Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, Istanbul has been subject to planning initiatives and other efforts to transform the city. As these interventions, many of them mandated by law, were carried out, the concept of a new city emerged, beginning during the Ottoman state and continuing into the Republic. The idea of comprehensive city development in Istanbul was first introduced in plans drawn up by Henri Prost before World War II, following a planning competition organized in 1933. In the second half of the nineteenth century, comprehensive planning on a metropolitan scale was institutionalized. Urban development shaped by the Prost plan continued in the work of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and other efforts until the last quarter of the tewentieth century.
Reform movements and urban-redevelopment efforts were directly associated in the Ottoman state. In the scope of administrative reforms that influenced the transformation of the structure of the state management, the legal system, education and, more gradually, the social structure, the administrative system of the cities was reconstructed, new institutions (for example, local authorities), as well as the physical appearance of the city and its spatial development, were also intended to transform the structural system. The Tanzimat era has been described by historians and sociologists as a time of modernization in which the military, administrative, and legislative fields were influenced by Western organizations. During the Tanzimat, urban projects proposed for Istanbul coincided with large-scale urban interventions in leading European cities in the nineteenth century. The travel notes of Ottoman ambassadors who were stationed in European capitals in the eighteenth century reflected their appreciation of these cities. This admiration spread to other distinguished Ottomans and gradually shaped their views about how a city should be. The Tanzimat project to transform the Ottoman capital reflects urban values that had been influenced by recent developments in European capitals.
The First City-Planning Efforts in the 19th Century
The first planning efforts on a neighborhood scale (excluding the geometrically designed complexes of the Classical period) consisted of the Selimiye Barracks and the residential area, constructed on a grid plan by Sultan Selim III. The initial reconstruction efforts in the nineteenth century date back to the period of Sultan Mahmud II. After the abolishment of the janissary corps, known as the Vak’a-i Hayriye, by Mahmud II, who initiated a fundamental military and administrative reorganization, the Old Barracks and New Barracks, which had been a major feature of Istanbul and belonged to the janissary corps, were demolished.1The connection between the northern Golden Horn and the heart of Istanbul gained importance long before this event when Sultan Mehmed II began to reside in Beşiktaş Palace. The Cisr-i Cedid (New Bridge) was constructed over the Golden Horn between Unkapanı and Azapkapı in 1836; as a continuation of this, existing roads were improved to enable the sultan to travel by carriage.
During the reign of Mahmud II, the state administration was reorganized in a way that became a determining factor in subsequent developments. By abolishing the authority of the qadis over the city administration, their field of duties was restricted to jurisdiction; by directly joining the waqfs to the newly established Evkaf Nezareti (Ministry of Foundations), the authority to carry out inspections was centralized. During this period, in which the state administrative system was almost completely restructured, the power of centralized management and supervisory authority increased. By establishing the Ihtisab Nazırlığı, in addition to collecting taxes, the security and maintenance of cities (which were previously under the authority of the qadi) were now at the disposal of this ministry. The Hassa Mimarlar Ocağı (Imperial Architects Guild) was abolished and replaced in 1831 by the Enbiye-i Hassa Müdürlüğü (Directorate of Imperial Buildings) in the Nafia Nezareti (Ministry of Public Works). Each of these changes later constituted a basis for the Tanzimat reforms.
During this period, Captain Helmuth von Moltke (1800–1891), assigned as an advisor to help modernize the Ottoman army, and other members of the Prussian military provided a major service in the mapping of the cities, in particular Istanbul and the surrounding areas they visited.2 In reference to information in Osman Nuri Ergin’s comprehensive work The Code of City Administration Affairs (Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye), urban and architectural historians have maintained that von Moltke’s map of Istanbul was the first plan of the city.3
In this plan, the straight, wide roads spanning from the Hippodrome to Beyazıt, from Aksaray to Silivri, from east to west the gates of the Mevlevîhane on the Historic Peninsula, forming a contrast to the organic texture of the city. This created the idea that the map was a plan illustrating the new roads envisioned for the city. This thesis, which is reflected in the translation of the word Aufnahme as xxxxx (plan) in the Turkish translation of von Moltke’s memoirs, has been examined in recent publications on the modernization of Istanbul, and it has been suggested that this was not a plan, but rather a map study.4
In his memoirs, published at a later date, the Prussian engineer explained in detail the drawing of this map and how long it took. He also mentioned preparing a plan to reorganize the city.5
Before the Tanzimat Edict
The Tanzimat Council, which gathered to determine what reforms were needed in the fields of legislation and administration, published a project dated May 17, 1839, six months before the announcement of the Gülhane Edict.6 In this document, published just one year after the completion of von Moltke’s map, the Sublime Porte described how Istanbul was to be reconstructed. There is a comprehensive urban project, which is conveyed in detail: The main roads to be improved and constructed in the city are listed as expanding the Divanyolu to 15.2 meters from the Sublime Porte to Beyazıt, then from Beyazıt to Edirnekapı and through the Çarşamba Bazaar, continuing to Eğrikapı, Silivrikapı via Aksaray, and Mevlevihanekapısı. Pavements 3.4 meters wide were to be laid on either side of these wide boulevards, and a line of trees was to be planted; a roadway 9 meters wide was to be built in the middle for horse carriages. In addition to these, boulevards that spanned the Historic Peninsula from the east, west, and northwest would be constructed; roads would be opened along the shores of Marmara and Golden Horn, from Bahçekapı to Eyüp, and from Kadırga to Yedikule; and docks were to be constructed from Tophane to Cisr-i Cedid. The reason for this construction appears to have been the increasing number of horse-drawn carriages in Istanbul. It was proposed that the city’s existing roads should be gradually widened, the main roads to 17 meters and other roads to 14, 10, or 9 meters.
Given that the Divanyolu, the main road of old Istanbul, was only 3 meters wide in places, it was necessary to demolish many of the buildings lining it to accomplish the expansion. Realizing that significant funds were required to extend the widths of these roads, the Tanzimat Council proposed that the funding should come from the Evkaf-ı Hümayun (Ministry of Imperial Foundations).7
Additionally, the document stressed the enforcement of the planned construction of new settlements and stated that permission would be refused for the construction of cul-de-sacs. This was the first instance that the reorganization and reconstruction of areas demolished by fire according to a specific plan appeared in a document. It also stipulated that new buildings were to be constructed of stone. Landowners with limited financial resources would be allowed to reconstruct their homes from wood, however, on the condition that they build a fireproof wall between the buildings.8
There are claims that Mustafa Reşid Pasha, the chief architect of the Tanzimat reforms, indirectly influenced the contents of this document. Earlier, he had served as the Ottoman ambassador to Paris and then London; during these appointments, he sent reports to the sultan and the Sublime Porte. In a letter he wrote from England in 1836, where he was ambassador at the time, on hearing about a fire in Istanbul, he recommended that the burned areas in the center of Istanbul, which he described as extremely important, should be reconstructed according to geometrical rules and built according to a plan.9In the letter, he compared the residential architecture of Paris and London and concluded that the single-family homes in London were more suitable for the Ottoman family structure and concept of privacy than the multistory, multifamily apartments in Paris,. He emphasized the need for stone construction to prevent the frequently occurring fires in Istanbul. For this to be implemented in accordance with the new methods, he recommended that engineers and architects who were experienced and capable of drawing plans according to the geometrical regulations should be invited to Turkey from Europe, and in particular from England.
Shortly before Mustafa Reşit Pasha arrived in London, Regent Street, one of London’s busiest streets, was opened as a prestigious route to Regent’s Park, based on a plan by architect John Nash. The continuation of this street was Park Crescent, also planned and designed by Nash, which consisted of terraced houses.10 In a short time, Regent Street with its grand buildings became London’s most popular places for strolls and a focal point for expensive commercial establishments. This plan inspired Mustafa Reşit Pasha, who wanted a plan of this scale to be implemented in Istanbul.
The Tanzimat Period and the Great Fires of the 19th Century
The connection between the Tanzimat movement, which aimed to transform the state administrative structure, legislative system, educational system, and (in a more gradual manner) society, and the comprehensive project of restructuring the city was not a coincidence. The wide avenues, orderly development, geometric urban residential blocks, and street layout that lay behind this plan all reflected the image of a 19th-century European city and were in total contrast to the narrow, winding roads, isolated neighborhoods, and cul-de-sacs of the Ottoman city. In the period that began with the declaration of the Tanzimat, legislative and administrative regulations were implemented that directly influenced both the city’s administration and its spatial structure, as well as regulations and urban development planning that aimed to transform the existing urban spaces within the empire, beginning with Istanbul. In an article on the urban reforms of the Tanzimat, Stefanos Yerasimos maintained that with the Tanzimat reforms, the Ottoman central administration was for the first time successful in enforcing authority over the city. He also emphasized that urban modernization, in other words sound urban governance, which was a sign of transformation in terms of aesthetic perceptions, was also a process in which the state controlled the city by instituting Western organizations and legislation.11
The regulations described in the document, dated 1839, were to be implemented in compliance with the ebniye and turuk (building and street codes), which were to be enforced later. The first code regulating reconstruction in the city was the 1848 Ebniye Nizamnâmesi,12 which was prepared by the Meclis-ı Ebniye (Buildings Commission). The Commission was made up of experienced building contractors and was chaired by the director of imperial buildings.13This code introduced regulations for three categories of roads: main roads, common roads, and other roads.14The reduction of the widths of the main roads that had been specified as 15 meters in the document of 1839 to 7.6 meters in the 1848 regulation highlights the feasibility of this regulation. On the other hand, in this directive the necessity of opening the cul-de-sacs in possible areas is emphasized.
The second code, introduced in 1849, contained many of the clauses that had been set out in the first code; however, it also changed the maximum permissible building heights. On the grounds that the maximum height of stone buildings under the 1848 code, 23 meters, disrupted the proportions with lower buildings, the height of wooden buildings was restricted to 14 meters and that of stone buildings to 16 meters. During this period, there was an increase in the demand to raise the heights of buildings.15In both building codes, development on vacant land in and around the city was subject to permission from the sultan—an indication that there was a demand for development in these spaces. In view of this, the opening of existing green areas for development was one of the major subjects of the regulations.
The first implementation of the 1848 code was the decree published for the establishment of a new neighborhood in Pangaltı, on the northern side of the Golden Horn, in the same year.16 In view of the rapidly increasing population and decline in living conditions in Pera, on the decree of the sultan, the decision was made to open about 27 hectares facing the Mekteb-i Harbiye (Imperial Military Academy) for residential development. The plan for this settlement, prepared by the Meclis-i Vâlâ (Supreme Council), consisted of 10 main roads, each approximately 16 meters wide. Under this plan, the streets would be laid with paving stones so that horse-drawn carriages could pass with ease, pavements on either side of the streets and the water and sewage systems would be laid during the construction of these streets, and all buildings would be constructed of stone. As Zeynep Çelik has pointed out, this project, prepared in accordance with the decree of 1848, was extremely ambitious. Only 12 of the 20 block settlements planned were completed by 1870, and the construction was not implemented in accordance with the original specifications. However, this new neighborhood in Pangaltı formed the basis for urban development that was later to progress toward Şişli. Another area of new development north of the Golden Horn was Teşvikiye. The Teşvikiye Mosque was built in 1854, during the construction of the Dolmabahçe Palace, which was built between 1843 and 1855 on the orders of Sultan Abdülmecid, and the plan for the Teşvikiye mahalle (neighborhood) around the mosque, where palace officials and distinguished people were to live, was drawn up as a grid.
The first significant implementation of the 1848 and 1849 codes materialized after the Aksaray fire in 1856, which destroyed 748 buildings. The Italian engineer Luigi Storari was assigned the task of planning the reconstruction of this area according to the new building codes. Storari, a Republican who was initially living in exile in Egypt, as he was wanted by officials in his own country (which was under occupation at the time), came to Izmir.17The governor assigned Storari the preparation of the cadastral plan for İzmir. In addition, he drew a detailed 1/5,000-scale map, dated 1854–1856, which he dedicated to Sultan Abdulmecid. Immediately after this, he was called to Istanbul to prepare the Aksaray plan. After drawing the map for the area affected by the Aksaray fire, rather than adhering to the organic structure of the old city, Storari prepared a rectangular plan of blocks separated by streets. In the plan, the two main avenues and other streets that joined Aksaray Avenue and Şehzadebaşı Yenikapı intersected at right angles; the former passed from east to west through the central area. These streets were scaled according to their widths, but were planned wider than stipulated in the 1848 code: Aksaray Avenue was 9.5 meters, the other two main roads were 7.6 meters, and the streets were 6 meters wide.18 In an attempt to emphasize the importance of Aksaray Avenue as the continuation of the Divanyolu, blocks were placed at junctions of avenues and streets, angled at 45 degrees, and two of these junctions were designed to be wider than originally planned, forming two main squares. The monumental entrance to the Pertevniyal Valide Sultan Mosque, situated on the northwestern side of the island bordering Aksaray Square, faced onto the square. Forming junctions by angling the roads of the blocks at 45 degrees was a common practice in European city plans in this period. Such a plan had been executed in Milan when it was occupied by the French under Napoleon Bonaparte. In Barcelona, in 1857 (around the same time as the planning of Aksaray), the engineer Ildefonso Cerda began to implement his plan for the reconstruction of octagonal urban blocks, while the Haussmann implementations in Paris were just commencing.
Compared with these two large-scale plans, the Aksaray plan was relatively small. But it was extremely important in terms of displaying the newly envisioned city structure; it was the first such plan implemented in Istanbul. The large-scale urban plans in Barcelona and Paris were also heavily subsidized by industry, while the Aksaray plan in Istanbul was carried out with limited public resources; in view of this, it was confined mainly to areas affected by fire.
When we compare the organic urban pattern areas in the grid plan on the 1875 map of Istanbul by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi19 with those in the Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye (Administrative Affairs City Code), and the list of fires that occurred before 1863,20 we see that other areas affected by fire were also reconstructed according to a grid plan. Following the fires in Fener (1855), Kadıköy (1855), Salmatomruk (1856), Sakızağacı (1857), Unkapanı (1860), Ayvansaray (1861), and Küçükmustafa Paşa (1861), these areas were reconstructed according to a grid plan that was in keeping with the building code.21 Some privately held land was expropriated for road widening and for public spaces such as schools and mosques; however, a great number of difficulties occurred when implementing these plans. The first regulation aimed at expropriation for this purpose was enforced by a code introduced in 1855. This enabled the sultan to purchase the land at the normal market price on the condition that the land was considered beneficial to the public.
When the 1848–1849 regulations were found to be insufficient, the Sokaklara Dair Nizamnâme (Regulations on Streets) and Ebniye codes were combined, and in 1863 a new legislation system was enforced with the Turuk ve Ebniye Nizamnâmesi. Unlike previous versions, the 1863 code was not confined to Istanbul but applied to all the cities in the Ottoman territory. By requiring course plans to be prepared for new areas that were to be opened for development and settlement, a gradual transformation of the city was targeted; existing buildings were to be demolished and rebuilt, roads widened, and a line of construction formed. One of the most important elements in the 1863 regulations was the preparation of plans for new areas to be opened for development; these were submitted to the Ministry of Trade. The Ministry assessed the plan in terms of menafi-i umumiye (public benefit), and then submitted them to the Sublime Porte. The final stage was the submission of the plan for the sultan’s approval. With the decree of the sultan the land could be expropriated by the state and waqfs were opened for development; the property was owned by the contractor and rent was to be paid to the landowner.22 The drafting of a plan to reconstruct an area that had been destroyed by fire permitted, among other things, a detailed determination of the necessary planning procedure and calculations of how much land was to be taken from property owners and how much land was to be set aside for schools during the widening of roads.
A short time after the 1863 Turuk ve Ebniye Nizamnâmesi were introduced, a fire that began in 1865 in Hocapaşa destroyed an extensive area, stretching from Sirkeci to Kumkapı. Thus, a vast space at the center of the Historic Peninsula became available for the implementation of these regulations. When the building code that had been in force for over 20 years proved insufficient for Istanbul, another version of the building code was introduced in 1875 for buildings that were to be constructed in Istanbul and the Bilad-i Selase (Galata, Eyüp, and Üsküdar).23This code established different developmental conditions for different parts of Istanbul. The Ebniye Kanunu, introduced in 1882, was to be implemented in all cities in the empire.
Like the Dersaadet Belediye Nizamnâmesi (Istanbul Municipal Code), the Turuk ve Ebniye code covered expropriation to facilitate urban development. The Menafi-i Umumiye İçin İstimlâk Kararnâmesi (Legislation of Expropriation for the Public Benefit), enacted in 1873, introduced more extensive regulations.24 For the state to be able to expropriate private land, the land had to be menafi-i umumiye (beneficial to the public); this was extremely important in terms of establishing a constitutional state. In addition, the fact that the Ministry of Trade had to determine whether the land was beneficial to the public strengthened the central government’s authority over the city.
It was not possible to fully implement the urban projects set out by the Tanzimat Committee or those that were introduced later. Instead, it was intended that the city be transformed gradually. By implementing these regulations, the areas of Istanbul that were destroyed by fire were reconstructed according to a grid plan. However, instead of being an integrated plan, this created a city pattern in which separate grid plans emerged side by side only by coincidence.
Efforts by the Sixth District Council in the Districts of Galata and Beyoğlu
The Crimean War (1853–1856), undertaken against Russia by the Ottoman state in alliance with the French and British, and the Islahat Ferman (Reform Edict) declared immediately afterward, were turning points in the administration and reconstruction of Istanbul. In addition to the infrastructure of the city, problems in administration also began to surface with the arrival of significant numbers of English and French soldiers. During this period, the first modern Şehremati (City Council) was formed in 1855. This council consisted of the mayor, appointed by the sultan, and 12 other members. Responsible for duties such as collecting taxes and building, repairing, and maintaining roads, it was unable to work effectively due to a lack of funding, technical knowledge, and experience. In 1856, the İntizam-ı Şehir (City Planning Council) was set up as an advisory board for the Council. In addition to Ottoman citizens, board members included influential European businessmen and bankers.25 As the commission was unable to make the desired improvements, with the exception of paving the streets with cobblestones and installing street lightingon the Cadde-i Kebir (now Istiklal Avenue), the commission proposed to the Ministry of Trade that a program aimed at establishing a council body be established.26
During the reconstruction process that began with the Islahat Ferman, the Ottoman state approved a Western-style council organization in Istanbul. In 1858, Istanbul was divided into councils. The Sixth District Council included Galata, Beyoğlu, and Kasımpaşa. The first council was established in the areas of Galata and Beyoğlu, where businesses, European traders, and bankers had a significant presence that was gradually increasing as a result of the development of economic relations with the West. This was significant in two ways: the initial demand came from these sectors, and the necessary financial resources for the council services, urban development, and infrastructure were to be provided by taxes collected from these areas. The Sixth District Office was led by an administrator and a council of seven members. The banker Avram Camondo and the Frenchman Antoine Alleon, who were members of the Intizam-ı Şehir Komisyonu (Commission for Urban Order), were also members of this council. Kamil Bey, who served in the Hariciye Vekaleti (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), was appointed as chief of the Sixth District Council.27A department was formed within this council, which consisted of mainly European architects, engineers, and cartographers whose task was to prepare cadastral maps and urban layout projects for the area. This team prepared the first cadastral plans for Beyoğlu.28
The Sixth District Council executed a range of urban reorganization projects in Galata and Beyoğlu. The first significant effort carried out by the council was the 1858 plan for a square in Karaköy to relieve the heavy carriage and pedestrian traffic. In 1862, a plan was established to open a wide avenue (the present Cumhuriyet Avenue) to connect Pangaltı and Taksim, and the construction of this three-lane, tree-lined avenue was completed in 1869. During construction in 1864, some of the Christian graveyards around Taksim were moved to Şişli on the grounds that they were a health threat. The Taksim Gardens, designed in the Beaux Arts style, replaced these graveyards and opened in 1869 as the first council park in Istanbul. It was not only a location where people could relax but soon also became a popular entertainment location with concerts and cafes. Later, the Tepebaşı Gardens park was constructed in a similar form.29
The most significant of the urban reorganization plans implemented by the Sixth District Council was the demolition of the Galata Walls and their replacement by new roads. The 1863 imperial decree to this effect gave the following reasons: to relieve traffic in the area, which was experiencing substantial population growth; to allow the construction of new buildings; and to connect the areas of Galata and Beyoğlu, which had been separated by the walls.30
With the demolition of the medieval walls surrounding the city of Vienna in 1857, the Ringstrasse, a wide boulevard surrounding the city, created an example that would influence other European cities in the second half of the 19th century. The demolition of the Galata Walls in Istanbul followed this precedent. The demolition of the walls, which had been constructed by the Genoese in the 14th century (not including the Galata Tower), was completed in two years. Büyük Hendek Street, Galata Yenikapı Avenue, and Şişhane Street were opened along the route where the walls originally stood; Yorgancılar Avenue between Karaköy and Azapkapı and Galata Avenue from Karaköy to Tophane were also restructured and widened. One of the last major projects carried out by the Sixth District Office was the construction of the Sixth Office Municipal Palace and Şişhane Square in front of the palace in 1868.
The Hocapaşa Fire, the Road Improvement Commission, and Reconstruction of the City Center
A fire that broke out in Hocapaşa in September 1864, known as the harîk-i kebir (great fire), caused destruction throughout the historic city center, from Sirkeci on the shore of the Golden Horn to Kadirga on the Marmara shore, and from Hagia Sophia in the east to Nuruosmaniye Mosque in the west. The fire was seen as an opportunity to restore and reconstruct the central area in accordance with urban-planning regulations. The Islahat-ı Turuk Komisyonu (Commission for Road Improvement) was formed within the Ministry of Public Works to oversee this task. Initially, engineers and other construction officials prepared maps and plans of the areas affected by the fire in accordance with the 1863 building code, including the roads.
While the width of the Divanyolu, the main road of the historic center, was expanded to 19 meters, it was proposed that other streets should be widened to 15.2 meters. Aziziye Avenue, connecting Sirkeci with the Sublime Porte, Mahmudiye Avenue, connecting the Sublime Porte to the Divanyolu, and Kumkapı Road, leading from Nuruosmaniye Avenue and Divanyolu to Kadırga, were opened as a part of this plan, thus forming the city’s main road system. Widths of 11.5, 9, and 7.6 meters were planned for other streets, depending on location; cul-de-sacs were to measure 6 meters.31These plans took into account the historic structures located in this part of the city, such as mosques and tombs, demonstrating the sensitivity and precision with which they were regarded. Residential and other buildings that surrounded these monumental structures were demolished, however; the concept of a general tidying-up to expose the monuments prevailed. This approach was similar to the concept of preserving monuments by expanding the surrounding open areas that was implemented by Baron Haussmann in Paris.
During the process of widening the Divanyolu, it was, however, also necessary to relocate some historic monuments, like the Köprülü Mehmed Pasha Külliye, and to cut away part of structures, as was the case with the Çemberlitaş Hamam. Although the demolition of the complex associated with Atik Ali Paşa Mosque and the relocation of graveyards was opposed by Istanbul residents, these plans were implemented with determination, and the Divanyolu, “like the roads in European cities,” was transformed into a boulevard with sidewalks and lined with trees on either side.32 The Çemberlitaş/Constantine Column, which had previously been hidden among residential buildings, was also exposed and its surroundings were renovated during this process.
While reorganization was carried out in Istanbul, during the 1867 World Exhibition, Sultan Abdulaziz traveled to Paris (at the invitation of Napoleon III), London (at the invitation of Queen Victoria), and Vienna.33 His observations during his travels increased his determination to modernize the empire, and he became committed to transforming Istanbul into a contemporary European capital. Baron Eugene Haussmann, who planned and implemented large-scale urban operations with Napoleon III in Paris between 1852 and 1870, came to Istanbul and made suggestions regarding the reorganization of the city. Haussmann initially met with the sultan in Paris. Later, upon being invited to Cairo by the Egyptian khedive Ismail Pasha, he visited Istanbul, where he was consulted regarding the works being carried out in the city.34 In addition working on the reorganization of Hagia Sofia Square, he also made suggestions to Ottoman officials, in particular regarding the urban restructuring and its financing, including the advice to take out bank loans.35Although the design of the urban organization in Paris, referred to as the Haussmann operation, was Napoleon’s idea, Baron Haussmann was responsible for its organization and greatly contributed to its financial success.
The Islahat-ı Turuk Commission successfully carried out the reorganization and reconstruction of areas that were affected by fire. The planned streets and roads were opened, paved as in European cities, the streets were paved with cobblestone, and sewage canals were laid along the roads. Forming workshops to produce inexpensive construction materials, and taking measures to transport building materials during the construction of roads, contributed to the success. The Commission, which served not only the areas affected by fire but other parts of the city as well, remained active until 1869. Following a fire that broke out in the Armenian district of Samatya in 1866, it oversaw reorganization of the area according to a checkerboard plan.36 When the Dersaadet Şehremaneti Nizamnâmesi came into force in 1868, it was moved from the Ministry of Public Works to the şehremaneti, and Server Efendi, its chief, was appointed as mayor. He had previously headed the Sixth District Office, and implemented the demolition of the Galata Walls and their replacement with new roads in Beyoğlu. He is said to have reduced costs by using stones from the Galata Walls in the construction of roads in Beyoğlu and on the Historic Peninsula.37
In 1871, a section of the historic wall was demolished to relieve traffic around the Sirkeci Port and to open the way for the railroad. The railroad, which passed through the grounds of Topkapı Palace and Sarayburnu to connect to Sirkeci, was one of the major urban operations resulting from Sultan Abdulaziz’s decree.
Reconstruction Plans after the Great Beyoğlu Fire
Another fire that broke out in Beyoğlu near Taksim in June 1870 destroyed more than 3,000 buildings in Taksim, Tarlabaşı, Cadde-i Kebir, and Galatasaray. Following this disaster, which was also known as the harik-i kebir (great fire), the Ottoman state formed a commission of engineers and architects to reconstruct the area. The commission developed a “new city” plan of wide boulevards and squares, proposing new buildings such as theaters and hotels; however, the plan was reviewed when the state found costs to be extremely high. The new plan called for fewer squares and monumental structures. Tarlabaşı Boulevard, stretching from Talimhane in Taksim, passed in front of the Ingiliz Saray (English Palace) in the west; this formed the main basis for the reorganization of the area and was planned to be wider than Istiklal Avenue (Cadde-i Kebir). To the north of Tarlabaşı Boulevard, the square structure blocks and four crossroads formed the center of a square. In comparison with the previous plan, like Divanyolu, Tarlabaşı Boulevard was reduced from 30 to 20 meters wide, roads from 20 to 11.5 meters, and streets from 12.5 to 9 meters in an attempt to reduce costs. However, this reorganization, which proposed to almost double the total space of roads and streets, caused a strong reaction among property owners, and the project was abandoned. Re-planning following the fire was limited to three streets, and some of the roads were merely widened.38
Urban renewal, beginning under Sultan Abdülmecit, reached substantial dimensions under Azdülaziz. However, since the 1870s, work to reorganize and open new roads was confined to areas surrounding Dolmabahçe and the other palaces. When the Ottoman state was unable to repay its debts, the urban renewal projects, financed mainly with public funds, were significantly reduced.
Great Urban Projects of the Century
During the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II, attempts to reshape and restructure the city once again appeared. In addition to the end of the Ottoman-Russian War (War of ’93), the transfer of the Ottoman debt management from the Düyun-ı Umumiye (public debt administration) to the control of the European states, the high cost of transportation, and the beginning of credit flow into urban renewal projects helped usher in a period of stability.
Sultan Abdülhamid II ordered Salih Münir Bey, the Turkish ambassador to Paris, to invite experts from France to improve, and if necessary reconstruct, Istanbul.39Salih Münir consulted Joseph Antoine Bouvard, head architect of the Paris municipal government and designer of the elaborate buildings that were found at the 1878 Universal Exhibition. Bouvard, who was invited in 1901 to develop a plan for Istanbul, was unable to leave Paris because of his responsibilities, but agreed to work on a plan for the city. Although he emphasized that a city plan could not be created before maps had been drawn up, he was able to use large photographs of the relevant areas to prepare recommendations for Beyazit Square and the Eminönü and Karaköy districts. These proposals, prepared by an architect who had not visited Istanbul, reflect the Beaux Arts style of formalist urban design, which does not take the topography or the existing texture of the city into consideration but is built around the large mosques of the city.40 Bouvard’s proposals resembled 18th-century monumental architecture and urban designs from European empires. They were no different than the elegant urban designs implemented in Paris, Vienna, or Berlin during this period. They remained impressionistic images and were never implemented.
During the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II, in parallel with the technological developments of the period, priority was given to investment in transportation and communication infrastructure. The most substantial infrastructure investments were made in railroads and ports; their construction had both a direct and indirect influence on urban locations. The Ottoman state financed these projects by granting long-term management to foreign companies and guaranteeing to cover any losses or damage. The Ottoman railroad, the construction of which began during the reign of Abdülaziz, connected Istanbul with Rumelia and Europe. The Sirkeci railway station, designed in an Oriental style by the German architect August Jachmund, was completed in 1890. The building of the Baghdad Railroad began in 1903 after the Anatolian Railroad had been completed by a French company in the 1890s. Between 1906 and 1908, Haydarpaşa Station, the starting point for this route, was constructed. During this process, a project was proposed using the advanced technology of the period: the connection of the Rumelian and Anatolian railroads with a bridge over the Bosphorus. The French engineer Ferdinand Joseph Arnodin presented a proposal for a railroad ring that would encircle Istanbul, passing over the Bosphorus on two wide suspension bridges, one between Rumeli Hisar and Anadolu Hisar and the other between Sarayburnu and Üsküdar. However, this ambitious project never materialized.41 While the bridge project between Sarayburnu and Üsküdar conveyed a certain engineering aesthetic, the orientalist architecture in the form of a mosque on the bridge between the two fortresses in the north was probably an effort to make the project appear more attractive to the Ottoman government.
The Second Meşrutiyet Period
The developments that emerged in the second half of the 19th century all helped determine the spatial development of Istanbul; these included the construction of new modes of transportation, the horse-drawn tramway route and the Tunnel, a new city ferry line, the railway, port facilities, and docks. With the establishment of the Silahtarağa power plant in 1914, the trams were electrified; the opening of many new routes made it possible to travel long distances in a shorter time.42When the suburban trains and city ships began operating in the last quarter of the century, suburban settlements such as Yeşilköy and Bakırköy developed. It became possible to travel between the city center and the Bosphorus villages on a daily basis, as well as to the Anatolian shore and the Princes’ Islands. As a result, the city expanded on a vast scale. When the electric tramway came into operation, districts in the city that had been distant from one another were linked, and the areas along this route were open for urban development.
Following the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet in 1908, the preparation of a plan for Istanbul as a whole emerged. In 1908, during the reign of Abdülhamid II, Antoine Bouvard, who had been given the task of planning projects for Beyazıt Square and the districts of Eminönü and Karaköy, was consulted again. When Bouvard insisted that city maps were necessary to draw up a plan for the city, a commission was formed in 1909 and began preparing them.
During this period, in which the İttihat ve Terakki Fırkası (Committee of Union and Progress) was in power, one of the most significant initiatives in reconstruction was conducted by Cemil (Topuzlu) Pasha, who had been appointed mayor in 1912. Cemil Pasha, a renowned medical practitioner and surgeon, was influential in settling the disputes that occasionally emerged and executed significant renovations in the city. He appointed Andre Auric, chief engineer of the city of Lyon, director of the Istanbul Şehremaneti Fen Heyeti (Technical Department).43 With credit obtained by his personal efforts and with the support of the government, Auric was able to open new streets, plan and carry out infrastructure projects, and develop and build parks.
In the French engineer’s project for Istanbul, he suggested wide boulevards within the Historic Peninsula and the construction of coastal roads from Sarayburnu to Yedikeule and Eyüp around the Historic Peninsula. Auric’s proposal included boulevards that passed over the hills and through the valleys while maintaining the topography of the historic city; he also proposed the reorganization of Beyazıt and Aksaray Squares, in particular emphasizing the planning of Aksaray as an important center point with radial roads from the square to the gateways in the city walls. His transportation plan proposed two main routes across Unkapanı Bridge and Galata Bridge to connect old Istanbul with Beyoğlu and Galata, thus developing both shores of the Golden Horn independently.
The new road Auric planned from Unkapanı to Yenikapı crossed the historic city from north to south, and connected Taksim via the north of the Golden Horn, parallel to Istiklal Avenue. Another road planned in parallel with this, which would be constructed by covering Kasımpaşa Stream, was proposed to connect Kasımpaşa with Feriköy and Kurtuluş. In addition to this transportation system, Auric also proposed a canal system.44
Between 1912 and 1914, Auric began to implement his projects; some of the areas affected by fire were reconstructed according to his plans and the construction of the canal system began. Despite the economic hardships incurred by the Balkan Wars, new roads were constructed and existing roads were widened with credit obtained from the French Bank. Among the projects Cemil Pasha realized during his term as mayor, parks are of particular significance. For the first time in almost 50 years—that is, since the Taksim and Tepebaşı Gardens were opened in Beyoğlu at the end of the 1860s—public parks were being developed in the Historic Peninsula and Üsküdar. The importance and priority Cemil Pasha gave parks was probably due to the fact that he received some of his education in Paris and, as a doctor, understood the importance of environmental health. During this period, Gülhane Park was constructed and opened to the public, and Saraçhane Park in Fatih and Doğancılar Park in Üsküdar were developed.
The neighborhood of wooden houses between Hagia Sophia and Sultan Ahmet was demolished and replaced by a park created in the style of a square, an open space with greenery in the middle, resembling open spaces in London and Paris. It is clear that Cemil Pasha intended to develop this space similarly to Concorde Square in Paris as “an asphalted square with a grand monument in the center.”45This project, in which the Turkish baths, constructed by Koca Sinan, were to be demolished for development, was halted by objections from the Asar-ı Atika Cemiyeti (Association of Ancient Monuments).
After the Declaration of the Republic
Istanbul remained under the occupation of the allied forces for almost three years following the defeat of the Ottoman state in World War I. The Grand National Assembly in Ankara formally abolished the Ottoman sultanate on November 1, 1922, and the occupying forces withdrew a year later (on October 4, 1923). When Ankara was named as the capital on November 13, 1923, and the Republic was declared on November 23, 1923, Istanbul lost its status as the capital of Turkey.
In the years after the Ottoman state was abolished and the Turkish Republic was established, Istanbul underwent an economic depression. The city experienced a rapid decline in population, primarily due to the departure of many foreign residents; many Greek residents were forced to abandon the city due to the population exchange, and some residents moved to the new capital, Ankara. The population of Istanbul, estimated at 1,200,000 in 1914, fell to 691,000 in the 1927 census—reduced by almost half.46
Nevertheless, in this period the mayors of Istanbul developed urban renewal plans that focused on city transport and the redevelopment of areas that had been affected by fire. Between 1923 and 1924, during the administration of Haydar Bey, the first Republican mayor of Istanbul, Beyazıt Square was redeveloped by the architect Asım Kömürcüoğlu; this included the reorganization of traffic and an oval pool in the center of the square. The period after Cemil Pasha, in which another surgeon, Emin (Erkul) Bey, served as mayor from 1924 to 1928, was an important era not only for the many major urban-renewal undertakings but also in terms of publications in the field of urban development and municipal services. A commission was formed within the council with Cemil Pasha as a member, which managed the developmental operations in Istanbul. Districts destroyed in the Cibali-Fatih fire in 1918 were redeveloped according to a grid plan. In this scope, the Fevzi Paşa Road, which stretched from Fatih to Edirnekapı, was opened in 1928 as a 30 meter wide road with tram tracks. During its construction, the Tetimme madrassa in the south of the Fatih Complex was demolished. The road, which had been one of the main routes of the city since the Byzantine Empire, and which was used by the Ottoman sultans during the Girding of the Sword ceremony, remains a significant part of the city’s structure. Since the end of the 19th century, there have been population movements from the Historic Peninsula toward new settlement areas in the south and on the Anatolian side of the city. In Istanbul, with its declining population following the declaration of the Republic, the old city, which had been transformed into wasteland by the great fires, was abandoned, particularly by the upper classes; in their proportion of the city population as a whole, these areas experienced a substantial decline. According to Ilhan Tekeli, this wide road, constructed through the center of areas affected by fires, was to prevent the area from becoming overcrowded with unsound structures built by lower-income people, and to make the area more attractive for new property investments.47
The Urban Development Competition of 1933
Despite all these undertakings by the Istanbul municipal government, Istanbul continued to experience economic depression during the first 10 years of the Republic. Many writers have argued that all financial resources were allocated to the development of Ankara and that the old capital, Istanbul, was seriously neglected during this period. Nevertheless, after an international urban-development competition was held for Ankara in 1928 and winner Hermann Jansen’s plan for the city was approved in 1932, a similar competition was held for Istanbul in February 1933. The process used in Ankara by the Republican administration was adopted in Istanbul, and along similar lines a letter of invitation was sent by the Istanbul municipal government to three urban development experts from Europe. In a letter signed by Mühittin Üstündağ, chairman of the municipal government, experts were asked to prepare a report conveying their views on “the shape of Istanbul in the future” and to develop proposals.
Based on preliminary research conducted by the Turkish embassies, Donate Alfred Agache and Henri Prost from France and Hermann Ehlgötz from Germany were the three candidates invited to submit proposals for a new city plan for Istanbul. Agache had won second place in a similar competition for Canberra, the capital of Australia, and had prepared development plans for Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro. After preparing and implementing plans for the Moroccan cities that were under French rule, Henri Prost presented his first regional plan for the French Côte d’Azûr’s Varoise region; as chief urban planner since 1932, Prost had prepared the development plans for the Paris metropolitan districts. The German urban developer Hermann Ehgötz had developed plans for the industrial city of Essen. When Prost was forced to decline the invitation due to his work on the master plans for Paris, he was replaced by the French developer Jacques Henri Lambert. In the autumn of the same year, after visiting and surveying the city, Agache, Lambert, and Ehlgötz submitted reports and proposals.48 Each of the three urban developers made suggestions for the location of Istanbul’s port, industrial zone, and commercial district and regarding the settlement areas, green spaces, and connections between the Historic Peninsula and the Beyoğlu district. The location chosen for the port particularly influenced the choice of the jury for the competition, which was to be selected by the municipal government. While Agache proposed developing the Istanbul port on the southern shore of the Golden Horn, where it had originally been located, Lambert suggested building it on the Marmara shore between Kumkapı and Bakırköy.49 After discussing three possible locations for the port—Sirkeci, Yenikapı, and Haydarpaşa—Ehlgötz argued that Haydarpaşa was the most suitable location for the port because of its link with the Anatolian railroad.
The views of the three contestants, particularly regarding the historic areas, were very different. The wide boulevards and squares Agache and Lambert planned within the original pattern of the city, and the viaducts and main roads extending through the historic districts, were perceived by jury members as unrealistic and difficult to implement. The jury found Ehlgötz’s plan, which conserved and proposed widening the existing roads within the historic city center, more economical and feasible. Ehlgötz proposed maintaining a distance between the historic monumental structures and the main routes of transportation, connecting these with excursion routes, and maintaining the existing parks and developing new ones while forming a system of urban green spaces that included the cemeteries. He emphasized the difference between Istanbul and Western cities and the importance of “combining the old culture with modern requirements and the heritage of civilization,” in order to conserve the distinct character that had been generated over the centuries.50
The jury selected Ehlgötz’s proposal, but for reasons that are not clear, it was never implemented. In the years that followed, the Istanbul municipal government continued to seek an expert to develop a city plan. During the Weimar Republic, Martin Wagner, who directed Berlin’s urban planning department, was consulted, and he prepared a report on the regional and economic dimensions of urbanization in Istanbul.51
The Henri Prost Period (1936–1951)
Toward the end of 1933, Henri Prost was invited by Suad Davas, the Turkish ambassador to Paris, to plan a thermal site in Yalova. To this end, in the summer of 1933, the French developer visited Turkey; a short time later he received an official proposal letter from Muhittin Üstündağ, governor and mayor of the city, asking him to work as a consultant on Istanbul city planning. A two-year contract was signed by Prost and the Istanbul municipal government in 1936 for the preparation of a master plan and program. In order to achieve this, it was proposed that an urban development department be set up within the Istanbul municipal government to prepare plans under Prost’s supervision.52
Prost had first come to Istanbul as a part of the Paris School of Fine Arts Prix de Rome program in 1905 and 1906; he worked as a young architect on the restoration of Hagia Sophia. In 1911, he was consulted regarding the structural restoration of the Ministry of Foundations;53during the same period, Mayor Cemil Pasha made a proposal regarding the planning of the city. Prost was consulted regarding the development of İzmir, which had been destroyed by fire in 1922 at the end of the War of Independence; he worked as a consultant on the İzmir plan that was prepared by Rene and Raymond Danger.54
The fact that Prost was the chief developer of the Paris plans played a major role in his selection for the planning of Istanbul. While a professor of urban development who had produced a development plan for Berlin prepared the plans for Ankara, the Istanbul municipal government opted for the chief urban developer of Paris. Although no written document has been found, Prost’s invitation to prepare the settlement plans for Yalova and Florya, where the presidential mansions were located, supports the claim that Atatürk considered this choice appropriate.55
Prost completed the master plan for the European side of Istanbul in October 1937; however, its approval by the national Ministry of Public Works was delayed for two years. It is clear that the death of Atatürk and the resignation of Muhittin Üstündağ as governor and mayor added to this delay. With the approval of Lütfü Kırdar, who succeeded Üstündağ, and the support of President Ismet Inönü, the master plan was approved in June 1939. The bond of mutual trust between Kırdar and Prost paved the way for a long-term relationship between the two. Prost’s contract was renewed for two three-year terms, and he remained in Istanbul from 1941 to 1947.56Following the completion of the master plan for the European side in 1937, the master plan for the Asian side was prepared in 1939. Between 1939 and 1948, Prost worked on settlement plans for both sides of the Bosphorus. In collaboration with the team from the municipal planning department, Prost developed 1/2,000-scale sector plans and urban planning projects. Despite the economic hardships of the World War II years, large-scale urban projects such as the opening of Atatürk Boulevard, Eminönü Square, and Taksim Gezi Park were carried out. The 10-year plan for 1943–1953 was intended to be a regional plan—that is, a combination of the plans prepared until then and the implementation of the master plans.57
The master plan for the European side, dated 1937, was divided into two 1/5,000-scale plans covering old Istanbul and the Pera district. The descriptive report of the master plan was programmatic; the projects were listed in priority order and formed the strategic points of the master plan. Prost’s master plan for Istanbul was based on three fundamental issues, which he considered inseparable: la circulation (reorganizing the city’s transportation network in keeping with traffic requirements), l’hygiène (restructuring the city and its suburbs in a manner that protected human health), and l’esthétique (taking the city’s aesthetics into consideration).58
Although the population increase in Istanbul was below the urban population increase in the 1930s, the city was expanding toward the north on the European side and toward the east along the shore on the Asian side. While the central trade areas of the city continued to develop around Eminönü and Karaköy, the distance between residential areas caused major transportation problems.59As the city continued to expand out into the suburbs, the Historic Peninsula, where large spaces had been destroyed by fire, became unpopular and was gradually abandoned. In view of this, Prost came to the conclusion that rather than a “plan d’extension,” the master plan of Istanbul should be established on a “plan de concentration.” With this objective, he aimed to reorganize urban areas that had developed separately around a common “spine.”60The new city center in the master plan was formed around the historic center of the city and Taksim; these were to be connected by two main north–south arteries. As a result, the divided urban areas on both sides of the Golden Horn would be integrated.
Prost planned for these two arteries to pass through the existing city as auto routes that would cross the hills and valleys through “artifactual structures” (tunnels and viaducts) to the north of the Golden Horn. He said that the system he proposed for Istanbul would provide uninterrupted transportation from one end of the city to the other and would be more modern than the system he had proposed for the Paris metropolitan area, which had a population of seven million.61 He also predicted that automobiles, which would provide personal independence, would be the prime means of transportation in the future.62 The first of these two major arteries formed the spine that was to extend from Taksim to Tepebaşı, continuing on to Azapkapı, passing over the Golden Horn via the Atatürk (Unkapanı) Bridge. The continuation of this route crossed the Historic Peninsula from north to south through Atatürk Boulevard and ended in Yenikapı. The other route between the two centers followed the No. 3 Auto Route to Karaköy via a tunnel or viaduct, then passed over the Galata Bridge to Eminönü. One of the two roads proposed to provide transportation to the central business district would extend to the Sublime Porte via Sirkeci, and the other would connect to the Grand Bazaar via the Hanlar District.
In addition to these two main routes, Prost proposed another route further north, parallel to the first route, which would lead from Kasımpaşa to Kurtuluş. In addition to the proposal of these three roads in the master plan for Beyoğlu, three coastal roads were proposed running parallel to the Bosphorus coast. These roads were probably intended to promote urban development toward the north. The first of these, which the developer called the lower coastal road, followed the Bosphorus coast. The upper coastal road ran along the route of Cumhuriyet Boulevard, extending from Taksim to Harbiye, and then to Büyükdere Avenue, continuing to Mecidiyeköy. The third road, between these two, was to pass along the upper elevation of the residential areas on the Bosphorus shore and to provide access to park sites that were to be developed in the Bosphorus woods.63
In the 1937 master plan, Prost proposed relocating Sirkeci, the main railroad station entering the city from the European direction, to Yenikapı. Atatürk Boulevard ended in front of the site of the planned international railway station. In this plan, a port was located in Yenikapı so the railroad cars on the European side could be transported to Haydarpaşa by ferry. The Sirkeci Railway Station was to be allocated to the suburban trains, and the railroad was to continue underground from Yenikapı. Therefore, he proposed building a boulevard from Sarayburnu to Yenikapı along the coast, which he said had “one of the most beautiful views in the world.”64 In an attempt to solve the transport issue “rationally,” Prost conducted surveys on the street network in the Historic Peninsula, and he, too, proposed the opening of new roads and the widening of existing roads. In the master plan, Ordu Avenue, a continuation of the Divanyolu, was widened, and the main artery that led to Aksaray was to fork into three roads in front of the Murat Pasha Complex. Of these three roads, the middle one was to be the connection to Istanbul’s international highway, and was classified as the entrance road to the Istanbul-Edirne-London route. In the master plan report dated 1937, Prost referred to this road using the name of the existing road, Millet Boulevard, and the road to the north which extended through the No. 1 Park, Vatan Boulevard.65
In addition to transport, Prost was concerned about environmental health. He found the concentration of structures in Galata and the historic neighborhoods of Beyoğlu high, and emphasized the importance of making these areas healthier by restructuring the narrow streets and yards, which received no sunlight. In the sector plan he developed together with his team for this area, it was suggested that the urban fabric should gradually be entirely renewed. The sector plan also contained the signature of Aron Angel, the architect and urban planner from Istanbul who helped Prost prepare the plan. Prost also made detailed studies aimed at redeveloping the north of Tarlabaşı to promote human health and hygiene. In these studies, which propose structural islands dispersed in urban green spaces, obtained by combining construction parcels, the influence of modernist urban development concepts are clear. In Prost’s master plan, apart from the transformation suggested in these districts, the areas of new development were quite limited. In the plan for the European side, there were no new development areas, apart from a strip between Elmadağ and Maçka, planned around Park No. 2, and the second residential area, similarly planned around a green recreation area in the upper Ihlamur Valley.66
Parks and other leisure spaces occupied a significant position in Prost’s master plan in terms of environmental health, and as public spaces for the use of city residents. On the Historic Peninsula, Park No. 1 was to be developed along the Bayrampaşa Creek, while the Archaeology Park extended from Sarayburnu to Little Hagia Sophia (Küçük Ayasofya) Mosque; on the Beyoğlu side, large green areas such as Taksim Gezi Park and Park No. 2, which was planned in the valley between Harbiye and Maçka in conjunction with the transportation plan, were the main factors in Prost’s master plan. In each of the three park spaces, there were plans for recreational and cultural sites. Park No. 1, which extended along Bayrampaşa Creek from Aksaray to Yenibahçe, was planned to be an educational culture park.
Prost suggested restoring the Fenari İsa Mosque and Sultan Selim Madrasa, which were in the park, and transforming these into a museum and exhibition center. On the continuation of this park outside the city walls, he proposed a stadium and other sports facilities, and suggested that the area should be planned as a future Olympic Games site. In addition to the sports and exhibition hall, and sports facilities such as the Dolmabahçe Stadium, in Park No. 2, the Amphitheater was constructed as a cultural structure in the area extending from Harbiye to Maçka. In addition to these two large proposed park areas, a section of the Bosphorus Woods was purchased during this period by the Council and transformed into public parks as part of the system of large green areas in Istanbul. In addition to these large parks, many small neighborhood parks and playgrounds were planned, and a number of these were implemented.67
Prost classified the Historic Peninsula as the most important area for Istanbul’s transformation. His prediction that the central functions of the city would develop around the historic center led him to the conclusion that this area should be transformed into a modern city center. While the centralization of business and trade intensified east of Atatürk Boulevard, the residential areas were to be reorganized on the west side. In fact, the whole urban development area proposed by Prost was entitled Old Istanbul. In addition to the expropriations made during the construction of Atatürk Boulevard, the parcels were divided according to a new plan for land consolidation. Prost proposed transforming the existing urban fabric along the Marmara shore above the coastal boulevard into a new settlement area consisting of luxury residential blocks; new settlement areas would be developed for the lower-income groups who were to evacuate the area. The area allocated for an inexpensive residential district, which extended along the land walls from Silivrikapı to Yedikule, was intended both for this purpose and to provide laborers with a new port and a large industrial estate that Prost had envisioned west of the walls.68
At a conference held in 1947 at the Architecture Academy in Paris, Prost compared the planning of Istanbul to a “delicate surgical operation” and emphasized the importance of preserving the “unparalleled silhouette” of the historic city, while arguing that “the construction of large transportation roads was an economic and societal necessity.”69 The height restriction of 40 meters he imposed on the Historic Peninsula helped preserve the historic silhouette of Istanbul.
Prost and his team conducted research to list structures from the Ottoman and Byzantine periods. The routes of the new roads proposed in the historic city sector plan were developed in a manner that would preserve these structures, and open green spaces were created around the structures. Prost’s reports indicated that many of the structures from the Ottoman period were in ruins and no longer functional; he suggested that these structures should be given new roles and be preserved as picturesque elements in the newly proposed parks together with monumental trees. This approach to preservation severed the monumental structures from their historical context.70
Among the reorganizations Prost planned for the Historic Peninsula, the development of Eminönü Square is interesting in terms of his reference to a surgical operation. This reorganization was implemented during Lütfi Kırdar’s term as mayor: the monumental structures of the Yeni Mosque and Grand Bazaar were brought into prominence by extending the open space in front of them.71 In addition to easing traffic congestion, the aesthetic relationship between the monumental structures and the square was also distinctive. Prost reinterpreted the urban environment, and his perception of the aesthetics of Western cities influenced his perspective of Istanbul’s monumental structures.
Although Prost was an urban developer renowned for preserving the historical and natural environment, various other factors also influenced his approach to Istanbul’s historic urban fabric. The government’s expectations regarding the planning of Istanbul played a major role. In the introduction to his planning reports, entitled “Old Istanbul,” Prost emphasized the 1908 Revolution, emphasizing that the modernization of Istanbul had been a topic of discussion since the end of the Ottoman era; he described his own work as a continuation of these efforts.72 The planning of Istanbul was consistent with the Republican government’s ideal of creating a modern urban environment that promoted a contemporary lifestyle.73
The 10-year Plan (1943–1953)
In 1943, a commission was formed to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul; in view of this, Henri Prost prepared a 10-year (1943–1953) development plan.74 In this plan, he proposed the following:
1. organizing an International Istanbul Exhibition and planning an exhibition area along the Marmara shore between Kadirga and Aksaray
2. applying to host the Olympic Games in Istanbul and planning the Olympic facilities and village in the space between Topkapı and Edirnekapı
3. erecting a 500th anniversary monument dedicated to Fatih in front of the proposed council building at the intersection of Atatürk Boulevard and Şehzadebaş
4. constructing a monument to the reforms in Sultan Ahmet Square (which was to be redeveloped as Cumhuriyet Square) that could be seen from a distance.
The first two of these suggestions were aimed at developing an international exhibition area in Yenikapı as a part of the celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul, while the other was an Olympic site in Yenibahçe. The proposed international exhibition area, in particular, was designed in detail.75 The monument project in Sultan Ahmet Square reflected the project Cemil Topuzlu Pasha had planned 25 years earlier.
The 10-year plan also listed urban plans for the next 10 years and aimed to implement the master plan that had been drawn up in 1937. The construction of the Taksim–Tepebaşı and Taksim–Karaköy highways, the opening of the Eminönü–Beyazıt road, the opening of the coastal roads on either side of the Golden Horn, and the coastal boulevard along the Marmara shore of the Historic Peninsula were priority projects aimed at solving transportation issues. This program included completing the residential area between Taksim, Harbiye, and Maçka, constructing a sports and exhibition hall and amphitheater and hotels, moving the railroad underground from Yenikapı to Sarayburnu, and developing a new residential area with the opening of the coastal boulevard. In the Historic Peninsula, it called for the construction of No. 1 Educational Park, and in relation to this the establishment of a medical zone in which the Cerrahpaşa and Haseki hospitals and the newly constructed Medical Faculty were included.76The plan also addressed international transport. The European–Asian Auto Route connecting the city with Atatürk Airport was to join the coastal boulevard at Yedikule. The main road, the continuation of Millet Boulevard, was to connect to this international highway and form a secondary route. Prost suggested constructing a seaplane port in Yeşilköy. All of these projects were to be developed between 1943 and 1953 and were revealed together in the Istanbul Area Plan.
In the 10-year plan, Istanbul’s new port was located outside the walls on the Marmara shore; however, the Haydarpaşa Port was not included in the plan. North of this port, Prost intended to develop an international port to accommodate European rail and air traffic; he also made plans for an industrial estate with large facilities. The location of the Istanbul port had been a topic of dispute between Prost and the Ministry of Public Works from the beginning. The central government, which classified the Istanbul port as a source of growth for Anatolia rather than prioritizing its connection to the city, disapproved of the location of the new port on the European side, while Prost argued that the space around Haydarpaşa Port was restricted and that industrial development in that area was not feasible.77
Prost conducted the planning of Istanbul while Lütfi Kırdar was governor and mayor. Working in collaboration with an administrator who held such authority during a time of single-party rule, Prost remained in Istanbul for almost 15 years and implemented many of his proposals during this period. Projects implemented during this time on the Historic Peninsula included the opening of Atatürk Boulevard and Eminönü Square, the construction of Taksim Gezi Park and Park No. 2 in the Beyoğlu district, the construction of culture and sports areas, the opening of Refik Saydam Avenue, and the development of Üsküdar Square.
After the transition to a multiparty regime in 1946, when Fahrettin Kerim Gökay became governor and mayor of Istanbul, the spirit of collaboration that Prost had experienced with the previous regime ended. Prost resigned from his post on December 26, 1950, giving two reasons for this decision: disputes regarding expropriations for the development of green areas in Harbiye, and the parceling of land on the Anatolian side that did not conform to the urban design agreement. In reality, Prost, who had worked with a governor and mayor who had complete authority during the single-party regime, was made uneasy by the increasing speculative pressure on the urban space in the multiparty political environment. Criticism by professors on the Faculty of Architecture and experts trained in urban development in Istanbul of Prost’s planning management, and in particular the fact that he was solely responsible for development in Istanbul, contributed to his contract not being extended.78
The Development Advisory Committee (1952–1956)
As a result of the rapid rise in population due to immigration to the city in the late 1940s, which existing housing could not accommodate, the master plans prepared by Prost in the 1930s and 1940s proved inadequate. The objective of developing around the city’s historic center conflicted with the social trend of urban development in the suburbs and could not stand up to the pressure of land speculation. Despite the population increase and the emergence of shanty districts near the end of his tenure, Prost was unable to predict that rural-to-urban migration would soon be a major issue in Istanbul. The growth in the urban population, from just under 794,000 in 1940 to 1,000,000 in 1950, and the fact that in certain districts this growth was above the city average, were not taken into consideration sufficiently during the planning of Istanbul at this time.79
After Prost left Istanbul, on the suggestion of the City Council’s building commission, a temporary revision commission was established to evaluate on what scale the Prost plans could be implemented. This commission consisted of professors and architects who were experts in the field of urbanization, including Kemal Ahmet Arû, Cevat Erbel, Mithat Yenen, Mukbil Gökdoğan, Muhittin Güven, Mehmet Ali Handan, and Behçet Ünsal, and was headed by Seyfi Arkan. The commission examined Prost’s plans to determine their conformability with the historical, topographical, and economic aspects of the city. They found that scientific methods had not been used in gathering and assessing the necessary data when preparing the plans; that the city had not been considered together with its environment; that geological, meteorological, and historical surveys had not been performed; and that the individual structural block system, no longer advocated in the planning documents, was continuing. Furthermore, the commission found that research on the housing, work, recreation, and transportation functions of the city had not been carried out and that the plans had been prepared without considering the structure, economy, or actual needs of the city, or Turkey’s financial resources. Unnecessary expropriations had been carried out; the inner city highways and viaducts were fictitious; the squares called for in the plans disrupted the city scale and were impossible to construct; the implementation plans did not conform to the master plan; and, finally, reports on the construction plans were disorderly and confusing.80 Some of these evaluations signify that the commission adopted a planning approach that focused on the scientific methods of the period.
Taking these evaluations into consideration, the municipal board formed the İmar Müşavirler Heyeti (Development Advisory Committee) to revise Prost’s plan and to establish future plans for Istanbul. This committee consisted of Kemal Ahmet Arû, Cevat Erbil, Mukbil Gökdoğan, and Emin Onat. The Belediye İmar Müdürlüğü (Directorate of Urban Development) carried out studies aimed at updating the plan in keeping with advice from the committee. Due to this, the initial phase saw the commencement of research and analysis on population movements, land utilization, population concentration, the distribution of small industrial workshops, transport density, and distribution of green spaces. However, in view of the rapid expansion of the city, the Advisory Committee brought these studies to an end, and was forced to review the 1/5,000-scale master plans. The revised Pera Side Master Plan was approved in October 1953 by the municipal board and in February 1954 by the Ministry of Public Works.
This revised plan resembled Prost’s plan in many ways: the area covered by the plan was doubled and the Bosphorus settlement areas extending to the north of Bebek, which were previously planned as independent settlement areas, were united and included within the borders of Mecediyeköy, Levent, and Etiler. A new 480-hectare housing area was opened, and it was predicted that these spaces would house 102,000 people. Like the Prost plan, this plan also reserved areas between Kasımpaşa and Kağıthane for industrial facilities which would pollute the environment, whereas the areas between Mecidiyeköy and Levent, and between Şişli and the Bomonti Beer Factory, were allocated for other industrial facilities. However, it was also emphasized that the building of industrial facilities would not be permitted in areas allocated for settlement. The port planned for Salıpazarı by the Ministry of Public Works was also included in this plan.81The roads were the same, with the exception of the high-speed road Prost proposed between Taksim and Tophane via tunnels and viaducts. In the revised plan, it was proposed that the “touristic route” constructed outside the land walls during Lütfi Kırdar’s term as mayor should join Büyükdere Avenue by a bridge to the north of the Golden Horn in the Mecidiyeköy-Levent direction, thus connecting the industrial estates.
Regarding the sub-areas included in the Pera Side Master Plan, 14 detailed 1/1,000- and 1/500-scaled plans were prepared and implemented. At this stage, Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who conducted the planning of Greater London after World War II and was famous for the survey method he developed, was invited to Istanbul where he gave his views on the city’s planning. Abercrombie, who found the Advisory Committee’s methods of planning and decisions to be accurate to some extent, suggested the areas between Yedikule and Florya in particular as potential development spaces.82
With the rapid development of industry and the increase in the demand for industrial locations in Istanbul during this period, a report on the city ports and the position of industry was prepared by a commission consisting of the relevant ministers and representatives from the economic sector. The Advisory Committee prepared the 1/10,000-scale Industrial Estate Plan according to this report. The plan, approved in 1955, proposed relocating the industrial facilities that remained in the city, which were causing pollution and damage to the environment; as Prost suggested in his 1943 District Plan, in addition to the Haydarpaşa and Salıpazarı Ports, the construction of a port in Yedikule that would serve the new industrial areas was included. The Ministry of Public Works, which maintained its decision that the Istanbul Port should be located on the Anatolian side of the city, now proposed forming a large industrial estate, port, and free zone in the Tuzla-Pendik district.83
The Advisory Committee began to work on the Istanbul Side Master Plan, which also included the Historic Peninsula; however, this plan was not completed due to insufficient technical staff in the Public Works Department. Although there were attempts to open the Eminönü-Unkapanı road and detailed plans were being developed for this, implementation ran into problems and was not completed. In 1956, the functional activities of the committee ended after the resignation of some members. With the direct intervention of the prime minister a few months later, a new era would begin in the development of Istanbul.
Prime Minister Adnan Menderes
Following this short planning period, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes began to personally deal with the development of Istanbul. Coming at a time when Turkey faced balance-of-payments deficits and increasing inflation, Menderes’s development projects can only be understood in the context of political motives.84 As Istanbul, which had been neglected under the single-party regime after the formation of the Republic, was once again brought to the fore as a symbolic location, there was a clear attempt to eliminate claims that the “government had lost its power of performance.”85 The development program envisaged by the prime minister concentrated on the Historic Peninsula. In a press statement that focused on the traffic issue, Menderes stated that roads built for horses and carts at a time when the population of Istanbul was 700,000 could not remain in their existing state and that Beyazıt, Aksaray, Eminönü, Karaköy, Tophane, and Taksim Squares, which were the main sites of traffic congestion, would be restructured and the roads connecting them improved.86In the formation of the prime minister’s program, in addition to the master plan revised according to the 10-year plan, the aim was to restructure the road network and squares. The main routes in the operations of the Advisory Committee and the Municipal Directorate of Public Improvements were also taken into account.87 In practice however, rather than the detailed urban design solutions prepared by Prost, road widths were defined according to highway standards, and the construction of roads in the city caused widespread damage to the historic texture.
As a part of this development, the width of the Londra Motorway was broadened to 50 meters, and Yeşilköy Airport and Florya were connected to this main road. The continuation of the Londra Highway within the city walls, Millet Avenue, was widened to 50 meters between Topkapı and Aksaray, and Vatan Avenue on the north of this road along the Bayrampaşa Valley from the city wall to Aksaray was widened to 60 meters. Ordu Street, which connected Aksaray to Beyazıt Square, was widened to 30 meters. Aksaray Square was raised by one meter to construct the gradient in accordance with the highway standards, and the level of Beyazıt Square was reduced by 3.5 meters; as a result of this work, the ruins of the Forum of Theodosius/Tauri, one of the most important squares of the Byzantine city, emerged. The Yeniçeri Road and Divanyolu, which extended from Beyazıt Square to Hagia Sophia, were again widened by relocating the historic structures and garden walls. On the continuation of Fevzi Paşa Boulevard, stretching from Edirnekapı to Saraçhanebaşı during the early Republican period, demolitions were undertaken, particularly between Şehzadebaşı and Beyazıt, to widen the road. As a result, the entertainment area known as Direklerarası was demolished.
In addition to these highways being opened in historic parts of the city, coastal roads were also developed. The entire Marmara coastal road connecting Florya and Sirkeci was constructed as a new road with widths varying between 30 and 50 meters. In a similar manner, plans were developed to extend the Golden Horn coastal road as far as Eyüp, and with the demolitions undertaken in the areas between Eminönü and Unkapanı, this section of the road was broadened to 50 meters. In addition to these roads, which were constructed in the Historic Peninsula, Aksaray, Beyazıt, and Sirkeci Squares were also redeveloped and widened to accommodate motor vehicles.88
In the Pera district, the width of Karaköy Square was extended by demolishing a structure; it was then connected to a 35 meter wide road that led to Sütlüce via Azapkapı and to Topkapı in the other direction. The Bosphorus coastal road from Topkapı Square, redeveloped at 30 meters width to accommodate traffic, was widened between Fındıklı and Kabataş and extended to Beşiktaş Square. This coastal road was also redeveloped and extended to the same width as far as Büyükdere. The width of the Taksim–Şişli–Büyükdere Road, which Prost had proposed as the upper road, was widened to 30 meters during this period. Steep roads were constructed connecting to this road and the Bosphorus coastal road, part of which consisted of Barbaros Boulevard, a 50 meter wide main road; Beşiktaş Square, where the road culminated, was reorganized as an intersection and square.
On the Anatolian side, the Haydarpaşa–Pendik motorway was developed as the main highway connecting Haydarpaşa Port, which was under development during this period, to Anatolia.89During this effort, which took place between 1956 and 1960, more than 7,000 properties were expropriated by the government and many people lost their homes and businesses, particularly in the Historic Peninsula. Payments for the expropriations were not made in advance after 1958, thus making conditions even more difficult.90Many historic buildings were demolished during these operations, but as a part of the same development program, many mosques, complexes, and other important buildings were restored.91
When Adnan Menderes’s development projects began, an agreement was made between the German professor Hans Högg and the Istanbul city government regarding the planning of Istanbul. Högg, who had prepared development plans for the cities of Hannover and Munich, came to Istanbul in January 1957, and as a result of the studies conducted until 1960 by his planning office, more detailed plans were prepared. In addition, a proposal for a master plan of Istanbul was drawn up. Like Prost, Högg emphasized the need to transform Istanbul into an organized city, improving the canal system and solving the city’s traffic problems, and stressed the opportunities in tourism. The program was passed on to the planner; in this period in which development proceeded with great speed, data on the new roads were not used to guide their development but merely to justify it.
In the general development plan prepared by Högg, a transportation system consisting of tangent and radial roads was proposed. While the radial roads joined the newly opened Vatan and Millet Boulevards, the tangent roads formed an inner belt, which connected the central trade areas with the coastal roads that passed along the Marmara, Golden Horn, and Bosphorus shores; a second belt, which was a part of Atatürk Boulevard and connected the most important intersections of the city, and an outer belt, which formed a connection between the airport and the city’s suburban settlements and intercity links, were established. The newly opened Vatan Boulevard had been criticized as having no real function and being merely ceremonial. The developer aimed to rectify this by proposing an industrial area outside the city walls and a northwestern settlement along the continuation of the boulevard. He suggested that the two main radial roads be the Taksim–Şişli–Büyükdere road to the north and the Ankara express road on the Anatolian side.92
The İller Bankası and Luigi Piccinato
The development carried out during the Menderes period attracted severe criticism, particularly from architects and urban developers. The latter claimed that the roads were developed without sufficient research, were not appropriate to the topographical conditions, and were constructed by destroying the city’s historical texture and monuments, and that the expropriations carried out to make the roads possible were unlawful. In view of these criticisms and in keeping with a decision by the Council of Ministers and with authority granted by the City Council, the Istanbul Directorate of Planning and Development was established by the İller Bankası (Provincial Bank) and Cevat Erbil was appointed to head it. However, the fact that three separate offices were in charge of planning for Istanbul signifies that too many people were involved in the process. During the same period, an executive committee headed by Mithat Yenen, chief executive of the Development and Planning Department, was formed93 to ensure the rapid inspection and approval of the development plan to be prepared by the Ministry of Public Works and Development.Luigi Piccinato, an urban developer, architect, and professor of architecture at Rome University, was appointed as chief consultant. He had been invited to Turkey at an earlier date by the Emlak Kredi Bank to conduct research on the development of the Ataköy settlement plan, and had also implemented the first section of that plan.
On April 1, 1958, the Istanbul Development and Planning Department began research for a plan for the Istanbul metropolitan area. They carried out a detailed study, dividing the city into the Istanbul, Beyoğlu, Anatolian, and Boğaziçi districts, while also launching studies for a regional master plan. After preparing 1/10,000-scale maps of Istanbul and the vicinity, they completed a proposed master plan at the same scale by the end of 1960. For the first time, the studies for the master plan included neighboring areas outside the municipal borders, and the planning of Istanbul was assessed together with adjacent areas.94 This plan, prepared under the guidance of Piccinato and entitled the Transition Period Master Plan, would be frequently referred to in later planning.
This master plan included proposals that were very different to those of previous plans. Piccinato, who emphasized the need to conduct planning for Istanbul in parallel with political decisions made at the territorial level and regional planning studies, also maintained that Istanbul should be developed as a center for trade, culture, tourism, and administration rather than as a city of production and industry and that existing industrial plants should be relocated outside the city. At a regional scale, with the development of industry in areas around Istanbul such as Tekirdağ, Izmit, Gemlik, and Bandırma, he suggested diverting migration from Istanbul to these areas. At a metropolitan scale, he argued that existing industrial facilities should be removed from the area that extended along Alibey Creek to the south of the Golden Horn, industrial activity in Kağıthane should be suspended, and further industrial development in the area should be prevented. The plan proposed the reorganization of the industrial plants located behind Eyüp on the old Edirne road together with the settlement areas intended for the workers of these establishments. Piccinato suggested the planning of large-scale industry between Bostancı and Gebze on the Anatolian side of the city, and the redevelopment of the İzmit, Gemlik, and Adapazarı regions as industrial areas.95
The consideration of the Istanbul master plan in terms of regional development can be seen in the idea of constructing a port between Kazlıçeşme and Bakırköy to serve the industrial area that had emerged between Topkapı and Rami, the proposals for Salıpazarı Port as the sole passenger port, and the priority given to the construction of İzmit, Gemlik, and Tekirdağ Ports to support regional development.
In predictions based on the research carried out during the preparation stage of the plan, it was estimated that Istanbul’s population would reach 3,000,000 within 20 years; in the master plan, it was projected that 2,500,000 people would be located in an area of over 30,000 hectares.96 Piccinato totally opposed the approach that was based on Prost’s planning or Högg’s proposal of assembling and concentrating the city within a single centered circular plan; rather, he proposed a linear system. He criticized the new roads opened as a part of Menderes’s efforts, predicting that they would cause congestion around the city center, and presented his view of structuring Istanbul and its suburbs as a part of a multicentered settlement system divided by green spaces on an east–west transportation spine. With the exception of Levent in the Beyoğlu district, there was no suggestion of new settlements in the Historic Peninsula, where the population had reached sufficient figures; Piccinato suggested that the Anatolian side of the city be the basis for urban development and proposed the planning of new development areas that would form along the Ankara state highway and serve as a nucleus for new settlement units.
In Piccinato’s master plan, which took into consideration studies carried out for the Bosphorus Bridge and ring road by the American company De Leuw Cather and Company in 1956, the bridge to be constructed between Ortaköy and Beylerbey was considered an important part of the transport spine.97This 1/10,000-scale master plan was submitted to the Ministry for Public Works and Development in late 1960. The plan, however, was not approved.
Following the military intervention of May 27, 1960, the planning of Istanbul took new directions. At the beginning of 1961, the Istanbul Planning and Development Department, which until then had operated under Iller Bank, was transferred to the city government.98
In the autumn of 1960, under the İmar ve İskân Bakanlığı Bölge Planlama Dairesi (Regional Planning Department) and with participation by international institutions such as the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and European Productivity Center, the Ministry for Public Works and Development began the planning for the Marmara region.99 While the architect and urban planner Tuğrul Akçura was responsible for supervising this process, Turgut Cansever, an architect and urban developer, was appointed head of the Directorate of Planning and Development. In the three years that followed, regional and metropolitan planning were undertaken in collaboration with these two institutions. As a result, it was possible to conduct planning for Istanbul on a metropolitan scale and coordinate it with regional planning. While research for planning was carried out, the Geçit Dönemi Nazım Planı (Transition Period Master Plan) prepared by Piccinato was approved; at the same time, the decision was made to conduct research on the feasibility of the Bosphorus Bridge and Haydarpaşa and Kazlıçeşme Ports.100
During this process, the İstanbul İmar Planlaması Geçit Devresi Şurası (Council for the Transition Period in the Development and Planning of Istanbul) held a meeting attended by representatives of the chambers of architects and engineers, the Istanbul Chambers of Industry and Trade, and members of the press. At this meeting, in addition to the master plan prepared under the supervision and consultancy of Piccinato, the Istanbul Adjacent Area Plan prepared by Turgut Cansever and his team was presented. The aim was to prevent unplanned development and the construction of unauthorized industrial facilities.101
The East Marmara Region Plan and Metropolitan Development Proposal from Büyükçekmece to Gebze
Among the nine districts and 13 subdistricts determined by the Ministry of Public Works and İmar ve İskân Bakanlığı Bölge Planlama Dairesi (Development Regional Planning Department), the East Marmara Region Plan, which was the first regional plan, included Istanbul, Kocaeli, Sakarya, and Bursa. The East Marmara Region Preliminary Plan stated that in real terms Istanbul was the sole capital of the country,102 emphasized the significance of urbanization for Turkey’s progress, and indicated the importance of measures to ensure well-planned growth and development. Within this plan, the plan for the Istanbul metropolitan area aimed to accommodate a population of 5 million. It was proposed that 1 million of these people would be located in existing settlement areas; in the first phase, new settlements areas of 7,000 hectares for 2 million people would be opened, and the existing 1,800 hectares of industrial space would be increased to 4,000 hectares. With an estimate of 20 square metersof green area per person, the plan called for 10,000 hectares of green space. The regional plan projected that 4 million of the estimated 5 million residents would be located in the area between Büyükçekmece and Gebze and, as proposed in Piccinato’s master plan, a linear system of settlements would extend along the Marmara shore in this area from east to west. The division of these settlement units, each of which consisted of 1,200 hectares and was expected to accommodate 340,000 people, with “suburban green area lanes” was proposed.103
In an attempt to balance the population of Istanbul, 80% of which was on the European side, between the two sides of the city, the plan called for a gradual increase in the population on the Anatolian side. The Edirnekapı–Halkalı connection in the west and the old Ankara Road in the east formed the main transportation spine. The plan proposed that these roads be connected by the Bosphorus Bridge and the orbital roads (beltways), and in the second phase by a new tunnel from the south side of the Bosphorus. It was also proposed that as part of this plan Salipazarı Port would be transformed into a passenger port, with the existing operations of this port transferred to a new port to be constructed in Zeytinburnu, as well as new ports being constructed beside Derince Port on the Anatolian side and in Küçükçekmece on the European side.104Particularly important in the plan was the prediction that Istanbul’s function as an “international scale organizational center” would outweigh all its other functions in the future and the highlighting of the aim to develop the city as an organizational and cultural center. In view of this, an area totaling 1,380 hectares was allocated to international institutes and cultural activities.105
To implement the elements of the East Marmara Region Plan that affected Istanbul, it was necessary to prepare a master plan on a metropolitan scale and implementation plans on a more local scale. Under the direction of Turgut Cansever, in parallel with the decisions for the regional plan, the Ministry of Development and Planning prepared land maps and alternative master plans. During this period, a Bosphorus Conservation Plan was proposed and research groups were formed to study the historic monuments and shanty districts. However, when Turgut Cansever resigned, implementation of the master plan was temporarily halted.
The Inner City Development Plan (1964)
One of the topics discussed at a meeting held by the İmar Planlaması Geçit Devresi Şurası was the preparation of plans to implement development in Istanbul by defining the development status according to the particular region of the city. A 1/5,000-scale inner-city plan, prepared by the Municipal Development and Planning Department in an attempt to preserve the “city’s historical identity” and introduce “a master plan to eliminate destruction within the historical texture of the historical peninsula,” was approved in 1964. In view of this plan, the Istanbul Master Plan prepared by Prost and approved in 1939, as well as the 1942 Topkapı-Edirnekapı Plan and the Yedikule-Silivrikapı and Golden Horn Hillside Plan, were superseded on the grounds that they “generated a development contrary to the texture of the historical city.”106In the Central City Development Plan, the Historic Peninsula was divided into districts, and the conditions of development and construction were determined for each district separately.
Thus, the historic characteristics of the city were preserved. In the first district—which included the Golden Horn slopes, which had a low building density, Edirnekapı-Topkapı, and Topkapı-Yenikapı—building heights were not to exceed 12.5 meters, and conditions of development were to be determined in accordance with the characteristics of the existing surroundings. In the second districts, areas in which the majority of the existing buildings were taller, the existing structural conditions were preserved and new construction was not to exceed 15.5 meters in height. In the Hanlar (commercial) District, which formed the third district and was placed under preservation on the ruling of the Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu (High Council for Historic Property, Artifacts, and Monuments), building height was limited to 15.5 meters. The fourth district consisted of the Marmara and Golden Horn shores. As in the Prost plan, the Marmara shore was proposed as a recreational space, while the shore of the Golden Horn was proposed as a park where the city walls and other historic and civil architectural works would be preserved. The Hagia Sophia, the Sultan Ahmet Mosque, and the surroundings of the Sultan Ahmet Square, which under Prost’s proposal would have formed an archaeological park, were protected in 1956 by a ruling of the Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu and defined as the fifth district. In the sixth district, which consisted of Vatan Avenue, there were no height restrictions or other restrictions on the design of buildings as long as they did not affect the silhouette or the environment. The 500 meter wide “separation area” around the land walls formed the seventh district, and in this area the influence of the Prost plan was maintained. The 40-meter height restrictions on the Historic Peninsula, aimed at preserving the city’s historic skyline, were also supported in this plan. The Department of Ancient Monuments was established in the city government in order to implement this plan; there were regulations aimed at preserving the skyline of the Historic Peninsula and the characteristics of the city’s historical environment.107
Another plan that was put into force in 1964, but which was totally different in essence from the Suriçi İmar Planı (Inner City Development Plan), was the İstanbul Kat Nizamları Planı (Istanbul Floor Master Plan). This plan, which increased the construction heights of existing development areas in Istanbul, obviously was designed to meet the demands both of the increasing population and of the construction sector for an increase in building heights and density in urban residential areas. This period saw an acceleration in both the destruction of existing buildings and the reconstruction process, with rapid destruction of Istanbul’s historic city texture and architectural heritage. On the other hand, the central city trade areas expanded in the vicinity of the new roads that had been opened during Menderes’s development efforts. In conjunction with the increasing population, there was a rapid transformation in the structure of the city. Migration to the city accelerated, and there was an increase in the uncontrolled and disorganized construction of unlicensed industrial facilities built on low-cost land, as well as a rapid increase in shanty districts.
The Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau (1965–1984)
In 1963, the National Security Council asked the Ministry for Public Works and Development to prepare a master plan for industrial development in Istanbul in accordance with specific organization and management logic, and under the supervision of the Ministry, the Marmara Region Planning Group prepared the Istanbul Industrial Master Plan in collaboration with the city government. This plan, approved in October 1965, identified nine industrial areas in Istanbul: Halkalı, Topkapı, Rami, and Kurtköy, each about 200 hectares, and the smaller industrial areas of Bomonti, Levent, the Auto Industrial Zone, Küçükköy, and Ümraniye. It called for the development of 620 hectares of industrial space on the European side and 348 hectares on the Anatolian side, a prohibition of heavy industry that posed a health hazard within the Istanbul metropolitan area, and the creation of a 500 meter wide forested area around the planned industrial areas.108 When the Istanbul Industrial Master Plan was discussed at the National Security Council, recommendations were given for the preparation of metropolitan area plans for Istanbul, Ankara, and İzmir. On the ruling of the cabinet council, the Ministry for Public Works and Development proposed forming three separate bureaus to prepare the master development plans for these three major cities. In accordance with this decision, in 1966, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau was formed and authorized to prepare the master plan by the municipalities forming the Istanbul metropolitan area.
The Master Plan Bureau began planning under the chairmanship of the urban planner and architect Mithat Yenen and in participation with the Marmara Region Planning Group.109 In the preparations for the master plan, Luigi Piccinato was again called as an advisor, and after conducting research he prepared a report in which he repeated the proposal that the planning of Istanbul should be conducted together with the planning of the Marmara region and reiterated that if the Istanbul metropolitan were to “attain an existing, live organic structure,” it would be necessary for the city to develop in accordance with a “linear and distinct urban development system.”
Piccinato, who approved of the work of the Marmara Region Planning Bureau, proposed a highway system in the scope of the infrastructure plans he intended to develop on a regional scale, emphasizing the critical importance of the Bosphorus Bridge as the main connection from Thrace to Ankara. He stressed again that with the construction of the regional infrastructure, the significance of Istanbul Port would decrease while Tekirdağ, Bandırma, and İzmit Ports would become more prominent. To address potential future traffic issues, he proposed supplementing the road system with a light rail system. In an attempt to protect the coastal areas, Piccinato, who gave particular importance to the preservation of the historical and natural values of Istanbul and its environment, emphasized the importance of constructing routes distant from the shore.110
In 1968, following the preparation of maps for the entire metropolitan area, the collecting of physical data, and meetings held with the representatives of various sectors, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau prepared two alternative 1/25,000-scale master plans. As a result of discussions between the Ministry for Public Works and Development and the State Planning Organization, one of the plans was selected and research began. In 1971, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Report was prepared together with a proposal for a 1/25,000-scale master plan. The World Bank selected Istanbul as a pilot city and the expectations about who would finance the urban projects, based on a range of presumptions, may have been a major factor in the preparation of the master plan before the research could be completed.111 In this 1/25,000-scale master plan, based on projections that the population in the Istanbul metropolitan area would reach 5 million in 1990, it was estimated that two-thirds of the population would settle on the European side and one-third on the Anatolian side of the city. In 1968, the company Freeman, Fox and Partners was contracted to develop a plan for the Bosphorus Bridge, which had been the focus of major disputes between professionals and the public in the two preceding years.
In the same year, the Ministry for Public Works and Development approved the Orbital Highway Plan.112 In the transport system that formed the spine of the linear settlement plan, introduced in the Istanbul Master Plan of 1971, great importance was placed on the Bosphorus Bridge and the orbital roads. In view of this, there were plans to transfer the pressure of urban development to the Marmara shore, as well as to areas around the new transport axis from Silivri to Gebze. With the exception of the trade areas in the existing city center, there were plans to support a linear and expansive settlement system, thus forming secondary administration centers by decentralizing some municipal functions and creating new centers of attraction on the boundaries of the metropolitan area. In the west there was a proposal to create centers to the east of Küçükçekmece, Bakırköy, the south of Zeytinburnu, Esenler, and between Mecediyeköy and Zincirlikuyu; in the east the same was proposed for Kartal and Pendik.113 In the master plan, the opening of a 875-hectare industrial area was proposed; the improvement of the shanty districts around Kâğıthane, Alibeyköy, and Küçükköy, and the development of new residential areas along the new transport axis from Küçükçekmece to Sağmalcılar were also planned. Measures were introduced to preserve historic urban areas in the Historic Peninsula, such as Eyüp and Galata, by reducing population pressure in these areas. Among the regulations on tourism and recreation, the expropriation of the Bosphorus forestland and the preservation of existing tourism and recreation areas along the shore of the Black Sea were intended to preserve historical and natural values.
This master plan was submitted for assessment to an advisory committee made up of urban planning experts and professors, which held its first meeting in August 1971. The committee considered the research and analysis to be insufficient by academic standards.114 During this process, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau decided to conduct studies under two separate headings, research and planning. While these areas of research were brought together under six headings, planning focused on more detailed studies of the six districts of the area included in the 1/25,000-scale master plan. In this context, in addition to Istanbul’s Historic Peninsula, which once again became the topic of discussion, work began on a 1/5,000-scale master plan for the districts outside the city walls, such as Beyoğlu, Bosphorus, Kadıköy-Moda-Üsküdar, the Anatolian side of the city, and the Küçükyalı-Gebze districts.115Following a report prepared by Doğan Kuban of Istanbul Technical University, and in keeping with a decision by the Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu, a 1/5,000-scale Suriçi Tarihî İstanbul ve Eyüp Koruma Bölgeleri Planı (Historic Istanbul and Eyüp Preservation Regional Plan) was prepared by the city government’s Master Plan Department; however, the city government never formally approved this plan.116
When historic structures were built in Beyoğlu between Taksim and the Tunnel, and on the Bosphorus coastal road, the Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu decided to place these areas under preservation. While implementation of the Bosphorus Master Plan continued, the 1/5,000-scale Çamlica Tourism Site Development Plan was implemented.117 Along similar lines, while the planning of the Kadıköy-Üsküdar district continued, priority was given to the preparation of a 1/5,000-scale plan for the Koşuyolu-Acıbadem area. On the European side, the sur dışı (area outside the city wall) included Sağmalcılar, Esenler, Kocasinan, and Yenibosna. For the plan of this region to be prepared as an integrated area, the İstanbul Mücavir Belediyeler İmar Planlama Bürosu (Istanbul Neighboring Councils Development and Planning Bureau) was formed in compliance with a protocol signed with the Provincial Bank. In addition, the Master Plan Bureau began to develop the construction plans for the Küçükçekmece and Alibeyköy districts. At the same time, the creation of development plans for Kartal, Pendik, Gebze, Yakacık, and Tuzla as a part of the metropolitan area on the Anatolian side of the city was assigned to private companies.
Operations aimed at solving the background functions in Zeytinburnu Port, which constituted one of the most important elements of the Greater Istanbul Master Plan, were conducted together with the commercial functions of the new trade center. During this period, a dispute arose between the Greater Istanbul Planning Bureau and the Ministry for Transport and Public Works regarding the locations of the shipyards in Pendik and Tuzla; despite the Master Plan Bureau’s decision, made by cabinet ministers, to allocate the Tuzla and Pendik coastal strips for tourism and recreation, Tuzla Port was declared an industrial zone for shipbuilding by the private sector, and the Ministry of Public Works began the construction of the Pendik Shipyard.118
The redevelopment of shanty districts and the prevention of the formation of more shanty areas were the most important planning topics during this period. Between 1966 and 1970, 127 areas were redeveloped and 20 new settlement areas were developed, including 10 areas in Kağıthane, Alibeyköy, Küçükköy, Eyüe-Topçular, Bakırköy, and Çatalca on the European side, and 22 areas in Kartal, Yakacık, Maltepe, Küçükyalı, Ümraniye, Üsküdar, and Kanlıca on the Anatolian side. Among these areas, the redevelopment of the shanty districts in Maltepe, Örnek Mahallesi, Şerifali Çiftliği, Kanlıca, Osmaniye, and Küçükköy was planned by the Ministry of Development and Public Works as an example for other municipalities.119After 1970, the number of shanty prevention areas gradually increased, and in 1982 the total reached 53, 19 in the west and 34 in the east. While these efforts continued at the Master Plan Bureau for the entire Istanbul metropolitan area, the Istanbul City Planning Department prepared plans for areas of the city in which there was a high population density. Including the Mecidiyeköy and Gayrettepe development plans, the Bostancı-Erenköy 1/5,000-scale Regional Development Plan increased the existing structure density in these areas two to three times, totally transforming their character.
In 1972, a 2.3 million dollar development credit agreement was signed between the Republic of Turkey and the World Bank. As part of this agreement, the Istanbul Urban Development Project was to be financed by the World Bank. The two initial objectives were to shape the urban development that would follow the opening of the Bosphorus Bridge and the orbital roads, and to implement the master plan, contributing to the development of the projects. In the first stage, five projects were selected for implementation. Among these were developing standards for shanty prevention areas, preparing investment programs, planning the development of a new urban center on the İzmit-Istanbul motorway, and conducting research on the feasibility and investment requirements of these projects.120 At this stage, the architect and urban developer Turgut Cansever was appointed the head of the Master Plan Bureau, giving him an opportunity to review the project by querying the conclusions of the master plan. The conclusions of the East Marmara Region Development Plan also helped determine planning decisions in the Greater Istanbul Metropolitan Area during this period. In 1976, a new strategy report was produced, reassessing steps taken up to that date. In the context of the decentralization of Istanbul, two expansion alternatives were developed for the European and Anatolian sides of the city; following assessments, the first of these alternatives was selected.121
Turgut Cansever emphasized the need to relieve population pressure by creating new settlement areas as a part of a multicentered urban development strategy in order to preserve the settlement texture of the Historic Peninsula.122In view of this, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau adopted the strategy of creating a new center and settlement areas between Küçükçekmece and Büyükçekmece, and carried out the World Bank projects accordingly. However, this approach was abandoned when it was decided that the region between Küçükçekmece and Büyükçekmece was geologically unsuitable for dense settlement. When Turgut Cansever resigned, Hande Suher of Istanbul Technical University’s architecture faculty assumed his duties as honorary chief, and reorganized the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau.123 There were two principle areas in the metropolitan development strategy, as well as an option for creating a large development center in the space between the Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece lakes; in 1995, up to 1,180 million people were to be relocated in this area. Thus, the improvement of the Ankara–Istanbul motorway occurred and the urban area between the local roads of the First and Second Bosphorus Bridges and the Marmara Sea became the central business district. After Hande Suher resigned, due to cuts in expenditure by the central administration, the Master Plan Bureau adopted the role of an advisory committee that assessed housing and occupancy demands in the city on a whole, rather than an authority operating on behalf of the Ministry for Public Works and Development. During this period, the number of qualified personnel working for the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau, who could carry out research and planning at the three-floor Odakule Building in Beyoğlu, reached 120.
In late 1978, the Nazım Plan Denetleme ve Yönlendirme Üst Kurulu (Higher Council for Master Plan Control and Instruction) was established by the İmar ve İskân Bakanlığı Planlama and İmar Genel Müdürlüğü Yüksek Kurulu (Ministry for Public Works and Development Directorate of Planning and Reconstruction). Working with members of the High Council, an executive board was formed, which comprised heads of the sectoral working groups; engineer and architect Doğan Aysu, the director of the Housing Group, was appointed head of the board. The implementation of the Marmara Region Development Scheme and Urbanization Policies was combined with that of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area Integration.124 Based on research results, the production of alternative urban plans for the city as a whole began; these were in comparison to the previously produced 1/200,000- and 1/100,000-scale regional development alternatives.125 It was necessary to set the scale of the plan for the greater urban area (extending from Silivri and the Marmara Ereğlisi to the Izmit urban area) at 1/50,000 rather than 1/25,000.
In the planning process, the strategic spatial planning approach was adopted, and sectoral development objectives were defined through discussions along with the objectives.126 Another method adopted in the production of alternative outer-city development schemes was the generation of development alternatives for different sectors; this was done by each sector that had development objectives classified as preferential or significant. The Istanbul Metropolitan Area Master Plan was selected as a result of the evaluation of first- and second-grade alternatives, and all the regulations of the plan in relation to this were employed with regional and local decisions on a variety of scales; these were approved by the Ministry for Public Works and Development on June 29, 1980. The Master Plan Report defined the main planning goal as establishing a balance between preservation and development, and listed the plan objectives and alternative policies for achieving that goal.127Although the 1980 Greater Istanbul Metropolitan Area Master Plan did not maintain its effectiveness as a constitutional document in the years that followed, it continued to serve as a reference.
Following the military coup on September 12, 1980, the 34 councils located in the Istanbul metropolitan area, some of which were shanty districts, were combined under the Metropolitan Municipality, and thus the master plan could be implemented under the one body. The Bosphorus Law, which came into force in 1983, was intended to preserve the unique spatial values of the Bosphorus, and prohibited changes in plans that would increase the density of structures in the Bosphorus viewshed. However, a short time later, this was amended.
The Breaking Period in Planning:
The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
After 1985, liberal discourses and policies dominated the administration of the country and formed an important break in planning. When the Development Law (3194) came into force, authority for the preparation, approval, and implementation of the master plan was transferred to the Metropolitan Municipality, while the authority and responsibility for preparing the implementation plans passed to the district councils.128When the Ministry for Public Works and Development, formed in 1958, was abolished, the Greater Istanbul Master Plan Bureau, like other master plan bureaus, was also closed. While some of the experts working in the bureau were sent to the Metropolitan Municipality, others were reassigned to the district councils, and the data that had been accumulated by the Master Plan Bureau were also distributed. In the following period, the implementation of the master plan continued under the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Planning and Development Department, which created new planning guidelines and objectives for the density and infrastructure of the city as a whole. In this context, in February 1994, the 1/50,000-scale Istanbul Metropolitan Master Plan was prepared, and in November 1995, the 1/50,000-scale Metropolitan Area Subregion Master Plan was prepared. In accordance with the state policies of the period, reports made clear that the primary objective was Istanbul’s integration as a world city into the global economy, and policies were developed accordingly. Raising living standards by preserving the historical, cultural, and natural resources of Istanbul, and increasing the efficiency of the metropolitan administration and economy, constituted the second and third objectives.129
However, after 1985 the development activities of the metropolitan mayor had a larger impact than the implementation of this master plan. In addition to transferring the plans to local governments after obtaining approval to implement them from the central administration, with the transfer of property taxes to the Metropolitan Municipalities and the flow of credit from the World Bank, financial resources were secured on an unprecedented scale,130 paving the way for large-scale urban development. By using all these resources, Bedrettin Dalan, mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality, began a project aimed at removing the factories around the Golden Horn and a canalization project to clean the estuary waters, as well as carrying out demolition to construct the Tarlabaşı Road, one of the routes proposed in Prost’s 1937 plan. A causeway along the Bosphorus and coastal roads along the Marmara shore on the Anatolian side were constructed. The factories on the shores of the Golden Horn were removed. These projects, which were undertaken independently of the master plan, can be considered the implementation of an old project rather than a new project aimed at modernizing Istanbul.
These hurried projects again caused significant damage to the historical texture of the city. When we examine planning in Istanbul over 150 years, we can see that the urban modernization project created in the first half of the century achieved astonishing progress and was implemented in stages.
CONCLUSION
The concept of wide boulevards, the modernization of urban locations and infrastructure by the opening of coastal roads, and the construction of squares and parks took place as a large urban project was implemented gradually throughout the 19th century. This was made possible by a series of major city fires. This project of modernization and improvement, which still maintained its effectiveness in the 20th century, was carried into the Republic period. In view of the Republican policies, which were aimed at overall social change and were dominated by the scope of radical modernization, as well as a clear reference to Western urban developers’ notions of the transformation of urban space, this modernization project corresponded with a comprehensive planning approach. The most problematic issue in the planning of Istanbul in the 1930s and 1940s, times when population growth was below that of other cities, was not urban development driven by population growth but the concentration of that development in the center of the city—which, compared with its population, had spread immensely. In this context, according to the principles of modern urban development, the aim was to modernize the existing transportation infrastructure and public spaces, which formed the social environment and residential areas, in a rational manner, by reorganization.
Beginning in the early 1950s, when migration reached significant dimensions, urbanization in Istanbul increased rapidly, and alongside the rapid growth and widespread industrial development, shanty districts emerged with no authorization or control. In the second half of the 20th century, the main issue in urban planning was not simply modernizing the city but ensuring that it developed in a healthy way. During this period, a planning approach based on scientific research methods in association with either Turkish academics or foreign experts was adopted; population projections and analyses of sectoral development became important in planning. Since 1960, the “multi-centered linear development scheme” created by Luigi Piccinato defined the planning of Istanbul to a large extent, and this approach manifested in the growth around the main transportation spine and development of the transportation infrastructure without overwhelming the city center. In this period, it became clear that Istanbul’s future development would need to take district relations into account; the work on the East Marmara Regional Plan, which had begun in the first half of the 1960s, and the resulting planning decisions strongly influenced the Istanbul Metropolitan Area Master Plan until 1980. The urbanization of Istanbul can generally be considered unplanned; however, in the planning of the city, social, economic, and political processes were influential to a certain extent.
FOOTNOTES
1 Neşe Gürallar Yeşilkaya, “Transformation of a Public Space in the 19th Century Istanbul: Beyazıt Square”, unpublished PhD thesis, ODTÜ Department of Architecture, 2003, pp. 78, 84-88. In this thesis, the author states that when the Ministry of War replaced the Old Palace and partially destroyed the wall of the Beyazıd Mosque’s courtyard, the first open space was reorganized as the Seraskerat Meydanı or Military Headquarters Square (see pp. 111–123).
2 During the campaigns in which von Moltke and the other Prussian military officials accompanied the sultan, for example in Varna, maps were drawn up. Von Moltke later became chief of the Prussian and German General Staff.
3 “Although I searched for a copy of the plans and documents in the records of the Sublime Porte for a long time I was unsuccessful; I therefore decided that this was merely an idea. Subsequently, the research I conducted revealed the reasons and existence of the plan mentioned in the document. It is clear that the first plan of Istanbul was drawn by Marshal Moltke from previous recollections.” Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, IX vol., Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1995, vol. 3, p. 1243; İstanbul’da İmar ve İskân Hareketleri, İstanbul: İstanbul Eminönü Halkevi Dil, Tarih ve Edebiyat Şubesi, 1938, pp. 28-29. Based on this statement by Osman Nuri Ergin, Zeynep Çelik maintained that the document, dated 1839, was based on Moltke’s plan. Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the 19th Century, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, pp. 104-107. Also see Doğan Kuban, İstanbul: Bir Kent Tarihi Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, Istanbul, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2004, p. 351.
4 Murat Gül and Richard Lamb made this assertion, based on von Moltke’s memoirs, in “Mapping, Regularizing and Modernizing Ottoman Istanbul Aspects of the Genesis of the 1839 Development Policy”, Urban History, 2004, vol. 31, issue. 3, pp. 420-436. Similarly, based on Osman Nuri Ergin’s explanation, Senda Kara emphasized in her doctoral thesis that von Moltke’s map was incorrectly referred to as a plan. See Şenda Kara, Leitbilder und Handlungsgrundlagen das modernen Städtebaus in der Türkei, Berlin: LİT Verlag, 2006, p 52.
5 Murat Gül quoting Helmuth von Moltke’s Letters from Turkey, translated by Hayrullah Örs, Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1999, p. 107; The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, Transformation and Modernisation of a City, London, New York: Tauris Academic Studies, 2009, pp. 30-32.
6 Document dated 25 Rabi’ al-awwal 1255 (8 June 1839), see Ergin , Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 3, pp. 1240-1243.
7 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 3, p. 1242.
8 Ergin, İstanbul’da İmar ve İskân Hareketleri, pp. 29-32.
9 M. Cavit Baysun, “Mustafa Reşit Paşa’nın Siyasi Yazıları”, TD, 1960, vol. 11, issue 15, pp. 121-142; Stefanos Yerasimos, “Tanzimat’ın kent reformları üzerine”, Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Kentleri, compiled by Paul Dumont and François Georgeon, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996, pp. 3-4.
10 Dana Arnold, Rural Urbanism: London Landscapes in the Early 19th Century, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005; Donald J. Olsen, The City as a Work of Art, London, Paris, Vienna, New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1986, p. 16.
11 Yerasimos, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları Üzerine”, pp. 5-8.
12 This code may have been prepared after the experimental planning that was carried out for İzmir after the great fire there in 1845; see Cana Bilsel “On dokuzuncu Yüzyılda Osmanlı Liman Kenti İzmir’de Kültürler, Mekân Üretim Biçimleri ve Kent Mekânının Dönüşümü”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı ‘Uluslarüstü Bir Miras, edited by Nur Akın, Afife Batur and Selçuk Batur, Istanbul: Yem Yayın (Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları), 2000, pp. 213-220.
13 İlhan Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2013, p. 59.
14 “Building Code” (1848) clause 1. See Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 1, p. 1098; Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, p. 51.
15 İlhan Tekeli, The Development of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area: Urban Administration and Planning, Istanbul: Kent Basımevi, 1994, p. 25.
16 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 68-69.
17 Cânâ Bilsel, “Modern Bir Akdeniz Metropolüne Doğru”, İzmir 1830-1930 Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi? Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, compiled by Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, Istanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, 2008, p. 146.
18 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 54-55.
19 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, 19. Asırda İstanbul Haritası, Istanbul: İstanbul Fethi Derneği İstanbul Enstitüsü, 1958 1958.
20 “[1317-1332] İstanbul Yangınları”, see: Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 3, pp. 1228-1238.
21 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 66-67; Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p.71.
22 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 61, quoted from Gül Güleryüz Selman’s postgraduate thesis (Middle East Technical University) entitled “Urban Development Laws and Their Impacts on the Ottoman Cities in the Second Half of the 19th Century.”
23 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 62.
24 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 57; Stéphane Yerasimos, “La Réglementation Urbaine Ottomane (XVIe-XIXe Siècles)”, La Ville Ottomane, Leyd 1987.
25 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 3, pp. 1268-1307; Gül, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, pp. 43-44.
26 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, vol. 3, pp. 1297-1298; Gül, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, pp. 44-45.
27 Gül, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, p. 45.
28 Derin Öncel and Figen Orçun Kafesçioğlu, “1858-1860 Galata, Pera ve Pangaltı Planı”, Mimarist, 2005, vol. 15, pp. 18-19.
29 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 69-70.
30 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 71-72.
31 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 57-58
32 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 55-63
33 Zeynep Çelik, Displaying the Orient, Architecture of Islam at 19th Century World Fairs, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 1992, pp. 33-37.
34 Murat Gül, Modern İstanbul’un Doğuşu: Bir Kentin Dönüşümü ve Modernizasyonu, translated by Büşra Helvacıoğlu, Istanbul: Sel Yayıncılık, 2013, p.73. Gül quoted Georges Eugène Haussmann, Mémoires, Paris: Seuil, 2000, pp.868- 869. İsmail Pasha, who studied engineering at the École Polytechnique in Paris, also conducted similar urban reorganizations in Cairo. The radial boulevards, star-shaped plazas, and extensive parks planned for the Ismailiye district during this period were based on Haussmann’s plan for Paris. See Çelik, Displaying the Orient, p.35.
35 Gül, Modern İstanbul’un Doğuşu, pp. 73-74.
36 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, p. 67.
37 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 87.
38 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 64-65.
39 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, p. 110.
40 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 111-125.
41 Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, pp. 107-109.
42 Günkut Akın and Ufuk Demirgüç,“1910-1930 Payitahtın Günbatımı – Kentsel Müdahaleler”, Istanbul 1910-2010: Kent Yapılı Çevre ve Mimarlık Kültürü Sergisi, compiled by İhsan Bilgin et.al., Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2010.
43 Osman Nuri Ergin, Türkiye’de Şehirciliğin Tarihi İnkişafı, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi İktisadi ve İçtimaiyat Enstitüsü, 1936, p. 826; İlhan Tekeli, Modernizm, Modernite ve Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama Tarihi, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2009, p. 110.
44 Akın and Demirgüç, “1910-1930 Payitahtın Günbatımı”.
45 Akın and Demirgüç, “1910-1930 Payitahtın Günbatımı”.
46 Tekeli, Modernizm, Modernite ve Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama Tarihi, p. 193.
47 Tekeli, Modernizm, Modernite ve Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama Tarihi, p. 53.
48 See Cânâ Bilsel, “Türkiye’de Şehircilik Yarışmalarının İlk Otuz Yılı (1927-1957): Cumhuriyet’in Kent İnşasında Uluslararası Deneyim”, Planlama Dergisi, 2010, vol. 3-4, issue. 50, pp. 29-46.
49 Alfred Agache, “Büyük İstanbul Tanzim ve İmar Programı”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları: 1934-1995, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 39-52.
50 Hermann Ehlgötz, “İstanbul Şehrinin Umumi Planı”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları: 1934-1995, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 13-38.
51 Martin Wagner, “İstanbul Havalisinin Planı”, Arkitekt, 1936, No. 10-11, pp. 30-33; idem, “İstanbul Şehrinin Düzeltilmesi Meseleleri”, Arkitekt, 1936, No. 8, p. 217.
52 Cânâ Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması (1936-1951): Nazım Planlar ve Kentsel Operasyonlarla Kentin Yapısal Dönüşümü”, İmparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine: Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması (1936-1951); From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost’s Planning of Istanbul (1936-1951), compiled by Cânâ Bilsel and Pierre Pinon, Istanbul: Suna ve İnan Kıraç Vakfı İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 2010, pp. 105-109.
53 Pierre Pinon, “Henri Prost: Paris’ten Roma’ya, Fas’tan İstanbul’a”, İmparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine: Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması (1936-1951), From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost’s Planning of Istanbul (1936-1951), compiled by Cânâ Bilsel and Pierre Pinon, Istanbul: Suna ve İnan Kıraç Vakfı İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 2010, p. 22.
54 Cânâ Bilsel, “İzmir’de Cumhuriyet’in ‘Modern’ Kentine Geçişte Şehircilik Deneyimi ve Model Transferi Sorunu: Danger-Prost Planı ve Le Corbusier’nin Nazım Plan Önerisi”, Domus M, 2001, issue 9, pp. 42-46.
55 Jean Royer, “Istanbul”, L’oeuvre de Henri Prost, Architecture et Urbanisme, L’Académie d’Architecture, Paris: Académie d’architecture, 1960; Pinon, “Henri Prost: Paris’ten Roma’ya, Fas’tan İstanbul’a”, p. 39.
56 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 109-111
57 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 142-147.
58 Henri Prost, “L’Urbanisme au Point de Vue Technique”, unpublished conference text, March 1927 (Institut Français d’Architecture /Académie d’Architecture, Fonds Prost, HP.ARC.73/4).
59 Henri Prost, Les Transformations d’Istanbul – Communication de Henri Prost, 17 Septembre 1947 », unpublished plan reports pp. 16-17.
60 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 116-118.
61 Henri Prost, “Mémoire Descriptif du Plan Directeur”, Les Transformations d’Istanbul, vol. 3, pp. 19-21.
62 Cânâ Bilsel, “İstanbul Avrupa Ciheti Nazım Planı, 1937”, İmparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine, pp. 263-269.
63 For a more detailed debate regarding the subject, see Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 137-141.
64 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 260-261.
65 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 258-260.
66 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”pp. 263-264.
67 Bilsel “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 261-263; Cânâ Bilsel, “Serbest Sahalar: Parklar, Geziler, Meydanlar”, İmparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine, pp. 349-379.
68 Cânâ Bilsel, “İstanbul’un Dönüşümleri: Prost Planlaması ve Modern Kenti Yaratmak”, Osmanlı Başkentinden Küreselleşen İstanbul’a: Mimarlık ve Kent, 1910-2010, prepared by İpek Akpınar, Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2010, p. 61.
69 Prost, “Communication de Henri Prost – 17 September 1947”, Les Transformations d’Istanbul, p. 18.
70 For the dilemma of protection transformation in Prost’s Istanbul plans, see Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 127-133.
71 Cânâ Bilsel and Tümay Arıcan Çin, “Eminönü Meydanı ve Çevresi Tarihi Kent Mekânının Başkalaşımı: Kentsel Tasarım Kuramları ve Biçim-bilim Yöntemleri ile Bir Mekânsal Çözümleme Çalışması”, Mimar. İst., 2008, vol. 8, issue. 29, pp. 83-97.
72 Prost, “Introduction”, Les Transformations d’Istanbul, Vieil Istanbul, vol. 7, pp. 1-3.
73 For a more detailed debate on the subject, see Cânâ Bilsel, “İstanbul’un Dönüşümleri” pp. 63, 66.
74 Prost, “Le Plan Décennal” (Ten Year Plan), Note no. 265, 26 April 1943, Les Transformations d’Istanbul, Vieil Istanbul, vol. 7, pp. 240-270; Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 142-147.
75 See Cânâ Bilsel and Haluk Zelef, “Mega-event Projects in Istanbul from Henri Prost’s Master Plan of 1937 to the Olympic Bids in 2000”, Planning Perspectives, 2011, vol. 26, issue. 4, pp. 621-634.
76 Bilsel, “Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması”, pp.142-147.
77 Bilsel, “İstanbul’un Dönüşümleri”, pp. 53-55.
78 In addition to the architect and urban developer Aron Angel, the French developer on the planning team worked with the Istanbul municipal government, including Aron Angel, and the architect Ertuğrul Menteşe, who joined the team later, also played a major role in Istanbul city planning after Prost.
79 Hande Suher, “Planlama”, DBİst.A, VI, 266.
80 Suher, quoted from the unpublished report of the Revision Commission Report dated 1951, “Planlama”, VI, 267.
81 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 172-173.
82 Niyazi Duranay, Ersen Gürsel and Somer Ural, “Cumhuriyet’ten Bu Yana İstanbul Planlaması”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları 1934-1995, edited by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 392-394.
83 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 175.
84 See Burak Boysan, “İstanbul’un Sıçrama Noktası”, Osmanlı Başkentinden Küreselleşen İstanbul’a: Mimarlık ve Kent, 1910-2010, prepared by İpek Akpınar, Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2010, pp. 81-82; İpek Akpınar, “İstanbul’da Modern Bir Pay-ı Taht: Prost Planı Çerçevesinde Menderes’in İcraatı”, İmparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine, pp. 168-199.
85 “The Prime Minister provided the media with an extensive explanation, and explained the guidelines for the development and improvement of Istanbul”—quoted in İller ve Belediyeler, 1936, issue 132, p. 645 in the İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 176.
86 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 177.
87 Ertuğrul Menteşe, “İstanbul’un İmarı”, Architect, 1955, issue. 279, pp. 27-38; Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 178-179.
88 İstanbul’un Kitabı, Istanbul, undated. (İstanbul Municipality); Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 181-188.
89 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp.189-190.
90 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp.191-192.
91 Akpınar, “İstanbul’da Modern Bir Pay-i Taht”, pp.180-183.
92 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp.180-181.
93 “İstanbul Metropoliten Alan Planlama Çalışmaları”, Mimarlık, 1972, issue 7, p. 60.
94 “İstanbul Metropoliten Alan Planlama Çalışmaları”, p. 60
95 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 193-194.
96 Mete Tapan, “İstanbul’un Kentsel Planlamasının Tarihsel Gelişim ve Planlama Eylemleri”, 75. Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, compiled by Yıldız Sey, Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1998, p. 84.
97 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 194-195.
98 “İstanbul Metropoliten Alan Planlama Çalışmaları”, p. 60.
99 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 196-197.
100 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 198.
101 “İstanbul Metropoliten Alan Planlama Çalışmaları”, p. 60; Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 199-200.
102 “Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Ön Planı”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 191-208; Tuğrul Akçura, “Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Ön Planı”, Yedinci İskân ve Şehircilik Haftası Konferansları, Ankara: İskân ve Şehircilik Derneği, 1964.
103 “Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Ön Planı”, pp. 202-203.
104 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 200.
105 “Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Ön Planı”, p. 205.
106 Duranay, Gürsel and Ural, “Cumhuriyet’ten Bu Yana İstanbul Planlaması”, p. 423.
107 Duranay, Gürsel and Ural, “Cumhuriyet’ten Bu Yana İstanbul Planlaması”, pp. 423-426; Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 203-204.
108 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 255-256.
109 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 257.
110 Luigi Piccinato, “Büyük İstanbul Nazım Planı Ana Hatları İzah Raporu”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 209-219.
111 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 263.
112 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 262.
113 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 264.
114 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 266.
115 “Büyük İstanbul Nazım Plan Bürosu 1971-1972”, Mimarlık, 1972, issue. 7, pp. 25-36.
116 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 266-268.
117 Tekeli “Boğaziçi İmar Planı Raporu”, conveyed from Mimarlık 1972 issue 6, pp. 26-30; Tekeli İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 268.
118 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 271.
119 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, p. 269.
120 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 271-272.
121 Tapan, “İstanbul’un Kentsel Planlamasının Tarihsel Gelişimi” p. 86; Suher, “Planlama”, VI, 271.
122 Turgut Cansever, İstanbul’u Anlamak, Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2008, pp. 156-157, 214-216, 254.
123 Suher, “Planlama”, VI, 271.
124 Suher, “Planlama”, VI, 272.
125 Suher, “Planlama”, VI, 272
126 Personal communication from Dr. S. Güven Bilsel, head of the BİNP High Council for Direction and Control (1979–1980) and deputy director general of planning and development during this period.
127 “1/50.000 Ölçekli İstanbul Metropoliten Alan Nazım Planı, 29.07.1980 tarihli Bakanlık Onanlı Rapor”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 221-247.
128 Suher, “Planlama”, VI, 272.
129 T.C. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Planlama ve İmar Daire Başkanlığı Şehir Planlama Müdürlüğü, “1/50.000 Ölçekli İstanbul Büyükşehir Nâzım Plan Raporu – February 1994”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul Planlama Raporları, compiled by Şener Özler, Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkkent Şubesi, 2007, pp. 249-263.
130 Tekeli, İstanbul’un Planlamasının ve Gelişmesinin Öyküsü, pp. 359-360.
