CONSERVATION OF KONYA, THE SELJUK CAPITAL / THE CONSERVATION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER[1]
I. KONYA IN HISTORY
Konya, which is in the Central Anatolian Region, is one of the greatest cities of Turkey as far as surface area is concerned. It has been densely populated in every historical period since its land is distributed into plateaus, plains and closed river systems and its soil is fertile. It was an important center of trade, culture and politics all through the First and Middle Ages at the intersection points of historical trade routes that connect the Anatolian towns to each other, to Asia and to Europe (Figure 1). It still keeps that importance today.
FIGURE 1. KONYA AT THE END OF 19TH CENTURY (GRAVURE)
Significant settlements have been established in and around this City since prehistoric times. This part, which also contains the ancient Lykaonia, has in it the oldest ancient-era settlements of Anatolia. Many findings, witnesses to the prehistoric times, have been unearthed in the Alaeddin Hill. The same Hill has been home to the Frigians (Phrigians?) between the 8th-7th centuries BC. Catalhoyuk, near the Cumra District, houses one of the richest veins of findings of the history of civilization (800-5300 BC). Besides Catalhoyuk, important Neolithical settlements are Erbaba (Beysehir), Suberde and Can Hasan. Settlements were established at Can Hasan, Western Catalhoyuk, the Alaeddin Hill, Sizma, Karahoyuk and other centers in the Calcolitichal and Bronze Ages.
Konya is one of those Anatolian cities whose name has lasted since the ancient times. Its name of old, Ikonion, is related to the work “Ikon”, which means “picture”, “holy picture”. The name Ikonium was altered to Iconium in the early Roman period, then to Claudiconium when the Emperor gave the town his own name in the period of Emperor Cladius (41-54 AD). The town, which became a completely Roman town in the period of Emperor Hadrianus (2nd century AD: 117-138), went by the name “Colonia Selenie, Adrina Augusta Iconium. The name of the town, which is mentioned as “Conium” or “Stancona” in Byzantian sources and “Conia, Cogne, Cogna, Konich, Konia Tokonion” in other sources, appears as “iconium” in Crusader sources. The Arabians named the town as Kuniya. The name Konya, which was used in the Seljuk (Selçuk) and Ottoman (Osmanli) periods as well, has come unaltered to our day.
After raids by Kimmerians, Lydians and Persians, Konya was put under Roman rule in 133 BC. It is known that Konya was included in the first great Anatolian Empire, the State of the Hittites (1650-712 BC). The Konya Egerli and Karaman are among old Hittite towns. The rock base-relief, which is one of the most descriptive properties of Hittite art, is encountered in Egerli, Ivris, Beysehir-Eflatunpinar and Fasillar. Following that, Konya entered the power of the Frigian state (712-695) and the Lydians (680-546).
This is followed by the Persians conquering all of Anatolia from one end to the other (546-334 BC). The town was included in the Cappadoccia Kingdom between the dates 332-17 BC. Conquered by the Romans in 17 BC, Konya became an important center in this period and the Byzantian period. The Roman period displays the properties of the peace time in such a town as Konya which is wide-spread on plains. The town was the scene for several Emevi and Abbasi (Arabs) attacks in the Eastern Rome/Byzantine period between the years 395-1076. After the Malazgirt Battle, it was conquered by Suleyman Shah in the year 1076 and made the Capital City of the Anatolian Selcuklu (Seljucks) State. The Alaeddin Hill is an inner citadel in Konya, which attained its true character during the Selcuklu period. This Selcuk Citadel has almost been left right in the middle of the town during the Ottoman Empire Period.
II. HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL CENTER OF KONYA
The “Center of Trade”, an indication of the economical structure, level of technology, and the social and cultural life of a town, is the most important part of the town. There is a deep-rooted tradition of trade organization and trade structure in the Ottoman-Turkish towns. The traditional trade centers of many of our towns today, like in Konya, are physical proofs of this tradition, which have lived until this day. These trade centers should be rearranged and old buildings should be given new areas of application. The position of Konya, on the route that runs by mountains going down all the way to the Mediterranean shores, lends itself readily to urban settlement. Catalhoyuk, that is perhaps the first prehistoric Anatolian settlement to display urban characteristic, is on the same route, very close to Konya. The ancient route, which goes across Anatolia diagonally, had become extremely significant when Bursa rose as an economical center in the Ottomans’ time.
FIGURE 2. KONYA HISTORICAL TRADE CENTER AT THE BEGININNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
This route set off from Bursa, passed through Kutahya-Karahisar-Aksehir-Konya-Adana and reached Halep and Sam; it therefore connected Konya simultaneously to the other Ottoman towns, most significantly Istanbul. Kayseri, through which another trade route from Syrie passed, was connected to Konya through Aksaray.
Another way the Ottomans reached the Arabian countries was the Alanya-Antalya (Attalia) sea route. Heavy trade material of Anatolia was brought to Antalya through land and were carried to Alexandria and other regions from there through sea. And the control of that Antalya route was in the hands of Karamans, in Konya.
The trade and social focal points in Konya are the trader-crafter markets surrounding Mevlana Kulliyesi, Selimiye Mosque, Kapu Mosque and Aziziye Mosque. The two basic elements of the Islamic town, the mosque and the market, are observed to be the two elements controlling the physical structure in Ottoman towns as well. However, Ottoman towns were developed, unlike other Islamic Towns, by creating imarets (Pious Foundations), which are collections of religions and social buildings. Since imarets included buildings for all services, including mosques, inns, baths and mealhouses (asevi), they tended to attract people around themselves.
The Konya settlement area was within the walls surrounding the Alaeddin Hill in the Selcuk times. After the town walls were repaired, a Palace was erected on the northern slopes of the hill and the Ulu Mosque (Alaeddin Mosque) in the middle part. According to the building remains, it can be stated that the northern side of the hill was reserved for Turks and the southern side, for the Christian people. The palace, government buildings, schools, mosques, inns and baths were constructed in the Turkish part. There was a wall separating the Turkish and Christian Districts.
The Town, which grew and flourished rapidly, was surrounded by a broader wall by Alaeddin Keykubat I. Charles Texier mentions that there were 108 towers on these walls, one in every 30 meters; and there were bridges on these walls where the gates were. There were 12 gates leading out of the wall. Some of these gates had names like Aksaray, Atpazarý (Horse Market), Debbaglar, Ertas, Fahirani, Halka Begus, Meydan (Square), Çeşme Kapısı (Fountain Gate). The Town spilt out of these walls as well after the 16th century and spread swiftly in four directions. The main spreads were to Araplar and Sedirler in the northeast, to Turbe in the east, to Uluirmak and Lalebahce in the south and to Havzan and Meram in the west.
Information about the trade areas and markets during the Selcuk period is limited. While the markets and bazaars were around the Alaeddin Hill until the 13th century, they were moved out of the outer walls after that date. The Bugday Pazari (Wheat Market) was in the north, the Kapan Pazarý (Trap Market) and Odun Pazari (Wood Market) were in the west, and the Bezezistan (Bedestan) was in the east. There also were horse and sheep markets nearby the Aksaray Gate.
Some of the inns, whose patrons were merchants, that are in the markets are Sekerciler, Pirincciler, Vezir Ziyadettin, Bedrettin Yalman, Demre Hanim and Altin Apa. Today, only some shops next to the Sahip Ata inn remain of the trade points.
The Konya traditional market; had a unique and original structure in the Ottoman as well as the Selcuk Period. Every trade branch operated in a street assigned to it. The center of the market started from the Kanuni Bedesten and reached out to Atpazari in the south.
The market was in its present bounds in the 19th century. After the 1869 fire, a great portion was renovated by the Governor Burdurlu Tevfik Pasa.
The traders and crafters that remain to us from the old market are as follows: Mustaflar, Çarıkçılar (Shoemakers), Yorgancılar (Coverlet-Makers), Marangozlar (Carpenters), Demirciler (Blacksmiths), Attarlar (Druggist), Tuzcular, Kececiler, Jewelers and Dabbags (Tanner).
None of the trade buildings that were constructed in the Ottoman Period could reach to our day in its original form. And the nine-domed covered bazaar “Konya Bedesteni”, dated 1538, was torn down and the School of Industry (today, the building of Special Governorship) was erected in its place. The traditional Konya Market was built in 1869 by the Governor Tevfik Pasha, and the Wheat Market was build in 1901 by the Governor Ferit Pasha. Some of the trade buildings, which are mentioned in historical sources but could not stand to this day, were: the Kiremitli Inn built by Beyazit II., the Avlun Inn built by Behram Aga, the Alaca Inn built by Mahmut Pasha, the Valide Inn built by Kosem Valide Sultan, the Bezirganlar Inn built by Mustafa Pasa and the Aslan Aga Inn built by the Kethuda Aslan Aga. The Mecidiye Inn, built in the 19th century, is still in use today (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. A CARAVAN INSIDE AN OLD HAN NEAR AZIZIYE MOSQUE
There are inns that bear the properties of late period Ottoman architecture in the traditional town center besides the Mecidiye Inn, such as the Nakipoglu Inn and Basarili Inn. Market Places (Bazaars), which were important elements of the traditional pattern, have been destroyed (like the Uzum Market (Grape Bazaar) and Agac Market (Wood Bazaar) (Figure 4).
Whereas the shops that create the pattern in this part of the town center had generally been one-or two-story, mixed roofed, with balconies on the front facade, wooden and shuttered buildings in the beginning of the 20th century, now they are completely disfigured by repairs, added stories and new buildings. One of the best-preserved historical trade patterns today is located in the part to the north of the Turbe Street.
FIGURE 4. WOOD BAZAAR (ODUNPAZARI) AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY
III. CONTEMPORARY KONYA, THE PROBLEMS OF CONSERVATION AND SUGGESTIONS
The first urban Master and Implementation Plan of Konya City, whose basemaps were prepared in the 1940s, was made in the year 1944. In the Master and Implementation Plans, that were obtained through the planning competition held by Iller Bankasi in 1964, it was decided that the city be developed in the Konya-Ankara axis’ direction.
According to the 1990 census, the city has a population of 513 344. Of that number, 188 244 lives in the Selcuk District, 182 444 in Meram District and 142 678 in the Karatay District.
In the 1/25 000 scaled Environment Arrangement Plan approved in the year 1983, the population for the year 2005 is targeted to be 1.3 millions.
The Central Business Districts (CBD) of Konya consists of the proximity of Aleaddin Hill, which is developing to be as the administrative center of the city. The Turbe District, where the historical town center is located, is a part that can be reached by the Outer Citadel and the Aksaray Gate (Bab-i Aksaray) in the eastern part of the city. There is a dense traffic artery between the Aleaddin Hill and the Mevlana Kulliyesi. This artery, which was conceived to be a pedestrian-concentrated promenade in the 1964 plan, has not yet been put into application.
The effects of the Konya Urban Master Plan (Y. Tasci Plan) dated 1965 on the Historical Town Center are as follows:
Konya is established on a historical core and is presently developing in a radial and erratic manner depending on the commercial and social equipment. The onset of highrise buildings on norrow streets in the town center indicates the growing tendency for sunless, unhealthy places.
The town center is unable to serve surrounding settlements. As a natural consequence of the human stream flowing in an east-west direction and connecting the bus terminal and the traditional center, a new center is planned to develop in time and a dense building is foreseen around this center.
The Aleaddin Hill-Mevlana Kulliyesi axis is set aside for pedestrian traffic and it is decided to form two collecting routes, one to the north and one to the south, and a central ring. This ring will provide easier access from the neighborhood, which is developing all directions, to the traditional centers (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5. GENERAL VIEW OF KONYA FROM ALAEDDIN HILLS (1940’S)
Developing the roads surrounding the Historical Town Center, a second ring was formed around the center; thus, the region between the first and the second rings is conceived as a part that is fitting to the theory of urban development, and a transition-development area for the center.
The permission for 3, 4, sometimes 5-story buildings has, for a long time, prevented high-scale building demands in this part, as compared to the higher-rant parts of the City. On the other hand, since these parts are right next to the traditional trade center and since a potential for tourism is inherent there, the interest in the region has ever been alive. For the existing main artery to be rearranged for mainly pedestrian traffic, the two new Northern Arteries that were created connect the residential areas in the eastern part of town to the historical trade center and to the new center in Nalcaci, through the Turbe District (Figure 6).
FIGURE 6 : KAPU MOSQUE AND HISTORICAL TRADE CENTER (1996)
To the west of the Turbe District is the historical trade center, and to the east, north and south is the Konya traditional residential pattern. This area, which has been used for residential purposes until recent years, is gradually being converted into a tourism trade, daily trade, hosting and small production area since it is included within the CBD boundaries; and with occasional stores and warehouses, is slowly being ruined. The 1-2 storied old Konya houses, part of the traditional residential pattern, are being pulled down and 4-6-storied buildings are being erected on the same street, hence the density is blowing up to disproportionate amounts and a building order that clashes with the old town pattern, that lacks services and parking areas, is being established.
While the existing road pattern in the traditional center is being preserved as it is (apart from some opening-closing to traffic and some one-way designations), great damage has been made to the historical sight of Konya by the increased number of allowed stories.
The implementation plan that has been in force in Konya until our day was neither prepared in a manner thoughtful of the cultural valuables that have to be preserved as examples of monumental and civilian architecture, nor was aimed to preservation.
Where registered buildings were dense, either the road was widened or new roads were opened by pulling down registered buildings. By wide-ranging operations in the traditional center, big-scale buildings like the Mevlana Market, the Kadinlar Bazaar, The Seyh Kamil Merkez Market, the Rampali Market, the Saray Market, or big-program buildings that were erected by combining together all of a building plot or even two plots together, were made, totally incompatible with the traditional pattern in their mass, dimensions, or architecture.
The projects of some buildings like the Ferah Market, Vakif Market-Business complex, and the Altin Market are relatively fitting in their environment with their dimensions. Another project that was prepared was or the renovation of the Old Wheat Market and converting it to a great closed-roof-market complex. All of these applications disturb the historical pattern of the traditional center, and the intensifying business activities bring about transportation problems.
Konya, whose historical past is extremely rich and whose accumulation of cultural and architectural material is extensive, should be considered with all-encompassing approaches and its cultural valuables and monumental structures should be preserved and developed as parts of a whole.
Actually, according to the decision numbered 225 and made on 01.05.1995 by the Konya Council of Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets, a “Konya Historical Town Center Conservation Plan”, that includes the greater part of the traditional center has been prepared by considering the traditional center as a whole.
With this plan, the “Mevlana Kulliyesi Environmental Arrangement Project” formerly prepared by the Ministry of Culture, the “Mevlana Kulliyesi Location Preservation-Aimed Building Plan” that considers the close neighborhood of the Kulliye, and the “Piri Mehmet Pasa Kulliyesi and Its Environment Conservation Plan” prepared by the Karatay Municipality, transportation, land use, cultural assets that have to be preserved and other similar factors were considered altogether and it was attempted to create a “Historical Town Center Project”.
All these new developments are positive, although late. Nevertheless, the planning and application issues presented below should be considered with priority.
The “Konya Historical Town Center Conservation Plan” does not contain all of the traditional pattern and center of Konya. Moreover, a complete and whole inventory has to be made of the cultural valuables that could reach intact to our day that have to be preserved. An inventory has been made of the traditional central parts and new registrations have been made. However, the conservation plans of parts that include the traditional pattern in the south-west and north should be prepared urgently.
There are many studies about the archaeology of the City of Konya. Still, these studies remain separate from each other. It is important to create an “Archaeology Master Plan” of the town about past, especially archaeological periods, by preparing the restitution of the City. The traditional town center and the traditional residential pattern are within the borders of the Meram Municipality and Karatay Municipality. The Greater Municipality also has authority over these two municipalities. For instance, the study on the Preservation-Aimed Planning for the Surroundings of Piri Mehmed Pasa has been made by Karatay Municipality, whereas the Historical Town Center Preservation-Aimed Planning studies were made by the Greater Municipality.
The preservation plans around the Mevlana have, on the other hand, been prepared by the Ministry of Culture. The Konya Province is directing the project and application works around the Mevlana Kulliyesi and its close proximity. As can be seen, the chaos of authority and many-headedness that can be observed in a lot of other preservation areas is encountered in Konya as well.
It is probably the best if the preservation and improvement-aimed planning studies the traditional pattern of Konya (the central and residential pattern) are conducted by the Greater Municipality of Konya, while some specific projects of application are applied by the Meram and Karatay Municipalities.
Naturally, the central administration’s (Governor, the Ministry of Culture, the Department of Pious Foundations etc.) and local units (The Preservation Council, the Province Culture Department, the Regional Department of Pious Foundations etc.) should be directing, controlling and financially and technically aiding the local administrations.
In the long run, it is vital that the local administrations (municipalities) should form units within their structure that contain personnel experienced in urban planning, restoration, preservation, rehabilitation, development, and renovation to fit the historical environment; and in the short run, that they should work in cooperation with people, establishments and organisations experienced in these matters.
By considering “Special Project Areas” that are to be determined in the course of the work on Preservation Planning, urban design, landscape and urban furniture projects, relevation and restoration projects should be prepared in greater scales (1/500, 1/200 and the like), and applications should commence without any further delay. The important point, beyond the preparations of these plans and projects, is passing on the valuables to be preserved to the future generations by prompt application of these.
SOURCES
· TUNÇER, M., “Conservation Project of Konya Historical Trade Area, Research Report”, Oct. 1996, (Unpublished) UTTA Planning and Consulting Co.
· TUNÇER, M., “Preserving KONYA, The Seljuk Capital”, ADA Kentliyim Review, May-June 1998, Number 14, Ankara, pp.72-75.
· ALKAN, A., “Planning Problems of Konya The Historic Town”, 1994, Konya.
· ERGENÇ, Ö., “Ankara and Konya In Years Between 1580-1596”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ankara, 1973.
· KARPUZ, H., “Historical and Physical Development of Konya Historical Trade Center”, Unpublished Research, 1996, Konya.
· ÖNDER, M., “Mevlana’s City Konya”, 1976, Ankara.
[1] Ass. Prof. in Urban Conservation, Fac. Of Arch., Dep. Urban & Regional Planning, Gazi University, Ankara, TURKEY.
This article published at, “ADA Kentliyim”, Monthly Review as “SELÇUK BAŞKENTİ KONYA’YI KORUMAK”. 1998, May.- Haz., 98
9 Şubat 2007 Cuma
HISTORIC TOWNS IN ANATOLIA : Part I
Historic Towns in Anatolia: Part I
Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Tunçer
I. Introduction
Turkey is a land where rich civilisations have flourished for thousands of years in the past and a leader among the countries which bear great universal responsibilities for the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The importance of preserving this cultural heritage cannot be limited only to the aim of introducing our past values to future generations, also using the remains from the past as the most important resources to create the future is a critical necessity. It is becoming significant for nations to integrate their cultural identities with their new environment of life. Modern creations in architecture and urban planning which are both carried out with no consideration for national and historical values, hasten alienation. Preserving the cultural heritage of different cultures with equal care and respect will help the feelings of peace and brotherhood to find roots in a world under globalization, while at the same time providing a propelling force towards the development of a rich and multi-colored cultural mosaic with the interaction of different cultures. To date, 44,406 immobile cultural assets have been listed in Turkey, with 2857 sites, including 2425 archeological sites, 269 natural sites, 146 urban sites and 17 historical sites (1).
Since the 1970s, Turkey has also had its role in the intensification of efforts on international platforms. According to the statements of the "Agreement on the Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Inheritance of the World" which Turkey has accepted along with the other member countries of UNESCO, the involved governments have guaranteed the preservation of the cultural and historical values within their registration. From within our country, Pamukkale, Göreme, Cappadoccia, Istanbul, Bogazkoy, Mount Nemrut, Xanthos-Letoon, Patara as well as Divriði Ulu Mosque and Darüþþifa have been included in the List of the World Cultural Heritage. “The Agreement on the Preservation of the European Architectural Heritage" has been put into effect by the Law dated April 13, 1989, numbered 3534. According to the Agreement on the Preservation of the Mediterranean Against Pollution (the Barcelona Pact), 17 sites from our country have also been included for preservation among the 100 historical sites of equal importance in the Mediterranean (2).
The first opposition to the Western countries taking away valuable cultural objects to their own lands with a preservation system based on private property, was with the Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi (Regulations on Antique Monuments). Afterwards, the method of preserving the cultural heritage also changed when the Ottoman Empire contacted the West with the Gülhane Hatt-ý Hümayunu (Gülhane Royal Decree). At this period, the whole Empire had become the market of the industrial and trade bourgeoisie of the West; the preservation of the cultural heritage was continued with no real understanding, with a museum based-method; and even the preservation of monuments, even with monumental value, was unsuccessful.
Following 1923, a method of preservation parallel to the efforts made to adapt the economy of the land to the changes in the new socio-economic structure, was pursued and certain principles were laid down. In the year 1944 the First Advisory Committee indicated the need for the preservation of ancient monuments together with their building plans. As in the rest of the world, legal arrangements were made and organisations created in Turkey for the preservation of the cultural and historical environment; the effort in this matter is ongoing.
Our land is quite rich in cultural and natural valuables. And the preservation of this wealth is possibly only through law. The most important laws and regulations on this point, which have made possible the creation of a Code for Ancient Monuments, are the 1710 numbered "Law on Ancient Monuments" put into effect on 3 rd May, 1973, which follows the "Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi" dated 10 th April, 1322 (A.D. 1904), and the "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets", dated 21th July, 1983, numbered 2863, and the variation of this law numbered 3386.
The search for regulations fitting the features of cultural valuables and the conditions changed in time necessitated new legal arrangements (that replace one another). Therefore, let us examine briefly the two main regulations that carry the force of law and that were created the year 1923, that is, since the declaration of the Republic.
II. The "Law on Ancient Monuments" Numbered 1710 (3)(It’s o.k. as to use the Chapter Number)
The aim of this law, was the preservation of old monuments and the prevention of smuggling and trading ancient objects. This law considers that all mobile and immobile items related to science, religion, culture and fine arts, all archeological and ethnological monuments, and all material and documents related to the history of art are to be part of its context.
The Ancient Monuments Law either extensively limits or eliminates altogether the possession rights of individuals, under ground or above ground, for items concerning science religion and fine arts, belonging to prehistoric or historic periods. Real estate possessions could be preserved best not by exhibiting them, but by integrating them into daily life and making them live. To that end, especially the efforts and wishes of individuals who are aware of this point should be supported in a controlled manner instead of being hindered.
III. "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets" Numbered 2863 and Implementations (4)
In the "General Motivation" part of the Law sketch, it is emphasized that Turkey leads among the countries with great universal responsibilities on the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The need for a "Preservation Policy" that includes Central and Local Administrations is stated, while the "Local Administrations" are either included very slightly or excluded altogether in the programme. Although the need of establishing a sufficient legal, organisational and financial infrastructure is mentioned, the organisations that were created seem to be leaning more towards control and documentation, such as the "Centre for the Preservation, Training, Research and Documentation" or the "Application of Technical Control Units". On the contrary, this organisation is required more to aim at solving the daily problems of people living on sites about applications (relevant construction, creation, restoration projects, technical and financial problems of repairs). Although the "Fund for Preserving Cultural and Natural Values" seems to be a positive prospect, the fact that it is going to be allocated centrally gives rise to the concern that political aims might enter the game. The parts that require priority and haste are the shores, the touristic regions and the metropolitan city centres undergoing rapid urbanization; these points experience the damage caused intensely and very quickly to cultural and natural values.
As can be observed, the concept of an archeological site carries great weight. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to make decisions on the organisation, financing and application/control of archeological sites, and to emphasize their importance through laws and regulations. New and effective policies should be developed concerning excavation and research regulations and the planning and arrangements of archeological areas. The personnel in existing museums and ruins should be supported and make more effective.
Success can be achieved in the preservation and improvement of natural sites, through the co-operation and synchronisation of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Culture, along with the support and involvement of local administrations. As for the urban sites, it is of vital importance to form "Local Preservation Committees" and to follow through applications under the control of the Preservation Committees. The decisions made and the plans and projects created can only be put into practice through this course of action. It is very important not to think of the urban sites separately from the urban totality, and also to include in this attempt the local administrations, which serve the city in all aspects. A "Preservation Fund", much like the "Mass Housing Fund", has been created by the law. Apart from this fund, it is essential to put local and voluntary resources in action with the participation of local administrations as well as landlords and tenants on sites, and of civil local organisatons (foundations, companies, societies, co-operatives, banks, political parties etc.). Moreover, it is important to transfer resources, loans, donations and the like from organisations and associations abroad.
The work of repairs of individual buildings as well as the arrangements of the infrastructure and the environment should especially be carried out with the organisation of local administrations and under the control of committees. Repairs should not be made on buildings within the historical pattern before the infrastructure of monuments and environmental arrangements have been competed. Wide-ranging solutions should be worked out so that, while providing control and establishing financial penalties, the social dimensions of the problem should also be taken care of, working towards a solution for the residence and land in question and keeping the increase in land rents under check.
Local administrations should be made aware of and activated for the preservation by supporting them technically and financially (5).
IV. Current Policies, Applications and Problems about the Preservation of the Historical and Cultural Environment in Turkey (6)
"If my observations and judgements are accurate, urban preservation especially is impossible in Turkey through the methods indicated by the teaching of orthodox preservation. We should not fool ourselves by making examples of back alley, weak, random applications. The Antalya Harbour, the Soðukceþme Street or region that were conserved without preservation in Safranbolu could not erase the memories of destruction in Ýstanbul, Ýzmir, Kayseri, Urfa, Erzurum, Gaziantep, Konya, Antakya and innumerable cities and towns."
Prof. Dr.Dogan Kuban (7).
As Mr. Kuban remarks, it is not possible to state that the preservation policies for the historical and cultural environment in Turkey have achieved their aim to date. In particular, the immigration from rural to urban areas and the rapid urbanisation following 1950, the residence and tourism aimed second wave of shore plundering following 1980, and immigration phenomena from the Eastern and South-Eastern Regions, for security and economical reasons, have reduced to tatters the balance of cities which were formed over hundreds of years ago. The illegal buildings wave, that first began at the fringes of cities (gecekondu/squatters), has, through building pardons, gradually extended the rest of the cities like a cancer, and has become one of the main urban problems today.
The phenomena summarized below have appeared because of the rapid urban growth:
· Plans which are prepared with no intention of preservation but even with just the opposite aim, the goal of annihilation; like the construction of roads in disharmony with the traditional pattern, under the cover name "building", or the increase of building rights,
· According to these plans, new buildings which are being created in towns are not in harmony with their traditional urban environment; they have build areas and heights which are in conflict with the pattern, and destroy the traditional urban patterns in cities, and only serve speculative ends,
· Stopping former planning decisions by the declaration of historic urban sites, leads to the further phenomena of bad maintenance, non-preservation, aging, desertion and destruction of traditional patterns and historical urban centres because of the insufficiency of planning and of applying efforts towards preservation,
· Transport and parking problems that gradually increase because of excessive building and population density,
· A social transformation, with the development of squatters and the social destruction of regional properties, arising in traditional patterns, due to the possession holders deserting the area.
Although the problems outlined above differ from region to region, they are observed to be general problems. The immigration rate, the potential for development, the quality of the traditional pattern (building materials and the relation of the pattern to newly developing parts of the city), the potential for tourism and the approaches of local administration in every individual city cause variations in the preservation of the historical and cultural environment in each city. According to the law numbered 2863, "Preservation-Aimed Plans" should be prepared by the local administrations. However, when needed, local administrations can obtain technical and financial aid from the Ministry of Culture. In some cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Ýzmir, Bursa, Antalya etc.) the preservation aimed planning efforts have been and still are carried out by the units created by the local administrations within their own bodies. During these planning efforts, the local administrations receive preservation-aimed plans from private firms or project competitions since they themselves are technically insufficient.
As examples:
· Ankara /Ulus Historical Urban Centre Preservation Improvement Project Competition, (The Greater Municipality of Ankara),
· Ankara Citadel Preservation and Improvement Plan Project Competition, (Altýndað Municipality and the Ministry of Culture),
· Antalya/The Citadel Gate Arrangement Competition, (Antalya Municipality),
· Gaziantep/ Inns Region Urban Design Competition, (Gaziantep Municipality),
could be indicated.
The Ministry of Culture carries out the functions of detection and registration (recognition and recording), of traditional urban patterns, vernacular buildings and archeological areas and of the determination of the boundaries of sites since the early 1970s (The Law of Ancient Monuments - numbered 1710, and the Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Valuables - numbered 2863). Efforts on the planning of these areas could not be effective until the late 1980s except in a few special cases (Cappadoccia, Pamukkale, Bodrum, Safranbolu, Ýstanbul’s some parts etc.).
In the late 1980s the Ministry of Culture took a great leap, albeit late, and started the preservation-aimed planning of historic urban quarters and archaeological sites and monuments (using the highest-bidder method), which had been left to the local administrations by law. There are projects which have been completed (Þanlýurfa, Perge, Talas, Mardin, Bartýn, Göreme, Afyon, Konya etc) and which are still on-going through (Patara, Pergamon etc) these biddings.
However the completion of these projects takes too long a period of time, and some have been brought to court by the local administration or the property owners. Since some of the areas of preservation of the historical environment are included in the Specially Environmental Protection Areas (Patara, Xanthos, Pamukkale, Dalyan, Göcek, Köyceðiz, Cappadocia etc.) a multi-headed method of planning and application management is in question.
Thus, the authority to plan and order plans in these areas is under the Authority for Protection of Specially Protected Areas, which is under the Ministry of Environment, and the authority of approval for the application in archeological and urban sites in these areas is under the Ministry of Culture and the High Council for Preserving Cultural and Natural Assets which is supposed to be independent (!), is under the Local Councils.
When the local administrations (Prefects, municipalities, village identities), which is the real owner of the region, also joins in the opposition between these two entities, it causes a chaos results which is hard to solve. There are interminable correspondences about who should make the preservation-aimed plan, who should approve it and which stage should be applied by whom.
The best examples of this situation are the current applications in Pamukkale and Patara. A detailed examination of each of these examples reveals the sad, even tragi-comical condition of preservation policies today. Even this is not the end of the problems. What one organisation does, the other dislikes; therefore the preservation areas are now very much like blackboards - written on, erased, rewritten on. Thus, the already limited resources are also being wasted.
V. Problems in Archeological Sites and Suggestions for Solutions
As in the historic urban sites the boundaries of archeological sites are not fixed and they change constantly. By decree of the Preservation Councils, shifts and alterations are being made among I., II. and III. degree archeological sites, and this leads to the idea of decisions being changeable among people. Thus the boundary declarations should be made once, supported by scientific research, and no changes should be made about these boundaries without the support of new data, documentation and findings.
Environmental control is not complete in some of the archeological sites, entries are not under regulations and complete chaos reigns, leading to unlawful excavations and theft of ancient monuments. Environmental control should be enforced and fences should be constructed around archeological sites, ruins, hills and tumuli (Tümülüses) and guards should be set for the important ones.
Planning aiming to the preservation of archeological sites is either insufficient or non-existent. Preservation-aimed planning attempts of antique cities like Bergama (Pergamon), Perge, Pamukkale (Hierapolis), Efes (Ephesus), Patara etc. have only been taken into consideration in recent years. This planning of archaeological sites should be completed by scientific methods as soon as possible, by setting aside the political and inter-organisational rivalries. Priorities should be detected and planning and investments should be directed accordingly.
Control and preservation mechanisms that are left to the local administrations are insufficient owing to financial and technical impossibilities. The Ministry of Culture cannot supply the necessary control or support. The control, maintenance and repair of all areas from the centre is impracticable. Hence, local offices should be formed and these offices, which are to be equipped technically and financially, should be made to provide effective planning, project creation and applications.
The arrangement of entrance points, tour routes, rest and service points in archeological areas and ruins are often very insufficient, primitive and far from scientific. Such inadequacy is encountered in many of the ruins that are in use for tourism purposes. Therefore, firstly concept designs (toilets, entrance points, resting points, souvenir sales points etc.) and, following that, designs specific to the architectural properties of the region should be obtained and applied. Obtaining these designs through contests could lead to significant results.
Prevention of illegal excavations, reclaiming old monuments that have been smuggled abroad, controlling excavations and exhibiting the found monuments, all these are heavy and effort-claiming problems. Improvement of existing museums and efforts towards the exhibition of antique towns as open air museums are matters that require the cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Tourism. Such matters could not be addressed very fully in the limited time available for this present work.
VI. Problems in Urban Sites and Suggestions on Solutions
Problems of archeological sites such as boundary changes, licensing/ unlicensing, lack of planning and lack of control are encountered in urban sites as well.
Moreover, the rapid population growth and urbanization, the phenomenon of from rural to urban migration, unplanned growth of cities, and land speculation in our country affect the urban pattern, which has to be preserved extremely adversely. Historical town centres and traditional urban patterns that are at the heart of towns are affected by the rapid growth, the increase in density and old buildings being pulled down and new, multi-stories ones being erected; the traditional urban patterns are being destroyed in spite of all the efforts and legal restrictions.
The delay in considering preservation at the urban scale (at pattern scale) has resulted in the loss of the picturesque view of many of our towns, like Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Ýzmir and Kayseri, although delayed efforts on planning and preparing project for preservation have spread wider after the 1980s. Following the authority being passed on to the legal administrations, many of them have started to stand up for their towns, embarking upon preservation-aimed planning efforts.
It is not possible to claim that these efforts have been sufficient. However, it can be said that a certain awareness of the environment has emerged, also with the influence of tourism. This is an indication of how long was the delay initiated by the Ministry of Culture for the preservation-aimed planning tasks by the method of the highest bidder since the beginning of the 1990s. The important point is not also to prepare preservation plans but to take certain organisational and financial precautions related to their application and to apply them.
It is not possible to hope for the achievement of this procedure with the current structure of the Ministry of Culture, which is constantly dependent upon ever-changing political decisions. It is extremely sad that in a medium of "CHAOS", which is created through demoting members of the Council of Preservation, exiling them to other locations, or through assigning non-expert people ignorant in "Scientific Preservation" to their positions, decisions of destruction and speculations are spreading far and wide.
The following suggestions could be named "Sustainable Preservation Policies":
1. Historical environments and traditional residence patterns should not be regarded only as our cultural variables, but in accordance with the concept of "Sustainable Development", and also as housing stocks.
2. In that aspect, planning and projects should be carried out that contain not only preservation but also rehabilitation, improvement and renovation.
3. The "Regulations" developed by the Mass Housing Department until 1997, which were prepared with the approach that concerns traditional urban patterns as residential patterns/housing stocks, should be applied at once.
4. The heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, problematic, unproductive, technically weak aspects of the Ministry of Culture have to be improved. Instead of policies that change daily according to politics (the Minister, the Representative or the General Manager), new long-term policies that are determined according to the resources and priorities of the land should be created and applied. The Preservation Councils and Bureau Management that are the local departments of the Ministry of Culture should be released from their present passive, heavy structures which are ineffective in addressing problems and in delay preservation, to be replaced by active, technically and financially equipped, effective mechanisms.
5. Multi-headedness in the laws and in the organisational structure on the issue of preserving should absolutely be prevented. Reconsidering the allocation of authority and responsibility, a single "Law of Urban and Environmental Preservation" should be created.
6. Policies of preservation and on-the-spot improvement should be advocated by increasing the technical and financial support to local administrations and controlling their services.
7. Informing the people of the region about their historical environment, making them aware of it, thus assuring their positive help and involvement in the matter of preservation, is regarded as the most important means of preservation. It is extremely important to teach, to introduce and to show a love of the cultural diversity and cultural values of the land, starting at a very early age.
As a conclusion, it can be said that the point arrived at after decades of disregard and looting in the matter of the preservation of historical and cultural values, is the point of losing, if not all, most of these values. The local and central administrations, which are supposed to prevent this, are observed to be unequal to this task. It is our belief that the duty required of every educated person is to participate actively in the efforts of preservation of the cultural and historical values.
(Toshio, I think it’s better to use a new Chapter Number here !):
II Ankara: Capital of Modern Turkey
II.1. A Short History of the City
The history of Turkey dated back to the prehistoric ages. Some caves, such as Karain at the region of Antalya, dated back to the upper Paleolithic age. The site of Çatalhöyük (6500-6550 B.C.) is the oldest Neolithic town; it lies 50 kilometers south of Konya, a region closely connected by trade with the Middle East. On the other hand, the first settlement in Troy is presumed to be Homer's Troy and dated back to 3000 B.C.. The first Empire in Anatolia was the Empire of the Hittites, in 1750 - 1200 B.C. which extended from the Black Sea to Palestine. Its capital Hattuþaþ (now called Boðazköy), lies 200 kilometers to the north-east of Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey. Also near this place are the Hittite city of Alacahöyük and the holy place Yazýlýkaya. During the Hittite period, there were also other states in Anatolia. In the east and south-east the Mitanni Kingdom lay and in the south lived the Luwians. Having been a Phrygian city in the 8 th century B.C., Ankara was then the capital of Galatia between the 2 nd century B.C. and 25 B.C. Having fallen under the domination of the Roman Empire in 25 B.C., Ankara experienced its most prosperous period during the following years, thanks to its role as the representative of the Roman Empire in Anatolia. During this period, Ankara acquired the position of being an important intersection point of Roman roads, which led to a great development in administrative, military and commercial activities with the population reaching as high a level as 100,000.
During the Roman Era, Ankara covered the hill and the plains on the west side of the fortress. The place of the Citadel was possibly a Acropolis. The City maintained its importance during the early days of the Byzantine Empire. After the 7 th century, the city was threatened by the Sasanis and the Arabs and was forced to return inside the fortress. The outer (Dýþ Kale) and the inner (Ýç Kale) fortresses which are still to be seen today, were built for this purpose and the remains of monumental buildings pertaining to the Roman period were used for the construction. Later, during the 8 th century, the city was occupied by Harun Reþid's army.
Ankara was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in 1073, prior to the foundation of the Ottoman Anatolia Union, after the long domination of the Byzantine Empire since 334, and has remained under the Turkish rule. The Citadel took its present form during the period of the Byzantine and Turkish principalities. The inner part of the Citadel has been used as settlement since that time, according to the recorded dated 1522.
The fact that Ankara was one of the Ahi centres played an important role in the development of its commercial functions. A certain part of the total of 30 Caravanserais in the city was built. They were located around the great mosque (Ahi Þerafeddin). In the periods of development of the Ottoman Empire, there was a further momentum with soft wool (sof), a special product of this city, which was acquired a world reputation as angora wool. The building of "Bedesten" (a kind of covered bazaar where wool, antiques and jewelery were sold) and of great Caravanserais (inns) took place in the 14 th and 15 th centuries.
In response to the increase in population, the city centre had also begun to expand and new commercial districts such as Tahtakale and Karaoðlan around Suluhan prospered. In the first years of the 17 th century, a third city wall was built as a means of protection against Celali outbreaks (Figure 1, dated Ankara in 1711).
The 18 th and 19 th centuries saw the commercial and economic viability of the Mediterranean countries. The Ottoman Empire and region Anatolia had undergone a sharp recession due to the shift to the main trade routes to the oceans and to the development of the West. Being unable to compete with the modern textile industry, the economy of Ankara entered a stage of total depression towards the end of the 19 th century and this was further aggravated by the fact that the soft wool (sof), a special product of the city, was also produced in other countries (Figure 2).
Figure 2. ANKARA IN AN OLD PAINTING (SOF PRODUCTION SCENERY IN FRONT)
The advent of the railway from Ýstanbul in 1892 created an atmosphere of relative viability and the boulevards named Station and Talat Pasha were constructed, connecting the railway station to the old city and Ulus (Taþhan). The center of the city began to prosper at the same period, in concomitance with all the other development.
II.2. Ankara As The Capital
Following its proclamation as the Capital of the Republic of Turkey on the 13 th October 1923, Ankara entered a stage of planned growth and development. The law numbered 583 which was passed subsequently to the proclamation of the city as the Capital, envisaged and provided for the extension of a new Ankara in the area between the historical town and the district called Çankaya, prohibiting the demolition of the historical buildings in and around the traditional old quarter. Thanks to this firm resolution brought in by the said law, the traditional structure of the historical sites of Ankara could have been more or less preserved.
The "Sýhhiye Plan" (New Town/Yeniþehir) prepared by Heussler in 1927, and the urban plan drawn up by the German professor Hermann Jansen in 1928 as a result of an international competition, represent two important steps in the planned development process of Ankara (Figure 3). Jansen placed a special emphasis on the conservation of the "traditional structure" by designating the historical urban site as the "Protocol Area". He also made certain plan decisions as regards the historical site (Figure 4).
Further arrangements relating to the historical site of Ankara were included in the reconstruction plan of Nihat Yücel and Rasit Uybadin who won the plan competition in Ankara, making it a metropolitan area in the 1970’s, with a 16 fold and a 46 fold increase respectively in its population and its expansion area. Due to the stunningly high rate of urbanization, 60 percent of the city developed outside the planned area, while the historical sites underwent a relatively lower degree of change as a particular section of the metropolis.
II.3. The Conservation Project of the Citadel of Ankara
"The Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development Plan of the Citadel" aimed at the preservation of the historical site with its own characteristics (Figure 5).
The conservation plan consists of the following aspects:
a. Traditional Production and Selling Areas :
In the "Ankara Citadel Culture, Tourism and Commercial Centre", there will be traditional production and selling units (shops) on the main pedestrian roads such as "Kalekapýsý, Doyran Street and around squares such as Ramazan Þemsettin Mosque Square, and Alaeddin Mosques Square". These shops will be on the ground level, in old traditional houses which are supposed to be restored, and also in some inner courtyards (avlus).
The traditional crafts are the following:
- The traditional Angora Goat wool (sof),
- Angora cloths, textile, woven materials,
- Angora cikriks (spinning-wheels),
- Turkish carpets, woven mattings (kilim), production, exhibition, and selling units.
- Wickerwork, rush mat production shops, selling units.
- Woodworks, handicrafts.
- Traditional Turkish copper, silver and gold ornaments and jewelry shops etc.
In this area, there are some traditional works of art which had nearly disappeared and are intended for education and to encourage the renewal of culture and tourism.
b. Daily Commercial Area :
These areas serve the daily necessities (drink, food, refreshments etc.) of visitors and persons staying in hotels and boarding-houses in the Citadel.
c. Recreation and Accommodation Areas :
Intended for cultural and tourism functions; restaurants with traditional Turkish cuisine and foods as well as hotels and boarding-houses showing the traditional hospitality, will be found in the Citadel.
- Hotels and boarding-houses.
- Restaurants (Turkish cuisine, Ankara food).
- Special cuisine (tandir, doner, sis, lavas etc.).
- Cafes (Turkish cafes), pubs.
d. Cultural areas :
These are:
- The Old Ankara House Museum..
- The History of Ankara Museum.
- The War of Ankara Museum.
- Social Centres (Library, videos, slides, places).
- Art Galleries (paintings, sculptures, music, open show area).
II. 4. Implementation Phases of the Conservation Plan
To date, the scales of the 1:5,000, 1:1,000, 1:500 conservation plans have been completed. As from now, the scale of the 1:200 and higher scales (1:100, 1:50, ......1:1) implementation projects will be designed. And the infrastructure (water, electricity and swage etc.) as well as the landscaping will be completed. At a later date, both the Municipality and the house owners will get together to implement the project.
SOURCES
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF CONCERN ON THE HISTORICAL
ENVIRONMENT, C. Erder, 1971, Ankara.
2. PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
TMMOB Chambers of Architects Publications, 1979, İstanbul.
3. LAW OF HISTORIC MONUMENTS, NUMBERED 1710 Comments-Examinations,
1976, İstanbul.
4. REGULATIONS ON IMMOBILE CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS, T.R.
Ministry of Culture, 1996, Ankara.
5. WRITINGS ON THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT,
M. TUNÇER, Lecture Notes, 1996, Ankara.
6. This section has been prepared with the aid of the unpublished Doctorate Dissertation by
M. TUNÇER, “Policies on the Preservation of Historical Environment for Sustainable
Development: Ankara, Bergama, Şanlıurfa”, Ankara University, Faculty of Political
Science, Department of Public Administration and Political Science, Urban and
Environmental Sciences, 1995.
7. KUBAN, D., 1993, “Could There Be a Policy of Preservation Specific to Türkiye?”,
1. Colloquium on Urban Preservation and Renovation Applications, April 7-8 1993, MSU,
Fac. of Architecture, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning.
Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Tunçer
I. Introduction
Turkey is a land where rich civilisations have flourished for thousands of years in the past and a leader among the countries which bear great universal responsibilities for the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The importance of preserving this cultural heritage cannot be limited only to the aim of introducing our past values to future generations, also using the remains from the past as the most important resources to create the future is a critical necessity. It is becoming significant for nations to integrate their cultural identities with their new environment of life. Modern creations in architecture and urban planning which are both carried out with no consideration for national and historical values, hasten alienation. Preserving the cultural heritage of different cultures with equal care and respect will help the feelings of peace and brotherhood to find roots in a world under globalization, while at the same time providing a propelling force towards the development of a rich and multi-colored cultural mosaic with the interaction of different cultures. To date, 44,406 immobile cultural assets have been listed in Turkey, with 2857 sites, including 2425 archeological sites, 269 natural sites, 146 urban sites and 17 historical sites (1).
Since the 1970s, Turkey has also had its role in the intensification of efforts on international platforms. According to the statements of the "Agreement on the Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Inheritance of the World" which Turkey has accepted along with the other member countries of UNESCO, the involved governments have guaranteed the preservation of the cultural and historical values within their registration. From within our country, Pamukkale, Göreme, Cappadoccia, Istanbul, Bogazkoy, Mount Nemrut, Xanthos-Letoon, Patara as well as Divriði Ulu Mosque and Darüþþifa have been included in the List of the World Cultural Heritage. “The Agreement on the Preservation of the European Architectural Heritage" has been put into effect by the Law dated April 13, 1989, numbered 3534. According to the Agreement on the Preservation of the Mediterranean Against Pollution (the Barcelona Pact), 17 sites from our country have also been included for preservation among the 100 historical sites of equal importance in the Mediterranean (2).
The first opposition to the Western countries taking away valuable cultural objects to their own lands with a preservation system based on private property, was with the Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi (Regulations on Antique Monuments). Afterwards, the method of preserving the cultural heritage also changed when the Ottoman Empire contacted the West with the Gülhane Hatt-ý Hümayunu (Gülhane Royal Decree). At this period, the whole Empire had become the market of the industrial and trade bourgeoisie of the West; the preservation of the cultural heritage was continued with no real understanding, with a museum based-method; and even the preservation of monuments, even with monumental value, was unsuccessful.
Following 1923, a method of preservation parallel to the efforts made to adapt the economy of the land to the changes in the new socio-economic structure, was pursued and certain principles were laid down. In the year 1944 the First Advisory Committee indicated the need for the preservation of ancient monuments together with their building plans. As in the rest of the world, legal arrangements were made and organisations created in Turkey for the preservation of the cultural and historical environment; the effort in this matter is ongoing.
Our land is quite rich in cultural and natural valuables. And the preservation of this wealth is possibly only through law. The most important laws and regulations on this point, which have made possible the creation of a Code for Ancient Monuments, are the 1710 numbered "Law on Ancient Monuments" put into effect on 3 rd May, 1973, which follows the "Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi" dated 10 th April, 1322 (A.D. 1904), and the "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets", dated 21th July, 1983, numbered 2863, and the variation of this law numbered 3386.
The search for regulations fitting the features of cultural valuables and the conditions changed in time necessitated new legal arrangements (that replace one another). Therefore, let us examine briefly the two main regulations that carry the force of law and that were created the year 1923, that is, since the declaration of the Republic.
II. The "Law on Ancient Monuments" Numbered 1710 (3)(It’s o.k. as to use the Chapter Number)
The aim of this law, was the preservation of old monuments and the prevention of smuggling and trading ancient objects. This law considers that all mobile and immobile items related to science, religion, culture and fine arts, all archeological and ethnological monuments, and all material and documents related to the history of art are to be part of its context.
The Ancient Monuments Law either extensively limits or eliminates altogether the possession rights of individuals, under ground or above ground, for items concerning science religion and fine arts, belonging to prehistoric or historic periods. Real estate possessions could be preserved best not by exhibiting them, but by integrating them into daily life and making them live. To that end, especially the efforts and wishes of individuals who are aware of this point should be supported in a controlled manner instead of being hindered.
III. "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets" Numbered 2863 and Implementations (4)
In the "General Motivation" part of the Law sketch, it is emphasized that Turkey leads among the countries with great universal responsibilities on the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The need for a "Preservation Policy" that includes Central and Local Administrations is stated, while the "Local Administrations" are either included very slightly or excluded altogether in the programme. Although the need of establishing a sufficient legal, organisational and financial infrastructure is mentioned, the organisations that were created seem to be leaning more towards control and documentation, such as the "Centre for the Preservation, Training, Research and Documentation" or the "Application of Technical Control Units". On the contrary, this organisation is required more to aim at solving the daily problems of people living on sites about applications (relevant construction, creation, restoration projects, technical and financial problems of repairs). Although the "Fund for Preserving Cultural and Natural Values" seems to be a positive prospect, the fact that it is going to be allocated centrally gives rise to the concern that political aims might enter the game. The parts that require priority and haste are the shores, the touristic regions and the metropolitan city centres undergoing rapid urbanization; these points experience the damage caused intensely and very quickly to cultural and natural values.
As can be observed, the concept of an archeological site carries great weight. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to make decisions on the organisation, financing and application/control of archeological sites, and to emphasize their importance through laws and regulations. New and effective policies should be developed concerning excavation and research regulations and the planning and arrangements of archeological areas. The personnel in existing museums and ruins should be supported and make more effective.
Success can be achieved in the preservation and improvement of natural sites, through the co-operation and synchronisation of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Culture, along with the support and involvement of local administrations. As for the urban sites, it is of vital importance to form "Local Preservation Committees" and to follow through applications under the control of the Preservation Committees. The decisions made and the plans and projects created can only be put into practice through this course of action. It is very important not to think of the urban sites separately from the urban totality, and also to include in this attempt the local administrations, which serve the city in all aspects. A "Preservation Fund", much like the "Mass Housing Fund", has been created by the law. Apart from this fund, it is essential to put local and voluntary resources in action with the participation of local administrations as well as landlords and tenants on sites, and of civil local organisatons (foundations, companies, societies, co-operatives, banks, political parties etc.). Moreover, it is important to transfer resources, loans, donations and the like from organisations and associations abroad.
The work of repairs of individual buildings as well as the arrangements of the infrastructure and the environment should especially be carried out with the organisation of local administrations and under the control of committees. Repairs should not be made on buildings within the historical pattern before the infrastructure of monuments and environmental arrangements have been competed. Wide-ranging solutions should be worked out so that, while providing control and establishing financial penalties, the social dimensions of the problem should also be taken care of, working towards a solution for the residence and land in question and keeping the increase in land rents under check.
Local administrations should be made aware of and activated for the preservation by supporting them technically and financially (5).
IV. Current Policies, Applications and Problems about the Preservation of the Historical and Cultural Environment in Turkey (6)
"If my observations and judgements are accurate, urban preservation especially is impossible in Turkey through the methods indicated by the teaching of orthodox preservation. We should not fool ourselves by making examples of back alley, weak, random applications. The Antalya Harbour, the Soðukceþme Street or region that were conserved without preservation in Safranbolu could not erase the memories of destruction in Ýstanbul, Ýzmir, Kayseri, Urfa, Erzurum, Gaziantep, Konya, Antakya and innumerable cities and towns."
Prof. Dr.Dogan Kuban (7).
As Mr. Kuban remarks, it is not possible to state that the preservation policies for the historical and cultural environment in Turkey have achieved their aim to date. In particular, the immigration from rural to urban areas and the rapid urbanisation following 1950, the residence and tourism aimed second wave of shore plundering following 1980, and immigration phenomena from the Eastern and South-Eastern Regions, for security and economical reasons, have reduced to tatters the balance of cities which were formed over hundreds of years ago. The illegal buildings wave, that first began at the fringes of cities (gecekondu/squatters), has, through building pardons, gradually extended the rest of the cities like a cancer, and has become one of the main urban problems today.
The phenomena summarized below have appeared because of the rapid urban growth:
· Plans which are prepared with no intention of preservation but even with just the opposite aim, the goal of annihilation; like the construction of roads in disharmony with the traditional pattern, under the cover name "building", or the increase of building rights,
· According to these plans, new buildings which are being created in towns are not in harmony with their traditional urban environment; they have build areas and heights which are in conflict with the pattern, and destroy the traditional urban patterns in cities, and only serve speculative ends,
· Stopping former planning decisions by the declaration of historic urban sites, leads to the further phenomena of bad maintenance, non-preservation, aging, desertion and destruction of traditional patterns and historical urban centres because of the insufficiency of planning and of applying efforts towards preservation,
· Transport and parking problems that gradually increase because of excessive building and population density,
· A social transformation, with the development of squatters and the social destruction of regional properties, arising in traditional patterns, due to the possession holders deserting the area.
Although the problems outlined above differ from region to region, they are observed to be general problems. The immigration rate, the potential for development, the quality of the traditional pattern (building materials and the relation of the pattern to newly developing parts of the city), the potential for tourism and the approaches of local administration in every individual city cause variations in the preservation of the historical and cultural environment in each city. According to the law numbered 2863, "Preservation-Aimed Plans" should be prepared by the local administrations. However, when needed, local administrations can obtain technical and financial aid from the Ministry of Culture. In some cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Ýzmir, Bursa, Antalya etc.) the preservation aimed planning efforts have been and still are carried out by the units created by the local administrations within their own bodies. During these planning efforts, the local administrations receive preservation-aimed plans from private firms or project competitions since they themselves are technically insufficient.
As examples:
· Ankara /Ulus Historical Urban Centre Preservation Improvement Project Competition, (The Greater Municipality of Ankara),
· Ankara Citadel Preservation and Improvement Plan Project Competition, (Altýndað Municipality and the Ministry of Culture),
· Antalya/The Citadel Gate Arrangement Competition, (Antalya Municipality),
· Gaziantep/ Inns Region Urban Design Competition, (Gaziantep Municipality),
could be indicated.
The Ministry of Culture carries out the functions of detection and registration (recognition and recording), of traditional urban patterns, vernacular buildings and archeological areas and of the determination of the boundaries of sites since the early 1970s (The Law of Ancient Monuments - numbered 1710, and the Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Valuables - numbered 2863). Efforts on the planning of these areas could not be effective until the late 1980s except in a few special cases (Cappadoccia, Pamukkale, Bodrum, Safranbolu, Ýstanbul’s some parts etc.).
In the late 1980s the Ministry of Culture took a great leap, albeit late, and started the preservation-aimed planning of historic urban quarters and archaeological sites and monuments (using the highest-bidder method), which had been left to the local administrations by law. There are projects which have been completed (Þanlýurfa, Perge, Talas, Mardin, Bartýn, Göreme, Afyon, Konya etc) and which are still on-going through (Patara, Pergamon etc) these biddings.
However the completion of these projects takes too long a period of time, and some have been brought to court by the local administration or the property owners. Since some of the areas of preservation of the historical environment are included in the Specially Environmental Protection Areas (Patara, Xanthos, Pamukkale, Dalyan, Göcek, Köyceðiz, Cappadocia etc.) a multi-headed method of planning and application management is in question.
Thus, the authority to plan and order plans in these areas is under the Authority for Protection of Specially Protected Areas, which is under the Ministry of Environment, and the authority of approval for the application in archeological and urban sites in these areas is under the Ministry of Culture and the High Council for Preserving Cultural and Natural Assets which is supposed to be independent (!), is under the Local Councils.
When the local administrations (Prefects, municipalities, village identities), which is the real owner of the region, also joins in the opposition between these two entities, it causes a chaos results which is hard to solve. There are interminable correspondences about who should make the preservation-aimed plan, who should approve it and which stage should be applied by whom.
The best examples of this situation are the current applications in Pamukkale and Patara. A detailed examination of each of these examples reveals the sad, even tragi-comical condition of preservation policies today. Even this is not the end of the problems. What one organisation does, the other dislikes; therefore the preservation areas are now very much like blackboards - written on, erased, rewritten on. Thus, the already limited resources are also being wasted.
V. Problems in Archeological Sites and Suggestions for Solutions
As in the historic urban sites the boundaries of archeological sites are not fixed and they change constantly. By decree of the Preservation Councils, shifts and alterations are being made among I., II. and III. degree archeological sites, and this leads to the idea of decisions being changeable among people. Thus the boundary declarations should be made once, supported by scientific research, and no changes should be made about these boundaries without the support of new data, documentation and findings.
Environmental control is not complete in some of the archeological sites, entries are not under regulations and complete chaos reigns, leading to unlawful excavations and theft of ancient monuments. Environmental control should be enforced and fences should be constructed around archeological sites, ruins, hills and tumuli (Tümülüses) and guards should be set for the important ones.
Planning aiming to the preservation of archeological sites is either insufficient or non-existent. Preservation-aimed planning attempts of antique cities like Bergama (Pergamon), Perge, Pamukkale (Hierapolis), Efes (Ephesus), Patara etc. have only been taken into consideration in recent years. This planning of archaeological sites should be completed by scientific methods as soon as possible, by setting aside the political and inter-organisational rivalries. Priorities should be detected and planning and investments should be directed accordingly.
Control and preservation mechanisms that are left to the local administrations are insufficient owing to financial and technical impossibilities. The Ministry of Culture cannot supply the necessary control or support. The control, maintenance and repair of all areas from the centre is impracticable. Hence, local offices should be formed and these offices, which are to be equipped technically and financially, should be made to provide effective planning, project creation and applications.
The arrangement of entrance points, tour routes, rest and service points in archeological areas and ruins are often very insufficient, primitive and far from scientific. Such inadequacy is encountered in many of the ruins that are in use for tourism purposes. Therefore, firstly concept designs (toilets, entrance points, resting points, souvenir sales points etc.) and, following that, designs specific to the architectural properties of the region should be obtained and applied. Obtaining these designs through contests could lead to significant results.
Prevention of illegal excavations, reclaiming old monuments that have been smuggled abroad, controlling excavations and exhibiting the found monuments, all these are heavy and effort-claiming problems. Improvement of existing museums and efforts towards the exhibition of antique towns as open air museums are matters that require the cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Tourism. Such matters could not be addressed very fully in the limited time available for this present work.
VI. Problems in Urban Sites and Suggestions on Solutions
Problems of archeological sites such as boundary changes, licensing/ unlicensing, lack of planning and lack of control are encountered in urban sites as well.
Moreover, the rapid population growth and urbanization, the phenomenon of from rural to urban migration, unplanned growth of cities, and land speculation in our country affect the urban pattern, which has to be preserved extremely adversely. Historical town centres and traditional urban patterns that are at the heart of towns are affected by the rapid growth, the increase in density and old buildings being pulled down and new, multi-stories ones being erected; the traditional urban patterns are being destroyed in spite of all the efforts and legal restrictions.
The delay in considering preservation at the urban scale (at pattern scale) has resulted in the loss of the picturesque view of many of our towns, like Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Ýzmir and Kayseri, although delayed efforts on planning and preparing project for preservation have spread wider after the 1980s. Following the authority being passed on to the legal administrations, many of them have started to stand up for their towns, embarking upon preservation-aimed planning efforts.
It is not possible to claim that these efforts have been sufficient. However, it can be said that a certain awareness of the environment has emerged, also with the influence of tourism. This is an indication of how long was the delay initiated by the Ministry of Culture for the preservation-aimed planning tasks by the method of the highest bidder since the beginning of the 1990s. The important point is not also to prepare preservation plans but to take certain organisational and financial precautions related to their application and to apply them.
It is not possible to hope for the achievement of this procedure with the current structure of the Ministry of Culture, which is constantly dependent upon ever-changing political decisions. It is extremely sad that in a medium of "CHAOS", which is created through demoting members of the Council of Preservation, exiling them to other locations, or through assigning non-expert people ignorant in "Scientific Preservation" to their positions, decisions of destruction and speculations are spreading far and wide.
The following suggestions could be named "Sustainable Preservation Policies":
1. Historical environments and traditional residence patterns should not be regarded only as our cultural variables, but in accordance with the concept of "Sustainable Development", and also as housing stocks.
2. In that aspect, planning and projects should be carried out that contain not only preservation but also rehabilitation, improvement and renovation.
3. The "Regulations" developed by the Mass Housing Department until 1997, which were prepared with the approach that concerns traditional urban patterns as residential patterns/housing stocks, should be applied at once.
4. The heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, problematic, unproductive, technically weak aspects of the Ministry of Culture have to be improved. Instead of policies that change daily according to politics (the Minister, the Representative or the General Manager), new long-term policies that are determined according to the resources and priorities of the land should be created and applied. The Preservation Councils and Bureau Management that are the local departments of the Ministry of Culture should be released from their present passive, heavy structures which are ineffective in addressing problems and in delay preservation, to be replaced by active, technically and financially equipped, effective mechanisms.
5. Multi-headedness in the laws and in the organisational structure on the issue of preserving should absolutely be prevented. Reconsidering the allocation of authority and responsibility, a single "Law of Urban and Environmental Preservation" should be created.
6. Policies of preservation and on-the-spot improvement should be advocated by increasing the technical and financial support to local administrations and controlling their services.
7. Informing the people of the region about their historical environment, making them aware of it, thus assuring their positive help and involvement in the matter of preservation, is regarded as the most important means of preservation. It is extremely important to teach, to introduce and to show a love of the cultural diversity and cultural values of the land, starting at a very early age.
As a conclusion, it can be said that the point arrived at after decades of disregard and looting in the matter of the preservation of historical and cultural values, is the point of losing, if not all, most of these values. The local and central administrations, which are supposed to prevent this, are observed to be unequal to this task. It is our belief that the duty required of every educated person is to participate actively in the efforts of preservation of the cultural and historical values.
(Toshio, I think it’s better to use a new Chapter Number here !):
II Ankara: Capital of Modern Turkey
II.1. A Short History of the City
The history of Turkey dated back to the prehistoric ages. Some caves, such as Karain at the region of Antalya, dated back to the upper Paleolithic age. The site of Çatalhöyük (6500-6550 B.C.) is the oldest Neolithic town; it lies 50 kilometers south of Konya, a region closely connected by trade with the Middle East. On the other hand, the first settlement in Troy is presumed to be Homer's Troy and dated back to 3000 B.C.. The first Empire in Anatolia was the Empire of the Hittites, in 1750 - 1200 B.C. which extended from the Black Sea to Palestine. Its capital Hattuþaþ (now called Boðazköy), lies 200 kilometers to the north-east of Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey. Also near this place are the Hittite city of Alacahöyük and the holy place Yazýlýkaya. During the Hittite period, there were also other states in Anatolia. In the east and south-east the Mitanni Kingdom lay and in the south lived the Luwians. Having been a Phrygian city in the 8 th century B.C., Ankara was then the capital of Galatia between the 2 nd century B.C. and 25 B.C. Having fallen under the domination of the Roman Empire in 25 B.C., Ankara experienced its most prosperous period during the following years, thanks to its role as the representative of the Roman Empire in Anatolia. During this period, Ankara acquired the position of being an important intersection point of Roman roads, which led to a great development in administrative, military and commercial activities with the population reaching as high a level as 100,000.
During the Roman Era, Ankara covered the hill and the plains on the west side of the fortress. The place of the Citadel was possibly a Acropolis. The City maintained its importance during the early days of the Byzantine Empire. After the 7 th century, the city was threatened by the Sasanis and the Arabs and was forced to return inside the fortress. The outer (Dýþ Kale) and the inner (Ýç Kale) fortresses which are still to be seen today, were built for this purpose and the remains of monumental buildings pertaining to the Roman period were used for the construction. Later, during the 8 th century, the city was occupied by Harun Reþid's army.
Ankara was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in 1073, prior to the foundation of the Ottoman Anatolia Union, after the long domination of the Byzantine Empire since 334, and has remained under the Turkish rule. The Citadel took its present form during the period of the Byzantine and Turkish principalities. The inner part of the Citadel has been used as settlement since that time, according to the recorded dated 1522.
The fact that Ankara was one of the Ahi centres played an important role in the development of its commercial functions. A certain part of the total of 30 Caravanserais in the city was built. They were located around the great mosque (Ahi Þerafeddin). In the periods of development of the Ottoman Empire, there was a further momentum with soft wool (sof), a special product of this city, which was acquired a world reputation as angora wool. The building of "Bedesten" (a kind of covered bazaar where wool, antiques and jewelery were sold) and of great Caravanserais (inns) took place in the 14 th and 15 th centuries.
In response to the increase in population, the city centre had also begun to expand and new commercial districts such as Tahtakale and Karaoðlan around Suluhan prospered. In the first years of the 17 th century, a third city wall was built as a means of protection against Celali outbreaks (Figure 1, dated Ankara in 1711).
The 18 th and 19 th centuries saw the commercial and economic viability of the Mediterranean countries. The Ottoman Empire and region Anatolia had undergone a sharp recession due to the shift to the main trade routes to the oceans and to the development of the West. Being unable to compete with the modern textile industry, the economy of Ankara entered a stage of total depression towards the end of the 19 th century and this was further aggravated by the fact that the soft wool (sof), a special product of the city, was also produced in other countries (Figure 2).
Figure 2. ANKARA IN AN OLD PAINTING (SOF PRODUCTION SCENERY IN FRONT)
The advent of the railway from Ýstanbul in 1892 created an atmosphere of relative viability and the boulevards named Station and Talat Pasha were constructed, connecting the railway station to the old city and Ulus (Taþhan). The center of the city began to prosper at the same period, in concomitance with all the other development.
II.2. Ankara As The Capital
Following its proclamation as the Capital of the Republic of Turkey on the 13 th October 1923, Ankara entered a stage of planned growth and development. The law numbered 583 which was passed subsequently to the proclamation of the city as the Capital, envisaged and provided for the extension of a new Ankara in the area between the historical town and the district called Çankaya, prohibiting the demolition of the historical buildings in and around the traditional old quarter. Thanks to this firm resolution brought in by the said law, the traditional structure of the historical sites of Ankara could have been more or less preserved.
The "Sýhhiye Plan" (New Town/Yeniþehir) prepared by Heussler in 1927, and the urban plan drawn up by the German professor Hermann Jansen in 1928 as a result of an international competition, represent two important steps in the planned development process of Ankara (Figure 3). Jansen placed a special emphasis on the conservation of the "traditional structure" by designating the historical urban site as the "Protocol Area". He also made certain plan decisions as regards the historical site (Figure 4).
Further arrangements relating to the historical site of Ankara were included in the reconstruction plan of Nihat Yücel and Rasit Uybadin who won the plan competition in Ankara, making it a metropolitan area in the 1970’s, with a 16 fold and a 46 fold increase respectively in its population and its expansion area. Due to the stunningly high rate of urbanization, 60 percent of the city developed outside the planned area, while the historical sites underwent a relatively lower degree of change as a particular section of the metropolis.
II.3. The Conservation Project of the Citadel of Ankara
"The Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development Plan of the Citadel" aimed at the preservation of the historical site with its own characteristics (Figure 5).
The conservation plan consists of the following aspects:
a. Traditional Production and Selling Areas :
In the "Ankara Citadel Culture, Tourism and Commercial Centre", there will be traditional production and selling units (shops) on the main pedestrian roads such as "Kalekapýsý, Doyran Street and around squares such as Ramazan Þemsettin Mosque Square, and Alaeddin Mosques Square". These shops will be on the ground level, in old traditional houses which are supposed to be restored, and also in some inner courtyards (avlus).
The traditional crafts are the following:
- The traditional Angora Goat wool (sof),
- Angora cloths, textile, woven materials,
- Angora cikriks (spinning-wheels),
- Turkish carpets, woven mattings (kilim), production, exhibition, and selling units.
- Wickerwork, rush mat production shops, selling units.
- Woodworks, handicrafts.
- Traditional Turkish copper, silver and gold ornaments and jewelry shops etc.
In this area, there are some traditional works of art which had nearly disappeared and are intended for education and to encourage the renewal of culture and tourism.
b. Daily Commercial Area :
These areas serve the daily necessities (drink, food, refreshments etc.) of visitors and persons staying in hotels and boarding-houses in the Citadel.
c. Recreation and Accommodation Areas :
Intended for cultural and tourism functions; restaurants with traditional Turkish cuisine and foods as well as hotels and boarding-houses showing the traditional hospitality, will be found in the Citadel.
- Hotels and boarding-houses.
- Restaurants (Turkish cuisine, Ankara food).
- Special cuisine (tandir, doner, sis, lavas etc.).
- Cafes (Turkish cafes), pubs.
d. Cultural areas :
These are:
- The Old Ankara House Museum..
- The History of Ankara Museum.
- The War of Ankara Museum.
- Social Centres (Library, videos, slides, places).
- Art Galleries (paintings, sculptures, music, open show area).
II. 4. Implementation Phases of the Conservation Plan
To date, the scales of the 1:5,000, 1:1,000, 1:500 conservation plans have been completed. As from now, the scale of the 1:200 and higher scales (1:100, 1:50, ......1:1) implementation projects will be designed. And the infrastructure (water, electricity and swage etc.) as well as the landscaping will be completed. At a later date, both the Municipality and the house owners will get together to implement the project.
SOURCES
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF CONCERN ON THE HISTORICAL
ENVIRONMENT, C. Erder, 1971, Ankara.
2. PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
TMMOB Chambers of Architects Publications, 1979, İstanbul.
3. LAW OF HISTORIC MONUMENTS, NUMBERED 1710 Comments-Examinations,
1976, İstanbul.
4. REGULATIONS ON IMMOBILE CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS, T.R.
Ministry of Culture, 1996, Ankara.
5. WRITINGS ON THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT,
M. TUNÇER, Lecture Notes, 1996, Ankara.
6. This section has been prepared with the aid of the unpublished Doctorate Dissertation by
M. TUNÇER, “Policies on the Preservation of Historical Environment for Sustainable
Development: Ankara, Bergama, Şanlıurfa”, Ankara University, Faculty of Political
Science, Department of Public Administration and Political Science, Urban and
Environmental Sciences, 1995.
7. KUBAN, D., 1993, “Could There Be a Policy of Preservation Specific to Türkiye?”,
1. Colloquium on Urban Preservation and Renovation Applications, April 7-8 1993, MSU,
Fac. of Architecture, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning.
THE EFFECTUAL USING OF URBAN DESIGN IN THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT, “DIVIDE AND RULE MODEL”:
THE EFFECTUAL USING OF URBAN DESIGN IN THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT, “DIVIDE AND RULE MODEL”:
ANKARA, KONYA, ANTALYA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRES [i]
Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER
I. Introduction
The changes, occured by the rapid development and change in our world and country, globalizm, localism and reconstruction process, made the “Ordinary Planning” approachs inadequate in solving the problems. Instead of not working approach in the application step, the planning approach which has alternatives, which is flexible and contemporary and which gives a possibility to creat a solution to the problems in a short and long term, takes part. In this case, definitions and planning approachs that can be called “Private Project Areas”, “Project Areas That Have Priority”, “Packet Project Areas” or “Action Planning Areas” in which the relations among lower and top scales can be established, the feedback among the scales again can be obtained, should be used effectual.
In the contents of this announcement, especially in the planning of historical city centres which have great relations with traditional urban tissues, the planning approach, called “Divide and Rule Model”, which is one way of using urban design effectual and the application of this approach in Ankara, Antalya and Konya Historical City Centres is explained with the examples. This model determines how basic decisions and strategies which will be taken in the top scales (1/25000 - 1/5000 - 1/1000) will be applied in the lower scales (1/500 - 1/200 ... 1/1). What will be done in the conservation planning of historical environment and private project areas is to obtain the coordination among the urban design projects.
Today, urban design is limited by certain, definite and sometimes detail decisions which are kept in mind by urban plans. In the result of these decisions or urban design which is not totalitarian and which is verified independently, put forward the problem which is not appraising the environmental effects of the designed area in the whole plan. To solve the urban and environmental problems, to obtain the working and applicable plans, in the urban place, in the top scale planning process, “Private Project Areas” (or Project Areas That Have Priority / Packet Project Areas) should be determined and then the vanguard, flexible decisions which have alternatives and steps and which will be the foundation of urban design scale, should be produced. Also transfering these decisions should be obtained in the application plans or urban design scales.
In our country today’ s dynamic and stabile (not having continuous features), static and hard planning approachs have not a quality that answers today’ s necessities or produces a solution to the problems.
II. The Problems in Historical City Centres in Our Country
Some places in our country’ s cities have architectural culture, tradition and collection which have been living for thousand years. Generally in our country’ s planning historical process, for a long time, historical city centres which take part within and mostly successively with the natural, historical and archeological places which should be conserved, were not seen as a place that should be firstly interferenced. With the development of historical environment consicience, the idea became diffused, which says that, historical urban tissues are unseperated part of the whole city, the decisions about the city are valid for all old and new city centres and planning that has a priority is a necessity.
In historical environments, especially in historical city centres planning and application problems gradually became more complicated.
These environments face to face problems as;
· The increase of the density of the Central Working Areas (CWA) usings,
· The increase of the population and area usings in a high rate,
· Therefore the increase of the rant and speculation,
· The revolution to subsidence areas,
· Problems of transportation and carparks,
· High floor renew after destruction,
· Not being conserved and being abondened.
Additionally, new transportation lines and applications of carparks which are contrary to the historical tissue and destroying the traditional tissue; the large sole area and heights; using decisions (worehouse, industry, small industry exc.) and the increase of the density that cause the destruction of the samples of monumental and / or civilian architecture which should be conserved in traditional tissue, are abondened and forgotten, also their existent values are supposed non-existent in urban plans. In historical city centres the another important application problem in plans which should be taken charge of again, is that the public work applications had been done and then they were registered with a title deed.
III. The Planning Approachs in Historical City Centres
The method which is being applied in traditional city tissues and historical city centres is “Conservation Planning of Historical Environment”. Becouse of its features in physical areas and socio - economic structure and different and various quality from the other parts of the city, the Conservation Planning is a team work in which different and many disciplines take part together. The specialists in this team change by again the quality of planning areas. But in general, an Urban Planner, specialized in conservation or an Architect, specialized in restoration, is accepted as a leader of the team.
In Conservation Planning, the planning works are made in 1/25000 (relations with the whole city), 1/5000 (Verse Implementation Plan That Aims Conservation), 1/1000 (Implementation Plan That Aims Conservation) scales. But historical environment planning should contain wide dimensions from the country scale to the building scale, moreover to the city furniture scale. Also Conservation Planning studies which are taken charge in country, region, environment, city, quarter of a town, street, open space and building scales, have relations with urban designs directly.
In historical city tissues, it is known that the plannings in scale 1/1000 is inadequate from the point of scales and details that are required by scales. In Conservation Plans, there are decisions about the relation between building and plot of land, the construction in empty plot of land, view point, vista, panoroma, conservation decisions, landscape and environment arrangements and moreover detail decisions about buildings’ architectural features (side / plan). Therefore 1/1000 plans, the scales of Implementation Plans, are plans in infertile and insufficient scales which wanted and necessary details are not shown.
In spite of the fact that the interferences that will be brought on historical city tissue are taken charge in the whole decisions, relating to the city, ordinary implementation plan methods are seen that they are insufficient, the application to urban design became influential. These places show a necessity to a place that will find an expression in different scales and also building designs, decisions that provides the structural and mekansal wholeness accordingly conservation, yaşatma, development principle. Additionally, according to the feature of subject and area, urban design projects should be done in 1/500 and larger scales (1/200, 1/100, 1/1).
The designs that can take the datas, gotton from the social and physical investigations which will be made in the whole historical environment, are occured by the result of the necessities, mentioned above. The urban design project which will be made in historical city centres, should be explained with a manner that will reduce the planning decisons of the city in top scales to the application decisions in lower scales.
Also in historical city centres, beside the totalitarian approach to the subject, after preparing a guide “Frame Plan” (Basic, master), project areas that have priority and action planning approach should be valid for the purpose of joining the application effectual and becouse of a big press on the CWA.
IV. Historical City Centres: Urban Design in Conservation and Develop
During the conservation, development, reform and renewal of the historical city centres, besides the methods and techiniques of the urban planning, the methods and techiniques which are required by “Conservation plans and projects” should be applied.
The conservation plannings of city centres should be a product that many specialization departments as; urban planning, architecture, restoration, art history, archaeology, landmark planning, transportation engineering, social science, etnology, urban economy, statistics, environment science, substructure engineering work together and according to the place their responsibilities should change. The profession department which will control and coordinate these disciplines and provide the coordination in their working is “Urban Planner, Specialist in Consevation”. All disciplines, previously mentioned, should take part in planning, project and application process in determined scales and determined times.
During the historical city centres’ conservation, development and harmonious to the traditional tissue renewal, “Urban Design” should be used effectual in all steps from top scales to lower scales.
· In Environment Arrangement Plans in 1/25000 Scale; The investigations about establishing the relations between historical city centres and whole metropoliten area or whole city, methods that take historical city centres in a whole which think of and not destroy the natural environment and ecologic balance, should be made. Then the designs with “Ecologic City Centre” approach should be improved by thinking of the climate, environment datas, natural datas. What can be done in this scale with urban design techiniques are limited. But the basic strategies that can effect the detail scales and give them a way, should be formed. Firstly all urban plans should be studied in urban design scales and then it should be concreted with implementation planning, legjant and techiniques. This is necessary for forming a healthy and applicable urban plan.
· In Implementation Plans in 1/5000 Scale; “Structural Plan” approach has more superiorities than ordinary implementation planning becouse it does not definite the future today and it is open and flexible to the new developments that can be occured in the future. In the structural plan approach, the priorities should be determined in top scales, the design frees should not be shortened by certain and detail decisions that is brought by totalitarian planning, it should be open to the probable changes in planning process and it should define these changes. In the Implementation Plan scales, the historical city centres’ basic decisions as its place in whole city and CWA, location, function and density, environment relations, tranportation connections should be given by investigating its shape in future. Centre develop politics, designs and models as developing the desentralization politics relating to establish the direction of the development of CWA, to reduce the press on traditional centre and to form new lower centres, should be established. The development of CWA aims, dependent on city population and sectorel development, should be formed with examining the inner dynamics of CWA.
In historical city centres the politics, aim at obtaining the conservation and develop, as;
1. The politics of pedestrian (to establish a circulation system that dependents on pedestrian; city open spaces; to form pedestrian ways and pedestrian zones; to plan cycle roads exc.)
2. The politics of mass transportation (light and heavy rail systems, mass transportation, private bus roads, tram systems exc.)
3. The politics of conservation, reform and renewal (restrotation, repairation, reform, improvement, renewal)
4. The politics for developing the units of turism and traditional trade / production / sale (to develop family pansions, traditional handicrafts exc.)
5. Financial (monetory), organizational, legal and administrative politics that will make the application effectual (credit mechanisms, financial and technique helps, exchange of goods, nationalization, the rant tranfer, local and central administration’s forming effectual units, completing the legal deficiencies, making Ministry of Culture Conservation Comittee effectual)
should be developed.
While Implementation Plan decisions are decided, “Urban Design” will take an effectual role in many steps during the development of conservation, mentioned above.
· In Master Plans (Aim at conservation) in 1/1000 Scale; The scales which urban design is used effectual are 1/1000 and bigger than 1/1000 scales (1/500, 1/200, 1/1). During the study of centre planning that aims conservation, a guide “Frame Plan” with a totalitarian and integrate conservation approach and the join and supplement of the disciplines, previously mentioned, should be prepared. Restoration specialists, art historians, archeologists, transportation planners, architects, substructure engeers and city planner, specialized in conservation, should play an effectual role in this process. In traditional centre, in the zones that have many monumental and civilian architect samples and archelogic remnants.
1. According to the decisions of Implemantation Plans, the pedestrian zones that will make the circulation of pedestrian easy and introduce the attraction of these zones, should be designed.
2. The unmovable cultural existences (residence, khan, drapery market, bath, mosque, külliye exc.) that need conservation and the usings (residence, traditional trade and handicrafts, turism, pansion exc.) that can make the conservation nearby these places easy, should be suggested and the spread of these usings should be determined by urban design.
3. The area of the sole (TAKS/KAKS/emsal) and heights (template/hmax) that are harmonious with the building, city block and plot of land, which will be conserved, and conservation area features nearby these places, should be planned. During the urban design, by giving these decisions choosing the construction form, technology and metarials by modern architect design of this time, that are harmonious with the traditional construction, side and plan types and that are resemble them but not imitate, should be given an attention.
4. Giving the using judge under the floor (underground shop, carpark exc.) that will provide the reduce of rant in some areas and transfer, that will not destroy the tissue with returning the residence to the trade, should be studied and reflected to the designs and plans.
Planning decisions should be given by urban design in 1/1000 and more than 1/1000 scales for all subjects, mentioned above.
V. The Effectual Using of Urban Design in The Conservatıon of Historical Environment, “Divide And Rule Model”
In conservation planning of historical environment and traditional city centres, the relations between plans, in 1/25000, 1/5000 and 1/1000 scales, and urban design were given above.
It is probable that to take charge of the lower parts, which have similar qualities in the application easinesses, in a totalitarian, can be called “Divide & Rule Model”.
The approach which says that “Urban design should be taken charge of in the whole urban plans and verified in a way of obtainig the wholeness between top and lower scales; forming packet projects and lower application zones whose basic principles will be determined in urban plans”, determines the basic philosphy of the model. During the determinetion of lower application zones, the decisions, given in urban plans, should not be the decisions that are limiting for the urban design and thet are not flexible. Also the environmental relations among these lower project areas should be established. Meanwhile, urban plan decisions in top scales, should be appraised again with the datas of plan - design applications in lower scales and changed if needed.
In this model, urban design is used effectual, according to continous and coherence of the plan, an effectual action plan is formed for urban politics. Conservation area and / or historical city centres are seperated in lower project areas that need a design in a priority becouse they are sensitive zones that need conservation and development in a priority.
These lower project areas can be seperated as:
· Aimed at transportation (openspace, pedestrian road, pedestiran zone, mass transportation exc.)
· Aimed at conservation (conservation areas that have priority, reform areas exc.)
· Aimed at renewal (forming new centre usings, reconstrucion after destruction, exc.)
· Aimed at arrangement of environment (arrangement areas that includes nearby places of monumental, civilian architectural samples)
To divide; brings easinesses becouse of its domination on lower parts that are harmonious with its quality and features, shows the different units (Municipality, wakfs, Ministry of Culture exc.) a way in the application. With determining these lower units, which will be taken charge of in urban design scales, with their limits in plans in 1/1000 scales (sometimes in 1/5000 scales), the principles and guide decisions, that will show urban design a way, are determined. According to their priorities (politic / urban priorities) these lower project areas are become detail projects for application by taking charge of in more top scales.
About this subject, the applications, done and still continue, in Ankara, Konya and Antalya Historical City Centres, will be examined in following part and conclusions that can be generalized for our country will be tried to form.
VI. Samples
VI.1. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Ankara Ulus Historical City Centre
In the studies in Ankara Ulus Historical City Centre which were started in 1982 by Ankara Büyükşehir Municipality Implementation Depertmant Presidency, the area about 100 hac was planned by establishing packet project areas that had application priority .
In this project areas, urban design studies (1/1000 and 1/500 scales), aimed at conservation, were done, according to their features (*).
These studies were densed in private areas that had priorities, as;
· Hacıbayram Surroundings,
· Suluhan Surroundings,
· Çıkrıkçılar Yokuşu Surroundings,
· Anadolu Medeniyetleri Museum Surroundings,
· Karyağdı Türbesi Surroundings,
· Hasırcılar - Osmanlı Crossroad Connections and Old Turkish Bath Surroundings,
· Bend Stream Shared Taxi Stops Surroundings,
· Akköprü Surroundings.
However in the “Ulus Historical City Centre Environment Arrangement Competition”s list of conditions which is started in 1986, besides the planning studies in 1/500 and 1/1000 scales, the arrangement of some areas in 1/500 scales was wanted from the competitors.
These city parts, established as planning areas that had priorities, are;
· Open Spaces that will be arrangemented (Government Open Space, Atpazarı Open Space)
· Transportation Zones that will be arrangemented (Güvercin Street, Çerkeş Street, Atpazarı Yokuşu)
· Constructs and Constructs Groups that The Environment Arrangemet will be done (Hacıbayram Mosque, Antik Rome Theatre, Old Turkish Bath Surroundings)
Also details, arranged in 1/500 scale, relating to visual elements, as open space, pedestiran road and floor covers, suggested in single construct surroundings, urban furniture (rest group arrangement, bank, street lamps, waste bins, flower places exc.) were wanted to be shown with the arrangements which were priviously mentioned.
As seen, taking charge of the Historical City Centre’ s important and necessitating an urgent interferance parts, by pieced methods, was used effectiual in Ulus. In the winner project, 19 lower projects were determined with some terms as “Public Project Areas”, “Private Project Areas” (Ek 1).
VI.2. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Konya Historical City Centre
In Konya Historical City Centre Planning Studies, aimed at Conservation (*), inside the traditional centre in the detail, the areas that were important and needed firstly design were determined as “Private Project Areas”.
These areas, needed design in 1/500 and more than 1/500 (1/200, ..., 1/1), are given below;
1. Aziziye Mosque Environment Arrangement
2. Kapu Mosque Environment Arrangement
3. Government Open Space Arrangement
4. Şerafeddin Mosque Underground Carpark and City Open Space Arrangement
5. Front of the PTT Underground Carpark And City Open Space Arrangement
6. İplikçi Mosque Environment Arrangement and Underground Carpark
7. Mahkeme Turkish Bath and Şerafeddin Mosque Environment Arrangement
8. Mevlana Külliyesi and Selimiye Mosque Open Space and Environment Arrangement
9. Karatay Külliyesi Environment Arrangement
10. Traditional Bazaar (Arasta) Part Conservation and Development Project
Konya Büyükşehir Municipality is preparing number 4,5,7 Private Project Areas’ (Şerafeddin Mosque Surroundings, Government Open Space, Historical Place Platosu, Front of the PTT Underground Carpark), urban design, landscape and urban furniture projects in a whole. In addition area’ s underground carpark project is being prepared. In this project urban design techiniques are being used (Ek 4).
VI. 3. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Antalya Historical City Centre
The process of taking charge of Antalya Historical City Centre in a pieced started with “Kalekapısı Urban Design Project Competition” in 1990. In this project contents firstly “Making Şarampol Road as a Pedestrian Project” was prepared and applied. For “Balbey quarter of a town” which is within the historical city centre, a plan in 1/500 scale, aimed at conservation, was prepared. But becouse of some problems, relating to ownership, the plan could not be applied. Plan’ s revision studies are still continuing. Again for “Haşim İşçan quarter of a town” which takes place near the traditional city centre, the planning studies, aim at conservation, were completed. Inside Balbey and Haşim İşçan quarters of a town “Private Project Areas” that urban design studies were needed to prepare in 1/500 and more than 1/500 scales were determined (Ek 5).
VII. Conclusions
As seen in Ankara, Konya, Antalya Historical City Centre samples, the planning method, qualified as “Divide and Rule Model”, is a method of preparing detail planning, urban design, landscape and outside place elements plans and projects with seperating “Private Project Areas / Public Project Areas”.
It is seen that this method finds solutions to the complex problems of traditional city centres and obtains important easinesses for application. The 1/1000 scale plans which are the application scale for our contry, is inadequate for urban design plans and projects in areas that are become more complex by the modern life. In the historical city centres ( and in CWA) the effectual applicable scales are 1/500 - 1/200 ... 1/1 scales which are the subjects of urban design. In historical city centres, open space arrangements, pedestiran zone / street arrangements, memorial construct (mosque, han, Turkish Bath, bedesten exc.) surroundings arrangements and all surroundings arrangement , relating to conservation of construct groups, should be ruled, dependent on their priorities, by taking charge of them in a frame of a determined guiding plan whole (1/5000 and 1/1000) in urban design scales (1/500 and more than 1/500). The word “Rule”, previously mentioned, means “Rule of Project” concept.
Taking charge of each Project Packet in urban design scales, depends on excisting resources and application organised model. Monetary and organizational structure shows the design a way in forming the project. Giving the determined macro decisions (conservation, rehabilitation, renewal, transportation, using, construction exc.) and dividing Private Project areas also obtain easinesses to the steps ve control of the application in a period. It is seen that, taking charge of the urban design in determined private frame / frontiers and its giving joining and supplement possibility to the other relational disciplines (landscape, substructure engineering, architecture, industrial products design exc.) is the correct and short way that goes to the application.
Written by Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER
Transleted by Ebru AKPINAR
* TUNÇER, M., “Some Current Planning Studies and Applications in Ulus Historical City Centre”, Ulus Historical City Centre Environment Arrangement Competition, 1986, Ankara Büyükşehir Municipality Implementation Depertmant Presidency, P.71-75.
According to the qualities of each Lower Project Areas, the macro decisions and guides which could show a way to the detail projects, were given. In addition the concept of “Rant Coridors” was formed for verifying these project. The important, basic plannimg decision is the conservation and development of the Historical City Tissue by the income that will be obtained from the development of these areas. In these project areas, the projects as “Hacıbayram Environment Arrangement” (Ek 2), “Bend Stream Shared Taxi Stops Project”, “İstiklal (Jew) Quarter of a Town Project” were finished and applied.
* TUNÇER, M., “Konya Historical City Centre İmplemantation Plan, Aimed at Conservation, Report”, UTTA Planning & Consulting Ltd. Şti., 1997.
Antalya “Kaleiçi Planning Studies, Aimed at Conservation” were started by Middle East Techinical University in 1979. METU Parlar Wakf made a revision to the prepared conservation plan in 1992. “The Marina” that takes place in this planning area, was announced as a Turism Area and was opened for using by repairing with urban design, röleve and restoration projects which were prepared bu Turism Bank. This area is the most important urban part that has private project areas in its own.
[i] “9th URBAN DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS SYMPOSIUM”, “URBAN DESIGN IN DIFFERENT SCALES”, Ofered Announcement, Mimar Sinan University, Arc. Fac. City and Regional Planning Departmant, May 21 -22 1998.
ANKARA, KONYA, ANTALYA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRES [i]
Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER
I. Introduction
The changes, occured by the rapid development and change in our world and country, globalizm, localism and reconstruction process, made the “Ordinary Planning” approachs inadequate in solving the problems. Instead of not working approach in the application step, the planning approach which has alternatives, which is flexible and contemporary and which gives a possibility to creat a solution to the problems in a short and long term, takes part. In this case, definitions and planning approachs that can be called “Private Project Areas”, “Project Areas That Have Priority”, “Packet Project Areas” or “Action Planning Areas” in which the relations among lower and top scales can be established, the feedback among the scales again can be obtained, should be used effectual.
In the contents of this announcement, especially in the planning of historical city centres which have great relations with traditional urban tissues, the planning approach, called “Divide and Rule Model”, which is one way of using urban design effectual and the application of this approach in Ankara, Antalya and Konya Historical City Centres is explained with the examples. This model determines how basic decisions and strategies which will be taken in the top scales (1/25000 - 1/5000 - 1/1000) will be applied in the lower scales (1/500 - 1/200 ... 1/1). What will be done in the conservation planning of historical environment and private project areas is to obtain the coordination among the urban design projects.
Today, urban design is limited by certain, definite and sometimes detail decisions which are kept in mind by urban plans. In the result of these decisions or urban design which is not totalitarian and which is verified independently, put forward the problem which is not appraising the environmental effects of the designed area in the whole plan. To solve the urban and environmental problems, to obtain the working and applicable plans, in the urban place, in the top scale planning process, “Private Project Areas” (or Project Areas That Have Priority / Packet Project Areas) should be determined and then the vanguard, flexible decisions which have alternatives and steps and which will be the foundation of urban design scale, should be produced. Also transfering these decisions should be obtained in the application plans or urban design scales.
In our country today’ s dynamic and stabile (not having continuous features), static and hard planning approachs have not a quality that answers today’ s necessities or produces a solution to the problems.
II. The Problems in Historical City Centres in Our Country
Some places in our country’ s cities have architectural culture, tradition and collection which have been living for thousand years. Generally in our country’ s planning historical process, for a long time, historical city centres which take part within and mostly successively with the natural, historical and archeological places which should be conserved, were not seen as a place that should be firstly interferenced. With the development of historical environment consicience, the idea became diffused, which says that, historical urban tissues are unseperated part of the whole city, the decisions about the city are valid for all old and new city centres and planning that has a priority is a necessity.
In historical environments, especially in historical city centres planning and application problems gradually became more complicated.
These environments face to face problems as;
· The increase of the density of the Central Working Areas (CWA) usings,
· The increase of the population and area usings in a high rate,
· Therefore the increase of the rant and speculation,
· The revolution to subsidence areas,
· Problems of transportation and carparks,
· High floor renew after destruction,
· Not being conserved and being abondened.
Additionally, new transportation lines and applications of carparks which are contrary to the historical tissue and destroying the traditional tissue; the large sole area and heights; using decisions (worehouse, industry, small industry exc.) and the increase of the density that cause the destruction of the samples of monumental and / or civilian architecture which should be conserved in traditional tissue, are abondened and forgotten, also their existent values are supposed non-existent in urban plans. In historical city centres the another important application problem in plans which should be taken charge of again, is that the public work applications had been done and then they were registered with a title deed.
III. The Planning Approachs in Historical City Centres
The method which is being applied in traditional city tissues and historical city centres is “Conservation Planning of Historical Environment”. Becouse of its features in physical areas and socio - economic structure and different and various quality from the other parts of the city, the Conservation Planning is a team work in which different and many disciplines take part together. The specialists in this team change by again the quality of planning areas. But in general, an Urban Planner, specialized in conservation or an Architect, specialized in restoration, is accepted as a leader of the team.
In Conservation Planning, the planning works are made in 1/25000 (relations with the whole city), 1/5000 (Verse Implementation Plan That Aims Conservation), 1/1000 (Implementation Plan That Aims Conservation) scales. But historical environment planning should contain wide dimensions from the country scale to the building scale, moreover to the city furniture scale. Also Conservation Planning studies which are taken charge in country, region, environment, city, quarter of a town, street, open space and building scales, have relations with urban designs directly.
In historical city tissues, it is known that the plannings in scale 1/1000 is inadequate from the point of scales and details that are required by scales. In Conservation Plans, there are decisions about the relation between building and plot of land, the construction in empty plot of land, view point, vista, panoroma, conservation decisions, landscape and environment arrangements and moreover detail decisions about buildings’ architectural features (side / plan). Therefore 1/1000 plans, the scales of Implementation Plans, are plans in infertile and insufficient scales which wanted and necessary details are not shown.
In spite of the fact that the interferences that will be brought on historical city tissue are taken charge in the whole decisions, relating to the city, ordinary implementation plan methods are seen that they are insufficient, the application to urban design became influential. These places show a necessity to a place that will find an expression in different scales and also building designs, decisions that provides the structural and mekansal wholeness accordingly conservation, yaşatma, development principle. Additionally, according to the feature of subject and area, urban design projects should be done in 1/500 and larger scales (1/200, 1/100, 1/1).
The designs that can take the datas, gotton from the social and physical investigations which will be made in the whole historical environment, are occured by the result of the necessities, mentioned above. The urban design project which will be made in historical city centres, should be explained with a manner that will reduce the planning decisons of the city in top scales to the application decisions in lower scales.
Also in historical city centres, beside the totalitarian approach to the subject, after preparing a guide “Frame Plan” (Basic, master), project areas that have priority and action planning approach should be valid for the purpose of joining the application effectual and becouse of a big press on the CWA.
IV. Historical City Centres: Urban Design in Conservation and Develop
During the conservation, development, reform and renewal of the historical city centres, besides the methods and techiniques of the urban planning, the methods and techiniques which are required by “Conservation plans and projects” should be applied.
The conservation plannings of city centres should be a product that many specialization departments as; urban planning, architecture, restoration, art history, archaeology, landmark planning, transportation engineering, social science, etnology, urban economy, statistics, environment science, substructure engineering work together and according to the place their responsibilities should change. The profession department which will control and coordinate these disciplines and provide the coordination in their working is “Urban Planner, Specialist in Consevation”. All disciplines, previously mentioned, should take part in planning, project and application process in determined scales and determined times.
During the historical city centres’ conservation, development and harmonious to the traditional tissue renewal, “Urban Design” should be used effectual in all steps from top scales to lower scales.
· In Environment Arrangement Plans in 1/25000 Scale; The investigations about establishing the relations between historical city centres and whole metropoliten area or whole city, methods that take historical city centres in a whole which think of and not destroy the natural environment and ecologic balance, should be made. Then the designs with “Ecologic City Centre” approach should be improved by thinking of the climate, environment datas, natural datas. What can be done in this scale with urban design techiniques are limited. But the basic strategies that can effect the detail scales and give them a way, should be formed. Firstly all urban plans should be studied in urban design scales and then it should be concreted with implementation planning, legjant and techiniques. This is necessary for forming a healthy and applicable urban plan.
· In Implementation Plans in 1/5000 Scale; “Structural Plan” approach has more superiorities than ordinary implementation planning becouse it does not definite the future today and it is open and flexible to the new developments that can be occured in the future. In the structural plan approach, the priorities should be determined in top scales, the design frees should not be shortened by certain and detail decisions that is brought by totalitarian planning, it should be open to the probable changes in planning process and it should define these changes. In the Implementation Plan scales, the historical city centres’ basic decisions as its place in whole city and CWA, location, function and density, environment relations, tranportation connections should be given by investigating its shape in future. Centre develop politics, designs and models as developing the desentralization politics relating to establish the direction of the development of CWA, to reduce the press on traditional centre and to form new lower centres, should be established. The development of CWA aims, dependent on city population and sectorel development, should be formed with examining the inner dynamics of CWA.
In historical city centres the politics, aim at obtaining the conservation and develop, as;
1. The politics of pedestrian (to establish a circulation system that dependents on pedestrian; city open spaces; to form pedestrian ways and pedestrian zones; to plan cycle roads exc.)
2. The politics of mass transportation (light and heavy rail systems, mass transportation, private bus roads, tram systems exc.)
3. The politics of conservation, reform and renewal (restrotation, repairation, reform, improvement, renewal)
4. The politics for developing the units of turism and traditional trade / production / sale (to develop family pansions, traditional handicrafts exc.)
5. Financial (monetory), organizational, legal and administrative politics that will make the application effectual (credit mechanisms, financial and technique helps, exchange of goods, nationalization, the rant tranfer, local and central administration’s forming effectual units, completing the legal deficiencies, making Ministry of Culture Conservation Comittee effectual)
should be developed.
While Implementation Plan decisions are decided, “Urban Design” will take an effectual role in many steps during the development of conservation, mentioned above.
· In Master Plans (Aim at conservation) in 1/1000 Scale; The scales which urban design is used effectual are 1/1000 and bigger than 1/1000 scales (1/500, 1/200, 1/1). During the study of centre planning that aims conservation, a guide “Frame Plan” with a totalitarian and integrate conservation approach and the join and supplement of the disciplines, previously mentioned, should be prepared. Restoration specialists, art historians, archeologists, transportation planners, architects, substructure engeers and city planner, specialized in conservation, should play an effectual role in this process. In traditional centre, in the zones that have many monumental and civilian architect samples and archelogic remnants.
1. According to the decisions of Implemantation Plans, the pedestrian zones that will make the circulation of pedestrian easy and introduce the attraction of these zones, should be designed.
2. The unmovable cultural existences (residence, khan, drapery market, bath, mosque, külliye exc.) that need conservation and the usings (residence, traditional trade and handicrafts, turism, pansion exc.) that can make the conservation nearby these places easy, should be suggested and the spread of these usings should be determined by urban design.
3. The area of the sole (TAKS/KAKS/emsal) and heights (template/hmax) that are harmonious with the building, city block and plot of land, which will be conserved, and conservation area features nearby these places, should be planned. During the urban design, by giving these decisions choosing the construction form, technology and metarials by modern architect design of this time, that are harmonious with the traditional construction, side and plan types and that are resemble them but not imitate, should be given an attention.
4. Giving the using judge under the floor (underground shop, carpark exc.) that will provide the reduce of rant in some areas and transfer, that will not destroy the tissue with returning the residence to the trade, should be studied and reflected to the designs and plans.
Planning decisions should be given by urban design in 1/1000 and more than 1/1000 scales for all subjects, mentioned above.
V. The Effectual Using of Urban Design in The Conservatıon of Historical Environment, “Divide And Rule Model”
In conservation planning of historical environment and traditional city centres, the relations between plans, in 1/25000, 1/5000 and 1/1000 scales, and urban design were given above.
It is probable that to take charge of the lower parts, which have similar qualities in the application easinesses, in a totalitarian, can be called “Divide & Rule Model”.
The approach which says that “Urban design should be taken charge of in the whole urban plans and verified in a way of obtainig the wholeness between top and lower scales; forming packet projects and lower application zones whose basic principles will be determined in urban plans”, determines the basic philosphy of the model. During the determinetion of lower application zones, the decisions, given in urban plans, should not be the decisions that are limiting for the urban design and thet are not flexible. Also the environmental relations among these lower project areas should be established. Meanwhile, urban plan decisions in top scales, should be appraised again with the datas of plan - design applications in lower scales and changed if needed.
In this model, urban design is used effectual, according to continous and coherence of the plan, an effectual action plan is formed for urban politics. Conservation area and / or historical city centres are seperated in lower project areas that need a design in a priority becouse they are sensitive zones that need conservation and development in a priority.
These lower project areas can be seperated as:
· Aimed at transportation (openspace, pedestrian road, pedestiran zone, mass transportation exc.)
· Aimed at conservation (conservation areas that have priority, reform areas exc.)
· Aimed at renewal (forming new centre usings, reconstrucion after destruction, exc.)
· Aimed at arrangement of environment (arrangement areas that includes nearby places of monumental, civilian architectural samples)
To divide; brings easinesses becouse of its domination on lower parts that are harmonious with its quality and features, shows the different units (Municipality, wakfs, Ministry of Culture exc.) a way in the application. With determining these lower units, which will be taken charge of in urban design scales, with their limits in plans in 1/1000 scales (sometimes in 1/5000 scales), the principles and guide decisions, that will show urban design a way, are determined. According to their priorities (politic / urban priorities) these lower project areas are become detail projects for application by taking charge of in more top scales.
About this subject, the applications, done and still continue, in Ankara, Konya and Antalya Historical City Centres, will be examined in following part and conclusions that can be generalized for our country will be tried to form.
VI. Samples
VI.1. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Ankara Ulus Historical City Centre
In the studies in Ankara Ulus Historical City Centre which were started in 1982 by Ankara Büyükşehir Municipality Implementation Depertmant Presidency, the area about 100 hac was planned by establishing packet project areas that had application priority .
In this project areas, urban design studies (1/1000 and 1/500 scales), aimed at conservation, were done, according to their features (*).
These studies were densed in private areas that had priorities, as;
· Hacıbayram Surroundings,
· Suluhan Surroundings,
· Çıkrıkçılar Yokuşu Surroundings,
· Anadolu Medeniyetleri Museum Surroundings,
· Karyağdı Türbesi Surroundings,
· Hasırcılar - Osmanlı Crossroad Connections and Old Turkish Bath Surroundings,
· Bend Stream Shared Taxi Stops Surroundings,
· Akköprü Surroundings.
However in the “Ulus Historical City Centre Environment Arrangement Competition”s list of conditions which is started in 1986, besides the planning studies in 1/500 and 1/1000 scales, the arrangement of some areas in 1/500 scales was wanted from the competitors.
These city parts, established as planning areas that had priorities, are;
· Open Spaces that will be arrangemented (Government Open Space, Atpazarı Open Space)
· Transportation Zones that will be arrangemented (Güvercin Street, Çerkeş Street, Atpazarı Yokuşu)
· Constructs and Constructs Groups that The Environment Arrangemet will be done (Hacıbayram Mosque, Antik Rome Theatre, Old Turkish Bath Surroundings)
Also details, arranged in 1/500 scale, relating to visual elements, as open space, pedestiran road and floor covers, suggested in single construct surroundings, urban furniture (rest group arrangement, bank, street lamps, waste bins, flower places exc.) were wanted to be shown with the arrangements which were priviously mentioned.
As seen, taking charge of the Historical City Centre’ s important and necessitating an urgent interferance parts, by pieced methods, was used effectiual in Ulus. In the winner project, 19 lower projects were determined with some terms as “Public Project Areas”, “Private Project Areas” (Ek 1).
VI.2. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Konya Historical City Centre
In Konya Historical City Centre Planning Studies, aimed at Conservation (*), inside the traditional centre in the detail, the areas that were important and needed firstly design were determined as “Private Project Areas”.
These areas, needed design in 1/500 and more than 1/500 (1/200, ..., 1/1), are given below;
1. Aziziye Mosque Environment Arrangement
2. Kapu Mosque Environment Arrangement
3. Government Open Space Arrangement
4. Şerafeddin Mosque Underground Carpark and City Open Space Arrangement
5. Front of the PTT Underground Carpark And City Open Space Arrangement
6. İplikçi Mosque Environment Arrangement and Underground Carpark
7. Mahkeme Turkish Bath and Şerafeddin Mosque Environment Arrangement
8. Mevlana Külliyesi and Selimiye Mosque Open Space and Environment Arrangement
9. Karatay Külliyesi Environment Arrangement
10. Traditional Bazaar (Arasta) Part Conservation and Development Project
Konya Büyükşehir Municipality is preparing number 4,5,7 Private Project Areas’ (Şerafeddin Mosque Surroundings, Government Open Space, Historical Place Platosu, Front of the PTT Underground Carpark), urban design, landscape and urban furniture projects in a whole. In addition area’ s underground carpark project is being prepared. In this project urban design techiniques are being used (Ek 4).
VI. 3. Urban Design Dimension in Conservation Planning of Antalya Historical City Centre
The process of taking charge of Antalya Historical City Centre in a pieced started with “Kalekapısı Urban Design Project Competition” in 1990. In this project contents firstly “Making Şarampol Road as a Pedestrian Project” was prepared and applied. For “Balbey quarter of a town” which is within the historical city centre, a plan in 1/500 scale, aimed at conservation, was prepared. But becouse of some problems, relating to ownership, the plan could not be applied. Plan’ s revision studies are still continuing. Again for “Haşim İşçan quarter of a town” which takes place near the traditional city centre, the planning studies, aim at conservation, were completed. Inside Balbey and Haşim İşçan quarters of a town “Private Project Areas” that urban design studies were needed to prepare in 1/500 and more than 1/500 scales were determined (Ek 5).
VII. Conclusions
As seen in Ankara, Konya, Antalya Historical City Centre samples, the planning method, qualified as “Divide and Rule Model”, is a method of preparing detail planning, urban design, landscape and outside place elements plans and projects with seperating “Private Project Areas / Public Project Areas”.
It is seen that this method finds solutions to the complex problems of traditional city centres and obtains important easinesses for application. The 1/1000 scale plans which are the application scale for our contry, is inadequate for urban design plans and projects in areas that are become more complex by the modern life. In the historical city centres ( and in CWA) the effectual applicable scales are 1/500 - 1/200 ... 1/1 scales which are the subjects of urban design. In historical city centres, open space arrangements, pedestiran zone / street arrangements, memorial construct (mosque, han, Turkish Bath, bedesten exc.) surroundings arrangements and all surroundings arrangement , relating to conservation of construct groups, should be ruled, dependent on their priorities, by taking charge of them in a frame of a determined guiding plan whole (1/5000 and 1/1000) in urban design scales (1/500 and more than 1/500). The word “Rule”, previously mentioned, means “Rule of Project” concept.
Taking charge of each Project Packet in urban design scales, depends on excisting resources and application organised model. Monetary and organizational structure shows the design a way in forming the project. Giving the determined macro decisions (conservation, rehabilitation, renewal, transportation, using, construction exc.) and dividing Private Project areas also obtain easinesses to the steps ve control of the application in a period. It is seen that, taking charge of the urban design in determined private frame / frontiers and its giving joining and supplement possibility to the other relational disciplines (landscape, substructure engineering, architecture, industrial products design exc.) is the correct and short way that goes to the application.
Written by Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet TUNÇER
Transleted by Ebru AKPINAR
* TUNÇER, M., “Some Current Planning Studies and Applications in Ulus Historical City Centre”, Ulus Historical City Centre Environment Arrangement Competition, 1986, Ankara Büyükşehir Municipality Implementation Depertmant Presidency, P.71-75.
According to the qualities of each Lower Project Areas, the macro decisions and guides which could show a way to the detail projects, were given. In addition the concept of “Rant Coridors” was formed for verifying these project. The important, basic plannimg decision is the conservation and development of the Historical City Tissue by the income that will be obtained from the development of these areas. In these project areas, the projects as “Hacıbayram Environment Arrangement” (Ek 2), “Bend Stream Shared Taxi Stops Project”, “İstiklal (Jew) Quarter of a Town Project” were finished and applied.
* TUNÇER, M., “Konya Historical City Centre İmplemantation Plan, Aimed at Conservation, Report”, UTTA Planning & Consulting Ltd. Şti., 1997.
Antalya “Kaleiçi Planning Studies, Aimed at Conservation” were started by Middle East Techinical University in 1979. METU Parlar Wakf made a revision to the prepared conservation plan in 1992. “The Marina” that takes place in this planning area, was announced as a Turism Area and was opened for using by repairing with urban design, röleve and restoration projects which were prepared bu Turism Bank. This area is the most important urban part that has private project areas in its own.
[i] “9th URBAN DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS SYMPOSIUM”, “URBAN DESIGN IN DIFFERENT SCALES”, Ofered Announcement, Mimar Sinan University, Arc. Fac. City and Regional Planning Departmant, May 21 -22 1998.
24 Ocak 2007 Çarşamba
MISUSE OF URBAN REGENERATION PROJECTS AS A DISINTEGRATIVE TOOL: TWO CASE STUDIES FROM ANKARA.
42ND ISoCaRP Congress
“CITIES BETWEEN INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES”
Istanbul, 14-18 September, 2006, Istanbul.
Theme
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.
MISUSE OF URBAN REGENERATION PROJECTS AS A DISINTEGRATIVE TOOL: TWO CASE STUDIES FROM ANKARA
Hulagu KAPLAN & Mehmet TUNCER
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Urban Planner (MsC), PhD in City and Regional Planning
hukaplan@gmail.com
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Urban & Regional Planner (MsC), Public Administration and Political Science (PhD)
utta@ada.net.tr
I. INTRODUCTION
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. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
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.MISUSE OF URBAN REGENERATION PROJECTS: DIKMEN VALLEY AND PORTAKAL CICEGI VALLEY CASE STUDY.
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)
JANSEN’S PROPOSAL FOR BENDDERESI
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- 4 : MASTER PLANS OF ANKARA CITY SINCE REPUBLIC (1923)
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.
PHOTO 1 : A FISH-EYE VIEW AERIAL PHOTO OF DIKMEN AND PORTAKAL CICEGI VALLEY WITH THE BUILT-UP ENVIRONS.
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
LAND USE SQ METER % OF TOTAL AREA
Residential 222,960 14.50
Culture park 1,029,050 66.93
Municipal
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)
IV. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMENDATIONS:
IV.1. DIKMEN VALLEY PROJECT
IV.1.1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT: DESTRUCTION of NATURAL HABITAT
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”.
PHOTO 2: PANAROMIC VIEW OF THE DIKMEN PARK
PROJECT 1: ONE OF THE SKETCHES OF THE DIKMEN PARK
Design: Ates, Turgay, Private archive
PROJECT 2: NATURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS (NATURE PARK)
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!
PHOTO 3 : STRUCTURE OF CULTURE BRIDGE
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.
PHOTO 4: ARTIFICIAL 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.
Resume:
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.
REFERENCES
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.
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.
PHOTO 4: ARTIFICIAL 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.
Resume:
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.
REFERENCES
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.