Revitalization of Cultural Heritage Assets within the Context of Sustainable Tourism Development: A...

REVITALIZATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT:

A PROPOSAL FOR THE REJUVENATION OF PRINKIPO PALACE

Mithat Zeki DinçerFaculty of Economics, Department of Economics

Istanbul University, [email protected] Cenk Demiroğlu

Institute of Social Sciences, Department of GeographyIstanbul University, Turkey

[email protected] Tevfik İzgi

Institute of Social Sciences, Department of EconomicsIstanbul University, Turkey

[email protected]

There exist a mutual interaction and a sensitivebalance between cultural heritage assets and culturaltourism for the sake of sustaining each other.Cultural heritage assets, which acquire theappreciation and funds essential for theirpreservation, in return; take the role of theoriginal resource itself required for thediversification and qualification of tourism. Thescope of this study is Prinkipo Palace (BüyükadaGreek Orphanage Building), which is a unique andexpansive representative of the 19th century Ottomantimber housing art and world architectural heritage.Following a conceptual introduction on culturalheritage – sustainable tourism relationship and somegeneral information on the building, it was suggestedthat the property be rejuvenated as a heritage hotelthat is internationally marketable, appealing to

International Tourism Conference 2008 Alanya, Turkey

qualified cultural tourism market and realizing theoriginal function of its existence purpose.Throughout the paper, such proposal was built up on apreliminary destination and market overview and aproduct definition that conforms to the universalpreservation guidelines and the contemporaryrequirements of the hospitality industry. As aresult; there came out a product which generates therequired cash flows for its sustainability, standsprofitable for its investor, supports culturaldevelopment within the community and contributes toregional economy and national image. However; it hasalso been noted that neither this suggestion nor thesurvival of the structure, who is calling for urgentbacking, could be realized unless the ownership issueis brought to an ultimate resolution.KEYWORDS: Tourism, Sustainability, Cultural Heritage,Conservation, Prinkipo Palace

382

Cultural & Event Tourism: Issues and Debates

INTRODUCTIONTourism is taking firm steps forward to becoming

the globe’s largest industry in the 21st century bysustaining its growth despite the threats ofterrorism, natural disasters, health issues, economicfluctuations and political instabilities. As a majorplayer to this growth, Turkey had captured ca 21million of the 808 million international arrivals in2005 and was reckoned as the “Southern andMediterranean Europe’s Star Performer” by UNWTO(United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2006).Turkey’s performance has also continued with 27.2million arrivals in 2007 after recovering from thedifficulties of 2006 (United Nations World TourismOrganization, 2007: 16). Now in order to solidify thedynamics of its tourism industry; the next challengefacing Turkey is to diversify its tourism product byintroducing branded destinations and alternativetourism types besides its core business of sun-sea-sand offerings.

Among the developable alternative tourism typesbased on Turkey’s human riches and trends in theglobal tourism demand; cultural tours could beconsidered as the most promising. Yet it is essentialto develop internationally competitive products ifTurkey is to use this opportunity at its best. Thecultural accumulation, both tangible and intangible,is there for Turkey as a material to develop suchproducts, but the cardinal skill lies in the utilizedconservation of cultural heritage assets within anintegral manner.

The purpose of this study is to reveal theinteraction between tourism and cultural heritage andto narrow it down to a case which includes a

383


thoroughly rejuvenation proposal that puts forwardthe distinctive characteristics of the focused asset;Prinkipo Palace – one of the most preciousrepresentatives of world’s architectural heritage,situated on Princes Islands, a traditional cultureand recreation destination of Istanbul. In line withthis purpose and based on the literature review; mostof attention was paid for the proposal to include thehighest and best use of the asset. Methodologyincorporated throughout the study is explained whenappropriate.1. THE LINK BETWEEN TOURISM AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

Before broaching tourism - cultural heritagerelationship, it would be wiser to understand theconcept of sustainability. The subject, with itsbroad dimensions, is directly related to the conceptsof tourism development and heritage conservation aswell as it is well capable of explaining therelationships between them. 1.1. Sustainable Tourism

Sustainable tourism phenomenon takes its roots fromthe sustainable development concept, which hadoriginated in the Brundtland (ed.) Report of WorldCommission on Environment and Development since itwas defined as “meeting the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of the futuregenerations to meet their own needs” (1987: 43).

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004)rephrased the sustainable development concept in thecontext of tourism as “the activities that meet theneeds of present tourists and host regions whileprotecting and enhancing opportunities for thefuture”, and introduced a conceptual definition:

384


Sustainable tourism development guidelines and managementpractices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types ofdestinations, including mass tourism and the various nichetourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to theenvironmental, economic and socio-cultural aspects of tourismdevelopment, and a suitable balance must be establishedbetween these three dimensions to guarantee its long-termsustainability.

With the above vision in mind, a set of principlesand practices for accomplishing a sustainable tourismdevelopment pattern could be summarized as follows(Çakılcıoğlu, 1996):

Planning in line with carrying capacities Flexible, long-term investments Community involvement Preservation of cultural identity Yearlong dispersal of tourism activities Encouraging active holidays Mass transportation Clean energy Authenticity Utilization of existing building stock

A contextualization on the last item would imply apriority for focusing on the building stock whichreflects the architectural characteristics of aparticular destination. That includes a physicalrenovation which consists of minimal intervention forrepair and maintenance as well as assemblage ofsuitable design elements for mandatory replacementand extension works. In addition; forming pos outletswith a highest and best use approach during thedesign process will bring a financial component tophysical renovation, enabling the renovated building

385


to payback for its investment and operation costs.Implementation of such practices will eventually leadto (Çakılcıoğlu, 1996);

A self produced resource for accommodationinvestments,

A truly authentic atmosphere to host tourists, Discontinuation of the embedded inertness in

the surrounding environment, A social, cultural and economic buoyancy, Proliferation of conservation awareness, New employment opportunities for the locals

and A rise in the total quality of life.

1.2. Cultural TourismCultural tourism by it nature is the most

predominant activity for fostering the effortstowards sustaining cultural heritage. Challengesremain with the conceptualization of cultural tourismdue to different perceptions towards its diversestructure, but here is an operational definitioncompiled by McKercher and du Cros (2002: 5):

The tourism literature identifies the range of cultural tourismactivities as including the use of such cultural heritage assets asarcheological sites, museums, castles, palaces, historicalbuildings, famous buildings, ruins, art, sculpture, crafts, galleries,festivals, events, music and dance, folk arts, theatre, ‘primitivecultures [sic],’ subcultures, ethnic communities, churches,cathedrals and other things that represent people and theircultures.

Apparently, cultural tourism, just as the wholetourism system, has a fuzzy definition due to lack ofdefinite parameters for the resources used and thetourists using them. On the other hand; cultural

386


tourism possesses an exclusive role on covering manyalternative tourism types such as legacy tourism, arttourism, and ethnic tourism and so on. Below is anattempt for a typology of cultural tourism based onthe hardly differentiated activities and attractionscovered by it (Smith, 2003: 31):

Heritage sites Performing arts venues Visual arts Festivals and special events Religious sites Indigenous communities and traditions Arts and crafts Language Gastronomy Industrial and commercial venues Modern popular culture Special interest activities

İstanbullu-Dinçer and Ertuğral (2000) pronounce thebenefits generated by cultural tourism demand as;added value to touristic experience through easementof interaction among more qualified tourists, seekingfor new products that will lead to higher touristsatisfaction, more diversification of products inparallel with emerging market trends, providingdestinations with a new vision towards the marketother than the 3S perspective, and bringing solutionsto the seasonality problem of tourism.

In addition to all these said benefits of culturaltourism, which support the sustainability within theindustry, there is one other important provision thatshould be mentioned: Conservation and maintenance of

387


cultural heritage. Tourism, as a triggering event forthe good of economy, society and peace, will in manyways benefit a particular place, building or culturalactivity (Holloway, 1994: 253). Through tourism, itis highly likely that cultural assets will provideeconomic and social benefits to the community and, inreturn, will acquire the notional appreciation andfinancial sources for their survival. Therefore;efforts tend to focus on how to develop culturalheritage assets as tourism products with minimalintervention and what strategies to pursue formarketing them, rather than debating on whether theyshould be let available for tourism intended usage ornot (İstanbullu-Dinçer & Ertuğral, 2000: 70). 1.3. Cultural Heritage: A Classification

International Council on Monuments and Sitesinterprets heritage as a broad concept that includesthe natural and cultural environment. As expressed inthe International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999a);heritage, as an integral part of modern life, is amanifestation of long processes of historicdevelopment and formation of the essence of diversenational, regional, indigenous and local identities.It acts as a dynamic reference point and a beneficialinstrument for growth and change.

As illustrated on the figure below; it is possibleto propound a detailed classification of heritage. Itis comprised of two major parts wherein naturalresources are categorized as renewable (e.g. water)and nonrenewable (e.g. metals) and cultural assetsare qualified by their intangibility (livingness) ortangibility. Tangible cultural heritage assets arethen dealt separately according to their movability.

388


Speaking of immovable cultural heritage assets,what comes first to mind are buildings andarcheological sites. However nowadays efforts focuson dealing with such assets integrally rather thanassessing them individually. Therefore; integratedplans and practices have been put into effect inorder to rejuvenate historic cities, roads, regionsetc. (McKercher & du Cros, 2002: 67). Quoting fromBektaş (2001: 317); “would it mean anything toconserve one single building with all itssurroundings destroyed?”

H E R I T A G E

CULTURAL

NATURAL

Intangible (Living) Tangible

Renewable Nonrenewable

Immovable

Movable

Figure 1: A Classification of Heritage

Movable cultural heritage assets are more fragilewith respect to their immovable counterparts. Theseassets, which include any handmade object of acultural value, can easily be damaged, stolen or losetheir intrinsic value, unless their origin, content,age and creator are recorded (McKercher & du Cros,

389


2002: 70-71). Thus; the existence and correctmanagement of museums, galleries and libraries arehighly important.

Whereas tangible heritage is the tactile culturalaccumulation of communities, places and objects;intangible heritage is attributed as therepresentation of those cultural assets which areimpalpable but can be acquired through interaction.Intangible heritage, covering a wide set of elementssuch as language, literature, music, dance, games,mythology, traditions, architecture and art, isdefined by UNESCO as “folklore or traditional andpopular culture that is the totality of tradition-based creations of a cultural community, expressed bya group or individuals, and recognized as reflectingthe expectations of a community in so far as theyreflect its cultural and social identity”. Sustainingauthenticity of intangible heritage requires it to beexhibited with minimal technological interference andat its place of origin, where the represented cultureexists (McKercher & du Cros, 2002: 83).1.4. Cultural Heritage: Conservation, Preservation &Tourism Intended Utilization

Development level of a nation is most evident inits respect and glorification for the environment.The will for conservation, which arises from suchenvironmental conscious, would be towards not onlythe natural resources but also the cultural assets.Cultural conservation is the set of proactivemeasures which are generated by the impetus ofnarrating the cultural assets to next generations aseach is an indication of that nation’s historicalpathway (Bektaş, 2001: 9). Such measures should betaken by keeping in mind that the conserved asset is

390


not a heritage to only that particular nation butindeed the whole humankind.

Historic preservation efforts, which constitute amajor part of the cultural conservation challenge,will dynamize the economy of a particular destinationalong with an aesthetical enhancement. According to astudy (McLendon et al, 2002) conducted for Florida;it has been put forward that the quantified economiccontribution of historic preservation results in 4.2billion USDs per annum, of which 3.72 billion USDsare directly generated from heritage tourismrevenues, creating 107,607 jobs, while the rest isobtained from rehabilitation and constructionbusiness and added value in the real estate market.

A study (İstanbullu-Dinçer & Ertuğral, 2003),similar to the one above, was also carried outconcerning the case of Istanbul. Here, the focus waskept at a micro level, limiting the field fromregional to institutional. According to the surveyresults obtained from 44 accommodationestablishments, most of which are heritage hotelsthat have remained today or historical Ottomanmansions converted into boutique hotels, followingfindings were derived in terms of the subjects’contribution to cultural tourism:

High customer profile in terms of income andeducation levels

High customer satisfaction mostly due to heritageatmosphere of hotels

Recognition of Turkish culture Generation of repeat customers Inflow of foreign exchange earnings with higher

profitability

391


İstanbullu-Dinçer and Ertuğral (2003) have alsoobserved that most of the heritage hotels wererestored in accordance with the original constructionand, preservation of the entire surroundings ratherthan the individual buildings increased the demand.Usage of preserved wooden buildings as accommodationestablishments generated profitable outcomes forsubjects with a capacity of at least 60 beds.Apparently, heritage hotels in Istanbul, especiallythose converted from loyally restored 19th centuryOttoman timber houses, have an undeniable impact oncultural tourism, which in return insures theirsustainability. Encouraged by such evidence, aheritage hotel function is proposed for PrinkipoPalace – an expansive archetype of the 19th centuryOttoman timber mansions.2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PRINKIPO PALACE

Before performing a proposal for Prinkipo Palace,it is necessary to acquaint the audience with somegeneral knowledge about the building. Therefore, thissection covers vital information on the building’sgeographical, historical, architectural, physical andproprietary status.2.1. Location

Prinkipo Palace is located on the top of northernof the two major elevations of Büyükada, which is thelargest and the center of Adalar – a district ofIstanbul, comprised of 9 islands scattered off thesouthern Asian coast of Istanbul with some proximityof 3km-25km to the mainland (See: Appendix A).

Adalar, commonly referred to as the Princes Islandsbecause of its historical role of hosting exilearistocrats during the Byzantine period, at a totalcover ca 11.2km2, with almost half of this surface

392


area contributed by Büyükada. In addition to Büyükada(a.k.a. “Prinkipo”, meaning “Prince”); thearchipelago consists of Heybeli, Burgaz, Kınalı,Sedef, Kaşık, Tavşanadası, Yassıada and, Sivriada,whose former names are known as Chalki, Antigoni,Proti, Terebinthus, Pita, Niandros, Plati and Oxeia;respectively (Millas, 2001). Apart from all these; a10th member is Vordonisi, which is now mostlyunderwater due to an earthquake a millennium ago. 2.2. Background

19th century westernization reforms of the OttomanEmpire had given a rise to the interests of theEuropeans towards Istanbul. As a consequence;incoming tourism activities had increased and, inorder to meet this demand; modern hotels of thecontemporary age were being developed at the favoreddestinations of Istanbul; Galata & Pera (Beyoğlu),Princes Islands and the Bosphorus in particular. Thistrend, commenced with Hotel d’Angleterre in 1841, wascontinued by the openings of many other hotels suchas (Zat, 2005); Grand Hotel d’Orient (1849/Beyoğlu),Ambassadeurs (1855/Beyoğlu), Calypso (1858/Büyükada),Giacomo (1860/Büyükada), Chalki Palace(1862/Heybeli), Hotel de Londres (1892/Beyoğlu),Bosphorus Summer Palace (1894/Tarabya), Pera Palace(1895/Beyoğlu) and Tokatliyan (1897/Beyoğlu).

When Wagon-Lits, a company with great significancein Istanbul’s outbound travel market during the late19th and the early 20th centuries, launched itsworld-famous train Orient Express, running betweenParis and Istanbul, it also got engaged in the hoteldevelopment business through its subsidiary firm,Compagnie Internationale des Grand Hotels, in orderto offer high quality accommodation to its

393


passengers. Thus the company’s first attempt was tobuild Bosphorus Summer Palace, followed by purchaseand opening of the legendary Pera Palace (Zat, 2005:65-66). To our knowledge; it was again this companywho had assigned the renowned architect AlexandreVallaury for the design and construction of PrinkipoPalace at the end of the 19th century.

Compagnie Internationale des Grand Hotels, directedby Count Maurice de Bochard, built Prinkipo Palace asa Monte Carlo style deluxe casino hotel at a cost of50,000 gold pieces during 1898-1899. However; havingconsidered that the profitability would be lost, thecompany felt obliged to withdraw from the investmentupon the veto of Sultan Abdul Hamid II on the hotel’scasino function (Gülersoy, 2001: 5-6).

It is thought that the building was going to beused as a deluxe casino hotel and a summer resort forthe guests of Pera Palace (Gülersoy: 6). Left withouta market because of its immense size and relativedistance from the centrum, it remained idle until1902.

In the meanwhile; the Greek Community of theOttoman Empire was in search of a new venue for theirorphanage (Ethnicon Orphanotropheion), whose originalbuilding in Yedikule had been severely damaged in the1894 earthquake (Türker, 2000). Upon the request ofPatriarch Joachim III, Leonidas Zarifi, who happenedto be the son of George Zarifi, a leading banker,bought the property of Prinkipo Palace at a bargainprice of 3700 gold pieces (approximately theequivalent of 353,000 Euros) on behalf of his motherHelene Zarifi, and donated it to the Phanar GreekPatriarchate on the condition that it would be usedin replacing the orphanage in Yedikule (Gülersoy,

394


2001: 9). As a firsthand witness, Leonida Zarifi’sson mentions the events in his memoirs as follows(Zarifi, 2005: 259):

At a time of great profiteering, all this forested land was boughtby foreign businessmen. A colossal “Palace” was built here. Butthe company went bankrupt before it had started operating thehotel. My grandmother Zarifi purchased the entire company fromthe liquidators. My father converted the hotel into anorphanage...

The transaction of the property was finalized on 22July 1902. The building was allotted to be used asthe Greek Orphanage by decree of the Sultan and itwas entered in the land register as property of thePatriarchate. The inauguration ceremony was held onthe name day of Helene Zarifi, 21 May 1903, whilstthe Patriarch had sent a telegram to the Sultanexpressing the gratitude of the orphans. In hisresponse, the Sultan ordered 146 gold pieces to besent to the orphans and exempted the orphanage from1800 liras in house taxes as well as all other taxes.In addition, he also required the imperial kitchen tosupply the orphanage with 7.5 okes (9.6kg) of meatand sufficient amount of bread on a daily basis(Deleon, 2003: 206-207).

Despite an initial application of 250 boys in 1905,the orphanage was able to admit only 150 of them bylot. However, with the eruption of WWI in 1915, theImperial School moved here and the building wasallocated to soldiers of the Allied Forces until itwas seized in 1919 by the Occupation Forces, who usedthe building as an accommodation for refugeesescaping to Istanbul. During the period, the orphanswere transferred first to Heybeli Greek CommerceSchool but then they had to move to Heybeli Clergy

395


School since the first venue was taken over by theOttoman Navy. Their second stay could not last longeither, as the building was not large enough toshelter them. As a result, their final destinationwas the Siniosoğlu Orphanage on Kınalı (Gülersoy,2001; Türker, 2000).

When the refugees left the island and moved to themainland Istanbul in 1920 with the urge of findingjobs, Occupation Forces found the opportunity tobring the orphans back to their original shelter.However, as a consequence of war and migrations, thenumber of the orphans had rapidly increased, leavingthe orphanage no choice but host 1290 boys in 1922with respect to the hardly-cared population of 150back in 1905. The orphanage gained a unisex status in1942 since the Greek Girls Orphanage on Heybeli wasdiscontinued (Gülersoy, 2001: 11).

Throughout its service life, the orphanage buildinghad sheltered a total of 5744 children until 1956,however; it lost its function as it was closed downon 21 May 1964, following an inspection reportstating that the building was not well-maintainedenough to provide life safety. Consequently, boys andgirls were moved to the Monasteries of St. Nicholasand Christ on Büyükada, respectively (Türker, 2004).

In the 1990s, the orphanage building was broughtback on to the agenda with a hotel proposal under itsoriginal name, “Prinkipo Palace”. In 1991, ahospitality consultant, who as the initial projectdeveloper had leased the property from thePatriarchate on a 49+49 years term, assigned anarchitectural firm with the structural analysis anddocumentation works. Finally, an avant project,focusing only on the block and its function, was

396


granted an official permission in 1992, despite itslack of conservation principles. In the followingfour years, not much development was recordedregarding the project. However, in 1996, an investorgroup, encouraged by the performance of emergingchain-operated heritage hotels in Istanbul,incorporated a company in order to realize theproject at a cost of 14 million USDs (Tanyeli et al,1998).

The company declared that the building would berejuvenated as a nostalgic and modern touristicestablishment but that the building had to bereconstructed upon a survey register, since safetyconcerns arose with converting the existing structureinto a hotel and offering it to public use (Ekinci,1996). This attempt of rebuilding Prinkipo Palacedrew the reactions of the public and many concernedNGOs (Ural, 1998).

In the meanwhile, state governmental authoritiesalleged that the building might not be used forpurposes other than its original function(orphanage). In return, experts from thearchitectural firm submitted a report, evidencingthat the said original function was a hotel indeed(Tanyeli et al, 1998). But then there was no more aneed to insist on this claim as another importantincident took place, setting off an ownership disputeover the building. A series of legal cases, which waslater brought to the European Court of Human Rightsby the Patriarchate in 2005, still continue today. Asummary of these events is indicated on the relevantpress releases from the European Court of HumanRights. Below is a part of the ECHR hearing on thecase (2007):

397


On 22 January 1997 the Directorate General for Foundations (…)stated that, as the orphanage (A/N: Foundation of the BüyükadaGreek Orphanage for Boys) had ceased its charitable activities, itsgoverning body had been dismissed and the Directorate Generalfor Foundations had taken over its management. (…) On 16March 1999 the Directorate General for Foundations tookproceedings to have the applicant church’s (A/N: thePatriarchate) title annulled and the property re-registered in thename of the orphanage, which it has run since the decision of 22January 1997. In December 2002 the relevant district courtordered the disputed property to be registered in the name of theorphanage. (…)On 21 October 2004 the Court of Cassation (…)held that since the declaration registered by the orphanage in1936, the property had belonged to the orphanage and no longerto the applicant (A/N: the Patriarchate).

Here are the highlights from the judgment of theEuropean Court of Human Rights, announced on 8 July2008:

The application was lodged with the European Court of HumanRights on 19 April 2005 and declared admissible on 12 June 2007.(…) The applicant church (the Patriarchate) alleged in particularthat by ordering the registration of its real estate in the name ofthe Orphanage (A/N: Foundation of the Büyükada GreekOrphanage for Boys), under the management of the DirectorateGeneral for Foundations, the domestic courts had breached itsright to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. (…) Since it firstobtained the use of the property in 1903, the Orphanage hadnever claimed to be its owner, neither at the time it registered itsdeclaration in 1936 nor at a later date. (…) The declaration hadstated that the Orphanage ran the “Greek Orphanage for Boys”but not that it was the “owner” of the premises (…). The Court(A/N: ECHR) found that, even supposing that the property inquestion had been set aside for a specific usage over a longperiod of time, there was nothing to suggest that that usage had

398


had the effect of nullifying the original title. In the Court’s view,the (…) authorities were not entitled to deprive the owner of itspossession without providing for appropriate compensation. Theapplicant church, in the present case, had not received anycompensation at all. In those circumstances, the applicant havinghad to bear an individual and excessive burden, there had been aviolation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (A/N: protection ofproperty).

After a decade of mutual allegations by concernedparties and decisions by the courts on the ownershipof the property, it seems that an exact solution hasnot still been reached.

As explained by a high authority of Büyükada, thereason for the poor condition of the building is theongoing court case over its ownership and that no onewants to take on renovation work before its ownershipis clarified (Esmen, 2007).

Before proceeding with the physical status and thearchitectural significance of the building, a recapof the dates and events related with the historicalbackground is provided below.

Table 1. A Chronology of Prinkipo PalaceDates Events1898 Constructed as a deluxe casino hotel by Wagon-

Lits1899 Casino function vetoed by the Sultan1903 Converted into an orphanage by the Zarifi Family1915 Taken over by the Imperial School, allocated to

Allied Forces 1918 Taken over by Occupation Forces, functions as a

refuge1920 Re-functions as an orphanage, shelters 1290

children1942 Obtains unisex status1964 Vacated for safety reasons

399


1991 Leased for a hotel project1996 Project disapproved by authorities1997 Ownership dispute

2.3. Architectural Significance and Physical StatusThe cultural significance associated with Prinkipo

Palace comes from not only its architecture but alsoits architect. Alexandre Vallaury, an Ottoman citizenof Levantine origin, born in Istanbul in 1850, is theco-founder of the Department of Architecture at theAcademy of Fine Arts and had lectured there for 25consecutive years. Having studied at Paris ÉcoleNationale des Beaux-Arts, one of the leadingarchitectural schools in the 19th century, hisapproach to architecture had formed a synthesis ofTurkish architectural traditions and École des Beaux-Arts principles. Vallaury, reckoned as the “CityArchitect” by the museum curatorship pioneer OsmanHamdi, was given the Légion d’Honneur by the Frenchgovernment in 1896, together with many other awardsthroughout his professional life. Some of hismasterpieces include; Turkish Pavilion at Paris EXPO,Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Ottoman BankHeadquarters, Hazeran Han, Omer Abed Han, DécugisHouse, Union Française, Ottoman Public DebtAdministration Building (Düyun-u Umumiye; Today,Istanbul Lycee), Waterfront House (Yalı) of AfifPasha, Imperial Military School of Medicine (Mekteb-iTıbbiye-i Askeriye-i Şahane; today, MarmaraUniversity Faculty of Law), Hidayet Mosque, PeraPalace and, last but not the least; Prinkipo Palace(Akpolat, 1994).

Perhaps, the most significant architectural featureof Prinkipo Palace goes with the claim that it is the

400


largest single-block timber building in Europe andsecond largest in the world. The claim could beattested by seeking buildings alike presented on theweb, though no official rank list of such buildingswas accessed. Yet it was satisfactory to find outthat Prinkipo Palace is most probably the largesttimber building in Europe and second or third largestin the world, following Todai-ji Temple in Nara,Japan and Old Government Buildings in Wellington, NewZealand.

Ekinci (1996) attributes the usage of timber as themain construction element to an effort forintegration of the building with the surroundingforest and the ease with portability of timber withrespect to masonry materials. Moreover, safetyconcerns, arising right after the major Istanbulearthquake in 1894, could also be added to theseunderlying factors.

Prinkipo Palace, standing on a 23,255m2 gardenconfined by a fence made of Marseillaise firebricksand iron rails, is depicted by a symmetrical massconfiguration with a length of 101m and widths of 18min the connection sections and 32m in the centralaxis and both ends. It is a six-storey building,including the basement floor and the attic, which canrise as high as 24m depending on the ground elevation(Alper, 1994). The building was originally composedof 206 deluxe guestrooms with a size range of 28m2 to57m2 (yet, as evident on the survey drawings by Alper(1994: 51-52), the floor plans seem to have beenaltered by removal of some party walls, possibly duethe need of providing the orphanage with a dormitoryfunction).

401


The rooms are accompanied by many other facilities,through which the auditorium and the restaurant comeinto prominence. The 7.5m high auditorium is thecenter of attraction with its elaborate design andcarved ornaments (Alper, 1994). The restaurant isconnected to a kitchen that is fully equipped with astate-of-the-art French range, which was installed toserve the hotel guests but ended up with feeding theorphans.

To the northeast of Prinkipo Palace stands asecondary building, which had an original function asthe hotel administration office but later was used asthe school of the orphanage and as a hospital duringthe wars.

Alper (1994) acknowledges the lively verticalimpact of the floating oriels on the building’sexterior outlook and characterizes the structure as“a glorious example for implementing the traditionaltimber housing scheme and technology on a building ofdiverse dimension and function”, whereas Ekinci(1996) identifies it with “a unique culture asset ofthe world, which possesses not only a distinctivearchitectural character but also a timber structuraldesign that has stood still for a century”.

Since its initial erection, the building never sawthe repair and maintenance it deserved. It sufferedserious physical damage at times of war. It had tohost 15,000 soldiers, hundreds of refugees and, 1290orphans; consecutively. When the refugees were todissemble some parts of its wood out of heatingnecessity, the building had a wear and tear worth50,000 Liras at that time. By the efforts ofPatriarch Athinogoras and Headmaster ChristosMavrofridis, it was reconditioned a little (Tuğlacı,

402


1994; Türker, 2000), however; no repair at all wasdone since 1964.

Yeomans, an engineer specialized in timberstructures, conducted a reparability inspection forPrinkipo Palace in the summer of 1997. Speaking atthe panel on “Timber in Istanbul”, held by theInformation Documentation Center of the HistoryFoundation of Turkey on 23 February 1998, he explainsthe physical status of the building as such (Tanyeliet al, 1998: 102):

If you walk around the building today, you will notice thatsouthern and eastern facades present the poorest conditions. Onthese parts, it is observed that most of the veneer, lintel and sillare diminished and that many windows are in open position anda major part of the wood base is decomposed. On the otherhand, the western façade promises a much sounder condition. Isuppose the underlying fact here is the prevention of the façadefrom climatic conditions and prevailing winds. Above all, we needto focus on the structural system that bears the load of the floorsand, at first glance; we see that the frontal elements are notcrucial at this point. Building plan includes juxtaposed roomslined by the corridors. Main braces are located over the partywalls in between these rooms. Therefore, exterior walls are notthat important. (…) Currently, the weakest point of the building isthe roof. As a part of the roof is entirely down, snow and rainleak inside. A second weak point is the skylight shaft thatvertically passes through all floors. There the bull’s eye is also inbad condition, causing snow and rain water leakage. If thebuilding shall be conserved as a timber structure, then whatmust be done initially is to apply provisional roofing systems onthe weak parts and to ensure invulnerability for the buildingagainst climatic conditions. After this is done, a crucial repairwork would be with the exterior walls, without the need for a

403


support on the loadbearing. This basically requires some timberwork; I am not saying it is easy but it’s a simple repair job.

Since the timber building is embedded in a forestwith a relatively inconvenient accessibility, it isalways in danger of being exposed to a fire.Moreover, a fire starting in the building means athreat to the entire island. In order to prevent suchpossibilities from happening, water pipes connectedto giant underground tanks were laid all around thebuilding in 2004. However; a fire, breaking out inthe Luna Park area of Büyükada on 3 July 2005, provedthat these measures might not be sufficient just bythemselves (Kangür, 2005; 2006).

On Appendix B, a picture of the decay that tookplace for a century has been tried to be depicted bysome comparative visual materials. Building’soriginal ruddle, which had publicly named it as the“Red Palace”, almost vanished. Trying to recall thatcolor, it is struggling alone for its survival and,on the other hand, awaiting the grand opening thathas been postponed for over a century…3. REJUVENATING PRINKIPO PALACE

In the last decade, there have been a couple ofsuggestions as to a function that would helprevitalize Prinkipo Palace. Both of them have focusedon the historical “orphanage” character of thebuilding.

Ayangil (2000) has suggested that the building beconverted to a “Center for War Orphans of the World”through cooperation between Turkey, Greece and theUNICEF, whereas; Gülersoy (2000), with a similarapproach, has proposed that the venue be at serviceto the orphans of the 1999 Marmara earthquake, withthe help of fundraising events that could be held by

404


NGOs such as the Boğaziçi University AlumniAssociation.

There is no doubt about the favorableness and thehumaneness associated with both of the aboveproposals. However, while they offer a goodwill whichwill turn the structure into a shelter for the needy-indigent children, they do not realistically takeaccount of how the building will shelter itself.

One should recall that this building was meant tobe a deluxe casino hotel, generating a high amount ofnet cash flows and thereby meeting the heavy burdenof its repair and maintenance expenses. But when itwas utilized as an orphanage, it was left financiallydependent on external sources and went without FF&Efunds that could have been allocated for maintainingits vital parts such as the heating installation,lack of which had been a major factor to acceleratingits wear and tear.

Our opinion here is to position the building as a“Universal Tourism Landmark”, as verbalized by Ekinciin 1996, by preserving its unicity and strengtheningits cultural standing.

In order to turn this opinion into a practicableproject proposal, we have followed the procedurebelow:

Destination and market overview for Istanbul ingeneral

Destination and market overview for Büyükada andthe Princes Islands in particular

Guidelines for product development Guidelines for conservation and preservation

3.1. Destination and Market Overview – Istanbul

405


Istanbul has many touristic attractions to offer,such as a cultural heritage accumulated throughoutthree millennia, a lively urban life, extensivemeeting and shopping facilities, nearby golf andrecreation resorts, and emerging health tourismfacilities. Also, it is considered as Turkey’s hotspot in international city tourism. According to themost recent data, Istanbul possesses an immense totalbed amount of 91,029, with an additional 21,992 underconstruction (İstanbul Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü,2008). This rapid development is definitely theresult of an ever-increasing touristic demand forIstanbul.

The number of foreign tourists visiting Istanbulwas 6.5 million in 2007 (almost a quarter of thetotal arrivals to Turkey in the same period),indicating a 21% increase with respect to theprevious year. This was also a figure that doubled inthe last five years, which reassured thestabilization for Istanbul’s rapid tourismdevelopment. It is most possible that Istanbul willreceive arrivals half as big again as the 2007 figureof 6.5 million and attract the targeted 10 milliontourists in 2010, given the fact that it will be thecenter of global attention with its prestigiousentitlement to 2010 European Capital of Culture(İstanbul Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü, 2008).

Istanbul is inevitably heading towards becoming avital destination that will foster thediversification and qualification of Turkish tourismand contribute more significantly to the nationaleconomy. Consequently, touristic regions of the cityare going under a transformation to become well-managed destinations, including Büyükada and its

406


archipelago, the Princes Islands, which has been oneof the oldest spots for touristic activities inIstanbul. 3.2. Destination and Market Overview – Büyükada & thePrinces Islands

During its candidacy for the 2010 European Capitalof Culture title, Istanbul challenged its competitorswith an Aristotelian theme; “City of Four Elements”,where “Earth” symbolizes monuments and traditionsthat reflect the cultural richness, “Water” recallsthe Bosphorus, Golden Horn and the Islands, “Air”refers to the minarets and church bells for the peaceof religions, and “Fire” stands for the future, inother words; youth, technology and modern arts(Demiroğlu, 2007).

Regarding this theme, the Princes Islands seem tohave the most promising contribution to Istanbul’snew title. The monuments comprised of architecturalmasterpieces of many mixed currents and buildingsdevoted to Christianity, Judaism and Islam; thelively presence of water; the indigenous “Islander”identity that has transformed from a mosaic ofcenturies; and the inspiration the Islands have beenproviding for famous poets, writers and artists areeach a complementary asset for the “City of FourElements Theme” at a synergic manner. PrincesIslands, once a popular destination – along withGalata, Pera (Beyoğlu) and the Bosphorus – to wealthyIstanbulites and foreigners during the westernizationera of the Ottoman Empire, is expected to recover itsreputation to become a famous destination fordiscriminating travelers (Demiroğlu, 2007).

Until the 19th century, the islands have had fewpopulations, mostly of Greek priests, exiles and

407


fishermen. The islands encountered a significantdemographic change when the administrative reforms ofthe Ottoman Empire in 1839 permitted foreignnationals to own properties and scheduled ferry lineswere started in 1846. Starting with the French, manywealthy foreigners and elite communities of theOttoman utilized the islands as a summer resort(Demiroğlu et al, 2007).

The islands can be characterized by economicmonoculture, such that the local economy is dependenton only one activity (Coccossis, 2001), namely;tourism. However; it would be false to classify thePrinces’ Islands as typical touristic islanddestinations – e.g. the Caribbean, the Canaries,Dodecanese etc. – since they are quite different interms of their developmental scale and they are notphysically isolated enough to be perceived as exoticvenues but rather are the settlements of ametropolitan city, Istanbul. Yet the islands,especially Büyükada, are rich of natural resourcesand offer unique cultural features that can beutilized as touristic products once they aredeveloped, managed and marketed efficiently andeffectively (Demiroğlu et al, 2007).

Büyükada shows some distinctive characteristics interms of its climate, vegetation, flora and fauna(especially bird species). Around 2/3 of the area iscovered with red pine forests and maquis, and owingto its gardening tradition; Büyükada has also becomerich of exotic species as well. The forest and theprohibition for the use of motor vehicles (phaetonsas the traditional mode of transportation are stillin frequent use) provide Büyükada with a healthy,fresh air – a reason to why it has hosted sanatoriums

408


for centuries. Although agricultural activity is onlylimited to small scale apiculture, horticulture,fishery and trucking, both the soil and the sea aregenerous for production. The local wine, known forits high quantity and quality, is not producedanymore, since viniculture activity was discontinuedin the early 20th century (Demiroğlu et al, 2007).

The Princes’ Islands, declared as a “natural,urban, archeological and historical preservationsite” in 1984, hosts 899 registered monuments, mostof them resting on Büyükada. Although origins of somebuildings date back to the 8th century, the presentbuildings are usually 100-200 years old. However,what makes them attractive is not their age butrather are their artistic features (Demiroğlu et al,2007). And one of the most significant of thesecultural heritage assets is, undoubtedly, PrinkipoPalace.3.3. Guidelines for Product Development

Just as the rejuvenation of Prinkipo Palace isproposed for the agenda, coincidentally anotherproject alike is ongoing with its historically sisterhotel, Pera Palace. Kabaoğlu (2008), who is thearchitect-in-chief for Pera Palace, defines theproject as a challenge towards creating the idealatmosphere for the qualified cultural tourism market.He mentions that the hotel’s current standards do notmeet with its internationally perceived legendaryimage (it has hosted many celebrities, especially inthe early 20th century, including but not limited to;Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock, Mata Hari and soon) and adds that their purpose here is to presentPera Palace as a museum-hotel and bring back its

409


glory by preserving its historical, architectural andcultural characteristics.

Kabaoğlu (2008) further explains that they engagedin project works that are in line with internationalconservation principles and taking account of thestandards required for operating a high qualityhotel. For this purpose, their approach is based ontwo dimensions: physical and technical rehabilitationand, re-functioning. In terms of physicalrehabilitation, they focused on recalling the earlyeclectic style of the hotel, whereas forrehabilitation of technical facilities, they had toperform major interventions as to modernize thetechnical installations. While they pay attention topreservation of the original atmosphere in largecommon areas, they are eager to provide theguestrooms with more comfortable amenities. And asfor re-functioning purposes; the project will consistof those functions that are accurate, realistic andconsistent with the character of the structure aswell as the profitability expectations of theinvestor. Major functional elements planned for thehotel are; (1) Accommodation, F&B and otherfacilities as expected from an upmarket hotel; (2)Exhibition venues specially designed and open topublic access, (3) Rooms devoted to their formerfamous occupiers, (4) Designation of Atatürk’s roomsolely as a museum.

Table 2. Marketable Tourism Types for Princes IslandsType Corresponding Destination Resources

Culture Monumental and living heritage representingdiverse cultures, Cultural and artisticorganizations and activities, Renown venue for

410


literary and artistic fertility, Religioussites, Island cuisine and gastronomy

Ecotourism

Büyükada Eco-park; Bird Watching,;Revitalization of traditional produces,especially apiculture and viniculture, throughAgrotourism

Romance Convenience for weddings, honeymoons andromantic gateways; Presence of sanctuariesrequired for Christian and Jewish weddings

Recreation

Sun-Sea-Sand (though water pollution should bereassessed), Fishing, “Sanatourism” (SanatoriumTourism)

MICE Geographic convenience for conventions withhigh security concerns

Sports All kinds of Water Sports, Horse-riding,Bicycling, Orienteering

Pera Palace Project is a useful benchmark to thedevelopment of Prinkipo Palace as a heritage hotel.However, before we go on to the details with PrinkipoPalace, it is wiser to demonstrate how it can benefitfrom the tourism potential of its destination,Büyükada and the Princes Islands, in terms of marketdefinition and targeting (See: Table 2 above).

In the light of the experiences from Pera Palace,the abovementioned target markets, and our knowledgeon the unique features of Prinkipo Palace; apreliminary product definition could include thefollowing suggestions:

Installations for fire safety, heating, plumbingand such should be realized on a basis ofreasonable intervention policy. Also, an elevator

411


could be installed in order to provideprospective guests with an amenity. Here, thewellhole framed by the main stairs seems to be aconvenient location. The heritage elevator ofPera Palace may serve as a model for aesthetics.

Restaurant space should be reanimated with anoffering of world cuisines, as well as theislander cuisine. Careful attention should bedevoted to its design as to exhibit the heritageequipment of the kitchen to the enjoyment of all.

The auditorium should be utilized for performingarts events, together with regular conventions.Such an attempt could be realized throughcollaboration with an artistic community, plentyof which are present on the islands.

The grand piano, which still remains on thefloors of Prinkipo Palace as a movable culturalheritage asset, should immediately be examinedfor restorability.

Surrounding private land of the building offersone of the rare clearings on the island’slandscape. Research should be done to find outwhether terrestrial and climatic conditions areconvenient for rejuvenating the tradition ofviniculture activities or not. If possible,production should be initiated in a manner offostering agrotourism. The surrounding land couldalso be decorated with birdhouses, which inreturn would contribute to the general ambiance.

Island coastal band should be surveyed forleasable waterfront facilities. The City Councilof Adalar has already formed a workgroup thatdeals with the realization of a boutique marinaproject near the St. Nicholas locality. The venue

412


is highly convenient in terms of its geographicaccessibility to the main building, mostfavorably via cableway, therefore; prospectiveinvestors of Prinkipo Palace should considertaking on the investment of this marina project.

Once the marina facility is ensured, privateboats should be launched in order to avoiddependency on public transportation to and fromthe island, which becomes quite infrequent offthe season. By the same token, private phaetonusage and installment of a cableway system couldbe considered in order not to be affected by thesomewhat troubled intra-island transportationnetwork.

A golf club would definitely bring an added valueto the total attractiveness of the establishment,given its target clientele. Unfortunately,neither Büyükada nor rest of the archipelago hasa land suitable for such development, due totheir rough and forested terrain, whereasYassıada is an exception with a relativelytreeless and plain surface area of 18.3ha, almostthe size of a small scale links golf course.Moreover, Yassıada is also rich of legacy andhosts some Byzantine ruins together with a numberof former state buildings representing the latepolitical history of Turkey. Besides; thepleasure chateau of Sir Henry Bulwer-Lytton,former British diplomat who resided in Istanbulin the 19th century, has survived today as apotential complement to the golfing ambiance. Itis known that nowadays authorities are planningto allocate this uninhabited island to tourismdevelopment. In the light of these parameters;

413


investors could consider the integration of sucha golf resort project with the proposal forPrinkipo Palace. However, it should be noted thata drawback here will be the insufficiency ofwater resources for greenkeeping.

Last but not the least; business has a pendingsocial responsibility to adopt. That is, thefuture management of the establishment is toengage in charitable activities that would givethe heritage asset credit for its longest missionof sheltering the aidless. This could be realizedthrough many ways, such as; donating a certainamount of annual income to child protectionagencies, periodically welcoming orphans on thehouse, holding special events and etc.

As mentioned by Ekinci (1996), the investorsundertaking this project will need to pay “respect toan Istanbulite architect”. Therefore; it isbeneficial for the prospective investors and theirprofessionals to take account of the universalprinciples and practices declared by theInternational Council on Monuments and Sites (1999b)for the protection and preservation of historictimber structures (See: Appendix C).

Heretofore; brief guidelines regarding thedevelopment and preservation of Prinkipo Palace havebeen highlighted. Recommending a further feasibilitystudy for the proposed hotel, we suggest the use ofHospitality Valuation Software, developed by Rushmoreand deRoos (2005), as a contemporary tool to assistin the preparation of market analyses, cash flowforecats, and valuations.CONCLUSION

414


Implementation of the proposal will provide itsinvestor with prestigious and likely profitableoutcomes, whereas it will also eventually lead to thesurvival of a precious cultural heritage asset with aworthy usage, as well as it will make a great impacton fostering the island economics by a positivecontribution towards overcoming the seasonalityproblem, assisting with the qualification of PrincesIslands as an internationally recognized destinationand, reinforcing the overall images of Istanbul andTurkey.

However; unless the ownership issue is completelyresolved, the proposal for this unique building willmove nowhere beyond a utopia, since no investor willintend to undertake the project. Putting the proposalaside, what must be done at first should be todecelerate the corrosion on the building through asupra-institutional formation of the correspondingauthorities. Moreover; concerned nongovernmentalorganizations, such as the Turkish Tourism InvestorsAssociation and the Chamber of Architects, as well asthe local NGOs of the islands, should be monitoringthe developments taking place with this irreplaceableasset of Turkish architecture and lodging heritage.

REFERENCESAkpolat, M. S. (1994). Vallaury, Alexandre. Dünden

Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, C:7. İstanbul: KültürBakanlığı ve Tarih Vakfı Ortak Yayını.

Alper, B. (1994). Büyükada’nın Kırmızı Sarayı da YokOluyor. Arkitekt, 64(415), 44-53

Ayangil, R. (2000). Öneri: Dünya Savaş YetimleriMerkezi Kurulsun!.

415


http://ayangil.org/php/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8 (1 Mayıs 2008).

Bektaş, C. (2001). Koruma ve Onarım. İstanbul: LiteratürYayınları.

Brundtland, G. H. (ed.) (1987). Our Common Future: TheWorld Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Coccossis, H. (2001). Sustainable Development andTourism in Small Islands: Some Lessons fromGreece. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism andHospitality Research, 12(1), 53-58.

Çakılcıoğlu, M. (1996). Sürdürülebilir Turizm. KentselAraştırma Gönüllüleri.http://www.kentli.org/makale/meh_sur.htm (21Mayıs 2008).

Deleon, J. (2003). Büyükada: Anıtlar Rehberi / A Guide to theMonuments. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

Demiroğlu, O. C. (2007). Princes’ Islands: ADistinctive Destination of Istanbul. TAIKNewsletter. http://www.turkey-now.org/Default.aspx?pgID=180 (17 May 2008)

Demiroğlu, O. C., G. Çetin & M. T. İzgi. (2007).Sustainable Development of Tourism for Islands:Case of Büyükada - Istanbul. Proceedings of the 2007International Tourism Biennial (p. 156-166). Çanakkale:Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University School ofTourism & Hotel Management.

Ekinci, O. (1996). Prinkipo Palas’ta MimariSorumluluklar. Cumhuriyet, 10 Ekim, s.14.

Esmen, Y. S. (2007). The Orphaning of an Orphanage.Turkish Daily News, December 1http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid= 90083 (9 May 2008).

416


European Court of Human Rights. (2007). Hearings inNovember. Press Release on October 30.

European Court of Human Rights. (2008). ChamberJudgment: Fener Rum Pat-rikligi v. Turkey. PressRelease on July 8.

Gülersoy, Ç. (2000). Yetim Çocuklara, Yetim BirSaray. Cumhuriyet, 15 Ekim, s.2.

Gülersoy, Ç. (2001). Büyükada Yetimhanesi. İstanbul:Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu.

Holloway, J. C. (1994). The Business of Tourism, 4th ed.London: Pitman Publishing.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (1999a).International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism atPlaces of Heritage Significance. 12th General Assembly,Mexico. http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/tourism_e.pdf (May 26, 2008).

International Council on Monuments and Sites (1999b).Principles for the Preservation of Historic Timber Structures. 12th

General Assembly, Mexico.http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/wood_e.pdf (May 6, 2008)

İstanbul Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. (2008). İstanbulTahmininde Tam İsabet. http://www.turizmdebusabah.com/images/0912008_Aralik_2007.doc (2 Mayıs 2008).

İstanbullu-Dinçer, F. ve S. M. Ertuğral. (2000).Kültürel Mirasın Korunması ve İstanbul İlindekiTarihi Yapıların Turizm Amaçlı Kullanımı ÜzerineBir Deneme. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(3-4), 69-78.

İstanbullu-Dinçer, F. & S. M. Ertuğral. (2003).Economic Impact of Heritage Tourism Hotels inIstanbul. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 23-34.

Kabaoğlu, C. (2008). Tarihi Pera Palas Müze Otel’eDönüşüyor. Yeni Mimar Gazetesi.

417


http://www.turizmhaberleri.com/HaberAyrinti.asp?ID=10620 (6 Tem. 2008).

Kangür, Ö. (2005). Yetimhane Kıl Payı Kurtuldu. Ada,no:2, s.4.

Kangür, Ö. (2006). Büyükada Yetimhanesi TehlikeSaçıyor. Ada, no:28, s.3.

McKercher, B. & H. du Cross. (2002). Cultural Tourism: ThePartnership Between Tourism and Cultural HeritageManagement. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

McLendon, T. E., J. Klein, D. Listokin & M. Lahr.(2002). Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida.University of Florida College of Law & RutgersUniversity.http://www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/pdf/historic_report.pdf (May 11, 2008).

Millas, A. (2001). Princes Islands: A Retrospective Journey.Athens: Militos.

Rushmore, S. & J. deRoos. (2005). HospitalityValuation Software. Tools. Ithaca, NY: Center forHospitality Research, Cornell University.http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/chr/pubs/tools/hvstool.html (June 29, 2008).

Smith, M. K. (2003). Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies.London: Routledge.

Tanyeli, U., B. Alper, D. Yeomans, M. Alper, E.Erdoğmuş, O. Ekinci, Z. Ahunbay, F. Çiçekoğlu,K. Gümüş, N. Sakaoğlu ve C. Binan. (1998).İstanbul’da Ahşap. İstanbul, 25, 98-108.

Tuğlacı, P. (1995). Rum Yetimhanesi. Tarih Boyuncaİstanbul Adaları, C:1. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.

Türker, O. (2000). Büyükada Rum Yetimhanesi. Tarih veToplum, 34(200), 38-40.

Türker, O. (2004). Prinkipo’dan Büyükada’ya. İstanbul: SelYayıncılık.

418


United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004).Concepts & Definitions. Sustainable Development ofTourism. http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/con-cepts.htm (May 22, 2008).

United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2006).International Tourism up by 5.5% to 808 MillionArrivals in 2005. Newsroom. http://www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2006/january/06_01_24.htm (May28, 2008).

United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2007).UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 5(3) (October).http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom07_3_en.pdf (June 30, 2008).

Ural, M. (1998). Rum Yetimhanesi’nin Kaderi. İstanbul,25, 94-97.

Zarifi, Y. L. (2005). Hatıralarım: Kaybolan Bir Dünya İstanbul1800-1920. (Çev. K. Skotiniyadis). İstanbul:Literatür Yayınları.

Zat, V. (2005). Eski İstanbul Otelleri. İstanbul: BilgeKarınca.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to take the chance to thank toMr. Alper Yalçın for his efforts in the visualdocumentation of Prinkipo Palace.

419


APPENDIX A: LOCATION OF PRINKIPO PALACE

Princes Islands (Istanbul) Satellite View

Source: Google Earth (2005) 40.88,29.07 Eye alt:18km

Büyükada Satellite View

420


Source: Google Earth (2005) 40.86,29.124 Eye alt:4km

421


APPENDIX B: OUTLOOKS OF PRINKIPO PALACE IN 1905 AND2008

NW facet of Prinkipo Palace in 1905, as displayed on a lithograph by Stavros Drimikis

Northwestern facet of Prinkipo Palace in 2008, as seen on aphotograph by Alper Yalçın

422

Cultural & Event Tourism: Issues and Debates 423


APPENDIX C: ICOMOS GUIDELINES

PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TIMBER STRUCTURES (1999)

Adopted by ICOMOS at the 12th General Assembly in Mexico, October 1999.

The aim of this document is to define basic and universallyapplicable principles and practices for the protection andpreservation of historic timber structures with due respectto their cultural significance. Historic timber structuresrefer here to all types of buildings or constructionswholly or partially in timber that have culturalsignificance or that are parts of a historic area.

For the purpose of the preservation of such structures, thePrinciples:• recognise the importance of timber structures from allperiods as part of the cultural heritage of the world;• take into account the great diversity of historic timberstructures;• take into account the various species and qualities ofwood used to build them;• recognise the vulnerability of structures wholly orpartially in timber due to material decay and degradationin varying environmental and climatic conditions, caused byhumidity fluctuations, light, fungal and insect attacks,wear and tear, fire and other disasters;• recognise the increasing scarcity of historic timberstructures due to vulnerability, misuse and the loss ofskills and knowledge of traditional design and constructiontechnology;• take into account the great variety of actions andtreatments required for the preservation and conservationof these heritage resources;

424


• note the Venice Charter, the Burra Charter and relatedUNESCO and ICOMOS doctrine, and seek to apply these generalprinciples to the protection and preservation of historictimber structures;

And make the following recommendations:INSPECTION, RECORDING AND DOCUMENTATION1. The condition of the structure and its components shouldbe carefully recorded before any intervention, as well asall materials used in treatments, in accordance withArticle 16 of the Venice Charter and the ICOMOS Principlesfor the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings andSites. All pertinent documentation, includingcharacteristic samples of redundant materials or membersremoved from the structure, and information about relevanttraditional skills and technologies, should be collected,catalogued, securely stored and made accessible asappropriate. The documentation should also include thespecific reasons given for choice of materials and methodsin the preservation work.2. A thorough and accurate diagnosis of the condition andthe causes of decay and structural failure of the timberstructure should precede any intervention. The diagnosisshould be based on documentary evidence, physicalinspection and analysis, and, if necessary, measurements ofphysical conditions and non-destructive testing methods.Thisshould not prevent necessary minor interventions andemergency measures.MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE3. A coherent strategy of regular monitoring andmaintenance is crucial for the protection of historictimber structures and their cultural significance.INTERVENTIONS4. The primary aim of preservation and conservation is tomaintain the historical authenticity and integrity of thecultural heritage. Each intervention should therefore bebased on proper studies and assessments. Problems should be

425


solved according to relevant conditions and needs with duerespect for the aesthetic and historical values, and thephysical integrity of the historic structure or site.5. Any proposed intervention should for preference:

a) follow traditional means;b) be reversible, if technically possible; orc) at least not prejudice or impede future preservationwork whenever this may become necessary; andd) not hinder the possibility of later access toevidence incorporated in the structure.

6. The minimum intervention in the fabric of a historictimber structure is an ideal. In certain circumstances,minimum intervention can mean that their preservation andconservation may require the complete or partialdismantling and subsequent reassembly in order to allow forthe repair of timber structures.7. In the case of interventions, the historic structureshould be considered as a whole; all material, includingstructural members, in-fill panels, weather-boarding,roofs, floors, doors and windows, etc., should be givenequal attention. In principle, as much as possible of theexisting material should be retained. The protection shouldalso include surface finishes such as plaster, paint,coating, wall-paper, etc. If it is necessary to renew orreplace surface finishes, the original materials,techniques and textures should be duplicated as far aspossible.8. The aim of restoration is to conserve the historicstructure and its loadbearing function and to reveal itscultural values by improving the legibility of itshistorical integrity, its earlier state and design withinthe limits of existing historic material evidence, asindicated in articles 9 - 13 of the Venice Charter. Removedmembers and other components of the historic structureshould be catalogued, and characteristic samples kept inpermanent storage as part of the documentation.REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT

426


9. In the repair of a historic structure, replacementtimber can be used with due respect to relevant historicaland aesthetical values, and where it is an appropriateresponse to the need to replace decayed or damaged membersor their parts, or to the requirements of restoration.New members or parts of members should be made of the samespecies of wood with the same, or, if appropriate, withbetter, grading as in the members being replaced. Wherepossible, this should also include similar naturalcharacteristics. The moisture content and other physicalcharacteristics of the replacement timber should becompatible with the existing structure.Craftsmanship and construction technology, including theuse of dressing tools or machinery, should, where possible,correspond with those used originally. Nails and othersecondary materials should, where appropriate, duplicatethe originals.If a part of a member is replaced, traditional woodworkjoints should, if appropriate and compatible withstructural requirements, be used to splice the new and theexisting part.10. It should be accepted that new members or parts ofmembers will be distinguishable from the existing ones. Tocopy the natural decay or deformation of the replacedmembers or parts is not desirable. Appropriate traditionalor well-tested modern methods may be used to match thecolouring of the old and the new with due regard that thiswill not harm or degrade the surface of the wooden member.11. New members or parts of members should be discretelymarked, by carving, by marks burnt into the wood or byother methods, so that they can be identified later.HISTORIC FOREST RESERVES12. The establishment and protection of forest or woodlandreserves where appropriate timber can be obtained for thepreservation and repair of historic timber structuresshould be encouraged.Institutions responsible for the preservation andconservation of historic structures and sites should

427


establish or encourage the establishment of stores oftimber appropriate for such work.CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGIES13. Contemporary materials, such as epoxy resins, andtechniques, such as structural steel reinforcement, shouldbe chosen and used with the greatest caution, and only incases where the durability and structural behaviour of thematerials and construction techniques have beensatisfactorily proven over a sufficiently long period oftime. Utilities, such as heating, and fire detection andprevention systems, should be installed with duerecognition of the historic and aesthetic significance ofthe structure or site.14. The use of chemical preservatives should be carefullycontrolled and monitored, and should be used only wherethere is an assured benefit, where public and environmentalsafety will not be affected and where the likelihood ofsuccess over the long term is significant.EDUCATION AND TRAINING15. Regeneration of values related to the culturalsignificance of historic timber structures througheducational programmes is an essential requisite of asustainable preservation and development policy. Theestablishment and further development of trainingprogrammes on the protection, preservation and conservationof historic timber structures are encouraged. Such trainingshould be based on a comprehensive strategy integratedwithin the needs of sustainable production and consumption,and include programmes at the local, national, regional andinternational levels. The programmes should address allrelevant professions and trades involved in such work, and,in particular, architects, conservators, engineers,craftspersons and site managers.

428

Revitalization of Cultural Heritage Assets within the Context of Sustainable Tourism Development: A...

Documents

Transcript of Revitalization of Cultural Heritage Assets within the Context of Sustainable Tourism Development: A...