File:EAA MINICITY.jpg

English: The fact that the great variability in the choices of consumers of tourism leads to less frequent

visits has made it necessary to increase the number of alternatives in the way buildings look and their attractiveness. In Antalya and its surroundings, postmodernism, which has become unvariegated in most areas of social and cultural life, has been rendered visible in its most superficial aspect. The new investments made in this city have made tourism, which has seeped into every molecule of life, even more tyrannical. The design of Minicity Park, in which will be distributed 1:25 scale models of buildings from different regions of Turkey, confronted us as an actual product which conforms to all the scenarios for attractiveness regarding will, which is gradually eroding the grandeurs of the different areas of high culture and in its place is increasingly pumping in the consumption of signs and images. The main input for the design was the dichotomy between indoor and outdoor space which emerged from the investor’s request, at a time when the relation between representations and realities is becoming problematic, that on the one hand the park attract the tourist consumer’s attention and become a famous monument that would turn into a landmark, and that on the other hand the models to be exhibited indoors not be seen from the exterior. A Location Antalya, Turkey Client Antalya Metropolitan Municipality Date 2003-2004 Built Area 7.700 m2 Type Public, Recreational Status Built MINICITY THEME PARK www.emrearolat.com T. +90 212 2847073 F. +90 212 2847063 Nispetiye Aytar Caddesi No:24 Besiktas 34340 Istanbul TR T. +44 20 74157235 F. +44 20 74157236 40 Bowling Green Lane EC1R 0NE London UK long interface on the south separates the park, which was made private through the abovementioned process, from the public area; by bringing this interface to a channel outside of the structural codes familiar to it, this compulsory divider was also transformed into a series of shells that constituted their own specificity as a covering element. The rear walls of the indoor areas, which sometimes became terraces by being torn in places, enabled the visual permeability of this series. As for the side branch on the west, it was detached from the ground, somewhere between dividing and not dividing the interior and exterior, but however, it was designed, in contrast to the expressive motivation of the shells on the south, as a much

calmer divider.