A World Heritage Site under the Pressure of Uncontrolled Urbanization and Proposals for its Future:...

ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2013

FULL PAPER

1

A World Heritage Site under the Pressure of Uncontrolled Urbanization and

Proposals for its Future: Zeyrek, Istanbul

Sub-theme 2: Concept and practice of the heritage conservation

Author 1 Title (Mr. / Ms. / Mrs. / other): Ms Name: Ege Uluca Tumer Position: Assist. Prof. Dr Affiliation: Istanbul Kultur University, Faculty of Architecture Contact Address: Istanbul Kultur University, Atakoy Kampusu, 34156 Bakirkoy, Istanbul Tel: +905324528218 Fax: +902124658308 E-Mail:[email protected] Author 2 (if any) Title (Mr. / Ms. / Mrs. / other): Name: Position: Affiliation: Contact Address: Tel: Fax: E-Mail: ABSTRACT (max. 200 words)

As it is very well known The Zeyrek quarter is one of the four areas of Istanbul, which was designated

by UNESCO as World Heritage Site in 1985. The Zeyrek quarter around the Zeyrek Mosque (the

former Byzantine church of the Pantokrator) was described as providing exceptional evidence of late

Ottoman urban pattern in criterion 3 [1]. in the inscription. Zeyrek was one of the first designated

urban sites in Turkey and the first conservation plans for the site were prepared and approved in 1979

and 1981 [1]. However, Zeyrek could not benefit from being in the WHL of UNESCO, as it deserved

and the conservation plans could not be quite enough for preserving its outstanding values. In the

state of conservation (SOC) report of 2004, serious losses of timber houses in Zeyrek due to lack of

awareness and poorness of local community was stated. The social structure of the area was in an

extensive change and the efforts by state and NGOs could not be prevalent, as it could not comprise

the users of the buildings.

This study focuses on a part of Zeyrek, and it aims to put forward the current conservation state of the

area and to develop proposals.

KEYWORDS (3-5 words)

Zeyrek, World Monument Site, Ottoman urban pattern, timber houses


FULL PAPER

2

FULL PAPER

Historic Urban Site conservation in the World and in Turkey Monumental buildings had been focal points and gained the interest of the communities since the first temples were built. The residential buildings and their environments, which were a common heritage of communities’ cultures, were modifiable, renewable and replaceable. After 19th century, as a result of industrialization and the dramatic changes in building technology and materials, the former building technologies of the residential buildings started to become irreplaceable and rare. As a result of the comprehensive changes, the emphasis on the link between heritage and locality, and between locality and identity [2] has become more and more important. After the extraordinary losses in historic urban sites in European cities during the World War II, preservation of values of historic sites comprised of residential buildings and monuments became more common. ‘Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954’, was the revision and adoption of the so-called Hague [3]. In this convention the classification of cultural heritage was done as identifying cultural property as monuments of architecture, art or history, archaeological sites, groups of buildings and works of art and collections [4]. In Venice Charter in 1964, ‘historic sites’ has been referred as a result of the growing interest. It was stated that ‘The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization. Historic sites were defined as 'the sites of monuments', rather than 'sites of residential buildings' or 'historic urban/ rural sites' in article 14 of Venice Charter [5]. In 1970’s there have been an increasing concern for 'sites of residential buildings'. ‘Convention of Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’ of UNESCO in 1972, was the first international convention referring to the ‘historic urban sites’ as a phenomenon by itself. ‘Historic sites’ were referred as 'groups of separate or connected buildings, which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science’ in this convention [6]. As a result of Europe-wide campaign of awareness-raising, European Architectural Heritage Year of 1975, became a turning point for certain historic buildings types [7]. The council of Europe, at the conclusion of European Heritage Year, adopted European Charter and complemented the Declaration of Amsterdam in the same year as an outline for its implementation [8]. In European Charter, the concept of historic monuments was extended to include urban and rural areas (as opposed to their settings) [9]. It was stated in the same charter that the conservation of architectural heritage should become an integral part of urban and regional planning [10]. The attempt for the integration of planning and conservation of heritage sites and the continuity of existing social and physical realities in urban and rural communities was a new approach introduced in this charter. The studies on the texture of urban / rural areas, notably their structure, their complex functions, and the architectural and volumetric characteristics of them proposed to be used as a basis the local authorities [10]. The Washington Charter of 1987 and Burra Charter of 1979 were also very important steps for the conservation of ‘historic urban/ rural sites. In the Washington Charter ‘conservation of historic towns and urban area’ was paraphrased as: 'those steps necessary for the protection, conservation and restoration of historic towns and areas as well as their development and harmonious adaptation to contemporary life'. Through this statement, the integration of socio-economic development, urban and


FULL PAPER

3

regional planning policies, multi-disciplinary nature of urban conservation and the importance of active participation by residents, primary stakeholders were emphasized in Washington Charter [9]. Although being more local, first publication of Burra Charter in 1979 brought the over-arching principle, which was the importance of understanding and safeguarding significance through unraveling the historic layers, to encapsulate aesthetic, historic, scientific and spiritual values of the site. The conclusion of Burra Charter was ‘best conservation often involves the least work and can be inexpensive', which is widely accepted by the professionals and authorities of conservation today [9]. Turkey, on the other hand, has signed all the international charters mentioned above and the legal aspects had been developed in the country through the charters signed. The first legal attempt for conservation of monuments and sites was developed in 1951 and a law no: 5805 named as ‘Real Estate Law on the Establishment and Duties of Supreme Council of Antiquities and Monuments’ (GEEAYK) had been published on July 2, 1951. The ‘Supreme Council of Antiquities and Monuments’ of Turkey, which had a very important role in conservation history of Turkey, had been established according to this Law. The supreme council had been appointed the duties of developing the principles and programs for conservation of historic monuments, following up and auditing these principles and programs, declaration of scientific opinions of the council on any kind of case or dispute related with conservation issues [11]. GEEAYK had been the most important and authorized institution since it was established. The council had declared their decisions on important subjects like re-functioning the historic buildings for their longevity (10.08.1953, No.155); preference for restoration oh the historic monuments, even if there is a risk of collapse, instead of demolishing (19.03.1956, No.466); submission of detailed documentation of traditional buildings, which are not listed by council, before demolishing them (06.08.1957, No.707) [12]. In 1960’s, the effects of Venice Charter of 1964 had been arisen in Turkey and the term ‘site’ had been started to get into the legislation related with conservation. On the other hand, while the practices were in progress, the registration of historic monuments had been realized after 1970’s [13]. In 1972, buy enclosing the streets, squares and fountains as parts of a whole with historic monumental and civic buildings, in the development law no: 1605, as an addition to Law No: 6785 [14], there has been an attempt to get closer to integrated conservation. In 1973, the law no: 1710 had introduced the detailed definitions of monument, building complex, historic site, archaeological site, and natural site for the first time. The historic site definition had been changed to a zone scale from single parcels scale and interrelating the concepts of planning, tourism and development with conservation had caused the involvement of other governmental bodies in this issue [15]. Through the end of 1978, GEEAYK have registered almost 30 urban sites in cities and stopped the execution of development plans in these cities, while Zeyrek was registered in 1974. However, even until the registration of these sites, many of the historic sites of brittle wooden houses had been lost [16]. There had been occurred an important problem after the registration process in these cities. Even though it was asked for ‘Historic Site Conservation-Development Plans’ from these cities’ municipalities, and a ‘transition period regulations’ was being accepted only until the permanent plans become ready, many of the municipalities did not had the plans prepared and these historic sites had many problems due to lack of the conservation plans. The law no: 1710, insufficient in meeting the needs for conservation of sites, had been replaced with the law no: 2863 in 1983. The ‘Historic Site Conservation-Development Plans’ turned to be ‘Historic Site Development Plans’ but the same problem related with the preparation of


FULL PAPER

4

these plans continued [17]. From 1978 to 2004, the date when the Law no: 5226 have been put into force, there had been a problem of integrity both between ‘development plans’ and ‘conservation plans’ [18] and among the governmental and local bodies. There were different plans, not coinciding, and many governmental bodies and local bodies related with certain parts of the issue. In this period, municipalities, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Environment and Office of Land had the right and duty to make studies related with conservation without any notice of other bodies. Even though, the law no: 5226, put into force in 2004, introduced the terms ‘management area’ and ‘participatory management plan’, provided new financial resources and models of organization, brought definitions of planning stages, and responsibilities of stakeholders, the chaos, irrationality and arbitrariness is still valid, even increased, in practices on sites. Zeyrek Quarter as A World Heritage Site in Istanbul: Zeyrek Quarter (fig.1) is a part of the historic sites designated by UNESCO as World Heritage Site in 1985. In the inscription of Istanbul, Zeyrek area around the Zeyrek Mosque (the former Byzantine church of the Pantokrator) was described as providing exceptional evidence of late Ottoman urban pattern in criterion 3 [1]. There were many important historic, architectural urban values that have led UNESCO, to choose the site among one of the four designated sites of Istanbul. First of all, the quarter had been an important area in the city throughout its long history. Zeyrek was developed during the expansion of the city in the period of Emperor Constantine I and it was within the 10th region of Istanbul, divided into 14 regions by Constantine I himself [19]. Similarly, Mehmet II, the conqueror of Istanbul, divided the city into 13 regions and Zeyrek became a part of 7th region (nahiye) [20]. It was settled on terraces and retaining walls built since Byzantine Times ([21]. Pantokrator Church and the archaeological remains of Pantokrator Monastery located in this site are invaluable examples of Byzantine Period. The church of the monastery is dated to first half of 12th century [22] and was started to be built by Eirene, the wife of emperor Aleksios I, and then it was completed by emperor Ionnes II [23]. The monastery was used as the burial for royal family during Palaiologos Dynasty in the first half of 15th century [24] and continued its burial function until the end of Byzantine Period [25]. The church was converted into a madrasa, and then to a mosque, after the conquest of Istanbul by Mehmed II [26]. The baroque details in the building are added after the earthquake of 1766 [27]. The church consists of two churches and a narrow chapel connecting them. The interior space of this church is the second biggest [28] among Byzantine churches in Istanbul, after Hagia Sophia Church. The surrounding quarter of Pantokrator Church also have peculiar values related with its location, topography, urban and architectural characteristics. The quarter is located on a hill and provides

Fig.1 Location of Zeyrek in Istanbul


FULL PAPER

5

variety of vistas towards important historic monuments of the city. The organic urban morphology of the quarter, where dead-end streets are still preserved, is another value of the site. The districts of Istanbul were settled organically around the religious centers like mosque, church and synagogue [29]. Islamic Laws that give priority to private ownership rather than public ownership caused the rise of irregularity in street pattern of Istanbul [29]. Organic pattern was mostly lost after the planning practices following the fires in 19th century and the region where Zeyrek is located was partly re-planned according to grid-iron planning after 1908 and 1918 fires [30]. However, the area around Pantokrator Church (Zeyrek Mosque) did not change. Timber architecture, which was typical in Istanbul until 19th century and was preferred for housing, without considering the social class of the owners, had been mostly lost during fires. The efforts to modernize the urban tissues and convert the timber housing into masonry could have been realized only in the districts where economic and topographic conditions were appropriate. In other neighborhoods, construction of timber houses continued until the mid of 20th century. In 1931, more than 50% of the houses were still timber in historic quarters and it was even more in general of the city [31]. After the big fire of 1918, there were four districts, where timber houses were mostly conserved: Küçük Ayasofya, Soğukçeşme, Zeyrek and Çırçır districts [32]. In their book first published in 1972, Sumner-Boyd and Freely describes the square in front of Pantokrator Church as picturesque and lined on three sides with old wooden houses [33]. As in other historic urban sites of historic peninsula [34], the timber housing in Zeyrek was denser and less inspired by the imported western styles, comparing with the Bosphorus and resort settlements, developed in the second half of the 19th century. The traditional urban tissue of old city in Istanbul was loosely developed, where freestanding konaks were located within large gardens and many of these konaks were still discernible in Zeyrek in the Pervitich map of 1933. The loosely developed pattern has been replaced by adjacent housing all around the city and in Zeyrek [35]. Kuban states that the last examples of large traditional dwellings, designed for multi generations still existed in Zeyrek and Süleymaniye and were not in very good conditions in 1998 [36]. The site is one of the urban sites that were designated as heritage site in Turkey and the first conservation plans for Zeyrek were prepared and approved in 1979 and 1981i. However, after the designation as world heritage site, Zeyrek could not benefit from being in the WHL of UNESCO, as it deserved and the conservation plans could not be quite enough for preserving the outstanding values of late Ottoman urban pattern of Zeyrek. In spite of numerous academic studies and projects on Zeyrek Quarter, the number of timber structures has been lost day by day, just as noted in the report of advisory body of ICOMOS [37] in 1984 as ‘recent deterioration of the urban fabric’ for the antecedent years. There have been done various researches either on Zeyrek area or on the vernacular houses and monumental buildings located in the quarter, comprising 14 master and PhD theses [38]. In the state of conservation (SOC) report of 2004, serious losses of timber houses in Zeyrek were indicated (fig.2, fig.3) and lack of awareness and poorness of local community was stated as the major problems causing degradation in the area. The recent attempts to stop further losses and to promote conservation action were found favorable despite the aggressive renovations and alterations in the area. The NGOs like Turkish Timber Association, which were deeply concerned about the timber houses in the area and their efforts were found promising. In 2005 and 2006 reports of SOC, the same NGOs were referred, but in 2006 report ‘continued degradation of the vernacular


FULL PAPER

6

architecture in Zeyrek and Suleymaniye’ was counted as one of the factors or threats affecting the property identified in previous reports [39]. Since then this definition was repeated in all annual reports until now. The social structure of the area was in an extensive change and the efforts by state and NGOs in order to strengthen the timber structure could not be prevalent, as it could not comprise the owners or users of the buildings. Today, many of the listed timber buildings are lost or rebuilt by the use of contemporary materials, and the survived buildings are mostly very much decayed and degenerated. Lack of coordination between national and municipal authorities and of decision-making bodies for safeguarding World Heritage at the site, as it was discussed above in ‘historic urban site conservation in Turkey’, had been mentioned in all of the SOC reports for Istanbul from 1994 to 2013 [40]. The factors that have been affecting the property was summarized as ‘lack of management mechanism (including legislation)’; ‘lack of monitoring system’; ‘lack of presentation and interpretation’; ‘lack of human or financial resources’; ‘lack of coordination between national and municipal authorities, and of organizational relationships between decision-making bodies for the safeguarding of World Heritage at the site’; ‘continued degradation of the civil architecture within the protected areas (mainly the Ottoman period timber houses in the district of Zeyrek and Süleymaniye)’; ‘uncontrolled development’; ‘absence of an urban development and conservation plan’; ‘lack of implementation by national and municipal authorities; absence of a World Heritage management plan; potential impacts of new buildings and new development projects on the World Heritage site mainly within the framework of Law 5366, and the lack of impact studies before large-scale developments are implemented’ [40]. Except for the management plan that has been completed in 2012, all the factors listed above are still valid and continuing to affect Zeyrek more than any other designated sites. The Efforts that have been made for Saving the Timber Architecture in Zeyrek: As a result of the efforts accelerating in Europe in 1970’s to save the historic structures as a reaction to the effects of modernization practices in the cities in 50’s and 60’s, there occurred an increase in the awareness in Istanbul, too [41]. In 1960’s and 1970’s ‘Deutsches Archaologisches Institute’ (DAI), made a comprehensive research on the timber houses of Istanbul, mainly around Pantokrator Church (Zeyrek Camii) and Süleymaniye Mosque, where the largest timber housing districts located (Bachmann, 2008:98-99). The first step for this research was documentation of these houses, prerequisite for the restoration and rehabilitation studies. Moreover, sociological survey has been continued together with documentation in Zeyrek. This was the first time ever attempt to make a research on a historic district in Istanbul. Unfortunately, the intents to develop comprehensive rehabilitation project for Zeyrek could

not be realized [42]. Fig.2.Loss of Timber House on Ibadethane St, 42 Fig.3.Loss of Timber House on Ibadethane St, 44


FULL PAPER

7

From August 19 to September 23 of 1977, almost 250 houses in Zeyrek, between Zeyrek Mosque and Eski İmaret Mosque, have been studied through the aspects of history of architecture, restoration, city planning and sociology within the scope of this project [43]. Among these 250, 50 timber houses were roughly documented, while 15 of them have been recorded in their present states and have been drawn in 1:50 scale [43]. Site analyses on building materials, building use, ownership, historical values and chronology have been completed, and it has been suggested that only a few of the buildings are older than 100 years [44]. From August 4 to September 8, 1978 the second phase of the documentation has been completed. The number of studied buildings has increased to 500, and 12 of them were measured and drawn in 1:50 scale. After the detailed analysis, it have been stated that 227 of the 507 studied buildings were built after 1950, 196 were built between 1900 and 1950 and only 84 of them were built before 1900. However, until 1950’s the new buildings added to the site were more compatible in scale and in façade organization with the traditional timber houses [35]. The timber houses were stated to be densely located within some certain areas of the site and were mostly authentic during the research period. On the other hand, the dense use of these buildings due to the immigration to the city and to Zeyrek was indicated as one of the results of sociological analyses [45]. Although, the research and projects for rehabilitation of Zeyrek could not put into practice, the research done by DAI in 1977/1978 is very valuable as it is the only detailed documentation work completed on historical topography of a quarter in Istanbul in 70’s. Most of the buildings documented during this research have been disappeared since then [45]. There had been completed a research for the ‘Zeyrek Conservation Development Plan’ by the faculty of ITU Urban and Regional Planning Department, in 1999 upon the request of Municipality of Fatih District and was published in English for UNESCO World Heritage Center [46]. This was a very comprehensive research on Zeyrek Historic Site area and included physical, economic and social analyses of site; however, the research could not have been used for an integrated project for the site. On the other hand National Timber Association, which was a deeply concerned NGO about the timber houses in the area, could had the chance to restore only few timber houses in the site. In 2004, by using the financial resources provided by Siemens, NTA had started a campaign as ‘A strong roof for history’. The project was announced to be supported by Ministry of Culture and Tourism, UNESCO, Governorship of Istanbul, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and Fatih Municipality. The vice-governor declared that they would provide resources for restorations of ten houses. The mayor of Fatih Municipality declared that there are 150 listed buildings in the site and they had agreement with the owners of 11 houses for restoration [47]. On October 11, 2005, restoration of the first house on Fazilet Street, 14, was completed by NTA, by the help of the sponsorship of Siemens. The vice-governor announced that the financial resources for the restoration of ten houses have been transferred to Fatih Municipality [48]. In another news in 2005, it is stated that the restoration of 5 listed timber houses has begun by NTA, with the help of financial resources from governorship [49]. However, the campaign did not help the improvement of the site, as it could not be a part of an integrated and comprehensive project. The Process of the Loss of the Values of the Site: Kuban proposes that the registered historic urban sites of Istanbul are in the course of degeneration because of not being subject to a systematic planning process and the historic sites identified by him in 1969 were mostly lost until then. According


FULL PAPER

8

to him the conservation plan for historic peninsula did not work, because it was not supported by social, cultural, economic and administrative mechanisms and could not even provide a system to follow up the registered sites [50]. After the 1950’s, as a result of the increase in population around the central commercial districts like Zeyrek. As a result of the new law no: 6217, the number of stories increased and 1-2 storied buildings were replaced with new apartment buildings [51]. The reinforced concrete buildings started to be built in Zeyrek after 1950 within the united and enlarged parcels of traditional houses [52]. These buildings were incompatible with the existing historic urban tissue in the aspects of scale, window ratios, textures, and roofs (flat). Zeyrek, a part of WHL sites, where traditional timber houses and organic pattern were well preserved until the last quarter of 20th century, had been subjected to a continuous and increasing destruction due to rapid urbanization in Istanbul. Although, other WHL sites in Istanbul, The Archaeological Park, on the East end of Historic peninsula; the Suleymaniye quarter with Suleymaniye Mosque complex, bazaars and vernacular settlement around it; and the area along both sides of the Theodosian land walls including remains of the former Blachernae Palace all have many conservation problems, but traditional houses of Zeyrek had been in a more dramatic degeneration (Fig.4). There have been many reasons for the rapid weathering in Zeyrek. First of all, comparing with other WML sites in Istanbul, Zeyrek is the least visited site. Pantokrator Church had been under restoration since 1995 and was not open to visitors. So the site was out of the main tourist attractions and did not have a prominent attraction by itself. Although, the other sites were under more pressure of tourism, they were economically more vital and under the spotlights of visitors. In spite of many unqualified interventions to timber houses ın other sites, the loss of the traditional houses more tragic in Zeyrek. Zeyrek, a quarter where mostly immigrants with low incomes had settled, had been far away from the public attention and left to its extinction. Many of the destructions and losses in time were not even noticed for a long time. The incompatible reinforced concrete buildings continued to be built on the parcels of listed buildings, without being detected. The extensity of losses can be understood by examining the analyses, completed in a selected Study Area within Zeyrek (fig.4, fig.5).

Fig.4.Losses in Historic Houses on Fazilet Street Fig.5.Changes in Listed Buildings in Study Area


FULL PAPER

9

Evaluation and Proposal for Study Area and Zeyrek: At the present time, we come across a world heritage site, where a very important Byzantine church is surrounded by a very much-hybridized urban context (fig.5). This hybridized urban context in Zeyrek can be categorized as five different groups of houses/parcels. In the State of Conservation report of 2013 (SOC) for Historic Areas of Istanbul, it was stated that the vulnerability of these Ottoman houses was recognized at the time of inscription and addressed by several reactive monitoring missions. Since so many houses have now deteriorated to a great extent, after half a century or more, without repair, or have been demolished, the 2012 mission considered that a crisis point has been reached and rapid action is needed, if the future of a substantial number of the authentic structures is to be secured [53]. First group is comprised of listed timber houses, mostly in very poor structural conditions and few in numbers. Most of these houses need immediate interventions to be prevented from demolishing in coming decade. The second group consists of properly restored buildings and less in numbers than the first group. These houses were among the very few providential, which had the luck to be restored by qualified professionals. Reconstructed historic buildings in the third group are the most problematic among others as detected in Study Area (fig.5, fig.6, fig.7). There is a dilemma about these buildings based on being listed and being incompatible with the site, for most of the cases. Most of them have been built as reinforced concrete and cladded with wood and have different scale, proportions and details than the timber houses in the site. This approach towards creating an image of the past mostly brought ‘artificiality’ to the site, which is an opposition to ‘genuineness ‘of the real vernacular. The result of the image-based approach resulted in either façadism or the replication of historic style and pastiche [54]. Considering the results of this approach, it can be stated that the repetition of vernacular architecture as an envelope, brought a hybrid, eclectic and artificial architecture. Pseudo-vernacular examples in the site do not belong to today or past, x place or y place. Most of them brought a patchwork affect rather than unity into the site. As the superficial / cosmetic copies of vernacular architecture, they do not only give the message of being authentic examples of vernacular, they also cause confusion on the information about the authentic vernacular examples.

The group of listed parcels of the demolished timber houses is another problematic for this and other similar sites of Turkey. According to the legislation in Turkey, demolished buildings in listed parcels should be rebuilt in the same scale and proportions. This was a precaution to stop demolish their own

Fig.6. Reconstruction of Fazilet Street, 18 Fig.7. Reconstruction of Fazilet Street, 10


FULL PAPER

10

buildings for the sake of an expectation for a larger building. The number of parcels of lost listed timber houses is more than the existing listed houses in the Study Area (fig.5, fig.8). In the last and fifth group there are new buildings, mostly incompatible with the historic urban pattern and some of them were built in the parcels of demolished listed building. They are usually larger in scale and usually have incompatible openings, textures and building details. A group of these buildings are illegal jerrybuilt shanties, without any architectural qualities (fig.8).

For the future of the site, it is obvious that urgent precautions should be taken for not to lose very few traditional timber houses left in the site. As it is discussed above, an integrated and comprehensive project should be enacted. There should be put guidelines for the five groups of buildings and parcels listed above. Of course, the priority should be given to restoration and strengthening of the timber houses in risk of collapse, as it is proposed for the Study Area (fig.9). The environmental conditions of the side like street pavements, garbage areas, heaps of debris and building materials have too much negative affects for the users and visitors of the area. There is a great need for the rehabilitation of sanitary and comfort conditions of the site. The incompatible new buildings and reconstructions should have façade rehabilitations and rearrangements. Some of them have illegal stories and the ones that are very much incompatible with the site can be removed. For the emptied parcels of demolished listed buildings, the use of timber can be encouraged, but it is obvious that there should be preferred much more simple and modest styles than the one of traditional timber houses, because, it is obvious that the replicas or replica-like buildings had caused too much confusion in historic sites. As it was indicated in Vienna Memorandum of 2005, title D for ‘Guidelines for Conservation Management’, article 21, ‘urban planning, contemporary architecture and preservation of the historic urban landscape should avoid all forms of pseudo-historical design, as they constitute a denial of both the historical and the contemporary alike. One historical view should not supplant others, as history must remain readable, while continuity of culture through quality interventions is the ultimate goal.’

Fig.8. Material and Structural Conditions of Listed Buildings in Study Area (RO: Reconstructions)

Fig.9. Proposals for Study Area


FULL PAPER

11

REFERENCES [1] http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356/ (accessed on 18/07/2013) [2] Ashworth, G.J. (1994), From history to heritage-from heritage to history: in search

of concepts and models in Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture, and Identity in the New Europe, G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham (Eds.), London New York: Routledge,pp.14

[3] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [4] Jokilehto, J. (2002), History of Architectural Conservation, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 25 [5] Erder, C. (2007), Tarihi Çevre Bilinci, Ankara, pp. 240-3 [6] Jokilehto, J. (2002), Ibid, pp. 26 [7] Rodwell, D. (2007), Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 5 [8] Rodwell, D. (2007), Ibid, pp. 12 [9] Rodwell, D. (2007), Ibid, pp. 13 [10] http://www.icomos.org/index.php/en/charters-and-texts?id=169:the-declaration-of-amsterdam&catid=179:charters-and-

standards [11] Kejanlı, T.; Akın, C.T.; Yılmaz, A. (2007), Türkiye’de Koruma Yasalarının Tarihsel Gelişimi üzerine bir İnceleme, Elektronik

Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi www.e-sosder.com ISSN:1304-0278 Kış -2007 C.6 S.19, 179-196, pp.185 [12] Zeren, N. (1981), Kentsel Alanlarda Alınan Koruma Kararlarının Uygulanabilirliği, Unpublished PhD Thesis, İ.T.Ü.,

İstanbul, pp.6 [13] Kejanlı, T.; Akın, C.T.; Yılmaz, A. (2007), Ibid, pp. 188 [14] Dinçer, İ. ve Akın, O., 1994, “Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kapsamında Koruma Planı ve İdari Yapısı”, 2. Kentsel

Koruma Yenileme ve Uygulama Kollokyumu, İstanbul, 127-131, pp.129 [15] Avcı, N., 2001. “Kültürel ve Doğal Mirasımızın Korunmasında Örgütlenme ve Koruma Sorunları”, Türkiye’de Risk Altındaki

Doğal ve Kültürel Miras, TAÇ Vakfının 25. Yılı Anı Kitabı, TAÇ Vakfı Yayını, İstanbul, pp.26 [16] Kejanlı, T.; Akın, C.T.; Yılmaz, A. (2007), Ibid, pp. 190 [17] Kejanlı, T.; Akın, C.T.; Yılmaz, A. (2007), Ibid, pp. 192 [18] Tekeli, İ., (1987) ‘Kentsel Korumada Değişik Yaklaşımlar Üzerine Düşünceler’, Şehir Dergisi, Ocak, 1988, 21/1, 19-22,

pp.21 [19] Çelik, Z. (1986), Değişen İstanbul: 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Başkenti, Zeynep Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı,

pp.13 [20] Çelik, Z. (1986), Ibid, pp.21 [21] Müller-Wiener, W., (2001), İstanbul'un Tarihsel Topografyası/ 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına Kadar Byzantion - Konstantinopolis-

İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, pp.53 [22] Müller-Wiener, W., (2001), Ibid, pp.209 [23] Yerasimos, S., (2000), İstanbul: İmparatorluklar Başkenti, Tarih Vakfı Yurt yayınları, Istanbul, pp.92 [24] Müller-Wiener, W., (2001), Ibid, pp. 213 [25] Yerasimos, S., (2000), Ibid, pp. 94 [26] Müller-Wiener, W., (2001), Ibid, pp. 214 [27] Yerasimos, S., (2000), Ibid, pp. 93 [28] Çelik, Z. (1986), Ibid, pp.45 [29] Çelik, Z. (1986), Ibid, pp. 7 [30] Müller-Wiener, W., (2001), Ibid, pp. 7 [31] Bachmann, M. (2008), Fani Mekanlar: Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü’nün İstanbul’da Ahşap Konut Mimarisine İlişkin

Çalışmaları, Ahşap İstanbul : Konut Mimarisinden Örnekler, (Editörler: Martin Bachmann, M. Baha Tanman), İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul, pp.109

[32] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.110 [33] Sumner-Boyd, H., Freely, J. (1983), Strolling Through Istanbul, a Guide to the City, Redhouse Press, 241 [34] Saner, T., (2008), İstanbul’aki Ahşap Konut Mimarisinde Üslup ve Karakter, Ahşap İstanbul : Konut Mimarisinden

Örnekler, (Editörler: Martin Bachmann, M. Baha Tanman), İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul, pp.66 [35] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.116 [36] Kuban, D. (1998), Kent ve Mimarlık Üzerine İstanbul Yazıları, YEM Yayınları, İstanbul, pp.191 [37] http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/356.pdf (accessed on 18/07/2013) [38] http://tez2.yok.gov.tr/ (accessed on 18/07/2013) [39] http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1192 (accessed on 18/07/2013) [40] http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356/documents/ (accessed on 18/07/2013) [41] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.107-108 [42] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.99 [43] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.112 [44] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.115 [45] Bachmann, M. (2008), Ibid, pp.119 [46] Gulersoy, N., Tezer, A., Yiğiter, R. (2000), Zeyrek: A Study in Conservation, ITU Press, Istanbul, pp.3-4 [47] http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/293469.asp (accessed on 18/07/2013) [48] http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=169507 (accessed on 18/07/2013) [49] http://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2005/05/24/zeyrek.htm (accessed on 18/07/2013) [50] Kuban, D. (1998), Ibid, pp.240 [51] Ataöv, A., Osmay, S., (2007), Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüme Yöntemsel bir Yaklaşım, METU JFA 2007/2, pp.62 [52] Müller-Wiener, W., (1982), İstanbul-Zeyrek, Studien Zur Erhaltung Eines Traditionellen Wohngebietes, Deutches Orient

Institut, Hamburg, pp.40 [53] (http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1969) The mission’s recommendations are reflected in the conclusion. The World Heritage

Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the mission’s concern that the condition of remaining Ottoman timber buildings has now reached a crisis point. They consider that there is a need for a rapid assessment of buildings at risk, an urgent need for reconsideration of renewal area schemes, for first-aid works to slow down the rate of decay and loss, and if possible for the re-instatement of grants to allow private owners to repair their buildings.

[54] Orbasli, A (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management, London: E & FN Sponpp.76

A World Heritage Site under the Pressure of Uncontrolled Urbanization and Proposals for its Future:...

Documents

Transcript of A World Heritage Site under the Pressure of Uncontrolled Urbanization and Proposals for its Future:...