Addis Ababa’s sefer, iddir, and gebbi

This research is motivated by the scholarly calls for new concepts and analytic tools for documenting, analysing, and theorizing complex urban territories such as those of cities in Africa. With implicit comparative intent, it takes the case of Addis Ababa city and its old and typifying places—the sefer, to develop and test a new architectural transdisciplinary research methodology referred to as the trinocular. By way of this methodology, it unearths and introduces sefer, iddir, and gebbi of Addis Ababa as not only socio-spatial phenomena but concepts and vocabulary for a located and nuanced reading of the city itself. Sefer are introduced as flexible boundary conditions that are primarily cognized by their dwellers—results of indigenous and autochthonous foundation and continued processes of self-actualization by communities that construct them. Iddir is unearthed as a form of social capital embedded in sefer that appears in the structures of relations among residents. And the gebbi as an urban spatial typology that constitutes the sefer’s morphology—the last frontier of communality just prior domestic spaces which, in many cases, can be a single multi-functional room. These concepts and vocabulary, it is argued, in both practical and metaphoric sense, should be the starting point of new urban imaginaries for Addis Ababa. Urban planning and housing projections thus, should draw inspiration from these notions, elements, and phenomena. Furthermore, lessons learnt from the trinocular and the findings are presented as new avenues for architectural research in similar, less-known, and complex urban conditions as the sefer of Addis Ababa

A city shaped by diplomacy

Ethiopia is an old country with a long history of political change, both domestically and towards the rest of the world. Internally, Ethiopia’s ever-changing socio-political behavior was manifested by a tradition of relocating its seat of government. Axum, Lalibela, Teguelat, Gondar, Magdala, Ankober, and Mekele are only a few examples of such temporary headquarters, and many other “roving capitals” are excluded. The most recent shift was the foundation of the current capital city Addis Ababa in 1886. In the 131 years since then, this city has evolved from a simple village of hot springs and encampments into a global diplomatic center. The city’s diplomatic relevance has grown especially rapidly since 1950. Today, it hosts continental and global institutions such as the African Union (AU), a number of United Nation institutions (UN-ECA, UNDP, UNESCO) and others, in addition to diplomatic institutions for bilateral relations. Until today, Addis Ababa contains only fragments of the disruption caused by the brief period of Italian occupation between 1936 and 1941, when the occupiers attempted to erase the existing city and build a new colonial capital. This paper looks at the evolution of Addis Ababa through the agency of diplomacy. It focuses on the morphological and architectural manifestations of diplomacy in the city, based on a timeline of five recognizable periods. Using exemplary cases, it illustrates the physical and spatial impact and architectural influences associated with diplomacy and diplomatic institutions. Subsequently, we argue that the emergence of Addis Ababa as a diplomatic center in its first couple of decades anchored it as a lasting political center, while the diplomatic developments that followed and their physical manifestations played a vivid formative role in the city’s urbanization. Within Addis Ababa’s poly-nuclear structure, the diplomatic institutions prevail as frames and points of reference, spread out over the whole city

The space of diplomacy

This thematic section of ABE features contributions on the role and meanings of embassies and other structures designed for diplomacy, in urban fabrics situated east and south of the Mediterranean. Albeit inherently representative objects, embassies are seldom considered as architectural signifiers, or as parts of the cultural landscape of a city. Starting from Addis Abeba and moving on to Ankara, Kabul and Beijing, the four papers of the section show that while the architecture of diplomacy displaces a fragment of the nation beyond its territorial borders, this movement is never limited to the transfer of technologies and architectural styles. The making of diplomatic landmarks can be assessed as a dialogic process of space production, entailing negotiation and domestication in the foreign context, appropriation and reworking of local symbolic and material resources, interaction with the surrounding social and physical landscape