The symbolic wars at Taksim are fought. Today, as the big thing is over and the dust settles down, Taksim needs to normalize, reconnect to its civic spirit. Careful reinventions of good old practices, that simply got lost in metropolitan flow, and modest innovative interventions will help re-building urbanity. Back to normalization for Taksim means, basting its pieces together, which fell apart or were made invisible under the severity of big exclusionary ambitions. Back to normalization means, serving its users of all profiles, to allow them to pass on; to meet and build synergies, or to retreat in their paces, according to their wills. Small and midsize gestures are needed; meaningful, life easing, safe steps. Sustainable interventions which build on past achievements and carry on, make the potentials of the least visibles, visible, and safeguard the path we want to go. Being integrative, safeguarding maximal publicity. Production of identity by making the place is an ongoing live process.

The ECOC process 2005-10 was based on a civic initiative, and had a vision of sustainable re-urbanization of the Greater Taksim Area, not at least, as a model for the metropolis. Reasonable low cost interventions would trigger the reestablishment of urbanity in Taksim: Retrofitting the AKM and make it function as a 24/7 cultural center, no more using the square as a terminal for buses, and Gezi as as a car park, and re-establishing the context within Maçka valley. Our main guideline is to reconnect to the same principles using strategies, which are appropriate today, after the big acts of the last decade.

The big architectural and urban design gestures at Taksim are comprehensible vis a vis the severity Taksim has taken up from the moment of its very foundation. It has acquired the symbolic value, where the statehood gets a built manifestation. It is no more realistic to expect getting rid of this attribute; the place, simply has it. Taksim is, “where the results gain visibility”: So should the underlying process of negotiations be transparent, democratic. The key actor here is the civitas, the users of place.

One should be aware of the capacities of disciplines of built environment: Urban design cannot solve problems but assist putting up meaningful framework to tackle them. The civic factor must become the maker of place.  When the civitas stood up to prevent further commercial Disneyland development on Gezi, it demonstrated clear will to get grounded, re-naturalized, protect its natural resources, use its commons wisely. Their tradition goes back to 80s when first time spacio-politics became an issue, when at Tarlabaşı, Parkhotel, Gökkafes, top down decision making on space was questioned first time in town. Taksimli today, is mature to participate in the making of space. Everyday.

However, Taksim is, in a way, “far away from Istanbul”: The days are gone and most likely never to bring back, when Taksim was -beyond its  importance on higher level- also a local piazza; when the “Taksimli” was a real person living around, using the space 24/7. S/he won “a last historic battle” 30 years ago in the Park Hotel case, and then, simply left. Greater Taksim today is mainly used by offices, the tourism infrastructure and leisure time industry, which attracts users of various kinds and temporalities. Who does belong to Taksim ? Whom does Taksim belong to ?

The answer today, can only be deduced from a multilayered multi-actor negotiation, as Taksim can only be approached in a multi-scalar attitude. 

Negotiation, involves the dimension of a creative dispute about the urban memory. The “publicity” of Taksim first must be re-constructed.

An intervention within the Designated Project Area (DPA) is meaningful, only if it addresses the metropolitan context in general, and the context of Greater Taksim, the impact area in particular. We will call it the Greater Project Area (GPA) 

This proposal understands itself as a humble contribution to the new public negotiation on Taksim, which “deserves a better project”.