Heterotopia Dourgouti: The spatial and social change of a place from the Asia Minor catastrophe to modern immigration

Thus, the area becomes an enclave of protection, protecting those inside, but also those outside it. It is therefore either a privilege, a conditional right, a conviction or a fate, the enclave legitimizes through the exception the ultimate guarantee of security (Σταυρίδης 2010: 23).

The sixth and last trait of heterotopias is that they have a function in relation to all the space that remains. Playing the role of a “the general organization of terrestrial space” (Foucault 2012: 268) as in the case of the colonialists. We note, therefore, that the area becomes a place of residence for various immigrants who inhabit it according to the standards and habits of their culture, but within a strict provision imposed on them. The modern movement set specific categories of people in certain places, forgetting that in addition to the assimilation these inhabitants wanted they also wanted their right to free choice. Perhaps, then, in the past, we would consider the community as a neighborhood, not only with geographical boundaries but also with certain shared functions and social relationships between its inhabitants. A desire that may not have been studied in design, but implemented by the inhabitants themselves in their own way. In the prefabricated houses of the Yerania of Kokkinia of 1927, the lack of space was evident, which was addressed by the residents with extensions to the uncovered space and with ventilation grilles which revealed underground bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens (Hirschon 2004: 125-140). A situation that would apply to a large extent in Dourgouti. In the refugee buildings of the 1940’s, young immigrants from low income countries maintain either a more communal system of habitation or the formal layout of modern apartments, incorporating in any case elements of their culture, mainly carpets, furniture and cooking utensils, curves, designs and colors. In the case of the proletarian “popular” apartment buildings the current residents, due to lack of space, have made additions and extensions to f the apartments while in the interior the majority are renovated with few objects of their ancestors, mainly photographs. In each period of time, the inhabitants convert the buildings according to their needs and parts of the past live in these houses, not only as physical objects, but also as a narrative of memory. It is not enough, therefore, only for the freedom of choice, in the way of habitation.It is also necessary for freedom of expression inside and outside it, as is evident with the activities of the inhabitants in public space, in an effort not only to highlight their identity, but also to communicate with the society in which they wish to join. Movements and actions are a response to marginalization.

Perhaps, then, in the past we identified the community as a neighborhood, not only with geographical boundaries, but also with certain shared functions and social relations between its inhabitants. Today, in our case, it may have been defined as the random product of choice of many individuals and possibly of many identities. This multi-identity landscape, which is emerging in the neighborhood of the Neos Kosmos, offers us a new method of managing the “multicultural” reality of Athens, an opportunity to look at the urban space in general from another perspective and finally a challenge to review the city we want. Understanding the way immigrant neighborhoods like this are built and operated, new and different approaches could be integrated into the spatial and urban planning of Athens (Στεφάνου 2010: 15).

The complexes of refugee and “popular” apartment buildings of Dourgouti are rare forms of mass expression of the modern movement of the 1940s and 1970s. They are part of history, places of memory and, therefore, buildings in need of protection (Photo 3). However, in addition to maintaining and protecting their architecture, it is also important to care for the human relations that develop inside and outside them.

Photo 3: Modern Movement Forms

Source: Personal file

We note that, in the case of the refugees of ’22, the refugees and the state wanted their integration through their housing and professional rehabilitation. Nevertheless, they themselves have formed their own identity for which they are proud, maintain it and redefine it in the new places, having as basic principles the home, the family and the community. They transfer their values even to objects (Figure 5) that may not have been brought from their motherland, but they gave these new objects the importance they were given in their culture. These objects were not only functional but also carriers of ideas in the new place of residence of the refugees. In the 1980s calls to identify people who had perished in the 1920’s(Hirschon 2004:250) were still broadcast daily. While, young refugees in particular follow the current assumptions about city life and its modern character (Hirschon 2004: 404). Over time, they are upgraded, they become “modern” but they do not forget.

Photo 4: The Image of Memory

Source: https://www.lifo.gr/

Modern refugees, on the other hand, have not been dealt with a comprehensive plan by the state. They are “more temporary residents” and find their own shelter and work with the help of their compatriots. They also retain their cultural identity which express it perhaps more strongly in the space by giving uses to it. They also create new ways of habitation based on the conditions of habitation of their homeland, but also the Western standards. They use objects every day that remind them of their place but at the same time, they also enjoy technological achievements in order to be informed about it.

Through the descriptions, we observe that “thoughts about man and his life between buildings and his experiences, attribute the history and psychogram of the people of the time. A time when a piece of it may still live around us” (Benjamin 2004: 162). A wandering that traces her and her findings coexist, by giving meaning to us in the now and creating a narrative of excerpts with an emphasis on the collective memory of the refugees of ‘22 and the many individual memories in the case of “new-immigrants”.

Photo 5: Shapes and colors in Iznik ceramics of today’s Izmir

Source: Personal file

Despite the modern form and rules that accompany it, these apartment units are inhabited by the standards of immigrants, their needs and their wants. Objects (Photo 5) that decorate a space and are considered unnecessary in a standard modern apartment, here are considered necessary, pieces of memory and make this space an indifferent space. A space that lives closed initself and, at the same time, surrenders to the dense fabric of the city. A common and strict form of mass expression within it hides in time many identities and ideas that the architects of the time may not have expected and did not plan, but the need of the inhabitants for the memory of the past and the habits of habitation of civilization gave them this otherness.

[1] This entry resulted from the 9th semester Dissertation project, School of Architecture NTUA, June 2018-2019, Scientific supervisor: Kostas Tsiampaos

[2] This refers to Asia Minor refugees from the 1920s

Acknowledgments

I would like to pay my special regards to my supervisor Professor Kostas Tsiampaos