Bu Blogda Ara

24 Ocak 2007 Çarşamba


42ND ISoCaRP Congress


Istanbul, 14-18 September, 2006, Istanbul. 


The 2006 ISoCaRP Congress will explore the contemporary challenges and emerging opportunities that cities are facing vis-à-vis influential forces that can be summarised as integrative and disintegrative. This year’s framework builds on themes examined in previous ISoCaRP congresses, such as globalisation and its influence on planning (2003), the management of the city region (2004) and the spaces produced by and required for the “creative economy” (2005). By integrative forces we refer to, inter alia, strategies formulated by urban stakeholders to position their cities in the global arena, including institutional actions undertaken via growth-friendly policy and market initiatives realised through mega projects. These set of efforts aiming for urban competitiveness have nevertheless revealed the other side of the coin –how cities have become exposed to tides of disintegrative forces, which, scholars assert, has caused urban systems to be drawn to spatial, cultural, social and economic fragmentation.
The interplay of this framework, at remarkable magnitudes of scale and speed, has perhaps uncovered a gap between the planner and the doer. Is planning a hurdle for economic growth based on real estate industries? Is rapid urban development just non-sustainable land speculation? Observers of the current status of our cities might conclude that there could be some truth in both questions. It is a fact that construction and property industries are pillars to the world economy and is also undeniable that cities in both the developed and developing world are exposed to escalating pressures, as we have witnessed in the social unrest occurred in December of 2005 in the heart of Europe.

Hulagu KAPLAN & Mehmet TUNCER

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Urban Planner (MsC), PhD in City and Regional Planning

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Urban & Regional Planner (MsC), Public Administration and Political Science (PhD)


Issues related to ecologically oriented urban development and management are an increasing concern in urban planning. Urban ecology implies that environmental problems be solved within the built environment to a degree where the products and energy systems of built environmental processes are passed on to the larger environment as benefits, not as hazards to nature. When working within the concept of urban ecology the responsibility of planners and designers is to work as ecologically sensible as possible within the given economical, social and cultural conditions.
Ecological conditions in Turkish cities are worsening and require better protection of the environmental ingredients. This requirement implies a coordinated approach dealing with all urban activities and their socio-economical and ecological consequences in an urban context. Local governments, with their planning powers have the opportunity to coordinate the planning and development efforts towards ecologically sound urban restructuring through urban regeneration projects.
Urban regeneration projects are fairly a new urban developmental tool in the hands of Turkish local governments. Ankara Greater Municipality is one of such local governments with several regeneration projects. Changing cities towards sustainability, in a more ecological direction requires more than focusing on rehabilitation and/or redevelopment. To this end, integrating ecological elements in urban regeneration projects should be considered as a vital component of these projects. Hence, a successful regeneration process based on ecological principles would therefore involve both new forms of technology such as eco-tech, new forms of public regulation as well as new forms of organizing urban management to bring together all stakeholders, from local government to non-governmental organizations. Meanwhile, urban regeneration projects are primarily seen by the majority of local governments as tools of economic development, to the extent to ‘redevelop’ or ‘gentrify’ a given urban land.
In Ankara, Dikmen Valley Residential and Environmental Development Project and Portakal Cicegi Valley Urban Regeneration Project are the first pioneering two projects of this kind. In this paper the socio-economic and ecological impacts of these projects are evaluated by a two-tiered evaluation method and some recommendations are derived for urban planners and local governments, to use in the preparation of sustainability oriented urban strategies.
Due to its settled areas’ geomorphologic and topographical conditions, Ankara can now be considered as a city overflowing its natural, hence ecological, thresholds. In other words, the growth of Ankara resembles growth of a lowland or flatland city despite of its geomorphologic and topographical thresholds. The valleys are ecological thresholds to be conserved as mostly green areas due to climatologically and urban quality benefits they bring to a city living in terms of ‘healthy city’. In fact, the aforementioned city ‘bowl’ geomorphologic ally has numerous valleys, some with creeks directly joining to Ankara River. From the point of ecological sustainability, these valleys should be preserved and handled as green wedges, adjoining to the green belt and bringing the ‘nature’ into the densely populated inner city areas. However, the recent urban development in Ankara do not consider this point of view as a major development policy, and so called ‘regeneration projects’ are formulated and planned against the City’s ecological potentials.


II.1. Definitions of “Sustainable Urban Development”

We live in a time in which increased population growth, high levels of consumption and the desire to feed growing economies have created escalating demands on our resources – natural, human and social – on a local, regional and global scale.
These demands negatively impact the natural environment, our communities and the quality of our lives. In the fact of these challenges, people worldwide have developed a growing concern for the environment and a desire to live in sustainable cities.
The most widely known definition of sustainable development comes from the Brundtland Commission, which defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (http://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/nachhaltig/international_uno/unterseite02330/)
During the preparatory meetings for the URBAN 21 Conference (Berlin, July 2000) the following definition was developed to define sustainable urban development:
"Improving the quality of life in a city, including ecological, cultural, political, institutional, social and economic components without leaving a burden on the future generations. A burden which is the result of a reduced natural capital and an excessive local debt. Our aim is that the flow principle that is based on equilibrium of material and energy and also financial input/output plays a crucial role in all future decisions upon the development of urban areas." (http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/SustainableCities/What.html)
"A sustainable community is one in which improvement in the quality of human life is achieved in harmony with improving and maintaining the health of ecological systems; and where a healthy economy's industrial base supports the quality of both human and ecological systems."(Indigo development: http://www.indigodev.com/Sustain.html)
"A community that believes today's growth must not be achieved at tomorrow's expense." (Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, Initial Report, October 1995)
II.2. Green Area Ratios:

Parks, green lands, open areas and playgrounds play an important role for the city environment. Green spaces symbolize peace, minimal stress and a cleaner environment for many people. Percentage of parks, green spaces, open areas and playgrounds in a built-up area are important in “Sustainability” and “livability”. Green spaces in urban areas are important for recreational purposes and for generally enhancing the quality of life of people who live in urban areas.

One of the main advantages of the “Rehabilitation of Valleys and Other Natural Assets” is to upgrade the “Green Area Ratio” of the urban areas. Green area ratio is 11 m2 / person in cities, according to the Law of Development and Resettlement (3194) (Imar Kanunu) in Turkey. This is not sufficient for the “Green cities”, especially in the North and South –west of Turkey, many cities and towns have green areas (forests, natural woods etc) which are more than this ratio. But, there is less than that ratio, in the central part (Konya, Ankara also) and east – South-eastern part of Turkey (Urfa, Mardin, Diyarbakır, Elazıg, Erzurum etc) in many cities and towns. The tool of rehabilitation and restoration of valleys and ecologically sensitive areas such as lakes, rivers, fertile agricultural lands, could be use as a tool of upgrading the green area ratios in those cities and towns which lacks of greenery.

Ii.3. Green Fragmentation:

One of the most fundamental principles of conservation is that there should be a system of natural (or ‘green’) corridors across the landscape, interspersed with large core natural areas (i.e. ecological ‘nodes’).
These green core and corridor areas provide an important home for natural habitats. In turn, natural core and corridor habitats are essential to the long-term survival and sustainability of biological diversity and are critical in helping to maintain the healthy, natural functions of ecosystems. Regardless of whether one considers a network of protected areas within an area with commercial logging, or the maintenance of healthy ecosystems in an urban or agricultural area, nature needs a system of ecological corridors and natural core habitats.
While the concept of cores and corridors is central to conservation and landscape ecology, it is a less well-known principle among the general public. Frequently, there is confusion about what exactly wildlife corridors are, how large they should be to benefit wildlife and to support biodiversity, and where they should be protected and restored. Similarly, the importance
Of core natural areas and how they fit within a system of corridors is not well defined, although an increasing amount of attention is now being paid to this topic by ecologists, naturalists, planners and the public. (http://www.ontarionature.org/pdf/cores.pdf)
The rehabilitation and restoration of green areas, water basins and valleys has much importance in regaining the ecological balance and ecologic routes for the urbanized areas. Rehabilitation of flora, rehabilitation of fauna life and planning for sustainable open and green spaces is essential for human being as well. It is important not to “fragment” the green axes, green belts, valleys while planning. Dikmen Valley like areas is vital life areas for the future generations. The continuation of green areas, forests, water basins, valleys has also much importance fort he agriculture and forestry.

Ii.4. City Lungs:

“Frederick Olmsted, the man who built New York’s Central Park, called it “the lungs of the city. It helps keep the air pure, keeps us healthy. Trees do all kinds of positive things in the city. He points to national studies that show urban trees helping reduce soil erosion, water and noise pollution, and even correlating trees with a reduction in crime. “We need to care for them the same way we do city streets and buildings”
Forests, Valleys and green areas in a city function as the city's lungs. They can also serve as centers of research, education, recreation, plant and animal preserving.
The forests, green areas, axes, water basins, valleys are “LUNGS of the CITY”. This means most all of our vital oxygen, fresh air, and fresh water comes from those areas. The main advantage of rehabilitation and restoration of those areas is to have a “Livable City” or we can say “Sustainable City”.


III.1. An Interpretation of Ankara Plans With Their Ecological Principles.

After the declaration of Ankara as the capital of the Republic of Turkey, a planning competition was held in 1927. Herman Jansen’s proposal was awarded the first prize, and the plan, prepared by him was put into implementation in 1932. This 2000 Ha. 300 000 design year population plan, emphasized in the formation and conservation of green areas, such as parks and other recreation areas in and around the planned Ankara. Jansen’s plan, in this manner preserved the valleys as green areas with all their morphological properties. (Plan 1)

The next plan, approved in 1957, was prepared by Nihat Yucel and Rasit Uybadin, following their winning of the first prize in the competition held in 1954. Their plan covers approximately 5720 hectares for 750 000 design year population. In the jury report of the competition it was stressed that their proposal emphasize the conservation of present, and development of new green areas to separate building zones from another is one of the superiorities of the proposal. (Plan 2)

Source: Tuncer, Mehmet, Private Archive

This plan followed the Jansen’s look at the valleys.
‘’1990 Ankara Metropolitan Area Master Plan’’, so called, was prepared by the Ankara Metropolitan Area Master Plan Office, established in 1969 by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing for 14 440 hectares and for 3.6 million population, in 1982. The valleys within the plan boundaries were not opened into building development, and were totally protected as green areas. This Metropolitan Area Master Plan was targeted to develop new Ankara towards to the west corridor towards to Istanbul highway and preserved the main agricultural lands on the Eskisehir Road. (Plan 3)
‘’2015 Ankara Master Plan’ is the fourth plan in this manner. Its macro form proposal largely accepted and adjusted the principles and policies of the 1990 plan, however due to changing socio-economic circumstances and becoming more aware of the city’s environmental problems, primarily its air quality, and the plan urged an accelerated decentralisation.The macro form proposals included in widening of the green belt and preservation of the valleys as green spaces.
‘’2025 Ankara Urban Area Master Plan’’, prepared by the Ankara Greater Municipality in 1992 ,largely follows the planning principles and policies, proposed by the 2015 plan, and ties them to such prime principles as ‘conservation-use balance ‘ and ‘sustainability’However,both,2015 and 2025 plans were not approved, hence, aforementioned environmental quality and ecology related policies are’ left’ in these plan-making efforts, whereas planning practice by the Ankara Greater Municipality obscured and skewed the plans’ such principles and policies by it’s implemented development plans, such as plans related to Dikmen Valley and Portakal Cicegi Valley. The last mentioned planning and urban design works, followed these plans are examples of how ‘regeneration projects’ can become largely a kind of gentrification projects refuting urban ecology and disclaiming citizen rights for accessible public space provision and living in a healthy city. Figure 1, below, attempts to a topological interpretation of Ankara plans, to date. (Plan 4)


Plan 1: Hermann Jansen’s Ankara Plan Plan 2: Ankara Metropolitan Area Master (1932)Source: Tuncer, M. (2000) Plan (1982) (target year: 1990)

Plan 3: N.Yucel & R. Uybadin’s Ankara Master Plan Plan 4: Ankara Metropolitan Area Master Plan (1957) Source: Tuncer, M. (target year: 2025)

III.2.Regeneration Projects vs. Urban Ecology.
Dikmen Valley is a South-North flowing valley, geographically adjoining Mogan-Eymir--Incesu water basin at its South, to the city centre at its North. It’s natural flow to the city centre as a potential green wedge is largely cut by government buildings at it’s northern section and this part is completely separated from the rest of the valley by the construction of Cetin Emec Boulevard on fill, in early 90’s.This boulevard is constructed on a landfill, intersecting the valley east-west, hence completely separating the city centre bound section from the rest of the valley. Although the Dikmen Valley regeneration Project, literally ‘’Dikmen Valley Housing and Environmental Improvement Project” has a continuous open space as it’s green spine, called ’’Culture Park’’. This open space is designed as a city park with a large proportion of ‘hard landscape’ and impacted by blocks of buildings, surrounding it. The two tower blocks, each 30 storey height, linked to each other by a bridge situated over the valley basin ,runs nearly parallel to the mentioned boulevard ,hence the valley is distrupted on it’s another cross-section by this bridge called ’’Culture Bridge’’. Just to mention, the total height of the tower+bridge from the valley base is approximately 120 meters. Therefore, there is a disproportionate relation between the valleys width and the bulk of this structure.


Figure 2: Dikmen Valley Housing and Environmental Improvement Project with Portakal Cicegi Valley Included (shown on the map as ‘’ Aziziye Park’’).

Table 1: Land Use of Dikmen Valley Regeneration Project


Residential 222,960 14.50
Culture park 1,029,050 66.93
Services 81,160 5.29
Education 34,620 2.25
Health 9,040 0.59
Roads 160,498 10.44
Total 1,537,528 100.00

Portakal Cicegi (Orange Blossom) Valley Urban Regeneration Project, literally ‘’Portakal Cicegi Valley Urban Development Project’’ is implemented on a respectively quite smaller valley (around 12 Ha.) The surrounding urban area had already developed residential area with medium-to-high rise buildings, before the Project implemented. This ‘regeneration project’ brought in an additional population with a 500 person/Ha. Density.

From a sustainable urban development point of view, then the Valley could have been retained as an urban park as it was proposed, prior to the so called ‘regeneration’ Project and could be valued as a green ‘island’ conventionally or could be assembled ‘’Dikmen Creek Green Area Project’’ approved in 1986, prior to the Dikmen Valley ‘regeneration’ Project. However, in 1991 Ankara Greater Municipality put this regeneration Project into action with a FAR (Building Ratio) =1.70, in this contained valley. According to this Project, 330 flats with150 to 200 sq meters, with the other buildings including a shopping centre, totals to 188,700 sq meters floor area on an 11.1 Ha. Project site.

Considered the previous plan’s FAR=0.05, to be used as green area supporting/recreational facilities, Ankara has lost one of its valuable open spaces situated in a densely built-up residential area.

The place of Dikmen and Portakal Cicegi Valleys in Ankara Urban Area are shown in the below Figure 3. In the figure, black areas denote parks, recreational areas and the green areas denote afforestation areas and the green belt area. The aforementioned two valleys are shown in the lower part of the figure as encircled.

^ ^
Dikmen Valley I I Portakal Cicegi Valley

Figure 3: The place of Dikmen and Portakal Cicegi Valleys in Ankara Urban Area (Black Areas: Parks, recreational areas, green areas: afforestation areas and the green belt area. The aforementioned valleys shown encircled.) (Source: Ankara Greater Municipality- Metropol Imar AŞ and Sahin, S., PhD Thesis, Ankara University)




a. Over Densely Construction And Artificial Elements: Planned over densely
populated and constructed as high apartment blocks detoriated and destructed ecologic structure of the famous Dikmen Valley. Existing flora and fauna system are destructed by this “Regeneration Project” convert the Valley to an “URBAN PARK” or we can say an “AMUSEMENT PARK”! (Photo 2)
Because all commercial activities (tents, buffets, restaurants, tea gardens etc), artificial pools, children playgrounds and densely use of the area changed the structure of Nature.
Some “Cultural Elements” and “Natural Elements” in landscape design are successfully implemented in the Park. (Project 1, 2) Some parts of the park are designed as “Nature Park”.


Design: Ates, Turgay, Private archive

Design: Ates, Turgay, Private archive

b. Destruction Of A Main Urban Green and Wind Corridor:

Dikmen Valley was an important element of Metropolitan Ankara’s urban wind circulation & green corridor (east, east-west) so it was also destructed by high rise, high density apartment
Blocks (18-20 flats) with both side of the Valley. As well as constructing two high rise blocks with a bridge named “CULTURE BRIDGE”! But it is not understandable this name, because
this two apartment tower & bridge structure do not contain any cultural activity!


c. Extensive Change Of Topography :
Especially in 2nd Phase of the implementation, changing the approach more radically towards to the more hard landscape from soft landscape, and also constructed a huge “Amphi Theatre” service as water flood barrier. High rise apartment basements on two sides of the Valley also main destructive factor of the topography.

d. Destruction Of Water Resources, Creeks And Aquifers:
Underground and over ground water resources are also destructed and changed to the artificial water ponds, a huge pool and small imitation creek, resembles of old Dikmen Creek.


e. Unjust Rents And Earnings: Unjust
Rights: The owners of the “gecekondus” (squatters) owning their building, unplanned and against laws of Construction and Resettlement (3194), Municipality Law etc. Those buildings are
against to the Laws, so it has to be punished for this reason, but they won like a “Prize” and released as owner of “RIGHT” They are given flats in exchange of their gecekondus.

f. The Enormous Unjust Earnings Of Construction Firms:
One of the main results of the implementation of the Project is speculation of both sides of the Valley and results also enormous unjust earnings of the Construction Firms.

g. Social Change And Gentrification :
Before the Project implementation, the population living in and around the Dikmen valley is mainly low and middle-low class. But after huge investment of public and private, construction of artificial park and high rise apartment blocks, the social profile was dramatically changed to the high income class. This result showing that the Dikmen Valley Project was intentionally or unintentionally aimed to “GENTRIFICATION”, not integrating the area and its inhabitants, to the City and their citizens totally.


Ecological thresholds, and amongst them valleys should be seen as not disintegrating but integrating natural reserves of an urban area. However, so called ‘generation projects, recently took place in Ankara’s urban development, have plans and urban design projects towards disintegrating the city from their valleys. These projects pay little attention to ecological conditions of the city, to geomorphologic and topographical aspects of the valleys planned and designed, and in the end, do not consider ‘healthy city’ concept, properly. These all might bring real ecological burden onto the city and to its citizens.


Ankara Büyüksehir Belediyesi-Metropol Imar A S (1990) Dikmen Vadisi Konut ve Çevre Gelistirme Projesi Nazım Imar Planı Acıklama Raporu.
Ankara Büyüksehir Belediyesi-Metropol Imar A S (1991) Dikmen Vadisi Konut ve Cevre Gelistirme Projesi 1/1000 Uygulama Imar Planı Acıklama Raporu.
Ankara Büyüksehir Belediyesi-Metropol Imar A S (1992) Portakal Cicegi Vadisi Kentsel Gelisme Projesi 1/1000 Uygulama Imar Planı Açıklama Raporu.

23 Ocak 2007 Salı


42ND ISoCaRP Congress
Istanbul, 14-18 September,


Mehmet TUNCER,
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Urban & Regional Planner (MsC),
Public Administration and Political Science (PhD)

I. Objectives
“One of the spatial outcomes of this process is the proliferation of compartments in cities. On the one hand, there are iconic projects, gentrified neighbourhoods and gated communities of the new elite. On the other hand, there are ghettos of the poor, the migrants, the unemployed and all those who are excluded from the other segments of the society.”

“As the economic engine of the modern Turkish economy, Istanbul occupies yet another pivotal role and aspires to be one of the leading cities in the new world hierarchy of cities, which brings along a variety of problems of “integration and disintegration” to the forefront in the agenda of local administration and planning”.
(AN INVITATION TO ISTANBUL, Topbas, K., Mayor of Metropolitan Istanbul)

This text includes the first evaluation and ideas about how Fener – Balat must be taken up, dependent on the experience of “Protective Urban Renewal” that is existed in “Kreuzberg” district which was in the centre of Berlin at first but it was stayed aside when the Berlin Wall was destroyed in 1961.
Fener - Balat Project aims at providing a new look for Fener and Balat through improving the living standards of the inhabitants and the rehabilitation of housing and infrastructure and the development of basic services of education, health and culture. Principles of “Step by step Protective Urban Renewal: Kreuzberg” are tried to be improved in the sample of Fener – Balat. They are the initial and can be improved ideas. (International Building Exhibition Berlin 1987, Pub. S.T.E.R.N. Gessellshaft der behutsamen Stader-neuerung Berlin mbH.)

II. Kreuzberg and Conservative Urban Renewal
During the late 19th century the quarter of Kreuzberg was a working-class area. After the Second World War many people left the damaged buildings. A population of artists, foreigners, unemployed and members of sub-cultures remained. (See Photo 1)


Today it’s an area rich in contrasts: luxury apartments stand next to ancient and ruined buildings. The district has many restaurants, Turkish bazaars, and an interesting selection of nightclubs, cinemas and galleries. (See Photo 2)

City renewal in the 1960's and 70's meant large-area demolition and new construction on the open land. Standing structures were usually destroyed. At the end of the 70's, this practice was discontinued in favour of preserving the street block structure in the existing city area. Then buildings were individually modernized or empty land was built on. The densely built-up areas were only partly torn down and interspersed with open spaces. Nevertheless, the destruction of standing structures continued. The house squatter movement in the early 80's contributed to the growing consciousness of the problem and the international building exhibition (IBA) marked the official turning away from former city renewal concepts. Twelve ground rules for a "careful urban renewal" were passed.

Source: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungsplanung/pix/kreuzberg.gif
Central elements: participation of the affected parties, socially-compatible rehabilitation methods, preservation of the building substance.
The rehabilitation contract was signed in 1983. In 1986 the building work began. In 1991 the buildings were largely restored. In this process exemplary ecological elements (energy, water, greenery, and waste, building materials) were developed. (See Map 1)
II. Rehabilitation of Fener and Balat Districts of Istanbul
In his memoirs "From Balat to Batyam", Eli Saul, a Jewish writer who was born and grown up in Fener-Balat, describes the area, which is known as one of the richest residential and cultural centres of the old Istanbul, in the following words…
"From 1900 to 1950, Balat looked like a small Jewish town. The Jews formed the majority of the inhabitants. They had about ten synagogues and more than one hundred rabbis. The doctors and the dentists were all Jewish. All the firemen in Balat where there was often a fire were Jewish. The shops except three sellers of roasted chickpeas at Leblebiciler Street were owned by Jews.
Source: http://fenerbalat.org/index.php
Balat used to divide into two parts: "Ariento Balat" (Inner Balat) and "Afuera Balat" (Outer Balat). One walked from Balat towards Edirnekapi, one could see Turkish families. The Greeks used to live at the high street and side streets from Balat towards Fener. A few Greek families had settled among the Jews around the Ayistrati Church and few in Inner Balat. The Armenian community used to live around two Armenian churches. There were Persians who had shops in Balat, selling herbs, folk remedies and small wares and notions.
The Bulgarian families were engaged in dairy business, producing delicious cream. There were also a few Albanian families living in Balat, selling vegetables in the street, singing and shouting praisingly of the vegetables they carried in large wicker baskets mounted on horses or mules. The Albanians used to sell also hot salep (a hot drink made with powdered orchids) and ashura (a pudding made with cereals, sugar, raisins and various other dried fruits) in winter mornings...” (See Map 2 – Fener-Balat location in Istanbul)
Starting date of the project: 2001Duration: 4 yearsContribution: 7 million eurosTurkey's Contribution: 10 million eurosProgramme Partners: European CommissionFatih Municipality & Under secretariat of Treasury

“Fener and Balat Rehabilitation Programme”, implementations were started with the support of European Union’s € 7 million euros in January 2003. In the scope of the Program, the aim is restoration of old housing buildings as much as possible in the Quarters of Fener and Balat. Establishing a Social Centre, revitalising the historic Balat Market, and building a solid waste management system. Activities are still continuing participation of the inhabitants of the quarters. (http://www.deltur.cec.eu.int/!Publish/tr/PR%20-%202006-PressRelease-44.doc ,

A Technical Assistance Team were supported those mentioned works. The Team assisted to the Municipality of Fatih. Together with Foment Ciutat Vella SA, IMC Consulting Firm (England), GRET (France) and Kadin Emegini Degerlendirme Vakfi (Foundation for the Support of Women's Work) (Turkey) formed the other member of the consortium.
Fener and Balat Districts Rehabilitation Program propose the participation of decision making and applications. For this reason, introduce the Program, to invite participation in various different phases, and inform the people of the progress meetings, house and office visits were made.
IV. History of the Fener-Balat Rehabilitation Programme:
A group of architects in 1968, made a research on the wide area that includes Zeyrek, Fener, Balat and Ayvansaray. As a result of that research it was realized that the whole historic and cultural environment started to become slum. In 1975, a zone in Zeyrek became a conservation area as the first step. In the period of 1979-1980, the conservation area was enlarged.
No action had been taken after 1975, when the Zeyrek was put under conservation. For twenty years not a single change had happened in the area. The Molla Zeyrek Mosque (Pantakrato Church) which had a history of more than a thousand and five hundred years had continued its decay. The Ottoman water fountains had dried. Historic baths collapsed. The konaks (historic houses) were faced with many fire incidents. The structures of modern apartment architecture with facades were placed for the demolished konaks. The avlu’s (courtyards) of mosques that had almost five hundred years of history have been places of discomfort. The cobbled streets disappeared under several layers of asphalt. The same applies to Fener and also Balat and Ayvansaray. (KALKAN, E., “The First Urban Rehabilitation Project Of Turkey”, Hurriyet Newspaper.)
UNESCO had put almost the whole peninsula to the list of “World Cultural Heritage” and the decision was approved by the responsible bodies. The reason why the privilege was given to Suleymaniye by UNESCO was that the timber structures were not in good condition and they had the bigger risk of decline and demolishment than the others.
The project progressed significantly however the budget of Fatih was not sufficient although its being a very populated district. As a result, the things that could be done were limited. They started the restoration of some of the structures that were the properties of Municipality, Pious Foundations (Vakıfs) and the Ministry of the Treasury.
Zembilli Ali Efendi Tekkesi was one of them. Together with the Turkiye Egitim Gonulluleri Vakfı (Turkish Education Volunteers Foundation/ TEGV) Municipality restored this structure. In this restoration, a small scale of education unit was established with computers. Two Byzantine Cistern which were named as Findikzade, Cukurbostani and Carsamba Cukurbostani were transformed to education parks from slumming zones.
By UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Municipality of Fatih, French Institute of Anatolian Researches and Fener Volunteers there initiated the project named ``Fener and Balat Districts Urban Rehabilitation Project” in September 1st 1997.
Municipality of Fatih, sustained a meeting room and a project studio in 1st September, 1997 to the UNESCO team that came to Istanbul; and the working process began. EU declared that the project that was directed by UNESCO would receive the financial support. One of the factors that affected the EU’s decision was the fact that non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) played a very important part in this project. As two local initiatives, “Fener Volunteers Charity and Balat Beautification Charity” were established before the initiation of the project. The Fener Volunteers Charity was working on establishment of an Institute of Fener – Balat Researches. The members of this charity, who also made efforts to protect the historical structures, hosted the whole UNESCO team during their feasibility investigations.
French Institute of Anatolian Researches has played an active role in project from the very beginning. The head of the institute Stefanos Yerasimos explained the aim of the projects as:
``A rehabilitation and restoration project has been carried out so as to increase the standards of living of the people in this zone. In the first phase of this study, data collection prior to application process, evaluation of the data, and a feasibility study that would include a project proposal are targeted. In the second phase, the aim was to realize an application process via use of the data derived from the feasibility study.''
There were examples of restoration and rehabilitation projects that were carried out in Istanbul in the hands of the project team, which was comprised of municipality members, national and international specialists, non-governmental organizations and institute. Some of those projects were “Sogukcesme” and “Kariye Project” which was supported by Turing Otomobil Foundation, and “Ortakoy Project” that was made by Municipality of Besiktas. Those examples were discussed in the committee.
In the Sogukcesme Street, the dwellings were bought and the inhabitants were made to move to other places in the city; the fact that social network was at least as valuable as the structures was ignored. De-humanized street was decorated as a “theatre scene” and was opened to tourism. The head of Turing, Celik Gulersoy, made up for his failure in Kariye. The organization undertook the restoration of facades around the Kariye Museum. Inhabitants of the district were not made to move, and the social network was conserved.
Fener and Balat Districts were discussed at the beginning of the Rehabilitation Project. All the stakeholders agreed on the social restoration as well as physical restoration in the project.
The Main Coordinator of the Project Remi Stoquart, stated the priorities of the projects as:
“Proposal is to financing for developing the social housing, restoration of the structures and design of their environment. It was realized that in the housing units in which there used to live a family now live four or five families. This situation is diminishing their living space, and gives rise to unhealthy conditions. It was also observed that the shared facilities such as kitchen, bathroom, and toilet were unsanitary. It is vital that the structures should be improved for their inhabitants.
Examples of the civil architecture and historic structures should be conserved and utilized. Mosque, church, synagogue, timber and stone (kagir) structures should be examined and restored. The whole area should be restored as a place where living is possible. Village clinics, dispensaries, education spaces should be arranged according to needs.
“At this phase of the project our target is to establish the participation and contribution of inhabitants of the district, force of public development and support of the social housing. In this respect, the strategy for rehabilitation project will be determined.''
Committee finalized the feasibility study at 31st January, 1998 and submitted to the UNESCO. A book was prepared from the feasibility study and published in French, English and Turkish. The project was approved by committees of UNESCO and EU.
(“Balat ve Fener Semtleri’nin Rehabilitasyonu”, 1998, Ed. A team from Fatih Municipality, EU, UNESCO, French Anatolian Research Institute.)
Beginning from the 1st January, 2000, it was determined that the project studies should begin. EU gave 7 million Euros to the project from the fund of NGO; and Turkey made 2 million dollar contribution from the TOKİ (Prime Ministry Mass Housing Directorate) it was the first time that TOKİ funded an urban rehabilitation project.
It was realized that there was a lack of specialist construction workers as the Fener and Balat project was realized. To deal with this problem, and also for job education in the area, a restoration school was established. The Technical University of Berlin, which carried out many studies on Istanbul in the last century, undertakes the establishment of restoration school. The problem was solved when Istanbul Technical University also gave its support to the school project.
Dimitri Kantemir’s Palace in Fener, Sancaktar Yokuşu (Sancaktar Rise) was chosen as the new place for the restoration school. The palace which was a collection of many different structures that belonged to Pious Foundations (Vakıflar) and Ministry of Treasury was transferred to Municipality thanks to efforts of Fener Volunteers Charity.
The aim of the school was teaching its students about timber, stone, iron, calligraphy and giving them a certificate and employing them in the project. In the restoration school it was aimed to give graduate education to both Turkish and German students.

Creation of a "House of the Inhabitants" to inform residents of the changes to be made to their living environment,
Adoption of a policy for providing credits for rehabilitation,
Creation of educational centres: Artisans' House, two post schooling extracurricular study centres, a technical institute for textiles,
Creation of a centre for the reintegration of the drug-addicts and mother and child health care centre,
Construction of children playgrounds and creation of open air sport facilities,
Paving/ asphalting of all the streets of the district,
Connection to city's gas system and modernization of sewage system
Public awareness/information campaign on family planning and vaccinations for the children.

V. From Kreuzberg to Fener - Balat: 12 Principles of Conservative Urban Renewal

Below, 12 principles, foreseen for Kreuzberg, and experience and problems about these 12 principles are given in italic. Than, our approach and suggestions about Fener – Balat are offered in a frame with each principle, problem and experience. Some of them are still in use and implementing during the Fener-Balat Project. (See Photo 4-5)

Principle. 1 Urban renewal and rehabilitation must be guided, dependent on the requirements of people who are living in the towns and region, and planned together with them.
This principle; at Fener-Balat Project also has importance. Obtaining economical, technical and labour contribution of public, supplying information and awareness about prevention of historical environment are needed. To achieve this will be become easier with leadership of civilian society organizations (NGO’s) and under the co-operation of Fatih Municipality.

Experience: Supporting appropriations are given only when the approvals of renters are taken. All renters, who are reproached with urban renewal, are given guidance services by independent renter advisers.

Renting is also important problem for Fener-Balat District. Contacting with hosts cannot be possible every time. To convince renters is more difficult because they do not have any responsibility about building they are living in. Ownership situation may be important criteria for determination of houses that will be restored and reformed.

Problem: “Renter approval” and “renter consulting” that are two basic elements are not in the guarantee in a long term.
Experience: Old buildings are obtaining more quality with smaller cost than new buildings.

Principle. 2 The foundation of urban renewal must be formed by the real agreement between users and precaution appliers.

Establishing Local Offices, having organizations in the street scale, contacting local people are important for Fener-Balat Project. Especially, situation of people in the struggle to make a living has importance.

Experience: The guidance services that are given in the east side of Kreuzberg are not limited with single fact; on the contrary two “district committee” are formed in which, citizens and administration are voting on local projects.

As a good case, Ankara - Hacibayram Mosque Environment Arrangement experience has importance for this subject. In that project is a “Consultation and Orientation Committee” was established with participation of Municipality and local people which carried out implementations.

Source: http://fenerbalat.org/homedb.php

Problem: There are lots of problems (as unemployment), which are impossible to be solved by these planning councils.
Projecting and implementation processes will maintain several job opportunities. Making local youth and artisans to work in restoration, renovation and rehabilitation implementations in this project which can improve solution for socio-economic problems. This project must be presented as a “Model of Society Development” and “Strategy” by supply integration between Social-Centre, solid waste management, Balat Market projects and restoration implementations.
Studies have begun in the “Social Center” which was established as a part of the “Fener and Balat Program”. There were a child-care unit giving service all day long and sheltering 15 children of ages 4-5; 154 children at the school age were benefiting from the computer, mathematics and English courses after school. In addition, 118 women were attending health, nutrition, child-care and wood painting courses and seminars in the “Social Center.” (http://www.deltur.cec.eu.int/!Publish/tr/PR%20-%202006-PressRelease-44.doc)
The aim of the Social Center is to enforce accessibility of inhabitants of these districts to basic social needs and services, especially women and children. In this way it is aimed to establish social uniformity and solidarity.

Principle. 3 The situation in the redevelopment of the area is determined by fear and discontent. The feeling of trust and optimistic look to the future must be formed again. This principle must be dominant in all rent contracts. The damages which are threatening the main part of buildings must be removed by hasty programs in a short time.

It’s needed to make inventory of the buildings, on about structural conditions and conservation positions and comfort situations. Buildings structurally weak, in danger are important and must be short term restorations.

Experience: There were many investments into the public funds from 1982 to 1985 in Kreuzberg, but the using of these funds could be inspected partly.

Problems: In guiding the programs, there were short term acts in many times more than as needed, so future planning, dependent on strong base, could not be strengthened.

Scheduling of plans and implementations, and supervising and follow of implementations have great importance. Implementation of Fener-Balat project must start in the most necessary and urgent zone. After infrastructure reform restoration and reparation implementations must be completed. This is still urgent in the area.

Principle. 4, 5,6 Renewal must be verified gradually in a time. There must be a possibility in making addition to the basic standard in the first step with other precautions in the later step. In existing house, the possibilities, which are hidden for new residence forms must be used carefully. Urban situation must be repaired in small scales by little destruction, making the middle parts of block green and arranging exterior sides and fire walls.

Evaluation of exterior side architecture and aesthetics and internal architecture/comfort must be made by using special inventory cards in a scientific way. After this evaluation we can decide method of dealing with each building. Separated case of houses, number of family living in, infrastructure/comfort conditions must carefully dealt with. Reparation of single buildings will divided into categories

Such as structural, simple, paint/ plaster reparation and street side reparations will completed with related with all these.

Experience: Thanks to block architects and big house maker companies who are gotten all relevant surroundings’ trust, the principles from 4 to 6 are being applied successfully.

Determining the criteria for the firms will be chosen for the restoration /rehabilitation is important. Criteria for determining the Firms are; organization capacities, technical availability.

Technical Support Team, so as to make a ranking for the houses that were to be restored, with participation of Municipality of Fatih, designed two sets of ranking systems; one of architecture and one of social concerns. Necessary data was established with two separate field studies. In the evaluation of the structures location, architectural value, historical value, the level of needed restoration inside and outside of the structure, earthquake risk, the possible changes of use during and after the restoration, the impact of the restoration to its environment, the level of difficulty in taking permission of Conservation Council (due to illegal additions in structure) were adopted as architectural criteria. (See Map 3)

Problems: Many single enterprises and private companies are trying to let loose the principles in a meandering way by their own architects’ mediation.

With this project it is aimed that inhabitants’ standards of living should be improved and urban space should be enhanced.
As the constructions continued, the study of preparation of the necessary documents are rapidly processing for the restoration of the second stage of restoration; a rather more detailed and comprehensive work including houses, shops and building that would be used as social centre facilities (http://www.deltur.cec.eu.int/!Publish/tr/DELTUR04FB-W01-PressRelease-3.doc, AU Turkish Delegations, 9 April 2005 Dated Press Release).

Principle. 7 “Public facilities must be renewed dependent on the requirements and completed by widening.”

Urban social and technical infrastructure will be determined according to the standards. If deficiency of some infrastructure will be fixed, those will be supply beginning from the most urgent.

Experience: Kreuzberg is a neighbourhood, constructed in a whole, in which verifying ability, like the addition of facilities (as schools) to the region by not getting rid of the renters and users, was obligatory.

Problems: Public projects take long time.

While planning it’s needed to fixation of the absence of Social Infrastructure (education, health, open/green areas, child playgrounds, sport areas, religious etc.). To supply them is a new project except social-centre and Balat Market.

Principle. 8 “Urban renewal requires an agreement on principles of social planning as a first condition. By these principles people’s participation and economic justices’ arrangement is obligatory (people who are reproached with the renewal).”

To determining the “Principles of Social Planning” for the Case of Fener-Balat, it is needed to re-evaluate and renew social interviews which it has been done before, while using some methods of sampling. This interview will be applicative at the area to determine the social, economic and cultural positions and conservation consciousness also.

Experience: All forms of participation to the administration, mentioned in the first and second points, are determined elements of the social planning in the application.

Problems: The connectivity and guarantee in a long time, which are given to the social planning are still inadequate today.

The solid waste campaign which was established within this context was realized in four primary schools in February-March 2005. Within this context, 1250 students were given the solid waste and environment-consciousness seminars; and 150 students were trained in studio works. Within the solid waste campaign, in March 29, 2005, recycling trash bins were distributed to 2500 houses in Fener and Balat Districts.

Principle. 9 “For guiding urban renewal, decision making must be clear, on the other hand the agents of people who are reproached with renewal must be strengthened and decision maker committees whose meetings are in the relevant region must be formed.”
Experience: Organization of people, who are reproached with renewal, is very different among each other. The association model is the best successful organization model until today. (SO 36 Association)
Problems: The association model cannot be applicable for all places.

At Fener-Balat Districts; analysis for organisations such as “Civil Public Organisations”, “Foundation/Vakıfs”, “Cooperatives/Housing and Tourism”, “Company-Public Cooperation” and will be chosen one or two.

In the local meetings, the scope of restoration and the contracts between Municipality and property owners were discussed in addition to election criteria. As a result of the studies it was decided that property owners which were to benefit from the restoration should not sell their property in five years; that they should not make any constructions/interventions against the restoration plan; that they should give priority to the prior tenants while renting their property and they should make increase in the rents according to the legal framework.

Principle. 10 “Urban renewal that can be trusted requires the certain financing guarantees.”

Experience: In the urban renewal there must be a period for 2 or 3 years for preparation. Hence what will be supported after 3 years must be known clearly today.

Problems: In guiding the program “stop and go” is the thing which is continuously run into.

Source: Balat ve Fener Semtleri’nin Rehabilitasyonu, 1998, Fatih Bel., AB, UNESCO, Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.

Financial continuity and getting back models has to be building up. This is needed for a “Sustainable Conservation Model” and continuity of implementations.

Principle. 11 “About taking on institutions, all chances must be used for improving new forms.”

Experience: The best taken on institutions are public companies and ‘make it yourself’ associations.

Problems: The province government intends supporting the activities of public taken on institutions, only in an abstaining manner.

Principle. 12 “Also after 1984, all precautions must guarantee the urban renewal in accordance with this project.”

Problems: The foresight about the perspective of the urban renewal in Kreuzberg after 1987 is difficult until now. There is a deficiency of not clearly putting the politic aims about this subject.

One of the main important components of Fener-Balat Project is, after the Project implementations, a sustainable & continuous environmental and building restoration unit/organisation will be actively work nearby the Local Government (Fatih Municipality).

In the context of “Fener and Balat Districts Rehabilitation Program” executed by European Union and Municipality of Fatih, restoration studies started in 26 houses elected with the property owner’s approval. As a result of the adjudication of Turkish Delegation of European Committee in August of 2004, a contractor firm executed the restorations. (See Photo 4-5)
Restoration of the 26 houses was to be completed in 8 months and would cost approximately 377.000 Euros. In these houses, roofs and façades will be repaired, main entrance doors and windows would be renewed, and the additions of low quality would be replaced. It is aimed that the original architectural values of the houses should be protected and physical conditions would be improved. Monitoring and acceptance of the restoration made by the contractor firm should be done by Technical Support Team that was working together with Municipality of Fatih.

3 Ocak 2007 Çarşamba



Doç.Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER

Türkiye Cumhuriyeti devleti tarafından bölge ve ülke kalkınmasının temel taşlarından biri olarak geliştirilen ve kısaca GAP olarak adlandırılan proje, Fırat ve Dicle ile bunlara bağlı yan kollar üzerindeki çok sayıda baraj ile sulama sisteminin yapılmasını içermektedir. Bu dev projelerin Bölgenin kalkınması açısından büyük önem taşıdığından kimsenin kuşkusu yoktur..
Ancak, bölgenin böylesine önemli tarihsel ve kültürel mirasa sahip olması, bunların belgelenmesi, korunması ve gelecek kuşaklara aktarılması sorumluluğunu da beraberinde getirmektedir.
GAP tamamlandığında, Fırat ve Dicle gibi iki büyük nehir boyunca uzanan ve insan yerleşimine elverişli alanlar sular altında kalacaktır. GAP kapsamındaki baraj gölleri altında kalacak olan kültürel mirasın ortaya çıkarılması, belgelenmesi ve kurtarılması uygarlık tarihine karşı olan sorumluluğumuzun gereğidir. Etkilenecek alanların tümünde arkeolojik, tarihsel / kültürel kalıntılar ve yöresel kültür mirasının belgelenmesi için araştırmaların resmi ve bilimsel otoriteler arasında eşgüdümlü olarak yapılması gerekmektedir.

Ilısu Barajı rezervuar suları altında kalacak olan bölgenin tarihteki önemi oldukça büyüktür. Tarihteki birçok önemli olay burada yer almış, uygarlık tarihinin bir çok önemli aşaması da bu bölgede gerçekleşmiştir. Kuşkusuz sular altında kalacak olan bölgenin en önemli ve tanınmış merkezi başta Artuklu’lar olmak üzere bir çok Ortaçağ devletine başkentlik etmiş olan HASANKEYF’tir. Hasankeyf, ASUR, HIRİSTİYAN, İSLAMİ-ABBASİ ve OSMANLI Tarihinin zengin bir hazinesidir. Hasankeyf, Orta Öağ’da, Orta Asya ve İran, Arap, Batı (Roma-Bizans) kültürlerinin buluştuğu bir belde; dolayısıyla, Selçukluların Anadolu’yu yurt edinmesiyle başlayan Türkiye sentezinin başlangıç noktalarından biridir. Orta Çağ’a ait büyük bir kentin korunması gerekli nitelikleri günümüzde terk edilmiş ve harap vaziyette de olsa somut bir biçimde gözlenebilmektedir.

Türkiye Bu Nedenlerle Hasankeyf’i 14 Nisan 1978 Tarihinde A-1105 Sayılı Gayri-Menkul Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu Kararı İle Koruma Altına Almıştır. Yörenin 13.3.1981 tarih ve A-3767 Sayılı ve 08.02.1982 Tarih ve A-3298 Sayılı Kararlar ile I. DERECE ARKEOLOJİK SİT ALANI olduğu tescil edilmiş ve burada acilen kazı-araştırma-koruma çalışmaları yapılması istenmiştir[1].


Kale ve Sarayların bulunduğu Yukarı Kent, Baraj seviyesinin üstünde kalıyor olsa da, AŞAĞI KENT’in tümü ile önemli yapılardan ANITSAL KÖPRÜ ve Anadolu Timur Dönemine ait özgün bir örnek olan Türbe yapıları Ilısu Baraj Gölü altında kalacaktır.

Hasankeyf’te kurtarma çalışmaları Ankara üniversitesi’nden Prof. Dr. Oluş Arık tarafından 1989 yılında başlatılmış, ancak 1991 yılından sonra arazi çalışmalarına ara verilmiştir. Proje kapsamında 1998 yılında tekrar başlatılan Hasankeyf kazı çalışmaları çerçevesinde tarihsel kentin ve yakın çevresinin ayrıntılı olarak belgelenmesi için haritalama çalışmaları henüz tamamlanmamıştır. Bu çalışmalar mağara yerleşimlerini de içerecek şekilde, yerleşim alanında yer alan tüm kültürel varlıkların envanter çalışmalarına temel olacak şekilde yapılmaktadır.Kültürel mirasın kaybının en aza indirgenmesi için Hasankeyf üzerine olabildiğince fazla verinin belgelenmesine yönelik olarak, arkeolojik yüzey araştırmaları ve kazılar Dcle’nin sağ yakasında bulunan aşağı kentte olduğu kadar, sol yakasında da sürdürülmektedir.

Türkiye’de elektrik talebi her yıl % 8 artmakta ve sık sık meydana gelmekte olan elektrik kesintileri de ekonomik büyümeyi yavaşlatmaktadır. Bunun önüne geçilebilmesi için doğal kaynaklardan çevresel açıdan minimum zarar etkisi yapacak yararlanma şekillerini kullanmak elbette ki son derece doğaldır. Ancak, toplumun yararı beklenen gelişmelerin, topluma rağmen yapılması da söz konusu olmamalı, bunun için gerekli önlemler ve telafiler mutlaka düşünülmelidir.


Yapıldığında Bölge’de yaşamakta olan 52 köy ve 15 beldenin sular altıda kalmasıyla birlikte 25 000 civarında kişi etkilenecektir. Yeniden İskan Eylem Raporu[2]’na göre bu rakam 55 127 (1990 Nüfus Sayımı) ile 71 186 (2000 Nüfus Sayımı) arasında değişmektedir.

TMMOB Elektrik Mühendisleri Odası Ocak 2001 yayınında DAHA FAZLA ENERJİ ELDE EDEREK DE HASANKEYF KORUNABİLİR başlığı altında yayınlanan yazıda[3]; Hasankeyf Medeniyetini yok edecek Ilısu Barajının akış yukarısında (upstream part); 8 adet baraj bulunduğu, Bunlardan 5’inin işletmeye açık olduğu, dolayısıyla, büyük baraj yerine, Hidrolik biliminin kurucusu Gelile’nin öğrencisi Toriçelli ilkesi yaşama geçirilerek, Basınçlı boru ve kanal sistemleri, aç-kapa yöntemi, doğal ve/veya yapay anıtların olmadığı derin dereli-yüksek tepeli yüzey şekillerinin egemen olduğukesimlerde başlangıcında enerji elde edip, akış aşağısında (downstream) akış düzengeç ve/veya küçük barajlar yapılarak da daha fazla enerji elde edilebileceği,

Ağır geçen kış koşulları nedeniyle, Batman'ın
Hasankeyf ilçesindeki birçok tarihi eser yıkılma tehlikesi ile karşı karşıya.
Bölgede sürdürülen kazının başkanı Prof. Dr. Abdulselam Uluçam, 2006 kışının
Hasankeyf için şanssız bir dönem olduğunu, yedi gün boyunca yağan karın tarihi
dokuya zarar verdiğini belirtti.

Her akarsuyun önüne baraj yaparak DOĞA VE TARİHSEL ZENGİNLİKLERİ YOK EDENLER, bu ülkede daha ne kadar barajlar kıralı seçilecektir. Barajlar kıralı olmayan ve Tuna ve Meriç dışında nehri de olmayan Bulgaristan’dan enerji alan ülkemiz öz eleştiri yapmalıdır.



[1] Nesrin TÜRKAY’ın “Çevre Planlaması” Dersime sunduğu., “Ilısu Barajı Projesi’nin Çevresel Toplumsal ve Diğer Açılardan Değerlendirilmesi”, başlıklı çalışma, Şubat 2001, Ankara Üniversitesi, SBF, Kent ve Çevre ABD.
[2] Ayşe KUDAT, 2000, “Ilısu Dams’ Resettlement Action Plan”, Achieving International Best Practice, Berne decleration Update..
[3] İlyas YILMAZER, Özgür YILMAZER; “DAHA FAZLA ENERJİ ELDE EDEREK DE HASANKEYF KORUNABİLİR”, TMMOB, EMO, Elektrik Mühendisliği Dergisi, Ocak 2001, sayı 407, S.32-37.