The Kabataş square and Transfer Center Project in Istanbul has been a focal point of urban regeneration and public debate since it acquired currency in 2009. We’ll take a brief tour to examine the aspects of the project and its current re-evaluation, which both sparked a debate in Turkey’s architectural scene.

The square was initially designed to serve as a crucial transit junction in Istanbul, aiming to connect metro, tram, bus, ferry, and funicular lines. As it was first introduced, the previous administration of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality was aiming to enhance connectivity between varying means of public transport, alleviate congestion, and create an integrated urban space by redesigning approximately 100 thousand square meters of land.

However, the initial project faced a significant backlash from the public and academia. The project was heavily criticized on a range of issues, ranging from its aesthetic to its impact on Kabataş and the silhouette of the Bosphorus. For its resemblance to seagull, the word “Martı” corresponding to seagull in Turkish became the name of the project.

Criticism against “Martı” has continued on Turkey’s public scene and was consisting of its impact on its immediate surroundings such as Fındıklı Park and Kabataş coastline, car-centric design and excessive use of concrete on the existing square, disharmony it can cause on the silhouette of the Bosphorus, and the ecocide caused by the land reclamation.

Although the project has been denied by the municipality’s conservation committee, the existing ferry pier was shut down, a foundation for an underground parking lot was built, and the land reclamation continued, causing a peak of public furor with the participation of renowned academics and journalists who joined the criticism against "Martı," eventually causing the halting of the construction.

Latterly, as the administration of the municipality shifted from the government to the opposition, the new administration has organized a participatory conceptual design workshop to define the boundaries of the renewal of the proposal in consultation with the public and academia. Nevertheless, owing to the revised design perpetuating errors akin to those of its predecessor, the municipality once again faces criticism from both academics and architects.

One of the renewed project’s key features was its attempt to incorporate participatory urban design principles. The establishment, consisting of the related agencies of the municipality, academics, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, and participants from the chambers of architecture, civil engineering, and city planning, aimed to engage the public and gather information to define new design outlines. However, despite the efforts of the initiative, communication with the public has been criticized as insufficient and elitist.

Subsequently, two years after “the establishment” published a report on the participatory workshop, a physical model of the renewed proposal has been started to showcase in Mecidiyeköy metro station, facing criticism for the architect’s lack of attitude toward informing the public. Critiques underlined the top-down approach and sporadic communication with the public, which have alienated the local community and undermined the project’s credibility.

Yet, another course of criticism was started until the first phase of the construction was completed and the transfer center was opened before its construction was finished. During the early stages of the previous proposal, an underground parking lot was built, and a land reclamation of 19,230 square meters was already carried out. The renewed proposal was attuned to these previous developments and to a dense architectural program similar to the previous one.

In addition to these, the project’s selection process was not part of a public competition, and neither the physical models nor the blueprints showed any indication that silhouettes from certain points of the Bosphorus were not studied. Therefore, concerns have been raised about the project’s possible negative impact on the area’s historical and cultural heritage, stating that such projects with a massive amount of footprint may erode Kabataş’s unique character.

In the end, the Kabataş Square and Transfer Center Project still represents a significant urban transformation in Istanbul. While it holds promise for improved connectivity and urban functionality, addressing the criticisms and incorporating the proposed recommendations would be essential for its success. By fostering a more inclusive and transparent approach through the efforts of the municipality's related offices, the project can better serve the needs of both current and future generations.