. These zones are displayed in appendix A. map
1. The district zone of the participants and their characteristics can also be followed
from appendix B3, table 5.
All of the zones include different combinations of the components defined in the work
of Gven as `wealthy' and `wealthy employer'. Zone 1 comprises households
belonging both to the 2
nd
and 3
rd
components, which can be seen in detail in appendix

16
Ya ite genel zellikleri ey grnl falan insanlar olabilir ama ite genel anlamda bunlari bi
amak karitirmak gerekirse, bi aidan gerekten zor durumda hi bi insan yok yani." (Nb09),

54
B3 table 1. As Gven clarifies, at least three blocks of `wealthy' and `wealthy
employer' components are represented in these districts. Zone 2 includes households
given in the second block of the second component, given in appendix B3 table 1.
Property-owner tenant wage earners and owner-dweller and property-less employers
are in majority in these districts. Finally, !n Zone 3 the `Wealthy Employers',
represented in the 3
rd
component of Gven's analysis, reside.
Accordingly, the districts where Ninibar participants reside, display wealthier
characteristics; and this final finding consolidate the assertion about the higher socio-
economic profile among the Ninibar participant's families.
Of course, these are people or the children of people from the higher
social, cultural, economic levels of Ankara. Take it, no body from inin
Baglari come, and drink here"
17
(Nb06)
This finding is important, for it verifies several other observations like the claims of the
interviewees about Ninibar' s being a safe place not including criminal or divergent
acts and the assertion of a difference, in this respect, with other leisure districts of
Ankara.
Coming from higher rank families, possibly implicate higher socio-cultural levels, yet
not necessarily excessive economic power on the side of young Ninibar participants.
On the contrary, it can be observed in the interview findings, an economic dependency
on the families. This can be understood from three points. First, as it can be seen in
appendix B3 table 2, the majority of the participants are students, two of the
participants work beside school and only one of them have a full time job; hence the
participants do not have independent earnings.
One other point that can clarify the economic dependency of the Ninibar participant on
their families is whether they live with their families or separately. !n table 2, it can
also be seen that 11 of the 16 participant live with their families, + participants do not
live with their families but this is because they come from another city for their
university education and there is only one participant who has moved from her family
to live independently.
Finally, in the explanations made by the interviewees the expression of an economic
concern is given; this will be further discussed in detail in the last part of this chapter.
For the moment, it will be adequate to mention, as it can be seen in appendix B+,

17
Tabii canim ite Ankara' nin belli bir sosyal kltrel ekonomik seviyesinde olan insanlarin ocuklari,
ve ya insanlar. Gidip de inin baglarindan gelip de, o iimiyor" (Nb06) translated by Deniz Altay
55
table 1; that Ninibar" is associated in the definitions of the interviewees with
cheaper drinks".
18
Accordingly, Cheaper drinks" is one of the major factors, which
define Ninibar - the space; it entangles an economic concern shared among the
participants and also uncovers one of the major motives behind the creation of
Ninibar.
One line of discussion that should be discussed in detail is about the safety" of
Ninibar which will also be referred to in the following parts of the research, while
discussing the `new use' developed in Ninibar, about the rivalry relations between
different user groups and about the expressions hidden in Ninibar.
Being a space outside and a practice out of the established rules and norms, one
Ninibar leaves the impression of a threatening, insecure place; however the
participants declare the inverse as the case. One point of investigation to support this
assertion was the socio-economic and cultural background of the participants. One
other can be the investigation of gender relations within Ninibar.
Through additional questions directed to the female interviewees, the nature of male-
female relationship in Ninibar (see appendix B3, table 6) has been questioned and the
following conclusions are drawn. Depending on the explanations of the six female
interviewee, there is no segregation between girls and boys in Ninibar; it is an equal,
homogenous and comfortable environment in these terms. Female participants express
that they are not afraid to go to Ninibar by themselves or with their girlfriends and
add that being with their group including both girls and boys eliminate the possibility
of feeling insecure.
However, the interviewees mention that in the latest years, a different population
started to come to Ninibar and caused discomfort among the original Ninibar
participants. All of the interviewees emphasized a negative change within the Ninibar
population. One part of the female participants mentions that they are sometimes
disturbed because of these `strangers' when they initiate fights.

18
12 of the 16 interviewee, used directly the expression in the definition they gave, but all of the
participants emphasized the issue.
56

Figure +.1. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002-2003)

As the profile of the people coming to Ninibar has changed lately, there
had been some fights; before, these things never used to happen, as
people knew each other, these things never used to happen..."
19
(Nb02)
Well, considering the people coming to Ninibar, the quality has changed,
the quality has been deteriorated. Now, for example, as we don't go as
frequent as before, they don't know us, they don't see us and ! feel looks
like who the hell are you", it disturbs me, We are the ones who created
this place man, who are you? Well ! don't have the right to say such
things to anybody, it's ... everybody's street man."
20
(Nb06)
Every interviewee describes this new population as different from themselves. This
new population is named as the newcomers" in this study. The interview sample does
not include a newcomer participant; the study focused on the former participants
because the former process comprising the production of Ninibar is convenient for the
research purposes.
!n their explanations about the Ninibar population, the interviewees separate
themselves from the newcomers and describe them as a cause of decadence in
Ninibar. The interviewees underline first of all, that the newcomers are attracted to
the popularity of Ninibar. Depending on the explanations about the newcomers, shown

19
Son zamanlarda buraya gelen insanlarin profili degitigi iin bi ka kere kavga ikti, daha nce hi
byle eyler olmazdi, insanlar birbirini tanidigi iin olmazdi" (Nb02), translated by Deniz Altay
20
Yani gelen insanlar aisindan kalitesi degiti, kalitesini drdler. imdi mesela gittigimizde, biz
eskisi kadar ok gitmedigimiz iin bizi mesela bilmiyorlar grmyorlar orada takilanlar, hani byle bi
`kimsin sen' gibisinden bakilar hissediyorum. Nesela beni rahatsiz ediyor. Yani burayi yaratanlar biziz,
siz kimsiniz? Yani yle bi hakkimda yok kimseye demeye, allahin sokagi ite burasi." (Nb06), translated
by Deniz Altay
57
in Appendix-B+, table 3; the new group comprises both youngsters - also described as
wannabes" and several different groups explained as clubbers", jackals", tramps",
weird guys" who are revealed by the disliked acts of causing fights and breaking
bottles.
!t has became a place full of `wannabe's ! guess. Every time ! go, ! hear
the same things: `So this is Ninibar?' Continuous plays on the word
Ninibar. !t became a trendier place ! guess."
21
(Nb05)
!n the explanations of the `founder' Ninibar participants, it can especially be seen that
they are disturbed by the presence of the newcomers, and that the new population
cause a deterioration in Ninibar with their acts and turn it into somewhere else, some
place the former participants no longer like. A concern and belonging for their space
is also observed among the Ninibar participants, further discussion about this concern
will be held in following parts.
!t was such a peaceful place before, when everybody used to know each
other. Then some weird guys started to stare at each other and say
what'cha looking' at?"...!t is turning into a `Sakarya' again..."
22
(Nb13)
This proves that the re-definition of a space has a direct relation with its users. With
the participation of the `newcomers', the space change in many ways, in the opinion of
it's former participants. What attract the `newcomers' to Ninibar are not the same
things that have created space nine or ten years ago. The new user group `come' to
Ninibar with different motives and demands and exercise different practices which
tinge to the whole space.
Nb11 - You can hear from everybody, `There is a place called Ninibar in
Ankara', check the Sour Dictionary" from the web for example, even
people from other cities know that there is a place called Ninibar in
Ankara."
Nb10 - !t is even a country wide place now!"
Nb11 - They don't even know what it really is, they think it's a bar,
normal bar..."
23

21
Artik biraz daha zenti bir yer oldu galiba her gittigimde ey muhabbeti oluyor. Aaa Ninibar burasi
mi? Falan srekli Ninibar kelimesi zerinde kelime oyunlari. Daha trendy biryer oldu herhalde" (Nb05),
22
Daha nceden ok baricil biyerdi. Herkes birbirini tanirken yleydi. Sonra garip garip tipler birbirine
bakip sonra ite ne bakiyon falan demeye baladi...yine sakarya ya benzemeye baladi" (Nb13),
23
Nb11 - ..!nsanlardan duyuluyor. Ankarada Ninibar diye biyer var diye. Nesela eki szlge bak.
Baka ehirlerdekiler de biliyor. Ankara' da Ninibar diye biey varmi" Nb10 - hatta trkiye apinda bir
yer!" Nb11 - hatta ne oldugunu bilmiyor, bar zannediyor normal", translated by Deniz Altay
58
Secondly, this is the proof that Ninibar became known and accepted by many
inhabitants of Ankara, other than its former practitioners. While the act is still `doing'
or `making' Ninibar for the former participants of Ninibar, it has became `going to
Ninibar' for the newcomers. This transformation shows that Ninibar is now known, as
any bar or nightclub, as any other formal, institutionalised place; and now becoming a
point of attraction itself, Ninibar is no longer within the control of its founders.
!n fact, it is now like we have created a monster in our hands. When
people drink there, we come hereby. We drink there, we don't want to be
with them,"
2+
(Nb10)
Until now, Ninibar participants are evaluated with respect to their educational and
socio-economic background. The discussion on the new group of participants, provided
a clearer opinion on the acts and aims of the former Ninibar participants, which are
sharply separated from the acts of the newcomers and which reveal the socio-
economic and cultural difference between them. Besides, the direct relation of the user
group with the practiced space is seen, by observing the transformation the arrival of
different participants bring to the space.
There is one other ground for understanding the Ninibar participant; it is investigating
the shared tastes, life styles and values among the participants. The previous
discussions show that the participant group, excluding the newcomers, have a similar
profile. !n terms of outlooks, musical tastes, lifestyle practices too it is seen that the
participants are alike, yet not with precise characteristics.
Well, there is that thing called `sub-culture' ! guess, but sub-culture
became very plural nowadays. There are `punks', old punks and the neo
punks, then there are clubbers, not the clubbers" but like djs making
music and there are normal people ! guess, people like me, hanging like
that. Something like that."
25
(Nb0+)
!n appendix B+, table 2 it can be seen that the interviewees define the `Ninibar
participant', in general, as people with `similar style' or àlternative style', or as `sub-
culture' peoples. However these explanations remain vague in definition. Whether
these styles are the expressions of significant identities or not will be discussed in the
third part of this chapter.

2+
.Aslinda u anda Ninibar, ellerimizle canavar yarattik gibi biey oldu. Nillet orada ierken biz
buralara geliyoruz. urada iiyoruz, onlarla beraber olmak istemiyoruz. nk kalitesi ok sper dt."
Nb10, translated by Deniz Altay
25
!te altkltr denen o ey var herhalde. ama altkltr de ok eitli olmaya baladi imdi. !te
punklar var, eski punklar var bir de yeni punklar var. Sonra clubber tarzi insanlar var ama tam clubber
degil ite, dj mzik yapiyor falan, sonra baka nasil baka, bir de normal insanlar var herhalde benim
gibi, yle takilanlar falan...yle herhalde" (Nb0+), translated by Deniz Altay
59
There is a common style, but how can ! say, a changing common style.
`Nainstream' people come here, wannabe mainstream. Of course this not
mainstream for Turkey in general but like university, Ankara, `bourgeois'
like that..."
26
(Nb05)

Figure +.2. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003)

The major thing understood from the explanations of the interviewees about the
shared style of the Ninibar participant, that there is no singular and strictly definite
style, musical taste, outlook etc; yet the described styles can be collected under the
title of being Alternative" by the interviewees.
For providing a depiction on the outlooks of Ninibar participants several characteristics
of dressing can be explained depending on the observations made during the field
study, however these characteristics cannot be accepted as unchangeable, definite
aspects.
First of all, a general difference between the `common' image of Turkish people and
youth on the street and the Ninibar participants can be observed in terms of dressing.
The clothing in Ninibar" can be considered as under a European influence. The
various styles observed in Ninibar belong to recent worldwide fashion trends. As
different participants has expressed, during both recorded and unrecorded

26
Ortak tarz var ama nasil diyeyim zamanla degien ortak tarz. `Nainstream' tipler geliyor.
`mainstream' zentisi bi kitlesi var. Tabii o `mainstream' Trkiye'nin geneli iin degil de; niversite,
Ankara, yari-burjuva falan..." (Nb05), translated by Deniz Altay

60
conversatrions, these styles can be named as follows: Punk", Skaters", Old-school",
Alternative styles" or Street style". The listened musics support these styles. As
mentioned by several interviewees some of the generally listened music genres are
alternative rock", punk", rock", brit pop" and electronic" music.
These dressing styles include items that are bought, or òrdered' from U.S.A, Europe or
other countries, especially for `skaters'; items that can be found in Europe or America
centered chain stores, which function in Trkiye, or items from second hand stores
etc. !n economic terms, these items are priced in general above the moderate prices.
!t is very difficult to describe these styles in few words. This requires further
investigation, however to provide a general picture depending on the observations
made in the field, without implying generalizabilty; the clothing in Ninibar can be
characterised by several items. These are `large trousers' especially for male
participants, `sneakers' of famous sport brands, colourful accesoiries for female
participants and other cloths according to the trend of the year.
The important findings these observations provide are the western influence in the
dressing styles of the participants and in accordance the relatively higher prices of the
worn commodities. Finally it is necessary to mention that the dressing styles that are
observed in Ninibar are not specific and unique to Ninibar, Ankara or Trkiye; but they
are part of wider worldwide styles and the appropriation of wider worldwide styles;
hence they are means of ìdentification' not only for Turkish people but also for a wide
range of people in other countries over the world.

+.1.3. DEF!N!NG N!N!BAR AND THE RE-DEF!N!T!ON OF THE URBAN SPACE

+.1.3.1. A DEF!N!T!ON FOR N!N!BAR

Ninibar is introduced in this study as a `re-defined' space: there is no previous
definition set for Ninibar, it does not exist in the so far developed plans, projects,
rules and regulations of the urban area where it locates itself. Ninibar is only defined
within the practice of its users and has no predictability; hence it is not something or
some place acquainted; yet it is something or some place invented and discovered.
61
Ninibar is invented within the city inhabitant's alternative ways of using the city space.
This is also what is observed in the definitions given for Ninibar by the interviewees.
Ninibar is defined primarily through the explanation of the activities exercised there,
then of other components. An essential understanding on Ninibar requires henceforth,
the investigation of this new use, which includes the unforeseen social and spatial
practice.
Ninibar is the place where people drink on the street...!t's the place on
the Tunus Avenue, where people drink on the street."
27
(Nb10)
The place where we grab a beer, sit and drink on the street is a Ninibar
for us. But Ninibar, to give a complete definition, is one of the streets
perpendicular to Tunali, The Blten street, and in front of the grocery
shop where we can quickly have our beers and drink; yes, around the
grocery shop."
28
(Nb06)
!t can be followed in the Keyword Analysis on the definitions on Ninibar, given in
Appendix B+, table 1, and as it can be seen in the above given examples; Ninibar is
first described by the act of `drinking on the street'. Depending on their personal
experiences participants emphasize different components of Ninibar among others, yet
every definition comprises, the act of drinking and the fact of being on the street,
outside, in the open air.
! mean when you say Ninibar, this is my view of course, a great amount
of people think about alcohol. You can be sure of this. Definitely it is
alcohol. The name is `bar' first of all; it's not Nini Corner, Nini Couch, or
Nini Park."
29
(Nb03)
Similarly it is also possible to follow the definition of Ninibar in its name. The name
`Ninibar' is anonymous to most of its users (Altay, 2001). Only the initiators know how
the name came out. But once it has been spoken out, every member of the group and
then every newcomer accepted it. The name Ninibar implies a strong connection with
alcohol within the space and the practice, therefore locates Ninibar within the nightlife
of Ankara.

27
!nsanlarin sokakta itikleri yer.tunus caddesinde insanlarin sokakta itikleri yer." (Nb10), translated
by Deniz Altay
28
Sokak zerinde oturup, elimize biramizi alip itigimiz yer bizim iin Ninibar. Ama Ninibar tam tanim
olarak tunali'yi dik kesen sokaklardan biri, blten sokak, ite bakkalin n genelde biramizi abuk alip
iebildigimiz yer bakkalin n taraflari falan oluyor evet." (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
29
Yani Ninibar dediginde, yani bu benim dncem tabii, insanlarin byk yzdesinin aklina alkol gelir
yani. Bundan emin olabilirsin yani. Nutlaka alkol var iin ucunda. Zaten adi bar yani, mini ke, mini
koltuk, mini park degil yani orasi." (Nb03), translated by Garanti Platform Contemporary Art Centre
62
!t was four years ago when ! first came `round here. ! remember the first
time. `To Ninibar we are going' they said, ! thought we are going to some
bar; turns out that we will just sit here on the pavement"
30
(Nb0+)
Hmm, ! don't have a clue. A friend told me, ! went àa so you call it
Ninibar'. Before that ! didn't know it was called `Ninibar', ! only knew the
place".
31
(Nb0+)
!t was the same thing as always: they've said `Let's go to Ninibar!' !'ve
said àa, where is that, is it new?' they've said `Here we are', `where?'
`Here', `where?' `Here' .like that, like everybody else has first learnt"
32

(Nb05)
Ninibar", reminding at first a name of bar, is the name given to the streets where
young people hang out; and which became in time the name for both the space and
the practice. The new use brought to the spaces of Ninibar, is henceforth situated
within nightlife activities. !n the previous part, it has been discussed that the actual
uses taking place in the area - in the `Tunali' region - includes leisure activities (see
appendix A, map 6) and that that was one of the reasons Ninibar took place in the
area. Ninibar as an alternative practice and production of space", achieved to take
place among them but with a completely different standing.
!t's relaxing and fun at the same time, and sometimes it's like, we are
going out like, let's go to Ninibar and then we'll go to somewhere else."
33

(Nb06)
!n the winter, before going out we are at Ninibar, in the summer we
never go out to somewhere else, we are always in Ninibar. ! mean you
never go out to bars in summer time."
3+
(Nb12)
!t can also be observed in the given quotations that the location of Ninibar within the
city is another descriptive element referred in the explanations of the participants;
however, as Nb07 emphasize, Ninibar is not necessarily dependent on its location.
Therefore, Ninibar can also be accepted as an act, which comprises a practice, apart
from being a `place' - with reference to a location within the city.

30
Drt sene nce geldim ilk kez. Hatirliyorum ilk geldigimi. !te Ninibara gidecez falan dendi, ben bara
gidecez zannediyorum. Neger burda oturulacakmi falan.", translated by Can Altay
31
Hmm, bir fikrim yok aslinda. Bana bi arkadaim syledi, haa Ninibar mi diyorsunuz dedim. Ondan
nce ben Ninibar dendigini bilmiyordum, sadece mekani biliyordum", translated by Garanti Platform
Contemporary Art Centre
32
Yine klasik ey: hadi Ninibar'a gidiyoruz!", aa neresi orasi yeni mi aildi falan", geldik ite;
neresi?", burasi, neresi, burasi ite yle biey. Herkesin grendigi gibi..." translated by Deniz Altay
33
Hem rahatlama hem eglence, byle ey gibi de oluyor bazen, evden `hadi Ninibar'a gidelim' diye
iktigimiz, `sonra oradan da biyerlere gideriz' falan" (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
3+
Kiin biyere gidilmeden nce Ninibar'da olunuyor, yazin bir yere gidilmiyor hep Ninibar da olunuyor.
Yazin hi bi bara gidilmiyor yani." (Nb12), translated by Deniz Altay

63
!t is the aggregate of streets, where people who want to drink at cheaper
prices come together and drink; because it is not one street only, as you
know, the Tunus avenue, the Bestekar street, over there... and it is like
that in Ankara. But take it, if you meet with people in Bodrum for
example, they can say, Let's make a Ninibar!" as well. That's why you
can't really have a definition for Ninibar; you can make a Ninibar
anywhere. !n general, it means drinking on the street"
35
(Nb07)
The next important component of the act, apart from drinking and being on the street,
is the possibility of `being with friends' - socializing, as strongly emphasized by the
interviewees. The friendly atmosphere, the opportunity to chat easily, the social aspect
are the first points that differ Ninibar from any other bar or nightclub. Hence, Ninibar
is also a social production and act, in other words, the spatiality of Ninibar is also an
outcome of a social practice.
What makes Ninibar a Ninibar is to be able to hang out easily with
friends ! think. This is the concept of Ninibar."
36
(Nb12)
The interviewees explain that drinking in Ninibar is a social thing and this social aspect
of Ninibar is also one other major component that defines the space. Participants
come to Ninibar to be with their friends, to meet new people and to be able to talk
while drinking. This is not possible in bars and nightclubs due to crowd, laud music,
noise, dark atmosphere etc.
! mean this is fun man. ! recognize how much !'ve been telling to people
here and ! know how much ! have been listened to, ! mean there is
sharing here, and it is the most important thing."
37
(Nb01)

+.1.3.2. RE-DEF!N!T!ON OF THE URBAN SPACE THROUGH A NEW USE - THE
PRODUCT!ON OF AN URBAN SPACE AND CULTURE

Ninibar both as a place and practice is included in the night life of Ankara, as
discussed in its definitions, mainly because it is the place where a similar practice is
exercised: the practice of a nocturnal leisure activity; however in many respects

35
Ucuza imek isteyenlerin bi araya gelip hep birlikte itikleri sokaklar btn. nk tek sokak degil
bildigin gibi. Tunus, bestekar u ara sokak ve ankara da bu yle. Ama tutup da Ninibar, insanlara
rastliyosunuz mesela bodrum'da hadi gelin urayi Ninibar yapalim" da diyebiliyolar. O yzden bir
tanimi olamiyor. Heryeri bir Ninibar yapabiliyosunuz. Genelde sokakta imek anlamina geliyor" (Nb07),
36
Ninibari Ninibar yapan arkadalarla birlikte rahat biyerde oturup iebilmek bence. Ninibar kavrami
bence budur." (Nb12)
37
- eglence bu yani ben burada ok ey anlattigimi bilirim insanlara ve dinledigimi bililrim yani bir
paylaim var bence en nemli olayi bu yani." (Nb01), translated by Deniz Altay
64
Ninibar differs from the ordinary night life of Ankara. Every activity done in Ninibar
includes a peculiarity, which cannot be found elsewhere; every act implies
àlternativeness'. A preference for Ninibar is prominent in every activity done there
and it is these preferences, which also define Ninibar, and gives it an alternative
stance.
First of all, drinking in Ninibar is different in many ways from drinking at home, at a
bar, or somewhere else. The difference lies in cheaper prices. This is also the primary
impetus for the creation of Ninibar. Buying drinks from a grocery shop is cheaper but
also, it provides other things like variety of choice; medium of sharing and even
producing different drinks by yourself. There are special mixtures and cocktails made
in Ninibar, and they are the things that define Ninibar, beyond simply `drinking'. The
Ninibar people, while making a space of their own, can also produce drinks of their
own:


Especially the mixture of banana liqueur, cacao and milk, or that of the
vodka, `tang', water... these all came up from Ninibar and nowhere else.
Like mixing vodka and energy drinks or several fruit juices and producing
different tastes like that, it all happened here."
38
(Nb06)

38
Ozellikle muzlikr, kakao, st kariimlari, ite votka `tang' su kariimlari....bunlar hep burdan ikan
eyler bence. Bi baka yerlerde yapilan eyler degil, bizlerin uydurmasi eylerdir yani. !te votkalar
65

Figure +.+. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003)

Nany of the drinks have been invented here. Like let's mix this and that,
let's make it like that, if we do this, things like that."
39
(Nb10)
There is beer and salty peanuts, banana liqueur and milk. These are the
favourites. You know like you come here, go and eat something then you
come back, you take a tour and the police come and you take another
tour, something like that. ! don't know anything else like that."
+0
(Nb0+)
Additionally, Ninibar allows for the performance of any kind of game, as the
interviewees explain, benefiting from the large and unlimited space of the street. One
other thing that being on the street provides is therefore freedom in bodily
movements.
Nb12 - You can even play games"
Nb13 - We wrestle sometimes!"
Nb12 - You know anything you can think of, those who bring ball,
hockysack, anything"
+1

enerji ieceklerinin karitirilmasi, eitli meyvesularinin karitirilmasi byle degiik tatlar elde edilmesi
falan oldu yani." (Nb06) , translated by Deniz Altay
39
ogu iki de burada dogdu ite ya. Byle onu karitiralim, unu byle yapalim, yle yaparsak
falan." (Nb10) , translated by Deniz Altay
+0
Bira tuzlu fistik var, Nuz likr st var. en favoriler bunlar, ite gelirsin buraya bi yemek yersin
sonra tekrar gelirsin, bi tur atarsin, polis dagitir yine bir tur atarsin yle biey aslinda. ben baka byle
biey bilmiyorum yani." (Nb0+) , translated by Deniz Altay
+1
Nb12 - ..Eger eyse oyun bile oynanabiliyo mesela", Nb13 - Biz gre yapiyoruz!", Nb12 -Oyle
aklina gelebilecek, top getiren, hockysack getiren falan oluyor.", Nb13 - (bottle turning?)ie
evirmece", Nb12 - Kendi kafasina gre insanlar takiliyor." translated by Deniz Altay
66
!n covered spaces, there is music, you get drunk, you can have great
time but the fun in Ninibar is totally different. ! mean because, one
speaking with another, then a conversation begins, then someone says
something. Then the other guys jump over their backs and they all fall
down, and like that..."
+2
(Nb09)
Ninibar is a place for having conversations, talking, chatting and socializing like every
leisure place, however participants express that when they come together in Ninibar
they have a friendly atmosphere and a possibility of sharing which can not be attained
anywhere else. `Sharing' as mentioned by the Ninibar participants, is a social thing and
it comes above consumption most of the time.
And it becomes like a sharing, we can share many things. !t even comes
over the `mere consumption', beer becomes a mere mean for people to
get relaxed..."
+3
(Nb01)
! think Ninibar is a place where people be close to each other. There is a
medium of social sharing. A great deal of sharing. ! mean you can meet
with people you don't know and have great conversations. Like that !
think the real thing about Ninibar is that there is a great sharing."
++

(Nb09)
Although the neighbourhood is familiar with nightlife practices and their
establishments; Ninibar, as a practice, is unforeseen and does not have any assigned
space. The new use introduced by Ninibar, appropriates the urban environment of the
streets (like walls, stairs etc.) and creates a space for its own.
The difference between the ordinary functioning of the urban space and the
alternative practices, reveals the critical and creative nature of the introduced `new
use'. As in our field; the city dweller who is accepted as passificized by pre-determined
functions and rules for the urban environment; searches for a medium to act, operate
and produce. The peculiar `new way' through which the inhabitants use the urban
space includes a creative and productive act. (de Certeau, 198+: xii) This is an

+2
Kapali mekanlarda gerekten mzik aliyor, sarho oluyorsun, ite ok gzel eglenebiliyorsun ama
sonuta Ninibardaki eglencenin tadi bi farkli. nk yani; o onla konuuyor, ardindan bi konu ailiyor, o
biey diyor. Orada ite iki kii birbirinin stne sirtina ikiyor, ite hepsi yere dyolar bilmem ne,
ondan sonra bi anda herkes birbirinin stne atliyor, ite altta kalanin cani iksin!." (Nb09) ,
+3
.ve o mesela byle bir kaynama oluyor ve birok eyi paylaabiliyoruz. Artik eyi aiyor, safi
tketimi aiyor, artik bira insanlarin rahatlamasi iin kafasinin rahatlamasi iin bir ara oluyor."
(Nb01), translated by Deniz Altay
++
Bence Ninibar insanlarin ok iie olabilecegi bir yer. Byle bir paylaim var. !nanilmaz byk bir
paylaim var. nk hi tanimadigin insanlarla bile, bir anda orada ok gzel bi diyaloga girebiliyosun.
Oyle yani bence en byk zelligi Ninibarin ok byk bi paylaim olmasi." (Nb09) , translated by
Deniz Altay

67
òperation' as de Certeau formulates, an architectural action" as defined by Gausa: an
effect of expressing, operating, executing and doing. (2003: 26)
Architecture-action is defined by a desire to act, to (inter) act. That is to
activate, to generate, to produce, to express, to move, to exchange or to
relate. To àgitate' events, spaces, concepts and inertias. To promote
interactions between things, rather them interventions on them.
Novements rather than positions. Actions rather than figurations.
Processes rather than occurrences. (Gausa, Guallart; Netapolis, 2003: 26)
Nike Crang, in his article about the rhythms of the city, mentions that de Certeau
introduced a vision of spatialisation as practiced space, by which he means the
appropriation of urban places through temporary use." (Crang, 2001: 190) The
spatiality of Ninibar can be considered similar to this formulation of de Certeau.
And Ninibar, in spite of seeking for defined, constructed structures abstracts itself
from the urban space and turns into an act: the act of doing Ninibar", the act of
creating a space, transient, temporary, mobile; an act implied by a new way of using
the urban space. `Ninibar' becomes a `micro space' re-defined by that àct', or the
spaces where this act is performed. And now, it can be anywhere in the city, in any
city. Ninibar is now an act of production - of making a space of your own through
your practices and which fits your particular needs.
! can't really make a definition in deed, it has became a culture in
Ankara. !t started first by standing beside that weird kind of wall, there on
the street joining Tunus Avenue. !t looked like a bar, we were mixing our
drinks on it, so it had been called `Ninibar' at that time; but now ! guess
the whole act of drinking on the street became `going to Ninibar'..."
+5

(Nb16)

+.2. THE SPAT!AL!TY OF N!N!BAR, BOUNDAR!ES AND TENPORAL!TY

So far, depending on the explanations of the interviewees, the main proponents of the
definition of Ninibar have been discussed. Through the preliminary evaluations and
observations it is proposed that Ninibar is an operation belonging to the urban
inhabitant, which has born out from a leisure practice and which seeks and creates

+5
Aslinda ben tanim yapamiyorum cunku bence artik Ankara'da bir kltr oldu bu, ilk zamanlarda
tunus caddesine ikan o yoldaki iki marketin onundeki bankin ve tugladan olan o garip seyin cevresinde
durunca orasi bar gibi oluyordu ustunde ikileri karitiriyorduk oraya Ninibar denmiti o zaman fakat
daha sonra sanirim btn bu sokakta ime olayinin adi Ninibara gitmek" oldu." (Nb16), translated by
Deniz Altay

68
spaces for its own. !t is also mentioned that Ninibar does not aim for a constructed
space and it does not include any physical construction. !n spatial-geographical terms,
Ninibar is described by the participants through mentioning the location within the city
of Ankara: in general terms, the streets where it takes place, yet lacking any
specification about where Ninibar starts and where it ends.


Every place that can be sat on can become a Ninibar. Well, ! mean any
place you can sit and drink is a Ninibar."
+6
(Nb12)
Ninibar is formulated in this research, as an operation producing an alternative space.
The means of this production remains to be explored in this part. Ninibar spatializes
itself by appropriating the already existing urban setting, and using the existing urban
elements - the walls, pavements and stairs - as the parts of its own spatiality. Ninibar
apply different meanings, exercise different uses on them and constructs the micro-
spaces of Ninibar by re-interpreting them in its own way.

+6
Oturulabilinecek yerlerin heryeri Ninibar olabiliyor. !te rahat rahat oturup iilebilinen her yer
Ninibardir." (Nb12), translated by Deniz Altay
69


There is a feeling of belonging here, you don't feel like you know... !
mean it is comfortable there, you have that wall if not this one, that one if
not another one, if you have none of them you have the side of a tree, !
mean you don't feel naked."
+7
(Nb01)
The way Ninibar appropriates the urban space is similar to the works of !ain Borden
on skateboarding and what he formulates as the body-architecture". (Borden; 1998,
2001) Borden explains that skateboarding has originated, in 1970s, in Los Angeles,
through simulating the act of surfing in the urban environment of the suburbia.
Skateboarding appropriated the modernist space of the suburbia and re-conceived it
as another kind of space, as a concrete wave." (Borden; 1998: 197)
Borden explains that at the heart of skateboarding lies the `combination and re-
combination of body, image, thought, action.' The architecture of skateboarding is in
one way closer to the realm of the user and to the experience of creation of space
through bodily processes. (Borden; 1997:197)
The spatial architectonics of the skater, to use Lefebvre's body-centric
terminology, is a space produced by the skater out of the dynamic
intersection of body, board and terrain. (Borden, 1997: 20+)

+7
Sanmiyorum ya burda byle bi aidiyet hissi var yani kendini ey hissediyosun rahat yani bu duvar
olmazsa o duvar o duvar olmazsa agacin dibi falan kendini iplak hissetmiyorsun yani" (Nb01),

70
Skateboarding initiated through the re-interpretation of school yards, drained
swimming pools and in-purpose built skate parks; re-thought of them as the
elementary parts of its own practice, assigned new meanings on them and produced a
super-architectural space" through the mentioned interaction of the body, board and
terrain. This is what Borden calls the `body-architecture'. (Borden, 1998: 196-8)
!nitiated in the hidden landscapes of the suburbia, skateboarding moved out to the
public spaces of the `down town' - to the inner city in time.
From the early 80s, the focus of skateboarding shifted, becoming more
urban in character directly confronting not only architecture but also the
economic logic of the capitalist abstract space. (Borden, 2001: 180)
Ninibar, just as `Street skating', follows a similar interaction with the urban space.
Skating, as Borden explains, appropriates the quotidian spaces of streets, sidewalks
and car parks. These are the left-over spaces of modernist town planning or the
spaces of decision making" as Borden conveys.
Skaters undertake a counter habitation of the habitually uninhabited but
nonetheless public spaces. Skaters exploit the ambiguity of the ownership
and function of public and semi-public space displaying their actions to
the public at large. (Borden; 2001: 181)
The appropriation of physical `left-over' elements of the street, in the sense Borden
asserts, defines the spaces of Ninibar temporarily. Both Ninibar and street skating
enters into a transient interaction with the urban elements provided by the street;
whereas this interaction depends more on the bodily performance of the skaters in the
case of skateboarding, it is less performative in Ninibar in this respect and depends
more to the presence of the Ninibar participants and to their act of hanging out.
This way of interaction introduces Ninibar participants themselves as one of the major
elements of the spatiality of Ninibar. The `Ninibar users' re-define the space of their
practice first through appropriating the walls, parking lots, stairs and pavements;
second, their presence in the area inscribes Ninibar on the streets, as a `space'. So
when the Ninibar crowd moves, when it leaves, Ninibar disappears. Without people,
there is no activity, no leisure and consequently no Ninibar. Accordingly, Ninibar can
be accepted as a social product, a product of the urban inhabitant. !t is the Ninibar
user, who constructs the spaces of Ninibar.
Researcher - How do you understand that it is a Ninibar here?
71
Nb10 - Because there are people around, there is a crowd over there with
drinks at their hands.
+8
(Nb10)


When Ninibar gatherings start, they grow larger during the night, become more
perceivable, and expand in the streets. The increasing population of Ninibar dispersed
in the area, concretise the existence of Ninibar as a space and as a popular place to
hang out within the nightlife of Ankara.
The practice of Ninibar gets spatialized temporarily. When the night is over for every
Ninibar participant, Ninibar leaves the street to its previous idle state, its previous
meaning and function, which are, as Borden says, at a `zero point'; without actual
meaning. The Ninibar practice, does not aim to change the out of use elements of the
urban environment. Their physical, aesthetic, architectural and functional quality is not
completely important in the practice of Ninibar. Because when people leave there is
nothing left."
+9
(Nb01)

+8
D- "Buranin Ninibar oldugu nasil anlailiyor? Nb10 - nk, insan toplulugu, orada bi gen
toplulugu ve herkesin elinde iki var." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
+9
nk aslinda buradan insanlar gittiginde biey kalmiyor" (Nb01), translated by Deniz Altay
72


!t is absolutely social, ! mean they say `let's do a Ninibar' and they do.
They can make Ninibar out of a park in Bodrum or an avenue in Nu. !t is
no longer special to Ankara. You know it is totally abstract. You will not
find a bar named Ninibar if you look for it, you cannot say `! go to
Ninibar' because when people are not out there, there is no Ninibar at
all."
50
(Nb07)
As the act of Ninibar takes place in the same area for a long time, Ninibar is
associated with the location; however as it is mentioned before Ninibar is not
completely dependent to this location. !t creates a space whenever and wherever it is
practiced. Then, as the participants explain, `whenever you sit or stand at some point
with your friends; start drinking and mingling; you have your Ninibar'. This may be in
one street or another, in Kavaklidere, in Bahelievler, in Ankara or in another city.
Where ever you put your drink on the street, it is your Ninibar. The only
thing you need is to have your friends with you."
51
(Nb10)
!n deed, where you find a grocery shop and where you hang out for a
while, becomes a Ninibar in time."
52
(Nb09)

50
Kesinlikle sosyal yani hadi Ninibar yapalim" diyorlar yapiyolar. Bodrumdaki bir parki da yaparsin,
Nu' ta bi caddeyi de yaparsin, Ninibar Ankara'ya zg degil. !nanilmaz soyut. Gelip bulamazsin mesela
o bari. hadi ben Ninibar'a gidiyorum diyemezsin nk o insanlar orada olmadigi zaman Ninibar diye
biey yok. Olmayacak" (Nb07), translated by Deniz Altay
51
!kiyi nereye koyarsan orasi Ninibardir. Yeter ki bir arkada evresi ve samimi ortam olsun."
52
Aslinda sokakta bir bakkal bulup oturdugun, sonra mesela saatlerce durdugun bir yer bir sre sonra
Ninibarlaabiliyor yani." (Nb09), translated by Deniz Altay
73


The spatiality of Ninibar is different in many ways from a constructed, materialized
space. !t is a re-defined and transient spatiality. !t appropriates but does not persist; it
does not produce a durable physical structure. There is no boundary separating the
micro spaces of Ninibar from the street. The Ninibar space is also permeable: it allows
passage and the flow of other urban elements. !t has transparent fringes which can
easily change form and which does not distract outside from inside. Ninibar is diffused
into the streets of Tunali, filling the leftover, out of use spaces without forming any
disclosure, without isolating itself. !t is an in-between" architecture as explained by
Jose Norales in the Netapolis dictionary.
The between is a space permanently on the run; a place in itself, a limit
made fringe, a border made country. (Norales, Netapolis; 2003: 33+)
The form and position of Ninibar may change every time it is created. !t does not have
constructed boundaries and its socially set boundaries are not fixed. One may think
that there is nothing that specifies its position, except the will of it's users, yet there is
one primary factor that delimit and effect the physical form and position of Ninibar;
and it is the relations between the neighbourhood dwellers and Ninibar participants,
which will be formulated as the `power play' in the next part.
74
We have complaints from the residents, yet the place is so flexible, you
are free anyway. We went over the bank; there is a vacant space. ! mean
you can easily appropriate vacant spaces in Ninibar."
53
(Nb01)
! don't think they can hinder this, they can only change its form. Before,
people were able to sit side by side, like a row of 60 persons; now groups
of 10 sit crosswise. !t is funny anyway, as the space of Ninibar has
flexibility it continues to exist. No boundary, no line it has. !t can go and
come. You put an obstacle it moves to its other side..."
5+
(Nb03)
The micro spaces produced through the temporary practices of Ninibar users may
change in form and position. !t depends on the spontaneous decisions of the
participants and on temporary conditions. So Ninibar is not fixed on the city space, it
is an impermanent space. The perpetually re-defined spaces of Ninibar are able to
change position because of weather conditions or, because of tensions and struggles,
because of the interventions of the neighbourhood residents or of the practices of the
police - the control mechanism. Whatever the external restraints are Ninibar is a
mobile space.
!t can be moved. !t moves to Segmenler in the summer it moves to the
`TUS' park over there, it moves to Bodrum. ! mean there is no Ninibar. !t
is abstract, totally abstract. !t does not exist. There is no Ninibar but
there are people who make any place a Ninibar. !t is an abstract
concept."
55
(Nb07)
The micro spaces of Ninibar are able to move, increase or decrease in size, emerge or
disappear any time. The space of Ninibar is totally flexible. Being a temporary act,
Ninibar does not aim for permanent spaces; it does not need to build and constructs
to assure its continuity. On the contrary the spaces of Ninibar exist and will exist due
to their flexibility and ephemerality.
What makes a Ninibar, Ninibar is its being impermanent; you can move
any time you want and make somewhere else your Ninibar, you hang out
there with your friends."
56
(Nb0+)

53
Apartman sakinlerinden tepki geliyor da, mekan o kadar esnek ki, zaten zgrsn biz en son u
bankanin oraya gittik mesela orasi da sahipsiz bir yer. Yani sahipsiz bir yeri ok kolay
sahiplenebiliyorsun Ninibar'da" (Nb01), translated by Deniz Altay
5+
Yani o mekanlarin bunu engelleyebilecegini dnmyorum sadece formunun degitirir. Eskiden ok
uzun bir erit halinde yanyana 60 kii falan oturabiliyorken; imdi gruplar halinde 10 grup falan karilikli
apraz falan oturuyordur yani. Zaten ok komik birey, byle bir esnekligi oldugu iin Ninibar yaamaya
devam ediyor. Ne bi siniri var ne bi izgisi. Gelip gidebiliyor. O kadar esnek ki ordan ekiyorsun oraya
gidiyor, ite set koyuyorsun kari tarafina falan geiyor." (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
55
Tainabilir ya. Yani yaz aylarinda segmenlere tainiyor, u yukardaki `tus park' a tainiyor, sonra
Bodruma tainiyor olay. Yani Ninibar yok. soyut. Soyut. Yok yle bir ey. Ninibar degil. O insanlar
Ninibar yapiyolar mesela bir yeri. Soyut bir kavram." (Nb07), translated by Deniz Altay
56
Ninibari Ninibar yapan o mekanin sabit olmamasi istedigin zaman ekip gidiyorsun baka bir yer
senin Ninibarin oluyor. Orada takiliyorsun arkadalarinla yani." (Nb0+), translated by Deniz Altay
75
The micro spaces re-defined by the inhabitants make themselves possible despite the
established space, through the distinct practices of its users. The urban environment is
accepted in this study, similar to the conceptualisations of Nichel de Certeau, as `the
product imposed by a dominant economic order'. (de Certeau, 198+: xii)
The authority produce environments through comprehensive plans and works; design
them to achieve a structured order, define rules and guidelines and builds durable
spaces (as it was) to assure its own stability. (de Certeau, 1997) The space of the
authority - the established space, is the product of a comprehensive operation: a
`strategy'. As de Certeau explains in The Practice of Everyday Life:
Strategy assumes a place circumscribed as proper.a spatial or
institutional localization generating relations with an exterior. `Proper' is a
victory of space over time. (de Certeau, 198+: xix)
On the other hand the inhabitant, through spontaneous interventions and temporary
operations creates its own space by appropriating and re-defining the existing. From
what de Certeau explains in Culture in Plural" about permanencies, it is asserted that
the practices of the authority aims to achieve a permanent, opaque, stubborn life".
This is the form of cultural operation of the powerful: `the permanents'. And on the
other side there are the `creations': what is invented by the margins as counter form
of cultural operation. (de Certeau, 1997: 138)
Spaces produced by the inhabitant take the `proper' space of the other, appropriate
and re-defines it. The operation of the user is a creative one. !t is the time when the
inhabitants free themselves from the imposed rules and start to think about their own
desired way of making space. That is why their operation is also tactical:
Tactic does not count on a `proper' nor on a borderline distinguishing the
other as a visible unity.the place of the tactic belongs to the other. A
tactic as it does not have a space it depends on time. !t must constantly
manipulate events in order to turn them into opportunities. (de Certeau,
198+: xix)
Daily minor resistances, realized by the tactical operations of the marginal user group,
defines micro spaces in the urban environment and write micro histories that will be
inscribed into the transient memory of the city. These histories may be forgotten in
time, yet leave traces on the city space that will remain longer.
The making of one's own space - `re-defining the urban space' can therefore be
formulated as a `tactical operation'. This operation aims to create an alternative space
on the established space of the authority.
76
The apology of the ìmperishable' valorise the dead rather than the living,
resistant materials rather than others, and impoverished places for the
sake of ensuring the consecration of their relics. But the inverse is the
case. `Creation' is perishable; it passes because it is an act.
On the other hand, it cannot exist without a relation to a collectivity.
Collectivity alone can allow it to become durable. (de Certeau, 1997: 1+0)
Unlike the durable constructions of the authority, the àlternative' spaces of the user,
reached through tactical operations are ephemeral. Noreover, the spaces of the
inhabitant become possible and they persist due to their ephemerality. Their tactical
operation does not seek to change, demolish and re-construct the urban space; it only
interprets the urban space in a peculiar, unthougt way, and brings an alternative
definition to the space.

+.3. THE RELAT!ON OF N!N!BAR W!TH THE C!TY

+.3.1. TRANSGRESS!vE PRACT!CES OF N!N!BAR

The concept of èphemerality' is explained in Netapolis Dictionary of Advanced
Architecture" as brief, fleeting, impermanent..." (Gausa, 2003: 198) and a parallelism
between Ninibar as a re-defined urban space and ìmpermanent architecture' discussed
in Netapolis is found.
These forms of architecture, which establish a limited-time relationship
with the landscape, manifest themselves as an event, a proposition, which
neither remains nor modifies the place that it rested once it ceases to
exist; it leaves no trace. (Christina in Netapolis, 2003: 332)
The èphamerality' gives the possibility to the Ninibar practice to repeat itself in time.
Because Ninibar is, neither as a practice nor as a space, supported by the authority. !t
is unplanned and it does not depend on formal regulations - the authority will
terminate it if it seeks any permanency within these ùnregulated' terms. Hence, the
tactical operation, including the recurrence of Ninibar practices, in different times, by
a large population of practitioners, is what makes the space possible.
The temporary operations and ephemeral occupations of the inhabitant, like in the
case of Ninibar and in the example of skateboarders given by Borden; comprise the
practice of a `new use' over the urban space. !n other words, it is the introduction of a
77
new `way of using' the urban space. With this new use continuously practiced on the
streets, the user group achieves to open up their own space, through ìnfiltrating' to
the `spaces of the strategy'.
!nfiltration is to cross, open the way, introduce into a space: all are
actions, more than images or established configurations, to offer us a
different concept of space. (Norales, Netapolis 2003: 3+1)
The spaces of Ninibar are produced within the space of the authority. The limit
separating them is not clear; yet one is generated in spite the other. Ninibar `tests' the
limits and regulations of the established space in physical, social and legal terms but
does not actually break them. Ninibar plays on that limit defining the urban space and
re-defines its own micro-spaces temporarily. !n these terms the act of Ninibar
`transgresses' the urban space.
The case of Ninibar has some common points with the research of Gil N. Doron about
the `dead zones' of the city and the marginal activities of what he defines as `the urban
nomads'
57
. As explained by the author, the urban nomad's activities are `tactical' as de
Certeau puts and `transgressive' as Foucault explains: i.e. actions that are based on
temporality, on testing limits and opening up new boundaries." (Doron, 2003a)
Foucault discusses the concept of `transgression' on the issue of sexuality, yet the
concept opens up new boundaries for the discussion of many marginal practices; it
introduces the ùn-defined' zone on which these practices are exercised.
Transgression is an action which involves the limit, that narrow zone of a
line where it displays the flash of its passage, but perhaps also its entire
trajectory, even its origin; it is likely that transgression has its entire
space in the line it crosses." (Foucault, 1977: 33-+)
The act of Ninibar transgresses but it does not attack to damage the existing. !t does
not aim to re-construct it or to build over it. As Foucault explains, Transgression is
neither violence in a divided world (in an ethical world) nor a victory over the limits (in
a dialectical, revolutionary world)...Transgression claims nothing negative..."
(Foucault, 1977: 35) Ninibar includes no act of this kind. Ninibar does not leave any
trace when it moves to another location or when it disappears. !t occupies temporarily
the urban space but does not claim any right over it. Ninibar makes use of the existing
urban space according to its own aims and preferences and re-defines it, through
pushing the limits of the given space.

57
www.geocities.comfgilmdoronftheDZ.html
78
Transgression does not seek to oppose one thing to another, nor does it
achieve its purpose through mockery or by upsetting the solidity of
foundations, it does not transform the other side of the mirror, beyond an
invisible and un-crossable line into a glittering expanse. (Foucault, 1977:
35)
As in the discussion made by Doron about the urban nomads: The ùrban nomads'
actions do not produce (delimit) space. They de-territorialize space and identity, and
generate a system of difference." (Doron, 2003a)
They are transgressive in correlation to the delimited space of politics,
architecture, and planning. The transgressive actions of urban nomads
rather than produce (their own) space, open up of a space, generating
critique and differences... (Doron, 2003a)
To put in a different way, the act of Ninibar: the tactical operation of the urban user
group, is `transgressive' in the way it tests the limits of the imposed òrder', in the way
it ìnfiltrates' into it and inserts a different order into it.
Through this alternative order, the Ninibar participants try to perform their practice, in
order to reach the desired `leisure space'. They do not need any legal base - any
formal ground for continuing their practice. They create their own order by pushing
back and forth the existing; nonetheless, the unpredicted activity of Ninibar, free from
any regulation of the authority - this transgressive act - effects other inhabitants of
the location.

+.3.2. R!vALRY RELAT!ONS W!TH D!FFERENT !NHAB!TANT GROUPS

Recognizing the variety among city population, it is mentioned before that there co-
exist different expectations from the urban environment. The introduction of an
alternative ùse' by one of these groups challenges a place, to which many others are
habituated. Hence the challenge initiates a continuous struggle between different
interests and expectations - sometimes conflicting, sometimes conforming - upon the
same place.
Different users of the area struggle to preserve the limits within which the urban
environment and activity is defined. Within these `limits' their properties and their
professional, domestic or social lives are regulated and protected. They struggle and
they pro-act to the extent they feel uncomfortable, insecure or threatened.
79
The rivalry relations between the different users of the urban environment constitute
what is named as the `power play'
58
in this study. These relations include the struggle
between different user groups: the `transgressive' practices of one and the defensive
preventions of another, the appreciation of one other or reactions to one another.
The power play is no longer between the state - the authority and the citizens. Within
this set of relations, the state can no longer define and set the codes of using the
environment, which is planned, designed, constructed by it. The alternative space is
not necessarily accepted and supported by all users. Consequently this possible
unconformity initiates tensions among the users of the space. Thus, the power play
that influences the formation and re-definition of the urban space is rather between
the dwellers and the users of the locality.
!n that power play, laws and regulations start to lose their validity; they are only
referred to from time to time. The existing codes of the urban space are transgressed
by one group of user while defended by the others. By transgressing the urban space,
the new user group tries to open its own space in the city through the act of pushing
back and forth the limits of the existing. Hence the Ninibar participants fight in their
own way with the established to introduce and practice their own alternative.
!n previous discussions about the location of Ninibar within Ankara, the Kavaklidere
district is introduced as the extension of CBD, hence composed of many central
activities, it is also observed to be a transportation node serving the southern districts
of Ankara. The Tunali Hilmi Avenue being the main avenue of the district comprises
commercial uses, office buildings as well as commercial and tourist uses, yet in the
inner streets connected to Tunali, in the streets where Ninibar takes place there are
mixed used buildings, including residential and commercial uses together. Therefore
there is a considerable amount of people living in the `Tunali' region and there are
those who work in the district. This mixture of activities implicates, high degrees of
pedestrian movements and furthermore great numbers of people coming to the district
in work hours and people coming back to the district from work in the evening hours
along with others who come to benefit from the central activities of the district.
Nany of the pedestrian movements intersect with Ninibar both in the evening hours
and at night. These are primarily, people who reside or work in the streets where
Ninibar takes place: the residents, the cafe and shop owners, workers and clients and
others; namely the passers-bye".

58
The expression of power play is only a proposition, this relation can be named differently, hence it is
laid open to discussion
80
At that point the relation of Ninibar, as a space and as a collectivity, with the
neighbourhood and the other user of the area is aimed to be investigated. The
investigation of the relation with the other users comprises the passers-bye, the
neighbourhood residents, and the different shop owners. This investigation provided a
self-evaluation made by the participants on their acts and the exploration of the
struggles and the `power play' taking place in between the city inhabitants.
Ninibar gatherings intersect with the passers-bye in the daytime, afternoon or evening
hours, when the streets are more crowded; before the work hours end and it gets
dark. !nterviewees mention that in general they feel a surprise among the passers-bye
because of the unexpected, uncommon practices of Ninibar. !t is not only the
unexpectedness of the practice which surprises the passers-bye but also the
impropriety of drinking outside.
Well in the end, you can't help thinking that the crowd disturbs the
passers-bye in the day time. ! mean because, imagine when a women
passes with her children and see those young people drinking, this isn't an
ordinary thing, and ! mean in the morning it may become troubling..."
59
(Nb09)
The participants mention that they receive both positive and negative reactions from
the passers-bye. They sympathize rather than reacting. They sympathize. `We wish it
could have been the same in our time...' they say."
60
(Nb10) Nost of the participants
share their experiences and their feelings about the surprise and disturbance the
passers-bye receive. Participants declare that the passers-bye do not react much but
that they can feel that most of the passers-bye feel insecure because of the Ninibar
crowd, and that sometimes old people, parents with children change their way and
avoid passing through the crowded Ninibar zones in the street.
They don't stare when they pass through. Adults try to keep a distance;
maybe they feel some kind of a danger. Nothing would happen but
anyway, a bunch of young people drinking, something they are not used
to see."
61
(Nb05)

59
Byle gndz vakti oradan geenleri, o kalabaligin.. biraz byle ister istemez rahatsiz ettigini
dnyorsun falan ite. nk yani sonuta oradan yle ocuklariyla geen birinin ite orada imi
sarho olmu insanlari grmesi, ya onlar aisindan ok da normal biey degil yani. O yzden gndz
vakti gerekten ister istemez birazcik sikintili olabiliyor yani." (Nb09), translated by Deniz Altay
60
-Tepkiden ok sempati duyuyolar. ok sempati duyuyolar. Keke byle olsaydi bizim zamanimizda
da byle olsaydi"..." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
61
-geerken falan bakmiyorlar. Yetikinlerde biraz uzak gemeye aliiyorlar bi tehlike hissediyorlar
herhalde. Biey olacagindan degil de. !ki ien bi sr gen falan aliamadiklari bi grnt herhalde."
(Nb05) , translated by Deniz Altay
81
At that point the presence of Ninibar influence the shop owners. Shops, near which
the Ninibar crowd gather, complain. There are two exceptions in this issue. First is the
grocery shop, which provides the beverages of Ninibar. There is a different relation
and communication between the grocery shop and Ninibar participants. Grocery shop
62

has a beneficial position. Because it is the only source, which satisfies the demand of
Ninibar, hence having economic benefit. Second are the cafe owners.
The computer shop over there, he is not comfortable, he tries to get rid
of the young people there. Nobody hangs out here and buys a computer.
Only the two men are loved, it is because they sell drinks; but the
flowerist is not happy, the taxi drivers are not happy..."
63
(Nb10)
Other shop owners complain about Ninibar. One of the participants, who always tries
to keep a dialogue with the tradesmen of the neighbourhood, as he mentions himself,
shared some of his conversations.
The flowerist told me, he told me that his business has slowed down.
People don't come to the flowerist. They don't come, she is scared of
passing from there and she doesn't come. How can you explain the
women the Ninibar culture? She'll feel uneasy, and she won't buy from
that flowerist. You can't explain a women of 60-70 years old, this is a
culture like that ma'am", and you cannot tell such thing. She'll pass and
buy flowers from the flowerist on the avenue, she wouldn't like to stop
here."
6+
(Nb10)
Cafes and bars have different relations with Ninibar participants. One part of the
interviewees believes that they do not complain as the other shop owners, even if they
have discontents. Ninibar is claimed to be for their benefit, as some of the
interviewees mention, because their attractiveness increases with the increase of the
lively Ninibar population in and around the cafes.
!n a way, they want it. !t makes a lively crowd in front of the bar, and it
increase the attractivity, do you understand? Just as in Bodrum
65
, when

62
There used to be two grocery shops in the area which are open at night, lately one of them had
been closed and turned into a caf, see appendix A, map 6 for the location of grocery shops.
63
Evet bilgisayarci hi memnun degil mesela, o kovuyor. Kimse burada iip bilgisayar almiyor
mesela...Dikkat edersen o iki adam seviliyor iki sattigi iin, ama iekci menun degil. Taksici de
memnun degil.yani getirisi gtrsne gre kisaca" (Nb10), , translated by Deniz Altay
6+
ieki bana diyor, ite ilerim yavaladi diyor... Gelmiyor ite, iekiye gelmiyor. Gelmiyor
korkuyor kadin oradan gemeye. imdi kadina nasil anlatacaksin Ninibar kltrn....tedirgin olacak
yani. Durup almayacak. Anlatamazsin 60-70 yaindaki kadina. bu da byle bi kltr teyze" diyemezsin.
Gider ilerdeki iekiden alir, tunalinin stnden alir, durmak istemez yani" (Nb10) , translated by
Deniz Altay
65
Bodrum is a summer town in south eastern Anatolia.
82
the street is crowded, it is more attractive, it is the same thing here."
66

(Nb07)
Noreover, it is necessary to emphasize that Ninibar does not aim to stand against the
cafes and bars, yet it obtained its alternative position among them. !n addition most of
the Ninibar participants are also the clients of the cafes and bars around. For the
district in general, the two: Ninibar and other formal leisure places co-exist in
harmony.
! was walking down the street, with a beer in my hand. ! saw friends in
the cafe there; ! entered and stayed a little while with them. Nobody told
me, `why! You have a beer and you enter like that?' ! mean if they have
said such things, ! was going to sit on the pavement 2 meters ahead.
They know it will be like that. Then ! said goodbye to my friends because
! saw others 3 meters ahead, and ! went to their side. Really it's at that
distance. One smokes `nargile' there, in the cafe and ! sit on the
pavement out there, and we speak. This is really interesting. That is why
they don't conflict with each other. That is why, ! can drink 3 meters
ahead and nobody says anything. Because they know, ! may be a client in
the cafe 10 minutes sooner. !nside and outside, it is the same people."
67

(Nb03)
!t is known that the major complaints come from the residents. Their counter acts and
attacks continue since the beginning of Ninibar, during many years. !t is the residents
who live side by side with the Ninibar population from the evening till late at night.
The Ninibar practice enters their territory and their lives in many ways. Ninibar takes
place under their apartment blocks. On the in-between" spaces of their street, Ninibar
settles temporarily. Ninibar sits on their front walls, pisses in their car parks, stand in
front of their building. For the neighbourhood residents, Ninibar is a disturbing crowd
generating noise, dirt, and excrement. The participants are aware of the disturbance
they cause and explain it.

66
Bir ekilde istiyolar mesela barin n kalabalik gzkyor anliyo musun ekiciligini arttiriyor. Nasil
bodrum da sokakta kalabalikken daha ekici geliyorsa ayni muhabbetten burada da var" (Nb07) ,
67
Yani yryordum aagidan yukari dogru elimde bira ile. kafe tunusyolunda arkadalarim falan vardi
girdim onlarla oturdum bi sre, kimse sen elinde bira ile giriyorsun falan demedi. nk zaten
yapacagim ey yle biey derse ikip 2m ilerdeki kaldirima oturmak olacak. yani biliyor yle olacagini.
sonra arkadala vedalatim nk 3m ileride baka arkadalarim oturuyordu, sonra onlarin yanina
gittim. zaten gerekten u mesafe de . burda biri nargile iiyor ama konuuyoruz falan. o kafe
tunusyolu nun iinde oturuyor ben de kari kaldirimda oturuyorum. bu ok komik ve enteresan
birey....O yzden birbiri ile atimiyor yani. o yzden bir 3m ilerde bira iebiliyorum ve kimse de birey
demiyor. nk biliyor yani 10 dak. sonra orada da olabilirim yani. ierde diarda hep ayni insanlar
var." (Nb03) , translated by Deniz Altay
83
Noise can be one of the factors, because people may laugh loudly in the
middle of the night..."
68
(Nb02)
The discomfort of the residents is caused by the informal, uncontrollable act of Ninibar
near their houses, which trespasses their territory temporarily and which `touches'
their lives in different ways. !n the opinion and experience of some Ninibar
participants, the residents are mainly disturbed by the presence of a crowd and they
feel insecure from its' closeness to their living environment.
The Ninibar participants know that the residents are uncomfortable about Ninibar.
!nterviewees explain that the residents feel unsafe because of this crowd, which
excessively consume alcohol and which potentially may become dangerous any time.
One other point of complaint is the dirt and excrements produced by the Ninibar
crowd.
Well, they got drunk and throw bottles on the front gardens, they yell,
they piss to the car parks and the residents see, or it smells bad in the
morning. Residents have the right to complain."
69
(Nb06)
Because you consume a great deal of alcohol here. One who drinks,
needs to piss a lot, and the first place he finds is the car park in the
backyard of apartment blocks. This is what they complain about mostly.
And all the disputations !'ve seen are because of this. All of the arguments
here depend on the excrement problem. There is no doubt."
70
(Nb10)
The residents have several ways of reacting and expressing their discontent. They feel
the urge to act against Ninibar, in accordance with the discomfort and threat they get.
!n order to send the Ninibar groupings off, in order to prevent Ninibar from taking
place around their buildings they use certain methods. !n other words, they have
developed the means of a `counter operation' to deal with Ninibar gatherings.

68
Yani grlt etken olabilir nk insanlar gece saat ikide falan bieye ok ideetlli ekilde
glebiliyorlar falan." (Nb02) , translated by Deniz Altay
69
Yani ite iip sarho olup ieleri apartmanlarin bahelerine atip kirmalar, bagirmalar agirmalar.
yani ne bilim tuvaletini garajina yapmasi tabii yaparken gryolar ya da ite sonuta sabah orasi pis
kokuyo falan tabii. etraftakiler hakli olarak ikayet ediyorlar. (Nb06) , translated by Deniz Altay
70
Ya nk burda ok iki tketiliyor tamam mi. iki tketen insan ok fazla iini yapar tamam mi :)
bulabilecegi ilk yer de apartman arkasidir. En ok rahatsiz olduklari konu o. en ok rahatsiz olduklari;
ve btn kavgalar benim grdgm btn kavgalar bundan dolayi ikti..buradaki tm tartimalarin
sebebi tuvalettir. Kesin..." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
84

Figure +.10 - 11. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003)

From different experiences and stories we have been told, it can be understood that
their `counter operation' include a variety of methods from making spoken warnings to
building walls or fences. The interviewees tell that the residents show their reactions
firstly from the window of their houses. They usually make loud - spoken warnings like
please leave" from their windows, or they throw water or other things on the Ninibar
participants. The most common warning they make is about calling the police.
The residents, of course they complain from us. ! mean there was those
who throw water on us, those who called the police. ! mean the
neighbourhood dwellers are not quite happy with us but the shop owners
don't complain much."71 (Nb06)
Through making territorial fortifications, the residents try also to defend their area.
They throw lime powder on the pavements to prevent people from sitting: They have
thrown lime powder on the pavements, for that we can not sit, they throw lime
powder and we've got white all around."
72
(Nb05) Some apartment blocks make spatial
interventions like building walls and fences over the existing, in such a way that
Ninibar participants cannot stand and gather around them or sit on them. These kinds
of `counter' constructions have been more effective in preventing and driving away the
youth groupings.
Through their `counter operations', the residents aim to send away the Ninibar youth.
They express their discontents verbally; they defend their territory through fortifying
its boundaries, preventing the intrusion of any stranger into their property. They take

71
Apartman sakinleri olaraktan; onlar tabii bizden ok ikayet ediyorlar yani, zerimize su dkenler mi
olmadi ne biliyim polisi arayip ikayet edenler mi olmadi. yani etraf sakinleri bizden ok honut degil
ama esnaf ok ikayeti degil." (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
72
Nesela oturulan yerler var orada oralara ey kire dktler biz oturmayalim diye. !te kire dktler,
bembeyaz oldu heryerimiz" (Nb08), translated by Deniz Altay
85
other pre-cautions in order to hinder and expel Ninibar gatherings. These preventive
and defensive acts of the residents are also the means of expressing the discontent.

Figure +.12 - 13. Ninibar, Can Altay, (2002 - 2003)

!t also means, `we have a reaction to this. You come and sit here but we
are not supporting you' something like that."
73
(Nb03)
Similar to the way Ninibar practice plays with the limits of the existing space and
checks the given urban regulations; neighbourhood dwellers strengthen these very
limits within which their `territory' is formally defined and protected. They try to deter
Ninibar of opening it's own space on the established one. With this aim, residents
carry on the above explained `counter operation,' however it is only to one point that
their operation is effective, as explained by the interviewees.
!t is not the wall. That is what they don't understand. Those people can
stand on the streets too."
7+
(Nb07)
Ninibar changes in form, position, location etc. with the counter acts of the residents.
!t is influenced but it is not ended by the interventions of the residents. Participants
introduce instant solutions for guaranteeing the continuance of their practice. The
insistent demand for Ninibar, the flexible and mobile spatiality help the repetition of
the practice.
You don't care. You go ahead and sit, that's what you do. You have a
solution, you're going to' stand there no matter what they do."
75
(Nb10)

73
Bir de ey anlamina geliyor yani. `Bizim buna tepkimiz var'. Gelip buraya oturuyorsunuz ama biz sizi
desteklemiyoruz gibi bir ey..." (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
7+
Zaten olay duvar degil, onu anlamami evredekiler. Sokakta ayakta da durabiliyorlar yani..."
86
To make brief account; the power play between the different users of `Tunali' includes
the tactical operations of a marginal inhabitant group and the counter operations of
the others. There takes place a struggle - the conflict of different interests.
!n Ninibar, different inhabitant groups take different positions depending on their
varying profits. The grocery shops in the area (one has recently been closed and
turned into a cafe) and the cafs, bars and restaurants are the most beneficient
parties in the case of Ninibar. Their economic gain is increasing due to Ninibar.
However the residents of the area and some of the shop owners complain a lot about
Ninibar.
The residents usually call the police as the trusted source of help, to cope with Ninibar
gatherings. They warn the Ninibar population with `calling the police', and they do so
when they do not succeed in their warnings. And also without their complaint, police
patrol every evening, to keep the place safe.
The interviewees mentioned that the police patrolling was more influent in the first
years of Ninibar, as some interviewees express, `they use to take kids to the station'.
!n the time being, the interviewees - including those of the formers who were taken to
the station several times and had the chance of experiencing and observing the
change - explain that, the police come to Ninibar, make their warnings, empty the
streets and leave.
Nb12 - They come, and we leave."
Nb13 - They say, `leave'."
Nb12 - And they say `leave' one more time, and we leave and we come
back again."
Nb13 - But they say they used to detain people from the street in the
past, they do no longer."
76

!t can be understood from the interview findings that the relation of the Ninibar crowd
and the police has likewise turned in to customary acting where both parties do their
duties and leave. Police disperses the gatherings for the moment they coincide.
However the police does not terminate Ninibar permanently and does not prevent its
perpetual repetition.

75
Haa, hi aldirmiyosun oturuyorsun ite.. zm var orada durulacak yani. Ne yaparsa yapsin."
(NB10), translated by Deniz Altay
76
Nb12 - O geliyo gidiyoruz" Nb13 - O gidin diyor" Nb12 - Sonra yine gidin diyo yine gidiyoruz
yine geliyoruz..." Nb13 - ama eskiden gtryolarmi. imdi artik gtrmyolar", translated by Deniz
Altay
87
Nb08 - Crowd, disperse!"
Nb09 - ... and in a very interesting way, the police come, expel people
from there and those people go somewhere else."
Nb08 - Then, they come back!"
Nb09 - And they come back because, ! don't know, people are so used
to spend their times there..."
77

The interviewees introduced several propositions about the nature of the relation
between the police and the participants. First proposition asserts that the increasing
number of participants in Ninibar prevents the police from detaining them. The reason
put forward by the interviewees for this is the possible insufficiency of police cars.
Depending on the observations made in the field, this is also caused by the
unorganised manner Ninibar takes place. There are separate friend groups in Ninibar,
and they act in an unconnected way. When one group is send off or carried to the
station, there is no mechanism to prevent the coming of another.
!f there were people few enough to enter into a police car, they can
detain them but they don't have enough cars for us ! guess."
78
(Nb13)
One other proposition given by the interviewees relates to the socio-economic status
of the participant families. !t is discussed in the previous parts that the socio-economic
profile of the Ninibar participants is relatively higher within Ankara when the district
they reside, the schools they are registered to and their own definitions are taken into
consideration. This observation leads to two propositions on the nature of the
relationship between the police and Ninibar participants; one is the respectively high
socio-economic position of Tunali as a leisure centre in Ankara, second is the potential
existence of parents with very high and forceful positions among the participants. Both
propositions assert the reason why the police act in more moderate terms towards the
Ninibar participants.
We have been detained by the police several times before. But less than
the other places we used to hang out. Because, you know, the economic
level of the people here is important too. !t is even to the degree to scare
the police. There are people with families of an incredibly higher rank and
also those more moderate."79 (Nb10)

77
Nb08 - genler dagilin!" Nb09 - ...ve yani enteresan ekilde polis geliyor, insanlari oradan
kaldiriyor, onlar baka bi yere gidiyolar, Nb08 - sonra geri geliyorlar. Nb09 - sonra geri geliyorlar
nk ne biliyim insanlar o kadar alimilar ki orada vakit geirmeye", translated by Deniz Altay
78
Arabaya sigacak kadar olursan yine gtrebilirler de araba yetmiyor herhalde" (Nb13), translated
by Deniz Altay
79
Bika kez gittik ama diger gittigimiz yerlere nazaran daha az gittik burdan. nk ey de ok nemli
ya, gelen insanlarin aileleri maddi durumlari falan filan, polisi korkutacak seviye de olabiliyor yani ok
88
Police's warnings are funny in a way. !n other places or if the participants
were different the situation will be quite different. But among the children,
there are those whose mothers and fathers are in real distinguished
positions. There are children of deputies or of attorneys. There are all
kinds of people. And ! guess as the police have a past experience, they
only warn very politely. Nothing of a serious nature has ever happened to
me in Ninibar. Two even three hundred times did the police come to move
us, but nothing happened of the sort `what you think you are doing here?'
They always came in a soft temper, warning kindly, they ask our schools,
and they acquire some information, like that."80 (Nb03)
Accordingly, the relation of the Ninibar participants with the other users of the
neighbourhood, include critical tensions. Ninibar is not only achieved through the
transgressive practice of its participants. The redefined spaces of Ninibar - the spaces
of a marginal practice - are not obtained through a one-way process, a one sided act.
But it is the conflict, the confrontation, and the compromise of many. And the set of
relations, where each party confronts the other with informal, rivalry operations; with
their own methods and through using the `power' they gain from various grounds - a
different set of power relation - is named in this study as the `power play'. The
grocery shop owners have an economic power, Ninibar participants have the power of
being a collectivity, acting in a common way, the residents have full right inside the
boundaries of their property and they depend on the power the `police' represents for
the outside of their territory.
The residents or the control mechanisms of the authority could have stopped the act
of Ninibar population. What made Ninibar possible is simply the reaching to a
balanced point - even if this point is desired by one group and highly undesired by the
others. This balanced situation is reached through a given struggle, through a conflict.
This tactical search of balance can be seen in how the interviewees approach to and
evaluate the situation. The common attitude among all of the interviewees is a full
understanding of resident's complaints. Although they understand why the
neighbourhood residents find Ninibar and their acts wrong, they find nothing wrong in
their practices themselves. They know that drinking on the street is illegal, they are

anormal insanlar da geliyor bir o kadar da ok vasat insanlar da gelebiliyor falan." (Nb10), translated
by Deniz Altay
80
Polisin de uyarilari komik. baka bir yerde olsa bu, ya da baka insanlar bunu yapsa farkli eyler olur
ama oradaki ocuklarin arasinda bablari anneleri ok farkli yerlerde olanlar var. milletvekili ocugundan
avukat ocuguna bir sr insan var orada. daha nce de herhalde bununla ilgili bireyler yaadigi iin
polis son derece kibar birekilde uyariyor. benim hi bi ekilde ciddi birey gelmedi baima. 200-300
defa polis gelip kaldirmitir bizi ama hi bir zaman siz burda napiyorsunuz uydu buydu diye birey
olmadi. hep gelip tatli dille bakin burda imeyin, nce okullar greniliyor falan hafif bi bilgi aliyorlar
bunun gibi. Belki daha nceden farkliydi da bireyler yaanmi herhalde." (Nb03), translated by Deniz
Altay
89
well aware that they disturb those who live in the neighbourhood. Participants see no
harm in their practice and they do not give up from performing their practice.
Especially the former participants express that Ninibar represents a solution for the
condition they are in and that they have considerable reasons in making their own
space for the kind of leisure activity they need. There are conditions, which push them
to such a practice. These are the motives initiating the `Ninibar'. The economic
conditions of the participants, the disliked condition of the night life in Ankara, the
uncomfortable conditions of other night places constitute the preference of Ninibar
over other night life activities. This is the reason why Ninibar participants strive for a
balance.
To be able to obtain the space of their own and to experience the leisure and fun they
like; the Ninibar participants incline to make concessions. Reciprocally, the residents
sometimes show tolerance. Then, instead of pushing further, Ninibar participant
develop a special way to cope with the counter-acts of the neighbourhood residents.
The important point to be emphasized here is that, it is understood in the explanations
of the interviewees that, the aim of Ninibar is neither to damage nor to destroy; it is
merely the search for a suitable leisure place. Thus, instead of giving delinquent
responds, or offending the residents; the Ninibar participants act in agreeable ways to
be able to keep their place safe and to ease the discomfort of the residents to a point.
Because when you start to share a public place with others, a
consciousness of responsibility starts. Because some things conflict. At the
end you are drinking in front of their apartment, leave your empty bottles
and piss."
81
(Nb01)
Ninibar participants aim to carry on the practice of Ninibar in time. Nost of them
explain that they have developed `some kind of responsibility' towards the dwellers of
the neighbourhood. For instance, as the leftovers are one of the most disturbing
problems for neighbourhood residents, participants primarily try not to leave their
garbage after themselves and to keep the street clean. Nearly all of them emphasized
strongly that they take care of their leftover, that they collect all their empty bottles
etc and throw to the garbage cans for that the municipality workers can collect it late
at night.

81
Kamusal bi mekani baka insanlarla paylamaya baladigin zaman sorumluluk bilinci baliyor nk
bi takim eyler atimaya baliyo, alanlarin atimaya baliyor sonuta sen adamlarin apartmaninin
nnde iiyorsun ve ieni birakiyorsun ve gidip tuvaletini yapiyorsun falan... (Nb01), translated by
Deniz Altay
90
Nb10 - of course there is dirt beside the excrements; they warn us about
collecting our sweepings."
Nb11 - We are a friend group who spend attention to the leftovers."
Nb10 - Yes, we always collect our garbage."
82

You change some place and turn it into some place new. This may seem
like a problem to people but it is not in my opinion. Especially, sometimes
people are quite attentive about, you know, collecting their bottles and
throwing to the garbage and to keep the place clean."
83
(Nb09)
One thing attracted my attention, nobody dirty the place up. For example
when people eat nuts, they don't throw the skins away, they collect them
in a plastic bag. They try to keep the place clean."
8+
(Nb05)
The concern that can be observed in these given examples is nonetheless not valid for
every Ninibar participant. During the peak period of Ninibar the crowd, including also
the newcomers, show less concern for the maintenance of the neighbourhood
environment.
You should not throw your bottles away. You should not shout. Now for
example we have the domination of tramps in Ninibar."
85
(Nb13)
Nobody used to break bottles before. Now we have that for example. He
drinks and `crash!' he throws away."
86
(Nb11)
The former participants of Ninibar complain from the newcomers in these respects.
Some of the interviewees, who had the chance to observe, explain that the newcomers
do not possess any concern and prudence like they have, that they do not care
shouting at residents, making noise, breaking bottles; that the act of the newcomers is
conflicting to all the original meanings and motives of Ninibar. Some of the
participants express that they feel the necessity of intervening to the `disturbing' acts
of the newcomers, as it appears to be the only way of keeping peace within Ninibar,
and within the neighbourhood.

82
NB10 - tabii iin yaninda pislik, plerinizi toplayin diye ikaz ediyolar.", Nb11 - biz plere dikkat
eden bi arkada grubuyuz.", NB10 - biz topluyoruz..evet yani p nemli.", translated by Deniz Altay
83
Bir yeri degitirerek baka bi mekan haline getiriyosun, aslinda bu belki insanlara sorun gibi
gzkebilir de, ama ben bunu pek sorun gibi grmyorum ya. Ozellikle de bazen insanlar gerekten
ok dikkat ederdi yani ite ielerini toplayip pe atmaya, orayi daha temiz tutmaya falan." (Nb09),
8+
Nesela ey dikkatimi ekti, etrafi dagitmiyor pek kimse. Nesela kabuklu yemi falan yiyenler torbaya
topluyor. Kimse pisletmemeye aliiyor yani `temiz toplum'." (Nb05), translated by Deniz Altay
85
ieleri atmaman gerek, fazla bagirmaman gerek bazen. Evet. imdi Ninibar da mesela serserilerin
egemenligi var." (Nb13), translated by Deniz Altay
86
Ya da kimse iesini falan kirmazdi imdi bi de o ikti mesela; iiyo iiyo atang! atiyor falan"
91
We are the only ones who are sensitive to the environment ! guess. You
take care of people. When you say, don't do", they don't. But can you
say, don't" a thousand times?"
87
(Nb10)
We are like stop!" Don't shout!" We don't want to disturb the shop
owners because we are there all the time."
88
(Nb11)
On the other hand, there is one other medium, independent from Ninibar, which helps
solving the problem of the leftovers. The city itself is producing informal, unplanned,
unpredicted solutions to similar unexpected daily problems. Ninibar left-over are
cleaned up from the streets by the self organisation of garbage `rummagers' (bottle or
paper collectors) and the traces of Ninibar are erased from the streetscape, showing
that daily minor problems may disappear likewise without even being noticed.
Yes, you go down there, and you know, you take a piss. Then we
thought that if the guy was letting us piss here, we should be picking up
our empty cans. For people who don't pick up their bottles at night, some
solution came up, ! mean typical third world country situation: right to the
recycling factories; the bottle collectors started to come around. This time
they started contributing to our milieu, they are like `hi brother, do you
have cigarettes?' etc, a guy telling his story, `the conditions which led me
to garbage collecting', etc."
89

Likewise, the fact that Ninibar produce excessive amounts of trash, empty bottles, and
tins cans is attracting other inhabitants to itself. People who do not reside in Tunali,
but who work in the city streets. For the case of Ninibar", Kavaklidere, they are the
garbage rummagers, who collect paper or bottle from the garbage on the streets. They
contribute to the continuance of Ninibar along with the own concern of Ninibar
participants.
!t is very difficult to create a space, but to loose it is quite easy. You can
loose it. !f you go astray, you loose it. Nothing like this will ever happen
again. This is really a cosmopolite place."
90
(Nb10)

87
evreye de bi biz duyarliyiz galiba ya. Nilleti de ekip eviriyosun. Yapma diyince yapmiyolar.
Tamam da yapma diyene kadar bin tane insana yapma diyosun falan" (Nb10), translated by Deniz
Altay
88
!te dur sus demek zorunda kaliyoruz mesela. Dkkanlari da ok rahatsiz etmek istemiyoruz nk
hep gelip gidiyoruz." (Nb11), translated by Deniz Altay
89
Evet araya gidip ite ne derler iini yapiyosun yani. Orada ite biz dedik ki tabii burada iiyoruz
herif de izin veriyor o zaman biz ielerimizi toplayalim. Akam toplamayanlar iin bu sefer de yle bir
ey geliti, tam byle 3.dnya lkesi eyi ite. Burada geri dnm fabrikalarina; ey kutu toplayan
adamlar dolamaya baladi. Bu sefer o herifler ortama dahil olup ite abi merhaba bi sigaraniz var mi
falan filan. !te herif anlatiyor ben bu yollara nasil dtm byle..." (Nb01), translated by Garanti
Platform Contmporary Art Centre
90
Bi mekani yaratmasi ok zordur. Kaybetmesi ok kolay. Kaybedersin. Sapitirsin kaybedersin.
Yaratmasi ok zordur. Bir daha da byle bir ey olmaz. ok kozmopolit." (Nb10), translated by Deniz
Altay
92
This striking concern among Ninibar population proves that Ninibar participants care
for preserving Ninibar, just as the residents struggle and react to prevent Ninibar from
taking place in their surrounding. The positive understanding of the Ninibar
participants about the complaints of the residents has been previously mentioned. This
understanding can be observed in the so far discussed, `shared' concern Ninibar
participants have developed in response to the `from the window' reactions - spoken
warnings and minor attacks for expressing general discomforts - building dwellers
give. This concern includes for instance, eagerness in collecting the rubbish, trying to
control the noise level; and trying to lessen the disturbance given to the
neighbourhood.
!f you are going to stay here, you have to show some attention. What we
do, is not right. What's that, a bunch of guys, hanging like a herd,
drinking on the street? Some one who drinks is always dangerous. This is
the important thing, to be able to control yourself, to restrain yourself. !
know how to go mad as well, but ! don't."
91
(Nb10)
Although the aim of the Ninibar population in restraining their practices is to minimize
the disturbance within the area, this does not mean giving up from Ninibar. On the
contrary, the main ground, on which their concern and sensibility depends, is to assure
the continuation of their leisure activity. Hence, they play their part by easing the
tension relatively. This is one part of the (tactical) responds of the Ninibar youth
against the `counter operations' of the residents.
They are disturbed from noise, so we don't go there. We do not drink
where we are not wanted."
92
(Nb12)
!n similar ways, Ninibar participants cope with the resident's reactions. When, in the
course of a gathering, the warnings and reactions of the residents increase to critical
points Ninibar groups move to other locations. When the police come patrolling,
Ninibar gathering get dispersed.
When someone come and complain madly, everybody just take their
drinks and move. They make something to relax the guy. And he feels he

91
Burada duracaksan hafif de olsa zen gstermelisin. Yaptigimiz ey dogru degil ki bakacak olursan.
Ne demek. Bir sr, it srs gibi adam sokakta iiyor. !en adam her zaman tehlikelidir. Zaten onu
kontrol etmek yani: kendi kendini tutabilmek. Yani ben de bilirim sapitmayi..." (Nb10), translated by
Deniz Altay
92
Sesten rahatsiz olan amcalar var, biz de oraya her trl gitmiyoruz yani... rahatsiz olunan yerde,
istenmedigimiz yerde imiyoruz yani." (Nb12), translated by Deniz ALtay
93
is listened to, he becomes satisfied for the moment and leaves. Then
maybe after a while, somebody else comes to the location."
93
(Nb03)
This respond of the Ninibar participants, end Ninibar for the night. The residents
become comforted with the success of driving away the Ninibar groups, either by
themselves or by the arrival of the police patrols to the site. However, after a while,
the same or other groups ignorant of what happened may come to the location and
start Ninibar anew. This movement of location prepares the grounds of Ninibar' s
succession.
!t is previously discussed that the space re-defined by the Ninibar practice is an
unstable space, with indefinite boundaries. The creation of this space is independent
from its location. This peculiarity gives the users of the space, the possibility to recede
when they like to Ninibar, to be dispersed or to re-occur in another location.
Ninibar can always shift to somewhere else and find itself a new place. !t
never has a constant space in deed. When they built a fence, it moves
aside. When they throw lime powder, it puts a newspaper to sit on."
9+

(Nb03)
The same characteristic gives Ninibar the opportunity to persist despite the counter
actions and constructions, and despite the `counter definitions' of space formerly
introduced by authorities and laws. The flexibility of Ninibar provides for the re-
definition of the urban environment and creation of micro spaces over and over again.
To conclude, the investigation of these rivalry relations provides a picture of how the
`re-defined spaces' are created and sustained without being constructed and without
aiming any permanency. From the case of Ninibar it is understood that the
èphemerality' and impermanency of the re-defined urban spaces; their mobility and
independency from the urban locality, give the space of the inhabitant the possibility
to endure despite the existence of opposing, institutionalised and established parties
and practices.

93
Birisi gerekten zivanadan ikmi ekilde gelip ikayet ettiginde, herkes grubunu toplayip ikisini
falan toplayip hareket ediyor. onu gerekten rahatlatacak birey yapiyor. benim szm dinlendi
eklinde kk bir tatmin yaiyor ve gidiyor. sonra belirli bir sre sonra belki bakasi gelip aliyor o yeri
ama o sz dinleniyor. ama o sz dinlenmi olmak iin." (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
9+
...Ninibar herzaman bir yerlere kayip kendine bir yer bulabilir. net sabit bir mekani yok aslilnda hi
bir zaman. yani likya'nin nne it konuldu mu biraz yana kayiyor, kire dkld m gazete koyuyor
falan" (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
94
+.+. H!DDEN EXPRESS!ONS BEYOND THE RE-DEF!NED SPACES

Considering Ninibar as an urban space re-defined by the city inhabitant, the main
questions that has been investigated were: how these spaces are created by the
inhabitants, what their characteristics are which make them possible and through what
kind of relations they are achieved.
!t is mentioned that the space of `Ninibar' is primarily created through the practice of
a newly introduced use. `Nicro spaces' re-defined by alternative urban practices, like
Ninibar; take place within the existing urban space, by playing with its pre-established
limits. The alternative practices and definitions are being exercised on urban spaces;
and the space produced through the operations of the user, is an ephemeral, flexible,
mobile, impermanent space: a space, which aims neither at construction nor at
permanency.
These informal and unpredicted spaces of the inhabitant become possible primarily
due to these characteristics; yet, they can only be maintained with the successive
practices of its participants. Where the new use ceases to be practiced; the space,
which it directly generates, disappears and leaves no trace behind. Then if the spaces
of Ninibar are produced in practice, the participants of Ninibar can best be understood
within this peculiar way of using the space.

+.+.1. PART!C!PANT GROUP AND THE EXPRESS!ON OF !DENT!T!ES

Beginning the final part of the study, it is suggested that it is possible to find insightful
knowledge about inhabitant groups in the space they create, and the use they
introduce in accordance for a shared purpose. The user group struggles and acts
continuously and insistently in order to reach the desired space and the space
obtained at the end, is the appropriation and re-interpretation of the urban space
through the needs and demands of the participants.
!f the participant group will be investigated from the space it creates and re-defines,
the researcher has the possibility to find out representations and expressions
belonging to that group, which will also be helpful in discovering what the group share
in common. For Ninibar is a space shaped through the needs and demands of a group
95
of young people in Ankara; the final step of this study includes the search for their
potential expressions and resistances in the space they produce.
The inverse could have been the approach of this study. The re-defined space could
have been questioned by making discussions on its user group. Through such an
approach `Ninibar youth', as the subject of the investigated space, would be the
starting point of the research and the followed discussions would be similar to what
the tradition of `youth cultural studies' includes. !n this study it is sugested that this
approach will be insufficient for the scope of the research: urban spaces re-defined by
the inhabitants, which considers user groups as the subject, but only one among the
many facets of the issue. Therefore `youth cultural studies' provides important inputs,
and a basis for the elaboration of the case of Ninibar", which should be discussed in a
critical approach.

+.+.1.1. YOUTH STUD!ES

A brief account provided by Buchmanna (2002) on youth cultures, suggests that they
include, in general terms, identity expressions, demonstration of a sense of belonging
and spatial drawing of boundaries (Buchmanna, 2002). Since the 1920s `youth' has
been distinguished as a distinctive cultural practice (Buchmanna, 2002).
!n the 1920s, scientific studies about youth behaviour are carried out under the fields
of sociology and criminology. These studies focused on what has been named as
juvenile street gangs" of the American downtown. !n Chicago many `gangs' are made
subject to these studies and the most important example is The Street Corner
Society", written by William H. Whyte (1955). The novelty brought by these studies to
the social sciences is the `participant observation method'. (Hebdige, 1979) The
juvenile street gangs reveal similar outlooks, values and styles of behaviour.
(Buchmanna, 2002) !n these earlier works, the main focus was on the leisure of the
youth and this provided an incomplete picture of the subject. (Hebdige, 1979)
!n the 19+0s and the 1950s, the idea of Juvenile cultural practices" observed in forms
of criminal gangs started to change and the focus shifted towards the cultural
difference of `youth' from `the dominant adult society' (Buchmanna, 2002). Albert
Cohen (1955) asserted that there is a compensatory function in these juvenile gangs;
explaining that members of those `gangs' are usually working class adolescents,
96
underachieved at school, and they develop some kind of self-esteem in their leisure
time activities to compensate for their conditions. This new theoretical discourse
depends on the continuities and break troughs between the dominant and subordinate
value systems of adults and adolescents. (Hebdige, 1999: ++3)
These studies focus on the transition of young people to adulthood and explain youth
behaviours and cultures in relation to such a period of transition. Youth `sub-cultures'
are therefore explained as having a role in the transition to adulthood. There have
developed two major approaches on this transitory role, according to the explanations
of Buchmanna. The first approach is the `structural functional theory'. According to the
works of Parson and Eisenstadt, the transition to adulthood includes the re-orientation
of adolescents, in forms of age homogeneous groups of youth" (Buchmanna, 2002).
These `peer groups' function as a linking sphere between childhood and adulthood.
The second approach is introduced by Nannheim, with the concept of `generation'.
(1928) The formation of a generation takes place at the stage of adolescence and they
are defined in relation to sociological processes and historical events, in spite of age
boundaries as asserted in the structural-functional theory. (Buchmanna, 2002) Nore
important then their roles, it is necessary to mention that there prevails a negative
attitude towards young people in the early studies of youth culture.
The abiding image of young people in urban environments is perhaps that
of the rebellious and potentially dangerous troublemaker `hanging out' on
street corners. This is an image of young people as unsavoury deviants. !t
is an image of young people as lost, hopeless and potentially treating. But
perhaps most importantly, this is an image of young people as victims.
(Niles, 2003: 66)
The early studies of youth cultures provide limited categorisations about the acts of
young people on the streets. These explanations take only into consideration the age
differences, and by making over-simplifications through a criminological view, they
conceive the acts of these `peer' groups merely as responds to adult culture.
Accordingly, it has been acknowledged by latter discussions about the sociology and
culture of youth that these early studies are grounded on a negative opinion about
youth, which still persists in the minds of many. Niles (2000) mentions that there
exists an Overwhelming (though often unintentional) tendency on the part of the
literature to portray young people in a negative light." (Niles, 2000: 65) Briefly, the
approach of this tradition is limited in scope, limited in its investigations about youth
culture and acts (this will be the use of the urban space for the elaborated case) and it
is insufficient for understanding the contemporary society.
97
!n the 1960s and the 70s, in Britain, The focus of youth cultural studies started to shift
from the opposition of youth against adult culture, towards social inequalities and
oppositions, (Buchmanna, 2002) and the most investigated subject was the working
class boys. Peter Willmott (1969) in his works explained the leisure styles of the
youth were inflected through the contradictions and divisions of the class society".
(Hebdige, 1999: +++)
!n the researches directed in `Centre of Contemporary Cultural Studies' (CCCS),
Birmingham, the emphasis on the concept of `Sub-culture', for the understanding of
juvenile cultures, increased. The distinction of youth as a different cultural practice is
no longer explained due to age or generations only; but additionally due to `social
inequality' and `class segregation'. These studies took into account the full interplay of
ideological, economic and cultural factors, which bear upon sub-cultures. (Hebdige,
1999: +++)
According to this conceptualisation, several youth cultures may coexist at any period
of time, within the `modern society' and this is no longer an age-based discussion.
(Buchmanna, 2002) !n the modern society, on the other hand, juvenile cultures are
interpreted as class specific answers to the problems of being young" (Buchmanna,
2002)
After the 1950s, we see that youth cultural studies have started to develop and
provided a wider understanding about the divergent acts and behaviours of young
people. The provided explanations relates with social conditions and social processes,
which influence the youth and the society in general. Hebdige explains that `significant
youth cultures' have developed as part of the emergence of working class and its
polarisation in the society after the Second World War. (Hebdige, 1999:++2-++3)
Young people have expressed themselves, different than the formerly formulated
forms, by adapting alternative `sub-cultures'. A recent definition of the word sub-
culture quoted from Peter Brooker' s The Concise Glossary of Cultural Theory" can be
summarised as fallows:
Close or loosely affiliated groupings of those who share a set of common
interests, values, tastes, and often a specialist knowledge and argot. Who
pursue common ritualistic practices, which may display their unity in
material objects, accountments, dresses or common look; and who may
be known through an association with a particular geographical region,
urban space or venue. (Brooker, 1999)
The most valid meaning `culture' have today is probably that given by Raymond
Williams (1965, 1993) as, a whole way of living" of societies. Similarly `sub-cultures'
98
represent a particular way of living and acting which is shared by a smaller group of
people, through common practices, representations and a shared `style'. The works of
Phil Cohen
95
(1972), in the same period, questions how class specific experiences are
encoded in leisure styles. Cohen investigates the hidden meaning of style, which he
explains as the physical expression, and practice of differences. (Hebdige, 1999: +++)
To give a brief account of the changing approach, in the British Cultural Studies
(conducted in CCCS), youth sub-culture groups are no longer described as threatening
`gangs' of adolescents and there is no deviancy and mislead alone in the acts of young
people and in the `cultures' they create. On the contrary, they are discussed as groups
of young people having common outlooks, tastes, ways of thinking and living. Hence
as youth groups having different sub-cultures which are represented in different
`styles'. Noreover, these discussions suggest that there is a concern about expressing
some issues within the practices of sub-culture groups; the mean of which is primarily
accepted as the associated `style'.
On the concept of `style', Buchmanna explains that Hebdige (1979) describes it as the
expressive and aesthetic presentation of one's identity and social belonging'. !t is the
mean, by which the problems and contradictions of àdult' cultures is expressed
symbolically. (Buchmanna, 2002) According to the works of Hebdige, `style' is
described as a `coded response' to the changes affecting the entire community. !n
discussing these implicit responds Hebdige depends on the Gramscian concept of
`hegemony'
96
and accordingly, he takes youth cultural styles as symbolic forms of
resistance. (Hebdige, 1999: ++6)
Challenge to hegemony, which sub-cultures represent, is not issued
directly by them; rather it is expressed obliquely by `style'. Objections and
contradictions are displayed at the `profoundly superficial' level of
appearances, the level of signs. (Hebdige, 1979:19)
Hebdige suggests that tensions between dominant and subordinate groups is
reflected in the surfaces of sub-culture, in the styles made up of mundane objects
which have double meaning." (Hebdige, 1979:2) These objects have a straight
meaning in the `straight' world, in the presence of differences. Then, these objects

95
Quoted from Hebdige, 1999.
96
A short explanation about `Hegemony is provided by John Storey as The condition in which a
dominant class not rules but leads the society, through the exercise of moral and intellectual
leadership." (Storey, 1998: 12+) Hegemony is a point of consensus in which the interest of the
powerful group had been universalised as the interest of the society as a whole. Consensus is achieved
through `negotiations' taking place between dominant and subordinate groups. These negotiations are
in forms of `resistances' for subordinate groups and ìncorporations' through organic intellectuals" for
the dominant group. (Storey, 1998: 12+)
For further reading see: Gramsci, (1990, 1992); Harris (1992)
99
may become signs of forbidden identity, sources of value in the symbolic sense.
(Hebdige, 1979:2-3)
Sub-cultures adapt images, styles and ideologies made available elsewhere in the
media for example, in order to construct an alternative identity, which communicates a
perceived difference, an otherness. The `styles' that are aassociated to sub-cultures,
make use of the provided commercial products in order to construct this meaning.
(Hebdige, 1999: +50) Storey gives the explanation of Hebdige on this issue:
Youth sub-cultures appropriate for their own purposes and meanings the
commodities commercially provided.. These products are combined or
transformed in ways not intended by their producers. (Storey, 1998: 126)
The studies of Hebdige, about the `meaning of style', uncover the search for
alternativeness and difference in young people's behaviour. This difference, however,
does not depend to age, adolescence or a period of `transition' but it depends to the
construction of an alternative identity, which introduce a different position. As Storey,
mentions this difference is constituted in the unintended way to which, members of
sub-cultures, `transform' the products provided èlsewhere'. These unpredicted `ways
of using', which are constitutive of alternative identities and which are, as accepted in
Hebdige' s assertions, the manifestation of resistant meanings should be underlined
before moving on with discussions about the influence of the rise of consumerism on
youth sub-cultures and styles. Further discussions on this subject will be made
depending especially on de Certeau' s conceptualisations; for it will help us to
understand the existence of expressions and resistances within the practice and space
of Ninibar".

+.+.1.2. YOUTH CULTURES AND !DENT!T!ES AFTER THE 1980S

The sub-cultures of the 1970s had more distinguishable characteristics and displayed
observable gatherings in the city. An alternative and resistant identity could have been
easily defined within significant sub-cultures and styles. This situation changed after
the 1980s, in course of a number of transitions taking place in the world - which have
been formulated by many theoreticians as the shift from a modern to a post-modern
world. (Jameson, 1985; Knox, 1993) Discussions of change and transition have been
conducted in many disciplines; like economy, sociology, architecture, art, philosophy;
all pointing out the emergence of a new world and a new society. The observed
100
changes, whether named as post-modernity or differently, are as a matter of fact the
outcome of a whole series of complex economic, political, social and cultural
processes" (Hall, T.; 1990: 8+).
Tim Hall depicts very shortly the changing social, economic, cultural conditions of the
post-modern turn, as follows. Economically; the industrial, mass production based
èconomies of scale' of earlier times, left their place to èconomies of scope',
characterized by flexible production methods, aiming at specialized `niche' markets.
This shift is also accompanied with the rise of service sector, `global' economies with
the rapidly developing communication technologies. !n relation, the homogenous class
based social divisions have disappeared, with the weakening of middle class, social
polarisation increased and society became classified into groups distinguished by their
consumption patterns. (Hall,T.; 1990: 8+)
Furthermore, as Paul L. Knox mentions, the distinguishing features of the class and
family status have been over scored by lifestyle and cultural preferences" (Knox, 1993:
18) For the present purposes of the study, the emergence of a different type of society
should be emphasized, which Knox explains as the consequence of the spread of
`consumer culture', which has been elaborated by Featherstone (1991) and which has
fostered the perceived need for distinctiveness and identity." (Knox, 1993: 18)
Similarly, du Gay mentions, depending on the explanations of Rose, that às
consumers, people are encouraged to shape their lives by the use of their purchasing
power and to make sense of their existence by exercising their freedom to choose' (du
Gay, 1996: 76) within a market, with reference to the works of Bauman; which made
`people dependent upon itself' !n the consumer culture, where individuals are
ìntegrated into the society as, above all, consumers'; everything depends on the `logic
of the market'.
Thus every item of culture becomes a commodity and becomes
subordinated by the logic of the market.
97
(Bauman, 1987: 166)
Parallel transformations within the sub-cultures can be observed; following the
spreading power of the `market logic', the rise of a consumer culture and the
increasing urge to express distinctiveness in the society led to a fragmentation and
multiplication of identities. Nuggleton explains the transformation, by making the
following comparison between modern and post-modern sub-cultures: Sub-cultures of
the modern world are constructed around a singular group identity and they are

97
Quoted from du Gay, 1996: 76
101
homogenous in the representation of this identity through styles. (Nuggleton, 2000:
52)
On the other side, post-modern sub-cultures are composed of fragmented identities
that are heterogeneous in their stylistic representations. !n modern sub-cultures one
main identity, with strongly shared beliefs and values, creates high degrees of
commitment, permanent memberships and low rates of mobility between sub-cultures;
in post-modern sub-cultures, constructed around a multiplicity of stylistic identities,
there is low degrees of commitment, transient attachments and high rates of mobility.
(Nuggleton, 2000: 52) According to Nuggleton, while a `political gesture of resistance'
can be discovered in the `spectacular sub-cultures', in contemporary sub-cultures
merely àpolitical sentiments' can be found. (Nuggleton, 2000: 52) This apolitical
stance in the latter sub-cultural forms of identification is related to the increasing
commodification, which takes place in every domain.
Through patterns of behaviour, ways of speaking, taste in music etc.
youth sub-cultures engage in symbolic forms of resistance to dominant
and parent cultures. However as Hebdige mentions further Youth sub-
cultural styles may begin by issuing symbolic challenges but they end up
by establishing new sets of conventions, by creating new commodities,
new industries or rejuvenating old ones. (Storey, 1998: 126)
An account of the effects of changing socio-economic conditions on `youth sub-
cultures' can be given by emphasizing two points. First is the fashionisation and
commodification of the sub-cultural styles and the loss in their resistant meanings. And
in relation, second is the blur in the descriptive limits of former sub-cultural identities
and the multiplicity and complexity of contemporary identities.
!t has already been mentioned that the so far discussed styles, as the representation
of different and alternative positions and identities, turned in time, into consumption
styles. The rising market economies, manipulated the signs carried by sub-cultural
styles and turned them into objects of consumption.
!n the drift towards anonymity and alienation that followed the rise of
industrial capitalism and urbanisation, the communicative power of
clothing emerged as an important tool, both for guaranteeing a sense of
belonging and as an aid to identification. (Breward, 2003: 217)
!n the history of fashion, as Breward explains, clothing has always been a mean for
self-identification. Henceforth, the field of clothing became one of the very important
means of asserting distinctiveness" as Knox draws attention to the words of
Nayerowitz (1993) in a fragmented, heterogeneous, consumerist society. Clothing,
102
which is also considered as the most significant mean of sub-cultural and stylish
representation, has been invaded by the rapidly changing fashion trends. !n the
beginning of the 21st century, these fashion trends, exploited many times, over and
over again, the material `spectacular sub-cultures' provided, and therefore emptied out
their presumed resistant attitude and meanings. Breward explains the situation
through giving punk culture as an example. Breward mentions punk, as it developed,
moved inexorably into the cycle of commodification, which it had set out to subvert."
(Breward, 2003: 225)
The paradoxical position of the sub-cultural revolutionary is one shared by
a new design avant-garde, whose work in the field of high fashion during
the 1980s and 1990s has reinterpreted the energetic street idiom and
challenging creative questions of Punk for a contemporary commercial
scenario. (Breward, 2003: 228-229)
!t is no longer possible to be sure of the resistant attitude existing in the `styles'
appropriated by young people. As Niles mentions, within a general view, `the safety
net of young people had became consumption' alone and this, in return, `reinforce only
the ideological underpinnings of the market'. (Niles, 2003: 70) Although, the full
validity of Niles' s approach is discussible, the innocence in Hebdige's assertion about
the àppropriation of commodities by sub-cultures, in unintended ways' became also
questionable for the contemporary society. This ambiguity of meanings inhered in the
observed styles and sub-cultures of today, are caused by the above-mentioned `re-
interpretation', or over-interpretation, managed by the fashion trends, which are
manipulated by the market, themselves.
Today, the extent these more and more fashionised commodities, can turn into sign
and values of marginal identities, provides an area of discussion. Because, what is
exploited in the `spectacular' sub-cultures is not only in forms, but also in meaning, not
only the garments are consumed but also the meaning they first represented.
!n this fascinating development the unpredictable political and social
messages that were central to the ethos of the original sub-cultures have
arguably been undermined by the antithetical concerns of a global luxury
fashion industry, whose sights are set primarily on the profits to be
gathered from manufacturing outrage. (Breward, 2003: 228-229)
On the other hand, the ìdentity value' these commodities have apart from having
simply or primarily ùse values' should not be totally neglected, as du Gay emphasizes
depending on Baudrillard' s comments. (du Gay, 1996: 82) !n relation, du Gay asserts
that the consumption of goods is important not so much for the intrinsic satisfaction it
103
might generate but for the way in which it functions to mark social differences and act
as a communicator." (du Gay, 1996: 82)
For the contemporary world, although the dressing styles may still be means of
identity and value expression; this expression is less related to socio-economic issues,
hence less resistant (against dominant cultures) in the way Hebdige asserts; but more
oriented by the representation of consumption based `life-styles'.
Hetherington (1998) mentions that `consumption' is considered within the
contemporary sociological studies as the primary indicator of the changing society, of
a shift from modern to a `post-modern world'. Hetherington explains in introducing his
work on èxpressive identities', that the recent sociological studies are directed more
and more on these changing consumption habits. He accounts that, studies on the
relation of identity and consumption dates back to the 1970s, to the studies conducted
in CCCS on sub-cultures and styles. However the alternative lifestyles of today, can no
longer be explained as class specific responds to social issues" (Hebdige, 1979,
1999), but only as consumption based identity representations.
Focusing on the `sub-cultural worlds' of mainly white, male, working class
youth, these studies emphasized the ways in which sub-cultural groupings
use commodities as signifiers in an active process of constructing
òppositional' identities. (du Gay, 1996: 86)
Those forms of `counter cultures' (Hetherington, 1998); for instance like `punks', with
their fashion protest style (Breward, 2003; Hebdige, 1979; Clarke 1976); have later
been followed by those who manifest themselves through their choice among the
variety of commodities provided in the market, like those more ènvironmentally
focused' or those èthnically identified' (Hetherington, 1998: 1). Or, according to Bell 8
valentine, identities can also be constructed - again through the consumption style -
but through what you eat and where you eat", like the vegetarians or vegans, fast
food lovers etc. (Bell 8 valentine, 1997)
Hetherington strongly underlines that, despite the growing focus on consumption,
those `counter culture' lifestyles taking their places in the `high street' today; still carry
social and political concerns, although they are in forms less apparent than those of
the 1970s. (Hetherington, 1998: 2)
The type of lifestyle associated with this type of identity politics is, of
course more than shopping. !n deed one of the features of the so-called
counter-culture from which these lifestyle interest developed, was it's
anti-consumerism or more broadly anti-materialism. (Hetherington, 1998:
2)
104
Finally, Hetherington suggests a more complex and wider approach, which does not
limit the expression of those counter cultures neither with consumption nor with
political concerns alone; but which is to understand those, as èxpressive identities'
and to take into consideration `the alternative lifestyles... and the activists of social
movements and their identity politics, but also some forms of youth cultures which
overlap with these.' (Hetherington, 1998: +)
Similarly, taking into consideration the experienced changes within the society, the
approaches towards urban spaces appropriated by different user groups, should be
broaden up whether they consist of youths or adults. !n such spaces, it may not
always be possible to find the expression of a unique identity or the representation of
a distinguished àlternative' culture, at least not in the way they are described before
the mid 80s. But on the other hand, it is not necessary to limit the expressions -
potentially embedded in `re-defined' urban spaces - to those related to a consumption
based lifestyle, identity or (sub)culture. These spaces, as Hetherington says, may
comprise other political, economic or social expressions within themselves.
The above-mentioned change in the definitions of alternative cultures and identities
can also be observed in the space of Ninibar. !n the previous discussions about the
participants of Ninibar, the impossiblity to find definite choices of clothing, music or
ways of thinking in Ninibar has been seen. !t was mentioned that among the
interviewees, there exists a tendency to name their style as àlternative' in a wider
sense, yet the term was used with a great degree of variance.
!t is not only that so-called alternatives became part of the mainstream
but alternatives draw on the mainstream as well (Hetherington, 1998: 5)
The ambiguity in defining the àlternative' style, as the only possible way of describing
the Ninibar user, depends on the multiplication within different styles, cultures and
identities especially in the last two decades. These forms of identifications, which can
be best understood in Hetherington' s conceptualisation of expressive identities,
became more complex and more ambivalent in their position. (Hetherington, 1998)
One influencing factor in this respect is the `blurred boundaries' between the margin
and the mainstream. One other is, as Hetherington explains depending on the works of
Naffesoli, the decline of social class and class based identities and their replacement
by different types of identifications, based around interest and outlooks, not (only)
determined by one's class background." (Hetherington, 1998: 7)
!nstead, we have to accept that we are dealing with a range of cultural
fields or a multiplicity of identity foci and practices that have some kind of
105
elective affinity. This affinity has more to do with expressivism than with
either consumption or politics. (Hetherington, 1998: 6)
Hetherington asserts that identity stands today in a `complex topology', a
heterogeneous, folded, paradoxical and crumpled space in which a distinct singular
position is not possible." (Hetherington, 1998: 23) Accordingly, today there is no clear
definition and no easy evaluation of identities and of what they express; rather,
identities are all about multiple location and performativity on that location."
(Hetherington, 1998: 23)
Race, class, gender are all significant sites in the topology of identity but
so too are lifestyle choices, alternative and experimental ways of living.
The topology of identity is one there are local positions of centrality and
marginality but no clear centres and margins. (Hetherington, 1998: 28)

+.+.1.3. EXPRESS!ON OF !DENT!T!ES !N N!N!BAR

The multi-dimensional conceptualisation of Hetherington about èxpressive identities';
is important with the approach it brings. This is an approach which is `connotative' and
not `denotative' (Hetherington, 1998); thus which can think about different levels of
identity expression at the same time, without attempting to draw holistic conclusions
for a changing - new world or society. Noreover, it tries to think about expressive
identities and their performances on a complex and relational ground.
This approach should be one that can be appropriated for investigating the potential
expressions in the case of Ninibar. Such a stance will prevent starting the discussion
with a previous mindset and will provide a broader view. The following discussions
depend therefore to the frame Hetherington provided; however the observations that
will be made in Trkiye may be different. Because first of all the economic, social,
political and cultural background of the country is different, and because the related
social processes, which influence the construction of identities, whether class based or
consumption based, are different in Trkiye.
The problem of identity construction and expression in the Turkish context is beyond
the scope of this research; however the issue provides an extensive field of
investigation for other researchers of social and cultural studies. Nevertheless, some
observations about the issue will be explained, to clarify the following evaluations on
the èxpressions' in the case of Ninibar.
106
The above explained processes and changes in the meaning of ìdendity' are partly
experienced in Trkiye. Trkiye, being a developing country has its own social,
economic and political dynamics; and experience different social transformations.
However, with the increasing globalism, in the latest decades, Trkiye is influenced
more and more by foreign trends. As discussed above for U.S.A and the Western
European countries, consumerism" has also increased in Trkiye along with the
development of capitalist economies.
The previously discussed `sub-cultures' and other ìdentities' are not original to
Trkiye. The given account was important because it provides a perspective about the
way (marginal) social acts and formations like Ninibar can be discussed, in order to
reveal various expressions and resistances of the users or parts of the society. On the
other hand, it is also possible to observe the influences of some of the explained `sub-
cultures' and counter cultures in the Turkish population or some others in the Ninibar
population. These influences are summarized in the previous discussions on the
participant group.
When the case of Ninibar is conidered; no singular or definite `life style', shared
among the users can be observed; but the existence of many can be mentioned,
intersecting on a wider ground - that of being àlternative'. Noreover, the interviewees
expressed a strong refusal of any attempt to attach them titles about identities,
(sub)cultures or manners; like being punk" or being subversive, rebellious, deviant
gangs or organisations.
Nb09 - You can ask many people and they won't say Ninibar has a
message or something. Nobody is like `we are isolating our selves from
the society' and so on. !t is not a place like that."
Nb08 - Nobody has got to prove anything here anyway"
98

Everybody will tell the same thing, they will say this is about drinking,
chatting. But nobody created a culture deliberately in Ninibar. Nobody
deliberately said, We have the street man, let's hang out here". !t was
only 5 people in the beginning, than his friend, then their friends and it
became something we can no longer control."
99
(Nb10)

98
Nb09 -Aslinda bence soracaginiz ogu insan da bir mesaji oldugunu sylemez yani. Orada kimsenin
ey gibi bi amaci yok yani, ìte biz burda kendimizi toplumdan soyutlayarak bilmem ne olduk' falan...
yle biyer degil zaten yani." Nb08 - Sonuta kimse biey kanitlamak iin gitmiyor.", translated by
Deniz Altay
99
Herkes ayni eyi anlatacaktir, iki muhabbet falan diyecektir. Gerekler bunda sakli ama. Kimse
isteyerek, (planlayarak) bir kltr yaratmadi orada. !steyerek gelin abi sokak var gelin unu adam edip
biz burada ielim" diye kimse hareket etmedi. Sadece bi 5 kii balatti, onun arkadai onun arkadai
derken byle iinden ikamadigimiz koskocaman biey oldu..." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
107
These titles lead to a misjudgement about the participant group, as they express. On
the other hand, it is not possible to observe an all-encompassing style within the
Ninibar participants.
Nore important than the reason why the participants refuse to be categorised under
different identity titles Ninibar participants are united within the pursuit of a totally
different thing. They are young people from similar but varying tastes, `lifestyles' and
backgrounds. Educated, not poor and most importantly, not aiming at any offence.
And there is one thing they all look for. !t is the possibility of having cheaper drinks
and freer leisure activities.
You should not see Ninibar only as a culture. This is something else. Our
only concern is about how to drink peacefully, without having any trouble,
without having any disputes, without causing discomfort. We only think of
how to have a nice chat with friends."
100
(Nb10)
This is the expression of a shared need and demand. This is the motive behind the act
of Ninibar; the reason the urban space has been `re-defined'. This is the essential
expression within the spaces of Ninibar. What constitutes Ninibar is the leisure
practice of a group of young people. !t is not necessarily in response to social
inequalities, class based social polarisations; it does not aim to initiate social
movements or to change the world situation. !t is a daily act, it operates and it can be
perceived only at that level of city life.
This is absolutely not an act to belong to a sub-culture, or to a punk
culture. !t is only lately that they started to associate Ninibar with `punk'.
But the point of departure is only economic, it is to drink beer at cheaper
prices and to enter back to the bar..."
101
(Nb10)

100
Ninibara sadece kultur olarak bakmamalisin. Bizimki baka bir ey. Biz nasil rahat ve huzurlu
ekilde iebiliriz diye dnen insanlariz artik. Baimiz belaya girmeden, yok ona buna satamadan,
onun bunu rahatsiz etmeden, nasil byle gzel muhabbet evirebiliriz diye dnyoruz." (Nb10),
101
Ama kesinlikle altkultur olsun diye ya da bu bi punk kulturune ait olsun diye bisey degil. Zaten
daha sonra byle punkla zdeletirilmeye balandi. !lk iki noktasi daha ekonomik, ucuza bira iip
tekrar ieri girebilmek." (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
108
+.+.2. RES!STANCES !NHERED !N RE-DEF!NED SPACES

...Drinking on the street, knowing that people are there and ! don't think
there is more to it."
102
(Nb02)
Drinking on the streets at cheaper prices" is the common ground that brings Ninibar
participants together. Fun, alcohol and socializing, are the things that are commonly
shared in Ninibar. There is no singular and definite consumption style, no dominant
political view or opinion; but only an unorganised and un-institutionalised search for
an ideal leisure practice.
The new leisure practice introduced by Ninibar participants represents a demand, a
desire, and introduces a possibility, an alternative solution for this demand. This
introduced solution, criticizes and challenges the existing nightlife norms, hence
inheres a resistance against them; in the way it re-thinks and re-formulates. This
resistance is, to use Hebdige's words
103
, `reflected in the surfaces' of Ninibar - the
urban space re-defined by the inhabitant, in their particular way of using the provided
urban space.
Dick Hebdige explained that `sub-cultures' potentially contain implicit resistances too.
These resistances, as expressed by Hebdige were against the `dominant' culture and
the unfavourable socio-economic conditions. (Hebdige, 1979, 1999) And `Styles' were
carrying signs and expressions of these resistances. Similarly, the urban places that
were once appropriated through the practice of these `sub-culture' groups, embedded
these resistances as Ninibar does today.
!t is important at that point to clarify the concept of `resistance' that is referred to in
this study. Because as Pile discusses in the introduction of Geographies of Resistance
the prevailing understanding of resistance, is one which directly relates to `power' and
opposes to the oppressive and exploitative practices of `dominant groups'. (Pile, 1997:
1-2)
Resistance, from this perspective, is about mass mobilisation in defence of
some common interests, where resistance is basically determined by the
action: the strike, the Narch . and so on. (Pile, 1997: +)

102
Yani sokakta imek, insanlari orada bulabilecegini bilmek. Onun diinda fazla derinligi olduguna
inanmiyorum yani ben." (Nb02), translated by Deniz Altay
103
Tensions between dominant and subordinate groups is reflected in the surfaces of subculture, in
the styles made up of mundane objects which have double meaning." (Hebdige, 1979:2)
109
However in Geographies of Resistance, the approach to `resistance' is different and in
this research a similar perspective is adapted. This idea of `resistance' is not
necessarily for defending common interests from the oppressive and exploitative
practices of the dominant power groups; and it does not necessarily take place in form
of `mass movements' and actions. (Pile, 1997: +) !f the concept of resistance is
accepted in relation to power, minor but significant resistances, which take place
within the everyday life in people's acts and practices can be missed.
Geographies of resistance begin with a sense that it is no longer enough
to begin stories of resistance with stories of so-called power. From this
perspective, resistance becomes a mode through which the symptoms of
different power relations are diagnosed and ways are sought to get round
them, to live through them, or to change them. (Pile, 1997: 3)
Accordingly, it can be understood that, resistant political subjectivities are not only
constructed through positions taken up in relation to authority", but they can also be
constructed through experiences which are not so quickly labelled `power', such as
desire and anger, capacity and ability, happiness and fear, dreaming and forgetting."
(Pile, 1997: 3)
Definitions of resistance have became bound up with the ways that people
are understood to have capacities to change things (see Nani, 1990),
through giving their own resistant meaning to things, through finding their
own tactics from avoiding, taunting, attacking, undermining, enduring,
hindering, mocking the everyday exercise of power. (Pile, 1997: 1+)
Through out this perspective beneath the practice of Ninibar, there exists a resistant
attitude. This resistant attitude is not related to any kind of age based, class based,
political or consumerist identity problem. !t is only related to the nightlife preferences
of the Ankara youth.
The bars are dark and the music is so nonsensically high anyway. You
can't even understand what is playing. That is why we are going to
Ninibar, but ! don't think there is anything else behind there is only
drunkenness. ! don't even think people share an opinion there, everybody
want to get drunk as quick as possible. And men look for girls
probably."
10+
(Nb13)
!n many past and recent urban cultural studies, the tendency was to investigate the
`participant group' for the understanding of the resistances. However, it has been

10+
Zaten barlar byle karanlik ve de mzik anlamsiz derecede aik. Hi ne aldigini bile
anlayamayacagin derecede aik onun iin Ninibar a gidiyoruz ama ben altinda hi biey olduguna
inanmiyorum yani sadece ite sarholuk var. Kimsenin orda bi ortak fikri olduguna bile inanmiyorum
herkes olabildigince abuk kafayi bulmak istiyor. Bi de tabii ki kiz tavlamak istiyolardir erkekler."
110
discussed that the participants of a spatial act, do not adequately provide an in-depth
understanding about the created space. As in the case of Ninibar, the participant
profile makes no significant remarks that make the discovery of the reasons and
motives behind the creation of Ninibar, as a space and as a practice, possible.
The discussion on the `re-defined urban spaces' in this study, considers the newly
developed urban use and practice as the primary aspect that `re-defines' an urban
piece of environment. !t is also seen that this new use involve all the expressions that
are sought. Ninibar inhere resistances in the way the space is re-defined differently
and independently from the established one; yet the resistance is not only to the
existing order of urban space but also to the established system the alternative
practice connects to.
There is an implicit resistance, a critique or a questioning in introducing a new use and
a new perception to that space. The alternative socio-spatial practice - the new use,
whether or not in forms of manifestations, implicates resistances against issues
concerning the city inhabitant. The expressions and resistances of the participant
group lay in the reasons an alternative space is created and in the motives that push
the inhabitants to a search for alternatives.
To sum up, to learn more about the expressions and resistances behind Ninibar, it is
suggested that, the new socio-spatial practice and the motives that influence its
development should be elaborated. Depending on the interview study, the
interviewees expressed these motives while they were explaining why they prefer
Ninibar rather than the existing bars of Ankara and while describing their nightlife
preference.
Explaining their nightlife preferences, led them to make a comparison between Ninibar
and other night places, clubs, bars etc. Consequently, this comparison laid down the
reasons why Ninibar is preferred, frequented; and how Ninibar came to compete with
the existing nightlife of Ankara as an alternative leisure place.
You consume alcohol at cheap prices. You can absolutely have what you
want and spend only one third of the sum you would spend in bars."
105

(Nb03)
The choice of Ninibar youth for their leisure activity depends firstly on economic
issues. Ninibar provides a freedom in buying drinks at the cheapest prices. There is no

105
Ucuz alkol tketiyorsun. Bir bara gittiginde tketecegin paranin te birine kesinlikle istedigini
alabilirsin" (Nb03), translated by Deniz Altay
111
institutionalised and capitalised system of supply; hence there are no imposed,
multiplied prices.
Taking into consideration the Ninibar population at that point, the significant inputs it
provides can be seen: Nost of the Ninibar participants are student. Nany of them does
not work, they do not earn money; they do not have adequate income as it is
discussed previously. !n addition to these observations, all of the interviewees
emphasised the higher beverage prices ìnside' bars and nightclubs, explaining that
they are not able to cope with these `high' prices.
The only reason was, we don't want a closed space, we wanted to drink
outside, open air and everybody was student, nobody was earning money
and we didn't want to spend all the pocket-money we get from home in
bars so we wanted a space where we can buy our drinks from the grocery
shop at cheaper prices."
106
(Nb06)
!t is important to mention here, the unfavourable economic conditions taking place in
Turkey, since the mid 90s.
107
The negative impacts of the successive economic crises,
especially of the latest one, are observed in many economic indicators like
unemployment, real wages, poverty, and income distributions. (enses, 2003: 93)
Although no specific information on the impact of these crises on the families of
Ninibar participants - middle or high-income families as they have been defined in this
study - exists, the case of Ninibar can be considered to include hints on the issue.
This impact is an important field of research for the economists.
Simply, if you make a simple evaluation, people buy drinks at grocery
shop prices. This is something economic, and they are not alone in
this..."
108
(Nb09)
The hardened economic conditions of Turkey in that period, is probably one of the
factors which pushed young people in search for alternatives, in search for cheaper
drinks. !n relation, the effects of the economic conditions of the country and the
struggle of the inhabitants against it are observed in Ninibar.

106
Tek sebep uydu, yani dedigim gibi bi mekan olmasin: kapali bi mekan olmasin, rahata diarda
ielim, herkes de grenciydi o zaman para kazanan yoktu evden aldigimiz parayla gidip barlarda
hovardalik yapamayan insanlar oldugumuz iin ucuza bakkaldan biramizi alip itigimiz bi yer olsun
istiyoduk onu yarattik." (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
107
The crisis of 199+, November 2000, February 200+; for a comprehensive account of the recent
economic history of Turkey, see Kepenek (2001), Kongar (2001), Toksz(2002), Tecer(2003).
108
En basitinden, aslinda ok da derine inmeden, basit bi degerlendirme yapacaksaniz eger, bi kere
insanlar bakkal fiyatina iki alabiliyolar. ekonomik biey, bunu da yani, yalniz balarina gerekletirmek
zorunda degiller..." (Nb09), translated Deniz Altay
112
One other reason that Ninibar population prefer to `do Ninibar', rather than going out
to `closed' places, is the social atmosphere in Ninibar. The interviewees mention that
in Ninibar there exists, a social medium that cannot be found anywhere else. !t has
been previously mentioned that the interviewees find that in Ninibar there is a
socializing above consumption. And Ninibar is set as a meeting place for its
practitioners. !f you get together somewhere in a city, it is because of your friends,
not the `beauty' of that place, people embellish places..."
109
(Nb10) Participants know
that they can always find the people they like in Ninibar.
!n comparison to bars and nightclubs, interviewees tell that Ninibar provides a much
more comfortable environment. No loud music, no excessive noise. They describe
Ninibar as a place where you can hear each other and talk to each other. !n Ninibar
social relations, communication comes before consumption.
People have things to share, ! mean if you go to a bar, you can never
talk as much."
110
(Nb01)
Because the time you spent in Ninibar, is much better then the time
spent in a crowded place. Besides, there are even those who play football
at nights. They play but above all you can have a great chat there."
111

(Nb09)
!n the explanations of the interviewees on their preference for Ninibar, there is always
a comparison of Ninibar with the existing nightlife establishments of Ankara. One part
of the interviewees mention that they do not like to go to bars or nightclubs at all,
there are others who go both to Ninibar and to bars; yet they all express their
complaints regarding the established nightlife practices.
We are searching for a place where we can drink on the street, where we
can be free, with no dressing style imposed, with no control like identity,
age, dressing; a place where those things don't happen, where we can
drink, chat and freely hang out."
112
(Nb06)

109
Ya bi ehirde zaten biyerde toplaniyorsan tek sebebi arkadatir mekanin gzelligi degildir, yani
mekani gzelletiren insanlardir..." (Nb10), translated Deniz Altay
110
!nsanlarin birbiri ile paylamak istedikleri bieyler vardir yani. Ki mesela L.'a gitsen hi bi zaman bu
kadar konuamazsin yani." (Nb01), translated Deniz Altay
111
nk orada geirilen vakit gerekten bi byle siki piki bi kapali bi mekanda geirebilecegin
vakitten daha gzel olabiliyor yani. Bunun yaninda top oynayanlar bile olabiliyor yani gece. Top
oynuyolar. ya hereyden nce.. Genelde ok gzel bir sohbet var ite." (Nb09), translated by Deniz
Altay
112
Sokakta iebilecegimiz, rahat olabilecegimiz, bi giyim kalibina sokulmadan, kontrol edilmeden yok
kimlik kiyafet falan, bu tip eylerin olmadigi, zgrce iebildigimiz, muhabbet edebildigiimiz takildigimiz
biyer yani." (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
113
The complaints of Ninibar participants include the uncomfortable physical conditions,
the restrictive rules and the discriminative attitude present in bars and nightclubs. For
instance these are, as conveyed by the interviewees, the entrance fee, the high prices
of beverages, the obligation of buying drinks, of being accompanied by a lady, to be
evaluated according to your outfit, to listen to the given music etc.
Elsewhere they give you things, the music, the `you should sit over
here's, and what not. Sitting in a Ninibar is more of a social thing"
113

(Nb0+)
! am scared man, of those bars. `welcome', òver here' they say. You
have the `you can't enter without a lady' or `your identity please', Things
that scares me!"
11+
(Nb13)
According to the participants, these are the defects of the established nightlife, in
Ankara, in Turkey. The absence of these constraints makes Ninibar, the preferred
place of leisure in Ankara. Opposed to the ordinary nightclubs, there is `pure freedom'
in Ninibar. The space of Ninibar is therefore, the search of young people for this
freedom and for a relief from the imposed constraints too.
You don't have music or anything else here, you are on the street, pure
freedom; and Ankara is a city with beautiful streets."
115
(Nb01)
Like this, it has developed from lack of alternative in Ankara's nightlife.
That is why ! am really happy. Because, Ninibar is, when we had nothing
left to do, we've said `let's keep our position man, right in the street, drink
a beer and chat...' like that."
116
(Nb01)
!t is observed that Ninibar creates a leisure place, which is, in many ways, different
from the ordinary `places'. Ninibar stands, at the same time, against and within the
nightlife of Ankara. !t is a totally different place with an altered leisure practice and
hence, opposes the established `night practices'. !t also became a part of Ankara's
nightlife there is a considerable population who go to Ninibar before, after or beside
elsewhere.

113
Oteki yerlere gittiginde sana bieyler veriliyor: yok mzik, yok orada oturacaksin. Biraz daha sosyal
biey Ninibar da oturmak evet burada masada oturuyosun ite biey imek zorundasin, bi rahatlik yok.
ama orada o rahatlik var yani" (Nb0+), translated by Can Altay
11+
Ben bardan korkuyorum abi. Byle bi buyrun falan diyolar. Damsiz girilmez var. En korktugum
eyler. Kimlik gster..." (Nb13), translated by Deniz ALtay
115
Burda mzik falan yok safi zgrlk ite sokaktasin ki aslinda ankara da sokaklari guzel olan bi
ehir" (Nb01), translated by Deniz ALtay
116
Bu ekilde alternatifsizlikten geliti ite o yzden, ben bu yzden ok mutluyum yani. nk
Ninibar, kimse yapacak bir ey bulamayinca iyi biz de duralim yerimizde, sokaktaki konumumuzu
koruyalim bi tane de bira ielim gzelleelim muhabbet edelim" derken olutu ite." (Nb01), translated
by Deniz Altay
114
You have dressing constraints in the places you go out. ! don' no you
have the age constraint. Even in the place you go for drinking you have
things that limit you. Ninibar is different. Ninibar, ! think, is a respond to
that. ! mean it is somewhere we can have our own beers, we make our
own mixtures, where we have no age constraint, no economic constraint,
! don' no no dressing obligation, no `lady' obligation. !t exists as a
respond to those."
117
(Nb06)
!t should be underlined once again that the population who have created and chosen
Ninibar as their leisure place are driven by different reasons and motives. The
historical development of Ninibar as a leisure place and practice can be followed from
the conducted interviews. From the explanations of the `founders', it is learnt that, in
the beginning, Ninibar started, with few people who seek access to cheaper drinks
òutside' to continue their leisure ìnside'. Which turned in time into seeking both
cheaper drinks and leisure òutside'. !n time, the popularity of Ninibar increased and
different participant groups with varying purposes started to get included.
Ninibar provides a leisure alternative for the aggregate of these different choices, like
those who refuse to go out, to closed places; those who like being on the street and
also those youngest participants (younger than 18) of Ninibar who don't have any
access to night places at all. Ninibar is a place to hang out, both at night and in the
evening after school, both in the weekends and weekdays. !t became a place by itself
and not only an alternative to the nightlife of Ankara.
!n the final part of the study, the potentially embedded expressions and resistances in
an urban space re-defined by the inhabitants are searched. Ninibar is a space, which is
created through an alternative leisure practice developed according to the preferences
of its population. !nside these preferences favouring Ninibar, the discoveries of the
expressions of resistant meanings have been possible.
!nterviews with the Ninibar participants showed us that Ninibar is created through the
influence of several issues concerning the Ninibar population. First, is economic.
Ninibar" has been created under the existence of decaying economic conditions -
living standards, in the last decade of Turkey. !n other words, Ninibar is created within
the experience of an economic struggle, which led some of the city inhabitants in
search of a `way round'. Accordingly, Ninibar is firstly the expression of this economic
struggle - deterioration its participants have been through.

117
Gittigin yerde bi kiyafet kisitlamasi var. Ne biliyim ya ksitlamasi var. Yani, imeye gittigin
mekanda bile seni kasan durumlar var. Ninibar yle degil. Ninibar bence bunun tepkisidir. Yani;
Ninibar ite gidip biramizi alip, kendi kariimlarimizi yapip, ite mikslerimizi yapip itigimiz; ya
sinirlamasi olmayan, para sinirlamasi olmayan, ite ne biliyim kiyafet zorunlulugu olmayan, dam
zorunlulugu olmayan bir mekan bizim iin. Bunlara tepki olarak var." (Nb06), translated by Deniz Altay
115
Related to this economic concern, secondly, a struggle against the imposed
consumption and leisure norms upon the society in general is observed in Ninibar. The
Ninibar participants refuse this understanding of consumption-based leisure and resist
it through developing an alternative. Hence, Ninibar includes secondly, a resistance
against the imposed leisure and consumption styles.
Ninibar" has emerged primarily, under the influence of these issues. But in time,
taking its place within the nightlife of Ankara, Ninibar achieved to stand against the
established forms and contents of the existing bars and nightclubs. Again Ninibar
refuses all the constraints and conditions those places impose upon their customers.
Ninibar rejects the uncomfortable conditions or the discrimination treatment of these
places. So finally, Ninibar oppose to the standards of the established nightlife and
leisure places and develop its own ìdealised' alternative.
To conclude, it is possible to observe resistances in a re-defined space, in two ways.
First is parallel to the transgression of the existing norms of ùrban space': it is the
making of a space: a marginal space, a third space. Second is beneath the
transgressive operation of the user group, beneath what they try to express through
their practices and acts. What they try to express including what they express about
themselves, inform us about the culture and vision they share and also what they try
to emphasize, criticize and about what they care for.
So both the act of `making space' and the re-defined space itself provides a medium of
expression or resistance for the alternative user group. The marginal space
(Hetherington, 1998; Soja, 1996), the third space (Soja, 1996), the lived space
(Lefebvre, 1971) hence turns out to be a free(r) ground of expression and discussion
for the inhabitant. !t transgresses the so far `death' or the so-called `public sphere'.

+.+.3. CONCLUS!ON

!nvestigating the potentially inhered resistant meanings in the spaces of the inhabitant
it is observed that the urban spaces where Ninibar takes place, are appropriated and
re-defined by the Ninibar participants, in their search for a place where their
`preferred' kind of leisure practice is possible. With this aim Ninibar participants, in
their everyday practices, have exercised a new use on the existing urban space and
they have carried on a `tactical operation' through it, to reach their ènds'.
116
Both the space and practice of Ninibar is marginal and resistant in the way it
questions, criticizes, challenges, and transgresses the established norms of urban
space and it's predetermined uses; and in the way it implicitly, hinder and attack the
everyday exercise of power" by doing so. Additionally; the new use and alternative
socio-spatial practice, comprise expressions of the needs, problems, struggles, dreams
and desires, which make up the preferences of Ninibar participants, in their nightlife
leisure activities.
!nnumerable ways of playing and foiling the other's game, that is, the
space instituted by others, characterize the subtle, stubborn, resistant
activity of groups which, since they lack their own space, have to get
along in a network of already established forces and representations.
118

(de Certeau, 198+a: 18)
For the realisation of their ìdealised' practice, Ninibar population appropriate the
urban space and create the `spaces of Ninibar. They re-define and challenge the
established urban space, which does not allow the practice of such new use in it self
and in its definition. As Pile explains, following de Certeau' s opinions, resistances are
not only acts taking place in place, but they also seek to appropriate space, to make
new spaces." (Pile, 1997: 16).
Ninibar" - the space created through the practice of Ninibar, is accepted in this study
as the space of the inhabitant, of the urban user. Ninibar is firstly a `lived space', or a
representational space as Lefebvre (1971) defines. The study revealed also that the
`re-defined space' and Ninibar as an example; is a marginal space (see Hetherington,
1998; Soja, 1996). The marginality of Ninibar is constructed through its different and
resistant practice that has been discussed so far.
!n the gatherings, festival sites, squats, encampments, protest sites,
occupations, cafes, communes and so on that make up the topography of
expressive identities we see utopic at work - Utopic of the margin as a
space of freedom, resistance, alternative moral order and authenticity.
(Hetherington, 1998: 129)
Noreover, just like Hetherintgton remarks, in Ninibar" an ùtopic at work' can be
found. Hetherington giving a general account of the concept, explains that utopic is a
`spatial practice, in which ideas about a `better' society - defined as better within a
structure of feeling - are made visible...' (Hetherington, 1998: 130) Similar to the way
ùtopia' represent a good - idealised space, in a no place - an imaginary place (see

118
Quoted from Pile, 1997: 15
117
Hetherington, 1998); the re-defined space or the marginal space includes the search
for idealised conditions.
As it is observed so far in Ninibar, the users try to carve out a space for their own, by
appropriating, re-defining the existing; by introducing an alternative order and
transgressing the established; and beneath their resistant practices they seek for a
`better' nightlife.
The creation of alternative ways of life is not really utopic (in the sense
to establish fixed and permanent communities.) They are more
heterotopic, they use marginal òther places' as sites of social centrality to
create fleeting but transitional identifications out of which new identities
emerge. (Hetherington, 1998: 125)
The way Ninibar, challenges the existing space through developing and practicing an
alternative use includes a utopic side, but not completely. Ninibar includes the search
for ideal conditions, and it produces a fleeting, ephemeral space where these
conditions can be realised. !t neither seeks a permanent and constructed space, nor a
radically different order.
Heterotopias are constituted through unsettling established modes of
representing and ordering, rather than because of any intrinsic otherness
within a site itself. (Hetherington, 1998: 131)
As Hetherington (1998) asserts, marginal spaces are more `heterotopic'. A concept
introduced by Foucault (1997) to describes `sites of alternate ordering' (Hetherington,
1998: 131), which are not defined within the existing; but which can exist in spite it
(Foucault, 1997). Heterotopias, meaning literally òther places', are sites established
through incongruous spatial relations that challenge the spaces of representation and
their mode of representation within the society." (Hetherington, 1998: 131)
Heterotopias are sites in which all things displaced, marginal, rejected,
ambivalent are represented, and this representation becomes the basis of
an alternate mode of ordering that has the effect of offering contrast to
the dominant representation of social order. (Hetherington, 1998: 131)
!n these òther places', an alternative order including different conditions, which
normally cannot take place, are achieved. As Hetherington mentions, `heterotopia' is
important in allowing the spatiality of expressive identities, marginality and
resistances. (Hetherington, 1998)
118
!t is totally like a saved ground. Things are free here, but only to a
point..."
119
(Nb10)
Foucault's discussion on òther places' makes the discussion on Ninibar possible, as
`transient' spaces achieved through alternative practices of the inhabitant, as an
independent space which is free from any previous conceptualisations and which blurs
and transgress the existing limits to write its own definition, and finally as a space
embodying the different expressions and resistances of its users. Ending our journey
into Ninibar, it should be mentioned that, by accepting the possibility of such a space,
an actual picture of one group of urban dweller, with many implications about the
society in general, and about the contemporary culture is obtained.

+.5. CONCLUS!ONS FOR THE CASE STUDY

The major purpose of the research was to understand the production of urban spaces
in the practices of the inhabitants. This is a process of appropriation, use,
interpretation and re-definition. The second aim was to understand the circumstances
through which these `marginal' spaces became possible practically, spatially and
temporally. Further, the research aimed to discover all that is unknown but embedded
in the spaces produced by the inhabitant. As the research proceeded, it revealed
different expressions uttered by the investigated user group and implicit resistances
expressed through the phenomenon. The way the inhabitants expressed and resisted
through the space they have produced was the final field to be investigated.
Within this frame, the research conducted an in-depth interview study; realised with
Ninibar participants, and evaluated through the `Grounded Theory Analysis' methods.
With the aim of exploring the `re-defined spaces' in detail, the interview study
questioned every aspect of the case at hand, not only to provide a detailed depiction
on a single case, but also to reveal hidden processes that are intrinsic to other re-
defined urban spaces too.
As an initiatory step, for the proper evaluation and interpretation of the interview
findings and for carrying them to the construction of wider ideas on the lived spaces,
discussions on the location of the case within the city and an analysis on the
participant group are provided. The conclusions drawn by this step of investigation

119
Tamamen kurtarilmi bir blge gzyle bakabilirsin aslinda. Burada byle, bir eyler serbest ama
tadini kairmamak kaydiyla" (Nb10), translated by Deniz Altay
119
showed that Ninibar takes place in one of the important sub-centres of Ankara:
Kavaklidere - Tunali Hilmi Avenue, which are also considered as the extension of the
Central Business District of Ankara. Depending on the work of Gven (1998, 2001) it
is understood that people with higher ìncome-status' profiles use the Kavaklidere
district, which is situated in the southern part of Ankara and surrounded by districts of
a similar profile. !n relation it is also determined that the Ninibar participant
represents a higher income-status profile too.
The following discussion on the `definition' of Ninibar provided a clear understanding
on the process introduced by Lefebvre as the `production' of space, taking place in the
`lived' moment of spatiality. (Lefebvre, 1991) The definition of Ninibar, given by the
participants, verifies the fact that Ninibar belongs to the sphere of `spaces of
representation'. The space is defined through a practice, which is daily to the
participant group. !t is observed that the re-definition of the urban space is realised
through the introduction of a new use to the urban space. Through the practice of this
new use an alternative space is produced. Therefore, it is understood that this practice
is an act - an òperation' of the participant group and that Ninibar" represents both
an act and the alternative space created through this act.
The following investigations on the definition of Ninibar have also revealed an
important aspect about the case. !t is the direct relation of the participant group with
the created space. As experienced in the case of Ninibar when different participants,
with different aims and motives, get involved to the act the nature and meaning of the
created space change. Different motives bring a different practice and change the
space. Henceforth, one more time, it is understood that the space of the inhabitant is
also in direct relation with the exercised practice.
The first investigations proved that the inhabitants produce spaces in practice. These
spaces are obtained by the re-definition of the existing space. This production is
however different than the design, plan and construction of the urban space by the
professionals and the authority. Respectively, the next step in this study was the
investigation of the spatial characteristics of the inhabitant's space. !f the space of the
inhabitant is defined in ways different than the established space, through different
means and tools, the investigation was remaining for the exploration of the spatiality
of Ninibar and of urban spaces re-defined likewise.
The research and observations at the site revealed that the participants appropriate
the urban space and the existing urban elements temporarily, to define the space of
Ninibar in physical terms. The spaces of Ninibar do not have any physical-structural
120
element to define its boundaries, to set its limits. The practice of Ninibar makes use of
the existing urban setting, like the walls, stairs of the apartment blocks or the
pavements and occupies them temporarily to meet the physical requirements of the
practice. But most importantly, it is discovered in the research that the physical
definition - `construction' of the spaces of Ninibar depends mostly on the presence of
the Ninibar crowd.
That is how the space of Ninibar is understood to be dependent upon the participant
group one more time, but this time in physical terms; the space can move with its
practitioners. This makes the space of Ninibar a mobile, fleeting and ìmpermanent'
space, which is generated wherever people get together to drink on the street. Hence
its boundaries are flexible, indefinite and as they are unbuilt boundaries they are
permeable. The discussions about the boundaries of Ninibar introduced us another
aspect of Ninibar: !t's ephemerality.
The questions about the spatiality of Ninibar have been thereby answered. There is no
permanent construction in the re-defined spaces of Ninibar. Different than the formal
production-construction processes, it is only produced through the bodily presence and
the active participation of the inhabitant. When the practice is ended and when the
participants leave, the spaces of Ninibar disappear.
Both the practice and the spaces it produce are transient; thus they do not change and
transform the existing space. The relation and interaction with the established space is
temporary. The practice is not a destructive one, not intentionally; however it is a
`transgressive' one, it plays with the established limits to create its own.
Related to the transgressive nature of the act, there is one additional factor, which
influence the boundaries-limits of the re-defined space. !t is what has been defined as
the `power-play' in this study. The production of a space like Ninibar is not freely
directed by the will of the inhabitant group, it also struggles with the reactions of
different inhabitant groups: the passers-bye, the neighbourhood residents, the shop
owners and the control mechanism of the authority: the police.
The investigation of these rivalry relations revealed several important issues. First is
related to the tensions emerging with the act of Ninibar. The act is not in conformity
with every inhabitant; it transgresses the space of other inhabitants as it transgresses
the established space, consequently it meets up with counter-operations. The
operation of the Ninibar participants therefore includes a struggle to keep the practice
121
continue in time, and this operation is `tactical' in the way de Certeau explained. (de
Certeau, 198+)
The research showed that in general, these tactics are spontaneously (and not
deliberately) developing in respond to the reactions and counter-operations of the
neighbourhood residents. First of these tactics, is an environmental concern and
responsibility developed through the complaints of the residents. Second includes
temporary recessions, made to relax the residents and decrease the tension
momentarily. !t should be strongly stressed that the spatial characteristics of Ninibar -
the ephemerality, impermanency, mobility, permeability: the flexibility - constitute a
complementary part of this tactical operation. The flexible spatiality of Ninibar
becomes a device in maintaining the continuance of Ninibar.
The practice of Ninibar is sustained through these tactics. The rivalry relations are also
brought to a `balanced point' through these tactics. However it has also been
discussed that Ninibar has a privileged position due to its socio-economic profile as a
central district that is supportive in this respect. Through such operations, it is seen
that Ninibar has infiltrated into the city, inscribing its practice on the streets of
Ankara.
On the other hand, the tactical operation, the struggle and the alternative practice of
the Ninibar participants entangle expressions and resistances. Above all, the act of
Ninibar, the act of re-defining spaces is a resistance against the established space; yet
there are also other expressions and resistances to be found in the space and practice
of Ninibar. Finally, the research investigated these potential expressions and
resistances and explored several, maybe only part of the existing.
First tendency is always to search for specific identity expressions within cases like
Ninibar. Yet the space and the participants prove immediately the contrary. Based on
previous youth studies and cultural studies, these expressions could have been related
to sub-cultures and style-based expressions, or to `marginal' identities in a political
sense, or to the self-expression of oppressed and resistances to the unfavourable
imposed positions. None of them were observed in Ninibar.
!t was neither possible to determine the expression of a political concern, or an
identity, nor to determine a common style shared by every participant. The
participants emphasized no consciousness for shared values and beliefs during the
interviews.
122
On the other hand an important medium of expression was explored during the
research, in the investigation of `the socio-spatial practice'. The understanding of the
motives behind the act, and questioning the preference for Ninibar over other places
revealed a position shared among all of the participants and therefore the expressions
and resistances hidden in the case of Ninibar has been brought to light.
!n relation, the expression of an economic concern and struggle, the resistance against
the uncomfortable conditions imposed by the established nightlife practices, against
the lack of choice to supply different and against the discriminative constraints present
in bar entrances have been explored. These expressions and resistances are not
necessarily political in content. As it has been discussed following the writings of Keith
and Pile, resistances can also take place in the everyday life. The resistances
prominent in Ninibar reveal most importantly the search for better - ideal economic,
social and physical conditions, for an ìdeal' leisure activity and the place for its
practice. Therefore, we can finally say that the spaces of Ninibar are like the spaces
that difference make", as Soja defines but without a radical political discourse. They
are also heterotopic places as defined by Foucault: spaces of an idealised, alternate
ordering.

123

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUS!ON:D!SCUSS!ONS ON THE SPACES OF THE !NHAB!TANT

The goal of a rock concert, a play, a public gathering, and so on, is less
one of peeling the immemorial truth from its laminations in a work than of
allowing a collectivity to be constituted through the act of self-
representation. !ts collective gesture is something marginal in relation to
former practices. !t is also a productive act, and if it stages various and
diverse functions, it no longer obeys a law that separates actors from
spectators. This, at least, is the direction that current research is taking."
(de Certeau, 1997: 13+)
The study depends on a social understanding of the (urban) space and aims to see
and understand the urban space from within the everyday life and the inhabitants of
the city. The position taken belongs therefore to the sphere of actual urban space and
experience, of the everyday life: to the ground level". (de Certeau, 198+) The primary
aim was to reveal the potential and dynamism the daily life comprises. This is the
richness the urban inhabitants possess, their differences, their various acts and habits
and their peculiarities.
Accepting that the space is incomplete without the inhabitant and that the urban space
can only be accomplished when it is lived, appropriated and re-defined by the
inhabitant, the urban space within its everyday life entangles quickly all the richness of
the inhabitant. This understanding on space accepts the capacity of the inhabitant to
contribute to the production of spaces in their daily practices. By developing their own,
peculiar uses, they re-define the existing space and produce their own (alternative)
space.
The research problematic is constructed around this idea. Two main aims have been
set for the research study. First is to uncover the space of the inhabitant through the
investigation of the process of `re-definition of spaces' and the nature of the re-defined
space - the produced space itself. By suggesting the investigation of the urban space
within the daily practices of the inhabitant as a tool and medium for obtaining actual
124
knowledge on the inhabitant, on the society and on wider cultural, economic and
political processes; the second aim is to explore the characteristics of inhabitant
groups and the expressions and resistances they intrinsically manifest through the
practice they exercise and the space they produce.
The major principle around which the study has developed was to maintain a
relational, multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional perspective towards the elaborated
problems. This perspective is considered to be crucial for researches on the city and
urban space, which are very complex and multi-dimensional themselves. First of all,
the study combines the social and spatial dimensions of the city. The methodology of
the research has been developed in order to elucidate every dimension of the case and
to create the possibility to discover more, by questioning relations and connections
between different issues. Finally, the methods of in-depth interviewing" and
Grounded Theory Analysis" have been appropriated for these goals.
This perspective can also be followed in the theoretical frame constructed for the
study. The theoretical ground, through which the case and problematic are elaborated,
combines different fields of discussions, which are united around similar points. These
theories are located in two inter-connected fields of study. First include socio-spatial
discussions, theories on the production of space and everyday life, accounted in the
second chapter and referred many times through out the evaluation of the case study;
and second include socio-cultural discussions, the youth cultural studies and identity
discussions referred in the final part of the research evaluation. These discussions are
brought together around the investigated urban problematic.
The significance of the study in this respect is the development of observations,
discussions and evaluations on the case - the actual urban space - parallel and
connected to these wider theoretical discussions. This way of investigation made
possible the connection of theories and abstract discussions with actual phenomena.
The case of Ninibar has been examined in this direction with the development of a
special methodology, with the aim of producing wider knowledge about the space of
the inhabitant, the lived spaces and the re-defined spaces. Nethodologically, the study
can be accepted as a model for further researches on the spaces of inhabitant.
Depending on the findings and conclusions about the case study, Ninibar can be
briefly explained as the places, where young people come together to drink and to
socialize, on the streets of Ankara, starting from the evening hours until late at night,
especially in the warm weather seasons. Ninibar takes place in one of the main sub-
125
centres of Ankara: the Kavaklidere district, which can also be accepted as the
extension of the Central Business District. Depending to the observations made in the
field, Kavaklidere comprises many leisure activities, cafs, bars and restaurants.
Neighbourhoods of higher socio-economic profile - the `southern' region of Ankara,
surrounds this district, (Gven, 2001) therefore Kavaklidere addresses to socio-
economically higher groups.
This profile is also observed among the participants. Depending on the resided
districts, the families of Ninibar participants reveal higher incomefstatus profiles. The
research findings show that the participants are economically assured, educated, but
economically dependent on their families.
Within this context, the definition of Ninibar", as a space, is investigated. The study
shows that spaces of Ninibar are defined through the performed socio-spatial practice
that of gathering and drinking on the streets and through the specificities of this
parctice, which is different than the assigned uses of the urban space. This makes
Ninibar", not only a space but also an act - a operation of the inhabitant.
!n physical terms the spaces of Ninibar" are again different than the establised urban
environment. The space is not a constructed, material entity. !t is defined physically by
the temporary appropriation of the urban elements by the Ninibar participants and by
their own presence; hence it is produced by the inhabitant group. Furthermore, the
created space, as this is an un-built space, can move, change form, emerge and
disappear with the participant group. This is a mobile, impermanent and ephemeral
space; and its boundaries are not fixed, they are transparent and permeable. Ninibar
is a completely flexible space.
The relation of Ninibar with the urban space is a transient one. Therefore, it does not
intentionally change or damage the existing space. The space is in the control of the
participants, directed through their socio-spatial practices; but not totally. There are
other power relations which limit and influence the spaces of Ninibar. These are the
`rivalry relations' with the other users of the area and the police. There is a struggle
discovered in the act of Ninibar, to make the space possible.
This struggle includes the development of different `tactics' by the different inhabitant
groups. Ninibar contiunes due to its `flexibility' in spatial terms and due to different
tactics developed by the participant group in response to the counter-operations of the
residents, however the priviledge of the district, as a safer and more prestigious
district, can not be neglected.
126
Finally, the inquiry on the expressions and resistances inhered in the spaces of
Ninibar, revealed that there does not exist the expression of specific identities in the
Ninibar phenomenon. But the performed practice revealed various points of concern,
expressions and resistances. !n Ninibar, the intrinsic resistance includes firstly the
expression of an economic circumstance and struggle and the search for an alternative
; then the rejection of the accustomed nightlife practices and of the established
constraints and judgements imposed on the clients.
After the brief account on the evaluation of the case study findings, in this part, we
would like to note down the implications of the case study about the urban space, the
spatial practices of the urban user and the spaces produced by the inhabitant in
general.
Firstly, the close observation of the case of Ninibar, an actual and recent urban
phenomenon, proved that the (urban) space could be manipulated, transformed and
(re) produced in the `hands' of the inhabitant, after being produced and provided by
the urban professionals and the authority or the investors. This was one of the main
assertions of the thesis. Ninibar is the outcome of such an operation.
This kind of making space is formulated as `the re-definition of the urban space' in this
study. The re-defined space is the space produced by the urban dweller in their daily
practices. This second assertion, which depends on the work of important theoreticians
like Henri Lefebvre and Nichel de Certeau, is also exemplified in the investigation of
Ninibar"; this of course is not for the first time in literature. The elaboration of the
issue through the case of Ninibar provided the understanding that the urban space
acquires new meanings and therefore a new definition through the development and
practice of a `new use' on it. This particular `way of using' includes, as postulated by
de Certeau, an act of production: the production of spaces. For instance, it is observed
that the spaces of Ninibar are produced by the practice of a newly introduced use, a
leisure activity: that of drinking on the streets.
The third implication is on the notion of the introduced new use. The research shows
that a new use is developed following the particular needs, demands, desires and
choices of the inhabitant group, who formulates and practices it. Accordingly the
practice of this new use carries particularities about the inhabitant group. !t is through
the practice of this use that the inhabitant becomes represented in the urban space
and it is through this practice that the inhabitant groups express themselves and their
situation, and manifest their attitudes or resistances.
127
Related to that, it is seen that the spaces re-defined through the practice of these
peculiar uses - the spaces of the inhabitant - are created as a consequence of
circumstances weighing upon the inhabitant or of a search or struggle. A fourth
implication reveals that it is under this pretext that the inhabitants justify their act.
Because, the introduced use and its implications on the existing urban space may not
always be in conformity with the urban space itself and with the other users of the
environment.
!n this respect, if the space of the inhabitant is accepted as a search for a way out, for
a solution or as the outcome of a demand; the sixth implication is that these spaces
represent this sought solution, an idealised position, which makes itself possible
despite the existing, imposed conditions. Within this perspective the space of the
inhabitant has a counter position and it intrinsically embeds a resistance.
On the other hand, the spaces produced in daily practices are different than the
established spaces. Taking Ninibar as an example, the space produced by the
inhabitant is not a permanent construction. !t is physically defined through bodily
presence and active participation. !t temporarily occupies the established space to
define its own space. !t is not destructive, but it is transgressive. !t plays with the
existing definitions of the provided urban space and it plays with the limits of other
inhabitant's spaces to define and create its own space. That is why the inhabitant
group need a justification for their òperation.'
Finally, The re-defined urban space, with this resistant position, is not so easily and
smoothly possible. To make its space possible, the inhabitant group enters into a
struggle and carries a `tactical operation'. The spatiality of, in other words the spatial
attributes of, the re-defined spaces (the ephemerality, the impermanency, the
mobility, the flexibility) are the main parts and devices of this operation. Other tactics
are developed as spontaneous responds to the envisaged reactions. Yet it is only
through this tactical operation that the inhabitants achieve to create their spaces, to
manifest their concerns and to exercise the practice they develop.
!n conclusion, within this formulation, the lived space introduces itself as a medium of
expression: an unlimited and free expression, not explicitly conveyed but hidden in the
`marginal' practices of the inhabitant. Accordingly, the re-defined space proves to be
an effective medium to acquire knowledge on different inhabitant groups and to obtain
actual scenes on the influence of wider social, cultural, economic or political processes.
128
Ninibar, not only revealed the socio-cultural profile of a youth group, but also
elucidated wider socio-economic processes that have reflected on them. Reminding
that the main focus was on the urban (spatial) processes, which makes places like
Ninibar possible, few of them have been discovered in this study. Others remain to be
discovered and discussed.
For instance, information on the nightlife practices in Ankara is obtained through the
interview-based research. A specialized examination could have been carried out
through Ninibar for investigating the nightlife preferences of youth groups, in a
cultural context. Another promising field of examination could be on wider fashion
trends in the world and their relation with consumerist culture. !n this study important
impressions on the influence of west oriented fashion trends and movements on
people, their effects on identity construction are acquired. !n the discussions on
Ninibar participants, the issue has been elaborated widely, but more specific
discussions can be made in the field of cultural studies or fashion studies.
The most important issue revealed by Ninibar is about the economic circumstances in
Turkey. !nvestigating the motives behind the creation of Ninibar, an economic concern
prominent among the participants has been explored. This was the search for cheaper
leisure solutions. This search depends on wider economic processes taking place in
Turkiye. The beginning of crises period in Turkish economy matches with the
beginning of Ninibar. Therefore, it is possible to find the implications of these
economic developments on middle and high-income families in Ninibar. An issue,
which is left to the investigation of economists, is the inevitable change in the
consumption habits of middle-income families, which led them in search of more
èconomic' solutions without changing the habits. The reasons behind this may the
sharpening inequalities in income distributions, or an experienced impoverishment, the
decrease in purchasing power of middle and low-income families and so on. Similar
possible effects of economic developments on the society constitute very important
fields of investigation for economists and sociologists.
While Ninibar brings out these further areas of investigation, other spaces in the city
geography, like Ninibar, can always provide endless hints and pictures about similar
issues, on various fields. This is believed to be the main significance of the field of
study - the significance of `lived spaces' and `daily practices of the inhabitant' as a
field of study. The introduced approach succeeds in providing actual information on
social issues, which will remain unknown, hidden and unexpected; or overlooked
through other stand points.
129
Through this account the questions about the uniqueness of the case have been
answered. Ninibar is unique, in the way it is not possible to find a completely parallel
example to it. But it is as unique as its subjects - the inhabitants who create it - are
unique. Different inhabitant groups develop different spaces like Ninibar, but for the
exercise of different practices, motivated through different circumstances and
conditions, seeking ideals on different issues. This is why; the spaces of the inhabitant
- the lived spaces - are made by differences. As it is seen these are not obligatorily
radical and political differences, but simple and daily. However, these are considered
as eminent signs of wider processes, in the way they actually influence and effect the
urban dweller and not in the way they are told to be. The actual truth on society is on
the streets and in the daily practices of the inhabitants.
Reciprocally, this further information acquired by the investigation of the case of
Ninibar is limited. The explored issues are limited with the peculiarities of the case and
of the participant group. The widest information we can acquire is limited with the
other inhabitant groups the participants have relations with. A conclusion about the
society in general is not possible through this approach. Noreover, although the study
reached to some characteristics of the `re-defined' spaces, these can only be accepted
as general ideas and not as specific, unchangeable rules about lived spaces. !t is not
possible to determine fixed rules and ideas about that space because in the everyday
life of the city they are in a continuous change and dynamism. The lived spaces and
the everyday life are rich, vital and unpredictable spheres of the city.
The significance of the case, both as a re-defined space and as a medium of
understanding the city and the inhabitant has been accounted so far. The introduced
approach has been evaluated, both with the possibilities and limitations it bring. A final
discussion that should be made is on the implications of the case about the
professional practice of Urban Design.
The re-defined space is mentioned as a medium of (free) expression in the study and
the motives behind this production are explained as related to the needs, desires,
demands and choices of the inhabitant group. The first emerging question can
therefore be, whether or not to consider these uncovered expressions as an input for
the design process of the city space. Considering the discovered expressions; of a
search, a demand, as we have been explaining so far, as input for the design process
is possible, these expressions and demands can be leading and informing inputs for
urban design; however they will lead to several difficulties.
130
First of all, these are the demands of minor user groups, not necessarily valid for the
residents and users of a district in general. !n other words, these are not the
expressions of demand that are mutually determined by the members of a
geographical zone. The idea of a `neighbourhood' as a socio-geographical unit does
not necessarily functions for cases like Ninibar". The participants of Ninibar are one
of the user groups of the district and it is also seen that other users of the locality do
not always accept their opinions and practices. Therefore the expressions of Ninibar
participants can only implicate smaller interventions, but not general ideas on the
planning and design of the urban space.
On the other hand observing such cases like Ninibar, gives a motivation for the urban
designer: to create the flexibility and possibility within the urban space, for leaving the
opportunity to different inhabitant groups, to appropriate the existing space and to
produce their own spaces. This can be for instance by the use of physical urban
elements in the public space, like using walls, stairs, corners, indentions or protrusions
on both horizontal and vertical surfaces. The use of different urban elements to
promote interaction with the urban spaces will provide various mediums for inhabitants
to develop their own socio-spatial practices, to create their own spaces, and to
appropriate and re-define the urban space. Therefore, the use of such tactics in design
will increase the liveliness and vitality in the urban public spaces.

131

REFERENCES

Akura, Tugrul; (1971) Ankara: Trkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin Bakenti Uzerine Nonografik
Bir Aratirma; ODTU Nimarlik Fakltesi yayinlari: Ankara
Altaban, Ozcan; (1986a), Kamu Yapilari ve Yer Seim Sreleri", pp. 31-+9; ed.
Tekeli, Altaban, Gven, Trel, Gnay, Bademli, Ankara 1985' ten 2015'e; EGO Genel
Ndrlg: Ankara
Altaban, Ozcan; (1986b), Ankara Kentsel Alaninin Dogal evreye Yayilimi", pp. 126 -
1+8; ed. Tekeli, Altaban, Gven, Trel, Gnay, Bademli, Ankara 1985' ten 2015'e;
EGO Genel Ndrlg: Ankara
Altaban, Ozcan; (1998), Cumhuriyet' in Kent Planlama Politikalari ve Ankara
Deneyimi", ed. Yildiz Sey, 75 Yilda Degien Kent ve Nimarlik, Bilano98: Tarih vakfi
yayinlari: !stanbul
Altay, Can; interview by Kosova, Erden; (2001), "Ninibar", pp 272 - 27+; in the
catalogue of 'Becoming a Place' exhibition (sept.21 - november 2+), Proje +L
Altay, Can; (2003), catalogue text, How Lattitudes Become Forms: Art in a Global Age,
Walker Art Centre: Ninneapolis
Arksey, Hillary and Knight, Peter; (1999), !nterviewing for Social Scientists: an
!ntroductory Resource with Examples, Sage publications: London - Thousand Oaks -
New Delhi
Aug, Narc; (1991), Non Places: !ntroduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,
verso: London, New York,
Bademli, Raci; (1986), Ankara Nerkezi ! Alaninin Geliimi", pp.15+ - 162; ed. Tekeli,
Altaban, Gven, Trel, Gnay, Bademli, Ankara 1985' ten 2015'e; EGO Genel
Ndrlg: Ankara
Baudrillard, Jean; (1981), For a Critique of the Political Economies of Sign, Telos
press: St. Louis
132
Bauman, Z. (1987); Legislators and The !nterpretors: On Nodernity, Post-modernity
and !ntellectuals, Polity Press: Cambridge
Bell, David and valentine, Gill; (1997) Consuming Geographies: We are Where We Eat;
Routledge: London, New York
Borden, !ain; (1996), Beneath The Pavement, The Beach, Skateboarding, Architecture
and The Urban Realm", pp. 82-86, eds. Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell; Strangely
Familiar; Routledge: London, New York
Borden, !ain; (1998), Body Architecture", ed. Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between
The Architect and The User; Routledge: London, New York
Borden, !ain; (2001), Another Pavement, Another Beach: Skateboarding and the
Performative Critique of Architecture", p.178 - 200, eds. Borden, Kerr, Pivaro, Rendell;
The Unknown City: Contesting Architecture and Social Space; Routledge: London, New
York
Breward, Christopher; (2003), Fashion, Oxford History of Art: Oxford, New York
Brooker, Peter; (1999); The Concise Glossary of Cultural Theory, Arnold: London
Buchmanna, N; (2002), The Sociology of Youth Culture, online university of Zurich
Certeau, Nichel de; (198+), The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California
Press: Berkeley, Los Angelos, London
Certeau, Nichel de; (1997), Culture in Plural, University of Ninnesota press:
Ninneapolis - London
Charmaz, Kath; (2003), Qualitative !nterviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis",
pp311-331; in !nside !nterviewing, eds. Holstein J.A. and Gubrium J.F.; Sage
publications: London - Thousand Oaks - New Delhi
Christina, Diaz Noreno; !mpermanent Architecture"; Diaz Noreno, Christina; Garcia
Grinda, Efren; Quadren 22+, (1999); in, The Netapolis Dictionary Of Advanced
Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the !nformatiion Age; (2003), authors:
Gausa N., Gaullart v., Nller W.,Soriano F., Norales J.; Actar: Barcelona.
133
Clarke, J.; (1976), The Skinheads and the Nagical Recovery of Working Class
Community", in S. Hall et al. (eds.), Resistance Through Rituals, Hutchinson; in
Hebdige, (1979)
Cohen, Albert; (1955), Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gangs, Free Press; quoted
in Hebdige(1979, 1999)
Cohen, Phil; (1972), Sub-cultural Conflict and Working Class Community", W.P.C.S 2,
University of Birmingham; in Hebdige(1979, 1999)
Crang, Nike; (2001), "Rythms of the City: Temporalised Space and Notion", pp. 187-
207; Timespace: Geographies on Temporality; eds. Nay, Thrift; Routledge: London -
New York
Creswell, Tim; (1998), "Night Discourse: Producing f Consuming Neaning on Street",
The !mages of The Street, ed. Fyfe; Routledge: London - New York
Cullingworth, Barry; (1997) Planning in the USA: Policies, !ssues and Processes;
Routledge, New York
Dingwall, Cathie and Haye, Amy de la; (1996), Surfers Soulies Skinheads and Skaters:
Subcultural Style From the +0s to the 90s; v8A (victoria and Albert Nuseum): London
Doron, Gil N.;(2003a) www.geocities.comfgilmdoronftheDZ.html, last access Nay 200+
Doron, Gil N.; (2003b) www.geocities.comfgilmdoronfTransgressivearchitecture.html,
last access Nay 200+
Ellis, C. and Berger, L.; (2003), "Their Story f Ny Story f Our Story: !ncluding the
Researcher Experience in !nterviewing Process", pp. +67-+9+; in !nside !nterviewing,
eds. Holstein J.A. and Gubrium J.F.; Sage publications: London - Thousand Oaks - New
Delhi
Esterberg, Kristin G.; (2002), Qualitative Nethods in Social Research, NcGraw Hill: USA
Featherstone, N.; (1991), Consumer Culture and Postmodernism; Sage: Newsbury
Park, CA
Felski (2000), in Crang, Nike; (2001), "Rythms of the City: Temporalised Space and
Notion", pp. 187-207; Timespace: Geographies on Temporality; eds. Nay, Thrift;
Routledge: London - New York
134
Firth, Simon; (198+), The Sociology of Youth, Causeway books: Lanchashire
Fishman, Robert; (1995), America's New City: Negapolis Unbound"; originally from
Negapolis Unbound", The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1990, pp. 25-+5; article + in Urban
Society -annual editions (7th edition), Fred Seigel-the Cooper Union, Dushkin pub.
Group, USA,
Foucault, Nichel; (1977), Language, Counter Nemory Practice; ed. Donald F.
Bauchard, Basil Blackwell: Oxford
Foucault, Nichel; (1997), Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias", pp. 350-356;
in ed. Leach, Neil; Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory; Routledge:
London, New York
Garreau, Joel; (1991), Edge City, Anchor books.
Gay, Paul du; (1996), Consumption and !dentity at Work; Sage Publications: London -
Thousand Oaks - New Delhi
Gramsci, Antonio; (1990), The Historical Role of Cities", pp. 150-+; Selections From
Political Writings, 1910-1920; University pf Ninnesota Press: Ninneapolis
Gramsci, Antonio; (1991), Culture and !deological Hegemony", pp.+7-5+ in eds.
Alexander J.C. and Seidman S., Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Gven, Nurat And !ik, Oguz; (1996), !stanbul'u Okumak: Stat - Konut Nlkiyeti
Farklilamasi Uzerine Bir zmleme Denemesi," pp.8-58, Toplum ve Bilim no. 71
Gven, Nurat; (1998), Be Bykehir' de Stat-Gelir Temelinde Nekansal
Farklilama: !likisel zmlemeler", pp. 115-138, ed. Yildiz Sey, 75 Yilda Degien Kent
ve Nimarlik; Bilano98: Tarih vakfi yayinlari: !stanbul
Gven, Nurat; (2001), Ankara' da StatfKken Farklilamasi; 1990 Sayim
Orneklemleri Uzerinde Blokmodel" zmlemeleri", pp. 17-3+; ed. Yavuz, Yildirim,
Tarih !inde Ankara !!; ODTU Nimarlik Fakltesi: Ankara
Harris, David; (1992), From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure: The Effects of
the Gramscianism on Cultural Studies; Routledge: London, New York
135
Hebdige, Dick; (1979), Subculture: The Neaning of Style, Routledge: London, New
York
Hebdige, Dick; (1999), The Function of Subculture", pp.++1-+50; in eds. During,
Simon; The Cultural Studies Reader; Routledge: London, New York
Hetherington, Kevin; (1998), Expression of !dentity: Space, Performnce, Politics;
Routledge: London, New York
Hill, Jonathan; (1998), !ntroduction", pp. 1-12, ed. Hill, Occupying Architecture:
Between The Architect and The User; Routledge: London, New York
Hooper, Barbara and Soja, Edward W.; (1993), The Spaces That Difference Nakes:
Some Notes on The Geographical Nargins of the New Cultural Politics", pp. 282-95, ed.
Nicheal Keith and Steve Pile, Place and The Politics of !dentity; Routledge: London,
New York
Jacobs, Jane; (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House.
Jameson, F.; (1985), Postmodernism and The Consumer", pp.111-25 in ed. Foster,
H.; Postmodern Culture, Pluto press: London
Kepenek, Yakup and Yenitrk, Nurhan; (2001), Trkiye Ekonomisi; Remzi Kitabevi:
!stanbul, 13
th
ed.
Knox, Paul L.; (1993), The Restless Urban Space, Prentice Hall: New Jersey
Kongar, Emre; (2001), 21. Yzyilda Trkiye: 2000'li Yillarda Trkiye'nin Toplumsal
Yapisi, Remzi Kitabevi: !stanbul
Kunstler, James Howard; (1996) Home From Nowhere - Remarking our Everyday
World for the 21st century, Simon 8 Schuster, New York,
Lefebvre, Henri; (1991), The Production of Space, Blackwell: Oxford - Cambridge
Naffesoli, N.; (1996), The Time of the Tribes, Sage: London; in Hetherington (1998)
The Netapolis Dictionary Of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in
the !nformatiion Age; (2003), Actar: Barcelona; authors: Gausa N., Gaullart v., Nller
W., Soriano F., Norales J.
136
Niles, Steven; (2003), "Resistance or Security? Young People and the 'Appropriation'
of Urban, Cultural, and Consumer Space", pp. 65-75; Urban Futures: Critical
Commentaries on Shaping the City; eds. Niles, N. and Hall, T.; Routledge: London -
New York
Nuggleton, David; (2000), !nside Subculture: The Post-Nodern Neaning of Style; Berg:
Oxford, New York
Pile, Steve; (1997), "!ntroduction: Opposition, Political !dentities and Spaces of
Resistance"; Geographies of Resistance; eds.Nicheal Keith and Steve Pile, Routledge:
London - New York
Pile, Steve; (2001), "The Unknown City..or an Urban Geography of What Lies Buried
Beneath the Surface", The Unknown City: Contesting Architecture and Social Space;
eds. Borden, Kerr, Rendell, Pivaro; The N!T Press: Cambridge - Nassachusettes -
London
Rendell, Jane; (1998), Doing it, Undoing it, Overdoing it Yourself: Rhetorics of
Architectural Abuse", ed. Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between The Architect and The
User; Routledge: London, New York
Rose, Gillian (1993); Feminism and Geography, Polity: Cambridge
Rybczynski, Witold; (1995), The Nystery of Cities"; originally from The New York
Review of Books, July 15, 1993, pp. 13-1+, 16; article 2 in Urban Society -annual
editions (7th edition), Fred Seigel-the Cooper Union, Dushkin pub. Group, USA,
Sarioglu, Nehmet; (2001), Ankara" Bir Nodernleme Oyks (1919 - 19+5); T.C.
Kltr Bakanligi yayinlari: Ankara
Schneider, William; (1995), The Suburban Century Begins"; originally from The
Atlantic Nonthly, July 1992, pp. 33-39, +2-++; article 23 in Urban Society -annual
editions (7th edition), Fred Seigel-the Cooper Union, Dushkin pub. Group, USA
Sennett, Richard; (1992), The Fall Of The Public Nan; W.W. Norton and Compony:
London, New York
Simmel, Georg; (1969), Netropolis and The Nental Life", pp. 60-62; eds. Burrows,
Lapides; Alienation: A Case Book, Thomas Y. Crowell Comp.: New York.
137
Soja, Edward W.; (1996), ThirdSpace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and
!magined Places; Blackwell publishers: Oxford, Nassachusettes
Storey, John; (1998), An !ntroduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture; The
University of Georgia Press: Athens
enses, Fikret; (2003), Economic Crisis as an !nstigator of Distributional Conflict: The
Turkish Case in 2001, pp. 92-112; eds. Ziya Oni, Barry Rubin, The Turkish Economy
in Crisis; Frank Cass: London, Portland
Tankut, Gnl; (1993), Bir Bakentin !mari, Ankara: 1923 - 1939, Anahtar Kitaplar:
Ankara
Tecer, Neral; (2003), Trkiye Ekonomisi, TODA!E: Ankara
Tekeli, !lhan; (1998), Trkiye' de Cumhuriyet Dneminde Kentsel Gelime ve Kent
Planlamasi", ed. Yildiz Sey, 75 Yilda Degien Kent ve Nimarlik, Bilano98: Tarih vakfi
yayinlari: !stanbul
Temiz, Aye D.; (2001), Spatial Transformations With The Historical Centre of !zmir :
Representations of space and Representational Typologies; Naster Thesis, department
of Architecture, NETU: Ankara
Toksz, Nina; (2002), The Economy Achievements and Prospects", pp.1+1 - 16+, ed.
Brian W. Beeley, Turkish Transformation: New Century, New Challenges; The Eothen
Press: England
Yavuz, Yildirim; (2001), Ankara - ankaya'daki Birinci Cumhurbakanligi Kk",
pp.3+1 - +12; ed. Yavuz, Yildirim, Tarih !inde Ankara !!; ODTU Nimarlik Fakltesi:
Ankara
Whyte, W.F.; (1955), Street Corner Society, Chicago University Press
Williams, Raymond; (1965), The Long Revolution; Penguin: Harmondswort
Williams Raymond; (1993), Kltr, !mge Kitabevi: Ankara
Willmott, Peter; (1969), Adolescent Boys in East London, Penguin; in Hebdige (1979,
1999)
Zeyfang, Florian; (200+), Can Altay" - catalog text, +D, Four Dimensions, Four
Decades, 8th Havana bienal, Havana - Cuba, (2003)
138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

APPEND!X B1
THE !NTERv!EW GU!DEL!NE

DEF!N!T!ON - TAN!N
1. Where is Ninibar? Ninibar neresidir?
2. What is a Ninibar? Can you give a definition through your own experiences? Sizce
minibar nedir? kendinize gre bir tanim verebilir misiniz?

H!STORY - TAR!HE
1. How did minibar occured, according to what you know? Bildiginiz kadari ile minibar
nasil olumu?
2. What are the reasons that initiated the minibar, in your opinion? Hangi sebeplerden
dolayi ortaya iktigini dnyorsunuz?
3. How did minibar developed adn evolved since you have started to participate? Can
you give a personal history of minibar? Ninibar katilmaya baladiginizdan beri nasil
geliti, degiti: kiisel bir tarihe verebilir misiniz?

TENPORAL DEF!N!T!ON - ZANANSAL TAN!N
1. Since when do you participate to minibar? Ne zamandan beri buraya geliyorsunuz?
2. What is the frequency of your coming to minibar? Ne siklikta buraya geliyorsunuz?
3. !n which days and at what hours? Hangi gnlerde ve hangi saatlerde?
+. !n which times is there a minibar here? Are there times that there is no minibar?
Burada hangi zamanlarda minibar oluyor?, bo oldugu anlar var mi?
5. Do you use these streets except doing minibar? minibar'da bulunmak diinda burasi
getiginiz bir yer mi?
6. What is different in the area when there is no minibar? Ninibar olmadigi zamanlarda
burada neler farkli oluyor?

SOC!AL AND SPAT!AL PRACT!CES, PREFERANCES - SOSYAL vE NEKANSAL FAAL!YETLER,
TERC!H
1. What are the activities done in minibar? Ninibar'da neler yapiliyor? nasil vakit
geiriliyor?
2. Does minibar have rules or an order of its own? Buranin kendine has kurallari ya da
bir dzeni var mi?
3. What do you think set the boundaries of minibar? minibarin sinirlarini belirleyen
unsurlar neler sizce?
+. What are the places and elements used by minibar and how are they used? Ninibar'da
Nereler ve neler, nasil kullaniliyor?
5. Do you think minibar leaves any trrace to the street? What can be the traces of
minibar? Sizce minibar mekana nasil izler birakiyor? birakiyor mu?
6. Do you think minibar had changed the urban settting in this neighborhood? Sizce
minibarin gereklemesi bu evreyi degitirdi mi?
7. What are the things that can be done here and that cannot be done anywhere else?(a
comparison) Burada yapilabilen ve baka bir yerde yapilamayan eyler nedir? (diger
eglence yerleri ile mukayese)
8. Why do you think minibar is a prefered place? Burasi sizce neden tercih ediliyor?
9. Do you like, enjoy participating to minibar? Why do you prefer minibar? Ninibar'da
olmaktan, vakit geirmekten memnun musunuz? (neden burayi tercih ediyorsunuz?)

147
THE N!N!BAR PART!C!PANT - N!N!BARC!LAR - SOSYAL YAP!
1. Who comes to minibar? Kimler minibara geliyor?
2. Do the participant have a common style or characteristics? Buraya gelenlerin ortak
zellikleri ve tarzlari var mi?
3. Does every participant know each other? Ninibarcilar birbirlerini taniyor mu?
+. What kind of relations exist between the minibar participants? Ninibara gelen
genlerin kendi ilerindeki ilikiler nasil?

GENDER !N N!N!BAR - N!N!BAR'DA K!Z-ERKEK !L!K!LER!
1. What kind of a milieu is there in minibar, in terms of male-female relations? !n
comparison to other places? Sizce minibar,kiz erkek ilikileri aisindan nasil bir yer?
Baka yerlere kiyasla rahat bir ortam mi?
2. Have you ever felt unsecure as a girl in minibar? Bir kiz olarak minibar'da rahatsiz
edildiginiz ya da tedirgin oldugunuz oldu mu?
3. Are you uncomfortable about going to minibar by yourself or with your girl friends
alone? Tek bainiza ya da kiz kiza minibar'a gitmekten tedirgin olur musunuz?
+. Do you think there is a danger prevailing in minibar for girls? Sizce minibar'da kizlar iin
tehlike ya da tedriginlik yaratabilecek unsurlar var mi?
5. Are there any precaution you take to feel secure in minibar? Ninibar'da bulundugunuz
zamanlarda gvende hissetmek iin kendi kendinize aldiginiz nlemler var mi?

RELAT!ON W!TH OTHER USERS - D!GER KULLAN!C!LAR !LE !L!K!LER
1. Do the passers-bye, outsider to the act, react when they see minibar? Buradan
(ortama) yabanci biri getiginde bir tepki veriyor mu?
2. How are the relations with the residents? Apartman sakinleri ile ilikiler nasil?
3. Do they feel uncomfortable, if so how do they express it and how do they react?
Huzursuz oluyorlar mi? bunu nasil belirtiyorlar?Tepki gsteriyorlar mi? nasil?
+. How do you take the responds of the neighborhood dwellers? evreden gelen tepkileri
nasil kariliyorsunuz?
5. Do the minibar participants use also the cafes? Ninibarcilar kafeleri de kullaniyorlar
mi?
6. Do you think the users of Tunali are aware of minibar? Do you think they have
accepted it? Sizce bu evreyi kullananlar minibar'in varligindan haberdar mi?
Kabullendiler mi?
7. Do you get in touch with the other users of the neighborhood? Baka kullanicilarla
ilkiler geliiyor mu? Nasil?

CONTROL - KONTROL
1. Do you feel insecure of being in minibar? How do you feel? Ninibarda bulunmak sizi
tedirgin ya da huzursuz ediyor mu? nasil hissediyorsunuz?
2. Do the police patrol frequently? How does it influence you? Polis kontrol oluyor mu?
nasil etkiliyor sizi?
3. Are yuo afraid of the police patrol? Polisin gelmesi burada bulunan genler arasinda
huzursuzluk yaratiyor mu?
+. What is the relation is there with the police? Polis ile ilikiler nasil?

LOCAT!ON - KONUN
1. Why do you think minibar took place here? Why Tunali? Why this street? Sizce
minibar neden burada yer aldi? neden Tunali, Bestekar sokak
2. Could it have been in another location in the city? Kentin baka bir yerinde de yer
alabilir miydi?
3. Have you ever seen something like minibar in Ankara or in another city? Ankara'da ya
da baka bir ehirde minibara benzeyen oluumlarla karilatiniz mi?
+. Do you have anything recalling you minibar in your past experiences? Kendi
gemiinizde size minibari hatirlatan benzer deneyimleriniz olmu muydu? ocukluk
anilari?
148

END NOTES - SON NOTLAR
1. What is the place of minibar in your life? Hayatinizda nasil bir yeri var minibarin?
2. Do you think people here try to express anything? Sizce minibarda bulunarak
genlerin ifade ettikleri, gsterdikleri bir eyler var mi?
3. Do you think minibar will continue longer? How do you think it will continue? Sizce
minibar byle devam eder mi? Nereye kadar gider sizce?
149

APPEND!X B2
PART!C!PANT !NFORNAT!ON SHEET

USER CODE:
name:
phone:

sex:
age:
education:
school:

profession:
job:
father/mother's job:
father/mother's proffesion:

home city:
adress(district):

keywords to define minibar:

since how long he/she comes
to minibar?
one of the founders or late
commer?
frequency of coming:

how does he/she defines the
user?
does he/she observes a
change? negative or positive?
how does he/she defines the
new commers?
150

APPEND!X B3
TABLES ON PART!C!PANT !NFORNAT!ON

Table B3. 1. Ankara 1990: Settled Householld's !ncome - Status Differentiation Nodel
I. COMPONENT - Low Income (Owner-Dweller and No property)
Block I.1.
Wage earners (no property)
Others (owner-dweller and no property)
Block I.2.
Wage earners (owner-dweller)
Self-employed (owner-dweller and no property)
II. COMPONENT - Wealthy
Block II.1.
Wage earner (wealthy)
Self-employed (wealthy)
Others (wealthy)
Block II.2.
Wage earner (property owner tenant)
Employer (owner-dweller and no property)
Block II.3.
Self employed (property owner tenant)
Others (Property owner tenant)
III. COMPONENT - Wealthy Employer
Block III.1.
Employer (wealthy)
Block III.2.
Employer (property owner tenant)
Resource: Gven, 2001

151
Table B3. 2. Personal !nformation on the !nterviewees
partici
-pant
code AGE SEX EDUCATION JOB
SCHO-
OL
PROFFES-
SION
HOME
CITY RESIDENCE
Family
house or
not
1 24 M
University -
master
Std
+working ODT Architecture Ankara Yukar Ayranc Family
2 25 M
University -
undergrad Student Gazi . Management Ankara Oran Family
3 24 M
University -
master Student ODT City planning Denizli Aa Ayranc
Moved
from family
house
4 24 F
University -
undergrad Student Gazi . Architecture Ankara
Oran / Gazi
Osman Paa
Moved
from family
house
5 24 M
University -
master
Std
+working ODT City planning zmit
Esat / Mesa
Koru
Moved
from family
house
6 26 M University
Grd
+working
Hacette
pe .
Hidrogeolog
y eng. Ankara Konut kent Family
7 27 M
University -
undergrad Student
Baskent
. Tourism Ankara Yuakr Ayranc Family
8 16 F High school Student
Bilim
kolej x Ankara Yldz Family
9 18 M
University -
undergrad Student
Bilkent
.
Graphic
design Ankara
Gazi Osman
Paa Family
10 27 M
University -
master Student
Ankara
. Ethnology Ankara Birlik mah. Family
11 24 M
University -
undergrad Student Gazi . x Ankara Konut kent Family
12 21 F
University -
undergrad Student
Ankara
.
Spanish
language
and
litterature Ankara Bahcelievler Family
13 21 M
University -
undergrad Student
Hacette
pe . Philosophy Ankara
Gazi Osman
Paa Family
14 22 F University Graduate
Bilkent
. Interior arch. zmir
Bilkent renci
yurdu /
Kavakldere
Moved
from family
house
15 22 F University Graduate
Bilkent
. Interior arch. zmir
Bilkent renci
yurdu /
Kavakldere
Moved
from family
house
16 24 F
University -
undergrad Student ODT
Metalurgical
eng. Ankara ankaya Family

152
Table B3. 3. The Temporality of The Ninibar Practice
participant
code AGE
SINCE
WHEN
years
FOUNDER
or LATE-
COMER
FREQ. OF
COMING
per month
WHICH
DAYS OF
THE
WEEK
WHAT
HOURS
OF THE
DAY
1 24 6,5 Late-comer 14 all week evening
2 25 6,5 Late-comer 3 week end evening
6 26 9 Founder 6 week end evening
8 16 4,5 Late-comer 14 all week afternoon
10 27 9 Founder 18 all week afternoon

Table B3. +. !ncome Levels - schools and economic dependency
Partici-
pant
code EDUCATION SCHOOL JOB
1 University - master Public
Std +
working
2 University Public Std
3 University - master Public Std
5 University - master Public
Std +
working
6 University Public
Grd +
working
7 University Private Std
8 High school Public Std
9 University Private Std
10 University - master Public Std
14 University Private Grd
15 University Private Grd

153
Table B3. 5. The Socio-Economic Profile Of The Districts Where Ninibar Participants Reside
partici-
pant
code
RESIDED
DISTRICT
EMPLOYMENT
STATUS OF
PARENTS
ZONE
PROFILE
(resource: Gven, 2001)
1
Yukar Ayranc Wage-Earner
1 Wealthy + wealthy employer
2
Oran Wage-Earner
3
Aa Ayranc Self-Employed
4
Oran / Gazi Osman
Paa
-
2 Wealthy
5
Esat / Mesa Koru -
3 Wealthy employer
6
Konut Kent Wage-Earner
3 Wealthy employer
7
Yukar Ayranc Self-Employed
8
Yldz -
2 Wealthy
9
Gazi Osman Paa -
2 Wealthy
10
Birlik mahallesi Wage-Earner
2 Wealthy
11
Konut Kent -
3 Wealthy employer
12
Bahelievler -
1
Wealthy + wealthy
employer
13
Gazi Osman Paa -
2 Wealthy
14
Bilkent yurt /
Kavakldere
Self-Employed
1
Wealthy + wealthy
employer
15
Bilkent yurt /
Kavakldere
Self-Employed
1
Wealthy + wealthy
employer
16
Birlik mahallesi Wage-Earner
2 Wealthy

Table B3. 6. Gender
Partici
-pant
code AGE SEX
Is there an equal,
civilised relation
between boys and
girls in minibar?
Do you
feel any
insecurity
as a girl?
Are there any
occasions you
felt
uncomfortable as
a girl?
Can you go by
yourself or with
your girl friends?
Do you have any
precautions to
increase your
safety?
4 24 F Yes No
When there are
fights Yes
No, as i am
never alone, i
am always with
my group
8 16 F Yes No No Yes
No, as i am
never alone, i
am always with
my group
12 21 F Yes No
When there are
weird guys
around Yes
No, as i am
never alone, i
am always with
my group
14 22 F
Yes, just as in the
university No
When there are
fights Yes No, i don't
15 22 F
Yes, it is not
different than bars
or night clubs No No Yes No, i don't
16 24 F
Yes, but friendship
is more important
than male -female
relations No No Yes
No, as i am
never alone, i
am always with
my group

154

APPEND!X B+
KEYWORD ANALYS!S

Table B+. 1. Keywords Used For The Definition of Ninibar
Participant
Code Keywords1 Keywords2 Keywords3 Keywords4 Keywords5
1
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting Friendship Freedom
2
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting
3
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting Friendship Alcohol
4
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting Comfortable Freedom
5
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks
6
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting Comfortable t s Ours
7
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks
8
Street - Outside -
Open Air Chatting Friendship Sharing
9 Chatting Friendship Sharing
10
Street - Outside -
Open Air Chatting Friendship "Samimi"
11
Street - Outside -
Open Air
Meeting
Place Friendship Fun
12
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Chatting Comfortable Better Than Bars
13
Street - Outside -
Open Air Cheaper Drinks Girls Fun
14
Street - Outside -
University
Youth Night Time
15 Meeting Place Cheaper Drinks Chatting
University
Youth Fun
16
Street - Outside -

155
Table B+. 2. Keywords Used For The Definition of Ninibar Participant
Participant
Code Keywords1 Keywords2 Keywords3 Keywords4
1
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
Residents Of Near
Districts
2
"Sub-Culture"-
"Alternative Style" -
Similar Style
University Student -
Age 16-28
3
Age 16-28 People Like Us- We Know
4
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style People Like Us- We Know
5
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
Age 16-28
6
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style People Like Us- We Know
7
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
Age 16-28
Those Who Search
Cheaper Drinks
8
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
9
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
Age 16-28
10
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
Age 16-28
11
People Like Us-
We Know
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
Age 16-28
Those Who Search
Cheaper Drinks
12
People Like Us-
We Know
Those Who Search
Cheaper Drinks
13
People Like Us-
We Know
Those Who Search
Cheaper Drinks
14
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
Age 16-28
15
Similar Socio-
Economic Group -
Midllehigh ncome
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
Age 16-31 Apolitical
16
"Sub-Culture"-
Similar Style
Age 16-32

156
Table B+. 3. Keywords Used !n The Definition Of The New-comers
Partici-
Pant
Code
Obser-
ved
CHANGE Keywords1 Keywords2 Keywords3 Keywords4 Keywords5
1 Neg
Attracted by The
Popularity Of
Minibar
2 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles
3 Neg
Attracted by The
Popularity Of
Minibar
They Are
Younger - A
New
Generation
4 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles "Clubbers"
5 Neg
Attracted by The
Popularity Of
Minibar "Wannabe'es"
6 Neg "Tramps"
They Are
Younger - A
New
Generation
A "Dejenerated"
Population
7 Neg "Wannabes" "akallar"
A "Dejenerated"
Population
8 Neg "Wannabe's" "akallar" "Clubbers"
9 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles
They Are
Younger - A
New
Generation
10 Neg "Wannabe's"
They Fight -
Break Bottles "Tramps"
They Are
Younger - A
New
Generation
11 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles "akallar"
They Are
Younger - A
New
Generation
12 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles "Clubbers" " Tramps " Weird Guys
13 Neg
Like 'Sakarya'
Population
They Fight -
Break Bottles "Clubbers" " Tramps " Weird Guys
14 Neg
15 Neg
They Fight -
Break Bottles
16 Neg

157

APPEND!X B5
THE N!N!BAR !NTERv!EW F!ND!NGS EvALUAT!ON NATR!X

f

S
o
m
e

c
o
m
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t
'
s

t
r
e
n
d
y
:

t
o

m
e
e
t

b
o
y
s
8
g
i
r
l
s

e

H
a
v
i
n
g

f
u
n

K
n
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

p
e
o
p
l
e

y
o
u

w
a
n
t

t
o

s
e
e

a
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
,

n
o

n
e
e
d

t
o

p
h
o
n
e

W
e

l
i
k
e

b
e
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

f
r
e
e
d
o
m
,

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

d

B
e
i
n
g

f
r
e
e

N
i
g
h
t
l
i
f
e

l
e
i
s
u
r
e
,

b
e
f
o
r
e

g
o
i
n
g

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

p
l
a
c
e
s

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:

p
e
o
p
l
e

g
a
t
h
e
r

n
e
a
r

a

b
a
n
k
,

w
a
l
l
,

a

p
l
a
c
e

t
o

s
i
t

-

N
o

b
a
d

m
u
s
i
c

a
n
d

n
o
i
c
e

-

n
o

c
r
o
w
d

-

n
o

s
m
o
k
e
:

n
o

b
a
d

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

N
o

p
l
a
c
e

f
o
r

u
s

t
o

g
o

o
u
t

i
n

a
n
k
a
r
a

a
n
y
w
a
y

c

C
h
a
t
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

b
e
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

f
r
i
e
n
d
s

P
l
a
y

g
a
m
e
s

a
n
d

h
a
v
e

f
u
n

F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
-
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
-
s
o
c
i
a
l
,

i
t

m
a
y

m
o
v
e

Y
o
u

c
a
n
'
t

s
t
a
n
d

n
e
a
r

t
h
e

s
o
l
d
e
r
s
,

i
t
'
s

s
t
r
i
c
t
l
y

f
o
r
b
i
d
d
e
n

F
r
e
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
i
t
y

o
f

c
o
n
s
u
m
i
n
g

h
i
g
h

p
r
i
c
e

a
l
c
o
h
o
l

O
p
e
n

a
i
r
,

o
n

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t
,

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

s
p
a
c
e

b

D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

i
n

c
h
e
a
p
e
r

p
r
i
c
e
s

S
o
c
i
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
,

c
h
a
t
t
i
n
g
,

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

p
l
a
c
e
,

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

n
e
w

p
e
o
p
l
e

!
t

d
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

a
r
e

T
h
e

g
r
o
c
e
r
y

s
h
o
p
:

t
h
e

g
r
o
c
e
r
y

w
i
l
l

g
e
t

t
r
o
u
b
l
e

w
i
t
h

p
o
l
i
c
e

F
r
e
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
n
i
n
t
s

c
a
f
e
f
b
a
r
s

i
m
p
o
s
e

A

s
a
f
e

p
l
a
c
e

t
o

h
a
n
g

o
u
t

a

B
e
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t
,

o
p
e
n

s
p
a
c
e

D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
,

g
e
t
t
i
n
g

d
r
u
n
k
,

m
a
k
i
n
g

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

m
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

W
h
e
r
e

e
v
e
r

y
o
u

g
e
t

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,

s
i
t
-
s
t
a
n
d

a
n
d

d
r
i
n
k

i
s

y
o
u
r

m
i
n
i
b
a
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
s

a
n
d

b
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
s
:

y
o
u

c
a
n
'
t

s
t
a
n
d

i
t
'
s

c
r
o
w
d
e
d

D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

a
t

c
h
e
a
p
e
r

p
r
i
c
e
s
,

o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
:

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

S
o
c
i
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
b
o
v
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
:

s
h
a
r
i
n
g

S
u
b
-
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

L
i
m
i
t
s

P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s

D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n

K
e
y
w
o
r
d
s

S
o
c
i
a
l

A
n
d

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

S
o
c
i
a
l

A
n
d

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

S
o
c
i
a
l

A
n
d

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

S
o
c
i
a
l

A
n
d

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

S
o
c
i
a
l

A
n
d

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

T
a
b
l
e

B
5
.

1
.

T
h
e

N
i
n
i
b
a
r

!
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

N
a
t
r
i
x

n
o
.

0
.

1
.
1
.

1
.
2
.

1
.
3
.

1
.
4
.

158

F
o
r

t
h
e

n
e
w

c
o
m
m
e
r
s
:
d
e
s
i
r
e

t
o

c
a
t
c
h

u
p

t
h
e

t
r
e
n
d
,

s
h
o
w

t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
,

g
e
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

D
r
u
n
k
s
,

p
a
p
e
r
m
e
n
,

s
h
o
e

p
o
l
i
s
h
e
r
s

w
a
n
t

t
o

j
o
i
n

D
e
s
i
r
e

f
o
r

a

f
r
e
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

i
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
,

d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
,

f
l
i
r
t
i
n
g

e
t
c
.

T
h
e
r
e

h
a
p
p
e
n

f
i
g
h
t
s

s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
,

t
h
e
y

b
r
e
a
k

b
o
t
t
l
e
s

T
h
e
y

a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

N
e
e
d

o
f

b
e
i
n
g
f
h
a
n
g
i
n
g

o
u
t

o
n

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t
,

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

Y
o
u
n
g

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
h
o

l
i
k
e

d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
h
a
t
t
i
n
g

W
e

m
a
k
e

w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
,

w
e

h
a
v
e

t
o

s
e
t
t
l
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

k
e
e
p

p
e
a
c
e

B
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

f
i
g
h
t
s

i

h
a
v
e

s
t
a
r
t
e
d

t
o

f
e
e
l

u
n
s
a
f
e

t

i
s

u
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e
m

!
t
'
s

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
:

i
t

m
a
y

m
o
v
e
,

c
h
a
n
g
e

f
o
r
m

a
n
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
a
r
c
h

f
o
r

a

s
p
a
c
e

f
o
r

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n
,

t
h
e
i
r

l
e
i
s
u
r
e

E
d
u
c
a
t
e
d
,

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

s
t
u
d
e
n
t

o
r

g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

T
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

s
e
p
e
r
a
t
e

g
r
o
u
p
s

W
h
e
n

t
h
e
r
e

'
w
e
i
r
d

g
u
y
s
'

a
r
o
u
n
d

i

d
o
n
'
t

f
e
e
l

c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

T
h
e
y

r
e
a
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

o
u
t
l
o
o
k

o
f

y
o
u
n
g

p
e
o
p
l
e

N
i
n
i
b
a
r

c
r
o
w
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

c
a
f
e
s

a
n
d

b
a
r
s

!
t
'
s

e
p
h
e
m
e
r
a
l
,

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

n
e
e
d

p
e
r
m
e
n
a
n
t

f
d
u
r
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

A
g
a
i
n
s
t

t
h
e

f
o
r
m
a
l

n
i
g
h
t
-
l
i
f
e
,

l
e
i
s
u
r
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

N
i
d
d
l
e

o
r

m
i
d
d
l
e

h
i
g
h

i
n
c
o
m
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
s
s
u
r
e
d

P
e
o
p
l
e

y
o
u

k
n
o
w

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

i
n

t
i
m
e
,

a
n
d

i
t

g
e
t
s

c
r
o
w
d
e
d

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

t
h
r
e
a
t
h

f
o
r

g
i
r
l
s

t
h
e
r
e
.

T
h
e
y

f
e
e
l

u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
o
w
d

P
e
o
p
l
e

i
n

m
i
n
i
b
a
r

g
o

t
o

t
h
e

c
a
f
e
s

t
o
o
,

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

!
t
'
s

s
p
o
n
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y

h
a
p
p
e
n
i
n
g

A
g
a
i
n
s
t

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
h
e
a
p
e
r

f
o
r
m
s

N
i
x
t
u
r
e

o
f

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
u
b
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
:

b
u
t

a

c
o
m
m
o
n

'
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
'

w
a
y

-

s
t
y
l
e

T
h
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e

h
a
d

c
h
a
n
g
e
d
:

a

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
t
i
o
n

!

a
l
w
a
y
s

h
a
v
e

m
y

g
r
o
u
p

t
o

s
t
a
n
d

a
n
d

t
o

b
e

w
i
t
h

T
h
e
y

f
i
n
d

i
t

w
r
o
n
g
,

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

n
o
t

u
s
e
d

t
o

i
t

P
e
o
p
l
e

g
o

t
o

c
a
f
e
s

f
o
r

u
s
i
n
g

t
o
i
l
e
t
s

U
s
e
r

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

N
e
w

C
o
m
m
e
r
s

A
n
d

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

W
i
t
h
i
n

N
i
n
i
b
a
r
.

G
e
n
d
e
r

P
a
s
s
e
r
-
B
y
e
s

C
a
f
e
s

A
n
d

S
h
o
p

O
w
n
e
r
s

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
-

c
e
s

A
n
d

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

U
s
e
r

G
r
o
u
p

U
s
e
r

G
r
o
u
p

U
s
e
r

G
r
o
u
p

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

T
a
b
l
e

B
5
.

1
.

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

2
.

3

4
.
1
.

4
.
2
.

4
.
3
.

5
.
1
.

5
.
2
.

159

W
e

t
r
y

t
o

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

a

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

t
h
e
m
.
.
.

!
t

b
e
c
o
m
e
s

m
o
r
e

a
n
d

m
o
r
e

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d

i
n

t
i
m
e

W
e

d
o
n
'
t

s
t
a
n
d

w
h
e
r
e

w
e

a
r
e

n
o
t

w
a
n
t
e
d
.

!
t
'
s

f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

w
e

g
o

s
o
m
e
w
h
e
r
e

e
l
s
e

P
o
l
i
c
e

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d

t
h
e

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
o

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

h
i
d
d
e
n

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

T
h
e
y

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

l
e
f
t

o
v
e
r
s
:

g
a
r
b
a
g
e

T
h
e
y

c
a
l
l

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
c
e

T
o

r
e
l
a
x

t
h
e
m

w
e

l
i
s
t
e
n

t
h
e
m

a
n
d

g
o

a
w
a
y

b
u
t

c
o
m
e

b
a
c
k

l
a
t
e
r

i
n

a

m
o
m
e
n
t

P
o
l
i
c
e

u
s
e
d

t
o

t
a
k
e

u
s

b
u
t

n
o
w

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

h
u
g
e

c
r
o
w
d

W
e

m
o
v
e
d

t
o

w
h
e
r
e

w
e

d
o
n
'
t

h
a
v
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

t
h
e

s
p
a
c
e

i
s

f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y

t
o

o
u
r

h
o
u
s
e
s

T
h
e
y

f
e
e
l

i
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
,

u
n
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

T
h
e
y

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

w
a
l
l
s

o
r

f
e
n
c
e
s

S
o

w
e

h
a
v
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

w
e

k
e
e
p

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t

c
l
e
a
n

P
o
l
i
c
e

d
o
n
'
t

d
o

m
u
c
h

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
r
e
'
s

n
o
t
h
i
n
g

u
n
s
a
f
e

W
e

m
a
k
e

f
a
k
e

r
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
o

r
e
l
a
x

t
h
e
m

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y

!
t

i
s

a

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

n
o
d
e
:

i
t
'
s

o
n

m
y

w
a
y
,

i
t

i
s

a

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

p
o
i
n
t

T
h
e
y

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
i
s
s
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

g
a
r
d
e
n

a
n
d

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

T
h
e
y

t
h
r
o
w

l
i
m
e

p
o
w
d
e
r

o
r

w
a
t
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t

W
e

k
n
o
w

i
t

i
s

n
o
t

l
e
g
a
l

b
u
t

w
e

h
a
v
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

i
t
'
s

t
h
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

T
h
e

p
o
l
i
c
e

c
o
m
e

m
a
k
e

w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
,

e
m
p
t
y

t
h
e

p
l
a
c
e

a
n
d

g
o
,

w
e

a
r
e

n
o
t

s
c
a
r
e
d
,

w
e

t
u
r
n

b
a
c
k

t
o

o
u
r

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
f
t
e
r

a

w
h
i
l
e

T
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

w
o
r
k
,

w
e

c
a
n

e
a
s
i
l
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

T
u
n
a
l
i

i
s

t
h
e

c
e
n
t
r
e

w
e

a
l
w
a
y
s

p
r
e
f
e
r

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
i
n
g
s

t
o
o

(
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,

l
e
i
s
u
r
e
)

D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

c
r
o
w
d

a
n
d

n
o
i
c
e

T
h
e
y

w
a
r
n

s
p
o
k
e
n
l
y
,

t
h
e
y

y
e
l
l

T
h
e
y

h
a
v
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
,

w
e

s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s

f
e
e
l

b
a
d
,

w
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
h
e
m

b
u
t

t
h
e
r
e
'
s

n
o
t
h
i
n
g

b
a
d

i
n

i
t

P
o
l
i
c
e

g
a
v
e

u
p

d
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

p
e
o
p
l
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

h
i
g
h

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

f
a
m
i
l
y

c
h
i
l
d
e
r
e
n

a
m
o
n
g

t
h
e

g
r
o
u
p

T
h
e
y

h
a
v
e

r
e
a
s
o
n

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t
,

s
o

w
e

h
a
v
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

B
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
u
r
h
o
o
d

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

D
i
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
s

N
i
n
i
b
a
r

U
s
e
r
s

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

T
o

T
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

O
f

T
h
e

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

-
P
o
l
i
c
e

W
h
y

N
i
n
i
b
a
r

H
a
p
p
e
n
s

!
n

T
u
n
a
l
i
?

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
y

T
r
a
n
s
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

J

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

T
a
b
l
e

B
5
.

1
.

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

5
.
3
.

5
.
4
.

5
.
5
.

5
.
6
.

6
.

7
.

4 Mekanın Üretimi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Mekanın Üretimi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

URBAN SPACES RE-DEF!NED !N DA!LY PRACT!

You might also like