This article investigates the fundamental rupture in the system of architectural patronage during the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey—a transformation that permanently reconfigured the logic, objectives, and resources underpinning the production of the built environment. Challenging conventional narratives that focus solely on stylistic change, the study approaches architectural change as an indicator of far-reaching socio-political shifts. The research begins by situating architectural patronage as a central process linking power structures, ideologies, and values across historical periods. Employing a qualitative, comparative-analytical methodology, the study models and contrasts two ideal-types of patronage: the inward, hierarchical, integrated system of the classical Ottoman paradigm, and the outward, bureaucratic, dependent configuration that emerged with the modern Turkish Republic. The study’s primary contribution is to clarify how a rupture in the patronage paradigm catalyzed fundamental transformations in architectural identity, objectives, and modes of agency. Data derive from extensive literature review, documentary analysis, and the comparative study of five emblematic architectural scenarios: the Süleymaniye Külliye (classical peak), Dolmabahçe Palace (transition and fragmentation), the Ottoman Bank (deepening economic rupture), Ankara’s Master Plan (birth of the new paradigm), and the Turkish Grand National Assembly (consolidation of the modern system). The findings demonstrate that the classical Ottoman paradigm relied on a charismatic patron (the Sultan), a religiously legitimated framework, a self-sustaining endowment-based (waqf) economy, and a primary audience within the Islamic polity, resulting in resilient and harmonious architectural production. By contrast, the modern Turkish paradigm substituted charismatic authority with institutional bureaucracy, sanctified objectives with pragmatic modernization, stable waqf funding with vulnerable state budgets and international loans, and internal audiences with a dual focus on citizenship and international prestige. This rupture inverted the meaning of architecture—from an instrument of internal social cohesion and religious legitimacy to a means of international representation and image management. The article concludes that understanding these structural ruptures in systems of patronage provides crucial insight into the identity crises and hybridities that characterize societies undergoing rapid modernization.