Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara

Wojciech Niebrzydowski

doi:10.37190/arc220303

Abstract

This article discusses brutalist architecture in Islamic countries. The brutalist trend developed after World War II. After its emergence in Europe, it spread quickly all over the world. In the 1960s, brutalism reached northern Africa and southern Asia, and thus most Islamic countries. The aim of the article is to present the scope of this trend, as well as to indicate examples of buildings and the most significant architects in this part of the world. Turkey turned out to be a particularly important country in the aspect of the conducted research. Detailed analyses concern the campus of Middle East Technical University in Ankara, especially the Faculty of Architecture Building. The building was designed by Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, a husband and wife team of architects, and completed in 1963. It is one of the first and one of the most representative examples of brutalism in Islamic countries. Due to the nature of the research problem and its complexity, a general method of historical and interpretative research was applied. It was based on comparative analysis of the creative ideas of architects and forms of brutalist buildings. In particular, the concepts guiding architects Altuğ and Behruz Çinici and the main elements of the brutalist doctrine were compared. The author also relied on his in situ research carried out in Turkey. The METU Faculty of Architecture Building reflects the most important features and elements of the trend including sincerity of materials, massiveness and heaviness, articulation of internal functions, concrete gargoyles and sun-breakers. However, the architects also applied a number of individual, unique solutions, inspired mainly by vernacular architecture. One of the most important conclusions is that the Çinicis followed some ideas of the New Brutalism, an architectural theory created in England by Alison and Peter Smithson.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2022

3(71)

Wojciech Niebrzydowski*

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of

the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara

Introduction

The 20

century was a period of dynamic changes in

architecture. In no other century did so many dierent trends

and styles emerge – some of them global and long-lasting.

The reach and signicance of others was limited. Brutalism,

which developed after World War II, was one of the major

architectural trends. It peaked in the 1960s, and its decline

came in the next decade. In many countries, the aesthetics

of brutalism dominated the projects of residential, com-

mercial, educational, or religious

buildings for many years

(Fig. 1). After a period of worldwide popularity, there was

a sharp departure from brutalism, preceded by a wave of

criticism of the trend as hostile, depressing, or even inhu-

man. This reputation led to destructive actions against the

brutalist heritage. Many buildings of high artistic quality

have been abandoned, rebuilt or demolished, and others

are very much threatened. The reason for this is that bru-

talism still remains not fully understood, especially in its

theoretical aspect, but also in terms of aesthetics. Knowl-

edge about this trend needs to be broadened and veried

in some matters. The research presented in this article also

serves this purpose.

The study concerns brutalist architecture in Islamic

countries, an issue that is very little explored. The general

aim of the article is to present the scope of brutalism in this

region, as well as to indicate examples of buildings and the

most important architects. After its emergence in Europe,

brutalism spread quickly all over the world. In the 1960s,

it also reached northern Africa and southern Asia, and thus

most Islamic countries. Turkey is located approximately

in the middle of this area extending from east to west. The

rst brutalist buildings in this country were erected in its

capital, Ankara. In the late 1950s, a new university was

established in the city – Middle East Technical University

(METU). Its campus and especially the Faculty of Archi-

tecture Building are presented in the article as an example

of an outstanding brutalist masterpiece.

The scope of the topic included both the theory and

practice of brutalist architecture. Due to the nature of the

research problem and its complexity, a general method of

historical and interpretative research was applied. It was

based on comparative analysis of the creative ideas of

architects and forms of brutalist buildings. In particular,

the concepts guiding architects Altuğ and Behruz Çinici

and the main elements of the brutalist doctrine were com-

pared. Individual, unique attributes of the METU Faculty

DOI: 10.37190/arc220303

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

ORCID: 0000-0002-5966-4333. Faculty of Architecture, Białystok

University of Technology, e-mail: w.niebrzydowski@pb.edu.pl

Fig. 1. Le Corbusier and Lucio Costa,

Maison du Brésil in Paris, 1957

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 1. Le Corbusier i Lucio Costa,

Maison du Brésil w Paryżu, 1957

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

30 Wojciech Niebrzydowski

of Architecture Building, which distinguish it from other

brutalist buildings, were also indicated. These attributes

were largely the result of drawing inspiration from the

local architectural tradition, which in itself is also char-

acteristic of brutalism. The author of this article has been

researching brutalist architecture around the world for

nearly 20 years. The paper is based on in situ research also

carried out in Turkish cities such as Istanbul and Ankara.

During the research, the author collected a number of data

and made photographic documentation of the buildings,

including the METU campus.

When reviewing the state of the research eld, signi -

cant publications should be mentioned. The most im portant

researcher of brutalist architecture was Reyner Ban-

ham. Two of his publications are of fundamental impor -

tance – the article The New Brutalism, which appeared in

December 1955 in “The Architectural Review” [1] and

the book The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? [2] pub-

lished in 1966. Despite the passage of time, the book is

the most important study on both brutalist architecture

and the doctrine of New Brutalism to this day. In research

on brutalist architecture, the publications of its precur-

sors are important. In the 1953 article House in Soho,

Alison and Peter Smithson used the term “New Brutal-

ism” for the rst time [3]. Signicant publications on the

brutalist part of Le Corbusier’s work were books from

the “Oeuvre complete” series [4], [5]. Actually, there are

no publications on the study of brutalist architecture in

Islamic countries. Information on some brutalist buildings

from this region of the world is contained in two exten-

sive (however, of a general nature) books published in

recent years – Atlas of Brutalist Architecture edited by

Virginia McLeod [6] and SOS Brutalism: A Global Sur-

vey edited by Oliver Elser, Philip Kurz and Peter Cachola

Schmal [7]. Some of the Turkish brutalist buildings are

mentioned in the book Turkey: Modern Architectures

in History by Sibel Bozdoğan and Esra Akcan [8]. The

socio-political context for the emergence of modern

architecture in this cultural area was shown in the article

Tradition and modernity in contemporary architecture of

Turkey (Comparative study referring to traditional and

international architecture in 1940–1980) by Naser Has-

sanpour and Hossein Soltanzadeh [9].

The development of brutalism

in Islamic countries

Brutalism in Islamic countries began to develop in the

1960s, and most buildings in this style were built in the

1970s. Anthony Vidler wrote that during this period, Latin

America and South Asia became the centre of aesthetics,

but also of the ethics of brutalism in the world: And if we

seek the continuation of the original “ethic” of Brutalism,

we can look to the developing nations in Latin America

and South Asia to nd programmatic and constructional

integrity joined to abstract monumental form [10].

In North Africa, two relevant examples of brutalist

buildings in Islamic countries are hotels. Hotel du Lac in

Tunis was completed in 1973 and immediately became the

city’s landmark. Architect Raaele Contigiani designed

the form of an inverted ziggurat in which large overhangs

of subsequent oors stand out (Fig. 2). Hotel les Gorges

du Dadès in Boumalne Dadès (1974) had a completely

dierent form with raw aesthetics and clear references to

vernacular architecture. Architects Abdeslem Faraoui and

Patrice de Mazières mixed local mud and cement to get

a texture of concrete similar to traditional Berber mud-

brick houses.

Fig. 2. Raffaele Contigiani,

Hotel du Lac in Tunis, 1970–

1973 (photo by S. Krasowski)

Il. 2. Raffaele Contigiani, Hotel

du Lac w Tunisie, 1970–1973

(fot. S. Krasowski)

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara 31

In South Asia, examples of two Iranian museum build-

ings can be given. Ferdowsi Museum in Tus was designed

by internationally known Iranian architect Houshang Sey -

houn and completed in 1968 [11]. The very massive, sculp-

tural form of the concrete museum brings to mind the build-

ings of ancient Persia. Architect Kamran Diba built Tehran

Museum of Contemporary Art in 1977 using a wide

variety

of materials. Concrete, stone and sheet metal expose their

raw textures. Arched, tapering roofs dominate in the com-

plex form of the building. An outstanding example is the

house in Karachi in Pakistan designed by Yasmeen Lari

and built in 1977. The building clearly shows the inspira-

tion of Le Corbuiser’s Maisons Jaoul.

A number of university buildings were also built in brutal-

ist style in Islamic countries. In Africa, Morocco stands out

in this respect. Architects Henri Tastemain and Eliane Cas-

telnau worked here for many years. In the 1960s and 1970s,

they designed a series of buildings in which they used local

solutions and advantages of concrete [12]. Among them

were the Faculty of Sciences Dhar El Mehraz in Fes and

the Institute for Journalism in Rabat. From Asia, the exam-

ple of the monumental Pahlavi University in Shiraz (Iran,

1960–1979) should be given. Minoru Yamasaki together

with Iranian architect Mohammad Reza Moghtader situated

a complex of buildings on a hill creating a very picturesque

composition. They used both concrete and local brick laid

in a traditional way. Muzharul

Islam was an eminent gure

of brutalist architecture working in Bangladesh, but also

in other countries [13]. He completed his post-graduation

under Paul Rudolph at Yale University and collaborated

with Louis I. Kahn. One of his most brilliant works is Jah-

angirnagar University in Savar Upazila designed in the

late 1960s.

The next part of the research is based on the analysis of

the Turkish university, therefore the development of bru -

talism in this country should be briey characterized. Tur-

key is a very specic Islamic country as it is located both in

Europe and Asia. Domestic and Western inuences have

been mixing here for centuries. This phenomenon intensi -

ed in the 20

century after the establishment of the Re-

public of Turkey. After World War II, Turkish architecture

began to change rapidly, also drawing on the latest interna-

tional trends. Brutalism had developed in particular in the

two largest cities, Istanbul and Ankara. In addition to the

METU Campus, which will be presented in detail later, oth-

er signicant buildings were built in this style in Ankara.

Among them was the Etimesgut Mosque (1967). Its archi-

tect Cengiz Bektaş criticized the banal forms of post-war

mosques and proposed a very avant-garde project. Indeed,

the aesthetics and composition of the building are far from

traditional architecture. The massive walls are almost win-

dowless and […] in place of a dome is a at roof and the

squat minaret is not a separate part of the mosque, but

incorporated into the overall form of the building [14].

The rst building in Istanbul showing some brutalist

features was the Sheraton Hotel (1959–1968). Designed

by the architectural studio AHE Mimarlık and Rolf Gut-

brod, it was also the rst skyscraper (94 m high) in the

city [8, pp. 184, 185]. Its structure and form are based on

a grid of lines intersecting at 30 and 60 degrees. It gives

Fig. 3. AHE Mimarlık and Rolf Gutbrod,

Sheraton Hotel in Istanbul, 1959–1968

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 3. AHE Mimarlık i Rolf Gutbrod,

Sheraton Hotel w Stambule, 1959–1968

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

the building a lot of expression and dynamics (Fig. 3).

The contrast between large glazing and the texture of

concrete is also important. Concrete walls of the ground

oor are decorated with reliefs characteristic of brutalism.

The architects who contributed to the popularization of

the brutalist trend in Istanbul were Günay Çilingiroğlu

and Muhlis Tunca. In 1972, they erected Istanbul Adver-

tisement Building. It has an exposed reinforced concrete

structure on which vertical solids are suspended. Its seg-

mented mass structure is one of the new characteristics

which created the new aesthetic expression of the period

[15]. Despite its novelty and power, the building respects

its historical surroundings, for example, moving away

to highlight one of the neighbouring historic buildings.

The inuences of Japanese me ta bolism are also visible

in another work of Çilingiroğlu and Tunca – Tercüman

Newspaper Oce Building (1974). In its monumental

form, eight service towers stand out, which are also the

main structural elements. They carry massive cantilevered

blocks – overhanging 7 m forward. With its structural

expression, this building stands in line with the boldest

works of brutalism in the world. With regard to university

facilities, the concrete building of Bahçeşehir Universi-

32 Wojciech Niebrzydowski

international jury announced Turkish architect Turgut

Cansever as the winner. However, in 1960, the political

situation in Turkey suddenly changed. The new METU

authorities stopped Cansever’s project under the pretence

of reconsidering the campus location. Almost immediate-

ly a second competition for the METU master plan was

opened, which relocated the site of the campus. The new

building land was much lower in elevation than the pre-

vious hilltop and closer to the centre of Ankara. This was

the nal competition and was won by a husband and wife

team of young architects – Behruz and Altuğ Çinici.

Although the Çinicis were at the beginning of their

careers, they decided to enter the contest without a well-es-

tablished architect as a team leader. While working on the

METU Campus competition, the Çinicis moved from

Is tan bul to a hotel in Ankara. In this way, they had the

opportunity to personally analyse the planned area. They

decided that their concept should make use of specic site

conditions, especially its landscaping possibilities. At this

point it should be emphasized how similar the views held

by the Çinicis were to those of the creators of the New

Brutalism, i.e. Alison and Peter Smithson. It is visible

both in a contextual approach to design and a critical atti-

tude to the main direction of the development of modern

architecture. The Çinicis and the Smithsons opposed older

architects, practitioners of the International Style. Accord-

ing to the Smithsons, the modern architect should objec-

tively and broadly analyse the conditions of the situation

and reect them in the project. In this way, each situation,

each site must be treated as unique. And therefore, all

design solutions are unique. Many architects inuenced

by the Smithsons’ programme attached great importance

to the social, historical, and geographical context as well

as local materials and construction methods. In contrast

to the universal nature of International Style in brutalist

architecture, we can point to its regional character. At the

core of this phenomenon was the interest in vernacular

architecture and the idea of As Found based on taking into

account the specicity of each place.

It can be stated that the Çinicis followed the main rules

of the New Brutalism. They noticed the uniqueness of the

campus place and also drew inspirations from the tradition-

al architecture of Turkey. The METU campus was divided

into three parts: the academic centre in the north, dormito-

ries in the south, and sports facilities between them. This

division corresponded directly to the topography of the

area. The spatial arrangement of the academic centre was

also unique (Fig. 5). The buildings were organized along

a linear, broad pedestrian boulevard – […] a meandering

paved pedestrian axis planted with ponds and gardens

[6, p. 441]. The Çinicis called it the allee and compared

to Divan Yolu, one of the main historical streets running

along the ridge of Istanbul’s peninsula. In addition, as the

inspiration for the composition of academic and adminis-

tration buildings, they pointed to the organization of the

imperial mosque complexes of Istanbul [19, p. 134]. The

allee was not only the main way of pedestrian commu-

nication, but also a space of contacts and social interac-

tions of campus users (Fig. 6). New Brutalists also created

similar multi-functional linear spaces. Good examples

ty at Kemeraltı Cd. 24 should be mentioned (Fig. 4). Its

form, in turn, shows the inuence of British brutalism.

The building consists of repetitive bay windows with

slanted concrete sides. English architects refer to them as

“sh tank windows” [16, pp. 40, 41].

Middle East Technical University Campus

The new university in Ankara was founded on Novem-

ber 15, 1956. As Ayşen Savaş wrote, the goal of the Middle

East High Institute of Technology […] was to contribute

to the development of Turkey and the surrounding coun-

tries in the Middle East […] by creating a skilled work-

force in the natural and social sciences, becoming a mod-

el for the new modern society [17]. The rst master plan of

the university campus was created under the supervision

of George Holmes Perkins – a famous American urban

planner [8, p. 116]. Thomas Godfrey, William E. Cox, and

Jaakko Kaikkonen also contributed to the development

of the plan submitted to METU’s Board of Trustees [18,

p. 3]. The Perkins team chose the place for the METU

Campus on the hill on the edge of the town. The planners

[…] envisioned the site as a new “acropolis” out of which

a new managerial elite and a national planning agency

would emerge [19, p. 124]. In 1959, based on the Perkins

plan, a competition was organized to select architects who

would develop the next stages of the campus project. The

Fig. 4. Bahçeşehir University Building at Kemeraltı Cd. 24 in Istanbul

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 4. Bahçeşehir University Building przy Kemeraltı Cd. 24

w Stambule (fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara 33

the building itself was a very dicult enterprise. In ret-

rospect, the rst university building turned out to be the

most signicant architectural work on the METU Campus

and in the Çinicis’ career. Moreover, the building is the

most outstanding example of brutalism in Turkey [22].

Features typical of brutalist architecture are visible in the

general arrangement of the building structure, its entire

form, individual elements, and even small details. There

are many indications that the Çinicis also followed some

ideas of the New Brutalism, although they never admitted

it [7, p. 202–205].

The building is large and its plan is complex. It consists

of several parts arranged on an orthogonal grid – perpen-

dicular geometry is the main compositional principle. Two

of these parts are pavilions separated from the main struc-

ture – one houses the auditorium (Fig. 7) and the other the

museum. The museum presenting the archaeological arte-

facts found in excavations realized in the METU lands is

one of many references to history and tradition. The form

of the Faculty of Architecture Building can be consid-

are street-decks in the Smithsons’ project of Golden Lane

Estate in London (1952) or Park Hill Estate in Sheeld

ham wrote: Street deck was intended to function socially

and psychologically in the manner of the street which – in

working class areas in Britain – is the main public forum

of communication, the traditional playground for children,

and the only public space available for mass meetings and

large-scale sociability [2, p. 42]. Many years later, it can

be said that the concept of boulevard has worked well in

the METU Campus [20, p. 79]. Students readily use the

opportunities oered by the allee and the adjacent green

spaces. They can get together, learn, or rest in a short dis-

tance from the academic buildings.

The rst building erected on the METU Campus was

the Faculty of Architecture Building. It was also designed

by the Çinicis. Construction of the building started in

April 1961 and nished in September 1963 [21]. It should

be emphasized that, for the conditions of that time, it pro-

ceeded quickly, especially when taking into account that

Fig. 6. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, METU Campus in Ankara

– the allee (photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 6. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici, kampus METU w Ankarze

– aleja (fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Fig. 7. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, METU Faculty of Architecture

Building in Ankara – the auditorium (photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 7. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici, budynek Wydziału Architektury METU

w Ankarze – audytorium (fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Fig. 5. Plan of the METU

Campus in Ankara

– the academic centre (drawing

based on the photo by H. Zelef)

Il. 5. Plan kampusu METU

w Ankarze – centrum akademickie

(rys. na podstawie fotografii

H. Zelefa)

34 Wojciech Niebrzydowski

ered as a version of brutalist megastructures. Despite the

impressive size of the usable area, the visual eect of

the

building is rather intimate. This is due to three basic factors.

Firstly, the building has only two oors. Secondly, the form

of the building is fragmented. Thirdly, its general nature is

horizontal. On the sketches made by the architects, we can

see the horizontal layout and the three dominant solids. In

contrast, the division of façades is vertical. Sun-breakers

shading balconies, narrow windows, and even the imprint

of boarding on concrete texture are all vertical.

The building is massive and heavy. There is a visible

strong articulation of solids forming the megastructure.

Each of these solids is a cuboid with horizontal propor-

tions but with dierent composition of the façade and dif-

ferent details. In this way, the building communicates its

internal functional structure – each block is dedicated to

another function. Unlike many brutalist architects, the Çin-

icis did not use cantilevers, which in turn made the building

tranquil. They used another solution typical of brutalism

– courtyards. Some of the most recognized brutalist com-

plexes were planned around big courtyards, for instance

Harvey Court Hostel in Cambridge designed by Leslie

Mar tin and Colin St John Wilson. The role of a courtyard

was even compared to a Greek agora [23, p. 149]. The Çi n-

icis implemented this idea in a dierent way. They pro-

posed a couple of smaller courtyards with greenery and

fountains. These patios soften the raw appearance of the

building. Moreover, by being connected to the allee, they

create more intimate spaces for students’ meetings.

The connections and circulation of people were essen-

tial aspects of brutalism. The movement of people, as

a manifestation of human activity and everyday life, was

reected in the way buildings were organized and shaped.

This also concerned the design of the space around the

buildings. Emphasizing the importance of movement and

elements of pedestrian circulation is also visible in the

Çinicis’ work. The path from the allee to the main entrance

to the Faculty of Architecture Building was accented by

a roof. It is supported by two rows of wide concrete pillars.

The shorter path to the side pavilions, starting with a bridge

above the pond, has a similar form. Not surprisingly, in the

interior of the building, the area of a circulation space is

larger than the sum of the areas of all rooms. Due to level

dierences, there are many stairs. It is interesting that they

were not articulated in the form of the building as service

towers, as brutalist architects usually did.

Altuğ and Behruz Çinici designed strong rhythms on

the façades. An example of such a solution is the western

façade with balconies covered by sun-breakers (Fig. 8).

Brutalist architects often utilized various types of sun-

-breakers, also referred to as brise soleils. Thanks to them,

the architects managed to achieve spatial façades instead

of at walls. The expressive tectonics of the façades also

gave light and shade eects. In the Faculty of Architec-

ture Building, both kinds of façades, spatial and at, were

combined to create strong contrasts in the form.

The Çinicis approved of the brutalist idea of the sincer-

ity of the material. They exposed the raw textures of brick,

stone, wood, and concrete. All concrete surfaces have the

imprint of the wooden formwork (Fig. 9). Most brutalists,

Fig. 8. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, METU Faculty of Architecture

Building in Ankara – sun-breakers in front of the balconies

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 8. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici, budynek Wydziału Architektury METU

w Ankarze – brise soleils osłaniające balkony

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Fig. 9. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici,

METU Faculty of Architecture Building in Ankara – one of the halls

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 9. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici,

budynek Wydziału Architektury METU w Ankarze – jeden z holi

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara 35

at least in the early stages of the style, rejected the aesthet-

ics of the machine as a false one. They appreciated craft

building methods. Some architectural critics wrote that

prefabricated buildings have little artistic value. But how

dierent is the erection of an entire building from concrete

placed on the site itself! Here is the very essence of a hand-

made article [24, p. 64]. Showing the way in which the

building was built, the subsequent stages of the construc-

tion process was a symbol of truth. Therefore, in the mono-

lithic concrete walls of the METU Faculty of Architecture

Building, the joints of the formwork were visible, as were

the unmasked holes of the removed formwork assembly

rods. However, it should be emphasized that the Çinicis

did not allow texture defects.

The brutalist idea of the unique solution to a unique

situation was realized not only in the METU Campus

plan but also in the Faculty of Architecture Building. It is

particularly evident in references to the local architectur-

al tradition. The Çinicis were of the opinion that the rst

building of the biggest Turkish university located in the

capital city should present an indigenous character. Both

Le Corbusier and the New Brutalists were fascinated by

vernacular architecture. There is no doubt that in the 1950s

they wanted to create a new style adapted to contemporary

reality and to design modern buildings avoiding direct

imitation of past styles. However, they believed that there

are objective, eternal, deep-rooted architectural values.

They sought them primarily in the vernacular architecture.

In later years, brutalist architects drew more direct formal

inspiration from traditional architecture. They often com-

bined motifs of native architecture with brutalist forms and

elements. The Çinicis were probably inspired by the ado-

be houses of old Anatolia. They had primitive cubic forms

with at roofs and grey walls. A kind of primality is also

a feature of the Faculty of Ar chi tecture Building. This is

expressed by simplied geometry and lack of cantilevers.

The arrangement of the blocks into a megastructure, on

the other hand, evokes associations with prehistoric cities

excavated in southern Anatolia. There are also much more

explicit references to tradition, such as the courtyards with

water fountains and the arched wooden doors.

The interior of the building was kept in pure brutal-

ist aesthetics. Raw concrete is an absolutely dominant

material. Even the built-in furniture was made of it. The

architects exposed wires and pipes and used bulbs without

any lampshades for lighting. It should be restated that the

sincere presentation of common materials, structural ele-

ments (Fig. 10) and ordinary technical solutions without

any aestheticization was also a feature of the New Bru-

talism. The apotheosis of ordinariness was already known

from the rst Smithsons’ building. Considering post-war

austerity in England, they emphasized: In a society that

had nothing. You reached for what there was, previous-

ly unthought of things [25, p. 40]. In Turkey in the early

1960s, conditions were also dicult.

After the construction of the Faculty of Architecture

Building […] the campus project was divided into phases,

which were annually planned according to the budget

availability of the respective year [26]. Many subsequent

university buildings were also designed by Altuğ and Beh-

ruz Çinici. In the period up to 1980, the following build-

ings were erected according to their projects: Faculty of

Economics and Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Arts

and Sciences, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Engineer-

ing, Main Sports Hall (Fig. 11). Most of them presented

the brutalist character to a greater or lesser extent. Howev-

er, none of them reached the artistic level of the rst one.

Inuences of Japanese brutalism, especially the works of

Kenzo Tange, can be seen in the Main Sports Hall. This

building can be considered the second after the Faculty of

Architecture Building in terms of METU’s brutalist heri-

tage. Façades of the hall are dominated by the rhythm of

the structural elements. The observer is strongly aect-

Fig. 10. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici,

METU Faculty of Architecture Building in Ankara

– the concrete ceiling

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 10. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici,

budynek Wydziału Architektury METU w Ankarze – betonowy strop

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

Fig. 11. Altuğ and Behruz Çinici,

METU Main Sports Hall, 1967

(photo by W. Niebrzydowski)

Il. 11. Altuğ i Behruz Çinici,

główna hala sportowa METU, 1967

(fot. W. Niebrzydowski)

36 Wojciech Niebrzydowski

ed by their large scale, sculptural form and raw concrete

texture. Researcher Atilla Yücel points to the inuence of

many dierent architects on other buildings [27, p. 140],

which contributed ultimately to the heterogeneous archi-

tecture of the METU Campus.

Conclusions

Brutalism made its way from the West to Islamic coun-

tries at the same time as it did to other parts of the world.

It was brought to this region by the Western masters – Le

Corbusier, Louis I. Kahn, and Minoru Yamasaki. However,

it should be emphasized that brutalist architecture was

developed and transformed in Islamic countries by local

architects. Some of them rst collaborated with foreign

architects. An example was Mohammad Reza Moghtad-

er who worked with Minoru Yamasaki. Native architects

used solutions characteristic of the brutalist trend, but

also introduced their individual concepts and elements.

They often drew inspiration from vernacular architecture.

Therefore, a very interesting feature of brutalist architec-

ture in Islamic countries is its duality. On the one hand, it

is characterized by consistency – specic aesthetic eects,

most commonly used materials, or repetition of certain

solutions and formal elements. On the other hand, many

dierent tendencies developed in it, caused not only by

the individuality of the architects but also by the referenc-

es to local conditions. Among the most important archi-

tects of this trend are Abdeslem Faraoui, Kamran Diba,

Houshang Seyhoun, Muzharul Islam, Günay Çilingiroğlu,

Muhlis Tunca, Behruz and Altuğ Çinici.

Buildings with various functions, especially prestigious

buildings, were erected in a brutalist style in Islamic coun-

tries. However, compared to other parts of the world, there

are few religious buildings. There are not many multi-fam-

ily buildings and housing estates either. It should be noted

that earlier buildings erected in Islamic countries generally

had simpler forms. However, the forms of buildings con-

structed in the last phase of brutalism were very expressive

and dramatized.

One of the most signicant works of brutalism in Islam-

ic countries is the METU Campus in Ankara. 60 years

since its foundation, the campus is a group of stylistical-

ly diverse buildings. However, it remains a unique com-

plex with the largest number of brutalist buildings erected

in one place in Turkey. In this respect, the campus also

stands out in comparison with all other Islamic countries.

Although it was built rst, the Faculty of Architecture

Building presents the highest architectural value among

the METU buildings. The design ideas of architects Altuğ

and Behruz Çinici were very avant-garde at that time and,

fortunately, were consistently implemented.

The form and spatial arrangement of the METU Facul-

ty of Architecture Building reect the most important fea-

tures and elements of the brutalist trend: massiveness and

heaviness, sincerity of materials, articulation of solids and

elements forming a building, exposing internal functions

in an architectural form, emphasizing the importance of

movement and elements of pedestrian circulation, domi-

nance of concrete. There are also individual solutions in

the building, usually less common in brutalist architec-

ture. The building has a calm, balanced formal expression,

while other works of this trend were often very strong and

dominant. The building continues its perpendicular geom-

etry without any oblique elements or curvatures. There are

no cantilevers or service towers in the form. The Çinicis

drew on the vernacular architecture of Anatolia, some-

times in a very direct way. It should be emphasized that

the building is one of the few in the world where the inu-

ence of the New Brutalism is clearly visible. The Çinicis

undoubtedly shared the ideas propagated by the Smith-

sons, including As Found, objectivity to reality, and apo-

theosis of ordinariness.

Translated by

Wojciech Niebrzydowski

References

[1] Banham R., The New Brutalism, “The Architectural Review” 1955,

No. 12, 354–361.

[2] Banham R., The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, Reinhold Pub-

lishing Corporation, New York 1966.

[3] Smithson A., Smithson P., House in Soho, London, “Architectural

Design” 1955, No. 12, 342.

[4] Boesiger W., Le Corbusier, Le Corbusier: Oeuvre Complete 1952–

1957, Vol. 6, Les Editions D’architecture, Zürich 1966.

[5] Boesiger W., Le Corbusier, Le Corbusier: Oeuvre Complete 1957–

1965, Vol. 7, Les Editions D’architecture, Zürich 1966.

[6] Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, V. McLeod (ed.), Phaidon, New York

2018.

[7] SOS Brutalism: A Global Survey, O. Elser, Ph. Kurz, P. Cachola

Schmal (eds.), Park Books, Zürich 2017.

[8] Bozdoğan S., Akcan E., Turkey: Modern Architectures in History,

Reaktion Books, London 2012.

[9] Hassanpour N., Soltanzadeh H., Tradition and Modernity in Con-

temporary Architecture of Turkey (Comparative Study Referring to

Traditional and International Architecture in 1940–1980), “The

Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication” 2016,

Vol. 6, 1167–1183, doi: 10.7456/1060AGSE/002.

[10] Vidler A., Troubles in Theory V: The Brutalist Moment(s), “The

Architectural Review” 2014, No. 235, 96–102.

[11] Iranian Architecture and Monuments: Houshang Seyhoun, http://

www.iranchamber.com/architecture/hseyhoun/houshang_seyhoun.

php [accessed: 13.11.2021].

[12] Henri Tastemain 1922–2012 / Eliane Castelnau 1923–, https://mam-

magroup.org/henri-tastemain-eliane-castelnau [accessed: 27.10.2021].

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out as part of work WZ/WA-IA/4/2020 at the

Białystok University of Technology and nanced from a research subsidy

provided by the Ministry of Education and Science.

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara 37

Abstract

Brutalist architecture in Islamic Countries on the example of the Middle East Technical University Campus in Ankara

This article discusses brutalist architecture in Islamic countries. The brutalist trend developed after World War II. After its emergence in Europe,

it spread quickly all over the world. In the 1960s, brutalism reached northern Africa and southern Asia, and thus most Islamic countries. The aim of

the article is to present the scope of this trend, as well as to indicate examples of buildings and the most signicant architects in this part of the world.

Turkey turned out to be a particularly important country in the aspect of the conducted research. Detailed analyses concern the campus of Middle East

Technical University in Ankara, especially the Faculty of Architecture Building. The building was designed by Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, a husband

and wife team of architects, and completed in 1963. It is one of the rst and one of the most representative examples of brutalism in Islamic countries.

Due to the nature of the research problem and its complexity, a general method of historical and interpretative research was applied. It was based

on comparative analysis of the creative ideas of architects and forms of brutalist buildings. In particular, the concepts guiding architects Altuğ and

Behruz Çinici and the main elements of the brutalist doctrine were compared. The author also relied on his in situ research carried out in Turkey.

The METU Faculty of Architecture Building reects the most important features and elements of the trend including sincerity of materials,

massiveness and heaviness, articulation of internal functions, concrete gargoyles and sun-breakers. However, the architects also applied a number

of individual, unique solutions, inspired mainly by vernacular architecture. One of the most important conclusions is that the Çinicis followed some

ideas of the New Brutalism, an architectural theory created in England by Alison and Peter Smithson.

Key words: theory of 20

century architecture, brutalism, Islamic countries, Altuğ Çinici, Behruz Çinici

Streszczenie

Architektura brutalistyczna w krajach islamskich na przykładzie kampusu Middle East Technical University w Ankarze

Przedmiotem badań omówionych w artykule jest architektura brutalistyczna w krajach islamskich. Nurt brutalistyczny rozwinął się po II wojnie

światowej. Po ukształtowaniu się w Europie szybko rozprzestrzenił się na cały świat. W latach 60. XX w. brutalizm dotarł do północnej Afryki

i południowej Azji, a tym samym do większości krajów islamskich. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zasięgu nurtu w tej części świata, a także

wskazanie przykładów budynków i najważniejszych architektów. Nadzwyczaj istotnym krajem w aspekcie prowadzonych badań jest Turcja. Szcze-

gółowe analizy dotyczą zatem kampusu Middle East Technical University w Ankarze, a zwłaszcza budynku Wydziału Architektury. Obiekt został

zaprojektowany przez małżeństwo architektów Altuğ i Behruza Çinicich. Ukończono go w 1963 roku. Jest jednym z pierwszych i zarazem jednym

z najbardziej reprezentatywnych przykładów brutalizmu w krajach islamskich.

Ze względu na charakter problemu badawczego i jego złożoność zastosowano metodę badań historyczno-interpretacyjnych. Oparta została ona na

analizie porównawczej idei twórczych architektów i form brutalistycznych budynków. W szczególności porównano koncepcje, którymi kierowali się

architekci Altuğ i Behruz Çinici, oraz główne założenia doktryny brutalizmu. Autor opierał się także na swoich badaniach in situ przeprowadzonych

w Turcji.

Budynek Wydziału Architektury METU odzwierciedla najważniejsze cechy i elementy nurtu, w tym szczerość materiałów, masywność i cięż-

kość, artykulację wewnętrznych funkcji, betonowe rzygacze i brise soleil. Jednakże architekci zastosowali także wiele indywidualnych, unikatowych

rozwiązań, inspirowanych przede wszystkim architekturą wernakularną. Jednym z najważniejszych wniosków płynących z przedstawionych analiz

jest to, że Çinici inspirowali się wieloma ideami Nowego Brutalizmu, teorii architektonicznej stworzonej w Anglii przez Alison i Petera Smithsonów.

Słowa kluczowe: teoria architektury XX w., brutalizm, kraje islamskie, Altuğ Çinici, Behruz Çinici

[13]

Muzharul Islam Archive, http://www.muzharulislam.com/ [accessed:

19.10.2020].

[14] Beyert Ch., Exhibition Documents Architectural Evolution of Mos -

ques, https://www.dw.com/en/exhibition-documents-architectural-

evolution-of-mosques/a-15853767 [accessed: 27.10.2021].

[15] The Istanbul Advertisement Building, http://architectuul.com/archi-

tecture/the-istanbul-advertisement-building [accessed: 4.10.2020].

[16] Clement A., Brutalism: Post-war British Architecture, The Cro-

wood Press, Ramsbury 2014.

[17] Savaş A., For the Faculty of Architecture at METU – Bauhaus was

a Promise, “Bauhaus Imaginista, Edition 3 – Moving Away”, http://

www.bauhaus-imaginista.org/articles/5600/for-the-faculty-of-ar-

chitecture-at-metu [accessed: 20.04.2020].

[18] Aran K., Bugünkü Kampüs öncesi, “ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi

Stüdyolar Dergisi” 1992, Vol. 1, 3.

[19] Erdim B., Under the Flags of the Marshall Plan: Multiple Mod-

ernisms and Professional Legitimacy in the Cold War Middle East,

1950–1964, [in:] M.O. Gurel (ed.), Mid-Century Modernism in

Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s, Rout-

ledge, London–New York 2016, 113–140.

[20] Sargin G.A., Savaş A., “A University Is a Society”: An Environmen-

tal History of the METU Campus, “The Journal of Architecture”

2013, Vol. 18, Iss. 1, 79–109, doi: 10.1080/13602365.2012.751806.

[21] Keeping It Modern METU Project, http://kimproject.arch.metu.

edu.tr/en/general-information [accessed: 27.10.2021].

[22] Niebrzydowski W., Zelef H., Brutalism and METU Department

of Architecture Building in Ankara, “Architecture Civil Engineer-

ing Environment” 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2, 21–29.

[23] Jencks Ch., Le Corbusier and the Tragic View of Architecture, Har-

vard University Press, Cambridge 1973.

[24] Bächer M., Heinle E., Building in Visual Concrete, Technical Press,

London 1971.

[25] Smithson A., Smithson P., The As Found and the Found, [in:]

C. Lichtenstein, Th. Schregenberger (eds.), As Found: The Discov-

ery of the Ordinary, Lars Müller Publishers, Zürich 2001, 40–42.

[26] Köse B., Middle East Technical University: A Modern Cultural

Landscape and the Building of a Highway, “Docomomo US – Mov-

ing Modern Forward” 2014, January 15, https://docomomo-us.org/

news/middle-east-technical-university-a-modern-cultural-land-

scape-and-the-building-of-a-highway [accessed: 26.04.2020].

[27] Yücel A., Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural

Scene Today, [in:] R. Holod, A. Evin, S. Özkan (eds.), Modern

Turkish Architecture: 1900–1980, Chamber of Architects of Tur-

key, Ankara 2005, 123–156.